C
- Status
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Can I schedule an appointment?
C
chevalier
Guest
The older you remain single, the more likely the other folks are to have developed strange tests and other unhealthy coping mechanisms, as well as all sorts of emotional trouble such as PTSD, commitment phobia, rejection phobia, rivalry vs the opposite sex, and more.
For example just because you were friendzone for failing to move early doesn’t mean you wouldn’t have been friendzoned for having acted faster. Some people will friendzone you either way, just adapting the rationale based on whatever actually happened. That’s how commitment phobia and extreme pickiness work. Don’t allow mood, overcritical people to ruin your self-esteem or even ruin your day.
C
chevalier
Guest
I refuse to play the Game with the ladies from those sites any more. One’s gotta have some self-respect.
I am very old fashioned. Glamorous girls with cigarettes and fancy orders in restaurants during the dating meetings are not my type of girls
Glam is not bad per se, but it is in fact a high risk factor when you meet a woman. Watch for spoiled behaviour. Some spoiled brats do in fact make excellent wives, but there is a need to be careful. For the record, social climbers, while less glamorous, tend to be worse than those spoiled by already being where others are still climbing, in whom a superficially spoiled manner doesn’t actually preclude a strong moral backbone and admirable ethics.
And be extra careful with your American passport, American accent and all the American (Hypergamous) Dream when around women from Slavic cultures (no offence intended, just the sad fact they tend to ‘fall for’ those guys in the hope of transferring to a better place, to put it charitably).
Last edited:
A
alice24
Guest
[/quote]
Oh yes? Browse through the threads here, you´ll read many about very clear expectations of so-calles “trad” guys with no luck in dating of their future-wannabe wifes (wants to have many children, stay at home, nurturing, beautiful, devout). This isn´t “falling in love without thinking”.
I´ll tell you, my husband and me love each other, but we didn´t married only for this reason, we married because we had expectations and love isn´t enough for marriage. What is bad with this truth? Many guys here wish to have a wife who cared fulltine for her children and household and even if not, pregnancy and having little children leads many women to work not full time - which is absolutely ok, but means more dependence on their husband as provider than vice versa. If I didn´t cared for my husband´s ability to work and be financially reasonable grounded, I would have had a hard time now as I can´t earn enouch money for myself as I become a mother.
My husband had never married a woman who wasn´t strict in her expectations, because it would have told him I was immature, too immature for marriage, probably.
Last edited:
C
chevalier
Guest
Dear Alice, there are some expectations on both sides, but women are more likely to approach marriage like a business venture and, depending on the culture (less so in the mainstream US culture than in some cultures putting the fair sex on more of a pedestal and affording more privileges), tend to approach men the way an employer approaches today’s candidates of whom some (or, in this case, one) are tomorrow’s subordinate employees. Not ‘who you are’, but ‘what you will do for me’ is the decisive question, not ‘what can we do together’ or ‘are we good for each other’ but ‘what’s the best deal for me’, and the approach looks quite mercantile to me much of the time; in fact, too mercantile and too focused on the woman alone and on finding out and obtaining what’s the best guarantee of her economic interest, material comfort etc., in a way that contradicts a lot of the romantic ‘official version’ that men are taught, by women and about women, in schools and family homes and otherwise, and expected to continue to believe into the rest of their adult lives, even after empirically experiencing how far it is removed from reality.
I need to note with quite some bitterness that women in my culture (which is not the mainstream US culture) tend to apply criteria they would resent being applied to themselves, e.g. height (versus a man, it’s fair game; versus a woman, women feel it shouldn’t be taken against her that she didn’t grow taller, because it was not her choice) or income (again, versus a man it’s fair game, but versus a woman men should be less materialistic than that and should never take into consideration the amount of money a working woman can bring into the household). Then there’s the fact that there is no more ‘women’s work’ (cooking, cleaning, laundry etc. to be regarded as just humans’ work, perfectly unisex), while there remains plenty of ‘men’s work’ (repairs, assembly/installation/transport, anything technical, taking out the trash, anything that’s unpleasant or requires physical strength). In short, the best of the two worlds for women — both the old privileges of the ‘weaker’ sex under chivalry and the new grrrlpower of the ‘stronger’ sex under feminism, with not a thought to the obvious contradiction. In my culture this leads in women, on a massive scale, to what in a man would be described as being an entitled spoiled brat. Except saying anything remotely critical of women is just a little less taboo than criticizing the royal family in an eastern monarchy.
I need to note with quite some bitterness that women in my culture (which is not the mainstream US culture) tend to apply criteria they would resent being applied to themselves, e.g. height (versus a man, it’s fair game; versus a woman, women feel it shouldn’t be taken against her that she didn’t grow taller, because it was not her choice) or income (again, versus a man it’s fair game, but versus a woman men should be less materialistic than that and should never take into consideration the amount of money a working woman can bring into the household). Then there’s the fact that there is no more ‘women’s work’ (cooking, cleaning, laundry etc. to be regarded as just humans’ work, perfectly unisex), while there remains plenty of ‘men’s work’ (repairs, assembly/installation/transport, anything technical, taking out the trash, anything that’s unpleasant or requires physical strength). In short, the best of the two worlds for women — both the old privileges of the ‘weaker’ sex under chivalry and the new grrrlpower of the ‘stronger’ sex under feminism, with not a thought to the obvious contradiction. In my culture this leads in women, on a massive scale, to what in a man would be described as being an entitled spoiled brat. Except saying anything remotely critical of women is just a little less taboo than criticizing the royal family in an eastern monarchy.
C
chevalier
Guest
In the US, there are obviously some problems with third-wave feminism, but then you also have plenty of that alpha-stupid ‘lord-and-master’ male attitude in traditional circles like you describe, which introduces some measure of balance between the extremes on both sides, and the odd fusion between chivalry and feminism doesn’t seem to exist, or at least not on such a large scale. Men in the States are thus considerably luckier than in many parts of Europe or of the world in general, although men generally have it quite bad worldwide. We are in fact second-rate citizens and regarded in many ways as intelligent tools or highly evolved farm animals more than proper human persons. At best it’s like coloured folks vs whites under racism or peasants vs nobility under old European systems. What’s different in the American culture is that women still have a notion of equal contribution and mutual responsibility and recognize in men the right to have some expectations or standards of their own (depending on what level of feminism is involved).
I almost made myself feel like crossing the Pond now.
Not really but anyway. And as regards relationships, I have decided to opt out, though I would encourage others, including the OP, not to.
I almost made myself feel like crossing the Pond now.
Not really but anyway. And as regards relationships, I have decided to opt out, though I would encourage others, including the OP, not to.
C
ConfusedLucy
Guest
I don’t agree with much of the red pill ideology but the idea of people having value as marriage partners is a concept that I have some time for. I mean I wouldn’t have married my husband if he was a bum with no prospects, I’d have been happy to be his friend but couldn’t have entered into a partnership where I was stuck with all the graft.
It’s taboo though. I constantly hear women say “I’d date an unattractive guy with a good personality” but think “well would you really or would you hold out for an attractive guy with a good personality?”. I think some women feel pressured to not look shallow or narrow minded so they say things they don’t mean “I’d date someone shorter”, “I’d date someone with no job prospects”.
I can see why some men feel women are playing games with them.
It’s taboo though. I constantly hear women say “I’d date an unattractive guy with a good personality” but think “well would you really or would you hold out for an attractive guy with a good personality?”. I think some women feel pressured to not look shallow or narrow minded so they say things they don’t mean “I’d date someone shorter”, “I’d date someone with no job prospects”.
I can see why some men feel women are playing games with them.
- Status