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.
If the type of person you want to date is not interested in you, then maybe, just maybe, you have unrealistic expectations.
Everyone has to decide for themselves what they will and will not accept in a potential partner. If your standards are unrealistic, you'll continue to remain single until you figure that out. It's just stupid to point fingers and be angry when someone doesn't want to date you.
Sure, the qualities I found attractive in a potential partner changed as I got older -- I raised my standards, I didn't lower them!
But as I matured I realized that some things weren't as important to me as they once were. Hair, for instance: In my youth I would not have been attracted to a bald guy. But as I got older I wanted a man whom I could respect. Hair was optional.
The problem with your argument is that it raises a HUGE slippery slope. If the archetype or sample of person you want is not interested in you, then foregoing what you want is in effect, settling. If you are unhappy in such concession (as most people are when they settle), you're truly not better off than if you had remained single on account of being "too picky".
By your logic, only what you can get is "realistic". Which is a leap in logic in that it predicates that "settling" is a wanted quality. It isn't. Companionship for the sake of companionship is not the end goal for most of us, thence settling for what manifests itself as 'attainable', is not a reasonable nor a righteous outcome. Your definition of "unrealistic" seems arbitrary.
Bartering for qualities is dangerous. I don't subscribe to it. I won't date someone with whom I have fundamental incompatibilities with because they happen to possess an alternative quality in another regime that is compatible. That's textbook settling. It doesn't work out in the end.
To further qualify my answer, when we speak of qualities we aren't talking about petty things like what side of the bed you like or what color the decorative towels in the bathroom should be. That's not being picky, that's being petty. I'm talking: sex/physical attraction, money and attitudes towards money/material goals (which include political and religious affiliations, believe it or not) , and attitudes towards family and children. Those are fundamental qualities for which we should NOT barter for qualities on. If that is considered being "too picky", then so be it.
I think people focus a bit much on the physicality bit because it seems shallow. But it is important. It is unwise in my opinion to marry/date people you cannot raise a substantial level of romantic/sexual infatuation for. If the goal was to find platonic foundations with which to guarantee the lasting of a life relationship, I'd marry my sister. See the inherent foolishness of disregarding the shallowness of our physical wants? Sexual/physical interest, attitude towards money and material goals, and children, are NOT platonic valuations. They are very pointed and self-interested concepts of a sexual and interpersonal nature. Leave the platonic "we can tolerate each other in old age" to the senile and sexually inactive. We will get there one day. Your 20s,30s,40s,50s,and 60s are NOT the time to effect valuations of a platonic nature.
The problem is that people don't find it acceptable to remain alone when the people we physically want reject us. So we barter for qualities and end up silently unhappy. Statistics speak for themselves.
The issue of being picky only arises out of the fact we all walk looking up. Generally speaking, people who ping for your attention are usually people you won't find sexually appealing, unless you're in the top 10 percentile of the male gender. Females in the top 10 percentile find NO ONE attractive, statistically speaking, so they're irrelevant. For everybody else, it's an exercise in grasping at the straws.
I've witnessed some of this dynamic with online dating. For a guy, I get a lot of initial contacts from women who are simply not appealing to me physically. They tend to be overweight and don't possess very universally attractive facial features/ body shape. Likewise, the women I attempt to contact seldom reply, as they probably don't find my look attractive and frnakly have waaay too many contacts to keep their inbox straight. They are likely contacting men who don't consider them on par either, and so it goes. We all walk looking up. The problem is that in demanding that someone start looking down in order to effect relationships, someone is always getting the short end of the stick and not getting what they want. But people go through with it because it beats being alone. I was there once, I even married a woman I was not sexually infatuated with and whom I had money attitude incompatibilities with. Surprise, it failed miserably. Settling doesn't work.
The problem with your argument is that it raises a HUGE slippery slope. If the archetype or sample of person you want is not interested in you, then foregoing what you want is in effect, settling. If you are unhappy in such concession (as most people are when they settle), you're truly not better off than if you had remained single on account of being "too picky".
By your logic, only what you can get is "realistic". Which is a leap in logic in that it predicates that "settling" is a wanted quality. It isn't. Companionship for the sake of companionship is not the end goal for most of us, thence settling for what manifests itself as 'attainable', is not a reasonable nor a righteous outcome. Your definition of "unrealistic" seems arbitrary.
Bartering for qualities is dangerous. I don't subscribe to it. I won't date someone with whom I have fundamental incompatibilities with because they happen to possess an alternative quality in another regime that is compatible. That's textbook settling. It doesn't work out in the end.
To further qualify my answer, when we speak of qualities we aren't talking about petty things like what side of the bed you like or what color the decorative towels in the bathroom should be. That's not being picky, that's being petty. I'm talking: sex/physical attraction, money and attitudes towards money/material goals (which include political and religious affiliations, believe it or not) , and attitudes towards family and children. Those are fundamental qualities for which we should NOT barter for qualities on. If that is considered being "too picky", then so be it.
I think people focus a bit much on the physicality bit because it seems shallow. But it is important. It is unwise in my opinion to marry/date people you cannot raise a substantial level of romantic/sexual infatuation for. If the goal was to find platonic foundations with which to guarantee the lasting of a life relationship, I'd marry my sister. See the inherent foolishness of disregarding the shallowness of our physical wants? Sexual/physical interest, attitude towards money and material goals, and children, are NOT platonic valuations. They are very pointed and self-interested concepts of a sexual and interpersonal nature. Leave the platonic "we can tolerate each other in old age" to the senile and sexually inactive. We will get there one day. Your 20s,30s,40s,50s,and 60s are NOT the time to effect valuations of a platonic nature.
The problem is that people don't find it acceptable to remain alone when the people we physically want reject us. So we barter for qualities and end up silently unhappy. Statistics speak for themselves.
The issue of being picky only arises out of the fact we all walk looking up. Generally speaking, people who ping for your attention are usually people you won't find sexually appealing, unless you're in the top 10 percentile of the male gender. Females in the top 10 percentile find NO ONE attractive, statistically speaking, so they're irrelevant. For everybody else, it's an exercise in grasping at the straws.
I've witnessed some of this dynamic with online dating. For a guy, I get a lot of initial contacts from women who are simply not appealing to me physically. They tend to be overweight and don't possess very universally attractive facial features/ body shape. Likewise, the women I attempt to contact seldom reply, as they probably don't find my look attractive and frnakly have waaay too many contacts to keep their inbox straight. They are likely contacting men who don't consider them on par either, and so it goes. We all walk looking up. The problem is that in demanding that someone start looking down in order to effect relationships, someone is always getting the short end of the stick and not getting what they want. But people go through with it because it beats being alone. I was there once, I even married a woman I was not sexually infatuated with and whom I had money attitude incompatibilities with. Surprise, it failed miserably. Settling doesn't work.
I read your post twice and still can't see a slippery slope. If you don't want to settle, then don't settle. What's slippery about that?
You seem to believe that equally yoked relationships never happen and it's all very hopeless.
Last edited by boodhabunny; 07-31-2011 at 10:13 PM..
You've heard of the Madonna/VVhore complex, women have the corresponding problem, the Provider/Stud complex. A woman either wants Mr. Studly Steroid, or Mr. Paycheck Provider, depending on what phase of life she's in. There are lots of great men who are neither a Neanderthal nor a high-powered executive, who are chronically single (e.g., see my Silicon Valley example, below).
If you're a woman and don't believe me, then do the following experiment. Put up a profile on a free dating site. Pretend to be a guy, say, a young techie or scientist, and include a photo of a guy who looks the part. Your description should show self-respect, but in a low-key and humble way (i.e., nothing about climbing Mt. Everest or wrestling alligators). Then, start messaging women and see if anyone responds (less than 1% will) or see if any women initiate contact with you (they won't).
What will this prove? That, despite tons of quality guys being available, women deliberately overlook them, because most guys don't play into the woman's Provider/Stud complex.
Conclusion: Complaining about not finding decent men is totally lame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suissegrl702
I've seen both sexes put up with all sorts of bad, and I think that I partly am so single because I won't settle for a true loser--I expect a guy to have a job or at least be trying to get one; to have some sort of personal hygiene (deodorant is NOT optional); and to have some sort of ambition. I'd also love a sense of humor.
There are tons of young men in Silicon Valley who fit your requirements. Move there, hang out in the Starbucks every day, and start approaching men and ask them out. (Yes, men are supposed to initiate, but due to the shortage of women there, these guys have forgotten that women exist.)
Or you can spend the rest of your life repeating the above story. Either way is OK by me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-boy-80
Of course, you still can have a wonderful time with a Russian woman even you don't behave like a (nice) brute, but she will never really respect you if you don't. That is why Russian women are much more attracted to masculine, sort of "bad boy" looking guys.
In other words, Russian women are attracted to guys who are so insecure they have to go around making a big show of how "manly" and "dominant" they are. Same as American women, only more extreme.
They complain about this because the average woman lacks the self-awareness to realize that maybe she is the problem.
With all of the dating options available now, there is little excuse not to be able to find someone. And I suspect for decent looking women who can't keep a guy, they likely enjoy exciting, dysfunctional relationships over stable, emotionally-healthy ones.
If a reasonably attractive woman cannot keep a man it's because she has a lousy personality, regardless if Cosmo tries to reassure her otherwise.
80% are below average? Sounds like we should be graded on a curve
Bell curves only work with an objective evaluation of data and not all data forms a bell curve.
It is interesting how women's preferences were studied and this skewed set of preferences was found to exist. Like many other behaviors by women, related to this, men see the results but are unable to quantify and understand them until they do their homework. It is easy to initially blame oneself for what is out of your control.
What is really amusing is how it is a feminist mantra that men are bad because they are alleged to do exactly what women have been demonstrated to be doing here. The term "double standards" is not something that women understand or have any empathy for.
Originally Posted by DennyCrane People have different ideas of what constitutes decent. A lot of it is shaped by your environment. If all your friends have met great guys who are tall, good looking, make 6 figures, etc., then you'll feel like you deserve a guy who's just as great, if not better. So if you hear a woman (or man) say they can't meet anyone decent, the first thing to ask is what they consider decent and where they got their ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBT1980
You would think that mentality would go away after high school
Actually, it gets worse after HS.
In HS, most girls are satisfied with a good looking guy with a car, unencumbered with homework and enough cash to keep the gas tank filled and the good times rolling.
Back then, a man could use his income to make up for his looks and personality. And I bet a lot of women married such men thinking "well he's not great looking and he's kinda boring, but I'm not getting any younger and I can't keep living with mom and dad. This guy'll be able to provide me and our kids with a nice home." Flash forward 10-15 years and she's stuck in a dull marriage with an overweight man she doesn't love and has no say in how money is spent.
Actually, back then, it was much more likely for people to marry their equal. That's why marriage rates were so high. Sure not all were successful but far more than today.
What has changed is that women have the tools, the pill and sexual freedom, to exercise their natural urge for hypergamy. They either "win" and find that he has many faults that were not revealed to her (or usually even considered) prior to marriage or they "lose" and find themselves having to make a painful adjustment to their expectations.
As usual, this is then characterized as 100% the fault of men.
Initially, in the60s and early 70s, feminist thinkers and writers had the right idea - don't get married because you are desperate, get a job instead - but they did not take into account the rapid changes in society and how this would manifest itself in the decisions that women made. Few are happy with the outcome.
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.
Provider/Stud complex.
