12 ms·

> And with men I date, I feel pressure to make something of the relationship too soon (move in, get married, “I have to have kids in a couple of years”; fun tim

by yholio 8y ago

> And with men I date, I feel pressure to make something of the relationship too soon (move in, get married, “I have to have kids in a couple of years”; fun times!). All the while still trying to be the sexpot 25-year-old I thought I was until what seemed like a moment ago. It sounds like going from one end of the spectrum (aventuros, yolo) to the other (a family, fast), all while punching above their weight, so to speak, in terms of compatible long term partners. Most young women can easily find "serial monogamous", short term, male partners with highly desirable qualities such as physical good looks, relative success, social skills etc., but most of this limited pool knows they are desirable and do not really want to get bogged down with a family. When youth starts to fade away, reality kicks in - the highly desirable partners are not interested, and the average ones are already committed to long time partners who valued them in their own youth. Their "family" started a long time ago with mutual investment - you can choose not to make that trade-off but cannot have the cake and eat it too.

MRD85 8y ago
I'm 33 and male, I find it amazing how the dating balance has shifted since I was 23. If I wanted I could easily line up multiple dates per week with women who I'd date. When I was younger a lot of women wouldn't give me the time of day.
- ep103 8y ago
  Honest question, how do you meet them? I find things like dating apps are horribly tilted to the young?
  - MRD85 8y ago
    Mainly dating apps. I live in a very large city and I keep my age filters somewhat appropriate (27-35). If you struggle with dating apps I'd recommend getting decent photos, even if you need to pay a photographer and spend a day taking good Tinder/etc photos. Dating, even from people looking for serious partners, is a very shallow game. The more attractive someone finds you, the more interest they'll show you. This makes conversation much easier.
    - SmirthsDAC 8y ago
      So a wider age range is inappropriate for your age? 27-35 seems fairly narrow. What are your limits for appropriate age range?
      - MRD85 8y ago
        When I say appropriate I mean "an age range which will likely result in swipes from them too". I'm not what a lot of 23 year olds want but I'm fairly desirable for a 29 year old. On top of that I don't have anything in common with women who are under 25.
- pojzon 8y ago
  Read a bit about "SMV" and "MMV" and believe me you can change that tinder filter to 20-25 and get even better results.
  - sambroner 8y ago
    I would not advice reading about these topics, nor do I think they're rooted in science.
    - VLM 8y ago
      They are rooted in science in the sense that they make predictions based on a sensible model that seem to match the past and predict reality better than any other available theory. They are not rooted in science in the sense of sophistry where they are anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist. Its impossible to express something new without being in conflict with established authority. Its actually a fairly normal situation for all paradigm shifts. Kuhn wrote a book about it named "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" about a half century ago; it seems a pretty accurate model for how real paradigm change happens in societies (as opposed to idealized theory). I'm not saying you're wrong and certainly not in any sort of value judgment but am saying that historically there seems to be no possible way for a paradigm shift to roll out without those relatively standard feelings and attitudes toward change you express. The legacy model seems to result in sad middle aged lonely cat ladies for no obvious reason; clearly that model doesn't work well enough; the paradigm shift proposes a workable model with successful predictions, perhaps workable solutions.
      - m000z0rz 8y ago
        Okay, it's science in the sense that it makes predictions. So it's a theory. Is it science in the sense that the theory has been tested, and peer reviewed? As soon as you started in on the "anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist" part, I got the sense that you're somewhat invested in this being true. But science means more than proposing an idea; it means testing the predictions, looking for evidence, subjecting it to a critical eye and seeing if it withstands objective scrutiny. Is that the case here?
watwut 8y ago
I know plenty of good looking men with social skills and reasonable success in long term relationships or having families. And also ugly men unwilling to commit. I think that your view of males is unfairly negative.
- jf- 8y ago
  I think his view is fairly correct. I also don’t see it as being negative, you’re making your own value judgement equating commitment with positivity. Men do tend to want to have a lot of partners, and many of those who can, do.
  - watwut 8y ago
    It is just not my impresion that men who hop relationships look all that better. The comitted ones are not ugly ones. Also, a men who is having relationship with you solely because he can't find replacement likely sux as a partner. Or maybe she sux or they don't match, but in any case, that relationship will be crap. And that relationship will become real bad after children.
    - B0btheBuilder 8y ago
      >It is just not my impresion that men who hop relationships look all that better. The comitted ones are not ugly ones. There are plenty of good-looking men in committed relationships. You're reading the relationship in reverse. It's not that "men who hop relationships look all that better". It's that better-looking men can hop relationships.
      - yholio 8y ago
        I wouldn't equate looks with desirability, for men it's much more complex because women have complex expectations, and that's exactly why men maintain and even enhance their desirability with age. That being said, the desirable men are either committed (unavailable) or available because they can hop and choose to do so. So only a minority of desirable men are available. This is in strict contrast with the large majority of young women, who can almost always hop relationships should they so choose. Since overall there needs to be gender equilibrium, females are sliced by age to a much larger degree, allowing the minority of desirable men of all ages to pursue the minority of younger women. The asimetry is caused by the fact that females are selective and males are partner-maximizing. It's not good or bad, it's a sociological truth.
amyjess 8y ago
> When youth starts to fade away, reality kicks in - the highly desirable partners are not interested, and the average ones are already committed to long time partners who valued them in their own youth. You're forgetting about a) divorcees and b) men who have also gone down the same path.
- MRD85 8y ago
  Men don't have the same time pressure to start a family with many starting at 45+. The other thing is men often become more attractive to women as they age due to things like financial success while the same can't be said for women.
  - jf- 8y ago
    They probably shouldn’t though, being an old man when your kids are teenagers isn’t very fair on anyone.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      I'm not sure this is always the case, starting a family later has a swath of benefits such as more life experience on on the part of parents, greater financial stability, and usually more ability to take time off. Both my parents quit their jobs and raised kids full time when my sister was born, and they were largely able to do so because they had kids later than average.
      - jf- 8y ago
        Balanced vs. ill health due to old age and dying earlier in your child’s life. I’ll agree that having children somewhat later, circa thirties, is better due to stability than twenties, but pushing into the forties is too much for me.
      - Konnstann 8y ago
        Don't forget higher chances your kid has a genetic disorder, and not being able to play sports with your kid because of bad joints. The situation you describe isn't one most people can relate to, given early retirement is not common.
thwy12321 8y ago
This is the elephant in the room that most people don't want to discuss. Young women get confused, they are able to "short term date" men out of their league and so then balk at men who are their equals. I've seen a number of awkward marriage dynamics where the women was used to dating men of higher caliber than the man she married.
- J-dawg 8y ago
  Of all the elephants in the room when it comes to modern tech-enabled dating, this is possibly the biggest and ugliest. The thought of ending up as one of those husbands genuinely makes my skin crawl. Imagine the woman you adore secretly resenting you for not measuring up to those alpha dudes she met on Tinder and dated for a few weeks at a time. I sometimes wonder if we’ll see total change in relationship dynamics in my lifetime. Perhaps even a return to a “harem” system, where women decide that sharing a very high-value man is preferable to having a low-value one all to herself.
  - thwy12321 8y ago
    The weird thing is most people will call you a misogynist for bringing this up. I would argue that in most major US cities there is already a large "harem" dynamic. It's mostly invisible to the general population, but quite obvious if you're friends with men in the top 1 to 2% of dating potential.
    - J-dawg 8y ago
      You’re right, and it’s happening throughout the western world. As someone who is definitely not in the top 2%, there are some difficult truths to confront. It will be a strange time when & if it starts happening out in the open.
      - 0db532a0 8y ago
        It already is: https://www.instagram.com/danbilzerian/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/danbilzerian/?hl=en.
deogeo 8y ago
> but most of this limited pool knows they are desirable and do not really want to get bogged down with a family. My friends who enjoyed dating for fun, found they had trouble with it, because most guys were looking to commit - they weren't too interested in merely flings. But this is anecdata, from Europe, so it may have limited applicability.
- technics256 8y ago
  Curious what country this is? I find it quite the same in Germany.
randyrand 8y ago
This tangent of ripping on guys more attractive than you seems incredibly irrelevant. At no point does the author say she dated men with "good looks, relative success, social skills etc." You just sound grouchy, making excuses for yourself. Also, attractive men don't want a life of serial monogamy either.
- jf- 8y ago
  Have you asked them all? Why do you make this assumption?
- manfredo 8y ago
  I didn't read this as "ripping on guys" in any way. It seemed more focused on the perspective of women, and the shifting marketplace of relationships as people start looking to form a family. I don't think this was portraying or referencing attractive men in any negative light, and I'm curious as to why you interpreted the above comment on this way.
notyourday 8y ago
> When youth starts to fade away, reality kicks in - the highly desirable partners are not interested, and the average ones are already committed to long time partners who valued them in their own youth. Their "family" started a long time ago with mutual investment - you can choose not to make that trade-off but cannot have the cake and eat it too. As someone who has his cake and eats it too (and has ice cream) I can tell you that this is incorrect. Highly desirable partners could still be interested if you have used your younger days to acquire the skills that would compensate for not being a 25-year-old sex pot. Unless she is Miranda Kerr she better be prepared for a life of someone who needs to go to the grocery store even when it is raining, and needs to take out trash even if she does not feel like it and needs to deal with a washing machine being broken all while a cat peed in a rug because her partner did not clean the litter box. And boy if she has been a sex pot between the ages of 17 and 35 she is in for a surprise.
bassman9000 8y ago
Most young women can easily find "serial monogamous", short term, male partners with highly desirable qualities such as physical good looks, relative success, social skills etc., but most of this limited pool knows they are desirable and do not really want to get bogged down with a family Women stopped being overly monogamous compared to men since the introduction of birth control. I wouldn't be surprised if tables have turned.

by yholio 8y ago

MRD85 8y ago

I'm 33 and male, I find it amazing how the dating balance has shifted since I was 23. If I wanted I could easily line up multiple dates per week with women who I'd date. When I was younger a lot of women wouldn't give me the time of day.

ep103 8y ago
Honest question, how do you meet them? I find things like dating apps are horribly tilted to the young?
- MRD85 8y ago
  Mainly dating apps. I live in a very large city and I keep my age filters somewhat appropriate (27-35). If you struggle with dating apps I'd recommend getting decent photos, even if you need to pay a photographer and spend a day taking good Tinder/etc photos. Dating, even from people looking for serious partners, is a very shallow game. The more attractive someone finds you, the more interest they'll show you. This makes conversation much easier.
  - SmirthsDAC 8y ago
    So a wider age range is inappropriate for your age? 27-35 seems fairly narrow. What are your limits for appropriate age range?
    - MRD85 8y ago
      When I say appropriate I mean "an age range which will likely result in swipes from them too". I'm not what a lot of 23 year olds want but I'm fairly desirable for a 29 year old. On top of that I don't have anything in common with women who are under 25.
pojzon 8y ago
Read a bit about "SMV" and "MMV" and believe me you can change that tinder filter to 20-25 and get even better results.
- sambroner 8y ago
  I would not advice reading about these topics, nor do I think they're rooted in science.
  - VLM 8y ago
    They are rooted in science in the sense that they make predictions based on a sensible model that seem to match the past and predict reality better than any other available theory. They are not rooted in science in the sense of sophistry where they are anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist. Its impossible to express something new without being in conflict with established authority. Its actually a fairly normal situation for all paradigm shifts. Kuhn wrote a book about it named "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" about a half century ago; it seems a pretty accurate model for how real paradigm change happens in societies (as opposed to idealized theory). I'm not saying you're wrong and certainly not in any sort of value judgment but am saying that historically there seems to be no possible way for a paradigm shift to roll out without those relatively standard feelings and attitudes toward change you express. The legacy model seems to result in sad middle aged lonely cat ladies for no obvious reason; clearly that model doesn't work well enough; the paradigm shift proposes a workable model with successful predictions, perhaps workable solutions.
    - m000z0rz 8y ago
      Okay, it's science in the sense that it makes predictions. So it's a theory. Is it science in the sense that the theory has been tested, and peer reviewed? As soon as you started in on the "anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist" part, I got the sense that you're somewhat invested in this being true. But science means more than proposing an idea; it means testing the predictions, looking for evidence, subjecting it to a critical eye and seeing if it withstands objective scrutiny. Is that the case here?

watwut 8y ago

I know plenty of good looking men with social skills and reasonable success in long term relationships or having families. And also ugly men unwilling to commit. I think that your view of males is unfairly negative.

jf- 8y ago
I think his view is fairly correct. I also don’t see it as being negative, you’re making your own value judgement equating commitment with positivity. Men do tend to want to have a lot of partners, and many of those who can, do.
- watwut 8y ago
  It is just not my impresion that men who hop relationships look all that better. The comitted ones are not ugly ones. Also, a men who is having relationship with you solely because he can't find replacement likely sux as a partner. Or maybe she sux or they don't match, but in any case, that relationship will be crap. And that relationship will become real bad after children.
  - B0btheBuilder 8y ago
    >It is just not my impresion that men who hop relationships look all that better. The comitted ones are not ugly ones. There are plenty of good-looking men in committed relationships. You're reading the relationship in reverse. It's not that "men who hop relationships look all that better". It's that better-looking men can hop relationships.
    - yholio 8y ago
      I wouldn't equate looks with desirability, for men it's much more complex because women have complex expectations, and that's exactly why men maintain and even enhance their desirability with age. That being said, the desirable men are either committed (unavailable) or available because they can hop and choose to do so. So only a minority of desirable men are available. This is in strict contrast with the large majority of young women, who can almost always hop relationships should they so choose. Since overall there needs to be gender equilibrium, females are sliced by age to a much larger degree, allowing the minority of desirable men of all ages to pursue the minority of younger women. The asimetry is caused by the fact that females are selective and males are partner-maximizing. It's not good or bad, it's a sociological truth.

amyjess 8y ago

MRD85 8y ago
Men don't have the same time pressure to start a family with many starting at 45+. The other thing is men often become more attractive to women as they age due to things like financial success while the same can't be said for women.
- jf- 8y ago
  They probably shouldn’t though, being an old man when your kids are teenagers isn’t very fair on anyone.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    I'm not sure this is always the case, starting a family later has a swath of benefits such as more life experience on on the part of parents, greater financial stability, and usually more ability to take time off. Both my parents quit their jobs and raised kids full time when my sister was born, and they were largely able to do so because they had kids later than average.
    - jf- 8y ago
      Balanced vs. ill health due to old age and dying earlier in your child’s life. I’ll agree that having children somewhat later, circa thirties, is better due to stability than twenties, but pushing into the forties is too much for me.
    - Konnstann 8y ago
      Don't forget higher chances your kid has a genetic disorder, and not being able to play sports with your kid because of bad joints. The situation you describe isn't one most people can relate to, given early retirement is not common.

thwy12321 8y ago

This is the elephant in the room that most people don't want to discuss. Young women get confused, they are able to "short term date" men out of their league and so then balk at men who are their equals. I've seen a number of awkward marriage dynamics where the women was used to dating men of higher caliber than the man she married.

J-dawg 8y ago
Of all the elephants in the room when it comes to modern tech-enabled dating, this is possibly the biggest and ugliest. The thought of ending up as one of those husbands genuinely makes my skin crawl. Imagine the woman you adore secretly resenting you for not measuring up to those alpha dudes she met on Tinder and dated for a few weeks at a time. I sometimes wonder if we’ll see total change in relationship dynamics in my lifetime. Perhaps even a return to a “harem” system, where women decide that sharing a very high-value man is preferable to having a low-value one all to herself.
- thwy12321 8y ago
  The weird thing is most people will call you a misogynist for bringing this up. I would argue that in most major US cities there is already a large "harem" dynamic. It's mostly invisible to the general population, but quite obvious if you're friends with men in the top 1 to 2% of dating potential.
  - J-dawg 8y ago
    You’re right, and it’s happening throughout the western world. As someone who is definitely not in the top 2%, there are some difficult truths to confront. It will be a strange time when & if it starts happening out in the open.
    - 0db532a0 8y ago
      It already is: https://www.instagram.com/danbilzerian/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/danbilzerian/?hl=en.

deogeo 8y ago

> but most of this limited pool knows they are desirable and do not really want to get bogged down with a family. My friends who enjoyed dating for fun, found they had trouble with it, because most guys were looking to commit - they weren't too interested in merely flings. But this is anecdata, from Europe, so it may have limited applicability.

technics256 8y ago
Curious what country this is? I find it quite the same in Germany.

randyrand 8y ago

This tangent of ripping on guys more attractive than you seems incredibly irrelevant. At no point does the author say she dated men with "good looks, relative success, social skills etc." You just sound grouchy, making excuses for yourself. Also, attractive men don't want a life of serial monogamy either.

jf- 8y ago
Have you asked them all? Why do you make this assumption?
manfredo 8y ago
I didn't read this as "ripping on guys" in any way. It seemed more focused on the perspective of women, and the shifting marketplace of relationships as people start looking to form a family. I don't think this was portraying or referencing attractive men in any negative light, and I'm curious as to why you interpreted the above comment on this way.

notyourday 8y ago

> When youth starts to fade away, reality kicks in - the highly desirable partners are not interested, and the average ones are already committed to long time partners who valued them in their own youth. Their "family" started a long time ago with mutual investment - you can choose not to make that trade-off but cannot have the cake and eat it too. As someone who has his cake and eats it too (and has ice cream) I can tell you that this is incorrect. Highly desirable partners could still be interested if you have used your younger days to acquire the skills that would compensate for not being a 25-year-old sex pot. Unless she is Miranda Kerr she better be prepared for a life of someone who needs to go to the grocery store even when it is raining, and needs to take out trash even if she does not feel like it and needs to deal with a washing machine being broken all while a cat peed in a rug because her partner did not clean the litter box. And boy if she has been a sex pot between the ages of 17 and 35 she is in for a surprise.

bassman9000 8y ago

Most young women can easily find "serial monogamous", short term, male partners with highly desirable qualities such as physical good looks, relative success, social skills etc., but most of this limited pool knows they are desirable and do not really want to get bogged down with a family Women stopped being overly monogamous compared to men since the introduction of birth control. I wouldn't be surprised if tables have turned.