zengirl Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 In general, I agree with your points, Untouchable Fire, but I think reading them into a rather cliche phrase is a bit much. Plenty of people use the phrase just to mean they're more ready to become serious. It doesn't even mean they're going for a new sort of fellow. Now if they say they're done with "fun guys," I'd read more into that (Why label something you're finished with positively? Also, why mention what kind of fellows you're finished with in dating profile), but not much from the cliche itself. There's nothing wrong with (and, in fact, everything natural about) becoming more serious about relationships as you get older. For one thing, there's biology. For another, there's life stability (careers, knowing where you want to live, etc). And most importantly, most people only learn what they want from a relationship by having a few. Acknowledging that doesn't make one terrible. Now, if the person really doesn't see the next stage of their life as enjoyable, and is just going to settle for whomever, that's pretty lame, yes!
Untouchable_Fire Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 In general, I agree with your points, Untouchable Fire, but I think reading them into a rather cliche phrase is a bit much. Plenty of people use the phrase just to mean they're more ready to become serious. It doesn't even mean they're going for a new sort of fellow. Now if they say they're done with "fun guys," I'd read more into that (Why label something you're finished with positively? Also, why mention what kind of fellows you're finished with in dating profile), but not much from the cliche itself. Well... who did they date before becoming serious? and why? I've always interpreted this saying to mean there is a difference between guys you date and guys you marry. There's nothing wrong with (and, in fact, everything natural about) becoming more serious about relationships as you get older. For one thing, there's biology. For another, there's life stability (careers, knowing where you want to live, etc). And most importantly, most people only learn what they want from a relationship by having a few. Acknowledging that doesn't make one terrible. Now, if the person really doesn't see the next stage of their life as enjoyable, and is just going to settle for whomever, that's pretty lame, yes! I'm not opposed to refining what your looking for in a mate as you age... but I don't like the idea of 180 degree flips. You can't deny the tendency for many women to suddenly decide that life stability and income generation is what they want in a man as they get older. That is really what this saying is all about. "I've had my fun" is derived from this idea. Most guys know this intuitively...
zengirl Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 (edited) Well... who did they date before becoming serious? and why? I've always interpreted this saying to mean there is a difference between guys you date and guys you marry. I'm not opposed to refining what your looking for in a mate as you age... but I don't like the idea of 180 degree flips. You can't deny the tendency for many women to suddenly decide that life stability and income generation is what they want in a man as they get older. That is really what this saying is all about. "I've had my fun" is derived from this idea. Most guys know this intuitively... Interesting. It's not a phrase I'd use, as I said before (but I try not to use lame cliches in general and I consider my life fun, generally). To answer the first question asked, I think different things than what you're thinking of --- partying, dating around, dating jerks --- can provoke it. I wasn't sure if I'd ever get married and didn't really know if I wanted kids when I was 20. That was for a lot of reasons, but none of it involved wanting to date jerks. I wouldn't have considered myself a great candidate for "settling down" then. Neither are most 20 year old men! I think it takes a lot of people some time and experiences to get to that place. I didn't become more serious by becoming frustrated with jerks. . . it was by finding out more about myself. I didn't view myself as excellent relationship material, even when I had good relationships, at certain points because I was aware that I was still in a huge state of flux. I think you need to sort of "settle down" as a person and figure out who you even are before you attempt to meet a long-term partner, and I think people often get into things too young, leading to divorce, etc. But that's just my experiences and observations. I think the good point you make is that if a woman is saying it for that reason, it's unfair to the men she wants to settle with. The "Why?" is always in question. Edited August 7, 2010 by zengirl
LoveLace Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 The headlines alone on those ads are no way near enough to say you know what exactly they are looking for. It's enough to either make you pursue, or make you not pursue...beyond that, 1 small phrase can't possibly tell you for sure what that person is really looking for, what their past is like, or what kind of person they have been or want to be, etc. At most we can say that she should have picked a better phrase to present herself with. Aside from that, you don't know what kind of guy she's really looking for or anything else. But you do know that she doesn't make herself sound appealing with that phrase...far as I'm concerned, that's all the room we have to judge her as we do not know her at all, or not a darn thing else about her...unless you read up on her or attempt to get to know her. Sure though, it's natural to go with past experiences and what we've seen before or whatever, I'm no stranger to that, but it's not fair to assume every woman or every man is this way or that way...this is what they all want and this is how they all are...there are for sure some constants in the genders; but we try too hard to find what jumps out as "unique" to us too. We spend so much time looking for something soo "special" that it makes us entirely judgemental of those who are just not good at writing about themselves...and if we met them by accident in person, it could be a whole new ball game. I'm not good at writing about myself and I probably sound like all the other ads and not all that interesting. I'm sure I get passed on often because of it and you know what, oh well...I am who I am...just think I'm not meant to meet Mr. Awesome that way.
Untouchable_Fire Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 I'm not good at writing about myself and I probably sound like all the other ads and not all that interesting. I'm sure I get passed on often because of it and you know what, oh well...I am who I am...just think I'm not meant to meet Mr. Awesome that way. I think you misunderstand. It's not the wording of the add itself. It's the attitude and meaning it portrays. See for you it's really simple... if a guy dates you... he thinks your attractive, end of story. I think that makes it so you don't really understand what I find so bad about that statement.
Stockalone Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Meaning now what I want is relationship type of fun, and not beause I HAVE to, it's because I'm ready to move into that next stage of life...its not fair to presume that makes me undesirable. That is really up to the people reading a profile, not the one who wrote it. So for her to say, "Done with fun, ready to settle".....YEP that sounds BAD. But it likely means that she is done fooling around with no serious intentions and ready to pick one she has GOOD intentions for. That's how I interpret that phrase, too. And it's also precisely the reason why I would never contact a woman who has this in her profile. And isn't that exactly how it is supposed to work? People look at pictures, read the profile and then determine if they want to get to know that person or not, based on the "vibe" they get from the information that is presented. It also works both ways. If a woman puts this in her profile, I am sure that weeding out guys like me, is a desired and intended effect.
JohnP82 Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 Yeah, that phrase would rub me the wrong way also.
LoveLace Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 All I"m saying is, it irks me that when a woman decides that she is ready to find and keep love, a man thinks it means I don't want to be a fun person anymore, hence undesirable, hence don't want a relationship with me, but if I am just out for "fun" with no intentions of a relationship, oh then I'm desirable...if I"m looking for a relationship, it must mean that I want to lock you down and control you, so that YOU can't have fun, either. When I'm ready to make a transition from single to committed, that alone doesn't tell you about me at all and what kind of girlfriend I'd be or what kind of man I want. Reading my profile, emailing me, etc, that will tell you more to go on, obviously. But if I announce that I want exclusive love and nothing else, that makes me not fun? How ignorant. That's like me telling a guy that if he wants a relationship, all he really wants is a woman to wait on him hand and foot while he drinks beer, watches football and scratches his crotch. And the sad thing is a man reading this right now is probably thinking "well heck yeah!!"
Stockalone Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 All I"m saying is, it irks me that when a woman decides that she is ready to find and keep love, a man thinks it means I don't want to be a fun person anymore, hence undesirable, hence don't want a relationship with me, but if I am just out for "fun" with no intentions of a relationship, oh then I'm desirable...if I"m looking for a relationship, it must mean that I want to lock you down and control you, so that YOU can't have fun, either. "Fun" (at least in my opinion) in this context means that the woman used to be promiscuous. It means she had flings with guys who she knew weren't bf material, that she had ONS, etc. That makes her undesirable in my eyes, it's an instant deal breaker for me. But if I announce that I want exclusive love and nothing else, that makes me not fun? How ignorant. The same phrase can mean different things to different people. For me, it has nothing to do with being a fun and/or interesting person vs. a boring and/or controlling person. That's like me telling a guy that if he wants a relationship, all he really wants is a woman to wait on him hand and foot while he drinks beer, watches football and scratches his crotch. And the sad thing is a man reading this right now is probably thinking "well heck yeah!!" I think a more comparable example would be this. If I had a profile that said: "I am looking for a woman to settle down with and have a family." I am sure there would be women who would think: "Oh, he isn't interested in love, or me (who I am as a person). It sounds like all that he is looking for, is a broodmare/maid/nanny/hooker, and every woman who is okay with this, will do."
meerkat stew Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 The main source of annoyance to me with any of the stock "pronouncements" a woman makes in an online dating profile is that they are largely inappropriate for the venue and reek of the kind of "shopping list" mentality that women seem to have more than men, maintaining such checklists even though their own dating marketability is usually deflating drastically as years go by. It's bad enough to go on dates and get the vibe that you are in the equivalent of an HR interview having your resume' red-pencilled. Starting that process in the profile is even more obnoxious. I have read hundreds of female and male dating profiles, and rarely see the level of qualifiers in male profiles that female profiles possess. Most men seem to instinctively grasp that turning an internet dating profile into an "I want I want I want memememe" document isn't sending a good message about their potential as a good partner.
LoveLace Posted August 7, 2010 Posted August 7, 2010 If a man says he is looking to settle down and have a family, and I am ready too, then he's an instant prospect. When I say I'm looking for love, usually that means the same darn thing...but if a woman flat out says "looking to settle and have a family"...men think she's just wanting to find herself a baby maker. So I prefer to say, looking for exclusive, looking for love, or whatever. Actually "looking for love" isn't even a great way to put it...almost sounds desperate. Should be more like "hoping to find love". No doubt she screwed up by describing herself that way, no denying that, but it doesn't make me think of promiscuity, it just makes her sound plain boring, or like she wasn't even a "fun" person to begin with really and still isn't.
Stockalone Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 It's bad enough to go on dates and get the vibe that you are in the equivalent of an HR interview having your resume' red-pencilled. Starting that process in the profile is even more obnoxious. That doesn't bother me, because I do that too. Why waste each other's time when a few questions can help to identify deal breakers right away? The fact is, the way people react to being questioned already can already be a clear sign of incompatibility. No doubt she screwed up by describing herself that way, no denying that, but it doesn't make me think of promiscuity, it just makes her sound plain boring, or like she wasn't even a "fun" person to begin with really and still isn't. Fair enough. As I said, different people will read/interpret a profile in different ways. Given what I think it means, I would not bother contacting this woman or women using similar phrases. Other men might not be bothered by it at all and contact her.
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 That doesn't bother me, because I do that too. Why waste each other's time when a few questions can help to identify deal breakers right away? The fact is, the way people react to being questioned already can already be a clear sign of incompatibility. The very existence of lots of preconceived deal breakers is a deal breaker for me , one of few. Not talking about obvious ones like drug use or criminal history. Nothing wrong with asking questions to get to know someone, but over the course of several dates and not in a way that they feel unduly vetted. That's rude and boring to boot. For example, one of many, experienced so many times: Her: "You are in your forties and have never married, that makes me uncomfortable." Me: "Yes it's true, I have never failed at marriage. People such as yourself, who have failed at marriage, don't make me uncomfortable though." Her: "Does your having not married mean you are afraid of commitment?" Me: "No more than your being divorced means you are a loser with bad judgment."
Untouchable_Fire Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 All I"m saying is, it irks me that when a woman decides that she is ready to find and keep love, a man thinks it means I don't want to be a fun person anymore, hence undesirable, hence don't want a relationship with me, but if I am just out for "fun" with no intentions of a relationship, oh then I'm desirable...if I"m looking for a relationship, it must mean that I want to lock you down and control you, so that YOU can't have fun, either. When I'm ready to make a transition from single to committed, that alone doesn't tell you about me at all and what kind of girlfriend I'd be or what kind of man I want. Yes, but what your saying to the guy that you intend to date is this: I was dating guys I found very attractive before because I could... now Im willing to date men I am semi-attracted to who make good money and "settle down". That's like me telling a guy that if he wants a relationship, all he really wants is a woman to wait on him hand and foot while he drinks beer, watches football and scratches his crotch. And the sad thing is a man reading this right now is probably thinking "well heck yeah!!" If the guy made his profile say "Done with talkative women ready for housemaid" I would agree with you. However, that's not what's going on here. If a man says he is looking to settle down and have a family, and I am ready too, then he's an instant prospect. When I say I'm looking for love, usually that means the same darn thing...but if a woman flat out says "looking to settle and have a family"...men think she's just wanting to find herself a baby maker. So I prefer to say, looking for exclusive, looking for love, or whatever. Actually "looking for love" isn't even a great way to put it...almost sounds desperate. Should be more like "hoping to find love". It's the change that get's men upset the most. My friend is a perfect example. He has a successful video game startup. Girls that would not have anything to do with him 10 years ago... are coming out of the woodworks to "settle down" with him now. That's crap! No doubt she screwed up by describing herself that way, no denying that, but it doesn't make me think of promiscuity, it just makes her sound plain boring, or like she wasn't even a "fun" person to begin with really and still isn't. I don't think of promiscuity either... I think she has decided to change what she wants in a man... and that isn't the kind of woman I want to be associated with. Yeah.... maybe she has been hurt by the kind of guy she was dating before, but that doesn't mean she wont want that again in 10 years. So... I'm done with girls like that. I've been cheated on too many times already...
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) My friend is a perfect example. He has a successful video game startup. Girls that would not have anything to do with him 10 years ago... are coming out of the woodworks to "settle down" with him now. That's crap! Indeed it is crap, but so is the situation of the plain looking girl who gets no attention then blossoms and can't beat em off with a stick. Women are sent the message, indirectly, and directly by oversolicitous weak men, that they can switch gears in life with 0 accountability as long as they look good enough. Susy the wild party queen can instantly transform into Susan the wife as she is so inclined and no one bats an eyelash because Susan is still hot. I don't know that this is any more Susan's fault than the men who will let her get away with any kind of behavior as long as she is good looking. In order for someone to be accountable, they must be held accountable by someone else, or rather a large community of someone elses. Mel the party guy can not instantly transform into Melvin the successful businessman because life doesn't work that way. Success rarely falls into people's lives who haven't paid their dues or made sacrifices. Melvin has to start out as Melvin the hard worker, and to add insult to injury, gets rejected by attractive women because he is "no fun" or "not a carefree bad boy." But lo and behold, once he has some wherewithal, suddenly he is a target for all the party Susys out there who didn't put any work in, and in a society where men and women are supposedly "equal" this tends to grate on lots of men's sense of fair play. So the end result is that there is a perception that women are out partying their asses off or doing whatever without a care in the world, then can switch gears and live off a man who has been busting his ass and sacrificing his entire adult life. But is that Suzy's fault? or the men who perpetually kiss her hot ass or seek trophies? We can gripe about these perceived inequities, but if we are still allowing people to do whatever they want as long as they are hot as a culture, things aren't going to change and we just have to accept them. Don't know if I am addressing your point entirely, maybe some at least. Edited August 8, 2010 by meerkat stew
zengirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) All I"m saying is, it irks me that when a woman decides that she is ready to find and keep love, a man thinks it means I don't want to be a fun person anymore, hence undesirable, hence don't want a relationship with me, but if I am just out for "fun" with no intentions of a relationship, oh then I'm desirable...if I"m looking for a relationship, it must mean that I want to lock you down and control you, so that YOU can't have fun, either. When I'm ready to make a transition from single to committed, that alone doesn't tell you about me at all and what kind of girlfriend I'd be or what kind of man I want. That's part of what I wonder in the discussion here. The issues men have with this phrase seem to have nothing to do with "fun" and everything with assuming either (A) The woman was previously promiscuous and that's unappealing. or (B) The woman is now ready to settle and date men she doesn't really like. My mind just doesn't jump there, personally. But whatever. I think that's a lot to read into the cliche, but those are fine reasons not to date someone. I'll date men who were previously promiscuous, if all else looks good and they've switched gears, but I certainly find it unattractive. And I'd stay about 1,000,000 miles away from "B" as a gal as well. But the question I have for these fellows: Does this mean any woman who indicates she's looking for a serious, committed relationship is similarly unattractive to you? Or is it just the phrase itself? If the phrase is weeding out those people who DO want a serious relationship unintentionally, then it's a bad phrase. If it's only weeding out those who aren't sure if they want something serious or know they don't, it's doing it's job. I think a more comparable example would be this. If I had a profile that said: "I am looking for a woman to settle down with and have a family." I am sure there would be women who would think: "Oh, he isn't interested in love, or me (who I am as a person). It sounds like all that he is looking for, is a broodmare/maid/nanny/hooker, and every woman who is okay with this, will do." Actually, in some cases, that can be very attractive. I suppose wording matters (but that's me; wording matters a lot to me!), but the fellow I'm excited to go out with* when I move next week and settle in --- we've been e-mailing, video-chatting, etc, as I'm still overseas -- had on his dating profile something that indicated basically he was no longer interested in anything casual. I didn't take that to mean he was looking to marry just anyone (I'll definitely never be a place-filler!), but I did take it to indicate he knows what he wants, has his life together, and is only looking for connections that he feels serious about. (*I'm not saying this will work out. I've no idea and live much more one step at a time. Only that this part of his profile was attractive to me.) Now, if it said, "I'm looking for a woman to have a child with," and nothing else to indicate he cared about the type of gal, I'd think that was pretty darn lame. Ready to settle down doesn't mean "looking for a place-filler." The main source of annoyance to me with any of the stock "pronouncements" a woman makes in an online dating profile is that they are largely inappropriate for the venue and reek of the kind of "shopping list" mentality that women seem to have more than men, maintaining such checklists even though their own dating marketability is usually deflating drastically as years go by. .... Most men seem to instinctively grasp that turning an internet dating profile into an "I want I want I want memememe" document isn't sending a good message about their potential as a good partner. Seriously, I see that stuff in men's profiles all the time. The above example of the fellow is not really an offender (because he phrased his state of mind in an "I" statement and did it in a conversational way that didn't make it seem like, as you said, a job interview), but there are loads that are! I see fellows listing everything about the kind of girl they want, the kind of first date they want, etc. I think all people fall into this trap in online dating. Besides, pointing out that I like people with things in common and positive people, my profile says pretty much nothing about stuff like this, so I agree with the whole "Applicants" vibe being lame. But men are offenders of it just as much as women. I've looked at profiles of both. Women are perhaps bigger offenders of the "Don't contact me if" stuff, but that's mainly because they get far more creepy messages than fellows (I still just say, "Delete it. Don't talk about it. Life goes on."). I don't think of promiscuity either... I think she has decided to change what she wants in a man... and that isn't the kind of woman I want to be associated with. Yeah.... maybe she has been hurt by the kind of guy she was dating before, but that doesn't mean she wont want that again in 10 years. So... I'm done with girls like that. I've been cheated on too many times already... Understandable that this is your POV, but honestly, everyone changes the kind of person they want to be with. After all, if you changed your mind and "decided" you wanted to be with women who didn't cheat on you, should all the non-cheating women say, "Uh no no no! He dated cheaters first. They can have him!" It's not like people are always consciously picking their bad patterns after all; I think there are people who realize it's attractive that someone noticed their own bad habits/patterns and resolved to fix it. (The danger, of course, is if they haven't finished fixing it yet.) We live and we learn. Hopefully. I've always dated mostly nice fellows. Not perfect, but decent guys, so I've no particular investment in encouraging anyone to go out with those girls. But I have gone out with fellows who usually went out with crazy (I'm talking clinically)/bitchy/cheating/domineering/controlling/horrible women before me, and it usually wasn't an issue in our relationship. Nor did I have some idea they were settling for me because they couldn't handle the crazy chicks they really wanted. Usually, they appreciated me more! The big thing was all these fellows had already begun fixing their bad patterns before we started dating. That's a big one. Women are sent the message, indirectly, and directly by oversolicitous weak men, that they can switch gears in life with 0 accountability as long as they look good enough. Susy the wild party queen can instantly transform into Susan the wife as she is so inclined and no one bats an eyelash because Susan is still hot. I don't know that this is any more Susan's fault than the men who will let her get away with any kind of behavior as long as she is good looking. In order for someone to be accountable, they must be held accountable by someone else, or rather a large community of someone elses. Mel the party guy can not instantly transform into Melvin the successful businessman because life doesn't work that way. Success rarely falls into people's lives who haven't paid their dues or made sacrifices. Melvin has to start out as Melvin the hard worker, and to add insult to injury, gets rejected by attractive women because he is "no fun" or "not a carefree bad boy." But lo and behold, once he has some wherewithal, suddenly he is a target for all the party Susys out there who didn't put any work in, and in a society where men and women are supposedly "equal" this tends to grate on lots of men's sense of fair play. I believe, to a degree, there are some social messages sent about women/beauty that aren't there with men/beauty, yes. Even in HS, men/boys are taught to aim for status, whereas girls can only hope for beauty. (Me? I'd much prefer if men judged me by my success than my beauty, but the world is what it is.) Really, both genders are judged on both as they grow older, but there might still be some disparity. Beauty is usually more about luck than success. So, if anything, men have the better deal! While not everyone can be successful, at least everyone can aspire to it. You cannot really aspire to beauty, beyond a certain point. You either are beautiful or you aren't. You can make some alterations, but nothing so dramatic. As for accountability, I think neither beautiful, nor successful/wealthy people are held accountable for their dating interactions or life choices as much as others. But, hey, if you don't want to marry lame Susy party girl who's after your money. . . I've no issues with that. The only reason she thinks she can meet a successful, rich fellow and become Susan the wife without any work on her part, beyond maintaining her beauty, is because there are Melvins out there who want her. Melvin could go for someone else if he wants. Plenty of women work for success, are educated, and care about more than just their beauty. Edited August 8, 2010 by zengirl
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 But men are offenders of it just as much as women. No, they aren't. Women are perhaps bigger offenders of the "Don't contact me if" stuff, but that's mainly because they get far more creepy messages than fellows (I still just say, "Delete it. Don't talk about it. Life goes on."). This though, is actually a good point, given that women get so much more volume, hence more creepy volume of responses than men, which justifies -some- of the qualifiers in their profiles. Beauty is usually more about luck than success. So, if anything, men have the better deal! While not everyone can be successful, at least everyone can aspire to it. You cannot really aspire to beauty, beyond a certain point. You either are beautiful or you aren't. You can make some alterations, but nothing so dramatic. Really? Physical attractiveness for men is largely a matter of 1. Height 2. favorable facial bone structure 3. favorable genetics in terms of frame and musculature. All largely immutable, unchangeable characteristics. So yes, for men, beauty -is- largely a matter of genetic luck. OTOH, physical attractiveness for women is largely a matter of 1. not being fat 2. money spent on appearance and style, both more controllable factors. Height, facial bone structure, and genetic frame and musculature, the luck/genetic factors, come into play much less with women than men. If you disagree, tell me who will generally have more dating success all other things being equal, a 5'1" woman or a 5'5" man? Both are about three inches shy of average height. The only reason she thinks she can meet a successful, rich fellow and become Susan the wife without any work on her part, beyond maintaining her beauty, is because there are Melvins out there who want her. Melvin could go for someone else if he wants. Plenty of women work for success, are educated, and care about more than just their beauty. Exactly as I stated, so we are mostly in agreement there. Still doesn't completely justify the gender imbalance in that respect, hence resentment expressed in the thread at an unequal playing field.
brainygirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 No, they aren't. This though, is actually a good point, given that women get so much more volume, hence more creepy volume of responses than men, which justifies -some- of the qualifiers in their profiles. Really? Physical attractiveness for men is largely a matter of 1. Height 2. favorable facial bone structure 3. favorable genetics in terms of frame and musculature. All largely immutable, unchangeable characteristics. So yes, for men, beauty -is- largely a matter of genetic luck. OTOH, physical attractiveness for women is largely a matter of 1. not being fat 2. money spent on appearance and style, both more controllable factors. Height, facial bone structure, and genetic frame and musculature, the luck/genetic factors, come into play much less with women than men. If you disagree, tell me who will generally have more dating success all other things being equal, a 5'1" woman or a 5'5" man? Both are about three inches shy of average height. Exactly as I stated, so we are mostly in agreement there. Still doesn't completely justify the gender imbalance in that respect, hence resentment expressed in the thread at an unequal playing field. Actually, women don't have it that much easier, just different. Men want access to easy sex, relationships are nice, but there really want sex. women want relationships that are emotionally supportive, stable, and secure. Women have almost no trouble getting sex. I certainly don't. I DO have trouble getting the relationship. As a shorter than average (5'2") and pudgier than considered desireable (size 16) woman, the guys who will screw me, don't want to get into relationships. The guys who want relationships are holding out for tall, thin, and unattached. I have three kids. I'm not trying to derail the thread or complain, I'm just pointing out that both genders have trouble getting what they want. My kids and my weight work against me. For guys it might be lack of income or some other thing that they can't really change. Fact is that dating is hard.
zengirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 No, they aren't. I can find dozens of male profiles that do what you say. Men do it, too. Really? Physical attractiveness for men is largely a matter of 1. Height 2. favorable facial bone structure 3. favorable genetics in terms of frame and musculature. All largely immutable, unchangeable characteristics. So yes, for men, beauty -is- largely a matter of genetic luck. OTOH, physical attractiveness for women is largely a matter of 1. not being fat 2. money spent on appearance and style, both more controllable factors. Height, facial bone structure, and genetic frame and musculature, the luck/genetic factors, come into play much less with women than men. If you disagree, tell me who will generally have more dating success all other things being equal, a 5'1" woman or a 5'5" man? Both are about three inches shy of average height. First, I was comparing the things you had in your own post (not attractiveness v. attractiveness, but attractiveness v. success). I think for women beauty is a matter of genetic luck as well. I disagree that facial bone structure and genetic frame and musculature come into play less for women -- I think they come into play more. Women do have make-up which can further enhance, but then they are at another disadvantage if they choose not to use it! (Even if they're prettier.) I think height is just about the only place fellows can complain, but I think women are under far more pressure to get things "done" (hair, nails, make-up, etc). Also, women significantly above average height have their own issues. But, you know, what: I've seen balding fellows land a decent looking girl. How well do you think a balding female would do? Exactly as I stated, so we are mostly in agreement there. Still doesn't completely justify the gender imbalance in that respect, hence resentment expressed in the thread at an unequal playing field. Why put the gender imbalance on Suzy, though, is my point. The playing field on which you choose to play is made by YOU, as an individual. Decide Suzy is ugly and undesirable and Sally Successful is the girl for you even if she never would've made the cheerleading crowd or made the fellows at the club swoon. I think it's silly to talk about gender "imbalances" in dating. Dating is much more complex than that.
spiderowl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 Reminds me of the guys' profiles I've seen where they have been pursuing a career, travelling the world, or something else that has taken up all their time and are now (in their late 40s) looking to settle down with a good woman. OK, they may well have done all these things and could be late maturers as far as wanting a serious relationship goes, but would you trust that? To me, it just says they are wanderer types, didn't really see a need for a woman (except perhaps for sex en route), and now they are running out of options. Have they changed? I don't believe people change deep down and that same character who wanted to wander the world will probably be off doing it again as soon as I've committed to him. Nope, too much of a risk.
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 I can find dozens of male profiles that do what you say. Men do it, too. Over the last five years of internet dating, I've read thousands of female profiles, and almost as many male profiles to steal good stuff from them, the few that actually have any good stuff to steal Men do it too, sure, but not nearly to the degree women do... unless of course they have "MD" after their names, then they are actually on equal footing with the -average- woman net dater as far as selectivity goes and putting presumptuous disqualifiers in the profile. I disagree that facial bone structure and genetic frame and musculature come into play less for women -- I think they come into play more. Well you are wrong there. Basically, for men to find them attractive, women have to be "not overweight," and even then there's more leeway than men have. Women can carry a MUCH higher body fat % than men and still be perceived as attractive. Being thin is pretty much the "road to hotness" for women. Have never known a slender woman who did not have plenty of male attention. Not one. Not so for men. I think height is just about the only place fellows can complain, but I think women are under far more pressure to get things "done" (hair, nails, make-up, etc). Also, women significantly above average height have their own issues. But, you know, what: I've seen balding fellows land a decent looking girl. How well do you think a balding female would do? Getting done up takes a bit of time and money, and I don't know any women who don't enjoy the process (they still gripe about it, but that doesn't mean squat in translation, women love doing and applying whatever to look good), so that's not really work, is it? Much of it is done to compete with other women as opposed to attracting men anyway. Tall women, the issues are of their own making for the most part. They insist on wearing high heels and then disqualify men who don't "measure up." The tall women without those hangups do just fine, have dated many of them. Up to the individual woman whether her height is an attraction advantage or not, other than extreme cases of women over 6' tall (a small minority). Not the same as men under 5'8" (not so small a minority). As far as bald women, it's called -male- pattern baldness for a reason, and a woman who had the testosterone levels to cause it would have bigger fish to fry in the attractiveness department than mere baldness. In short, women don't often "go bald" so bad example. But since you bring it up, baldness is a tremendous attraction disadvantage for men, the fact that you state you have seen a bald guy get a girl means you know this, and another factor men have no control over whatsoever. But this thread was never about comparative beauty in the genders, was a derail. Why put the gender imbalance on Suzy, though, is my point. The playing field on which you choose to play is made by YOU, as an individual. Decide Suzy is ugly and undesirable and Sally Successful is the girl for you even if she never would've made the cheerleading crowd or made the fellows at the club swoon. OP, and pretty much everyone in the thread, self included, seems to agree, it's pretty much the reason for the thread. What irritates OP and me and others is the attitude inherent in statements like "I've had my fun," which is stated as "I've had my fun, now it's time for you to provide for me via the hard work you've done while I've been having it." A serious thread topic? Not so much, but it's a vent, and LS is a fine place to vent.
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 Actually, women don't have it that much easier, just different. Men want access to easy sex, relationships are nice, but there really want sex. women want relationships that are emotionally supportive, stable, and secure. So Cyndi Lauper was wrong? I disagree with the above, maybe it was true in the past, but there has been lots of blurring of the traditional gender desires over the last 30 years. I'm not trying to derail the thread or complain, I'm just pointing out that both genders have trouble getting what they want. Nah, complain away, it's what this board, and particularly threads like this are for
zengirl Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 Over the last five years of internet dating, I've read thousands of female profiles, and almost as many male profiles to steal good stuff from them, the few that actually have any good stuff to steal Men do it too, sure, but not nearly to the degree women do... unless of course they have "MD" after their names, then they are actually on equal footing with the -average- woman net dater as far as selectivity goes and putting presumptuous disqualifiers in the profile. I suppose that might be true, but I think it's less about the nature of women and more about the nature of online dating. If a man who was equally attractive as I in every way put up a profile, he'd get far less messages, just because of the way people are socialized. I know fellows call this "unfair" but I think it's silly to get bitter about. It doesn't mean that guy has less dating opportunity in general. It's just that men usually send the messages, and women usually respond, as socially trained. We're changing this, slowly but surely, I hope. Women are feeling more empowered to initiate. I'm all for that. It sucks to have a mailbox full of creepy notes from old guys and weirdos asking weird, creepy things just as much as it sucks to have an empty one. Women know that the number of messages they get -- or the frequency with which they get hit on -- has little to do with their dating opportunity. Sometimes men use these numbers as an example that women have greater opportunity, but it's silly. It's like saying someone with a lot of junk mail has better mail. More, sure, but not better. Well you are wrong there. Basically, for men to find them attractive, women have to be "not overweight," and even then there's more leeway than men have. Women can carry a MUCH higher body fat % than men and still be perceived as attractive. Being thin is pretty much the "road to hotness" for women. Have never known a slender woman who did not have plenty of male attention. Not one. Not so for men.I know plenty of thin girls that fellows have told me they don't find terribly attractive. I'm not sure about "plenty of male attention" --- I mean, again, I don't judge dating opportunity by quantity alone. The body fat thing is silly. A woman's body was designed to have higher body fat than a man's, so yes, it looks better at a higher %. The thing to look at would be the variation from the average, which is where I think men are at an advantage. They can gain or lose a few pounds and look roughly the same (because their overall weight is higher to begin with). If I gain 5-10 pounds, I'm not ugly or even overweight, but I get way less male attention, because I look less peak. Getting done up takes a bit of time and money, and I don't know any women who don't enjoy the process (they still gripe about it, but that doesn't mean squat in translation, women love doing and applying whatever to look good), so that's not really work, is it? Much of it is done to compete with other women as opposed to attracting men anyway.I'm not a fan of make-up. I wear a bit, but not much. I used to be insecure about this and put more on anyway, but now I'm pretty cool with it as-is. I'm still fairly attractive, and fellows always seem to like the fact that I look basically the same when I wake up in the morning, I guess. I hate most of the processes, except occasionally putting on "fun" make-up to go out to a club or getting my hair dyed. But a lot of what I do is an errand, just maintenance, not fun. I agree a lot of it is for other women. But it becomes a competitive thing. A lot of it is also unnoticed: I'm not a huge fan of pedicures/manicures, but I like the results, so I get them or do them myself. I wax and remove hair from various surfaces. I take 30 minutes to get my hair into decent condition in the morning, along with ridiculous services and such (I would say coloring my hair is something done purely for fun, but anti-frizz services are more required). A lot of men don't notice the work that goes into all this. The whole idea, of course, is to pretend we just "look like this." The whole, "Maybe it's Maybelline?" theory. That said, men are getting more and more metrosexual about things and doing some of the same things too. Tall women, the issues are of their own making for the most part. They insist on wearing high heels and then disqualify men who don't "measure up." The tall women without those hangups do just fine, have dated many of them. Up to the individual woman whether her height is an attraction advantage or not, other than extreme cases of women over 6' tall (a small minority). Not the same as men under 5'8" (not so small a minority).Eh, I agree that a fellow at 5'5'' is at a major disadvantage, not so with a fellow at 5'7'' or maybe even 5'6''. I've dated fellows at 5'7'' and fellows at 6'3'', and I'm 5'5''. Most women just want a gal taller than they are, except for the really shallow ones. And a lot of the short fellows don't do so well for the same reason: They have hang-ups themselves. Not all of them, and I've seen plenty do well. I've only met one fellow my height/smaller, in my whole life, that was my generation (There are older men in Korea that are very short, but so are the oldest women, as it is nutritional; they grew up in Korean War time and had nothing to eat!), but I've met many women in the 5'9'' range. Only one in the 5'11+ range, so I tend to think they're the outliers, just the same as fellows at 5'5''. Anyway, a lot of women like tall guys, so you have a small point here, but it is only a small one, not the large one fellows make out of it, is my point. At any rate, I've no reason to complain about "how bad" I have it as a gal, but I find it silly when men try to do the same. Is being a man different than being a woman? Well, yes. But the whole "we have it worse" attitude is lame in women and in men.
meerkat stew Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 I know fellows call this "unfair" but I think it's silly to get bitter about. But of course, anything that benefits you and disadvantages someone else is "silly to get bitter about." You just pretty much summed up my entire gripe with female attitudes in the U.S. How about just stopping at "unfair," and leave it at that? Life isn't fair, we all know it, what is annoying is when we vent about it and are told, usually by someone who benefits by the inequity, 1. that we are bitter, and 2. that our concerns are "silly." Women are feeling more empowered to initiate. It's a matter for another thread or discussion, but it sure ain't about women feeling "empowered" to do anything. Women are plenty "empowered" to do whatever they want, and have been for some decades. You can sense my feelings on the word "empowered" I bet Women know that the number of messages they get -- or the frequency with which they get hit on -- has little to do with their dating opportunity. Sometimes men use these numbers as an example that women have greater opportunity, but it's silly. It's like saying someone with a lot of junk mail has better mail. More, sure, but not better. You will likely find this amazing, but I have had several women on this site and others PM me for online dating help/advice, and the first thing I tell them is to start being proactive and mailing out, so we are in total agreement on this point. I know plenty of thin girls that fellows have told me they don't find terribly attractive. I'm not sure about "plenty of male attention" --- I mean, again, I don't judge dating opportunity by quantity alone. To clarify, have never known a thin woman with a normal social life who did not have her pick among lots of men of average and up desirability. The body fat thing is silly. A woman's body was designed to have higher body fat than a man's, so yes, it looks better at a higher %. The overall point is that attractiveness, appeal to the opposite sex, for men is more a matter of genetics or luck factors than it is for women. I wasn't talking about the relative differences in body fat between men and women, but made the claim that because of the way fat is accumulated on the body, women can hold more of a deviation from the average than men and still be considered attractive. Sticking to this claim. Most women just want a gal taller than they are, except for the really shallow ones. Disagree, most women want the tallest man they can get and not appear aesthetically lopsided when next to him. Height is indeed a big deal in male attractiveness. Yes, it's a generalization, but large numbers back it. At least one reputable study I've read has shown that height is the top criterion of attractiveness in men, or at least in the top three. The other two being favorable/symmetrical facial structure (handsomeness) and a more intangible quality of being "above" the woman in some key way. No, not going to dig up the study. At any rate, I've no reason to complain about "how bad" I have it as a gal, but I find it silly when men try to do the same. Is being a man different than being a woman? Well, yes. But the whole "we have it worse" attitude is lame in women and in men. Covered this previously by laying blame at the door of men as much as women for the particular social phenomenon OP complains about.
Woggle Posted August 8, 2010 Posted August 8, 2010 These women will cheat with a fun man when they get bored with their nice guy. It just means that women spent their young years trying to turn players into faithful men and now that it hasn't worked they want a poor sucker to commit to them so they can dump all their baggage from those years on his lap.
Recommended Posts