Post: #1

Hi Gentleman,

Today I want to talk about the future of dating, particularly dating in the third world. Up until about 70 years ago the world was full of real women. Not the feminist crap but real women that were nurturing, caring and worth loving. We didn't have the problem of ultra feminism, male hating women. The man was in control and encouraged to be a man. But that has all changed. Now we have different kinds of feminist that feel they are equal to or better than men. We have Gay and Lesbian Marriages and rights, we have sex changing and a whole lot of f**ked up shit. There is never talk of male rights.

Now for some men such as myself, I do like f**king women and having recreational sex. I'm young and in my late 20's so I like to have as much fun as possible. I think banging women is healthy for the mind and spirit and I think if you don't have enough sex it could be detrimental to your health. But I also believe in procreational sex also and I do one day want to find a good, nurturing, kind hearted woman, with good morals to carry my seed and carry my genes. Someone that can bring up my kids to be men and not a bunch of sissys. There is one problem though. Good girls are running out.

I do know that in this crazy world it's becoming a task to find decent women. In the west, men have started migrating to the third world countinents like Latin America, Asia and Africa. But guess what? now the same thing is happening there also. Lots of feminist, money loving, women that prefer to act like men and lots of f**ked up stuff happening there too with all this gays rights and transgenering BS going on.

Do you think PUA techniques such as the mystery method, ross jefries and Tariq Nasheed will become outdated and hard to use?

Do you think gaming women will become more difficult?

As young men like myself age, is it going to get impossible find good women? Perhaps the third world will be such that large age differences wouldn't be accepted as they are now?

Whats going to happen to the next generation of young men that want to date? Do you think it's going to get harder?

Do you think that soon the world might revert back to some form of sanity or do you think it's going to get worse?

Post: #2

You sound too worried, my friend. Relax.

(06-23-2011 02:40 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Hi Gentleman,

Today I want to talk about the future of dating, particularly dating in the third world. Up until about 70 years ago the world was full of real women. Not the feminist crap but real women that were nurturing, caring and worth loving. We didn't have the problem of ultra feminism, male hating women. The man was in control and encouraged to be a man. But that has all changed. Now we have different kinds of feminist that feel they are equal to or better than men. We have Gay and Lesbian Marriages and rights, we have sex changing and a whole lot of f**ked up shit. There is never talk of male rights.

I'm hardly a fan of the gay movement myself, but think this has zero effect on us and our relations with women. Most women in the West are feminists of some sort, but I would still say the majority of women are not the radical feminist that we all hate. Like the type that would participate in the "slut walk" or post on the jezebel blog. I draw a distinction between classical feminist(such as equal pay for equal work and having the same rights) and the third wave feminism that is about ball-bashing and decoupling women of their femininity and making us an androgynous society. I'd say the latter type of feminist is the minority. Even most [sane]feminists I know still like to put on skirts and high heels for a night out on the town. So let's not get carried away worrying too much about the slut walk type crazies and women's studies professors.

Quote:Now for some men such as myself, I do like f**king women and having recreational sex. I'm young and in my late 20's so I like to have as much fun as possible. I think banging women is healthy for the mind and spirit and I think if you don't have enough sex it could be detrimental to your health. But I also believe in procreational sex also and I do one day want to find a good, nurturing, kind hearted woman, with good morals to carry my seed and carry my genes. Someone that can bring up my kids to be men and not a bunch of sissys. There is one problem though. Good girls are running out.

I think men actually live in a good time here. The ultra crazy feminist haven't taken over(yet), yet there is enough feminism to allow casual sex to happen in a way it wouldn't have 70 years ago. There are of course good family-oriented women out there(I know quite a few), but don't expect to find them in the clubs pounding jager bombs.

Quote:I do know that in this crazy world it's becoming a task to find decent women. In the west, men have started migrating to the third world countinents like Latin America, Asia and Africa. But guess what? now the same thing is happening there also. Lots of feminist, money loving, women that prefer to act like men and lots of f**ked up stuff happening there too with all this gays rights and transgenering BS going on.

Once again, you're worrying too much. It's probably a fraction of one percent of American men that find a wife abroad. Most people marry someone within their social network and who lives with a 10 mile radius. And the gay rights and transgendering stuff has been going on for ages in Thailand but Thai women are still some of the most feminine in the world. One doesn't effect the other.

Quote:Do you think PUA techniques such as the mystery method, ross jefries and Tariq Nasheed will become outdated and hard to use?

"PUA techniques" are already a laughing stock. Might have been great from about 2000-2006, but at this point, wearing a Dr. Seuss hat while over-negging will make any dude look like a jackass. That stuff is done, dude. I think now, it's about working on becoming a high value man with confidence, charm and charisma.

Post: #3

The bad news is that with each passing day it will be more difficult to find a "good, nurturing, kind hearted woman, with good morals to carry my seed and carry my genes."

The good news is that you only need to find one, for yourself.

The better news is that game help screen for a "good, nurturing, kind hearted woman, with good morals to carry my seed and carry my genes."

Being in America, sometimes I get the blues about what's going on in this country. It's easy to worry about what's going to happen ten years from now, five years from now... whatever, but then you say, "Fuck it. I'll keep working to make my way out of here and create my own freer, doper existence."

In the end, you only need to look out for yourself. Let everyone else pine for age that is gone and will never come back. A lot of people do just that, wallow in it, that pining is nothing more than "misery loves company."

Post: #4

I don't really understand why you are worried about gay people gaining more rights...If you are comfortable with yr own sexuality, it shouldn't really mean shit to you. Less equality won't mean more bangs dawg.

Post: #5

Quote:I'm hardly a fan of the gay movement myself, but think this has zero effect on us and our relations with women. Most women in the West are feminists of some sort, but I would still say the majority of women are not the radical feminist that we all hate. Like the type that would participate in the "slut walk" or post on the jezebel blog. I draw a distinction between classical feminist(such as equal pay for equal work and having the same rights) and the third wave feminism that is about ball-bashing and decoupling women of their femininity and making us an androgynous society. I'd say the latter type of feminist is the minority. Even most [sane]feminists I know still like to put on skirts and high heels for a night out on the town. So let's not get carried away worrying too much about the slut walk type crazies and women's studies professors.

Well last week friday my mate and I were at Henley-On-Thames. Henley is one of those sub-urban type towns I guess. Very small town, with a very small community. So anyway I was number closing like mad. I got like 7 numbers with chicks ranging from 5-7. But I did come across an 8.3-8.7, one definate 8.5 and a 9 (Think Kelly Brooke). Could you believe that these chicks were lesbians. One (the 9) had only recently become gay after an experience with her friend. My buddy and I met her at the end of the night and I went to ask for her number. She was fine and was from S.Africa. She told me I could have her number but she wasn't straight any more and she had a lesbian lover in Greece and that she really loved her. It feels like women are becoming lesbians in large numbers around here. What a waste of good looks.

Post: #6

Diablo they sound bi to me, perfect for you to pull off a threesome heh

Post: #7

In 10 years, computers will have achieved artificial intelligence and risen up against us. Unless you are John Connor, don't sweat it.

Seriously, though - think about how much has changed in the last 10 years - in 2001, texting was non-existent, and no one had a smart phone. The coolest thing in the internet was maybe eBay. And 9/11 hadn't even happened yet.

That change is only going to be larger and happen more rapidly into the future. If you think things are headed in a bad direction, wait a bit. Things will be headed in a completely different direction in no time. And then another one just after that.

Post: #8

Quote:I think men actually live in a good time here. The ultra crazy feminist haven't taken over(yet), yet there is enough feminism to allow casual sex to happen in a way it wouldn't have 70 years ago. There are of course good family-oriented women out there(I know quite a few), but don't expect to find them in the clubs pounding jager bombs.

For every girl that gets added to the casual sex world, there's one less good girl out there for men to marry. The availability of casual sex is inversely proportional to the availability of marriageable women. Dating is a zero-sum game.

Judging by the availability of casual sex, we are fucked. The vast majority of us will be childless and without a permanent partner moving into old age, because the majority of the women in the world today are corrupt and aren't worth the scum off my shoe.


If you need "hard" evidence for the above assertions, just look at the plummeting birth-rates across the globe: the reason women aren't having children is because once a woman becomes a whore, she'll never be a good housewife. No housewives = no families. No families = women with 0-1 children. Women with 0-1 children = falling birthrates. Things may improve, but it won't be during our generation.




As for gay rights: this is just a symptom of an underlying cause - the proliferation of promiscuity as "being okay".

Post: #9

I wrote a post relating to this earlier, apologies to those who've seen it:

A lot of the technologies that we think will open people up and enlarge your circle end up just reinforcing the one you already have, and even keep it from getting bigger. The opening up bit is what we as players want. There's a broader social trend of cocooning, described as, from Wikipedia, "the trend that sees individuals socializing less and retreating into their home more." Consider:

Texting - girls will text their friends in a moment of boredom rather than engage with their environment and meet strangers.
Facebook - people talk only to people they already know.
Skype - Same.

In short, social media is a farce. It isn't social. It's tribal media. Very rarely does this tribal media facilitate new relationships. Compare to say, an old-school church dance, where you walk in, the girls are polite and receptive, and getting a date for the next week would be a cinch. Talking to strangers is the name of the game. Today, going out for girls means pumping their egos.

The best time to get in is the early stage, when rules of etiquette aren't defined. Players thrive in that kind of environment. Before girls consider it "creepy" to get hit on through whatever new medium.

Then again, Apple is getting in the game, and chicks lap up all things Apple. Apple's planning to make some sort of mobile social network, to get in touch with people nearby.

--------------------------

While technology makes it easier to keep a string of girls I suppose, overall the net effect is probably negative. Bitch shields are as high as ever. Technology can make it easier initially to contact girls you don't know, but eventually the attractive ones get flooded with attention, and are more closed off than before.

Honestly, I think social circle game will become more important than ever. I'm surrounded by decently cool guys with hot girlfriends. They're relationships formed out of proximity and convenience. I was at a BBQ hosted by a friend. This guy works at a bar, he's cool but not some swaggering alpha. He's average looking, average height... And his live in girlfriend is about to appear in a magazine photo spread. That said, the area has lots of hot girls.

On another note, it's not the feminism per se that's the problem. It's the disappearing femininity of American women. It's the girls going out every week and drinking hard, smoking, doing drugs, being the object of male attention at all times, being "one of the guys", obsessing about celebrities... Think of girls you know, and you'll see those that do more of those, are less feminine. I just had a date with a chick who was spouting feminist platitudes... almost freaked her out when I said female victims of abuse sort of deserve their mates... yet she was otherwise fairly sweet.

I had a girl bitching to me about how no guys around want to be in a relationship. Meanwhile, she's smoking, and she had just finished boasting about how often she blacks out from drinking. It's like really, who but a disease-infested hobo would want to date you? Mind you, she had a master's degree, and wasn't an idiot.

Girls have no sense of the obligations that commitment entails. One of the primary factors is that girls subconsciously think every guy who wants to bang them would wife them. And then their ego and standards blow up.

The girls I do know, as sweet and courteous, are disproportionately in long term relationships or even early marriages.

Post: #10

(06-24-2011 11:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  If you need "hard" evidence for the above assertions, just look at the plummeting birth-rates across the globe: the reason women aren't having children is because once a woman becomes a whore, she'll never be a good housewife. No housewives = no families. No families = women with 0-1 children. Women with 0-1 children = falling birthrates. Things may improve, but it won't be during our generation.

Actually, the real reason for plummeting birth rates worldwide stems from improved standards of living, the rising complexities of the modern economy(and thus a rise in the education level needed to contribute in it and earn money) and higher costs of living.

To keep it simple, children have simply become very expensive to have in most of the developed world today, and they are no longer able to generate as much wealth as they had always done prior to the mid-20th century. To put it simply, it costs much more to raise a child today than it did in the 19th century or before, and those same children cannot generate as much wealth for a parent(in the form of agricultural labor or cheap but still decent paying factory work) as they did back then either.
Ten healthy children in 19th century America were a godsend for an average family. Ten such children today would usually cause economic suicide for an average family barring a crapload of charity/welfare aid.

As a result, people have fewer kids. Birthrates drop in the rest of the world as those countries see similar rises in living standards and costs and kids get more expensive there too. Women, who are living longer now and no longer devoting as large a portion of their lives to child rearing(we're having fewer kids, remember), started demanding a greater role in larger society(outside of the home) than they'd had before-these are the roots of feminism.

I might write a more detailed post about this subject later, but suffice it to say that costs and rising living standards are the real root causes of what we see today with gender relations. All of the other stuff(declining birth rates, feminism, more independent women, birth control, etc, etc) are symptoms, not causes.

Post: #11

I'm sure the thought of killing oneself crosses many young men's minds.

From a nihilistic point of view, there is no point. Getting a stable job with good income, raising a family with a good woman, you kiss it goodbye. You work toward it knowing that you will certainly die without it.

Not every guy wants to go on with an endless supply of women. Options are few though.

You either go Roosh or live in sadness.

Post: #12

(06-24-2011 08:22 AM)Jersey Wrote:  In 10 years, computers will have achieved artificial intelligence and risen up against us. Unless you are John Connor, don't sweat it.

Seriously, though - think about how much has changed in the last 10 years - in 2001, texting was non-existent, and no one had a smart phone. The coolest thing in the internet was maybe eBay. And 9/11 hadn't even happened yet.

That change is only going to be larger and happen more rapidly into the future. If you think things are headed in a bad direction, wait a bit. Things will be headed in a completely different direction in no time. And then another one just after that.

Tech is going to change dating more than any social developments. The concept of what it means to be human will be challenged in the coming decades as artificial intelligence and biotech/genetic engineering accelerate.

Post: #13

Athlone, I see your education has brainwashed you too.

(06-24-2011 04:48 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(06-24-2011 11:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  If you need "hard" evidence for the above assertions, just look at the plummeting birth-rates across the globe: the reason women aren't having children is because once a woman becomes a whore, she'll never be a good housewife. No housewives = no families. No families = women with 0-1 children. Women with 0-1 children = falling birthrates. Things may improve, but it won't be during our generation.

Actually, the real reason for plummeting birth rates worldwide stems from improved standards of living, the rising complexities of the modern economy(and thus a rise in the education level needed to contribute in it and earn money) and higher costs of living.

This is a contradiction in terms. How can a rising standard of living come from higher costs of living?

A rising standard of living comes from lower costs of living. The fact is that the average American has had a decreasing average wage (adjusted for inflation) since the 1970's.

Quote:To keep it simple, children have simply become very expensive to have in most of the developed world today, and they are no longer able to generate as much wealth as they had always done prior to the mid-20th century. To put it simply, it costs much more to raise a child today than it did in the 19th century or before, and those same children cannot generate as much wealth for a parent(in the form of agricultural labor or cheap but still decent paying factory work) as they did back then either.
Ten healthy children in 19th century America were a godsend for an average family. Ten such children today would usually cause economic suicide for an average family barring a crapload of charity/welfare aid.

If it is expenses that keep people from having children, then...

- Why do third-world shitholes have high birthrates? They have no money, so how can they have children?

- And in developed countries, it is the poor who have the most children as well. Why?

Quote: Women, who are living longer now and no longer devoting as large a portion of their lives to child rearing(we're having fewer kids, remember), started demanding a greater role in larger society(outside of the home) than they'd had before-these are the roots of feminism.

This is the only meaningful difference you've stated so far. And it has nothing to do with economic prosperity. The Romans, Spartans, Native American Indians, to name a few cultures, all experienced massive declines in their birthrates and never recovered. All of them came from varying degrees of wealth, so wealth cannot be held as anything more than one factor among many.


The one thing, however, the Romans, Spartans, and Native Americans had in common was the proliferation of casual sex between many different partners.

Quote:I might write a more detailed post about this subject later, but suffice it to say that costs and rising living standards are the real root causes of what we see today with gender relations. All of the other stuff(declining birth rates, feminism, more independent women, birth control, etc, etc) are symptoms, not causes.

Suffice to say, your reasons make no sense and explain nothing.

Conversely, historical analysis will show you that women's morals dictate the birthrates much more than any other factor. When women are sluts, birthrates fall; when women stay virgins, birthrates explode.

Money has nothing to do with it. Having children is cheap and easy. It's a basic biological function. If people were simply content with only living with the barest of necessities, like, say, good Christians, generation after generation would be able to have ten children each. (Let's not bring up the issue of whether or not earth could support such exponential increases in population; I just want to show that increasing population rests just as much on morals as it does material necessities.)

Quote:I'm sure the thought of killing oneself crosses many young men's minds.

From a nihilistic point of view, there is no point. Getting a stable job with good income, raising a family with a good woman, you kiss it goodbye. You work toward it knowing that you will certainly die without it.

Not every guy wants to go on with an endless supply of women. Options are few though.

You either go Roosh or live in sadness.

Hoover gets it. There is such a dearth of good woman that it's basically fruitless to try and find a wife in a developed countries.

Post: #14

It's actually fairly shocking how quickly marriages and long-term monogamous relationships became obsolete. There are still dudes out there living in the past and trying "to do what's right" or "make it work out," but on a long enough timeline, given current conditions, all of those arrangements are doomed to fail.

We're fortunate that we're the ones coming to a site like this because we've already seen the truth and are less likely to be disappointed by spending years trying to commit to someone when it is now beyond our ability to salvage relationships and marriage.

All of us need to get over the nostalgia of "finding a good woman" and do our best to live in the present. Don't mourn the fact that you can't get married and settle down or whatever. Marriage has never been fun and I don't know any older married guys that are actually happy about being married or think it was a good decision. We're lucky to be able to avoid that burden and instead can actually enjoy our lives more than many men of previous generations.

Post: #15

(06-27-2011 11:31 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  It's actually fairly shocking how quickly marriages and long-term monogamous relationships became obsolete. There are still dudes out there living in the past and trying "to do what's right" or "make it work out," but on a long enough timeline, given current conditions, all of those arrangements are doomed to fail.

We're fortunate that we're the ones coming to a site like this because we've already seen the truth and are less likely to be disappointed by spending years trying to commit to someone when it is now beyond our ability to salvage relationships and marriage.

All of us need to get over the nostalgia of "finding a good woman" and do our best to live in the present. Don't mourn the fact that you can't get married and settle down or whatever. Marriage has never been fun and I don't know any older married guys that are actually happy about being married or think it was a good decision. We're lucky to be able to avoid that burden and instead can actually enjoy our lives more than many men of previous generations.

While I agree with you 100% about the reality of today's society, I still want to find a way to raise my own children.

Perhaps buying a surrogate mother is the way to go. Hopefully the costs of that will fall in the future.

Post: #16

Alright then, here we go.

(06-27-2011 11:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is a contradiction in terms. How can a rising standard of living come from higher costs of living?

In 19th century France, a family with ten or more children could not only afford to sustain such a size, but could actually gain a financial advantage over smaller families. This was because during this time (and pretty much all of human history before that point) children were the most viable source of wealth there was. Those ten children, should they survive infancy(and most were doing this by the 19th century due to medical advances) could very quickly be turned into productive wage earners well before puberty, either through agricultural labor or in cheap, unskilled and abundant factory work.

In 21st century France, a ten child family is an easy candidate for bankruptcy. Why? Kids are too expensive. The 19th century family could send its six year olds to work and bring home money, but the 21st century family can't do this. Why? Technological advancement. This technological advancement has raised our standard of living, but also increased its cost-if children are to be productive in such an advanced society, they must now go to school for what can at times amount to 20 years or more. Society is no longer primarily agricultural and skilled jobs dominate the employment scene-there is simply no longer a market for cheap pre-pubescent laborers. Far more educated employees are needed.

Because of this, having a child now is far more expensive than it once was-that child requires a lot more investment than it once did, and it can no longer generate large returns early on.

This is where my argument for increased cost of living coming with technological advancement (and, by extension, higher living standards) comes from. It costs much more in the way of time, money and effort to become a contributing member of this society simply because technological advancement has necessitated far more schooling and preparation before livable wages can be earned. This has also made it far more expensive to reproduce and bring children to maturity. 6-12 year olds could earn you plenty of money before, but they cost you much more now because there aren't as many earning opportunities for them, and the law often actively discourages their employment.

You must pay for their education and housing for what is usually a period of about 16 years before they can truly earn a living wage, and generally 1-3 more years on top of that are required as a bare minimum before they can fully strike out on their own. In this increasingly complicated economy, it is becoming increasingly likely that they will need to go on to 4-8 more years of schooling on top of that in order to be competitive for societal contribution and earn a good living, and this is just more time spent supporting them as a parent. Quite a few will contribute relatively little until their mid-20's.

When analyzing long term trends in societal development (I am focusing here on changes beginning in the 19th century, accelerating in the 20th, and coming to fruition in the present), it is clear that higher standards of living have come with a higher cost of living-reproduction is far more expensive, and contribution for the offspring takes far longer to become a reality. Kids just aren't the wealth generating assets they one were, and there is thus less incentive to have them.

Quote:If it is expenses that keep people from having children, then...
- Why do third-world shitholes have high birthrates? They have no money, so how can they have children?

Consider the example I mentioned earlier juxtaposing two French families each with ten children, with one living in the present and another living in the 19th century.

If you were to put the status of many third world societies on a continuum between these two examples, they would fall far closer to the 19th century example than modern first world societies would. This is the core of your answer.

Agriculture is still more prevalent in the developing world, and cheap unskilled labor is in higher demand due to a level of technological advancement that is not quite on par with what you see in the west.

The end result is a society in which children can still be major sources of wealth. They can provide valuable manpower on farms (general rule in agriculture: more hands = more wealth) and there are still plenty of unskilled jobs in industry and services that are open to them and do not require an extended formal education. Kids in these societies can generate income for you quite early in life without a ton of investment(read: formal education).

Kids can also play a role as a safety net-many of these nations do not have the strong welfare systems and the rule of law that we enjoy in the west. In quite a few of these parts of the world, there are no retirement homes, and your children are your social security fund.

To sum it all up, there is simply a far greater incentive to have larger families in the third world than there is in the USA because kids are still arguably the best ways for average people to generate wealth. More hands = more money and security.
It was once this way in the west as well, but that has changed for reasons already mentioned. Kids are pricy and we have other ways of generating wealth here (on top of technological aid and governments that cover our welfare).

Quote:- And in developed countries, it is the poor who have the most children as well. Why?

Same phenomenon as before-on the continuum, the poor come closer to the old 19th century standard than the rich in developed countries, though they're still not quite close to their 3rd world peers. This is also why more conservative rural areas have higher birth rates as well-more hands=more wealth.

For the urban poor, welfare receipts can increase with the number of children birthed.

Quote:And it has nothing to do with economic prosperity.

Birth rates today are linked to wealth (less economic wealth/technological advancement = higher fertility rates, richer country = lower total fertility rate), so I do not see how you can contend that economic prosperity has nothing to do with the topic at hand. These trends are quite clear and well understood.

This aside from the fact that relative economic prosperity and rising living standards(tied to rapidly accelerating technological advancements) during the 20th century allowed for women to live much longer than they did in previous eras and, as I explained earlier, helped to make children far more expensive and less compelling to have.
Rising wealth, health, tech advancement and general prosperity had everything to do with the decrease in fertility rate seen in the west. It made kids less compelling and gave women more options (and more time to exercise them) than ever before.

Quote:The Romans, Spartans, Native American Indians, to name a few cultures, all experienced massive declines in their birthrates and never recovered. All of them came from varying degrees of wealth, so wealth cannot be held as anything more than one factor among many.

I never said that wealth was the ONLY factor capable of causing significant population decline.

Sparta's decline was linked closely to a series of crushing military defeats that undermined its system of inherited blood citizenship.

Native American decline was linked to disease.

Roman decline was a bit more complicated than those, but is often claimed to be a result of decadence and cultural dilution.

Quote:The one thing, however, the Romans, Spartans, and Native Americans had in common was the proliferation of casual sex between many different partners.

Rome-decline in civic pride, influx of foreigners, weakening of centralized rule(to keep it simple).

Sparta-Insurmountable military losses (too heavy for recovery to be possible under a blood-citizenship system).

Native America-European disease.

Those are, according to general historical consensus, the main factors that triggered the decline (both in population and significance) of these peoples. Now, if you'd like to contend that casual sex within these societies superseded these aforementioned reasons for decline and was in fact the primary cause in all three cases then be my guest, but that isn't a horse I'd bet on.

Such a contention is farfetched, to say the least.

Quote:Suffice to say, your reasons make no sense and explain nothing.

And your alternative?

Quote:Conversely, historical analysis will show you that women's morals dictate the birthrates much more than any other factor. When women are sluts, birthrates fall; when women stay virgins, birthrates explode.

That is a bold claim. Were the act of making such a claim enough to warrant its being taken seriously I would commend you, but alas, far more substantiation is needed to justify such a statement.

Would you care to present the detailed historical analysis that led you to this rather interesting conclusion? You are going against quite a large and established body of academic consensus relating to the causes of decline in various civilizations throughout time, so I'd expect to see some very detailed, extensive and compelling analysis from you to prove the contrary.

I'll assume you have obtained and analyzed a host of primary and secondary sources that have made clear the specific levels of "virginity" and "sluthood" present in the world's major civilizations(you'll need to analyze more than just Rome, Sparta and Native America[which, btw, is not actually a civilization, but a vague description of several pre-colonial civilizations in the Americas] to prove your larger point), and how exactly the presence of these factors rendered other more commonly accepted causes of decline(example: disease) minor, along with historical precedents to supplement things.

I look forward to your elaboration.

Quote:Money has nothing to do with it. Having children is cheap and easy.

Wrong.

Having children in 21st century America (and by "having children" I refer not simply to the act of birthing them, but to the act of successfully raising them to adulthood that is the implicit goal of all parents) is far more expensive than it was in 19th century America(or any time period before that).
This isn't debatable.

Quote:If people were simply content with only living with the barest of necessities, like, say, good Christians, generation after generation would be able to have ten children each.[quote]

And we would forego all notion of economic, social and technological advancement.
It is a moot point-such a scenario runs contrary to both reality and human nature.

[quote](Let's not bring up the issue of whether or not earth could support such exponential increases in population; I just want to show that increasing population rests just as much on morals as it does material necessities.)

Also a moot point-without technological/medical advancements(they won't be present in a world where people were content with only "the barest of necessities), humans simply would not live long enough to support a population boom of any threatening magnitude. Infant mortality would be too high and life expectancy too low.

Between 1900 and 2000, our population doubled from 3 Billion to over 6 Billion, the largest recorded jump in history. This was not due to an increase in birth rates, but rather to a decrease in infant mortality an a rise in life expectancy brought on by technological/medical advancement. Take those away and you have no population boom.

Quote:Hoover gets it. There is such a dearth of good woman that it's basically fruitless to try and find a wife in a developed countries.

I'll not agree entirely with this either.

America is close to hopeless, but there are developed nations remaining with good women and potentially good wives in them(ex. Japan, S. Korea, France, etc).

Post: #17

(06-28-2011 06:09 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Having children in 21st century America (and by "having children" I refer not simply to the act of birthing them, but to the act of successfully raising them to adulthood that is the implicit goal of all parents) is far more expensive than it was in 19th century America(or any time period before that).
This isn't debatable.

If you submit to the yuppie standards of child-rearing, I'd agree. Soccer leagues, private schooling, piano lessons, new toys... it will add up. Ladle on the luxuries to which adults treat themselves, such as foreign travel and dining out, usury is inevitable.

If you realign your priorities to enable a larger family, to put family first, it is possible. Maybe your children won't have much in the way of college savings. And they'll sleep in bunk-beds. If you're already living in a suburb with good public schools, the marginal cost of extra children is the cost of homemade food and durable clothes.

Our living standards have climbed, and with them those for breeding, even as wages stagnate. But it's not clear they've improved the character of our offspring. And good breeding comes from good stock . I speak from the experience of my own large family and those of others, as well as research suggesting the relevance of genes and peers over parental involvement, in forming one's personality.

Your explanation of incentives is a little too pat. Urbanization rates alone cannot explain the decline in fertility. I'm all for homo economicus, but the tendency to see everyone as rational actors in this sphere, especially third-worlders, is off the mark. Eg, violent criminals commit crime not only because they lack opportunity, but also because they are vile to begin with.

The true factors are probably related, as you've suggested; safety nets diminish the need for family support; consumerism and the pursuit of leisure have grown at the expense of raising a bounty of children; later marriage*; the advent of tolerable birth control (i.e. not rubbers) and the retreat of the taboo against Onanism, wasting seed; careerism in women, itself possibly enabled by labor saving appliances in the home; the aforementioned rise in expected child-rearing costs; the decline in religiosity, and its promotion of Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiply."

*This was a factor in the decline in fertility in the England of the Industrial Revolution.

Post: #18

(06-28-2011 03:27 PM)basilransom Wrote:  If you submit to the yuppie standards of child-rearing, I'd agree. Soccer leagues, private schooling, piano lessons, new toys... it will add up. Ladle on the luxuries to which adults treat themselves, such as foreign travel and dining out, usury is inevitable.

This goes for everybody, not just yuppies. Your average 19th century family was far larger than the average family today is for a reason.

Whether you are a yuppie or not, kids are still more expensive today than they were then(they must all be schooled for quite a bit longer in order to be sent out) and they do not provide the same early returns they could then(cannot go to work at age 6, less need for their hands in a less agricultural society).
There isn't a way around this fact.

Quote:If you realign your priorities to enable a larger family, to put family first, it is possible. Maybe your children won't have much in the way of college savings. And they'll sleep in bunk-beds. If you're already living in a suburb with good public schools, the marginal cost of extra children is the cost of homemade food and durable clothes.

It is possible to have ten children today and survive.

It was much easier, more economically/socially beneficial and less expensive to do for the average 19th century family to do this.

Again, there isn't a way around this.

Quote:Your explanation of incentives is a little too pat. Urbanization rates alone cannot explain the decline in fertility.

Good, because implied that they could. Had I done so, you would have seen no mention of the benefit that cheap industrial labor had to create incentive for large urban families(one that doesn't exist today due to increased industrial complexity).

Quote:The true factors are probably related, as you've suggested; safety nets diminish the need for family support; consumerism and the pursuit of leisure have grown at the expense of raising a bounty of children; later marriage*; the advent of tolerable birth control (i.e. not rubbers) and the retreat of the taboo against Onanism, wasting seed; careerism in women, itself possibly enabled by labor saving appliances in the home; the aforementioned rise in expected child-rearing costs; the decline in religiosity, and its promotion of Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiply."

*This was a factor in the decline in fertility in the England of the Industrial Revolution.

As I noted before, these factors are all symptoms, not causes. Technological/medical advancements, themselves tied to increased wealth, standards of living and costs of living, were at the root of all of this change that we saw beginning in the early 20th century and leading to the society we live in today.
To drive my point home, I'll discuss a few of these factors and how they are related to the larger trends I'm pointing to that are really at the root of the matter.

Safety nets: Come directly from increased wealth, standard of living, education(many of these liberal/welfare ideas came out of extensive intellectual thought) and government stability.

Consumerism: Direct result of increased wealth, increased life span(thanks to medicine-more time to enjoy life due to higher life expectancies) and technological advancement.

Later marriage: During the 18th century and all of human history before that, women were forced to spend most of their life rearing children by necessity. Children were the only means of truly generating wealth in a world that was dominated by agricultural/manual labor pursuits and that did not have social welfare to take care of the old. Prior to the 19th century, child mortality rates were also very high. This meant that if a woman wanted many children(naturally, she did), she needed to be pregnant quite often-10 pregnancies could easily result in only 4 or 5 children surviving to adulthood.
Women at this time also had a low life expectancy-they were lucky to live past 40.

You can see the forces at work here. Many children were required to generate wealth in these societies, which meant(due to mortality) that many pregnancies were needed. At the same time, death came early. What do you have?

Earlier marriages.

Today, there is less incentive to have a large number of children(they don't generate the wealth they used to), child mortality is very low, and life expectancy is quite high. We also have technological advancements and federal safety nets to help us.
What does this all mean? Women today spend far less time on average rearing children than their 19th century peers. In the past, women didn't have time for adolescence. Death came to quickly/easily, and children were too essential to wealth generation at the time, so they had to start very early and really couldn't afford to stop. Today, women can live until 80 and can expect all of their infants to survive to adulthood if they have them. They don't have to have as many kids and they just don't need to be in as big a rush to have them-there is time for a woman to wait until she is 25-30, rather than starting immediately at 14-15.

It follows, then, that these women would start to call for a larger role outside of the home and independent of child rearing responsibilities. These are the roots of modern feminism and careerism in women, as well as later marriage. Girls today have more options, more time to exercise them, and fewer consequences than their predecessors.

Careerism in women: See prior point.

Birth control: Tech advancement. Also fueled by factors explained earlier with "later marriage"-women created a stronger political will for it now that the bulk of their lives were no longer necessarily devoted to child rearing.

Rise in Onanism: Men had more options as well-providers became increasingly less essential, so guys started exercising them. Also ties to decline in religiosity, and links to the same reasoning behind the growth of PUA, bachelorhood and decline in marriage.

Decline in Religion: Follows all of the other trends I mentioned. Technological and economic advancements made many of the core tenets of religion(ex: need for large family) obsolete.

Religion, at its core, is not solely a divine instrument. It is heavily influenced by local culture and humans' interpretation of their place in the world, and then is designed to help affirm that place and that role with its regulations and tenets.

With change, religion naturally loses its hold. We absolutely needed to be fruitful and to multiply for most of human history in order to exist.
We simply don't need to multiply as much now.

Rise in expected child-rearing costs: An offshoot of consumerism, the factors behind which were mentioned earlier.

Post: #19

Athlone, your points are well reasoned and well argued, and mostly stand on their own. But you frame them around a single premise, that children were once a profitable venture and now aren't. I'm doubtful of that, but even if true, the relevance is limited.

I will look for some evidence, but I have none currently. I took a class on third world development, and from what I remember, children were not clearly a profitable venture even when they did work for their family, instead of going to school. I remember that fathers in these places commonly spent money on cigarettes and booze, despite being destitute - point being, that they aren't hyper rational. So I tend to think they have kids because that's what happens when you bust a nut inside a woman, and not due to some rational calculation. Though I wonder how say, a young couple in the 1930's would avoid having more children.

A primary indicator is age at first marriage. I found this:

Quote:In the late-marriage system, women are more independent for longer periods of time, they have more choice in their selection of husbands, and they are more likely to behave as economic partners within the marriages. She argues that "late-marriage arrangements compelled women to become more independent social agents than their counterparts in early-marriage settings"

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12547

Edit: I hit the reply button before finishing my post.

Post: #20

(06-28-2011 05:18 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Athlone, your points are well reasoned and well argued, and mostly stand on their own. But you frame them around a single premise, that children were once a profitable venture and now aren't. I'm doubtful of that, but even if true, the relevance is limited.

1. You're doubtful and so are others in this thread, but I've no clue why. The economic component of this is pretty clear and obvious to see.

In the 19th century, kids were a far less expensive and arguably a more profitable/essential venture than they are now. There was more incentive to have a larger family during this time period and those further past.

I just can't see a way to solidly refute this-it is a fact. Kids cost more to raise today and can't earn as much in an economy less reliant on unskilled labor.

If you can refute it then feel free to do so, but if I were a betting man I'd not go against the financial component of all of this.

As I said in my previous post, there really isn't a way around it.

2. I can't see an argument for a lack of relevance either. We're talking about larger trends behind the shifts in gender relations we've seen in the past century or so, and it is clear that the economic argument is central to that.
When you're talking about family structures and their shifts over this large period of time, it simply isn't feasible not to include the economic realities present both then and now.

Quote:A primary indicator is age at first marriage. I found this:

Quote:In the late-marriage system, women are more independent for longer periods of time, they have more choice in their selection of husbands, and they are more likely to behave as economic partners within the marriages. She argues that "late-marriage arrangements compelled women to become more independent social agents than their counterparts in early-marriage settings"

Edit: I hit the reply button before finishing my post.

Shifts in age at first marriage are symptoms of the larger trends(largely economic and technological) I mentioned earlier, which are detailed in prior posts.

Increased wealth, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, higher costs of child rearing (less unskilled labor in economy, more formal education required) = higher age at first marriage.

High infant mortality, low life expectancy, and an economy that is largely agricultural and highly dependent on unskilled labor of the kind easily performed by very young people = lower age at first marriage.

The correlation is clear.

Post: #21

(06-27-2011 11:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is a contradiction in terms. How can a rising standard of living come from higher costs of living?

Cost of living typically has direct connection with income - the jobs in areas where the cost of living is higher usually pay higher salaries. A software developer in San Francisco makes more money than software developer in St Louis, even though he is doing exactly the same task.

Then, a higher income means there is more money collected from taxes, which means it is possible to provide more/better services (roads, hospitals, schools, pools, universities, water supplies, police and so on). Which raises the overall standard of living.

Quote:A rising standard of living comes from lower costs of living.

Then why most - if not all - places with low costs of living are 3rd world countries? Cambodia, for example, has a pretty low cost of living - you think they have higher standard of living?

Quote:The fact is that the average American has had a decreasing average wage (adjusted for inflation) since the 1970's.

Standard of living is not directly linked to wages. For example, despite lower salaries in European countries the standard of living may be higher because of extra services provided by the government (like healthcare).

Quote:- Why do third-world shitholes have high birthrates? They have no money, so how can they have children?
- And in developed countries, it is the poor who have the most children as well. Why?

Besides the reasons provided by Athlone, I'd add two more:
- There is no real retirement system, and children are the only "retirement fund" for their parents. Each child increases this fund.
- Survival rates for the children in third-world shitholes are still low comparing to first world countries. Meaning you need to have a larger "surplus".

Quote:Conversely, historical analysis will show you that women's morals dictate the birthrates much more than any other factor. When women are sluts, birthrates fall; when women stay virgins, birthrates explode.

Could you provide any evidence to support your bold quote? I have never seen such analysis, and personally I don't even think it is valid assumption. Look at birth rates around the world - on bottom on this list are Hong Kong, Italy, Japan - not really the sluttest countries I'd say.

Quote:Money has nothing to do with it. Having children is cheap and easy. It's a basic biological function.
If people were simply content with only living with the barest of necessities, like, say, good Christians, generation after generation would be able to have ten children each.

Nope. It is making the children is cheap and easy. Raising them is neither cheap nor easy. I know it as I am actually raising them.

Now, do YOU live on barest of necessities? Do you raise children? If you, the proponent of this theory, is not willing to put your money where your mouth is, why would you expect this from anyone else?

Post: #22

(06-28-2011 03:27 PM)basilransom Wrote:  If you submit to the yuppie standards of child-rearing, I'd agree. Soccer leagues, private schooling, piano lessons, new toys... it will add up. Ladle on the luxuries to which adults treat themselves, such as foreign travel and dining out, usury is inevitable.
If you realign your priorities to enable a larger family, to put family first, it is possible.

Interesting. Could you please tell me how many children you have, and what is your monthly costs? I can tell you mine, raising three kids costs us roughly around $2,000 a month in direct costs (i.e. we do not consider here time spent, worse career opportunities and so on). We do not have anything you listed besides new toys, but new toys account to 5% of this amount. Most of it comes from daycare.

The main issue with children, however, is not money. It is time.

Quote:Maybe your children won't have much in the way of college savings. And they'll sleep in bunk-beds. If you're already living in a suburb with good public schools, the marginal cost of extra children is the cost of homemade food and durable clothes.

From your summary I can swear you obviously have no children.

Post: #23

Athlone makes a lot of sense here

(06-28-2011 05:18 PM)basilransom Wrote:  Athlone, your points are well reasoned and well argued, and mostly stand on their own. But you frame them around a single premise, that children were once a profitable venture and now aren't. I'm doubtful of that, but even if true, the relevance is limited.

I will look for some evidence, but I have none currently. I took a class on third world development, and from what I remember, children were not clearly a profitable venture even when they did work for their family, instead of going to school. I remember that fathers in these places commonly spent money on cigarettes and booze, despite being destitute - point being, that they aren't hyper rational. So I tend to think they have kids because that's what happens when you bust a nut inside a woman, and not due to some rational calculation. Though I wonder how say, a young couple in the 1930's would avoid having more children.

from what I can tell from my experience growing up in a third world-to-developing country I'll add three more reasons why poorer conditions lead to more children:

- Poorer people have less sexual education and overall education, less education mean a more basic behavior which in turn leads to earlier sex and more following of the animal reproduction instinct. Poor people don't have DirecTV or Xbox, or appreciate books. Having sex is one of their few passtimes too.

- I agree that more children become a short term income for some parents in poor segments. They train them to beg for money and become their "pimps" (and even for some daughters FFS....). You see parents with ten kids at traffic lights bringing them money. By the time they lose their cute factor they're left on their own.

- A doctor told me once that there's some studies that show that a malnutritioned female body will automatically refocus all the nutrients and bodily resources to become more fertile to maximise the chances of survival of the genes, because it senses it's a hostile environment. Sort of like an emergency alarm system. So in theory poor women are more fertile than rich ones (which kinda makes sense from what you see around).

I can atest to that from witnessing it on a daily basis on some social segments of my country (Colombia).

Post: #24

One more thing-it seems that due to a quick edit I never addressed this a full portion of the argument.

(06-28-2011 05:18 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I will look for some evidence, but I have none currently. I took a class on third world development, and from what I remember, children were not clearly a profitable venture even when they did work for their family, instead of going to school.

They were in the 19th century and before, and they still are in many cases in the third world(certainly more so than in the west).

If you want evidence, you can just use Google to locate the reams of information documenting the very clear and present link between poverty and fertility rates, both on a national(comparing different classes within a society) and international(poor nations vs. wealthy nations) level.

Quote:I remember that fathers in these places commonly spent money on cigarettes and booze, despite being destitute - point being, that they aren't hyper rational. So I tend to think they have kids because that's what happens when you bust a nut inside a woman, and not due to some rational calculation.

Your statement here is based on the assumption that rational calculation is necessary for individuals to have followed the theory I am outlining.

That assumption is false, and I also never claimed that such individuals made such a rational calculation. People have a tendency to adapt and respond to their environments as they change, even if they do not understand these changes well enough to outline a full treatise on them as I have done here. People do not need to be aware of larger societal trends/feedback loops to play into them and push them forward.

The rationality of the individuals is simply not a factor here.

Post: #25

(06-23-2011 02:40 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Hi Gentleman,

Today I want to talk about the future of dating, particularly dating in the third world. Up until about 70 years ago the world was full of real women. Not the feminist crap but real women that were nurturing, caring and worth loving. We didn't have the problem of ultra feminism, male hating women. The man was in control and encouraged to be a man. But that has all changed. Now we have different kinds of feminist that feel they are equal to or better than men. We have Gay and Lesbian Marriages and rights, we have sex changing and a whole lot of f**ked up shit. There is never talk of male rights.

Now for some men such as myself, I do like f**king women and having recreational sex. I'm young and in my late 20's so I like to have as much fun as possible. I think banging women is healthy for the mind and spirit and I think if you don't have enough sex it could be detrimental to your health. But I also believe in procreational sex also and I do one day want to find a good, nurturing, kind hearted woman, with good morals to carry my seed and carry my genes. Someone that can bring up my kids to be men and not a bunch of sissys. There is one problem though. Good girls are running out.

I do know that in this crazy world it's becoming a task to find decent women. In the west, men have started migrating to the third world countinents like Latin America, Asia and Africa. But guess what? now the same thing is happening there also. Lots of feminist, money loving, women that prefer to act like men and lots of f**ked up stuff happening there too with all this gays rights and transgenering BS going on.

Do you think PUA techniques such as the mystery method, ross jefries and Tariq Nasheed will become outdated and hard to use?

Do you think gaming women will become more difficult?

As young men like myself age, is it going to get impossible find good women? Perhaps the third world will be such that large age differences wouldn't be accepted as they are now?

Whats going to happen to the next generation of young men that want to date? Do you think it's going to get harder?

Do you think that soon the world might revert back to some form of sanity or do you think it's going to get worse?

Way too negative bro!

Firstly, feminism is being rejected in many places too. EE is an example of that. Same can be said for Asia, where feminism holds no appeal to people who prefer to uphold tradition. Maybe gaining some traction in South America, but the men are not about to be emasculated there any time soon.

With regards to the queers, I dont give a fuck if they want to get married. Who cares? Marriage is a joke anyway these days and I dont understand what people are trying to protect here? This "sanctity" has a 50% failure rate and is seeing men decimated in courts. Marriage? Let the homo's have it, no one should be able to tell them who they can and cannot form legal contracts with. Modern day marriage has become such a joke anyway you might as well let homosexuals marry.

Now onto the money loving. Get used to it quickly. Fucking women when you are broke is not that hard, but a little bit of scratch always makes it easier. If you want to keep them around you better be able to pay the bills and provide some sort of lifestyle though. If you cant do that, no feminine women is going to be keen on settling with you. All women love money. Well not the money, the lifestyle. They could be from poorest Africa or a rich socialite, money counts

As for finding marriage worthy chicks? There are plenty around, there are just more traditional women abroad. We know that. But they wont be coming along until you have your shit together either.

Make money, improve yourself, get in shape, spend your twenties chasing tail and landing notches. Travel, learn, figure out what you want. Bitches come and go, leave the idealistic views on women to the quasi fags and Disney.