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.
That's because there's only so many 6"2+ men with a good looking face and good jobs to go around. Less than 1% of guys.
When you have 99% of women going for 1% of guys, obviously the rest will be complaining.
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'm not sure what you post has to do with my post or even anything at all. What does feminism have to do with this?
The majority of men are good men. As for men being more prone to being attacked/assaulted while out in public - who is assaulting them? Women?
I pointed out discrepancy in what you believe and the reality. You could just say that you were wrong.
Feminism is aligned well with your view that all men are a danger. For example, popular feminist stand is to "teach young boys" not to rape, which simply means that they believe that all men are potential rapists but what its really doing is cementing social idea that men are always the perpetrators, in any situation. You made your statement in exactly same fashion. I find it bigoted and sexist. If African Americans are responsible for more violent crimes in relation to other races, would you be ok with saying "all African Americans need to be taught not to be violent". I bet you wouldn't and you would consider it racist. Hypocrisy of it all.
Women get more attention, yes. But much of it is unwanted. You really don't have to think about that very long to question whether that is easier.
I'm like a lot of guys that never had women camping on their doorstep. But I'd rather have it that way than what many women have to put up with every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 49ersfan27
They're still getting attention. It might be unwanted attention but men still are attracted to them. Some women need to stop moaning about this. I would love to have attractive women all over me. You have all the power in dating but complain about it? Men have to work harder to get attention. Geez.
But that's just it. Very often, the men giving women attention are NOT attractive. And the minority that are attractive sometimes have other issues that undermine their attractiveness.
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.
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.
But I guess I should "stop moaning" and consider myself lucky?
* Now would be a good time for me to stress that I know there are women like this, too, but women aren't my thing.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 01-12-2015 at 01:09 PM..
(1) employers can't afford to be so selective anymore
make dildos illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
(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.
Kill television etc so people learn how to interact from the real world and not set ridiculous expectations.
I pointed out discrepancy in what you believe and the reality. You could just say that you were wrong.
Feminism is aligned well with your view that all men are a danger. For example, popular feminist stand is to "teach young boys" not to rape, which simply means that they believe that all men are potential rapists but what its really doing is cementing social idea that men are always the perpetrators, in any situation. You made your statement in exactly same fashion. I find it bigoted and sexist. If African Americans are responsible for more violent crimes in relation to other races, would you be ok with saying "all African Americans need to be taught not to be violent". I bet you wouldn't and you would consider it racist. Hypocrisy of it all.
You are trying to make my post fit your agenda when it does not. I said that the majority of men were good men. In fact, my posts have nothing to do with anything that you are saying. I could try to spell this out to you further but it's pointless since you are not actually reading nor comprehending my posts.
I'm not wrong since I didn't say anything related to what you are talking about.
But that's just it. Very often, the men giving women attention are NOT attractive. And the minority that are attractive sometimes have other issues that undermine their attractiveness.
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.
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.
But I guess I should "stop moaning" and consider myself lucky?
* Now would be a good time for me to stress that I know there are women like this, too, but women aren't my thing.
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.
Can we quantify this?
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%
But that's just it. Very often, the men giving women attention are NOT attractive. And the minority that are attractive sometimes have other issues that undermine their attractiveness.
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.
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.
But I guess I should "stop moaning" and consider myself lucky?
* Now would be a good time for me to stress that I know there are women like this, too, but women aren't my thing.
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.
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.
