What he's saying is that women are generally at their hottest and get the most attention from 18-30. They have the position of power in attracting a mate. If they have 20+ partners they clearly took advantage of that.

If you're a 40yr old man who has worked his ass off to reach a position where you are an attractive mate, you probably now have the position of power instead of a women of the same age.

The usually unsaid part of this is that the woman in question wouldn't have given you the time of day when you were in your 20s. It's only when you are in the position of power they start to consider you as an option, at which point it makes less sense for you to consider them an option.

That is why this feels like a slap in the face for a man, and also why men go after younger women. When they were a young man, they had no power. When they get older, they have more power.

If you realy think, that power is everything that attracts women to men, you should try to reduce the dosis of red pills.

That's not at all what I said. I'm talking about the relative power in the dating market.

A beautiful woman has a lot of power in the dating market. A successful, mature man has similar power in the dating market.

Dating market... That sounds a bit like a potential problem to me, treating dating as a market place one competes in.

dating apps have reduced dating to a marketplace. The view that promiscuity is ok or even encouraged only exacerbates things

Threads like these are always eye-opening about the kind of person that frequents this place.

It's actually good news we've discovered a portal to 1955.

Literally incel meme material. Unfortunate that after the sexual revolution many people want to revert back to repression and self-shame for our sexual desires.

Repression and self-shame for our primitive desires is at the core of civilized society. Use your brain for a moment to think about how our world would look like if everyone blindly followed their instincts, including violent outbursts, sexual desires, and what have you.

You discard our achieved Christian stability at your own peril. You sure you want to go back to jungle rules? That's what will happen when all women mate with a select few men - what do you think the rest of the men are going to do? Be content dying alone, invisible, and unloved?

There are "base urges" that are beneficial to suppress, and others not; this is the criterion. You would not suppress the base urge to eat (ironically, fasting for no reason is another prominent feature of many religions) just for its sake, why would you do the same with sex?

I will not respond to the Christian stability claim because that would require more paragraphs than I care to write right now. Suffice to say a cursory look at worldwide religious demographics shows that many of the countries with a higher standard of living are the least religious, and many of the most religious countries are the poorest and most underdeveloped.

So, all non-Christian societes are unstable? They live in a primitive state?

What happens as soon as women have the power to decide about their bodies, their sex and love life so is that a certain sub-set of men all get wrapped into brezel shape over this outragious independence. There seems to be a huge overlap of those men and religious conviction. And seeimg themselves as victims of whom or whatever. And then they wonder why they don't get laid or find fulfilling relationships.

Please mention a stable non-Christian society you would like to migrate to.

The power to make decisions includes the power to make mistakes. Having more power doesn't automatically mean that every decision made with said power is for the better. Women aren't above criticism for their bad decisions.

Japan, would be one option. Singapore as well. Marocco maybe. I would never migrate to the US so, not that I would consider the US particularly stable so.

And no amount of wrong decisions of one person gives another person the right to decide for them. That's what laws, courts and a legal system is there for.

Edit: Other countries: Taiwan, Malaysia. The problem is less religion and stability, it is more that free democracies are somewhat far between globally. Add in somewhat economical stability as a requirement for me migrating, which was the question, and the list gets even shorter (it would also exclude the vast majority of Latin America by that measure alone, not that these countries are particularly stable despite being staunchly Christian).

> no amount of wrong decisions of one person gives another person the right to decide for them. That's what laws, courts and a legal system is there for.

You don't see the contradiction here? Laws, courts, and legal systems are other people deciding for those who have made a sufficient amount of wrong decisions.

(Thanks for the examples. I'm not familiar enough with Shinto et al to comment on what kind of stability such societies are founded upon.)

> Please mention a stable non-Christian society you would like to migrate to.

The Netherlands and the UK, both solidly >50% nonreligious.