Why the rate of single men in the US looking for dates has declined

[timewerx]

On average, I suppose, but a rich woman with class may see a poor man with class as having potential. Possibly more potential than a rich man who acts like a spoiled teenager.

Potential indirectly translates to money. What if the person doesn't have potential as well?

 

[Niels]

It rarely happens for a rich woman to be interested in a poor man unless it's nothing more than fling, extra marital affair, etc, but to actually marry a poor man, it just happens way way more in movies than in real life.

A lot may depend on why he's poor. I've seen this work both ways. Women traditionally want men who have the potential to support a family. However, I've seen financially successful men dismissed by women as nerds, snobs, workaholics, rigid, sheltered, no fun, head in clouds, etc.

Some women claim to want a rich man, yet the men they fall for may not be good with money. They're looking for a big spender rather than a big saver, for instance. I know the type, and they fit the "adult spoiled teenager" mentality that you mentioned earlier. They might have flings with poorer men, but not usually poorer men who have class. Because those men, like their wealthier peers with class, have standards.

Movies are detached from reality, so I wouldn't base my opinion on them. The same with most mainstream media and culture. Being worldly "rich" or worldly "poor" changes over time depending on numerous factors. Just another reason why, we shouldn't base our identity on such things.

 

[timewerx]

A lot may depend on why he's poor. I've seen this work both ways. Women traditionally want men who have the potential to support a family. However, I've seen financially successful men dismissed by women as nerds, snobs, workaholics, rigid, sheltered, no fun, head in clouds, etc.

Some women claim to want a rich man, yet the men they fall for may not be good with money. They're looking for a big spender rather than a big saver, for instance. I know the type, and they fit the "adult spoiled teenager" mentality that you mentioned earlier. They might have flings with poorer men, but not usually poorer men who have class. Because those men, like their wealthier peers with class, have standards.

Movies are detached from reality, so I wouldn't base my opinion on them. The same with most mainstream media and culture. Being worldly "rich" or worldly "poor" changes over time depending on numerous factors. Just another reason why, we shouldn't base our identity on such things.

I have seen it work both ways too.

But it isn't the norm. I've seen people won the grand pot lottery but isn't the norm I won't suggest anyone to put their hopes in it.

 

[bèlla]

You can't have a society that's morally bankrupt and expect relational harmony. There's a domino effect. The lack of respect, shallowness, and cruelty are a direct result of our waywardness. The more we become unloving the greater our disregard.

The solution is love and virtue. It's not about us all the time. We ought to do something everyday that enriches someone whether we benefit or not. It doesn't have to be grand. Valuing another's humanity is easy. Our acts of kindness may be the lone one they receive.

Healthy societies need people from all walks life. Everyone can't be wealthy, attractive or educated in the finest schools. The omission of those attributes doesn't lessen their worthiness. They were made in His image too.

Practically speaking we could stand less technology and more relating. We need interactions to confront our fears and biases and a lot more prayer. The more we commune with God the clearer we become. We see ourselves unfiltered and delight in His grace. Why would we deny another the same?

~bella

 

[DragonFox91]

If anything kills my 25 year desire for dating / marriage, it’s going to be hyper-feminism. I think hyper-feminism is already killing it across the country. I pray in Christian circles it's still strong, but I see it infiltrating those as well.

 

[bèlla]

If anything kills my 25 year desire for dating / marriage, it’s going to be hyper-feminism. I think hyper-feminism is already killing it across the country. I pray in Christian circles it's still strong, but I see it infiltrating those as well.

What do you find disquieting about women who embrace softness and traditional roles? Are you defining it differently or referencing specific behaviors/trends/subcultures?

~bella

 

[DragonFox91]

What do you find disquieting about women who embrace softness and traditional roles? Are you defining it differently or referencing specific behaviors/trends/subcultures?

~bella

I don’t know what disquieting means in this context.

I see hyper-feminism as getting rid of feminity. It used to be feminism ment equality with men. Now they want to be masculine (maybe they always did want that?). I saw a meme yesterday that basically said a man isn’t going to be attracted to a woman that doesn’t have feminity, he already has the masculinity & so isn’t going to desire that, he’s looking for feminitiy. I’m not asking for hyper-traditional roles where wife stays at home all day. That used to attract me, but I think there’d be some problems w/ that, even when children come.

Hyper-feminism sees little need for marriage in general. It sees it as oppressive & holding women back. Most men want a partner, not someone to control, not someone to be submissive, but an equal partner. Adam & Eve were created together, Eve from the rib, flesh of his flesh for a Biblical reference. Most men today are accepting of the traditional feminist goal of giving equal say to the woman in a marital relationship. But now even that is considered too oppressive. It’s why I say hyper-feminism is killing it nationally. (If you actually look back, destroying marriage has always been a goal of feminism, but I think the opinion is more mainstream than what it was)

Hyper-feminists tend to want to change society to meet their goal. They are vocal about it.

Some women do want to marry & don’t subscribe to hyper-feminism’s teaching of marriage being oppressive per se, but in their time being single, attributes of hyper-feminism have crept into their worldview.

I never really noticed this until a couple years ago. I had always viewed feminism as equality with men & was okay with that; for 25 years I had (& have) wanted to get married. My pushback on what feminism is now is a response to what I’m seeing. I think what you have is a total mess & sides that keep pushing each other to be more & more hostile. Men responding to what feminism has come will only make it worse.

 

[bèlla]

I see hyper-feminism as getting rid of feminity. It used to be feminism ment equality with men. Now they want to be masculine (maybe they always did want that?). I saw a meme yesterday that basically said a man isn’t going to be attracted to a woman that doesn’t have feminity, he already has the masculinity & so isn’t going to desire that, he’s looking for feminitiy. I’m not asking for hyper-traditional roles where wife stays at home all day. That used to attract me, but I think there’d be some problems w/ that, even when children come.

Thanks for clarifying. The terms are being conflated on the Internet. What you've described is commonly known as feminism/feminist. The addition of hyper changes the meaning and places it in its usual context. Hyper (extreme/excessive) + feminine/femininity and so on. Both are operating simultaneously in this medium and have respective movements. A third exists but for the sake of the discussion I'll stick to the pair and use ultra feminine to avoid confusion.

You're witnessing the promotion of two competing ideals. Independent versus traditional and each has its supporters hence the memes. Neither represent the majority and most fall somewhere in the middle. But the extremes get all the airplay which presents a distorted representation of women as a whole.

What we're really seeing is weaponization from different guises. One champions liberty and the unimportance of the opposite sex. Another sets an impossible bar of relating few can emulate. And the third exploits her presentation (aka sensuality) to procure the male gaze and attention.

The common denominator and goal is the denigration of the pair: male and female. Keep in mind, whenever the devil wants to destroy a man he uses a woman. We're his greatest weapon. She possesses a power that has a holy intent but must be utilized within the guidelines He sets. Otherwise she becomes a goddess and tool in the other's hands. That's why they keep empowering her.

I saw your comment yesterday on idols while listening to a message that referenced your concern while unpacking the things we're discussing today on a natural and spiritual level. I may post it after all.

Some women do want to marry & don’t subscribe to hyper-feminism’s teaching of marriage being oppressive per se, but in their time being single, attributes of hyper-feminism have crept into their worldview.

Exactly. That's what I alluded to yesterday in my response on the gift of singleness thread. It's a genuine example of the hyper feminine ethos. One devoted to meeting (as in help-meet) his needs. There's a divine principle at work. It needed refining but I understood the rib was a place of honor not diminishment.

The affirmation we receive doesn't foster humility and service. It doesn't honor the man or his contribution to our betterment. It champions us and creates an island mindset. Our strengths, wants, needs and so on. It's individualism on steroids.

He created them male and female and its unfolding must operate within the parameters He provides. Our illegitimate efforts to circumvent the lines won't nullify their existence. We eat from the holy or profane. Calling it good or right doesn't make it so for God.

We understand companionship in the natural. We don't grasp the holy union. What it means to cover and be covered and what comes forth from the heavenly realm when in covenant.

He who finds a wife finds a good thing. Not a woman he wants to marry. She's already a wife. The "meet" is divinely imprinted. Every woman possesses it. That's why she can influence him. It's the "meet" at work.

When utilized as He prescribes she brings forth--conceives--and bears good fruit. When the Lord wants to do something He births it. That requires an incubator. He doesn't bring forth a man. He births a babe who becomes one. That requires a receptacle.

That's why abortion is evil. She's His instrument for change and through her service the world is bettered.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

We're operating in false power and superiority. If we truly grasped our specialness. If we understood the dignity of the vessel and what it could accomplish we'd recognize the necessity for covering and why two were ordained. It was created to protect not to thwart.

Adam walked with God and did all He said. When he sinned we dwell on his silence and share in what occurred and never ask what possessed him? Up until that point he was obedient. When you meditate on the question you'll begin to discover there's something about her and your response to her--by divine order--that the devil knows and you're (you and her) oblivious to.

We hear weaker vessel and we're up in arms and take offense. But the garden provides the key to their essence and the strategy satan uses to exploit them. It wasn't a question of strong or weak in the context we use today.

The devil couldn't move him on his own. There's nothing in their respective makeups that increased his receptivity to his presence. But there's an innate connection between man and woman whereby influence is great for good or bad.

He needed an intermediary. Someone who could bridge the gap between him and the man. That's why he spoke to her. Only she could move him. And he knew she was deceived all along. That's why his punishment was greater. He knew it was wrong but he did it anyway for her. He didn't have to be manipulated. He made a conscious choice to place her will above God's.

The scenario reveals their susceptibilities and the danger of operating outside of His will and forging alignments in that state. They'll go off the rails. Mutual submission is a must. Satan encourages you to wound her because it fosters independence that he weaponizes for your demise.

You're designed to cover. The husband aka husbandry. Nurturing, tending, planting and so on. Weeding too. The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. That was his job before she showed up. The same qualities are imprinted within a man whether he uses them or not.

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Fit for you personally. Not the male consensus or latest trend. She has all you require to help you accomplish your task. But you need to know the job first and select the appropriate help-meet in light of it. Bearing in mind the lesson the garden provides.

Both are subjected to superficial messages to distract them. If he focuses on what he's meant to accomplish for God's glory and she focuses on who she's meant to assist to do the same they'll find their way to their respective partners. But if they dwell on the world's interpretation they'll miss the mark.

I'm not a man. I don't have the ability to be Adam. I wasn't designed that way. I was made by Him. Until we come to terms with our divine makeup and what God says on the subject we'll walk in circles.

~bella

 

[bèlla]

@DragonFox91

Here's the video.

 

[DragonFox91]

@DragonFox91

Here's the video.

Not gonna see many messages like that!

 

[bèlla]

Not gonna see many messages like that!

Not at all. He was truly anointed and fed his flock liberally.

 

[bèlla]

The CNN video pointed out that problem and they saw the huge cost of college education as a major hindrance to having more eligible bachelors.

You don't need a college education to build wealth. You need an ability to see problems and solve them through products and services. That's the way wealth is established and maintained. You will never have financial security by trading time for money. Capitalism doesn't reward it. And it doesn't matter how much you're paid. What matters most is the time it took you to earn it.

People get excited about their salary but rarely focus on daily earnings. What does it translate to on an hourly basis? How much would I have to sell to replicate it? That's the difference between ownership and employment. Owners think in layers not years. They create a tiered approach to financial sustenance and fund their dreams through income streams.

Product A replaces their salary. Product B covers their debt. Product C funds large ticket purchases. Product D funds investments and so on. The biggest difference between the pair is mindset and tenure. Employees work to retire and live well. Owners work to live well and leave a legacy. They draw income longer than the norm. Which combats cost of living increases.

And they don't invest in 401ks and other retirement schemes. They place their resources in physical assets. Paper is a Ponzi scheme promoted to the masses. It works because the majority have never learned finance and demonstrate little interest in doing so. Minding your money is a must. They don't and rely on others to do it for them. Which perpetuates the cycle.

They don't teach that in school. You're taught to be a worker by going to school and getting a good job. But it's really a gimmick to keep you poor and dependent. It's the difference between giving a man a fish and instructing him how to get his own.

The number one stumbling block is between your ears. Potential is meaningless. Execution is everything. People have ideas they never put in motion. You can't change your circumstances unless you're willing to change your habits and mindset. You can't build wealth spending hours on social media, in front of a television or surfing the Internet. You're wasting time and that's the resource we can't replace. Time is a commodity. We must use it wisely.

The bible says, "Sow your seed in the morning, and at evening let your hands not be idle, for you do not know which will succeed, whether this or that, or whether both will do equally well."

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. It's right there in the word. If we do what it says we'll succeed. Society told you to get a job but God said diversify. Who will you heed?

Intention is the key to prosperity in the Kingdom. Focus opens and closes doors and distraction does the same. If we ask ourselves what we've planted today we'd see the problem. If we asked ourselves what we've done to move closer to our goals we'd realize the culprit. What we do afterwards determines the rest.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

They don't teach that in school. You're taught to be a worker by going to school and getting a good job. But it's really a gimmick to keep you poor and dependent. It's the difference between giving a man a fish and instructing him how to get his own.

Capitalism doesn't reward it.

Quite ironically, the modern economy NEEDS these sad, gullible, miserable workers doing these little invisible jobs and it NEEDS them badly! It cannot exist without them!

But instead of rewarding them it abuses them, looks at them with contempt, and insults their way of life. It reminds me of the "Unfaithful Servant" in the parable.

It won't even be possible to talk across continents about financial schemes if these invisible workers didn't do their jobs and did it well.

The bottom line is that we need them and things need to change. We need to start rewarding them because it's the right thing to do. It's the Christian thing to do.

These workers helped win the last great war. Workers of the world, I salute you!

 

[bèlla]

But instead of rewarding them it abuses them, looks at them with contempt, and insults their way of life. It reminds me of the "Unfaithful Servant" in the parable.

If you were more conversant in finance you wouldn't have said that. You'd know where were heading and its impact on the workforce. You'd know that 90% will be replaced and its already done. You'd know the roll out has begun and coincides with UBI and what it entails.

If you want to see workers treated differently build something and employ them. Give them good wages, benefits and instruction. It isn't as difficult as it seems. Start something online and hire local workers. Create different ventures doing the same and use the profits for more ambitious projects. Now you have multiple income streams and entities demonstrating the word and impacting the community.

The greatest financial event of the century is underway and has striking parallels to the Gilded Age. That's why inequality is so prevalent. It's beyond resources. You're feeling the pinch in your opportunities and experiences. Everything is lining up for the few.

You have a year to put things in place and by the second you should be fine. That's the clock. Emerging markets are first. Watch the BRICS and follow the money. Get some crypto if you can before the Bitcoin halving and you'll be set.

I've told you enough in these posts to get you started.

~bella

 

[timewerx]

If you want to see workers treated differently build something and employ them. Give them good wages, benefits and instruction. It isn't as difficult as it seems. Start something online and hire local workers. Create different ventures doing the same and use the profits for more ambitious projects. Now you have multiple income streams and entities demonstrating the word and impacting the community.

It is difficult/impossible for me. My dad ran a business for over 20 years and I couldn't deal with the complex social and interpersonal aspects of it.

When I used to work for a company, I avoided promotion to lead roles because I couldn't handle the role. I can work hard, I just can't deal with the various emotions of people.

It made no difference whether I'm handling people face to face or online. My psychological issues are really bad. I had marks of PTSD I couldn't figure out nor remember where it came from. Later in life, I underwent prolonged very stressful periods that made my PTSD worse and left me even more dysfunctional in a every aspect of my life. It left me with no friends and no opportunities.

I can be a leader but I'd be a bad leader by the standards of this society and that won't solve anything. I'll only end up spreading my issues to other people.

You have a year to put things in place and by the second you should be fine. That's the clock. Emerging markets are first. Watch the BRICS and follow the money. Get some crypto if you can before the Bitcoin halving and you'll be set.

I have nothing against Stocks nor Cryptocurrencies and I've tried it. I've watched all good videos of sensible trading like only buying when everyone is selling because the market is crashing or has crashed and selling when everyone is buying.

But still doesn't agree with me. I still found it very stressful even if I'm just holding and not doing anything or getting myself updated with emerging market. It flared up my hypertension so I gave it up. The thing is probably going to kill me before I even reap the rewards.

I think it's stressful because I'm also in a lot of pressure to make money to pay the bills and make it through the year and not lose our house.

Maybe it could have worked and not stressing me out if I wasn't under a lot of pressure to make money. I think I did hear some successful investors tell that your emotional state would affect your trading or investing success and you should learn to manage or control your emotions to succeed at it. I think I also heard some investors discouraging people who are extremely desperate to make money and thinking trying to make money through trading. Their emotions would work against them.

So maybe I might reconsider in the future if I'm no longer in an emotional wreck I am now.

The greatest financial event of the century is underway and has striking parallels to the Gilded Age. That's why inequality is so prevalent. It's beyond resources. You're feeling the pinch in your opportunities and experiences. Everything is lining up for the few.

That's bad. It usually precedes a time when the "peasants" revolt and turn into like zombies and the nation descends into anarchy.

Yet it's only a problem in USA and countries gullible enough to have copied their system. In Canada and Europe, the workers are far better treated with better quality of life. They have far better assurances and guarantees of being taken cared of if AI and automation takes them out of their jobs.

Yet Canada and Europe would be facing a different problem in the future as becoming the frontline if World War III breaks out since both Canada and Europe sits right next to Russia and her allies. The strategy is for Russia to capture as much of their territories so that USA and NATO couldn't launch attacks from Europe or Canada.

 

[DragonFox91]

It's declined b/c people don't trust God