Don't forget the cherry on top where the way they suggest to improve one's self is not a way that is relevant for getting dates or in the early stages of a relationship.
No matter who you want to "blame" for the underlying situation crap advice is still crap.
What's bad about the advice? It seems to flow pretty logically from the article.
"Women want to date men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and who share values" means that your starting point to search for a relationship should be that you are emotionally available, good at communicating, and you have a clear concept of your values so that you can determine whether or not you share them with a potential partner. The advice to get to that state is "focus on mental health, including getting therapy if you need it" - that all seems correct to me.
It's not relevant for getting dates, but getting dates is easy. It's extremely relevant for any stage of a relationship, including the early ones.
You are correct, the advice to achieve the third level of Maslow's Hierarchy does not address what you have to do in order to achieve the first two levels.
The question was "how to get dates" - "how to get friends" is a different question. The easy way to get dates is to ask your friends on dates, and the easiest way to do that is to ask a friend to get lunch with you. What part of that reduces to "get lucky"?
First of all, that taken literally is just bad advice. You're friends with your friends, you don't ask them on dates. It basically translates to "try to get romantic with one of your friends [of your preferred sex]". Is that supposed to be how people get dates?
So, I take it charitably that you meant "you ask people you know" (not your actual friends/buddies) on dates.
Which is as good as saying "to get a job, just ask for one" to an unemployed person. To which the proper response is "Gee, why didn't I think of that..."
I disagree that it's bad advice - it can certainly be applied badly, but so can anything. You meet somebody, you become friends with them, you start dating them, you get married - that's an extremely natural arc. You shouldn't ask all your friends on dates (just like you shouldn't ask everybody you meet on a date) and you should be cognizant of hints that somebody isn't interested in dating you, but to say that somebody is EITHER a friend OR a romantic partner and there's no overlap between the two is strange to me.
And this isn't the only way to get dates - dating apps certainly try and short-circuit the "be friends" part. But I've been friends with every girl I've dated before we started dating, including the woman I'm now married to. If you're not friends with somebody, even a little bit, why do you want to date them?
edit: And of course, if you're going into friendships with the intention of trying to date the person, that might work out poorly. Meet somebody, be their friend, and if you're both open to something developing, it can happen. Asking them to have lunch is a way to start that.
Why do you hang your own self worth on getting a partner over bettering yourself as an individual and building relationships that don't center on romantic partnership?
Stop being dense. The author was offering up the tip as a way to improve one's dating prospects and even went so far as to imply the tip would specifically help with online dating. The tip was nothing of the sort and is specifically worse online than in person because the quality in question already doesn't show much until you're spending a lot of time together and shows less still through dating apps.
IDK about your comment about self worth but you're the one who brought it up and it has a slight odor of projection. If you're average looks and average at text based communication getting first dates is not the bottleneck.
I'm honestly curious, can you point me to the lines that you think say "men suck" and "men should decide to stop sucking"?
My read of it is that men should focus on their mental health and consider getting therapy if they need it, which I'm pulling from where it says
> Level up your mental health game. That means getting into some individual therapy to address your skills gap.
The skills gap it mentions is where it talks about how women express a desire for partners who "are emotionally available, good communicators, and share their values" - none of that is a value judgement in my reading. Those all seems like fairly reasonable things to want in a partner.
The author implicitly assumes that these expectations are reasonable because women are scarcer on the apps, and that men improving in these areas will cause their situations to improve. This seems like a non-sequitur and an unproven assumption.
It could be that the men are subject to victim-blaming, and/or that the women are asserting false pretenses because the real reasons are superficial and/or sound bad (i.e. men are too ugly or poor).
It's hard to say that somebody's expectations for what they want in a parter are reasonable or unreasonable - you're allowed to decide who you spend your time with, and if that means you don't spend time with anybody, you're either satisfied with that or you change your expectations. If somebody says "I want to date somebody who is emotionally available", it's not anybody else's place to say "Wow that's completely unreasonable of you".
Same thing when somebody says "I only want to date a man who's rich, taller than me, conventionally handsome, and will cater to my every whim" - do you meet that criteria? Maybe not, but they've decided that they only want to date exactly one person in the entire world and they're gonna hold out until they find exactly that person, who are you to tell them they're wrong? It's their life.
You're trusting that stated expectations are the same as actual revealed expectations, which is something I doubt in this area. If I'm right, men doing more of what women say they want will not lead to more relationship success for those men.
I agree that it's hard to judge the reasonableness of other people's decisions, but I think that if they either fail to find what they are looking for (i.e. I expect a luxury car for the price of an econo-box, and am persistently disappointed), or expect more than they offer (i.e. I expect a partner who is equal or superior to me in all respects), the expectation may be unreasonable.
Absolutely I'm trusting that stated expectations are the same as real expectations - if somebody lies to me about what they want in a partner, then we're not going to be a good match anyways and so that serves as a useful way to thin the potential pool.
> I agree that it's hard to judge the reasonableness of other people's decisions, but I think that if they either fail to find what they are looking for, or expect more than they offer, the expectation may be unreasonable.
Sure, but the article also says that the group of lonely single men is growing so on balance it sounds like the women are finding what they're looking for. Who's got the unreasonable expectations, here?
“ Men need to address skills deficits to meet healthier relationship expectations.”
Define “healthier”. On the contrary I see pervasive and normalized misandry. In my employee handbook one of the examples of sexual harassment is “asking a coworker out on a date”. Yeah, fuck that.
Reminds me of the study from a a few years back that found women are looking for husbands with an income 58% higher than available men who generally are "economically unattractive". With women now being more educated than men, this issue is only going to get worse. Modern women expecting a traditional relationship simply isn't possible on a societal level. Acknowledging the downsides, or at the very least challenges, of women's empowerment still seems to be a taboo subject.
Caveat, education itself isn't necessarily a problem. Men still go to the more lucrative fields far more often than women, and there are many ways to earn a higher income than what most women end up studying earn.
The real problem is continuously pushing women into a fast lane to get these high-paying jobs and handing other freebies in the name of some warped sense of justice, at the cost of younger men. The STEM paradox exists for a reason, and its not because 2nd/3rd world women love IT a whole lot more than 1st world innately.
I don't know the numbers but I didn't say polygamy, I said multiple partners as in not married but sleeping around when you feel like it with anyone as well as being content with that lifestyle. It is essentially a question of having a partner to share life with and marriage isn't as popular now as it used to be either.
Not neccesarily actively dating but stats show women are only interested in top 10-20% tier of men for casual dating. Casual dating is also taking longer now with marriage becoming more rare. In other words, women change partners more and are content with not having a partner for months at a time between attractive partners.
Women are attracted to similar traits much more than men (who are atteacted to like 80% top tier women) which means the too tier men do date more women more constantly than top tier women. The result is, only the very lowest tier of women have trouble finding a partner for casual relationships while only top tier men can say the same.
It really boils down to what is considered attractive by men and women. There are many porn sites and communities dedicated for appreciating large women for example while with women, it might be a tolerable feature it is rare to find women fetishizing that (just an example, pick any other category such as height, age,etc... )
Just to be clear, I see nothing wrong with either men or women wanting and appreciating any traits they value in partners. No one is owed affection from strangers.
It is curious, yes. In fact there are slightly more women than men in the United States (though not in some other countries). Perhaps the difference is due to the fact that women tend to live longer than men on average. I haven't checked the age group breakdown.
"Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users"
This difference is interesting, and needs more discussion.
No, 80% of women are sharing the top 20% of men. On dating apps this trend is further exaggerated, men "swipe right" on roughly 50% of profiles while women swipe right on 5%.
Also, educated well earning women don’t date down (in contrast to men who did/do). There is also some evidence from a longitudinal study that childless, unpartnered women have high levels of happiness. Finally, social standards around Men being providers remains (in an economic environment that challenges that). Take that for what you will.
(TLDR dating marketplace and the value of participants within the market has rapidly shifted)
Just as I wouldn’t fault someone for taking anti seizure medication to prevent seizures, I wouldn’t say someone isn’t happy because they’re taking a medication to correct a brain chemical imbalance. The meds are to help enable the ability to experience happiness, not make you happy.
>there is also some evidence from a longitudinal study that childless, unpartnered women have high levels of happiness.
That often cited study is very shaky at best and has been challenged numerous times. Check Wikipedia[0] on the author in question if you wish to dive into that rabbit hole.
Should also be obvious the study in question has to be taken in the context of a major shift in expectations on women. If anything, it's a miracle his 'findings' did not say the same for men too.
I don’t have the citations to back it up, but you get to the crux of it with shifting expectations of women. It feels (from all of the data I’ve consumed) like there is a shift away from needing a companion, marriage, or children for a substantial cohort of women (and instead, prioritization of self actualization, career, and more tenuous relationships in varying degrees), leading to a cohort of men who will be left without a partner. My hunch is that this is because it’s normalizing at a societal level (and a woman not following the traditional life script no longer carries the social penalty it once did).
I could accept women being unhappier in marriage than single, but I'm skeptical on the outcome being different for men than women without there being a very simple way for society to solve it.
The number one complaint I hear among women not wanting to get married / being picky is the potential future of requiring both a 0.6+FTE job and doing 30+ hours of housekeeping. That complaint is near universal among the developed world. Yet, there are plenty of men willing to share household duties, which in turn makes their number of hours spent "working" higher than before. Exactly the same situation as women. Yet somehow, the study would conclude something surpasses that for men to make them happier in marriage than women, while other studies tend to claim women are the ones who actively seek and value comfort and companionship more than men. That's not to mention child count going down and children used to be one of the biggest time / responsibility sinks.
All of that sounds rather fishy. It's not like men don't have their fair share of things to work through in a modern marriage, and bad picks can be, well, not picked. Especially today, with those traditional norms being removed.
> It's not. Tinder and okcupid released shocking data that confirmed it.
If the claim was that 80% of women on dating apps are sharing the top 20% of men on dating apps, I could believe it. But that's missing something huge: "Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users". Women are a minority on dating apps, despite being equal in population. They're significantly underrepresented. So dating apps don't even explain the situation of the majority of women.
How are these women "sharing" the men? Is it like Monica gets Ted on Monday/Tuesday, Alice gets him Weds/Thurs, and Betty and Sandra split him every other weekend?
Is your assertion that 80% of women are actively in a relationship with a man who is also in a relationship with 3 other women?
Social media and dating apps have led to a hyperfocus on selecting partners with conventional, mediagenic appearances. With more personal lives out in the public, you don't want to be embarrassed by an ugly boyfriend. So tall, white men are awash in attention. This represents 10-15% of men in the US. Of course, a lot of women want this. So they have to share. Thus the rise of ENM on Tinder.
Curiously, that's not at all what the article says!
> I hear recurring dating themes from women between the ages of 25 and 45: They prefer men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values.
You'll note that none of the three traits listed as preferred are "mediagenic appearances"
Yet both men and women who have shed some fat weight and maybe got some muscle, saw the world treat them differently and can tell you exactly why you can't trust words over actions. Even the descriptions of these traits alone are extremely vague.
That's not to say they are bad traits, but they certainly aren't the magical bullets that will get you through any door that the women claim them to be. Certainly opens a few eyes when a non-insignificant portion of women saying those words seem awfully lenient to a guy with a higher status and a stronger physique, even if he acts like a jerk.
There's no magic bullet that will get you through "any door" - every person is different, and every person has different things they want in a partner. There are some people who will absolutely refuse to date somebody who isn't taller than them, and if you're too short, then yeah - nothing you can do will change that.
But there's nothing you can do to change that, so why get hung up on it? There are plenty of other people (I'll drop the dehumanizing metaphor of doors here because it's not needed) who have different criteria that you could meet, and focusing on the things about yourself that make you happier (like being emotionally available, being able to communicate, and having a clear sense of your values) seems like a pretty reasonable way to go about meeting those criteria with a side-benefit of making you happy.
Don't sidestep the argument. I'm clearly talking about things well in reach of most guys to change, yet those aren't the things named in the article or mentioned by most women. At the same time, studies back up these things are relevant and are arguably more relevant than what women typically claim is most relevant to get a foot in.
And that's exactly the point of the other commenters. The advice is generally bogus, as their actions don't align with their words. It's such a common phenomenon, the common advice is "stop asking a fish how to catch it, ask a fisherman or practice fishing some more". There are dozens of things guys can change well in their power that would help, and the words of women aren't helping them get there unless they are really obvious.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sidestep the argument but I'm also clearly not understanding what you're saying. I read your statement as "Women say they want emotionally available [etc etc] men and yet I see women paying attention to men who are [high status/beefy as hell/richer than god/etc etc] - there is a disconnect here" - is that approximately right?
I'll address that argument, but if it's not what you're trying to say then please correct me. There are many different women, and they all want slightly different things, at different priorities. That said, I think that focusing on mental health, communication skills, and emotional availability pays dividends for everybody independent of whether or not it gets them a relationship.
I'm 6'4", white, physically fit, and highly intelligent -- but I have never been in a romantic relationship. If you start counting when I was 15 and first started really wanting a girlfriend, then it's been 32 years of loneliness for me.
Are you ugly - either mentally or physically? Even physical ugliness can be overcome, as long as you're willing to date a 4 if you're a 4, but some types of mental ugliness are harder to get around.
I don't understand how this is exclusively a men's issue. Now this is completely out of my realm as a gay woman but wouldn't this roughly mean that there is a similar amount of straight women who are single as well? In my experience polyamory among the straights isn't nearly as common as the internet likes to make it sound. In general, millennials (and I assume gen-z as well) are having less sex on average and getting into less relationships than previous generations.
There's a Plenty of Fish or OK Cupid survey somewhere where heterosexual female respondents reported sex within the last year at a much higher rate than heterosexual men. The implication is that some of the more attractive men are having sex with more than one woman. There are some other surveys out there
In my personal experience, the average person having sex with more than one partner is unlikely to identify with the term polyamory. It's not as mainstream as the internet makes it seem.
I'm not making an assertion about that. Could be either, imo more likely the latter. There are people I've met who are basically poly but balk at the label.
There’s studies that show heterosexual men are happier in relationships; while heterosexual women in relationships are the least happy of all the relationship demographics. So I think there’s more single het men because there’s just more het men per capita. But even if there’s a similar number of single het women it has drastically different implications on quality of life.
An unfortunate percentage of these men would not have survived the trials of our ancestors. They receive unearned spoils because they exist to reap the benefit of battles won by better men. We must allow them to die out.
Read the rest of Stop Feeding the F**boi Factory on Medium - Gemini McCain
80 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadBut holy shit this article is basically just "men are unhappy because men suck. They can be happy again, but only if they decide to stop sucking"
No matter who you want to "blame" for the underlying situation crap advice is still crap.
"Women want to date men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and who share values" means that your starting point to search for a relationship should be that you are emotionally available, good at communicating, and you have a clear concept of your values so that you can determine whether or not you share them with a potential partner. The advice to get to that state is "focus on mental health, including getting therapy if you need it" - that all seems correct to me.
It's not relevant for getting dates, but getting dates is easy. It's extremely relevant for any stage of a relationship, including the early ones.
Citation needed. I'm sure many here will vehemently disagree.
"That's not a date" Why not?
"My friends are all in relationships" Make more friends.
- "Be more lucky"
So, I take it charitably that you meant "you ask people you know" (not your actual friends/buddies) on dates.
Which is as good as saying "to get a job, just ask for one" to an unemployed person. To which the proper response is "Gee, why didn't I think of that..."
And this isn't the only way to get dates - dating apps certainly try and short-circuit the "be friends" part. But I've been friends with every girl I've dated before we started dating, including the woman I'm now married to. If you're not friends with somebody, even a little bit, why do you want to date them?
edit: And of course, if you're going into friendships with the intention of trying to date the person, that might work out poorly. Meet somebody, be their friend, and if you're both open to something developing, it can happen. Asking them to have lunch is a way to start that.
IDK about your comment about self worth but you're the one who brought it up and it has a slight odor of projection. If you're average looks and average at text based communication getting first dates is not the bottleneck.
My read of it is that men should focus on their mental health and consider getting therapy if they need it, which I'm pulling from where it says
> Level up your mental health game. That means getting into some individual therapy to address your skills gap.
The skills gap it mentions is where it talks about how women express a desire for partners who "are emotionally available, good communicators, and share their values" - none of that is a value judgement in my reading. Those all seems like fairly reasonable things to want in a partner.
It could be that the men are subject to victim-blaming, and/or that the women are asserting false pretenses because the real reasons are superficial and/or sound bad (i.e. men are too ugly or poor).
Same thing when somebody says "I only want to date a man who's rich, taller than me, conventionally handsome, and will cater to my every whim" - do you meet that criteria? Maybe not, but they've decided that they only want to date exactly one person in the entire world and they're gonna hold out until they find exactly that person, who are you to tell them they're wrong? It's their life.
I agree that it's hard to judge the reasonableness of other people's decisions, but I think that if they either fail to find what they are looking for (i.e. I expect a luxury car for the price of an econo-box, and am persistently disappointed), or expect more than they offer (i.e. I expect a partner who is equal or superior to me in all respects), the expectation may be unreasonable.
> I agree that it's hard to judge the reasonableness of other people's decisions, but I think that if they either fail to find what they are looking for, or expect more than they offer, the expectation may be unreasonable.
Sure, but the article also says that the group of lonely single men is growing so on balance it sounds like the women are finding what they're looking for. Who's got the unreasonable expectations, here?
Define “healthier”. On the contrary I see pervasive and normalized misandry. In my employee handbook one of the examples of sexual harassment is “asking a coworker out on a date”. Yeah, fuck that.
https://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/spotlights/economically-un...
The real problem is continuously pushing women into a fast lane to get these high-paying jobs and handing other freebies in the name of some warped sense of justice, at the cost of younger men. The STEM paradox exists for a reason, and its not because 2nd/3rd world women love IT a whole lot more than 1st world innately.
In what way?
Women are attracted to similar traits much more than men (who are atteacted to like 80% top tier women) which means the too tier men do date more women more constantly than top tier women. The result is, only the very lowest tier of women have trouble finding a partner for casual relationships while only top tier men can say the same.
It really boils down to what is considered attractive by men and women. There are many porn sites and communities dedicated for appreciating large women for example while with women, it might be a tolerable feature it is rare to find women fetishizing that (just an example, pick any other category such as height, age,etc... )
Just to be clear, I see nothing wrong with either men or women wanting and appreciating any traits they value in partners. No one is owed affection from strangers.
"Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users"
This difference is interesting, and needs more discussion.
(TLDR dating marketplace and the value of participants within the market has rapidly shifted)
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/25/women-h...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/20/americans-s...
Doesn't sound like a high level of happiness to me.
https://archive.ph/vSVWx
That often cited study is very shaky at best and has been challenged numerous times. Check Wikipedia[0] on the author in question if you wish to dive into that rabbit hole.
Should also be obvious the study in question has to be taken in the context of a major shift in expectations on women. If anything, it's a miracle his 'findings' did not say the same for men too.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dolan_(behavioural_scient...
I could accept women being unhappier in marriage than single, but I'm skeptical on the outcome being different for men than women without there being a very simple way for society to solve it.
The number one complaint I hear among women not wanting to get married / being picky is the potential future of requiring both a 0.6+FTE job and doing 30+ hours of housekeeping. That complaint is near universal among the developed world. Yet, there are plenty of men willing to share household duties, which in turn makes their number of hours spent "working" higher than before. Exactly the same situation as women. Yet somehow, the study would conclude something surpasses that for men to make them happier in marriage than women, while other studies tend to claim women are the ones who actively seek and value comfort and companionship more than men. That's not to mention child count going down and children used to be one of the biggest time / responsibility sinks.
All of that sounds rather fishy. It's not like men don't have their fair share of things to work through in a modern marriage, and bad picks can be, well, not picked. Especially today, with those traditional norms being removed.
This seems highly exaggerated. Can you cite any empirical evidence?
If the claim was that 80% of women on dating apps are sharing the top 20% of men on dating apps, I could believe it. But that's missing something huge: "Men represent approximately 62% of dating app users". Women are a minority on dating apps, despite being equal in population. They're significantly underrepresented. So dating apps don't even explain the situation of the majority of women.
Tons of people are single and having sex with random hookups and still feeling lonely.
And just because 80% of women are matching with only 20% of men, that doesn't mean they're actually talking or meeting up.
Is your assertion that 80% of women are actively in a relationship with a man who is also in a relationship with 3 other women?
It reads as if written by an undergrad.
> I hear recurring dating themes from women between the ages of 25 and 45: They prefer men who are emotionally available, good communicators, and share similar values.
You'll note that none of the three traits listed as preferred are "mediagenic appearances"
That's not to say they are bad traits, but they certainly aren't the magical bullets that will get you through any door that the women claim them to be. Certainly opens a few eyes when a non-insignificant portion of women saying those words seem awfully lenient to a guy with a higher status and a stronger physique, even if he acts like a jerk.
But there's nothing you can do to change that, so why get hung up on it? There are plenty of other people (I'll drop the dehumanizing metaphor of doors here because it's not needed) who have different criteria that you could meet, and focusing on the things about yourself that make you happier (like being emotionally available, being able to communicate, and having a clear sense of your values) seems like a pretty reasonable way to go about meeting those criteria with a side-benefit of making you happy.
And that's exactly the point of the other commenters. The advice is generally bogus, as their actions don't align with their words. It's such a common phenomenon, the common advice is "stop asking a fish how to catch it, ask a fisherman or practice fishing some more". There are dozens of things guys can change well in their power that would help, and the words of women aren't helping them get there unless they are really obvious.
I'll address that argument, but if it's not what you're trying to say then please correct me. There are many different women, and they all want slightly different things, at different priorities. That said, I think that focusing on mental health, communication skills, and emotional availability pays dividends for everybody independent of whether or not it gets them a relationship.
I'm not sure photos actually convey height that well.
In my personal experience, the average person having sex with more than one partner is unlikely to identify with the term polyamory. It's not as mainstream as the internet makes it seem.
Thus, the odds suggest women will have better luck on the dating apps. But it's an unrepresentative sample of the genders overall.
Read the rest of Stop Feeding the F**boi Factory on Medium - Gemini McCain