Should society accept that higher quality men prefer marrying younger women and high quality women prefer marrying men closer to their own age?

[Christian_Crusader]

According to some studies:

https://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/men-date-younger-women-live-longer-2017-7

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/5426895/Men-live-longer-if-they-marry-a-younger-woman.html

Should every educated person dating have these preferences in mind when considering a potential future marriage partner?

Furthermore, would anyone care to speculate why men who marry younger women tend to live longer while for women it is those who choose to marry a man closest to their age that live longest?

And also, in regards to "high quality" as used in my thread title question, below are some definitions.

High quality man: Handsome, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in any relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin)

Low quality man: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin")

High quality woman: Beautiful, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in a relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin)

Low quality woman: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin")

 

[fiveworlds]

Nonsense men marry younger women because of a queueing effect where there is no elligible women of their own age thus they search for younger women. Personally I would much prefer to marry somebody much the same age as myself if given the choice.

[Manticore]

Maybe the OP is some kind of Victorian time traveller?

[koti]

Nice definitions of high and low quality men and women. Im not sure where these definitions would fit better - second revision of Mein Kampf or a holy book of some religious cult.

[John Cuthber]

It's pointless.

It says what some goups of people "should" do, byut since most people are not in those groups it's useless, even if it was right (and it isn't).
What does an average looking bloke* with an average job* do?

* whatever that might mean.

[koti]

A beautiful woman who has a good career, is smart and well educated, is rich and has never been in a relationship and is a virigin would trigger my alarm that something is dodgy about her.

Edited July 15, 2017 by koti

[Phi for All]

I think it's intellectually dishonest to bring up scientific studies and then assign your own definitions with regard to what they were measuring. Those studies weren't analyzing your slanted views of "high quality" at all. You would seem to have an agenda you're cherry-picking data for. Bad science.

[StringJunky]

A beautiful woman who has a good career, is smart and well educated, is rich and has never been in a relationship and is a virigin would trigger my alarm that something is dodgy about her.

A beautiful woman may not consider herself so unless it's reinforced by positive responses from other women. so she may feel ugly if their feedback is negative.I think other women's opinions carry more weight with women than men, who likely just want to get in their knickers. People don't know they are attractive unless they are told so, by actions or words. A physically beautiful person may make those who might be their friends inadequate, which can make them feel ostracised and unattractive. One can't automatically assume that they are dodgy. The more you are to the left or right of the Bell curve the more likely this to happen.

Edited July 15, 2017 by StringJunky

[koti]

A beautiful woman may not consider herself so unless it's reinforced by positive responses from other women. so she may feel ugly if their feedback is negative.I think other women's opinions carry more weight with women than men, who likely just want to get in their knickers. People don't know they are attractive unless they are told so, by actions or words. A physically beautiful person may make those who might be their friends inadequate, which can make them feel ostracised and unattractive. One can't automatically assume that they are dodgy. The more you are to the left or right of the Bell curve the more likely this to happen.

Oh but a smart, intelligent and educated woman knows that shes beautiful. If on top of that shes rich and succesful and has never had a relationship...its so improbable that my alarm would surely go off.

[StringJunky]

Oh but a smart, intelligent and educated woman knows that shes beautiful. If on top of that shes rich and succesful and has never had a relationship...its so improbable that my alarm would surely go off.

Why do you assume that. I've personally known women that thought themselves far from the norm of what was attractive. If a person moves in the wrong circles it's easy for them to be rejected. Beauty is not an objective parameter.

[koti]

Why do you assume that. I've personally known women that thought themselves far from the norm of what was attractive. If a person moves in the wrong circles it's easy for them to be rejected. Beauty is not an objective parameter.

Maybe the women you mention were not smart, intelligent, well educated, havent had succesful carrers and weren't filthy rich

[Area54]

 

High quality man: Handsome, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in any relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin)

 

Low quality man: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin")

 

High quality woman: Beautiful, has a good career in a full-time job, smart and well-educated, financially rich, never been in a relationship with opposite sex before (undamaged virgin)

 

Low quality woman: Ugly, has no full-time job, stupid and uneducated, financially poor, has had several relationships with opposite sex already (“emotionally damaged" from investing too much energy in the wrong people and “non-virgin")

There seems to be a lot of implicit judgement here. As a Christian Crusader you would be aware of the passage, I think in Mathew, 'Judge not lest ye be judged'.

[Kevin Mulisa Isaya]

love doesn't depend on issue of quality , is just natural

[Kevin Mulisa Isaya]

No ugly woman in the world, everyone is beautiful

[Hypsibius]

Since when previous sexual contact "ruins" a person? We're talking about people, not condoms. 

 

 

So, according to your very peculiar view of things, a man or woman who is attractive/smart/successful/well-educated but is a widower or widow who has cared for their terminally-ill spouse is worth less as a human being compared to a man or woman who is similarly attractive/smart/successful/well-educated but has never had a sexual relationship because they are seriously messed up in the emotional/maturity department and lack any ability to form and sustain a healthy romantic relationship?

 

 

[Ten oz]

On 7/15/2017 at 9:01 AM, koti said:

A beautiful woman who has a good career, is smart and well educated, is rich and has never been in a relationship and is a virigin would trigger my alarm that something is dodgy about her.

Male or female anyone beautiful, smart, rich, etc that has never had a relationship should trigger suspicion.  

[koti]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Male or female anyone beautiful, smart, rich, etc that has never had a relationship should trigger suspicion.  

I agree. There is a female in my example because I feel I’m too old with too much bagage to seek adventures with men now. 

[Ten oz]

48 minutes ago, koti said:

I agree. There is a female in my example because I feel I’m too old with too much bagage to seek adventures with men now. 

, that isn't exactly what I had in mind but works just as well. 

[Hypsibius]

Quote

Should society accept that higher quality men prefer marrying younger women and high quality women prefer marrying men closer to their own age?

...The logical conclusion being that high quality men prefer marrying non-high quality women (since high quality women prefer men closer to their own age)??

Or is this a pro-bride kidnapping manifesto?

This post baffles me on so many levels... 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Hypsibius

[koti]

6 hours ago, Hypsibius said:

...The logical conclusion being that high quality men prefer marrying non-high quality women (since high quality women prefer men closer to their own age)??

Or is this a pro-bride kidnapping manifesto?

This post baffles me on so many levels... 

 

My partner is significantly younger than me. Shes a PhD, I’m not - in fact I’m a moron. Should society accept us? 

[YaDinghus]

Yes, I believe that society should accept 'high-quality men' wanting to make love to women significantly younger than them as long as it's consensual - which implies the woman can give their legal consent. I believe society should accept ALL love as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. OP's specific stipulation seems to be more of the norm than the exception, and society is usually very generous when it comes to accepting the norm.

Side note: while being rich and famous, well educated and virgin are qualities in the sense of properties, they don't make anyone a better person or human.