El Brujo Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 it's like most decent (nice and kind) men aged 25-30 are taken... what's your opinion on this? Do you know many men in the age range 25-30 that are single? Or are most of them taken? All roads lead to college...
Sanman Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Honestly, the issue here seems to be one of transition rather than no one being single. Women have many options in their twenties (especially younger 20's) while men do not. As we approach 30, people tend to settle into careers, make more money, be more independent. The guys who were not good catches a few years ago are now making money, independent, and have more choice. He can date anyone from, say, 21-30. There is more competition from women for these men. From late 20's to about 40, the pendulum swings the other way against women. Choice tends to dwindle as men your age can choose to keep dating younger than you. By 40, I think things tend to even out. Had you locked one up years ago, while he was getting his stuff together then you wouldn't have had this problem. I have noticed a number of women making money have passed me over as I am on fellowship and not making much money, I don't live in the nice trendy area, and I am financially responsible (this means I can't go out as much as they can since I don't have the cash). My gf locked me up now and does not care about such things. However, in less than a year, when I am making six figures, those girls will be pining about how I am taken and there are no good men left to date them. They should have considered the long-term implications of their actions. The same goes for men. Truthfully, we only peak for a few years and those are your years to lock up a good mate. By next year I will still be pretty fit, have all my hair, and making good money. I have from then until I start to lose hair/age to find my mate. As it is, my gf has me locked up and there may not be another girl ever. Oh well, I don't care.
udolipixie Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 They should have considered the long-term implications of their actions. They should have gone for the best of what they could get at the time? The same goes for men. Not really to me. Unless for men you meant that should have considered the long-term implications of their actions by not dating the fat girl, overweight girl, obese girl, ugly girl, girl they weren't attracted tp because she may later become attractive so you can be attracted to her.? Pretty sure most men don't consider passing up financially secure women because she doesn't make enough. It's usually appearance.
Sanman Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 They should have gone for the best of what they could get at the time? Not really to me. Unless for men you meant that should have considered the long-term implications of their actions by not dating the fat girl, overweight girl, obese girl, ugly girl, girl they weren't attracted tp because she may later become attractive so you can be attracted to her.? Pretty sure most men don't consider passing up financially secure women because she doesn't make enough. It's usually appearance. Yes, they should have gone for the man with the best potential that they could find at the time they look the best. It isn't anyone's fault but your own if you date bad boys or shallow women and are getting overlooked by good men and women by the time you wise up. Let us not act like marriage has not worked that way for decades. I have a friend..a nerdy, skinny white guy. I have known him since we were children and the poor guy has always struggled to get a gf. He just graduated medical school and is a medical resident now. After not seeing him for months, he showed up to a wedding with a simply gorgeous gf. The guy who could not get a girl is getting model looking women now. If she locks him in for marriage, all you women will complain about never having a chance. However, if any one of the many girls he liked while in school had gone out with him while he was broke for a few years, they could have had their good guy. As for men only going after looks, that is simply not true. Now women may value financial security a bit more and men looks a bit more, but both men and women are looking for similar things. Nowadays, both men and women need jobs for make most households financially solvent. Both men and women want a nice, loving, stable partner who contributes equally to a relationship. Most of the people I know like that are serial monogamists. There are also some (mostly men) who become more relationship minded in this age range, but they usually only have one or two serious relationships before getting married.
DirtyDancing Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Here is some advice if you want the single, successful, have their own place, their own car, not gonna cheat on you, guys who are between 25 and 30. DON'T IGNORE THEM WHEN THEY ARE 18-25 BECAUSE THEY AREN'T THE COOL, TALL, SEXY GUYS, WHO DO DRUGS, AND WILL ULTIMATELY HURT YOU!! Answer to your question: Secure the good men when they are young. This is the truth. I wish I hadn't turned away from the nice good guys when I was in high school and gone for the bad boys. Now 10 years later, I'm single and all I want is one of those good guys I once wouldn't look twice at. I should have went for the valedictorian instead of the boy that skipped class to smoke weed and go surfing. And to answer the original question, no, most men I know between 25 and 30 are now taken, most engaged. I would say as they get older, the likelihood increases. But yes, of course, career and academics will often keep a catch from being caught. I know these types of men in their early thirties.
udolipixie Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) As for men only going after looks, that is simply not true. I didn't state or imply men only go after looks. Not sure how you got that from this. Pretty sure most men don't consider passing up financially secure women because she doesn't make enough. It's usually appearance. If anything you should have gotten that men don't pass up financially secure women because they don't make enough. That when men pass up a woman it's because of her appearance aka he didn't find her attractive or attractive enough. So exactly how is it the same for men to consider the long term implications of their actions of passing up someone at the time he looked his best? Most aren't passing women because she doesn't make enough but they are passing up because of her looks. Yes, they should have gone for the man with the best potential that they could find at the time they look the best. Men don't have to do this look at your friend dating model girls. For most men they don't have to go for the best woman with the best potential when he looked his best because the quality of women they can get usually depends more on their confidence, wealth, status, personality, and height depending on the woman than his looks. MMens dating quality unlike women doesn't depend on their looks as much. Unless they are hideous most men when they are 30 and dating/marrying 20s if they are at least average looking, financially secure, and confident...whether these 20 year olds are model looking depends on his charm/confidence. Which is why I put not really when you stated it's the same for men unless this happens: Unless for men you meant that should have considered the long-term implications of their actions by not dating the fat girl, overweight girl, obese girl, ugly girl, girl they weren't attracted tp because she may later become attractive so you can be attracted to her.? Most men aren't valuing finances the same extent as women since to them financially secure/stable is good they don't tend to think she has to make X amount of dollars. It's not that common for a guy to pass up a woman because she doesn't make enough unless she has a teenage like low wage job at a fast food place. The same would be since women value finances a bit more & men value looks a bit more: Women- financially secure guy who is now rice Men- ugly/fat girl who is now attractive Most men aren't considering the long-term implications of passing up the ugly girl, fat girl, obese girl, or girl they didn't find attractive. Most men aren't going for the girl with some fat on her and thinking in the long term she'll lose the weight and be pretty so she has potential. They aren't locking up the girl they passed over who they didn't consider attractive, attractive enough or going with the girl with the best potential for looks so it's not really the same goes for men. So what is the potential in women that men should consider the long term implications of passing up when he looks his best? Pretty much nothing. They can pass up whatever girl because when they grow older they will most likely getting the same or better since most men are dating women 10-20 years younger. They can pass up whatever since getting quality in dating doesn't depend on his youth/attractiveness as much as it does for women. Your post was pretty much the cliche shallow women dating bad boys now regret not considering the long term effects of not getting with guys with the best potential when they looked their best while guys who are passed up are fulfilling their potential with some other woman who locked him up with some the same goes to men to camouflage it. I agree with the message for women but not that the same applies for men since men don't have to go for the woman with the best potential they could find at the time he looked his best. Especially considering if the potential factor is finances and most aren't passing up financially secure woman because they aren't making a certain amount. They are usually passing up women due to her looks. Edited October 15, 2011 by udolipixie
Recommended Posts