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.
Leftovers, especially men, who are single by a certain age, are so for a reason, i.e. committment phobes, ugly ducklings, manwhores, narcissisists, bipolars..etc
What's the saying – nothing succeeds, quite like success? The poor are not necessarily shiftless or stupid, and the wealthy are not necessarily frugal or enterprising or long-suffering. But it is intuitive to so conclude. The stably-married are not necessarily personable, virtuous or appealing; the divorced are not necessary morally-suspect, perfidious or vain; and the still-single are not necessarily disgusting, broken or insufferably annoying. But it is intuitive to so conclude. We're judged by what we attain, and what we retain. It is unfortunate to lump undeservedly so many into categories where they don't belong, but such heuristics are difficult to avoid.
So we find ourselves in the Groucho Marx (or was it Mark Twain?) position of refusing to join a club that would accept us as a member. Clearly all of these older daters are defective, no? So then by definition there is something unsavory and repulsive about accepting the suit of any of them, or pursuing any of them. "All of the good ones are already taken".
But short of inflatables or animatronic dolls, some compromise in our biases is essential, no?
I'm glad that you got it all figured out. I'm forty and I am not getting married until June. So, I guess I'm a severe loser until then? But after June, I become normal? Even though, I've spent the last eight out of ten years with somebody. I just didn't get married. Didn't really want to until I met my fiancé. Some people just have to meet the right one before they take that next step. It doesn't make them losers or anything else that might require a psychiatrist.
Please re-read what I wrote. I said it's not about marriage, but people who formed long-term relationships. You don't have to be married to form a committed relationship.
A lot of people are not married up until their thirties and forties, BUT they are not single either.
OK, I just figured out how to say what I want to, so I'm pretty excited about that. Instead of highlighting my own specific dating experiences, I'm going to roll back to general observations of the human condition.
Here's the deal...
For many guys, dating is a "numbers game." They want "a woman" and looks are probably one of the first considerations theoretically on their minds. Until they wind up with someone who is cold, or someone who is crazy, or a user, or basically a woman whose character is insufferable, and THEN it matters. But up front? The question asked is, "is she hot?" And more opportunities is equal to a better experience.
For many women, their experience in dating isn't necessarily judged as success or failure by simply having more opportunities to attempt something with more "hot" guys. It's more a matter of finding ONE that is (as much as possible) the "whole package." Not a jerk to her, they connect in terms of habits, maturity, tastes, personalities and priorities, those things are generally more important (at any point past the "I have noticed that you're good looking" stage) than "hot" is. Most often, if you are a woman, your "success" in dating has more to do with the choices you make, than the opportunities you are presented with. <--VERY IMPORTANT.
Thus, a 20-something might have lots of opportunities, but due to limitations in life experience, wisdom, and good life-decision-making, she may make some very regrettable choices. And therefore have a suboptimal experience. Assuming she does not completely lose her looks as she ages (for instance, gain a bunch of weight or something) and assuming she doesn't live in a one-horse town with options severely limited by population...she will still have enough options in her 30's and 40's that she can effectively make attempts at dating. She will hopefully, theoretically, however, have a much easier time with her own learning curve. Knowing what you're looking for, is the first step in successfully finding it. When I was 20-something, I didn't know my arse from my elbow. Upon first becoming "single" again, I still had to make a few mistakes...but nowhere near as many as I would have at a younger age. I dialed in what I was after, and set about securing it in a matter of months, not years, and had only a couple of regrettable experiences, not dozens.
OK, I just figured out how to say what I want to, so I'm pretty excited about that. Instead of highlighting my own specific dating experiences, I'm going to roll back to general observations of the human condition.
Here's the deal...
For many guys, dating is a "numbers game." They want "a woman" and looks are probably one of the first considerations theoretically on their minds. Until they wind up with someone who is cold, or someone who is crazy, or a user, or basically a woman whose character is insufferable, and THEN it matters. But up front? The question asked is, "is she hot?" And more opportunities is equal to a better experience.
For many women, their experience in dating isn't necessarily judged as success or failure by simply having more opportunities to attempt something with more "hot" guys. It's more a matter of finding ONE that is (as much as possible) the "whole package." Not a jerk to her, they connect in terms of habits, maturity, tastes, personalities and priorities, those things are generally more important (at any point past the "I have noticed that you're good looking" stage) than "hot" is. Most often, if you are a woman, your "success" in dating has more to do with the choices you make, than the opportunities you are presented with. <--VERY IMPORTANT.
Thus, a 20-something might have lots of opportunities, but due to limitations in life experience, wisdom, and good life-decision-making, she may make some very regrettable choices. And therefore have a suboptimal experience. Assuming she does not completely lose her looks as she ages (for instance, gain a bunch of weight or something) and assuming she doesn't live in a one-horse town with options severely limited by population...she will still have enough options in her 30's and 40's that she can effectively make attempts at dating. She will hopefully, theoretically, however, have a much easier time with her own learning curve. Knowing what you're looking for, is the first step in successfully finding it. When I was 20-something, I didn't know my arse from my elbow. Upon first becoming "single" again, I still had to make a few mistakes...but nowhere near as many as I would have at a younger age. I dialed in what I was after, and set about securing it in a matter of months, not years, and had only a couple of regrettable experiences, not dozens.
Does this make any sense?
Yes, it does. I think it is an interesting theory. Attracting and looking for the wrong people definitely has to be taken into account when looking for a life partner. It is important to know who you are and what you want.
That's the major issue with people in their twenties. They have no clue who they are and too easily influenced.
No I'm saying women have been conditioning to date older men because that's what's men preference. Which you said you agree with annon.
If men secretly had the power to condition women to mold to our desires, I'd like to think we'd use it a lot more efficiently than that.
Your statement implies a lot of things, some of which are offensive:
1) That men, as a whole, are capable of conditioning women.
2) That women, as a whole, are subject to BEING conditioned and letting it override any will of their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anoninternetguy
Attraction and desire are not learned or conditioned. They are natural impulses. This new age social conditioning theory is nonsense
For the most part, I agree. TRUE desire, that is. I do believe, however, that social desirability bias is a thing. Relative to this conversation, I think people would be more apt to highlight or advertise desires that are more socially acceptable than those that aren't, and what passes for "socially acceptable" changes with time. But that's a conversation for a different thread.
If men secretly had the power to condition women to mold to our desires, I'd like to think we'd use it a lot more efficiently than that.
Your statement implies a lot of things, some of which are offensive:
1) That men, as a whole, are capable of conditioning women.
2) That women, as a whole, are subject to BEING conditioned and letting it override any will of their own.
I think its more society has conditioned women (men too) and society has mostly been molded by men/religion. Its more acceptable to see older men with younger women than vv, its more acceptable for men to have multiple wives, its more acceptable for men to have multiple/more sexual partners and sex out of wedlock, its more acceptable for two women to engage in sexual acts than two men.
Women have not always had the luxury of free will, some still do not. For centuries people have been conditioned to follow these acceptable behaviors even today. We just dont have to fear backlash if we do not follow them.
I think its more society has conditioned women (men too) and society has mostly been molded by men/religion. Its more acceptable to see older men with younger women than vv, its more acceptable for men to have multiple wives, its more acceptable for men to have multiple/more sexual partners and sex out of wedlock, its more acceptable for two women to engage in sexual acts than two men.
Women have not always had the luxury of free will, some still do not. For centuries people have been conditioned to follow these acceptable behaviors even today. We just dont have to fear backlash if we do not follow them.
There are different origins for each of those, though. I just addressed them line by line, but realized it can be better summarized as such:
More of these things are reflective of inherent desires than "social conditioning" (except the multiple wives one, that was simply more "abuse of power" than anything else.). Men are more likely to want younger women than vice versa. Men are more likely to want multiple partners than women. These things aren't "conditioning", they're reflective of what we are more likely to inherently want.
(disclaimer: this is a numbers game, for all of the "not all XYZ are like that" folks out there. That's why I keep saying 'more likely')
Blaming these things on "conditioning" reflects a refusal to take responsibility for one's own behavior. There are some things that are absolutely a product of conditioning. The above examples are not.
Edit: I also find the idea that men are the ones doing all of this conditioning absolutely laughable. Certainly, when in a greater position of power, men implemented laws in a way to benefit them. How one views modern behavior is a matter of personal choice. Women are shunning other women who choose to have multiple partners (men too, but men are by no means "conditioning" women to think this way). This applies too all of the above.
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 Hivemind31
Men are more likely to want multiple partners than women. These things aren't "conditioning", they're reflective of what we are more likely to inherently want.
Where are you getting that from?
Breeding systems, such as harems, or polyandry, or polyamory do have their original basis in nature, for many species including Homo sapiens sapiens, for good ecological reasons. But since humans have developed a multitude of mating systems depending (including, but not limited to, the ones I just mentioned) on the ecology of those landscapes in which their specific culture develops, why do you think that one (polyamory) is more likely to be inherently wanted by men?
At least as far as mating goes, the virtues of promiscuity for females of many many species (including many primates) is now very well known. The eggs = expensive and valuable, sperm = cheap and to be spread around, biological "truth" that was taught to so many of us in high school and college biology for so many decades has been put to pasture for the most part.
There are different origins for each of those, though. I just addressed them line by line, but realized it can be better summarized as such:
More of these things are reflective of inherent desires than "social conditioning" (except the multiple wives one, that was simply more "abuse of power" than anything else.). Men are more likely to want younger women than vice versa. Men are more likely to want multiple partners than women. These things aren't "conditioning", they're reflective of what we are more likely to inherently want.
(disclaimer: this is a numbers game, for all of the "not all XYZ are like that" folks out there. That's why I keep saying 'more likely')
Blaming these things on "conditioning" reflects a refusal to take responsibility for one's own behavior. There are some things that are absolutely a product of conditioning. The above examples are not.
I don't agree with the bolded statement.
I know tons of men who just want a soulmate, and I know tons of women who want to play the field or who want to be serial monogamists, or who want multiple loves (polyamory.) But bear in mind, what people want and what they actually do, or what they can actually get, are often different things.
And haven't we seen studies showing that American women are just as likely to cheat as American men are?
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.
