Single women in their 30s/40s

Dante Wren

Pigeon
Orthodox
In group preferences start to fade with wealth (but yes invaders or multiculturalism has to be present)
So, in other words, wealth again is not a prime motivator. Multiculturalism (which is a euphemism for invasion) has to be present, making wealth, again, an end to a means. If you wish to convince me otherwise, qualifying your statement in a way that makes it fall in line with my own premise is probably not the most effective method to go about doing so.
 

Philip Dru

Sparrow
Trad Catholic
Mostly, social and technological changes only matter with wealth, or are direct byproducts of it.

While things may be changing currently, everyone has smartphones in the whole world right now, but there are still many women in countries without a ton of men with wealth or hopes for the future (of making it on their own as well), and thus they are more feminine and in better physical shape, and will marry or date men of all ages at their peak window of 16-24.
There is a chicken/egg dynamic here, and I agree with you that wealth is a key component. But wealth encourages and enables decline instead of necessitating it. I see contained in your argument the great cycle of civilizations with selfishness, wealth, and sin constituting the autumn and winter stages. I agree that cycle exists and is very important.

But by Quigleys understanding of western civilization we have reset and restarted the cycle several times as the center of gravity moved west from ancient Greece to Rome, London, and finally Washington DC. During various periods there was plenty of wealth and partial collapse of values but not generally the complete disintegration of woke insanity that we are seeing today. The complete disintegration is because the elite are dismantling the old world order and creating the new. We can't just chalk it all up to wealth because that is a partial picture.

This is how the pagans must have felt when Constantine brought in Christianity. This is a total rearranging of values.
 

Philip Dru

Sparrow
Trad Catholic
Your response is embedded with a lot of truth that can be gleaned from K/r selection strategies.
I agree with you about wealth not being the prime factor. It's more of a means to an end. With a group with strong in-group preferences, wealth will facilitate familial growth. With the single-parent you-go-grrrl crowd, it gets spent on back tattoos and abortions.
Interesting point. As women slide down the totem pole they switch to an R strategy. The shoe fits.
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
So, in other words, wealth again is not a prime motivator. Multiculturalism (which is a euphemism for invasion) has to be present, making wealth, again, an end to a means. If you wish to convince me otherwise, qualifying your statement in a way that makes it fall in line with my own premise is probably not the most effective method to go about doing so.
No, the examples I gave historically (even in "Islamic" societies) is that wealth makes women ascendant in societies, which then slowly but surely destroys family formation and fertility/children production and/or rearing. Multiculturalism is just a further accelerator, but notice that multiculturalism does nothing on it own, thus proving my point; it is the wealth effect.
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
We can't just chalk it all up to wealth because that is a partial picture.
In my responses, I'm not doing that - it's not "just" anything. It sets greater chaos in motion and is the primary cause, with other things stemming from it exacerbating the entirety of the situation.
This is how the pagans must have felt when Constantine brought in Christianity. This is a total rearranging of values.
Good point. Survival was still not all that easy though and women got a bit of a greater foothold, but traditions still held men in authority and esteem. Ironically, Christianity brought forth the idea (the only religion) that women should even be treated decently, at all (in the way women view life and some ideological men). In that fashion it is a bit of a white knight concept that I think for better or worse is just the providence that is in the world. Tradeoffs and the future of humanity is the spiritual world, but it's hard for us humans to understand that our physical nature is always on edge in this world and because it is fallen, we'll always have challenges (as I've said before, God doesn't care in the way that we think He does, mostly because we are broken). That's a point that is hard to convince people of, but in a sense proves the point.
 

Philip Dru

Sparrow
Trad Catholic
In my responses, I'm not doing that - it's not "just" anything. It sets greater chaos in motion and is the primary cause, with other things stemming from it exacerbating the entirety of the situation.
Sorry, you clearly stated that wealth is the prime factor, not the only factor. Didn't mean to mis-represent your viewpoint.
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Mostly, social and technological changes only matter with wealth, or are direct byproducts of it.

While things may be changing currently, everyone has smartphones in the whole world right now, but there are still many women in countries without a ton of men with wealth or hopes for the future (of making it on their own as well), and thus they are more feminine and in better physical shape, and will marry or date men of all ages at their peak window of 16-24.
This is an important point to keep in mind. A woman's peak value is at early 20s, let's say 21. A man's peak value is in his mid 30s, let's say 35. Women ''are'', men must ''become''. It takes way longer for a man to reach his peak potential of knowledge, wisdom, physical shape, money, status, leadership skills and so on. So that's also something to understand for those who are in their late 20s or so and wailing that they're too late, waddling in self pity or seeming misopportunity. You've got way more time as a man and you'll be attractive to women in their early to mid 20s at least until in your 40s, if you actually become a masculine man that has his life together obviously.
 

vstk

Robin
Catholic
A woman's peak value is at early 20s, let's say 21. A man's peak value is in his mid 30s, let's say 35.
Why is the average age gap between 2 and 7 years then? (depending on the place)
A successful hardworking man, who does all the right things, may see his attractiveness peak in his mid 30s but it is far from the norm. Most of my friends look *significantly* worse in their mid 30s than they did in their mid 20s. And they are still middle class people, as they were before.
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Why is the average age gap between 2 and 7 years then? (depending on the place)
A successful hardworking man, who does all the right things, may see his attractiveness peak in his mid 30s but it is far from the norm. Most of my friends look *significantly* worse in their mid 30s than they did in their mid 20s. And they are still middle class people, as they were before.
Simply because it's more natural, now, for that to be an acceptable agreement for women. Historically they've had little say, and that was actually for the better, as is proved by modern life. The fact that you get all combos, but that age gaps aren't eschewed in particular locations around the world, shows that the problem is with the west, in general. Of course, that would be where women don't have to, or at this point don't think they have to worry, about earnings or material things. Soon that changes, big time. But culture will lag, I fear and suspect.
 

vstk

Robin
Catholic
Simply because it's more natural, now, for that to be an acceptable agreement for women. Historically they've had little say
The whole concept of SMV is based on the preferences of the opposite sex. Not what we think their preferences should be.
The fact is that nowadays, women in their prime rarely value what older men bring to the table, except when they really want an escape from poverty. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but that is how it is.
 

Blade Runner

Hummingbird
Orthodox
The whole concept of SMV is based on the preferences of the opposite sex. Not what we think their preferences should be.
The fact is that nowadays, women in their prime rarely value what older men bring to the table, except when they really want an escape from poverty. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but that is how it is.
Yes, they want it all, and the modern day provides an easier way for them to think they can access this. I don't get your point. The big picture is ultimately, however harsh it seems, who cares what women want? They want it all, which makes the whole situation another clown world, and why the patriarchy always existed.
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Why is the average age gap between 2 and 7 years then? (depending on the place)
A successful hardworking man, who does all the right things, may see his attractiveness peak in his mid 30s but it is far from the norm. Most of my friends look *significantly* worse in their mid 30s than they did in their mid 20s. And they are still middle class people, as they were before.
You're already answering the question. The ideal situation is not reflected by reality. When we'd go back in time and go to ancient Sparta, men would go to the army, come back at 35, get a piece of land and marry a 20 year old girl. Now, that was a societal arranged peak + peak solution. The man would've gone through trauma, built his masculinity, now he had his land and could provide and all, and wouldn't look like a swollen donut like most Americans now in their 30s. Now, the male package is way more than mere looks, above that ability to provision/protect (money, status, strength, masculine character etc), but being obese by the time you're 35 shows a general inability to set up a life, be disciplined and have a vision for yourself and potentially for a woman and your family.

Most men don't do the work nowadays and get wrecked before they ever see 35. The man that do and become high value options, which could be in the secular perspective having a jetset lifestyle, massive social media following, great fitness etc, but could be placed in another context, such as a Christian man with respect in his community, having a leading role in his church, people look up to him, he's got his finances and house in order, has a vision and boundaries for a relationship, are rare. Scarcity creates value and there simply aren't enough options as men in their prime in comparison to women in their prime. So women have to settle one way or the other, most of them. Also there's some societal stigma, where you'd indeed see more often a woman in her later 20s with a guy in his mid 30s, or a woman in her early 20s with a guy in his late 20s.
The whole concept of SMV is based on the preferences of the opposite sex. Not what we think their preferences should be.
The fact is that nowadays, women in their prime rarely value what older men bring to the table, except when they really want an escape from poverty. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but that is how it is.
Depends on the stage she's in. Ideally she wants to full package, what has been dubbed as alpha seed, beta need, or alpha f's, beta bucks. Meaning: the popular, strong, charismatic, exciting, mysterious man that tingles her emotions and is a showoff on the one side, but also the man that can provide for her and her kids, won't leave her (although 80% of relationships are broken by women), and is a more stable option that will be there for her. Reality is that this guy with both sides of the medal is hard to find. So the dynamic you describes is where modern day women in their early 20s go after the alpha side of the equation, then in her late 20s start to look for the beta side of the equation. So then Chad Thundercock at the foam cannon party in Ibiza leaves the picture as he won't settle with her and isn't a good long term fit, and what's been called the ''beta in waiting'', the nice guy that has build his career, is stable and just wants to love his wife and family comes in. Now, he's usually completely unaware that he's marching into a slaughterhouse with his eyes closed as he lacks experience and general understanding about (modern day) women, the risks things like marriage bring and the dynamics I described above. Now he'll also get a woman that's heavily damaged by her behavior, psychologically/emotionally, and has a high chance of divorcing him, being emotionally crazy, unstable, on anti depressants, mentally ill and a ton of other things but that's another discussion.

This is why you see women hitting 29/30 and suddenly having 'found God' again, stating she's ''tired of temporary relationships'' and ''I've learned through my journey of personal discovery that I want a real man, who will settle down with me ''and ''she's done with the bad boys''. It's a marketing strategy to reel the guy in she'd laughed at in her early 20s as a loser.

This graph of Rollo Tomassi shows it well, I can recommend you checking him out if you want to understand the dynamics of the modern dating place. It's paramount to understand this as, whether we like it or not, this is the world we live in and things will make a lot more sense after understanding.

1655914299456.png

My point is simply let's not fool ourselves in thinking that from 20 to 35 it just keeps getting easier. For most men it really doesn't.
Well the reason why that is the case for these men is because they chose to be losers and not build a life for themselves that they can invite a woman in to. And to their credit, they've been attacked from all sides by society since the day they were born, so it's tough.
For all practical purposes, men have to deal with the here and now in their everyday lives.
While also having a long term vision. If you're merely looking in the here and now you'll always be bucketing out the water out of the boat, instead of fixing the gap. I'd say the problem of men today usually is that they don't have a long term vision, so they don't have proper goals and motivation to go towards these goals, and instead are lingering around, eating doritos, playing videogames, not progressing in their career etc.
 

vstk

Robin
Catholic
The ideal situation is not reflected by reality. When we'd go back in time and go to ancient Sparta, men would go to the army, come back at 35, get a piece of land and marry a 20 year old girl. Now, that was a societal arranged peak + peak solution.
Reality is never ideal. I think it is usually preferable to deal with reality as it is. Most of your post explains why men here and now are definitely not at their peak at 35, unless they are exceptionally dedicated to it, which was my point. I guess we are in agreement.

Men in Ancient Sparta married between 25 and 35, they were allowed to live with their wives from age 30. Polyandry was also allowed and practiced. Doesn't sound very alpha to me.

About men being able to achieve more wealth and career advancement by age 35, that is true. However, in the vast majority of cases, this is a trajectory that can be guessed ahead of time. There are few surprises in that domain.

Now I am pondering, if we want to reflect on what is ideal for a man : wouldn't it be ideal to find a supportive wife in your early 20s so you can go through these formative years with someone you love? Love does give a man motivation and a sense of purpose. It is not obvious to me that most men are better off spending their 20s alone.
 
Last edited:
Top