@derdeutscher

Look, I'm not going to pretend I'm above ruminating about the past - about not having cell phones, about having to call someone's door bell to see if they were home, having only two TV channels and five newspapers (and very little polarisation as a result). For sure, those times had their charm, and some things were "better" about them. I'm as much a sucker for nostalgia as the next guy!

But we're those times really "better" though? Now, I don't think so. I mean, take this as an example:

I still remember the days when the only way you could reach your girlfriend is calling her home, and her father than shit testing you endlessly before finally letting you go through

Charming stuff, for sure. But you could also look at it like, those (and more) were the hoops a guy had to jump through to get some ass once upon a time. Now, contrast that with today, were you can meet a girl, nut inside her asshole, and not even buy her a cup of coffe. What's not to love about that?

@Typo-MAGAshiv

to an extent you're right, but back then really was better in some ways. Having a house and a family wasn't so out of reach to so many men like it is now, and pre-1970-or-so a man wasn't nearly as likely to have it all yanked away from him just because the wife was boooooooored and unhaaaaaaaappy

If we look at statistics on what percentage of guys would get married (and stay married), and have families etc., it may certainly seem like before the sexual revolution was a better time to be a man.

I don't count those things as "success" though - not in isolation. Having a family, and having a good time of it is success. Staying married, and having a good time of it, is success. And likewise: Being childless and single, and having a good time of it is success too.

I don't think the typical statistical metrics really tell the full story of what it was like to be a man before.

For one, the sexual revolution happened because women wanted it. Feminism happened because women wanted it. When women said they wanted to be "free", what they really were talking about was being free of beta buxx. Because it's not in their nature to want that, never have been. That's why "one woman for every man, one man for every woman" always has demanded strict social control of female nature to work (and by "work" I mean on a societal level, not for the individual man's life experience).

I mean, we know female nature today. It's all there right in the open. And we know that stuff doesn't work for women. It only works so long as the tingles are there. Being "the stable, dependable guy" just doesn't cut it. And we also know that "hypergamously unsatisfied, tingleless wife = shit life". We've seen it, heard the stories, and some of us have even experienced it. There's no reason to think that "before" was any different, seeing as female nature is the same as it's always been.

There's a lot of apex fallacy and romanticism when looking at the past. But we do get little remnants here and there, of what it really was like for the average guys. Sayings like "hell hath no fury like a woman scorn", "happy wife, happy life", jokes about terrible wives, and old memes such as this:

@Vermillion-Rx The old days fucking sucked, and I'll tell you why.

Women didn't fuck alpha men, but they sure did marry betas. AND THEN DIDNT FUCK THEM.

I remember the 90's and women were still pretending they didn't like sex, and there was genuine societal confusion about whether women actually had orgasms or not.

Seriously.

Why? Why lie? Because women married betas for resources, and then stated they hated sex because they really did hate sex.... with their husbands.

100% providership, zero sexual interest, zero alternatives for most men.

Women are so choosy today because they're single and don't need to get married. They use stupid standards to pathetically try to demonstrate value, but it's all a lie to justify her stating single.

You don't need to be tall and ripped and make 6 figures to fuck her. You just need to be tall and ripped.

@derdeutscher

Off topic, but opportunistically using current quote to answer a previous question you had asked.

I was 15 when we still did not had phones and used phone boots on the street.

That kind of gives away the ESL.

1) we still did not *have

2) you'd normally want to distinguish that you meant cell phones or mobile phones, rather than "we did not have phones" when most homes had a landline.

3) phone *booths. Boots go on your feet. If you can't remember "boot" vs "booth", then "kiosk" works (though most Americans and Canadians don't really use that word much).

but now I see our resilience to new things has its advantages

Did you mean "resistance to new things"? Or "resilience in the face of new things" as in, adaptability?

@Durek_The_Bald Well I am 37, and I come from ex-Yugoslavia, where time goes slower anyway. I always thought its bad, but now I see our resilience to new things has its advantages. I still believe we have the best mixture of new and old.

I was 15 when we still did not had phones and used phone boots on the street. I still remember the days when the only way you could reach your girlfriend is calling her home, and her father than shit testing you endlessly before finally letting you go through. Damn, I used to take my girlfriends to video stores to rent a movie to watch (and they went straight to a porn section more than one would believe).

I am not so old, but I remember old world as well. Since technology os advancing so fast, and changing our lives even faster, a lot has changed in a short period of time. And yes, I am aware ruminating about past is wrong for many reasons.

@Durek_The_Bald to an extent you're right, but back then really was better in some ways. Having a house and a family wasn't so out of reach to so many men like it is now, and pre-1970-or-so a man wasn't nearly as likely to have it all yanked away from him just because the wife was boooooooored and unhaaaaaaaappy.

Yeah, they had problems of their own. Problems always exist.

The internet gives us access to all sorts of information. Sure, you have to dig through a lot of shit to find gold, but at least you don't have to go to the library, and then wait two months, to get your hands on anything outside the mainstream narrative.

Truth is, you've never been more free to pick your path as a man than in today's society. And I'd much rather live in a world were true female nature isn't hidden behind a veil of social norms, and games of pretend.

That part is pretty cool.

@derdeutscher People tend to romanticise the past - partly because we ourselves grow older (and youth is good), but also partly because we don't know what it was really like.

We don't get to hear about all the nagging, the dead bedrooms, and the sexual frustrations brought on by beta buxxery. We don't get to hear about the pressure to get married, and stay married, or the social shame of being a "bachelor".

Yeah, people could buy a house for way cheaper, but the interests on the loan were insanely high (at least where I'm from).

The internet gives us access to all sorts of information. Sure, you have to dig through a lot of shit to find gold, but at least you don't have to go to the library, and then wait two months, to get your hands on anything outside the mainstream narrative.

Truth is, you've never been more free to pick your path as a man than in today's society. And I'd much rather live in a world were true female nature isn't hidden behind a veil of social norms, and games of pretend.

Romanticising the past is a symptom of not making a good time of the present - it doesn't mean the past was good.