I think you're mixing two separate points of mine in a strange way. Perhaps I did not articulate my thoughts properly. I'm never really sure if I'm doing it properly. Let me try to put it in a different way.
I said it's not an eugenic filter simply because it does nothing to select for eugenic traits in women. There is absolutely no standard that women need to meet in order to have access to a marriage with a decent man. My statement on whether or not it's an eugenic filter ended there.
The slim pickings thing was in response to a different part of your reply, where you said it's only really dysgenic if the woman is bad. I said in response that I agree, but that the woman is in most cases going to be bad, simply because there are so many more men who yearn for a wife than there are good women, so at the end of the day we're going to have dysgenics. Marriage is not to blame for this, of course, but I just thought it was interesting enough to state it.
Do they? Are there statistics on this? Not trying to be the "source?" guy for some cheap gotcha, I argue in good faith, I just can't seem to find anything, looked around for a bit in Google Scholar and such.
I mean, sure. Your overarching point with this is that bad women produce broken offspring with less chance of reproducing, correct?
Like I said, I'm not sure if the premise that a broken home correlates with a lower fertility rate is true, or if it reduces the rate by something significant. But I suppose it's plausible, and I don't really believe in soyentific papers anyway, so I will simply accept your premise.
So then, the point is, "the dysgenic freaks will die alone eventually, or their offspring will, or their offspring's offspring will, or so on", correct? If so, fair enough. Do you think the institution of marriage will accelerate that process?
No, bad women definitely do get married all the same. Maybe they do it much later in life, or more cynically, or they don't actually end up honoring the oath, but I don't think they get married at a lower rate.
I mean, marriage is such a stupidly, onesidedly sweet deal for women that they all take it eventually. The only women who die of old age without taking it are those who are genuinely pathologically repulsed by men, or who hit the wall and are unwilling to update their standards accordingly. Mind you, women in that last group often actually do snatch a guy who meets their high standards anyway, because this is clown world and there's surprisingly plenty of tall and fit men who make decent money but are invisible to women their age and are therefore very much willing to hagmaxx. I have met men like that.
Right. Marriage used to be the core building block of society and a very good thing for all parties involved, back when it was legally and socially enforced and encouraged, and divorce was difficult, looked down upon by society, and things like alimony didn't exist. But that has all been destroyed and women are no longer forced or even incentivized to be good, by any system or social force. Quite the opposite.
All in all, I don't think marriage today is really even marriage at all, and I don't think it's worth it for men (though that might just be me coping and calling the grapes sour). I suppose most men aren't built for celibacy and don't really have a choice, though.
Last edited:
