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.
Because I work mostly remotely now, when I am in the office, I am stationed out in the ranks so to speak.
I am surrounded by younger employees, mostly young women. I am flooded with their chit chat and for many, it is the same topic. Young ladies in our office (meaning 25-35) are often talking about their frustration in finding a guy. They also talk about their limitations in what they consider a “good guy”
The keep asking, “Why can’t I find a ‘good guy?’”
You start out at a small disadvantage in that there are more men than women to begin with, but the difference is fairly small.
If you want someone in your general age bracket, then you are cutting things to about 25% of the men. Unless more than +/- 10 years is workable for you. Maybe 15 years older is OK, but 10 years younger is not (only 5 years), so the impact remains about the same. Slightly but not much impact on the odds if you expand the age range some and if you expand it a lot – well ick.
Somewhat less than half the men under 30 are single or uncommitted. So, now you are at 12.5%. Of course, if you expand the age range, or you are older, that number drops substantially (even though many of those married before 30 are getting divorced after 30, still a good number get married for the first time after 30, so it balances out even at older ranges.
It is estimated that roughly 3% of men are gay, asexual, or some other letter that is incompatible with being in a relationship with a woman. 9.5%
One of the most common comments I hear from young women is they will not date short men. Defining short as 5’9” (the national average), you are cutting the population in half again. 4.75% If you define short as shorter, like 5’7” and under then your odds are a tiny bit better. If taller – then your odds go down. I have heard quite a lot of your women say they are not interested in anyone under 6’. That is going to drop your odds by half again or more, but I will ignore that for now.
Many women also say they do not have any interest in men who are self-centered, self-obsessed, or narcissistic, or looking to replace their mother who has always taken care of them. Being generous with the under 30 crowd, this takes out another half, so 2.375% remain. However since most of those are going to be the ones who are married, you better take half again. 1.1375%
Take away other unacceptable traits. Bald, fat, skinny/scrawny, too muscular, too hairy, undereducated (no college), chew or smoke tobacco, foreign culture (especially misogynistic cultures), pot use, drug use, video game player, heavy drinker or alcoholic, doesn’t earn enough, conceited or snobby, hair or eye color, unacceptable habits (spitting, nose picking, farting in public, etc), bad teeth, acne or acne scars, too religious, nor religious enough, simply ugly. . . . Now you are down to a small fraction of 1%, depending on how many of those conditions apply.
Now take away those to whom you are not attractive. The ones who find you too skinny, too fat, too hairy, too plain, overly made up, breasts too small or too large, butt too small, too large, too flat, too round; over or under-educated, hair color, eye color height, too silly, too serious, overly or under religious, too smart/dumb, too OCD or not clean enough, etc. Now you are down to about .001%.
“But I want a guy who will make me laugh” .0005%
You have about 0 % chance of meeting an eligible guy. If by some miracle you find one, you also have to somehow outdo your competition.
Better off playing the lotto. If you win guys will come flocking to you and your odds of winning the lotto are about the same as they are of meeting that magical unicorn – the good guy.
Solution: Find a great guy who has just been divorced by a crazy, unappreciative wife. Grab him quick before the competition notices. Worked for me. We’re stilll going strong 34+ years later!
The average woman has little interest in the average man. That doesn't leave a lot of options, unless they are willing to settle for less than they feel they deserve which isn't healthy for the relationship.
Definitely more desperate because society places an immense amount of pressure to be partnered at any expense.
l never understand stuff like this , who gives a damn what society thinks, what society l couldn't care less what they think whoever they are.
Although l realize it can be different for women.
To me though , it's nothing to do with any society or anyone else, most people would just like to have a partner in this crazy world, simple as that. Not everyone l know, but most l've found no matter what the front.
Re-reading, it seems that you're saying that you've seen one divorce in three generations? I'm not sure how many that encompasses but it sounds impressive. In my family, my sibs and I have about a 55% divorce rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Since they're all alive, one can't say that. And what you "can accept" about someone else's relationships is meaningless. They didn't ask for my acceptance (except perhaps with close friends where I was in the wedding party), and certainly they didn't ask for yours.
My use of "can accept" was in the sense of "count as a success story whether the people were legally married or not" or something along those lines, because I'm sure it happens. I'm not sure the women the OP talks about would count it as what they're looking for, but it sounds like a durable relationship. Look at Kurt Russell/Goldie Hawn, for instance. But the women in the OP are complaining they can't find a "good guy," which sounds like someone for long-term compatibility, possibly marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Ok, you imply that from their statement. Got it.
I'm going from the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
I answered that.
If you've had one divorce in three generations I guess you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Yes. Non issue. Hindu. Non issue. Jewish (several times). Non issue. Born Again Christian. Non issue. I'm not superstitious at all myself. Never have been.
I would return to the OP and ask the ladies if they would date men from these groups. Some are open to it and some are not. I don't think that's right or wrong, but rather, what the person prefers. And since you've dated those you mentioned, you may agree with me that going outside your group present some challenges. I'm not sure I'd date from them again only because they taught me that cultural differences aren't trivial things to overcome. I imagine some people already perceive that and don't want to start down that road. It does eliminate a chunk if they don't consider them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
It isn't. That life long partnership can end in cancer or a car crash in 5 years. It can end in divorce in 55 years, and woosh, it wasn't "life long".
I'm not tracking here. If your partner dies from cancer or a car crash, it seems like you were still lifelong partners (to me, at least). You were together as long as both of you were alive.
And I didn't intend to imply that if a relationship didn't last forever it wasn't worth pursuing. No relationships last forever. But if we're comparing approaches to relationships, what are the available statistics? Instead of pass/fail, it's better to focus on how many years the relationship lasted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
It counts if it counts to them. You're, or my, opinion of their relationship doesn't matter. One of my closest friend's mother had an affair when she was young. She told me while we dated. They've been married now 40 years (just posted their anniversary on IG so it stands out). I think that relationship counts to them, and that's all that matters.
Absolutely. But the women in the OP apparently aren't finding men that they think can fulfill what they want for a relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742
Nothing is worse than someone telling someone else that their relationship "doesn't count" or trying to downplay it or negate it. That's for them to decide, and them alone.
Human beings are on a bell curve. On one end being exceptionally horrid, the larger middle being average/mediocre, and on the other end being exceptionally good. If you want someone on the positive spectrum, then you're either going to have to wait a while or prepare to be perma single. Which aren't bad options. Not to me anyway. But the biggest thing that stood out to me is that, is this ALL they talk about? Do they not have other hobbies. I mean sheesh.
There are good men all over the place, these women probably have issues that men just don't want to deal with.
I would probably learn to ignore/avoid these people @ work or use headphones. They sound like they are cultivating alot of negative energy over there, which is a bad move in the wrong direction, and I'm not going there..
And yet people continue to meet, date, couple, and even have children. No shortage of that with the people I am friends with, my coworkers, their kids and nephews/nieces. Because, math is not how people connect, have chemistry, and fall in love and make relationships work.
People who put up "conditions" or " requirements" that shrink a pool to where it's an impossibility to meet them, aren't trying to meet people. They're trying to avoid connecting with people. It's a common form of self protection from emotional pain.
You put in to words what I've always had a vague feeling about. It's like Sleeping Beauty asleep in the castle surrounded by thorny vines. God help anyone who wants to cut their way through all that to find the beauty. Most people aren't going to bother.
Because I work mostly remotely now, when I am in the office, I am stationed out in the ranks so to speak.
I am surrounded by younger employees, mostly young women. I am flooded with their chit chat and for many, it is the same topic. Young ladies in our office (meaning 25-35) are often talking about their frustration in finding a guy. They also talk about their limitations in what they consider a “good guy”
The keep asking, “Why can’t I find a ‘good guy?’”
You start out at a small disadvantage in that there are more men than women to begin with, but the difference is fairly small.
If you want someone in your general age bracket, then you are cutting things to about 25% of the men. Unless more than +/- 10 years is workable for you. Maybe 15 years older is OK, but 10 years younger is not (only 5 years), so the impact remains about the same. Slightly but not much impact on the odds if you expand the age range some and if you expand it a lot – well ick.
Somewhat less than half the men under 30 are single or uncommitted. So, now you are at 12.5%. Of course, if you expand the age range, or you are older, that number drops substantially (even though many of those married before 30 are getting divorced after 30, still a good number get married for the first time after 30, so it balances out even at older ranges.
It is estimated that roughly 3% of men are gay, asexual, or some other letter that is incompatible with being in a relationship with a woman. 9.5%
One of the most common comments I hear from young women is they will not date short men. Defining short as 5’9” (the national average), you are cutting the population in half again. 4.75% If you define short as shorter, like 5’7” and under then your odds are a tiny bit better. If taller – then your odds go down. I have heard quite a lot of your women say they are not interested in anyone under 6’. That is going to drop your odds by half again or more, but I will ignore that for now.
Many women also say they do not have any interest in men who are self-centered, self-obsessed, or narcissistic, or looking to replace their mother who has always taken care of them. Being generous with the under 30 crowd, this takes out another half, so 2.375% remain. However since most of those are going to be the ones who are married, you better take half again. 1.1375%
Take away other unacceptable traits. Bald, fat, skinny/scrawny, too muscular, too hairy, undereducated (no college), chew or smoke tobacco, foreign culture (especially misogynistic cultures), pot use, drug use, video game player, heavy drinker or alcoholic, doesn’t earn enough, conceited or snobby, hair or eye color, unacceptable habits (spitting, nose picking, farting in public, etc), bad teeth, acne or acne scars, too religious, nor religious enough, simply ugly. . . . Now you are down to a small fraction of 1%, depending on how many of those conditions apply.
Now take away those to whom you are not attractive. The ones who find you too skinny, too fat, too hairy, too plain, overly made up, breasts too small or too large, butt too small, too large, too flat, too round; over or under-educated, hair color, eye color height, too silly, too serious, overly or under religious, too smart/dumb, too OCD or not clean enough, etc. Now you are down to about .001%.
“But I want a guy who will make me laugh” .0005%
You have about 0 % chance of meeting an eligible guy. If by some miracle you find one, you also have to somehow outdo your competition.
Better off playing the lotto. If you win guys will come flocking to you and your odds of winning the lotto are about the same as they are of meeting that magical unicorn – the good guy.
I can't for the life of me understand why one individual would put so much thought and mathematics into a subject that is extremely simple. Stop looking and your chances increase about 90% and that's just off the top of my head.
........ I don't think Mother Nature wants us pairing off exclusively for long periods of time, hence the problem..........
I politely disagree with you on this issue. What Mother Nature wants is for us to pair up and produce children who have two parents standing guard and caring for them until they are old enough to go out on their own. If you raise a couple of kids, that takes a long period of time and Mother Nature wants those kids raised to maturity so they can reproduce and add to the survival of the species.
If you happen to be a grizzly bear, then Mother Nature doesn't want you to pair up and stay paired up for anything but a very brief moment. But you probably aren't a grizzly bear. I mean, I suppose you might be. Bears are clever and adaptive, so maybe a bear could learn to use a computer, but odds are against it.
I politely disagree with you on this issue. What Mother Nature wants is for us to pair up and produce children who have two parents standing guard and caring for them until they are old enough to go out on their own. If you raise a couple of kids, that takes a long period of time and Mother Nature wants those kids raised to maturity so they can reproduce and add to the survival of the species.
If you happen to be a grizzly bear, then Mother Nature doesn't want you to pair up and stay paired up for anything but a very brief moment. But you probably aren't a grizzly bear. I mean, I suppose you might be. Bears are clever and adaptive, so maybe a bear could learn to use a computer, but odds are against it.
I had this book by anthropologist Helen Fisher, but I loaned it out and it never came back. In it, she said that it isn't a seven-year itch, it's a four-year itch.
Several years ago I embarked on a project to see if the seven-year itch really exists. I began by studying worldwide data on marriage and divorce and noticed that although the median duration of marriage was seven years, of the couples who divorced, most did so around their fourth year together (the “mode”). I also found that divorce occurred most frequently among couples at the height of their reproductive and parenting years—for men, ages 25 to 29, and for women, ages 20 to 24 and 25 to 29—and among those with one dependent child.
Also,
When juvenile robins fly away from the nest or maturing foxes leave the den for the last time, their parents part ways as well.
Humans retain traces of this natural reproductive pattern. In more contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, women tend to bear their children about four years apart. Moreover, in these societies after a child is weaned at around age four, the child often joins a playgroup and is cared for by older siblings and relatives. This care structure allows unhappy couples to break up and find a more suitable partner with whom to have more young.
As I recall she was saying that the early years are very dangerous ones, so it makes sense for mom and dad stay together till those four years have passed.
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.
