Less sex in relationships and fewer relationships (divorce, attraction, conversation)
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.
It is quite lovely. And lest anyone think it's a free-for-all and you'd have to tolerate strangers getting in on it, no. The typical thing is for the recipient to let their Dom, partner, or an outgoing friend, know the list of people they'd be comfortable with, and then that person goes and quietly asks/invites them one by one. That takes the risk of rejection or fear of awkwardness in asking for something for yourself out of it, and also honors the bounds of consent.
But like, how much creativity did it take, to figure out how best to make that work?
And again, it isn't really about like...THIS, specifically...it's about asking the question, "OK so the way I have always assumed that this has to be done, just isn't working, obviously. Because I'm miserable and getting nowhere. How do I change the game I'm in or the rules by which I am playing, so that maybe it could work better for me?" I wish more people would be willing to consider such things, just...unconventional solutions. Many things are possible but they usually do not just spontaneously happen with no one trying to help them along. That's all. Guess I just wish that everyone could feel that love exists in abundance, and isn't that difficult to get.
Now a highly functioning, mutually passionate, long term committed relationship? THAT I have found to be challenging to find and have. I think I finally did, but still, we will have only a certain span of years to enjoy it because he is so much older than I am. I sometimes indulge in a fantasy that I abandoned the real story arc of my life at 18 and instead made it my mission to find him, wherever he was, and convince him that I was his One and that we should be together. But of course, the student was not ready then, for the teacher to arrive, as he puts it. We would not have been compatible at earlier life stages.
Oh, and what I said earlier about happiness, wasn't necessarily about being bubbly and outgoing. My partner is definitely an introvert, and he was pretty quiet the first few times we spent time together, but he listened and kept me talking, and his demeanor was engaged and calm, not "grumpy." First impressions of grumpiness, moodiness, or worse, anger or despair, are what women are avoiding, I think--that does not mean a guy has to be a one-man circus, keeping us grinning and clapping and entertained.
That is completely wrong, as is much of this post. I've seen unattractive men come into my scene and at first be very awkward and quiet, and over time, as they relax and realize that they are not being socially rejected there, open up and show their true colors. And when they do, there's usually some really cool stuff under the surface.
But see guys with your mindset never get that far. You know why? They come in expecting fast results, or same-night results, and when that does not happen, they don't come back because they are angry and they'd rather sit at home complaining about how the whole game is rigged against them.
In terms of happy or not happy, I think (as often, he's a great example of failure) of my ex. If a woman asks him what he does for fun, he'll say, "I don't remember how to have fun anymore. I'm hoping to meet someone who will show me what that's like again." I suggested he watch Game of Thrones, because I know him well enough (ought to after all these years) that I know he would love it. He refuses, even if I offer to lend him DVDs he refuses, because "he doesn't have anyone to watch it with." It's like because he does not have a woman to feed him positivity, he refuses to even try to experience any. And given any chance he will spout off complaints of the same flavor we always see here, about how all the evils of the world are the fault of women. Women and our "pickiness." Women and hypergamy. Women and cheating. Women and our options. How we leave the house and men line up. He's even warped reality enough that he believes a shaming fantasy he's concocted in his mind that I, his ex, embodiment of all the evil wimminz, went to bars and got on a table and let man after man "line up and take a turn." Because that is what he thinks life must be like for women. It's a combination of hate and envy. Because at the same time as he is disgusted, he's also filled with self loathing and wishes he were desirable "like that."
Yeah no woman's life is actually like that. We would not want it to be anyways. And under all that nasty, nasty stuff, is a deep seated need to punish women.
I think that (hopefully to a much lesser degree) most women have encountered someone like that, someone whose life has filled them with poisonous mojo, who is just looking for someone to take it out on. These men do not become happy when a woman comes into their lives.
And you know, this is not about coping with the external factors life throws at us. No, as JerZ said it isn't about swinging from the chandeliers all the time. It's about who you generally are as a baseline. If you are generally a positive person as a baseline, then you can more functionally handle life's challenges, too. But if you are depressive and not seeking help, and expect someone to slog through crap with you... Well, you're going to have to find someone who is similarly messy, or just stupid, to sign on for that. And why in the hell would someone like me want to settle for an unhappy person, when I am quite capable of finding someone to be my companion who knows how to appreciate life, and who shares in joy with me? And ya know, dating can be seen as something of a barometer, because if I get the impression a guy can't even legitimately have fun on date, but sees it as an unfortunately necessary inconvenience to endure in the pursuit of his high-stakes goal...ugh. That isn't how I roll, how I live, or the mojo I want in my life or my companion. Nope.
Patently untrue. The most prolific player I've ever met has a "dadbod." He also has a very charismatic demeanor, knows his target demographic and plays them with skill, and has mastered the conversational technique of your average therapist, which is to keep the subject talking. If you are a man who is seeking women, unless you are truly hideous, like black and brown teeth, bad smelling, hunchback, disfigured awful hideous, if you are reasonably normal looking, there are ways to cultivate a demeanor that will appeal to someone. Or many someones. No, it's not "just be yourself" if yourself is blah you need to make yourself not blah. Be your best self. Learn things. Master a talent of some kind. Be interesting. Do stuff. If you can't score points in column A, then work on columns B, C, and D. Women DO care about that stuff.
We do. Seriously.
And then put yourself out there somewhere that isn't formatted as "swipe left swipe right" because that junk is a bunch of playing superficial games and winning superficial prizes. Write a decent profile. Women will read it.
Are men supposed to have validity in their criteria to be "attracted" and women to (for what reason?) settle for men we do not find attractive in literally any way shape or form? Like you weren't gorgeous but we still gave you a chance to have a conversation with us, and then you were also not charismatic, intelligent, witty, interesting, or appealing in any fashion.
If men don't want to be expected to settle for ugly women trailing a bunch of kids and baggage and drug addiction who have literally no redeeming quality that you would find appealing, then why on earth are guys like you trying to say, "A guy should be allowed to be unattractive, not charismatic, not talented or smart or even happy, really just a miserable human being--hey he MIGHT MAKE A GOOD PARTNER! and it's no fair he gets shut out!" What? In what way exactly will he "make a good partner?" He will be loyal and not cheat and stick around? Oh great, I stepped in this poo and it won't wash off and now I cannot get rid of it. Fantastic. Please tell me why people who cannot manage to cultivate a single redeeming quality, even if they have the chance to shine in ways other than the ones we cannot help (such as our basic genetics/looks) must be given a chance? How is it my problem to make sure they do not become "warped?"
Seriously though?
Another reply that rants at me, like I've done anything to anyone here.
I didn't say men with no good qualities deserve much of anything and there are more fundamentally unimpressive men than otherwise, but I think most people deserve a little chance with others on about their level and that doesn't seem to happen as much anymore.
As the longer article suggested, I don't think as many people understand what goes into quality relationships. It's not hugely about sexual attraction and fun, though those things matter, especially early on. Relating to each other, mutual understanding, appreciation, and support, mutual interests and life goals, freely being themselves, etc. I think many people never find that, and how they filter out is part of the problem.
Kind of like "women" having more options when going to a bar, club, party, and many other social venues. I wasn't into bars and clubs, but the times I did go, men outnumbered women by quite a bit, and these venues were ALL about first impressions and appearance. If we're talking about singles hot spots, these venues attract certain types, which are the type that seeks out this form of social activity and interaction.
A woman who visits a club or even a nice comedy lounge with friends and ends up meeting a fellow and exchanges numbers is just as likely to complain to a guy friend about her dating woes. In *this* setting, it is all about appearance and chemistry, because not a thing is known about either other than possible mutual attraction. Big whoop. My thinking someone is good-looking is not enough to form any real interest.
Now, the bitter folks like to claim appearance is even more of a factor on dating sites because instead of 100 dudes at a club to ogle and reject and flirt with, you have hundreds, if not more, online. It's also easier to screen and filter those interests. I consider this a great thing, as does my husband, and the several (average) guys I previously met and dated after meeting on a dating site. And when I say average, I mean average and unremarkable appearance.
I had a lot of options, and those options included regular men, though said men were *my* type. Emphasis on type. I didn't approach just any average guy. I approached the kind of guys that intrigued me on multiple levels. I needed to be attracted to them, but I certainly didn't limit myself to the Bruce Waynes. Actually, I didn't seek out these types and only went on a handful of dates with the outwardly charismatic and conventionally attractive. They were not.my.type.
Truth be told, I had far better experiences with the Jesse Eisenberg types. The kinds of grown, middle-aged men who look like they gather with other middle-aged men to play D&D, Magic the Gathering or weekly WoW raids with their guild. In the areas I lived, there was no shortage of my type, and the men in my age range had decent to good experiences with dating sites. They knew how to play up their best traits and market their best qualities. (the majority were writers by trade, or educators, academics, artists/creatives, or STEM-oriented with excellent writing skills)
On another note, even the good-looking and charismatic men can struggle with finding the right match, as we've had members express having "options" for casual dating, but then get upset when they can't find The One or Right One. They only want casual or things fall apart or don't progress to anything, or they're not viable options for the long term. The wide net only works if one's preferences and criteria can be fulfilled or met by the majority of people, which may work best if you're just looking for something casual or transient, or maybe you have rather nondescript and basic needs -- being coupled up to avoid being alone or seeing it as a way to have one's "needs" met.
Thing is, you have no way of knowing what "settling" is because preferences and criteria are not universal. I saw no reason to settle, and neither did my husband. Once he had the experience under his belt and did some necessary introspection, he realized it was better to remain single than to settle for less than what he wanted -- compatibility. He tried settling, and it simply did not work. The men I previously dated were NOT "I'll take good enough," either. They, too, had criteria. They were not Greek gods by any means.
You can't possibly know another's preference. A Timothy can assume the woman he messaged isn't into him because he's not a Chad and will subsequently fire off a barrage of insults for being rejected or ignored, and/or he'll turn to an assortment of forums and make threads lambasting "modern women" and dating culture for not seeing the value of "regular guys."
True story. This happened to me on several occasions. "What? You're too good for a guy like me", "F you then!", "Have fun with those jerks!!!", "You probably have several Marine baby daddies!" followed by insults", "I don't like your type anyway!" (lol wut? Why message me then?) and so on.
But just because I didn't respond to their messages or cut conversations short doesn't mean I was smooching it up with Chads. lol Little did they know, I was chatting it up with a fellow "Timothy." Not a Chad or BW. A regular guy that was my type. They just weren't it. It doesn't mean another regular guy couldn't be It.
Protip: Stop assuming the Timothy archetype is reflective of all regular, average-looking guys. These are people. They're individuals with unique personalities, backgrounds, communication styles, worldviews, life goals, interests, preferences, passions, love languages, struggles, temperament, value systems, perspectives, experiences, etc.
The same is true for good-looking men. They're not all reflective of this bad boy image so often projected onto the "Chad" archetype. I didn't date archetypes. I interacted with and dated people. What one sees as a "Chad," based on appearance alone, I see as a nerdy, goofy, geeky, patient, empathetic, kind, affectionate, warm, caring, sincere, loving, etc., individual. The furthest from a "bad boy."
And the times I had options and chose to date an average-looking guy, whom I was completely into, 100%, I was told, by men, that I could do better. Or "why are you with that guy?" or the assumption that there must be a reason, beyond chemistry/connection/compatibility, for why I chose to date said partner.
Our longtime resident MU likes to assert that if "women" choose the average guy, the "Timothy," then she thinks she's settling. Except, I never once thought I was settling with I chose to date the men I was into. Their "averageness" was not a factor in my decision. I saw them as people, and while there's been an overlap of traits and characteristics (because I have a distinct type), they're all still individuals.
Outgoingness and charisma are two characteristics most observed offline, along with appearance, which is great for those who are a) attractive and b) extroverted and charismatic or bubbly. Where exactly does that leave the quiet and introverted folks? These same people who probably weren't into bars, clubs, parties, singles venues, etc.?
You assume too much. You do realize that "women" don't all fancy the same type, right? Good-looking and upbeat? Meh. I've been approached by many who represent this type. These characteristics are rather meaningless if we're not compatible. Upbeat is not a personality trait I sought after, and attraction was a factor, not necessarily conventional good looks.
So much text. The points could've been made in a few paragraphs. As a matter of fact, "Appearance is even more of a factor on dating sites," despite the premise until recently that it's about substance and its past value to substance-oriented people, which I think explains some of the bitterness.
It brings out the superficiality in people who don't even play that game offline. Maybe not Tinder-level, but let's say ignoring all men who aren't slightly above-average in looks. The barely average and below get virtually no swipes and few replies, according to studies, albeit that might be just the under-40 set. I don't presume that after the initial filtering, those women all pick similarly.
Another reply that rants at me, like I've done anything to anyone here.
I didn't say men with no good qualities deserve much of anything and there are more fundamentally unimpressive men than otherwise, but I think most people deserve a little chance with others on about their level and that doesn't seem to happen as much anymore.
As the longer article suggested, I don't think as many people understand what goes into quality relationships. It's not hugely about sexual attraction and fun, though those things matter, especially early on. Relating to each other, mutual understanding, appreciation, and support, mutual interests and life goals, freely being themselves, etc. I think many people never find that, and how they filter out is part of the problem.
Now this post is very interesting.
Do you realize that women get pickier as we get older? It's true. The reason is that we're looking for the part in bold, and we don't want to settle for a bad match in that regard.
As for being yourself and all, if you are a generally happy person, getting together with a miserable person means you will be 100% giving them "support" and never getting much back. If a positive outlook is a part of who you are and the life you want, then that is a piece of compatibility you really should not settle without.
If I go on a first date with a guy, and we sit in some restaurant or something, and he moans and groans about how unhappy life is, well, I'm not going to want to see him again. He has just demonstrated to me amply that he is not on my level as far as the bold of your post above.
Women give lots and lots of men chances. We kiss a lot of frogs, dude. I'm not sure why you think that lots of men are being "shut out" for no good reasons. I don't see women I know sitting around alone pining after a fantasy man she can't get. Women I know are trying, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing.
Hey. Has anyone mentioned the obesity epidemic as directly being part of that 20% of celibate people though? I know someone said something about millennials...but I wonder, because of the traits that lots of people (especially men but also women) will put down as a dealbreaker, obesity is a common one. The only women I can think of, that I know in person, who have been long term perpetually single and want relationships but can't seem to find one, get one, or keep one, are on the extreme side of obesity.
Men should really give them more chances. You never know, there could be mutual interests and life goals! Unappealing men are not the only ones who get "filtered."
You were a child. And you saw adult dating through a child's eyes. You are very wrong. We were so much more demanding then of what one could offer the other, of careers (not jobs - it had to be a career), of not being overweight, of being independent early on and more. And NO, the overwhelming majority of us were not mail order brides. That is insane. I'm sorry to put it that way but it just is.
Yes, you could "buy" a mail order bride, with a lot more difficulty than today and at much higher expense, and only the loser-est of the losers ever did it, as far as I know - I sure never met a man who did it. It was more rumor and a lot of mythology. Today, there's site after site.
How many people do you know who literally ordered a bride, based on an ad, in the 1980s? Can you give an approximate count? Mine is zero.
My career field was exclusively male. It was extremely difficult to develop a relationship with a female.
Mail-order bride catalogs filled that void.
We have an extremely high divorce rate, when I was single and thinking about courting a bride. My biggest concern was trying to pick a bride in a manner that would avoid a future divorce.
We would be on the surface for about 6 weeks before the work up starts for our next deployment. So that was our only window to go out and try to meet a girl. But even if you do manage to start dating a girl, once the 6-week window closes you are not going to see her again until the next time that we surface in four months.
One time in 1978 I went to a public library and found in their reference books section a list of colleges. There I found an all-girls college that was only an hour away. I drove up to that college, and went into their on-campus bar. It was sweet, as I was the only guy in the room. I had fun dating a girl at that college. But the next time that I was back on the surface again, I went back up there to see her, and she had forgotten me. She was dating someone else. This was in Connecticut and mid-winter, so I lost interest in making the trip up there from the sub-base. Maybe I should have, I could have started up with a fresh new girl each time. But I wanted a long-term relationship.
With mail-order brides you still had to pay for her trip. But everyone I knew was flush with cash, so that was no problem.
Do you realize that women get pickier as we get older? It's true. The reason is that we're looking for the part in bold, and we don't want to settle for a bad match in that regard.
As for being yourself and all, if you are a generally happy person, getting together with a miserable person means you will be 100% giving them "support" and never getting much back. If a positive outlook is a part of who you are and the life you want, then that is a piece of compatibility you really should not settle without.
If I go on a first date with a guy, and we sit in some restaurant or something, and he moans and groans about how unhappy life is, well, I'm not going to want to see him again. He has just demonstrated to me amply that he is not on my level as far as the bold of your post above.
Women give lots and lots of men chances. We kiss a lot of frogs, dude. I'm not sure why you think that lots of men are being "shut out" for no good reasons. I don't see women I know sitting around alone pining after a fantasy man she can't get. Women I know are trying, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing.
Hey. Has anyone mentioned the obesity epidemic as directly being part of that 20% of celibate people though? I know someone said something about millennials...but I wonder, because of the traits that lots of people (especially men but also women) will put down as a dealbreaker, obesity is a common one. The only women I can think of, that I know in person, who have been long term perpetually single and want relationships but can't seem to find one, get one, or keep one, are on the extreme side of obesity.
Men should really give them more chances. You never know, there could be mutual interests and life goals! Unappealing men are not the only ones who get "filtered."
Of course that's part of it. That came up on page 1. It's one of those subjects that nobody is really free to talk about, but suffice it to say there's a lot it doesn't explain (weak correlation between it and the dual-decrease), there's a huge difference between initial lack of attraction and repulsion, and almost anyone with that issue eventually can get rid of it (at least temporarily). Then maybe they'll join the many people online who look okay yet complain about getting nowhere in online dating.
Also, it's patently untrue that unhappy people always take much more than they give. It's a case-by-case basis. On the other side of the spectrum, there are many happy people who are unwilling to provide emotional support.
Patently untrue. The most prolific player I've ever met has a "dadbod." He also has a very charismatic demeanor, knows his target demographic and plays them with skill, and has mastered the conversational technique of your average therapist, which is to keep the subject talking. If you are a man who is seeking women, unless you are truly hideous, like black and brown teeth, bad smelling, hunchback, disfigured awful hideous, if you are reasonably normal looking, there are ways to cultivate a demeanor that will appeal to someone. Or many someones. No, it's not "just be yourself" if yourself is blah you need to make yourself not blah. Be your best self. Learn things. Master a talent of some kind. Be interesting. Do stuff. If you can't score points in column A, then work on columns B, C, and D. Women DO care about that stuff.
We do. Seriously.
And then put yourself out there somewhere that isn't formatted as "swipe left swipe right" because that junk is a bunch of playing superficial games and winning superficial prizes. Write a decent profile. Women will read it.
Dadbod may be misapplied. I mean guys who are overweight to the point of obesity. It's all really beside my point, which was, there are going to be people at the bottom of different measures of attraction. It stands to reason that there are a few people who are not attractive in many or any way, to the subjective opinion of a greater portion of the rest of the population. Life's not an RPG character roll, we're not guaranteed to all have strengths to counterbalance our weaknesses. I'm with you that the majority of people have or develop traits (not just physical!) that at least a portion of other people find attractive. My contention is that there are a few people who lack a sufficient level of attractiveness in many or most of the categories that most other people consider when judging such things.
Those people...they may deserve love and happiness, but that's on a philosophical level. If you entrench that mindset on a personal, behavioral level it's dangerously close to an entitlement mindset. I believe instead that in interpersonal relationships it's about what you can earn. Those few people aren't able to earn much love...for them, the world is not a place of abundant love, given away freely. It is a place where love, affection, and attention are withheld from them and given to people who have the right qualities to earn it. Can they change that? Maybe. I'm putting it to the test. But I've read of many lonely older people...50's, 60's, 70's...who never could change enough to earn it.
Of course that's part of it. That came up on page 1. It's one of those subjects that nobody is really free to talk about, but suffice it to say there's a lot it doesn't explain (weak correlation between it and the dual-decrease), there's a huge difference between initial lack of attraction and repulsion, and almost anyone with that issue eventually can get rid of it (at least temporarily). Then maybe they'll join the many people online who look okay yet complain about getting nowhere in online dating.
Also, it's patently untrue that unhappy people always take much more than they give. It's a case-by-case basis. On the other side of the spectrum, there are many happy people who are unwilling to provide emotional support.
I don't think it's as much about taking/giving as it is about wanting to feel good around a person, and someone who is chronically angry and/or miserable is going to be a tough sell in that regard. A few people will want to be with such a person, but the possibility is reasonably high that the association will itself be doomed. For example, a woman might be a "rescuer" and take on the angry, antisocial, unsuccessful guy...and they'll be codependent. How will that be a superior union? KWIM?
Or perhaps the woman feels sorry for the man. Again...this can't end well.
The scenarios for the type of person who WANTS someone who chronically, and for life (as self-proclaimed), was, is and will be miserable aren't real votes of confidence for trying this method, TBH.
I used to see catalogs for mail-order brides in the 70s and 80s.
I have known a few men who got themselves mail-order brides.
There were a few, yes. But it wasn't "an option" in the way the poster I quoted described - i.e., anybody might just up and do it. It wasn't open, there was a lot of shame involved, I doubt most admitted it ("oh, we met up on a cruise," etc.).
Your category, male-dominated and apparently with its own quirks (not that there's anything wrong with quirks), would not have been representative of the 80s in general.
If you know "a few" people who mail-ordered brides in what, 50 years of life? Longer? - then you're confirming that from your POV, it was comparatively very, very, very, very rare.
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.
Unappealing men are not the only ones who get "filtered."
