-->
@badger
OMG, do you think Kaitlyn is a gold medal-winning track star who set a world record in the decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics?
Sex imbalances in hours contributed to the household
Posts
Total:
46
-->
@FLRW
lol
I wonder what TWS would do with that.
-->
@Kaitlyn
I don't think wealth is sufficient to attract a mate.
You probably watch too many slushy movies.
Besides, both men and women are primarily attracted to looks first.
There's an element of truth in this statement, but over the past 300000 years, context has obviously changed markedly and intellectual reasoning has modified how we regard our responses to innately inspired behaviour. But for sure, the females would have been attracted to the dominant male. Whereas today we consciously organise society differently and therefore apply alternative criteria to the pairing and mating processes.
As for the little 5'0 balding but extremely wealthy hypothetical. I'm sure that he would have no problems attracting a cooperative mate. Slushy concepts such as love would have very little to do with it
Though once again it's all about contexts and comparisons. Remove money from the equation and the little chinless bloke wouldn't stand a chance. Just as back in the day he would have long since have been eaten by lions.
My initial post, wasn't about acquired modern behaviour, but about how modern behaviour is only a conscious modification of the innate programme, and how this relates to modern gender roles compared to primary gender roles.
And in this instance, let's not get hung up on modern conscious modifications and approaches to gender. That's a related but separate issue.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Is it possible to have a trophy husband? You know, some pretty boy that doesn't do much but is gorgeous?
It happens sometimes with wealthy older women yes.
Also, I don't understand why a woman would be with a guy that they can henpeck into not working a job. It seems to be that you agree the usual case is women select for men with greater status/wealth than they have themselves. So, what would be the point in henpecking a guy into not working, when a part of his attraction is generated through his ability to work?
You are dealing with a battle between conscious motivations and subconscious motivations. Part of it is also the case of a self conscious motivation to test a man to see if he is worthy. The subconscious belief is that a real man cannot be henpecked into becoming a beta male.
I don't see how you know this either, at least from the data.
It's from developing theories and testing their predictive value. It's possible that the theories have great predictive value but are incorrect, but the best current way to test the accuracy of a belief is to see if it has predictive value.
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think wealth is sufficient to attract a mate.You probably watch too many slushy movies.
You think wealth and wealth alone is sufficient to attract a mate?
Have men ever cared about a woman's wealth, let alone only cared about a woman's wealth?
Besides, both men and women are primarily attracted to looks first.There's an element of truth in this statement, but over the past 300000 years, context has obviously changed markedly and intellectual reasoning has modified how we regard our responses to innately inspired behaviour. But for sure, the females would have been attracted to the dominant male. Whereas today we consciously organise society differently and therefore apply alternative criteria to the pairing and mating processes.
Organized societies still produce dominant males, just in a different way to pre-organized societies. The "alternative criteria" doesn't eliminate the testing and selecting of a dominate male.
As for the little 5'0 balding but extremely wealthy hypothetical. I'm sure that he would have no problems attracting a cooperative mate. Slushy concepts such as love would have very little to do with itThough once again it's all about contexts and comparisons. Remove money from the equation and the little chinless bloke wouldn't stand a chance. Just as back in the day he would have long since have been eaten by lions.
I mean we can look at dating data PCJuM9C.png (565×800) (imgur.com) and things like that old ABC show that had those women rate men behind a two-way glass mirror (and the shortest guy wasn't picked under any circumstance, even if he was filthy rich WAW1.2: Do Looks Matter To Women? The TRUTH - YouTube ). Being 5'0 as a man is basically a death sentence in the sexual market.
And that's only data and evidence for 5'0 men, not 5'0 balding men.
You should hear some of my girl friends talk about men like this. It's utterly brutal how 5'0 men are treated. I feel sorry for them because they didn't choose to be that short.
My initial post, wasn't about acquired modern behaviour, but about how modern behaviour is only a conscious modification of the innate programme, and how this relates to modern gender roles compared to primary gender roles.And in this instance, let's not get hung up on modern conscious modifications and approaches to gender. That's a related but separate issue.
I think our conception of "innate programme" is different. For example, you seem to place great emphasis on wealth for men, in regards to attracting a woman. I think wealth is important but physical looks are way more important.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Is it possible to have a trophy husband? You know, some pretty boy that doesn't do much but is gorgeous?It happens sometimes with wealthy older women yes.
Yes, that's true. Didn't think about older women.
Also, I don't understand why a woman would be with a guy that they can henpeck into not working a job. It seems to be that you agree the usual case is women select for men with greater status/wealth than they have themselves. So, what would be the point in henpecking a guy into not working, when a part of his attraction is generated through his ability to work?You are dealing with a battle between conscious motivations and subconscious motivations. Part of it is also the case of a self conscious motivation to test a man to see if he is worthy. The subconscious belief is that a real man cannot be henpecked into becoming a beta male.
Wouldn't a woman marry a guy they have already tested then? I understand an unmarried guy being tested like this, but why a married guy? Hasn't the woman already tested and selected him? I don't understand. I wouldn't do that.
I don't see how you know this either, at least from the data.It's from developing theories and testing their predictive value. It's possible that the theories have great predictive value but are incorrect, but the best current way to test the accuracy of a belief is to see if it has predictive value.
Yes, predictive value is very valuable in truth ascertaining. But I don't see how you could that irl with any kind of consistency, at least outside of a proper scientific test.
-->
@Kaitlyn
You miss the point.
I won't attempt to explain.
Regards.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Wouldn't a woman marry a guy they have already tested then? I understand an unmarried guy being tested like this, but why a married guy? Hasn't the woman already tested and selected him? I don't understand. I wouldn't do that.
You wouldn't even know you were doing it Kaitlyn.
Why would somebody do that after already securing somebody she already felt was worthy?
Look usually it is small things. For example
"Do you mind holding my purse"
You cave and then the demands slowly start creeping in, and the next thing you know, you are being screamed at for not doing laundry properly among a hundred other things.
It isn't intentional by the woman at all, but the second the guy holds her purse, she loses a little bit of respect for him. Once the maintenance of the house starts slipping because the man isn't Mr. Fix it than the woman will subconsciously be thinking. I fucking married a pussy. I might as well be lesbian.
A man will love you for being you, but in general men need to keep in mind that women are more pragmatic about love.
In nature if a man could not protect and provide for his young, than the baby dies. She needs to keep making sure he is capable of that for reassurance. To feel safe.
Kaitlyn, you want to feel safe and secure, and that doesn't make you a bad person. You should have the right to feel safe and secure. There is a reason why feminists are yelling "down with the patriarchy" while fucking the most misogynistic men and the soy boys virtue signaling are ignored and hoping for a pity fuck.
I have no doubt you are not your average girl and that you can take a different strategy to make your man feel like he is a source of security for you, but you need that feeling as well.
Yes, predictive value is very valuable in truth ascertaining. But I don't see how you could that irl with any kind of consistency, at least outside of a proper scientific test.
You can test this stuff in real life yourself, by identifying shit tests and seeing whether the relationship appears healthy when the men fail them vs pass them on a regular basis. However, if you dig deep enough the scientific record confirms these theories.
One example is that there was a study done with several heterosexual couples. As a test to see what would happen researchers secretly asked the men to stop saying the word "no" to their wife. The women and men on a scale of 1-10 were asked their happiness prior to the study and after.
The study was ended early because they found it was destroying relationships. The more the women got their way the shittier they treated their husbands, the more demanding they got. Several couples broke up or began divorce proceedings and the study was ended early due to ethical concerns.
Here is the interesting. Prior to the study all women and men were about a 8 in happiness. After the study the happiness of the women went down to about a 7, but the happiness of the men went down to about a 4.
Fitness tests need to be passed if a man wants a healthy relationship, and it benefits both parties. Test these theories through your own observation as well. Midwits will call it anecdotal, but if you are seeing if patterns you personally witness verify or debunk your theories than it isn't mere anecdote.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Wouldn't a woman marry a guy they have already tested then? I understand an unmarried guy being tested like this, but why a married guy? Hasn't the woman already tested and selected him? I don't understand. I wouldn't do that.You wouldn't even know you were doing it Kaitlyn [...] I have no doubt you are not your average girl and that you can take a different strategy to make your man feel like he is a source of security for you, but you need that feeling as well.
I agree that women will test men like this, but I don't think a well-adjusted woman is going to constantly test her man after she's selected him for marriage. The time for testing him like this is when you're on a date or before you're married (to see if he can handle adversity, other whether he's going to fold under pressure). If she's still not sure of him after she marries him, then that's the woman's fault and she's showing that she isn't well-adjusted. Even if she doesn't feel secure, it's not okay to screw your man around like that after you've married him. That's when a woman should look within herself and think about why she doesn't feel secure, rather than projecting that insecurity onto others in the form of a test. Just because you feel like doing something, that isn't necessarily a good reason to do it, especially if it harms others.
However, I think there are times wherein a woman would genuinely like her bag held, because she has to do something that requires two hands (e.g. tie her shoelaces), and when a guy says no, he's just being a jerk. That's different from when a woman says, "hold my bag" and there isn't a reason for it.
In any case, I think relationships should be a two-way street wherein you're both doing nice things for each other. The whole point of relationships is to support each other.
Yes, predictive value is very valuable in truth ascertaining. But I don't see how you could that irl with any kind of consistency, at least outside of a proper scientific test.You can test this stuff in real life yourself, by identifying shit tests and seeing whether the relationship appears healthy when the men fail them vs pass them on a regular basis. However, if you dig deep enough the scientific record confirms these theories.One example is that there was a study done with several heterosexual couples. As a test to see what would happen researchers secretly asked the men to stop saying the word "no" to their wife. The women and men on a scale of 1-10 were asked their happiness prior to the study and after.The study was ended early because they found it was destroying relationships. The more the women got their way the shittier they treated their husbands, the more demanding they got. Several couples broke up or began divorce proceedings and the study was ended early due to ethical concerns.Here is the interesting. Prior to the study all women and men were about a 8 in happiness. After the study the happiness of the women went down to about a 7, but the happiness of the men went down to about a 4.Fitness tests need to be passed if a man wants a healthy relationship, and it benefits both parties. Test these theories through your own observation as well. Midwits will call it anecdotal, but if you are seeing if patterns you personally witness verify or debunk your theories than it isn't mere anecdote.
So, you are talking about a study!
Which study is it? I wouldn't mind seeing it.
-->
@Kaitlyn
I will see if I can find it. It has been years since I ran into it. I will do my best, if I don't find it by tomorrow, I won't though
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Is it possible to have a trophy husband? You know, some pretty boy that doesn't do much but is gorgeous?It happens sometimes with wealthy older women yes.
How often do you think it happens that a woman takes to a husband just from looks, knowing that he has no drive?
Do they actually end up bonding within a valid marriage? A husband is bound unto his wife for life.
-->
@Platypi
How often do you think it happens that a woman takes to a husband just from looks, knowing that he has no drive?
It depends. If he is in a motorcycle gang, and good looking with no drive, he probably won't have a problem with marriage sadly. If he is just a boring good looking guy than rarely unless his standards are extremely low.
Do they actually end up bonding within a valid marriage? A husband is bound unto his wife for life.
If you meet the rare woman who will be your sugar momma, than it's typically not an issue. Men struggle a bit with it and feel insecure but if he can just learn not to give a shit, he'll be fine.
This is just considering marriages that are the older woman, younger man dynamic. A couple with similar ages, it will likely cause the woman to lose respect for the man and her hypergamous nature will kick in and replace him.
Women tend to think about the dating market differently. Men care about looks primarily, where as women are more concerned about status. This of course will cause the female when she obtains enough status to be the bread winners to think she is more attractive dating material somehow and she'll look for greener pastures.
You can really see the hypergamy of women come into full play, when you start looking at things such as the statistics of how many couples stay together after a woman receives bariatric surgery.
Them achieving more status is a funny thing to witness though, because they falsely assume men give a shit.
I sometimes read opinion articles by successful women in their 40s. They will bitch and moan in a tone similar to what follows
I am a single 40 year old woman who can't find a man. I don't understand why I am not doing well in the dating pool, I own my own home, have a 6 figure job and the respect of my peers and colleagues and I drive a nice car. I just can't figure out why I can't find a high value male
So yes the high status 40 year old female with a low dating market value sometimes is reasonable enough to know her chances at a high value male is slim and just have fun with a boy toy. If the boy toy has an IDGAF attitude and doesn't do anything stupid like fall in love which will make him feel insecure about being lower status, than the relationship can work out.
The ideal age for a woman to marry is about 25 years old, the ideal age for a man is probably around 40 years old. They can both find the highest value prospect respectively at each age
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
If I perceived that I was "on the market", I wouldn't desire to continue dating someone. There's a different game being played in that situation.
If your relationship is transactional in nature, I wouldn't call that a marriage.
It's probably best to be satisfied with being single. Some people say that makes a woman unfulfilled in old age, but I don't think so. It makes her highly attractive. She ultimately has higher quality relationships with her friends, and a higher chance of meeting a man that is willing to propose and able to marry.
Faithfulness is extremely important to the man a woman dreams of marrying. Women who wait for the right man age more gracefully.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Some men want children and some are not particularly interested. Decent men assume a protective roll in marriage. It is a well understood reality that life is harder on a man. Wise men will take some account for their partner in old age, and they do tend to consider the age difference. I don't see that people should take on a view that there is an ideal age to marry.
-->
@Platypi
There is a lot to respond to here and maybe I will do it later, but I believe you are right that it is probably better not to go actively looking on dating apps etc, because you aren't going to get a quality mate.
As far as fulfillment is concerned. You can be fulfilled without a man. Fuck them. Just do you and if you run into the right one, it's very fortunate for him, but if not than you are still going to love life