Too short to quote.
Generally good advice, but consider the source. A man who doesn’t want to marry himself, let alone is enjoying a happy marriage. Plus, he speaks from the male perspective to other males.
It sounds like settling, if you feel you’re settling before the marriage, that grows into resentment afterward. The research shows happy marriages begin with idealization (and not living together first) and this grows within the marriage into a tolerance of faults. You must find someone who doesn’t expect perfection (impossible) but still tries (goes for both sexes). It’s hard in a Western society of convenience e.g. Wife isn’t doing it for me anymore? Find new wife! ~ DON’T DATE NOVELTY DUDE. Select the ones with a longer aim to match the expectation of a long commitment (where you give up certain things like novelty in exchange for the benefits of marriage).
Judging by appearance is the easiest to make, so I can’t fault choosing it as a starting point. However, the B girls simply have their value as a person distributed differently, and they aren’t inferior to the A Girls. He’s using a dating metric (short term strategy) in place of a courting one (long term). Nor does this explain how assortative mating means successful marriages are often of equals (by overall value) or one party eventually feels they’re being screwed and leaves so one (man) must consider his own value and building that up and sustaining it (he earlier mentioned the former but not the latter, since he never intends to marry himself).
The main question is: What sort of parent to my children would this person make?
Bluntly, if you’ll never have children, you never need to get married. It is a non-issue.
Many positive attributes in either sex are mutually exclusive. Life is a series of trade-offs. Instead of going after what you think you want, instead look at what you feel you need. Look at your past, your background and what you envision and write down the commonalities of what really made you happy. Bare minimum, it isn’t a personal essay of your value as a person. Make a Wife list (needs to have/be, vs. wants). You’d be surprised by how little you actually need, instead of the default entitlement mode of our culture that looks to Impossible Ideal As Shown on TV. Dating research has shown people’s self-reports mismatch to what they actually pick. You don’t know yourself, you have to look. You don’t want a practice marriage.
Essentially, you want to get past one another’s quality filters. That’s the biggest hurdle and the first. The love grows from that basic mutual standard (which, according to the research, should include filtering for similar politics and parenting styles, and similar abilities with money because most arguments are caused by it). Try to see how you cope in stressful situations, the common advice to go on road trips is a stress test for the ultimate of children. If you can make it past the teens when they’re no longer children and you owe them little, your marriage will be fine. Your marriage needs to provide a teaching function to your children, as they will base their own relationships on its success or failure. Most arguments need to be had in front of the children so they can learn how to resolve conflicts. They note what you do, not what you tell them. Many commitment-phobes have divorced parents. They’re scared and haven’t learned the skills to keep a marriage (or even LTR) going. Both parties going into a marriage need to learn they have mutual responsibilities, for less obvious stuff like maintaining their own health (i.e. a healthy weight range excepting pregnancy or illness) or intimacy (i.e. emotional, men have an obligation too, some of the biggest failures in divorce stats seem to think they can stop trying when the ring’s on and treat their wives like a secretary instead of the closest person in their lives, don’t be that guy).
n.b. Never choose A girl to marry because everyone will age. You will age, she will age, and you’ll hate each other. Ask: Would I love this person when we’re both really ugly?
Essentially, neither sex should marry someone who peaked early. Never. They’ve ruined themselves on a glut of praise and arrogance that it would last forever. Peak doesn’t equal The Wall. It’s the best year of their life until now. If it was 19 or earlier, RUN.
For more info on LT life planning, I also recommend 30 is not the new 20.
I’m in a pub mood. Story time.
Disclaimer: This is about bringing together a lot of ideas in a correct way, instead of the misconceptions from multiple angles that wear blinkers and assume the tip of the iceberg is the whole thing. It’s difficult for me to put into words because I’ve never had to explain it before, so bear with me.
- Why do women love “drama”? (Not a modern thing).
- Why do women prefer so-called love-hate relationships to just… love?
- Why aren’t they happy in an easy relationship? (n.b. This is often called hypergamy by the manosphere. This is wrong. The man isn’t actually anywhere near the centre of that problem, let alone a conveyor belt of them).
- Finally, why do feminists and other moody women choose inferior status men only to blame the men for their later irritation?
There is a connection.
The concept of a lovemap was invented by a paedophile sexologist but it’s somewhat accurate, he simply gave it a name. A better way to think of it is as a set collection of impressions and beliefs regarding sex and the courting of the sexes similar to a schema. Everything from fairytales, to comic books, to the Bible, to family stories, urban legends, town gossip and so on. A big puddle of information related to the topic, from a genetic perspective this is priority #1, hence the strength of this lovemap/template/schemata.
The most valuable resource on this topic is the written projection of the Female Lovemap General onto paper, billions of times over. I’m referring, of course, to romance novels. Consider the almost monomythic similiarity between these stories. That’s the Romance Lovemap of Women. There is no choice, all women are aware and affected by it to some extent. There is a probably a parallel for men too. I dunno about that.
What does this schema call for?
In essence, a submissive beautiful woman clashes with dominant noble man.
(n.b. This is not “tingles” or other infantile descriptions of lust by the manosphere that make women cringe in disgust, it would be like calling male lust the Flow for the blood movement; this is a purely psychological phenomena of attraction which is sexual, but only to the extent that it requires both the sexes, one man and one woman, it has nothing to do with sexual congress per se).
The course of true love and all that jazz (Shakespeare merely noticed this).
By being submissive, the woman conquers the strong man in a way even other men cannot. This is how women win. Feminine wiles and control from the King’s ear. Various stories aimed at men are based on warning them about the potential for this, it’s likely part of their Lovemap and the moral of the story is in choosing a (non-crazy, good) woman who will at least guide you in a prosperous direction for you both (behind every good man…).
It isn’t twisted logic that you may be strong by being ostensibly weak when you realize the sexes are unequal but complimentary. It reminds me of a passage of Taoism, by Laozi naturally;
In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. This is because there is nothing that can take its place.
The manosphere, and MGTOW especially, would do well to meditate on this symbol on a daily basis.
Women are not the enemy. Modernity is.
No man would exist without a woman to birth him.
What explains the above examples of seemingly irrational behaviour? (Irrational if you are a simple man who prefers to look for the easiest possible solution to feel better about himself instead of the correct one).
Their lovemap is being damaged. Something has gone wrong. Just like women nag a man to do a DIY project they’ve left for weeks with increasing irritation, as the man isn’t pulling his weight on the gender scales, this becomes a central issue in their mind long-term.
[Also yes, that’s why. Women keep the nest and men guard it in one piece. When pieces start breaking it becomes their job but happens to be on our primary territory.]
How does this hypothesis match up, case by case?
*deep intake of breath*
- In romance novels, there is always an external social conflict in the plot i.e. “I want to be with you! -We can’t!” *swoon* This is usually family, protective fathers and clucky mothers, but may be as generic as a disparity in social class or later on, an occupational hierarchy. This introduces an element of taboo common to most relationships however innocent between the sexes before there was even a word for social mobility. Hence you get the same pattern repeating in literally all the bloody stories: humble girl/aristocrat, good girl/rebel (n.b. not for his damaging behaviours or Dark Triad psyche, but the taboo of socialization with him whatsoever), Teacher/Student and recently, Rich Man/Secretary Underling. The difference in social power adds a certain spice. When the gap is broached, and they overcome the difference, the attraction fizzles like a firework in April.
- Love/hate relationships are tricky because it’s often a synonym for entirely different emotions and women certainly feel multiple emotions simultaneously in love (it isn’t crazy, it’s processing) so we give it the first relevant-ish word that pops into our head. Essentially we’re discussing the balance between positive and negative emotions. Every healthy relationship, platonic to sexual, has both, because needs are being met or unmet and desires exchanged and negotiated. A woman expects to play the role of woman deep in the subconscious, and this is largely Second in Command barring Special Conditions. It isn’t a bad thing, it’s like sitting with the popular kids at school, a kind of halo effect making you feel wanted and crucially, needed, which means you are worthy to be in the social proximity to this person, who needs and wants your company in turn. (Women compete socially, men compete sexually). A man who solely inspires lovey-dovies is going to make us pause and think Is he gay or something? [another topic of concern] Since we all know men like the chase more than the actual capture. If it’s too easy, there must be a bad reason, and we aren’t going to like it. He’s cheating behind your back and being sweet to keep the guilt at bay is among the most common, we’re totally out of his league and he tricked us into undervaluing ourselves is the runner-up. Others includes He’s totally fake and I fell for it, He doesn’t have a personality what am I doing and the ever-reliable He wants something I don’t care to give and he’s buttering me up as emotional blackmail. I believe this sense of “everything is easy, too easy” is part of supposed Woman’s Intuition. Since when did the course of true love run smooth? Therefore, it’s highly logical on our part to deduce that – It’s going smoothly – with, -It’s going to go wrong – or, – Something is wrong here. That’s totally rational.
- The “easy” question somewhat relates to the point above with a difference. Few relationships today are marriages, and the only true relationship statuses, as men secretly know in their hearts, are single and married. That’s all folks. Marriages bring in clear responsibilities and duties which many modern nancyboys are allergic to (inc. the DIY). Replace easy with lazy and it’s obvious the problem resides in the unmet needs of a woman who may not be able to vocalize the problem or be heard on the issue, who also senses the man is phoning it in i.e. he communicates she is no longer worthy and the path to commitment she believed she had been building up is revealed to be yet another cruel trick. It’s like the female experience of a pricktease, it’s hard not to hate the entire sex for a while after it occurs. Every relationship has exchange requirements to be met, needs to be fulfilled and simply, both parties need to pull their weight or there is no relationship. Notice how the manosphere never mentions lazy husbands? Yet the mystery of female-instigated divorce goes unsolved…
Obligations don’t end at the altar, they begin there.
- The last example is a basic transgression of the lovemap. The type of boy who will allow himself to be browbeaten by such a useless harpy is essentially the double negative image and type of the Lovemap template. In any other society in history he’d die without touching a boob, he isn’t a fit mate to any woman. You see, they, the feminist, consciously believed they could switch out the roles and take the (apparently) bigger and “better” one, because men and women are the same, right? /sarc Eventually, this schema truth from the lovemap rises and stirs from the slumber of the subconscious, shaking the woman out of the temporary thrill of being “boss”. It grows with each demonstration of the reverse expectation in the male chosen, from his behaviour, to his manner and his dress. She knows deep down she bought a lemon. She begins to doubt him because naturally, feminists never correct themselves on anything. This spirals into a deep resentment until the relationship fails or she checks out mentally to preserve her ego. The ‘men’ go along with this because they know it’s the only way they’ll get laid, subconsciously they know they are an unfit male, probably in total contradiction to any male Lovemap, and that’s how male feminists are born.
A simple introduction but I hope you will permit me to end it there for now.
I’m sure you can apply these concepts to your own observations.