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.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou
I never had a problem with number 2 because I am already am attractive. I suppose I could have plastic surgery to be more attractive but that's about it and not doing that. Number 1 is why I failed online but also why many others fail. I refused to date dads and because I only date childless men I failed because many of the childless men didn't want me. However many of those childless men failed because the younger women didn't date them. So in other words if the childless men gave me a chance and had been less delusional I may have had more luck. Yes I would have had better luck if I dated dads but messing with my personal morals isn't something I can do. I stuck to the morals and found a man, many of the men who were delusional are still online.
It is, only I was seeking a man like me (childless)but these men were seeking a woman different than them much younger). I found my man, they are still seeking for a mate.
Depends on what you mean. For me, I can't help who I am/am not attracted to. I don't care about money, looks too much, or whatever the case may be. But if I don't like you, I just don't like you. When I like someone I don't really pay attention to superficial things...my feelings just come when they want to.
As far as being attractive enough for guys....I don't have any problems in that department. Not that it really matters.
Yeah, I hate it when people think they're being all clever by making random and usually controversial statements and then simply writing "discuss." It's total retardedness because they never elaborate, thus demonstrating that they have put no actual thought into the subject themselves, but are hoping to create a "hot" thread just based on the controversy.
1. Lower your pickiness/standards or whatever you want to call it.
I think I've already lowered them as far as I'm willing to.
Quote:
2. Increase your attractiveness to the opposite sex
Although I'm not overweight (yet), it would be nice if I worked out and ate better. But if I'm being honest with myself, I like food more than men, so what's the point?
The OP's twin options are predicated on the assumption that (1) the dating pool is fixed, (2) everyone has access to everyone else, and (3) a selection will eventually be made. This would be true in a village mating ceremony, where all of the men line up on one side, all of the women on the opposite side, and the selection begins. By day's end, all of the eligible males and females have been parsed into couples, save for a few "losers" who remain unattached. Presumably the best males pair with the best females, and so on down the line. Those who are not "the best", indeed have precisely those two options that the OP proposed: either they make overtures to less attractive mates, or they somehow improve their own mating value.
In modern reality, the dating pool isn't fixed. There are always additional options. For every attractive person, there are many other even more attractive people.
Second, a given man or woman might be isolated and not visible as a potential candidate. His or her mating-value might actually be very high, but if there is no suitable venue for men and women to meet, neither would be recognized as a potential mate. If there is large asymmetry in a given mating pool (vastly more men than women, or vice versa), then even excellent candidates on the more numerous side are at a strong disadvantage.
Third, and most important as polemic against "lowering one's standards": those candidates who find themselves to be the ones selected by candidates of low mating value, would not accept their role as fallback plans or consolation prizes. Finding their own choices thwarted, they would simply absent themselves from the market. In the case of the village, everyone is expected to choose a mate. In the modern world, there's no law that says that if you're unmarried beyond a certain age, you will starve or be expelled from the village.
A better dating/mating strategy is to seek venues where like-minded candidates abound. This, however, is much more easily said than done.
The OP's twin options are predicated on the assumption that (1) the dating pool is fixed, (2) everyone has access to everyone else, and (3) a selection will eventually be made. This would be true in a village mating ceremony, where all of the men line up on one side, all of the women on the opposite side, and the selection begins. By day's end, all of the eligible males and females have been parsed into couples, save for a few "losers" who remain unattached. Presumably the best males pair with the best females, and so on down the line. Those who are not "the best", indeed have precisely those two options that the OP proposed: either they make overtures to less attractive mates, or they somehow improve their own mating value.
In modern reality, the dating pool isn't fixed. There are always additional options. For every attractive person, there are many other even more attractive people.
Second, a given man or woman might be isolated and not visible as a potential candidate. His or her mating-value might actually be very high, but if there is no suitable venue for men and women to meet, neither would be recognized as a potential mate. If there is large asymmetry in a given mating pool (vastly more men than women, or vice versa), then even excellent candidates on the more numerous side are at a strong disadvantage.
Third, and most important as polemic against "lowering one's standards": those candidates who find themselves to be the ones selected by candidates of low mating value, would not accept their role as fallback plans or consolation prizes. Finding their own choices thwarted, they would simply absent themselves from the market. In the case of the village, everyone is expected to choose a mate. In the modern world, there's no law that says that if you're unmarried beyond a certain age, you will starve or be expelled from the village.
A better dating/mating strategy is to seek venues where like-minded candidates abound. This, however, is much more easily said than done.
An interesting and right-on post.
So, how did it work in the village? Was everyone happy, or at least content, with who they ended up with? How did those marriages work out? Did people simply endure living with someone they weren't all that attracted to, just for stability's sake? I think some coped by having affairs. Village life had a tendency towards scandal.
So, how did it work in the village? Was everyone happy, or at least content, with who they ended up with? How did those marriages work out? Did people simply endure living with someone they weren't all that attracted to, just for stability's sake? I think some coped by having affairs. Village life had a tendency towards scandal.
It seems to me that people "endured" as a matter of course. They endured a paltry and boring diet, unsanitary living conditions, unappealing mates, oppressive religious impositions, incurable disease and an early death. A failed harvest, or confiscation of the harvest by the manor lord, meant starvation. But the tasks of finding and retaining a mate were comparatively much easier.
To me, the great irony of modern life is that I have zero concern about affording my next meal, or what might happen if I contract a disease. I have zero reason to worry that barbarians will ride in from the east, slaughtering me or my people; or that I'll be conscripted to fight in some distant war, never to see my homeland again; or that I'll be accused of heresy and burned at the stake... none of these things are rational fears any more. But this whole relationship thing... how to start one, how to propitiate one... this is a comparatively new problem. We've figured out how to treat tuberculosis. We can drink our water straight out of the tap, without boiling it. We have pipes and vessels internal to our houses, for washing our bodies and flushing waste. These are all marvelous things! But we've erected new barriers and new problems that were utterly irrelevant and non-existent centuries ago. We've made formerly bafflingly complicated things simple, but have also made simple things complex. Instead of unalloyed progress it's rather something of a mixture. And sitting here in my armchair, pondering it all, I'm disappointed that it's too much of a mixture.
1. Lower your pickiness/standards or whatever you want to call it.
Or change/swap your standards or whatever entomology/semantics you want to give it.
AND/OR
2. Increase your attractiveness to the opposite sex
Discuss.
I concur with the former. That's how I became a serial dater online. I went out with anyone who ask to meet. If they ask me in person? No way in hell I would say yes.
Last edited by meaning; 08-06-2014 at 08:06 PM..
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.
