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

[GoodOnPaper]

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.

 

That’s “all” they are, yet what they “have” gives them so much more personal power than a lot of us who follow more “respectable” paths. Although, I can’t imagine doing things very differently, I still feel foolish for putting so much time and energy and “self” into my education and career success. Instead, when I was young, I should have focused a lot more on physical, masculine aspects of life and gained more experience with women.

[BarbedFenceRider]

That article does have a few good points but is missing 1/2 of the social equation. The man's side. It looks at men from the women's point of view, but nothing remotely on studying men's needs and historical fact. The article ends with the usual feminist point of "only women" can stand up and change the culture to make men their personal cattle for "their" own agendas.

 

Hardly sounds like the union of 2 souls together making each one better....

 

And the part of men are un-educated is really misandry to the max. Men are finding work and their place in society in the trades as well as other "non-traditional" areas of lively hood. Nothing wrong with that, as I personally feel, that we have enough of professors and social egalitarians to last 2 lifetimes. But we do have a shortage on good fathers, committed partners and husbands. We lost faith as a culture, and replaced the state as the social security blanket.

 

To change the perception that there are NO good men left...Both sides have to reach an impasse and work together to bring positive examples of both genders and behaviors. JMO

[elaine567]

That article does have a few good points but is missing 1/2 of the social equation. The man's side.

 

The article is actually a resume of the book Cheap Sex by a man Mark Regnerus, it expands his views and the views of another man Michael Greenstone too.

 

So I am not sure why you think the man's side is not being expressed, it is all about what a man thinks.

[CptInsano]

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

 

There are many professions that are inherently meaningful, but don't necessarily pay all that well. I know at least three cops where the wife has the higher income, one of them was in fact my manager. Their husbands were very masculine quiet and friendly types, those who seem like they have nothing left to prove.

Edited November 2, 2017 by CptInsano

[thefooloftheyear]

What I haven't heard mentioned is one thing that I think women place a big emphasis on....

 

Whether they have a good job($), career or anything else, women that even have the slightest inclination of wanting children need a guy that is a strong earner/provider....Sure, I know she could go right back to work and keep the earning coming, but most women don't feel comfortable handing a tiny infant over to a stranger and may or may not feel that hiring child care is the answer...They want to know that the guy could be the one to be the donkey...er..."sole provider"...

 

SAHD's haven't taken hold the way the social constructionists wanted...Most women feel a biological urge to mother...whoops....Biology is meaningless, right??..

 

TFY

Edited November 2, 2017 by thefooloftheyear

[No_Go]

There are many professions that are inherently meaningful, but don't necessarily pay all that well. I know at least three cops where the wife has the higher income, one of them was in fact my manager. Their husbands were very masculine quiet and friendly types, those who seem like they have nothing left to prove.

 

^Yes - the bolded sentence - this shows confidence that is extremely attractive.

[BarbedFenceRider]

The article is actually a resume of the book Cheap Sex by a man Mark Regnerus, it expands his views and the views of another man Michael Greenstone too.

 

So I am not sure why you think the man's side is not being expressed, it is all about what a man thinks.

 

I read the article and not the book. THe author of the article does NOT take into account anything other than sex for men and other pedantic views of masculinity...

 

I guess we can agree to disagree.

[No_Go]

TFY I want children and don't need a 'donkey' - I mean I have planned more or less how will I take care of them and it is independent of the guy that will eventually father them. [Read: savings specifically for that purpose, eventually help from the grandmother etc]. The reason is I'm simply not the trusting type - I trust myself more than any guy I'd mate with.

 

In my circles I have few friends where the husbands are SAHDs and doing just fine, one where the mom and the dad took turns parenting and working, and another one who planned to have her kids by herself. We live in a world full of choices, why limit to just one scenario that may or may not be optimal for all...

 

What I haven't heard mentioned is one thing that I think women place a big emphasis on....

 

Whether they have a good job($), career or anything else, women that even have the slightest inclination of wanting children need a guy that is a strong earner/provider....Sure, I know she could go right back to work and keep the earning coming, but most women don't feel comfortable handing a tiny infant over to a stranger and may or may not feel that hiring child care is the answer...They want to know that the guy could be the one to be the donkey...er..."sole provider"...

 

SAHD's haven't taken hold the way the social constructionists wanted...Most women feel a biological urge to mother...whoops....Biology is meaningless, right??..

 

TFY

[Sweetfish]

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 your argument of stereotyping is with stereotyping.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Oh the downfall of those women who cannot find a man worth a damn.

 

Unable to compromise, learn, or take responsibility for her own action and putting all agency on the man.

 

 

This is narcissism at its best. Maybe someone who is always wrong should reevaluate them self and not blame a man or woman's paradigm and not use the relationship as a bargaining chip to manipulate communication. If a man cannot express him self in his relationship because she cannot accept that sometimes she maybe wrong than yes I value being right over a relationship.

 

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.

 

So what? Traditions has pushed technology, language and allowed humans who were dumb as a brick thousands of years ago to populate the earth. Traditions and rules help more individuals from robbing, stealing and killing. Life is not perfect and never was.

 

Everything has pros and cons. If traditions sucks so much don't save money or don't go to the doctor or teacher your children how to tie his shoes or learn his ABC's or math. Society has created systems and there are those who want to break from the system and not get backlash from it.

 

But I love people who push the pseudo scientific narrative and respond back with pseudo-social science with absolutely no facts or figures (just feelings). That is why I particular use numbers to prove my point because of societal conditioning. Pseudoscience says men particularly like good looking women and her intelligence, strength or income does not factor in his desire to be with her.

 

- 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.

 

Accept the pros with the cons. If your family has history of cancer or heart attacks they biologically can be passed down. So are you going to ignore it.. ah screw biology!

 

Biology is not destiny and no one said biology is the driver to your life...but you cannot cherry pick what you think is biology just because you personally do not like things.

 

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.

 

Says who?

 

Not everyone in society reproduces.. doesn't matter if its advanced or not.

What your point? Human are social creatures and favor connection. At the end of the day majority have to reproduce and if not the societies die off.

 

"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.

 

Again who cares about the outliers..

 

Outliers can be good or bad. Whats your point? Nikola Tesla was an outlier and did great things and Hitler was an outlier. That's not what were talking about.. we are talking about a mans sexual, reproductive and mating desires.

 

A woman with her own house, car, job, and social status does create male desire (IE: Oprah or Ellen) men do not generally find powerful women desirable. Her femininity and looks often drive a man.

 

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.

 

Again who cares?

 

There are amazing men and women out there. No argument.

 

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.

 

Men and women are not by a long shot at equal footing.

 

We don't shun minorities and gays

 

This thread is about finding good men... who said anything about shunning gays or minorities? Now were at ad hominems.

 

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.

 

That is not a scientific truth in your application. I guess it just sounds good and makes sense so you use it as a closing argument.

 

Handicapping men, one sided laws, shifting government taxes to pay for birth control/abortions and other creature comforts, using title 9 for leverage , lower standards IE: military, police, and fire department, and a laundry list of grab bags and supplements and welfare is not scientific at all. Its simply create an environment were women out perform men and in return these women cannot find men.

 

Companies are being told to specifically hire women how is that equal footing?

 

 

[BarbedFenceRider]

You really want to stir the pot just utter the words "MGTOW". And run for cover! ROFL!

[No_Go]

A woman with her own house, car, job, and social status does create male desire (IE: Oprah or Ellen) men do not generally find powerful women desirable. Her femininity and looks often drive a man.

 

C'mon :lmao: Why on earth you think the social success (defined by car, house, job and social status) and attractiveness (defined by feminine looks) are exclusive???

The two are not correlated. If anything, I would say successful women also are better looking because they invest more resources (time and money) in their appearance.

[stillafool]

That’s “all” they are, yet what they “have” gives them so much more personal power than a lot of us who follow more “respectable” paths. Although, I can’t imagine doing things very differently, I still feel foolish for putting so much time and energy and “self” into my education and career success. Instead, when I was young, I should have focused a lot more on physical, masculine aspects of life and gained more experience with women.

 

Yeah but who needs women if it means ending up broke and stupid.

[stillafool]

A woman with her own house, car, job, and social status does create male desire (IE: Oprah or Ellen) men do not generally find powerful women desirable. Her femininity and looks often drive a man.

 

C'mon :lmao: Why on earth you think the social success (defined by car, house, job and social status) and attractiveness (defined by feminine looks) are exclusive???

The two are not correlated. If anything, I would say successful women also are better looking because they invest more resources (time and money) in their appearance.

 

Oprah has been with Stedman 100 years and Ellen doesn't want men but could easily get younger women. Chris Jenner (60s) has a 30 something bf and so does Patti LaBelle (70s).

[Imajerk17]

Well, I can see how the title of the article in the OP can be comforting to someone single and looking. Dating can be frustrating, and the title of the article is implying that if you are a woman, then it isn't you personally, it is what is happening with society in general nowadays.

 

That said though. I'm not sure I agree that "good" men, or for that matter, "good" women, are any harder to find nowadays than they ever were Back In The Good Old Days. What I DO think is happening instead is that people are not SETTLING as they may have before.

 

If you are a woman, you can earn your own money nowadays. You don't need to be in such a hurry at 20 to find a Nice Guy w good earning potential--whom you may or may not have felt that much of a connection to--to settle down with. You can hold out for chemistry and compatibility.

 

If you are a man, you have easier access to sex. You don't need to Wife-Up the first woman who will give you your sexual release. But, getting back to the original topic, just because our gender isn't as "hard-up" for sex, doesn't mean we don't fall in love anymore. Jeeze Louise. (You know, lots of studies out there say that men are actually the ones who fall in love faster, but I'm kind of digressing here)

 

Meanwhile though, people are still falling in love and getting married. Check out the number of women in their 20s and 30s with rings on their fingers. That doesn't even count the number of people in committed relationships who aren't engaged yet. If that's not enough, there are also a lot of relationship-oriented guys on LS and not on LS who are searching for a girlfriend (not ONS or NSA sex), and are quite confused about "what women want". Coupling-up, and women being able to find guys who want to couple-up with them, hasn't even come close to stopping as the article claiming it has

Edited November 2, 2017 by Imajerk17