re: Shortage of economically attractive partners for unmarried women to marry

I'm married to a very challenging woman. She was one of those who focused on developing a career. We met when she was 31. 2 years later, we married. 2 years later we had a child together. We've been together almost 23 years.

Besides the fact that she looks like Marilyn Monroe, I found it attractive that she was motivated to be something other than a wife and mother. I'm sure she found it attractive that I had a career track. Together, we do very well economically and are both well respected professionally in our respective business worlds, but truthfully, it has its challenges.

We both need to travel on business. We have home responsibilities that include children, pets and volunteerism. Both being in positions of responsibility (me nationally and her internationally) requires an enormous amount of schedule coordination between us, and frankly, it gets tiring. Because we're both challenged on time, we both also have to play the traditional roles of each.

We are fortunate to be able to afford the things we can, and to fund our kids' education, but there's times when making a lot less and having a simpler life sure seems attractive.

Anyway, different men want different things from a woman. Some look for a woman that enjoys hunting. Some look for the trophy wife to show off. Some look for a homemaker and mother. No matter which it is, the "perfect match" always comes with hidden imperfections that eventually show up. You make it work or not. The problem for women is they ALWAYS look for perfection and can't deal with any imperfections very well. If they start out looking for perfection and don't find it, eventually, they settle for imperfections and then hold it against the guy for not being their "ideal". Its just how they are. Never expect more than they are naturally wired and you should be good.

quote:

---

Attractive men seek attractive women.

---

Men seek attractive women.

And, women bitch their arse off when an unattractive but well off man chases hotties AND LANDS THEM!

Yet, we have this thread. Where even women who don't NEED the man to have money............chase money.

Women: Men get paid way more than us and it's not fair!

Also Women: There aren't enough economically attractive men making boatloads of cash for me to marry!

Seriously, we're gonna have to pick one narrative and stick with it. I don't care which one, but frick I'm starting to get real dizzy.

quote:

---

That is what the real shortage is. Not a shortage of men, its a shortage of Chads interested in them. The Chads who gave these women attention in their 20s no longer find them attractive enough in their 30s, and instead just continue to go for younger women in their 20s. So women either have to be single and lonely cat ladies, or settle with a beta male that repulses them(see: The Jared "lets see where this goes" commercial.)

---

How long have you been an incel?

quote:

---

I do think it is funny however that women bitch incessantly about the shite men "judge" them for when evaluating potential mates and then, act like all the things women judge men for are completely valid.

---

The rhetoric is odd. People will use insane justifications to rationalize their emotions, or how they feel, but there is a segment of women who seem to feel as though those justifications cannot be criticized. It generally starts with "I was young, I came out of an abusive relationship, I was on drugs" as though those things matter. It's an entirely solipsistic way of looking at the world, and one, I would argue, that is extremely common in women, and somewhat less common in men. I generally think, in terms of matters of love and marriage, society promotes a view that is specifically emotional, rather than biological or economic.

A biological view would admit that humans want to pair-bond but still possess the desire to be polyamorous, but it also falls short of understanding the economics of evolution. To put it another way, our biology and evolutionary course was determined in large part due to the social structure of during evolution, which was small clans not more than 200 members. Bipedalism made it more advantageous to have a more centrally situated birth canal with wider hips in females, and that also necessitated a longer penis in males (which is the longest of our near ancestors). The fact that we developed menstrual cycles rather than estrous cycles meant that a complicated system of signals of reciprocity developed.

That along with the relatively long fertile period meant that it was advantageous for the group as a whole if there was lots of mating, lots of searching for new mates (which is a good explanation for human violence), and the concealed parentage meant tighter group bonds. This necessitated the need for certain sexual developments, like larger testes than near primates, larger ejaculatory volume, and prolonged copulation. This need for both short-term and long-term interests led to what's called strategic pluralism, also known as a dual-mating strategy, which I think what is at the heart of the issue.

Judging gene quality in a robust environment, where nearly everyone who is living is the result of repeated selection of "high-quality" genes is extremely difficult. Judging reliability is somewhat easier, but still fairly difficult. Added to this that institutions developed after agriculture which promoted monogamy as the best method of preserving social harmony, has led to a sexual situation which is schizophrenic, and has arguably been schizophrenic since humans became sedentary.

The groups we have studied who still represent the hunter-gatherer way of life suggest that early tribal structure, absent of outside interaction, would have developed a culture to account for the biology. That sort of cultural accounting is near impossible in modern settings.

In that sense, I can't exactly blame the rhetoric, though I do find it grating. It's just difficult, if not impossible, to develop cultural norms that account for the multifaceted biological, economic, and emotional reasons for mate selection.

That poster is writing from the perspective of a male college student, at best.

quote:

---

Women are told to focus on their careers and put marriage off until they have established their careers, with the feminist lie being that men find a woman with a career attractive. Wrong, the only thing men give a shite about is if you are hot or not.

So women spend their prime years focusing on their career, then when they are ready to settle down in their 30s they are past their prime and have hit the wall and the Chads they use to tease and frick around with are no longer interested in them anymore.

That is what the real shortage is. Not a shortage of men, its a shortage of Chads interested in them. The Chads who gave these women attention in their 20s no longer find them attractive enough in their 30s, and instead just continue to go for younger women in their 20s. So women either have to be single and lonely cat ladies, or settle with a beta male that repulses them

---

Essentially.

quote:

---

Liberated women shouldn't need an "economically attractive" man. 

---

1) Funny how BIOLOGY continues to rule the day.

2) I have no sympathy for women who embraced feminism. As the Bible states, you reap what you sow.