Women’s Choice: 1950s or 1970s (Please Choose One)
Today, women are more confused about their roles in relationships than ever before. Most of this is their fault, though men share some blame too. A lot of this is due to conflicting messages that society conveys to modern-day women. Still more of this is the conflict between what women really want at a core biological level (in order to be happy) and what they’re supposed to want (in order to be a societally-approved Strong Independent Woman™).
There are many of these conflicts, but I’m going to give you the greatest. This is the conflict in a woman’s mind between the 1950s woman and the 1970s woman.
I have often told the women in my social and work life that, in terms of dating and relationships, they need to choose between the 1950s or the 1970s, but they can’t have both. They’re going to want both, but having both at the same time doesn’t work in the real world (at least in the long-term, as divorce rates clearly indicate). Let’s look at both options.
The 1950s Woman
A woman in the 1950s (and prior) had her ass kissed during the dating/courting phase. Men would treat them like little queens, taking them out on the most expensive dates they could afford while dressing as nice as they were able. Men on these dates were ultra-polite, consummate gentlemen, pulling her chair out for her, laying their coats on puddles for her to walk on, and slathering her with compliments. 1950s women on dates received all kinds of gifts, including flowers, chocolates, jewelry, clothing, and often even more expensive items (again, as much as the guy could afford based on his socio-economic level).
Men on these dates never, ever tried to have sex with her. That just wasn’t done. At best, these men got a kiss on cheek as they dropped her off, then quickly went home to masturbate.
In other words, during the dating phase, women were in the driver’s seat, and men were the ass-kissing provider-submissive-hopefuls.
Why in the world did men do all this crap?
Very simple. If/when the woman actually married the man, the entire scenario flipped. He would take care of her financially for the rest of her life, but now he was in charge. The 1950s wives cleaned the entire house, made all the meals, and did at least 80% of the kid-raising work. She was expected to do all of this shit, forever, and usually did.
Moreover, the 1950s (and prior) wife was expected to put out sexually for “her man” and often did. If he wanted a blowjob, she obeyed and gave him one, regardless of whether she was in the mood, or if she had a bad day, or if she was on her period, etc. I know I’m generalizing here and this didn’t always happen with every marriage, but this kind of sexual subservience was much more common in marriages back then than today. Go ask some really old guys in the retirement homes and they’ll tell you all about it. The historical stats also clearly show that married people back then were having much more sex than they do today, and this is a big reason why. 1950s women, once married, did what they were ordered to do.
These women also virtually never got divorced, and put up with all kinds of crap from their husbands, up to and including things like physical abuse and cheating. It was considered a wife’s duty do to this, so they did. I don’t agree with physical abuse or cheating as I’ve stated many times before. I’m just reporting to you how things were back then.
In other words, in a weird sort of way, it made sense for men to kiss women’s asses during the dating process, since once the woman was married to them, these men had a virtual slave literally for the rest of their lives. The upside for the woman was that she was financially taken care of for the rest of her life, even after her husband’s death (since divorce rates were so low and pensions were solid back then).
That was the 1950s woman. Now let’s look at her 1970s sister, a very different gal…
The 1970s Woman
During the 1970s, first-wave, sex-positive feminism was a growing rage among unmarried women. Not all single women back then subscribed to this kind of thinking, but a hell of a lot did, at least in the US. To be clear, this was not the feminism of today. The original feminism of the 1970s was a strong desire for equal rights and sexual freedom. Today’s feminism is an angry, rage-filled lashing out about the shirts men wear or the specific wording men use on websites. Since first-wave feminism achieved its primary goals (women are now legally equal to men in every way and can have sex with whomever they like), today’s feminism has nothing of core substance to complain about, so they instead waste their time screaming inaccurate slogans, like about how men make more money than women, which is demonstrably untrue, or about the dangers of “rape culture,” which makes no sense since there’s been an 85% DECREASE in rape since the late 1970s.
But I digress.
When a man went out on a date with that 1970s feminist, it was an utterly different scenario than with the 1950s girl. The 1970s girl lectured him about how they would both pick a place together. Then, when they went out, she would pay her half of the bill. She was an independent woman with her own income, so she didn’t want a man to pay for her and thus have power over her like the 1950s girl, whom the 1970s girl viewed as a pathetic weakling.
If the guy tried to pay for the date, the 1970s girl actually got pissed off. “Excuse me?!? No, I’m going to pay for my own food. I don’t need you! How dare you try to take that kind of power over me? Don’t you think I can make my OWN money?!?”
I’m not kidding about this. These women back then would actually get mad if the guy tried to pay for a first date. I know that sounds alien to us today, but go ask Gloria Steinem and she’ll tell you all about it.
If the two actually got into a relationship, she would poke a defiant finger in his chest and tell him that she was her own woman, that she didn’t belong to him, and that she could do whatever the hell she wanted, including having sex with other men, which many of these women did. They were the original anti-monogamists (outside of historical polygamy). She would also boss the guy around, making him take out the trash and other beta tasks.
The good news for the man was that he was not expected to financially support her. He could keep his money, since she “didn’t need a man’s money” and could support herself (at least theoretically). Many of these women also avoided having children for similar reasons.
As you might expect, these 1970s women would often get into relationships with beta males on whom they’d cheerfully crack the whip. They’d also hook up a lot. This was before any big STD scare, so single people in the 70s seriously got laid. Ask Eric Bogosian and he’ll tell you all about it.
The 1970s girl was essentially the opposite of the 1950s girl. The 1970s girl didn’t get her ass kissed at all during the dating phase, but had massive freedom and control during the relationship. She didn’t get the money, Disney, and gifts during the dating phase, but she was the boss, pretty much at all stages.
Today’s Woman
What then is today’s woman? It’s very simple. Starting around the 1990s, women have conveniently taken the best parts of the 1950s woman and the best parts of the 1970s woman, and discarded all the rest. Today’s woman, particularly those over age 33 (but women of all ages have this as their baseline), want the money, financial support, Disney, and ass-kissing like the 1950s girls AND the “Don’t tell me what to do – I’m in charge here!” power of the 1970s women. They want both.
Being a slave like the 1950s women? Nope, today’s women certainly don’t want that.
Paying her own way on dates, and paying her own bills forever like the 1970s woman? Nope, today’s women don’t want that either.
They want the money and the power, now hand it all over you silly little man, thank you very much.
If that doesn’t make any sense to you, or doesn’t sound fair, they don’t care. I have demonstrated repeatedly on this blog that even women who make good incomes, can support themselves, and brag that they’re independent will still demand that you buy them multiple dinners and drinks before you have sex. These false-independent women will demand that even though they don’t need a man, you still need to marry them, pay most of her bills, and not sign a prenup in case she wants more money from you post-divorce.
Doesn’t make sense? Of course it doesn’t. But like I said, they don’t care.
This is why I’ve told women they really need to pick one, and stick with it. 1950s or 1970s. Hey, I’m a flexible guy. I’ll go for either of those models. You want to be submissive to me and I take care of you financially? Okay, I’ll do that. You want to do whatever you want, never have me tell you what to do, but don’t want me to give you any money? Cool, I’m down for that too.
But you want me to give you a bunch of money (either in the form of dinners, paid bills, cash, or whatever) AND you want to be able to boss me around and tell me what to do? Yeah, um, no, sorry, not interested. Moreover, it’s fucking insulting to even suggest such a thing to me. Don’t you think YOU would be insulted if I suggested such a thing to you, Darling? “Give me a bunch of money and then follow all my rules.” Would YOU like that deal, Sweetie?
I have a feeling you wouldn’t.
Then why are you demanding I do it?
Food for thought, Darling.
Today’s women have forgotten that the 1950s and the 1970s attitudes do not constitute a salad bar, from which they can pick and choose just the best parts and leave all the shitty parts for us guys. Instead, she needs to pick one or the other, and suck it up and take the negatives of whichever option she chooses. (Or stay single the rest of her life; that’s always an option too.)
It would be wonderful if life was perfect. Such is not to be.
The final question is this: If this is such an unreasonable expectation for modern-day women to have of men, why has it become so common, so much so that it has now become the norm?
Answer: Beta males. Betas will agree to just about anything, and since around 70% of modern-day men are now betas, there you go. Thus, men are to blame for this problem too.
But that’s another story…
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
I’ll take a 1950s woman if I’m getting married and the 1970s for dating. A present woman will be good for a FB. Fuck having a 1970s woman as a wife.
And funny how the present woman is dominant, 1970s woman is independent and 1950s is submissive. Nicely done 😉
I would never get traditionally married because that would be insane, so I like both for all purposes.
Eh, not exactly. The 70s woman was heavily dominant too, however she didn’t require money or Disney while bossing the guy around like most of today’s dominants do.
Remember, a truly independent woman doesn’t need to tell you what to do. She’s too self-confident and/or busy with her own life to care. The 1970s feministy chicks were definitely telling their men what to do.
Consider it different flavors of dominant.
Do you ever get a 50s women?
And if you do, do you support her?
How does that work, exactly?
And seeing as you spin multiple plates, why would you need a 50s woman?
It’s happened but it’s rare. Western women aren’t like that any more.
If you really want a 50s woman, you need to move to the third world.
I’ve never had a full-time live-in OLTR, so no.
Too general a question.
I don’t “need” any type of woman, because as you said, I don’t do monogamy.
But if a submissive woman full of Disney comes along, I’ll happily take her as an FB or MLTR as long as she’s low-drama. I’ve dated a few women like this (though not many).
Like I said above though, I’m not going to legally marry that woman, nor any other woman.
The 50s model is pretty terrible for women unless one happened to luck into a really nice guy AND one enjoys taking care of kids all day (which most people don’t). I have never heard a single elderly woman talk nostalgically about those days or tell me things were better then.
My one grandpa beat the crap out of my grandma and his kids regularly and they were all terrified of him. He came home from work every day, got drunk, and then everyone in the house just tried to stay out of his way. That was considered completely normal in their neighborhood. Also, my grandma had a part-time job and my grandpa had total control over spending decisions so the “financial support” was hardly awesome.
Also, while it’s true no one got divorced in the 50s, people did sometimes get abandoned. I.e. the husband would just go out one day and never come back.
My other grandma lived a genteel upper-class life with a very nice husband who never raised his voice. They also slept in separate bedrooms their whole marriage once the last kid was born and barely spoke to each other.
My mom got knocked up by my dad and they married as teenagers and lived 15 years in a classic 50s-style marriage. My dad didn’t hit her but was otherwise a tyrant. She finished her degree at night, started working, worked her way up to an executive position and dumped his ass in classic 70s woman fashion (thought not til the 80s)…no money from him, total freedom, child custody split 50/50, entirely independent.
Both are remarried in long-term second marriages. My mom in a 70s-style marriage and she and her husband are always smiling, laughing, traveling, and having fun. My dad’s in another 50s-style marriage and he and his wife are openly hostile. I’m convinced his wife is just waiting til he dies so she can have her life back.
It’s clear where my bias lies.
Team 70s all the way. I don’t understand the 90s-style woman who wants her cake and to eat it to. I also don’t understand why any man puts up with them, though the answer seems to be because he didn’t think he had any other options.
I CAN say that both the 50s-style chicks and 90s-style chicks fear and resent us 70s-style chicks. Cuz they can’t compete with us. A man who is offered a 70s-style chick will virtually always take that option. Even the ones who *claim* they want a 50s-style chick end up falling for us anyway… I’ve seen it plenty of times and their loud protestations of not liking “independent women” seem to be a cover for their fear of not being able to tame one. I’ve never once seen a man actually turn down the opportunity to be with a 70s/independent type woman if he’s given it. Bottom line is that 70s style chicks give men sex without making them pay for it, which is a deal the other types of women can’t compete with, and the only reason a guy wouldn’t want that deal is because of his own fear of competition and insecurity about losing her.
Also, disagree about 70s type women being bossy rather than independent. At least using myself, my mom, my sister, and my cousins as models (though my family is full of weirdly independent women), I don’t see dominance. 70s types are usually too into sex to want to dominate or neuter a man, it would be a turn-off. They’re usually independent and ideally with independent guys, or having lots of sex and fights with Alpha 1.0s who are pissed they won’t be dependent on them. I suppose they could end up being more bossy and dominating if they’re not good looking and thus end up with a weaker guy.
Again, you’re just calling 70s women what I call independents, and while I think they’re similar, I don’t see them as the same.
Regarding your point about the 50s, society has swung from an extreme male-dominated marital structure (the 1950s) to an extreme female-dominated marital structure (today).
BOTH of those suck ass. Instead, I’d like to see society embrace a martial structure good for both the man AND the woman (an OLTR marriage or similar), without either of them having to compromise their hard-coded biology too much, and if two people can’t agree on this kind of structure, they either stay single or stay friends with benefits and go find someone more compatible.
Ah, a man can dream…
As long as the man makes it clear that he has other sexual options and may make use of them, so she understands the necessity of retaining her sexual allure, then there is no problem at all in a relationship with a woman who is economically independent and she won’t become domineering. Ideally both people in the relationship need to know that they’re always in competition and thus need to keep providing value to their mate. Not that any of us want to be anxious, but too much comfort is the kiss of death for sex.
The problem is when men metaphorically castrate themselves by categorically ruling out sex with other women. At that point he’s toast, and just as I said about the 50s style marriage, he better hope he just happened to luck into a really nice woman. Because once you have no leverage, you better hope you got someone extra nice. Not really sure why someone would give away the one thing they have of value, but I suppose for some people they quite frankly don’t have much of value to offer other than their promise of exclusivity.
BD, I love the way that you can put a frame around concepts. Things that I already know but haven’t quite got organised in my head. Your work is so helpful in this regard. Thank you. 🙂
If anyone out there doesn’t believe that some of this 50s mixed with 70s shit isn’t attempted but women, here is a real life text conversation with a woman who had dumped me about 3 weeks prior.
Her: How would you feel about having lunch with me on Tuesday?
Me: Is that a question about my ‘feelings’ or an invitation?
Her: It’s an invitation.
Me: That’s very nice of you to offer to buy me lunch.
Her. Oh! I won’t be paying. I’m the princess remember, and you are the knight. That’s just the way it is.
Me: No, that’s the way things used to be, but, okay, we’ll do 50-50.
Her: No, I don’t do that.
Me: It’s that or nothing.
Her: In that case, I’m not coming.
Me: Hang on. You invited me. I’m the one that’s not coming.
Can you believe that???? 😀
I’m not into being pampered too much at all. I like being given gifts here and there (because I’m a big gift-giver myself), but I could care less about diamond rings, weddings, marriage, forever monogamy, typical dinner dates, etc…basically just about anything that is considered traditional in our society. I don’t like anyone up my ass constantly, and I have no desire to boss anyone around either. Beta males would drive me absolutely crazy. lol. 😀 I’m definitely happier with a companion than without one, though. I just need a certain amount of space. I guess I’m simply a weird anomaly in the world of western women. 🙂 But I am on the autism spectrum, so that could explain it a little bit…
Black Dragon
Excellent Article! You forgot to add that people were having more sex in the 1970s than at any other time in recorded American History. I think the 1970s had both more Independent and Dominant Women than the 1950s. I also believe that there are a lot less Independent women today than the 1970s. I also believe that the 1970s Dominant women were of a better variety than the Dominant Women of today because at least the 1970s Dominant women handed out more sex to their men and they were more likely to reward “Nice Guys” Beta males with sex for following orders than the Dominant Women of Today. I also believe the Dominant Women of today are more likely to hand out sex to Dominant Men or Alphas or Assholes today than the 1970s Dominant Women because Today’s Dominant Women like drama more than the 1970s Dominant women. I think you are wrong about the problems with women starting in the 1990s as it started in the 1980s, but the 1990s were worse than the 1980s. An example would be Sam and Diane on the sitcom Cheers which had its 1st season in 1983.
I would say most men like submissive women most, Independent women in 2nd, Good Dominant Women 3rd and Bad Dominant women last. I know that is my preference in order what I stated in the above sentence, Good Dominant Women want less drama, mean what they say and say what they mean, reward ” Nice Guys” or Betas or submissive men with sex and are more likely to reward men when they do as they are ordered to do. Bad Dominant Women love drama, reward Alphas or Dominant Men or Assholes with sex and are more likely to reward men who do not follow orders even though they complain about it and eventually have a messy breakup as a result. Most American women are bad Dominant women today.
@ StatusQuoHellzNo
Interesting comment on autism. I’m told by a good friend of mine who is married to a mildly autistic lady that her thinking is much more like male logic.
What you want out of life sounds perfect to my ears. One day, one day, it will all happen as you describe. 😀
Me: Damn right I’m the Knight. The Black Knight. So yeah, after I buy you lunch we’re both cumming over to my place and the Black Knight is going to pierce you repeatedly with his Black Lance of Moisture-Seeking. The Black Knight looooovess good little princesses like you.
Doclove – Agree! And yeah, this stuff started sooner than the 1990s, but the 90s is when the actual transition occurred.
@ BD
Priceless! 😀 Ha ha. But I just wasn’t going to shell out that day. And she doesn’t get anything in reply to a first approach. She has to work harder than that. When it is followed up by another “invite” I just say, “Are you going to seduce me?” and take it from there. Seems to work. 🙂
But I shall keep your alternative approach up my sleeve for another day, another life. 🙂
@Al
Thanks! 🙂 Happy to provide some valuable insight and some hope. lol. Thumbs up for the autistic chicks! 😀
@Blackdragon
Me: Damn right I’m the Knight. The Black Knight. So yeah, after I buy you lunch we’re both cumming over to my place and the Black Knight is going to pierce you repeatedly with his Black Lance of Moisture-Seeking. The Black Knight looooovess good little princesses like you.
That’s hot!! lol. 😀
@ StatusQuoHellzNo
It really should be simple shouldn’t it. Companionship is the key word; with large dashes of fun, laughter, sex and respect and anything else mutual. Sigh.
@ Blackdragon.
Not forgetting the knight’s helmet of course! 🙂
I don’t normally point out spelling mistakes but, above, near the beginning, you put “martial” instead of marital, twice. But maybe you didn’t misspell at all. Martial marriage, as dictated by women. Same as Martial Law. A Freudian slip maybe. 😀
Al, I burst out laughing at that convo you posted above.
‘Me: Hang on. You invited me. I’m the one that’s not coming.’
I was so not expecting that, it was hilarious
Hello L.
As much as I take BDs’ teaching and guidance very seriously, one of my goals is to make at least one person laugh every day. It’s nice to know that someone saw the humour! 😀
I did omit one little thing though. After that she called me an asshole. But. We still had sex BEFORE dinner about a week later. 🙂
“Martial marriage” is exactly how I was thinking of it too lol.
I’ll take the 70’s girl. I’ve never found that 50’s style Ward and June Cleaver thing very appealing. Of course I’m not into the very traditional lifestyle, never have been. I know a lot of men in these parts wax nostalgic for those days but I don’t really understand it. I can cook and clean on my own, I don’t need a maid(I just hire one as needed). I want women in my life for companionship and sex-the rest isn’t really necessary. Household chores take very little of my time so it doesn’t seem worth the hassle of a live in GF or wife.
Also a little inside info on those days…lots of men went to hookers back then since women didn’t put out until marriage. This has been confirmed my many old guys I’ve talked to-it was very common since guys still wanted to get laid and had no other recourse.
Lower taxes, whole families, cool cars, skinny women, submissive women…
The 50s do have their downsides, but I’d pick that. The 30s and 40s are good too…
Corrected. I do that marital / martial thing A LOT. Must be Fruedian.
@ Al When a woman calls you an asshole what she usually really means is “I am dying for you to fuck me, but goddamn it why don’t you pay me tribute!”
Kind of like how when a guy tells me I’m stuck up, tells me to stop acting like I’m too good for him, or calls me a snob or know it all, what he really means is “I am dying to fuck you, goddamn it why don’t you submit to me!” The guys who’ve been the most outwardly hostile to me and gossiped the most about supposedly hating me and thinking I was a stuck-up bitch have always turned out to be the ones who wanted me the most.
People don’t even notice the disinterest of people they aren’t attracted to, and they certainly don’t care enough to be hostile about it. Notably, the angry portion of the manosphere isn’t mad at all about all the 60 year women who don’t want to fuck them.
When you are pissing the opposite sex off, it just shows how much they care. So take it as a compliment 😉
BTW, 1950s wives were NOT giving blowjobs. Duty sex in the missionary position, yes. Blowjobs, no. Back then that was thought of as totally taboo and only something prostitutes did. Along with removing pubic hair and many other things that all women do now but was solely for hookers back in the day.
Damn you guys are ungrateful for the sexual revolution. For all the nostalgia, I’d love to see how many of you could stand to go back to the days when you were a virgin til 25, then got to bang your hairy wife in the missionary position with no oral sex for the rest of your life after her body fell apart at 30 from having 4 kids and none of the modern methods (or even the gym) to fix it up. Perhaps intermixed with very occasional visits to the town prostitute that you stood in line for and banged after 6 of your military buddies went first, who was a truly impoverished low-class stinky slag rather than the polished and buffed young escorts you scroll through on the internet today. None of you would actually take that deal, such nonsense.
Agree with Kryptokate that the 1950s weren’t a good time for most women. Of my two grandmas, one was married to a domineering and very angry man (I never saw any of this – my mom was stunned to see how he treated me compared to her and her sister), and divorced him the moment my mom and her sister left the house. My other grandma’s husband died of desert fever after coming back from the war, and she had to raise two young boys on her own, mostly relying on the church for support.
My mom came of age in the 70s, and raised me to be self-sufficient – establish my own income and security so that whether or not I found a husband, I would be able to take care of myself. Of course, now that I’ve done that, she’s pestering me about when I plan on settling down with a man!
I have noticed that many women my age do demand chivalry in various forms. I’m always getting told (by women) that I’m too independent, that men like taking care of women and to just let a guy do that, and that men hate it when women offer to pay for dates. Doesn’t make much sense to me since I make my own money, in most cases more than the guys I have dated. Plus, if a guy pays for everything (or if a woman were to), it creates a weird power/control dynamic that I wouldn’t want.
Just in time for this discussion, some more confused Disney rationalizing:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/28/attention_straight_men_dating_women_heres_why_they_still_yes_still_expect_you_to_pick_up_the_check/
@ Amanda Your background, the way your mom taught you, and your attitude now are all extremely similar to mine. My mom also came of age in the 70s and I clearly remember her telling me at about age 12 “no matter how nice someone seems, the person with the money is the person who has control, and you don’t ever want to be controlled by a man so you better make your own money.” I am also similarly wary of gifts or people paying for me, whether male or female, because I don’t like feeling indebted.
It makes me wonder how much of this is culture/norms and how much is sort of a genetic personality trait. Because almost all the women in my family are on the extreme end towards independence, though not everyone was explicitly taught that the way I was. I think I would be this way regardless.
It also makes me wonder about the relation between desiring financial independence and sex drive, because all the women in family are also kind of unusually into sex. My mom even complains about her sex drive declining now that she’s hit 60, which I think most other women either don’t notice or don’t care about. My sister is in her mid-40s and still obsessed with getting hot sex. My female cousins in their 20s and 30s are pretty much all sluts. I’ve decided it must be genetic because none of us were taught to be this way and none of it was discussed in our childhoods — I’ve only found out everyone’s secrets as an adult.
It’s kind of a chicken/egg question….are women who care more about sex more likely to be independent so they can do what they want sexually? Or are independent women just more free to focus on sex? Or are they co-occurring personality traits?
@ Kurt
Wow, what a load of crap that article is. People can come up with the most tortured rationalizations, it’s hilarious. Anything to convince themselves that they (or their women) aren’t — god forbid! — prostitutes.
A man needs to show his “interest” by paying? Like the fact that he’s on a date with you doesn’t show his interest?? Lol. Paying shows he’s a “gentleman”? Well, I suppose if that’s what she’s looking for… Personally, I don’t like to be handled gently by men. 😉
Blackdragon, well written blog post but essentially reductive. The grey area between a 1950’s submissive stepford wife and a 1970’s liberal feminist is a 1960’s society wife like Jackie Kennedy Onassis.
While Jackie was married to two of the wealthiest men of her time, she used her position of wealth constructively to become a style icon and redesign the White House. In her widowhood, she went to work as an editor for a publishing house in NYC.
She knew how to cater to a dazzling man like JFK who was a philander yet remained fiercely individualistic, intellectual, and accomplished.
If Jackie was a fleshed out idea of a woman in the 1960s then logically a more modern and nuanced paradigm of woman exists now?
Perhaps, if you could define a woman as a woman and not in the context of a man you would have acknowledged this?
Xoxox
A long time female reader
@ Kryptokate.
Oh yes, I wear my “asshole” badge with pride 😀 Just kidding, I’m not that flippant.
What comes across to me is that as BD stated at the start of this post –
– it is the confusion that rises to the top. The lady to whom I refer is looking for a husband, or at least, a live in partner. I won’t be this husband or partner. She and I have amazing chemistry and yes, all we do is have sex a lot WHEN she isn’t feeling guilty about it or her randiness overrides her false societal programming. She really is independent financially, she doesn’t need a husband but the hunt goes on.
In the meantime, her Disney expectations are that I should pay for everything, which I won’t do either. My feeling is that if I DO pay for everything, that really does turn her into a prostitute. The opposite, if I read it right, of the article that Kurt highlighted.
Anyway, thanks for your insights. 🙂
Eh, we could debate that but even if you’re right it’s irrelevant. My point stands.
Now don’t lump me in with the angry, right-wing manosphere dudes. I thank the good lord every day for the sexual revolution. There’s no way I could live the FB/MLTR lifestyle I live now if this was 1952. (I suppose it would be possible, but damn, it would be so much more time and effort it probably wouldn’t be worth it.)
Good lord. Yeah. Pure Disney, pure societal programming. “We don’t need the money! It just shows he’s a gentleman!” Gentleman in this context = beta of course.
This is why the beta who takes her out to dinner goes home without sex but the Alpha who meets up with her after dinner gets to bang the shit out of her.
I’ve been that Alpha many times. And years ago, I was that beta too.
Alpha is better.
Jackie was in an open marriage. Therefore she was great; a model for other women to follow, just like Jada Pinkett today. No argument there.
Logically, yes. But women aren’t logical.
I know, Darling. (And I thought my name was Batman?) 😉
@ KryptoKate, Thanks for your clear explanation about times when women seem to be mad at me and call me names (like “bastard”). I sorta knew that (what you said) but I like the way you explained it. Your explanation makes me look back at certain moments with different women and smile now.
Re your comment about the angry guys in the manosphere — they seem to care too much about rejection, and for the wrong reason(s).
Also… It can be interesting to look at the times when a woman spends her money on a man — variations, implications, various effects, etc…
“Instead, I’d like to see society embrace a martial structure good for both the man AND the woman (an OLTR marriage or similar), without either of them having to compromise their hard-coded biology too much, and if two people can’t agree on this kind of structure, they either stay single or stay friends with benefits and go find someone more compatible.”
Another great post Blackdragon. Does this mean relationships would be much better if everyone were free to choose who they wanted (sexually) without the social or financial complications? ie, Betas will always hook-up with the right strength of Dominant woman, and the Alphas will hook-up with the right strength Submissive?
Also, do you think all, most or just some submissive women have been artificially elevated to ‘Independent women’ through societal programming which results in them adopting the behaviours of Dominant women? I know a Polish guy was giving off on his blog complaining how assertive women had become after returning to his homeland after a few years in the U.S. or U.K.
And to add to your comment that the reason why Women now can get away with having the best of the 50s and 70s woman is because of the abundance of Beta males, it’s also probably the reason why I believe once over the age of 25, why the more desirable submissive women are never single, unless they have kids. From observation, many are always with damn Beta males which they would have never chosen in an ideal world, or bar even. Betas exploit these women’s lack of experience, take their virginity from them and you never see them again…..until twenty years later when the couple have “grown apart”.
Dominants from observation tend to end up with the right Beta Guys by virtue of them being naturally more discerning in selection and being able to predict the ambitions of men in their formative years.
Strong submissive women never seem to find the tough guy who doesn’t beat them up or cheat on them, so they end up either single forever, making do by abusing a weaker guy, or just having serial short-term relationships with bad boys.
Of course, though that is utopian. For most human beings there will always be social and/or financial considerations.
That’s different. The “right strength” is takes many months to gauge. The problem is people leap into serious (and/or monogamous) relationships way too quickly to know these things.
Some yes. Not all.
Yeah, yeah the whiny new trend lately is for these Eastern European lovers to now start complaining that even the Eastern European women are starting to go bad. Jesus. (So okay, THEN what guys? Where are you going to go now?)
The thought that “all Western women are bad” isn’t a good outlook. Nor accurate.
I’ve heard this complaint too and I don’t buy it. I’ve seen many desirable, submissive women over 25 who are available.
But generally yes, submissive Disney women do tend to get married sooner. And by their mid to late 30s, they’re divorced, just like everyone else. (And often these divorces tend to be worse than the norm, but that’s just my anecdotal experience.)
Yes. Very true. I’ve seen this a lot. Dominants do seem to be “good” at picking just-right betas.
Two easy examples: both of my sisters are extreme Dominants who married just-right betas. One has been married 23 years, the other 11, and both are still going strong. They’re not happy of course; they’re pissed off and stressed out constantly, and their husbands want to kill themselves, but so far they’re still married, and thus “successful” by Societal Programming standards.
Both my parents view my sisters as “successful” in this area, and view me as “not having succeeded yet,” but “hopefully someday he will,” yet by their own admission I’m constantly happy and my sisters are constantly stressed/unhappy.
Such is the power of Societal Programming. Its ability to override logic is impressive.
That’s interesting BD, what do your parents think of what you write and teach on this blog?
My parents also both fully acknowledge that my life is as happy as it could be and that I would be less happy settling down with one guy or having kids, but (at least my mom) still wishes/hopes I would. The other day she said to me “I can’t imagine what guy could possibly pass the test of making you want to give up all your fun and freedom and your lifestyle” and I said “exactly”. Which seemed to make her feel both sad/wistful for herself but also happy for me and somewhat even envious.
Do you deal with envy from your friends? You must. I’m always surprised at how many of my married with kids friends express envy for my life or make statements about wanting to trade places with me, given how badly they wanted marriage and children. I think you’re right women don’t know what they want…they were all dying to get married and become moms and now they all seem to resent it yet also be terrified of losing it. A weird mix of constant ambivalence.
I’m Eastern European (Ukrainian) and they have always been bad.It has been a mystery for me where all this bizarre admiration of eastern women comes from.
It is not for nothing Eastern Europe (Ukraine in particular) has divorce rates much higher than western states.
@ Kryptokate.
This is the confusion that men and women of all ages feel due to SP. (I’m sure you know that.) Hopefully, as time goes on, both sexes will be able to think more clearly about what they want rather than doing what society, and worse, their family members want them to do.
High divorce rates and “more and more people choosing to live the single life” are still being cited as a cause of housing shortages. If only these selfish people would get married and stay married, all would be well.
Messages from government, church and family are all aimed at maintaining the status quo and designed to make us think that we are weird and / or somehow irresponsible if we don’t knuckle down.
And so, still, most people are confused about their roles which leads us back to the main topic. It isn’t that men or women are “bad” when they try to pick and choose. The poor buggers are swimming about in a soup of conflicting messages. But we’re getting there. I think. 🙂
I wonder how many people would still be clamoring to get married and/or be lifetime monogamous if the government ceased to involve itself in people’s relationships. If it just backed out, dissolved the whole legal institution, and allowed everyone to structure their relationships as each individual desires, as I wholeheartedly believe it should. At most, marriage would merely be a religious sacrament, even though it never started out that way. This would be a great test to see just how deep the Societal Programming goes. Would people still desperately want the diamond engagement rings (OMG! 😀 ), the expensive princess party, and the happily-ever-after-fairy-tale-I’m-gonna-love-you-forever nonsense, knowing Big Daddy Government no longer rewards their “love contract” with tax benefits and what not? Blackdragon, you should do a poll on this… 😀
Remember my parents are old folks, both in their 70s. As a psychologist my dad finds it mildly interesting. My mom supports me more or less but thinks I “talk too much about sex.”
Some, yes. Guys are guys though, and usually keep that quiet.
On the other hand, some men actually like drama, particularly a lot of Europeans, and some these friends are bewildered as to why I would live my lifestyle (monogamy being so much more conducive for drama, which these guys like, even though they may not admit it).
My estimate is at least 20-25% would still attempt long-term monogamy. The rest would do something either a little different or very different.
Well, yes, since you can still have “that big day” without monogamy or even a legal marriage. People have already started to figure that out. I personally know several people who have gotten “married” though it’s actually not legal (nor monogamous in some cases), and I know a few more who are planning on this.
Case in point. Earlier this year, one of my FBs told me, “I’m never getting monogamous or married. What a stupid idea. I’m too horny to promise one guy monogamy forever. I AM still having wedding though, because very girl wants ‘that day’.”
Bingo. It’s what I call the Unmarriage (based on Harry Browne’s concepts). You have a wedding, and you’re “married,” but not legally.
The concept of having the big wedding day without getting legally married sounds like a clever finesse choice.
This reminds me of the time Sting was on Jay Leno’s show and Leno asked ‘So are you still doing that tantric sex thing where you have sex for hours without having an orgasm?’ and Sting said ‘No, now we’re into tantric shopping. We go shopping for hours without buying anything.’
Thank you for your response.
“I’ve heard this complaint too and I don’t buy it. I’ve seen many desirable, submissive women over 25 who are available.”
I’m 41 and live in quite a conservative, provincial part of the UK so I based this on locality and the age of women I was aiming at when I was 30, so it’s certainly possible that there are more of these types single that were born in the 90s because values have changed a lot since then where I am. And the only time I chat to a girl less than 28 now is because she has got my age very badly wrong, or just happens to like older men!
And from your experience, I’m glad to hear that some submissive women are impervious to the programming that is ‘needed’ for modern-day feminism, so I assume they probably end up in very passive/caring/specialist roles. In contrast to this, I’ve always been amused by ‘religious’ dominant women which reminds me of the latest UK Audi S3 advert where the very loud, growling car eventually breaks free from it’s tethers at the end of the advert and escapes!
@ StatusQuo
Yeah, most people don’t realize that way back when the government was involved in marriages for really only one reason (and the only good one that ever existed): they were a transfer of property from the father to the groom and therefore governments needed to record it for legal and taxation purposes. What marriage has turned into today and government’s residual finger in it is completely absurd and serves no one and nothing really, except the perpetuation of our wonderful Societal Values (at taxpayer expense of course).
@Kryptokate
Love it. We need more women like you KK
@Kryptokate:
Yes, it has been my experience as well. High sex drive women are, or crave to be, financially independent. Mixing sex with money spells the death of sexual liberation. A woman cannot possibly be sexually enlightened when she is chained to one man for her money. She would have to pick the rich ugly guy over the hot poor guy every time. As her sex drive takes a back seat to financial considerations, she would have no choice but to become a 1950s prude. That’s why we must keep women in the workforce at all costs. A gender neutral economy makes female (and therefore, male) sexual liberation possible.
The thing is though, that low sex drive women don’t care and would prefer to be gold diggers because sex doesn’t mean anything to them, so they have nothing to lose and an easy life to gain. I’ve always said you can tell that a woman is a gold digging prude just by the way she talks about sex. Does she talk about it in the language of “giving” as if she is generous, or in the language of her “receiving?” If it’s the former, I know she’s a materialista before she even mentions money or chivalry.
Example: I was talking to a gold digger the other day and insisted that men shouldn’t have to pay for dates because women don’t deserve free meals. Her response: “But the man wants sex from me. Isn’t that giving him a free meal?” As if giving a woman multiple orgasms is actually giving the man a “free meal.” She was completely oblivious to the fact that she sounded like an asexual.
I suppose it makes sense for low sex drive women. They don’t give a shit about sex, so why shouldn’t they charge for it? Why should they work for a living when a male chump could just work for them in exchange for her sexual generosity? But the higher a woman’s sex drive, the less justified her 1950s prostitution is. Then again, the higher her sex drive, the more financially independent she wants to be and the less likely it is that she will want to be a housewife, or any other type of culturally accepted prostitute.
And it’s the same for men. Monogamy can work (using the word “work” very loosely) if you’re a guy with a low sex drive. If the frigid wife refuses sex for six months, it’s not a bid deal to him, but a high sex drive man would be ready to jump off a cliff.
Sex drive does indeed have a lot to do with all of this, yes.
I feel sorry for the women who have a very high sex drive, almost to the point of freakishness, but who feel guilty nonetheless due to SP. They aren’t really gold diggers or provider hunters but still feel they have to form a long term monogamous relationship to be comfortable with their behaviour. But of course, when they do, guess what? The sex drive seems to go lower.
We need a World Anti SP Day! 🙂
@ Jack Outside the Box Good points. I was watching a documentary about prostitutes and it struck me how in their interviews, they consistently expressed amazement that any woman would “give away” sex for free. Most could not seem to comprehend why any woman would ever want to have aex absent a material exchange. Which presents an enormous problem for them as they age, obviously, bc what happens for the four decades or so following menopause when guys are no linger interested in paying for it? But that’s another issue.
@ Al I agree, it’d be better for those women if they could just get over that. A lot of it seems to be some desire for validation of their self worth that they can “get a guy” to fall in love enough to make sacrifices for her. Not so much bc she actually she needs or wants those sacrifices but rather simply to prove to herself that she can…
BD, something important I see absent from the post (and comments) is the fact that even with all the advantages and powershifting favoring women over the past decades, men ARE STILL PERCEIVED AS DOMINANT ASSHOLES IN A FAMILIAR STRUCTURE.
SP is so strong these days that even when the guy is being ass-raped during the divorce everyone sees it as “he must’ve done something wrong to deserve it”. In other words, this shit is considered normal and EVEN DESIRED. Nobody cares if the guy cheated anymore (which by my book is damn wrong, but not something important enough to justify the destruction of another human being). And my friends have the guts to ask me why I’m not getting married LOL.
@AI You’re not alone my friend….been called worse, but these days I’m perceived more of as a “tough” man. Thx for the laughs though!
Also I don’t know about you, BD or other Alpha 2.0s who come to this blog, but something I noticed is girls have a hard time figuring me out…they cannot put me in any existing category because I’m so different than the previous men they’ve dated and fucked. Still they feel compelled to text me, call me and have sex with me, giving me little to no drama! Guess we’re on the right path…
@ Kryptokate
Your argument about the Sexual Revolution being good for men is wrong. Very few things have gotten better for most men and most things have gotten worse. Please stop having the Apex fallacy as only Alpha 2s have it much better, Alpha 1s have some things better and some things worse, and Betas have it much worse. I know you women have a strong tendency to only look at Alphas and not Betas and extrapolate that all men must have it so good since Alphas have it so good but this is not true.
What is better for most men since the Sexual Revolution? Most men to include most Betas have had more sexual partners in a lifetime than in the past. Alphas 1 and 2 have a lot more sexual partners now than in the 1950s and prior. Betas have a few more lifetime partners now than before the Sexual Revolution. Getting blowjobs from amateur women became a lot more common starting in the 1970s and getting anal sex from amateur women became a lot more common since the beginning of the 21st century,
What has gotten worse for most men especially Betas since the Sexual Revolution? There has been an increase in Divorce rape of men since the late 1960s introduced no fault divorce. More women have become what Rollo Tomassi calls Alpha Widows of the Rational Male blog linked above. Men had a right to demand sex from their wives and get it until the late 1960s or he could take her to court and divorce her taking the children and the house as well as shoving her out of the home for Alienation of Affection; and, now they can’t. The sex may have been lackluster up until the 1960s but at least men were getting more sex than they are now. Only Alphas are getting just as much sex now or in some cases more as before the Sexual Revolution. Betas are getting less sex now than before the Sexual Revolution. It is a statistical fact that women are fatter and uglier now than before the Sexual Revolution. The men are fatter and uglier too, but the women of today have made a more steep decline in their looks than the men. There are a higher percentage of obese women than men.
Women Prostitutes(Professionals) have always been prettier on average than amateur women and still are. Professional women have always been more willing to do the kinds of sex acts that men want than amateur women. For example when I was an English teacher in South Korea, I could game or seduce amateur women, but all I could get after many failed attempts is a skinny cutie with a flat ass and small boobs after spending a lot of money and time chasing and dating them and maybe I got sex or maybe I didn’t, but if I went to a brothel in the red light district then I could get 2 naturally big boobed gorgeous professionals to fuck me if I wanted to pay them and the sex was a sure thing. It was very difficult to say no to these gorgeous naturally big boobed Korean professional prostitute women that my Korean man friend showed me and offered to pay for. As Tom Cruise playing the character of Jack Reacher in the movie Jack Reacher says Whores are usually cheaper options than amateur women and I have found this to be true. Rollo Tomassi noted that all men pay for sex by financing it, marriage, buying it retail or wholesale, dating or hooking up, renting it, prostitution or by paying for the advertising, masturbating(usually to porn which is usually better advertising than closing ones eyes and imagining). Most Korean single men who went to whores said that the whores were better looking and better in bed than their girlfriends and an even higher percentage of Korean married men said the same thing about their wives. To be honest, most American men who went to whores said the same thing about whores in comparison to their girlfriends and wives. Latex condoms have been around since 1920 and became cheaper and more reliable to prevent pregnancy and the infection of, STDs, Sexual Transmitted Diseases since the 1940s so that it is safer now to fuck whores than in the past. The amateur women have gotten more STDs while the whores have gotten less since the invention of the latex condom as a result of amateurs refusing or forgetting to use condoms while the professionals have insisted upon using them. I seriously doubt that escorts or whores are really better looking now than in the past although I also seriously doubt that escorts and whores are worse looking than in the past because I think they have the same genetic beauty level but just different style.
@Kryptokate
I know my last post was long, but I forgot a few things. An alpha widow is a woman who has had a more desirable man have sex with her then realizes that she can not lock him down in a relationship so she moves on to a less desirable man and locks him into a relationship while usually despising the less desirable man. Hypergamy doesn’t care about how hard a man has tried to please his girlfriend or wife. Blackdragon’s article “There is no Hookup Culture” has a commentator there calling himself WolfOf GeorgeStreet who is making Alpha Widows. He says he is in the top 5% of men for looks and knows how to game women and that he is locking other men out of sex by using Tinder. Most men never get the response level from women that he does. It isn’t even close. I bet he is a male 10 who uses female 6s, 7s and 8s as practice sex dummies so he can be good at fucking the 9s and 10s that he really wants. These 6s, 7s and 8s women will not be able to appreciate their male 6s 7s and 8s. Susan Walsh of the Hooking Up Smart blog had an article with a link to a study over 2 years ago. Pictures of 18 to 24 year old college women were shown to 18 to 24 year old college men. The men said that 80% of the women were attractive and 20% unattractive. Then they asked how intense their attraction was. Obviously the top 5% of women were found to be very attractive, the next 10% a little less so and so on. Then they showed college age women pictures of 18-24 year old college men. the women said only 20% of them were attractive and 80% were unattractive. The top 5% of men were deemed to be more desirable, at least twice as much, by the women than the top 5% of women were to men. I seriously doubt gay men would say 80% of college age men aged 18 to 24 are ugly and in my opinion based on my interactions with gay men would say the opposite even though there have been no studies on this as far as I know. I am heterosexual by the way.
Blogs like this would not exist or at least there would be fewer of them if men were getting sex as much as they did in the 1950s. Blackdragon has said that people were getting more sex in the 1940s and 50s than now and a lot more sex in the 1970s than now. Few men are designed or able to become someone who can get a lot of women and sex acts. Even most heterosexual Alphas can not get as many women partners than gay men who live in big city areas no matter how hard they try. Most amateur women waste most men’s time and money and delay giving sex if they even give it at all. Professional prostitutes seldom do this and this is why it is almost always the most honest and upfront relationship with all the costs(financial, physical and emotional) known a man can have and usually with the least amount of drama especially unnecessary drama a man can have. Gay men waste each others time and money much less than amateur women waste heterosexual men’s time and money but a little more than professional prostitutes waste men’s time and money. Gay men are a lot more honest with each other than heterosexual men and amateur women are with each other, but they are not as honest as the relationships which prostitutes have with heterosexual men on average. I also think amateur women are more dishonest with heterosexual men than heterosexual men are with amateur women especially when it is unnecessary. Heterosexual men lie because it gets them sex easier and faster and more often from a higher percentage of women than if they didn’t. Lying is wrong and should not be done because it causes drama down the road and one should do unto others as he would want done unto himself, but I can not deny that for the short and often medium term that it works better than honesty.
@Kryptokate
For that matter prostitution prohibition is more vigorously enforced in the USA now than it was in the 1950s. No man in the 1950s was ever put on a sex offender list for the rest of his life or convicted of a felony like all too many men are today for being a customer. The police and prosecutors went after the whores ad johns less back then too. There were almost no laws agaiinst prostitution until the early 20th century in the USA, and it was generally tolerated if not liked up until that time. Whores are hated by nearly all feminists and many women because whores are the scabs or strikebreakers on the Union of Women. No woman could charge the high prices they do on men today financially and emotionally while giving little or nothing in return if prostitution was decriminalized and legalized. Here in the USA and the rest of the west, Feminism unleashed women to become more promiscuous in the 1970s, but since the 1980s allied with religious conservatives have been restricting men’s sexuality while leaving women’s sexuality unrestricted. The religious conservatives are the willing dupes of feminism in many respects. Feminism is all about freeing women especially her sexuality and not having to suffer the consequences of her actions while making the men suffer for her actions. Feminism is also about restricting men especially their sexuality and punishing him for it and making him suffer for the poor choices women make especially sexually speaking.
Before I forget, there were almost no Alpha widows in the 1950 and today most women are Alpha widows in the USA. The marriage and divorce laws of the USA are more anti-men, anti-children and anti-civilization now than in the 1950s too. Of course, the marriage and divorce laws are more anti-men, anti-children and anti-civilization in the 1950s than they were in the 1850s in the USA. The marriage and divorce laws are more pro-woman now than ever before and have been getting that way a little bit since the 1860s and a lot since the 1960s. It is why I tell men to not get married, not live with women, not sire children and to be ready to pump and dump women who do not fufill men’s desires and needs with sex and good behavior as well as to replace them with women who will do so. Most women are not wife and certainly not mother material and should be viewed as sex partners first and foremost. If a woman isn’t giving me sex, then it only a matter of time before I end the relationship, and I encourage other men to do the same. Platonic relationships with women who are not business associates, girlfriends or wives or other female relatives of friends and family should be rare or non existent. It is the world women wanted and got. More men are finally starting to realize this.
I don’t think this is correct. Do you have a source for this? I’m pretty sure ALL men’s average partner counts are higher now than in the 1950s, betas included.
I more or less agree with everything else you said though. It is indeed true that married people are having way less sex now than prior to the 60s.
@ Blackdragon
I do not have the statistics or sources as I read them long ago and can’t find them again. It is common knowledge that both men and women have higher lifetime partner counts which most if not all people believe. We usually agree with each other even if we do not always understand each other right away. I think that is the case now- We mostly agree.
@Kryptokate
All the problems you ascribed to the 1950s weren’t 1950s problems, they were poor people problems. A “really nice guy” has never been a guy who doesn’t beat his wife. Not in 2015, and not in 1950. If that was the norm in your grandparents’ neighborhood then I feel pretty safe making the assumption they were on the wrong side of the tracks. Take a look at the numerous problems in the black community now – you think they just never got word of the sexual revolution?
Besides that, your anecdotal evidence is absolutely useless for making generalizations about an entire society with hundreds of millions of members. Maybe I’m wrong and your family was all a bunch of high society elites. Well it doesn’t matter, because we’re talking about ~150 million people (pop. of U.S. in 1950) and you’re only talking about one family. Like I said – useless for generalizations.
Fair enough. Regardless, I’m 99% convinced that the average guy, and this includes “normal” guys like betas, have higher lay counts now than in the 1950s.
@ Blackdragon
If you mean that “normal” guys, betas have higher sex partner counts over a lifetime, then yes we agree that betas, “normal” guys do have higher sex partner counts over a lifetime. We also agree on your article from 30 April 2015 titled “Fewer People Have Sex Than You Think” that people are on average having less sex within the past year than they were in the 1940s.
Correct:
1. More people are having sex with more people as compared to pre-1960s.
2. People overall are having less sex less often as compared to pre-1960s, particularly married people.
I believe this is the most perfectly concise example I’ve come across of why modern feminism is bullshit.
I also think there are sections of the manosphere who need to get real and realize that there’s nothing objectively correct about the 50’s girl. I’m sick of all the guys in the manosphere who seem to think it’s their birthright to get a perfect 50’s girl and just insult women who make any other lifestyle choice. They can honestly be just as whiny about women as betas sometimes.
Women were the slaves?
This is still part of feminist indoctrination.
Men were slaves to women. Just because they were taken care of in the house and sexually doesn’t mean their life was better than women’s.
As a wife myself I’d gladly take the nurturer role over the wage slave like women before me fought for.
If you add everything up on both sides, men had it better than women in the 50s.
Though I agree both sexes were less free.
BD so if you had a 1950s type of relationship, would you still agree to open on both sides, even if she is living out of your pocket?
Also if its a 1950s type relationship, then she should not work since then she wouldnt be able to tend to your every need? How would u handle legal marriage/prenup in that case, since in case of divorce she would have no skills to make $, so shes fucked with a prenup or youre fucked if without a prenup. What are your thoughts on that?
Overall it seems to me that alpha 2.0 lifestyle is more suited for a 70s type relationship, and you can hire help for domeatic tasks (or get moley robotic kitchen-awesome)
Yes. As a man I’m not capable of long-term sexual monogamy, and as a woman if I restrict her from playing around on the side when she sees I clearly am, that will create drama and strife in the relationship, and I don’t do drama. This “I can fuck around but my wife can’t!” model is a fantasy. You’re just asking for drama and an eventual divorce (assuming you live in the West).
Generally, yes. In a 1950s relationship the woman probably won’t work, but there are many exceptions to this.
I would not get legally married. Of if I did get legally married (and I wouldn’t) I would only do so under an enforceable prenup, which are unavailable in most parts of the Western world these days.
Whether or not she has skills has nothing to do with her right to financially destroy me if she chooses to divorce me later. Also, no legal marriage or prenup does not equal “woman gets nothing.” That’s a common misunderstanding.
Generally, yes. But an Alpha 2.0 1950s relationship can be done. I’ve done it.
For what it is worth…
Being 60 years old I have had the benefit of experiencing both the 50’s and 70’s and now the 90’s forward.
In every case I found it best to spend at least one hour of conversation with any woman before bedding her. Unless all you want is a fuck and today that means undoubtedly an STD or two from each.
The downside of the 70’s women were that they all fucked around, a lot, and the relationship always ended whether their choice of mine. I did not fuck around whenever I committed.
I married a 50’s woman at age 31, she was 30, and it was heaven till menopause. Then it was over just like that. Her choice not mine.
Today’s women? Very few pass my one hour test and I am way more lenient and considerate than I ever was before. This only because they are so messed over by so many guys before me. Even when they are 25 to 30.
Nonetheless, I continue to look within that age group for a fertile woman who is malleable, obedient and loyal. I command the attention of women whenever I am out in public and converse freely with them as it moves me and as in interests them.
I make no recommendations for others but report this for your use as you deem fit.
A final note and food for thought: I firmly believe as the Bible says that ‘they are the weaker vessel’ and really need our help, guidance and strength more than ever if our species is to endure.
Outside of the above I would rather do without.
BD,
It would be great if you could make a post with tips on when & how to have this discussion (whether she wants 1950s or 1970s).
I guess date 1 is coffee/drinks, dates 2&3 are at your/her place, and then you achieve lock-in and thus should have that discussion? Also how to bring the subject and not freak her out? Like you say betas (most men) will give her both money & power, so if you have the discussion too soon she might leave you for better options elsewhere
Thanks