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.
Nah, women could generally do whatever they want in dating without any repercussions. From what I've seen, a woman can go many years without dating. Then, she suddenly decides to date and she will have many suitors without any effort on her part.
If she wants to, she could be married within a year to the exact man that she always wanted.
For men, you need to put in a ton of effort to get any girl at all. If it's a girl that you really want, chances are many men really want her as well so you have a lot of competition. So you settle for whatever woman gives you a chance.
So, basically, women could do whatever they want and still have massive success. Men can't do this (in western countries anyway). This is what I've observed anyway.
Yeah, you'd have to be either very good-looking or a celebrity.
This is part of the reason why the 1950s was so great. Average men were able to do well with women without a ton of effort. These days, the same man would have to sell his soul, pretty much.
Yeah, you'd have to be either very good-looking or a celebrity.
This is part of the reason why the 1950s was so great. Average men were able to do well with women without a ton of effort. These days, the same man would have to sell his soul, pretty much.
Exactly, you took the words right out of my mouth.
No. I don't. How is having limited options in terms of lifestyle and choice of partners and unlimited judgment from strangers who think they have the right to tell you how to live your life beneficial in any way?
Society and culture are evolving. Evolution is always a good thing.
I'm a millennial and this hasn't been my experience at all. Everyone cares about sex and fun. No one has much interest in romance or practicality.
This is not true at all. The issue is probably just that you choose to surround yourself with vacuous people. Most likely that speaks to your own character as well.
This is not true at all. The issue is probably just that you choose to surround yourself with vacuous people. Most likely that speaks to your own character as well.
Perhaps. It's also possible that Akonyo was surrounded by married people... by married coworkers and married neighbors and so forth. Those few people who were still single were not, shall we say, single without good reason. And they were generally not within one's social circle.
One important difference between "prior times", which we'll epitomize using the "1950s", is that married people viewed it as a duty and a privilege to play matchmaker with their still-single friends. This also crossed generational lines; older women, in particular, busied themselves with finding potential spouses for the younger single men. Today we're all inclined to mind our own business. If friends set up another friend on a blind-date, and the date goes wrong, that jeopardizes the friendship. Who wishes to risk that? As a consequence, workplace networking is less useful. For a while I'd enthusiastically ask my married colleagues (and mine, without any exception whatsoever, are all married) whether they might know any singles, whose acquaintance I could make. And for a while this was disarmingly jovial and funny, until said colleagues realized that I was absolutely serious. Now they wave off the question; and I've stopped asking.
And to torontocheeka's point about having only limited options, well, I would opine that limited options also have their advantage. If choices are few, and unlikely to improve, then one becomes more amenable to accepting the least-worst of what's available. We accept the merely good, instead of holding out for the very best. And once underway, a relationship is tolerated and suffered to continue, even if things aren't ideal, because the paucity of alternative options constrains us to a fatalistic acceptance of the status quo.
Today, and it's not even close, outside of other obvious reasons for not wanting to live in the 50's.
I would never want to be in the prime of my dating life like I am now, and not have means to meet women through apps like Tinder/Hinge/Bumble, in conjunction with other ways such as co-rec leagues and church.
Perhaps. It's also possible that Akonyo was surrounded by married people... by married coworkers and married neighbors and so forth. Those few people who were still single were not, shall we say, single without good reason. And they were generally not within one's social circle.
One important difference between "prior times", which we'll epitomize using the "1950s", is that married people viewed it as a duty and a privilege to play matchmaker with their still-single friends. This also crossed generational lines; older women, in particular, busied themselves with finding potential spouses for the younger single men. Today we're all inclined to mind our own business. If friends set up another friend on a blind-date, and the date goes wrong, that jeopardizes the friendship. Who wishes to risk that? As a consequence, workplace networking is less useful. For a while I'd enthusiastically ask my married colleagues (and mine, without any exception whatsoever, are all married) whether they might know any singles, whose acquaintance I could make. And for a while this was disarmingly jovial and funny, until said colleagues realized that I was absolutely serious. Now they wave off the question; and I've stopped asking.
And to torontocheeka's point about having only limited options, well, I would opine that limited options also have their advantage. If choices are few, and unlikely to improve, then one becomes more amenable to accepting the least-worst of what's available. We accept the merely good, instead of holding out for the very best. And once underway, a relationship is tolerated and suffered to continue, even if things aren't ideal, because the paucity of alternative options constrains us to a fatalistic acceptance of the status quo.
There may be some validity to your (middle point), but I can't personally say that I've observed this phenomenon either since both myself and my female friend who is 34 and single herself are known for being "matchmakers" who set up our single friends with people we think they'd be a good match with. I don't see what the issue is; if they don't hit it off, they don't hit it off. They've maybe made a new pal and we can all still be friends and have group outings together. My best friend has been in a relationship for 3 years (the guy is 2 years younger than us, so would this count as a younger single man?), I introduced her to the guy myself and prepped him for how to keep her interested, and he was the 4th guy friend I introduced her to since she rejected the first 3. I have a friend visiting my city from England for 3 weeks in March to scope out the job scene and apartment scene in preparation for a possible move and I've already got 3 interested female prospects dying to meet him. So this is very much still prevalent in my circle.
I don't think there is ever a situation when settling for someone who you secretly despise (in some cases, may not even be sexually attracted to their gender) or settling for a life that you hate (in some cases, you don't want kids but you go along with it because it's the norm and the kid gets to live their entire life being alternately resented, neglected and/or abused by a parent who never really wanted them) or any other kind of being forced into a limited number of lifestyle options has an advantage. Having options is ALWAYS a good thing.
For myself, I would like to know that my partner is with me out of choice and not desperation or legality only.
Yeah, you'd have to be either very good-looking or a celebrity.
This is part of the reason why the 1950s was so great. Average men were able to do well with women without a ton of effort. These days, the same man would have to sell his soul, pretty much.
Don't fool yourself. Average guys had no more of an easier or harder time than they do today in terms of dating.
As far as sex, that was clearly harder for guys back then. The social mores of the time pretty much dictated that you did not have sex unless you were on the marriage track with a girl
No. I don't. How is having limited options in terms of lifestyle and choice of partners and unlimited judgment from strangers who think they have the right to tell you how to live your life beneficial in any way?
Society and culture are evolving. Evolution is always a good thing.
It depends. Our society is also declining in just about every way imaginable.
In any event, lets call a spade a spade here. You think that this is a good thing because you are a woman and the change in culture has benefited you significantly.
I'm a man that values family and good manners. I'm also white. Dating is worse for me than it would have been many years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by torontocheeka
This is not true at all. The issue is probably just that you choose to surround yourself with vacuous people. Most likely that speaks to your own character as well.
Not true at all. This is based on my observations. I've been in many situations in my life (from lower income areas to the military to the ivy leagues) and I've seen a ton of this. Most relationships for most people revolve around fun and sex. You can also see this among posters in this forum.
My female friends do tend to value stability. However, they are rare. It's very difficult to find commitment-minded women that also bring something to the table these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Perhaps. It's also possible that Akonyo was surrounded by married people... by married coworkers and married neighbors and so forth. Those few people who were still single were not, shall we say, single without good reason. And they were generally not within one's social circle.
Yes, I do know many married people.
Quote:
One important difference between "prior times", which we'll epitomize using the "1950s", is that married people viewed it as a duty and a privilege to play matchmaker with their still-single friends. This also crossed generational lines; older women, in particular, busied themselves with finding potential spouses for the younger single men. Today we're all inclined to mind our own business. If friends set up another friend on a blind-date, and the date goes wrong, that jeopardizes the friendship. Who wishes to risk that? As a consequence, workplace networking is less useful. For a while I'd enthusiastically ask my married colleagues (and mine, without any exception whatsoever, are all married) whether they might know any singles, whose acquaintance I could make. And for a while this was disarmingly jovial and funny, until said colleagues realized that I was absolutely serious. Now they wave off the question; and I've stopped asking.
I have a ton of people trying to hook me up: my mom, female friends, mom's friends. Quite frankly, I'm sometimes offended by the matches (fat, single moms, bad jobs, etc). Other times, the woman checks all of the boxes, but has some other major issues (bipolar, etc).
I prefer that people don't try to hook me up.
The exception to this is a woman that I'm interested in who is either playing hard to get or is uninterested in me. If I'm really interested, I'll throw a hail mary and try to get her friends to hook us up. It has worked a few times, but it's not ideal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just A Guy
Don't fool yourself. Average guys had no more of an easier or harder time than they do today in terms of dating.
From my understanding, you were more able to win a woman over back then with nice gestures and courtship. An average guy could get the girl that he wanted with enough effort.
Not so these days. A persistent man these days is generally considered to be a creep (though there is a way to be attractive while being persistent, it's a difficult line to walk).
Quote:
As far as sex, that was clearly harder for guys back then. The social mores of the time pretty much dictated that you did not have sex unless you were on the marriage track with a girl
I don't think this is a bad thing. I'd actually prefer courting a woman and knowing that she is not sleeping around with other guys.
To each their own, but, as I said, I value stability and practicality far more than fun and sex. I was definitely born a few generations too late, unfortunately.
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.
