[quote]Silyak wrote:
You really think that the average woman under 30 has several men come onto her every day?
[/quote]
Yes, I do. For context, I live in a city. Maybe it’s different in smaller towns and rural areas.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
(or some guys hitting on dozens of women a day).
[/quote]
These men are out there, hitting on women while we’re discussing the economics of free burgers on an internet forum.
[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
Given the wealth of opportunities presented to women, I think a total of 14 partners shows remarkable restraint.[/quote]
LOL!
oh God… my sides
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Maybe. But it’s also a symbol of an empty old age.
[/quote]
I always thought this was largely a function of how much you care about your legacy.
If you care deeply then on your death bed you’ll want to be surrounded by your children and financial assets accumulated to pass onto them and their kids.
If you don’t care… will you still desire children and feel it as a symbol of empty old age?[/quote]
I’m sure for some it is about legacy but for most it is largely a function of surrounding yourself with people you love.
No one can describe the joys (and frustrations) of parenthood if you haven’t experienced it yourself.
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
Given the wealth of opportunities presented to women, I think a total of 14 partners shows remarkable restraint.[/quote]
LOL!
oh God… my sides[/quote]
Aye. That sums up this entire thread nicely.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m trying to follow you. Are we imagining a woman of thirty who has had two partners per year for fifteen years? In which case I would question her ability to maintain a long term relationship, just as I would her male counterpart. Did she spend several years in a relationship and then came out to rack up a dozen partners in a couple of years? Is she thirty-five and has had a combination of longish relationships and short ones? (But thirty of them?) Is she twenty-five? (Lot of partners! Is that common, do you think?)
[/quote]
You can pick whatever scenario you feel works best for your argument. I don’t know what’s common or uncommon, but I extrapolate from what my more worldly friends tell me. Fourteen previous partners for a reasonably attractive woman aged 25-30 is about average, from what I hear. And this is from people who are not ascribing any judgment to that number. Checking against the CDC statistics, 21.3% of women aged 30-34 had between 7 and 14 partners, and 13.4% had 15 or more.
I wasn’t thinking in terms of a gold digger. I was thinking of the seemingly more benign and more common scenario of a woman dating guys she finds exciting and attractive until it is time to find someone stable to raise a family with.
Maybe you are right that she would feel inferior, but I understand the feeling behind the saying “if the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.” Perhaps that is just men projecting their own sexual fantasies onto women who actually regret or didn’t enjoy their promiscuity. There’s probably some truth to the idea that “men use love to get sex, and women use sex to get love,” so many women had sex with cads they thought they could change. But for the man at the end of the line, he still might consider that he was not, and probably would not have been, her first choice.[/quote]
I think you’re mistaken, but I doubt I have the wherewithal to argue you out of your beliefs, which are obviously entrenched. But I will say that it’s foolish and simplistic to say that men want sex and women want love. I think it is equally simplistic to imagine that women are passing on their “first choice” when they find someone to settle down with. In my observation and limited personal experience, women encounter and become involved with cads because cads are out there pursuing women and it’s hard to tell the difference in the short term, not because they are selecting for them. Nice guys get involved with bad women at about the same rate the reverse occurs. The wise non-cad breaks up with the cad and looks around for someone better, particularly if they want to have children.
There are plenty of cads out there having success with women because they are daring rather than that they are physically superior. “Defeatist” seems the better term for able-bodied men who see things as you do.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Or you could marry a virgin. In spite of all those people who think human traditions must be wrong, it’s actually a pretty good strategy.[/quote]
I did. It has worked out rather nicely.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Or you could marry a virgin. In spite of all those people who think human traditions must be wrong, it’s actually a pretty good strategy.[/quote]
I did. It has worked out rather nicely.[/quote]
I did, too. I find that most men who married virgins are happy with the decision. Those who didn’t will tell you why it’s not possible or not important.
[/quote]Worrying your not good enough cause you haven’t fucked as many people is insecure. There is nothing insecure however about feeling that you’re too good to settle for a woman who’s taken half the county ass to mouth. [/quote]
This is what I was really getting at. And I completely agree.
That being said, if you fall in love with some girl, are you really going to break it off because she’s slept with more people than you? To me, that sounds more like insecurity than thinking you’re too good for someone.
And to be honest, I think the situation in which 2 people with completely opposite sexual histories getting together is pretty rare, anyway. People typically migrate to people that are like them.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
This is what I was really getting at. And I completely agree.
That being said, if you fall in love with some girl, are you really going to break it off because she’s slept with more people than you? To me, that sounds more like insecurity than thinking you’re too good for someone.
And to be honest, I think the situation in which 2 people with completely opposite sexual histories getting together is pretty rare, anyway. People typically migrate to people that are like them. [/quote]
If you dump her over that you weren’t in love 
You were still just getting to know her. But in either case dumping her is no more a sign of insecurity than keeping her is (i.e. gotta settle for this one cause can’t do any better than the village bicycle anyways).
People may migrate to people that are like them. On the other hand opposites attract. There are also a lot of people today who meet at online dating sites, which basically turns selecting dates into a trip to the meat market (where all the best before dates have been scratched off and taped over). I think people get involved all the time these days who have nothing in common at all except their need of companionship. It’s actually kinda sad.
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Walkaway, you could think of it like this. Let’s assume you’re stranded on a desert island.
Your life can look like Swiss Family Robinson, where you’ve got a wife and a few kids, maybe even some strapping sons who can help you drag some logs around to make a shelter. Assume you actually really like these people, and the wife is nice to curl up with at night. You could even repopulate the island if you wanted to, or have fun trying.
Or you can be like Tom Hanks in Castaway. Talking to a damn volleyball and knocking your own tooth out with a rock. [/quote]
…
but im not stranded on a desert island. [/quote]
It’s a metaphor.
[/quote]
and one that is completely and utterly non-applicable [/quote]
If marriage is only for the idiotic or crazy, then just substitute Healthy LTR in this scenario. Have you ever had a healthy LTR with a quality woman? Do you want to?
You have developed quite the intellectual dogma about women and relationships. For a 24-year-old man, with relatively little life experience you seem to have it all figured out. I guess you can see if you feel the metaphor applies when you’re 34, or 44, or 54.
I had three very close friends in high school. We’ve known each other for a long time. We all got married in our early 20’s, when we were college-age young women. We’re all still married with kids. None of us is overweight, in fact, all of us are still about the same size we were when we were 18, even after having kids. That’s not really unusual when you look at educated upper-middle class women.
One is a physician who is married to a former professional athlete who invested well and owns a thriving media business. She’s without a doubt the most financially successful of us.
One of us is a pediatric dentist who married her oral surgeon husband. They have a practice together.
One of us dropped out of college to move back to our home town where she owns her own successful hair salon and is married to her construction contractor husband who also owns a successful business.
And one of us is one of those lame school psychologists, total financial liability 
who’s married to her IT administrator husband. That’s me. I’m the low achiever in the group! BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. Not getting rich, but I don’t think too many men would think it’s to be avoided like leprosy.
Point being, marriage works out for some people. In fact, it works out for a lot of people. I know similarly happy people who have been divorced but are in healthy LTR’s or happy second marriages. None of them have your attitude. Despite what you seem to think, not all divorced women have some fatal flaw, like those super devious women who are “hiding cellulite under their yoga pants” - to quote you from another thread! That cracked me up. And made me wonder about how many real women you’ve seen up close. Maybe ask some of the men here how many of their wives and GF’s have perfectly smooth thighs and butts, but I digress.
You seem to have dismissed out of hand any advice or life experience from people who don’t fit your theory, and have latched onto all the non-examples of people who have been burned. That’s cool. Nobody is going to make you get married, so you don’t have any worries. Let the self-fulfilling prophecy begin.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Once again I envy the eloquence of The PP.[/quote]
x2 good post PP.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Walkaway, you could think of it like this. Let’s assume you’re stranded on a desert island.
Your life can look like Swiss Family Robinson, where you’ve got a wife and a few kids, maybe even some strapping sons who can help you drag some logs around to make a shelter. Assume you actually really like these people, and the wife is nice to curl up with at night. You could even repopulate the island if you wanted to, or have fun trying.
Or you can be like Tom Hanks in Castaway. Talking to a damn volleyball and knocking your own tooth out with a rock. [/quote]
…
but im not stranded on a desert island. [/quote]
It’s a metaphor.
[/quote]
and one that is completely and utterly non-applicable [/quote]
If marriage is only for the idiotic or crazy, then just substitute Healthy LTR in this scenario. Have you ever had a healthy LTR with a quality woman? Do you want to?
You have developed quite the intellectual dogma about women and relationships. For a 24-year-old man, with relatively little life experience you seem to have it all figured out. I guess you can see if you feel the metaphor applies when you’re 34, or 44, or 54.
I had three very close friends in high school. We’ve known each other for a long time. We all got married in our early 20’s, when we were college-age young women. We’re all still married with kids. None of us is overweight, in fact, all of us are still about the same size we were when we were 18, even after having kids. That’s not really unusual when you look at educated upper-middle class women.
One is a physician who is married to a former professional athlete who invested well and owns a thriving media business. She’s without a doubt the most financially successful of us.
One of us is a pediatric dentist who married her oral surgeon husband. They have a practice together.
One of us dropped out of college to move back to our home town where she owns her own successful hair salon and is married to her construction contractor husband who also owns a successful business.
And one of us is one of those lame school psychologists, total financial liability who’s married to her IT administrator husband. That’s me. I’m the low achiever in the group! BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. Not getting rich, but I don’t think too many men would think it’s to be avoided like leprosy.
Point being, marriage works out for some people. In fact, it works out for a lot of people. I know similarly happy people who have been divorced but are in healthy LTR’s or happy second marriages. None of them have your attitude. Despite what you seem to think, not all divorced women have some fatal flaw, like those super devious women who are “hiding cellulite under their yoga pants” - to quote you from another thread! That cracked me up. And made me wonder about how many real women you’ve seen up close. Maybe ask some of the men here how many of their wives and GF’s have perfectly smooth thighs and butts, but I digress.
You seem to have dismissed out of hand any advice or life experience from people who don’t fit your theory, and have latched onto all the non-examples of people who have been burned. That’s cool. Nobody is going to make you get married, so you don’t have any worries. Let the self-fulfilling prophecy begin.
[/quote]
Your post reflects what EmilyQ said:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
So 70% of marriages between college educated people seem to succeed[/quote]
So if you’re upper class, or upper-middle class chances are your marriage will in all likelihood succeed.
But how do other demographics fare?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think you’re mistaken, but I doubt I have the wherewithal to argue you out of your beliefs, which are obviously entrenched.
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to say what I believe, but that I understand the perspective. I know women who have settled. A male friend of mine also probably settled, though he doesn’t call it that. Some good portion of people, both male and female, settle for a variety of reasons. That isn’t necessarily the worst thing in the world, if certain conditions are met.
I understand how men become bitter at some of these situations, but I disagree with the misogynistic take on it.
[quote]
But I will say that it’s foolish and simplistic to say that men want sex and women want love. [/quote]
There is some truth to the adage. Some women have high libidos and don’t care about love. Some men have low libidos but want romance. I think it is largely culturally driven. In the aggregate, I think you see more women using sex to get love (consciously or unconsciously) than you see men.
Perhaps. That’s not something I heard as much from my male friends as female.
That’s fair enough, though I never mentioned physical superiority. I think a lot of it is attraction to particular personality characteristics.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. [/quote]
LOL
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. [/quote]
LOL[/quote]
Not that this has anything to do with the topic, except you brought up all the dumb chicks majoring in worthless majors and used psychology as an example. No, I wouldn’t recommend anybody major in psych, unless they are committed to going to graduate school. I also have a license to private practice.
“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, clinical, counseling, and school psychologists earned a median salary of $73,090 in 2010. General psychologists who worked in elementary and secondary schools made a median salary of $89,570 in that same year.”
This is for the US - CA pay is higher than many regions of the country, as are living expenses here.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Once again I envy the eloquence of The PP.[/quote]
x2 good post PP. [/quote]
Hey, thank you. Nice to see you guys.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. [/quote]
LOL[/quote]
Not that this has anything to do with the topic, except you brought up all the dumb chicks majoring in worthless majors and used psychology as an example. No, I wouldn’t recommend anybody major in psych, unless they are committed to going to graduate school. I also have a license to private practice.
“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, clinical, counseling, and school psychologists earned a median salary of $73,090 in 2010. General psychologists who worked in elementary and secondary schools made a median salary of $89,570 in that same year.”
This is for the US - CA pay is higher than many regions of the country, as are living expenses here.
[/quote]
The better, more lucrative strategy is to wait for your inheritance.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You have to create incentives for men to want to have children/get married.
[/quote]
You don’t have to create anything. Marriage isn’t about what’s in it for me as a man. It’s about committing to something greater than yourself. Marriage involves sacrifice that is paramount to the successful maintenance of the marriage, which is the exact opposite of the what’s in it for me mentality. Until you can understand that or until someone comes along who becomes more to you then said mentality, you’re not going to understand marriage from a married guys perspective. That’s not a knock either, just reality.
Marriage isn’t for everyone and less people, imo, should get married then do. If you view marriage as a business deal you shouldn’t get married, imo. [/quote]
Well said. Thanks.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
BTW, school psychologists typically start out at about $75,000 here in CA, and many make upwards of $100,000. [/quote]
LOL[/quote]
Not that this has anything to do with the topic, except you brought up all the dumb chicks majoring in worthless majors and used psychology as an example. No, I wouldn’t recommend anybody major in psych, unless they are committed to going to graduate school. I also have a license to private practice.
“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, clinical, counseling, and school psychologists earned a median salary of $73,090 in 2010. General psychologists who worked in elementary and secondary schools made a median salary of $89,570 in that same year.”
This is for the US - CA pay is higher than many regions of the country, as are living expenses here.
[/quote]
median doesn’t necessarily reflect anything lol…
id be more interested in knowing the employment/unemployment rate of those majors… I feel that would be a better indication.
