@Typo-MAGAshiv request, editing to comply with Rule 3.
@Overkill_Engine comment gave me food for thought: https://www.forums.red/p/whereareallthegoodmen/325179/form_a_line_boys/7872612
“Yup. Women's desire is about as amoral as a dog in heat. The proof of this is in how many end up single moms after spreading their legs for men that were clearly not going to stick around for any woman.”
On WAATGM, the topic is usually women complaining about a lack of “men” (meaning hot men) or the leftover women or single mothers no longer getting approached.
In the case of many single mothers, however, the reason is that these women often married the first guy who asked her out. I actually have a dear friend that this happened to. She was sweet and shy and jealous of her younger brother who was getting American girls chasing after him due to his British accent at the time. For whatever reason, perhaps her tomboyish like interests, she wasn’t getting bites.
Finally some working class schmuck who worked as a dishwasher at a restaurant where she waitressed asked her out on a dinner date when she was about 19. He did the whole working class gentleman thing and later, when she finished nursing school, she husbanded him up. Lucky bastard!
My friend (her brother) remarked that perhaps her body was protecting her by refusing to get pregnant. About 10 years later she divorced him because he drank and couldn’t hold a job.
It makes me wonder that a lot of women who spread their legs and get married when young did so because they refuse to initiate relationships and accept that male burden. They weren’t (exceptionally) hypergamous. They just detested doing the asking out and paying for their own dinner.
As a father, I avoid telling my daughter what to do because when she’s out of my control, she’s just going to default to factory settings or the clique around her. I explain to her history, consequences, and as importantly, provide her with tools. It’s human to want to take the easy or lazy way out.
When we first went to the playground at age 3, she wanted to play with kids and asked me to ask the kids to play with her. I explained to her that this was a very low risk rejection scenario, explained the emotions she and the other kids went through, and demonstrated how to ask kids to play with her. With the other child’s mother there, I would go up and say: “My daughter Sofia next to me wants to play hide-and-seek with your daughter. Would she like that?”
After only 1 or 2 cycles, my daughter was doing this on her own. I’m very proud of her. The teachers say she’s the social leader which is what I want. I don’t want her following the dummies.
I explained to her about tattoos, face piercings, and such in a similar way. I explained they were tribal largely for men going through rites of passage, and she quickly lost interest in them. As a father, I want her to be empowered, thoughtful, and ethical. I can’t stop her from messing up her own life if she’s determined, but at least she’ll understand what messing her life up means.
Rule 3 Note: This is what I’m doing for my daughter to empower her to have a better life than the default entitlement mindset western women typically possess. She’s free to ultimately reject my advice, of course, but I just want her to understand the choices and perspective. I also will give her a firm “I told you so” if she ignores my advice and does what she wanted to anyway and mucked it up.
If I had a son, I’d advise him that there’s an opportunity in youthful courtship. It’s difficult in this era, but locking down untainted women in their teens going “steady” and then marrying after university is perhaps the best route to having a stable family. You protect her from the cock carousel but this comes at a cost: You need to be emotionally strong to handle the rejection when you are emotionally vulnerable. Granted, there’s fewer such women available since the cultural poison is utterly ubiquitous. Nonetheless, few women actually get BETTER with age so it’s like hitting the produce section at the supermarket the earliest before anyone else gets there. I think it also requires parents who will mentor their son and guide him through this difficult time.
Rule 3 Note: Please note that there’s no requirement for young men to do this. I personally spend my youth getting my act together (I needed it). One of the few luxuries us men have that women don’t is a longer biological clock. If a father has a son and wants to give him an edge, this is an option. Note: I don’t suggest getting married as a teenager. Just going steady. And it’s an engagement for a reason: If she shows that the red flags are markers for underlying issues, then break it off and move on. It wasn’t uncommon in my father’s time for youthful engagements to break off.
If you’re a young person reading this, this. Is perhaps one of the most difficult eras to start a marriage. Consider this chart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIAP0fyW4AAZYzM?format=jpg&name=large
Nonetheless, the good news is that the truth is out there. There’s decades of thoughtful commentary to consider including the comments below.
Best of wishes to the young men and women reading this!
Typo-MAGAshiv Mod 3w ago Stickied
This is a well-written post, @PolishKnight, and I can tell you've put some thought into it.
However, you're running afoul of WATGMA's rule 3 again:
If anything, instead of addressing the issues that keep men from being willing to enter such a commitment, you're kind of advising them to just "Man Up!" and roll the dice. Knowing what we know, that's almost unconscionable.
Please edit your OP to comply with this rule. I'll give you a few days.
polishknight Endorsed 3w ago
I appreciate and respect your POV but please note that I wrote the above rather holistically and it's a challenge to edit right away, but after some rumination, say a few days, I'll make a few. Please review and consider my response and advise if you could be so kind:
In regards to Rule 3, I didn't want to just say: "Women did X, this is why she's now at Y" but also wanted to provide commentary as to why she, and young men, are suffering, anecdotal tales, and what I had done with my daughter and caveats for young men also navigating the situation.
I kept it open somewhat so greater minds could contribute because I simply don't have all the answers myself. I stated that my woman friend, for example, suffered due to her trad-entitlement thinking of a man having to approach and then pay for a free date and she suffered the consequences of selling herself to meet hivemind female cultural expectations. I'll edit later, after rumination, to add that I'm advising my daughter that if she wants above-average results, she has to engage in non-average thinking rather than following the herd and provided examples (tattoos). I will ruminate on adding more explicit guidance on precisely what I just wrote in this paragraph.
My daughter won't play the same stupid games the other women do. She'll play games, as we all need to quite frankly in human relations, but they at least won't be the SAME stupid games the other women play.
I certainly didn't intend to advise young men to "man up" but rather to remind them that there are opportunities in youth that are worth pursuing although, and note above, I did add that there are risks and challenges and they need strong mentorship.
I respectfully observe that I did NOT tell the young men to roll the dice or man up. I didn't just tell my daughter: "Go over there and ask that daughter to play with you". I held her hand, quite literally, through the process. I didn't say men should "commit" to girls in high school. I EXPLICITLY said above they should aim to go steady and then marry after college graduation. It is "commitment" such as a promise ring (In my high school, you gave her your class ring. I've LONG since lost mine!) Perhaps that's what those rings were largely used for back in the 1950's!!!
I didn't say explicitly, and will likely edit above to reflect this, that this was the purpose of original courtship: Dating in a low key way, not expensive dates or shit tests, no sex, and under parental guidance and then, assuming that no red flags metastasize into genuine long term concerns, wife them up.
It wasn't uncommon back in the 1950's for "going steady" relationships to die during college. Perhaps she ran off with some guy she met in college. It's a good example of a trial relationship where if the couple otherwise get along, can you trust each other?
All good fodder to put into the above posting but give me a while to figure out how to get it in without making a huge mess of it.
Plus I'll read the comments below and digest accordingly.
GeorgeIII 3w ago
Interesting write up PK.
And good on you for teaching your kid social skills. Especially in 2026 that’s super rare among kids.
I do disagree on getting married extremely early as being the “safe route”. I see 2 problems.
1: even if she doesn’t ride the CC in her early 20s, the globalized and social media-driven society we live in will present and glorify that behavior in her mind. Often leading to FOMO and destabilizing the marriage.
2: at this age, the man will not have had enough experience with different women and maintaining frame. He will be unlikely to be able to handle #1 above. Heck, he probably won’t have his shit together (stable school/career, gym, social circle, etc.) Early marriage could handicap him.
All around, I see marriage as just not in a good state today. High school sweethearts, stable career man and corporate nun in their 30s, sugar daddy and baby, I see them all as… suboptimal. With (maybe) the exception of the stable career man and corporate nun, they are all in decline in the West.
polishknight Endorsed 3w ago
Considering that @Typo-MAGAshiv has called out a need for edits, I may need to make this position more explicitly clear: I didn't suggest young marriage so much as young courtship, or "going steady", and then marriage after getting out of school.
The challenge, as you point out, are two factors: FOMO on the women's side (didn't bang a dozen frat boys at drunken parties) and the men lacking frame. That's why I also need to emphasize strong parental guidance, mentoring, and chaperoning in the edit.
There is experience to be gained from going steady without sex. He learns frame in not paying for lavish dates and being around a woman in a non-sibling fashion. She gains healthy intimacy with a man without the CC/dating game of being entertained and wined and dined.
It's not ideal of course. Few things are. I'm open to hearing suggestions considering we need to not only consider the man, but also a supply of well raised women. If decent men don't go steady with these girls to protect them from the CC, who will?
Note the discipline to be a young man and work out at the gym, maintain frame, do well in studies, and become successful will be immense particularly if he's by himself. Many men get downbeaten by the horrific dating scene if they're trying to do PUA. Plus there's the risk of a nutjob getting him thrown out of school on a false accusation.
It's why I kept the above reasonably open because it's tough to put it all together. I wanted something positive to post here in that there are young men (and women) who could maybe just avoid this horrific situation many of us went through.
Overkill_Engine Endorsed 3w ago
Oh absolutely. My own mother got married to and knocked up by the first guy that would take her off the farm she grew up on. She was sixteen, had my brother shortly after, and then me at seventeen.
It didn't work out long term because he was a fucking drug addict, a liar, and a thief, and later an attempted murderer via arson. But he was tall, dark, handsome, and the first guy that would take her off the farm, so for her purposes, he was Chad at the time.
Hypergamy alone is not the only factor in a woman's choices as you noticed. Desperation, shortsighteness, and plain unwillingness to "woman up" and seek out suitable men for something long term and initiate are all things that get added in among others. But those are overlays - the core instincts are still amoral. It is up to a woman's parents to instill the "aftermarket" moral controls.
polishknight Endorsed 3w ago
I'm considering this inputs for my suggested post edits above, thanks.
I'm going to likely add my own sister's story who dated my brother's college roommate who was an OCD ROTC student nitpicking at her housekeeping but he did what He Was Supposed To Do. She totally lucked out with a bailout later when she met a nice guy slightly younger than her that wifed her up as a single mother after seeing her as a pretty cocktail waitress. Note that this worked precisely because she was in a field that exposed her to a lot of eligible men and not just a corporate office nun.
The purpose of "going steady" is precisely to see, as a trial marriage, what shakes out before getting married. It's not to basically "get married" in all but official name only.
My parents never told her to break it off which was the proper thing to do and then she should have woman'd up and socialized and took personal responsibility for finding someone better.
First-light 3w ago
This is a big topic and I tend to lean the way you do PK both on raising daughters and on the best odds being in locking down a woman before she gets spoiled by the CC.
My tweaks would be -don't actually marry. Treat her with the seriousness of a wife but you don't need to sign a contract with the state. This will reduce your pain if it goes wrong. Don't look at marriage like previous generations did -as a permanent institution. The stats speak for themselves. Marriage does not work for most people these days. 75% of women have not even entered it before their good child bearing years are gone. Even if they do enter it are they even succeeding in making themselves or their men happy? That 25% who you see married before 30 are just the ones who walked in the gate. The number that actually do good are much less. Walking in the gate is the start not the destination! Are they even raising families?
A wise man does not consider himself an exception until he has made himself an exception. Live with her for a couple of decades and if she is still lovely and you would never swap her out and she has given you good children, then you are an exception. I still wouldn't formally marry her but you will be likely to be an exception. Until then expect that failure in a union with a modern woman is a quite likely outcome, so plan for it as a contingency.
What is marriage anyway? First the church got in on marriage, then the state did. The reality is that marriage is actually just a union between two people and between two families. It never needed the state or the church. They are just nosy controlling entities. We have an unusual view of marriage in the west. We made it legal and sacred. Take islam. In Islam marriage is not sacred. Marriage is secular. A man and a woman are married in sharia law if they declare themselves married before 2 witnesses. In England in the early and mid medieval times before the church poked its nose in, a couple were married if they declared it so before even one witness. The church didn't like it because it gave Chads too much fun at parties. In most of sub saharan Africa marriage is only complete when cattle (or money in lieu) have been given to the girl's male relatives to compensate the family for the loss of her labour. Many African families live somewhere on a spectrum between law and tradition. For many a marriage is only real if its traditional and they have no interest in the legal document. For others, even if it is real if its legal its not complete till the bride price has been paid. When I married an african girl from a traditional family, they were only interested in the bride price -7 cows- being paid and in my then ceremonially killing a white bull in front of hundreds of people who then had a party. We never went to the law. "The white man made his law so he could call us all bastards but they are all bastards because they are only have paper that they call marriage" When things later went wrong with the family after her death, the local chief intervened on my side "He killed the bull and you all ate it, none of her property is your business"
Scrap legal marriage and consider forming a loyal union of intent with a woman for the purpose of having children. This is a more modern solution.
I would also like to say in response to Overkill-Engine's good point “Yup. Women's desire is about as amoral as a dog in heat. The proof of this is in how many end up single moms after spreading their legs for men that were clearly not going to stick around for any woman.” We need to understand that agency is not essential to the female condition. Women don't have the same inner need that men have to make choices. They can often just drift with the flow and feel no inner disquiet in doing so.
Imagine if women did need agency. They would fall to pieces when their lives lacked agency. All of history would have been different. Women are drawn to what they see as strength to protect them from needing agency because the reality is that once they have a baby in their belly or their arms they actually have minimal agency unless they kill that baby. They are going to be tending that baby till it is independent. If their man is killed or runs off, they will be OK if they go to another, even if they are taken as a captive in war. They can go with the flow, seeking strength as security.
There is a reason why girls were historically protected from men until a suitable suitor arrived -they can't always help themselves. There is also a reason why women who exercise self control and chastity are praised above all others -because these are hard things for women to do. Similarly there is a reason why people practise "game" Women will go with the flow when the conditions are right. Things do sometimes "just happen" to women.
When society protects women from their weaknesses, then their ability to go with the flow becomes a strength but as it is, women are helpless. Women moan a lot and for a century governments have heeded their moans and given them rights and agency on a level never previously seen in the history of humanity. Women are now use those rights to take photographs of their arses and tick them on tinder. They do not help themselves or society with all this agency because they do not actually need it. It is also no coincidence that they are deeply unsatisfied these days. They are using agency to go with the flow to the worst places.
SwarmShawarma 3w ago
I know that this is tradition, but I think this is backward and this payment is for a male weakness to get it wet.
Interesting but can't make a sense out of it
First-light 3w ago
I don't think this tradition will last in the face of women earning as much as men these days. I think it will run a few more generations but it can't last while feminism does as its mostly pointless as women these days consume much of the the wealth they generate themselves, so they are not a great loss to a family, even if African women almost always send some money to their parents when they earn, its not like they will be stopping when they marry. Its out dated.
My point in illustrating it is that marriage does not need the state, there are other solutions that have been used for millennia. In this case everyone who has eaten the bull is a witness to the fact the bride price is paid in full, as a bull can only be killed when this is agreed, so the ownership of the girl has fully transferred between families and there is no claim by the birth family on anything she has. You have hundreds of witnesses, which in pre literate society is very useful.
polishknight Endorsed 3w ago
This comment is why I wrote the above in a reasonably open way. I think the comments are as valuable, if not moreso, than what I wrote. It's a challenge to write something "perfect" and I'll edit as best as I can later with @Typo-MAGAshiv further observations.
What I'll explicitly add is that many advise young men (and women) to avoid marriage in youth because they're immature and/or not well situated for it and this isn't a myth. It's the truth. It's why courtship was largely chaperoned although it was useful to nonetheless think with intent to marriage for two reasons: 1) Fertility 2) Being guided to a family life.
The above post will get quite long after edits I worry because the trap women fall into, but some men as well, is if "strong independent woman" who wants to avoid "being dependent upon a potential abusive husband" results in a self-fulfilling prophesy: She protects herself from a failed marriage by making herself non-marriage material to begin with.
For men, the challenge in dating with intent for marriage after you get settled at 30 is trying to wife up young women who aren't yet corrupted. Many of them get pounded by frat boys in college and it will simply be more difficult to date 18 year olds with a 3 in front of your age.
Going steady during college without sex may not result in marriage, but it will result in a marriage mindset similar to someone who works a summer job at least understands the basic mindset of waking up and getting to work on time.
Regarding your comments on marriage in general. Good points and heck, I've thought about how a business trust administered by a trusted 3rd party would be ideal. If everything is in a trust, it protects it from a variety of things particularly estate taxes. I intend to transfer my own assets into one prior to retirement.