Consequences of a unregulated dating market (hypergamy)

[roopepa]

Jeez. Always the "masculine jerks get all the girls" thing.

This is not true. I know this for a fact. I've had many intimate relationships. All of them has been what you may call "quality women".

I am not a jerk, an asshole, or even very masculine. In fact, my appearance is quite feminine. Yeah, sure the super masculine & good-looking social wizards gets more sex. Yet, there are women for others too. You don't need to be drowning in supermodel pussy.

Here's what actually gets you laid:

- Confidence

- Meeting actual people

- Social skills and some intuition

- Feeling good about yourself

- Good hygiene

That's it. The problem today, is that many young men are not checking those boxes.

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, flowboy said:

Thank you, that was satisfying to read

?

[zazen]

14 minutes ago, flowboy said:

Thank you, that was satisfying to read

Solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Yup, theres no problem. No red pill, incel, black pill, mgtow, high divorce rates, no sexless society like Japan. No problem at all to look into and understand. 

[zazen]

13 minutes ago, roopepa said:

Jeez. Always the "masculine jerks get all the girls" thing.

This is not true. I know this for a fact. I've had many intimate relationships. All of them has been what you may call "quality women".

I am not a jerk, an asshole, or even very masculine. In fact, my appearance is quite feminine. Yeah, sure the super masculine & good-looking social wizards gets more sex. Yet, there are women for others too. You don't need to be drowning in supermodel pussy.

Here's what actually gets you laid:

- Confidence

- Meeting actual people

- Social skills and some intuition

- Feeling good about yourself

- Good hygiene

That's it. The problem today, is that many young men are not checking those boxes.

Like you said in our last line, the problem is men in the younger generation aren't checking those boxes. You have a positive masculinity which is great and what we should all strive for rather than the toxic masculinity promoted in hip hop or bro culture I agree. 

 

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, zazen said:

Solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Yup, theres no problem. No red pill, incel, black pill, mgtow, high divorce rates, no sexless society like Japan. No problem at all to look into and understand. 

The only problem is that there’s a huge group of men who are brainwashed into believing there is a problem.

Things are fine. They just need to socialize and go and meet women.

Also, if I were to have a choice to incarnate into a society and I could only base that incarnation off of one statistic about the society… I’d choose to incarnate into the society with the highest divorce rate.

And that’s because you’d know it was a freer society than any with low divorce rates. High divorce rate is a very good sign. And longevity is a piss-poor litmus test for the quality of a relationship.

[zazen]

30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Then why proliferate the ideas in your OP?

Your post was basically like, “Oh no! Women only like the top 1% of guys but most women aren’t good enough to measure up to those guys’ standards! So, men and women end up lonely because these undeserving women have free choice over their partners! We need to regulate people’s dating choices to save us from the scourge of Feminism and women’s hypergamous ways!”

But if you already know that women tend to go for their match… then why even suggest regulation?

Its not entirely just due to feminism or that feminism is bad, but because of technological advancements. For example, male sexuality has been outsourced to porn. The drive to achieve has been outsourced to gaming. Both satiate those drives in men and so the younger generation aren't playing in the real world anymore. Hypothetically even if feminism ideologically disappeared tomorrow, we are still being crippled and our instincts are getting the best of us in the modern day due to the technology we live with. 

Women are putting off and not ''settling''. I have female friends who dated athletes, close to royalty, and the so called alpha types and who compare every relationship the go into to those guys of their past. The emotional response and 'spark' they felt, they don't get from guys less than them, its almost as if they have been desensitised. Also, the way a lot of them discard or dump these women causes these women to get bitter and project that all men are like that which isn't the case. Morgan Stanley have a whole report called the Sheconomy, preparing investment trends for the big corps, from their report ''Based on Census Bureau historical data and Morgan Stanley forecasts, 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018.'' This is a trend mostly in urbanised bigger cities, and the rate of urbanisation is increasing. Sex and the city wasn't just a series but a real phenomena.  

Edited September 17, 2021 by zazen

[Raptorsin7]

@FlyingLotus @Emerald The fact that for many groups of people dating and relationships are no longer regulated by family, religion etc and the consequences that has on society and people.

If you look at most people who come from stage blue societies, 100 years ago their families would have basically chosen when/who you get married to. So irrespective of what the people wanted, there were outside forces that controlled who got together. But now many of the children of stage blue families are left to their own devices when it comes to choosing partners and picking relationships. 

I think there's going to be an entire generation of leftover people because of the way modern dating and relationship dynamics have shifted. For example, I have a number of family members from stage blue conservative families, and they are now in their late 30's/early 40's and they can't find partners and it's getting more difficult. One in particular is an attractive, well off late 30's woman, who was too picky in her early 30's and now she's struggling to find anyone. If this was 100 years ago her family would have chosen her husband and no one would have asked any questions.

I'm not saying that this is bad or good, or saying how things ought to be, but there's something to be said for how hypergamy will impact modern relationships that have been controlled by religion/families for most of recent history.

[zazen]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The only problem is that there’s a huge group of men who are brainwashed into believing there is a problem.

Things are fine. They just need to socialize and go and meet women.

Also, if I were to have a choice to incarnate into a society and I could only base that incarnation off of one statistic about the society… I’d choose to incarnate into the society with the highest divorce rate.

And that’s because you’d know it was a freer society than any with low divorce rates. High divorce rate is a very good sign. And longevity is a piss-poor litmus test for the quality of a relationship.

I get where your coming from. Men need to get up, get out and start living in the world. 

I wish for a free society also, and that divorces wouldn't destroy couples lives through the predatory court system, and that children wouldn't be affected hugely being brought up in a unstable environment. But we aren't evolved enough to withstand high divorce rate without any casualties and it having no ripple effect on society at large. Wishful thinking. 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, zazen said:

Its not entirely just due to feminism or that feminism is bad, but because of technological advancements. For example, male sexuality has been outsourced to porn. The drive to achieve has been outsourced to gaming. Both satiate those drives in men and so the younger generation aren't playing in the real world anymore. Hypothetically even if feminism ideologically disappeared tomorrow, we are still being crippled and our instincts are getting the best of us in the modern day due to the technology we live with. 

Women are putting off and not ''settling''. I have female friends who dated athletes, close to royalty, and the so called alpha types and who compare every relationship the go into to those guys to their past. The emotional response and 'spark' they felt, they don't get from guys less than them, its almost as if they have been desensitised. Also, the way a lot of them discard or dump these women causes these women to get bitter and project that all men are like that which isn't the case. Morgan Stanley have a whole report called the Sheconomy, preparing investment trends for the big corps, from their report ''Based on Census Bureau historical data and Morgan Stanley forecasts, 45% of prime working age women (ages 25-44) will be single by 2030—the largest share in history—up from 41% in 2018.'' This is a trend mostly in urbanised bigger cities, and the rate of urbanisation is increasing. Sex and the city wasn't just a series but a real phenomena.  

Sounds to me like those men need to get off the porn and games and actually go socialize.

Also, I call bullshit on the idea that women get desensitized to men after dating some supposedly “alpha” guy. And I am having a hard time believing that you know women personally who are expressing this viewpoint.

No man is that special, number one.

Number two, female sexuality just doesn’t work that way. 

[Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@FlyingLotus @Emerald The fact that for many groups of people dating and relationships are no longer regulated by family, religion etc and the consequences that has on society and people.

If you look at most people who come from stage blue societies, 100 years ago their families would have basically chosen when/who you get married to. So irrespective of what the people wanted, there were outside forces that controlled who got together. But now many of the children of stage blue families are left to their own devices when it comes to choosing partners and picking relationships. 

I think there's going to be an entire generation of leftover people because of the way modern dating and relationship dynamics have shifted. For example, I have a number of family members from stage blue conservative families, and they are now in their late 30's/early 40's and they can't find partners and it's getting more difficult. One in particular is an attractive, well off late 30's woman, who was too picky in her early 30's and now she's struggling to find anyone. If this was 100 years ago her family would have chosen her husband and no one would have asked any questions.

I'm not saying that this is bad or good, or saying how things ought to be, but there's something to be said for how hypergamy will impact modern relationships that have been controlled by religion/families for most of recent history.

I’m very glad that stage blue is mostly gone from society. I’d genuinely rather be all alone than have someone else choose my partner.

I’ve been in bad relationships before. So I know from personal experience that it’s better to be alone than to be with an incompatible partner.

Right now, we would be wise to focus towards shifting back towards communal living with a strong emphasis on having complementary relationships and friendships… including non-traditional relationships, like polyamory for example, 

Stage blue was all about smooshing people together forever regardless of compatibility. Stage green will be about bringing people together in a way that also honors the individualism and freedom that was discovered in Stage orange.

But a high divorce rate right now is a very good sign for cultural evolution. We’re in the process of learning autonomy and individuation from our social groups of origin… when before our families would have squelched our capacity for individuality and chosen everything for us.

[zazen]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Sounds to me like those men need to get off the porn and games and actually go socialize.

Also, I call bullshit on the idea that women get desensitized to men after dating some supposedly “alpha” guy. And I am having a hard time believing that you know women personally who are expressing this viewpoint.

No man is that special, number one.

Number two, female sexuality just doesn’t work that way. 

Women can consolidate on the best they can get eventually to settle with. But are they happy in those marriages, and do they last. 50% divorce rates, 70% initiated by women. Once the maternal instinct to procreate is fulfilled, the sex and spark dries up for most couples, but the romance is missed and we seek that outside of marriage. A lot of marriages can end up just being about security, rather than stimulation. We all want a roller coaster, the safety of the ride but yet its stimulating. The problem is the exciting / stimulating romances aren't always the most secure, and the secure relationships aren't always the most emotionally fulfilling. 

 

Romance novels fly off bookshelves. Shows like the latest Sex life show this dynamic at work, 50 shades shows the guy that has both qualities. Titanic, where Rose was fixated on her lover Di Caprio. Intense love like that can have an affect or this kind of media wouldn't resonate with so many women. 

[Windappreciator]

@zazen you could really benefit listening to emerald with a bit humbleness

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, zazen said:

Women can consolidate on the best they can get eventually to settle with. But are they happy in those marriages, and do they last. 50% divorce rates, 70% initiated by women. Once the maternal instinct to procreate is fulfilled, the sex and spark dries up for most couples, but the romance is missed and we seek that outside of marriage. A lot of marriages can end up just being about security, rather than stimulation. We all want a roller coaster, the safety of the ride but yet its stimulating. The problem is the exciting / stimulating romances aren't always the most secure, and the secure relationships aren't always the most emotionally fulfilling. 

 

Romance novels fly off bookshelves. Shows like the latest Sex life show this dynamic at work, 50 shades shows the guy that has both qualities. Titanic, where Rose was fixated on her lover Di Caprio. Intense love like that can have an affect or this kind of media wouldn't resonate with so many women. 

The issue here is that most people don’t know how to have intimate and fulfilling relationships.

So they have a short honeymoon period where all the chemicals are present…. and once that honeymoon period is over, then there’s nowhere to go from there.

But that’s not an indicator of the nature of relationship. It’s an indicator that most people are bad at relationships.

A relationship with deep intimacy is what women are looking for. And deep down it’s what men want too.

But if a woman’s man is emotionally unintelligent, then she’ll probably have no choice but to seek out stimulation elsewhere. So, romance novels and other men are a ‘good’ option if one is starving for intimacy in their primary relationship.

But this issue is because most men are disintegrated from their feminine side and don’t know how to be vulnerable or intimate. And they’re as dry as Dr. Spock in the desert.

[zazen]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I’m very glad that stage blue is mostly gone from society. I’d genuinely rather be all alone than have someone else choose my partner.

I’ve been in bad relationships before. So I know from personal experience that it’s better to be alone than to be with an incompatible partner.

Right now, we would be wise to focus towards shifting back towards communal living with a strong emphasis on having complementary relationships and friendships… including non-traditional relationships, like polyamory for example, 

Stage blue was all about smooshing people together forever regardless of compatibility. Stage green will be about bringing people together in a way that also honors the individualism and freedom that was discovered in Stage orange.

But a high divorce rate right now is a very good sign for cultural evolution. We’re in the process of learning autonomy and individuation from our social groups of origin… when before our families would have squelched our capacity for individuality and chosen everything for us.

Are we already are pretty much in a free society where no one is being pushed together anymore? Women are liberated and thank god for that. Women don't need to come to men for dependancy financially, but are women out of love and higher consciousness loving just anybody , even if the guy is weak and so with men. Would men be able to love someone they aren't biologically attracted to. Our biologies will work against us but thats where conscious development and evolution takes place. It is utopian, yes the possibility is there, and maybe us on this forum are at that level somewhat but we'r talking about larger society, this forum makes up less than a percent of the world. 

 

We need each other more than ever rite now as every one is living atomised lives in big cities which are fast paced, and cut off from each other behind screens. Its a un healthy way of living, working many hours, living alone is grating on the soul. Wonder how communal living would work at scale. 

[Windappreciator]

@zazen You must drop that biology delusion. 

[mandyjw]

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

Romance novels fly off bookshelves. Shows like the latest Sex life show this dynamic at work, 50 shades shows the guy that has both qualities. Titanic, where Rose was fixated on her lover Di Caprio. Intense love like that can have an affect or this kind of media wouldn't resonate with so many women. 

Those stories are about women throwing their perceived security away in favor of love and passion. The Titanic outright shows that the security was a grand fucking illusion, a sinking ship all along. 

The only real security is an illusion, it's in thought, and the only really love is the feeling of it in the moment. The thought of love is always a sinking ship. The thought of love is still seeking security. The actual feeling, being it, that's all there is.

When you think that people love or don't love other people, or that people have or don't have security you're deeply lost in a thought illusion where one must necessarily choose one over the other. They never actually were separate things outside you. It's a bad dream. Wake up. 

[zazen]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

The issue here is that most people don’t know how to have intimate and fulfilling relationships.

So they have a short honeymoon period where all the chemicals are present…. and once that honeymoon period is over, then there’s nowhere to go from there.

But that’s not an indicator of the nature of relationship. It’s an indicator that most people are bad at relationships.

A relationship with deep intimacy is what women are looking for. And deep down it’s what men want too.

But if a woman’s man is emotionally unintelligent, then she’ll probably have no choice but to seek out stimulation elsewhere. So, romance novels and other men are a ‘good’ option if one is starving for intimacy in their primary relationship.

But this issue is because most men are disintegrated from their feminine side and don’t know how to be vulnerable or intimate. And they’re as dry as Dr. Spock in the desert.

Agreed. The real test is once the honey moon period fades, a lot of couples also make long term decisions (ie parter up, marry) on short term feelings like the honey moon period. 

 

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, zazen said:

Are we already are pretty much in a free society where no one is being pushed together anymore? Women are liberated and thank god for that. Women don't need to come to men for dependancy financially, but are women out of love and higher consciousness loving just anybody , even if the guy is weak and so with men. Would men be able to love someone they aren't biologically attracted to. Our biologies will work against us but thats where conscious development and evolution takes place. It is utopian, yes the possibility is there, and maybe us on this forum are at that level somewhat but we'r talking about larger society, this forum makes up less than a percent of the world. 

 

We need each other more than ever rite now as every one is living atomised lives in big cities which are fast paced, and cut off from each other behind screens. Its a un healthy way of living, working many hours, living alone is grating on the soul. Wonder how communal living would work at scale. 

See, you’re again adding in biology where it barely fits. No one needs to pretend to be attracted to someone that they aren’t attracted to.

I’ve NEVER been with a guy that I wasn’t attracted to… and I wouldn’t concede on that. Attraction is a pre-requisite for romantic connection. This feels like a “duh”.

Why would anyone need to concede this?

But I’m going to assume that communal living will start becoming more popular over the coming decades. We’re really in need of a return to more direct socialization.

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, zazen said:

Agreed. The real test is once the honey moon period fades, a lot of couples also make long term decisions (ie parter up, marry) on short term feelings like the honey moon period. 

 

The honeymoon phase only lasts 3 months. So most people don’t decide to marry by then.

[Raptorsin7]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I’m very glad that stage blue is mostly gone from society. I’d genuinely rather be all alone than have someone else choose my partner.

I’ve been in bad relationships before. So I know from personal experience that it’s better to be alone than to be with an incompatible partner.

Right now, we would be wise to focus towards shifting back towards communal living with a strong emphasis on having complementary relationships and friendships… including non-traditional relationships, like polyamory for example, 

Stage blue was all about smooshing people together forever regardless of compatibility. Stage green will be about bringing people together in a way that also honors the individualism and freedom that was discovered in Stage orange.

But a high divorce rate right now is a very good sign for cultural evolution. We’re in the process of learning autonomy and individuation from our social groups of origin… when before our families would have squelched our capacity for individuality and chosen everything for us.

Yeah i'm making claims about how people ought to live, or how society ought to be. I agree that transitioning and evolving society out of blue is the way to go. 

But there's going to be a lag, and there will be causalities of the evolution out of stage blue.

Take my cousin for example. She's almost into her 40's and it looks like she won't find someone to have kids before her biological clock runs out. Almost all the woman in my family have all their meaning in life come from their children and family, and my cousin won't get to experience that. 

My entire point is that there is actual substance to what OP is saying and you can have a good faith discussion without dismissing what he's saying out of hand.

Imagine I just said what you are saying is nonsense and basically just dismissed what you were saying because I thought it wasn't worth my time to respond to. I could understand if OP refuses to engage, but if he's actually willing to discuss the topic I don't see a point in commenting unless you're going to engage in good faith