Marriage...

[SW15]

I know personally many and I mean dozens of truly happy married couples that have been together for decades.

Most of them are from a generation that is older than either one of us. If a couple started their interaction before the Sexual Revolution became fully entrenched, the rules were different back then.

It's quite difficult to find what you describe in couples that formed after 1990.

As a guy in my late 30s, similarly aged friends/acquaintances had Baby Boomer parents. The Boomers believed in marriages because their GI Generation parents were all married and stayed married. That's the childhood example they had. Boomers had a mixed record in marriages. With my friends, I knew people with parents who stayed together for decades but were miserable, parents who stayed together until the children were grown and then divorced, parents who got divorced prior to children turning 18 (like my situation), and parents who stayed together and it worked out. The last scenario is less and less common.

The other issue with older childless women is they tend to be often masculine in nature, bossy, and selfish. Less feminine. Especially if they have never been married or at the very least engaged. This is to me FAR more a red flag in a woman than in a man. If a woman has never been married it means she's never been in a relationship with anyone who found her marriage worthy. There are typically some pretty interesting reasons why that is, many of them NOT GOOD.

I would not marry an older childless woman but I would have an extended relationship with a 35+, never marreid, childless woman.

 

[BeExcellent]

Most of them are from a generation that is older than either one of us. If a couple started their interaction before the Sexual Revolution became fully entrenched, the rules were different back then.

It's quite difficult to find what you describe in couples that formed after 1990.

As a guy in my late 30s, similarly aged friends/acquaintances had Baby Boomer parents. The Boomers believed in marriages because their GI Generation parents were all married and stayed married. That's the childhood example they had. Boomers had a mixed record in marriages. With my friends, I knew people with parents who stayed together for decades but were miserable, parents who stayed together until the children were grown and then divorced, parents who got divorced prior to children turning 18 (like my situation), and parents who stayed together and it worked out. The last scenario is less and less common.



I would not marry an older childless woman but I would have an extended relationship with a 35+, never marreid, childless woman.

I got out of high school in 1987, graduated college in 1991. Many of the couples I know who married during those years remain married and they are joyful couples. High school sweethearts; college sweethearts, and I know some who married later on too. I know young couples and yes of course older couples. But to be successful you must prioritize the relationship, both parties must. I see plenty of players and playboys too and perpetually single women as well. They are less fulfilled in many cases than the marrieds. That has been my observation, and that informs my belief system of course.

I just don't expect my filter for life to be the *only* filter. I will say this. There were no baby boomers in my family of origin. My parents were both born during the Great Depression to relatively wealthy families, but nevertheless to families that knew hardship through that era. My father was 37 when I was born in the 60s, and I'm the eldest of 4. So I will agree that I was raised with the value system the Baby Boomers saw in their parents. And much of my older relatives growing up were actually WWII veterans and their wives. And they stayed together no matter what, but in my family the couples I recall from my youth were always gracious, entertaining, kind, happy people. They laughed a lot. But nobody was poor either. And they enjoyed one another socially. It was a graceful youth in many ways. So yes those things made an imprint on me and my values. You bet.

 

[EyeBRollin]

It does not mean that necessarily @Be. There are many women who choose to not be married, especially these days. I happen to be acquainted with a few. Beautiful, intelligent, accomplished feminine women who believe in love and commitment but who choose for whatever reason to not be legally married.

The bolded part requires scrutiny. Beautiful, feminine women typically do not remain unmarried.

 

[SW15]

The bolded part requires scrutiny. Beautiful, feminine women typically do not remain unmarried.

One of the wild things about marriage now is that most people get married at least once by their 50th birthday. That's still true even though we've known for decades about the high probability of divorce. This looks bad for men because we're the ones who take the financial hit when a divorce happens.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I am curious how you're defining "feminine." Because the way I see it, a woman's femininity has no bearing on whether SHE chooses to be married or single, or not. A woman's femininity is her essence, it comes from within and simply exists in that realm. It doesn't come from the conscious choices she makes.

If you feel differently, I am open to hearing your thoughts about it.

Women do not “choose” to be married. They get chosen. They accept or decline from the man that chose them.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I see.

And if/when they decline, is that not a choice they made?

No. Women get chosen. There’s a difference.

If getting married were a woman’s choice, no woman that wants to be married would still be single.

 

[SW15]

But they struggle to ensnare an abundant alpha with options, much to her tingling pvssy’s dismay

The hierarchy is....

-Alpha/Sigma Men
-Attractive Women
-Lesser Attractive Women
-Beta Men
-Omega Men

 

[DonJuanjr]

Once again, you put words in my mouth that I never said.

What I said was I am open to discussing in an attempt to understand. But it's not a given.

Actually you did say that...

I acknowledged monogamy is not in a man's nature

Definitions from Oxford dictionary states:
ac·knowl·edge
1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.

This doesn't sound like "attempting to understand"....

Maybe if you use proper words to convey what you mean, you wouldn't have to keep "having to explain" yourself....

You could also quit trying to deflect every point to turn the topic to defining words you use instead of acknowledging what's being conveyed...

The point still stands.... Even when a woman such as yourself, who's "attempting to" or "has accepted" (either or, it doesn't matter) male nature, doesn't know if you could be fine with your fiance sleeping with women on the side, while demanding monogamy from you..... Why would a man expect a woman who isn't "attempting to" or "accepted" or "understand" male nature be fine with it? This is the reason for the deception.....

 

[Stuffnu]

Looking back, deciding not to get married was one of the few decisions I got right in life. I came to a realization at a young age that I couldn’t remain monogamous and maintain its vow.
To do so was against every fiber of my manhood.

 

[Stuffnu]

Consider this.

Abundant alpha men are only able to cheat and sleep around as widely as they do….because women are attracted to it. It’s not the cheating she’s attracted to, it’s the man with access and options.

So it feeds on each other.

Women use the pvssy card to try and secure high value men. And this then enables high value men to lap up all the pvssy cards.

Women mislead themselves. They are used to dangling pvssy for betas. She thinks she has magik vagina. Unfortunately, the alpha sex addict is often very immune to the pvssy card. It’s like snacking on a grape for him.

Agreed.
Cheating is a moral concept - not animalistic. A scent that women gravitate to….

 

[BeExcellent]

Agree with the above. Marriage is about commitment and that decision to commit. In the traditional vows each spouse vows to “forsake all others” meaning you are committing NOT to indulge in intimate contact with others. This decision to commit is what creates the sanctity of the marriage as an intimate union and creates the sandbox for the married couple.

It comes down to character. When I was married I had every opportunity to cheat. I was running 40 miles a week, trim, fit, younger, gorgeous and traveling for work to major cities. Despite wearing my large wedding set I was hit on constantly and often by interesting attractive successful men. I quit wearing make up to alleviate the attention, wore flats rather than heels, I STILL got hit on. In airports, on airplanes, the rental car shuttle, getting food, walking down the sidewalk, by the doctors I worked with. All. The. Time. I could have cheated or had affairs effortlessly and without detection. Sometimes these were handsome sexy men. I never strayed. Never even considered it. It was not in my character to cheat. I have integrity and value having integrity. I was committed and was not about to violate that commitment.

This is why character is the single most important characteristic of a life partner. Character dictates how one behaves when no one is looking.

To say men can’t help it is to say men are enslaved to their primal urges, and to justify the behavior by pointing to man’s nature.

Our nature as humans is to seek pleasure. Too much indulgence in food? You get fat. Too much indulgence in anger or rage or passion? You end up in jail. Too much indulgence in drugs or alcohol or tobacco? You get addicted and/or you ruin your health. Too much indulgence in sex? You lose the ability to build a meaningful relationship and you end up lonely or alone.

So maturing is a process of learning to control the nature of being human, to exhibit character and to temper all these desires for a constructive existence rather than a destructive existence. That is the process of building character. But many people choose not to because it’s not easy to say no to all those pleasurable temptations. And to see the justification of it as “a man’s nature” tells me these are men without character and too immature to value character and the process of building it.

And the result? Women who have good character are not going to give those guys the time of day. So you won’t come across them in your comings and going’s because this way of existing actually is repelling to great women.

And at the end of the day his lack of character is what has rotted the OP’s marriage.

 

[bat soup]

Just keep banging her for as long as it lasts, then move on. You had her best years. Let some other schmuck deal with her as she declines and heads towards the wall.

Someone else is driving my old BMW now. Last I heard, it was going to be exported to West Africa. Hopefully they'll enjoy it, but they shouldn't forget who drove it first.

 

[bat soup]

This post from @Pan87 has been heavily weighing on my mind and so I asked my boyfriend about it last night. I suppose for reassurance since I am considering marrying him but anyway....

He's in his mid 40s and prior to me was a big "player" (for lack of a better word) and admitted to being with around 150-200 women since becoming sexually active in his late teens, mostly casual and short term, and two long term relationships. He admitted to having a blast BUT when he hit 40, he started feeling a shift in his attitude and what he wanted. He was burned out.

Fast forward to current. He's committed and we've been discussing getting married next year. One thing we have in common is marriage has eluded both of us; for me I have been engaged three times, broke them off for various reasons that in retrospect were the right decisions. And for him, as Pan mentioned - the conflict between wanting casual sex with many women and commitment with one woman.

For context, my parents marriage was horrendous, my dad cheated for years although he was a fantastic father, he was a crap husband. He apologized to me for allowing me to witness that because I'm sensitive and it had a extremely negative impact on me and how I viewed marriage in general.

Back on point, my boyfriend explained to me that commitment doesn't necessarily come from love because we can "love" many people but still not want to be committed

But rather that it's a choice one makes, a decision to be committed, and a person must be emotionally ready to make that decision, it shouldn't be made frivolously. That all relationships have peaks and valleys and there will also be times when we may become attracted to and desire sex with another person or persons, hence the conflict.

That's where the decision to remain faithful and committed comes into play. That the decision to remain faithful versus cheating stems from one's own moral compass and integrity.

Yes it's true, he confirmed men (generally speaking) are not naturally inclined to be monogamous but that does NOT mean they're not capable of being monogamous, they most certainly are! That if you respect and value your spouse and marriage then the choice to remain faithful is not without struggle but nevertheless relatively easy.

That the desire to have sex and attain other women (abundance) does not go away BUT you choose to not act on it.

That's commitment -- the decision to not act on the desire.

The cost is too great. Not only to your own moral integrity but to your relationship as well even if your spouse were never to find out. And if they were to ever find out or simply suspect it? Then in most cases, you're shyt, done. It's over because cheating is virtually impossible to overcome.

It's a huge risk and comes at a great cost and if you love, value and respect your partner and marriage, then you make the decision to keep it in your pants like a man versus chasing tail like a horny sex starved boy (his words). OR, don't get married.

He believes (and I agreed) that with all the dating apps in existence today and how easy sexual access and achieving abundance has become, this is why marriage is on the decline and why people (both men and women) are choosing to remain single.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Remaining single for both men and women is accepted in our society today and so again it's a choice. Own that choice. Versus committing and messing around, that's disingenuous and emotionally dishonest.

This was exactly what I needed to hear, and I believed him. It was honest and makes a lot of sense. And contrary to what some people on this forum believe and preach, I did not lose any of my attraction for him, the opposite happened. My attraction increased as well as my respect.

Nuff said from me.
Ciao guys (and gal) I wish you all much happiness and best of luck!

Men generally want a serious relationship with one woman, and as much sex as possible with hundreds of others.

Since those two desires are mutually exclusive, sooner or later in life men are forced to choose one path or the other or....

to do what most people do and lie.

 

[Barrister]

Thanks for chiming in @Be and wanted to respond to this^. I understand you had many opportunities to cheat and never considered it, which of course is admirable but did you ever feel a "desire" to cheat? You weren't clear about that, hence why I'm asking.

For me, I receive quite a bit of attention and get hit on as well, but the difference for me is that when in a committed relationship and in love with my SO, I have absolutely NO desire to cheat. Unlike men, I am a naturally monogamous person, it's my nature to be monogamous.

It really has nothing to do with my character or moral integrity, although I like to think I possess both, I just don't have the desire.

This is where men differ and what my boyfriend explained. Given that men are not naturally monogamous, there might be occasions where they DO have the desire to cheat, but after making a commitment, choose to not act on that desire due to possessing a strong character and moral integrity.

So it's a bit different, at least for me.

I think almost every woman you speak to would tell you that she is "monogamous." The problem is that many women will consider themselves "monogamous" when in fact they simply start an emotional affair at the tail end of a LTR/marriage and then end the LTR. The term that we use for this here at SS is called "monkey-branching." It's an inherent skill. As has been repeated here ad nauseam, women will generally mourn the loss of the relationship well before it actually ends and begin mentally preparing herself for after. This is also why women don't stay single very long - they many times have something else lined up ready to go as soon as they shut the book on the last one. So, while it may not be true physical cheating that the woman generally partakes it, it is only because she is laying the groundwork for termination before it gets to that point. To me, that isn't true monogamy.

 

[DonJuanjr]

To me, that isn't true monogamy.

Nope... It's exploitation.

 

[Barrister]

Appreciate the response and I agree with you. It's not just women however, both genders can engage in emotional cheating as well as physical cheating.

This thread is about physical cheating and men's nature to be non-monogamous, which is what my boyfriend and I discussed last night and what I posted about this morning.

I think the OP wasn't exactly on the topic of cheating at all and this has become kind of a sub-discussion within the "marriage" one -- however, I was responding to your previous post where you said that "unlike men" you were monogamous. The truth is both men and women have to go against their natural inclinations to be truly monogamous. And I am not looking to be argumentative with you about whether you are or you aren't (since I wouldn't know anyway). I do, however, know many women who have told me they are monogamous or "they would never cheat" (a favorite) but partake in the monkey-branching I described with a man (or men) they are interested in during the relationship. Again, that isn't monogamous. That is just making a preemptive strike.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Lolz dudes, what exactly has Cats done to earn all of this free attention you're giving her?

 

[Stuffnu]

A man’s decision to become monogamous is not a true commitment.
It’s a suppression of there instinctive need.

 

[BeExcellent]

Never a desire to cheat. That doesn’t mean I never felt desire for someone. I simply did not and do not respond to the desire out of character and out of respect (for him, for the relationship, for myself).

Some people are just magnetic. I know I am. And magnetic men know they are too. But it is not worth damaging something really good for a whim or a curiosity or even for a possibility when it would wreck something that is a known quantity that I have invested myself in. The idea of being a betrayer is awful to me, perhaps because many years ago I was betrayed. I am not going to be a person who wreaks someone with that kind of blindsiding devastation. I remember how terrible that felt and I’m not going to do that to another. I’ll be straight up and I’ll leave before I’ll betray someone. It simply isn’t how I operate.

As I’ve stated any number of times around here. I love men. Just adore them. Especially the scoundrel archetype. And with my vibe being what it is (which cannot just be turned off) I attract that type despite minding my own business. Yes there have been instances here and there where the man in question was very appealing, and there was the element of inherent desire that could have been capitalized on. And nobody would have known. To have character is to remain true in those moments in the face of the temptation, not the never having temptation. I have a very high libido and a siren vibe. This emanates from me. No much I can do about that but understand it’s there, it appeals to men and it’s my job to manage it and turn down advances in favor of my man. It is an expression of respect to him.

Cheating is at the end of the day the ultimate disrespect to a spouse.

 

[andreihaha]

Women assume/project it’s an emotional affair, and that’s why it hurts them so much. That’s the betrayal. She’s lost the security and you’ve triggered the primal “omg I’m going to be left alone in the wilderness.”

Not only that, but cheating reveals him as weak, not able to control himself, a lesser man. And women don't want to be seen with someone like that.

Someone told me once: "How can you take care of a family of you can't even control yourself?"