On point 2. Though I haven’t read the book, based on your summary... and experience raising 8 daughters:
The argument that feminism reduces promiscuity if flawed IMHO for several reasons.
The first one being that, I attribute the reduction in sex, frequency more to video games and the Internet and social media then I do to feminism. It just so happens that feminism was amplified by the Internet and social media.
I think a better evaluation would be looking at what sort of sex the fewer people that are having. I just watched the final episode of the excellent Netflix series Beef, and in the final episode, there was a conversation about how choking during sex has become main stream because of the Internet, yet it wasn’t something that kids raised in the 80s or 90s even thought about. The same could be said about the prevalence of anal sex, and a wide variety of other sexual behaviors.
Ultimately, I think we have a two pronged problem here. On one hand, a certain flavor of feminism has encourage young women to be more promiscuous than they would’ve otherwise been. The other issue is with young men basically taking them cells off the market because they’re spending all the time watching porn or playing video games.
The combination of the two means there is fewer young men than women out there who are on the market, so the young men who are having sex, are willing to push the limits and expect less monogamous type relationships. And the young women out there who are trying to find a mate, and with the influence of the certain brand of feminism, I’m more willing to acquiesce to these male desires.
My antidotal perception based on working with a lot of young, single 20 and 30 something years old guys and having raised eight girls is basically that the men with charm/looks/balls get laid often and easily. Way more than their peers from earlier generations. Meanwhile, women in their teens and 20s have a lot less selection of men who are worth dating.
If there are any grammatical errors, I apologize… I dictated this while sitting in my car in a parking lot.
Great! We should be CELEBRATING the fact that teen sex and pregnancies have dramatically reduced. For decades Conservatives cried, howled, yelped and hollered over "teen sex" "teen pregnancy" and "out of wedlock birthrate". Now that all of that has decreased I expect to hear them celebrating.
It may be legal but it is not widely done. If you're going to study human sexual behavior you'd better look past age 18. We are maturing more and more slowly, despite some appearances to the contrary.
Yeah, I think this is closer to what is happening. There are noticeably more young men than women who have zero friends, who still live with their parents, etc., and I see this in both anecdotes and surveys.
Though I'd say the same shut-in effect applies to both men and women -- it has just hit men harder, leading to the gap that you describe. The women who are basically shut-ins tend to just watch Netflix (or worse, TikTok). Which might be less addictive than the lethal combination of video games + porn, but it's surely more addictive than watching TV in prior decades.
To further compound the issue, there is the obesity issue and the social media unrealistic expectations aspect of everything. Whether it’s fair or not, a woman’s dating value is more looks dependent than men’s. Though, ironically, I’ve seen some antidotal data that says women actually have more unrealistic expectations than men do about dating partners.
More speculatively, I also wonder if young people find each other's personalities less attractive, but that's harder to measure. I suspect that people in the past were more inclined to consciously adopt behaviors that seemed attractive to the opposite sex, or to avoid behaviors that were repellant.
As to unrealistic expectations, what I have gathered is that women have more self-awareness about their relative attractiveness ranking (they have a very obvious tendency to study their competition in a way that we men really don't), but they're also more rigid about refusing to modify their expectations in a partner. Men are more inclined towards a "I'll take what I can get" mentality.
Of course, at least partly what's going on is that women are thinking more about long-term compatibility. Men will first take what we can get, THEN assess whether "what we can get" is something we really want to lock down.
I've been saying this for a while. No one seems to want to comment on the fact that obesity is a big turnoff in a partner, male or female, and we've got a lot more obese people these days than we used to. I say this as someone who's got a bit of a weight problem myself.
@Gordon Tremeshko: so long as you acknowledge male obesity is just as great as female obesity (percentage wise) but men do not pay anything remotely like the SOCIAL COST for obesity that women pay. Men online call women even slightly overweight LAND WHALES... there is no similar term for fat men.
Nope. There are more overweight and obese women than there are overweight and obese men.
And the social cost of being overweight or obese is FAR HIGHER for MEN. There are countless body-positivity campaigns for overweight and obese women, but nothing for overweight and obese men.
Overweight and obese women get dates, sex and relationships all the time, but most women would never get with a significantly overweight or obese man. Overweight and obese men also receive far more insults and abuse than overweight and obese women.
It is true that women are insulted for their weight sometimes. The reality that you miss (I assume because you yourself are a woman and don't understand the view from the other side) is that overweight and obese women only bear a social cost in terms of not being able to secure long-term commitment from the men of their choosing when they're overweight prior to said commitment. An overweight or obese man doesn't get any attention from women whatsoever.
To wit - one of the most popular forms of adult content on the internet is BBW (Big Beautiful Women) themed. There is essentially no audience for men of similar size. Even in the gay community, what passes as a 'bear' is essentially no bigger than a football player who might be bulking for an upcoming season.
Men will take what they can get, to get SEX. They will not take it (*assuming you mean a homely or fat woman) for a real dating relationship... introduce such a woman to their friends or family... treat her with respect and consideration... be faithful to her... let alone marry her. They will, if desperate enough, have sex with such a woman but only on the side, in secret and they will often do degrading or mean things to such women to allay the mans fears that he is STUCK with a FUGLY DOG.
This is the entitlement men in the 'red pill' space accurately call out. The entire post is about sex, and the sexual marketplace, and it goes into great detail how undersexed men are, and yet you're moving the goalposts because women's desires for long-term commitments are harder when they are overweight?
What entitlement do you see women having that men do not have? the RedPill space, as you call it (often called the Manophere) is extremely angry, hostile and misogynistic.
Sorry, I do not believe that most men are undersexed (I assume here, you mean that they cannot get all the sex they want... not that they have low sexual desire). I think a small SUBSET of men... sometimes called INCELS or MRAs or MGTOWs.... have such poor social skills, immaturity, possibly Aspergers spectrum... that they have severe trouble connecting with women. And many of them have an ideal of feminine desirability that is not realistic at all... just like the plain ordinary woman who yearns for a handsome billionaire (!)... there are a LOT of incels/MRAs who think they deserve a gorgeous supermodel age 22 who is a virgin.
BOTH OF THESE types of unrealistic & immature people are headed for severe disappointment.
Why should womens desires for marriage and children be totally organized around THEIR WEIGHT? when men, who have equal or greater rates of obesity, are not penalized for this? nobody tells the fat guy that he cannot set his sites on a gorgeous swimsuit model or demand virginity (while he sleeps around)... do they?
I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but reality is far less cut-and-dry than this. I'm aware of several unattractive married women who are exceptions to it.
I'd say:
1. The prospect of frequent sex is a critical motivator for men to get into committed relationships in the first place. Most men can't really get regular access to casual sex; plenty of men can't get ANY access to casual sex (unless we count prostitutes). So for most men, "taking what he can get" in terms of sex really means entering into a relationship.
2. Most men have lower standards for casual sex than a relationship. The reverse is generally true for women (to the degree she's open to casual sex at all; a man, even if he has religious objections to it, is almost invariably tempted by the prospect).
3. If you're a woman who is on the left half of the bell curve for attractiveness, #2 puts you in an unfortunate spot. Men of middling attractiveness (i.e. the largest group) might see you as a prospect for casual sex, but not a relationship. Even a lot of men of low attractiveness will also see you as a prospect for casual sex. Also, less attractive men (i.e., your dating pool) are more likely to be weird, have personality or mental disorders and poor character. Note here that I mean "attractive" in an all-encompassing sense and not merely a physical one.
4. Despite all this, people can still make it work, by being realistic and compromising on non-essentials while focusing on character, and getting out there. I've seen it happen.
Wency, I think that no.1 was true in the past, but in 2023???? men can get casual sex all over the place, even apps and sites dedicated to no strings sex! today (and for the last 30 years or so) most women are not gatekeeping sex as was historically true. You can argue this began to end with the invention of the birth control pill in 1961, in fact.
Women gatekept sex in the historical past, because sex resulted in pregnancy, and societies around the world were fixated on virginity, shame around sexuality and of course, ensuring that men could have a reasonable belief that the children they raised were really their own DNA. All that is pretty much dead as the dodo bird today (and for quite a few decades).
I have to laugh, because when I talk online with men... many express what you state here, that getting sex is incredibly difficult or that they believe (falsely) that only the top 5% or 10% of men (CHADs) get all the women... but that is factually and provably untrue.
And you dont think women have casual sex? in 2023? what then is hookup culture? The interesting thing is that if you talk to women.... they see just the opposite! they see men taking advantage of women, promising the potential of a relationship when all the men want is sex... using hookup culture to go from woman to woman. The idea that women have all this latitude is laughable, and that is NOT EVEN CONSIDERING that for women... sex is much riskier than for men. Women still risk pregnancy (even with birth control), risk STDs, risk violence from their partners, risk social shaming, etc.
Also: first you say you know a lot of UNATTRACTIVE married women but then you also say that men only use unattractive women for casual sex, but never a relationship or marriage. Both of these cannot be true.
It is interesting that you define UNATTRACTIVE in men being about weirdness, personality disorders, etc. but UNATTRACTIVE in a woman is being... what? overweight? plain? homely? irregular facial features? aren't those things true of both genders?
If unattractive people never had sex, they would never reproduce and humanity would have bred homeliness out of the gene pool. Any trip to a Walmart will quickly disabuse you of that belief!!!
The simple truth is more likely that ATTRACTIVE people of both sexes have more opportunities and livelier social life than HOMELY people... indeed, attractive people do not often have to USE dating websites like Tinder, they meet plenty of dates in real life. But that has always been true: probably the most you can say today is that social media and dating sites AMPLIFY what has always been the case.
Somehow, amazingly though... people still meet other people... hookup, date, have relationships, get married and have children. Yes even homely and fat people! even weird people!
One possible problem in your analysis: I find that some people (mostly but not all men) take THEIR OWN beauty standards (for women) and values (for men) and project that onto everyone else in society. Everyone else is not YOU and vice versa.
Who you sleep with casually... in our modern American society that is... is not necessarily who you want a relationship with... this goes for both sexes.
At the point you introduce the relationship to your friends or family... that is when you will get major blowback for dating a loser, a fat person, someone outside of your social class (*such as a college degreed woman who brings home a blue collar boyfriend) and of course the usual race/ethnicity stuff.
Decreased male success plus an increased number of somewhat improved alternatives leads to fewer attempts.
Meanwhile, the women pursue an increasingly selected number of men, trying to catch them in their magic boxes (always a mistake). This reduces the success rate for individual men.
Add to that ridicule of any attempt to extract useful information from admittedly sleazy men who claim to have figured things out.
Only incels and MRAs think this, with the help of RedPill sites and the Manosphere.
It just isn't true. Women pursue men who are attractive, have good personalities and are easy to talk to... and men pursue women who are those things.
BTW: calling a vagina a magic box is gross. Stop it.
The men who fail at dating are generally incels, MRAs, MGTOW and influenced by the movements I mention... they are nasty to women, call most of them ugly names (blue haired land whales, etc.)... they think they are entitled to a gorgeous supermodel and despise ordinary women. Women pick up on this message very quickly and avoid this type of man.
Yes, women pursue men that are attractive (although most of them just wait for men to pursue), but women only consider a small group of men attractive, and that attraction is based on height, looks, fitness and income - NOT personality.
You can keep on spreading your lies, but it will never change reality.
She's clearly upset by the fact that men are able to compare notes now in a digital age. The data is really freaking clear on this - men are not getting sexual access at near the rates they used to, and not nearly at the same rates as women are.
For her to claim that "the men who fail at dating" which is LITERALLY ALL THE EXPERIENCE IS FOR MEN are failing because of niche communities (seriously, so niche that at their peak before the nuts at Reddit killed off MGTOW and TRP there were only thousands of users) is absolutely asinine. This woman, by her own admission, is on her second marriage. Was her first husband's failed marriage to her because of MGTOW? Was her current husband's failed first marriage due to TRP?
Andrew: let me repeat for the reading comprehension disabled here: I AM NOT DATING! I am married for 29 years, very happily with grown children! the last time I dated, the dating SITES were columns of newspaper ads... you had to WRITE (snail mail) to each person whose ad caught your eye!
But I have daughters, a granddaughter (20), millennial colleagues and friends and I talk to women daily online. Women talking to women about these issues. You dont know any women, do you?
Men have always compared notes, so to say, in bragging about sexual conquests (though many are made up, like the old Letters to the Editor in Playboy Magazine).
HOW would you know that women are getting all this sex, but men are not? dude, this is in your head... you are jealous of men who have personalities and good social skills, because you are very likely on the Aspergers spectrum, and cannot navigate social situations (hence, dating failures).
All men are not failing at dating, duh since many men ARE happily married, have families and children. You talk like 90% of the population is single, which is ridiculously untrue.
SOUR GRAPES, dude. Work on yourself before mocking others.
BTW: My first marriage was many years ago, and I suppose if my ex were young today... he would be in the RedPill movement. He resented women and I ignored the signals that he did not genuinely LIKE or respect women (though he did want sex from them!). Oh and I remarried in a few years, very happily. HE went onto to at least 2 more failed marriages and children born out of wedlock as ruined several OTHER womens lives with his B.S.
I have no idea what TRP is, but I assure you it had nothing to do with my husbands first marriage. Geez Louise, we are talking about stuff that happened in the 1980s! before you were BORN!
MGTOW is just men with Aspergers spectrum and lack of social skills... also, please explain why a single woman is not a WGTOW but instead a lonely spinster crying her eyes out, with 10 cats?
Nope, and only a man (RedPill, incel, MRA, etc.) would think that way.
Personality matter THE MOST OF ALL.
Height is minimal. And you left off HAIR! LOL! you really do not know any women, do you?
What is the most important thing for many women? you'd be surprised.... it is LIBERAL POLITICS. They will not marry or date or sleep with conservative men, not even wealthy ones.
TRUTH!
Women clearly marry men of all heights, looks, weight and yes, poor men and working class men. There are very ample demographics to prove this, including US Census data.
Most sex happens in committed relationships. If feminism reduces committed relationships it's going to reduce sex.
However, even if the amount of sex is down, you could still have promiscuous sex happening. They aren't mutually exclusive. Someone in a long term relationship may be having sex every week for a long time, while someone whose perpetually "dating" maybe have one night stands or short bouts of sex with a pattern interspersed by dry periods.
That's what I observed in my 20s. People weren't in relationships, but sometimes they would hook up (usually with alcohol). Some of those hook ups would last a few months or whatever. Nobody was trying to get married. There was a lot of distrust and nihilism, and sometimes that distrust and nihilism manifested itself in sexual acts.
Yeah, I am old too. It is a pretty sad way of looking at relationships.
That said, I do know it happens. People meet up for noncommittal sex, so no it is not a relationship. Often one or both parties would be ashamed to have their friends/family know about the hookup. It relieves sexual longing, and nobody today wants to be a prude so this is how they cope.
BTW: most women despise this, but do it out of desperation to meet guys... no matter what they say about liking hooking up.
Feminism and culture (especially the show Sex and The City) has brainwashed women into thinking that casual sex is empowering and liberating. And that still does not change the fact that these women are willingly participating in casual sex - nobody is forcing them to do so. Not to mention the fact that most women will sleep with a man BEFORE she gets into a serious relationship with him in order to judge his penis size and sexual performance.
Lost the thread here, when I get alerts, so I dont know what you think women do not despise.
JJ: how OLD are you? Sex And The City (TV series) ran from 1998 to 2004... thats 25 YEARS AGO!
Also: who invented casual sex? it sure was not women. Men have far, far more casual sex than women and men are the ones who DEMAND casual sex (or they wont keep dating a woman past the third date)... men are the ones who demand hookups and no strings sex.
If women participate in casual sex (*and we are talking about heterosexuals here, I assume)... they are having that casual sex WITH MEN... right? so men are doing the exact same thing.
If you are very serious or religious and you want to NOT have casual sex (or any sex) prior to marriage... I think that is just fine, and I commend you. But you then have to specifically search for women who share your moral and religious values! they do exist, but you will NOT FIND THEM on Tinder.... duh! you will find them in church, or community service (volunteer) organizations or similar. Perhaps through introductions from family members. Be sure you state these values openly, because they are so rare today... people wont believe it unless you state it aloud.
BTW: I have to tell you something that clearly your dad, sex education in school and RedPill videos have failed you at.... women do not highly prize enormous penises. This is a myth. The most a woman wants is a normal, average penis. WHY? because actually HUGE penises are very uncomfortable during sexual intercourse.
As for judging men on their sexual performance... well, men judge women too. They will shame women for their body size, for their AGE... their general looks... their BREASTS specifically (though breasts do nothing regarding sexual performance!)... their size or shape of their vaginas/vulvas, even the size of their labia!!!
If you think you can avoid all this by finding a virgin... good luck.
If you think, in 2023, you can demand a virigin.... while feeling entitled YOURSELF to sexual adventures and experimentation, with a large variety of women.... good luck.
Is your argument seriously that SATC ran 25 years ago? LOL. It doesn't matter whether SATC ran 10 years ago or 40 years ago, it is STILL being shown on TV and/or streaming services in most of the western world. SATC has had a MASSIVE impact on western women, and many, if not most, women look up to those four morons from SATC. Good luck finding a 20-something woman who does NOT know SATC.
The hook-up culture was created by women. Women have far more casual sex than men. All women can participate in casual sex (and most do), but at least 50% of men cannot. It's not a secret that women are almost exclusively having casual sex with the top 20% of men, and those that are in the top 30%, 40% or 50% are only getting a tiny portion. And the bottom 50% can only get it through a relationship (which many of them will not get).
And don't give me that bs about women being shamed for their breasts or genitals in real life. It is only done by a small group of men online. But most women will happily shame men for everything regarding their genitals: size, shape, appearance etc. and sexual performance. It proves that women care A LOT about penis size. After all, women are the ones who tell their friends everything about a man's body, genitals and sexual performance, whereas most men will never reveal that kind of information about women to anyone.
I would say that the increasing availability and convenience of internet porn has reduced sexual activity more than all the First Things articles ever penned, all the sex ed classes ever taught.
Do you seriously think that women with charm, looks and... whatever the female equivalent of balls is (flirtatiousness? sexy moves?)... do not get sexual opportunities (along with dating and other perks) more than women without those things? I mean seriously... duh. Good looking PEOPLE get more sexual opportunities than homely people... smooth talkers get more dates than socially awkward losers.
I guess all this is the reason why... "Even if women’s situation is objectively good, they are more prone than men to sadness, anxiety, resentment, and other negative emotions."
Interesting. I "learned" about chocking in 1993: Sean Connery "Rising Sun". Though I missed out on the you-porn-wave. Anal: ol' lore. Not unknown during my/our youth, but the AIDS-scare might have lowered numbers then - and I would not trust numbers from studies older than me. Wikipedia - rare trigger warning! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Cultural_views
Frequency of sex can be a deceiving measure for promiscuity, because - by definition - being promiscuous means having sex with a lot of different partners. For example, someone who has had 1000 encounters with the same person would be seen as less promiscuous than a person who has had 100 encounters with 100 different people.
I haven't looked at the data in depth, but I would guess that young people today have less sex but with more different partners. It would be interesting to know if there is any truth to that.
One second comment. Is there any sort of survey that shows what percentage of young people are in a relationship? My guess is that the percentage of young people that are in a relationship has decreased even further than the percentage of young people who have had sex.
Teens need to focus on their studies and forget these stupid "relationships" and sex. It's utterly ridiculous for a society to want it's teenagers to have sex.
I did a quick Google search. That is the first thing I found. Most of the article is useless fluff, but it quotes some GSS data that could be useful: the percentage of young people (18 - 34) not having a steady partner increased from 35% in 1986 to 51% in 2018.
I think another measure that would tell us a lot would be if that sex was happening in a relationship or not. A young woman could only be having sex once, or twice a year, but they could both be hook ups. And even if the person is having sex, with the same person, several times, it could be a friends with benefits situation.
This article performs a valuable service. Your critique of Perry's book is so thorough, I can now move on, confident I don't have to read it myself. Thanks!
Agreed. I largely agree with Bryan's essay, and I largely agree with Perry's book, though of course I have my differences with both. And Perry's book can really help when talking to people who don't share a lot of your priors.
I see a lot of comments discussing how social media, videogames, porn etc. has affected relations between the sexes. I think there might be a kind of selection bias there. For some individuals (let's say ages 12-22) these are serious issues comparable to substance addiction but I don't think that accounts for most of what the stats reveal.
From a young age children are constantly surrounded by screens showing them people, places and lifestyles that appear much better than anything they experience in real life. This oversaturation of seemingly real life discourages them from seeking out fulfilling people, places and lifestyles because they intuitively know it will never measure up to what they're constantly exposed to. It's easy to point to videogames and porn as a starting point but it's more nuanced than that.
DEFINITELY true. One interesting series of studies involved showing men (*likely mostly college age volunteers) pictures of average women and then the men rated them as attractive on a 10 point scale. They found most of the women reasonably attractive.
Then they were shown photos of gorgeous supermodels and extremely beautiful women. Again, shown a variety of female images....now the men were much pickier and found the average women distasteful and unappealing. They now wanted a supermodel.l
This all started long ago with movies, TV and advertising but in the last 25 years with the internet... it has been on greased rails, with young people fed images from birth that are so intoxicating... as you correctly say, they will NEVER experience this in real life and they long for fantasy worlds, where they can put on avatars like costumes, and design the perfect (digital) partners.
In comparison, real life seems bland and unappealing. This is very troubling.
Lies. Women are the ones who have unrealistic demands and deem most men to be physically unattractive. Men have realistic standards and views regarding women's physical attractiveness, but most women do NOT have realistic standards and views regarding men's physical attractiveness.
No, it is the truth and it is sad if I am the first person to challenge your RedPill (MRA, incel) belief system.
Ask your mother. Ask your sisters. Ask any female friends, if you have them. TALK TO WOMEN.
What you state is literally the opposite of reality, like UPSIDE DOWN WORLD.
Women find most men physically attractive. The problem is, some perfectly OK looking men have these ugly, hate filled INCEL MRA RED PILL belief systems, and are loud & insulting about them, and start off on dates or meetings with complaints like yours.
They come across so toxic, that women either will not date them, or drop them like a hot rock after one or two dates. You are probably, unwitting, self sabotaging YOURSELF here.
Men are so unrealistic, it is THEY who not only consume but CREATE almost all pornography!!! women have almost NO porn directed to or by other women! EXPLAIN THIS!!!
Men create almost all advertising, make almost all movies and TV shows, and yet you state WOMEN have the unrealistic standards????
Men have a 62.6% obesity rate, but reject women with a 62.4% obesity rate... you yourself just stated this in an earlier post. So men are rejecting roughly 2 out of 3 women BEFORE EVEN MEETING THEM.
Lets talk about the real problem: YOU cannot find a girlfriend. You refuse to do deep personal introspection on WHY this is happening and inside prefer paranoia about things like your height (*just date short women!) or your penis size (*nope, just isn't a factor).
Unless you are literally a dwarf or have a micro penis.... sir, this is all in your head and has nothing to do with the dating market or the OLD OLD TV show Sex And The City.
Assuming you are American... there are 165 million women in this country. It is statistically IMPOSSIBLE to not find someone you like, who also likes you.
No, most women do not find most men to be physically attractive. Most women believe that most men are ugly. Several studies have shown this.
And why are you mentioning porn? Just because most porn is created and watched by men, it does not mean that men have unrealistic standards. I would argue that porn has made women have even more unrealistic standards as they now expect men to be well-endowed and last for a very long time in bed.
It has already been proven that women are the ones with the unrealistic standards. Women are the ones that are out of touch with reality and think that they deserve a man who is at the top. But most men have realistic standards
I am just bewildered at how you can think this. If most women found most men unattractive in this way... the human species would have died out before the Ice Age.
Just as in any large cohort group... some men are handsome, some are homely and most are just average. Some women are beautiful, some are homely and most are just average. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS?
There are NO studies showing that women think most men are ugly. You are quoting (incorrectly at that) a couple of studies of DATING APPS like OKCupid, and that is a small subset of all women, and you do not realize that women looking at dating apps are ALSO trying hard to parse out which men are safe to date and which are a danger to them (violence, rape, abusive behavior). Men do not have to worry about that aspect of online dating.
And if men have realistic standards (as a group)... why is it that men have created nearly all porn... watch nearly all porn... buy and consume nearly all porn (and I mean like 98%+)... if they have realistic female standards, why are the women in porn exaggerated stereotypes, with giant breast implants? why are their genitals almost always hairless, when normal women have hair down there? why are all the women young? why is the sex often violent and harsh, focused entirely on male pleasure and ejaculation? what is the POINT of so many porn videos that feature men ejaculating in womens faces (except to show disgust and disrespect for women)?
Women do not watch or consume most porn, and the extent of what they DO watch is WITH a male partner who finds it a turn on (or hopes to get the woman to engage in what is seen on the screen). Male porn is not remotely what WOMEN find erotic.
So no... it is your fellow MEN who make these films who are obsessed with giant penises and sex acts that last for hours.... no woman wants that, and I can tell you why: that kind of sex HURTS. It is not pleasurable. A giant penis is uncomfortable. Sex that goes for hours HURTS and causes vaginal abrasions. NO WOMAN DESIRES THIS.
If you know anything about female sexuality (LOTS of excellent books, start with OUR BODIES OURSELVES or even the old THEJOY OF SEX)... you would know that penis size is not directly related to female sexual pleasure anyways. It is not related to fertility in men, either. (It is more of an obsession, by far, among gay men than among heterosexual women.)
Now: there is a HUGE difference between claiming women want some Porn Chad with a giant penis who has taken Viagra and has a 4 hour erection... and the claim that women want MEN AT THE TOP (I think here you are meaning the top of the economic pyramid, right?).
I do agree women look at a mans income and potential, because it will directly affect their future children... if a man is successful enough, that woman can choose to stay home with her kids a few years (though most women no longer do this, as it is not very affordable). It means a nicer life, with a big house and fancy cars. But statistically, only about 3% of men are rich! so 97% of women can never, ever have a rich man and most realize this, and dont even pursue it.
Your yourself have claimed very unrealistic standards, where you automatically REJECT 2 out of 3 available women in your cohort (meaning your age, geographic location, culture/ethnic, income, education and so on). TWO OUT OF THREE! and you wonder why you have failed! LOL!
The fact that you think that writing "if most women found most men unattractive in this way... the human species would have died out before the Ice Age." just tells me how insane and ignorant you are. You argument is completely nonsensical. Women have relied heavily on men since forever, apart from the last 70 years or so, so your argument is not valid. Secondly, I am not talking about what happened thousands of years ago. I am talking about what is happening now, and what is happening is that the vast majority of women have become so shallow that they believe that most men are ugly. And that is a fact that have been proven several times.
You claim that men don't have to worry about their safety when dating is, yet again, ignorant. There are countless examples of women falsely accusing men of rape/violence. Countless examples of men being robbed by a group of men after a woman led him to them.
Porn has nothing to do with men's standards. Nothing. Men still prefer normal women, and they are still attracted to average-looking women.
You can keep on denying the fact that most women want a man with a big penis, but most women are just going to continue to prove you again. Women are going to continue to reveal men's penis sizes to other women (which shows that women have no respect for men) and shame men for their penis size. If women didn't care about penis size, then they would never talk about it, but they do - very often.
You claimed that I have very unrealistic standards, but I have never mentioned my own standards for women or anything about my life, so that part of your post is just another insane fabrication. You are either insane or on drugs - maybe both.
There are other parallels too, there could probably be a long book about media's effect on cognition at different stages of development. Black and white thinking is one example, the majority of the popular stories that we consume (movies, books, tv shows) feature clear distinctions between protagonist and antagonist. Children then apply that framing of good guy vs bad guy to real life. This fairy tale mindset which we'd normally outgrow in past generations persists in the age of 24/7 engagement and encourages a distorted mental model of the world.
Thats an excellent insight, though I have to note that B&W thinking is far from new and goes back to the earliest days of things like the movies... cowboys & Indians, crime dramas, etc. Clear good guys and clear bad guys, and the good guys ALWAYS prevail. That goes back to the earliest 20th century, 120 years ago.
Yet what we see today seems different, doesn't it? So there is something more, and I think that is the predominance of video gaming (vs. traditional fiction in books or films) in the last 30 years. Gaming does not end at 12 or 13 like other childhood activities used to do, and you see adults still deeply enmeshed in this culture. The storylines of games involve deep fantasies, playing YOURSELF as a character (vs. watching other characters)... the concept of avatars and creating your own reality.
Its a pretty deep dive! and worth of a whole article itself.
I think it's due to the pervasiveness of screen based consumption (whether it's phone, tv or videogames), 100 years ago you had to actually go to the movie theater. Now from the age of 1 to 30 we spend more than half our day staring at screens.
100 years ago? heck, just 10 years ago, maybe less... streaming video on your phones is incredibly new (which you might not realize if you are GenZ!).
Movies were the only outlet (besides theater) for the public until the early 50s and television. Then it was movies and television up until the invention of smartphones (2007) and the ability to download or stream films (maybe 2015?).
So all of this is a very very recent change. Until smartphones were popular (a few year after their invention, perhaps around 2010 or 2011?), nobody could carry entertainment in their pocket in this way.
I haven't read the book, though I think I once read about it on a blog summary. Given it probably uses a lot of data I've found elsewhere I'll shoot from the hip.
1) Most sex happens in committed relationships. If feminism reduces committed relationships it's going to reduce sex. However, even if the amount of sex is down, you could still have promiscuous sex happening. They aren't mutually exclusive. Someone in a long term relationship may be having sex every week for a long time, while someone whose perpetually "dating" maybe have one night stands or short bouts of sex with a pattern interspersed by dry periods.
That's what I observed in my 20s. People weren't in relationships, but sometimes they would hook up (usually with alcohol). Some of those hook ups would last a few months or whatever. Nobody was trying to get married. There was a lot of distrust and nihilism, and sometimes that distrust and nihilism manifested itself in sexual acts.
2) I don't think you really understand consent here. We aren't talking about "what do I need to not be considered a rapist." We are talking about "even if someone agrees to something, is it still the wrong choice." I don't mean this in a legal sense, but a moral sense. If a woman gives me consent, but she's wrong to do so, it's still bad.
I understand this is "paternalistic". Oh well. I thought we all understood people make bad choices and that this is especially common involving young people and sex (I will throw in alcohol too, as that is a big part of the sexual market).
3) "Because free markets are a social mechanism for giving people who have something to offer whatever they want."
This was Houellebecq's critique in "the expansion of the domain of struggle." That is the mechanisms that allow disinterested bakers and candlestick markers to delver good outcomes even with selfish desires doesn't apply when applied to romance.
Our preferred mechanism for social organization, monogamy, marriage, and family, are at least to some degree "not what people want." They all involve sacrifices and commitments people would like to figure a way out of making or cheat on. It takes vigilance of both people and society to make it work, and having it not work leads to bad outcomes.
I think part of this is that the sexual market is very different from the market market. For one, it's INHERENTLY a rival goods market. There is only ever one man and one woman. We can't use assembly lines to make more mates. And to the extent you think the context is even worse than one to one the greater the rivalry.
It turns out that you can give mates "what they want" in a way that isn't really good for their life outcomes. Promiscuity is like becoming a smoker, the cigarette company gives you want you want but you get cancer.
4)" If she understands and appreciates how markets work, she has two options."
Have you considered "self deception" as an option. This is actually pretty easy to do if the men she can't get to commit will fake it to sleep with her. If women aren't even looking to marry until around 30, it only takes a couple of string along relationships to squander what's left of ones youth.
5) "Men in relationships should avoid spending time alone with attractive women - and women should prefer to be with men who avoid such temptations. Women in relationships should avoid spending time alone with successful men - and men should prefer to be with with women who avoid such temptations."
Mike Pence was right!
BTW, you eviscerated this view when talking about workplaces. Maybe work just shouldn't be a place where people are trying to get in each others pants.
Interestingly, as a creationist, I find this critique both very true, but also perhaps missing the point of Perry's book. I do think that her neuroticism and dark view of reality are problems, but I've been listening to her podcast, and I think she is trying to seek out other perspectives to offer alternatives and expansions.
I also think that you point out that she's writing for young feminist audiences, particularly women, not for cranky conservatives and libertarians who already believe that men and women should get married and have kids.
Now, the question is - can she defeat the sterilizing memes that have taken over (and maybe are inherent in?) feminist culture? I don't know. But I think her book should be widely read and hopefully combat those sterilizing memes quickly.
Also, I think treating feminism as a monolith both in intent/argument and in effect is a bit of a mistake, as I think feminism is perhaps most noteable for being very fractious and incoherent.
"Well, I’m not just a father of four; I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement. I handled every nightshift for every baby. Solo. That includes a pair of twins. I’ve been homeschooling - again, solo - for almost ten years. During Covid, I homeschooled all four of our kids. And through all of this, I never thought my kids “limited my freedom” in the slightest."
Dude, what!? I have never read a Caplan sentence that left me more gobsmacked. As a fellow father of four, and also as someone who would dare to put himself past the (slightly more modest) 98th percentile of paternal involvement, I cannot make this make sense to me. I mean, OF COURSE, kids limit your freedom in a thousand different ways. Every day. All the time.
I've long been puzzled over your general attitude of "ehh, kids are easy!" I read Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, taking it to heart (you're welcome kids #3 and 4!) I even switched to plastic cutlery like you recommended! But it is unfathomably time-consuming. And I won't touch homeschooling with a ten foot pole. So how are you doing this?? Are your kids also in a few 99th percentiles? For agreeableness? Studiousness? Docility? Mental focus? Independence? Politeness? Compulsion to please parents? What is it?
I know you've mentioned nannies a few times. Is it the nannies?! Should you be mentioning the nannies every time your write on this topic??
In many cases, I think the general thrust of the book is correct - casual sex is bad, the more casual the more true this is. On the most actionable paths to limiting sexual harm, I think this book makes an excellent case for the complete destruction of Pornhub and similar sites. The horrifying section about Pornhub is probably the most vile thing in the book. It seems like a great cause for a politician on either side of the aisle - simply point out the rampant abuse. Perry, seeming to be a feminist without ideological friends, points out that much of the sexual liberation movement is tied to abusive left-leaning scholars.
On a baseline level, I agree with Bryan re: grading on a curve. Throughout the whole book, I keep thinking that much of this stuff would have been absolutely trivial to point out to anyone in a religious tradition, or anyone who has been to a bar. "Women are in danger while drinking alone at bars" is indeed common sense, and if we are praising common sense, we should praise the under-praised religious and traditional folks here and point out that "red pill" stuff might be worth reading as a guideline of what to avoid.
And that's why I think Tyler has the better sense of this book- because I think he sees Perry as someone who is successfully presenting common sense in a method framed as radical.
Throughout the book the harms of porn and sloth are hammered home for men. The burden of this book is not to make the case that casual sex is bad, something that anyone could do. The point of the book is to make the case that we have previously underestimated these harms for women, and thus we need to re-evaluate. THIS is why Perry is influential - because she is using maximally successful memes for distribution as part of the message. It's a Straussian masterpiece, using the "woke" tone and frame to come around to a damn-near religious view of sexuality. She does all of this without making the case for marriage/children/etc. although these are the most obvious reasons to not have casual sex, porn addictions, and to generally try to improve.
The book is written to point out the massive divide between sex in committed relationships and casual sex/hookups, in a language that undergrad feminism courses will use and want to discuss. It succeeds. The text as written is "Women are the primary losers of hookup culture." The question the book tries to pose is, "Given that casual sex is in fact bad, dangerous, and humiliating, why have it?" There are answers to this question, but they are not answers that fit neatly into a political platform or any sort of cause. On the other hand, you have building a relationship of which sex is a part and working together on goals, possibly (likely) family.
The readers of MR/BetOnIt/etc. have a choice here. We can either read this book and think "This is factually incorrect" or "Ah, in the age of feminization we must frame all arguments in women's tears!" Or we can say "Oh this book is controversially feminist" and let college feminism profs do the work for us. Choosing option 1 might mean we score internet points. Option 2 might mean fewer people getting into UFC fights by mistake after a nice dinner, and potentially a widespread movement to destroy the internet pornography industry. I vote Option 2.
> The readers of MR/BetOnIt/etc. have a choice here.... Option 2 might mean fewer people getting into UFC fights by mistake after a nice dinner, and potentially a widespread movement to destroy the internet pornography industry. I vote Option 2.
Most rationalists are libertarians or adjacent, and don't WANT to destroy internet porn. It serves a purpose, and the market is large and robust, and desired by billions everywhere in the world. Taking that away would be a bad thing, not a good thing. And women watch it too! About 25-33% of Pornhub viewers are women. It's not like porn is a male-only thing.
In fact, given the key and specific economic hand porn had in developing internet technologies and driving widespread adoption, porn has almost certainly done hugely *more* good in the world than most other entertainment sectors. The internet was basically invented and spread widely because of it.
Trying to force your own aesthetics and choices on the entire world via legislative fiat isn't a good thing, it's basically the definition of being a d*ck.
I totally concede this isn't a libertarian thing to do, but exercising power to make porn 25x less accessible strikes me as a good use of government power. Similar to gambling on sports, where the deadweight loss is just increasing so rapidly that libertarianism becomes infeasible.
I'd concede that porn -> internet growth, but I'd reckon the internet would stick around if porn websites ceased to exist. I might not accept the tradeoff in 1995. I accept the tradeoffs in 2025!
The book has criticisms of porn websites that you would consider on libertarian grounds - do read if you haven't! I suspect that the author has beliefs closer to mine, and we'd all be better off if we'd address those true concerns.
In my perfect universe, porn is illegal and not even desired, but in a universe we could maybe all agree to, porn is legal, but with 60 minutes of truly unskippable YouTube ads set up as required viewing beforehand. Note that YouTube doesn't want porn on their site, likely because they and advertisers don't want to be affiliated. Even the market thinks this stuff could be banned for just causes!
No ad hominems, please! I am rooting for you in so many other contexts! I want every individual sovereign! Pornhub wants everyone to spend all their time and money on their evil porn website! You and I have the common cause!
Absolutely fantastic review. I'm glad Bryan has taken up the mantle and started arguing against the excesses of modern feminism despite the significant potential for negative career or at least reputational impacts. It would have been all to easy for Bryan to keep his thoughts to himself and only argue less inflammatory topics like open borders (I'm serious). He's doing a valuable service making the arguments he is, and in reviewing books like these.
Bryan literally argues that men should suppress their sexual needs for variety and women should suppress their sexual needs for the top men. He's basically an open misogynist and misandrist. Just like Perry.
Apart from the fact that evolutionary psychology is extremely wrong, it doesn't describe male and female strategies well (men are not any less "hypergamous" and women are not any less polygamous).
Men are totally hypergamous, just expressing it in different ways than women. Men want women they can show off on their arm... women that make their friends jealous... women who are high status (which can be fame, beauty, family wealth)... I wish I had a nickel for every guy I have heard talking about girls with RICH DADDYS or wanting to marry THE BOSSES DAUGHTER.
Oh honey. Sorry, but you are in DEEP DENIAL if you do not think men get HUGE status and props from other men... if they appear at an event or couples date, and THEIR girlfriend(wife) is gorgeous, thin, much younger than they are, etc.
Why do you think very rich men, movie stars, etc. always have a trophy girlfriend/wife on their arms and trade her in every few years for a new younger model? Hello Leonardo DiCaprio!
It is NOT because they want family and children, as many never marry OR have children (or if they do, they neglect those kids once they remarry).
I also think that women do SOME of the same things... not all. But women of a certain age ... lets call them cougars... do absolutely show off their boy toys. Younger women get big bragging rights from having a handsome or rich boyfriend/husband!
But it is not the extremes that men do it, and not so clearly self serving... women do not discard and replace their male partners with the same degree of alacrity.
Perhaps you don’t understand what Hypergamy means.
I do think that women may be polygamous, in that they might be willing to share a high status man, if they can make the finances work. Those men who are not among those happy few may object to being taxed to pay for it.
Are you mixing up hypergamy and polygamy? Hypergamy simply means DESIRING to marry up... it could be in terms of wealth, status, looks, opportunities, etc. It is not a gendered term, anymore than monogamy.
I do not see any evidence for polygamy in women (i.e., multiple women with one man) in society outside of Fundie Mormonism. Even there, most women loathe polygamy and hate sharing a man, but think they have no other options.
Typically these start out as conventional one woman/one man marriages and then when the mans eye wanders... the first wife accepts the new, younger wife so as not to lose her status, income, benefits, father for her children. But she is miserable and bitter about it.
I suggest the old TV show BIG LOVE as it shows this very clearly.
No. Women are naturally polygamous in the sense that they would ideally like to sleep with many men, meaning having their own "rotation" of men. Women and men are not in any way different in that regard.
The only difference is that safety reasons and societal shaming (more in the past) make women less likely to act on it. But it's ridiculous to believe that makes women less naturally polygamous, female promiscuity is the most natural thing in the world.
Well all humans are inherently selfish. WE want to be free to have as many sexual relations as we can with the most attractive potential partners... but we want OUR partners to be absolutely monogamous and faithful!
WE want sexual satisfaction but do not care so much for our partners satisfaction.
A lot of men, especially in the incel/MRA/RedPIll world of the internet still cling to hopelessly outdated notions (SPINSTERS????) and one of them is the idea of women as blushing flowers, who have little or no sexual agency or desire... that only men are HORNY and wants lots of sex with lots of different partners. But in fact, this is universal and the only thing that stops it is opportunity.... most of us are not beautiful and we certainly do not stay YOUNG, so whatever chances we had in our teens or 20s are mostly all gone by our 50s.
Not just safety, unless you include concerns about providing for any resulting children.
I can imagine too many women’s ideal world being one where they are free to mate with and have children by whoever struck their fancy. Tax money would pay to support and raise the children. This would have the genetic advantages of polygamy, without the harem politics.
I guarantee you that the married couples, women who prefer marriage, plus all the men who aren’t getting any would resent the hell out of such a scheme. The latter group would probably work just enough to live and entertain themselves. We might also see an increase in “young man syndrome”, where unattached young men act out violently.
Does anything about the second paragraph seem familiar? I would love to test the paternity of _all_ children in some neighborhoods.
Utterly wrong. Women are not going to form harems with the "top 20% men." In fact, women are actually more likely to have children with low-status men:
"Men aged 22-49 with no high school diploma or GED had fathered a higher mean number of children (1.7) than men who had a high school diploma or GED (1.3) or those with some college (1.0) or a bachelor's degree or higher (1.0)."
I have never seen a poor men struggling to get girls. It seems like they have more time and are less overhinking things, so no reason to believe poor men will have no women if women have their ideal world.
“I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement
Did you mean to write "percentile"?
No I think Bryan means “99th personality of paternal involvement.” He’s pretty full of himself as the ULTIMATE FATHER, and homeschooler. I suspect his kids are well academic-schooled, but I’d like to interview them to see if their CAPLAN-schooling has rendered them autistic offshoots of their father.
I do not know the man, so I have to take his review of his own parenting at face value. Maybe he is father of the year, and a SAHD (Stay at Home Dad).
But more likely he is STUCK home because he is unemployed for some reason and his wife is the primary breadwinner. I wonder what SHE WOULD SAY about the situation.
You're a little confused. Bryan Caplan is not a stay-at-home Dad. He is one of the top economists at James Madison University and one of the most influential economists in the country. The cute part is he thinks he's a renown social sciences philosopher as well, and he just might be . . . But he's delightfully quirky and has a face you want to slug.
Then the confusion is deliberate on HIS part... he stated at great length how he is the primary caretaker for his children, does all this stuff for them and pretty much the primary parent (not his wife). That doesn't dovetail with him having a demanding FULL TIME job (though I know many university tenured professors work like 2 hours a week, get all summers and holidays off with pay and long sabbaticals whenever they want).....
Good point about how does he get everything done--all that homeschooling time PLUS a demanding career? I believe he is very productive! But Bryan, if you're listening, maybe you could list your weekly schedule.
That was my thought: he has a serious academic career and is PRIMARY parent (meaning his wife works? or they are divorced and he has custody?) AND does all this other stuff... boy, he must be AMAZING. I am tired just hearing about it.
I haven't met him, but have seen some videos, and read a lot of his posts and his "Education" book. I actually like and admire him. He's definitely interesting and a great talent, but I stand by my post above. He likes to be a provocateur, so I can be one too. I wouldn't let my children be home-schooled by him, except for Economics and Math . . . From afar I have a love/hate relationship with those "James Madison boys," (Cowen, Hanson, Caplan)
I always find books like Perry's, and pretty much all writing on the "dating market," to be incredibly strange. It feels like the Vasharans from D&D have somehow made it to our world and cornered the market on relationship writing.
When I was young, like most people, I was bombarded with all the schmaltzy, social-desirability bias-laden relationship advice you hear in the media. Be yourself. Fall in love with your best friend. Find things in common to connect with people over. Focus on personality rather than looks. Be emotionally vulnerable. Do not be ashamed of your feelings. Communicate your feelings. So I did all that stuff.
It worked. It worked fantastically well. I found a wonderful partner I loved, and I also encountered a good many other people who I think things would have worked out with if I hadn't met her.
This makes me suspect that most of this cynical relationship market stuff is just fragile, neurotic people projecting. They think the dating milieu is a terrible place because schmaltzy relationship advice has been tried and found wanting. But actually, it has been found difficult, and hence been left untried. For some reason a lot of people have trouble doing these basic things that are really effective.
Good for you. But "the system worked for me, therefore everything is fine" has never been valid reasoning.
Even for you, it wasn't easy. It's not easy for anybody and hence many people fail. Now, should we sit back and accept that or should we as a society try to make it easier, so more people end up in your fortunate position?
But most people marry. Even those who never marry, are usually in long term, live together sorts of relationships (which used to be CALLED common law marriage!)
Most people are not single forever or by choice... if you filter out the widows/widowers or people over 75 (by 75 or 80, there are 3x as many women as men because THE MEN ARE DEAD).
The people you're talking about are largely old enough that they'd already settled down before the curse of Tinder & friends made everything so much harder.
Alex, that would make sense if I ONLY KNEW people who are my exact age (older GenX) but obviously I know a variety of people of all ages. Also, personal ads are NOT remotely new and were around when I was dating... they were SLOW compared to internet dating (like Tinder, Match.com, EHarmony, etc.) but the principle of letting people arrange THEIR OWN blind dates remains the same.
I am not sure why you think Tinder completely makes things different...it only started in earnest in 2013. Do you think dating has deteriorated THAT remarkably in just the past 10 years? are you old enough to remember dating (as an adult, not a teen) prior to 2013?
Almost everything people complain about Tinder (etc.), I found was around in the 90s when I was dating (second time around, as a 30ish divorcee)... people setting unreasonably picky standards, for example.
I definitely agree with you that dating and finding relationships is too hard for many people, and that there are ways to advocate for change to make it easier. What I am skeptical about isn't changing the system, it's the repulsively cynical, neurotic, and manipulative worldview that people like Perry seem to have. I don't think that worldview is an accurate description of society and human nature, and I also think that it is not effective at finding solutions.
I think Bryan makes similar arguments in his 14th point in his post. If I encountered a woman or a man who thought the same way Perry does my first bit of relationship advice for them would be "Stop. The reason things are hard for you is that your toxic worldview causes you to see malice where there is none, and to feel contempt for people who do not deserve it. Just stop."
Louise Perry is also happily married and doesn't need your relationship advice. Evidently her neurosis paid off!
I think this is probably a gender thing. Women have every reason to be neurotic because men are a lot more sexually predatory than women. Quite conceivable that being neurotic is a learned adaption to steer clear of those predators and find a good man (which is still most of them, obligatory #notallmen).
I strongly suspect that Perry and similar women are happily married in spite of their neuroticism, not because of it. I'm not just trying to give dating advice, I'm also trying to give advice on how to not be a miserable misanthrope who interprets every little thing people do in the worst possible light.
In regards to your theory on the cause of female neuroticism, it sounds like a plausible theory, although I can think of plenty of other explanations that are equally plausible. I wonder if it could be tested by seeing if lesbians are, on average, less neurotic than heterosexual women, since they don't need to filter dating partners to the same degree (on the other hand, that would probably introduce a lot of confounding factors, like women who dated men for a bit because they didn't realize they were lesbians right away, or women with neuroses that were caused dealing with homophobia).
Guttentag and Secord's "The Sex Ratio Question" accumulates a lot of evidence that the mating "market" is local in time and space (and often across class, race, and other demographic categories) and can get substantially far from a 1:1 sex ratio. E.g. to 3:2. The result is that one sex or the other can have serious difficulties marrying. Looking at such a situation as a "market" enables one to see this imbalance and possibly relocate (in some dimension) to counteract it.
Thanks. That system actually DOES work MOST of the time. No system is totally fool proof but what you describe has worked and is working now, for MOST PEOPLE.
No matter how wonderful your partner (and good for you to appreciate them!)... the reality is this is a big planet and big country, and there are probably hundreds of thousands of people you COULD potentially make a solid marriage with... some better than others.
The proof of this is how often people remarry after being widowed or divorced. They grieve and then they heal, and they love again.
BTW: the cynical stuff overwhelmingly comes from deeply embittered people whose dating strategies have failed or backfired.
You are 100% correct, and I think that is part of why the book is written the way it is. However, it is important that neurotic people who like politicizing topics deserve to have a neurotic, politicized defense of common sense, and I think Perry has a successful career ahead of her doing much the same.
"True, most young, well-educated women won’t be able to marry handsome, charming investment bankers. But if they set their sights a little lower, they can find a good husband fairly easily."
I guess many women are simply not ok with setting their sight "a little lower"
I don't know about men, but I have a vague feeling (being a woman myself) that most women probably prefer to rather be alone than to be with a man they don't like much. (This may be wrong and I don't know if I can say 'most women' confidently - maybe it's only 40% percent of women or so. People are different.) It wasn't like this in the past when women were economically dependent on spouses. But now that they aren't it may not make sense for women to actively 'lower' their preferences if that would mean lowering them to a level where the resulting union would be worse than living alone. Living alone has several benefits, after all - freedom, privacy, no-one nagging at you.
Yes, I'm a man, but I do think this dynamic is real. A lot of men drop from "positive marriage/relationship value" to "negative value" once their economic contributions become less relevant. Women haven't seen the same sort of decrease in value.
Even if we think not in terms of "happiness" but purely Darwinian survival of one's progeny, a lot of men are of negative value to the continued survival and wellbeing of a prospective partner's children, and this value, too, must be adjusted downward if his economic contribution is no longer a matter of life and death for them.
To some degree, men can adapt by, for example, becoming more attentive husbands and fathers, but that's beyond the reach of many.
In the long run, I believe society will converge on a set of family-forming behaviors that are sustainable (or otherwise perish), but right now we're living through a number of shocks to family formation, most of which are technology-generated. As a result, our family-formation customs are in chaos, and most women do not have a replacement number of children.
Also they may be sleeping with men who the do like quite a bit but who are not interested in marrying them. But many wouldn't call this "not being alone", i.e. it's not quite as "together" as actually sharing the roof and finances with someone.
I thought Bob’s comment was about promiscuity. Which I do think still means being mostly alone. The promiscuous women I’ve known have all have all just had occasional hookups. One random encounter per month is a high rate and would probably only be sustained for a brief life phase.
There are women who are ultra-promiscuous, racking up a triple-digit body count, but it’s rare, outside of actual professionals.
Then there are friends with benefits, but I think most of the time the woman there would like a relationship and the man is non-committal.
Too many women buy into what I call the “Magic Box” fantasy. They think sleeping with a man will win him. It’s not likely, especially when she’s dating out of her league.
Exactly. There is an old saying that if you marry ONLY for wealth... the PRICE in terms of your dignity, effort, self esteem and happiness will cost much more than any monies you get from marrying.
Investment bankers are often creeps. I hear more often the idea that women want to marry DOCTORS... but doctors have staggering rates of divorce, work long hours, their flexible job structure plus wealth means they have very ample opportunities to cheat. So yes, you may marry wealth but is it worth it???
Christoph: sure there are women who want to marry rich men ONLY. They have a name: GOLD DIGGERS. And it is nothing new and does not require education or even to be all that young.
What percentage of men are investment bankers? like 0.001%? how many men are RICH? only about 3% of men earn over $100,000 a year! and that isn't truly rich in todays world.
if what you and incel/MRA culture believed was remotely true.... almost nobody would ever marry. Yet most people DO marry. Even those who do NOT marry, typically have close committed relationships.
I could easily say the same to men: sorry, you cannot get a supermodel... but if you SET YOUR SIGHTS A BIT LOWER... you could get a nice ordinary woman to marry.
But tell incel/MRAs this and they get hysterical, screaming they do not want a FUGLY DOG or BLUE HAIRED LAND WHALE....
Lola, Per Google: "17% of all men earn over $100k per year] Jan 18, 2023" so if this is correct than it almost 5X more than your estimate of 3%. Inflation is real, and approaching 20% of American men make "six figures."
Ok you got me there... the last 3 years post COVID has seen remarkable spikes in pay. So my figures were probably pre 2020... I am willing to go $125,000 for a fairly high US income and frankly, if you live in NYC or LA or Boston.... $100K is not really wealth anymore. A tax rate of over 50% and you are talking about about $4200 a month take-home pay, when rents average $3500....and starter homes are $900K.
My overarching point is correct though: if a woman is set on a RICH husband, the pickings are very slim.
The crux of Birger's "Dateonomics" is that this actually isn't true in recent times. The supply of young, well-educated women in the geographic areas where they work and search for mates (the central parts of cities) considerably exceeds the supply of young, well-educated men. The details are in the book, but women now get educated more than men, and as you go up the education ladder, the disproportion gets larger. And there's a strong bias by women to not marry men with less education.
The few reports I've seen suggest that the young men in the "just out of college in central cities" category are using their increased market power to be more sexually demanding of the young women. The women are unhappy with that, but there's no way for them to change that without either combining to do some sort of "price fixing" or significantly changing who they would accept as husbands. That's a form of "a little lower", but it really means giving up a husband with a bachelor's degree.
There is truth there. Many educated women want to live & work in a handful of Big Blue cities and thus, there is a huge oversupply of such women to men.
The same women would be wildly more successful if they just moved to a less competitive or less blue city... but tell them that, you will get your eyes scratched out. They would almost rather DIE (or live alone forever) than move to somewhere that is not cool, trendy or hip.
It is less about education than about geography, though education IS a factor.
Ive talked to actual woman (as a woman myself) if they would rather marry an adjunct college professor who earned $30K a year OR a very successful plumber who earned $180K a year. To a woman, they all picked the professor! (so much for the hypergamy theory).
The interesting thing is WHY... they would be ashamed of the plumber in front of their friends & family.... he might not have the right political views, or tastes in things like food or movies. God forbid, he might be MAGA! many women have expressed to me that they value liberal politics in a man WAYYY over money, height, hair, good looks, etc.
BTW: many folks seem unaware of ASSORTIVE MATING. Men today also want a woman with an equal education. Men with advanced degrees do not marry women who dropped out of 8th grade.
All true... Though on slightly longer timescales, there are relevant complications. Birger mentions that not so long ago, it was relatively common for college-educated women to marry blue-collar men. I myself have some vague memory of a trope of a blue-collar guy marrying a wife he freely admitted was smarter and having her run his life. (Consider the very popular "Honeymooners".)
I have some suspicion that the cause is the delayed effect of the relative pay of various occupations. Back in the 1950s, a lot of money rode on physical strength, and a lot of blue-collar work paid as well as white-collar work. There was a class difference, but putting too much emphasis on it was considered snobbery. That is, *male* blue collar work paid as well as white-collar work; women largely had to marry an employed male to live decently, but she wasn't necessarily losing out by marrying that plumber.
Scroll forward to circa 1995 and automation of heavy work and globalization of factory work caused a sharp difference in pay between those with bachelor's degrees and those without.
Scroll forward to now, and as Birger says a lot of men skip college because there is well-paying blue-collar work to be had for men; he says particularly in construction. But I can guess that there's a lingering prejudice from the days when you needed a bachelor's degree to get decently paid at all. Also, it's plausible that women now being paid largely at parity with men (until they have children), their choices aren't so closely focused on money (which would push them back toward the 1950s pattern) and more on intangible status factors (ugh, especially the ones that can be obliquely boasted about on Facebook).
Bully that you've actually surveyed women about these things. (Conveniently, you're a woman and have a decent chance of other women telling you the truth about this "when y'all let your hair down".) But of course, it's still hypergamy, just of status.
> many women have expressed to me that they value liberal politics in a man WAYYY over ... height
Really!
> an adjunct college professor who earned $30K a year
I've read various bloggers complaining about how adjuncts are exploited. It's always a question why adjuncts put up with it rather than bailing for whatever other career possibilities they have (which would be far less abusive and likely pay better). But perhaps it's one of those odd jobs whose status is *much* higher than its pay. Certainly to the twenty-something male, living in poverty in a city where it's easy to get girlfriends would have its attractions.
I would have to dispute the claim that NOT THAT LONG AGO (when is this? the 50s? 60s? 70s?) college degreed women routinely married blue collar men. I mean... anything can happen, but I doubt it was the norm. In the 50s & 60s, it was common to state that women went to universities to get an MRS degree... i.e., to find a degreed, successful husband.
You could marry a blue collar guy (well paid, say a Ford auto plant worker) just by taking a job in an auto plant... why waste 4 years and $$$ on a degree? Remember in the 50s and 60s, a majority of women quite work by their mid 20s to raise a family! So the degree did not have much use beyond the value of meeting suitable men during the peak ages of 18 to 22!!!
Now: did men sometimes marry women who were SMARTER THAN THEMSELVES? sure, it probably happened all the time and happens today. People dont exactly meet up by comparing their IQs or even grades (well, maybe in Mensa dating groups but not normally). During courtship and LIMERANCE (look it up)... people are not thinking about IQ but about sex and hormones.
Blue collar work paid pretty well up into the 70s (and still does in some respects) but the status is low..... a high paid Ford auto worker might be an incredible catch for a waitress who dropped out of 8th grade. He is NOT A CATCH if you have a BA in English literature or Gender Studies.... he is an embarrassment in front of your family & friends, when he uses bad grammar or has bad table manners.
So you are missing missing the subtle complexities of mating here. It is not all money, which is why just saying HYPERGAMY is missing the boat (also missing out that men seek hypergamy themselves in trying to get high status wives or girlfriends). Money certainly matters, but it is not everything.
I cant remember if I quoted it here, but I read an interesting study that asked a couple hundred women (roughly 22 to 35) if they would rather earn $100K a year doing a blue collar job, like sewer cleaning (with great benefits) OR earn $25K a year as an adjunct professor or publishing intern. Almost 100% went for the $25K a year job! why? the blue collar job is LOW STATUS. And you wont meet high status men that way. It is MORE HIGH STATUS in some circles to be that $25K adjunct married to another $25K adjunct husband... even if you have to take money from parents, or live in a dump... because the last thing you want is to be a LOW STATUS BLUE COLLAR WORKER, who might be a MAGA Trump voter or something!
The changes you refer to did not happen in 1995; they were building in the 60s and came to fruition in the 70s and early 80s and they came ON TOP OF massive inflation that made ordinary acquisitions (like a first starter house) more and more difficult... starting a sort of nuclear arms race of Boomers trying to keep up. (How well they did is a matter of opinion! but they are REVILED today!) Thats when the Boomer middle/upper middle class became so conservative, after a youth spent as hippie liberals. The jobs arms race affected middle management jobs, but I think the big elephant in that room was the computer revolution, which started (very roughly) around 1979.
Unfortunately for your theory... a lot of young men (by now, millennials) skip college but NOT to work high paying blue collar jobs. In fact, construction jobs pay less than ever (in inflation adjusted dollars) because the field is overwhelmingly filled with illegal aliens who have driven down wages AND benefits. The young men who DO NOT go to college work McCrap McJobs, often part time, while living in moms basement playing video games and watching porn. I wish this was not true, but alas....
Now, it is not ALL young men by far, but enough that it tilts the field. Meanwhile women have taken up the mantle and are now the MAJORITY of students, graduates and in fields like medicine and law. If they work full time and dont take off time for children (or use day care)... they actually earn as much or MORE than same age men, at least until their early 30s.
Status ALWAYS has mattered, even 50 to 75 years ago (and probably always). There are some terrific books on this, some related to mating strategies and some just about the social condition in the US over the last 40 years.
I find such things fascinating and I talk to a lot of people (men too!) both online and in real life, and of course, I have adult kids who are millennials so they tell me a lot. And some of it is in novels, which can tell you a lot about culture and romance and how they intersect... are you a fan of Jane Austen, perchance?
I would prefer to talk about MALE hypergamy, which is well on display around the internet.
As for that quote... yes, I have had DOZENS of women of varying ages, over the last 25 years, tell me that they ABSOLUTELY value liberal politics in a man over his income OR education.... that it is an absolute DEAL BREAKER, that they would not marry even a millionaire if he was a conservative or Republican. And I think they are sincere. Many will not date a conservative men, period. They would choose lifelong single hood over that. The best analogy I can think of is women 100 to 200 years ago, who might have insisted on a man who was a Good Christian in proper standing with the Church. Ideology uber alles.
Height? this one of those things MEN care about, as they compete with other men rather than what women want... I think a woman might not want a man who was half a foot shorter than her, but the idea that average size women reject men who are 5ft 11.5 inches tall... nope, that is ridiculous. And again: even being 6ft 4inches would not help a man who is conservative or Republican (in the eyes of an educated liberal woman).
As for adjuncts: absolutely academic STATUS is involved. Also the theory of SUNK COSTS... they are indebted to the tune of maybe $200K or more, to be a Professor of (say) Art History and suited for NOTHING ELSE... what do they do? go work at Walmart? and the social status of being in education far outweighs (to them) the shortcomings of pay. They whinge a lot, and would like to demand higher pay.... but wont change THEIR LIFESTYLE OR CAREER to get it. No way.
I would not go so far as to being a low paid Adjunct is a babe magnet (and remember that half or more are FEMALE adjuncts!)... but it would offer excellent access NOT to working city girlfriends who earn MORE... but to female students. The predation of academic professors on female students is a legend (that happens to be 100% true).
Well, I'm quoting what Birger said in "Dateonomics". I don't have a copy of his book to hand, but the book is short, and the section where he proposes remedies to the current problems is even shorter, so the passage shouldn't be hard to find.
I did see if I found find something on the web, and there's this popular summary https://www.glamour.com/story/date-onomics-dating-marriage where Birger says "There have been multiple studies showing that college-educated Americans are increasingly unlikely to marry someone lacking a college degree." which links to
On point 2. Though I haven’t read the book, based on your summary... and experience raising 8 daughters:
The argument that feminism reduces promiscuity if flawed IMHO for several reasons.
The first one being that, I attribute the reduction in sex, frequency more to video games and the Internet and social media then I do to feminism. It just so happens that feminism was amplified by the Internet and social media.
I think a better evaluation would be looking at what sort of sex the fewer people that are having. I just watched the final episode of the excellent Netflix series Beef, and in the final episode, there was a conversation about how choking during sex has become main stream because of the Internet, yet it wasn’t something that kids raised in the 80s or 90s even thought about. The same could be said about the prevalence of anal sex, and a wide variety of other sexual behaviors.
Ultimately, I think we have a two pronged problem here. On one hand, a certain flavor of feminism has encourage young women to be more promiscuous than they would’ve otherwise been. The other issue is with young men basically taking them cells off the market because they’re spending all the time watching porn or playing video games.
The combination of the two means there is fewer young men than women out there who are on the market, so the young men who are having sex, are willing to push the limits and expect less monogamous type relationships. And the young women out there who are trying to find a mate, and with the influence of the certain brand of feminism, I’m more willing to acquiesce to these male desires.
My antidotal perception based on working with a lot of young, single 20 and 30 something years old guys and having raised eight girls is basically that the men with charm/looks/balls get laid often and easily. Way more than their peers from earlier generations. Meanwhile, women in their teens and 20s have a lot less selection of men who are worth dating.
If there are any grammatical errors, I apologize… I dictated this while sitting in my car in a parking lot.
Sex has been reduced because marriage has been reduced and married people have a lot more sex than single people.
Surveys which focus entirely on teenagers 15-18 show dramatic reduction in sex. And I’m pretty sure that wasn’t effected by marriage.
Great! We should be CELEBRATING the fact that teen sex and pregnancies have dramatically reduced. For decades Conservatives cried, howled, yelped and hollered over "teen sex" "teen pregnancy" and "out of wedlock birthrate". Now that all of that has decreased I expect to hear them celebrating.
Teenagers married in the past.
Not in that past I am from (or Rory).
It's still legal in some states.
It may be legal but it is not widely done. If you're going to study human sexual behavior you'd better look past age 18. We are maturing more and more slowly, despite some appearances to the contrary.
Yeah, I think this is closer to what is happening. There are noticeably more young men than women who have zero friends, who still live with their parents, etc., and I see this in both anecdotes and surveys.
Though I'd say the same shut-in effect applies to both men and women -- it has just hit men harder, leading to the gap that you describe. The women who are basically shut-ins tend to just watch Netflix (or worse, TikTok). Which might be less addictive than the lethal combination of video games + porn, but it's surely more addictive than watching TV in prior decades.
To further compound the issue, there is the obesity issue and the social media unrealistic expectations aspect of everything. Whether it’s fair or not, a woman’s dating value is more looks dependent than men’s. Though, ironically, I’ve seen some antidotal data that says women actually have more unrealistic expectations than men do about dating partners.
It is probably fair to say that the median man and woman find each other less physically attractive than they previously did. Young adults are both fatter and physically weaker than in the past (e.g. here: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/13/481590997/millennials-may-be-losing-their-grip)
More speculatively, I also wonder if young people find each other's personalities less attractive, but that's harder to measure. I suspect that people in the past were more inclined to consciously adopt behaviors that seemed attractive to the opposite sex, or to avoid behaviors that were repellant.
As to unrealistic expectations, what I have gathered is that women have more self-awareness about their relative attractiveness ranking (they have a very obvious tendency to study their competition in a way that we men really don't), but they're also more rigid about refusing to modify their expectations in a partner. Men are more inclined towards a "I'll take what I can get" mentality.
Of course, at least partly what's going on is that women are thinking more about long-term compatibility. Men will first take what we can get, THEN assess whether "what we can get" is something we really want to lock down.
I've been saying this for a while. No one seems to want to comment on the fact that obesity is a big turnoff in a partner, male or female, and we've got a lot more obese people these days than we used to. I say this as someone who's got a bit of a weight problem myself.
@Gordon Tremeshko: so long as you acknowledge male obesity is just as great as female obesity (percentage wise) but men do not pay anything remotely like the SOCIAL COST for obesity that women pay. Men online call women even slightly overweight LAND WHALES... there is no similar term for fat men.
Nope. There are more overweight and obese women than there are overweight and obese men.
And the social cost of being overweight or obese is FAR HIGHER for MEN. There are countless body-positivity campaigns for overweight and obese women, but nothing for overweight and obese men.
Overweight and obese women get dates, sex and relationships all the time, but most women would never get with a significantly overweight or obese man. Overweight and obese men also receive far more insults and abuse than overweight and obese women.
It is true that women are insulted for their weight sometimes. The reality that you miss (I assume because you yourself are a woman and don't understand the view from the other side) is that overweight and obese women only bear a social cost in terms of not being able to secure long-term commitment from the men of their choosing when they're overweight prior to said commitment. An overweight or obese man doesn't get any attention from women whatsoever.
To wit - one of the most popular forms of adult content on the internet is BBW (Big Beautiful Women) themed. There is essentially no audience for men of similar size. Even in the gay community, what passes as a 'bear' is essentially no bigger than a football player who might be bulking for an upcoming season.
For sure.
And yet there are plenty of perfectly content, happily paired, obese couples out here.
Men will take what they can get, to get SEX. They will not take it (*assuming you mean a homely or fat woman) for a real dating relationship... introduce such a woman to their friends or family... treat her with respect and consideration... be faithful to her... let alone marry her. They will, if desperate enough, have sex with such a woman but only on the side, in secret and they will often do degrading or mean things to such women to allay the mans fears that he is STUCK with a FUGLY DOG.
This is the entitlement men in the 'red pill' space accurately call out. The entire post is about sex, and the sexual marketplace, and it goes into great detail how undersexed men are, and yet you're moving the goalposts because women's desires for long-term commitments are harder when they are overweight?
What entitlement do you see women having that men do not have? the RedPill space, as you call it (often called the Manophere) is extremely angry, hostile and misogynistic.
Sorry, I do not believe that most men are undersexed (I assume here, you mean that they cannot get all the sex they want... not that they have low sexual desire). I think a small SUBSET of men... sometimes called INCELS or MRAs or MGTOWs.... have such poor social skills, immaturity, possibly Aspergers spectrum... that they have severe trouble connecting with women. And many of them have an ideal of feminine desirability that is not realistic at all... just like the plain ordinary woman who yearns for a handsome billionaire (!)... there are a LOT of incels/MRAs who think they deserve a gorgeous supermodel age 22 who is a virgin.
BOTH OF THESE types of unrealistic & immature people are headed for severe disappointment.
Why should womens desires for marriage and children be totally organized around THEIR WEIGHT? when men, who have equal or greater rates of obesity, are not penalized for this? nobody tells the fat guy that he cannot set his sites on a gorgeous swimsuit model or demand virginity (while he sleeps around)... do they?
I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but reality is far less cut-and-dry than this. I'm aware of several unattractive married women who are exceptions to it.
I'd say:
1. The prospect of frequent sex is a critical motivator for men to get into committed relationships in the first place. Most men can't really get regular access to casual sex; plenty of men can't get ANY access to casual sex (unless we count prostitutes). So for most men, "taking what he can get" in terms of sex really means entering into a relationship.
2. Most men have lower standards for casual sex than a relationship. The reverse is generally true for women (to the degree she's open to casual sex at all; a man, even if he has religious objections to it, is almost invariably tempted by the prospect).
3. If you're a woman who is on the left half of the bell curve for attractiveness, #2 puts you in an unfortunate spot. Men of middling attractiveness (i.e. the largest group) might see you as a prospect for casual sex, but not a relationship. Even a lot of men of low attractiveness will also see you as a prospect for casual sex. Also, less attractive men (i.e., your dating pool) are more likely to be weird, have personality or mental disorders and poor character. Note here that I mean "attractive" in an all-encompassing sense and not merely a physical one.
4. Despite all this, people can still make it work, by being realistic and compromising on non-essentials while focusing on character, and getting out there. I've seen it happen.
Wency, I think that no.1 was true in the past, but in 2023???? men can get casual sex all over the place, even apps and sites dedicated to no strings sex! today (and for the last 30 years or so) most women are not gatekeeping sex as was historically true. You can argue this began to end with the invention of the birth control pill in 1961, in fact.
Women gatekept sex in the historical past, because sex resulted in pregnancy, and societies around the world were fixated on virginity, shame around sexuality and of course, ensuring that men could have a reasonable belief that the children they raised were really their own DNA. All that is pretty much dead as the dodo bird today (and for quite a few decades).
I have to laugh, because when I talk online with men... many express what you state here, that getting sex is incredibly difficult or that they believe (falsely) that only the top 5% or 10% of men (CHADs) get all the women... but that is factually and provably untrue.
And you dont think women have casual sex? in 2023? what then is hookup culture? The interesting thing is that if you talk to women.... they see just the opposite! they see men taking advantage of women, promising the potential of a relationship when all the men want is sex... using hookup culture to go from woman to woman. The idea that women have all this latitude is laughable, and that is NOT EVEN CONSIDERING that for women... sex is much riskier than for men. Women still risk pregnancy (even with birth control), risk STDs, risk violence from their partners, risk social shaming, etc.
Also: first you say you know a lot of UNATTRACTIVE married women but then you also say that men only use unattractive women for casual sex, but never a relationship or marriage. Both of these cannot be true.
It is interesting that you define UNATTRACTIVE in men being about weirdness, personality disorders, etc. but UNATTRACTIVE in a woman is being... what? overweight? plain? homely? irregular facial features? aren't those things true of both genders?
If unattractive people never had sex, they would never reproduce and humanity would have bred homeliness out of the gene pool. Any trip to a Walmart will quickly disabuse you of that belief!!!
The simple truth is more likely that ATTRACTIVE people of both sexes have more opportunities and livelier social life than HOMELY people... indeed, attractive people do not often have to USE dating websites like Tinder, they meet plenty of dates in real life. But that has always been true: probably the most you can say today is that social media and dating sites AMPLIFY what has always been the case.
Somehow, amazingly though... people still meet other people... hookup, date, have relationships, get married and have children. Yes even homely and fat people! even weird people!
One possible problem in your analysis: I find that some people (mostly but not all men) take THEIR OWN beauty standards (for women) and values (for men) and project that onto everyone else in society. Everyone else is not YOU and vice versa.
Who you sleep with casually... in our modern American society that is... is not necessarily who you want a relationship with... this goes for both sexes.
At the point you introduce the relationship to your friends or family... that is when you will get major blowback for dating a loser, a fat person, someone outside of your social class (*such as a college degreed woman who brings home a blue collar boyfriend) and of course the usual race/ethnicity stuff.
Men have slightly higher obesity rates (just a bit higher) than women... so why does womens obesity decline their dating value but mens do not?
I think it’s probably a vicious cycle.
Decreased male success plus an increased number of somewhat improved alternatives leads to fewer attempts.
Meanwhile, the women pursue an increasingly selected number of men, trying to catch them in their magic boxes (always a mistake). This reduces the success rate for individual men.
Add to that ridicule of any attempt to extract useful information from admittedly sleazy men who claim to have figured things out.
Only incels and MRAs think this, with the help of RedPill sites and the Manosphere.
It just isn't true. Women pursue men who are attractive, have good personalities and are easy to talk to... and men pursue women who are those things.
BTW: calling a vagina a magic box is gross. Stop it.
The men who fail at dating are generally incels, MRAs, MGTOW and influenced by the movements I mention... they are nasty to women, call most of them ugly names (blue haired land whales, etc.)... they think they are entitled to a gorgeous supermodel and despise ordinary women. Women pick up on this message very quickly and avoid this type of man.
It has nothing to do with height or even money.
Wrong. Bob is right.
Yes, women pursue men that are attractive (although most of them just wait for men to pursue), but women only consider a small group of men attractive, and that attraction is based on height, looks, fitness and income - NOT personality.
You can keep on spreading your lies, but it will never change reality.
She's clearly upset by the fact that men are able to compare notes now in a digital age. The data is really freaking clear on this - men are not getting sexual access at near the rates they used to, and not nearly at the same rates as women are.
For her to claim that "the men who fail at dating" which is LITERALLY ALL THE EXPERIENCE IS FOR MEN are failing because of niche communities (seriously, so niche that at their peak before the nuts at Reddit killed off MGTOW and TRP there were only thousands of users) is absolutely asinine. This woman, by her own admission, is on her second marriage. Was her first husband's failed marriage to her because of MGTOW? Was her current husband's failed first marriage due to TRP?
Andrew: let me repeat for the reading comprehension disabled here: I AM NOT DATING! I am married for 29 years, very happily with grown children! the last time I dated, the dating SITES were columns of newspaper ads... you had to WRITE (snail mail) to each person whose ad caught your eye!
But I have daughters, a granddaughter (20), millennial colleagues and friends and I talk to women daily online. Women talking to women about these issues. You dont know any women, do you?
Men have always compared notes, so to say, in bragging about sexual conquests (though many are made up, like the old Letters to the Editor in Playboy Magazine).
HOW would you know that women are getting all this sex, but men are not? dude, this is in your head... you are jealous of men who have personalities and good social skills, because you are very likely on the Aspergers spectrum, and cannot navigate social situations (hence, dating failures).
All men are not failing at dating, duh since many men ARE happily married, have families and children. You talk like 90% of the population is single, which is ridiculously untrue.
SOUR GRAPES, dude. Work on yourself before mocking others.
BTW: My first marriage was many years ago, and I suppose if my ex were young today... he would be in the RedPill movement. He resented women and I ignored the signals that he did not genuinely LIKE or respect women (though he did want sex from them!). Oh and I remarried in a few years, very happily. HE went onto to at least 2 more failed marriages and children born out of wedlock as ruined several OTHER womens lives with his B.S.
I have no idea what TRP is, but I assure you it had nothing to do with my husbands first marriage. Geez Louise, we are talking about stuff that happened in the 1980s! before you were BORN!
MGTOW is just men with Aspergers spectrum and lack of social skills... also, please explain why a single woman is not a WGTOW but instead a lonely spinster crying her eyes out, with 10 cats?
"men are not getting sexual access at near the rates they used to, and not nearly at the same rates as women are."
So what? You said the world wasn't fair or equal.
Nope, and only a man (RedPill, incel, MRA, etc.) would think that way.
Personality matter THE MOST OF ALL.
Height is minimal. And you left off HAIR! LOL! you really do not know any women, do you?
What is the most important thing for many women? you'd be surprised.... it is LIBERAL POLITICS. They will not marry or date or sleep with conservative men, not even wealthy ones.
TRUTH!
Women clearly marry men of all heights, looks, weight and yes, poor men and working class men. There are very ample demographics to prove this, including US Census data.
Most sex happens in committed relationships. If feminism reduces committed relationships it's going to reduce sex.
However, even if the amount of sex is down, you could still have promiscuous sex happening. They aren't mutually exclusive. Someone in a long term relationship may be having sex every week for a long time, while someone whose perpetually "dating" maybe have one night stands or short bouts of sex with a pattern interspersed by dry periods.
That's what I observed in my 20s. People weren't in relationships, but sometimes they would hook up (usually with alcohol). Some of those hook ups would last a few months or whatever. Nobody was trying to get married. There was a lot of distrust and nihilism, and sometimes that distrust and nihilism manifested itself in sexual acts.
I must be old because I think a hookup lasting a few months *is* a relationship.
Yeah, I am old too. It is a pretty sad way of looking at relationships.
That said, I do know it happens. People meet up for noncommittal sex, so no it is not a relationship. Often one or both parties would be ashamed to have their friends/family know about the hookup. It relieves sexual longing, and nobody today wants to be a prude so this is how they cope.
BTW: most women despise this, but do it out of desperation to meet guys... no matter what they say about liking hooking up.
Nope. Most women do not despise that.
Feminism and culture (especially the show Sex and The City) has brainwashed women into thinking that casual sex is empowering and liberating. And that still does not change the fact that these women are willingly participating in casual sex - nobody is forcing them to do so. Not to mention the fact that most women will sleep with a man BEFORE she gets into a serious relationship with him in order to judge his penis size and sexual performance.
Lost the thread here, when I get alerts, so I dont know what you think women do not despise.
JJ: how OLD are you? Sex And The City (TV series) ran from 1998 to 2004... thats 25 YEARS AGO!
Also: who invented casual sex? it sure was not women. Men have far, far more casual sex than women and men are the ones who DEMAND casual sex (or they wont keep dating a woman past the third date)... men are the ones who demand hookups and no strings sex.
If women participate in casual sex (*and we are talking about heterosexuals here, I assume)... they are having that casual sex WITH MEN... right? so men are doing the exact same thing.
If you are very serious or religious and you want to NOT have casual sex (or any sex) prior to marriage... I think that is just fine, and I commend you. But you then have to specifically search for women who share your moral and religious values! they do exist, but you will NOT FIND THEM on Tinder.... duh! you will find them in church, or community service (volunteer) organizations or similar. Perhaps through introductions from family members. Be sure you state these values openly, because they are so rare today... people wont believe it unless you state it aloud.
BTW: I have to tell you something that clearly your dad, sex education in school and RedPill videos have failed you at.... women do not highly prize enormous penises. This is a myth. The most a woman wants is a normal, average penis. WHY? because actually HUGE penises are very uncomfortable during sexual intercourse.
As for judging men on their sexual performance... well, men judge women too. They will shame women for their body size, for their AGE... their general looks... their BREASTS specifically (though breasts do nothing regarding sexual performance!)... their size or shape of their vaginas/vulvas, even the size of their labia!!!
If you think you can avoid all this by finding a virgin... good luck.
If you think, in 2023, you can demand a virigin.... while feeling entitled YOURSELF to sexual adventures and experimentation, with a large variety of women.... good luck.
Is your argument seriously that SATC ran 25 years ago? LOL. It doesn't matter whether SATC ran 10 years ago or 40 years ago, it is STILL being shown on TV and/or streaming services in most of the western world. SATC has had a MASSIVE impact on western women, and many, if not most, women look up to those four morons from SATC. Good luck finding a 20-something woman who does NOT know SATC.
The hook-up culture was created by women. Women have far more casual sex than men. All women can participate in casual sex (and most do), but at least 50% of men cannot. It's not a secret that women are almost exclusively having casual sex with the top 20% of men, and those that are in the top 30%, 40% or 50% are only getting a tiny portion. And the bottom 50% can only get it through a relationship (which many of them will not get).
And don't give me that bs about women being shamed for their breasts or genitals in real life. It is only done by a small group of men online. But most women will happily shame men for everything regarding their genitals: size, shape, appearance etc. and sexual performance. It proves that women care A LOT about penis size. After all, women are the ones who tell their friends everything about a man's body, genitals and sexual performance, whereas most men will never reveal that kind of information about women to anyone.
I would say that the increasing availability and convenience of internet porn has reduced sexual activity more than all the First Things articles ever penned, all the sex ed classes ever taught.
Do you seriously think that women with charm, looks and... whatever the female equivalent of balls is (flirtatiousness? sexy moves?)... do not get sexual opportunities (along with dating and other perks) more than women without those things? I mean seriously... duh. Good looking PEOPLE get more sexual opportunities than homely people... smooth talkers get more dates than socially awkward losers.
I guess all this is the reason why... "Even if women’s situation is objectively good, they are more prone than men to sadness, anxiety, resentment, and other negative emotions."
Interesting. I "learned" about chocking in 1993: Sean Connery "Rising Sun". Though I missed out on the you-porn-wave. Anal: ol' lore. Not unknown during my/our youth, but the AIDS-scare might have lowered numbers then - and I would not trust numbers from studies older than me. Wikipedia - rare trigger warning! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Cultural_views
You make some very interesting points.
Frequency of sex can be a deceiving measure for promiscuity, because - by definition - being promiscuous means having sex with a lot of different partners. For example, someone who has had 1000 encounters with the same person would be seen as less promiscuous than a person who has had 100 encounters with 100 different people.
I haven't looked at the data in depth, but I would guess that young people today have less sex but with more different partners. It would be interesting to know if there is any truth to that.
One second comment. Is there any sort of survey that shows what percentage of young people are in a relationship? My guess is that the percentage of young people that are in a relationship has decreased even further than the percentage of young people who have had sex.
Teens need to focus on their studies and forget these stupid "relationships" and sex. It's utterly ridiculous for a society to want it's teenagers to have sex.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/03/21/its-not-just-you-new-data-shows-more-than-half-young-people-america-dont-have-romantic-partner/
I did a quick Google search. That is the first thing I found. Most of the article is useless fluff, but it quotes some GSS data that could be useful: the percentage of young people (18 - 34) not having a steady partner increased from 35% in 1986 to 51% in 2018.
I think another measure that would tell us a lot would be if that sex was happening in a relationship or not. A young woman could only be having sex once, or twice a year, but they could both be hook ups. And even if the person is having sex, with the same person, several times, it could be a friends with benefits situation.
This article performs a valuable service. Your critique of Perry's book is so thorough, I can now move on, confident I don't have to read it myself. Thanks!
it's still worth reading, pick it up, just read Bryan's book in conjunction with it.
Agreed. I largely agree with Bryan's essay, and I largely agree with Perry's book, though of course I have my differences with both. And Perry's book can really help when talking to people who don't share a lot of your priors.
I see a lot of comments discussing how social media, videogames, porn etc. has affected relations between the sexes. I think there might be a kind of selection bias there. For some individuals (let's say ages 12-22) these are serious issues comparable to substance addiction but I don't think that accounts for most of what the stats reveal.
From a young age children are constantly surrounded by screens showing them people, places and lifestyles that appear much better than anything they experience in real life. This oversaturation of seemingly real life discourages them from seeking out fulfilling people, places and lifestyles because they intuitively know it will never measure up to what they're constantly exposed to. It's easy to point to videogames and porn as a starting point but it's more nuanced than that.
DEFINITELY true. One interesting series of studies involved showing men (*likely mostly college age volunteers) pictures of average women and then the men rated them as attractive on a 10 point scale. They found most of the women reasonably attractive.
Then they were shown photos of gorgeous supermodels and extremely beautiful women. Again, shown a variety of female images....now the men were much pickier and found the average women distasteful and unappealing. They now wanted a supermodel.l
This all started long ago with movies, TV and advertising but in the last 25 years with the internet... it has been on greased rails, with young people fed images from birth that are so intoxicating... as you correctly say, they will NEVER experience this in real life and they long for fantasy worlds, where they can put on avatars like costumes, and design the perfect (digital) partners.
In comparison, real life seems bland and unappealing. This is very troubling.
Lies. Women are the ones who have unrealistic demands and deem most men to be physically unattractive. Men have realistic standards and views regarding women's physical attractiveness, but most women do NOT have realistic standards and views regarding men's physical attractiveness.
No, it is the truth and it is sad if I am the first person to challenge your RedPill (MRA, incel) belief system.
Ask your mother. Ask your sisters. Ask any female friends, if you have them. TALK TO WOMEN.
What you state is literally the opposite of reality, like UPSIDE DOWN WORLD.
Women find most men physically attractive. The problem is, some perfectly OK looking men have these ugly, hate filled INCEL MRA RED PILL belief systems, and are loud & insulting about them, and start off on dates or meetings with complaints like yours.
They come across so toxic, that women either will not date them, or drop them like a hot rock after one or two dates. You are probably, unwitting, self sabotaging YOURSELF here.
Men are so unrealistic, it is THEY who not only consume but CREATE almost all pornography!!! women have almost NO porn directed to or by other women! EXPLAIN THIS!!!
Men create almost all advertising, make almost all movies and TV shows, and yet you state WOMEN have the unrealistic standards????
Men have a 62.6% obesity rate, but reject women with a 62.4% obesity rate... you yourself just stated this in an earlier post. So men are rejecting roughly 2 out of 3 women BEFORE EVEN MEETING THEM.
Lets talk about the real problem: YOU cannot find a girlfriend. You refuse to do deep personal introspection on WHY this is happening and inside prefer paranoia about things like your height (*just date short women!) or your penis size (*nope, just isn't a factor).
Unless you are literally a dwarf or have a micro penis.... sir, this is all in your head and has nothing to do with the dating market or the OLD OLD TV show Sex And The City.
Assuming you are American... there are 165 million women in this country. It is statistically IMPOSSIBLE to not find someone you like, who also likes you.
LOL. You are so out of touch with reality.
No, most women do not find most men to be physically attractive. Most women believe that most men are ugly. Several studies have shown this.
And why are you mentioning porn? Just because most porn is created and watched by men, it does not mean that men have unrealistic standards. I would argue that porn has made women have even more unrealistic standards as they now expect men to be well-endowed and last for a very long time in bed.
It has already been proven that women are the ones with the unrealistic standards. Women are the ones that are out of touch with reality and think that they deserve a man who is at the top. But most men have realistic standards
I am just bewildered at how you can think this. If most women found most men unattractive in this way... the human species would have died out before the Ice Age.
Just as in any large cohort group... some men are handsome, some are homely and most are just average. Some women are beautiful, some are homely and most are just average. HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS?
There are NO studies showing that women think most men are ugly. You are quoting (incorrectly at that) a couple of studies of DATING APPS like OKCupid, and that is a small subset of all women, and you do not realize that women looking at dating apps are ALSO trying hard to parse out which men are safe to date and which are a danger to them (violence, rape, abusive behavior). Men do not have to worry about that aspect of online dating.
And if men have realistic standards (as a group)... why is it that men have created nearly all porn... watch nearly all porn... buy and consume nearly all porn (and I mean like 98%+)... if they have realistic female standards, why are the women in porn exaggerated stereotypes, with giant breast implants? why are their genitals almost always hairless, when normal women have hair down there? why are all the women young? why is the sex often violent and harsh, focused entirely on male pleasure and ejaculation? what is the POINT of so many porn videos that feature men ejaculating in womens faces (except to show disgust and disrespect for women)?
Women do not watch or consume most porn, and the extent of what they DO watch is WITH a male partner who finds it a turn on (or hopes to get the woman to engage in what is seen on the screen). Male porn is not remotely what WOMEN find erotic.
So no... it is your fellow MEN who make these films who are obsessed with giant penises and sex acts that last for hours.... no woman wants that, and I can tell you why: that kind of sex HURTS. It is not pleasurable. A giant penis is uncomfortable. Sex that goes for hours HURTS and causes vaginal abrasions. NO WOMAN DESIRES THIS.
If you know anything about female sexuality (LOTS of excellent books, start with OUR BODIES OURSELVES or even the old THEJOY OF SEX)... you would know that penis size is not directly related to female sexual pleasure anyways. It is not related to fertility in men, either. (It is more of an obsession, by far, among gay men than among heterosexual women.)
Now: there is a HUGE difference between claiming women want some Porn Chad with a giant penis who has taken Viagra and has a 4 hour erection... and the claim that women want MEN AT THE TOP (I think here you are meaning the top of the economic pyramid, right?).
I do agree women look at a mans income and potential, because it will directly affect their future children... if a man is successful enough, that woman can choose to stay home with her kids a few years (though most women no longer do this, as it is not very affordable). It means a nicer life, with a big house and fancy cars. But statistically, only about 3% of men are rich! so 97% of women can never, ever have a rich man and most realize this, and dont even pursue it.
Your yourself have claimed very unrealistic standards, where you automatically REJECT 2 out of 3 available women in your cohort (meaning your age, geographic location, culture/ethnic, income, education and so on). TWO OUT OF THREE! and you wonder why you have failed! LOL!
Thanks for proving my points yet again.
The fact that you think that writing "if most women found most men unattractive in this way... the human species would have died out before the Ice Age." just tells me how insane and ignorant you are. You argument is completely nonsensical. Women have relied heavily on men since forever, apart from the last 70 years or so, so your argument is not valid. Secondly, I am not talking about what happened thousands of years ago. I am talking about what is happening now, and what is happening is that the vast majority of women have become so shallow that they believe that most men are ugly. And that is a fact that have been proven several times.
You claim that men don't have to worry about their safety when dating is, yet again, ignorant. There are countless examples of women falsely accusing men of rape/violence. Countless examples of men being robbed by a group of men after a woman led him to them.
Porn has nothing to do with men's standards. Nothing. Men still prefer normal women, and they are still attracted to average-looking women.
You can keep on denying the fact that most women want a man with a big penis, but most women are just going to continue to prove you again. Women are going to continue to reveal men's penis sizes to other women (which shows that women have no respect for men) and shame men for their penis size. If women didn't care about penis size, then they would never talk about it, but they do - very often.
You claimed that I have very unrealistic standards, but I have never mentioned my own standards for women or anything about my life, so that part of your post is just another insane fabrication. You are either insane or on drugs - maybe both.
There are other parallels too, there could probably be a long book about media's effect on cognition at different stages of development. Black and white thinking is one example, the majority of the popular stories that we consume (movies, books, tv shows) feature clear distinctions between protagonist and antagonist. Children then apply that framing of good guy vs bad guy to real life. This fairy tale mindset which we'd normally outgrow in past generations persists in the age of 24/7 engagement and encourages a distorted mental model of the world.
Thats an excellent insight, though I have to note that B&W thinking is far from new and goes back to the earliest days of things like the movies... cowboys & Indians, crime dramas, etc. Clear good guys and clear bad guys, and the good guys ALWAYS prevail. That goes back to the earliest 20th century, 120 years ago.
Yet what we see today seems different, doesn't it? So there is something more, and I think that is the predominance of video gaming (vs. traditional fiction in books or films) in the last 30 years. Gaming does not end at 12 or 13 like other childhood activities used to do, and you see adults still deeply enmeshed in this culture. The storylines of games involve deep fantasies, playing YOURSELF as a character (vs. watching other characters)... the concept of avatars and creating your own reality.
Its a pretty deep dive! and worth of a whole article itself.
I think it's due to the pervasiveness of screen based consumption (whether it's phone, tv or videogames), 100 years ago you had to actually go to the movie theater. Now from the age of 1 to 30 we spend more than half our day staring at screens.
100 years ago? heck, just 10 years ago, maybe less... streaming video on your phones is incredibly new (which you might not realize if you are GenZ!).
Movies were the only outlet (besides theater) for the public until the early 50s and television. Then it was movies and television up until the invention of smartphones (2007) and the ability to download or stream films (maybe 2015?).
So all of this is a very very recent change. Until smartphones were popular (a few year after their invention, perhaps around 2010 or 2011?), nobody could carry entertainment in their pocket in this way.
I haven't read the book, though I think I once read about it on a blog summary. Given it probably uses a lot of data I've found elsewhere I'll shoot from the hip.
1) Most sex happens in committed relationships. If feminism reduces committed relationships it's going to reduce sex. However, even if the amount of sex is down, you could still have promiscuous sex happening. They aren't mutually exclusive. Someone in a long term relationship may be having sex every week for a long time, while someone whose perpetually "dating" maybe have one night stands or short bouts of sex with a pattern interspersed by dry periods.
That's what I observed in my 20s. People weren't in relationships, but sometimes they would hook up (usually with alcohol). Some of those hook ups would last a few months or whatever. Nobody was trying to get married. There was a lot of distrust and nihilism, and sometimes that distrust and nihilism manifested itself in sexual acts.
2) I don't think you really understand consent here. We aren't talking about "what do I need to not be considered a rapist." We are talking about "even if someone agrees to something, is it still the wrong choice." I don't mean this in a legal sense, but a moral sense. If a woman gives me consent, but she's wrong to do so, it's still bad.
I understand this is "paternalistic". Oh well. I thought we all understood people make bad choices and that this is especially common involving young people and sex (I will throw in alcohol too, as that is a big part of the sexual market).
3) "Because free markets are a social mechanism for giving people who have something to offer whatever they want."
This was Houellebecq's critique in "the expansion of the domain of struggle." That is the mechanisms that allow disinterested bakers and candlestick markers to delver good outcomes even with selfish desires doesn't apply when applied to romance.
Our preferred mechanism for social organization, monogamy, marriage, and family, are at least to some degree "not what people want." They all involve sacrifices and commitments people would like to figure a way out of making or cheat on. It takes vigilance of both people and society to make it work, and having it not work leads to bad outcomes.
I think part of this is that the sexual market is very different from the market market. For one, it's INHERENTLY a rival goods market. There is only ever one man and one woman. We can't use assembly lines to make more mates. And to the extent you think the context is even worse than one to one the greater the rivalry.
It turns out that you can give mates "what they want" in a way that isn't really good for their life outcomes. Promiscuity is like becoming a smoker, the cigarette company gives you want you want but you get cancer.
4)" If she understands and appreciates how markets work, she has two options."
Have you considered "self deception" as an option. This is actually pretty easy to do if the men she can't get to commit will fake it to sleep with her. If women aren't even looking to marry until around 30, it only takes a couple of string along relationships to squander what's left of ones youth.
5) "Men in relationships should avoid spending time alone with attractive women - and women should prefer to be with men who avoid such temptations. Women in relationships should avoid spending time alone with successful men - and men should prefer to be with with women who avoid such temptations."
Mike Pence was right!
BTW, you eviscerated this view when talking about workplaces. Maybe work just shouldn't be a place where people are trying to get in each others pants.
Oh God, I can't believe I like a post that ended with "Mike Pence was right", but this was a very well-argued post.
Interestingly, as a creationist, I find this critique both very true, but also perhaps missing the point of Perry's book. I do think that her neuroticism and dark view of reality are problems, but I've been listening to her podcast, and I think she is trying to seek out other perspectives to offer alternatives and expansions.
I also think that you point out that she's writing for young feminist audiences, particularly women, not for cranky conservatives and libertarians who already believe that men and women should get married and have kids.
Now, the question is - can she defeat the sterilizing memes that have taken over (and maybe are inherent in?) feminist culture? I don't know. But I think her book should be widely read and hopefully combat those sterilizing memes quickly.
Also, I think treating feminism as a monolith both in intent/argument and in effect is a bit of a mistake, as I think feminism is perhaps most noteable for being very fractious and incoherent.
“Cranky conservative could be a good description for Bryan Caplan . . . Okay “Cranky Libertarian.”
Bryan doesn't seem that cranky to me.
"Well, I’m not just a father of four; I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement. I handled every nightshift for every baby. Solo. That includes a pair of twins. I’ve been homeschooling - again, solo - for almost ten years. During Covid, I homeschooled all four of our kids. And through all of this, I never thought my kids “limited my freedom” in the slightest."
Dude, what!? I have never read a Caplan sentence that left me more gobsmacked. As a fellow father of four, and also as someone who would dare to put himself past the (slightly more modest) 98th percentile of paternal involvement, I cannot make this make sense to me. I mean, OF COURSE, kids limit your freedom in a thousand different ways. Every day. All the time.
I've long been puzzled over your general attitude of "ehh, kids are easy!" I read Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, taking it to heart (you're welcome kids #3 and 4!) I even switched to plastic cutlery like you recommended! But it is unfathomably time-consuming. And I won't touch homeschooling with a ten foot pole. So how are you doing this?? Are your kids also in a few 99th percentiles? For agreeableness? Studiousness? Docility? Mental focus? Independence? Politeness? Compulsion to please parents? What is it?
I know you've mentioned nannies a few times. Is it the nannies?! Should you be mentioning the nannies every time your write on this topic??
In many cases, I think the general thrust of the book is correct - casual sex is bad, the more casual the more true this is. On the most actionable paths to limiting sexual harm, I think this book makes an excellent case for the complete destruction of Pornhub and similar sites. The horrifying section about Pornhub is probably the most vile thing in the book. It seems like a great cause for a politician on either side of the aisle - simply point out the rampant abuse. Perry, seeming to be a feminist without ideological friends, points out that much of the sexual liberation movement is tied to abusive left-leaning scholars.
On a baseline level, I agree with Bryan re: grading on a curve. Throughout the whole book, I keep thinking that much of this stuff would have been absolutely trivial to point out to anyone in a religious tradition, or anyone who has been to a bar. "Women are in danger while drinking alone at bars" is indeed common sense, and if we are praising common sense, we should praise the under-praised religious and traditional folks here and point out that "red pill" stuff might be worth reading as a guideline of what to avoid.
And that's why I think Tyler has the better sense of this book- because I think he sees Perry as someone who is successfully presenting common sense in a method framed as radical.
Throughout the book the harms of porn and sloth are hammered home for men. The burden of this book is not to make the case that casual sex is bad, something that anyone could do. The point of the book is to make the case that we have previously underestimated these harms for women, and thus we need to re-evaluate. THIS is why Perry is influential - because she is using maximally successful memes for distribution as part of the message. It's a Straussian masterpiece, using the "woke" tone and frame to come around to a damn-near religious view of sexuality. She does all of this without making the case for marriage/children/etc. although these are the most obvious reasons to not have casual sex, porn addictions, and to generally try to improve.
The book is written to point out the massive divide between sex in committed relationships and casual sex/hookups, in a language that undergrad feminism courses will use and want to discuss. It succeeds. The text as written is "Women are the primary losers of hookup culture." The question the book tries to pose is, "Given that casual sex is in fact bad, dangerous, and humiliating, why have it?" There are answers to this question, but they are not answers that fit neatly into a political platform or any sort of cause. On the other hand, you have building a relationship of which sex is a part and working together on goals, possibly (likely) family.
The readers of MR/BetOnIt/etc. have a choice here. We can either read this book and think "This is factually incorrect" or "Ah, in the age of feminization we must frame all arguments in women's tears!" Or we can say "Oh this book is controversially feminist" and let college feminism profs do the work for us. Choosing option 1 might mean we score internet points. Option 2 might mean fewer people getting into UFC fights by mistake after a nice dinner, and potentially a widespread movement to destroy the internet pornography industry. I vote Option 2.
> The readers of MR/BetOnIt/etc. have a choice here.... Option 2 might mean fewer people getting into UFC fights by mistake after a nice dinner, and potentially a widespread movement to destroy the internet pornography industry. I vote Option 2.
Most rationalists are libertarians or adjacent, and don't WANT to destroy internet porn. It serves a purpose, and the market is large and robust, and desired by billions everywhere in the world. Taking that away would be a bad thing, not a good thing. And women watch it too! About 25-33% of Pornhub viewers are women. It's not like porn is a male-only thing.
In fact, given the key and specific economic hand porn had in developing internet technologies and driving widespread adoption, porn has almost certainly done hugely *more* good in the world than most other entertainment sectors. The internet was basically invented and spread widely because of it.
Trying to force your own aesthetics and choices on the entire world via legislative fiat isn't a good thing, it's basically the definition of being a d*ck.
I totally concede this isn't a libertarian thing to do, but exercising power to make porn 25x less accessible strikes me as a good use of government power. Similar to gambling on sports, where the deadweight loss is just increasing so rapidly that libertarianism becomes infeasible.
I'd concede that porn -> internet growth, but I'd reckon the internet would stick around if porn websites ceased to exist. I might not accept the tradeoff in 1995. I accept the tradeoffs in 2025!
The book has criticisms of porn websites that you would consider on libertarian grounds - do read if you haven't! I suspect that the author has beliefs closer to mine, and we'd all be better off if we'd address those true concerns.
In my perfect universe, porn is illegal and not even desired, but in a universe we could maybe all agree to, porn is legal, but with 60 minutes of truly unskippable YouTube ads set up as required viewing beforehand. Note that YouTube doesn't want porn on their site, likely because they and advertisers don't want to be affiliated. Even the market thinks this stuff could be banned for just causes!
No ad hominems, please! I am rooting for you in so many other contexts! I want every individual sovereign! Pornhub wants everyone to spend all their time and money on their evil porn website! You and I have the common cause!
Absolutely fantastic review. I'm glad Bryan has taken up the mantle and started arguing against the excesses of modern feminism despite the significant potential for negative career or at least reputational impacts. It would have been all to easy for Bryan to keep his thoughts to himself and only argue less inflammatory topics like open borders (I'm serious). He's doing a valuable service making the arguments he is, and in reviewing books like these.
Bryan literally argues that men should suppress their sexual needs for variety and women should suppress their sexual needs for the top men. He's basically an open misogynist and misandrist. Just like Perry.
Apart from the fact that evolutionary psychology is extremely wrong, it doesn't describe male and female strategies well (men are not any less "hypergamous" and women are not any less polygamous).
Men are totally hypergamous, just expressing it in different ways than women. Men want women they can show off on their arm... women that make their friends jealous... women who are high status (which can be fame, beauty, family wealth)... I wish I had a nickel for every guy I have heard talking about girls with RICH DADDYS or wanting to marry THE BOSSES DAUGHTER.
Men do not care about making their friends jealous, this is entirely female pathology attempting to view male behavior through female lenses.
Oh honey. Sorry, but you are in DEEP DENIAL if you do not think men get HUGE status and props from other men... if they appear at an event or couples date, and THEIR girlfriend(wife) is gorgeous, thin, much younger than they are, etc.
Why do you think very rich men, movie stars, etc. always have a trophy girlfriend/wife on their arms and trade her in every few years for a new younger model? Hello Leonardo DiCaprio!
It is NOT because they want family and children, as many never marry OR have children (or if they do, they neglect those kids once they remarry).
I also think that women do SOME of the same things... not all. But women of a certain age ... lets call them cougars... do absolutely show off their boy toys. Younger women get big bragging rights from having a handsome or rich boyfriend/husband!
But it is not the extremes that men do it, and not so clearly self serving... women do not discard and replace their male partners with the same degree of alacrity.
Perhaps you don’t understand what Hypergamy means.
I do think that women may be polygamous, in that they might be willing to share a high status man, if they can make the finances work. Those men who are not among those happy few may object to being taxed to pay for it.
Are you mixing up hypergamy and polygamy? Hypergamy simply means DESIRING to marry up... it could be in terms of wealth, status, looks, opportunities, etc. It is not a gendered term, anymore than monogamy.
I do not see any evidence for polygamy in women (i.e., multiple women with one man) in society outside of Fundie Mormonism. Even there, most women loathe polygamy and hate sharing a man, but think they have no other options.
Typically these start out as conventional one woman/one man marriages and then when the mans eye wanders... the first wife accepts the new, younger wife so as not to lose her status, income, benefits, father for her children. But she is miserable and bitter about it.
I suggest the old TV show BIG LOVE as it shows this very clearly.
No. Women are naturally polygamous in the sense that they would ideally like to sleep with many men, meaning having their own "rotation" of men. Women and men are not in any way different in that regard.
The only difference is that safety reasons and societal shaming (more in the past) make women less likely to act on it. But it's ridiculous to believe that makes women less naturally polygamous, female promiscuity is the most natural thing in the world.
Well all humans are inherently selfish. WE want to be free to have as many sexual relations as we can with the most attractive potential partners... but we want OUR partners to be absolutely monogamous and faithful!
WE want sexual satisfaction but do not care so much for our partners satisfaction.
A lot of men, especially in the incel/MRA/RedPIll world of the internet still cling to hopelessly outdated notions (SPINSTERS????) and one of them is the idea of women as blushing flowers, who have little or no sexual agency or desire... that only men are HORNY and wants lots of sex with lots of different partners. But in fact, this is universal and the only thing that stops it is opportunity.... most of us are not beautiful and we certainly do not stay YOUNG, so whatever chances we had in our teens or 20s are mostly all gone by our 50s.
Not just safety, unless you include concerns about providing for any resulting children.
I can imagine too many women’s ideal world being one where they are free to mate with and have children by whoever struck their fancy. Tax money would pay to support and raise the children. This would have the genetic advantages of polygamy, without the harem politics.
I guarantee you that the married couples, women who prefer marriage, plus all the men who aren’t getting any would resent the hell out of such a scheme. The latter group would probably work just enough to live and entertain themselves. We might also see an increase in “young man syndrome”, where unattached young men act out violently.
Does anything about the second paragraph seem familiar? I would love to test the paternity of _all_ children in some neighborhoods.
Utterly wrong. Women are not going to form harems with the "top 20% men." In fact, women are actually more likely to have children with low-status men:
"Men aged 22-49 with no high school diploma or GED had fathered a higher mean number of children (1.7) than men who had a high school diploma or GED (1.3) or those with some college (1.0) or a bachelor's degree or higher (1.0)."
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf
I have never seen a poor men struggling to get girls. It seems like they have more time and are less overhinking things, so no reason to believe poor men will have no women if women have their ideal world.
Status is contextual and subjective. The data shows a small % of men are having children with those women. They’re sharing the same men.
Absurd statement. Poor men don't have more status than rich men, yet poor men have more kids.
“I exceed the 99th personality of paternal involvement
Did you mean to write "percentile"?
No I think Bryan means “99th personality of paternal involvement.” He’s pretty full of himself as the ULTIMATE FATHER, and homeschooler. I suspect his kids are well academic-schooled, but I’d like to interview them to see if their CAPLAN-schooling has rendered them autistic offshoots of their father.
I do not know the man, so I have to take his review of his own parenting at face value. Maybe he is father of the year, and a SAHD (Stay at Home Dad).
But more likely he is STUCK home because he is unemployed for some reason and his wife is the primary breadwinner. I wonder what SHE WOULD SAY about the situation.
You're a little confused. Bryan Caplan is not a stay-at-home Dad. He is one of the top economists at James Madison University and one of the most influential economists in the country. The cute part is he thinks he's a renown social sciences philosopher as well, and he just might be . . . But he's delightfully quirky and has a face you want to slug.
Then the confusion is deliberate on HIS part... he stated at great length how he is the primary caretaker for his children, does all this stuff for them and pretty much the primary parent (not his wife). That doesn't dovetail with him having a demanding FULL TIME job (though I know many university tenured professors work like 2 hours a week, get all summers and holidays off with pay and long sabbaticals whenever they want).....
Good point about how does he get everything done--all that homeschooling time PLUS a demanding career? I believe he is very productive! But Bryan, if you're listening, maybe you could list your weekly schedule.
That was my thought: he has a serious academic career and is PRIMARY parent (meaning his wife works? or they are divorced and he has custody?) AND does all this other stuff... boy, he must be AMAZING. I am tired just hearing about it.
(Or he is a huge B.S. artist.)
Robert, are you judging based only on his writing, or have you met the man?
I haven't met him, but have seen some videos, and read a lot of his posts and his "Education" book. I actually like and admire him. He's definitely interesting and a great talent, but I stand by my post above. He likes to be a provocateur, so I can be one too. I wouldn't let my children be home-schooled by him, except for Economics and Math . . . From afar I have a love/hate relationship with those "James Madison boys," (Cowen, Hanson, Caplan)
I always find books like Perry's, and pretty much all writing on the "dating market," to be incredibly strange. It feels like the Vasharans from D&D have somehow made it to our world and cornered the market on relationship writing.
When I was young, like most people, I was bombarded with all the schmaltzy, social-desirability bias-laden relationship advice you hear in the media. Be yourself. Fall in love with your best friend. Find things in common to connect with people over. Focus on personality rather than looks. Be emotionally vulnerable. Do not be ashamed of your feelings. Communicate your feelings. So I did all that stuff.
It worked. It worked fantastically well. I found a wonderful partner I loved, and I also encountered a good many other people who I think things would have worked out with if I hadn't met her.
This makes me suspect that most of this cynical relationship market stuff is just fragile, neurotic people projecting. They think the dating milieu is a terrible place because schmaltzy relationship advice has been tried and found wanting. But actually, it has been found difficult, and hence been left untried. For some reason a lot of people have trouble doing these basic things that are really effective.
Good for you. But "the system worked for me, therefore everything is fine" has never been valid reasoning.
Even for you, it wasn't easy. It's not easy for anybody and hence many people fail. Now, should we sit back and accept that or should we as a society try to make it easier, so more people end up in your fortunate position?
But most people marry. Even those who never marry, are usually in long term, live together sorts of relationships (which used to be CALLED common law marriage!)
Most people are not single forever or by choice... if you filter out the widows/widowers or people over 75 (by 75 or 80, there are 3x as many women as men because THE MEN ARE DEAD).
Even most divorced people end up remarrying!
The people you're talking about are largely old enough that they'd already settled down before the curse of Tinder & friends made everything so much harder.
Alex, that would make sense if I ONLY KNEW people who are my exact age (older GenX) but obviously I know a variety of people of all ages. Also, personal ads are NOT remotely new and were around when I was dating... they were SLOW compared to internet dating (like Tinder, Match.com, EHarmony, etc.) but the principle of letting people arrange THEIR OWN blind dates remains the same.
I am not sure why you think Tinder completely makes things different...it only started in earnest in 2013. Do you think dating has deteriorated THAT remarkably in just the past 10 years? are you old enough to remember dating (as an adult, not a teen) prior to 2013?
Almost everything people complain about Tinder (etc.), I found was around in the 90s when I was dating (second time around, as a 30ish divorcee)... people setting unreasonably picky standards, for example.
I definitely agree with you that dating and finding relationships is too hard for many people, and that there are ways to advocate for change to make it easier. What I am skeptical about isn't changing the system, it's the repulsively cynical, neurotic, and manipulative worldview that people like Perry seem to have. I don't think that worldview is an accurate description of society and human nature, and I also think that it is not effective at finding solutions.
I think Bryan makes similar arguments in his 14th point in his post. If I encountered a woman or a man who thought the same way Perry does my first bit of relationship advice for them would be "Stop. The reason things are hard for you is that your toxic worldview causes you to see malice where there is none, and to feel contempt for people who do not deserve it. Just stop."
Louise Perry is also happily married and doesn't need your relationship advice. Evidently her neurosis paid off!
I think this is probably a gender thing. Women have every reason to be neurotic because men are a lot more sexually predatory than women. Quite conceivable that being neurotic is a learned adaption to steer clear of those predators and find a good man (which is still most of them, obligatory #notallmen).
I strongly suspect that Perry and similar women are happily married in spite of their neuroticism, not because of it. I'm not just trying to give dating advice, I'm also trying to give advice on how to not be a miserable misanthrope who interprets every little thing people do in the worst possible light.
In regards to your theory on the cause of female neuroticism, it sounds like a plausible theory, although I can think of plenty of other explanations that are equally plausible. I wonder if it could be tested by seeing if lesbians are, on average, less neurotic than heterosexual women, since they don't need to filter dating partners to the same degree (on the other hand, that would probably introduce a lot of confounding factors, like women who dated men for a bit because they didn't realize they were lesbians right away, or women with neuroses that were caused dealing with homophobia).
Guttentag and Secord's "The Sex Ratio Question" accumulates a lot of evidence that the mating "market" is local in time and space (and often across class, race, and other demographic categories) and can get substantially far from a 1:1 sex ratio. E.g. to 3:2. The result is that one sex or the other can have serious difficulties marrying. Looking at such a situation as a "market" enables one to see this imbalance and possibly relocate (in some dimension) to counteract it.
Thanks. That system actually DOES work MOST of the time. No system is totally fool proof but what you describe has worked and is working now, for MOST PEOPLE.
No matter how wonderful your partner (and good for you to appreciate them!)... the reality is this is a big planet and big country, and there are probably hundreds of thousands of people you COULD potentially make a solid marriage with... some better than others.
The proof of this is how often people remarry after being widowed or divorced. They grieve and then they heal, and they love again.
BTW: the cynical stuff overwhelmingly comes from deeply embittered people whose dating strategies have failed or backfired.
You are 100% correct, and I think that is part of why the book is written the way it is. However, it is important that neurotic people who like politicizing topics deserve to have a neurotic, politicized defense of common sense, and I think Perry has a successful career ahead of her doing much the same.
"True, most young, well-educated women won’t be able to marry handsome, charming investment bankers. But if they set their sights a little lower, they can find a good husband fairly easily."
I guess many women are simply not ok with setting their sight "a little lower"
I don't know about men, but I have a vague feeling (being a woman myself) that most women probably prefer to rather be alone than to be with a man they don't like much. (This may be wrong and I don't know if I can say 'most women' confidently - maybe it's only 40% percent of women or so. People are different.) It wasn't like this in the past when women were economically dependent on spouses. But now that they aren't it may not make sense for women to actively 'lower' their preferences if that would mean lowering them to a level where the resulting union would be worse than living alone. Living alone has several benefits, after all - freedom, privacy, no-one nagging at you.
Yes, I'm a man, but I do think this dynamic is real. A lot of men drop from "positive marriage/relationship value" to "negative value" once their economic contributions become less relevant. Women haven't seen the same sort of decrease in value.
Even if we think not in terms of "happiness" but purely Darwinian survival of one's progeny, a lot of men are of negative value to the continued survival and wellbeing of a prospective partner's children, and this value, too, must be adjusted downward if his economic contribution is no longer a matter of life and death for them.
To some degree, men can adapt by, for example, becoming more attentive husbands and fathers, but that's beyond the reach of many.
In the long run, I believe society will converge on a set of family-forming behaviors that are sustainable (or otherwise perish), but right now we're living through a number of shocks to family formation, most of which are technology-generated. As a result, our family-formation customs are in chaos, and most women do not have a replacement number of children.
Yes, but apparently they are _not_ alone, they’re sleeping with men who they don’t like very much, but who do check the other boxes.
Also they may be sleeping with men who the do like quite a bit but who are not interested in marrying them. But many wouldn't call this "not being alone", i.e. it's not quite as "together" as actually sharing the roof and finances with someone.
I thought Bob’s comment was about promiscuity. Which I do think still means being mostly alone. The promiscuous women I’ve known have all have all just had occasional hookups. One random encounter per month is a high rate and would probably only be sustained for a brief life phase.
There are women who are ultra-promiscuous, racking up a triple-digit body count, but it’s rare, outside of actual professionals.
Then there are friends with benefits, but I think most of the time the woman there would like a relationship and the man is non-committal.
Too many women buy into what I call the “Magic Box” fantasy. They think sleeping with a man will win him. It’s not likely, especially when she’s dating out of her league.
Seriously: if you ever hope to have a relationship with any decent woman, stop calling vaginas MAGIC BOXES. Ew.
Sure, women think if they sleep with a man he MIGHT turn out to be Mr. Right, but there are no guarantees and few women are so naive as to think so.
What about the reverse? Does a man think sleeping with a woman will make her want him, love him, marry him? it certainly is not always true.
ALSO: what is dating out of her league? what is the league? what about men dating out of THEIR league?
If you make sex transactional, all you will get are users and THOTs and prostitutes and gold diggers.
Yep, I don't think what you're saying is controversial, even among feminists. Though I'm sure they'd object to the way you phrased it.
Who wants to marry a investment banker? Usually they’re just leeches advancing unproductive financialization. A good plumber adds more to society.
Exactly. There is an old saying that if you marry ONLY for wealth... the PRICE in terms of your dignity, effort, self esteem and happiness will cost much more than any monies you get from marrying.
Investment bankers are often creeps. I hear more often the idea that women want to marry DOCTORS... but doctors have staggering rates of divorce, work long hours, their flexible job structure plus wealth means they have very ample opportunities to cheat. So yes, you may marry wealth but is it worth it???
I would guess the sort of person who'd marry a leech would be a meta-leech, or a "gold digger" as they're more commonly known.
Christoph: sure there are women who want to marry rich men ONLY. They have a name: GOLD DIGGERS. And it is nothing new and does not require education or even to be all that young.
What percentage of men are investment bankers? like 0.001%? how many men are RICH? only about 3% of men earn over $100,000 a year! and that isn't truly rich in todays world.
if what you and incel/MRA culture believed was remotely true.... almost nobody would ever marry. Yet most people DO marry. Even those who do NOT marry, typically have close committed relationships.
I could easily say the same to men: sorry, you cannot get a supermodel... but if you SET YOUR SIGHTS A BIT LOWER... you could get a nice ordinary woman to marry.
But tell incel/MRAs this and they get hysterical, screaming they do not want a FUGLY DOG or BLUE HAIRED LAND WHALE....
Lola, Per Google: "17% of all men earn over $100k per year] Jan 18, 2023" so if this is correct than it almost 5X more than your estimate of 3%. Inflation is real, and approaching 20% of American men make "six figures."
Ok you got me there... the last 3 years post COVID has seen remarkable spikes in pay. So my figures were probably pre 2020... I am willing to go $125,000 for a fairly high US income and frankly, if you live in NYC or LA or Boston.... $100K is not really wealth anymore. A tax rate of over 50% and you are talking about about $4200 a month take-home pay, when rents average $3500....and starter homes are $900K.
My overarching point is correct though: if a woman is set on a RICH husband, the pickings are very slim.
The crux of Birger's "Dateonomics" is that this actually isn't true in recent times. The supply of young, well-educated women in the geographic areas where they work and search for mates (the central parts of cities) considerably exceeds the supply of young, well-educated men. The details are in the book, but women now get educated more than men, and as you go up the education ladder, the disproportion gets larger. And there's a strong bias by women to not marry men with less education.
The few reports I've seen suggest that the young men in the "just out of college in central cities" category are using their increased market power to be more sexually demanding of the young women. The women are unhappy with that, but there's no way for them to change that without either combining to do some sort of "price fixing" or significantly changing who they would accept as husbands. That's a form of "a little lower", but it really means giving up a husband with a bachelor's degree.
There is truth there. Many educated women want to live & work in a handful of Big Blue cities and thus, there is a huge oversupply of such women to men.
The same women would be wildly more successful if they just moved to a less competitive or less blue city... but tell them that, you will get your eyes scratched out. They would almost rather DIE (or live alone forever) than move to somewhere that is not cool, trendy or hip.
It is less about education than about geography, though education IS a factor.
Ive talked to actual woman (as a woman myself) if they would rather marry an adjunct college professor who earned $30K a year OR a very successful plumber who earned $180K a year. To a woman, they all picked the professor! (so much for the hypergamy theory).
The interesting thing is WHY... they would be ashamed of the plumber in front of their friends & family.... he might not have the right political views, or tastes in things like food or movies. God forbid, he might be MAGA! many women have expressed to me that they value liberal politics in a man WAYYY over money, height, hair, good looks, etc.
BTW: many folks seem unaware of ASSORTIVE MATING. Men today also want a woman with an equal education. Men with advanced degrees do not marry women who dropped out of 8th grade.
All true... Though on slightly longer timescales, there are relevant complications. Birger mentions that not so long ago, it was relatively common for college-educated women to marry blue-collar men. I myself have some vague memory of a trope of a blue-collar guy marrying a wife he freely admitted was smarter and having her run his life. (Consider the very popular "Honeymooners".)
I have some suspicion that the cause is the delayed effect of the relative pay of various occupations. Back in the 1950s, a lot of money rode on physical strength, and a lot of blue-collar work paid as well as white-collar work. There was a class difference, but putting too much emphasis on it was considered snobbery. That is, *male* blue collar work paid as well as white-collar work; women largely had to marry an employed male to live decently, but she wasn't necessarily losing out by marrying that plumber.
Scroll forward to circa 1995 and automation of heavy work and globalization of factory work caused a sharp difference in pay between those with bachelor's degrees and those without.
Scroll forward to now, and as Birger says a lot of men skip college because there is well-paying blue-collar work to be had for men; he says particularly in construction. But I can guess that there's a lingering prejudice from the days when you needed a bachelor's degree to get decently paid at all. Also, it's plausible that women now being paid largely at parity with men (until they have children), their choices aren't so closely focused on money (which would push them back toward the 1950s pattern) and more on intangible status factors (ugh, especially the ones that can be obliquely boasted about on Facebook).
Bully that you've actually surveyed women about these things. (Conveniently, you're a woman and have a decent chance of other women telling you the truth about this "when y'all let your hair down".) But of course, it's still hypergamy, just of status.
> many women have expressed to me that they value liberal politics in a man WAYYY over ... height
Really!
> an adjunct college professor who earned $30K a year
I've read various bloggers complaining about how adjuncts are exploited. It's always a question why adjuncts put up with it rather than bailing for whatever other career possibilities they have (which would be far less abusive and likely pay better). But perhaps it's one of those odd jobs whose status is *much* higher than its pay. Certainly to the twenty-something male, living in poverty in a city where it's easy to get girlfriends would have its attractions.
I would have to dispute the claim that NOT THAT LONG AGO (when is this? the 50s? 60s? 70s?) college degreed women routinely married blue collar men. I mean... anything can happen, but I doubt it was the norm. In the 50s & 60s, it was common to state that women went to universities to get an MRS degree... i.e., to find a degreed, successful husband.
You could marry a blue collar guy (well paid, say a Ford auto plant worker) just by taking a job in an auto plant... why waste 4 years and $$$ on a degree? Remember in the 50s and 60s, a majority of women quite work by their mid 20s to raise a family! So the degree did not have much use beyond the value of meeting suitable men during the peak ages of 18 to 22!!!
Now: did men sometimes marry women who were SMARTER THAN THEMSELVES? sure, it probably happened all the time and happens today. People dont exactly meet up by comparing their IQs or even grades (well, maybe in Mensa dating groups but not normally). During courtship and LIMERANCE (look it up)... people are not thinking about IQ but about sex and hormones.
Blue collar work paid pretty well up into the 70s (and still does in some respects) but the status is low..... a high paid Ford auto worker might be an incredible catch for a waitress who dropped out of 8th grade. He is NOT A CATCH if you have a BA in English literature or Gender Studies.... he is an embarrassment in front of your family & friends, when he uses bad grammar or has bad table manners.
So you are missing missing the subtle complexities of mating here. It is not all money, which is why just saying HYPERGAMY is missing the boat (also missing out that men seek hypergamy themselves in trying to get high status wives or girlfriends). Money certainly matters, but it is not everything.
I cant remember if I quoted it here, but I read an interesting study that asked a couple hundred women (roughly 22 to 35) if they would rather earn $100K a year doing a blue collar job, like sewer cleaning (with great benefits) OR earn $25K a year as an adjunct professor or publishing intern. Almost 100% went for the $25K a year job! why? the blue collar job is LOW STATUS. And you wont meet high status men that way. It is MORE HIGH STATUS in some circles to be that $25K adjunct married to another $25K adjunct husband... even if you have to take money from parents, or live in a dump... because the last thing you want is to be a LOW STATUS BLUE COLLAR WORKER, who might be a MAGA Trump voter or something!
The changes you refer to did not happen in 1995; they were building in the 60s and came to fruition in the 70s and early 80s and they came ON TOP OF massive inflation that made ordinary acquisitions (like a first starter house) more and more difficult... starting a sort of nuclear arms race of Boomers trying to keep up. (How well they did is a matter of opinion! but they are REVILED today!) Thats when the Boomer middle/upper middle class became so conservative, after a youth spent as hippie liberals. The jobs arms race affected middle management jobs, but I think the big elephant in that room was the computer revolution, which started (very roughly) around 1979.
Unfortunately for your theory... a lot of young men (by now, millennials) skip college but NOT to work high paying blue collar jobs. In fact, construction jobs pay less than ever (in inflation adjusted dollars) because the field is overwhelmingly filled with illegal aliens who have driven down wages AND benefits. The young men who DO NOT go to college work McCrap McJobs, often part time, while living in moms basement playing video games and watching porn. I wish this was not true, but alas....
Now, it is not ALL young men by far, but enough that it tilts the field. Meanwhile women have taken up the mantle and are now the MAJORITY of students, graduates and in fields like medicine and law. If they work full time and dont take off time for children (or use day care)... they actually earn as much or MORE than same age men, at least until their early 30s.
Status ALWAYS has mattered, even 50 to 75 years ago (and probably always). There are some terrific books on this, some related to mating strategies and some just about the social condition in the US over the last 40 years.
I find such things fascinating and I talk to a lot of people (men too!) both online and in real life, and of course, I have adult kids who are millennials so they tell me a lot. And some of it is in novels, which can tell you a lot about culture and romance and how they intersect... are you a fan of Jane Austen, perchance?
I would prefer to talk about MALE hypergamy, which is well on display around the internet.
As for that quote... yes, I have had DOZENS of women of varying ages, over the last 25 years, tell me that they ABSOLUTELY value liberal politics in a man over his income OR education.... that it is an absolute DEAL BREAKER, that they would not marry even a millionaire if he was a conservative or Republican. And I think they are sincere. Many will not date a conservative men, period. They would choose lifelong single hood over that. The best analogy I can think of is women 100 to 200 years ago, who might have insisted on a man who was a Good Christian in proper standing with the Church. Ideology uber alles.
Height? this one of those things MEN care about, as they compete with other men rather than what women want... I think a woman might not want a man who was half a foot shorter than her, but the idea that average size women reject men who are 5ft 11.5 inches tall... nope, that is ridiculous. And again: even being 6ft 4inches would not help a man who is conservative or Republican (in the eyes of an educated liberal woman).
As for adjuncts: absolutely academic STATUS is involved. Also the theory of SUNK COSTS... they are indebted to the tune of maybe $200K or more, to be a Professor of (say) Art History and suited for NOTHING ELSE... what do they do? go work at Walmart? and the social status of being in education far outweighs (to them) the shortcomings of pay. They whinge a lot, and would like to demand higher pay.... but wont change THEIR LIFESTYLE OR CAREER to get it. No way.
I would not go so far as to being a low paid Adjunct is a babe magnet (and remember that half or more are FEMALE adjuncts!)... but it would offer excellent access NOT to working city girlfriends who earn MORE... but to female students. The predation of academic professors on female students is a legend (that happens to be 100% true).
Well, I'm quoting what Birger said in "Dateonomics". I don't have a copy of his book to hand, but the book is short, and the section where he proposes remedies to the current problems is even shorter, so the passage shouldn't be hard to find.
I did see if I found find something on the web, and there's this popular summary https://www.glamour.com/story/date-onomics-dating-marriage where Birger says "There have been multiple studies showing that college-educated Americans are increasingly unlikely to marry someone lacking a college degree." which links to