My thesis: Modern men lose the dating game

[Someone]

There are some optimistic bloggers in the "manosphere" who pen articles with titles like "Why Women Lose the Dating Game. You can read their arguments at your leisure. The general meme seems to be very popular in the media and pop-culture: women get older and their pool shrinks, while all the eligible bachelors are snapped up quickly.

In my opinion the promulgators of this myth are wrong, dead wrong. The losers in the modern dating game are men, not women.

Here's why:

1) Single women tend to be quite happy and well-adjusted and lead productive, fulfilling lives, while single men are lonely and usually afflicted with serious psychological problems stemming from loneliness. The reason for single women being happy and content is that they maintain good social networks consisting of friends and family; on the other hand, men don't network very well, and tend to lose their social connections in adult years. This creates acute loneliness for single men which is not the case for single women. Thus, men depend on women for companionship, while the reverse isn't true. The same applies to sex. Men depend on women for regular sex much more than vice-versa.

2) If men uniquely depend on women for sex and companionship, what do women depend on men for? Historically, resources -- a general term for financial or material investments. But the current generation of women is economically independent and well-educated, which is different from before. Thus, women don't depend on men for resources to the same extent as before, they have resources themselves.

3) So far, the score is 2:0 (sex/companionship vs. NO dependency). What about social stigma? Aren't spinsters stigmatized in society, and don't women want to be mothers? No and no.
a) Social stigma: single men are actually more stigmatized by society than single women. They are treated as potential criminals or outcasts, and also often suspected of being homosexual. The same doesn't apply to women to the same extent. Women are rarely suspected of being deviants or lesbians.
b) Motherhood: In modern Western counties 20-25% of women are childless, but even the ones who have children didn't necessarily want them. In my experience, women's "maternal instinct" is a gross exaggeration, with just as many if not more men wanting kids than women.

So we actually have an environment right now where more men than women strive to get married as soon as possible. They seem to have far more dependencies on the other gender than women do, from companionship to social adjustment. Without some kind of pressure from the outside, and if resources aren't an issue, there is little incentive right now for women to get married, but men are rightly concerned about their single status.

[Cornfed]

1) Single women tend to be quite happy and well-adjusted and lead productive, fulfilling lives, while single men are lonely and usually afflicted with serious psychological problems stemming from loneliness. The reason for single women being happy and content is that they maintain good social networks consisting of friends and family; on the other hand, men don't network very well, and tend to lose their social connections in adult years.

This is plain nonsense.

2) If men uniquely depend on women for sex and companionship, what do women depend on men for? Historically, resources -- a general term for financial or material investments. But the current generation of women is economically independent and well-educated, which is different from before. Thus, women don't depend on men for resources to the same extent as before, they have resources themselves.

Which is to say, women are dependant on the communist system that robs men and gives the resources directly to women, without the women having to do anything in return.

[Maverick]

This is something that has been mentioned here often.

In the US, women have it far better than men when it comes to dating/relationships/marriage/divorce. Not exactly ground-breaking.

[Bane]

I can agree with the idea that women maintain better "social networks" into their later years with their girlfriends. This will allow them to feel less lonely as time goes on.

[Falcon]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 1xdn0.html

This article can be summed up in one brief question:

"Where are all the good men?"
A: Ranting on this forum

The high expectations of professional women are a big part of the story. Many high-achieving women simply are not interested in Mr Average, says Justin Parfitt, the owner of Australia's fastest growing speed-dating organisation, Fast Impressions. Parfitt adds: ''They've swallowed the L'Oreal line: 'Because you're worth it!' There's a real sense of entitlement.''

During their 20s, women compete for the most highly desirable men, the Mr Bigs. Many will readily share a bed with the sporty, attractive, confident men, while ordinary men miss out. As Whiskey puts it at whiskeysplace.wordpress.com: ''Joe Average Beta Male is about as desirable to women as a cold bowl of oatmeal.''

[Hackenfall Backslash]

The Australian man-drought! Never thought that old thing would see the light of day again. You know, if men weren't so hung up on looking homosexual, I'd say they should reach out to other men. Why not seek relationships and understandings with members of the same sex who are going through what you are? Not going to happen, but it's a too-easy solution to loneliness.

Anyway, someone posted a link to an article that sounds a lot like the blueprint for the poindexter system. Boink the alphas when you're young, nab the betas when you're old (while you still continue to boink the alphas). Me? I couldn't settle. If you can't give me your best years with a high sexual market value, why should I give you mine as a goal-oriented, successful blah blah person? Not a fair trade, stranger.

[tre]

I can agree with the idea that women maintain better "social networks" into their later years with their girlfriends. This will allow them to feel less lonely as time goes on.

I agree with this as well. I think it could apply to middle years as well. If we all had exciting networking opportunities, there would likely be less posts on this forum and others like it. Men are so focused on women and sex that many will only allow time for their male friends if all else fails. In contrast, women easily meet in groups to watch shows like "Sex in the City" over a glass of wine. They would be MUCH more likely to drop a date with a guy to meet up with "the girls" than the other way around...

[Someone]

This is plain nonsense.

Read the study, my friend!
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newslette ... ens-health
Quote:
The New England Research Institute reported that 66% of men rely on their wives for their primary social supports; only 21% rely on other people, and 10% have no such supports. Clearly, subtracting a wife greatly increases a man's risk of isolation.

Men are so focused on women and sex that many will only allow time for their male friends if all else fails.

Keep in mind that reaching out to male friends after 30 isn't something a lot of men will do for fear of being seen as homosexuals.

[fightforlove]

You're theory assumes that more friends = more DSR. I don't think having lots of friends makes it any easier to find dates/sex/relationships than having few friends does. I had lots of friends and acquaintances in my mid 20s; now that I look back on it, most of them were clueless and immature and held me back from having success with dating. I didn't find success with dating until I learned to branch off more on my own when it came to seeking women.

[SilverEnergy]

This is nothing new that we already don't know.

[Hackenfall Backslash]

Let them go, SilverEnergy. Let them go.

[Teal Lantern]

There are some optimistic bloggers in the "manosphere" who pen articles with titles like "Why Women Lose the Dating Game. You can read their arguments at your leisure. The general meme seems to be very popular in the media and pop-culture: women get older and their pool shrinks, while all the eligible bachelors are snapped up quickly.

In my opinion the promulgators of this myth are wrong, dead wrong. The losers in the modern dating game are men, not women.

Here's why:

1) Single women tend to be quite happy and well-adjusted and lead productive, fulfilling lives, while single men are lonely and usually afflicted with serious psychological problems stemming from loneliness. The reason for single women being happy and content is that they maintain good social networks consisting of friends and family; on the other hand, men don't network very well, and tend to lose their social connections in adult years. This creates acute loneliness for single men which is not the case for single women. Thus, men depend on women for companionship, while the reverse isn't true. The same applies to sex. Men depend on women for regular sex much more than vice-versa.

"Happy and well-adjusted", you say?

Females are more than 2.5 times as likely to take [antidepressants] as males, with nearly a quarter of all women aged 40-59 taking antidepressants. Non-Hispanic white persons are 10 percent more likely than non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican-Americans to take the drugs, the report showed.

The report also provided insight into how long people are taking antidepressants. More than 60 percent of Americans have taken their antidepressants for at least two years, while 14 percent have taken the medication for 10 years or more.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/antidepress ... diagnosed/

2) If men uniquely depend on women for sex and companionship, what do women depend on men for? Historically, resources -- a general term for financial or material investments. But the current generation of women is economically independent and well-educated, which is different from before. Thus, women don't depend on men for resources to the same extent as before, they have resources themselves.

3) So far, the score is 2:0 (sex/companionship vs. NO dependency). What about social stigma? Aren't spinsters stigmatized in society, and don't women want to be mothers? No and no.
a) Social stigma: single men are actually more stigmatized by society than single women. They are treated as potential criminals or outcasts, and also often suspected of being homosexual. The same doesn't apply to women to the same extent. Women are rarely suspected of being deviants or lesbians.
b) Motherhood: In modern Western counties 20-25% of women are childless, but even the ones who have children didn't necessarily want them. In my experience, women's "maternal instinct" is a gross exaggeration, with just as many if not more men wanting kids than women.

The women in the comment section of this piece seem to have not gotten the memo about how happy they are.

‘Social infertility’ refers to those women who are single, childless and unable to find a partner to have children with whilst it is still possible.

DoubleWhammy seems to be a black hole of shame, sucking women into a silent vacuum of excruciating grief and self-condemnation. It’s as if all the promises of equality and feminism are vanquished by the impending event horizon of being both single and childless. Of not being ‘chosen’ for either partnership or motherhood.

http://gateway-women.com/2013/10/29/dou ... childless/

[djfourmoney]

Teal that last link is priceless...

In the comments section and the the poster, are both jokes and here's why.

One commented said she had TWO, count'em TWO difficult relationships. Holy hell girl didn't learn ANYTHING from the previous bad relationship? I guess not and it cost you the opportunity to have children.

Western women are ridiculous and are doing this to themselves, on purpose.

This is another example of the Western White Woman Echo Chamber...

Woe is me, I'm in my late 30's, early 40's and I may not ever have children because I can't find a suitable partner, on top of that, as the poster/blog-master pointed out, why would a man in his late 30's, early 40's (like me) choose to be with a woman over 38 years old that odds are against her being able to have a child?

The answer is THEY DON'T and I don't understand idiot men who claim they want to have children but are still dating women in their 30's and 40's because they lack attention and make it easier to you to have sex regularly, that's missing the point ASSHOLE!

I as state several times here and tonight at the Reunion that Mark, Anna, Law and Alyona (and the kids) hosted; there is no point in looking for women over 35 especially if you want to have children.

Men have lost the dating war in America, its time to look elsewhere, if that isn't painfully obvious to you by now I don't know when or EVER if it will get through some of these guy's thick skulls.

Thanks for the link Teal it was worth a laugh or two, maybe three. How in the f**k can you feel sorry for White women who find themselves in this predicament?

Can find a suitable partner? That's code, they couldn't find a suitable White partner....

[Maverick]

Teal that last link is priceless...

In the comments section and the the poster, are both jokes and here's why.

One commented said she had TWO, count'em TWO difficult relationships. Holy hell girl didn't learn ANYTHING from the previous bad relationship? I guess not and it cost you the opportunity to have children.

Western women are ridiculous and are doing this to themselves, on purpose.

This is another example of the Western White Woman Echo Chamber...

Woe is me, I'm in my late 30's, early 40's and I may not ever have children because I can't find a suitable partner, on top of that, as the poster/blog-master pointed out, why would a man in his late 30's, early 40's (like me) choose to be with a woman over 38 years old that odds are against her being able to have a child?

The answer is THEY DON'T and I don't understand idiot men who claim they want to have children but are still dating women in their 30's and 40's because they lack attention and make it easier to you to have sex regularly, that's missing the point ASSHOLE!

I as state several times here and tonight at the Reunion that Mark, Anna, Law and Alyona (and the kids) hosted; there is no point in looking for women over 35 especially if you want to have children.

Men have lost the dating war in America, its time to look elsewhere, if that isn't painfully obvious to you by now I don't know when or EVER if it will get through some of these guy's thick skulls.

Thanks for the link Teal it was worth a laugh or two, maybe three. How in the f**k can you feel sorry for White women who find themselves in this predicament?

Can find a suitable partner? That's code, they couldn't find a suitable White partner....

True.

I recently met a girl through a social group that I'm in. She has a very good reputation there, claims to want a long term relationship, and is very physically attractive.

All well and good until I found out that she's 34 years old (8 years older than me). Since I would like to have children one day (not today though) and I'm looking for a long term partner, this girl is not a very good match. However, I'm extremely curious to know what happened to bring her to this point (of seemingly wanting to have marriage and kids, being pretty, but not having it).

I feel like she will be a very good case study. I will keep you guys updated when I find out more.

[Cornfed]

Females are more than 2.5 times as likely to take [antidepressants] as males, with nearly a quarter of all women aged 40-59 taking antidepressants. Non-Hispanic white persons are 10 percent more likely than non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican-Americans to take the drugs, the report showed.

Don't forget all the single females taking prescription painkillers as happy pills. Single Western females over thirty are the most miserable and crazed people on the planet.