This article totally nailed it: Why are good men so hard to find?

[Woggle]

The issue is that in this society a lot of men and women just don't know how to relate to each other. They don't know how to communicate or have any kind of real conversation. How can you have successful relationships in an environment where it is very much us against them when it comes to gender relations? You can't unless you have two strong people who can go against what society teaches you.

 

We also tell both genders that there are only two options and neither one is healthy. We tell men to either live life as if they are apologizing for being born with a penis and flagellate themselves over their male privilege or become alpha male parodies who use women and throw them away.

 

We tell women to be submissive housewives with no spine and or mind of their own or develop this I don't need a man mentality and treat relationships as some battle against the patriarchy.

 

That you actually still see some happy couples in this environment is a miracle.

[stillafool]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but in my experience women want sex, period. As soon as they trust a guy and are comfortable around him they want sex just as much. But women don't like random sex, as they are selective about their partners, if I may generalize for a moment.

 

So I agree with you, the "sex cartel" is a myth.

 

A lot of women are having random sex with bad boys, MM, exes who don't want them, as well as guys who do. Women are not waiting to have sex one bit. They certainly aren't waiting for a commitment. They may want a commitment but aren't waiting for it before sex.

[Chilli]

But as someone l think earlier said too , something like women are their own worst enemies and they are too. They've created 1/2 the bs themselves and if they don't their best friend does it for them. poking and prodding it's worse than ever with internet and 50million articals all over the place. 3/4 of those are just written by no bodies bored at home , anyone can do one.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Chilli

[knabe]

When an article includes a reference to gender studies, it's hard not to roll my eyes.

 

Relationships are tougher because we are more selfish and self-obsessed than we've ever been. Men AND women.

Edited September 25, 2017 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
rude ~T

[Poutrew]

I don’t know who they surveyed for that (tiredly stereotyped) article, but my experience was the opposite. In my 30s the last thing I wanted was a LTR / M. I was a single mother with a demanding job, hectic social life, and loads of commitments. What I wanted from a guy was - sex.

 

But the guys I was prepared to consider didn’t just want sex. They loved the idea of an instant family (beyond the nappy stage - yay!) and wanted to move in together and get M or at least work up to that. They were mostly either single guys who’d played the field and now wanted to settle down, or they were guys who’d married young (like me) and gotten D (like me) but wanted to pick up where they left off - playing happy families.

 

We’d have The Talk, about expectations, what we wanted, etc, and they’d swear blind they just wanted something transient, a roll in the hay.... but a couple of weeks down the line there would be flowers at work. Soppy cards. Dropping by unannounced “to make supper, so you can rest up”, trying to insinuate themselves into my kids’ lives.... I’d be forced to dump them, however good the sex.

 

And I’m not an outlier, either. Several of my friends had similar experiences.

 

There are a lot of gals exactly like this. They got all the sex they wanted, until they couldn't compete with the younger gals taking their place. Their kids were all grown and are living all over the world, doing exactly what mom has taught them to do. They can't be bothered to take in or care for mom. They get warehoused in nursing homes...

[elaine567]

I think good men have always been hard to find.

Tinder may be the modern "solution" to men finding sexually available women, but they were always around, and guys looking solely for sex tended to find them anyway through the then available dating channels.

Little really changes.

 

Maybe marriage isn't the thing it was, but men and women are still living together and having kids together.

It is not as if all the men are hermits living in the middle of woods or are living in bachelor only communes or they have all turned gay...

[stillafool]

There are a lot of gals exactly like this. They got all the sex they wanted, until they couldn't compete with the younger gals taking their place. Their kids were all grown and are living all over the world, doing exactly what mom has taught them to do. They can't be bothered to take in or care for mom. They get warehoused in nursing homes...

 

What about men? Aren't they responsible for the parents as well?

[Doublegold]

I remember a time when the sexes really enjoyed one another! Oh wait, I still do!

 

I grew up surrounded by men, brothers, cousins, friends. Then I married one, gave birth to a few, divorced one and guess what...

 

I still love men! Carry on.

[spiderowl]

I think there is some truth in this. If women offers themselves for free, for no commitment or effort, then men will just take and go. The question is, what should any of us expect? What is the right balance?

 

If a guy does not have to offer anything - comfort, care, protection, support - then he is effectively a friend with benefits - although a friend usually offers more. Yes, something is amiss but there has probably always been a lack of real connection and mutual support.

[basil67]

I don't think you even read the article careful.

 

first, she said this generation, not her generation. so it's not even about her.

 

she doesn't say all men. she says it's harder. Certainly for desirable men, and men who have options.

 

there are certainly lots of man out there who are not so desirable and therefore no easy access to sex.

 

This article gives you the trend and generalization, but you argue with exceptions.

 

But if easy access to sex is the cause of these problems, why hasn't this phenomena affected all women since the advent of the pill and the sexual revolution?

 

Hate to disillusion you, but women her age - and my age - had casual sex too. But access to casual sex didn't stop guys from wanting to settle down with us.

[umirano]

In our parent's generation and before you just did things, without making them all a man vs woman problem. In that generation not every single social norm had to be torn down. Now we're all little special snowflakes and we hate to compromise. Some do anyway. I know of stable, familial LTRs in my generation but I would say that our generation is pickier and more entitled than earlier ones. I was born in the 80s. That much for my personal interpretation, for which I have no figures and hard facts to back it up.

 

Then there are the hard facts: Many western societies, the US being the famous exception, have extensive social and medical security for every single citizen. When a hundred years ago almost everyone was under constant threat of sickness, disability and even death, today physical threats are virtually out of the picture for the vast majority in a society. This type of state-mandated insurance for all sorts of risks makes familial ties less important (wrt economic stability) than, say, 50 years ago. Before modern public safety nets like these, having a child out of wedlock resulted in a serious social and economic downgrade. The pill and legal, safe and accessible abortion medicine gave women much more control over their child bearing. It has become something less of an unknown. At the same time women became much more economically independent. These factors have far reaching effects. Some expected and some unexpected. I think we're only slowly getting a more complete picture. I think all humans have a hard time adjusting to change. All the social and technological developments will have huge effects on society and it will take quite some time to adapt and find new roles.

 

I suppose never before has a society gone through this number of massive changes. Maybe when we climbed down from the trees was such a change, or when we started to live in settlements and to farm, instead of living as hunter-gatherers.

 

Are women their own worst enemies? I don't know that, but men and women alike do things and they seem to be a great idea at the time, but later unintended consequences become visible. In the fifties the Chinese communist leader Mao thought, supported by his advisers, that it was a great idea to kill all sparrows in China (to protect rice fields). The effects on the food chain led to unseen grasshopper plagues, which devastated more rice fields than the sparrows ever did. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese starved. Mao was quite embarrassed and the program was silently phased out.

 

I could imagine that uncompromising, hard-line programs to enforce equality, maybe like the one that some social justice proponents seem to defend, can lead to an unintended outcome. James Damore's memo alluded to that. Yes, you can get more women into coding jobs with affirmative-action type hiring processes. Has anyone ever bothered to find out whether women even like that kind of work? To the degree that they're hired into it? Yes, in theory it sounds great if we were all equal and the same in every aspect, except for our reproductive organs. But that is not the case and it is unlikely that it ever will be the case. For example, I think that is probably a good thing that women (on average) are more risk averse than men, because it's good for the child. I think gender differences (in abilities and interests) often are a result of adaptation to successful child raising. It doesn't mean everybody always has to fulfill the evolutionary gender stereotypes. I feel, however, that brute-force equalization leads to less happiness in both sexes.

 

Almost all countries have voting rights for both sexes for several decades now. Women usually make up about 51% of a society. How come we have almost exclusively men dominated parliaments for almost all of that time in almost all of these countries? I really believe we should open our minds to the possibility that there are some fundamental differences in our abilities and desires that we cannot argue away with even the most sophisticated of the modern social theories.

 

A bit more OT: It may actually be just what the title says. Good people of both sexes are still around at the same proportions. Changing social mechanics and circumstances just make it harder to match up (at least with traditional methods and search patterns). So I'm not seeing the end of society dawning on us. It will just look different than it did.

[Miss Spider]

I don't buy that all men just want casual, meaningless sex with lots of women indefinitely. Maybe at a certain point in his life. Particularly if he's under 25. But most men eventually do want to find a meaningful connection with one woman that they care for. It's human to want to bond.

 

& I just losthe that argument that analogizes women with cows. Why is that even popular

[umirano]

[...]These factors have far reaching effects. Some expected and some unexpected. I think we're only slowly getting a more complete picture. I think all humans have a hard time adjusting to change.

[...]

 

It is a problem that the conversation about these changes and their effects is totally politicized. It is a problem that people get punished for having, or uttering the wrong opinion. If you kill the conversation we will stay clueless and the outcome will be worse than it has to be.

[Miss Spider]

Oh yes, and there is also men that settle down just because they want to start a family.

 

But more importantly, I don't see all these women over 35 that are struggling in my circle. I only hear about it online and usually in the Manosphere. My aunt was in her 50s and had no problem remarrying this spring. Pretty much all of my other older female relatives had the same experience. My mid 30s friends are not bitching about how they can't find a man. TBH, I'm the one with the worst luck and I've had it since I was in my early 20s. So, if you're a mid 30s woman who is having problems finding a good man, I don't mean to be offensive, but you may want to check yourself. It might be a 'you' problem ...just saying...

[Woggle]

It is a problem that the conversation about these changes and their effects is totally politicized. It is a problem that people get punished for having, or uttering the wrong opinion. If you kill the conversation we will stay clueless and the outcome will be worse than it has to be.

 

Silencing debate doesn't even change minds. It just makes people hold in their true feelings until it explodes like we are seeing in the states right now. The election of Trump, the racial tensions, men vs women and all that stuff has been brewing for years and it finally boiled over in the last few years. Political correctness is nothing more than phony politeness.

[Chilli]

Good women are just as hard to find , especially as they get older.

Not easy for anyone who wants to meet that very special person.

 

But as l discovered recently , given the right girl l'd be open to remarrying.

[basil67]

It is a problem that the conversation about these changes and their effects is totally politicized. It is a problem that people get punished for having, or uttering the wrong opinion. If you kill the conversation we will stay clueless and the outcome will be worse than it has to be.

 

We have a post where the far majority of women respondents are disagreeing with the premise that many late 20's women can't find a man because of casual sex.

 

Which part of this is politicised and can't be discussed?

[Popsicle]

There are things to admire and to hate about those old days. And there are things to admire and to hate about times today. We just switched one set of problems for another, and it all seems equal in terms of positives and negatives, but no better in the end (depending on which angle that you look at it from).

 

And btw, it's a real turn off to the opposite gender to go around saying "There are no good women/men left!", Or "I never want to get married! (Again)". Why would anyone want to get involved with someone with such a bitter approach?

Edited September 25, 2017 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Merge

[cocorico]

I think there is some truth in this. If women offers themselves for free, for no commitment or effort, then men will just take and go. The question is, what should any of us expect? What is the right balance?

 

If a guy does not have to offer anything - comfort, care, protection, support - then he is effectively a friend with benefits - although a friend usually offers more. Yes, something is amiss but there has probably always been a lack of real connection and mutual support.

 

I can’t get my head around this perspective. “Women offering themselves for free” - what does that even mean? How are they “offering”, and men “taking”, when both are doing he exact same thing? Why are the men not “offering themselves for free”, and the women “taking”? This bizarre double standard really melts my brain.

[umirano]

My post wasn't directed at anyone in this thread. I was mainly complaining about the way (some) corporate media seemingly try to supress unwelcome ideas/findings.

 

I think this is one of the more constructive threads on LS.

[Blanco]

My eyes glaze over any time I see someone, in all seriousness, use terms like "snowflake." Way to be cliche.

[Els]

This article just puzzles me. The majority of genuinely good men I know aren't just in a LTR/marriage SOLELY for sex, which is the main assumption of the article. Sure, sex is part of it, but most of them are with their partners for the PERSON that she is. Sex by itself cannot possibly keep a couple together and happy for decades.

 

If a man was just going around with the sole purpose of trying to find the "cheapest" form of sexual entertainment he possibly could and isn't interested in anything more than that (as the author of the article assumes all men are), how would he possibly have been any "good" in a relationship anyway, even if 100% of women waited for marriage to have sex and thus he was forced to do so? Do you think such a man would genuinely care about his wife beyond the sex she "provides" him? Why would any woman even want to be with such a man? Surely it is better to be single.

 

I do agree that women should have high standards for the men they choose to spend their life with, and not put up with anything just to have a breathing human with a Y chromosome next to them... but that wasn't really the main point of the article.

 

Edited to add: Also, even assuming the "all men are pigs" angle that the OP is taking... it isn't really true that anyone in any society (no matter how traditional) absolutely HAD to marry to have access to sex. Yes, in traditional times and societies casual sex is less common, but there are always prostitutes. There is a reason why it's called the "oldest profession on earth" and has been mentioned in much of the oldest literature in human record. It would be far cheaper for a man to see a prostitute weekly than it would be for him to support a wife and children, so it would still make no sense for a man to marry solely for sex.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Elswyth

[Woggle]

There are things to admire and to hate about those old days. And there are things to admire and to hate about times today. We just switched one set of problems for another, and it all seems equal in terms of positives and negatives, but no better in the end (depending on which angle that you look at it from).

 

And btw, it's a real turn off to the opposite gender to go around saying "There are no good women/men left!", Or "I never want to get married! (Again)". Why would anyone want to get involved with someone with such a bitter approach?

 

Very true. Who wants to deal with somebody who already has a strike against you because you were born with certain body parts? People who hate your gender are a huge turn off.

[GunslingerRoland]

I don't agree with much about the article. Yes less people are married than before, but there are a lot of reasons for that, and it's largely due to the fact that less people both men and women want to be married. Also it's not as much of a necessity for people to be married. In the old days you had to find someone whether you liked them or not because it wasn't socially acceptable otherwise. Plus you wanted to have a bunch of kids.

 

Going back to our grand parents/great grand parents relationships, they weren't particularly good relationships. But it didn't matter as much, because people had a lot less leisure time with their spouses anyway. Society was less complicated and a couple didn't have to be partners in life in the same sense they are today.

[Blanco]

I like the concept of marriage; what it symbolizes; what it suggests the two people must feel about each other. But it's so strange to hear so many lament the unmarried or those who are hesitant to be married. As if these people are defective or insane for not plunging into something that has such a high-stakes, high-failure nature to it.

 

I don't think everyone is cut out for marriage, so it's bizarre that we expect/encourage pretty much everyone to seek it. Marriage can fail for any number of reasons, but I think "trying to fit a square peg in a round hole" has to be among them.