The Modern Era of Dating and Heartbreat

[AD1980]

.... Except in the cases of women, women are only judging/using them sometimes. Most women I know don't go on dates, even for a free meal, with a guy they have zero interest in.

 

In my case, the guys knew before we even got to the date that they weren't interested, but went anyway... because guys just aren't that picky about time wasting.

 

So, uh, no, I don't know what it feels like for a guy, since I never even stood a chance.

 

Most men i know dont go on dates who arent interested at all just to waste time either,most people have good intentions theryes a few on both sides who are asshats and users and ruin things for the rest of us..nobodies immune to it you just have to take that leap of faith if finding someone is that important to you

 

Though ive never been on a date so maybe im better off missing all this apparent chaos and manipulating

[Sanman]

It seemed to me that the article was not talking about particularly rich or successful men or singling them out, though it did suggest that men may seek success and self esteem through attracting many women, rather than as a head of household. I didn't think it suggested there was any difference between rich, poor, or middle class men or examined class structure much at all, really.

 

I think most who wash out of academia struggle in secondary school teaching, if they do break into it. They don't last long in many cases. I don't know, Sanman, from what I can see (and I have a mostly-funded PhD that my workplace supplements -- I don't pay a dime for it), there are a lot of lazy-asses who attempt to go into academia. I'm not saying everyone who fails is. Some are simply not good at publishing (academia isn't about teaching or learning, really) and all that entails.

 

Many PhDs are still fully funded today. I'd agree that if someone can't find funding, perhaps they should take it as a sign that it may not work out (my suggestion would be to buff up their credentials prior with appropriate work, study, and publication and apply again).

 

 

Well, when the article talks about men focusing on social power, controlling others in the workplace, and being able to have the option of many different women, it does suggest that those who are successful (and this a relative term depending on your socioeconomic level) are the ones the women are after. After all, those who fail at the challenge of masculinity would have failed at being a head of household and creating a family. Thus, it must be speaking of those desirable men that succeed.

 

As for academia, it depends on where you go and what field you are in. Funding is shrinking and even full funding can often times not be enough to keep a roof over your head. However, the funding for humanities/social science fields are disappearing altogether. It is not just about publishing either. At the end of the day, academia is just like any other field. Get into a good lab or work with well-known mentor and you have a much higher chance of success than those left to their own devices or with a lesser known mentor. You will get more publications, more funding, and the benefit of said mentor picking up the phone when it comes time for you to get a job.

[Sanman]

.... Except in the cases of women, women are only judging/using them sometimes. Most women I know don't go on dates, even for a free meal, with a guy they have zero interest in.

 

In my case, the guys knew before we even got to the date that they weren't interested, but went anyway... because guys just aren't that picky about time wasting.

 

So, uh, no, I don't know what it feels like for a guy, since I never even stood a chance.

 

 

Please show me the proof of any of those statements

[Cracker Jack]

.... Except in the cases of women, women are only judging/using them sometimes. Most women I know don't go on dates, even for a free meal, with a guy they have zero interest in.

 

Sometimes? You can't be serious. You don't need to minimize what women do to make your point.

[zengirl]

Well, when the article talks about men focusing on social power, controlling others in the workplace, and being able to have the option of many different women, it does suggest that those who are successful (and this a relative term depending on your socioeconomic level) are the ones the women are after. After all, those who fail at the challenge of masculinity would have failed at being a head of household and creating a family. Thus, it must be speaking of those desirable men that succeed.

 

I think that particular reading of it is colored by how we define success. I didn't garner the same from it, but thanks for explaining. I really didn't get what you were getting at - I wasn't trying to be obtuse.

 

I see the focus on social power and control actually stems from low levels of self-esteem or a poor understanding of one's own value/inability to carve out a place of value in society that rings true with yourself. That doesn't mean I think men who want to date around are all insecure --- but if they want to date around to assert their masculinity and sense of self, or need to be the H of H to assert their masculinity and sense of self, or need to reach the top of the career food chain to assert their masculinity and sense of self, or (insert any kind of external validation, really), then that sounds like insecurity and a poor sense of self to me.

 

Personally, I disagree with the author that most men do such things consistently, though I think we all fall into the fallacy of relying on external achievements for self-esteem at one point. I honestly never related her comments to income, though.

 

As for academia, it depends on where you go and what field you are in. Funding is shrinking and even full funding can often times not be enough to keep a roof over your head. However, the funding for humanities/social science fields are disappearing altogether. It is not just about publishing either. At the end of the day, academia is just like any other field. Get into a good lab or work with well-known mentor and you have a much higher chance of success than those left to their own devices or with a lesser known mentor. You will get more publications, more funding, and the benefit of said mentor picking up the phone when it comes time for you to get a job.

 

True, mentors are crucial. I see an adequate amount of funding for humanities and the social sciences -- there are still some programs. My program is in the social sciences, and it's funded 75% and easy enough to do while employed (I do it while employed, and my work pays 100% for it, so I collect 75% of the cost of tuition. But I get actual funding from the university.). It's technically in the social sciences department, though it's partially in Ed as well. I'm taking a few extra classes so that it works for both. MFA money is still out there, and that's a terminal degree in the humanities (writing or art, really). I think there's money out there -- enough for everyone who wants to go into it? No, of course not, but some is there. I think the demand has gone up, in terms of people wanting to go into academia, rather than the ability to do so has gone down.

[seachangeoflove]

Sometimes? You can't be serious. You don't need to minimize what women do to make your point.

 

 

sorry. my time is too valuble to waste with someone I find uninteresting and boring. Id rather pay for my own meal and enjoy the company of someone I like or even *GASP* just be by myself.....

 

 

 

so no, not all women go on dates for free meals. And it's a gamble anyway as men don't even always pay....

 

 

and you know...there's a chance that she DID like you at the first date and you acted like an ass so she declined date #2...it's called getting to know people and sometimes, after one date you know more then enough

[Els]

I've known some poor women in my life, and none of them have accepted a date with a guy they didn't like just for a free meal. Christ. That's a concept that exists solely in the realm of la-la-land, IMO. Even the gold-diggers will go for rich or at least semi-rich men who will give them way more than just a meal. I can't think of why anybody, short of being close to starvation and really, REALLY needing food, would sell themselves out and have 2-3 hours of miserable company just for a free meal.

[Sanman]

I think that particular reading of it is colored by how we define success. I didn't garner the same from it, but thanks for explaining. I really didn't get what you were getting at - I wasn't trying to be obtuse.

 

I see the focus on social power and control actually stems from low levels of self-esteem or a poor understanding of one's own value/inability to carve out a place of value in society that rings true with yourself. That doesn't mean I think men who want to date around are all insecure --- but if they want to date around to assert their masculinity and sense of self, or need to be the H of H to assert their masculinity and sense of self, or need to reach the top of the career food chain to assert their masculinity and sense of self, or (insert any kind of external validation, really), then that sounds like insecurity and a poor sense of self to me.

 

Personally, I disagree with the author that most men do such things consistently, though I think we all fall into the fallacy of relying on external achievements for self-esteem at one point. I honestly never related her comments to income, though.

 

 

I agree that it certainly does not pertain to everyone. However, I think that there is a segment of the population that is reacting to things in this way. I believe that there is less clarity in relationships due to the many different choices, but not that there is necessarily always a want for more options and less want in relationships.

 

 

True, mentors are crucial. I see an adequate amount of funding for humanities and the social sciences -- there are still some programs. My program is in the social sciences, and it's funded 75% and easy enough to do while employed (I do it while employed, and my work pays 100% for it, so I collect 75% of the cost of tuition. But I get actual funding from the university.). It's technically in the social sciences department, though it's partially in Ed as well. I'm taking a few extra classes so that it works for both. MFA money is still out there, and that's a terminal degree in the humanities (writing or art, really). I think there's money out there -- enough for everyone who wants to go into it? No, of course not, but some is there. I think the demand has gone up, in terms of people wanting to go into academia, rather than the ability to do so has gone down.

 

I agree demand has gone up. However, I see programs allowing more students into these programs and cutting aid to do it. In my book, you should not offer a PhD slot to someone without full funding.

[Sanman]

I've known some poor women in my life, and none of them have accepted a date with a guy they didn't like just for a free meal. Christ. That's a concept that exists solely in the realm of la-la-land, IMO. Even the gold-diggers will go for rich or at least semi-rich men who will give them way more than just a meal. I can't think of why anybody, short of being close to starvation and really, REALLY needing food, would sell themselves out and have 2-3 hours of miserable company just for a free meal.

 

 

I would not say that it is just a free meal, nor that there is no interest. However, i have known women to go into dates with less than honorable intentions. My ex-gf's friends had her go on dates after a break up saying that if nothing else it was a 'free meal' and such. There are also women who will vacillate on making a choice between multiple options because they are not picking up the tab. It may not be their primary reason for the date, but they do take advantage of the fact that they generally don't need to pay. Someone paying, for themselves or both people, is likely to make those decisions more quickly when it is costing them money.

[verhrzn]

I would not say that it is just a free meal, nor that there is no interest. However, i have known women to go into dates with less than honorable intentions. My ex-gf's friends had her go on dates after a break up saying that if nothing else it was a 'free meal' and such. There are also women who will vacillate on making a choice between multiple options because they are not picking up the tab. It may not be their primary reason for the date, but they do take advantage of the fact that they generally don't need to pay. Someone paying, for themselves or both people, is likely to make those decisions more quickly when it is costing them money.

 

Actually, psychologically, if you can get people to "invest" in you, you actually have a higher chance of them becoming attached to you.

 

So, when girls have multiple options (and, uh, why can't the guys have multiple options and just not pay for all of em, or choose very inexpensive dates), by having the guy pay, they are actually increasing their chances of the guy liking them.

 

Logic would say that we get people to like us by doing nice things for them, but it isn't actually true. We get people to like us by having them do us favors.

 

By having the guy pay for her meal, the girl is not only testing his interest, but increasing his interest. I think this is also why dating guides for men encourage guys to make some physical move (a hug, cuddling, a kiss, NOT sex) early on... if the girl is receptive to the physical move, not only is she demonstrating interest in you, but you as the guy are creating more interest.

[Sanman]

Actually, psychologically, if you can get people to "invest" in you, you actually have a higher chance of them becoming attached to you.

 

So, when girls have multiple options (and, uh, why can't the guys have multiple options and just not pay for all of em, or choose very inexpensive dates), by having the guy pay, they are actually increasing their chances of the guy liking them.

 

Logic would say that we get people to like us by doing nice things for them, but it isn't actually true. We get people to like us by having them do us favors.

 

By having the guy pay for her meal, the girl is not only testing his interest, but increasing his interest. I think this is also why dating guides for men encourage guys to make some physical move (a hug, cuddling, a kiss, NOT sex) early on... if the girl is receptive to the physical move, not only is she demonstrating interest in you, but you as the guy are creating more interest.

 

Why would I have any interest in doing such things as a men? So, I can gain more interest in her while she does not do so in me? By that logic, we should all get the other to try and pay for us. There are men who are players as well, but those men need to be able to afford dating multiple women. These are generally the successful men that many women want, so he has options and the money to explore said options. I've managed three girls at a time on low-cost dates, but even that can hurt at times financially. My hats off to any guy that can convince a number of women to pay for him. In my many outings, I have never had a woman pick-up the tab completely on an early date. Nor have any of my friends, I do believe. You say that men should not go for sex early one, but why not? It is how women get attached (if it is enjoyable). Then the man has the power. However, all that is doing is pitting the sexes against each other. Ideally, getting to relationship should be mutual costs and investment turning into a fruitful partnership. I don't think you should stop paying for yourself, but I don't think you should be treating men to dates either.

[zengirl]

I agree that it certainly does not pertain to everyone. However, I think that there is a segment of the population that is reacting to things in this way. I believe that there is less clarity in relationships due to the many different choices, but not that there is necessarily always a want for more options and less want in relationships.

 

See, I think there is just less clarity in an R about romantic love than one about economic realities, period. I think we can garner from literature and historical accounts that affairs of the human heart have never led to a lot of 'clarity' -- that's just how emotions work.

 

When Rs become about individuals (as they generally are today) and not about society or economics, they are going to be less clear cut. Absolutely. Money is easy compared to love.

 

I agree demand has gone up. However, I see programs allowing more students into these programs and cutting aid to do it. In my book, you should not offer a PhD slot to someone without full funding.

 

A lot of PhD programs are better designed so you can work during them these days and employers often pay for them too. I think there has to be some wiggle room to accommodate those instances as well -- why should one NEED to be only a student to get a PhD? If it's a PhD that absolutely requires you not hold down a professional job, then I could see the need for full funding.

[RedRobin]

You say that men should not go for sex early one, but why not? It is how women get attached (if it is enjoyable). Then the man has the power.

 

Men who go for sex early on come across as little boys who are trying to see what they can get away with... If he is looking for a relationship, he needs to act like he does... and not a little boy who can't manage his sexuality... or expects the woman to manage his for him.

 

Although, that approach might appeal to women who are insecure and need that kind of validation. Same goes for women who think that a man who pays for stuff shows interest and cares for them. I never observed the correlation.

 

Most women beyond a certain age (it differs for all of them) are quite capable of dumping a guy they are incompatible with whether or not the sex was good. Same goes for guys who have a habit of paying for dates.

 

I think one psychological term that IS useful, is the concept of investment. Men sometimes stick with girls they are incompatible with just because he's forked out a few bucks and doesn't want to feel like a schmuck.

 

Women stick with men who are incompatible with after sex because she doesn't want to feel like she made a bad decision or be viewed as a 'slut' if she dumps him ASAP. Some of the PUA books work on that... how to slut-shame a girl (in subtle ways) into a relationship with the guy.

 

Ok, I'm using the term 'relationship' here loosely. It's more like, how to use emotional blackmail to get her to keep having sex with the guy, even though he's an a-hole. If he can successfully make her feel like a 'loose woman' for dumping him soon after sex (or trying to), then he gets to keep having sex with her (and however many other women he's lined up).

 

Reason # 567893874 not to sleep with men who press for sex early on.

[Sanman]

A lot of PhD programs are better designed so you can work during them these days and employers often pay for them too. I think there has to be some wiggle room to accommodate those instances as well -- why should one NEED to be only a student to get a PhD? If it's a PhD that absolutely requires you not hold down a professional job, then I could see the need for full funding.

 

Most of the programs I am familiar with required their students to sign contracts requiring them not to work during the program as it was full-time commitment. Going part-time through work is a different issue all-together, but working while trying to make your own way puts you at a huge disadvantage in grad school as you have significantly less time to publish than funded colleagues.

[zengirl]

Most of the programs I am familiar with required their students to sign contracts requiring them not to work during the program as it was full-time commitment. Going part-time through work is a different issue all-together, but working while trying to make your own way puts you at a huge disadvantage in grad school as you have significantly less time to publish than funded colleagues.

 

My program is full time, but I could go full time. A lot of programs are more flexible these days. There is a tradeoff. Working in the actual field during can provide some perks, too, and opportunities that FT students don't always get.