# Why Do Men Lie To Themselves About Marriage?



## vej36

Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.

So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)? 



Thx,
vej36


----------



## chillymorn69

Thinking with the wrong head!


----------



## arbitrator

vej36 said:


> Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.
> 
> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx,
> vej36


*Given your premise, it makes a hell of a lot of sense!

Hell! “Friends with benefits” would probably be a hell of a lot more apropos!

But regardless of whether you’re married either traditionally or by precepts of common law, FWB, single, or just living together, the male will almost always be held accountable for the support of any child borne into the relationship! And in some jurisdictions, it matters not whether the child is sired by him or some other “Stage Door Johnny” who just might happen to be fooling around with the resident old lady during the course of their relationship!

Notwithstanding, from a legal perspective he could probably insulate himself from savings and financial plans, either by not living in a state that adheres to and duly recognizes common law marriage; or by exercising a valid and legally binding prenuptial agreement excluding her from any of those aforementioned financial plans! *


----------



## SunCMars

Because..

Men have the leather folded-over purse with green ones inside, being folded over once or twice. Not of real value.

Women have the silk purse. Folded over, not. Holding warmth and promise. Holding all the wealth that men value.
Value in one small slip, berth, port in life's storm.

This is her bargaining chip.
Your greatest gambit.


----------



## Livvie

vej36 said:


> Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.
> 
> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx,
> vej36


Assuming you marry someone who is on par with your earnings and assets, YOU also get half of HER current and future earnings if a long term marriage ends. So no problem there...unless a man deliberately chose to marry someone he agreed should not work or who he volunteered to support. 

Classical false accusations only occur with a very very bad choice of a spouse.

I'm not seeing how the institution of marriage is the problem, but rather that men sometimes don't enjoy the consequences of their choices in the event of a divorce (ie he chose to be in a long term marriage with a high disparity in income and assets or with someone of low moral character).


----------



## Bonkers

vej36 said:


> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?


Because people are ignorant, stupid, and think that they are better than anyone else, it's the mentality of "I know better and it won't happen to me".

Until of course it does.

Note: It's not only men who get shafted in a divorce, it happens to whoever goes into it with the money and assets.

The one with the money and assets is the fool to get married, they've got everything to lose and nothing to win, and the opposite can be said for the partner who goes into it with nothing.


----------



## arbitrator

Bonkers said:


> Because people are ignorant, stupid, and think that they are better than anyone else, it's the mentality of "I know better and it won't happen to me".
> 
> Until of course it does.
> 
> Note: It's not only men who get shafted in a divorce, it happens to whoever goes into it with the money and assets.
> 
> The one with the money and assets is the fool to get married, they've got everything to lose and nothing to win, and the opposite can be said for the partner who goes into it with nothing.


*The exception being my RSXW, who by virtue of her prenup that preserved her millions, and at the very same time, “legally” made off with most of my meager assets!

Moral of this story: Please thoroughly read the prenup that you are signing! *


----------



## Bonkers

arbitrator said:


> *The exception being my RSXW, who by virtue of her prenup that preserved her millions, at the same time “legally” made off with most of my meager assets!
> 
> Moral of this story: Please thoroughly read the prenup that you are signing! *


Getting married is foolish, getting married with a prenup is like "getting married with a contingency because you know there's a good chance of failure".

Why bother?


----------



## MJJEAN

Livvie said:


> Assuming you marry someone who is on par with your earnings and assets, YOU also get half of HER current and future earnings if a long term marriage ends. So no problem there...unless a man deliberately chose to marry someone he agreed should not work or who he volunteered to support.
> 
> Classical false accusations only occur with a very very bad choice of a spouse.
> 
> I'm not seeing how the institution of marriage is the problem, but rather that men sometimes don't enjoy the consequences of their choices in the event of a divorce (ie he chose to be in a long term marriage with a high disparity in income and assets or with someone of low moral character).


Exactly! The solution to the problem of men "getting screwed" in a divorce seems to be for men to only marry women who make a comparable salary and have comparable assets. 

Beyond that, men need to educate themselves on the laws in their state. For example, in MI lifetime alimony kicks in at 19 years and 1 day of marriage. So, staying married until the kid(s) are 18 or graduate from college is clearly a bad move unless you're ok with paying alimony til your ex dies or remarries. Premarital assets and individual inheritance aren't subject to division in divorce unless the individual assets or inheritance have been mingled with marital assets, so men need to know what constitutes asset mingling and avoid that if they want to protect those assets. That kind of thing.


----------



## Spicy

Because there are plenty of awesome women out there that are well worth the commitment of marriage, and morally would never take advantage of another person.

Not every woman is looking for marriage because we want someone else’s assets. 

If you are a man that doesn’t want to get married, don’t. No need to fault those who choose this form of commitment, IMO.


----------



## arbitrator

Bonkers said:


> *Getting married is foolish, getting married with a prenup is like "getting married with a contingency because you know there's a good chance of failure".
> 
> Why bother?*


*Precisely!

Otherwise, there would be absolutely no fear whatsoever of going into an equally-yoked partnership that a good marriage dictates!*


----------



## Bonkers

Spicy said:


> Because there are plenty of awesome women out there that are well worth the commitment of marriage, and morally would never take advantage of another person.


Few and far between. Even if they seem to be that way, even if they "think" they'd never take advantage of their guy if things go south, when they DO go south the first time they meet with a divorce attorney, the world "morality" is replaced with "monitarily". 



Spicy said:


> Not every woman is looking for marriage because we want someone else’s assets.


For some women, that's the only reason they get married.
For other women, it's not THE reason but once they get a taste for it, they don't want to give it up, so when things go south in the marriage, which they do more often than not, they take advantage of the other person because, hey we all got bills to pay and standards of living to maintain. 



Spicy said:


> If you are a man that doesn’t want to get married, don’t. No need to fault those who choose this form of commitment, IMO.


Marriage has been proven to be a failure and divorce is top of the list of causes of the highest level of grief that a person may experience in their lifetime and has cost countless people, mostly men, a good chunk of their life savings and their income for many years if not permanently. A couple who decides to get married is not getting anything of value except maybe a tax write-off, and the monied partner, usually the guy, is inheriting a boatload of risk with no benefit - which has about a 55% chance of happening (based on current divorce statistics). When I see a guy about to get married, I not only fault him but I shake my head at his stupidity and his arrogance (thinking that it won't happen to him because somehow he's better than all the other guys who failed before him).


----------



## TX-SC

My wife is a professional and a hard worker. I would not marry someone who I would have to support. If we divorced, assets would be divided fairly equally. I think child care would also be 50/50. Divorce is only bad when you choose poorly.

However, given the state of marriage these days, if I had son's, I would recommend they not marry. Or, if they did marry, they should keep separate finances and marry someone who will work.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Seems fair to me. I've worked my whole life. My wife has worked her whole life. If we got divorced we would split our common money. It turns out I've earned more than her, but she inherited a bunch of money. Works out around even. 

I don't think marriage is the problem. I think the problem is when people are in an unbalanced or unfair marriage.


----------



## arbitrator

Bonkers said:


> Few and far between. Even if they seem to be that way, even if they "think" they'd never take advantage of their guy if things go south, when they DO go south the first time they meet with a divorce attorney, the world "morality" is replaced with "monitarily".
> 
> 
> 
> For some women, that's the only reason they get married.
> For other women, it's not THE reason but once they get a taste for it, they don't want to give it up, so when things go south in the marriage, which they do more often than not, they take advantage of the other person because, hey we all got bills to pay and standards of living to maintain.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has been proven to be a failure and divorce is top of the list of causes of the highest level of grief that a person may experience in their lifetime and has cost countless people, mostly men, a good chunk of their life savings and their income for many years if not permanently. A couple who decides to get married is not getting anything of value except maybe a tax write-off, and the monied partner, usually the guy, is inheriting a boatload of risk with no benefit - which has about a 55% chance of happening (based on current divorce statistics). When I see a guy about to get married, I not only fault him but I shake my head at his stupidity and his arrogance (thinking that it won't happen to him because somehow he's better than all the other guys who failed before him).


*After having been twofold-jilted in as many marriages, just the mere thought of marriage itself, much less of entering into a trusting relationship, scares the literal hell out of me!

In God lies my trust! All others have to prove themselves! 

And then some!*


----------



## FieryHairedLady

Oh goody! Another women aren't worth the trouble to bother marrying thread!


----------



## Bonkers

TX-SC said:


> if I had son's, I would recommend they not marry. Or, if they did marry, they should keep separate finances and marry someone who will work.


You could, but they wouldn't listen to you. When do adult children EVER listen to their parents when it comes to important matters such as this?


----------



## TX-SC

Inloveforeverwithhubby said:


> Oh goody! Another women aren't worth the trouble to bother marrying thread!


I don't think it's so much about the women as it is the way the courts in many areas tend to screw over husbands and father's, regardless of the circumstances.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## arbitrator

MJJEAN said:


> *Exactly! The solution to the problem of men "getting screwed" in a divorce seems to be for men to only marry women who make a comparable salary and have comparable assets.*
> 
> Beyond that, men need to educate themselves on the laws in their state. For example, in MI lifetime alimony kicks in at 19 years and 1 day of marriage. So, staying married until the kid(s) are 18 or graduate from college is clearly a bad move unless you're ok with paying alimony til your ex dies or remarries. Premarital assets and individual inheritance aren't subject to division in divorce unless the individual assets or inheritance have been mingled with marital assets, so men need to know what constitutes asset mingling and avoid that if they want to protect those assets. That kind of thing.


*So therein lies my dilemma in finding a woman to love and trust! Under that premise, I really need to be looking for women, who much like me, “don’t have a pot to pi$$ in, nor a window to throw it out of!”

Smacks a tad like classism/elitism to me!*


----------



## FalCod

Bonkers said:


> Getting married is foolish, getting married with a prenup is like "getting married with a contingency because you know there's a good chance of failure".
> 
> Why bother?


I disagree. If either my wife or I passed away and the survivor ever remarried, it would be with a pre-nup to protect our assets and our children's inheritance. It would be foolish to do otherwise. We didn't need a pre-nup when we married each other because we were poor, not rich.


----------



## ConanHub

vej36 said:


> Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.
> 
> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx,
> vej36


Kick the government out of marriage, draw up your own legal paperwork and I bet my hairy barbarian ass that the divorce rate plummets.


----------



## ConanHub

Inloveforeverwithhubby said:


> Oh goody! Another women aren't worth the trouble to bother marrying thread!


Yeah! Women suck! Yucky women! Oh ****! My wife just bent over again.... Gotta go!:grin2:


----------



## Diana7

Spicy said:


> Because there are plenty of awesome women out there that are well worth the commitment of marriage, and morally would never take advantage of another person.
> 
> Not every woman is looking for marriage because we want someone else’s assets.
> 
> If you are a man that doesn’t want to get married, don’t. No need to fault those who choose this form of commitment, IMO.


Agreed. When I married my husband 12 years ago I had a house and he didn't. He had let his ex have their house, that's the sort of man he is. 
Despite that I wanted no pre-nup and neither of us had any hesitation in making that commitment of marriage.
Man get married the same reason women do. They love the other person and want to be committed to them. They want to live their lives with them and have children if they are young enough.


----------



## Diana7

FalCod said:


> I disagree. If either my wife or I passed away and the survivor ever remarried, it would be with a pre-nup to protect our assets and our children's inheritance. It would be foolish to do otherwise. We didn't need a pre-nup when we married each other because we were poor, not rich.


We are on our second marriage and we didn't have a pre-nup. I would never marry with a pre-nup. Its easy enough to make wills so that certain assets get left to certain children if one dies. 
I have a house which will be left to my children. If I die first, he will be allowed to carry on living in it until he either dies or meets someone else he wants to be with.


----------



## Diana7

Bonkers said:


> Few and far between. Even if they seem to be that way, even if they "think" they'd never take advantage of their guy if things go south, when they DO go south the first time they meet with a divorce attorney, the world "morality" is replaced with "monitarily".
> 
> 
> 
> For some women, that's the only reason they get married.
> For other women, it's not THE reason but once they get a taste for it, they don't want to give it up, so when things go south in the marriage, which they do more often than not, they take advantage of the other person because, hey we all got bills to pay and standards of living to maintain.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage has been proven to be a failure and divorce is top of the list of causes of the highest level of grief that a person may experience in their lifetime and has cost countless people, mostly men, a good chunk of their life savings and their income for many years if not permanently. A couple who decides to get married is not getting anything of value except maybe a tax write-off, and the monied partner, usually the guy, is inheriting a boatload of risk with no benefit - which has about a 55% chance of happening (based on current divorce statistics). When I see a guy about to get married, I not only fault him but I shake my head at his stupidity and his arrogance (thinking that it won't happen to him because somehow he's better than all the other guys who failed before him).


No they are not few and far between. 
You seem very bitter. I know many very good strong marriages and men who are very happy with their wives. Marriage is a very special thing, a covenant and well worth it. 

My husbands ex cheated on him and divorced him but very soon after that we met and within 9 months were married. He had no hesitation is marrying again. 
Its sad to see this anti woman/wife thing here. Just because you may have a bad experience, doesnt mean that other women are the same. Despite what my ex did, I acted with fairness and integrity throughout the divorce process and it was all done with no anger and bitterness.


----------



## Diana7

TX-SC said:


> My wife is a professional and a hard worker. I would not marry someone who I would have to support. If we divorced, assets would be divided fairly equally. I think child care would also be 50/50. Divorce is only bad when you choose poorly.
> 
> However, given the state of marriage these days, if I had son's, I would recommend they not marry. Or, if they did marry, they should keep separate finances and marry someone who will work.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Two of our sons are happily married.I would always recommend marriage to my children.


----------



## Satya

My husband and I have a prenup. We both wrote it over the course of 8 months. Not that it's long, just that we wanted to slowly write it while we were living together during the early days of the relationship (waiting to get married).

We view the prenup in a whole other light than most people seem to on this board. It. Is not this negative thing, but a positive. It protects us both fairly. It protects what we had before we came into the marriage (2nd marriage for both of us), it protects what we purchase as marital property, and it protects us if for some reason we divorce and one of us has an immediate misfortune (i.e, medical emergency).

We both wanted a prenup, we both wrote it, we both agreed to it, and we've summarily forgot about it since. It's like insurance. Better to have and not need than to need and not have (in our opinion).

We don't view it as a sign the relationship is squarely doomed.

We view it as a cerebral move by two people who have seen enough life to know that love doesn't always protect you from what the future may place in your path.


----------



## marriageontherocks2

We're idiots, we always idealize everything and put women on a pedestal when they rarely deserve it.


----------



## 269370

.


----------



## Diana7

I do think its very silly when a man who has been hurt by ONE woman, blames every woman on the planet for what happened. I was deeply hurt by TWO men in my life, but I am happily married to a great man and mature enough to realise that just because one or two men acted badly doesn't mean that all will. 
Most of the women I know are just lovely. They are not greedy, they treat their husbands well, they have integrity.


----------



## john117

The damage isn't necessarily monetary. Many men choose to stay in crappy marriages because of the whammy of divorce. Others get blindsided just because...

My wife had lunch with a girlfriend yesterday. She's divorced, three kids, a professional, and very attractive. Ex is paying a heck of a child support, and instead of using it to send one of her kids to counseling she got herself a personal trainer. A week after her ex got a new job she was in family court petitioning for more in support. She got it.

His only transgression in 15 years of marriage? Spending his own earned money (in joint savings) to buy an expensive sports car. Wife cried financial infidelity and divorced him instantly.

It was a harebrained move on his part, granted, but all the same, no mediation?


----------



## Andy1001

ConanHub said:


> Yeah! Women suck! Yucky women! Oh ****! My wife just bent over again.... Gotta go!:grin2:


You owe me for the coffee I just spluttered over my iPad while reading this post.


----------



## Bonkers

Satya said:


> We view it as a cerebral move by two people who have seen enough life to know that love doesn't always protect you from what the future may place in your path.


Not being married makes things so much easier when the future places something in your path that love doesn't always protect you from- which happens in well over half of all marriages, in fact it happens in MOST of them. 

The current divorce rate may be hovering around 55% but what that number doesn't show is the large number of people who stay married only because they cannot afford to get divorced or are staying together for other reasons that have nothing to do with love.


----------



## pragmaticGoddess

I feel sad for the OP. He doesn’t seem to know the true happiness of marriage.


----------



## Bonkers

pragmaticGoddess said:


> I feel sad for the OP. He doesn’t seem to know the true happiness of marriage.


Happy Marriage is an oxymoron for all practical purposes.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vej36 said:


> Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.
> 
> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx,
> vej36


I wonder what the prevalence of false accusations are. It does seem to me that if those are the case, they would be criminal or at least jettison the divorce out of no-fault. There is a really easy solution to this. Don't get married. I do wonder why a person would view marital assets as their sole assets. When I was not working outside of the home, the value that I provided to the family did not render me worthy of being impoverished should the marriage end. The same is true when my husband did not work outside the home. Why would/should it? We were a family making decisions for the family. 

I know why men continue to volunteer for marriage. Some, rightly, don't believe that they will ever get laid unless they put a ring on it. They continue to operate under the notion that mating is a financial exchange, and getting a woman is predicated on things like looks and money. They tend to get what they are searching for. Some people follow a script handed to them by their family of origin. Go to school, get married, have kids and don't stop to think much about their core values. Men and women alike that think the THING (married... kids... good job) will get the happiness are sadly duped. They forget that the PERSON that they married, share expenses and children with are people with hopes, desires and dreams. They fit their spouse into a pre-envisioned role. Unhappiness ensues. They also tend to choose like minded partners. There are tons of women who still see men as providers. They are easy to find.

Some, like my father dog rest his bones, loved a woman, my mother, with all his heart. He chose her wisely as she loved him with all of hers. They came together and grew up together, bucking the expectations of family and society whose ethnic backgrounds were different. Some, like my father in law, did the same. Some like my brothers did the former. It ended badly. Some did not. It continues to go well.

Then there is my husband. To him I am not a glory hole bought and paid for. He never worries about his pension or "his" assets. He cherishes me every day. He has told me over the years why he chose and continues to choose me. He, rightly, says that there are many hot women out there. He chose me because I am loving, caring, smart, capable and SANE. He does not fight against me, he fights WITH me not to win but to solve. He has built a life for himself that incorporates the loving, giving and caring with maintaining his own person and standing strong on Who He Is. MMMMM. He would be viewed on this board as a beta man from the outside. His strength does not come from putting his foot down but from opening his heart and his mind UP. I'll take it and keep it as long as I can!


----------



## samyeagar

MJJEAN said:


> Exactly! *The solution to the problem of men "getting screwed" in a divorce seems to be for men to only marry women who make a comparable salary and have comparable assets.*
> 
> Beyond that, men need to educate themselves on the laws in their state. For example, in MI lifetime alimony kicks in at 19 years and 1 day of marriage. So, staying married until the kid(s) are 18 or graduate from college is clearly a bad move unless you're ok with paying alimony til your ex dies or remarries. Premarital assets and individual inheritance aren't subject to division in divorce unless the individual assets or inheritance have been mingled with marital assets, so men need to know what constitutes asset mingling and avoid that if they want to protect those assets. That kind of thing.


That was the plan with my ex wife and I until she unilaterally decided to become a stay at home mom after our first child was born. Literally, up until she went into the hospital to give birth, we had been discussing child care, planning her maternity leave. Then it turned into her planning on going back to work when the child was in school. Then after our youngest was in school full time, she decided not to go back to work at all.

It's easy to say that one should have their spouse maintain relatively equal financial and educational contributions and footing, but one can't simply force another to do so. In retrospect, I should have put divorce on the table immediately when she decided she wasn't going to go back to work, as really, that was my only true recourse...societal canonization of motherhood be damned.


----------



## AVR1962

It goes both ways. When I went thru my divorce I had to present all my accounts and all accounts, his and mine were to be divided equally.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Bonkers said:


> Happy Marriage is an oxymoron for all practical purposes.


That would be an interesting thing to tell almost everyone I know who is happily married. I wonder why unhappy people feel the need to assume everyone is? Oh wait, because they would then have to change their own thinking or behavior to acquire this elusive thing. And we know THAT is no good!


----------



## Yeswecan

vej36 said:


> Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.
> 
> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx,
> vej36


Life if full of risks. 

Second thread on false allegations. You need to get something off your chest?


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> That was the plan with my ex wife and I until she unilaterally decided to become a stay at home mom after our first child was born. Literally, up until she went into the hospital to give birth, we had been discussing child care, planning her maternity leave. Then it turned into her planning on going back to work when the child was in school. Then after our youngest was in school full time, she decided not to go back to work at all.
> 
> It's easy to say that one should have their spouse maintain relatively equal financial and educational contributions and footing, but one can't simply force another to do so. In retrospect, I should have put divorce on the table immediately when she decided she wasn't going to go back to work, as really, that was my only true recourse...societal canonization of motherhood be damned.


I wonder why people care what "society" thinks.


----------



## Mr. Nail

today (note Date) I'm thinking 30 years is one hell of a long time to live with the same person.


----------



## samyeagar

NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder why people care what "society" thinks.


Oh no doubt, but when one is in their early 20's, and has been conditioned to have mothers on pedistals if for no other reason than they gave birth, and the whole stay at home mom thing is the best thing ever, hardest job in the world, that kids need to be the center of the universe, and throw in a nice healthy dose of happy wife happy life, and that men, husbands, and fathers are to be the providers no matter what...The fallacy of all of that, as well as the fact that not tolerating that does not make one a bad man, husband or father is a lesson that I really wish I had learned much earlier than I did.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Oh no doubt, but when one is in their early 20's, and has been conditioned to have mothers on pedistals if for no other reason than they gave birth, and the whole stay at home mom thing is the best thing ever, hardest job in the world, that kids need to be the center of the universe, and throw in a nice healthy dose of happy wife happy life, and that men, husbands, and fathers are to be the providers no matter what...The fallacy of all of that, as well as the fact that not tolerating that does not *make one a bad man*, husband or father is a lesson that I really wish I had learned much earlier than I did.


Of course not. I am sorry you learned that late.


----------



## pragmaticGoddess

Bonkers said:


> pragmaticGoddess said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sad for the OP. He doesn’t seem to know the true happiness of marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> Happy Marriage is an oxymoron for all practical purposes.
Click to expand...

Note that I didn’t say marriage is perfect. My marriage certainly isn’t. I am the first to say that, but I cannot imagine not being without my H. Happy Marriage takes both spouses giving a 100% and in a selfish world that is hard to find.


----------



## MJJEAN

samyeagar said:


> That was the plan with my ex wife and I until she unilaterally decided to become a stay at home mom after our first child was born. Literally, up until she went into the hospital to give birth, we had been discussing child care, planning her maternity leave. Then it turned into her planning on going back to work when the child was in school. Then after our youngest was in school full time, she decided not to go back to work at all.
> 
> It's easy to say that one should have their spouse maintain relatively equal financial and educational contributions and footing, but one can't simply force another to do so. In retrospect, I should have put divorce on the table immediately when she decided she wasn't going to go back to work, as really, that was my only true recourse...societal canonization of motherhood be damned.


You had the option of telling her that she could either go back to work or you'd leave, but you weren't taking on a dependent other than your children. You chose to stay. Choosing to stay was, in effect, agreeing with her decision. You recognize the error now, so preach to those coming up behind you!


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Oh no doubt, but when one is in their early 20's, and has been conditioned to have mothers on pedistals if for no other reason than they gave birth, and the whole stay at home mom thing is the best thing ever, hardest job in the world, that kids need to be the center of the universe, and throw in a nice healthy dose of happy wife happy life, and that men, husbands, and fathers are to be the providers no matter what...The fallacy of all of that, as well as the fact that not tolerating that does not make one a bad man, husband or father is a lesson that I really wish I had learned much earlier than I did.


To be fair, we were all sold that bill of goods. We womyns were sold the get a man, marry him, have babies and mom.


----------



## john117

NobodySpecial said:


> That would be an interesting thing to tell almost everyone I know who is happily married. I wonder why unhappy people feel the need to assume everyone is? Oh wait, because they would then have to change their own thinking or behavior to acquire this elusive thing. And we know THAT is no good!


Generally marital issues aren't coffee shop conversation material in my circle, contrary to popular belief. Not till things go really bad.


----------



## CuddleBug

vej36 said:


> Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.
> 
> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?
> 
> 
> 
> Thx,
> vej36




- In my grandparents and even parents time, getting married young and staying married until death was common. Men and women were not in it for themselves and did what was best for their other half and marriage.


- Today, to be honest, men are getting the bad end of the stick and women are in it for themselves.


- So guys today realize this more and more and won't get married to their girlfriends.


- Then the women today are asking, were are all the good guys? Why can't I find a guy who wants to get married, buy a house and maybe even have kids?


- Because today, guys are wising up.


- Now there still are good men out there but they're becoming fewer and fewer......


----------



## NobodySpecial

CuddleBug said:


> - In my grandparents and even parents time, getting married young and staying married until death was common. Men and women were not in it for themselves and did what was best for their other half and marriage.
> 
> 
> - Today, to be honest, men are getting the bad end of the stick and women are in it for themselves.
> 
> 
> - So guys today realize this more and more and won't get married to their girlfriends.
> 
> 
> - Then the women today are asking, were are all the good guys? Why can't I find a guy who wants to get married, buy a house and maybe even have kids?
> 
> 
> - Because today, guys are wising up.
> 
> 
> - Now there still are good men out there but they're becoming fewer and fewer......


What a sad take on the whole thing. There are SOOOO many good men out there. There a SOOOO many good women out there. It is certainly a challenge to cast off the societal teachings that are pounded into us often by our families of origin. People think of marriage as roles. Growing up the GOAL was marriage with kids. It makes it easy to forget the wonderful person that you engaged in said marriage with. It is too bad that people get stuck in gender blame. It is such a distraction to the learning and growing we can do to make marriage pretty freaking awesome.


----------



## toblerone

I think everybody is too busy on entrenching themselves in various distractions that they don't take the time to get to know themselves or to be comfortable with themselves.

If you know and are comfortable with yourself, you are more aware of what you want and need from a relationship and more able to identify that in the person you want to be with.

It isn't a recent thing for kids these days. It's been happening for three generations at the very least.


----------



## NobodySpecial

toblerone said:


> I think everybody is too busy on entrenching themselves in various distractions that they don't take the time to get to know themselves or to be comfortable with themselves.
> 
> If you know and are comfortable with yourself, you are more aware of what you want and need from a relationship and more able to identify that in the person you want to be with.
> 
> It isn't a recent thing for kids these days. It's been happening for three generations at the very least.


I agree. It is complicated by the fact that people don't realize that being alone is perfectly ok. The goal is to get a mate and start the family. A willing, good enough partner works when you are young. That plus the starry eyed newness of young love without the quieter acceptance of the rest of the person makes for some daffy marital decisions. I think that many marriage mistakes are made with the person we choose to marry. I am lucky and blessed that by happy accident (no great foresight of mine) that did not happen to us.


----------



## Bonkers

NobodySpecial said:


> That would be an interesting thing to tell almost everyone I know who is happily married. I wonder why unhappy people feel the need to assume everyone is? Oh wait, because they would then have to change their own thinking or behavior to acquire this elusive thing. And we know THAT is no good!


The statistics don't lie. 

The vast majority of marriages are not happy. Sure there are some successes but they pale in comparison to the failures.


----------



## pragmaticGoddess

Bonkers said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an interesting thing to tell almost everyone I know who is happily married. I wonder why unhappy people feel the need to assume everyone is? Oh wait, because they would then have to change their own thinking or behavior to acquire this elusive thing. And we know THAT is no good!
> 
> 
> 
> The statistics don't lie.
> 
> The vast majority of marriages are not happy. Sure there are some successes but they pale in comparison to the failures.
Click to expand...

Yes true. It seems that if you’re unhappy just get out. Like the majority of advice given on TAM.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I'm pretty sure the subject of the thread was to just stay out. but close enough.


----------



## tech-novelist

vej36 said:


> Marriage today is a monestised business that benefits women and government while, costing men a fortune because they signed a Legal Contract that allows their partner (female) to extract 50% of their current and potentially future assets (pension, stocks, etc.,) because they no longer want to be in the marriage for whatever reasons with No Fault Divorce.
> 
> So, with the obvious financial risk and classical False accusations of child-molestation and/or Domestic Violence allegations when divorce is in the process then, why do men continue to volunteer to forfeit everything they've worked for despite the obvious judicial bias against them within the Family Court (why do men foolishly pursue Marriage)?
> 
> Thx,
> vej36


Because they don't know or don't believe the facts.

That will end one of these days, and women won't like the resulting situation at all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

john117 said:


> Generally marital issues aren't coffee shop conversation material in my circle, contrary to popular belief. Not till things go really bad.


So you are really asserting that happy marriages don't happen? You don't have close friends? Or do you surround yourself with people who adhere to your confirmation bias?


----------



## NobodySpecial

tech-novelist said:


> Because they don't know or don't believe the facts.
> 
> That will end one of these days, and women won't like the resulting situation at all.


My daughter read this thread. She rolled her eyes and said, oh give me a break. Bring it.


----------



## sandcastle

NobodySpecial said:


> So you are really asserting that happy marriages don't happen? You don't have close friends? Or do you surround yourself with people who adhere to your confirmation bias?


My take from John was this-

My marriage is private and unless it is so bad that my coffee buddies notice I'm not functioning -

We don't talk **** on our wives.

Maybe I read that wrong.


----------



## Mr The Other

CuddleBug said:


> - In my grandparents and even parents time, getting married young and staying married until death was common. Men and women were not in it for themselves and did what was best for their other half and marriage.
> 
> 
> - Today, to be honest, men are getting the bad end of the stick and women are in it for themselves.
> 
> 
> - So guys today realize this more and more and won't get married to their girlfriends.
> 
> 
> - *Then the women today are asking, were are all the good guys?* Why can't I find a guy who wants to get married, buy a house and maybe even have kids?
> 
> 
> - Because today, guys are wising up.
> 
> 
> - *Now there still are good men out there but they're becoming fewer and fewer.*.....



It is a shame that MRA make a great deal of the fact that the average man does not live up to womens' perception of what is average. 

The average man is shorter, less successful, poorer, and uglier than what most women consider average. And this leads to the perception of "where have all the good men good!".

It could equally be a feminist point, after all it would suggest that men have been oversold to women or that there is a good reason for women to be cautious.

And, it I could alter the world to make every woman more attractive to me, that would be nice. And to turn it down and make every woman less attractive would be less good, which is essentially the situation women are in when looking at men.

There is hope. A few ways occur to me in my ignorance:
- Men lower their standards, so they accept how they are percieved by women. 
- Women lower their standards, so they accept how they are percieved by men. 
- Work out exactly what you need in a partner. What do you value about height, income or looks.


----------



## Mr The Other

NobodySpecial said:


> My daughter read this thread. She rolled her eyes and said, oh give me a break. Bring it.


I like your daughter, she is a wise woman.


----------



## Married but Happy

No doubt some men lie to themselves about marriage. So do some women. But it's not really marriage that's the problem (aside from some institutional bias that remains), but the imperfect people who are choosing other imperfect people (in other words, everyone!). Some still make it work out well, though. Love and honor are part of most marriage vows, but I don't recall any promise of happiness.


----------



## ConanHub

NobodySpecial said:


> My daughter read this thread. She rolled her eyes and said, oh give me a break. Bring it.


Hopefully she will never jump into the "War of the sexes".

It is actually the ignorant war of the pathetic and bitter.

I just don't engage in it. Women are individuals and I fing LOVE them!

Getting pissed off at each other seems pretty natural now and then but blowing it up into war is pretty lame.

I piss women off a lot and at the same time they love me. I am irked by females as well but damn they are wonderful!:grin2:


----------



## pragmaticGoddess

Married but Happy said:


> No doubt some men lie to themselves about marriage. So do some women. But it's not really marriage that's the problem (aside from some institutional bias that remains), but the imperfect people who are choosing other imperfect people (in other words, everyone!). Some still make it work out well, though. Love and honor are part of most marriage vows, but I don't recall any promise of happiness.


And the Hollywood notions of The One and Prince Charming don’t help either!


----------



## Bonkers

NobodySpecial said:


> My daughter read this thread. She rolled her eyes and said, oh give me a break. Bring it.


Oh this changes everything.


----------



## musicftw07

It is unwise and irresponsible to enter into a contract with another party without agreeing to the terms of said contract prior to entry.

Marriage as an institution is nothing more than a business contract between two people. Historically, marriage has been used to transfer wealth, forge alliances, and find homes for daughters via the dowry. It had virtually nothing to do with love.

This paradigm still exists today. If it didn't, the focus on assets and wealth during divorce wouldn't exist. Marriage still remains a business contract. To treat it otherwise is, IMO, a grave error.

As such, come to an agreement about the terms of this contract prior to entry. No business entity does business with another entity without stipulating and agreeing to the terms of the contact. Why would marriage be any different? ("Because feelings" is not a logical or legitimate response. We are talking about child custody, division of assets, and loss of retirement. Massive, life-altering circumstances. To make decisions about such things based solely on feelings is a fool's errand.)

I was married once, and I divorced due to my XWW's affair. I'm open to marriage again. But not without a pre-nup. I have a good income. O have a child. I have a house. I have assets. I won't enter any contract without being comfortable with the terms, and to negotiate the terms when the contract is being dissolved is pure folly.

I am willing to bring my income and assets into mutual play, but what will I get in return? Should you renege on your word, what recourse do I have to protect my interests and accumulated assets prior to marriage? These arw valid questions for anyone, male or female, to ask.


----------



## tech-novelist

Mr The Other said:


> It is a shame that MRA make a great deal of the fact that the average man does not live up to womens' perception of what is average.
> 
> The average man is shorter, less successful, poorer, and uglier than what most women consider average. And this leads to the perception of "where have all the good men good!".


What this is saying is that most women are delusional, because it means that what most women consider below average is in fact average.

So why would MRAs not make a great deal out of that, assuming it is true (which I think it is)? Isn't it an important fact?


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Mr The Other said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a shame that MRA make a great deal of the fact that the average man does not live up to womens' perception of what is average.
> 
> The average man is shorter, less successful, poorer, and uglier than what most women consider average. And this leads to the perception of "where have all the good men good!".
> 
> 
> 
> What this is saying is that most women are delusional, because it means that what most women consider below average is in fact average.
> 
> So why would MRAs not make a great deal out of that, assuming it is true (which I think it is)? Isn't it an important fact?
Click to expand...

Yes it's a fact that men should do more to be physically attractive to women and stop trying to game them. We aren't buying the game crap, we want actual hot men.


----------



## Mr The Other

tech-novelist said:


> What this is saying is that most women are delusional, because it means that what most women consider below average is in fact average.
> 
> So why would MRAs not make a great deal out of that, assuming it is true (which I think it is)? Isn't it an important fact?


Yes. And MRA people get upset about it. 

We are all delusional in some ways and we can either think it is very important that we are right, or we can concentrate on the why and what to do with life being the way it is.

For MRA people to just get angry suggests being right is important. That is pretty delusional.



Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it's a fact that men should do more to be physically attractive to women and stop trying to game them. We aren't buying the game crap, we want actual hot men.


I like you, from what I know of you. This line does also rely on it being up to men to find women physically attractive. I do! But, once they are twenty years older and have my kids, my attraction will rely on the emotional and physical bonding rather than aesthetics. 

Yes, but hotness is relative*. How tall is tall, how rich is rich, how good looking is good looking is all compared to the next man along. And having this off makes it difficult for women as the average guy might be decent, and caring, but will also be seen as less than average attractiveness, whereas the man does not have this problem.

When I was post divorce, I had relationships with a few attractive women at the same time (I am ashamed to write that, but is was where I was at the time - I do not want to go back to it). They were attractive, smart women and were not with me under those conditions because of low standards, but were a victim of their high standards. The number of men the met that fulfilled their criteria of good looking, successful, smart and intelligent was tiny, so they were reduced to sharing.

As a middle-aged man who was in good shape, I was perhaps the sort of man you are talking about (I was sparring and had I not returned to Europe, was to make my debut in the boxing ring at the age of forty years). However, I am also 5'10" which would be seen as average on text, so most women would say I am actually 5'8" or so. There is not much I can do about that.

The delusion can makes sense, a relationship with a man is risky, so caution in commiting is reasonable. And, men are perhaps being oversold (though, American TV is incredible for showing useless men paired with endlessly generous, wise and beautiful women). 

Either way, for all the MRA complaining, it is women who suffer most from it.

*This relativeness is starkly illustrated when I travel from CA (where I am a great catch) to Scandinavia, where I am rather average looking, goofy and short. I go from being James Bond to Austin Powers. Oddly, it makes very little difference to my attractiveness to women.


----------



## pragmaticGoddess

musicftw07 said:


> It is unwise and irresponsible to enter into a contract with another party without agreeing to the terms of said contract prior to entry.
> 
> Marriage as an institution is nothing more than a business contract between two people. Historically, marriage has been used to transfer wealth, forge alliances, and find homes for daughters via the dowry. It had virtually nothing to do with love.
> 
> This paradigm still exists today. If it didn't, the focus on assets and wealth during divorce wouldn't exist. Marriage still remains a business contract. To treat it otherwise is, IMO, a grave error.
> 
> As such, come to an agreement about the terms of this contract prior to entry. No business entity does business with another entity without stipulating and agreeing to the terms of the contact. Why would marriage be any different? ("Because feelings" is not a logical or legitimate response. We are talking about child custody, division of assets, and loss of retirement. Massive, life-altering circumstances. To make decisions about such things based solely on feelings is a fool's errand.)
> 
> I was married once, and I divorced due to my XWW's affair. I'm open to marriage again. But not without a pre-nup. I have a good income. O have a child. I have a house. I have assets. I won't enter any contract without being comfortable with the terms, and to negotiate the terms when the contract is being dissolved is pure folly.
> 
> I am willing to bring my income and assets into mutual play, but what will I get in return? Should you renege on your word, what recourse do I have to protect my interests and accumulated assets prior to marriage? These arw valid questions for anyone, male or female, to ask.


Marriage is more than a business contract. It is precisely this mentality that perpetuates the perception that Happy Marriage is an oxymoron.


----------



## Married but Happy

pragmaticGoddess said:


> Marriage is more than a business contract. It is precisely this mentality that perpetuates the perception that Happy Marriage is an oxymoron.


Have you gone through a divorce? If not, you'll find that the marriage IS treated just like a business contract (or worse). Happy _relationships_ - including marriage - require love and compatibility, but don't need the contract or ceremony.


----------



## musicftw07

pragmaticGoddess said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unwise and irresponsible to enter into a contract with another party without agreeing to the terms of said contract prior to entry.
> 
> Marriage as an institution is nothing more than a business contract between two people. Historically, marriage has been used to transfer wealth, forge alliances, and find homes for daughters via the dowry. It had virtually nothing to do with love.
> 
> This paradigm still exists today. If it didn't, the focus on assets and wealth during divorce wouldn't exist. Marriage still remains a business contract. To treat it otherwise is, IMO, a grave error.
> 
> As such, come to an agreement about the terms of this contract prior to entry. No business entity does business with another entity without stipulating and agreeing to the terms of the contact. Why would marriage be any different? ("Because feelings" is not a logical or legitimate response. We are talking about child custody, division of assets, and loss of retirement. Massive, life-altering circumstances. To make decisions about such things based solely on feelings is a fool's errand.)
> 
> I was married once, and I divorced due to my XWW's affair. I'm open to marriage again. But not without a pre-nup. I have a good income. O have a child. I have a house. I have assets. I won't enter any contract without being comfortable with the terms, and to negotiate the terms when the contract is being dissolved is pure folly.
> 
> I am willing to bring my income and assets into mutual play, but what will I get in return? Should you renege on your word, what recourse do I have to protect my interests and accumulated assets prior to marriage? These arw valid questions for anyone, male or female, to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is more than a business contract. It is precisely this mentality that perpetuates the perception that Happy Marriage is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

I believe you're conflating relationships and marriage, when in reality they are separate. A marriage is a relationship with a business contract, whereas a standard relationship doesn't have the business contract.

Divorce clearly demonstrates that.


----------



## Rick Blaine

musicftw07 said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> I believe you're conflating relationships and marriage, when in reality they are separate. A marriage is a relationship with a business contract, whereas a standard relationship doesn't have the business contract.
> 
> Divorce clearly demonstrates that.


Ideally-- and the ideal for me is always the goal--marriage is a covenant, which is based on love, fidelity, and a promise. A man and a woman exchange vows in the presence of a priest or minister not a lawyer in a covenant wedding. Civil weddings are a more contractual arrangement, but I would wager that most who participate in them are thinking more about love, fidelity, and commitment than legal obligations. 

But an increasing number of people today may agree that marriage is merely a contract based on the declining number of marriages. This sad trend is detrimental to society.


----------



## musicftw07

Rick Blaine said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> I believe you're conflating relationships and marriage, when in reality they are separate. A marriage is a relationship with a business contract, whereas a standard relationship doesn't have the business contract.
> 
> Divorce clearly demonstrates that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ideally-- and the ideal for me is always the goal--marriage is a covenant, which is based on love, fidelity, and a promise. A man and a woman exchange vows in the presence of a priest or minister not a lawyer in a covenant wedding. Civil weddings are a more contractual arrangement, but I would wager that most who participate in them are thinking more about love, fidelity, and commitment than legal obligations.
> 
> But an increasing number of people today may agree that marriage is merely a contract based on the declining number of marriages. This sad trend is detrimental to society.
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist, so my views on marriage lack any spiritual component.

I fail to see how viewing marriage as a contract is detrimental to society. A simple examination of the current failure rate of marriages when people enter into them purely from the standpoint of "love and feelings" reveals that *not* viewing marriage as a business contract is a far worse detriment.

If I had approached my marriage logically instead emotionally, I would have taken the following into consideration:

My XWW's credit score: this would have prevented is from accumulating massive amounts of debt, much of which I had to claw my way out. Six years post divorce, and my credit score is finally repaired.

My XWW's lack of time with her daughter from a previous marriage. She claimed it was all her ex husband's fault, and I, in typical White Knight fashion, lapped up every word of it. I should have taken that into account in determining whether or not this is a suitable person with which to procreate.

What our mutual goals are regarding marriage. Does she want to work? Stay at home? How will she contribute to the household? In other words, what will I get if I upload my part of the bargain?

I asked none of these questions. If I had, I guarantee that relationship would have ended long before marriage ever took place. As it should have.

The declining marriage rate is not a bad thing. It simply shows the market doesn't want that product. Either marriage will adapt to the current market and become more lucrative, or it will die. But I fail to see how the death marriage would prevent good parents from loving their children, or two people who love each other from expressing that love.

I don't need a sheet of paper with a government stamp to express what's in my heart.


----------



## Bonkers

pragmaticGoddess said:


> Marriage is more than a business contract. It is precisely this mentality that perpetuates the perception that Happy Marriage is an oxymoron.


The marriage failure statistics along with what happens to the breadwinners after divorce (mostly guys) say that you are wrong. 

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. 

Marriage is a business contract that can only be broken by attorneys and the courts, it is not the reason that marriages are unhappy, it's because most marriages are unhappy that the contract must be broken.


----------



## musicftw07

Bonkers said:


> pragmaticGoddess said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is more than a business contract. It is precisely this mentality that perpetuates the perception that Happy Marriage is an oxymoron.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is a business contract that can only be broken by attorneys and the courts, it is not the reason that marriages are unhappy, it's because most marriages are unhappy that the contract must be broken.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^ This.

More people are becoming aware of that fact, and taking precautions as merited. Armed with this knowledge, to negotiate the terms of the contract while in the midst of breaking it, rather than prior to entry, is laughably ludicrous. Some people are also choosing to eschew marriage all together.

Given that most marriages are unhappy, I don't find either decision unreasonable.


----------



## DTO

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it's a fact that men should do more to be physically attractive to women and stop trying to game them. We aren't buying the game crap, we want actual hot men.


I don't think that's the point being made. The point being made is that women may have unrealistic expectations of the kind of man they can attract. A dating site (*******) did a study and found that women rated 80% of the guys less physically attractive than average. Granted there are problems with such a study - one site is not necessarily a representative sample, more goes into attraction than just appearance, etc. But there's significant truth here too.

Of course women want good looking men. Men want good looking women too, and they aren't exactly common either. But the average is what it is. If you are a mid-range single woman looking for a partner, you will probably find yourself in the market for a mid-range guy. That means you need to be honest with yourself regarding the guys available and your competition for them, and adjust your approach accordingly - or you just stay single.

I don't buy into that MRA state of mind. I have a great GF now, and I don't consider having a partner essential to my happiness. But, in an environment where average/below-average women look down on over 3/4 of men (at least from an appearance perspective), it's understandable where guys would say "she doesn't really want me anyways, so I'm going to take what I can get".


----------



## Faithful Wife

DTO said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it's a fact that men should do more to be physically attractive to women and stop trying to game them. We aren't buying the game crap, we want actual hot men.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's the point being made. The point being made is that women may have unrealistic expectations of the kind of man they can attract. A dating site (*******) did a study and found that women rated 80% of the guys less physically attractive than average. Granted there are problems with such a study - one site is not necessarily a representative sample, more goes into attraction than just appearance, etc. But there's significant truth here too.
> 
> Of course women want good looking men. Men want good looking women too, and they aren't exactly common either. But the average is what it is. If you are a mid-range single woman looking for a partner, you will probably find yourself in the market for a mid-range guy. That means you need to be honest with yourself regarding the guys available and your competition for them, and adjust your approach accordingly - or you just stay single.
> 
> I don't buy into that MRA state of mind. I have a great GF now, and I don't consider having a partner essential to my happiness. But, in an environment where average/below-average women look down on over 3/4 of men (at least from an appearance perspective), it's understandable where guys would say "she doesn't really want me anyways, so I'm going to take what I can get".
Click to expand...

I'm not going to include ok Cupid studies in any of my opinions or consider it to be relevant to what I'm saying.

In my opinion, men rate themselves as more attractive than they are and men are the ones thinking they can date out of their league far more than women do.

And also in my opinion, men could be much more attractive if they spent more time and effort on doing so. 

But instead it seems some of them would rather whine about how women are picky.

Yep. Sorry. Women are picky so if you want to get picked, do something about it rather than whine.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

As far as men being attractive, what has always been attractive to me is their personality. I never go for "pretty boys". I like reformed bad boys who are family oriented and hard workers.


----------



## Mr The Other

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not going to include ok Cupid studies in any of my opinions or consider it to be relevant to what I'm saying.
> 
> In my opinion, men rate themselves as more attractive than they are and men are the ones thinking they can date out of their league far more than women do.


If we consider attractiveness to be absolute, and I think there is truth in that, your remark would be spot on. I am not sure that is the case. My shortness makes me less attractive to women here, but at a little under 5'11" there are places in the world I would be tall. It is to a certain extend relative too.

If the point being made by DTO is correct, that women are over generous in what they think the average man is like, then it would fit with your second statement. You would see a man thinking he is better than average and think he is merely average - the issue is that he might be right. We would also expecting men to say/whine that they cannot get a woman, whereas women would complain there are no decent men - that does seem to be the case.

There is a small subset of people (and they are overwhelmingly male) who are utterly deluded about their own qualities, but I do not think they are a large chuck of the population. 



Faithful Wife said:


> And also in my opinion, men could be much more attractive if they spent more time and effort on doing so.
> 
> But instead it seems some of them would rather whine about how women are picky.
> 
> Yep. Sorry. Women are picky so if you want to get picked, do something about it rather than whine.


Indeed. Absolutely.

I often think the right wing are good at having the best individual attitude and the left are best at seeing a broader reality, but is less useful for the individual.

What a man can do is stay fit or get fit. I was ready to debut at boxing at 40, age is not a good excuse. You can become a big deal in your local community and work hard at understanding how people think and how to relate to them.

That said, I live in a part of the world where the average man is over 6 foot tall, many have very good paying jobs, they put huge amounts of effot into their appearance and are frankly very good looking. I assure you that many women say the same things about the men that you do.

That said, it is not useful to dwell on. Men should still endevour keep fit, stay mentally and emotionally healthy. It is essential for its own sake and is still vital to attract a woman.

I do not even own a comb and will have the messiest hair in the bar. I learnt to work that niche


----------



## DTO

Livvie said:


> Assuming you marry someone who is on par with your earnings and assets, YOU also get half of HER current and future earnings if a long term marriage ends. So no problem there...unless a man deliberately chose to marry someone he agreed should not work or who he volunteered to support.


The problem is that, once you reach a certain economic level (which really isn't all that high) your pool of potential spouses becomes pretty small. This thread comes at a good time since I just finished up my personal annual financial review. My dating pool would be <10% of the ladies if I insisted on a financial equal. AND THEN you have to contend with the other compatibility issues. While I don't have to have a partner, I would like to have one. And if I set a high economic bar, I'll likely be single for a good long time to come.


----------



## DTO

I actually agree with you, especially on the bottom line: if you want be successful in a variety of areas (career and romance are easy examples), you need to stand out from the competition. You don't have to be #1 necessarily, but you do have to rank well. I have a GF that I'm quite happy with and can get dates fairly easily if I want, so I'm not some disgruntled being left behind.

OTOH, I think both men and women tend to rate themselves as more attractive than they are. Sometimes we can be our own worst critics, but usually it seems basic human nature (where we tend to emphasize the good about us and be somewhat blind to the bad) causes the opposite effect.

As far as dating "out of one's league", I doubt we'll agree on that. To me, the "league" is the range of what's available, not a concept of being entitled to a partner who is equal to where you rank yourself.

I'll give a personal example - it does not deal with finances but makes my point. I've done a good job of rebuilding my career and financial position after my layoff and divorce. Looking at economic stats for my age and area, I'm top 10% for income and net worth, will be a millionaire within a decade and will double that by retirement (assuming no more major setbacks). So, not setting the world on fire but doing significantly better than most.

Is my "league" a lady who has the same net worth and earning potential? No. There are less ladies (especially single ones) than men having my level of wealth and income. Since they are more scarce, they attain a higher status than men at the same level. Because of this financial imbalance, women on average tend date men that have / earn more money. My choices are to accept this or wait for someone who accepts me where I'm at. I'm not hung up on money, so I'll gladly date someone who has or makes less than me.

This can work in the other direction when it comes to physical attractiveness. Even if we posit that women as a whole are more attractive than men - they groom better, are in better shape, etc. - they are still evaluated relative to other women. Thus, your average woman being more attractive than your average guy leads to women generally being with guys less attractive than themselves.

We could argue that both scenarios are unfair - that I shouldn't have to subsidize a lady making less than me or that a cute lady shouldn't have to settle for a "meh" looking dude. But reality is what it is - accept it and move on.



Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not going to include ok Cupid studies in any of my opinions or consider it to be relevant to what I'm saying.
> 
> In my opinion, men rate themselves as more attractive than they are and men are the ones thinking they can date out of their league far more than women do.
> 
> And also in my opinion, men could be much more attractive if they spent more time and effort on doing so.
> 
> But instead it seems some of them would rather whine about how women are picky.
> 
> Yep. Sorry. Women are picky so if you want to get picked, do something about it rather than whine.


----------



## Faithful Wife

DTO said:


> We could argue that both scenarios are unfair - that I shouldn't have to subsidize a lady making less than me or that a cute lady shouldn't have to settle for a "meh" looking dude. But reality is what it is - accept it and move on.


I think it's much simpler than all of that.

Attraction happens between two people. If they are attracted to each other, it's no one else's say whether there is a match as far as the individual attractiveness of each one is or trying to rank their attractiveness. If Joe and Jane rank each other as 10's and you would rank them as 5, your rank is the one that is meaningless. Theirs is what counts.

I don't go around looking at people and thinking "hmmm, who is approximately as attractive as I am?"

I just go around open to being attracted to people and then naturally being drawn towards those who have a mutual attraction to me. This is assuming I'm single, of course. But throughout my life this is how I've ended up with people. Mutual attraction becomes obvious and then we end up talking, etc. When one is attracted and the other isn't, I think that's a rather obvious situation when it happens to me. Just pass on by and don't worry any more about it. Only the ones who are mutually attracted to you should be on your radar. If you learn to navigate in this zone, you will stop worrying about all people everywhere and just focus on those who are attracted to you and you to them. This is your actual available dating pool (again assuming single status) 

So all of the surveys about who is objectively attractive are pointless. Mutual attraction between two people is the only barometer of any use to an individual. If you aren't attracting people you feel attracted to, you have some work to do (and it may be entirely your attitude).


----------



## Mr The Other

Faithful Wife said:


> I think it's much simpler than all of that.
> 
> Attraction happens between two people. If they are attracted to each other, it's no one else's say whether there is a match as far as the individual attractiveness of each one is or trying to rank their attractiveness. If Joe and Jane rank each other as 10's and you would rank them as 5, your rank is the one that is meaningless. Theirs is what counts.
> 
> I don't go around looking at people and thinking "hmmm, who is approximately as attractive as I am?"
> 
> I just go around open to being attracted to people and then naturally being drawn towards those who have a mutual attraction to me. This is assuming I'm single, of course. But throughout my life this is how I've ended up with people. Mutual attraction becomes obvious and then we end up talking, etc. When one is attracted and the other isn't, I think that's a rather obvious situation when it happens to me. Just pass on by and don't worry any more about it. Only the ones who are mutually attracted to you should be on your radar. If you learn to navigate in this zone, you will stop worrying about all people everywhere and just focus on those who are attracted to you and you to them. This is your actual available dating pool (again assuming single status)
> 
> So all of the surveys about who is objectively attractive are pointless. Mutual attraction between two people is the only barometer of any use to an individual. If you aren't attracting people you feel attracted to, you have some work to do (and it may be entirely your attitude).


Broadly speaking, you are perfectly correct.

I would be cautious of a relationship with a woman who was far more wealthy, as it is possible that she would resent being the richer one. This should not matter, but it often does. Ideally, a partner should appreciate them for who they are, but often if one partner feels they have married down, it can create a feeling that they are making a sacrifice even by being in the relationship. If there is a tendency do judge the average man as worse then average, most women will feel that they have compromised and their partner is a bit rubbish, even if they do love them. 

Of course, this is a pointless and immature response, but some people are a little immature.

I am in a situation similar to DTO, where I have been very fortunate and I tend to be fortunate. Everything you write is true, but I fear many people are not as wise as yourself.

PS: Regarding people overrating themselves, I think there is something in this, and perhaps a reasonable explination. 

My memory is appaling. I forget names, face and people generally. I have no musical talent and struggle to plan my life more than a few days in advance. 

On the other hand, I have a PhD and was regarded in my lab and in my fields as often being the clever one. 

There might be another person with a great musical talent, who has a great memory for people and plans ahead well. We both would have reason to consider ourselves smarter than the other and probably would.

As you state, compatibility is important and we judge ourselves in terms of the people we are compatible with. I have some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen consider me an amazing man, but most attractive women (sorry for the shallowness, but it is the measure we discuss) would not look at me twice.


----------



## JayDee7

Marriage would be a bad idea for a man if all marriage were as OP described. Luckily, there are a few women left out there worth marrying. I am married to a beautiful woman who serves me very well in every aspect of life. Not all women are wife material, not all women are worthy to marry, not all women are submissive and beautiful, but if you find one she can make you a happy man. As a man I have a need and desire to please a woman, a worthy woman, I want to provide and protect her and she has a desire to serve me in return. It is actually pretty awesome.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it's a fact that men should do more to be physically attractive to women and stop trying to game them. We aren't buying the game crap, we want actual hot men.


Yes, the two main rules that men should follow are:

1. Be attractive; and
2. Don't be unattractive.

And fortunately they are so easy to follow!


----------



## Faithful Wife

tech-novelist said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it's a fact that men should do more to be physically attractive to women and stop trying to game them. We aren't buying the game crap, we want actual hot men.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the two main rules that men should follow are:
> 
> 1. Be attractive; and
> 2. Don't be unattractive.
> 
> And fortunately they are so easy to follow!
Click to expand...

Any man who finds it hard to figure out how they could be more attractive could easily get advice from a female friend or confidante. 

If the same man is already married or committed to a woman, then he should ask her how he can be more attractive for her. If she says "you're a 10 to me!" and also shows she is attracted to him with her actions, then he's probably got no need to be more attractive.

Hope this helps!


----------



## ConanHub

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not going to include ok Cupid studies in any of my opinions or consider it to be relevant to what I'm saying.
> 
> In my opinion, men rate themselves as more attractive than they are and men are the ones thinking they can date out of their league far more than women do.
> 
> And also in my opinion, men could be much more attractive if they spent more time and effort on doing so.
> 
> But instead it seems some of them would rather whine about how women are picky.
> 
> Yep. Sorry. Women are picky so if you want to get picked, do something about it rather than whine.


I couldn't agree with this post more and I have seen a lot of posts that place women in the same position.
Maybe most women do overestimate average but I certainly believe men do it as well.

Comments like "An average woman can get sex from good looking or average men anytime they want" are indicative of lacking knowledge of what average women look like.


----------



## tech-novelist

ConanHub said:


> I couldn't agree with this post more and I have seen a lot of posts that place women in the same position.
> Maybe most women do overestimate average but I certainly believe men do it as well.


That's not what the ******* data showed. It showed that men were quite accurate overall in their estimation of what "average women" looked like.
Unlike women, who were WAY too critical of the average man.



ConanHub said:


> Comments like "An average woman can get sex from good looking or average men anytime they want" are indicative of lacking knowledge of what average women look like.


If you seriously doubt that the average woman can fairly easily get sex from an average or above average man, I think that is indicative of lacking knowledge of the sex lives of average women.


----------



## MidnightBlue

I think the problem with sites like ******* is that physical attributes are front and center. There’s more time to sit, scrutinize, and pick apart someone’s physical appearance without influence of personality or chemistry. A below average man can suddenly become above average if a woman likes other things about him.


----------



## ConanHub

tech-novelist said:


> That's not what the ******* data showed. It showed that men were quite accurate overall in their estimation of what "average women" looked like.
> Unlike women, who were WAY too critical of the average man.
> 
> 
> 
> If you seriously doubt that the average woman can fairly easily get sex from an average or above average man, I think that is indicative of lacking knowledge of the sex lives of average women.


Got way more than my fair share of experience with women and my statements reflect it.

There are loads of women that get rejected. I would say, depending on environment, not at the same level as men but definitely enough to throw a questionable light on the myth you are purporting.

There are seriously dumb examples thrown out to prove the myth like if an average woman engages in incredibly reckless behavior, which would have a high likelihood of putting the woman in danger of serious harm, like walking into a biker gang's bar and asking for sex.

As far as regular dating and regular hookups go, a charming and confident average dude might actually get laid a bit more than his average female counterpart, especially if he has a good rep with the ladies.

I'm not including skilled seducers and players here, just regular folks.

When women feel safe and in an environment they feel safe to hunt in, they are every bit as aggressive in pursuit of a mate as men usually are.

This has been experimented with and proven.

When men are being hunted, they get more picky and when women hunt, they get less choosy.

Gaining knowledge about this is really all anyone, male or female needs to get some if they want it.

I figured it out young and never had problems gaining female attention even beating very tall and great looking men in the sexual arena.


----------



## tech-novelist

ConanHub said:


> Got way more than my fair share of experience with women and my statements reflect it.
> 
> There are loads of women that get rejected. I would say, depending on environment, not at the same level as men but definitely enough to throw a questionable light on the myth you are purporting.
> 
> There are seriously dumb examples thrown out to prove the myth like if an average woman engages in incredibly reckless behavior, which would have a high likelihood of putting the woman in danger of serious harm, like walking into a biker gang's bar and asking for sex.
> 
> As far as regular dating and regular hookups go, a charming and confident average dude might actually get laid a bit more than his average female counterpart, especially if he has a good rep with the ladies.
> 
> I'm not including skilled seducers and players here, just regular folks.
> 
> When women feel safe and in an environment they feel safe to hunt in, they are every bit as aggressive in pursuit of a mate as men usually are.
> 
> This has been experimented with and proven.
> 
> When men are being hunted, they get more picky and when women hunt, they get less choosy.
> 
> Gaining knowledge about this is really all anyone, male or female needs to get some if they want it.
> 
> I figured it out young and never had problems gaining female attention even beating very tall and great looking men in the sexual arena.


You are a perfect example of why natural alphas are the last people most men should ask for dating advice from.

I had a roommate in college who could have passed for one of the Beach Boys, and had the DGAF attitude to suit that level of attractiveness. He was a hit with the ladies, and I mean they were knockouts who would not have looked out of place as a Playboy centerfold.

As for me, I could have used a knowledge of game to be much more successful than I was, although I was way more successful than you would expect from my IQ (which is inversely correlated with early sexual activity).

Looking back, it was exactly when I didn't care as much as they did that I got the most attention from women. That is of course a given in game theory.

And there were many other times I just blew it from not knowing the score.

But I wouldn't have gotten much help from my gorgeous roommate either. He didn't need to know anything about game (as it is now known), so he probably wouldn't have.

I know others in the same category of looks (height, often) that allows them to be completely ignorant of the nature of intersexual relationships.

Most men can't afford that luxury.

I was on the edge. I guess I was attractive enough to get by with my snarky attitude probably helping among smart women in particular.

I know I'm married to one of the most beautiful women I've even known, so I must have done something right.


----------



## RandomDude

MidnightBlue said:


> I think the problem with sites like ******* is that physical attributes are front and center. There’s more time to sit, scrutinize, and pick apart someone’s physical appearance without influence of personality or chemistry. A below average man can suddenly become above average if a woman likes other things about him.


Well, 'tis why you get your best photo and stick it there, and if you don't look like the photo - best not to go on the prowl just yet!

As for the profile, just write <TOP SECRET> and leave it as that! 

Then start messaging ladies! Hell if I remember correctly I got quite a high response rate from ******* and dates, and that was even me being choosy!

So ya, looks matter! And thank the heavens for that! For I have nothing else to offer either than my prettiness!


----------



## messenger

youtube.com/watch?v=oEpIZnkjojY


----------



## MidnightBlue

RandomDude said:


> Well, 'tis why you get your best photo and stick it there, and if you don't look like the photo - best not to go on the prowl just yet!
> 
> As for the profile, just write <TOP SECRET> and leave it as that!
> 
> Then start messaging ladies! Hell if I remember correctly I got quite a high response rate from ******* and dates, and that was even me being choosy!
> 
> So ya, looks matter! And thank the heavens for that! For I have nothing else to offer either than my prettiness!


Well, judging from your profile pic, you like snarky kittens, so you also have that going for you.


----------



## john117

Social sciences guy says...

******* and the like are not representative samples as they are highly self selecting. More or less for "game" it's the same. The likelihood of a wild 24 year old 9 to be seduced at Bob's Bar and Grill on a Friday by a male 8 is irrelevant. They're both hunting.

In real life things are much more complicated. Try "game" on the same 24 year old 9 while at Meijer, or in a company get together or in grad school.


----------



## DTO

tech-novelist said:


> If you seriously doubt that the average woman can fairly easily get sex from an average or above average man, I think that is indicative of lacking knowledge of the sex lives of average women.


Not to split hairs, but there is a difference between "getting sex" and a "sex life". A complaint I've heard from several women is that they can get casual sex. Guys will offer "if you want to hook up / smash, give me a call", but getting more than that is difficult. Naturally, few women would be happy with that.

So yeah, just sex can be had, and lots of it if the women builds a big-enough network. But I doubt most women would consider that a "sex life" in any sort of positive sense.


----------



## DTO

RandomDude said:


> Well, 'tis why you get your best photo and stick it there, and if you don't look like the photo - best not to go on the prowl just yet!
> 
> As for the profile, just write <TOP SECRET> and leave it as that!
> 
> Then start messaging ladies! Hell if I remember correctly I got quite a high response rate from ******* and dates, and that was even me being choosy!
> 
> So ya, looks matter! And thank the heavens for that! For I have nothing else to offer either than my prettiness!


I put on a shirt and tie, and made sure my hair was tidy. Profile was brief - a few pertinent facts and a note about what I was like and what I sought. My sense if that you are genuinely relationship-minded and are decent in other regards, you will get attention.


----------



## samyeagar

DTO said:


> I put on a shirt and tie, and made sure my hair was tidy. Profile was brief - a few pertinent facts and a note about what I was like and what I sought. My sense if that you are genuinely relationship-minded and are decent in other regards, you will get attention.


Long greasy hair with a side ripped sleeveless t-shirt and a guitar in your hands on stage, with your profile saying you're a bad boy looking to settle down and turn good. Not necessarily going to get you marriage material, but that'll get you laid like tile.


----------



## Mr The Other

DTO said:


> I put on a shirt and tie, and made sure my hair was tidy. Profile was brief - a few pertinent facts and a note about what I was like and what I sought. My sense if that you are genuinely relationship-minded and are decent in other regards, you will get attention.


Right, here is how you do *******.

Pay.

Then, use your searches and do a few things:
- Look for men looking for women and search for the most popular profiles. See what they do.
- Have a few photos.
- Decide exactly what you are looking for and put it in your profile (you mention you do this, well done)
- Say a bit about yourself (you mention you do this, well done)

Having decided exactly what you ware looking for, find a few women who match that and look at the questions. Only answer questions that reflect this compatibility. As a man, you probably do not take the % Match seriously, women very much do. 

If you want to be master and patriarch of the home and want a woman who wants this, look for those questions. Answer to what is your ideal, and mark it as very important.

If you want to find a strong, feminist matriarch of the home, look for those questions. Answer to what is your ideal, and mark it as very important.

You will then have a very high match % with the women you want. Then you write to her, "I had a check out someone with whom I am a 98% match. I did not even know that was possible!".

I am good in a bar. Even in my advanced years. But, this is a better way.


----------



## Mr The Other

john117 said:


> Social sciences guy says...
> 
> ******* and the like are not representative samples as they are highly self selecting. More or less for "game" it's the same. The likelihood of a wild 24 year old 9 to be seduced at Bob's Bar and Grill on a Friday by a male 8 is irrelevant. They're both hunting.
> 
> In real life things are much more complicated. Try "game" on the same 24 year old 9 while at Meijer, or in a company get together or in grad school.


Having been rather good in the bar scene, it was witnessed by a chap who was into this sort of thing, and I was introduced to the PUA scene. I would take lads drinking with me. For all the technical crap, most of them did not have to learn much, just find out how they were mucking it up.


----------



## DTO

I did Match.com, mainly because I thought a site where people generally pay to belong was a good idea. I did not research profiles of ladies with whom I might want to have in an LTR. I was honestly just seeing what was out there and set out to meet people, so I didn't have to "back into" a profile to target a specific type of person.

I did fill out my profile thoughtfully and messaged a few ladies; other stuff came up and I stopped putting out feelers. I did log in periodically and was surprised to find a fair number of ladies approached me in a matter of days. I followed up on a couple, then met someone IRL so I suspended my profile and let my subscription lapse.

My point is that I didn't think I was any big deal, but the ladies felt differently, it would seem. It really opened my eyes that if you have something to offer a lady, a decent photo, and can write a couple of paragraphs you should get noticed, by at least a few decent women. If you don't, then you're targeting the wrong group (in your 40s looking for 20s for instance) or you simply need to build your own life to make it attractive to someone else.



Mr The Other said:


> Right, here is how you do *******.
> 
> Pay.
> 
> Then, use your searches and do a few things:
> - Look for men looking for women and search for the most popular profiles. See what they do.
> - Have a few photos.
> - Decide exactly what you are looking for and put it in your profile (you mention you do this, well done)
> - Say a bit about yourself (you mention you do this, well done)
> 
> Having decided exactly what you ware looking for, find a few women who match that and look at the questions. Only answer questions that reflect this compatibility. As a man, you probably do not take the % Match seriously, women very much do.
> 
> If you want to be master and patriarch of the home and want a woman who wants this, look for those questions. Answer to what is your ideal, and mark it as very important.
> 
> If you want to find a strong, feminist matriarch of the home, look for those questions. Answer to what is your ideal, and mark it as very important.
> 
> You will then have a very high match % with the women you want. Then you write to her, "I had a check out someone with whom I am a 98% match. I did not even know that was possible!".
> 
> I am good in a bar. Even in my advanced years. But, this is a better way.


----------



## Mr The Other

DTO said:


> I did Match.com, mainly because I thought a site where people generally pay to belong was a good idea. I did not research profiles of ladies with whom I might want to have in an LTR. I was honestly just seeing what was out there and set out to meet people, so I didn't have to "back into" a profile to target a specific type of person.
> 
> I did fill out my profile thoughtfully and messaged a few ladies; other stuff came up and I stopped putting out feelers. I did log in periodically and was surprised to find a fair number of ladies approached me in a matter of days. I followed up on a couple, then met someone IRL so I suspended my profile and let my subscription lapse.
> 
> My point is that I didn't think I was any big deal, but the ladies felt differently, it would seem. It really opened my eyes that if you have something to offer a lady, a decent photo, and can write a couple of paragraphs you should get noticed, by at least a few decent women. If you don't, then you're targeting the wrong group (in your 40s looking for 20s for instance) or you simply need to build your own life to make it attractive to someone else.


Indeed, as you get older the market does favour men. Ultmately, we are looking for love and a meaningful relationship, so the market talk is distasteful. On thing that favours older guys is that there will be some 21 year old girls genuinely attracted men twice their age, but rarely 21 year men going for 42 year old women.

I had a bad experience with the dating scene though. Generally, people single in their 40's are single for a reason. If a woman's partner was an ass and they were decent, they will be reluctant to date again, but are likely to be quickly snapped up when they do. If they were the ass, they will be keen to go dating again and will stay on the scene a lot longer. It gave me an unfairly bad view of single middle aged women until I thought it through. 

I actually found Tinder better oddly enough. It was women who had genuine bad experiences of relationships , but had a sex drive. It seems that often women only complain about their men, which means women who have had bad relationships think it is normal.


----------



## Diana7

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed, as you get older the market does favour men. Ultmately, we are looking for love and a meaningful relationship, so the market talk is distasteful. On thing that favours older guys is that there will be some 21 year old girls genuinely attracted men twice their age, but rarely 21 year men going for 42 year old women.
> 
> I had a bad experience with the dating scene though. Generally, people single in their 40's are single for a reason. If a woman's partner was an ass and they were decent, they will be reluctant to date again, but are likely to be quickly snapped up when they do. If they were the ass, they will be keen to go dating again and will stay on the scene a lot longer. It gave me an unfairly bad view of single middle aged women until I thought it through.
> 
> I actually found Tinder better oddly enough. It was women who had genuine bad experiences of relationships , but had a sex drive. It seems that often women only complain about their men, which means women who have had bad relationships think it is normal.


The ladies I know who have done online dating thought it was sick that men more than 20 years older(their dads age) were trying it on with them. A few years older maybe, but not 15-20 or more.


----------



## Mr The Other

Diana7 said:


> The ladies I know who have done online dating thought it was sick that men more than 20 years older(their dads age) were trying it on with them. A few years older maybe, but not 15-20 or more.


I thought you might disapprove.

I am part of a sports organisation and that means I mix with people far younger for much of the time. It is rare that a woman twenty years younger will approach me, but I assure you it happens. 

I shall pass on your condemnation if you like. I have not approached women 15-20 years younger online I am afraid, but I am sure there are lots of other things about me that you will disapprove of :grin2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed, as you get older the market does favour men. Ultmately, we are looking for love and a meaningful relationship, so the market talk is distasteful. On thing that favours older guys is that there will be some 21 year old girls genuinely attracted men twice their age, *but rarely 21 year men going for 42 year old women*.


The bolded is untrue. It happens quite frequently, and yes, there is genuine attraction from the men.

For a long time, men have told themselves that other men aren't into older women and for a long time this was a taboo type of thing whereas the older man/younger woman thing wasn't necessarily taboo.

Now that younger people don't feel the shackles of the taboos that older people used to put on themselves and others, young men are free to be attracted to older women and it happens quite frequently.

It could be argued that there will come a time for such a couple when the attraction may not be there anymore if there is a big enough age gap....yet that is also true when the man is older too, it is just that men are still telling themselves that it isn't true because of some strange belief that they (men) are more attractive when they are older than women are. Something men used to feel they had "one up" over women about. It has never been true and never will be. Both men and women age and some get less and less attractive and others don't get less attractive at all, and some get even more attractive.


----------



## Mr The Other

Faithful Wife said:


> The bolded is untrue. It happens quite frequently, and yes, there is genuine attraction from the men.
> 
> For a long time, men have told themselves that other men aren't into older women and for a long time this was a taboo type of thing whereas the older man/younger woman thing wasn't necessarily taboo.
> 
> Now that younger people don't feel the shackles of the taboos that older people used to put on themselves and others, young men are free to be attracted to older women and it happens quite frequently.
> 
> It could be argued that there will come a time for such a couple when the attraction may not be there anymore if there is a big enough age gap....yet that is also true when the man is older too, it is just that men are still telling themselves that it isn't true because of some strange belief that they (men) are more attractive when they are older than women are. Something men used to feel they had "one up" over women about. It has never been true and never will be. Both men and women age and some get less and less attractive and others don't get less attractive at all, and some get even more attractive.


Fair enough. I am happy to be corrected. In fact, I find that rather beautiful. I have certainly heard women remark that men are kidding themselves if they think young women would be interested. Surprisingly they are and that should apply to men and women alike.

I am in Scandinavia, which is rather more into the future than the UK or USA. I have had a 21 year-old tell me that she was looking forward to proposing to me on the 29th February 2020 (and would I mind being a house husband). 

I also had my girlfriend have a talk to be later when a girl of a similar age was very forward with me. I did not want to apologise, as I had not provoked it, but you cannot have that attention from a pretty girl and not get in trouble I thought. Instead, she was merely concerned that I had not felt objectified by the attenion!

The world is changing and I do not find it a bad thing.

Before Diana7 condemns again, my girlfriend is rather older than both of those two and a highly educated and capable woman.


----------



## Diana7

Mr The Other said:


> I thought you might disapprove.
> 
> I am part of a sports organisation and that means I mix with people far younger for much of the time. It is rare that a woman twenty years younger will approach me, but I assure you it happens.
> 
> I shall pass on your condemnation if you like. I have not approached women 15-20 years younger online I am afraid, but I am sure there are lots of other things about me that you will disapprove of :grin2:


Its not about disapproving, its about what women have told me. I am sure there are a few women who will go after an older man (usually if he has money),but its not that common. 
Most of us want a partner not a dad, my husband is actually slightly younger than me.


----------



## Mr The Other

Diana7 said:


> Its not about disapproving, its about what women have told me. I am sure there are a few women who will go after an older man (usually if he has money),but its not that common.
> Most of us want a partner not a dad, my husband is actually slightly younger than me.


It is certainly a minority who prefer a much older partner in my experience. I am sure money helps, though it would be very rare for it to be enough. Fame on the other hand, well that works.

I think most men want a partner and then to have their own daughter after that. 

Have a good night!


----------



## FieryHairedLady

Diana7 said:


> Its not about disapproving, its about what women have told me. I am sure there are a few women who will go after an older man (usually if he has money),but its not that common.
> Most of us want a partner not a dad, my husband is actually slightly younger than me.


How much younger is your husband?

My husband is 4 1/2 years younger then me.


----------



## FieryHairedLady

When I was 15, my best friend liked MUCH older guys. 20 years older. She would be drooling and I'd be like, yuck! That's daddy age to me! 

She liked younger guys our age too.

One of her long term relationships in our early 20's was with a man twice her age. (Several year relationship)

Another of her long term relationships was with a man when we were in our 30's, he was about 15 years older then her. Maybe 20?They stayed together for 4 years or so.

Oh and neither of these guys was rich or even well off. Not home owners. Didn't have a good career. Just getting by like she was.


----------



## WildMustang

Let me just say this, not to sound like I am bragging, but @faithfulwife is right about this dynamic where younger men are very much attracted to older women nowadays. This has very much been my experience and the experience of my gal pals. I am 52 and I have always taken excellent care of myself - my body, my skin, my diet, my hair, etc. (It makes a huge difference). 

I dress well, smell good, look good, smile a lot, am approachable, a good conversationalist, love to laugh and have a good time, etc. 

My girlfriends (also early 50s) and I are constantly hit on and asked out by men in the 28-45 year age range, whether we are having a girls night out, lunch, shopping, gym, bookstore, you name it.

It's a running joke between us whenever we go out anywhere. We have a contest to see which one of us gets hit on the LEAST by "pups" as we call them.

My explanation? I think these young men sense we are sex positive women who love to have orgasms and they may be tired of sex with the younger women their age who perhaps are not yet comfortable in their own skin, sexually speaking. I also think it is a bit of a "trophy" thing in their minds to bed a hot woman who is old enough to be their mom - the "Mrs. Robinson" fantasy.

But it is very much a real thing. My friends and I get hit on by young men as much as men our own age, if not more.


----------



## BioFury

My girlfriend is about 9 months older than me, and I'm very attracted to her :grin2: And she just so happens to be the woman I'm going to marry.


----------



## musicftw07

WildMustang said:


> I think these young men sense we are sex positive women who love to have orgasms and they may be tired of sex with the younger women their age who perhaps are not yet comfortable in their own skin, sexually speaking.


Nailed it.

I'm 38, and my girlfriend just turned 40. But I look significantly younger than my age. She once told me that she that thought I was the kind of guy who would probably like young, "perky" girls because she thought I was much younger.

I basically told her exactly this. I've had my share of sexual partners, but none could even hold a candle to her. Not even friggin' close.


----------



## Mr The Other

WildMustang said:


> Let me just say this, not to sound like I am bragging, but @faithfulwife is right about this dynamic where younger men are very much attracted to older women nowadays. This has very much been my experience and the experience of my gal pals. I am 52 and I have always taken excellent care of myself - my body, my skin, my diet, my hair, etc. (It makes a huge difference).
> 
> I dress well, smell good, look good, smile a lot, am approachable, a good conversationalist, love to laugh and have a good time, etc.
> 
> My girlfriends (also early 50s) and I are constantly hit on and asked out by men in the 28-45 year age range, whether we are having a girls night out, lunch, shopping, gym, bookstore, you name it.
> 
> It's a running joke between us whenever we go out anywhere. We have a contest to see which one of us gets hit on the LEAST by "pups" as we call them.
> 
> My explanation? I think these young men sense we are sex positive women who love to have orgasms and they may be tired of sex with the younger women their age who perhaps are not yet comfortable in their own skin, sexually speaking. I also think it is a bit of a "trophy" thing in their minds to bed a hot woman who is old enough to be their mom - the "Mrs. Robinson" fantasy.
> 
> But it is very much a real thing. My friends and I get hit on by young men as much as men our own age, if not more.


There is something to be said for keeping yourself together mentally and physically. 

Many people complain about the other sex not maintaining themselves (women complaining about men publically, and men more covertly) and for many it is not possible. For others, they accept that as they get older, they will no longer be able to relate to younger people and their feet will no longer be visible when standing up.

I think it is a minority that like much older, but increasingly their choices are very limited. Ladies such as Inloveforeverwithhubby's friend actually end up out numbering the number of older men whom they can relate to in that way.


----------



## tech-novelist

DTO said:


> Not to split hairs, but there is a difference between "getting sex" and a "sex life". A complaint I've heard from several women is that they can get casual sex. Guys will offer "if you want to hook up / smash, give me a call", but getting more than that is difficult. Naturally, few women would be happy with that.
> 
> So yeah, just sex can be had, and lots of it if the women builds a big-enough network. *But I doubt most women would consider that a "sex life" in any sort of positive sense.*


Perhaps not, but most average *men* would consider that a sex life in a positive sense.

So you are actually helping me make my point.


----------



## DTO

tech-novelist said:


> Perhaps not, but most average *men* would consider that a sex life in a positive sense.
> 
> So you are actually helping me make my point.


Your point (from what I can tell) is a non-sequitur. Having access to something you don't want does not yield an advantage.

MY point is about satisfaction, which includes quantity yet goes beyond that to consider one's qualitative perception of the experience. It's true that the average woman can get laid in some fashion more readily than the average man. But, if she does not want a booty call, then how can you claim that ability has any sort of value? That men would be happy with that isn't relevant here.

Also, I'm not sure your average man would be happy with a succession of booty calls. I don't want sex with a person to whom I'm not sufficient attracted otherwise, and haven't since my college days. At least in my circle, I'm not significantly different than average.


----------



## DTO

I agree with all this. I don't go "on the hunt" generally but instead keep an eye open for possibilities as I live my life. I approach a lady who looks like she has something going on (or vice versa), then we communicate, spend time together, and go from there. What anyone else thinks matters not a whit.

I was only taking exception to the premises that men are generally less attractive than women and the ones trying to bat out of their league. I think people can aim high for someone whom they find attractive, at least at some point; I don't think it's gender-specific. And, I don't think women date those who are far beneath them; some factors other than physical attractiveness make up the difference.



Faithful Wife said:


> I think it's much simpler than all of that.
> 
> Attraction happens between two people. If they are attracted to each other, it's no one else's say whether there is a match as far as the individual attractiveness of each one is or trying to rank their attractiveness. If Joe and Jane rank each other as 10's and you would rank them as 5, your rank is the one that is meaningless. Theirs is what counts.
> 
> I don't go around looking at people and thinking "hmmm, who is approximately as attractive as I am?"
> 
> I just go around open to being attracted to people and then naturally being drawn towards those who have a mutual attraction to me...


----------



## tech-novelist

DTO said:


> Your point (from what I can tell) is a non-sequitur. Having access to something you don't want does not yield an advantage.


It is not at all non-sequitur because it points out the different sexual market dynamics experienced by men as compared with women. 



DTO said:


> MY point is about satisfaction, which includes quantity yet goes beyond that to consider one's qualitative perception of the experience. It's true that the average woman can get laid in some fashion more readily than the average man. But, if she does not want a booty call, then how can you claim that ability has any sort of value? That men would be happy with that isn't relevant here.


It is relevant because it demonstrates what was to be demonstrated, which is that women have more power in the sexual marketplace than do men.



DTO said:


> Also, I'm not sure your average man would be happy with a succession of booty calls. I don't want sex with a person to whom I'm not sufficient attracted otherwise, and haven't since my college days. At least in my circle, I'm not significantly different than average.


Then your circle is highly non-representative of the general society, at least in the US. Most men live much of their lives in a sexual desert.


----------



## Mr The Other

tech-novelist said:


> It is not at all non-sequitur because it points out the different sexual market dynamics experienced by men as compared with women.
> 
> It is relevant because it demonstrates what was to be demonstrated, which is that women have more power in the sexual marketplace than do men.
> 
> Then your circle is highly non-representative of the general society, at least in the US. Most men live much of their lives in a sexual desert.


My first thought to your last comment was that it conflicted with my experience, as my four years of living all over the USA almost wore my ding-dong out. 

Then I rethought.

The average American man is about 5'9", earns about $35,000, is a bit overweight and is a little below average is terms of looks in the eyes of most American women. Suggest to the average American woman that he is a good match for her and she might well be offended.

I wore my ding-dong out as I was, in terms of attractiveness, so far above this that attractive women accepted they would have to share. 

What the American male population as a whole can do about this is nothing. If the average rises, so will standards.

But, individually, there is great potential to be well above average for many men.


----------



## DTO

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed, as you get older the market does favour men. Ultmately, we are looking for love and a meaningful relationship, so the market talk is distasteful. On thing that favours older guys is that there will be some 21 year old girls genuinely attracted men twice their age, but rarely 21 year men going for 42 year old women.


I'd be surprised if lots of women preferred much older guys for a relationship. I'm in a relationship with a lady 15 years younger, and had a past GF be 12 years younger. I've also asked around about this, and neither what I've done or heard indicates that sizable numbers of very young women prefer men old enough to be their fathers. The majority opinion seems to be neutral - don't let the age gap stop you if you like him.

Some though, like my current GF, see it as something that takes adjustment and consideration. We had plenty of chemistry, so lots of good times, but when it came to an LTR, we both had to think it through. Do I want to have a hand is raising young children again? Is she okay with outliving me by ~20 years and/or needing to take care of me in my old age when she would be at those prime post-child years? Given the challenges in having a relationship with someone much older, I just can't see someone preferring that (unless we are just talking about a casual situation).

I'm not sure about things getting easier for men as they age, as a rule. I can see where some characteristics that women find attractive (at least stereotypically) - confidence, stability, intelligence/knowledge - tend to endure as we age. OTOH, I think lacking those factors would be a bigger negative for a guy than for a woman. How many women at a certain age say that - at a minimum - a guy must be financially independent (comfortable)? It seems to me that a guy with his life together relatively better in his later years, but that's a huge condition.



Mr The Other said:


> Generally, people single in their 40's are single for a reason.


You mean people who have never been married? I can see one's 40s being a fairly common age to be single. You have midlife crises coming into play. Kids probably are older /more independent so the impetus to stay together for them is lessened. In my early-40s I started looking hard at what I want for my later years. That came about from a realization that retirement is coming up quickly, and (thankfully) that I will be able to afford a good retirement with lots of options; those things come into focus around this age generally. I like my romantic life where it is right now (unmarried but in an LTR), but you can bet if my love life needed a change I'd tackle that now too.


----------



## Mr The Other

DTO said:


> I'd be surprised if lots of women preferred much older guys for a relationship. I'm in a relationship with a lady 15 years younger, and had a past GF be 12 years younger. I've also asked around about this, and neither what I've done or heard indicates that sizable numbers of very young women prefer men old enough to be their fathers. The majority opinion seems to be neutral - don't let the age gap stop you if you like him.
> 
> Some though, like my current GF, see it as something that takes adjustment and consideration. We had plenty of chemistry, so lots of good times, but when it came to an LTR, we both had to think it through. Do I want to have a hand is raising young children again? Is she okay with outliving me by ~20 years and/or needing to take care of me in my old age when she would be at those prime post-child years? Given the challenges in having a relationship with someone much older, I just can't see someone preferring that (unless we are just talking about a casual situation).
> 
> I'm not sure about things getting easier for men as they age, as a rule. I can see where some characteristics that women find attractive (at least stereotypically) - confidence, stability, intelligence/knowledge - tend to endure as we age. OTOH, I think lacking those factors would be a bigger negative for a guy than for a woman. How many women at a certain age say that - at a minimum - a guy must be financially independent (comfortable)? It seems to me that a guy with his life together relatively better in his later years, but that's a huge condition.


I certainly did not suggest that the bulk of younger women prefer much older men! There is a sizable minority that do and if that is 1 in 10, I would suggest that fewer than 1 in 10 much older men are actually desirible.



DTO said:


> You mean people who have never been married? I can see one's 40s being a fairly common age to be single. You have midlife crises coming into play. Kids probably are older /more independent so the impetus to stay together for them is lessened. In my early-40s I started looking hard at what I want for my later years. That came about from a realization that retirement is coming up quickly, and (thankfully) that I will be able to afford a good retirement with lots of options; those things come into focus around this age generally. I like my romantic life where it is right now (unmarried but in an LTR), but you can bet if my love life needed a change I'd tackle that now too.


I will say that on the dating scene, I met disporpotionate numbers of women in their 40's who were no longer physically attractive and perhaps not that charming, who seemed to take for granted that I would be eager to look after their kids, financial, physical and emotional needs and that I had to prove I was worth the honour. This is not a fair sample, as these were the ones who were very keen to date and stayed single.

The ones that had bad experiences with men would be less willing to date (understandably), and the ones that were charming and giving would be snapped up. Again, a gross generalization. But it is to show the danger of assuming those we meet are typical.


----------



## tech-novelist

Mr The Other said:


> My first thought to your last comment was that it conflicted with my experience, as my four years of living all over the USA almost wore my ding-dong out.
> 
> Then I rethought.
> 
> The average American man is about 5'9", earns about $35,000, is a bit overweight and is a little below average is terms of looks in the eyes of most American women. Suggest to the average American woman that he is a good match for her and she might well be offended.
> 
> I wore my ding-dong out as I was, in terms of attractiveness, so far above this that attractive women accepted they would have to share.
> 
> What the American male population as a whole can do about this is nothing. If the average rises, so will standards.
> 
> But, individually, there is great potential to be well above average for many men.


Very good analysis.


----------



## tech-novelist

DTO said:


> I'm not sure about things getting easier for men as they age, as a rule. I can see where some characteristics that women find attractive (at least stereotypically) - confidence, stability, intelligence/knowledge - tend to endure as we age. OTOH, I think lacking those factors would be a bigger negative for a guy than for a woman. How many women at a certain age say that - at a minimum - a guy must be financially independent (comfortable)? It seems to me that a guy with his life together relatively better in his later years, but that's a huge condition.


I'm pretty sure that a 40 year old man in good financial and physical shape would be VERY attractive to a lot of women in their 20's. This is quite in line with historical precedent up to as late as the early 20th century, even though now it is considered weird for some reason.


----------



## Married but Happy

tech-novelist said:


> I'm pretty sure that a 40 year old man in good financial and physical shape would be VERY attractive to a lot of women in their 20's. This is quite in line with historical precedent up to as late as the early 20th century, even though now it is considered weird for some reason.


Perhaps so, but not in my experience with dating when I was in my early 40s - of course, I was clear in my OLD profile that I absolutely did not want more children, so perhaps that was why they weren't interested. At most, women 10 years younger would be interested. I am considerably older now, and get much more interest from up to 25 years younger. Simple demographics works in my favor in this, and being reasonably fit, financially stable, and kind don't hurt my prospects.


----------



## Mr The Other

tech-novelist said:


> Very good analysis.


Thank you!

I think it is the first time we have agreed


----------



## Mr The Other

tech-novelist said:


> I'm pretty sure that a 40 year old man in good financial and physical shape would be VERY attractive to a lot of women in their 20's. This is quite in line with historical precedent up to as late as the early 20th century, even though now it is considered weird for some reason.


As a man in good shape in his 40s, I was less attractive to women in their 30s, but it was still a very comfortable position.



Married but Happy said:


> Perhaps so, but not in my experience with dating when I was in my early 40s - of course, I was clear in my OLD profile that I absolutely did not want more children, so perhaps that was why they weren't interested. At most, women 10 years younger would be interested. I am considerably older now, and get much more interest from up to 25 years younger. Simple demographics works in my favor in this, and being reasonably fit, financially stable, and kind don't hurt my prospects.


I did not have kids with my wife, so I would be interested. Women my own age are after a step-Dad of course.


----------



## Livvie

tech-novelist said:


> DTO said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about things getting easier for men as they age, as a rule. I can see where some characteristics that women find attractive (at least stereotypically) - confidence, stability, intelligence/knowledge - tend to endure as we age. OTOH, I think lacking those factors would be a bigger negative for a guy than for a woman. How many women at a certain age say that - at a minimum - a guy must be financially independent (comfortable)? It seems to me that a guy with his life together relatively better in his later years, but that's a huge condition.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that a 40 year old man in good financial and physical shape would be VERY attractive to a lot of women in their 20's. This is quite in line with historical precedent up to as late as the early 20th century, even though now it is considered weird for some reason.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my experience. 40 year old men can still be physically attractive to a woman in her 20s (because he's not considered total old man yet) but as far as settling down with, in my experience, 20 something women were interested in 20 something men. Old isn't really a plus. It's just old.


----------



## Mr The Other

Livvie said:


> That wasn't my experience. 40 year old men can still be physically attractive to a woman in her 20s (because he's not considered total old man yet) but as far as settling down with, in my experience, 20 something women were interested in 20 something men. Old isn't really a plus. It's just old.


I really do think it is a mix. 

There are a minority that do seem to prefer old, but being at different stages of life does make a difference. I know a young girl twenty years younger than me that would like to settle down. Obviously, I have to decline.


----------

