Marriage is Dying in Lower Class America

Despite (or because of) the MGTOW movement, feminism creating greater equality, and the wealth of options for single people, the nature of marriage has changed.

This is a good thing.

No longer do women feel obligated to forgo an education, skip a career, and move directly from her father’s house to her husband’s house at age 21, like my Mom did.

No longer do women feel obligated to forgo an education, skip a career, and move directly from her father’s house to her husband’s house at age 21, like my Mom did.

Women graduate college at a 1/3 higher rate and 40% of working wives now out-earn their husbands. Which means marriage is not a necessity, but a luxury.

Does that mean marriage is dying? Not by a long shot. But in lower-class communities, it certainly seems to be on a respirator. From the New York Times:

“Fewer Americans are marrying overall, and whether they do so is more tied to socioeconomic status than ever before. In recent years, marriage has sharply declined among people without college degrees, while staying steady among college graduates with higher incomes. Currently, 26 percent of poor adults, 39 percent of working-class adults and 56 percent of middle- and upper-class adults ages 18 to 55 are married.”

Keep in mind: most people still want to fall in love and get married. But women loathe  hitching their trains to men with less education and income. Understandably so.

Keep in mind: most people still want to fall in love and get married.

As I mentioned in this piece, there is a greater stratification in behavior between rich and poor than ever before when it comes to marriage.

“College graduates are more likely to plot their lives methodically — vetting people they date until they’re sure they want to move in with them, and using birth control to delay childbirth until their careers are underway.

Less educated people are more likely to move in with boyfriends or girlfriends in a matter of months, and to get pregnant at a younger age and before marriage. This can make financial and family stability harder to achieve later on.”

Finally, the author of the piece, Claire Cain Miller, does a great job in looking at this issue without judgment, from both sides of the aisle. She concludes that there are no easy answers and that marriage may never return to the lower class as it existed before.

“When thinking about how to make families more stable, researchers debate whether the decline in marriage is an economic issue or a cultural one. Those on the left usually say it’s economic — and could be reversed if there were more and better jobs for men without college degrees. Those on the right are more likely to say it’s because of a deterioration of cultural values.

In reality, economics and culture both play a role, and influence each other, social scientists say. When well-paying jobs became scarce for less educated men, they became less likely to marry. As a result, the culture changed: Marriage was no longer the norm, and out-of-wedlock childbirth was accepted. Even if jobs returned, an increase in marriage wouldn’t necessarily immediately follow.”

Your thoughts, as always, are greatly appreciated, in the comments section below.

Join our conversation (216 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 1
    Jeremy

    I think that, at least traditionally, marriage served a different purpose than long-term relationships.  Relationships were about love; Marriage was about securing a guarantee, regardless of the continued presence or absence of love.  The guarantee sought was against each gender’s traditional fear – women’s fear of being abandoned with children and no income, men’s fear of being cuckolded and having to raise another man’s children.  The legal construct of marriage forces the man to provide continued provisioning to a woman after divorce, thereby providing a strong dis-incentive for him to leave her and compensation if he does.  But this only holds as long as he is the higher-income spouse.  If she is the higher-income spouse, her husband has no strong dis-incentive to leave her, and SHE needs to compensate him financially if he decides to leave.  In other words, marriage no longer protects her against her fears.  So what does she need it for?

     

    Now, does modern marriage protect men against their traditional fears?  Not really.  Which is why men are generally the ones who want marriage less, and are the guardians of commitment.  Remove income as a factor, though, and that reverses.

  2. 2
    Robyn

    ” If she is the higher-income spouse, her husband has no strong dis-incentive to leave her, and SHE needs to compensate him financially if he decides to leave.  In other words, marriage no longer protects her against her fears.  So what does she need it for?”

    I believe this is why a significant number of divorced women do not want to re-marry.
    If they’re done with having and raising children, and are well enough off that they don’t need a husband to support them, but they aren’t so well off that they can afford to support a husband, then marrying again (especially to someone less well off) is not in their best interests legally or financially.

    In addition, since women live quite a bit longer than men, I think there are a lot of “older” women out there who don’t want to lose 50% – or even a just third – of whatever retirement savings they may have in a divorce. And even if you have a pre-nup, they are are not always enforceable in every state, and there are limits to their validity in many states as well.
    So for a lot of folks it’s best to avoid divorce by not getting married in the first place 😉

    Same thing applies to a lot of “older” men too.
    Just had this exact same conversation with a retired guy who has had the same girlfriend for 15 years (but doesn’t want to make it a legal marriage).
    And they are both quite happy with that arrangement.

  3. 3
    Olongapo

    Hmmmm……the numbers support this.

    The overall divorce rate in the US has dropped slightly and steadied to around 45%.  The divorce rate for higher income/better educated folks has dropped significantly but has increased significantly for Boomers (55-64) and the actual marriage rate for all people in the younger clades has dropped.

    Assigning blame is liable to cause a fistfight however, there are some  factors that need to be at least discussed before addressing a solution.

    *Women initiate 75% of the divorces.  Approximately 16% of those are for things like domestic violence, substance abuse, infidelity, criminal activity, etc.

    *Student debt is a huge issue that follows people into their 30’s and beyond and this affects the ability to save for a home or to establish a base.

    *Most men have witnessed relatives, or friends, get raked over the coals during a divorce and so this creates the appearance of significant economic loss for a long period of time.  These guys see what they see and make their decisions accordingly.

    Here come the fightin’ words;

    *The very nature of hypergamy makes it nearly impossible for some women to “marry” down.  It doesn’t feel right in the hindbrain for evolutionary reasons.  There doesn’t seem to be too many issues with short-term liaisons but when it comes to protecting those eggs, Joe the plumber just doesn’t seem like a good prospect (even though he may make more than his attorney girlfriend). He just ain’t right because a lot of women envision their future spouse as being someone more like them.  (Although I have seen it work)

    *Easy and affordable access to hormonal birth control has reduced the risk of unwanted pregnancy outside of marriage.  It’s opened up many opportunities to explore relationships without major consequence(other than perhaps catching cooties),with multiple partners.

    *Increases in employment and income potential has risen substantially for women and so “marrying for love” as opposed to marrying for necessity or economic reasons, becomes paramount.

    They don’t need men. Period.

    Let me unpack this;

    Strip away the thin veneer and comforts of civilization and increase barriers to survival to a point equivalent to even the 1930’s, men were needed.  They farmed, they built things, they hunted, they protected, they provided.  Not applicable in modern Western society.  Women for the majority of human history needed men to do these things in order to successfully reproduce because of long pregnancies and long childhoods.

    Men don’t have a job anymore and for lower income guys who can’t even land a living wage gig in a mill, it’s even more apparent, so why bother.  There’s no reward in it.

    I want to stress the biology here.  Men need a “job” in order to feel right.  They gotta have a purpose and when lower class guys finally understand they are indeed disposable, they’re going to give up taking that next step because they don’t see a payout.  Why bother when the chances of her leaving are pretty high.  Who wants to take that risk?

    I do feel bad for today’s Millennial women as they glance around seeking their Prince Charming and he’s not to be found in the 400 level classes at her State college. I also feel bad for young American men who by no fault of their own, have lost the opportunity to prove up and take that final step into providership and adulthood.

    Marriage has become a very high risk proposition for all men these days. Even more so for lower class guys who stand to lose everything should it fail. Kind’ve like loading 3 rounds into a 6 shot revolver and playing Russian roulette.

    This same biology drives men and women who were lucky enough to be born into a class that emphasizes education and achievement but don’t have to fight for daily survival, gives them the luxury to plan and most importantly, to marry later because their basic needs were never in question.  These folks can do a lot in mitigating their limbic impulses and can better select partners who are more like them because they’re not having to hustle so much just to live.

    Discount the “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW) movement all you want but it wouldn’t be there if there weren’t a need.

    Hey,  good luck with this.

     

     

    1. 3.1
      JB

      I would say it’s worse for the once divorced crowd ages 35-60. The women that have had children already get child support from their exes so they don’t need to remarry for anything and the men that are paying that support have already taken a financial beating and can barely afford to date let alone try and find a new wife and support her too.

  4. 4
    Amy

    Yes, I am from a lower class, blue collar family. I did not have much guidance in my early adult years. The goal from my parents was to just get me out of the house and have me paying my own bills. My boyfriend from my 20s and I moved in together. Even though we lived together for 5 years, we split when our son was just a baby. I tried really hard to find love after that. I made sure my figure came back, I tried to be financially independent enough to live on my own with my son, and I even managed to have a little extra time for social life. Something about me, whether is was my situation, or my psych made me attract emotionally unavailable men. I was with men who looked good on paper, but they would walk all over me. Now I have to kids out of wedlock to two different men. My goal is to just be a good provider, and be there for my kids. I have a profile on match still, but I simply don’t feel i can be everything a man these days wants anymore, independent, sexy, career driven, domesticated, no kids, plenty of time to date… It’s just impossible for me any more

    1. 4.1
      Chris

      Its not so much you attracting a certain type of man, but that you, consciously or unconsciously, select for these type of men. These are the type of men you find most attractive. You say you can’t be everything a man wants, but men’s wants and needs varies enormously. There would be plenty of men who would be attracted to you, but would you be attracted to them? You are probably selecting for a narrow range of men, those men who you feel “chemistry” for, and excluding men who would be interested in you.

      1. 4.1.1
        Stacy

        @Chris,

        So are you implying that a woman should date men she doesn’t feel chemistry for?

  5. 5
    Scott

    Women can thank themselves for this…all the money made them masculine that they earned. So all dynamics are screwed up.

    1. 5.1
      D_M

      Scott,

      Can you expand on your first sentence a little bit more? I’m trying to get a sense of how you are correlating cultural shifts.

      1. 5.1.1
        Scott

        Alot for a man is dictated by his earning potential…his confidence in his ability to potential take care of a family and be that security…women have gotten more money so they are masculine in the sense of how a man with money will revel in all his percieved options of the women he can have…but at his core he still sees himself as a man that should and wants to one day provide…but a woman she ebjoys the idea options with the woman but at heart will never a sense of wanting to provide…innately she still and will always want to be provided for…so the money she has earned has negatively impacted her stance when dealing with men…i have always said if a woman and a man has 5 dollars each they are not equal…but when the man has 7.50 and she has 2.50 then and only then are they equal…instinctively he wants to give her some of his and she instinctively is all for receiving/taking it, nkt the other way around

        1. ljsrmissy

          Here is the thing… Women are full, robust, 360-degree human beings and not extensions of or tools of men unless they want to be. I am not saying that you said or suggested the above, I just believe that is how men still look at women generally. Men have to get honest and contexualize how and why countless women created and supported womens sufferage and rights in the first place. What was going on at that time according to the WOMEN. People today like to idealize and romanticize the 50’s and 60’s societal structure…I don’t. Women had no CHOICE but to go to her fathers house to her husbands house where enough women were getting beat, alcoholic/gambling husbands, controlled,verbally/emotionally abused, cheated on, neglected, possible abuse/sexual abuse of their children, and having to ask for money to buy tampons/pads and having to hear lectures on why she needs the money or how the husband pays the bills around here. Again people who detract from feminist principals need to ask the women that were THERE WHYYYY enough of them wanted another option or wanted out all together. Also even to this day, nothing is stopping women seeking a traditional dynamic with a potential husband if that is why she wants. All women did not embrace feminism even though all women benefited from it in my opinion. Overall I personally feel that women adapted and evolved where men have not. That is the law of nature, that which does not adapt and evolve risk falling behind or being left behind. Women dont want their lives and livelihoods to be the constant battle ground for a mans sense of his masculinity. Men have to also examine why giving women choices threatens them on one level or another.

        2. Stacy

          @Scott,

          I know enough couples where the woman is making more. According to the stats that Evan quoted, 40% make more overall actually. So while I am not underestimating the power of money, a woman’s desire for security does not necessarily always come from him making more money. There are many other factors that makes a man desirable to a woman.

    2. 5.2
      Day

      @Scott, that is the most ignorant comment I have read in my life. Women are not masculine because they have careers. She can leave anytime and start her own life when her boyfriend/husband acts stupid. We have options now. Guys need to step it up and be more men than babies and stop depending on women to take care of them. I don’t blame women these days. No one wants to marry a broke man, not cute at all.

      1. 5.2.1
        Yet Another Guy

        @Day

        Please read about the dynamics of being downsized and divorce before making such a baseless claim.  A married man who loses his job will find himself on the rapid track to divorce.  The same dynamic does not apply to a married women who loses her job.  Men are still expected to provided in an age when they are competing with women for employment, women who still mostly have antiquated mindsets when it comes to sharing earnings in the home.  Men are expected to share what they earn whereas earnings sharing is one directional for women; namely, his is hers.

        1. Yet Another Guy

          *married woman

        2. Nissa

          YAG, it really does depend on the individual. I know one guy that lost his job and got divorced, and when he told me this (I was 23 at the time) I remember being really puzzled and ascribing it to the fact that they lost their house over it. When I was married, I could not have imagined divorcing my dear husband just because he lost his job – although he did get fired while we were dating and I wasn’t thrilled about it, because he in fact deserved to be fired over it. I’ve never seen any of my friends or co-workers do this either, even the ones that have made comments about ‘he had better have a job’. They complained, but none of them actually left or divorced over it. And I live in the Southwest, where most people really need two incomes just to afford housing.

    3. 5.3
      Sylvana

      Scott,

      I would have to argue that it simply makes it harder for less dominant men to compete. We still seem to somewhat subscribe to the upper class Victorian England idea of masculine and feminine. In reality, throughout the ages, the only true difference between us has been pregnancy and child birth for women, and a man’s superior physical strength (which allowed him to dominate women, as well as men of lesser strength).

      The rest seems to be highly culturally influenced. Men in Ancient Egypt wore makeup, just like women. For a while, it was all the fashion in England and France for men to wear high heals, leggings, wigs, and powder their faces. (Thank god I missed those days). There were women warriors throughout the ages (Viking history is currently being re-written. They found too many honored female warrior’s graves). A lot of Rome’s women were as bloodthirsty as their men. Look at any barbarian nation and tell me how feminine their women were.

      Mere survival doesn’t allow a woman to be too feminine.

      Masculine and feminine energies play a role in every person’s behavior. But it mainly influences levels of dominance and submission.  Most people likely hover somewhere in the healthy middle. But how much of each behavior we show still has much to do with meeting expectations.

      The less threat of physical violence a woman faces in her culture, the more the lines between masculine/feminine become blurred. Even in nature, the only difference is superior strength (in most cases – mantis males are screwed or, well, eaten), and birthing/raising young.

      1. 5.3.1
        Yet Another Guy

        @Sylvana

        The less threat of physical violence a woman faces in her culture, the more the lines between masculine/feminine become blurred.

        I have mentioned on several occasions that women only have the freedoms they do today because of the rule of law.  Take away the rule of law, and we are looking at dominance versus submission.

        1. KK

          “I have mentioned on several occasions that women only have the freedoms they do today because of the rule of law.  Take away the rule of law, and we are looking at dominance versus submission.”

          YAG, What? Doesn’t that apply to you as well? Do you not think you could be dominated by a 25 year old who’s bigger, badder, and stronger than you? Or pretty much anyone that’s armed if you’re unarmed. I’d say the rule of law helps protect ALL our freedoms; yours included.

  6. 6
    ljsrmissy

    On a side note, I find it intetesting that men complain to women about a system that they know is ran by men. Just not them in particular.

  7. 7
    Scott

    Just know every progression has unintended consequences and and the whole marriage in decline thing is a byproduct of a very deserved progression.

    1. 7.1
      ljsrmissy

      This is true Scott.

  8. 8
    Gala

    What this says to me is that the whole MGTOW movement is redundant, because women have already gone “their own way”, especially working class women, without much fanfare or online movements. Because marriage no longer addresses their needs. (Jeremy nailed it in his comment). I sort of even feel bad for those men because essentially what we are saying that they have no value as human beings without their ability to provide or be useful. But then again, i remember that it is their own notion of toxic masculinity that is keeping them in this sad place. There are tons of well paying jobs to be had but men won’t take them because they are not “masculine” (eg nursing). So it is about survival of the fittest. The ones who can overcome their preconceived notions will prosper, the ones who won’t will fall victims to opioids or what not… perfectly natural, at the end of the day.

    1. 8.1
      Tron Swanson

      Speaking as a working-class male–and a MGTOW!–I have to say, the working-class single women I come in contact with are desperate. Oh, they can be functional, even successful…but most are constantly in husband-hunting mode. Their singleness isn’t usually some empowering choice. They want to get married, but can’t or won’t marry guys on their own level, either because of inflated standards, or because the guys they have to choose from…aren’t great, shall we say. Some get desperate–I’ve had women tell me that I’m the best “husband candidate” they’ve seen in months or even years, which is just sad, and tells you how limited their choices are. They get lots of attention, but few guys want to commit.

      For a guy like me, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, and I suspect that’s increasingly true for men in my class. You summed it up well with your survival of the fittest comment. Women think some men just need to die off, and they’re being increasingly blunt about that belief. Knowing that, why should we try to impress you or pursue you, let alone commit to you?

      1. 8.1.1
        Sylvana

        Tron,

        I have a question for you. This is in no way meant as criticism, but an actual, honest to god question. I have often seen you state that you have realized that you just do not have what women desire/are attracted to, etc. I can absolutely relate to that part, because I’m a woman stuck in the same situation (with men). I would actually say that I’m quite a bit worse of than you.

        Since all attempts to locate my feminine side have failed (short of compassion), I pretty much do not stand a chance in the dating world. Straight men do not want to date other men (even if they come with lady bits). That being said, I LOVE men. They are wonderful friends, wonderful fathers, wonderful partners, even heroes, etc.

        And here is where I am trying to understand the whole MGTOW movement, and their equivalent for women, the man-haters, (whatever that may be).

        My questions are (once again, not an insult. I’m trying to understand):

        – Why the anger and near hate toward the opposite sex?
        – What do you get out of laying all the blame on the opposite sex?
        – Why is it the other person’s fault if they don’t want what you have to offer?
        – What about all the men out there who can get what you can’t? (the women they want) Do you hate them as well? I often see MTGOW blaming women for choosing the “Brutish alpha who treats her like crap.” Yet I never see any hate (or even mention) of the great alpha who has it all and treats her well. I’ve known quite a few in my life, so they definitely do exist. Do you hate the great alpha male, or do you admire him?

        I have fully accepted that I am not good enough to “compete” in the dating market. I am at peace with that, just like I fully accept my limitations in all other areas of my life. I don’t need to belittle someone else because of my own shortcomings. It is not their fault. But it also isn’t mine. It’s nobody’s fault. It just is.

        You are somewhat of a contradiction to me. On one hand, you claim you do not have what it takes (which, to me, reads as if you have accepted your limitations). Yet, on the other hand, it is all women’s fault.

        By this logic, you should hate the person who wants a very fast typist, because you can manage only 10 words per minute. You should hate the high jumping coach who wants talent, because you can’t clear a ten inch hurdle. Where is the sense in that?

        True, a lot of women have unrealistic standards. Then again, so do most men. Fact is: Most women, no matter how strong, expect the man to be the stronger sex (physically as well as mentally). This is deeply ingrained in nature in order to ensure the survival of the species. The stronger women become, the stronger men have to be in order to “compete” with other men at the top of the food chain (whether with money, or by the strength of his back).

        So, if you’re not strong enough, why blame/hate the stronger party?

        To me, MGTOW seems to be extremely damaging to men. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not being alpha or naturally dominant. Yet instead of empowering men who are not alphas – by pointing out their strengths (and they have many) – they actually fuel the feeling of not being good enough by spurring hate and anger toward those who are stronger. All the focus is on all the things women want that you are NOT. It constantly gets hammered into your head that you are not meeting expectations (however unrealistic they might be). Same goes for women. Why join a movement to hate men because they like superhot, feminine chicks? The only part your brain picks up is that you’re worthless, because you’re not superhot and feminine. Why would you want that type of negative validation? Your subconscious believe constantly gets validation that you’re not good enough.

        I have to say, the working-class single women I come in contact with are desperate. Their singleness isn’t usually some empowering choice.

        This is what MGTOW is all about, right? Men staying single because they cannot compete, or competing takes effort, then telling themselves they “chose” to be single in order to feel empowered.  So you’re basically insulting a woman for making the same choice as you.

        For a guy like me, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze

        For a woman like me, it ain’t either. And despite being basically a man, I still have a ton to offer to a man as a partner. Does that mean I should now go around insulting and belittling men for not being interested in me? Should I join a man-hating movement? After all, it’s all men’s fault that I would actually have to put some effort into looking or being feminine. Men’s fault I have to be beautiful. Men’s fault I have to put on makeup, men’s fault I have to wear dresses, etc.

        It is all weak men’s fault that I’m too strong!! Just because he can’t lift 50lbs, I am less of a woman (cause I lift 5 times that easily).

        That’s what I don’t get about these type of movements. If you have to be hateful towards others in order to make yourself feel better, you are suffering from manic depression.

        Your empowerment comes from something negative (being angry and hateful toward others). While freeing, wouldn’t true empowerment come from a positive place?

         

        1. Tron Swanson

          Sylvana,

          As far as I’m concerned, you have every right to be angry at men. If you choose not to be, that’s fine…but, in my opinion, it isn’t a good idea to try to tell people how they should feel about things.

          Answering your questions:

          1. Sex is a primal need–one may be able to survive without it, but one’s quality of life will take a major hit. Being constantly, consistently denied on such a basic level…yeah, it’s gonna have an effect. Especially when we’re told that we need to be okay with it, or that we can get it if we do A, B, and C…only to discover that we were lied to, and it’s actually X, Y, and Z.

          2. Personally, I’m not laying all of the blame on the opposite sex. Much of it, yes. Maybe even most of it. But there are too many men with low standards, who put up with anything in order to get sex. They’re a big part of the problem. Regardless, I’m not saying that to “get” something. I used to say things in order to try to get things, but I’m done with that, now. If I say something, it’s because I believe it.

          3. It isn’t about fault, it’s about women having inflated, unrealistic standards–and being able to get away with it–because they’re the ones in demand. As Evan puts it, women are decision-making CEOs, and men are desperate interns.

          4. It depends on the circumstances, really.

          You may value strength, or be attracted to it…but, where you see strength, I see cold, amoral nature, and I long to be free of it.

          MGTOW isn’t a movement. And for me, at least, it isn’t damaging–it’s one of the things that’s kept me from killing myself.

          Many single men and women alike view their “stuck being single” status as something empowering. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. As I said, some women are empowered by going that route, but most I’ve met…aren’t. Perhaps the same is true for men.

          You’re not angry, but you have the right to be. Please don’t try to stop others from exercising the same right.

      2. 8.1.2
        Shaukat

        It isn’t about fault, it’s about women having inflated, unrealistic standards–and being able to get away with it–because they’re the ones in demand.

        Tron, I honestly don’t get this comment coming from you. Is it true that women have a higher looks threshold than men? Yes. Are they generally more hypergamous and discriminate when it comes to sex? Yes, but I don’t see how women have unrealistic standards if they reject you.

        You’ve made it clear that you have disdain for the concept of self-improvement. In different threads you’ve stated that you’ve never been in a bar in your life (pretty boring), have  a non-existent social circle, do not relate to the PUA message because you have no interest in lifting, have no interest in becoming a little more extroverted and outgoing, taking any kind of risk, etc. All that’s fine, but then you seem to resent the fact that hot ass won’t simply drop in your lap. Given all your traits, lack of interests, and general attitude, it strikes me that women would be acting pretty rationally by rejecting you. You’re like the equivalent of an obese woman complaining that men have unrealistic standards when it comes to looks, femininity, etc. I hardly ever agreed with Stacy2, but it does appear that she was right when she stated that you’re a classic entitled man-child. You seem to be upset that society sold you a bill of goods in terms of what women are attracted to, and you can’t get over the fact that your intrinsic value isn’t enough to get you what you want. Just get over it man.

        1. Marika

          Shaukat, Karl R et al

          Just a heads-up that I think you’re giving Tron what he wants. He once told me that he comes here to argue as it’s fun, and from memory, even healthy. If he keeps getting his fix, I can’t see any reason he’d stop his adolescent whining.

        2. Tron Swanson

          Shaukat,

          I don’t expect anything to fall in my lap. I just think I should be able to get women who are at my level and generally similar to me. My attractiveness level, my income level, my (lack of) social nature and ambition, and so on. Is that really an unreasonable thing to want?

      3. 8.1.3
        Yet Another Guy

        @Tron

        It isn’t about fault, it’s about women having inflated, unrealistic standards–and being able to get away with it–because they’re the ones in demand. As Evan puts it, women are decision-making CEOs, and men are desperate interns.

        Women do in fact have unrealistic standards. I have been approached by women dating sites who made me ask myself the question, “WTF was she thinking?”  However, the thing is that selective pressure selected this trait in women in order to ensure the survival and success of their offspring (i.e., selective pressure does in fact want the genes of the unfit to die off).  You can complain about it all you want, but it is not going to change; therefore, the only way for you to get what you want is to up your game.  One of the reasons why the PUA sites emphasize lifting is because it is something over which a man has control that can drastically improve his physical desirability to members of the opposite sex.  The difference in how women treat you can be dramatic  I have experienced it first-hand.  Women can do the same thing, but most would rather complain about men wanting Barbie than adopt a healthy diet and put a few hours in the gym every week.  The women who do exercise and eat healthily have absolutely no problem attracting men of all ages.  The human mind has been focused to be drawn to people who look healthy.

        1. Stacy

          Last time I checked, it was mostly women who put up with abuse, cheating men, unemployed men,. It’s women who put up with a man for years ‘without a ring’. It’s women who have the babies and still cook and clean and do everything under the sun.  It baffles me when I hear that men think women have unrealistic standards…unrealistic compared to WHOM?  Damn sure not men. I meet unattractive men ALL THE TIME who expects his woman to rival Halle Berry. Maybe it’s because you men don’t date men but trust me, women do not have the patent on unrealistic standards. In fact, many many women’s standards are WAYYYYYYYYY too low for what they accept.

          Even TRON in here admits that he gets regularly laid and women tell him he is husband material (which he obviously is not).

        2. Shaukat

          @Stacy,

          I don’t know which generation of women you’re referring to, but most millennial women I know and have met wouldn’t even date an unempoyed guy, let alone put up with one for an extended period.

          Regarding your other points, all that illustrates is that when chemistry and attraction are strong enough women will put up with some crummy behavior, just as men will. All that shows is that women also primarily operate and select mates based on raw attraction (which is fine), despite saying the opposite at times. Also, Tron has stated that he’s an 8/10 in the face, so the fact that he gets laid and is told that he’s husband material just shows that women can be as superficial as men.

        3. Tron Swanson

          Up my game? When it comes to this game, the only winning move is not to play.

        4. Evan Marc Katz

          says the angry single guy to the happily married dating coach and his community.

        5. Tron Swanson

          I like how you use “single” as an insult, there–or at least as a negative term. I’d much rather be in my situation than yours. You may have more resources than me, but I have less risk than you.

        6. Evan Marc Katz

          Single isn’t an insult for most people. It’s an insult specifically for you because you’re not single by choice – you’re single because you gave up on trying to find a partner. By the way, you don’t know me at all, but I have no risk. Check back in thirty years and I’ll still be happily married to my wife, presuming we’re still fortunate with our health. All you see is the downside of love; that’s because you have no experience with the upside. With that, Tron, you can go your own way now. I’m sure you’re a nice guy but you’re not a client, and you certainly don’t contribute anything positive to the women who are here to make healthy long-term relationship choices – unless it’s by indicating what not to look for. Best of luck in the future. I sincerely hope you find happiness however you define it.

        7. Tron Swanson

          Evan,

          Actually, I could be in a relationship–or even a marriage–but I choose to be single. Also, I have experience with the upside of love…or at least lust.

          I hope you’re right about your own life, but marriage doesn’t come with any guarantees, as far as I know. On the other hand, being single, not having kids, and not cohabitating protects me from direct resource loss.

        8. Evan Marc Katz

          Your loss aversion is preventing you from the ultimate in happiness – not according to me but according to pretty much every research scientist who talks about the power of love. But hey, you do you. Good luck.

  9. 9
    MilkyMae

    Many women are warned(rightly or wrongly) that they should get married and start a family before the mid thirties.  Some heed this warning as some don’t.

    However, who is warning men that they need to build the foundation of a prosperous life before your mid thirties.  Good jobs don’t just fall in your lap.  You need to develop skills/education and a work ethic. You need to start building wealth. You also need to stay out of jail and off booze or painkillers.  If you are still looking for a career at age 35 or 40, its too late. Men are not marriage material if they are not working or living at home or cleaning pools or stocking shelves or hopping dead-end jobs.  Women want more than muscles and a deeper voice.  I had a coworker who wanted to set me up with her son. She boasted that he has a car AND he works.  Wow, what a catch, a man who drives and works.  I sometimes wonder if legions of ne’er do well men help men with great provider credentials stand out or lower the value of men in general?

    1. 9.1
      Jeremy

      MilkyMae, you asked, “Who is warning men that they need to build the foundation of a prosperous life before your mid-thirties?”  Answer – EVERYONE.  But what they are failing to provide along with that warning is a good reason to do so.  Women don’t need the reason.  From what I’ve observed, many women have an internal motivational drive to build a stable lifestyle.  This may be because evolution has prepared them to want children, but regardless of that, lifestyle is the base motivation for most (if not all) of the women I’ve met.  But lifestyle is hardly ever the base motivation for men.  Men’s base motivation is love, sex, and approval from women, believe it or not.

       

      Did you ever hear that quote (I think it was from “Scarface”) “First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women”?  That is the male perspective.  Take the women away from the base motivation and men lose the drive for money and power.  Whereas historically for women, the quote would have to be reversed: “First you get the men, then you get the money, then you get the POWER.”  And what does “power” mean?  It means the ability to live your life according to your own prerogatives and not someone else’s.  Men work to obtain power, then sacrifice that power to women’s prerogatives to obtain/retain their base motivation.  But if women have power on their own, they don’t sacrifice it for men’s prerogatives.  Because their base motivation is not men, it is lifestyle.

       

      So back to your question, “who is giving men the message that they need to build the foundation of a prosperous life before their thirties?” – the more men get the message that women don’t need their provisioning, the less motivation they will have to do as you ask.  The more disposable men perceive themselves to be to women, the less stock they will put in marriage and their own marriageability.  And we will see the phenomenon of the man-child who refuses to grow into adult responsibility – not because no one told him he should, but because no one gave him a reason to do so that meant anything to him.

      1. 9.1.1
        Gala

        Jeremy, i think you are absolutely correct about this, and yes women have this internal drive to build stable lives that men do not. Which is why every single woman i know has a nice house and her shit together, while every single man i know .. well not so much. My question to you is: do you think that for men this biology is destiny, or should they be able to change their motivation and thinking, perhaps with proper upbringing and societal message? Could a guy be motivated by achieving nice life in and of itself? As a woman, this baffles me that somebody would NOT want to achieve having a nice, comfortable home,  interesting travel opportunities and solid income. Doesn’t this beat sleeping on ikea mattress while doing random gigs and having no retirement savings? Thoughts?

        1. Jeremy

          I am not optimistic about this changing with societal messaging.  In spite of feminist societal messaging for all the decades I’ve been alive, I still don’t know a single man for whom the flowchart of money–>power–>women exists in a different order or with a different base motivation.  This is why, for example, in inner-city communities where marriage is basically off the table, young men drop out of school and fail to get jobs or launch.  What is their motivation?  I recently read the book “Better Angels of Our Nature” by Steven Pinker (great book, BTW), where he discusses cowboy culture in the historical Old West, and claims that the reduction in violence in that area was concomitant with an influx of marriageable women.  Women exert a socializing influence on men.  Not that no men would be socialized without women, but that the demographics would skew terribly.

           

          When culture shifts away from our evolved preferences, neither men nor women adapt well.  I find it funny when I hear popular articles claiming how women have evolved and left men behind in this culture.  Bullshit.  For millennia women were at a terrible disadvantage due to their lesser strength, yet they did not evolve bigger muscles.  They were at a disadvantage because the society of the time was such that male attributes were favoured.  In today’s society, it’s not that women have evolved faster than men, it’s that society has shifted toward what women have evolved to favour.  Peace, not war.  Cooperation, not competition.  Communication, not coercion.  Society has shifted to favour traditionally female strengths, and feminism has added to women’s choices and power but has not significantly strengthened men’s in any way that is meaningful to most men (except to help them get laid more with less effort, thereby sapping their motivation for the effort).

           

          No, I am not optimistic that men will soon evolve to be more like women, because women’s evolution to be as they are did not happen quickly or recently.

        2. Yet Another Guy

          @Gala

          Could a guy be motivated by achieving nice life in and of itself?

          Men have much simpler needs than women.  Women are driven to nest.  I saw that biological drive in action when my ex and I built our marital home.  I purchased and lived in several homes before I married.  I maintained and kept my homes clean, but I did not nest.  They were places to live; therefore, they were tastefully, but minimally furnished.  My ex had never owned a home of her own before we married, but boy did she make up for it when we built our marital home.

          The cold hard truth is that men do not need much in the way of living accommodations.  While there are exceptions to the rule, men tend to have a utilitarian view of life when not driven to impress a woman.  I moved out of an estate community into a small apartment when I separated from my ex.  I could have rented a bigger, more luxurious place, but why?   It was a place to sleep, bathe, do laundry, and cook meals.   I was exiting a marriage with no intention of ever remarrying; therefore, I no longer felt the need to impress a woman.

          Jeremy is on the money with the assertion that men do what they do to impress women.  Without that incentive, men, more often than not, will live more stripped down lives, even if they can afford more luxurious lives.

        3. Gala

          YAG:

          ”but why”? Because it’s more pleasant, that’s why. I so completely don’t understand this. Wouldn’t you always want the nicest things (that you can reasonably afford)? It’s like saying i could have filet mignon for dinner, but why? I will have hot dogs and chips instead. I do believe that a lot (not all) men are like this, i just don’t understand why. That said a lot of men aren’t. My ex had a wonderful home with expensive things, well appointed, when we met (while i was still living on post grad school ikea furnishings). In fact, most of the nice things i enjoy now, from fine dining to luxury travel i was originally exposed to by men i dated (and no, those men did not go from staying in the Four Seasons to camping in tents when they no longer needed to impress women..). So, may be this is not a man vs woman thing after all. May be some people just don’t have taste for good life.

        4. Sylvana

          @ Gala,

          The nature of the beast, maybe? Technically, humans would fall under the herd animal category. As such, we at talking about a group of women of difference levels of dominance combined under one alpha male.

          It’s likely all due to breeding instincts. We don’t call it “nesting” for no reason. A male is either naturally dominant enough to challenge the current alpha (or die trying) – the minority of all males born. Or he accepts his lesser status, (the majority of males born), and goes along with really no reason to impress anyone (since he will never have breeding rights), or to provide a safe, comfortable/nurturing environment for offspring.

          Even the weakest of females, however, has a guaranteed spot in the breeding chain. So providing a safe, comfortable/nurturing environment for her offspring is somewhat ingrained.

          So it might come down to something as basic as natural breeding rights.

          I’m very masculine, with absolutely no natural desire to have children. Being straight, however, I also obviously have absolutely no desire to impress a woman with the kind of home I can provide. And guess what? I don’t nest at all. My mom keeps being shocked that “I don’t own anything.” I have a couch, coffee table, bed, tv, computer desk, and a dresser. What more do I need? The rest just collects dust, and adds a bunch of headache to cleaning.

           

        5. Yet Another Guy

          @Gala

          Wouldn’t you always want the nicest things (that you can reasonably afford)? It’s like saying i could have filet mignon for dinner, but why? I will have hot dogs and chips instead.

          In my humble opinion, materialism is a form of feminine energy.  Material is a means to an end for most men.  No man grows up thinking that he will find Princess Charming and be a kept man some day.  Unless he grows up in a well-heeled family with access to capital and influence, he quickly learns that nothing will be handed to him; therefore, most men subconsciously make value-add judgements when it comes to living.  Does filet mignon add enough value over hot dogs and chips to justify the huge difference in cost?  For most men, the answer is “no.”  Both foods solve the problem of satiating hunger (in my case, both are unhealthy foods to avoid; however, then again, I am flexitarian who eats a mostly plant-based diet). In most cases, men will chose money over comfort because money is power (i.e., money is a form of masculine energy). With that said, almost every man has at least one passion in his life for which the value-add test does not apply.

        6. Yet Another Guy

          @Sylvana

          I have a couch, coffee table, bed, tv, computer desk, and a dresser. What more do I need? The rest just collects dust, and adds a bunch of headache to cleaning.

          Bingo!  This is the way that most masculine men see furnishings and other non-necessary material; namely, something that adds very little incremental value, but needs to be maintained/cleaned.

        7. Gala

          Sylvana: to be honest i don’t subscribe the the whole “people as animals” theories about human behaviors. I think it’s mostly BS that is used by some to justify their poor performance or behavior. We are not animals. We have free will that we use to override biological urges all the time. This is why we are colonizing other planets and not swinging on trees. With that said…. i don’t have or plan to have kids in the near future, and yet i spend considerable amount of time decorating my condo and my vacation house. Because i enjoy beeen surrounded by beautiful, comfortable things. I have never been content with just meetings my basic needs, and i really don’t think this is a man vs. a woman thing as much as individual personalities. Some people are ok with doing the bare minimum. Some are not.

        8. Yet Another Guy

          @Gala

          Because i enjoy beeen surrounded by beautiful, comfortable things.

          Men do as well; however, we call them women. 🙂  It all comes down to value add.  Does surrounding yourself with beautiful, comfortable things add enough value to offset the expenditure?  The answer for you is clearly “yes.”  Most straight, masculine men are not driven to surround themselves with beautiful, comfortable things. They do it because women find these things beautiful and comfortable.  I can assure that if a man was given the choice between spending a sum of money feathering his nest or spending it on a vacation where he had access to a hot and ready woman, he would choose the latter.

        9. Tron Swanson

          I’m far from masculine, myself…but I also lead a utilitarian, no-frills life. I’m not looking to impress anyone.

        10. Gala

          @YAG:

          honestly i wasn’t talking about a situation where you have to chose between a nice couch and a vacation in a third world country where people live on $2/day. I am talking about a situation where one can easily afford to live comfortably… now that i am in my 30ies i do judge men by the quality of their home. Sleeping on a mattress can be excused for fresh out of the dorm guys, but a grown up home is a sign of maturity to me and if a guy has 3 pieces of furniture in a rental apartment in his late 30ies or 40ies i am gonna judge him negatively. He’s either broke or narrow minded (if he has money in the bank and still lives like that..). All men i end up dating had decent homes with decent furniture, rugs, pianos etc. A place needs to be nice enough for me to be willing to hang out there. I am way too old and high maintenance for staying in quasi dorms.

        11. ljsrmissy

          @ Jeremy

          When culture shifts away from our evolved preferences, neither men nor women adapt well.  I find it funny when I hear popular articles claiming how women have evolved and left men behind in this culture.  Bullshit.  For millennia women were at a terrible disadvantage due to their lesser strength, yet they did not evolve bigger muscles. “

          And populations almost cease to exist because of that disadvantage. I would argue that women did evolve…just not by gaining more muscles. Women evolved by gaining enough allies who were in a position of POWER to usher in female friendly policies. Women got women friendly things done by the pen, not the sword.  Allies who were in POWER were mostly other MEN. Enough powerful men saw the value in this as they know they need heirs and legacies to pass their power and resources on to…and they know they need women who are WILLING to have their babies and continue their bloodline and legacy. I emphasized willing because while a man can rape a women and impregnate her by his physical strength, that women has the ultimate say in whether that life comes into this world. Abortion methods go back to Egyptian times.  They saw the value of not having a society based on ‘male evolved preferences’ which we have seen to be rape, killing, mayhem, and destruction since time inmemoriam. Enough powerful men knew that if left to their own male devices, no one would be left as everything and everyone would be destroyed pretty much. Consult history and even current war torn places for proof. What do you think all of that destruction does the women’s well being, libido, and reproductive health?  Ten time out of 10 these places are highly patriarchal (or don’t have a benevolent patriarchy this western countries) and the women are suppressed….are those places prospering and evolving? Powerful men know that all of society OVERALL benefits by giving women choices for herself and protections for HERSELF and her offspring and promoting her wellness. Enough unwell women can end a population all together or dwindle the numbers said group so low that they are easily conquered by any other group. So I still maintain that women generally have evolved where a lot of men have not imho. This is a competitive capitalist patriarchy. Western societies are benevolent patriarchies…but they are still patriarchies. Whether women gained the right to work (black women always worked ) men were going to have to compete either way.

          ” I recently read the book “Better Angels of Our Nature” by Steven Pinker (great book, BTW), where he discusses cowboy culture in the historical Old West, and claims that the reduction in violence in that area was concomitant with an influx of marriageable women. “

          This is where is question a reduction of violence against whom? Women or other men? Because we both know that violence against women has always been off the charts…even until this day.  

           

        12. Evan Marc Katz

          You should probably read the book. While violence against women continues, there has never been a better/safer time in human history than the one we live in today.

        13. Yet Another Guy

          @Gala

          A place needs to be nice enough for me to be willing to hang out there. I am way too old and high maintenance for staying in quasi dorms.

          You are speaking without listening.  I told you the reason why men are not materialistic in my last post.

          Most straight, masculine men are not driven to surround themselves with beautiful, comfortable things. They do it because women find these things beautiful and comfortable. 

          For you, materialism is an end goal.   For most men, it is a means to end goal; namely, securing a woman.  Materialism is feminine energy that does not satiate most men (material goods lead to temporary satiation at best).  Given the absence of women, most men would chose having a larger bank account over a well-furnished home.  Money is masculine energy.   It is power.  Power over people and one’s surroundings are what most men crave.  People can be bought and sold with money.  Politicians are a prime example of the power of money.  Politicians can be bought.  Why do you think the tax code is so complex?  Every tax provision is the result of a powerful interest lobbying congress, and that interest is usually male.  The judicial system is another prime example of the power of money.  Rich men do not go to prison because they can afford top-shelf legal counsel.   Poor men go to prison because they get public defenders.

          In a scene in the movie “Goodfellas,” one of the working-class Italian women who becomes one of Henry Hill’s mistresses shows her girlfriends all of the nice things she has in her apartment.  That is what I refer to as the “princess complex,” and it is in every woman.  Regardless of where she was born within a social hierarchy, almost every women wants to be kept in a manor to which she would like to become accustomed.  It is hypergamy at its finest. Material goods and comfort are signs that she has made it, especially if they are more than she had growing up.  That is why materialism is feminine energy.   On the other hand, men tend to measure other men by the thickness of their wallets because money is power.

          Money allows men to live above the law.   It also affords a man’s sons the same privilege.  Ethan Couch is a prime example of this power.  He was responsible for the death of four people in a drunk driving accident.  If that had happened to guy from the social class in which I grew up, the guy would be behind bars. Couch got off using what was known as the “affluenza” defense.  In effect, Couch was raised to believe that he could get away with anything because he was rich; therefore, he could not be held accountable for the deaths of four people.  It did not matter that Couch’s blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. There are endless examples of why money allows men to live above the law.  Do you want to start with the men behind credit derivatives during the housing boom that did not go to prison?

           

           

        14. ljsrmissy

          @Evan Mark Katz

          You should probably read the book. While violence against women continues, there has never been a better/safer time in human history than the one we live in today

          I don’t need to read the book to know that .Females made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993.About 99% of the intimate partner violence against females in 2008 was committed by male offenders (bjs.gov).• In 2007 black female victims of intimate partner homicide were twice as likely as white female homicide victims to be killed by a spouse. 46.4% lesbians, 74.9% bisexual women and 43.3% heterosexual women reported sexual violence other than rape during their lifetimes (http://www.nsvrc.org/) is still off the charts. I haven’t even touch verbal abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, abuse of children, street harassment or the whole #MeToo movement. Women still face danger even TODAY…it is still a PROBLEM TODAY…even if it is not as much as times before.  Just because it went from horrible before does not negate that it is a problem today. But I will assert that women being safer today than ever before is due to female friendly laws policies and measures which I already mentioned in my previous response to Jeremy. 

           

           

          This is where is question a reduction of violence against whom? Women or other men? Because we both know that violence against women has always been off the charts…even until this day.  

        15. ljsrmissy

          Evan Marc Katz

          I would also like to repeat what I stated in my response to Jeremy. The fact that women are safer than before is  thanks to women and BENEVOLENT men in POWER (who subjugate other men as well as women and children) who saw the value of giving women choice and protections…not men or male nature as a whole. I believe the only thing keeping a lot of men in line here in the west is those female/society friendly laws that I spoke about in earlier responses.

        16. Jeremy

          ljsrmissy,

          I read both of your comments.  I’ve said this before, but I’m addressing this specifically to you now.  We build logical models for ourselves.  Models that take into account the information we know, and discount information we don’t.  Our models seem logical because of the bubbles we build.  An Israeli and a Palestinian will argue until the cows come home about who is right, and both will present information that is historically and statistically accurate – and neither will convince the other because of confirmation bias and unwillingness to disconfirm.  The first step in overcoming this problem is making an assumption that the person you are speaking to knows at least as much as you do.  If you start there, the next logical question is, “ok, then why does s/he have an opinion that is different than mine?”  And then you can have a discussion.

          Examples from your comment:

          – “But I will assert that women being safer today than ever before is due to female friendly laws policies and measures which I already mentioned in my previous response to Jeremy.”   There is no evidence for this, though it is possible.  For other opinions on reasons why the world is safer than ever before, please see “Better Angels of our Nature” by Steven Pinker.  He gives multiple reasons and cites research to back them.

          -“They saw the value of not having a society based on ‘male evolved preferences’ which we have seen to be rape, killing, mayhem, and destruction since time inmemorial.”  Not exactly.  They consolidated violence under a central banner (called a “leviathan”) such that any individual or group considering violence would understand that they would lose that fight.  This was not due to female prerogatives, it was due to centralization of governmental power.  Of course, that’s just a theory, but there is evidence for it.

          Enough powerful men saw the value in this as they know they need heirs and legacies to pass their power and resources on to Meh.  Maybe, but powerful men were able to have heirs and legacies long before female-friendly policies were enacted.  

          Lots of reasons are possible for what has unfolded in history.  But we must understand that our explanations are only stories – see Yuval Harari (“Sapiens”) for more on this.  It pays to be less sure when we tell such stories.

        17. Chance

          @ljsrmissy –

          You seem to be forgetting that male-on-male violence is far, FAR more frequent than male-on-female violence.

          In regards to your patriarchy commentary, the reality is that it is (and always has been and always will be) men who make the biggest impact on our world.  That, of course, cuts both ways (i.e., for better and for worse).  My theory is that testosterone is the culprit here, and the short version of the result is:  most violent people are men, but so are most extreme high achievers (even after the playing field has since been leveled), but most people (male and female) are neither.

        18. Shaukat

          @Gala,

          You do nothing but illustrate your own vacuous and artificial nature when you boast about being high maintenance and proclivity to judge men with little money. You strike me as the type of woman who would start salivating over a debeers commercial equating diamonds with love. These latest comments, combined with your tacit support for eugenics, just confirm how little depth you have as a person.

        19. ljsrmissy

          Models that take into account the information we know, and discount information we don’t.  Our models seem logical because of the bubbles we build.  An Israeli and a Palestinian will argue until the cows come home about who is right, and both will……

          Okay. I certainly hope that that glorious bit of uncalled for mansplaining was for you…because I didn’t need it.

          There is no evidence for this, though it is possible.  For other opinions on reasons why the world is safer than ever before, please see “Better Angels …..

          I am going to say this… while I have not yet came across a “I was going to hit her but the fear of going to jail stopped me’ survey (and doubt I will because how 1. how can one measure intention and 2. men are not going to admit something like that even if it was a study done on it), I believe there is enough correlation and causation there. With or without a study because while violence against women is still a big problem, women are safer overall than they were before these laws, measures, and policies were implemented. And we both know how women who reside in countries who don’t have these protections and laws are treated. Even until this day in 2018.  Now, if don’t believe that the female/woman/child friendly laws and protections that have been implemented in the west  have anything to do with (correlation and causation) the rates of violence against women decreasing historically in the west or is currently protecting women from suffering the same treatment of women in eastern countries, or you need some study to verify or prove that….then that is what you believe and that is what you need.  I believe the laws and measures ABSOLUTELY have correlation and causation. And I’m willing to be the only one that believes it.  As far as the book you suggested… there are 1 million books, studies, and articles that will either support or refute whatever book you, I, or anyone else suggests…all with citations included. I don’t need to check the book out.

          Not exactly.  They consolidated violence under a central banner (called a “leviathan”) such that any individual or group considering violence would understand that they would lose that fight.  This was not due to female prerogatives, it was due to centralization of governmental power. 

          I am not sure what you are talking about here….but let’s roll with it. If it was in fact due to the centralization of government power…then who who is the government ran by and comprised of by and large… Men or women? Back then and even today?  Ding Ding Ding… MEN.  Those policies came from the MEN who made up the governing body.  And even if it was consolidated under some central banner called Leviathan (what are you talking about here lol!) There had to be some sort of COOPERATION (a female trait according to you) at some point in order to ‘consolidate the violence under some central banner’. What do you think the worlds superpowers are doing when it comes to other superpowers and their nukes? The are COOPERATING with each other on one level or another with treaties and agreements so keep these superpower countries from nuking each other (COMPETING) and the globe in the process.  I still assert that female friendly measures benefits us all.

          Meh.  Maybe, but powerful men were able to have heirs and legacies long before female-friendly policies were enacted. 

          That is because powerful men had POWER, RESOURCES, AND ACCESS and the women involved with these powerful men gained these things by proxy including access to nutrition, more than likely did not have to work, and when they got pregnant exposure to better access to care than a woman who was not connected to men with such power access and resources.  So, the power, resources, and access that said men possessed had benefits in of themselves that were female friendly.  Even if the women was one of the mans concubines, her off spring would more likely stand a better chance than her offspring from a man without power and resources. Why do you think that it is tradition that women seek status, power, and resources in her mate?

          see Yuval Harari (“Sapiens”) for more on this.  

          Please refer to my previous comment about recommended books lol.

        20. ljsrmissy

          @ Chance

          You seem to be forgetting that male-on-male violence is far, FAR more frequent than male-on-female violence.

          No….As a woman. I CHOSE to speak about violence on women perpetrated by men. Because I can and it was in response to something that another commented wrote regarding women.  BUT, since you brought it up….and I am assuming that you are a MAN…mentioning violence against MEN…perpetrated by other MEN….how about you look into possible steps that can be taken to alleviate that and get back to me…Okay?

        21. Gala

          @YAG:

          Given the absence of women, most men would chose having a larger bank account over a well-furnished home.  Money is masculine energy.   It is power.  Power over people and one’s surroundings are what most men crave.

          You seriously make me LOL. Thanks for manslpaning the value of money to me. You make it sound like these are mutually exclusive options, as if one can have one or the other. Who are you kidding? If a man has to chose between nice sofa or a bank account, that is no choice at all. If you can’t even afford nice furniture, you’re not buying politicians or  controlling people around you. Who are you kidding with this BS? The value of my investments is at least 10x that of the insides of my condo. I don’t have to chose between a vacation, a decent piece of furniture and a 401k. I have all of those things…and most women are not nearly as stupid as you think to buy this false dichotomy of “i prefer money in the bank to a comfy chair” narrative.

        22. Jeremy

          Well, ljsrmissy, you make my point far better than I could.  Best of luck.

        23. Yet Another Guy

          @Gala

          I don’t have to chose between a vacation, a decent piece of furniture and a 401k. I have all of those things…and most women are not nearly as stupid as you think to buy this false dichotomy of “i prefer money in the bank to a comfy chair” narrative.

          You are hopelessly parochial in your outlook.  Most men do not have what you possess, and the men who do want to grow their stacks even larger.  There are billionaire men who live more modestly than you live.  For example, I willing to bet that Warren Buffet’s earnings and net worth dwarf yours, but he lives in a middle class home that is worth 0.001% of his net worth.  Why? Because like most men, material does not satiate him.

          Do you honestly believe that your shallow and materialistic outlook makes you a desirable life partner? What are you attempting to cover up?   You are like a woman who grew up poor in a coal town who manages to make it big and does whatever it takes hide the fact that she is from a poor coal town.  I have yet to meet anyone who was born into money who is as shallow and materialistic as you come across. I used to live not far from one of the Rooney properties.   I can assure you that the Rooney family’s net worth dwarfs your net worth (they own the Pittsburgh Steelers).  Yet, Dan Rooney is one of the most grounded men I have met in my entire life.

        24. Gala

          @YAG:

          I have yet to meet anyone who was born into money who is as shallow and materialistic as you come across. 

          Keep writing please, cause you make me LOL every single time. Warren Buffet crafted a convenient image of this folksy old man who’s “just like the guy next door” so that he could escape the scorn that the middle class and the poor generally direct at the rich. And it works – people like you buy it hook line and sinker. In reality, WB is the most self-serving and ruthless businessman on the planet. He lives in a 6,000 sf house (for some reason referred to as “modest”) and has sold an $11m vacation house recently.. he travels in luxury all over the globe and gets around on his private jets. Yeah, a glaring example of a non-materialistic guy living on ikea couch and ramen noodles for sure.

          I have yet to meet anyone who was born into money who is as shallow and materialistic as you come across. I used to live not far from one of the Rooney properties

          That is your sample? Clearly you have not met many rich people or been to their homes, or even read the tabloids that detail their lifestyle. I suggest you go pay a visit to your friend’s widow and report back whether they had artowork, rugs, china and custom-made furniture in the house. Then we can discuss who’s more materialistic, myself or the Rooneys 🙂

           

      2. 9.1.2
        ljsrmissy

        @ Chance

        In regards to your patriarchy commentary, the reality is that it is (and always has been and always will be) men who make the biggest impact on our world. ….

        Hey, if that is your opinion…..that is your opinion.

      3. 9.1.3
        Shaukat

        I recently read the book “Better Angels of Our Nature” by Steven Pinker (great book, BTW)

        Hi Jeremy,

        I’ve only read portions of this book, so cannot comment on every aspect of it, but in general, I do believe large parts of Pinker’s argument contain serious flaws. To begin with, he can only substantiate his broader claim by writing off the two world wars as statistical anomalies. Moreover, he tends to focus disproportionately on the elimination of conflict between the major powers since 1945, while ignoring depredations and acts of violence within less developed regions. Life might be safer for the average Canadian and American now, but it wasn’t for a Vietnamese or Guatemalan peasant in the 1960s or 70s, or for a Nicaraguan during the contra wars. Certain Anthropologists have also taken issue with Pinker’s claim that civilization in general has ushered in lower levels of violence; in fact, the emergence of states coincided with large scale warfare, the type that did not exist during the period of prehistory, the Pleistocene era. Hobbes’ notion of the Leviathan was a massive social abstraction and over simplification, which did not take into account class power.

        At any rate, I am generally a fan of his work, and perhaps will revisit this when I read the entire book, but wanted to add some thoughts.

        1. Jeremy

          Hi Shaukat.  His books are pretty dense, but he actually does account for the things you mentioned.  He is pretty thorough.  I’m not saying that he is necessarily correct about everything (and he admits as much), but he presents a good argument.  I’m totally open to counter-arguments and differing opinions.  I just hate it when someone is hyper-zealous about a particular opinion, full of statistical facts to support that opinion, ignorant of disconfirming stats, and closed to hearing or reading about other points of view.  Pet peeve of mine.  Wouldn’t get far in my statistics and research analysis class.

  10. 10
    ljsrmissy

    You did not tell a single lie in this response Jeremy!

  11. 11
    John

    YAG is telling the truth about men. A masculine guy doesn’t give a damn about all the extras if he is single. In a nutshell, men work their butts off to give their women economic security in exchange for sex, companionship, and moral support.

    I went on a date with a woman a while back and she asked me if I owned a house. I said, “No.”

    She was shocked and she said she thought I was broke if i didn’t own a house. I told her most guys can live in an apartment and cook some meat on the outdoor grill on the balcony and life is good. I would rather have my money invested than own a three-bedroom home that I lived in alone.

    Jeremy said men can’t turn into women overnight. That it would be a slow evolution.

    I hope I don’t evolve into a woman. I love being a man!!!

     

    1. 11.1
      Nissa

      I’m not really sure I understand this. From YAG’s comment: Power over people and one’s surroundings are what most men crave.

      Doesn’t power over one’s environment typically show up by doing something with that environment, by having things (cars, watches, tvs)? Versailles comes to mind – obviously the King didn’t need all those rooms & gardens & gild, it was designed to show power and wealth.

      Besides, men like to feel good too. Those showers with six heads and a sauna function feel good. The Bose sound system is fun for watching all those action movies. A lot of men enjoy cooking, building, have hobbies,etc and like to have the best tools to do that. Isn’t all that power over one’s environment?

      Those just seem like masculine things to me, moreso than feminine, because they are based on function. Feminine to me is more about feeling-warm, comfy, soft, inviting, mysterious, with curves instead of straight lines, that invite you to come in and be seated. Those things can all exist in a very low cost way. So to me femininity is very separate from materialism.

      It’s interesting that we experience things so differently.

  12. 12
    Marika

    Gala

    If you’d have dated Steve Jobs, you’d have dumped him thinking he was poor.

    People choose to live simply for reasons other than lack of money or stinted adolescence. Spiritual reasons, resource saving and allocation, alimony, child support…

    Stop giving women a bad name by being so shallow.

    1. 12.1
      ljsrmissy

      @Gala,

      If men are telling you that is the general mindset amongst men (they did not say every man or the men you dated), then you can either like it or not like it but you can’t tell them what their preferences and sensibilities should be based off of your preferences and sensibilities as a woman. They are not an extension of you. Perhaps these men had their sensibilities in mind when they furnished their apartment and not what a woman may or may not think…. at least immediately. That is just like a man telling you that you should like or think XY and Z based off of their male nature in general or personal preferences in particular.

    2. 12.2
      Gala

      If you’d have dated Steve Jobs, you’d have dumped him thinking he was poor

      I’d dump him for being a horrible human being. In case you don’t know, SJ for years refused to acknowledge his own daughter (born out of wedlock) despite conclusive paternity tests, paid min required child support and in general has been known as a jerk with a horrible personality. A man’s $$ in the bank mean nothing to me, but how he lives and how he conducts himself does. So yes, I would not like to date someone like that…

      Stop giving women a bad name by being so shallow

      Are you seriously gonna purport to tell me what views I should express and how? Are you familiar with the expression “don’t tell me what to do and I won’t tell you where to go”?

       

      1. 12.2.1
        Marika

        You completely missed my point Gala. All I’m saying is how a person chooses to live is not necessarily reflective of their wealth or maturity.

        And I was hoping to get you to try to at least recognise or acknowledge that. Obviously not.

        Be as materialist as you want, but maybe try not to say bonehead things. If at all possible.

        1. Yet Another Guy

          @Marika

          Be as materialist as you want, but maybe try not to say bonehead things. If at all possible.

          I have dealt with my fair share of women like Gala.  Those who did not wake up before it was too late wound up alone and bitter (i.e., happiness does not stem from a specific standard of living). Very few men who are worth having will tolerate an overly materialistic woman for long, especially when she is no longer in her prime.  A man who will tolerate this kind of behavior is the kind of man who routinely trades a woman in for a younger model.  He is also the kind of man who makes a woman sign a “prenup” to protect his assets when her trade-in day arrives.

    3. 12.3
      Mau

      I’m surprised by all the negative comments to Gala’s statement. Isn’t there quite some middle ground between having an apartment with a table, chair, couch and mattrass, and having a lavishly furnished mansion?

      Living simply still means that you take care of yourself, and take care of your living space. For me, if a date only had three pieces of furniture and a mattrass, i would view that as a yellow/orange flag. (Btw, my experience is that guys like this don’t know how a closet works and have clothes lying all over their living space, clean, dirty…. anybody had a similar observation?)

      Living simply can still mean that someone has a nice rug under their couch (20-50 euros at ikea, where i live), some pictures or (posters of) paintings on the wall, maybe some souvenirs collected when travelling, a made-up bed with clean sheets, a closet. A place can be furnished and decorated in a minimalistic and affordable way, but still be a nice place to spend time at. Is a woman really considered a princess for wanting that in a partner????

      I completely get Gala’s point that if a date’s living space is not nice to hang out at, that would not work for her. Personally, i wouldn’t disqualify a guy for that, but i would see it as a warning sign that this person may not like himself enough to take care of himself.

      1. 12.3.1
        CaliforniaGirl

        I know a guy who is 44 and still lives in the same small apartment he rented after he graduated college. Same furniture, not a one matching plate or cup. He doesn’t even have a table to eat and the bathroom is a little better than a gas station one. He makes way over 100K and maybe has a lot of money saved but for the last 7 years he didn’t have a girlfriend and he gets dates all the time. The women tend to disappear after about 2-3 dates or till they visit his place. He doesn’t see a correlation, he thinks women don’t want relationships nowadays… 🙂

  13. 13
    Jeremy

    Gala, I’m not sure what all the ad hominem attacks against you lately have been about, but I haven’t really disagreed with anything you wrote.  A woman who is looking for marriage and children should definitely take an interest in a potential husband’s ability to contribute financially.  This should be both an evolved and nurtured thing.  When I wrote that (IME) women tend to value lifestyle as their base motivation, I neglected to state that “lifestyle” obviously means different things to different people.  Boiled down to basics, it is simply the way the woman envisions herself living.  Does she want kids?  How many?  Does she want an urban or suburban or rural lifestyle?  Does she have a taste for expensive things, or is she content with more simplicity?  Does she want to work outside of the home or inside of it? Whatever the life she envisions will tend to be her motivation.  Whereas for most men (IME), they marry a woman and let her decide how they should live.  Which is why, when you look at most married men’s houses, you can hardly tell  that a man lives there 🙂

     

    So I’m not sure why people are giving you hell for stating your preferences.  If they disagree with those preferences, they should choose women with different preferences – and they should understand what those women’s base motivations are, as the women should understand theirs.

    1. 13.1
      Gala

      Hey Jeremy – thx 🙂 For my part, i think you’ve been knocking the ball out of the park on this thread.

      I think, people are generally dislike when their bubble is burst. I have spent some time thinking about YAG’s comments and I think I get it. A man who  lives a stripped-down bare minimum lifestyle may feel empowered by the $$ he’s saved as a result and he may think that that money gives him “power”,  he may even see himself in the same club with the truly rich, but that is of course an illusion. There’s money and there’s capital. Controlling capital gives you power. Controlling a few thousand dollars (or even a few millions) does not. Saving the extra $10K that it may cost to furnish a home does not put you in the same league as some old money folks. It just makes you a scrooge who’s too cheap to make his life moderately comfortable. This must be an unsettling realization.. hence lashing out to the messenger with the accusation of “extreme materialism” – when all I’ve really stated is that I like to live in a nice house (me and a few million other people in this country… LOL)

      Personally, I have crossed the point of being completely non-apologetic for who I am somewhere around the age of 33. I like certain nice material things, and certain experiences, and certain level of comfort. Other things do nothing for me (for example, I don’t own a car and I am not a car person, but my boss collects them so to each his own). And since I pay for everything myself, I really don’t give a damn if other people think I am materialistic or not 🙂 and will not be shamed for my preferences. Oh, and I align myself with likeminded individuals. This is a joke, but this discussion reminded me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReHhtQ6yXM4

    2. 13.2
      Marika

      Jeremy 

      I work in the area of Sydney with the same SES and cultural group of individuals that I think reflects your background. What you wrote is very common in those circles.

      In other circles, rejecting a man because you don’t think his house is nice enough for you, or he won’t be able to keep you in the way you’d like to be kept, does not go down well.

      I briefly dated a guy from that world. He told me stories of women asking to see his payment summary, women who walked into his apartment, took one look and said ‘too small’ and walked out. He stopped dating women like that.

      I don’t think that mentality would shock you, but it did me.

      1. 13.2.1
        Jeremy

        I would hope that few people would be so crass as the woman you describe, Marika.  But still, I think it’s important to know what we want.  My wife is not a materialistic person – she doesn’t believe that money is a core value.  And yet, when we dated, we both agreed that we wanted to send our future children to private Jewish dayschools.  Now, that is a very expensive proposition, especially with 4 kids.  Tuition in dayschool is about $17K per child per year, and high school is closer to $30K.  In other words, if that’s what you want, you’re going to need money.  It’s not that a person is a gold-digger for wanting it, it’s just that what they want has a cost.  And if the couple is going to make that work, that money needs to somehow be obtained.

         

        I think it is crass indeed for a woman to look at a man’s apartment, say “too small” and walk out.  But I don’t think a woman is crass for envisioning the type of lifestyle she is going to want and searching for someone compatible with that lifestyle.  Better that than to get together with eyes wide shut and become resentful years later when the life goals you preferred not to think about go unrealized.  Assuming, of course, that the goals are actually goals that will actually make you happy and add meaning to your life.

        1. Nissa

          And yet, I was raked over the coals for suggesting that a man either pay for a date or plan a free date. As you say, it’s counterproductive to say that money does not matter, when most of us have a minimum lifestyle we want to lead. If you want to live in Thailand and teach English, it’s not an issue. If you want to live on E. 88th in New York, then it is. Saying so doesn’t mean that you are telling your date that you think he has no value as a human being. It does mean that you are seeing a potential mismatch in terms of values.

          That said, I would never shame anyone by curling my lip at their home, car or clothing. That is unkind and unnecessary.  I do want someone who is complementary to me and who will display that quality by providing a date. This is essentially a request for the man to display masculine behavior. After all, doesn’t a man expect his date to display feminine behavior – by being physically attractive, available, listening, being receptive to his words and touch, appreciating him by giving overt signals of interest, and showing respect for what he is offering?

          For me, I happen to have professions that make either very little money or tons of money. At the moment, I’m on the ‘little’ side. But if I did have money, then as Evan suggests, I’d be looking for a mate that provided what I didn’t have. So I don’t see what is so awful about a person of either gender recognizing that they want a mate that complements them.

          It’s so odd to me, because I spoke to my father about this when he was alive. He described to me his feelings about paying for dates, about working hard to provide for his family. He told me how good it made him feel to take care of those things. He explained how lost he felt when he wasn’t working, and money was an easy way for him to accomplish things in life. He said how much he appreciated me in particular because I made other things easy for him – doctor visits, verbal interactions, transactions of all kinds. Those things were hard for him – money was easy. It was simple, understandable, it behaved in mostly predictable ways – unlike people. So I tend to approach dating the same way, and I’m always baffled when there is no appreciation for the valued service I’m offering.

        2. Marika

          Jeremy

          While everything you say makes logical sense, people in my world don’t really think that way. We may have a preference for something (private schools, a home with a pool etc), but if finances don’t allow, we change tack and move on. We don’t consciously seek for someone to finance our predetermined lifestyles, and judge men on that basis.

          Did I want to go back to renting and sharing after my divorce? No. But it made most financial sense in an expensive city. And instead of spending my money on fancy furnishings (which I would love, of course), I prioritized buying things like an investment property in a cheaper city. Because I don’t want to date out of a need to get a man to support me. And I didn’t think people would be so shallow as to focus on my cushions over me as a person.

          Your approach works best if everything remains static (or gets better). While I understand being with someone who shares your values, you can’t control things like the job market, illness, accidents, shifting priorities etc, etc. If you marry someone for what they can provide, what happens if they can no longer provide it?

        3. Chance

          Hi Nissa,

           

          “…by being physically attractive, available, listening, being receptive to his words and touch, appreciating him by giving overt signals of interest, and showing respect for what he is offering?”

           

          Isn’t this expected of men as well, though?

        4. Jeremy

          I think that’s a really good question, Marika.  I guess the short answer is that you do the best you can.  Never mind the private school example that I gave (which isn’t all that common of a desire) – let’s consider the desire to work part-time when kids are small (which is a VERY common desire among women according to recent Pew studies).  A woman who thinks she will want time off (or to work part-time) when her kids are small will need a husband to support her – who makes enough income to do so and wants to do so.  She would be wise to choose someone with that potential, or she will not get her desire.  Now, what happens if he loses his job?  She has to go back to work.  Life happens.  You do the best you can.  But that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t make plans (and contingency plans) at all.

           

          It’s funny – to me, compatibility is all about how complementary our life goals are.  Does she want to work part-time so she can focus more on being a mom, and does he want a wife who will do that?  It is best not to let life’s major decisions sneak up on us.  And the decision of work-life balance after kids is a major source of stress among couples, because so few manage to accurately predict what they will want in the future.  The stats tell us the likelihood, though.  For some women this will be a total non-issue.  It all depends on their goals.  My point is just that one’s choices should align with one’s goals as much as possible.

        5. Nissa

          Chance,

          Essentially, no. It would be preferred, but the lack of those things is generally accepted as ‘part of the package’. Women tend to be able to grow attraction based on personality, availability and behavior. Men don’t tend to do this – a woman either meets baseline arousal/attractiveness to start with, or he will walk away (although he might stoop to have sex with you first, then leave).

          If you want more info, see several of Evan’s posts from women who have stayed for years in spite of not being physically attracted, the man’s lack of receptiveness to marriage & children, lack of appreciation / attention, and lack of respect for the relationship such as texting old girlfriends, strips clubs and porn.

        6. Shaukat

          Women tend to be able to grow attraction based on personality, availability and behavior. Men don’t tend to do this – a woman either meets baseline arousal/attractiveness to start with, or he will walk away (although he might stoop to have sex with you first, then leave).

          Not true at all, though I understand why this myth persists given the plethora of Disney style films where a woman discovers her best friend is the ‘one.’ If anything, women are far more likely to chase chemistry. This is especially true in the era of the swiping culture, where, thanks to thirsty guys, a 5 can hook up with an 8 and have her ego temporarily stroked. If what you were saying were true, then thousands of poor average chumps wouldn’t be languishing in the friend zone. Few women stay with guys they’re not physically attracted to, though they will stay when chemistry is strong but the relationship is lacking in other respects.

        7. Emily, the original

          Nissa,
          Women tend to be able to grow attraction based on personality, availability and behavior. Men don’t tend to do this – a woman either meets baseline arousal/attractiveness to start with, or he will walk away (although he might stoop to have sex with you first, then leave).
          Uh … no. While this may be true of some women, it’s certainly not true of all women, and can be a bad myth to spread because it teaches men that a woman who says no to a date may change her mind … if he keeps asking.

        8. Tom10

          @ Shaukat
          “Not true at all, though I understand why this myth persists given the plethora of Disney style films where a woman discovers her best friend is the ‘one.’ If anything, women are far more likely to chase chemistry.”
           
          Just the other day Stacy described how she forwent immediate chemistry with her current boyfriend as he has a more suitable “personality, availability and behavior” than her first husband and you gave out to her for having nothing else to offer than her looks. Now you’re saying it’s all just a myth that women are prepared to compromise on chemistry! They just can’t win!
           
          I actually think there are two types of women on this matter: Type A are motivated by chemistry and are prepared to compromise on the quality of the relationship/commitment to achieve their goal, thereby spending most of their lives single or flitting from chemistry-fuelled str to str. Type B are motivated by relationships/commitment and are prepared to compromise on chemistry to achieve their goal. I guess, the reality is that it’s probably a spectrum where many women are somewhere in the middle and/or alternate between Type A and B according to their life circumstances.
           
          There I go again with my simplistic binary world, lol…

        9. Jeremy

          Tom, I agree with your comment.  But rather than a spectrum between 2 binary extremes, I prefer to look at it in terms of basic assumptions.  What is the PURPOSE of marriage?  What is the goal?  If your basic assumption that the goal is fun and positive affect, the logical course of action is to pursue fun and positive affect, and to look wonderingly at those who don’t.  If your goal is to pursue romantic feeling, that’s what you’ll do – and you’ll wonder at those who don’t seem to have it.  If your goal is to pursue logical goals, that’s what you’ll do.  And if your goal is to be a pillar of the community – to be a mom, a wife, be on the PTA, volunteer at local community events and to be an envied hostess and the one to whom others turn for advice, that’s what you’ll pursue.

           

          Women, like men, largely try to act logically in accordance with their base assumptions.  And when they don’t, at least to some extent, things go down the drain pretty quickly.

        10. Shaukat

          @Tom,

          I don’t recall telling Stacy on any thread that all she had to offer was looks. Perhaps you can copy paste my statement, or perhaps you’r confusing me with someone else?

          At any rate, what you’re hypothesizing about types is probably true, but it’s likely true for men and women. I will say this though, whenever I’ve tried to see if my attraction would grow with someone it’s failed, and whenever a woman has tried it with me it’s failed, so while it happens, it’s probably rarer than you think.

        11. Tom10

          @ Shaukat
          In this thread:
          http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/letting-go/should-i-take-him-back-if-hes-working-on-himself/
           
          Comment #14.2.3.1 you wrote to Stacy:
          “Don’t want to generalize, but in my experience the attractive women who consciously choose to settle with a guy who they think is below average  looking are the ones who know they have little to offer in a relationship outside of the looks department.”
           
          I see looks and chemistry as interchangeable and I think many men do as well. I understand women sometimes see it differently however.
           
          “I will say this though, whenever I’ve tried to see if my attraction would grow with someone it’s failed, and whenever a woman has tried it with me it’s failed, so while it happens, it’s probably rarer than you think.”
           
          I agree to an extent, although I think it happens quite a lot. I think that’s what Jeremy is getting at with his response to Mrs. Happy #17.2.1.1: when women compromise to attain a specific goal they’ll often/usually lose interest in sex down the road once she’s obtained that goal. Whereas when men compromise to attain a specific goal they’ll usually/often simply begin cheating down the road once they’ve obtained that goal.

        12. Tom10

          Apologies for the typographical emphasis; it was unintended.

        13. Shaukat

          @Tom,

          I stand by that statement, but it wasn’t directly aimed at anyone, although I was responding to Stacy’s post. Recall that I was arguing in that thread that when a connection is genuine and there’s mutual attraction, then options don’t matter anymore. In my opinion, if an attractive woman consciously settles for a below average looking guy who she doesn’t find attractive, she’s either a) a gold digger; or b). insecure with little to offer aside from looks.

          Regardless, it doesn’t negate the larger point I was making here: For the vast majority of men AND women, there has to be a certain baseline level of raw physical chemistry for attraction to ‘grow’ further. The notion that a woman can initially be solely attracted to a guy’s personality/intelligence/charisma, and then develop physical attraction out of nothing, which is what Nissa seems to be suggesting, is, in my experience and opinion, completely false.

        14. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          Type A are motivated by chemistry… Type B are motivated by relationships/commitment 

          Type C is motivated by money.

        15. Theodora

          If you want more info, see several of Evan’s posts from women who have stayed for years in spite of not being physically attracted, the man’s lack of receptiveness to marriage & children, lack of appreciation / attention, and lack of respect for the relationship such as texting old girlfriends, strips clubs and porn. 
          What you describe here are different categories of men and situations.
          Women stay for years with men they are not particularly physically attracted to when they have other benefits to gain. Usually with a provider husband or a sugar daddy, in a situation of low chemistry – high financial or social benefits.
          Women stay for years with men who don’t offer them marriage, children, appreciation and attention because they are highly attracted to those men. The opposite situation – high chemistry, low financial and social benefits.
          Enjoying strips clubs and porn is neutral and not a sign of disrespect for the relationship when it’s done in moderation/occasionally. I think 99% of men (at least) enjoy them from time to time, including the host of this blog by his own admission, and he’s not disrespectful of his relationship.

           

        16. Jeremy

          @Shaukat, you wrote, In my opinion, if an attractive woman consciously settles for a below average looking guy who she doesn’t find attractive, she’s either a) a gold digger; or b). insecure with little to offer aside from looks.”  I’ve got to say, I think this is not the case.  I know many attractive women who married less attractive men and are not gold diggers.  Rather, they have different priorities.  Priorities matter!  And the problem that most of us have is that we can’t really envision people legitimately having different priorities than we do.  It brings to mind Robert Glover’s example that he used to resent women because they could just go to a bar and have sex whenever they wanted, whereas he couldn’t.  He eventually came to realize that this was irrelevant, because casual sex was not at all what these women wanted, even though it might have been what he wanted.

        17. Yet Another Guy

          @Shaukat

          For the vast majority of men AND women, there has to be a certain baseline level of raw physical chemistry for attraction to ‘grow’ further.

          I concur with your assessment; however, I do believe that men tend to be more all or nothing from the start.  From my experience, baseline chemistry merely open the door for a women to move into the “qualification” phase whereas a woman is usually golden with a guy if she meets his baseline.

          I recently started to push myself to continue to pursue women with whom I did not feel strong physical chemistry on the first date.  I started doing it because my date screening process tends to yield women with whom I can be friends, but not lovers, well, at least not more than “hit it and quit it” lovers.

        18. Emily, the original

          Hi Thomas,

          Type B are motivated by relationships/commitment and are prepared to compromise on chemistry to achieve their goal. 

          And I don’t know if Type B looks at it as compromising on chemistry. They really want a relationship or to be married. Chemistry isn’t really a motivating factor.

        19. Shaukat

          Hi Jeremy,

          Actually, what I wrote was that if a woman dates a less attractive man who she is NOT attracted to, then she is either a gold digger or insecure. Clearly, a woman could still find an ‘objectively’ less good looking guy attractive, in which case my scenario doesn’t apply.

          Regarding your comment about different priorities…well if a woman decides to marry a wealthy or powerful man who she doesn’t find physically appealing because she wants the lifestyle of not working and lounging at the spa all day…I guess you could call that a ‘different priority,’ but I’m happy to call a spade a spade, lol.

        20. Jeremy

          But that’s just it, Shaukat, it isn’t usually that she wants to lounge around.  I’ve never met such a woman who doesn’t want to contribute to the marriage equally – she just has her own opinions as to how she wants to do that.  I know a woman who is very good looking, married to a man who is far less good looking but a multi-millionaire.  She doesn’t lounge around all day, leaching his money.  She has raised 4 children with him, is constantly involved in the lives of their kids, taking care of his parents, running their social life, and helping him in his business.  Her goal was to lead just this sort of life.  Not to be a leach, but to work in this way rather than in an office.  And her husband wanted a wife with exactly her priorities.

           

          Priorities.  What sort of life does she want to live?  What does she want her JOB to be?  And how can she best arrange her life to meet those goals?  There is a huge difference between a gold-digger and a woman who values her priorities and reciprocates in kind.

        21. Shaukat

          From my experience, baseline chemistry merely open the door for a women to move into the “qualification” phase, whereas a woman is usually golden with a guy if she meets his baseline.

          YAG, That’s true if you’re just talking sex. A guy probably won’t get into a relationship with a woman if she just meets his baseline.

        22. KK

          It’s refreshing to read both Tom and Jeremy’s comments. They get it!

        23. Shaukat

          Hi Jeremy,

          I actually wasn’t referring to stay at home moms. That’s completely different.

        24. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “And I don’t know if Type B looks at it as compromising on chemistry. They really want a relationship or to be married. Chemistry isn’t really a motivating factor.”
           
          Semantics, no? They mightn’t see it as intentionally compromising on chemistry, however, to an objective observer that will be the dynamic observed.
           
          @ Theodora
          “Women stay for years with men they are not particularly physically attracted to when they have other benefits to gain. Usually with a provider husband or a sugar daddy, in a situation of low chemistry – high financial or social benefits.”
           
          I.e. Type B.
           
          “Women stay for years with men who don’t offer them marriage, children, appreciation and attention because they are highly attracted to those men. The opposite situation – high chemistry, low financial and social benefits.”
           
          I.e. Type A. Lol.
           
          @ Shaukat
          “In my opinion, if an attractive woman consciously settles for a below average looking guy who she doesn’t find attractive, she’s either a) a gold digger; or b). insecure with little to offer aside from looks”.
           
          Well I think there’s another option: c) she’s playing the odds that a below average looking guy will be more likely to commit for the long-haul than the previous attractive partners who didn’t stick around when the tough got going. Maybe there are even more than 3 possibilities…
           
          Ultimately, I agree with Jeremy that it comes down to priorities and what the individual wants for their future.

        25. Shaukat

          Lol, Tom, I find it deliciously ironic that KK says you “get it” when what you’re basically describing is the red pill/mra worldview, just in a more polite fashion. You’re essentially stating that women will ride the alpha d and get repeatedly burned until they decide to compromise massively chemistry wise on some below average looking beta chump. This just doesn’t happen very often. My entire point was that there has to be baseline chemistry for a woman, and the threshold isn’t as low as you seem to think, especially in the swiping era.

        26. Jeremy

          Shaukat, I know you were addressing Tom when you wrote, “You’re essentially stating that women will ride the alpha d and get repeatedly burned until they decide to compromise massively chemistry wise on some below average looking beta chump” but again, I really don’t think that this is what Tom was saying (and certainly not what I was).  The type of woman I described never rode the c-ck carousel, as the manosphere would call it.  Such women look for husbands early on.  They may end up dating many men, but not because they want to.  Not because they crave novelty or validation from sex.  Their sexual meta-goal is usually marriage and children.  The women who DO crave validation/novelty and then settle for a “beta chump” – they exist.  I caution men to avoid them, because such men’s marital and sexual goals are not often compatible with the women’s in the long-term.  But the whole AF/BB thing the manosphere talks about is really about a very specific personality type among women, not all types who marry men of lesser SMV.

        27. Tom10

          @ Shaukat
          “what you’re basically describing is the red pill/mra worldview, just in a more polite fashion”
           
          I guess, now that you’ve pointed it out, my comment did inadvertently suggest that paradigm a bit; maybe I’m guilty of succumbing to some group-think (I’ve never actually read a red pill/mra site but amm aware of their general beliefs)?! Although, being as impartial, fair and as objective as I can I’d say there is a slight ring of truth to the paradigm; but only a tiny percentage of people reside at either polarity and even then, only for periods of their lives. The reality seems to be a lot messier with people constantly shifting goals and priorities. The vast majority of women I know my age (early-mid 30s) entering life partnerships have done so with men they seem genuinely attracted to and smitten with. A few stragglers form either end of the spectrum; one or two still chasing chemistry and one or two married the chump.
           
          Simple binary paradigms bring order to all the chaos and give us a sense of control over our lives though!
           
          “This just doesn’t happen very often. My entire point was that there has to be baseline chemistry for a woman, and the threshold isn’t as low as you seem to think, especially in the swiping era.”
           
          I find it difficult to respond to this as I only have personal experiences to form an opinion on and I think I’m a slight outlier on this subject. So, as a mental exercise I’ll flip the genders and see how it feels intuitively. So are there Type A and Type B men? I’d argue that yes there are: Type A are motivated by nsa sex and prepared to compromise on chemistry to achieve their goal; Type B are motivated by the quality of the woman and are prepared to compromise on freedom/commit to attain their goal. Let’s take Type A (the chemistry compromisers); do they have baseline chemistry and/or how low will they lower their threshold to achieve their goal? Depends on the guy. Some will lower it significantly; others not so much. So I guess it’s the same with women. Depends on the woman. Some will have baseline chemistry; others are more flexible. And, as with women, men will alternate between types as their priorities change in life.

        28. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          So are there Type A and Type B men? I’d argue that yes there are: Type A are motivated by nsa sex and prepared to compromise on chemistry to achieve their goal; Type B are motivated by the quality of the woman and are prepared to compromise on freedom/commit to attain their goal. 

          There’s also a Type C — a man who really wants a wife or a girlfriend and is motivated by a woman’s availability (how Nissa described some women). What do you mean by  “quality” of the woman? I’m assuming …. ahem, Mr. Thomas … you mean her appearance? If so, Type B is motivated by his need to attain status with other men in that he has to be seen with a very attractive woman. It has little to do with who she is as a person. Think Donald Trump.

        29. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “What do you mean by  “quality” of the woman? I’m assuming …. ahem, Mr. Thomas … you mean her appearance?”
           
          Well, you don’t like me using a numerical scale. And Shaukat doesn’t like my binary “above/below your league” scale; so I’m running out of ways to describe a higher-quality woman without offending somebody! I guess it’s whatever quality a particular guy values the most. For Trump, yes, that means looks and status. But for other men it might mean intelligence, or humor, or any quality that he values really: values so much that he wants to commit to her.

        30. Emily, the original

          Thomas10,

          But for other men it might mean intelligence, or humor, or any quality that he values really: values so much that he wants to commit to her.

          What? What? What? You are upending my entire world view. I thought it was all about looks!  🙂

          So what male “type” are you? I will admit to being Type A in women, the one who flits about from one high-chemistry situation to another. I suspect you got a little Trump in you, don’t you? 🙂 I remember you writing you will approach women in bars who are giving off “don’t approach me” vibes? So do you score “bro code” points if those women don’t shoot you down?  🙂   Jeremy had written that people have different motivations and sometimes other people don’t understand them. I guess I don’t understand the bro world incentive.

        31. Emily, the original

          I don’t get it because it feels performative. Inauthentic. Although I have certainly resorted to female hetero performance, for lack of a better description.

        32. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “What? What? What? You are upending my entire world view. I thought it was all about looks!”
           
          Lol. I don’t get it either. 😉 I think for some men (ahem) it is indeed primarily about looks. But having analyzed all the relationships I know in person, and comments of the men in relationships who comment here, it seems that not all men are like that. Shocker I know. Something to do with other men having different priorities as Jeremy would say. E.g. Bill hardly picked Hilary for her looks; rather for his future political career.
           
          “So what male “type” are you? I will admit to being Type A in women, the one who flits about from one high-chemistry situation to another. I suspect you got a little Trump in you, don’t you?”
           
          Yikes; I’m not sure how to take being likened to Trump regarding dating matters! I guess he got his “perfect 10” though so I can see what you mean. I’m a Type A too Emily; although currently trying to adjust to Type B. Chasing looks and “bro code” points gets old after a certain age. I know, deep down, that what hooks me in are women who are smarter than me (rather than the hottest woman in the club); but I’m uncomfortable with that dynamic in practice. It’s much safer to avoid risk and date someone who is pretty but unchallenging.
           
          “I guess I don’t understand the bro world incentive.”
           
          I guess it’s just status-chasing isn’t it? My big red button is bigger than yours, Mr. Jong-un. No different to women dating doctors/attorneys to show off to her girlfriends really. Or buying a BMW. Or fancy well-furnished pad…
           
          …..
           
          Have you ever tried to adjust from being a Type A Emily? Or have you just accepted that’s how you’re wired. I assume you’ve tried to give the average chemistry/high compatibility guy a chance at some point but it just wasn’t for you?

        33. Evan Marc Katz

          Short version: looks gets you in the door. Everything else is what keeps you there.

        34. Emily, the original

          Thomas10,

           Bill hardly picked Hilary for her looks; rather for his future political career.

          That and I think they “get” each other, but as you can see he likes one type of woman for marriage and a completely different type for sex.  I guess it’s just status-chasing isn’t it? My big red button is bigger than yours, Mr. Jong-un. No different to women dating doctors/attorneys to show off to her girlfriends really. Or buying a BMW. Or fancy well-furnished pad…

          That shit means nothing to me. It’s almost like you’re talking in a foreign language.  Have you ever tried to adjust from being a Type A Emily? Or have you just accepted that’s how you’re wired. I assume you’ve tried to give the average chemistry/high compatibility guy a chance at some point but it just wasn’t for you?

          Yes, I have tried it. The relationship part was actually good, but the sex was terrible. Of course, this is just one example.

          I am still working on making the change. I just lose all incentive when I get around someone who gives me “gina tingles.”    🙂

        35. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “as you can see he likes one type of woman for marriage and a completely different type for sex.”
           
          Or rather, he likes one type of woman for marriage…and one thousand more for sex. Haha. 😉
           
          “That shit means nothing to me. It’s almost like you’re talking in a foreign language.”
           
          Really? Have you no competitive side at all Emily? In school did you not want to be top of the class? Be the best on the sports field/win the music competitions/go to the best college, earn the most money, have the hottest wife? Gosh when written out like that “winning” doesn’t look so great anymore. 🙁
           
          “I am still working on making the change. I just lose all incentive when I get around someone who gives me “gina tingles”
           
          So, in the words of the great MJ, when are ya gonna make that change Emily?
           
          Stacy recently mentioned grieving the loss of the “gina tingles” now that she’s committed to her average-chemistry partner. I guess it’s similar to men grieving all the women they’ll never get to sleep with when they tie the knot…

        36. Emily, the original

          Thomas10,

          Or rather, he likes one type of woman for marriage…and one thousand more for sex. Haha

          I meant he likes sluts.  🙂  But don’t knock ’em. Sluts are hungry for experience and generous in giving of themselves.  🙂

          Really? Have you no competitive side at all Emily?

          Yes, but I thought you were talking about social status in terms of jobs or possessions. I think it’s great if people are successful and have good-paying jobs such as a doctor or lawyer, but that’s a doable success. You sell a 100,000 copies of a book that explained the human condition? That I’m impressed with. That kind of success is rare.

          So, in the words of the great MJ, when are ya gonna make that change Emily?

          I love MJ. I’m in “operation shape up” right now. I want to get in the best shape possible because I want to land a man –OMG–who is my age and who I find appealing. Right now I have an “a.i.p.” Ass in progress. Give me a couple of months.

          I guess it’s similar to men grieving all the women they’ll never get to sleep with when they tie the knot…

          Yes, I’m sure all two of those women are grieving that loss, too.  (I kid, I kid.)  🙂

        37. Shaukat

          And Shaukat doesn’t like my binary “above/below your league” scale; so I’m running out of ways to describe a higher-quality woman without offending somebody!

          Ha, I don’t take offense at anything you say, friend. And clearly leagues do exist in a very general sense; I don’t think I’ll ever land a Victoria secret model (I’m assuming you won’t either, but maybe I’m wrong). I just don’t think the demarcations for leagues are as rigid and fixed as you seem to believe.

        38. Emily, the original

          Thomas10,

          Stacy recently mentioned grieving the loss of the “gina tingles” now that she’s committed to her average-chemistry partner.

          Maybe Stacy can answer this if she’s reading the post, but does the average-chemistry partner know he’s average? For you, Thomas10, is that something you would tell a new girlfriend as you go out into the world and look for reasonable chemistry/high compatibility option? As a man, would you want to know if you were the lower chemistry choice?

        39. Thomas10

          @ Emily, the original
          “he likes sluts. But don’t knock ’em. Sluts are hungry for experience and generous in giving of themselves”
           
          No knocking here; I owe them so much gratitude. To quote our hero again; they make the world a better place. 🙂
           
          “I’m in “operation shape up” right now. I want to get in the best shape possible because I want to land a man –OMG–who is my age and who I find appealing. Right now I have an “a.i.p.” Ass in progress. Give me a couple of months”
           
          I’m kinda in the same situation; right now I have a “c.i.p.” Career in progress. I should be ready in a few months as well.
           
          “Yes, I’m sure all two of those women are grieving that loss, too”
           
          Hehe.
           
          “does the average-chemistry partner know he’s average? For you, Thomas10, is that something you would tell a new girlfriend as you go out into the world and look for reasonable chemistry/high compatibility option?
           
          Jeremy and I discussed this before: is there an obligation to tell the lower-chemistry party that that’s how you view them? To answer your question; no it’s not something I’d tell a new girlfriend as it would surely immediately kill any desire on her part; women need to feel desired to feel sexy don’t they? I think every dater has multiple different agendas when dating and there is no obligation to be upfront about what they are, as doing so is against your own interest. My opinion is that the onus lies on the other party to suss out your intentions; and lies on you to suss out theirs.
           
          “As a man, would you want to know if you were the lower chemistry choice?”
           
          I can usually sense the level of chemistry a woman feels for me by the way she behaves and responds; I rarely stick around long if they’re not feeling it (i.e. see me as the lower chemistry choice) no matter how much I chemistry I feel for them. Principles trump chemistry for me.
           
          What about you Emily?

        40. Emily, the original

          Mr. Thomas10,

          and there is no obligation to be upfront about what they are, as doing so is against your own interest. My opinion is that the onus lies on the other party to suss out your intentions; and lies on you to suss out theirs.

          That sounds like lying by omission and selfishly convenient for you. I don’t think you need to say things to hurt the other person, but you need to be honest if, for example, a woman wants to know if you are dating casually or looking for more. Obviously, it would be stupid for a woman to ask how attracted you were to her or how hot you think she is. Those are statements a woman hopes a man makes of his own volition because, were she to ask, she may not like the answer. (And, no, I would not want to know I was the lower chemistry partner.) I can usually sense the level of chemistry a woman feels for me by the way she behaves and responds;

          Well… maybe, but it probably depends on how into her you are. That feeling can blind us. I had a hookup buddy for 2 1/2 months who I was not attracted to but I doubt he knew that. He was too egoistic and I was the one who made the first move. I needed the practice and, tbh, he was good friends with a man I wanted to make jealous.

          Principles trump chemistry for me.

          HA! They won’t when you hit my age. Several years ago I broke off a situation with a guy who I was having top 5% hot sex with. I’d waited a decade to find it again. But he didn’t want a relationship. Had I know what was in front of me, I would have ridden that train a lot longer!  🙂 

        41. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “That sounds like lying by omission and selfishly convenient for you. I don’t think you need to say things to hurt the other person, but you need to be honest if, for example, a woman wants to know if you are dating casually or looking for more.”
           
          I can appreciate this viewpoint; it’s similar to Jeremy’s query to Mrs Happy’s comment #17.1.1 below:
           
          “The now happily-married women were more ruthless in removing themselves quickly from situations which wouldn’t benefit their long-term relationship or life prospects.  They were quite unromantic and pragmatic about it actually.  They prioritised their needs, and didn’t let others shame them for doing so.”
           
          Jeremy questioned whether these women subsequently stopped having sex once their needs were satisfied and, predictably; they did. Are Mrs Happy’s friends conveniently selfish for doing so? You betcha. However, I don’t actually have a problem with their dating behavior as that’s what they had to do to attain their goals.
           
          The way I see it is, ultimately men and women are just wired differently: we’re aiming for two separate goal-posts and playing by two separate rule-books. Therefore, to an extent you just gotta do what you gotta do; develop your skills and, yes, maybe be a bit selfish. Don’t blame the playa; blame the game. We have to keep playing the game we inherited…so that we can pass it onto the next generation, lol. Unfortunately, in the real world (i.e. nature) effectiveness trumps altruism.
           
          “HA! They won’t when you hit my age. Several years ago I broke off a situation with a guy who I was having top 5% hot sex with. I’d waited a decade to find it again.
           
          You can’t put a wise head on young shoulders Emily. 🙂

          “But he didn’t want a relationship. Had I know what was in front of me, I would have ridden that train a lot longer”
           
          Was the reason you broke it off with him because he didn’t want a relationship?  You need two men Emily; one for your hot chemistry and one for your relationship. Lol. 😉

        42. Emily, the original

          Tom10,
          Jeremy questioned whether these women subsequently stopped having sex once their needs were satisfied and, predictably; they did. Are Mrs Happy’s friends conveniently selfish for doing so? You betcha.
          Yes, of course those women are selfish. It’s a bait and switch. They’re hot and heavy until the kids arrive. Although my point in the discussion was that it’s difficult to get excited by a long-term partner.
           
          The way I see it is, ultimately men and women are just wired differently: we’re aiming for two separate goal-posts and playing by two separate rule-books. Therefore, to an extent you just gotta do what you gotta do; develop your skills and, yes, maybe be a bit selfish. Don’t blame the playa; blame the game. We have to keep playing the game we inherited…
          I’m sorry, Tom, but that’s bullshit. If you are knowingly misleading someone, that has to do with character, not the game and not whether you are a man or a woman. Frankly, responses like this make me want to see men as only useful for sex … and then only the percentage who are any good at it.

          Was the reason you broke it off with him because he didn’t want a relationship? 
          No, he didn’t. He wanted what I call “that bullshit in between.” Companionship, sex, friendship but not commitment. To me, you are either just hooking up (in which case I am over your house for 45 minutes a week; we are not interacting as people) or you’re trying to get to know each other to see if something real could develop.

        43. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “Yes, of course those women are selfish. It’s a bait and switch. They’re hot and heavy until the kids arrive”
           
          Well I don’t think there are necessarily any malevolent intentions involved when this dynamic occurs; Mrs. Happy explained how her friend’s priorities simply adjusted as their needs changed. They then assumed that their husband’s needs would adjust similarly, which; sometimes isn’t the case.
           
          “Although my point in the discussion was that it’s difficult to get excited by a long-term partner.”
           
          As Jeremy noted; is this mindset not incompatible with marriage? It’s like my sister, who after having children, said that motherhood doesn’t suit her, that kids just aren’t for her. I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough. If you make the decision to have kids you assume responsibilities which trump your own needs: surely entering marriage is the same principle?
           
          “I’m sorry, Tom, but that’s bullshit. If you are knowingly misleading someone, that has to do with character, not the game and not whether you are a man or a woman. Frankly, responses like this make me want to see men as only useful for sex … and then only the percentage who are any good at it.”
           
          Okay, fair enough; we just won’t see eye-to-eye on this on so I’ll let it go. I won’t mention that concept on this blog again as I feel doing so is more destructive than constructive.
           
          I guess, when we’re older, each of us will have to live with the decisions we made throughout our lives. At that point I’ve no doubt that remembering our moments of kindness and empathy towards others will trump our momentary horniness. That’s what makes us human, eh? 🙂
           
          “He wanted what I call “that bullshit in between.” Companionship, sex, friendship but not commitment. To me, you are either just hooking up or you’re trying to get to know each other to see if something real could develop.”
           
          Yeah I know lots of people in these “quasi-relationships”: he wants the best of both worlds. To have his cake and eat it. To be single and in a relationship at the same time. Sorry buddy; no can do! Lol. 😉
           
           
          I suppose the broader point here is that for you there is either hooking-up, or “trying to get to know each other to see if something real could develop,” (another binary paradigm!) but for others there are multiple different options; not all of which are ill-intentioned. Many people don’t even know why they do the things they do; but if we’re gonna be involved with them then is it not useful to try understand their motivations and predict how they’ll behave in the future as their needs change?

        44. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          I suppose the broader point here is that for you there is either hooking-up, or “trying to get to know each other to see if something real could develop,” (another binary paradigm!) but for others there are multiple different options; not all of which are ill-intentioned. Many people don’t even know why they do the things they do; but if we’re gonna be involved with them then is it not useful to try understand their motivations and predict how they’ll behave in the future as their needs change?

          Well, it’s certainly hard to predict someone else’s behavior in the distant future. And I know that there are all kind of points in between hooking up and having a relationship, but just try to understand that for some women (NOT ALL), when you take them out, act as if you are getting to know them, make it a point to show them a good time, call and plan dates and escalate contact over time, they are going to think you are interested in more than just flim flam.  And if they ask you what you want and make it clear they want a relationship, only a person with no character would willingly lie. There’s nothing wrong with wanting something in between, as long as both parties are ok with it. But if all you want is sex and you KNOW she wants something else, move on. Pick someone else to hook up with. If you have the game you say you do, it shouldn’t be that difficult.

    3. 13.3
      Chance

      I don’t agree with the personal attacks, but something tells me she receives them, at least in part, because of the names and tone she often chooses to use when describing men who don’t meet her preferences.  She reminds me of another female poster who is no longer allowed to comment here.

      1. 13.3.1
        Yet Another Guy

        Stacy2?

        1. Mrs Happy

          I miss Stacy2. She had opinions which differed to the bulk of commentators’, which kept things interesting, and she gave blunt insights into the way a number of people truly think. I don’t like that she felt pushed out, and unwelcome. It stretches the mind to hear different viewpoints; the comments section is boring and has to go off at tangents when too many commentators agree on the core topic.  Not that tangents aren’t fascinating too.

      2. 13.3.2
        Marika

        Exactly. She doesn’t come across as very compassionate or self-aware, does she, Chance….. 😉

        1. Chance

          Hi Marika-I think you, I, and she have plenty of room for improvement on that front.

    4. 13.4
      Yet Another Guy

      @Jeremy

      It is not about necessarily giving Gala hell for her preferences.   It is about her inability to see why men have different priorities.  She is claiming that men are cheap whereas she cannot see that the real problem is that she is materialistic.  She claims that few thousands dollars does not make a difference, but a lot of fortunes have been made on a few thousand dollar investment.  Let me give you an example of a very wealthy family I actually know. Art Rooney purchased the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1933 for $2,500.  When adjusted for inflation, that figure comes to around $36,000 today. The Pittsburgh Steelers franchise is worth $1B.   I never had the opportunity to meet Art, but his son Dan was one of the most down to earth men I have ever met.

      The majority of the most successful men I know lived very modest lives while building their wealth. These men were passed on by women like Gala when they were younger.  My father passed a very important lesson on to me when I was young; namely, poor has nothing to do with how much money a man earns, but  what he does with it.  I know people who earn a metric truck load of money and appear to be very wealthy on the surface, but they own almost nothing because they spend everything they earn.

      1. 13.4.1
        Gala

        YAG:

        i am sorry but for someone who is so concerned with money (while ironically calling me materialistic) your understanding of it is very limited. $2,500 in 1933 is an equivalent of $66k today, not $36k as you claim. Further, a median house price in the US at that time was just $5.7k and average rent $18 a month(wow!). So, effectively, the Rooneys invested a half of a price of a house, and then on top of that got incredibly lucky as that asset class in particular skyrocketed (unlike many that failed). So, therein lies the problem of you conflating capital and spending money and not understanding the difference. Most people simply don’t have capital (that is a large portion of money one can invest in businesses) do you know the definition of accredited investor in the US today? Someone with a net worth over $1m excluding primary residence or annual income over $200k for 2 years in a row with th expectation of earning same in the future. These are legal requirements for investing in startups, early ventures and a number of illiquid assets, and if you ask me they are probably too low… This is capital. And you can not get there by saving pennies. This kind of money is made, not saved. Cheers!

        1. Yet Another Guy

          @Gala

          First off, while the inflation adjusted value I quoted is low, the value you quoted is high.  Using the CPI inflation calculator at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=2500&year1=193301&year2=201712, I get $47,775.97.  That is not a ton of money.  My ex and I had more than that amount liquid in a bank account in addition to our investments.  We lived well below our means because we learned that life can throw curve balls at any time.  That strategy paid off in the long term. While our marriage was lacking in other areas, we never fought over money.  Money is one of the major reasons why couples divorce.

          Living frugally is not a crime.  Few people would be assume that Warren Buffet is a multi-billionaire given where he lives.  Sure, it is nice upper-middle class home, but he can afford to live much more lavishly.

           

    5. 13.5
      GoWiththeFlow

      Jeremy & Gala,

      I too get the larger picture of what Gala is saying.  You basically have to know what you want out of life before you can find a suitable life partner.  It’s not so much how much money a couple has to spend, but do they agree enough on how it should be spent.  Do you prioritize having a bedroom for each kid and space for a swimming pool in the back yard, so you get a large home in an outer suburb.  Or is your priority a short commute and easy access to city amenities so you go for the townhouse where the kids have to share a room and they will swim at the local YMCA.

      As far as single men and their money goes, I really don’t see huge group difference in how men and women behave.  Most of the people I went to med school and did residency training with, who were still singe when they started earning a professional salary, all bought homes and cars and took nice trips.  The only differences I saw were that the men immediately bought luxury cars where the women tended to accessorize their homes more and spent more money on clothing.

      I completely disagree with YAG’s contention that a majority men will live in dorm like settings so that they can look at a bank statement and feel powerful.  If this is true, why did it become such a cliche that in my social and work circle, the new male docs all went out and bought BMW 3 series cars within months of starting their first private practice job?  If money projects power, no one will know you are “powerful” if they don’t know you have money.  Thus, they demonstrate power by having the luxury auto and the nice home.

      1. 13.5.1
        Jeremy

        Agreed 🙂  Nice to see you back, btw.  Your perspective was missed 🙂

        1. Shaukat

          I don’t think you guys get it, it’s not about having lifestyle preferences, it’s the fact that she stated that she would judge a man based on the absence of material items/accessories in his home and then draw inferences about his character based on the absence of such items or if he chooses to live simply.

          Similar to a man saying he would judge a woman based on her sex partner count. It’s not ad hominin to take that attitude to task as far as I’m concerned.

        2. Yet Another Guy

          Bingo!  Gala has demonstrated a level of shallowness that I have not witnessed in years. Shallow women usually end up being bitter, lonely women.

        3. GoWiththeFlow

          Shaukat,

          I think there were two things said in the exchange between Gala and YAG that were quite triggering to the opposite sex.  Gala said cheap and YAG said materialistic.  Let me tackle the charge of being cheap.

          How would men view a woman who is extremely frugal with her spending on personal appearance to the point where she wears thread bare baggy jeans and tee shirts every day with inexpensive canvas sneakers.  She also doesn’t spend money on hair cuts/style/color, makeup, skincare products to treat her monthly hormonal acne breakouts, or shave her pits and legs because she can save a ton of money every year being au naturale.  And forget contact lenses.  Why pay for that when you still have to pay for the glasses anyway?

          She may be a truly kind person who saves the rain forests during the day and puppies on weekends.  She could be unfailingly loyal and honest and make a fabulous lasagna.  But how many men would pass on her to try and find a woman who had all of those personal qualities plus a more outwardly feminine and put together appearance?

          Now go deeper.  How many men would hesitate to become involved with such a frugal woman because she might want him to adopt her financial priorities?   Which could mean she’d be upset if he bought a new power tool.  Or she insists that any vacation that involves more than a tent in a camp ground is too extravagant.

          Go talk to someone who is with someone who is truly cheap and they will relay a story of endless arguments over what money is spent on.  One woman I know has a series of arguments every year with her live-in boyfriend about having a Christmas tree during the holidays.  He thinks it’s a waste of money, even if it’s coming exclusively out of her own paycheck.

          Yes it is rude for a woman to walk into a man’s apartment, say “too small” and then promptly leave.  But what people don’t seem to want to acknowledge is that a man’s living quarters can say a lot about what she can expect a life sharing a space with him can be like.

          One huge thing that bothers me about the thread is how most people who were upset with Gala fell into a pattern of argument that was binary.  Gala wants to be in a space that is more than dorm level utilitarian.  Somehow it was assumed that meant she wanted a fully staffed mansion.  There’s a huge space between cheap studio apartment in the bad part of town and 5 bedroom colonial on a golf course.  Many women don’t want to spend their lives in the former (but we’re saving so much money!) but that doesn’t mean they expect the later.  Nor does it mean they are materialistic.  They want a space that feels soothing and comfortable and feels like home to them.

           

      2. 13.5.2
        Nissa

        Yeah, I don’t see that either. The male doctors and nurses that I know like to garden, cook, do photography, and travel. I’ve never thought of those things as  being particularly materialistic, but I would put them on the more feminine side of the spectrum.

        1. Jeremy

          I don’t think that the difference is necessarily that men will live simply and women won’t – I very much disagree with YAG on that, and think it is due to personal preference.  I do, however, think there is a gender difference in the motivation.  Male docs graduate and buy a fancy car.  Why?  To impress women and gain status (and live a childhood dream).  Female docs graduate and buy fancy clothes and houses – but not usually to impress men, but rather because they want them.  The difference between the male motivational chain of

          money–>power–>women

          versus the female motivational chain of

          (men)–>money–>power.

          And male doctors very often (IME) buy into the notion that money and status can, indeed, help them attract women, which is often one big reason why they went into the profession in the first place.  Young women generally don’t go into medicine to better be able to attract men.  Root motivations.

      3. 13.5.3
        Tom10

        @ GoWiththeFlow 13.5
        “I too get the larger picture of what Gala is saying.  You basically have to know what you want out of life before you can find a suitable life partner.  It’s not so much how much money a couple has to spend, but do they agree enough on how it should be spent.” 
         
        Great comment GoWiththeFlow. I don’t have a problem with Gala’s comments either: she’s just saying/admitting that which most of us know to be true for one subset of women.
         
        And in fairness to those women, they’re usually extremely attractive and put huge effort into looking and acting the part as a status symbol/trophy girlfriend. They know the deal: they provide the looks and social graces; the guy provides the status and swanky pad/lifestyle. Quid pro quo in my book. Status affirmation for both parties. I don’t see any reason to denigrate those aspirations. We’re all entitled to our preferences and I don’t see how some are more “noble” than others.
         
        Men are just as guilty as sizing up and dismissing women who don’t cut the mustard; i.e. aren’t attractive enough. Heck, just today YAG described questioning one woman’s sanity for having the temerity to email him; as she’s not anywhere near his level!
         
        “I completely disagree with YAG’s contention that a majority men will live in dorm like settings so that they can look at a bank statement and feel powerful.  If this is true, why did it become such a cliche that in my social and work circle, the new male docs all went out and bought BMW 3 series cars within months of starting their first private practice job?” 
         
        I actually think it’s all about status: your place in the hierarchy, in society, in life. Both genders are motivated by status, but through different manifestations.
         
        I actually think YAG is correct that many men would indeed be content in a dorm, if they had another visible way of demonstrating their status to the world. Like if everyone knew he’s a qualified doctor for example. Or runs his own successful business etc.
         
         
        Education is one form of status. BMWs are another. Trophy girlfriends are another. A big fancy pad is another. I think society vastly underestimates/refuses to acknowledge how much human behavior is driven by status-seeking. Certainly in professional circles anyway. Somewhat controversially, I actually suspect that a significant percentage of men became doctors mainly for the status rather than to actually save lives. Agree/disagree GWtF? You’d know a lot more doctors than I.

        1. Yet Another Guy

          I am actually content to live significantly below my means.  I no longer need to prove myself to anyone other than my children.  What is amazing is to see the face of a woman who initially assumed that I have a low net worth when she finally puts two and two together because I live modestly.  I do not live in dorm-like conditions, but I could afford a more lavish lifestyle. Being at a point in my life where I no longer feel the need to impress a woman is liberating feeling.  It makes me feel sorry for all of the guys who are still stuck in that mode.  If a woman will not accept you for the man you are sans money, then she is not worth your time.

        2. GoWiththeFlow

          Tom,

          Great point about people seeking out status and ways to externally demonstrate that they are a cut above.

          “Men are just as guilty as sizing up and dismissing women who don’t cut the mustard; i.e. aren’t attractive enough. Heck, just today YAG described questioning one woman’s sanity for having the temerity to email him; as she’s not anywhere near his level!”

          I chuckled out loud when I read that line from YAG.  I’ll never forget a few years back, when I put up an OLD profile after several years of being out of the game, and the first response I got was from an 80 year old (I was mid 40s).  He sent me a long message laying out the (to him) perfectly logical reasons why it would be to my advantage to date him.  I wasn’t so much offended as perplexed as to why this happened.  Now I look at it that people who aim out of their league are playing a lottery game.  It costs very little to play and you may miraculously get lucky so why not? 😉

          “Somewhat controversially, I actually suspect that a significant percentage of men became doctors mainly for the status rather than to actually save lives. Agree/disagree GWtF? “

          Jeremy addresses this above as well.  IMO there are quite a few men who become doctors in part because it’s seen as a direct pathway to the status/money they want to achieve.  A few women as well.  I once dated a man who said getting into medical school was punching a golden ticket.  Once you get in, unless you do something drastic to f*uck it up, your future is set.  At the very least you are guaranteed a certain amount of status and a good income.

          There were some male classmates I had who thoroughly enjoyed and took advantage of the increased dating opportunities punching the golden ticket brought.  But others were resentful of the dynamic or didn’t know how to handle the increased interest of women.  For women it’s a wash.  It hurts you with some men, but helps with others, mostly other doctors who know you will understand the nitty gritty of the profession you’re both in.  In the U.S. around 50% of married women physicians are married to other doctors.  It’s an access thing.

        3. GoWiththeFlow

          YAG,

          “Being at a point in my life where I no longer feel the need to impress a woman is liberating feeling.  It makes me feel sorry for all of the guys who are still stuck in that mode.  If a woman will not accept you for the man you are sans money, then she is not worth your time.”

          You’re assuming a lot here.  The biggie being that men tend to do what they want to do, especially when it comes to spending the money they earn.  If a man is living a certain lifestyle it is usually because it’s what he wants for himself.

        4. Yet Another Guy

          @GWtF

          You’re assuming a lot here.  The biggie being that men tend to do what they want to do, especially when it comes to spending the money they earn.  If a man is living a certain lifestyle it is usually because it’s what he wants for himself.

          Single men do what they do mostly to impress women.  Jeremy is on the money with that assertion.  Married men do what their wives want them to do if they wish to remain married. There are very few households where the wife does not rule the roost.  The saying “If momma is not happy, no one is happy” exists for a reason.  How many marital homes look like a man lives in the house? I rest my case.

        5. Jeremy

          Well, it’s not universally true that men do what they do ultimately for women (even though I know I’m contradicting my own previous statement somewhat).  Alain De Botton wrote an excellent book called “Status Anxiety,” in which he claims that people spend their lives searching for 2 great loves: The love of a romantic partner, and the love from the general population to replace the universal adulation we experienced as cute children.  When we are children, people pay attention to us and take care of our needs no matter our behavior.  And when we reach a certain age, this no longer occurs – and we try to regain it by achieving a certain amount of STATUS.  If we have status, we imagine, people will pay attention to us and care for us (like when we were kids).  And so much of what we do is for that status – the fancy house, the new car, etc.

           

          So when I wrote that women are men’s ultimate motivation, I was not complete.  The ultimate motivation can be split – for romantic love and for societal status – and some consider more the one than the other.

        6. GoWiththeFlow

          YAG,

          I can’t tell you how many wives I know who don’t get why their husbands insist they should buy a luxury sports car for his every day car.  One friend pointed out to her husband that it would be difficult to near impossible to get two kiddie car seats into the back of a two door sports car.  His reply?  “That’s what the retractable roof is for.”  And he was serious, LOL!

          These men are also very good at speaking up for their needs and wants when it comes to the what and where of buying a home or planning a family vacation.  And even the single gay men I know purchase luxury autos, expensive watches, and have nice homes.  What women are they trying to please?  Their mothers and sisters?

          So no, I’m not buying the argument that either trying to attract women while single, or please their wives when married is the sole force driving men’s lifestyle and spending decisions.

      4. 13.5.4
        Chance

        Hi GWTF,

         

        “I too get the larger picture of what Gala is saying.  You basically have to know what you want out of life before you can find a suitable life partner.”

         

        I agree… I also get the larger picture of what Gala is saying, and I can’t blame her.  From a male POV, when I was dating, I was often heavily criticized by women because I wasn’t interested in dating single mothers.  The most common charges against me was that I was “selfish” or “shallow”.  While I believe that men who are willing to take on that kind of responsibility should be appreciated for their sacrifices, I don’t believe there is anything wrong with knowing that this isn’t something you want out of life because you understand how it will impact your lifestyle.

         

        Again, I think it’s more the tone and language that Gala uses to describe men who don’t meet her preferences that angered some commenters.  However, I don’t blame her for her preferences one bit.

        1. SparklingEmerald

          That’s ridiculous to badger someone for not wanting to date single parents.  When you marry a single parent, you are basically marrying their kids and their exes.  It’ a very reasonable and wise choice.

      5. 13.5.5
        D_M

        GoWiththeFlow,

        Can we exclude cars and tools? I am sure some will try, but we can’t rationalization those two categories. Just like we have starter homes, we have starter cars. The 3 series is the gateway drug to the more luxurious models. Quite a few of us grow up with exotic car posters on the wall. Some folks use it as a projection of power, but for many, cars full-fill those boyhood dreams.

        1. GoWiththeFlow

          Yes D_M, their decisions aren’t driven by trying to please women. It’s a boyhood dream and/or the appreciation of the mechanics and engineering.

        2. Jeremy

          @GWTF, I’d suggest a modification to your statement: Their decisions aren’t ALWAYS driven by trying to please women.  But it would be a mistake IMHO to believe that this wasn’t a big part of men’s motivation in general, far more so than pleasing men is women’s motivation.

  14. 14
    Marika

    GWTF 

    I don’t see this as a gender issue. I think both genders can relate to prioritising different things under different life circumstances. In 30s and 40s it’s not unusual for people to have gone through a divorce, be paying child support, alimony etc. And if dating and looking to hopefully repartner, it’s also not unusual to not set up permanent house, but save money or find a temporary arrangement in the interim that serves an individual’s purposes without going over the top.

    So I personally think it’s highly judgemental and very short sighted to judge someone on their furnishings. Given there could be multiple very understandable and even noble reasons for living simply. At least temporarily.

    1. 14.1
      GoWiththeFlow

      Marika,

      People can also gain a lot of weight when they divorce, that they lose later..Or they can have a bitter attitude about life that dissipates the more time goes by.  And people they meet during that time will judge them on it in terms of whether they can vision themselves being with this person or not.

      I dated a man for a year who lived in a small, basically furnished apartment because he had recently gone through a divorce.  Absolutely understandable, not just from a personal financial stand point, but also because after a long marriage, he was trying to figure out how he wanted to live as a  single person.  He also shared that this was temporary.  He didn’t take the stance he was a morally superior being for being frugal, and that anyone else who spent more of their own money on their living situation was “materialistic.”  Just who is judging whom?

      1. 14.1.1
        Marika

        GWTF

        Nothing you said really related in any direct way to what I said…weight and bitterness are completely different to temporary living situations. And wouldn’t I cop crap (and fair enough), if I said I wouldn’t date men over x weight because I think I’m too good for them?

        I also said it ‘could’ be understandable and ‘noble’, like eg putting the needs of your kids over your own need for a fancy couch. One example.

        Further, she called herself materialistic, or words to that effect.

        She’s entitled to her preferences and I’m entitled to think she’s being narrow-minded and petty. Besides, everyone judges. You’re judging me right now.

        1. Gala

          Marika, yes i am materialistic and i don’t consider it an insult. We are all materialistic (as in: concerned with material possessions) to a different degree.

          It annoys me that whenever a woman states her preference for any sort of lifestyle, she gets immediately accused of being anything from “materialistic” to “gold digger” – as if the only acceptable moral position is a complete indifference to one’s surroundings and lifestyle and the willingness to live in rags. I think that’s bullshit, and I think we all know that.

          Also, just to be clear, i don’t judge men as people, i judge them as potential partners. A guy who lives in a 200sf studio and sales around the globe (and i did in fact once go out with such guy) may be a wonderful human being and all that, but not someone i want to date. So judge all you want, but i know what i want, how i like to live my life, and only date people who are similarly positioned. YMMV.

      2. 14.1.2
        Shaukat

        GWTF,

        Your hypothetical woman actually sounds pretty good to me, provided I’d find her physically appealing, and minus the not shaving part:) However, I’d say there’s a bit of a difference between spending in basic hygiene, for men and women, and decorating your apartment with luxury African art or whatever.

        At any rate, I think we may be talking past each other here. I never stated that someone isn’t allowed to have preferences and exclude potential prospects in dating. Take Chance’s example. Of course every man and woman would be perfectly within their rights to not date a single parent, and there are good reasons for such a preference. But suppose someone stated that they wouldn’t date a single mother because the fact that she got knocked up before marriage, or couldn’t make her marriage last, speaks volumes about her character and judgment? And suppose they said this without knowing anything about the specifics of her situation?

        In other words, exercise all the preferences you want, just maybe have a little tact in how you express them.

        1. GoWiththeFlow

          Shaukat,

          Nope!  The body hair is part of the package.  Take it or leave it!

          “But suppose someone stated that they wouldn’t date a single mother because the fact that she got knocked up before marriage, or couldn’t make her marriage last, speaks volumes about her character and judgment? And suppose they said this without knowing anything about the specifics of her situation?”

          In the case of a guy like that, I would say my single parent status saved me a lot of grief.  Otherwise I might wind up wasting time to figure out  that we are completely incompatible for reasons that have nothing to do with me having kids.  And really, I won’t be offended if he doesn’t want to know the specifics of my situation.  It’s best if we both move along.  Because when it comes down to it do the specifics really ever change someone’s mind when they are set in their ways?

          So maybe the man who was rejected because his apartment was too small, instead of saying “But she never got to know me!” should take comfort in that at least it didn’t take him weeks or months for him to figure out that they are ultimately incompatible.

           

        2. Chance

          GWTF,

           

          You mean to say that you too wouldn’t get the larger picture of what he is saying?    😉

        3. Shaukat

          I didn’t say that a guy should try to convince a woman to give him a shot by talking about the specifics of his situation in order to explain his small apartment (nor should a single parent try to do that).

          My point was that if you’re going to express your preference in a manner that impugns the character of people within a certain category, then be prepared to receive some push back. And when you receive some, don’t expect sympathy by claiming, “as a woman, all I did was express a preference..” Clearly, that’s not all she did.

        4. GoWiththeFlow

          Shaukat,

          “My point was that if you’re going to express your preference in a manner that impugns the character of people within a certain category, then be prepared to receive some push back”

          People want the freedom to negatively judge others while never being judged negatively themselves–OMG I’m not cheap, you are just materialistic!!!!!

          Also. one way to avoid discussing the point of someone’s argument is to take offense to the tone or words used.  That’s exactly what was done here.  I wouldn’t choose to use the words Gala did, but her underlying argument was largely ignored in the rush for other commenters to tell her what a bad person they think she is.  Because while Gala’s language on here is blunt–and she gave an example of how in a real life situation, she is not–her overall argument rings true.  It’s a regular thing in discussions amongst female friends about the guy who looked promising until she saw his pizza box and beer bottle littered apartment with the crusty carpet.

          Maybe some people would rather talk about how “mean” Gala’s words are because they are uncomfortable with the reality that other people will make judgements about them, and decisions about whether they should pursue a relationship with them, based on where and how they live.  It’s like someone who is obese insisting that someone of the opposite sex should find them attractive, and if they don’t it’s a moral failing on their part.

           

        5. Chance

          Hi Shaukat,

           

          What is interesting is that GWTF does seem to take exception to your example of a hypothetical male who refuses to date single mothers if you examine her choice of words.  While she frames her response as if she isn’t offended, she still chooses to judge such a man in the same way that she accuses you and other commenters of judging Gala.

           

          Let’s take a look, shall we?

           

          “In the case of a guy like that, I would say my single parent status saved me a lot of grief.  Otherwise I might wind up wasting time to figure out  that we are completely incompatible for reasons that have nothing to do with me having kids.”     

           

          ….and then there’s this little nugget tucked away like a teddy:

           

          “Because when it comes down to it do the specifics really ever change someone’s mind when they are set in their ways?”

           

          One can easily detect the judgment in her tone here.

           

          It’s interesting how, in this hypothetical instance, she’s no longer interested in trying to explain why she “gets the larger picture of what this guy is saying”.  It seems to me that this hypothetical male is no different than Gala.  What’s the difference, I wonder?

        6. Emily, the original

          GoWiththeFlow,

           It’s a regular thing in discussions amongst female friends about the guy who looked promising until she saw his pizza box and beer bottle littered apartment with the crusty carpet.

          Is the issue that the apartment was underwhelming in terms of material possessions or that it was dirty? The latter would bother me.

        7. GoWiththeFlow

          Chance,

          LOL to the man who likes to accuse people of “virtue signaling.”

          Holy crap, Chance, in your search for hidden resentment, which you seem to imply negates anything I say, you really missed the point.

          Your “brilliant” ahem, insight:

          “Let’s take a look, shall we?”

           “In the case of a guy like that, I would say my single parent status saved me a lot of grief.  Otherwise I might wind up wasting time to figure out  that we are completely incompatible for reasons that have nothing to do with me having kids.”

          “One can easily detect the judgment in her tone here.”

          Yes I get judged for being a single parent (heck, YAG would judge me for being a grandmother).  Or for being short, or because a man prefers olive skinned brunettes, or wants someone younger.  That is life.

          Using Evan’s terminology, in such situations what is the effective thing to do?  Get angry because I get judged?  Or accept that it will happen and be honest with myself that there are areas where I judge men too, so I shouldn’t get worked up over it.

          Guess what?  Trying to convert a man who is uncomfortable being involved with a single mom isn’t something with a good chance of being successful.  And there are men out there who don’t mind dating a woman with children so why bother?  So yes–it saves me a lot of grief, and it saves the man a lot of grief too.

          In addition, your hypothetical man is basically someone who thinks single moms are lazy whores.  Quite the opposite of the kind loving man I want to be with!  People who have attitudes like that often have equally harsh beliefs about people of different races, ethnicities, or religions.  Not to mention a whole truckload full of misogynistic beliefs, like abortion should be outlawed because women should have to “take responsibility” for their actions.  So yes, “we are completely incompatible for reasons that have nothing to do with me having kids.”

          So heck yeah I’m going to negatively judge a guy like that and be grateful he passed me up because of my parenting status!  Some childless woman will spend weeks to months on a guy like that before his ugliness comes out.

        8. Chance

          Hi GWTF, I’m confused by the histrionics within your response because you are now doing exactly what you were accusing Shaukat and others of doing to Gala.  First, it was Shaukat’s hypothetical male example.  Not mine.  Also, in his example, the man didn’t go anywhere near calling single mothers “lazy whores” (as you put it).  The rest of your post is based on prejudiced speculation and guilt by association.  The truth is that there are many very good reasons to not date single mothers that have nothing to do with misogyny (or racism, or ethnocentrism) just as there are good reasons to not date a guy who doesn’t have expensive stuff in his domicile.

           

          Shaukat’s example was that of a guy who has a very valid preference, but who happens come to inappropriate judgments about the people who don’t match that preference (very similar to Gala).  However, he could very well be a good person just like Gala.  There is no good reason for why someone should take issue with one example without taking issue with the other.

        9. Yet Another Guy

          @GWtF

          It’s like someone who is obese insisting that someone of the opposite sex should find them attractive, and if they don’t it’s a moral failing on their part.

          Clearly, you have never spent time reading female profiles on a dating site.  Women are constantly lambasting men for having the audacity to want a woman who is in shape (i.e., the looking for Barbie comments).  Heck, I have seen that attitude expressed by female commenters on this blog many times.

        10. Theodora

          In addition, your hypothetical man is basically someone who thinks single moms are lazy whores.  Quite the opposite of the kind loving man I want to be with!  People who have attitudes like that often have equally harsh beliefs about people of different races, ethnicities, or religions. 

           

          I’ve never ever heard someone calling single mothers “lazy whores”. However, a lot of people consider single mothers irresponsible, impulsive, prone to take bad decisions and not very able to think clearly about the future and the consequences of their actions.

           

          I think there is some truth to it and a man can have serious, well-thought reasons to avoid single mothers as serious relationship prospects, particularly if he doesn’t have children himself. Including some kind, loving, open-minded, non-bigoted, enlightened men. There is nothing showing a lack of character per se in men who avoid single mothers, the same way there is nothing wrong, character-wise, about the men with minimal furniture in their appartments.

      3. 14.1.3
        Shaukat

        GWTF,

        I’m not sure how you’re drawing any of those inferences from my posts, because they have nothing to do with what I was actually arguing. I’ll try and make my position clearer.

        My issue was not with Gala’s tone or choice of words. You’re right, somebody can make reasonable and accurate statements while employing a hostile tone, and the latter has nothing to do with the former. My entire point was that her substantive statements were false; her judgements were based on assumptions that were unjustified. She essentially stated that someone living in “sub-par” conditions without substantial material possessions would likely suffer from personality flaws or have low character. Just read her latest response to Marika.

        Take your analogy of an obese individual, a hypothetical I myself employed in a recent post. An obese person isn’t entitled to date anyone, and would be foolish for thinking so. And it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to say they’re not attracted to overweight individuals. But if somebody were to suggest that all overweight people are naturally lazy and lack drive, I’d say the assumption was false because the person could have a glandular problem, could live in a food desert, might have had an injury, etc.

        Also, I don’t take what she says personally, I’m just pointing out wrong headedness when I see it. I have advanced degrees and I don’t live in a dorm style room with pizza boxes everywhere-though when I did those were some of the best years of my life. So if Gala wants to boast about how she compares credit scores with the guys she dates and reviews their real estate investments etc, she can knock herself out.

        Chance, solid post all around. I noticed some of that as well.

         

  15. 15
    ljsrmissy

    I personally don’t have an issue with Gala’s saying that she would not look at a man who only had the bare minimum in his place favorably.  I chimed in when she asked these men commenters why they are comfortable only having the minimum in their place, and they essentially responded because it WORKS FOR THEM as men. As men they don’t need all the extras that women want and need furnishing wise. They did not say that was all they could afford. They did not say this is all they ever had or all they will ever have or that if they were to get together with a woman, that they would not be open to her influence as it relates to making their shared space for ‘comfortable’ as SHE defines it.  And she argued with them about how she did not understand why they did not want things that are nice and comfortable.  My point was that these guys were speaking about what works for THEM.  The minimum is clearly nice and comfortable enough for them. She was having an exchange with them about what they should find to be nice and comfortable according to her sensibilities.  She seemed to be missing that their sensibilities are not an extension of hers when it comes to their own living space and what they choose to do with it.  Now she has full right to feel how she feels about how  a man presents his living space… what I am saying is that man has full right to decide HIS living space no matter how minimal works for HIM.  That is just like a man asking a women why does she wear make up, buy so many shoes, clothes, and lotions. Or why does she have all of these decorations and nick knacks around her house.  Now sure, he can form his personal opinion on her stuff. There is a difference between forming and opinion on that woman’s choices for herself and trying to tell that woman that her choices for herself is not correct based on his male sensibilities. That is what I felt Gala was doing when they guys essentially told her ‘well, this works for me’, and she said ‘I dont get that, dont you want something nice and comfortable’….Perhaps they guys find what they have to be nice and comfortable enough and hence it works for them.

  16. 16
    Marika

    Gala said 

    It annoys me that whenever a woman states her preference for any sort of lifestyle..

    That’s not what you did, Gala. You made assumptions and drew unnecessarily harsh conclusions about men who lived simply. Accusing them of being, among other things, immature, cheap and questioning their character. As I tried to point out, there can be multiple, understandable and high character reasons for it. It’s a shame you can’t see that.

    As Chance said, it was the way you expressed yourself. The stronc reaction you received should clue you in to the fact that, whatever your preferences, you could’ve worded it better.

  17. 17
    Theodora

    The dating market works like any other market: supply and demand. We all have preferences, but by the end of the day we can get what we want according to what we can offer and is considered valuable in the market.

    So, if Gala can date wealthy, sophisticated gentlemen with collections of Secession furniture, more power to her!

    I wonder though, if she is surrounded by rich gentlemen with refined tastes, how she came to the conclusion that “every single woman I know has a nice house and her shit together. Every single guy I know… well, not so much”. On the other hand though, “All men I end up dating had decent homes with decent furniture, rugs, pianos, etc.” and “In fact, most of the nice things I enjoy now, from fine wine to luxury travel, I was originally exposed to by men I dated”.

    If all the men she ends up dating are fine wine, luxury travels lovers, how none of the single guys she knows has his shit together?

    Are these sophisticated gentlemen she surrounds herself with not single? The mysteries of life.

    Anyway: the fact is that a frugal man and a high maintenance woman (and viceversa) are a bad match. And in any market, you can get extraordinary if you offer extraordinary, according to the laws of supply and demand and the human law of incentives drive behavior.

    1. 17.1
      Gala

      There is a difference between perpetually single and transitory single. We are all single at one point or another, with the exception of the folks who are married (and even they tend to become single from time to time, hehe).

      I will tell you guys a story to illustrate my point. A few years back i met a guy at a party who seemed totally eligible. We were both at that time in late 20ies. He was a top U graduate, tall, atttactive and had a job in a lucrative field, from a good family, and a “guy guy”, not a metro. Anyhow, we went on a couple of dates, at some point he invited me back to his apartment and I accepted. When we got there, the picture before my eyes was as follows: it was a dingy dark place in the semi-basement of a pre-war building. The windows were roughly on the same level with the sidewalk. The room featured a mattress on a metal frame, with some pillows and sheets on top of it (unmade), some posters on the walls, tiled floor and i believe a coffee table. The kitchen had a table with empty beer bottles and bags of chips on it. On the way in we passed a few overflowing garbage cans in the lobby of the building. I mean…. i had more tact than to say “too shitty, i am out”. I hang out for 10 minutes, developed a “headache” and left. This is precisely the situation i wouldn’t tolerate. We didn’t continue dating. The guy and I have a mutual friend and i from time to time run into him at parties. He’s still single, and still afaik living in that apartment. Last time i overheard him brag about what a great deal he gets on rent from his 90-yr landlord (no shit!). Frankly, i couldn’t care enough to figure out what this guy’s problem is that he lives like that, all i know i don’t want to make his problems my own. I am a grown up person and date people with grown up homes…

      1. 17.1.1
        Mrs Happy

        Dear Gala @ 17.1,

        I really like that you had clear boundaries regarding what you wanted and what you wouldn’t put up with, and acted on those in a decisive way.  You’re getting attacked on this part of the blog, but I’m impressed you could observe and interpret his squalor and what it might mean for you, so well in your 20’s, as I don’t know all women can at that age. So many women would have made allowances, been nice, sympathetic, tried to help, tried not to be too materialistic, and been sucked into a vortex of icky living they didn’t like.  The very clear picture of dirt and disorder makes me smile, you have quite a way with words.

        Being married with kids, most of the women I socialise with now are also married, and one of the many things they have in common, is an ability to have accurately realistically assessed the viability of long term relationship potential.  This differs from the single women I knew when I was single, who put up with crap like a boyfriend’s sordid living quarters, while bemoaning how much this irritated them.  The now happily-married women were more ruthless in removing themselves quickly from situations which wouldn’t benefit their long-term relationship or life prospects.  They were quite unromantic and pragmatic about it actually.  They prioritised their needs, and didn’t let others shame them for doing so.

        1. Jeremy

          Mrs. Happy, “The now happily-married women were more ruthless in removing themselves quickly from situations which wouldn’t benefit their long-term relationship or life prospects.  They were quite unromantic and pragmatic about it actually.  They prioritised their needs, and didn’t let others shame them for doing so.” Are these the same women who have since lost interest in sex with their husbands? 

  18. 18
    Marika

    GWTF

    It’s nice of you to be so supportive of Gala. Personal preferences and language choice aside, though, I can’t agree with this: her “overall argument rings true”.

    Her overall argument is that nice house = grown up and living simply = not grown up. I disagree. In fact, it can be the opposite. I also don’t agree that women will necessarily judge a man harshly on his living situation. In some circumstances, yes. In some circumstances, absolutely not. At least for me and my friends.

    There’s also the issue Theodora raised whereby she contradicted herself.

    So this, IMHO, is not about Gala being judged for raising a blunt but true point.

    1. 18.1
      Gala

      You are reducing my position to some absurd level. I never said that some personality flaws are the ONLY reason why someone may have sub-par living conditions. Yes they may be just divorced or may be they had cancer and high medical bills or something. Do you really think that by the time you see the inside of someone’s house you wouldn’t have that vital piece of information? I was talking specifically about situations where everything is “normal”. And, even if there was a “legitimate” reason for a man to live in a dorm-like housing, i still wouldn’t want to go out with him.  Because once you get seriously involved with someone, their problems will become your problems, whether you want it or not. And i don’t want any other people’s pre-existing problems.

      i am sorry that you find my direct style of delivery so offensive.  I could try and massage it in, but then again – this is an internet blog. Why would i? May be you could move on from that and onto the actual point. You made it clear that you are willing to take on a guy irrespective of his ciromstance. That this is how things are in your country. This doesn’t work like that here. As adults we don’t just dive into a relationship because we like the same rock music and are nice people. This stuff is for college years. If we are attempting to build a life together, we should look for partners who are suitable for that goal. My boyfriend and i exchanged our credit scores within 2 months of dating. Between the 2 of us we own 5 properties in 3 states, we know how much we make and talked about budget, money, expectations about dividing chores etc. I admire the purity of your approach, on some level, i really do. It just doesn’t work for me and it never did.

      1. 18.1.1
        Jeremy

        As long as you know that such conversations are much like the stock market or mutual funds – past performance is not necessarily an indication of future performance :). Just because you’ve had the conversation about chore division doesn’t mean that’s how you’ll really divide the chores – or that that’s how you’ll WANT to divide chores, especially once kids are in the picture (if that’s the plan).  I know your past experience heavily colours your present fears, so I get what you’re doing.  As Daniel Gilbert says, there are 2 reasons why we try to predict the future: The first is that we believe that by predicting the future it will give us control over the outcome and lead to better results.  The second is because it feels good to predict and to feel some sense of control, even if it is false.  Gilbert’s research shows that the second reason is far better than the first, because predicted outcomes are not necessarily more likely to make us happy.  Nevertheless, I do it too.

        1. Marika

          Jeremy

          Good points all. That’s why I think that the so-called ‘grown up’ approach to dating that involves prioritising consideration of such transitory things as material possessions is, IMHO, not so grown up. If you’d have asked me 10 years ago whether I’d ever get divorced, my answer would’ve been an emphatic ‘no’. If you’d asked me before the banks changed their rules around lending for investment whether I’d have multiple investment properties by now, an emphatic ‘yes’… things change. In fact, as the saying goes, the only constant is change. Which is why marriage vows include for better or worse, richer or poorer. What do people obsessed with a certain standard of living do if their partner can no longer keep up with it. Cut & run?

          My personal version of someone who engages in ‘grown up dating’ is a person who prioritises things like mental flexibility, sense of humour, compassion, optimism, being able to delay gratification (over, say, a nice couch). I would imagine those are good things to be mindful of, as a person with those characteristics will do well no matter what uncontrollable life circumstances arise. Not someone who is only happy when things are good & their partner is rich and healthy.

        2. Jeremy

          I see your point, Marika, but I think there’s more to it than that.  Because although I agree that mental flexibility, optimism, and delay of gratification are important, they won’t necessarily get you through a time when you are arguing over lifestyle incompatibilities.  There are basic issues that constitute compatibility that transcend the things on your list IMHO.  The problem is just that we often guess wrong, in our youth, what those things are likely to be.  As I’ve written before, people with incompatible views on money (one is a spender, the other a saver) will argue about money unless money is copious.  People with incompatible views on kids (and how to raise them) will have an awful time once kids are born.  People with incompatible sexual meta-goals will have a rough time, as will people with different relationship meta-goals.  The Guardian-type woman who wants to be a pillar in her community will have a tough time with the Explorer-type man whose life goal is positive affect, even though both of them might be optimistic, flexible, and able to delay gratification.  The problem is that young people think compatibility means the ability to have fun together and be attracted to each other…..and those things are not what makes compatibility at all – unless one’s relationship goal is simply having fun together.

  19. 19
    Marika

    Okay Gala, do whatever works for you. But just be aware that if you choose, to use your words, a ‘direct’ communication style devoid of tact and compassion to other positions, you’ll likely face some pushback.

    Best wishes to you and your boyfriend for a great future together.

  20. 20
    Marika

    Jeremy said

    Are these the same women who have since lost interest in sex with their husbands? 

    I’m glad you asked that, Jeremy, as I was wondering the same thing. If so, they may be great examples of people with boundaries who act in their own best interests. But not great examples of good partners. I wonder if their husbands consider themselves happily married?

    That’s the thing, I’ve never met a very materialistic person who wasn’t very selfish. I don’t think selfish is a good thing in a marriage / long term relationship.

    1. 20.1
      Jeremy

      Agree about the selfishness and the questioning of exactly what “happily married” means to each person.  I think the key to a good marriage is that both partners are willing to not get what they want occasionally so that the other person can get what they want – to give in to the other person’s prerogatives as long as the other person reciprocates and as long as doing so doesn’t constitute an important boundary violation.  But in order to be willing to sometimes NOT get what we want, we need to get what we want enough of the time.  Enter the importance of priorities.  It is a balance IMHO.  It’s not that I am discounting the things you mentioned above (delay of gratification, generosity, etc) – it’s just that those things aren’t enough.

      1. 20.1.1
        Marika

        Thanks Jeremy

        I know those things aren’t enough. That was more a response to the idea that ‘grown up’ dating means nice houses and swapping credit reports. The flogged horse is probably close to dead by now, but Ms G is trying to make out that her preferences = grown up. Not so. I know plenty of happy, very mature and grown up couples who care more about the environment, travel, charity etc etc than the things she lists as of utmost importance and oh so grown up.

        Rant over 🙂

        And, honestly, I think that’s partly because a lot of relationship advice caters mostly to the Guardian type. Even your own to some extent. For instance, logical analysis of goals and meta-goals and… None of that appeals to people like me. I would end up in analysis paralysis and never make a decision about anyone. Besides, I think I’m far less risk-averse than you (and certainly, from what I know of her, your wife).

        The manosphere (and to some extent Shaukat above) appear to believe that women, or at least some women, hatch some deliberate plot to destroy their lives. I think most women (and you touched on this) who have been less than lovely to men they’ve dated didn’t do it because they don’t care about who they hurt, I think they were likely just confused.

        Most of my family sound a lot like your wife, wanting to fulfil traditional roles in upstanding ways. I’m not like that, but for a long time I tried to pretend I was. As much as I really do want marriage and a family, you know what I ‘fear’ (I use the term loosely as these are very much first world problems), I fear feeling stuck in a boring, sexless marriage where my material needs are met, our kids are at nice schools and it all looks lovely from the outside, but my husband and I live parallel lives. Or nondescript lives. And we have sex once in a while just to go through the motions. Or my husband turning into a materialistic guy with no social conscience who cares only about our backyard. Or one of us being happy and the other not because we are trying to fulfil a ‘role’, rather than being our authentic selves. Those types of things.

        People like me (and maybe Emily can  relate to this?) need a completely different set of advice and parameters for making a ‘good’ relationship decision.

        1. Shaukat

          Marika,

          I don’t know what you’re referring to, but I was arguing the exact opposite of the manosphere line. I specifically stated that I don’t believe that women date alphas and then deliberately settle with below average betas they’re not attracted to physically. In other words, I was asserting that women don’t act that cynically. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

        2. Jeremy

          Marika, “Most of my family sound a lot like your wife, wanting to fulfil traditional roles in upstanding ways. I’m not like that, but for a long time I tried to pretend I was.”  Believe me, I get that.  It is heartbreaking when a child with one personality type is raised by parents with another type who lack any understanding that other types exist.  My mother was an Idealist raised by Guardians.  Her experience is exactly as you describe – being raised to think you want one thing, when internally you want something else.  And you think there’s something wrong with you for not wanting what you should.  And then, when you get older, you think there’s something wrong with your parents for not wanting what you do.

           

          I was a Rational raised by 2 dysfunctional Idealists.  I understand Idealists very, very well.  I was always told I was dysfunctional because I didn’t care about the things my parents did, didn’t see the world the same way.  Now, decades later, they wonder how I was able to see and navigate as I did.

           

          For instance, logical analysis of goals and meta-goals and… None of that appeals to people like me. I would end up in analysis paralysis and never make a decision about anyone.”  I know that.  Still doesn’t hurt to know the concepts, though, even if you use a different yard stick.  The other day, as I was putting my 10 year old son to bed, he looked at me forlornly and said, “dad, you know I’m not like you, right?  Are you disappointed that I like hockey and baseball and that I don’t think as fast as you?”  I was a little taken aback and heartbroken, and I told my little son, who is a Guardian with a Rational father, the following story:  An apple farmer once planted a seed, not knowing what kind of seed it was.  And when he saw it was a pear tree, he wasn’t disappointed that it wasn’t an apple, and he didn’t try to change it into an apple.  He knew that the seed would grow into whatever tree it was meant to be.  And his job as a farmer was to help it be the best pear tree that it could be – not to try to make it into some distorted apple.  The same is true with children.  We plant the seed, not knowing what they will become – and it is our job to help them be the best version of their potential – not copies of ourselves.

           

          My son liked this story.  I tell it here because I am not trying to make you into a Rational.  You’d be miserable, because it isn’t natural for you.  Any more than it is natural for me to read about people trying to be their “authentic selves” as though that had any meaning 🙂  My only goal with the advice I offer is to provide a perspective, not to change pear trees into apples.

        3. Emily, the original

          Marika,
          And, honestly, I think that’s partly because a lot of relationship advice caters mostly to the Guardian type. Even your own to some extent. For instance, logical analysis of goals and meta-goals and… None of that appeals to people like me.
          Doesn’t appeal to me, either. I get the ideas intellectually and it’s been good to be introduced to the concepts, but they leave me cold. They’re so … dry. Like engineer/pocket protector dry.
          Most of my family sound a lot like your wife, wanting to fulfill traditional roles in upstanding ways. 
          Mine, too. Their idea of “crazy” was my not choosing a math or science major in college as all the rest of them did.
          you know what I ‘fear’ (I use the term loosely as these are very much first world problems), I fear feeling stuck in a boring, sexless marriage
          I fear something similar — that he is just having sex with me because he’s legally and societally sanctioned to do so if we are married but has no real desire for me. That there are many other women he’d rather have sex with but that would take effort and work on his part to get out of the marriage, and comfort and convenience trump everything.

    2. 20.2
      Mrs Happy

      Dear Marika and Jeremy,

      almost every married woman with children in her 30’s, 40’s  and above, that I know, who talks about the topic, lost most of her libido and interest in sex, after the children were born, so the answer is yes, the women who prioritised their wants regarding not living in squalor etc while dating, are also the women who when approaching middle age want less sex.  I suspect it’s a largely a statistical coincidence rather than cause and effect though.  For example maybe the women with really high libidos are in relationship paradigms other than faithful conservative marriages, and I don’t know them.

      I’m wondering how to fashion this comment so Jeremy won’t start writing about power, but I can’t afford the bandwidth, as work is too busy this morning.

      1. 20.2.1
        Jeremy

        [Chuckling], Ok Mrs. Happy, I’ll refrain from using the P-word.  Instead, I’ll ask a question:  If we assume that your friends are typical married women, then they simply planned well, set themselves up with husbands who serve their whims and gave them children, and now wish they could join an all-women’s commune – like all women do.  But if we suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that it is indeed possible for traditionally married women to have kids, lead busy lives, and still desire sex with their husbands – and further – care about their husbands’ priorities and want to make them happy….what would that say about your friends?  And if you were a man thinking about marriage, what would your description of typical women say to him?  What would his logical reaction be?

        1. Mrs Happy

          Dear Jeremy @ 20.2.1,

          the few wanting-to-live in a commune women aside, this is my experience:

          For much of my adult life the women I usually socialised with were colleagues in my industry; professional, highly educated women, serious career types.  In 20+ years of conversations with these women I never heard one discuss how to be a good wife or partner. They were working excessive hours a week in a high stress role, and didn’t have a lot spare to make a man the centre of their being, or the type to want to, even when in relationships.

          Then a number of years ago some things happened to me within a very short time – I married, had my first child, purchased property, exponentially increased my income, moved to a moneyed area of my city, and then started living a married family life.  My children started at some of the most expensive schools in the country, and now my socialising via these schools is mainly with conservative, married, wealthy couples and women, just by virtue of who can afford the fees (there are some family trusts paying the fees too of course).  Most of the schoolchildrens’ parents work in senior roles in the financial industry, and about half of the women, though highly educated and previously professional, don’t work outside the home at all now children have arrived.

          I almost fell over in surprise getting to know these women because at some girls-nights-out dinners almost all they talk about is how to be a better wife, and how to mother their children well. Their focus is totally on their families. Their libido is gone – bare in mind they have 2-4 kids under eight – but in every other domain I suspect their husbands are very content.  And note, though the last thing they want to do is have regular sex, some ask me where to get thorough waxing and buy lingerie.

          These women run the (big) household, do all the child-related work, volunteer, manage full social lives for each member of the family and a host of extra-curricular activities for each child, look gorgeous, buy all the presents, arrange all the family holidays, do all the emotional work for the family immediate and extended, cope while their husbands frequently travel internationally for work, or else regularly work locally till 11pm; they are super-organised, hard-working committed wives and mothers.  Their libido dropping is one small practically negligible issue for them, though I appreciate for some readers of this blog, and for their husbands, it’s a larger issue.

          They didn’t intend to have their libido drop after kids or near menopause.  They didn’t realise it would happen (though everyone tells people the sex won’t be as frequent after kids, who believes it will really happen to their own hot raunchy sex lives?).  They weren’t tricking their partner.  They didn’t intentionally “set themselves up with husbands who serve their whims and gave them children”.   They love their husbands and want to have happy marriages (commune dreamers aside).  It’s not about power – it really isn’t.  They would welcome their libido back in a moment.  I’m not stating this is all women, but it is almost every woman with kids who talks about marital sex within my hearing.  They just don’t want much sex any more.

           

          To specifically answer your questions Jeremy,

          If I were a man who wanted nightly sex at almost any cost, I definitely wouldn’t have children, or stay in a relationship past the 2-year mark, or have a partner within 10 years of menopause, because any of these make nightly sex very unlikely.  Maybe if in a relationship I liked where the sex was suboptimal, I’d frequent escort services or have affairs, in order to obtain regular sex. I don’t really know, I’m not a man, and though I do try to understand, I cannot truly imagine how sex can be such a priority.

          Most women do not want sex as often as most men.  Maybe it’s the clearest argument against intelligent design – for who would have created such an idiotic disparity?  But for the followers of Darwin, of course it makes perfect sense.

        2. jeremy

          I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Mrs. Happy.  Our circles are similar.  The type of woman and marriage you describe are very, very familiar to me.  And I agree that the women in question want to be good wives and mothers and never set out to trap their husbands or pull a bait-and-switch.  Frankly, I agree with most of your comment and empathize with the people involved.

           

          I know I talk about personality types, and I know that some readers here get put off by that.  But I think it bears mentioning that many of the women you describe are likely Guardian type personalities – these are people who adopt externally-derived roles as the basis for their actions and personality (as opposed to basing their personality on internal feelings/thoughts or objective outcomes or positive affect).  And while I agree that part of the problem might be declining hormones and increasing responsibilities, I do believe that part of the problem lies in the messaging that such women receive from their peers.  When they read their mommy blogs that tell them it’s ok to ignore their husbands’ needs for the years of their pregnancy and childrens’ infancy, when they hear that it is normal for sex to decline – the more they hear it is normal, the more the cycle re-inforces itself.  I really think it is important that societal messaging be changed to let them know that while it might be COMMON to lose one’s libido (just as it is common to divorce), it is by no means good for one’s marriage.  While this might seem obvious, many of these women really believe their husbands should be ok with it – that it shouldn’t be a big deal as long as they do all the other things a good wife should do.

           

          You asked me, a while back, how I solved the sexual problem in my marriage (and were somewhat sceptical).  The answer is that I failed throroughly by trying to get her to better want to prioritize MY needs.  I only succeeded when I was able to frame it in terms of HER needs.  And while that works from a psychological (and Darwinian) standpoint, it is somewhat disappointing from a marital one.  If we prioritize outcomes (as I tend to do, by my personality), we can obtain the best marital outcomes by prioritizing the needs of our spouses – and the worst outcomes by not doing so.

        3. Emily, the original

          Jeremy,

          I really think it is important that societal messaging be changed to let them know that while it might be COMMON to lose one’s libido (just as it is common to divorce), it is by no means good for one’s marriage.  

          I’m not being snarky when I write this, but is it not possible that these women don’t want have sex anymore because they aren’t motivated by it? Maybe they’ve been together with their husbands for twenty years. Is it like having chocolate mousse prepared by a French chef every night? It’s delicious, but after 20 years … it loses its luster. That’t not to say they want to go out and eat a different dessert. It’s that they have a different diet and are in a different phase of life.

        4. Jeremy

          Emily, “They have a different diet, are in a different phase of life.” You can’t be married and have this attitude – or, at least, can’t expect to remain married with it.  This was the point I was trying to make earlier with Mrs. Happy.  Losing one’s libido is not a minor marital inconvenience.  It is not something that most men will overlook because of a woman’s excellent chocolate cake recipe and multi-tasking skills.  It is a big deal.  Some women will write that they don’t understand why sex should be such a big deal to men – but it isn’t hard to understand.  It is a love language.  If your love language is conversation and your spouse declares that he is tired of talking to you after 20 years – “The conversation has been great, but it was like French pastry and now my appetite has changed”  – such a man can not expect to remain happily married.  There should be no societal messaging telling him that such behavior is ok in the context of marriage.

        5. Emily, the original

          Jeremy,

          Some women will write that they don’t understand why sex should be such a big deal to men – but it isn’t hard to understand.  It is a love language.  

          But maybe after 20 years there’s nothing to learn about that language. At least for the women.

        6. Jeremy

          Emily, “But maybe after 20 years there’s nothing to learn about that language. At least for the women.

           

          My father in law is a talker.  Every time he comes over, he loves to chat me up about everyone he knows – who they are related to, what they are doing – I affectionately call it “Noun vomiting” – a deluge of people, places and things.  And not only do I not care about these nouns, I’ve heard all the stories before – how Brenda’s cousin Jerry owns a medical building, and doesn’t he make a lot of money from that, and don’t his kids have a lovely home, etc etc etc.

           

          It used to really bother me because I felt I had nothing to learn from it – he was talking about things I didn’t care about.  And then….and then I came to understand that this is how he bonds.  He is talking because he wants to bond with me, talking is his way of doing that.  Like the inscrutable boys I grew up with who loved to talk about baseball stats – who the hell cares about baseball stats?  They talk about it to bond with each other (and to one-up each other).  It’s not about the baseball.  It’s not about Brenda and her cousin Jerry.  It’s about him and me.  And regardless of whether or not I’ve already heard the story, regardless of whether or not I care about the actors, I GET what he is doing and appreciate it.  And much like a mother who doesn’t mind when her cute baby gets some spit-up on her shirt occasionally, I can stand the occasional bout of Noun vomiting for a good purpose.

           

          Because it isn’t about what there is to learn about the nouns.

        7. Emily, the original

          Jeremy,

          Because it isn’t about what there is to learn about the nouns.

          Yeah, I get that, but the only constant in life is change. No one is the same at 45 as they were at 25.

          And how much sex are we talking about? How many times per week? Be specific. Not “it’s different for every couple.”  I have a friend who agreed to two times a week with her husband. They both work full-time and have two children. They are very busy but do make it a point to go on date nights and make time for each other as a couple. This is just one example that I can think of off the top of my head.

  21. 21
    Marika

    Shaukat

    Comments like this:

    Not true at all, though I understand why this myth persists given the plethora of Disney style films where a woman discovers her best friend is the ‘one.’ If anything, women are far more likely to chase chemistry. This is especially true in the era of the swiping culture, where, thanks to thirsty guys, a 5 can hook up with an 8 and have her ego temporarily stroked. If what you were saying were true, then thousands of poor average chumps wouldn’t be languishing in the friend zone.

    All that shows is that women also primarily operate and select mates based on raw attraction (which is fine), despite saying the opposite at times. 

    “Don’t want to generalize, but in my experience the attractive women who consciously choose to settle with a guy who they think is below average  looking are the ones who know they have little to offer in a relationship outside of the looks department.”

    Are very manospherish. And quite disparaging of women’s motivations.

    1. 21.1
      Shaukat

      Marika,

      Paragraph #3 simply states that some women are insecure and act accordingly. A subset of women act this way, just like a subset of men act selfishly. Not sure what the issue is, unless you believe that all women always act with the purest motives.

      The second point, that women, like men, also act based off of raw attraction shouldn’t even be controversial.

      The first paragraph is again fact, and it doesn’t at all suggest that women chase chemistry due to sinister motives. The ego stroking is I think inadvertent, I don’t believe the vast majority of women are on those apps to have their egos stroked. I’ll admit the language was a little charged though.

      Finally, you’re using manosphere as a pejorative term. Some of the red pill stuff is toxic, some is actually useful, so you can’t really dismiss points by shoehorning them into a category you’ve already decided is worthless.

      1. 21.1.1
        Marika

        Haha, Shaukat, nice way to explain it all away…. 😉

        None of us really know each other, so language choice on a blog is really all we have to go by. From time to time you make charged, blanket statements about women that are ‘manospherish’ (just like women discussed in this thread do about men). Maybe after a particularly bad date, or a friend who’s recently complained about being put in the friend zone…who knows?

        Whether or not you think that is pejorative is up to you. But I gave you a few examples as requested and Tom pulled you up on putting women in a ‘no win situation’ as well. So perhaps there’s a little truth to it.

  22. 22
    Marika

    Haha, Jeremy, fair enough.

    I would suggest that your son is trying to be his ‘authentic self’ while also trying to ensure that he doesn’t disappoint you in the process 🙂

    I think all these approaches are fine. Unless and until someone starts to claim that their way is the only way. Or the only right way. That you have to do x, y, z to have a happy marriage or you’re doomed. That all well-off middle aged married women with children lose their libidos. That all women are driven by chemistry while trying to claim the opposite. And so on. That’s where it gets highly frustrating. I also feel for men when women make ridiculous claims about them.

  23. 23
    Jeremy

    Marika, I was thinking about your statement about needing a different sort of dating advice for your personality.  Funnily enough, I actually think the best advice is advice that steers us AWAY from our personality’s natural proclivities.

     

    I’ll give you an example.  As a woman, you need to respect a man in order to be attracted to him long-term.  But as an Idealist woman, you need to respect a man specifically for his authenticity (because that’s what you most respect in yourself).  He needs to show you who he is – be his authentic self and allow you to be yours.  But you don’t need advice to seek that – seeking that is your natural proclivity.  Instead, the advice needed is to temper that proclivity with others that are not natural to you.  Understanding that authenticity is not enough – that you will need some practical considerations that are more natural to Guardian-types but not to you, even though you might not think they are important right now.  Because no matter how authentic a man is, he won’t be very attractive to you when you’re holding a screaming baby and he’s unhelpful and unemployed.

     

    The Guardian woman’s natural proclivity is to respect a man specifically for the role he plays (though she sees it as the man he IS, rather than the role he plays).  She needs no advice to do so.  Rather, she needs advice to understand that non-Guardians all eventually seek to break out of their roles and look for happiness outside of those roles, and that doing so does not make one immature.  That even though they have followed a role, their doing so will not necessarily make their spouse happy, nor should it necessarily.  Because what matters is the values of the 2 spouses, not those of society.

     

    The Artisan/Explorer woman seeks excitement and positive affect, and needs no advice to do so.  Instead, the advice she needs is to temper that proclivity with the understanding that ultimately happiness is determined by the remembering self, not the experiencing self.  And that the advice of dry, bizarre rationals might be valid for them too.

  24. 24
    Marika

    Jeremy 

    The sex thing: 200% get it. I think it’s odd, really, that you even have to explain it!!

    This is where Guardians could do with being more like Idealists (or at least me ☺). Mrs Happy lists alllll the many things these guardian women are doing, I think both to illustrate how valuable they are to their husbands, and probably that they’re tired. Maybe also a tad resentful (ie that then they also ‘have to’ have sex after all that).

    You know what: don’t do it all! You don’t think the husband (and kids) wouldn’t prefer that from time to time Mum got a pizza for dinner and was relaxed and had time for sex? Do you really need the massive house with 400 bedrooms to keep clean? Could you get that second cousin a gift voucher online instead of spending all day in some (insert fancy American store)? Do your kids really need 7 after school activities a week? What’s most important here?

    This is why I’m resistant toward being more guardian-like in my dating. I think I’d end up with someone I’m fundamentally mismatched with. As I think such people prioritize the wrong things (for me). In their haste to fulfill this perfect role. My patients are typically kids from families like Mrs Happy describes, so I get an insight into that world. Honestly, it gives me the hebbie jeebies. These women are high maintenance on steroids. (And often not very nice to our staff).

    My friends and I (most of whom are married with kids), talk about the sex we are having, not the sex we aren’t. We’re all busy with work and dating (me), kid & husband stuff (them), but none of has have massive houses or predetermined societal/socialite duties. So maybe that’s the difference. I’ll never forget when my friend (40, two kids) was struggling as her husband put on lots of weight and grew a beard. I asked if it was affecting her sex life. She said ‘hell no! If I stopped having sex, then I would miss out!’. So it is possible. I also have a friend (late 30s, one kid) we tease as her husband’s kinda boring. She says ‘he’s exciting where it counts ;)’.

    Even if somehow I lost my sex drive, I would do whatever it takes to reinvigorate things. As I wouldn’t be able to deal with one person in the marriage being unhappy / disappointed.

    1. 24.1
      Jeremy

      You’re preaching to the choir, my friend 😉  And note, I suggested being more Guardian-like, not being a Guardian.  Being a Guardian would make me feel like a wooden soldier.  It would make you feel like you were in prison.  But being more Guardian-like is a different matter.  It helps abstract-oriented people like you and me to occasionally focus on the concrete.  Because as I mentioned above, you may value a man who is environmentally conscious, expresses his authentic self, is extroverted and emotional and funny – but one day, you’ll want some help raising the kids and making some money.

       

      My cousin is an Idealist man.  He is concerned with being his authentic self.  He moved to Israel because of his beliefs, he expresses his desires, focuses on spirituality and music and is often found daydreaming to the point where he once lost his job over it……and his poor wife (also an Idealist who did a degree in musicology, of all things, and teaches swimming and flute part-time when she isn’t busy with her 4 kids) is left to raise their kids largely on her own while she shakes her head at her absent-minded husband – whose idealism she admires, while she wishes he had a bit more practicality.

       

      Wow, that was a run-on sentence.  And a bit of an extreme example.  But it illustrates the point. I understand what you fear.  There is a spectrum between what you fear and what is reasonable.  Ask older women with your personality type what they would have done differently in their marriages to learn what you are most likely to want.

      1. 24.1.1
        Marika

        It’s funny, Jeremy. You think that’s an extreme example the same way that I thought my overly keen woman over the phone prior to a first date (ages ago, not sure if you recall) I gave you was extreme. In both cases, the other person is thinking “um..,what is wrong with that?”! 🙂

        My boss, her husband and young daughter moved to Israel for a few years as he wanted to study Jewish mysticism. I was impressed. She found a position in a hospital and it all worked out fine for a while. Until it didn’t. Then she said she wanted to move back to Australia and she was doing it, with or without him. They moved back and now they all find other less extreme ways to channel their spirituality. They do yoga and meditation retreats and she just took up African drumming. They have 2 kids now. And it’s all fine.

        (I’m not Jewish, but I work in a very Jewish part of the city).

        So you can be a responsible Idealist. I’m one, for instance. There’s also nothing to say that your cousin’s wife would be happier with an accountant who was home by 6pm to help with the kids. She likely wouldn’t be.

        The guy I’m currently seeing has a bit of that “I may run off to Paris at a moment’s notice to paint” thing going on. But the thing is, he hasn’t. Ever. In fact, his parents moved back to Sth America when he was a teenager, so he’s had to work hard for all that time to support himself. While I was living at home until age 23 studying,  & with my family safety net always there for me. He’s very intelligent but was never able to study formally; he has worked himself up to some technical position in IT I don’t understand. He’s also good at music. So there’s lots for me to admire & respect. It’s not easy peasy the way you, Evan and your Mum say it should be. Mostly because he has a very analytical mind so little things sometimes become big things. And, of course, I’m always driven to know why, why, why..and maybe that can be annoying for some.. 🙂 He does do this awesome thing, perfect for me, when if he’s in the wrong after a tiff he’ll apologise and cuddle me within 3 minutes.

        So I’m hanging in there for a while to see what’s what.

        I won’t be having 4 kids. One, if I’m lucky. And being an Idealist I’m very interested in adoption. And thought about doing it alone. So having a husband to help at all would be lovely. Although I will definitely get pissed off if I end up doing all the work (fairness being important to me, as you know!).

        I don’t know about guidance from older women. I’m not sure most people have the level of insight into their behaviour and motivations that you do. I think you said your parents were Idealists – maybe you can ask them for me 🙂 Your version of dysfunctional may not be mine.

        1. Jeremy

          To clarify, I think that the dysfunction in the example I gave was not the fact that my cousin moved to Israel to conform with his beliefs.  It was the fact that he did so without planning how his family would live there.  It is not in the fact that he occasionally daydreams, it’s in the fact that doing so cost him his job at a time when he had a family to support.  It’s not in the fact that he aspires to spirituality, it’s that he should do so on his own time, not when his wife is struggling with 4 kids.  In other words, be an Idealist -if that’s what you want – but keep one foot on the ground.  Your boss likes yoga and African drumming – her husband likes Jewish mysticism – but she maintains a job and likely takes care of her 2 kids.  My mother did not.  I vividly recall waiting to be picked up from camp at age 7, over an hour past the time all the other kids had left, because my mother was busy with her choir group and forgot.  It never got less scary, as a child, no matter how many times it happened.  I always wondered whether this would be the time she would simply not show up, and I’d have to find my own way home.  To this day, when I ask her about it, she still doesn’t understand what the big deal was.  She was BUSY with her choir – and what was more important than being her authentic self?  It’s not like she didn’t actually come, in the end.

           

          I hope you don’t think it presumptuous of me to say, but I think I understand you – your fears, your hopes, your perspective, your personality.  You wrote that you’re not sure most people have the level of insight into behavior and motivations that I do – well, be sure that they don’t.  That doesn’t mean you can’t learn from them, though, even if the learning is in the negative.  For example, I can ask my mother what she would have done differently in her life as an Idealist, and she would reply that she would have spent less time with her kids and more on her music – and what should I learn from that?  I should learn that being totally immersed in Idealism is not functional, and that if I choose to associate with Idealists, they need to have some element of the concrete in them.

  25. 25
    Marika

    Emily & Tom

    Ahh you two…I almost feel like I’m intruding on a personal conversation! But here goes:

    Tom: re the chemistry, presumably you give the girl a while to show her true colours? The guy I’m currently seeing almost didn’t ask me on a second date as he said he thought I wasn’t that interested. I was shocked! Our chemistry is off the charts and I felt that quite quickly. But as I said to him, it was a first date. In a wine bar. On a Tuesday. We chatted, I laughed, I giggled, I asked him questions, smiled..etc. What was I supposed to do, get out a boob? Maybe it’s the Tinder culture or whatever, but just because a girl doesn’t try to have sex with you within 1 hour, doesn’t mean she feels no or lesser chemistry!

    That gets me to you, Ms Emily: I’m calling BS on the AIP. Stop making excuses, woman. Which, btw, you’ve been doing since I can recall! You want chemistry & great sex (and hopefully more), then get that, no doubt fine & dandy, A of yours online and start meeting some men!!

    1. 25.1
      Emily, the original

      Marika, 

      The guy I’m currently seeing almost didn’t ask me on a second date as he said he thought I wasn’t that interested. I was shocked! …. What was I supposed to do, get out a boob?

      A friend of mine made the same comment. She literally said to the guy at the end of the date, “I’d like to see you again,” and he still didn’t think she showed enough interest.

      I’m calling BS on the AIP. Stop making excuses, woman. Which, btw, you’ve been doing since I can recall! You want chemistry & great sex (and hopefully more), then get that, no doubt fine & dandy, A of yours online and start meeting some men!!

      Fair enough. I am making excuses. But I honestly believe that people put their time and energy into what they want to do. I have a former boss who keeps saying he’s going to look for another job. He’s been saying that for almost 5 years and hasn’t sent out 1 resume, so apparently he isn’t that interested. So, apparently, I’m not, either, or I’d get off my butt and do something about it.

      1. 25.1.1
        Marika

        That’s fair enough, fair Emily.

        I honestly don’t see what you have to lose jumping on a dating site though. I would understand if you were hard core religious or incredibly sensitive. Maybe you’re the latter? If not, at the very least, it’s fun to watch who contacts you (i.e. everyone from 21 year olds to your Dad’s peers). And every now and then a gem of around your age pops up and rocks your world. At least temporarily 🙂

        1. Emily, the original

          Marika,

          I honestly don’t see what you have to lose jumping on a dating site though.

          My soul.

          I would understand if you were hard core religious or incredibly sensitive.

          I actually am overly sensitive. I’m an idealist, remember? At my core, I’m a romantic. The only time I don’t give a shit is if I don’t like the guy. Then I can leave without a scratch.

    2. 25.2
      Tom10

      @ Marika #25
      “The guy I’m currently seeing almost didn’t ask me on a second date as he said he thought I wasn’t that interested. I was shocked!… We chatted, I laughed, I giggled, I asked him questions, smiled..etc. What was I supposed to do, get out a boob?”
       
      Haha Marika, ideally yes; that would be just swell. That way we’d know for sure you felt some chemistry! 😉 Admittedly, I’ve probably pulled the trigger too quickly at times in the past. Maybe it was as Cohen said; “all I’ve ever learned from love was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you”. Maybe it’s just my fragile ego: if there’s even the chance she’s not feeling it I’ll move on so that she can’t do it to me first. God, that looks infantile in retrospect. 🙁

  26. 26
    Marika

    Jeremy

    I’m sorry to hear about your childhood. That’s terrible. Either I’m not a pure Idealist, or my idealism rests more in the social arena, as I would never sacrifice the needs of someone I loved (particularly a child) to fulfil my own desires. In fact, if anything I’m the opposite. That does sound dysfunctional and it’s a shame your mother can’t see how scary and damaging that could be for a child. My mother was (/is) the opposite. She would be there 15 minutes early to pick me up and with 5 contingency plans in place…just in case. Smothering, really, and I actually wish she had spent more time on herself in some ways, but perfect for young children.

    Yes, I think you do understand me. I do also wonder, though, if that childhood trauma (so to speak) has maybe made you overly rational? I personally don’t think love/marriage can be reduced to a set of goals and meta-goals (I know I’m simplifying). If you in your wisdom (and I don’t doubt it) found me an idealist with just the right amount of concreteness who was ready for marriage, it’s entirely possible I would hate him.

    I remember at uni there was a course we did about logic. I can’t remember the full details or what course it was even a part of, but I think it was Charles Darwin who tried to approach marriage in a rational way. He had a list of pros and cons for marrying his wife. Maybe my lecturer was an idealist, but he made the point that decisions like that don’t work that way. How do you weigh ‘wants a family’ against ‘time away from reading’. It was something like that anyway. Even you, with all your amazing skills, came close to divorce and only didn’t because of a lot of serious effort and research.

    There are no guarantees in life.

    1. 26.1
      Jeremy

      Marika, “Even if you found me an idealist with just the right amount of concreteness who was ready for marriage, it’s entirely possible I would hate him.”  No argument 🙂  Yes, there are intageables.  But there are tangeables too.  You can’t just go on one or the other, is my point.

       

      Re: childhood trauma, it very likely did contribute to my rationality – I’ve said before that I rationalize to protect myself from emotional overload.  Distance myself from it, understand it to control it, because so much of my childhood and adolescence was out of my control.  But now, honestly, I don’t think I’m overly rational – though Emily disagrees.   I’ve found a balance, largely because of my wife, whose personality is so unlike my own that I had to learn about personalities to understand how we could be the same species.  No part of me is naturally Guardian – I’m a Rational/Idealist hybrid who has rejected his idealism due to bad experiences with it.  Adopting certain Guardian tendencies (which I cherry picked) has helped me in love, friendship, parenthood, and business.  Ultimately I think the most balanced people are combinations of types rather than pure bloods.  In fact, the ultimate irony of the Idealist type is that in their efforts to be true to their authentic selves, they are actually following a genetic script.  Irony of ironies, they would actually be more truly their own authentic selves by striving less for the authenticity of their script, and more to other traits they chose themselves.  But I digress.

       

      I wrote above about the advice to the various personality types, but conspicuously absent was advice to the Rational – advice to myself – and it is this:  No matter how rational and logical you think you are, your decisions are just as emotionally-driven as those you would denigrate.  And even when they are objectively logical, they often won’t obtain good results because so much of human behavior is driven by subjectivity – miss that, and all the logic in the world won’t save you from disaster.  Hence my own brush with marital difficulties.  So yes, there are no guarantees in life, agreed.

       

      Still, it makes me happy to see you absorb and assimilate some of this information, even if you don’t end up using it.  Ultimately my goal with my advice to you is the selfish pleasure I’ll feel when you announce that you are happy in a relationship, and I’ll think I might have contributed some small element to that.  Is that a rational thing?

      1. 26.1.1
        Emily, the original

        Jeremy,

        But now, honestly, I don’t think I’m overly rational – though Emily disagrees.

        I’ve learned a lot from you, Mr. Jeremy, but you would be too rational for me. I would be trying to stab you to make sure your blood wasn’t green, like Mr. Spock!  (C’mon. That was funny!) When I get around people who are very conservative and logical/rational, there’s a part of my personality that enjoys shocking them. 🙂

      2. 26.1.2
        Marika

        I’m not sure, Jeremy. But it’s a lovely thing ☺ Thank you for caring.

Leave a Reply

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