Fair point.
Who Should You Marry?
- Thread starter stadtaffe
- Start date
I think a lot of readers will find this helpful. Three psychologists, two female one male, talk about the different criteria involved in choosing a life partner, but more interestingly to me at least, were the concerns of the clients of these three about the person they've chosen. A lot of what is spoken about in here is echoed in the commentary. I found it helpful in that there's a lot of solid and realistic information wrapped up in a 30 minute package.
(Recommended listening speed 1.25 x)
(Recommended listening speed 1.25 x)
I always find Jungians to be if not helpful, at least interesting, and I enjoyed listening to this.
However, for me, these analysts just reinforce the fact that if you want a life of simplicity and clarity in 2025 that you best trudge forth alone. Just listening to them describe all the criteria and "methods" of relating well to a woman over a 20, 30, 40, or 50 year period is exhausting. My belief after decades of experience in the romantic love department is that even with good "chemistry" and lots of common interests and beliefs that the gulf between modern women and men is too wide to breach. The hypergamous thirst is real, and as the saying goes, "She was never yours, it was just your turn." She can have another you in a minute because Chad awaits around every corner and not only does she see him, she compares him to you and in the back of her mind she thinks, "I could do better." And she can. So why wouldn't she? Because she loves you and you pay the bills? Don't be so naive. Men are loyal, women are not.
Sure, if you're going to have children then you must find a route of survival that is based on trust, sacrifice, and compromise, but personally, my days of compromising with women are over. I've seen enough. Women have shown me who they are, and I believe them.
Life (for me) is so much more enjoyable without a woman "partner." Loneliness is a small price to pay for peace.
GrecoRoman
Catholic
Great post. I’ve been seeing things the same way. It’s exhausting to deal with, and the pie and sky idealists will say men are giving up, but I see what you’ve written as the truth on the ground. It’s kind of like job hopping.
Women are always looking for an upgrade and constantly comparing you to exes or even current men they know. Unless you can test for loyalty which is difficult in and of itself, it’s a steep hill to climb no matter who you are. The only time this stops is if the man is wealthy and famous, (like a professional athlete) or when she lets herself go, gets old and has to settle. Even in those cases failures occur (see Tom Brady.) Amazing circumstance where she was parading around and banging her jiujitsu instructor and then got knocked up. A total embarrassment and the naysayers will say she is aged, but still even a professional wealthy athlete could not hold frame.
There’s a zeitgeist of always wanting more in our culture. A person can be in the top % of wealth or any category, and still want more. Millionaires want to be billionaires. It’s a brainwashing job by the machine of consumption.
While these qualities can be good (they push you, increase competitiveness and drive) they also can lead to derangement and mental illness when the reality doesn’t match the fantasy. It’s also a horrible way to treat a partner or another human being. Like the scene in fight club “We were all told we’d be movie stars, but we won’t”
There is a certain peace in silence and simplicity without a woman around. I don’t even find lonely because my life is full with hobbies, career, and I can pursue my interests as I see fit.
Everything you have written here makes sense and is quite logical, relatable. I haven't listened to the video yet but I intend to. The thing about women that most people don't get is that since they are based on the here and now, consensus and the status quo literally mean everything. That seeps into the mindset and what the "possibilities" are. And as many intelligent people have said, they think in possibilities, and men (generally) think it probabilities. Of course, that has to do with the biological differences in men having to be more realistic because no one is backstopping them or bailing them out if things go wrong.
If there is no social backing to restrict or expect particular behavior from women, as a group they will not behave, and that has societal implications. It's actually just part of their nature, to test boundaries and indirectly be contained, restricted and/or protected, however you want to look at it.
Modern social movements, including egalitarianism, feminism, and the ability to have (excess) funds with jobs and greater resources have led to a type of chaos on steroids. Throw that population boom in and a high number of males, not men, and you've had a recipe for disaster. Sad, but true.
That's why I think it's actually a good idea for some of the men here to not get married even if that means having to deal with the issues of being single such as not having an outlet for sexual release or not having companionship. I actually think when it comes to the companionship factor, for some of these guys they would actually find female companionship to be a negative once the honeymoon period is over and once they don't get same thrill of having easy sex available starts wearing off. The ROI for these guys when it comes to marriage would be less then negatives they would experience from being around a woman on a regular basis.
GrecoRoman
Catholic
The main problem with this is that unless a guy is part of a monastic or strict religious community, they WILL act out on the sexual front one way or another. A man has to have have monastic discipline not too or possibly be asexual due to a genetic predisposition or illness. I’m not going to list the forms of acting out as the guys on this forum are not naive, but they happen constantly.
If a woman ‘presents herself’ most guys are going to do it, especially if they are in a dry spell. That can lead to even worse complications as the guy ignores the danger and enters into some type of fling with a walking red flag. This is even more prevalent because these days having flings or casual relationships is much easier than finding a life companion. I find it funny that some people assume if you are a single guy you aren’t getting sexual opportunities. This is only the case for some men who have some sort of psychological problem or are unattractive.
I used to work in the nightlife scene and it was like shooting fish in the barrel. I also coached in a martial arts gym and it seems expected with some Brazilian women. Even these days there are opportunities with lonely coworkers or random women you meet. So the issue for some guys is not that but resisting the temptation and finding a compatible life partner.
What I will tell you is the vast majority of guys are going to succumb and act out. Doesn’t matter if they are part of a church or not.
I haven’t found a clear answer to this as I’ve discussed this with my priests at confession often. The best I got was to pray if I was feeling like acting out.
We know that's what you think but it goes without saying. If it isn't possible, isn't a good idea, and/or you're right about this it won't happen anyway. You're obsessed with pointing this out. But magoo realizes that the drive really isn't the woman, as I've also said - it's the legacy. The woman part at this point is pure liability, if we're honest. We've made thousands of posts on this. And few men want to be with a woman who is 2-3 points beneath them SMV wise (to get her to act right), or fat to boot.
Sometimes it's the only thing to do, the only answer.
There's a different calling for everyone. Remember Metropolitan Anthony Bloom? He was a great man with a great story and was good looking. Many women wanted to marry him but that was also a time in which women needed men AND he was in communities that were in diaspora (He was Russian but lived in France like many, then came to the USA I think). Children are a fulfilling part of life and they should be, as they complete much of it. But the story can be written in many ways for many different people, and ultimately, it doesn't matter the world/universe/cosmos and God are so vast and mysteriously. One of my favorite lines is something I've said before, which is that humans tend to think that particular things are more important than they really are. Put another way, we tend to live in a way in which we think what should be is more important than what God wills or thinks is important.
Based on what I see her written on here, I actually think it's the sexual appeal of the woman that is what it's really about, even more so then the legacy. You even see this in the post I just quoted where 'SMV' is mentioned as the main reason why guys don't want to be with a woman.
If legacy was really the biggest factor then I think we wouldn't see so many posts from the wife hunters talking about how they can't find a wife who is within their desired range of SMV. There's a lot of talk about wanting to bring back traditional pre-feminist marriage but it should be noted that in the 'good ol days' the biggest factor when it came to marriage wasn't about looks and attraction but rather about comparability for family formation. This means a lot of people, both men and women ended up with spouses that they weren't necessarily physically attracted to. The reason why parents and older family members were so instrumental in setting up marriages because they knew if it was just left to the kids they would just go for the highest SMV they can get rather then for the most prudent choice.
We talk about how modern women love going after the Chads and bad boys that they think are hot and how this is to their detriment and how society needs to reign this in but we neglect to mention how men needs to be restricted as well so they don't go for the hottest smoke shows as wives over the less flashy girls that have lower SMVs but are better mothers and are more likely to nurture your legacy.
If someone is writing a lot of posts about how there isn't enough hot women around and about how the women that are virtuous and motherly are unfortunately usually Plain Janes, I would have to conclude that SMV > legacy for such a person.
^ A great post which should be mandatory reading for men who may be considering the question of this thread. It inspired me to pen the following piece.
The Tradeoffs of Beauty in Women - Prioritising Pleasure and Hotness or Stability and Respect
For the majority of men, focusing too much on physical beauty is likely to be counter-productive when seeking a longterm committed relationship including marriage:
These points can be extremely hard to digest. Why? Because the tendency towards beauty and sexual variety is baked into our DNA. Lust is a sin that men struggle with by default.
Indeed, simply observing a physically attractive mate provides far more intrinsic neurochemical rewards for men compared to women. Merely looking at attractive faces is more stimulating for men:
[Full article: "Are Attractive People Rewarding? Sex Differences in the Neural Substrates of Facial Attractiveness."]
This visual-variety tendency has been amped up to unbelievable levels due to 24/7 online access to pörn, social media, dating apps, and so on. Nowadays, men expect to feel high levels of excitement with a woman and are increasingly reluctant to invest without it.
This means it is more important than ever for men to be aware of how beauty and sex can hijack their brain in order to maximise seductive short-term gains (like getting a girlfriend who is hot), which usually don't lead to sustainable benefits (e.g., maintaining a marriage in which the woman looks UP to the man).
It seems that most men -- i.e., the normies of the world and not CiK members
-- are stuck in relationships with women who don't respect them.
Yet it's hard to overemphasise how critical it is for a man to be respected by his woman. In most cases, this means that she feels strong, genuine attraction for her man AND that this attraction is maintained over time.
Video/Audio Resources
To further understand why prioritising beauty may enhance a number of underestimated risks for most men, I recommend reviewing these videos. They offer a rationale for why such a power/respect imbalance threatens the sanity of the man and the cohesion of the relationship in the long run.
A Case Study of Theoretical Abundance
I met a guy from RVF around 10 years ago and we remain friends to this day. He's mid-30s by now, lives in city of 5+ million people, and has been on the dating apps for years. He nonetheless shares many of my conservative views and would like a long term serious relationship.
During one of our many conversations about women and relationships, he said (paraphrased), "I want these highly attractive women but can't get them. I see them every day in person and online but they remain out of reach. But I'm not gonna settle. I think I'll probably be single forever."
I've discussed the problems with elusive desire and he's acknowledged the wide gap between wanting and getting. Just because we want something, doesn't mean we deserve to get it, or can get it. See Part 1 of a related CiK discussion on having standards for further explanation.
Absolutely, he can still work to increase his 'Husband Market Value' in some ways. However, there will be a ceiling effect. I can't imagine him being truly satisfied with anyone... unless his expectations are changed. This would involve things like practicing acceptance of what is feasible, focusing on what is within his control, closing off the never-ending stream of percieved options by getting off dating apps and social media sooner rather than later, and so on. If this can't happen, he'd be better off staying single. Yet what a missed opportunity to experience all that life has to offer.
A Personal Reflection
I used to be fixated on trying to get and keep the hottest woman I could possibly get within reason. And after a huge amount of effort over many years, I was able to get a girlfriend(s) who was considerably more attractive than me. Looking back, this was sinful, a waste of many years, and taught me some tough lessons that I wish I learned the easy way (someone explaining the risk of pain to me) and not the hard way (experiencing the pain myself).
1. First, I experienced first hand that the hot-crazy matrix was based on objective truth. Chasing women based on their looks is inviting trouble into one's life.
2. Second, having a girlfriend that was very attractive provided many benefits (feeling excited to see her, having social status, getting special treatment by others, etc) but also many costs (she didn't want kids yet, she was demanding, she kept testing boundaries, etc). I wanted it all in one package -- a woman who was young and hot and modest and intelligent and kind etc. But that's the stuff of fantasy, not reality. I realised I could get the kind of girl that I really desired physically -- OR -- I could create the kind of relationship and life that I wanted, but not both.
3. Third, once my 30s came around, some friends started saying that I was too picky. I didn't listen, and refused to do what I thought was settling for less than I deserve. Like most men, if they were to speak freely, I too was concerned about being married to someone who I didn't find attractive. Unfortunately, this worry was greatly exacerbated due to indulging in hedonistic sin. As the emotional, mental, and spiritual hangover of the player lifestyle takes it toll in several ways, it took many years to recover from these pleasure-seeking behaviours.
4. Our time and opportunities are limited. Let us do away with flights of fancy like imagining men can do whatever they want for decades on end and then suddenly choose to settle down and be happy in middle age, without unforeseen consequences. See here for a related CiK discussion about issues with having children later in life.
5. Last, and above all, I found a greater calling. I had to change my daily behaviours and mental priorities to match my grander goals. What I came to accept was that a focus on beauty and excitement was not aligned with my larger life purpose including having children. Truly accepting this grander vision as a stronger value, then replacing counterproductive whims with a focused mission, were central to succeeding in the end.
Conclusion
Men are hardwired to seek out physical beauty and sexual variety. Recognising and addressing this biological reality is important in reducing its impact across many domains; to maintain a prosperous and civilised society, to align men's behaviours with Christian values and behaviours, and to help guide individual guys towards relationships that are meaningful and sustainable.
This isn't an excuse to rationalise being lazy and settling for a landwhale as a virtuous choice. Rather, this is a gentle reminder for men seeking a wife to consider this: almost certainly, your most suitable wife prospects won't also be the hottest women you can find. Keeping in mind the inevitability of trade-offs in choosing a wife is essential for improved discernment, suitable selection, and life satisfaction.
I hope this was useful for someone to consider.
Screen well and be well,
S.H.
I think trust and commitment/ responsibility are also factors to consider. I don’t think beauty is the reason why some men don’t settle. It’s simply they are afraid. I was. And im still are today. Buying a ring and proposing as nothing to do with getting random skanks at a club. Or waiting for the kid to be born in hospital.
Even if you get married you can also chase other girls. The problem is the change in lifestyle many don’t want. Saying goodbye to a reality you lived in and are comfortable. Taking a leap of faith. There’s obviously tradeoffs. But saying it’s because of beauty it’s simplistic and a pretty lie. Roosh met a lot of good women. He wrote it himself. He continued the player lifestyle cause to him it was at that time a better option. It wasn’t for a lack of prospects.
There are obviously good women out there. Beautiful chaste etc. But some wouldn’t settle for them. Men should bang them have kids and create a new class of non retarded kids. Most players I’ve met would be incredible parents. It’s really a loss to society.
Having children later in life is not a good option. You are old. Chaplin had a kid at 73. He died at 77. People should have kids the youngest possible. When they are at full speed. Have energy. Etc. have the maximum of them.
We wanted to have minimum 3. And to have some rest having the 2nd and 3rd after the first stopped with diapers and started to eat by himself. Diapers the stroll and food really sucks the first years. Unfortunately when we were working on the 3rd kid corona happened. 2/3years between each kid is a good rule I believe. For young people. You don’t want to have kids in a row. Twins must be hard.
Even if you get married you can also chase other girls. The problem is the change in lifestyle many don’t want. Saying goodbye to a reality you lived in and are comfortable. Taking a leap of faith. There’s obviously tradeoffs. But saying it’s because of beauty it’s simplistic and a pretty lie. Roosh met a lot of good women. He wrote it himself. He continued the player lifestyle cause to him it was at that time a better option. It wasn’t for a lack of prospects.
There are obviously good women out there. Beautiful chaste etc. But some wouldn’t settle for them. Men should bang them have kids and create a new class of non retarded kids. Most players I’ve met would be incredible parents. It’s really a loss to society.
Having children later in life is not a good option. You are old. Chaplin had a kid at 73. He died at 77. People should have kids the youngest possible. When they are at full speed. Have energy. Etc. have the maximum of them.
We wanted to have minimum 3. And to have some rest having the 2nd and 3rd after the first stopped with diapers and started to eat by himself. Diapers the stroll and food really sucks the first years. Unfortunately when we were working on the 3rd kid corona happened. 2/3years between each kid is a good rule I believe. For young people. You don’t want to have kids in a row. Twins must be hard.
Last edited:
To be fair the baseline for women in olden times was more attractive. Sure there were fewer miss universe outlier types back then because they did not have all the technology (facial creams, dieticians, plastic surgery, stem cell injections, etc) than we have today but those women are still such a small percentage anyway that they are not all that relevant anyway. Back in olden times very few women were fat, women mostly had long hair, they did not have tattoos and their femininity and pleasantness added to their sex appeal. And the most important point is that back then women got married young (e.g. 20 years old) rather than today where they get married at 30+. So yes on average the physical attractiveness of women that men are marrying today is far less than the past.
GrecoRoman
Catholic
^ A great post which should be mandatory reading for men who may be considering the question of this thread. It inspired me to pen the following piece.
The Tradeoffs of Beauty in Women - Prioritising Pleasure and Hotness or Stability and Respect
For the majority of men, focusing too much on physical beauty is likely to be counter-productive when seeking a longterm committed relationship including marriage:
So, this song?
Yes, but you keep leaving the part out that is also key, that AS hits later: looks might not have been there as much but youth was a guarantee. You don't get that. I'm sure you've read what I've talked about on that topic, that as you get older youth becomes a form of beauty you recognize more since you aren't around all the young people all the time (like in school, university etc) anymore, previously it wasn't novel, not it is relatively.
No we don't. And men need to get boners, women don't. Again, if you can get a boner with a random (fat) 5, I'm envious. My achievements, genes and standards don't play that though.
This is the point and why it shouldn't even be controversial. Guys are only getting like 5-10 years out of the woman in terms of looks anyway. It's quite literally the greatest trade of all time for a woman. But not in the era of excess wealth, males, and constant attention/possibilities.
Many truths here. It depends a lot of the person, the religion and culture, though.
While younger ages are the best to have kids, it's fairly irrelevant at this point to keep harping on this, as women aren't encouraged to do that and they are all that matter regarding this topic. While there is ideal, and I agree, if I'm giving my genes to the kid that might be gift enough. I had an ideal upbringing in many ways. What did that do for my prospects for a wife in this culture? Ironically, it made it harder. Things change. We adapt. "Old" for a man is nonsense.
Much is written in the Old Testament about this. A young woman's beauty is something to be celebrated:
But Jesus ben Sirach also warns us of the dangers:
I also feel that if you are strongly attracted to your wife, you will be less likely to fornicate and seek fulfillment elsewhere. On the other hand we have to avoid idolatry of beauty. The desire for beauty should not overcome the desire for a virtuous and pleasant wife. Because the Scriptures also say:
But Jesus ben Sirach also warns us of the dangers:
I also feel that if you are strongly attracted to your wife, you will be less likely to fornicate and seek fulfillment elsewhere. On the other hand we have to avoid idolatry of beauty. The desire for beauty should not overcome the desire for a virtuous and pleasant wife. Because the Scriptures also say:
The "silent wife" he describes is exceedingly rare today. Especially in combination with the other traits we are to seek: beautiful, young, hardworking, skillful, humble, and temperate.
I've addressed the youth factor a few times in previous exchanges. I've said that enjoying 10 years of a woman's youth doesn't outweigh the next 50 years of misery, boredom, and irritation that you feel from being around a woman. You are describing a woman as a "pure liability" and you've wrote many other posts on this forum and the previous forum about how annoying you find women so based on your posting history, I can confidently say those are the emotions you would be experiencing if you had to be around a woman long-term.
If you are going to bring up how you are limiting your critique to Western women, I'll also point out in the past you've talked about how dating would be annoying since a woman on a date would have nothing to discuss other then what she would be watching on Netflix. Now imagine instead of having to listen to her talking about Netflix for one night on a date, you have to listen to her talk about Netflix night after night for an entire lifetime. The type of traditional non-modern woman you are seeking is going to precisely be the type of woman who would have nothing to talk about except what she watched on Netflix or what she did around the house that day since you've indicated you wouldn't be interested in a woman that has any sort of interest outside of the home.
As a guy into investing, I think you would agree that purchasing a commodity that gives you a return for 10 years but then subtracts from your wealth for the rest of your life after wouldn't be a good investment. I would also actually argue that long before the 10 years are up the honeymoon period is going to be over and her youth isn't going to be enchanting the way it was in the first 1-3 year of marriage so you likely aren't even going to get the full 10 years of bathing in her youth and beauty.
In that case you have to accept that you likely will not get to play at al unless you go overseas but there doesn't seem to be an indication you are willing to take that step.
I'm starting to think that you aren't capable of synthesizing what I'm saying, very well, or at all.
Indeed, you haven't read much of what I've written, since you don't even know what risk assessment is, or what the goal might be.
Not this again.