Reading the work of Dan Ariely, a Psychology professor at Duke who prefers the sexy job description of Behavioral Economist, I’m often struck by how frequently he explores human behavior in the context of dating and relationships. This approach has become so common among researchers that it has spawned the term Sexual Economics. Personally, I’ve always found economic concepts very applicable to sex and dating.
In his fascinating book Predictably Irrational, Ariely demonstrates the fallacy of Supply and Demand. The traditional view is that the price of something is determined where supply and demand intersect. Using sex as an example, historically in the U.S. the price of sex was marriage, or at least an engagement. (It is believed that up to 50% of the Pilgrims had intercourse before officially marrying.) Social norms dictated this price, and women withheld easy access to sex until they secured commitment. From the male point of view, the price of sex was high, requiring a lifelong pledge of love and fidelity.
After the Sexual Revolution, those norms rapidly broke down until we arrived at today’s price, usually some variation of sex after date #3 and/or the male’s expression of willingness to be exclusive, at least for now. As the price of sex has plummeted in our society, the price of commitment has risen. In a study by the National Marriage Project at UVA on why men are delaying marriage, the #1 reason given by respondents was:
“I can get sex without marriage more easily than in times past.”
However, the relationship between supply and demand is not entirely independent. According to Ariely, buyers can often be manipulated because they do not have a good understanding of their own preferences and the corresponding prices they are willing to pay. In the world of consumer goods, MSRPs, advertising, and sales promotions all influence the consumer’s willingness to pay. These are supply-side variables.
In the sexual marketplace, women (the sellers of sex) can manipulate prices on an individual basis. They have a range of “sales tactics” they employ, e.g:
- Delaying sex to drive up the price.
- Charging a “luxury goods” price if the female is especially attractive.
- Sweetening the deal via emotional escalation.
- Indicating a willingness to forego other opportunities via fidelity.
On the demand side, Ariely describes something called “arbitrary coherence.” Rather than being primarily motivated by real preference, which is what we should expect, buyers often make their decisions based on memory instead. This is not surprising – we are all conditioned by our past experiences. We have gotten used to doing things a certain way, and have established expectations. We seek coherence with past decisions each time we make a new one. That’s true for relationships as well.
Just as women may influence the sell side, men may influence the buy side by cohering with previous decisions, e.g:
- Expecting sex in the timeframe he previously experienced it.
- Changing the requirements for commitment based on the behavior of a previous partner, i.e. price discrimination.
- Continuing to pursue short-term flings or ONSs even when they are not enjoyable.
- Viewing the exchange as devoid of emotional investment.
Obviously, previous experiences may have a profound effect even if they have nothing to do with our true preferences today. The guy who foregoes a great girlfriend prospect and the girl who hooks up to be cool are making choices that are not necessarily an accurate reflection of real pleasure or utility.
Ariely suggests the importance of becoming aware of our own vulnerabilities. Question your repeated behaviors and decisions. How did you establish this preference? Does it still make sense? How much pleasure are you getting out of it?
We are not very rational beings by nature, but we can make better choices by considering more carefully what it is we really want, and what we are willing to sacrifice in order to get it.
{ 327 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 »
Used to be, there was only one market: the market for marriage. Without marriage, most individuals did not have sex. Throwing that Pilgrim ‘statistic’ out there is a red herring, they all died a long time ago and we really don’t know what they actually did.
There are 2 markets at work today: the marriage market and the sexual market. Much of the confusion today is due to the fact that people seeking marriage are forced into the sexual marketplace to find a partner. The catch-22 is that participation in the sexual market erodes your value in the marriage market. But, if you don’t participate in the sexual market, you may have a hard time finding anyone to marry.
Economics can be such a bitch…
While I agree with this, I think some of the examples you give for supply and demand shifting in the SMP are too rational, and that there are much more “irrational” ways to shift demand/supply. For example, principle of least interest i.e. playing hard to get (sexually for women and commitmentwise for men) will increase one’s perceived value.
Emotional investment, etc: we need to look at opportunity cost and perceived value.
That we are frequently wrong about our cost estimates does not make us any less rational; it just means we’re not infallible. One could argue that bad romantic relationships are the ULTIMATE example of “sunk costs fallacy” in action.
Marriage is not a “price”. Marriage is more like a good, just like sex. Using marriage as the price for sex is like saying that a college degree is the price for a good job.
Perhaps a college degree is a prerequisite for a job, but it’s hardly a price as it’s something most people would get anyway. At least, it’s not a price for everyone.
Here’s a simple test. Suppose you have to pay $5 for an apple, if you can get it without paying the five dollars then your utility would unequivocally improve as you can spend that $5 to buy an orange or something else. Everyone would agree that the $5 is a price. In the case of marriage, a lot of men would not trade marriage and sex for no marriage and sex. A lot of fathers would disagree that marriage is a cost or a price they had to pay for sex.
I think there’s a subset of men who hates long-term relationships. Yet, there’s another subset who have certainly benefited from marriage.
Treating all men as a homogenous group of neanderthals looking for quick sex without commitment is a mistake. If you want to get married then find a guy who does want to get married, have a family, and treat you well. It’s much, much easier than using “game” to persuade a player to buy a ring.
By the way, I wouldn’t want to get married to a girl who shows “a willingness to forego other opportunities via fidelity” as a sales tactic. I’d rather pick a girl who’s repulsed by promiscuity to the point where you can’t even pay her to have sex with anyone other than her partner.
I don’t know why guys would “continue to pursue short-term flings or ONSs even when they are not enjoyable.” Don’t they have better things to do with their time like hanging out with friends or traveling?
Maybe I’m not old enough to worry about finding a mate, but I honestly think people should just chill out about dating, their SMVs, and the whole alpha/beta/evolutionary psychology debates. Just be nice, and find a nice person in return. It shouldn’t be that hard. Also, there’s a lot more to life than relationships and sex.
Maybe it’s also the whole issue with American entitlement and #firstworldproblems.
If you have great friends & family, a job that provides enough money without stressing you out, access to delicious food, and enough time to enjoy some hobbies then you should be very happy.
If you don’t have some of the above then you can increase your happiness far more by getting those than by finding the right mate.
I’m in a respectful relationship, but even if I weren’t I’d still be happy with my life.
I just want to add some perspective because a lot of people here tend to be resentful of not being married to an Alpha or not having a number that’s as high as the frat-jocks.
@Russ:
“One could argue that bad romantic relationships are the ULTIMATE example of “sunk costs fallacy” in action.”
Yes, but there is a price to pay for exiting those relationships.
So, I’m going to argue that it’s normally more like a metastable state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability
“I just want to add some perspective because a lot of people here tend to be resentful of not being married to an Alpha or not having a number that’s as high as the frat-jocks.”
I don’t think Cooper’s goal is to have a number as high as the frat-jocks.
However, I could just be projecting here.
Well, I triggered moderation. That’s odd.
“I can get sex without marriage more easily than in times past.”
That cow / milk thing never goes away.
Sadly, unlike in the past, there are a lot more milk squirters and weeding them out to get to the wife material is a challenge.
@Vae Victus
The statistic was derived by examining wedding and birth records. A very large number of babies were born “early.”
Good point.
“Sadly, unlike in the past, there are a lot more milk squirters and weeding them out to get to the wife material is a challenge.”
True dat, but recognizing the club tarts and fakers (98% under 35) is key to finding the unicorn worth the investment. Admittedly, I think I found one and as a very high value guy (super high test and INFJ) she is going to get the nod.
Why?
-im 38, she is 27, size 1 and stunning, has demonstrated great parenting and I want at least one more kid.
-She is a bartender, and as a big (6’1″/240) dude, she knows how to deflect unwanted attention before calling in the bouncer (soon to be me)
-she is finishing her degree in nursing instead of “fiscal/administrative/masculine who cares” for a future mom. Very attractive.
but over it all, she is legitimately kind, serious when it counts, demonstrates clear desire, and looks out for my interests as an emotional individual instead of a draft horse.
A red pill dude with looks/resources/status/ability to emotionally connect just doesn’t say no to all that no matter what he can attract. But absent the red pill and knowing how to filter for quality, I would have just recreated the screeching mess of my first marriage and probably sacrificed another poor child to the Family Court grinder.
Throwing that Pilgrim ‘statistic’ out there is a red herring, they all died a long time ago and we really don’t know what they actually did.
I’m guessing that statistic is derived from comparing dates of marriage to the date of birth of a family’s oldest child.
Tilikum,
Made a very similar decision sans the earlier relationship. I think a lot of “red pill” sorts are bitter b/c they didn’t get coached on how to filter when younger.
JP,
Not sure I buy metastability here, but I’m willing to be sold if you wanna pitch it….
@SW–I see you got there before I did re the pilgrim stat. Churches kept good records of vital stats.
@INTJ
Can you clarify this? Are you saying that PLI is rational or irrational? Does it lead to higher perceived value?
Word.
@Tilikum
It’s all about the filters in this SMP, for both sexes. Well done, and warm congratulations, it sounds like you definitely found a quality woman.
“We are not very rational beings by nature, but we can make better choices by considering more carefully what it is we really want, and what we are willing to sacrifice in order to get it. ”
That statement may be the wisest advice about many issues, especially dating. I am a big Dan Ariely fan (and a Fuqua alum!) and I enjoy applying his theories to the SMP today. But the conclusion is sound advice even without the economics.
I would make one additional to Susan’s excellent article. If you view men as the supply and women and the consumer, it is easier to understand hooking up culture. Women compete for desirable men, so they “hook up” on the guy’s terms (since that is the only “good” that is available to them). Then those experiences lead the women to pursue more hook ups, “even if they have nothing to do with [their] true preferences today.” (quoting Susan again). Only when women take personal inventory and reassess can they break the cycle.
@Susan:
“These two are definitely in the limerance stage.”
Can’t we call it the new relationship energy stage or something?
I know this because I’ve gone limerant, and it has nothing to do with being in the early part of a relationship.
It’s a completely different experience and I know for a fact that I never went limerant for any of my girlfriends (or wife).
It’s a bizarre experience when you don’t know what it is.
I’m honestly not being INTJ picky, limerance is essentially romantic OCD and has nothing to do with actually being in a relationship with someone.
@Russ:
I will get you a proper analysis once I have time to think more carefully. I’m still at work because I have too much work.
I love attorneying.
@ Susan
Yeah I mean it leads to higher perceived value, which is irrational on the perceiver’s part.
@ Benton
That actually makes so much sense!
I’ve never heard any of the regulars complain about that here…
“Changing the requirements for commitment based on the behavior of a previous partner, i.e. price discrimination.”
“Indicating a willingness to forego other opportunities via fidelity. ”
I’m in a FWB with someone who wants me to forego other oppurtunities while he indulges his. He made it clear that while he is not seeing anyone else at this particular moment, I should nurse no exclusive expectations from him at any time because he’s a “business man” and meets new people all the time and that DADT was his life policy. When I said, “same here” he sat up fast and said that I MUST inform him before I start seeing or having sex with someone else because and I qoute, “there can be multiple breasts but only 1 dick”.
?!?!?!
@ JP:
I find this surprising since you’ve shared many tales of falling limerent!
Interesting. As a non-limerent, the only insight I have into it is through my sister. She is limerent and has talked about it in length. No offense, but I much rather prefer not being limerent!
@Iggles:
“I find this surprising since you’ve shared many tales of falling limerent!”
Apparently I’m a special snowflake.
I can’t say that I’ve ever enjoyed being a special snowflake in this respect, since I was both limerant and unable to approach because I was shy.
I don’t recommend having this combo.
“That cow / milk thing never goes away.”
It does in this equation;
” If you view men as the supply and women and the consumer, it is easier to understand hooking up culture. Women compete for desirable men, so they “hook up” on the guy’s terms (since that is the only “good” that is available to them). Then those experiences lead the women to pursue more hook ups, “even if they have nothing to do with [their] true preferences today.” (quoting Susan again). Only when women take personal inventory and reassess can they break the cycle.”
Men are the cows now.
Decades ago, when I was young, I knew two–or, depending on the definition of “knew” as opposed to knew of–three women who had it all. If there had been an all-conference homecoming queen, they’d have been it, and very likely National Honor Society, plus common sense and a pleasant, easy-going personality. Not pushovers.
Each of them was dating and eventually married guys everybody thought were losers. Family tried to tell them [generally has the opposite effect, but the point is the family could tell]; friends.
Each was divorced within a year of marriage.
I don’t see that they were competing for desirable men. They could have, had to fight them off. Stuck with Willy Lump-lump.
Once you get past the, say, junior year in college, the frat-jock had better have a lot more going for him than a Greek pin and a varsity letter. But at least he has these, or one or the other.
The guys in question had nothing visible. And one of them was cheating from the get-go. As we all look down and say, “He didn’t stay home for THAT?”
That has two problems for other guys. One is that it’s confusing. If you believe in SMP ratings, this makes no sense. The women had 10 to sell and went for a Walmart discount, afatrouct. (As far as the rest of us could tell.)
And the other is the perennial, “women say they want….”
It’s not all women, of course, but it was a substantial portion of the 10s in the area.
I’m sure we could stipulate without any evidence at all that these women had rare situations that don’t apply to all, or even most of the rest of the 10s. Daddy issues is pretty popular.
Never mind. It looked like what it looked like and, in addition to being sorry for them, some were confused and some were annoyed ranging to angry.
Upshot is that saying women, especially top women, compete for desirable men is sufficiently dependent on the unfixed definition of “desirable” as to make the assertion quite hazy. Or at least not useful.
@Situational 10:
“?!?!?!”
Since I’m apparently here to answer questions, I will answer yours.
He’s not offering FWB.
He’s offering you a place in his harem.
Congratulations!
@INTJ
I’m making only a minor point, I know, but I think it works this way:
The PLI causes the more eager of the couple (e.g. the buyer) to perceive a romantic scarcity, precisely analogous to a commodity shortage. It creates a fear that the price is about to go up.
I think it highlights the difference between cost and value. They are never the same thing.
Richard Aubrey, were any of those guys good looking? Particularly funny? Good in bed (did you hear through the grapevine?) Maybe they were just especially kindhearted? Also, what made all the others call them losers? Jobless?
“Only when women take personal inventory and reassess can they break the cycle”
and arrive all multi-penised and stunned to see men in their league who aren’t inclined to follow through…
.
“Men are the cows now”
Men are whatever women dictate. Its that “women are the gatekeepers of sex” thing.
.
“Men are whatever women dictate. Its that “women are the gatekeepers of sex” thing.”
I didn’t enjoy my time as a cow.
@JP
The Stones did “(I’ll Never Be) Your Beast of Burden” a long time ago.
Could you ever imagine a time when Mick Jagger could sing “Under My Thumb” without repercussions?
“Could you ever imagine a time when Mick Jagger could sing “Under My Thumb” without repercussions?”
It would make far more money today. The feminists would go batshit crazy and drive the sales
.
Star: “or not having a number that’s as high as the frat-jocks.”
As Ion said about the women, the regular men don’t complain about this either. Who wants n=40? I’d rather it be much lower, just not TOO low.
Situational 10 is Plain Jane with yet another fake story. Come on kids, you know the pattern by now.
Houston, we have “multipenised” at 33, you are a go….
@JP
“He’s not offering FWB.
He’s offering you a place in his harem.
Congratulations!”
+1 Yup.
All these acronyms are blending together.
Its not just buy the cow, milk for free, its that too many people have forgotten that milk comes from cows – and its the cow we should want. But far too few are even looking for the cow anymore. All they see is milk. All they want is milk. Milk first. So the SMP has become the dairy section; just isles and isles of milk and all these “choices”, homogenized for uniformity, pasteurized from pesky emotion and communication. Every section seems is the same. The price is low, if one raises the price, there are always cheaper labels. Drink up, then recycle the container in the blue bin; its back on the shelf next friday and its reggae night.
You want to find the cow, look for cows not milk. Yes, please know what you actually want. You may just find that cow before the vulgar-pop-porn culture has finished turning all the milk into government cheese. USDA – Higher authority approved. Its Healthy! And Natural!
We’ve got a culture that thinks its great that cheese comes from a can and sex comes from the internet. We kept moving milk further from the farm, what did we expect? Guess we will have to wait for the fembots and then the cows will rise up and attempt to reclaim their rightful place. Until then, “got milk?”
@Situational 10
So “businessmen” cows have lowered the price of sex? Or just regular mancows? So women are paying to ride cows? No, what I mean is, you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher’s ass… No, wait. It’s gotta be your bull…
- RIP, C.F.
I don’t know if I’m the cow or not, but it doesn’t really matter. I’m not going to eat government cheese even if it is delivered to my door for free. I’ll be on the farm where they grow those chickens with enormous tits.
“The guy who foregoes a great girlfriend prospect ….are not necessarily an accurate reflection of real pleasure or utility.”
Rest assured MOST men are not foregoing great girlfriend prospects, they’re holding on to them for dear life.
What on earth is real pleasure or utility? Sexual utility is subjective.
Situational 10 is Plain Jane with yet another fake story. Come on kids, you know the pattern by now.
I don’t even bother to point it out, it seems some people want to talk with her for whatever reason…
@Anacaona:
“Situational 10 is Plain Jane with yet another fake story. Come on kids, you know the pattern by now.
I don’t even bother to point it out, it seems some people want to talk with her for whatever reason…”
Because she clearly needs love and attention and a sense of belonging to a tightly knit group of dear friends who adore her.
Although posting at HUS doesn’t move the ball forward on any of those items.
And saying that name caused me to self-moderate.
“Situational 10 is Plain Jane with yet another fake story. Come on kids, you know the pattern by now.”
Let me guess…StarCraft and Situational10 are both PJ? I’m always last to figure out it.
Iggles:
“No offense, but I much rather prefer not being limerent!”
I am limerent, and I agree. lol…
“Only when women take personal inventory and reassess can they break the cycle”
What makes you think they want to?
Situational 10.
I was vaguely acquainted with two of the guys. They were not particularly good-looking and in public had the presence of a toilet seat. Not even particularly romantic sullenness.
I worked with the gf of the third guy who would show me pix of him–he was elsewhere that summer–and tell me about him.
He was above average good-looking but not great. As to bed, that’s interesting. I talked to her about some alumni stuff twenty years later and she said something about life being interesting when you have a strong sex drive–do not even think of asking me why she brought that up–and that whosits was married and had three kids. From which I gathered she wore him out.
She had no time for fools. She was polite, but when we left the company of the self-important and the blowhard, she would have us rolling with her flaying remarks about the clown. But when Lump-lump came up, she got all mushy. Showed me a picture of him looking into the woods. Could have been contemplating, could have been looking for a place to pee, could have been wondering where he’d left the canoe. “I love to think of him like this.” Me…. Don’t say a word, Aubrey.
We were doing some field work, of a worthy sort, and he was taking a trip with some buddies. You may recall when beer cans first had the pop-top. The thing came off. So, within about a week, every public space was ankle-deep in pop tops. That’s why they don’t come off now. I remember a mail call where he had shipped her a box bigger than a brick full of pop tops. She had an unfocused look on her face. I figured, this is a crazy time (1968) and we all dealt with it in our own way and if he and his buddies thought creating mobile beer shortages was a good idea, who was I do say nay. And sending her the pop tops was hip, edgy, irony. That’s it.
But she was doing good work, hard work, dangerous work and he was drinking beer across the country.
Anyway, when I was trying to track her down twenty years later for some alumni stuff, I reached her uncle and identified myself, saying among other things that I knew she’d married a guy named…. Freddie. “Freddie. That son of a bitch. Don’t know what she saw in him. He was never the marrying type.”
When we planned to return from our project, we got out the maps and figured who with cars would deliver those who didn’t have cars. It was a two-day trip. Fell to me to deliver her to her parents, who were nice people. In the hour or so when we got her unpacked and I got a beer and directions to the nearest expressway and home, there seemed no reason for her to be having daddy issues, or any other kind. But you never know. I was the hero, delivering daughter safe and sound, so I wasn’t going to get any details of family dynamics.
Beyond which, deponent speculateth not.
The conclusion stands: Saying women compete for desirable men requires the defintion of desirable to be hazy, or overbroad, even to have a half chance of standing up to people’s experiences.
These were three 10s who gave it away for jacksquatall.
And there aren’t that many 10s around. To see three of them in my limited venue in about a year and a half doing this is a big fraction.
Leads to confusion ranging through annoyance to, in extreme cases, I suppose, MGOTW.
“These were three 10s who gave it away for jacksquatall.
And there aren’t that many 10s around. To see three of them in my limited venue in about a year and a half doing this is a big fraction.
Leads to confusion ranging through annoyance to, in extreme cases, I suppose, MGOTW.”
That’s your opinion looking from the outside in. There’s a whole lot of factors that go into why two individuals fall in love with each other. MGTOW think they are owed girlfriends and they think the Universe owes them for whoever they want to want them back. Life doesn’t work that way. We all want who we want, for a combination of reasons, rational and irrational, concrete and subtle.
While I disagree with Susan about some things, I do find myself agreeing with Susan on many things.
I agree with Susan that it would be unwise to marry a cad.
The more people a person sleeps with, the more likely they may contract a STD or father children out of wedlock. This would take financial resource from a wife and her children if her husband has children with other women.
It would be unwise for a virgin to marry Tucker Maxx or Desmond Hatchett because she may contract a STD or her kids will be in the poor house.
“What makes you think they want to?”
Many don’t. Thank goodness.
“it would be unwise to marry a cad”
the wretch notwithstanding. Same for sluts. There are just way more of the latter so men are burdened with being more on guard.
.
At the same time, it would be unwise for a man to sleeps with many women.
While it is true that biology may influence a man to spread his seed, once his seeds does fertilized a woman’s egg, he may loose financial resource for his future wife and children if he cares nothing for neither the mother nor the child.
Therefor, men and women should sleeps with people that they really care about!!!
Men that sleeps around will suffers financial consequence, same can be said of a woman except it is biology.
“men and women should sleeps with people that they really care about!”
Feminists want men to subscribe to this view of women and sex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgd3m-x46JU
.
Situational 10.
You’re partly right. But the point is, none of these guys looked “desirable” on the outside, so to say women compete for desirable guys leaves us with a defintion of “desirable” needing to be so broad as to be useless.
Second point is, two of the women were divorced within a year, one within two years. Two of the guys looked like losers to the rest of us, and one, I knew from the family, looked such to the family, and turned out to be losers. The divorces were not a matter of the women being bitches afaict.
And there was no noticeable competition.
So, I suppose, you could say the guys were desirable, but saying it doesn’t mean that the rest of us know what is desirable and what isn’t, so it’s not much help. These guys didn’t fit general descriptions of “desirable”.
Last; MGTOW. I don’t know any, but I’ve read some of their complaints. I differ on their feeling owed sex. I think they feel they’re owed an honest, consistent message.
The bitter blue-pill guys didn’t figure out bluepilling themselves. They were told it from 360 degrees 24/7. Turns out it’s not only not true, many of those telling them know it’s not true but preached it anyway. ‘nuf to piss off anybody.
Tasmin @ 39
Your writing is a joy to read.
@Benton
This is definitely a real dynamic in the SMP for some women. As you suggest, the outcome is often negative – and the woman eventually breaks the cycle or, in the worst case, refers to herself as “damaged goods” as a woman did here recently.
The women not willing to have casual sex (and yes, there are many), find that they are priced out of the market if they compete for unrestricted or highly sought after men.
@INTJ
Well, playing hard to get is one of the behavioral correlates – its purpose is deception. So to the extent that the person pretending to have more options than they really do succeeds, the “buyer” has been duped. The Rules is probably the best and most extreme example of this.
Of course, there are people who do have options and they are harder to get, so the perception of their higher market value is rational.
However, even here there is the potential for irrational behavior. What is the metric you are using? If you want a serious, loyal boyfriend, then assigning high value to a player is irrational. People need to be able to stand back from cultural norms or expectations to assess whether the choice is rational for them individually. Usually it won’t be.
Hmmm, there are over 160,000 comments on this blog and if memory serves not one suggests that.
@Situational 10
So what are you getting out of it? You can get sex lots of places if that’s what you want. Why have it with an asshole?
I read Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, and watched his TED presentation. I love his approach. Smart, well meaning people are often stupid about stupid people. Their models of behavior hold up well for machines, but not people. His chapter on distrust seems to explain many of our modern social and economic dysfunctions.
There was this exchange between an economic presenter at a TED conference and an audience member who studied psychology. The presenter reinforced the idea of the lottery being an idiot tax and that people are fundamentally irrational. The audience member volunteered to comment by saying that the presenter was mistaken to assume that people played the lottery explicitly to win. Rather they found the activity psychologically rewarding in itself (anticipation, release, etc.).
So then I thought of marriage as this kind of lottery. There is a low probability of success. It can also be thought of by divorce lawyers as their idiot tax. But unlike a lottery you can lose a lot more than what you started out with, lost time being the biggest. However, the anticipation of finding love and strategies we develop may be rewarding in itself, even if the end result is disappointing.
I am reminded by something Alan Watts said. Life isn’t a crashing chord. You rush to the finale and that is it. Life is a musical thing and you are suppose to dance.
@Joe
Well said! The assumption that they are is a common form of irrational behavior.
Feminists lamenting chivalry want to manipulate the demand side with pick-up scripts for non-harem qualified (as deemed by feminists) men
http://jezebel.com/5981581/how-to-talk-to-a-woman-without-being-a-creep
.
@Abbot
In light of the recent link J shared, I’m going to ask you to stop using the term “multi-penis.”
“You can get sex lots of places if that’s what you want.”
Just say yes, and poof, instapenis
@Johnnycomelately
Agreed.
Yes, but sometimes we see extremely irrational decisions where real pleasure may even be absent, even in the subjective sense. For example, the guy who had his first makeout session ever in college with a girl who wanted badly to date him. After he ignored her for three days straight on campus she asked him what was up. He said he wanted to explore his options and was not looking for anything serious. This is a kid who would have benefited enormously in every sense from having a girlfriend. Yet the “social proof” he perceived that makeout session as affording him led him to double down and bet on future makeout sessions with a variety of girls. He wanted to try his hand at hooking up.
It’s like the star of the high school play announcing they will only consider parts in film from now on.
@someINTP
Why do you say this? It seems to me that by filtering and selecting carefully, one may experience a very high probability of success.
@Susan Walsh
I don’t see myself as an exception, and as Ariely writes, people overestimate their own rational abilities. So I must view myself as a statistic to have any realistic expectations. I didn’t mean to say that I won’t play this lottery, but that I should have better reasons for playing than the simple outcome.
I really dont understand the concept that men get married to have a constant supply of sex…..I sure didnt and my friends sure didnt. I got married to have the companionship of the woman I lovedand to make it legal..(and will soon again) The sex was a given because we had premarital sex, and both loved what we had sexually, and I was sure that would continue after making the relationship legal.
If it was only sex I wanted, hell I had that from her (or others if she were not in the picture.)
Why buy the cow when the milk is free, indeed. Sex was probably 4th on the list of why I got married. I think most people have their priorities of why they get married and what marriage is about mixed up.
I swear, by the comments made here by several of the guys, they think sex is job 1 when it comes to marriage. ..Sex is only important if the couple thinks it is, and sex only becomes a problem when one of the people isnt getting ebough or one of the people thinks there is too much. It only takes one who is not satified for sex to be problematic in a relationship.
The price of marriage isnt sex.. My mother told me it wasnt called the roaring 20`s for nothing. Affairs and premartial sex were WAY under reported back then.You can buy that Black and Decker saw at the local hardware store and pay $30.00 for it or go to Walmart and get the same saw for $20.00. What one is willing to pay for the same quality is each persons choice.
Tom: “I really dont understand the concept that men get married to have a constant supply of sex”
Apparently you were lucky enough not to be raised Christian.
A commitment-minded man will pay a premium price based on a lot more than looks. According to this recent post , good looks only ranks #8 on the list of male preferences, while dependable character, emotional stability, and pleasing disposition rank #2, #3, and #5. Unlike good looks, these character traits are something one can significantly improve upon if one makes an effort.
The thing that sold me on mrs. wavevector was her sanity. While she views that as faint praise, it’s not at all – it’s a rare and valuable asset. She wasn’t necessarily the hottest woman I ever dated, but she was by far the most stable, dependable, and pleasant. I’ve never made a better decision.
@OTC:
“Tom: “I really dont understand the concept that men get married to have a constant supply of sex”
Apparently you were lucky enough not to be raised Christian.”
It’s more that you get married to have sex, isn’t it?
Tom – “I really dont understand the concept that men get married to have a constant supply of sex…..I sure didnt and my friends sure didnt.”
Well for my part, marriage isn’t about getting constant sex as much as locking it in so that ONLY you are getting the sex from her. See OTC’s comment about being raised Christian. I certainly had sex before marriage, but in each case I fully intended to marry the women I was with at the time, and in two cases it just didn’t work out.
“I swear, by the comments made here by several of the guys, they think sex is job 1 when it comes to marriage. ..Sex is only important if the couple thinks it is”
Oh well OK then. TO ME, sex is VERY important in marriage. I wouldn’t say it is #1, but probably #2 or #3 depending on the current situation. I can get much of the social interaction I get from my wife through friends and family: Companionship, support, nurturing, sense of belonging, etc. Now I will fully admit that I prefer to get most of that from my wife, but the point is I could get by without her contributions there. But, I don’t have sex with my friends, and I don’t morally and ethically practice casual sex, so the ONLY way for me to “get sex” is to be in a relationship, and for me that implies marriage at some point.
“and sex only becomes a problem when one of the people isnt getting ebough or one of the people thinks there is too much. “
Well sure. Having been in a sexless marriage I can tell you it becomes a HUGE issue rather quickly. I simply didn’t know how to fix it at the time. But to your point, don’t you think this is something that can indeed drive a marriage into dust? I’d say that puts sex pretty close to the top in terms of importance in marriage. I can tell you that for me lack of sex leads to lack of connection, and that eventually leads to falling out of love. Sex really is one of the primary ways I connect with my wife on a level unlike anyone else in my life. In fact, other than the piece of paper from the government I’d say the fact that we have sex MAKES her my wife more than anything else we share. And yes, before you ask, that means I considered her “my wife” well before we actually got that piece of paper.
@mr. wavevector
I think we hear too little of that around here. It’s always looks, looks, looks. To the extent your view is typical, then yes, I think women can and should hold out based on the value of their character traits. That would be the difference between SMV and MMV – an important distinction.
@Richard Aubrey
…
What a waste.
I think there’s at least one case like this in every school/neighborhood.
@Ion
“Let me guess…StarCraft and Situational10 are both PJ? I’m always last to figure out it.”
—
It’s not just you. *derp*
Saw a commercial for this last night. What do you lot think of it?
http://www.whatsyourprice.com/
Also, interesting study. The male responses definitely reflect my views towards egalitarian vs. captain/first-officer relationships.
Whoops, here’s the link: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/01/28/mens-and-womens-gender-ideologies-ideals-and-fallbacks/
INTJ,
From the article you linked…
This is just absurd and stunning, even if not reality. This just goes to show you the kind of insane brainwashed women that are out there when guys looking for a wife. A guy would want to provide for his wife and family, and women would rather divorce.
In reality, while women say this, we know this is actually true, and once the babies start to come a lot of women start changing their minds quickly. But the fact that 75% of women even think like this in the first place is extremely alarming and shows approximately 0% loyalty. Read that again, 3 out of 4 women think that they would rather divorce you and take the kids, only because you want to provide for them. It’s crazy out there.
The only thing I want to know is the demographic of women polled, but it does say “all ages, races and family backgrounds.”. I wonder if there is some data in there to help the guys filter for the other 25%.
I meant to say “we know this isn’t actually true” in my last post.
Susan,
Can you please respond to the article that INTJ linked, and specifically what I quoted. I’ve tried to explain the mindset of a vast majority of women out there in the SMP, and I think this helps to back me up. You have remained skeptical, trying to state that I mostly associate with bar-fly unrestricted types (to which I claim to associated with a much broader base of women) and that I am recieving confirmation bias, but this data seems to confirm what I have been saying about the greater demographic of my generation.
@Jason
Yeah. There’s a disconnect.
I hesitate to link to The Good (beta) Man Project… (Oops. My allergic reaction to their knee-jerk more-liberal-than-thou attitude is showing) but I found this one interesting.
http://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/how-feminism-screwed-up-my-love-life/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-feminism-screwed-up-my-love-life
A snippet:
@Jason:
Is this before or after they actually *have* the children?
> To the extent your view is typical, then yes, I think women can and should hold out based on the value of their character traits. That would be the difference between SMV and MMV – an important distinction.
Good point. My view is more typical of men in the MMP than those in the SMP in general.
Anyway, the law of supply and demand is truly valid only for commodities, like pork bellies and oil. But mates are not commodities! You can beat the market and command a higher price if you differentiate and demonstrate a higher value.
And that’s the point of this blog, is it not?
JP,
I’m sure the respondents here are in the “before” category, but that’s not my point. Most people here would agree that most of these women would happily change their minds once the babies come, if they had a man who made enough to provide and still brought the tingles. My point is that women even thinking like this on this topic has an associative effect with many other characteristics women have. This is why quality women, imo, are few and far between.
“3 out of 4 women think that they would rather divorce you and take the kids, only because you want to provide for them.”
That is the feminist brainwashing. Its and image/ego matter.
That study also states that men initially state they are good with the feminist model and then strongly fallback to the traditional. That is, they are playing lip service because they feel boxed in and don’t want to come across as being a knuckle dragger.
In light of the recent link J shared, I’m going to ask you to stop using the term “multi-penis.”
Aw c’mon, I was looking forward to posting more links. If I do it appropos of nothing, I’ll look like more of a dirty old lady than I am.
Just say yes, and poof, instapenis
First, Polaroid pictures, then no-bake cheesecake, now instapenis. What’ll they think up next?
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/instapenis
I love the pic with the can, though I prefer mine fresh.
@Jason:
“My point is that women even thinking like this on this topic has an associative effect with many other characteristics women have.”
My point is that the *reality* of the baby will take precedence over any prior delusions.
Lots of people have ideas that are out of touch with reality until they actually encounter reality.
My entire academic and employment career is evidence of this exact principle in action.
Wave–Glad to see you! Although we don’t always agree, I find you and interesting and intelligent commenter.
Sai “Saw a commercial for this last night. What do you lot think of it?
http://www.whatsyourprice.com/”
lol.
I might as well sell my ovaries through craigslist if I have to compete with the women on that list. Are they real?
They look like those super attractive/photoshop’d robots who used to pop up on myspace like 6 years ago.
Plus I’m not really looking for someone “generous”. Just intelligent with a strong work ethic.
“http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/01/28/mens-and-womens-gender-ideologies-ideals-and-fallbacks/”
Bwahaha, I used to read the SocImages section back when they were context.org/sociological images. Lisa is a brilliant woman, and so are the newer posters but they lost me when they started the hypocritical feminist whining. It sucked because they were my favorite blog before that point. All of them are still really brilliant when they aren’t writing about “gender” and family court issues, imho.
Supply. Demand. Then there is androgyny fantasy
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/people/reis_harry/assets/pdf/CarothersReis_2012.pdf
.
@Susan in re, well, some things in general related to the post:
I think that the SMP/MMP dichotomy is overly simplistic and is in fact distorting the discussion. I think it makes more sense to think about options contracts on ETFs (or any basket of goods, services, or obligations) as a better analogy.
I walk around every day (relationship-wise) with a basket of (implicit) relationship contracts in my pocket. Some are for platonic relationships, some are workplace-only, some are for casual sex, one says marriage, etc. They have various interdependencies based on the conditions in the implicit contract. Depending on who I interact with, I signal my interest in signing one of these implicit contracts, be it a new one, an extension on an old one, or perhaps something else. So rather than thinking about going out into the SMP, the SMP is really just a subset of the ongoing set of contract negotiations I partake in at any given time. The situation is symmetric. Therefore contracts get signed when a mutually agreeable contract is found.
The tie-in to the OP is that much of the dynamic described may be easier to explain as mechanisms which are part of not just negotiating sex or marriage, but also signaling what contracts are in play and with what additional stipulations. “No sex until marriage” is a stipulation. “Sex by the third date is required for continued dating” is another. Emotional escalation may fit into both paradigms. Yes, it is easier to talk about a casual sex contract and a marriage contract as the only two things in play, but it’s simply not true.
This is actually much closer to the microeconomic founding myth of two people, each with a different good, meeting and agreeing to an exchange which is mutually beneficial. I’m really not completely convinced that in the absence of a single common medium of exchange the price model is incredibly useful except as an abstract construct. The problem is attribution. If I enter a contract with a woman in which I exchange certain “boyfriend” services for sex (when I’m not sick) and home-made matzo-ball soup (when I am) then how much of that is monogamy? How much of that is moving furniture once in a while? How much of that is foregoing a judo tournament to go to her sister’s wedding in a good suit?
A commitment-minded man will pay a premium price based on a lot more than looks.
Truer words were never spoken, but the baseline attractiveness minimum must still be met.
Fortunately, this is not as high a requirement for women as it is for men;
http://imageshack.us/a/img828/2943/071108072040downloads22.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m559ozqZMi1qaq139o1_1280.png
http://www.doedeereblogazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gulyaxenia.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/552/1277661825849.jpg
http://ak1.okccdn.com/php/load_okc_image.php/images/16/150×150/558×800/0×72/212×284/0/229358757912087698.jpeg
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00637/SNN0324YY_280_637861a.jpg
http://media.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/photo/2012/05/11074197-standard.jpg
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/233/4/c/tall_girl_by_lowerrider-d5byfwx.jpg
http://hssn-media.advance.net/ohiohssports.com/news/b90bd84f5608826a5218a2cb700caa9b/malinahoward.jpg
even
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLrCcx3Tn5llhBE6a42I7TJlolG152LY5w5oCt3WshTTW_Vxgd
http://favim.com/orig/201107/03/girl-scene-shinymavis-tenso-ugly-very-ugly-Favim.com-91881.jpg
but there are limits.
Every woman is beautiful, but not every woman is beautiful to every man.
JP,
You’re still missing it. I agree with you about the reality of the baby, as I have already stated. I’m saying that the entire mindset that leads one to even think that way is pervasive (and damning) and is connected with many other traits that women have in today’s culture.
These women do not go “me and my career first, damn the husband and family unit” only based on this one topic and then do a 180 degree spin and become loving symbols of femininity where everything else is concerned. If you somehow think this issue is compartmentalized then I don’t know what to tell you.
@JQ:
“I walk around every day (relationship-wise) with a basket of (implicit) relationship contracts in my pocket. Some are for platonic relationships, some are workplace-only, some are for casual sex, one says marriage, etc. They have various interdependencies based on the conditions in the implicit contract.”
Yeah, as an attorney/chemical engineer, being well versed in both contract law and physical chemistry, I’m going to have to argue that relationships are less like contracts and more like chemical bonds, where what you refer to as a “contracts” are more like a distinct set of psychological bonds between people. (which I will eventually tie into the entire “meh relationship = metastability” concept)
Even the relationship between the parties in a *marriage* isn’t truly a contract as it is a certain kind of psychological bond between people.
You can have distinct sets of bonds with different marriages with the same contractual stipulation.
However, your are correct to point out that there are a far greater number of types of relationships than set forth in the SMP/MMP dichotomy.
your = you
In reality, while women say this, we know this is actually true, and once the babies start to come a lot of women start changing their minds quickly. But the fact that 75% of women even think like this in the first place is extremely alarming and shows approximately 0% loyalty. Read that again, 3 out of 4 women think that they would rather divorce you and take the kids, only because you want to provide for them. It’s crazy out there.
I’m pretty sure they are imagining an scenario like “the oppressed women from the past” than thinking about the possibility rationally. From their POV is not a generous offer but an attempt to control them.
http://www.whatsyourprice.com/
And humanity just reached a new low. Oh well maybe if everyone is honest about what they want the really good ones will find each other easier and leave the crazy ones mate with each other. *lesigh*
The sell and buy side is of sex/hook-ups, not marriage or long term relationships.
For women, delaying sex does not change the static requirement of no prior sex for men seeking LTR or marriage. For men, his expectation of sex only reveals his intent of not marrying.
I only reference the sex portion as that is the most important to discuss.
People who are most likely to marry escalate rather quickly towards marriage without a lot of drama of trying people out in the SMP. They are essentially settling with a well-established predetermined standard.
It seems like many men and women don’t know what they want. They create artificial lists of demands that are not realistic and they fail to see that many people already fulfill their requirements in the crowds that they inhabit. The longer they wait, it is likely these people will drop out of the market for various reasons including getting taken by rivals.
@Jason:
“These women do not go “me and my career first, damn the husband and family unit” only based on this one topic and then do a 180 degree spin and become loving symbols of femininity where everything else is concerned. If you somehow think this issue is compartmentalized then I don’t know what to tell you.”
I’m not saying that they become loving symbols of femininity.
I’m saying that once the reality of baby arrives, the baby itself will cause the mother to be much more likely to want to be a SAHM mother with baby. I suspect that it also makes her much less likely to divorce the baby’s father, regardless of previously stated preferences.
In a sense, babies *create their parents*, thanks to developmental neurology and developmental psychology.
With respect to the man, baby *reduces his testosterone*, thereby creating a more “dad-like” man.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/health/research/13testosterone.html?_r=0
I’m not saying this is true in all cases, however, I don’t think you understand that *baby* causes changes in both men and women.
Anacaona,
I don’t know if you are trying to make excuses for this abhorrent attitude or what, but this just proves my point even more that this 75% is hardly worth dating, let alone marrying, if you are a guy with even a modicum of success/looks/status and options. I would love to see the data in order to filter for the 25%.
@ Susan
I think it depends where the looks are. Again, it’s the “boner test” that matters. The difference between a 3 and a 6 is a massive change in value (even for MMV), whereas the difference between a 7 and a 10 isn’t much of a big deal.
JP,
Who cares? Why would a successful man with options want to marry and have kids with someone from this 75% in the first place?
The problem with this metric, and really your own take of Ariely’s perspective, is that you assume a static value of the commodity (sex) and ignore that it’s really a depreciating asset. Unless a ‘buyer’ is resorting to a more formalized purchase (i.e. prostitution), the buyer isn’t buying anything, but rather financing a depreciating asset for a long term.
You can use the point of the sexual revolution as an easy benchmark for the ‘devaluation’ of sex, but remember since then a lot of advancement has been made in aiding buyers in making more ‘realistic’ investments. In fact just the realization that a man is financing sex is a step further than most of the pilgrims ever had.
@JP in re 92:
I went to what I know (as someone with an economics degree but no formal training in law or physical chemistry of note). In any event, all models are wrong and some models are useful. Thank you for the feedback.
I agree that the word marriage is a tag given to any member of an equivalence set of relationships. Likewise, when two people say they are dating, this isn’t very informative beyond pointing to another equivalence class of relationships. If we are willing to grant people have agency then there is still the need to actively negotiate (again, perhaps not in a way that would be recognizable in a court of law as negotiation) which member of the equivalence set is going to actually be experienced.
There is frequent discussion here about the tendency toward failure of relationships where there is not good agreement about in which particular kind of dating or marriage both members are involved. Ergo, it makes sense to go through some sort of process for both advertising with what one is comfortable and vetting the the advertisements of others. So are the behaviors in question really irrational or a learned adaptation to mixed signals, incomplete information, possible deceptions, et al in light of one’s personal preferences and tolerance for risk?
Wuzan,
Wilk a deshwisher … ha fuck … bleddie brendy agian … rossy … sorry … fcuck … I tryeee againm … dammit … ha Y can steel spill … yippeeeee … nauw wull a dishwasher … ha, one vord wight ! …. will a dishwasher get broken if I wash ma crocs in it ? … tehy’re plestick … IneeedaBerr … beer … shoit !! bye
@JQ:
” Likewise, when two people say they are dating, this isn’t very informative beyond pointing to another equivalence class of relationships. If we are willing to grant people have agency then there is still the need to actively negotiate (again, perhaps not in a way that would be recognizable in a court of law as negotiation) which member of the equivalence set is going to actually be experienced.”
I think that people in relationships, of any kind, form certain psychological bonds (both positive and negative).
The problem is that we are trying to apply economics to psychological bonds, meaning that we are assigning concepts in the marketplace to interpersonal psychology.
There is agency, but you don’t have the ability to form a bond, or really negotiate a situation, that is outside of the possible bonds that you can form. You *don’t* get to decide which bonds exist. And if you pick a bond that doesn’t actually exist, you will get a bond that does exist, regardless of what you negotiated.
For example, you have the FWB situation, where you have “negotiated” a FWB situation. However, due to the fact that you are having sex with each other, one party can “fall in love” with the other person.
This isn’t a failure of negotiation; it’s a failure to recognize the reality of a fixed set of psychological bonds within human nature and the nature of such bonds.
When you “negotiate” a FWB situation, you are often *automatically* setting up a situation when what you get is distinct from what either party actually negotiated regardless of actual intent or risk analysis because you can’t necessarily achieve what you think you can achieve when you are negotiating.
This is equally true in most forms of dating, marriage, and affairs, as well as polyamory.
I believe that the types of bonds possible between people also differs from culture to culture, such that, for example the types of possible bonds between Feudal Japan are distinct from the types of possible bonds in Post-Modern America.
This. A guy who insists she become a SAHM before kids are even in the picture sets off alarm bells. Like Anacaona and JP said, it’s the instinctual response for self-protection in a hypothetical situation than one constructed from reality.
SayWhaat – “This. A guy who insists she become a SAHM before kids are even in the picture sets off alarm bells.”
But why? Seems to me that guy at least has a plan in mind, and has the drive and ambition to go out and earn enough to support a family without the help of a second income.
So how exactly is that an “alarm bell” situation? Unless of course the woman’s life goal is to make it into a corner office, in which case it isn’t an alarm bell, it is a clear sign that the guy in front of her is NOT the one she should marry.
I don’t understand why a guy that wants to be that traditional bread winner is immediately DQ’ed simply because he would rather his wife take care of his kids than some random person working in a daycare.
I don’t know if you are trying to make excuses for this abhorrent attitude or what, but this just proves my point even more that this 75% is hardly worth dating, let alone marrying, if you are a guy with even a modicum of success/looks/status and options. I would love to see the data in order to filter for the 25%.
Just explaining the though process, nothing more, nothing less.
@ JP
In other words, too bad the old courting model is gone. Now, nobody knows what the fuck the other person wants.
Whoops misquoted JQ as JP…
Jason “Who cares? Why would a successful man with options want to marry and have kids with someone from this 75% in the first place?”
I’m not really sure, but I think the question may be better rephrased: “Why would a man with an abundance of options want to marry when he benefits from the belief that casual sex is more rewarding?” A man with options can convince himself of whatever he sees fit to justify his current benefit in the market. His credibility is even worse than feminists, though the victimized thinking, lack of personal accountability, selective memory, etc., are about the same.
Hi J! Thanks. I’ve enjoyed our previous discussions, because you too are intelligent and interesting.
SayWhaat: A guy who insists she become a SAHM before kids are even in the picture sets off alarm bells.
TedD: So how exactly is that an “alarm bell” situation?
Given the daunting task of raising a human child, women have a strong instinct to choose a useful man for a LTR. In very broad terms, “useful” implies both strength and kindness: strength, to be able to do what she needs to have done; kindness, to actually do those things for her.
What a woman needs, however, is determined by the social context. Our culture tells women that a career is a necessity.
Therefore a man who insists his future wife be a SAHM sets off the red flags because he appears to be inattentive to a woman’s needs. His deficiency is not in his strength, which may be perfectly adequate, but in his kindness.
Mr. wavevector,
If I get you, telling a prospective wife she is to be a SAHM will run her off. You could keep your mouth shut about that, and wait until the baby arrives and makes the argument more forcefully.
But there’s the possibilty that the baby won’t be persuasive.
Then what?
How about do your own thing until the kid comes along and then I’ll take care of things. No? Bye.
@Ted
But why? Seems to me that guy at least has a plan in mind, and has the drive and ambition to go out and earn enough to support a family without the help of a second income.
My response:
It depends if it is a situation decided by BOTH husband and wife, or something that the husband dictates. To many, it’s indicative of a retrograde mentality that focuses on a man maintaining power in a relationship. I am not saying that is the case but it would be viewed that way.
@ JP in 103:
If I read you right, then each person has a set of possible relationships structures which define all the kinds of relationships in which one may be. Maybe they can do FWB (for example) or they can’t. Further, if one trues to have a relationship for which one is not wired(?), then they’ll end up in one of the structures for which they are wired.
My questions are:
1) Can one really know which relationships one is capable of having in any sort of really definitive way?
2) Is it possible for the set to change with time?
3) Is there any ability to choose?
I tend to think the answer to Q1 is “not when it counts”, to Q2 is “yes”, and to Q3 is “somewhat”. So I tend to see the issue of your FWB example as a case of the sort of risk inherent in any relationship, even when both parties enter into the relationship in good faith and make an honest effort to keep it going.
@ INTJ in re 107/108:
An understandable mistake.
I think traditional courtship was if anything convenient insofar as it provided a standardized set of signals and mechanisms to figure out who is interested in whom and for what. Then again, I recall once reading that Victorian England felt it necessary to pass a law against men promising marriage in order to obtain premarital sex and then not following through on getting married. I don’t have a citation, so take it as you will. If true, then it suggests it was no easier to figure out someone’s intentions then than it is today.
From my own reading and experience, the past we recall fondly as a better time rarely deserves the honor.
@JQ:
I think that it’s more that there are a certain finite set of relationship structures that are generally possible within a particular culture that depends on human psychology/biology.
However, with respect to relationships, you don’t necessarily know the subjective experience of being in a certain type of relationship until you are in that specific type of relationship.
So, you can’t necessarily calculate the risk.
Which means that you don’t necessarily *understand* the choice you are making with respect to the actual level of risk.
“Therefore a man who insists his future wife be a SAHM sets off the red flags because he appears to be inattentive to a woman’s needs. His deficiency is not in his strength, which may be perfectly adequate, but in his kindness.”
I would prefer the man makes the child the priority. Women should take a back seat to that.
What a disappointment that women should be so selfish.
“It depends if it is a situation decided by BOTH husband and wife, or something that the husband dictates. To many, it’s indicative of a retrograde mentality that focuses on a man maintaining power in a relationship. I am not saying that is the case but it would be viewed that way.”
I suppose a woman needs to be lead to do the right things as he CAN’T dictate her to do anything. If she should view the situation as a negative, she should stop the pretense of being in a relationship with a man. What is a man that should be with her? Is he still a man? Is she a woman?
Richard Aubrey,
A better strategy for a man would be to take the active role. Screen for maternal interest before making any commitment to a woman, while taking the position that you’re supportive of a woman’s career. Does she want kids? Does she want to work full time, or stay at home or work part time?
By expressing your support for her career, you signal kindness. This will give her the comfort to express her real interests. If she expresses maternal interest, she does it out of her choice and not in response to your expectations. And if she expresses more career ambitions than maternal ones, then maybe she’s not the girl for you. By not revealing your preferences first, you avoid appearing domineering and thereby disqualifying yourself before you can gauge her true interests.
@ Jonny,
A woman judges a man’s ability to make a child the priority by his ability to make her a priority.
Women are strongly motivated by self interest – as are men. But women’s reproductive and maternal biological roles give them very strong and specific types of self interest that men don’t have, at least to the same extent. They’re going to have babies, the babies are going to depend on them, and the mothers need to secure the physical and social resources to take care of the babies. They need to put their needs first in this regard. Those female reproductive needs are deeply ingrained in both instinct and culture. This I think is the origin of the “female solipsism” and “feminine imperative” that the manosphere goes on about.
“A woman judges a man’s ability to make a child the priority by his ability to make her a priority.”
So your advice is the man makes sure the child is taken care of by supporting his wife’s career even though she is not around the child much.
“They’re going to have babies, the babies are going to depend on them, and the mothers need to secure the physical and social resources to take care of the babies. They need to put their needs first in this regard.”
By working? And getting baby sitters to take care of them? So the woman needs the conforting male to reassure them that he supports her career so she can work to support her child.
“This I think is the origin of the “female solipsism” and “feminine imperative” that the manosphere goes on about.”
Irony. Very well done.
I told my wife I wanted her to be a SAHM.
She wants to work (for me, not sure why, good rule of life though, don’t work with family).
I’ll admit to being very disappointed by this.
My mother had a pretty good set up. She ran a business which was attached to the house where we lived (big place). She was at most 30 secs away yet still managed to have her own career.
Then again, I recall once reading that Victorian England felt it necessary to pass a law against men promising marriage in order to obtain premarital sex and then not following through on getting married. I don’t have a citation, so take it as you will. If true, then it suggests it was no easier to figure out someone’s intentions then than it is today.
I read once in an old newspaper of men that wanted to demand their brides for marriage fraud because it turned out that in the wedding night they exaggerated/improved their assets with padding clothing and they were not happy with the “real deal”
No system is perfect because humans are not perfect but having everyone having their own systems seems a lot worse than the alternative doesn’t it?
My mother had a pretty good set up. She ran a business which was attached to the house where we lived (big place). She was at most 30 secs away yet still managed to have her own career.
My mom sold baked goods right in front of the house, once we were more or less independent studied short careers had daddy more involved in making sure we didn’t set the house on fire…again. eventually managed to get back to college and got her degree a year before I did, then a post degree. Life doesn’t end after motherhood! Or so I’m told.
Off-topic:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/24/why-women-leave-academia
The number of women in Ph.D. programs who would seek an academic career plummets from 72 % in first year to 37 % by year three. That’s in the UK, I have to imagine in the US where Ph.D.s are generally a couple years longer it’s even worse.
From the article, “Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless.”
No. That was an observation, not advice.
Women have been told that they need a career to secure both physical and social resources – a need that I suggest is particularly strong in women due to their reproductive instincts. You are suggesting that this may not be the best thing for the child, but that’s a different point than the one I was making. As for the “comforting male” – that man should figure out whether he wants to play that role with a career woman or not long before any baby is conceived.
I had no idea I wasn’t supposed to broach this subject, but I already did with my SO before we went any further, and she said she would be looking forward to only working part-time and putting more effort into running a household and raising kids.
Probably helps that her mother was also a SAHM.
She is rather insistent that I not travel, though. THAT is somewhat disappointing…
Agreed with Jason, this 3/4 of women need to get their heads out their asses.
@ADBG
“Agreed with Jason, this 3/4 of women need to get their heads out their asses.”
*Laugh* That’s one way to put it.
This is a really important issue for a guy. You really need to filter, filter, filter, because you don’t want to have to deal with this later.
This is also interesting because it speaks to one of Susan’s past topics, about whether guys want “intelligent” women. In my case, it wasn’t that I didn’t want an “intelligent” woman, but that I didn’t want to marry a woman with the mentality of those 75%. And boy, my educational female “peers” were mostly of that nature. The more degrees, the stronger the feeling…
I will add that from my POV there is a lot of social pressure on women to have strong careers before having kids. Being a SHAM is not celebrated but looked down. So my advice to any guy in the dating process whose woman is good in every other aspect but is not looking forward to be a SHAM to show that you find and important and if possible an unappreciated job. And that you wouldn’t mind supporting that choice on your future wife. If she feel strongly about not being a SHAM she will probably filter herself out, if she is on the fence is very unlikely take this negative and appreciate the option. Just my two cents.
I do understand the social pressure, but any woman worth her salt has GOT to part from the herd on issues critical to her well-being and the well-being of her family. Otherwise husband and family are screwed as wife chases whatever new fad hits Oprah in the name of social approval.
If she is unwilling to do that, she is not worthy of “premium” pricing.
“So my advice to any guy in the dating process whose woman is good in every other aspect but is not looking forward to be a SHAM to show that you find and important and if possible an unappreciated job. And that you wouldn’t mind supporting that choice on your future wife.”
I so agree Ana. Plenty of good women don’t want to be known as golddiggers, so they just work hard in the hope that men will look at that as an honorable, non free-loading trait.
I do understand the social pressure, but any woman worth her salt has GOT to part from the herd on issues critical to her well-being and the well-being of her family.
Except that having a career is sold as the best for the family well being. She is acting out of misinformation not bad faith, YMMV.
@Jason
The link INTJ provided is a story about a study, apparently included in a 2010 book, but I don’t have the study. Lisa Wade is a radfem, and while I appreciate her condemnation of hookup culture and have cited her own research numerous times, much of her work is pretty far out there and pro-feminism. The statistic that 75% of women would rather divorce than be at home full-time is surprising to me. I recently wrote about the annual Forbes survey of 1,000 women, 2/3 of whom work outside the home:
“At a moment in history when the American conversation seems to be obsessed with bringing attention to women in the workplace (check out “The End of Men,” or Google “gender paygap” for a primer), it seems a remarkable chasm between what we’d like to see (more women in the corporate ranks) and what we’d like for ourselves (getting out of Dodge). But it’s true: according to our survey, 84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.”
Kay Hymowitz weighs in:
“But “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” a recent, widely discussed Atlantic cover story, should help redirect the conversation to the obvious: it’s the kids.
…Women are less inclined than men to think that power and status are worth the sacrifice of a close relationship with their children…Nothing in the array of work/family policy prescriptions—family leave, child care, antidiscrimination lawsuits, flextime, and getting men to cut their work hours—will lead women to infiltrate the occupational 1 percent. They simply don’t want to.”
So at first glance Gerson’s book as profiled by Wade seems in direct opposition to more comprehensive and recent surveys.
Susan Walsh in 1981: I do not intend to marry and have no desire for children. I plan a stellar career in International Finance.
Susan Walsh in 1982: I am so in love and can’t wait to have Mr. HUS’s children. I plan to go to NY with him and would not consider an international position at this time.
Susan Walsh in 1987: I adore my child and am deeply resentful of the three days per week I have to leave him and go to work.
FTR, we raise daughters today to achieve. Academically then professionally. A smart girl who says she wants to stay home and have babies is a source of shame to her family and her community. I do not exaggerate. There is great cultural pressure on young women to be ambitious. When I encourage young women here to begin dating for marriage after college graduation, I am bucking a very entrenched cultural norm. Most of the young women I have discussed this with are very taken aback by the idea until I explain my reasoning. They have zero knowledge about fertility and have been told their entire lives that self-reliance is essential.
Exactly.
This is a highly personal and individualized decision, and frankly being a SAHM is a luxury that many families cannot afford these days. I did not and do not aspire to be a SAHM.
I have several coworkers who are working mothers, and I am also one. They out-earn their husbands, and only through their job can their families be covered by health insurance.
We are in a better position, because my husband’s job also provides benefits, but there are NO economic guarantees. If my husband lost his job, we would still have health insurance through my job, and we could still pay the bills.
I still do most of the childcare, cooking, cleaning, domestic stuff, in addition to working. But I am not resentful of my job, because I am lucky to have a very flexible one where my hours are good, I can work from home sometimes, and I have a very nice boss and good coworkers/friends.
You can tell me that I’m a bad mother because of this, but frankly, my mother-in-law raised a great man, and she worked full time until retirement. So, sorry, I don’t buy it.
@Rollo
Aaaaannnnd that’s why you come off as someone incapable of relationship.
One of Dalrock’s regulars derided a female commenter, saying, “She only gave her husband two children, and not even home schooled!”
The fact that there are men out there who think this way is enough to get women feeling extremely defensive (and independent).
Prior to the Women’s Movement, the default male position was “No wife of mine will ever work!”
@Susan
Yes. It was considered demeaning to not be able to provide for your wife and family. And work was also considered demeaning.
Of course, “work” was most often hard, dirty and boring manual labor, not often rewarded with advancement.
@Hope,
I was about to write the same thing.
While it’s nice to speculate about being a SAHM, I doubt that this option would be feasible to the majority of Americans. Personally, I’d love to be a part-time worker/SAHM mom, but that’s definitely not gonna happen unless I marry a high UMC man.
So I’m not even going to bother wasting energy with wishful thinking.
Besides, many children turn out perfectly fine despite having working parents.
My mother was both a SAHM and worked full time: night shift.
Affording a SAHM on one income is more of a choice, planning, and budgeting, and foregoing some luxuries. I live in a high COL area, but low cost *town* relative most Boston zip codes, and do it on a barely-MC income.
You don’t have to be rich or even UMC, but you do need to be a little smarter with your money than the average bear.
@Sai
Re: whatsyourprice
That site is scamming men from their money. Talk about being a walking target for gold-diggers everywhere. A manipulative woman could easily play the system forever. I hope no sane man actually invests their time into this website.
Oh oh I see a war coming.
“Give what is Caesar’s to Caesar and what is God’s to God.”
Personally, I think that unless one has very low paying employment, it is immoral to have a full time dual income family. Doing so results in inflation of housing prices and other stuff, leaving single-income couples/families unable to compete on the housing market with the higher earning dual income couples/families.
I don’t know if it would be feasible or not to impose this morality on my future wife. To be sure, I’m not averse to having a working partner – she’ll just have to let me scale back my own work in proportion, and she shouldn’t lose attraction towards me because of it.
I think it’s important to note that having the wife be a SAHM does not equal a good marriage.
My parents are a good example of that. If anything my parent’s marriage declined faster after she started staying at home. I think my Dad started to feel like he was doing all the work in the marriage and putting more effort into providing than she was in maintaining the home.
My mom was one of those people who’s dream it was to be a housewife and mother. Thing is, she was a terrible housewife.
I think you’ll do better screening for conscientiousness than you will by whether or not they want to be a SAHM. A conscientious spouse will help support the marriage whether it’s in the workplace or in the home, and that’s what you really want.
Hi J! Thanks. I’ve enjoyed our previous discussions, because you too are intelligent and interesting.
Thank YOU, wave.
Re SAHMs
While I was a SAHM–my choice–when my kids were little, I did have a long career before hand. Many people criticized my “giving up” my career. I am trying to remember just how many flying fucks I gave about their opinions. None, IIRC.
DH and I were pretty broke when we made that decision. As OTC says, you can get by being a bit smarter than the average bear financially, though DH eventually went corporate to make up for my lost income. I, OTOH, will never be able to get back to where I was career-wise–even thought I did work flextime from the time my younger son started school until I lost my job last year. Not everyone can afford to make that choice or even wants to.
I wouldn’t advocate either SAH or going back to work; it’s a matter of personal choice. I do recommend that people adopt my policy regarding flying fucks. (And Ana, that means you.
)
Unless a ‘buyer’ is resorting to a more formalized purchase (i.e. prostitution), the buyer isn’t buying anything, but rather financing a depreciating asset for a long term.
What a romantic!!!
I personally am hoping for a dozen roses with a card addresed to “my little depreciating asset” from DH this Valentine’s Day … cuz nothing says “thanks for spending the last quarter century with me” than being viewed as a depreciating asset.
I wouldn’t advocate either SAH or going back to work; it’s a matter of personal choice. I do recommend that people adopt my policy regarding flying fucks. (And Ana, that means you.
)
Heh thanks for the shot out. I’m working on it. Is mostly my “third world girl” complex keeping me from stopping giving the ‘flying fucks’ my husband is the only one married to an expat and although he doesn’t care I still don’t want to be ‘that girl’ if you know what I mean. William smiles when I sing to him (and I sing so bad he is my best and only fan) and learning how do to stuff I teach him so fast helps though…I shall conquer this.
@J
I think there needs to be a “spectrum” for low EQ, or emotional intelligence disorders. Dark Triad just doesn’t go far enough, IMO.
1 2 3 »