DISCUSSIONWhy would a high-quality man marry? (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by pforestwater

I know this is a simple question but I'm hoping to gain some clarification on this topic.

What makes them want to commit? Why?

What's in it for them?

At what point in their lives and in a relationship are they likely to want marriage, if they do?

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Gentlemen: Please include in your answers why some men may be interested in marriage as that is the OPs question. It is important for the women here to understand both sides of this issue. If you say only that you would never marry, that will be considered low effort and you will be asked to revise or delete.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 86 points87 points  (4 children)

Women collaborate and men compete. They compete with the intention of winning, and thus climbing the various hierarchies that constitute our society.

They devise their individual strategies for winning using logic and reason - not emotion. Emotion (in the general sense, so including lust and passion) may dictate who a man wants to sleep with or who they're fond of, but it doesn't sway the conscious decision to marry.

The only reason a man seeking to advance himself would marry is if he reasonably believes that he will advance further or faster as a married man than a bachelor.

Depending on his personal situation, different criteria will determine if a given woman advances his goals in his estimation.

A woman that is wise and prudent with money is superior to a profligate spender or a gold-digger in this respect.

A woman that can (and is willing to) maintain his household will free up his time and attention to focus on conquering the world - hence its emphasis on this board.

A woman that is presentable, sociable, mindful of her appearance, and charming is a positive reflection on him and valuable ally when networking for professional and social advancement.

A woman that is caring, intelligent, and nurturing will be seen as a good mother to his children, if building a legacy is his idea of advancement.

A woman that is trustworthy, thoughtful, and respectful can provide valuable counsel when a man is struggling to decide between two or more mutually exclusive paths in his climb to the top.

It may clash with a woman's hope for a romantic love story to view things in such cold terms, but it's worthwhile to view courtship like a series of job interviews.

When you're interviewing for a job, you're essentially trying to convince the business that they are more likely to achieve their goals (profit) with you than without you - "Hire me for $100k/year and I will earn you $1mil/year".

If you want a man to want to marry you, you want to convince him that as great as he already is, he'll be an even better man with you at his side.

Men and women want different things in life, and a high-value man will know this, either intuitively or explicitly. Give him a sales pitch he'd be a fool to turn down, and he'll give you the story book romance you've always dreamed of.

[–]lord-denning 20 points21 points  (1 child)

This is exactly right, and explains the great pride women used to take in areas where they could support strong men, such as managing finances, managing household matters, and raising children.

If you want a captain, to use RPW parlance, think carefully about what you can add as a first mate.

In other societies (and historically, in our own) there is a quantum leap between a girlfriend and a wife. Becoming a spouse/parent in other societies is a term of great honour, and their work is treated with great respect, sort of like what we now give to rescue workers here.

If you want someone to marry you, even though it is many ways now anachronistic in our society, you will need to think about the historical reasons men used to marry and tap into those.

If I may be cynical for a second, given the enlightened modern age we live in you may also need to give him some comfort that you will not get ‘bored’ in 4 years and 2.5 kids later and redeem your divorce chips for alimony cash and prizes. Men with growing income power have become very cautious on this front.

[–]md8716 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Excellent post. I need to save this to show to my daughter when she's a teenager lost in a sea of mixed messages and hormones.

[–]prettynceline 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes! Thank you

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

My husband is high quality. Marriage aligns with his moral values , he also believes it offers better support to him then just having a girlfriend. Being married is also a sign of prestige for men in many cultures. Guys who remain unmarried aren't shunned but are usually viewed as not serious in the workplace and alot of social situations. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a male and not being married tho! Where I'm from (Lebanon) if you are male and not married by 30 you are viewed as a childish and avoidant of responsibility, marriage over there is a sign of prestige but also helps bond families in business deals and via mutual aid as you tend to live with your new family in a communal home. There's also dowry. Alot or incentives. Over in the US I don't see much for men however.

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Why they would: because they want children and to see their genes survive/thrive.

What would make them want to marry a specific woman? Her being someone who can contribute to his life in a meaningful way. Some men value intelligence, some value passion, some value support, but most of all I’d say high value men value loyalty and effort. Someone to make you feel happy and purposeful, even when things aren’t going well.

What’s in it for them? Some of the above, but for marriage specifically, honestly not much. Everything good about marriage for men seems to be dissipating. Woman are pregressivelt losing their role in marriage, while men’s roles remain unchanged. Then if their marriage ends, they are going to lose more then the woman 90% of the time. Usually the only real positive of actual marriage for men are family/religious reasons, tax breaks, and making the woman happy.

What point would they want this? When they find a woman who improves their quality of life, and they are in a position to give that woman the life they feel she deserves.

High quality men don’t want a woman who’s only value is that she exists and can be fucked. They want someone to improve their quality of life. If all you have to offer to a man is looks and sex, you won’t be around long. Those things are replaceable. These are so heavily focused on by RPW users because without these things you can’t have a relationship. Your partner has to be attracted to you, and without sex, or sexual desire you can’t be more than friends. They are the bare minimum requirements to be attractive and sexually available, not the main qualities to garner commitment.

[–]L0git3x 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Because my wife is my team mate and I can do better with the two of us splitting up things to who does them better.

Worked for the past 27 years.

2 IS better than one.

I am an executive. We own our house. we bought our boat cash. we have zero debt. we own all our cars.

I work. She takes care of everything around the house.
We have three kids that are teenagers who arent rebellious at all. They are actually great people. (it is because of her NOT me - remember to who is good at a particular thing. They do it primarily)

These people talk about lifting and all this other stuff.

That is easy mode and you can tell the age of average posters around here are mid 20s.

n count and spinning plates is fine when you are a child and your goals are simple.

Even MRP isnt the answer. (those are kids too. Ive listened to their podcast. Where their wife is a child. Sounds like religious nonsense. Pick a BETTER wife)

Im talking RP 2.0

there is NOTHING better for me. Sitting back at almost 50. Ive done better than my peer group. Would have NOT be possible with out my partner.

[–]young_x 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Generally speaking, men don't want the marriage per se, they want the woman. Obviously, the more options he has, the more she'd need to offer to be worth staying with exclusively. Marriage means shouldering more responsibilities.

My guess is that any exceptions who explicitly have marriage as a goal had very positive childhood environments/experiences and expect to provide that for their own kids, so that might fall under family goals more than being a goal itself.

[–]polakfury 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Coles Notes - To be marriage material you have to give the man you are with valid reasons to marry you . Seems really simple but a lot of people cant connect the dots.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

2 parent households with a SAHM generally yield a higher IQ for the child by default and generally help avoid long term mental illnesses.

Children are why people are here. 2 stable parents whom are committed to each other ensure the children have the best possible chance at positive outcomes.

Unfortunately, it's being abused.

Any high quality man worth his salt will want to have kids and ensure for his family the best possible chance for success.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Commitment and marriage are two very different things.

Commitment is an emotional state existing inside a man... his inclination to stay with you and have a future together.

Marriage is a set of legal obligations, defined, and subsequently redefined, by a society. Notice that I didn't say "rights and obligations", because modern marriage includes no rights for the man whatsoever.

Commitment can have many advantages for a man. Marriage has none.

Thus, commitment can be something that men want, despite being the gatekeepers of it (just as women can want sex). Marriage is not something men want, just something they are sometimes willing to do.

[–]mwait 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Marriage is not something men want, just something they are sometimes willing to do.


[–]husheveryone 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Marriage and having children is highly normative amongst straight Alpha American male members of the urban professional classes who are in their 30s and 40s and beyond. The Trumps are a great example, as are the Romneys, and the Bush Family, and their ilk. This cohort has the lowest rates of divorce, and typically use pre-nups.

Married men, in general, report better health outcomes than single men, particularly as they age, with good wives to help them go see their doctors regularly, particularly the unpleasant health screenings that need to be done after age 50.

The many tax and estate succession benefits of marriage make it very financially attractive.

My late husband really enjoyed being hands on in the process of us getting engaged and married; all the masculine rites of passage and family traditions that went along with it. Great memories.

[–]illisit 9 points10 points  (8 children)

On top of some of the other great comments, high quality men are less likely to be degenerates who enjoy watching the world burn, at least not publicly.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Based on the decline of societies, a great read btw. the very act of perusing wealth, at the expense of sacrafice for one's country Is an element of the decline.

Think of the American golden age. Men fought in WW2, then came home and build their families, business and went to space. Shooting for financial social status at the expense of national sacrafice goes in the face of that...

So I'd say your talk of the decline isn't about hedonistic men watching things burn, but the man who takes bricks off the pyramids to build himself a house to raise a family.

[–]pforestwater[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

What do you mean by this?

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Societies with a high rate of monogamous marriage are stable, peaceful, and prosperous - universally, across time, with very few exceptions.

These characteristics are also present when you look at demographics within a society. The black community in the US has a rate of single motherhood that was 72% in 2011 and a marriage rate of 29% - they account for 52% of murders despite being only 12% of the population, with every single other quality-of-life measure being equally dismal. The rates of single motherhood and marriage amongst poor whites are not as bad (though they're catching up) and their quality-of-life indicators ain't fantastic either. Wealthy, upper-class individuals in the US still have high marriage rates though, which blows out of the water the Marxist/feminist argument that marriage is simply a tool of oppression.

Even if you are non-religious or even atheist (as both I and u/girlwithabike are) there is still a very good argument for both monogamous marriage and following the basic moral dictates of Christianity - doing so has consistently been raising the standard of living for human beings around the globe for 2000 years.

[–]polakfury 6 points7 points  (3 children)

But I thought the black community was one of the most religious in the US??

[–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The short answer to what should be a long response about religion among black people is "the church and religion is not what it used to be."

Also - "community" suggests everyone working together in support of common goals and best interest of the group. This is no longer the case since the last-half of the late 20th Century.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 3 points4 points  (1 child)

In the rural parts of the country, they absolutely are. I grew up in a rural part of the south, and the church my granny most frequently took me to was a black Methodist congregation.

However, most blacks in the US live in urban centers (and according to the media, they are the real black culture) - and there are about as many churches there as there are credit unions and libraries. Thanks, Democrats.

[–]polakfury 2 points3 points  (0 children)

and there are about as many churches there as there are credit unions and libraries

But isnt illiterate rates and poor money habits really high in those areas?

[–]BewareTheOldMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Societies with a high rate of monogamous marriage are stable, peaceful, and prosperous - universally, across time, with very few exceptions.

The 73% out of wedlock births for black children [Source - CDC] and the approximate 30% marriage rate for black women ages 18-35 points directly to correlation and causation - high OOW births = low marriage rate as most single, childless, and never-married men have zero interest in rearing another man's children…and rightly so as there are numerous associated and deleterious issues.

Numbers are raw data and only tells part of the story. The late-1800’s and early 1900’s reflect that black men and women were a mostly married (and for decades the most married) group in America. Historical records confirm this as fact, despite suffering overt discrimination and racism in the Post-Reconstruction Era. Blacks Codes and legalized segregation (upheld by [1896] Supreme Court decision) resulted in the Jim Crow Era well into the 1950’s/early 60’s and did not deter marriage.

The numbers change for every group as a result of 1960’s "sexual liberation," feminism, introduction of the welfare state and associated requirements that a husband/family leader in the home results in loss of benefits. Communities who adopted this format are seeing negative results across the board, but add in other factors affecting black neighborhoods (drugs, crime, problems in education, et. al.) and it’s easy to identify the root of the problems.

There's much discussion, but what is also left from the conversation is the deliberate effort to ensure divisiveness among black people – some of which relates to destruction of independent and developing black cities and towns.


"The Destruction of Black Wall Street: The Tulsa Riot"




When this aspect is included along with 1950’s-1960’s government effort to disrupt the Civil Rights Movement and discredit black leaders, it speaks to the numerous problems that led to present-day situation.

This of course does not absolve the requirement for self-correction, but it seems most often the complete story is excluded when referencing the state of Black America. I’m uncertain how any group is expected to perform well with so many obstructions and when considering historical perspective.

Edit: The argument can be made that feminism is not doing anyone any favors, but seems to have hit black women the hardest in terms of negative outcome.

[–]thefisherman1961 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Tax break

[–]Kiddingyoself 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If a man wants children, presumably he wants healthy, happy, successful, children. By far the best way to have & rear children is to marry their mother.

If a man doesn't want children, he may very well not want to get married. Or he may put it off until he fears dying alone.

[–]Littleknownfacts 15 points16 points  (15 children)

  1. High quality relationship minded women will want and expect marriage. A man who takes that off the table is limiting his options. If a man wants a top tier woman he needs to be willing to give her something she needs, otherwise she will seek it elsewhere.

  2. High quality men are expected to marry by their peers. An unmarried man is not as well respected in the hierarchy of mixed social groups. If he's getting a ton of hot strange he might get respect from some envious men, but single guy won't get invited to couples dinner parties.

  3. Similar to point 2, unmarried men suffer at work too. They are less likely to be promoted and earn less money over their lifetimes. Having a wife makes a man seem more reliable and responsible. Besides, having a wife to grease the wheels with your bosses wife doesn't hurt.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (14 children)

  1. There are plenty of users who will gladly bait and switch on high quality mates, leaving damage in their wake.

  2. Such expectations have been diminishing and continue to diminish.

  3. It may be true that single men earn less money, but they also spend much less as well. Overall, a single man likely has more cash and time than his married counterpart.

[–]Littleknownfacts 3 points4 points  (12 children)

  1. There are plenty of users who will gladly bait and switch on high quality mates, leaving damage in their wake.

High quality man - attractive, intelligent, educated, family-oriented. Essentially UMC and higher.

  1. Such expectations have been diminishing and continue to diminish.

Not in the UMC and higher.

  1. It may be true that single men earn less money, but they also spend much less as well. Overall, a single man likely has more cash and time than his married counterpart.

Yes. Single men don't support households.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 2 points3 points  (9 children)

I find some have weird obsessions with UMC.

A girl looking for this exact scenario in fact. Wants to be a SAHM with a loyal breadwinner. A blue collar tradesman with 70 to 100k salary is seen as less than a doctor or lawyer, with similar salaries.

Traditionally, the tradesman will be closer to rural than urban, and more traditional. I just don't see the disconnect between those two types of men, identical in all but professional reputation.

[–]Littleknownfacts 4 points5 points  (6 children)

They aren't identical though, there's a big leap in culture and preferences and how all of that plays out in a relationship needs to be taken into account. For example, if a woman does not want to be a stay at home parent - she is more likely to find a job that suits her and her husband in a city, so UMC is the better choice there. If a woman is deeply religious, she is more likely to find herself happy with a MC man. However all that aside - UMC tend to have lower divorce rates and report happier marriages than MC. The difference goes beyond just what he does for a living.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Funny thing though, I think a lot of it if facades, at least among those with options.

Lawyer I follow on Twitter talks about the neighbourhood drama. Shit comes right out of a trailer park, in Chicago suburbs.

Im wary of building a life on statistics, they don't tell the right stories oftentimes.

Many of my ex military friends are UMC with me now, and they see and do the same thing you'd see then.

Its a correlation, and a dangerous one if that's what you hang your hat on imo

[–]Littleknownfacts 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Funny thing though, I think a lot of it if facades, at least among those with options.

Yes. The facade is important.

Im wary of building a life on statistics, they don't tell the right stories oftentimes.

That's funny considering how much RP men love their divorce statistics.

Many of my ex military friends are UMC with me now, and they see and do the same thing you'd see then.

Mmmm I don't think military and UMC really mesh. That's general a LMC thing.

Its a correlation, and a dangerous one if that's what you hang your hat on imo

Correlation is correlation, but as soon as someone suggests you LTR a woman with a high n-count and all of a sudden you whip out the statistics again.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Ex. I'm not American, our social ladder is much more dynamic.

Most guys who leave before their 20 become business owners, get law degrees to practice, or enter politics.

The best example is my buddy with PM wife, and is now an MBA policy wonk for the province, or me and my girl now doing the corporate thing, in the centre of the universe. Not every sailor is a knuckledragger, and tend to be educated and upwardly Mobile.

As for statistics, we are in full agreement. They are usually a case of post hoc rationalization. I try not to let the tail wag the dog. Black dragon has a wonderful article sharing your sentiments. I won't argue about him, the point is only illustrating some concerns

http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2014/07/13/divorce-statistics/ on stats.

I can't find it, but there was also one where he showed how he checked all the boxes according to statistics and still his wife left. Clearly the statistics aren't a safety net.

As for the facade, if it sets you up for failure or misses good opportunities for happiness, it may be a bad facade...

[–]Littleknownfacts 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Ex. I'm not American, our social ladder is much more dynamic.

Well then I can't agree or disagree with you since I'm only familiar with the US.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Little off topic, but an example.

The lowest possible rank one can achieve is an LS-4. On the coast, with PLD, your takehome salary would be around 60-70k. at the top end, C-1 chiefs would take about 120. Officers would start around 80 and end closer to 200k (minus command posting)

This is without specialization pay, which tacks on an extra 10k. Also, both groups have 0 medical expenses for their family, its the bernie sanders wetdream. Military hospitals are available with no wait times.

Most sailors had side businesses, hustles, and or fairly robust investment portfolios. Even on deployment, we had yoga on the flight decks. I use an analogy with us Vs the army... Construction workers vs engineers.

Also, there are programs in place for people leaving to get priority placement in government positions. Most of our higher level civil servants (especially in navy towns or Ottawa) have military backgrounds. I've been tasked with diplomatic functions while abroad, as well as work with our ships sister-city.

Fun fact for you, if you're interested.

The point to the above post was the folly in using statistics as a risk mitigation measure. In the same way you (correctly) cite the divorce statistics as bad from a newer TRP member, using UMC is just as errant.

The search for the causeation is more important than the correlation. I use the plumber example to show this. Shooting for a guy with a higher status job, when one is looking for loyalty from their man and resource stability?

The type of guy who is traditional that way is more likely in a more rural background, and of a solid blue collar, but successful life.

In my crass way of framing it, you can be that girl who shows off her new lawyer husband, or the girl 7 years from now who shows off she still has her husband around and taking care of the family.

Of course, some get both, or neither too. Point is the stats don't give meaningful advice, and when discussing high quality men, I find many women confuse high quality, with appearing high quality

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is something that seems to be a well kept secret from some people. I have a wide range of clients at work. There are plenty of men in the trades or firefighters/police who are just as well off as the more white collar men. The SAHM are nearly all married to the blue collar men.

And ambitious men in the trades can go pretty far. There are usually men who end up working for themselves in the long run, which can be quite lucrative. It can also be provide flexibility that a 9-5 job may not so that they can be available for more family centric things.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The need to marry into status is a serious handicap Imo.

[–]pforestwater[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What is UMC?

[–]Littleknownfacts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is UMC?

Upper Middle Class

[–]md8716 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. It may be true that single men earn less money, but they also spend much less as well. Overall, a single man likely has more cash and time than his married counterpart.

More cash on hand and free time, yes. But they also lack social and political power of a connected married couple.

Most of the people with real power in this country are the age 50+ conservative married dude with kids country club set. And the single guy doesn't get let into the club.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 22 points23 points  (6 children)

This is a question that ought to be asked more often. The answer to this question should be one of the foundational principles of RPW.

Society and the legal system today is what brought about TRP in the first place. Men didn't invent TRP because they were happily married. No, men invented TRP because they've been treated miserably and this just keeps getting worse.

metoo and the like will push this even further into MGTOW-land. Many men will stop pursuing women even just for casual flings. Why risk ruining your life and losing your job just for a few minutes of fun? It's becoming less and less worth it.

A man might still want to marry for religious reasons, because he still believes strongly in traditional family values or because he believes in "the one" (who's eternal and will never cheat or backstab him).

A man who decides to marry in today's day and age is taking on a tremendous risk. Respect that and treat him accordingly. Don't be an entitled princess.

[–]corporateflunkie 6 points7 points  (5 children)

metoo and the like will push this even further into MGTOW-land. Many men will stop pursuing women even just for casual flings.

The metoo thing is definitely the RESULT of men looking for casual flings, not the other way around.

Why risk ruining your life and losing your job just for a few minutes of fun? It's becoming less and less worth it.

Chasing after just a few minutes of fun is the issue. Men aren't vetting their women very well either and are sending mixed signals when they "play" a woman for casual sex/a few minutes of fun. Well, go figure it backfires.

[–]anothdae 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Eh... disagree.

People have always had affairs. There has always been sexual tension in the workplace.

None of this is new.

What is new (and we will see if it lasts) is men having reason to actively avoid dealing with women in professional settings. It's not MGTOW, but it is giving women the cold shoulder professionally, because the risks are too high.

Men will always chase after a few minutes of fun. They always have.

The only thing that is backfiring here is women getting stonewalled in the professional setting for fear they will cry #metoo.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The metoo thing is definitely the RESULT of men looking for casual flings, not the other way around.

Either we have a sexually moral society, where there are sexual rules and standards and casual sex is strictly prohibited.

Or we have a sexually free society, where two consenting adults can do whatever they want.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't have it one way for men and another way for women.

Chasing after just a few minutes of fun is the issue. Men aren't vetting their women very well either and are sending mixed signals when they "play" a woman for casual sex/a few minutes of fun. Well, go figure it backfires.

To pretend that this is a one sided issue is straight up silly.

[–]polakfury 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The metoo thing is definitely the RESULT of men looking for casual flings, not the other way around.

Dont women do the choosing in relationships?

[–]corporateflunkie 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I wouldn't say that's a rule. There are plenty of guys actively trying to attract the girl they want. Or actively pursuing one they think is an easy mark.

Edit: I would say women do more vetoing

[–]HerefortheTuna 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

[–]Rivkariver2 Star 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Passing on their genes, wanting a woman to inspire and push them to greatness, the benefits of family. It’s often important to image and career. The benefits of regular access to one woman. Lots of Christian high value men believe in marriage. I consider monogamous men higher value than men trying to get many women. The latter hasn’t grasped that women don’t make him a man.

[–]NewMindRedPill1 Star 7 points8 points  (3 children)

From what I've seen, a lot of high-quality men start to think about marriage around the time that their friends are getting married or having children.

That is usually around 27-32 in my area.

It can be even sooner if the man comes from a traditional home with Red Pill immigrant parents that promote earlier marriage (like asian immigrants or in the Muslim community).

So why? Societal pressure, wanting to have children, and finding a good mother for his children are generally the reasons.

Since I was 21 I've only seriously considered older guys for dating. I haven't dated someone under 25 since I was 20. As a result, I maximized my search for a high quality guy by focusing on guys who were about to or are in the stage of looking to create a family.

I think dating a guy your own age is a higher risk (although there are exceptions! Dont point it out I know).

Same age or younger guys are a risk because:

-they are less likely to be in the mindset to commit

-they might not even have thought of starting a family

-waiting until they reach that age means your SMV will decrease while their RMV increases.

-You risk things not working out at a higher age.

-They might end up looking for someone younger once they reach that age.

-Waiting a long time for a guy to propose while acting like a wife (living with him, sex, chores, etc) makes him less likely to propose.

There are always exceptions but this is the general trend I've seen

I've focused on guys who were in their late 20s and were high quality. I think 70% expressed long term interest after a couple of dates and many asked me subtle questions to figure out how Id be as a wife/mother. My bf is 28 and I just turned 25. Everyone around him is getting married like crazy and just a couple of days ago he asked my ring size. I believe he is high value. He is tall, highly intelligent, very kind, great job and constantly being promoted, former college athlete, with plans to buy his second house in 2 years. he is a total dork in private btw but I love it. I was there at the right time when he was looking for someone to settle down with and plus I made sure to always look as good as possible and be super friendly. He wants children and loves to look at the baby pictures of his neice and nephews. He's got baby fever and knows I'm going to be a good mother and wife. It also helps that we love each other and have the same life values/goals.

That is one of the main reasons, to me, a high quality man will marry.

[–]rosaliegreenleaf 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Sounds amazing! Congrats!! Where did you met him?

[–]NewMindRedPill1 Star 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Thank you! We met at an international speech and leadership club.

[–]MenLoveBitches 4 points5 points  (1 child)

TL;DR: some men want to legally/ideologically lock down a partner and be able to expect her to provide certain services; he wants to care for a family better from a legal standpoint, or take certain legal advantages; he wants to feel generous (or just show off as better than the poors) in a role as a provider

Answering this based on my experience as a non-religious, pragmatic woman, in a LTR with a man that I considered high-quality due to his IQ and talent being high despite his upbringing:

There are legal reasons to marry. I initially avoided marriage because I was doing well on my own and it wouldn't give a tax or benefits advantage for me. My health insurance from work covered him even if we weren't married. However, if we eventually have children and if he ever earns more than me, it'll help then for his taxes and for his legal right to care for his family, so I gave in to marrying. We of course have a pre-nup, because my family was concerned about me marrying someone who was lower class, uneducated, and currently a lower earner, despite him having more potential as an earner because he's male. He's been told by industry people that he should be earning 2-3x what I am based on demand, but so far has never had a job like that. Men who are married or have children may also be paid more based on that status alone, as some men that I know who have married while working full-time have been given bonuses and raises for marriage or having kids. I'm not aware of a woman earning that.

Ideologically, some men have a drive to have and care for a committed partner and children. Reasons why it brings them satisfaction might vary, but part of it is feeling magnanimous in a role as a provider. I can understand, as I've been there. This seems to be his reason for marrying, as he's always wanted marriage and wanted to be a provider, and said that he would be happy for me to quit formally working to focus on my own projects. He also has a fear of separating, and has wanted an ideological commitment, which I've agreed to given our history together and preferences for each other.

However, he has never been proven as a provider and has expressed desires to be self-employed in risky areas, hoping that his career may take off that way. I was supportive of this for some years in exchange for him offering me support in my work as I paid 90% of the bills, so I experienced taking pride in a provider role. However, he continuously failed to do what he said that he would do in a support role, and taking my time to help him with his ambitions was hurting my career and what was usually our only source of income. I'm encouraging him in making changes one way or the other, that one can't essentially not provide and also take, because he should realize this not only doesn't live up to his words (and thus what he wants me to expect), but this isn't stable and isn't going to help either one of our ambitions, because money is always needed to fulfill those.

Traditional marriage is a partnership where services are exchanged. The pride of the provider role is also tied to an expectation that a partner will not only bring them joy, but will fulfill a certain role. That will vary by man, but it's usually at least expected that you'll spend regular time together at their choosing and will step in to help where he can't.

The thing that middle-class people traditionally aspire to is the life of the upper class: a Lord has an estate and he marries a Lady to help him manage it while he spends time pursuing his interests. This was a typical idea that they aspired to in marriage, and hence the middle-class pride in being able to provide for a woman so that she didn't work. This is a misunderstanding, as Ladies did indeed work, but it was in managing their husband's resources, which were considerable. This is how the middle-class also sought to elevate themselves above the lower, where the wife also worked, in cottage industry if nothing else, but often outside the home in industry or mining (women were small and fast) or as a servant, etc.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In two words. Loyalty and desire

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a divorced man with a career, education, and money, reasons I wanted to marry were:

To come home to a person I could trust and carry an intelligent conversation with.

A partner of equality who is as ambitious as I and doesn’t need/want my money other than for mutual benefit.

Someone who shared the same values.

Someone who shared the same interests and weren’t simply faking until the ring was on.

Someone who didn’t need a ring to feel validated.

Someone I could travel with.

Someone who didn’t want kids or pets due to the constraining nature of either one.

Not having to constantly put money and time into dating other people instead of pursuing career goals.

A truly loyal companion who wasn’t hung up on monogamy, on either of our parts, defining marriage, and who would be willing to stay in open communication regarding other people.

Someone who fully understood marriage is ultimately a business contract.

Someone also working toward retiring early and who realized pooling equal resources has great benefits long term.

Unfortunately, due to the laws and divorce courts, and the abysmal cost-benefit analysis of getting married in today’s society, I wouldn’t ever do it again.

It’s not that I want to be single, it’s just too risky right now. It sucks that’s the way it is, but I have to live in the reality that is now, not the reality I’d like to live in.

[–]MadSparty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude here. Marriage (not at all the government issued variety, and to some extent the religious depiction) is in my mind a contract between man and woman to intertwine the lives of each to get the most happiness today, tomorrow, and the indefinite future. The marriage contract allows both man and woman to be greater than the sum of their parts if left as singular entities.

I also want kids bad. The research on the benefits of two parent households is crystal clear, and I want my kids to succeed and thrive. A male leader and a female nurturer is the perfect dichotomy to allow children to manifest their full potential once they reach adulthood.

Finally, life is hard and riddled with suffering. Knowing someone always has your back and puts you as their priority is incredibly motivating for either partner. Also, if both partners are intellectual powerhouses, they'll be able to keep each other focused and sharp for whatever mental roadblocks present themselves.

That answers the questions, but would like to provide my opinion on plate-spinners, MGTOWs, or other non-marriage-minded men. Given all the benefits I know about it (assuming a proper woman can be found), only stupid or insane men would choose not to commit to a single woman.

[–]PatnarDannesman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You get older. You grow tired of the bar and club scene. You get tired of the dating scene. You get tired of the games. You just want to settle down with a constant woman who will cook, clean, wash, iron and have sex with you.

Also, someone that can give you children. The biological imperative.

[–]md8716 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I'm only speaking for myself, but I originally never planned on being a family man, but now that I'm in the middle of it, I absolutely live for the challenge of being the leader and patriarch of a successful clan.

What's in it for me? I relish the challenge of having the balls to attempt what other men are afraid of, succeeding where other men constantly fail.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Based on your attitude, I think you're going to do just fine at it.

[–]RedPill_Swinger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  • To have children.
  • To have a partner (which is highly unlikely since women in the aggregate want to be lead)
  • As a sign of gratitude for her being meaningful to him.

Now this being said if you women won't rise against THIS kind of marriage and family laws, high quality men will keep running away from it.

[–]sat_ta 3 points4 points  (7 children)

I'll bite. I perceive myself as a high-quality man. I'm athletic, good-looking face, 6'4", academic degree, make a six figure salary and i've had enough women in my youth to fill the caspian sea with them. I get a LOT of female attraction from every age, even now in my fourties. So what in the world made me commit to marriage?

It's because i wanted children and a heritage. I come from a big family and it was clear to me from an early age that i want to become the new patriarch of the extended family one day. So after i was settled financially in my job, i married a very lovely and beautiful woman and two years later another so that the two have company and i have a way to get many children. I have six children today. This is not unusual in my cultural circle. I'm not very religious.

(I'm aware that the western world and reddit especially is super-agitated when it comes to polygamy and cries the loudest about opression blabla yadda yadda. What is serial-monogamy with multiple children from different partners if not a de-facto polygamy? At least we are honest about it and don't dispose of older women.)

I'm older now (40+) and looking back i wouldn't change a thing. I like being a father to smart and strong boys and i also like to protect my daughters from the idiocies of western culture where sluts are good women. Yes, i settled down for this, but i don't regret a minute of it. I've had my good share of women but only in leading a family, i found my passion.

But back to your question: I was ready for marriage when i was financially settled and had a genuine feeling that i've had sex with enough different women to be satisfied. It was also helpful that having a family aligned well with my long-term life goal (being the patriarch).

Edit: Instead of downvoting, share your thoughts and add to the discussion.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ladies, judge the response not the situation. The downvotes because you don't like the the type of marriage this poster has are inappropriate.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This guy gets it.


...misread the part about adding the second wife. Either way - good on you and your wives for making it work.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I love it! Beautiful story pal.

[–]WhySoOverHeated 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. I liked reading your perspective - polygamy is very unusual where I live (cheating is more usual and even less frawned upon than polygamy, sadly!), so I found it interesting to read why you married not one but two women. Thanks for sharing! I hope people will throw in a comment on this.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 2 points3 points  (2 children)

This guy gets it. He's also not the only polygamist/polyamorist around this sub, either. RPW values can work with it.

[–]sat_ta 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't wish to make this topic about polygamy. The OPs question is about marriage. I will share one last view into my life and then move on.

Thank you, both of you u/WhySoOverHeated and u/LatetalThinker13.

What i often encounter in online discussion is the wrong assumption that the women in a polygamous family are opressed. That is far from the truth. My first wife had the option to choose a suitor for second wife and i even gave her the option to decline. I would have respected that. But she was okay with it, and both wives are best friends. They both have their own household (in two houses next to each other) and help each other as much as they can.

It has nothing to do with polyamorous gangbang parties, or whatever people try to project into this.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is actually encoded in some/many law's surrounding polygamy in the places/times/societies that practiced it. That you must provide each wife with their own dwelling and you can't force them to live together. Also, gangbang parties are out of the question for the religious polygamists for obvious reasons.

[–]Indubitably_Confused 1 point2 points  (9 children)

Main reason is probably having a family, if no kids then at least a partner to share, etc. Personally, I do want a family with kids, but find it really strange that such values, at least face value, is considered "beta" traits when in fact it's the most alpha-esque thing there is.

What makes me want to commit is mostly for my partner's sake I guess, since marriage is pretty much a self-induced ball on ankle. I'm well-aware that I can still have kids and a relationship/partnership without marriage itself.

[–]thefisherman1961 3 points4 points  (5 children)

find it really strange that such values, at least face value, is considered "beta" traits when in fact it's the most alpha-esque thing there is.

Wrong. Beta = traits of provision. Having a family with kids means you’re providing for them time-wise, emotionally, and financially.

[–]Indubitably_Confused 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Right, and traits of provision is considered beta?

[–]thefisherman1961 2 points3 points  (3 children)

That’s what I just said

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Yes u/indubitably_confused : RP considers traits of provisioning to be beta traits. This is is why on RPW we advise women to look for men with a mix of Alpha and Beta characteristics.

[–]thefisherman1961 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Not just a mix of alpha and beta characteristics, but a mix of the right kinds of alpha and beta characteristics. The Alpha Bucks archetype, ideally. TRP even advises men to strive for the right mixture of alpha and beta traits.

[–]Indubitably_Confused 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Had a whole essay on this provisioning trait being associated with/as a beta quality, but eh, that's just my own view. Just gona say that we should all seek to change some of the lingos/concepts being accepted as truth.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Actually, you should get married for your children's sake. Life outcomes for the children of married parents are so much better than for every single other family arrangement that it's absurd anyone could not be married and claim they're doing everything they can for their children.

The statement often made by single mothers that they "provide the love of TWO parents" and "they do everything for their kids" is not only provably factually incorrect, it is selfish, delusional, and malicious.

[–]Indubitably_Confused 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I agree with you on that, mostly. I just left out the details and wanted to keep the reply simple. That being said, there are those who aren't married, and one can with just as much effort if not more, have kids and raise them together without actually getting married. I completely agree with you on the common proverbial from single mothers, bad ones anyways.

I'd like to suggest that, while on this subject, we in RP/RPW though-sphere adjust our views on single mothers. Single mother thing most of the time, yes, they aren't as great as they say they are because they are operating on a shitty foundation, usually. However, I do know more than a few single mothers who have raised successful kids, with multiple in tow, better than a full nuclear family. The culture/society/government now, with all its supposed bounty, is allowing more bad apples in general with the lifestyle itself being promoted somewhat, and there's a pattern/legacy thing going on with multiple generations of said bad apples etc, but I think the viewpoint of single motherhood being so absolutely negative in RP-thought sphere is blinding us from celebrating, uplifting those who do actually pull through. We should stymie/cull the current single motherhood lifestyle by replacing it with a realistic, pragmatic one rich with values that has their shit, informing and enlightening the masses like RP/RPW.

But that's just my two cents.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

The statistics do not support that assessment. They support the RPW negative view on single motherhood, and they support the stigma that in the past was placed on single mothers.

Do you want a basis for comparison of how bad single motherhood is for children?

It's a stronger statistical proof than the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer.

It's that bad.

I say this as the child of a radical feminist/borderline communist/single mother, whose three sisters are all also radical feminists and single mothers.

I am incredibly successful today, but it's because I ran away from home and dedicated myself to doing the exact opposite of everything they taught me. I have about a dozen cousins and a brother that were raised by that group of "women", and each one of them is a picture of the worst qualities humanity has to offer. No amount of good I could do in my life stands a chance of balancing out the misery their continued existence will bring to the world.

If I could pass a law that would give them all life sentences for their selfish decision to "have it all", I would do it in a heartbeat, and sleep like a baby afterwards.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Boredom with nsa sex and search for permanence with novelty

Social status for career like politics

Wants kids, thinks marriage is a requisite

To give an expat status in said country

Divorced guy finally trusts you're not like his ex

Usually after a long and healthy stint of their 30s.

[–]ReddJive 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Disclaimer first.

I am married. Soon not to be. I am having an affair. If you want details you can go to /r/marriedredpill for more.

To say there’s nothing in marriage for men is a modern or rather new idea considering the last 20 years or so. There was once something in it for men. It is that which I wanted. I grew up around old world mentality. I am a second gen American my grandparents literally off the boat. I grew up in a “cultural” ghetto as it were. Nearly everyone was an immigrant.

That said marriages were solid. Men were men. Women were women. What’s in it for a man when all other BS is put aside is the adoration and dedication of a woman. I saw it with my grandparents. She unconditionally supported him. His most trusted confidante. In her eyes he could do no wrong and she backed him up every time. There was nothing he couldn’t do when he had that kind of support.

They went through difficult times and no matter what he kept going because he knew no matter how bad it got she was always there. He worked harder for it. It was yin yang in action. I never heard an unkind word from her. He always called her farfallina. I think it’s little butterfly in Italians.

For some this may seem to be a derivation of “be your mental point of origin” but it isn’t. That’s what the advantage would be for men. The stability that one person brings. The history created. Remember red pill men don’t like the way society is. We realize we can’t change it. So we adapt to it. Still get our needs met with the tools we have. It’s modern marriage we have issues with.

When does a man think marriage is right? I’d say it’s different for all men. But I suspect it’s when he feels he’s accomplished enough to start building.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I saw it with my grandparents. She unconditionally supported him. His most trusted confidante. In her eyes he could do no wrong and she backed him up every time. There was nothing he couldn’t do when he had that kind of support.

This was lovely to read. My grandparents (first generation Italian man with a good Irish-American gal) are my inspiration for what marriage should be. At their 50th anniversary they renewed their vows and it was clear that not only did they love and support each other still, they were surrounded by the family and friends and the life that they built together. I love my parents, but I hope to have a marriage much more in line with their parents.

[–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Most women don't realize that grandma put in as much work as grandpa there.

Know what kind of loyalty is required to convince a man to work himself to death for his family? A woman has to be able to answer that for any hope to.

And while. Most of our grandmothers would (mine did) I just don't see the same in my generation, nor the ones after me

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can think of no better goal for us to share in life.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What makes [a high-quality man] want to commit? What's in it for them?

I won't overdo it, but answer with a series of questions and a statement:

What is it about you/qualities you possess that would make a man's life SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER?

Career-woman or not, are you ready, willing, and fully committed to being an outstanding wife and exceptional mother?

Are you FULLY committed to engaging the associated duties and expectations of a wife married to a High Value, High Quality Man?

Are you irreplaceable (to him) versus any other woman by being able to benefit this man with your presence via marriage?

Also - virtually the last reason left to marry is to have children in a legitimate and legally recognized family, establishing a legacy and for the express purpose of rearing children in a loving, stable two-parent family.

If there is no plan to produce children, a couple can have the same situation as a married couple (sans children). Hence - no need to marry.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm hard-wired to marry. Wife and I joke that our wires were crossed at birth; a lot of RPW appeals to me more, and a lot of male RP truths seem to apply to her. Probably helps that neither of us is neurotypical.

I wanted marriage since I was sixteen. Never found a woman I was willing to marry (and she was a mistake) until 30. I have always wanted kids, and it seemed idiotic to me to have kids without two parents. While married I got forcibly redpilled (she was a feminist!), and am on a healthy new marriage now.

What's in it for me? Kids with an actual sane, loving, supportive partner. My wife is young, has her head screwed on better than a whole generation of BP feminist-brainwashed NSA 20-somethings, and supports me being a Captain like you wouldn't believe. She washed my feet before bed (I didn't even know that was a thing). Helps that she's second-generation immigrant from India, so her family values are much better than average.

What's in it for me? Coming home to a peaceful, organized home that is warm and full of love. Being provided home-cooked meals of quality, or a backrub. Companionship with commitment to always be there for me when I need her, as I am for her. Eating alone regularly, an empty bed, no kids, that doesn't appeal. It does to some.

But I lucked out. After my first (disasterous) marriage, I would never have married again. Hell, I'd probably never have dated again, or at least not dated women. But I've known my second wife since she was a teenager (family friend) and unlike most women I knew her character and I could trust her. That isn't common.

If not for her... yeah, I'd be MGTOW now, in this climate, or started dating men exclusively (lucky to be bi, I guess). Much safer.

EDIT to speak to the general question, not just my situation:

Why would men IN GENERAL marry? Consistent companionship, kids. We can already get sex. If a guy doesn't want kids, and he has a good, active friends circle, it's going to be VERY hard in this climate to get him to marry. There's no incentive. Sex isn't an incentive for men to marry these days; however, lack of sex IS a reason for a man to lose interest in a woman. If you're looking to marry an RP male, provide what he can't get in this hookup culture: affection, admiration, and respect.

Give him those, and he'll wade through fire for you. But it'll be hard. A large swath of American culture actively encourages women to disrespect men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

I'm a solid 8. Marriage is off the table. There is nothing that could convince me to take that risk.

Edit: at a mod request, a high value man might marry because he wants children or he is so blue pilled that he thinks he can overcome evolutionary female behavior.

Look, a lot of alpha men are dumb when it comes to women, female nature. Successful men are often arrogant and thristy. They think divorce, etc. Won't happen to them. That is how high value men get trapped.

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

This is not an answer to the question. You may explain the reasons that you do not wish to marry but please explain also why some men would marry as that is the question at hand. I will re-approve once you have edited.

[–]polakfury 3 points4 points  (0 children)

why some men would marry as that is the question at hand. I will re-approve once you have edited.

Easy answer. They are finding a female version of themselves who they see as a good partner to be with who would not be a burden / hassle to be around with.

[–]Littleknownfacts 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If marriage is off the table you are automatically sub-6.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Based on your comments, you probably consider yourself MGTOW to some degree - but it's only you that sees it that way. If you're coming to a board specifically created by and for women just to pout, you are by definition not going your own way. You didn't answer the OP's question, you just made a bitchy little comment that added nothing to the discussion. Your statements ooze "bitter beta incel" and make your claim of being an 8 not particularly credible.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]D_Hamm35 0 points1 point  (0 children)


      [–]HonestyOverCivility -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      1. Societal expectations: “you need to find yourself a good woman and settle down” “real mature men commit”

      2. Core beliefs encouraging it, often religious

      3. A desire to start a family

      4. Being unaware of their potential to play the field, thereby settling for the first safe bet that comes along

      5. Growing weary of playing the field. ie being a perpetual George Clooney loses its luster

      6. He’s not high quality at all and is simply a beta male with some early game OR better yet a contextual alpha: men who appear alpha with their sphere of influence (usually men in positions of power)

      7. Because he believes its “just what people do” when they become adults

      8. He truly thinks he found a unicorn that is worth settling down for

      9. Public image, appearing mature, etc...imagine trying to run for President as a single guy. No one would take you seriously

      10. Family pressure, from either his or his GFs family

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)


      [–][deleted]  (3 children)


        [–][deleted]  (2 children)


          [–][deleted]  (1 child)