Generally, dating success just comes down to 2 rules... (single, statistics, personality)
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.
some people want to have many dates with many different partners, memorable experiences but ultimately delay or forgo committment or monogamous selection (e.g., play the field indefinitely).
other people want to meet "The One" and drop out of the dating pool and delete their online profile. Perhaps they want to achieve a permanent lasting relationship with marriage and children (or not), but they too will have their memorable experiences.
Both may claim 'success' when polled about their feelings.
Techcrium, you're scoping the dating-problem in terms of market concepts, of supply and demand. This isn't at all a fallacious idea, and in fact I like your analogy. But this approach is excessively simplistic.
If I'm hawking my wares at the village produce market, I can either lower my prices (analogously, seek mates of a lower standard) or I can improve my product (analogously, make myself more attractive). This is a suitable analogy, would you agree?
Well, here's the rub. If my customers need to eat, yes they're going to have to buy food at the market. Whether they buy from me, or from another vendor, depends on my prices and my product. But dating and sex are optional, unlike eating. If no vendors at the dating-market have good prices, or good products, the shoppers have the option to leave empty-handed. I could lower my prices substantially, or improve my product substantially, and that might sway a few shoppers. But others are simply going to peruse the articles, going from stall to stall, and leave. Now of course they still want to buy something in principle. But they're not particularly eager. My capacity to bargain is limited, because the counterparty has the option of walking away.
It is this lack of bargaining-power that causes the fundamental problem in your analogy!
But there's a deeper problem – one that I missed in my first posting above. Suppose that by whatever means, you find your lady. What if she comes to realize that she's not your optimal choice, but the result of your "lowering your standards"? She'd be disgusted, feeling that you chose her as a matter of convenience, as the least bad option. She'd be disgusted, and will leave in disgust. Instead it is necessary to genuinely want her, not through feint or forgery, but unambiguous conviction; not that she was the last remaining target at the bar, or the target of opportunity, but your ideal choice, your natural choice. This requires a transformation in the self – not a tactic or a yielding to the confines of one's environment. And this is very difficult to do. Most people are reluctant to do this, and failing the satisfaction of their desires, they simply opt out of the market.
I wholeheartedly wish that we DID live in a society where men and women would line up opposite each other, and mates would be chosen that very day, with a public ceremony to solemnize the deal. But we don't. We live in a not-quite market society, where choices abound, but consequence of choice can't be reduced to product-selection.
May we all fare the best.
Market theory works in everything in life including dating.
It is why the tall guys have more options than short guys...
Guys with high paying jobs have more options than unemployed guys...
Beautiful women have more options than ugly women...
I used food as an example but I could have used an elastic product such as a TV or cellphone.
No one absolutely NEEDS a TV or a cellphone for survival. However, for the correct price, someone will purchase it. If you are hawking your TV wares at a market, I guarantee you that if you "hawked" a 60" TV and a 40" TV at the same price, the 60" will do better no matter what. Why? 60" has more demand.
However, if you lower your price for the 40", it might even do better than the 60".
No market has ever predicted/explained falling in love.
It's funny how love often gets left out of it in a thread like this. I was talking about a jerk boyfriend I had in another thread who abandoned me in a potentially dangerous situation. He later apologized and gave me a lame excuse which I accepted. Another poster said that he must have been really good looking for me to do that. The idea that I was just blindly in love never crossed the other poster's mind.
I have to wonder if a lot of these threads that show a lack of understanding for the human emotional element of things and put things in "black and white" and even economic terms are just because the people posting them haven't experienced love, which throws all logic and rationality out the window, yet. I wonder if, once they do, they will then "get it."
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,842,621 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillabean
It's funny how love often gets left out of it in a thread like this. I was talking about a jerk boyfriend I had in another thread who abandoned me in a potentially dangerous situation. He later apologized and gave me a lame excuse which I accepted. Another poster said that he must have been really good looking for me to do that. The idea that I was just blindly in love never crossed the other poster's mind.
I have to wonder if a lot of these threads that show a lack of understanding for the human emotional element of things and put things in "black and white" and even economic terms are just because the people posting them haven't experienced love, which throws all logic and rationality out the window, yet. I wonder if, once they do, they will then "get it."
You're so right. Love is left out of the vast majority of the threads on here. Should I stay, should I go, is he the right one for me, blah blah... they all fail to mentioned being in love or not. It's rather quite sad. I think you're spot on, most of these people have never fallen in love. They like and care about the other person, but that's a far cry from being in love.
No one absolutely NEEDS a TV or a cellphone for survival. However, for the correct price, someone will purchase it. If you are hawking your TV wares at a market, I guarantee you that if you "hawked" a 60" TV and a 40" TV at the same price, the 60" will do better no matter what. Why? 60" has more demand.
However, if you lower your price for the 40", it might even do better than the 60".
Supply/demand theory goes beyond just markets.
If someone's selling a 40" TV for $20, I'll buy it even though I don't need it, but ONLY if I think I can sell it to someone else for more than $20. If I don't think I can sell it for more, then I won't buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillabean
I have to wonder if a lot of these threads that show a lack of understanding for the human emotional element of things and put things in "black and white" and even economic terms are just because the people posting them haven't experienced love, which throws all logic and rationality out the window, yet. I wonder if, once they do, they will then "get it."
I think it's a coping mechanism to handle rejection. Let's say you're a short unattractive guy who gets rejected a lot. That rejection hurts. It feels even worse when you see the girl you wanted end up with the tall, good-looking bad boy who'll treat her like dirt. But if you tell yourself it's just "market forces at work", that makes it easier to take the rejection less personally and lessen the pain of it. Have you noticed that it's usually men who use this market value analogy? I think that gives insight into how these men see women. "Oh, the woman rejected me because I'm short and opted for the bad boy because he's tall and good-looking." It's a less-than-subtle way of criticizing women for rejecting them.
I think it's a coping mechanism to handle rejection. Let's say you're a short unattractive guy who gets rejected a lot. That rejection hurts. It feels even worse when you see the girl you wanted end up with the tall, good-looking bad boy who'll treat her like dirt. But if you tell yourself it's just "market forces at work", that makes it easier to take the rejection less personally and lessen the pain of it. Have you noticed that it's usually men who use this market value analogy? I think that gives insight into how these men see women. "Oh, the woman rejected me because I'm short and opted for the bad boy because he's tall and good-looking." It's a less-than-subtle way of criticizing women for rejecting them.
Alright, so continuing with your example,
the hypothetical short guy who gets rejected all the time, what is he to do?
The only people who are against the OP are already successful at dating and relationships. Kind of hypocritical, if you ask me.
1. Yes, if you lower your standards, you'd probably find someone who you didn't find attractive before, who would be a perfect match for you. This goes double for those who are average, and look for supermodels.
2. How is this a bad thing? Earn more money, get a better job, get a house, move out on your own, work out and get a better body, etc.
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.