The Modern Era of Dating and Heartbreat

[verhrzn]

Saw this article on Salon and thought it was very interesting. The author's stance is that dating has become increasingly difficult for women due to changing social norms (for example, the definition of masculinity used to be commanding a home, whereas now in a capitalist consumer society, being "a man" means having social power, ie having the option of multiple women.)

 

I particularly found this part interesting:

 

You said that people are more guarded when navigating the early stages of a relationship than in the past. What has caused this change?

 

Yeah, one of the themes of the book is that self-worth is much more crucial to the experience of love than in the past. In the past, your social status was very clear to you and to others and established your worth. That worth is not something that was negotiated. In modernity, self-worth is actually not clear at all. In some ways it is connected to your social status, but in many ways it is not. That’s why you have this obsession in the 20th century with self-esteem. The reason we’re collectively obsessed with it is because we don’t really know anymore what we are worth. In societies where classes and groups are clearly marked, there is much less anxiety about worth because this worth is known.

 

Now I think that worth is one of the reasons why romantic love has become so crucial; it’s become one of the places where you can affirm your worth. Why? Because you have been selected out. When you are loved you have, in a way, won the competition over all others in a society which is based in constant competition, a society in which many, many of us just don’t manage to outdo that competition. The one realm where we will be able to outdo others is in the realm of love, and because you are busy affirming your worth in romantic relationships, now you are negotiating your own autonomy and independence with this other person.

 

What did you guys think of the article? Did some of it ring true for you?

 

 

Article Link: Our new era of heartbreak - Love and Sex - Salon.com

[Woggle]

Interesting but I really can't stand this idea that all modern relationship problems are to be blame on men. Why can't people admit that both men and women have contributed to the current state of affairs? As soon as we do that instead of always blaming men then maybe things can change.

[zengirl]

Interesting. Self-esteem is a crucial thing to study further, especially for Gen Yers like us and younger (and even most of the younger Gen Xers). Our generation was taught the words "self-esteem" like a mantra but most of us were never taught what that esteem actually meant or how to properly measure it. The article is right on that notion.

 

The comparisons to marriage in the 19th century fail, however, (especially since they're apparently using British stats, though marriage was not about love anywhere else either), since marriage wasn't about "love" most of the time back then. See: Any work of period literature. Seriously. That's why love stories back then are all about the class obstacles and so forth. The poor could maybe marry for love, and the industrial revolution helped, but marriage was still deeply associated with class and rank and cultural norms for other purposes. The changing purpose of relationships and marriage aren't really properly explored; I would say that plays a bigger role than changing ideas of 'masculinity.'

 

I do agree that many men (and women) don't view families as assets but economic burdens (heck, that's why I don't want kids kinda!), though marriage does still bring with it a lot of economic power, some legislated but much of it just the product of combined earning power. Many men DO see that, but they do try to pick appropriate partners who will not be a burden. Some men don't see any partner as a burden and would love to support a partner, for their self-esteem. *shrug*

 

This is interesting:

 

One of the contrasts I have been able to find is that it used to be very proper for women to hold back their emotions; the game was that the woman was reserved, and the man would have to conquer that reserve by making himself worthy of her trust. Today, if you look at many self-help books, the main challenge is to catch the heart of the man who is assumed to not want to get caught. The woman has to deploy intelligence and emotional maturity to bring into her net the man, who is basically viewed as reluctant, whereas in the past the man was basically viewed as being eager, unless proven otherwise, to find a woman.

 

I would say that, yes, women have to 'do' more these days to get a successful R, but they are also ALLOWED to do more, and that's an awesome freedom. Back in the day, you couldn't do much if some boy didn't notice you or, more likely, find your family worthy of his name. Today there is a much wider array of choices, chances, and work available. So, the women who would've been set up in the worst situations (generally by virtue of a combination of birth/dowry and looks/charm) have more to work with and the women who would've been better off have to actually do something. Sounds good to me!

 

I do disagree that men "don't want to be caught" --- that's my problem with most dating books. Many, many men still want Rs. Most men I know do. And many, many women do not want Rs these days.

 

And I think this is a problematic way to view dating, though many people do view it this way. Maturity leads one out of this mindset, however.

 

Now I think that worth is one of the reasons why romantic love has become so crucial; it’s become one of the places where you can affirm your worth. Why? Because you have been selected out. When you are loved you have, in a way, won the competition over all others in a society which is based in constant competition, a society in which many, many of us just don’t manage to outdo that competition.

 

But that does back to the problem with self-esteem. I suppose it is "easier" as she says to know your self-esteem if you have a set role to play (unless you can't fit that role, which many could not in the past, and that's why we made a more free and open society) but it is certainly not the only -- or even best -- way to go about it. What someone basis their sense of self-worth on is very variable today, and there are healthy and unhealthy options available. Without set roles, it's possible to make healthy, unique options for yourself, but it's also possible to throw yourself off a cliff. Then again, with set roles, many people fell short and felt just as sad and distraught but with no potential way to help themselves.

[joystickd]

Articles like this for women are like reading Sperm Wars or The Red Queen for men but the thing is instead of looking at it as a bad thing see it as a challenge and ask yourself "What can I do to be interesting to men?". Ask yourself that but don't let it be the main focus. There is a lot of competition and there are issues with both men and women but instead of being down about it or using it to justify why even try you should take up the challenge

[Bristolius]

I'm over 50. I think my mom had a tough, restricted, traditional, life. Young women and men really do have more options these days and I think that's a good thing.

 

That does not mean that young people have it easy.

[TheBigQuestion]

This article is hogwash. The same article has been written hundreds of times from the viewpoint of both men and women, and neither viewpoint has much worth anymore. It shifts blame for your own romantic failures to "society" and "men." For every reason it gives for women having more difficulty attaining relationships in the present day, there is a male equivalent. That equivalent is either identical or an analogous concept.

 

Dating/marriage is tough when it's more about actual feelings than transferring/preserving land and property between families. In a sense, blaming capitalism makes sense.

 

It would also make sense to blame feminism. The author claims that because men no longer have the defined role of the family breadwinner and supporter, they don't feel an obligation to commit. Feminism played a huge part in causing women to pour into the workplace, thus negating the need for one partner to be the economic head of the household. I don't really have a problem with this at all, as I strongly believe in equal access to employment, but it's interesting that there was no mention of feminist influence in the economic shift that this author claims has caused men to be commitment-phobic.

 

This article fails for all the aforementioned reasons, not to mention the fact that many, many women are (1) commitment-phobic and/or (2) do not mind enjoying the same amount of sexual variety that this article strongly implies is only a problem in men.

Edited June 25, 2012 by TheBigQuestion

[somedude81]

Some thoughts.

 

But today, because these groups have widened, a man can have sex before marriage and is much less willing to enter into a committed relationship.

Who allows that to happen?

 

Men have always wanted sex ASAP, it's in our nature. But what has changed to make it an issue now?

What do you think the popularity of dating shows like “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” says about our society? Why do people watch them?

Because it stages exactly what I talked about, which — I’m sorry to put it this way — is the question of choice and how you choose. It stages this situation of people being competitive in a market. That’s why I think those shows are so popular; it’s because they address the question of how he is going to make up his mind and why.

No mention how the average woman is literally drowning with options now?

 

The article even talks about online dating, but doesn't mention how it's a man catalog for women.

 

Is there any real solution?

 

I think there can be solutions. Women could organize themselves with other women and men to raise children in communities and dissociate that from the search for a man. Having children has indeed become the Holy Grail, and there could possibly be a shift in relationships if men felt that the power was shifting because women were not necessarily looking for that one single monogamous relationship and one man to have children with. It could be that this could shift relationships and the balance of power between men and women. It’s just one example of a different way of thinking and of doing things that could make some change. I’m not advocating this; I don’t know if it would work. I’m just saying that things are not as stuck as we present them, and if the search for a monogamous family has become difficult then maybe we should disentangle the different [components] that we have in building families.

There is a much simpler solution.

 

Stop having sex with men outside of relationships!

 

And my final thought address the very beginning of the article.

As the lovelorn heroine of “Bridget Jones’s Diary” once observed, “As women glide from their 20s to their 30s … the balance of power subtly shifts.

Why did you manage to hit 30 without getting married?

 

If a woman turned down the relationship minded men in her 20's to have fun with the playboys, it's her own damn fault if she finds herself to be in her 30's and "all the good men are taken." Same thing applies if she didn't date at all in her 20's because school or work was more important.

[Algermas]

It's hard for women because from the time they're little girls they're told they can have it all, more importantly, they deserve it all.

 

And so they focus on their career, dating man after man until, one day, they turn 30 and biology starts to make itself heard like an air siren.

 

And they were promised a good looking, tall, well educated, family oriented ( yet not too soft and friendly ), confident, financially succesful man.

 

The only problem with this is that these men can have women two decades your junior, without all of the demands and expectations that come with your advanced age.

[verhrzn]

Articles like this for women are like reading Sperm Wars or The Red Queen for men but the thing is instead of looking at it as a bad thing see it as a challenge and ask yourself "What can I do to be interesting to men?". Ask yourself that but don't let it be the main focus. There is a lot of competition and there are issues with both men and women but instead of being down about it or using it to justify why even try you should take up the challenge

 

Because the challenge is insurmountable. I can't exactly trade bodies, and that is my problem.

 

Yes, it IS my problem. I've had tons of people look at my dating profile, and they all say it's fine, except the pictures. The pictures suck. One poster on the OKCupid forum said they were the ugliest pictures he had ever seen. I've been told in person that my looks are my problem.

 

That's why this article resonated with me. There is so much choice in terms of female looks... I look around at my peers, and absolutely every single girl is hotter than me. When you have so many options, and when looks are so important (especially in an OLD setting), why would you settle down?

[TheBigQuestion]

Because the challenge is insurmountable. I can't exactly trade bodies, and that is my problem.

 

Yes, it IS my problem. I've had tons of people look at my dating profile, and they all say it's fine, except the pictures. The pictures suck. One poster on the OKCupid forum said they were the ugliest pictures he had ever seen. I've been told in person that my looks are my problem.

 

That's why this article resonated with me. There is so much choice in terms of female looks... I look around at my peers, and absolutely every single girl is hotter than me. When you have so many options, and when looks are so important (especially in an OLD setting), why would you settle down?

 

The worst pictures ever taken, or the worst pictures because you were unattractive?

 

Again, what makes you think women don't have the same degree of choice?

[verhrzn]

The worst pictures ever taken, or the worst pictures because you were unattractive?

 

Worst pictures because I'm unattractive. All the people in the thread were like "Uh you look awful in that one" "That picture is stupid" "You look like a whore in this one" (I was wearing a corset at a con.)

 

I showed those same pictures to some of my friends, who all said I looked exactly like I do in real life.

[zengirl]

At the risk of a threadjack: V, are you sure ALL the comments were those, or were the negative ones just the ones you chose to remember and internalize. I still remember the first thread you posted with a pic here, a long time ago, and it was mostly positive with people wondrous and surprised that you could be failing to attract men and saying you were cute. Sure, there were some outlier comments, but there always will be. I don't require an answer. Just something to consider.

 

Men have always wanted sex ASAP, it's in our nature. But what has changed to make it an issue now?

 

Both men and women changed. SOCIETY changed. I seriously doubt men in proper society in 19th century England were even thinking about having premarital sex, at least not with the kinds of gals they'd actually marry.

 

And my final thought address the very beginning of the article.

Why did you manage to hit 30 without getting married?

 

Why did you? There are any number of reasons for someone to reach 30 without being married -- loads of good ones too. 30 is hardly old and is a better age to get married than 20, if you ask me. Those who marry before 30 are lucky and should take the time to be damn sure they mean it. Success rates are much better for people who marry a bit later.

 

Because the challenge is insurmountable. I can't exactly trade bodies, and that is my problem.

 

Challenges could've been insurmountable in other societies and times as well and often were. I don't think looks are "more" important than they used to be or character factors less important. It's just that birth/rank/economics of marriage are less important, so other factors ALL become more important since those were the primary determiners of marriage in the 19th century.

[verhrzn]

At the risk of a threadjack: V, are you sure ALL the comments were those, or were the negative ones just the ones you chose to remember and internalize. I still remember the first thread you posted with a pic here, a long time ago, and it was mostly positive with people wondrous and surprised that you could be failing to attract men and saying you were cute. Sure, there were some outlier comments, but there always will be. I don't require an answer. Just something to consider.

 

Not a thread jack, as one of the strongest points of the article that I connected with is the idea that there is a sexualization of women's bodies in a consumer culture. I've seen a lot of psychology articles popping up with similar ideas: that featuring all of these beautiful people (TV, ads, movies) has warped guys' idea of what level of attractiveness is actually available, and attainable. And that in a consumer culture, if you give people more options, they are actually going to be MORE choosy (the irony of freedom.)

 

Anyway, regarding the thread.... out of the 7 responses, 1 poster thought it might be my region. The rest said I need better and more pictures.

 

I know we've gone round and round on this, but all of my real-life experience keeps pointing me in that direction. Guys dumping me for being ugly. Guys randomly insulting my looks. I mentioned this in another thread: I was literally in nothing but a corset, fish nets, and knee high boots all of Saturday, and did not get a single glance. (It was at a Pride Festival, but my booth mates all got plenty of straight attention, guys asking for their pictures and stuff.)

 

 

I don't think looks are "more" important than they used to be or character factors less important. It's just that birth/rank/economics of marriage are less important, so other factors ALL become more important since those were the primary determiners of marriage in the 19th century.

 

That makes sense, that the less weight in placed on some factors, the more is placed on others. As we move more and more into "romantic" love, looks become more and more important, because looks are tied to romance/sex.

 

It's also probably a matter of the minority sacrificing for the majority. If I'd been born in an earlier decade, I'd probably be married, with kids, by now, because of other things I have to offer. It sounds awful, but I'd only have a chance if someone was forced to marry me.

 

But, that means other people who could find a mate based on love would be forced to marry unsuitable partners. So, I sacrifice my chance at a relationship on the altar of romantic love, so other people can pursue the person they want.

[grkBoy]

I think there is a truth in terms of how many men and women out there are seeking love mainly for the self-esteem boost.

 

When I see guys who seemingly will be happy to date or be in a RL with ANY girl who is decent looking, or when I see women adamantly trying to get the "hard to get" guys. All of it comes down to that they want to feel like a "winner" for having the "prize".

 

I remember one guy with low self-esteem and other issues telling me "well at least you have someone". To me, that just says that he looked at a girlfriend as a possession. That he needed to have one just to look at himself as a man. I see a lot of that here as well.

 

 

The other reality is that back in the day, a man and woman did enter into marriage partially out of love, but also as a deal. He would financially take care of her and she would keep house and raise the kids. Also, those kids back then somehow ended up being his "empire". Sex was also the "reward" for both when they married.

 

Now, women decided to get careers, financially support themselves, and not treat sex as that "happy thing married people do". Men stopped seeing marriage and children as a benefit, but as a liability.

 

I also think that now both sides want a fantasy fulfilled, and are willing to go long distance to get it. In the old days, you generally married someone you grew up with, went to school with, or whom you knew from the neighborhood. The idea of driving an hour or more or taking a flight to see someone like that was nonexistent. Now I see people deciding they're not going to pick someone from their local pool and instead hold out for a prince or princess.

 

FINALLY...the economy has changed. Our parents wanted better for us, but more and more we're finding the economic prosperity of the past to be a big lie based on little global competition. You used to graduate high school and could get a job in a factory, or open a small shop on the street. Now the factories are gone and big box retail killed small shops. You used to go to college and ended up with a higher-paying job, but now I see DOCTORS struggling to pay student loans.

 

In order to have it as good as the past, we're working longer, harder, and still struggling. I see some believe that love conquers all, but look how much divorce happens now because of money? Getting married and having a family in your late teens or early to mid 20s only guarantees you a life of welfare now.

[AD1980]

Not a thread jack, as one of the strongest points of the article that I connected with is the idea that there is a sexualization of women's bodies in a consumer culture. I've seen a lot of psychology articles popping up with similar ideas: that featuring all of these beautiful people (TV, ads, movies) has warped guys' idea of what level of attractiveness is actually available, and attainable. And that in a consumer culture, if you give people more options, they are actually going to be MORE choosy (the irony of freedom.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really give guys little credit or respect if you think none of us can think on our own and are more picky because of seeing hot girls on tv and in ads and getting warped from it..

 

If you want to go there the same exact thing can easily be said about women,most women i know fawn over celebrities and entertainers they think are hot and actually do it more and in a more creepy way then a lot of Men does that mean womens minds of whats attractive and what isnt is warped too?

Edited June 25, 2012 by AD1980

[oaks]

one day, they turn 30 and biology starts to make itself heard like an air siren.

 

The only problem with this is that these men can have women two decades your junior,

 

I'm guessing math isn't your strong point, since the alternative is that you're suggesting that these men want to date 10 year old girls.

[verhrzn]

You really give guys little credit or respect if you think none of us can think on our own and are more icky because of seeing hot girls on tv and in ads and getign warped from it..

 

If you want to go there the same exact thing can easily be said about women,most women i know fawn over celebrities and entertainers they think are hot and actually do it more and in a more creepy way then a lot of Men does that mean womens minds of whats attractive and what isnt is warped too?

 

I just report that the scientists find:

 

The Truth About Beauty | Psychology Today

 

Men's looks matter to heterosexual women only somewhat. Most women prefer men who are taller than they are, with symmetrical features (a sign that a potential partner is healthy and parasite-free). But, women across cultures are intent on finding male partners with high status, power, and access to resources—which means a really short guy can add maybe a foot to his height with a private jet.

[TheBigQuestion]

I just report that the scientists find:

 

The Truth About Beauty | Psychology Today

 

That doesn't really make women look any better.

[verhrzn]

That doesn't really make women look any better.

 

Better isn't the point. I'm not trying to claim women are angels with absolutely no standards. As a whole, psychology is proving we absolutely do have standards. But they are different standards than men.

 

Men have visual standards, women have power standards.

[Algermas]

I'm guessing math isn't your strong point, since the alternative is that you're suggesting that these men want to date 10 year old girls.

 

Women tend to ignore the bell for a few years, add to that the fact that it takes a while to find someone and by then she's about 40.

[seachangeoflove]

 

 

I remember one guy with low self-esteem and other issues telling me "well at least you have someone". To me, that just says that he looked at a girlfriend as a possession. That he needed to have one just to look at himself as a man. I see a lot of that here as well.

 

 

 

Now, women decided to get careers, financially support themselves, and not treat sex as that "happy thing married people do". Men stopped seeing marriage and children as a benefit, but as a liability.

 

 

i totally agree and I see this with friends of mine both women and men. They're so desperate and lonely they'd rather be with someone, anyone then alone. Which is partially understandable for a few reasons, obviously for women who want a family they have limited time and yes, even men can fall victim to this one too. Ive dating some 40 something men (Im 36) and they grilled me about my job, how I felt about childcare etc in the very early stages of dating. Also, I live in a big city that has a high cost of living so pairing up can be beneficial esp in this economy.

 

 

But just entering a relationshipf or the sake of it leads to much unhappiness and probably bitterness as well.

 

 

I have been single for over 5 years and yes, I have had oppertunities to date and rejecterd men. However *I* was not the right woman for *THEM*

 

I do not want children or a family, I am very much into my career. I am lucky to have a job with 12 weeks of vacation per year and I'm not willing to make the sacrifices needed for a family. So I've dated guys and I let them know pretty early I do not want kids. I usually don't come out and say "I don't want a family" but I make comments in generally about not wanting a family if/when the topic comes up. i.e. out in public and seeing a cute kid "oh she's cute but not form me!" etc. and when things look like they might get serious I let them know in black and white terms I do NOT want kids. Im 36...even if I did it's almost too late anyway. (Id be ok dating a guy with kids of his own, in fact I prefer too)

 

 

And you'd think those guys would thank me for being honest and not wasting their time.

 

You'd also be thinking wrong....Ive had some say "Oh I only have my my proifile I want kids, but I really don't"

 

um, wow so you're admitting to lying?

 

Or "You'll change your mind." well, that was what I heard in my 20s

 

but seriously...I don't get it! I am NOT complaining about not having had a bf in 5 years. I would rather be alone then with someone who is not right for me AND I AM NOT RIGHT FOR THEM!

[TheBigQuestion]

Better isn't the point. I'm not trying to claim women are angels with absolutely no standards. As a whole, psychology is proving we absolutely do have standards. But they are different standards than men.

 

Men have visual standards, women have power standards.

 

Point taken. With that said, scientific studies are only validating what most people with common sense have known for a few decades now, namely, the last sentence of this quoted post.

 

I don't see the point in engaging this thread any further, as I already know how this movie is going to end.

[somedude81]

I just report that the scientists find:

 

The Truth About Beauty | Psychology Today

So I need to be super rich to make up for the fact that God decided to screw me over?

[verhrzn]

Point taken. With that said, scientific studies are only validating what most people with common sense have known for a few decades now, namely, the last sentence of this quoted post.

 

I don't see the point in engaging this thread any further, as I already know how this movie is going to end.

 

*Scratches head* If you already know that men are visual, then why continue to slag me for referencing it? (IE, why I'm single.) And why say anything in the first place??

[verhrzn]

So I need to be super rich to make up for the fact that God decided to screw me over?

 

*Rolls eyes*

 

Hardly super rich. Go to school for IT, and make some decent computer programmer money, and you'll be fine. Absolutely every one of my company's developers and programmers are married/engaged, and a lot of em are not "conventionally attractive."

 

Whereas ugly women have no options, except very expensive and painful plastic surgery. So... no sympathy from me.