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.
I can end the argument with one sentence. A woman will settle for any man in direct correlation to how loud her baby clock is ticking. If she wants a baby bad enough, she'll settle for almost any man ready to start a family.
I guess I'm not feeling that baby fever then. They're cute and all, but no way would I let just anybody impregnate me just to have a baby.
Unless he's got great game, confidence and charm a guy will have to pay an escort to sleep with someone way out of his league. The groupie analogy is right. A girl can make herself close and available to a rock star god, follow him around and will have a chance of sleeping with him. The female groupie is known as a stalker when it's a man doing it to a famous woman.
A decent looking woman with nothing else going for her, still has the potential to sleep with practically any guy if in the right place at the right time and that's a driving factor of dating up. A woman could be hooking up with a millionaire and dating up, but the guy may be using her for sex and never commit. But because she's been able to attract that level of male, or someone with perceived higher value in dating, she'll expect the same in marriage unless forced to settle.
It comes down to biology on both sides (male sex drive and female looking for best genes for her family).
You speak with such authoritative conviction. I have to ask - have you ever actually been in a relationship with an actual woman?
I think this whole dating up or down is a bunch of nonsense. To me that is subjective to who is looking at it. We are all human beings. We are not houses or cars where you pay more to have more options. It is all based on opinions.
You are entitled to your opinion on the subject of dating up, markets, leagues, classes and ratings (synonyms) But I do not undestand why you and others feel compelled to comment on it in a thread that does not interest you. It would be like me posting a negative comment about veganism in a thread about vegan recipes.
You are entitled to your opinion on the subject of dating up, markets, leagues, classes and ratings (synonyms) But I do not undestand why you and others feel compelled to comment on it in a thread that does not interest you. It would be like me posting a negative comment about veganism in a thread about vegan recipes.
I'm not the person you're quoting, but I am someone who shares that poster's views (at least in that one post) on how silly the idea of "dating up" is, and it's not a question of commenting on a thread that doesn't interest me. Indeed, it does interest me because I think it's important to let people know when they're viewing something in perhaps a skewed way (in this case, giving numbers, designations, importance ratings, etc. on what are actually whole, complex human beings). It's especially important if those are the same people who complain all the time that they can't get dates/satisfying relationships, because a change of mindset could potentially help them.
No, it's not like an anti-veganism comment on a vegan recipe site. That's not a very good analogy. Veganism probably isn't hurting the person or other people and the vegans probably aren't complaining constantly that the only thing that sucks about veganism is how hard it is to get meat.
The anti-veganism example is an illustration of trolling. Refuting the idea of "numbers" or "dating up/down" isn't trolling. It's giving the opinion that one should look at people as complete people rather than trying to push a designation on the person. Not the same thing, at all.
I'm not the person you're quoting, but I am someone who shares that poster's views (at least in that one post) on how silly the idea of "dating up" is, and it's not a question of commenting on a thread that doesn't interest me. Indeed, it does interest me because I think it's important to let people know when they're viewing something in perhaps a skewed way (in this case, giving numbers, designations, importance ratings, etc. on what are actually whole, complex human beings). It's especially important if those are the same people who complain all the time that they can't get dates/satisfying relationships, because a change of mindset could potentially help them.
No, it's not like an anti-veganism comment on a vegan recipe site. That's not a very good analogy. Veganism probably isn't hurting the person or other people and the vegans probably aren't complaining constantly that the only thing that sucks about veganism is how hard it is to get meat.
The anti-veganism example is an illustration of trolling. Refuting the idea of "numbers" or "dating up/down" isn't trolling. It's giving the opinion that one should look at people as complete people rather than trying to push a designation on the person. Not the same thing, at all.
I could make an argument that veganism is hurting someone and I stand behind my analogy, in fact I think it is an excellent analogy. But I would never do inject my opinions about veganisn into a conersation between vegans because it is none of business what someone eats or believes. I am not going to construct some realization about helping someone just to advance my own ideology.
I can end the argument with one sentence. A woman will settle for any man in direct correlation to how loud her baby clock is ticking. If she wants a baby bad enough, she'll settle for almost any man ready to start a family.
Not sure where you're living that this could possibly be true! No woman in her right mind would settle for just anybody just to have a baby!
Quote:
Originally Posted by justThis View Post
Do NOT date people below your standards
Quote:
Originally Posted by FycBST2
I always hear that women should NOT settle and date "below" them right?
Since women are trying to date up and above them, and of course each woman can only marry 1 man....
Then by nature of simple mathematics and statistics, eventually some women would have to really settle?
And to further prove my stance: I hear a lot of the older women say that all the men they are interested in are taken.
So basically that means, some of the women have succeeded in dating "up" and thus, other women are forced, by nature of statistics, to date down.
Don't date below your standards. Your standards don't have to be above what you think you are.
And really, there isn't a single metric. We don't all have some number that everyone would agree on. There re so many different dimensions that people value differently. A guy may be average looking but sweet and really well-off financially or he may be a knockout, underemployed, and a kind of a jerk. Different women will evaluate those guys differently. Choose standards that are good for you and don't date below them.
And even if you went on just looks, even those vary from person to person.
2. The trend of men graduating less is true, but not on epidemic scale. The reality is that women wait until it's too late and they're forced to settle. You can "blame men" all you want, but it's your fault you waited till you were 35 and you can't understand why all the ballers aren't chomping at the bit to put a ring on it.
This^^^^^^^
Every childless woman I date that is in her 30's wants a kid ASAP. I actually would rather date a woman that already has a kid or two (they are more stable).
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.
