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.
Let me clarify my earlier points. Assuredly it's true that we must overcome our inhibitions to attain our various goals, and to realistically dispense with such outlandishly ambitious goals as which are more suited to fantasy than to planning and systematic attainment. Compromises, realism, etc. But one emergent characteristic of modern life is the burden of entrepreneurialism.
Here is an example. I was applying to college in the late 1980s. Already at that time (and presumably even more so, now), it was certainly important to have good grades, recommendations and SAT scores; but it was also becoming important to convincingly advertise oneself to the admissions committee as being an interesting, well-rounded person. For the top schools, lots of applicants had impeccably high GPAs with loads of AP credits. But that was no longer enough to be admitted. Well, wind back the clock another 20 or 30 years, and admissions policies were almost exclusively based on quantifiable academic metrics (along with, admittedly, alumni connections). It was less important to have a charismatic self-presentation. It was important only to study hard and to demonstrate academic achievement. 25 years ago, and especially now, to get into the best colleges had to be entrepreneurial. 50 or 75 years ago, entrepreneurialism mattered far less.
Another example is employment opportunities. As a Gen-X'er, I entered the labor market before the internet, before the wave of outsourcing and globalization and independent contracting and so forth. Even so, employment required charismatic self-promotion. It was not enough to have graduated from a top-tier university. It was necessary to garnish one's resume with all sorts of eye-catching filigree that purported to distinguish one as being someone special. Again I say, rewind the clock another 20 or 30 years. Prospective employers would call a professor, ask him to give some names of incipiently graduating students, and those students would be invited for an interview. Of course they had to be articulate and to have good records. They had to have firm handshakes, to maintain eye-contact and to answer questions briskly and confidently. But they didn't have to entrepreneurially promote themselves.
Dating is the ultimate entrepreneurial activity. We shop ourselves to a prospective date, much as start-up founders would to a venture capitalist. More importantly, we must be entrepreneurial in finding the prospective date in the first place. We must create situations in our lives, where opportunities would be forthcoming. But unlike employment-search or college-admission, which are gender-independent, in dating the burden of entrepreneurialism falls mainly upon the men.
Speaking personally, I'm not really "introverted" in the sense of feeling stultifying reluctance to speak, or failure to initiate contact when thrust into an unfamiliar group setting. On the contrary, I'm much enthused about self-introduction. I enjoy telling jokes and to feel other's attention to my statements. But where I fail abjectly is creating situations where there are women to be approached in the first place. I live in a world of men – of married men. If there are women, they are almost invariably married. One must be entrepreneurial to ferret out those rarest of creatures, the unmarried women – and that's to say nothing of my core requirements, which is being child-free and secular.
Returning to the origin of this thread, I say that the principal difference between then-and-now is that in our mythical past, the man who was a strong candidate for a relationship didn't need to be entrepreneurial in his search. Simply going about his daily life almost ensured the advent of potential dates (or speaking more conservatively, potential brides). This is no longer the case. Today it is imperative to wield the skill, to create our own luck. May we all be skillful and lucky.
I’m wondering if Some cultural norms of yesteryear were a bit More conducive to long term relationships. The idea that you’re supposed to find someone and pursue them. Years ago men used to court a woman, You would ask a woman’s parents or father for dating or marriage privileges. Also people dated and married pretty close to their own socioeconomic group, meaning a woman could only marry up one maybe two steps up the social ladder, and because of that most men only had to compete with other guys who were pretty much on the same playing field as them. and from the womans point of view, no matter who she chose within her available options her life was going to pretty much be the same, so things like how nice the guy was, or similar interests mattered a lot more. also picking the type of man who is less likely to someday, "leave for a pack of smokes and never come back" was a must.
every woman had atleast one sad lonely spinster aunt who got swept off her feet by a charming romeo 20 years prior, only to get abandoned after he deflowered her. So basically the man that would be put in the friendzone today would have been the first choice for a husband then. simply because he would be the safer choice, and back then women had too much at stake to risk on romeo. They did not have the safety net of section 8 housing, food stamps and court ordered child support. They had to pick the guy who would be there through thick and thin(the type of guy who today stays in the friendzone for years).
Flash forward to today, with reliable birth control, the breaking down of social stigmas, That smokin hot redhead from the trailer park can attract and marry a doctor or lawyer, So basically an average guy is forced to compete with the top 20% of men for the women that were once in their dating pool.
I think a lot of what you stated does make sense (my opinion). A friend today to a woman is a man that is decent, loving, thoughtful, sweet you know all the nice words to describe him. And of course that would definitely be the sort of guy you would want your parents to definitely meet back then. But there is another side to that. He must also have a decent Job, come from a good family etc. So, it was a complete package.
With the advent of all the new technology I think society started to decline. Girls are now attracted to the bad boy. The society is in a mess. However, despite that other men in whatever socioeconomic , and race can compete in much level field. So there are advantages and disadvantages.
With the advent of all the new technology I think society started to decline. Girls are now attracted to the bad boy. The society is in a mess. However, despite that other men in whatever socioeconomic , and race can compete in much level field. So there are advantages and disadvantages.
Because James Dean wasn't considered attractive in the 1950's?
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Cleo got her some Marc Antony and he was being bad at the time.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
No one owes anyone companionship. That is the most important thing to remember when dating. It doesn't matter how good looking you think you are. It doesn't matter how "smart" you are, or how many degrees you have. Everyone (male and female) has to work to gain someone else's companionship. How much you work is up to you. How much someone else will require you to work is up to them. And you make the choice if that person is worth the effort. But everyone will put in effort one way or another.
There are no "rules" that say certain people should get dates from others they think are similar. That's naive thinking. Women have true agency in relationships now. I think that's a good thing. I'd rather be with a woman who truly wants to be with me than one who feels forced due to social norms.
Let's not forget Caligula. Bat-**** crazy, but an alleged freak in the sheets.
Really? I didn't know that. You are just a wealth of information, Math!
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.
