VETTING

 

With divorce and cheating rates going through the roof marriage is a risky business. A popular idea among the more traditional / right wing / conservative sections of the manosphere is that you can reduce the odds of a marriage failing if you vet her carefully before hand.

At first glance this seems to make perfect sense. A woman who spent her 20s having loads of one night stands is more likely to cheat on you than a women who had a couple of long term relationships. A career woman who out earns you is far more likely to divorce you than a stay at home wife. A women with a bad childhood is far more likely to have "issues" than one from a good family background.

Unfortunately there are a number of problems with this that are overlooked.......

Women fall on a spectrum. Many men put women into 2 categories, "pump and dump" or "wife and mother". Whereas in reality there is a big grey area between good woman and bad woman. Some women give off massive red flags. Finding out she takes hard drugs, previously made a false rape allegation or stabbed her ex by the second date then yes, get the hell out of there. Most women don't and their true nature only comes through after many years.

It assumes that you have the option to vet women in the first place. If you tick all the boxes, tall, confident, good-looking, successful and have dozens of potential suitors who would be happy to marry you and have your babies. Then you can afford to be picky. Unfortunately, only the top few percent of men fall into this category.

You're vetting her under pre-leverage conditions. Which tells you nothing about how she would behave when she finally has leverage. It's like trying to predict how someone would act if they had lots of money based on when they're broke. 

You become the male version of the woman hunting for Mr. 6 Feet tall, 6-pack abs, 6-figure income. What are the odds of meeting a woman in the modern era, in a Western country, who has a low body count, isn't hooked on her smartphone, isn't tainted by feminism, wants a traditional marriage and meets your minimum requirement for attractiveness?

"Good women" will be in high demand. Just as men instinctively know that high body count women are bad bets for paternity. The reverse is also true, good luck with competing against dozens of men for the few "good girls."

If you met this mythical 23 year old virgin in the modern western world it begs an obvious question....why ? It could well be that she's a virgin because she's never felt much compulsion to have sex. Marrying a former slut is a terrible idea but the other side of the coin is marrying a loyal but sexually repressed, low libido woman. Hardly marital bliss !!!

If you "locked down" a young woman in marriage she is going to be exposed to the idea she is wasting her younger years.  Slutty friends and the media will often convince her to "catch up". 

You can't estimate a woman's body count so don't even try. Living in a small town in the pre internet era, a woman's "count" would have been common knowledge. Today she can play the "good girl" in the pub at weekends while discretely having sex with countless random men via dating apps midweek. There are some obvious signs, but not all women display them.

Going to church means nothing. A lot of former sluts turn to religion in middle age. It's the perfect combination of an environment that forgives their past behaviour and is full of clueless blue pill beta males. 

Some men promote, bang loads of women until you are 35, then marry a virgin. Go figure !!!!

Realistically you are never going to reduce the odds of divorce or cheating to acceptable levels. If you could theoretically half the odds you have done well. But that still a 25% chance, do you honestly want to gamble your freedom, sanity and finances on those odds. You simply cannot undo the effects of modern life such as social media. Unless you do something drastic like live in a third world village miles away from western influence.  

It assumes that divorce and cheating are the only ways a marriage can fail. She can cut off the sex, get fat, turn into horrible insufferable cow and generally make your life hell without cheating on you.

If it worked there would be a lot of men on the internet, who have been happily married for decades telling other men to do the same. Spoiler there isn't 

"Vetting" is a deeply flawed idea

The answer is not to the liking of the traditional / right wing / conservative crowd. Traditional marriage in the 21st century doesn't work anymore. At best you are shaving a few percentage points off the odds of having your life destroyed. Trying to marry a low body count woman isn't a good idea, it's a slightly less bad one. Here are some alternatives

Women You Should NOT Have Sex With - Alpha Male 2.0 (alphamale20.com)
Don't "Screen" Women. Instead, Categorize - Alpha Male 2.0 (alphamale20.com)

SLUTS vs STUDS

 

"Ladies, the digital footprint of your sexual history will follow you indefinitely. No amount of shaming men for being concerned with it will erase 100K years of men’s evolved revulsion of women who are bad bets for their own paternity" : Rollo Tomassi A common complaint from women (and a lot of white knights) is that men who have sex with lots of women are studs (a positive expression). But women who have sex with a lot of men are sluts (a negative expression) and this is a double standard. Unfortunately they are wrong...........

What we find attractive or repulsive is not an accident, it evolved for millions of years and for good reason. From an evolutionary perspective the worst thing a man can do is devote his time, effort and resources into raising a child that is not his. Women who have sex with lots of men are more likely to cheat and obviously raise the odds of that happening. Men have evolved a repulsion for these women as a result. Yes we have DNA testing now but you are not going to switch off 100K years of evolution overnight. Women obviously have not evolved this trait because they are the ones giving birth.

Women have evolved their own mate selection choices that are usually ignored in this argument. They are often ruthless at rejecting men who lack height, income or confidence. These are traits that men usually don't care about in women. Yet there is no outcry of double standards for rejecting men on the basis of height. Something which they obviously have no control over.

It's easy for women to sleep around, very hard for men. Most women age 18 - 45 (with the obvious exception of the grossly obese and ugly) could go on Tinder at breakfast and be having sex with a new person by sunset if they really wanted to. Where only a tiny percentage of men could achieve that same feat. Women are usually completely clueless about what the dating market is like for men. Many women who complain about being judged on their sexual history use the word Incel to insult men. Go figure !!! Most men actually resent players. Contrary to the feminist myth. Only a small percentage of men are actually having sex with lots of women and bragging about it. A third of young men today are sexless and often view studs as "taking all the women for themselves". A lot of men view players as "ruining" women for future long term relationships. Most men don't want players going anywhere near their wives, girlfriends, sisters, or daughters.

Women slut shame each other. It's nothing unusual for a woman to tell a potential suitor "she is a slut" in an attempt to downgrade the competition. Women in happy relationships don't want slutty women tempting their man. More traditional women who expect multiple romantic dinner dates before sex are going to be threatened by the woman who puts out on the first date after coffee. OnlyFans star Bonnie Blue says she gets '300 death threats a day' from women - after inviting 'barely legal 18-year-olds' to have sex with her on camera | Daily Mail Online

Women SHOULD judge men for long term relationships based on their sexual history. Although it applies to a much smaller percentage of men. It can easily be argued that a player who had experienced a huge amount of sexual variety is far more likely to cheat on his future wife. But if women actually used logic like this the manosphere wouldn't exist. Women will often date and marry men full in the knowledge that they have used and cheated on dozens of other women in the past. Men can't be "players" if women just said NO to them.

Woman evolved for quality not quantity. Men and women have different mating strategies that conflict with each other. Human pregnancy hinders women for months so women have to be more selective than men. The ability of a woman to have sex with loads of men without the biological cost of reproduction is only possible due to the modern day invention of birth control.

Women who have had sex with lots of men are not the same. High value men will have sex with average women but will not commit. Average women delude themselves into thinking that because they can have sex with a high value man they "deserve" that type of man. This is why we constantly see average women demanding "elite men" on dating sites. Many women will eventually but reluctantly settle for "average men" out of necessity. She will constantly compare him to the "studs" she dated in her younger days, her preference for the top 10%-20% of men isn't going to vanish. Put another way, if you are the 25th man she has had there is only a 4% chance you will be her best. The odds of being cheated on, divorced or ending up in a lackluster relationship skyrocket.

Many women spend their prime years dating players and bad boys. Women have the fantasy of changing, taming, and fixing them, which often fails. What usually happens is that they end up getting used and mistreated. Women often carry a massive amount of physiological baggage from being in dozens of failed relationships. This baggage will usually be unloaded on the one good man who actually wants to stay with her. This is the woman who will be insecure, jealous, and demanding to know where he is in overcompensation for relationship failures with more prolific men before.

Men take most of the risks when it comes to long term relationships and marriage. The law is almost always on the womans side when the relationship fails and there is a house, a marriage contract and children. Men have every right to judge women before committing to life changing relationships. Men are constantly chastised for their “fear of commitment”, yet most divorces are instigated by women.

IF YOU ARE NOT PLANNING TO GET MARRIED, LIVE WITH A WOMAN OR HAVE CHILDREN THEN ALL OF THE ABOVE BECOMES IRRLEVANT

For a MGTOW who is only interested in casual relationships . It's actually preferable that a woman puts out with the minimum of time, effort and money spent.

For this reason I don't actually hate sluts, I hate "reformed sluts". The woman who previously went home with dozens of random men within hours of meeting them in a club. After the age of around 27-33 she reinvents herself as a "good girl" and suddenly demands multiple expensive dates before you get anywhere near her bedroom door.

"A slut is a woman who has sex with men who would never commit to her and marries a man she'd never have a one night stand with."

MATING STRATEGYS

 

"What we find attractive isn't an accident. It’s evolved for millions of years. Women want men with good genes and the resources to provide for her and her children. And men want young, fertile women who exhibit good motherly traits like gentleness." ECCENTRIK HAT - TWITTER

Evolution gave humans 2 strange body modifications, walking on 2 legs that requires a narrow pelvis and big brains that gave babies big heads. Obstetrical dilemma - Wikipedia
As a result we had to be born prematurely, females had to rely on the provisioning of males for the offspring to survive. 

The optimum reproductive strategy for men and women are very different. Men evolved for QUANTITY, impregnate as many women as possible to maximise the odds of passing on genes.
Top 10 MEN With The MOST KIDS - YouTube
In practice only a tiny proportion of men achieve this. Plan B for men would be to shoot for long term provisioning with one woman instead.

Women are limited in how many offspring they can have so they evolved for QUAILITY. Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous sometimes even life threatening so getting mate selection wrong could have severe consequences. Women need a man who who has 1) good genetics (alpha male) and 2) is a good long term provider (beta male). But like men few women actually achieve the optimum reproductive strategy.

PLAN A - Find a man with both good genetics and good provider qualities. These are almost never found in the same man but it doesn't stop modern women spending decades of their lives trying to find him. Women’s Greatest Problem: The Myth of the Submissive Alpha Male - Alpha Male 2.0 (alphamale20.com) 

PLAN B - Find an Alpha male, have his babies then attempt to convert him into a Beta male. This is where the female fantasy of changing / taming / fixing a bad boy comes from. The high rates of single motherhood show how unsuccessful this actually is.

PLAN C - Find an Alpha male, have his babies, then when the relationship fails find a Beta male to help raise his children. This is why a woman who spent her 20s dating tattooed gym rats suddenly decides she want a normal nice guy with a job in accounts when she hits middle age.

Obviously men's and women's optimum reproductive strategy directly conflict with each other. This is the root cause of the conflict between the sexes. 

A man who marries a single mother and helps raise another mans children is applauded by women because he is complying with women's reproductive strategy at the expense of his own. 

A middle aged man who dates younger women is usually shamed by women for complying with his own reproductive strategy. Check out the comments section next time you see an article about Leonardo DiCaprio with his latest 25 year old model. It will be full of hate telling him "grow up", "settle down" and "date women his own age". Yet none of them will attack these women for knowingly dating a man with a long track record of using and discarding dozens of women who came before them.

BIOLOGY Vs SOCIETY

Our primeval biology and what is deemed acceptable to society also conflict.

A man who gets a women pregnant then walks away is deemed a "dead beat dad" by society. Biologically he is a success for passing on his genes with the minimum amount of investment.

A woman who has 4 kids with 4 different men is deemed a "welfare queen" by society. Biologically she is a success for passing on 4 copies of her genes with the maximum amount of  genetic variation.

A man who supports a single mother is deemed a good man for "stepping up" by society. Biologically he is a failure for raising another man's children.

A childless career women is deemed a success by society but biologically she is also a failure.

 

MONOGAMY - THE PROS AND CONS

 

"Marriage is an institution necessary to the maintenance of society but contrary to the laws of nature". Honore de Balzac

Only around 15% of human cultures have been monogamous and it seems to have existed in it's present form for a few thousand years at the most. This seems to have come about when humans moved away from their hunter gather lifestyles and started to settle.

It restricted the most feral aspects of human reproductive behaviour. Average women had to make do with average men while the top men were restricted to just 1 wife. The socially enforced distribution of one man to one woman had massive benefits to society. A man with a wife and child to support is the most productive person in it. I would go as far to say that marriage effectively built civilization by kerbing the violent tendencies shown by the majority of men who live in Polygamous cultures. Society's with enforced monogamy were more likely to survive than the ones without it.

Monogamy also shaped human mating choices on an individual level. The only socially acceptable way for a person to have sex was within marriage. Therefore men had to demonstrate long term provisioning potential (training to be a doctor for example) in order to get the best possible wife. 

Women had to take the long term view of compatibility when choosing her husband. Due to her Obsolete biology she would have still found the unemployed local thug attractive but would have never been able to take him home to meet her family. 

Marriage was essentially a contract where the woman gave a man exclusive sexual access and raised his children. A man would work and provide for his family for the rest of his natural life. 

MONOGAMY HAS IT'S DOWNSIDES

By directly conflicting with human nature monogamy required society to police it. This is why organizations like the church had harsh rules against adultery and sex before marriage. It was never perfect of course and certain individuals had their lives destroyed as a result of this enforcement. Magdalene Laundries in Ireland - Wikipedia. People were stuck in marriage for life as it was traditionally very difficult to get out. 

It was the classic dilemma of what's good for society isn't necessarily good for individuals.  

OBSOLETE BIOLOGICAL WIRING

 

"While our lifestyle and culture have changed radically, we are still walking around in the same bodies and thinking with the same brains as the cavemen of thousands of years ago" CALEB JONES - THE UNCHAINED MAN.

Human beings evolved in a world full of scarcity and danger where you could be attacked by your rival tribe at any time or it might be 3 days until you can eat after a successful hunt. In the 21st century things couldn't be any more different but we still process the world around us using these outdated hardwired instincts. The consequences of this include........

OBESITY 

It made perfect sense 10,000 years ago to crave high energy foods and to easily store that excess energy as fat. It makes no sense whatsoever to have those same cravings when your sitting in an office all day with Dunkin Donuts next door. This kills around 2.8 million people a year. Statistics - EASO

FEAR

Evolution made us afraid of things that pose an immediate threat like snakes and heights but not of things that were far more likely to kill us in the long run such as smoking tobacco. You're afraid of the wrong things: What evolution made you scared of versus what actually might kill you | CBC Life There are many irrational fears that fall into this category such as racism. 

JEALOUSY

Due to our past where humans practiced POLYGAMY, men are hardwired to believe women are a scarce resource to be guarded at all costs. A majority of the fights you see outside nightclubs between young men are a common symptom of this territoriality.

RIDICULOUS MATE SELECTION

You see a beautiful, intelligent woman with a complete deadbeat of a man. A bully, neck tattoo, shady criminal past and wonder why? Women are pursuing men with traits that would have been advantageous thousands of years ago.

LOGICAL FALLACIES

Human's are hardwired to survive and reproduce not rationally analyse the world around us. We have developed methods to keep us in good standing with our tribe even if that means denying and rationalizing evidence that's right in front of us.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

POLYGAMY - THE DEFAULT STATE OF HUMAN BEINGS

"For every top warrior and hunter that has 4 wives means 3 men are going to go without...that's just tournament life bro" COLTTAINE - YOUTUBE

Lifelong monogamous marriage has only existed for the last few thousand years. Without it the top ranking men reproduced with multiple women. We see this today with indigenous cultures especially in places like Africa. Polygamy remains common and mostly legal in West Africa | West Africa Gateway | Portail de l'Afrique de l'Ouest (west-africa-brief.org)

According to DNA studies at least twice as many women reproduced at men. Strong gender differences in reproductive success variance, and the times to the most recent common ancestors - PubMed (nih.gov)  At some point around 8000 years ago this ratio grew to 17 to 1. 8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man - Pacific Standard (psmag.com)

The history books tell us of a small number of highly prolific men who had dozens if not hundreds of wives and concubines. One of the most famous examples being Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan's genetic legacy has competition | Nature

POLYGAMY HAS IT'S DOWNSIDES

When the "top men" take multiple women it means multiple "lesser men" are going to go without. These men are not only deprived of sex and watch the top men get it all. But also have no incentive to invest in social stability and as a result theses society's are violent and unstable. 

You don't have to look any further than the middle east where Islam allows 1 man to take 4 wives. It's never these men with multiple wives joining extreme groups like ISIS or blowing themselves up (for the promise of women in the next life).

 Monogamy and Violence | Psychology Today United Kingdom

Polygynous Neighbors, Excess Men, and Intergroup Conflict in Rural Africa - Carlo Koos, Clara Neupert-Wentz, 2020 (sagepub.com)

Likewise it's always single, lonely celibate men doing the school shootings in America and never the captain of the sports team who is banging all the cheerleaders.

RECOMMENDED VIEWING 27:50 - 33:20 Of Monkeys and Men by Colttaine https://youtu.be/BqiSwahrfZE?t=1670