Would most girls/women be put off by a 23 year old who has never been on a date ?

[normal person]

The hardest part is accepting the injustice that there are far more men out there in the world than women who are past their mid-20's or reach their 30s, without ever having had a relationship before or still a virgin, that's really what I've noticed the past few years and yes that's the way it is but it's very hard to accept even though I do accept it but I accept it very reluctantly

 

First of all, I don't even know if that's accurate, second of all, it's not an "injustice." It's not a calculated campaign against a gender. It's a failure of individuals to learn and adapt. It's not hard to figure out what the opposite sex wants. Most people are able to pair off. What percentage of the population does this even represent? One or less? Can you really apply injustice into things like this? If 99% of the birds of a species can figure out how to feed themselves, reach adulthood safely, do a mating dance, attract a mate, produce offspring -- but 1% can't figure it out, is it an "unfair" trick of nature that science has to be put on trial for, or is it just Darwinism?

 

True. But not every man has the finances to travel. So that might actually help me. Since OP mention lack of experience him trying foreign women might be a good option. Foreign wonen don't care much about experience they mainly only care about if he will care for her.

 

Hopefully he's expecting an actual emotionally satisfying relationship between a man and a woman as opposed to a transactional one between a foreign woman and an American bank account.

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

First of all, I don't even know if that's accurate, second of all, it's not an "injustice." It's not a calculated campaign against a gender. It's a failure of individuals to learn and adapt. It's not hard to figure out what the opposite sex wants. Most people are able to pair off. What percentage of the population does this even represent? One or less? Can you really apply injustice into things like this? If 99% of the birds of a species can figure out how to feed themselves, reach adulthood safely, do a mating dance, attract a mate, produce offspring -- but 1% can't figure it out, is it an "unfair" trick of nature that science has to be put on trial for, or is it just Darwinism?

 

 

 

Hopefully he's expecting an actual emotionally satisfying relationship between a man and a woman as opposed to a transactional one between a foreign woman and an American bank account.

Birds are different than humans and it really seems that way because you never hear women make posts about being over 30 and never having a relationship before, if you do it is very rare compared to the amount of men you hear out there like that

[logan415]

Hopefully he's expecting an actual emotionally satisfying relationship between a man and a woman as opposed to a transactional one between a foreign woman and an American bank account.

 

Same with American women. It can a transnational relationship with American women as well. Look at rich people like Donald Trump with a young beautiful women while he losing hair and pop belly.

 

So Normal Person, if all foreign women are gold diggers and looking for a meal ticket to the US then explain to me why is my friend still married to his foreign wife for 6 years?

Edited August 1, 2016 by logan415

[normal person]

Birds are different than humans

 

Thanks for the insightful observation. You missed the point entirely. If anything, be it bird, cat, dog, human, can't keep pace with the rest of the species and can't find a mate, is it "injustice?" Does some bird, cat, dog, or human committee intervene because these individuals are somehow owed the relationships that they can't figure out how to form themselves? In the US we have the right to the pursuit of happiness (and that's a much more generous gift than any other species on Earth affords its others) -- but whether or not you're able to achieve happiness is largely on your own shoulders, not everyone else's. It's a meritocracy. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or die. I don't recall reading any article in the Bill Of Rights that guaranteed every struggling guy a girlfriend or any avian bill of rights that guaranteed every starving bird a worm. But what a nice fairy tale land that'd be.

 

All that being said, the society we live in is already half a fairy tale. If you're a human living in a civilized, modern, relatively egalitarian society, you are given just about every crutch possible. If you're too dumb or lazy to work, you get welfare and food stamps subsidized by working peoples' tax dollars. If you can't afford housing, the government will put a roof over your head somewhere. In many countries you get free health care. Show me another species on Earth that acts against the best interests of the successful and hard working to uplift, comfort, and expend resources to contribute to the survival of the weakest, most incapable, who would otherwise be left in the dust. If you're a straight, white guy living in the US you have it easier than just about everyone else on Earth, currently and historically. The only the thing the government isn't doing for you is stripping some girl naked and dropping her in your bed. But it's somehow an "injustice" that people don't have every single thing they desire. Give me a break. Society will already subvert Darwinism and prevent you from dying just because it's "nice." Now you expect you it to give those people the right to weigh it down further by guaranteeing them reproduction?

 

 

and it really seems that way because you never hear women make posts about being over 30 and never having a relationship before, if you do it is very rare compared to the amount of men you hear out there like that

 

Fine. Even if I concede, for the sake of argument, that based on the highly reliable metric of "number of posts on this forum that seem to be made by women over 30," that men are more unlikely to find success with relationships, that's still beside the point. No one owes anyone else a relationship, affection, time, or attention. It is not a right. Not receiving it is not an injustice, it's just the inherent Darwinism of life on Earth. Is it unpleasant? I'm sure it probably is. But it doesn't validate entitlement. If that's a problem, your gripe is with science, not the courts.

 

The world is a harsh place. People who expect it to cater to their shortcomings will oftentimes wind up bitter and resentful, because more often then not, it will do no such thing. If you want better results in life, be better rather than complain louder. It's a survival of the fittest. If you aren't surviving, that's largely your problem (and oftentimes, fault), not everyone else's. It's a cruel world. Lots of people should thank their lucky stars it's as charitable as it is already.

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

Thanks for the insightful observation. You missed the point entirely. If anything, be it bird, cat, dog, human, can't keep pace with the rest of the species and can't find a mate, is it "injustice?" Does some bird, cat, dog, or human committee intervene because these individuals are somehow owed the relationships that they can't figure out how to form themselves? In the US we have the right to the pursuit of happiness (and that's a much more generous gift than any other species on Earth affords its others) -- but whether or not you're able to achieve happiness is largely on your own shoulders, not everyone else's. It's a meritocracy. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or die. I don't recall reading any article in the Bill Of Rights that guaranteed every struggling guy a girlfriend or any avian bill of rights that guaranteed every starving bird a worm. But what a nice fairy tale land that'd be.

 

All that being said, the society we live in is already half a fairy tale. If you're a human living in a civilized, modern, relatively egalitarian society, you are given just about every crutch possible. If you're too dumb or lazy to work, you get welfare and food stamps subsidized by working peoples' tax dollars. If you can't afford housing, the government will put a roof over your head somewhere. In many countries you get free health care. Show me another species on Earth that acts against the best interests of the successful and hard working to uplift, comfort, and expend resources to contribute to the survival of the weakest, most incapable, who would otherwise be left in the dust. If you're a straight, white guy living in the US you have it easier than just about everyone else on Earth, currently and historically. The only the thing the government isn't doing for you is stripping some girl naked and dropping her in your bed. But it's somehow an "injustice" that people don't have every single thing they desire. Give me a break. Society will already subvert Darwinism and prevent you from dying just because it's "nice." Now you expect you it to give those people the right to weigh it down further by guaranteeing them reproduction?

 

 

 

 

Fine. Even if I concede, for the sake of argument, that based on the highly reliable metric of "number of posts on this forum that seem to be made by women over 30," that men are more unlikely to find success with relationships, that's still beside the point. No one owes anyone else a relationship, affection, time, or attention. It is not a right. Not receiving it is not an injustice, it's just the inherent Darwinism of life on Earth. Is it unpleasant? I'm sure it probably is. But it doesn't validate entitlement. If that's a problem, your gripe is with science, not the courts.

 

The world is a harsh place. People who expect it to cater to their shortcomings will oftentimes wind up bitter and resentful, because more often then not, it will do no such thing. If you want better results in life, be better rather than complain louder. It's a survival of the fittest. If you aren't surviving, that's largely your problem (and oftentimes, fault), not everyone else's. It's a cruel world. Lots of people should thank their lucky stars it's as charitable as it is already.

 

Ya, oh well, I guess that's just nature of having to be the pursuer and initiator, may be back in more primitive times the amount of men who got to mate was less frequent then the other way around, but overall I need a reference in order to not feel this way

[normal person]

Same with American women. It can a transnational relationship with American women as well. Look at rich people like Donald Trump with a young beautiful women while he losing hair and pop belly.

 

You've got quite the tendency to oversimplify things.

 

Yeah, it can. No doubt about that. Women like money. But if you're implying that the majority of American relationships are of the Trump/Melania variety, or "wealthy man / beneficiary female," you're delusional. Those relationships are still met with chuckles because of how transparent they are. Money won't buy you happiness, but it can get you the best opportunities to be happy through other avenues. And people who marry for money, rather than the respectable qualities that money represents (education, ambition, good judgment, success, etc) are bound to be less happy than those relationships that are started for reasons conducive to harmony, American or otherwise.

 

So Normal Person, if all foreign women are gold diggers and looking for a meal ticket to the US

 

Don't put your myopic oversimplifications in my mouth. I never said "all foreign women are gold diggers." My comment was specifically in regard to your proviso describing foreign women who "don't care much about experience they mainly only care about if he will care for her." And by "care for her," I assume you meant "finance her lifestyle" because you referenced finances being advantageous in the previous sentence.

 

then explain to me why is my friend still married to his foreign wife for 6 years?

 

What a great, convincing, applicable anec dotal argument to refute a point that I didn't even make. I guess that disproves the argument that any foreign woman anywhere might not have the best intentions or the most refined ideas about harmonious, healthy, cooperative relationships, and that you should totally date internationally because it's very practical, totally advantageous, and without doubt promising. Congratulations on coming to this conclusion with your amazing deductive reasoning. Let me know when the wedding is and I'll send a gift.

[JustGettingBy]

Can we please return to the original topic instead of making this a personal battle that doesn't even involve the OP?

[normal person]

Can we please return to the original topic instead of making this a personal battle that doesn't even involve the OP?

 

You're right. My apologies for my part in derailing. Long story short, for reasons stated, I think it's impractical for OP to date internationally, as someone suggested, and I also think it's toxic for OP to develop the attitude that society owes him women because of his (as of now) lack of success, as someone else has.

 

Coming full circle, the theme that I was trying to illustrate in the derail is that I think it's important to take ownership in a lack of success and uplift yourself to the standards of the people you want to date, rather than just "look elsewhere" or "blame society."

 

So, would most women be put off by a guy in the OP's situation? I don't know. Some, probably. At 23, no one will expect you to have a sparkling track record. Dating becomes different as you progress through high school, to college, to post college, to mid twenties, to late twenties and beyond. I can't imagine many people get through the maze without some hiccups. I say whatever the case may be, take chances, step out of your comfort zone, learn from your mistakes, build on your successes.

 

Control what you can control, keep in mind that you can always do more, and realize that the engine of progress will likely be internal rather than external.

[JustGettingBy]

You're right. My apologies for my part in derailing. Long story short, for reasons stated, I think it's impractical for OP to date internationally, as someone suggested, and I also think it's toxic for OP to develop the attitude that society owes him women because of his (as of now) lack of success, as someone else has.

 

Coming full circle, the theme that I was trying to illustrate in the derail is that I think it's important to take ownership in a lack of success and uplift yourself to the standards of the people you want to date, rather than just "look elsewhere" or "blame society."

 

So, would most women be put off by a guy in the OP's situation? I don't know. Some, probably. At 23, no one will expect you to have a sparkling track record. Dating becomes different as you progress through high school, to college, to post college, to mid twenties, to late twenties and beyond. I can't imagine many people get through the maze without some hiccups. I say whatever the case may be, take chances, step out of your comfort zone, learn from your mistakes, build on your successes.

 

Control what you can control, keep in mind that you can always do more, and realize that the engine of progress will likely be internal rather than external.

 

 

Also, should the OP disclose if not asked?

 

If asked, how to answer?

 

*yes, I am in a similar situation to the OP, so this would help me as well*

[normal person]

Also, should the OP disclose if not asked?

 

If asked, how to answer?

 

*yes, I am in a similar situation to the OP, so this would help me as well*

 

I answered in at least one earlier post: No, I don't think so. There is no advantage to showing your cards when you don't have to.

 

I can see only one scenario where it might be helpful, and that's if the girl plays the same card first with a "I'm sort of bad at this," or "This is relatively new to me," or a general awkwardness. Then you can take your own inexperience, share it, and spin it as something to laugh and bond over. Or, if she does play that card you can use that to relieve some of the pressure on yourself which will hopefully inflate your confidence a bit which will have a nice affect.

 

Another thing to consider: early on, at OP's age, most people are probably just as, if not more, worried about making missteps themselves rather than scrutinizing someone else's. So perhaps it's best not to assume you're so "under the microscope."

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

You're right. My apologies for my part in derailing. Long story short, for reasons stated, I think it's impractical for OP to date internationally, as someone suggested, and I also think it's toxic for OP to develop the attitude that society owes him women because of his (as of now) lack of success, as someone else has.

 

Coming full circle, the theme that I was trying to illustrate in the derail is that I think it's important to take ownership in a lack of success and uplift yourself to the standards of the people you want to date, rather than just "look elsewhere" or "blame society."

 

So, would most women be put off by a guy in the OP's situation? I don't know. Some, probably. At 23, no one will expect you to have a sparkling track record. Dating becomes different as you progress through high school, to college, to post college, to mid twenties, to late twenties and beyond. I can't imagine many people get through the maze without some hiccups. I say whatever the case may be, take chances, step out of your comfort zone, learn from your mistakes, build on your successes.

 

Control what you can control, keep in mind that you can always do more, and realize that the engine of progress will likely be internal rather than external.

 

It really seems that women are the only sex entitled to a relationship and sex because they are on the receiving end, don't have to go after what they want

[JustGettingBy]

It really seems that women are the only sex entitled to a relationship and sex because they are on the receiving end, don't have to go after what they want

 

Actually, there's been women posting here that they can't find a relationship, so its not only guys who are struggling.

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

Actually, there's been women posting here that they can't find a relationship, so its not only guys who are struggling.

 

Yes but most of those women have been in a relationship before meanwhile there are more guys than women on this forum who have never been in a relationship

[ZA Dater]

It really seems that women are the only sex entitled to a relationship and sex because they are on the receiving end, don't have to go after what they want

 

I think there is some merit in this to an extent.

 

In the OP case I think you need to learn how to sell and you cant sell anything by selling the negative points, sell the good points, if you are selling yourself as inexperience, take it from me, it doesn't work, I have tried this method of selling before and ALWAYS it fails, without exception.

 

People DONT want inexperience, at least not as a main selling point, people disagree with me but I believe people don't want inexperience per se at all. However the OP is 23, there is tons of time, he isn't totally out of step with people his own age, where inexperience is a major problem is when one is out of step people ones own age.

[ZA Dater]

Also, should the OP disclose if not asked?

 

If asked, how to answer?

 

*yes, I am in a similar situation to the OP, so this would help me as well*

 

The problem here is the OP may not need to disclose but it will become patently obvious to whomever he is going on a date with that he has no experience.

 

However, again at 23 its doubtful this would be as much of an issue as it would be if he were 33.

 

I think the inherent problem with unsuccessful people if they lack the confidence in themselves that a modicum of success can bring. Its extremely tough to keep being battered to the ground with rejection and tougher yet still to not know why you are getting rejected.

 

Mistakes I made which may help the OP was to believe I didn't need to sell myself at all, I could just be nice. The unfortunate fact is intangible don't help one to derive the sort of attraction that gets people interested.

 

Shopping overseas wont really help much because the superficial will become even more important if you are prepared to drop the $ then go for it but I don't honestly see how you are going to get a normal wholesome experience, as opposed to a purely physical superficial one.

 

You need to find some internal peace before you look because I am of the opinion that someone ladies can pick up on guys like us who carry a degree of bitterness around, even though we don't think we outwardly show it.

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

The problem here is the OP may not need to disclose but it will become patently obvious to whomever he is going on a date with that he has no experience.

 

However, again at 23 its doubtful this would be as much of an issue as it would be if he were 33.

 

I think the inherent problem with unsuccessful people if they lack the confidence in themselves that a modicum of success can bring. Its extremely tough to keep being battered to the ground with rejection and tougher yet still to not know why you are getting rejected.

 

Mistakes I made which may help the OP was to believe I didn't need to sell myself at all, I could just be nice. The unfortunate fact is intangible don't help one to derive the sort of attraction that gets people interested.

 

Shopping overseas wont really help much because the superficial will become even more important if you are prepared to drop the $ then go for it but I don't honestly see how you are going to get a normal wholesome experience, as opposed to a purely physical superficial one.

 

You need to find some internal peace before you look because I am of the opinion that someone ladies can pick up on guys like us who carry a degree of bitterness around, even though we don't think we outwardly show it.

 

Exactly, that's what I mean by having a reference, if I had a reference then I probably would not hate or despise, resent the gender role that guys always have to initiate so damn much, because a reference can easily give a guy the confidence, validation, self-esteem, reassurance that he is already attractive and that he is liked, loved already

[Chris2016]

Exactly, that's what I mean by having a reference, if I had a reference then I probably would not hate or despise, resent the gender role that guys always have to initiate so damn much, because a reference can easily give a guy the confidence, validation, self-esteem, reassurance that he is already attractive and that he is liked, loved already

 

I have a reference. Got a short fling with a co-worker in my early thirties. Not helping me now.

 

If I recall, member deckhard, got some with a married woman. Doesn't seem to be helping him now, per his recent posts.

 

There are some guys on here who have been on dates or in a relationship, and still struggle.

[ZA Dater]

I have a reference. Got a short fling with a co-worker in my early thirties. Not helping me now.

 

If I recall, member deckhard, got some with a married woman. Doesn't seem to be helping him now, per his recent posts.

 

There are some guys on here who have been on dates or in a relationship, and still struggle.

 

I think the implication is, for some people with a specific personality type its easier to let thing be if you have experienced some good. When it comes to dating I have pretty much given up but I'd sleep better and feel better about if I had had some dating experience, some good things to look back on.

 

The OP needs to try and keep trying, 23 is far too young to give up.

[BronzeAgeJaeger217]

I have a reference. Got a short fling with a co-worker in my early thirties. Not helping me now.

 

If I recall, member deckhard, got some with a married woman. Doesn't seem to be helping him now, per his recent posts.

 

There are some guys on here who have been on dates or in a relationship, and still struggle.

 

So lost your virginity in your early thirties and but still never had a girlfriend is that what you're saying?

[LookAtThisPOst]

Heck, I didn't have my first date until I was in college. I lived in a small town in high school, so a lot of the HS women had boyfriends, plus I was rather shy in my HS days...although I never had much interest in dating then either.

[normal person]

It really seems that women are the only sex entitled to a relationship and sex because they are on the receiving end, don't have to go after what they want

 

I'm not convinced you know what "entitled" means. And women are only on the receiving end of attention they can obtain. For any guy they want that isn't giving them to desired attention, they have to go after it and earn it from him. The only men who who feel they desperately have to assume the "initiator" role are the ones who haven't done anything that make women want to go after them. I'm sure plenty of women on here will tell you about a time they liked a guy who didn't like them back.

 

Exactly, that's what I mean by having a reference, if I had a reference then I probably would not hate or despise, resent the gender role that guys always have to initiate so damn much, because a reference can easily give a guy the confidence, validation, self-esteem, reassurance that he is already attractive and that he is liked, loved already

 

 

The thing about being liked or loved is that you typically have to do something to earn it. People don't respect musicians until they compose or play something great. You don't get the Superbowl ring until you win. You don't get the doctorate until you graduate med school. Entitlement is expecting things without having done anything to earn them.

 

You're handing women all the power and emasculating yourself. When someone else has something you want, you're giving them all the leverage over you and making it harder for yourself to get what you actually want.

 

Why look for validation, confidence, and self-esteem purely in the eyes of women? If you actually achieve something, or work hard and have some success in your life outside of women, you'll have something to hang your hat on. This should give you confidence. If you're good enough and/or successful enough at something respectable, it will make a lot of women want to be with you and they will beat a path to your door. Men only have to be the initiator when they've done nothing to convince women that women need to get off their ass and be the initiators themselves, because the guy is actually worth chasing after. If you don't want to be the initiator, don't be, instead do something that will earn enough respect for someone to want your attention and chase after you, rather than assume it always has to be the other way around.

 

In the OP case I think you need to learn how to sell and you cant sell anything by selling the negative points, sell the good points, if you are selling yourself as inexperience, take it from me, it doesn't work, I have tried this method of selling before and ALWAYS it fails, without exception.

 

Be careful about the presentation of "selling yourself." The term "selling" implies some level of desperation or powerlessness, like you need to make the sale to survive. If you go in too hard trying to make yourself seem like such a great person, it will seem desperate and/or arrogant. It's a much better move to let someone's natural curiosity about you slowly reveal the different layers, or "good points" as you put it. Then, suddenly, they will be the ones desperate to "buy," assuming what they uncover is worth writing home about.

 

As I told the OP about his experience, I think the same lesson still applies here: don't play all your cards all at once, or when you don't have to. Be careful and methodical about what you reveal and when/how you do it.

[JuneJulySeptember]

Yes but most of those women have been in a relationship before meanwhile there are more guys than women on this forum who have never been in a relationship

 

One of the reasons (though not by any means the only one) is that women are more pressured into socialization than men.

 

I have almost never met a woman (through work, school, friends, anything) that is what I would consider totally socially unambitious. I do know women who don't socialize all that much, but they have kids and/or a husband or boyfriend.

 

On the other hand, I can name several guys just off the top of my head who are almost completely off the map socially. I know a number of guys who don't do jack-sh@t on the weekends, almost ever, except for watching TV and sports. I know guys who are immersed in a life of pot smoking and prostitutes and are happy that way. How often do you see a woman sitting by herself at a bar and throwing back drink after drink and just watching the TV or the wall?

 

So I think there's a disconnect between less sociable men and women. Technically for every less social or socially backwards dude, there should be an equivalent woman. But it doesn't work that way.

Edited August 1, 2016 by JuneJulySeptember

[ZA Dater]

I'm not convinced you know what "entitled" means. And women are only on the receiving end of attention they can obtain. For any guy they want that isn't giving them to desired attention, they have to go after it and earn it from him. The only men who who feel they desperately have to assume the "initiator" role are the ones who haven't done anything that make women want to go after them. I'm sure plenty of women on here will tell you about a time they liked a guy who didn't like them back.

 

 

 

 

The thing about being liked or loved is that you typically have to do something to earn it. People don't respect musicians until they compose or play something great. You don't get the Superbowl ring until you win. You don't get the doctorate until you graduate med school. Entitlement is expecting things without having done anything to earn them.

 

You're handing women all the power and emasculating yourself. When someone else has something you want, you're giving them all the leverage over you and making it harder for yourself to get what you actually want.

 

Why look for validation, confidence, and self-esteem purely in the eyes of women? If you actually achieve something, or work hard and have some success in your life outside of women, you'll have something to hang your hat on. This should give you confidence. If you're good enough and/or successful enough at something respectable, it will make a lot of women want to be with you and they will beat a path to your door. Men only have to be the initiator when they've done nothing to convince women that women need to get off their ass and be the initiators themselves, because the guy is actually worth chasing after. If you don't want to be the initiator, don't be, instead do something that will earn enough respect for someone to want your attention and chase after you, rather than assume it always has to be the other way around.

 

 

 

Be careful about the presentation of "selling yourself." The term "selling" implies some level of desperation or powerlessness, like you need to make the sale to survive. If you go in too hard trying to make yourself seem like such a great person, it will seem desperate and/or arrogant. It's a much better move to let someone's natural curiosity about you slowly reveal the different layers, or "good points" as you put it. Then, suddenly, they will be the ones desperate to "buy," assuming what they uncover is worth writing home about.

 

As I told the OP about his experience, I think the same lesson still applies here: don't play all your cards all at once, or when you don't have to. Be careful and methodical about what you reveal and when/how you do it.

 

Very logical post. By selling I mean exactly as you imply, have something worth discovering, this is a double edged sword though because I have to say I have never had anything really people were interested in. I live a fairly odd life, I enjoy the trappings of success but I also walk with the common touch to quote a famous poet.

 

 

None of the nice things I do and experience I have seem to mean anything to women at all. Being published doesn't seem to mean much either.

 

 

Which is why I say some success at dating can really benefit people like the OP, in theory you can feel some confidence. Its like when I am around someone I really like, we connect on a work level deeply and when she is around I feel like superman, hugely confident, am ok being me because I know she gets me. Its that sort of confidence that's super hard to find.

 

 

Its tough to earn that opportunity to be liked or loved and often you just find that what likes you, you simply don't want.

[PogoStick]

To the person in SF (San Francisco I presume), the dating economy makes a huge difference. There are already great studies on the phenomenon. SF and Silicon Valley are near the top for worst male dating markets in the country. In places it's almost 2:1 male. Add in that many of those guys are awkward, engineer types with weak personalities and uninteresting hobbies, and it's expected that many are going to struggle with women. On the plus side, many have money and decent careers, and that's enough for some of them to make it.

 

In the US, available single women under 40 y/o are lowest on the west coast, and increase as you move towards the east coast. It's a very predictable demographic.

 

Typically around SF you will see picky women who can demand a committed relationship before having sex. It's interesting to compare that with isolated populations where women outnumber men 2:1, like certain universities. In those places, interviewed women say dating barely even exists. A guy is allowed multiple women in open relationships. Hooking up is the norm. If a girl isn't willing to give up easy sex, another one will. It makes sense.

 

Further complicating that scenario towards the east coast, is that women are outpacing men with college education. Women typically don't want to date down, so the number of "suitable" men with a college education is even smaller. A man can push this even further by moving to places like Memphis, Mobile, or Atlanta, where many men are in poverty, uneducated, or locked up in jail, throws the ratio off even further in the successful man's favor.

 

Anyways, the dating environment is certainly something both men and women should consider. A smart man who is struggling would maximize his datability = move into a thick dating market, get a career with a college education, and put in enough effort at the gym to be "above average" in fitness. That will get your foot in the door for dating, and becoming socially adept should develop with dating experience.

Edited August 1, 2016 by PogoStick

[JuneJulySeptember]

 

Anyways, the dating environment is certainly something both men and women should consider. A smart man who is struggling would maximize his datability = move into a thick dating market, get a career with a college education, and put in enough effort at the gym to be "above average" in fitness. That will get your foot in the door for dating, and becoming socially adept should develop with dating experience.

 

I think most men are aware that having a college degree and a 'white-collar' job, your own place, being reasonably fit, and having some fairly interesting hobbies are a minimum requirement to get a woman in the new millennium.

 

It's after they bring that to the table, go after women who are fairly similar in what they bring to the table ... and get shot down several times that the question raising begins.

 

And I get it, I've been there myself. Guys think they have to be extraordinary to get ordinary.

Edited August 1, 2016 by JuneJulySeptember