I know we're all supposed to be great people and not think like this about sex in marriage. But we're not all great people.
So consider the following:
There are different relative values within the overall SMV of men vs women.
Men prize the physical more than women. Women prize status more than men.
Women are also more apt to partner with a man based on his potential. This is in part why, despite the low status of many 20-something men, they are able to secure LTRs with desireable women. They have potential.
If a woman establishes a LTR with a man based on his potential in their 20s and this potential is not realized in their 30s, the woman will be disappointed and feel as though she has made a bad deal. She realizes the value she has sacrificed and is keeping score.
However, if the man realizes his potential in his 30s the woman will believe there has been a mutually beneficial trade. Everyone is happy.
But here is where things can easily start to derail.
The woman has made a greater up front investment in the relationship because her youthful value was higher. The man was supposed to catch up to her. It was expected-- it would only matter if he didn't realize his potential.
So now they are in their 30s and are essentially even. So the woman may believe that no further investment on her part is required. She gave him her best years as a sexual creature but now her focus is elsewhere because the bargain is complete.
But as the couple approaches their 40s the man starts to wonder. He is now at his SMV peak. He wonders why a few short up front years of prime sexual access should be worth decades of sacrifice.
In successful couples, this would be the point at which both would reinvest in the relationship.
But that often does not happen. Years go by and now the man views the woman as being in deficit. Now he has sacrificed his prime sexual years for her.
For the man, this is an irretrievable loss, similar to how the woman would feel if the man she sacrificed for during his 20s did not realize his potential in his 30s.
So consider the following:
There are different relative values within the overall SMV of men vs women.
Men prize the physical more than women. Women prize status more than men.
Women are also more apt to partner with a man based on his potential. This is in part why, despite the low status of many 20-something men, they are able to secure LTRs with desireable women. They have potential.
If a woman establishes a LTR with a man based on his potential in their 20s and this potential is not realized in their 30s, the woman will be disappointed and feel as though she has made a bad deal. She realizes the value she has sacrificed and is keeping score.
However, if the man realizes his potential in his 30s the woman will believe there has been a mutually beneficial trade. Everyone is happy.
But here is where things can easily start to derail.
The woman has made a greater up front investment in the relationship because her youthful value was higher. The man was supposed to catch up to her. It was expected-- it would only matter if he didn't realize his potential.
So now they are in their 30s and are essentially even. So the woman may believe that no further investment on her part is required. She gave him her best years as a sexual creature but now her focus is elsewhere because the bargain is complete.
But as the couple approaches their 40s the man starts to wonder. He is now at his SMV peak. He wonders why a few short up front years of prime sexual access should be worth decades of sacrifice.
In successful couples, this would be the point at which both would reinvest in the relationship.
But that often does not happen. Years go by and now the man views the woman as being in deficit. Now he has sacrificed his prime sexual years for her.
For the man, this is an irretrievable loss, similar to how the woman would feel if the man she sacrificed for during his 20s did not realize his potential in his 30s.
Put the internet to work for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment