When should I get married ?

[Sincerity]

12 hours ago, Someone here said:

So I really want a deep romantic lasting connection with a girl who loves me and I love her ...not some one night stand sex with an escort or that kinda bs ..I'm 27 ..Will graduate college and start working in any business company as an employer within two years given that I won't fail any exams and retake some semesters etc

The thing is I go through lots of stress everyday because I basically live alone in my apartment and I have to do everything for myself. I wish I could just go home and find a wife who can cook for me ..sooth me..relax me..give me a massage..suck my "thing "  ...you know basically a wife. 

The thing is that (supposedly) you want a love-based relationship, but you're going at it focusing on what you're going to get. This is not a mature position to enter a relationship from, because it is fundamentally contrary to a LOVE-based relationship.

You create a love-based relationship by wanting to GIVE, not get.

Why would you want to give? Because it grows you. A lot.

But also it just so happens that when you give a lot, you get a lot. Much more than when you go at it with the attitude of wanting to get, actually.

26 minutes ago, Letho said:

If this is a parody, 10/10 execution but if not, let's do a reality check aye. Marriage isn’t a cure for loneliness, stress, or a tragic lack of home-cooked meals. A wife isn’t a reward for enduring your own company, she’s a partner, not a paid subscription to comfort bud. Right now, you’re stressed from handling life alone and marriage doesn’t solve that it doubles it. If you can’t handle yourself, adding another human (with her own needs, emotions, and expectations) will be like throwing gasoline on a campfire and calling it climate control.

^ This

[Hojo]

If the man has to take his turn cleaning then why dosent the woman have to take turns working and paying the bills.

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, something_else said:

This is absolutely having your cake and eating it. You're saying you want the gender roles that benefit you to stick around but you want to get rid of the ones that don't.

Like I said, you're either OK with both of the following statements:

• a woman can say she wants a man to pay for everything;
• a man can say he wants a woman who will cook and clean

Or you're OK with neither. You can't say that one is acceptable while the other isn't.

To be clear I'm pretty much on the side of 'neither is OK' in the above comparison. I don't want a housemaid, but I also don't want a dependant living with me who isn't pulling their weight financially. For me, chores and bills should be split equally in most circumstances.

But I can see how a setup where the man pays for everything and the women does chores can work for some people. What I think is very selfish is this middle ground you're trying to argue for whereby the man pays for everything and you just get to sit on your ass and enjoy it without doing any kind of work.

And your reasoning of "well bills aren't optional but chores are" is quite a lousy argument. Chores aren't really optional either unless you want to starve to death in a filthy house.

Fine. No one is arguing with you about your choices. I don't see a rule book. FYI I won't be sitting on my ass, BTW. Thats not the set up. The set up is I take care of the household while he pays the bills. I either do the chores myself or pay someone to do it but it's not a rule that I the wife must do them. If I get pregnant, bills are still getting paid, if I get sick, bills are still getting paid. If something goes wrong with him God forbid then I take over and bills still get paid from either my savings or his or wherever. Both sides win. See. It's not that complicated.  

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, Letho said:

 

@Someone here YES! The noble pursuit of lifelong partnership, or an elaborate plan to acquire a personal chef, therapist, and stress ball with benefits. Bold strategy son, bold strategy.

If this is a parody, 10/10 execution but if not, let's do a reality check aye. Marriage isn’t a cure for loneliness, stress, or a tragic lack of home-cooked meals. A wife isn’t a reward for enduring your own company, she’s a partner, not a paid subscription to comfort bud. Right now, you’re stressed from handling life alone and marriage doesn’t solve that it doubles it. If you can’t handle yourself, adding another human (with her own needs, emotions, and expectations) will be like throwing gasoline on a campfire and calling it climate control.

You don’t need a wife yet. You need self-sufficiency, confidence, and maybe the guts to actually talk to those European girls you crush on. When you stop treating marriage like a customer service upgrade, you’ll find women lining up like it’s an exclusive, invite-only event and suddenly, you’re the VIP of her OnlyFans. Isn't that most guys dream these days, to marry an only fans gal? Shit, with the way society is heading and the amount of money women make I can see a future in which men have lost so much character and sophistication that OnlyFans women become the go-to arm piece over Hollywood actresses. 

Pretty funny. Customer Service Upgrade...haha. I couldn't stop laughing. On point.

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:16 AM by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

There's obviously all different kinds of relationship dynamics, OPs is not intrinsically unhealthy or one sided though. He didn't even imply her cooking and cleaning everything herself or sex whenever he wants it, you seem to just have been triggered.

Triggered is a bit overly harsh. Maybe it sounded that way, but I wasn't triggered. Maybe I was, dunno. I have to check myself on that. Different cultures see things differently and also different mindsets. 

[something_else]

8 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Fine. No one is arguing with you about your choices. I don't see a rule book. FYI I won't be sitting on my ass, BTW. Thats not the set up. The set up is I take care of the household while he pays the bills. I either do the chores myself or pay someone to do it but it's not a rule that I the wife must do them. If I get pregnant, bills are still getting paid, if I get sick, bills are still getting paid. If something goes wrong with him God forbid then I take over and bills still get paid from either my savings or his or wherever. Both sides win. See. It's not that complicated.  

So what you're saying is that you.... cook and clean. Yet you are offended when OP said he wants a woman who will cook and clean? But at the same time you also think it's OK to expect a man to pay for everything? I'm sorry, but your opinions on this are kind of messy and contradictory.

[Sincerity]

2 hours ago, something_else said:

So what you're saying is that you.... cook and clean. Yet you are offended when OP said he wants a woman who will cook and clean? But at the same time you also think it's OK to expect a man to pay for everything? I'm sorry, but your opinions on this are kind of messy and contradictory.

In my view, there is a lot of truth in what Princess is saying, but it might be clouded by emotion (which can also be understood given this is a male-dominated forum).

I think the best scenario is when a man gives (eg. by paying the bills) AND doesn’t expect back. This makes the woman feel loved and free. Due to this she feels compelled to give back, out her love and true will.

When you lay the expectation that a woman should do certain things for you because you do certain things for her, this creates a relationship based on transactionality. Instead, the better way is to give without expectation AND receive anyway. A love-based relationship.

A man must be able and willing to cook for himself, clean, all that stuff. If he isn’t willing to do that, that’s weak and pathetic. A woman is not a paid nanny. BUT the woman will often do these things for him out of love. Because she feels free, safe, taken care of, loved.

Of course a man should not be okay with being objectively exploited. No. If a woman is exploiting a man and not taking in his love and naturally giving back, she is not participating in the love-based relationship a man invites her to, and so this relationship must end. However, this doesn’t usually happen. A woman usually gives back naturally. And of course, communication about the vision for the relationship and boundaries between the two parties is always appropriate.

A man respects himself. But also, a man is generous.

All is good when love flows through the relationship and communication and mutual respect are maintained.

Edited Wednesday at 12:20 PM by Sincerity

[Twentyfirst]

@Someone here I would say get married asap without too much worry

We are all decendents of grandparents who got married at like 16, was arranged married so they weren't really focused on finding any and every red flag in the other, and they were poor uneducated farmers. It worked out fine and both the man and woman were extremely happy. Much happier than the lonely alpha males and lonely feminists are of today. Way less trauma too. Don't listen to the failing modern world that despises and spits on its past even though everything modern now was by the hard work of our past ancestors 

Edited Wednesday at 12:34 PM by Twentyfirst

[Twentyfirst]

10 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Fine. No one is arguing with you about your choices. I don't see a rule book. FYI I won't be sitting on my ass, BTW. Thats not the set up. The set up is I take care of the household while he pays the bills. I either do the chores myself or pay someone to do it but it's not a rule that I the wife must do them. If I get pregnant, bills are still getting paid, if I get sick, bills are still getting paid. If something goes wrong with him God forbid then I take over and bills still get paid from either my savings or his or wherever. Both sides win. See. It's not that complicated.  

You aren't going to be paying a low wage female colored person to do your chores...are you?

[Twentyfirst]

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:56 PM by Twentyfirst

[Twentyfirst]

Imagine an intruder storming in your house because he wants your woman and you have to die protecting her...meanwhile she can't fry an egg

[something_else]

1 hour ago, Sincerity said:

In my view, there is a lot of truth in what Princess is saying, but it might be clouded by emotion (which can also be understood given this is a male-dominated forum).

I think the best scenario is when a man gives (eg. by paying the bills) AND doesn’t expect back. This makes the woman feel loved and free. Due to this she feels compelled to give back, out her love and true will.

When you lay the expectation that a woman should do certain things for you because you do certain things for her, this creates a relationship based on transactionality. Instead, the better way is to give without expectation AND receive anyway. A love-based relationship.

A man must be able and willing to cook for himself, clean, all that stuff. If he isn’t willing to do that, that’s weak and pathetic. A woman is not a paid nanny. BUT the woman will often do these things for him out of love. Because she feels free, safe, taken care of, loved.

Of course a man should not be okay with being objectively exploited. No. If a woman is exploiting a man and not taking in his love and naturally giving back, she is not participating in the love-based relationship a man invites her to, and so this relationship must end. However, this doesn’t usually happen. A woman usually gives back naturally. And of course, communication about the vision for the relationship and boundaries between the two parties is always appropriate.

A man respects himself. But also, a man is generous.

All is good when love flows through the relationship and communication and mutual respect are maintained.

I understand and agree with this. Most healthy relationships don't put heavy expectations on either member to pay all of the bills or do all of the house work. You figure out a fair distribution of bills and housework that works for you.

It's just @Princess Arabia's framing that annoyed me, where in one breath she says that "expecting a woman to do chores is despicable" while in the next saying "expecting a man to pay for everything is totally fine". It's a very hard stance to justify.

Quote

A man must be able and willing to cook for himself, clean, all that stuff. If he isn’t willing to do that, that’s weak and pathetic. A woman is not a paid nanny. BUT the woman will often do these things for him out of love. Because she feels free, safe, taken care of, loved.

Yea of course. And on the flipside a woman should be able to earn money and pay for stuff herself too.

Edited Wednesday at 01:35 PM by something_else

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Sincerity said:

In my view, there is a lot of truth in what Princess is saying, but it might be clouded by emotion (which can also be understood given this is a male-dominated forum).

I think the best scenario is when a man gives (eg. by paying the bills) AND doesn’t expect back. This makes the woman feel loved and free. Due to this she feels compelled to give back, out her love and true will.

When you lay the expectation that a woman should do certain things for you because you do certain things for her, this creates a relationship based on transactionality. Instead, the better way is to give without expectation AND receive anyway. A love-based relationship.

A man must be able and willing to cook for himself, clean, all that stuff. If he isn’t willing to do that, that’s weak and pathetic. A woman is not a paid nanny. BUT the woman will often do these things for him out of love. Because she feels free, safe, taken care of, loved.

Of course a man should not be okay with being objectively exploited. No. If a woman is exploiting a man and not taking in his love and naturally giving back, she is not participating in the love-based relationship a man invites her to, and so this relationship must end. However, this doesn’t usually happen. A woman usually gives back naturally. And of course, communication about the vision for the relationship and boundaries between the two parties is always appropriate.

A man respects himself. But also, a man is generous.

All is good when love flows through the relationship and communication and mutual respect are maintained.

What if she is loving though, she just doesnt do anything, no cooking, cleaning, or any working?

You're just describing a passive aggressive relationship with poor communication. You have the expectation of sharing the load, you're flexible on changing duties, but that all needs communicated, UP FRONT.

[Sincerity]

1 hour ago, something_else said:

It's just @Princess Arabia's framing that annoyed me, where in one breath she says that "expecting a woman to do chores is despicable" while in the next saying "expecting a man to pay for everything is totally fine". It's a very hard stance to justify.

Well, I think there is some truth in framing it that way. Hear me out.

I think it is right that a woman has more expections towards a man than the other way around. Because a man is reliable and „his word is his honor”, so to say. If a man is unreliable and untrustworthy, a woman cannot trust him and give herself away to him. So in order for a woman to trust, she must EXPECT from the man to act on his word, to deliver, to keep her safe. That is her stability - being sure of the MAN’s stability, expecting it, counting on it from him.

On the other hand, when you expect things from a woman she feels like she is put in a box. And feeling like this, women often become emotional and rebel. This should be expected. Fundamentally, a woman is (usually) more of a free spirit and expectation is killing that spirit. A woman prefers to act out of love (without expectation) and when she does, she will do a LOT of shit for you. I know from experience.

Expecting from a woman in a polarized relationship is, in my view, usually not the way to go. There are exceptions of course, eg. with parenting. A woman shouldn’t just choose on a whim to not pick the child up from school. A woman must also be reliable to a degree, because parenting requires responsibility.

And I understand that a man can also feel imprisoned by expectation. I know these feelings, I can still have them. But I think a mature man comes to terms with expectations, because he is aware that HE IS CHOOSING THEM. Nothing really imprisons a man. You CHOOSE to be the stability for a woman, out of love. And you know that a woman is not stability, she’s quite the opposite. And that’s okay. Fundamentally, what’s expected of a man is what he promises to deliver. A woman must have clarity on what she can expect and what she can not. And the man chooses what is expected of him. So nothing is happening against his will.

Again, of course it’s not black and white, a woman must also be reliable to a degree (= have some masculinity in her) and a man also wants to express himself spontaneously and emotionally every so often (= expressing the feminine nature). There must be a healthy balance. There must be communication in the relationship about each other’s needs. But in general, the woman is more feminine and the man is more masculine.

And I personally love this.

Edited Wednesday at 02:59 PM by Sincerity

[Sincerity]

36 minutes ago, Elliott said:

What if she is loving though, she just doesnt do anything, no cooking, cleaning, or any working?

The key insight is that to love is to ACT from love. Just having fluffy feelings is not enough.

When you love, you act for another. If she doesn’t give anything back, there is something wrong there.

[something_else]

Quote

If a man is unreliable and untrustworthy, a woman cannot trust him and give herself away to him. So in order for a woman to trust, she must EXPECT from the man to act on his word, to deliver, to keep her safe. That is her stability - being sure of the MAN’s stability, expecting it, counting on it from him.

A man also needs to be able to trust his partner. The things you're attributing to gender here aren't really gendered. They're just the cornerstones of a healthy relationship.

31 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

On the other hand, when you expect things from a woman she feels like she is put in a box. And feeling like this, women often become emotional and rebel. This should be expected. Fundamentally, a woman is (usually) more of a free spirit and expectation is killing that spirit. A woman prefers to act out of love (without expectation) and when she does, she will do a LOT of shit for you. I know from experience.

Expecting from a woman in a polarized relationship is, in my view, usually not the way to go. There are exceptions of course, eg. with parenting. A woman shouldn’t just choose on a whim to not pick the child up from school. A woman must also be reliable to a degree, because parenting requires responsibility.

Having hefty 'expectations' of your partner is a bad thing for both men or women. Nobody likes it. Expectation is a problem because it implies that your partner doesn't deserve any gratitude for what you expect of them.

"You are expected to do the dishes" means I'm not grateful that you're doing it but I will be angry with you if you don't.

"You are expected to pay the bills" Means I don't expect any thanks, it's expected of you, and I'll leave you if you don't pay them all.

Both of these are unhealthy and demonstrate the problem with expectation. It's a form of entitlement.

It's better to think about it in terms of fairness, and to be sure to express gratitude for whatever responsibilities your partner picks up e.g.

"If I pay all of the bills, I'd be really grateful if you could do a bit more of the housework so I can focus completely on work."

"If I pay half the bills, we could split the housework evenly to keep it fair"

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:19 PM by something_else

[Twentyfirst]

You guys are forgetting regardless of whats fair or not or trying to balance things out that the dynamic will be off. If a guy puts on an apron and is concerned with making sure the kitchen counters are clean while the woman is out conquering the world and breaking through barriers both will be unattractive to each other. The woman will get the ick and then cheat on him with some overly masculine Tate guy and the guy will go to a hooker that soft and vulnerable 

 

Crazy after 15 years of movements like feminism, red pill, me too, passport bros, mgtow, decentering men, getting the courts involved, destroying children's childhoods, single parent households, all this crap. And ya'll still don't get it

 

At some point you gotta see feminism for what it is. A trojan horse to unravel and destroy the family and by extension society. And red pill being an equal damaging reaction to that

[Sincerity]

14 minutes ago, something_else said:

Having hefty 'expectations' of your partner is a bad thing for both men or women. Nobody likes it. Expectation is a problem because it implies that your partner doesn't deserve any gratitude for what you expect of them.

"You are expected to do the dishes" means I'm not grateful that you're doing it but I will be angry with you if you don't.

"You are expected to pay the bills" Means I don't expect any thanks, it's expected of you, and I'll leave you if you don't pay them all.

Both of these are unhealthy and demonstrate the problem with expectation. It's a form of entitlement.

It's better to think about it in terms of fairness, and to be sure to express gratitude for whatever responsibilities your partner picks up e.g.

"If I pay all of the bills, I'd be really grateful if you could do a bit more of the housework so I can focus completely on work."

"If I pay half the bills, we could split the housework evenly to keep it fair"

Expectations and gratitude can co-exist, in my view. They do in my relationship. My woman is grateful for what I deliver, even when she expects it (because I promised).

But this gratitude also comes from the recognition that we don’t have to be with each other. We choose to, because we love each other. And we do things for one another. Everyday there’s so many things to be thankful for to each other.

24 minutes ago, something_else said:

A man also needs to be able to trust his partner. The things you're attributing to gender here aren't really gendered. They're just the cornerstones of a healthy relationship.

I think they are gendered. Fundamentally, the masculine is more reliable than the feminine. And the man is usually more masculine, while the woman is more feminine.

You can think of it as masculine = absolute, feminine = ever-changing.

But a man/woman is masculine/feminine in various degrees. There is no black and white, there are shades of grey.

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, Sincerity said:

In my view, there is a lot of truth in what Princess is saying, but it might be clouded by emotion (which can also be understood given this is a male-dominated forum).

I think the best scenario is when a man gives (eg. by paying the bills) AND doesn’t expect back. This makes the woman feel loved and free. Due to this she feels compelled to give back, out her love and true will.

When you lay the expectation that a woman should do certain things for you because you do certain things for her, this creates a relationship based on transactionality. Instead, the better way is to give without expectation AND receive anyway. A love-based relationship.

A man must be able and willing to cook for himself, clean, all that stuff. If he isn’t willing to do that, that’s weak and pathetic. A woman is not a paid nanny. BUT the woman will often do these things for him out of love. Because she feels free, safe, taken care of, loved.

Of course a man should not be okay with being objectively exploited. No. If a woman is exploiting a man and not taking in his love and naturally giving back, she is not participating in the love-based relationship a man invites her to, and so this relationship must end. However, this doesn’t usually happen. A woman usually gives back naturally. And of course, communication about the vision for the relationship and boundaries between the two parties is always appropriate.

A man respects himself. But also, a man is generous.

All is good when love flows through the relationship and communication and mutual respect are maintained.

Let's get married. Kidding, but you have explained this perfectly. 

"When you lay the expectation that a woman should do certain things for you because you do certain things for her, this creates a relationship based on transactionality", is the whole point of this. 

You explained this how I see it and as if you are viewing the situation from the same lens and perception I am viewing it from. 

 

[Sincerity]

10 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Let's get married. Kidding, but you have explained this perfectly. 

"When you lay the expectation that a woman should do certain things for you because you do certain things for her, this creates a relationship based on transactionality", is the whole point of this. 

You explained this how I see it and as if you are viewing the situation from the same lens and perception I am viewing it from.