Comments by "Rose S" (@roses6564) on "WHY people GET MARRIED when they do: dating and game theory" video.

  1. I think men delude themselves with this one. Somehow, there's this wishful thinking that when they reach 50 they will be the desirable equivalent of an 18 yo female. This is not even remotely true. Biology/nature generally favors women more than men, even in grandmotherly form. Civilization favors men. Women are the more biologically valuable gender, especially during their fertility years. The only thing more desirable than women on average, is the top male group, who are the most desirable and relevant for civilization building. The top 10-%20% of men sit at the peak of the human pyramid (men and women together). They say eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap and it's true. What is also true is that prime sperm is priceless. What men fail to understand is that most of them are NOT alpha/top/prime men even though they fancy themselves that way, much like many women scoring a 5 fancy themselves 9s and 10s. If a man is not in the top 10-20th percentile, their desirability is lower than women's on average. Hard pill to swallow.
    2
  2. Yes. You just need to push up the age range for your pool and accept that many of the good ones have already been snatched. You can try to snatch them back if you think they made a stupid decision early on and they agree too. Good luck.
    2
  3.  @chadguindon6909  You should want someone to love. If so, there's no need to marry.
    2
  4. The problem with marrying as early as possible is that such people tend to select with an insufficiently developed mind devoid of wisdom, usually going for superficial traits like looks, money and status. At that young age, a woman is far from having finished her inner development. Chances are the man she selects would be nothing like the man she would select in later years when the lights come on. They often grab a stud who peaks soon and later they grow apart because the match was faulty to begin with, not viable for long term bonding. Just because women have a narrow window of fertility does not mean they don't need the wisdom afforded by time to make a sound marital decision. Nature couldn't give a crap about humans' long-term mental health and fulfillment. It only wants humans to F, multiply, and keep the Meat Factory going. No "matching" required. Technically, any woman can just step out of the house right after she hits puberty, F the first man who comes her way, and she did nature's mandate. Women who marry early tend to grab what looks like "a stud" at that stage in her life but they almost always go wrong and divorce somewhere down the line, when she's be back to square 1. There's something to be said about growing up. Both men and women benefit from wisdom. This may mean fewer children but Lord knows a sane, high-tech society does not need a lot of low quality people. It needs fewer people and better. That can easily be accomplished with children born in women's 30's, sometimes even later, given technologies like egg freezing - after she has gathered enough brains to say 'Yes' to the right dress.
    1
  5. Excellent point.
    1
  6. Women marry right at that point bc they hurry up to have children, not because their overall value drops. In fact, for a woman of quality, the value keeps going up, as it does for her male counterpart. If you reduce a woman's value strictly to her ability to have children, then yes, it drops. That would also say a lot about the man who selects a woman strictly on incubator criteria. This is what the mediocre masses of normies do: the men pick women for sex and children, women pick men for resources. Let them have it. People of substance, men and women, select on higher criteria, and the sex/attractiveness/children/resources are a natural consequence, or part of the package, not a goal in itself. Mass is gonna mass.
    1
  7. The other way around.
    1
  8. Why is it that the "good guys" must always be unexciting? Can a guy be both good and "exciting?" Let's define "exciting." It's roughly the equivalent of a woman who is NOT a fat, fugly, awkward thing who fails to inspire a guy in any way. There's this myth that women want these "crazy bad boys" who make their head spin. Lures them with a diamond every week, sweeps them off their feet to take them to Paris at a moment's notice, throws Don Juan tactics at them, and some other ridiculous caricatures. Rrrright. Sure, some women are crass but why would any man of substance care about that riff raff? If you're such a great guy, lowly women should be well below your league, by default. What a woman of quality understands by "exciting" is a man who is NOT an unbearable bore, such as not having anything to offer in the "relating" process because all he can do is watch TV/play video-games, not having anything of substance to say, having no opinions of his own, poor communicator, zero introspection, can't act like he has a direction, can't take initiative, etc. That's an un-exciting man and many want to pass for "good guys." So yes, be "exciting." The "exciting bad boy "vs. "me, the saintly good guy" is a pathetic excuse and a cover up for a man's worse inadequacies (which is not a lack of money.) Most likely he is a beta conformist who lacks creativity and leadership, is passive aggressive, and has all sorts of other Beta-Minus qualities. If you send women to the gym to shape up, it's all too logical to send these "good guys" to the mental gym to grow an inner life. The unexciting "good guys" usually want to cover up their inability to bring to the table what a woman values most, which is internal connection. Rich or poor, or anything in between, they are bad with women, have poor relational skills and they know it. It's like a fat, ugly, awkward woman flaunting her chastity. The best examples in literature are Karenin and Charles Bovary. Any woman reading that stuff would want to kill herself at the thought of being forced to stay with one of those forever. Of course they jump right up on the guy who crosses her path and acts remotely sentient, when the opportunity arises. At that point, the woman starved of connection doesn't give a crap that she's married or he is. Women cannot love just because you bring them food and a promise not to cheat. These "good guys" couldn't do it if they wanted to...heck, if SHE let them! Why? Because they are bores bad with women, and all they have is a "good guy/rule follower" pretense. That's not "good guy." It's a bore. Just as bad as a fugly woman.
    1
  9. Many of the women who selected very young divorce later. Overwhelming empirical evidence is available. The late bloomers/selectors make better decisions overall, although even those are not spared of errors. Regardless, divorce is here to stay so humanity would be better served if it learned how to do it the right way, to accommodate the families created in youth without drama, because it is inevitable going forward. People in prosperous, high-tech societies need fulfillment from their marriages, they don't do it out of desperation - for survival and procreation only. Selection in youth is far from guaranteeing lifelong fulfillment. For most, it's not going to happen, so there will be splits and people need to learn how to go about it the right way.
    1
  10. Try harder, be bold, don't hold back, say it like it is. It's at 10, isn't.
    1
  11.  @alexwelts2553  Did not realize you were a female. Well...yes; who knows at what female age the male subconscious begins to consider the female ogle-worthy? Like we even need to know.
    1
  12.  @psychacks  Exercising preference is species-friendly.
    1