This was unpleasant to read. Not because your writing is bad, but because you're making overgeneralisations and painting a horrible landscape where you're casually reducing women to depreciating assets. It’s one thing to talk about demographics or fertility timelines in a factual way. It’s another to frame women as if they’re expiring inventory that need to secure a man before their value collapses. It really feels like red-pill adjacent thinking. It's dangerous to young women and psychologically harmful as you're promoting a fear-based, "what's left" narrative. Quite weird really...but I guess it makes sense since you're also south asian and you've been fed this narrative by your culture (I say this not necessarily as an attack, but because I'm also south asian and I've seen the outdating thinking and pressure). Young women reading this aren’t going to come away feeling informed...they’re going to come away feeling like they’re on a countdown clock.
I mean, it’s true? Most women are after marriage, not casual sex. And as she alludes to, your marriage market value is not the same as your sexual market value. You can have sex and remain sexy fairly late into the game, but fertility is what it is. And given the majority of married couples still want children, this is not a superficial concern. Most men do NOT want to marry a 30s woman they just met and have kids with her within a year. If he really likes her hd may compromise on that, but that’s no one’s ideal timeline. I’m 33 and if I were single and looking to have children today, I’d be on a time crunch. I’d probably try to get the wedding out of the way and start trying for a baby as soon as I’m confident enough he’s a good man. But even that is a long process, and it’s not as long as the ideal process.
Ideal process:
- meet, date for 2 years, get to know each other really well, hopefully past the honeymoon period so you can see clearly
- engagement, married within the next year
- spend some time as DINK couple, let’s say 1 year
- try for a baby, take 1-6 cycles. Baby. Let’s assume it takes an additional year for the baby to appear
That’s 5 years between meeting and birth of a child. Safe to say a 33 year old woman should not gamble on that. A compressed timeline:
- Date for six months. He passes basic gut checks but honestly your rose tinted glasses may still be on
- marriage by a year. You may want to have a simpler wedding to have it quicker
- start trying right away. No time as DINK. Baby appears a year later.
Still, 2 whole years between meeting and baby. And that’s quite rushed.
Most people, probably men more than women, prefer the first schedule. I mean who really likes to be rushed? But with that schedule I’d be 38 before my first child is born. If i met him later, at 35-38, that’d push me into my 40s. If you want second, third and fourth children, have them right away. No room to wait and have nice relaxing age gaps.
It’s a math problem. No misogyny needed. There is nothing wrong with women in their 30s. Many are even very attractive. But older women are less fertile so you simply cannot take your time with them. Courtship takes time. Pregnancy takes time. Trying go conceived takes time. Hell, diagnosing and treating infertility (6 months no conception after age 35. So that’s at least 6 months of trying!) takes time. Meanwhile fertility is lowering with each passing year. I get it. 30s is not OLD. I do not feel OLD. I feel healthy and energetic. But it is also not young, and it is middle age adjacent. It is not misogynist to face reality and admit my marriage prospects aren’t what they were at 22, and if I got divorced today, honestly? My husband will likely do better than me on the re-marriage front.
Dunno what to say. Truth/reality is harsh? You thinking reality is unpleasant doesn't change it. Personally, I think it was psychological harmful and unpleasant to work as a wage slave for decades, but the reality is that I wouldn't have been able to retire early if I had "followed my heart"/"done what I loved"/etc.
From my perspective, it seemed like she was saying women have all the power in this game. You can pretty much date around all your 20s and still settle down late 20s early 30s. In theory you have more options earlier than most men. I do acknowledge this is also a generalization.
As a 24 years old man. I have felt overlooked my whole early 20s. It only started improving recently. And by the time I reach late 20s and early 30s and have more options, it will already be time to settle down.
Maybe I don't understand your perspective. Feel free to share your personal experience.
Broadly seems like good advice! May I share a couple of thoughts, from having been on the other side of the equation:
Men in their 20s are relatively screwed on the dating scene. Men in their 30s or older gain at the expense of men in their 20s, because they compete successfully for the same pool of women in their 20s.
But women who want marriage are rational to prefer to date older men. Both because of the “has learned to clean room” thing you mention — and, I’ve heard from so many women “ah I had a 5 year relationship with a guy in his 20s. Eventually he figured out what he wanted, and that he didn’t want kids (etc).” Mutational load change is real, but if you pull up the statistics, the objective size of the effect is still really small.
I suspect there are ways for women to separate men in their 30s who are legit vs leftovers. For example, by delaying sex until it’s clear that that’s not the guy’s main motivation. And by screening for men who are most able to articulate what they are looking for.
This is 100% great advice I will be doing a read of it on our podcast. 30+ high quality men on the dating market I have met are all delusionaly unrealistic about the type of person they can get and delay marriage like crazy.
Men act like this is mostly a women issue 30+ its more a man issue.
Dunno about "unrealistic". The basic facts are that high quality men in their 30's can get laid until they're ready to settle down at 40. Women in their 30's have it tougher. It really is an argument for a woman in her 20's to latch on to a high-quality man in his 20's (you can have fun while married too!)
I agree with a lot of this, in particular that "market value" for casual intimacy encounters isn't the same as for marriage, and that yes, people couple up over time, though that is also less true than it used to be.
I think you aren't quite taking the differences in looking for marriage and looking for casual sex far enough. Your appearance just doesn't matter as much for marriage as it does for purely sexual encounters, as your value in marriage is more multi-dimensional than for sex.
So I don't think thinking about your "league" in this way is quite helpful. Thinking in leagues also tempts you to see potential spouses as interchangeable objects to be purchased in the marketplace, which will hinder meaningful connection that could actually lead to marriage.
Women that are attractive and accomplished that are my friends and relatives (and my wife) mostly marry young men who are just starting out but seem to have potential that they enjoy being with. They could have married rich and more mature older men but did not.
That's what the smart gals do, and what the OP is generally arguing for. That women serious about marriage seriously look for lifelong mates in their 20's.
A large part of this actually seems to be women's preferences. IE, as you mention, men are not that open-minded when it comes to dating older women - but they are more open-minded with regards to that than older women with regards to younger men!
So the "wall" is in some ways can at least partially mitigated by being more open-minded than the typical woman.
But then again, if a woman was that open-minded, she would also be much less likely to be single...
Nothing in here is incorrect but the whole thing reeks of bourgeois striver stink. A life of prostitutes and hook ups sounds genuinely more erotic than this cold calculus.
I opened the survey to respond but exited once I saw that my Google account's name and email would be recorded with it. You might be able to get more responses if you made it anonymous.
This isn’t poorly understood. It’s actually one of the most, if not the most, well understood aspects of sexual value.
Men are genetically predisposed to prefer women who have maximum childbearing potential, short term and long term. That’s it. It’s an extremely powerful force, for extremely obvious reasons. This is really one of the most basic aspects of sexual reproduction and can be found across almost all species.
This is a great series to be writing. But also I'm 34 - I promise I've just been unlucky!
Man I am 34 too and this sentence of the OP really did sting 😔
This was unpleasant to read. Not because your writing is bad, but because you're making overgeneralisations and painting a horrible landscape where you're casually reducing women to depreciating assets. It’s one thing to talk about demographics or fertility timelines in a factual way. It’s another to frame women as if they’re expiring inventory that need to secure a man before their value collapses. It really feels like red-pill adjacent thinking. It's dangerous to young women and psychologically harmful as you're promoting a fear-based, "what's left" narrative. Quite weird really...but I guess it makes sense since you're also south asian and you've been fed this narrative by your culture (I say this not necessarily as an attack, but because I'm also south asian and I've seen the outdating thinking and pressure). Young women reading this aren’t going to come away feeling informed...they’re going to come away feeling like they’re on a countdown clock.
I mean, it’s true? Most women are after marriage, not casual sex. And as she alludes to, your marriage market value is not the same as your sexual market value. You can have sex and remain sexy fairly late into the game, but fertility is what it is. And given the majority of married couples still want children, this is not a superficial concern. Most men do NOT want to marry a 30s woman they just met and have kids with her within a year. If he really likes her hd may compromise on that, but that’s no one’s ideal timeline. I’m 33 and if I were single and looking to have children today, I’d be on a time crunch. I’d probably try to get the wedding out of the way and start trying for a baby as soon as I’m confident enough he’s a good man. But even that is a long process, and it’s not as long as the ideal process.
Ideal process:
- meet, date for 2 years, get to know each other really well, hopefully past the honeymoon period so you can see clearly
- engagement, married within the next year
- spend some time as DINK couple, let’s say 1 year
- try for a baby, take 1-6 cycles. Baby. Let’s assume it takes an additional year for the baby to appear
That’s 5 years between meeting and birth of a child. Safe to say a 33 year old woman should not gamble on that. A compressed timeline:
- Date for six months. He passes basic gut checks but honestly your rose tinted glasses may still be on
- marriage by a year. You may want to have a simpler wedding to have it quicker
- start trying right away. No time as DINK. Baby appears a year later.
Still, 2 whole years between meeting and baby. And that’s quite rushed.
Most people, probably men more than women, prefer the first schedule. I mean who really likes to be rushed? But with that schedule I’d be 38 before my first child is born. If i met him later, at 35-38, that’d push me into my 40s. If you want second, third and fourth children, have them right away. No room to wait and have nice relaxing age gaps.
It’s a math problem. No misogyny needed. There is nothing wrong with women in their 30s. Many are even very attractive. But older women are less fertile so you simply cannot take your time with them. Courtship takes time. Pregnancy takes time. Trying go conceived takes time. Hell, diagnosing and treating infertility (6 months no conception after age 35. So that’s at least 6 months of trying!) takes time. Meanwhile fertility is lowering with each passing year. I get it. 30s is not OLD. I do not feel OLD. I feel healthy and energetic. But it is also not young, and it is middle age adjacent. It is not misogynist to face reality and admit my marriage prospects aren’t what they were at 22, and if I got divorced today, honestly? My husband will likely do better than me on the re-marriage front.
Dunno what to say. Truth/reality is harsh? You thinking reality is unpleasant doesn't change it. Personally, I think it was psychological harmful and unpleasant to work as a wage slave for decades, but the reality is that I wouldn't have been able to retire early if I had "followed my heart"/"done what I loved"/etc.
From my perspective, it seemed like she was saying women have all the power in this game. You can pretty much date around all your 20s and still settle down late 20s early 30s. In theory you have more options earlier than most men. I do acknowledge this is also a generalization.
As a 24 years old man. I have felt overlooked my whole early 20s. It only started improving recently. And by the time I reach late 20s and early 30s and have more options, it will already be time to settle down.
Maybe I don't understand your perspective. Feel free to share your personal experience.
Broadly seems like good advice! May I share a couple of thoughts, from having been on the other side of the equation:
Men in their 20s are relatively screwed on the dating scene. Men in their 30s or older gain at the expense of men in their 20s, because they compete successfully for the same pool of women in their 20s.
But women who want marriage are rational to prefer to date older men. Both because of the “has learned to clean room” thing you mention — and, I’ve heard from so many women “ah I had a 5 year relationship with a guy in his 20s. Eventually he figured out what he wanted, and that he didn’t want kids (etc).” Mutational load change is real, but if you pull up the statistics, the objective size of the effect is still really small.
I suspect there are ways for women to separate men in their 30s who are legit vs leftovers. For example, by delaying sex until it’s clear that that’s not the guy’s main motivation. And by screening for men who are most able to articulate what they are looking for.
Or just give an ultimatum. If a guy isn't ready/willing to commit/hitch after a relationship for a year, move on, no matter how painful.
This is 100% great advice I will be doing a read of it on our podcast. 30+ high quality men on the dating market I have met are all delusionaly unrealistic about the type of person they can get and delay marriage like crazy.
Men act like this is mostly a women issue 30+ its more a man issue.
Dunno about "unrealistic". The basic facts are that high quality men in their 30's can get laid until they're ready to settle down at 40. Women in their 30's have it tougher. It really is an argument for a woman in her 20's to latch on to a high-quality man in his 20's (you can have fun while married too!)
Enjoying this series, commenting to boost reach so you can get closer to the twitter fights you want 🙌
Hardly read the article, but the give directly donation earned a sub
I agree with a lot of this, in particular that "market value" for casual intimacy encounters isn't the same as for marriage, and that yes, people couple up over time, though that is also less true than it used to be.
I think you aren't quite taking the differences in looking for marriage and looking for casual sex far enough. Your appearance just doesn't matter as much for marriage as it does for purely sexual encounters, as your value in marriage is more multi-dimensional than for sex.
So I don't think thinking about your "league" in this way is quite helpful. Thinking in leagues also tempts you to see potential spouses as interchangeable objects to be purchased in the marketplace, which will hinder meaningful connection that could actually lead to marriage.
Women that are attractive and accomplished that are my friends and relatives (and my wife) mostly marry young men who are just starting out but seem to have potential that they enjoy being with. They could have married rich and more mature older men but did not.
That's what the smart gals do, and what the OP is generally arguing for. That women serious about marriage seriously look for lifelong mates in their 20's.
A large part of this actually seems to be women's preferences. IE, as you mention, men are not that open-minded when it comes to dating older women - but they are more open-minded with regards to that than older women with regards to younger men!
So the "wall" is in some ways can at least partially mitigated by being more open-minded than the typical woman.
But then again, if a woman was that open-minded, she would also be much less likely to be single...
Nothing in here is incorrect but the whole thing reeks of bourgeois striver stink. A life of prostitutes and hook ups sounds genuinely more erotic than this cold calculus.
I opened the survey to respond but exited once I saw that my Google account's name and email would be recorded with it. You might be able to get more responses if you made it anonymous.
This isn’t poorly understood. It’s actually one of the most, if not the most, well understood aspects of sexual value.
Men are genetically predisposed to prefer women who have maximum childbearing potential, short term and long term. That’s it. It’s an extremely powerful force, for extremely obvious reasons. This is really one of the most basic aspects of sexual reproduction and can be found across almost all species.
I feel like you didn’t understand my point then …
You have a very good grasp of the feminine perspective, but that’s only half the equation.
This series is a real education. I wonder if you have considered the risks of a bad marriage and divorce with children in your series?
I discuss it here. https://www.ariababu.co.uk/p/book-review-the-two-parent-privilege
I think, society wide, bad men are life ruining and women should be careful. But I think induviduals can take action to avoid bad men.