Do nice/good guys finish last?

[Sophrosyne]

Some people think nice guys finishing last is why there's so much bad in the world.

It actually not about finishing last at all, it is simply man is inherently evil and if left alone things to bad. Look at Noah and the ark.

 

[Sophrosyne]

One of the benefits of my walk with the Lord is learning to keep my own counsel. I used to bounce things off friends long ago. It was like a bad advice jeopardy category.

Now I talk to Him and sit quietly. I don’t have to bend someone’s ear. Because He’ll bring it up and provide counsel and reassurance. And I’ve learned to wait on Him.

Personal and professional issues have their respective circles. But I want to hear from God first or bring the matter in prayer beforehand. That allows me to line up what I receive elsewhere.

I've spent a lifetime trying to figure things out and found that the more wise I seem to get the more foolish I think I am that it took almost a lifetime to be as wise as a fool without God.

 

[linux.poet]

The institution of marriage is only meaningful to honest and trustworthy people. It is a contract and in today's society many people take it lightly and go into if figuring if things don't work out I can divorce. In other words the institution fails due to lack of character.

That also comes back, for me, to the fact that divorce is abusive to men. When that happens, they hardly get to see their kids anymore. Women also demand alimony and child support. It’s cruel. And kids need their dad. It’s just another form of pump-and-dump, only with a fake contract in the middle that was never real in the first place.

You may be encouraged to know that wasn’t what I was talking about there. I’m talking about women who have an ideal of married life and them as the perfect wife and mother they have to live up to. The guy is the gracious sperm donor who must live up to their ideals of what a husband should be. Their picture of marriage is more important than the person involved. They put up marriage as more important than the people in it.

Er, no. People are eternal souls, and that guy (or gal) across the altar from you is more valuable than any institutional ideal. You stay with the contract to honor God, but also so you don’t mistreat their body and abuse it. It doesn’t matter if your marriage isn’t up to your ideals, you honor God who made that person’s body and you stay with the contract.

Hey, you do what you want to do. I'm glad that you cook some things. You hadn't clarified this before, so I was thinking "gosh, does she expect to live on frozen, canned, and take-out foods until some man who likes to cook marries her?" That's an unhealthy and irresponsible way to live. And, speaking from experience, there are certain other things that I wish I had seriously began pursuing when I was your age.

I am quite sorry that I gave you that impression, heh. The bottom line is that I cook things I like to eat, and don’t cook things I don’t like to eat. I majored in sandwiches and minored in fruit. I’m just not the expert - I want to try the sweet potato casserole again, and I’m not like my brother who makes pie and cheesecake and homemade pizza. By some standards, I’m way behind.

And I’m 28 lol, and at this point I actually think I have far too many hobbies. I’m looking to cut back and focus my life more. But nothing feels like the thing to give up.

 

[Sophrosyne]

That also comes back, for me, to the fact that divorce is abusive to men. When that happens, they hardly get to see their kids anymore. Women also demand alimony and child support. It’s cruel. And kids need their dad. It’s just another form of pump-and-dump, only with a fake contract in the middle that was never real in the first place.

That is why there is MGTOW these days from what I've heard. Rarely do men get custody and alimony and child support even if they end up with the kids and often wives will even make things up to severely limit men's right to be with their child sometimes so bad that they literally have to sue to get visitation rights while working to pay everything for the ex.

You may be encouraged to know that wasn’t what I was talking about there. I’m talking about women who have an ideal of married life and them as the perfect wife and mother they have to live up to. The guy is the gracious sperm donor who must live up to their ideals of what a husband should be. Their picture of marriage is more important than the person involved. They put up marriage as more important than the people in it.

Sounds sort of like modern feminism with the addition the sperm donor pays for everything including the wife's house a nice car and a bunch of nice clothing while she decides to trade up and get another guy after divorcing him and taken most of his stuff. She then remarries the guy that could be the true father of the children in the first place. I read a story about a man married and after most of his kids had grown up he found out at a doctor's office that he was sterile due to a genetic disease I think it was a DNC check on the kids proved none of the children were his and he sued his wife and won in court and divorced her too.

Er, no. People are eternal souls, and that guy (or gal) across the altar from you is more valuable than any institutional ideal. You stay with the contract to honor God, but also so you don’t mistreat their body and abuse it. It doesn’t matter if your marriage isn’t up to your ideals, you honor God who made that person’s body and you stay with the contract.

People often sign contracts to gain power over others and do everything possible to accuse the other of breaking it while breaking it themselves. Marriage is no exception that is often why it ends in divorce because if you have abuse or adultery involved sometimes the only way to stop that is divorce.

 

[bèlla]

By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge the rooms are filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

As with most things a one-size approach isn’t appropriate. God is the common denominator as is holiness. How we prepare for life and marriage differs. My philosophy is a combination of faith, experience, gifts and foresight. Financial autonomy and self-sufficiency is the end result.

I mentioned homesteading earlier but I didn’t grow up on a farm or garden in my youth. I explored it later. Nor are my interests wholly due to marriage. I was reared in a traditional family where men and women delighted in their roles and didn’t covet the other’s. And I’m the same.

I didn’t aspire to become a Proverbs 31 woman but I see a lot of similarities between us. It’s not the skills but the reason behind them that matters most. While I haven’t bought a field or used a spinning wheel I’ve done the rest. But it didn’t happen overnight for either. It’s a culmination of choices and diligence that brings you to that point.

You don’t have to follow suit. There’s a lot of things that undergird this way of being I don’t address. They have to be in place or underway to make it work. Find what suits you best.

 

[linux.poet]

Marriage is no exception that is often why it ends in divorce because if you have abuse or adultery involved sometimes the only way to stop that is divorce.

Abuse can be resolved inside of a marriage without ending in divorce. However, I would still encourage vetting and testing of someone before marrying them to ensure that they aren’t an abuser.

There are early warning signs and red flags that show that abuse is on the horizon. The problem is, my mom didn’t catch my dad because his abuse complex involved children and not necessarily the spouse. My mom got hurt when she was uncomfortable with my dad’s awful behavior and tried to help me, the child.

It’s important to meet their parents before you get married and not rush through the engagement. Also, ask them about their philosophy of raising children, especially their philosophy of child discipline. Do they think it’s okay to insult a child? Whip them? Take away things the child thinks are theirs? Do they follow the model of child discipline outlined in Proverbs? What is their opinion on Ephesians 6:1 and 4? Do they understand that it’s important for them not to coddle children and let them understand that parents aren’t there to shield them from negative consequences?

Adultery is a tricky one. If they are a repeat cheater or aren’t going to give up their new relationship, there comes a point where you are enabling their sin and it’s time to bail. However, if they are genuinely willing to give up the adulterous relationship and haven’t contracted some horrendous disease, I would probably try to keep the marriage together so the kids don’t get hurt (as much).

It’s less about signs before marriage, for avoiding it, and more about following the person as they change instead of expecting them to be the same. Don’t try to fit people in molds, because they grow out of them and sometimes even rebel against them. A chain too tight is the chain that breaks.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Abuse can be resolved inside of a marriage without ending in divorce. However, I would still encourage vetting and testing of someone before marrying them to ensure that they aren’t an abuser.

There are early warning signs and red flags that show that abuse is on the horizon. The problem is, my mom didn’t catch my dad because his abuse complex involved children and not necessarily the spouse. My mom got hurt when she was uncomfortable with my dad’s awful behavior and tried to help me, the child.

It’s important to meet their parents before you get married and not rush through the engagement. Also, ask them about their philosophy of raising children, especially their philosophy of child discipline. Do they think it’s okay to insult a child? Whip them? Take away things the child thinks are theirs? Do they follow the model of child discipline outlined in Proverbs? What is their opinion on Ephesians 6:1 and 4? Do they understand that it’s important for them not to coddle children and let them understand that parents aren’t there to shield them from negative consequences?

Adultery is a tricky one. If they are a repeat cheater or aren’t going to give up their new relationship, there comes a point where you are enabling their sin and it’s time to bail. However, if they are genuinely willing to give up the adulterous relationship and haven’t contracted some horrendous disease, I would probably try to keep the marriage together so the kids don’t get hurt (as much).

It’s less about signs before marriage, for avoiding it, and more about following the person as they change instead of expecting them to be the same. Don’t try to fit people in molds, because they grow out of them and sometimes even rebel against them. A chain too tight is the chain that breaks.

I think that sometimes people consider divorce a worse sin than staying with someone abusive and I think that at some point by staying in a marriage you are essentially in a sinful relationship also and often divorce can stop the sin of abuse entirely on those abused by staying married. I've considered over the years signs of abusive behavior and several of them are deception, gaslighting, controlling and narcissism among others. If a marriage isn't about both people doing their best to love one another as God describes love as being unselfish and not self serving a relationship that is very unequal often shows signs of trouble.

I strongly agree that you need to meet and get to know parents and siblings and friends of a future spouse as these people can clue you in as to the reality of a possible future spouse. If for example a guys father is fat and drinks a lot and a bully you need to look for behavior that suggests the same and if his mother is controlling and very strict those traits can also be mirrored. Physical conditions can be hereditary and spiritual conditions can also be passed down. People often marry someone that looks good now but after 10 years they look awful or they are slightly overweight and their parents have diabetes or some other genetic tendency and that means in the future your spouse can follow that and if they don't have good self control even worse.
Often children rebel against their parents when they are young and later in life become just like them. Women often seek men like their father and men can be attracted to women like their mother and when they do find spouses similar to their parents they can start acting like their parents did because the behavior was embedded in them from childhood. History tends to repeat itself for sure thinking someone will change and not be like their family when the signs speak otherwise can be foolish.
I think adultery can be a big issue a spouse can try and keep the family together but sometimes the price paid is too much as sometimes people who cheat do other things bad too as some are narcissistic and with large egos
and often the person cheating with them can be possessive and try to make everyone's life awful till they get the person they are cheating with as their own spouse. I broken marriage by cheating spouses that put their desires over their kids may be unsaveable.

 

[LonelyAdams]

Hello!
My name is Ethan, and I’ve had a question stuck in my head and occasionally has caused me to not get to sleep when I should. Basic summation of movie I saw. Two guys save a princess and the first guy and her develop a High school crush with each other but the second guy has zero to little interest in her whatsoever. He’s rougher around the edges, challenging, a bit harsh and occasionally a jerk and at the end of the movie on into the second she falls for the second guy. My question is: I’m always the first one, good guy, try to be a gentleman, but end up losing out to the second.
Do I have to change and be like the second? More challenging, slightly a jerk, harsher then a good guy in order to find and keep someone and do we good guys finish last?

i think you shouldn't change who you are. We need to be kind to everyone, and gentle, while also having a backbone. Good guys don't finish last, but "nice guys" do

 

[linux.poet]

I think that sometimes people consider divorce a worse sin than staying with someone abusive and I think that at some point by staying in a marriage you are essentially in a sinful relationship also and often divorce can stop the sin of abuse entirely on those abused by staying married.

I don't think you understand abuse correctly. The abuser is the sinner in all abuse cases. The abuse victim is just that - the victim. Now victims are under heavy provocation and temptation to sin, but that doesn't mean that they have to give in.

I think what you are trying to say is that abuse victims are enabling the sin of abuse against them. This can be true, but it isn't always the case. I believe, generally speaking, that an abuse victim can remain in that marriage without enabling the abuse against them. But that is a calculation based on my own personal experience - I was able to remain in a relationship with my father and not enable his abuse, and even force the abuse to end by making it unfeasible for my abuser to continue. A friend of mine was able to do something similar to this in her marriage as well. Therefore, I would need to evaluate this on a case by case basis. There is a process that can be done to stop an abuser without ending the relationship, and I would want to try that process before advising a friend to attempt a divorce.

I most certainly would try the process if I found myself in an abusive marriage, but like I said, there are early warning signs of it. The biggest is giving too much, too early. Expensive gifts early in the relationship are a warning sign that abuse is coming, because he will use the fact that he spent that much on you as a tool to control you later. Too much affection too fast. Insulting you or degrading your character or self-worth in subtle ways, then getting defensive when you correct him. Spiritual warning signs: problematic theology, insistence on submission at all cost, problematic child raising philosophy. Fear is another big clue. If he gets scared of you when you enforce your boundaries, you're a threat to his control, and you've got an abuser. If you see these warning signs before you get married, you can bail out before you sign the dotted line and take the ring.

A healthy relationship will never try to control you. The authority a man has in a marriage is for the purpose of nurturing and good order and procreation, not for domination and control. A wife is not her husband's prisoner. And a woman should never be trying to control a man.

 

[MehGuy]

Hello!
My name is Ethan, and I’ve had a question stuck in my head and occasionally has caused me to not get to sleep when I should. Basic summation of movie I saw. Two guys save a princess and the first guy and her develop a High school crush with each other but the second guy has zero to little interest in her whatsoever. He’s rougher around the edges, challenging, a bit harsh and occasionally a jerk and at the end of the movie on into the second she falls for the second guy. My question is: I’m always the first one, good guy, try to be a gentleman, but end up losing out to the second.
Do I have to change and be like the second? More challenging, slightly a jerk, harsher then a good guy in order to find and keep someone and do we good guys finish last?

Sadly, I do think a lot of women have a masochistic side to them. Which includes finding men who ignore them and treat them roughly as desirable. Besides masochism, psychologically they probably feel that men who ignore and treat them badly do so because they have other options and are thus more likely to be biologically desirable compared to a man who is nice. Now whether or not this has anything to do with actual reality is a fair question; although I do think statistically women might have evolved to desire men who are the former because they are likely to have traits that make them more genetically valuable.

My advice is to have dignity and be yourself. These masochistic desires many women have tend to minimize with age. Whether or not they just want to settle down with a dependable guy because she knows her biological clock is ticking, or she just plain has less energy due to becoming older; a lot of women outgrow this phase.

Sadly, probably less so with millennial/gen Z women, due to extended adolescence. Still.. overall I think this issue will improve with time.

Right now, I'm dealing with a woman who likes it that I'm distant with her. Although I'm not doing it on purpose, I just have great difficulty having feelings for people. I don't like it though and prefer a woman who doesn't engage in these attractions.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I don't think you understand abuse correctly. The abuser is the sinner in all abuse cases. The abuse victim is just that - the victim. Now victims are under heavy provocation and temptation to sin, but that doesn't mean that they have to give in.

I think what you are trying to say is that abuse victims are enabling the sin of abuse against them. This can be true, but it isn't always the case. I believe, generally speaking, that an abuse victim can remain in that marriage without enabling the abuse against them. But that is a calculation based on my own personal experience - I was able to remain in a relationship with my father and not enable his abuse, and even force the abuse to end by making it unfeasible for my abuser to continue. A friend of mine was able to do something similar to this in her marriage as well. Therefore, I would need to evaluate this on a case by case basis. There is a process that can be done to stop an abuser without ending the relationship, and I would want to try that process before advising a friend to attempt a divorce.

In some relationships you can avoid being abused by the other person in other relationships it is inevitable that either you or someone else that sticks around because of you ends up a victrim.

I most certainly would try the process if I found myself in an abusive marriage, but like I said, there are early warning signs of it. The biggest is giving too much, too early. Expensive gifts early in the relationship are a warning sign that abuse is coming, because he will use the fact that he spent that much on you as a tool to control you later. Too much affection too fast. Insulting you or degrading your character or self-worth in subtle ways, then getting defensive when you correct him. Spiritual warning signs: problematic theology, insistence on submission at all cost, problematic child raising philosophy. Fear is another big clue. If he gets scared of you when you enforce your boundaries, you're a threat to his control, and you've got an abuser. If you see these warning signs before you get married, you can bail out before you sign the dotted line and take the ring.

Many people don't see the abuse because they are ruled by their emotions too much and foolishly think that if they only do or think this or that things will get better.

A healthy relationship will never try to control you. The authority a man has in a marriage is for the purpose of nurturing and good order and procreation, not for domination and control. A wife is not her husband's prisoner. And a woman should never be trying to control a man.

Sin happens.... healthy relationships have their issues and people not adhering to their roles in a marriage often make for failure and abuse in it.

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Yes, they do. But remember...From God's standpoint, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

 

[Miles]

Hello!
My name is Ethan, and I’ve had a question stuck in my head and occasionally has caused me to not get to sleep when I should. Basic summation of movie I saw. Two guys save a princess and the first guy and her develop a High school crush with each other but the second guy has zero to little interest in her whatsoever. He’s rougher around the edges, challenging, a bit harsh and occasionally a jerk and at the end of the movie on into the second she falls for the second guy. My question is: I’m always the first one, good guy, try to be a gentleman, but end up losing out to the second.
Do I have to change and be like the second? More challenging, slightly a jerk, harsher then a good guy in order to find and keep someone and do we good guys finish last?

Hi Ethan,

Welcome to this corner of CF. Hopefully, you've found wisdom in the various responses to your question. Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

Changing so much just to find or keep a woman is what I would consider finishing last. Think about it. By changing that way, you would essentially be letting another person control your life. Somebody you barely know, in fact. Does that sound like a smart move?

I wouldn't recommend doing much beyond keeping yourself presentable and pursuing your own hobbies and interests. Maybe you'll meet someone you click with, or maybe you won't. No woman is worth worrying about whether you're rough enough around the edges or whatever. If you find yourself doing that, consider it a red flag. A big warning sign that you're probably not compatible.

Will that mean you'll need to wait longer? Maybe. You'll be limiting the size of your dating pool, but increasing the odds that you'll have a good relationship when or if you find someone. Nothing is guaranteed, of course.

There are only 24 hours in a day. Your values and interests should take priority. Focus on those instead. By doing so, you will be giving your dreams and goals a chance. And by extension, the right kind of woman who might truly fit into your life.

That may even be the appeal of the first guy you mentioned. Not because he's a bad person, but because he has his own interests and agenda. She may see her actual values, for better or worse, reflected in his. That's a stronger connection than merely "saving the princess".

A knight who saves a princess isn't owed anything. Being heroic is simply what a knight does, because he is a knight. Not for women, but because that's the code he lives by. Historically, knights were often sworn to celibacy. They strove to rise above their worldly nature, so they could be trusted to uphold the knightly code. Feel free to "save the princess" if you'd like, but I wouldn't recommend dating her, as there may be a conflict of interest.

Do I think nice guys finish last? In a way, yes, because nice guys are more likely to get taken advantage of. There are women who specifically target nice guys for their money etc. In this way, nice guys might even be less likely to find themselves single than men who truly are rough around the edges. I wouldn't assume that you're a nice guy simply because you don't date much, or because a girl gets along better with somebody else.

Maybe you're a lone wolf by nature, or maybe because a gentleman pairs better with a lady. It might also be a matter of not adequately expressing your own agenda, or something superficial like how you dress, but I wouldn't necessarily chalk your singleness up to being overly nice.That doesn't seem to be a barrier for those guys in relationships who let women walk all over them.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Hello!
My name is Ethan, and I’ve had a question stuck in my head and occasionally has caused me to not get to sleep when I should. Basic summation of movie I saw. Two guys save a princess and the first guy and her develop a High school crush with each other but the second guy has zero to little interest in her whatsoever. He’s rougher around the edges, challenging, a bit harsh and occasionally a jerk and at the end of the movie on into the second she falls for the second guy. My question is: I’m always the first one, good guy, try to be a gentleman, but end up losing out to the second.
Do I have to change and be like the second? More challenging, slightly a jerk, harsher then a good guy in order to find and keep someone and do we good guys finish last?

I have noticed, that for whatever reason, that back-handed compliments to a woman is an example of being edgy or getting under her skin that can lead the way to attracting her.

 

[MehGuy]

I have noticed, that for whatever reason, that back-handed compliments to a woman is an example of being edgy or getting under her skin that can lead the way to attracting her.

Yep, just part of the psychology of masochism in femininity.

It would be interesting if they conducted a study finding out whether or not the self-perception a woman has of her beauty corresponds on average to a rise in masochistic feelings. Going back to what I previously wrote in this thread, these desires are probably innate. Women evolved to be romantically biased towards men who have attitudes of those who have a lot of options. The more beautiful a woman perceives herself the more likely she will be biased towards men who are rough with her, because her statistics of landing such a man are higher. While unattractive women still evolved these masochistic traits, they may also have evolved to turn them off (or at least temper them) when their dating prospects of landing a high status man are not as optimistic.

Besides older women having less energy for "bad boys" and wanting a more committing partner to settle down and have a family with, I also think the drop in perceived attractiveness that comes with a woman's advancing age is another reason older women are less attracted to "bad boys". If we were able to for example de-age a woman who is 45 and make her look 25 again, her psychological attractions would probably also revert back to when she was younger despite being 45.

I do think with western society trying to spread the message that all women are equally beautiful no matter their weight or age will in some sense lead to women being more prone compared to previous generations to having extended adolescence and consequently more likely to harvest an attraction for "bad boys". Although overall I think most women deep down know this body positivity is nonsense. But still... I think millennial women and more recent generations... we're going to see them hang onto their teenage psychology longer than women in the past. To some extent society is artificially raising women's self-esteem regarding their own perceived beauty. The reality of men not finding them as appealing will still curb this, but there will sadly still be some small effect going this direction. Older women are less appealing to men, and them retaining a teenage mindset is only going to further diminish their attractiveness to the opposite sex; but that's the price one has to pay when they indulge in feminist garbage.

I believe this helps explain the phenomenon we see in society of women complaining that there are "no good men". There are good men, but women are simply biased towards men of high status. Men who find it easy to garner female attention and thus understandably have a statistically less grateful attitude when they get female attention. While the "nice guys" are statistically men who are lower in the dating hierarchy and understandably have a more grateful and accommodating attitude when they do garner female attention. These attractions are not innately better than the other in terms of attractiveness, but women evolved to find "bad boy" attitudes more attractive because they signify that the men are more likely to be genetically fit.

On the flipside when we hear men complain that women only go for the "bad boys" it's because men are mainly focused on women who are attractive and thus are more likely to have a high self-perception of their own beauty which enables their masochistic attractions to become stronger. There are plenty of women who are more on the spectrum of liking "nice guys", but they are also more likely to be less attractive and ignored by the men who are issuing these complaints.

Really this whole thing comes down to men and women being too preoccupied with the psychology of men and women who are high in the dating hierarchy and projecting that onto the genders as a whole.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Yep, just part of the psychology of masochism in femininity.

It would be interesting if they conducted a study finding out whether or not the self-perception a woman has of her beauty corresponds on average to a rise in masochistic feelings. Going back to what I previously wrote in this thread, these desires are probably innate. Women evolved to be romantically biased towards men who have attitudes of those who have a lot of options. The more beautiful a woman perceives herself the more likely she will be biased towards men who are rough with her, because her statistics of landing such a man are higher. While unattractive women still evolved these masochistic traits, they may also have evolved to turn them off (or at least temper them) when their dating prospects of landing a high status man are not as optimistic.

Besides older women having less energy for "bad boys" and wanting a more committing partner to settle down and have a family with, I also think the drop in perceived attractiveness that comes with a woman's advancing age is another reason older women are less attracted to "bad boys". If we were able to for example de-age a woman who is 45 and make her look 25 again, her psychological attractions would probably also revert back to when she was younger despite being 45.

I do think with western society trying to spread the message that all women are equally beautiful no matter their weight or age will in some sense lead to women being more prone compared to previous generations to having extended adolescence and consequently more likely to harvest an attraction for "bad boys". Although overall I think most women deep down know this body positivity is nonsense. But still... I think millennial women and more recent generations... we're going to see them hang onto their teenage psychology longer than women in the past. To some extent society is artificially raising women's self-esteem regarding their own perceived beauty. The reality of men not finding them as appealing will still curb this, but there will sadly still be some small effect going this direction. Older women are less appealing to men, and them retaining a teenage mindset is only going to further diminish their attractiveness to the opposite sex; but that's the price one has to pay when they indulge in feminist garbage.

I believe this helps explain the phenomenon we see in society of women complaining that there are "no good men". There are good men, but women are simply biased towards men of high status. Men who find it easy to garner female attention and thus understandably have a statistically less grateful attitude when they get female attention. While the "nice guys" are statistically men who are lower in the dating hierarchy and understandably have a more grateful and accommodating attitude when they do garner female attention. These attractions are not innately better than the other in terms of attractiveness, but women evolved to find "bad boy" attitudes more attractive because they signify that the men are more likely to be genetically fit.

On the flipside when we hear men complain that women only go for the "bad boys" it's because men are mainly focused on women who are attractive and thus are more likely to have a high self-perception of their own beauty which enables their masochistic attractions to become stronger. There are plenty of women who are more on the spectrum of liking "nice guys", but they are also more likely to be less attractive and ignored by the men who are issuing these complaints.

Really this whole thing comes down to men and women being too preoccupied with the psychology of men and women who are high in the dating hierarchy and projecting that onto the genders as a whole.

That makes sense with older women, but I'm finding some women 40+ that I try to date are typically happy being single. Those one or 2 divorces under their belt has left them to not even desiring a relationship...so they wind up being content on spending most of their time with their kids, family members, nieces, nephews, and gal pals.

The drive to couple up isn't there for them anymore. Not saying all are like this, just something I've noticed with a woman's advancing age.

Men still desire companionship no matter what age, and the desire goes up even further when they get older. Women, it's a flip. They can find contentment outside of male/female relationships.

==On the flipside when we hear men complain that women only go for the "bad boys" it's because men are mainly focused on women who are attractive and thus are more likely to have a high self-perception of their own beauty which enables their masochistic attractions to become stronger. There are plenty of women who are more on the spectrum of liking "nice guys", but they are also more likely to be less attractive and ignored by the men who are issuing these complaints.=

Wanted to quote this, too. I'm finding some women, even though they are kind of plain or ordinary looking now have even a more high opinion of themselves.
Even if average looking guys myself stay in our own lanes and date their equal in attractiveness, a woman equivalent may still want the hunky guy as hunky guys will go for them sometimes...that is, if something better looking comes along.

The women that DID actually date me intimately, most all admitted that they didn't care about looks. (Lucky me! lol)

Not sure how to take that, as if looks are barely a driving force for their attraction to me. There's those one unicorn types where personality over comes a 5'8" bald guy such as myself. lol

 

[bèlla]

@MehGuy said, “There are good men, but women are simply biased towards men of high status.”

I think that’s true for the most part. Normal has gotten a bad rap.

@ThisIsMe123 said, “That makes sense with older women, but I'm finding some women 40+ that I try to date are typically happy being single.”

I couldn’t start over. I don’t have the desire to go through the process again. It’s taxing.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

@MehGuy said, “There are good men, but women are simply biased towards men of high status.”

I think that’s true for the most part. Normal has gotten a bad rap.

@ThisIsMe123 said, “That makes sense with older women, but I'm finding some women 40+ that I try to date are typically happy being single.”

I couldn’t start over. I don’t have the desire to go through the process again. It’s taxing.

Start over from what and what process?

 

[bèlla]

Start over from what and what process?

If I was single I wouldn't be looking right now for several reasons. The climate has shifted naturally and spiritually. There's too much going on and more to come in the next two years. Uncertainty and instability impact a person's reason for pairing. Needs take precedence. Because survival is foremost.

And the layoffs are coming. If you follow the market or invest in digital currency you know what's on the horizon. The climate change agenda is rolling out. Hardships will have a significant effect on dating as we've known it. Good and bad.

The majority will be in the same boat. Those who struggled to find a companion may see their options increase. Many of the barriers for connection will fall away.

If you understand the society they're creating you know its overtly class based. Unlike the past where the concept was understood but largely unseen by most; the new agenda puts it in your face.

You're being prepared for a diminished standard of living through rising costs, limited access and selection. They're the builders and creators who own everything. It doesn't matter if you don't want an electric car. They can force the issue by ceasing to produce the alternative. Since you can't do the same you're stuck.

The carbon footprint will limit mobility and personal freedoms. That's why they're making everything smart. It's easy to monitor. You build the device with the parameters in place and an alarm that alerts you to violations. Smart items transfer information digitally and reporting is easy. And the consumer is clueless.

While that may be meaningless to most its important when you value your liberties. You'd need to put yourself in the right position pre-pandemic, during the present phase and the one to follow. And find someone who'd done the same.

It took a long time to find my equal. That's not to suggest he's the only one. But he's as close at it gets without moral compromises. The thought of starting again makes me ill. I can understand why some opt out.

 

[bèlla]

I mentioned layoffs in my previous response and shared an article that shines light on what’s ahead. I’ll post it here for others.

20 Jobs That Will Be Replaced By Robots

1. Writers
2. Sex workers
3. Models
4. Referees
5. Chefs
6. Baristas
7. Cashiers and tellers
8. Soldiers
9. Security guards
10. Postal service
11. Telemarketers
12. Lab technicians
13. Babysitters
14. Teachers
15. Janitors
16. Astronauts
17. Surgeons
18. Pharmacists and nurses
19. Pilots
20. Drivers