If you married old, would you go for a less-good-looking-woman?

[MrMan]

Guys,

If you got old, say 60+, and married a foreign woman, do you think you would be willing to marry a less-good-looking woman than you would in your 20's?

There is a theory that people tend to marry others who are on the same level for looks. I didn't really put my own looks into the equation when I was single and looking. I can't really tell if a man is good-looking, so I didn't think much about it. I just wanted a woman I thought was pretty who I enjoyed looking at, and I was rather picky and particular about build, facial beauty, and I wanted a lot of other character and lifestyle criteria, too. I found someone, and we got married.

Let's say you are single now or else you ended up a widower and you were 60+. Do you think you would be okay with a less physically beautiful woman than you would have gone for if you were younger? If so why?

Would it be because you realized inner beauty is more important and don't weigh outer beauty?

Would it be because like the frog in the slow-boil pot of water, you got used to looks going down as a woman or women you had relationships with you before aged?

Would it be because you would try to get the best-looking, and best, woman you could close enough to your own level of attractiveness that you could find?

I'm thinking if I'd remained singles and got to be in my 60's, I wouldn't want a woman who was old and wrinkly like me, because that wouldn't be attractive to me, but maybe I could have gone for 8's instead of 9+s for if everything else was good.

[WilliamSmith]

I like the question.

My 20's are a long way behind me (I recently hit early 40s), but I think I could get even better looking women now than in my 20's. But whether now or in my 60's, my answer is... Yes, sort of.

I respect other people's monogamous marriages (I wouldn't mess with married women even if they tried, for example), but the kicker for me is, I'm not monogamous. This lets me appreciate a broader range of women when it comes to the attractiveness scale (and also age scale), which I like, because I don't have to feel guilty for inwardly thinking "Is this woman really going still tilt my needle in 10-20+ years ," or other thoughts I wouldn't want a woman to have to hear, but are admittedly a bit fair for a man contemplating a committed marriage to ask himself silently, if you want to keep the fires of passion alive for the long haul.

Letting a relationship escalate into something romantic, serious, and long-term (like I'd be willing to do now in theory, but without either marriage contracts or strict monogamy), I think is similar, but if I had to do a strictly monogamous marriage starting in my 60s with no extra women on the side....

Yes on being willing to marry a woman who was a little bit less good-looking, as long as the physical chemistry was there.
I also believe in inner beauty, and for a long serious relationship or marriage, that's even more important. There does have to be some solid physical sexual attraction between the man and woman though, no doubt about that. But the "chemistry" with some women based on biological, chemical, and body energy dynamics (and I'd guess maybe even spiritual dynamics sometimes), is interesting to observe, because of how some women who drive me nuts (in a good way) are not necessarily the ones who would look the hottest in pictures.
So how badly she and I both want to jump each other's bones is important (especially if going monogamous), but that isn't necessarily based on how "good looking" she is in a conventional aesthetical sense.

Then there's the age question:

One obvious advantage of starting in my 60's is that it'd be no problem to marry a woman who turned me on but was, say, around 40, because even if I had to hodl only that one woman, she'd probably still be looking pretty good by the time I was ready to kick the bucket.

Actually... I think I have to correct myself there: I'm all for romancing older women (then or now) who are in their 40's, but becoming a strict monogamous hodler actually changes the dynamic a bit...
Better make that: It'd be no problem if she's in her early-mid 30's.
If I had a serious relationship with a woman, I understand what they go through with menopause and would make her feel loved and appreciated through that, but I'd still be enjoying other somewhat younger women on the side.
But if I really wasn't allowed to have any other women on the side, then shoot, we'd better scale the age back a bit even if I'm 30 years older.

If I'm able to stay in top condition in my middle age and senior years like Chet Yorton, as I'm planning to try to do, then pretty sure I'd still be keeping the woman's legs waving in the air plenty even well into my 70's, so it might be more prudent to only marry a woman who was 30-something going into it at age 60...

For a fitness and natural muscle building nut, this is possible at middle age I think around 10+ years older than I currently am, even if the muscle mass is a bit less epic than Yorton's here based on his genetics:


Yorton around 37 years older than me, at age 77 like the caption says :


So if that was me, the wife I landed for the marriage at age 30 would be going on 47 years old by then, and could probably still withstand a good nailing from me, but if I'd married her at 40, she'd be 57... hmmm. Might still be good, but do we want to run that risk?

I've actually seen some Japanese women and Chinese women in their post-menopause 60's looking like hot women in their early 40's, and they looked amazing and I'd gladly have still been screwing their brains out if one of those was my monogamy wife... but maybe better to get a woman in her early 30's at the latest if I started the marriage at the tender young age of 60.

[gsjackson]

No, the older you get the pickier you get. For some obvious reasons. It takes a little more visual stimulation to bring King Priapus to attention. And he's been dethroned to some extent; no longer rules over all the land at all times. It gets harder and harder to connect on a personality level the older you get, though this is not fatal to a potential relationship. So long as the woman shares several qualities with a faithful dog and turns the old crank on, personality connections can be dispensed with.

[MrMan]

No, the older you get the pickier you get. For some obvious reasons. It takes a little more visual stimulation to bring King Priapus to attention. And he's been dethroned to some extent; no longer rules over all the land at all times. It gets harder and harder to connect on a personality level the older you get, though this is not fatal to a potential relationship. So long as the woman shares several qualities with a faithful dog and turns the old crank on, personality connections can be dispensed with.

Well, you might find that the king doesn't want to be visited as often, and she might surprise you and she wants to visit with him all the time. Of course, the idea of such a challenge may be exciting.

Personality, character, values, etc. are all extremely important in any marriage. It would be difficult just to have a regular roommate with bad character. You probably wouldn't want to hang around some angry, grumpy, critical person all the time. It doesn't matter how old you are, these sort of things are extremely important, more important than looks. For me, looks that appealed to me were 'table stakes' to get married. I wouldn't have wanted to marry a woman who didn't appeal to me to engage in an activity to make the babies with.

[MrMan]

Another issue to throw out there is having babies. In general, younger women get pregnant easier. If you married a post-menopausal woman, you wouldn't really have to worry too much about that.

Unless one of you has some awful disease or unless she has some kind of hang up, there is no reason to need to wear condoms, which is a good thing. (My wife and I got married in our 20's, and probably used them 10 or 15 times, since neither of us cared for them.)

If you were old and married a woman in her 20s or 30s, she'd probably look younger and more attractive, on average, than an older woman. But she'd be more likely to get pregnant. And in either age group, she'd probably want to have kids if she hasn't already, and maybe even if she has.

If a woman doesn't want to have kids when you marry her, take that with a grain of salt. If you marry a woman who can have children, then you should be willing to have a child with her. Women don't know what they want. They can change their minds. She realizes when the biological clock strikes 30-something that she wants a baby, and you would be the only morally appropriate person for her to have the baby with.

An older man could also marry a younger woman who'd had a bunch of kids and has satisfied that desire in her life, or marry a woman who physically just cannot have kids. How would a man look for a woman who can't have kids? Put on his dating profile, "Looking for a sterile woman" or "Looking for a barren woman"?

[WilliamSmith]

No, the older you get the pickier you get. For some obvious reasons. It takes a little more visual stimulation to bring King Priapus to attention. And he's been dethroned to some extent; no longer rules over all the land at all times. It gets harder and harder to connect on a personality level the older you get, though this is not fatal to a potential relationship. So long as the woman shares several qualities with a faithful dog and turns the old crank on, personality connections can be dispensed with.

You took a more direct approach to the question by just defining "good looking" as whatever gets King Priapus standing tall and proud.

That's actually a good point, I have never experienced that common male complaint of difficulty rising to the occasion before and count myself lucky, but it's a good incentive to stay in the best physical condition possible and keep the testosterone and healthy blood flow surging throughout one's prime and beyond.

A wise man once said:
"Let me tell you something. Being “in your prime” doesn’t last very long. Don’t waste time. "
Sylvester Stallone

[WilliamSmith]

Another issue to throw out there is having babies. In general, younger women get pregnant easier. If you married a post-menopausal woman, you wouldn't really have to worry too much about that.

Unless one of you has some awful disease or unless she has some kind of hang up, there is no reason to need to wear condoms, which is a good thing. (My wife and I got married in our 20's, and probably used them 10 or 15 times, since neither of us cared for them.)

Here's one are where you, @Outcast9428 and the other hodlers (proponents of monogamous marriage with only one woman) have the undisputed advantage, I admit: I couldn't do that because then ploughing the good looking post-menopausal woman bareback would be so fun, I'd want to go bareback with and fire away into all the other women too (a dangerous proposition unless I became so wealthy I could easily support 2-4 women and our upcoming children at a time), but you guys who marry that one sexy post-menopausal woman only won't have that problem.

Our friend @E Irizarry R&B Singer, on the other hand with his 100+ Latinas just goes bareback all the time anyway, he tells us...

If you were old and married a woman in her 20s or 30s, she'd probably look younger and more attractive, on average, than an older woman. But she'd be more likely to get pregnant. And in either age group, she'd probably want to have kids if she hasn't already, and maybe even if she has.

I'm fairly partial to that idea, personally. For now I'd rather keep stacking up my earnings and savings while I'm still doing a lot of business related work, and I don't want to have children in the USSA with all the degeneracy and homo and trans garbage being pushed on the children and youth. But after I'm 100% expatriated out of the USSA and gotten to an area where there is no problem with transgenderism and homo stuff being pushed on the children in that country/culture, it'd be fun to get myself a hot woman in her 20s and 30s and start knocking her up. I like kids, so I think becoming a father in my early retirement age years (maybe late 50s or early 60s) would be fun.

If a woman doesn't want to have kids when you marry her, take that with a grain of salt. If you marry a woman who can have children, then you should be willing to have a child with her. Women don't know what they want. They can change their minds. She realizes when the biological clock strikes 30-something that she wants a baby, and you would be the only morally appropriate person for her to have the baby with.

An older man could also marry a younger woman who'd had a bunch of kids and has satisfied that desire in her life...

Some good points here: Around that age the biological clock strikes, tons of women go into heat bigtime and start outright propositioning men (sometimes that they like OK but don't even know that well) to get them knocked up. I'd be glad to oblige someday in the scenario I described, after escaping the globohomo cultural sphere for the sake of the children (no thanks on putting them in a kindergarten where they do drag queen story hour and fill the staff with groomers).
But until then: I've always thought that Moms can make great girlfriends for that reason you said, they've already had kids and satisfied that desire, so they're not going to become desperate for you to impregnate them, and if the time (or woman) isn't right to have children with, it wouldn't be on my conscience that I'd partly been in the way of her becoming a mother.
Also, while personalities vary obviously, if they already have kids, I think they're less likely to indulge in various forms of drama, since they already have a lot to do with taking care of their kids, and are more likely to just be happy about being able to get a man for some romance and bedroom action, since single Moms aren't usually in top demand from most men (some of whom go as far as to describe them as "leftovers" or something such).

[MrMan]

Another issue to throw out there is having babies. In general, younger women get pregnant easier. If you married a post-menopausal woman, you wouldn't really have to worry too much about that.

Unless one of you has some awful disease or unless she has some kind of hang up, there is no reason to need to wear condoms, which is a good thing. (My wife and I got married in our 20's, and probably used them 10 or 15 times, since neither of us cared for them.)

Here's one are where you, @Outcast9428 and the other hodlers (proponents of monogamous marriage with only one woman) have the undisputed advantage, I admit: I couldn't do that because then ploughing the good looking post-menopausal woman bareback would be so fun, I'd want to go bareback with and fire away into all the other women too (a dangerous proposition unless I became so wealthy I could easily support 2-4 women and our upcoming children at a time), but you guys who marry that one sexy post-menopausal woman only won't have that problem.

Our friend @E Irizarry R&B Singer, on the other hand with his 100+ Latinas just goes bareback all the time anyway, he tells us...

That's called lust, and you just have to learn not to yield to it. There may be rock stars and basketball players who can just get laid by choosing from a line of sluts outside the locker or dressing room door. But I do wonder if your average serial fornicator has as much sex as a young married man.

At least early on in the marriage, I was getting some kind of attention just about every twenty four hours if one of us weren't sick or travelling. After healing up from the first baby after a while we got back into a regular pattern again. My guess is we might have had sex 3000 to 4000 times, maybe more. I didn't count.

I'd imagine fornicating with 100 women would require an awful lot of effort. If you are married, you can come home tired, give her a kiss and a hug, be nice to her. Make some comments with a bit of innuendo, and then say, "Let's have sex." It depends on who you marry, I suppose. I've probably bought my wife flowers maybe 10 times. I've bought her a lot of meals, but she's cooked a whole lot more for me than I've taken her out for, even with my basically taking her out for nearly every dinner for months when we first started dating minus a few weeks when she was on a trip.

I'm fairly partial to that idea, personally. For now I'd rather keep stacking up my earnings and savings while I'm still doing a lot of business related work, and I don't want to have children in the USSA with all the degeneracy and homo and trans garbage being pushed on the children and youth. But after I'm 100% expatriated out of the USSA and gotten to an area where there is no problem with transgenderism and homo stuff being pushed on the children in that country/culture, it'd be fun to get myself a hot woman in her 20s and 30s and start knocking her up. I like kids, so I think becoming a father in my early retirement age years (maybe late 50s or early 60s) would be fun.

They are pushing this garbage world wide. The sluttier women might be the ones most open to these ideas.

'Knocking up' women isn't good, either. Children who don't have a father __in the home__ are at a disadvantage. We've got this space carved out in our culture for a 'baby daddy.' Other cultures may not. You might get a woman pregnant if you sleep a round, and then she raises a child totally without you, and you have a kid out there that you never see. That can even happen in the US.

Marriage is the situation where you can properly operate in the role of father, with the power of a father in the child's life, and the influence, and the positives that go along with that.

[WilliamSmith]

Another issue to throw out there is having babies. In general, younger women get pregnant easier. If you married a post-menopausal woman, you wouldn't really have to worry too much about that.

Unless one of you has some awful disease or unless she has some kind of hang up, there is no reason to need to wear condoms, which is a good thing. (My wife and I got married in our 20's, and probably used them 10 or 15 times, since neither of us cared for them.)

Here's one are where you, @Outcast9428 and the other hodlers (proponents of monogamous marriage with only one woman) have the undisputed advantage, I admit: I couldn't do that because then ploughing the good looking post-menopausal woman bareback would be so fun, I'd want to go bareback with and fire away into all the other women too (a dangerous proposition unless I became so wealthy I could easily support 2-4 women and our upcoming children at a time), but you guys who marry that one sexy post-menopausal woman only won't have that problem.

Our friend @E Irizarry R&B Singer, on the other hand with his 100+ Latinas just goes bareback all the time anyway, he tells us...

That's called lust, and you just have to learn not to yield to it.

No, I have other plans. But to each their own.

There may be rock stars and basketball players who can just get laid by choosing from a line of sluts outside the locker or dressing room door. But I do wonder if your average serial fornicator has as much sex as a young married man.

At least early on in the marriage, I was getting some kind of attention just about every twenty four hours if one of us weren't sick or travelling. After healing up from the first baby after a while we got back into a regular pattern again. My guess is we might have had sex 3000 to 4000 times, maybe more. I didn't count.

No argument there! Most men and women are flat-out NOT biologically wired for monogamy, which is why most marriages fail and even the ones who stay together often involve one or both parties lying and cheating, but if you're in the minority of having a happy marriage, I agree there's no real way to keep up when it comes to the # of times you can have sex with your own wife. So congratulations!
Before I ever found this forum I've actually thought about that and worked real quick through the math of how you could nail your wife thousands and thousands of times, LOL. That would be pretty fun to look at a loved wife you thought was still hot, and say "Holy !@#$, I nailed this hot woman 10,000 times since we were married!!"

I'd imagine fornicating with 100 women would require an awful lot of effort. If you are married, you can come home tired, give her a kiss and a hug, be nice to her. Make some comments with a bit of innuendo, and then say, "Let's have sex." It depends on who you marry, I suppose. I've probably bought my wife flowers maybe 10 times. I've bought her a lot of meals, but she's cooked a whole lot more for me than I've taken her out for, even with my basically taking her out for nearly every dinner for months when we first started dating minus a few weeks when she was on a trip.

I was just thinking about that, I decided to give it a try myself.
But all those nice things you said can be done with your girlfriends or even casual "friends with benefits" women too...

I'm fairly partial to that idea, personally. For now I'd rather keep stacking up my earnings and savings while I'm still doing a lot of business related work, and I don't want to have children in the USSA with all the degeneracy and homo and trans garbage being pushed on the children and youth. But after I'm 100% expatriated out of the USSA and gotten to an area where there is no problem with transgenderism and homo stuff being pushed on the children in that country/culture, it'd be fun to get myself a hot woman in her 20s and 30s and start knocking her up. I like kids, so I think becoming a father in my early retirement age years (maybe late 50s or early 60s) would be fun.

They are pushing this garbage world wide. The sluttier women might be the ones most open to these ideas.

'Knocking up' women isn't good, either. Children who don't have a father __in the home__ are at a disadvantage. We've got this space carved out in our culture for a 'baby daddy.' Other cultures may not. You might get a woman pregnant if you sleep a round, and then she raises a child totally without you, and you have a kid out there that you never see. That can even happen in the US.

Marriage is the situation where you can properly operate in the role of father, with the power of a father in the child's life, and the influence, and the positives that go along with that.

I only meant "impregnate" by "knocked up," not impregnating and then doing a bolt to leave the woman raising the kid by herself. But I agree with you, if I get any girls pregnant I will then put the duties of being a good father to the children above me getting laid with various other new women (though I'll still try to keep doing that too).
I respectfully disagree that you need to be married, and it's a bad idea in the completely degraded West where it accomplishes nothing but giving your wife a potential grip on your balls and financial assets for no good reason. (Treating the mother of your child well is good, but there's no reason to let her get you by the balls. You sound like you're an exception and do have a good marriage and also know a lot about women and understand the importance of masculinity and everything, but tons of married men who get married and let women get them by the balls turn into a bunch of miserable little hen-pecked characters leading miserable frustrated lives.)
But I agree on parenting, and I've read that children with a positive supportive masculine father figure present in the home during their upbringing are often way happier and better adjusted emotionally. Not to imply the ones with no father figure have anything wrong with them necessarily, but I've read having a very positive relationship with your parent (especially the one of the opposite sex) makes a big difference.
Me, girlfriends, and a zillion other people, especially in these times, have grown up with no father figure and aren't that bad, but it's certainly better to have a positive father figure present.

[WilliamSmith]

I forgot to address this point too:

They are pushing this garbage world wide. The sluttier women might be the ones most open to these ideas.

I think I know what you're thinking and I realize that promoting the sexual depravity ties in with "liberalism" when it comes to people who are into that crap, but there's way more than just one type of "slutty" women. The kind I like that just put on a sexy looking pair of shoes or tight dress when they're ovulating and want a man so they can have fun getting nailed because they're horny healthy heterosexual women aren't anything remotely like the globohomo and trans perverts you see at these bacchanalian "pride" events or teen drag queen contests, etc.
The kind of easy women I like are all healthy genetically hygienic women (all racial groups, but all healthy, zero gender confusion). Also, the more sexual dimorphism of men being masculine and women being feminine = the physically healthier (and hornier) and happier we each tend to be, hence the less likely to have some kind of inclination or proclivity to support biological perversion and mental illness that is inherent in homosexuality and transgenderism.
So even though you have more conservative views about the important of marriage vs those of us who prefer easy women, my point here is the sluttier women I like aren't remotely inclined to support this perverted globohomo crap, especially not toward innocent children.

The complete mess this new Weimar recreation has created with all of these homo and bisexuals acting like they're advancing some progressive cause by promoting homo/trans and sex with underage children and animals is an absolute disaster, and they should be punished and have all of this ruthlessly outlawed, but you can look at the list of offenders in the globohomo and "pride" scene and all the groomers trying to get after children, and they are pretty much all ugly weird looking mutants. I wouldn't be that rude if it was just about some innocent person's appearance, but I mean that these globohomos and groomers look flat-out deformed and misshapen a lot of the time, made even worse by them screwing themselves up with homo/trans behavior and in some cases even taking hormone modifying drugs to make the homo/trans men more "feminine" (not actually "feminine" in any genuine sense, but rather perversion from a biological male, even if somewhat mutant, creature putting estrogen in what predominantly wants to be a male physiology), and vice versa for the sexually perverted nutcase nonbinary females trying to masculinize themselves.

Those people are promoting all sorts of sexual depravity exactly as was done by agenda in the Weimar period in Germany, and we have to find some way to put a stop to this, but this isn't the same as the healthy kind of slutty 100% hetero women I like who aren't even remotely similar to the globohomo perverts.