Do you think women have it easier getting a relationship?

Page 3 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Do you think women on average have it easier getting a relationship?
I'm a man and yes 52%  52%  [ 11 ]
I'm a man and they both have it equally difficult 19%  19%  [ 4 ]
I'm a man and men have it easier. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I'm a woman and yes 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I'm a woman and they both have it equally difficult. 24%  24%  [ 5 ]
I'm a woman and men have it easier. 5%  5%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 21

darkphantomx1
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Feb 2015
Age: 25
Posts: 1,293

19 Nov 2015, 12:47 pm

Yeah but even though women make more money then they used to, most women still expect a man to have a decent job.
Meanwhile many men don't even care if the women is just a waitress or something. If a pretty girl wanted to, all she has to do is find a guy who makes a lot of money to marry and she can just be a waitress. And there's plenty of stay at home moms but not a lot of stay at home dads.

So yeah if you're a man, making money matters to increase dating potential. If you're a pretty girl, it won't really matter.



Neetyakssim
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 19 Nov 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 5

19 Nov 2015, 1:23 pm

darkphantomx1 wrote:
Yeah but even though women make more money then they used to, most women still expect a man to have a decent job.
Meanwhile many men don't even care if the women is just a waitress or something. If a pretty girl wanted to, all she has to do is find a guy who makes a lot of money to marry and she can just be a waitress. And there's plenty of stay at home moms but not a lot of stay at home dads.

So yeah if you're a man, making money matters to increase dating potential. If you're a pretty girl, it won't really matter.


Do you know any educated, "high achieving" IRL men who chose to settle down with pretty-but-uneducated women? I sure don't.

US Census reports mixed-income marriages are on the decline too. Besides, there are plenty of pretty, educated women out there too, so there's no need for pretty-but-dopey waitress wives.



Klowglas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 545
Location: New England

19 Nov 2015, 1:31 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Now you are describing more biological things...but what does high social status and being financially well off have to do with the biology of males being typically bigger and stronger, thus being the ones depended on to protect the tribe and provide resources via going and getting them. Though females likely gathered some resources whilst men would likely hunt meat and such.



Being able to work/manipulat the land translates into resources, which is what the woman looks for in order to ensure the success of her family.

Quote:


From what I can tell modern day high social status, financially well of males aren't necessarily....stronger or more able to defend their women from danger...some seem a lot weaker because they don't have to do a lot of strenuous physical activity and the whole clean cut appearance seems to be the opposite of what would attract females as far as biology....wouldn't a more rugged/rough appearance be more inline with the biological need for a guy who could take care of hard labor and defending the tribe?



Appearances wise, being clean-cut shows discipline and a work ethic, whereas those that let themselves go will have neither, a clean-cut person with muscles will be more desirable than a clean-cut person without them because the selection and power is in the discipline, which compounds depending on a variety of factors, health/money/status, blah blah.

This is why in the past, being fair-skinned was desirable for men/women because that showed class -- the elite didn't need to work the fields and so they weren't tanned by working under the sun, they could afford to stay inside all day which kept their paleness. Now it's the inverse, because the elite have the privilege to play under the sun,whereas the underprivileged have to toil inside. Desire goes towards status -- where the power is, which is why in the past, people were also attracted to obese/fat people, which used to be a sign of affluence.

Quote:

However keep in mind a lot of reasons the things you mention weren't in womens power....has also been social constructs...so its still not entirely 'biology'.



Women selecting for optimal males is not a social construct, it's a necessity born of survival.

Look at your libido -- the very thing that turns your gears, that thing will likely have something to do with male discipline/efficiency, which is necessary to compete and to survive. The story is all there, just ask yourself "why does that work?" because it is has a reason that isn't just random nonsense.

Quote:
Also I don't see my boyfriend as something to discard if I see someone more well off with better resources. And if somehow there where no resources for me and my boyfriend to do anything we enjoyed....I guess we'd have to find a way to get some resources wouldn't we? I don't see how abandoning him would help the situation all it would do is make me feel like a piece of crap.

Also that aside what kind of well off guy is going to take a woman off the streets(ending up homeless would be the only way I could see us not having resources to do what we enjoy) who just abandoned her SO specifically to try to find someone more well off....unless they mean to take advantage of a women in an apparently vulnerable situation. Better to stick with someone you know well and care deeply for and work together to improve things....than throw them away on the off chance you can find an easier life with someone else.

There are MUCH less homeless women than men for this same reason, because women had the option to fall back on their innate value of reproduction. If push comes to shove things often go that way -- not saying that would be the case for you -- but it may be, it's often said that there is no virtue without temptation, and so there is no love without sacrifice. Homeless men overwhelmingly dwarf the amount of homeless women because very few could afford that sacrifice.

Quote:

Also you make it sound like guys just care if they 'get sex'....but I have heard plenty from the male sex that would imply otherwise. A lot of guys believe it or not are more selective of who they have sex with...and only want to with someone they actually like. But I don't deny there are plenty of guys who might settle for someone they don't really like because at least they get sex....but to me that sounds like a very depressing kind of relationship.



This might be self-selecting group, because as I said, women want above average males, and above average males have more authority to exercise selection.

Also, men say things that women want to hear to get access to sex, there's nothing new about this. However top performing males who have easy access to sex, will demand more from women, which is why it is as difficult for women to get into relationships as men, because the males they are opining for are the cream of the crop who can afford to be picky.

Women are the gatekeepers to sex, but men are the gatekeepers to commitment.
Quote:
And maybe all you see in relationships is a resource exchange, but for many people there is a lot more feelings and emotion involved...and coming to genuinely care about your S.O always makes it much more complex than a resource exchange. I guess to some their relationships are nothing more than a resource exchange, and those people can have each other.


Feelings are fickle, they change from moment to moment, oftentimes when there is no grub, there is no love. It's easy to love when the resources are there, but temptations can so easily make all affection go away.



Klowglas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 545
Location: New England

19 Nov 2015, 1:36 pm

Neetyakssim wrote:
A woman in the Stone Age required a man for labor/warring/protection. You may have missed that we no longer live in the Stone Age and many a woman has a good job, a house and the option of availing herself of locks, alarm systems, 911, etc. if required.


Doesn't matter, our biology takes a very long time to change.

Good luck depending on the police to save you from a rapist, who only needs 5 minutes to shatter your entire life.

But a man can defend you, and your body knows that, which is why it selects for the best.

Quote:


I have zero interest in any man who'd feel the need to go "warring" on my behalf - it'd demonstrate a lack of impulse control. Leaving the bar with the catcalling moron is appropriate, my BF threatening to hit the guy or (worse) actually hitting him... is an excellent way to get charged with felony assault.

If my boyfriend were to run out of resources, well, I'd fall back on my own, thankyouverymuch - two degrees and a job ensures I've no need for anybody else's money. I do find the men who have no or very low-paying jobs whining that women who worked hard to earn qualifications + good jobs are selfish to be sort of amusing. Particularly the lack of recognition that it might not be about money but rather values .


He doesn't need to go out looking for conflict because the nature of this world means that conflict will eventually find you. Predators go after the weak/infirm, and women cannot contend with males in a toe-to-toe battle, thus women need to select the strongest male to survive.



Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,776
Location: Seattle, WA

19 Nov 2015, 1:48 pm

If a female is objectively unattractive, she would probably have the hardest time. Men wouldn't approach her and if she approached men, she'd probably get rejected.

Beyond that, though, I believe men have a harder time. If a woman isn't objectively unattractive, she'll likely be approached by someone and it will be in her power to accept or reject.

Highly attractive men and women are probably about equal. Ultimately, the female has the power as they can accept or reject. Yes, they'll probably have a lot of requests, but the power is still theirs. Attractive men, even if they do not have "alpha male" type personalities will likely still get approached by women, but not as frequently.

When it comes to the vast majority of the population, I would think women have it easier as they can be more passive.

Granted, women face other complications, but when it just comes to starting a relationship, I believe they have it easier because they will be more likely to be approached.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

19 Nov 2015, 2:07 pm

Varelse wrote:
On average, I think it's about the same. It's just that the kinds of difficulties experienced are generally different, and are strongly influenced by the culture that the person is embedded in. Also, the kind of relationship the person is seeking is relevant. If there is a mismatch between sexes on the most commonly sought type or quality of relationship, then this could lead to people from each gender to perceiving their own difficulties as greater, on average.

Additionally, the difficulty 'balance' may shift with age: I think it is likely that older women tend to experience more difficulty getting into romantic relationships than do men of the same age, and the reverse is likely true among younger people.

Do you believe that having an accurate answer to this question will help people in some way? This is merely to satisfy my own curiosity. It is not a rhetorical question.


Well bunch of men kill themselves and never become older men. Then add that the older women want successful good looking guys, I see lots of women complain about the lack of guys but it's not true there's no lack of men there's tons of men.just not many who meet their high standards. Well less so of older men but there's still more men then they claim even if only 75% of men reach older ages. I'm tired of women complaining there's not enough men, I'm like wtf I'm right in front of you. You can't deem 60% of men as worthless then complain there not enough men for you to find a bf. There is but you choose to ignore them so not finding love is their own doing and the refuel they shouldn't complain. I sometimes message them so when I get brave enough.

It's like bein surrounded by cases of bottle water and claiming your going die because there's no soda around to drink. Well if you choose to die rather then drink tasteless water then that's your stupid choice.

You and your refer to those women and not the poster,



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Nov 2015, 8:04 pm

Neetyakssim wrote:
darkphantomx1 wrote:
Yeah but even though women make more money then they used to, most women still expect a man to have a decent job.
Meanwhile many men don't even care if the women is just a waitress or something. If a pretty girl wanted to, all she has to do is find a guy who makes a lot of money to marry and she can just be a waitress. And there's plenty of stay at home moms but not a lot of stay at home dads.

So yeah if you're a man, making money matters to increase dating potential. If you're a pretty girl, it won't really matter.


Do you know any educated, "high achieving" IRL men who chose to settle down with pretty-but-uneducated women? I sure don't.

Why do you just assume intelligent and educated people will have a high paying job? This may have been true in the 1950s, but not in the 2010s. People with degrees are forced to take low paying jobs these days. That's because there are more people with degrees than ever, but the number of high paying jobs never increased. The majority of jobs are still low paying. Intelligence and education mean less and less these days. There are plenty of highly intelligent people who still make minimum wage. To assume otherwise is nothing but blind bigotry and classist arrogance. There are also plenty of flaming f*****g idiots who are rich. Take Donalt Trump for instance. Maybe the guy is smart at gaming the system, but the s**t that comes out of his mouth shows that he's out of touch with the real world and can't be that intelligent.

Also, I wouldn't judge an uneducated woman for your information. I'm not a stuck-up classist twat like you.



Last edited by marshall on 19 Nov 2015, 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 31,333
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

19 Nov 2015, 8:29 pm

Klowglas wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Now you are describing more biological things...but what does high social status and being financially well off have to do with the biology of males being typically bigger and stronger, thus being the ones depended on to protect the tribe and provide resources via going and getting them. Though females likely gathered some resources whilst men would likely hunt meat and such.



Being able to work/manipulat the land translates into resources, which is what the woman looks for in order to ensure the success of her family.

Quote:


From what I can tell modern day high social status, financially well of males aren't necessarily....stronger or more able to defend their women from danger...some seem a lot weaker because they don't have to do a lot of strenuous physical activity and the whole clean cut appearance seems to be the opposite of what would attract females as far as biology....wouldn't a more rugged/rough appearance be more inline with the biological need for a guy who could take care of hard labor and defending the tribe?



Appearances wise, being clean-cut shows discipline and a work ethic, whereas those that let themselves go will have neither, a clean-cut person with muscles will be more desirable than a clean-cut person without them because the selection and power is in the discipline, which compounds depending on a variety of factors, health/money/status, blah blah.

This is why in the past, being fair-skinned was desirable for men/women because that showed class -- the elite didn't need to work the fields and so they weren't tanned by working under the sun, they could afford to stay inside all day which kept their paleness. Now it's the inverse, because the elite have the privilege to play under the sun,whereas the underprivileged have to toil inside. Desire goes towards status -- where the power is, which is why in the past, people were also attracted to obese/fat people, which used to be a sign of affluence.

Quote:

However keep in mind a lot of reasons the things you mention weren't in womens power....has also been social constructs...so its still not entirely 'biology'.



Women selecting for optimal males is not a social construct, it's a necessity born of survival.

Look at your libido -- the very thing that turns your gears, that thing will likely have something to do with male discipline/efficiency, which is necessary to compete and to survive. The story is all there, just ask yourself "why does that work?" because it is has a reason that isn't just random nonsense.

Quote:
Also I don't see my boyfriend as something to discard if I see someone more well off with better resources. And if somehow there where no resources for me and my boyfriend to do anything we enjoyed....I guess we'd have to find a way to get some resources wouldn't we? I don't see how abandoning him would help the situation all it would do is make me feel like a piece of crap.

Also that aside what kind of well off guy is going to take a woman off the streets(ending up homeless would be the only way I could see us not having resources to do what we enjoy) who just abandoned her SO specifically to try to find someone more well off....unless they mean to take advantage of a women in an apparently vulnerable situation. Better to stick with someone you know well and care deeply for and work together to improve things....than throw them away on the off chance you can find an easier life with someone else.

There are MUCH less homeless women than men for this same reason, because women had the option to fall back on their innate value of reproduction. If push comes to shove things often go that way -- not saying that would be the case for you -- but it may be, it's often said that there is no virtue without temptation, and so there is no love without sacrifice. Homeless men overwhelmingly dwarf the amount of homeless women because very few could afford that sacrifice.

Quote:

Also you make it sound like guys just care if they 'get sex'....but I have heard plenty from the male sex that would imply otherwise. A lot of guys believe it or not are more selective of who they have sex with...and only want to with someone they actually like. But I don't deny there are plenty of guys who might settle for someone they don't really like because at least they get sex....but to me that sounds like a very depressing kind of relationship.



This might be self-selecting group, because as I said, women want above average males, and above average males have more authority to exercise selection.

Also, men say things that women want to hear to get access to sex, there's nothing new about this. However top performing males who have easy access to sex, will demand more from women, which is why it is as difficult for women to get into relationships as men, because the males they are opining for are the cream of the crop who can afford to be picky.

Women are the gatekeepers to sex, but men are the gatekeepers to commitment.
Quote:
And maybe all you see in relationships is a resource exchange, but for many people there is a lot more feelings and emotion involved...and coming to genuinely care about your S.O always makes it much more complex than a resource exchange. I guess to some their relationships are nothing more than a resource exchange, and those people can have each other.


Feelings are fickle, they change from moment to moment, oftentimes when there is no grub, there is no love. It's easy to love when the resources are there, but temptations can so easily make all affection go away.


I guess I personally don't get any of that, so I guess I've entirely gone against programmed 'biology'. Though just to be clear by not having a clean cut appearance I didn't mean letting them-self go, I mean not having a super short hair-cut, clean shaven face and wearing expensive clothes sort of thing.

Also biology dictated that females wanted someone to provide resources and defense, specifically necessary resources, the want for wealth is more of a social construct biology has nothing to do with wanting more than the basic necessities, you don't see wild animals going for much beyond what they need now do you. Though biology or not this isn't the stone age, pretty sure people have advanced somewhat beyond that and don't rely as much on biological instinct in the relationship area as much anymore. The family argument is irrelevant to many females who don't want kids, they don't care about someone that can provide for their 'family' since its not going to happen.

And you do realize my boyfriend does not provide my resources, I have my own....so I don't see how that is a factor in my case. If we end up moving in together and all that, then we'd pool both our resources together. Not saying you're completely wrong....but I don't think you can say every women would just up and leave her S.O because they run across someone with more that is a little ridiculous.


_________________
Fascism is a disease.


LyraLuthTinu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 631
Location: Tacoma

19 Nov 2015, 8:35 pm

Again?

Trolls.

:P


_________________
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 141 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 71 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)
Official diagnosis: Austism Spectrum Disorder Level One, without learning disability, without speech/language delay; Requiring Support


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,665
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

20 Nov 2015, 3:10 am

Run darkphantom run!!

Image



XFilesGeek
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,616
Location: The Oort Cloud

20 Nov 2015, 6:49 am

Immature and unnecessary.

Locked.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)