Frozen fertility flaws and toxic masculinity exposed in mainstream


After two fertility clinics in different parts of the country experienced “major failures” at the same time, there are growing questions about the level of oversight at egg-freezing facilities.

On Monday, the industry group that inspects most fertility labs told NBC News that there’s no requirement for a clinic to report problems unless there is a complaint filed or a negative news media report.

The College of American Pathologists, the group that accredited the two clinics, was not contacted by the fertility clinics until after news reports alerted the public about the possibility that thousands of eggs and embryos may no longer be viable because of equipment malfunctions, a spokeswoman told NBC News’ Kate Snow.

In San Francisco, patients of the Pacific Fertility Clinic learned over the weekend of a failure in its liquid nitrogen tanks. On Saturday, the clinic began notifying 400 patients who had several thousand eggs and embryos stored in a tank that malfunctioned on March 4.

Even if you try to delay fertility, it’s not always in your hands. Not that IVF is that successful anyway.

What I’m more surprised is someone — in this case, Gad Saad who is a professor from a University– put their reputation on the line with Is Toxic Masculinity a valid concept? on Psychology Today.


Let’s now apply the exact same evolutionary process (sexual selection) to humans. Evolutionary psychologists have documented universal patterns of mating preferences that are invariant across time and place. In no culture ever studied have women repeatedly preferred to mate with pear-shaped, low-status, tepid men possessing high-pitched, nasal voices. In no documented culture do women’s sexual fantasies revolve around granting sexual access to unemployed, unambitious men who occupy the lowest stratum of the social hierarchy. Instead, women are attracted to “toxic masculine” male phenotypes that correlate with testosterone, and they are desirous of men who are socially dominant, who are strategically risk-taking in their behaviors, and who exhibit patterns of behaviors that will allow them to ascend the social hierarchy and defend their positions from encroachers. Of course this does not imply that women are not attracted to intelligent, sensitive, kind, warm, and compassionate men. The ideal man is rugged and sensitive; masculine and caring; aggressive in some pursuits and gentle in others. Think of the male archetype in romance novels, which is a literary form almost exclusively read by women. He is a tall prince and a neurosurgeon. He is a risk-taker who wrestles alligators and subdues them on his six-pack abs, and yet is sensitive enough to be tamed by the love of a good woman. This archetype is universally found in romance novels read by women in Egypt, Japan, and Bolivia, precisely because it caters to women’s universal evolved sexual fantasies. When engaging in sexual role-playing in the bedroom, few women ask that their male partners wear their Google C++ programmer uniform. They ask for the fireman suit to make its presence. James Bond, the epitome of “toxic masculinity,” does not cry at Taylor Swift concerts. His archetype is desired by women and envied by men.

The inimitable equity feminist Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a book back in 2001 titled The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men (see our chat on my show THE SAAD TRUTH_144 (link is external)). How prescient she was! There has been a relentless ideological attack on masculinity, stemming from radical feminism, the most recent example of which is the bogus term “toxic masculinity.” It literally seeks to pathologize masculinity in ways that are profoundly harmful to the existential sense of self of young men. If a man witnesses a woman being attacked on the street, should he intervene? Well, according to the bogus feminist notion of benevolent sexism, it might be best to look away (see THE SAAD TRUTH_38 (link is external)). Male saviors are likely oozing toxic masculinity! I should add that male criminals are not exhibiting “toxic masculinity” any more than female adulterers are exhibiting “diabolical femininity.”

The great majority of men are attracted to feminine women who do not possess the body type of Michael Phelps. Beyoncé is desired not because of her “diabolical femininity,” but simply because of her femininity. Similarly, most of the traits and behaviors that are likely found under the rubric of “toxic masculinity” are precisely those that most women find attractive in an ideal mate! This is not a manifestation of “antiquated stereotypes.” It is a reality that is as trivially obvious as the existence of gravity, and no amount of campus brainwashing will ever alter these facts. Let us stop pathologizing masculinity. Instead, let us appreciate the endless ways by which men and women are similar to one another, as well as the important ways in which the two sexes differ.

Not much to say but that he’s generally right about the human nature of men and women, although we might have some small differences onto why these traits are they way they are.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 5 Comments

Increasing trust in times of conflict

A reader writes in:

Whenever my fiancé and I get in a conflict she always wonders if I love her. I believe I express my love enough with words and I whatnot and she needs to trust me more. Conflicts and stressful situations happen. Part of life. She’s one of the most respectful woman I have ever met. Very submissive. Never really talks back. How do I respond to this? She gets scared so easily. It’s almost comical at times.

Women tend to shy away from or be scared of conflict situations, so this is normal behavior. How you respond to it can give you a leg up in developing more trust.

There’s several ways to approach this in a godly masculine manner that can increase trust and intimacy:

  • Physical — pull her into a big hug. Nothing shows that you love her like pulling her into your arms until she feels comforted and melts. Bonus points for saying something along the lines of “aww, get over here” while you pull her into a big hug. Additionally, hold her hand while you are talking with her if the conflict has not ended yet.
  • Surrounding circumstances — you don’t want to be in any type of conflict in a high pressure atmosphere like in public or with loud noises around. A quiet, calm place is the best.
  • Connect emotionally — and no, this is not splay out your feelings to her. It’s normal to feel scared when emotions and tensions are high, and it’s a good idea to let her know that it is OK to feel the way she is feeling. However, the way each of you respond to it makes a difference: conflict means you should run toward each other rather than pull away from each other.
  • Be thankful for the opportunity to resolve it — when my wife was just my girlfriend and fiancee, one of the hardest things for her was that when there was conflict, she constantly pulled away, pouted, and otherwise shut down from conversation. One of the ways to get around this is to be thankful not angry, even if a situation was a cause to get angry. What I mean by this is that when she brings up a conflict situation, you need to thank her for bringing it up. Be patient, slow to anger, and abounding in love in such situations makes it much easier for her to not only know that you have her back but you can figure things out with her or with the situation without blowing up in anger like other men.
  • Acknowledge that men and women are different — this is sort of obvious to us around these parts, but men and women respond to things differently. Not saying that it being “comical” is like patronizing her, but it helps to looking at the situation from an understanding point of view. She is the weaker vessel, and she needs more delicate intervention than a male friend would.
  • Include flavor with the food — Remember, women need flavor with food. While you can directly criticize a man, women tend to take direct criticism as “not loving.” The technique of the “compliment sandwich” is a good example of how to make criticism more palatable. Praise her, “sometimes I notice that [insert criticism here]”, praise her.
  • Trivial and fleeting — if it’s something very trivial and fleeting and doesn’t make any long term impact, you can simply just ‘reframe’ or change the subject. Getting her mind off of it basically solves the issue for these smaller ones.

These are the main ones that I can think of at the moment that I personally do, but I’m sure there’s more.

If any readers have good ways that they resolve potential conflict in their relationships, feel free to chime in.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 7 Comments

Feminism is the temptation to be like God and man

Been mulling this over more recently.

I think these two posts a year ago accurately pointed out some of the systematic effects of feminism, but didn’t get to the heart of the issue.

So in Genesis 1, you have God creating man in his image:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The key point is verse 27. God made man in his image, not man and woman. Very easy to miss if you don’t read closely.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man [i]does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

Paul uses a similar argument in 1 Corinthians on head coverings.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Skip over to Genesis 3, and Eve is tempted to be (‘ĕlôhı̂ym — elohim) “like God” or the “as gods.”

That’s one of the interesting nuances of the English translation here as KVJ translates it “as gods” (elohim — lit. gods) which would mean that Adam and Eve would become gods. Most other English translations put it as “like God” (elohim — the supreme God).

Interesting parallel to Jesus in John 10 and Psalm 82 here.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’ (elohim)? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [f]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

In any case, we know the rest. Eve is punished thusly,

Genesis 3:16b Yet your desire will be for your husband,And he will rule over you.”

Her temptation from pre-fall and post-fall has always been the same: to be like/as God, and to be like/as man (who is made in the image of God).

I suppose, in essence, it is envy personified.

Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45), “the capital vices are so closely akin to one another that one springs from the other. For the first offspring of pride is vainglory, which by corrupting the mind it occupies begets envy, since while it craves for the power of an empty name, it repines for fear lest another should acquire that power.” Consequently the notion of a capital vice does not exclude its originating from another vice, but it demands that it should have some principal reason for being itself the origin of several kinds of sin. However it is perhaps because envy manifestly arises from vainglory, that it is not reckoned a capital sin, either by Isidore (De Summo Bono) or by Cassian (De Instit. Caenob. v, 1).

Reply to Objection 2. It does not follow from the passage quoted that envy is the greatest of sins, but that when the devil tempts us to envy, he is enticing us to that which has its chief place in his heart, for as quoted further on in the same passage, “by the envy of the devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom 2:24).

I did a little more digging and came across this excerpt from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae.

St. Ambrose used to instruct people thus:

“Vainglory and pride are one and the same thing. Vainglory manifests its works, so that people see how you go along, how adroitly you do things, while pride then begins to disdain everyone. Vainglory is like a worm—at first it crawls and bends. But when it grows wings, it flies up high, and that is what pride is like.”

This from orthochristian shows the interactions between vainglory and pride. Vainglory in the form of flattery can lead to pride, or a high view of one’s self can lead to vainglory.

Difference between had a pretty good analysis.

Vainglory is a condition that results from the human desire to be seen, appreciated, acknowledged, and accepted. It is often attributed to people who are attention seekers and have a thirst for honors, rewards, status, or other forms of acknowledgment from other people. The pattern of attention is outward and decentralized. In a sense, vainglory is what an audience or other people think of a certain person.

People with vainglory are described as boastful of their achievements whether large or small. They celebrate their accomplishment or qualities in a grand scale. If their assumptions or achievements are ignored or disproved, they act like it was a matter of no consequence.

That’s most women in today’s culture, feminism or not. Feminism is just one of  the way pride and vainglory manifests as envy.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 17 Comments

The sexual nature of women

One thing I’ve been mulling over recently is womens’ addiction to bad boys.

The first theory that is prominent to me is that women are attracted to masculinity. Unfortunately, given the current social climate, bad boys display a lot more of it than nice guys. There’s very few masculine “good men” so to speak nowadays for several reasons. Husbands and fathers are disrespected and delegitimatized, and bad boys are more like to be confident, aggressive, and take on risk than nice guys. All of which are masculine behaviors.

The second theory that I’ve been mulling over more is the temptation theory. Eve, in the garden, was tempted by Satan to want to be “more like God” and her sin caused her to be punished such that under the rule of her husband which she tries to usurp. Hence, womens’ fascination with bad boys is to be “more like God” trying to exert control over him to “fix” him.

These two things are not mutually exclusive, so it can be both.

The first theory has the most merit to me, although it does not necessarily explain all of the cases where women have fascination with bad boys. For example, some women will constantly choose or cheat with bad boys even if they have access to high status, confident masculine leaders. There’s no shortage of chronic serial cheaters.

Combined with the second theory, this would explain most, if not all, of the instances in which women will gravitate to bad boys despite access to “good masculine leaders.” This includes womens’ fascination with the “ultimate fantasy bad boys” like vampires, werewolves or even rapists and murders, where even if they are with someone or something evil they can be with them and influence them to be good. Take Disney’s Beauty and the Beast as a prime example. Other examples include 50 Shades, and whatever vampire and werewolf movies were loved primarily by women in the past few decades.

In other words, womens’ attraction to “bad boys” is two fold:

  1. Women are attracted to masculinity traits and other traits like power, status, looks, etc.
  2. Women are tempted toward bad men who they think they can control and fix. That “apple” or “bad boy” sure is appealing.

Logically, this agrees with what men analogous experience in terms of attraction to women:

  1. Men are attracted to beauty and femininity.
  2. Men are tempted by seductive, loose women like prostitutes and whores.

Both women and men can be educated that it is a bad idea to be tempted by certain populations like bad boys or whores because it will lead to ruin. However, they cannot be “changed” or “educated” to the extent that they’re not attracted to certain masculine or feminine traits in the opposite sex respectively.

I’m pretty sure that these two theories combined represent all of the nature of womens’ sexuality, but I’m open to other options if there is evidence to support them.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 35 Comments

Sexual polarity, civilization and our myopic view

Seriouslypleasedropit has good post over at Calculated Bravery on some thoughts on sexual polarity. Started writing out a comment, but it got somewhat long so I figured I’d post about it since it’s good. I went a bit off topic one some of the comments as I wanted to provide some extra thoughts on the matter.

– The “ideal” member of the opposite sex, from a purely sexual point of view, will be at maximum sexual polarity.  Think Christian Grey and a mix between Audrey Hepburn and Jessica Rabbit.

– Sexual polarity is somewhat controllable.  Most advice in the manosphere is oriented towards increasing it—men are advised to do things that increase their confidence, to lift, to put energy into their careers, and women are advised to take care of themselves, dress in a feminine manner, and be supportive.

Agreed. I think it’s best thought of embodiments of masculine and feminine.

– Sexual polarity is, to some extent, a luxury good. That is: just because something is sexy does not mean that it is always a good idea. If you are bent under the sink, you don’t want to be wearing a miniskirt. If you have work to do, maybe those extra hours at the gym could be cut down a bit.

Agreed. Though becoming increasingly necessary have enough options so you’re not stuck with someone with a high risk of frivorce if your aim is to marry.

– Not only do cis characteristics sometimes have to be sacrificed in the name of practicality, but sometimes it even becomes expedient to adopt some behaviors typed to the opposite sex—women pushing harder for raises; men being quiet and supportive of a boss, etc.

– The above explains the “paradox” that in poorer countries there are more women in “typically masculine” professions like engineering. To an extent, the country “can’t afford” sex.

Women in the workforce is nothing really “new” exactly. Even Proverbs 31 describes a woman who runs a business out of her home, and there are numerous women in the Scriptures like Lydia who ran businesses.

We tend to have a false impression about that from western culture where a lot of wives want to or have the ability to stay home as housewives. This requires significant wealth acquisition, and is only really seen in first world countries. Women working, at least part time, or jobs that align with children (such as school teachers) tend to be the norm in most cultures across most times.

Additionally, the main thing with women is that while they may have a “masculine” job, they still like to be a woman or at least “feel” like a woman/wife at home. Even the high powered women in business want to come home to be with a masculine man who makes them feel girly.

– Those of similar polarity attract. Extremely masculine men and extremely feminine women gravitate toward one another. This does not make them superior, more self-actualized beings—a hard-drinking gym rat construction worker and a flaky stripper are both strongly sexually polarized, and could definitely end up together, but you don’t want to be either one.

– That said, the prevailing ethos in the West generally moves people to a lower level of polarity than they “ought” to be—as in, could stand/afford, and would enjoy.

In areas that are war torn like Eastern Europe and Russia post-WW2, you see much more strong sexual polarity. There is violence so the men have a very “hard” edge to them, and the women are competing for smaller pools of men so they have to be very feminine to attract men. Any random tourist to these areas can tell you that — the men are tougher and the women are more attractive.

The West has feminism. Feminism is a luxury delusion.

– There exists a class of situations and goals where, after a certain threshold, exerting extra effort fails to provide returns, and may even be detrimental. Examples include: you need a job to get experience/experience to get a job, confidence to build relationships/relationships to gain confidence, relaxation to achieve success/success to be able to relax, and faith to obey/the fruits of obedience to build faith.

– I’ve basically only come across two ways to break these impasses: either avoid them as unproductive in hopes that they will resolve themselves in time or as we labor in more productive arenas, or try to power through one of the steps despite the “necessity” of the other.

Even inside particular goals such as jobs and experience, there are usually systems in place that one needs to take advantage of in order to build a necessary resume. Volunteer work, internships, networking, and so on.

Some goals align with each other well and some don’t. For the ones that don’t, you have prioritize. No one person can do everything. Elon Musk is a good example.

– “It’s not so much that I’m shallow (although I am of course),” I thought. “It’s that I view the attractiveness of the woman I can attract as society’s opinion on me.”

– “Oh,” I thought. “Women must feel the same.”

Beauty is not shallow as God created man to behold beauty as sexually attractive. But if you’re weighing beauty as a measure of self esteem by society, then I suppose it’s shallow in the fact that it has become an idol. I don’t think anyone is immune to thoughts like that though; most men are proud to walk around if they perceive themselves to have a beautiful wife.

Both men and women do want to maximize, to some extent, the sexual attractiveness of someone they want to marry or be with. The issue is that most people, even Christians, hold beauty up over character and godliness. Ideally, you want both, but there is usually some sort of compromise there unless you’re blessed to be born with good looks genetics and/or are called to or work hard to be in a high status occupation. That or you are mega rich.

The fact that we are even having such a conversation about sexual dynamics is so far outside most of civilizations in human history. But then again most civilizations had children who had both their parents and were taught a family trade.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 19 Comments

The issue with Leadership is Trust

Dalrock and Cane have had quite a few good posts recently about the nature of leadership.

I wrote a couple of posts a while back on this namely,

In general, our submission to God is a test of faith — do we trust God’s promises or not? Are we willing to trust God and follow Him? This is true with any type of authority, and basically a picture of the marriage relationship as well.

Unfortunately, what we now see in the church is that marriage — Biblical marriage — has been so poisoned by feminism and broader culture. This is seen through multiple means like portraying husbands as fools, clowns, and the butt of jokes. It’s also seen in the push to “egalitarianism” and “complementarism” instead of patriarchy. It’s seen in the distrust of any leadership and decision making that the husband does. It’s seen in how a wife’s opinions are the bottom line.

  • Churches and pastors do not trust husbands to make good decisions because they are so ingrained with the world. They try to neuter headship to just be the husband doing everything the wife doesn’t want to do. Decision making is to “break the tie.”
  • Wives dwell on the “what if” and “exceptions” instead of submitting, respecting, and following their husbands leadership.
  • Discussions of submission are either diverted to “mutual submission” or the majority of time is spent on “what if my husband tells me to sin.”

When the topic of “submission” comes up, most of the time should be spent on how to submit — how to stay humble, how to follow God or husband’s leadership, how to respectfully address any conflicts that may happen, and how to have a respectful attitude and actions when you disagree with a decision.

These things are not what happens when leadership and submission are discussed, which further poisons the minds of even Church congregations and sows discord in marriage relationships.

The core issue that needs to be addressed is trust. If there is no way to operate in good faith with each other — everyone is so poisoned by the culture to think the other is out to do evil — then you fall into Satan’s trap.

What is Satan’s trap? Living in fear.

1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has [d]for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear [e]involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. 19 We love, because He first loved us. 20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

If you live in fear, you do not know love. You don’t know God, nor do you have faith or trust in Him. The same is true of a husband and a wife.

My wife follows what I say because we have built up a bond of trust. My wife knows my character and my heart because I consistently choose godly actions. Thus, she can feel safe putting her trust in me.

When wives are poisoned by feminism and culture and unfortunately some pastors in the Church, they tell her that her husband is unworthy of her trust. She does not have to respect him. She should not follow him. He cannot be trusted to do anything right. This is the antithesis of the Scriptures.

Most wives do not have faith in their husbands. They lack trust. Many Church pastors do nothing to dispel that notion, contrary to the Scriptures.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 13 Comments

There is nothing new under the sun Christian denominations

I was reflecting a bit on Ecclesiastes “there is nothing new under the sun” and the various faith traditions.

Ecclesiastes 1:8 All things are wearisome; Man is not able to tell it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor is the ear filled with hearing. 9 That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one might say, “See this, it is new”? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us. 11 There is no remembrance of [k]earlier things; And also of the [l]later things which will occur, There will be for them no remembrance Among those who will come [m]later still.

Overall, I came to these conclusions:

The Great Schism when the Church was split into Orthodox and Roman Catholic is pretty much similar to what happened when Israel was split into the ten tribes and two tribes. They started following two different kings.

Now, I don’t think the two different faith traditions will end up necessarily the same as Israel and Judah did, but the fracturing and dispute over authority is similar. While the RCC has a ‘pope’ as ‘king,’ Orthodox have ecumenical councils which I suppose don’t really fit the mold. So it’s not a perfect analogy.

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Protestants, unfortunately, are like the time of Judges, which is probably a step backward without authority. God didn’t want Israel to have a king like the nations surrounding it, but they tended to be more righteous if they were under a righteous authority figure than being non-governed .

The Protestants tend to have less resiliency and constantly turn away to cultural idols, and the faithful ones keep praying that God brings “revival” (e.g. a judge) to save them.

Anyway, I didn’t think about it super hard, so it’s not perfect. But it is close I think.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 8 Comments

Remarriage analysis in context with marriage rates and spinsterhood

I’ve been looking over the remarriage rates in context with the previous post on marriage rates and spinsterhood.

Interestingly, the Pew research has these stats for remarriage:

This is more interesting when you bring into the responses to the surveys.

This may reflect, in part, the fact that men who have been divorced or widowed are more likely to want to remarry than are similarly situated women. Some 29% of eligible men say they want to remarry, and 36% are not sure, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey; only 30% say they do not want to marry again. In contrast, just 15% of previously married women want to remarry, and 27% are not sure; about half of these women (54%) report that they do not want to remarry.

29% of men say they want to remarry, 36% are not sure, and 30% say they don’t want to remarry. No clue where the other 5% went. Alternatively, 54% of women do not want to remarry.

  • 29% + 36% = 65% who want to remarry or are not sure which almost exactly matches the rate of men who remarry at 64%.
  • 54% of women do not want to remarry and 52% of women remarry which almost exactly matches the stats. So of the women who want to remarry or are not sure, almost all of them do.

Now, look at this in the context of initiated divorce rates. About 70% of divorces are initiated by women.

  • 29% of men want to remarry and 30% of the men initiate divorces. This almost exactly coincides as well.
  • 15 + 54% = 69% of women want to remarry and don’t want to remarry which is 69% of women which almost matches the 70% of divorces initiated by women. Women generally divorce because they are so unhappy with the marriage and/or they want to remarry someone else. Generally, singleness is still a stigma for women.

It’s likely that the 54% of women who “never want to remarry” married an average to below average joe and couldn’t stomach it while the other 15% of women were looking for greener pastures.

Obviously, there is some overlap between the different categories and not every man who initiates a divorce also wants to remarry, but the statistics are remarkably consistent for the approximate amounts of initiated divorces and remarriage rates.

Now, before women go all crazy about divorcing and seeing that they can remarry, there is additional context of course.

Overall, this chart shows us something we absolutely already knew about remarriage for women. The cumulative remarriage rate for women is overall sitting at 52% which is dragged down by the 65% and older and the young remarriage rates.  Almost all of the remarriages are happening by the women in the 18-24 and 25-34 age ranges.

By 34, if a woman is not remarried, there’s only a very slim chance she will get married again. 45% to 57% by 35-44 and 62% by 45-54 and 63% by 55-65. In other words, approximately:

  • 3 in 10 women get remarried if they’re 18-24
  • 1 in 7 women get remarried if they’re 25-34
  • 1 in 10 women get remarried if they’re 35-44
  • 1 in 20 women get remarried if they’re 45-54
  • 1 in 100 women get remarried if they’re 55-65

The remarriage rates for women are grim for women if they’re older than 25, and very grim if they’re older than 34, and nigh impossible if they’re 55 and older.

Other interesting sex and marriage interactions

If you remember back to the Kinsey marriage sex statistics I posted on early last year, there are some interesting findings to go with this.

Other data show similar qualities:

More than 7 times a week: 3%
7 times a week: 1%
6 times a week: 3%
5 times a week: 9%
4 times a week: 11%
3 times a week: 13%
2 times a week: 21%
once a week: 25%
once a month: 8%
less than once a month: 9%

Approximately 17% (once a month to less than once a month) are sexless. I would assume that most “once a weekers” are probably unhappy with that. The sex drive of men is typically higher than that of women, but women can become dissatisfied with lack of frequency as well.

We know that at the lowest 40% of marriages end in divorce. So if we assume that most of the sexless ~20% of marriages end in divorce, a large portion of those in the 25% once a week range are going to divorce as well. This doesn’t take into account the potential dissolution of marriages with more frequency sex that have other problems.

Of the 40% of the first marriage divorces, 20% of women never want to marry again, 6% want to get married again, and 14% are not sure.

I would contend that the 6% who want to get married again and the 14% who are not sure are probably the women who were close to the 17% or 15-20% range of sexless marriages. Those women in the 20% range who were potentially had to output “duty sex” on a regular basis such as 1x per week probably had a negative impact on their perception of marriage that they don’t want to experience it again.

Contrast to previous article

The previous article came to these conclusions.

Here are the rates:

  • Currently, 85% of all women have gotten married by 45.
  • About 10% cohabitate.
  • Predicted by 2049 that 25-30% of women will have not been married by 45.

This leaves us with:

  • 6% never want to get married
  • 10% cohabitation
  • 70-75% married
  • 94% want to get married.

This leaves us with:

  • 9-14% “unwanted spinsterhood” — about 1 in 10 women
  • 19-24% “unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood” — about 2 in 10 women

That’s a decent chunk of the female population that will have to settle for unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood. We’ll see how this plays into affecting the narrative. The loudest cries are always at the margins.

According to the divorce rate of all divorces which is about 50% — ~40% first marriage, 60% second marriage, ~70% third marriage — the 70-75% of marriages approximately 28-30% of first marriages end up in divorce. Since about 50% of the women in those first marriages remarry, it gives us these stats:

  • 42-45% married for “death til us part”
  • 14-15% of women in 2nd and 3rd marriages
  • 14-15% of women divorced single hood
  • 9-14% “unwanted spinsterhood” — about 1 in 10 women
  • 19-24% “unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood” — about 2 in 10 women

This leaves us with approximately:

  • 33-39% “unwanted cohabitation, unwanted spinsterhood, divorced singlehood/single mom” or about 1 in 3 to 2 in 5 women.

Very grim indeed.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 5 Comments

Marriage rates and end game spinster predictions

Previous reddit post on statistics. I know Dalrock has covered it too a while back when it came out.

For men:

Bentley article on predictions. Here are the interesting excerpts.

Today an unprecedented portion of millennials will remain unmarried through age 40, a recent Urban Institute report predicted. The marriage rate might drop to 70 percent — a figure well below rates for boomers (91 percent), late boomers (87 percent) and Gen Xers (82 percent). And declines might be even sharper if marriage rates recover slowly, or not at all, from pre-recession levels, according to the report.

Traditional marriage has been on a downward trajectory for generations, but with this group it appears to be in free fall. According to a report released last month by the Pew Research Center, 25 percent of millennials are likely to never be married.

So this is what we have:

  • In 1980, 95% of all women got married by 45 years old.
  • In 2016, 85% of all women have gotten married by 45 years old.

That number is expected to increase to the 25-30% range for millennials (e.g. born 1982-2004) according to these predictions. So theoretically, the last millennials would be 45 in 2049.

Young couples are opting to live together and put off marriage for later, if at all. About a quarter of unmarried young adults (ages 25 to 34) are living with a partner, according to Pew Research analysis of Current Population Survey data.

Average married age of women and men is 27 and 29. Therefore, we can estimate that this number is about ~40% unmarried for that particulate age range or so due to 27-29 being on the earlier side of 30 which is in the middle. That would mean that about 10% of unmarried young adults are cohabiting.

Marriage has lost much of its social allure, but remains a desired milestone for about 70 percent of millennials. They say they would like to marry, but many — especially those with lower levels of income and education — lack what they deem to be a necessary prerequisite: a solid economic foundation.

Ironically, it’s marriage that actually staves off poverty. One income with stay at home motherhood is generally a feature of upper middle class; two incomes tend to bring a family out of poverty income levels.

“Even as marriage rates have plummeted — particularly for the young and the less educated — Gallup survey data show that young singles very much hope to get hitched. Of Americans age 18 to 34, only about nine percent have both never been married and say they do not ever want to marry,” she wrote.

So about 10% say they don’t want to get married and never have been married. 18-34 is a pretty big population range for singles. If average age of marriage for women is 27 and 29 for men, then that probably encompasses about 60-70% of the population. Let’s say it’s about 2/3rds of the population, so about 6% of millennials never want to get married. 94% want to get married.

Here’s the margins

  • Currently, 85% of all women have gotten married by 45.
  • About 10% cohabitate.
  • Predicted by 2049 that 25-30% of women will have not been married by 45.

This leaves us with:

  • 6% never want to get married
  • 10% cohabitation
  • 70-75% married
  • 94% want to get married.

This leaves us with:

  • 9-14% “unwanted spinsterhood” — about 1 in 10 women
  • 19-24% “unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood” — about 2 in 10 women

That’s a decent chunk of the female population that will have to settle for unwanted cohabitation and unwanted spinsterhood. We’ll see how this plays into affecting the narrative. The loudest cries are always at the margins.

Edit: Fuzziewuzziebear makes a good comment:

The problem with this is that it fails to take into account women who have divorced and don’t remarry. There have to be a terrible lot of them. At a guess. let’s say it doubles the numbers. With eighteen to twenty eight percent of women unlikely to marry, they should be screaming.

About 50% of women remarry after divorce. 1st marriage divorce rate is currently approximately between 30-40%. Therefore, there are another 15-20% of women who are single divorcees.

Bonus: Kate Bolick of the oft referenced All the Single Ladies article that has gone around a lot has a book on spinsterhood aptly named “Spinster” trying to ‘spin’ it in a positive light. The media agrees with her narrative obviously.

The rest of the article is blustering to try to rationalize the “changing views” of marriage. Not worth the time reading.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 26 Comments

Divorce rates have not really dropped

An NYT article claims that divorce rates have dropped.

Here’s the chart:

Overall, the “rates” don’t really look to be dropping much at all because they are pretty much all on similar trajectories.

There’s also no real “spike” for the so-called 7 year itch either.

The “spike” for the 1980s and 1990s seems to be in 2008, since the data for those married in 2000 only goes up to 8 years. That’s when the market crashed from the housing bubble, and tons of people lost their houses and/or jobs. When husbands don’t have jobs, wives tend to divorce in much greater numbers.

Overall, if the rates are dropping for those in the 2000s, it’s because:

  • There are less marriages overall and thus there are less divorces.
  • Cohabitation is on the rise.
  • Men tend to see marriage as a bad deal for them, and so they are just either opting out or only getting married if they are REALLY sure.
  • The more unattractive men that would’ve gotten married and divorced simply aren’t getting married anymore since they can’t find women. These would-be divorces simply never come to be.
  • Men are less masculine now, and women are less feminine.

If men and women married at the same rates as they did in the latter 1900s, then you’d definitely see drastically more divorces than the charts indicate. That’s why simply looking at divorce rates is deceptive.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 6 Comments