Why Men Still Defend Marriage

[hypermak]

Best for her maybe. Also okay for men who never plan to make much money, so it's the woman who loses during divorce. For high earner men, there's another way. Namely, be a generous boyfriend (spend lots of money on her), get her pregnant, then engage in marriage delay tactics until past point where abortion is legal, meanwhile upping the generosity to calm her nerves. Once the baby is born, pay statutory child support and continue the generosity. Though be careful about common law marriage. Maybe make a hunting shack your official place of residence and keep as few possessions as possible in HER house (not yours).

Maybe I am calling "sour grapes" here, but I see men of wealth who nurture hopes of a romantic life having more trouble, not less, compared to average middle class men. 1) they will inevitably tend to show off more as a way to fawn and impress people around, including the ladies, and 2) they will have a hard time understanding whether the chosen prospect(s) are sticking around for love, money, or both...if they actually care, that is.

For those men, and those men only, I see the dilemma between going all in into a relationship, with the risk of being burned and skimmed out of hundred of thousands, perhaps millions, on revolving credit and divorce settlements. Tactics like living together or getting her pregnant while delaying marriage doesn't always work. The UK is infamous for having several cases of judges who ruled partener/child support agreements comparable to those of a married couple based on the fact that the couple had been living together and had one or more children. I had a couple of interesting beer chats about this with friends.

One was a City trader who would pop at my London restaurant. He had been living with this model-like girl from Argentina for about 2.5 year. They had a daughter. That was enough for the judge to rule that the couple was, for all intents and purposes, emulating marriage and she and her daughter were entitled to something around 4,500 pounds a month. That's the salary of a double-income middle class household in Britain, just sayin'...

The above assumes you and the woman want a family. If neither of you cares about children, then sugar daddying is a better way to lock down a quality woman without marrying her.

Where you are right is that quality woman do not give out sex for free, not in the long run. If the man isn't offering either marriage or sugar daddying, quality women will correctly see him as a user and leech and dump him eventually.

The level of commitment and care you get when you are sugaring the girl and when she is married with you is at least supposed to be on very different levels, you will agree If it's not there is something very, very wrong.

Sugar daddying is just another word for prostitution. In fact it's actually a lot more expensive than prostitution, where at least you are entitled to expect that you get your money worth of a sexual performance. With sugar daddying you need to put a big premium on how good the girl is at simulating care and respect for you, while perhaps giving you sub-par sex. Some man might like wanting to be treated like that. Other, like me, would rather pay $2,000 for 5 top-notch shags than splash the same amount of money on someone who gives you less than 5 "sessions" a month but can pretend very well that you're her sweet little bunny and she's "oh so into how mature you are" LOL

[Shemp]

Maybe I am calling "sour grapes" here, but I see men of wealth who nurture hopes of a romantic life having more trouble, not less, compared to average middle class men. 1) they will inevitably tend to show off more as a way to fawn and impress people around, including the ladies, and 2) they will have a hard time understanding whether the chosen prospect(s) are sticking around for love, money, or both...if they actually care, that is.

Not so much sour grapes as just failure to see reality. All other things being equal, most women wiill prefer the richer man. Obviously, all other things are never exactly equal, since no two men are identical other than for wealth, but the pattern remains true: more money is always better.

As for why the woman is sticking around, if you can't detect real from faked sexual attraction, you're hopeless. In practice, most women have no problems arranging to feel real sexual attraction to richer versus poorer men. Within limits, of course, which gets back to "all other things being equal". You can't literally buy love. But you can use money to push yourself to the head of the line of men a woman could love.

The level of commitment and care you get when you are sugaring the girl and when she is married with you is at least supposed to be on very different levels, you will agree If it's not there is something very, very wrong.

Something is indeed very, very wrong with modern marriage. We have a lot of active threads on this topic in this forum LOL.

Sugar daddying is just another word for prostitution. In fact it's actually a lot more expensive than prostitution,

Marriage is also just another word for sugaring/prostitution, at least in many cases (such as Donald and Melania Trump). And no, sugaring should be less expensive than prostitution, again all other things being equal. Most women don't want to be hard core prostitutes with one shot pump and dump clients, so they demand a very high price for this compared to being the steady girlfriend of a rich and generous boyfriend, which is what sugaring really amounts to. You just cherry picked examples to prove your point. I could easily give examples of $1000/month for 10 sex sessions with real sexual attraction plus lots of time together besides sex. This is how much typical generous middle class men end up subsidizing a poorer girlfriend, after all (the bulk of the subsidy typically consists of free rent when she moves in).

Most rich man who have been through divorce agree prostitution would have been cheaper, and sugaring AT REASONABLE RATES much cheaper.

As for the common law marriage issue, well I warned about that. It isn't quite so bad in the USA as you describe for Britain. But you do have to maintain a separate residence. Probably a good idea to get away from the woman half of each week anyway.

[hypermak]

Not so much sour grapes as just failure to see reality. All other things being equal, most women wiill prefer the richer man. Obviously, all other things are never exactly equal, since no two men are identical other than for wealth, but the pattern remains true: more money is always better.

This must be the blue pill in action. I am was trying to compare wealthy men against a normal, average man with a normal job and a normal ability to care for a woman, not only financially but emotionally. True, more money is better for the gold digger type. For a "good" woman (a rare beast), past a certain level of financial sufficiency, it's all about how much the man cares for her, makes her feel desired and happy.

Marriage is also just another word for sugaring/prostitution, at least in many cases (such as Donald and Melania Trump). And no, sugaring should be less expensive than prostitution, again all other things being equal. Most women don't want to be hard core prostitutes with one shot pump and dump clients, so they demand a very high price for this compared to being the steady girlfriend of a rich and generous boyfriend, which is what sugaring really amounts to. You just cherry picked examples to prove your point. I could easily give examples of $1000/month for 10 sex sessions with real sexual attraction plus lots of time together besides sex. This is how much typical generous middle class men end up subsidizing a poorer girlfriend, after all (the bulk of the subsidy typically consists of free rent when she moves in).

Most rich man who have been through divorce agree prostitution would have been cheaper, and sugaring AT REASONABLE RATES much cheaper.

As for the common law marriage issue, well I warned about that. It isn't quite so bad in the USA as you describe for Britain. But you do have to maintain a separate residence. Probably a good idea to get away from the woman half of each week anyway.

I have never sugar daddied anyone (althoug I poured lots of sugar and derivatives on cakes and pastries LOL) so I can't really tell. I don't know where you can find a girl who will only settle for $1,000 for a lot of passionate sex which involves genuine attraction. At that level 1) you, the man, are probably young, fit and handsome enough to command that kind of interaction for free and 2) she perhaps has feelings for you that wouldn't really need to be "priced up" to $1,000. In that lucky situation, the man and the girl may be better off just being together as a couple, perhaps an open-relationship one.

Again, just speculating...but I can imagine that the typical sugar daddy situation is one where the man is wealthy but won't really get anywhere with the girl if it wasn't for what he pays or gives. Again, different blokes different strokes but I wouldn't be very happy to shell out money for someone to pretend to like or respect me. Even if I was lured into one such arrangement, the moment I felt mutual attraction or passion, I would easily end up taking the little extra step and asking the girl to just be with me, at least give a try to an actual relationship. Of course marriage would be far on the horizon, still...

[Shemp]

...I don't know where you can find a girl who will only settle for $1,000 for a lot of passionate sex which involves genuine attraction. At that level 1) you, the man, are probably young, fit and handsome enough to command that kind of interaction for free and 2) she perhaps has feelings for you that wouldn't really need to be "priced up" to $1,000. In that lucky situation, the man and the girl may be better off just being together as a couple, perhaps an open-relationship one.

Many modern young men today fall for the PUA lie that there's a big market for gigolos among young women. Some young women with good jobs will accept a lower earning but handsome lover, but this is an unstable situation. Women strongly prefer men who have more money than the woman. You wrote you want to lock down a good woman. You can't normally do that relying just on your looks, charm, etc like a gigolo.

I wrote specifically above that normal boyfriends, who earn more money than their girlfriends, end up subsidizing the girl, often by less than $1000/month and for more than 10 sex sessions, if lower middle class. Exact amount is not important. What matters is that man subsidizes woman. (Men with poorer wives end up subsidizing the wife, especially when young children are around, though they may get no sex, which is why modern marriage sucks.) This is how it has always been: the man has to be a provider to get steady sex from a quality woman. Trying to be a penniless PUA gigolo worked for a while, because feminism taught everyone that such an arrangement, between rich woman and poor man, was "hip" and "progressive", but now that younger people are facing financial pressures like their ancestors, we're going back to the old model, where men must be providers.

Bottom line: to get a woman to stick around, material benefits have to flow from you to her, which means you have to choose poorer women. If you are poor yourself, your choice will be very limited.

Again, just speculating...but I can imagine that the typical sugar daddy situation is one where the man is wealthy but won't really get anywhere with the girl if it wasn't for what he pays or gives. Again, different blokes different strokes but I wouldn't be very happy to shell out money for someone to pretend to like or respect me. Even if I was lured into one such arrangement, the moment I felt mutual attraction or passion, I would easily end up taking the little extra step and asking the girl to just be with me, at least give a try to an actual relationship. Of course marriage would be far on the horizon, still...

PUAs and feminists alike make this assumption that women who receive material benefits must not actually be attracted to the man. I already stated the more common situation, which is that money simply moves the man to the head of the line of men the women finds attractive independent of money. If the women doesn't find the man sexual attractive, independent of money, then she will not be able to fake convincingly for long.

Young beauty with hideous but rich geezer is rare, but of course feminists and their media allies seize on these rare examples. Donald and Melania Trump, back when they married, is more typical. He was attractive without money, but she certainly wasn't going to marry a penniless man given that she had lots of suitors because of her looks. Money just pushed Trump ahead of the other men. (He has since become a fat and obnoxious boor, but then lots of people of both sexes change for the worse with time. He wasn't so bad 20 years ago.)

So all this arguing about "does she really like me for myself" is a distraction to evade the real issue, which is that the natural order of things is for men to be providers. Feminist don't like this because it implies men will outearn women. PUAs don't like it because they want to be gigolos. This widespread desire by men to be gigolos is a symptom of cultural degeneracy.

[Later] In another thread, you wrote you are in the Philippines and your dating life is 10x better. This is likely because you are implicitly sugar daddying. That is, you outearn the local women and so there is a flow of material benefits from you to the girls you date, such as restaurant meals, nice apartment to visit, etc. (If not, then the girl is probably playing long game: hoping for marriage, when the flow of material benefits really gets big.) Maybe the term sugar daddy throws you off. Generous boyfriend is synonymous.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

@Hypermak No ones cares that you want to marry. Go right ahead. But when you’re zeroed out, don’t complain that no one warned you.

Experience is the best teacher for most people who can’t refuse the proverbial kool aid. I say drink it up and find out later what happens to your life.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Bottom line: to get a woman to stick around, material benefits have to flow from you to her, which means you have to choose poorer women. If you are poor yourself, your choice will be very limited.

It is amazing that so many men just don't get this. Funny thing is, guys I would consider better-looking than me can't get their heads around why I get girls many times more attractive then their girls. When I go to the restroom or momentarily leave a girl I am dating, guys sometimes pepper them with the weirdest questions about me, my p.nis size, my career, the way I treat her, how we met, etc. The girls are utterly perplexed by all that but I know that these guys are simply trying to crack the code that they've been conditioned to never be able to crack!

[E Irizarry R&B Singer]

Bottom line: to get a woman to stick around, material benefits have to flow from you to her, which means you have to choose poorer women. If you are poor yourself, your choice will be very limited.

It is amazing that so many men just don't get this. Funny thing is, guys I would consider better-looking than me can't get their heads around why I get girls many times more attractive then their girls. When I go to the restroom or momentarily leave a girl I am dating, guys sometimes pepper them with the weirdest questions about me, my p.nis size, my career, the way I treat her, how we met, etc. The girls are utterly perplexed by all that but I know that these guys are simply trying to crack the code that they've been conditioned to never be able to crack!

Bahahaahahahahaa

[hypermak]

@Hypermak No ones cares that you want to marry. Go right ahead. But when you’re zeroed out, don’t complain that no one warned you.

Experience is the best teacher for most people who can’t refuse the proverbial kool aid. I say drink it up and find out later what happens to your life.

Your experience being...? Have you been married before? Even if you did and it went sour, would you at least consider that not all marriages fail? You is not me, the women I might consider for marriage are not the ones you met. Et cetera.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Would you at least consider that not all marriages fail?

No, I would not consider that because it is not true. Virtually ALL marriages fail when you consider the following:

-40% to 70% of marriages end up in divorce depending on the society.

But that is not where it ends because:

-An additional 10% to 30% of marriages remain intact but the couple live out their lives in loveless misery due to the desire to remain together because of children, divorce stigma, financial enmeshment, religious duty, etc.

That being the case, it can be estimated that 80% to 95% of marriages FAIL by way of either divorce or miserably living one's life out together.

So if you are shooting to be among that 5% to 20% of successful marriages, you are an idiot who deserves the turmoil and suffering that marriage brings you.

Also, what younger men don't realize is how women change. When I ask younger men to imagine their girlfriend or fiancee 30 years older, 40 pounds heavier, and far less attractive then she is now, would they still want to be married to that image. All but a small, unfortunate few finally get it and the light bulb goes on for the first time!

But again, go ahead and get married so we can repeatedly hit you over the head with "I told you so" after a mere five years of marriage. I want to make an example out of you so smarter young men can learn from your idiocy.

[hypermak]

But that is not where it ends because:

-An additional 10% to 30% of marriages remain intact but the couple live out their lives in loveless misery due to the desire to remain together because of children, divorce stigma, financial enmeshment, religious duty, etc.

That being the case, it can be estimated that 80% to 95% of marriages FAIL by way of either divorce or miserably living one's life out together.[/b]

So if you are shooting to be among that 5% to 20% of successful marriages, you are an idiot who deserves the turmoil and suffering that marriage brings you.

Also, what younger men don't realize is how women change. When I ask younger men to imagine their girlfriend or fiancee 30 years older, 40 pounds heavier, and far less attractive then she is now, would they still want to be married to that image. All but a small, unfortunate few finally get it and the light bulb goes on for the first time!

But again, go ahead and get married so we can repeatedly hit you over the head with "I told you so" after a mere five years of marriage. I want to make an example out of you so smarter young men can learn from your idiocy.

Considering only 5% to 20% of women are actual marriage material, your stats sound about right. Men change, too, dude. I think the secret is to change (evolve) together, as a couple. If one of them moves sideways, lags behind or storms ahead, it's game over. We all know that, you're not adding anything but a bit of a gloomy tone.

This includes staying fit. If a woman gradually morphs into a lazy whale, it means she had the seeds of that laziness and lack of discipline from the start. Yes, of course I pity that man not for choosing her and endure that involution, but for not being smart enough to know that that was going to be the direction.

That's why I personally want to have fun and know as much as possible of the female universe, until I get enough "training" to tell the difference from a specimen belonging to that 5% or 20% and one belonging to the remaining 95% or 80%. Then we will see.

This kind of threatening-y gloomy tones you use just aren't helping anyone. Judging from your last posts, you do seem to have a bit of the braggadocio stance. Good for you if you can still score, but not everyone is you, thanks heaven and hell.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

That's why I personally want to have fun and know as much as possible of the female universe, until I get enough "training" to tell the difference from a specimen belonging to that 5% or 20% and one belonging to the remaining 95% or 80%. Then we will see.

So you are willing to make the most personally and legally significant decision in your life with only 5% to 20% odds of success? Would you skydive with a parachute that had only 5% to 20% odds of deploying successfully to save your life? This is the grave danger in your thinking.

Younger guys like you have been brainwashed to suspend their logic and better judgement because mommy and daddy, religious teachings, Hollywood movies, romantic literature, mass media, and the cute girls in his life have all converged to convince him that up is down and down is up regarding marriage and female true nature.

Like I said, experience is the best teacher and if you are unwilling to accept the truth now, you will later when it is all too late and your life is ruined. Again, you've been warned so at this point whatever happens henceforth is entirely your fault. I actually am hoping you get married because one man down is a lesson for 10 better men in terms of what to avoid. So PLEASE go ahead and get married so we can point to you and gloat for other men to benefit from your misfortune.

[hypermak]

So you are willing to make the most personally and legally significant decision in your life with only 5% to 20% odds of success? Would you skydive with a parachute that had only 5% to 20% odds of deploying successfully to save your life? This is the grave danger in your thinking.

No, it's more like, choosing the right (5-20% bracket) girl so I can maximise my chance of a successful, lifelong relationship with her. Isn't that how it's supposed to work, even without marriage.

Look, I think you're misinterpreting here. I can't speak for all HA members but I don't have a marriage fetish. If I find my perfect lady I will be more than happy to live with and even have kids with her unmarried. Marriage is but a means to an end. If she is attached to the idea of securing her future by getting married and I know she's the one, I will do the deed, no problem. But it's something that will come down the line, at the right time.

I actually believe any girl worth her salt will be herself wary before convincing a man to tie the knot.

Please don't make it sound like there's either idiotic manchildren rushing to take a girl to the altar so they can get laid, or the ideal red-pill bond/consequence-free life you're talking about. There's more in life.

Younger guys like you have been brainwashed to suspend their logic and better judgement because mommy and daddy, religious teachings, Hollywood movies, romantic literature, mass media, and the cute girls in his life have all converged to convince him that up is down and down is up regarding marriage and female true nature.

Maybe so, we have all been brainwashed, but there's an element of "right" in getting married to sanction at least the intention to enter a serious relationship. If you are capable to find a perfectly fitting relationship with a young woman who's good for you without having to commit or marry, more power to you mate! Please at least admit to the fact that there's different situations in life, as well as people with different personalities and life choices.

I am nowhere near finding the right woman yet, but I am not ruling out marriage as a means to secure a young woman who I deem worth my long-term commitment, some time in the future, if and when I find her.

Like I said, experience is the best teacher and if you are unwilling to accept the truth now, you will later when it is all too late and your life is ruined. Again, you've been warned so at this point whatever happens henceforth is entirely your fault. I actually am hoping you get married because one man down is a lesson for 10 better men in terms of what to avoid. So PLEASE go ahead and get married so we can point to you and gloat for other men to benefit from your misfortune.

Whose experience, sorry? Were you married before, and now divorced? If not, how do you even know? You read books or blogs? You gave a friendly shoulder to men complaining how much their love life went south and their halves contemplating divorce? If you have to be so black and white at least tell us where you're coming from.

[hypermak]

Many modern young men today fall for the PUA lie that there's a big market for gigolos among young women. Some young women with good jobs will accept a lower earning but handsome lover, but this is an unstable situation. Women strongly prefer men who have more money than the woman. You wrote you want to lock down a good woman. You can't normally do that relying just on your looks, charm, etc like a gigolo.

I agree, absolutely.

I wrote specifically above that normal boyfriends, who earn more money than their girlfriends, end up subsidizing the girl, often by less than $1000/month and for more than 10 sex sessions, if lower middle class. Exact amount is not important. What matters is that man subsidizes woman. (Men with poorer wives end up subsidizing the wife, especially when young children are around, though they may get no sex, which is why modern marriage sucks.) This is how it has always been: the man has to be a provider to get steady sex from a quality woman. Trying to be a penniless PUA gigolo worked for a while, because feminism taught everyone that such an arrangement, between rich woman and poor man, was "hip" and "progressive", but now that younger people are facing financial pressures like their ancestors, we're going back to the old model, where men must be providers.

Bottom line: to get a woman to stick around, material benefits have to flow from you to her, which means you have to choose poorer women. If you are poor yourself, your choice will be very limited.

What you say kind of makes sense but I don't know if I will put it that way. If that's the case, any man will also subsidise their children at least until the age they leave home on their first full-time job. I am a chef, I don't make much money and perhaps never will until I find investors and set up my own restaurant chain (and you should know that the failure rate is 75%, even with the best names and business plans!). I never had problems hooking up with girls who had decent jobs. My gf in Malta was a corporate lawyer, in London I had flings with a couple of City slickers who were making more than double my salary.

So I agree that a man has to be a provider, but he needs to provide stability. I think that stability also includes money but also emotional stability, excitement and novelty, good intentions and good deeds, in equal measure. If a woman is only interested in financial stability, she's not even worth giving her that financial stability. Intricate point but I hope it came across.

PUAs and feminists alike make this assumption that women who receive material benefits must not actually be attracted to the man. I already stated the more common situation, which is that money simply moves the man to the head of the line of men the women finds attractive independent of money. If the women doesn't find the man sexual attractive, independent of money, then she will not be able to fake convincingly for long.

Young beauty with hideous but rich geezer is rare, but of course feminists and their media allies seize on these rare examples. Donald and Melania Trump, back when they married, is more typical. He was attractive without money, but she certainly wasn't going to marry a penniless man given that she had lots of suitors because of her looks. Money just pushed Trump ahead of the other men. (He has since become a fat and obnoxious boor, but then lots of people of both sexes change for the worse with time. He wasn't so bad 20 years ago.)

Maybe so, but I honestly don't have the money to test your scenario. I will have to do with a mix of everything, like I said above. And if I can't get the more money-oriented hotties, tough luck. I keep hoping the one I choose won't care so much about money as "the full mix".

So all this arguing about "does she really like me for myself" is a distraction to evade the real issue, which is that the natural order of things is for men to be providers. Feminist don't like this because it implies men will outearn women. PUAs don't like it because they want to be gigolos. This widespread desire by men to be gigolos is a symptom of cultural degeneracy.

LIke I said, I agree with this statement. It's just that, for the right lady, the emphasis shouldn't be on money and financial stability alone.

[Later] In another thread, you wrote you are in the Philippines and your dating life is 10x better. This is likely because you are implicitly sugar daddying. That is, you outearn the local women and so there is a flow of material benefits from you to the girls you date, such as restaurant meals, nice apartment to visit, etc. (If not, then the girl is probably playing long game: hoping for marriage, when the flow of material benefits really gets big.) Maybe the term sugar daddy throws you off. Generous boyfriend is synonymous.

What do you mean "implicitly sugar daddying"? LOL, I definitely don't have a nice apartment, I live in the hotel's staff quarters. If by that you mean being a gentleman and buying them the occasional 500 pesos meal, or inviting them to my restaurant where I will cook them a free gourmet treat? I wouldn't call that sugar daddying...just being kind. For all their shortcomings, I found many Filipinas much more appreciative of "the good gesture" than the ladies back in Malta or London.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Whose experience, sorry?

It will be YOUR future experience with marriage and blue pill thinking that will serve as the best teacher. Since you have clearly already have bought into the conventional falsities about marriage and dug in your heels, when you are suffering through a complete hollowing out, only then it will dawn on you the error of entering into a contract with the state to legally bind yourself to a woman and her offspring. Nothing anyone brings to your attention here can show you what devastating future experience can show you.

You are indoctrinated and the light bulb will come on only when you experience the pain of divorce or staying in a woefully miserable marriage. Remember, for hot wife in the husband who is sick and tired of seeing her face. In fact, that is the very purpose of marriage, to FORCE men to stay with a woman he would rather leave under penalty of law, social scorn, or religious mandate!

But one day you will know all this very well.....

[Shemp]

Contrarian Expatriate is overstating the case against marriage. Marriage still works fine where the legal system does not reward women for divorce, separation, adultery, getting fat and unattractive, losing interest in sex, etc. In the Philippines, for example, women suffer when the man abandons them or ceases to find the woman attractive, so women there normally try to remain attractive to their husbands. Of course, everyone grows old and the young beautiful wife eventually becones old and not so beautiful, but that's not a reason to avoid marriage. Many men want a family with children and marriage is the normal way to get that. As long as you marry and continue to live in a man-friendly legal system, like the Philippines, I see no reason why the pluses of married life shouldn't outweigh the minuses. In a man-hostile legal system, like the USA, on the other hand, marriage is indeed very dangerous for men.

I never had and still don't have at desire for children, which is why I never married myself, since no reason for marriage if no children involved.

I never had problems hooking up with girls who had decent jobs. My gf in Malta was a corporate lawyer, in London I had flings with a couple of City slickers who were making more than double my salary.

You "hooked up" and had "flings" with women living the sterile feminist/homosexual Sex and the City lifestyle. You didn't marry and have children with these women. Or to be more precise, they didn't marry and have children with you. Women generally don't like to marry and have children with men who earn less money than them.