Marriage and aging: A generalization.

[Nyororin]

Thinking a person will change after marriage is also a common and severe mistake made by both men and women. We don't change. We just reveal more and more of our true character you failed to notice or convinced yourself was a minor problem.
[...cut...]
Even if you find find your "soulmate" (yes, I believe in the concept) it does not automatically mean you belong together as husband and wife. Traveling with them will reveal how your work together under stress, or don't. Living with someone you are forced to face the reality of all sides of their personality and you will have a better foundation for deciding whether to take it further.

I am going to strongly agree with this too. If you live together, travel together, spend distance apart, etc... And find some "deal breaker" trait in the person - chances are it will NEVER go away. Never ever assume you can change it or that it will go away. In fact, assuming the opposite - that there is at least one more you haven`t seen, and the one you have will only get worse - is probably best. If it is something you cannot stand while in the flash-burn of early love... Imagine how you`ll feel about it once emotions settle down.

The reason I believe that American women have changed is they overdo it with the equal rights thing. I feel that they think they need to be in charge to be equal. This is what I sensed while dating some and was married to a American woman. I think this is why marriage is doomed in America.

I think there is a lot of cultural influence pushing women to be like men in order to be "equal". The thing is, women aren`t men, and there are things that never will be the same no matter what they do or how they behave. To pull off normal "feminine" stuff without being considered "lesser" (in their minds), there are too many women who overdo everything - to make up for being a woman they go to extremes in attitude.

There is nothing wrong in being equal, just do order me around.

(I am going to assume you meant don`t instead of do there. :P )
Those types of women need to realize that they don`t have to do "everything a man does and better" to be an equal person.

Believe me, being a "nice guy" will never get you laid, either. Women are not impressed by your faux niceness or obsequiousness and never will be. Women are attracted to aloof a-holes that treat them indifferently.

That might get you laid, but if that is your only interest in a relationship, why not just pay for it and not worry about the whole getting involved bit?
If you actually want an actual relationship, love, etc... My biggest question when people bring this up is - Would you want to be with the type of woman who would jump into bed with a jerk? Do you think a functional relationship could come of that? Sure, you might catch those girls who you think are hot who are in relationships with jerks... but... what would the point be other than something physical?
Maybe I`m just strange, but I can`t imagine a lasting relationship starting that way. A short fling - maybe. And if you ARE a jerk, you probably wouldn`t be trying to be a nice guy to begin with, so "stopping faking" probably wouldn`t get you what you want either.
The advice to stop acting isn`t going to help the REAL nice guys out there, who seem to get the shortest end of the stick.

ETA; I missed this one.

Far more sensible than marriage, though, is getting married by each other's word only, not the state. Then it means something.

It only means something as long as you think it does - not much different than a legal marriage. And the people who would make a commitment that means something are the people who wouldn`t be screwed over by a normal marriage.

[termogard]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Believe me, being a "nice guy" will never get you laid, either. Women are not impressed by your faux niceness or obsequiousness and never will be. Women are attracted to aloof a-holes that treat them indifferently. I know, I know, you might be replying to this with "no, not true blah blah blah", you're fooling nobody. I know how you think. I was there.

When you are "nice" you are just boring person for them

[manganimefan227]

That's why you should be nice yet have something else!

For example I myself am nice and caring but also I have a twisted psyco creative mind that people seem to love ^_^

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

That might get you laid, but if that is your only interest in a relationship, why not just pay for it and not worry about the whole getting involved bit?

For one thing it’s illegal, but it’s up to anyone else if they want to get involved in that. Second, you pay far more being in a relationship or even getting a girl into bed than "paying for it". Time, effort and even money. And not that I would know for sure about the latter but the former seems like a much better thrill.

If you actually want an actual relationship, love, etc... My biggest question when people bring this up is - Would you want to be with the type of woman who would jump into bed with a jerk?

Whether they actually do it or not is irrelevant. The greater point is that most women would want to if they did. If they jumped into bed with someone, a boring nice guy would not be their first choice, not even their 10th choice. Sure, if the 11th choice is all they can get, that’s what they’ll go for. That’s just how they’re set up regardless of whatever conscious merits they have. And college age people are going to do this a lot so if you want to play the game (and all guys do), might as well learn to play it well and there's no regrets later.

Do you think a functional relationship could come of that?

It may or may not. It’s really not important. Even in the case of seeking a relationship, a girl’s first choice will never be a nice guy. Even if getting dead serious is what a guy wants at that age, for whatever absurd reason, then acting the nice guy will not attract what they want anyway.

And if you ARE a jerk, you probably wouldn`t be trying to be a nice guy to begin with, so "stopping faking" probably wouldn`t get you what you want either.
The advice to stop acting isn`t going to help the REAL nice guys out there, who seem to get the shortest end of the stick.

There is no such thing as that nice of a guy. Of course there’s plenty of guys who aren’t selfish, but not to the point that they will give a random stranger that much attention like when a so-called nice-guy gives a girl attention. Why would somebody do this to somebody they don’t really know that well or never even met before? Because they’re interested in them, that’s why. Most of them you won’t see entertaining sick little kids at the hospital to make them feel special or volunteering to chat up lonely old people. None of those so-called nice guys are going to be chatting up some other dude that looks depressed to make them feel better, nor any girl they’re not into. What’s so nice about “acting” nice to a girl they like? Nothing worth labeling someone a “nice guy” over. That’s all I’m saying. I mean sure, I could consider myself a “nice guy” if I care for things beyond myself, and I do, but that in itself will not get a guy a thing nor promote goodness in the world. REAL nice guys are going to waste a lot of their time believing otherwise until they finally pick up a weapon. Not that I believe there actually are that many REAL nice guys, because there aren’t.

Besides that flawed definition of “nice guy”. The regular nice guys, that is, the ones a notch above sociopaths are going to fail at getting what they want also if they don’t quit being obsequious pushovers. Nobody wins there except perhaps entitled girls who devour random attention so they can grow their entitlement ego even bigger. And those girls are still going to love giving it to the jerk regardless.

It only means something as long as you think it does - not much different than a legal marriage. And the people who would make a commitment that means something are the people who wouldn`t be screwed over by a normal marriage.

Maybe, maybe not. But in the U.S., the statistics suggest otherwise.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by xyzone

For one thing it’s illegal, but it’s up to anyone else if they want to get involved in that. Second, you pay far more being in a relationship or even getting a girl into bed than "paying for it". Time, effort and even money. And not that I would know for sure about the latter but the former seems like a much better thrill.

I was under the impression that there were legal brothels - though I can`t say I would know where, or if they would be within traveling distance of everyone out there. I agree that you pay more for getting into a relationship - which is why I brought that up in the first place.
I can`t comment on the thrill, as I`ve never been involved in a relationship that was not serious.

Whether they actually do it or not is irrelevant. The greater point is that most women would want to if they did. If they jumped into bed with someone, a boring nice guy would not be their first choice, not even their 10th choice. Sure, if the 11th choice is all they can get, that’s what they’ll go for. That’s just how they’re set up regardless of whatever conscious merits they have. And college age people are going to do this a lot so if you want to play the game (and all guys do), might as well learn to play it well and there's no regrets later.

But this has no connection with marriage and getting into a lasting relationship. It has no connection with the rate of divorce, etc... It`s just about picking up short term flings and getting into a girl`s pants. You may be entirely right about what the regular woman looking for sex would go for - but I have a feeling the type of woman a man looking for sex with is not necessarily going to be the same type of woman a man is going to want to be in a long term relationship with.

Besides that flawed definition of “nice guy”. The regular nice guys, that is, the ones a notch above sociopaths are going to fail at getting what they want also if they don’t quit being obsequious pushovers. Nobody wins there except perhaps entitled girls who devour random attention so they can grow their entitlement ego even bigger. And those girls are still going to love giving it to the jerk regardless.

After reading through your rant about nice guys, I realized that I sort of screwed up on interpreting the phrase. I didn`t really know there was a whole category and set behavior for a "nice guy" - I was taking it at literal value as an honestly nice guy.
Yes, no one is going to go for a pushover. This doesn`t matter whether they are into jerks - it`s just uncomfortable because it usually seems fake, plus that type of "nice guy" usually has been "nice" to another girl in view.

But still, I really get the feeling that you`re up in arms about women and who they choose to have sex with - not anything about long term relationships and marriage. The dynamics of relationships that are not serious or that are only physical are worlds away from those of serious relationships.

Maybe, maybe not. But in the U.S., the statistics suggest otherwise.

They suggest that relationships that don`t commit to marriage last longer than those that do? Where does that figure come from?
I am saying that the type of relationship which would work well with a non-legal commitment is the same type of relationship which would work well in a legal marriage. The attitude toward commitment is the issue, not the method of committing.

Do you think that if marriage was abolished, and individual commitments took it`s place... That there would be fewer relationships ending? Do you think there would be less pain involved in the break up of a relationship if it were a private commitment and not a legal one? Even without legal backing of a commitment NOW (marriage), mothers can secure financial support from fathers. Long term partners can receive settlements when the relationship ends.

Obviously the divorce rate would go down as "divorce" wouldn`t be necessary. But the problem would still be there with another name.

[xyzone]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

But this has no connection with marriage and getting into a lasting relationship.

It does. It shines light on the motivation of relationships themselves.

After reading through your rant about nice guys, I realized that I sort of screwed up on interpreting the phrase. I didn`t really know there was a whole category and set behavior for a "nice guy" - I was taking it at literal value as an honestly nice guy.

The definition is in the context which it came up in this thread. Acting nice to get with girls.

This doesn`t matter whether they are into jerks

Maybe not, but that’s the crux of this point. They are into them, never mind assumptions about fakers. They like drama. It doesn’t matter what fake nice guys have or have not done. The girls will pick the jerks first because that’s what they are inherently attracted to and this is what young guys need to understand and use to their advantage. They are not into femme acting guys that listen to them except as pets to talk to about all the jerks they have banged. All the idealist talk is a big fat lie against this point. And that’s my one and only main point with the nice guy stuff.

But still, I really get the feeling that you`re up in arms about women and who they choose to have sex with - not anything about long term relationships and marriage.

I’m not up in arms about it, I’ve accepted the reality and am pointing it out. If I'm up in arms about anything, it's anyone trying to deny it. It does have to do with marriage and relationships because it has to do with what women want and how guys should not let them run anything, as the American ball and chain types have done while destroying marriage in the process. I guess my main point is to let guys understand that taking female BS is neither necessary nor the best thing for society. Put them in their place, so to speak.

The dynamics of relationships that are not serious or that are only physical are worlds away from those of serious relationships.

No, they aren’t. They share prerequisites. Attraction being at the top.

They suggest that relationships that don`t commit to marriage last longer than those that do? Where does that figure come from?

No, the figure is that marriage is failing, that’s all. And legal marriage is screwing the guys in general, so there’s no need to get into it. What advantages does it have? Why should anyone bother with it? Tax breaks? Is that worth getting screwed in divorce? And even while it does last, it was my point about American wives which too many are not doing anything in a marriage.

Even without legal backing of a commitment NOW (marriage), mothers can secure financial support from fathers. Long term partners can receive settlements when the relationship ends.

They can get whatever they want from their fathers (of any children, I assume). Child support? Fine. Alimony? Hell no. The legal backing in marriage is the problem because it’s abused. Anything besides that is between two people. There’s really no need for a state marriage, the presumed advantages don’t come close to meeting the risks. If it’s all about love, etc., why such insistence on making a legal contract about it? Isn’t a relationship supposed to be about trust?

Obviously the divorce rate would go down as "divorce" wouldn`t be necessary. But the problem would still be there with another name.

Or maybe people would respect the union more than as a court backed contract. These are all assumptions.

Btw, no, I don't necessarily think state marriage should be abolished. I just think any guy that gets into it (in America with an American woman) is a fool.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by xyzone

Btw, no, I don't necessarily think state marriage should be abolished. I just think any guy that gets into it (in America with an American woman) is a fool.

This is what I don't get. There are literally millions of American men married to American women who couldn't be happier.

These kind of overgereralizations take away from your argument. Just because you haven't been lucky in love doesn't mean it doesn't happen every day for other people.

[JasonTakeshi]

OP: "Do you think marriage is good for anything?"

It's all about complementation to me.



If the image isn't enough, I will care to explain.

Edit: it is not enough.

1 - The Brain: She needs to be equal to me in intelectual terms. By this, I mean that she has to think inside my "sphere" of comprehension. (Thinking inside my "sphere" doesn't necessary mean to agree with everything I say)

2- Complementation Puzzle: She has to be good at the things im bad. And I have to be good at the things she's bad. (She can cook well, I can't. She's bad at decorating, I'm good. Etc.)

3- Heart: A sense of strong affection and attachment.

4- Sex Symbols: Means that she has to match my criteria. For some, this may refear to physical appearance. (For an heterosexual, it would be the opposite sex. For an homosexual, it would be the same sex.)

[manganimefan227]

The problem is people just go way too fast!

Sorta like drunk driving, Your drugs are the emotions you get from a realationship whether it's a true bond or lust and the more of it you have, the faster you go until you crash and burn.

But if you enter the world of love with a commitment to not drink, a commitment to not let your emotions push you to the road of fail and you pick someone with a pure heart and a pure bond than it will work MUCH better and you'll be MUCH happier

So it isn't "the womans tendency toeard jerks" No matter who you choose, you still gotta take love as the big commitment it is, Don't jump into it. It's actuallybest to be shy at the start of a relationship

[bELyVIS]

Women aren't attracted to nice guys. Logically they say they want a nice guy, but attraction overrides logic everytime.