Posted on 11/19/2013 4:37:03 AM PST by ClaytonP
In my last post I explained why it makes logical sense for men to greatly limit the amount of “courtship” they offer women in today’s post sexual revolution sexual and marriage marketplace (SMP & MMP). But this leaves the question of what this means for women, and how they should rationally respond to men’s rational choices.
For women who want to meet and marry a suitable man.
The key to answering the question involves understanding the woman’s primary objective. If the goal is to maximize the amount of courtship she receives, skip below to the section on courting for sex. If a woman’s goal is to meet a suitable husband and get married, then she should focus on that goal and not worry about how much courtship she soaks up in the process. There is nothing magical about meal at a restaurant or other forms of semi-expensive entertainment which conveys the important character traits of a prospective husband. At best these serve as a (very poor) barometer of the man’s financial success.
Many women would also argue that a man spending money on her during a date (especially early dates) expresses a sincere desire to get to know her. In this sense paying for a date serves as a sort of courting earnest money; it demonstrates that the man has some skin in the game. However, the reason women want this proof-of-seriousness is exactly why it isn’t rational for men to offer it. In the past courtship was not only restricted in duration, but it was also generally restricted to people in the man and woman’s extended social circle. While the couple might be strangers to each other, there were generally enough social connections for them (or their families) to learn some basic information about the status and character of the other person before deciding to court. If a man had a history of being a scoundrel, the woman could learn this without ever agreeing to court him. Likewise, if a woman had a history of not taking courtship seriously and stringing along suitors, the man could learn this upfront.
Contrast the past with today, where large numbers of women not only want to extend their period of courtship to a decade and a half, but where they want to date extensively outside of their extended social circle. Anytime you are dealing with strangers it creates a trust deficit. Since men are traditionally the ones who bear the risks in courtship, it isn’t surprising that women want men to demonstrate their seriousness first. However, the problem is that women aren’t doing anything similar in kind. Commenter Robert Slanton linked to an article about a Toronto woman who uses online dating as a source of free meals and entertainment. The problem with women expecting men to expend money on getting to know them is the issue of trusting a stranger runs both ways. While the Toronto woman is unusual in her brazenness, she isn’t the only woman to figure out that online dating is a way to get free dinners.
I assume at this point some of my female readers are saying:
But I’m not like that, and since I’m not men should be willing to pay for a date if they want to get to know me!
Of course you aren’t. But how can a man find out you aren’t like that?
He just needs to ask me on a date and get to know me.
Women who think this way aren’t thinking this all the way through. They are saying men should pay upfront to find out if they are serious or not. The problem is, this makes it nearly impossible to avoid becoming the dupe for women like the one in Toronto. The only way to know she isn’t gaming the system is to enable other women to game the system.
The good news.
As I mentioned before, there is nothing magical about a paid date when it comes to getting to know someone. Men and women can get to know each other and experience attraction for each other in a huge variety of casual and formal interactions. The average woman complaining about not being able to “meet men” (date) has in fact already met very large numbers of single men. Casting a wide net is an excellent idea, but the perception of abundanc can at times create a perception that the woman is in a different SMP and especially MMP league than she really is. However, even with this and men’s general pullback from courtship the vast majority of young women do still manage to marry. With this in mind, here is my advice to women looking to find a husband:
Courting for sex.
If the goal is maximum courtship, then a woman should (logically, not morally) choose to be courted for sex. There are a number of ways to go about this same basic goal, including looking for a one night hookup, a fling, or a boyfriend. Given the basic similarities between these things, the strategy for finding such men is essentially the same. Many women also use hookups as their intended path to finding a husband.
Being courted for sex is a woman’s best chance to soak up maximum attention and resources from men because the payoff tends to be immediate. While it is fairly unlikely that a woman will marry in the near term, the chances that she will have casual sex in the same time frame are much higher. By moving into this space you lower the risks for men who offer you courtship and will therefore have more takers.
Keep in mind that men who best know how to woo for sex also know that paying for dates before you have sex with them is a terrible bet. However, if you are pleasant and attractive enough and continue having sex with them they will be more likely to pay for dates. Note that players have turned the tables here, and it is now women who have to first demonstrate skin in the game.
A few more key points:
Never, never, never complain about the lack of good men in mixed company. God only knows what eligible men there might have been interested in you.
Flirt. It works. Flirting means making it apparent to the other person that you want them to ask you out.
Don’t shop for a husband at a bar; shop in a social context where you will meet the same people several times.
Exactly. And this is why internet-based dating simply does not work for me.
See, in my experience, when I successfully find someone, it is because -- over time -- the positive qualities outweigh the other (inevitable) bad ones. Maybe she has a big booty. Maybe she has an annoying laugh. But if, after time, I get to know the stuff that is wonderful, I find myself getting truly interested.
On an internet date, I meet them once. They look at me and see a few qualities they don't like. I look at them and do the same. We mutually check one another off 'the list'.
However, in real life, there is time to minimize the minor negatives and see the major positives.
As a man who became a widower at age 54, let me tell you about the reversal of social dynamics. I’m healthy, 6’2”, normal weight and debt-free. There are lots of women in that age group that are single, mostly divorced. I actually got hit on at my wife’s wake. I won’t go into further detail because it feels to me like boasting but if a man wants to know what a 22year-old girl on a destroyer feels like, he should try being single, healthy and available at 53.
How should women respond to men withdrawing from courtship
Just Scream: NEXT!
That's way better than being "Zimmermaned" and ending up in jail.
“Ah, L’Amour”
by Don Hertzfeld
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaLRpFdZ2V4
bkmk
There is an old, almost forgotten, southern means of finding out if a courting couple are compatible enough not just for marriage, but for a marriage that lasts. It was called “necking”, and has some very strict rules.
First of all, courtship was made more difficult in the old South because of there being a lack of entertainment. The place was deathly dull. Instead of going to a restaurant, one of the couple would go to the home of the parents of the other for a meal. If the girl was going to the boy’s home, she would help his mother and maybe his sisters in the kitchen. If the boy was going to the girl’s home, he would have to converse with her father and maybe brothers for an hour or more.
In any event, if they began dating, it typically meant sitting on the front porch of either house, under the watchful gaze of parents. This would go on a while until finally the “acid test” of necking was used.
Necking meant kissing. Nothing more. But after some warm ups, they would have to kiss in an uninterrupted manner for the better part of an hour.
Truthfully, if you were not compatible with another person, kissing them for over 5 minutes became intolerable. Usually both people would strongly realize that they were *not* compatible, beyond any doubt. If you could kiss for an hour, and still want *anything* to do with that other person, you could almost certainly be married and live happily ever after.
The experienced generally agree that kissing is far more intimate than sex. In this case, if a couple could neck for an hour, sex would be easy, polite, friendly and sympathetic. If they couldn’t neck for an hour, sex would be out of the question.
Of course this social custom only applied to the middle and upper classes. The lower classes typically reproduced like farm animals, having their own rules and customs.
World War II, changing society, entertainment and the “sexual revolution” were the death knell to this, because sex became seen as both a prerequisite to marriage and as more important than marriage.
Socialists proclaimed that marriage was just a social construct of no real value, that uninhibited sex was the goal of life, not long term monogamy and children, who should be raised by the state, not their parents.
Yes, once again, not only were they entirely wrong, but very destructive in the process. As Stalin proved, “You can break a heck of a lot of eggs and still not make an omelet.”
First off, sorry for your loss but your “22-year-old girl on a destroyer” comment was funny, even though it was somewhat sad in the larger sense of where our culture is.
Don't give a man any money. Don't buy him expensive gifts, a watch, or clothing.
Don't let a man live in your residence.
Don't live in a man's residence -- make sure you can afford your own, and stay there most of the time. Don't let him stay over.
Don't let a man use your phone minutes.
Don't let a man offer to fix your car, appliances or work in your yard "in exchange" for food or a place to stay "temporarily."
Don't even "date" anyone who doesn't have a job.
If you must have sex outside of marriage, by all means don't let the man be responsible for birth control.
If you want to have a child and no husband material has arrived on the landscape, have a plan to do it alone. This plan should include a support system, a way to make a living before, during and after the pregnancy, a suitable place to live, no expectation of help from the man, and no intention to sue for child support. In fact, if you become pregnant, do not tell the man; sign the birth certificate "father unknown", move to another state and only leave the information in a sealed envelope with your child's godparent or legal guardian to be opened in the event of your death.
I remember "necking"! In my part of the South, it was also called "he'in' an' she'in' ". Often it was preceded by lying on the living room or rec room floor listening to jazz. It was so fun, except when your little brother tried to interfere.
I “shop” for women at AA meetings. All the party girls are there!
Just put a bounty on the heads of single white hetero men and be done with it.
Nah. Bad breath in the morning.
I’ve got the opposite problem. I’m also a widower, 52, 6’1” 210lbs, in good shape and active, financially secure (debt free in 4 years), relatively good looking (or so I’ve been told), Christian. Yet I can’t even find a woman to date. Seems all the good looking ones (slim, long hair, pretty) are married and I can’t even find one who would be acceptable to explore as a potential.
Where are they hiding?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.