Courtesy of reader BK, a link to an economic analysis of woman-coddling divorce laws.

CH, thought you would like this article – economist looks at how no consent divorces have changed savings rates and women’s leisure time – the result is that men are saving more to protect themselves and women are taking a lot more leisure time.

Quotes from the research paper:

By regulating when divorce can occur and how resources are divided when it does, divorce laws can affect people’s behavior and their wellbeing both during marriage and at divorce. Household survey data from the United States shows that the introduction of unilateral divorce in states that imposed an equal division of property is associated with higher household savings and lower female employment rates among couples that are already married.

This sounds like a legal backdoor to re-institute “barefoot and pregnant” as a family norm.

During the 1970s and 1980s, divorce laws were rewritten around the United States. Until then, mutual consent—the consent of both spouses—was often a requirement and upon divorce, property was assigned to the spouse who held the formal title to it; usually, this was the husband.

Then, profound state-level reforms brought about the so-called “unilateral divorce revolution.” Most couples now entered a legal system in which either spouse could obtain a divorce without the consent of the other and also keep a fraction of the marital assets, often close to fifty percent.

Here come the negative externalities! (which feminists always miss)

This study explores the impact of the reforms—unilateral divorce and equitable property division—on the economic behavior of couples.  In the US, these reforms affect no small number of people, as forty percent of married couples and about one-third of all people over their lifetimes are divorced. So how did the unilateral divorce revolution change the consumption, the labor supply decisions, and ultimately the wellbeing of married and divorced couples?

There are at least two ways in which we might expect the reforms to affect household behavior. First, because divorce is one of those events for which people cannot buy insurance, savings can act as self-insurance, allowing people to face some of the financial costs associated with marriage dissolution. Different ways of dividing property can affect the insurance role of savings. Second, even among couples that do not split up, a change in divorce laws can change a spouse’s options outside of the marriage. For instance, a property division regime change that favors one spouse can improve her position inside the marriage, particularly if she can obtain divorce without the other partner’s consent. This reallocation within marriage could result in changes in private consumption, savings, and labor supply.

Muh incentives and disincentives.

From this “difference-in-differences” exercise, two main facts emerge on the impact of unilateral divorce in states with different property division regimes. First, in states with equal division, households reported higher net savings (around 16%). Second, in such states, women who were already married became less likely to work, by approximately 5 percentage points. By analyzing additional time use surveys between 1965 and 1993, I find that the decrease in the labor supply of women was associated with an increase in the amount of leisure time they enjoyed.

So how is this result explained by the behavior of spouses in marriages operating under no consent divorce laws?

With these features, the model provides a qualitative explanation for the observed empirical patterns. In states with equal division of property, the law favors women at the time of divorce. When the equal division of property grants them more resources in the event of divorce than they are receiving in the marriage, unilateral divorce means that they can use the threat of divorce in their favor while remaining married, thereby increasing their leisure.

How’s that oppressive patriarchy working out for you feminists? Heh.

At the same time, married couples save more because spouses’ individual incentives to save are distorted because they cannot choose how to allocate savings between man and woman in the increasingly likely event of a divorce. Because mandated equal division of property does not reflect the allocation of resources within marriage, it ultimately distorts household saving behavior.

Influenced by the specter of no consent divorce law, marriage has moved from a “build a nest egg” model to a “build an insurance against property loss” model.

So how do divorce laws, which were passed when men and women’s economic outcomes differed substantially, affect wellbeing today? Simulations from the model suggest that, as intended by the policymakers who promoted it, the equal division of property gave more assets to women in the sample compared with a title-based regime that would grant them about 40% of household wealth. Thus, for couples that married before the 1970s, the reforms likely achieved the goal of supporting women through divorce. However, their effect is more nuanced if we believe that today’s couples may have a different, more egalitarian, distribution of resources within marriage.

Here’s a thought: How about crafting equitable divorce law that isn’t deliberately intended to favor women? There must be a word for favoritism in the law…. oh yeah, injustice.

J.R.R. Tolkien was a deep thinker who knew the world of women as well as he did his fantasy worlds. Reader Modern Primitive draws attention to Tolkien’s fatherly letters of advice to his son, Michael Tolkien.

Don’t know if this has been posted yet but here’s some letters from Tolkien to his son vis a vie women and marriage.

http://glim.ru/personal/jrr_tolkien_42-45.html

Go from number 43. Tolkien seemed like a pretty red pilled dude, identifying many subjects and trends discussed here at the chateau, although it’s probably more that society in general was much more red pilled than we are today by way of not opting to put on its own blinders.

The Great Men of the past were more redpilled than the Weak Manlets of the present, because they were smarter and wiser, but also because they lived during times when their homogeneously glorious White society wasn’t actively crushing crimethinkers. First, here’s Tolkien on the danger posed to men of befriending women before be-fucking them:

‘Friendship’ then? In this fallen world the ‘friendship’ that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This ‘friendship’ has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a ‘friendship’ quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by ‘falling in love’. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want ‘friendship’, even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps.

FYI, Tolkien and CH are on the same page. Here’s an old Chateau post about the cruel impositions of impossible friendships between men and women.

The reason for the post title is this bit by Tolkien where he warns against pussy pedestalization.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes ‘love’ — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It [pussy pedestalization] still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned ‘his divinity’ = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God’s way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly ‘theocentric’. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man’s eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of ‘true love’, as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a ‘love’ that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

The bolded parts are crucial. Pussy pedestalization, contrary to what White Knights for Her Faire Maiden profess as the benefits of their beta male worldview, can actually make a man more cynical about women, because he has her propped on a queenly throne for which she is ill-suited by the nature of her fallen sex to occupy.

Bonus Tolkien! The man expounds on sluts, careerist gogrrls, female practicality (and aversion to romanticism), the allure of badboys, and women’s greater predilection for monogamy.

You may meet in life (as in literature¹) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don’t refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy ‘conquests’, or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of ‘love’. A young woman, even one ‘economically independent’, as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the ‘bottom drawer’ and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don’t be misled by the fact that they are more ‘sentimental’ in words – freer with ‘darling’, and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don’t really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can ‘reform’ men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk ‘bawdy’; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don’t find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?

They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. …. No good pretending. Men just ain’t, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of ‘revealed’ ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.

A realtalker like Tolkien, if he lived today, would be banned from so many colleges and charged with violating so many feminist safe spaces that he’d land on the SPLC’s hate watch list. Which should tell you something. (Specifically, 2016 America is a shamefully effete den of faggotry and cuntery.)

Commenter Yup wants us to notice something very telling about Trump’s wives.

Trump’s had 3 wives.

1st wife: 14 years

2nd wife: 4 years

3rd wife: 11 years and counting.

Guess which wife was American.

😂 I’ll take “4 years” for $5.5 billion, Alex.

I used to hang with a guy who was a natural ladykiller, and a borderline sociopath. He said what was on his mind, and that meant a lot of fights and a lot of fucks. I picked up some valuable lessons in human social dynamics from him.

He married young, before his pickup powers had gained steam and he realized the full extent of his talents. In time, he cheated with better looking mistresses. The marriage was doomed, but it managed to sputter along for a child-less six years. His wife turned into a spiteful witch hell-bent on revenge. When my natural buddy and I were out with friends, his now ex-wife would sometimes call at 11pm just to bitterly remind him of an unfulfilled issue with the post-divorce allocation of funds or assets.

Anyhow, one time his quasi-stalker ex-wife was invited to the same event he was at, along with his friends and myself. The time since hadn’t been kind to her; she had gained a few and looked to be wearing too much make-up.

She approached, and acid started to spit right away. He wasn’t one to air private laundry in public, so she vented for five minutes while he listened. When she paused to take an angry breath, he delivered a shiv so cold it could’ve turned her into a White Walker.

“If we were never married, I wouldn’t look twice at you today.”

The best shivs are the cuts that find our deepest buried fears, and expose them to the light.

Answer: Marry a younger, hotter, tighter babe. You’ll never want to leave her. (“the best thing about high school girls….i get older and they all stay the same age”)

Less succinctly, a blogger by the handle Free Northerner put together a fact sheet compiled from CDC data to help men reduce the chance they’ll get ground up in the remorseless gears of the divorce industrial complex.

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky*. Do not marry a slut.

I don’t disagree with any of Free Northerner’s prescriptions for a divorce-free life, (except that the best defense is eternal bachelorhood). The data are clear, insofar as the data go.

The problem is that the data mask a deeper undercurrent that primarily influences divorce risk: spouse options.

Recall the infamous CH maxim:

Options = Instability.

A wife who feels like she can do better, or who has numerous suitors of equal or higher SMV than her husband, is a divorce-via-infidelity-and-boredom waiting to happen.

Similarly, a husband with lots of sexual market options will be greatly tempted to stray, or even abandon his wife, if his bang options on the extramarital market are better than his authorized intramarital outlet. The main difference between the two scenarios is that a husband with options is less likely to nuke his marriage than a wife with options, the husband preferring instead by the harem-building nature of his maleness to maintain marital appearances and a loyal wife at home while satisfying his carnal urges with side pieces.

Female sluttiness (measured by premarital cock count) and female education are the two biggest factors governing divorce risk for men, and both factors are emergent properties of the CH Options Theory of Divorce Odds.

Female sluttiness may not immediately strike the reader as necessarily an indication of female options, but it is in both direct and roundabout ways. First, remind yourself that the majority of women in the middle of the SMV belle curve have as a condition of their sex far more *sexual* options than do men. A 7 can spread her legs and have a thousand men lined up to take her to pound town. A male 7 has no such surfeit of options; he has to work for the few he gets. Even a male 10 unzipping in a roomful of horny broads won’t have as many willing participants as a female 7 would have unzipping at a closeted homosexual National Review loveboat cruise.

Given this inherent biological difference in the sexes, female sluttiness is therefore best understood as the interaction between a woman’s SMV and her sociosexuality (i.e., her willingness and urge to fuck around for the pleasure of it).

So, a woman has to have sufficiently high SMV to have the options to screw around AND she has to have a (probably inherited) disposition to want to avail herself of those options. The former — sufficient SMV — is the direct relation to the Options Theory, while the latter — aggressive sociosexuality — is the roundabout indication that a woman has options.

In short, if a sufficiently attractive woman is eager to fuck around, by definition she has options. I know it sounds like a tautology, but great truths are sometimes revealed by tautology. And the validity of the tautology is apparent by the nontransitiveness of it. If we try to apply it to men, it fails. A man of average SMV who is eager to fuck around does not necessarily have options. Unlike women, a man’s eagerness to wantonly fuck does not increase his available options as it would do for a woman.

The education variable — the other crucial risk factor for divorce — is really a proxy for female age at first marriage. The more education a woman obtains, the older she’ll be when she (finally) abandons the alpha fux highstyle for the beta bux homestyle. As we Crimson Pillers know, advancing age decreases women’s sexual market options exponentially. If female education lowers a man’s risk of divorce, it’s less to do with the woman’s erudition or grasp of the intricacies of patriarchal hegemony, or even her IQ and related impulse control. It’s mostly to do with the fact that overeducated women are older when they marry and thus have fewer men chasing after them, which certainly contributes to these age 28+ women magically discovering devoted marital bliss and avoiding justifications for divorce.

Vox adds to the debate an idea with which I have a rare disagreement,

It won’t show up in the statistics, but based on my observation, there is also a relative aspect to the divorce risk. For example, the statistics indicate that a woman with 15 prior sexual partners has a divorce risk of 70 percent, but how that applies to the specific marriage will vary greatly between the man who has had one prior sexual partner and the man who has had 100.

For the former, the knowledge that his wife has been with 15 other men is likely devastating. For the latter, that sounds like the summer after graduating from college and is of no concern to him. And given the way in which hypergamy works, it probably shouldn’t be, as it’s almost certain that she will, rightly, worry far more about his faithfulness than he does about hers. Rank and relativity are not easily accounted for, but they do matter.

Vox is right to figure that a woman married to a high notch count cad has more to worry about regarding his fidelity than he has regarding her fidelity. Where I disagree is his assertion that men who’ve bedded lots of women wouldn’t be disgusted with a slutty wife prospect with the same intensity that a relatively inexperienced man would be disgusted. In my meanderings through the tingle trenches, I’ve found the opposite to be true: womanizers who’ve sexed lots of ladies are MORE put off by a serious LTR prospect who has herself a history littered with discarded lovers.

Why? It sounds like a double standard. More precisely, it’s a different standard, and it exists because men who do well with women have the alpha jerkboy leverage to demand chastity from the women they intend to wife up, (said female chastity being much more relevant to a man’s Darwinian success owing to the fact that slutty women are bigger cuckold threats in a state of nature unoccluded by the distorting effects of birth control and abortion). And pushin’ come to cushion, almost all men will, if the option is available, prefer a wife with less sexual history baggage than the modren norm.

Ironically, Vox would be onto something if he had swapped the men in his example. It’s much more likely that a weak, sexually inexperienced beta male with few options would tolerate (happily or insincerely) a wife prospect with a double digit telegonic cock count. And in fact that’s pretty much what I see happening in real life: weak betas marrying older, former sluts who may still have a little gas left in their dilated crevasse for a rode hard trip.

*Free Northerner writes, “if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky”. I concur. The under-20 virgin objectively has more mate options based on her resting SMV, but like I wrote above a woman’s options are a function not just of her SMV but also of her willingness to indulge the sexual attention that her SMV brings her.

If you’re a man looking for wife, always bet on inexperienced youth over slutty maturity. More men may eye up your virginal blossom, but the wilting slut is more apt to allow interlopers to take a surreptitious sniff of her musky overripe aroma.

Via Marginal Autism,

We show that promotions to top jobs dramatically increase women’s probability of divorce, but do not affect men’s marriages. This effect is causally estimated for top jobs in the political sector, where close electoral results deliver exogenous variation in promotions across job candidates. Descriptive evidence from job promotions to the position of CEO shows that private sector promotions result in the same gender inequality in the risk of divorce.

Commenters at the Cheap Chapulas grease truck have lots of theories to explain the results of this study, but it boils down to a basic understanding of female nature. When women advance in their careers, their husbands, should they not equally advance in theirs to keep up, are “left behind” on the occupational status ledger that women subconsciously consult when evaluating a man’s mate worth. (Among 463 other male mate value ledgers that women have at the ready.)

Female hypergamy is real, is different from male “dating up” (which is closer to polygamy in nature), and has consequences in the aggregate on marriage and divorce rates. Women want to look up to higher status men; men want to look *at* beautiful women. In our rapidly de-masculinizing, anti-White male, pro-tankgrrl culture, men are in a status free-fall. Knowing this is all you need to explain why women initiate 70% of divorces.

Although the old trope of the undersexed husband has been around for ages, it wasn’t quite accurate, at least until recently. General Social Survey warriors like Audacious E had dug up data showing that married couples have more sex than singles. (Forgive me for not finding the relevant post, I’m a lazy SOB).

I can recall objecting to the GSS sex frequency data on the grounds that it exaggerates the sexual wantonness of married couples compared to singles because the population of singles includes all the no-sex, fap-happy incels dragging down the sex frequency average for their group. I suggested this asexual albatross would conceal the incredibly-high, curve-busting sex frequency rates of unmarried alpha male cads who are following the “girlfriend and fling” formula for happiness.

While I can’t at the moment recall any posts I may have written confirming with data any factual basis for my objection, I can report that a recent study, via our resident gold star artist Captain Obvious, finds that there was a decline in sexual frequency among married or cohabiting American adults from 1989-2014.

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

Regular guests of this brazen retreat won’t be surprised by the relative sexlessness of the Millennial generation, a screechy, androgynous, narcissistic generation which from nearly every vantage point appears to be the most useless lump of Americans to ever squib outta their mommas’ womb chutes.

Nor will readers be surprised by the finding that old farts who look like raisins with eyes have less sex than virile youts who can still flaunt their sexual dimorphism.

What’s interesting is mentioned in the last line: sex frequency is down over the period because there are more unpartnered people having no sex, and partnered couples are having less sex.

So….the incel demo is exploding. That would seem to confirm a CH observation of the sexual market; namely that the prolonged unmarried phase of courtship (aka the cock carousel) is supercharging female hypergamy. A lot of single in the city ladies are sharing HSMV men and leaving less charismatic beta males in the cold. That explains the male incels. The rise in female insols is explained by the concurrent rise in obesity (and aggro-feminism). Fat chicks and annoying chicks really do have less sex than slender, feminine babes, because men also exercise choice of mate.

The remaining mystery is why married and cohabiting sex frequency is decreasing. Captain Obvious writes,

Shitlib & Libertardian geeks and nerds at /. were sounding thoroughly Red-Pilled about this – talking about Phuckerbergbook, SSRIs, pr0n, the decline in earning power, an omnipresent sense of trepidation & cowardice & fear pervading much of the population, etc etc etc – and one dude even div0rced his wife over her iPhag Addiction: https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/03/07/2313232/americans-are-having-less-sex-than-20-years-ago-study-finds

Yes to all of that as causes for the sex frequency decline, but again I must humbly suggest that the primary causes are female obesity, female economic self-sufficiency, and the multigenerational drop in testosterone.

Female obesity: men are visually stimulated to bedroom action, and men really are disgusted by the sight of a female fatbody. Men, and especially White men with options, will fap to porn before bouncing dick-first into a fat chick’s belly brûlée. The obesity epidemic shows no signs of letting up, and that’s gotta have an effect on the national GCP (Gross Carnal Product).

Female economic self-sufficiency: women are aroused by powerful men with resources to spare on them, and they are turned off by powerless cash-strapped men. Women who are in less need of a man’s resources are also less sexually interested in men who don’t make substantially more than they make (or have other compensating traits). If husbands’ incomes have decreased relative to wives’ incomes, then there will be a shift toward wives desiring less sex from their husbands. It’s biomechanics all the way down.

Testosterone decline: this one is self-evident. Lower T means lower libido, for men but also for women. Since men are the initiators of sex (especially within the confines of a long term relationship), a low libido man will initiate less frequently, and his woman won’t take up the slack (women have a lot of pride about their ability to passively rouse their men to ardor, which is why they don’t like making the first move). If there’s lower T in women as well (a small amount of testosterone does affect female libido), then that would kill the passion just as quickly. Finally, low T men are just a plain turn-off to women. I have read studies which found women preferred the musky scent of sweaty shirts of men with high T.

All of this is leading to sex-starved husbands and the high divorce rate, because no matter how sacred your marital vows if hubby ain’t getting any his guilt about checking out of the marriage evaporates in a haze of 31 Redtube tabs.

Ok, now same question, but with the roles reversed: the groom dragging the reluctant bride by her dress collar to the altar.

Commenter HEM writes that men who get married but then don’t justify the marriage with kids are beta.

1) alphas don’t have big weddings. Every extravagant, expensive wedding (and cake with figurines) is a chick’s doing with her beta’s compliance.

An alpha might go along with a big wedding if it’s no skin off his nose, but HEM’s general sentiment is correct: big weddings are usually the domain of domineering self-absorbed brides and their lickspittle plan B betaprops.

2) an alpha knows the only reason to marry is for the sake of his children. No big theatrics (small ceremony of close friends, trip to Vegas, courthouse wedding, etc). The wife is emotionally ecstatic just to take his name and the upgraded label of wife as opposed to “baby mamma.” Her biggest fear was she was going to have children out of wedlock because Mr Alpha wouldn’t settle down (quit partying and fucking other chicks). Any childless dude who gets married is definitively a beta.

3) alphas don’t do PDA. Another sure sign of a beta male is during the “you can now kiss the bride”.. If the dude is all liplocked in a pathetic movie scene inspired 5 seconds or greater kiss – guaranteed beta. He’ll spend the evening eating at the Y and not pounding the pie.

lol at that last line. PDA is a tricky topic, but yeah betas are wont to publicly slobber all over their women while alphas prefer the coolasfuck policy of holstering their PDA while their women get worked up having to restrain themselves until later.

HEM’s precision-guided shiv is the observation that childless husbands are beta. 4 out of 5 White irredentists agree: there’s no fucking point to marriage if you won’t meta-consummate it with kids. Why assume all that baggage — the enforced monogamy, the legal risks, the messy financial commingling — if your sacrifice isn’t rewarded with noble heirs?

I suppose there’s the filing jointly tax angle benefit, but is it worth the hassle and downsides of a non-trivial chance of divorce theft? If you just want a steady supply of sex and love, then the alpha male move is to grab yourself a long-term pussy, enrapture her to a blissfully transcendent plane of committed adoration, non-maritally cohabitate like people from the nation formerly known as Sweden, and wheeze dustily into that long twilight holding hands until the Final Snuff relieves your shared earthly burden.

PS Hi, Pman!

A hot if somewhat mannish-looking female teacher is in court on charges of “raping” one of her students during their months-long sexual adventure.

A teacher is accused of sodomizing a middle school student and raping him during their alleged months-long sexual relationship.

Lindsey Jarvis, 27, pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape at the Fayette County Courthouse in Kentucky, where she held hands with her husband of three years.

She was also charged with rape, sodomy and unlawful transaction with a minor in neighboring Woodford County, where she was accused of sexually assaulting the boy in May 2016.

Police found evidence on the victim’s phone suggesting the two were in a ‘romantic relationship’, and Jarvis was arrested on Friday.

If you’ve heard this story before too many times to count, you’re not going crazy; sexual predation by female teachers, many of them hot and married, of their young (and usually willing) charges is rampant in America, FOR SOME ODD REASON. (Hint: it’s the leftoid glorification of unconstrained female sexuality and the concomitant demonization of normal male sexuality and patriarchal prerogative, plus various r-selected biofeedback loops that accompany declining cultures in the throes of late stage decadence.)

You can tell by the psychocunt smirk in her mugshot she expertly summoned like a seasoned PUA that there was no adult alpha man in her life who could stand up and answer the call, “Who bitch dis is?“. On paper, she was her husband’s bitch. On paper. In reality, she was no one’s bitch, to the detriment of society.

Never rely on legal documents to secure a woman’s love. You can only win her heart in the supreme court of her raging id.

But the black heart of this sordid tryst — the essence that tells you everything you need to know about why she did it and why she’s smirking — isn’t in Lindsey Jarvis, Wonderslut. It’s in Lindsey Jarvis’s lapdog, her dutiful, supportive husband.

Lindsey Jarvis, 27, pleaded not guilty to two counts of rape at the Fayette County Courthouse in Kentucky, where she held hands with her husband of three years

There’s a time to hold your wife’s hand, and that time is NOT when she’s in court for fucking and tickling the anus of one of her underage students for months on end.

(Who, by the looks of her, will probably go right back to livin’ la vida alpha fux beta bux once she’s out of jail (one month)).

Their body and facial language is a thin palimpsest barely concealing two rotten souls — hers rotten with wantonness, his rotten with appeasement. That’s a married couple in complete sexual polarity reversal, defying the God of Biomechanics with arrogant impunity. She’s the alpha male, here, looking into the middle distance, thinking of some other male, head tilted away from her doting husband who, for his part, must reach across her lap to take her hand, his eyes downcast in submission and supplication, probably fighting back a gnawing fear of her hot body and BPD love leaving his life forever (even though he never really had unrestricted access to her body and heart, but just try telling ARE MARRIED BETA MALE that, and he’ll suddenly find a reason to passionately defend his manly honor.)

“But he’s innocent in this!”, you poon plebs shriek ignorantly. No, friendos, he’s not innocent. He’s an enabler. A force ten amplifier of the crassest female instincts and tramp malice. America is suffering a crisis of these “supportive” beta male husbands who stand by their cheating slut wives, bearing for themselves all the shame and responsibility that should be the sole domain of their faithless women.

You think a beta phagg like Lindsey’s Lapdog just started being supportive now, in Lindsey’s time of greatest need? Ha, no. This doormat was born supportive, a human toilet seat upon which the world’s whores would sit to pinch their cock-impacted loafs embedded with the crusty cum of secret lovers, knowing all too clearly that a pushover like this milquetoast will take those steaming slut deuces and beg for more.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but women are DISGUSTED by indiscriminately supportive males. Look closely at Lindsey’s face in the second photo; that’s disgust mixed with contempt amid a swirl of illicit yearning. No man who’s had experience with more than one or two women would miss the meaning in that face. And no man worth his dignity and salvageable serum T level would unconditionally “support” a cheating wife who seethed with that much resentment for him. He’d tell her to hit the road, face first, and be glad he was rid of her for the rest of his life.

Unquestioning beta male support is ruining our women. It’s as simple as that. Beta thirst kills feminine virtue dead. Manginatude frees the Inner Whore in every woman.

If women, especially spoken-for women, don’t fear consequences for indulging every sexual compulsion (and women have many, often contradicting, sexual compulsions), then they won’t curb themselves. Women are not natural self-regulators; they require a strong pimp hand to avoid descent into womb wilding, whether that pimp hand comes in the form of a dominant alpha male or a dominant patriarchal culture.

Instead, America’s men are caught in a spiral of self-abnegation and slavish pussy pedestal polishing. Witness:

On her 25th birthday, husband Andrew Jarvis paid tribute to his wife, writing: ‘Happy 25th birthday to my sweetest Lindsey!

‘So thankful for your wonderful heart, which teaches me so much about compassion and kindness.

‘So thankful for your wisdom and discernment that help guide us through life….Love you with all my heart, and so thankful to have you as my best friend.’

First mistake: a wife or gf should never be a man’s “best friend”. His lover, his confidant, his alibi, his accomplice, his lolita, his sex toy, sure. But not his best friend. That cloying admission reeks of neediness and uxuriousness, and sucks all the romantic lifeblood out of what should be a sexually dichotomous relationship. Women don’t want a best friend for a husband; they want a lover and a king.

Second mistake: penning this treacle at all. He could have done so much more for his cause, meaning his sex life and future paternity certainty, had he sent her this instead on her birthday:

I’d like to end on a hopeful note. How do we solve the crisis of supportive beta husbands and boyfriends enabling the worst sort of female animal behavior?

My suggestion, one I’ve been proselytizing for a while, to no avail apparently as we can see the population of supplicating betas grows year over year, is….hold your breath….Game. If beta males gained the skills of the crimson arts and had more choice in women, or at least perceived that they had more choice in women, the confidence instilled in them would stream outward and fill the hearts and Bartholin’s corpuscles of the women in their lives, and a big beautiful mutually reinforcing limbic synchronization that aligned with the ancient biomechanic laws of sexual polarity would draw man and woman closer together, and those wild cockscillations that undulate darkly in the vajfold crevices of every woman threatening to crumble heartbridges would be calmed.

Or, having options in women, beta males would at least be more emotionally continent about their choice of long-term mate and be more willing to jettison those women who don’t make the grade.

Never marry an attention whore. Fuck and chuck her, sure, but don’t betroth her.

Exhibit A, courtesy of reader Lord Mooch,

Hey Heartiste-My goodness, you will love reading this little paragraph below. Paige Spiranac is a mediocre golfer who’s amassed nevertheless an audience of over 1 million thirsty betas who salivate at the thought of squeezing her frontal flesh beanbags.

Nice schwing.

She’s about to get married and this is what she had to say about her fiance. This dude is in a WHOLE lot of trouble:

“She played hard-to-get for months, but they finally met up when Spiranac was in Carlsbad, Calif., getting her clubs tuned up at Callaway. Tinoco looks like Mark Wahlberg, down to the bulging biceps, but what really impressed Spiranac were his old-fashioned manners. “So he was the first guy who’s ever gotten me flowers and opened up doors for me,” she says. “He took me on a real date, and it was such a refreshing change from Netflix and chill. He’s just a really nice, respectful guy with a good heart. After so many bad relationships I finally met a good one.”

Attention whore basically admits she has a history of riding the cock carousel and putting out for men who never took her on a “real date”, is relieved to finally meet a “really nice, respectful guy”….I predict divorce proceedings commence in under two years time.

Is it EVER a good idea to wife up an instagram thot who unconvincingly pastes on the coy, chaste look of purity while highlighting her cleavage, purposely, in thousands of pics to lusty beta fappers who dream of licking her sweaty golfshoe toes? Rhetorical.

What was it PA wrote about the three kinds of women?

Some of the White men had dusky girlfriends too. What’s the fucking point, gentlemen? It’s not worth it unless it’s yours. Admittedly though, there is a personal bias in my question; I accept that men have the freedom to forge their own destiny, even if it leads to their death. Women, not so — a woman is born with three choices: to be a wife, a nun, or a prostitute. The flaw of modernity is the fact that they try to be all three, to farcical effect.

Paige Spiranac is neither wife nor nun material. She is, however, a prostitute in all but technicality. And you don’t marry a prostitute. Have fun with her, but never wife her up. The thot may have a heart of gold, but her pussy is paved with sloot intentions.

Reports coming in from the field suggest a new form of marriage is appearing on the scene that capitalizes on late stage societal sanction of divorce theft. From Days of Broken Arrows,

I’m starting to notice a trend of older thirtysomething women marrying older guys, having a kid, and then almost immediately divorcing the guy. These aren’t rich guys, either, but average men who get nailed with child support.

This just happened to a guy I know and I don’t know how he’s going to deal with the financial fallout.

What these women are doing has to be some sort of racket. It’s one thing when couples meet and marry young, have a few kids and then split when the kids are teens because they grew apart. That I get.

But from what I’m seeing, these thirtysomething women (all pushing forty) are in and out of these men’s lives by the time the kids are 3. I’m posting it here because I think it plays into the main topic. Once they get past a certain age, these women don’t bond.

I did an online court records search and this is what my formerly happy-go-lucky friend is now facing:

Issue: DIVORCE LIMITED
Issue: POSSESSION OF PROPERTY
Issue: CUSTODY
Issue: VISITATION
Issue: SUPPORT
Issue: FEES

The sexual market in the US is warped beyond salvageability if shit like this is happening. So much wrong, where to begin?

DoBA is right that after a certain age women don’t emotionally bond with men like they could when younger. As the pool of eggs dries up, the reservoir of passion salts over. Men, too, lose some of this bonding ability with age but the difference there is that men can instantly regain the feeling of a strong bond if they date and marry considerably younger women. The bonding agent is called YHT — younger, hotter, tighter. You down with YoHoTi?

Misandry, not misogyny, is the law of the land. Literally. Look at that legal imprimatur for divorce theft. There’s even a line item for FEES, always a convenient catch basin to levy nebulous punitive damages against the poor schmuck who thought he was marrying forever.

The mate landscape is now so bad for American beta males that they’re wifing up late 30s Wall victims and aged feminist careercunts for one or two, max, years of tolerable sexual relief with a rapidly depreciating ASSet who will get her one kid with him after wasting her prime bangability on the cad carousel quaffing birth control pills like vitamins, and who will unceremoniously divorce rape him after the beta dupe has pitched in to help raise the little snotbag during the most inglorious, dull, and thankless years of its life between birth and toddlerhood.

No joys of fatherhood for you!

Only everlasting financial servitude and psychological destruction.

A sex market that rewards this sort of dynamic is irretrievably broken. We are spitting in the face of millennia of sex polarity, denying the God of Biomechanics his tribute. Instead of passionate love marriages with young women notarized by multiple children, we have socially expedient striver marriages in which haggard careerist shrews on perpetual headache mode diddle the bean to Fifty Shades of Gay and suck dry the resources and emotional commitment of beat-up fap-weary sex-starved limp beta noodleboys before chucking them to win cashmoneyshekels right at the moment fatherhood presumably gets interesting for the damned fools.

Gentlemen, beware the Fleece Marriage! (brought to you by an antagonistic state sponsored divorce theft apparatus and women responding to dystopian incentives).

I really wasn’t kidding when I said Game can save the West.

***

DoBA added additional context to the above story. I reprint his comment here,

I feel that I should have provided Heartiste with more background before I submitted this comment. Since this blog post will read by a lot of men in the future, I’m going to add some more info here pertaining to some comments here.

1). The man in question is by all definitions Alpha. Super-tall and good-looking with no shortage of women. Yes, he could have been “internally Beta,” but the Divorce Industrial Complex makes everyone Beta since Big Daddy Government and his child support collectors are Alpha by comparison.

2). The woman has requested as “pendente lite hearing,” which is a way she can get child support and custody before the divorce is settled. Translation: “Give me money, now.”

3). From what I gather, she had him evicted from their home. Or removed. Or something. Whatever the case, she’s still there and he’s renting a place in another Maryland town…in Prince George’s County. This is like being sent to hell. I don’t even like to drive through there.

4). I didn’t even think of this until I read some of the comments, but this woman does, in fact, have a bunch of female friends who are bad influences and likely leaned on her to file for divorce. I should know. I went out with one: Government worker, divorced, eternally single, makeshift “Christian” (i.e. frigid or mentally unstable), etc. In short, every negative stereotype about American women in one package. We went out once and I was warned about her by a guy who dated her but didn’t listen.

5). From the court records, it looks like this divorce has gone through something like a dozen hearings already. She first filed for divorce last October and they’ve been in court every month disputing something. A lawyer I happen to know charges $350 per hour. If this guy’s lawyer is charging (let’s say) two hours per hearing, that’s a LOT of money.

6). He’s now about 50 and she’s about 40.

In short, if you’re thinking about getting married, really think about what you’re doing. As someone who is divorced, I would say that you have to get in on the GROUND LEVEL with women. Once they’re about 33-34, you don’t know where the hell they’ve been and their anger toward men or neurosis about them will likely be taken out on YOU. From what I see, the best marriages are when the couples meet in high school or college.

That last paragraph is gold plated good advice. Single women get bitter and spiteful with age in a way that men don’t, because every added cock scours a woman’s soul while every added pussy gild’s a man’s soul. Bad relationship experiences accumulating over the years can ruin men and women, but men in my observation, when they bounce back, are more seamlessly able to reconstitute a loving relationship with a new woman minus the emotional baggage of past women who left him with bad memories. Women who have run through failed relationships tend to dump increasingly heavy loads of baggage on their new men.

tl;dr: younger women >>> older women.

A heartwarming story for the holidays.

Tales of woe and perfidy like this one abound. The sexual and marital markets are two way streets. It takes two to tango. If our culture and society degrade or flourish, it will be because men AND women contributed in their particular ways.

Ignore this lesson to polish the pussy pedestal, and you are complicit in whatever social dissolution follows.

Read this depressing but illuminating account by JudgyBitch recalling her wicked mother alienating her and her siblings from their father, and how it affected the children. At the end, a redemption and the victory of truth will lift your spirits, because this is one sad tale that is repeated all too many times in post-America.

There are two pills to swallow from this story. A Red Pill on the divorce industrial complex and how it effectively shields bad mothers and wives from punishment while shafting fathers and husbands with extreme prejudice, and a Crimson Pill on the primal sexual nature of even good-hearted, well-meaning women.

First, you take the Red Pill:

[My father] met my mother when she was just nineteen years old and he was considerably older.  He never told her about his family back in Germany, and they married and had four children by the time my mother was 25 years old. My three brothers, and me.

And they were fucking horrible parents.  There is no nice way to spin it.  They embraced a religion that encouraged extreme violence against children.  Their philosophy was that a child’s will must be completely broken so that the child will then accept the will of God.  My mother was ecstatically violent, and my father less so, but they were both culpable. Their particular brand of religious violence continues in America to this day.

[…]

And then….my mother discovered feminism. She exchanged one violent, irrational, dehumanizing ideology for another, and she soon decided that she needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle. After countless physically violent arguments with my father, including one episode where she hit him in the head with a cast iron frying pan and left him for dead on the front porch, he turned his back and walked away from us, just like his first family.

One day we woke up and he was gone. My mother was quick to inform us that he simply walked away, and left us to starve in the streets, and that she alone would be the sole reason we survived and prospered. She never missed an opportunity to curse him.  She told us about his first family, and how she did not need to divorce him, because they were never married in the first place.  She hated him and hated all men and our daily lives were filled with her anger and vitriol and violence.  She never gave a moment’s thought to what her hatred of men and our father was doing to her sons. She gave us daily rations of rage and blame and every bad thing that happened was always his fault.

Being a child, I believed it.  So did my brothers.

And we loathed him for it.  How could he leave us with such an evil woman? My mother once held a knife to my throat and made me beg for my life.  When I was eleven. And I remember going to bed, thinking not how much I hated her, but how much I hated HIM for leaving us to her devices.

Turning children against fathers has been a female specialty since forever, but only the post-industrial man-hating femcunt dystopia we know as the progressive West institutionalized and weaponized this malevolent female predilection, by removing moral culpability from women and adding a presumption of guilt to men.

The Red Pill payoff (you knew this was coming):

And then I received a phone call.  It was my father, calling to tell me that my mother’s mother had passed away, and that I should let her know.  So much of the pain had seeped away that I felt confident confronting my father, and I asked him why he had done it.

Why did you just turn your back and walk away?

And then the truth came to light.  He hadn’t walked away.  He certainly had not left us to starve.  My mother had filed for an annulment and requested a restraining order, which she was granted. When I finally saw my father again, he had two boxes with him.  One was filled with income tax returns showing that he had never missed a child support payment, and court orders preventing him from seeing us based on his violence towards my mother, along with supervised visitations that were all scheduled for when he was overseas, working to meet his child support payments.

The other box contained cards and letters.  Birthday cards and so many letters.  All returned.  By my mother.  He never stopped sending them, hoping one of us would one day get the key and fetch the mail, but my mother was always adamant that the mail was her business.

As an adult, it makes so much sense.  How did we continue to live in our house?  How was my mother able to afford food and clothing and YMCA memberships for four children without my father’s support? Of course she had his support.  But she hid it from us, and poisoned our minds against our father.  It’s called parental alienation, and she is not the first, nor the last woman to destroy her children in this way.

It’s a special kind of evil.

In the end, she meets her father, he asks her forgiveness for the way he raised her before her mother excised him from his kids’ lives, she forgives him and welcomes him into her family, he gratefully becomes a much better grandfather to her kids than he was a father to her. As for the awful mother, JudgyBitch did to her what mom did to her dad: removed her from her life.

Nestled in the middle of this story is a Crimson Pill so big it’s a choking hazard.

Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly.  I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father.  Quite the opposite.  I didn’t seek out pain in an effort to work through what I had suffered.  I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy.  He was the gentlest man I have ever known.  And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.

He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to acquiesce to what I wanted, even though I never wanted anything bad.  I could trust him to treat me with the utmost kindness and care, but I could not lean on him.  That was impossible. I declined his proposal and moved on.

Appeasing, supplicating niceguys turn off women, because women perceive their niceness for weakness. And sometimes, the women are right. Very nice men who give women what they say they want, and who dutifully parrot feminist boilerplate and share the household chores under the false assumption that equality out of the bedroom is carnality in the bedroom, sow distrust in women.

Women trust the jerk because they know the jerk won’t tell them whatever he thinks will win their approval. And THAT’S how the jerk, ironically, wins their approval. By not trying for it.

A big reason women are attracted to jerkboys is the aversion jerkboys have for acquiescing to anyone’s demands, let alone women’s demands. That delightfully novel and romantically exhilarating jerkboy self-regard leaves a potent impression on women, who see refracted in the trait a forthrightness and strength of character and purpose that is lacking in niceguys.

Recall the CH Poon Commandments: You are the oak tree, immoveable and solid, under which she frolics and runs to when the rains come. She senses this strength in jerkboys because she can trust them not to bend to her whim, unlike niceguys who do nothing but bend and bend until they’re licking girls’ boots. And no tingle ever gushered for a polite lackey.

***

safespaceplaypen comments,

Thesis:

Interestingly enough, I was never attracted to men who behaved badly. I never sought to enmesh myself in relationships that replicated the worst of my father. Quite the opposite…

Antithesis:

I had a lovely boyfriend who was all kindness and sympathy. He was the gentlest man I have ever known. And I cannot adequately articulate how his gentleness and caring healed me.

Synthesis:

He proposed marriage, but ultimately, he was far too compliant and mild, and I was disconcerted by his willingness to bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit logic bullshit logic bullshit I declined his proposal and moved on.

Heh. The Tingle is Synthesis. And Syllojizzm.

Commenter Johnny Redux nails the answer to this post’s title with an ugly truth few men, let alone women, would be willing to confront head on, obliquely, or deniably:

A sexless marriage, in many (if not most) cases, is the result of a man marrying a woman his own age, and after time losing all sexual interest in her as she quickly morphs into an old woman before his eyes, much quicker than he is aging.

Men are maximally attracted to young women.

Men age more slowly than do women. (At least going by outward appearance.)

Men’s sexual worth climbs through their 30s and 40s while women’s sexual worth declines through their 30s and 40s.

Put the three preconditions together, and marriage between “age appropriate” men and women is a recipe for sexlessness, followed by lovelessness, and then finally divorce.

Which is why I advise men, if you’re gonna do something stupid like get married, make sure the deal is as sweet as it can be for you by choosing a younger woman to be your monogamously avowed last fuck. You’ll come to appreciate her extended shelf life when your married buddies are staring down the barrel of a dumpy hausfrau and dreaming of escape. You don’t want to wife up a woman on the wrong side of supple.

PS This post explains the true cause of “mid-life crisis”. The crisis is the rapidly diverging SMV values of the husband and wife. And the cure is trading up, fapping off, or dropping out.

Recent research has confirmed CH wisdom in the matter of which kinds of women are more likely to cheat.

To help, researchers from Florida State University have identified some of the key predictors for infidelity, based on a three-year-long analysis of the marital behaviours of 233 newlyweds.

Ok, great start, half-decent N. But as usual, the rag doesn’t link to the original study, so I don’t know if this is based on self-report answers. If it is, take the results with a flat of salt.

Surprisingly, they found that those who were satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to cheat on their partner, possibly because they “felt more positive about sex in general”, the study suggests.

Pomo poopytalk. This is the high libido effect, which in men means the Coolidge Effect.

Age, attractiveness and sexual history all have a crucial part to play, too, they found. In addition to those who were sexually satisfied in their relationship, younger people and less attractive women were also found to be more likely to be unfaithful.

Options = instability (younger people — really, younger women — have more options, so they have more temptations).

What about the seemingly contradictory finding that less attractive women are higher cheat risks? This is explained by the inherent instability of LSMV partnerships. Plain Janes are usually hitched to boring asexual beta mediocrities who are nonetheless reliable emotional tampons and open wallets. Beautiful women may get more attention (and have more tryst options), but they also are more likely to have a relationship with a high value man who gives them both the alpha fux and the beta bux, tamping down their urge to illicitly merge. Given the sexual market reality of men fucking “across and down” (and women dating “across and up”), it’s not surprising that average looking women would have both access to alpha males willing to pump and dump them *and* the motivation to seek out that exciting extracopulatory affair.

This is why, btw, sluts are more often than not less attractive than their peers. Sluts NEED to be slutty to get laid; no man will invest his energy into an unattractive chaste woman. Men WILL invest in chaste hot babes, because the payoff is so much higher.

And ladies, there’s useful info for you too.

The same was not true for men, who were conversely more likely to cheat when their partners were less attractive.

Men have to find that balance between a less attractive but no muss, no fuss woman, and a more attractive but harder-to-get woman. Men who choose the former are more apt to cheat to fulfill their desire for the latter.

The researchers found that men who had a higher number of short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage were less likely to stay faithful whereas women in this same category were less likely to cheat.

Sociosexuality 101. If you like to fuck around, marriage ain’t gonna stop ya. At best, it might slow ya down. As for the second part of that finding, I call bullshit. Every study I’ve seen to date has found the opposite — that women with lotsa cocksas under their felt prior to marriage were a much greater cheating and divorce risk in marriage.

One plausible explanation for the latter finding that isn’t explored by the researchers: women who had racked up many short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage got married later in life, when their SMV was well into its decline, inhibiting their ability to act on their urge to cheat.

The research did, however, find two techniques which could minimise the chances of infidelity occurring; ‘attentional disengagement’, and ‘evaluative devaluation’ of potential romantic partners.

Those with higher levels of attentional disengagement (avoiding thinking about a potential romantic partner’s attractiveness) and evaluative devaluation (downplaying the potential partner’s attractiveness in their mind) were less likely to cheat.

AKA meta-death.

Ironically, ‘evaluative devaluation’ is a fancy term for an Inner Game technique to help men approach hot babes. Mentally priming oneself to view women as interchangeable makes it easier to hit on any one of them, because “another is always right around the corner”. As Outer Game, evaluative devaluation takes the form of DQs (teasing disqualifications of girls for not meeting your standards), negs about girls’ beauty (“nice eyes, especially the left one”), and self-DQs (“hey now, don’t get the wrong idea, you’re not my type”).

***

Update

I located a link to the original study. A couple of additional thoughts I have now that I know better what exactly the study concludes about cheating predictors.

Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person’s own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men—meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair.

Like I wrote above, less attractive women are more likely to have settled way below their ideal, which makes alternative romantic possibilities more enticing. Not so for men. Less attractive men are more likely to be in a relationship with the best looking woman they can get; one, because men aim high when they have to sacrifice their natural male urge to polygyny and two, because women are holistic mate assessors and will choose long-term lovers based on a multitude of male SMV factors that include but are far from limited to his physical looks. What this means in practice is that less attractive men are more *grateful* for their main squeezes, and thus less inclined to risk losing it all on an infidelity.

A partner’s attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women—meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive.

Ok, this is cheating risk assessment based on partner looks rather than one’s own looks. And it comports with CH wisdom: men hitched to hot babes won’t risk losing them to a dalliance (and those men are already getting great sex since male sexual fulfillment is directly proportional to female lover beauty). But men hitched to unattractive women (or to women those men perceive being below the best they can get) will think a lot about cheating with more attractive women.

A person’s history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women.

Another possibility occurred to me that may explain this study’s unintuitive (and stand-alone) finding that women who have more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were less likely to have a marital affair. It could be simply that these are the lower value women who got pumped and dumped a lot by men, and when they finally found a doting beta to wife them up they were overjoyed at their good fortune and, like the men in LTRs with hot babes, wouldn’t dare risk it all on a momentary illicit fling.

Fame Game is all-powerful, so don’t expect many women to be able to resist smiling ear to ear when in the presence of a famous man. What you should worry about is when your wife can’t summon the same smile on her wedding day that she did standing next to Rob Lowe for 30 seconds (that we know of).

Game can’t stop a woman from auto-splooging around famous men, but it can sufficiently turn on her heart light so that she doesn’t look like she’s being forced into an arranged marriage with John Scalzi during the wedding day photo shoot. You want your girl smiling as broadly with you, in grateful acknowledgement of the sacrifice you’re making to be with her alone and to foreswear all other poon, as she would be smiling when posing for an Instawhore pic with 55 year old Rob Lowe. Or: If your girl acts like your groupie, you’re doing it right.

(This brings to mind a good rule for any kind of relationship: I call it the Smile Disparity Rule. If your girl smiles less than you in photos, you need a relationship course correction. If you both smile equally, have fun but don’t get complacent. If she smiles more than you do, she’s your love slave. Be discreet about your mistresses but don’t fret if your main dame discovers one of them. She’ll cry about it for a few minutes then concede she can’t stop loving you.)

More than anything, the photo comparison above exposes female hypergamy in its full flower. Ecstasy is her reaction when an alpha male so much as grazes her shoulder or asks for the time; barely concealed disappointment is her reaction when she knows she’s settling for ol’ dependable beta male who will provide her a lifetime of comfort and adoration. Not every woman will act on her hypergamy, but every woman will feel its tremors deep in the pit of her womb.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reorient society so that informal regulations on the ability of women to satisfy their hypergamous urges are established for the benefit of civilization. Good luck!

At the very least, don’t be a self-deprecating cuck and act like there’s something funny or endearing about your woman swooning for another man while she looks at you like you’re ball-less ballast. If your wedding pic resembles the one above, prepare now for the inevitable divorce industrial complex ass ramming, and start sexting Schneiderman’s brown slave exes. Their nights are free now (praise be upon Trump and his long memory).

70% of divorces are initiated by women. Now a Pedestalman might say that’s because more than ever men are horrible, but a Pedestalman would say the same if 70% of divorces were initiated by men.

Kids, don’t do pussy pedestals.

The truth about the Divorce Industrial Complex is exactly as I have described it here on this blog: INCENTIVES MATTER. And American women respond to the personally advantageous incentives of the divorce market which massively redistributes money and children away from ex-husbands to ex-wives at no cost or stipulation to the women.

Proof? It’s as plain as the mangina in your midst who never took a risk with the opposite sex in his life. But if you prefer STATS AND DATA, here you go:

Rise of women backing out of divorces as court settlements shrink

Women are backing out of divorce cases because settlements are becoming less generous, experts have said.

Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years.

This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.

Yo yo yo….ayo hol up….so what you’re sayin is….

WIVES DON’T FRIVORCE WHEN THE GRAVY TRAIN IS SHUT OFF

How about that! Women ARE rational creatures! This is an astounding discovery to the world of white knights who had been laboring under the belief that women bear no moral culpability for social ills, nor exercise any self-serving sex-based calculus which might fray the social fabric.

I’m happy to see that at least in some White redoubts the direction of reform is heading away from incentivizing EatPraySlut frivorce rape and toward equitable treatment rooted in a wise understanding of the inherent, innate, and intractable biosocial differences between men and women.

Did you buy your girl a big rock to ritualize your love for each other? Odds are, she’s daydreaming about fucking BIGDICKENERGYMAGACHAD down the office hall. From the world’s most authoritative journalism source, diamond rings as beta male screenings:

Women expect a pricey engagement ring if their partner is UGLY to compensate for their poor looks

Researchers showed 590 people a photo of an attractive or unattractive person

They were asked what it would take to get engaged to the person in the photo

Men said they would buy a more expensive ring if the ‘girlfriend’ was attractive

Women expected a pricier rock if the ‘boyfriend’ in the photo was unattractive

Ah, complementarity. Diamonds are a girl’s best recompense.

Alpha fux/beta bux field tested and found operative. da GBFM lollzzloled.

The good news for ugly men is that they can buy themselves a hotwife, which once again proves that men can compensate for their looks while women have no such option. An ugly chick can’t do anything to convince an hsmv man to commit to her.

The study also found that women who rated themselves as attractive were more likely to go for larger, more expensive rings, regardless of their partner’s looks.

‘The finding is consistent with the notion that desirable women expect greater resource investment from their mates,’ said study lead author Madalyn Taylor.

Game can save men a lot of money. What’s it worth to you to be able to seduce and sequester hot babes on the cheap?

But there’s a dark side to appeasing a woman’s self-entitled instinct to indulge herself of a man’s earned wealth:

A previous study by economists at Emory University in 2014 found that the more expensive the engagement ring, the more likely the couple would get divorced later.

Once you establish a dynamic of giving a woman everything she wants, she has no reason to work for your love and the challenge of pleasing you goes missing, leaving her adrift in anhedonic limbo, waiting for the first excuse to step out.

A reader writes,

Damn, I must be better looking than I thought.  My wife to be only wanted a simple quarter caret ring.  I offered more, but that’s what she wanted.

How do you know when you have your girl on lock? She agrees to stay on as your kept concubine for the low low price of your intoxicating cock.

Chalk up another loss for the “divorce experts” (aka the “man-hating feminist cunts, phaggy white knight enablers, demagogic politicians, and greedy lawyers”): the financial impact of divorce hits men hardest.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found divorced people aged over 55 had less disposable income and fewer assets than their married counterparts.

The study also said men end up worse off, but this is in contrast to the views of divorce experts, who say older women are the ones who are missing out financially. […]

The study examined the financial consequences of divorce for up to 3,000 older Australians between 2001 and 2016, using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Surveys.

It found that during this period, there had been a 10 per cent increase in divorce.

The research also found that men were slightly [ed: “slightly”? see below] worse off than women when it came to household disposable income.

Click on the direct link to the study for actual numbers on how men are getting ass-raped by the divorce industrial complex:

Australian Institute of Family Studies Director, Anne Hollonds said the study focused on people who had divorced on average 15 to 20 years ago and found their finances remained in a weaker position than their married counterparts.

“Our analysis shows that divorced men and women have less household disposable income than their married counterparts at this later stage in life. On average divorced single men were $10,000 worse off and divorced single women were $6,300 worse off over the 16 years,” she said.

This is in Australia, an Anglosphere nation as overrun with man-hating feminist idiocy as any Inner Hajnalian formerly all-White nation, so you can assume the same study in the US would have similar results.

The study doesn’t speculate why divorced men are financially harmed worse than are divorced women, but I can offer a few guesses why:

1. there is more institutional discrimination against older men in the job market than exists for older women seeking work
2. divorced men (have to) spend more of their own money to attract a new lover, whereas divorced women can leverage their cooking skills and holes to gain access to a new man’s money
3. divorce on the whole redistributes money from men to women
4. alimony and child support costs fall largely on divorced men

What’s funny is that a raft of studies show that men are financially more responsible than are women, so the “divorce gap” in household disposable income that favors women could conceivably be a lot smaller or even reversed if divorced women didn’t have the option (mostly unavailable to divorced men) to cajole new lovers to pick up the tab.

***

From very occasional poster,

My ex gets 30% of my military retirement until I die (her lawyer screwed up twice–she was eligible for 34% and he didn’t even ask for SBP until it was way too late and he was legally not allowed to). She $2,000 a month in alimony for the first four years after the divorce, so she got over $3,200 a month free and clear. Yet she somehow managed to run up $80,000 in debt in the first year after we divorced.

Wait, the children lived with me. After a few years she was up to $30,000 behind in unpaid child support. Took her to CS court, was asked why I was harassing this poor woman. After the first hearing, I told my lawyer that if the roles were reversed I would have left that hearing room in cuffs. My lawyer disagreed. After the second hearing where the judge nearly held her in contempt just for attending (child support court is technically the state vs the payer, as the father I was irrelevant), she agreed.

Five years after the divorce, my first child is a full ride scholarship at a decent private college. My second is a senior in high school. I am wasting money fighting her annual round of contempt claims, but so what, I managed to rear them safe from her and her thoroughly documented physical and emotional abuse. I make a healthy six figures.

What made it possible was I read all the warnings about divorce and divorce court, and took them seriously. I documented thoroughly. I didn’t waste the court’s time or my money on anything irrelevant to the well-being of our children, who were themselves insistent to the social welfare thugs that they wanted to live with their father, period. I knew that any financial good deed to the ex would be wasted and would mean nothing to the court, so I gave none. Her lies to people cost me jobs I had lined up, so I went unemployed for years and let her deal with the consequences.

I’ve told many men this, but they don’t get it. They are their own worst enemies. Develop a cold heart and steel yourself so that you don’t react to anything she does or says. Concede nothing, so many men give away the farm. I had to flee the house in the middle of the night with our children, but I had a place to go to and called the police along the way. Guess what, it’s just a legal for men to do that as women. I filed for the TCO, the TRO and the house, how many men do that? What did the constabulary say when they arrived at my refuge? “About damn time you did something, mate.”

I am the exception to the crippling poverty, and there is a ton of luck behind that outcome, but fortune favors the prepared. I knew the truth about women, and about the family court system, so I didn’t let myself get financially raped while crying about fairness. Finding myself on a tilted playing field, I figured out how to tilt it in my children’s favor. I was accused of being dirty, cold, unkind, unforgiving, I never cared. No one, but no one, cares about my children like I do, no matter how much they say they do (usually for a gummint paycheck). No fucks given.

These war stories from the divorce trenches are tough to read, but every man should read them because a little preparedness and clarity of mind beats getting caught in the id-shredding shrapnel of a scorned woman with her merc army of lawyers and judges.