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.
I would say less than 20% of men over 40 are "reasonably fit". Most have a belly gut, etc. So that qualifier alone already disqualifies 80% of men.
50% of men are balding at that age too or have gone bald or are unattractive.
Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 80% of men carry a good conversation.
Let's assume 50% of THOSE are not looking for "insta wife" "insta girlfriend" whatever that means.
0.2 x 0.5 x 0.80 x 0.5 = 0.04
Simple mathematics show that basically you are looking for the top 4% of men. Although you make it appear like your qualifiers aren't very restrictive, when in reality, you've already disqualified 96% of men.
Now, my question to you is: Do you consider yourself a top 4% gal. If we lined you up against 99 other women, can you beat out 96 of them?
Mainly what she's asking is that the guys not be self-absorbed. That shouldn't be too much to ask.
These days more than 20% of men over 40 are fit. Men, like women, are staying fit and attractive longer than they used to. Over 50 would be another matter, but in the 40's more than 20% of men and women still look pretty young and are energetic. Probably closer to 40-50%, at least in the West and NE.
And her definition of "attractive" may not be yours; balding isn't a big deal, necessarily. However, I, and I think newdixiegirl as well, disagree that 80% of men can carry a good conversation. You haven't had to try to date men. It can be difficult to find any who are able to share a conversation, not monopolize it, and to show interest in their date
So your math needs to be redone. I think she's looking at quite a bit more than just 4%. She doesn't have to be in the top 4% herself. And I think the point is that all a lot of men have to do to be in the top, say, 40% at age 40+ is simply be better conversationalists. That's what's holding them back. They need to allow dialogue, and avoid falling into a monologue. Really, just that one thing would make a huge difference.
Newdixiegirl, apparently the guy you seek is part of the top 1% and extremely elusive, or he's omnipresent and you just need to look harder. Take your pick.
While this smacks of rather excessive hyperbole, the overall gist merits elaboration. Let's consider the following analogy.
Suppose that I operate a small business – a single proprietorship. It's a decent business, but not particularly thriving. Should I expand? Maybe. The market offers opportunities, but expansion means hiring employees. I want the best employees possible… loyal, trustworthy, competent, skilled. Merely mediocre employees might hurt my profit margin, more than offering any discernible benefit. Why complicate my life and risk my business by hiring any but the very best? And if my town lacks sufficiently skilled candidates, I won't hire anyone. There's no compulsion to expand. The business will hum along as single-proprietorship.
Now suppose that it so happened that I bought too much machinery for my business. The machinery is sitting idle, rusting and depreciating. I can't sell it without incurring unacceptable loss. The machinery is complicated, but requires only modest skill for its operation. Now I'm motivated to hire, even if the local pool is shallow and no candidates are particularly appealing. Unless my putative new employees outright steal from me, or sabotage the machines, they are worthwhile acquisitions. Sure, I'd love to hire the best employees, maximally boosting my profits. But I'm content with marginal employees, just to keep the business afloat.
Dating 70 years ago was akin to the second example above. Modern dating follows the first example. In the modern case, the majority of female candidates might never get approached, and the majority of male candidates might get incessantly rejected. In modern dating, there's little impetus to expand the "business" merely for the sake of expansion. We all want to run a profitable business. This inordinately favors the top candidates, while shunting aside the great masses to structural unemployment.
The resolution to this problem is a tightening of the labor market. If this happens, more people gain employment, with two consequences: (1) employers can't afford to be so selective anymore, and (2) the newly-employed suddenly have purchasing power, increasing consumer-demand, and therefore strengthening business-owners' rationale for expansion. Now suddenly those erstwhile marginal candidates become appealing.
How, in modern dating, do we produce a "tightening" of the market?
I don't think it is a valid analogy because the reason that modern dating is harder due to media and portrayal of great lifestyle.
In the old days, people lived in a small village and basically dated in the village. Just like people worked their entire life one 1 job and that was their only job.
Today, you have people job hopping have 2 years trying to figure themselves out.
Just like in dating, people always want better.
In the old days, when 2 people hit a rough patch, they learned to resolve it. I see it in my parents. They fought all the time, but they are still together, and still in a relationship.
Today, when you hit a rough patch, because of ease of mobility, you can break up and start anew so easily.
However, I, and I think newdixiegirl as well, disagree that 80% of men can carry a good conversation. You haven't had to try to date men. It can be difficult to find any who are able to share a conversation, not monopolize it, and to show interest in their date
Coincidentally, my best female friend told me something along the same lines as this. She said that a lot of men she has gone on dates with are not very good conversationalists. It's definitely something to consider. I always figured I was a good conversationalist. But I pay attention a little more closely now to see if I'm dictating the conversation and "monopolizing" it as you put it.
OTOH, I've dated a good number of women who just don't say much or aren't very good at leading a conversation, so I end up feeling like I have to lead it myself during these particular dates. I wonder if women pay attention to this about themselves.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,935,179 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleur
Coincidentally, my best female friend told me something along the same lines as this. She said that a lot of men she has gone on dates with are not very good conversationalists. It's definitely something to consider. I always figured I was a good conversationalist. But I pay attention a little more closely now to see if I'm dictating the conversation and "monopolizing" it as you put it.
OTOH, I've dated a good number of women who just don't say much or aren't very good at leading a conversation, so I end up feeling like I have to lead it myself during these particular dates. I wonder if women pay attention to this about themselves.
There are lots of women that can't converse well, of course. It's a human thing (like most), not a male of female thing.
The fascinating (and frustrating) thing with OLD is the number of people that can carry on a conversation well via the written word but in person they can't at all.
I would say less than 20% of men over 40 are "reasonably fit". Most have a belly gut, etc. So that qualifier alone already disqualifies 80% of men.
50% of men are balding at that age too or have gone bald or are unattractive.
Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 80% of men carry a good conversation.
Let's assume 50% of THOSE are not looking for "insta wife" "insta girlfriend" whatever that means.
0.2 x 0.5 x 0.80 x 0.5 = 0.04
Simple mathematics show that basically you are looking for the top 4% of men. Although you make it appear like your qualifiers aren't very restrictive, when in reality, you've already disqualified 96% of men.
Now, my question to you is: Do you consider yourself a top 4% gal. If we lined you up against 99 other women, can you beat out 96 of them?
*Note: I haven't even taken into account that most of those men who meet your qualifiers are most likely snatched up at a younger age by women already, so it is probably even less...like less than 1%
The "insta wife" or "instra girlfriend" is something I've noticed with dating too. Basically, it's the men who are quick to name you their girlfriend or start talking marriage (even before you know their last name!) It's kind of crazy and counter-intuitive to what you think of when you think of men and commitment (the cliche being the women want to rush to the alter and the men are wary of commitment). It happens a lot with men who were married and now divorced. At least, they are the ones I noticed who seem to think this way. Also, it's almost ALL of the men I've met though things like OLD, speed dating, singles events, etc.
For me, that's been the hardest obstacle with men to get around and I have yet to meet a man who was interested in me and just dating to get to know each other. A man who wasn't interested in something committed (for the sake of being committed) within the first month of meeting him.
And I get what she is saying about these men talking about themselves a lot. I run into that when dating too. And I think a lot of people fall into that trap (men and women... like Timberline says). Of course with me, it's men I run into. I kind of always figured it was because I am quiet and I really do like to listen to other people. But I've heard this now from other women (and men) as well. I have to wonder if its nerves, the person talking too much is trying too hard to "sell him or herself," or if they are really that obsessed with themselves (or maybe all three).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anabasis X
Those men are out there, its just that many people have skewed perception of their own sexual market value. IMHO, women peak sexual value is between ages of 18-24 , while men do not peak until their late 30s for obvious reasons based in evolutionary theory. By the time a man is 40, he usually has a pretty good career, good social standing and knows exactly how to get what he wants. He now has a pick of 20 somethings who will gladly date him for a night or two. Gee, should he choose a 25 year old, no string attached hottie or a post wall 40 something desperate woman with declining looks?
Few years back there was a survey done on one of the online dating sites and the results were staggering. As a group, women found 80% of men on the site to be below average in attractiveness. if you think about definition of average you quickly realize that it was a result of these thousands of women, not really understanding what average attractiveness was, and not the fact that only ugly men sign up for online dating.
The men you say are so rare, are out there and there is plenty of them. You just choose to treat them as invisible.
If it's so easy to get these 20-year-old "hotties" then why are they wasting time with the likes of me? I'd say either they really aren't interested in younger women (except for a fling). Or just as likely most women in their 20s are more interested in men about their own age (I know I wouldn't touch a man old enough to be my father with a 10-foot pole when I was in my 20s).
Last edited by jillabean; 01-12-2015 at 01:48 PM..
Reason: had to clarify something
Coincidentally, my best female friend told me something along the same lines as this. She said that a lot of men she has gone on dates with are not very good conversationalists. It's definitely something to consider. I always figured I was a good conversationalist. But I pay attention a little more closely now to see if I'm dictating the conversation and "monopolizing" it as you put it.
OTOH, I've dated a good number of women who just don't say much or aren't very good at leading a conversation, so I end up feeling like I have to lead it myself during these particular dates. I wonder if women pay attention to this about themselves.
I have faith in your ability to be considerate in conversation, fleur. For example, when you feel you have to "lead" the conversation, you probably don't start droning on about yourself or your opinions about world events, or whatever. Your idea of leading the convo probably involves asking questions of your date, at least to some extent. Believe it or not, this rarely happens to some women on dates. They rarely get asked anything, or maybe one or two questions, which end up serving as a springboard for the guy to blather on about whatever the topic was he chose.
It kind of has to be seen to be believed, I guess. But I'm assuming you do pretty well on that score.
It is VERY difficult to find an attractive, reasonably fit, intelligent, stable, emotionally available man over 40 who's a good conversationalist, possesses some humility (isn't a complete narcissist), and who's not looking for an insta-wife or insta-girlfriend. And who isn't carrying a ton of baggage (we all have some). And who's actually interested in someone besides himself.
Then we have to relax our criteria. At some point, so many criteria have been foregone, that the resulting prospects become unappealing. Just before that, is the equilibrium point at which relationships form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl
The men didn't seem to have any real interest in me as a person. They dominate the conversation, which is usually about them, and they have poor listening skills.
It seems that what some (many?) men want is simply any good-looking female to be with them and to sit and listen to everything they have to say. Who she is doesn't matter. No matter how much they claim to want a relationship, and, unfortunately, to want to rush things, all they really want is validation.
Agreed. Validation is actually MORE important than sex, or a domestic servant, or arm-candy at social functions, or any other menial role to which women might get relegated by chauvinistic men. Validation is ultimately the entire point of a relationship. It isn't so much that person XYZ feels sexually frustrated or lonely. Rather, he lacks validation. And I say "he", because women are generally more adroit at providing validation for each other. Men instead derive their validation from their girlfriends and wives.
I'm not necessarily condoning this behavior, or regarding it as "boys will be boys". No, I'm not doing that... but history essentially is! It's no outlandish claim, by my reckoning, that until comparatively recently, a woman's traditional role was to "validate" her husband. A husband (or a bachelor) could hire a maid, a cook or possibly even a prostitute. But only a wife could provide validation. This was her indispensable role, especially for older men, who were done fighting the career-fight.
If modern women are looking for men who can already validate themselves, but men remain stuck in a mindset that their prospective girlfriend should validate them, then we have an impasse with modern dating!
If it's so easy to get these 20-year-old "hotties" then why are they wasting time with the likes of me? I'd say either they really aren't interested in younger women (except for a fling). Or just as likely most women in their 20s are more interested in men about their own age (I know I wouldn't touch a man old enough to be my father with a 10-foot pole when I was in my 20s).
But isn't that it?
The 40 year old attractive, good career, no baggage, good conversationalist, sensitive yet outgoing, mysterious yet fun guy isn't anywhere found because he is busy with the 25 year old gal?
And what you have leftover on POF are the guys who are NOT the above.
I just had a conversation about this very thing with another CD poster, who's also a 40-something, attractive, fit woman. We've both tried online dating with little luck. I said that my experience has been that, no matter how eager they were to meet and go on dates (they often want too much, too fast), the men didn't seem to have any real interest in me as a person. They dominate the conversation, which is usually about them, and they have poor listening skills. The other CD poster said her experience has been identical to mine.
It seems that what some (many?) men want is simply any good-looking female to be with them and to sit and listen to everything they have to say.Who she is doesn't matter. No matter how much they claim to want a relationship, and, unfortunately, how much they want to want to rush things, all they really want isvalidation. Everything, really, is about them.
You may really be onto something, here (bolded).
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.
