Link: Game Theory and the Marriage Market

http://www.staresattheworld.com/2015/06/game-theory-and-the-marriage-matrix/

Three considerations are missing;

  1. sleeping around used to be frowned upon, not encouraged by every medium of popular culture (easier to sell things to insecure single people), and blame was assigned correctly for the fault in a marriage, we had standards to aspire toward, the words of the very vow itself used to be legally binding
  2. adultery used to be a crime, this kept levels low and it was enforced, the concept of honour was legally binding and slandering a woman’s chastity was criminal (criminal libel and some bitchy specific forms) kept ugly girls from cutting pretty ones down with lies and gossip in the MMV/SMV
  3. obtaining divorce wasn’t the proviso of a family court “judge” but a criminal one, with a high standard of proof required to leave, divorce was rare

It is THESE things, which kept people in line and made them treat marriage seriously.

I would endorse a two-marriage cap for life (excepting widowhood). Fool me once… choose wrong twice….

Both sexes had legal protections when times were good.
Age limits to make a choice of marriage partner accounted for maturity, income, religion etc. Good matches.

From a female perspective (wait this isn’t vapid), I think women have displayed some new male-like traits in selection for good reason e.g. more emphasis on appearance, fitness and wit, because the excessive overpopulation has left us so many to choose from. We’ve always been as shallow as men (if you had to choose between two people equal in other ways but one is hotter everyone would choose the hot one come on), but now we have a lot more choice and men have to jump hoops but for dates instead of courtship and marriage. Women aren’t locked down into those choices and assume fertility is a given because of our sex. Most men nowadays are fat or not fit, so the healthy toned man is maximising his fitness signal, similar with symmetrical, masculine appearance in a world of antiandrogens, phyto and xenoestrogens. It’s like a nuclear bomb of a signal in that case:-

I’m normally totally level-headed around men but this level of genetic fitness has a profoundly distracting effect even upon me which I can only compare to Kate Upton’s bouncing tits in a wet t-shirt as an effect on men.

PC quashes genuine wit and makes it shine the brighter in bleak times and so on.
Lust is the desire to breed after all and we shouldn’t forget this, it can be a positive force. If you want to incentivize marriage, make a man invested in his children (and certain of paternity because he loves his wife) and a woman invested in her husband and his attentions (and her children because duh).

As for the warning at the end, the traditional women don’t live in that traditional society. The men are too poor to even consider marriage. Hardly a choice. A woman who waits around is going to be kept waiting forever because men think they can get the same quality of woman regardless of age.

9 responses to “Link: Game Theory and the Marriage Market

  1. You’re a woman? I honestly had no clue.

    Excellent points about what I missed out on; and I appreciate the reaffirmation of women’s physical nature (highly underestimated by most people; in some ways you’re worse than men) – but I especially loved this:

    “make a man invested in his children (and certain of paternity because he loves his wife) and a woman invested in her husband and his attentions (and her children because duh).”

    The latter 100x; men are innately invested in a woman (if it’s hard to get casual sex) and her children (if he has a realistic expectation that they’re his) because, well, duh. But having women invested in her husband?

    DING! DING! DING! Hit the nail on the head.

    The manosphere tends to prescribe limiting a woman’s ability to frivolously divorce; it doesn’t tend to talk so much about creating structures that would make her invested in her husband (aside from marital game, which is great, but doesn’t address the underlying issues). People respond to incentives, after all.

    • Hahaha, thank you? I guess with all the science, yeah. We have spoken under other pseuds of mine and you also had no idea.
      How can we fix the social issues if we aren’t honest? Neither sex is perfect.
      Yes the attention side often gets ignored, because it comes under a husband’s duty and the manosphere gets itchy describing responsibility. It needn’t be bad or a boring thing, men usually like female attention.
      We have an unusual legal system which advocates too much freedom within a contract and wonders why people defect.

      • Compliment, if you take scholarliness as a compliment. I’m guessing you might.

        Frank, measurable, replicatable statements (after all, science is part of rape culture,ain’t it?); in all seriousness though, detecting the sex of the writer is something I’ve been working on for the past few years, and I’m surprised that you managed to catch me off guard. In retrospect I can see it (particularly in your comment policy).

        I frequently dismiss a woman who claims that they’re “As good as a man!” because is seldom more than shrill shrieking on the part of women who are deficient in feminine nature; it’s like a “Guy who’s in touch with his feminine side!” who in reality is some sort of weirdo pervert, who has no idea how to throw a football.

        In reality, a woman who is as good as a man is a better woman than most; and a man who understands how to nurture is a more masculine man, in my opinion. But those aren’t messages most people need to hear in this age; too easily perverted into “Fail at being your own sex,” an excuse for women to act brassy, and for men to act weak.

        It’s very hard for real men to be nurturing these days; and for real women do display fortitude.

      • Yes I figured, I read the intent. Not easily offended, don’t worry, the question mark was more satire of the passive-aggressive types. Who make, like, everything, a question? [tag questions, little linguistic joke]
        If you must claim, you are not. I read a bloke who said he never trusted women who described themselves as funny because if they were, he’d know by laughing at what they have to say, similar principle, meritocratic.
        Yes, it’s more about rounding abilities, Renaissance Man style. What you reward you induce. sorry I’m a bit tired in reply, just had a massive row with a feminist paedophile, needless to say I won

  2. Pingback: Father Knows Best: First Weekend of Summer Edition | Patriactionary

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s