I seriously think being born female makes dating 2x more easier.

[fortyninethousand322]

I do interact with people lower on the social hierarchy as part of my job. My own extended family comes from a 'lower' spot in the social hierarchy.

 

My point is this: given the fact you regonize you were born with an unfair advantage in the job market, are you willing to give up your job so that someone else has a better position? Would you trade places with the disadvantaged, rather than give them a hand out or "condescend" to socialize with them? Would you be willing to give up your home?

 

Because that's basically what some seem to be hoping to acheive by trying to convince the women who have dating capital (and that's not all women) they should lower their standards: oh, sure, you could date someone you're attracted to who treats you right, but you should give up your advantages on the dating market so that the guys who have it rough have it less rough. (And again, that's not all guys: clearly, these advantaged women are dating someone).

 

I think there are some key differences here. Going on "a date" (perhaps two I suppose) with someone who might not fit all of your criteria is not going to harm anyone. In fact, I think that's how most guys do things.

 

If your response to that is that you would have too many dates if you did that, then it should tell you that you're one of those people who have it "easy".

[somedude81]

This brings me back to my previous point that dating is hard for some people, regardless of whether they are male or female.

 

I have it harder than many men. That doesn't mean all women have it harder than all men. Because I'm pretty, I have it easier than a couple of my single female friends who haven't been on dates in years.

 

Your analogy doesn't work for the women who have trouble dating because they, like myself, aren't conducting any interviews. And there are women, like there are men, who have no options. Why can't you acknowledge this?

It seems that your friends are having the same problem that you are which can be summed up as; location, location, location.

 

It takes much more than that to build a relationship. So I guess it's a good thing for all of society that women are pickier.

Build a relationship?!

 

For the men who struggle, building a relationship is a luxury. It's like wanting to buy a nice car vs. trying to get enough money to be able to eat.

 

See, I can have all these requirements for the perfect girlfriend but they aren't going to help me at all when I can't even get a girl yet.

 

Just look it at terms of job hunting, when somebody has been unemployed for years and finally gets an offer, are they going to nitpick about benefits and stock options?

[PJKino]

I dont think its easier for all women but i think the point is unless youre in the top % of Men dating is a struggle much moreso for the average looking guy as opposed to the average looking girl..

 

How many average women here have claimed theyve dated everything from model or adonis lookign guys to average guys?

 

Average Men dont have that kind of experience

[phineas]

How does that relate to what I actually said?

 

 

 

I didn't suggest women's standards were unrealistic or any higher than men's. I merely suggested that the many woman any given man won't date generally aren't approaching him to ask him to.

 

I know some women who look for hotness and some who look for compatibility. The same with men. I personally am not comfortable telling anyone what they SHOULD look for in general, though if they want a productive and lasting R, obviously, compatibility is key. Maybe they don't, and that's fine. As long as their priorities and expectations line up, cool beans. I also have no problem with anyone wanting anything they want, as long as they don't feel they are entitled to getting it. That's my thoughts on 'standards' in general.

 

I think it's really hard to suggest what's a realistic and unrealistic standard, except by the criterion of, "Is it getting met?" or "Is it possible?" In the case of anyone unlucky in love, male or female, it's not getting met and I've yet to meet too many people with impossible standards (like expecting someone to have a pet unicorn or something).

 

As to whether men's or women's standards are higher for various situations (re: a date, sex, a relationship, whatever), I've yet to see any evidence or hard data to suggest there's any strong patterns. I'm willing to discuss that, but I think it has absolutely nothing to do with 'ease' of dating.

 

Then explain to me how women can have more men put in front of them than men have women put in front of them and still not be able to find someone suitable?

 

Explain it.

 

Either most males at op's age are hopeless or women's expectations at that age are too high.

 

There are no other options because the law of averages simply does not back up what you are saying.

[PJKino]

And to clarify no a lot of dates dont guarantee love for a women but tell me who has the better more probable chance in eventually finding love the women who can get dates or the men who cant?

[zengirl]

Jobaba pretty much makes the case but it's ignored.

 

His sister is roughly him as a girl and has demonstrated how it's easier for her.

 

I didn't ignore his case - in fact I countered it.

 

Well if they really do look similar, one of them would have a disadvantage, as the same features are not preferred on men and women. Without any real evidence to assess or, frankly, a research-based rubric to begin assessment, I don't see how we can say two people are "roughly the same." Additionally, I don't think anyone has suggested that the socialization for men and women --- and thus the expectations of traits and behaviors --- differs. If they have similar traits and behaviors, it would make sense that one does well and one does not, because one's traits and behaviors would fit with their gender socialization and societal expectations more coherently.

 

As long as a girl is not ugly and not fat and not super shy or not a total bitch or does not have some major personality disorder, she will not have problems with dating.

 

This is debunked by women on here and other women in the world who severe trouble with dating. At any rate, most of the men who have severe trouble with dating seem to have similarly debilitating issues.

 

The only possible issue she will have is choosing the right guy.

 

This can certainly be a process that is less than "easy." Especially if no decent options are presented to her.

 

In essence she is the HR manager looking to fill a position. It's a very different problem that men face as being the applicants.

 

Even if that analogy were apt - and I'm not really sure it is - I've been on both sides of the hiring process and I don't find job-hunting any harder than trying to fill a position, especially when no qualified applicants exist or are willing to work for the budgeted salary you have.

 

I agree with everything.

 

The only sort of standards that the vast majority of men have are

 

Don't be ugly

Don't be fat

Don't be a psycho bitch

 

Is it really so unreasonable to want a woman who posses those three 'qualities?'

 

"Don't be ugly" and "Don't be fat" are physical standards. I find all physical standards equally as reasonable as all other physical standards personally, because everyone will have a different idea of ugly and even fat.

 

I don't really think that's ALL men would consider, especially if they are relationship-minded (I mean they might get with a girl for a roll in the hay they'd NEVER actually commit to - I never disputed women have easier access to SEX, but sex is not dating). I know many men who have much more thoughtful standards and consider compatibility for the purpose of their own happiness in selecting dates.

 

I also know some desperate women who don't have good standards, and they sure as hell don't do well in dating. Having good standards is very crucial to dating successfully.

 

Because that's basically what some seem to be hoping to acheive by trying to convince the women who have dating capital (and that's not all women) they should lower their standards: oh, sure, you could date someone you're attracted to who treats you right, but you should give up your advantages on the dating market so that the guys who have it rough have it less rough. (And again, that's not all guys: clearly, these advantaged women are dating someone).

 

This is the thing - women don't get their dating capital just by being women or ALL women would have it. Generally, men who see women as having it easy are fixating on the kind of women they'd want to attract. They aren't thinking about all the girls they'd never want to go out with in a million years!

 

Iris continually says in this thread, "What about me?" and there's no answer for her except disbelief or suggesting she's too picky. But how is any guy who's complained on this board in any different a spot?

[Kamille]

I think there are some key differences here. Going on "a date" (perhaps two I suppose) with someone who might not fit all of your criteria is not going to harm anyone. In fact, I think that's how most guys do things.

 

If your response to that is that you would have too many dates if you did that, then it should tell you that you're one of those people who have it "easy".

 

I do frequently go on dates with people I am not instantaneously attracted to. The last time, I even started feeling attraction for the guy.

 

And by the way, these guys have as many options as I do. It's like you said: these guys keep trying and once in awhile it works out. The same is true for me.

 

Build a relationship?!

 

For the men who struggle, building a relationship is a luxury. It's like wanting to buy a nice car vs. trying to get enough money to be able to eat.

 

See, I can have all these requirements for the perfect girlfriend but they aren't going to help me at all when I can't even get a girl yet.

 

Just look it at terms of job hunting, when somebody has been unemployed for years and finally gets an offer, are they going to nitpick about benefits and stock options?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this attitude is precisely your problem. Here you are, trying to convince people who are looking for relationships that all that should matter is not being fat, ugly or psycho. No wonder they pass you up! I want to contribute much more than that to a relationship and am turned off by guys who act like they should happily lap up crumbs instead of focusing on whether or not we can build a life together. You disempower yourself and then complain that women don't take pity on you.

[jobaba]

 

Because that's basically what some seem to be hoping to acheive by trying to convince the women who have dating capital (and that's not all women) they should lower their standards: oh, sure, you could date someone you're attracted to who treats you right, but you should give up your advantages on the dating market so that the guys who have it rough have it less rough. (And again, that's not all guys: clearly, these advantaged women are dating someone).

 

First point. Treating women right is not a commodity. A bunch of posters here like CrackerJack and others seem like real nice guys. They have trouble getting women.

 

I hate to think that somebody is thinking about me, "Oh well. He's a good guy, but I can do so much better lookswise."

 

So, I don't do it to anybody. I'll never look at a person and be like, "Man, I'm better looking than that person."

 

I'm not saying go out with the first obese poor person you run into because you feel sorry for them.

 

You can be part of the dog eat dog world no matter where you fit on the ladder.

[zengirl]

Then explain to me how women can have more men put in front of them than men have women put in front of them and still not be able to find someone suitable?

 

Again, this doesn't relate to what I said.

 

What does "put in front of them" mean? Are you talking hypothetically in a room? We'd need quite a big size sample if you were asking men and women to do something like that in a study, and I've not seen any substantial research on it.

 

How can I explain something when I don't even understand what you're asking or how we're quantifying it? What evidence do you have to even back up your claim that this happens?

 

My point was: Since men aren't constantly being asked out by women they didn't choose, we have no idea how often they'd turn down those women or how many they find undesirable. This has nothing to do with ease of dating and everything to do with who is socialized to approach.

 

I do believe it would be VERY difficult to be a male whose socialization failed and who was not suited to approach, but I do not believe that applies to most males. I also believe it is VERY difficult in some ways to be a female whose socialization fails and who is more suited to approaching - though we have focused on making that a bit better, which in turn has made it better for both those groups of people, a bit. Personally, as I like approaching (even despite the potential for rejection - and I've experienced that rejection), I don't see it as "less easy" than waiting around for someone you actually like to come over and fending off the bad ones. And, as someone who did approach and have to do BOTH those things, I'd choose approaching over fending off any day of the week.

[veggirl]

Every guy I have dated has had options, many options tbh. They all have a past full of dates and girlfriends. I know there is a subset of guys (and girls) that can't get dates, but it's not the norm IME. The majority of people date. LS obviously attracts many guys that can't get dates, but that isn't the norm! It's just not. I see people dating all over the place, all the time.

 

I feel badly for anyone who wants to date and "can't". It's unfortunate. I don't believe for one second though that your average guy struggles as much as LS men would like us to believe. I also don't buy that the average guys only requirement is "don't be fat or ugly".

[Shaun-Dro]

You're addressing two separate issues here.

 

Why wouldn't an attractive, smart, fun, kind, interesting, financially secure man do well? Add in the fact that he wants a relationship, will be faithful, and will make a great husband and father, and you've struck gold.

 

This statement is true but only to those men who seek average and below average-looking women. If he wants a really beautiful woman with those kinds of qualities, he'll be single nearly forever.

[fortyninethousand322]

I feel badly for anyone who wants to date and "can't". It's unfortunate. I don't believe for one second though that your average guy struggles as much as LS men would like us to believe. I also don't buy that the average guys only requirement is "don't be fat or ugly".

 

I don't know. I'd like to think I know a bunch of "average" guys. Most of them only had "options" once they were dating someone. Anyone with a whiff of singleness on them tended to be single for a while. Often without much dating at all. Certainly none of them fit some of the "extreme" characteristics often seen on this site, but still.

 

Of the women I do know (limited sample size to be sure) this is often not the case.

 

Again, I'm no expert so take it with a grain of salt.

[jobaba]

Every guy I have dated has had options, many options tbh. They all have a past full of dates and girlfriends. I know there is a subset of guys (and girls) that can't get dates, but it's not the norm IME. The majority of people date. LS obviously attracts many guys that can't get dates, but that isn't the norm! It's just not. I see people dating all over the place, all the time.

 

I feel badly for anyone who wants to date and "can't". It's unfortunate. I don't believe for one second though that your average guy struggles as much as LS men would like us to believe. I also don't buy that the average guys only requirement is "don't be fat or ugly".

 

Right.

 

How do you define average though?

 

From a physical standpoint or from other measures? Through dating success itself?

 

Only 30% of Americans have a bachelors degree, yet I know guys who have MDs and Masters degrees who have struggled in dating. Yes, doctors. At least one guy I know did.

 

I do agree with you. The top 50% of men who are the most successful have had no problems getting girls since high school, but what makes them so? Just something to consider...

[ColoredBlack]

I dont think its easier for all women but i think the point is unless youre in the top % of Men dating is a struggle much moreso for the average looking guy as opposed to the average looking girl..

 

How many average women here have claimed theyve dated everything from model or adonis lookign guys to average guys?

 

Average Men dont have that kind of experience

 

lol so much truth.

[Kamille]

All right, you guys, with all your talks of "average looks" and "average men" have convinced me. So you're saying that it's harder for men to score hot women than for women to score hot men. You do realize that adamantly defending this point would only prove one thing, right?

 

All it would really prove: The men on here who are complaining are focused on superficial criteria.

[ColoredBlack]

All right, you guys, with all your talks of "average looks" and "average men" have convinced me. So you're saying that it's harder for men to score hot women than for women to score hot men. You do realize that adamantly defending this point would only prove one thing, right?

 

All it would really prove: The men on here who are complaining are focused on superficial criteria.

 

I think its more so the point of all the variety and options women have compared to men...with basic math shows how women have a larger percentage chance finding good relationships using mathematical FACTS.

[zengirl]

I think its more so the point of all the variety and options women have compared to men...with basic math shows how women have a larger percentage chance finding good relationships using mathematical FACTS.

 

Please show me the formulas and data used in this basic math. Serious request.

[fortyninethousand322]

All right, you guys, with all your talks of "average looks" and "average men" have convinced me. So you're saying that it's harder for men to score hot women than for women to score hot men. You do realize that adamantly defending this point would only prove one thing, right?

 

All it would really prove: The men on here who are complaining are focused on superficial criteria.

 

I haven't talked about looks at all. I'm just talking about average vs average. Whatever average means.

 

Although, for all I know, I could be way above average and just not know it.

[zengirl]

Right.

 

How do you define average though?

 

From a physical standpoint or from other measures? Through dating success itself?

 

Only 30% of Americans have a bachelors degree, yet I know guys who have MDs and Masters degrees who have struggled in dating. Yes, doctors. At least one guy I know did.

 

I do agree with you. The top 50% of men who are the most successful have had no problems getting girls since high school, but what makes them so? Just something to consider...

 

I'm sure there were some female doctors that struggled at dating too - in fact, I know a few. In fact, I would imagine doctors - who have to put extreme focus into their career from a young age - would often struggle at dating, and I know several that did for quite some time. Not enough time to learn social skills, not enough time to socialize in general - it's a trade off. That's not to say many doctors don't find happy Rs and get dates and so forth, but I would find it no surprise if they struggled a bit.

 

As much as I value education and wanted to date and marry a guy who had somewhat of an education (and I did), I can't imagine saying it's something that would help someone do better in dating.

 

I think what veggirl was saying was that most men - i.e. a large amount of men when polled - are not the hard luck cases we see here. Nor are most women. Though hard luck cases of both genders exist.

 

I do agree that nobody has any idea what "average" is though. The word loses all meaning in most conversations. I've yet to see too many people admit they're far below average, though someone must be.

[ColoredBlack]

Please show me the formulas and data used in this basic math. Serious request.

 

SOme of the women have stated the variety of guys they have went on dates with.

 

women dating average guys + not so average guys + hot guys = large variety on monthly basis.

 

Large variety = more options and dates

 

More options and dates = high chance of finding someone compatible.

 

----

 

Guys struggle to get dates with even average girls.

 

Less dates = less options

 

So with less dates and less options they are not going to have much of a chance finding someone compatible.

 

----

 

So yes its basic to see that more dates = higher chance of finding compatibility.

 

Simple really.

[oaks]

Because women have more options & can date multiple men during the week while men have less options & maybe go on a date once a week or once a month?

 

Honestly this is just basic math here.

 

Well, it's math, but it's not entirely intuitive...

 

In that scenario more men are going on dates than women (because you've got a small number of women - the ones with many options - dating a large number of men). I'm not sure that this really supports the idea that it's easier for women to get dates, if that's where you were going. If it's a true reflection of what happens is also points towards there being a larger proportion of women (than men) who are getting no dating action, because the guys with few 'options' are having those 'option' slots taken up by the few women with many 'options'.

 

 

The math to do is the same math that shows that number of sexual partners for men and number of sexual partners for women (over a lifetime, or at milestone ages or whatever) must be about the same, despite the huge disparity in the reported rates (men report higher numbers than women, consistently over many studies), for the same reason: each coupling (whether it's having sex or going on a date) is a tick in the "man" column and a tick in the "woman" column. (and the number of men and women is the same, or close enough to the same to not be an issue, so when you do the division to get a mean average you get the same result for each sex. Now, standard deviation... that's a whole other thread.)

[somedude81]

All right, you guys, with all your talks of "average looks" and "average men" have convinced me. So you're saying that it's harder for men to score hot women than for women to score hot men. You do realize that adamantly defending this point would only prove one thing, right?

 

All it would really prove: The men on here who are complaining are focused on superficial criteria.

Who said anything about men only wanting hot women?

[Cracker Jack]

At the end of the day, this topic helps absolutely no one.

[KathyM]

Getting laid is easier for women than for men, but dating and establishing a relationship is just as difficult for women as it is for men.

[phineas]

Again, this doesn't relate to what I said.

 

What does "put in front of them" mean? Are you talking hypothetically in a room? We'd need quite a big size sample if you were asking men and women to do something like that in a study, and I've not seen any substantial research on it.

 

How can I explain something when I don't even understand what you're asking or how we're quantifying it? What evidence do you have to even back up your claim that this happens?

 

My point was: Since men aren't constantly being asked out by women they didn't choose, we have no idea how often they'd turn down those women or how many they find undesirable. This has nothing to do with ease of dating and everything to do with who is socialized to approach.

 

I do believe it would be VERY difficult to be a male whose socialization failed and who was not suited to approach, but I do not believe that applies to most males. I also believe it is VERY difficult in some ways to be a female whose socialization fails and who is more suited to approaching - though we have focused on making that a bit better, which in turn has made it better for both those groups of people, a bit. Personally, as I like approaching (even despite the potential for rejection - and I've experienced that rejection), I don't see it as "less easy" than waiting around for someone you actually like to come over and fending off the bad ones. And, as someone who did approach and have to do BOTH those things, I'd choose approaching over fending off any day of the week.

 

It relates 100% to the OP which what I am referring to.

Which I keep trying to steer towards & which you keep trying to derail by going on tangents that DO NOT have anything to do with the OP.

 

The OP states women have it easier when it comes to dating.

More options = Easier.

If more options doesn't equal easier for women then their standards are too high.