Another ‘Red Pill’ Exit: Fools Rush In, But Wise Men Don’t Marry Crazy Women

Posted on | September 12, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

Wise men say, only fools rush in,
But I can’t help ….

SSCCRRAAAAATTCCHH!

More than 10,000 people have read last week’s post (“Exit Strategy: Did This Guy ‘Red Pill’ His Way Out of a Doomed Relationship?”) about a guy whose live-in fiancée moved out after he said something that seemed almost perfectly calculated to offend her. While feminists were applauding that woman’s Twitter thread about her exit, none of them seemed to consider the possibility that he wanted her to leave, and had cleverly used a so-called “Red Pill” tactic to get rid of her. We haven’t heard the guy’s side of the story, so we don’t know his motives, but feminists never seem to consider the possibility that a man might be smart enough to escape plans for his destruction.

Consider this recent news article about a crazy woman in France:

A woman decided she would marry herself in her dream wedding after being dumped three months before the big day.
Laëtitia Nguyen, from France, had been with her fiancé for three years and the pair had spent a lot of time planning their $40,000 (£22,000) wedding.
However, the 38-year-old was left heartbroken when her fiancé left her just three months before the ceremony was due to take place on the picturesque island of Santorini on 27 May 2017.
That didn’t stop Laëtitia from going through with the ceremony that she’d spent so long planning and so she walked down the aisle to marry herself.
“I am amazing, and I know it,” she said.
The wedding was attended by eight people, and Laetitia kept a lot of the details the same as what she had planned with her then-fiancé.
She has since frozen her eggs in the hope she will one day have children.
[The crazy woman and fiancé] were very equal minded about how they wanted the ceremony to play out, however just months before they were going to tie the knot, her fiancé became distant, before eventually walking out in February.

Again, notice how the guy’s side of the story is missing, leaving us to speculate about what it was that inspired his exit, although it seems obvious enough: If a 38-year-old woman wants you to spend $40,000 — FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS! — on a wedding, get the hell out.

Let me dub this “The Princess Diana Rule.”

Ever since Prince Charles married Diana on worldwide TV in 1981, the expensive “Dream Wedding” has become a sort of entitlement in the minds of delusional young women who can’t be bothered to consult tradition or use ordinary common sense in matrimonial custom.

Customarily, the wedding is a display of the bride’s family status — a party thrown in her honor by the paterfamilias. If her father is fairly wealthy and wishes to indulge his princess, he’ll pull out all the stops, paying for the designer dresses of his daughter’s five bridesmaids, hotel rooms for out-of-town guests, rehearsal dinner at a luxury restaurant, limousines for the wedding party, a lavish reception with a live band and an open bar, the two-week all-expense-paid honeymoon to an exotic locale, etc. He’s a big-shot lawyer, a banker, a CEO, whatever, and nothing is too good for his precious princess, who might suffer a loss of social status (however slight) if her wedding wasn’t the most extravagant gala event her hometown had seen in recent memory.

On the other hand, if her folks are regular middle-class folks, custom certainly does not require them to bankrupt themselves — and it would be considered gauche, a tacky pretension — to give their daughter a lavish wedding. Common sense informs this customary attitude. Because the newlyweds cannot rely on generous parental subsidies as they commence upon married life, the daughter of a less-than-wealthy family should not wish for such an extravagant wedding, an irresponsible expenditure that does not betoken the kind of frugality that a middle-class wife needs, if she and her husband hope to prosper together.

Wedding etiquette used to be well-understood by ordinary Americans, back in the day when common sense was actually common. The wedding is a party in honor of the bride, and thus her family is responsible for the expense, with the groom or his family expected only to pay for the wedding rings and whatever his groomsmen might require. (I remember being fitted for a tuxedo rental as a groomsman when my friend Patrick Carter got married in the Heinz Chapel in Pittsburgh circa 1990. His folks were fairly well-off, and covered all my costs. Of the bride’s family, the less said, the better.) Once upon a time in America, parents took pride in raising daughters who were sensible and practical, and who had that old-fashioned sense of Protestant decency that frowns upon the ostentatious display of wealth. Even more than that, decent Americans once would have been horrified at the idea that a woman who had reached her late 30s before marrying would expect her wedding to be anything extravagant. Until the late 1980s, median age at first marriage for U.S. women had never been higher than 23, so that a woman who hadn’t married by age 25 was typically such a low-status social misfit as to have few friends who might RSVP to her wedding invitation.

Times change, but human nature is permanent.

There has never been (nor will there ever be) any society in which a 38-year-old woman is considered prime “wife material”; any unmarried woman that old should be extraordinarily grateful to find a husband. But no wise man would marry the kind of fool who would waste $40,000 — FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS! — for a wedding “on the picturesque island of Santorini.” Of course, this story happened in France, and thus Laëtitia Nguyen’s pretensions might tell us nothing about the decline of American marital customs, but the way her story is told as some kind of feminist triumph of empowerment indicates that we are expected to celebrate how “amazing” she is. Except she’s not amazing at all, except as an example of the increasing craziness of women in an era of decadence.

Note also: “She has since frozen her eggs in the hope she will one day have children” — having lost the Darwinian lottery, she expects technology to help her cheat nature, employing some sort of medical intervention like IVF with donor sperm to conceive a Frankstein baby.

 

Let’s think about this, shall we? You are a woman so undesirable that it was not until you were 35 that you met a man willing to marry you. Having spent three years planning a $40,000 wedding, your undesirability was confirmed when your would-be husband escaped your trap. What next? She decides to freeze her eggs and “marry herself,” expecting that at some point in the future she’ll have those eggs fertilized, giving birth sometime in her 40s (with or without a husband/father) and what sort of child might we expect such a mother to produce? Imagine the Frankenbaby offspring of Laëtitia Nguyen, reaching high school circa 2035. This child will likely be fatherless, with a 55-year-old mother who is obviously neurotic. What sort of 15-year-old will Ms. Nguyen’s offspring grow up to be? Will her child be a healthy, attractive, popular, outgoing, emotionally well-adjusted teenager? Don’t bet on it.

There is a correlation between parental age and autism-spectrum disorders and, while the question of causality is still being debated and researched, doesn’t it make sense that those who are so disadvantaged in the mating process that they don’t produce offspring until they are past their reproductive prime would, in turn, find that their children are likewise disadvantaged? We don’t need to consult any scientific research into the nature/nurture aspect of this phenomenon when common sense tells us that the acorn seldom falls far from the oak. Behavioral patterns replicate themselves in successive generations, and if you couldn’t find a mate until you were 35, it’s probably not likely that your only child (born when you were 37 or 38) will be married at age 25.

What’s that? You hope to see grandchildren in your lifetime? That’s a long-shot bet for older parents, as simple arithmetic will demonstrate. Keep in mind, as I say, that autism-spectrum disorders are more common among the children of older parents and, in most cases, the older the parents, the smaller the number of offspring. If you had your first child at 20, there’s a chance they might have two, three or more younger siblings, so that your children gain the benefits of greater socialization within the family. But if you don’t have your first offspring until you’re 37, the chances are that this will be your only child, and if this child repeats your pattern, 37 + 37 = 74, so live to be a septuagenarian and maybe your semi-autistic child will provide you with a grandchild. Considered objectively, however, the odds don’t favor older parents living to hear themselves called Grandpa or Grandma, and you might think that the atheistic young proponents of Science™ would be perspicacious enough to foresee this. If they are Our Moral and Intellectual Superiors, as they imagine themselves to be, shouldn’t these devotees of Darwinian theory act in such a way as to favor “the survival of the fittest”?

Oh, you shouldn’t be judgmental, they tell us. We are expected to ignore our own common sense and instead sit silently while all these advocates of Scientific Progress and Social Justice — acolytes of The Vision of the Anointed — tell us what opinions are permissible. The liberal media tell this tale about Laëtitia Nguyen in such a way as to persuade fools that she really is “amazing” and her solo wedding is empowering.

No, she’s pathetic, and her Santorini “wedding” is a travesty.

She deserves to be mocked, and often, and by someone who knows how.

 

What shall become of us, if we are taught to celebrate such folly? When did it become “hate” to speak the truth? Why is it that, even as Darwinism has become a quasi-religion in the West, we aren’t allowed to discuss the way in which certain choices (e.g., women postponing marriage and motherhood until they are well past their peak reproductive years) have harmful consequences for individuals and society as a whole?

Also, why has no journalist interviewed the guy who dumped Laëtitia Nguyen just three months before the $40,000 wedding she’d planned? Because that guy’s probably got a great story to tell — first, how did he stumble into her web, and second, what inspired his nick-of-time escape? “When did you realize she was batshit crazy, sir? What advice would you give to other men to help them avoid crazy women like Laëtitia?”

Here’s the thing: By the time a guy gets desperate enough to hook up with a crazy 30-something woman who thinks a $40,000 wedding is a good idea, he’s probably already made a lot of mistakes in life. You don’t get to coffin corner because you made the right moves as a teenager. Probably he had some not-too-bad options in high school or college where, if he’d played his cards right, he could have married a sane woman. Instead, he wanted to “play the field,” so he ditched his first girlfriend, then things “just didn’t work out” with his next girlfriend. Tempus fugits, but he didn’t realize he was wasting valuable time until he reached that point, many years later, when he was like, “Wait a minute — I’m going to marry this woman? This wacko who thinks a picturesque island wedding is a smart way to spend $40,000?” And then au revoir, Miss Nguyen.

What causes such blunders? Bad advice.

The blogger Dalrock calls attention to three “Christian dating experts” — Mandy Hale, 39, Wendy Griffith, 54, and Lisa Anderson, 46 — who have one thing in common: None of them have ever been married. What this indicates is that secular ideas of feminist “empowerment” have been baptized, so to speak. When the church attempts to emulate the latest worldly trends, it becomes “conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) and the salt loses its savour (Matthew 5:13).

“In view of questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories presently permeating our culture and making inroads into Christ’s church, we wish to clarify certain key Christian doctrines and ethical principles prescribed in God’s Word. . . . Specifically, we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality.”
— “Social Justice and the Gospel”

If you’re a parent, do yourself a favor and send this post in an email to your kids (or print it out and read it aloud to them) so that if they become fools and Darwinian failures, they can’t say you never tried to warn them. We have a responsibility as adults to steer young people away from the path of decadent madness that leads down to destruction. Selah.

 

Comments