TradCon hamster gets things exactly backwards as is to be expected.

silive · 2017-09-17T15:33:11+00:00

Here is the best, IMHO, comment out there which is well worth of copying and pasting:
"Jones says: September 15, 2017 at 1:40 pm Yeah. Regnerus wrote a good book but he made a few huge mistakes. The second half of his book doesn’t make any sense with the first half.

He completely misses the modern harem system–a new form of polygamy, but without any of the stability or rights that come with marriage. Sexual relationships today are between the top 15% of men (I think even 20% is an exaggeration) and somewhere between 60-80% of women. Concededly, within that 60-80% there will be some variation in the frequency of sex, but they will all play a few rounds.

As others have already pointed out, the majority of women will be able to convince one of the 15% to have sex with them. The frequency with which they pull this off will vary, but those that are not actually having sex will either by trying to have sex or vainly trying to lure those same men into a relationship. Whether or not they are having sex, they are all obsessed with the same fraction. And their occasional (or more than occasional) success in getting those guys into bed is what encourages them. This continues until they literally age out of the sex market and look for something else to do (attempted marriage). They will not attempt a different strategy, from puberty until they are literally near the end of their natural fertility.

And all of the problems with marriage follow straightforwardly from what you would expect about these girls’ preparedness for marriage. 1) Over a decade of meaningless fornication with numerous men, for almost the entirety of her natural fertility; 2) the impossibility of respecting your husband as a man in comparison to the guy you had sex with, in a vain and failed attempt to get commitment. One thing Regnerus cannot explain is why the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women, since according to him they are all desperate for commitment. Only by distinguishing the 15% from the 85% can we explain this.

Every man growing up today has had the same experience. You look around you and think, “all these girls are advertising cheap sex. This is insane.” Then, you find out that they are not advertising for you. This is weird, but it accounts for most of the awkward dynamics of contemporary sex culture, like the strange excess of contempt women have for men (it’s based on the inability to advertise with sufficient precision, and the resulting encouragement of unwanted advances).

It’s also impossible to credibly signal one’s willingness to commit as a man, without simultaneously signaling your inferiority. As a man signaling commitment of any sort, even the mildest sort, is dangerous and even inherently self-defeating. Because you are assumed to prefer casual sex, and would be doing that instead if you could.
Two more points:

1) women cannot be trusted to notice let alone understand the 15/85 dynamics, because they suffer from the apex fallacy. Most of that 85 percent is completely invisible to them. This is also crucial to understanding the vast majority of modern feminism: it’s based on an obsession with the behavior of the 15%, and then simply applied to the other 85% without any qualification.

2) the role of dating apps has been simply to make the harem system more efficient: the 15% of men and the 60-80% of women can now more easily and quickly find each other for cheap sex, with somewhat less publicity and shame for the women. It mainly solves a problem of access for the women, and of efficiency for the 15%. It is now much easier for women to simply screen out the other 85% of men and focus their efforts. This leads to even more anger from women when the 85% futilely attempt to hit on them in real life–at this point the awkwardness of having to reject people in person seems like it should be completely eliminable."
If after reading all that, a man doesn't see that MGTOW is the ONLY way for the great majority of men, nothing will make him.

ransay3277 · 2017-09-17T14:15:09+00:00

The entire point that she misses is that she is only after or considering the top 10% - 20% of men. Well of course they are fucking 80% of the women. So yes, they have their pick. This is the same hag that later will be bemoaning "Where all all the good men?"

christianlazard · 2017-09-17T14:34:21+00:00

"Men have an easier time achieving their relationship goals. Whether he is looking for marriage, medium-term companionship, or just a lot of low-commitment sex, a resourceful man can likely find what he seeks. A cheap-sex market is a man’s market, in the sense that men’s expressed preferences are more often fulfilled than women’s. "

=> Keyword: RESOURCEFUL

reddituser257 · 2017-09-17T18:04:23+00:00

For women, cheap sex means significant pressure to accommodate the expectations of men. In this book, we meet men who expect (usually with justification) that women will be willing to have sex with them after a single shared meal or a few drinks.

Is there an exit from this grim world of loveless copulation?

As a Catholic and a marriage traditionalist, I love expensive sex. Sex should be expensive, because it’s very significant, socially, psychologically and morally.

So, she's saying sex should be expensive for men. What a surprise. And sex is only meaningful when it is expensive for men, or else it is just "loveless copulation".

Can't make that shit up.

Luceno · 2017-09-17T19:06:37+00:00

Again some random female claims it is easy for average men to have casual sex, amazing

cmdralpha · 2017-09-17T18:40:12+00:00

Traditionalism is not the answer they want us men back on the plantation begging our wives to give us sex. Can i get a small loan of a million keks

UndeadTed · 2017-09-17T14:34:29+00:00

Amazing, totally off the mark entirely

ManIsWalking · 2017-09-18T01:05:26+00:00

It's going to be cool watching the male sexual liberation movement that's due in a few years. The big imbalance between gender relations is that women had their sexual liberation back in the 60s with the advent of birth control. Men never had such a movement and still have the gender norms of the 1930s. Go to work, provide for family, rinse and repeat.

Now that we're seeing some serious advancement in tools concerning male sexuality (vaselgel, sex dolls, MGTOW) we will soon see a similar male movement where men shrug off their gender norms. This is going to throw a huge wrench in the AF/BB motive of women. They will continue not getting the commitment they want from alpha men, but soon they won't even be able to line up beta bucks either. Why would a beta male wife up a woman if he has a sex doll at home?

It's long over due and I foresee one of two things happening. Either we will finally achieve gender balance, or society crashes hard over a couple of years.

Stig_Stigma · 2017-09-17T21:10:01+00:00

Verbal diarrhea. I left it in the middle. Don't waste your time reading that crap. Nothing interesting or of interest for us there.

JosephBancor · 2017-09-17T23:34:52+00:00

delusional solipsistic retardation

robowriter · 2017-09-17T21:15:28+00:00

We know the real situation.

davisyoung · 2017-09-18T06:23:49+00:00

She makes the same logical fallacy that feminists do when describing the patriarchy. They only see or want to see top tier men, and then they ascribe their qualities, good and bad, to all men. But the thing is, just because all presidents have been men, doesn't mean all men are presidents.

SnapshillBot · 2017-09-17T13:54:44+00:00

Archived for your convenience

Snapshots:

This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

^{I am a bot.} ^(Info ^/ ^Contact)

Title	TradCon hamster gets things exactly backwards as is to be expected.
Author	Three-Legged-Fox
Upvotes	39
Comments	22
Date	September 17, 2017 1:52 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/70nl3q/tradcon_hamster_gets_things_exactly_backwards_as/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/tradcon-hamster-gets-things-exactly-backwards-as.555670 https://theredarchive.com/post/555670

Comments