A question about 'omega males' prospering

First, I want to state that I'm no troll.  Since yesterday, I've been reading up on the topics of incel and CoAlpha, so if I say something incorrect, consider that it is out of ignorance and not out of malice.

As a married woman with two children, I found myself very confused by the description presented of omega males as being generally more successful with women despite being sneaky and conniving. I live in a world of adults who, for the most part, pair off either with or without marriage, and have children. The men and women select their mates based primarily on friendship and mutually shared interests and often have or adopt children. The men in these relationships are also builders in society, such that they contribute and cooperate with others and are neither simple cogs in the machine, nor are they necessarily 'alphas' walking on the backs of others to produce their own success.

I admit that I live in a relatively affluent area, where people tend to be highly educated.  Consequent to this is that feminism and equality of women is mostly a given. But I will say that I absolutely have not seen the sort of puerile behavior of sneakily using seduction to 'steal' the good women away without contributing to society -- at least not without the parties involved being literally children or teenagers.

So my question is perhaps best understood as: Where does the adult society I have identified above figure into the structure that's been described on this website?

I have more questions, but I suppose it's better to pose this one to start.

chibbity, first there is no need for you to say that you aren't a troll.  We practice a very archaic custom here on this forum called "free speech".  This means that even if you were a troll, we would still allow you to say whatever you want.

I am familiar with the type of neighborhood in which you live.  The women marry late, around age 30, and the birth rate is low.  Am I wrong?  Feminism takes several generations to destroy a society, and one of the ways in which it does this is by shifting the demographics aways from productive people like those in your neighborhood.  Most people who live in neighborhoods like yours live a fairly sheltered life and are unfamiliar with other segments of society.  I suggest you spend some time in the nearest slum.  There the birth rate is much higher than in your neighborhood.  The women have children earlier.  And they often don't know who the father is.  This birth rate differential will change the nature of society.

Another suggestion is to look at illegitimacy rates over time.  We have some data here including a graph and raw data that I got from the U.N.

I don't know your age, which would determine a lot about how you structured your life.  But let me tell you about a woman currently in her early twenties in your neighborhood.  She will keep up appearances, a facade of civilized behavior.  But she may well have a tattoo somewhere on her body that isn't normally visible.  She finds this exciting because it subconsciously represents the evil of modern culture.  In the prime of her youth, she will not want to settle down with the productive men of your neighborhood.  She will have casual sex with the men in your neighborhood who are best at shallow entertainment.  And she will have sex with the occasional omega low-life as a thrill.  By her late twenties, she will become bored of this and be ready to settle down.  Some spineless man in your neighbor who had virtually no sex in his prime years while she was being a slut will be her victim and will marry her.  This marriage has a moderate probability of divorce and a high probability of marital infidelity on her part.  I blame the man more than anyone for being so weak as to be willing to put up with this.

Of course affluent people still get married. Western females are selfish parasites. After years of whoring it up with omega scumbags a female will realize her looks are about to expire and her womb is growing cobwebs and so will look around for a rich, week willed man she can con into marriage and sponge off. Probably most of the females in your neighborhood are fucking dirtbags on the side whenever they get the chance and withholding intimacy from their husbands. If it became financially beneficial for them to divorce hubby, most would probably do so in a heartbeat, drive hubby to jail, bankruptcy and suicide if that would advance their cause and think nothing more of it than putting a dollar in a coke machine.

Edit: Re-reading your post, you say you are a woman, so I'm presumably not telling you anything you don't already know.

Cornfed wrote

Of course affluent people still get married. Western females are selfish parasites. After years of whoring it up with omega scumbags a female will realize her looks are about to expire and her womb is growing cobwebs and so will look around for a rich, week willed man she can con into marriage and sponge off. Probably most of the females in your neighborhood are fucking dirtbags on the side whenever they get the chance and withholding intimacy from their husbands. If it became financially beneficial for them to divorce hubby, most would probably do so in a heartbeat, drive hubby to jail, bankruptcy and suicide if that would advance their cause and think nothing more of it than putting a dollar in a coke machine.

I'll try to respond to what is within the realm of addressing with logic, but some things that you've said seem like they're neither provable nor disprovable.

In my experience, both the men and the women that I know prolong marriage by personal preference.  Most of the time these couples have been together, dating each other monogamously for several years proceeding the time they decide to get married or to start a family without getting married. I have been given no reason to think that these men would rather partner off earlier rather than also in their thirties because before they have found someone they are also in all likelihood also exploring life to determine what they want in a partner.

I don't know who is fucking whom on the side. I have no reason to assume that the women are 'fucking dirtbags' on the side with any greater frequency than the men are fucking other women on the side. I have some reason to believe that the women are not withholding intimacy from their husbands, however, because some women choose to share with me information about their sex life with their partners.

I find it difficult to agree with your premise that the women I know would leave their husbands if better financial opportunities came up for them, because they are, in general, self-sufficient and therefore not reliant upon their husband's income in order to sustain themselves. The marriages I see personally are based on mutual friendship and shared interests between equals. What leads to divorce in these cases is more often than not one party changing over time such that they no longer share those things that brought them together in the first place.

Now, I will say that the above paragraphs are anecdotal. It's from my expeience, and the data is all qualitative.  I do know that there exist data to suggest that men and women cheat on their committed partners at roughly the same frequency.  This was the first thing that came up when I Googled around, so I haven't vetted the information, but it holds with other studies that I've seen.

I'm pretty sure that I've also read studies suggesting that women who are able to support themselves comfortably are more likely to be party to uncontested and thus mutually agreed upon divorces, suggesting, to me at least, that the majority of reasons for divorce in a hedonistic model of marriage are probably not because the woman believes that her financial prospects are better elsewhere

fschmidt wrote

chibbity, first there is no need for you to say that you aren't a troll.  We practice a very archaic custom here on this forum called "free speech".  This means that even if you were a troll, we would still allow you to say whatever you want.

I think that's a good model. My reasoning for stating it was to hopefully change the context in which people began reading my post.

fschmidt wrote

I am familiar with the type of neighborhood in which you live.  The women marry late, around age 30, and the birth rate is low.  Am I wrong?  Feminism takes several generations to destroy a society, and one of the ways in which it does this is by shifting the demographics aways from product people like those in your neighborhood.  Most people who live in neighborhoods like yours live a fairly sheltered life and are unfamiliar with other segments of society.  I suggest you spend some time in the nearest slum.  There the birth rate is much higher than in your neighborhood.  The women have children earlier.  And they often don't know who the father is.  This birth rate differential will change the nature of society.

Another suggestion is to look at illegitimacy rates over time.  We have some data here including a graph and raw data that I got from the U.N.

You're spot-on with your prediction about the areas in which I and the people I associate with live. I live in the Netherlands, and there definitely exists a class divide between more affluent areas and less affluent areas in terms of age at first marriage and the birth rate.

You're also correct that there is a significant difference between these areas and what you call slums. A higher birth rate due primarily, but not solely, on beginning at a younger age. The rest, I think, depends on what you could deem 'often.' I can't support a direct link between illegitimacy rates and "not knowing who the father is", because that specific graph refers to children born to unmarried women. In the Netherlands, at least, as with a lot of western Europe, marriage has become an institution mostly for the religious. Most young, non-religious people form long-term cohabitation love relationships and have children within those boundaries, which is a different thing altogether from not knowing who the father is.

I have other thoughts on the long-term effects of differential fertility rates, because I find it fascinating, and as a statistician, modelling the potential outcomes is something of a hobby of mine. It's probably best reserved for another time, however.

fschmidt wrote

I don't know your age, which would determine a lot about how you structured your life.  But let me tell you about a woman currently in her early twenties in your neighborhood.  She will keep up appearances, a facade of civilized behavior.  But she may well have a tattoo somewhere on her body that isn't normally visible.  She finds this exciting because it subconsciously represents the evil of modern culture.  In the prime of her youth, she will not want to settle down with the productive men of your neighborhood.

I find it difficult to respond to this, because so much of it does not jibe with my own experiences. Many women in their twenties and thirties here have visible tattoos, although I think you're only using this as an example of a hidden taboo. Maybe there are better ones I could think of?

I'm in a unique situation because I'm really quite young to be in my situation in life.  I'm twenty-nine, so most of the parents of children my daughter's age are often half a generation or so older than me. However, I've also just finished my Masters degree. There, my classmates were primarily in their early twenties.

Both the young men and the young women in my class (there were twelve, so it's quite a low sample size) have no interests in settling down at this point, but engage in serial monogamy with potential long-term life partners selected on the basis of mutually shared interest and attraction. The one exception is actually the most intelligent guy in the class who's spending some time right now sleeping around with women who are interested in the same thing.  

The girls, at least, aren't selecting for "bad boys" but for competent peers.

fschmidt wrote

 She will have casual sex with the men in your neighborhood who are best at shallow entertainment.  And she will have sex with the occasional omega low-life as a thrill.  By her late twenties, she will become bored of this and be ready to settle down.  Some spineless man in your neighbor who had virtually no sex in his prime years while she was being a slut will be her victim and will marry her.  This marriage has a moderate probability of divorce and a high probability of marital infidelity on her part.  I blame the man more than anyone for being so weak as to be willing to put up with this.

I'm missing some math here, I think. If this hypothetical woman is sleeping around casually with the neighborhood men (NM) who will later be marriage material, why does the NB have "virtually no sex in his prime years" if she was being a slut?  Assuming that all the girls we're talking about are neighborhood girls (NG) and they are having lots of sex, primarily with NM, but let's say occasionally with omega men (OM), then most of the sex in the neighborhood will be between NG and NM, leading to a roughly equal number of sexual experiences between NGs and NMs, all of which happens in the prime of their lives.

Hi chibbity. It's tib. Btw, guys, I changed my nickname for cause I had all my cookies deleted some days earlier and couldn't remember my log in info and cause this will become my nickname soon.

I am glad you arrived here, as these men have more energy and time to explain some things to you.

chibbity wrote

In the Netherlands, at least, as with a lot of western Europe, marriage has become an institution mostly for the religious. Most young, non-religious people form long-term cohabitation love relationships and have children within those boundaries, which is a different thing altogether from not knowing who the father is.

America is different in this regard.

Both the young men and the young women in my class (there were twelve, so it's quite a low sample size) have no interests in settling down at this point, but engage in serial monogamy with potential long-term life partners selected on the basis of mutually shared interest and attraction. The one exception is actually the most intelligent guy in the class who's spending some time right now sleeping around with women who are interested in the same thing.

America is also different in this regard.  It has been a long time since I was last in the Netherlands, but I remember it as being an unusually civilized country, so the decay will take longer.  America is way ahead of the Netherlands in terms of decay.

That said, even serial monogamy is problematic.  Studies show that divorce risk increases as the number of premarital sexual partners increases for women.  I would assume this would hold true as well for unofficial marriages.  More significant is the study Sex and Culture by anthropologist Unwin which shows the relationship between female premarital chastity and civilization over longer periods of time.  I am not that familiar with the history of the Netherlands, but as a former Protestant country, I assume the rules for female chastity were considerably stricter in the past.  Cultural breakdown takes time.

The girls, at least, aren't selecting for "bad boys" but for competent peers.

 
Maybe in the Netherlands, but not in America.  Anyway, I am sure the Netherlands will catch up soon enough.

I'm missing some math here, I think. If this hypothetical woman is sleeping around casually with the neighborhood men (NM) who will later be marriage material, why does the NB have "virtually no sex in his prime years" if she was being a slut?  Assuming that all the girls we're talking about are neighborhood girls (NG) and they are having lots of sex, primarily with NM, but let's say occasionally with omega men (OM), then most of the sex in the neighborhood will be between NG and NM, leading to a roughly equal number of sexual experiences between NGs and NMs, all of which happens in the prime of their lives.

You are a statistician?  In this case you should have been able to figure out the answer.  While the average number of partners must be equal, a higher variance for men would make the median number of partners higher for women which would mean that most women have more sexual partners than most men.  In non-mathematical terms, a few guys are screwing most of the women.

chibbity wrote

Both the young men and the young women in my class (there were twelve, so it's quite a low sample size) have no interests in settling down at this point, but engage in serial monogamy with potential long-term life partners selected on the basis of mutually shared interest and attraction. The one exception is actually the most intelligent guy in the class who's spending some time right now sleeping around with women who are interested in the same thing.

The girls, at least, aren't selecting for "bad boys" but for competent peers.

 

Your country seems more homogenous so perhaps race is a factor.

From looking here it seems that 78.89% of people in the Netherlands are “Ethnic Dutch”. I don’t know what city you live in so this is the closest number I have. Based on this number I’m going to assume the people in your program are “Ethnic Dutch” or “white”, am I right or wrong?

My town is similar in that it also has a prestigious university. I live in Berkeley California a few blocks away from UC Berkeley.  By comparison Berkeley is only 59.51% “white”. The university itself is only 29% “White”.

A few years ago I was working at a car wash and one of the men there was dating a student at UC Berkeley. He himself was not a college graduate. In his own words he considered himself a “bad boy”. He had tattoos, he would listen to rap music and drove a muscle car. He regularly flirted with female customers. I would describe him as a sleazy “omega”. He was “white” but culturally speaking he spoke and acted closer to “black” people. In America sleazy white men imitate blacks who live in ghettos. My guess is that since the Netherlands doesn’t have as many black ghettos perhaps “Ethnic Dutch” don’t have anyone bad to copy.

chibbity wrote

I'm missing some math here, I think. If this hypothetical woman is sleeping around casually with the neighborhood men (NM) who will later be marriage material, why does the NB have "virtually no sex in his prime years" if she was being a slut?  Assuming that all the girls we're talking about are neighborhood girls (NG) and they are having lots of sex, primarily with NM, but let's say occasionally with omega men (OM), then most of the sex in the neighborhood will be between NG and NM, leading to a roughly equal number of sexual experiences between NGs and NMs, all of which happens in the prime of their lives.

There’s a strong assumption in the “manosphere” that 20% of men are screwing 80% of women.