Pretty recent (last 10 years). Here's the report: https://ifstudies.org/wp-content/uplo...

"Ultimately, both sides' sexual strategy either is based on (at least passive) deception..."

I gathered from one of your other posts that you are not married. With that view of marriage I can see how you would have such negative views.

My wife and I have been married for almost 20 years. We've had our rough patches as all marriages do, but there is no basis of deceit in it on either part. Have I seen deceit in marriages? Yup. And those are never happy or stable. But I've also seen the happy marriages where the husband and wife love each other and their children. And from personal experience there is nothing like it.

You shouldn't need a legal contract with government as a threat to your relationship anyway. Better to stay together because you both want to do so.

How long ago were those studies made?

Ultimately, both sides' sexual strategy either is based on (at least passive) deception, or loses, because each side has its own, perfectly valid goals and they are not compatible with each other.

Ain't that the truth! (blarman). I'm glad I didn't let myself be
suckered that way.

Interesting question, but I don't really care. If I find a man
that I want, maybe then I'll worry about getting him
to pop the question. (Note that I said "find", not
"get"; but a long time has passed, and I no longer
expect it).

It's tough if one in the relationship is continually learning, growing, trying different things and adapting to new knowledge...my wife hates change...didn't know that 25 years ago.

Wow, "Dear Dob"...haven't read you column before...laughing, of course your spot on.
I think men especially would like a spouse that will support them in their efforts to succeed.
"The women behind the man" seems to come to mind and of course ladies...it could be the other way around too or both at the same time.

Marriage is a commitment that requires constant work. The perfect spouse is one who is willing to work at it just as hard as you do.

If your marriage is based on a lie, why would anyone entertain the delusion that it will last? It doesn't matter which of the partners are lying! A stable and fulfilling marriage isn't based on deceit from either partner.

And if you're the guy who just wants the sex without the commitment, you should know that psychological studies show that married men get more frequent and better sex...

I think a man who wants polygamy needs his head examined. Forget about imprisonment in anything other than a mental institution. Legal marriage is pretty much a BAD idea even to one other person in this society, let alone to several people !

Their best leverage is a bait-and-switch that has been the topic of endless jokes, but works. She begins by giving you not only sex but really good sex with all the bells and whistles. If you're like most guys, you naturally assume that if you marry her, you're going to keep getting those goodies for the rest of your life.

Then as soon as she has the ring on her finger, bam! She now has what she wants and you can't take it back. So from then on, you're getting a lot less, and at the slightest provocation you're sleeping on the couch.

If you let this happen, you've just learned Briffault's Law the hard way. https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/c...

Lessons here: (1) Don't marry. (2) Rather than be deceived as above, turn the tables. String her along by letting her think (but never actually saying) that someday you'll commit to her. As long as she believes that, you'll continue to get the goodies.

This seems to me incredibly air-headed -- and I doubt it was written by a man.

I chose never to marry, and have not regretted it. But if I were in that market, the fact that a woman has an agenda that involves changing me would be an absolute red flag. I'm fine the way I already am. The woman I'd want to be with is already fine too.

This article, while amusing, consists mostly of B.S.
It states things as facts with no corroboration to speak of, at all. To impose general rules on men is as silly as trying to "understand women." Which has been a male outcry for centuries. The most they can say with any truth or accuracy, is that these statements may be true with certain men sometimes.

I had two unsuccessful marriages behind me when I met my soulmate. Forty years later, it still works well. She's an artist and I'm an engineer, and we've learned to enjoy the added perspective we give to each other's view of the world.

The first indication I had that I'd finally found my real mate was on our first date. I was pontificating on something, and she grinned at me and said "You're so full of s**t." It took me a minute to get over the shock of her comment, but then I realized I'd never have to guess what was on her mind. I'd been married to a woman who would pout for a week over something I said, or didn't say, or did, or didn't do, and it was a guessing game, with her admonishing me "If you really loved me, you'd know what's wrong."

To this day I've never had to guess what's on my sweetheart's mind, and it makes life much easier. She always says she tells the truth and is prepared to run like hell if I don't like it. For me it's all about honesty and trust. Once that's established, everything else takes care of itself.

"It's a fight for love and glory. A case of do or die."

So here's the real question: if women want marriage why are they willing to give up their best leverage (sex) before then? It is the rare man who once he's experienced the physical outside of marriage is willing to constrain himself to it and get married. I've seen it happen over and over. Women: you are deluding yourselves if you believe that the only way to get married is to get physical. Nine times out of ten all its going to do is end up with you getting pregnant and him leaving. Make him walk the walk (down the aisle) and save yourself the pain and frustration.

For me, it started out by wanting to sneak home for lunch and a "nooner" but after 55 years it is because every Thursday is homemade pasta night. That is because I am a simple man but I know value when I see it.

Both of my wives read Ayn Rand before we got married. They don't get along, but I still work with and for my ex on occasion.

In both cases, I married an equal. My first wife was smarter than me - maybe why it didn't work out... - but we were both committed to "equality of opportunity" when it came to work life and home life. In both case, our intellectual and aesthetic interests were different, but similar; our skills and interests were and are supplemental and complementary, sometimes congruent, occasionally identical. In both cases, My experience is pretty close to CG's.

As for men being "helpful" and "doing things for..." for one thing, both people have to have that attitude of caring, or else the marriage is just about property rights across families, very olde worlde.

I agree with FFA that Yahoo is not the place to look for insight and wisdom. The article was just a bunch of ignorant blather - a popcorn leaping out of our culture of the millennial moment -- but it opened the door to some discussion here.

I always find these advice columns lacking. I have seen many long term marriages dissolve during times of difficulty and adversity.
If you want a partner in helping with the day to day chores great but you would be wise to hire the help instead of marrying. The idea of finding a woman that allows you to be better is more reasonable to seek.
I say for long term success a couple needs to build a strong foundation of basic common goals.
The me can be there if the we is the priority for both. The care, love and support will not be an even exchange at all times but should be there when needed. Chemistry is a given. Marriage and relationships require attention just like any quality effort. Do not underestimate the value of communication , know what you want and need from your spouse and tell them, just because you might be able to anticipate needs ,your lover may not. Teach and be taught. To share all that life and living offers with someone else is a gift to be cherished.

"I don't think that woman the article talks about exists."
I think they take women aside and tell them, "be a good person and be sure not to put your needs ahead of others". Maybe it's not just women, but I really most of the girlfriends I knew before I got married would have benefited greatly from Ayn Rand. They did what others wanted, were less than happy about it, but felt like people should be grateful for the charity and reciprocate it. They think that scenario of an informal quid pro quo of one person cleaning the car and the other person fixing it is dirty, but each person doing what he/she doesn't like is somehow virtuous.

When it comes to relationships, in Fountainhead she says she loathes the notion of men saying they're interested in a woman they don't fancy as some twisted favor. Men are the same way. I assume it's true for people who are gay and/or don't identify as one traditional gender. No one wants pity and sacrifice.

Yes. Self-love.
It's nice if it all falls into place where one person wants to clean and the other person wants to maintain the car. The trick is figuring it out, which requires clear communication. Some people (usually men) don't get hints and need it spelled out: "I sort of enjoy cleaning the car but can't stand getting under the hood. Do you mind if I cleaned up a bit, or do you already have it how you like it? Would you mind checking out how a noise my car has been making, or is it better just to take it to a mechanic?" The other person has to be strong enough to be honest: "I'd love if you wanted to clean up. I don't enjoy getting under the hood either, so we should take it to the mechanic, but maybe I could cook a nice meal and clean up the kitchen; I like doing that; and you could clean the car if you enjoy it."

When my wife and I first got married, we were uncomfortable turning things over to each other. We were 32 y/o, and we knew how to hire IT companies and attorneys and take care of ourselves. Ten years later, I have her read contracts and I blindly sign them. She has me set up her electronics and re-balance our portfolio, trusting I'm taking precautions to keep her clients' data and our wealth safe. She used to be annoyed when attorneys, accountants, brokers, insurance agents, put my name first on documents. Now she likes it because she doesn't want to deal with formulas and models anyway, and who cares if some nitwit thinks I'm the "man of the house".

It took a long time to figure this out, and I'm not saying I have it all figured out.

Yahoo news is so enlightening.
This is much more entertaining and at least as helpful ;^)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPfT...