Why women lose the dating game

Post Reply New Topic

Ideally, I would want to be with someone at about the same level of success as I am. I've found that many hugely successful men in my age group tend to want to control "the little woman," and be in the dominant position in the relationship. I've also found that many only-moderately-successful men in my age group do get really resentful of their wife being the primary breadwinner. A couple of my LTRs were with the latter type, and as a consequence, they overcompensated by trying to be domineering in other aspects of the relationship. Since I am neither dominant nor submissive, it seems to me that the best arrangement would be for me to be with someone who was roughly about the same as me, as far as career and income. My late fiancé fell into that category, and I believe that was one of the reasons we meshed so well. We could both talk about our successes and failures, and the other wasn't either resentful or patronizing about it.

Of course there's also the fact that females are notorious for being the "gold-digger gender", so it's kind of a no-brainer that they'll usually prefer a guy that's equally or more successful than they are. I guess even rich women are still gold-diggers in that way too for some reason. Goes to show the extent of it I guess.

there probably is some truth to the article, however none of it applies to me. I was never "desirable" even when I was hot, due to being too "weird".

Retract for misogyny, please.

Yep. Honestly, it's one of the main reasons I'm not so interested in trying again...I don't want to have to fight to be able to do my work in the first place, and I don't want to sit through the guy's turning it into a contest that becomes life/death in terms of his own ego. It took me a while, too, to understand that there were guys who were attracted to me in part because I wasn't an obvious success, with all the medals and titles. They figured I was less successful than they were (or less successful than their ex-wives), and this made them feel good. Once they figured out I live this way only because titles and prizes aren't important to me, and that I'm in fact very successful (and serious about my work), just willing to forgo the career kisses in exchange for the freedom to do whatever work I find most interesting -- that's when the trouble would start. And it'd be the same fight every time. "Why is my work about you?" "You're oblivious to how I feel." "I'm not oblivious, I just don't see why you have to use my...success as a thing to beat yourself up with, and why that becomes my fault."

^^^
uhhh okay, females aren't notorious for being the gold-digger gender. lol

Me personally I couldn't care less if my woman made hell of more money than I. I'd still have my own job and help out the family. It'll still be a 50/50 thing. A partnership. No way it would damage my ego. It would only make me upset if she rubbed it in my face. Rather than hate
on my wife's or GF's success, I would be happy for her. It's the culture that rules most of relationships. If I were a millionaire, I would still marry up. If I married a woman with less success than I, it wouldn't bother me. I'm trying to get to know and understand "her" not her wallet and assets. If she wants something more out of life, maybe I can help her to do it. And in doing so, will help us both.

Nobody wants to work together or compromise. It's always a competition.

Sounds to me like a terrible "game" that nobody really "wins".

I love this quote from the article:

(emphasis mine)

I guess she's not looking on WP.

It makes sense, though: if a man doesn't have a woman by that age, why is that? Either:
1) he doesn't want anything to do with women (gay, asexual, etc.); or
2) he only wants sex with them ("a***hole"); or
3) he has some specific issues that make a relationship difficult (ASD, depression, childhood trauma, etc.); or
4) he's just generally unattractive (ugly, immature, obvious a***hole, etc.); or
5) he's very picky.

She's not even meeting men from category 1 and probably not many from category 3, either. She wouldn't even give a passing thought to those from category 4. Category 5 is probably fairly rare, too, and can be easily confused with category 2 when they reject her. So that leaves mostly category 2: the a***holes.



Yeah, same. I don't see why it always has to be "dominate or be dominated". Nobody says it like that, of course, but people act as if that's the way things are.

the saddest part about that article is that the women featured in it are making the same mistakes as men...looking for all the wrong qualities: looks, money, height (I'm amazed at how many consider height disparity a deal breaker - 4 ft 6 or 6 ft 4 I could give a damn about a woman's height), education, future prospects. They're all just accessories on the car, but no one is test driving or asking what's under the hood.

We've got to get back to what should matter, namely the human qualities: is this person good and kind? I she/she serious or funny? Curious or zealous? What do they want to give back. But all that seems secondary to the material.

It's truly maddening a world we all live in.

perhaps.

I think the feminist movement has done well perhaps too well. seems there are more women in higher paying jobs then men.
thus women who want a guy who makes similar or more money won't find one. there just isn't enough

this is the problem I find. so many women 18-40 are super picky and only want a guy who is well off or ambitious. yet there are so many guys like me. but few who are the type they want.

i don't really see the pleasure in knowing the women will end up alone, but perhaps it is some relief to know I won't be alone in being alone.

don't care. only thing that would bother me is 1. you/her not making time for the relationship(workaholic) and 2. I don't want to seem like a mooch. my partner being sucessful is something to be happy about.
I would feel some hurt if they were in the military, as this was my main goal that I could have done but am barred from. note that military pays terrible though. I don't have ambitions, so my partner having them and being sucessful and me not wouldnt' matter.

is what it is though. i don't plan to live pas 35, so I don't get to see women my age being upset, though they already do. check okc or cl plenty of women 18-30 complaining about there being no real men or men as successful as they are.

geuss i'm 3 and 4. i amd probably a 2 or 1 on the looks scale. and if settling for a 5 is terrible then I can only imagine hell would need to freeze over before they settle for me.

is not wanting a alcoholic, smoker being picky? perhaps I am :S

well why would a handsome, successful man be single still at 30, mostly likely trait would be he is a as*hole/pua. probably had more gfs then me though.

i don't either I go back and forth leaning toward submissive though due to avoiding conflict and being timid.

Sly: despite your best efforts, you WILL live past 35.

You're an okay guy; you have some confidence problems. I had them too when I was your age--maybe even worse.

I think, through your persistence, that people are really on your side now.

When you say you got your degree in "automotives," what do you mean?

IM not a female...but in my experience id say its because they have smaller brains than ours... its science

"H. neanderthalensis also had an average brain size of 1,450 cc with a range from 1,125cc to 1,750cc. The average modern H. sapiens brain size today is 1,330cc.

Presumably Neanderthals needed this extra brain mass to control their large muscle mass." (Wiki)

Ergo the term 'Meathead'.

The term 'RUN AT ME' applies right about now!