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

[Anela]

Men would be more than happy to date and have relationships with their EQUALS. Somehow every female 6 out there thinks they deserve a male 10.

 

I've mostly witnessed men wanting the 10, and ignoring anyone else.

[oaks]

Yes, all of that isn't necessarily related to 'dating', but the fact is that you can't just take 'dating' in a vacuum.

 

Not even on a Dating forum?

[Els]

 

Your mother did it, so did your grandma. Why are women making a big stink about it now?

 

This is true, but we're talking about women and dating here. Who gives a crap if its easier for you to orgasm, if all you are in your sexual prime (men in their 20's) is a one-armed warrior strangling it to porn.

 

And it was even more difficult for your forefathers to get sex from a woman. Men had to put in a lot more effort to court women back in the day, and sex by the third date was largely unheard of. Many men had to marry a woman and support her for the rest of her life to get regular sex. Why are you making a big stink about it now?

 

Not even on a Dating forum?

 

 

Well, I'm not saying the OP is off-topic. Was responding mostly to the plethora of self-pitying 'life sucks' posts in this thread.

[zengirl]

Dating the 5% that makes up the good looking player/jerk types while ignoring the rest of the men is in fact being picky.

 

Your original post didn't say the 5% good looking jerks - it said they dated all the jerks. I really didn't know that's what you meant since you just said they slept with ALL the jerks, which sounds like more than 5% of men to me (and more than 5% of women too). I don't think the majority of people are jerks, but there are more than that, and plenty of them aren't good looking.

 

So what are you saying, that half the men in the universe aren't acceptable to date?

75%?

95%?

All?

 

Acceptable to date for whom? For myself, I'd say that the vast majority of men are not acceptable to date and would not have been compatible, even enough for an evening spent alone together. The majority of people aren't compatible enough with me even on a non-romantic level to be close friends either. I think that's true for many people, men and women. I don't know if ALL people hold everyone to high standards from the beginning* - I know some men and women that do - and perhaps men do that less, because they are seeking sex that badly. That'd really be the only reason to do so. I know many men who have suitably high standards though and would hold any woman to compatibility standards as well as beauty standards, so it's always surprising to me when men suggest that they have no standards beyond a woman looking decent. Perhaps some men don't - certainly some don't.

 

*Many people also just aren't good at reading people and may not KNOW or sense right away that someone is not compatible, but if I got a whiff of that - which I often did - then I said, "No" to any offers.

 

What she really means is there aren't any 6ft+ rich & muscular men out there interested in her.

 

Now that sounds like a fairly useless standard to me, personally, but no different than what some of the men who lament their lack of dating success seem to want in a woman. Several of the success-poor men on LS in particular fixate on similarly shallow physical features in a woman.

 

And, anyway, that's actually probably easier to find a date with - if we're just talking dates - than it is to find a date with someone who you truly feel you might click with on a compatibility level.

 

What's an acceptable guy?

 

It depends on the woman. As, IME, acceptability does with men too - what men seek is equally individual in many cases.

 

You're comparing guys who just want to get laid with girls who want a LTR with the perfect soul mate. Why not compare apples to apples. Some guys want relationships also, but even if they meet the usual requirements of being tall, thin, with a good job, they have to pretend that they're only slightly interested at first, so that they don't scare the girl off.

 

I don't think that is how dating works, really, and if it is, women have to pretend all sorts of things too. Read one of those "Why Men Love Bitches" books - that sort of idea, that you have to feign less interest at first - is out there on both sides. I find it silly and have never been with a man who employed it or didn't show his interest early-on.

 

I think both men and women have to pass physical standards, though if a man is truly just seeking sex, his standards are a bit lower, and if a woman is truly just seeking sex, her physical standards are a bit higher. That makes sense with how we socialize men and women in regards to sexuality. Stop making women 'guardians' of their own sexuality and start pushing some of that responsibility onto men, and that may go away. It is a little now. At any rate, if someone wants to say access to casual sex is easier for a woman, I'd agree with that. I don't think that's the same thing as "dating" though - I'm not sure it's dating at all and it's certainly not all dating encompasses.

 

One of my old coworkers said to me once ... "It kinda sucks for men. You have to get out there and approach strangers and face rejection. That's tough."

 

I realize that may make men nervous, but I also realize that for some women the dissonance of feeling like you cannot do that and you may 'blow it' with a guy if you even try to express direct interest, by looking to masculine and forward, are ALSO hard feelings to face. In my opinion, purely for myself, dissonance is a harder feeling than rejection, because dissonance must resolved, but rejection must only be endured. Granted, that's purely for ME and how I process feelings - I find almost nothing more difficult than dissonance, really. I've faced plenty of rejection, including in approaching men, and it doesn't even compare.

 

That's where 'easier' and 'harder' fall down, because a lot of what is easy or hard depends on how you process things, your natural state, etc.

[phineas]

You're not getting it.

 

 

This is about "dating", and you simply can not be "dating" until such time as when you got a proverbial hit. In baseball terms that is 'running the bases'.

 

You simply can not be both "running the bases" AND "on the bench" at the same time.

 

 

IF you want to go ahead and say that women have an easier time 'getting a hit/date' and reaching base, then go ahead and say so.

 

But as the thread herein is about "dating", you don't even qualify until you "date".

 

Asking for a date is merely the bat connecting with the ball, and you are not 'dating' until you're out with that person (and simultaneously at first, second, or third base), (with the ball having landed in play long enough for you to reach base).

 

Did you even read the OP?

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?

 

It is clearly about women having more options & having an easier time getting dates.

[phineas]

Bottom line.

If you are a woman & single because you can't find an "Acceptable" man it's because you have overestimated your value & the "Acceptable" men don't find you "acceptable"

 

If mr acceptable doesn't want to date you it's because he can do better & you need to bring your standards down to earth & accept the fact you are not as awesome as you think you are.

 

this falls in line with op's problem.

women his age laugh at all the options they have, they can pick & choose who they want to go out with & when.

 

Op can't even get a woman to go on a date with him.

There are a lot of guys in his age group with this problem & it isn't because their unattractive looking either.

 

They just don't fit the mold of a young women's idea of what is "acceptable".

Or if they do manage to get a date their disqualified for the silliest reasons.

 

So unless there is some kind of genetic disease affecting only the male portion of the population generating a "creep" gene or "just friends" syndrome women in op's age group need to start lowering their expectations.

 

Unless having more options has somehow turned into a bad thing women have it easier in their 20's.

Most men have 1 or 2 options at a time at best.

Most women have at least 4 or 5 & every day they are in social situations it can go up.

 

Who will have an easier time finding someone "acceptable" to go on a date with in that situation?

 

Who will have an easier time finding a quality person to have a relationship in that situation?

 

 

I feel sorry for today's younger generation.

because when they hit their 30's you are going to see a lot of women looking to marry prince charming and a lot of Guys who are angry virgins.

[zengirl]

Bottom line.

If you are a woman & single because you can't find an "Acceptable" man it's because you have overestimated your value & the "Acceptable" men don't find you "acceptable"

 

If mr acceptable doesn't want to date you it's because he can do better & you need to bring your standards down to earth & accept the fact you are not as awesome as you think you are.

 

And why is that not true for men as well? I see no logical support of the conclusion that women do this more than men. Most, if not all, of the men who post here that they can't get a date have standards they aren't willing to lower as well.

 

ETA: I'm actually not advocating anyone (male or female) 'lower' their standards, as I think that's a terrible idea! The right idea is to ensure that your standards are all truly fitting of what would be most healthy for you in the long run (i.e. perhaps a compassionate heart really does matter more than six pack abs, I'd argue, though to each their own), but not to simply lower them.

 

At any rate, I'm only saying that almost everyone has standards and this myth that men have no standards is doing no one any favors.

Edited July 17, 2012 by zengirl

[iris219]

 

Most men have 1 or 2 options at a time at best.

Most women have at least 4 or 5 & every day they are in social situations it can go up.

 

Looks like most men have more options than I do. Where is this magical place where women have their pick of 4 or 5 single, relationship minded men? I'd like to know so I can go there because I've certainly never been.

[jobaba]

This thread is so stupid.

 

The same posters line up to defend their 'line' every single time and never budge.

 

Do I think it's harder for men a little? Yes.

 

Do I realize there's women out there who have it tough and don't get a lot of attention from men? Yes.

 

Would I give those women a chance? Every time.

[zengirl]

This thread is so stupid.

 

The same posters line up to defend their 'line' every single time and never budge.

 

Are you budging on your opinion? What makes someone else's opinions and experiences a 'line' and less valid than your own?

[iris219]

This thread is so stupid.

 

The same posters line up to defend their 'line' every single time and never budge.

 

Do I think it's harder for men a little? Yes.

 

Do I realize there's women out there who have it tough and don't get a lot of attention from men? Yes.

 

Would I give those women a chance? Every time.

 

Some people have it harder than others. I don't think it's a gender thing.

[zengirl]

Some people have it harder than others. I don't think it's a gender thing.

 

I really think this is it, and that there's very little trend on it by gender.

 

At any rate: Even some of the men who say it's 'harder' for men only seem to indicate that's really true when men and women are younger. I wouldn't say even those in agreement on this idea have a consensus. Phineas, for example, suggests older women will have a 'wake up call.' And SD has no sympathy for those women and seems to suggest they may struggle as well.

 

I'm not sure if it skews that way or not, tbh. It may be a bit easier for women when young and harder as they age and vice versa for men. That'd make sense with the way we socialize the genders. But that's not what the title of this thread says. It doesn't say it's easier for women in their 20s than men in their 20s, so there's no use examining only that. (It also doesn't say only attractive women. It doesn't say only women at a good weight. Etc, etc.) As I said, to that point, I'm honestly not sure -- I don't think there'd be as wide a disparity as some say since I know mostly men who did decently in that period and the hard luck cases still seem relatively rare. And there are women who have the same hard luck. But I could imagine a slight advantage exists, just as a slight advantage exists for men later.

[fortyninethousand322]

Men tend to give up more. If you look at the serially dateless a lot of them don't try all that much.

 

Women on the other hand are much more optimistic (most of the time at least). They do keep trying.

 

Might explain some of the difference.

[zengirl]

Men tend to give up more. If you look at the serially dateless a lot of them don't try all that much.

 

Women on the other hand are much more optimistic (most of the time at least). They do keep trying.

 

Might explain some of the difference.

 

49, I actually think that's an apt observation, and it comes down to socialization. Women are socialized with more dating optimism and to prioritize that portion of their lives more highly. Less today than in the past, but still more than men. Men are also socialized to be slightly more results-oriented, so when they see themselves failing at something, they are more apt to be discouraged. That's in a generic sense - obviously individuals differ. But if you look at basic socialization for boys and girls, these can be see, I think.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

 

Acceptable to date for whom? For myself, I'd say that the vast majority of men are not acceptable to date and would not have been compatible, even enough for an evening spent alone together. The majority of people aren't compatible enough with me even on a non-romantic level to be close friends either. I think that's true for many people, men and women.

 

I hope it's true for almost all people.

 

Those here who always talk about the "dating pool" and how it is so shrunken for certain populations such as women over 30 (or over 22, or whatever) who have an advanced degree are coming from a completely unreal place. That is the place where EVERY SINGLE PERSON who isn't completely deformed and / or over 3 pounds overweight, evidently, is in the "pool."

 

But in reality, there are only certain individuals who are going to be a fit for other individuals.

 

Find them. Forget about the "pool," it's full of people with whom you have nothing in common.

[carhill]

Men tend to give up more. If you look at the serially dateless a lot of them don't try all that much.

 

That's possible. OTOH, being serially dateless allowed me to build quite an investment in an oil company, simply from taking the money I would have spent on rejected dates and investing it. I did that for nearly 20 years. How long is optimism supposed to last, anyway? Ironically, I used some of that money to pay for MC and, wonderfully on-topic, when MC failed and my now exW said it was time for me to leave our new home, within a week her cell phone was blown up (I saw the calls on the bill) from other men. We would not yet file for divorce for a number of months. That underscores, markedly, in one anecdote, how things go, relative to 'easier', and who exactly it applies to.

 

That said, I do have some idea of how it goes for women, as I do get asked out by wealthy friends who really enjoy my company and are happy to pay for our times together. It feels real good to be spontaneously asked out and paid for because you know or surmise someone likes you enough to do that. It's a small glimpse into how things go for the typical woman, even one ostensibly 'over the hill' as my ex-wife is. That's reality. Me, I'm back in the oil investing business again

[phineas]

And why is that not true for men as well? I see no logical support of the conclusion that women do this more than men. Most, if not all, of the men who post here that they can't get a date have standards they aren't willing to lower as well.

 

ETA: I'm actually not advocating anyone (male or female) 'lower' their standards, as I think that's a terrible idea! The right idea is to ensure that your standards are all truly fitting of what would be most healthy for you in the long run (i.e. perhaps a compassionate heart really does matter more than six pack abs, I'd argue, though to each their own), but not to simply lower them.

 

At any rate, I'm only saying that almost everyone has standards and this myth that men have no standards is doing no one any favors.

 

I'm sorry, but are you honestly trying to compare suitability of a date quality between a man with almost no options vs a woman with many options?

 

Are you trying to say that a man with little options has an equal chance of finding a winner as a woman with a lot of options?

 

You put 5 women in front of a man & 5 men in front of a woman & if both can't find someone up to their standards i'd agree with you.

 

But that isn't the case now is it?

 

Looks like most men have more options than I do. Where is this magical place where women have their pick of 4 or 5 single, relationship minded men? I'd like to know so I can go there because I've certainly never been.

 

I'm sorry but most women don't live on planet "No single men" like you do.

[jobaba]

Are you budging on your opinion? What makes someone else's opinions and experiences a 'line' and less valid than your own?

 

Sure, I'll budge.

 

Some women have a tough time getting men.

 

And I'm making it a POINT to seek out those women from here on out because I do think they will in general be more modest, down to Earth people.

 

How's that?

[oaks]

Sure, I'll budge.

 

Some women have a tough time getting men.

 

And I'm making it a POINT to seek out those women from here on out because I do think they will in general be more modest, down to Earth people.

 

How's that?

 

There's at least a couple of them in this forum, so it shouldn't take you long to find them.

[AD1980]

I dont understand how people dont see why its easier for women..the more people you meet and go out with the better chance you have to findly find your match.. no its no GUARANTEE nothing in life is but its a numbers game and struggling women at least have more opportunities then struggling men to find the right one through numerous dates..

 

Id surely take my chances with the womens plight of going out on more dates and hoping to find a match eventually rather then mine and other struggling mens plights who are in their 30's and never been on one date..

 

It's funny seeing the average women on here talk about how theyve been with average guys to models to guys with bodies like adnoises while your average man has nothing close to that experience if any at all and people cant see the disconnect in plights?

 

Once again not saying women dont have it hard who cant find love but you have more chances at the plate then Men who are stuck on the bench..

 

Some Men never get a swing and you cant get a hit without getting at bat at least once..

[jobaba]

There's at least a couple of them in this forum, so it shouldn't take you long to find them.

 

I've already asked out a couple of 'em.

 

Including LS's resident female whiner. She shot me down some many months ago.

[phineas]

I've already asked out a couple of 'em.

 

Including LS's resident female whiner. She shot me down some many months ago.

 

You sweet-talker you.

 

Which one is that?

 

There is this one whose name starts with a V.

She meets my standards & then some.

I'd love to meet someone like her in my neck of the woods.

 

It's a shame she has no idea how attractive an already attractive sci-fi geek really is.

[jobaba]

You sweet-talker you.

 

Which one is that?

 

There is this one whose name starts with a V.

She meets my standards & then some.

I'd love to meet someone like her in my neck of the woods.

 

It's a shame she has no idea how attractive an already attractive sci-fi geek really is.

 

Although I would add, that was when I first started posting. I don't think I would date her now, her self esteem issues are through the roof, but she is attractive and I would take significantly less in that sense.

 

Many men here have said V is attractive.

 

But all men want and chase after only 10s, right?

[zengirl]

jobaba, I think V is above average in attractiveness, so I never understand her posts to the contrary. That's all I'll say about her. I don't think the average man or woman is only chasing after '10s' in attractiveness.

 

I'm sorry, but are you honestly trying to compare suitability of a date quality between a man with almost no options vs a woman with many options?

 

I'm suggesting it's not really about the number of options but the quality of the options.

 

I'm also suggesting that while women get approached more, that does not necessarily equal more options. It only suggests a potential role via passive or active.

 

Men have the option to approach as many women as they please. (So do women, but many are socialized not to and many men are socialized not to like it when they do.) It is literally impossible to know how many options you have, unless you are approaching everyone, attractive and unattractive to you. Since people rarely approach someone who they find unattractive, we do not know how many of those unattractive options are really open, do we?

 

This is where getting approached is not easier, IMO, but I think it's harder to fend off unattractive options than go after what you want, and thus have often chosen to be the 'aggressor' and approach men I like myself. If I had waited for men I liked to approach me, as I was frequently told I should do, I would've done MUCH more poorly in dating. (Granted, I'm lucky that I like the type of guy who likes to be approached - not all men do.)

 

A lot of it comes down to how you define 'easy' -- I have no problem saying a woman gets approached more. That's obvious. I just don't think it translates into more - and certainly not better - options. More known options perhaps, but only because men aren't approaching their options that are unattractive to them.

 

I dont understand how people dont see why its easier for women..the more people you meet and go out with

 

As long as we're talking about heterosexual Rs, every time a woman goes on a date, so does a man. So how can women en masse be going on MORE dates and meeting MORE people than men en masse.

[Els]

But all men want and chase after only 10s, right?

 

Lol, I don't think anyone with even a smidgeon of common sense would say that.

 

The fact remains that all the men here who complain about 'never being given a chance' have their own standards, though, and the women they are complaining about also have theirs. It's silly, and hypocritical, of some of the posters here to say that the women are not entitled to their preferences, to the point of calling them 'princesses', 'shallow bitches', etc, while they themselves have their own preferences that they defend tooth and nail. They will then say that their preferences are more reasonable and all they want is an 'equal' - but who decides what their 'equal' is, with the infinite possible factors that could contribute to it? Why, they themselves do, and that turns the entire argument into circular logic, akin to 'the scientology bible saying that scientology is real'.