Marry or die!!!111


24 September 2006

Thanks to Darrell for pointing out this link:

Dream on, toxic bachelor, your days are numbered


There are a lot of them about: affluent men who just want to stay single and have fun. But hold on guys, you could be partying to an early grave, say Joseph Dunn and Helen McNutt

You probably know one. Or maybe you are one. A thirtysomething male with a good job, smart car, expensive tastes and, crucially, no wife or regular girlfriend. You are also a timebomb, destined to be miserable and die young.

Basically some woman (probably single and past 30 and not happy about it) and some mangina (probably married and unhappy that bachelors are having more fun than he is) is spreading out the muck of shaming language that women normally harp on about, accusing men who refuse to marry as being somehow accident and illness prone compared to married men.

It really is pathetic that women and manginas are resorting to telling us refugees from the Matriarchy and eternal bachelors that we’re going to die or get a cold or something just because we refuse to marry.

“It is very difficult to grow up unless you need to and if you are allowed not to grow up then you won’t.”

Shaming language alert! Apparantly we’re not grown up unless we take responsibility for a woman (and if women need a man to provide for them, that hardly indicates women are responsible does it?)

“Men are different from women, who are often self-starting and self-motivating. Men need a kick up the arse.”

Bwhahahaha! Women? Self-motivating? What the excuse they always give when it’s pointed out how little the female sex is representing in science, art, inventing, composing, etc, in human history? “We weren’t encouraged to do so!” On the other hand us men can get up and do something productive or fun for the sheer hell of it without needing to be motivated by some talk-show host or self-help book informing us such an action will empower us.

And if anyone kicked me “up the arse” I’d bite their fucking foot off.

The series is reminiscent of a male version of Sex and the City. Candace Bushnell, the creator of that series, coined a phrase to describe such bed-hopping lotharios: toxic bachelors. Today the meaning of the phrase has been extended to cover any single man destined to become a victim of his lifestyle.

My lifestyle is very healthy thanks, and in any case I’d rather be a victim of my lifestyle than a victim of a wife’s. Or ex-wife.

Even if this dodgy research did amount to anything, I’d rather live to 60 and be free and single than live to 100 as a married henpecked guy, or even worse, live to a 100 as a divorced guy living in a bedsit cut off from my children and having most of my income stolen from me by the government to give to my ex. Fuck that.

They can’t shame or scare us into marrying. They’re wasting their time. It is funny to watch them get desperate though as more men unplug and abandon the horror of modern marriage to modern women.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 11:19 PM

At 11:46 PM, inkraven said…

The irony is that if this article had been written about single, partying, women, it would be all about how independent and liberated they all are and how we should get down on our knees and worship the wondrous joy that feminism has brought us.


Feminism couldn’t exist without the government that legislates its life support.

The scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

Draw your own conclusion.


At 12:12 AM, phoenix said…

This article is absolutely great. I couldn’t stop laughing.

Apparently you can be making an average salary of $40k pounds or more, which I think translates to about $90k USD, and yet still live in poverty. Well, only if you’re a man.

It’s also irresponsible to spend money you earn for things that bring you joy and have utility, but if you are female spending money you don’t have on ridiculously expensive shoes and clothing that you’ll wear only once means you’re all grown up, and you’re self motivated and all that.

Married men may make 15% more, but that brings two other observations. 1) You have to earn more before a gold digging whore will marry you and 2) married men have less personal income, since they only make 15% more but are expected to give up their income for their wife.

I’m also impressed that an economist, no wait, an economy professor (what does that mean anyway) somehow has scientific knowledge and understanding of what would give you scientific evidence. No, actually, I’m not impressed, I’m mocking him and am skeptical.

Here’s a question to the manginas that wrote this article, what happens when the girl leaves you, especially in marriage? Aren’t you back to where you started, except now you’re way worse off since you don’t even have your money, since she got most of it? If being hooked up is SOOOOO important, then a woman divorcing a man is the same as murder. But of course, the intent of this article is to force men to marry these lazy ass women precisely so they could do this. Only women are this dumb. Haven’t you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey? Thank god women are seemingly now too stupid to even put up an act these days, it makes them MUCH easier to avoid.


At 12:29 AM, Ald said…

The article misleads in a sense that the research the conclusions are based upon include divorced men as single men.


At 3:38 AM, Egghead said…

Preach it, brother!

Women can’t make us marry them. And it absolutely drives them crazy! There is absolutely nothing about marriage that makes it a good deal for men. So why should we even bother?

All they have are shame tactics – which no longer work – and scare tactics – which they are now resorting to.

What data do they have to back up their claim that our lives will be short? The statistics that say the average married guy lives a few years longer than the average unmarried guy? Well, what are life-expectancy tables based on? People who are dying now. The people who are dying now were in their 30’s in the 1950’s. Seems to me that a whole lot of changes have happened in the intervening 5 decades. Things that favor single men. So excuse me if these wimmin’s scare tactics don’t instill a panic in me.


At 6:02 AM, Anonymous said…

This quote from the article pretty much sums it all up:

“Scientifically it is hard to explain exactly why your relationship status affects your health but we have lots of evidence that it does.”

In other words, there is no cause and effect relationship to explain our findings, but we’ll still argue that being single is worse than marriage. That’s woman/mangina logic for you.


At 7:36 AM, Anonymous said…

Lol pathetic article or what? Why wont these people realise that there are bachelors out there (like me) who dont want to settle down and marry ever. I am 21 and dont care to settle down or marry in the future I never have even more so because of feminism crap. Seriously though who cares IF married men do live longer, I dont see what is so great about living until you are past it and knackered at 80 something years old. It is bullshit anyway because married men usually have more stress and stress can obviously = health risks. I just look at people I know who are married and my dad he always looks stressed out.

Marriage is the biggest joke ever, why do we need to marry? I dont care for it and it has zero benefits for men. Women dream of weddings men dont.


At 8:50 AM, Anonymous said…

It just goes to show how desperate single women have become. They now have to resort to this kind of tripe to try and shame men into marriage. Wasn’t it feminists who said that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Well sistas…you’ve got what you wanted and you’re still moaning. As for that crap about the “toxic male,” what about the modern female slag who punts her pussie at any man who’s got more cash than she has.

Do me a favour, shut up and go away!


At 9:15 AM, unpleasant bitter git said…

I thought the names of the researchers was kind of funny. Joseph Dunn (as in “done for”?)and Helen McNutt (no explanation neccessary).

I wonder how long it took Dunnfor and mcNUT to think up their wonderful catchphrase “toxic bachelor”? I bet they hope it will become a popular meme on daytime talk shows, and I hope it does too. Then maybe, just maybe some bright spark will have a brainwave and think about ACTUALLY ASKING MEN the reasons why they are becoming less and less interested in marriage rather than just getting feminists and media manginas to speculate why everything is always men’s fault. And maybe some small sections of the population will actually start to LISTEN!

Ok ok, I admit I’m just being delusional. Cut me some slack, it’s Monday morning.


At 9:42 AM, Anonymous said…

The best response is to look them straight in the eye and say calmly: “Yes, it may be a bit shorter, but it will be a good life.”

One thing they have nailed on the head is the danger of depression and motivational paralysis for bachelors.

They are caused by:

– Constant shaming by society. As a man you should feel very, very guilty for being happy, certainly not by being happy alone. Being white and healthy are also counted against you.

– The realisation that all Western matriarchy has to offer you is a lifetime of being fully financially responsible for an irresponsible child, whose behaviour is encouraged by society and the law.

I think the solution is to accept what you can’t change and concentrate on the good things in life.


At 5:41 PM, Anonymous said…

Did anyone check out any of the links on the same page? No wonder men are staying single, amazing that they are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they cannot possibly conceive of putting two and two together.

This is a game girls can play

By day Nadia Griva is a psychology lecturer at London Metropolitan University and University College London. By night she becomes Nadia “the Greek Goddess” Griva on the fight club bill. Griva, 31, of London, took up white-collar boxing three years ago after a knee injury destroyed her dream of competing in tae kwon do at the Athens Olympics.


At 5:51 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

Just an idea for you fellows. The data used to make single men appear to die younger is distorted by gay men. Yep; you heard it right. Gay men have an average life span that is dramatically shorter than straight men due to their extremely unhealthy sexual lifestyle. Gay men stand a very good chance of dying of HIV. The vast majority of homosexual men have HPV, in particular HPV starins that cause cancer, and virtually all of them have HPV of the anus. Almost all of them have Herpes, and the list of other diseases being spread in the gay community is enormous.

These diseases put a serious strain on the immune system, if it doesn’t kill them outright, as with HIV. They also have a much, much higher rate of Hep C. Hep C kills.

This is not meant to be a slam against gay men. If they want to bugger- let them bugger. I couldn’t care less what they do to themselves. But, they ARE single men, and their early demise is used to skew the figures to cause people to believe that bachelors live shorter lives.

Plus, and this is only an opinion, divorced men are also considered “single men”, and these poor sods who have been stressed out to the point of insanity by their wives both during marraige and after in the divorce proceedings, stand a significant chance of dying early due to stress.

Stress kills.

The truly single man like myself HAS VIRTUALLY NO STRESS. I don’t engage in promiscuous sex. I have no STD’s since I’m celibate. I don’t fudge-pack. I don’t fight with women. My home is paid for. I have essentially no bills, other than utilities and the occasional tune-up for my Harleys. I don’t drink or use drugs. I eat mostly organic. I moderately exercise.

Why should I die young?

If I DO die young, I’ll die happy. I’m living the life that pleases me. Being in the company of a woman is extremely unsettling, and causes needless stress.

Always remember that liars can twist statistics to prove almost anything. Being married does NOT extend your life. It only makes it drag more slowly and painfully.



At 7:37 PM, Anonymous said…


Single men dying earlier due to:

* STD-infected gay men
* Broken divorcees destroyed by divorce laws

BINGO. Remember, men LOSE money in divorces while women GAIN money.


At 9:00 PM, Anonymous said…

Also, don’t forget the SINGLE BLACK MALE factor skewing the single male life expectancy data:

Blacks have the shortest lifespan of any race in America at just over 70 years. There are more Black men in prison than in college. Now, how many women will marry an inmate? And 42% of Blacks have herpes and 1 in 5 Black men age 40-49 in Manhattan have HIV. How many women will knowingly marry an STD+ dude? Black men simply hardly ever get married. Remember, 2/3 of Black babies are born to SINGLE mamas…

Therefore, a lot of unmarried men ARE dying younger – but it has nothing to do with marriage. Again, very poor research mistaking correlation with causation. The reality is probably backwards – women are simply more likely to marry healthier males with stable lifestyles to begin with. And unhealthy men with high-risk lives are less likely to choose to marry.

You really think the local incarcerated pimp/hustler/dealer wants to/can get married? Hell no! Is he gonna die younger? Hell yes! But is that because he wasn’t/couldn’t get married? Hell no!

Correlation =/= causation.


At 9:34 PM, phoenix said…

Christopher in Oregon, I think you do have the best healthiest lifestyle. It makes absolutely no sense for you to die before others. I have to believe your take on this.

I have a very similar lifestyle. I have to admit, working on your own hobbies and being away from women makes life EXTREMELY peaceful. If there was only some way to avoid all the manginas, life would be great. You know, I can generally do without all the junk in life. I think all we really need in life is some decent food, some way to get physical exercise, and a hi-speed connection and computer to get entertainment from and communicate with some others intelligently. If not for that last requirement, I’d probably try to go live off a farm somewhere. I have a pretty good life now generally speaking, but that would make it virtually perfect.


At 3:55 AM, MS said…

To a significant degree, the article has the arrow of causation exactly backwards: in part, single men don’t die early because they’re not married, rather being likely to die early makes it more likely that a guy is single. Someone who is terminally ill for example is unlikely to be checking out the marriage market and so will be dragging down the life expectancy of singletons. The caveat to this of course is that un-married guys have the time, the money and the freedom to indulge themselves in activities that lower one’s life expectancy. For example they can afford better cars and motorbikes and are more likely to spend time with them at the track or driving them to and from sky diving weekends etc. That such activities may lower these gentlemens’ life expectancies to a small degree must be offset by the huge joie de vivre that they bring and thus an observed lowering of projected lifespan, far from being a sign of a sad life, is often, in fact, exactly the opposite.


At 3:18 PM, Anonymous said…

Wasn’t it feminists who said that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

There’s a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR conglomerate (e.g., fashion industry, cosmetics industry, dating/matchmaking industry, wedding industry) devoted to helping women attract and get men.

That’s an ocean full of fish riding around on bicycles.


At 3:25 PM, Anonymous said…

It’s all quite simple.

“Why would I want to be with anyone who’s going to kick me in the balls everyday?”

It’s a very simple question to pose to modern women…


At 3:41 PM, Anonymous said…

” I have to admit, working on your own hobbies and being away from women makes life EXTREMELY peaceful.”

That’s THE key. Once males have their intellectual passions triggered by creation, scientific discovery, building business empires, or exploration they RAPIDLY lose interest in females. Has happened every time through history.

Life has MUCH MORE to offer than pursuit of a vagina that has a shorter shelf life and expiration date than a quart of milk.

Get your brain going. Keep it challenged with a variety of things and it will want more. Life will become more exciting and interesting than you can ever imagine.

A simple way to start if you’re stuck would be to pick 10 different subjects (e.g., language, art, technical skill, musical instrument, literature, business skill, martial arts, etc…) and spend 15-30 minutes a day on each. Be disciplined about it (true scientists are disciplined).

Men, women are NOT meant to be the end all focus of your life. At most the attraction was meant to be short and temporary just enough for mating to occur. Then you move on.

You have a big world out there waiting for you…

Extra Bonus
– I’ve personally discovered that if you challenge yourself to a wide variety of subjects everyday your mind becomes SO POWERFUL that simple day-to-day problems (e.g., work) are solved with a snap of your fingers. You mind builds so many interconnections that it becomes very strong.


At 5:40 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

I monitor a very active forum sponsored by Cordell & Cordell, a law firm in the mid-west. It’s very serious stuff, and moderated by some truly brilliant men, including several divorce attorneys. I have learned much in the last couple of years I have been visiting there.

It’s ““. If you get a chance, go to the forums, and click on the “Before & During” forums. You will see a thread started by pls54, titled “Why Do We Bother?”


It’s a gut-wrenching look into your own future if you get married. It shook me up when I read it, as my oldest brother, a psychologist, was driven to suicide by his wife more than twenty years ago. There is a reason why the suicide rate is so high in the U.S.


Truly, short of being diagnosed with incurable cancer or inoperable ‘roids, I can’t think of anything or anyone that has the capacity to drive a man to utter hopelessness like a woman.

Avoid them and live.



At 3:00 AM, mfsob said…

I think there is enough anecdotal evidence (I personally know of at least one case) of rapidly rising suicide rates among men in their mid-30s to mid-40s in the US that it could justifiably be called a public health crisis.

Oh, wait … this might benefit men. NO WAY is the government going to do anything about it …

At 8:29 PM, Paul Parmenter said…

“Men are different from women, who are often self-starting and self-motivating. Men need a kick up the arse.”

I see this ignorant and insulting comment comes from the acid tongue and micro brain of Philip Hodson. I have had run-ins with this miserable individual before. He is, in my book, one of the very worst kinds of man-hating feminists. He wrote an appalling, wildly swinging attack on the male sex in a national newspaper in the UK about three years back. It would have made Dworkin proud. I completely debunked his arguments and challenged him to answer me. The coward never replied.

This is the caliber of people who are telling us that single men have bad lives. But in my book, anything Hodson says about men – and he has a lot to say – must be the diametric opposite of the truth. You can rely on it. So his views are a ringing endorsement for the single life. Go for it guys, and to hell with Hodson and his crew!


At 11:36 PM, Playboy said…

A married guy where I work just announced he can’t go out to lunch with us because he needs to save money as the baybee is due soon.

Of the single guys in the office (same age), one just bought a BMW, one bought a sportbike, and I’m planing yet another vacation overseas.


At 9:01 PM, Anonymous said…

You probably know one. Or maybe you are one. A thirtysomething male with a good job, smart car, expensive tastes and, crucially, no wife or regular girlfriend. You are also a timebomb, destined to be miserable and die young.

No, but the psych-complex progeny of their pragmatic self-interest will certainly portend a time-bomb for west/euro civ(not to mention the increasing throngs of disaffected males who elect not to
work/contribute at all, freeing themselves to take a more ‘proactive’ role in it’s deconstruction).

*tic tic tic*

Three pieces of research – all independent of each other and all published in the past few months – point in the same direction: single men aged between 19 and 44 are 1½ times more likely to die before 50 than their married counterparts. And the time they spend alive is more likely to be plagued by bouts of loneliness, depression and poverty than if they were paired up.

Nonsense(I’m surprised they haven’t added ‘kookiness’ to their litany of arguments from consequence – argumentum ad consequentiam)

This is a relatively nascent trend, which they have not observed on a requisite scale to amass significant data.

As for the males who fall within this ‘risk-group’ – they are still
alive, and thus the relative quality of their lives(however you deign to meter such an abstract scalar) has yet to be determined.

In any event, there are far more palpable risk factors which are antagonistic to the male quality of life – such as living under an aegis of matriliny-run-amok.

But If they feel that strongly about these unproven correlations, then why don’t they provision a nubile fem-slave(blinded, muted and lobotomized for good measure – which may actually improve their mental acuity) – with an older fem-hag retainer to tend to the younger one(when she isn’t serving her ‘purpose’) – to every bachelor(if they will have them), and stfu already.

Addressing the cause instead of the symptoms, now there’s a novel approach…

Now social anthropologists have caught up with this breed and have tagged them, studied them, found out what makes them tick. A combination of the rootlessness of modern living, likely genetic predisposition and the financial independence to do what they want marks them out.

If they are ‘doing what they want’, how can you cite that as substantive evidence that they will end up more miserable then someone who, by differential comparison, must be doing *less* of what they want!?

(and why is such contention not spun through the ’empowerment’ connote, like it is in when aligned with fem-agenda?)

Surely you are not implying that these men are more licentious than their brutish patriarchal antecedents(who failed to express any of the predilections which warrant such reproach)- that would conflict with dogma.

No man is suffered the free license to do what ever they want(claims of female license, on the other hand, are more vigorous per the status entitlements conferred upon them by chivalrous male dupes – evidenced in their codified indemnity to a parity of consequence).

And again, where is the kindred scrutiny of fem-license( as a far more credible agent of the phenomenon they are whinging about – and not out of concern for men, I assure you)?

The series is reminiscent of a male version of Sex and the City. Candace Bushnell, the creator of that series, coined a phrase to describe such bed-hopping lotharios: toxic bachelors.

Why is there no similar connote attached to her ‘Skanks in the City’?

Today the meaning of the phrase has been extended to cover any single man destined to become a victim of his lifestyle.

Why don’t we talk about how females are so rife with STD, to the point of it being ubiquitous.

They will not read romantic fiction

Why should they(knowing full well what narrative testament to incorrigible female solipsism qualifies as ‘romantic’)?

“It is very difficult to grow up unless you need to and if you are allowed not to grow up then you won’t.

Patently equivocal nonsense.

Men are different from women, who are often self-starting and self-motivating.

It’s easy to be ‘motivated’ when reaping privilege derived from the privations/labors of an inferior/servile caste.

Men need a kick up the arse.

And you need a bullet to the back of the head.

But go ahead and try it(along with your mangina cohorts)

You will just end up fertilizing my property sooner than anticipated…

(PHD – piled higher and deeper)

“Settling down sounds like a dark tunnel with no exit,” he says.


After, all; what amenities does marriage/co-habitation offer a man(beyond the prospect of skewed liability), that he can not otherwise secure under more favorable contracts?

Though toxic bachelors can rake in big bonuses, on average they earn less. According to Civitas, the London-based policy think tank, married men have incomes on average 15% higher than single men. Researchers claim that greater work commitment, a decreased likelihood of resigning and more stable personal routines are the reasons marriage is
wealthier as well as healthier.

Argumentum ad consequentiam *and* correlation(those which aren’t complete fabrications) fallacy(impressive) in antagonizing for yet more tractable drones who are inured to abuse…

a report published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health found that single men in America are 58% more likely to die before they hit 50 than their married counterparts.

Of course, this would have nothing to do with an demographic age skew in marriage/risk factor.

He holidays usually out of season in exotic locations such as Thailand or Singapore

‘Professional’ nubile asian temptresses vs. incorrigible, STD ridden, western slags.

hmmm…(the mystery of bachelorhood, solved)

“Singledom is dangerous,” says Professor Andrew Oswald of Warwick University, an economist who has published papers on the link between happiness and health.

You mean it is *lethal* to the relative reproductive fitness of the fem-sphere(in other words, it is *good*).

Scientifically it is hard to explain exactly why your relationship status affects your health

Yes, such tennuous enquiry is frequently difficult to pretense as credible under critical examination.

but we have lots of evidence that it does.

More unsubstantiated posing and thinly veiled agenda from an idiot whose academic ‘credentials’ appeal to the naif credulity of mean stupidity(which is the purpose behind such credentials to begin with).

Oswald cites one experiment where a group of volunteers was exposed to the common cold virus.

Studies which enlist volunteer data/surveys of insignificant samples make for spurrious argument.

Those that were married or in a strong relationship (and therefore deemed to be more satisfied) were less likely to develop a cold.

Such arbitrary premises have no validity for the sake of vigorous
argument(esp when parsing the nexus of such phenomenon destroys his arguments by necessity).

But this is all just further evidence of how the world of academia is almost uniformly rife with emasculate drones(who are tremendous physical cowards, incidentally – which is why they retreated there to begin with), too beholden to lens the apriori of select sacred-cow ‘sciences’ through the unforgiving scrutiny of logic(unless you consider epistemological mysticism to be a viable branch of logic).

This is but another in the myriad of ways that people like me are ‘better’ than them(to indulge one of their most prolific ‘scientific’ idioms).

But being a toxic bachelor, you probably won’t care. Because you won’t be worrying about your retirement; your motto will be like James Dean’s: live as if you’ll die today.

I will avail myself of this opportune moment to indulge one of my favorite creedos:

If west/euro civ was too stupid, calcified, and delusional to address the nexus of it’s own displacement/ruin(fem license et al, pursuant to the west’s signature utopian mysticism/duplicity of reason), then it wasn’t worth preserving.



At 4:26 AM, DRSANGLE said…

All of you pay attention concerning this “dying young if not married”.

I am 55 years old. Married and broke. I started building a profession and business when I was 27 years old. I worked in unbelievable conditions. I planned things correctly. Bought a very lovely home to someday be married and have a family. I built a business that would now be worth over 3 million dollars and a thousand dollars a day income.

What do I have? I have had it all destroyed and had to deal with lawsuits for the last 13 years being married to a lying, unfaithful, ungrateful female.

Live longer. The real story. Everyday I wish to die. I had a nice life. A business, a lovely home that a female had absolutely nothing to do with. Live longer.

Living in a honest living hell.

Do you think this female takes any responsibility. The answer is none.

If you want to believe this feminist garbage, go ahead. As I have written in a book I co-authored, there has never been a time in the history of the world where women have been able to take care of themselves without men. Also, when a country, society is feminized to a certain point, the society, country, empire is doomed.

Think about it men. Live longer of living…


S. Angle


At 5:50 PM, Viking said…

I have no doubt that, on the average, single men live shorter lives but I wonder, as many have pointed out, how the numbers would look if you controlled for divorced men and men who divorced without children and without an alimony judgement. They mentioned that single men are more often in poverty. How could that be? Perhaps because of outrageous child support payments. Depression? Perhaps from having their kids taken from them. Take those factors away and I wonder just how miserable these guys really are? Lonely? Perhaps but I remember being both lonely AND broke when I was married. Marriage to a selfish hag offers little companionship. Will we die younger? Sure, we are much more likely to die in say a motorcycle accident as a single because being married significantly reduces the likelihood of owning a motorcycle.


%d bloggers like this: