Fact: Dating is better for men than for women!

[janie423]

1. Do you have a problem reading? How many times have I said I typed this for the men who are whining that dating sucks for them?

 

 

5. Get off the subject of my character and stay on topic. If you keep taking personal shots you will be reported.

 

 

I believe you stated this about me. I take this as a personal shot, along with the other insults to my character . . . like the one previously about my math ability . . . so stop crybabying.

[Twenty-ten]

 

And one key thing you're refusing to understand is that yes, you do have the power in choosing who you approach, but your power ends the instant you approach a woman...once you've approached, all the power essentially transfers to the approachee who now has the ability to choose...

 

 

Well you can't have it all one way and one way only. If you get to choose, or have the ultimate power to choose someone to approach they should in turn have the power to accept or reject you. And on top of it you still have the power to also walk away. You rejected others in the room when choosing one particular person to approach so why can't the person being approached also have the power now to say yes or no?

 

Taking the chance on someone, even at the risk of being rejected, is a lot more powerful than sitting around waiting for people to take a chance on you.

 

I think the notion of "begging" was introduced erroneously here, begging as far as I understand is being told "no" and persisting. Approaching someone you think might take interest is hardly begging it is testing the waters. To me a guy who does not read body language and persists after he is being shown disinterest is considered begging. Simply approaching someone is not.

[St. Nick]

Yes, indeed, but the choice for you ends when you decide who you're going to approach. After that, you have no power to choose at all.

 

Yes, but I have the choice to approach all females; women only have the choice of approaching the males who approach them. The male options aren't as limited the female options.

[janie423]

*sigh*

 

 

How can you argue that the approacher has less options than the approachee? Do you not understand math?

 

 

I also consider this a "personal shot" . . .

[USMCHokie]

Same control and power you exercise as a man when you choose to approach a woman. But rather than waiting for destiny to happen you are actually making it happen, even if takes a ton of failures to get there.

 

Indeed, it is the same power. But like I said, that control and power is taken away the instant you approach the woman. You've made your choice, and you no longer have any power to choose. The woman has taken the power of choice from that moment forward (unless you decide to walk away after your approach...maybe she had icky teeth...?).

 

The approachee waits for destiny to happen, while the approacher at least tries to make it happen. The woman is taking the passive role in the scenario of dating, that is not power, that is simple choice given the opportunities she is faced with but had no control over initially.

 

But she has control in the end, when it actually counts.

 

 

If you are unemployed and wait for your contacts to offer you a job, which sure it happen as soon as they realize you are unemployed, do you think you have a better chance of finding work if you wait or post your resume online for all to see or if you are actively sending out 20 resumes a day to job postings and companies you you hear are hiring all around you? Even if those resumes you send out get a response once every 100 resumes you send out, who do you think has a better chance of finding a job?

 

Sorry, this is a poor analogy to dating...because in this example, the two players are the unemployed person and the hiring company...I assume that you are analogizing the single man to the unemployed person...but is the single woman not also an unemployed person...and not a hiring company...?

 

This example doesn't really work...

[St. Nick]

Thanks, much appreciated. On that note, i'm out. The posts are circling the same issues over and over, I'm losing interest. No one wins, we'll all be lonely for the rest of our lives.

You're welcome. And yes, they are circling. Being the approacher means you're going to meet more people than the approachee. Anyone who agrees with that agrees with that the man has more options than women.

 

Like I said, I made this post for crybaby dudes to realize men have dating better. But those guys are avoiding this post for some reason and all the people who are contributing to this thread just want to argue.

[janie423]

 

I think the notion of "begging" was introduced erroneously here, begging as far as I understand is being told "no" and persisting. Approaching someone you think might take interest is hardly begging it is testing the waters. To me a guy who does not read body language and persists after he is being shown disinterest is considered begging. Simply approaching someone is not.

 

I guess "begging" is not the appropriate word . . . I guess "solicitor" would be more correct . . . but this applies to any situation, the person asked is in a power position because the approacher is expressing desire before they are . . . I'm not sure that makes sense either but I'm trying!

[sally4sara]

Yes, but I have the choice to approach all females; women only have the choice of approaching the males who approach them. The male options aren't as limited the female options.

 

Then any point you are making is bunk because IRL, women do not have to wait. There is no rule about this. Your point is dependent on women everywhere refraining from approaching anyone and this circumstance is just not a realistic one.

Its like trying to sell an aqueduct system to a board of city planners by saying it will never rain again. You saying something does not mean it becomes a fact.

[janie423]

You're welcome. And yes, they are circling. Being the approacher means you're going to meet more people than the approachee. Anyone who agrees with that agrees with that the man has more options than women.

 

Like I said, I made this post for crybaby dudes to realize men have dating better. But those guys are avoiding this post for some reason and all the people who are contributing to this thread just want to argue.

 

and that would be you most of all . . .

[USMCHokie]

Yes, but I have the choice to approach all females; women only have the choice of approaching the males who approach them. The male options aren't as limited the female options.

 

Fair enough. But I'll assume from your posts that the end goal of your little tirade is sex and/or dating. So while you have unlimited options of females to approach, you actually have no options of females to have sex with unless you are made an option by a female.

 

Bottom line: Approach does not equal sex. Your "success" is completely dictated by the discretion of women and the exercise of their "limited options."

[USMCHokie]

and that would be you most of all . . .

 

 

Hahah, that's the only reason I joined in...saw some holes in some of the assertions made by OP and decided to play...

[janie423]

Hahah, that's the only reason I joined in...saw some holes in some of the assertions made by OP and decided to play...

 

 

you make valid points in a very sporting way . . .

 

thanks for playing!

[Twenty-ten]

 

 

 

But she has control in the end, when it actually counts.

 

 

 

You see this is where it all gets lost in translation, she has control given the opportunities given to her yes but not the ultimate control for her overall success. If 3 men hit on her in one week she has control to say "yes or no" to those 3 opportunities, all of which could be complete duds. A guy doing the approaching can have 3 or 20 opportunities, and he goes into it already knowing he wants it, all he needs is one yes. A woman can wait a lifetime hoping that the right fit will come along but her chances are as good as what approaches her she is not in the active role.

 

 

Do you see how the odds are stacked in favor of the approacher not the approachee hence why the approacher has more power in creating his own favorable destiny?

 

 

I guess "begging" is not the appropriate word . . . I guess "solicitor" would be more correct . . . but this applies to any situation, the person asked is in a power position because the approacher is expressing desire before they are . . . I'm not sure that makes sense either but I'm trying!

 

yeah that makes a lot more sense, the word "begging" was really throwing me off.

 

 

Sorry, this is a poor analogy to dating...because in this example, the two players are the unemployed person and the hiring company...I assume that you are analogizing the single man to the unemployed person...but is the single woman not also an unemployed person...and not a hiring company...?

 

This example doesn't really work...

 

It's not a poor analogy. Think about it, the woman waits in the hopes that the right opportunity (or job) will come her way, while the guy is actively doing things to ensure his ideal woman (job) says yes to his interest in the company/woman. Who do you think has a better chance at success?

You were arguing that failure and success are exclusive and don't affect each other, but they are not exclusive and they do affect one another.

[USMCHokie]

Well you can't have it all one way and one way only. If you get to choose, or have the ultimate power to choose someone to approach they should in turn have the power to accept or reject you. And on top of it you still have the power to also walk away. You rejected others in the room when choosing one particular person to approach so why can't the person being approached also have the power now to say yes or no?

 

Indeed, but this acceptance or rejection is what matters in the end. Akin to contracts, you don't have a contract unless the offeror accepts...just like you don't have sex unless the approachee accepts...so it's the approachee's "power" that matters...the "ultimate power," so to speak...

 

 

Taking the chance on someone, even at the risk of being rejected, is a lot more powerful than sitting around waiting for people to take a chance on you.

 

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with this statement, and I agree on the whole premise that you need to be proactive to succeed. I am merely arguing all the flaws in the minutae that is coincidentally brought up in this thread...

[USMCHokie]

You see this is where it all gets lost in translation, she has control given the opportunities given to her yes but not the ultimate control for her overall success. If 3 men hit on her in one week she has control to say "yes or no" to those 3 opportunities, all of which could be complete duds. A guy doing the approaching can have 3 or 20 opportunities, and he goes into it already knowing he wants it, all he needs is one yes. A woman can wait a lifetime hoping that the right fit will come along but her chances are as good as what approaches her she is not in the active role.

 

 

Do you see how the odds are stacked in favor of the approacher not the approachee hence why the approacher has more power in creating his own favorable destiny?

 

Just as the man can wait a lifetime hoping that a woman says yes...

 

And here we go back to the definition of success and the "favorable destiny..."

 

 

It's not a poor analogy. Think about it, the woman waits in the hopes that the right opportunity (or job) will come her way, while the guy is actively doing things to ensure his ideal woman (job) says yes to his interest in the company/woman. Who do you think has a better chance at success?

You were arguing that failure and success are exclusive and don't affect each other, but they are not exclusive and they do affect one another.

 

Your explanation here kind probably did more harm than good...because you have labeled the woman as both the unemployed and the hiring company (as shown in bolded parts above). So which one is it...?

 

And failure and success in an approach is mutually exclusive. The only time it wouldn't be is if you approached the same woman twice.

[Green]

FACT: MEN have Penis and WOMEN have Vagina. We impale, they get impaled... unless of course you are dealing with a chick with a dick or dildo...

[Twenty-ten]

Your explanation here kind probably did more harm than good...because you have labeled the woman as both the unemployed and the hiring company (as shown in bolded parts above). So which one is it...?

.

 

 

Wow you are really struggling with the analogy aren't you!

It's far more simple than you care to see.

 

 

Both a man and a woman are unemployed, they ultimately have the same goal: to be employed.

 

One chooses to sit back and let employment find them the other actively takes on the job of finding work. Which one do you think will find work, even though it will take a lot of failure to get there, and no failure on the part of the other, which one do you think in the end has a better chance of reaching their goal?

 

Failure, brings you closer to success more than doing nothing.

 

That's the analogy, stop making it so contrived.

[USMCHokie]

Wow you are really struggling with the analogy aren't you!

It's far more simple than you care to see.

 

Hahahah, not at all. I know exactly what you're trying to say, but for me, cases often hinge on the minute details, so I'm used to trying to find and identify discrepencies and attack them...and I was just trying to be difficult...

 

 

Both a man and a woman are unemployed, they ultimately have the same goal: to be employed.

 

One chooses to sit back and let employment find them the other actively takes on the job of finding work. Which one do you think will find work, even though it will take a lot of failure to get there, and no failure on the part of the other, which one do you think in the end has a better chance of reaching their goal?

 

Failure, brings you closer to success more than doing nothing.

 

That's the analogy, stop making it so contrived.

 

Very good...and again, I totally understand and agree with the premise you are trying to show with your analogy...but again, I will have to counter...

 

So you have established the analogous counterparts of both single men and women as the unemployed looking for work. But wouldn't that imply that the unemployed are trying to find other unemployed people...? Unless you mean to say that single men and women play every role in your analogy (job seekers, hiring companies, and the jobs themselves)...? I'm not saying it's a completely unrelated analogy, but it's got a few holes...

[Twenty-ten]

I see what you are saying USM, perhaps it was a bad analogy in that in the unemployment example the man and the woman don't affect each other but in the dating thing one affects the other directly. I see what you mean now.

 

 

My point, poorly drawn and all, is still that the active pursuer increases their odds at achiving a more favourable outcome than the passive recipient.

 

Really, it's all about creating opportunities. A woman who is actively placing herself in social situations also increases her chances of being pursued by someone she likes, in that instance she is also in power even though she is in the passive role in relation to the "pick-up" but she is in the pursuer role in terms of creating a better odd for a favourable destiny.

 

Another thing that men have in their favour and we women don't is that, overall and despite what some men claim, the role of the man being the pursuer is still widely accepted and encouraged, while the role of pursuer or aggressor for the female is hit and miss. Some men really don't like an aggressive woman who hits on them, and they often categorize women like this in the "for play only" category because she is the one doing the pursuing.

[USMCHokie]

My point, poorly drawn and all, is still that the active pursuer increases their odds at achiving a more favourable outcome than the passive recipient.

 

Really, it's all about creating opportunities. A woman who is actively placing herself in social situations also increases her chances of being pursued by someone she likes, in that instance she is also in power even though she is in the passive role in relation to the "pick-up" but she is in the pursuer role in terms of creating a better odd for a favourable destiny.

 

 

And I think the bolded points above are very true, and I think that's what OP was trying to get at, in a kind of strange way...

 

But I think I'm done playing jackass for the day. It was fun...

[Jersey Shortie]

Didn't read through all 7 pages. I did read the OP though. I'm glad the OP is glad to be a man. If he wasn't, he might be struggling with gender idenity right now and instead of posting on LS about his manhood love, he'd be researching medical producers to make him that much closer to his very own pair of Manlo Blahniks.

 

With that said, I think despite the OPs enthusastic man-card posting, I think this has less to do with celebrating manhood, and more to do with some imagined compeititon of women vs. men. The tone of the post is being a man is better because of x,y and z options. Not a positive attitude to have for the female half of the population that you have a romantic interst in.

 

I sincerely hope every man here that is happy with being a man, feels good as a man. And any man that isn't, is finding his own way. But why do we have to put women down in the process?

[Twenty-ten]

and I think that's what OP was trying to get at, in a kind of strange way...

 

 

 

that was my interpretation at least..... I think all he was trying to say was that in this instance men have it better than women. In other instances women have it better than men. I don't see why his pointing this out upset some women!?!?

 

I still think that even though it is better to able to make your own luck it's still rather nice as a woman, to be able to sit back and look pretty and let men come to you. We do have the easier bit that's for sure.

[Jersey Shortie]

that was my interpretation at least..... I think all he was trying to say was that in this instance men have it better than women. In other instances women have it better than men.

 

Please go back through his posts and show us where his posts show us anything along the lines of "men have it better then women sometimes and women have it better then men sometimes". This guy is on a mission to put women down as second class. Which has more to do with his own personal insecurities and troubled issues.

[Twenty-ten]

Please go back through his posts and show us where his posts show us anything along the lines of "men have it better then women sometimes and women have it better then men sometimes". This guy is on a mission to put women down as second class. Which has more to do with his own personal insecurities and troubled issues.

 

 

Well, here in the OP:

 

And just like that I felt better about dating. Since women wait to approach, they only have the option of the men who approach them. For many women, that number is significantly small. Even the hottest woman can only have a small number of men approaching her. But for the average guy, he has the choice of every woman he sees since being the approacher puts him at a significantly higher advantage, increases his options, and makes his probability of finding the woman he wants much better than a woman

 

I tend to agree with that, if you are super hot men aren't approaching you ALL the time, if you are hot men aren't approaching you ALL the time, if you are average or ugly men aren't approaching you ALL the time. But if you are super hot you will be approached more than if you are ugly.

 

So all I interpreted from his OP was that men have more options since they do the approaching. I didn't feel the need to be "offended" by that statement.

 

though the "ball and chain" comment in reference to his SIL was uncessary but I chose not to focus on that.

 

 

Must every single thread be filled with drama? Is it really necessary?

 

Now, as per all the second part of the post...

 

But wait there's more. Most people would agree that generally speaking, men are mainly looking for sex from women (at least that's what I want), and women are mainly looking for long-term, committed relationships. I believe more people would agree that sex is easier to get than long-term commitment. And since that's the case, men can have their desires fulfilled much easier than women. Even if a guy can't get a date, there are tons of options where he can get sex:

 

1. Pornography.

2. Street prostitution.

3. Brothels.

4. Sex tourism.

5. Mail order brides.

6. Dating sites.

7. Craigslist (and similar sites).

8. Escort services.

 

I sort of stopped reading after pornography, since women can fck their hands too and that's not exactly "getting sex"

 

But he is sort of right, men can get sex way easier if they set their mind to it than women can find love and a rel.

[Engadget]

Well you're comparing apples and oranges by saying men/sex women/relationships.

 

Women/Sex vs. Men/Sex = Women win

 

Women/LTR vs. Men/LTR = Women win