Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Yeah, it's not a good strategy. Women really don't need men these days like they used to. Also, many women are forgoing kids - or if they do have them, going with a sperm bank so as to not be tied to who knows what.

Psychologically, women tend much more to the fantasy of 'one true love'. The thought of their man with someone else... many nopes.

I just want to point out that this: "I agree that many divorce are going to be very unfavorable to men, this is both due to some bias, and to the fact that often, men take a provider role, and court will expect from them to keep providing after divorce." is tending towards the untrue. 49% of working women today are the main breadwinners of their household. This number will only go up as (in many places, but not all) more women than men are pursuing careers such as law and medicine. Already more women than men get degrees - and no, I don't want to discuss degrees in terms of ERE. Lastly, carrying this attitude is not going to attract women. Just saying.

A woman could hire a baby sitter and not have to deal with any legal ramifications instead of getting married. And it would come out to be cheaper, I'm sure. You have to be offering more than that.

If a woman thinks that a dad is nothing more than a babysitter, I don't wan't to be involve with her anyway.

CS wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:01 pm

49% of working women today are the main breadwinners of their household.

CS, where is that stat from? One of the Pew surveys from 2018 pegged it at 40%.

Jean wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:01 pm

the MGTOW reference was more about what to do if men create a shortage of themselves and what conditions a man could offer to women who still want to have a family.

... I don't see that happening. MGTOW is a small phenomenon that is extremely over-hyped on the internet. I suppose there could be some issues coupled with already decreasing birthrates in developed nations, like in Japan, where the "boys who eat grass", which were/are like a peaceful/tranquil/non-whiny version of MGTOW. But the problem is more of an issue for total populations and the economy. Not so much for individual women.

Augustus wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:08 pm

I recall reading in an old sherlock holmes or something about a mormon guy he saw on a train looking like the most miserable man in the world. I could not imagine how annoying it would be trying to keep 4-5 women happy at the same time. Also, not very ERE Think of the cost involved!!!

Mark Twain wrote a great account of this in one of his travel memiors - "Roughing It". I don't know how much of the book was fiction vs. actual experience, but he recounts going to Salt Lake City and hanging out with Brigham Young and his wives and children. It was fascinating and very funny. It sounded like a TON of work just trying to keep the kids and wives to not explode in loud screaming. (Wikipedia says he had 55 wives and 59 children).

Jason wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:20 pm

Wikipedia says Joseph Smith started the "church" at 24 and died at 38. He was obviously no Hugh Hefner.

Joseph Smith had something like 27 to 49 wives, but was killed young (religious persecution). Folks were very mean to Mormons around his time. Brigham Young was the more famous Mormon polygamist and lived long I believe.

CS wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:01 pm

A woman could hire a baby sitter and not have to deal with any legal ramifications instead of getting married. And it would come out to be cheaper, I'm sure. You have to be offering more than that.

Well, for clarity's sake, he is offering much more than that. (The home, being a good father for the kids, essentially a small community of other mothers and children, him managing the household and doing home-maker work). I do still think that most women wouldn't want this arrangement unless there is some other serious imbalance (like him being a vastly superior partner/mate than they could otherwise be with 1-on-1)

There is no need to be vastly superior, just marginaly better in the right metrics, because the advantage of being the only wife disapeared with woman labor.

Thanks.

cimorene12 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:03 pm

@kriegsspiel

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first- ... e-n859206
That article is from March 2018.

It seems that this metric is going to be kind of inaccurate because I can already see many women and men in a relationship both saying they are the main breadwinner when their income is roughly the same leading to the total of breadwinners actually exceeding 100%.

C40 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:39 pm

Joseph Smith had something like 27 to 49 wives, but was killed young (religious persecution). Folks were very mean to Mormons around his time. Brigham Young was the more famous Mormon polygamist and lived long I believe.

Yeah, it's hard to fathom why someone might be out to get a guy banging everything not nailed down to the prairie floor in the name of restoring Christianity.

That being said, Mormonism is the only truly American "religion" - one that unequivocally originated on US soil.

Jean wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:56 pm

There is no need to be vastly superior, just marginaly better in the right metrics, because the advantage of being the only wife disapeared with woman labor.

There is much more to a relationship than income sources and distribution of household labor.

Many women would not want a husband who has very little time for them because he's busy taking care of other women's kids and railing those women in the other room. You'd need to get either women who are infatuated with you (maybe to unhealthy levels) or who have lovers other than you (maybe including the other women of the house)

C40 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:39 pm

Brigham Young
.....
Wikipedia says he had 55 wives and 59 children).

daylen wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:41 pm

The colony grew rapidly at first (r-selective strategy)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LbPwwmEcws0

55 wives and 59 children. Yeah, nothing to read into there.

Makes me think Brigham Young was the nominalized version of "Bring 'em young."

I am a fan of contrarian mating strategies, but I can’t quite see how you are going to make this one work unless it is open all around.

I think it is true that women shop different when they have their own money. For instance, they will rate “sexy” higher. However, I think the talk about MGTOW is reinforcing a previously existing male blind spot that tends towards making any guy who has game think he is just about the only guy who has game. Likely this blind spot is due to tendency to semi- consciously establish territory.

So, I am imagining one of Jean’s attractive careerist wives traveling for business and encountering another sexy man roaming about his own territory, and she is not inclined to accept his advances...why?

Because they don't wan't to get pregnant with a kid that will get lesser attention?
They wouldn't be my wives, It more like the carricatural single mom with 6 kids from 6 different dads, but the rate at which kids are popinpg won't be limited by my personal egg production, and they won't lack a fatterly figure. Some women might enjoy my company enough to stick around me, but it isn't required that they stay infatuated with me forever.

I don't know when "not wanting to spend their whole life with me" and "despising me" became equivalent propositions.

You could just keep a bunch of hookers on call, like Tiger Woods did. Probably cheaper than housing a harem, and certainly more hassle-free.

Jean, don't let us discourage you from achieving your dreams. I say go for it; play like a goddamn champion.

When you hit the 8 baby-momma-milestone, please change your name to Genghis Jean.

Oddly, you guys are actually supporting Jean’s theory by demonstrating that the perceived risk of paternity is currently very high.

In my experience it is pretty difficult to get to the level of “despise” within the context of an open contract. I can also imagine a character like Elaine having and often leaving a kid with a wilderness adventure version of Kramer.

Many answer to this as if my goal was to exchange daycare for sex. It isn't.
It just that very few men want to have children now.
Many women would like to have children but they can't because they aren't ready to lose their career, or more often, because they don't meet a man who could give their child a nice future. It tends to be smart women who feel like this.
I would be offering this futur.
I think it might be true because
1) I'm willing to be a full time educator for my child (and yes aimed number is more 8 than 50, it's just that most women don't seem to want more than two, 8 child from 1 wife would be fine too)

2)A feeling that it might be an advantage to bear some similitude with me in the futur is the only explanation I can find for why women are attracted to me. I don't check the usual boxes(rich, famous, strongly driven). I look like a hairy bum, and that's mostly what I am. I have no game of some sort.

An ongoing love relationship with one of the mother might be ideal, but there would be no point in requiring all the women to stay infatuated with me their whole life.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:37 am

Oddly, you guys are actually supporting Jean’s theory by demonstrating that the perceived risk of paternity is currently very high.

As his theory gains traction beyond the confines of this board, I'm sure there will be colloquium type of events where Jean Theorists and Gene Theorists meet in order to discuss the compatibility of basic principals, a fuckfest that will no doubt produce a plethora of evidence that either confirms or falsifies their findings.

Eh, the whole man biologically destined for provider role thing has been more than a bit overworked. In many tribal cultures, the men mostly function as big hairy bums who hang about shooting the shit and preening and only occasionally heading out on a hunt to add some portion of kilocalories and nitrogen to the pot.