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: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,742,544 times
Reputation: 41381
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentropa
Sometimes I find it entertaining to imagine these guys in their 40s and 50s. When their self-fulfilling prophesies are a done deal, and they look back with deep regret at the time they wasted on toxic web sites and inside their own heads--in the prime of their lives.
Pretty sure an ugly man with a phat wallet (and low enough self-esteem to allow himself to become a sugar daddy) would also do just fine finding a date.
The people who lose in the dating game are the ones who go for superficial things like looks or money. It's not gender specific.
There is still a strong expectation that men will end up being major breadwinners, and this in an era when that is increasingly hard to do. Many young men can do little better than McJobs, the industry of the past that allowed men to just go out and be breadwinners have been gone for a generation now. Only a real go getter earns that kind of money, leaving 90 percent of men to earn a meager wage or struggle to find any work at all. The young women looking for the kind of provider type man of the past must be very frustrated. Maybe that is why marriage rates are plummeting. Personally I would never tolerate a women who looked at me as a paycheck. This is 2015, and our modern economy dictates that a wife goes to work, simple as that. I don't like the way things are today, but we have to live with the world we are left to live in.
There is still a strong expectation that men will end up being major breadwinners, and this in an era when that is increasingly hard to do. Many young men can do little better than McJobs, the industry of the past that allowed men to just go out and be breadwinners have been gone for a generation now. Only a real go getter earns that kind of money, leaving 90 percent of men to earn a meager wage or struggle to find any work at all. The young women looking for the kind of provider type man of the past must be very frustrated. Maybe that is why marriage rates are plummeting. Personally I would never tolerate a women who looked at me as a paycheck. This is 2015, and our modern economy dictates that a wife goes to work, simple as that. I don't like the way things are today, but we have to live with the world we are left to live in.
Wanting to know that your future husband would be able to provide for his family if you want to have one isn't the same as viewing a man as paycheck. Not every woman gets maternity leave or has a job that is flexible if she has children. Knowing what your financial options will be if you want to have children is smart.
Face it every man would put up with a pretty faced woman even if she has nothing going for her. The same is not true for the opposite. A man with nothing going for him is quick to be called out as weird, a bum, unambitious, not making the best of his usefullness, ect. Why?
Is it because men are expected to lead and be a outpost for others to live their lives based on.
If a guy is good looking that means he has something going for him. Sex appeal is attractive to men and women. A pretty woman and a handsome guy have equal footing dating wise.
I will say that I have seen some unattractive and down and out people of both genders in relationships.
Face it every man would put up with a pretty faced woman even if she has nothing going for her. The same is not true for the opposite. A man with nothing going for him is quick to be called out as weird, a bum, unambitious, not making the best of his usefullness, ect. Why?
Is it because men are expected to lead and be a outpost for others to live their lives based on.
Personally, I believe everybody loses- with the exceptions of game-players and opportunists.
While you probably didn't mean it that way, your wording is accurate: 'the dating game.'
One example: a guy was telling me about a woman he'd gone out with, as she was an acquaintance of mine; they'd gone out and had a nice dinner, but he claimed it 'wasn't a real date' because they didn't have sex.
Second example from forum: 'Never let a guy pay for your dinner- or you're giving away all your power!'
Another example: 'Why should someone whose physical appearance is a 10 have to settle for somebody who is only a 5?"
The point: it's not about being 'interested in' a person- it's about what they can get out of it.
I'd love to see any two people (in any age group) who 'date' solely because they enjoy each other's company and actually like the other person.
Last edited by Tia 914; 02-04-2015 at 12:31 PM..
Reason: typo
Sometimes I find it entertaining to imagine these guys in their 40s and 50s. When their self-fulfilling prophesies are a done deal, and they look back with deep regret at the time they wasted on toxic web sites and inside their own heads--in the prime of their lives.
I don't see why they don't just pay for it a few times to break the ice. Hell paid phone sex is now marketed as practice / advice / therapy.
Wanting to know that your future husband would be able to provide for his family if you want to have one isn't the same as viewing a man as paycheck. Not every woman gets maternity leave or has a job that is flexible if she has children. Knowing what your financial options will be if you want to have children is smart.
That is your right to expect a man to provide like its 1980, but unless you bring a lot to the table yourself it will be hard to have that in an era where those high earner men are in a real minority. That kind of income is really tough find. The ability to support a stay at home wife and kids really requires about 80k a year, far above the average income in this nation. I personally know of several women in their 40s that held out for a man that could "take care of them" and they are now old maids. One of them has 5 cats, but still pines over the fact that she is single. At least she has her cats.
That is your right to expect a man to provide like its 1980, but unless you bring a lot to the table yourself it will be hard to have that in an era where those high earner men are in a real minority. That kind of income is really tough find. The ability to support a stay at home wife and kids really requires about 80k a year, far above the average income in this nation. I personally know of several women in their 40s that held out for a man that could "take care of them" and they are now old maids. One of them has 5 cats, but still pines over the fact that she is single. At least she has her cats.
80k??
In a LCOL area you could easily get away with half that. 30k if the stay at home parent clips coupons and cooks from scratch.
I've always believed that a person staying home to look after the house & kids is an asset to any family.
It is precisely because most people ARE already in relationships, that small gender-imbalances around the fringes can result in dire consequences for the affected minorities. If the divorce rate were 90%, women (and men) would constantly be reappearing on the "market", simplifying the problem for those who are unattached and looking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
Then who are women dating if men are losing out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Thats what I always wonder! If a woman is going out, there is a guy going out as well.
My conjecture is that while most women, and most men, are in some form of relationship, amongst the unattached, there is a gender-imbalance, where more women (than men) have foresworn dating. Let me offer a simple (if unsubstantiated) numerical example.
Suppose that of 100 men and 100 women, 80 of each are in relationships. That leaves 20 unattached women, and 20 unattached men. Of those 20 women, suppose that 5 are actively looking for a relationship, 5 more are passively receptive, and 10 have recused themselves from consideration. Of the men, however, suppose that only 5 are not pursuing a relationship. Thus 15 men are chasing 5 (or if you prefer, 10) women.
To recap, 85 women (out of 100) are either in relationships, or are actively looking; similarly, 95 men. The female:male ratio is nearly 1:1. But amongst those unattached, the ratio in this example becomes 1:3.
Bottom line: if EVERYONE had severe setbacks and problems with relationships, then paradoxically it would be easier for most people to enter into a new relationship. It is precisely because most people have overcome such problems, that the remainder have more severe problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OvernightDelivery
I don't see why they don't just pay for it a few times to break the ice. Hell paid phone sex is now marketed as practice / advice / therapy.
In a LCOL area you could easily get away with half that. 30k if the stay at home parent clips coupons and cooks from scratch.
I've always believed that a person staying home to look after the house & kids is an asset to any family.
You may be able to do that if your willing to live in a run down older home, have no extras, no cable tv, no cell phones and no going out to eat. Vacations??? Never, Cars??? maybe a junker. How many people will live like this??? If you have the discipline to live like that then maybe you could swing it. I think 30k is low anywhere in America, because at that wage you will be getting food stamps too. I don't think that is right for someone to expect others to subsidize their choice of living arrangements. To live "bare bones" in a low cost of living area supporting a stay at home wife and kids with NO WELFARE, then I would say 45-50k. To live comfortable in a low to moderate cost of living area I stand by 80k. In a high cost coastal area your looking at over 100k easy. This is why I believe its unrealistic for average women to expect to land the guy who can do this. Most of them who want "to be taken care of" will not live bare bones for one, and second the man who can do it is very rare. Even many who have that kind of money expect their wives to add to their wealth and success. These are ambitious men who want to live well, that is what drove them to succeed to begin with, and marrying a women who will not contribute to it is something that at least some of them wont put up with. This further diminishes the pool of successful men who will support a stay at home wife. There is a reason that most people have two working spouses per household these days. Todays economic situation dictates it be that way.
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.
