You're not addressing his criticism. He never said guys who "follow Rip" didn't get stronger.
Developing mass also isn't the issue. Read the comments, too.
Natty or Not (Cultural Critique Blog)
- Thread starter Blade Runner
- Start date
Developing mass also isn't the issue. Read the comments, too.
Shaquilleoatmeal
Protestant
No it’s not. The older women should be serving their husbands, they have no business making decisions on future pairings. Their opinion in fact shouldn’t even be voiced, as it is a disruptive screech like nails on a chalkboard.
We should go back to the system of fathers deciding who a woman (their daughter) can marry.
Yes, I just had another colleague that told me (she's in her 50s I think) "this woman broke up with her man" or something to that effect, then went on to mention her as "young". And of course she was like 36. You mean she is young compared to you.
I was out with some friends and I like talking to some of these older women, but it's always a non starter because biologically it makes zero sense, financially it makes the least sense (I'm going to put my wealth at risk? For what), and the thought of having sex with even an average mid 30s to 40 year old woman is like thinking about sex with your mom or some such person. talk about the ick
That is partly a anglosphere phenomenon.
Obviously women become less attractive with age but in countries like Spain, Italy, Japan, etc women don’t age as quickly and you still see many attractive women over 40.
But yes in Australia, USA and other anglosphere countries it’s super rare. Most anglosphere women look mediocre by age 30 and absolutely horrible by age 40.
Sounds better on paper than it plays out in reality.
It can't be worse than what we have now.
I read them and I've followed Mark gorillaRippetoe for a long time even before the CrossFit phase.
He's a great entrepreneur and what he teaches works.
I don't besmerch him for developing a brand anymore than info Louie Simmons or any other person in that space. I happen to think both have given away significantly more free content than they should have and do altruisticly.
His criticisms are that he's pursuing noobs and an economic model. No shit... Did you need an advanced degree to notice that? It is incredibly transparent from the group that this is the case.
Or am I missing something???
If you were the guy that the fathers didn't want their daughters to marry then you were SOL. You can still experience this in churchianity courtship culture. For as much as they will talk about wanting to see marriages, these courtship-model families will stiff-arm you if you don't meet up to their standards (usually money). What the girl you're going for thinks be damned. So every system has it's pros and cons.
Personally, I like being able to approach any girl and talk to her directly. I like doing that over "asking her dad for permission to date/marry her." Never go for a dragon-guarded woman.
I think you are thinking that the grass is greener on the other side. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But I do know you're stuck with the hand you're dealt with. So the only thing to do is to play it the best you can since you can't ask for a different one.
That seems like a very reasonable expectation to me. If you don't have money then you aren't ready to look after a family and you need to get your finances sorted. Better than letting women decide which usually ends up being mostly about how the guy looks which creates in a looksmaxxing arms race between men. Or in some cases it ends up being about status also. The boring 40 year old accountant with a net worth of $2 million is generally better husband and father material than the broke but handsome young local musician who spends half his time smoking weed and drinking beers with friends but most women would likely choose the musician over the accountant whereas the father would sensibly chose the accountant.
Most fathers are reasonable and are not expecting you to have yacht money to marry their daughter. Is it reasonable for a family to expect you to have a million dollars if you are marrying their 18 year old virgin daughter? That seems reasonable to me and obviously the expectations of the man's wealth would be lower for a used up 30 year old woman, so each man gets what he can afford. This system also benefits society because it creates an incentive for men to be productive, work hard and save and invest benefiting all of society.
Ultimately though, it's in the interest of fathers to marry off daughters quickly, otherwise they'll have to support them for even longer. And if a father creates a spinster daughter, then he'll be supporting her until he dies.
So father-based marriages happen fast and usually to stable men. Keep in mind a father cannot make a daughter marry someone against her will, but he can create a 'pool' of men for the daughter to choose from. This prevents female paralysis-analysis which comes from having too many choices. It actually works very well which is why it was the norm since Abraham.
Actually, in the old days, the biggest problem wasn't father approval. In fact that was a non-issue. The issue was mother approval, specifically for her son. Up until a hundred years ago, usually the mother would try to prevent their sons from marrying, because the son was seen as the retirement plan for the mother. The mother would heavily filter out women who would not be loyal to her.
This is why historically there was so much animosity between the mother-in-law and the wife-to-be. The MIL did not want a wife who would take too much of her son's time, so she would have more support from her sons.
If the mother thought some girl would be too demanding of her sons, she would do everything in her power to kill that relationship. Usually with good success. Historically the prospective wife would have to walk on eggshells around a mother to avoid her wrath until marriage. Afterwards there would be war or family feuds. This problem continues to this day, the animosity between mothers and daughter-in-laws are very frequent.
There is currently a subreddit with nearly 100k members dedicated strictly on the topic of MIL's from hell:
Wives and MILs were 100x worse back when parents had more power over their children. That subreddit would have 10 million members if it was made in the 1800s, for example.
Last edited:
Yes, you're missing that he's selling something to the common man, which is (to anyone who hasn't worked out a ton) that you can get stronger for now, then peak, but keep eating and be happy that you are "stronger" even though practically speaking it doesn't mean much, since you don't look better. It is a great strategy for most people who don't want to do much beyond marginally improve, and not really improve cosmetically, which is 80% of why all people work out. If we're honest.
That's the point of the article.
I agree. However, the issue isn't necessarily with the dads no longer being in control, but rather with the fact that getting married and starting a family aren't part of an 18 year old's goals. Her goal is to learn a skill or study and then work. Even her parents, including her dad, are pushing her to do that.
One of my Serbian friends from Montenegro has a daughter who is a highly successful corporate woman in her mid 20s. It feels as though she isn't promiscuous, though I can't be 100% sure. Anyway, despite being very proud of his daughter, he has been actively trying to encourage her to meet someone and start a family. She's at the point where she only stays in 5 star hotels, has no real wife skills and simply loves luxury. She will most likely never find an adequate partner.
Unless marrying becomes a necessity, which it probably won't, fathers will never play that active role again. But such is the fate of good Christian men. That's why there are more and more entrepeneurs, accountants, business guys etc. emerging who have their finances in check, in addition to understanding women on an emotional level and being able to create a mental and emotional stimulus similar to that of the shabby street musician without actually ruining their own lives in the process. Not easy to do, but what's the alternative?
Like I said, the pie in the sky looks tasty until you're the guy not getting any. I've had it happen to me, seen it happen to others. If you want people to marry young then you can't have the expectation that the guy is wealthy. It's just not realistic, nor was that even how it played out historically, not even in more recent times. Won't stop people from hypocritically wanting their cake and eating it too.
Funnily enough, this courtship mentality that you're advocating for directly leads to the modern context. Both place a high premium on marriage, in this case, material wealth.
You can have people marry young or you can have people marry once they have money but you can't have both. It would be better for the society to marry young, to stop fornication and return things to the proper order. But since people worship money above all else, people don't get married until they're 30+ and at that point, they figure why get married at all? Thus the anti-marriage context.
In either case, I'm not trying to date the dad.
I disagree. Most fathers want the best possible deal they can get and they aren't very modest about it. If you've tried playing this game then you would know it's not as good as you're cracking it up to be. This stuff has been phased out for good reason: it's all about what the dad of the girl wants to the detriment of what the guy and the girl wants. This conservative dad is never going to take your side just because you're a guy and he's trying to maintain a pro-male society or whatever. He's going to be pushing for the best deal he can get for his daughter no matter what, which is bad news for you if you are not the best possible deal for the daughter. That's the reality.
Last edited:
A million dollars is reasonable??? Most men, if they see that kind of money at all, see it when they are nearing retirement. No man wants to wait until 50+ to find a wife. In traditional Christian societies all you've ever needed is enough money to support your wife and children, not to seek luxury.
Since when do you need a million dollars to raise a family? The important thing is that a man is a strong, competent leader. He should have the skills and abilities to earn money. Even a 100k salary is sufficient to support a family in much of the US, if you are willing to forsake luxury. A man of modest means but strong character is going to make a much better husband than a rich man who is weak. The latter will cave when times get tough, whereas the former will endure and guide his family through it.
This really depends on the father. Today there are few who are men of virtue. And often they will only have worldly considerations. If the father is a deeply spiritual man who loves his daughter, he will want the best for her soul, and not the "best deal" from a worldly perspective.
Again, the ideal father will seek for his daughter a man of strong moral character, not necessarily the one who will provide the best resources and social connections. There is nothing wrong with those on their own (and it's still better that she marry a man with resources than a broke musician), but they are far from the most important thing. Unfortunately, such considerations are rarely made.
Women should marry young men do not have to marry young as it takes time for a man to build his value. Besides in the modern world what 18 year old man can comfortably support a wife and 2 kids?
Except that's not really what Rip teaches. He personally ascribed to that but it's not what he's saying for strength development.
He says get stronger in the big 3 lifts and use progressive overload and eat accordingly to add weight to the bar.
He is not saying to go out and be a fat piece of lard.
Just watch the interview here and see him explain the novice progression before moving into an new program.
Ergo I reject that assertion.
No 18 year old guy could support a family on his own in any age. The expectation was that the man and wife's families would support the couple until the couple could get on their feet. In other words, the opposite of waiting till you're 30+ so you'd have enough money to support a family on your own.
This. Most couples from my dad's and grandad's generation (age 70 to 90+) are all essentially the same age or just 2 to 5 years apart. That would be impossible, if the historical norm had been young women marrying established guys 10 to 20 years older.
What's being confused here is that women were all raised, expected, meant, whatever to be wives and mothers early so that the guys in fact would have a reason to marry. I think AS is just pointing out the obvious reality that I have, which is in the modern day since most women (of the west) don't seek marriage at young ages = where a man gets anything out of the marriage, the only solution is then for them to marry older men who are established. But of course, they won't do that either. That's why we go around in circles here.
I think basically once it became commonplace for women to be shipped off all alone to "study/get a degree" and be to some degree indebted, it forced the hand of being part of the workforce for a time in which the chaotic spirits of the world would cause enough problems. You lose most of your high value in college, and it gets worse if you experience even more. Then you basically have to justify the degree, so there goes another 4 years into your mid 20s to work a job, live in a city, etc. Game over for marriage, since biologically guys aren't going to want to do deal with that for marriage.