At what point do you just give up entirely?

[figur]

According to any test I've taken, I'm also an INTJ. But I love being in relationships with men, challenges be damned. It's rewarding to me to see into another person's inner space, although I do find it difficult to get there, either due to my own walls or an inability to grasp what theirs are. But I've only been able to "get better" at relationships due to time and learning and knowing that most will fail to meet my needs or expectations. It's okay that most of my relationships will "fail" because I've only learned through them what is reasonable for my desires and expectations to be.

 

I also try to not judge all men (or women) as the same. Because they aren't. At all. If you approach all women as trying to connive you, you will never attract one that isn't. Because she'll see pretty quickly how you're already judging her and she'll be outta there.

 

If you don't want a relationship, that's fine. If you look, there are women that feel the way you do. But if you refuse to meet your expectations with reality, you won't get what you want. If you want a woman that is ridiculously hot in the traditional sense, super fun, but totally non-committal and will desire absolutely 0% emotional input for her 100% sexual output, you might as well be looking for a unicorn in the woods. That's one thing many of us learn as we "practice" relationships. At 15, I wanted a super hot guy that would 100% accept my craziness and demands, never leave me no matter what I revealed, and fulfill all of my sexual desires. But that man seriously does not exist, and with 10 years of experience behind me, that's no longer what I want. And I don't feel like I've "given up" who I am for changing my expectations or desires. It's just part of growing up and seeing that I fit into the world...the world doesn't fit into me.

 

Again, I'm not saying you have to "come to the dark side" of monogamy. It doesn't work for everyone, nor does it have to. There's another sort of beauty to living a life on your own terms. But you have to understand that you only get out what you put in. Even a FWB would want to know that you find them a compelling individual, even if all you two do is have sex. "Hey, I see you as a super sexy person that I am comfortable sharing my body with. It's great we both don't want anything serious, but I'm glad I can laugh with you because sex is messy and funny. I'm glad that you are listening to my desires, and seeing me as a person to experience this part of life with, not just as a breathing blow up doll." If that's not something you want to hear, you're only going to find bad sexual partners or a woman who is avoiding her desire for monogamy.

 

If you want completely emotionally detached sex, you won't get that with a FWB. But then you won't get the best sex that only comes from sustained practice. So you really do need to put in some emotional input, at least in some fashion. If your FWB wants to talk about her lame day at work before getting it on, don't think "ugh, god, how dare you have the need to connect with me." Sex and emotions really are part and parcel of the deal. They don't have to be romantic, they can be platonic, but they are still there. And both are difficult to traverse. It's what happens when people interact with one another, and there is literally nothing that will change that.

 

To answer your question, if there is a relationship construct for you, I do think you should keep exploring polyamory. I know it overlaps often with non-vanilla sex, but that's because it often draws people that are already deconstructing the taboo of not wanting monogamy. But I'm sure there are polyamorous people that aren't needing to swing off the walls during sex. The thing is, you're only going to find them if you just keep looking and allowing yourself to "fail" occasionally with your potential pairings.

[quirky]

In a cold, purely social-Darwinism sense, I fear you're correct. All I have to offer is sex and attention, and the vast majority of women can get that from any guy. That's the floor, not the ceiling

 

ideally, I'd like to be a poly woman's third or fourth boyfriend. Not even second boyfriend; that's too much commitment for me

 

 

Too funny ! !

 

Your cynicism and the futility emanating from your posts is hilarious. You are very self aware though which I think is really good.

[Blue Spiral]

If you want a woman that is ridiculously hot in the traditional sense, super fun, but totally non-committal and will desire absolutely 0% emotional input for her 100% sexual output, you might as well be looking for a unicorn in the woods.

 

As I said earlier, I'd rather have nothing than a flawed something. If I can't get what I truly want, what's the point? It's just a depressing reminder that I don't have what I want. Better to just give up and enjoy other things.

 

Sex and emotions really are part and parcel of the deal.

 

Not for me.

[Blue Spiral]

Too funny ! !

 

Your cynicism and the futility emanating from your posts is hilarious. You are very self aware though which I think is really good.

 

Thank you. Sadly, I'm being totally serious.

 

As for the third or fourth boyfriend comment: ironically, my ideal type of relationship could fit with something that I can't ethically live with, and that's being the Other Man. Talk about low-commitment. A secret relationship that's more fantasy than reality, where you mainly just have sex and don't interact on a day-to-day basis, and thus don't have to deal with the practical difficulties of life and maintaining relationships...yes, that sounds ideal. But, obviously, I can't do it. And several women have tried to lure me into it. I don't have much in the way of willpower, but I managed to resist, somehow.

 

(Random Blue Spiral Fact: when I was in high school, I had the requisite daydreams about girls I went to school with...but the relationships I imagined were always, always, always secret. I must have subconsciously known I wouldn't be able to handle the social component. And, even when I had my girlfriends as an adult, I was never really public with them. I never introduced them to my family or vice-versa, we never "went out" in a formal sense, etc. In an isolated, perfectly-controlled environment, I can be monogamous for a while. In the wilds of the outside world, however, I have no chance whatsoever, as I can barely handle the one-on-one aspect of relationships, let alone the "how you interact with everyone else as a couple" aspect.)

[quirky]

How do you keep a job if you struggle so much with social interaction? Or do you struggle with the social interaction only when it comes to relationships, is it the same with friendships too?

[Reflective82]

I guess it's a toss up of will giving up make you happier because you don't have to bother trying to get FWB, which you say is too much effort, or will giving up and not having any FWB make you more miserable than the trying? Those are the choices you seem to be debating...only you can answer it...

[Reflective82]

I'd also like to point out that Blue Spiral is right about women becoming more successful and having trouble finding men that meet their standards- it is actually written about a lot that these days, there are more "quality" women than men-- all of my female friends are "dating down" either by looks, wealth or standing. In terms of pure sex, women can get "higher" but actually I would say there aren't enough high quality men to go around the high quality women, and so I disagree with some of the stuff in this thread about men settling- in my opinion it's women who have to settle more. There are way more great single women than great single men....

[Batya33]

I'd also like to point out that Blue Spiral is right about women becoming more successful and having trouble finding men that meet their standards- it is actually written about a lot that these days, there are more "quality" women than men-- all of my female friends are "dating down" either by looks, wealth or standing. In terms of pure sex, women can get "higher" but actually I would say there aren't enough high quality men to go around the high quality women, and so I disagree with some of the stuff in this thread about men settling- in my opinion it's women who have to settle more. There are way more great single women than great single men....

 

Pick me! Pick me! I had an intense career -one of those "high quality" types as you describe it (not sure I would). And if I had thought of it as "dating down" I'd probably be single right now. I didn't end up marrying "down" (as you define it -I don't!) and most of the time I had no problem at all meeting men who had similar careers/ambitions/education, etc (and most often I thought they were smarter than me) -I didn't think of it as "dating down" -I did need someone who was at least as or more intelligent than me so we would have enough in common. The issue isn't settling for "down" the issue is thinking of someone who makes less money than you or perhaps chose a less prestigious career as "down" or "lower quality" -if someone feels that way that's probably going to be the main issue as to why they're not meeting good matches -it's not too "high quality" to have that kind of attitude IMO.

[Reflective82]

You probably had a good time of meeting men who had similar careers and ambitions because you met them through work though- I work in a female dominated environment so it is harder to meet men like that.

 

I didn't mean someone with a lower paid job is necessarily lower quality as a person, but it is "dating down" in terms of hte traditional structure which has always been that women marry a guy who is the breadwinner. If women don't want todo that that is fine, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting that and wanting a guy who has a good job, and a stable income. My point is that there are now so many successful women that finding someone you see as an equal can be hard. Personally I would see marrying someone who earns less than me as marrying down and I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of - unfortunately money and income do have a vast impact on life

[Batya33]

LOL! You're wrong on the first count -I did meet my husband through work but I met my other serious relationships unrelated to work. The awesome thing about being a career woman with a good income - you can build a nest egg so that if you marry someone who makes less than you do, you can still stay home full time with a child, if you like, because you can supplement the family income with your savings and work at home full time raising your child longer. Most of my friends and people I know no longer do the "traditional structure" -and you are assuming that those who do don't kick in money from their assets/savings.

 

As far as someone making less than you -let's see -so if you worked for a private company making X salary you wouldn't marry a guy in a prestigious government job (I don't know -governor? mayor? senator?) or a professor at a renowned university or a nuclear scientist working for a lab because -gasp -his take home pay was lower than yours? That's not about marrying down IMO except in dollar signs.

 

Money and income have a vast impact in life and on marriage -completely agree -but we were talking about your view about "marrying down" not about whether money and income impact life. What I think has a huge impact on being single when a person wants to be married is when a person takes the views you described about marrying "down" because someone makes less money or "marrying down" because the wife might need to either work outside the home or contribute from savings or assets to support a lifestyle the couple would like.

[radiohead20]

I'd also like to point out that Blue Spiral is right about women becoming more successful and having trouble finding men that meet their standards- it is actually written about a lot that these days, there are more "quality" women than men-- all of my female friends are "dating down" either by looks, wealth or standing. In terms of pure sex, women can get "higher" but actually I would say there aren't enough high quality men to go around the high quality women, and so I disagree with some of the stuff in this thread about men settling- in my opinion it's women who have to settle more. There are way more great single women than great single men....

 

At the expense of sounding like a braggart, I make over 83000 in a career I love (women love financial stability), own my own place, am completely independent, like to have fun and people seem to enjoy my company, dress well (have to for work and it spills over into my personal life), and am very physically fit, and I just turned 27.

 

Yet, I find it extremely difficult to attract a women that is my "equal" - and it is mainly because I do not look masculine, one factor destroys everything.

 

Women date "down" because attraction depends more on biological impulse qualities (Masculine appearance, leader of the pack, extreme confidence) rather than qualities for which people judge "standards" by, except for looks. So yes, its seems like they are dating "down" because they are fewer high quality men but the fact is that they are dating down because they CHOOSE to date down. There are plenty of high quality men that women reject because what people deem as "Quality" has little to do with sexual attraction. Education has little to do with sexual attraction. Money has little to do with sexual attraction (unless you are making 150,000k +), stability and the ability to have fun has little to do with sexual attraction. And sexual attraction is the primary motivator behind choice.

 

Here is what probably happens when your female friends go out (Ok it may not be what happens to your circle but I have seem in countless times in all others, so I feel like I have a good hunch here ;P)

 

They probably go out, get dressed up (could be a restaurant, bar, club, social function...doesnt matter), and then get approached by a guy that is average/alright looking but has a decent sense of style. He just says "hi" and starts a random conservation like normal person would to any stranger. He isn't ultra smooth or super super fit or is a super charismatic storyteller because he would rather spend his time on other things, like maybe his family or his career/passions. So you immediately dismiss him as "nice" and "pleasant" without bothering to really get to know his core. Maybe he runs a non-profit or is a leader or a high profile person in his field or in his passion, but he is not going to outright say it to you. He's pretty "vanilla" at first impression. Then later some 6 foot 2 tall guy with an ultra confident gaze and walk chats up with you. You can tell he is "dangerous" since he is good looking and feel like he knows how to talk to women and attract them. Yet know its "bad" but you cannot resist your biological impulses. Attraction takes over you and you immediately start flirting and get his number. You have no idea what he does for a living or his situation or how much he makes, or any of the "qualities" that you judge your girlfriends' guys by because you are overcome with carnal desire. You immediately get his number and cannot wait to meet up with him. the "pleasant" guy you met earlier completely skips your mind. Later you find out that the 6 foot 2 tall guy is a waiter that spends his time mastering the art of picking up women and really does nothing else of value in his free time. While the "vanilla" guy you talked to earlier owns a non-profit and just came back from Africa to help build a clean water system for a village of 5,000 people. He also has a side business and has a tiny tiny little gut (but nothing too bad) because he has not had time to workout regularly since he is so busy with his passion of helping others. he makes over 125,000 a year.

 

Ok purely hypothetical, but it is a model for what I see on a consistent basis. my point is that the "VANILLA" guy is objectively way more impressive if you were to brag to your friends but the qualities he possesses has nothing to do with sexual attraction. And successful women are going to place more a crutch on sexual attraction than stability/niceness etc. They don't need financial stability, they have their own careers.

[Reflective82]

Oh yes I know people don't JUST meet through work but I have to admit I sometimes feel jealous of my friends who work in law and finance and have met their partners there- the men are lovely people, and great "catches" in terms of job. Through work does seem a good way to meet men. I do totally know women can be the breadwinner it just wouldn't be something I would want at all, I am quite traditional.

 

I have to be honest, no I would not want to marry a guy who makes less than me. You're right, it isn't marrying down in terms of them being a lower quality person, but in shallow terms, people are judged by career, income, looks- eg middle class, upper class- the class system does exist and different affluence groups in terms of income. My ex and I did sometimes disagree on money and even though he earned more than me his tastes were not the same, he didn't enjoy going to nice restaurants and to expensive places which he deemed "poncy" so I think I do need a guy who likes those things.

 

What I mean about "marrying down" isn't that the women are marrying a guy who is below them, but they are marrying down in that they are marrying someone who earns less so it isn't the same as the old days where often a woman from a working class poor family would marry up into wealth. Marrying down isn't also just about income- it is irrelevant if the woman is happy. But socially, I think there are now a lot of women who are good looking, well groomed, mature, with a great career and socially very well rounded- with interests and talents. There is a smaller pool of men like this. Hence in the Sex & The City episodes (aware not everyone likes it) "Why are there so many great unmarried women and no great unmarried men?"

 

These days, a lot of women's standards are higher because we are educated and earn a salary. In the old days, a plumber would do because he was still an up on nothing as you were a housewife!

 

I do agree with your stance that it keeps you single for longer- if I wasn't bothered about income, education, manners etc I could have found a guy by now, but I am not going to lie I DO want a guy who I find really impressive. It is going to take me longer to find him and I am well aware that men like this can have their pick of women....I totally agree on the wife working, I do plan to always work albeit part time when I have kids

[Blue Spiral]

How do you keep a job if you struggle so much with social interaction? Or do you struggle with the social interaction only when it comes to relationships, is it the same with friendships too?

 

My job doesn't involve much social interaction, thank god. But I struggle with it in that context, as well.

[Reflective82]

Radiohead

 

Hmm, you raise some interesting points. I do agree that women go for confidence and "masculine" qualities, but not ALL women. Women may CHOOSE to date down but I would argue that is because after years of being single, they think that they won't find this guy of their dreams- my friends in relationships who I think could do better, do love their men, but I think they acknowledge that they are sometimes mismatched in that a couple of my friends earn double their partners and a lot of women however modern the world, do not think that is ideal.

 

Also, re your waiter vs pleasant guy analogy, yes no one can deny that at FIRST the woman is attracted to the waiter but neither I or my friends would date a waiter (sorry if that sounds shallow, I know it sort of is) and the men that we want long term ARE the vanilla type of guy you describe. We have dated these charismatic bad boys and been hurt by them so now we avoid them- there does still need to be chemistry but most successful women would go for a vanilla stable guy as long as there was some attraction there, than a super charming waiter

[Blue Spiral]

I'd also like to point out that Blue Spiral is right about women becoming more successful and having trouble finding men that meet their standards- it is actually written about a lot that these days, there are more "quality" women than men-- all of my female friends are "dating down" either by looks, wealth or standing. In terms of pure sex, women can get "higher" but actually I would say there aren't enough high quality men to go around the high quality women, and so I disagree with some of the stuff in this thread about men settling- in my opinion it's women who have to settle more. There are way more great single women than great single men....

 

I wouldn't say "great"--I don't think that material success has anything to do with how "great" someone is. But, yes, I read an article claiming that marriage is turning into something that's mainly done by financially-secure people, while everyone else just lives together and has kids out of wedlock, as the expectations that go along with marriage are just too expensive to meet. (That's another reason I got out of the relationship game, heh. When some girl would tell me that I didn't meet her expectations, my reaction would be "Screw that, I've got better things to do with my time" rather than "omg I need to 'man up' and impress this girl, just like the protagonist in a romcom would...")

 

tl;dr, have fun finding an equal from a shrinking pool of monogamous men, I'm going to be over here doing the things I enjoy doing, as opposed to the things other people think I should enjoy doing.

[Blue Spiral]

Also: in 2013, men have to settle in terms of looks, while women have to settle in terms of ambition. Fifty years ago, it was the opposite, with women accepting that they were stuck marrying the boy next door or the first guy they slept with at college (as opposed to the alpha male bad boy they saw at the malt shop), while men married their barely-educated secretaries.

[Reflective82]

Go for it Blue Personally I wish I didn't need a relationship to make me happy, but I really do enjoy them when they are good.

 

Do you really think men have to settle for looks? I think women look better than ever for longer these days with all the increased grooming and plastic surgery available....better than the old days!

[Blue Spiral]

Go for it Blue Personally I wish I didn't need a relationship to make me happy, but I really do enjoy them when they are good.

 

In all seriousness, I don't think it's good that you need a relationship to be happy. I realize that's the norm for most people, but I subscribe to the "we should be able to make ourselves happy" philosophy. When I was younger (a long, long time ago in a strange age, when ex-Mickey Mouse Club popstars ruled the earth, Y2K was a major concern, and Buffy was a college freshman), I thought I needed a relationship to make me happy...but I quickly realized that it was just a band-aid, and that I needed to do that work myself.

 

Do you really think men have to settle for looks? I think women look better than ever for longer these days with all the increased grooming and plastic surgery available....better than the old days!

 

The average 2013 forty-year-old woman is definitely hotter than the average 1953 forty-year-old woman. I credit the advent of bikinis and more revealing clothing ("Crap, it's almost summer, time to lose that weight again"), divorce ("Time to hit the gym and get in husband-finding shape"), and healthier living/modern medicine. But, yes, I really think that men have to settle for looks. Many men can't go economically "up", so we have to settle for looks "down". As you've said, women have higher expectations, now, and not all men can meet those expectations, so we have to settle in other areas.

[Batya33]

Yes, you will have to wait longer and that's your choice -but if you really believe that a guy's salary being less than yours means you are marrying down you will have an uphill battle because you will be seen as a gold digger, especially by men who are more educated than you and chose to work for the public sector in a job more prestigious than yours (if we're talking in terms of prestige, education level, etc, not just about money). And consider that if your high earner loses his job and takes a job making less than you make are you then settling in your marriage for being with someone "below" you? I have a friend like you. She is brilliant, all-IVY -grad degree is IVY too, works in a male-dominated career/profession in NYC. By contrast to you she does not want to work once she has children and like you the man has to be very impressive in terms of income. She's also very attractive and in great shape. I met her in 1999 when we were in our early 30s. She'd been engaged once in her 20s but broke it off. In the last 14 years she's had a number of somewhat long term relationships, pursued several men who met her standards who weren't that into her -and now, drum roll, she is 47.

 

She still is very attractive but really who's going to take a chance on dating her if that person wants biological children? Take her story as a real caution to what your approach and attitude is. Boy do the years go fast (and by the way I set her up a number of times and offered to set her up with even more men -she's also picky about height by the way). From what I can tell she's not had a serious relationship in about 5-7 years. And she still lives in NYC in the highest rent district.

 

Look -you're entitled to the standards you have for the reasons you give - but then I personally don't think you're entitled to complain much about how hard it is to meet someone.

[radiohead20]

I will phrase it this way: There have been women attracted to my physical type (un-masculine looking), but they are extremely rare. It makes it much more difficult. I probably get overtly "hit on" probably a few times a year maximum, and it is usually older women (40's 50's) or overweight women. I can count on one hand the amount of women that are my age and in decent shape that have overtly hit on me in my lifetime. Let me ask you, are your friends that are "Settling" down attractive physically? My gut instinct is that if they are, there should be no reason they should be settling. Attractive women are approached constantly and it would only be time before they would get approached by a well put together high quality guy.

 

you know, its actually weird, because the only area physically I am un-masculine looking is my face (I am 175 10-12% bodyfat - been bodybuilding a few years). But I guess the face is the primary area where it matters. Similarly, I could not find a bikini model attractive no matter how nice her body was if she had a "butterface". My friend who has a nicely cut jaw and facial hair but is super skinny and pale gets WAY more attention than me, even though he is pretty shy.

[Batya33]

In all seriousness, I don't think it's good that you need a relationship to be happy. I realize that's the norm for most people, but I subscribe to the "we should be able to make ourselves happy" philosophy. When I was younger (a long, long time ago in a strange age, when ex-Mickey Mouse Club popstars ruled the earth, Y2K was a major concern, and Buffy was a college freshman), I thought I needed a relationship to make me happy...but I quickly realized that it was just a band-aid, and that I needed to do that work myself."

 

 

I am really impressed with your insight and how you express it, for what it's worth! A question - how much of your decision - if any -is based on (consciously or sub-consciously) -knowing that you don't have a biological clock, in case you change your mind, and that of course aging for men doesn't raise the same issues in the dating world as it does for women? Maybe your answer is not at all -but I'm curious.

[Reflective82]

I know it isn't- I have done a lot of work in the last year and now would say I am 60% happy being single- but to me it just doesn't compare to that lovely feeling of having someone who you are so close to, being in love....etc. You are very happy being single so it doesn't affect you, but I'm just not that independent. I have a full and varied life on my own but it just seems sad I have no one to share it with.

 

See, it's better to live in 2013 than 1953 I guess if that's what you've seen fair enough, but I definitely don't see couples where the man is better looking often. Not ALL women want high earning men, some women don't care, and a lot of women don't care about looks, I have seen some really pretty girls with not great looking guys, but the guy did have something else, personality, he made her laugh, they got on well etc.....I think the reason you say you struggle is because you don't want to expend effort. I bet if you did you would have no problem, but then I don't know what your standard of hot is....if it's supermodel hot then yes I am sure those women are really hard to get

[Reflective82]

Most women don't hit on men though- even if I see a guy I like, I would not hit on him, so you can't judge it like that.

 

And women aren't always approached by high quality men- yes sometimes, but a lot of sleazy guys are the ones that hit on you. The "high quality" men don't always need to and they are often taken.

 

I get your points I'm just saying it's not as easy for women as you think, I have tons of gorgeous girl friends who are single and don't get chatted up that much- and yes they are pretty attractive, 8 out of 10.

[Reflective82]

I disagree about the gold digger analogy- most women I know would not be happy earning the bigger salary- I personally don't think it creates a healthy dynamic either as a lot of men would be emasculated. I'm also not saying that the guy earning a good salary is the sole factor- hell, if it was I could easily have stuck with some guys I dated earlier this year, but I didn't feel a spark so I broke it off. Perhaps I am asking for too much- a guy with a good salary who I also am crazy about and feel a spark with. Unfortunately myself and my female friends feel we should be able to find this, but maybe not, maybe you're right,

 

Luckily (or not luckily) for me, I would have to be pretty unlucky to have a guy who earns less than me, as at 27 years old I am on 35,000 a year (english pounds)- it isn't rich by any stretch.

 

I have thought about what I would do if I am single in my 30s and obviously I would have to re assess then and decide that what I want isn't out there, or I haven't found it yet and adjust my expectations. A lot more women than they admit do this. I feel sad for your friend as it seems a shame she couldn't find what she wanted- but this is exactly what I meant by women having to "date down"- she can't find the good quality mate she wanted so she would have to settle or be single.

[Blue Spiral]

I am really impressed with your insight and how you express it, for what it's worth! A question - how much of your decision - if any -is based on (consciously or sub-consciously) -knowing that you don't have a biological clock, in case you change your mind, and that of course aging for men doesn't raise the same issues in the dating world as it does for women? Maybe your answer is not at all -but I'm curious.

 

Thank you. To answer your question, my (lack of a) biological clock is a non-factor, as I've truly never wanted kids. I suppose I may take it for granted that I could always change my mind, but I've never consciously thought about it. And, let me say, I really, really dislike what I call "biological realists": the people who try to lord women's biological clocks over them. I'm not saying you're doing that (I think you're wise to encourage Reflective to keep her standards realistic), but I've seen it elsewhere on ENA. "How dare you have a career or try to enjoy sex, don't you know that women turn into pumpkins when the clock strikes 30?? You'd better get breeding!" Good lord, as if only men are allowed to enjoy professional/hedonistic things. I hope that modern medicine helps enable women to have children at older and older ages. Despite what some say, I'm not anti-women, I'm pro-fairness, which is why I dislike men's cultural role in dating/relationships (having to ask women out, pay, etc.). And it also applies to the biological clock issue. It isn't fair for women to have to deal with that, and I hope that technology/biochemistry can help even things up a bit.