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

[AMarriedMan]

So, as Elswyth and others have pointed out, why are men over paying for sex? Have you ever heard of anyone offering $30k for a production vehicle that has a sticker price of $25k? If relationships are like economical transactions, how can this theory explain why any man is getting married in 2017? The only answer I can think of is most men view marriage as something more than a steady supply of sex.

 

A steady supply of sex was traditionally not the only thing men expected of marriage. Sexual fidelity was another. Another was children. Yet another was social respectability.

 

I think expensive divorce more so than cheap sex can be attributed to the decline in marriage rates. Another factor to consider is that, on average, men 25-35 years old, make 20% less than they did 40 years ago. This contributes to the feeling of a lack of stability that would discourage "settling down."

 

I agree.

 

The most compelling argument that marriage cannot be explained by an economic marketplace model: If women married solely for access to resources years ago, why are they considering marriage if they are able to provide those resources for themselves today? The author of the article concedes that much, but why would they still marry? Clearly, one can concluded marriage is more to men and women than a quid pro quo for basic needs.

 

The average woman still stands to gain financially from marriage because the average woman earns less than the average man. Also, fewer people are getting married these days and some of that probably has to do with the narrowing income gap between men and women.

[knabe]

he strongest statement here is that people as a whole have become more selfish and entitled

 

Dingdingding we definitely have a winner. This is what 99% of what people hurting on forums boils down to.

[CptInsano]

Dingdingding we definitely have a winner. This is what 99% of what people hurting on forums boils down to.

 

I don't think people have become more selfish and entitled. It's just that what they expect has changed. Economic security and status were tangible, but romance and personal satisfaction are far more fickle. My mother and my grandmothers felt entitled (through their beauty) to have a man who provided for them. And they all played that game well, which lifted their side of the family from a blue collar background into the upper middle class if not outright affluence. They werent any more altruistic than people are today.

[Eternal Sunshine]

There is a lot of truth to that article. It's funny when I travel, in Netherlands for example, women don't care about getting married at all. Many couples live unmarried even after having 2 or 3 kids.

 

I just see marriage as some stupid ceremony that's totally made up by society and means nothing....It's beyond puzzling how much money and time is wasted on planning a wedding. On the other hand, I was brainwashed once too and I remember when I turned 30, I was obsessed with getting married. I feel lucky every day that my ex didn't propose. I would have totally jumped at the chance and he made me miserable. We were looking at rings, writing the guest list and planning our honeymoon. Close call.

 

Now, I just want to be happy

[Chilli]

l thought there must've been a lot going on in that there sure is all over the net.

Because every second post you read is apparently yet another person going out with apparently yet another narc.

but 90% of them have just met another selfish ass/h@@@ l think, male or female.

Over over analyzing has gone crazy these days.

[No_Go]

There is a lot of truth to that article. It's funny when I travel, in Netherlands for example, women don't care about getting married at all. Many couples live unmarried even after having 2 or 3 kids.

 

I just see marriage as some stupid ceremony that's totally made up by society and means nothing....It's beyond puzzling how much money and time is wasted on planning a wedding. On the other hand, I was brainwashed once too and I remember when I turned 30, I was obsessed with getting married. I feel lucky every day that my ex didn't propose. I would have totally jumped at the chance and he made me miserable. We were looking at rings, writing the guest list and planning our honeymoon. Close call.

 

Now, I just want to be happy

 

The thing is in the Netherlands registered partnership is no different than (traditional) marriage - i.e. it basically gives you the rights of a married couple. In the US - living together as partners means nothing, it doesn't make you an 'official' couple, it just makes you roommates. I don't know how it is in other countries, seems like both models exist.

 

Since i'm in the US now - no way I'll experiment ever again with live-in BFs. If they want me - they'd need to marry me, and they will need to initiate all the hassle. I'm generally a provider in my relationships so I'm not going to play test games again - it is anyway in their interest. I have no interest in a wedding though - if I ever get there it will be maybe 10 person gathering in my backyard and a take out meal, done. Maybe I'll buy a fancy cocktail dress but keep it all to 1000 bucks or under, including the take out meal

 

But I know what you mean for around 30 marriage urge. I had it as well and like you near-engaged my ex, we were going through the same motions that you describe (rings, guests, and similar sh*t), when we both knew very well we were incompatible but well, it was time.

 

Now nearing 33, except I still want a dude to make me a kid or two and for sex, otherwise I really lost my urges to be married. I'm super happy living alone, I utterly enjoy it. If I ever decide that I'm giving up on the kids idea, I'm afraid I'll forgo the marriage idea for good.

[No_Go]

In a nutshell, over the past few decades, the traditional relationship exchange has broken down. It used to be that men and women each had something the other really needed. Men needed access to sex. Women needed access to resources. Men couldn't get steady access to sex unless they had resources to offer, so they worked hard for them. The partnership between men and women was a grand bargain that (usually) left both sides better off.

 

Ok, removing the genders from this:

1) one partner provides resources / financial support

2) the other provides steady sex

3) both need each other to reproduce

 

So what's wrong with female taking role 1), the male role 2) for her, and both - 3)? Same dynamics, just genders are not as in your description. There are many women with resources and high sex drive that will thrive in this 'traditional' arrangements with roles reversed.

[Sweetfish]

In a nutshell, over the past few decades, the traditional relationship exchange has broken down. It used to be that men and women each had something the other really needed. Men needed access to sex. Women needed access to resources. Men couldn't get steady access to sex unless they had resources to offer, so they worked hard for them. The partnership between men and women was a grand bargain that (usually) left both sides better off.

 

Ok, removing the genders from this:

1) one partner provides resources / financial support

2) the other provides steady sex

3) both need each other to reproduce

 

So what's wrong with female taking role 1), the male role 2) for her, and both - 3)? Same dynamics, just genders are not as in your description. There are many women with resources and high sex drive that will thrive in this 'traditional' arrangements with roles reversed.

 

 

Lets see....

 

how about the fact that you simply cannot erase biology. Some times I crack an egg and find two yokes. So what? Who cares about the outliers. We are talking about the majority. Many men will not feel comfortable being with a woman that is a bread winner because you will take away his sense of purpose and his sense of protecting the family. You leave him with nothing..

 

Because women are now out graduating men and in return they want a man of equal or higher caliber... so basically now they are "over qualified" to find a man. So a small fraction of the United States population may have a successful long-term relationship where the women is the bread-winner on the flip side the amount of women who are single who cannot find a "good man" is increasing steadily.

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/28/look-how-women-outnumber-men-college-campuses-nationwide/YROqwfCPSlKPtSMAzpWloK/story.html

 

 

As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.

 

 

https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e

Edited October 1, 2017 by Sweetfish

[thefooloftheyear]

In a nutshell, over the past few decades, the traditional relationship exchange has broken down. It used to be that men and women each had something the other really needed. Men needed access to sex. Women needed access to resources. Men couldn't get steady access to sex unless they had resources to offer, so they worked hard for them. The partnership between men and women was a grand bargain that (usually) left both sides better off.

 

Ok, removing the genders from this:

1) one partner provides resources / financial support

2) the other provides steady sex

3) both need each other to reproduce

 

So what's wrong with female taking role 1), the male role 2) for her, and both - 3)? Same dynamics, just genders are not as in your description. There are many women with resources and high sex drive that will thrive in this 'traditional' arrangements with roles reversed.

 

 

Its all great, just don't complain that the guy is too weak willed, Beta, effeminate, etc...

 

You can't have it all...I guess...

 

Also, its been my experience that women who make good money still want a guy that either makes the same or more than they do...If they don't, then resentment builds...Meanwhile, many well off guys(and even some not) gladly have handed over their money, bought expensive jewelry, luxury cars and gave their wives/SO's credit cards they paid for, etc...

 

I just don't see that many women doing that kind of stuff...It just goes against their nature...Their money/stuff is usually theirs...I know of no woman that has voluntarily taken that role...Of the one I can think of, the guy became disabled, and she is carrying the load....not without a TON of whining and griping about it....

 

Not complaining of double standards, just my own personal observations..

 

TFY

[Overtaxed]

In a nutshell, over the past few decades, the traditional relationship exchange has broken down. It used to be that men and women each had something the other really needed. Men needed access to sex. Women needed access to resources. Men couldn't get steady access to sex unless they had resources to offer, so they worked hard for them. The partnership between men and women was a grand bargain that (usually) left both sides better off.

 

Ok, removing the genders from this:

1) one partner provides resources / financial support

2) the other provides steady sex

3) both need each other to reproduce

 

So what's wrong with female taking role 1), the male role 2) for her, and both - 3)? Same dynamics, just genders are not as in your description. There are many women with resources and high sex drive that will thrive in this 'traditional' arrangements with roles reversed.

 

Primarily because women don't need a relationship for steady sex. Sex is a "free" commodity for women, they can get it anytime they want, and therefore it has almost no value. Resources/financial support isn't free for either party, and therefore has to be worked for, having the woman work for money while the man "provides" sex is not usually going to be seen as a "fair" trade because the sex she's providing has no value to her, she can get that anywhere. Kind of like an very unattractive woman who's rich trying to get a rich guy to marry her based on her bank account. He doesn't care, he's already rich! And women are "rich" in sexual access, it's not a point they care about very much because they have as much of it as they want anyway. Also, while there are exceptions, the idea of a "higher drive woman" is an atypical relationship; I've been in plenty, and I've never had a woman who matched my drive. Yes, I know they are out there, but basing the "new model" for relationships based on higher sex drive women than the men is never going to work, it's far too rare to serve as a model for male/female interactions moving forward.

[knabe]

Primarily because women don't need a relationship for steady sex. Sex is a "free" commodity for women, they can get it anytime they want, and therefore it has almost no value. Resources/financial support isn't free for either party, and therefore has to be worked for, having the woman work for money while the man "provides" sex is not usually going to be seen as a "fair" trade because the sex she's providing has no value to her, she can get that anywhere. Kind of like an very unattractive woman who's rich trying to get a rich guy to marry her based on her bank account. He doesn't care, he's already rich! And women are "rich" in sexual access, it's not a point they care about very much because they have as much of it as they want anyway. Also, while there are exceptions, the idea of a "higher drive woman" is an atypical relationship; I've been in plenty, and I've never had a woman who matched my drive. Yes, I know they are out there, but basing the "new model" for relationships based on higher sex drive women than the men is never going to work, it's far too rare to serve as a model for male/female interactions moving forward.

 

LOL

 

Most women, especially those with emotional depth, don't just want to grab some random guy and scratch an itch. If a man wants to get and keep a good woman, he needs to learn how SHE thinks instead of insisting on his on little box to put her in.

[Overtaxed]

LOL

 

Most women, especially those with emotional depth, don't just want to grab some random guy and scratch an itch. If a man wants to get and keep a good woman, he needs to learn how SHE thinks instead of insisting on his on little box to put her in.

 

This is 100% true, but I also don't see what it has to do with my original post. Steady sex IS important to men, it is one of their primary drivers. The poster I was responding to called that out as one of the needs in a relationship, to which I agreed. My point is that need is only really valuable to men because women have more options for steady sex should they desire it. Just like "resources/financial support" are more valuable for some women, I don't need/want that from a woman because I have an abundance of it; it's not valuable to me. All I am saying, reversing the equation doesn't work because women providing financial support and men providing sex (if the woman is the primary breadwinner) isn't a good trade for most men or women. Women don't want the sex as much and have an abundant supply. Men don't want the money as much and have an abundant supply. That's why those relationships are hard, the man/woman isn't providing the other person's typical primary need as their primary contribution to the relationship.

[alphamale]

when people are young it's women who have the upper hand in the dating game. when people get older it's the men who have the advantage.

[knabe]

This is 100% true, but I also don't see what it has to do with my original post. Steady sex IS important to men, it is one of their primary drivers. The poster I was responding to called that out as one of the needs in a relationship, to which I agreed. My point is that need is only really valuable to men because women have more options for steady sex should they desire it. Just like "resources/financial support" are more valuable for some women, I don't need/want that from a woman because I have an abundance of it; it's not valuable to me. All I am saying, reversing the equation doesn't work because women providing financial support and men providing sex (if the woman is the primary breadwinner) isn't a good trade for most men or women. Women don't want the sex as much and have an abundant supply. Men don't want the money as much and have an abundant supply. That's why those relationships are hard, the man/woman isn't providing the other person's typical primary need as their primary contribution to the relationship.

 

You are excellent with words, but it is still the same old whining stereotype. I have a GREAT need for steady sex, and no, I don't just wanna grab the guy at the gas station. There is an underlying bitterness in this whole "women can get it anytime" mantra. Most mature women want connection with a man who doesn't dismiss and devalue them (and argue with them about how they really feel) in order to desire sex.

 

So if a man is frustrated that his paradigm leaves him...in frustration....maybe he should believe his partner and take a look at how he treats her. And shift his paradigm. Unless, of course, being right is more important than the relationship.

[BarbedFenceRider]

You are excellent with words, but it is still the same old whining stereotype. I have a GREAT need for steady sex, and no, I don't just wanna grab the guy at the gas station. There is an underlying bitterness in this whole "women can get it anytime" mantra. Most mature women want connection with a man who doesn't dismiss and devalue them (and argue with them about how they really feel) in order to desire sex.

 

So if a man is frustrated that his paradigm leaves him...in frustration....maybe he should believe his partner and take a look at how he treats her. And shift his paradigm. Unless, of course, being right is more important than the relationship.

That is not correct. I sense hostility in this post. As for paradigm shifts, that will never happen. Thing called biology stops that. Traditional values have been upended and societal norms are being replaced. Just asking men to take a seat and grab at straws is hardly the answer for the gender roles...If the reverse was true, LS wouldn't have so many infidelity posts on here...Again, SEX. jmo.

[Cookiesandough]

You are excellent with words, but it is still the same old whining stereotype. I have a GREAT need for steady sex, and no, I don't just wanna grab the guy at the gas station. There is an underlying bitterness in this whole "women can get it anytime" mantra. Most mature women want connection with a man who doesn't dismiss and devalue them (and argue with them about how they really feel) in order to desire sex.

 

So if a man is frustrated that his paradigm leaves him...in frustration....maybe he should believe his partner and take a look at how he treats her. And shift his paradigm. Unless, of course, being right is more important than the relationship.

 

I hate it. I hate it

[lana-banana]

The pseudoscientific garbage in this thread is making my eyes cross.

 

- Appeal to tradition is dumb. "Traditions" have at times included slavery, rape, torture, human sacrifice, and incest. We get rid of the ones that are based in mistaken belief or no longer useful so we can survive.

 

- Biology is not destiny. If it were, half of us would be dead before our tenth birthday. We don't have the same style of teeth or gut bacteria as our ancestors. We are constantly subverting the forces of biology through medicines, environment, diet, life choices, etc. Teen pregnancies plummeted with the advent of birth control. Immunizations are why most of us are alive. If you love biology that much, embrace cancer.

 

- Biology is not destiny (again). We don't throw infertile women and men with sub-optimal sperm off of buildings. Reproduction is not, nor should it be the end goal for every individual. Advanced societies value humans beyond their reproductive potential.

 

- "Who cares about outliers?" Everyone. Deviations help us explain the norm. You can't make judgments about a general rule unless you understand the edge cases. (No_Go, an actual scientist, understands this.) Outliers are particularly important when evaluating the behavior of groups.

 

The smartest person I have ever met is a Microsoft executive who is an XXY, an outlier in every sense of the word. She goes by female pronouns for convenience, but doesn't particularly consider herself male or female and is too busy writing algorithms (and poetry!) that will annihilate your mind. We as a human race are lucky to have people like her, and I am so grateful we've reached a point where people can thrive without having to fit a specific niche.

 

Live and let live. If you cannot find a romantic partner due to contemporary power dynamics that put men and women on equal footing, that says more about you than it does anyone else. This is not your grandfather's society. We don't shun minorities and gays. We are learning more every day about the human experience and opening ourselves up to broader perspectives, many of which have never been heard before. Yes, traditions and norms are being upended. That's a great thing for all of us.

 

There is one real scientific truth that's worth keeping in mind: the organisms that ultimately thrive and end up succeeding are the ones that adapt to change.

[BarbedFenceRider]

Equal footing is not the case when it comes to law and social expectations here in the states though. Men who are divorced are relegated to 10% child visitation even when 50% was agreed upon. Even in amicable separation cases. Alimony to females in same cases when females are employed and thriving. Other resources as well including retirement and property are fair game. Its scary. Some guys are just opting out. They are not bad people, just not diving into a game that was already expecting them to lose over 50% of the time. I get it, it says alot about us as society...One step forward, two steps back.

[GoodOnPaper]

There is one real scientific truth that's worth keeping in mind: the organisms that ultimately thrive and end up succeeding are the ones that adapt to change.

 

OK, so how do all the struggling guys on LS "adapt" in order to find satisfying physical and emotional relationships? If you are talking about things like this . . .

 

Ok, removing the genders from this:

1) one partner provides resources / financial support

2) the other provides steady sex

3) both need each other to reproduce

 

So what's wrong with female taking role 1), the male role 2) for her, and both - 3)? Same dynamics, just genders are not as in your description. There are many women with resources and high sex drive that will thrive in this 'traditional' arrangements with roles reversed.

 

. . . I don't see how this can work for very many heterosexual relationships. Men who have posted that they do well with highly-educated, driven, dominant women will say that at the instinctive-attraction level, these women want men who are even more dominant.

[thefooloftheyear]

OK, so how do all the struggling guys on LS "adapt" in order to find satisfying physical and emotional relationships? If you are talking about things like this . . .

 

 

 

. . . I don't see how this can work for very many heterosexual relationships. Men who have posted that they do well with highly-educated, driven, dominant women will say that at the instinctive-attraction level, these women want men who are even more dominant.

 

 

Right....

 

IMO, A good part of why there are so many male/female relationship issues now vs years ago, is that there is a struggle between that which is inherent in all of us as men and women("biology") and societal pressures for gender neutrality...These types of methodologies only push us further apart...Instilling masculine type of qualities in a woman and feminine in men, all just create behaviors and mannerisms that each gender inherently doesn't want...

 

I get how in the strive for employment/career/child raising equality, there almost must be some of this "conditioning"....About all I can say is that the ones having success never fully lose that which fundamentally make them attractive(and more agreeable/compatible) to the opposite sex..

 

The rest just perpetually whine....

 

TFY

[central]

Primarily because women don't need a relationship for steady sex. Sex is a "free" commodity for women, they can get it anytime they want, and therefore it has almost no value. Resources/financial support isn't free for either party, and therefore has to be worked for, having the woman work for money while the man "provides" sex is not usually going to be seen as a "fair" trade because the sex she's providing has no value to her, she can get that anywhere.

 

Perhaps, but from what I hear from many women (including my wife), is that while it is easy for a woman to get sex, it's very difficult for them to find a man who is really good at sex.

 

 

As a man with some experience, I can also say that many women are not very good at sex. Perhaps this issue is frustrating for both men and women. The "problem" - if there really is one - isn't about sex, it's about other issues. Men and women have learned from social trends to look out for themselves, and committed relationships need greater mutual altruism, compassion, and kindness. How we can achieve more of that in our modern culture is the real conundrum, IMO.

[CptInsano]

Also, its been my experience that women who make good money still want a guy that either makes the same or more than they do...If they don't, then resentment builds...Meanwhile, many well off guys(and even some not) gladly have handed over their money, bought expensive jewelry, luxury cars and gave their wives/SO's credit cards they paid for, etc...

 

That's not been my experience. I've noted that successful women seem to want somebody who is not a drag,has time to spend with them, and doesn't interfere with her career. Sure, he has to have his finances in order, but he doesn't have to be her equal financially.

 

Granted, most of those partnerships/marriages I've seen were between generally successful people anyhow, so it became a question of investments vs. more investments, but at least at that end of the financial spectrum it is definitely possible. It's also unlikely that either the man or the woman would be particularly beta.

[stillafool]

Primarily because women don't need a relationship for steady sex. Sex is a "free" commodity for women, they can get it anytime they want, and therefore it has almost no value. Resources/financial support isn't free for either party, and therefore has to be worked for, having the woman work for money while the man "provides" sex is not usually going to be seen as a "fair" trade because the sex she's providing has no value to her, she can get that anywhere. Kind of like an very unattractive woman who's rich trying to get a rich guy to marry her based on her bank account. He doesn't care, he's already rich! And women are "rich" in sexual access, it's not a point they care about very much because they have as much of it as they want anyway. Also, while there are exceptions, the idea of a "higher drive woman" is an atypical relationship; I've been in plenty, and I've never had a woman who matched my drive. Yes, I know they are out there, but basing the "new model" for relationships based on higher sex drive women than the men is never going to work, it's far too rare to serve as a model for male/female interactions moving forward.

 

Women may be able to get sex anytime they want to but not with who they want it with so that pretty much takes the above off the table. For that matter men also can find some woman to sex even if he isn't attracted to her; but what fun is that? Also it would seem that single women tend to have higher sex drives because they have more energy. They aren't depleted by taking care of a husband and kids. I imagine if they are successful in their careers this would raise their self esteem thereby increasing their sex drive also.

[stillafool]

Perhaps, but from what I hear from many women (including my wife), is that while it is easy for a woman to get sex, it's very difficult for them to find a man who is really good at sex.

 

 

As a man with some experience, I can also say that many women are not very good at sex. Perhaps this issue is frustrating for both men and women. The "problem" - if there really is one - isn't about sex, it's about other issues. Men and women have learned from social trends to look out for themselves, and committed relationships need greater mutual altruism, compassion, and kindness. How we can achieve more of that in our modern culture is the real conundrum, IMO.

 

This is true and that is why you find so many women who hang on to Loser guys who don't work, sell drugs; etc., because all these guys are is good in bed.

[No_Go]

Oh I just read all the opinions

 

Seriously it is funny to talk about 'traditions' (or even mention evolution ) in dating because dating is something quite new - it is not a concept that has had the time to evolve over centuries, even up to date only people in the modern parts of the world 'date'.

 

Also the man-woman dynamics: facts to dot support that women 'need' resources or men 'need' sex. Everyone in the 'dating' (Western) world has options to work (get resources) and everyone has the options to get sex (paid sex is a widely available service and masturbation is a sexual activity for ones in 'need').

 

I don't want to go into 'general' (all women want/all men want) discussion, but I can tell you where I personally stand. Since I can gain my own resources, and I find self-sex a reasonable substitute of the partnered one, money and sex are NOT limiting factors for me. I seek 1) a reproductive partner and/or 2) a person that will help me to expand my knowledge. The second statement is broad but that's pretty much exactly what I look for (at the moment). I am also NOT into the idea of being a part of a 'power' couple (2 high earners) because the natural competition that occurs in an arrangement like this is not something I'd like to participate in. So I'd not only accept but PREFER somebody less work-bound than me. No, that doesn't mean I want to take care of a demanding man-child but a low-earning man who has his attention focused on another domain of life - I'd absolutely love to be with someone like this and learn from him, as long as he has enough self-confidence to know his value.

 

Btw earning power is NOT the only way in which a man can manifest his alpha qualities...