Question for guys

[bèlla]

Does it make you angry that you can't get women as easily as women can get men?

Women are less willing to acknowledge their dating challenges or the reasons behind their struggles. And you're not considering the realities of hookup culture, sharing and lack of commitment on the demographic. If women were consistently finding permanent connections the supply would drop and it hasn't.

Much like men, there are preferential groups within the populace. Research pretty privilege. It's covered well on YouTube and explains the obsession with beauty and fashion aesthetics. They're all related.

This was just on my mind and I don't know if it makes me angry but it is the reality is all I know. I'm in a situation where if I were female I could get at least someone.

I've seen no evidence of women receiving favorable treatment for disabilities or financial hardships as compared to men. The biases are equally felt but they're less likely to admit them. And statistically, it's been proven that men are more likely to leave a spouse with a serious illness than the reverse.
You may fare better with someone a little older whose tolerance for imperfections is more mature.

When we speak of relationships we're addressing various styles of mating. It isn't the one-size fits all approach many suggest. Hence the struggles and confusion. You can divide them into four groups. Each has a dominant focus and it's usually the make or break for selection.

Group One: Legacy

This group is primarily motivated by a mission they're working towards. They're building a business, ministry, charity or something along those lines that requires familial involvement they'll pass along. They're seeking a companion who'll help them accomplish the goal and they're the least likely to compromise. You won't find them on dating apps or sites and they usually meet their prospects in person. They're the most likely to remain married of the four but they're hard to catch.

Group Two: Emotion or The Hollywood Effect

This group is primarily motivated by their feelings. Much like the other they have an ideal but it's based on the heart. Hollywood has influenced their conception of romance through its depth and ferocity. As long as you tick the box you're okay but when you don't the foundation shifts because it hinges on emotion. Most of the women you'll meet relate from this perspective and worthiness is conveyed through her preferences. As you might suspect, they're more likely to divorce because the heart is changeable.

Group Three: Status Swaps

This group is primarily motivated by status and public opinion. They leverage wealth and attractiveness in their selections and exchange them for comparable gains. Visibility is a must and expectations are great. Starter wives are common and may be replaced with a younger model or ideal that wasn't possible in the past. Longevity is hit or miss.

Group Four: Subcultures including Christianity

This group is primarily motivated by a belief or philosophy that influences their choices. The depth of commitment varies. Many prefer companions who share their beliefs or demonstrate a willingness for embrace. There's a measure of tolerance in this group that you won't find in the others. Their participants aren't always all-in and their willingness to compromise usually depends on other. Sticktuitiveness is in proportion to belief and application. The more they're aligned the less likely they'll bend. Wiggle room is their nemesis. The more allowances you make the more outs you'll have later on. You have to be wedded to something greater than yourself to stay put.

Most Christians are a combination of groups two and four. A small segment aspires to be in groups three and four. Few reside in group one and most believers in group one implement elements of group four but don't shift positions. Groups one and three apply the least emotion in their selections and use quality as a barometer (internal vs external).

This accounts for the high divorce rates within the church and the struggles to find companions. Too much time in the head and heart is harmful. You have to give way to the spirit to see beyond the obvious.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

Women are less willing to acknowledge their dating challenges or the reasons behind their struggles.

If we go by the numbers, women still have better chances.

The math behind dating apps: Women like only 4 out of 100 profiles, men more likely to swipe right

A male user logs in almost 20 times in a day, while a female user logs in 26 times a day into their profile.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Women see most men are below average in looks:

You’re Probably Passing Up Your Soulmate, And You Don’t Even Know It

A friend forwarded me an article about looks on the

www.evanmarckatz.com

 

[DragonFox91]

That'd be depressing time, if the number of matches was what the goal was, but it's not. You can have 1000 matches, if one is not the one, it's just as hard. Meanwhile someone could have one match & she could be the one. So someone going on 1000 dates & not ending w/ the one has it harder than someone who went on one date & got married. And the one dating & getting married that's an enemy to God is worse off (in their unrepentant present) than the one who's not dating but is a friend to God.

You only need one.

 

[bèlla]

If we go by the numbers, women still have better chances.

The numbers don't add up.

If the majority find you unappealing and pursue the unattainable then most aren't securing the one they want or getting noticed as expected. They're settling for the one who'll have them as opposed to the one they preferred.

Many women have an overinflated opinion regarding their appeal to the opposite sex. Most notably their attractiveness. The majority are average and behave otherwise that's why they're single. It isn't a question of lowering their standard but the recognition it's unrealistic.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

Many women have an overinflated opinion regarding their appeal to the opposite sex. Most notably their attractiveness. The majority are average and behave otherwise that's why they're single. It isn't a question of lowering their standard but the recognition it's unrealistic.

~bella

I'm able to see through this in apps used for dating. My chances have been fairly good. But never intended to have a date, simply tested my chances.

It's very easy nowadays to make yourself look good on pictures. I don't do it. I don't judge anyone who do it as long as they're not doing it to harm other people, although they could be wasting people's time.

 

[bèlla]

I'm able to see through this in apps used for dating. My chances have been fairly good. But never intended to have a date, simply tested my chances.

That's why it's important to view data through a natural and spiritual lens. Men are encouraged to trust the Lord but rarely told to question the narrative. Stats are repeated but a closer review uncovers the impossibility of what they're suggesting.

Consider the Chad trope for example. We're told the majority are desirous of "high value men" but status based suitors are the least likely to compromise. They're leveraging wealth in exchange for attractiveness. He has greater access to desirous prospects. Why would he set them aside for someone less endowed in the area he values most? It only happens in films.

If the majority are pursuing him they're not attached they're single.

Rand addresses this directly.

A man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem.

The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer, because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless s*ut. He does not seek to gain his value, but to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body.

The profile isn't a barometer of success or her ability to maintain the connection. It's a depiction of self-awareness. Does it invoke an invite or knee jerk reaction? There should be symmetry between her expressions and imagery. You're looking for balance.

The more she seeks the more he requires in return. It can't be inequitable and that's what they're missing.

It's very easy nowadays to make yourself look good on pictures. I don't do it. I don't judge anyone who do it as long as they're not doing it to harm other people, although they could be wasting people's time.

Filters and photoshop are easily overcome by genuine representations of loveliness. Flawless skin and youthfulness are long held standards of beauty for women. No one who possesses either will laden their face with products that mask a quality the world esteems. She'll apply it sparingly as a modest enhancement as opposed to the Kardashian horror that renders her unrecognizable.

The #cleangirl aesthetic is a popular trend that celebrates a less is more approach in that regard. It emphasizes healthy living, self-care and physical fitness. If you search the term you'll see a striking difference between its practitioners and the ones on Instagram.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

That's why it's important to view data through a natural and spiritual lens. Men are encouraged to trust the Lord but rarely told to question the narrative. Stats are repeated but a closer review uncovers the impossibility of what they're suggesting.

Consider the Chad trope for example. We're told the majority are desirous of "high value men" but status based suitors are the least likely to compromise. They're leveraging wealth in exchange for attractiveness. He has greater access to desirous prospects. Why would he set them aside for someone less endowed in the area he values most? It only happens in films.

If the majority are pursuing him they're not attached they're single.

Rand addresses this directly.

A man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or to fake -- a sense of self-esteem.

The man who is proudly certain of his own value will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer, because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless s*ut. He does not seek to gain his value, but to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body.

The profile isn't a barometer of success or her ability to maintain the connection. It's a depiction of self-awareness. Does it invoke an invite or knee jerk reaction? There should be symmetry between her expressions and imagery. You're looking for balance.

The more she seeks the more he requires in return. It can't be inequitable and that's what they're missing.



Filters and photoshop are easily overcome by genuine representations of loveliness. Flawless skin and youthfulness are long held standards of beauty for women. No one who possesses either will laden their face with products that mask a quality the world esteems. She'll apply it sparingly as a modest enhancement as opposed to the Kardashian horror that renders her unrecognizable.

The #cleangirl aesthetic is a popular trend that celebrates a less is more approach in that regard. It emphasizes healthy living, self-care and physical fitness. If you search the term you'll see a striking difference between its practitioners and the ones on Instagram.

~bella

Ironically, it's women who are wearing little to no make up I have better chances with and I do prefer women wearing little to no make up and that's why I thought I actually had good chances. Not complaining at all. I'm simply staying single for other reasons I have no control over.

 

[exitstageright]

Ironically, it's women who are wearing little to no make up I have better chances with and I do prefer women wearing little to no make up and that's why I thought I actually had good chances. Not complaining at all. I'm simply staying single for other reasons I have no control over.

These women, who wear little or no make up, are average looking women. I pursue average looking women. Because I two believe that my chances are better with average looking women. The fact is that the average looking woman may not feel good about herself. The cosmetics industry tells women, "If you do not use our product, you won't look good." If every average looking woman in the United States felt good about her looks, the cosmetics industry would go out of business.

 

[timewerx]

If every average looking woman in the United States felt good about her looks, the cosmetics industry would go out of business.

Welcome to the world of capitalism!

If the same woman wears more make up, I find her less pretty.

If the same woman wear little to no make up, I find her prettier.

That's just my (very subjective) opinion concerning beauty.

What I find most attractive quality is someone having complete freedom of thoughts, not influenced by the world, convenience, money, comfort, fear or rejection of the unknown or because everyone thinks the same way.

Again, my subjective opinion of beauty. A loved one once told me it's a childish perspective but it is what works for me.

 

[bèlla]

Ironically, it's women who are wearing little to no make up I have better chances with and I do prefer women wearing little to no make up and that's why I thought I actually had good chances. Not complaining at all. I'm simply staying single for other reasons I have no control over.

Minimal makeup doesn't mean she isn't invested in her appearance. But there's a noticeable disconnection in the ones who spend a lot of time enhancing their face. Their expectations for the opposite sex are largely derived from cosmetics.

But I gauge beauty by a clean palette. I can see through the makeup and digital tweaks. If you know someone who does photography they can dissect the photoshop and tell you everything they changed. Most people aren't aware of that

~bella

 

[bèlla]

These women, who wear little or no make up, are average looking women. I pursue average looking women. Because I two believe that my chances are better with average looking women. The fact is that the average looking woman may not feel good about herself. The cosmetics industry tells women, "If you do not use our product, you won't look good." If every average looking woman in the United States felt good about her looks, the cosmetics industry would go out of business.

If you place attractiveness on a scale you'll find the majority in the center with a small portion on the front and tail end. They've done studies and determined the majority mate within their pool. Extremes are highlighted to sell a false solution that never works.

Average wasn't an issue until the Internet. When you're out and about that's who you'll usually encounter. Social media changed our perception and skewed the line. Because the algorithm provides what you like. If you spend your time looking at pretty women you'll get more of the same. Which influences your attractions.

Early adopters will recall the disparity in likes. Most of them were based on appearance and that's what started this. Which inspired the popularity of fashion and beauty topics to enhance engagement and replicate their results. Attention became the goal shortly after and remains. The Kardashians made it worse and plastic surgery was normalized.

There's a saying on YouTube and I think it comes from Tik-Tok. "You're not average you're broke." It summarizes the problem. You don't have to go under the knife but beauty doesn't come cheap. Cosmetics or not. A healthy diet is more expensive than the alternative. Exercise and skincare require additional purchases. Self-care is another investment. Add in the wardrobe, makeup and experiences and the tab is mounting.

Beauty was primarily physical before the Internet. But now it's a lifestyle that's unattainable for most.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

Minimal makeup doesn't mean she isn't invested in her appearance. But there's a noticeable disconnection in the ones who spend a lot of time enhancing their face. Their expectations for the opposite sex are largely derived from cosmetics.

But I gauge beauty by a clean palette. I can see through the makeup and digital tweaks. If you know someone who does photography they can dissect the photoshop and tell you everything they changed. Most people aren't aware of that

~bella

If the same woman wore more make or put on less to no make make up, I'd find her more attractive with less or no make up.

I'm not choosing one over another because I think one is more attainable. But to me, little to no make up is indeed more attractive.

I actually used to be a photographer, videographer, and also did photo and video editing for weddings, birthdays, and corporate events in the early 2000's.

I worked with tons of pictures of people. Sorting and photoshopping. Seen plenty of brides before and after make up. Quite well trained to see a person's real looks behind a make up.

The last few years is the worst. Heavy application of make up is most trending. Obviously because it makes more money for the cosmetics industry.

I think people all over the world is awaking to the wrong philosophy. Making people spend more money brings more money into circulation which means, more money and more jobs for everyone. Sounds good in theory but we're also exploiting and destroying the Earth faster than before, brining us ever closer to the brink.

 

[bèlla]

The last few years is the worst. Heavy application of make up is most trending. Obviously because it makes more money for the cosmetics industry.

Kim Kardashian popularized contouring. It's a makeup application meant for the stage, runaway or similar events. It's not an everyday look because it's overdone. Now they're enhancing their brows, wearing eye lashes, and adding designs or jewelry to their nails (nail art). That's why everyone looks alike and getting identical procedures too. Most people weren't aware of the bbl until she did it. And plastic surgery exploded.

I think people all over the world is awaking to the wrong philosophy. Making people spend more money brings more money into circulation which means, more money and more jobs for everyone. Sounds good in theory but we're also exploiting and destroying the Earth faster than before, brining us ever closer to the brink.

Hollywood was our biggest export. But the Internet brought American culture to everyone around the world. And you can see the influences. In some respects it's sad. We don't do everything right but they hold us in high esteem.

Content creators and influencers have had an impact on society and pioneered a new job class. Many started in their teens or college and weren't subjected to the norms for their age. They had more wealth and flexibility than their peers and some have never worked a job at all. The influx of discretionary income created the aspirational aesthetic and lifestyle.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

Kim Kardashian popularized contouring. It's a makeup application meant for the stage, runaway or similar events. It's not an everyday look because it's overdone. Now they're enhancing their brows, wearing eye lashes, and adding designs or jewelry to their nails (nail art). That's why everyone looks alike and getting identical procedures too. Most people weren't aware of the bbl until she did it. And plastic surgery exploded.

I think the overdone make up style is having a bad influence on women making them adopt terrible behavior towards people who does not look rich.

Hollywood was our biggest export. But the Internet brought American culture to everyone around the world. And you can see the influences. In some respects it's sad. We don't do everything right but they hold us in high esteem.

Content creators and influencers have had an impact on society and pioneered a new job class. Many started in their teens or college and weren't subjected to the norms for their age. They had more wealth and flexibility than their peers and some have never worked a job at all. The influx of discretionary income created the aspirational aesthetic and lifestyle.

Politicians keep brainwashing everyone that and spending more money that creates more jobs is a good thing while scientists keep revising their countdown to doom to a closer date and everyone is wondering why.

The 80's and the 90's weren't this crazy for extravagant spending but life went on just fine. The economy did not collapse and many people think they are happier times.

Many countries in Europe have a much more "laid back" culture compared to America. Much less emphasis on spending. They were fine too, in fact, their happiness index scores are higher than USA and even managed to make healthcare and education free (or very affordable) for everyone.

I don't think influencer job is for me. I find it magically difficult to connect to people even when I'm being passionate about certain topics. I have some content but my peers posting similar content have way more views and maybe even making money. I don't. Both my parents are introverts and bad at public speaking. I seem to be doing fine with low risk trading but only makes enough money to pay the utility bills which is still a small fraction of our total expenses. I still have to work a regular job which I'm not really competitive.

The vast majority of popular contents out there I find just a waste of time and therefore unethical. Getting paid to make people waste their time is unethical. Even more unethical when influencing people to spend money needlessly or on expensive products when products of similar quality but way cheaper are available.

The good contents are the ones that help you acquire useful skills, better health and fitness, and showing you ways to do them spending as little money as possible. Other good contents are of course, good preaching.

 

[bèlla]

I think the overdone make up style is having a bad influence on women making them adopt terrible behavior towards people who does not look rich.

Makeup doesn't influence anyone. Improving their appearance may inspire confidence but mistreating others is something else. And that doesn't happen overnight. Snobbery always has signs.

A number of people have spoken out regarding the wealth divide in respect to attractiveness and the lifestyles that developed as a result. They're very popular on Tik-Tok and new one arrive every week. We went from personalities to aesthetics and a few have attained a large following.

It started with the pandemic. We were stuck inside and on the Internet. The extra time allowed people to explore their interests and try new things. Instead of baking a cake you create a scene and put on a dress and share the cake and call it cottagecore. Viewers ate it up and subcultures followed.

They didn't exclude anyone or say they're unwelcome. But romanticizing your life requires time and discretionary income and a certain amount of creativity. Only a certain amount of people can do that. That's when the complaints began because it was out of reach and for some that's problematic.

A lot of people struggle with differences. They need to believe they're like everyone else and they're experiencing similar challenges. But social media destroyed that. When people shared their lives things got interesting.

Politicians keep brainwashing everyone that and spending more money that creates more jobs is a good thing while scientists keep revising their countdown to doom to a closer date and everyone is wondering why.

If you don't feed your mind someone will control it. Where you spend your time and your fate are connected.

The vast majority of popular contents out there I find just a waste of time and therefore unethical. Getting paid to make people waste their time is unethical. Even more unethical when influencing people to spend money needlessly or on expensive products when products of similar quality but way cheaper are available.

There's a product for every demographic and we choose who we'll support. I don't want a society where my options are limited because it must accommodate everyone. There are things I value that are less important to others. I don't want to give them up because they're more expensive than alternatives.

I appreciate people who talk about the things I'm interested in and there's a lot of diversity. You'll find just as many outlets for frugal living and everything in between. A healthy society isn't one or the other.

The good contents are the ones that help you acquire useful skills, better health and fitness, and showing you ways to do them spending as little money as possible. Other good contents are of course, good preaching.

There isn't a one-size fits all approach. Some appreciate educational content while others want to relax or be entertained. I derive most of my information from book and classes. Content only goes so far. No one will tell you everything for free and I don't expect it. It takes time to write a post or put a video together. Some people understand that and others will never get it.

Believe it not I don't care for religious content. There's one person I watch who travels frequently. I'll have an opportunity to see him in the future which I'm looking forward to. But outside of him I'm not interested. I'm wearied by extremes. If it's not politics it's the end times or the war or another issue. Everywhere you turn someone's complaining or ranting and it's tiresome.

I'm reevaluating my relationship with the populace and a shift is on the horizon. I'm leaning toward small groups that connect for specific purposes everyone shares. I've done that with entrepreneurship and it turned out well and I want replicate that in other areas. There's a financial group I'm interested in that's vetted and comprised of believers. That's the kind of fellowship I want.

Christianity can feel a lot like therapy but it shouldn't. I don't see that changing soon.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

There's a product for every demographic and we choose who we'll support. I don't want a society where my options are limited because it must accommodate everyone. There are things I value that are less important to others. I don't want to give them up because they're more expensive than alternatives.

I appreciate people who talk about the things I'm interested in and there's a lot of diversity. You'll find just as many outlets for frugal living and everything in between. A healthy society isn't one or the other.

If we are to live responsibly not only to ourselves but also to the rest of humanity, it doesn't seem like there are many ways we can choose to live our lives.

 

[bèlla]

If we are to live responsibly not only to ourselves but also to the rest of humanity, it doesn't seem like there are many ways we can choose to live our lives.

Responsibility doesn't nullify the reality of differences nor gifts and talents. There were merchants during Christ's time that offered wares some couldn't afford. Were they admonished to stop selling them and increase their competition by providing more affordable items? Of course not. Their products met a demand.

We will never have true equality in the world. Someone will always have something you lack. Two can have the same resources and one has a thriving marriage and the other is struggling. One is in good health and the other is sick. One has many friends another has few. That is the way of things.

I'm not a socialist nor an altruist. I would never expect anyone to forgo what's rightfully theirs on behalf of others. If they choose to do so from their own volition that's fine. But it would never be mandated nor would I support a government who imposed the same.

As it pertains to the OP...

Imagine someone applying a similar principle to dating. Imagine if choice was set aside to accommodate demand. Would you agree with women being partnered with men to fill a need for the greater good?

I wouldn't but there's some who might support it. They don't feel they're violating rights or being selfish. They're trying to solve a problem. But they're doing it at the expense of another's liberties. That's not okay.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

We will never have true equality in the world. Someone will always have something you lack. Two can have the same resources and one has a thriving marriage and the other is struggling. One is in good health and the other is sick. One has many friends another has few. That is the way of things.

Jesus told about this wisdom more than once that the Lord has both rich and poor servants. However, more will be asked of those who has been given more.

However, it doesn't mean the poor should ask the rich to help them. The poor should be asking God for help, not people and should persevere even to death just like the example of Lazarus.

 

[bèlla]

Jesus told about this wisdom more than once that the Lord has both rich and poor servants. However, more will be asked of those who has been given more.

More doesn't mean you're going out of business. You need people in every echelon to serve the kingdom. There's places you can't enter and people you're unable to meet without the criteria for acceptance. Sometimes it's financial, relational or something else.

As wealth increases gatekeeping becomes more prevalent. Women are usually the guardians and they're not benevolent and more likely to say no then men. They're the connectors who open doors or block opportunities. She can keep you out of a club, institution, board, committee, event, or business opportunity.

Cultivating relationships is powerful. That's how things get done in the world. When the Lord wants someone at the table He has to raise up a servant. The church isn't teaching you how to be movers and shakers for the kingdom. They're not putting you in high places for His glory or encouraging you to start ventures to offset unemployment.

You're having the same conversations you were fifty years ago and complaining about the changes. But you didn't put anything in place to combat them. And here we are. Sometimes you have to take your medicine. God doesn't always spare us from the consequences of our laziness or folly. Sometimes we have to pay the piper and bear it.

The bible tells us to count our days for a reason. Time is the greatest commodity when things worsen. There's not enough road ahead to make up the difference as hardships increase. So we work while the day is here because night is coming.

~bella

 

[TheLastGeek]

Does it make you angry that you can't get women as easily as women can get men? This was just on my mind and I don't know if it makes me angry but it is the reality is all I know. I'm in a situation where if I were female I could get at least someone. But being male theres expectations of me I can't fulfill due to being disabled and low on money. I really feel like if I just approached people in my neighborhood I could find someone but I just don't feel the pull to do so. I kinda have it good since all my needs are met and I don't have any responsibilities or anything to do but I do like being in a relationship.

Who cares about "getting at least someone"? Men can "get" women for a shallow, meaningless encounter just as easily, if not for a few more dollars. Do you want a sack of flesh on your arm, or do you want an actual, healthy, happy, lasting relationship with another human being?

Why not look for a remote, telework job you can do from home? If you can create posts here on CF, you can do SOME kind of paid work. That would not only make you more appealing to women, but it would increase your sense of responsibility, productivity, and self-respect.