
Why women lose the dating game - jseliger
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html
======
rayiner
Interesting to see this get coverage. One of the factors that makes for this
phenomenon is simple math. Say there is a 55-45 ratio (with more women) among
30-something college-educated folks. Say, moreover, that by then 80% of the
people are in relationships. That makes for 40 women paired up with 40 men,
leaving 15 single women and just 5 single men.

I think a lot of this is self-inflicted, though. Professional women often
still carry with them some of this 1960's mentality and refuse to "date down."
As the demographics change and women being overrepresented among the college-
educated, this puts them at the wrong end of a supply/demand imbalance.

On the other hand, some of the voluntary decisions are due to unfair social
pressures. I think women wouldn't wait so long to get married if doing so
didn't start a timer on their downshifting their career. My wife and I got
married at 26/27 and had a baby shortly thereafter. My wife is a corporate
lawyer and gets a lot of flak for working long hours, especially from family.
Nobody ever gives me flak for working long hours. Painting in broad brush
strokes, men tend to find that when they get married, society reinforces their
career ambitions. Women tend to find that when they get married, society chips
away at their career ambitions. Other women, particularly other moms, are the
worst about it.

~~~
cgh
A professional, educated guy will marry the receptionist if she's funny and
hot. But a professional, educated woman will rarely marry the maintenance guy.
Brutal but that's how it is.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>A professional, educated guy will marry the receptionist if she's funny and
hot.

Try to sleep with maybe, but marry? I doubt it.

edit: This wasn't clear in my post, but I was speaking for myself. To each his
own of course. :)

~~~
chc
It is not my experience that most men are even willing to consider how well a
woman will be able to support them financially, since that is considered
emasculating.

~~~
varelse
From the age of 18 onward, I selected on a quirky combination of intelligence
plus subjective cuteness. I did not consider financial stability but I
wouldn't have been emasculated by it either. I was by no means an alpha, but I
was a straight A student and that did help with attracting the smarter ones
(which the alphas, frat boys and jocks mostly ignored anyway).

That said, this was a really bad algorithm. My divorce sucked.

Since then, I've selected on a maxmin of a quirky combination of intelligence
plus subjective cuteness combined with financial stability. So far, so good. I
had to rule out several otherwise promising contenders on the way using the
second criterion though.

I would not consider marrying the receptionist, no matter how hot, unless I
noticed that she was reading O'Reilly books and/or managing her multiple
rental properties between visitors to the front desk. You do not want to marry
a boat anchor and make beautiful concrete galoshes with her.

Finally, while looks are a mediocre measure of long-term compatibility when
one is young, as one approaches and passes 40, one's looks become less a
matter of genetics and more a matter of the consequences of conscious choices
along the way and so I got pickier on that axis as my pool of potential
partners aged.

Women who are selecting for financial stability early on are way ahead of you
if you truly consider a financially competent woman emasculating. Get over it.

~~~
bluedino
>> I would not consider marrying the receptionist, no matter how hot, unless I
noticed that she was reading O'Reilly books and/or managing her multiple
rental properties between visitors to the front desk. You do not want to marry
a boat anchor and make beautiful concrete galoshes with her.

Wow. What if you enjoy each others company immensely?

~~~
varelse
Turned down two potential partners whose company I enjoyed immensely because
the first one (ivy league degrees, spoke 4 languages, virtuoso musician) could
not hold a job for more than a couple months and had zero life-savings and the
second one (beautiful, charming, popular) turned out to be a narcissist that
was over $1M in the hole due to the housing crash. Both had expensive tastes
despite this.

So yes, if I found out the receptionist was falling ever deeper into debt
and/or wasn't doing something on her own to rise above the seemingly
unstoppable ongoing wealth redistribution to the top 5%, I would not marry
her. OTOH if I found out she was a diamond in the rough like I alluded to
above, I wouldn't let her out of my sight.

Fights over money are marriage-killers. And to quote Faye Valentine:
"Beautiful skin can only be maintained by tireless efforts which are
ultimately totally futile." So what's in it for me in this case other than
transient enjoyment followed by a lifetime of sorrow?

------
spodek
I propose not distinguishing the "winners" and "losers" by sex to understand
who has the upper hand, but by those who act on what they want and those who
don't.

I suspect the people who end up not getting what they want tend to be the ones
who don't put in the effort, especially taking the emotional risks in
attracting others, initiating relationships, and making the relationships work
the way they want.

Many men and many women put in this effort. Many men and many women also don't
put in this effort. I suspect the former group has much more success than the
latter group in the long run whether male or female, though I suspect they
face a lot more rejection and emotional pain in the short run. I suspect the
latter group faces less short-term pain and rejection, but is lucky to get
what they want from relationships if they ever do.

The emotional challenges of making yourself vulnerable are harder for most
than pursuing a career or hobbies so many men and women go the emotionally
easier route of working hard at their jobs. In my experience, along with
overcoming those challenges comes tremendous emotional growth.

(Btw, I disagree with the zero-sum mentality of winners and losers because
people can have more than one deep, meaningful relationship and relationship
come in many forms, but adopted it for consistency with the article).

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Effort

Well, sure, effort is important. But there are also many "hard-coded" factors
outside one's control. For example, I'm 5'9", which makes me average in that
category. To make up for it, I need to dress extra nice and be
athletic/muscular. Whereas someone who is, say, 6'2" will be attractive to
women solely on the virtue of being tall.

~~~
candydance
>>Whereas someone who is, say, 6'2" will be attractive to women solely on the
virtue of being tall.

Lol no. As a 6'2" man with social anxiety, being tall is not some magical
doorway to getting the ladies.

Effort is more important, grooming is more important, being able to hold a
conversation is more important, etc.

edit: I'm not saying height isn't an advantage. I'm saying that there are MANY
other factors which matter MUCH more than just height.

~~~
DanBC
Take two people who make the same amount of effort, groom as well as each
other, can hold conversations, etc.

One of them is 6'2", the other is 4'10". Which one is going to have an easier
time?

Hight is an advantage.

~~~
candydance
Now unbalance it a bit, if the 6'2" can't hold a conversation he's going to
fail. This means that holding a conversation is more important.

Same thing if he's not well groomed, same thing if he's out of shape. Same
thing good career vs unemployed.

And these are all things that can be improved if you work at it.

Height is an advantage, but it's not the most important one.

~~~
bluecalm
>Now unbalance it a bit, if the 6'2" can't hold a conversation he's going to
fail. This means that holding a conversation is more important.

This is wrong reasoning. You may just well say: if someone can hold a
conversation but is 3'10'' he is going to fail hence height is more important.
Let me improve it for you: Some minimal level is necessary in all respects:
height, holding a conversation, not being awkward, not being disgusting. Once
you have that various factors counts at various degrees - height is one of the
most important ones (if not the most important one). Status is a contender but
guess what: height helps with achieving that too (as it does with acquiring
wealth as well). Also you can work on improving almost anything (holding a
conversation, money, athletism) but you can't improve your height. It's huge
inherent advantage, nothing comes close.

~~~
scarmig
As a pretty short, straight-seeming bi guy (5'2), I have a unique perspective
that might be enlightening about the importance of height to women.

Although I hate projecting people onto the 0-10 spectrum, I'll do it here for
illustrative purposes.

With women, I have a great deal of difficulty attracting anyone: it's less
that I match with numerical ones and twos than not matching with anyone at
all. Not no one--and those I do succeed with are typically even middling on
the spectrum--but it's a massive crapshoot.

With men, I can go out to a bar on any night of the week and bring home
someone in the top half and usually an eight or nine. Sure, that's meaningless
shit, but converting those into relationships isn't difficult at all (or at
least no more difficult than anyone in the gay community has converting
hookups to relationships).

The difference is incredibly striking, and anyone who says height isn't a
factor in women dating is so wrong that it's incomprehensible that they've
ever bothered to even talk to a woman about how she feels about height in
dating partners.

~~~
sanoli
I have plenty of women friends who have told me flat-out they wouldn't date a
man shorter than them.

~~~
scarmig
That's pretty common as a phenomenon: I wouldn't say it's a cliff so much as a
very steep grade. My current girlfriend is an inch taller than me, and taller
than that in heels (and I love her in them!). But she's the tallest person
I've ever dated.

It also shows the shortcomings (no pun intended...) of the 0-10 rating model:
there's neither generic Man nor generic Woman. Your rating to women you're
more than two or three inches taller than (could be 0, could be 10) is almost
entirely independent of your rating to women you're two or three inches
shorter than (0).

------
mattgreenrocks
Dating is disgusting solely because of power dynamics. The whole thing _reeks_
of entitlement from both genders. From the rating system (which requires a
highly reductionistic view of people, to the point that it is damaging to
you), to the pseudo-scientific alpha/beta monikers, to the creepy game
advocates ("she says no, but she really means yes!"). Both sides pull out
shoddy excuses for what amounts to knee-jerk dismissal of potential mates.

I've been dumped over the hazy prospect of something better more than once.
AFAIK, those exes are still searching. But, I'm 31 now, and really happy as a
husband to a wonderful wife.

Dating is severely overrated. The best thing you can do is get in and get out
without becoming cynical from it. Long-term relationships are satisfying in a
way that dating can never compare to.

~~~
Gravityloss
America has this unfruitful competetive-combative attitude to _everything_.
You could instead think of dating as a mutual cooperative process of finding
out if you two should really get together. The hate and dumping and gloating
and sex exploits don't maky any normal emphatic person happy deep down.

~~~
angersock
_You could instead think of dating as a mutual cooperative process of finding
out if you two should really get together._

I like your world...let's live there instead.

:(

------
chernevik
There are a lot of unstated values out there. I'm a great father -- really --
but it isn't hard to look at my divorce and think it happened because I didn't
make the money my wife expected of me. This despite the supposedly anti-
material, pro-family values of herself and her set.

Don't get me wrong, I made some SERIOUS mistakes of my own, and had some
important problems to work through. She has her side of the story too, and
neither of us could tell a simple story.

But money and earning was a huge problem, even when I was making two or three
standard deviations more than the US average. And it was a shock to me to see
how many people supposedly rejected the rat-race values, and knew my
relationship with my kids, yet couldn't be bothered to call to see how I was
doing. People say they want dads who focus on their kids, but I haven't
noticed much effort to support those guys in the tight spots. At least not
when Mom declares the guy a loser.

Again. No representation of personal perfection is made or intended. I had a
lot to work on in the marriage, found more in the divorce, still finding more
yet. Yay.

I hope this doesn't come across bitter. I think there is a lot of confusion in
the discussions of gender roles and career and child raising, and I think a
lack of candor is part of that. So it is important to notice that a great deal
of the values declared, are declared for the nobility of the declaration and
don't prove to mean much. A good many people are smarter / wiser / more
careful than I was, and don't take those declarations at face value, and so
find themselves making better decisions and on firmer foundations. But it is
impossible to really talk to most of those people about their attitudes,
because they all know that some of their opinions could bring a lot of flak.
Why pay that price to be candid? Especially when, let's face it, many of these
conversations are begun with an intended conclusion in mind.

From what I've seen, personally, we need a LOT more honesty in our discussions
of gender roles and careers and child raising. And a LOT of that has to come
from people on the "progressive" side of the discussion.

~~~
booruguru
How exactly was money a problem? What kinds of conversations/arguments did you
have about money?

~~~
chernevik
We made some moves, and she some sacrifices, that expected I would make a lot
more than I did. That is on me, as are some of the issues driving that. I have
complaints about other issues bearing on this, but that gets messy.

That said, we were making enough, if we budgeted. And she wouldn't, and we
fought about it a lot.

------
NanoWar
Reminded me of this... :)

A store has just opened in New York City that offered free husbands. When
women go to choose a husband, they have to follow the instructions at the
entrance:

“You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are 6 floors to choose from. You
may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the
next floor, but you CANNOT go back down except to exit the building!

So, a woman goes to the store to find a husband. On the 1st floor the sign on
the door reads: Floor 1 - These men Have Jobs. The 2nd floor sign reads: Floor
2 - These men Have Jobs and Love Kids. The 3rd floor sign reads: Floor 3 -
These men Have Jobs, Love Kids and are extremely Good Looking.

“Wow,” she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going. She goes to the 4th
floor and sign reads: Floor 4 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead
Good Looking and Help With Housework. “Oh, mercy me!” she exclaims. “I can
hardly stand it!” Still, she goes to the 5th floor and sign reads: Floor 5 -
These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, help with Housework
and Have a Strong Romantic Streak.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the 6th floor and the Sign reads:
Floor 6 - You are visitor 71,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this
floor. This floor exists solely as proof that you are impossible to please.
Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.

To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opened a Wife Store just
across the street.

The 1st first floor has wives that love sex. The 2nd floor has wives that love
sex and have money. The 3rd through 6th floors have never been visited...

([http://www.city-data.com/forum/relationships/276172-joke-
hus...](http://www.city-data.com/forum/relationships/276172-joke-husband-
store.html))

------
soneca
It is interesting (kind of scary to me) that this is totally stripped out of
all humanity. Dating is now a game, people are prospects and they receive
rates from 0 to 10. These are not just metaphors anymore, this is how people
are actually considering others human beings. It became the paradigm of
finding a partner.

This formal meeting where both sides are constantly analyzing their partners
and odds, i.e., dates, inevitably leads to this paradigm. It is just like job
interviews, you can't possibly get to know deepily each candidate, so you have
to create artificials proxies that will help you to chose wisely. And this
proxies are wrong most of the times.

But when finding a partner you _can_ possibly have time to meet another person
more deeply. Actually, you do that all the time, at work, at your
neighborhood, with friends and friends of friends. But that is not longer a
possibility if you have spent all your life not interest at all in people
surrounding you, waiting for the time when you will chose a person from a
shelf to marry you.

Tl;dr: I don't think is much about successfull women high expectations, but
about women didn't have much interest at all in another humans and now think
of a partner as a product. And they don't get how this 'product' has a mind of
its own now.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
You're hitting on a fundamental truth here: dating's crappy power dynamics
actively chips away at our very humanity. We're to be content with these cheap
proxies and massive game-playing, because, well, sorry, everyone else has
bought in too. This is most closely evidenced by proponents of every creepy
dating mindset: "it must be true, because this is what animals do!"

Maybe this is the fallout of mass consumerism, and a lifetime of being told
that you can have it all. Dating sites pander to this too, by implicitly
advertising love as just a mere SQL query away:

SELECT * FROM candidates WHERE gender = 'm' AND salary > 150000 AND height >
72

SELECT * FROM candidates WHERE gender = 'f' AND age < 27 AND looks > 9.8

I've always thought a dating site that was less search-y and more experiential
(aka requires time to actually _meet_ people) could be a profitable niche. You
meet people first, then get access to look at their profiles.

As for expectations, I love what my pastor said: "you probably don't deserve
the person you think you deserve."

------
cheez
Fairly relevant for female entrepreneurs. I have a professional acquaintance
who has been toying with being the prototypical power woman (who, IMO, doesn't
really exist): involved supermom, successful entrepreneur, good wife. My
advice to her was that I've been successful and have a family and family is
way more satisfying. Besides, once your kids are grown up, PLEASE continue
contributing to society by being an entrepreneur. You're not going to keep
having kids when you're 40. Enjoy your youth and love your kids.

Before people say "why don't men do the same?" here is why:
[http://jobs.economist.com/article/when-women-dare-to-
outearn...](http://jobs.economist.com/article/when-women-dare-to-outearn-men/)

"For the couples themselves, the dynamic may be a problem. As long as the
woman earns less, her income does not cause trouble in the marriage. Once she
earns more, however, marriage difficulties jump and divorce rates increase.
Interestingly, it does not seem to matter whether she earns only slightly
more, or substantially more—an indication that it is not female income per se,
but the mere fact of earning more, that causes trouble."

I doubt that is changing anytime soon.

~~~
carbocation
I think your comment is of kind intent, but if I were to summarize it, it
reads to me like "Women, you should defer your careers by 20 years so you
don't upset your spouse and, through his insecurity, risk divorce."

Maybe the advice should be that men should get counseling or something if
they're so insecure that they divorce their breadwinner.

~~~
randomdata
That assumes divorce is a bad thing.

Marriage comes from a time when women were unable to earn a living on their
own, and we still hold up many of those ideals, even in our modern equal-
oppurtunity society. Perhaps when a woman clearly demonstrates she is equally
capable of being the breadwinner, the couple are freed to be more open to
making relationship decisions on the basis of the relationship alone without
feeling the obligations of marriage?

~~~
cheez
In the vast majority of cases, divorce is worse for the kids and usually
leaves the women worse off for a variety of reasons (and if I hear patriarchy,
/thread done.)

There are many situations in which divorce is the only choice but it is
dangerous to imply that it is right thing to do more often than not because we
are now supposedly more enlightened.

If you don't have kids though, go for it.

~~~
hajile
Divorce is bad for WOMEN?? Divorce is a disaster for men both emotionally and
financially. Even prenuptial agreements are largely useless as they are
normally overturned by the court system. A serious consideration (and study)
of the chances of divorce and the normal outcome of divorce would have any man
reconsidering (assuming he is thinking rationally rather than emotionally).

~~~
jdbernard
And now that we have decided that divorce is bad for the kids, the women, and
the men, maybe we can be comfortable saying divorce is a bad thing.

~~~
hajile
After divorce in today's society, a man is 12 times more likely than his ex to
commit suicide. This seems to indicate that men after divorce having a much
harder time than women and the constant nature of these numbers indicates that
these issues are not being addressed by society.

I remember reading about a man who was sent to prison for not paying child
support and alimony. He was wealthy before the 2008 crash, but afterwards was
un/underemployed and simply COULDN'T pay the almost $100,000 required by the
state.

I have found no cases where women deal with this kind of discrimination in the
courtroom while there is a staggering amount of cases where men are completely
destroyed financially and left seeing the most important people in their life
for a few hours every couple of weeks simply because they are men.

~~~
DanBC
HN really needs to purge the wing-nut MRA accounts.

> After divorce, a man is 12 times more likely than his ex to commit suicide
> in society today.

do you have a reliable source for that?

> I have found no cases where women deal with this kind of discrimination in
> the courtroom

You haven't looked.

------
jedmeyers
Also it is interesting how a lot those women want a man with already
established career, etc, but it doesn't work out like that. In most cases
those men achieved such career heights with the help of their significant
other and therefore already have one and might only be interested in an
affair, not marriage. "How to become a General's wife? You marry a
Lieutenant."

~~~
angersock
Similarly, it's unsurprising how much vitriol and poor behavior/misogyny these
folks exhibit in their 30s.

Consider the number of guys who go through their twenties and don't have any
luck--perhaps even having good female friends who are close but never take
that additional step into a proper relationship because there are hotter guys
around.

Now, go through a decade of this, and suddenly you "get your shit together",
and now things are easier (really, perhaps, the girls are just better adjusted
in their expectations), and how are you to treat these people?

People who looked on for a decade while you suffered? Why not treat them like
pieces of meat--that's how you were treated, after all.

And if you _do_ treat them decently and settle down, you basically know that
you are likely missing out on a whole chunk of life experience.

It's a horrible and toxic cycle.

It seems like we get to keep having this as a societal norm, or we get to
complain about manchildren and not settling down--we do not get to do both.

EDIT: This is clearly not the case for everyone; there are many, many
different life experiences out there. That said, for a certain set, I would
wager this is fairly close to what they'll/they've gone through.

~~~
PeterisP
Well, it should be expected - by that time the majority is already married or
'settled-down' without marriage, so the nice guys and average guys are mostly
'out of market' while all of the douchebags and also the most frustrated ones
are still right there.

------
mildtrepidation
On the assumption that the conclusions reached here are reasonably accurate
and the generalizations aren't based on utter mistakes, and with the
understanding that even in that case this is still just a set of conclusions
and conjectures based on averages or pluralities leaving _many_ people to
which it's simply not relevant...

...making those assumptions, I'm trying hard not feel just a little smug when
realizing I'm one of those approaching-middle-aged men who's suddenly a lot
more attractive (effectively) than ten years ago.

I don't sleep around rampantly, and never have, but I am with a 20-something
woman (and part of that first paragraph I wrote comes in because I didn't pick
her to settle down or because she's a 10, nor is that why she's with me). The
description of relationships in that age range did make me think a bit.

I'm trying _not_ to feel smug because that's a terrible reaction: It's the
same way you'd expect a hot 20-something girl to feel knowing she can get any
guy she wants, at least temporarily. And feeling smug about this ignores the
fact that, whether women who do fit this profile were jerks in their younger
years or not, they're now more mature, more experienced, and facing prospects
that just aren't pleasant and make the rest of their lives -- which they've
worked hard for -- a lot more uncertain than they had reason to expect before.
Regardless of how carelessly or inconsiderately you spent the romantic
pursuits your younger years, if this is the problem you face, I can manage at
least some sympathy.

That said... I still can't shake the doubts I expressed at the start. I
obviously haven't seen the data or anything, but it's hard to look at this and
say "yep, I have no doubt their methods are good and their conclusions are
representative."

~~~
_random_
How did you meet her?

------
nickthemagicman
Natural selection is on the side of women in their 20's and on the side of men
from then on.

All the crap women put us through most men read this article and cheer.

~~~
bergerjac
> All the crap women put us through

How can you expect women to select without testing us?

~~~
nickthemagicman
If mens test is success, the women's test is her looks.

And attractive young girls are men's equivalent of the rich handsome finance
studs.

If we're going to allow men to be selected for we also have to allow women to
be selected for.

In the spirit of honest natural selection leaving your sagging wife and
marrying your young secretary is good for humanity as a whole.

~~~
muuh-gnu
> the women's test is her looks.

No, a woman's test is her chastity. Nobody but the most desperate beta is
marrying and having kids with the town bicycle, no matter how good she looks
or how young she is.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Chastity? What planet are you on?

LOOKS ARE WHY WOMEN WEAR MAKEUP and mini skirts. If chastity were their test
they would be doing exactly the opposite.

You're not getting turned on by porn because the woman is 'chaste'. You're
getting turned on becuase she is HOT.

Looks, indicate fertility and health, and are widely know through out all of
biology and the animal kingdom to be used by males to select fit mates no
matter slutty and how many litters of animals the female has had. It indicates
genetic fitness.

For men success is the test. It indicates accumulation of resources and
ability to survive.

Plus, sex is a powerful primitive desire and no (matter what they tell you)
they're all "bicycles" as you describe it, just like you would LIKE to be.

------
mhamel
Has anyone here read The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter, by Meg
Jay? As a young 20-year-old female, the chapter on relationships and marriage
was, to put it politely, terrifying. If you don't start having kids by 30, the
chance of it being possible in your mid-late 30s is slim. So - kids by 30, you
want to have about 1 year of marriage kid-free, you want to date your future
spouse for 4-5 years before marriage.... Do that math and basically who you're
dating at age 23 (me) is who you're ending up with.

Terrifying.

~~~
sn
One option, if you can afford it, is to freeze your own eggs. It's costly but
is probably a better option than having kids before you really want to.

------
peapicker
What these women don't realize is that a lot of the men who _want_ to commit
find someone to commit to in their early to mid twenties. The men who are
left, and have perhaps never found a women willing to commit to them (like
some of the 'power women' mentioned in this article), have been trained that
women can't be trusted to commit to them, and so there you are. Sure there are
plenty of exceptions, but it seems to be a general trend.

------
Mikeb85
The article is pretty spot on, and I've noticed many of the same things
throughout my early-mid 20's (late 20's now). Many of the women who couldn't
be bothered with someone like me (not bad looking, pretty good shape, tall,
but not 'alpha' enough) when I was 20-25, now throw themselves at me,
especially when they realize I'm married (got married at 27).

And to add to this, why are so many guys douchebags? Because we've been
treated like shit by women from our teenage years, and now know we have the
upper hand.

Of course, I'm not like that (probably would be if I was single), my wife is
very sweet and very pretty, and I'm glad to be out of the dating game.

------
boh
From my own personal experience I can say there's a lot of truth to this
article. I live in NYC and in my early twenties attractive girls my age were
hard to come by. Most were taken by older men, muscle guys or rich kids. I'm
approaching thirty and all of sudden I'm getting a lot more attention from
women of all ages. The younger girls either want a stable guy "who can help
them grow" or a guy with money who knows how to have sex, while the older
women are looking for a chair to sit on before the music stops. I'm married
now so it doesn't mean much, but the thought is still there: "where were you
girls nine years ago?"

~~~
return0
I wonder if we are the first generation to come to this observation, as it
seems to be a common observation across the board.

~~~
boh
We're the first generation to express this observation on a global
communication network.The truth is finally available to the masses!

~~~
return0
I don't think that's all. People in past generations used to get married well
before 30.

~~~
boh
That's true but a couple of generations have already gone by that marry past
30.

------
vidarh
A big part of their problem is that they are not just competing against women
their age: Men happily date younger women, and younger women happily date
older men more successful, experienced etc. than the men their own age.

I'm 38. I get more attention from early 20's women now than ever before.

~~~
bluecalm
And to that you should say "justice!" because when you were 20 something guy
competing vs guys in their 30's, late 20's with somewhat established
careers/status/money was very difficult and/or impossible.

------
31reasons
"Data from American colleges show 20 per cent of males - the most attractive
ones - get 80 per cent of the sex"

damn it..its just like the app store.

~~~
john_b
Don't take it personally, it seems to be a fundamental feature of mathematics
and human behavior that when a competitive and healthy market exists for a
quality which is normally distributed, the resulting price curve follows a
power law.

------
tluyben2
I see a lot of this in the Netherlands as well; a lot of girlfriends in their
30s 'cannot find a man'. All of them are managers, judges and/or PhDs; they
have a hard time finding a match. We often discuss the bar too high thing and
they know this is the case but they first want to try it that way. When they
get near 40 (and after that 'unable' to have kids) they lose this and marry
and/or move in with someone they wouldn't have given the light of day before
to make babies with. Seen it many times. Some of them are really happy they
did it because they really didn't think they could live with someone that
didn't meet _all_ their standards; now they realise those standards were nuts
and anyone meeting them would be a freak.

I must say that I haven't seen anything as weird as I read here with people I
know; guys getting their own back as some kind of revenge for their missed
20s? Maybe it happens; luckily I don't know these guys.

Another thing:

I'm 38 like Greg the writer from the article; unlike Greg the writer I had
some idea how basic things work. You know; supply and demand. In (and a bit
before) my 20s I was a big guy with glasses, a beard and long hair. I listened
to metal music. So I must go to rock concerts and rock bars to meet girls? Of
course not; that would be stupid; I went to parties with clean shaven, nice
smelling, well dressed, upper class talking students. People studying law,
business etc. In those days (still? no idea) math/physics/cs were real geeks
and they didn't go to those things. Now all girls there wanted these guys and
there were ONLY these guys; they all looked the same. There would be _always_
about 1-3 girls who went with friends or just because bored, but who hated the
kind of guy there. Either because of look or attitude. They went for me,
automatically, every time. I would talk about physics and they would sleep
with me; I had/have great relations with some of them. It still works now (I'm
happily married now, but it still is flattering).

I ran a successful dating site for a while and often explained to people that
if you all fish in the same pond, nothing will happen. That's just useless
disappointment if you're not Don Juan.

------
retrogradeorbit
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy)

------
padobson
I think this article reinforces a lot of the problems with marriage in our
society in the first place, and pinpoints a lot of the reasons why a majority
of marriages fail.

We're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Marriage was born a long
time ago and used for very very different purposes than what the 21st century
30-something career woman is hoping to use it for. Of course said demographic
isn't getting what they want from it.

Both the criteria for a spouse and the reasons for getting married are either
too superficial or overly vague. You need to first ask yourself why you want
to get married and then develop criteria for a partner based on that.

Why do you want a spouse? To have sex? You don't need a lifetime commitment
for that, it'd be a wiser life style decision to move to a place with legal
prostitution. Do you want a spouse because you're lonely? Then make more
friends. There's no need to make the relationship legally binding, go to
places where people congregate with similar interests. Do you want to have
kids? There's tons of charities out there where you can mentor children and
make a very real impact on our society without creating new children with a
spouse whom you selected based on criteria that are terrible predictors of
being a good parent.

We as a society are never going to be able provide healthy guidance on
marriage until we start to be very honest with ourselves about what marriage
is for and what its purpose is for each us.

~~~
return0
> Marriage was born a long time ago and used for very very different purposes

I think you are hitting the core of the issue here. Reason dictates that
commitment/marriage and dating/hookup culture are completely incompatible. Of
course, it takes decades for society to look itself in the mirror, but we are
certainly in a transitory period, and things are not going back.

------
netcan
Some of this is cute-ish: "* 20 per cent of males - the most attractive ones -
get 80 per cent of the sex _" OKcupid used to have a blog with funny posts on
stats like this.

Some bits, I don't really know if I should dismiss: "_It's wall-to-wall
arseholes out there _". It's too easy to find negative anecdotes and
sentiments that things are getting worse. Especially month the nonvoluntary
singles.

"Women with degrees want a smaller group of men with degrees" will fix itself.
A degree isn't what it used to be in exclusiveness. Women might even be doing
more degrees specifically because they are under a little less pressure torn.

I think preferences at different ages plays a bigger part. Women tend to be at
peak attractiveness in their 20s. Men in their 30s. Both want to settle down
in their 30s. Also men _can* have kids later so even though attractiveness
goes down they have longer. This makes it easier for men in the settle down
phase and women in the play the field phase. The 30something women's complaint
(can't find a nice guy to marry) just seems more reasonable than the
20something Men's.

------
Pxtl
... I'm not sure exactly who should be offended by this article - whether it's
the conservative men, the feminists, the liberal men, the MRAs, the
20something gals, the 30-something gals, whatever... but I'm pretty sure they
ought to be offended. This is rife with some pretty vile stereotypes and broad
brushes.

~~~
grimtrigger
For a topic as large as dating, broad brushes are all you have.

------
dickler
This is why marriage and civilization was invented. 80% per cent of men in
their 20s not getting women would lead to revolution in earlier times, but
today TV, internet and plentiful food distract them from this.

Eastern cultures (india/china etc) have a relative advantage now, precisely
because of their culture. Think of all the lost productivity from emotional
hardships from most men in their 20s and lots of women in their 30s in western
countries.

~~~
_random_
You wait for Oculus Rift 5 and see what happens. Tech sex revolution will
absolutely shake the society.

------
meangeme
"Almost one in three women aged 30 to 34 and a quarter of late-30s women do
not have a partner, according to the 2006 census statistics. And this is a
growing problem."

Why? Because birthrates are declining? Or because people "need to" have a
partner?

~~~
PeterisP
Is it a rethorical question?

Because recently a growing portion of late-30s women are single, and it's not
because now more of them have chosen so, but because now more of them are
unable a [suitable] partner, so they themselves perceive it as a problem. Of
course, not every one of them "needs to" have a parter, but a majority does
want a partner.

------
peterwwillis
Women don't lose the dating game. Men don't win it either. There's just a lot
of really sucky players and a few people who got lucky. Stop playing the game
and you'll find yourself a lot happier for it.

------
tomkarlo
There's two important issues at work here: 1\. "Pairing" is basically a barter
market where every good is unique, information on them is noisy or downright
deceptive, and you only get to trade once (hopefully). That's a recipe for
having problems getting clearing trades and feeling good about a trade you've
made.

2\. Behavioral psychology says we all tend to "high water mark". We want our
eventual partner to be better looking than, smarter, more successful etc than
the partners we had previously. Especially if you're getting older and your
appeal is perhaps declining, that's going to make it very difficult to find
someone who meets your standards, because your standards have risen over the
course of your dating life.

------
iterationx
This following stat doesn't help if women want to "Have it all" which I assume
means at least one child.

Each year, about 500,000 men in the US get a vasectomy, with rates higher
among more educated and higher-income men.

------
ashwinaj
Having unrealistic, superficial, mythical "check boxes" for a potential
partner (male or female) in the western world is so out of whack. Money, fame,
looks can only take you so far. Why couldn't people just be honest i.e. be
themselves and try to make a meaningful connection to a person? Sure, no one
wants to see a "loser" (whatever that definition might be) but get to know
somebody before accepting/rejecting them and not having preconceived notions.

------
fauigerzigerk
It's astonishing that having a serious relationship or not is such a planned
decision for some. Do people really break up with someone they love just
because they're "not ready" or keep going with someone they don't love just
because they decided it's time to settle down?

That's weird. It all sounds rather medieval to me. I hope this is all just the
kind of selective stream of colorful anecdotes that journalists are so fond
of.

~~~
anotherevan
"Mercenary" was the word my wife used when I showed her the article and we
were discussing it.

------
towski
Shrug. As a thirty year old career driver successful programmer, it's hard to
find a thirty year old woman with even half a brain.

~~~
graycat
She's supposed to be younger than you. Your connection with her is supposed to
be heavily emotional -- from an expert, "Of _course_ women are _much_ more
emotional than men; that's the cause of all the problems."

She is supposed to tell you about what's between her ears (thoughts and
emotions), care about you, respect you, and respond to you (E. Fromm). And,
really, being younger than you, she is supposed to look up to you as a leader.
You are supposed to be a good leader of you both, but you have to use some
subtle means I can't explain usefully here; we're not talking military or
business leadership here. As in Eric Berne, the two of you are not supposed to
be _equal_ \-- you are supposed to be quite different, "equal" in respect as
persons but not the "same" (E. Fromm).

Actually, from Mother Nature, if she is already old enough and you are still
young enough, then that's enough! Things she doesn't know or gets confused
about are places where you need to apply some leadership. E.g., if you want
your kids home schooled but she didn't go to college, then you have to _lead_
in how she can get materials, keep the schooling organized, and make good use
of good tutors and other home schooled children. And if you want your kids
taking the SATs at 12 and the GREs at 16, then you will have to lead in how
your family does this. Did I mention leadership?

She can have a "brain" and even be brilliant (my wife was Valedictorian, PBK,
Woodrow Wilson, NSF, and top research university Ph.D. and just brilliant but,
still, was mostly run by her emotions) but will still be run mostly just by
her emotions. She may care more about her _emotional security_ from you than
even financial security.

I don't know about your school, but I went grades 1-12 with, from girls my own
age in the school building, receiving a total of likely less than 100 words.
Right, they ignored me. Then in the ninth grade I discovered that girls 1-3
years younger could be from eager to much more to talk to me -- some of them
were both shocking and obvious and about much more than just talking. Girls
are designed to like older men. The way of the world.

------
ttflee
Is there a model or a theory for gaming strategy in time domain?

~~~
cschmidt
The Secretary problem is quite related to marriage...

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem)

Michael Trick, a well known Operations Research professor at CMU, wrote about
applying it to his own life

[http://mat.tepper.cmu.edu/blog/?p=1392](http://mat.tepper.cmu.edu/blog/?p=1392)

[Edit:] He assumed we wanted to be married to the best possible spouse by the
age of 40. The optimal strategy, given his assumptions, is to date until age
26, and then marry the first person who is the best seen so far. You'll marry
the best possible person 1/e fraction of the time.

------
EGreg
Here is my pithy theory that explains a lot of this, which in my opinion seems
to fit the data and is backed up by copious anecdotal evidence.

"Men put more work up front -- making the first move, taking the women out and
showing them a good time, etc. Women put more work once the relationship gets
going (i.e. after much sex has been had). They put up with their guy's
frustrating habits and work to advance the relationship forward."

Now, this is a description of the MAJORITY of interactions, not all, of
course. Some women chase men (or are more open to advances from men). Some men
are very marriage minded. But the majority behaves as I described. To see why,
I highly recommend this article:
[http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm](http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm)

Now, how does this affect the marriage market? Well, the conclusions follow
directly from observing the trends that are occurring in the last 50 years:

* More women work

* Women work longer hours

* More women are educating themselves

* More young women are independent financially

* In fact, young unmarried women make more than male counterparts

However, in some ways the situation is pivoting again:

* Technology is making traditional college educations less useful

* The internet will soon disrupt college education

* Income inequality penalizes wage earning in favor of capital (running a business with clients is more inflation-resistant). Entrepreneurs are the new finance guys.

All this should combine to once again change women's perspective on who's
dateable

Women respect risk-taking men (see the article), and want to have children
with a successful man whose risks paid off.

And it looks like the humble folks on HN with their lifestyle businesses or
those in successful startup cities will have the advantage in terms of earning
potential, freedom to choose, and also women.

If they would just work out more... :)

------
carloc
I predict that it will become acceptable for men to earn less than their
wives, stay at home, and take care of the kids.

I also predict that those men will do so in a very masculine way.

Finally, I hypothesize that a lot of the demand for good breadwinners from
women who already have all the bread they need is cultural rather than
hormonal.

The best indicator that this is true is the massive difference in how couples
behave in public (keep with the norms) and in private (endless variety).
Another observation is that lots of "cultural revolutions" are simply formerly
private activities becoming public.

------
apunic
Why this is important of founders:

Being focussed is the key when you want to be successful as an entrepreneur.
Finding the right one until you found the right one is the most distracting
thing.

------
galfarragem
The root of the problem is that women are behaving more and more like men and
men more and more like women. We are equivalent but we are different, we must
acknowledge it.

\- women want direction in life from men (not feelings).

\- men want beauty, support and kindness from women (not careers).

No one is giving the other what they want/need so they seek it in themselves,
making the situation even worse.

------
graycat
It's simple. Really simple. Just dirt simple. Not all of Mother Nature is so
complicated. Did I mention it's simple?

Look, guys and gals, there's some quite good evidence that the genes of people
of descent in Western Europe, Russia, and East Asia are essentially the same
as the genes that were successful, say, 10,000 years ago although we could
likely push that back to 25,000 years ago.

So, think was tribal or village life was like, say, beside a river in Europe
10,000 years ago. Right: The women gathered together and tended to the
children, prepared food, and made clothing. The men and the boys old enough
did men things, hunting, tool making, building, and fighting.

The talents of men for those men things led to more tools, fire, wheels,
metals, ..., Windows 7, and these things enormously changed the economy and
culture, built by men in ways convenient for men, wildly different from what
the women did 10,000 years ago and not so convenient for women. E.g., a single
women or a woman in a suburban house with 2-3 kids is in a very different
situation, especially for woman, than the women in the tribe/village 10,000
years ago.

In simple terms, the women were happier with their lives 10,000 years ago,
assuming there were no problems with disease, injury, hygiene, food, child
birth, etc.

Then, women of 35, sorry: You are too late to the game. Way, Way, Way too
late. How much too late? At least 15 years, more like 20 years, and for a
really good answer on when to start looking for a husband, let me be clear
(assuming good nutrition and rate of maturation) 22 years. Right:
Congratulations on your abilities at arithmetic, 10,000 years ago you would
have been looking for a husband at age 13 or so and getting married at age
14-16. Did I mention that you are late?

There's more from the side of the men: He wants her cute, sweet, pretty,
precious, darling, adorable, something to cherish and protect. How to know?
Easy: Look at the faces. Hmm? Right. Look at the faces of human females over
the years starting at age 1. There they elicit their support from Daddy,
uncles, etc. with their faces, facial expressions, and expressions of
endearing emotions. That's just how it works. And (simple argument) that's how
it worked 10,000 years ago (proof left as an exercise). Then look at the faces
over the years. Notice something? Right: At age 10 with some work on hair
style and makeup, she can look 17. Or, to be more clear, a young women of 17
still tries to look like an endearing 10\. And even more so for a young woman
of 13-16. Why? Endearing. She's not trying to be _independent, autonomous,
self-sufficient, and equal, crashing through glass ceilings, adopting and
hiring a nanny,_ etc. Instead she's trying to be endearing, cute, sweet, meek,
darling, adorable, precious, to be cherished, protected, and cared for by her
husband as she has _babies_.

But, woman of 35, on endearing, etc., you just don't ring his bell, just don't
_arouse_ his protective, caring emotions, are way, Way out of the game. Any
pretty girl of 14 can totally blow you off the field of competition.

The way of the world. And the result? Right: In the more developed societies
the average number of children per woman is significantly under 2.1. E.g., in
Finland it's 1.5 which means that in 10 generations 30 Finns will become 1.
We're going extinct, literally, quickly.

Why? It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature.

The way of the world. That's just how it works and has worked for at least
10,000 years. That's how it worked for all the woman you descended from for
nearly all of the last 10,000 years. So, go back to 13, and let's try again,
if you can find a way to do that.

Today 13? Right: She has to (1) find him, (2) get into boy/girlfriend with
him, (3) _go steady_ or some such with him, (4) get a diamond, (5) get
married, all by about age 17-19. E.g., Lady Di decided at 15 that she wanted
to catch Prince Charles, and she did, married him at age 20. Age 25, 35, etc.
to start to be looking for him? You _gotta_ be kidding! Uh, honey, there are
sperm banks -- check one out!

Wish I'd known this, this clearly, when I was 15. _Very_ much wish that.

"Marriage is about offspring, security, and care taking." \-- extra credit for
knowing the source!

~~~
mtrimpe
You seem to be forgetting the part where we've moved to a knowledge worker's
society in which men's physiological differences no longer make him inherently
more fit as a provider.

That is what has lead to a massive shift in gender roles over the past half
century. It has had it's fair share of casualties due to maladjustment on both
sides. One specific group of casualties just happens to be highlighted in this
article.

~~~
graycat
I didn't mention "physiological differences", say, taller, stronger. I did
emphasize tool making. I should also have mentioned team formation for
hunting, building, and fighting. E.g., hunting is not nearly all size and
strength but heavily understanding how to locate and kill the prey. And if the
hunting is with a team, then need to be good at forming teams.

So, the women were back in the village concentrating on child care, food, and
clothing, and the men were generating fire, tools, wheels, things made of
bone, wood, and stone, making progress with metals, ..., a server farm with
20,000 computers. That was men's work, done by men, in ways convenient for
men, that used talents of men, apparently from hunting, tool making, team
formation, and fighting, that changed the economy, government, and societies.
Alas, women mostly didn't participate and mostly still don't.

Look, there's a recent study about boys and girls shortly after birth. The
girls are working on communicating with adults, especially about how they
feel, mostly with facial expressions. The boys are looking at the construction
of the crib, trying to figure out how the latch works, and wanting to write
C++ code to control the toy fire engine on the floor! That's right from birth.
The boys care about things, tools, strategy, etc., and the girls care about
eliciting support from people. That's just the way it is.

In simple terms, the girls have plenty of strength for most tool making and
for team formation, but mostly they just didn't and don't do it. That's just
not what girls are interested in, and there's little promise they will be
interested during our _knowledge worker_ society.

Girls don't want to think about tricky algorithms; some girls actually can,
but still they don't want to. They just don't. "Fools give you reasons; wise
men never try." What girls want to do is to gossip as a way to be a member of
a group of girls and to attract boys. They like to be asked to do things so
that when they do them they can get praise, acceptance, approval, and
emotional security.

------
peter303
I am an omega-man.

~~~
chadgeidel
Gamma Rabbit here. I'm doing pretty well actually.
[http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/04/my-thank-you-gift-
to-e...](http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/04/my-thank-you-gift-to-everyone-
who-pledged-to-the-counteract-a-bigot-drive/)

------
john_b
While interesting, the whole article really only applies to men and women who
want children. I wonder if the trends would still hold if people who didn't
want or couldn't have children were studied.

------
gsibble
You reap what you sow.

------
ttflee
I just had an intuition that the choices of gals in this article are kinda
similar to various strategies for innovative products. Some products target
the alpha consumers, e.g. those early adopters and innovators, while some
others target beta or gamma consumers.

------
Gravityloss
if there is potential for a couple to end up happily together but they don't ,
because of either one's later-regretted choices, can you call either one of
them a winner?

------
LekkoscPiwa
Great article. It looks like the women described in the article sacrified
years of their lives to become kind of alpha males - lawyers, professionals,
etc - in which time the real alpha males got young and willing chicks who are
just that what alpha males are interested in - hot young chicks. So, now all
these professional and I'm sure very successful women in their 30s are left
with are beta males. How came I don't see it as surprising? Wouldn't you think
that by trying to take social role of an alpha male while you are a female,
you will fail? Probably in both roles? Will fail as a woman and in the
perceived alpha-male role? Look, once she gets this beta guy to have children
with, she will stay at home just so he doesn't run away to look for another
willing 30-something successful woman. So her career is broken at that point
too. Whoever the socialist that told women that they have to be just like men
- thank you! I never knew it will work so well for my gender. After years of
listening to this socialist BS, to see it fail, makes me feel good. Full
disclosure: I'm a married male with a kid, so I won't take advantage of the
situation. Just like to see how the laws of nature triumph over marxist
craziness again and again. But some people never learn.

------
beachstartup
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpYWQRpxzQs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpYWQRpxzQs)

i would recommend watching this video if you want a different, non-mainstream
perspective on the philosophy of the sexual, marriage, and 'dating'
marketplaces.

you don't have to agree with it, but it's worth a watch. especially if you are
having trouble 'understanding' women. women are actually very simple
biological creatures, like men. they just operate under a different set of
constraints which are generally invisible to men.

in my opinion he is able to see and convey things from the perspective of
women, which is valuable insight for an audience of men.

------
sanskritabelt
Anybody who uses 'alpha' and 'beta' and similar to describe dudes and ladies
is, ipso facto, an asshole.

~~~
_random_
Nature is an asshole?

------
greenlander
I am the same 'greenlander' that is referred to in the article. LOL, it's a
small world.

The only thing I can suggest to all you of guys out there (and I know that
90%-95% of the readership here is 'guys' and not 'chicks') is to get educated.

Go read these blogs:
[http://dalrock.wordpress.com/](http://dalrock.wordpress.com/)
[http://therationalmale.com/](http://therationalmale.com/)
[http://heartiste.wordpress.com/](http://heartiste.wordpress.com/)
[http://www.rooshv.com/](http://www.rooshv.com/)

And why not some books: [http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract-Through-Honesty-
ebook/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract-Through-Honesty-
ebook/dp/B005EOTH24) [http://www.amazon.com/The-Rational-Male-
ebook/dp/B00FK901R8/](http://www.amazon.com/The-Rational-Male-
ebook/dp/B00FK901R8/) [http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-of-Seduction-
ebook/dp/B0032BW5...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-of-Seduction-
ebook/dp/B0032BW5DY/)

And why not a Reddit too:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill](http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill)

The problem is that you must have the confidence to write your own rules in
life. If you speak with confidence, move with confidence, dress with
confidence, and act with confidence, you'll have your choice among women.

The irony of it is that you only get confidence from past success. You must
move beyond your nerd persona from high school. If you adopt the mantra "I
_AM_ the prize" and actually truly believe it, women will believe it too.

I cleaned up my act. I was just a cubicle nerd in Silicon Valley. (Although I
must have had something going for me: I became a manager.) I hired a personal
trainer and started to hit the gym like a wild animal. My abs came out: I
hadn’t seem them since high school. I changed my diet. (Hint: The Paleo/Atkins
diet works.) I started a relationship with a tailor and ordered a lot of made-
to-measure clothing. I subscribed to GQ.

I read HN every day. The technical articles are fascinating, and the writing
brilliant. Yesterday I spent a large section of my day reading a set of about
450 slides about subtleties in the C language that was linked from this site.
Today I spent a good fraction of my morning reading about elliptical-curve
cryptography. I am a nerd at heart.

Yet, I’m not a nerd in the sense that you think of. When I meet a new girl, my
frame is “I’m going to bend you over my kitchen table and fuck you like the
dirty ho that you are.” She knows it just by my speech, my body language, and
how I act. Obviously, some women won’t step into that “frame”. It doesn’t
matter: the thing you have to realize is that men display, and women select.
The key to catching women is approaching more women. Depending on your
perceived status, a certain fraction of women will ‘select’ you. Don’t waste
time with women who don’t ‘select’ you. Focus on the ones who do.

I can already hear the shrill cries of “oh, no GOOD girls would select a guy
like that.” It’s a fallacy. Women are emotional, and when they step into the
strong frame of a man with whom they resonate, all bets are off. The nice HR
girl you took to dinner at a fashionable restaurant on University Ave. in Palo
Alto will screw a guy in the back seat of a car if he has high enough status.
Give up your good girl/bad girl dichotomy.

The problem I have now is described as the “players’ curse.” The sheer numbers
of women riding the “cock carousel” (i.e., slut it up in your 20s, find the
beta provider in your early 30s) has distorted the market. (If you don’t
believe me, shut the fuck up and go read the reference sources I cited above.)
In my 20s I dreamed of children and family in my 20s. Lots of men are simply
dropping out of the “mating market” and simply jerking off and not dating
because women in their 20s don’t select their twentysomething equivalents. A
man in that situation has two choices: to kick up his game a notice, or just
to retreat into porn and World of Warcraft. The paradox is that a man of
willpower and clarity that can put effort into cleaning up his act can break
into the side of “the selected” and score plenty of vj. Once you understand
that, you can see modern-day feminism for the hoax that it is. It is a pox on
the civilized world.

I can already foresee that somebody out there is going to some ‘white knight’
jerkoffs who are going to call me a ‘misogynist’. For the record, a misogynist
is someone that HATES women. I’m not a misogynist. Roissy/Heartist is not a
misogynist. Roosh is not a misogynist. Usually, the ‘misogynist’ stick is used
to say, “you’re not being politically correct.” If you want to say,
“greenlander, you’re not being politically correct,” I’ll accept that. I’ll
accept it even if you want to say, “greenlander, you’re a self-absorbed,
narcissistic, self-deluded dickhead.” It’s the truth. But don’t call me a
misogynist: I love women. One must simply see them for what they are.

The great thing is that it doesn’t matter how many people out there slander me
with politically-correct ad-homonyms. A man who is ready to see the truth will
follow the path if even a tiny morsel of the truth is laid before him. And if
I even help one nerd change his life for the better by nudging him in the
right direction, the past hour I’ve spent writing this post will not have been
in vain.

~~~
shanac
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, but you're the guy (as a type) I went on tons of dates with before
meeting my current boyfriend. I always ended up running away, because I felt
like you were out to impress me and not actually, you know, talk to me.

To me, had I gotten into a relationship with you, I would have had no idea of
how to deal with your emotional needs - plus how would I expect you to take
care of mine. There never was any hint of that on a date with that type.

Which is why I am not dating a guy like you at all...

~~~
PeterisP
This approach is the same as for 'Nigerian inheritance' scams - the whole
point of an aggressive start is to ensure scaring away people who aren't going
to fall for it, so you don't waste time on them.

Spammers deliberately make horrible e-mails that only the gullible will reply
- with credible emails they have to waste time on 'unproductive' leads, there
is research on that. The parent poster is perfectly happy with scaring away
girls that want their emotional needs taken care of, since he's looking for
something different anyway.

------
rfnslyr
Hmm.. It's not too hard. Know a bit of good music, read a bit, don't be super
boring, be passionate about something. Go to meetups for your interests and
meet people that way. Rarely fails and you're bound to find someone with the
same interests.

Don't go on dating sites, except for maybe okcupid. But even then, things like
Reddit meetups, concerts, meetup.com meetups, are where you should meet
people. Don't go to the bar either.

If you're in public, go up to someone and say "Hi, I'm x and y" followed by
something relating to wherever you are. I've had great success with this, at
the very least, you'll get a coffee date, at worst, a fake number.

It's not hard, you just need to put yourself out there. Screw rejection.

~~~
beachstartup
just be yourself!

from someone who figured it out only slightly later than average (mid-20s) but
can empathize to those who had a much tougher time, this kind of non-advice
advice is the worst kind of advice because it deludes you into thinking you
don't have to change.

yes, keep going to reddit meetups! you will surely get laid there if you are
having trouble understanding how sexual dynamics work!

if you're having trouble romantically or sexually, seek actual help from the
endless resources available to you in the year 2013, don't listen to this kind
of drivel.

~~~
rfnslyr
That's the whole point. You _do_ have to change, and not changing, then
complaining about not getting dates, is hurting you. Find people in the same
subculture as you.

------
scrrr
Seems way off topic.

Sometimes it seems as if HN-users are feeling so guilty about the whole bro-
gramming topic, that they up vote anything that has to do with women..

~~~
DanBC
Dating websites suck. Even the good dating websites suck.

Someone who cracks that is going to be _rich_.

Perhaps one of the steps to cracking it is understanding why the current
situation sucks for participants.

~~~
doctorfoo
I've never used one, so why exactly do these websites suck? (and is this any
different from dating in general sucking?)

~~~
auctiontheory
(1) Judging attraction from a profile is very difficult, so you can go spend a
lot of time and energy going on dates with someone who is obviously wrong for
you.

(2) Many, perhaps most people, misrepresent themselves in their profiles,
making "shopping" all the harder. In my experience this is true of women, but
women say that men lie too.

Attraction is much easier to sense in person. Once you're attracted, the
answers to a bunch of fact-based questions don't matter so much.

------
debacle
Has there ever been a point where women haven't lost the dating game? It might
not be right, but I think it's a social reality that men have an easier time
finding a spouse than women do, and I think that's probably been the trend for
hundreds if not thousands of years.

~~~
btilly
Through history, about twice as many women as men have successfully
reproduced. So women have in some sense done better than men through history.

However I'm sure that stat includes a lot of single moms.

See
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/h4e/differential_reproduction_for_me...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/h4e/differential_reproduction_for_men_and_women/)
for more.

~~~
adaml_623
I think that figure is connected to do with high maternal mortality rates
through history. Successful men could remarry when there wife dies giving
birth.

~~~
PeterisP
And unsuccessful men can go die in a war for the successful men who'll remarry
multiple times.

~~~
Sirex
Again, you are not accounting for rape in war. Which the "unsuccessful men" on
the winning side will do. Just look up conflict in Africa, rape is being used
as a weapon.

~~~
btilly
Not true. The men who die in the fighting tend to be the unsuccessful ones.
The ones who did not die, in addition to having the opportunity for rape (and
in ancient times to take concubines home), would also come back as heros and
have the opportunity to marry women from their own tribe.

These pressures are much more pronounced in polygamous societies, such as
fundamentalist Muslim countries today, or ancient Jewish culture as documented
in the Old Testament.

