31–40 of 178 posts
Then party like it's 1950. ETA: With the growing number of men who refuse to pick up every check, plan every date/event, act as sole provider for the family, purchase gifts regularly for their other half, etc. for fear of marrying a woman who is too focused on money... I'm really beginning to wonder what women are getting out of this marriage deal anymore.
This is the first popular publication article I've seen that has given the very important cognitive overload aspect of nagging--and especially multi-pronged nagging litany, which seems to be the most common kind--the treatment it deserves: But when it comes to nagging reminders about what your spouse still has to do after a long day working for the man—take out the recycling, walk the dog, write a thank-you letter, d…
Now I just need to figure out a good way to pass that hint along to my wife without her inferring that I hate her and don't ever want to speak to her about anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recommend The Red Queen if you want to start learning about this. The short answer: men largely choose mates based on looks; women choose based more on social status. Signalling low social status reduces male attractiveness; signalling high social status raises it. n = 1, but this has worked for me. Deliberately act like you can take it or leave it, and you're unlikely to be left. (And note that women initiate the…
[deleted]
Empirically, prior girlfriends have been unimpressed with my slavish devotion to their every-moment's well-being. My current girlfriend is much more devoted, and much more enthusiastic.
I am fairly overt about this. I told her to read The Red Queen after our first date. And I don't lie about this. But when I'm asking myself what's better for the relationship, and what's going to make the person I'm with happier, I have to take into account that my behavior affects her happiness indirectly, too. You'd have to be a real jerk to make her date a nebbish.
I would group it all into one tip: Make an effort with your relationship. Like everything good in life it takes work to have a good relationship. If you make an effort to have a good relationship, applying thought and energy day to day, you will grow a healthy satisfying relationship.
In my experience, people who nag believe themselves to be "making an effort". Indeed, they think they're doing the right thing.
Willingness to put in the effort is a good first start, but it's not enough. Many people clearly don't understand why certain things do or don't work. And there's as much to be learned from study and experience in the right way to work at a relationship as there is in anything else.
This is the first popular publication article I've seen that has given the very important cognitive overload aspect of nagging--and especially multi-pronged nagging litany, which seems to be the most common kind--the treatment it deserves: But when it comes to nagging reminders about what your spouse still has to do after a long day working for the man—take out the recycling, walk the dog, write a thank-you letter, d…
This doesn't actually take into account that the naggee can influence this. As a 12 year old, I remember finally getting so sick of my Dad nagging me to mow the lawn, that I started doing it before he had a chance to.
Then party like it's 1950. ETA: With the growing number of men who refuse to pick up every check, plan every date/event, act as sole provider for the family, purchase gifts regularly for their other half, etc. for fear of marrying a woman who is too focused on money... I'm really beginning to wonder what women are getting out of this marriage deal anymore.
Perhaps it's just that, you know, nowadays they don't have to feel like prostitutes? Because I sure would if my spouse kept buying me things just so I'd put out.
My point, anyway, is that the men in the WSJ article cheering this drivel on are often the same guys who don't want to assume the traditional provider role for men. They don't want a wife, they want a maid that "puts out".
"But the real reason [married people gain weight] is moral hazard, or the tendency to take more risks and behave more irresponsibly when there are no consequences." I'd never equated being overweight as behaving irresponsibly. If everyone thought this way, would we all be thinner? If my spouse can't nag me to lose weight (see #1), is there anything she could do to encourage it, or is it all on me?
Funny, I can't imagine being overweight as anything but irresponsible (mod specific health issues). And it is pretty much all on you. One thing that can be very helpful is to schedule exercise with other people (e.g. spouse). It's easier to get going with a group, it's more fun, and there is a social cost to canceling. You don't even have to do the same exercises -- just go to the gym or pool or park or whatever and…
What this implies is that overeating/under-exercising should be taboo just like smoking cigarettes. These things aren't considered taboo by some people, but maybe that's the reason people aren't healthier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[citation needed]
I recommend The Red Queen if you want to start learning about this. The short answer: men largely choose mates based on looks; women choose based more on social status. Signalling low social status reduces male attractiveness; signalling high social status raises it. n = 1, but this has worked for me. Deliberately act like you can take it or leave it, and you're unlikely to be left. (And note that women initiate the…
It's a fairly well established biological fact( caveat - there are of course exceptions )that female primates, including humans, respond sexually favorably toward high status behavior on the part of males.
The Red Queen is a good book, but there are countless others. Sperm Wars, Sex At Dawn, The Evolution of Desire, and myriad academic papers that these books reference, paint a very clear picture of female sexuality that few will ever want to believe.
n=1 is irrelevant in this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the actual scientific evidence is quite clear on this matter.
Edit: removed reference to emo hipsters. Not constructive.
Then party like it's 1950. ETA: With the growing number of men who refuse to pick up every check, plan every date/event, act as sole provider for the family, purchase gifts regularly for their other half, etc. for fear of marrying a woman who is too focused on money... I'm really beginning to wonder what women are getting out of this marriage deal anymore.
I would like to know more about the 4 people that voted this comment up from zero.
I would group it all into one tip: Make an effort with your relationship. Like everything good in life it takes work to have a good relationship. If you make an effort to have a good relationship, applying thought and energy day to day, you will grow a healthy satisfying relationship.
This works well for women, not so well for men. For men, typically making a visible effort will cause your spouse to perceive you as weak and low value. This will only make things worse.
You can be thoughtful and accommodating without being a doormat which is what you appear to be alluding to.
Breaking this down to an evolutionary biology standpoint, what advantage would that sort of psychology provide the woman? It has the opposite effect on the intended outcomes, that of security and stability from which to raise offspring.
The whole treat em mean, keep them keen mentality might work in the short term and get you laid but a happy productive relationship it will not build. Eventually the woman is going to go elsewhere to obtain the security and stability a healthy relationship provides.