is a woman "past her prime" at and after 25 years? (girlfriend, American)

[itshim]

Originally Posted by himain

I really don't know what planet you're living on but you are waaaayyy off base here. You must be a youngin

I think he hit the bullseye. I have to co sign the observation that I have never (or rarely) have heard a woman say that she received more attention at 30+ than they did in their 20s from guys.

And in reverse I have heard far more men say that they have received attention from women when in their 30s compared to when they are in their 20s.

Again, hence the saying...men age like wine...women like milk.

[himain]

Originally Posted by itshim

I think he hit the bullseye. I have to co sign the observation that I have never (or rarely) have heard a woman say that she received more attention at 30+ than they did in their 20s from guys.

And in reverse I have heard far more men say that they have received attention from women when in their 30s compared to when they are in their 20s.

Again, hence the saying...men age like wine...women like milk.

You've got to be kidding me?? I can't keep guys off me, young and old, and I'm 36 turning 37 in two months. I've always received attention but definately more now that my body and frame of mind is much better than any 20 something year old..

[mir86]

Originally Posted by himain

You've got to be kidding me?? I can't keep guys off me, young and old, and I'm 36 turning 37 in two months. I've always received attention but definately more now that my body and frame of mind is much better than any 20 something year old..

When I lived in LA..all the older ladies there put me and my roommates who were all 21 at the time, to shame! Most of these older ladies were your average mom and housewife but they were still very beautiful and thin. A lot of my male coworkers drooled over these customers...pretty funny!

[itshim]

Braunwyn

I don't think it's intellectually possible for me, or anyone, to rationalize your assumptions. I do not find your assumptions to be observations nor do I find it sound

Again, I think you're simply rationalizing the obvious to stick with your original argument that hides behind a series of "what if's" and "maybes." I think most people agree that men, regardless of income bracket, can and do go after women that they deem physically desirable.

.

What you are doing is drawing conclusions about interactions you think you are witnessing from strangers. There is nothing logical about it.

I've clearly outlined the scenerio to prove that the probability that the woman making the coffee is out earning the wall street broker is nothing more than irrational.

I generally don't see successful men engaging minimum wage workers in any kind of depth.

I do, all the time. I've seen doctors, lawyers. stock brokers etc pull plenty of women who weren't doctors, lawyers or other professional themselves. Again, not hard to fathom. As a matter of fact, many of them will tell you that given their positions, it is extremely easy to pull women not in their caliber.

I'm just not sure why you assume anything or how you are reasonably drawing conclusions about strangers.

I still don't buy the idea that this is merely an assumption rather than a probability.

This conversation reminds me of my father a bit. I love him, but he's quite ignorant (sad to say). I was telling him yesterday how my big boss is getting pushed out. The whole situation is sad. I mentioned how another scientist at a different site is going to take the global lead. It makes sense because he's a better scientist imo (90% of our exploratory publications are under his name, as well as the new assays, technology, or whatever we develop). My father takes this information, filters it through his past experience, which is limited, and starts going on about how my boss was probably caught taking credit for work that didn't belong to him. He became quite passionate in his warrantless rant.

I don't see the connection...

It amazes me how people can so easily superimpose whatever bizarre ideas they have onto just about anybody.

Again, "superimposing" what exactly? That men in business suits flirt with women at starbucks or sandwich shops? Or assuming that the girl in the coffee or sandwich could possibly be the higher earning individual between the two? I'm sorry, it's a ridiculous and disingenous assumption to make.

I don't think 6 figures is loaded either, but next to a minimum wage earner it is and it is certainly a class divide generally when considering terminal positions/profession. Obvsiously, that's not the case with students.

Then why call it "loaded" in the first place? Again, as I''ve explained, in NYC, a five figure, 6 figure earning guy hangs out in many of the same places that someone making minimum wage earns. Many of the clubs, lounges, restaurants etc are patronized by just about everyone.

I can't make that clear enough.

It isn't uncommon to see a celebrity or two in some these places either. If you think otherwise, then obviously you've never been to the East Village, Tribeca, Union Sq etc. I've been in plenty of clubs, restaurants, lounges, and other venues and have run into people with ridiculously high salaries and others earning minimum wage, sharing a 3 bedroom apartment with 3-4 people. What? You think the guys with high incomes are turning down the opportunity to meet beautiful women just because she's a waitress, secretary, broke student, or whatever else? Sorry doesn't work that way. The guys will hit on them, buy them drinks take them home, and if they like them enough, call them the next day. Nothing unsual there. Some end up in long term relationships (such as my fiances friends) others don't, again nothing unsual.

I do think it's surprising, but I don't really have much experience with that kind of venue.

Travel to NYC...particularly in Tribeca, SOHO, NOHO, East/West Village, Union Sq etc etc.

I would guess. Although, I do not figure it to be common. My reasoning- For the past 30-50 years the most common way people met for dating purposes were via friends.

That doesn't relate to what I'm stating above.

Friends tend to have similar interests/hobbies, backgrounds, culture, education, and SES.

Yes, but those things aren't necessarily relevent to income.

So, when folk meet via friends it's likely to be individuals of the same cloth.

Same cloth isn't defined by income unless you're on the upper echelons of the income bracket. Besides, you're escaping the original point here. The idea isn't that men who are wealthy go hunting for minimum wage earning females. The idea is that they don't place the same value on income and education as a woman would place on a man, hence why a disproportionate men with high incomes date/sex/ and marry women with lower incomes than the reverse.

The next most common ways are family, college, and work (that's surprising). I don't think there is great disparity among colleagues is most work places. This lines up with what is reported in census as well. Proximity rules. The majority outlier of server/barista just doesn't fit that well in the grand scheme of the data.

None of what you're saying is countering the point that was being made from the jump. Sure men and women tend to meet their spouses, significant others, jump offs, friends with benefits etc etc more often in their same social circles, but men are far more likely to drift out of that circle than women are. The is even more evident by the fact that men are much more likely to approach women randomly then women are, providing them with the possibility that he could be with a woman outside of his norm.

That is the case for most and most are not decent earners (I won't say high). Blue collar workers significantly out earn pink collar workers. But, white collar workers? I don't buy it (sorry ladies). When I review wage disparity data far too often are all professions and wages thrown into one pot. When the data is parsed and filtered appropriately, tho, we see that young professional women are not only earning as much as their young male counterparts, but often times out earning them (I doubt it's a significant difference).

You're subdividing the data to extrapolate a point that you aren't otherwise able to make if you were looking at the bottom line of things. Men generally out earn women (that's a no brainer). Generally they are with women who make less than they do; while those exceptional women who out earn men are less likely to be paired (or accept) themselves to be paired with men of lower means, despite having the same culture, education etc etc. If there's a difference in income, the man is at a severe disadvantage regardless of the other variables.

Yes, I have heard it as well. I’m reluctant to consider those comments with a blanketed view

I wouldn't. I'll say it firmly and have witnessed it more times than I can remember when the issue came up. Women of means generally seek out companions of equal financial means. Men generally seek out women who are more socially compatible to their personal tastes.

. It really depends on the women (their SES, education, etc). For example, a 20k difference is going to be a big deal for a woman who earns 25-30k. It’s going to be less of an issue for a woman earning 120k

Disagree lol. I'll simply say this. A guy making 50k is far more likely to be accepting of a woman making 30k than a woman making 50k is of a man making 30k, provided that the women meets his aesthetic needs.

[itshim]

Originally Posted by himain

You've got to be kidding me?? I can't keep guys off me, young and old, and I'm 36 turning 37 in two months. I've always received attention but definately more now that my body and frame of mind is much better than any 20 something year old..

Although we all haven't had the privelege of gracing your presence, I still think this holds true for most women. Not every woman, but most...yes.

Besides, I have a few female friends in their late 30s, who are attractive, single, financially stable so on and so fourth. They often do attract men. HOWEVER, the second they drop the bomb that they're 35+ the guys tend to run in the other direction. This is especially true for single men who are looking to get married, or engage in a LTR who are in the upper 30s themselves or younger. When you tell a guy you are "37" in his mind, the number "40" is flashing, because all he is thinking is that in 3 years you will be 40. lol.

[moonsavvy]

Originally Posted by itshim

HOWEVER, the second they drop the bomb that they're 35+ the guys tend to run in the other direction. When you tell a guy you are "37" in his mind, the number "40" is flashing, because all he is thinking is that in 3 years you will be 40. lol.

Maybe if the woman is dating a 20 something. The number 40 shouldn't be scaring mature and attractive men. If it does, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[itshim]

Originally Posted by moonsavvy

Maybe if the woman is dating a 20 something. The number 40 shouldn't be scaring mature and attractive men. If it does, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I was told about this by my female friends in their mid-late 30s about guys who are usually in their early to mid 30s. I gotta say--it makes total sense. if I were a 33 yr old guy looking to be married, have kids etc I would probably be put off by the idea of being with a 35+ yr old woman when I could possibly be with someone a few years younger and attractive. Think about it, if you're 35, it'll probably take 2 years atleast to get married. And if you want kids after marriage, you're talking about starting immediately and taking 9 months to have your first. If you want a 2nd child, you'll probably need to start right away, putting you at around 40+. Honestly, If I was that guy, I'd probably prefer to take my chances fishing in the lake of late 20 and early 30 something year olds.

[InTheNameOfGod]

Originally Posted by laorbust61

So the idea that 40 year olds are as attractive as 23 year olds, is laughable.

What's laughable to 40 year old women is the realization that men who have the kind of thinking of,

"You're ___ years old; fewer or no men are interested in you anymore"

These are the men who tend to lean towards controlling behavior with women; they are the ones who tend to view them as objects to gratify their lusts; they prefer younger women because they are easier to "manage" You may be able to dictate to a 21 year old who they should be and what they should want, but try that with a typical woman at midlife. You might get your itty bitty feelings hurt.

Because most men are controlling pigs, am I right?

[swanstone1]

Originally Posted by mariagostrey

with the quarterlife crisis comes another for twenty five year old girls everywhere; fear of fading youth. though technically we have 5 more years of perky youthfulness on our side, it is hard to look sideways when the men we want to date seem to bypass us for the freshly blossomed 21 year olds joining the dating pool.
so what do you, smart nerdy men at city-data think of 25 year old girls? Are they past their prime?How at this point in their life should they be navigating the dating pool to capitalize most of whats left of their beauty and youth?

Uhmmmm. Excuse me? Maybe we are "past our prime at 25", as in "25 years past menopause." Climb out from under that rock and rejoice and spread the news!

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by itshim

Again, I think you're simply rationalizing the obvious to stick with your original argument that hides behind a series of "what if's" and "maybes." I think most people agree that men, regardless of income bracket, can and do go after women that they deem physically desirable.

I don't think you understand how to apply the word rationalize in appropriate context. I have never said anything about men not going for the most attractive woman. That is another dubious assumption on your part. I said that men, people in general really, couple with their own. Likes with likes. Take you and your own finance as an example. Do the two of you differ significantly in the ways of looks, level of education, culture, and SES? I'm not saying anything new here. I'm noting reality.

I've clearly outlined the scenerio to prove that the probability that the woman making the coffee is out earning the wall street broker is nothing more than irrational.

I never said the barista was out-earning anyone either. What I am saying is that you have no idea what their conversation may be about if they're having one. You have no idea what he's about or what she's about. You have no idea what their intentions are. This is all a matter of fact when it comes to strangers.

I do, all the time. I've seen doctors, lawyers. stock brokers etc pull plenty of women who weren't doctors, lawyers or other professional themselves. Again, not hard to fathom. As a matter of fact, many of them will tell you that given their positions, it is extremely easy to pull women not in their caliber.

I'm sure you see it all the time on TV.

I still don't buy the idea that this is merely an assumption rather than a probability.

That's probably because you are uninformed. For example, "Decades of research suggest that the old adage about birds of a feather is true — especially when it comes to education. People tend to marry people who have achieved similar levels of schooling.
Time healthland.

It's common knowledge that likes couple with likes. You are suggesting it common that unlikes couple with unlikes based on assumptions from watching people you don't know in coffee shops. It's not about probability anything. It's nonsense.

I don't see the connection...

There are plenty of examples above. You assume wrongly about my argument (that men aren't going for the most attractive woman), that you know what strangers are doing and the literature clearly contradicts you. None of that will likely matter, correct?

Again, "superimposing" what exactly? That men in business suits flirt with women at starbucks or sandwich shops? Or assuming that the girl in the coffee or sandwich could possibly be the higher earning individual between the two? I'm sorry, it's a ridiculous and disingenous assumption to make.

Your argument is not that men are flirting at starbucks. Your argument is that these men are sweeping these baristas off their feet, that minimum wage earners are dating way up scale, etc.

Then why call it "loaded" in the first place? Again, as I''ve explained, in NYC, a five figure, 6 figure earning guy hangs out in many of the same places that someone making minimum wage earns. Many of the clubs, lounges, restaurants etc are patronized by just about everyone.

It's relative. You really need that explained to you? And that 6-figure guy who was hanging out as an undergrad, hanging out as a grad student, hanging out with his friends who were doing the same thing as he, does not have the minimum wage earner hanging out with him as an undergrad, grad, etc.

It isn't uncommon to see a celebrity or two in some these places either. If you think otherwise, then obviously you've never been to the East Village, Tribeca, Union Sq etc.

I was born in Manhattan, grew up in Jersey, and then moved back to the city as a young lady. I know exactly how expensive it is to live and party there.

Yes, but those things aren't necessarily relevent to income.

Income is one variable in the pot. That's why I mention my girlfriend. She out-earns her husband by quite a bit, but they are of the same cloth just the same. Both Harvard grads, both attorneys, both driven, etc.

Same cloth isn't defined by income unless you're on the upper echelons of the income bracket.

Then it would do you well to google and learn what SES means. I assumed you did. Of course, the incessant "education, culture, background" on my part should have been enough to have clued you in.

Besides, you're escaping the original point here.

No, I'm not. That is my only point. It's why you are wrong.

The idea isn't that men who are wealthy go hunting for minimum wage earning females. The idea is that they don't place the same value on income and education as a woman would place on a man, hence why a disproportionate men with high incomes date/sex/ and marry women with lower incomes than the reverse.

It makes no difference what their assumed value system is. The facts are what they are and that's birds of a feather. What you are suggesting. What many here on CD suggest about the wealthy professional hooking up with the going no where barista, is fodder fed to you by the A. the boob tube B. the net (likely blogs) and C. each other.

None of what you're saying is countering the point that was being made from the jump. Sure men and women tend to meet their spouses, significant others, jump offs, friends with benefits etc etc more often in their same social circles, but men are far more likely to drift out of that circle than women are. The is even more evident by the fact that men are much more likely to approach women randomly then women are, providing them with the possibility that he could be with a woman outside of his norm.

There is no reason to believe that. Your saying it is irrelevant. I'm going by the data. It's clear. If you are privy to data I'm unaware of, please link it.

You're subdividing the data to extrapolate a point that you aren't otherwise able to make if you were looking at the bottom line of things.

That's exactly how you are supposed to review and consider the data. I understand your point in that more women earn less than men, but that's not about gender. It's about choices. What's important to keep in mind is the disparity seen between the classes when considering wage. It's dependent on all the class variables noted in this thread.

Men generally out earn women (that's a no brainer).

Just to have this out there...

"So now it’s official — young women are outdoing men at work. The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that female twenty somethings earn more than their male peers — 3.6 per cent more, to be precise"
Source.

15 jobs where women earn more than men.

The trend will continue.

Generally they are with women who make less than they do; while those exceptional women who out earn men are less likely to be paired (or accept) themselves to be paired with men of lower means, despite having the same culture, education etc etc. If there's a difference in income, the man is at a severe disadvantage regardless of the other variables.

I don't buy it. But, maybe you should share what this income disparity is. How much are you talking? Is the woman going to care about 10K?, 20K? 50k? How much?

I wouldn't. I'll say it firmly and have witnessed it more times than I can remember when the issue came up. Women of means generally seek out companions of equal financial means. Men generally seek out women who are more socially compatible to their personal tastes.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. You paint a shallow picture for women. The reality is that my experiences with my girlfriends follow the reported data closely. I'm a scientist married to a chemist. Roughly 90% of my colleagues at work (men and women who I'm friendly with) have spouses who are also scientists. My best guy friend, 6-figure earner (QA/IT @ big pharma) is with an attorney. My best girlfriend (teacher and writer) and is with a writer/producer. My other girlfriend, a surgical tech, is now divorced from her idiot ex, a nurse.

How about you? Are you a six figure earner with a minimum wage worker? 2:1 you follow suit like most of us.

Disagree lol. I'll simply say this. A guy making 50k is far more likely to be accepting of a woman making 30k than a woman making 50k is of a man making 30k, provided that the women meets his aesthetic needs.

Disagree with what? I think when you're earning that little 20k is going to matter to a woman. I don't deny that. Although, there are so many male bums out there getting married, having kids, getting booty that I really have to wonder.