Hence, a man in his mid-thirties is finally a well-heeled buyer entering the showroom.
Women aren't cars. A good marriage is one that satisfies both parties, not just the "buyer".
If he has learned anything from his approx. 15 years of dating experience, he will now approach the matter in a more mindful fashion. His hormones have calmed somewhat, and his urges are now a mere 15 times stronger than those of the average woman - so he can finally think straight and make informed, rational choices.
In my experience many (not all) American men of any age struggle with "informed, rational choices". That is why America is going to the dogs. And with that extra "dating experience" comes a higher risk of STDs. Technique can be taught, but herpes is forever. A man of 35 is "used goods" just like a woman of 35 is. I got married at 27 to a man of the same age. He was my first sexual partner; I am probably his second or third, so I don't have to worry as much about him comparing me to previous girlfriends.
Rather, he could offer a house and home (complete with nursery) at the drop of a hat, without the woman being expected to accept any compromises.
Speaking as someone who is currently in her mid-30's, that is not the situation I'm seeing right now. Most men my age, liberal or conservative, are not in a position to own a home, let alone on one income. Most expect their wives or live-in girlfriends to work, preferably full-time. When women are expected to do "men's work", they naturally expect the man to become more attractive and agreeable, which is not something previous generations of American men had to do, so young men today have no blueprint to follow. So it's not really their fault they were born at the wrong time, but at the same time I didn't see any reason to shackle myself to a man who brings only a small income to the table, without looks or a pleasant personality to compensate. Especially not when men with at least one of those things can readily be found elsewhere.
You understand what an analogy is, don't you?
A voluntary commercial transaction is one in which both parties are more or less satisfied with the outcome (some have said: Where both parties feel equally unhappy).
A romantic involvement and esp. the establishment of a long-term relationship has some similarities with a voluntary (commercial) transaction.
It is called the Sexual Marketplace, after all.
In earlier times, this was even more the case. Marriages were informed by the economic interests of the two parties (namely: of the household of the bride and the household of the bridegroom). Economic resources were combined and/or divvied up. Relationships were forged that were expected to last many decades and, hopefully, generations. The failure of the marriage could have disastrous results for the two families involved.
I think that it does not bode well for modern-day marriage that it is regarded largely as a vehicle chiefly for the satisfaction of prurient whims and the realization of "Disney" romantic notions. The advent and (now) dominance of online dating - which only exacerbates these tendencies - may prove to be the final blow.
In my experience many (not all) American men of any age struggle with "informed, rational choices". That is why America is going to the dogs.
I agree. (BTW: That neg. characterization applies equally well to the female of the species). My statements about rational decision-making were, admittedly, more prescriptive than descriptive.
A man of 35 is "used goods" just like a woman of 35 is.
This statement of yours is patently false. At least with respect to reproductive fitness, a woman at that age is already entering the "geriatric pregnancy"-phase, while a man of the same age still has decades of fertility ahead of him. For evolutionary reasons, men have developed a fine "sensor" or "detector" for female fertility, which is why a man instinctively finds an 18-year-old woman more appealing than a 35-year-old. An intelligent man will thus view a 35-year-old woman as automatically less "eligible" - both on a visceral level (reptilian brain) and a cerebral level (knowledge of reduced fertility). He thus not only knows (book-learning) that about 90% of her viable eggs have already been spent, he also feels it.
The possible presence of previous children only strengthens my case. There is a reason why unwed mothers used to be ostracized by society, and why rational men would eschew wifing them up. Add to that the fact that child-bearing takes a toll on a woman's physical assets.
Speaking as someone who is currently in her mid-30's, that is not the situation I'm seeing right now. Most men my age, liberal or conservative, are not in a position to own a home, let alone on one income. Most expect their wives or live-in girlfriends to work, preferably full-time.
As a man about twice as old as you, I must, of course, defer to your better first-hand knowledge of the current dating market (ouch! there's that word again!).
Especially not when men with at least one of those things can readily be found elsewhere.
Not at 35! At that age, a woman will have great difficulty finding a suitable "match."
If you'll excuse the personal remark: You seem to have a rather pessimistic view of marriage per se. Do you perhaps harbor concerns about the marriage prospects of your own children? Do you see your son(s) facing insurmountable difficulties? Your daughter(s)?
Regards,