35 years old. Never married. No kids. Feeling so out of faith and alone

[ch91780]

I certainly hope you are right strangeman. I am at that age you mentioned but it is still going tough. I can see your point about the table turning in this age range but at the same time it also seems that the pool of high quality single women is getting small. "The good ones are always taken" feels very true to me at this point of my life.

[strangeman]

I certainly hope you are right strangeman. I am at that age you mentioned but it is still going tough. I can see your point about the table turning in this age range but at the same time it also seems that the pool of high quality single women is getting small. "The good ones are always taken" feels very true to me at this point of my life.

 

That's the truth of it. Reasonable younger women get married during their prime fertile years, e.g. in their 20s. And let's face it, the best men still tend to get the best women, regardless of what their respective ages actually are. The rest of us struggle and discuss on Internet forums, which is why we must become smarter in how we compete. We must also come to know ourselves better, as well as the opposing gender.

 

I am in my mid 30s and never married, and I see this same thing all the time. The best ones are always taken, if not married, then with a boyfriend. Meanwhile they use this same criterion against men: if a man doesn't have a girlfriend, then there must be something wrong with him.

 

Males display, females choose.

[Batya33]

Would it help you to know that I didn't meet the right person until I was almost 39, and didn't get married or become a mom until I was 42? I was like you - not obsessed with career or money - wanted the marriage/kids from the time I was 19 or 20 (had an older sister who married young, that was part of the reason) - and it made me nauseous the number of times I was asked "why are you STILL single" or "why haven't you been snapped up yet" (assuming, wrongly, that I'd never been asked to be snapped up). But, unlike you I made amazing women friends - single and married, divorced, etc. in my 30s - I was part of a women's networking group, did volunteer work, was in a book club, bonded with women at work. Boy did that help! And I felt that I was in general treated with respect and like a lady by men I dated/had relationships with. I found meeting men on line to be ok, albeit a mixed bag. Part of the reason I found the right person was luck and timing and a larger part was me - I now know I had to "be" the right person to find the right person - in fact my husband and I also were seriously involved in our late 20s/early 30s and then broke up for 8 years. Sure we both changed a lot in those 8 years but I had to be truly ready to be in love with someone who was in love with me, plus not a challenge in the typical emotionally distant/unavailable way that was a turn on too many times for me. Yes, he has a backbone, yes he keeps me on my toes but not in the "hard to get" way - he lay his cards on the table a few weeks after we reconnected over a friendly catch up dinner - and the rest was history.

 

So yes I wish you luck and good timing but I also wish for you that if there is any way at all that you are getting in your own way of finding the right person, that you find out what that is so that you can increase your chances of finding the right guy. And definitely find other ways and places to meet people - women and men - who are positive, inspiring people. They are out there, promise.

[strangeman]

Batya, I agree with everything you said. The majority is what it is, which makes the success of outliers, male or female, especially beautiful and reassuring!

 

Your story about reconnecting with an ex and now being able to go the distance is inspirational. Timing is the key to everything, it seems...

[Batya33]

Batya, I agree with everything you said. The majority is what it is, which makes the success of outliers, male or female, especially beautiful and reassuring!

 

Your story about reconnecting with an ex and now being able to go the distance is inspirational. Timing is the key to everything, it seems...

 

But if I hadn't been ready to go the distance with him the timing would have been irrelevant - it would have led, at most, to a romantic whirlwind fling for the "honeymon" period. But of course I can't know if the OP has found similar issues in her relationships. Also, it helped that I wasn'y cynical or desperate, and that I had figured out why my 7 year on again/off again relationship that had ended 6 months earlier hadn't worked out. Sure, I can tell the story leaving all of that out - I lucked out, the timing was impeccable, etc. But I think you'll find that most people with those stories have other factors that may be less romantic but were essential to the relationship lasting long term.

[strangeman]

Sure, I can tell the story leaving all of that out - I lucked out, the timing was impeccable, etc. But I think you'll find that most people with those stories have other factors that may be less romantic but were essential to the relationship lasting long term.

 

I am impressed by this display of introspection. Romantician, know thyself...

[Sparkly Eyes]

Correct. Instead, I've gone to great lengths to focus on personality and select for what I want. Then I reinforce it through dominant behavior that simply inspires a consistent response. I'm often told that my woman "feels like a woman" and is grateful for it. Especially the professionals, who are themselves strong women and thus require someone stronger.

 

So my philosophy is not simple, but in a way it's kind of like Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science": simple patterns (cellular automata), built upon themselves into a sufficient complexity.

 

I'd like to know some examples of what you do...how you really handle a strong professional woman the way you like. I'm really intrested in examples here before I judge.

 

 

 

Once again, I feel your pain. Many men have natural tendencies to be nurturing and supportive. But then the most attractive females are repulsed by these same qualities. This is the inverse of what I mentioned in my first post: about women who forcibly swap gender roles by refusing to compromise, then are confused about why they suddenly find their men less and less attractive as they become more feminine and submissive.

 

Being supportive is absolutely different from being submissive. And I believe most people can understand that. If a guy is very supportive of my career, I would in no way think of him any less. I would, however, if he tries to lower my status or be an obstacle on my way to success. I agree that it might depend on how he does it. But not being supportive in any way is a big no no for me.

 

 

 

You are once again completely correct. I view this as a certain noblesse oblige on the part of the man and it is what I practice in my relationships. It's the positive essence of chauvinism: that virtuous women deserve and thus earn generous, protective treatment from men of honor. Where the special one is cherished. In my world, kindness is not weakness: it is a firm, unyielding hand in a plush velvet glove.

 

My woman is an alpha female in her own right: leader of women, more charming, beautiful, and at least plenty smart (absolute value TBD). The trick is that I *inspire* behavior that is submissive and feminine, which I then reinforce with a positive, dominant masculinity.

 

This sentence again very obviously stems from deep insecurities...My woman should be a leader of women, not better than men. I think your problem is that you think there should be a dominant rule in every relationship. That simply is not true. Many women here who are in successful relationships would agree with me. We have quite a few in this very forum.

 

Also, I feel like you struggle to show your masculine side and perhaps think about it a little too much. I think true masculinity and femininity come smoothly, without struggle, without tricks.

 

 

 

 

By definition beauty, in itself, pure and unmixed with any other idea, is always good. In my view this is obvious.

 

Your reasoning does makes sense on that last part though, which is why I want to give back right here today. I feel like change_in_tide's case is textbook, and I wish to contribute a positive masculine presence.

 

A little salt can season this dish to great effect!

 

Beauty is mostly about perception. Intelligence, on the other hand, is mostly about reality. Beautiful people without intelligence can't accomplish much. Ugly smart people however, can change the world for the better.

 

 

 

Well again, high intelligence is a burden. This is shown from nothing more than the biological success those of lower intelligence have in breeding. Is a person's intelligence so wonderful, so magical, that the actual human experience of being alive should be lost? If so, then we're on our ironic way to George Orwell's "Animal Farm" where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others. Four legs good, two legs bad!

 

But which four legs are best?

 

I would definitely won't use the term biological "success". There is no success anymore in using your fertility to the fullest...absolutely none. "the experience of being alive" is more about the "struggle to find a job and food since our parents were'nt smart enough to gather enough money and knowledge before they have and raise us".

 

I even do not believe that in the past success was all about what tribe had more people. There are records of wars in history when a few number of men could overcome a much larger of people due to their smart strategic plans. Intelligence is like a shortcut, less work and more get done! It's never ever a bad thing and is the only thing that makes us different from animals. You know that most species that lived on earth are already extinct, right? I think the only thing that can help men avoid this perhaps unavoidable extinction would be our intelligence.

 

High intelligence is only a burden when you live amongst a bunch of unintelligent people (which is often the case). Its deeply painful in fact.

 

 

My feeling on it is this: we are still animals, and that pure, primal urge is the foundation upon which our personalities and abilities are built. Everything else is window-dressing, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Quite the opposite, because regardless of civilization or culture, the non-arranged pairing ritual always ends the same way: the males display, and the females choose. Just like it is with every other animal. Because we all have this in common.

 

We also share 96% of our DNA with that bunch of half-ripe bananas at the grocery store. Consider the inferences, which I happen to find astounding.

 

It's not like modern women have any sort of direct blame as a class. This is all about personal choices, and since we're all on our own now, it's possible to wander deep into a dark scary forest without realizing how far you'd strayed from the path. A path beaten by the footsteps of a thousand generations before.

 

But we are the ones who shape the path, don't forget that. Just because things have been in a specific way before, does NOT mean that they have to stay the same. It's not static, it's dynamic...Take a look at your life. How many things that you do during the day are similar to what a person would do 100,000 years ago?! Do you think what would help a person survive at that time will help them now? No.

 

You think that we are distancing ourselves from what "we are supposed to be" . And I challenge you that if we are supposed to be that way, why is it that so many people choose the opposite? Why is it that so many women (me included) are not interested in a man who leads us through life? Are we just genetically flawed or something?!Why did women want the freedom and choice in the first place? Shouldn't have they just been happy having children and preparing food? This might be related to the "nature" vs "nurture" argument. I would say however, that perhaps our nature itself isn't exactly what we think it is. Just because something has been practiced for thousands of years, does NOT mean that it must have been ingrained in our nature.

[newwave]

OP, I know where you are coming from. I am 39 and never married. Unlike others I sort of know why I never married when I was younger (superficial and obsessed with work). As I get older, I realized being obsessed with my career was a bad choice as it led me to still being single. Oh I could have married earlier, I just felt they were the wrong guys. Most of my exes are now married and I often wonder what would have happened. I just wish I had pursued marriage years younger. Recently I've been browsing online dating sites and there are many single guys near me (or so it says). However, I've had problems with online like you and generally avoid it.

 

If this makes you feel better (it does me) I worked with several people who all married for the first time in their 40's. One of my coworkers wanted to marry (and did online dating for years) and finally married for the first time at 43 or 44. She is attractive, works out, smart, and a home buyer. Many other coworkers, same thing. I don't know if any of them had kids (haven't spoken to them for awhile) but I know the one wanted to.

[sunday2010]

I was never obsessed with my carreer but I just never met anybody thats the plain simple fact... and it sucks...online dating as you know sucks... its awful so i don;t think that is the way to go..not really anyway...

[MissDaisy]

To say it another way, I think that men and women are different in terms of how they value physical attractiveness in the opposite sex. Still, based on what you wrote here, you sound almost more like a man in your view on this, where his attractiveness is being objectified. This in turn begs the question of what such a woman, who views men in this way, is able to provide him with in terms of income, stability, and leadership.

 

No I do not think that I objectify men... I think that the problem is that I look quite young for my age, and men are attracted by me. Sometimes they pursue me because they like who I am and find me attractive, and then of course I feel the same way. I find that I have the same energy and the same view of life as some younger men. The last man that I dated was 33 and I felt that we had a great 'click' ... i felt highly compatible with him in many ways. In the beginning we discussed the age difference. I asked him if he was OK with it, because there are implications (I am 9 years older, but this man had the appearance of looking older, so one could not see the age difference between us). After a period of time, he ran away from "us". That is the pain of being in my shoes, so do not think that I was objectifying... I loved the whole person. I miss him. This situation has hurt me enormously.

[MissDaisy]

I appreciate what you're saying. I think it comes down to how much fertility you have left. If your prime childbearing years are behind you, then the only men who can safely invest in you are those to whom your fertility is irrelevant. That leads to the mistress role, or, being the partner of a man old enough such that your relative youth/beauty is still able to raise his status.

 

I find this to be so cynical... and it makes people sound narcissistic in their pursuit of a mate or companion. In fact there is a researcher in the US who has done some great work on this subject (W. Keith Campbell, PhD - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).

 

I think that attractiveness is essential... but what is it? Even if a man is younger than me, I cannot say that he represents attractiveness in the narcissistic, status-oriented way that you suggest. The guy that I was dating a few months ago was young but highly attractive to me. Some of my friends (who were closer in age to him than me) did not think he was 'remarkably' attractive at all.... So it seems that my attraction to him was really quite subjective.. individual. In any case, attraction for me is wrapped up in so many qualities, with personality playing a big role as well.

[Sparkly Eyes]

But in strangeman's case, attraction is only based on the number of eggs in your ovaries. I honestly don't know why any woman would want to marry such a man. I hope they make sure to count every morning and know that when they reach their limit they should leave.

[newwave]

But in strangeman's case, attraction is only based on the number of eggs in your ovaries. I honestly don't know why any woman would want to marry such a man. I hope they make sure to count every morning and know that when they reach their limit they should leave.

 

I would not like to marry a guy only obsessed with having biological kids. What if a guy like him married a 25 year old who was infertile? I know teens girls who've been told they'll never have kids. I've also known women who got married in their 40's and had natural babies. Each woman is different.

[friendsoulmate]

I am a 40-year-old male virgin, and I experience the daily frustrations of being alone, and no sex. I have been reading stories of women at this forum who want to have sex in a committed, loving relationship, such as marriage, but they turn hypocritical when a man wants to have sex with them(a woman) before marriage, and the woman submits and gives-in to his sexual requests, which include co-habitating (shacking-up) with him, before marriage. Then a woman complains that, "All men want to do is use me for sex!". I think one of the most beautiful things of marriage is having sex with one of the opposite sex in a committed, loving relationship. This is what I've always wanted. Unfortunately, there are too many women submiting to men who are not marriage material, out of frustration, maybe. Also, I believe there has become a general attitude problem in our modern times, in North American culture, about marriage, for both single, never been married, and single, separated/divorced men and women.

[newwave]

I think you are wonderful for waiting. I definitely get virgins like you who wait for marriage. I would happen to agree with your points on many levels. In the past I often slept with guys I thought I was serious with only to find out they weren't interested. Long story short, I made a vow many years ago to abstain from sex until a very serious relationships (preferably marriage but possibly engagement). People look at me crazy because of it but I made the vow on many levels. I don't want to get pregnant without being married or have what happened to me happen again.

[strangeman]

I'd like to know some examples of what you do...how you really handle a strong professional woman the way you like. I'm really intrested in examples here before I judge.

 

I figure for something like this, a simple list would be most helpful. Here are just some examples:

 

- no-nonsense and assertive regarding my preferences

- passionate personality

- strong, decisive taking of the first kiss

- always wittier; can pass almost any so-called "sh1t test" from a female, and I do on a regular basis

- sexual style that is often aggressive and commanding; I use it to tame my women and make them come in minutes

- using my appearance to my advantage: I am handsome, expressive, and my eyes are penetrating

- do not date taller women (I'm 5'10") but I do allow her to be taller in heels

- adjust my behavior so that it fits with her menstrual cycle: more dominant while ovulating, more supportive during PMS, etc; i keep a calendar and she keeps me up to date happily

- will have sex with her at any time, on her period or not

- When going out, I tell her when she will not be wearing panties; this makes her wet continuously

 

However I'm not some knuckle dragging troglodyte. I have a lot of interests and pursue them at my leisure. I'm supportive, thoughtful, insightful. I am known for being honest and giving good advice. In my downtime I am calm and relaxed. I have a wacky sense of humor and like to enjoy it.

 

Most importantly, I focus on women who prefer such a man. I have no problem dropping others and moving on, because I choose quality over quantity. I'm not saying that I'm right for you or any women like you, or that there aren't a lot of you out there. Too many in my opinion; regardless, you still have the freedom to do what you will.

 

But not without cost.

 

I even do not believe that in the past success was all about what tribe had more people. There are records of wars in history when a few number of men could overcome a much larger of people due to their smart strategic plans. Intelligence is like a shortcut, less work and more get done! It's never ever a bad thing and is the only thing that makes us different from animals. You know that most species that lived on earth are already extinct, right? I think the only thing that can help men avoid this perhaps unavoidable extinction would be our intelligence.

 

High intelligence is only a burden when you live amongst a bunch of unintelligent people (which is often the case). Its deeply painful in fact.

 

Animals have lots of intelligence. That's why curiosity killed the cat - and plenty of humans too: because sometimes life puts a body in situations where too much intelligence is, in fact, bad. Besides, a string of bad luck (or karma?) can wipe out really smart people, especially those relying on their smarts and weak/unbalanced in other areas, thus leading them (back) to just such a situation.

 

Here's what I believe. Intelligence is pretty much always good if it's just slightly higher than the surrounding. Things become more optimal in your favor. But if the intelligence is a great deal higher, then the quality of interaction tends to break down. So much in the social life of a human being is based on other people, and that's why if the mind is overdeveloped, it is typical that other parts of the whole person are not.

 

Kind of like why some plants have sharp spines, others exude irritating secretions, some have strong roots, others have deep roots. But none have all these qualities because all must choose. None can have it all.

 

This sentence again very obviously stems from deep insecurities...

 

I never said I was some sort of master or formalist. My concern is dealing with women, the complex creatures that you are. I have come here with a compassionate motive and so you need not worry. Flame on.

 

My woman should be a leader of women, not better than men. I think your problem is that you think there should be a dominant rule in every relationship. That simply is not true.

 

Actually, with that 'alpha female' line I was inverting a common stereotype about how women judge a man: he should be a "leader of men," i.e. an alpha. How many times have we all heard that phrase? A million times each? And why don't women say he must be a leader of men *and* women? Because it's implied, due to natural/biological male dominance relative to females? Or, perhaps, being all specific like that is tedious in conversation?

 

Perhaps our linguistic intelligence leaves off that part because it's a 'shortcut', whereby more communicative work gets done with less effort...

 

The point I was making is that in the classical terms in which a woman is valued - and note I've said nothing about her cooking, cleaning, or bedroom skills - she is proving herself superior to most other women. She is a leader, a leader among women, in the context of my male frame. My male frame is about my LTR and intent to craft a successful relationship even as our society goes global and spins off, deep into the nether regions of Mirkwood.

 

Many women here who are in successful relationships would agree with me. We have quite a few in this very forum.

 

There's someone for everyone, and I'm glad you all have successful relationships. They just won't ever be with a man like me, that is, to the extent you really did reject my presence having already found me attractive.

 

Women often say they want one thing, but respond more productively to its opposite. Which is not to say that some other relationship is automatically bad. But it probably isn't great in terms of the magnitude of successful relationships that are first built on biological compatibility. Which is why I'd also point out that the majority of animal species act closer to how I describe.

 

Also, I feel like you struggle to show your masculine side and perhaps think about it a little too much. I think true masculinity and femininity come smoothly, without struggle, without tricks.

 

Yes, it is a struggle, because women in LTR test their men constantly, either consciously, subconciously, or both. We are always required to prove and re-prove ourselves because if we don't, female urges and whims get out of control, leading to disharmony and general straying from the path. Positive male dominance is simply part of my male display. Males display and females choose, so the effort I put into maintaining my masculine frame allows the woman to choose: does she want to be with me or not? If not, we drop each other, which is a gallant thing for me to arrange considering that after 30, time is on the man's side.

 

Is the peacock's impressive plumage a trick? It certainly did not come without struggle, because life in the wild is treacherous and hard. Civilization simply replaces physical violence with economic violence.

 

A different solution regarding your comment would be for me to point out that motherhood equals true femininity. Meanwhile childbirth, the principal function of motherhood, does not come smoothly or without struggle, thus it would be incorrect to say that particular piece of your logic succeeds under test.

 

Beauty is mostly about perception. Intelligence, on the other hand, is mostly about reality. Beautiful people without intelligence can't accomplish much. Ugly smart people however, can change the world for the better.

 

Oddly enough I think you have it backwards here: intelligence is mostly about perception. Why? Because the mind/intelligence is what does the perceiving. Beauty meanwhile offers the reality of that "shortcut" you mentioned earlier, where, as you say, more gets done in less time. How? Because beauty inspires others to contribute and invest. Another dimension of beauty is the utter perfection of the natural universe itself: terrible, stupendous, and REAL.

 

Which leads me to your other idea: I believe that anyone can change the world for the better, even pretty people. I'd argue that Angela Jolie has changed the world for the better through all her work with the United Nations. However, the UN would have no use for her if she wasn't one of the hottest global celebrities ever, which she simply would not be were she not beautiful.

 

I would definitely won't use the term biological "success". There is no success anymore in using your fertility to the fullest...absolutely none. "the experience of being alive" is more about the "struggle to find a job and food since our parents were'nt smart enough to gather enough money and knowledge before they have and raise us".

 

You seem to suggest that being poor equals being stupid. I disagree with that, obviously. Insects have millions of babies because most die. The poor also have many children for similar reasons, because most may not succeed or get ahead in any meaningful way. But we all want our children to be successful, even the poor among us.

 

The idea that parents should be ready before having a family is clearly a good one. But then it seems there's never a perfect time and no matter what you choose, e.g. kids early/late/never, it's still going to be scary and have lots of challenges to overcome.

 

The philsopher Hobbes once said that life is nasty, brutish, and short. Your view sounds similar to his, and there is a primal truth to you both that resonates. I should think you could find common ground with me in a way here. I am defining biological success as being able to have children, raise them to adults, and ideally live to see them successfully bear children of their own. As for what all these people actually do with their lives, how they use their gifts to navigate this treacherous modern society, that's a function of class and breeding, and is more along the lines of what you're talking about.

 

But we are the ones who shape the path, don't forget that. Just because things have been in a specific way before, does NOT mean that they have to stay the same.

 

Who is "we?" Women? Modern society? A path is something worn down by decades, even centuries, of repetition. Women who rebel against their men are straying from the path. You may even be working on the beginnings of a new path, but that will take multiple generations of women to repeat before it can be established.

 

Now that the fruit of the 1960s and 70s is starting to spoil, I think young women today are starting to question feminism. At the very least, they want to protect their options and have the choice to deal with tradition, if not return to it with more enthusiasm. As a male archetype I'm arguing for compromise with you ladies. I have no need to club you over the head and drag you back to my cave. Instead I'll have you asking me to move in and contribute your salary to my future children.

 

It's not static, it's dynamic...Take a look at your life. How many things that you do during the day are similar to what a person would do 100,000 years ago?! Do you think what would help a person survive at that time will help them now? No.

 

The tasks themselves are not similar, but the motivations certainly are: avoiding predators, securing prey, respirating, consuming, and if I'm lucky enough, breeding. The qualities that helped a man do these things 10,000 years ago are probably the same ones I'm using today to go about my business and conclude it in a satisfactory manner. For example, via intelligence and beauty...

 

You think that we are distancing ourselves from what "we are supposed to be" . And I challenge you that if we are supposed to be that way, why is it that so many people choose the opposite? Why is it that so many women (me included) are not interested in a man who leads us through life? Are we just genetically flawed or something?!Why did women want the freedom and choice in the first place? Shouldn't have they just been happy having children and preparing food? This might be related to the "nature" vs "nurture" argument. I would say however, that perhaps our nature itself isn't exactly what we think it is. Just because something has been practiced for thousands of years, does NOT mean that it must have been ingrained in our nature.

 

The answer is as follows: I am one person, and you are one person. Let's then say you have 100 million women out there who agree with you completely. Like you say in your challenge to me, that sure is a whole lot of people! But at the same time, that massive number is still only 0.03% of all women on Earth; thus your challenge is solved. In the big picture of the human species, i.e. in terms of the majority, it becomes much more clear that yes, women who rebel against men are distancing themselves from their biological purpose.

 

Women wanted (and needed) freedom because they had no way to counter being exploited by bad men. Now you have that freedom, but not without cost. The good men are the ones suffering now, because it is that much harder to find suitable women who are not addicted to the psychic crack cocaine that is racking up the hook-up numbers and pursuing a wanton, SATC-friendly lifestyle until one day, many years in the future, she finally accepts a ring from an apologetic Mr. Big. In other words, not until she's spent the best of her youth/fertility being selfish, at which point the selfishness reaches a new level: the list of 231 qualities a man must have in order to be worthy of such a refined, experienced connoisseuse.

 

To be clear, I do not think you are genetically flawed, not at all, but I will say that Darwin's is the real challenge here. Especially given the brutal power of mass media, advertising, and materialism that tempts women to indulge their whims and be generally wasteful.

 

We need a new relationship model whereby either or both partner can work inside or/and outside the home, yet without diminishing either partner's inherent masculine or feminine value/identity in the process.

[strangeman]

Honestly, in looking at your vs. my appraisal of attractiveness, it seems not that far apart. You're just not interested if he's not attractive to you, and I suppose I should find that to be cynical. I guess I just see it as more of a mechanism in how our brains are wired.

 

Your friends may have been jealous of you and didn't want to stroke your ego. Sort of like how a group of divorcees tell their one married friend how happy they are now that they're divorced. Dragging that unfortunate woman down into their collective pit of misery, by encouraging her to throw away her husband.

 

I don't see a huge difference between a man connecting his woman's attractiveness to his own status, and a woman connecting her man's attractiveness to ... well, whatever she feels like at any given moment. With men it's usually about the same thing, but with women it's always different except that it's still whatever she wants at the time.

 

Which is why I believe that simple, positive, male dominance brings out the best in a woman, marriage, and the kids.

[strangeman]

Just because you asked him if he was OK doesn't mean he was entirely honest or even entirely sure with his answer. But he still had to provide one because you asked for it. It's possible he may not have really wanted kids before, but now in his early-to-mid 30s he found his biological clock waking up after all. Over time he may also have decided that he's feeling older as well and yearns for a return to convention. Another thing guys will do is accept older women for awhile in order to break a dry spell. Some of these women are incredibly sexy...

 

In my view it makes sense that you could be attracted to youthful energy, which seems to be a common theme in how you describe yourself versus the younger men you prefer. Which is why I suggested that the best way to do it is to assume that he is a boy toy, be his experienced sex goddess/teacher, and that's how he wants it. Things can always develop into something more from there, in which case you'll see him suddenly taking the lead in the relationship, but that way your expectations are covered just in case he ends up wanting to get out and return to the path.

 

Perhaps this is really just another example of feminism's two faces: women empowering themselves and wandering far away, and men choosing to exploit the sexual benefits since anything more is far too risky.

 

That's why I think you can adapt by using your greater wisdom and experience to at least try to spare yourself a big chunk of the heartache. It could also allow you to run the table and enjoy quite a few different guys, playing them off against each other in order to find out if any of them really want to commit. Which is certainly something that younger women like to do with their youthful energy.

 

It's all part of this modern era, because feminism is about choices. And with that great power comes a great responsibility, which I think requires each of us to realize and accept that we can't have it all. We have to choose what we want, move ahead, and not look back.

 

Please do not allow any sense of pride or entitlement cause you to isolate yourself from the very men who actually want what you still have. And for the long term.

[strangeman]

But in strangeman's case, attraction is only based on the number of eggs in your ovaries. I honestly don't know why any woman would want to marry such a man. I hope they make sure to count every morning and know that when they reach their limit they should leave.

 

That's not what I'm saying. My point here is this: in the LTR context that leads to marriage, it all boils down to her fertility *if* he wants a family. This is the simple answer to so many of these complex questions women (who think of themselves as normal) have about men and why they won't commit. Either they want kids and she can't safely provide them, or, they find her too unstable/capricious to trust with the anti-male legal powers she has in divorce. Or, they think they can do better.

 

Each relationship is different and could have various extenuating circumstances that make it atypical. But again I'm focused on the majority human experience, particularly in the civilized world.

 

I would not like to marry a guy only obsessed with having biological kids. What if a guy like him married a 25 year old who was infertile? I know teens girls who've been told they'll never have kids. I've also known women who got married in their 40's and had natural babies. Each woman is different.

 

What do you mean, "only?" I've applied just a small amount of energy to this thread. I'm a much more complex and interesting person, that's just the topic we're discussing here. I am certainly hoping my future wife is not infertile. If she is I will deal with that if the time ever comes.

 

Yes, each person is different and I am supportive of outliers who find success. I myself am an outlier considering that at my age I've never married.

[newwave]

 

What do you mean, "only?" I've applied just a small amount of energy to this thread. I'm a much more complex and interesting person, that's just the topic we're discussing here. I am certainly hoping my future wife is not infertile. If she is I will deal with that if the time ever comes.

 

Many men bypass women because of this and I think it's unfair. We've seen it on posts here and other boards where guys say they won't date women over 35 (or even 30) because of this and that just seems wrong.

[strangeman]

Many men bypass women because of this and I think it's unfair. We've seen it on posts here and other boards where guys say they won't date women over 35 (or even 30) because of this and that just seems wrong.

 

I think you pose a fair question. Does it seem wrong because it puts women into categories, and most men seem to be the same in how/why they do it? Did it seem wrong when you were 23 and being lavished constantly with their attention and resources? I can't imagine what that must have felt like, to be chased like that just for being present, but if the symmetry continues I suppose I can expect to in the future.

 

Moreover, the frustration you describe reminds me of how I felt when I was the same age as a woman in her peak fertile years. Most desirable women just weren't interested in taking me seriously, that is, until I was more established and experienced. I was a pretty boy type, which sometimes helped, but more often it didn't. Plus I had a lot of issues of my own to work on, which were quite unattractive. Such women were probably right to reject me back then.

 

So the sense I have here is that modern women exploit their 20s in hedonistic ways, and it's their 30s where they have a last chance at being conventional. Men meanwhile find it all too easy to be more like children through most of their 20s, misguided and in denial, confused by all the mixed messages, in effect delaying maturity until the women finally use up their choices and have to stop running away.

 

It's a zero-sum game, so amongst twentysomethings, single women come out ahead. Thirtysomethings and beyond favor the men. Except in divorce, which is the great equalizer. Women's choices are preserved, so, it's up to women to decide for themselves not to rebel from their men, but instead, surrender/submit in some areas.

 

In my view this speaks directly to OP and her situation.

[Batya33]

I felt I did the most mature thing in my 20s and 30s by not settling just so that I could be a married mommy (my friend did that - well, she claimed to be in love at the time but now knows she settled, she was in denial) and ovr 20 years later is divorced -- and the 4 pre-teens/teenagers they had at the time of the divorce of course suffered. I pursued my career and my goal of marriage with equal fervor - but the former of course can be controlled far more if you want the latter to include that sometimes elusive love, chemistry and passion - best friendship caught on fire. Yes, I made mistakes, yes, I needed to change my outlook on relationships and that took time, but no "hedonism" was involved. At 44 I'd say that as a full time mom I'm pretty conventional except that most 44 year olds I meet who took the conventional path as far as timing are looking forward to being grandparents in the next ten years while my son, god willing, will not even be a teenager yet. Oh and my choices and path are pretty darn typical of what you call "modern women" because I think that a lot of women in the 1950s settled so that they would not be 30 year old spinsters and/or financially bereft. My friends who are single or who married after 35 didn't spend their 20s/30s partying either or if they did party, it wasn't to avoid relatonships - and of course married people party too.

[strangeman]

Kudos to you, Batya! I'm glad you were able to find this success. My story, God willing, will be somewhat similar. May I ask the approximate age of your husband?

 

I think your friend's issue is because she settled, not because she married in her 20s. If a woman pursues both career and marriage, that's fine, but she can't attain the same heights in either world - that is, as compared to what she could have if she chose to focus on only one. We all suffer; the best we can do is hope to choose our own circumstances wisely.

 

Similarly, in modern society, it's up to the women to decide who they are, what they want, and their true long-term priorities. That is the responsibility that comes with women's rights, and it is one uniquely owned by females. Not all women will make the same choices; thus it follows that some women will be more appealing.

[Sparkly Eyes]

This is hilarious. Look, I'm a woman and I can assure you 100% that my behavior doesn't change on a monthly pattern, even my horniness. It's very random and it surprises me too actually.

 

Seems to me like most ways you try to show "dominance" are in bedroom. Ironically, when it comes to bedroom, I'm ok with a dominant man, as long as he is not always dominant and let me have my way with him when I want too. Never had problem with men in bed, they find me a great lover actually. But that just goes back to my high drive and the love for experimenting. Out of bedroom on the other hand, I have no tolerance for a man who wants to be constantly right and dominant. Mostly because I'm highly analytical and can think for myself.

 

 

I actually would say that women who just "submit" to men are the ones who mostly have to pay the price. Let me tell you this way, I have never seen a real submissive woman in my life that was actually happy. Many of them have low self esteem, often get treated unfairly and generally don't have happy lives. The reason is obvious. When you give someone power, they are gonna use and often abuse it, as simple as that. Yes, in the ideal world, the true symbol of masculinity would treat his women like gold, was faithful and would use his powers for the best. In the real world however, more often than not, that's not the case.

 

 

The age old question, Do you want to be dumb and happy or intelligent and unhappy? I asked this question from myself since I was a kid...I agree with you on this (like I said before) that intelligent people have a hard time living with normal people. It's a lot of work to want to cure "stupidity".

 

 

 

I'm not trying to flame, just stating the facts. We're all insecure, in one way or the other. I am even somewhat the same. I do not like a man who is way more intelligent than me as a partner. Mainly because I'm very competitive and can't be with someone who always wins.

 

 

 

Dunno what to say to this statement of yours, other than the fact that it sounds ignorant to me. Like I said already, I've never seen a true dominant/submissive relationship that is truly successful. Yet I've seen plenty of equal ones that were great relationships.

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant. True feminity, say kindness and nurturing comes natural to a woman, same with men and some masculine features. If a woman has to think and force herself to be kind and love her child, she is not really feminine, she is fake. The same with men who put a manly mask on their faces but deep inside are insecure kids. Their reality shows sooner or later. That's why the most attractive people are always the ones who have those attractive features of them naturally, without struggle, be it physical or mental.

 

 

 

 

 

I've heard people saying angelina julie is ugly, but you rarely ever find someone who says einstein is not smart. That's exactly why you often hear the sentence "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Do you ever hear that about intelligence?!

 

 

 

Is this paragrah trying to justify beauty being a good thing? The fact that UN would pay more attention to someone beautiful rather than someone with right qualifications simply shows shallowness of human beings and shallowness is exactly the reason why many of us suffer in our lives so much. Perhaps it helped us survive in the past, but I believe we lose things due to shallowness way more than we gain.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. But being poor does mean having less education...and usually if you don't have time or any resources to educate yourself, you're not gonna end up very bright. That's a simple fact.

 

yes it's scary at all times. But the fear is VERY different when you are a 19yo dad or a 30yo dad. How many young mothers do you know that leave their kids to go to night clubs every weekend to sleep with a new guy? Most young girls are simply not ready for having kids anymore. Life has become way more complicated than what it was. What now makes a woman happy is different from what it would 1000 years ago. You either have to go with the modern pace of life or go back to your cave where hunting and getting pregnant was the norm.

 

 

 

Let's even go by your definition. Why is it that you think biological success meaning" just having children without thinking about the quality of their lives" is a good thing or even important in this day and age?! Should we really still call that success? Or perhaps we change our definition of biological success here? Because guess what? Having more children without being able to find resources for them is just simply a receipe for disaster. You don't believe me? look at poor overpopulated countries. Not only they can't have quality life themselves, but even can't defend themselves against the countries with greater powers and knowingly or unknowingly, are slaves of such powers.

 

 

 

 

 

Us (people) and our decesions interact with the conditions in the outside environment to form new paths. I'm glad that you admitted the new paths can be made. That is exactly my point. So why being fearful and wanting to always stay on the same path? Just because "it always used to be that way"? Yeah, if we wanted to follow this logic, we wouldn't have philosophy or science.

 

 

Feminism simply is about the ability of women to choose. I'm totally ok with women wanting to protect their options. Isn't that what freedom is all about?

 

 

The tasks themselves are not similar, but the motivations certainly are: avoiding predators, securing prey, respirating, consuming, and if I'm lucky enough, breeding. The qualities that helped a man do these things 10,000 years ago are probably the same ones I'm using today to go about my business and conclude it in a satisfactory manner. For example, via intelligence and beauty...

 

 

You're not serious right? Are you seriously suggesting that 99.97% women of the world want to be submissive and dominated by men in their lives?! I'm a woman and have known women from quite a few countries. I even come from a country that their women are known to be submissive so I should know. In most places, women are taught from the very start, that it is just the way it is. They are even told that "sex" is not supposed to be pleasurable for them and is just something about men. Give those very women the option and teach them that they can choose for themselves, they become the same western woman who rebels against the husband. Had I not been intelligent and grown up in a great family, I would have been one of those women. It's actually all about the fact that they were suppressed and could not show their natural desires and qualities. If it was truly natural for them to just go by what their husbands say, suppression would never be truly needed, right?

 

 

 

Of course I'm not. Gender roles are learned to a large degree, I'm not denying the biology, but it doesn't determine our behavior as much as you think. One example, many men on the other side of the world can't stand the thought of another man seeing their wife's hair. Most of the guys I've known in the western world on the other hand, would love their woman to wear something sexy so they can show her off to their friends! They may even show her nude pictures to others...There are isolated tribes that find an hourglass shaped woman sickly looking but it's considered the most attractive one in west. Who's to say who is being natural and who is not?

[Batya33]

In my case had I not pursued my career with the passion and fervor that I did I would not have met my husband and if i hadn't been ambitious as I was I doubt we would have lasted as a couple. I am a few months older than he is - we are in our mid 40s, married almost 2 years. I made finding a husband a top priority but it would have been silly for me to let that search and that priority distract me from pursuing my dream career - because that was a large part of who I was and even though I am not working at it right now since I am a full time mom, it still is an integral part of me - not the work per se but my reasons for pursuing it, the reasons I worked so hard, etc.