|
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on.
Posts of the following nature are banned:
1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post.
2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no.
3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture.
4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments.
Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. |
On August 04 2018 19:39 Uldridge wrote:
Being assertive (aka being confident) is probably the single most factor of attraction for women.
I am pretty confident that you both are arguing for the same cause from what I've read of L_Master ?
|
I thought he was lamenting the fact that "nice guys" finish last even though they're supposedly good relationship material.
|
On August 04 2018 15:23 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 12:52 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2018 10:30 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 09:46 Uldridge wrote:
What do you consider a successful marriage exactly? One that lasts until death? One that makes you envy the couple in question? I feel like it's impossible to gauge how well a couple actually fares because you only see snapshots of them together and that's usually when they're on good terms (or are acting really well).
Unless you have strong and consistent inside knowledge it's very difficult to have any kind of actual insight in how (dis)functional a couple is.
Very salient points, especially the last bit about knowing how the relationship is going. I'm lucky to have a good number of close friends who will share at least some of this stuff with me, but of course it's still a very small sample of a select group of people. I would consider a successful marriage one that lasts till death, yes. With rare exception. That exception being the uncommon case where both people truly decide they would like to date other people and move on. Usually relationships end with one person wanting out and the other disappointing, usually involving significant dissatisfaction or boredom beforehand. So if a marriage ends, most of the time it's because it wasn't a good one for at least one party. One strong reason divorce rates are rising (imo) have to do with the incessant bombarding of instant culture we face every single day. We get promised fame, glamour, wealth, beauty, strength, .. with only minimal effort. It's the same trend in communication; it's all become so easy. And there's a plethora of options on top of that. When you can literally pick and choose in every aspect of life, why wouldn't that spill over in your romantic life?
Open marriages work, traditional marriages work, "professional" marriages work (bonding powerful people/families, ambitious people), even arranged marriages work. It all depends on how much effort you're willing to put into bond where one of its premises is it lasting until death. How much effort, but also how much your willing to put up with can be a part of it. I've definitely seen people that aren't willing to divorce, and can't work it out stay together and "make it work" by being unhappy. To me that is NOT a successful marriage. That's a shit arrangement. That's also a tricky point, because if you're too early to leave because shit any great that's not putting any effort in. I should also add that in many cases it's not possible to work out marriages without resorting to making it work by "suffering up with each other". Many marriages have one party unable, or unwilling to change. Hell I see this in my parents own marriage, they both have some things they want from each other to make things better, both occasionally make efforts to improve them, but can't sustain it. Which brings me to my definition of successful marriage: A marriage that stays together, or rarely ends mutually and happily, in which both partners are happier and more fulfilled in the marriage than they would be outside of it. There's tons of reasons cheating happens, there's tons of reasons why marriages fail; perhaps it takes a long times for some people to show there true colours (until marriage), perhaps the average life span of a marriage (or human relationship) has to do with the duration it takes to raise a child; perhaps it's to do with having so many options to do from that the grass becomes just a tad too green on the other side to resist it; whatever it is, it's complex and parameters for success or failure can't be pinpointed so easily like: have both parties have less sex drive and let them be career driven. Agree to a point, but these are the commonalities I've seen in marriages that seem to work relatively well. Other factors are certainly at play, but the vast majority of successful marriages as I've defined it seem to come from one of these contexts. To be clear to, I think most relationships are happy up till the first 3-5 years, I think it's after that where it starts to go downhill. Definitely worse when marriage or moving in together happens. And it's not like shit falls of a cliff, but 3-5 years seems to be the median timeframe where things like boredom, post nuptial shut-off etc. happen. I've also seen marked shifts in how women treat their guys and vice versa around that time. The two years (except in obviously dysfunction relationships) are usually pretty rosey. I've seen some marked and rapid shifts (girl becomes more controlling, "colder", and less sexual; guy becomes more whipped, more resentful, angrier) around that time. Edit: the fact that prostitution has existed for so long should have some merit regarding promiscuity of the human species, no? I mean, surely it shouldn't have catered solely to single people right? Probably. But keep in mind most cheating also occurs after about 3-5 years in a relationship. In fact by far the most common time to cheat is in the third year of a relationship....for both sexes. Right about the time the female starts to get bored and the male frustrated (due to closing off and worse sex due to boredom). Coincidence? Maybe. Interesting though. I don't know of much reports or incidents of cheating within the first couple years of a relationship. That's rare. Edit2: a strong reason why we're led to belief monogamy is good and virtuous and in need of pursuing might be the embedded Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of Western society. Would agree 100%. This plays a HUGE role in why monogamy is still an iron societal standard. I think what everyone gets wrong in the west now is that LTR monogamy is to have thrill and passionate sex. You can have one night stand, short term relationships, hookers, or wathever floats your boat for that. When you get married it is to have children, build a home, and keep companion to each other as you get old in sickness and health. That's it, you take the trade-off, period. You love your spouse, but you don't want to bang her thrice a day like you do when you meet someone new, or when you first met her. If you marry someone expecting a lifetime of passionate sex, or worse, your partner marries you expecting that, you will run into massive dissapointment, divorce, cheating or worse. That's how it used to be, tradition exists for a reason. It works. Yea, that's one way to look at it, and if you approach it that way it's an option. That's probably how I would approach it if I met a girl that really makes me want to go down that route.I do think it (marriage) still works, but I don't think it works as well as it did when monogamy was more "forced" by both societal and economic realities. At the same time, what you're describing is more or less a live-in friendship. The singular thing that separates relationship from friendship is that you guys have a sexual attraction to each other. So the question is basically "do I give up sex, starting from my 30s, in order to raise a stable family and have a guaranteed lifetime partner when I grow old". Man. That's a big ask. I realize not all marriages get that bad, but it's clear that many do and it's not a rare thing. It's certainly common enough you have to be well prepared for it. Thrice a day thrilling passionate sex from a marriage for the rest of your life is indeed quite the expectation and very unrealistic, and I think you're right that too many people look for or expect that. However, the reality for many men is that at best they are condemned to a lifetime of once a week shitty starfish sex and worst case a lifetime of forced celibacy. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone should have to give up sex, starting in their twenties or thirties just to be able to raise kids. I think the cheating stats speak to that as well. 20% is the benchmark number for admitted cheating. You know it's higher than that in reality because people under-report negative things like that on surveys. Perhaps closer to 30%-40%. That included all relationships/people, and we know that many, many people never really stay in a relationship more than 2-3 years, which is the point at which cheating becomes a real risk. I suspect, in relationships lasting 5 years or more, the rate of cheating is well north of 50%. Then of course 80% basically admit they would cheat if they wouldn't get caught...aka they want to. That tells me something is wrong. Expectations could be a part of that, but that's big enough to go beyond that. Not cheating is likely the exception to the rule. What frustrates me is that it doesn't have to be that way. There is no real reason you couldn't have an "open marriage" with one person you truly love as more of a lifetime partner, but then it's open to sexual encounters as they come, but in general because of societal conditioning people are very opposed to that idea.
I mostly agree with what you say.
It's the partners responsability to keep the spark alive, I don't think you fall into a no sex zone unless you where a chump from the begining. When you are old I guess it's part of getting old, you could get more years of sex as a man if you replace your wife by someone half her age, but that's being an asshole.
People cheat because of unreal expectations and lack of values. Make sure you don't marry a terrible woman capable of cheating or that you do not become such a tool or an asshole that she would cheat on you. Do not cheat yourself.
On your last paragraph, open marriage doesn't work because a woman who sleeps with another man cannot respect or love his husband. I think man can sleep around and still love her wife, I wouldn't though. This part is my pure speculation.
|
On your last paragraph: that is bullshit
|
How do you solve significant sex drive between partners, provided you see it as a problem
|
On August 04 2018 22:48 GoTuNk! wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 04 2018 15:23 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 12:52 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2018 10:30 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 09:46 Uldridge wrote:
What do you consider a successful marriage exactly? One that lasts until death? One that makes you envy the couple in question? I feel like it's impossible to gauge how well a couple actually fares because you only see snapshots of them together and that's usually when they're on good terms (or are acting really well).
Unless you have strong and consistent inside knowledge it's very difficult to have any kind of actual insight in how (dis)functional a couple is.
Very salient points, especially the last bit about knowing how the relationship is going. I'm lucky to have a good number of close friends who will share at least some of this stuff with me, but of course it's still a very small sample of a select group of people. I would consider a successful marriage one that lasts till death, yes. With rare exception. That exception being the uncommon case where both people truly decide they would like to date other people and move on. Usually relationships end with one person wanting out and the other disappointing, usually involving significant dissatisfaction or boredom beforehand. So if a marriage ends, most of the time it's because it wasn't a good one for at least one party. One strong reason divorce rates are rising (imo) have to do with the incessant bombarding of instant culture we face every single day. We get promised fame, glamour, wealth, beauty, strength, .. with only minimal effort. It's the same trend in communication; it's all become so easy. And there's a plethora of options on top of that. When you can literally pick and choose in every aspect of life, why wouldn't that spill over in your romantic life?
Open marriages work, traditional marriages work, "professional" marriages work (bonding powerful people/families, ambitious people), even arranged marriages work. It all depends on how much effort you're willing to put into bond where one of its premises is it lasting until death. How much effort, but also how much your willing to put up with can be a part of it. I've definitely seen people that aren't willing to divorce, and can't work it out stay together and "make it work" by being unhappy. To me that is NOT a successful marriage. That's a shit arrangement. That's also a tricky point, because if you're too early to leave because shit any great that's not putting any effort in. I should also add that in many cases it's not possible to work out marriages without resorting to making it work by "suffering up with each other". Many marriages have one party unable, or unwilling to change. Hell I see this in my parents own marriage, they both have some things they want from each other to make things better, both occasionally make efforts to improve them, but can't sustain it. Which brings me to my definition of successful marriage: A marriage that stays together, or rarely ends mutually and happily, in which both partners are happier and more fulfilled in the marriage than they would be outside of it. There's tons of reasons cheating happens, there's tons of reasons why marriages fail; perhaps it takes a long times for some people to show there true colours (until marriage), perhaps the average life span of a marriage (or human relationship) has to do with the duration it takes to raise a child; perhaps it's to do with having so many options to do from that the grass becomes just a tad too green on the other side to resist it; whatever it is, it's complex and parameters for success or failure can't be pinpointed so easily like: have both parties have less sex drive and let them be career driven. Agree to a point, but these are the commonalities I've seen in marriages that seem to work relatively well. Other factors are certainly at play, but the vast majority of successful marriages as I've defined it seem to come from one of these contexts. To be clear to, I think most relationships are happy up till the first 3-5 years, I think it's after that where it starts to go downhill. Definitely worse when marriage or moving in together happens. And it's not like shit falls of a cliff, but 3-5 years seems to be the median timeframe where things like boredom, post nuptial shut-off etc. happen. I've also seen marked shifts in how women treat their guys and vice versa around that time. The two years (except in obviously dysfunction relationships) are usually pretty rosey. I've seen some marked and rapid shifts (girl becomes more controlling, "colder", and less sexual; guy becomes more whipped, more resentful, angrier) around that time. Edit: the fact that prostitution has existed for so long should have some merit regarding promiscuity of the human species, no? I mean, surely it shouldn't have catered solely to single people right? Probably. But keep in mind most cheating also occurs after about 3-5 years in a relationship. In fact by far the most common time to cheat is in the third year of a relationship....for both sexes. Right about the time the female starts to get bored and the male frustrated (due to closing off and worse sex due to boredom). Coincidence? Maybe. Interesting though. I don't know of much reports or incidents of cheating within the first couple years of a relationship. That's rare. Edit2: a strong reason why we're led to belief monogamy is good and virtuous and in need of pursuing might be the embedded Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of Western society. Would agree 100%. This plays a HUGE role in why monogamy is still an iron societal standard. I think what everyone gets wrong in the west now is that LTR monogamy is to have thrill and passionate sex. You can have one night stand, short term relationships, hookers, or wathever floats your boat for that. When you get married it is to have children, build a home, and keep companion to each other as you get old in sickness and health. That's it, you take the trade-off, period. You love your spouse, but you don't want to bang her thrice a day like you do when you meet someone new, or when you first met her. If you marry someone expecting a lifetime of passionate sex, or worse, your partner marries you expecting that, you will run into massive dissapointment, divorce, cheating or worse. That's how it used to be, tradition exists for a reason. It works. Yea, that's one way to look at it, and if you approach it that way it's an option. That's probably how I would approach it if I met a girl that really makes me want to go down that route.I do think it (marriage) still works, but I don't think it works as well as it did when monogamy was more "forced" by both societal and economic realities. At the same time, what you're describing is more or less a live-in friendship. The singular thing that separates relationship from friendship is that you guys have a sexual attraction to each other. So the question is basically "do I give up sex, starting from my 30s, in order to raise a stable family and have a guaranteed lifetime partner when I grow old". Man. That's a big ask. I realize not all marriages get that bad, but it's clear that many do and it's not a rare thing. It's certainly common enough you have to be well prepared for it. Thrice a day thrilling passionate sex from a marriage for the rest of your life is indeed quite the expectation and very unrealistic, and I think you're right that too many people look for or expect that. However, the reality for many men is that at best they are condemned to a lifetime of once a week shitty starfish sex and worst case a lifetime of forced celibacy. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone should have to give up sex, starting in their twenties or thirties just to be able to raise kids. I think the cheating stats speak to that as well. 20% is the benchmark number for admitted cheating. You know it's higher than that in reality because people under-report negative things like that on surveys. Perhaps closer to 30%-40%. That included all relationships/people, and we know that many, many people never really stay in a relationship more than 2-3 years, which is the point at which cheating becomes a real risk. I suspect, in relationships lasting 5 years or more, the rate of cheating is well north of 50%. Then of course 80% basically admit they would cheat if they wouldn't get caught...aka they want to. That tells me something is wrong. Expectations could be a part of that, but that's big enough to go beyond that. Not cheating is likely the exception to the rule. What frustrates me is that it doesn't have to be that way. There is no real reason you couldn't have an "open marriage" with one person you truly love as more of a lifetime partner, but then it's open to sexual encounters as they come, but in general because of societal conditioning people are very opposed to that idea. I mostly agree with what you say. It's the partners responsability to keep the spark alive, I don't think you fall into a no sex zone unless you where a chump from the begining. When you are old I guess it's part of getting old, you could get more years of sex as a man if you replace your wife by someone half her age, but that's being an asshole. People cheat because of unreal expectations and lack of values. Make sure you don't marry a terrible woman capable of cheating or that you do not become such a tool or an asshole that she would cheat on you. Do not cheat yourself. On your last paragraph, open marriage doesn't work because a woman who sleeps with another man cannot respect or love his husband. I think man can sleep around and still love her wife, I wouldn't though. This part is my pure speculation.
It's speculation, and it's wrong. We are actually at a point where open polyamory in relationships is growing, in both acceptance and awareness. It doesn't stem from the idea that one person will never be enough, but rather that one is capable of truly loving more than one other person. It requires a lot of honesty, communication and respect, and it can work.
However, when you start from the premise that only men are capable of sleeping with others and still respecting their partner, you're pretty much doomed to fail. I'd drop that shit like a hot potato, if I were you.
|
On August 04 2018 10:20 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 09:58 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 07:17 sc-darkness wrote:On August 04 2018 06:40 L_Master wrote:On August 03 2018 05:31 sc-darkness wrote:
The rate of divorces is quite high. I support this right but it still means a personal failure of judgement in my opinion. This is a whole different can of worms. There are lots of reasons divorce rates are high, and much speculation as to why they have risen so much. I will admit, I don't think it can't work, but I'm jaded about the general success of monogamy/marriage for the vast majority of individuals. For my part, I do wonder how well we are actually designed for long term monogamy. Rare individuals seem to be able to make it work. For most, it's not that great. I've seen it now twice on different sites, basically a thread related to "post nuptial shutoff". One a running forum, another related to dreams/sleep. On both of these forums, these threads have become by far some of the biggest and longest running topics, to a shocking degree. I also know plenty of people that have experienced this. I don't believe it's co-incidence, and I don't believe it's "life getting in the way either". Even more so after seeing several huge threads, from the female side, blow up on reddit from a female persepctive basically asking something close to "I don't really feel attracted to my husband anymore", where hundreds of women are going on to talk and in many cases revealing their man is still an otherwise good husband, loving dude, hasn't let himself go, still can see he is attractive, just....don't want to have sex or feel romance toward him anymore. I haven't looked to see if their is scientific or survey data to go along with this, but it's far, far to big of a phenom for me to ignore. It get's even uglier when you consider that cheating rate is supposedly close to 20% (realistically though in a LTR this is an underestimate), and almost 80% claim they would cheat if they could get away with it. Those are some damning statistics. From most people I know, have talked to, or otherwise have read about it's around 2-3 years, sometimes a little more, where the relationship largely loses it's sexual side, usually from the women's side. Bottom line is that it seems to me one of two things is going on: 1) Relationships just generally go a bit stale over time and lose their energy - I can see that happening, and might buy it. Still paints an ugly picture. The idea of committing to someone, then finding out 5 years in that almost all romance and attraction is dead is very disconcerting and certainly not something I could accept 2) Something Biological - Honestly, I think this is more likely. It seems conceivable to me that women in general are biologically programmed to lose attraction after around 3-5 years. Not sure if I'm going anywhere with this, but I saw that comment and wanted to expand on it. There is probably biology involved. I wonder if the cases you cite are based on women who mostly picked men by good looks. For example, what if they focused more on compatible character, would that have helped? Genuinely curious. I doubt it's all doomed and there's nothing to be done. To be honest, I have no idea, but the number of people talking about it gives me the impression this is a majority, not minority issue. In which case it probably includes a broad sample size of women, and not just those picking guys for looks. While everyone uses looks to some degree, I think the number of women, especially over 25, using looks as a predominate criteria, is relatively small. I'm also of the opinion, that in general, women are looking for two types of guys. There are guys they have relationships with, aka guys with good provider traits: loyal, good income, stable, emotional capable, consistent, etc. They are generally not as attracted to these guys, but will get in a relationship with them. I think guys like this are at real risk of being cheated on often. The other type are your classic ""alpha" guys. Looks, status (not money), confidence, aggression (depending on the women), masculinity etc. These are the guys women are generally attracted to sexually, and who women will get involved in ONS/FB or the like with. What a giant load of absolute shit. The world isn't even remotely this black and white. Also we are treading dangerously close (if not already over) what the big banner on top tells us not to talk about. Let's stop before the thread is locked shall we?
A little late to the party, but I just want to emphasize that I agree with that this entire discussion has fallen quite far into PUA-style commentary that emphasizes looks, surface-level interactions, and "game" over the reality that outside of environments that favor hook-up/short-term culture (which seems to be the focus of the people who go about talking about this kind of thing, BTW), women are people and treating them like a goddamn normal person is likely to have more positive results than creating stereotypes of what kinds of men there are or what kinds of things women are looking for or any similar hoopla.
|
On August 04 2018 20:12 bloodwhore~ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 19:39 Uldridge wrote:
Being assertive (aka being confident) is probably the single most factor of attraction for women. I am pretty confident that you both are arguing for the same cause from what I've read of L_Master ?
I'd say it sorta depends on what you're looking for, but its unquestionably important. For online dating I would definitely says it's a combination of presentation + looks.
In person, it's going to vary some but I would certainly agree confidence/assertiveness is generally highly attractive and advantageous.
On August 04 2018 19:39 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 10:41 L_Master wrote:
If the world isn't like this, why is there such a stigma around nice guys not getting laid? Why do I see the guys that are almost never assertive struggle to get women attracted to them? Why do I see the more relationship, oriented affectionate guys being walked on and used by the woman? Why are those guys the ones I see who get blatantly cheated on the most, by far? Why do I see such a dramatic difference in how women treat their men when that man is confident, traditionally masculine, and assertive; versus how women act and treat their men when that guy is more supplicative, "nice", and introverted"?
These are the things I've seen, I've read about, and I've heard about from other people. Overall, this framework, as a general guide, seems to do a pretty good job explaining that. On the other hand, your post was not helpful and offered nothing. Telling me that my rationale for my observations was a load of shit does nothing for you, nor for me. Offering your own set of explanations for what I observe and why it might work that way would be both productive and interesting rather a total waste of time.
Come on dude. Let me ask you this. Would you like to be with someone that's a "nice guy"? I.e. he's (not necessarily) introverted, affectionate (to the point it's clingy) and not assertive (why would you ever want to desire the trait of non-assertiveness?) Being assertive (aka being confident) is probably the single most factor of attraction for women. If you lack that, well good luck trying to attract women. There's probably a very old imbedded mental structure why certain factors need to be there for attraction to exist, but "just being a nice guy" isn't one of them lol and there's no reason for you to assume it to be a reason for attraction other than the fact that you want it to be.
I was explicitly arguing that lack of confidence, borderline clinginess, etc. are not things that the majority of women find attractive. You seem to have drawn that I was in fact arguing the opposite.
On August 04 2018 20:20 Uldridge wrote:
I thought he was lamenting the fact that "nice guys" finish last even though they're supposedly good relationship material.
No, I was arguing that "nice guys" (which really is a bad term) with a solid life and genuinely good personality, if a bit low in things like confidence, masculinity, assertiveness, etc., are generally able to find relationships with women; however those relationships tend to involve far less attraction and sexual interest. I do genuinely believe that guys in a relationship like this are also much more likely to be cheated on.
For some men, this might be great. Personally, for me, I couldn't do it. For the same reason I could never be interested in a hooker/escort. The thought of having sex with or being in a relationship with someone who wasn't attracted to me is very much a turn off.
I might be in the minority though, because I feel like most guys I know would stick their dick in basically anything.
|
There is no secret about how this stuff works. Online dating has more of a meat market element to it than other avenues to meeting women. If you are a guy who is a little lower on the totem pole in the looks department, you probably are going to do better meeting women elsewhere. This is particularly true if you are a charming SOB whose real weapon is conversation.
|
On August 04 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 10:20 Excludos wrote:On August 04 2018 09:58 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 07:17 sc-darkness wrote:On August 04 2018 06:40 L_Master wrote:On August 03 2018 05:31 sc-darkness wrote:
The rate of divorces is quite high. I support this right but it still means a personal failure of judgement in my opinion. This is a whole different can of worms. There are lots of reasons divorce rates are high, and much speculation as to why they have risen so much. I will admit, I don't think it can't work, but I'm jaded about the general success of monogamy/marriage for the vast majority of individuals. For my part, I do wonder how well we are actually designed for long term monogamy. Rare individuals seem to be able to make it work. For most, it's not that great. I've seen it now twice on different sites, basically a thread related to "post nuptial shutoff". One a running forum, another related to dreams/sleep. On both of these forums, these threads have become by far some of the biggest and longest running topics, to a shocking degree. I also know plenty of people that have experienced this. I don't believe it's co-incidence, and I don't believe it's "life getting in the way either". Even more so after seeing several huge threads, from the female side, blow up on reddit from a female persepctive basically asking something close to "I don't really feel attracted to my husband anymore", where hundreds of women are going on to talk and in many cases revealing their man is still an otherwise good husband, loving dude, hasn't let himself go, still can see he is attractive, just....don't want to have sex or feel romance toward him anymore. I haven't looked to see if their is scientific or survey data to go along with this, but it's far, far to big of a phenom for me to ignore. It get's even uglier when you consider that cheating rate is supposedly close to 20% (realistically though in a LTR this is an underestimate), and almost 80% claim they would cheat if they could get away with it. Those are some damning statistics. From most people I know, have talked to, or otherwise have read about it's around 2-3 years, sometimes a little more, where the relationship largely loses it's sexual side, usually from the women's side. Bottom line is that it seems to me one of two things is going on: 1) Relationships just generally go a bit stale over time and lose their energy - I can see that happening, and might buy it. Still paints an ugly picture. The idea of committing to someone, then finding out 5 years in that almost all romance and attraction is dead is very disconcerting and certainly not something I could accept 2) Something Biological - Honestly, I think this is more likely. It seems conceivable to me that women in general are biologically programmed to lose attraction after around 3-5 years. Not sure if I'm going anywhere with this, but I saw that comment and wanted to expand on it. There is probably biology involved. I wonder if the cases you cite are based on women who mostly picked men by good looks. For example, what if they focused more on compatible character, would that have helped? Genuinely curious. I doubt it's all doomed and there's nothing to be done. To be honest, I have no idea, but the number of people talking about it gives me the impression this is a majority, not minority issue. In which case it probably includes a broad sample size of women, and not just those picking guys for looks. While everyone uses looks to some degree, I think the number of women, especially over 25, using looks as a predominate criteria, is relatively small. I'm also of the opinion, that in general, women are looking for two types of guys. There are guys they have relationships with, aka guys with good provider traits: loyal, good income, stable, emotional capable, consistent, etc. They are generally not as attracted to these guys, but will get in a relationship with them. I think guys like this are at real risk of being cheated on often. The other type are your classic ""alpha" guys. Looks, status (not money), confidence, aggression (depending on the women), masculinity etc. These are the guys women are generally attracted to sexually, and who women will get involved in ONS/FB or the like with. What a giant load of absolute shit. The world isn't even remotely this black and white. Also we are treading dangerously close (if not already over) what the big banner on top tells us not to talk about. Let's stop before the thread is locked shall we? A little late to the party, but I just want to emphasize that I agree with that this entire discussion has fallen quite far into PUA-style commentary that emphasizes looks, surface-level interactions, and "game" over the reality that outside of environments that favor hook-up/short-term culture (which seems to be the focus of the people who go about talking about this kind of thing, BTW), women are people and treating them like a goddamn normal person is likely to have more positive results than creating stereotypes of what kinds of men there are or what kinds of things women are looking for or any similar hoopla.
No the discussion isn't remotely PUA based. We are talking, for one, about issues surrounding LTR and marriage which is most definitely not what PUA focuses on.
Secondly, of course you should treat women like "goddamn normal people". Absolutely. I'm not sure what would give the idea you shouldn't.
Third, to deny there are traits that are generally attractive to most women or to most men would be as silly as suggesting there aren't facial traits that are generally part of an attractive face. There are. Most importantly, mentioning those traits in a conversation does not constitute PUA, not even remotely. Even more so when the conversation is about long term relationships.
Where you decided this conversation is talking about surface level interactions, when it's a conversation focused on issues and challenges surrounding LTR/marriage I have no idea.
On August 05 2018 01:17 xDaunt wrote:
There is no secret about how this stuff works. Online dating has more of a meat market element to it than other avenues to meeting women. If you are a guy who is a little lower on the totem pole in the looks department, you probably are going to do better meeting women elsewhere. This is particularly true if you are a charming SOB whose real weapon is conversation.
I agree completely.
|
On August 04 2018 22:48 GoTuNk! wrote:
On your last paragraph, open marriage doesn't work because a woman who sleeps with another man cannot respect or love his husband. I think man can sleep around and still love her wife, I wouldn't though. This part is my pure speculation.
Well at best 1 in 6 women will do this. Based on self reported stats. Which as I've said before likely means the actual percentage is significantly higher (people consistently underreport negative attributes and over-report positive attributes) AND doesn't take into account that many, many people never even make it to a 3-5 year time line in a relationship, ever, which is the time point at which cheating suddenly becomes most likely to occur and remains high.
Fact of the matter is, statistically, entering any relationship, your wife/partner is VERY likely to cheat on you, as well as you on her. And yes, even the conservative number of 1 in 5 I consider to be ludicrously high. The more likely number of 40%+ basically suggests that monogamy isn't working for the majority of people.
Of course, once that has happened you are no longer in a monogamous relationship.
On August 04 2018 23:10 Uldridge wrote:
How do you solve significant sex drive between partners, provided you see it as a problem
I think there are only two ways:
1) Compromise - Low sex drive commits to a little more sex than they would prefer, high sex drive to a little less
2) Open relationship - High sex drive can get those needs met by other partners.
3) Porn/Masturbation
You're not likely to change someone from low to high or vice versa, so outside of compromise I don't see how else you could do anything different in a relationship. Which leaves Porn/Masturbation, can work for some but most find it a weak substitute. Beyond that, what option do you have outside of looking outside the relationship?
|
On August 05 2018 01:35 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2018 10:20 Excludos wrote:On August 04 2018 09:58 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 07:17 sc-darkness wrote:On August 04 2018 06:40 L_Master wrote:On August 03 2018 05:31 sc-darkness wrote:
The rate of divorces is quite high. I support this right but it still means a personal failure of judgement in my opinion. This is a whole different can of worms. There are lots of reasons divorce rates are high, and much speculation as to why they have risen so much. I will admit, I don't think it can't work, but I'm jaded about the general success of monogamy/marriage for the vast majority of individuals. For my part, I do wonder how well we are actually designed for long term monogamy. Rare individuals seem to be able to make it work. For most, it's not that great. I've seen it now twice on different sites, basically a thread related to "post nuptial shutoff". One a running forum, another related to dreams/sleep. On both of these forums, these threads have become by far some of the biggest and longest running topics, to a shocking degree. I also know plenty of people that have experienced this. I don't believe it's co-incidence, and I don't believe it's "life getting in the way either". Even more so after seeing several huge threads, from the female side, blow up on reddit from a female persepctive basically asking something close to "I don't really feel attracted to my husband anymore", where hundreds of women are going on to talk and in many cases revealing their man is still an otherwise good husband, loving dude, hasn't let himself go, still can see he is attractive, just....don't want to have sex or feel romance toward him anymore. I haven't looked to see if their is scientific or survey data to go along with this, but it's far, far to big of a phenom for me to ignore. It get's even uglier when you consider that cheating rate is supposedly close to 20% (realistically though in a LTR this is an underestimate), and almost 80% claim they would cheat if they could get away with it. Those are some damning statistics. From most people I know, have talked to, or otherwise have read about it's around 2-3 years, sometimes a little more, where the relationship largely loses it's sexual side, usually from the women's side. Bottom line is that it seems to me one of two things is going on: 1) Relationships just generally go a bit stale over time and lose their energy - I can see that happening, and might buy it. Still paints an ugly picture. The idea of committing to someone, then finding out 5 years in that almost all romance and attraction is dead is very disconcerting and certainly not something I could accept 2) Something Biological - Honestly, I think this is more likely. It seems conceivable to me that women in general are biologically programmed to lose attraction after around 3-5 years. Not sure if I'm going anywhere with this, but I saw that comment and wanted to expand on it. There is probably biology involved. I wonder if the cases you cite are based on women who mostly picked men by good looks. For example, what if they focused more on compatible character, would that have helped? Genuinely curious. I doubt it's all doomed and there's nothing to be done. To be honest, I have no idea, but the number of people talking about it gives me the impression this is a majority, not minority issue. In which case it probably includes a broad sample size of women, and not just those picking guys for looks. While everyone uses looks to some degree, I think the number of women, especially over 25, using looks as a predominate criteria, is relatively small. I'm also of the opinion, that in general, women are looking for two types of guys. There are guys they have relationships with, aka guys with good provider traits: loyal, good income, stable, emotional capable, consistent, etc. They are generally not as attracted to these guys, but will get in a relationship with them. I think guys like this are at real risk of being cheated on often. The other type are your classic ""alpha" guys. Looks, status (not money), confidence, aggression (depending on the women), masculinity etc. These are the guys women are generally attracted to sexually, and who women will get involved in ONS/FB or the like with. What a giant load of absolute shit. The world isn't even remotely this black and white. Also we are treading dangerously close (if not already over) what the big banner on top tells us not to talk about. Let's stop before the thread is locked shall we? A little late to the party, but I just want to emphasize that I agree with that this entire discussion has fallen quite far into PUA-style commentary that emphasizes looks, surface-level interactions, and "game" over the reality that outside of environments that favor hook-up/short-term culture (which seems to be the focus of the people who go about talking about this kind of thing, BTW), women are people and treating them like a goddamn normal person is likely to have more positive results than creating stereotypes of what kinds of men there are or what kinds of things women are looking for or any similar hoopla. No the discussion isn't remotely PUA based. We are talking, for one, about issues surrounding LTR and marriage which is most definitely not what PUA focuses on. Secondly, of course you should treat women like "goddamn normal people". Absolutely. I'm not sure what would give the idea you shouldn't. Third, to deny there are traits that are generally attractive to most women or to most men would be as silly as suggesting there aren't facial traits that are generally part of an attractive face. There are. Most importantly, mentioning those traits in a conversation does not constitute PUA, not even remotely. Even more so when the conversation is about long term relationships. Where you decided this conversation is talking about surface level interactions, when it's a conversation focused on issues and challenges surrounding LTR/marriage I have no idea.
Use whatever terminology you like; your posts consistently reek of a very surface-level approach to anything but the topics traditionally associated with PUA approaches that I see it’s really arguing semantics on whether it technically is or not. No one really denies that looks matter, among other things, but the obsession with that and with distinctions like “alpha vs beta male” and with Tinder above pretty much any other form of interaction shows that whatever philosophy you use is little more than an umpteenth rebranding of PUA. The talk on “LTR/marriage” shows the same sort of mediocre emphasis on what really matters as to be basically a token emphasis on the topic.
I don’t see the point in arguing with you on it because I don’t see you acknowledging what it is you’re arguing for, much less changing course. I do however want to note that I echo the “what a giant load of absolute shit” sentiment, just to note that Excludos isn’t the only one to notice where this is going.
|
On August 04 2018 22:48 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 15:23 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 12:52 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2018 10:30 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 09:46 Uldridge wrote:
What do you consider a successful marriage exactly? One that lasts until death? One that makes you envy the couple in question? I feel like it's impossible to gauge how well a couple actually fares because you only see snapshots of them together and that's usually when they're on good terms (or are acting really well).
Unless you have strong and consistent inside knowledge it's very difficult to have any kind of actual insight in how (dis)functional a couple is.
Very salient points, especially the last bit about knowing how the relationship is going. I'm lucky to have a good number of close friends who will share at least some of this stuff with me, but of course it's still a very small sample of a select group of people. I would consider a successful marriage one that lasts till death, yes. With rare exception. That exception being the uncommon case where both people truly decide they would like to date other people and move on. Usually relationships end with one person wanting out and the other disappointing, usually involving significant dissatisfaction or boredom beforehand. So if a marriage ends, most of the time it's because it wasn't a good one for at least one party. One strong reason divorce rates are rising (imo) have to do with the incessant bombarding of instant culture we face every single day. We get promised fame, glamour, wealth, beauty, strength, .. with only minimal effort. It's the same trend in communication; it's all become so easy. And there's a plethora of options on top of that. When you can literally pick and choose in every aspect of life, why wouldn't that spill over in your romantic life?
Open marriages work, traditional marriages work, "professional" marriages work (bonding powerful people/families, ambitious people), even arranged marriages work. It all depends on how much effort you're willing to put into bond where one of its premises is it lasting until death. How much effort, but also how much your willing to put up with can be a part of it. I've definitely seen people that aren't willing to divorce, and can't work it out stay together and "make it work" by being unhappy. To me that is NOT a successful marriage. That's a shit arrangement. That's also a tricky point, because if you're too early to leave because shit any great that's not putting any effort in. I should also add that in many cases it's not possible to work out marriages without resorting to making it work by "suffering up with each other". Many marriages have one party unable, or unwilling to change. Hell I see this in my parents own marriage, they both have some things they want from each other to make things better, both occasionally make efforts to improve them, but can't sustain it. Which brings me to my definition of successful marriage: A marriage that stays together, or rarely ends mutually and happily, in which both partners are happier and more fulfilled in the marriage than they would be outside of it. There's tons of reasons cheating happens, there's tons of reasons why marriages fail; perhaps it takes a long times for some people to show there true colours (until marriage), perhaps the average life span of a marriage (or human relationship) has to do with the duration it takes to raise a child; perhaps it's to do with having so many options to do from that the grass becomes just a tad too green on the other side to resist it; whatever it is, it's complex and parameters for success or failure can't be pinpointed so easily like: have both parties have less sex drive and let them be career driven. Agree to a point, but these are the commonalities I've seen in marriages that seem to work relatively well. Other factors are certainly at play, but the vast majority of successful marriages as I've defined it seem to come from one of these contexts. To be clear to, I think most relationships are happy up till the first 3-5 years, I think it's after that where it starts to go downhill. Definitely worse when marriage or moving in together happens. And it's not like shit falls of a cliff, but 3-5 years seems to be the median timeframe where things like boredom, post nuptial shut-off etc. happen. I've also seen marked shifts in how women treat their guys and vice versa around that time. The two years (except in obviously dysfunction relationships) are usually pretty rosey. I've seen some marked and rapid shifts (girl becomes more controlling, "colder", and less sexual; guy becomes more whipped, more resentful, angrier) around that time. Edit: the fact that prostitution has existed for so long should have some merit regarding promiscuity of the human species, no? I mean, surely it shouldn't have catered solely to single people right? Probably. But keep in mind most cheating also occurs after about 3-5 years in a relationship. In fact by far the most common time to cheat is in the third year of a relationship....for both sexes. Right about the time the female starts to get bored and the male frustrated (due to closing off and worse sex due to boredom). Coincidence? Maybe. Interesting though. I don't know of much reports or incidents of cheating within the first couple years of a relationship. That's rare. Edit2: a strong reason why we're led to belief monogamy is good and virtuous and in need of pursuing might be the embedded Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of Western society. Would agree 100%. This plays a HUGE role in why monogamy is still an iron societal standard. I think what everyone gets wrong in the west now is that LTR monogamy is to have thrill and passionate sex. You can have one night stand, short term relationships, hookers, or wathever floats your boat for that. When you get married it is to have children, build a home, and keep companion to each other as you get old in sickness and health. That's it, you take the trade-off, period. You love your spouse, but you don't want to bang her thrice a day like you do when you meet someone new, or when you first met her. If you marry someone expecting a lifetime of passionate sex, or worse, your partner marries you expecting that, you will run into massive dissapointment, divorce, cheating or worse. That's how it used to be, tradition exists for a reason. It works. Yea, that's one way to look at it, and if you approach it that way it's an option. That's probably how I would approach it if I met a girl that really makes me want to go down that route.I do think it (marriage) still works, but I don't think it works as well as it did when monogamy was more "forced" by both societal and economic realities. At the same time, what you're describing is more or less a live-in friendship. The singular thing that separates relationship from friendship is that you guys have a sexual attraction to each other. So the question is basically "do I give up sex, starting from my 30s, in order to raise a stable family and have a guaranteed lifetime partner when I grow old". Man. That's a big ask. I realize not all marriages get that bad, but it's clear that many do and it's not a rare thing. It's certainly common enough you have to be well prepared for it. Thrice a day thrilling passionate sex from a marriage for the rest of your life is indeed quite the expectation and very unrealistic, and I think you're right that too many people look for or expect that. However, the reality for many men is that at best they are condemned to a lifetime of once a week shitty starfish sex and worst case a lifetime of forced celibacy. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone should have to give up sex, starting in their twenties or thirties just to be able to raise kids. I think the cheating stats speak to that as well. 20% is the benchmark number for admitted cheating. You know it's higher than that in reality because people under-report negative things like that on surveys. Perhaps closer to 30%-40%. That included all relationships/people, and we know that many, many people never really stay in a relationship more than 2-3 years, which is the point at which cheating becomes a real risk. I suspect, in relationships lasting 5 years or more, the rate of cheating is well north of 50%. Then of course 80% basically admit they would cheat if they wouldn't get caught...aka they want to. That tells me something is wrong. Expectations could be a part of that, but that's big enough to go beyond that. Not cheating is likely the exception to the rule. What frustrates me is that it doesn't have to be that way. There is no real reason you couldn't have an "open marriage" with one person you truly love as more of a lifetime partner, but then it's open to sexual encounters as they come, but in general because of societal conditioning people are very opposed to that idea. I mostly agree with what you say. It's the partners responsability to keep the spark alive, I don't think you fall into a no sex zone unless you where a chump from the begining.
In fairness, a decent number of men are chumps. That's not a crazy rare thing. Beyond that, I'm still not so sure about the keep that spark alive thing. There are truly a TON of accounts out there, from both male and female perspectives, about situations where they are both clearly trying and the spark isn't there.
Like I mentioned before, I was browsing the thread on reddit a few weeks ago, and literally hundreds if not thousands of women were all talking about how they had been in a relationship or married for a while and didn't want to have sex with their husband. The title was literally something like "I don't want to have sex with my husband and don't know why. Does anyone else have this problem".
The majority of these women were sharing that their husbands were excellent dudes, good fathers, hadn't let themselves go or had gotten fitter, no relationship problems....and you still had tons of people coming out of the woodwork saying they had zero sexual interest or were even repulsed at the thought. They mostly were miffed or disgusted by the fact that they felt this way about their husband.
At the very least, that's an odd, large anecdote. I can't see how that doesn't hint that there is something else going on. If it was one women in a thousand we could say "okay, outlier, let's move on not everyone is the same". However, this was by FAR the biggest thread on this womens subreddit. It wasn't just a few women wanting to talk about it. Definitely too large of a population to just dismiss as an isolated incident.
The most interesting part of all is that none of these women had any idea why they felt like they did. That's unique. It wasn't "my husbands gained 70lbs and to be honest he isn't sexy anymore" or "he's such a grumpy asshole these days", This really makes me wonder if there isn't something biological going on "under the hood". Just not knowing suggests it's not a conscious process or decision and is either coming from the body or something well below the surface.
People cheat because of unreal expectations and lack of values. Make sure you don't marry a terrible woman capable of cheating or that you do not become such a tool or an asshole that she would cheat on you.
Well, anywhere between 20%+ cheat on you. That's a pretty large number to avoid. As I've said before I think the real number is closer to 50%+. Either there are alot of "terrible women" (I don't think so), or people are just not "programmed" in general, to be capable of being faithful. Moreover, reading from many of those women, they did not sound like assholes or terrible people, and many of them had confessed to cheating. Their husbands had definitely not become tools or assholes and driven them to cheating. They had simply lost interest in their husband despite him being, by all accounts, a genuine good dude, father, partner still attractive and in good shape.
|
On August 05 2018 01:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2018 01:35 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 23:57 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2018 10:20 Excludos wrote:On August 04 2018 09:58 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 07:17 sc-darkness wrote:On August 04 2018 06:40 L_Master wrote:On August 03 2018 05:31 sc-darkness wrote:
The rate of divorces is quite high. I support this right but it still means a personal failure of judgement in my opinion. This is a whole different can of worms. There are lots of reasons divorce rates are high, and much speculation as to why they have risen so much. I will admit, I don't think it can't work, but I'm jaded about the general success of monogamy/marriage for the vast majority of individuals. For my part, I do wonder how well we are actually designed for long term monogamy. Rare individuals seem to be able to make it work. For most, it's not that great. I've seen it now twice on different sites, basically a thread related to "post nuptial shutoff". One a running forum, another related to dreams/sleep. On both of these forums, these threads have become by far some of the biggest and longest running topics, to a shocking degree. I also know plenty of people that have experienced this. I don't believe it's co-incidence, and I don't believe it's "life getting in the way either". Even more so after seeing several huge threads, from the female side, blow up on reddit from a female persepctive basically asking something close to "I don't really feel attracted to my husband anymore", where hundreds of women are going on to talk and in many cases revealing their man is still an otherwise good husband, loving dude, hasn't let himself go, still can see he is attractive, just....don't want to have sex or feel romance toward him anymore. I haven't looked to see if their is scientific or survey data to go along with this, but it's far, far to big of a phenom for me to ignore. It get's even uglier when you consider that cheating rate is supposedly close to 20% (realistically though in a LTR this is an underestimate), and almost 80% claim they would cheat if they could get away with it. Those are some damning statistics. From most people I know, have talked to, or otherwise have read about it's around 2-3 years, sometimes a little more, where the relationship largely loses it's sexual side, usually from the women's side. Bottom line is that it seems to me one of two things is going on: 1) Relationships just generally go a bit stale over time and lose their energy - I can see that happening, and might buy it. Still paints an ugly picture. The idea of committing to someone, then finding out 5 years in that almost all romance and attraction is dead is very disconcerting and certainly not something I could accept 2) Something Biological - Honestly, I think this is more likely. It seems conceivable to me that women in general are biologically programmed to lose attraction after around 3-5 years. Not sure if I'm going anywhere with this, but I saw that comment and wanted to expand on it. There is probably biology involved. I wonder if the cases you cite are based on women who mostly picked men by good looks. For example, what if they focused more on compatible character, would that have helped? Genuinely curious. I doubt it's all doomed and there's nothing to be done. To be honest, I have no idea, but the number of people talking about it gives me the impression this is a majority, not minority issue. In which case it probably includes a broad sample size of women, and not just those picking guys for looks. While everyone uses looks to some degree, I think the number of women, especially over 25, using looks as a predominate criteria, is relatively small. I'm also of the opinion, that in general, women are looking for two types of guys. There are guys they have relationships with, aka guys with good provider traits: loyal, good income, stable, emotional capable, consistent, etc. They are generally not as attracted to these guys, but will get in a relationship with them. I think guys like this are at real risk of being cheated on often. The other type are your classic ""alpha" guys. Looks, status (not money), confidence, aggression (depending on the women), masculinity etc. These are the guys women are generally attracted to sexually, and who women will get involved in ONS/FB or the like with. What a giant load of absolute shit. The world isn't even remotely this black and white. Also we are treading dangerously close (if not already over) what the big banner on top tells us not to talk about. Let's stop before the thread is locked shall we? A little late to the party, but I just want to emphasize that I agree with that this entire discussion has fallen quite far into PUA-style commentary that emphasizes looks, surface-level interactions, and "game" over the reality that outside of environments that favor hook-up/short-term culture (which seems to be the focus of the people who go about talking about this kind of thing, BTW), women are people and treating them like a goddamn normal person is likely to have more positive results than creating stereotypes of what kinds of men there are or what kinds of things women are looking for or any similar hoopla. No the discussion isn't remotely PUA based. We are talking, for one, about issues surrounding LTR and marriage which is most definitely not what PUA focuses on. Secondly, of course you should treat women like "goddamn normal people". Absolutely. I'm not sure what would give the idea you shouldn't. Third, to deny there are traits that are generally attractive to most women or to most men would be as silly as suggesting there aren't facial traits that are generally part of an attractive face. There are. Most importantly, mentioning those traits in a conversation does not constitute PUA, not even remotely. Even more so when the conversation is about long term relationships. Where you decided this conversation is talking about surface level interactions, when it's a conversation focused on issues and challenges surrounding LTR/marriage I have no idea. Use whatever terminology you like; your posts consistently reek of a very surface-level approach to anything but the topics traditionally associated with PUA approaches that I see it’s really arguing semantics on whether it technically is or not. No one really denies that looks matter, among other things, but the obsession with that and with distinctions like “alpha vs beta male” and with Tinder above pretty much any other form of interaction shows that whatever philosophy you use is little more than an umpteenth rebranding of PUA. The talk on “LTR/marriage” shows the same sort of mediocre emphasis on what really matters as to be basically a token emphasis on the topic. I don’t see the point in arguing with you on it because I don’t see you acknowledging what it is you’re arguing for, much less changing course. I do however want to note that I echo the “what a giant load of absolute shit” sentiment, just to note that Excludos isn’t the only one to notice where this is going.
Admittedly, I'm interested in looks, because I find what makes a face attractive or not to be an interesting topic, especially because of the unfair privileged that attractive people have over unattractive people, which goes far beyond dating. Lookism discrimination is a very real, very powerful thing that for whatever reason goes consistently unacknowledged by society. It's also brutally unfair in most life aspects, and the first step towards avoiding discrimination is being aware of your susceptibility to it. So yes, you're accurate that I'm a little "obsessed" by looks.
but the obsession with that and with distinctions like “alpha vs beta male” and with Tinder above pretty much any other form of interaction
This part, I reject categorically. Especially the use of obsession. When I first started posting here I talked quite a bit about Tinder, because I was being hookup, short term relationship obsessed for reasons that I mentioned and others hit on. It took my a couple months to grow bored of this and realize that isn't what I'm looking for or interested in.
I have continued to talk some about Tinder, in response to other people, because I feel confident I understand the platform and know how to be successful in that sphere. I have not been talking about long term relationship management, or other platforms, outside of initial dating, because I have only been in one relationship lasting more than 6 months, and only 3 lasting longer than 3 months for a variety of reasons. This is something I'm looking to change now.
I guess I can forgive you for not realizing this and viewing it as "Tinder obsessed", especially since you may have missed the part in a chain of conversation a few months ago where I'd said that I'd realized that hooks/short term relationships weren't really what I was interested in.
The talk on “LTR/marriage” shows the same sort of mediocre emphasis on what really matters as to be basically a token emphasis on the topic.
I don’t see the point in arguing with you on it because I don’t see you acknowledging what it is you’re arguing for, much less changing course.
I'm quite lost here. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong and not understanding, but my feel is you read a few of my earlier posts where I was using Tinder a lot for hookups, threw me into the "PUAesque" bucket, and then have taken all future posts in that context. If you're not doing that, I apologize. If you are, please stop.
I'm not arguing "for anything". I'm saying, "Here are some observations I've had from a combination of real life experience, observations/conversations with many friends and people I know, online anecdotes, and scientific/survey data" that suggest these are concerns. Then asking you guys "how do you respond to these concerns"? If you're looking for and interested in a long term monogamous relationship
I don't have a "point" I'm trying to argue. I'm presenting observations/data and my initial impressions about what could be the root cause of them. I've explicitly avoided stating any conclusions or opinions, because I don't have them. I have thrown out a few theories, but overall I'm clueless about the source of these issues.
The idea of marriage is extremely appealing to me, I was raised pretty traditionally and still see value in much of that. However, the idea of marriage is less appealing if there is a 20%+ chance you're going to get cheated on and an even higher chance your marriage is likely to end. These data and experiences are concerning, and I'm thinking carefully about what I'm interested in as far as my own dating life going forward. It's quite disappointing that you're dismissing my attempts to better inform my own understanding about important life decisions and attitudes towards relationships through discussion by more or less labeling me as a hookup obsessed PUA guy.
|
Except he didn't label you a hookup obsessed PUA guy, he's simply referring to the rhetoric and approach you seem to be adhering to. No matter the label used, this form-obsessed, "data-driven" attitude towards dating is the sort that inures folks to very problematic conceptions of other people, both sexes and all those in between and outside included. Instead of attempting to stuff dating and regarding the other sex into this overly rigid framework that hollowly convinces itself of its own rationality, why not just focus on the basic building block of relationships, that being attempting to understand and interact with people other than yourself? As tempting as it is, no amount of probability-gaming, number crunching, or variable minding is going to makeup for simply heading out into the world and talking with others, be it digitally or in person.
Further, even if we are to play the extremely troubling gender essentialism game and assign specific attitudes to women based on their sex, I don't think it's controversial to assert that many ostensibly datable women both do not like and can sense that a particular mate is the sort that thinks some kind of pseudo-rational, problem-solving framework will get them a life partner. It's not a coincidence that the concept of "dude who has game dates many women" turns so many people off, men and women included.
|
I have to mention, that this Dating thread just brought a new First to me on TL. For the first time I find a thread in which I agree with LegalLord. That's just great :D
|
On August 05 2018 02:05 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 22:48 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2018 15:23 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 12:52 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2018 10:30 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 09:46 Uldridge wrote:
What do you consider a successful marriage exactly? One that lasts until death? One that makes you envy the couple in question? I feel like it's impossible to gauge how well a couple actually fares because you only see snapshots of them together and that's usually when they're on good terms (or are acting really well).
Unless you have strong and consistent inside knowledge it's very difficult to have any kind of actual insight in how (dis)functional a couple is.
Very salient points, especially the last bit about knowing how the relationship is going. I'm lucky to have a good number of close friends who will share at least some of this stuff with me, but of course it's still a very small sample of a select group of people. I would consider a successful marriage one that lasts till death, yes. With rare exception. That exception being the uncommon case where both people truly decide they would like to date other people and move on. Usually relationships end with one person wanting out and the other disappointing, usually involving significant dissatisfaction or boredom beforehand. So if a marriage ends, most of the time it's because it wasn't a good one for at least one party. One strong reason divorce rates are rising (imo) have to do with the incessant bombarding of instant culture we face every single day. We get promised fame, glamour, wealth, beauty, strength, .. with only minimal effort. It's the same trend in communication; it's all become so easy. And there's a plethora of options on top of that. When you can literally pick and choose in every aspect of life, why wouldn't that spill over in your romantic life?
Open marriages work, traditional marriages work, "professional" marriages work (bonding powerful people/families, ambitious people), even arranged marriages work. It all depends on how much effort you're willing to put into bond where one of its premises is it lasting until death. How much effort, but also how much your willing to put up with can be a part of it. I've definitely seen people that aren't willing to divorce, and can't work it out stay together and "make it work" by being unhappy. To me that is NOT a successful marriage. That's a shit arrangement. That's also a tricky point, because if you're too early to leave because shit any great that's not putting any effort in. I should also add that in many cases it's not possible to work out marriages without resorting to making it work by "suffering up with each other". Many marriages have one party unable, or unwilling to change. Hell I see this in my parents own marriage, they both have some things they want from each other to make things better, both occasionally make efforts to improve them, but can't sustain it. Which brings me to my definition of successful marriage: A marriage that stays together, or rarely ends mutually and happily, in which both partners are happier and more fulfilled in the marriage than they would be outside of it. There's tons of reasons cheating happens, there's tons of reasons why marriages fail; perhaps it takes a long times for some people to show there true colours (until marriage), perhaps the average life span of a marriage (or human relationship) has to do with the duration it takes to raise a child; perhaps it's to do with having so many options to do from that the grass becomes just a tad too green on the other side to resist it; whatever it is, it's complex and parameters for success or failure can't be pinpointed so easily like: have both parties have less sex drive and let them be career driven. Agree to a point, but these are the commonalities I've seen in marriages that seem to work relatively well. Other factors are certainly at play, but the vast majority of successful marriages as I've defined it seem to come from one of these contexts. To be clear to, I think most relationships are happy up till the first 3-5 years, I think it's after that where it starts to go downhill. Definitely worse when marriage or moving in together happens. And it's not like shit falls of a cliff, but 3-5 years seems to be the median timeframe where things like boredom, post nuptial shut-off etc. happen. I've also seen marked shifts in how women treat their guys and vice versa around that time. The two years (except in obviously dysfunction relationships) are usually pretty rosey. I've seen some marked and rapid shifts (girl becomes more controlling, "colder", and less sexual; guy becomes more whipped, more resentful, angrier) around that time. Edit: the fact that prostitution has existed for so long should have some merit regarding promiscuity of the human species, no? I mean, surely it shouldn't have catered solely to single people right? Probably. But keep in mind most cheating also occurs after about 3-5 years in a relationship. In fact by far the most common time to cheat is in the third year of a relationship....for both sexes. Right about the time the female starts to get bored and the male frustrated (due to closing off and worse sex due to boredom). Coincidence? Maybe. Interesting though. I don't know of much reports or incidents of cheating within the first couple years of a relationship. That's rare. Edit2: a strong reason why we're led to belief monogamy is good and virtuous and in need of pursuing might be the embedded Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of Western society. Would agree 100%. This plays a HUGE role in why monogamy is still an iron societal standard. I think what everyone gets wrong in the west now is that LTR monogamy is to have thrill and passionate sex. You can have one night stand, short term relationships, hookers, or wathever floats your boat for that. When you get married it is to have children, build a home, and keep companion to each other as you get old in sickness and health. That's it, you take the trade-off, period. You love your spouse, but you don't want to bang her thrice a day like you do when you meet someone new, or when you first met her. If you marry someone expecting a lifetime of passionate sex, or worse, your partner marries you expecting that, you will run into massive dissapointment, divorce, cheating or worse. That's how it used to be, tradition exists for a reason. It works. Yea, that's one way to look at it, and if you approach it that way it's an option. That's probably how I would approach it if I met a girl that really makes me want to go down that route.I do think it (marriage) still works, but I don't think it works as well as it did when monogamy was more "forced" by both societal and economic realities. At the same time, what you're describing is more or less a live-in friendship. The singular thing that separates relationship from friendship is that you guys have a sexual attraction to each other. So the question is basically "do I give up sex, starting from my 30s, in order to raise a stable family and have a guaranteed lifetime partner when I grow old". Man. That's a big ask. I realize not all marriages get that bad, but it's clear that many do and it's not a rare thing. It's certainly common enough you have to be well prepared for it. Thrice a day thrilling passionate sex from a marriage for the rest of your life is indeed quite the expectation and very unrealistic, and I think you're right that too many people look for or expect that. However, the reality for many men is that at best they are condemned to a lifetime of once a week shitty starfish sex and worst case a lifetime of forced celibacy. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone should have to give up sex, starting in their twenties or thirties just to be able to raise kids. I think the cheating stats speak to that as well. 20% is the benchmark number for admitted cheating. You know it's higher than that in reality because people under-report negative things like that on surveys. Perhaps closer to 30%-40%. That included all relationships/people, and we know that many, many people never really stay in a relationship more than 2-3 years, which is the point at which cheating becomes a real risk. I suspect, in relationships lasting 5 years or more, the rate of cheating is well north of 50%. Then of course 80% basically admit they would cheat if they wouldn't get caught...aka they want to. That tells me something is wrong. Expectations could be a part of that, but that's big enough to go beyond that. Not cheating is likely the exception to the rule. What frustrates me is that it doesn't have to be that way. There is no real reason you couldn't have an "open marriage" with one person you truly love as more of a lifetime partner, but then it's open to sexual encounters as they come, but in general because of societal conditioning people are very opposed to that idea. I mostly agree with what you say. It's the partners responsability to keep the spark alive, I don't think you fall into a no sex zone unless you where a chump from the begining. In fairness, a decent number of men are chumps. That's not a crazy rare thing. Beyond that, I'm still not so sure about the keep that spark alive thing. There are truly a TON of accounts out there, from both male and female perspectives, about situations where they are both clearly trying and the spark isn't there. Like I mentioned before, I was browsing the thread on reddit a few weeks ago, and literally hundreds if not thousands of women were all talking about how they had been in a relationship or married for a while and didn't want to have sex with their husband. The title was literally something like "I don't want to have sex with my husband and don't know why. Does anyone else have this problem". The majority of these women were sharing that their husbands were excellent dudes, good fathers, hadn't let themselves go or had gotten fitter, no relationship problems....and you still had tons of people coming out of the woodwork saying they had zero sexual interest or were even repulsed at the thought. They mostly were miffed or disgusted by the fact that they felt this way about their husband. At the very least, that's an odd, large anecdote. I can't see how that doesn't hint that there is something else going on. If it was one women in a thousand we could say "okay, outlier, let's move on not everyone is the same". However, this was by FAR the biggest thread on this womens subreddit. It wasn't just a few women wanting to talk about it. Definitely too large of a population to just dismiss as an isolated incident. The most interesting part of all is that none of these women had any idea why they felt like they did. That's unique. It wasn't "my husbands gained 70lbs and to be honest he isn't sexy anymore" or "he's such a grumpy asshole these days", This really makes me wonder if there isn't something biological going on "under the hood". Just not knowing suggests it's not a conscious process or decision and is either coming from the body or something well below the surface. Show nested quote +People cheat because of unreal expectations and lack of values. Make sure you don't marry a terrible woman capable of cheating or that you do not become such a tool or an asshole that she would cheat on you. Well, anywhere between 20%+ cheat on you. That's a pretty large number to avoid. As I've said before I think the real number is closer to 50%+. Either there are alot of "terrible women" (I don't think so), or people are just not "programmed" in general, to be capable of being faithful. Moreover, reading from many of those women, they did not sound like assholes or terrible people, and many of them had confessed to cheating. Their husbands had definitely not become tools or assholes and driven them to cheating. They had simply lost interest in their husband despite him being, by all accounts, a genuine good dude, father, partner still attractive and in good shape.
Well if 20-50% of woman cheat on their spouse, they are terrible woman. They don't have values and you should avoid them, it is pretty black and white. The hard part is finding the kind of decent woman that won't cheat, staying attractive you her, and yourself being a decent human being that does not cheat. Simple is different than easy.
|
On August 04 2018 23:39 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 22:48 GoTuNk! wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 04 2018 15:23 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2018 12:52 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2018 10:30 L_Master wrote:On August 04 2018 09:46 Uldridge wrote:
What do you consider a successful marriage exactly? One that lasts until death? One that makes you envy the couple in question? I feel like it's impossible to gauge how well a couple actually fares because you only see snapshots of them together and that's usually when they're on good terms (or are acting really well).
Unless you have strong and consistent inside knowledge it's very difficult to have any kind of actual insight in how (dis)functional a couple is.
Very salient points, especially the last bit about knowing how the relationship is going. I'm lucky to have a good number of close friends who will share at least some of this stuff with me, but of course it's still a very small sample of a select group of people. I would consider a successful marriage one that lasts till death, yes. With rare exception. That exception being the uncommon case where both people truly decide they would like to date other people and move on. Usually relationships end with one person wanting out and the other disappointing, usually involving significant dissatisfaction or boredom beforehand. So if a marriage ends, most of the time it's because it wasn't a good one for at least one party. One strong reason divorce rates are rising (imo) have to do with the incessant bombarding of instant culture we face every single day. We get promised fame, glamour, wealth, beauty, strength, .. with only minimal effort. It's the same trend in communication; it's all become so easy. And there's a plethora of options on top of that. When you can literally pick and choose in every aspect of life, why wouldn't that spill over in your romantic life?
Open marriages work, traditional marriages work, "professional" marriages work (bonding powerful people/families, ambitious people), even arranged marriages work. It all depends on how much effort you're willing to put into bond where one of its premises is it lasting until death. How much effort, but also how much your willing to put up with can be a part of it. I've definitely seen people that aren't willing to divorce, and can't work it out stay together and "make it work" by being unhappy. To me that is NOT a successful marriage. That's a shit arrangement. That's also a tricky point, because if you're too early to leave because shit any great that's not putting any effort in. I should also add that in many cases it's not possible to work out marriages without resorting to making it work by "suffering up with each other". Many marriages have one party unable, or unwilling to change. Hell I see this in my parents own marriage, they both have some things they want from each other to make things better, both occasionally make efforts to improve them, but can't sustain it. Which brings me to my definition of successful marriage: A marriage that stays together, or rarely ends mutually and happily, in which both partners are happier and more fulfilled in the marriage than they would be outside of it. There's tons of reasons cheating happens, there's tons of reasons why marriages fail; perhaps it takes a long times for some people to show there true colours (until marriage), perhaps the average life span of a marriage (or human relationship) has to do with the duration it takes to raise a child; perhaps it's to do with having so many options to do from that the grass becomes just a tad too green on the other side to resist it; whatever it is, it's complex and parameters for success or failure can't be pinpointed so easily like: have both parties have less sex drive and let them be career driven. Agree to a point, but these are the commonalities I've seen in marriages that seem to work relatively well. Other factors are certainly at play, but the vast majority of successful marriages as I've defined it seem to come from one of these contexts. To be clear to, I think most relationships are happy up till the first 3-5 years, I think it's after that where it starts to go downhill. Definitely worse when marriage or moving in together happens. And it's not like shit falls of a cliff, but 3-5 years seems to be the median timeframe where things like boredom, post nuptial shut-off etc. happen. I've also seen marked shifts in how women treat their guys and vice versa around that time. The two years (except in obviously dysfunction relationships) are usually pretty rosey. I've seen some marked and rapid shifts (girl becomes more controlling, "colder", and less sexual; guy becomes more whipped, more resentful, angrier) around that time. Edit: the fact that prostitution has existed for so long should have some merit regarding promiscuity of the human species, no? I mean, surely it shouldn't have catered solely to single people right? Probably. But keep in mind most cheating also occurs after about 3-5 years in a relationship. In fact by far the most common time to cheat is in the third year of a relationship....for both sexes. Right about the time the female starts to get bored and the male frustrated (due to closing off and worse sex due to boredom). Coincidence? Maybe. Interesting though. I don't know of much reports or incidents of cheating within the first couple years of a relationship. That's rare. Edit2: a strong reason why we're led to belief monogamy is good and virtuous and in need of pursuing might be the embedded Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of Western society. Would agree 100%. This plays a HUGE role in why monogamy is still an iron societal standard. I think what everyone gets wrong in the west now is that LTR monogamy is to have thrill and passionate sex. You can have one night stand, short term relationships, hookers, or wathever floats your boat for that. When you get married it is to have children, build a home, and keep companion to each other as you get old in sickness and health. That's it, you take the trade-off, period. You love your spouse, but you don't want to bang her thrice a day like you do when you meet someone new, or when you first met her. If you marry someone expecting a lifetime of passionate sex, or worse, your partner marries you expecting that, you will run into massive dissapointment, divorce, cheating or worse. That's how it used to be, tradition exists for a reason. It works. Yea, that's one way to look at it, and if you approach it that way it's an option. That's probably how I would approach it if I met a girl that really makes me want to go down that route.I do think it (marriage) still works, but I don't think it works as well as it did when monogamy was more "forced" by both societal and economic realities. At the same time, what you're describing is more or less a live-in friendship. The singular thing that separates relationship from friendship is that you guys have a sexual attraction to each other. So the question is basically "do I give up sex, starting from my 30s, in order to raise a stable family and have a guaranteed lifetime partner when I grow old". Man. That's a big ask. I realize not all marriages get that bad, but it's clear that many do and it's not a rare thing. It's certainly common enough you have to be well prepared for it. Thrice a day thrilling passionate sex from a marriage for the rest of your life is indeed quite the expectation and very unrealistic, and I think you're right that too many people look for or expect that. However, the reality for many men is that at best they are condemned to a lifetime of once a week shitty starfish sex and worst case a lifetime of forced celibacy. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone should have to give up sex, starting in their twenties or thirties just to be able to raise kids. I think the cheating stats speak to that as well. 20% is the benchmark number for admitted cheating. You know it's higher than that in reality because people under-report negative things like that on surveys. Perhaps closer to 30%-40%. That included all relationships/people, and we know that many, many people never really stay in a relationship more than 2-3 years, which is the point at which cheating becomes a real risk. I suspect, in relationships lasting 5 years or more, the rate of cheating is well north of 50%. Then of course 80% basically admit they would cheat if they wouldn't get caught...aka they want to. That tells me something is wrong. Expectations could be a part of that, but that's big enough to go beyond that. Not cheating is likely the exception to the rule. What frustrates me is that it doesn't have to be that way. There is no real reason you couldn't have an "open marriage" with one person you truly love as more of a lifetime partner, but then it's open to sexual encounters as they come, but in general because of societal conditioning people are very opposed to that idea. I mostly agree with what you say. It's the partners responsability to keep the spark alive, I don't think you fall into a no sex zone unless you where a chump from the begining. When you are old I guess it's part of getting old, you could get more years of sex as a man if you replace your wife by someone half her age, but that's being an asshole. People cheat because of unreal expectations and lack of values. Make sure you don't marry a terrible woman capable of cheating or that you do not become such a tool or an asshole that she would cheat on you. Do not cheat yourself. On your last paragraph, open marriage doesn't work because a woman who sleeps with another man cannot respect or love his husband. I think man can sleep around and still love her wife, I wouldn't though. This part is my pure speculation. It's speculation, and it's wrong. We are actually at a point where open polyamory in relationships is growing, in both acceptance and awareness. It doesn't stem from the idea that one person will never be enough, but rather that one is capable of truly loving more than one other person. It requires a lot of honesty, communication and respect, and it can work. However, when you start from the premise that only men are capable of sleeping with others and still respecting their partner, you're pretty much doomed to fail. I'd drop that shit like a hot potato, if I were you.
As I said, this is simply my opinion without any right or wrong interpretation in the moral realm. My opinion is simply based on the belief that man can separate sex/love a lot better than woman. Exceptions obviously exists, was talking in general. I think that a spouse that cheats on their husband/wife is simply disgusting, on both sides.
If you want to have polyamory relationships or wathever and both parties are happy then great, but that's about short term fun and has nothing to do with marriage. How do you build a home and raise kids? (if you want to skip that part then great)
|
On August 05 2018 02:49 mahrgell wrote:
I have to mention, that this Dating thread just brought a new First to me on TL. For the first time I find a thread in which I agree with LegalLord. That's just great :D
Yeah, I agree completely xD
As for the notion of the "unfair advantage of attractive vs. unattractive people", I puked in my mouth a little. Attraction is a super amorphous thing, it varies from person to person, and the average unattractive person has a surprising amount of power to change that and become someone that someone else would want to date.
I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to date someone who's so quick to give up and blame genetics for their problems. For all you know, those people who are so unfairly attractive put a ton of work and self-care into becoming so. Take responsibility for your state of affairs.
|
If you try to game the system when dating, do not be surprised when nothing long term develops.
To love means to be vulnerable, to open oneself to the other. If you're too afraid of getting hurt and want to exclude the possibility of your partner cheating on you beforehand, you're in for a rough ride finding a partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
