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

[Kamille]

I don't think viewing success as a committed R that works and positively reinforces self-concept is really all that idyllic.

 

 

 

Right, women are socialized to believe the purpose of dating is to find and cultivate committed Rs, leading to marriage (the last bit is changing slightly, as people in general become less marriage-minded).

 

 

Makes me wonder if it isn't men who are suffering the most from how socialization has changed in the last century. Not because of feminism, but because they've been led to believe the main way to define masculinity is through sexual prowess.

 

In that sense, yes, perhaps men do have it harder currently, but not because women are making them suffer. There's so much more to dating than the battle of the sexes.

[sweetjasmine]

Getting way off-topic.

 

I have always struggled in school. Elementary, Jr. High, High school, I was a D average student. It took me five years to get out of Jr. College, which shold have been done in two. I started Jr. college the same year I graduated HS. In that time I may have taken one or two semesters off to work because I was sick of school. I started my current university at 28 and September will be my third year there. So no, it's not like I graduated high school, and waited 10 years to start college.

 

With that thought in mind, those women who chose to focus on their education, travel and just play around, that was their opportunity cost.

 

BTW, wanting to finish college first before a girl gets married, isn't even an excuse for somebody who finds themselves single and never been married at 30. Most people, unless they really suck at school, graduate college at 23 or younger. Wanting to focus on her career is a very poor choice because she can end up working till she's in her mid 60's while her market value as a woman will hardly last that long.

 

Hm, good point. I better call up my friends in medical school and tell them to quit and get married ASAP so they don't ruin their lives. Because if they graduate and complete their residencies, finding themselves still single and nearing 35, they'll be considered worthless by men and will miss out on the single most important thing in life - being married. To anyone. Anyone at all. Thanks for the tip, sd. These ladies have their priorities all mixed up in working to be independent adults with a fulfilling career.

[dasein]

I don't think viewing success as a committed R that works and positively reinforces self-concept is really all that idyllic.

 

Apparently it isn't... for average women... who have it very much easier dating than average men. For average men though, it would be naively -idealistic- to expect "a committed R that works and positively reinforces self-concept (whatever that means)" as part of the definition of mere "dating success." They just want a date, any acceptable date. But I suspect you know full well that "dating success" and "LTR success and general relationship happiness" are two entirely different things.

 

 

Right, women are socialized to believe the purpose of dating is to find and cultivate committed Rs, leading to marriage (the last bit is changing slightly, as people in general become less marriage-minded).

 

Generality and irrelevant anyway. Regardless of whether I'm "socialized" to obtain a 100 ft yacht one day in the future, having a successful single day at work doesn't depend on getting that yacht today. Same with dating v relationships. Simple, please stop with the "special expectations of women" fallacy. Or don't, because as stated, it just adds to the argument that women have it easier in dating. "My dates aren't successful unless a world of relationship opportunity opens up from each and every one" is not something the average guy would ever have the gall to assert.

 

Most men would not consider a date - any date, with any person - success in dating either.

 

Not what I posted, at all.

[Kamille]

Hm, good point. I better call up my friends in medical school and tell them to quit and get married ASAP so they don't ruin their lives. Because if they graduate and complete their residencies, finding themselves still single and nearing 35, they'll be considered worthless by men and will miss out on the single most important thing in life - being married. To anyone. Anyone at all. Thanks for the tip, sd. These ladies have their priorities all mixed up in working to be independent adults with a fulfilling career.

 

Just to make sure everyone understands: this is irony people, irony!

[fortyninethousand322]

Hm, good point. I better call up my friends in medical school and tell them to quit and get married ASAP so they don't ruin their lives. Because if they graduate and complete their residencies, finding themselves still single and nearing 35, they'll be considered worthless by men and will miss out on the single most important thing in life - being married. To anyone. Anyone at all. Thanks for the tip, sd. These ladies have their priorities all mixed up in working to be independent adults with a fulfilling career.

 

One of them could just marry me. They could have their careers and I'd be more than happy to stay home, cook and clean.

[zengirl]

The topic was about dating being 2X more easier (pardon my grammar), not about the 'success' aspects of dating. Simple numbers. Who goes on on more dates and with more individuals?

 

This is the telling quote, and something I've seen a lot of in real life:

 

Few hours after she went single, she told us that 3 guys had asked her out and she was laughing at it.

 

That's 'easier', the definition. Her laughing was just a commentary on it.

 

Logically, whenever a man goes on a date and we're dealing with a heterosexual couple, so does a woman, so I'm not sure how the math would ever come out that way.

 

I don't think anyone has disagreed that women get asked out more frequently, but that doesn't make it "easier" - there is nothing easy about having to turn someone down who asked you out or always getting asked out by men you have no interest in and feeling dissonance at wanting to ask someone out but feeling like it makes you unfeminine or whatever.

 

2X more frequent ask-outs wouldn't equate to 2X easier in my book. Ease in dating for a woman would be attracting the men she wanted, and only the men she wanted, whereas men have to worry less about filtering and more about being active and putting themselves out there. They're doing different things, but I see no mathematical way to determine the ease or comfort of either. I suspect that varies by individuals - that woman had her self-esteem bolstered by turning men down, but I know many women who actually feel WORSE about themselves when they have to turn someone down or get approached by someone they don't fancy.

 

Makes me wonder if it isn't men who are suffering the most from how socialization has changed in the last century. Not because of feminism, but because they've been led to believe the main way to define masculinity is through sexual prowess.

 

In that sense, yes, perhaps men do have it harder currently, but not because women are making them suffer. There's so much more to dating than the battle of the sexes.

 

Oh, I agree that male sexuality and varying types of masculinity is perhaps lagging behind female sexuality and varying types of femininity in terms of being openly discussed and empowered. In this way, feminism has not done quite enough, and I hope that is the next step really - to allow for more varied definitions of masculinity, as we have for femininity.

[Kamille]

One of them could just marry me. They could have their careers and I'd be more than happy to stay home, cook and clean.

 

And you like intellectual conversations don't you? Why hello there! Would you settle for a doctor in philosophy?

[yongyong]

I would ask out a girl who's not my ideal type.

 

Would I look at her the same way after I bang her? NO

[zengirl]

Apparently it isn't... for average women... who have it very much easier dating than average men. For average men though, it would be naively -idealistic- to expect "a committed R that works and positively reinforces self-concept (whatever that means)" as part of the definition of mere "dating success." They just want a date, any acceptable date. But I suspect you know full well that "dating success" and "LTR success and general relationship happiness" are two entirely different things.

 

To me, dating has its purpose as a precursor to a LTR. So, no they are not two different things. "Dating success" is linked solely to its ability to become a LTR, particularly marriage. I truly believe my marriage was the culmination of my dating success. I'm sorry you fail to see anyone else's viewpoint on this matter and wish everyone would use your version of success, but it is literally meaningless to me.

 

That's not to say I don't see value in dating -- I do. It helped me learn to relate to people, and it helped me find LTRs where I learned further lessons, and it helped me meet my husband, but a 'date' on its own is not a measure of success, nor is not getting one a measure of failure, IMO.

 

"My dates aren't successful unless a world of relationship opportunity opens up from each and every one" is not something the average guy would ever have the gall to assert.

 

That is not what I said at all.

 

Not what I posted, at all.

 

But what it comes out to. Yes, women are approached more than men, but being approached by someone you DON'T FANCY has no benefit. Most men get to avoid that most of the time (some experience it once and awhile, and very few men experience it regularly - though certainly not all women experience it regularly either and many feel ignored) by being the ones who select who they wish to go out with.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I'm convinced that in order for most women to consider you a "real man" you have to do your share of "pumping and dumping". If you don't you lose attractiveness in their eyes.

 

My husband is a real man and he has never once pumped and dumped in his life.

 

My ex husband was as handsome as a movie star and women fawned on him, but he never pumped and dumped either.

 

Personally I think guys who do that seem to have a weak character.

 

Also, I don't confuse "pump and dump" with mutually enjoyable consensual casual sex. No dumping is preened about in those arrangements.

[fortyninethousand322]

My husband is a real man and he has never once pumped and dumped in his life.

 

My ex husband was as handsome as a movie star and women fawned on him, but he never pumped and dumped either.

 

Personally I think guys who do that seem to have a weak character.

 

Also, I don't confuse "pump and dump" with mutually enjoyable consensual casual sex. No dumping is preened about in those arrangements.

 

I wouldn't say you'd qualify as "most women".

[Kamille]

I wouldn't say you'd qualify as "most women".

 

What women does?

[dasein]

To me, dating has its purpose as a precursor to a LTR.

 

"To me" dating has its purpose as a precursor to winning $100 million in the lottery. As ridiculous as that sounds, it highlights the difference between the thread topic and relationships generally. Had the thread been titled "women have it easier in relationships," maybe your point would be apt. It isn't and it's not.

 

Measuring dating success is objectively simple, "can one get dates with people who one would like to go on a date with?" not "can one get dates that usually lead to successful LTRs?" Feel free to measure -your- subjective success however you like, but when it comes to general run of the mill dating success, the -objective- determinant is whether one can get dates with people one would like to... go on a date with. Nothing more nor less. Feel free to keep distorting otherwise, it's funny.

[space center]

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 is assuming there is a pool of desirable single women to choose from, which there is in my area.)

 

What do I gain from lying about the lack of single men? I wish I WAS lying.

 

if a man is all then he'll do better than well. but take a couple away such as attractive and fun and he'll forever without so much as a date.

[zengirl]

It's important to note that women always have the peace of mind that they aren't in danger of being alone because this constant assurance of their attractiveness changes their behavior. It makes them more confident. It makes them more arrogant. It's easier for them to treat their bf like crap, because he needs her more than she needs him. He will be alone tomorrow if dumped; she can be on a free dinner date with his best friend the next night if she pleased.

 

This is just illogical.

 

Many women are alone, attractive or unattractive, right now. There ARE single women in the world, many of whom would love to find a compatible, committed partner.

 

Oh, and the guy in your example has a terrible best friend.

 

I feel like when people post this stuff what they really mean is, "Hot women have it easy" (even that's not really true, per se, depending on what 'easy' is) and they forget that there are plenty of women who are basically ignored. I know women who NEVER get asked out, who are the overlooked one, etc. Plenty of men then come in and rationalize that away, if the woman is overweight or older or unattractive or whatever, but it's no different than whatever reason a man is getting turned down.

[space center]

There are certainly some single women on here who can't find anyone (I could name at least half a dozen off-hand). A lot of them are a bit older (makes sense, with how dating ages skew), but they're still women. I'd say there are quite a few single women who are looking without success -- they don't post the same kinds of threads as you do, but that's a socialization issue in terms of how women and men are taught to communicate about such things.

 

how many of them have been on a grand total of three dates and are virgins at forty? answer me that.

[zengirl]

"To me" dating has its purpose as a precursor to winning $100 million in the lottery. As ridiculous as that sounds, it highlights the difference between the thread topic and relationships generally. Had the thread been titled "women have it easier in relationships," maybe your point would be apt. It isn't and it's not.

 

Except lotteries have nothing to do with dating, and you don't win them by engaging in dating. That's why yours is illogical. Mine is perfectly logical, as dating is the method by which one finds a potential partner.

 

Measuring dating success is objectively simple, "can one get dates with people who one would like to go on a date with?"

 

I disagree with your measurement, but by that yardstick, I do not think women have it easier. Many women cannot get dates with people they'd like to go out with.

[space center]

a man who's struggling has it 200x harder than a woman who's struggling. if a woman is into her 30s and 40s her friend, family, coworkers, everyone will work overtime to find her the perfect man. if a man is into his 30s and 40s he doesn't get support from his man friends, rather laughter. women won't even look at him because he's so inexperienced. its over for a man if he hasn't found somebody by his mid 30s.

[oaks]

Incidentally this is the same reason why some men think all women have it easy. They're incapable of seing individuals - just an amorphous blob with boobs and a vagina.

 

I agree, although my inner pedant is itching to suggest that there's a contradiction involved in being both amorphous yet having form, but I'm suppressing it as best as I can with thoughts of boobs and a vagina.

[ThaWholigan]

Guy's can't really turn down sex, it isn't even his fault. It's the woman's fault for coming on to him

 

Speak for yourself.

[nessaaa]

Yea true guys are easy sleezy

 

I was talking with few people to a girl who was in relationship. Few hours after she went single, she told us that 3 guys had asked her out and she was laughing at it.

 

She is not some stunner nor has something special about her personality.

 

Every girl i have talked to about this in the 5-7 (looks range), has always had options (at least few guys to choose from ) who are not some total losers or have a ****buddy

 

meanwhile..... i know few decent looking guys who have never pulled gals. They are not socially awkward/weird/fat/ugly just guys who can be fun to hang around with and are average or a little above in looks.

 

We are all in late teens, i just feel like there is something sketchy going on here......discuss?

[MrCastle]

I think it depends on the situation. When it comes to online dating, yes. Women have an advantage, online dating is a joke if you're an average man in any way. I would suggest you not waste your time.

 

In real life, it depends. Women certainly have to do less to get noticed and approached, yes; but that doesn't mean they're only getting approached by men they like.

 

They also have to turn down good guys that they're just not attracted to, and unless you're a man eating ice queen, that's hard to do.

 

Since men, more often than not, do the chasing, we go after only women we're attracted to. Sure, sometimes that leads to rejections, but I like the fact that I only approach women I want to hook up with. That means when the numbers work in my favor and a girl actually says yes, she's always going to be a girl I dig, because I chose her myself.

[dasein]

Except lotteries have nothing to do with dating, and you don't win them by engaging in dating. That's why yours is illogical. Mine is perfectly logical, as dating is the method by which one finds a potential partner.

 

"To me" (to repeat that relativist absurdity you and certain others are so fond of here) lotteries have -everything- to do with relationships, and it's my right "to me" to define my subjective dating success as winning the lottery if I want because I'm a special snowflake!

 

But for the objective folks out there who prefer reason, we can stay with a definition of "dating success" as being "able to get and go on acceptable dates" and exclude all the "happy ever after" or winning the lottery" subjective BS that you are trying to inject into a perfectly fine objective definition.

[ThaWholigan]

"To me" (to repeat that relativist absurdity you and certain others are so fond of here) lotteries have -everything- to do with relationships, and it's my right "to me" to define my subjective dating success as winning the lottery if I want because I'm a special snowflake!

 

But for the objective folks out there who prefer reason, we can stay with a definition of "dating success" as being "able to get and go on acceptable dates" and exclude all the "happy ever after" or winning the lottery" subjective BS that you are trying to inject into a perfectly fine objective definition.

Depends on what one defines as acceptable I guess. Maybe I am subconsciously spoiled for choice as I don't believe dating is harder for me than it is for anyone else .

[ColoredBlack]

Which as stated, proves rather convincingly that women have it easier in dating than men generally. Average men don't even get to the level of analysis of "ideals" in dating that average women do.

 

Your and ZG's claim is essentially, "for women, in order for dating to be considered "successful," it must meet -other- loftier criteria than merely being able to get acceptable dates regularly."

 

If that is the case, it means that dating is in fact easier for women to such an extent that unlike for men, for average women, "any old marginally acceptable date" just won't do for purposes of estimating "success," there has to be more.

 

Proves OP's contention in spades.

 

No logical or accurate response can be made to refute this.