should I marry or be single?

[Digity]

should I marry or be single?

Doesn't anyone find this question rather ... presumptuous, to say the least?
As if it is his unilateral decision whether he will marry or not. Like he's going to the grocery store and unilaterally choosig items to buy.

Yeah, a lot of people want to get married and can never find someone because they’re too anxious/depressed/awkward/etc to find someone. So it’s kind of presumptuous to just assume it’s a given. I guess a better way to phrase it is “should I try to get married”.

[No_Mind]

Most average western white males don't have any choice but to remain single.

Most? Do you have any specific figures you are basing this on?

There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence that in economically well developed strata of society, women are pricing themselves out of the mating market in a global trend towards hypergamy not seen before.

Just a casual reading of internet would throw up these articles:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinkin ... -own-good/
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 18886.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... y-men.html
https://nypost.com/2016/06/02/ladies-st ... -good-man/

All you have to do is open two profiles on Tinder.

One with your real self, pics, bio and all.

One with you wearing an expensive watch, playing golf, and a lame one line bio like "CEO of XYZ Systems International."

Don't see how many 8 or 9/10 women right swiped you. See how many 3/10 women right swiped you in your original and fake profile.

You would be really surprised.

Very off topic. I would not have liked to comment. But someone needs to be outspoken enough to set the record straight.

I am not judging the trend.. if it is good, bad, fair, unfair .. if it was inevitable after millennia of repression under patriarchal society ..

All I am saying is the observation is perfectly valid.

[SDC]

I am not judging the trend.. if it is good, bad, fair, unfair .. if it was inevitable after millennia of repression under patriarchal society ..

All I am saying is the observation is perfectly valid.

Well, I'd be curious what women of the same "stature" are doing. Are they also remaining single? I find the more modern take on relationships in general is to remain single longer. So if there is a pool of single people in less committed relationships, I would imagine it is open season for whoever knows how to say the right thing to the person they desire to have sex with. Average white men in the US tend to miss this point terribly. They harp on status as the reason they are not "getting" women - sure status is very effective in getting noticed (and getting laid), but charm is just as effective. Many white men in the US lack charm for a number of reasons - not sure if that is conversation worth having, but it is absolutely a fact.

[DNS]

There was a sort of funny skit on HBO many years ago. Lonely men were given a 600 page manual on how to pick up women.

Lonely women were given a one page manual. It simply said, "go up to a man and say 'Let's go!' "

And then it showed women going up to men and trying it out. The men dropped whatever they were doing and went with the women.

[Digity]

I think a lot of men who are perpetually single never had a male role model in their life to teach them how to be around women, etc. I never had anyone in my life for that sort of thing. I just never had someone teach me the necessary skills and so you fall behind.

[No_Mind]

I am not judging the trend.. if it is good, bad, fair, unfair .. if it was inevitable after millennia of repression under patriarchal society ..

All I am saying is the observation is perfectly valid.

Well, I'd be curious what women of the same "stature" are doing. Are they also remaining single? I find the more modern take on relationships in general is to remain single longer. So if there is a pool of single people in less committed relationships, I would imagine it is open season for whoever knows how to say the right thing to the person they desire to have sex with. Average white men in the US tend to miss this point terribly. They harp on status as the reason they are not "getting" women - sure status is very effective in getting noticed (and getting laid), but charm is just as effective. Many white men in the US lack charm for a number of reasons - not sure if that is conversation worth having, but it is absolutely a fact.

I would try and pitch in my 2 cents as someone who has dated often but never married (partly because he wants to become a complete recluse at one point when responsibilities were over).

Male charm is a relatively recent construct. Only as old as the movie industry and Clark Gable.

What is charm? Is it being able to recite Byron? Knowing about wine? Define charm.

Many women find men who are "bad boys" to be charming.

Men do not need to be "charming" at all (beyond politeness and keeping inside ethical and contemporary moral boundaries).

Any man who believes he must "change" himself for becoming more appealing to the opposite gender has really begun to climb down a bottomless pit.

My advice is, be yourself, change yourself for your benefit, and the rest is not really up to you because you do not control the zeitgeist.

At their best, even the most intellectual women are quite neurotic. I do not mean it as a slight. It is just the way that they are wired.

But that does not mean they cannot be an exceedingly good partner/spouse. Just that they are whimsical and do not know what they really want.

While this sounds unjust and cruel ..

Try and find male doctors who have married female nurses. Not usual but can be found.

Try the reverse .. how many female doctors have married a male nurse. I won't say the answer would be zero, but it will be agonizingly close. Women always indulge in hypergamy. It is a part of human evolutionary biology.

This worked fine as long as the top 10% of women married the top 10% of the men. Nothing wrong there. After all, Cleopatra married Caesar, not the neighborhood cobbler.

The problem is the bottom 90% of the women in the age of Instagram and Facebook have come to believe they also have a right to top 10% men. Cleopatra's chambermaid too wants to marry Caesar!

Do I have a solution? Yes, but a not very happy one. Go on being yourself. Don't give in to what society wants.

If this means you remain single, then embrace it. If you feel (I have written about it in another thread) that due to approaching old age or other circumstances beyond your control, you need to find a mate no matter what, then do it. If you feel the healthcare system in your country is sufficiently hassle free, that you can do without a mate, that is wonderful.

Above all, don't ever short change yourself. Being yourself is the only way you can be confident and happy.

[Dhammanando]

After all, Cleopatra married Caesar, not the neighborhood cobbler.

Just a quibble...

If you mean Cleopatra VII, she was Caesar's squeeze, not his wife. She first married her two younger brothers, Ptolemaeus XIII and XIV, and then the triumvir Marcus Antonius.

[santa100]

The problem is the bottom 90% of the women in the age of Instagram and Facebook have come to believe they also have a right to top 10% men.

I don't think that's some kind of new phenomenon. It's just that the new day and age allows the females to openly and freely express what's on their mind. But the idea went all the way back to the time of the cavemen and women. And its' quite simple: males and females have quite different reproduction strategies. For a male, he just need to cast his seeds far and wide. But things are quite more complicated for a female for the responsibility doesn't just stop after 9 months 10 days but long after that. But things also gets more complicated for the man too in the modern age. Cuz now having big strong muscles to go hunting and fend off attacks from other cavemen is no longer the primary concern. It's the financial stability to keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table, safety for both mother and children, etc. that take a higher priority. Hence the need for the 90% women to prefer their males in the upper 10% income pool. Only when the woman is financially independent herself would that requirement drops down on the list of priority. In that case, she'll focus more on a male's virility, not only to keep her happy at night, but also to increase the chance of producing stronger fitter offsprings who will continue to produce subsequent stronger fitter offsprings eternally. So in this sense, while the strategies might be different, both genders share the common goal of guaranteeing the safest way to perpetualize their DNAs. It's a brutal game of life and also the most basic primal instinct that comes pre-installed into the core OS kernel of every single human being. And because of that, many see it as an ultimate goal that's worth fighting for and worth dying for! And interestingly from this angle, the Buddha and His noble disciples must've been seen as voluntary complete utter losers in this game of life!

[binocular]

The problem is the bottom 90% of the women in the age of Instagram and Facebook have come to believe they also have a right to top 10% men. Cleopatra's chambermaid too wants to marry Caesar!

Why should that be a problem? Why shouldn't they want that?

Like you say:

Above all, don't ever short change yourself. Being yourself is the only way you can be confident and happy.

For at least some women, this means aiming high when it comes to choice of partner/spouse.

[SDC]

What is charm? Is it being able to recite Byron? Knowing about wine? Define charm.

Charm is figuring out a way to let the other person know (or think) you are not going to be an emotional burden on them. Honestly, you can pick any dictionary definition, it all boils down to displaying a persona that the other person prefers to gravitate towards.

Many women find men who are "bad boys" to be charming.

Men do not need to be "charming" at all (beyond politeness and keeping inside ethical and contemporary moral boundaries).

Any man who believes he must "change" himself for becoming more appealing to the opposite gender has really begun to climb down a bottomless pit.

That is absolutely not true. Circumstances make us what we are. It can be an active or passive accumulation of personal characteristics, but in the end we perform based on what we know, what we are comfortable with, and what we prefer. Too many people have this idea in their head - especially if they are the passive type - that the other person owes them the respect of "taking them for what they are". Indeed a person should be respectful, but if you fail to make any concessions or additions in order to vibe with a person, whether it just be a conversation or the first date they may eventually lead to marriage, you are forgoing that opportunity more so than the other person. Yes, if you take that to an extreme you end up developing various personality disorders, but if you don't do it at all, that is on you.

Sure it is a bottomless pit, but when did anyone ever argue otherwise? Relationships are in the direction of desire and lust. If you opt to try and do it with this passive approach, which you assume gives you all the integrity in the world, it doesn't make it any less in that direction. So you may as well put a bit more on the line. I'm not telling you to be "fake" or malicious or manipulative, I'm just saying that you are no less of a performer if you are passive in making changes to who you are - holding to a core version of yourself is all the same in that regard: you take up and present what you prefer other people to see.

Further to my point about "the average white male" here in the US (so none of this directed at you no_mind) - they really fail at recognizing this. They think there is some inherent value in just existing and construct a personality that mainly suits them, fail to be dynamic, and then wonder why they are not desirable. They're not desirable because they've made the situation fully about themselves and have set up no provisions to accept what another person is going to bring to conversation or relationship. And when the other person recognizes there is no room for them to be who they want to be, it is a huge turnoff. This is not accusatory. It is just what happens to some people. But to blame the other person for not conforming to you??? My goodness take some responsibility for not adjusting yourself.

[binocular]

And when the other person recognizes there is no room for them to be who they want to be, it is a huge turnoff. This is not accusatory. It is just what happens to some people. But to blame the other person for not conforming to you??? My goodness take some responsibility for not adjusting yourself.

Oh, but then a relationship isn't worth it! It loses all its romantic, idealistic appeal! It becomes something pedestrian, prosaic, run-of-the-mill.

[SDC]

Oh, but then a relationship isn't worth it! It loses all its romantic, idealistic appeal! It becomes something pedestrian, prosaic, run-of-the-mill.

It's no different than knowing a movie is "fake" when you sit down to watch it. If you surrender to the context, it is still enjoyable.

[binocular]

It's no different than knowing a movie is "fake" when you sit down to watch it. If you surrender to the context, it is still enjoyable.

Well, see you at the checkout!

IOW, one's ability to surrender to a fictional context can be impaired. I have no idea what to do then. One can pretend to go with the program (literally) only for so long.

[SDC]

One can pretend to go with the program (literally) only for so long.

Sure, but if the broader nature of "not going with the program" is unclear, they may just sit and suffer for having lost the ability to surrender. Is that not what depression amounts to? Having the ability to see the broader context but suffering as a result of not knowing what to do with the knowledge?

In relationships, you wanna know what people do when the context breaks down? Breakup lol. Reset the context. Some people can do that forever.

[Sam Vara]

Is that not what depression amounts to? Having the ability to see the broader context but suffering as a result of not knowing what to do with the knowledge?

Beautiful point. Mentally bookmarked!