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.
For men, having a woman in their life is always a sign of status, post-college included. This is not true for women though (which is primarily the reason for the gender imbalance when it comes to dating).
Interesting insight! In the "olden days", when women depended on their husbands for material sustenance and social standing, it was crucial for women to make a match with men of highest career-prestige, community standing, financial wherewithal and so forth. The nerdy and socially inept owner of a cotton mill in Regency England would have been an excellent marital prospect. Today the situation is entirely different. Women marry for emotional connection and personal happiness, not status or social acclaim, and certainly not for material sustenance.
Men used to compete amongst themselves for women, especially for beautiful women. Female choice was secondary. Whichever male triumphed, would automatically be the one chosen by women. The female simply chose the most-winning male, and who that emergent winner happened to be, was immaterial. Today men don't compete directly. If a woman has multiple suitors, how often do they challenge each other to duels? Today a woman might choose a man who does not "win", simply because that happens to be her preference. He's the one with whom she makes the dearest emotional connection, regardless of his capacities as provider, or his "status".
Under the old system, a man's task was simple: compete with other men, and aim to surpass them. Gain status, money, prestige; and female attention will follow. This no longer holds. A new age demands new talents and new strategies.
do you think a guy who goes to a school like say the University of Florida and graduates will ever have a point in his life where he is surrounded by a lot of single and good looking females again?
Interesting insight! In the "olden days", when women depended on their husbands for material sustenance and social standing, it was crucial for women to make a match with men of highest career-prestige, community standing, financial wherewithal and so forth. The nerdy and socially inept owner of a cotton mill in Regency England would have been an excellent marital prospect. Today the situation is entirely different. Women marry for emotional connection and personal happiness, not status or social acclaim, and certainly not for material sustenance.
Men used to compete amongst themselves for women, especially for beautiful women. Female choice was secondary. Whichever male triumphed, would automatically be the one chosen by women. The female simply chose the most-winning male, and who that emergent winner happened to be, was immaterial. Today men don't compete directly. If a woman has multiple suitors, how often do they challenge each other to duels? Today a woman might choose a man who does not "win", simply because that happens to be her preference. He's the one with whom she makes the dearest emotional connection, regardless of his capacities as provider, or his "status".
Under the old system, a man's task was simple: compete with other men, and aim to surpass them. Gain status, money, prestige; and female attention will follow. This no longer holds. A new age demands new talents and new strategies.
Agreed. Men (especially successful men) get the shaft these days.
In any event, we must adapt to our environment. Because women are capable of supporting themselves now, I hold them to a higher standard. Not only do they have to be beautiful, but also intelligent and fit with a good moral compass. Preferably, they'll also have a small amount of sex partners (Of course, they could always lie about this so, as a rule, I multiply by a factor of 3).
And, yes, there are women like this out there. I've met and dated some of them, though, the timing was not right.
Under the old system, a man's task was simple: compete with other men, and aim to surpass them. Gain status, money, prestige; and female attention will follow. This no longer holds. A new age demands new talents and new strategies.
Well said. But I think this should have been closed after the third "no" response.
Naomi Campbell was dating a Russian billionaire. At best these two are evenly matched in the looks dept, but I think she is still a bit out of his league.
What do all of these guys have in common? They are high status males.
Is there a reason you think these examples represent millions of average women? A lot of women don't care about status. Look at the people around you. You'll notice there are ordinary women with ordinary husbands. Or do you live in isolation? Is that why you have to look up celebrities' lives on the internet and use them as examples?
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.
