The Destruction of Modern Women

[Wutang]

That sincerity has to be at least some portion of her higher value years. Why get married otherwise, when this includes the ability to have children (easily), as also a biological prerequisite?

On the question of getting "some portion of her higher value years" - a question I asked earlier was if getting 10 goods years from a woman worth if you are the type of guy that's going to consider your wife totally unattractive after those 10 years - keeping in mind that she's going to spend vastly more time being being post-wall rather then in her higher value years. Do you think this is a good trade off?

All in all, I guess shorthand for what I'm saying is that I don't find many attractive, and if you take young women out of it it's nearly impossible. That's all. I don't find the marriage thing to be worth it unless you are getting some sincerity from a woman, whether she knows it or not. That sincerity has to be at least some portion of her higher value years. Why get married otherwise, when this includes the ability to have children (easily), as also a biological prerequisite?

Hence in your case, it seems you are one of the type of guys for which celibacy would be the best option. Without picking on you specifically, I actually think this is the case for a lot of men on this forum. To bring it back to my original topic, this is why I think it would be a benefit on this forum is there more discussions on how to navigate life as a celibate, unmarried man.

 

[Australia Sucks]

On the question of getting "some portion of her higher value years" - a question I asked earlier was if getting 10 goods years from a woman worth if you are the type of guy that's going to consider your wife totally unattractive after those 10 years - keeping in mind that she's going to spend vastly more time being being post-wall rather then in her higher value years. Do you think this is a good trade off?

Without trying to put words in Blade Runners mouth you are missing the point. Guys like Blade Runner will typically say it’s a tradeoff that is worthwhile only if the woman is giving you children. Because after you have children the children are the priority and your own sexual needs as a man become secondary.

But yes as a man if you are not having children why would you even get married (leaving aside the religious argument about living in sin). As you can just have a girlfriend there is no reason or advantage to get married.

Marriage has a lot of advantages for women but very few advantages for men. As a man the only reason to get married is for raising children.

If you aren’t having children don’t get married and if you have children the children trump your sexual desires of having a perpetually young woman (if she gave you 10 years of her youth plus children then it’s fair).

I’m not sure which part of all of this is so difficult for you to understand? It seems fairly straightforward to me.

 

[Droughtmeat]

.

2) I pointed out earlier in the thread that historically men probably spent less time with their wives than they do today. Women and children tended to hang around with other women and children and men spent time with other men.

Between work, extended family and having a lot of children and male friends etc men probably had far less time with their wives. I think if as a man you have a busy and full life you are going to spend less time with your wife and so the time will be become appreciated rather than a chore even if your wife is boring (most women are extremely boring).

.

Spot on. I feel as though this can still be achieved today, however as a man you have to be honest from the start regarding your hobbies and desire to spend time with friends or in solitude or, as they call it nowadays, you have to set boundaries.

If she won't let you go to the gym, play the rec league games on Saturdays or just hang out with your buddies, she simply isn't the one. Compromising yourself will lead to more significant issues and resentment down the line.

Often times the women who want to "control" your time will be infatuated with you and it feels good for a while, but it isn't built to last, unless you're willing to sacrifice everything for 30 hours of cuddling on the weekends.

Some guys believe they can sacrifice their personal desires for a while and then gradually reintroduce their free time activities at a later point in the relationship, but that will lead to arguments, disappointment, possibly cheating and eventuality a breakup or divorce.

 

[SkiPro]

Spot on. I feel as though this can still be achieved today, however as a man you have to be honest from the start regarding your hobbies and desire to spend time with friends or in solitude or, as they call it nowadays, you have to set boundaries.

If she won't let you go to the gym, play the rec league games on Saturdays or just hang out with your buddies, she simply isn't the one. Compromising yourself will lead to more significant issues and resentment down the line.

Often times the women who want to "control" your time will be infatuated with you and it feels good for a while, but it isn't built to last, unless you're willing to sacrifice everything for 30 hours of cuddling on the weekends.

Some guys believe they can sacrifice their personal desires for a while and then gradually reintroduce their free time activities at a later point in the relationship, but that will lead to arguments, disappointment, possibly cheating and eventuality a breakup or divorce.

I would hope that non of the men here would be that shmuck guy who 'lets' their woman have any control on what they can and cannot do.

Nothing annoys me more than those guys who say stuff like 'i just need to check with the boss'. Pathetic.

 

[Wutang]

Without trying to put words in Blade Runners mouth you are missing the point. Guys like Blade Runner will typically say it’s a tradeoff that is worthwhile only if the woman is giving you children. Because after you have children the children are the priority and your own sexual needs as a man become secondary.

But yes as a man if you are not having children why would you even get married (leaving aside the religious argument about living in sin). As you can just have a girlfriend there is no reason or advantage to get married.

Marriage has a lot of advantages for women but very few advantages for men. As a man the only reason to get married is for raising children.

If you aren’t having children don’t get married and if you have children the children trump your sexual desires of having a perpetually young woman (if she gave you 10 years of her youth plus children then it’s fair).

I’m not sure which part of all of this is so difficult for you to understand? It seems fairly straightforward to me.

He hasn't really emphasized anything about having children so that's when I was speaking to him, I didn't really bring up the child bearing aspect since it's not something he brings up a lot either. For him, his decision on whether to marry a woman a lot seems mostly based on her being young and physically attractive (I say this not in a judging way but just as an observation) and since the West tends to have less of these type of women on the marriage market, the bulk of his complaints seems to be mostly based on how there isn't enough young and attractive women in the west. I'm sure at some point he's spoken about how Western women tend to make bad mothers as well but when I think about all the posts he's written here and on RVF, most of his complaints about Western women tends to focus on them on their negative physical aspects (being fat, unattractive) or about personality defects (being unfeminine, disagreeable, unpleasant) and not so much on them being bad mothers and based what he's written, it seems like to me his top priorities on looking for a potential bride is her looks, youth, and (lack of) body count.

As I understand, for him the trade off isn't whether the women is giving you children but whether she is giving you her youthful years which is why my question is it an actual good trade off when you are getting way more non-youthful years along with it.

I'm sure being a good mother also counts for something in Blade Runner's books, but based on his writings it seems like it's like he sees it as important as the looks/youth aspect. If having a family is super important and is the only reason you should get married, then I really think the woman's ability to be a mother should be way more important than her looks. If you are big on getting married for the purpose of having kids, then your main source of lamentation with Western society shouldn't be that there isn't enough young and hot women. Rather it should be that there isn't enough motherly, family-oriented women.

I'm not saying you should be going after busted chicks, but an average looking girl but who is very nurturing and feminine and loves kids should be a strong candidate for marriage if your stance on marriage is that it only worth it for family starting purposes. You wrote that a woman having kids with you should trump having your sexual desires of having a perpetually young woman which I agree with. The part I seem to have trouble understanding is how this squares with giving you some extra years of being hot is that important if family truly is the top priority. If the family aspects are really the main purpose of getting married, then why does it matter if she was hot 5 or 10 years out of the 50 years of your marriage?

To me this isn't straight forward to understand as there are two point that are in conflict with each other: one being that a woman having children with you should be able to trump her not being youthful anymore and the other being that it is vital importance that a woman you marry is young. If the latter is true, then the former point (a woman bearing children with you trumps her still having her youth and makes the marriage a worthwhile trade off) isn't true. If your counter is "well she still have been willing to give me those 10 years" then the discussion just squares back to the original point of how if her youth is so important, then it seems like that's the top priority for you when you are choosing a woman for marriage and goes back to my original question: is getting those 10 years worth it if it's accompanied by 50 years of not being unattractive?

 

[Blade Runner]

On the question of getting "some portion of her higher value years" - a question I asked earlier was if getting 10 goods years from a woman worth if you are the type of guy that's going to consider your wife totally unattractive after those 10 years - keeping in mind that she's going to spend vastly more time being being post-wall rather then in her higher value years. Do you think this is a good trade off?

You haven't read my posts. At this point it's fairly clear to me.

To bring it back to my original topic, this is why I think it would be a benefit on this forum is there more discussions on how to navigate life as a celibate, unmarried man.

That could be a benefit, but the question will just keep popping up as, "how do we not think about sex?" anymore.

There's plenty of interesting stuff to do in life otherwise, and much more interesting conversations or hobbies to have. The problem is that T is always there, and is cyclical, so it keeps coming back. I don't think that ends for someone in shape until at least age 60, and probably lasts forever.

 

[Wutang]

Here's sampling of the posts you've been put up on this forum:

Post in thread 'Daily Interactions With Women'

Aug 17, 2024

But once you know you have achieved this, I recommend looking for every avenue to meet as many women as possible to see if you find one that is a good match for you.

Yes, this is the key. What you'll find is that it's really hard to do/lots of effort and if you're already in that bad of a country, with social taboos on age gaps, etc the ROI becomes almost nil. I don't even know what the recommendations are anymore to come across higher numbers of potentials. We're already at the point of being swarmed/crowded out with oldies and dog/cat ladies.

So you're advocating that it's...

• Blade Runner

• 
• 

Yes, this is the key. What you'll find is that it's really hard to do/lots of effort and if you're already in that bad of a country, with social taboos on age gaps, etc the ROI becomes almost nil. I don't even know what the recommendations are anymore to come across higher numbers of potentials. We're already at the point of being swarmed/crowded out with oldies and dog/cat ladies.

Post in thread 'Daily Interactions With Women'

Aug 18, 2024

These are several of my interactions with women, but these all failed due to my own incompetencies or other reasons:

Yes, your post screamed badminton events are gold and you should ask for numbers more often - as Australia said, err on the side of aggression.

That being said, I should really start adding daygame to my daily routine again, along with Hinge.

Is Hinge that thing based off of facebook? It's interesting that you think it's valuable. [I don't know if it is or isn't, btw]

I'm not talking about some kind of manifestation nonsense, but there is a lot to be said...

• Blade Runner

• 
• 

Larry gives good advice here, very good. My current take is that I don't see very many physically attractive women that are in locations one can be around to create natural interactions or comfort. I'll admit I also don't really trust the culture of the west, women are that far gone to me unless humbled by old age (which doesn't help me) but I wouldn't say anything is impossible.

Post in thread 'The Destruction of Modern Women'

Aug 23, 2024

There are degrees of agency, responsibility and accountability.

This is correct, and he explained it well. Shaquille is technically correct as well, but we can go one step further to prove our point: children also have agency. We're using quick, shorthand speech to prove the point that at a minimum (like Australia said), it's nowhere near the agency of men and/or the expectation shouldn't be anywhere near that. Also, this is a temporal and cultural thing (culture changes throughout time, obviously) in which I'll make a bold statement like "they have no agency" because in this...

• Blade Runner

• 

It's hard also for a lot of men to shake but like I've said before, there are objectively a ton of really good men out there (20%), but their counterpart or an SMV equivalent woman is barely 3%. That's just how it is when you don't have young women or women that will play traditional roles, or support you on the journey so it makes it worth it for both of you.

Post in thread 'Moving Abroad Before the Collapse'

Aug 22, 2024

I'm not going anywhere and with God's help I may be useful for my country.

"my country" is the funniest part of that.

He has a point though...no escaping the collapse.

If you know history, this is an absurd statement to make. It's in just recent history that this is totally false.

And total BS that there are no conservative white women to meet in the US, just an excuse for own failures and to do race mixing in countries full of prostitutes and women marrying for money and passports.

The idea is that whether their fault or not, women don't run the race with you, and...

• Blade Runner

The idea is that whether their fault or not, women don't run the race with you, and by the time you've achieved and are successful, there aren't "conservative" women that are any different than the cultural status quo, which thinks something like a proven 35 year old man is "old." And we haven't even talked about in shape, above average looking, pleasant, etc.

Post in thread 'Is it Worth Busting Your Ass in a Career?'

Sep 9, 2024

Yep, this is so true. Women end up disqualifying themselves and other men in the process. The man a career woman is looking for at age 30+ is simply not looking for women in that age bracket.

In addition, she most likely hasn't honed truly desirable skills, like cooking. Therefore, there's no incentive for a rich 35 to 40 year old guy to be with her.

Women essentially work themselves into a hole where they're only wanted by men who earn the same amount as them or even less OR they actually end up getting the majority of their validation and positive feedback from refugees, McDonald's...

• Blade Runner

• 

The sick plan is that they take women out of the early and attractive years, then they simultaneously propagandize the society to limit or shame age gaps so that the successful men at the "older ages" can't get the young women they weren't able to get, for both women career and their career reasons (as they take a while to make more). I've talked about it a lot, the easy fix is just let the silly women follow career and get stranded, but if you want couples and babies, then at least promote some portion of the younger ones to get married to older men.

The last two examples I gave because they were on threads that didn't have anything to do with women yet the same talking points cropped up (youth and attractiveness in women).

Again, you are free to have your preferences but I do think given your preferences , it seems like you wouldn't be well suited for married life.

For a guy to choose the celibacy path, the main concern for them would be to how to fight against their lustful urges without a woman as an outlet for it as you pointed out. It is indeed a huge struggle and I don't think it should be downplayed but I also think no matter what path you choose, you're going to be fighting some sort of struggle. The only thing that differs is the nature of the struggle. For a lot of men on the introspective and non-normie type (which this forum has disproportionate amount of), it would be better for them to struggle with celibacy and lust rather than the rigors of family life. For men of this type of temperament, I think that they would actually end up damaging themselves more trying to establish trying to force themselves into being a husband when they are ill-suited to be one given how much they wouldn't enjoy being around a woman.

Something I've heard from older people who are married with families and who think it's generally a good idea for most people to get married and have kids is that it's still better to be single then it is to be in a bad relationship. I've always agreed with that but in the past few years my agreement on that has strengthened more. Single life will have it's low points such as the lack of physical intimacy and smaller support network but I still think it's a better life then being stuck with a woman you can barely stand being around for the rest of your life. The situation being described in the two posts I'm link to below sound significantly less appealing to me that being single

Post in thread 'The Destruction of Modern Women'

Jul 3, 2024

Based on all of what is being said, it seems like being around women constantly like you would be doing so in a marriage sounds completely unappealing. It's strange that on the one hand men desire being around a woman so much that plenty of men on this forum are willing to take such big time investment in wanting to go across the world just for the chance of meeting a woman but on the other hand once you do meet a woman, the experiences of interacting with one ranges either from hellish if you end up a deeply combative BPD woman to at best, a submissive one that won't give you a...

• The Penitent Man

• 

Post in thread 'The Destruction of Modern Women'

Jul 3, 2024

What level of discourse would you use with a young teenager? I'm not sure I know what level of discourse I would use, as I don't talk to teenagers. If I absolutely had to talk to a teenager, I would probably only discuss very surface-level things like entertainment media, I would mostly just let the teen talk, maybe ask simple questions if the teen stops talking, and I would be thoroughly uninterested in the whole exchange and want it to end ASAP. Is that how one should talk to women? Would the level of discourse change once she's your wife?

When I say teenager just keep in the...

• The Penitent Man

• 
• 
• 

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

Most of his complaints about Western women tends to focus on them on their negative physical aspects (being fat, unattractive) or about personality defects (being unfeminine, disagreeable, unpleasant) and not so much on them being bad mothers

Bad looks and personality defects make them bad mothers, actually. High body counts also make them bad mothers.

Bad looks are a statistically significant indicator of bad general genetics (so ugly women will be more likely to give you low IQ kids and such), and fat women feed their children like they feed themselves. Ugliness and fatness are both hereditary. Usually, a healthy man should want his children to have the best genes he can get them.

As for major personality defects, those are also hereditary, as well as predictive of a miserable and unstable marriage, which is terrible for the children.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

Again, you are free to have your preferences but I do think given your preferences , it seems like you wouldn't be well suited for married life.

You're making a lot of extremely unpleasant assumptions about people, while failing to realize some pretty basic things.

Age is very much important for the woman's quality as a mother. Putting the obvious things aside, such as the fact that older women are significantly more likely to give you kids with significant mental disabilities, women who are still unmarried past 25 are incredibly jaded and bitter, on top of the fact that if they're still unmarried at that age, they've no doubt been around the block and carry all sorts of baggage. Even in the absolute best case scenario where she's a devout Orthodox Christian virgin and whatnot (at 25 lololol go play the lotto instead), she would still simply not be able to bring the same joy and innocence into your and your children's lives that an 18 year old woman could.

There's also the fact that your kids get to spend significantly less time seeing her alive and healthy and moving around and such. It's not good to be barely 20 years old and see your 45 year old mother already suffering a lot and struggling to do basic everyday things, because women live longer on average than men but usually deteriorate significantly faster.

Men want good-looking young wives, because that's good for the marriage's stability, it's good for the man's sanity, and it's good for the children. It's not an indicator that someone is "not well suited for married life". You're not making any sense.

People have said in this forum that women are not interesting to talk to or intellectually stimulating. You have somehow interpreted this as something along the lines of "you find femininity repulsive, you don't like the company of women so you should be a celibate". No. Women can be pleasant in many other ways, they can bring a lot of joy into your life. They don't need the ability to heckin' debate you on theology or whatever.

Frankly, I find it baffling that you cannot picture a man wanting a young and beautiful wife, while still being able to love the mother of his children once time takes away her sexiness or whatever.

 

[virtue]

For a guy to choose the celibacy path, the main concern for them would be to how to fight against their lustful urges without a woman as an outlet for it as you pointed out. It is indeed a huge struggle and I don't think it should be downplayed but I also think no matter what path you choose, you're going to be fighting some sort of struggle. The only thing that differs is the nature of the struggle. For a lot of men on the introspective and non-normie type (which this forum has disproportionate amount of), it would be better for them to struggle with celibacy and lust rather than the rigors of family life. For men of this type of temperament, I think that they would actually end up damaging themselves more trying to establish trying to force themselves into being a husband when they are ill-suited to be one given how much they wouldn't enjoy being around a woman.

Living a single life while having lust/fornication in the heart (but knowing the truth of God, that such shall be judged) is a huge heaviness. Then the rigors and troubles of marriage which we are now discussing, which are certainly not suitable for all men, but may only be alleviated by a prudent/virtuous wife from the Lord.

It seems the walls are closing in from every direction. Only Christ can uphold us. We must endure until the end. Take heed lest we fall.

 

[Wutang]

You're making a lot of extremely unpleasant assumptions about people, while failing to realize some pretty basic things.

I was thinking about some of the last few posts I've written on this topic and I do think now that I made too many generalizations about some of the posters here and their motives for getting married so I will apologize for that. I also I feel like I was singling out Blade Runner too much so I would like to apologize to him for that as well.

Men want good-looking young wives, because that's good for the marriage's stability, it's good for the man's sanity, and it's good for the children. It's not an indicator that someone is "not well suited for married life". You're not making any sense.

I did not said the desire for a young, good looking wife by itself is an indication someone is not well suited for married life. Rather, my point was that if your overwhelming top priority is to get a woman for a wife is for her looks and youth, then it seems like marriage would be a bad deal for you since if a woman possessing those traits was your main reason for marrying her (over her qualities as a mother) , then it seems like your marriage is going to be headed for rocky shores once she loses those qualities given that was your main reason for marrying her.

I'm also not sure how having a good looking wife is supposed to be good for marriage stability. If anything, it seems like if she crosses a certain threshold for looks, it would actually be BAD for a marriage's stability. I'm sure those of on this forum are all aware of the various stories of how some supremely attractive woman starts trying to upgrade her husband since she realizes how high her SMV is.

People have said in this forum that women are not interesting to talk to or intellectually stimulating. You have somehow interpreted this as something along the lines of "you find femininity repulsive, you don't like the company of women so you should be a celibate". No. Women can be pleasant in many other ways, they can bring a lot of joy into your life. They don't need the ability to heckin' debate you on theology or whatever.

Frankly, I find it baffling that you cannot picture a man wanting a young and beautiful wife, while still being able to love the mother of his children once time takes away her sexiness or whatever.

I addressed the "not interesting to talk to" and being "intellectually stimulating" part here

Post in thread 'The Destruction of Modern Women'

Sep 17, 2024

This is where I think you are missing the proper analysis. It isn't the case at all that being around women is negative, it's that in the modern day you don't meet many women who are actually feminine that makes it not a big deal to endure, or even, enjoy.

The impression I was getting from a lot of the posts from men on here is that they actually find the feminine aspects of women to be a negative. When people were complaining about women on here, they seemed to be complaining about based on the fact that they were acting like stereotypical women. A poster wrote...

• Wutang

• 

The main point in what I wrote above is that to me that for a certain subset of men, it seems when they do actually have a chance to be around a stereotypical feminine woman with typical feminine qualities (as opposed to the boss babe types), they seem to react negatively to it., I provided a quote from a poster earlier on this thread that illustrates this sentiment which I will quote again here:

If this was your wife obviously you’d need to include more substance. My wife knows where I stand and why, though I don’t dig into issues like I would with one of you unless she asks, and even then I don’t get too involved. If I need a friend with ears to listen I have a dog.

I heard it adroitly put once (and not in a joking manner) that women are so naturally repulsive to men that God had to make sexual impulse in man so strong as to be nearly irresistible or the species would die off after a single generation, because no man would willingly engage with a woman absent the presence of sexual desire (and the instinctual desire to reproduce children in your image). I think about that a lot.

Again, I might have overestimated the amount of how much this sentiment is really common on this forum and was being uncharitable to the posters here. However, this is an attitude that is noticeable on this forum even it's only shared by a vocal minority. In case you forgot, you were actually one of the liked the comment about how "woman are so naturally repuslive to men" (click here to see the post and to see that you liked it when it was first posted https://christisking.cc/threads/the-destruction-of-modern-women.59/page-47#post-46075) so I would have thought you of all people could understand why I had the opinion that there's a section of posters on this forum that do actively find feminine traits to be repulsive to be around and hence, in my opinion, wouldn't be served well by marriage.

As for your comment "People have said in this forum that women are not interesting to talk to or intellectually stimulating --- Women can be pleasant in many other ways, they can bring a lot of joy into your life. They don't need the ability to heckin' debate you on theology or whatever." - I agree that women can be pleasant outside of the intellectual sphere. If I wanted to have a serious debate on a subject, I would typically seek out a man. That said, I'm assuming for a woman to be pleasant or to bring a lot of joy in your life you would still have to be able to talk to her in some way. What would be the ways a woman can be charming and bringing joy in your life that doesn't involve you speaking to her in some way? I actually am finding it hard to understand how a woman can a great companion while at the same time being as interesting to talk to as a ball of clay.

Women love small talk and discussing other people's businesses and on relationships and sharing their day. If you are the type of guy that finds this sort of conversation to be banal and inane then I can't really understand how a woman can bring joy to your life. On the other hand, if you find it charming to hear her go over how her day went and how she emotionally reacted to the various events of her day, then in that case I can understand it. My feeling (once again, might be overstated) is that a lot of the men here would tend to be type of men that would find such talk to be womanly prattle and wouldn't finding it charming. Once again, I am confused about how a woman can make your life more enjoyable if you can't have any sort of conversation with her whether it be on the intellectual or non-intellectual variety.

"Frankly, I find it baffling that you cannot picture a man wanting a young and beautiful wife, while still being able to love the mother of his children once time takes away her sexiness or whatever." - Your assumption here is that a man can love a woman who isn't sexy as long as she has raised a family with him and have shared in those experiences. I agree with that assumption. What I have trouble understanding what would be the difference between a man would be able to do this with a woman who was once beautiful but is no longer and not apparently able to do so with a woman that was just average looking all her life. To me, it seems like you if you are able to love a woman in the former example, it shouldn't be any different in the latter example. Unless you are exerting there's something about having that extra 10 years of hotness that makes a difference? To me, it seems like it wouldn't really a difference and in the long run I don't really see the difference between 10 years of hotness + 50 years of not hot opposed to 60 years of not being hot but if you have a reason on why you think there would be a significant difference, I would like to hear this reason.

 

[Blade Runner]

The last two examples I gave because they were on threads that didn't have anything to do with women yet the same talking points cropped up (youth and attractiveness in women).

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the reason why men work with a plan for the future is for women, that is to get the best woman they can, or at least have the option to. This should be any color pill, it's literally the pill, life. If T didn't exist we would never have children nor would we have civilization. That's why civilization is falling apart currently in the west, the overall attempt to strangehold men and testosterone is ever increasing until that natural order breaks as well.

Again, you are free to have your preferences but I do think given your preferences , it seems like you wouldn't be well suited for married life.

I don't mind you hammering me here, but it seems you're a bit obsessed. I saw that you apologized for it, which wasn't necessary. I don't take it poorly, it's just curious to me why this is so hard for you to understand. The good thing about it is that we can easily answer all of your questions.

Ugliness and fatness are both hereditary. Usually, a healthy man should want his children to have the best genes he can get them.

Yes. What's more, if it isn't hereditary, it shows you something about discipline or character, so either way it's bad news. If you are in really good shape or have been lean or fit your entire life as a man, it's brutal to consider how bad women decline at older ages, and how generally lazy they are with physical things.

Even in the absolute best case scenario where she's a devout Orthodox Christian virgin and whatnot (at 25 lololol go play the lotto instead), she would still simply not be able to bring the same joy and innocence into your and your children's lives that an 18 year old woman could.

Another yes, but I don't even go this far. I've even stated that with good genes and some major compatibility, I'd go as high as late 20s or even 30. I just don't understand the arguments against the age gap or, beyond that, why a woman wouldn't want a quality man that had a guaranteed life and future. They do that in normal cultures where it isn't easy to get money from other people, the government, etc. That's something that few realize still, apparently.

What I have trouble understanding what would be the difference between a man would be able to do this with a woman who was once beautiful but is no longer and not apparently able to do so with a woman that was just average looking all her life. To me, it seems like you if you are able to love a woman in the former example, it shouldn't be any different in the latter example.

It's the idea of wife goggles. To a certain degree, it's also a genetic particularity as well. I can only speak for myself, but I would be dishonest to say that I haven't thought a lot about things that aren't pointy elbows silly, but similar things physically that I can't stand, or looking at parents that I distrusted had very good genes, etc. It's also a personality thing. I'm a very high risk, high reward person. Not others are, and in fact most don't even think about it. Perhaps it has a bit to do with ego, in fact that's likely the case. But I don't think it's worth it to guarantee the future of someone and others unless I'm getting a return that seems worth it. I'm not even asking that much, but apparently you think I am, which is why this confusion or back and forth continues. If we were in the early 20th century or earlier, people would be asking Wutang what kind of drugs he's on, because this is just common sense. That's why I find it somewhat amusing.

 

[Wutang]

. If we were in the early 20th century or earlier, people would be asking Wutang what kind of drugs he's on, because this is just common sense. That's why I find it somewhat amusing.

I actually think what I am proposing was actually the norm for the Western societies of the past as well the traditional, conservative societies that still exist today. People were encouraged to not be dazzled by looks and instead look for qualities that were more conductive for family building and child rearing. One of the reasons that parents had a lot of say about who their kids would marry is because they recognized their kids would tend to be more blinded by short-term considerations and that as parents, they would have a more sober view of what would constitute a good marriage partner. The last chapter in Proverbs talks about the character of an ideal wife with one of the verses being "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting" I think young people blinded by their hormones would have had a lot of difficulties letting these words sink in even if they recognize it as true, hence why their parents had to be the ones to keep the ship steady.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

I'm also not sure how having a good looking wife is supposed to be good for marriage stability. If anything, it seems like if she crosses a certain threshold for looks, it would actually be BAD for a marriage's stability. I'm sure those of on this forum are all aware of the various stories of how some supremely attractive woman starts trying to upgrade her husband since she realizes how high her SMV is.

In all honesty, barring extreme outliers, I don't think ugly women have all that much harder of a time doing the hypergamous whore thing, if they so wish, than beautiful women do. It's a matter of moral character more than anything, and I've found that women who are at least decently nice to look at are significantly more likely to have one of those than ugly women do. Something to be said about physiognomy and so on.

In case you forgot, you were actually one of the liked the comment about how "woman are so naturally repuslive to men" (click here to see the post and to see that you liked it when it was first posted https://christisking.cc/threads/the-destruction-of-modern-women.59/page-47#post-46075) so I would have thought you of all people could understand why I had the opinion that there's a section of posters on this forum that do actively find feminine traits to be repulsive to be around and hence, in my opinion, wouldn't be served well by marriage.

I found it funny and agreed with it as a general statement because the overwhelming majority of women are just awful nightmares that I can't believe exist. But the problem there is not their feminine traits.

There's feminine women with good dispositions who can be pretty great and I wouldn't mind having one in my life. They're just rare.

I mean, I probably will end up staying celibate for various reasons, but it's not because I find women as a whole repulsive, no.

I agree that women can be pleasant outside of the intellectual sphere. If I wanted to have a serious debate on a subject, I would typically seek out a man. That said, I'm assuming for a woman to be pleasant or to bring a lot of joy in your life you would still have to be able to talk to her in some way. What would be the ways a woman can be charming and bringing joy in your life that doesn't involve you speaking to her in some way? I actually am finding it hard to understand how a woman can a great companion while at the same time being as interesting to talk to as a ball of clay.

You can certainly chat with women and so on, and it doesn't have to be as interesting as talking to a ball of clay, it can be fun. Women can be fun to talk to and banter with. They're just not very smart, and they can get upset pretty easily if you don't control the emotional tone of the conversation properly, so you need to have reasonable expectations. Women can also do various things to make your life easier and more pleasant, or they can simply keep you company.

I think you're right that some men would find this arrangement tiresome and obnoxious, though.

Your assumption here is that a man can love a woman who isn't sexy as long as she has raised a family with him and have shared in those experiences. I agree with that assumption. What I have trouble understanding what would be the difference between a man would be able to do this with a woman who was once beautiful but is no longer and not apparently able to do so with a woman that was just average looking all her life. To me, it seems like you if you are able to love a woman in the former example, it shouldn't be any different in the latter example. Unless you are exerting there's something about having that extra 10 years of hotness that makes a difference? To me, it seems like it wouldn't really a difference and in the long run I don't really see the difference between 10 years of hotness + 50 years of not hot opposed to 60 years of not being hot but if you have a reason on why you think there would be a significant difference, I would like to hear this reason.

I mean, even very average/plain women look significantly better and are significantly more fertile when they're young than afterwards. That's a universal biological thing and has nothing to do with how attractive she is. I don't see why there would be any difference. I would just as easily date and marry a plain woman as I would an attractive one, just as long as she has the femininity, the right disposition, and the youth.

Regardless of how attractive she is, it's still better to marry a woman while she's young for a plethora of reasons. It's not merely a matter of "hotness". It's a matter of self-respect, of wanting healthy children, and of not wanting to have deal with years upon years of bitterness and baggage that a younger woman would not have.

 

[Australia Sucks]

then it seems like that's the top priority for you when you are choosing a woman for marriage and goes back to my original question: is getting those 10 years worth it if it's accompanied by 50 years of not being unattractive?

You need a certain minimum number of years of youth from the women plus kids. Its not an either or its both as a minimum condition otherwise marriage is not worthwhile as a man. I do not see why this is so hard for you to understand.

 

[Blade Runner]

People were encouraged to not be dazzled by looks and instead look for qualities that were more conductive for family building and child rearing.

Yes, but you keep leaving out that in the old days these women would be reared to be wives and also 18-22.

There's feminine women with good dispositions who can be pretty great and I wouldn't mind having one in my life. They're just rare.

That's how I feel. I do meet like 35 year olds that migh have this too, but it doesn't do me any good because it's a non starter even if I might like them. I call that collateral damage from the culture. It's also why average to above average women should consider high value men with 10+ age gaps when they are young. Young men don't make it until 30s anyway so I don't get where this pipe dream comes from with women of getting a younger man: both young men and young women aren't trying to marry, though the latter of course she be doing all they can.

I mean, even very average/plain women look significantly better and are significantly more fertile when they're young than afterwards.

This is what I've also stated emphatically as I've aged. Youth starts to look different to you, because you realize just how important it is and how families and biology are key with a young woman. I've described it as when you are 22 let's say, all the women around you are the same age (young) and it doesn't seem special, so you generally then try to distinguish them through "hotness". If you look back, that's also only a very small percentage of the crowd that of course everyone is chasing. Or at best you have to get lucky with timing since it's also only 3% of women or so. This is why my solution of 30-40 year old man with young woman works perfectly for everyone, so of course the modern world will never allow it.

You need a certain minimum number of years of youth from the women plus kids. Its not an either or its both as a minimum condition otherwise marriage is not worthwhile as a man. I do not see why this is so hard for you to understand.

This is the simple distillation that AS and I have been stating.

Humor me as an internet troll: I'm not ugly, I'm over 6 feet tall, and my net worth is, let's say, 1M+. I'm 40.

Go down the line in year intervals like that K Samuels dude did with women and men's age and SMV.

Should I consider a 35 year old woman? Ha.
30? Maybe, but you have to start quickly and don't have much time if you actually want kids, purely biological and mathematical reality. Is she good looking at all? Does she have energy?
25? I think this is the only serious age where you can even argument something might be commensurate with what the man is offering (sure thing). Younger of course then applies.

The idea that a man with money, max freedom, and good traits is going to trade that freedom for (you insert woman) is all we are dealing with. I'm constantly shocked at how hard it is for people to be honest about this topic. These things are pretty objective, since the traits that both sexes desire are objective (wealth and status for man, youth for woman).

 

[Wutang]

I'm not sure about the 18-22 being an guaranteed thing, even back then. From what I've seen in stats I think even back then it was mostly in the mid 20s that people were getting married. I see it with my own family with my parents getting married around that age as well as my grandparents. In my grandparent's case, they actually had an arranged marriage and even then they were in their mid 20s with less then a 3 year difference between the two of them, though my grandmother is younger of course. I think their situation was pretty similar to what other people in their town was experiencing. Keep in mind that they are from time long past and also from a more conservative culture. I do think back then a 10+ year gap would have been way more acceptable and wouldn't have drawn the same sort of ire it would today but at the same time, I don't think it was the standard practice.

I think the proper compromise between what you desire age wise and what is reasonable to get would be around the 24 - 28 year old range. If you can get say 18 - 21 then good for you but I also don't think it would be realistic to hold it up as a goal to constantly keep within your mind. Rather your attitude should be that if you do see a chance to pursue that, go for it but at the same time don't expect to actually see the opportunity to begin with.

If a man is really just set on having woman in her late teens/very early 20s, then that man would pretty much have to go outside of the west to get that but that's going to bring it's own set of problems. The man will have to decide for himself if having the 18 year old is worth the bundle of issues that would come with her being from a culture much more different than his own.

 

[Douglas Quaid]

Even in the absolute best case scenario where she's a devout Orthodox Christian virgin and whatnot (at 25 lololol go play the lotto instead), she would still simply not be able to bring the same joy and innocence into your and your children's lives that an 18 year old woman could.

I've met a few hardcore Christian women in their mid 20s that are like this. It's great that they haven't been sleeping around, but you are spot on about the joy and innocence being gone. You can see it in their eyes and there is nothing enjoyable about talking to them. I think they're bitter about not being married like most of their friends and relatives that married really young.

 

[Douglas Quaid]

A lot of younger women do not care if you're older. The main issue would be if their family is ok with it.

I also think a lot of younger Christian women marry a guy they're not crazy about, but do it as the safe choice and pressure from their families.

If you're an older guy and an outsider, it takes time to prove you are a safe choice. These women want the Christian Chad that gives them tingles, but is stable and safe too.

 

[Blade Runner]

I think the proper compromise between what you desire age wise and what is reasonable to get would be around the 24 - 28 year old range.

I agree, and even this is socially blocked if the man is late 30s or older. You could pull off 38-28, maybe. Very unlikely to be 40+ and it not be cockblock central.

The other problem with the west at this point is that you barely have an occasion to even meet mid 20s girls in any quantity.