What's new

Socializing  Being a bachelor for life, anyone else happy living this way?

trashKENNUT

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
6,551
In my book if you do not procreate you have lost the game of life. You can just as well plug yourself into the matrix and keep deluding yourself like that guy in the movie.

To add:

When my grandfather died, you know what everyone did after the last scoop of sand by the dozer covers the grave?

Everyone walks away. :)

Wow... Identity state (Moojiji)


That's just one half of the story and my grandfather, bless his soul, was an amazing human being who treated me well every year that I have visited him.

Can Girlschase members create a content or something that can be existent per se, (like KFC logo) long after they died?

That's the key. We need to create a KFC logo!

z@c+

 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
6,245
I've spent a lot of time looking at the reproductive drive in people.

It can be influenced by life events, personal trauma, etc.

However the vast majority of it, so far as I can tell, seems to simply be inborn.

Interesting theory on that in women here, by the way:


Anyway, there is suppression of the reproductive drive in younger people as they figure out their mating options in the sexual marketplace. The more complex the marketplace, the longer most people avoid reproduction. But then past a certain age, those of them that will reproduce eventually have that kick in, often unexpectedly ("I don't think I ever want kids" --> "I've been thinking about having kids lately" --> "Man, I just really want kids!"). You check in with them a few years later and the Eternal Bachelor now has a couple of toddlers running around.

People get really divided over marriage & children. It's the same as politics and religion. And you will see the same odd things there you see with those topics... some chick who's super pro-family and argues against how messed up people who don't want to get married and have babies are, then 10 years later she's still single and has completely switched to wanting to be single and childless forever. Or the guy who argues some anti-natalist position when he's young but 8 years later he has a wife and two kids.

I think the healthiest thing to realize is that just like religion and politics there are idiots on both sides and there are people of excellence on both sides. Steve Jobs, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great had kids. Leonardo Da Vinci, George Washington, and Julian the Apostate did not.

I remember years back when I started consuming red pill and pickup content, guys were all about bachelorhood for life and not settling down. Now I notice that there has been a big shift towards condemning bachelorhood and forcing marriage on to men. I have a theory behind it too.

I think that pickup artists and red pill guys made women the focus of their lives while simultaneously playing mental gymnastics on themselves and saying that women are not the focus of their lives. These men never developed outside of game and pickup, their days and their thoughts were consumed with dating, dating theory, red pill content, and that is all they ever really thought of. At some point, they woke up and realized that once they had hit their 30s, they had nothing else in their lives to really fall back on which could occupy their thoughts.

Their existence had been based on dating, game, and women while simultaneously lying to themselves and saying that it was not. Overtime they felt lonely, wanted to fill the void, and used marriage and kids as a way of doing that. Then they rationalized their decisions using biology and history as a coping mechanism.

I have a simpler theory for you:

They aged.

The older you get, the more "ride or die, lifelong bachelors" fall off the bachelor train and end up making the switch to the family man one.

Some of them never make that switch, and remain lifelong bachelors. The majority of them (often unexpectedly for them... but perhaps it wouldn't be if they still grew up in communities where the older adults educated them and prepared them for the changes people go through with age) do.

I have had a lot of friends who at 25 or 30 were telling me they didn't think they ever wanted kids, or were certain they didn't want kids who at 40 were heavy into their wife hunt, selecting the woman they wanted to reproduce with.

Not every one of them. But a lot of them.

The pickup community and red pill communities are both a lot older now. Many of the same personalities are still around, but they've got a 40-year-old man perspective now instead of a 25-year-old man or 30-year-old man perspective... and those perspectives tend to change a lot with time and age.

Chase
 

Headlines By Drake

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
43
@Chase

In that case my thread was premature. I thought 30 was like old man territory in some ways because the average marriage age for men is in their early 30s. Now that you put it that way though, as I elaborated on in my previous reply, I can see myself going down from getting a different girl every week to getting a handful I see on rotation to eventually getting only one in my life. My grudge is not against monogamy but rather against the stereotypical married life where you have to move to the suburbs, try to fit in with gossipy neighbors, watch sports, drink beer, and just realize that life is over.

As I think in a more broad view, I can see that you can avoid marriage and kids but still have monogamy in your life or at least not fall victim to the picket fence and house in the suburbs lifestyle.

As for the red pill crowd, I am a bit dumbfounded by how drastic the switch has been. It has been more towards hating the bachelor lifestyle and condemning it while just years ago they swore by it. It's puzzling.

Also Chase, have you seen cases of men who seriously peaked in their 30s and were just a different image of themselves? Like the chubby dork who turned into an aesthetic smooth guy. I am thinking that getting in on the game late has an influence too because men who start seeing success with women at a later age might want to savor it for much longer than men who were always naturals growing up.
 

Skills

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
5,251
@Chase



As for the red pill crowd, I am a bit dumbfounded by how drastic the switch has been. It has been more towards hating the bachelor lifestyle and condemning it while just years ago they swore by it. It's puzzling.
You need to understand a lot of pua guys are at war with red pill guys, due to puas think most red pillers have not business giving PRACTICAL, seduction advise and are major kjs........ This is part of the DRASTIC SWITCH....
 

ph40

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
118
I think the healthiest thing to realize is that just like religion and politics there are idiots on both sides and there are people of excellence on both sides. Steve Jobs, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great had kids. Leonardo Da Vinci, George Washington, and Julian the Apostate did not.

To add to that: Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant, and Nikola Tesla all spent their entire life not only as bachelors, but as virgins!

I actually think there's something noble about complete ascetism and trying to transcend transient desires of the flesh.
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
6,245
@Headlines By Drake,

The average age keeps pushing up as the mating market becoming increasingly complex. The average age at first marriage for American men in 2020 was 33 (for women it was 31). It was 28 for men not that long ago... and 25 not that long before that. The whole thing is getting shifted older and older, very rapidly, with people taking much longer to go through these shifts. Obviously if the average age is 33 that also means you get a lot of guys much older than 33 at their first marriages too.

There's no rule that says "You have to have kids and live in the burbs with a picket fence sipping on beer." All my close friends with kids live in major capital cities. I have guys I know with kids who are out in the suburbs but I don't really talk to them much because once a guy is in the burbs and you are in a big city you just end up going off in different directions. Or you can be the guy who does childless committed LTRs... I have known a few guys who had some chick they were dating for 10+ years, neither wanted children or marriage, and they just traveled around together. I also know guys who switched from prolific PUAs to being essentially celibate as they aged. Depends on what you're after.


As for the red pill crowd, I am a bit dumbfounded by how drastic the switch has been. It has been more towards hating the bachelor lifestyle and condemning it while just years ago they swore by it. It's puzzling.

@Skills makes a nice point about there being an internecine men's war for differentiation between the "hedonist PUAs" and the "traditionalist red pill guys."

None of it is surprising to me though. The red pill guys were always vehemently anti-slut, clearly judging women harshly for being anything other than perfect wife candidates... they all talk about how women should not get educated, have careers, etc. Then critiquing and criticizing women. From the beginning it was clear what they really wanted to do was shape society by steering women toward wife and mother roles.

But when they were younger they were all "Get yours! Fuck these sluts, but don't get hooked by them!" then with age they shifted into trying to shepherd their societies more: "Don't do as I did when young. Follow the right path, instead!"

This is a common shift men go through with age too; trying to change from the rebellious scoundrel to the tut-tutting wise older man:


Also Chase, have you seen cases of men who seriously peaked in their 30s and were just a different image of themselves? Like the chubby dork who turned into an aesthetic smooth guy. I am thinking that getting in on the game late has an influence too because men who start seeing success with women at a later age might want to savor it for much longer than men who were always naturals growing up.

Sure, that not infrequently happens.

We have a subset of guys here who are late bloomers who don't even start focusing on girls until 30.

The rule of thumb is, the later you start, the later you peak.

That's why all those guys who were getting laid with cheerleaders in high school are married with kids by their early-to-mid-twenties.

Meanwhile the guy who focused on his career until he was 29 and never bothered to learn dating may be 33 years old, having the time of his life, getting frowned at by the married high school playboy as he whisks his 10-year-old off to school, feeling like he'll probably never settle down -- the same way the high school player felt when he was 17.

There's a similar phenomenon with guys who married early then divorced. A lot of the time these guys were inexperienced at marriage, but not always (our own @NarrowJ being a good example of the latter) and when they finally divorce, then learn game, they have this period where for years they are just playing the field, with zero intent to have anything settled. They had their fill of the settled life and now they're in their prime. As George Clooney used to answer for years when asked if he'll ever marry again: "I tried it, but it's not for me" (of course, after 20 years of answering that way and playing the field, he ultimately married again, then had twins).

Chase
 

The Emerald Archer

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
187
The rule of thumb is, the later you start, the later you peak.

That's why all those guys who were getting laid with cheerleaders in high school are married with kids by their early-to-mid-twenties.

That makes sense.

One decent argument I've seen for getting started with child-rearing earlier is so you can live long enough for your kids to give you a couple of grandkids before you get too old and die, or before you have to start dealing with issues with your health.

My dad is in this camp. He had me when he was right around age 40, give or take a year. He's tut-tutted me on occasion urging me to avoid making the mistake of starting a family late like him, but at the same time, my pops never did that great of a job taking care of his health (Type II diabetes, overweight, drinks too much coffee, doesn't exercise, smoked cigarettes for over 30 years, the list goes on).

I've always been a little skeptical of people who say stuff like that though. I feel like maybe people say things like that because they didn't do a good job taking care of their health while in their youth, and so they deal with health problems or suffer the typical ails of getting old and so urge the younger generation to get started asap!

What do you think about that? Do you think that's a legitimate cause for concern to start a family sooner so you can live long enough/not be too old and decrepit to have grandkids?

Or when people impart that wisdom could it be due to some form of low-key self-interest (like they didn't do the best job taking care of their health and they assume you'll end up in that same boat) and so they tell you things like "better get started before you get too old?"
 
Last edited:

Headlines By Drake

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
43
I feel like I keep changing back and forth when it comes to commitment but seeing the perspective offered has somewhat made me change my mind. Now that I think about it, I do have moments where I find a couple of women or a handful that I want to focus my attention to. Once we can avoid having kids and that kind of a life, I am actually opening up to the idea of a monogamous relationship or at least not cycling through 20 different women a year.
 

Tim Iron

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
449
Interesting thread.

I am struggling to have a best of both worlds and not the extreme ends. It doesn't have to be two choices: married (and living in the suburbs) or the perpetual bachelor's life.
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,111
I think it mainly revolves around whether you want a family. Otherwise you can do literally anything you want. I wouldn't get married at all otherwise, for what? And besides that aspect, all you have to do is get her to move permanently into you frame (I mean, house).
 
a good date brings a smile to your lips... and hers

trashKENNUT

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
6,551
I believe @Chase will agree with me on this.

He wrote something recently on phases of life. Recently, i have seen older females, in tiktok doing dances on tiktok. I realize that all of us are thinking of this all wrong.

We are in the 'state' of where we are now. Doesn't matter if we are young or old.
You need to know where you are at.
Are you at the stage of 'experimenting', developing' or 'harvesting'. That's number 1.
For me, i am in the state of 'developing'. Business is just a vehicle.

'Marriage' is just a vehicle just like Females is the equivalent of 'Faith' in every human. But she is not you. She will never be you. But all men and this includes all the high level guys, think that she is you. She is another human being.

To make it simple, Men think that 'going for a run' and 'meditation' is different things, when really. It's about fundamentally moving the 'perceive' from the state. Similarly, the pickup community thinks that most men are full of shit and that they will get married, not realizing that marriage is just a vehicle, and that George Clooney gets married as well, is because of our 'continuity'.

His wife knows how to not messed up the 'continuity'.

Islam, Christianity and Asian males. We have weird fetishes (i love JAV! lolx) because society is viewing them as adults crashing "societal rules" at an age where their phase is supposed to be something else.

I am becoming a GAWD. lolx
HAHA! It's amazing. Why am i the only guy who discovered this. So many high level guys for centuries and they could not identify that they are in a state?! and that females are not them, and will never be them?!

@Chase , i am becoming a GAWD. :p i am going to tickle your members balls until they wake up from their identity. See Moojiji to let go

Btw, SOWIE FOR MY PHILOSOPHY RANT from time to time. I can get a little too excited! :)

z@c+
 
Last edited:

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
6,245
@The Emerald Archer,

That makes sense.

One decent argument I've seen for getting started with child-rearing earlier is so you can live long enough for your kids to give you a couple of grandkids before you get too old and die, or before you have to start dealing with issues with your health.

My dad is in this camp. He had me when he was right around age 40, give or take a year. He's tut-tutted me on occasion urging me to avoid making the mistake of starting a family late like him, but at the same time, my pops never did that great of a job taking care of his health (Type II diabetes, overweight, drinks too much coffee, doesn't exercise, smoked cigarettes for over 30 years, the list goes on).

I've always been a little skeptical of people who say stuff like that though. I feel like maybe people say things like that because they didn't do a good job taking care of their health while in their youth, and so they deal with health problems or suffer the typical ails of getting old and so urge the younger generation to get started asap!

What do you think about that? Do you think that's a legitimate cause for concern to start a family sooner so you can live long enough/not be too old and decrepit to have grandkids?

Or when people impart that wisdom could it be due to some form of low-key self-interest (like they didn't do the best job taking care of their health and they assume you'll end up in that same boat) and so they tell you things like "better get started before you get too old?"

It's always going to be a bit tough separating what is "wisdom acquired from time/experience" versus what is "self-interest masquerading as offered wisdom." I think with older folk advising younger folk it's generally a mixture of the two thrown together.

I mean, he's right, children had younger have more time to spend with younger parents, younger grandparents, etc.

At the same time, he also has some selfish reasons to want grandchildren sooner: more time to spend with them, more time to pass what he's learned onto them, happier later years for him, etc.

I don't have an opinion on "how old should you be when you have children?"

It just depends on what you want children for.

Do you want children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc., to build an army of descendants you personally raise, guide, and nurture to success? Then don't start too late, or else the time you have to influence them is limited.

Do you want them just to have them? Then it probably doesn't matter what age you start at. Even if you don't live to see your grandkids, if you have kids odds are you'll have grandkids too.

Or some other reason? Really depends what motivates you to produce offspring.

Perhaps worth meditating on, if you're thinking about it but unsure.


@ZacAdam,

Similarly, the pickup community thinks that most men are full of shit and that they will get married, not realizing that marriage is just a vehicle

I don't think "the pickup community" thinks this. It's a community with a diverse set of viewpoints.

I've stated that most guys will, regardless what they say/think. I think that's clearly true. Of course, there are also guys who say they won't, and never will! But on the whole, on average, the former is more likely for any given individual.

I don't believe "it's just a vehicle" matters. People use vehicles to get to where they want to. Many things have been tried to replace marriage, but like it or not we've yet to come up with a better vehicle (despite millennia of trying!).

Again, not to say I am a big fan of marriage. I'm ambivalent about it, personally. But it is fairly effective at what it does (better than the alternatives, I'd say).

Chase
 

trashKENNUT

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
6,551
I don't believe "it's just a vehicle" matters. People use vehicles to get to where they want to. Many things have been tried to replace marriage, but like it or not we've yet to come up with a better vehicle (despite millennia of trying!)

I took my response post out and put it in my journal. Try to keep this post linear. I realize that I had too much 'Alex Jones showmanship' in this post.

I'm still angry at PUA community. :)

!!!

z@c+
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,111
It's always going to be a bit tough separating what is "wisdom acquired from time/experience" versus what is "self-interest masquerading as offered wisdom." I think with older folk advising younger folk it's generally a mixture of the two thrown together.

I mean, he's right, children had younger have more time to spend with younger parents, younger grandparents, etc.

At the same time, he also has some selfish reasons to want grandchildren sooner: more time to spend with them, more time to pass what he's learned onto them, happier later years for him, etc.

I don't have an opinion on "how old should you be when you have children?"

It just depends on what you want children for.

Do you want children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc., to build an army of descendants you personally raise, guide, and nurture to success? Then don't start too late, or else the time you have to influence them is limited.

Good point about self interest, I've noticed how emotional my parents get whenever the idea of grandkids comes up (it doesn't happen too often, but occasionally). Personally I want to have kids for the 'pass my knowledge' factor when I'm old(er), but I'm completely ambivalent about wanting to be around for grandkids, I think it's a bit greedy tbh, and possibly often is reflective of a need to live through others rather than focusing on a fulfilled independent life.

The truth is that when one has kids (so it would seem) one's life gets put a bit on hold, at least to a certain extent, and further growth in any independent area is slowed. I think this is what makes many guys hesitant to have kids, because they are aware that they are not near to living out their full potential, and the idea that it's 'already over' feels overwhelming. I felt the same way, and often told people I'd probably have kids in my 40s (and might still do).

But for whatever reason I decided to face the question at a personal level earlier rather than later, because I think these things are best not fallen into but prepared carefully, and I dislike being afraid of anything. I know I have a lot of things I want to do, experience and become before I have a family. And so it's important to me to know that I do want one, so I know that I don't have forever to do those things (starting a family not being the only thing that slows down one's development, but one of). It also gives me a certain kick in the arse to think of what I would tell my kids about myself and my life, given how I have built my identity around capability and a certain level of ambition. In many ways, in chasing women and planning for a family, I always try to use the judgemental perspective that dependent people have of me in two ways: to propel myself to greater heights, and to pull them closer to me, at the same time.

Which brings me to the other side of parenting (and a certain perspective on kids that some people have) that has resonated with me but I haven't fully understood. The best way I can describe it is that I believe a father should be absent from his family for extended periods of time. This is the simplest way to put it, men in older times did not hang around with their family all year round doting over them. And I think that has some positive consequences for the development of kids that many people don't realize. The correct relationship and level of closeness between a son and his father, for example, is something that I believe is possible to get badly wrong in many more ways than people realize. Because in one way, a father needs to be a sort of larger-than-life figure, someone with a certain 'mythical' aspect, which achieves two things: it creates a more distinct role model for children to aspire to, and it also gives a space between a man and his children that allows them to strive forward to reach him (rather than being burdened always with his 'motherly' presence) and to develop the right view of him through their behaviours in relation to his identity, rather than his direct presence.

It is interesting that some of the most ambitious people have had kids fairly early and not slowed down in their own quests (Elon Musk for example) even if it means not having the typical amount of time with them. I wonder if there is really any negative impact from it when this is done right (and in fact might be beneficial). I don't know enough to say, but it's something I always try to learn more about.

But reflecting on all this, after asking myself directly if I wanted to have a family, has led me to some interesting ideas, such as wondering if really the apparent exchange that a man makes in order to have a family is actually somewhat false, driven once again by social norms that seek to curtail men's ambition, and immerse him inside a framework of living that sets him in impasse battle against his better instincts on either side - both his instincts of personal ambition, and his instincts of propagation and tribal leadership.
 

ph40

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
118
I don't think "the pickup community" thinks this. It's a community with a diverse set of viewpoints.

I've stated that most guys will, regardless what they say/think. I think that's clearly true. Of course, there are also guys who say they won't, and never will! But on the whole, on average, the former is more likely for any given individual.

I don't believe "it's just a vehicle" matters. People use vehicles to get to where they want to. Many things have been tried to replace marriage, but like it or not we've yet to come up with a better vehicle (despite millennia of trying!).

Again, not to say I am a big fan of marriage. I'm ambivalent about it, personally. But it is fairly effective at what it does (better than the alternatives, I'd say).

Chase

Chase, why do you think that avowed "no marriage" guys, especially those in the pickup community, often do 180 degree turns and embrace marriage and become married themselves? I mean, some of these guys were the consummate playboy, and then you see them shacked up in a house with kids running around, spending all their time with a wife and with kids.

Me, personally, from a very early age I always said to myself "I would NEVER get married or have kids". At 18, at 28, and now that I'm 38 years old that stance has not changed one bit. I've never *met* a woman in my entire life I would ever say that "she's definitely one I want to be with the rest of my life". And now that I'm essentially middle-aged, I feel like "that ship has sailed" even if I did - getting married and having kids this late doesn't seem prudent.

But there are definitely quite a few guys who seem to have that same hardcore stance in their teens, twenties, and then reverse course in their thirties, even if they were practicing pickup and living an exciting bachelor lifestyle.
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,111
And now that I'm essentially middle-aged, I feel like "that ship has sailed" even if I did - getting married and having kids this late doesn't seem prudent.

Why does it not seem prudent?
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
6,245
Good analysis, @Will_V.

I agree on fathers needing to be away from children to some extent, though I don't think they need to be away for weeks/months at a time, necessarily. Just having much lower availability than the mother seems to do the trick. If the mother is rearing the children and the father is working on his projects/mission most of the time, that can do it. But the father also needs enough time with the children to properly bond with them and guide them as well.

But reflecting on all this, after asking myself directly if I wanted to have a family, has led me to some interesting ideas, such as wondering if really the apparent exchange that a man makes in order to have a family is actually somewhat false, driven once again by social norms that seek to curtail men's ambition, and immerse him inside a framework of living that sets him in impasse battle against his better instincts on either side - both his instincts of personal ambition, and his instincts of propagation and tribal leadership.

Every man has a limited amount of time and mental focus in his day. He needs to carefully choose how he'll divide that.

From my observations it's much more reliant on how much the wife/mother of his children respects his time and what he is working on than anything else (or how ably he enforces respect for his time, or separates himself from family affairs).

Elon Musk reportedly spends a lot of time sleeping under his desk at work. So obviously, he is working a lot, all the time, and many nights does not even return to the family home. I don't know the relationship with his wives, but obviously either a.) his first wife accepted this, or b.) she protested it but he ignored her to keep putting his mission first. They had heavy drama at some point and he had enough of it and divorced her. If I had to hazard a guess, it was probably drama about her feeling neglected / feeling like he wasn't around enough / was neglecting the children.

I don't think this is as possible for a guy with a regular ol' 9-to-5. You're not going to have legitimate reasons to be away from family that much, and there's not a clear path there where "If I work this much harder, ultimately I'll succeed." It will be a lot more difficult to maintain an ambitious frame and create that kind of separation from family where the wife understands and champions the husband's immersion in his mission.

Instead, you need your own company, or some kind of project you're engaged in -- something that is your calling, to which you are highly devoted. And that is still going to be tested at times -- do you really need to spend that much time on it? It would be nice if you had more time to spend with the family. Your wife misses you. You are missing your children's childhoods. Etc.

There's probably a cost to the children, having a father who is more focused on his mission than he is on the children. You don't see a lot of Mozarts producing another Mozart, Elon Musks producing another Elon Musk. Instead you get situations like Mozart, where Mozart's father was deeply devoted to training his son and steering him toward greatness. Mozart had kids (6, but only 2 survived infancy), but I doubt he put the kind of investment into them his father put into him.

It's all ultimately this balancing act of "Where do you put your time?" and "Do you have the frame control and justifications to keep it focused on Area A despite pressures to direct more of it to Area B?"


@ph40,

Chase, why do you think that avowed "no marriage" guys, especially those in the pickup community, often do 180 degree turns and embrace marriage and become married themselves? I mean, some of these guys were the consummate playboy, and then you see them shacked up in a house with kids running around, spending all their time with a wife and with kids.

Me, personally, from a very early age I always said to myself "I would NEVER get married or have kids". At 18, at 28, and now that I'm 38 years old that stance has not changed one bit. I've never *met* a woman in my entire life I would ever say that "she's definitely one I want to be with the rest of my life". And now that I'm essentially middle-aged, I feel like "that ship has sailed" even if I did - getting married and having kids this late doesn't seem prudent.

But there are definitely quite a few guys who seem to have that same hardcore stance in their teens, twenties, and then reverse course in their thirties, even if they were practicing pickup and living an exciting bachelor lifestyle.

In my experience, most people with extreme stances, especially if they are emotional stances, have those extremes because they are trying to keep some other emotion bottled up.

For most people, the casual sex period serves as an exploration period, where they are finding out what sort of mates they can get and hang onto. To protect themselves against settling down too early, with an insufficiently superior partner, they use various defense mechanisms against settling down. One is revulsion at the idea... but a lot of times revulsion is used to guard against something some part of the mind desires.

The guys who are likeliest to hold onto "no marriage / no babies" are guys who are firm-but-chill about it: "I'm not interested in that and I know I don't want it." They don't usually need to go barking about it, because they aren't trying to guard themselves against something some part of them deep down wants. They simply have no bone in their body that wants it, so they won't be pushed into it, but neither do they need to protest it.

There are also people who probably do have some drive deep down that want it, but they were scarred too deeply around marriage/children somehow when young, and they simply never overcome those psychological scars, and stick to the area that feels 'safer' to them (no marriage/children). Those people, too, are not usually super vocal about it, because again, not trying to convince themselves -- the loudest folks are often the ones working hardest to convince themselves (and a lot of times they're the ones who flip the most dramatically. Like I always say, if you have to say it, it isn't true!).

Chase
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,111
Good analysis, @Will_V.

I agree on fathers needing to be away from children to some extent, though I don't think they need to be away for weeks/months at a time, necessarily. Just having much lower availability than the mother seems to do the trick. If the mother is rearing the children and the father is working on his projects/mission most of the time, that can do it. But the father also needs enough time with the children to properly bond with them and guide them as well.



Every man has a limited amount of time and mental focus in his day. He needs to carefully choose how he'll divide that.

From my observations it's much more reliant on how much the wife/mother of his children respects his time and what he is working on than anything else (or how ably he enforces respect for his time, or separates himself from family affairs).

Elon Musk reportedly spends a lot of time sleeping under his desk at work. So obviously, he is working a lot, all the time, and many nights does not even return to the family home. I don't know the relationship with his wives, but obviously either a.) his first wife accepted this, or b.) she protested it but he ignored her to keep putting his mission first. They had heavy drama at some point and he had enough of it and divorced her. If I had to hazard a guess, it was probably drama about her feeling neglected / feeling like he wasn't around enough / was neglecting the children.

I don't think this is as possible for a guy with a regular ol' 9-to-5. You're not going to have legitimate reasons to be away from family that much, and there's not a clear path there where "If I work this much harder, ultimately I'll succeed." It will be a lot more difficult to maintain an ambitious frame and create that kind of separation from family where the wife understands and champions the husband's immersion in his mission.

Instead, you need your own company, or some kind of project you're engaged in -- something that is your calling, to which you are highly devoted. And that is still going to be tested at times -- do you really need to spend that much time on it? It would be nice if you had more time to spend with the family. Your wife misses you. You are missing your children's childhoods. Etc.

There's probably a cost to the children, having a father who is more focused on his mission than he is on the children. You don't see a lot of Mozarts producing another Mozart, Elon Musks producing another Elon Musk. Instead you get situations like Mozart, where Mozart's father was deeply devoted to training his son and steering him toward greatness. Mozart had kids (6, but only 2 survived infancy), but I doubt he put the kind of investment into them his father put into him.

It's all ultimately this balancing act of "Where do you put your time?" and "Do you have the frame control and justifications to keep it focused on Area A despite pressures to direct more of it to Area B?"


@ph40,



In my experience, most people with extreme stances, especially if they are emotional stances, have those extremes because they are trying to keep some other emotion bottled up.

For most people, the casual sex period serves as an exploration period, where they are finding out what sort of mates they can get and hang onto. To protect themselves against settling down too early, with an insufficiently superior partner, they use various defense mechanisms against settling down. One is revulsion at the idea... but a lot of times revulsion is used to guard against something some part of the mind desires.

The guys who are likeliest to hold onto "no marriage / no babies" are guys who are firm-but-chill about it: "I'm not interested in that and I know I don't want it." They don't usually need to go barking about it, because they aren't trying to guard themselves against something some part of them deep down wants. They simply have no bone in their body that wants it, so they won't be pushed into it, but neither do they need to protest it.

There are also people who probably do have some drive deep down that want it, but they were scarred too deeply around marriage/children somehow when young, and they simply never overcome those psychological scars, and stick to the area that feels 'safer' to them (no marriage/children). Those people, too, are not usually super vocal about it, because again, not trying to convince themselves -- the loudest folks are often the ones working hardest to convince themselves (and a lot of times they're the ones who flip the most dramatically. Like I always say, if you have to say it, it isn't true!).

Chase

Interesting point about how much it depends on the mother respecting his time. I read as much as I could on Elon Musk's relationship (since I think it's an interesting case study) and it seems to me that his wife felt very much neglected, in fact as I recall he told her 'if you were my employee I'd fire you' - according to her. If that's the case, then it seems like a poor job of managing frame, although it seems like she has hardly lived well with the result, and everything she has done afterward is an attempt to make some sort of reconciliation with her choices, which is what one might expect of a woman best known for being the former wife of a famous billionaire. Still, it seems like a failure of management to me.

What is interesting to me though, is that I believe raw ambition and close parenting are generally not coexistent. A man's primal drive, his libido if you like, is always somewhat at odds with the presence and authority of his father, which might be due to some kind of oedipus aspect (which I think is true, as it seems to me that boys raised by single mothers often present a certain superficial drive and ambition, even if the result is completely unproductive due to lack of discipline etc). But also, I think it is because a man who is too much validated by his father, or has too many opportunities for it, is satisfied too easily, and finds himself lacking the sort of 'rage against the world' that can drive men toward great things.

It's interesting that Elon Musk always had a poor relationship with his father, who apparently was lacking any devotion to the family. Steve Jobs was an orphan. Alexander the Great, if I recall correctly said of one of his philosophy teachers "it was my father who gave me life but <the teacher> who taught me to live well" which implies at least a certain distance between them.

But it's not clear to me if this type of effect is a) fundamentally healthy in nature or b) whether it can even be managed properly, or is something that is a product of stars happening to align within the chaos of discontent.

I read some time ago Freud's writings on the father figure, I don't remember it too well (I should go and read them again). Even if it's not completely accurate, based on what I remember it's clear enough that the role that a father's identity plays in a man's life is far from the simplistic concept that most people think it is, and goes through several stages over his life, not all of which sit well in the idealistic light, so to speak, which seems to often be the way that nature runs its course.

From everything I've experienced and reflected on, I believe that the right path in life is never one that is easy or free of pain, that too much happiness and contentment itself (or at least the avoidance of its opposites) can easily lead to a kind of psychological stuntedness, and that it's a man's job to set himself (and those he is responsible for) on the path that is not necessarily free of pain and discontent, but where those things serve to propel toward development and a higher satisfaction.
 

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
6,245
in fact as I recall he told her 'if you were my employee I'd fire you' - according to her.

lmao, did he? I have said this line-for-line to girlfriends before.

If that's the case, then it seems like a poor job of managing frame, although it seems like she has hardly lived well with the result, and everything she has done afterward is an attempt to make some sort of reconciliation with her choices, which is what one might expect of a woman best known for being the former wife of a famous billionaire. Still, it seems like a failure of management to me.

Just keep in mind... the man was trying to run three companies, all of which were struggling for survival at the time, while also managing a woman, which can be a full-time job when things get rough. Running one company is also MUCH more work than working a job at a company, and MUCH more stress (employee: goes to job, does work, collects paycheck; founder: deals with continual stress company will fail, lays everything he owns on the line to try to make it work, is in danger of going both bankrupt and being known as a failure/joke if it doesn't succeed, while at the same time having to provide a sense of security and continuity for the employees coming there to collect paychecks, lest they go elsewhere, and the customers coming there to purchase whatever it is, lest they go elsewhere).

You kind of have to fill your plate up with 10x more than you can manage to realize how limited one's ability to manage an infinite variety of things is with women, family, business interests, and so on.

So yeah, I suppose in isolation we could say "Musk didn't do a very good job there."

Relative to what he was dealing with though... his announcement to her sounds like really it was just "Woman, I can't deal with this now; either get it together, accept the reality of our situation here, or I'm booting you out so you'll stop being an obstacle to me," and she just couldn't get it together.

There's an argument to be made for both sides: she wanted to feel like her man was there; he needed to not be nagged to death while he fought to keep his companies afloat. I have dealt with "nagging woman at the worst possible time" situations, and there is not really an easy solution. Either you set everything aside to resolve your issues with her, in which case your business interests suffer, or you tell her to keep a lid on it while you focus on other things -- but the issue doesn't get resolve and it just continues to fester while she tries to hold her tongue on all the building resentment. It's a difficult choice.

Either way, something's gotta give.

What is interesting to me though, is that I believe raw ambition and close parenting are generally not coexistent. A man's primal drive, his libido if you like, is always somewhat at odds with the presence and authority of his father, which might be due to some kind of oedipus aspect (which I think is true, as it seems to me that boys raised by single mothers often present a certain superficial drive and ambition, even if the result is completely unproductive due to lack of discipline etc). But also, I think it is because a man who is too much validated by his father, or has too many opportunities for it, is satisfied too easily, and finds himself lacking the sort of 'rage against the world' that can drive men toward great things.

It's interesting that Elon Musk always had a poor relationship with his father, who apparently was lacking any devotion to the family. Steve Jobs was an orphan. Alexander the Great, if I recall correctly said of one of his philosophy teachers "it was my father who gave me life but <the teacher> who taught me to live well" which implies at least a certain distance between them.

But it's not clear to me if this type of effect is a) fundamentally healthy in nature or b) whether it can even be managed properly, or is something that is a product of stars happening to align within the chaos of discontent.

Interesting. I hadn't thought too closely about that.

I know Michael Jackson's father trained his children hard from youth, but was very harsh with them.

Not sure about Tiger Wood's father. He started training him at 2. Seemed like a close, loving relationship though? Still, Woods, once he lost his touch, he never got it back.

Allen Iverson was raised by his mother and trained himself on basketball, I think.

Not sure Mozart's relationship with his father. Elon Musk's seems strained with his, yeah. Jobs was an orphan, but he was very close to his adopted father -- it was apparently a loving relationship, and he credits his father with imbuing him with his love of crafting everything very well (father took care even to finish and paint the back of a cabinet that no one would ever see).

So it seems like... it may be the case that distant fathers spur achievement. Or some sort of childhood wound the male is making up for.

Jobs had a close parental relationship, but it also really bothered him that his biological parents abandoned him. Perhaps his shot at greatness was a way to prove he was worth hanging onto all along.

Curious stuff to consider here.

I read some time ago Freud's writings on the father figure, I don't remember it too well (I should go and read them again). Even if it's not completely accurate, based on what I remember it's clear enough that the role that a father's identity plays in a man's life is far from the simplistic concept that most people think it is, and goes through several stages over his life, not all of which sit well in the idealistic light, so to speak, which seems to often be the way that nature runs its course.

From everything I've experienced and reflected on, I believe that the right path in life is never one that is easy or free of pain, that too much happiness and contentment itself (or at least the avoidance of its opposites) can easily lead to a kind of psychological stuntedness, and that it's a man's job to set himself (and those he is responsible for) on the path that is not necessarily free of pain and discontent, but where those things serve to propel toward development and a higher satisfaction.

Yes, I agree.

Though I would also say this is one of two distinct mental phenotypes... there is a type of man who values pleasure and comfort over purpose and ambition, and a man who values purpose and ambition over pleasure and comfort.

As both are quite prevalent, the only thing I can say on those is "nature has its many places for both men."

Chase
 

Will_V

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
2,111
lmao, did he? I have said this line-for-line to girlfriends before.

Haha, in the right context I'm sure it does the job!

Just keep in mind... the man was trying to run three companies, all of which were struggling for survival at the time, while also managing a woman, which can be a full-time job when things get rough. Running one company is also MUCH more work than working a job at a company, and MUCH more stress (employee: goes to job, does work, collects paycheck; founder: deals with continual stress company will fail, lays everything he owns on the line to try to make it work, is in danger of going both bankrupt and being known as a failure/joke if it doesn't succeed, while at the same time having to provide a sense of security and continuity for the employees coming there to collect paychecks, lest they go elsewhere, and the customers coming there to purchase whatever it is, lest they go elsewhere).

You kind of have to fill your plate up with 10x more than you can manage to realize how limited one's ability to manage an infinite variety of things is with women, family, business interests, and so on.

So yeah, I suppose in isolation we could say "Musk didn't do a very good job there."

Relative to what he was dealing with though... his announcement to her sounds like really it was just "Woman, I can't deal with this now; either get it together, accept the reality of our situation here, or I'm booting you out so you'll stop being an obstacle to me," and she just couldn't get it together.

There's an argument to be made for both sides: she wanted to feel like her man was there; he needed to not be nagged to death while he fought to keep his companies afloat. I have dealt with "nagging woman at the worst possible time" situations, and there is not really an easy solution. Either you set everything aside to resolve your issues with her, in which case your business interests suffer, or you tell her to keep a lid on it while you focus on other things -- but the issue doesn't get resolve and it just continues to fester while she tries to hold her tongue on all the building resentment. It's a difficult choice.

Either way, something's gotta give.

I agree completely, sometimes you just need loyalty and nothing else, especially when, as you described, he had a hell of a lot riding on his shoulders.

Still, while I think being tough with women in relationships is generally a good thing, something I believe in very much is creating a deliberate framework in which a woman has her needs met and a man as well, and getting her to buy into it rationally and verbally. This is something I also credit very much to your articles on relationship management, which I have used to very good effect.

I suppose the question is, did Musk create that here - especially when things were not so difficult?

Two things that make me think I could be wrong about the situation is that, as I recall a) the courtship involved Musk essentially pursuing and 'winning over' Justine who was some kind of sought after campus princess and b) she mentioned valuing very much his encouragement of her writing and her ambition to write a book. These things, as well as just the impression she gives generally, suggests she's a very dominant personality, and it seems likely it ended up being a frame battle of two people who are looking for a supporter of their dreams. In that context, as you say, something's got to give, and she might have thought she could win and ended up causing him too much trouble.

Interesting. I hadn't thought too closely about that.

I know Michael Jackson's father trained his children hard from youth, but was very harsh with them.

Not sure about Tiger Wood's father. He started training him at 2. Seemed like a close, loving relationship though? Still, Woods, once he lost his touch, he never got it back.

Allen Iverson was raised by his mother and trained himself on basketball, I think.

Not sure Mozart's relationship with his father. Elon Musk's seems strained with his, yeah. Jobs was an orphan, but he was very close to his adopted father -- it was apparently a loving relationship, and he credits his father with imbuing him with his love of crafting everything very well (father took care even to finish and paint the back of a cabinet that no one would ever see).

So it seems like... it may be the case that distant fathers spur achievement. Or some sort of childhood wound the male is making up for.

Jobs had a close parental relationship, but it also really bothered him that his biological parents abandoned him. Perhaps his shot at greatness was a way to prove he was worth hanging onto all along.

Curious stuff to consider here.

Yes, interesting, the line I quoted from Alexander the Great also suggests that his teacher (Aristotle it seems) served as a very strong mentor figure in his life.

So it seems to me then that there is a dual aspect to a good father figure - the distant hero/role model/authority figure, and the attentive, considerate teacher. Can a man do both things well at the same time?

One would think that the concept of 'tiger parenting', where children are pushed quite hard toward excellence by one or both parents, would serve to combine the two, but I have to say that in the limited number of times I've come across it, the subject of this parenting, despite being more or less successful, comes across as distinctly lacking an independent spirit and drive.

I also get the distinct impression that there is something about the occasional absence of a father that serves well in a family, since the role of a father figure is something of a combination of the personal and the abstract - the latter of which perhaps develops more powerfully in his absence than his presence. Especially for his sons, whose ability to manifest their identity is perhaps somewhat interfered with by his presence, but whose development depends on the pressure of his demands, expectations, and boundaries.

Yes, I agree.

Though I would also say this is one of two distinct mental phenotypes... there is a type of man who values pleasure and comfort over purpose and ambition, and a man who values purpose and ambition over pleasure and comfort.

As both are quite prevalent, the only thing I can say on those is "nature has its many places for both men."

Chase

Very true, I believe there are rare individuals who fuse both of these, but almost always, like you say, they are distinct. For me personally, purpose and ambition comes first, but I think it's good for a man to take a holiday frequently into his hedonistic side, which is something I very much like about having women in my life.
 
Top