57
58

RELATIONSHIPSThe Wife Tests (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by [deleted]

Wife Tests: A Single Girl’s Guide to Being Wife Potential, Part I

Anyone who has ever spent any time in the manosphere has heard of Ian Ironwood. The man is a genius. I was recently going through some of his posts on his blog and I began re-reading the series he wrote called “Wife Tests”. Now, Ian writes mostly for the male perspective but this series is helpful not only for men but also to women. There have been a few posts from lurkers or new posters asking about ways to improve their girl game or to up their game for future or current relationships. This series will be super helpful for RPW’s new and experienced to read as it serves to instruct and remind us of everything we could be doing. I encourage every lady to read this series but as Ian is a tad verbose at times, I’ve added my own Spark Notes version here. Enjoy!

Please note that when clicking on the links, Mr. Ironwood has retro pin-up-esque photos peppered throughout his posts, some of which may not be appropriate to view at work or around the presence of children. They are not pornographic by a long shot but some are definitely risqué.

This first article is a litany of phrases or utterances that can and should throw up red flags to men vetting a potential partner. The first and most obvious red flag to everyone here should be a woman using the term “rape culture”.

Anyone uttering this phrase without a trace of humor or sarcasm will most definitely turn into a raging fem-nazi once the honeymoon period is over in a relationship. I don’t feel a need to harp on this phrase for any length of time as I’m certain we are all aware of how over used this phrase is among the feminist army. Fellas, stay away from this kind of woman, ladies, do not be this type of woman. You will nail yourself a low value beta using this mentality as any captain worth his salt wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot pole.

The second “red flag phrase” is “delicate male ego”.

This one should also be relatively self-explanatory. If a woman doesn’t respect a man, all of a man (including his ego) he will not be properly satisfied in a relationship. Everyone has an ego and everyone loves to have someone else build them up (particularly if that other person is attractive). To be a woman who not only won’t build him up and stroke his ego (no matter how silly you personally may think it is) but will actually tear down his ego (and thus sense of worth in a relationship) is not an ideal candidate for a wife.

The third and final example I will pull off the list is the phrase “I want to work on my career”.

Now many women, especially those newer to RPW may prickle at this being a red flag. Practically all women today assume (wrongly) that being highly educated will add to the sexual attractiveness. This is not the case. Men may be impressed or think you accomplished, however a fancy degree or a fancy job do not add to your SMV at all. In fact, Mr. Ironwood postures that it is a red flag for women to say “I want to work on my career” and I can see why. If you and a potential mate are on one of your first dates or just getting to know each other, you are essentially telling him that your career comes first, before anything, including him. No man wants to hear that.

“A woman who sees herself as a professional first will only see herself as a wife and mother second.”

I purposely listed this article after the last bullet point because the two seem to conflict with each other. They do not. Mr. Ironwood clears up this seeming hypocrisy by explaining:

“Being “a good worker” isn’t just an evaluation about her employment status and potential, it’s an evaluation of her character when you broaden your scope to include old-fashioned housework and industry in general.”

Basically this article is discussing what to look for in a woman to ensure that she is not lazy or simply looking for a man to take care of her, rather she is someone who will do a fair share of the work and also care for her man. This is a rather important green flag us ladies will want to fly high when being vetted by a potential man! Whether your goal is to stay home after marriage and/or children or continue working, there are a few things you should keep in mind now to ensure you are sending the appropriate signals.

Firstly, a woman who won’t work is obviously a red flag. But almost as big of a turn off is a woman who doesn’t know when to stop working or forgets why or who she is working for. /u/SuperSlavisWife just posted a fantastic article a few days ago entitled “Laissez-Faire Homemaking” in which she tells of the dangers and pitfalls of trying to make your home perfect all the time. One such pitfall is becoming a tyrant in your own home. Insisting on perfection all the time puts your husband and kids on edge and does not make the home a happy, inviting place. Such a woman has forgotten whom she is working for. Who are you intending to serve by homemaking? Your answer should be ‘your family’. They shouldn’t be being terrorized for the sake of the picture perfect home. So while it is important to not sit on the couch all day watching The Price is Right all day, it is also important to not become “Monster Stewart”. For those women who are in the work force, it is important to remember that you have a family and to save some of yourself every day for them. Careers are important but not as important as your marriage and your family.

So how can single ladies demonstrate their ambition and industriousness? Ian answers this in the form of questions men should be asking themselves. Read the full list on his blog but a few of them are:

  • Does she ask for help even if she doesn’t need it? (Laziness)

  • Does she try to get you to do her work for her? (Laziness, manipulation)

  • Does she have a hard time planning the project? (Lack of ambition, trouble planning for the future, laziness)

  • Does she clean up after herself?

  • Can she stop the job short of perfection? (knowing when to stop working)

  • Does she take pride in the work she does?

  • Does she need you to watch and/or act as a cheerleader for her efforts? (validation-seeking, low self-esteem, attention seeking)

These and the other questions listed are important in determining in ourselves the message we are sending to our men. I encourage you to read the list and answer honestly, using introspection to identify potential places of improvement within yourself.

The final wife test I’m going to touch on today is “domesticity”.

One of the things a man seeks and finds value in when he is looking for his wife is someone with whom he can make a home.

What a surprise. A man wants a woman who knows how to make a home an inviting, warm, soft place to land. Unfortunately because of the feminist movement eschewing any sort of activity related to feminine homemaking, it is a dying art. I myself had no idea how to add special little touches to my own apartment (and worse, I didn’t realize they were missing!) My mother-in-law was the one who taught me the importance of homemaking and what an art it truly is. She showed me how a table cloth and some candles make dinner more special, how fresh flowers placed in a simple vase dress up a window, and overall how these small touches contribute to a house feeling like a home. It is definitely an art many women nowadays do not know how to create.

Little things Ian encourages men to look for in a woman’s home (and thus little touches you can add to yours) are listed in their entirety on this blog post. A few include:

  • house plants

  • cat/dog – how well are they cared for, groomed, the attention paid to them (all relates to you being able to dote on another living breathing creature. If you don’t want a pet please skip this suggestion!)

  • general décor – does your house give off a warm, cozy feeling or does it feel like you cleaned out the sale section of Target? Are the pieces original and cohesive to give the house an overall feel or is the paint and decorations discordant?

  • is the trash and/or laundry piling up – obvious housekeeping skills

That’s all for now, I thank you for reading and hope that these articles will be helpful in stepping up your girl game for your partner, either current or anticipated! I’ll post part two in a few days.

~Sadie

Edited: formatting


[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Good summary of those posts. The issue over a woman's education/career/etc. not bringing much to her SMV is something that a lot of women are going to have trouble with because of the paradigm they've had crammed down their throats from the time they were children, so it's understandable that a lot of them tend to balk at that at first.

The thing for these women to understand is that it's not saying that being educated is a bad thing or wanting to have a career at some point is a bad thing. Instead, it's saying that if you're on and on about your career (a career that currently exists or is to-be-seen), then that's generally a turn off (and neutral at best) for men who are both of quality and who are geared towards building a future with a woman that may or may not include kids.

A woman can only have so many priorities, and to have a great career, she's going to have to make that career one of her top priorities. That means less room for the man, the home, the family, sex, etc. in her priorities, which is a crappy deal for the guy. Quality men have options, and they're going to pick the options that don't give them these headaches more often than not.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Serious question - I'm very passionate about my career because I care about the mission of my organization but am completely content with the concept of moving to a part-time or even just volunteer role within the same organization once I get married and have kids. Is there a way for me to communicate this desire without just blatantly being like BUT I WILL GO PART TIME FOR A FUTURE HUSBAND on a date haha

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that is a great assessment of the situation.

[–]CommentsAndCriticism 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I think education and career contribute to female SMV. The two rules for SMV are be attractive and don't be unattractive. Having no income or low income is unattractive, and those with less education and career investment tend to have lower income. Of course a man won't mind a one night stand with a women who lacks education. But seeing as SMV is being discussed here in regards to commitment, then especially for a long term relationship, having no income or low income is unattractive.

So for example if you have absolutely no income, live with yer parents, and have some stipend. If you are sufficiently attractive a man might not mind dating you, because this is low level investment, maybe he will get sex after second or third date etc. But let's say for cohabitation, then it's a higher level of investment, it's quite different.

The women will be a burden to the man, he will have to take on the womens costs because she has no income. Rent, food, utilities, recreation, transport etc. The man will be out of pocket. Some men are willing to do this, others are not. Perhaps if your SMV is high enough, and his is low enough, for example.

That is an extreme example. In todays age it's more likely a woman will earn some income. But it demonstrates the point that it does factor into the SMV equation. It is unlikely a high income will boost a womans SMV. But have no income or a low income could lower a womans SMV especially for a long term relationship.

Maybe even attraction is the wrong word. It's just a pragmatic/logistical thing. I think the determining factor in whether or not low income is a big factor for a man would be presence or lack of red pill knowledge. If a man is blue pill, I think he is more likely to pay for a woman just because of his ideas he was taught about love. A man with red pill knowledge will approach it with a bit more calculation.

SMV is a complicated thing. There are fundamentals yes, but also there are periphreals. What people consider to be "valuable" can vary quite alot. Like fetishes for example. Maybe some women out there are just dieing for some 3 inch cock, the shorter the better. But as far as education, career, income, it matters enough for enough people to be a decent part of SMV calculation.

What I would say is that unlike facial symmetry, muscle tone, fertility indicators, youth, fertility etc... Education, career, income has a strong cap. It's like you could be level 0 which is bad, or you could be level 1 which is good. But there are no 10's. And unlike a man, having a billion dollars is never going to make a fat ugly girl attractive in a mans eye. Well okay, maybe that's not the best example, but you get my point.

There is an infograph... something like this. Basically it's looks x intelligence x humor for women. So 0x10x10= 0. A woman who is dirt ugly with a PhD and does stand up comedy is 0 SMV. But I think this is only for an aspect of SMV which is assessing " would I fuck you" rather than "are you wifeable". I think both men and women have a dualistic mating strategy. Woman want the alpha fucks and the beta bucks. Well men want the slutty immature 20 year old and the homely cookie baking wife. That is why men traditionally had mistress'. So believe it or not guys who wanna get married actually have standards, and in the "age of equality" that means a woman with low or no incomes loses brownie points on the marriage market.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So believe it or not guys who wanna get married actually have standards, and in the "age of equality" that means a woman with low or no incomes loses brownie points on the marriage market.

Mr. Ironwood's point and the whole idea of my post is that men do have standards and here they are, in general. Also, no one said career and education don't matter at all to a man's attraction, it just doesn't matter as much to men as women think it does or should.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not true. A woman's physical attractiveness is regarded as a necessity to men. Other traits like status and resources are not.

http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=soss_research

[–]bowie747 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Most men won't care if a woman has an impressive career/is wealthy. They don't have use for such things. Power and wealth are in a man's grasp (if he wants it) and a woman providing these things won't make her any more appealing to him. It's great if she's happy, it's great if she's intelligent, but a great career does not really add to a woman's SMV because it does not particularly provide a man with something he could not obtain on his own.

Similarly, a man being a tremendous nurturer of children does not raise his SMV in the eyes of most women. Any positive trait is a positive trait, sure. Better a great caregiver than a bad caregiver, but most women can provide these things themselves.

What people find most attractive in a partner usually correlates with things that they cannot obtain themselves. Men and women work best together when they form a symbiotic partnership.

[–]lidlredridinghood 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"What people find most attractive in a partner usually correlates with things that they cannot obtain themselves. Men and women work best together when they form a symbiotic partnership."

This is brilliant. Thank you!

[–]Mentathiel 11 points12 points  (18 children)

Now many women, especially those newer to RPW may prickle at this being a red flag.

raises her hand

Practically all women today assume (wrongly) that being highly educated will add to the sexual attractiveness. This is not the case.

This is the point where I stop resonating with RPW. To deny values of human curiosity and inquiry and the beauty of being able to discuss various subjects on an even leg with your lifetime partner is to reduce us to our animal natures. I'm not saying our animal natures don't exist or are unimportant or less important, they're required for sexual attraction, but so much more adds to the experience of love and you can cater to your partner's intellectual needs so much more sufficiently and understand and share their interests and make thoughtful gifts based on some of them.

Not to mention the value of moving in the same circles valuable partners move in in order to meet them. So many couples meet at college and in workplace or through college friends or colleagues. Moreover, if your country's school system has difficult college entrance exams, it's generally a good way to isolate a hard working and smart elite.

In fact, Mr. Ironwood postures that it is a red flag for women to say “I want to work on my career” and I can see why. If you and a potential mate are on one of your first dates or just getting to know each other, you are essentially telling him that your career comes first, before anything, including him. No man wants to hear that.

This is already a better point. While having a fancy degree or a good job doesn't necessarily signify lack of willingness to devote yourself to your family, expressing this sentiment does and this is a red flag for whoever wanted a large portion of your time and devotion, but this rings true for both men and women.

For instance, if you want children with a man, you'd want him to be able to devote a decent time to them, so they grow up with a nice fatherly figure, and you'll also want some of his time so your relationship is preserved and freshened up every now and then. He can still pursue a career while maintaining this, especially if you're helping out by doing things around the house. But if he expressed a sentiment that would signify that his career is more important to him than the family, having a child with him would be riskier. And I don't mean as in "I'll have to work overtime to provide for you" or "If I just try harder for a couple of months, I'll get a promotion and we'll be able to live more comfortably," but as in "I'll work so much I won't see you ever, in fact I'll travel a lot and be absent in my child's life, but hey, it's my dream!" Nobody should have this sentiment with children involved. As a partner, you can choose to support such a person and have a wonderful relationship/marriage, but with children involved you want a certain level of devotion from everyone.

[–]rprollerEndorsed Contributor 9 points10 points  (8 children)

To deny values of human curiosity and inquiry and the beauty of being able to discuss various subjects on an even leg with your lifetime partner is to reduce us to our animal natures.

I don't think /u/MsSadieDunham was trying to say that women should forego education altogether. I think she's trying to say that education, in of itself, doesn't increase a woman's SMV. Most guys would not put "education" on the list of things they find attractive about a woman (or if they do, it would probably be closer to the bottom of the list). I agree with you in that women who do go on to get bachelor's/masters'/doctorate degrees have a higher chance of finding a high-value man though.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Most guys would not put "education" on the list of things they find attractive about a woman

Exactly. It is a generalization made, obviously there are exceptions though.

[–]ColdEiric 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's a question of opportunity cost.

The time a girl spends on an education might do wonders for a woman, but it has to be balanced with her window of fertility. Does she have a loyal boyfriend who shows signs and signs of devoted commitment, so she is able to focus on her studies?

Is she single and would it be better her to be more available and social, and less in her books, so she might meet some guy who is worthy?

Is her education an education which highlights her understanding of how the world works, or is it an edu-kay-shun which only highlights how unbelievably clueless she is? Read: Does her major tell how her IQ is Higher or Lower than average?

[–]Mentathiel 8 points9 points  (4 children)

I don't know, most guys don't specifically want their women to be educated, but most guys I know mention intelligence and sharing interests and being passionate about something (which doesn't necessarily have to be an academic pursuit, admittedly).

I suppose you could argue that it can't be universally said that men want educated women. But a particular woman could want a type of man who would want an educated companion. Does that sound better?

[–]rprollerEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points  (3 children)

That's fair. And bear in mind, too, that having an education doesn't always equate to being intelligent. It all depends on what the woman does to cultivate her mind/intelligence. A woman who reads academic publications, attends professional conferences, and does research on her own time is likely to be very intelligent, but she wouldn't need a college degree to do those things.

[–]Mentathiel 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That's true (also we're both using the word intelligence in colloquial terms, for anyone reading this), that's why I said they're not asking for education specifically. But there's no real difference between quality time in college (many waste it, tho) and these efforts outside of it if they amount to the same knowledge in the end. So there's no reason why one would be no asset to you, while the other one could be valuable. I suppose what I wanted to say is that academic knowledge, however it is acquired, can be a valuable asset to women in seeking and satisfying a partner.

Although you could make an argument about money spent on formal education if you don't need that degree for a job, but that depends on the specific country and its educational policies. For instance, my studies are funded by the state because I scored high on the entrance exam and will continue to be if I keep my grades up, meaning I'll get college education and a degree without wasting a dime on it (aside from buying books, which also aren't that expensive).

[–]rprollerEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (1 child)

meaning I'll get college education and a degree without wasting a dime on it

That's awesome! I'm not sure what you'll be studying, but assuming it's not a completely useless degree (like English, Sociology, etc) then your man will likely see it as an asset you can use to get a good job. Good jobs make it easier for you and your other half to have the kind of life you want in the end! Even better if you created those opportunities for yourself without incurring significant debt.

[EDIT: Spelling]

[–]Mentathiel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Studying IT.

And it's not very common to be able to survive on one salary here (although it's not impossible, but far from average), let alone have commodities, savings or investments, kids etc.

[–]sierratangovictor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most guys would not put "education" on the list of things they find attractive about a woman

Those most guys are the most visible "apparent alpha"-s . There are thousands of invisible alphas, who are the perfect alphas in their group. The common men and women and anyone inbetween alike, didn't learn to look beyond the 'popular' alpha-ness , like that of an actor or a NBA player.

Then there are men who can actually pull a string on the abovementioned "alphas". Those people will actually value your education if you can use that to support him, given that your support plays a large role (see above).

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

You definitely make an excellent point about children. All bets are off with kids. I don't care who you are and why you believe but raising children is the most important thing. Too many people "wing it" nowadays and that's why we have this lazy entitled generation.

I actually thought of you when I was writing this part because I do know how you feel about your education. :-) but not everyone agrees with every single aspect of RPW. What I love about red pill is that it applies to a range of people, not just the highly educated, not just the SAHM's, everyone can use it.

[–]Mentathiel 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Haha I wondered if I was consciously included in "some people new to RPW" or was it an accident that I found myself there! :)

What I love about red pill is that it applies to a range of people, not just the highly educated, not just the SAHM's, everyone can use it.

Of course, it's presented as the truth about our nature, so it has to be universal. I suppose that's why I feel inclined to bicker about the claims about education, while it probably works perfectly for a lot of people, I don't feel it's as universally true as some other claims made here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha no I remember reading your comments on the last post that brought the education thing up!

[–]ponkyol 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It's not that having a career doesn't matter (ideally, you can at least support yourself), but it isn't something men factor into their attractiveness equation.

It's not like how men can have various attraction factors, like social status, being physically attractive, wealth/career, game or dominance, and where they can more or less compensate a lacking one with proficiency in something else.

As a woman, you can't compensate for being fat, unfeminine or obnoxious by having a career. Go look at /r/asktrp - a guy who can't get a date will never be told he should be nicer or do sweet things for a girl, because most men need to be more assertive and dominant, not nicer. It's the same non factor.

Not to mention the value of moving in the same circles valuable partners move in in order to meet them.

This is also called "getting your Mrs". Get an education or career because you want it, not to snag a man and then let your education go to waste.

[–]Mentathiel 2 points3 points  (3 children)

As a woman, you can't compensate for being fat, unfeminine or obnoxious by having a career.

Yes, but if you're already fit, feminine and pleasant, does it then matter to a guy? And not every guy or average guy, but a specific type of decent guys that one may wish to appeal to?

I think this whole thing around education not being needed for a RPW is a bit reactionary to all the propaganda done by feminism about needing to be an independent woman with great career who competes with men and isn't prioritizing her family. No, you don't have to be that, but you also shouldn't encourage people to be on the other end of the spectrum or tell them that it doesn't matter if they are.

As someone mentioned, as long as you're not prioritizing your career, overemphasizing it, trying to compete with your man or shoving your income to his face you're not negatively contributing to his attraction to you, and you may or may not use the benefits of being educated to your favor.

Get an education or career because you want it, not to snag a man and then let your education go to waste.

We were discussing this in a certain context. You can't throw the context out of the window and then accuse me of making a broad statement. I never said that a primary reason for getting an education should be prying on good mates, I just said that within the context of benefits of education to your sexual strategy and SMV, one has to account for the benefits of entering more elite social circles (for lack of an explanation that generalizes less).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If it costs you $150 000 in loans and your prime attractiveness years to both complete the education and then pay for it, 18-29, before you can pursue a long-term mating strategy/start a family/get married/settle-down, then it may not be worth it.

[–]Mentathiel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm getting my education for free because of good results on my entrance exam and getting an education doesn't stop me in any way from pursuing a long-term mating strategy, I am in a LTR. I will have gotten bachelor's by 22, before which I wouldn't have children anyway. And even if I wasn't in a LTR, college would be an excellent place to meet a potential partner or create contacts to connect you with one.

Sure, things are really different with your crazy expensive campus systems, but even then someone might have parents who are able to pay for their education or something. But I never understood why is it so crazy expensive to be educated over there, it undermines meritocracy, enslaves people to debts and it's pretty silly to have to live at campus and all that.

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

I am not from the US and College is not expensive where I am, but most (English speakers) on the internet are, which is why I wrote that comment mentioning high tuition costs. It is something that I feel few Americans consider as to how it affects marriage/family/relationship formation.

[–]ponkyol 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The third and final example I will pull off the list is the phrase “I want to work on my career”.

This is also a hamstering for riding the carousel. As if you can't be both in a relationship and have a career.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, also a good point. You can certainly have both but one does take priority over the other.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

"Practically all women today assume (wrongly) that being highly educated will add to the sexual attractiveness. This is not the case."

I agree and disagree. Being educated and successful won't add to a woman's sexual attractiveness, but it does add to her Relationship Market Value. Not many men with common sense in 2016 would want a relationship where they have to support the woman.

[–]Bpgiissues 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It may not add as much as you think. I'm currently in an LTR with a woman who is looking to get married and she is educated and has found a government job with it. I believe she thinks it adds a lot to what it brings the reality is somewhat the opposite. On the positive side she is able to support herself however it isn't much beyond that. And compared to what I bring in it isn't particularly useful to me. She is however very attached to her career and she has specialized herself so that her government job is all she believes she can do. The result is she is geographically limited in where she can work. Where she works is not an area where I want to work but the commute from my house to her job is a challenge. So her job brings in barely enough to offset her joining me and is a strain on the relationship by asking me to move to a much less convenient location if we are to live together. Instead of being a benefit to my life it is adding challenges. She could in fact bring a lot more to my life that I would value by being more traditional

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

From what I have seen most attractive men marry career women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Education adds no value to sexual attractiveness at all. I would agree it adds to relationship value only if you want some protection/risk mitigation in case of divorce.

[–][deleted]  (21 children)

[removed]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

These tests are used for vetting and I believe are generalizations of flags to look for that could be a problem down the road or a bonus. Obviously everyone has different preferences for personality, hobbies, interests etc but I think most men can agree they don't want a lazy wife or one that is hostile about doing housework.

[–]rprollerEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Have you visited Mr. Ironwood's blog? OP posted a CliffNotes version of the "Wife Tests" content, so of course it isn't going into that much detail.

[–][deleted]  (11 children)

[removed]

    [–]rprollerEndorsed Contributor 5 points6 points  (4 children)

    What is there for me in getting married ?

    This comment is better-suited for TRP. RPW advocates for LTR's/marriage because that is what is best for women. TRP advocates for plating/avoiding marriage because that is what is best for men.

    Furthermore, this post is meant for people interested in marriage. OP is not trying to convince people who don't want to get married that marriage is for them.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Posted my own reply and then read yours. :-) we think alike.

    [–]sierratangovictor -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    Indeed I could be clearer in my words. I edited my original reply too.

    As a man, yes, I want a marriage /LTR and I will put all my resources in it - no further questions asked.

    But The marriage has to give me an upper hand above the said others.

    [–]sierratangovictor -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    RPW advocates for LTR's/marriage because that is what is best for women.

    I advocate for marriage too. If I can have a marriage or even an LTR in my terms, then it's way better for me than not having it. But the marriage has to be lucrative. If a woman wishes to get married, then she can either try to find mate in the pool who are desperate to get married, or put forward a reward.

    I am not anti marriage. Anti-marriage, by itself, is a dogma, and dogmas aren't the best for men or women.

    I will gladly marry the hypothetical lady, if she can put forward a reward.

    In fact, I do look for that signal too, if there is a reward in marrying her. If there is a reward, I will gladly invest my time and resource in her.

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

    I'm not here to debate what a woman can give you, as a man. I wrote this post for women, using posts Mr Ironwood wrote because the lessons do apply to women. I think your comments would be better off posted in PPD.

    [–]VigilantRedRoosterModerator[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This discussion isn't about what YOU expect from a woman. Please take a few days off posting to read this and to consider how you might contribute to our community.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]sierratangovictor 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      This is the right direction. These kind of signals will be the signals (albeit not exactly the ones you wrote) that I will look for as signals.

      Yes, indeed, this is the approach that will indicate that the hypothetical lady is a possible wife in near future for a long term commitment.

      I want to add, that if the hypothetical lady learns to present these signals, then she'll be able to significantly increase her chances.

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]sierratangovictor -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

        Of course not, but the list is pretty superficial / incomplete.

        [–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        Every list is superficial and incomplete, that is why RPW is a complete forum that discusses all different aspects of girl game.

        There was a full post a while back simply discussing how to create the perfect eyebrows. It can be easily argued that eyebrows aren't important in a relationship. But, that is not the point. The point is to scrutinise every detail of how we act, how we dress, and how we present ourselves... down to the eyebrows, to create a full picture of a woman.

        So, while I agree with you that being only able to do these things isn't good enough to be a keeper, neither is only being good in bed, or only looking good, or only being fun to hang around with. This just happens to be a post about some things.

        [–]sierratangovictor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        YOu indeed put it quite well. Indeed my understanding of this post was how to send initial signals to a man willing to get married.

        Being a man myself, my take on this is that these aren't the initial signals I will look for, although I will take an LTR in any moment, if i get the correct signals.

        That is why I was trying to put forward, that there should be other signals first, as the part one of a guide, which are more basic and more decisive.

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

        That you will have to take up with Mr. Ironwood.

        [–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Then, maybe instead of saying, "this isn't a very good list," which isn't helpful to anybody, you could contribute to the discussion by saying, "These aren't really good initial indicators in my opinion, here is a list of what I think are better initial indicators." Or even perhaps create your own post that is specially geared towards initial indicators.

        This is a good list, just maybe not in the context you are thinking of. But your response makes it look like you think this is an overall useless list, since you have a different list in your head the serves a different purpose. The reality is we need both lists.

        [–]fireignition 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        !!! I pass the test! I'm so happy. Thank you so much for posting this! <3

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        You're welcome! I love this particular series of posts from Mr. Ironwood. Good reminders for old RPW and new.