In Monday’s post comments there was a lot of back and forth, but in the latter pages there was an interesting exchange I thought might make for an interesting weekend discussion. Commenter Kryptokate resurrected an old feminine social convention I recently covered in Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany. The premise of this convention is that men seek out, and motivate themselves towards highly attractive women because they enjoy the validation or affirmation they receive from their male peers when they’re seen paired with an HB9 high SMV woman on his arm.
The “arm candy” trope is a useful convention for women in that it assuages her bruised ego and competition anxiety by converting a man’s natural desire for a high SMV woman into a perceived insecurity of his (really all men by association).
Kryprokate:
I’m sticking with my assertion that lots of guys love to show off a hot woman to other guys to gain their respect and increase their status. I’m not saying ALL guys want to do this and maybe you don’t, but lots of them do. I don’t want to “show off” a guy either — I’m an introverted homebody and don’t want a guy for anything but to stay home with, talk, have sex, watch movies, etc. But lots of men love to show off to their peers just like lots (probably most) women do.
Johnnycomelately:
Men don’t seek validation through females, men desire females objectively, tits are tits, don’t matter what the guys thinks. You think men watch porn to get validation?
Women desire to be desired, the process is completely about validation.
Problem with female desire to be desired is that it is not a very high bar to pass, I find it humorous that women brag-splain about getting sex from men.
“Heck, give me ten minutes to download an app and I could get a man to have sex with me in 30 minutes. Nothing to write home about.”
And from the Validation Hunting post:
The idea that men “seek validation” for their earned status or to ‘right’ past wrongs to their egos while they were working their way to that status is a social convention. The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.
When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.
One of the unique aspects of the Feminine Imperative is its fluid ability to craft social conventions that obscure the worst misgivings of women’s dualistic sexual strategy (Hypergamy) and redirect the liability for them squarely on men’s shoulders. I covered many of these conventions in Operative Social Conventions, but chief among them is the utility of shame.
Shaming features in a majority of feminine social conventions used against men because women are conditioned to fear social ostracization as part of their same-sex peer socialization. Little girls punish each other by ‘not-being-friends-with’ another girl in their peer clutch. Using shame is a skill women learn early in life to effect the ends of their developing solipsism.
If men can be shamed into believing that their natural predisposition toward sexually desiring high SMV, physically ideal specimens of women is due to an insecurity with their personal status the effect would be one of leveling the SMP playing field. “Men only want hot women to feed their egos and impress other men” translates into shaming men (the more desirable men who can merit the attention of a high SMV woman) for being insecure with the perceptions of other men.
This carefully removes any negative association with women’s competitiveness for higher tier men, convinces women themselves that “men are just like that” to Buffer against rejection, and puts the burden of that competition on the man in the hopes that he’ll pair with a woman who is of lower SMV for fear of being shamed about his “insecurity” of wanting other men to see his status as higher than it should be.
Thus, the optimized ends of Hypergamy – a woman pairing with an SMV superior man – are better effected by a social convention.
I should also add that this social convention dovetails with another useful convention that relies on a similar dynamic – that of women complaining men sexually objectify women. The simple truth is that it’s part of men’s neurological firmware to see women’s bodies as objects. It’s a well studied fact that when men see an arousing woman’s semi-nude body it triggers the same area of our brains associated with tool use. Sexual objectification is a feature for men, not a bug.
I’ve gotten into this debate on other forums and comment threads, but it bears repeating. My N-count is a bit more than 40 women, and of those women never did I make an approach (or go along with a woman opening me) with a forethought of wanting to impress my male friends. In fact there were some women I got with I’d rather my friends at the time knew nothing about.
The debate usually spins from there about how men just “do it unconsciously”. That’s an easy fallback, but I’d argue that the limbic and visceral incentive of wanting to sexually experience a smoking hot HB9.5 supersedes any subconscious thought of how good a guy will look when he shows her off to his buddies. I’ve been with strippers, a girl who was in Playboy in the 90’s, and several other women most guys just fantasize about – half the reason I stayed with the BPD girlfriend for so long was because she was just so fucking hot – but not once did I have any thought of brandishing any of them to improve my status with my peers. In fact I preferred we just get after it at her or my place than make any conscious effort on my part to show her off.
This’ll sound facetious, but I’ve never thought of sex as being “validating” or ego-affirming. I honestly think a lot of that expectation comes from a feminized conditioning about “how sex should be” for men. I was, and still kind of am, more into sex as experience. It’s always been something fun to enjoy with a woman for me, not some meaningful act of cosmic significance. I’ve had sex with women I loved and women I didn’t, some were memorable, some were…meh. Even in my bluest of blue pill days my ‘validation’ came from other sources, not sex.
So the question for the weekend is this, as a man, do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?
When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?
Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?
January 27th, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Perhaps less wivs leave their cancer striken husbands because:
Cancer provides drama and strong emotions
She is probably getting lots of sympathy support from her circle.
If the hubby kicks the bucket, she gets everything. Divorce only nets half of everything.
Look, I can absolutely believe some women would stay and support a sick husband from a strong sense of loyalty. But please, let’s not try and yet again paint women as saints. And with the same blow paint men as cold and emotionless robots “ditching” a sick wife. Are we going to also pull out the old “trading for a new model” trope as well?
January 27th, 2015 at 12:56 pm
re: “Look, I can absolutely believe some women would stay and support a sick husband from a strong sense of loyalty.”
Me too. My mother did.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:59 pm
“Abby replies: “… Whether lack of sexual chemistry is a deal-breaker for you depends upon how important sex is to you …”
Jesus Christ, most men really have no idea how much women will compromise in relationships with men. If he meets her provisioning requirements, She’s game and she will husband him up, even though she has no or little sexual attraction to him – I’ve seen this shit with so many nerd betas. It’s sometimes painful to see this stuff happen. These marriages are more common than one would think I believe and are ticking time bombs. If he cannot give her her McMansion and trinkets, gets laid off or his career does not progress like she thinks it should, she might just become unhappy, and we know what happens then – frivorce. When women near The Wall, their desire for provisioning and status can override their desire for mutual sexual/physical chemistry with a man. I think most of these betas genuinely believe that their wives physically desire them, but they can’t tell due to lack of experience and naiveté. I think most men cannot comprehend that a woman would do this type of thing – marry someone that they are not physically attracted to? Then they wonder why the sex stops – their wives were never into them to begin with, but the wives know that they have their husbands trapped. And these betas go along with it because their, well, so beta and supplicating to their wives.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:07 pm
“Abby replies: “… Whether lack of sexual chemistry is a deal-breaker for you depends upon how important sex is to you …”
I’ve never once in my entire life heard any such advice given to/by a man. Women NEED to understand that for not men sex is THE primary need he is seeking to fill by getting married. No man ever has thought “I can’t wait until after the honeymoon when the sex will finally dry up so I can relax” yet it seems from the quote above women are actually choosing that path.
And as pointed out, not one of the women discussing such issues stops to think what the future hubby wants out of the marriage.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Which sex carries the most life insurance benefits? Which sex dies sooner and carries the most life insurance risks? Which sex is more socially expected to provide for their family post mortem?
It’s not rocket science, it’s just pragmatism.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:15 pm
From the happybachelorsforum blog:
This comment was from a woman who made a very big confession.
Here it is:
It is a little strange to be saying this, but you guys are far too nice to the women out there. I was always the “conservative” girl in school. I got married early. Let me tell you, most women out there have had LOTS of sex partners. The idea that there are two kinds of men, those you have sex with and those you marry, is the rule.
Basically, a lot of women like to fall in love over and over. This really means having sex with a new guy every few weeks or every few months. The guys who won’t commit are perfect for this. These are the guys they fuck.
The guys they marry are the traditional guys who didn’t find a traditional woman earlier on. Women tell all their friends to hush up about their past. They find a decent guy and go after him like it is a religious crusade. Once married, sex stops and paying to keep her happy is the rule.
Lots of women would scratch my eyes out for telling this, but it is the RULE 80% of women go by. There are men you fuck, and men you marry.
I see clearly why good guys are angry. My husband and I are happy together, but it is an extra incentive for my husband to make the marriage work when he sees how horrible things are out in the single world.
In a different blog called the Brazilian Bachelor Stacy Jones; your typical American Woman, made this comment.
Irlandes happened to be reading the Brazilian Bachelor blog at the same time and caught Stacey Jones’s comment and here is what he had to say.
Um, Stacy, I suspect that perhaps you miss the point here. The issue is not when is a good age to marry. Thirty might indeed be a good age to marry — only if you can find some stupid schmuck who will marry you at that age.
The issue is most men don’t want to marry a woman of any age who has had tens; hundreds; or thousands of lovers. (I have read a number of times that the AVERAGE in the US is eleven.) Who is marrying only after years of travel and frolicking and sexual promiscuity, to have her own private wage-slave now that Her Royal ******* Majesty has decided it’s a good time to marry.
Whose me-me-me attitude is such that the man she marries has a 50% chance of spending many years sending money for kids she hides from him because she finds it convenient to do so, with no regard for their suffering or his.
Your comment is purely selfish. When ‘I’ want to marry. Why ‘I’ want to marry at that age. It is clear you have no thought of the potential husband or what he wants, right? After all, he is only a bit player in your personal future. If he agrees to accept that role.
I say, you go get-em, Tiger. You wait until you are 30 to marry. Just don’t blame scummy ole’ men if you suddenly discover you can’t get a good man (i.e. — Big Bux) to marry you when you are ready as the very large number of women who are discovering they can’t find a husband when they are ready.
outcastsuperstar
Legend Bachelor
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 11:33 am
January 27th, 2015 at 1:17 pm
Blue-pill beta guys generally do not understand women, even so-called “nice” women that try to present themselves in a good light.
See here:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03 … ize-women/
Why do so many betas harbor gauzy delusions about female sexual nature? Why are monogamously inclined traditionalists, manginas and white knighters so quick to sanctify women and paint their misbehavior in rose-colored hues while simultaneously offering unconditional support and shitlapping amen choruses for women when they accuse men of committing a litany of hackneyed misdeeds?
I’m here to provide what I believe is the most parsimonious answer to this riddle:
Beta males are rarely in a position to witness the worst of women.
Put yourself in the typical beta male’s shoes. He spends a goodly chunk of his horniest years — teens to mid 20s — when holes in watermelons look like acceptable vagina substitutes, pining for ethereal hot chicks who don’t pay him a lick of attention as they swoop by him on a cloud of incandescent purity. He sees them only from afar, where his imagination is free to feverishly fill in the gaps with only the most pleasant assumptions about his dreamgirls. When the rare communication does occur, she is as nice and kind as a saint to him. He is too smitten to recognize the hint of pity and condescension laced in her polite chat.
Later, usually college, he fumbles his way through awkward social interactions with plainer janes, the great majority of which end up with him being used for emotional sponging and ball-twisting, torturous friendships. All these girls are exceedingly, superficially kind to him because, after all, why look a gift herb in the mouth? A girl loves beta male attention, as long as it’s platonic, on her terms, extractive, and focused on feeding her ego. Naturally, these girl-friends never talk about their sex lives with the beta, never reveal what really goes on behind closed doors, and never invite the beta to join them on any adventures that really matter to him. Contrary to media popularization, betas rarely hear “This one time, at band camp…” from girls in their social circles. What they often hear instead are requests for help with term papers.
Then, due more to a combination of luck and (ovulation cycle) timing rather than bold effort or charm, the inoffensive beta male might find himself in a fledgling relationship with some semi-cute shut-in nearly as awkward as he and already past her beauty prime. She really likes him and treats him well… more sincerely than the cuter girls who made a sport of cockteasing him at any rate… but like ‘Rat’ Ratner from ‘Fast Times’, he labors for months and months waiting patiently for her to put out. For reasons beyond the beta’s ken, she is an extremely modest girl. He interprets her chasteness as evidence of women’s all-round goodness and saintliness, but of course he is sorta pissed off that she won’t satisfy him without months of “getting to know each other” warming up. When he finally does bust that cherry, after painful years wandering the celibate desert, it’s all he can do to stop himself mentally affixing a halo atop his girlfriend’s head, and pronouncing all women the undistilled essence of goodness.
A few pitiable betas, like those with bitch tits, horizontally stretched navels, and receding chins who wear ‘this is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirts, get trapped in sporadically sexual relationships with manjawed femcunts at grad school, mostly because long-winded bull sessions among their kind occasionally spin up enough libidinous energy to resolve in PBR-fueled late night groping, which is promptly regretted and/or rationalized by one or both parties the next morning, usually the girl.
Eventually, the beta male gets married, and his lack of experience — one to three lifetime “partners” (and I use the term loosely) is the norm — has cultivated in him a strong inability to read women’s signals, which sometimes leads him into blissful ignorance where infidelities can linger for years unnoticed, and “Surprise! I have a divorce paper!” gambits accost him like hammer blows to the head. Mostly, though, he floats through his marriage thinking the best of his wife, and worst of himself should feelings turn sour or the sex dry up. Because this is just what men are supposed to do when a woman is less than happy: take the blame. Women are the weaker sex, after all.
So you see, in the final analysis, it is very likely, by dint of the beta male’s ignorance, inexperience and habituated veneration of women and reflexive indulgence of women’s motives, that his view of women is severely constricted, child-like in its naivete. The beta male is not privy to what Tyler Durden famously called the secret society of women. He was never invited, and he was never apprised of the secret society’s goings-on by any woman in his life. He lives in a pinched world with only a peephole to the wonders beyond, given him not by insight but by stumbling into depravity or by the good grace of a sympathetic alpha male. As far as he knows, women don’t have much sex, and they are very nice and polite most of the time.
The beta male pedestalizes women because one, that’s all women have deigned to show him of their sexual inner world, and two, he cannot bear the contrary thought, affirming and cementing as it does his lackluster place on the sexual totem pole. (He is mired down in the sticky pubes, his vision obscured, while alphas dance joyously at the tip of the glans.)
As for the women, those few who have not experienced the thrill of the alpha male often are nearly as chaste as the beta imagines, because they have never been tempted. All they know are a parade of beta males, whom they lash out at occasionally for unwittingly stifling their truest desires, but who, for the most part, they treat in a nontoxic manner that buttresses heavenly notions about their secretive natures. A woman is ever aware of the precariousness of her reputation, and this goes double in rural outposts of heavy religiosity.
And so the beta male has his crimped worldview confirmed by the asexual, undersexual women in his life. But should he ever step outside his empillowed existence… take that daring step into the gritty, grimy world where the female id roams free across fruited plains of phalluses… screw up the courage of heart to face head-on the previously unimaginable… he will find that a bigger universe has existed all along, enveloping the bubble of his life, surging with unleashed energies just out of his reach like uterine aurorae, and if his soul isn’t killed dead right then from shock, he’ll cross the boundary into this new world — he won’t really have a choice — and never look back.
Nor ever again blindly assume the purest of women’s motivations. The stronger among them do with this newfound knowledge the following: acknowledge, accept, incorporate, delimit. He rules his knowledge, but he does not let it rule him.
Such boundary crossing is rare. The beta and alpha male worlds are almost as separate and distinct now as they have been since the dawn of anonymous urban living. Though that is changing.
If betas knew what alphas experience, it would blow their minds. Completely, utterly. Out from under the judgmental Eye of Proper Society, equipped with the requisite beauty to pay the price of admission, the wild female libido is insatiable, crass, debased. It is willing to surrender to the most vile sexual plunderings, screaming in ecstatic pleasure at every enthusiastically welcome violation. Women of the sweetest daytime dispositions and most innocent countenances — smartly coifed women in demure business suits who expound drily on cost-revenue projections and wait tidily in lines for healthy lunch alternatives — will unleash vaginal hell in the arms of alpha lovers, squirting glorious love over dominant men who swap them like baseball cards, presenting like beasts in heat for throbbing units in dank dive bar restrooms, casually spreading as far as they can go in locked office rooms for illicit lovers, giggling in breathy whispers in their lovers’ ear about the clear and present danger of getting caught, deliberately effusing a fake sorrow for the cheated-on boyfriend back home unawares, bemusing wistfully about a history of letting alpha lovers snort coke off her ass while claiming another headache to evade hubby’s entreaties.
Beta males never see this world. To them, it doesn’t exist. And that’s exactly how women want it.
January 27th, 2015 at 2:58 pm
re: Dear Abby answer
Abby goes so far as to imply that the woman’s lack of sexual interest is a *good* thing, for her, in the long run. Abby basically says that even if the woman were sexually interested then that sexual interest would inevitably go away anyway.
January 27th, 2015 at 3:08 pm
“Abby goes so far as to imply that the woman’s lack of sexual interest is a *good* thing, for her, in the long run. Abby basically says that even if the woman were sexually interested then that sexual interest would inevitably go away anyway.”
Well that will certainly get men lining up to say “I Do” faster!
Do women truly not see the problem here?
Again, men expect sex to continue pretty much til their last breath. In fact, I’d like to leave this world with a bang. Literally and figuratively.
January 27th, 2015 at 4:05 pm
@ Jeremy – Let’s be clear about something. You lecturing me about the financial crisis is absurd, so just stop. The more you say, the more obvious it is how little you actually understand about global financial markets and economics. I won’t go into it any further but your entire analogy was silly and is no proof point of anything to do with this blog or topic. Chaos is not a “ladder” and someone is always making money when others are losing, yawn. Just because some Rothchild banker made a comment adds exactly zero to this conversation.
But hey, wow, you claim I had at least one good question, while ducking the others. But your answer is again, really silly. Not sure why you are making such arch points like noting that you lived in a cult and possess some unique knowledge about how people can suspend rationality though.
Your answer seem to be, “Yeah, women are sort of responsible for what they do.” Okay, so where is our fucking argument then?
@ eon – One last attempt. You wrote a 1500 word comment replying to my comment, but didn’t “write if for me” and my responding as though you were talking to me makes me a “dumbass”? What are you, fucking 13?
I didn’t say “womyns are bitches” and I don’t say that. What I am saying is that they are a whole lot more conscious of what they are up to than I realized. They are much more intentional about their denigration of men and masculinity and press their advantages so ridiculously in today’s society because they know they don’t have to deal with us rationally or fairly – there is no consequence for them not doing so.
As for the larger point, I guess I have to elucidate it further so people can actually get it. First off, let’s talk about rationality and human congnition. Any single human being is at best capable of what’s known as “motivated reasoning”. See lesswrong.com for some great content on cognitive science. So, let’s call it a given that none of us reason anywhere near perfectly.
Next, consider that all humans are subject to a variety of forces which make them act a given way at any give moment and the idea that we all have anything anywhere near perfect “free will” is ridiculous. If you haven’t looked at the mythology of free will, check out this video by Sam Harris.http://youtu.be/pCofmZlC72g
If I was going to be a “web-scientist” and treat the above observations deontologically, well then we could conclude that nobody is responsible for anything they do. And of course, that is nonsense. In fact, our sense of morality includes some very fine distinctions around what was intended by people and how foreseeable consequences are, and this is reflected in our laws. So we can reason our way to distinguish between actions we hold people responsible for and those we don’t quite readily.
As Rollo pointed out, women’s sexual motivations are probably quite like what men feel in terms of attraction, in the sense that they are impulses which arise unconsciously within us. And as humans, we all understand the being overcome by impulses is something we are subject to. But in fact, we judge people’s character and integrity largely by how they control their impulses. We call this discipline, morality, integrity, maturity, etc.
So we have a perfectly good model with which to understand this. The impulse Kate has to want to fuck the super hot, sexy guy she’s met while on a road trip, a guy who has great game and gets her frothy is no different from what say a married, Christian guy might face when visiting the Spearmint Rhino in Vegas with a customer. While we understand the man is tempted, of course, we judge him on how he reacts to the temptation. (me I’m all over it cuz I’m atheist, hedonist, libidinous and love “sluts”).
In my case, I think a great example is when I notice an attractive woman. The first look is completely instinctive, I’m drawn to curves and nubility and my body reacts. But in a couple of seconds I’m aware that I’m staring at the ass of a 15 year old girl and I stop myself.
Do I have to go on? I hold women account for what they do once they engage their conscious minds. My sense is that women actually are far more consciously aware of their privileges than we think, and they actually behave in ways that further them quite intentionally. Put more plainly, I of course understand that Kate gets wet unconsciously, but she is completely in control of her decision to fuck the hot guy.
She even admits it herself. What she and all women are doing is calculating their self-interest and acting accordingly. Tell me, what shame does Kate face for fucking someone other than her husband? Will she be shamed in her community? Disinvited from holding a role on the PTA? Will her family shame her? Will her girlfriends tell her, “You are wrecking a family”? No, for the most part, the entire society cheers her on. There entire TV shows now built around female infidelity that cheer it on. None for men.
Men? We are shamed for the same behavior.. A guy cheats on his wife and leaves her? He’s a pig. He’s seeking a “trophy wife”. He’s “abandoning his family”. Women have very intentionally reshaped the narrative in our society to suit their sexual strategies and to shame and control men’s to enable theirs. This cannot happen by accident, there is intent.
That’s my whole point. Not that women are evil. Or bitches. Just that they’ve run amok and need to get a grip on themselves. And why? Because we are destroying the central organizing unit of society as a result of their idiocy, the family. We are well below replacement rates, and our society is a real mess due to all this.
How can anyone here argue with this point?
January 27th, 2015 at 4:11 pm
@ eon – We also have uncovered something else. You don’t know the meaning of the word solipsism. It’s not “being selfish”, no it’s walking around with the delusion that others aren’t real. A solipsistic being treats the rest of the world and those in it no differently than he treats the thoughts in his head. Such a person acts like the only reality is what is inside their mind. It’s like the real world is no different from a cartoon to them.
Do yourself a favor, before you start another stupid argument, why don’t you make sure you know what you are talking about in the first place? Just a thought.
January 27th, 2015 at 4:19 pm
@ Rollo – Don’t change the comments. By making us work to dig through and keep track of things it discourages the trolls. Disqus makes it to easy to just flame away whereas here you really need to work to keep up with the thread and I think that’s why so many commmenters here are awesome.
January 27th, 2015 at 4:22 pm
@ jf12, teddj4g
“Abby goes so far as to imply that the woman’s lack of sexual interest is a *good* thing, for her, in the long run. Abby basically says that even if the woman were sexually interested then that sexual interest would inevitably go away anyway.”
It would only go away for her husband. It would remain for other d1ck.
January 27th, 2015 at 4:31 pm
@ Kate – So what say you now? Since it’s actually more women cancer victims filing for divorce than the husbands, do you change your equalist view of this?
And let me just reiterate. While I don’t agree with some of your commentary, I very much take it as the kind of contribution to intellectual discourse and discovery that you intend it to be. I don’t find it self-serving or unnecessarily antagonistic. For example, when tangling with Dragon-Tatoo-Hamster, you chimed in that you absolutely understood what dressing up and going out and about does, and how you are intentionally arousing attraction when you do so. You don’t seem to have a problem with acknowledging much of what is basic and known here, and that is quite rare.
But I think the one thing you won’t let to of is what Rollo has called “equalism”. As an aside, I call it radical egalitarianism informed by socialists and marxists and progressives and social justice warriors – but we don’t discuss politics here. Rollo is far too meta for that, lol.
When he talks of equalism, he means the lie that women and men are the same inside, that our motivations and experiences are very similar, but I think you know that they are not. Yet when it comes to discussing say status or empathy, you seem to go to great lengths to claim that men and women are the same, just reacting to their environment and pursuing their aims in similar ways. But we’ve shown you that both from a status seeking and an empathetic perspective, you are incorrect about this.
Can you dive into this more deeply? Also, Rollo’s key comment here was about how women need men to believe that female sexuality is more moral, and that men should believe that women will want them if they are “good men”. This enables women to employ both of their sexual strategies at will and ensures there are plenty of Betas to provision for them when their SMV crashes. This also seeks to conceal women’s AF strategy and resist comparisions of it to male libidinousness. This last part you seem to have no problem with.
How do you square all that with your equalist ideas?
January 27th, 2015 at 11:53 pm
Marriage statistics indicate that couples are more well matched now in terms of finances than what they were 50-60 years ago. Why is this the case? Is it a sign that men care about status too and want to pool their resources with women in order to achieve a higher standard of living, or is it about protection? In other words, is it a conscious trade off by most men to trade off the ‘best looks’ for (the illusion of) greater security?
I’d argue it’s about protection, and that’s certainly the case with most men I know. If you are a 6 in looks and you are looking for a 6-7 with the same money and assets as you, chances are that 6-7 is going to want a richer and/or better looking man, so it’s necessary for men to make trade offs in order to get what they want.
All i know is that better looking women with less money respond positively to me when they find out I own two properties without any debt at the age of 35. So my choice is basically to hook up with a broke cute girl who is between the ages of 28-35, or an ordinary looking one who owns her own home in her mid to late 30’s.
Decisions decision.
January 28th, 2015 at 9:07 am
Bios – maybe that’s a regional/class thing. My wife makes less than half of what I do. Of my male friends, only one comes to mind where both make about the same income, and they are the only couple I know without kids. Instead they spend their free time and mteoney travelling.
At any rate, I don’t know a single man that purposely looked for high income or status in a wife. Most did their best to avoid taking on debt, which may be a contributor to their wives lower income. They dsidnt bring huge college debt with them into the marriage, but they also don’t make much.
January 28th, 2015 at 4:53 pm
girlwithadragonflytattoo (January 27th, 2015 at 8:57 am),
Thank you for your kind words about my comment.
You are absolutely right that “Some women create a beautiful marriage, and some are all about themselves. You MAY have more of the latter when you are dealing with 9’s 10’s.. but definitely not always. Inner beauty really does matter”.
I emphasized the 7/8 and 9/10, not to imply that outer beauty was ever inversely correlated with inner beauty, but to remind people that outer beauty without inner beauty is of little value.
“… I go to a wives group JUST so that I can support my husband …”
Loyalty and looking out for each other is truly essential, and the one type of relationship that I have yet to see fail is an actual “two of us against the world” marriage.
January 28th, 2015 at 5:49 pm
@ Glenn
“One last attempt. You wrote a 1500 word comment replying to my comment, but didn’t ‘write if for me’ …”
My comments are for the benefit of honest seekers.
.
“We also have uncovered something else. You don’t know the meaning of the word solipsism. It’s not “being selfish”, no it’s walking around with the delusion that others aren’t real.”
We have also uncovered something else: you can’t read.
I didn’t write “selfish”, I wrote “self-centered” (engrossed in oneself), because it is a practical equivalent for “solipsism”, whose dictionary definition is “The theory that the self is the only reality” (a definition that was also too cumbersome to use in figuring out why you were claiming that such people are unable to shop).
And I hate to have to tell you this, but solipsistic women are neither delusional nor conducting some kind of deep philosophical discussion in their heads (“Would Socrates think that these shoes are cute?”, LOL).
They act on their immediate feelings, because they are so engrossed in themselves that it never occurs to them (or they don’t have the capacity to consider) that other people should matter in any significant way.
January 28th, 2015 at 10:04 pm
“Bios – maybe that’s a regional/class thing”
It is something that has been observed across the board.
The point is that while women may be ‘hypergamous’ creatives, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for them to do so given what the statistics tell us about marriage. In other words, women aren’t ‘marrying up’ in the numbers that they used to.
Hooking up is a different story though.