Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Man, Johnny Depp, is looking old. Leonardo DiCaprio is looking old too. They were serious eye- candy when they were young. Never was a George Clooney fan. Brad Pitt is no spring chicken but damn he still looks yummy.
Their height of good looks to me:
Johnny Depp - from the beginning of his career all the way until about 2000.
Brad Pitt- from the beginning of his career and still today
Leonardo DiCaprio - about 5 years post Titanic. He's crashing now though.
Some guys just look bad like Paul McCartney have you seen him lately he looks like Angela Lansbury and to top it off she his old lady hobbled off with almost all his stuff.
Give him a break, dude is in his 70's (and we all know he could still pull down women in their 30's. Not that that's not a specific example and hardly true for 99% of men in their 70's.)
The rise in divorce and serial dating has caused this problem. Also, the rise in female power in the workplace has contributed to this too. Before, a man could likely be a little childish, but since he was the breadwinner, SAHM were likely more apt to let it slide. SAHM are less today and are likely going to continue to decrease. As men, we have to bring it more today than we have ever had too. A woman who's attractive and has her life together is attractive to a VERY wide range of men. A man who's exactly the same in attributes still has a range, but I don't believe it's as wide as it once was. At the same time, I believe competition for men has become stiffer as well. There's more single men available who are attractive and have their life together.
The equality thing has been a plus for happiness though. There was a NY Times article posted about that in a recent thread, and the men quoted in it & referred to were happier when the relationship was somewhere in the 50-50 to 40-60 ratio of home-to-work responsibilities (with the 40-60 being more home chores for the woman & more income-earning work for the man). The traditional couples were less happy, but so were those with the woman being more in the traditional male role, so it seems equal is most satisfying.
I think men may have to bring more to the table, true, but so do women (just wanting to be a SAHM can make people think they're pathetic, gold-diggers, etc). I think it's more about being a well-rounded person than filling a rather rigid role, but sometimes that leads to too high expectations when the idea of "well-rounded" is not reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by srjth
Man, Johnny Depp, is looking old. Leonardo DiCaprio is looking old too. They were serious eye- candy when they were young. Never was a George Clooney fan. Brad Pitt is no spring chicken but damn he still looks yummy.
Their height of good looks to me:
Johnny Depp - from the beginning of his career all the way until about 2000.
Brad Pitt- from the beginning of his career and still today
Leonardo DiCaprio - about 5 years post Titanic. He's crashing now though.
Pitt isn't hot to me anymore (face looks haggard, too much gray in the hair), although his body looks okay still.
George Clooney is downright GEEZER & he had too arrogant a vibe to ever be really HOT. The last movie I saw him in, he looked like a prune somebody stepped on. Don't even want to imagine what he looks like naked
For a while I thought Brad Pitt was looking old, but then I looked again and said "Nah, he still looks good". But you're younger than me so gray hair doesn't bother me as much. At least he has all of his hair and his body looks fantastic.
lol@ George Clooney. I don't really pay attention to him and haven't for a while.
The equality thing has been a plus for happiness though. There was a NY Times article posted about that in a recent thread, and the men quoted in it & referred to were happier when the relationship was somewhere in the 50-50 to 40-60 ratio of home-to-work responsibilities (with the 40-60 being more home chores for the woman & more income-earning work for the man). The traditional couples were less happy, but so were those with the woman being more in the traditional male role, so it seems equal is most satisfying.
I think men may have to bring more to the table, true, but so do women (just wanting to be a SAHM can make people think they're pathetic, gold-diggers, etc). I think it's more about being a well-rounded person than filling a rather rigid role, but sometimes that leads to too high expectations when the idea of "well-rounded" is not reasonable.
Pitt isn't hot to me anymore (face looks haggard, too much gray in the hair), although his body looks okay still.
George Clooney is downright GEEZER & he had too arrogant a vibe to ever be really HOT. The last movie I saw him in, he looked like a prune somebody stepped on. Don't even want to imagine what he looks like naked
Hey, I have my shallow moments .
I wouldn't say a woman has to bring more. A woman getting her education and a career isn't to nab a man, it's to not need one. See what I did there? Haha
The childish breadwinner is a dying breed. Women in a sense are smarter and a bit less tolerant of crap. You may be able to fool a woman once, but you won't be able to do it twice. I don't think that was the case in the past. Now that I'm seriously on the dating scene, I'm seeing a lot of women who are fed up. Complaining that every guy messaging them is a douchebag, but can't recognize when someone different is taking an interest in them. To me, I see it as them talking out the side of their mouth. They focused so hard on the bad that they overlooked the good. I'm not saying you have to develop romantic feelings for every person you meet, but I think too many people have a laundry list of requirements that are just too elaborate. No one wants to, or has the desire to, try and be your square peg that you are jamming into the round hole. Less and less people are open to giving one person their attention. It's spread around too many people, which in the end, the spice of life will burn your tongue.
I wouldn't say a woman has to bring more. A woman getting her education and a career isn't to nab a man, it's to not need one. See what I did there? Haha
If she wants the equal relationship, the she needs to do more than just 50% of the housework. Even many who wouldn't mind 100% of the housework find they HAVE to work because few families can get by with one income.
And even still, career & education can be about self-fulfillment, not just financial independence or pulling one's own weight. Exploring one's potential outside of the home arena. It's not connected to needing/not needing a man, but their own identity.
Quote:
The childish breadwinner is a dying breed.
I wouldn't call all traditional men childish, although perhaps they didn't have to develop as much emotional depth, true. There were a lot of ethical concepts which developed due to men having more power yet recognizing that with it came certain responsibilities - the whole chivalrous/gentleman thing is an example of that. It was to prevent power abuse & care for women who had less social power & freedom. This is why that stuff is going the way of the do-do bird also.
But I think it was just different times, and even economically, the old roles don't make sense anymore. People have to adapt as cultures change, which they inevitably do.
Quote:
Women in a sense are smarter and a bit less tolerant of crap. You may be able to fool a woman once, but you won't be able to do it twice. I don't think that was the case in the past.
We have the social & economic power & freedom to not stick with someone who's crappy. That's good, because that means when a woman sticks with you, it's out of love, loyalty, respect, etc, not just to survive financially or avoid being a social outcast.
Quote:
Now that I'm seriously on the dating scene, I'm seeing a lot of women who are fed up. Complaining that every guy messaging them is a douchebag, but can't recognize when someone different is taking an interest in them. To me, I see it as them talking out the side of their mouth. They focused so hard on the bad that they overlooked the good. I'm not saying you have to develop romantic feelings for every person you meet, but I think too many people have a laundry list of requirements that are just too elaborate. No one wants to, or has the desire to, try and be your square peg that you are jamming into the round hole. Less and less people are open to giving one person their attention. It's spread around too many people, which in the end, the spice of life will burn your tongue.
I agree that people have ridiculous requirements, which makes them seem entitled. But I say "people" because many men do this also. They make claims of "I just want sex, food & sleep" or whatever, but even if that were true (it's not), that is not low-demands so much as low-functioning. It's asking a LOT to have someone tolerate you operating on the level of a dog. But it usually is not true; there are more expectations simply not expressed by men, for whatever reason. And women often are given no clue as to what these are outside of the looks department, in which we get conflicting messages.
I agree that in the digital age there are sooo many options that people DO decide to just keep looking for someone "more perfect". And when they find someone who seems their ideal, they get angry if that person doesn't return interest. They treat relationships like shopping, not an interpersonal dynamic with another human being.
But I will say that after having given lots of guys a chance when initially I was not too into them, I have started to do so less, because
1 - it never grows & then I feel bad about leading him on
2 - the reason I was not that into him is actually very valid & prevents long-term compatibility; the obstacle arises early on & even he accepts it
3 - we have stuff in common & he seems cool, so we date, he grows on me... then right about the time I develop feelings he decides he's not ready for something very serious after all. So then I got led on by someone I was not even that into to begin with. Bad deal for me.
The third scenario is what has made me wary of giving men a chance when I don't find them very attractive at first, and it's one of the common complaints I hear among women.
Give him a break, dude is in his 70's (and we all know he could still pull down women in their 30's. Not that that's not a specific example and hardly true for 99% of men in their 70's.)
Yea but he still got took to the cleaners and she hop her one legged self straight to the bank.
Besides he's probably worth half a billion and she got something like $50m. She walked away looking like a *****. Probably worth the 50 to him.
That is what I do not get about us guys sometimes for example Larry king was married 8 times you think after 3 times your like well marriage is not for me.
Also all the rich old people in there 60s and 70s its like my get married at all at that point all she wants is money and a lot of it.
I would just go the tiger woods way and sleep around why not? I think all the sex made tiger the best golfer in my life time.
The thing I do not get about the woman tiger woods had sex with they knew he was married come on he Tiger Woods he on TV a ton and Google his name and you find that out.
Yes men are more desirable with age because the have money a career and there crap together for the most part.
If she wants the equal relationship, the she needs to do more than just 50% of the housework. Even many who wouldn't mind 100% of the housework find they HAVE to work because few families can get by with one income.
And even still, career & education can be about self-fulfillment, not just financial independence or pulling one's own weight. Exploring one's potential outside of the home arena. It's not connected to needing/not needing a man, but their own identity.
I wouldn't call all traditional men childish, although perhaps they didn't have to develop as much emotional depth, true. There were a lot of ethical concepts which developed due to men having more power yet recognizing that with it came certain responsibilities - the whole chivalrous/gentleman thing is an example of that. It was to prevent power abuse & care for women who had less social power & freedom. This is why that stuff is going the way of the do-do bird also.
But I think it was just different times, and even economically, the old roles don't make sense anymore. People have to adapt as cultures change, which they inevitably do.
We have the social & economic power & freedom to not stick with someone who's crappy. That's good, because that means when a woman sticks with you, it's out of love, loyalty, respect, etc, not just to survive financially or avoid being a social outcast.
I agree that people have ridiculous requirements, which makes them seem entitled. But I say "people" because many men do this also. They make claims of "I just want sex, food & sleep" or whatever, but even if that were true (it's not), that is not low-demands so much as low-functioning. It's asking a LOT to have someone tolerate you operating on the level of a dog. But it usually is not true; there are more expectations simply not expressed by men, for whatever reason. And women often are given no clue as to what these are outside of the looks department, in which we get conflicting messages.
I agree that in the digital age there are sooo many options that people DO decide to just keep looking for someone "more perfect". And when they find someone who seems their ideal, they get angry if that person doesn't return interest. They treat relationships like shopping, not an interpersonal dynamic with another human being.
But I will say that after having given lots of guys a chance when initially I was not too into them, I have started to do so less, because
1 - it never grows & then I feel bad about leading him on
2 - the reason I was not that into him is actually very valid & prevents long-term compatibility; the obstacle arises early on & even he accepts it
3 - we have stuff in common & he seems cool, so we date, he grows on me... then right about the time I develop feelings he decides he's not ready for something very serious after all. So then I got led on by someone I was not even that into to begin with. Bad deal for me.
The third scenario is what has made me wary of giving men a chance when I don't find them very attractive at first, and it's one of the common complaints I hear among women.
On your comment about getting dumped by a guy you're not all that into. I can totally relate. Had it happen 3 weeks ago. She wasn't initially into me, but then she got more interested after our first date. She seemed a bit wish wash so I pulled back my feelings. We had our second date and by the end of the date it seemed her desire had faded. We ended up meeting one more time but she was wanting to pawn me off on her single friends that night. I wasn't very cool with that at all.
I wish I had the answer to make dating more fun for everyone. I'm running into more and more women who are just terriblyunsure about the process and are losing interest in continuing to try. It takes my joy from dating, because id love to go out on more dates and get to know more people, but I can't do that when so many people are tired of the process. It puts a bad taste in my mouth before I even get to meet the person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
