OpenBook Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 What makes the problem even worse is that guys are appalled at 30 year old women looking for a husband and to start a family. Over and over I see this in the forums, guys being terrified of such women and seeing them as having a plague. And instead, dating the 20 year olds since they are not in a "hurry to get married." Or they're tapping into the 40+ crowd since they have no interest in getting married, and are experienced, hot and sexy to boot.
sunshinegirl Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 The whole article is not about settling. It's about changing your criteria to find something more compatible with what you want in the long term. The title shouldn't be "Marry Him". It should be something more along the lines of "Grow Up" or "Pull Your Head Out of Your A$s". I agree with this, to an extent. I think the term "settling" is what's causing all the ruckus. As I tried to explain earlier, settling occurs when you want X but take Y. Settling implies disappointment that you can't get/find/have X. I emphatically believe it's NOT settling when you once wanted X but now want Y. In my own example, I no longer want the kind of man I wanted 10 years ago ("X"). I now have "Y" and am happier than a pig in sh*t. That ain't settling, folks!! The author of the article seems to clearly advocate settling - she seems only to want a man who breathes and the jist of her article is her working out how much disappointment she should allow herself in her choice of mate.
Woggle Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 While I do agree that many women are unpleasable and expect a relationship or marriage to be a 24/7 fairy tale this article is wrong and in many ways is insulting to men. Women just need to realize that no ride is without it's bumps and that includes relationships with men. The movie ideal is never going to happen so while it is good to have standards make sure they are attainable and be willing to offer anything that you demand. On the other hand the pendulumn swings back and forth and after so many sentiments from women who think so highly of themselves that 99% of men are unworthy of being in their presence you are starting to see a backlash. This article is just a backlash to the stuck up princesses and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Micke81 Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 The whole article is not about settling. It's about changing your criteria to find something more compatible with what you want in the long term. The title shouldn't be "Marry Him". It should be something more along the lines of "Grow Up" or "Pull Your Head Out of Your A$s". I agree. Passion and deep connection is wonderful. It makes you feel like you are floating on a cloud. It makes you forget that it's temporary and not the most important thing in a long term relationship. I'm definitely a victim of the grass is greener concept. Luckily, I didn't jump fence because I know passion fades and I can objectively tell what is good for the long haul. I think that's what this article is about. Don't throw away what would otherwise be your dream man because you don't feel tons of spark. Look for the qualities that are going to make a partnership work.
Mustang Sally Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I don't think so.. I come from the camp that believes we adjust our expectations to a more realistic expectations.. A person who adjusts their expectations is showing self esteem and the ability to change in the ever lasting journey of living a fulfilling life. We control our own happiness... I like that viewpoint, Art. That's what I'm working on.
Mustang Sally Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I think all marriages "settle-in" but I don't think that's necessarily settling. To me, settling is wanting to but thinking you can never do any better so you just accept what you have and strive no further. Settling-in is being content with what you have. There's also a comfort level and that's worth a lot and can be very fulfilling, provided there are still reasonable amounts of romance and love. Totally agree with that, Curmudgeon. Unfortunately, I sometimes have trouble figuring out if my M is "settling in" or one (or both) of us has "settled." I think usually, I'm just having a strong reaction to the former. Why? - I have not a clue - but I'm going to approach it from that vantage point.
Ariadne Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Or they're tapping into the 40+ crowd since they have no interest in getting married, and are experienced, hot and sexy to boot. Hmmm...no. Because the 40+ crowd is ugly and they want gorgeous. Tight ass, tight skin, gorgeous face and hair etc etc.
marlena Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Hmmm...no. Because the 40+ crowd is ugly and they want gorgeous. Tight ass, tight skin, gorgeous face and hair etc etc. Haha!!! So true!!
CaliGuy Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Hmmm...no. Because the 40+ crowd is ugly and they want gorgeous. Tight ass, tight skin, gorgeous face and hair etc etc. Hmmm, well everything is still tight on me and I am 39. Should I hang up my hopes next year? lol. Not everyone 40+ is ugly
Taramere Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Tight ass, tight skin, gorgeous face and hair.... ...happy, positive outlook etc etc
Ariadne Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 ...happy, positive outlook etc etc Well, the 40+ crowd is still hot for the 60 year olds, if they are kept well. At least that.
Taramere Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Well, the 40+ crowd is still hot for the 60 year olds, if they are kept well. At least that. Is it really as bad as that for women in the US? (No offence to 60 year olds intended)
directx Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Is it really as bad as that for women in the US? (No offence to 60 year olds intended) I'm not sure what this means. If it is saying it so bad for 40+ American women that they have to settle for 60+ year olds? I'm in my 30's, and I find many 40+, even some 50+ hot. I think older women can do quite well for themselves in America.
Taramere Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I'm not sure what this means. If it is saying it so bad for 40+ American women that they have to settle for 60+ year olds? No - that's why I added in "no offence to 60 year olds". My comment was more in response to what seemed like a very depressing world view...ie a woman in her 40s regarding people in her own age group as being ugly. I was trying to establish whether that's a general view or just one that Ariadne personally holds.
melodymatters Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I belive it is just ariadnes view. I'm 41 and still get hit on tons from men of all ages.
Trialbyfire Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Hmmm...no. Because the 40+ crowd is ugly and they want gorgeous. Tight ass, tight skin, gorgeous face and hair etc etc. Ariadne, don't be such a downer on the beauty and maturity that many of the 40+ crowd reflect. Being gorgeous doesn't always equate to youth.
Miyamoto Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Ladies, all I can say is, if you're gonna be a pessimistic loudmouth like that article writer, get your PhD or a gym membership... I have a feeling that broad didn't find what she was looking for because she's a cynical bigmouth who has none of the qualities that a man really wants in a woman: 1. Big hooters 2. Nice body 3. Sexual freakiness 4. Ability to cook 5. Cute smile 6. Feminine wisdom (not overbearing intelligence) :D:D And it is law of the jungle that men go up in value as we age...women go down...it's payback for those high school/college years when you were all hot stuff, so don't be mad...
jerbear Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I'm not sure what this means. If it is saying it so bad for 40+ American women that they have to settle for 60+ year olds? I'm in my 30's, and I find many 40+, even some 50+ hot. I think older women can do quite well for themselves in America. Agreed, I once hit on a 50 something grandmother and didn't know that her daughter was my age... I didn't even know she was 50+. I would have hit on the daugther and her, wow! Don't forget that LS ladies from Canada, they're are hot too, guess they are melting the ice caps there, eh?
Miyamoto Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Let's say some variation on: 1) Handsome 2) Smart 3) Kind/Faithful/Respectful 4) Successful 5) Shares common interests and core values 6) Great chemistry 7) Sane Now think about the number of guys who actually possess all these traits. It's pretty few. Umm...hello? Everywhere I turn I see couples who have clearly settled for each other, and yet many of them seem pretty happy. Most people settle because they have no other choice. It's depressing, but that's life. You don't look very happy in your picture. Try smiling more!
compassion42 Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I'm not sure how I feel about the article. I agree that it does make some pretty convincing points for settling. At first I thought that I would NEVER do that-but then I realized that I did it many times with past relationships and ended them when I came to the point that I couldn't settle any longer. I'm 42 now and still never been married. I think the odds are definitely lower of my finding THE ONE and have changed my criteria a bit as a result. Some things I just can't bend on but others I feel I can and will need to be more flexible about. p.s. whoever it was who referred to the SNL skit....it was for a dating service called "Lowered Expectations"....haha
Trialbyfire Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Ladies, all I can say is, if you're gonna be a pessimistic loudmouth like that article writer, get your PhD or a gym membership... I have a feeling that broad didn't find what she was looking for because she's a cynical bigmouth who has none of the qualities that a man really wants in a woman: 1. Big hooters 2. Nice body 3. Sexual freakiness 4. Ability to cook 5. Cute smile 6. Feminine wisdom (not overbearing intelligence) :D:D And it is law of the jungle that men go up in value as we age...women go down...it's payback for those high school/college years when you were all hot stuff, so don't be mad... Wow, that sounds like such high standards. I'm sure all women strive to be that...impressive...
Taramere Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I'm 42 now and still never been married. I think the odds are definitely lower of my finding THE ONE and have changed my criteria a bit as a result. Some things I just can't bend on but others I feel I can and will need to be more flexible about. Being flexible sounds a lot better than "dropping your standards" - and it does, in fact, mean something very different. Lately, this new neighbour of mine has taken to knocking on my door in the evening, delivering my bills to me (so romantic!) and suggesting we go out for a drink. He's pretty pushy, and my instinctive reaction - having just got in from work and feeling tired and grotty - has been to politely get rid of him as quickly as I can and retreat into the peace and quiet without even contemplating the notion of saying "well okay...why not give this a try?" I was talking to a friend about him recently. She pointed out that I'm always moaning about British men behaving as though it's illegal to show any sexual interest in women. Why not give this pushy sexual predator a chance and see what happens? After all, there could well be a reason that Mediterranean women always look so confident and pleased with themselves. So I agreed to go out for a drink with him next week. He gave me this rather cute smile - and I suddenly felt quite interested in the whole idea. In a week or two I'll either be be walking to work with a smirk on my face... or I'll be taking hour long showers and scrubbing myself with wire wool and bleach. Either way, it's given me something different to think about. You don't necessarily need to lower your standards to stay in the game. Sometimes it's more about keeping an open mind. Challenging yourself, or letting others challenge you (and actually listening to them) about your reasons for saying no or dismissing someone as "definitely not my type!!!" Settling might have more to do with giving way to your fears, going with the easy option and hiding from life than it has to do with good sense and realism.
compassion42 Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 I'd quote your post here if I knew how-lol but I laughed out loud about your thoughts on going out with the "sexual predator neighbor guy"....I hope you end up with something to smile about! Also I appreciate your opinion about keeping an open mind.
Storyrider Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 You don't necessarily need to lower your standards to stay in the game. Sometimes it's more about keeping an open mind. Challenging yourself, or letting others challenge you (and actually listening to them) I like this concept. You aren't taking any risks if you have a checklist and just tick things off. Isn't love a bit of a gamble? It also reminds of this concept in writing I learned recently. I guess I knew it before, but it was so well articulated this time. It was about how, when you write, you shouldn't have it all worked out in your head because then you miss out on the interchange you have with your own text. That the text itself should give you ideas about what to write next. In this way the text isn't just an object, but something living, with which you interact. I think this makes a good analogy for life. If you keep a death grip on your life, you'll never allow it to lead you to something new.
JerseyShortie Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 First, the article is horse-poop. Telling women to settle for someone they don't think is good enough for them to begin with just so we can over-populate the world more then it already is? And why would a man want to be with a woman that felt like she was settling with him? If I "settle" for a man I know that I can't have that much respect for him and will only grow to have even less respect for him. And soon, resent him. And it is law of the jungle that men go up in value as we age...women go down...it's payback for those high school/college years when you were all hot stuff, so don't be mad... If that is the way you feel that you should just take 12 year olds. Because that is about your mental maturity. Women are human-beings and it's like you purposely want to make them feel bad because you got turned down in highschool a few times. That is really ridiculous. Women age. Men age. Men don't get better with age because they slow down, develop wrinkles and other related aging matter just like women do. I actually think men are more sensitive to aging and less confident about it. I will say, men ARE judged less harshly for aging. But medical studies show that as a man ages, his sperm ages as well, and is less healthy then when he was young. His sperm will carry more probabilty of his off-spring having defects just as it does with aging women. So currently we are in a time where women might be on the shelf a little less longer then men, but we have more time then ever in history then any other time period for women. And men are not as needed as they use to be. Women use to be much more dependent on men. So we don't need a man to take care of us. We can also choose based on the youth of a man. And as science has proved, a younger man is also more healthy then his older counter parts. So with those two factors, and as we progress, I think men will soon find themselves on the receiving end of the aging negative. We already see it happening.
Recommended Posts