Society

If MGTOW Wasn’t a Threat, the Mainstream Would Ignore it

There are countless fringe communities, many wholesome, some harmful. Most of them happily exist in their own little bubble. Very few of them outwardly promote themselves. For instance, in the gay community, the garishness of the “queers” is viewed with some disdain. Yet, any sexual perversion is getting plenty of airtime in mainstream media, and some get even pushed by the government. You may have heard of Tranny Story Time events where kindergarteners get to listen to non-binary and gender-flipped versions of traditional fairy tales, read to them by someone not identifying as a cis-white-heterosexual oppressor. I think these groups are massively pushed by the left because they further their goal, which is to plunge society into chaos after which, albeit they are a little unclear on the details, some kind of utopia is going to emerge in which migrants do the low-skilled jobs, artificial intelligence the complex ones, and lefties get to enjoy all the drugs they crave, or something along those lines.

In contrast, there are groups that keep a much lower profile. Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOWs) do not get financial backing by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and their ideas are a long, long way off of finding themselves in primary and secondary school curricula. In the real world, they are invisible. In fact, “ghosting” is one of the principles they promote, i.e. doing your own thing and keeping it to yourself. While there may be some smaller MGTOW groups who have not been banned from Meetup.com, in practice this community gathers online, and even that is not really necessary for them to exist. Men can go their own way without having to tell others about it. A MGTOW does not need the support of other MGTOWs to go his own way, albeit there is clearly value in exchanging experiences and sharing advice, for instance on how to limit the risk of false accusations of sexual harassment at work.

For a group that keeps such a low profile, it is quite surprising how much vitriol is spewed in their direction. It seems there is a never-ending torrent of hate directed at them. They are derided as “man-children”, diagnosed as suffering from “arrested development” and get told that their movement is “one blowjob away from collapse”. MGTOWs just shrug it off and keep going their own way, however. I find this dynamic quite remarkable. It is generally not acknowledged that MGTOW is a counter-reaction to the excesses of “female empowerment” in the West, which has turned a lot of women into rather insufferable creatures as well as a health risk. We have arrived at a point where a woman with less than ten sexual partners prior to marriage is viewed as having a low partner count. If this is what society has to offer, on top of laws that are heavily biased against men, then it is no surprise that men are checking out.

For every MGTOW there is a woman who cannot find a man. Sure, you can say that “women need men like fish need a bicycle”. If that’s your argument, you should read up on prescription rates of anti-depressants of women: it seems the more empowered they are and the less they supposedly need men (yet benefit tremendously from tax money, which is largely contributed by men), the more they need happy pills. The number of involuntarily single women must be at an all-time high. Whenever you come across a podcast, video, mainstream news article or blog post that attacks MGTOW, chances are high that it was written by a woman who got kicked off the cock carousel and now wonders where all the good men have gone. The good men are going their own way, or have settled down early. This invariably gives rise to frustration.

If you were a frustrated aged empowered woman who missed her chance to get a good man, would you accept responsibility for your actions? Or would you lash out at imaginary “man-children” who cannot grow up and are hindered by a “failure to launch”? It seems the latter is increasingly the case. Those women realize that MGTOWs are not going to come back to the plantation. They feel the effect already. Their mothers were pampered by husbands who were good workhorses. Some of their mothers surely divorced their dutiful workhorses, so they got decades of financial support in marriage, a house, and alimony. Now that Becky is in her 30s, and her last relationship a distant memory — Chad just pumped and dumped her for a few months on and off, but to her they were in a relationship —- she surely feels the pain.

Pain is indeed the reason for the attack on MGTOWs. Women have started to feel the pain of having to fend for themselves. They are single and unhappy and realize that other women are single and unhappy, too. Again, look up the statistics: fewer adults are in sexual relationships and women take depression medication at record numbers. Shaming is a favorite tool of manipulation, which is why such women attempt to collectively shame men. They want to shame them for their lifestyle, hoping that they return to the plantation. Granted, I don’t think that your typical single woman cares too much about the fate of other single women — she surely writes those articles hoping that they will shame the six-figure, six-inched Chad with six-pack abs into her arms (I wrote “into her harms” first, which is an amusing Freudian slip).

If MGTOW was an inconsequential movement, the mainstream would ignore it. We are way beyond that. There is now heavy censorship, demonetization of YouTube channels, and de-platforming. On top, there is an active attack on the MGTOW community by the mainstream with its various channels. MGTOW is not inconsequential. It is a serious threat, the effects of which can now not only be felt on an individual level by women who are affected by it as it forces them into being single. On top, there are now societal consequences. This is why this movement is under attack. If the actions of MGTOWs were inconsequential, they would simply be ignored.


Did you enjoy this article? Great! Here are some further steps to consider:
1) If you want to read more from Aaron, check out his excellent books, the latest of which are Sleazy Stories II, Sleazy Stories III, and Meditation Without Bullshit.
2) Aaron is available for one-on-one consultation sessions if you want honest advice.
3) Donations for the upkeep of this site are highly welcome.

33 thoughts on “If MGTOW Wasn’t a Threat, the Mainstream Would Ignore it

  1. Very nice article describing the dynamic of MGTOW mindset contrasted to mainstream society. For broader appeal, there are a few MGTOW “insider” concepts that might not be obvious to someone without MGTOW background such as “The Plantation”, “cock carousel” and “pumped and dumped” that might be better explained.

    1. There is more to unpack here. It’s not just that the providers disappear, which you may have hinted at. Instead, Chads are checking out, too.

  2. Do you think that in around 5-7 years the majority of women over 30 will be single? I wonder what effect that will have on dating dynamics if it happens particularly for the average woman.

    1. In almost all the couples in my extended social circle that are in long term committed relationships, the woman is older than the man. If this is common then it is new. I wonder how widespread this is and what could be driving it.

    2. This is very interesting. Would you mind describing your extended circle in socio-economic terms? In my extended social circle, more and more men go their own way, i.e. they remain single and bang hookers. What motivated some of them is that they have seen friends and acquaintances getting ravaged in divorce court. In particular the most well-off guys I know are in no hurry to settle down.

    3. The women are lowering their standards once they realize that their SMV is plummeting. Younger guys also by definition are less experienced than older guys.

    4. The angle of older women preying on younger men is one that would make sense. This is a dynamic I have seen myself. I knew of a woman in her early 30s who preyed on incoming medical students, for instance. She got together with some geeky-looking guy who had no idea what his dating market value would be in a few years. Granted, that was many years ago and I do not know how this panned out, but the predatory pattern was clearly there.

    5. It would depend a lot on geographics. Isn’t it already the case that in big cities more young people are single than attached? You could now argue that they will surely all tie the knot once they hit the 30s, but I don’t see that happening. Also, you can refer to the black community to learn what’s in store for society in general. Among them, most children are already born out of wedlock. I recall reading that countries like the UK have closed that particular racial achievement gap, i.e. among all children, it is the case that most were born out of wedlock. I wouldn’t worry so much about the average woman but about society as a whole, which is bound to collapse under the weight of the welfare system.

    6. “This is very interesting. Would you mind describing your extended circle in socio-economic terms?”

      Graduates from good universities with decent jobs in major cities. Mid 20s to early 30s.

      The guys I know who aren’t in that kind of relationship are either single and unhappy about it or are players.

      I only date younger women 😀

    7. “Good university” could imply an infusion with woke ideas. Let’s give them a few more years and see if they’ll still date older women by then.

    8. Fuck dating dynamics. Care about what that means for money dynamics. You can make a boatload of money on that trend if you’re smart.

      Go long and buy LEAPS on MTCH. Delayed marriage rates mean that people will remains single, driving up demand for dating apps.

      Buy a 3-bedroom house and split it into independent 1-bedroom suites. Demand for studio and 1-bedroom apartments will skyrocket.

  3. Given women only find 20% of men to look above-average-attractive, it can’t be overstated what a desaster this movement is to women.
    There’s no need for half of all men to go MGTOW. The tipping point is much much lower.
    According to Newton, action = reaction.
    Women are being insufferable = men go MGTOW.
    Also Newton: Momentum keeps on going. Women don’t show signs of change, so neither will men’s reaction.

    I would not be surprised if women try to use politics to combat such movement. Forced marriages are not unimagineable, just like forced mortgages aren’t.

    1. All well and good, but forcing a population into certain schemes of breeding or non-breeding has NEVER worked anywhere. Just take a look at Tiberius’ family laws (Lex Pappia Poppea) at the beginning of the Imperium Romanum proper.

    2. You don’t need to force them. Right now, we see the effect of incentivization in the underclass where a few kids net an uneducated single mother a free apartment and free money that is way in excess of what she could make in the labor market.

    3. Excellent point! Just having a small fraction of those 20% check out of the dating market will be felt. It’s like trading with leverage when a trade goes sour: suddenly your losses are greatly magnified. In less geeky terms, assuming that women only find 20% of men attractive, every man in that group who checks out comes with a 5x multiplier.

      I think we will see a bachelor’s tax at some point. In Germany, this already exists in all but name because unmarried people have to pay much higher income taxes. Given that men earn more money than women over the course of their lives, this is an example of “disparate impact” as it affects them a lot more than a woman who may, for instance, only work part-time, which puts them in a lower tax range. In case this sounds confusion: yes, there is a progressive income tax in place, but on top there are categories of taxation. As a single high-earning man you’ll get fucked twice, first by paying a higher percentage of your income in tax and, second, by starting out on a higher percentage as the base.

    4. “Given women only find 20% of men to look above-average-attractive, it can’t be overstated what a desaster this movement is to women.”

      This doesn’t make sense mathematically. Because only 20% of the women can be pairbond with 20% of the guys at a time. By defintion 80% of women will never be with the top 20% of men, so who cares if this is going to be 90% instead?

      Even if the top 20% have multiple women, they mostly get the sex for free and don’t compansed women in any way for it. Mind it: MGTOW doesn’t mean no sex with women, MGTOW means not to pay for any women.

      Those mgtows who go “Monk-Mode” are mostly incels in denial.

    5. Your post is confusing. We make the argument that, assuming an 80/20 split of unattractive/attractive men, every attractive man dropping out will be noticed due to this enormous skew. You wrote that if that split was 90/10, it wouldn’t matter because most women won’t be with the top men anyway, but how is this supposed to make any sense? Clearly, top men dropping out means that there are fewer seats on the cock carousel. You seem to assume that then the remaining attractive men will just fuck more women, but that is not the case at all. If you’re a really desirable man you may end up in a position in which you have neither the time nor the energy to fuck all the women who want to fuck you.

    6. Isn’t the checking out trend more related to dating than casual sex? I don’t see why a top notch guy would stop pursuing casual sex when he can get it so easily by definition.

    7. Checking out happens at three levels:

      1) Men forego commitment due to the risks it involves but still casually date women

      2) Men forego both commitment and casual relationships but pay hookers; the issue with casual sex is that it takes time to get it, even if you are good looking

      3) Men forego all sexual contact with women, instead choosing a life of celibacy, which may or may not involve getting a sex doll or various sex toys like a fleshlight

      Men in the second category are often very well off and may also be pretty good-looking, i.e. they could easily bang some random chicks, but they find it to be not worth the time and money that is involved. The more successful men in that category are, the more time is the limiting factor.

    8. I understand that attractive providers are increasingly starting to prefer hookers over girlfriends. But attractive guys checking out of casual sex market? As far as I know online dating says otherwise.

      Besides society still considers that paying for sex is shameful and chasing skanks in night clubs is much more respected pastime.

    9. Wome are leaving online dating apps and sites. Clubs have been in decline.

      Paying for sex had gotten increasingly de-stigmatized. Just think of all those sugar-daddy websites. Give it a few more years and women monetizing their hook-ups will be the new normal.

    10. @AaronSleazy, you said “Women are leaving online dating apps and sites. Clubs have been in decline.”

      Is this based on anecdotal observations from your social circle?

      I came across this PDF research paper from a hedge fund discussing modern dating trends: https://2378nh2nfow32gm3mb25krmuyy-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Menratewomen.pdf

      Per the report, women hold the upper hand (at least when they are 18-25)…and the paper argues that most relationships are founded on online matches.

      It’s possible the authors (i.e. hedge fund managers) may want to promote that dating apps are still strong as they may have investments in them.

    11. This is based on my wider social circle, interactions with clients, and observing business behavior. Tinder seems to have moved on to aggressively milking its user base. I believe this is due to women exiting this platform, which increases competition.

      I’d view investment research very critically, in particular when it comes from a party that has a vested interest in that advice panning out. Of course, there are also shadier aspects like investment banks trying to offload some of their own positions to unsuspecting clients. Here is Goldman’s rap sheet, for instance, but they are not the only culprit:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs_controversies

  4. There’s also another point.
    As a male, why do you want to risk half of your stuff ? The family courts are all in favour of the women.
    Most of today’s women only see you as an ATM or a free dinner/lunch date.

    And no, nobody hurt me – it is my own experience and observation

  5. This is a picture of a mgtow meet up:
    https://i.redd.it/fvpg0r3u4vb31.jpg

    Not really a loss if women find 80% of men unattractive like you state. There are some successful and attractive mgtows no doubt, but for every winner mgtow you have 10 loser bottom of the barrel mgtows who are basically ‘men sent their own way’.

    What makes a ‘good guy’ a ‘good guy’? It’s mostly being not that attractive to women. I bet almost every guy would turn into an asshole if women would throw themselfs at him.

    And the reason why mgtows get banned from online plattforms is soley because of money. Corporations like google only care about politics if they lose money. And they do if they don’t obey to the feministic culture that want the menosphare banned.

    As long as mgtows go to work and pay taxes they will not put a single bent into the universe. Cause tax money keeps this shit going. When men stop being productive in a big scale that’s when the shit hits the fan.

    1. Where is that picture from? It sounds like a meetup of white guys who love boning Asian women. As Asian women are consistently ranked the most attractive on online dating platforms, I’m not bothered by it. I’d say that a good argument can be made that you give the finger to society by deliberately choosing a conservative and well-mannered Asian woman over a strong, empowered Western feminist.

    2. “Not really a loss if women find 80% of men unattractive like you state. ”

      Hold on. You are confusing things.

      If from the pool of 20% a few Chads check out, and it seems they do, then the effects are huge.

      If from the pool of 80%, a bunch of non-Chads check out FOREVER, then it has a huge impact, too.

      You want to know why?
      Say non-Chad is 24, and is in the bottom 80%. He is not super ugly, but has so far received limited attention from women and has rather had negative experiences. Little does he know, that his time will come, because he’ll show up on women’s radar, not as a Chad, but as a provider. The women initially aiming too high (aiming for the 20% men) and who didn’t get the man they wanted, are getting old and ready to settle with our 24yo non-Chad.
      The only issue is: Time. 5-6 years have passed. Non-Chad is 30, has a job, has money, but has also immersed himself in MGTOW thinking. This guy ain’t coming back to the table. Especially if the only thing to be had is a marriage with Stacy-single-mum-cockcarussel-expert, who is danger close to hitting the wall.

      Look, I understand, 100% of women want to be with 20% of men. I get it. I also want to be with a pornstar who is also the perfect wife and mother. But, you know, women used to know their place. Men still do.

      The problem is not the bottom 30% of men, the ugly ones going MGTOW. The problem is the 30-80 range going there en masse and leaving 100% of women going for 20% of men (the latter group seeing some MGTOW-exits, too).
      Now, since 100% of women can’t lock down 20% of men, but since 100% of women have tried doing JUST THAT for something like a decade (their best years), once they increase their universe of acceptable partners, time has made them so ugly, that no sane MGTOW guy will ever get back to the mating game.

      You see where I’m coming from?

  6. Do you @aaronsleazy and readers have criticisms or ‘cons’ of MGTOW?

    I’m all for the ‘movement’ as it helps shine a light about a different lifestyle and give an example that the ‘blue pill’ status quo isn’t the only lifestyle.

    On the other hand, isn’t mgtow about independent living without broadcasting it on reddit (or other platforms)? Sort of like “Fight club” as in…first rule of fight club is ‘you don’t talk about fight club.”. (See : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dC1yHLp9bWA )

    1. What’s the issue with hiding behind a pseudonym and writing online? I understand the Fight Club rule, which also sometimes comes up in MGTWO discussions, to mean that you should not bother proselytizing friends and acquaintances or, much worse, co-workers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.