As a footnote, old Hugh's runaway bride stopped running and is now back in his arms. That boyish charm works every time ha ha

 

I have studied the psychology of it quite a bit. The 45 year old still looking for Prince Charming is The Classic Example of why real marriages fall apart. Living in Fantasyland

You can thank Walt for that.

My ex was a smart looking lady who loved the attention. In the end I couldn't handle the strain and bowed out. But to this day I admire her social skills.

In your studies, you must have acknowledged that many women in thier later years, when asked, why do you stay with him, state that what's the point to leave one idiot when your only option is another idiot.

You can also be assured, that during most marriages, a womens' fantasy translates into a good time for hubby. But consider the opposite, a man's fantasy turns into a chore for the woman. It's those unreconcilable differences that often lead to distraction and breakdown.

The biggest problem we have is not appreciating the differences between us.

 

I have studied the psychology of it quite a bit.

I've been pondering your comments for a while now and I'm curious what you say about this:

... no amount of treating them well causes them to change into the kind of person that will treat you well. They just go find a "bad boy" that will treat them as they deserve to be treated..

They feel like they're crap so, subconsciously they seek out someone who will treat them like crap? Is that what you're saying?
If so, is the same true of men?

... that makes me look like a fool that needs to be used and abused....

If a guy feels unconfident or emasculated, will he likely seek out a nagging control freak ball & chain for a partner?
If so, that would explain the tarts my dad hooks up with.

So would you say that human nature is not to seek out a partner which makes you feel good about about yourself? Seeking out someone who makes you feel good about yourself is a logical decision which overrides the human nature, and the human nature is to seek out a partner who's words & actions reenforce one's own feelings about themselves?

If that's the case it would surely explain why battered women hook up with guys who wear wife beaters time and time again, and why every woman my dad pays attention to is a life-draining succubus.

 

"No amount of treating them well will change who they really are"...another way to say it is, an electrician with a marriage license is still an electrician and a (insert description here) with a marriage license is still a (insert description here). In my particular case, my wife learned very young, well, in her own words, "Women are equipped with vaginas so they can get men to give them what they want". I wouldn't play the John to her Ho so she found somebody that would.

She started out thinking she was going to take me for everything I had, but it was too late. I knew who I was and what I wanted. I wanted a safe, paid for, home in Florida (where I had business connections and friends). I even thought a wife (that I met in Florida) would want the same thing. Instead, she wanted to spend money as fast as she could get it and carry as much debt as our cash flow would support. I merely suffered from the delusion that treating her well would result in her learning that peace and security are good things. I was wrong.

People choose what is comfortable, or what is familiar. (Unfamiliar is exactly equal to uncomfortable.) You are supposed to learn not to do that in "the dating years". A few, "just like my mother" dates are supposed to teach you to move your comfort zone. Most people don't figure that out.

I just wanted a nice looking woman that could hold her own in a conversation with me and wouldn't shout when she disagreed. After that, I assumed a lot. It's called, "projection". I projected upon her that she had similar values to mine, like, honesty, integrity, a willingness to act married when she was married, be a team member, and work toward our long term comfort. I was wrong. As long as I lived in the delusion that the Golden Rule works, I was as happy as if I had good sense, but I was wrong.

Right now, a friend of mine is going through a divorce. His wife has "chronic dissatisfaction syndrome". Her fairy tale didn't come true. They lost most of their wealth when the housing bubble broke. Her Prince Charming had failed. That wife went into "negative framing". That's when everything you do or don't do, say or don't say, think or don't think, is not only wrong, you have a sinister motive for all of it. It is all calculated to make her miserable. The truth is that she suffers from, "emotional entitlement". She believes that every defficiency that life has dealt her is the responsibility of her husband to correct. The husband is supposed to be able to supply everything she needs in every aspect of her life, from emotional comfort, to social interaction, to unlimited wealth. Well, that is impossible. That is a fairy tale. That is Prince Charming. Donald Trump and Paul McCartney have fairly unlimited wealth and gobs of talent, but they still can't live up to the fantasy of Prince Charming.

 

I projected upon her that she had similar values to mine, like, honesty, integrity, a willingness to act married when she was married, be a team member, and work toward our long term comfort. I was wrong. As long as I lived in the delusion that the Golden Rule works, I was as happy as if I had good sense, but I was wrong.

a classic setup for a failed relationship. Honey, you be what I want you to be and everything will be fine. It's real simple, when a woman stops smiling, she no longer feels happy being with you, or happy about herself, both clear signs that the relationship is troubled.

I have a philosphy, every individual is responsible for thier own happiness. When they are in the land of happy, they can share that with others. Blaming one's unhappiness onto another is unfortunately an all too common occurance, for both male and females alike, and sucks the life out of any relationship. If a gal bores quick of some guy, or she likes the attention of the other boys, why would one invest their emotions into a relationship. Oh, I forgot, it was the sex.

 

It is easy to think that a woman would want all those things I listed as included in a "husband". It is easy to think she would therefore understand that the husband wants them too. Somewhere in that logic is a grave error.

Edit: I think I spotted the "grave error". It is the idea that when a person knows what the rules are, what's expected of them, and what they expect in return, that they will do what they promised to do, or, in this case, treat the other as they are being treated.

 

...
You can also be assured, that during most marriages, a womens' fantasy translates into a good time for hubby. But consider the opposite, a man's fantasy turns into a chore for the woman. It's those unreconcilable differences that often lead to distraction and breakdown.

I'll argue that! Womens fantasies often involve the perceived "romance" side so they want you to get dressed up and take them out to dinner on a "romantic date" etc, all very much a chore for the husband. Why does the husband need to take his wife on a "date"? He's already got her!

That's like having to go back to the showroom and bargain with the car salesman all over again, years after you've owned the car!

...
The biggest problem we have is not appreciating the differences between us.

Now that is a real truth. Man and woman are very different! Man are absolutely polygamous and women monogamous. The man is designed (programmed?) to seek out hot fertile young women and mate with them all, the woman is designed to capture the man and keep him supporting her and her offspring.

All high order mammals have a central male and a harem of females. Man always did too, this is natures way or "God's way" if you like. The notion of a 1 man 1 woman marriage is quite new and was I believe a construct of the Catholic church who's power base was threatened by the traditional and powerful large families in Rome and all other ancient cultures. A rich successful man had many wives and a great many sons, like his own army or his own fleet of merchants. And if two large powerful families intermarried...

It was in the church's interest to reduce those family power bases and restrict to 1 man 1 woman marriages (most unnatural) and of course the Church got the power to approve which man married which woman.

 

Sorry to argue, RB, but here I go:

Jane Goodall's research showed that female chimpanzees mate with as many males as possible in order to get more of them to provide for the offspring that might, or might not, be theirs. Several bird species do that, too.

There are several matriarchal mammal groups, including elephants, where the females and babies are a societal group and the males just drop by when needed as sperm donors.

The first marriage contract was invented by the Jews.

 

I'll argue that! Womens fantasies often involve the perceived "romance" side so they want you to get dressed up and take them out to dinner on a "romantic date" etc, all very much a chore for the husband. Why does the husband need to take his wife on a "date"? He's already got her!

you won't get an arguement from me. I include that angle in my #36 post;

And I discovered that half the women are board with thier overwieght, hockey howling, socially inept husbands.

It could very well be that monogamous relationships are destined for failure. That doesn't make a woman any less respectable than her male counterpart.

So for my last comment to the OP on the subject, the reason to let it happen rather than force it, is that you'll get eaten up and spit out like late night rum running down the gutter. Healthy relationships are built on respect, not sex.

 

I simply cannot imagine any man on Earth, whether married or single, who would not do a double-take and experience accelerated heart rates at the sight of a toned and curvy 20-year old woman shedding her bikini on a nude beach.

That indisputable facta ALONE proves that ALL men would love to bed hot single women, given the chance, which in turn proves that ALL men are inherently adventurous when it comes to YOUNG women whose feminine beauty is in full bloom, REGARDLESS of the marital status of all parties.

Yes, monogamous marriage does make for an ideal child-rearing environment, BUT, truth be told, Daddy is ALWAYS going to have wandering eye, and it is only the extent to which that genetically programmed instinct is consciously suppressed, which distinguishes the "faithful" from the "free".

 

sorry monster_catfish but i have to disagree, and there is at least one good reason...

 

Another disagree here, and I have at least 2 good reasons. Both of them were cheating wives.

I will admit that a beautiful 20 something is worth looking at, but so is the Mona Lisa, and an SR-71 Blackbird. The fact that beautiful things exist does not make men into sluts or art thieves or plane jackers. The fact that a person can appreciate beauty does not make him or her immoral.

 

exactly, also i just like to nitpick on any 'absolute' statement.
his post suggest that every male is interested in women. i am sure that there are few males in the world that prefer other guys for example. good enough to prove his statement is not as sound as it seemed.

 

This discussion topic was started on the premise of boy-seeks-girl, so my comment was limited to that context, with no offense intended to those whose lifestyle falls beyond that broad definition.

My claim had more to do with the instinctive response MOST men would have to the sight of nubile, youthful feminine beauty, even if such men happen to be contentedly married.

That instinctive, physical reaction to a beautiful young woman, particularly is she has been considerate enough to offer glimpse or more of the Promised Land, does tend to elicit a far more visceral reaction than say the sight of a nice red Ferrari. Any hint that the girl might be available to the observer will send that man's mind racing, as he weights the alluring temptation against its possible rewards or perils, even as he endeavors to maintain his outward composure.

Now that the absolutes have been toned down, I hope my Nobel Prize for this often re-hashed theory about the innately polygamous male instinct is still feasible.

 

Sorry to argue, RB, but here I go:

Jane Goodall's research showed that female chimpanzees mate with as many males as possible in order to get more of them to provide for the offspring that might, or might not, be theirs. Several bird species do that, too.

There are several matriarchal mammal groups, including elephants, where the females and babies are a societal group and the males just drop by when needed as sperm donors.

I watch animal doccos as well as science ones. Apes and elephants both exist in patriarchal family groups with a central male. The fact that the boss male may like to roam a bit (as with elephants) or that the boss male might not be good enough to keep all his females under control (as with chimps) doesn't mean that family group is void.

What you WON'T see in high order mammals is life bonding of 1 male 1 female.

Do you know what the failure rate of 1 man 1 wife marriage is worldwide? Now compare to the failure rate of 1 man multi wife marriages worldwide.

...
The first marriage contract was invented by the Jews.

Are you saying the earliest marriages (Jewish or not) were 1 man 1 woman? Have a read through the old testament. The only reason a man would have only 1 wife was if he was poor, a failure.

Which is quite possibly the reason 1 man 1 wife marriages fail so much today, because it's proving to the wife that her man is a failure?

And then there's a-hole bad boy (who may also be wealthy, ie not a failure) that has a heap of women on the side and his wife stays with him?

Mammals will be mammals.

 

σ

Hugh's last bride bailed out, like many before, and I'd guess he hasn't experienced a faithfull relationship in his life. Some don't care about relationships though. Hugh delivered to one of the primary needs of women, to be seen as attractive in the eyes of males. Being attractive to the right kind of male (capable of providing) is paramount for a woman.

I'm quite shocked actually by the general comments. I'd thought we'd moved further along. Is it the geek thing or the online thing?

Those are all staged for publicity.

 

Great thread. Lots of interesting perspectives. T/S , there is a lot of good advise in this thread as far as finding a girlfriend. I'm just about as old as you are, trust me it's not the end of the world. I was going through what you are going through around my late teens.I was very socially awkward but luckily I had some friends and family to use as examples as far as do's and don'ts. When I finally did find my "soul mate" she ripped my heart out and I was left jaded. Knowing what I know now, I would not have invested so much time and effort in chasing women and trying to build the optimal relationship. I mean that's no different than the 40 something year old woman still looking for her prince charming. Yea I know, "you'll never know if you've never tried."

As far as finding love, just know that there is no absolute science to it. What are you looking for in a woman and what do you consider to be your strengths and weaknesses so far?

 

What do you mean by 'promised land'?

Like men marrying to a wealthier wife? With land?

Is land a better investment than storing money?

 

Figure of speech, Sparky. "The promised Land" refers to those regions of the nubile female anatomy that tend to focus men's attention, and where they hope to explore in depth at some point, but most likely never will if the woman in question is un-available.

 

Is it the eyes?