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 don't think you'd be satisfied with ANYTHING they could say because you're self-hating. Hopefully your friends will stick by you in the meantime.
Hey!!! I'm not upset about this at all. I'm just having a laugh. I remember what it was like. This thread brought back memories.
What?! Now, I have to be self hating to remember a certain time in my life when I was not so successful with the ladiez? This topic is no big deal to me. If anything, trying to block out certain aspects of your life and pretend it didn't happen is a bit closer to self-hating because you won't grow from it.
If he is, and he believes that this is the reason women treat him like dating napalm, then he will either have to invest in some drastic reconstructive surgery or find another way to get the female attention he apparently is so desirous of and falling short in acquiring it.
Still doesn't explain why plenty of less-than-stellar looking men get dates and even eventually pair off with women every day.
I think you almost have a point (or you do and I'm missing it), but if much of what you say is true about women having to get with sorta OK guys out of social and economic necessity, then what happened to the men they would have dated if they had options?
What do you mean? Culture often dictates what those options are, and what characteristics or qualities are desirable for relationships and marriage. I assume the men who could have been options ended up with other women.
ETA:
But really, "options" here, the way I'm using it, is not necessarily about choosing between two types of men from a particular time period, rather, the eras or time periods (or culture) that afforded women autonomy and access to opportunities, knowledge, education, progress, etc. A modern woman today can have criteria that wouldn't have been an option for many women in earlier generations. We are a product of our culture (including microculture). The 1950s version of me would have had a very different understanding of relationships, marriage, life, etc. I would have very different "criteria" (if one can call it that) for a spouse. Our cultures influence and shape who we are, which also influence the type of people we surround ourselves with and date/marry. Heck, 12 years ago I wouldn't have dreamed of marrying my now-husband. That me was about as 1950s as you get.
Quote:
If there are two types of men, to grossly oversimplify, and those types are the decent but otherwise not so attractive guy, and the more attractive guy, What happened to the more attractive guy back when most women ended up with not so attractive guy?
Married the most attractive girl, perhaps? Most women, back then, ended up with average-looking men?
Quote:
There must have been a surplus of men who by today's standards would be considered pretty interesting and attractive. And yet that wasn't the case
I'm not talking about attractive vs. average-looking. In any case, what would make those men interesting and attractive by today's standards?
Last edited by Metaphysique; 01-03-2017 at 12:32 AM..
OP, they are your female FRIENDS. You've already been friend zoned. It's hard for a guy to get out of that zone... sorry, it just is.
Doesn't mean they think you are ugly, or unworthy, or have some personal defect. It just means you aren't right FOR THEM.
I have had a number of male friends over the years. Here are the reasons why they were friendzoned:
1. We became friends while one of us was in a relationship and I didn't want to lose them if we got into a relationship and it didn't work out.
2. I'd already witnessed them in a relationship and didn't think it was the type of relationship I was looking for.
3. I just couldn't picture having sex with them, not because they were ugly because none of them were, but for any number of reasons. One guy, I used to work with him and we'd sing Elton John's Crocodile Rock to each other. I couldn't get that out of my head when I tried to picture being romantic with him. Another guy was too conservative. He wouldn't even let his dog get neutered because he felt like it was unnatural; how was I supposed to reverse cowgirl a guy like that??
4. And this is a very real thing: They were nice guys and I legitimately didn't think I was good enough/the one for them.
Every single one of those guys is now married or in a LTR. So listen to your friends; you aren't undateable, THEY just don't want to date you.
Next time tell them to put their money where their mouths are and fix you up with a friend.
If he is, and he believes that this is the reason women treat him like dating napalm, then he will either have to invest in some drastic reconstructive surgery or find another way to get the female attention he apparently is so desirous of and falling short in acquiring it.
Still doesn't explain why plenty of less-than-stellar looking men get dates and even eventually pair off with women every day.
I agree, and that's the gist of another post I made in this thread. But while less than stellar looking people do eventually eventually can be a long, painful time. If a person is making a good faith effort to date and getting nowhere, that can be pretty demoralizing. Sometimes I think we see people here being bitter and jaded as a result of their struggles, and not so much as a cause.
However, I tend to suspect that many men who make this complaint of having no success socially often struggle because they focus on women who are much better looking than they are. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, or perhaps there is but what's wrong can't be solved here, but in any case it's damned ineffective. Most people are paired off with someone about as attractive as they are. We notice the exceptions precisely because they're exceptions, but expecting the exceptional can be frustrating. Especially if there's any hint of the so-so looking man (or woman when genders are reversed and they sometimes are) seeing a relationship with a conventionally attractive woman as some sort of validation, or worse yet redemption of his "quality" as a man. That attitude is self sabotaging and that's a lot to put on another person, even if she's initially interested to some extent.
when female acquaintances try to be encouraging with statements like "I'm sure there are plenty women who would like to date you" and tell you to try online dating.
Based on your many negative posts in this forum, I would imagine these women are tired of hearing you grumble about it and are just saying something, anything, to stop you.
I think you almost have a point (or you do and I'm missing it), but if much of what you say is true about women having to get with sorta OK guys out of social and economic necessity, then what happened to the men they would have dated if they had options? If there are two types of men, to grossly oversimplify, and those types are the decent but otherwise not so attractive guy, and the more attractive guy, what happened to the more attractive guy back when most women ended up with not so attractive guy? There must have been a surplus of men who by today's standards would be considered pretty interesting and attractive. And yet that wasn't the case
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique
What do you mean? Culture often dictates what those options are, and what characteristics or qualities are desirable for relationships and marriage. I assume the men who could have been options ended up with other women.
ETA:
But really, "options" here, the way I'm using it, is not necessarily about choosing between two types of men from a particular time period, rather, the eras or time periods (or culture) that afforded women autonomy and access to opportunities, knowledge, education, progress, etc. A modern woman today can have criteria that wouldn't have been an option for many women in earlier generations. We are a product of our culture (including microculture). The 1950s version of me would have had a very different understanding of relationships, marriage, life, etc. I would have very different "criteria" (if one can call it that) for a spouse. Our cultures influence and shape who we are, which also influence the type of people we surround ourselves with and date/marry. Heck, 12 years ago I wouldn't have dreamed of marrying my now-husband. That me was about as 1950s as you get.
Married the most attractive girl, perhaps? Most women, back then, ended up with average-looking men?
I'm not talking about attractive vs. average-looking. In any case, what would make those men interesting and attractive by today's standards?
Like I said, I grossly oversimplified for the sake of conversation. When I talked about attractiveness, I meant things like passion and interests and style, things that are at least potentially a matter of choice rather than looks, which are somewhat set. I'm 59 and my mother was 40 when I was born. I was around and aware by the end of the 60s, and my mom's experiences date back to the 30s. It seems that women were very much interested in what a man looked like throughout that whole period. You should have heard the crap my mother and her friends and my aunts did in competing for the attention of the most physically attractive men. I know that's a small sample size, but good looking men were all over popular culture then also. And just like now, women married men about as attractive as they were, with very rare exceptions. They basically leveraged their looks to marry a similarly physically attractive man. The idea that women just lately started making a man's looks a high priority is kind of silly.
Maybe this is more accurate description of what I meant. If today women have more varied criteria for the non looks aspects of attractiveness in the men they date/marry/whatever, to read what some men here write and what many women respond with, those criteria have to some extent selected against non looks qualities like steadiness and niceness and so on, in favor of passion and spontaneity and in some cases fairly edgy qualities. Something besides nice and non threatening. Something besides "steady" and predictable. Or so it would appear.
So if it's true that "steady" men are somewhat marginalized in 2017 when they had been favored decades earlier, doesn't it follow that when "steady" types were favored that spontaneous passionate men were mostly left out? Or perhaps many of those men who were not "steady" by temperament tried to fit the "steady" template, with whatever success? I don't know. But it would seem that if "steady" guy won back in the day, then passionate guy lost. And I don't believe that. Artistic, creative, sometimes unpredictable men have always had plenty of women find them attractive.
Which brings me back to my overall point. Things were different structurally 50 + years ago, but people acted within that structure in ways similar to today. The 50s wasn't some golden era for boring, reasonably well employed men, and it wasn't typically hell for women. Women today have a lot more freedom and I firmly believe that freedom to choose is better than not, but that hasn't made this era golden for women. Just read the pages here.
Like I said, I grossly oversimplified for the sake of conversation. When I talked about attractiveness, I meant things like passion and interests and style, things that are at least potentially a matter of choice rather than looks, which are somewhat set. I'm 59 and my mother was 40 when I was born. I was around and aware by the end of the 60s, and my mom's experiences date back to the 30s. It seems that women were very much interested in what a man looked like throughout that whole period. You should have heard the crap my mother and her friends and my aunts did in competing for the attention of the most physically attractive men. I know that's a small sample size, but good looking men were all over popular culture then also. And just like now, women married men about as attractive as they were, with very rare exceptions. They basically leveraged their looks to marry a similarly physically attractive man. The idea that women just lately started making a man's looks a high priority is kind of silly.
Maybe this is more accurate description of what I meant. If today women have more varied criteria for the non looks aspects of attractiveness in the men they date/marry/whatever, to read what some men here write and what many women respond with, those criteria have to some extent selected against non looks qualities like steadiness and niceness and so on, in favor of passion and spontaneity and in some cases fairly edgy qualities. Something besides nice and non threatening. Something besides "steady" and predictable. Or so it would appear.
So if it's true that "steady" men are somewhat marginalized in 2017 when they had been favored decades earlier, doesn't it follow that when "steady" types were favored that spontaneous passionate men were mostly left out?
Like "bad boys," rebels a la Foot Loose and Grease? Even if they were desired by girls and young women, they weren't seen as suitable partners for a woman of a certain stature or socioeconomic/religious strata.
They were left out in the sense that it wasn't socially acceptable or the norm to date these types if they didn't also have other admirable traits (comes from a "good" family, Christian values, middle/upper-middle class, white, educated, not "up to no good," not a "bastard.") Often the charismatic and passionate types weren't seen as honest or reliable, so cultural/social norms being what they were would have eliminated them from the main dating pool of "good Christian women."
Surely these types would have eventually ended up with a woman, perhaps a woman like them, or if they were "lucky," a goody two-shoes Mary-Sue.
Quote:
Or perhaps many of those men who were not "steady" by temperament tried to fit the "steady" template, with whatever success? I don't know. But it would seem that if "steady" guy won back in the day, then passionate guy lost.
Nah. These charismatic passionate guys didn't lose. Heck, these types always had options. My maternal grandfather had a lot of options. He was exactly this type. Charismatic, charming and very good-looking, and a blues singer who traveled. So, yeah, he had women all over him. It's just that guys like him probably didn't "get" the steady marriage with a Mary-Sue type, 'cause most Mary-Sues ended up with the dependable, nice-enough guy from a respectable and "good" family.
Quote:
And I don't believe that. Artistic, creative, sometimes unpredictable men have always had plenty of women find them attractive.
Definitely.
Quote:
Which brings me back to my overall point. Things were different structurally 50 + years ago, but people acted within that structure in ways similar to today. The 50s wasn't some golden era for boring, reasonably well employed men, and it wasn't typically hell for women. Women today have a lot more freedom and I firmly believe that freedom to choose is better than not, but that hasn't made this era golden for women. Just read the pages here.
Average doesn't cut it now. Just being nice-enough, having a dependable job, being average-looking, etc., is not enough, not because modern women are inherently picky for the sake of being picky, but because many women have a better idea of what they want and what is compatible for them, not based on cultural dictates of what makes for a great partner. The concept of compatibility is influenced by culture in many ways, life experiences, and then our own personal tastes, often guided by microcultures and personality.
We see so many bitter and angry guys come here thinking that a few rather basic qualities is all that is necessary for a girlfriend or relationship. They reduce actual compatibility down to a handful "qualities" that "used to" be enough to get a girlfriend or wife. It's really about getting a girlfriend/wife who checks off a few boxes, but ignores the issue of compatibility. Then again, people need to know themselves well enough to know what is or isn't compatible.
My "criteria" at the time I started dating again put me in the "very selective" category, and I was. I had some pretty strict criteria, and for good reason. There were areas that were/are important to me that I made sure to screen for. In my circles, parenting styles/division of labor, discipline, etc., is a really big one that causes strife. Like the couples who can't agree on parenting styles or child care, or whether one parent will SAH for X number of years. I see so many couples fail to consider the mundane and daily life routines when choosing a partner, because that's the stuff we actually deal with on a regular basis. Dude can be nice, but is he going to share baby duty, get up at 2:00 am to console a colicky or crying baby, change diapers, or have an active role in the child's early stages of life? I lost track of how many husband's/father's are practically oblivious or who are all "that's a woman's job." So many friends and acquaintances have vented and ranted about their husband's lack of involvement. Or the dad who views caring for his children as "babysitting." People may not see a reason to really factor in such seemingly mundane stuff, but they do matter when the newness of the warm fuzzy feelings wear off and life happens.
There have been a number of friends who were shocked their husband's didn't want them breastfeeding their baby, or didn't "allow" them to breastfeed in public. How many of these bitter boys would even think to consider something like this when attempting to "get" a girlfriend or wife? They wouldn't, or don't. These sort of issues may seem unimportant until they do become important due to differences in wants/parenting styles/practices, etc. These very issues can be a factor of compatibility today that simply wasn't in my parents' and grandparents' days.
I knew exactly where my husband stood on these mundane and normal routines and practices. We had very thorough conversations about these sort of things very early on. I wouldn't have married him if we didn't see eye-to-eye in the areas that matter most to me. For some, it isn't just about having a good-looking guy who is dependable and seems nice. There are a lot of these types out there, but they're not all my type or a compatible fit.
If a man takes a female friend trying to cheer him up as a bad thing, then you really don't want to be friends with her, and that's you are upset. Friends try to encourage you when you are down. I have female friends who gripe all the time about how men treat them, and I say the same things to them. Tell them how great they are, and that the right man would be lucky to have them, which is true. Doesn't mean I am that man, but I want them to be happy. If you don't like hearing that, my advice would be to stop being friends with them, because you probably want more than that.
As a guy, I think it's funny when female acquaintances try to be encouraging with statements like "I'm sure there are plenty women who would like to date you" and tell you to try online dating. Women who say this know exactly why you have trouble (usually it has to do with your physical appearance) and would filter you out of their online dating searches if they were single.
Female friends or female acquaintances?
If an actual, good, female friend makes that suggestion, then I genuinely believe she's trying to suggest something that will work and that she wants me to find someone.
If we're talking female acquaintances (or, acquaintances in general), they're probably not the right people to be asking for dating advice in the first place. It's too personal of a question. If someone I barely knew came to me asking for help with dating, the awkwardness would lead me to provide a generic answer since I don't know them better.
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.
Hey!!! I'm not upset about this at all. I'm just having a laugh. I remember what it was like. This thread brought back memories.
