Hacker News Reader

Comment by gizmo | Hacker News Reader

In the "good old days" dating was simpler, but also much, much worse for the average woman. People dated within their town almost exclusively. The best bachelors would be gone pretty quickly. That put a ton of pressure on the remaining women to quickly settle for an average guy in order not to be stuck with a terrible partner (an angry drunk or other kind of lowlife). Not marrying wasn't an option, and divorce wasn't an option. They had to choose, and their dating pool was small and constantly shrinking. Many women got stuck in unhappy marriages, but that was life.

I agree with you that many guys today struggle with dating because they haven't done the necessary work to be good partners, but the problem isn't that "contemporary life doesn't encourage self-improvement". The "problem", if you even want to call it that, is that women prefer being single over a bad relationship with a crummy guy. For the first time in history, women have the economic independence to walk away from a bad deal, and guys have up their game as a consequence.

View on HN

>guys have up their game as a consequence.

This sentiment is all over & is very demoralizing to guys who got an education, have a decent job, go to the gym and still get rejected by women who seem to be their peers. I'm not a fan of incel ideology, but there is something to the 'she'll have her fun with bad boys then settle down with you in her 30s when she's looking for someone with a stable income' sentiment that goes around. 20s dating is hugely depressing for men and it shows with all the stats of young men 'dropping out' of life. I got lucky and met someone sweet a couple years ago, but it was extremely rocky for a long time, and it still is for most of my friends.

But men just have to 'step it up'. Six feet, six figures, bare minimum right?

The "six feet" women are a small and ever thinning slice of society, if this is a problem you might want to adjust either your targets or your social circle.

But otherwise, even if I'd found your analysis to be correct, I think a few decades of society adjusting to this freedom is well deserved after a millenia of patriarchy.

Quite a polarized way of considering the two sexes, as well as needlessly antagonistic towards contemporary males. They did not have a hand in the defects of a society that once was. Furthermore, two wrongs do not make a right.

Ordinary guys getting married to ordinary women = patriarchy.

The Sultan having a harem of 40,000 = not patriarchy.

That really seems to be the attitude. Women haven't changed at all and want the same thing they always have. It was a brief bit of egalitarianism in history that gave us a "tradition" that was in fact an anomaly.

As a side note, I laugh at the 6-6-6 thing. It doesn't help. They want something else.

What if they want nothing at all? As in, women naturally aren't that attracted to men but through historical male domination, women's level of attraction has been mostly irrelevant historically.

Women preferring taller men will not go away because its desirability is rooted in biology. Taller men make women feel physically safe. Unless culture reconstructs how women view safety in sexual selection, this will continue to be the case.

> but there is something to the 'she'll have her fun with bad boys then settle down with you in her 30s

No, there isn't. The reality here is there's a bunch of men who have "here's my list of positive traits" and are leaving something out, because everyone is the angel of their own story.

> The reality here is there's a bunch of men who have "here's my list of positive traits" and are leaving something out, because everyone is the angel of their own story.

Sure. Average men have flaws. But so do women. When I was dating around I met a bunch of girls who had a wild drugs & partying phase in college. A couple still had cocaine habits. I smoked some weed in high school then stopped. I’ve had sex with 7 women in my entire life, 5 of which were one or two night stands because we didn’t get on. I’m told I’m judgemental & picky because I’m not attracted to women with twice or more my sexual experience.

It’s true that a person’s sexual history does not define their worth as a person, just as height or weight doesn’t. But, what is ignored these days, every person absolutely has a right to their own preferences of attraction. But we insist that young men are terrible people if they don’t accept a history of promiscuity with anything less than enthusiasm.

How do you even know about the other person's history? I have no idea how many partners any of my dates and significant others have had. Could be one, could be one hundred, I don't care. I never ask, I got never asked about it, and would find it both weird and concerning if my current partner wanted to know.

>How do you even know about the other person's history?

I mean, it's kind of natural that you learn it as you get to know them. I don't ask 'what's your tally of sexual partners' out of any context on a first date. But someone describes their life and you pick up on it one way or another and then it comes up in conversation naturally. You can sometimes tell in the bedroom when exciting new things for you are old hat and boring to her. Sometimes they get dodgy about discussing it. And why? Are they ashamed? Or is it because they suspect I would prefer a partner who is more like me and they feel the need to conceal their decisions?

>Could be one, could be one hundred, I don't care.

Good for you! I wish I had such a lack of feeling on the subject, it would certainly make dating easier.

>find it both weird and concerning if my current partner wanted to know.

Why? This statement seems quite a bit like you're passing a harsh judgement on people like me for preferring partners with a similar amount of sexual experience. I see a similar sentiment on the internet all the time, that we're weird and concerning for anything less than unquestioningly embracing partners who may have had sex with 100 people.

> Why? This statement seems quite a bit like you're passing a harsh judgement on people like me for preferring partners with a similar amount of sexual experience.

I think exactly because the question of experience seems so easily to carry judgment (in either direction, too few / too many). I don't see how my or their experience should change anything in our current relationship, so if they asked, I would assume some judgment such as you have. And sexual judgment would be incompatible with my values.

I don't even know if my partner had long term relationships before me -- I suspect yes, and I assume they haven't been married. But I don't care about those facts either.

>I don't even know if my partner had long term relationships before me -- I suspect yes, and I assume they haven't been married.

Huh, well I guess different strokes for different folks. The idea of dating someone & not picking up, as a matter of course, on whether or not they've ever had a previous relationship is baffling.

The "she'll settle down in her 30s" is the wrong part of this plan. Women on her 30s fastly become lower on the totem pole than even men were in their early 20s. Girls should be taught that, but nowadays its a faux pax to tell the biological truth to people. The same should be explained to boys: it will get better when your life starts to come together in your late 20s. It would make the lives of a huge percent of the population, both male and female, a lot happier.

This is not secret information, people are just not likely to perfectly time the market (just like in financial markets).

Who doesn’t like to believe they are on an upward path so maybe they will be able to do better?

Then they should be taught earlier to get wealthy and successful first, not married, and be ready to buy when timing the market.

Fairy tales are fiction, dating marketplaces are just as ruthless as capital markets. Get sophisticated fast and first. It doesn’t guarantee success (never assured!), but it will improve your odds.

Everyone knows that too. But obviously, everyone is not going to be wealthy, and everyone is not going to be “successful”, especially by their mid to late 20s.

The question is, what are you willing to accept, both of yourself and the other person. The big wrench here is when a significant portion of the market accepts being single and pulls out of the market. Now you have a fundamental mismatch in the number of buyers/sellers, which is a nearly unsolvable problem, without getting into things like restricting people’s freedoms.

Strongly agree! At least if you’re wealthy/successful and alone, you have options, and is better than being poor and alone (imho). Relationships should be complimentary, not a critical component in one’s survival.

There are 8 billion people in the world. With enough resources, you should be able to find someone somewhere to enjoy a time window of partnership or closeness. Accumulate resources, which gives you options, which leads to freedom (including freedom to find love [or your idea of healthy companionship]).

AI Waifus are about to solve that problem, and women are going to be the most negatively impacted.

Expect attempts to regulate out this industry led by mostly women’s groups.

> AI Waifus are about to solve that problem, and women are going to be the most negatively impacted.

No, AI waifus are going to mostly impact incels meeting the strict etymology of the term, which, who knows, might make them somewhat less socially dangerous if not any less socially maladjusted.

Sure, other people might toy with them, but no one who was having any success in the dating world is going to be taken out of it by them.

> Expect attempts to regulate out this industry led by mostly women’s groups.

Literally no one cares that the worst and least desirable men are going to entertain themselves with yet another form of fantasy of having a girlfriend, and other than where it involves using imagery of real people in a way that intersects with the kind of behavior addressed by revenge porn laws or otherwise involves material prohibited for reasons unrelated to the specific use in AI companions (simulated CSAM, for instance), I wouldn't expect any eftorts to regulate it on its own.

I have a very hard time believing heterosexual women are going to be negatively impacted by AI waifus. Thinking such things is a strong indicator one needs to go outside and touch grass.

No, AI relationship apps are more popular with women than men, because the main fantastical part about fictional men is that they're good writers and emotionally expressive.

I don’t know. Women could benefit from companionship of chatbots also.

I’ve worked with a number of 35+ year old women who think they will get married and have kids.

Yeah, right. It’s too late. None of them did, and if they did, it would be at great risk to them and child.

35 + courtship period + marriage + 9 months = no kids.

Then a substantial portion of them become bitter and offer bad advice to younger women encouraging them follow in the same path, because misery loves company. Or because the sour grapes mentality has them conclude that they never actually wanted kids and their lonely spinster alcoholic lifestyle is actually what they wanted; they tell people they're happy and are models to be emulated. They set up a new generation for failure to validate themselves.

This is false. Many women conceive and give birth at 37, 38. In some rare cases even later. If you only want one or two kids, this is doable.

37 is a tight window if you meet someone at 35. And it’s still risky to both mother and child:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418963/

And “risky” here means potential of death or serious defect in child, or death for the mother. It’s irresponsible, unethical, and I don’t understand any parent that would risk the health of their child.

Some can but most won't. https://images.theconversation.com/files/53777/original/2yc4...

>If you only want one or two kids

This is nuts. Remember, the minimum birth rate is 2.1. Every single woman you've ever met must have 2.1 children just to keep population constant. Every woman who decides to have one or two increases the burden on everyone else.

Just think about the timeline here. Start having children at 35, have your third kid at 38? By the time your youngest is 18 you'll be 56! This is supposed to be the standard life plan, the thing everybody does?

"What about immigration?"

Mexico, Brazil and India already have below-replacement fertility. China, Japan and South Korea have been below replacement so long their populations are now rapidly shrinking. Where are all these immigrants supposed to come from?

No one is obligated to have any children, let alone three. The population growth rate should have absolutely zero influence on your decision to reproduce.

People who have failed at relationships by 35 probably also bad at them or have other negative qualities. The pool isn’t great for men or women.

Men who have to have the “glow up” in their late 20s are going to spend that time acting ultra misogynistic to try to take revenge for their earlier life of being rejected. Seen this exact dynamic happen too often in SV circles. Billy the beta is usually not happy to be billy the beta, and given an opportunity, even billy will prove he’s had a latent fuckboy in him the whole time.

I watched American dating on recent trip. Even as a spectator sport, it’s enthralling.

I would like to address the emotion you describe.

Firstly, I doubt it’s just men. I don’t know the simplest adjective, but I’d call the dating scene as “optimized” and “casino like”. Persistence and luck are not small components here.

If anyone’s self worth ends up getting linked to the outcome of such a system, dropping out isnt unsurprising.

It is also quite pointless, to tell someone who is lonely or young, to not treat the process personally.

Yes that’s true. Dating wasn’t that great for me in my 20s - five foot four, decent job, in great shape physically (part time fitness instructor), somewhat outgoing.

Got married at 28 to someone who was physically attractive. But had nothing much going for her and divorced at 32.

Dating was somewhat better then. But didn’t really want anything serious and had close female friends who I travelled with and really gave me the emotional support and no drama.

I got remarried at 36 and have been happily married for 13 years.

That being said, short men do have what I call the “two strikes rule”. You can’t be short and anything. Meaning short and fat, broke, ugly, bad personality, etc. I fought the and part

5'7 here. Can't imagine 5'4. Good work.

Zoomer women will be progressive as hell political in how they claim to vote, but the moment in turns into interpersonal relations, they turn into eugenicist facists (six feet, six inches, six figures).

Dating is clearly impossible and hating women is the bestest and smartest course of action. All the couples you see around you must have something you lack. Give up and drop out already. Everybody eventually dies so everything is pointless anyway.

Geez.

You should get to know more women instead of crafting fictional models in your head.

That’s because tinder makes them think that those people are in their dating pool. In reality those men will happily sleep with them like they did with the 50 other women but aren’t interested in more.

Also 200k is the new 6 figures, 100k doesn’t cut it anymore

Exactly. They always talk about men as if we're all losers, and women are perfect.

It's always about how men need to change to appease women's desires, and never about how women need to change in any way.

Well, considering that on these apps (and likely in the general population) men want to be in a relationship more than women, it's almost irrelevant what women should do to improve, there's already a brutal competition for them.

That said, the problem with these apps is that their business model depends on long term user value. (If you register for free, quickly find someone, then you paid nothing to them. Maybe they were able to show you a few ads.) And those who are on it for long tend to have problems. And especially big issue are those who don't give up, but are ruining the mood for others. (Which leads to even fewer women on the platforms.)

> men want to be in a relationship more than women

Is this a commonly held opinion? I’d be curious to read any material on this, because nothing (to me at least) suggests one gender wants it more than the other. Is it simply because there are more men than women on the popular dating apps?

Okay, maybe want is not the best word, but consider the lengths men go to get dates, get laid, to propose, etc. It would be hard to untangle the biological drive from the social pressure. (Plus then there's still the mix of desire for sex and for long term relationships.)

The problem I see is that we have seen progress for women in this space, but not for men.

Women are objectified. The attention a woman receives is related to what she is, not what she does. It's very straightforward to apply this to dating: just look good and confident.

Men are subjectified. The attention a man gets receives is related to what he does, not what he is. It's very tricky to navigate this in dating. How does someone present their interests in a way that is attractive?

This is further complicated by the most common narratives we hear about men's behavior. Masculine behavior is a looming threat. Every man must prove himself not a predator. But how?

yes although you can be in your 30s and subsidize your bad boy lifestyle and persona to the 20s women and ignore the “now I’m ready to settle down” older woman. its even more fun and attractive if some women felt out of grasp in your 20s.

in fact you can do this in your 40s, 50s, 60s

as long as you don't fall on hard times

> In the "good old days" dating was simpler

"I am eighteen years old, have a good set of teeth, and believe in Andy Johnson, the Star-Spangled Banner, and the 4th of July. I have taken up a State lot, cleared up eighteen acres last year, and seeded ten of it down.

My buckwheat looks first rate, and the oats and potatoes are bully. I have got nine sheep, a two year old bull, and two heifers, besides a house and a barn.

I want to get married. I want to buy bread and butter, hoop skirts, and waterfalls for some person of the female persuasion during life. That’s what’s the matter with me. But I don’t know how to do it."

https://dustyoldthing.com/ad-looking-for-wife-in-1865/

The "of the female persuasion" part is where I burst out laughing. Apparently cringe is timeless.

> besides a house and a barn.

Still did better than most in the dating pool today.

This has Dwight Schrute energy written all over it

It’s interesting you mention how much worse it was for women, because their reported life satisfaction keeps declining over the past many decades.

https://docs.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

Some people argue with the ‘no true woman’ fallacy, or don’t trust them to know how to self reflect properly, but clearly something is dying in society.

It's probably more a matter that women's lives have improved greatly, but not kept pace with rising hopes or expectations.

If I look at the plot in the linked study I see essentially the same trend for men.

You need to find some kind of proxy for life satisfaction otherwise you could just be measuring a change in society’s expectations regarding the answer to that question.

That is, if there’s less expectation to lie and say everything is fine, you could get declining life satisfaction numbers with no actual decline in satisfaction.

Anecdotally people I know from my grandparent’s generation are much less likely to admit to being unhappy.

p.7

> ...answers to subjective well-being questions have been shown to be correlated with physical evidence of affect such as smiling, laughing, heart rate measures, sociability, and electrical activity in the brain (Diener, 1984)

Unless you check that correlation at the beginning and end of the time period in question, it’s meaningless.

One of the most useful things you can do in debate is reveal yourself to be immune to evidence of anything you don't like. It is useful because it allows rational participants to stop wasting time with you.

The data says people are saying they are less happy over some time period. There are 2 competing hypotheses to explain the cause.

1) Society has changed in a way that has made people less happy. 2) Society has changed in a way that has made people less likely to lie about being happy.

If you stop to think it through for a second, you’ll quickly understand how the statement “we have some data from somewhere in the middle of the time period in question that self reported satisfaction and a actual satisfaction are correlated” isn’t evidence to support either side. That statement can easily fit either hypothesis.

This is quite easy to test in a longitudinal cross-cultural study of people over time. You'd probably find half a book shelf of research already which does exactly that, if only one bothered to look for it.

Happy to take a look through anything you might want to point me to.

My grandparents too, but what I've found out that they really are much happier, because they have seen so much worse. Try to imagine how you'd feel yourself at the moment if you'd have seen WWII, deportations, 50 years of communist occupation etc?

Historically, the % of women that were able to reproduce is something like 90%+, while the % for men was in the low 20s or something. At least from now on it seems that women will "become equal" to men in regards to biological dread.

How historically is this, caveman era with harems?

I have not (yet) seen any relatively modern stable society where 80% of men don’t have children. Having that many men with not much to lose would, presumably, be a destabilizing force.

[flagged]

It's still very rare even in Islamic countries. Look at this map.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/07/polygamy-...

It's basically just Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and sub-Saharan west African countries that have >1% rate of polygamy and only the African countries that have more than 5%. Not exactly the most stable countries.

There’s an argument that monogamy is a requirement for what we’d consider a stable society, specifically for that reason.

There are so many factors at play and even when we try, we can only control for a minority of them. The average measured quality of life has gone down for everyone. A little steeper for women than men, yes, here are just some alternative seemingly plausible partial causes for that:

- The patriarchy is still here, but we now expect women to have a career while simultaneously taking care of children.

- Decades of hypersexualized media put the emphasis on sex during dating over caring relationships.

The age math sucks for women too. If she wants a career she has a short window to get experience and find a spouse before she gets pregnant.

If she wants a doctorate she has to be married before she enters the workforce.

She has time for maybe 1-3 long term relationships before she ages out of childbearing age.

So yes women have more options but they also have less time to pick the right one.

> For the first time in history, women have the economic independence to walk away from a bad deal, and guys have up their game as a consequence.

I see variations of this statement all the time. This weird, almost gleeful misandry masquerading as a historical perspective. It needs to stop. It has poisoned all our interactions and it is hurting people.

I feel like anyone who feels this way should sit and talk to the older women in their lives and ask themselves would they want that. I've talked to happily married women in their 60s and 70s and I hear nothing but abuse and more abuse. I watched my mom and aunt fall into poverty when they got a divorce and have the marry the first man that seemed decent to keep their kids fr starving. My unmarried aunt is dissatisfied by never having children and never marrying, but she's always have independence and never been hit and never worried she would be homeless. When I consider old spinsters vs old married people well, it makes think I'd rather be a spinster if I can't find a decent guy. Of course there are true happy couple in there but they are so few it really makes me grateful no fault divorce exists.

For me, I dated a lot of men. Sometimes we're not a match, but a lot of the time these guys seemed angry I didn't need them. One guy actually became physically abusive when he came over to my house and saw how much nicer I lived than him. We'd been dating for weeks. Another guy, dumped me for paying for a whole date. Another guy, withdrew his interest upon learning my profession and considering I'd definitely make more than him whatever I made.

You know the advice female relatives give me? Hide how much I make. That is the state of heterosexual dating. It's where my friend who is a self made millionaire gets asked by her boyfriend when she's going to become a housewife so he can marry her. Women aren't perfect, but there's definitely got to be some kind of change for men as a collective. I know some great male partners, but I also know that they're out weighed by so many men I know personally.

I was with you until this part:

> Women aren't perfect, but there's definitely got to be some kind of change for men as a collective. I know some great male partners, but I also know that they're out weighed by so many men I know personally.

This is a bit like saying: “White people aren’t perfect, but there's definitely got to be some kind of change for black people as a collective. I know some great black folks, but I also know that they’re outweighed by so many blacks I know personally.”

(I suspect that this is the reason your comment has been downvoted.)

I'd be quite happy marrying an affluent woman as it means I'd have at least a potential chance of leaving corporate tech and having the time to write a novel (which is all my childhood self ever wanted.)

I think guys who are intimidated by successful women have a ton of growing up to do, clearly. Surely it would be amazing to be with someone ambitious and intelligent?

This was really interesting to read. I believe everything you said, but I have never met anyone like what you are describing. I only get complaints from friends that women expect them to pay for everything on a date.

I don't know anybody that complains that their wife/gf makes more than them. It's pretty rare, but those in that position are very grateful for the freedom to work lower paying jobs with higher satisfaction.

Yeah but would you date/marry a house husband? If you are earning big bucks you kind of need someone to stay home and take care of the kids/house/laundry/dinner etc. For one most mothers never trained their boys for that role but even if some did would you seek that man out for dating? I would guess not, so it’s an adverse selection problem with adverse results

I would. I'm intensively jealous of the women I know who have nabbed one. The issue is the one time I found a supposed homemaker guy he was still the same kind of abuse and stopped cooking/cleaning. It was kinda galling. How are you gonna threaten me with physical violence and I pay for everything and now I'm even cooking and cleaning every day please.

That is a very short term view. It’s essentially ‘Uber driving for relationships’.

Those same women will then complain bitterly when they get older or become a single mom, and no one pays attention to them anymore and have to start actually doing the work.

Like an Uber driver whose car has been worn to a nub with zero equity in anything, still living paycheck to paycheck, and no new skills. But 10 years down the tubes, and they never had to work for ‘the man’, and saw a lot of cool stuff.

The social construct of marriage tries to even this out - that ‘crummy’ man stays around and provides in many ways (social, financial, physical) even after she’s no longer hot and ‘marketable’. And who will help support and protect her while she has kids. The things that make them ‘crummy’ is exactly what is needed to support all that.

It’s the social/relationship equivalent of a retirement fund/pension. It’s not exciting up front.

Pay in now, (and keep him around) so you’re not eating dogfood in 20 years and have kids who can help you too. Instead of being terribly lonely, mentally ill, and then dying alone and getting eaten by your cats.

Which society has also been nuking social safety net wise, much to everyone’s likely long term regret frankly.

It’s folks losing the plot society wide. It’s how we end up with a lot of very sad stories later.

> Which society has also been nuking social safety net wise

If you mean "marriage with no possible divorce is a social safety net", then I have to protest that "safety" is pretty relative here. It's a system with absolutely no safeguards against the husband (or wife) becoming abusive or violent, especially if your society is patriarchal enough to encourage honor killings.

I meant pensions/retirement.

Nothing is perfect of course. Lots of pensions destroyed/raided, and retirements screwed up by greed too.

And going crazy in the other direction marriage wise definitely has very real downsides too!

I’d be curious to see how the majority of cases went though, overall.

We’re discovering the downsides of going too far in our current direction now, and I suspect this winter is going to be a doozy.

We currently are getting the worst of both worlds near as I can tell on both fronts (men and women), but it often gets worse before it gets better!

> Pay in now, (and keep him around)

Wow there’s so much to unpack here. We live in a world that is largely heterosexual and monogamous, meaning it takes two to tango. If there’s a bunch of women ending up single, then that necessitates about an equal amount of single men too. The “bitterness” will be bourne by both fronts equally, and the “hot and marketable” comment cuts both ways.

Rather than play the blame game and make gross uber analogies, It’s worth pointing out why some people would rather be single. Is it because they’d rather not be in unhappy marriages? If so, the focus should be on how to improve marriage for both parties.

Is it because on top of needing to have a career, they’re also expected to shoulder much of the burden of raising kids? Let’s think of how we can make it more fair to everyone, or work on supporting parenthood as a society.

> Wow there’s so much to unpack here. We live in a world that is largely heterosexual and monogamous, meaning it takes two to tango.

Is it really?

The world may be largely monogamous and heterosexual, but is that the case for Westernized societies? I remember reading stats on how native Western EU cultures rank highest in terms of infidelity and divorce rates, with Luxembourg enjoying a massive 40% divorce rate. The world may be monogamous, but I doubt that's only because repressive Old World societies are propping it up.

Costs became unmanageable and out of reach for the average folks once women entered the workforce, essentially doubling the supply of labor overnight. This could have been balanced out with men not being looked down upon for staying at home with the kids (although that raises more questions, considering men weren't really biologically wired for the task).

There's a reason most rich families have mostly stay-at-home wives/moms even today. The man earns the dough, while the woman stays home or works a very chill job, while her primary focus remains the house and the family (including its finances, social standing, kids - which tends to be a very high amount btw, etc). And in my experience, the ones that aren't structured this way tend to fall apart quickly.

> I remember reading stats on how native Western EU cultures rank highest in terms of infidelity and divorce rates, with Luxembourg enjoying a massive 40% divorce rate.

The entire country of Luxembourg has a smaller population than most big cities, with only slightly more than half of that population having the Luxembourgish nationality. It’s hardly representative for “native Western EU cultures”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_demography

It seems Portugal and Spain rank at the top for divorces (80%+!), followed by Luxembourg, then Russia and Ukraine. The EU average is 45%,just like the US average.

‘Crossing the streams’ with social roles is also an issue of insecurity. Which we can all point fingers at people and say ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’, but people don’t work that way.

I’ve personally seen women get really distressed when they see an actual good male parent (better than them, it appeared) with kids.

And I’ve seen the same with men (to the point of aggressive harassment) with a women who were better than them at ‘manly’ stuff, like welding/fabricating, or car repair.

All of them denied it, but for anyone paying even a little attention it was pretty blatant.

As a side note - it may be worth reframing ‘the world being largely monogamous and heterosexual’ to something more like ‘societies strongly enforcing monogamy and heterosexuality’.

Anyone who has ever spent any time in a gay club can report that many/most of the other patrons were heterosexual/monogamous too. At least until they entered the club.

Society doesn’t exist for long without a supply of children, and has very strong incentives to enforce certain behaviors.

These factors all interrelate, as does interpersonal expectations, societal roles, etc.

What you’re pointing out, IMO, is that expectations and roles aren’t realistic. People keep stepping on each others toes, fighting to justify themselves, burning out, etc.

But then, there have always been the ‘confirmed bachelors’ and ‘old maids’ no? It would be interesting to see the percentages over time however.

One thing that is easily confirmed by data and just by looking around - older, established men have no shortage of ‘market value’, as do young pretty women.

Also, there has never been a time where raising kids or stable long term relationships was easy, or when there was no abuse somewhere.

Without gender misbalance and polyamory you can’t assign a higher “market value” to either, as an older single woman will also have a single male counterpart. What you’re seeing is confirmation bias.

Nope, many women often have multiple men (and vice versa!), and prostitution is very much a thing.

It’s actually remarkably easy to measure ‘market value’ in these situations.

One can have several sexual partners and still be very much single, so we’re not taking about the same ‘market’.

One can have several sexual partners and still be non single too. It’s remarkably common, actually, among both sexes.

What market are you referring to that you think I’m not?

Ok, your point is? The article is discussing dating and relationships not sexual partners. Your original post was commenting on relationships/marriage as well. How you concluded that this was revolving around sex is unclear.

Look, I’ll reiterate it one more time: For every person who is single, statistically there should be another single counterpart of the opposite sex. That some people choose to stay single rather than get into a bad relationship/marriage says a lot about what it’s like to be in one for one or both parties. It’s worth having some introspection on why this is happening, instead of making gross comparisons and assumptions.

You’re the one making statistically unsound assumptions here. None of what you’re saying has any basis in actual fact.

Plenty of people are in relationships (formal) that don’t have sex with each other anymore. A few never had sex, but are in relationships where the social assumption is they did/are.

Plenty of people (including women) have multiple partners, some long term, some transitory. (Many to one). Sometimes they know of each other. Usually they do not.

Plenty of people have one or more partners of different ages (sex or relationship wise).

Plenty of people have no meaningful relationships (sex or formal) of any kind for long periods of time or ‘anymore’. Often by choice, sometimes involuntarily. I know several men who flat out ‘noped out’ in their 40’s because they got tired of what they perceived as predatory behavior. And at least one woman who did the same. All of them had been married for long periods of time.

Hell, one female sex worker can have anywhere from 20 to 100 clients (monthly) last I read on a regular basis.

It’s not that uncommon for some edge case men to sleep with that many women every couple months. I’m sure they’d be ecstatic if they could be paid for it, but male sex workers predominantly have male clients.

Many people consider things like this to be some kind of dating, or at least related/impactful to it. All of it interplays with relationships. The social expectation is that dating, relationships, and sex are all interrelated.

So what are you trying to say exactly besides ‘that’s all gross so I don’t want to believe it’?

If you think that’s bad, don’t get into the medical field! You won’t necessarily get the truth, but if you have even a decent idea of the STD transmission odds, it’s clear what the lies are!

Here is some data BTW -

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profi...

Young men, and old women tend to be single more.

Seems like past 30, very few men stay/are single. Women > 50 start getting single dramatically faster, though I've noticed it often really starts kicking off ~ 40. (Some of this due to men dying sooner than women, and a lot of it later, but if you don't think menopause has something to do with it - you've never had a partner with menopause).

But also notably, women are not often single - unlike young men - until they're really old. Weird eh? Even though there are more women than men in the population by a measurable %.

My observation is that if not stably paired, women have it pretty rough past 30, and end up dating older and older men or 'settling' for folks they never would have given the time of day when younger. Women are also more likely to do 'Mistress' type arrangements.

Men have it really rough when young, until they figure themselves out, and then most of them have it easier (the more money, fame, popularity, infamy, etc. the better) unless they're actively driving women away.

Most homosexual relationships I've seen often end up playing out this same dynamic, but with members of the same gender. The notable exception being 'twins' [https://inmagazine.ca/2021/01/doubling-down-on-boyfriend-twi...], which was always interesting to watch. It wasn't just men either.

Trans, same but with one partner trans (of course).

> If there’s a bunch of women ending up single, then that necessitates about an equal amount of single men too.

A minority of those single men have numerous (sometimes >hundreds) short-term relationships. But far more of those single men have very few or even no relationships at all. I think this disparity is far more extreme for men than for women.

If that upper echelon of single and promiscuous men were socially pressured to stop man-whoring and settle into healthy long-term relationships, then the rest would have better odds. Of course those men will never voluntarily change their ways unless there exists a strong social pressure to change. In the past, this pressure existed in the form of men without partners [wives, but it doesn't have to be wives] being viewed with suspicion if they wanted to attain social standing at work or in their community. This pressure has all-but evaporated into nothingness.

And of course, people lie all the time too. There are a great many men (and women) that do things they would never, ever admit to. Regularly.

I never cheated, but I was very shocked at how much attention I got as a married man.

Take the ring off? Complete 180.

It’s also pretty easy to look at the reported partner counts between the sexes and see that it’s literally impossible that both are true at the same time.

> I agree with you that many guys today struggle with dating because they haven't done the necessary work to be good partners, but the problem isn't that "contemporary life doesn't encourage self-improvement". The "problem", if you even want to call it that, is that women prefer being single over a bad relationship with a crummy guy. For the first time in history, women have the economic independence to walk away from a bad deal, and guys have up their game as a consequence.

---

What if there actually are plenty of men who have 'stepped their game up' and are perfectly qualified peers to women and would make suitable partners, but the women just have wildly unrealistic expectations?

Or the women just aren't that interested in men in general?

Could those be factors, rather than men just being so beneath women?

Nah. Men who think like that are thinking like victims. Shifting the blame elsewhere.

No one owes you any love, except your family.

If you want to find love or a partner out there, you’ve gotta find it and earn it. It could take a long time, or not happen - but if you aren’t in good shape, don’t have any money saved up and aren’t interesting, don’t be surprised if you end up alone or with someone below your standards.

I didn't say men are owed anything.

I'm saying perhaps a major part of the reason so many men are single is not necessarily because they are lazy losers who refuse to level up like you suggest, but because they can't meet modern women's unrealistic standards or women just aren't that interested in them even after they've leveled up.

Many men can 'level up' to the maximum realistic extent, and still have few women interested in them. That doesn't make these men lazy losers who refuse to put in the work.

I'm not suggesting they are owed a woman for leveling up to the maximum realistic extent, I'm just saying it's very unfair of you to call them lazy losers for their effort not bearing fruit.

I'm baffled that you so easily dismiss the idea in an age in which unrealistic expectations for women is an issue that has been talked about to death.

Yeah but they will fail because they stuck at marketing. It’s like business sometimes you have the right product but you just can’t get it in front of your customers so they actually buy it

The interesting fact is that most most men are "below average" "bad" partners according to how women perceive men (I don't remember the exact numbers but it is something ridiculous like only 5% of men are worth considerations).

This is a joke made on Seinfeld, about men and women, 30 years ago.

The statistics is from a study. I don't remember the original but here's what google suggests «women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium.» http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2009/11/17/your-looks-and-...

I guess 80% in 2009 is better than 95% that I remembered.

Try tallying the men you think are above bar on such a site on a female profile and see how it adjusts your thinking

I guess that's the result of watching television for 4-5 hours a day, where every actor/actress is super humanly handsome. This changes your baseline, and makes guys/girls in the real world ugly by comparison.

That does not explain why men and women rate attractiveness so differently. Both men and women watch TV and consume media.

I hate that stupid OK cupid article because what is always missed is that it's not always the same set of guys for all women. Almost no guy was overwhelmingly considered attractive or unattractive by women. Women are picky, but what they are interested in about men varies widely. Men are are the opposite of that. They have a very liberal acceptance criteria and it doesn't vary much between men. This makes perfect sense from a biological perspective. Men want to have sex with as many women as possible. They don't have much pressure to be picky. Women can only be pregnant so many times, so they're very picky, but that pickiness would definitely vary because what would be an ideal partner would vary based what they have going on in environment and genes.

It didn't miss that. It just changes nothing. Women can be as varied as they like but if all that variance is falling within 20% of men then it's still pretty whack which is the point.

So sure one woman could pick x number of guys and another could pick a completely different set y. If x+y is only 20% then it means nothing. If anything, it just makes things worse for any individual guy.

In real life, you're way overstating the variance anyway. I think you kind of see that yourself when you use qualifiers like "overwhelmingly attractive".

The women selected by modern Hollywood as sex icons are, for the most part, nothing special. There are at least three women working at my local grocery store that make Scarlett Johansson look like a hag. They're more beautiful than anybody I've seen in a movie in many years, and I've seen hundreds if not thousands of women like them out in public.

I know these sort of tastes are subjective, but I've talked to a lot of guys who feel the same way. The women in media are mid, most women who are young and physically fit can match if not greatly exceed the looks of women in media. However I acknowledge that women themselves often do not feel this way; they compare themselves to the female celebrities and feel bad about themselves even though most men would rate them higher than the celebrities. They rate themselves lower than men would rate them because media is toxic and purposely makes women feel insecure to sell more beauty products, lifestyles, etc.

What you have realized is that attraction is more than just physical beauty. There are plenty of non-verbal and biochemical cues that generate attraction. That's why you find these women in real life more beautiful than women on screens.

It's why the article linked in the root of this thread was even written.

Human attraction happens best in person because there is more to it than just looks.

I understand that, but it's also true just in terms of physical beauty as well. Hollywood women are nothing special, not anymore anyway. There are no more Audrey Hepburns in Hollywood. Hollywood's beauty standards for sex-icon women have severely deteriorated.

Charitable explanation: Hollywood has become better at selecting for acting talent instead of beauty.

Uncharitable explanation: Fewer Hollywood casting directors are straight men.

Because women are more picky. Men choose quantity over quality :P For a man any reasonably good looking, reasonably slim woman is good as a potential sex partner (so they will swipe right on Tinder). Women want the best of the best.

There's also something to be said for women that read a lot of romance novels or fanfics and have warped "love maps". Probably not a big % of the population, but it changes the psychological waters of relationships with them.

My other favorite: men (in media) who are doing things ultra creepy/illegal, but given a 'pass' because "omghot". Twilight: "older guy lurks around high school girl's home, peering in her bedroom window at night". Fifty Shades: "guy stalks young college student to find her address and work, and steals her car".

(Don't even start me on the whole Christian Grey character, which will forever go down as one of the most over-the-top 'perfect male'. Let's see: 33 year old man is deca-billionaire in telco after coming from foster home. And it was so effortless to become said deca-billionaire that he also found time to become a commercial helicopter pilot, a concert pianist, someone who doesn't break a sweat cranking out Michelin-tier meals for idle snacks and brunches... and looks like an underwear model.

I will add "Time traveler's wife": "Naked man in the bush talks to a little girl, knowing that he'll marry her some day"

But the effect is not the same between genders.

It doesn't matter what women rated men on okcupid because "rating men" is not a useful outcome of a study. It costs nothing and doesn't mean anything.

‘You are telling me that 95% of the population is complete undateable?’ ‘Undateable!’ ‘Then how are all these people getting together?’ ‘Alcohol.’

Never tell me the odds.

I don't think things have changed much. Your explanation pretty much blames men which has been in vogue. The dating apps just expanded the size of the "town". Women still look for the top tier guys. I don't believe they are choosing to be single but convincing themselves they can do better when in reality they can't. Dating apps feed the illusion of choice that mr. right is easily obtainable.

I mean they can, kind of. Top tier guys will have sex with multiple women, some of which will be "lower" on the rankings than them. This leads women to believe they are in their league, since they are having sex.

Then time comes to settle down and those guys don't settle with those girls. Cue "Where have all the good men gone?" and "Why are men so scared to settle?". It's the same problem the average male faces, just in reverse.

Those women also had far less competition. The men the next town over they now have access to come with a town full of women who are now able to access the men of the town the woman is in. Each time her dating pool increases, the competition increases too.

There's no free lunch, just tyranny of too many choices, endless analysis paralyses and FOMO.

And yet women’s happiness has declined since the 1970s: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intel...

It turns out greater choice and rising expectations are an increasing burden on one's psyche. Many of our lives are much better on many objective measures, yet we're more and more unhappy. We're optimizing for the wrong things.

This is the worse kind of antifeminist argument. "Women say that they prefer the modern world to a more patriarchal system, but actually they are wrong and really would prefer the old ways."

You’re assuming that “women” asked for the full package of changes we ended up with. I’d argue that their focus was more on being able to vote and being able to have bank accounts, and the sexual revolution was driven more by liberal men than by a broad coalition of women: https://blog.ninapaley.com/2019/08/23/andrea-dworkin-on-the-... (“Norman Mailer remarked during the sixties that the problem with the sexual revolution was that it had gotten into the hands of the wrong people. He was right. It was in the hands of men.”). The package of changes was “women get to be able to act like men, in the workplace and in dating,” without regard to women’s distinct realities and preferences in both spheres.

More over, the disconnect here isn’t between what “women” want and what they say they want. The disconnect is between the beliefs and attitudes of a minority of elite liberal men and women, and the average woman, especially the average non-college educated woman.

I don't disagree with your point, but still: there was plenty of pressure on the men, too, and "many men got stuck in unhappy marriages, but that was life".

Also, early pressure to marry "the best bachelor" often meant "the guy on the football team", "the guy that peaked in high school" (you just didn't know it yet).

Often they were the ones who became the angry alcoholics.

I agree with you and the person you responded to.

I don't see many men, old or young, doing much to improve their standing as a bachelor, given what is in their control. I've had to do a lot of listening and learning to be a man women would be interested in. Modern male culture in the US typically does NOT do that.

At the same time, I think you're right that women have more power over their life decisions more than ever. This is great and I want that for the women of earth.

Not limited to males. Most people have poor capacity for introspection and self improvement

> The best bachelors would be gone pretty quickly. That put a ton of pressure on the remaining women to quickly settle for an average guy in order not to be stuck with a terrible partner

So average women with average men, I don't see the issue. The problem is now a lot of women aims very high, even out of their league, when they don't have much to put on the table.

The average kind of sucks for everyone. Being average single is a lot better than average income family. Raising your average family of 4 on an average 61k salary just seems like hell in any major metro. Better just Netflix and seek other validation.

I don't think is that simple, the happiness levels of women have not increased in recent years according to many studies, its more likely a complex issue and that aspect you mention may be a minor variable; I believe is more likely than us (our brains to be exact) have had not time to adapt to the new times where you have to watch hundreds of people with "better" partners than us just by scrolling through your feeds, and that is quite chaotic but soon enough we will adapt a bit better.

Why do you think that will happen soon? Absent extreme selection pressure, evolution tends to be quite slow.

Our brain means we adapt faster than any other species so we are not as dependend on evolutionary self-selection as other species, its the major reason we "won" the evolutionary race (e.g. same reason we would be the only species to survive a meteorite collision against earth -even if not for long- without any evolutionary progress to increase our adaptability to space)

> quickly settle for an average guy

These are average women too.

> In the "good old days" dating was simpler, but also much, much worse for the average woman. People dated within their town almost exclusively. The best bachelors would be gone pretty quickly.

Honestly, the ability to tell “the best bachelor” without experience together of the type that used to be frowned on before marriage was always weak; what has changed is that the social and economic compulsion/incentive (on both sides) to marry has become a lot weaker and the volume of exposure much greater, and norms limiting the kind of experience that reveals fundamental incompatibility before marriage have weakened.

When you're fresh out of high school and the push is to make a rush for the best bachelor or the cream of the crop in your small town, oftentimes you'd end up with the guy "who peaked in high school", because you only had high school to really go off of. The worst part is those guys were considered the best bachelors, and the "peaked in high school" bit wasn't discovered until later/too late.

If you scored the best girl in high school, you have less incentive to keep improving yourself, so the phenomenon is not altogether surprising.

Women don't prefer being single. Women want a relationship - but with a hot tall confident rich guy their friends will be envious of who makes them feel butterflies ("chemistry").

That's the definition of the ideal boyfriend for most younger women.

So the hot tall confident rich guys play the field, because they can. Worse, some of the hottest and most confident guys are narcissists - because narcissists and sociopaths are very good at seducing people with love bombing and future faking.

Inexperienced women get their hearts broken and decide that all men are jerks - partly because at this stage the kind funny not-so-hot guys don't register as realistic prospects on their dating radar.

There are subcultures within this, and there's certainly a niche of women who find clever, funny, and kind men more attractive than rich and tall etc men. But it's relatively small compared to most of the population.

At the same time there's a strongly gender-polarised and adversarial (actually hate-filled) culture in the US where wannabe manly men who hate everything woke etc are in a permanent war with feminists who are convinced that all masculinity is toxic.

It's not so much that "guys have to up their game" but that the entire culture is emotionally dysfunctional, and dating is stuck in a kind of permanent adolescence where healthy give-and-take relationships aren't modelled at all.

Can you think of one movie or TV show which models a realistically happy working adult marriage which isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

>Can you think of one movie or TV show which models a realistically happy working adult marriage which isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

Oh man this is such a big one. There's so much media out there that depicts total loser guys winding up with incredible women & vice versa. If you're a young man & didn't have dad or older brother guide you through your end of the responsibilities in a relationship, there's almost nowhere to get the correct information, and tons of 'malware' information out there. One might be inclined to point to feminist literature on the subject, but that will just make you a doormat.

> Can you think of one movie or TV show which models a realistically happy working adult marriage which isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

The first thing that comes to mind is the relationship between Holden and Naomi in The Expanse. (Okay, so it's not a marriage. Does that really matter?)

I'm sure there are others, but they are difficult to recall precisely because they just are, without calling too much attention to themselves. So there's a selection bias in what we remember.

Bluey's parents, probably?

Damn dude my example number two is o Brian and his wife in DS9.

Star Trek and parodies are really coming in clutch for good examples of married life.

Naomi who has a kid she never tells him about and whose ex (who she also fails to mention) is the head of a lunatic fringe terrorist organization? Naomi who was also a part of that and was integral in executing an attack (also without a mention)? Naomi who disappears without a word to go infiltrate that organization in a move she thinks is likely to get her killed?

Holden is no peach of a partner either. Don’t play the “Holden does something the hardest way possible because he can’t ask for help” drinking game, you’ll be unconscious in a few hours.

Bruh.

> Can you think of one movie or TV show which models a realistically happy working adult marriage which isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

The parents in "That '70s show" perhaps? I see the irony in this title tho.

Most often when a main character on a TV show has a relationship, it exists to increase the drama. So it makes sense that we’d see healthier relationships among side-characters.

A movie about unexceptional people doing unexceptional things? Nope can’t think of many movies that would have that. Exceptional people tend to be egotistical assholes that take extreme risks and they make movies about the ones that succeed or fail spectacularly

>Can you think of one movie or TV show which models a realistically happy working adult marriage which isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

Sentimental and idealized are very vague, but there are a ton of US sitcoms that have this premise. But also, watching a couple just go about their day to day life that 90% of people go through seems boring as hell, who would watch that?

> Can you think of one movie or TV show which models a realistically happy working adult marriage which isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

Before Sunrise trilogy comes to mind

That's like 28 years ago though.

Married with children. Al was a shoe salesman. Peggy was hot in high school. They had kids. They took care of them. They didn't exactly love each other, but they didn't hated one another also. The most realistically portrayed family on TV in decades.

> Al was a shoe salesman. Peggy was hot in high school.

They were both hot in high school. They peaked in high school and married/created a family with their high school sweetheart. That's the entire point of the show.

> They had kids. They took care of them.

They were also neglectful and callous.

> They didn't exactly love each other, but they didn't hated one another also.

Did you watch the show? They most certainly verged on hating each other, and were never as ambivalent as you make out.

> The most realistically portrayed family on TV in decades.

The Middle. Malcom in the Middle. That 70's Show. Any of a dozen "prestige" television shows that aren't sitcoms.

Come on. This entire argument is ridiculous.

> isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

TV shows are about drama. If you have "this relationship is too good" and "this relationship is too bad" as exit clauses here, of course you are going to have trouble.

Does Ben and Leslie from Parks and Rec count for you? Or is that "too idealized"?

Watch how many times Ben gets to do what Ben wants to do when it’s not his birthday, then tell me you’d want to be him. That relationship is about Leslie being enabled.

Ben runs for the house of representatives. That's an enabler?

Congrats, you found the one. Except he runs because she badgers the shit out of him. If Leslie were a guy he’d be a narcissistic love-bomber.

Pro-tip: if someone says that you should just do what they say because they know better than you, run as fast as you can because they’re a demon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=upkQ6XYe3dE

The last three paragraphs are on the money. So on the money. The level of conditioned hate is just bizarre.

I have witnessed some truly weird conversations in hypereducated blue-state America. I never say anything, but I always take mental notes.

One example:

So I go out to lunch with this friend, and they invite a friend of theirs. A woman, in her 20s, from an Ivy League school. I'm not sure why we were all having lunch together actually, in retrospect.

Anyway, she's talking about how she has this boyfriend. I think he's in the Air Force or something (which at some level is icky to these people). And she has some time off from her career for some reason, so she has some time. And she's spending a lot of it just being with him, to the point that, she'll cook dinner and stuff. And she implies that she's having a lot of sex with him, and that she's being very giving in all this, and you can tell that at some level she just finds him very attractive and takes pleasure in delighting him (as he, I assume, does likewise in making her happy). Which is basically the description of a good relationship, right?

But she also has to justify this feeling to herself -- that she likes making her boyfriend happy. And she has to justify to herself that she's doing things like cooking dinner that, on the one hand, she's voluntarily chosen to do, but that, on the other hand, she clearly also thinks are somehow "beneath her". So she explains it to us at the table like this: She's intentionally ruining her boyfriend, so that when they eventually break up -- because that's what you do, right? -- then he will not be satisfied in any of his subsequent relationships. She has to frame her natural impulse to be kind and giving, as a political act that is actually a kind of cruelty -- because that's what she assumes we will approve of.

None of us ask for this justification, this is just a monologue that she volunteers. I don't say anything, but -- what the fuck? I think this has become a normal (if unnatural) trained attitude.

I could give other examples too, but that's enough for now.

Something is just very broken.

It's been a long time since I read something as aggressively condescending as the idea that "butterflies" are what women en masse consider to be "chemistry".

> Can you think of one movie or TV show which models a realistically happy working adult marriage which isn't either sentimental and idealised, or doesn't end in drama, tragedy, and betrayal?

Friday Night Lights

Reply on news.ycombinator.com