Friendzone

Post Reply New Topic

Which is to say that I don't think anyone on this board is going to solve their dating issues in Bumfluff, Warwickshire or Severed Toe, Tennessee by looking to the anthropological study of tribal societies past and present, or by projecting wildly as to how things might be in the west umpteen decades from now.

Does everything you say not have the other true as well?

"Monogamy requires a woman to commit to a man when she soon starts to realize that there are men out there who are as attractive if not even moreso than the man she's committed to"
what about the men?
does monogamy suddenly mean that men are no longer attracted to anyone else and the woman that they're with are suddenly the One and Only most magnificent creature in the world of which there is no better anywhere and they will stay devoted til the end of time?

"But in matriarchal cultures,"
how about the patriarchs which are what is Far more common?

"There are societies where men do not raise their children and child rearing is entirely the domain of women. And in such a culture there really is no incentive for a woman to commit to single man.."

the women spend all their time raising children, without any assistance and that means they're then somehow out galloping around with many men in their free time? and the only reason women commit to a man is so he can help her raise a child!?
and if the men don't stick around to help raise the kids, that means they're off in a cave alone? what about the flip that if the men don't help raise the kids, they have more time to be out meeting other women and less "reason to commit" to the woman?

Well one good example is the Tlingit of SW Alaska. Matriarchal cultures tend to be in places with extreme cold and have fairly small populations for some reason.


But this notion that men are the ones who prefer to have multiple partners is such an untrue stereotype that I daresay it's an outright myth. Far fewer men have the OPTION of doing this in the first place than women do. A lot of men IRL including yours truly tend to demand commitment from women in the hopes that she'll get emotionally attached to him and won't leave him for a man who can offer her more than he can.

But in general, the more attractive you are the less incentive there is for you to be attached/committed to one person because if your current relationship fails you can always find someone else. And what I'm trying to point out to you is that women have higher expectations from a partner than men do(on average)

The rise of hookup culture, thanks to Tinder & friends has led to non-monogamy becoming more and more common among young urban adults under the age of 40 in western countries. And you also need to bear in mind that more and more women are able to support themselves and even support a family on their own without another breadwinner. And the net effect in American society among single women in their 20s and 30s is that many female 20-somethings delay marriage until their 30s......and there more and more who don't bother to marry at all.

Casual sex with multiple partners isn't just for the guys anymore. You presume that most women are serial monogamists but polyamory and promiscuity are becoming mainstream and no longer viewed as "alternative lifestyles".

The Tlingit thing was interesting, but I still don't see how such things are germane.

I have not said (as in asserted) or presumed that 'most women are serial monogamists'. I do not know if this is the case, and whether it is or not doesn't really impact on my point.

I understand well that 'casual sex with multiple partners isn't just for the guys anymore' - I'm pretty sure I pointed this out to you when I mentioned the cultural/social shift that occurred after the sexual revolution and the contraceptive pill.

Though really - was it ever just for the guys, in practise? I understand the social mores around these things, but if men are sleeping around, there needs to be women also sleeping around for them to sleep with.

I also understand that 'man wants freedom, woman wants commitment' is a stereotype. Such things tend to be prescriptive more then descriptive. They may make a man feel he is not 'a real man' if he does not want to sleep around. They may make a woman feel she is not 'a real woman' if she does want to sleep around. These ideas are, I think, dying, but it's a slow death.

Promiscuity/'sleeping around' is not the same as polyamoury. Polyamoury is an attempt to bring together more than two people in commited relationships. Sleeping around is not commiting to a relationship.

Similarly, I've never thought of promiscuity as 'alternative'. They were very much mainstream, 'in the air' in the youth culture I grew up in, for both male and female.

What we have here is a confusion around ideas, principally around stereotypes. There was an old cliche of a fear that a woman would trap a man into marrying her with pregnancy. Though that doubtless still persists, there's also a new one about women 'stealing' sperm and never telling the man.

So finally, you make your point. You think women, on average, are more picky than men. I don't know if that's the case. I'll grant, for sake of argument, that it could be. Do bear in mind that the average family is supposed to have 2.4 children, or whatever it is. Met many 2/5ths of a child lately? The 'average' means little to the individual.

Similarly, I don't see how this means women have it 'easier'. Indeed, if they are pickier, it would be harder for them to get a date.

But, this clearly leads into your anxiety that either women will 'hold out' if they can't find someone they like, or will leave one man for another, or will accept being the second or fourth or seventh woman to a particularly desirable man. The last is clearly not a concern right now.

The middle one, I suspect there's a certain 'gender revenge' anxiety there because, for quite some time, men could leave women easier than women could leave men. To tie this in with your remarks about breadwinners - I think there is an anxiety at play that women don't actually like men and, furthermore, that they're kind of right.

As to the first, again, whether it's that a man can't get anyone to agree (despite low standards) or a woman can't find anyone to meet her 'wants' list - neither of them are getting a date.

Also: DEATH TO CAPTCHA.

Women are not more picky than men because men can often be very picky about looks.

Looks to me just have to not be offputting. While there are definitely certain physical things I find really pleasant to the eye, it's character that draws me in. If I find a woman compelling in her character, I'll usually find something physical to hang that attraction on.

I'm picky with people anyway. It's the rare person I can really get on with, and who can really get on with me.

Ewww. If the majority of people are this shallow it's no wonder most relationships don't last.

A personal anecdote doesn't refute the general experience for males with online dating. You either 1.) didn't use OKC (at least not recently) 2.) are very attractive 3.) are very lucky.


The amount looking for a relationship may be balanced, but the reasons for not finding a partner are likely different. The men who are continually rejected are balanced by the women who can't find anyone good enough. Both remain single.

I also don't buy the assumption that the cultural tradition of men asking has no biological underpinning. I'm an asexual male and I've noticed that asexual dating sites are different. It was fairly balanced between me asking and being asked. I'm pretty sure the tendency for men to fall into the "asking" role is tied to their higher level of sexual attraction (on average). Take uneven level of sexual attraction out of the picture and it is more balanced.


In my experience, trying to come up with a creative opener for every person you message is a waste of time as so few respond. I eventually gave up on OKC anyways. It only lead to generally bad experiences.


It depends on how you define "upper hand". It's easier for women to get dates, but that doesn't mean it's easier for them to find satisfying relationships. Dating and finding a one-night-stand might be easier for women, but not relationships as a whole.

Marshall - the general experience of males when dating is made up of personal anecdote. As such, I think it's a fool's errand to try and discern some meaningful pattern.

I used Plenty of Fish something like Feb to August '09, and OKCupid December '09 to July '10. At the time, I was a separated, single father of two. No car, no wealth. I was not yet diagnosed with AS, but I was weird, and knew it. I am of average looks, tending to overweight. I never sent a message unless I actually had something to say. I didn't try to be creative. I just wrote to them so as to express my genuine interest. I was - am - very particular and picky. I knew what I wanted, and it was hard to find. If I was lucky, it was that what the sort of woman I wanted would tend to be the sort of woman who was interested in me. Though that kind of woman is rare.

I did write up my OKCupid stats somewhere around here.

I think a significant difference is/was that I live in Britain. I think 'dating' in the US sense is a new concept here, and if there is a strong disinclination amongst Americans against women approaching men, I don't think that really holds in the UK. I've had meet-ups that could possibly be called dates, but when I've had a relationship it's because it's something I've just sort of found myself in.

As to biological underpinning - well, on the one hand definitely, on the other maybe, depending on the perspective. My point was it's not something that holds through all time and space, and that certain things which are assumed to be biologically immutable have a habit of being shown to be not so. Plus, if there is a biological constant in the XX and XY chromosomes that has men asking women more, then any differences will be at the social/cultural level. Any biological constant in humans at large or a particular sex has to allow for the variety of human behaviour.

My conception of the human inheritance is that it is one that allows for a pretty remarkable variety of behaviour. I find most attempts to 'root' something are more prescriptive than descriptive, and tend to beg the question.

Found my OKcupid stats.

Women I messaged who didn't respond: 11

Women who messaged me and I didn't respond: 9

Women I messaged, who responded, and I stopped writing: 3

Women I messaged, who responded, and they stopped writing: 5

Women who messaged me, I responded, and I stopped writing: 5

Women who messaged me, I responded, and they stopped writing: 7

There's some variety in the 'stopped writing' not really captured by the numbers.

On top of that, I met up a few times with one woman (I'd messaged her), but let that go. I also had a year's relationship with another (we 'starred' each other, me before her, and she messaged me first).

The only significant difference I can think of is down to me being in the UK. Which would be cultural.

Where do you find these stats?

They're mine, from my experience.

That does not logically follow(cause and effect). Men can be quite picky about looks but not nearly as much as you might think. A lot of guys will bang any woman who meets their minimum standards. And what makes you think women don't care about looks? Men judge women on their weight and women judge men on their height.

But good looks are not enough for women. They also have a long laundry list of personality traits they want/

Women, biologically, have to become more picky than men because gestation was HUGE risk to her in the past. Choosing a poor mate might have likely been a death sentence, women had to select for the strongest because the strongest was the demand for the conditions that humanity faced.

It's no longer the case, but our biology still thinks it is.

Several months worth of gestation with a weak/inferior dad, inside of a mud hut, with winter fast approaching? You are dead. Women HAD to choose males with resources, and her reptile brain still carries this demand because her reptile brain understands that this is the only way to survive, gestation demands a lot of resources and you must pick the best of the best, any deviation quite likely meant death.

For that, women are, were, and will always be more picky than men (and it's for a really damned good reason). Honestly this stuff should be common sense, the women that picked the less succesful men died with those men when they failed to garner the required resources before winter arrived.

Or they were simply killed off when a rival tribe moved next door, and thought to themselves "oh look, weaklings" and then killed them and stole their resources.

Humans are bred in crucible of war/nature's cruelty, our biology will always show this. It sucks, but it's just the way things are.