# what really matters in a spouse?



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

My idea was that the important things to pick a partner based on were: having an agreement about what exactly "marriage" means, and having shared values and shared lifestyle goals.
Personally, I believe that marriage is for life (but yes it is important that divorce is legal so that people can leave dangerous situations) and the purpose of marriage is that by saying "we can never leave each other no matter what even if we don't like each other" you're forced to become better people, so what really matters is that both people are oriented to the good, so that you don't force each other into becoming bad people instead. But how do you find that quality in a person? I think love will be a byproduct of a good marriage, but no one can love anyone 100% of the time, so marriage is about committing to stay with someone you don't love, for the greater good basically, and because of that you will be a family and love each other. In theory. But how important is finding someone you're really attracted to, or someone that you really "love" even before promising to support them no matter what? Which things matter the most in a spouse? Respecting them intellectually? Agreeing with them politically? Or spiritually? Which values and lifestyle things matter most? I don't believe that living together before marriage or having sex outside of very serious relationships is good, I believe in gender roles, i'm generally pretty conservative/traditional, but that's pretty unusual where I live, at least outside of religious communities. And I think religious people usually marry within their religion. What matters and what's too picky?
What is REALLY important about the person you want as your partner for your entire life? I know you can never really know someone, but how can you make a best guess that your partner is good and not manipulative, repressing things, etc.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

What you need in a spouse to make your marriage work is likely to be different from what I need. It sounds like I'm dodging the question, but some people are happy in marriages that look worse than prison to me. It's really about what works for the two of you.

As for "how do you know a person", I haven't been too surprised by the people in my life. Take your time, don't try to match them to any preconceived stereotypes, don't look away if you think you see a wart. People do change, so there are no guarantees.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> I know you can never really know someone, but how can you make a best guess that your partner is good and not manipulative, repressing things, etc.


I say just move in together for a few years and see what happens prior to marriage. Only so much you can figure out otherwise.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

RandomDude said:


> I say just move in together for a few years and see what happens prior to marriage. Only so much you can figure out otherwise.


I don't believe in living with someone outside of marriage or taking multiple years to decide where a relationship is going. There's only so much you can figure out about anyone even if you never left their side for 50 years, so it's not about knowing someone but looking for markers.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

SpinyNorman said:


> What you need in a spouse to make your marriage work is likely to be different from what I need. It sounds like I'm dodging the question, but some people are happy in marriages that look worse than prison to me. It's really about what works for the two of you.
> 
> As for "how do you know a person", I haven't been too surprised by the people in my life. Take your time, don't try to match them to any preconceived stereotypes, don't look away if you think you see a wart. People do change, so there are no guarantees.


all relationships are different, but I guess I'm supposing that there is something consistent across all successful marriages regardless of how wildly different they are from one another, ie divorce not being an option. 

Divorce not being an option, the only other factor in ensuring a successful marriage is that there is no abuse or danger etc. I haven't been that surprised by that many people in my life, but some people are: there are numerous cases of men without any history of violence killing their families, to the shock and disbelief of everyone who's met them. I'm not suggesting that there's any likelihood of that kind of murder, but that people do hide things so deep down that no one sees it. So how can you come closest to knowing whether someone's hiding things? 

I know that not divorcing is the only way to have a successful marriage, but I am also curious about what factor may contribute to a happy marriage as well. Of course you're right that people change, so I could marry someone now because they want the same lifestyle and have the same morals as i do, only for them to completely switch belief systems next year and move us around the world to a completely different lifestyle, so if anything about your spouse could change, is there any point really picking? Choosing a partner doesn't seem like it would increase the chances of a successful OR happy marriage, but arranged marriage is not an option in my culture, so I feel lost as to how to know who to marry!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

hkbb said:


> I don't believe in living with someone outside of marriage or taking multiple years to decide where a relationship is going. There's only so much you can figure out about anyone even if you never left their side for 50 years, so it's not about knowing someone but looking for markers.


Obviously you will find out a lot more about a person living with them for 50 years rather than never living with them prior to marriage. Yes, it's never perfect, but it makes a big enough difference.
As for markers, sadly, you can't rush it, as the saying goes "time will tell", and even if you think you played all your cards right, it's still a risk.


----------



## Mr.Married (Feb 21, 2018)

Are you questioning the choice you made? It sounds like your trying to convince yourself otherwise.


----------



## Cooking4fun (Apr 9, 2017)

My idea was that the important things to pick a partner based on were: having an agreement about what exactly "marriage" means, and having shared values and shared lifestyle goals.
Personally, I believe that marriage is for life (but yes it is important that divorce is legal so that people can leave dangerous situations) and the purpose of marriage is that by saying "we can never leave each other no matter what even if we don't like each other" you're forced to become better people, so what really matters is that both people are oriented to the good, so that you don't force each other into becoming bad people instead. But how do you find that quality in a person?

I’m going to say that first off what you have to say, and question is perfectly normal. Or perhaps you hit “ the nail on the head”. If you are headed into a long term commitment or even marriage, then my hats off to you for taking a cautious and inquisitive approach Moving forward. Picking, or choosing your spouse is about taking a leap of faith into the unknown. It will take work. Keep in mind that the same goes for her/him. Many couples head into a long term relationship wondering about the long term future. It’s for life, right? But the dose of reality is that you really don’t know the outcome. Unless It’s an arranged marriage then you should spend a lot of time prior qualifying the reasons why you hope to be compatible long term. But what you feel today is only a snapshot in time. You will be responsible for the long term outcome. But if you choose not to act upon these current feelings then you will end up Never knowing. A shot at the basket is better than sitting on the bench. Good luck.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Mr.Married said:


> Are you questioning the choice you made? It sounds like your trying to convince yourself otherwise.


i'm looking for advice on how to make a choice, i haven't made one yet


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

RandomDude said:


> Obviously you will find out a lot more about a person living with them for 50 years rather than never living with them prior to marriage. Yes, it's never perfect, but it makes a big enough difference.
> As for markers, sadly, you can't rush it, as the saying goes "time will tell", and even if you think you played all your cards right, it's still a risk.


I haven't personally found living with someone to ever reveal anything new about them or the relationship dynamic, in friendships as well as romantic relationships, so living together doesn't seem to be much help to me. 

Some markers will be based on longevity and consistency over time, but that seems to require a big enough time period that unless you're planning to be together for 50 years before committing to marriage, you'd always be guessing as far as that goes. I'm curious what other things could serve as markers for qualities that manifest over a long period of time- perhaps if they've been consistent as an employee (not changing jobs too frequently, reliable at work) and if their family and long time friends depend on them? If they make and keep committments? 

Other markers I think emerge over time, but as a result of specific situations rather than longevity, so I'm curious how one could increase the variety of situations in the courting stage so as to be exposed to the most markers.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> all relationships are different, but I guess I'm supposing that there is something consistent across all successful marriages regardless of how wildly different they are from one another, ie divorce not being an option.
> 
> Divorce not being an option, the only other factor in ensuring a successful marriage is that there is no abuse or danger etc. I haven't been that surprised by that many people in my life, but some people are: there are numerous cases of men without any history of violence killing their families, to the shock and disbelief of everyone who's met them. I'm not suggesting that there's any likelihood of that kind of murder, but that people do hide things so deep down that no one sees it. So how can you come closest to knowing whether someone's hiding things?
> 
> I know that not divorcing is the only way to have a successful marriage, but I am also curious about what factor may contribute to a happy marriage as well. Of course you're right that people change, so I could marry someone now because they want the same lifestyle and have the same morals as i do, only for them to completely switch belief systems next year and move us around the world to a completely different lifestyle, so if anything about your spouse could change, is there any point really picking? Choosing a partner doesn't seem like it would increase the chances of a successful OR happy marriage, but arranged marriage is not an option in my culture, so I feel lost as to how to know who to marry!


I would look for honesty, faithfulness, integrity and strong moral values.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Well, good luck to you. IMO, living together for a couple of years is the best way to find out about long term compatibility - time + proximity + life challenges. Of course, that only provides a good starting baseline as people can and often do change over the years.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

hkbb said:


> What is REALLY important about the person you want as your partner for your entire life?


In addition to things that have been said, I think physical attraction is also important. 
How old are you? I think that makes a difference. 



> I know you can never really know someone, but how can you make a best guess that your partner is good and not manipulative, repressing things, etc.


The way to detect those things (manipulation, repression) is to be very aware of your own feelings, and notice how you feel around that person. If, to take one example, you feel guilty around them, or confused, or tired, that tells you something.


----------



## Rustynuts67 (Dec 11, 2017)

I believe people are givers (generous and kind) or takers (mean and selfish). If a marriage has two givers it's a success. A giver and a taker works but not happy. To takers ends on divorce. You need to be a giver and try to find another giver.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Rustynuts67 said:


> I believe people are givers (generous and kind) or takers (mean and selfish). If a marriage has two givers it's a success. A giver and a taker works but not happy. To takers ends on divorce. You need to be a giver and try to find another giver.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk


Yes I agree to a point. I do think though that many of us can be somewhere between the two. 
My husband's ex was definitely a taker and as you say its not happy because the taker is never satisfied.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

I guess it all depends on what is important to a particular individual.....

But there are also some consistent commonalities with the people I have known over the years and what happens in their marriage...And those things always seem to come up and rear their head even on sites like these...

One thing I have seen is many people pay little attention to physical/sexual attraction, thinking that it's perhaps not that important...Well...Look around at all the issues that come up when things go sideways,,,No sex, no intimacy, abandonment, etc..

All the financial security in the world isn't going to keep a woman from pining for the hunky contractor working on the fancy house...It won't matter how good a provider he is, if she can't get aroused by him and lives her entire life faking it...Same for guys with women as well..

Don't get me wrong here...I'm not suggesting that the other stuff like loyalty, honesty, consideration, work ethic, family values, etc aren't vital....They are...But in life you rarely get the entire package...A lot of that other stuff are things that can be worked on and do improve...The issue of raw attractiveness and sexual desire is usually there or it's not...Rarely if ever does it get better if it starts off weak...or even non existent...

At the end of the day, though its as I stated earlier...find what works for you and try not to settle too much....


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> I would look for honesty, faithfulness, integrity and strong moral values.


those are great traits, how can you find out or tell if someone has them? and how do you discern whether people are "faking" those things?


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Married but Happy said:


> Well, good luck to you. IMO, living together for a couple of years is the best way to find out about long term compatibility - time + proximity + life challenges. Of course, that only provides a good starting baseline as people can and often do change over the years.


I agree, proximity and life challenges are the best way to test compatibility, although as you referenced, time is a little harder to test out, since change can happen at any point, so time is no guarantee. I'm hoping to find a way to use proximity and life challenges (and time, to an extent) to find a compatible partner before committing to a marriage relationship, which includes common law marriage for me. I don't want to be married and live with someone and be in that commitment BEFORE deciding if we're compatible, if that makes sense


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Laurentium said:


> In addition to things that have been said, I think physical attraction is also important.
> How old are you? I think that makes a difference.
> 
> 
> ...



I'm in my mid-20s. Can I ask more about the role and importance of physical attraction given that marriage is a commitment to be with someone even when you aren't attracted to them? (eg when in old age and therefore less objectively sexually attractive than someone of reproductive age, or if they have some ailment, aren't able to have sex, etc.) I don't believe any two people will remain attracted to each other for 100% of the time even if they begin that way, so I've been struggling to discern its degree of import. 

That's very good advice, thank you. I do try to pay very close attention to how I'm feeling, but it's nice to have some other markers to go by! I feel like I'm still calibrating which of my feelings are the instincts I should go by, and which feelings are just anxiety, etc. I think most people spend their early 20s becoming un-naive and learning to trust themselves, and I hope I am, but I still appreciate a second opinion


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> Yes I agree to a point. I do think though that many of us can be somewhere between the two.
> My husband's ex was definitely a taker and as you say its not happy because the taker is never satisfied.


I think most people need to take at some points in their life, and are able to give at others. 
Certainly it's good to look out for someone who is a habitual taker as that would make a balanced relationship difficult. Although, does that mean people with additional needs are unable to have relationships? Could someone who is not able to give much find a way to have a balanced relationship?
But I also wonder if someone being only able to give is a problem in the balance of a relationship. If someone cannot accept help, how are you going to be able to work together? What is a relationship without vulnerability, helping and caring for one another? If someone only wants to give and never receive, it would still be unbalanced.
That being said, I recently heard an orthodox Jew explain that marriage is not something you do because you want something "I want a wife, I want a family, I want someone making dinner, I want someone cleaning, I want a home" but because you want to give something "I want to be a wife, I want to give someone a family, I want to cook and clean for someone, I want to make a home for someone" and that's true, so in that sense, certainly it takes two "givers".


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

hamadryad said:


> I guess it all depends on what is important to a particular individual.....
> 
> But there are also some consistent commonalities with the people I have known over the years and what happens in their marriage...And those things always seem to come up and rear their head even on sites like these...
> 
> ...


Problems with sex and intimacy are absolutely very important issues, but in my relationships I've found very little correlation between problems of sex and intimacy and physical attraction. Rather they seem to be related to, well, intimacy.
Men and women think of this very differently of course, as we biologically should, so as far as attraction I would be primarily looking for advice from women, as what's relevant for men in that area certainly will not be for me. How physically attractive a man is has very little bearing on my wanting to sleep with him though.
For what it's worth, I think that what men may be missing is that if a woman is attracted to a "hunky contractor" over a "good provider" it means the hunky contractor is in fact probably the better provider. Millions of years of evolution does not lead women to make decisions astray of science.
I'm certainly not hoping to get an "entire package" but I also don't expect that if I choose someone they WILL definitely improve the things I don't like about them, so I'm hoping to pick someone based on having the most important parts of the package rather than the whole package. What things should and shouldn't you settle on, if physical attraction is one that should not be settled for? 
Sexual attraction is one of those things that gets "worked on" for me though, I don't think I've ever felt sexual desire for someone until I actually knew whether they were nice or not! On the flip side, perhaps I do know pretty quickly if I'm distinctly UNattracted to someone, so perhaps in that sense you're correct about it not being there from the get go, but in that case I'm not too concerned about ending up on a date with that person anyway.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

I think you may be underestimating how this may work....

I don't see how anyone says, physical/sexual attraction grows in proportion to how "nice" or "sweet" a guy is...If that were the case, then there wouldn't be all the million super nice guys that never get laid and spend their entire lives in the friendzone...

I was actually a bit naive to the issue of lack of sexual chemistry and how devastating that is to a relationship...I simply couldn't believe the amount of women that regularly complain about this issue and didn't know how widespread it was until I found relationship forums...Its a huge deal..

I think perhaps part of the problem is many women just don't place enough attention to it, hoping for what you are saying....for it to "grow".....They find after many years of faking it, it never grows...in fact, it gets worse...And other small issues become larger when that strong pull isn't there...

Eh..I can't speak for all, but there is no better feeling than seeing your significant other walking up to see you and you want to just ravage them on the spot....When it's right, that type of thing doesn't disappear with age, etc...It's there and it just morphs...but it's not something that has to be created from nothing but a lot of other intangibles that may or may not be what you want at that time...


----------



## GC1234 (Apr 15, 2020)

hkbb said:


> My idea was that the important things to pick a partner based on were: having an agreement about what exactly "marriage" means, and having shared values and shared lifestyle goals.
> Personally, I believe that marriage is for life (but yes it is important that divorce is legal so that people can leave dangerous situations) and the purpose of marriage is that by saying "we can never leave each other no matter what even if we don't like each other" you're forced to become better people, so what really matters is that both people are oriented to the good, so that you don't force each other into becoming bad people instead. But how do you find that quality in a person? I think love will be a byproduct of a good marriage, but no one can love anyone 100% of the time, so marriage is about committing to stay with someone you don't love, for the greater good basically, and because of that you will be a family and love each other. In theory. But how important is finding someone you're really attracted to, or someone that you really "love" even before promising to support them no matter what? Which things matter the most in a spouse? Respecting them intellectually? Agreeing with them politically? Or spiritually? Which values and lifestyle things matter most? I don't believe that living together before marriage or having sex outside of very serious relationships is good, I believe in gender roles, i'm generally pretty conservative/traditional, but that's pretty unusual where I live, at least outside of religious communities. And I think religious people usually marry within their religion. What matters and what's too picky?
> What is REALLY important about the person you want as your partner for your entire life? I know you can never really know someone, but how can you make a best guess that your partner is good and not manipulative, repressing things, etc.


I think being a good problem solver, being supportive and kind are important. Respect and being heard is important. Someone who is motivated helps. Not to offend you, I know you believe that marriage should be forever, but, sometimes, it's not, and that's ok. Things sometimes happen that you could not foresee. Also, there's a saying, that once you marry someone, you marry the family too. Make sure you get along with them, b/c if not, it can definitely cause issues in your marriage.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

hamadryad said:


> I think you may be underestimating how this may work....
> 
> I don't see how anyone says, physical/sexual attraction grows in proportion to how "nice" or "sweet" a guy is...If that were the case, then there wouldn't be all the million super nice guys that never get laid and spend their entire lives in the friendzone...
> 
> ...


I appreciate your input on the seriousness of the issue and I'll consider it some more, thank you. 
I want to make clear that a sexual relationship is certainly not based in someone being nice or in liking them, but I don't believe it's based on being physically attracted to them either. An unattractive man will be unattractive no matter what, and I'm not interested in unattractive men. However, physically attractive men do not gain the favour of automatically being a sexual prospect merely because they are attractive, looks are on the list of factors but definitely not at the top if it, so looks alone do nothing for a woman. Attraction (or lack of) does not happen when you see someone's body but when you see their personality so there's no chance for it to happen before getting to know someone, so only in that way it's a gradual process of finding out if you're attracted, not of actually becoming attracted. How would you know based on just physical things whether you want to have sex though? Someone who is not unattractive but who I'm not immediately physically aroused by could get and keep my sexual interest for a lifetime if they have the ability to both physically protect and provide for me, and maybe I would also have to respect them or something, but those are the sort of traits I'm searching for, ones that predict long term attraction that would last regardless of age. Physical attraction is based on sexual characteristics which diminish after reproductive age and because of that physical attraction is not a predictor of sexual attraction into old age, but maybe there is something that can predict that. Sexual appetites will wax and wane throughout life, it's not as simple as growing or diminishing attraction, instead it changes at various times; age may not alter the sexual relationship but illness and stress will, there's no one that could want to ravage someone all the time, we're all human. How can I ensure my partner and I will want to have sex even when we look at one another and think "ugh, I don't feel like ravaging today, she didn't take out the trash"? 

Again, i'm not implying that this functions even remotely the same for men and it would be foolish to try to apply any of this to a man, it would not prove to be a viable way for a man to select a mate at all, so if you are a man this will all be irrelevant and sound wrong to you, because it is wrong for you. That being said, there is value in understanding the female thought process.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

GC1234 said:


> I think being a good problem solver, being supportive and kind are important. Respect and being heard is important. Someone who is motivated helps. Not to offend you, I know you believe that marriage should be forever, but, sometimes, it's not, and that's ok. Things sometimes happen that you could not foresee. Also, there's a saying, that once you marry someone, you marry the family too. Make sure you get along with them, b/c if not, it can definitely cause issues in your marriage.


thank you, that's very helpful! I'm not offended at all, I value any wisdom or experience people are willing to share because things that I "don't believe" still exist and I can learn from them, they may be more right than me! I understand very well that no one knows how life will go regardless of how we think life or marriage SHOULD go; I know that I could pick a kind, supportive, motivated good listener and they could get a brain injury the next day and lose all those traits. For me though, when I take marriage vows what I mean by those words is that even if someone changed every single thing i liked about them, I would not leave unless it was a question of safety, they refused to participate in the relationship for a long time, or their values were in direct opposition to what I felt was morally permissible. I totally respect that others don't want to be in an unhappy marriage, but I do plan to enter into marriage without any expectations of achieving happiness or love. Family is very important, I wish arranged marriage was an option so i could choose a family and not just a spouse! I appreciate all your advice, and I would appreciate if you had any tips for finding/identifying those traits in a partner! Or finding a family you fit into well.


----------



## Mr.Married (Feb 21, 2018)

I think your thinking about it too hard. It’s not a calculus problem. You will know if she is a decent woman or not quickly. The biggest problem people have is that they ignore the red flags and continue anyway.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

hkbb said:


> I'm in my mid-20s. Can I ask more about the role and importance of physical attraction given that marriage is a commitment to be with someone even when you aren't attracted to them? (eg when in old age and therefore less objectively sexually attractive than someone of reproductive age, or if they have some ailment, aren't able to have sex, etc.)


Thanks, this is a really interesting question, but first let me clarify that I wasn't suggesting it's _the_ factor, just that it needs to be on the list. (There is an old book that goes through a sort of step by step decision tree on it, _Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay_ by Mira Kirshenbaum, which I haven't read for many years, but seem to remember was reasonable). 

And second, let me say that by attraction, I don't necessarily mean conventional good looks. Nobody seems very sure, but some people think quite a lot of attraction is to do with a person's pheromones, which give clues about their genetics. Others think attraction is about their social skills and status, eg do they seem reasonably assertive? So it's not only about the six-pack or the tallness. 



hkbb said:


> Problems with sex and intimacy are absolutely very important issues, but in my relationships I've found very little correlation between problems of sex and intimacy and physical attraction. Rather they seem to be related to, well, intimacy.


Exactly right, and that's about a capacity for _appropriate_ self-disclosure. 



> if a woman is attracted to a "hunky contractor" over a "good provider" it means the hunky contractor is in fact probably the better provider. Millions of years of evolution does not lead women to make decisions astray of science.


Again, exactly right. I like your reasoning (which means, I agree with it). And what I'm saying is, that will show up as a (physical) feeling of attraction, rather than a cognitive process. And therefore those physical, evolutionary instincts need to be attended to. 

Although - evolution may have a hard time handling how things have changed within the last one human lifetime. Evolution isn't infallible - most species go extinct. 



hamadryad said:


> I was actually a bit naive to the issue of lack of sexual chemistry and how devastating that is to a relationship...I simply couldn't believe the amount of women that regularly complain about this issue and didn't know how widespread it was until I found relationship forums...Its a huge deal..
> 
> I think perhaps part of the problem is many women just don't place enough attention to it, hoping for what you are saying....for it to "grow".....They find after many years of faking it, it never grows...in fact, it gets worse...And other small issues become larger when that strong pull isn't there...


Yes. I'm not a woman, but I work as a couples counsellor, and I hear a lot of this. 



> When it's right, that type of thing doesn't disappear with age, etc...It's there and it just morphs...


I agree, it can do. My wife and I were together for 30 years (before she died) and the attraction, if anything, increased, but morphed. 



hkbb said:


> looks are on the list of factors but definitely not at the top if it, so looks alone do nothing for a woman.


At the risk of repeating myself, when I say attraction, I don't mean looks. I mean something that you sense in your own body. 



> i'm not implying that this functions even remotely the same for men and it would be foolish to try to apply any of this to a man, it would not prove to be a viable way for a man to select a mate at all, so if you are a man this will all be irrelevant and sound wrong to you, because it is wrong for you.


My opinion is that men and women are not as different as people imagine. Evolution-wise, a man needs a woman to be fertile, but he also needs her to be trustworthy, and capable of careful mothering. I may stray too far the other way, but I don't basically see men and women as much different. 



> I do try to pay very close attention to how I'm feeling, but it's nice to have some other markers to go by! I feel like I'm still calibrating which of my feelings are the instincts I should go by, and which feelings are just anxiety, etc. I think most people spend their early 20s becoming un-naive and learning to trust themselves, and I hope I am, but I still appreciate a second opinion


It's more about noticing how you feel _around that person._ And that requires that you are aware how you feel in general.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> those are great traits, how can you find out or tell if someone has them? and how do you discern whether people are "faking" those things?


By how they live their life. How they treat people. What their beliefs are on marriage and sex. How have they acted in past relationships/marriges. Its hard to say exactly, but I knew within days that my now husband of 16 years was a really good man, the sort of man I was wanting to marry. I think it helped that we were both in our late 40's, and by then you have more idea of what to look for and I am also an intuitive person generally which helps.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> I appreciate your input on the seriousness of the issue and I'll consider it some more, thank you.
> I want to make clear that a sexual relationship is certainly not based in someone being nice or in liking them, but I don't believe it's based on being physically attracted to them either. An unattractive man will be unattractive no matter what, and I'm not interested in unattractive men. However, physically attractive men do not gain the favour of automatically being a sexual prospect merely because they are attractive, looks are on the list of factors but definitely not at the top if it, so looks alone do nothing for a woman. Attraction (or lack of) does not happen when you see someone's body but when you see their personality so there's no chance for it to happen before getting to know someone, so only in that way it's a gradual process of finding out if you're attracted, not of actually becoming attracted. How would you know based on just physical things whether you want to have sex though? Someone who is not unattractive but who I'm not immediately physically aroused by could get and keep my sexual interest for a lifetime if they have the ability to both physically protect and provide for me, and maybe I would also have to respect them or something, but those are the sort of traits I'm searching for, ones that predict long term attraction that would last regardless of age. Physical attraction is based on sexual characteristics which diminish after reproductive age and because of that physical attraction is not a predictor of sexual attraction into old age, but maybe there is something that can predict that. Sexual appetites will wax and wane throughout life, it's not as simple as growing or diminishing attraction, instead it changes at various times; age may not alter the sexual relationship but illness and stress will, there's no one that could want to ravage someone all the time, we're all human. How can I ensure my partner and I will want to have sex even when we look at one another and think "ugh, I don't feel like ravaging today, she didn't take out the trash"?
> 
> Again, i'm not implying that this functions even remotely the same for men and it would be foolish to try to apply any of this to a man, it would not prove to be a viable way for a man to select a mate at all, so if you are a man this will all be irrelevant and sound wrong to you, because it is wrong for you. That being said, there is value in understanding the female thought process.


In general I find that very attractive men can be arrogant which for me is a total no no. Cant bear arrogance. There does need to be that certain chemistry, after all you will be having sex for the rest of your life if you marry. However, for me a man who has self control, integrity, strong moral values and honesty is VERY appealing. Looks alone are never going to attract me.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

hkbb said:


> I totally respect that others don't want to be in an unhappy marriage,* but I do plan to enter into marriage without any expectations of achieving happiness or love.*


Then why do you want to be married? It's not like you're a princess and picking a mate who will be able to advance your country's interests. 

Do not enter into marriage without being in love and loving that person. Sometimes, when the going gets rough, love is the only thing that will get you through that trial. The being in love feelings can wax and wane and then reignite. The loving will be consistent.

The wishing you could be in an arranged marriage highlights the fact that you have never been in love and just want to get married to check a box.

What are you really after? The best way to pick a meal ticket?


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Laurentium said:


> Thanks, this is a really interesting question, but first let me clarify that I wasn't suggesting it's _the_ factor, just that it needs to be on the list. (There is an old book that goes through a sort of step by step decision tree on it, _Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay_ by Mira Kirshenbaum, which I haven't read for many years, but seem to remember was reasonable).
> 
> And second, let me say that by attraction, I don't necessarily mean conventional good looks. Nobody seems very sure, but some people think quite a lot of attraction is to do with a person's pheromones, which give clues about their genetics. Others think attraction is about their social skills and status, eg do they seem reasonably assertive? So it's not only about the six-pack or the tallness.
> 
> ...


thank you so much for such a thoughtful answer, I appreciate you taking the time to help me and I'll be thinking about all that you've said


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> By how they live their life. How they treat people. What their beliefs are on marriage and sex. How have they acted in past relationships/marriges. Its hard to say exactly, but I knew within days that my now husband of 16 years was a really good man, the sort of man I was wanting to marry. I think it helped that we were both in our late 40's, and by then you have more idea of what to look for and I am also an intuitive person generally which helps.


I definitely think it will usually take a matter of days to determine whether you'd like to marry someone, but I am in favour of taking a bit longer before committing to marriage to see, as you said, how they live their life. Do you have any advice about HOW to see that, like which areas of their life to look at, or how you could be exposed to more areas of their life, or how you can tell it's not just an act to impress people? thank you so much for the advice, I really appreciate it


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> In general I find that very attractive men can be arrogant which for me is a total no no. Cant bear arrogance. There does need to be that certain chemistry, after all you will be having sex for the rest of your life if you marry. However, for me a man who has self control, integrity, strong moral values and honesty is VERY appealing. Looks alone are never going to attract me.


thank you so much, I really appreciate hearing from another woman! (i assume, sorry, I suppose we haven't been formally acquainted!) 
I love that you said "chemistry" rather than "attraction", that's very helpful and I totally agree! I don't understand how someone could be turned on by looks separate from the personality they're attached to, personality is a prerequisite for having any chemistry to begin with! and since i'm looking for long-term sex, any sexual interest i have will be based in chemistry, not attraction. 
Thank you so much for all your help! Self-control is also a very important one to look out for that I hadn't really thought of and i'm sure all this information will help me out


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> I definitely think it will usually take a matter of days to determine whether you'd like to marry someone, but I am in favour of taking a bit longer before committing to marriage to see, as you said, how they live their life. Do you have any advice about HOW to see that, like which areas of their life to look at, or how you could be exposed to more areas of their life, or how you can tell it's not just an act to impress people? thank you so much for the advice, I really appreciate it


Oh yes you are right. We didnt get engaged for 6 months and married after 9 months. Its just that I knew within a week that I wanted to marry him. I guess that for me as a Christian I wanted to meet a strong Christian which he was.I wanted a man who hadnt slept around or looked at porn, who had strong moral values. I had prayed for many qualities that I wanted in a husband and he fitted them all. Its hard to explain but I just knew he was right. I think that sometimes you just know. It was as if we had known each other for years.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> thank you so much, I really appreciate hearing from another woman! (i assume, sorry, I suppose we haven't been formally acquainted!)
> I love that you said "chemistry" rather than "attraction", that's very helpful and I totally agree! I don't understand how someone could be turned on by looks separate from the personality they're attached to, personality is a prerequisite for having any chemistry to begin with! and since i'm looking for long-term sex, any sexual interest i have will be based in chemistry, not attraction.
> Thank you so much for all your help! Self-control is also a very important one to look out for that I hadn't really thought of and i'm sure all this information will help me out


Yes I am female. lol. I guess that in some ways I am hard to please. The qualities I was looking for in a man are ones that are not easy at all to find, but I wasnt going to settle for second best.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Blondilocks said:


> Then why do you want to be married? It's not like you're a princess and picking a mate who will be able to advance your country's interests.
> 
> Do not enter into marriage without being in love and loving that person. Sometimes, when the going gets rough, love is the only thing that will get you through that trial. The being in love feelings can wax and wane and then reignite. The loving will be consistent.
> 
> ...


I completely understand why a stranger would not value me/my family as highly as royalty, nor would I expect you to, but I certainly value myself that highly. I don't feel I have good reason to be any less discerning than a princess about finding a life partner that will be able to advance my family's interests, ultimately the responsibility in choosing a mate is the same even if the whole country doesn't care about my choice. The country might not care about my bloodline but I can. 

Perhaps our misunderstanding comes from the fact that I do believe marriage to be about family and only family, and not about the self/personal/individual relationship. I know that can be a difference between some cultures, especially where love marriages are practiced. 

I'm not concerned about my ability to love someone so I don't feel any need to make vows to do that, I'll feel it regardless of what I say, and if I don't feel it words can't change my deepest feelings anyway. And I'd argue that committment itself CAN change one's feelings. 
The going being rough will not test my love but my committment; if it tested my love I'd fail at the first fight. I can control what I do but not how I feel, so my actions are what I feel the need to make vows for. It would be a lie to vow that I could control what feelings I experience, feelings just happen without me thinking and deciding on them, so why promise that I'll be able to control my feelings for the rest of my life? But words can hold me to my actions and values if not my emotions. What do you have when the going gets rough and you also don't have love? Until the love returns, you'll have nothing between you, but I want to have to stay with someone until the love returns, because love or lack thereof is a feeling, not a permanent state. 

May I suggest that you might be making a few assumptions about me? I'm not sure what they're based upon, because anyone could claim anyone else has never REALLY been in real TRUE love, and I have nothing to prove otherwise besides my most honest assertion that to the absolute best of my beliefs, I sincerely know I have been in love. Perhaps it's not real love, but I'm being truthful with how I feel anyway, even if I end up being wrong about what feelings feel like. I do believe I have been in love as well as infatuated, with no doubt in my mind.

I'm not sure what you mean about marriage being a box to tick, it's certainly not quite like that where I live, but as far as my motives for being married go, it's because I want to serve and I think I can do that better being married, I can serve my spouse, my family, and the greater good. I want to be forced to learn to compromise, be a better person, and care for someone else, with no expectation of getting love or anything else in exchange. 

Again, I'm not sure what you mean about "meal ticket" because I am ideally looking for partnership based on mutual service to the greater good, which should require pretty equal amounts of labour, but if you're concerned about the division specifically of the financial labour, rest assured that in my longest relationship I was with someone with chronic illness and was the sole performer of financial labour in our house for many years, as well as the bulk of all other labour for our household, which is ultimately the majority of all household labour, by the way, compared to just financial labour. Unless meal ticket wasn't a breadwinning colloquialism but a reference to someone preparing my food, in which case food preparation is still not a majority of household labour so the point stands.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> Oh yes you are right. We didnt get engaged for 6 months and married after 9 months. Its just that I knew within a week that I wanted to marry him. I guess that for me as a Christian I wanted to meet a strong Christian which he was.I wanted a man who hadnt slept around or looked at porn, who had strong moral values. I had prayed for many qualities that I wanted in a husband and he fitted them all. Its hard to explain but I just knew he was right. I think that sometimes you just know. It was as if we had known each other for years.


that's lovely, thank you so much for sharing your story! I'll try to pay attention to how I feel and perhaps I'll also be able to know when it's the right person to take that plunge with! 

I do have many values similar to Christians and I really appreciate Christianity, I even appreciate that most Christians value marrying other Christians even though I wish sometimes they would marry me so I could have some marker of the values they hold! obviously it's no guarantee of being a good person, but it does indicate shared values, which helps. 

Unfortunately, I myself am not a believer, and the other non-believers I know (which is most people) don't really agree with my values or my thoughts on religion, so I'm trying to determine how to find someone who shares my values!


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> that's lovely, thank you so much for sharing your story! I'll try to pay attention to how I feel and perhaps I'll also be able to know when it's the right person to take that plunge with!
> 
> I do have many values similar to Christians and I really appreciate Christianity, I even appreciate that most Christians value marrying other Christians even though I wish sometimes they would marry me so I could have some marker of the values they hold! obviously it's no guarantee of being a good person, but it does indicate shared values, which helps.
> 
> Unfortunately, I myself am not a believer, and the other non-believers I know (which is most people) don't really agree with my values or my thoughts on religion, so I'm trying to determine how to find someone who shares my values!


Yes its not always easy to find someone who shares our values is it, but dont settle for second best.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

hkbb said:


> I think love will be a byproduct of a good marriage, but no one can love anyone 100% of the time, so marriage is about committing to stay with someone you don't love, for the greater good basically, and because of that you will be a family and love each other. In theory. But how important is finding someone you're really attracted to, or someone that you really "love" even before promising to support them no matter what?, etc.


I think you need to ask yourself what this "greater good" really is. 

What is a greater good that you be with someone that doesn't really love you or you don't actually love them? 

What is the greater good to accomplish in being with someone when you don't enjoy each other or enjoy being together? 
And why would anyone promise to be with someone let alone 'support' them no matter what? 
"No matter what" can encompass a lot of bad things. What is this greater good that is accomplished in promising to be with someone "no matter what"?

Here's the catch that I see with this philosophy - it depends heavily on the other person's sense of fair play, character, commitment and reciprocity. And even if they are sincere today, what about 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now? People change. Priorities change. Interests change. Feelings change. Goals change. 

So I see your core question here is how do I know that my partner will have that character, commitment and sense of fair play and reciprocity that he/she will be someone that will make that level of commitment with and be good for it for a lifetime??

The answer is - you don't. You can't control another person and there are no assurances that someone won't change their whole outlook and agenda in the years to come. You can't even control that in yourself no matter how serious you are about it today.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

hamadryad said:


> I think you may be underestimating how this may work....
> 
> *I don't see how anyone says, physical/sexual attraction grows in proportion to how "nice" or "sweet" a guy is*...If that were the case, then there wouldn't be all the million super nice guys that never get laid and spend their entire lives in the friendzone...
> 
> ...


I disagree with what I bolded above, because that is actually exactly how it works for ME. I am attracted by how a man makes me FEEL - if he makes me feel special and valued, then my attraction to him will absolutely grow and deepen, and I won't be able to keep my hands off him. How he looks doesn't matter, it's how he acts, how he treats me, that determines how I see him. 

I am not saying it's is this way for all women, but I'm sure there are other women (and men, maybe) who feel this way!


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

hkbb said:


> those are great traits, how can you find out or tell if someone has them? and how do you discern whether people are "faking" those things?


You might not be able to tell if how someone appears is how they really are. Even more, sometimes a person will start out with these qualities, and then after some time and other life experiences, they will change and turn into a different person. 

The key is YOU CANNOT KNOW. That's the risk of relationships and love. They are always risky! But they are worth the risk, because even when things go bad, you are living, you are learning, you are growing. It's part of why we are here, living life! And loving and caring for others is NEVER a waste - it's a GIFT, and worth every bit of what you give!!

I would say one of the most important keys to a successful relationship (with anyone) is COMMUNICATION. If you can talk to your partner about the issues that come up, and negotiate solutions to them, you have a much greater chance of staying together and staying happy!


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

Not divorcing is in no way, shape, or form necessarily a successful marriage. It merely means you still have that legality in place. Also, being forced to stay together, i.e. divorce not an option, will NOT force someone who is not a good person to suddenly become a good person. That’s totally naive thinking. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> I think you need to ask yourself what this "greater good" really is.
> 
> What is a greater good that you be with someone that doesn't really love you or you don't actually love them?
> 
> ...


I wish I had more time at the moment to address the specifics of this comment because I so appreciate everything that was said, but I just want to clear up quickly that I'm not looking to control or know anything for sure, I'm not under the delusion that myself or anyone here is God, haha, I'm looking for advice on making an educated guess. Not to compare people to commodities, but when buying a car I ask people I know who are mechanics which things to look out for when making my selection. They certainly haven't the faintest idea which car is actually the best or will be the most reliable or last the longest, but from having fixed cars they know which signs, aside from the body and paint and exterior things I can see, might give a clue that the car may be more likely to run well or poorly after the test drive is over. 

To touch quickly on the greater good, I have certainly asked myself what the greater good is, thank you, you are of course welcome to develop your own perception of it, but that didn't seem relevant to the problem at hand. The things you mentioned -loving one another, enjoying one another- those seem to be good things and therefore they are (part of) what the greater good is. I simply believe those things are achieved through different means, that love is what happens when we care for others without the expectation of getting love in return. And that making a legally and spiritually binding vow which would be, as you pointed out, inherently a lie, doesn't seem to be a very good foundation for love and partnership. 

I completely respect and understand that for some people, marriage is a long term relationship that is intended to last up to death until such a time that the partners change "too much", but that's not what I'm personally looking for right now.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

LisaDiane said:


> You might not be able to tell if how someone appears is how they really are. Even more, sometimes a person will start out with these qualities, and then after some time and other life experiences, they will change and turn into a different person.
> 
> The key is YOU CANNOT KNOW. That's the risk of relationships and love. They are always risky! But they are worth the risk, because even when things go bad, you are living, you are learning, you are growing. It's part of why we are here, living life! And loving and caring for others is NEVER a waste - it's a GIFT, and worth every bit of what you give!!
> 
> I would say one of the most important keys to a successful relationship (with anyone) is COMMUNICATION. If you can talk to your partner about the issues that come up, and negotiate solutions to them, you have a much greater chance of staying together and staying happy!


thank you so much! I love this response, I totally agree it is worth the risk! I love your outlook on that and I feel the same, I'm just trying to make sure my risks are wise and calculated, and not naive and blind. 
Communication is a big one, i'll be mindful of how well we're negotiating solutions to things since if someone is putting on an act, their true intentions may be revealed by what they're trying to achieve: whether the outcome they want from negotiations is fixing the problem or getting something they want.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

3Xnocharm said:


> Not divorcing is in no way, shape, or form necessarily a successful marriage. It merely means you still have that legality in place. Also, being forced to stay together, i.e. divorce not an option, will NOT force someone who is not a good person to suddenly become a good person. That’s totally naive thinking.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I definitely agree, staying together is not a successful marriage and I try to be very mindful of that pitfall. That being said, divorce is pretty unequivocally an automatic NOT success in a marriage, so I think it should be avoided as the outcome least likely to produce a successful marriage. I have a single parent and really value the ability to get out of a situation that is dangerous or past the point of repair (and we all have different standards for where the point of no repair is! i'd like to be willing to at least try to fix things at almost any point) but with anyone in my life, i don't just mean my partner but my best friend, my mom, anyone, there are going to be times when I say "nope, i'm out, i'm done, i don't like this relationship anymore" but because my mom is family, that's not what actually happens! when i feel that way (because my mom hasn't done anything actually bad to me or broken down our relationship beyond repair) i don't actually stop talking to my mom, i have to confront the issue and learn to communicate with her. there might be a little while were i just want her out of my life because i think it's not healthy anymore etc. but then we work through it and that feeling goes away and i'm so thankful to have her. that's all i want for marriage, to be a family as best we can. it doesn't force bad people to be good, but it does force good people to be good.


----------



## SunnyT (Jun 22, 2011)

Well, if love doesn't really matter and physical attraction is something that you don't really believe in.....why don't you just go with something like eharmony? Just get a computer program to match you up with someone. Take the guess work out of it. 

You've mentioned a few times that love is not really a requirement, and physical attraction wanes (that is misguided....as someone said above, it morphs....it's there waaaaaay beyond child bearing years) and also that they should provide for you. Personally, I think all three of these things are off, and that you can not seek a forever partner with this mindset. 

Which makes me very curious, what culture are we talking about??


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

SunnyT said:


> Well, if love doesn't really matter and physical attraction is something that you don't really believe in.....why don't you just go with something like eharmony? Just get a computer program to match you up with someone. Take the guess work out of it.
> 
> You've mentioned a few times that love is not really a requirement, and physical attraction wanes (that is misguided....as someone said above, it morphs....it's there waaaaaay beyond child bearing years) and also that they should provide for you. Personally, I think all three of these things are off, and that you can not seek a forever partner with this mindset.
> 
> Which makes me very curious, what culture are we talking about??


so, if this clarifies anything, I don't think SEXUALITY wanes with age, rather it definitely does "morph", but I stand by the statement that the secondary sexual characteristics upon which we base selection of a mate for the purpose of reproduction (meaning biologically instantiated physical attraction) are altered as the proportions of sex hormones in the body change with age. But as I said, I don't believe attraction to be the only (or biggest) factor in sexuality or chemistry. For me, selection of a mate for sex/reproduction is synonymous with a life partner, so that's how I'm thinking.

as far as dating websites etc. they usually match you with several people and you still have to decide which one you like or at least if you want to marry them or not, so having options presented doesn't really clarify how to make the decision. 

I believe love is not a prerequisite for marriage, and that a healthy sexual relationship is not based in physical attraction, although I don't remember saying that I expect anyone should provide for me. I did mention somewhere here that I've been in the provider role for most of my adult life. I live in Canada and was born and raised here, so my culture is Canadian.


----------



## hamadryad (Aug 30, 2020)

"You might not be able to tell if how someone appears is how they really are. Even more, sometimes a person will start out with these qualities, and then after some time and other life experiences, they will change and turn into a different person. "

Very true....in fact, in many cases it's even likely...

Look....There is no crystal ball and no one has all the answers....The things you need to do is find those things that are important and go with that...The reason I stressed earlier the need to establish early on a passion and sexual chemistry with a partner, is because these often never change,....You hear stories about people who break up due to a variety of reasons, some even pretty serious, yet are still drawn to one another because this element had been established and it doesn't just fade because even if the person becomes everything that another doesn't like...., that element still remains.. People often think about partners that had this chemistry for decades after they broke up....

I've known plenty a deprived and miserable woman that decided to take the path of security, "kindness" etc and make that the guiding force in their mate selection...This hope of taking someone that couldn't get them wet on their best day, but because he loves their cats, has a good job, and has a stable demeanor she will think that will get them to see them in a more sexually attractive way is false reasoning and almost never happens.....

And I can't imagine the amount of guys out there with wives and girlfriends who don't even realize the feelings that particular woman has for them is hollow...its contrived...and that must really suck...To never experience what the opposite is like is unimaginable and they have no idea what they are missing out on..."Waiting for the sexual attraction to grow" or depending on whether or not he can put the family in a big enough house being the determining factor in attraction on a basic level is just crazy...but it happens all the time..

Some of you ladies are fairly young and inexperienced and I am not criticizing, just don't take this lightly...That woman could be you some day, after you spent 20 plus years having to lay there and fake orgasms because you settled for the guy that could give you those other things you think will somehow make the frog into the Prince...Its a fairy tale,but at least you are safe and the bills are paid, I guess...


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

OP are you a male, or a female?


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Livvie said:


> OP are you a male, or a female?


I am female and I'm interested in male partners


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I don't want to set off any gender wars here but I think we need to keep a few realities in mind here. It's fine to have your head in the clouds as long as your feet stay on the ground. 

There are some fundamental differences between the girls and the boys. Women are the gate-keepers of sex and men are sexually assertive and are usually pretty bold and daring about seeking sex. If you were to put up a dating profile or get a dating app, you would have dozens and dozens of men a day all playing the "Pick Me! Dance." 

Put up a profile or app on sex site and you would probably have literally hundreds of men all begging for your attention. 

From the time a girl grows boobs she has been bombarded with pleas, offers and promises from men. This leads many women to believe that their challenge in marriage is to determine which traits and characters and qualifications are important to here and then set about sifting through the millions of men to find the one that checks off the boxes and pick him. 

But here's the catch, men will hand out their genitalia like Texas Roadhouse hands out peanuts. But men are the gate-keepers of relationships and marriage. 

Men are sexually assertive, but very cautious and hesitant to commit to exclusivity and marriage. 

The last couple generations have grown up in a pretty free sexual market place where women have all the buying power and have all the selection power. 

But you are talking about marriage here where men have all the buying power and who they commit to and who they marry and have a home and family is based on THEIR check list. 

The challenge you are going to run into is love and physical attraction etc may not be important to you, but those are VERY important to most men. Physical attraction and sexual chemistry rank extremely high in men's selection process. 

And while many people interpret that as meaning that the men must find the woman physically attractive and find her sexually desirable, the truth is that what men really crave deep down is someone that finds THEM attractive and desirable. So while finding the woman pretty and sexy is very important to men, that the woman finds THEM attractive and sincerely wants to have sex with them is often the make or break moment. 

So what is concerning here is that you are completely downplaying and somewhat disregarding the very components of what men value most in a relationship/marriage. .......... and at the end of the day, men are the gate keepers of relationships and marriage and are the ones who get the final say in who they commit to and marry.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Now that being said, are there going to be beta boys out there that are so desperate for female attention that they will fall for your line that if they are nice and you have a supportive relationship that the sexuality will come? Yes, there are tons that will fall for that. You read about them every day here when they write in that their wife has been tired and not feeling well and has been stressed for the last 2 years and they are ready to hook up with someone at work or pack up and leave. 

Those are women that married for the title of wife and who picked a nice provider and good roommate. 

And in quite a few of those instances, the wives aren't the least bit asexual or uninterested in sex at all and is having nasty porn sex with Sven From Yoga or the hunk that started working in accounting at work. 

My point here is no man is going to knowingly marry some gal he knows up front has no love or sexual attraction for him. 

And the ones that will fall for the line that the sexual component will come with time are the desperate beta boys that no one is attracted to in the first place that have already lived their lives in the friendzone or the outright losers and undesirables that will take any women that says hi to them. 

cont.....


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> I don't want to set off any gender wars here but I think we need to keep a few realities in mind here. It's fine to have your head in the clouds as long as your feet stay on the ground.
> 
> There are some fundamental differences between the girls and the boys. Women are the gate-keepers of sex and men are sexually assertive and are usually pretty bold and daring about seeking sex. If you were to put up a dating profile or get a dating app, you would have dozens and dozens of men a day all playing the "Pick Me! Dance."
> 
> ...


Ok, THIS is a really really interesting perspective...!!!!

I'm not saying I agree with you (which I'm also not saying is important at all, except to ME), but it's something that I'm going to need to think about to figure out if I DO agree with it, and that's what I like!

I think your view is an important one to consider!!


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

And the important point I want to make here is the men that are desirable and that you would have feelings for and desire for and that who would make good husbands, fathers, lovers and life partners......... already have women lined up down the street and around the corner that want to be with them and they will instinctively know if you love them and are attracted to them or not. 

And if you don't love them and aren't attracted to them, they are going to look right through you and not even see you because they are going to have all these other women to choose from. 

IMHO you are shooting yourself in the foot with this approach before you even step out onto the running track let alone even getting to the starting line.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LisaDiane said:


> Ok, THIS is a really really interesting perspective...!!!!
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with you (which I'm also not saying is important at all, except to ME), but it's something that I'm going to need to think about to figure out if I DO agree with it, and that's what I like!
> 
> I think your view is an important one to consider!!



Agree with it or don't agree it. It's a reality whether you buy off on it or not. 

Men are the gate keepers of commitment and relationships/marriage. They will offer up their junk like Burger King offer fries but they are very wary and hesitant to offer their commitment and support and only the chicks that check off THEIR boxes are the ones they bring home to Mom and commit to and marry. 

And for most men, the woman's attraction, desire and love for them are high priorities.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> Agree with it or don't agree it. It's a reality whether you buy off on it or not.
> 
> Men are the gate keepers of commitment and relationships/marriage. They will offer up their junk like Burger King offer fries but they are very wary and hesitant to offer their commitment and support and only the chicks that check off THEIR boxes are the ones they bring home to Mom and commit to and marry.
> 
> And for most men, the woman's attraction, desire and love for them are high priorities.


You make some points that are spot-on (to me), but I've also seen men who marry absolutely horrible women who they barely like, and who clearly are uncaring to them, and I can't understand it!!

Maybe those women still DO check off their "boxes", though...maybe they just have requirements that make no sense to ME...? That's possible...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Our grandmothers understood this concept well back in the day. Back when people were more sexually conservative and sex was something hush hush and behind closed doors, our grandmothers knew the uphill challenges of getting with a good man and conducted themselves accordingly. 

The last couple generations, young men and women both have kind of lost that memo. Now we have a hook up culture with Tinder and AFF and Ashley Madison et al and women are getting barraged daily by men coming out of the woodwork asking if they'd like some **** with that like french fries and they spend their youth and pretty thinking that when the day comes in their 30s that they'll want to settle down and have the perfect man marry them, that all they will need to do is figure what boxes need to be checked and then swipe right on Mr Perfect and he'll show up in his white carriage to haul her off to the dress shop so can parade infront of her mother and girlfriends for 6 hours while they pick out the perfect wedding dress. 

Now I'm not saying that generations of women are going to be dying alone and be eaten by their cats. 

What I am saying is men are still the gate keepers of commitment and marriage. And while men screw everything that moves and can be quite assertive and bold when it comes to chasing tail, they are much more mindful and methodical and a million times more discriminating on who they bring home to mom and commit to and support in marriage. 

Guys will put on full-court press to have sex with some gal that they would never in a million years bring home to mom or introduce to their friends. And they will do backflips and crawl through broken glass to hook up with some chick that they would never go out into the night to buy diarrhea medicine for or hold her hair out of the toilet when she pukes. 

Penis is cheap and abundant, you can get that waved in your face when it's the last thing on your mind. Honest Commitment and support and long-lasting love and fidelity make diamonds and gold look cheap.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

LisaDiane said:


> You make some points that are spot-on (to me), but I've also seen men who marry absolutely horrible women who they barely like, and who clearly are uncaring to them, and I can't understand it!!
> 
> Maybe those women still DO check off their "boxes", though...maybe they just have requirements that make no sense to ME...? That's possible...


Men are being brought up in the same hook up and Tinder culture that women are. Young males don't know their own worth either. 

The catch for most men is unless they are the star quarterback or are unusually good looking, most young men (teens/early 20s) usually really struggle with women and most are completely left in the dust. 

Women are at their peak market value from basically 18-mid 20s. A healthy woman in that age bracket can hook up with basically any adult male and men from 16-80 are going to be bombarding her with offers. 

Conversely, most males don't really start to become all that desirable until their mid to upper 20s and then peaking in 30s or even 40s for those that stay in good shape. 

Since we are in a hook up culture and men are being told they need to be scoring tail or they will be a simp or a beta or a loser in their mom's basement, they are jockeying for position at a time when they are most disadvantaged.

The guys that aren't the jock or underwear model, rock star or Big Man On Campus are very susceptible to one of the first young things that cuddles up to him and looks at him with the big puppy dog eyes and implies that she will be laying him like tile, so he bites and is hooked. 

Then when she turns out to be a beeotch and actually isn't attracted to him, he remembers getting sand kicked in his face and the girls ignoring him when he was a scrawny, awkward high schooler or college underclassman and the fear of dying alone and never having sex again makes him cling on to hope. 

If this same guy had hit the gym while his body was finishing it's development, gotten an education/training, obtained a good career and had developed a good circle of friends and interesting hobbies and developed his social skills etc, before committing to one woman that he 'thought' was into him, he could have been swim'n in women starting in his mid- upper 20s and by early 30s would have had the pick of the litter. (and that litter would have most likely been the pretty, early 20something/never married/no kids women that were ignoring him when he was in his early 20s.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

I want to add to the above observation. The beta guy who makes the unfortunate mistake of marrying a women who isn't sexually attracted to him, may decide upon hitting his 40s that he wants more than that in life and leave her for the chance to be free to pursue something real. After all, marriage is a sexual relationship, not just roommates.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Livvie said:


> I want to add to the above observation. The beta guy who makes the unfortunate mistake of marrying a women who isn't sexually attracted to him, may decide upon hitting his 40s that he wants more than that in life and leave her for the chance to be free to pursue something real. After all, marriage is a sexual relationship, not just roommates.


Yes. 

And if that 40-something male hasn’t completely let himself go and is 50lbs overweight and all slovenly and assuming he has a steady career, he is well positioned to walk out of the marriage and park his shoes under someone else’s bed. 

Even if he has gotten fat and slovenly, a 40something male can still get very fit and polish himself up relatively quickly. 

I know very few middle aged men are George Clooneys but they don’t need to be. A 40something male is still be very much in the game. 

While the OP’s objectives may seem admirable on some lofty level, it can also be a framework for an epic failure.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Livvie said:


> The beta guy who makes the unfortunate mistake of marrying a women who isn't sexually attracted to him, may decide upon hitting his 40s that he wants more than that in life


And it should also be noted that that awkward, insecure beta boy in his early 20s may be a senior partner, chief surgeon or even chairman of the board in his 40s/50s.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

hkbb said:


> But how important is finding someone you're really attracted to, or someone that you really "love" even before promising to support them no matter what?


Think this right here is what is going to be your primary challenge. 

I can't speak for all men of course but I do not think I am any kind of outlier at all. 

The truth here is I would not even consider committing to or marrying someone that was not in love with and attracted to me AND that I was not in love with and attracted to me. The thought would not even cross my mind. 

And I would run far and fast from someone who thought that I would or even should marry without those things in place. 

I know there are a number of very weak and desperate men that would consider such an arrangment. But I do not think you would be happy or content with them and I can pretty much guarantee that they would not be with you.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> Yes.
> 
> And if that 40-something male hasn’t completely let himself go and is 50lbs overweight and all slovenly and assuming he has a steady career, he is well positioned to walk out of the marriage and park his shoes under someone else’s bed.
> 
> ...


I also want to add the 50 and 60-something men are also VERY attractive!! In fact, I LOVE the attitudes that most men in that age group have as well - they are a complete package, I think!


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> Our grandmothers understood this concept well back in the day. Back when people were more sexually conservative and sex was something hush hush and behind closed doors, our grandmothers knew the uphill challenges of getting with a good man and conducted themselves accordingly.
> 
> The last couple generations, young men and women both have kind of lost that memo. Now we have a hook up culture with Tinder and AFF and Ashley Madison et al and women are getting barraged daily by men coming out of the woodwork asking if they'd like some **** with that like french fries and they spend their youth and pretty thinking that when the day comes in their 30s that they'll want to settle down and have the perfect man marry them, that all they will need to do is figure what boxes need to be checked and then swipe right on Mr Perfect and he'll show up in his white carriage to haul her off to the dress shop so can parade infront of her mother and girlfriends for 6 hours while they pick out the perfect wedding dress.
> 
> ...


thanks for your comments, i haven't had time to read them all thoroughly but I think it's really interesting and important to mention the effects of the change in culture. 

for me, I don't believe in using birth control, so there is no difference between sexual and marital "selection", women are the sexual selectors and that also means marital selectors unless you're altering how biology works, which I try not to, or you're altering culture (like you pointed out and which i aim not to participate in) because culture IS changeable, but biology's not, so it's only really creating an illusion of change. I get that culture has recently made it SEEM like men are "gatekeepers" with marital relationships, but marital relationships are a social construct, they don't happen because men choose them but because men choose to have sex with women (broadly generalizing here because it's about biology) and women/culture choose to have sex in marriage. women are gatekeeping sex, and sex and marriage are synonymous, so women "gatekeep" marriage, if you can think of marriage like that. marriage is a sacrifice for both parties and benefits both parties, but it is about women (and children). 

now, the element of how men choose women is still a bit more mysterious, because clearly men do think some women are attractive and some aren't, but it pales in comparison to the level of selection that women perform. it's something like...society identifies favourable man, man gains access to pool of women relative to station, man identifies sexually healthy women, and submits himself to selection by them. men do pick and choose partners that they find attractive, but women are The Choosers, we have to be because the biological consequences are ours alone. the social consequences -marriage- is there to level the field and give men consequences. 

Women might not think they're doing it, but sexual selection IS marital "selection", we're just in a culture that lacks the marriage part, not one where men somehow become selectors. selection is a function of evolution, and marriage is a function of culture.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

hkbb said:


> thanks for your comments, i haven't had time to read them all thoroughly but I think it's really interesting and important to mention the effects of the change in culture.
> 
> for me, I don't believe in using birth control, so there is no difference between sexual and marital "selection", women are the sexual selectors and that also means marital selectors unless you're altering how biology works, which I try not to, or you're altering culture (like you pointed out and which i aim not to participate in) because culture IS changeable, but biology's not, so it's only really creating an illusion of change. I get that culture has recently made it SEEM like men are "gatekeepers" with marital relationships, but marital relationships are a social construct, they don't happen because men choose them but because men choose to have sex with women (broadly generalizing here because it's about biology) and women/culture choose to have sex in marriage. women are gatekeeping sex, and sex and marriage are synonymous, so women "gatekeep" marriage, if you can think of marriage like that. marriage is a sacrifice for both parties and benefits both parties, but it is about women (and children).
> 
> ...


No.

First of all, if you don't believe in birth control, right there many many men are going to _very actively_ select against you as a sex (and therefore, marriage) partner. Many high value young men aren't going to go near you with a ten foot pole. Rightly so.

Second of all, it is indeed individual men who are gatekeepers of marriage and commitment. Men get to decide if they are going to marry you or not. You can decide to have sex with a man or not, but HE can decide if you are marriage material to him. You can control who you have sex with, and he can control who to marry, or NOT. You aren't in a position of power over his autonomy in decision making.

Your thinking is very superior, and way off base.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> Think this right here is what is going to be your primary challenge.
> 
> I can't speak for all men of course but I do not think I am any kind of outlier at all.
> 
> ...


Personally, I would not even consider dating someone who has the perception of marriage you seem to speak of, just because it's very different from my own! I'm not looking to impress or win over more than just one single man, so I'm not bothered if most men think differently than I do, I'm looking for someone who specifically DOES want the version of marriage I believe in, not someone who would require I alter my values. It would seem silly to have two people enter into two different ideas of marriage with two different goals and expect them to be a partnership. I'm looking for someone who shares these beliefs, not someone who will hate them but settle, and I'm not sure why anyone would think I am seeking out a mate that disagrees with me, who would be unhappy in that arrangement, and whom I dislike. It should be clear that I'm looking for a partner who wants to be married, who also sees marriage the same way, not someone to force and make miserable.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> Personally, I would not even consider dating someone who has the perception of marriage you seem to speak of, just because it's very different from my own! I'm not looking to impress or win over more than just one single man, so I'm not bothered if most men think differently than I do, I'm looking for someone who specifically DOES want the version of marriage I believe in, not someone who would require I alter my values. It would seem silly to have two people enter into two different ideas of marriage with two different goals and expect them to be a partnership. I'm looking for someone who shares these beliefs, not someone who will hate them but settle, and I'm not sure why anyone would think I am seeking out a mate that disagrees with me, who would be unhappy in that arrangement, and whom I dislike. It should be clear that I'm looking for a partner who wants to be married, who also sees marriage the same way, not someone to force and make miserable.


AllI can say is decide and maybe write down the things that for you are non negotiable in a man. I wrote a long list and did think that baring a miracle I would never find such a man so did think that I may never marry again after my divorce in my 40's. It was either that or settle for someone who was nice but wasnt really the man I wanted.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Livvie said:


> No.
> 
> First of all, if you don't believe in birth control, right there many many men are going to _very actively_ select against you as a sex (and therefore, marriage) partner. Many high value young men aren't going to go near you with a ten foot pole. Rightly so.
> 
> ...


I must admit it's quite hurtful to be told I have an air of superiority, so I'm very sorry for coming off that way as it's not how I feel or what I want to project in the world, I'll try to choose my words more carefully. 

I don't think I'm better than anyone else and I don't think believing in sexual selection and not taking hormones that alter my body and brain chemistry indicates I do, what I really wanted to express was just a strong belief in the theory of evolution and the role sexual selection plays in it. 

As for your first point, I confess I am still failing to see the problem with men that I am uninterested in rejecting me as a sexual partner; they were never up for candidacy anyway. Of course it's always flattering, but I don't feel a real deep desire or anything to have men that are not potential partners for me be interested in pursuing me. 

As to the second point, I apologize preemptively for expressing myself poorly because I'm bad with words, but I'll try to say what I mean clearly. Men do get to decide if they're going to marry or not, and also who they marry. He can decide who and what is marriage material for him. I would argue that, biologically speaking (which is how I was meaning to speak) women really don't decide whether they have sex with the man or not, but consent is something that is culturally instantiated, so I'm not trying to nitpick, I just feel the distinction between culture and biology to be at least somewhat relevant. No one has power over another's decision making and I don't think I do. What I'm trying to say is not that men don't make decisions, but that the decision men make is not "selection"


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

hkbb said:


> I must admit it's quite hurtful to be told I have an air of superiority, so I'm very sorry for coming off that way as it's not how I feel or what I want to project in the world, I'll try to choose my words more carefully.
> 
> I don't think I'm better than anyone else and I don't think believing in sexual selection and not taking hormones that alter my body and brain chemistry indicates I do, what I really wanted to express was just a strong belief in the theory of evolution and the role sexual selection plays in it.
> 
> ...


But marriage is not biological. It is not instinctive. 

In fact It is a legal construct developed by people to basically force them to NOT submit to their biological urges and yearnings. 

Being horny and being attracted to someone is not a conscious choice. But marrying them and being committed to them and having a home and family with them is pretty much all conscious choice.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

I’m all about people pursuing what they believe is best for them and in encourage everyone to take their best shot as long as it is legal and consensual by all parties.

I even get your point that you only need one. 

But you’re going to have to go into this knowing that your strike zone and your field of options are going to be very small. 

Most men are going to shudder as they read this and most fathers and mothers raise their boys to actively avoid and run for the hills when encountering a woman with an agenda like this. 

Maybe on some cosmic level, your beliefs and wishes have some kind of merit. 

But the practical application of it is going to be very challenging at best and the sustainability of it even more challenging. 

I think any man that would entertain such an arrangement would in reality be so unappealing and undesirable that your actual body would reject and you would be unable to have sex even for procreation with him. 

You’d be one of these gals telling your husband you want to do artificial insemination. 

And any guy that would go for that is as desperate and pathetic as they come.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Livvie said:


> No.
> 
> First of all, if you don't believe in birth control, right there many many men are going to _very actively_ select against you as a sex (and therefore, marriage) partner. Many high value young men aren't going to go near you with a ten foot pole. Rightly so.
> 
> ...



Very well said. 

There’s roughly 3.5 billion men in the world, but her strike zone and pool of candidates is going to be very small. 

I think there was a guy out in the mountains in Utah years ago that might match her agenda. I hope she can find him. 

Deep down I am a romantic and big ol’ softy. I hope everyone can find their person.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> Very well said.
> 
> There’s roughly 3.5 billion men in the world, but her strike zone and pool of candidates is going to be very small.
> 
> ...


thank you for all your help, I completely understand there will be a narrow pool with some of the things I think are probably not negotiable for a strong marriage (like sharing a definition of what marriage is, maybe?) but I don't want to shrink the pool unnecessarily for factors that don't end up mattering as much in a spouse (like things that are likely to be able to change) so that's why I'm trying to determine which things are MOST important and non-negotiable, and maybe least likely to change, because I want to be as flexible as possible on as many things as possible and still like the person. i can't seem to intentionally change my beliefs despite the best advice, as is becoming clear in this thread, so i don't know what choice i have but finding someone that shares them. I don't see the point in bothering to try to achieve something (someone) I don't want, anyway, because then a win is still a loss.

I am curious what exactly you think my "agenda" is or why you think the majority of people would find it so abhorrent, or what about it would make only unappealing and undesirable people interested in it. I mean, in my own culture I think my beliefs are often seen that way, too, but I'm curious if your reasons are similar. Where I live, marriage is not really looked upon super favourably in general, the overall attitude among my friends, family, and public school sex ed is that marriage is a thing you can do if you feel like you really need to, if you're over 30 and you have a REALLY good reason for doing it (most people's excuse for getting married is that they want kids and it'll be easier legally) but if you do, you must not allow yourself to become financially entangled in your partner. i think that's just the "big city" mindset, but i'm somehow not really a city person. in my mind, my agenda is just to serve and be partners with someone, what do you mean by "agenda"? anyway, I also hope there is a man out there for me, thank you!


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

hkbb said:


> I must admit it's quite hurtful to be told I have an air of superiority, so I'm very sorry for coming off that way as it's not how I feel or what I want to project in the world, I'll try to choose my words more carefully.
> 
> I don't think I'm better than anyone else and I don't think believing in sexual selection and not taking hormones that alter my body and brain chemistry indicates I do, what I really wanted to express was just a strong belief in the theory of evolution and the role sexual selection plays in it.
> 
> ...


I think you are doing FINE. I love your questions, how you express yourself, and your seeking nature!!

You can analyze and intellectualize these things all you want, but it's not really going to prepare you for how things go for you in REAL life. You are HIGHLY intelligent and a great communicator, but also young, and this is the age for you where your ideals are tested by real life, and evolve into principles...so it's important for you to keep your mind open and fluid, NOT rigid! Some of the things you are looking for you will get, and some you will not, but through it all you will learn more about yourself and what you really believe to be true FOR YOU.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

LisaDiane said:


> I think you are doing FINE. I love your questions, how you express yourself, and your seeking nature!!
> 
> You can analyze and intellectualize these things all you want, but it's not really going to prepare you for how things go for you in REAL life. You are HIGHLY intelligent and a great communicator, but also young, and this is the age for you where your ideals are tested by real life, and evolve into principles...so it's important for you to keep your mind open and fluid, NOT rigid! Some of the things you are looking for you will get, and some you will not, but through it all you will learn more about yourself and what you really believe to be true FOR YOU.


thank you so much for your help and support, this is really wonderful advice that I think will stay with me and be something I need!


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

Interesting. I think you might enjoy parts of _The Screwtape Letters _by C S Lewis, if you don't already know it. He points out that "love" has been misunderstood as the _basis_ for marriage, when in fact it should be the _result_ of it. And much besides.



hkbb said:


> the social consequences -marriage- is there to level the field and give men consequences.


The thing about marriage as we have it, compared to the evolutionary version, is that marriage is monogamous. Monogamy, as I understand it, was invented by men and favours them.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

hkbb said:


> thank you for all your help, I completely understand there will be a narrow pool with some of the things I think are probably not negotiable for a strong marriage (like sharing a definition of what marriage is, maybe?) but I don't want to shrink the pool unnecessarily for factors that don't end up mattering as much in a spouse (like things that are likely to be able to change) so that's why I'm trying to determine which things are MOST important and non-negotiable, and maybe least likely to change, because I want to be as flexible as possible on as many things as possible and still like the person. i can't seem to intentionally change my beliefs despite the best advice, as is becoming clear in this thread, so i don't know what choice i have but finding someone that shares them. I don't see the point in bothering to try to achieve something (someone) I don't want, anyway, because then a win is still a loss.
> 
> I am curious what exactly you think my "agenda" is or why you think the majority of people would find it so abhorrent, or what about it would make only unappealing and undesirable people interested in it. I mean, in my own culture I think my beliefs are often seen that way, too, but I'm curious if your reasons are similar. Where I live, marriage is not really looked upon super favourably in general, the overall attitude among my friends, family, and public school sex ed is that marriage is a thing you can do if you feel like you really need to, if you're over 30 and you have a REALLY good reason for doing it (most people's excuse for getting married is that they want kids and it'll be easier legally) but if you do, you must not allow yourself to become financially entangled in your partner. i think that's just the "big city" mindset, but i'm somehow not really a city person. in my mind, my agenda is just to serve and be partners with someone, what do you mean by "agenda"? anyway, I also hope there is a man out there for me, thank you!


I think you should worry less about what we here or other people think should be your criteria and determine what are your own priorities and critical criteria are. 

Now this applies to everyone and not just you, but every requirement you place and every bid that needs checked off will reduce your pool of candidates. That is simply a fact of nature.

But, as you said, you’re out to marry one and not many. So you have a right to use your own values, ideals and criteria. I have broken up with a very good person because she would never tan or polish her toenails. Some would think that’s crazy but you have your criteria and other people have theirs.

The reason I think you will be challenged is exactly what you mention above, many people (me included) now believe that people should not marry until they are more mature and developed than generations past. And many also believe that many if not most people would be better served by remaining single unless they were really serious about having children. 

What I think will present the biggest challenges is your outlooks on the roles of love and attraction and beliefs on contraception. 

Most men are simply not father material and the chances of finding some gal that openly cares little about love and attraction and who may become pregnant at any moment there does happen to be sex, is simply asking a lot from any decent man in today’s world. 

I also think many people today are going into marriage with a packed parachute and keep the ejection handle at least in sight if not actually in arms reach. Some may think that is bad, but I think it is wise. 

From a man’s point of view, the mentality of not having divorce as an option, more often leads to neglect and involuntary abstinence rather than people behaving at their best that you mentioned in your opening post. 

The reason that the “big city” outlook on marriage has come to be is because it is just plain smart in today’s world and both men and women have been learning that lesson. 

The reason I think if you find a man agreeable to your stipulations is only a man with no other options would accept that. If no other women would want him, it’s probably for valid reasons and you wouldn’t be attracted to or desire him either. 

The exception to that may be someone who was raised in a very harsh, conservative religious upbringing to where he would be very harsh and rigid and in time would be an insufferable boar. 

I’m reading between the lines here but I think deep down you feel that men’s default setting is to marry a woman that would have him in marriage whether she desires him or not and that simply isn’t how it works for most men. 

We all tend to view the world through our own perspective and values and I wonder since you don’t place a high value on love and attraction and believe that love and attraction may come with a supportive relationship just simply isn’t how most men view relationships and marriage. 

Maybe more should. I not necessarily saying that your values are bad. 

But it just isn’t how most men roll in today’s world.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Very well said.
> 
> There’s roughly 3.5 billion men in the world, but her strike zone and pool of candidates is going to be very small.
> 
> ...


How does that matter? My strike zone was really tiny. Far better to wait for someone who you are comptable with than settle.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Laurentium said:


> Interesting. I think you might enjoy parts of _The Screwtape Letters _by C S Lewis, if you don't already know it. He points out that "love" has been misunderstood as the _basis_ for marriage, when in fact it should be the _result_ of it. And much besides.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about marriage as we have it, compared to the evolutionary version, is that marriage is monogamous. Monogamy, as I understand it, was invented by men and favours them.


That is definitely my understanding of love, thank you for the recommendation! If the only men that agree with me are in Narnia I guess I really am out of luck. 

Personally, I think monogamy is of great benefit to both parties when done well, however I think females have more reason to SEE that benefit, and historically (historically in the scale of evolution vs civilization) it's basically been the case that half of men will have two offspring while all women will have one -the proportions are more important than the actual numbers- so I think there is slightly more of a natural tendency to monogamy there for women. Basically, women have built in consequences, huge and wonderful consequences, to sexual activity, so they can see the benefits of teamwork because the amount of work in creating life is very, very evident. That burden is not inherently, physically on males, so it would be less concrete to them what they get out of the mutual exchange of monogamous partnership.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> I think you should worry less about what we here or other people think should be your criteria and determine what are your own priorities and critical criteria are.
> 
> Now this applies to everyone and not just you, but every requirement you place and every bid that needs checked off will reduce your pool of candidates. That is simply a fact of nature.
> 
> ...


We truly just have different outlooks on life and I think it's so fascinating the range of things that work for different people! You say the big city outlook is just smart, but everyone I know was raised that way and it certainly has not seemed to work well in my experience, hence the ongoing development of my...unusual views. I do encounter the idea that only a conservative religious man would agree with my values, and I do love religion despite being cursed with atheism, but, well, I could best describe myself as a sort of nerdy hippie and I doubt any religious men would be interested.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> How does that matter? My strike zone was really tiny. Far better to wait for someone who you are comptable with than settle.


In principle I agree with you.

But there is having some values that you aren’t willing to settle on - and then there is knowingly taking yourself out of the equation for the vast majority of the opposite sex. 

A woman wanting a spouse and to be supported without regard to love and attraction and refusing to use contraception is darn near equivalent to a man saying he wants a wife but wants to keep living in his mom’s basement and preferring to play video games all day instead of getting a job.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

I'm sure there are men who would marry with the understanding that he may not ever be loved or desired as long as he was getting something out of the 'arrangement'; but, he would not be monogamous. If after a period of time, the woman came to love him, it would probably matter little to him as he would not have an emotional investment.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

oldshirt said:


> In principle I agree with you.
> 
> But there is having some values that you aren’t willing to settle on - and then there is knowingly taking yourself out of the equation for the vast majority of the opposite sex.
> 
> A woman wanting a spouse and to be supported without regard to love and attraction and refusing to use contraception is darn near equivalent to a man saying he wants a wife but wants to keep living in his mom’s basement and preferring to play video games all day instead of getting a job.


That's the balance of not settling but not being unreasonable that I'm trying to find! I don't expect a perfect person, we're all flawed, so I'm just trying to find the right flaws, and what flaws are going to be really unhealthy or not such a big deal. 

I would better describe the ideal spouse I'm seeking as someone who wants to RECEIVE support regardless of whether or not they give any in return, but that being the case I'm hoping to find someone with whom the giving and receiving will be to MUTUAL benefit. I don't know how that's quite the same thing as wanting to be dependent on one's parents? 

I'm also not outright refusing to use contraception, I know there are definitely medical and other life situations that more or less necessitate guaranteed prevention of pregnancy for the greater good. But yes, with hormonal contraception I'm not really willing to compromise on that, however as far as things that are referred to as natural family planning methods, the only thing I ultimately don't believe in is the widespread and long term prevention of pregnancy for the purpose of picking and choosing the timing of when you do and don't want kids, "want" here meaning based on material desires and not serious matters of health, etc. To be honest it makes me feel uncomfortable in the way eugenics does, so that's why it's something that would ultimately probably end up being inflexible for me.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Blondilocks said:


> I'm sure there are men who would marry with the understanding that he may not ever be loved or desired as long as he was getting something out of the 'arrangement'; but, he would not be monogamous. If after a period of time, the woman came to love him, it would probably matter little to him as he would not have an emotional investment.


Why would a man choose to enter into such a relationship if he didn't want to be monogamous under such circumstances? I'm not sure why the relationship would ever get as far as marriage for that man. If love is important to the man, why would he not simply enter into a relationship with the women with whom he would otherwise be not-monogamous with, with whom he would evidently have the love and desire absent from his marriage?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> In principle I agree with you.
> 
> But there is having some values that you aren’t willing to settle on - and then there is knowingly taking yourself out of the equation for the vast majority of the opposite sex.
> 
> A woman wanting a spouse and to be supported without regard to love and attraction and refusing to use contraception is darn near equivalent to a man saying he wants a wife but wants to keep living in his mom’s basement and preferring to play video games all day instead of getting a job.


Well I can only speak for myslf, but my criteria did take me out of the equation for the vast majority of the opposite sex. I wanted a strong Christian for example, which in the Uk isnt easy in itself. Only 5% here go to church anyway and women do outnumber men in the church so any decent available men get snapped up fast. A man who didnt believe in sex outside marriage, who didnt watch porn, who was honest, had integrity, strong moral vaues, who would accept my children as his own etc etc. Probably leaves way less than 1% of the male population any good, and nearly all of them would be married.

I agree that a women not using contraceptives could be very problamatic unless neither agreed with sex before marriage and both wanted multiple children. They would also need to be very well off. I was so fertile, getting pregnant straight away with all of my three children, having the first one at age 21, I may well have had 20 or more with no birth control. Yikes. We had a small house, small car and just about managed to afford to raise the three we had, so more wasnt an option. I cant see many men agreeing to the possibility of having countless children.


----------



## hkbb (Oct 28, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> Well I can only speak for myslf, but my criteria did take me out of the equation for the vast majority of the opposite sex. I wanted a strong Christian for example, which in the Uk isnt easy in itself. Only 5% here go to church anyway and women do outnumber men in the church so any decent available men get snapped up fast. A man who didnt believe in sex outside marriage, who didnt watch porn, who was honest, had integrity, strong moral vaues, who would accept my children as his own etc etc. Probably leaves way less than 1% of the male population any good, and nearly all of them would be married.
> 
> I agree that a women not using contraceptives could be very problamatic unless neither agreed with sex before marriage and both wanted multiple children. They would also need to be very well off. I was so fertile, getting pregnant straight away with all of my three children, having the first one at age 21, I may well have had 20 or more with no birth control. Yikes. We had a small house, small car and just about managed to afford to raise the three we had, so more wasnt an option. I cant see many men agreeing to the possibility of having countless children.


I am hoping (probably naively!) to find a man who won't require me to have sex outside of a committed relationship and who does want quite a few children, but I know there are limits to how many kids one can really take care of, financially or otherwise, although I will say that I was raised firmly middle class (for Canada) and we had WAY too much stuff, I think I'm a bit of a minimalist because living with that kind of excess always made me a bit uncomfortable, so people with different lifestyles will have very different financial requirements.

If we were lucky enough to be extremely fertile and that was detrimental to our ability to parent existing children or manage our own life, I definitely think using things like rhythm method to "slow down" our pace of children a bit would be advisable, I don't have a problem with that, or even the use of barrier methods and things if it's really important to prevent. Certainly 20 or countless children sounds like it would be too many for just about anyone to reasonably handle! The thing that makes me feel a bit gross is just to see people picking and choosing and planning out other human beings at their convenience, like "we're going to have two" sounds like a drive thru order, saying "we're going to have a baby next year because we have a vacation booked in a few months and I want to enjoy it" seems like such a callous an unappreciative attitude towards the ability to create life. I want kids, not only at a particular time or a particular number or particular anything. I'll be very thankful to get just one, and I can't imagine looking at my children after a specific number and saying "I don't want any more of you". It's kind of difficult to explain my feelings about it, sorry


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

hkbb said:


> I am hoping (probably naively!) to find a man who won't require me to have sex outside of a committed relationship and who does want quite a few children, but I know there are limits to how many kids one can really take care of, financially or otherwise, although I will say that I was raised firmly middle class (for Canada) and we had WAY too much stuff, I think I'm a bit of a minimalist because living with that kind of excess always made me a bit uncomfortable, so people with different lifestyles will have very different financial requirements.
> 
> If we were lucky enough to be extremely fertile and that was detrimental to our ability to parent existing children or manage our own life, I definitely think using things like rhythm method to "slow down" our pace of children a bit would be advisable, I don't have a problem with that, or even the use of barrier methods and things if it's really important to prevent. Certainly 20 or countless children sounds like it would be too many for just about anyone to reasonably handle! The thing that makes me feel a bit gross is just to see people picking and choosing and planning out other human beings at their convenience, like "we're going to have two" sounds like a drive thru order, saying "we're going to have a baby next year because we have a vacation booked in a few months and I want to enjoy it" seems like such a callous an unappreciative attitude towards the ability to create life. I want kids, not only at a particular time or a particular number or particular anything. I'll be very thankful to get just one, and I can't imagine looking at my children after a specific number and saying "I don't want any more of you". It's kind of difficult to explain my feelings about it, sorry


We carefully planned our three children, but certianly not on selfish grounds. IT was when we could afford them and when we had room for them. You were lucky to have a comfortable up bringing, many dont have that and we certainly didnt when our children were growing up.

You said hoping to find a man who wont require you to have sex outside a committed relationhip, surely thats up to you?No one can force you to have sex. I wanted a man who didnt want sex before marriage which is pretty hard to find. Even among some Christians.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

hkbb said:


> I'm also not outright refusing to use contraception, I know there are definitely medical and other life situations that more or less necessitate guaranteed prevention of pregnancy for the greater good. But yes, with hormonal contraception I'm not really willing to compromise on that, however as far as things that are referred to as natural family planning methods, the only thing I ultimately don't believe in is the widespread and long term prevention of pregnancy for the purpose of picking and choosing the timing of when you do and don't want kids, "want" here meaning based on material desires and not serious matters of health, etc. To be honest it makes me feel uncomfortable in the way eugenics does, so that's why it's something that would ultimately probably end up being inflexible for me.


I *think* you've said you're not inexperienced sexually, so I'm curious whether you practiced contraception during your prior relationships or not? If not, was your partner aware? What would the consequences of pregnancy have been? As in, what would have have expected of your partner? 

This eventually comes around to what I think people should be asking of their potential LTR or marriage partner. What is it, about you, that you would rather keep secret because you're afraid that telling me would scare me away? And vice versa. Being completely honest and truthful. This doesn't mean you have to divulge everything about your past, but rather tells the other person quite a bit about your own insecurities, and how things might go down the road if something is discovered unexpectedly.

It's a way of finding out if that person is really comfortable in their own skin when interacting with you. Do they seem like they're holding back? Do they know you well enough to have thought about that question? Because maybe, if they haven't thought about the question, they really haven't thought that much beyond the honeymoon phase of a relationship.


----------

