[Vitriol]

(06-18-2014 09:00 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

I don't think any of us are still holding out for unicorns or expecting to win the lottery. I bet the dark lord himself has even changed his position on this in the last six or seven years since that post was written.

I'm quoting my own post from last night because Roissy had a post today about this very issue. He must've read my mind through telekinesis.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/06/1...riageable/

Quote:

That is the individual, human dynamic. What about the big picture? Interesting — in the horrible sense of the word — things happen when the supply of attractive women drastically shrinks in proportion to the supply of megafauna, feminists, careerist shrikes, manjaws, and bitter spinsters. When the marriage market essentially become an outpost of Wal-Mart (Wall-Mart!) — cheap, throwaway, high fructose corn syrup goods — men experience what could be described as an exogenous “restriction of range” problem when they set out to find marriageable women.

Instead of a normally functioning sexual market where men are presented with many options among marriageable women of varying degrees of attractiveness (who nonetheless meet the men’s threshold for long-term commitment worthiness), what transpires in a shit market like what we have now is a massive limitation in men’s acceptably attractive mate choices and a replacement with a dichotomous mate choice system. In a dichotomous mate choice system, beta males no longer have the luxury of choosing between, say, a feminine slender 6 and a tomboyish slender 7. Now they’re restricted to choosing between involuntary celibacy and marriage to a ghastly apparition.

He's basically coming out and saying that almost no American women would currently qualify as marriage material.