Women are often told that we need to have "realistic expectations" or that we need to settle. It's nearly always suggested that the AF/BB strategy means that a woman is settling for the BB.
What does this mean in the real world? What do "realistic expectations" look like? What is settling and is it bad, is there a better word to describe what is actually going on? Is "lowering expectations" different from "settling for beta bux"? Does lowering expectations make cheating or hypergamic branch swinging more likely?
Ultimately, how should we be advising women to set their expectations for the type of partner she can get and still be happy?
LateralThinker13 7y ago
Upon further reflection, I don't think that I agree with the premise. Settling for the BB?
A woman who wants kids but who can't find a man to settle down (not uncommon!) often "settles" for the AF male who at least keeps her entertained and tingled.
Realistic expectations = finding a partner where his SMV/RMV - both your present AND projected future values - are comparable, and you make each other happy.
Settling means accepting a partner whose present and future SMV/RMV is significantly lower than yours.
I put both in there because, honestly, SMV measures alphas and RMV measures betas, and no man is all one or the other. In fact, men who are ALL one or the other are fairly intolerable. We want traits from both.
Know what your present SMV/RMV values are. Know where they are trending. And find a man to match. Example:
Typical early-20s American gal NOW: 7 SMV (hot, slim, fertile) but 3 RMV (immature, can't cook, untidy)
Projected values in two years after some self-work, and with plans to grow up and learn homemaking: 6 SMV (older), but 6 RMV (more mature, can cook, learning to tend a shared space)
She needs to be looking at men whose combined SMV/RMV is around 10-12. Should she accept the fat beta nerd (SMV 2) who will white knight for her (RMV 2) and call her m'lady? 2+2 = hell no.
Should she pine for the hot, virile 25 year old (SMV 9) Christian Grey billionaire startup guy (RMV 10) who might plate her but not marry her?
Hell no.
But that nice, slightly older guy with a good body but not with an early 20-year-old's endless stamina (SMV 7) who has a good job with earning potential and a great personality (RMV 6) - yeah, he's a good catch.
That's not settling. It's understanding where you stand, not under- or over-valuing who you are AND who you AND your partner are going to be, and then planning accordingly.
Don't be that hot 20-something (SMV 9) with no RMV who thinks she can coast on her looks, and then hits the wall and "settles" for a beta man because she can't do better. Similarly, don't jump for the first handsome young man (SMV 8) who is going nowhere and turns out to be a lazy, abusive ass (RMV 1) who you will resent while you continue growing and becoming a valuable person.
Just my $19.99 worth of advice.
CleburnCO 7y ago
Hard Truth...get a piece of paper. Write your total debt load and all of the things you think are wrong in your life on it. Take off all your clothes and stand in the bathroom, looking in the mirror holding that piece of paper while naked.
Would you marry that person?
Who would?
Now figure out whether you are "settling" or not.
It may be a good news answer...or it may be a reality check.
girlwithabike 7y ago
That's an interesting way to approach ones own value, but it's very focused on the negatives. I'm not sure I agree that it will give a woman an accurate picture if she focuses on only her flaws. It may even make her more inclined to settle of she doesn't consider her strengths as well.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
Good point.
Which reminds me of the recent post by u/whisper about the cult of self esteem.
Bottom line is - too high an opinion of yourself is bad, as is too low an opinion of yourself. What ucleburnco is addressing is someone who (potentially) thinks too high of themselves and needs to asses whether they are or aren't. Thus, looking at your naked self + all your problems is an interesting way of addressing this potential problem.
Whisper 7y ago
For every woman, no matter how attractive or unattractive, there are some stacked categories of men:
The order roughly corresponds to how desirable one can expect them to be. Changing her level of attractiveness will change who falls into each category, but not the existence or order of the categories.
To be successful, a woman has to be able to:
DelicateDevelopment 7y ago
I feel that these categories could also be part of a toolbox to access ones own SMV/RMV together with some common pitfalls while vetting.
E.g. except few exceptions I haven't met Category 1. The important part here is, that it was never me who was offering sex or tried to initiate it. Never. Not even once.
The reason for it is not that I am incredibly attractive. There are women who certainly are more beautiful as I ever was, but there is a certain threshold, which has to do with age, body weight and general appearance, that with respect to looks might enable the woman to have sex with next to everybody she crosses paths.
Above this threshold basically everything is only depending on how well the interaction evolves. How do goals align? How comfortable do people feel with each other? What apart from sex does the woman contribute? How much experience does the man have with respect to certain feminine traits, how much will he be able to lead? and so on...
What with respect to my opinion gets lost in the discussion about hypergamy is that
1) branch swinging is incredibly risky and cost expensive. Even if society nowadays creates conditions that make branch swinging less risky, this is a quite recent development and I doubt that there shouldn't a compensating/balancing trait. Readjusting to a new man is incredibly expensive and the outcome is not clear. This risk has always been there while the social changes that enable easy branch swinging only happened recently. So there has to be an element with a strong inhibiting effect. Social rules made it more stable since we are such failures in our daily verbal interactions, but our evolution goes back further than social rules.
2) since selection works basically by eradicating the dysfunctional/maladapted there is one point which I think should be understood and which I didn't read anywhere, yet. For a woman not having any partner is worse than not having the most valuable one. With respect to my experience and observations of breaking LTR and marriages women "fight" a long time for the best of the relationship. They rarely leave "just" because they found someone better. They leave because their current partner seems to have lost his value entirely and this does not "only" happen because of someone better showing up.
3) besides physical SMV which signals genetic fitness there is status. I am not sure if I am correct but to me it sometimes seems as if status is often mistaken as being valuable itself. Status itself has no intrinsic value, but status can provide value and more, if not inherited, status signals that the high status man is able to read the signals of his time properly and successfully manages to navigate his social environment. In that case status is indirect evidence of social competence and qualities. If combined with material success it shows dedication (commitment!) and reliability. So to me it seems as if it might be valuable to communicate these qualities together with SMV instead of status or similar itself. If a woman is "scanning" men for these qualities directly instead of all those indirect evidences then she will also be less likely to choose someone who is out of her league or whom she doesn't respect. All these qualities are always only relative to the value of the woman. For example, I think it should be made clear that when searching for "high status" a woman is actually searching for someone who successfully navigates his social environment. Knowing that he successfully navigates will allow her to adjust and allow him to lead. He has basically proven that he knows what he does. This kind of security allows to be lead and will lead to a healthier dynamic from the beginning. That way one might also avoid the pitfall for many to confuse high status with social skills as women will be directly scanning for social skills and not the indirect evidences. I am quite certain that to most "superficial" qualities that signal successful adaption one might find corresponding intrinsic qualities and one could make the intrinsic corresponding qualities seen and therefore allow women to look out for what they actually seek. Someone who will not sail the ship against the next iceberg if they hand control over to him.
"Absolute" value does only exist in the perspective of men who have this hierarchy among themselves. It does not exist in that way in the eyes of women. To women the ones they choose and for whom they do not "only" settle are great and it will remain that way unless the male plays his cards wrong, either by being distant and thus showing that he redirects resources away from her or by handing over too much power which will make the women feel insecure and without hold.
girlwithabike 7y ago
This lays it out really well, can someone put it in the sidebar?
Men who she can get a relationship with after having sex with them, if she plays her cards right.
If you eliminate the first two categories of men (because they are no-goes) what do you think the proportional split is between these two. Are you more likely to run into the sex before commitment type or the waits to commit type?
I always wonder how much more difficult the "no sex until commitment" advice makes things for the single ladies. Since I jumped in to bed with my husband pretty quickly, it's not really my area of expertise.
Whisper 7y ago
I might flesh it out a little more, turn it into an article.
I don't think you fully understood. The same man can fall into different categories for different women. Pretty much for any given man, there are women he would be willing to develop a relationship with, women he will have sex with but nothing else, and women he wouldn't touch with someone else's ten foot pole.
Women give sex, and men give relationships, and when both are on the table, whoever "gives it up" first is accepting status as the subordinate partner, and assuming some risks. This is generally done in exchange for access to a better quality of mate than would otherwise be available.
While going for category #4 men is a viable strategy, and it certainly shouldn't be off the table, I tend to highly recommend a category #3 based strategy, for a number of reasons.
Our culture is changing. Pre-marital sex become acceptable, then normal, then pre-commitment sex became acceptable, and now it is becoming normal. As this happens, the "cost" of playing it safe becomes gradually higher and higher, as the most desirable men of the fourth category start to leak into the third.
Many women, especially those new to RPW stuff, generally don't understand the concept of post-commitment risk. They tend to view being publicly acknowledged by the man as his mate as being some sort of "finish line" after which they have "won" and are safe, rather than simply a new phase of the game where a lot of the risks are only cosmetically different. Commitment is an emotional state, not a magic golden key.
As I said before, whoever "gives it up" first is the subordinate partner, but has more opportunity to "punch above their weight class". Since men want be treated awesome by someone good enough, and women want to be treated good enough by someone awesome, both male and female relationship happiness is increased if the man gets to "keep the upper hand" and the women gets to "punch above her weight class" a bit.
rebbit_reddit 7y ago
This is some of the most pragmatic but still insightful and practical writing I have read here. Thanks!
girlwithabike 7y ago
Of course not! I am a woman and my feeble solipsistic mind was viewing it exclusively from a single, single woman's perspective. You are looking at both sides of the aisle. I'm following now.
In fairness to the women, you have to practically beat it into the boyos over at TRP.
It's all very interesting though and fits fairly well with my own experience at least. I see the necessity for the do not judge the terrain caveat. The implication is that the long term dominant strategy is likely category #3 but that has so much more risk early on. A woman has to learn to be a good judge of character, trust herself and her instincts, and be a worthwhile partner. Plus she has to not be too fixated on increasing n-count - which is anathema around here.
red_philosopher 7y ago
This is really good advice.
red_philosopher 7y ago
The notion of "Never settle for less than what you want" is a dangerous bit of rhetoric used to "empower" women, when it really is hypergamy, plain and simple. Women are told not to settle, even if the man they are with makes them happy and they have a great relationship. One must rid themselves of this poisonous notion that by settling and choosing someone, you are giving up everything "better". If one does not, one will inevitably be unsatisfied with their partner, not because they are a bad partner, but because you think "I could have done better." This inevitably leads to resentment and branch swinging, which will destroy that relationship.
Women must also understand that their prime sexual value is brief- they simply don't have the time for a lifelong quest of finding the perfect mate. There quite literally, will always be something or someone better than what you have. Chasing that "better" in the hopes that you will obtain it will always come at the cost of time lost with the partner you have currently obtained. You must start over anew with uncertain results and possibilities.
People say what good is cake if you can't eat it? Well, I say what the fuck good is cake if you NEVER eat it?
girlwithabike 7y ago
Perfect is the enemy of the good
I agree. I like to think of it more in terms of trade offs.
Where I think it becomes difficult is what this means in real life. If a woman is with a man but constantly finding herself attracted to other men... obviously hypergamy is at play but how do you determine whether the problem lies with her perception or with the man she's with.
Certainly there will always be someone better but how does a woman know where to set her expectations?
For example: if she's 20 and stunning, an RP dream girl, and she's still with her first BF who is a beta dude who doesn't lead and doesn't have much ambition... should she be settling for him? How does she know she can do better? How does she set realistic expectations for herself?
ArcticFoxBunny 7y ago
I’m with you, it’s very difficult and those who say otherwise don’t get it. I had strong love feelings toward a mutual friend with my ex, but it turns out he was just kind to me and made me smile, while my ex was did neither and was cold and hypercritical. I didn’t date the friend, but the feelings got me out of a potential bad marriage. But I didn’t realize it at all at first that it was due to him being attentive while the ex acted like he hated me. It’s hard to be aware without hindsight.
red_philosopher 7y ago
It's not inherently difficult, in all honesty. Rather, it's a matter of being true to your expectations.
Ultimately, we are all subject to our perceptions. Objectivity is rarely afforded to us, and we all, inevitably, rationalize our decisions. Having realistic expectations: a man that will stand up for himself, know when to be firm and when to be gentle, lead and provide, accept his mistakes and grow from them, support his family and be a rock capable of weathering the storm. These are reasonable expectations. Treading into idealization, things like perfection, attempting to shape the man you are with to your idealized version of a man, etc, things that one tries to control when they have no control are indicators of unrealistic expectations. The idea is suitability for a particular purpose. Do they meet these base qualifications? If so, then they are likely going to be fine.
In this example, she is 20 and has plenty of time to find someone suitable. The man doesn't meet the basic expectations she has for a man, and she should leave him, explaining why, and moving on. Casting a wider net, dating without compromising her values and body for pointless sexual encounters, will eventually net her the man that she is looking for. If she embodies RP values, it should be no problem.
girlwithabike 7y ago
I really like this. Well said.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
She'd have to remove the new man as a possible mate consideration altogether and then ask herself based on the merits of her current man and her current relationship - is it worth it to stay or leave?
If he's worthy of staying with, she should stay with him regardless of what else is out there. She'd then need to work on keeping her hypergamous feelings in check.
If he's worthy of leaving, she should leave him regardless of what else is out there. In that case, she should leave him even if there's no new branch to swing to.
red_philosopher 7y ago
But she'll stay until the next branch is ready.
girlwithabike 7y ago
The self reflection is where it all falls apart when you are 20 I think. Which is in the limited age range that I think hypergamy can be indulged.
And for the hell of it, I'll clarify: I don't think a woman comparing her SO to one guy who seems better is a reason to jump. However, if she constantly finds herself looking at others and finding her bf wanting, then to me it means she shouldn't stay with him.
But a healthy dose of self reflection is necessary to ensure she doesn't have pie in the sky notions of her own value.
And it means she has to do a much better job vetting the next one because you can't make it a habit.
I agree with you that the "other" man has to be taken out of the equation.
bloobird08 7y ago
For example: if she's 20 and stunning, an RP dream girl, and she's still with her first BF who is a beta dude who doesn't lead and doesn't have much ambition.
Yes, I think this is settling. I feel like rp doesn’t address this but it happens a lot to the young and pretty. They don’t know better/don’t know how to vet or they have low self esteem.
girlwithabike 7y ago
Hypergamy isn't always a bad thing.
[deleted] 7y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 7y ago
From what I've seen its mainly a combination of modern feminism manipulating the legal system and female attitudes in dating and relationships, the obesity epidemic, and the single motherhood epidemic-- with these factors depending on the country. I can't tell you how many average and above average-looking women there are who are perpetually single mothers in America. There are millions more single mothers than single fathers and it keeps rising. Its completely out of control. I'm not going to say that single mothers don't deserve to find happiness because I think everyone should find happiness to the best of their ability. But its in a man's best interest to protect his resources, there are men who want children that are only their biological children, if not most men-- and if I remember correctly, there is science behind step-parents being more likely to not raise children as well that aren't their biologically children.
So a lot of men will pass up committing to women they perceive as extremely attractive, because these women are single mothers, and its against that man's values, either because he doesn't want children, he doesn't want children that aren't biologically his, or she has too many children which is an attack on his resources, and thus his personal freedom and dreams. Then there's the dark statistics around fatherlessness. Its completely insane to me how bad this all is from a perspective of how its hurting children through fatherlessness, and hurting adults through romantic loneliness, with the importance of relationships as the primary indicator of happiness in life as The Harvard Grant Study suggests.. although still leaving things like diet, exercise, sleep, and mental focus up for question in that study's conclusion.
But one positive thing I can suggest to anyone who is lonely, whether they are single or in a relationship, is to increasingly broaden their interests and form more platonic relationships based on that, and not stop doing that until that loneliness disappears, because based on the evidence I've seen, at the least, a large portion of your happiness depends upon the existence and warmth of your relationships.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
Many men are MGTOW because on a societal level, the dating game is grossly rigged in favor of women to the detriment of men.
girlwithabike 7y ago
It could be. I don't blame them, they are acting in their own best interest. A young woman who listens to her hypergamy drive (preferably with some actual thinking thrown in) and breaks up with a man because she can do better is also acting in her own best interest.
[deleted] 7y ago
[deleted]
girlwithabike 7y ago
Well I'm certainly not in favor of hypergamy after cohabitation or marriage. That's just silly. But during the vetting stage absolutely.
I'm not sure why you came to the women's sub to announce that you went MGTOW though. RPW is hardly your own way.
You won't shame me, which is what I believe you are attempting to do. Men give younger men advice all the time to behave in their best interests. More power to them for it. I know what the laws look like and I know that men are opting out of marriage or relationships. All that means is that the market has shifted and advice should shift accordingly.
Men are still marrying, other men are cohabiting. MGTOW is a path that men take but there have always been men opting out. It's not a terribly new phenomenon even if it is growing. It doesn't mean that a woman should settle for less than she is capable of pulling. The discussion at hand is how to determine what she is capable of pulling. And I believe instincts can play a part for some women.
bloobird08 7y ago
Exactly. I also think it’s deadbeat guys who whine about hypergamy the most because they don’t want to put in effort to keep a woman. If you’re broke and unsuccessful and still manage to get a hot gf, I think it’s just a cold truth that you’re going to be in danger of losing her to a “better” man if she comes to her senses and the opportunity presents itself. This is why Trp emphasizes men to improve.
girlwithabike 7y ago
As women, we have to figure out when good enough is good enough. Hypergamy can lead you down bad paths if you don't use your brain too. But paying attention to that niggling feeling that you can do better can also spare a lot of longer term heartbreak and stress.
For men, even good non deadbeat men, it means that they simply weren't good enough. That has to hurt the ego. And I think a lot of men around the RP parts have been subject to it, not because they were specifically deadbeats, just because they were young and there was someone better out there. Youth favors women.
I feel bad for the men who haven't been good enough to keep their mates. However, I don't believe that we should advise every woman who comes to RPW that she needs to stay put when her eyes start to wander. Sometimes your lizard brain knows best.
I haven't paid attention to another man since I met my husband. It really fades away if you chose well.
bloobird08 7y ago
I don’t know, it seems like a lot of guys come to Trp because they’re kind of deadbeats. I’m not sure what generation you are, but I’m an older millennial and so many modern young guys are physically weak with little ambition, it’s no wonder they complain of hypergamy being out of control these days. The internet really did men dirty, it bred tons of weak gamers with no drive to better themselves. I don’t think hypergamy were this bad back in the 70’s when more men were gainfully employed and physically stronger. These younger men need more structure and physical activity, too many soy boys. More reason for young women to to date older, their peers just can’t get their shit together.
girlwithabike 7y ago
I'm on the cusp of millennial and gen x so you may be correct that I'm not seeing it as much.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
I always wondered about that. I keep getting conflicting messages regarding where the generations overlap.
girlwithabike 7y ago
It's hard to figure out the start of the millennial generation. It's either 1983 or 1980 from everything I've read.
And this is suuuuper off topic - but I think and it's not just me that there is a difference in the early part of the millennials and the later part. Those of us who sort of grew up before technology made it's next jump (pre-social media specifically). I see it just between my sister and I and we're 5 years apart.
durtyknees 7y ago
This is only true if relationships are viewed with a consumer mindset, but then again, most people view it that way (sexual/relationship "market values" and all that).
As a consumer, you "settle" for a "product" because of its availability, quality, and your budget. A "product" may be the "best option" at a certain timeframe, until better options are "released" in the "market" later on.
As a consumer, I'm always in search of the next best thing, because "products" are quite fixed to perform specific functions.
This may go against the whole concept of SMV/RMV, but people aren't products, and going about relationships with a consumer mindset is my hypothesis of why most people (regardless of gender) aren't worth marrying :p
My (probably non-RP) advice would be to figure out as early as possible how to read people accurately, and keep in touch with a group of people (within 5 years of your age) who show good potential for a lifetime relationship (during late teens to early 20s).
Good friends "shape" each other into ideal lifetime partners --- but the whole "considering a good friend as a potential partner" concept is considered "orbiting" in the context of RP, so I'm only sharing my opinion, not saying this is RP advice.
As much as my husband has shaped me into his ideal partner, I've also been a huge influence in his life since we first met in school.
As far as we're concerned, there is nobody "out there" who is "better" because we have grown to fit each other in a way that nobody else could replace. We strongly believe in creating instead of consuming, when it comes to lifetime relationships.
"Perfect" is something you actively (continuously, endlessly) work on creating together.
I'm not saying the consumer-mindset of RP advice is wrong, but I don't personally consider it good for marriage. Since TRP is against marriage anyway, there's no conflict either.
girlwithabike 7y ago
Well what else am I going to do with my econ/math degree? :-P
Even though I'm arguing in favor of hypergamy above, I actually think this is a key point:
When we consider relationships in a consumer/economic sense it only goes as far as the first part. You "settle for" (commit to) a product (man) at a certain point in time. Then you stop looking. Once you've found a partner, you begin to have a shared life and those are qualities that cannot be replaced by a newer model very easy. Even your advice acknowledges this to a certain extent. You identify potential candidates early on and then chose from them over time. By developing a couple friendships to see where they go, you are still choosing the best options at the time you make the choice. You are just DIYing some of the way.
And more importantly, as you describe, you begin to mold yourself into each other's ideal mates.
Basically, one you leave the market place (dating) the consumption metaphor becomes irrelevant.
I think this is something that women miss out on when they don't pair off until their 30s. By that time men and women are more set in their ways. I don't know where the sweet spot for finding your mate is (because I don't think it's 16 either) but we're more elastic when we're younger and more able to adapt to each other and grow together.
durtyknees 7y ago
It also becomes more "ideal" (perfect, for all intents and purposes ;p) the longer you work on building that relationship together.
"Perfect" doesn't stay constant only because time keep changing circumstances, so you endlessly need to adapt and adjust.
What I'm trying to say is "perfect" isn't the "enemy", and aiming for "perfect" (no matter how unrealistic) is actually what would help long term happiness.
And this is because happiness relies on (somewhat) defying what is expected/realistic/practical. Without something perceived as extraordinary, people don't get excited, and passion don't exist without excitement.
Hypergamy is often caused by "boredom" (or similar complaints of the mundane). I think aiming for "perfect", even if you can't maintain/reach it, is how a relationship remains full of passion.
But of course, it takes two hands to clap, so "hypergamy" isn't something women should flog themselves over, while their men sit on a high horse about it.
Feel free to change my view of course, because that's why I'm sharing my opinion at all. If I'm being silly, you know I'm happy to be corrected :p
Depends. "Yes" if the relationship is strictly monogamous, and "no" if you openly "explore options" together (ie: be despicable "consumers" :p)
Pairing off doesn't need to be in absolute terms, imo. You could stay good friends while you "experiment" with others and "save the best for last".
I don't think my husband would've married me if he didn't have all the bad experiences with other women enough to appreciate most of what I'm offering.
Having gone through hell and back means nothing good is taken for granted :p
I got married over 30, so it's only a "miss out" if the actual seed (friendship) wasn't planted early.
The older you get, the more you need to be really lucky to meet the right person. When you're young, you could (as you said) DIY the right person for you, and you don't need to pull off something on the level of a quest for the holy grail.
It's impossibly Arthurian after 30s, for everyone imo. Men in their 30s say they could get younger women, but women in their 30s have many options now to look younger than their age and they have options to be rich enough to not "need a man" for their precious [insert Gollum voice :p] "resources", and many women I know are perfectly happy in a marriage/relationship with a man who earns less, as long as he excites her or know how to give her good feels.
Feels are often stated as a woman's weakness, and men who know how to play that "weakness" like an instrument will achieve as much success as a woman who knows the way to a man's heart is through his ego. "Through his stomach" only applies to men with fewer options, imo.
Being a "good provider" doesn't only mean monetary things. There are many things money can't buy. Providing material/monetary resources is merely traditionally "expected" of a man. I think within RP contexts, sometimes there's too much obsession about the "traditional".
You could probably tell I've been hanging out with a different crowd recently, and I've developed a taste for bigger pinches of salt :p
loneliness-inc 7y ago
This is an extremely important point!
It's crucial to pair off early for optimal long term relationship health. IMO, it's wise to avoid teenage romance altogether and only enter the dating scene when you're ready to start living like an independent adult. This should be around 20-24 for most people.
girlwithabike 7y ago
I can't say whether I agree or disagree with this. I think that maybe it's ok to have practice relationships in your teens. So much depends on that not being a volatile relationship / dating pattern or a lot of sex.
I'm going mostly off of myself. I dated in HS, didn't lose my v-card did I graduated and I think I probably learned a few things about dating from those relationships and was not worse for the wear. On the other hand, I think there are girls who are probably worse off for the dating they did in HS so I'm just not sure.
Definitely the best time to square away your dating life is early 20s though as far as I'm concerned. I got in there just under the wire :-P. Grateful every day that I found my husband when I did though.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
What's the purpose of dating?
If it's to "test drive" perspective partners and relationships in general - sure, date in high-school even though you're likely to add unnecessary baggage to yourself.
However, if it's for the sole purpose of finding a life partner, it's best to wait until you're old enough to do so.
I personally didn't date at all until I was 22. I don't regret it.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
I need to nitpick here.
Your consumer analogy is flawed because healthy people don't look for something better once they found what they need. It's only in today's very unhealthy consumer culture that we (collectively) allowed ourselves to endlessly chase bigger, better and more.
OTOH, like the foundation that keeps your home standing, if the transactional element becomes off kilter, the whole relationship will fall apart. Without reciprocity, marriages fall apart.
durtyknees 7y ago
Nitpicks are always welcome! Nobody improves in an echo chamber.
Definitely. The problem is most people aren't on that level of "healthy", otherwise happy marriages would be the majority portion of the 80/20 rule, and hypergamy wouldn't be an AWALT thing.
I think it has always been a part of human nature. Older cultures were more successful with suppressing that nature, because ignorance was a general/normal way of life.
Ignorance is bliss, and God warned Adam and Eve to stay away from the tree of Knowledge for good reason too :p
The difference is: men who "look for something better" will want to collect a harem, while women who "look for something better" will want to abandon her man.
Recognizing that straying is human nature (regardless of collecting new harem members or branch-swinging), isn't it more practical (arguably more "realistic") to create a "one-of-a-kind", instead of searching for a "ready-made"?
If you can just "find" what you need in a partner (similar to a ready-made product), there will always be something better to be similarly "found" in the future. This isn't a good foundation to build a future on, imo.
It's transactional when viewed as "goods and services" (non-organic).
It's less transactional when considered symbiotic (organic, always evolving, optimized for specification, but also fragile and needs care and maintenance).
Transactions imply negotiation too, and we all know you can't negotiate commitment nor attraction. You could start a relationship based on agreements, and stick to it, but that makes a relationship very utilitarian :p
It may not be obviously utilitarian at first, but it will wear on you after enough years together.
With symbiosis, the "exchange of goods and services" isn't necessarily equal (it may seem "unfair" to an outsider, while those in the relationship are perfectly happy), and nobody keeps score to ensure the "transaction" is fair. If there's any real issues, you both stop thriving, and you will both be motivated to cooperate and "fix" the problem.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
This is more of an issue for women. Women marry up and therefore need "the best man" out there. Men marry down and are therefore more likely to be content with "a woman who meets the criteria of what I'm looking for even if she isn't the best, most beautiful etc".
While I agree with your general point here, I need to nitpick again ????
Healthy people don't consciously keep score, but subconsciously everyone keeps score to some degree. That's why when one person is investing way way more than the other into the relationship, they'll feel a slew of negative feelings as a result. Even if they weren't consciously keeping score, somewhere inside their brain, they were keeping some kind of score.
durtyknees 7y ago
That's true in general, but what I was trying to say (the correct choice of words often elude me, sorry!) is that "equal" would look very different to different people, since everyone place different values on the same things.
Also when I say "fair": there's "fair" and there's "optimized". It's similar to the difference between "existing" and "thriving".
For example, submission is a higher "price"/investment for certain women, compared to others, because we all have different personalities and hangups (everyone has hangups, just different types).
Sometimes, it's not even about absolutes. I mean, arguably, a human who has a pet cat invests more in the "relationship" by providing for all the cat's needs, while the cat only needs to look cute and maybe be willing to cuddle (some cats don't even provide cuddles). Somehow, most humans don't develop resentment over this because their cats bring joy into their lives and for them, it's worth it.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
The distinction you make between equal and fair is a very important one. Equality doesn't exist in marriage. Only a starry-eyed newlywed can think that it does. Anyone who's been married for a few years knows that equality doesn't exist in marriage.
But fairness can and should exist in marriage. Fairness doesn't mean you both contribute the same things, it means you're both contributing that which is best for each other and both of you as a unit.
For example, finances. Equality would mean you both ought to bring in the same amount of money, period! Fairness is more nuanced than that. Maybe the wife stays home to birth and raise the children while the husband earns the money. Maybe she works part time when she isn't needed at home 24/7. Maybe she works full time when there aren't children at home. There are many potential variables.
Similarly we can analyze any area of life and apply the same concept. If both are contributing 100% at the highest rate of efficiency, it'll likely be a fair deal for both even though it isn't equal.
Your analogy with the cats isn't the best one but it isn't bad either. It's not the best because your expectations of your cat are extremely different from your expectations of your spouse. It's not bad because if your cat only took energy and didn't give anything at all in return, you wouldn't be happy with it either.
durtyknees 7y ago
haha Very true. It's still not an excuse to treat your cat better than your spouse --- I've observed people doing this, it just boggles my mind. Maybe it's just me, but pleasing my husband takes less effort for better rewards :p
loneliness-inc 7y ago
This is a basic tenet of RPW thinking but is not at all common in the general population today.
That pleasing your husband is relatively easy with big rewards is a very logical conclusion. Even more so when you factor in the fact that men are generally easier to pleas because we have simpler needs.
So why do so many women keep pushing, demanding, cajoling, manipulating, nagging, criticizing and demonizing their men and men in general to do and give more and more and more?
Because biologically, women are protected and provided for by men. Biologically, women aren't problem solvers, they get men to solve the problems. Biologically, women are more emotional than men. Combine these three natural drives and women nag and cry, criticize and cajole, demand and demonize etc etc etc.
But we don't live in a harsh and dangerous world the way we did in the past. Additionally, with all the modern comforts, we ought to be satisfied with what we have. But hypergamy floats, it has no upper limit and so women will push and push and push until their men walk away. Only then do they ask - where have all the good men gone?
A RPW is a wise woman who can forsee all of this and adjust her behavior accordingly to be constructive and productive to her husband, marriage, family and children.
LateralThinker13 7y ago
Settling means lowering your expectations/requirements in a partner to the attainable; to what's available, not what you are worth, which is more.
Problem is, in today's society most women have a vastly inflated idea of what their RMV is, as they confuse SMV (who will sleep with them) with RMV (who will wife them).
Again, lowering expectations can make branch swinging more likely only IF she's underselling her actual RMV. But most women do the opposite, and especially BP women, this trait only gets worse over time in a BP relationship.
What a good RP woman needs to do is to comprehend her RMV and hunt for a partner who is worth it. But she has to be honest and not in denial about her merits and flaws in that regard. The hamster loves to delude.
ragnarockette 7y ago
The subreddit ChoosingBeggars is hilarious. There are both women and men, but it is mostly older, obese women with several kids who won’t date anyone who isn’t white, 6” and above, and making six figures. Like who do these people think they are?!
HobbesTheBrave 7y ago
The kind which can't admit that they made less than average moves in life.
girlwithabike 7y ago
Devil's Advocate: What if these women get worse over time because their lowered expectations got them a subpar man? Her RMV declines to meet his investment in the relationship?
How does she assess this?
LateralThinker13 7y ago
This wasn't primarily aimed at women who settle for a subpar man; it was aimed primarily at BP women who learn to nag their men, doing all the things that sabotage marriages, while the man (being BP as well) does all the wrong things in response.
Women can learn bad habits that lower their RMV, too. I would argue that over time, RMV can go up or down for both partners and, if they go down enough, the marriage disintegrates.
Honest self-evaluation and evaluation by people she can trust. Encourage criticism and evaluate it objectively. Test yourself, excuse nothing, apply logic and beat the hamster into submission. Hell, just learning that the hamster exists and how to look for its droppings is a great tool.
girlwithabike 7y ago
LMAO at this image.
Happy_Holly87 7y ago
Not sure if it’s a conscious decision is it? Would be interested to know. I can’t imagine ever “settling” with someone who didn’t make me happy etc etc
My husband is honestly perfect in my eyes and I genuinely 100% would never find better than him. Maybe other people look at my husband and see otherwise.
Edit; my best friend flirts with my husband and has made comments that she wishes her was more like mine. I honestly don’t think I settled. I’ve been with him more than a decade now.
girlwithabike 7y ago
I don't think I settled either. I was certainly aware of his flaws but none of them were issues that he didn't make up for in other areas.
I'm interested too. We tell women all the time to lower their expectations and I don't know how things end up for those women. Or what sorts of expectations they end up lowering. It's a big difference to "settle" for guy who is shorter than 6'0 as opposed to "settling" for a man who doesn't want kids.
I also look at one of my bffs and I have always thought she settled but I don't think she ever felt that way. Their relationship is rocky now and I still don't know if she realized that she settled.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
Ultimately, it comes back to the question of how much value do you truly have?
Everyone would like to have 100% value in their own eyes. However, how much value do you add to the life of a perspective or current mate? That's the real question which requires plenty of self awareness and self reflection to answer correctly. That's why my first post in the back to the basics series was on the topic of value.
red_philosopher 7y ago
Note in my comment above that none of the characteristics I selected we're physical ones. Searching for prime physical characteristics ahead of the one's above will definitely set you up for failure. Physical attraction is important sure, but just as men shouldn't marry for looks (they should be marrying for personality characteristics that support marriage), neither should women.
Happy_Holly87 7y ago
Actually now I think about it. I was a teenager when I got with my husband, we had nothing. We built everything together, careers, a home etc. All my firsts and all his firsts where experienced together, first car, job, home, partner.
He has a good personality, looks and earns a really good salary now. We live in a home we would never even have dreamed off back then. So settling might mean nothing long term :-)
red_philosopher 7y ago
Perhaps this is so; I'm glad you both have a successful and happy relationship.
ragnarockette 7y ago
Don’t be with someone who doesn’t make you happy (emotionally, mentally, sexually, shared goals, etc). That’s not fair to either partner.
But if you are with someone who makes you happy, don’t assume there’s someone better out there in the nebulous ether.
girlwithabike 7y ago
Spoken with the confidence of a woman who has found her man :-)
I read Aziz Ansari's relationships book a while back. He talked about Tinder creating a market place in which everyone is convinced there is someone better one swipe away. I'm thankful I found my guy before smart phones were a thing and I cannot imagine how you begin to reprogram your brain from this sort of issue.
ragnarockette 7y ago
Me too! Tinder launched in our city like 3 months after my husband and I started dating. Thank heavens!
[deleted] 7y ago
The topic of what is good versus bad settling is a really big, complex topic to me, I think female attraction is more fluid than male attraction, but I don't claim to know the degree of that, or if I'm right, even though the present science suggests it.
A related problem to settling that I've been thinking about is that there seems to be a difference in values for men and women when they are looking for a relationship, versus the values needed which make a relationship last and be good. Past social trauma and the fear of shame is playing a role in making dating fake or full of social games. I think that in the case of healthy monogamy, this is an imbalance between the roles of reproduction and survival, where sexual attraction (reproduction) as opposed to good relationship material (survival), is valued to such a degree, that a person's integrity or values gets undermined, and this makes most relationships fail.
Social trauma causes more intentional push-pull or social games in dating which makes casual sex more exciting because it creates more anticipation of whether sex could happen or not, and it makes this kind of sex appear as a bigger reward than opening up oneself, which is dangerous now because kindness is not the primary value in dating and relationships, and without kindness you can only have limited vulnerability and connection. So the survival-drive based pleasure and meaning that comes out of a cycle of kind vulnerability and responsive kindness is outside of reach for most people because they are all so driven by making sex into a game, and their sex is more emotionally-dulled, disconnected, and meaningless because of this.
Everyone wants a healthy version of "pull" instead of push-pull, which is to say that they want increasingly deepening and intensifying connection. But it requires giving another person the power to either do extreme emotional damage or extreme emotional healing to you, and while that is terrifying, it is the more exciting game. It comes down to the question in dating, would you rather have emotionally shallow sex, or have a profoundly positive and vulnerable emotional connection that you both remember for life, with the possibility of sex? Most couples aren't aligned with the survival drive, and that is why most relationships can't survive, lol.
Lastly I think an important question to ask when it comes to finding long-term relationship material is this one: Whether or not you want children, is the person you are considering for a relationship not just sexually attractive, but someone you could see yourself having children with and happily staying with?
Gardrothard 7y ago
This.
[deleted] 7y ago
If you are interested in learning more about that idea, and where I got it from, here is her youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/DoctorSueJohnson
Gardrothard 7y ago
Thanks :D
[deleted] 7y ago
No problem.
Shaela90 7y ago
I think settling is different for everybody. We must know what we want out of life and then go find a partner with whom we can create said life. Being realistic about what we bring to the table, what we want to achieve and then selecting our partners accordingly and not by some fantasy ‘standards’ we might have in our heads.
‘Healthy’ settling might be something like ok ...I know I’m not really into having children, so I should cross the -must be able to support a family by himself- requirement of my future spouse's 'must haves'.
Another example would be ...a guy that’s balding or on the shorter side. Do i really NEED a full head of hair and a 6 ft man( being a 5’3 woman myself) to be happy? Not really.
The problem with settling is that it has an ugly connotation to it somehow. Many people have this idea that settling means having to wed someone who you don’t find attractive, or is a complete deadbeat, just to have the wife title and maybe children. That’s a huge no no and IT WILL create resentment and a toxic environment down the line.
girlwithabike 7y ago
Do you think healthy settling should start at a young age or is it something that becomes more necessary as you grow older and the pool gets shallower?
I think you are right and I've seen women come in and say "but I've already given up x, y, z how much lower do I have to go". And I can't imagine finding a mate who I felt that way about.
It sounds like you are saying that the things you "give up" are qualities you don't really need and should still be balanced out by the man's good qualities in order to avoid resentment?
Shaela90 7y ago
Pretty much, yeah. I know that when I lacked dating experience I thought I could only be happy with a very specific kind of guy. Well...experience has proved me wrong. In some ways, I've become much more picky, in others ...not at all.
Overall, as I got older and more established myself, I noticed I attracted higher quality guys. Way more attractive and accomplished than I did as an early 20s woman. My dating pool has shifted tremendously as my career took off (which also provided the funds to take better care of myself) and I see it getting even better actually. Sure it helps that I work in a male-dominated high earning field, but I also refined my search, kept very fit and invested in my appearance. In my experience pretty much any guy around here would pick the fit, established 28 year-old over her confused, struggling 24 year-old counterpart.
I think at a younger age, good values instilled by her family play a huge role in a woman's ability to be the right kind of picky. And not every young woman has good values. In fact, most don't. When she transitions from her mid to late twenties, with self awareness and good connections her prospects improve a lot because she has learned to 'settle' for just the things that she knows she needs to be happy: attraction, admiration, respect and communication - things most 20 year olds aren't even able to describe in detail, let alone tailor them to their own needs. No jacked, popular, rich guys but rather the interesting, but rather introverted rising IT professional who she met one morning while out for a jog.
red_philosopher 7y ago
If you don't want children, there's basically no reason to get married.
BewareTheOldMan 7y ago
"If you don't want children, there's basically no reason to get married."
On a female-dominated forum where the focus is mostly securing a relationship that leads to marriage your statement is technically correct, but I suspect you'll be met with mostly disagreement...that - and the example of the rare couple that chooses to marry despite deciding NOT to produce children.
There are those who argue that producing children for the purposes of establishing legacy and childrearing in a loving, stable, and productive, two-parent household is the last, legitimate reason left to enter marriage...assuming it is in fact in a loving, stable, and productive household. Empirical data, research, and long-term studies shows that married, two-parent households generally produce best/better childhood outcomes.
That said - I don't understand the technique whereby kids are produced prior to marriage in some "reverse-technique" to engineer a marrrige/family situation. This reverse-engineering is generally met with failure.
Assuming the intent to never produce children, every other action and benefit that comes with marriage can be achieved or conducted without a formal and legally binding marriage contract.
Notably...this long discussion on "settling" and hyperamy while men are assuming the great risk in marriage. If a woman is "marrying up," it's generally men who assume the greater risk.
I submit the biggest risk for the hypergamous woman is that at some point you max out and can no longer move to the next branch. It's truly a risky gamble, but we seem to be at a point in general culture where many women haven’t learned that the opportunity to branch-swing is finite and limited by age, looks, overall RMV, and lest anyone forget…all that baggage (emotional, financial, other men’s children, etc.)
red_philosopher 7y ago
I don't expect to be greeted with open arms and celebrated for stating an unpopular truth.
girlwithabike 7y ago
Couples will take their own approach to this. You can't project your values.
bloobird08 7y ago
Tax breaks and being able to visit in the hospital are good enough reasons.
ragnarockette 7y ago
I disagree. My husband and I aren’t planning on children (we aren’t 100% set on it. I’d say 90%) and we still like being a family unit. Having a firm commitment and becoming a true team was very important to us!
girlwithabike 7y ago
A shared last name is pretty great. It really firms up the fact that you are part of something together and not just a part of your family of origin anymore.
ragnarockette 7y ago
I agree. We talk all the time about how happy we are that we are each other’s new family. Both of our families are highly, highly dysfunctional and love to butt into our lives.
It really does make wayyyy more of an impact to say “My husband and I have already made a decision about that,” vs “my boyfriend.” Like we are real adults building something for ourselves.
red_philosopher 7y ago
To each their own. RP advocates against marriage for a wide variety of legitimate reasons. Even children. The below "perks" can be achieved legally anyway without the legal dangers of a marriage contract.
But fair enough.
Shaela90 7y ago
It depends. Not all countries have the same traditions or the same socioeconomic patterns.
I'm Eastern European and marriage/child rearing laws are way different here. The mother gets to stay home for 2 years with the newborn and her employer cannot terminate her during this time. She also gets paid maternity leave during that time. Alimony and child support laws are also much more even.
red_philosopher 7y ago
I will accept this position, but in general, things are shifting towards a more western attitude even in Europe.
Shaela90 7y ago
Indeed they do. I was just trying to pinpoint that marriage in Europe is a bit of a different affair. There's just not much pressure around here to push for marriage, except in very traditional communities. That makes the reasons for which people get married very different.
CalvinRichland 7y ago
If you have some long list of must haves for a man and won't date anyone else you will have a problem and there are many things you don't know you want or don't want you don't yet know.
This doesn't mean you should date men with no job that are ugly.
Understand perfect does not exist.
girlwithabike 7y ago
Any thoughts on how a woman should go about cutting down her list?
I once told a girl to go measure where she thought 6'1 was on the wall and then measure it. She measured to 5'8 LOL.
How should an anonymous woman reading RPW review and revise her "list" to make sure her expectations are within reason?
BewareTheOldMan 7y ago
"Any thoughts on how a woman should go about cutting down her list?"
Make a list of everything she wants and desires in her ideal man and then honestly and objectively compare herself to every criteria and/or item on the list. Include everything - deal breakers, non-negotiables, basic wish-list...essentially everything.
Whatever criteria she fails to meet herself is removed from the list. This literally whittles the list down to five to possibly seven items.
What we have in general society is many women who have a long list of criteria they themselves cannot meet. It's basic and gross overestimation of SMV and RMV. One of the worst examples I saw was an Oprah Winfrey/Steve Harvey (as a relationship specialist) video in which a woman had a 40-item or more criteria checklist - many she could not meet herself. IT WAS RIDICULOUS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSq4RPWfrz8
Title: The Ideal Man? One Woman's 43-Point List...
This is practical and actionable advice. If most women implemented this technique they would get a much better defined, real-world, and workable criteria of desirable traits and characteristics in searching for in their ideal man.
In short - you have to BE the person you’re looking for...keeping in mind that men who are 6 feet or more, earn a six-figure income, and have a well-defined six-pack are not only few in number, but also have numerous options for available women that eliminate the average woman. Real Talk - you have to be much better than average and very close to a top 20% or higher woman.
Another technique is to determine five basic traits and/or characteristics. My five were/are: aesthetics (reasonable attractiveness), intelligence, responsible, compatible, and a pleasant personality...using the acronym AIRCP. There are of course subcategories associated with each trait and characteristic, but this was a good starting point and led me to the best relationship and best woman ever.
The basic criteria list I almost always tell folks who have trouble getting started is:
genuine attraction and interest, good compatibility, shared life-goals, and shared life-interests. It's still basically five general items, very easy to remember, and a nice, base format to start an initial search.
These techniques/start points are useful for both men AND women.
In EVERY case and no matter the criteria, an honest and objective assessment of one's own SMV/RMV is a necessary step. I cannot emphasize this enough as this prevents overestimating one’s own worth.
Elumamai 7y ago
I'm curious... what if the entirety of that list is practically synonymous with herself (short of a few traits that make the man, well, inherently a man [ie a penis, the ability to cause a tingle, etc.]), but is still considerable (due to various interests, personality quirks, etc.)?
BewareTheOldMan 7y ago
A good example of a positive couples-match is a woman listing 10x must-have characteristics and traits she desires in a man and this same woman meets 8 of 10 of these SAME characteristics and traits she's searching for in a prospective life-mate. 80% is a pretty good match and suggests high compatibility.
No one's perfect...and 7 of 10 MIGHT be workable depending on a man's overall assessment of a specific woman and her ADDED-VALUE to his life.
If the math is 6 of 10 or below, both parties can expect the relationship to have problems. Bottom line - a woman who feels her man is deficient in a few areas or foregoes her standards and requirements will very likely lose respect for her mate. More importantly - the man will notice a woman's general lack of effort and interest.
Most men generally will NOT settle for less than a woman who fits most, if not all of his standards and requirements. This is especially true for marriage. One-Night Stands don’t count - there’s no serious vetting for wife and mother traits, character, loyalty, integrity, and/or sexual history.
When I have this discussion with both men AND women I list the following as must-haves for BOTH parties…genuine attraction and interest, high compatibility, shared life interests, and shared life-goals.
This basic combination will usually get most couples off to a great start. Detailed vetting and observation, along with quality time as a couple will do the rest.
CalvinRichland 7y ago
Drop it completely. A description is not a list though. If you can't state what you want in one or two short sentences you are doomed. Also i wont date women if i found out they have some big list dont need the hassle even if i check every box.
For me i have found actually I usually do check all the boxes but they don't actually like who i am. I have a unique personality and interests, which are much more who i am than tall, smart, successful etc.
Find a guy that you are attracted to that is successful to your standards and shares your interests. Thats it, now go date one that fits that and see how it goes.
girlwithabike 7y ago
I doubt my husband would appreciate that :-P. I'm interested in the topic from a purely intellectual and advice giving standpoint.
Guywithgirlwithabike 7y ago
As long as the man is me, I will be fine with it.
[deleted] 7y ago
The word “settling” isn’t nice. I think we should avoid it.
I feel like some people hear have thought about this way more than I have. I consider myself pretty red pill. I don’t want to sound simple but... it takes me a lot to change teams. I’m pretty loyal.
My problem is I put up with a lot of garbage I shouldn’t. You almost need to burn my house down for me to go straying.
girlwithabike 7y ago
I like the economic idea of 'trade-offs' more than 'settling' but 'settling' is usually the term that is used.
This is how it should be though right! You pick a man and then you hold to your decision (except in a few obvious cases).
[deleted] 7y ago
Absolutely. I have dated in the past but I hate it.
Changing teams isn’t enjoyable.
“Love the one your with”
bloobird08 7y ago
I don’t like dating either but I think it’s you need to do it a lot to find the best possible fit. It’s part of vetting.
red_philosopher 7y ago
Avoiding something unpleasant doesn't make it less valid. That is PC thinking and entirely BP.
The real question here is why would you have to change teams if you already selected a "team" (spouse) and treated them properly? This also suggests that you are okay with not vetting properly and accepting the choices you make.
Idk, this seems pretty far-fetched to me from someone who considers themselves "pretty red pill".
[deleted] 7y ago
I’m sorry, I’m going to opt out or this conversation. I wasn’t looking to debate. I feel like this post is being overthought.
red_philosopher 7y ago
No offense taken.
Guywithgirlwithabike 7y ago
The opposition to the word "settling" isn't due to it being an unpleasant but true reality, her opposition is based on it being an inaccurate description.
red_philosopher 7y ago
I'm what world do the words "isn't nice" not mean unpleasant and mean innaccurate? Get real.
[deleted] 7y ago
I don't think you should ever "lower" expectations but work towards being more attractive to attain them. For all intents and purposes my SO settled for me. I'm a filthy 4 on a scale of 10. My husband is probably like a 9 now and an 8 when we met. He's incredibly happy with me. But he's also odd, he's intelligent enough to want a deep connection and realises he probably won't get that with an Ariana grande look alike. He doesn't seem bothered that I'm 13 years older them him or close to two feet shorter then he is. In his words women being told not to settle is like treating dating like scratch off tickets you don't win with every one and occasionally you break even and it keeps you invested but your constantly looking for that next big win.
Elumamai 7y ago
Odd is awesome, as is a deep connection. Nice catch.
HobbesTheBrave 7y ago
If you're not royalty, don't expect to marry a prince.
Hammocknapping 7y ago
Having realistic expectations, does not necessarily equate to “settling.” I also don’t think that realistic expectations are limited to items like: he has a kind heart, he values life long learning, he wants to be a father.
Here is the list of realistic expectations I had when I was looking for a husband:
Must be male
Must be my age or older, with a preference for men 5 years older
Must not be showing signs of hair loss, with a preference for thick, light color hair
Must have received good dental and orthodontic care
Must eat meat and animal products, and not be a picky eater
Must be at least 6 inches taller than myself, so at at least 5’8
Must be interested in physical fitness, but not to the degree of being “ripped” or overly muscular
Must have a 4 year degree, which was not obtained online, with a strong preference for additional, professional degree(s)
Must be goal oriented, have a public service mindset, and passionate about their career choice
Must have conservative values, including a similar financial background
Must come from a middle class background, with a very strong preference for upper middle class
Must be comfortable with the prospect of not having children
Those were my “Musts,” which does not include more subtle character traits such as a sense of humor or the ability to communicate their emotions. Those things can take over a year to figure out, and my “Musts” were limited to things that I could figure out in the period before monogamy and physical interaction.
I was quickly able to weed out men thanks to my “Musts” list, but it certainly did not weed out so many men that there was no one to date.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
That's only true in today's oversexualized, promiscuous, cc riding world.
If a woman rides her way around town in her younger years while ignoring all the responsible men and then suddenly starts looking for a BB when she turns 28 - naturally, the man will feel as if she settled for him because she did. He wasn't good enough for her in her best years, he doesn't deserve her worst years.
This is a very important question!
IMO, a realistic expectation is when it's balanced with a corresponding benefit. Most, if not all gender stereotypes from the past are various expectations and their counterbalance.
Unfortunately, many women today have a laundry list of expectations from their perspective and current husbands while not offering much in terms of corresponding value.
It really depends.
If her expectations were ridiculous and she has now recalibrated herself to the realm of reason - she should be fine.
If her expectations were reasonable but she settled because she got desperate - yea, that's a recipe for resentment.
If she's fickle and keeps changing her mind on things - there's no predicting the future...
We need to teach our children to appreciate what they have and to root out any form of jealousy from a very young age and onwards.
We need to set a good example for our children so they know what reasonable expectations look like in life. We can't wait until they're in relationships. That would be way too late.
As mentioned above, reasonable expectations are when the responsibility is counterbalanced with a benefit of equal value. This is true for life in general, not just within relationships.
girlwithabike 7y ago
So of course, I was talking about the woman feeling as though she settled, but permit me to nitpick at this for a moment. I know it's a common feeling among men.
Youth is not attractive in men and women date up. If you go on a college campus and put a freshman man and a senior man next to each other there is typically a marked difference in physical maturity.
Success is attractive because it shows something about your character: you are intelligent, hard working, able to navigate the world. It's an outward sign of who you are internally - certainly more so than a woman's beauty.
Men are gleeful in one breath that they age like wine and in the other they complain that they are only appealing to women when they are older and successful. You can't have it both ways. If youth is attractive, then you lose that at the same rate women do. Instead we like men for their character (often determined by their status, sometimes determined by their perceived potential). A man who finds himself attractive to women at 30 is seeing the payoff of a decade of developing himself. It's not that a woman is settling for him at 30, it's that he's more of a catch at 30.
If men are human doings then they have to do something before they are a prize to be had.
Anyway, /rant. I can't tell anyone how to feel but I think that whole thing is a bit of BP idealism that says "I should be loved for me" creeping in.
Mom taught me that marriage is work. People disagree with the premise but it put the idea in my head that life isn't a fairy tale, we won't like everything about our partner every day and relationships aren't something you drift through - sometimes you gotta pick up an oar and row. It means I won't leave when there are bumps in the road because I never had expectations that there wouldn't be bumps in the road. She messed up a lot of things, but this wasn't one of them.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
Rant accepted.
I know and I agree with your point here. My point which you nitpicked was adding the male component to this problem. Settling isn't only bad for her, it's bad for him too. Neither will be happy with the arrangement. Essentially, settling will spread misery.
BewareTheOldMan 7y ago
"Settling isn't only bad for her, it's bad for him too."
It's bad for the woman, but worse for the man who is essentially Mr. Beta Bucks.
Not only is the woman's infidelity a likely and foregone conclusion, he's going to get smoked in the divorce.
I had a nice, long, detailed and productive conversation with a young man last week who seemingly has no idea of TRP, RPW, or RP terms and philosophies, but was acutely aware of the mess associated with today's dating, mating, and marriage paradigm.
He was not a Top 20% Man, but easily a High Value Upper 25-35% dude, yet having trouble finding a suitable mate and has all but eliminated women in his age range and older. The conversation content almost deserves its own Summary Posting.
loneliness-inc 7y ago
Exactly!
I'd love to read such a summary.