How to Screen for a Wife and Mother

Sadeqh-

I am like early twenties and do not know when to think of marriage? I mean I'm athletic fairly good genes but don't know when I would be experiencing biological clock ticking?

It will depend a great deal on location. In the U.S., men who grow up in small towns and remain in small towns seem to get into pretty settled/serious relationships between 26 and 29 or so usually (sometimes earlier). Whereas men who've spent most of their lives in big cities most often seem to be in the 35 to 42 range.

I'd look at your own environment, and what age the men there mostly seem to get settled at, and start planning for two years before that age.

Secondly I really love to ask what do you see the redemption in I mean you point it out several times but I have no clear idea of how you inerpret the redemption?

With idealization/devaluation, a girl may devalue someone so much she completely closes her mind to anything this person says or does. He is dead to her.

The spendthrift girl, it may not be possible for you to get her to stop either blowing through all your money, or complaining endlessly that you don't let her have enough money (so don't pick her as your gal, unless you have so much money it's impossible for her to spend it all).

Lastly I know I may have asked a little much but failed to visualize an approach with initiating touch as the first move to chase frame. What is a scenario of that alike?

Hmm. Chase frames are usually verbal - you are framing her as the one in pursuit of you. However, you can do things like put her hands on you, or put her legs over yours, then at some point remove her hands or legs. The removal frames you as the one pulling away from her (thus, she is chasing), even though you put her hands or legs there. This would count as a touch-based chase frame. This what you mean?

Chase

J.B.-

I used to be okay at statistics. Looks like I am losing my edge...

Just updated in the article! Thanks for the assist :)

Chase

Agent-

I have indeed noticed it!

Actually first heard it said years ago (that little girls start flirting when very young), and began to notice it after, both in boys and girls. They both do it. Corner-eye glances, mischievous smiles, etc.

Young children copy what they see adults and older children do. They're highly feedback-reliant; they time their own smiles specifically to elicit smiles from adults, and babies who get verbal feedback and positive responses to their own early verbalizations speak much sooner and are much more confident early speakers. When they get a little older, they look for things they can say that will make people laugh, then say those things over and over again until people stop laughing at them. They seek reactions to learn how to make the people around them pay attention to them and give them positive social rewards.

So I presume when you see them making charming facial expressions / eye contact gestures, it's because they've tried out mimicking these from adults or other children they've seen, or are trying something funny on their own. They then notice these expressions get them positive attention from others, so they continue to use them.

All part of our standard operating procedure for learning about the world: watch, mimic, and monitor responses. If response is bad or neutral, abandon. If response is good, repeat.

Chase

Anon-

First, you say you would dislike it if your son has anal sex with another man, and is penetrated. Why would this bother you?

Anally receptive homosexuals (i.e., 'bottoms') tend to be fully homosexual, which means they usually do not reproduce (i.e., with women). When they do reproduce, often with surrogates, they tend to raise their children inside male-male relationships, which produce much higher rates of adult homosexuality in those children, as well as a kaleidoscope of different personality disorders and negative outcomes. Bottoms are also rarely represented among great artists, inventors, thinkers, or builders, as well - which means they're likely to both neither continue your lineage, nor contribute to mankind.

If you're a happiness/emotion-focused individual, this may not matter to you. If so, you may safely ignore this qualification when qualifying potential mothers of your children. If you are a meaning/contribution-focused individual, however, avoiding women more likely to birth you homosexual children allows you to avoid investing huge amounts of resources, hopes, and emotions into a child that is more likely to cause problems or fail.

Second, would you be okay with your son being homosexual, but is not penetrated? For example, if he penetrates another man and is not penetrated himself, or only engages in oral sex.

Exclusively penetrative homosexuals are often actually high sex drive / sex addict bisexuals, who have lots of sex with women and some (or lots of) sex with men. I'd be okay with a high drive son who occasionally penetrated men, so long as his female-to-male lay rate was in the 10-to-1 range. There are plenty of impressive men throughout history in the bisexual / probable bisexual bin; Alexander the Great is one such example.

If he was mostly or entirely into men, however, same answer as for the bottom.

Exception: an incredibly driven, prominent, successful homosexual son, making great contributions to mankind, whether in the art, science, or business realms. A Michelangelo, a Leonardo, an Isaac Newton, or a Peter Thiel are all okay with me.

The key for me is contribution. If he will not further our lineage, I expect him to be contribute to the species in some other, meaningful, magnificent way. If he is merely engaging in lifelong hedonism, he is not a son for me.

My feelings would be no different, by the way, toward a son who was completely heterosexual, yet sterile, and otherwise unproductive in contributing to mankind. I'd avoid such a son if he could be avoided.

Thirdly, would you be okay with having a daughter that was homosexual?

Unless she was one of the (rarer) true/butch lesbians, I'd just wait for her to grow out of it / meet a masculine-enough man to pull her out of it.

While waiting, I would look at myself in the mirror and ask myself how I let her attend a feminist-filled liberal arts university and learn all the cool girls are lesbians, when I should've known better than this.

(if she was a true/butch lesbian, same answer as for fully gay sons)

Fourth, why do you presume that if your son is gay he'll wear a tutu?

(not sure if trolling or literally interprets everything literally ;)

Chase

Slay-

It's a curious phenomenon, yes. I have that too - I seem to instinctually know a lot of stuff that many other people are shocked to find out or only slowly come to grasp with time and experience. I do not know what this is. I've tried to understand it.

One theory is parents that encourage intellectual honesty and intellectual curiosity, mixed with real world / empirical grounding. Both of my parents are intelligent and encouraged independent thought and empirical investigation. My father did not shut down lines of questioning (e.g., he'd never tell you "That's bunk" if you wanted to talk about ghosts or space aliens or what have you, even if he wasn't all that interested in these topics himself), but he'd always ground you in the practicality of things - e.g., if you put a pair of wings on, he'd be quick to remind you that those don't actually let you fly, so don't jump out a window with them on.

Another theory is high IQ in general. We seem to have a lot of smart people on Girls Chase. I can't find any research on it, but every narcissist I know has high IQ. High IQ people tend to be more intellectually honest, process things faster, and grasp abstract concepts easier. So you may just be figuring out the world faster/easier than many people (if you're on the high-ish side IQ-wise).

There's also the spiritual theory. Belief systems that incorporate reincarnation, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, maintain that as you get closer to attaining release from the cycle of rebirth, you essentially carry innate wisdom over with you into subsequent rebirths, so you aren't purely starting from scratch each time. You are, in effect, closer and closer to full awareness with every reincarnation.

I have no idea which of these it is, or if it's something else completely.

What narcissism 'is' is still very open to debate in the psychological community. There is not a single good, settled definition. Some psychologists claim it's a defense mechanism used to guard against low self-esteem. Other psychologists claim narcissims is simply what we call people who are very high self-esteem. Those are two very competitive definitions of the phenomenon within psychology, which is curious... considering both definitions are opposites.

The general claim is narcissists do not experience empathy. I have a lot of friends who rate high on narcissism tests, but also rate high on empathy tests. I'm not sure what that means. Either the definition of narcissim is wrong, or the way we measure it is wrong (and we're really just measuring self-esteem).

How can I not feel special when I can meta analyze everything, and women adore me? How can I not feel special when I'm me?

Two thoughts here:

1. To some extent, it's good to feel special. You have to think you're something special to be most attractive to women (and men, in social/leadership roles). If you don't think you're special, no one else will either. Pride is very attractive to women, too.

2. By the same coin, it's also important to not drift away into fantasy land, where you start to think you are invincible and unbeatable and able to make millions of dollars in five months in an industry you have zero experience in and whatnot. Important to keep yourself grounded and remind yourself constantly that you are a soft, weak ape with few natural defenses who is easily ganged up on, outnumbered, killed, eaten, run over, or ostracized, your lifespan is finite, and your abilities are limited. And that your 'specialness' is not much greater from your fellow man than, say, the gorilla who sees himself as the champ vs. the other three gorillas who aren't champs. The champ gorilla feels pretty special, but he's not that different from the other gorillas. Same deal with us humans. We're almost depressingly similar when you zoom out and aren't focusing on micro-differences (which, we are most of the time, because when things are similar, you zoom in to focus on the few small things that differentiate them from each other).
   

If I was you, I'd continue to feel pretty special while socializing.

But, in your quiet time, take time to meditate on your own similarity to everyone else, and how non-special each of us are. Helps you appreciate your fellow man more, too (since you realize he is, for most purposes, a very slightly different version of you).

The only thing truly holding me back is language. I'm not able to properly project my feelings and thoughts into words well. This isn't the language I was born into.

That'll change. Read lots of books, and make a conscious effort to include new words into your spoken vocabulary. Try to vocalize thoughts and concepts. Get into deep discussions. The more you do this, the easier it will get.

Though never perfect. Spoken word is an imperfect medium for thought transmission. If still better than written word!

Chase

No Name-

Because women deal in feelings, and feelings are never wrong. They're just how she felt.

For instance, I had a girlfriend leave some clothes at my place once. I put her clothes in a drawer. The next time she was over, she opened the drawer, found her clothes, and flipped out because I hadn't folded them. I told her you need to calm down or I'm kicking you out. She continued to flip out, so I kicked her out.

25 minutes later she called me from a taxi cab to say she was sorry for flipping out and asked if she could come back over. I wasn't sure; she pleaded. So I said okay, if she promised to behave, okay. But if she does it again I'm booting her out and she can never come back. She came back over and explained that it was just that when she opened the drawer and saw I had neatly folded my clothes, but her clothes were just jammed in there, she flipped.

I opened the drawer and pointed out my clothes in that drawer were all bunch up too. She said sorry, she'd just noticed my clothes were folded in another drawer!

This is a scenario in which a man would say, "Whoops, I made a mistake here. I thought you deliberately did not fold my clothes, but actually looks like you just didn't fold stuff you put in that drawer, for whatever reason." But for a woman, the closest she will come is to say, "This is what I felt. Here's why I felt it."

She doesn't feel 'wrong' for having felt what she felt. No matter what she felt, there was a reason she felt it. So of course it isn't wrong. Maybe she didn't have all the information, but in her eyes, it should be understandable, given the information at her disposal, why she felt what she did.

Hope that makes sense. Men are focused on factual accuracy / empirical reality. What is real in the world. If you're proved wrong, you admit you were wrong. Women are concerned with feelings. Feelings are never wrong, they are just how somebody feels.

Chase

Jason-

Right, partner count's usually going to be a major consideration. I didn't go specifically into that here, since I discussed it pretty in-depth in the 'past matters' article. You target (5 or fewer, for 25/6 y/os) is quite reasonable.

Very true, there are the high drive guys who don't want to settle. In my experience, they often do marry sooner or later... Though the relationship is often tumultuous, and usually ends in a fire of straying and accusations. Sometimes it seems like they intentionally get caught cheating so their wives will break up with them and set them free again.

Should a guy get in to a long-term relationship with a girl, when the guy is not the girls 'type' but there is attraction/passion there, have slept together, and there is potential for a long-term relationship. Or stick to the women who are warm and interested straight off the bat as opposed to being seduced a long the way. I feel like that 'love at first sight' type attraction is better, but I've seen both types of relationships work and not-work in the long-run.

I've had great multi-year relationships both with girls whose type I matched and with girls whose type I was not. My experience has been girls whose type I perfectly fit were more affectionate, our emotional chemistry was better, and the relationship was closer. We also had fewer fights. However, with girls I was not typed for, it was somewhat easier for me to maintain less clingy (if still somewhat clingy) relationships.

Also, somewhat interestingly for me, I've found it easier to maintain steady passion over time with girls whose type I am not than with girls whose type I am. My suspicion is because the routine I've seen with non-type girls is at points they will attempt to reject me as "not their type" (usually after I've done something "their type" would never do), and when we make up I feel like I am re-conquering a girl I am not "supposed" to be with (and, on her end, she is being conquered by a man she is not supposed to let conquer her... to some degree, against her "will"). Whereas with a typed girl, there's never really the same kind of dominating reconquest experience to reignite passion.

Branching out to examine friends, my recommendation would be if you are the cool, calm, and controlled type, you can do very well with girls whose type you don't fit. But if you are emotional and crave connection, you'll be likely to feel needier around these girls and want more than they feel compelled to give you.

Anyway, I'll caution all this is purely anecdotal. I don't have any good research on people paired with partners who are not "their type", and I don't know anyone under 40 who's had more than four or five 3+ year relationships, which makes collecting and comparing data hard to tease out real trends vs. stuff that happened just because of the kind of girl you were dating, and not necessarily anything having to do with type vs. not type.

Chase

Anonym-

I wouldn't have the data to calculate how many girls per 10 million fall into your category, even if I knew what your 10 attributes were ;) That said, if there's only one in 10 million of her, and you're looking for girls in the top 20% of just 10 categories, you've likely got some pretty exotic categories (e.g., girl who's in the top 20% of mountain climbers, but also in the top 20% of ballerinas, and top 20% of wage earners, etc. - a girl in the top 20% of all three of those might be hard to find).

I don't know what the actual numbers are, but if you look at all the criteria I have laid out in this article, that's the criteria I actually use to screen women on, and I pretty consistently meet women who check off all those boxes. If I'm gunning for her hard, I can usually meet a girl who checks off all these boxes or comes close once every two weeks. That said, it did take me a few years of refining myself and my approach to reach that point.

It could be your criteria are much more stringent than mine (I don't know what yours are) - but even if so, if you've put yourself in a position to more easily meet the kinds of women you want, you may have no more trouble meeting your kind of girl than I have meeting mine.

If your perfect matches are super rare, some things to consider:

• You may just need to improve your game + fundamentals more. It may be you haven't reached that standout point yet where the right women start coming out of the woodwork to make themselves available to you / chase you. So some more tightening of the bolts will do it.

• You may need to change locations, or where you look for women. Some cities will fit you better demographically than others. When I lived in Washington, D.C., for instance, I met girls all the time who fit what I wanted for a serious girlfriend role. But when I moved to San Diego, I suddenly found it impossible to meet girls with all the qualifications I wanted. I might be able to find a beautiful girl with a great body, a great personality, and a master's degree, but she'd be a wild party girl with a high partner count. Or I'd find a beautiful girl with a great body and a low partner count, but she was too soft and submissive for me and she was not highly educated. Or I'd find a lower count girl with a master's degree, but her looks wouldn't be that great and her personality would be 'meh'. San Diego contains ideal girlfriends for a lot of men, but for what I was looking for, those types of girls do not stay long in Southern California, if they ever migrate there at all.

• You may need to revise a standard. There was one point when I exclusively looked for women who were well traveled. After going through loads of girls, I eventually had to concede that if she was well traveled, she almost always had a higher partner count. And if she had a lower partner count, she almost always was not well traveled. So I had to pick one and drop the other. I dropped the well traveled bit from my requirements, and it made it much, much easier to meet 'perfect' type girls.
  

On the Catholic Chinese-Indonesian girl:

What would you do in that situation? You meet an amazing, exceptional girl and she is in LTR – you like her loyalty and want her to be loyal to you, but if you „steal“ her, can you trust she will not leave you for someone else? Is „stealing“ a girl good strategy for finding a loyal girlfriend? And what to do if the exceptional girl is in LTR?

Well, if I was you, and great girls weren't that easy to come by... Hmm, yeah. That'd be tough. Usually I'd recommend against stealing a girl to start a relationship. The exception would be if she's clearly on the way out in her relationship; then it can be okay. I've known some very successful relationships where the girl essentially swung to another branch at the end of a failing relationship, rather than break up first, then start dating the other guy after. So long as it's already understood the relationship is failing, it seems to be fine and doesn't necessarily raise the odds she cheats.

However, if she's not on the outs with her beau, then yeah, don't do it. Creates a host of problems. When she's angry at you, she may blame you for ruining a relationship she now looks back on with rose-colored glasses. And she may view you as having 'tricked' her. She may feel resentful. And it's easy for her to reason, "Well, he made me do it to Josh, so he shouldn't mind now if I do it to him."

Instead, I'd just build a good little rapport with her, tell her I dug her a lot, and then tell her look, I can't keep doing this thing where I spend time with you while you've got a man. I dig you too much. I've gotta go do my own thing and play the field. But when you're single, if you ever break up, come let me know. I'll do this with girls sometimes, and assuming you read them right, you almost always get a, "Heeey, what are you up to??" message months or a year or two later. Always turns out they've been broken up for a few months. That'd be my approach for this type of girl.

Then, meantime, while you're waiting, go meet other girls! And see if you can't find one just like her, or better, who also happens to be single ;)

Chase

Lawliet-

Nah, that's not greedy. Perfectly normal! Here's how you do it:

Policeman stop. Hands up. Big smile. "Whoa, hey!" Get both girls to stop. To the friend (big, playful smile): "I'm sorry..." To your girl: "I saw you walking here, and I just HAD to stop you and tell you... you are just absolutely gorgeous. I'm Lawliet." (both girls giggle, your girl introduces herself) You to friend: "Ordinarily I would not hit on someone and make her friend stop and wait for us because it's so rude, but..." Friend: "No, it's fine!" You: nod/bow; turn back to your girl: (quick chat, grab phone number, say goodbye to her, and say goodbye to friend, then to your girl last)

Big key is getting the friend's approval. The girl who's your target will feel awkward, because she will feel like she is responsible for holding the friend up, so she will need to speed things up or get rid of you to not inconvenience the friend. So you include the friend both right after the start and right before the end (you'll be looking at your girl first while doing the stop, but then the first one you individual engage is the friend; after you deliver the opener to your girl, you go back to the friend again; and then you say goodbye to the friend, then to your girl at the end). So long as the friend is approving of you and making it clear she thinks you're a good match for your girl, your girl will go along with it, and even feel more comfortable with you.

Chase

Lawliet-

Had she not greeted the colleague, sure.

But if she's greeting people after, then I'll assume it's just a playful thing. Just her being flirty.

Had she not done that, be playful back and make her stop. "Whoa, whoa. Hey there, Missy. What you got going on?"

Chase

Dominik-

My thoughts on that here:

Dating Without Sex: Why It Usually Doesn’t Work

Chase

Jimbo-

Not sure how realistic it is.

On the one hand, there are common law marriages, where the state will just go ahead and marry you by default after a certain period of time. Even if you sign a contract saying, "We never want to be married; we will not accept the state marrying us," the state still marries you.

Also, even if you don't marry, if she wants to go after you, she can still present a case in court that she was a wife in all things to you save the marriage contract, and can have a decent shot at winning (particularly if you have children and have lived together a while). This is especially true if she claims she felt pressured, like that you would leave and abandon her if she insisted on marriage.

The other hand is how the woman herself feels about it. The marriage contract is protection in an environment bereft of social stigmas against divorce and social support networks for divorcées. If you knock her up a few times and she's out of the workforce, unable to earn a living, and taking care of your progency, odds are she's going to start to feel very insecure if you're refusing to give her legal assurances. At that point, all she has is your word... And while, as men, we'd like to believe our word is our bond, we'd never go back on it, and everyone else should know this too, she's going to be understandably skeptical about that.

The exception, of course, is if you select a woman who is already independently wealthy, or at least owns enough capital/property that she could handle a split and handle child-rearing and it wouldn't slow her down. If she's wealthier than you by a large enough margin, she herself may prefer not to sign a marriage contract. But if she's going to be economically disadvantaged by staying with you, giving up her career, and raising your children, expect at some point for her to start pushing to make it 'official'. If you don't want her to do that, look for women who will not need to sacrifice to be with you (e.g., wealthy chicks).

Chase