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.
Either make peace with being alone with your very high standards...or adjust them. I mean, the question that I wonder, and we've talked about it here before, is... Are those older ladies that hawk101 is calling unrealistic (and maybe they are)...are they actually just fine with being alone? And only wanting to pop by the realms of OLD in case some young cub is willing to let them play cougar (or whatever it is they want) but otherwise actually PERFECTLY HAPPY on their own?
Whereas the assumption that a single man who is seeking, is an unsatisfied creature who simply cannot be happy unless and until he finds a relationship. And he's got to engage in "looks-matching" and whatever to be "realistic" because he must do everything and then some to get a woman in his life, before his business shrivels up and falls off or something.
???
I mean if the women don't feel motivated to get a relationship/any relationship enough to adjust their standards, but the men just keep adjusting and adjusting...I can kinda see where there's an imbalance of the kind that guys complain about. Not that I feel a happily-solitary woman owes it to any guy to change her tune.
It wasn't just some , 70% of them. But God only knows about the rest of it most talked long term growing old together stuff , wanting to remarry and bla bla though so l'd say not.
Ahhh, and don't forget her business shrivels up and falls to pieces too and the most demanding types were well on their way in that department which made it even weirder,
lt's not about standards as such it was about the unrealism of it and the entitled demanding attitudes without looking in the mirror .
Sure everyone's gonna have some standards in all sorts of ways but yaknow.
Anyway, mind you l met some very decent women during that though they were still about, but l couldn't believe how much of that stuff was on there non the less, most of them had been on there years though and on 4 or 5 other date sites as well, surprise surprise.
While we're on this topic, I once talked to a professional counselor who told me that she had counseled many people who have unrealistic standards about the kind of person they can have. That it was difficult to get through to these people about their delusions.
I don't feel my standards were unrealistic, I actually was involved with a couple of men in the past who were basically homeless. One of them lived with me for a while. I just felt like if I could maintain my own apartment and car, that anyone I date should be able to do the same. And if they couldn't, then I would not date them. People who are practical and ambitious will work two jobs if that's what it takes. At the time I was dating, the economy was great and there were plenty of jobs to go around so I stopped cutting these men slack.
I only expected a man to have a stable job (any kind of job), no baby mamas, no addictions, his own place to live and a car to drive. You'd be surprised how many men out there can't attain these things. I did not think my standards were too high. I was glad for the advent of online dating because it makes it soooo much easier to weed these losers out and quickly move on to someone else. I suspect that online dating culture is going to turn the dating world into "survival of the fittest" and that's a good thing.
I would be surprised if men could even get a date specially after all the things that are expected and demanded from men. As a woman you can get a date just fine even if you don't have a job, a car, etc. As long as a man finds you attractive he will take you out. A man? Not quite the same. If they live with the parents, don't have a car, no job, and so on he is considered a loser like you said. Generally speaking, women are more forgiving of a man's appearance while men can be more forgiving about a woman's economic status. I guess you can sort of weed "loser men" out reading their profile, seeing their pictures, and spending time with them to know them.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,957,550 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
I just felt like if I could maintain my own apartment and car, that anyone I date should be able to do the same.
That's fine, but calling them losers is something else. I have a car (drive to work each day, it sucks) and a condo of my own (much preferred being a renter actually), but I know A LOT of people considerably more successful and desirable that have roommates and no car, because they prefer living with others and have no need for a car. In lots of places I've lived having a car is an annoying hassle and the quality of life (never mind the finances) of owning a car makes no sense whatsoever. I jettisoned my car within a few months after I moved to SF and it was absolutely for the best. Its even easier now with Uber/Lyft that didn't exist then.
If I could live carless, I would in a second. But where I live and work, its just not possible, sadly. Not that you care, but I would absolutely write off any woman that stated a person needs a car and their own place to date them. It's just not the type of mentality and value system I wish to connect with. But, you are absolutely free to have your preferences; its the demeaning those that do not meet them that is the concern.
That's fine, but calling them losers is something else. I have a car (drive to work each day, it sucks) and a condo of my own (much preferred being a renter actually), but I know A LOT of people considerably more successful and desirable that have roommates and no car, because they prefer living with others and have no need for a car. In lots of places I've lived having a car is an annoying hassle and the quality of life (never mind the finances) of owning a car makes no sense whatsoever. I jettisoned my car within a few months after I moved to SF and it was absolutely for the best. Its even easier now with Uber/Lyft that didn't exist then.
If I could live carless, I would in a second. But where I live and work, its just not possible, sadly. Not that you care, but I would absolutely write off any woman that stated a person needs a car and their own place to date them. It's just not the type of mentality and value system I wish to connect with. But, you are absolutely free to have your preferences; its the demeaning those that do not meet them that is the concern.
Exactly. My car, the full coverage insurance, and the downtown parking ramp rental, equal the monthly rent I pay to live here. It was either: get rid of the car, or pay it off by using it for Uber in my free time. Since I love to drive, and my family mostly lives hours away - here I am. For now.
That's kind of odd that you had a few in there where you said..."I have this going on with me, but I prefer you don't " especially about dating someone that doesn't smoke so that it'll help you to quit??.
No, not so much to "help me to quit" but more to not hold me back in that. It is already incredibly difficult. I don't need it to be a more comfortable habit because I've got a partner who steps outside with me.
For context... When things were rough towards the end, with my ex, and when I still lived in the house after we broke up, we'd spend insane amounts of time sitting in the stinky garage, smoking. After I moved out, I smoked less. At one point I tried to quit and had a few months there where I did not buy any cigarettes, but when my ex returned from out of state, and demanded we get together to "hash some things out"...you bet your backside I asked him for cigarettes and smoked them. Not a chance I'd be sitting in a car in a parking lot listening to him rant and carry on, without smoking. After that, I came to a point where I actually wanted to encounter him to get a cigarette and smoke it. Eventually I started buying my own again.
It's one of the strongest chemical addictions there is, strong enough to even make me seek company with a terrible and unsafe human being, just to indulge in nicotine. Insane right? But addiction is like that. Quitting is hard, and there is also an element of feeling like one has a sort of "permission" to smoke if one has company in it. There is a social-behavior-reinforcement aspect. So having a smoker for a partner makes it far harder to quit. And two people trying to quit at the same time is a recipe for WWIII in the house.
But my fiance is a non-smoker, but he grew up with smoker parents so he's not completely revolted by it, but he wants to be supportive of my efforts to quit. So. Apparently my "crazy standards" were not so crazy if I got them met.
Regarding the car thing, I would never judge someone for not having a car in a city that had good public transit. It's a question of WHY one has no car. If it is simply a prudent choice and they get by just fine without it, then of course that's fine.
But if it's because they are generally broke, and they have to bum rides off others all the time, or worse because of DUI issues? Oh hell no.
Because I live in a smallish city with somewhat unreliable public transit, I'd be less forgiving of someone not having a car, though.
Oh, and timberline, I also like being a renter. No judgment at all for a guy renting rather than owning his domicile.
The marker of stability I am most concerned with, is job stability. How long has he had his current job or been in his current field? How many jobs has he had in the last decade or two? I don't even mind a modest sort of work, if it's stable. What I'm not getting mixed up with is the sort of man who hops from one gig to the next... Restaurant to gas station to security guard to call center to Uber driver to gas station to temp work to... Multiple short term stints at various jobs. That's fine for someone who is like 18-25 years old or so, but a proper adult shouldn't be doing that.
The car thing and living arrangement "requirements" cited earlier are all pretty basic to me. For some places in the country, particularly back east, public transit can work well enough to not need a car. The further you go west the less this is true. Here in So Cal it's car country central. Things are just too far spread out and the public transport completely blows here. For most of my working career I've had a company provided vehicle. This allowed us to just have one car for weekend use and for Mrs. Chow to use as needed. I've changed my career path and no longer have that luxury. I now have had to buy a car and pay for all of the expenses associated with having a car, including the monthly car payment itself. I love cars, always have, but I'd drop it in a heartbeat if I lived in a situation that allowed for that. You can save loads of money. We were able to not have a car payment for many many years.
Cars here on the west coast are kind of a status symbol for a lot of people. To the point that some people are "car rich, cash poor" to steal from the original saying. I also don't want to offend people here, but public transport here has a negative stigma attached to it on some level. People who live in So Cal area might know what I'm talking about.
I forget which poster stated that having a car and own place thing requirement might be tapping into that stigma a bit, if they are living in a place where public transport sucks or isn't very viable. I don't know, just guessing.
Last edited by Chowhound; 10-08-2019 at 10:00 AM..
That's fine, but calling them losers is something else. I have a car (drive to work each day, it sucks) and a condo of my own (much preferred being a renter actually), but I know A LOT of people considerably more successful and desirable that have roommates and no car, because they prefer living with others and have no need for a car. In lots of places I've lived having a car is an annoying hassle and the quality of life (never mind the finances) of owning a car makes no sense whatsoever. I jettisoned my car within a few months after I moved to SF and it was absolutely for the best. Its even easier now with Uber/Lyft that didn't exist then.
If I could live carless, I would in a second. But where I live and work, its just not possible, sadly. Not that you care, but I would absolutely write off any woman that stated a person needs a car and their own place to date them. It's just not the type of mentality and value system I wish to connect with. But, you are absolutely free to have your preferences; its the demeaning those that do not meet them that is the concern.
And going carless in San Francisco saves you the hassle and expense of having to repair your broken car window glass. So much vehicle vandalism in that city.
That's fine, but calling them losers is something else. I have a car (drive to work each day, it sucks) and a condo of my own (much preferred being a renter actually), but I know A LOT of people considerably more successful and desirable that have roommates and no car, because they prefer living with others and have no need for a car..
But these men were not like that. They weren't like these successful people you know that simply choose to have no car. So yes, i can call them losers because I know them. I'm not talking about your friends. I don't even know your friends. I'm talking about people I know. It was obvious in my post that I was referring specifically to the men that I knew.
Last edited by PriscillaVanilla; 10-08-2019 at 01:20 PM..
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.
