- Posts: 112
- Thank you received: 0
Select posts by Jagrmeister on the now defunct GYOW = GoingYourOwnWay.com
Why marrying at 30+ for a Man is a Bad Idea
1 year 11 months ago #82
by jagrchive
No chart is perfect. But this is accurate directionally IMO. Let's look at a few ages:
During our 20's: Women's SMV exceeds a man's. In dating market terms, all men aren't created equal, so women shack up with their SMV equals-> alphas (15-25% of male population), leaving a large male population without mates.
Age 30: Men and Women's SMV is equivalent. Aware of their impending decline, women put the full court press on available betas to lock them in a permanent relationship (whereas earlier those betas weren't even good enough for a hookup). Unaware of pretty much everything, blue pill men go along with it. Now, think about this: if the kind of girl didn't want to even date you or have sex with you in her 20s, what makes you think she'll want to have regular sex with you for life at 30? LOL. The sex doesn't "dry up"; it was always meant as a short-term device to lock in marriage. Why? A beta male is a woman's back up plan. Sex was never in the cards.
Age 38: Men peak in SMV and women are approaching rock bottom. Besides the rare 'cougar', no guys look at a 38-year old woman as some kind of catch. Men are in their prime professionally, have a distinguished look, and can appeal to women 18-29 (this is what many PUAs do). As you can see from the chart, a man's SMV is a multiple of a woman's.
Thereafter: A man's SMV never falls below a woman's. That's because age does a number on the one thing women can offer- looks. Age has a way of increasing a man's bank account however, and so that, in part, makes up for some of his loss of looks. Men can look good by looking distinguished or rugged which age doesn't diminish as fast; a woman's good looks depend on youthfulness.
Decisions, decisions. If you're an alpha, you drive. You can play the field or shack up. Generally speaking, alphas give up much more by marrying, but given female interest, will likely shack up sooner or later. If you're beta, and a girl shows interest in you genuinely in her (and your) 20s; you date and fall in love, that might work. The one combination that does not work is if you're beta, and a 30+ woman shows up at your doorstep. That is not legitimate interest. If you think that somehow a **** of this kind found you unworthy of her attention in her 20s but miraculously finds you physically attractive and finds your personality fascinating at 30, I have a bridge to sell you. The sex will appear and magically disappear. It has nothing to do with marriage, itself. It has to do with this: she never found you attractive in the first place.
If I held shares of typewriter companies just as the PC was launched, I'd try to trade my typewriter shares for your shares of Microsoft and Intel. But you would be a fool to allow me to make that trade with you. Even if you had waited to own typewriter shares for years, it wouldn't make any sense.
If you're a 30+ male, you are not under the gun. As you can see, your SMV appreciates and then even when it declines, it floats well above that of women of similar age. So it's perfectly fine to overlook the post-wall ****s suddenly showing up and date the 20-somethings (the PUA option). If nothing else, it would be a wiser decision to enjoy life until one's SMV is maxed out. And of course there's the no stress approach (the MGTOW option). These options all make sense (along with true relationships formed when both men and women are in their 20s); the one option that does not make sense is: go without in your 20s, then surrender to a 30-something **** who wants to frogmarch you into wedlock. Basic principles of economics argues against it. I am thrilled every day my money goes to some deserving escort over some undeserving post-wall mess
Why marrying at 30+ for a Man is a Bad Idea was created by jagrchive
No chart is perfect. But this is accurate directionally IMO. Let's look at a few ages:
During our 20's: Women's SMV exceeds a man's. In dating market terms, all men aren't created equal, so women shack up with their SMV equals-> alphas (15-25% of male population), leaving a large male population without mates.
Age 30: Men and Women's SMV is equivalent. Aware of their impending decline, women put the full court press on available betas to lock them in a permanent relationship (whereas earlier those betas weren't even good enough for a hookup). Unaware of pretty much everything, blue pill men go along with it. Now, think about this: if the kind of girl didn't want to even date you or have sex with you in her 20s, what makes you think she'll want to have regular sex with you for life at 30? LOL. The sex doesn't "dry up"; it was always meant as a short-term device to lock in marriage. Why? A beta male is a woman's back up plan. Sex was never in the cards.
Age 38: Men peak in SMV and women are approaching rock bottom. Besides the rare 'cougar', no guys look at a 38-year old woman as some kind of catch. Men are in their prime professionally, have a distinguished look, and can appeal to women 18-29 (this is what many PUAs do). As you can see from the chart, a man's SMV is a multiple of a woman's.
Thereafter: A man's SMV never falls below a woman's. That's because age does a number on the one thing women can offer- looks. Age has a way of increasing a man's bank account however, and so that, in part, makes up for some of his loss of looks. Men can look good by looking distinguished or rugged which age doesn't diminish as fast; a woman's good looks depend on youthfulness.
Decisions, decisions. If you're an alpha, you drive. You can play the field or shack up. Generally speaking, alphas give up much more by marrying, but given female interest, will likely shack up sooner or later. If you're beta, and a girl shows interest in you genuinely in her (and your) 20s; you date and fall in love, that might work. The one combination that does not work is if you're beta, and a 30+ woman shows up at your doorstep. That is not legitimate interest. If you think that somehow a **** of this kind found you unworthy of her attention in her 20s but miraculously finds you physically attractive and finds your personality fascinating at 30, I have a bridge to sell you. The sex will appear and magically disappear. It has nothing to do with marriage, itself. It has to do with this: she never found you attractive in the first place.
If I held shares of typewriter companies just as the PC was launched, I'd try to trade my typewriter shares for your shares of Microsoft and Intel. But you would be a fool to allow me to make that trade with you. Even if you had waited to own typewriter shares for years, it wouldn't make any sense.
If you're a 30+ male, you are not under the gun. As you can see, your SMV appreciates and then even when it declines, it floats well above that of women of similar age. So it's perfectly fine to overlook the post-wall ****s suddenly showing up and date the 20-somethings (the PUA option). If nothing else, it would be a wiser decision to enjoy life until one's SMV is maxed out. And of course there's the no stress approach (the MGTOW option). These options all make sense (along with true relationships formed when both men and women are in their 20s); the one option that does not make sense is: go without in your 20s, then surrender to a 30-something **** who wants to frogmarch you into wedlock. Basic principles of economics argues against it. I am thrilled every day my money goes to some deserving escort over some undeserving post-wall mess
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 1.271 seconds
