More Childless Men: Women Do Not Want Children With Low-status Men

[Afro_Vacancy]

Yes pretty much. Unless you're good looking, then you can f*** up with a bunch of these.

Noting that not being a racist isn't much of a requirement in the UK and Ireland, I dunno about Europe, but as long as it doesn't indicate you're potentially unreasonably aggressive towards other races, you can be casually racist and your partner won't care. I get this as a pretty strong impression when it comes to friendship too, I know some blatantly racist people who sometimes say awful things, but as long as that doesn't translate to spilling over into affecting the real world (eg actually making a racial slur at another race) then nobody really care.

My post was actually 50% humor, if you read it carefully you'll see that a lot of my sequential points contradict one another. I had "be white" right next to "don't be racist" for example. Because women prefer white men who are not racists. It's the name of the game.

Though I think what you write has a lot of insight in this case. These women are plausibly racist as well, they just want to believe that they're progressives.

Hmmm and I dunno if gym doesn't count as a real hobby, obviously I'm biased here but even before I started gymming again, I wanted to start going for a few reasons, one of the side-benefits is that it's a somewhat respected and noble thing to do. I was envious of those who would go to the gym regularly and do something difficult on a daily basis, just to better themselves, and I acknowledged that as a somewhat humble thing to do (going to the effort of going to the gym daily and because it's daily, of course you don't mention it all the time).

I'm not like super defensive of the idea of the gym being a weak hobby, but yeah, I'm pretty sure it's generally regarded as more important than a real hobby. Like I think most people generally, women as well, would regard it quite highly as an important hobby, for various reasons really, but I'd like to know what you think further on that.

It's been noted by others on here that women prefer men who are effortlessly handsome. In that context, going to the gym twice a week for health reasons is ok, going more often is not. It implies that you're putting an effort into your appearance, which is a feminine activity.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Minimum standards for a man:

- at least 6 feet tall;
- Caucasian;
- Not a racist;
- Full head of hair;
- Stylish and well groomed;
- Not vain;
- Athletic and fit;
- Has real hobbies, going to the gym is not a hobby, and doesn't count calories;
- Is affectionate;
- Isn't needy;
- Makes good money, sending our kids to daycare is going to be expensive;
- Doesn't spend the day at the office, has enough time to spend time together;
- Comes from a strong family;
- Is independent;
- Doesn't personally identify as feminist and is not well-versed in feminist theory and history;
- Respects women and doesn't engage in sexist micro-aggressions;
- Has a boner within three seconds whenever the woman wants to have sex;
- Is understanding and gives immediate space with warmth wherever the woman does not want to have sex;
- Didn't vote for Trump;

I don't believe this is true, but it is funny.

I'd say a lot of them are true but I'm 5'11 and height has never affected me - I think anything 5'9 or over should be okay for the majority.

Politically i'd say its wise to be centrist or left leaning and if you have right wing views keep em to yourself because most women aren't right wing.

Money, social skills, athleticism, and healthy genetics all make sense to me.

Your list is good but a little OTT.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

My post was actually 50% humor, .

Sorry, only just read this after I made the other post based on the original message.

 

[Rudiger]

My post was actually 50% humor, if you read it carefully you'll see that a lot of my sequential points contradict one another. I had "be white" right next to "don't be racist" for example. Because women prefer white men who are not racists. It's the name of the game.

Though I think what you write has a lot of insight in this case. These women are plausibly racist as well, they just want to believe that they're progressives.


It's been noted by others on here that women prefer men who are effortlessly handsome. In that context, going to the gym twice a week for health reasons is ok, going more often is not. It implies that you're putting an effort into your appearance, which is a feminine activity.

I got that it was somewhat tongue in cheek (it's obviously not a requirement for all men to be over 6 feet tall, a lot of women would be virgins if that was the case) but my point was the "racist" label is such an important issue in America compared to other parts of the world, where, as long as you aren't joining marches and saluting other racists, nobody really cares.

And yeah, I've known girls who think it's frowned upon to use f*****g moisturiser! Moisturiser for f*** sake. Imagine what they'd think if they saw my face mask tubs, oil of Olay, various other creams and knew about my daily facial yoga routine.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

On vanity: its true what you guys say about them not liking a guy to be precious about the way he looks.

They don't mind trimming beards, pubic hair, working out, styling hair, wearing good clothes.

But they tend to call guys out if they have a heavy beauty regime, go on diets, wear concealers, worry about beer intake and so on.

There's such a fine balance between vanity and personal pride.

Same goes for women - I don't like vain women but also don't want to date a slob.

I want a woman who can knock back a beer and eat a burger Friday, but who can also hit the gym during the weak.

I like a woman who dresses well and has a little makeup - but a kim Kardashian woman would drive me insane.

 

[UncleMort]

Bald equals loser

Weddings, kids, are for fullheads and betas

There is no normal life to aspire to so loser means nothing after bald, its a social dead end on its own

Also we'll see if you think you're still a childless "winner" in 10-15 years, as the majority of women are maternal you have a huge stumbling block in finding one of the less than 10% of women who don't want children (and most of these end up changing their mind in their later years anyway). So it's hard enough to find someone compatible, but out of the difficulty of finding a woman you also need to find the 1 in 10 who is happy not having children with you.

If you don't get over that stumbling block then prepare for a life of being ostracised from other people, even social events like weddings etc. will feel uncomfortable as everyone else will be their with their families, and you'll be the weird guy trying to fit in with everyone. Even if you do become super successful out of nowhere, you'll still be a "loser" in many ways, and you'll also find friends who start families will stop having as much time for you, they'll instead be hanging out with their other friends with children and having days out etc. You think uncle Johnson's getting invited to that?

There are plenty of reasons to want children but I didn't even touch on how important it is socially.

 

[buckthorn]

this goes back to the importance of learning to be alone and being ok with it. This is not a cope. Some people base SO MUCH, like their entire existence on being in a relationship. The majority of single women I meet are compulsive serial daters, so much to the point it would make you sick. They literally CANNOT be alone or they will have a mental breakdown.

I know you think I am full of sh*t, but if I got all my hair and looks back tomorrow, I would still not consider marriage. Casually dating ocassionally and sex, ok... but never marriage. I've watched my parents go from "pure eternal love" to f*****g hating each other's guts within the first 10 years. I've watched all my friends survive sexless marriages and grow apart from their spouse. Literally, every single one is miserable. Literally.

So, why? Honestly, someone please tell me. I don't mean to sound bitter. But I cannot logically comprehend why someone would chose that sh*t over being alone and being happy. Why trust your life with someone that can change in a second. Don't feed me that "pure love" bullshit, because the majority of people that say that end up eventually disliking their partner.

and, don't get me started on procreation. What kind of dick thinks so highly of himself that he needs to fertilize some wh*** with his rancid sperm?? Why would you not just adopt a child that actually needs you?

There is this stigma all over the world that if you're older and not married, that there is something wrong with you. No, there is something wrong with being in a dead end, brutal marriage. SO many marriages are simply forged, not through pure love, but through societal or family pressure. Trust me, a single woman over 30 will do whatever she can to lock that sh*t down and get pregnant. HOW can you trust that?

 

[CaptainForehead]

Mid status is:

Earning above 25,000 euros or 35,000 American dollar

Before or after tax and health insurance?

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Before or after tax and health insurance?

That's before - in the uk tax is 20% and health insurance is 15% off your income.

I'm not sure why America's median income is so high - tons of millionaires inflating the numbers maybe

 

[Rudiger]

this goes back to the importance of learning to be alone and being ok with it. This is not a cope. Some people base SO MUCH, like their entire existence on being in a relationship. The majority of single women I meet are compulsive serial daters, so much to the point it would make you sick. They literally CANNOT be alone or they will have a mental breakdown.

I know you think I am full of sh*t, but if I got all my hair and looks back tomorrow, I would still not consider marriage. Casually dating ocassionally and sex, ok... but never marriage. I've watched my parents go from "pure eternal love" to f*****g hating each other's guts within the first 10 years. I've watched all my friends survive sexless marriages and grow apart from their spouse. Literally, every single one is miserable. Literally.

So, why? Honestly, someone please tell me. I don't mean to sound bitter. But I cannot logically comprehend why someone would chose that sh*t over being alone and being happy. Why trust your life with someone that can change in a second. Don't feed me that "pure love" bullshit, because the majority of people that say that end up eventually disliking their partner.

and, don't get me started on procreation. What kind of dick thinks so highly of himself that he needs to fertilize some wh*** with his rancid sperm?? Why would you not just adopt a child that actually needs you?

There is this stigma all over the world that if you're older and not married, that there is something wrong with you. No, there is something wrong with being in a dead end, brutal marriage. SO many marriages are simply forged, not through pure love, but through societal or family pressure. Trust me, a single woman over 30 will do whatever she can to lock that sh*t down and get pregnant. HOW can you trust that?

Every relationship will blow up at time to time, every person has seen their parents at each others throats, sometimes for long periods of time, and you have to think to yourself "why would I ever, ever want such a hell?".

Because it's ingrained in us that we are social creatures and need to get social acceptance and progression on a daily basis, we need someone to gauge what we're like as human beings, we need that interaction because our solo thoughts aren't enough. It's not enough we find something compelling or funny, we need some validation in some way for another person to confirm our thoughts are valid.

It's a good rant and all but I don't disagree. As much as people will drive each other crazy, at least your life is moving forward. Buck if you're one of the rare people who are truly happy with that much solitude, then great for you, but this is simply going against nature and instinct for the vast majority of people. For nearly everyone we need validation from someone else, and we go crazy without it (however being a serial dater is not an answer either).

I don't mean to call you full of sh*t because you are a very honest guy on here, it's just that people don't realise when they're kidding themselves, and despite your awareness that relationships can be a f*****g mess, there is always the possibility that you think you feel so certain about never having a permanent one, but somewhere down deep inside you, subconsciously you still would want that and give it a chance under the right circumstances. Obviously I'm just pontificating, I or anyone else probably doesn't know you well enough to make such a certain statement on that, and there is still the possibility you're genuinely happy alone.

But yeah, if you are one of the rare few who can be genuinely happy alone, for long periods of time, don't think that your world view is somewhat applicable advice generally. It does not apply to the vast majority of people, even if that's what suits you.

 

[buckthorn]

this is simply going against nature and instinct

being in a monogamous long term marriage goes against nature and instinct. WE made up the rules. A bunch of dumb asses that are destroying each other and the planet made up these rules.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

being in a monogamous long term marriage goes against nature and instinct. WE made up the rules. A bunch of dumb asses that are destroying each other and the planet made up these rules.

I'd love to see Fred respond to this because his opinion is very much the opposite

 

[Rudiger]

being in a monogamous long term marriage goes against nature and instinct. WE made up the rules. A bunch of dumb asses that are destroying each other and the planet made up these rules.

If you mean like "caveman" nature then yes, monogamy is not natural, if we're observing humans as animals. But c'mon, that's not reality, we all grew up accepting that nurturing and inter-personal, social relationships are important, outside of the "animal instinct" we have a far more controlling social side of humans that we can't escape. We can kid ourselves, but at the end of the day solitude will drive almost anyone nuts.

As animals we just want to f***, eat and sleep. As the social intellectually evolutionised people that we are, there's a lot more to it than that.

 

[buckthorn]

If you mean like "caveman" nature then yes, monogamy is not natural, if we're observing humans as animals. But c'mon, that's not reality, we all grew up accepting that nurturing and inter-personal, social relationships are important, outside of the "animal instinct" we have a far more controlling social side of humans that we can't escape. We can kid ourselves, but at the end of the day solitude will drive almost anyone nuts.

As animals we just want to f***, eat and sleep. As the social intellectually evolutionised people that we are, there's a lot more to it than that.

I don't disagree. Companionship is very important and necessary for mental survival. But, we aren't just talking cavemen, but hundred's of thousands of years. We all grew up accepting a bunch of bullshit, for sure. If a loving couple can make it work, I am VERY happy for them. If you decide you want to seek true love your entire life, I am happy for your decision. It is indeed beautiful people can think that way. But to me, THAT is not really realistic. We can have companionship and sex without marriage. We have friends, family and state of the art silicone sex dolls from Japan.

 

[Rudiger]

I'd love to see Fred respond to this because his opinion is very much the opposite

@WhitePolarBear just so he see's it.

It's a very tough topic, but I'd liken it to our discussion about having a child, when I see people say they mean this stuff, I don't think they necessarily mean it, or at least it hasn't become enough of a reality for them yet. Like if Buckthorn falls in love, no doubt like any relationships he'll still have problems and arguments etc. but if he feels all of that is worth it, marriage will slowly not seem like such a bad idea. If you're in love with someone and she wants kids (highly likely) the more you think about it and consider it, the more sense it will make.

I don't say all this because I want to force these normal nuclear family lifestyles on people because obviously, overall I don't really care, it's unlikely I'll know what happens to either of you or others in the long-term. But I am just expressing that it's very easy to have concrete and cynical thoughts towards something, but when reality hits, and the most important aspects of our lives are staring us right in the eye, the concrete starts to crumble.

 

[buckthorn]

I'd love to see Fred respond to this because his opinion is very much the opposite

I don't care what fred says because it's just simple truth. Somewhere along with the rule book WE decided we wanted to be monogamous. WE invented marriage. Why? Probably because we get jealous as f*** to see our "property" f*****g another bick dicked chaz. WE decided all these things. How is that not correct? Nothing wrong with finding happiness with OUT it. I mean, it is very very possible, no?

 

[CaptainForehead]

That's before - in the uk tax is 20% and health insurance is 15% off your income.

I'm not sure why America's median income is so high - tons of millionaires inflating the numbers maybe

25000 after 20% tax and 15% health insurance is 16250 =1350/month...yeah that's lower middle class.

The thing with America is that the dollar-Euro conversion rate is misleading. A dollar doesn't go that far in the US. Here in Europe, I can rent an apartment for about 500-600 euro (apart from crazy cities like Paris) per month. In the US, the cost is $1400-1500. Groceries in the US are about 1.75 more expensive. So 1350 in europe is like $2500/month in the US take home after tax and health insurance. Here, I have not factored in education costs which are prohibitively expensive in the US, and dirt cheap in Europe. If you add that in, 1350 in europe is probably like $3500/month US which should be about $55,000 per year before tax.

 

[buckthorn]

I am not talking about isolating yourself in an underground bunker. I am talking a conscience decision not to have long term relationships. A conscience decision not to put all your trust in a woman.

 

[Rudiger]

I don't disagree. Companionship is very important and necessary for mental survival. But, we aren't just talking cavemen, but hundred's of thousands of years. We all grew up accepting a bunch of bullshit, for sure. If a loving couple can make it work, I am VERY happy for them. If you decide you want to seek true love your entire life, I am happy for your decision. It is indeed beautiful people can think that way. But to me, THAT is not really realistic. We can have companionship and sex without marriage. We have friends, family and state of the art silicone sex dolls from Japan.

I hate to be like this because I'm going to make another "you don't know what your subconscious is doing" argument, but quite a few years ago when I was even more cynical about relationships, I woke up one day and realised that I was being very, very judgemental and overly dramatic about how couples behave with each other. I forgot what it's like to be in a relationship and argue, and how little of a deal that actually is, it's literally like having a conscious crisis in your own head, and it passes quickly and it's done, you move on with life and genuinely forget about it.

But if coupled friends of mine argued I'd literally run this through my head like "what's the f*****g point? They're so unhappy and bitter and resentful" it was like the end of the world. I think a turning point was when I mentioned a friends argument with his girlfriend that they had in front of me, and he actually couldn't remember it, and didn't understand why I thought it was in any way a big deal or noteworthy.

Are you totally sure all of your friends are as miserable as you think? Do you watch out for signs of unhappiness and apply it to them generally?

 

[buckthorn]

@WhitePolarBear just so he see's it.

It's a very tough topic, but I'd liken it to our discussion about having a child, when I see people say they mean this stuff, I don't think they necessarily mean it, or at least it hasn't become enough of a reality for them yet. Like if Buckthorn falls in love, no doubt like any relationships he'll still have problems and arguments etc. but if he feels all of that is worth it, marriage will slowly not seem like such a bad idea. If you're in love with someone and she wants kids (highly likely) the more you think about it and consider it, the more sense it will make.

I don't say all this because I want to force these normal nuclear family lifestyles on people because obviously, overall I don't really care, it's unlikely I'll know what happens to either of you or others in the long-term. But I am just expressing that it's very easy to have concrete and cynical thoughts towards something, but when reality hits, and the most important aspects of our lives are staring us right in the eye, the concrete starts to crumble.

I can't argue with this. My argument is not an argument at all. I just think for SOME people, it is very logical to make a life decision not to get married and / or not to have kids. I know things change, for sure. You could meet the "one" and fall in love... but is "love" right for you. Can you as a person survive and thrive in such a life long decision? It's not easy, but when you're really mentally damaged, it becomes impossible.