Who Should You Marry?

[stadtaffe]

There are several similar threads around already exploring these themes but I will risk creating one here "in my own words" and see where it goes.

"Risk" because I am really not the shining example of someone who got it right and could easily say things which may trigger someone. I am actually a bad candidate to start a thread such as this, but no-one else seems to have done so. More wholesome contributions are welcome.

When I was a teenager I had a concept of having a few short term relationships in my early twenties and marrying a certain type of woman from a certain kind of family by age 23 or 24, and living some version of happily ever after with children. Some kind of respectable life.

My noble intentions were subverted. I had too much baggage by my early 20s to find the courage to move to where I wanted to move to or to attract the kind of girl I really wanted. So I took what I could get at the time in places where I did not really want to be. My personal fairytale felt very remote. There was a huge push from some of these girls to domesticate me, move in with me and then the years went by, but not in the way that they should have.

I can't take all the blame but I do now do take responsibility, and for fixing it.There is a high measure of clown in male-female relations nowadays as discussed ad nauseam in other threads. I also had some particularly satanic baby boomers who did not relent with nudging me down the road to hell with their degenerate LSD fueled 1970s experimental nonsense.

I am not someone particularly unhappy these days but am faced with the challenge, with time running out, of not making any more terminal mistakes, no more coasting along in life as if one were immortal. I have spent that long living with women in my adult life (probably 15 years altogether) that I have been scared off it now and am just grateful to have my freedom back for a while and be a part-time father.

I wrote in that thread of that guy looking for relationship advice :

I was going to start a thread called "who you should marry" to discuss this sort of thing in general. Just the main point being to not just follow emotions and lust, but to impose some level or pragmatic consideration on yourselves, a somewhat unemotional evaluation of how the future will play out, as was one of my grandparent's advice. Fail to plan is a plan to fail.

Well it looks like I have started that thread. One needs to save save oneself from oneself. Even at the moment I am trying to save myself from myself with a certain girl I know who I really like but with whom it would likely turn into a nightmare if it became more serious.

I don't join the kvetching in the other threads about modern women as I am blessed with some kind of sixth sense which saves me from most of the degenerates and feminists.

Still if I'd done it all right I wouldn't be posting here.

What did I do wrong - well one of my LTRs was way too controlling and in a region where I in my heart truly did not want to be.

The other was not controlling but she was a leftist and lightly brainwashed on the usual points, the refugees, the gays, the vax - I don't even like typing those filthy words but she was regrettably a mild believer in it all. I could say more but there was too much that was good about her to start nitpicking and I would not want to say much bad about her.

I must have learned my lesson and be doing something right as among the more recent girls there was a 'libertarian' and another who quietly admires an Austrian painter.

Am I the only one who received archaic life advice on who you should marry from a grandparent from the Greatest Generation?

Somewhere I read that one of the most important decisions you make in life is who you marry.

I don't want to create any further untidiness or suffering with my actions and consider it remotely possible that I may yet fulfill my teenage fairytale plan.

So, as a general discussion, not specifically about me - who should you marry?

 

[stadtaffe]

Was reading the rural living and prepping thread and some of the discussion there was exactly along the lines I had planned here, cross-posting :

Taken from Leonard D Neubache's rural living datasheet (2017).

I wonder what happened to that guy..

Assuming you’re not married but looking, game carefully and choose carefully. The local girls are the sisters, daughters and grand-daughters of the local men. Shotgun weddings might be a thing of the past. You’ll also be marked as the kind of person that’s generally not conducive to the common good. This can be hard. A young girl full of hormones can all but throw herself at the fresh meat but that doesn’t mean you’re going to get a pass from the locals if you fornicate with her and put her on plate status or just lose her number. In the country women are correctly seen as being one step above children and one step below men in terms of being accountable for their actions. Muh patriarchy is a double edged sword out here, lads.

Types of women:

Now, country girls can be divided into two categories. Trailer trash and Duchess’. By this I mean girls who come from broken homes and girls that come from traditional unbroken nuclear families.

Trailer trash:

The trailer trash girls are the easier choice and not necessarily as bad an option as you might think. First generation welfare girls can be pilfered from shitty towns around the district and put through a heavy wash cycle before being ironed out and knocked up. It might sound like madness but a country welfare girl is typically not nearly as damaged a rich, progressive whore from the suburbs or city. Country welfare girls are breeders and usually quite capable of running a household. You will need a firm hand and a bit more frame over the life of the relationship. Nobody prefers a “fixer-upper", but running with that prospect is a hundred times more viable in the country than in the city or the suburbs.

The Duchess:

Girls from traditional families with multi-generational links to the region will be a harder prospect. Their parents are more protective of them and will screen you hard, especially if their little girl is a top-shelf stunner. They will be looking for a masculine man that stands his ground, makes good money and spends it wisely, treats their daughter well and isn’t going to wall her off from them the second she gets married.

Ironically I get the sense they prefer an outsider because it allows them to keep the family in tact rather than losing their daughter to another family in the area who will integrate her into their tribe more thoroughly. This option is the best one assuming you choose the particular girl (and family) wisely and in accordance with red-pill philosophy. It gives you the best quality wife as well as access to her family’s contacts in local industry. The disclaimer is that her father MUST be red-pilled and not prone to treating his daughter like a princess. In other words “running home to daddy” must not be a legitimate option for any prospective wife.

Notes:

If you care less about marrying into a large family and more about starting your own legacy then find a girl from a more distant country district, court her and they drag her back to your cave. That way you get the country morals without inhabiting the bottom rung of an existing patriarchal order.

But don't be too quick to rule out marrying into a large family. Instant tribe is a huge blessing, the benefits of which would constitute an entirely separate data sheet.

Age variations:

As a bonus if you keep in good shape for your age then marrying a girl 10 years younger than you will not earn you the same jealous contempt you might get in the city. The husband being 5 years older than the wife is largely seen to be normal and an additional play of 5 years is no serious stretch. Beyond that? Marry outside of the community and be prepared to get a few funny looks until your wife has a couple of kids or the difference in age diminishes on a percentile basis.

I think he's right with what he says above about "trailer trash" girls as he calls them. Can easily see that working for some people, but with my particular background I will try not to land myself with that kind of "project". The reason is I do value community (LDN also talks about that in the other thread). Don't fancy the idea of blazing a trail in a somewhat foreign culture with as he says You will need a firm hand and a bit more frame over the life of the relationship. Actually, the 'welfare' thing would not be the worst aspect of this for me, but what I really don't want (again) is a partner with a family of degenerates. My first ex was the best of her family, but with her siblings and parents there were stories of problems with the law, problems with alcohol, vehicle accidents, female relatives becoming lesbian and another similar gender-confused story.

I think a guy with a strong frame and pleasant childhood can handle that, but I can't bear to hear stories of "my brother again" or "you know what my mum just did I can't believe it".

My second ex had a much nicer and respectable family, lots of stability and smart, high achievers. A small number of her relatives were struggling with something or other but they all had dignity and pride and could think straight. Her family really is great, they had nothing to do with why we are not together anymore.

That first family I was 'adopted' into however had a really "red flag" streak, just impulsivity and a drive towards breaking the law. I'm quite wary of that now it really sets me off. Not that I am obsessed with following the law either, was many times flagrantly breaking the covid rules, rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools. But I thankfully am not like those kinds who are impulsively doing things that land you up at the police station, or like some other people I have known and purged from my life who have a sick drive to do things in an illegal, immoral or dodgy way.

Actually, what he writes there under "The Duchess" was a major part of the fairytale I had in mind as a teenager, with a few personal twists on it I won't go into in the public forum. He writes girls from traditional families with multi-generational links to the region will be a harder prospect and this is exactly my thought when I contemplate the prospect of pulling that off now. Daunting, but it might happen yet.

I grew up in a very broken family and had to cut ties, and it is just hard when you have grown up like that to somehow cycle back to something better.

Can anyone else relate to this? What I am posting about (and LDN) is the pragmatic and rational considerations some of us may fail to make when driven by desperation, loneliness or lust which land one in difficult marriage or partnership.

 

[Thomas More]

My strategy is to seek a woman who is already in the habit of going to chruch three times a week.

Generally, a lot of other important issues of character, values, and personality fall into place for someone who is already attending church frequently and consistently.

 

[stadtaffe]

My strategy is to seek a woman who is already in the habit of going to chruch three times a week.

Generally, a lot of other important issues of character, values, and personality fall into place for someone who is already attending church frequently and consistently.

I will take that on board. Still, if I found a woman who was going to church three times a year, or perhaps per month it would already be an improvement. While I have found some right wing and libertarian women in recent times, which is an improvement from the leftists before, I also prefer not to find someone with secularism running through them next time, so some rate of church attendance should be a sign.

 

[stadtaffe]

I am cross-posting here as this thread of mine basically refers back to a certain greatest generation care giver I had who meant well with archaic ideas about who you should marry, but unfortunately the warnings etc did not help me so much in the modern era.

The part I need to find out about her is will she submit and be virtuous, being willing to stick it out with me in tough times, and not simply just run to her Plan Bs (and thus she shouldn't have any Plan Bs in the first place, which is the red flag we just pointed out above with all the attention seeking). If she is not submissive and virtuous, she will cave to the cash and prize incentive offered by the state, that is, divorce in Western societies. She does not know any better that that "easy way out" will leave her soul destroyed and that she will feel it in her subsequent single life/second/third/fourth marriage.

I had never thought of 'submit' or 'submissive' as virtues for a woman but now looking back on my ex, and also not just back but present, as we have a child together there is something worthwhile in this concept.

There are a number of related terms - submit, subordinate, subjugate, subject, some of which sound quite negative.

Problem is, I think my ex like a lot of modern women was brainwashed with fantasies of inverting the natural order.

If neither gender submits it may be okay or half-okay.

If however the woman has drunk the coolaid and believes in careers, feminism, stay at home husbands etc there will be an imperative for the man to submit to her feminism, which is an inversion of the natural order. So unless you a yes dear kind of guy who is willing to find a way to basically stay at home and even start lactating so you can relieve her of her natural burden and she can live out her career and family feminist fantasy, it's not going to work.

Can probably safely add that a woman having some kind of aversion to the church is also a sign of this tendency to want to invert the natural order.

As per the quote above, I sense that it leaves her soul destroyed.

That is the endgame of all that feminism for women.

So it's either that she submits to the natural order of things, standard gender roles, or the man submits to her feminism, or the man refuses to submit to her feminism and she refuses equally to drop it, and everything blows up.

I still can't however work out exactly what submissive means in the context of some kind of positive virtue for a man choosing who to marry.

 

[Iacobus]

I am cross-posting here as this thread of mine basically refers back to a certain greatest generation care giver I had who meant well with archaic ideas about who you should marry, but unfortunately the warnings etc did not help me so much in the modern era.

I had never thought of 'submit' or 'submissive' as virtues for a woman but now looking back on my ex, and also not just back but present, as we have a child together there is something worthwhile in this concept.

There are a number of related terms - submit, subordinate, subjugate, subject, some of which sound quite negative.

Problem is, I think my ex like a lot of modern women was brainwashed with fantasies of inverting the natural order.

If neither gender submits it may be okay or half-okay.

If however the woman has drunk the coolaid and believes in careers, feminism, stay at home husbands etc there will be an imperative for the man to submit to her feminism, which is an inversion of the natural order. So unless you a yes dear kind of guy who is willing to find a way to basically stay at home and even start lactating so you can relieve her of her natural burden and she can live out her career and family feminist fantasy, it's not going to work.

Can probably safely add that a woman having some kind of aversion to the church is also a sign of this tendency to want to invert the natural order.

As per the quote above, I sense that it leaves her soul destroyed.

That is the endgame of all that feminism for women.

So it's either that she submits to the natural order of things, standard gender roles, or the man submits to her feminism, or the man refuses to submit to her feminism and she refuses equally to drop it, and everything blows up.

I still can't however work out exactly what submissive means in the context of some kind of positive virtue for a man choosing who to marry.

The thing is, we all submit. Male and female, we must submit to the yoke of Christ. The idea that one need not submit is Satanic inversion. The wife submitting to the husband must be seen in the context of the husband submitting to Christ, or even to his spiritual father on a smaller scale. The feminist view is a strawman painting the man as a tyrant... which may be true in some cases but in a Christian life, the husband is no more a tyrant than Christ is a tyrant. Furthermore men have the great responsibility to lay down our lives for our wives and families as Christ laid down his life for us.

Furthermore there is also the notion that there can be only one leader of a unit... and we can observe that to be true from Scripture, from nature, from observation of humanity and our operations. The wife is a valued second in command, but a second in command she must be.

 

[Douglas Quaid]

I will take that on board. Still, if I found a woman who was going to church three times a year, or perhaps per month it would already be an improvement. While I have found some right wing and libertarian women in recent times, which is an improvement from the leftists before, I also prefer not to find someone with secularism running through them next time, so some rate of church attendance should be a sign.

Regular attendance on Sundays is pretty important. I've met women that go maybe 1-2 times month. While it's nice that they go, I think this is somewhat of a red flag. They're not taking Christianity seriously and say they go to church as a status symbol. Or they're telling me what they think I want to hear.

 

[Samseau]

Regular attendance on Sundays is pretty important. I've met women that go maybe 1-2 times month. While it's nice that they go, I think this is somewhat of a red flag. They're not taking Christianity seriously and say they go to church as a status symbol. Or they're telling me what they think I want to hear.

I'd much rather a woman who attends 1-2x per month vs a woman who never goes at all. Fact is, women who love you will adopt your faith over time. So if you go constantly they will eventually follow.