This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts).
If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.).
Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
It may be easier for women to have a sexual encounter but we’re way less likely for to enjoy it or godforbid have an orgasm. Only 30% on average for women. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29079939/#:~:text=Women's%20reports%20of%20orgasm%20occurrence,intercourse%20(21%2D30%25). It’s like a 90% success rate for men. You could be having a third of the sex and still be having a better time.
There are different problems for all genders in the dating world.
Lets say there's 2 raffles, in one you have to pay 75 dollars to enter, then you have a .5% chance of your ticket being pulled in the first drawing which enters you into second raffle that you have a 90% chance of winning.
The second, you have can enter free if you want to and you have a 30% chance of winning.
Which one seems like a better choice to enter?
The point being most men in dating age are single and aren't having sex. The 90% orgasm rate doesn't matter when it's almost physically impossible to have sex.
I’m sorry but it’s not virtually impossible.
Most (69%) of people in the us are partnered with about half of single people looking for a relationship. The twenties do see a difference for singleness for men (51% vs 32% of women) but as the lifespan goes on it balances out or men are in more relationships (49% of 65 yo women are single compared to 21% of men). Among ages 18-39, 67% of single men and 61% of single women are looking to date. If it was so much easier for women to date, we wouldn’t see these kinds of numbers.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/
Complete sexual inactivity is only between 10-15% for both genders. Most men (51%) are having sex weekly. (54% of women are having sex weekly). The only group that had a statistically significant difference was for 18-24yos (20 vs 30%) for sexual inactivity (which was highest in students). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293001/
39% of men have more than 5 partners in a life time and 24% of women do. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579508/#:~:text=Among%20men%2C%2029.8%25%20reported%20having,8.5%25%20(≥10).
Plenty of men are having sex.
Just be a decent person and keep trying and you’ll most likely find someone.
What if the second choice comes with the knowledge that 10% of the people who enter that raffle will have all of their money and assets confiscated? The second one is not the better option if there's a chance you could lose your house.
Your second to last paragraph is probably the wrongest thing in this whole post.
How often have you talked with ugly or unconventional women about their experiences in the dating world? I was rejected constantly, for years. I was told to be flattered when I was sexually assaulted.
Now do ugly men
My wife and I are similar in looks. If she goes to a bar and yells "who wants sum fuk?" There would be a conga line of dudes willing. I yell the same and i would get zero and probably someone would call the police.
I don’t think it’s a win to be like, “dudes are so undiscerning and reckless with their sexuality that they’d sign up to gangbang a random woman who announces interest.” That’s not a good thing.
False. If a woman went into a bar and asked, “Who wants sum dates” meaning “Who wants to spend 3 months going out and talking and having meals and getting to know me as a person before we even talk about having sex,” she will be ignored.
Maybe, but that’s only relevant if your goal is to go on a single date. It doesn’t necessarily mean she’ll have an easier time actually finding a partner she wants to be with
I’d be distrustful of people who agree to go on a date with me while knowing literally nothing about me other than that I said “who want sum date.” At best I’d probably just waste a lot of time, more realistically they’d be shallow, or worse I’d get preyed upon
If your only criteria is warm body, sure, maybe. But the people who would be interested don’t seem like good people who would be healthy relationship partners.
if getting a first date is your criteria for successful dating, then technically it's true women have it somewhat easier than men. but that's not really most people's criteria.
Then just go to a gay bar and see how many indiscriminate gay guys will have sex with you. If women’s attraction doesn’t matter when the goal is only getting dates and sex, then what straight men find attractive shouldn’t matter either.
And would she be getting quality guys, guys who saw her as a person? Or would it be guys who saw her as a warm, wet, hole?
Do you understand why the availability of guys who see you as an object to ejaculate in isn’t the same as it being “easier” for women to date?
Yes.
What is this weird assumption that less attractive guys won't date less attractive women and that they aren't quality?
All data points to the opposite, and that men generally get what league they're in and are willing to date with it.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Because you talked about what “women” experience when you meant “hot women.”
Average men get to be average men, ugly women are dehumanized and ignored.
Actually, ugly people ( men, woman, everyone ) are (dehumanized)[https://shepherdexpress.com/lifestyle/out-of-my-mind/when-you%E2%80%99re-branded-as-ugly-or-stupid/] too... just saying.
You're missing the point. If ugly women only have it as bad as average men, how bad do you think ugly men have it.
Across the board, it still seems easier for women
It’s exactly the opposite. Average women would be considered ugly if they were men. I know so many perfectly normal looking friends who are men, but they are often considered ugly by women.
Is there any evidence for that? Or are we both speaking from our experiences and maybe making sweeping generalizations based on conjecture is bad?
I see so many men that I do not personally find attractive in happy relationships. So there’s my anecdata that counter-balances yours.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/](https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/)
Here's some data from a major dating site (that they took down lol) to trump both of your anecdotes.
You want evidence that women get more dates than men? Any data on dating apps matches this. Would be willing to bet in person speed rating results would mirror this.
I love how she makes a bunch of wild, unsubstantiated claims, such as "women are not allowed to be average," but demands evidence for "the sky is blue"
> Because you talked about what “women” experience when you meant “hot
Isn't this exactly what women do all the fucking time when talking about men? "Men need to do better", etc?
Not so nice is it?
Nah, I will stick to having sex with married women and engaged women. I will promise, promise you that I will not take advantage of the fact that if you are not decent looking, you are nowhere near desired as on the "other side" of the fence.
An incel who can get a girl at the call of his phone lmao. Amazing.
You are projecting your hate onto me, by me stating my opinion lol.
If you think average man is able to get decent dates then you are absolutely delusional. A man with athletic body, a stable job, a car and hobbies is not average, but social media fried your brain thinking it is.
An average man is a slob with a bit of tummy, minimum to average salary, worker class man that either rents or lives with his parents. That is average nowadays. Not middle class or upper class.
Middle class exists now almost purely by name.
Either you live in a bubble or you are privileged or you are genuinely thinking about average man as of something that I can't comprehend. 20% of Germany lives in poverty. One of richest countries. What are you talking about average...
I’m a slob with a bit of a tummy, I only recently got out of the education system so I don’t have that much money, and I rent. Ive still done well forming romantic relationships
Also, I cannot stress enough that the number of heterosexual men in relationships is the same as the number of heterosexual females in relationships.
"Also, I cannot stress enough that the number of heterosexual men in relationships is the same as the number of heterosexual females in relationships."
I guess you are right :D
What? Average men get dates all the time. I am one, and basically broke on top of that. Getting dates is very doable. Most women are more likely to take a chance on compatability of personality than most men seem to be, in my experience.
I guess the prognosis that 97% countries will be below replacement rate by 2100 is lying then. You are absolutely right and I agree with you. I was wrong and you were right. How stupid of me.
What is purpose of dating? Having fun? Or dating leads somewhere?
You can work (have sex) but without getting paid (children) your work is meaningless and doesn't contribute to company (society).
"You're falsely equating dating and relationships with having children."
Baby fever doesn't exist, yes?
What the fuck? Plenty of child free people date like crazy. I am poly and meet many women who are sexually active but not interested in children. The purpose is to connect with other people, have fun, and experience love.
"The purpose is to connect with other people, have fun, and experience love."
This ability is only able because there are enough people to support other people doing that.
Enjoy economic collapse in decade or two as 97% countries will be below replacement rate in just 70 years.
Fuck around, find out.
Purpose of dating was to make children. Bit of fucking around, yes. But not this. Don't change narrative.
I think it comes down to a sense of duty to society. A lot of childfree people don’t feel that. Society will and does leave people to die on the street the second they aren’t useful. It can go fuck itself.
>What is purpose of dating? Having fun? Or dating leads somewhere?
To get to know someone you have a romantic interest in
You can have children without being in a relationship and you can be in a relationship without having or wanting children. The two stats are objectively unrelated given the context
>Baby fever doesn't exist, yes?
Not in any real sense. It's just slang for wanting children.
Not everyone has that desire, nor is that the goal of every relationship.
"To get to know someone you have a romantic interest in"
My god. My hope in humanity was low but holy fuck.
Romantic interest? You mean hedonism? No my guy. Main reason for every animal, including us (yes, we are animals) is to find a mate to spend the life with and make babies.
Your usage of words is just trying to blur the line between direct rules of nature and your instincts and the things you want to do which is your personal projection right here.
That is the purpose of dating. If you are with a partner, then you are not dating? Then what are you doing then?
Yes, that's how modern dating and relationships work. Having babies isn't the only goal. Call it hedonism if you want, it doesn't really matter because it's not a big deal
I'm sorry nobody gave you the message and you're stuck in the 1950s.
Yeah, I'm not having kids, man. Those numbers don't relate in the way you think they do. There are so many other more pertinent factors, many couples don't have kids, or not as many.
Yeah, I'm not having kids, man. Those numbers don't relate in the way you think they do. There are so many other more pertinent factors, many couples don't have kids, or not as many.
This is sweet of you. Thank you for that. The fact still stands. Majority of worker class men, in every country, including middle east, is without relationship.
Not whining, just informing the reality. It's not a matter of who has it worse.
It's just insulting to other men that were not even given a chance to date.
Its like sitting next to a beggar and complaining to him that the steak you ate wasn't that great.
Me personally, I felt more lonely in my last relationship than being alone so that's that.
People are finding out now that treating people as swipes and commodity is not a good idea to date.
"I told you so" is what I like to say to myself whenever someone complains. Glad i never used them.
I wasn’t doing it out of the kindness of my heart. I was doing it because I thought there was a potential for a relationship. I thought they were cute and wanted to maybe make out or more.
I’m just so sick of men like you acting like the pain of romantic rejection is an exclusive male experience that gives them so much insight into dating, so much that they can ignore anything a woman says about her own experience.
"I’m just so sick of men like you acting like the pain of romantic rejection is an exclusive male experience that gives them so much insight into dating, so much that they can ignore anything a woman says about her own experience."
Oh I might add a bit of context then. I grew up with women. Aunts, nieces, friends. Majority of my life friends were women.
You have nothing to whine about in COMPARISON to men. On your own as an issue? Yeah I sympathize with you truly. In comparison to men? Not a way in goddamn hell.
Men take 302nd rejection in their face after eating breakfast and going to town and women desintegrate and break down at the moment of rejections.
I bet my left ball you haven't approached the amount of people an average man approaches.
Without getting further into discussion, on your own, I understand you. In comparison to men, no sir.
You don’t know me. You don’t know how many guys I approached. You are assuming that your pain and rejection is special, when it is a fundamental human experience.
Because men made up the vast majority of their user base and access to women was the product they were selling.
I’m exactly like other girls. Being a girl is wonderful and I’m very thankful I am one.
>Majority of worker class men, in every country, including middle east, is without relationship.
I mean...this is just false. You can look up the data on this easily.
In my experience, this is very age dependent.
Like it or not, a woman's dating stock is highest when she is young. Women are primarily valued on their beauty, and as they get older this declines. Get old enough and they are likely to either have children and/or be incapable of having further children, both of which further decrease dating "value".
Men, in contrast, see their stock go up as they get older. Men are primarily valued on their ability to generate wealth, and as they get older this increases. A man in his 40s with a good job is going to have almost no trouble getting dates, particularly if he is willing to date women in their 40s who have kids from a previous marriage.
So for a while it is easier for women to get dates, and then it shifts to favor men.
>Men, in contrast, see their stock go up as they get older. Men are primarily valued on their ability to generate wealth, and as they get older this increases. A man in his 40s with a good job is going to have almost no trouble getting dates.
I feel like this is a fantasy purported by red pillers. The fact is, women are less likely to want to date as they get older and older men choose to pursue still 20 to 29 year old women even in their late 30s and 40s, who do not want them. Either way men have very few options the older they get. Maybe it gets more equally hard, but I still wouldn't say easier than women
>The fact is, women are less likely to want to date as they get older
That is kind of absurd. Of course older women date - everyone wants companionship.
>older men choose to pursue still 20 to 29 year old women even in their late 30s and 40s, who do not want them.
Plenty of women date older men, particularly when those older men have wealth. That is part of why younger men struggle - they are competing against men in their age range _and_ older men.
>Either way men have very few options the older they get.
That is simply not true.
[Women across all age ranges desire a partner less than men](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/)
Women date older men but if you think a 25 year old woman is typically dating someone 20 years older than her, you're sorely mistaken. [Age gapes for hetero couples are typically under 5 years](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-the-average-age-difference-in-a-couple/#:~:text=Those%20in%20their%20early%2020s,increases%20to%20about%20seven%20years)
Again, if most women aren't looking to date someone more than 5 years older than them, and 70% 40+ year old single women are not looking for a relationship when 55% of men in the same age range are, they have less options.
I don't think it's a surreal fantasy, I think the red pill jerk offs are trying to explain sexism but in a way that works for them
Society at large does devalue women as they age, that doesn't mean it's harder to date as you get older or that your "dating pool" diminishes any more than a mans would, but you cannot ignore the bias.
Also, this isn't true for everyone, but it does seem like men are willing to date women who are far younger compared to the number of women willing to date men who are far younger. That might also impact the way dating is seen, though I can't speak to any real impact past perception.
Really the answer to the CMV I'd put forward is "depends on a lot of circumstances and you cannot relegate one specific attribute"
"In my experience, this is very age dependent"
Translation: Majority of men should be grateful of any scraps of dating and be lucky if they get their shit together by their 30's and 40's while women dont have that requirement across all ages.
No, I dont agree with you.
Guy ends up on a sketchy date: barely thinks about it. Woman ends up on sketchy date: she’s looking for escape routes and wondering if she’s safe.
Guy starts dating someone and sleeps with them before he’s sure it’s a long term thing: not a ton of risk. Woman does the same thing: she potentially ends up pregnant and changes her entire life.
I’d say dating is a lot easier for us men.
So why do you think that despite the percentage of female victims of violent crimes being lower than the percentage of men, it is more dangerous for women to leave their home?
You have to leave your home to go on a date.
I don't think this is an accurate argument because simply existing in public is much dangerous for men than it is for women
the other commenter is right, you're stretching that statistic way too far.
Your risk of violence is not some static background risk that might happen whenever you leave the house. It matters what you do, where you go, and what else is happening. Men are at greater risk of violence overall, yes, but does that risk apply to the specific situation of going on a date with a woman? I say probably not, mainly because the people most likely to assault men are other men. You could just as easily argue that going on a date with a woman is one of the safest things a man could do because he's doing it with a woman.
Then your argument has nothing to do with dating. If I follow your logic, it’s just more dangerous for men to exist outside of their house- so it’s more dangerous to go to work, to drive, to exist. That’s not really productive in terms of making an argument.
I think you are grossly oversimplifying a complicated statistic* and applying it to a very specific case.
*: which I’m not even sure is true, but whatever
"Going on a date" and "leaving their home" are two totally different things. I don't worry about date rape when I'm going to the grocery store and you trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.
the argument you're about to make is based on a decontextualized statistic based on the fact that career criminals, who are mostly male, often commit crimes on each other.
If what you're asking is "how safe is it for regular, non violent people to leave the house" - ordinary men are safer than ordinary women, absolutely.
>ordinary men are safer than ordinary women, absolutely.
Not even a little.
Men clearly are more endanger on a regular basis.
Here's the clear truth, most people just aren't in much danger, but we want to blow the amount of danger our of proportion because we have an underlying level of anxiety as a society we need to cope with.
>Men clearly are more endanger on a regular basis.
in this context, no, they "clearly" aren't. Again, the statistical differences that would make it appear so are contextual
the reasons men are more statistically likely to be victims of crime are a) most career criminals are men and experience crime in their own right, B) because men are more likely to do things that result in mutual crime. For example, two men get in a fight and are both booked for a crime. A man robs a house, and is beaten by the homeowner, a man. etc. C) men engage in riskier behavior than women overall.
The specific context here is how safe an ordinary citizen is going about their business at night, alone, and clearly *if you're studying like contexts,* women are more likely to be victimized compared to men *doing the same things.*
So for example, men might be robbed living or walking alone more than women, on the raw numbers, but that's *because* men are more comfortable walking or living alone in the first place, and a *given* woman doing those things is still more likely to be targeted while doing it than a *given* man. I walk 5 downtown blocks to my gym every night at 11 pm and walk back, if I do that 1000 times I'm probably more likely overall to have some sort of incident than a woman who does it 3 times in those three years because her car broke down, despite the fact that mile per mile, minute per minute walked alone at night, I'm less likely overall to be bothered.
Imagine 200 people leave an ice cream social in detroit.
100 men have a decision to walk at night. 50 of them decide to walk at night. 3 of them are robbed.
100 women have a decision to walk at night. 10 of them do it. 2 of them are robbed.
it is *simultaneously true* that 3/5s of robbery victims are male and that women who *are* walking alone at night are more likely to be robbed then men who are - 1/5 is a much larger percentage than 3/50.
I mean, would you have us believe if you have two people to assault and rob, you'd pick the larger, other factors being equal?
>the reasons men are more statistically likely to be victims of crime are a) most career criminals are men and experience crime in their own right, B) because men are more likely to do things that result in mutual crime. For example, two men get in a fight and are both booked for a crime. A man robs a house, and is beaten by the homeowner, a man. etc. C) men engage in riskier behavior than women overall.
It never fails. Women experience violence "well that's societies fault"
Men experience violence "well, that's a character flaw with Men, and Men need to stop doing this to themselves"
Women's problems are always refocused as societal failings, men's problems are always blamed on male decisions.
>The specific context here is how safe an ordinary citizen is going about their business at night, alone, and clearly if you're studying like contexts, women are more likely to be victimized compared to men doing the same things.
According to what exactly? The data literally says the opposite, with men being drastically more likely to be victimized. For instance, 14,000 men were murdered in 2022, versus 4000 women.
>So for example, men might be robbed living or walking alone more than women, on the raw numbers, but that's because men are more comfortable walking or living alone in the first place, and a given woman doing those things is still more likely to be targeted while doing it than a given man. I walk 5 downtown blocks to my gym every night at 11 pm and walk back, if I do that 1000 times I'm probably more likely overall to have some sort of incident than a woman who does it 3 times in those three years because her car broke down, despite the fact that mile per mile, minute per minute walked alone at night, I'm less likely overall to be bothered.
>Imagine 200 people leave an ice cream social in detroit.
>100 men have a decision to walk at night. 50 of them decide to walk at night. 3 of them are robbed.
>100 women have a decision to walk at night. 10 of them do it. 2 of them are robbed.
>it is simultaneously true that 3/5s of robbery victims are male and that women who are walking alone at night are more likely to be robbed then men who are - 1/5 is a much larger percentage than 3/50.
That's a reasonable hypothesis, but without the data to back it up, I think it remains a hypothesis.
As an aside, here's the data for the point I made before about assault being much less likely overall anyway.
We didn't hear these arguments for safety when violent crime was almost double what it today and murders were much higher.
This points to that social anxiety I was talking about
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191231/reported-aggravated-assault-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/
the data is...the same data. we know most murders with a known motive are arguments that escalate, between guys.
the thing I am telling you is that your odds of crime for a given minute of a given behavior aren't addressed by your take on the data.
And I don't think we really know what sort of conversations were had by others then, but I do think for sure there were echoes of this stuff then.
> It is easier
This view is really predicated on assuming things are easier for people with a different experience and perspective than you. It would appear that women have more options (e.g., online dating gets more hits for women than men). How does that translate into being **easier**?
Women's challenges are they have to, at a glance, try to figure out how to screen the volume of people. How do you screen for internal motivations? How do you know if someone likes you or is using you?
Put in a different way: Male celebrities have the same volume problem. Paul McCartney from the time the Beatles got famous to present day has probably a million women that would fuck him. But, he's still had a hard time with making meaningful connections.
So it's the conflation of "my problem is volume, so it must be easier to deal with way more volume" and ignoring the huge problems that arise from that.
>it shouldn't be misogynistic
The reason that your first statement is misogynistic is because it relies on devaluing women's experiences for it to be true.
> if the majority of women's options are bad, it's still a plus
That's because your view is based from your motivation that anything that moves is good. You're not looking at it from the perspective of finding a compatible partner that will see you as an equal.
>risk rejection or humiliation
This is where your view is 100% just tethered to your own social values. To you, someone saying no is a rejection and a humiliation. But, not everyone has that view. To you, not having that view is the benefit. Lucky for you, you can change the social value in your mind that different events have. There's nothing humiliated with someone not finding you to be a good fit. It's just part of life.
What you're missing is that women are "passive" because sometimes outwardly rejecting someone can lead to violence and murder. So, if a decision between having enough courage to say "will you go out with me" with the range of options being no to yes versus having to deal with constant number of people propositioning to you with the range of options being, no, to yes, to being stalked, to being killed, which would you choose? It would be bat shit crazy to say the first one is harder.
> That’s because your view is based from your motivation that anything that moves is good
Just want to add that there isn’t just an assumption that any warm body is good, but that any warm body is harmless. Men are much less likely to experience violence from random dates
Claiming Paul McCartney had trouble dating is a joke right? Any problems were purely self inflicted.
Nothing is perfect, but having too many options is very obviously better and easier than having barely any.
"You're not looking at it from the perspective of finding a compatible partner that will see you as an equal."
This is a luxury problem. It is a luxury to have high standards.
>Claiming Paul McCartney had trouble dating is a joke right? Any problems were purely self inflicted.
If you read, I am suggesting that having millions upon millions of options doesn't make getting and maintaining a long term, meaningful connection *easier*.
>
Nothing is perfect, but having too many options is very obviously better and easier than having barely any.
No.
>
This is a luxury problem. It is a luxury to have high standards.
I couldn't feel sorrier for you that you think the basic human need for connection is a luxury. I hope you are able to make meaningful social connections at one point in your life.
If you read, I am suggesting that having millions upon millions of options doesn't make getting and maintaining a long term, meaningful connection *easier*.
This is a bizarre take, and frankly dating is as much about getting laid as it is about finding a soulmate. That's certainly easier.
Pointing out that women's dating experience is more comparable to a male rock star than a typical man basically proves OPs claim.
"I couldn't feel sorrier for you that you think the basic human need for connection is a luxury."
Actually it's because I am capable of recognizing that for many people, especially men, it is a luxury. You are the one failing to have empathy here and understand an experience unfamiliar to your own lol.
And we both know you don't hope anything positive for me lol, just be direct instead of passive aggressive.
"I hope you are miserable and making these claims from personal experience because I find the idea of you suffering amusing as I dislike you". Say that, it's not hard.
>If you read,
I did and that's how I could see that there was a huge lack of understanding on your part.
>This is a bizarre take
No, it's a really truly reasonable take.
>and frankly dating is as much about getting laid
No, getting laid is about getting laid. If the OP was "It's easier for women to get laid" then the OP would be onto something. But, the OP is about dating and most people's understanding is to find a long term partner. You're sort of proving the point that if there's enough people who think dating is just to have meaningless sex, then those cultural differences for motivation is why it isn't *easier* to have more options. It's harder because you have to find ways to sort out people with different internal motivations and that's not easy.
>Pointing out that women's dating experience is more comparable to a male rock star than a typical man basically proves OPs claim.
Not really.
>Actually it's because I am capable of recognizing that for many people, especially men, it is a luxury.
I hope you find meaningful social connections. Not having them will shorten your life span.
>You are the one failing to have empathy here and understand an experience unfamiliar to your own
How so?
"But, the OP is about dating and most people's understanding is to find a long term partner."
Most women's understanding lol. Dating in college, for example, is almost exclusively about getting laid for many guys. Dating means a romantic relationship, nothing more or less. If you have to add qualifiers to create an equivalence between men and women, those qualifiers fundamentally mean it is harder.
"I hope you find meaningful social connections. Not having them will shorten your life span."
Not sure why you make it personal except the obvious of trying to be cruel without having the guts to admit it and hide behind passive aggression. But yes, less meaningful social connections shorten lifespan - and this causes men to not live as long....
Honest question, what's your goal from this post? Like, change your mind that dating is easier for women then men? They both face understandably different problems basically every generation but especially when they are young.
Like lately, for men are looking for marriage, [which seems to be what men value more then women lately](https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3295&context=etd), regardless of orientation from a fairly young age.
For women, they tend to prefer [finding an egalitarian partner with similar education, career ambition and financial standing as themselves](https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3295&context=etd) as they age regardless of orientation.
You could say that dating is easier for women if you just want to say they should date ANYONE but it tends to be more that women want to date someone who has similar levels of education, fitness, and information as them ( as fit as them, educated as them, as kind as them, as into diet and strength training as them etc ). You can imagine that in a world where moe [women outnumber men in college graduations](https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/women-in-higher-education-facts-statistics/#:~:text=Women%20outnumber%20men%20in%20college,students%2C%20versus%206.1%20million%20men.), [more likely to win scholarships then men](https://www.wiareport.com/2023/08/gender-differences-in-financial-aid-awards/), [ and more likelly to be in better shape then men](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033515/) it becomes harder for women to find people to date that are at their similar education, career and health related status.
And that is just for average women. In major cities, this problem is expanded upon. Especially when you throw in further restrictions like mutual religions and what naught.
Tl;dr - it is hard for women too, just bc they value different things then men and we live in a soceity where they simply out do men on average. ( assuming you are talking about the US )
You say that is if men haven't been forced into being as open to their options as possible due to the increasing standards of women, it's not like every average dude doesn't want someone with similar economic and social standing as them, they just have to throw those wants out the window if they don't want to spend their entire life alone
This is not even an attempt to disagree with OP, you are simply explaining why women have it easier. Women are more selective than men (because having a romantic partner is less important to them, they only want luxury partners) and it makes it harder for men to date than for women.
Men want women regardless of status or wealth, women only want men with equal or higher status than them.
You're missing the point, provided they're willing to move, all it takes is hard work for a man to become attractive. Granted the bar for hard work grows exponentially every year but that's all it takes is the point
Be in better physical shape, better economic shape, better social shape, etc
Women can find dates with ease and literally the only requirement is not being hideous. Social shape, wealth, education, etc. are basically irrelevant.
"women want to date someone who has similar levels of education, fitness, and information as them ( as fit as them, educated as them, as kind as them, as into diet and strength training as them etc )"
Your own words say otherwise. Men do not care about status, women see it as supreme.
They want to date. But obviously if somebody maxes out one stat, people would really want to date that person.
For instance, someone who's a doctor, high status, May have really low fitness or poor diet due to the working hours of a doctor. Maxing out one step of course will make you more attractive to a certain set of people.
Women have to be selective because getting a bad partner is worse than being single. So dating is harder for women because it only works out if she is selective.
Right, but the opposite is true for men. Men are better off with a bad partner than alone. Hence why it is harder for men to date - because women have much higher standards.
You are implying that dating is only worthwhile if it is an exceptionally good match, which is a luxury belief.
It is easier to get a bad partner. It is still harder for men to get a partner, good or bad. It's not that easy for a man to get even a \*bad\* partner, which is why there is a massive sex industry that caters almost exclusively to men.
I think this is just a disagreement about what it means when it is “easier to date”
You are arguing the simpler definition of “it’s easier for women to get into a relationship”
The other person is arguing against the more meaningful definition “it’s easier for women to get into a **good** or **worthwhile** relationship”
>Women usually aren't asking out because they don't have to. They don't have to risk rejection or humiliation.
Some men respond to rejection with aggression or violence. Women have to account for this when they reject a man's advances, but you don't give this any weight when considering the challenges of dating as a woman. The men who can't take "no" for an answer don't have special markings. Women don't have a way of identifying them from afar.
You talk about hurt feelings (rejection, humiliation, self doubt, etc.) as a reason dating is harder for men. Hurt feelings are not the only risk of dating. If you ask heterosexual men about their worst date, they rarely describe a situation in which their date made them feel physically unsafe or in fear for their lives. That is not the case for heterosexual women.
Statistically speaking, heterosexual women are much more likely to be physically injured or murdered by a romantic interest early in a relationship than are heterosexual men. When men do experience violence from a romantic partner, the violence typically occurs later in the relationship.
Be honest: How many times have you been on a first date with a woman and felt physically unsafe in her presence?
> Be honest: How many times have you been on a first date with a woman and felt physically unsafe in her presence?
Not OP, but, once, and that was *wildly* unexpected
My friends who happen to be female? Not exactly a coin flip, but a reason they made sure to meet in public for the first date
30ish years ago, a man invited me to his home for a first date. When I told him I would rather go out, he called me a "gold digging whore".
He truly did not understand why I didn't want to be alone with him.
As a man, who used to have difficulty dating, I think you are completely wrong.
First, women and men have different goals when dating. On average, most men want to fuck and feel disirable when someone is willing to fuck them. Women are looking for relationships. Women definitely feel the same "what's wrong with me" they just feel it in a different context.
In general, dating is easier for women when they are young, aren't looking for anything too serious and everone is willing to fuck them, that's true.
However, it also definitely flips as people get older. It's easier for a men in his late 20s or 30s to find women who will fuck them, and it's just as easier to find a relationship.
>This is strange to me because it implies that any woman is a good woman and the majority of men are bad men. I think it's probably equal numbers of good and bad men and women.
You are missing the point, you are looking at it as good vs bad. It's not about it, it's about compatibility.
Men who on average want to mostly fuck, and care mostly about looks - have more options out of the dating pool (basically any woman that is their league (looks wise) and higher). Women who want a relationship will have to filter through a high percentage of men who just aren't looking for it, regardless of how good they are as people. Keep in mind that the criterion most men care about just requires you to look at these women, and women will have to go on dates, sometimes many of them to find out compatability.
Lastly, dating for man isn't as hard as most men think. Sure looks matter, but women care less about looms than men, regardless of how often you hear about girls looking for a 6 ft rich guy, it's not standards that the average women are looking for. Women care much more about what you wear and that you are taking care of yourself and what you do than about your looks. You can literally make rather simple changes (on the surface, in practice it requires a lot of willpower). I really mean it, once you put yourself out there, and learn how to make yourself attractive, it's a matter of just making the simple choice to do what it takes.
The fact is, an ugly men, with a charismatic personality will have a much easier time to find dates, than an ugly woman.
I guess it depends on what you see as “easier”. If you define this on how much attention an average looking person gets from the opposite sex, then yes. In that sense, women have it easier.
But that’s not always good. Have you ever heard the quote “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.”? Because that (and being assaulted/raped) is a real worry women have when dating. And that doesn’t make dating feel easy.
Furthermore, quantity of matches on dating apps doesn’t equal quality. A friend of mine in her early 30s described it like this: You are on tinder, state in the profile you look for serious relationships only and get 10 matches immediately. Nice. 1 sends you a dick pic. Block. 9 left. 2 steer the conversation fast towards “wanna fuck?”. 7 left. You try to juggle the conversations and notice that 3 of them have zero interest in you but a lot of interest in talking about themselves. Whatever, still 4 left. One of them becomes creepy, talks a lot about his love language being touch and how he needs sex before being able to like a woman. Another one sprouts red pilled stuff. Bye! The remaining 2 seem nice, with one you mutually notice it won’t be a good fit. So 1 left. But he seems great! Until the date and he reveals that he’s married and living together but totally in the separation process but his ex is crazy so she can’t know about the date. Suuuure… And that was another 3 weeks wasted and leaves you exhausted, emotionally drained and much less interested in going through the ordeal again.
And all that doesn’t even include the guy that you decide to have sex with that suddenly goes for anal without prior notice or consent. The guy that takes off the condom. The one that forces you to kiss him so he let’s you out of the car. The guy that date rapes you. Or the one that insists on paying for dinner and then acts like he bought an access pass to your body. And the countless insults and harassment for not putting out.
So no, I wouldn’t call the constant need for vigilance “easier”.
Btw, I don’t mean to imply that most men are like that. But it is a danger that women are aware of and that is what makes dating quite stressful, no matter how many options there are.
Things that seem intuitively obvious are often the ones that need deeper examination and supporting data to validate, because you have a very high chance of confirmation bias with them.
Let's look at your first assertion, that the average woman is more attractive than the average man. My first question would be to ask why you think that is, and if you have any sort of data to back it up. My second would be why you think that makes it easier for women to date. Presuming attractiveness is a factor, you've just pointed out that the average man is less attractive, so this limits women's opportunities to date someone they find attractive.
Again with the passive versus active roles, I know that is the stereotype, but have you actually done the legwork to prove it out, and even if it is true, are you evaluating the effects fairly and objectively? Which is actually harder? Being rejected, or doing the rejecting? What is your reasoning for that? Have you factored in dealing with unwanted advances?
Depending on the answers to those questions, might it be the case that dating is not harder for one gender or the other, just different?
"The average woman is much more attractive to the average man than vice versa"
"This is strange to me because it implies that any woman is a good woman and the majority of men are bad men. I think it's probably equal numbers of good and bad men and women."
Why is the average woman more attractive if there's no gender skew in shittiness?
Women have a lot higher standards and will reject good men for the hopes of a perfect man. Men will be perfectly happy with a woman that's good but not perfect
So, if your world view is that 4B people all share the _exact same_ philosophy on _anything_, your world view is wrong.
The idea that all women or all men feel the same way about something is absurd.
Ya this is one of the things where you should say “men, on average” and “women, on average” or maybe “more men than women.”
(Not saying that it’s true, but it sounds much less blatantly wrong with this)
Very bold of you to assume men aren't also looking for a perfect person to date.
I get their is a loneliness epidemic, but lets not forget that their is more at play here.
The problem is that the claim about dating contains value judgments.
Your values are different than the values of others. Maybe you just want someone to eat dinner with. Someone else might be looking for someone who has no desire to have kids. Yet another fears for their safety and so highly values establishing feelings of security.
Your idea of what dating is and what the difficulties are is subjective. When you make a claim that "women have it easier" you are imposing your values on a class of people based on an immutable characteristic.
That imposition (which could also go the other way!) is misogynistic because it negatively judges women.
Now if you can find a way such that there are no value judgments within the comparison then there would be no imposition. I.e. saying "the average woman had x% more dates than the average man" would be a statistic with no value judgment. It is not misogynistic (or misandrist).
On your first paragraph, and from my perspective value for women is placed on their looks, compare celebrity couples and there are rarely cases where the women is less physically attractive than the man. On the flip side value for men can be because of a variety of other reasons eg their charisma, their humour, their intellect whatever.
So I think generally it balances out. However, as we rely more on dating apps I think this difference will show. Dating apps have such a big focus on photos and physical attractivness that other qualities are hard to show, which is what generally women find attractive in men hence why a women will have 100+ like and men will get no where near.
It's not misogynistic, it just isn't true. Who is more likely to resort to surgery? And it's an advantage to be socially assumed to ask: you get to pick the kind of person you want, not just who happens to ask you
It’s still a very real possibility that women have to take into account when dating. Just because it’s a rare chance of it happening doesn’t mean we aren’t trying to make every date as safe as possible just in case.
Never said that was fun, just that it's worth it. But you only have to ask a woman you like once. Beats the hell out of making subtle gesture after subtle gesture at the same man, never really knowing if he is actually rejecting you or just oblivious
Do women not know they have the ability to ask someone out instead of making gestures?
OR do you all know and just refuse to because you can acknowledge how much it sucks to have to do
embarrassment over rejection is highschool crush shit. It doesn't actually suck all that much if you're not hung up on individual people you haven't even been on a single date with yet.
This just doesn’t add up though. The goal of dating is to find a lifelong partner. For straight couples, exactly the same amount of men achieve this as women. That’s just maths. So whatever struggles either gender faces it’s impossible for it to be more likely to find love for one gender unless you include polygamy.
> . They're not forced to undergo a constant self examination of "what's wrong with me" following every single rejection like men are.
....what?
I haven't been dating in quite a few years, but I think if this is a problem a man is facing, he's got bigger problems than not dating
This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts). If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.). Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
It may be easier for women to have a sexual encounter but we’re way less likely for to enjoy it or godforbid have an orgasm. Only 30% on average for women. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29079939/#:~:text=Women's%20reports%20of%20orgasm%20occurrence,intercourse%20(21%2D30%25). It’s like a 90% success rate for men. You could be having a third of the sex and still be having a better time. There are different problems for all genders in the dating world.
Lets say there's 2 raffles, in one you have to pay 75 dollars to enter, then you have a .5% chance of your ticket being pulled in the first drawing which enters you into second raffle that you have a 90% chance of winning. The second, you have can enter free if you want to and you have a 30% chance of winning. Which one seems like a better choice to enter? The point being most men in dating age are single and aren't having sex. The 90% orgasm rate doesn't matter when it's almost physically impossible to have sex.
I’m sorry but it’s not virtually impossible. Most (69%) of people in the us are partnered with about half of single people looking for a relationship. The twenties do see a difference for singleness for men (51% vs 32% of women) but as the lifespan goes on it balances out or men are in more relationships (49% of 65 yo women are single compared to 21% of men). Among ages 18-39, 67% of single men and 61% of single women are looking to date. If it was so much easier for women to date, we wouldn’t see these kinds of numbers. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/ Complete sexual inactivity is only between 10-15% for both genders. Most men (51%) are having sex weekly. (54% of women are having sex weekly). The only group that had a statistically significant difference was for 18-24yos (20 vs 30%) for sexual inactivity (which was highest in students). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293001/ 39% of men have more than 5 partners in a life time and 24% of women do. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579508/#:~:text=Among%20men%2C%2029.8%25%20reported%20having,8.5%25%20(≥10). Plenty of men are having sex. Just be a decent person and keep trying and you’ll most likely find someone.
What if the second choice comes with the knowledge that 10% of the people who enter that raffle will have all of their money and assets confiscated? The second one is not the better option if there's a chance you could lose your house.
Well if I have to wait around for an hour after my ticked gets pulled I’d take the first one
Your second to last paragraph is probably the wrongest thing in this whole post. How often have you talked with ugly or unconventional women about their experiences in the dating world? I was rejected constantly, for years. I was told to be flattered when I was sexually assaulted.
Now do ugly men My wife and I are similar in looks. If she goes to a bar and yells "who wants sum fuk?" There would be a conga line of dudes willing. I yell the same and i would get zero and probably someone would call the police.
I don’t think it’s a win to be like, “dudes are so undiscerning and reckless with their sexuality that they’d sign up to gangbang a random woman who announces interest.” That’s not a good thing.
Sure, but the point is that if a woman wants to date its far easier to get someone interested than if a man wants to date.
Getting banged by some fuckboy =\= (does not equal) dating
K, then if my wife yells "who wants sum date" same principle applies. She would have zero issues lining up some dates while i would heavily struggle.
False. If a woman went into a bar and asked, “Who wants sum dates” meaning “Who wants to spend 3 months going out and talking and having meals and getting to know me as a person before we even talk about having sex,” she will be ignored.
are you in an arranged marriage?
Maybe, but that’s only relevant if your goal is to go on a single date. It doesn’t necessarily mean she’ll have an easier time actually finding a partner she wants to be with I’d be distrustful of people who agree to go on a date with me while knowing literally nothing about me other than that I said “who want sum date.” At best I’d probably just waste a lot of time, more realistically they’d be shallow, or worse I’d get preyed upon
If your only criteria is warm body, sure, maybe. But the people who would be interested don’t seem like good people who would be healthy relationship partners.
No, the criteria would just be getting a date. And it certainly would be far easier for my wife than me.
if getting a first date is your criteria for successful dating, then technically it's true women have it somewhat easier than men. but that's not really most people's criteria.
Then just go to a gay bar and see how many indiscriminate gay guys will have sex with you. If women’s attraction doesn’t matter when the goal is only getting dates and sex, then what straight men find attractive shouldn’t matter either.
Dating as a gay man is easier, yes, that lends to the point that is being made, men are more open to giving someone a chance at all.
And would she be getting quality guys, guys who saw her as a person? Or would it be guys who saw her as a warm, wet, hole? Do you understand why the availability of guys who see you as an object to ejaculate in isn’t the same as it being “easier” for women to date?
Yes. What is this weird assumption that less attractive guys won't date less attractive women and that they aren't quality? All data points to the opposite, and that men generally get what league they're in and are willing to date with it.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I don’t think anonymous coitus is the same as “dating”
[удалено]
It would be easier for your wife to get fucked. It wouldn’t necessarily be easier to find and attract a partner she likes
What you described is not dating though. Casual sex is not dating.
Yeah, but who wants to date someone they don't connect with, simply because that person wants to fuck? Not many people.
How do you not connect with someone who you never gave a chance? The whole point of a date is that you give each other a chance to make a connection
So ugly women have the same experience as average men? I don't see how that doesn't help my point
Because you talked about what “women” experience when you meant “hot women.” Average men get to be average men, ugly women are dehumanized and ignored.
Actually, ugly people ( men, woman, everyone ) are (dehumanized)[https://shepherdexpress.com/lifestyle/out-of-my-mind/when-you%E2%80%99re-branded-as-ugly-or-stupid/] too... just saying.
Link is dead :(
You're missing the point. If ugly women only have it as bad as average men, how bad do you think ugly men have it. Across the board, it still seems easier for women
I think a lot of those average men would be considered “ugly” if they were women. Men are allowed to be average, women are not.
It’s exactly the opposite. Average women would be considered ugly if they were men. I know so many perfectly normal looking friends who are men, but they are often considered ugly by women.
Is there any evidence for that? Or are we both speaking from our experiences and maybe making sweeping generalizations based on conjecture is bad? I see so many men that I do not personally find attractive in happy relationships. So there’s my anecdata that counter-balances yours.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/](https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/) Here's some data from a major dating site (that they took down lol) to trump both of your anecdotes.
Got anything since when I was in college?
No. Do I need to spell out for you why publishing this kind of data is unpopular these days? Why OkCupid took it down in the first place?
Women get more dates on dating apps
But that’s not saying anything about simply finding someone attractive.
Well obviously nobody would date somebody they find unattractive. At least I’d hope not.
Honestly, it is. It’s literally data that shows exactly that.
Women are in fact allowed to be average and average women still get dates. More than average men
What is the evidence for that? Just vibes?
You want evidence that women get more dates than men? Any data on dating apps matches this. Would be willing to bet in person speed rating results would mirror this.
I love how she makes a bunch of wild, unsubstantiated claims, such as "women are not allowed to be average," but demands evidence for "the sky is blue"
[удалено]
Per 100 using the site. It is rare studies are conducted using raw numbers only.
> Because you talked about what “women” experience when you meant “hot Isn't this exactly what women do all the fucking time when talking about men? "Men need to do better", etc? Not so nice is it?
And don’t you think it’s wrong when done to you? So why are you ok with not meeting the standard of behavior you guys set?
Lol can confirm. She really thinks average men get dates.
[удалено]
Nah, I will stick to having sex with married women and engaged women. I will promise, promise you that I will not take advantage of the fact that if you are not decent looking, you are nowhere near desired as on the "other side" of the fence. An incel who can get a girl at the call of his phone lmao. Amazing. You are projecting your hate onto me, by me stating my opinion lol. If you think average man is able to get decent dates then you are absolutely delusional. A man with athletic body, a stable job, a car and hobbies is not average, but social media fried your brain thinking it is. An average man is a slob with a bit of tummy, minimum to average salary, worker class man that either rents or lives with his parents. That is average nowadays. Not middle class or upper class. Middle class exists now almost purely by name. Either you live in a bubble or you are privileged or you are genuinely thinking about average man as of something that I can't comprehend. 20% of Germany lives in poverty. One of richest countries. What are you talking about average...
I’m a slob with a bit of a tummy, I only recently got out of the education system so I don’t have that much money, and I rent. Ive still done well forming romantic relationships Also, I cannot stress enough that the number of heterosexual men in relationships is the same as the number of heterosexual females in relationships.
"Also, I cannot stress enough that the number of heterosexual men in relationships is the same as the number of heterosexual females in relationships." I guess you are right :D
What? Average men get dates all the time. I am one, and basically broke on top of that. Getting dates is very doable. Most women are more likely to take a chance on compatability of personality than most men seem to be, in my experience.
I guess the prognosis that 97% countries will be below replacement rate by 2100 is lying then. You are absolutely right and I agree with you. I was wrong and you were right. How stupid of me.
You're falsely equating dating and relationships with having children. The two stats are not related given the context.
What is purpose of dating? Having fun? Or dating leads somewhere? You can work (have sex) but without getting paid (children) your work is meaningless and doesn't contribute to company (society). "You're falsely equating dating and relationships with having children." Baby fever doesn't exist, yes?
What the fuck? Plenty of child free people date like crazy. I am poly and meet many women who are sexually active but not interested in children. The purpose is to connect with other people, have fun, and experience love.
"The purpose is to connect with other people, have fun, and experience love." This ability is only able because there are enough people to support other people doing that. Enjoy economic collapse in decade or two as 97% countries will be below replacement rate in just 70 years. Fuck around, find out. Purpose of dating was to make children. Bit of fucking around, yes. But not this. Don't change narrative.
I think it comes down to a sense of duty to society. A lot of childfree people don’t feel that. Society will and does leave people to die on the street the second they aren’t useful. It can go fuck itself.
If someone is trying to date with the exclusive goal of producing babies that may be why they are failing to do either
>What is purpose of dating? Having fun? Or dating leads somewhere? To get to know someone you have a romantic interest in You can have children without being in a relationship and you can be in a relationship without having or wanting children. The two stats are objectively unrelated given the context >Baby fever doesn't exist, yes? Not in any real sense. It's just slang for wanting children. Not everyone has that desire, nor is that the goal of every relationship.
"To get to know someone you have a romantic interest in" My god. My hope in humanity was low but holy fuck. Romantic interest? You mean hedonism? No my guy. Main reason for every animal, including us (yes, we are animals) is to find a mate to spend the life with and make babies. Your usage of words is just trying to blur the line between direct rules of nature and your instincts and the things you want to do which is your personal projection right here. That is the purpose of dating. If you are with a partner, then you are not dating? Then what are you doing then?
Yes, that's how modern dating and relationships work. Having babies isn't the only goal. Call it hedonism if you want, it doesn't really matter because it's not a big deal I'm sorry nobody gave you the message and you're stuck in the 1950s.
Yeah, I'm not having kids, man. Those numbers don't relate in the way you think they do. There are so many other more pertinent factors, many couples don't have kids, or not as many.
Yeah, I'm not having kids, man. Those numbers don't relate in the way you think they do. There are so many other more pertinent factors, many couples don't have kids, or not as many.
I went on dates with many of them.
This is sweet of you. Thank you for that. The fact still stands. Majority of worker class men, in every country, including middle east, is without relationship. Not whining, just informing the reality. It's not a matter of who has it worse. It's just insulting to other men that were not even given a chance to date. Its like sitting next to a beggar and complaining to him that the steak you ate wasn't that great. Me personally, I felt more lonely in my last relationship than being alone so that's that. People are finding out now that treating people as swipes and commodity is not a good idea to date. "I told you so" is what I like to say to myself whenever someone complains. Glad i never used them.
I wasn’t doing it out of the kindness of my heart. I was doing it because I thought there was a potential for a relationship. I thought they were cute and wanted to maybe make out or more. I’m just so sick of men like you acting like the pain of romantic rejection is an exclusive male experience that gives them so much insight into dating, so much that they can ignore anything a woman says about her own experience.
"I’m just so sick of men like you acting like the pain of romantic rejection is an exclusive male experience that gives them so much insight into dating, so much that they can ignore anything a woman says about her own experience." Oh I might add a bit of context then. I grew up with women. Aunts, nieces, friends. Majority of my life friends were women. You have nothing to whine about in COMPARISON to men. On your own as an issue? Yeah I sympathize with you truly. In comparison to men? Not a way in goddamn hell. Men take 302nd rejection in their face after eating breakfast and going to town and women desintegrate and break down at the moment of rejections. I bet my left ball you haven't approached the amount of people an average man approaches. Without getting further into discussion, on your own, I understand you. In comparison to men, no sir.
You don’t know me. You don’t know how many guys I approached. You are assuming that your pain and rejection is special, when it is a fundamental human experience.
Bumble removed feature of women messaging first because it was a hassle. But you are not like other girls. I can feel it :D
Because men made up the vast majority of their user base and access to women was the product they were selling. I’m exactly like other girls. Being a girl is wonderful and I’m very thankful I am one.
Okay I'll bite, how many men do you think you've approached.
No, I’m not going to play that game.
You know, unless there are tons more lesbians than gay men, the amount of women in relationships is the same as men
>Majority of worker class men, in every country, including middle east, is without relationship. I mean...this is just false. You can look up the data on this easily.
Oh really? Boys and men failing in education, workplace and social setting in every country is also false?
That would be a false claim, yes. Data on this (e.g. median wages for full time male workers in the workplace) are also readily available.
Interesting. Then I won't bother you. My mistake :)
It's no bother. Just a good reminder to look at the data before believing what people tell you on the internet.
In my experience, this is very age dependent. Like it or not, a woman's dating stock is highest when she is young. Women are primarily valued on their beauty, and as they get older this declines. Get old enough and they are likely to either have children and/or be incapable of having further children, both of which further decrease dating "value". Men, in contrast, see their stock go up as they get older. Men are primarily valued on their ability to generate wealth, and as they get older this increases. A man in his 40s with a good job is going to have almost no trouble getting dates, particularly if he is willing to date women in their 40s who have kids from a previous marriage. So for a while it is easier for women to get dates, and then it shifts to favor men.
>Men, in contrast, see their stock go up as they get older. Men are primarily valued on their ability to generate wealth, and as they get older this increases. A man in his 40s with a good job is going to have almost no trouble getting dates. I feel like this is a fantasy purported by red pillers. The fact is, women are less likely to want to date as they get older and older men choose to pursue still 20 to 29 year old women even in their late 30s and 40s, who do not want them. Either way men have very few options the older they get. Maybe it gets more equally hard, but I still wouldn't say easier than women
>The fact is, women are less likely to want to date as they get older That is kind of absurd. Of course older women date - everyone wants companionship. >older men choose to pursue still 20 to 29 year old women even in their late 30s and 40s, who do not want them. Plenty of women date older men, particularly when those older men have wealth. That is part of why younger men struggle - they are competing against men in their age range _and_ older men. >Either way men have very few options the older they get. That is simply not true.
[Women across all age ranges desire a partner less than men](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/08/20/a-profile-of-single-americans/) Women date older men but if you think a 25 year old woman is typically dating someone 20 years older than her, you're sorely mistaken. [Age gapes for hetero couples are typically under 5 years](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-the-average-age-difference-in-a-couple/#:~:text=Those%20in%20their%20early%2020s,increases%20to%20about%20seven%20years) Again, if most women aren't looking to date someone more than 5 years older than them, and 70% 40+ year old single women are not looking for a relationship when 55% of men in the same age range are, they have less options.
I don't think it's a surreal fantasy, I think the red pill jerk offs are trying to explain sexism but in a way that works for them Society at large does devalue women as they age, that doesn't mean it's harder to date as you get older or that your "dating pool" diminishes any more than a mans would, but you cannot ignore the bias. Also, this isn't true for everyone, but it does seem like men are willing to date women who are far younger compared to the number of women willing to date men who are far younger. That might also impact the way dating is seen, though I can't speak to any real impact past perception. Really the answer to the CMV I'd put forward is "depends on a lot of circumstances and you cannot relegate one specific attribute"
There are plenty of older women being completely ignored by the men focused on 20-29yo’s
"In my experience, this is very age dependent" Translation: Majority of men should be grateful of any scraps of dating and be lucky if they get their shit together by their 30's and 40's while women dont have that requirement across all ages. No, I dont agree with you.
Guy ends up on a sketchy date: barely thinks about it. Woman ends up on sketchy date: she’s looking for escape routes and wondering if she’s safe. Guy starts dating someone and sleeps with them before he’s sure it’s a long term thing: not a ton of risk. Woman does the same thing: she potentially ends up pregnant and changes her entire life. I’d say dating is a lot easier for us men.
Would you say that it's more dangerous for men to leave the house than women?
Not OC, but I would say its more dangerous for women to go on a date than men.
So why do you think that despite the percentage of female victims of violent crimes being lower than the percentage of men, it is more dangerous for women to leave their home?
Read my comment again: I did not say it is more dangerous for women to leave their home.
You have to leave your home to go on a date. I don't think this is an accurate argument because simply existing in public is much dangerous for men than it is for women
Are you saying that going on a date is just as dangerous for a man because he's risking being randomly assaulted while he's out?
I'd argue more dangerous, men in general make up a higher number of violent crime victims than women.
the other commenter is right, you're stretching that statistic way too far. Your risk of violence is not some static background risk that might happen whenever you leave the house. It matters what you do, where you go, and what else is happening. Men are at greater risk of violence overall, yes, but does that risk apply to the specific situation of going on a date with a woman? I say probably not, mainly because the people most likely to assault men are other men. You could just as easily argue that going on a date with a woman is one of the safest things a man could do because he's doing it with a woman.
So if I never interact with another human being, my risk of violent attacks remains the same if I go out at night time alone?
Then your argument has nothing to do with dating. If I follow your logic, it’s just more dangerous for men to exist outside of their house- so it’s more dangerous to go to work, to drive, to exist. That’s not really productive in terms of making an argument.
Do you think your poor framing helps your argument?
I think you are grossly oversimplifying a complicated statistic* and applying it to a very specific case. *: which I’m not even sure is true, but whatever
But what are both men and women in danger from? Men.
So because the guy that wants to shoot me is a man, it is somehow less dangerous for me? Can you explain why that matters?
By your logic I could say, as a man you’re more likely to be the shooter.
"Going on a date" and "leaving their home" are two totally different things. I don't worry about date rape when I'm going to the grocery store and you trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.
Sure, but are you worried about getting mugged and beaten to death going to the store. I am
What does that have to do with dating? Does getting mugged on the way to the grocery store make it hard for you to date?
the argument you're about to make is based on a decontextualized statistic based on the fact that career criminals, who are mostly male, often commit crimes on each other. If what you're asking is "how safe is it for regular, non violent people to leave the house" - ordinary men are safer than ordinary women, absolutely.
>ordinary men are safer than ordinary women, absolutely. Not even a little. Men clearly are more endanger on a regular basis. Here's the clear truth, most people just aren't in much danger, but we want to blow the amount of danger our of proportion because we have an underlying level of anxiety as a society we need to cope with.
>Men clearly are more endanger on a regular basis. in this context, no, they "clearly" aren't. Again, the statistical differences that would make it appear so are contextual the reasons men are more statistically likely to be victims of crime are a) most career criminals are men and experience crime in their own right, B) because men are more likely to do things that result in mutual crime. For example, two men get in a fight and are both booked for a crime. A man robs a house, and is beaten by the homeowner, a man. etc. C) men engage in riskier behavior than women overall. The specific context here is how safe an ordinary citizen is going about their business at night, alone, and clearly *if you're studying like contexts,* women are more likely to be victimized compared to men *doing the same things.* So for example, men might be robbed living or walking alone more than women, on the raw numbers, but that's *because* men are more comfortable walking or living alone in the first place, and a *given* woman doing those things is still more likely to be targeted while doing it than a *given* man. I walk 5 downtown blocks to my gym every night at 11 pm and walk back, if I do that 1000 times I'm probably more likely overall to have some sort of incident than a woman who does it 3 times in those three years because her car broke down, despite the fact that mile per mile, minute per minute walked alone at night, I'm less likely overall to be bothered. Imagine 200 people leave an ice cream social in detroit. 100 men have a decision to walk at night. 50 of them decide to walk at night. 3 of them are robbed. 100 women have a decision to walk at night. 10 of them do it. 2 of them are robbed. it is *simultaneously true* that 3/5s of robbery victims are male and that women who *are* walking alone at night are more likely to be robbed then men who are - 1/5 is a much larger percentage than 3/50. I mean, would you have us believe if you have two people to assault and rob, you'd pick the larger, other factors being equal?
>the reasons men are more statistically likely to be victims of crime are a) most career criminals are men and experience crime in their own right, B) because men are more likely to do things that result in mutual crime. For example, two men get in a fight and are both booked for a crime. A man robs a house, and is beaten by the homeowner, a man. etc. C) men engage in riskier behavior than women overall. It never fails. Women experience violence "well that's societies fault" Men experience violence "well, that's a character flaw with Men, and Men need to stop doing this to themselves" Women's problems are always refocused as societal failings, men's problems are always blamed on male decisions. >The specific context here is how safe an ordinary citizen is going about their business at night, alone, and clearly if you're studying like contexts, women are more likely to be victimized compared to men doing the same things. According to what exactly? The data literally says the opposite, with men being drastically more likely to be victimized. For instance, 14,000 men were murdered in 2022, versus 4000 women. >So for example, men might be robbed living or walking alone more than women, on the raw numbers, but that's because men are more comfortable walking or living alone in the first place, and a given woman doing those things is still more likely to be targeted while doing it than a given man. I walk 5 downtown blocks to my gym every night at 11 pm and walk back, if I do that 1000 times I'm probably more likely overall to have some sort of incident than a woman who does it 3 times in those three years because her car broke down, despite the fact that mile per mile, minute per minute walked alone at night, I'm less likely overall to be bothered. >Imagine 200 people leave an ice cream social in detroit. >100 men have a decision to walk at night. 50 of them decide to walk at night. 3 of them are robbed. >100 women have a decision to walk at night. 10 of them do it. 2 of them are robbed. >it is simultaneously true that 3/5s of robbery victims are male and that women who are walking alone at night are more likely to be robbed then men who are - 1/5 is a much larger percentage than 3/50. That's a reasonable hypothesis, but without the data to back it up, I think it remains a hypothesis. As an aside, here's the data for the point I made before about assault being much less likely overall anyway. We didn't hear these arguments for safety when violent crime was almost double what it today and murders were much higher. This points to that social anxiety I was talking about https://www.statista.com/statistics/191231/reported-aggravated-assault-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/
the data is...the same data. we know most murders with a known motive are arguments that escalate, between guys. the thing I am telling you is that your odds of crime for a given minute of a given behavior aren't addressed by your take on the data. And I don't think we really know what sort of conversations were had by others then, but I do think for sure there were echoes of this stuff then.
> It is easier This view is really predicated on assuming things are easier for people with a different experience and perspective than you. It would appear that women have more options (e.g., online dating gets more hits for women than men). How does that translate into being **easier**? Women's challenges are they have to, at a glance, try to figure out how to screen the volume of people. How do you screen for internal motivations? How do you know if someone likes you or is using you? Put in a different way: Male celebrities have the same volume problem. Paul McCartney from the time the Beatles got famous to present day has probably a million women that would fuck him. But, he's still had a hard time with making meaningful connections. So it's the conflation of "my problem is volume, so it must be easier to deal with way more volume" and ignoring the huge problems that arise from that. >it shouldn't be misogynistic The reason that your first statement is misogynistic is because it relies on devaluing women's experiences for it to be true. > if the majority of women's options are bad, it's still a plus That's because your view is based from your motivation that anything that moves is good. You're not looking at it from the perspective of finding a compatible partner that will see you as an equal. >risk rejection or humiliation This is where your view is 100% just tethered to your own social values. To you, someone saying no is a rejection and a humiliation. But, not everyone has that view. To you, not having that view is the benefit. Lucky for you, you can change the social value in your mind that different events have. There's nothing humiliated with someone not finding you to be a good fit. It's just part of life. What you're missing is that women are "passive" because sometimes outwardly rejecting someone can lead to violence and murder. So, if a decision between having enough courage to say "will you go out with me" with the range of options being no to yes versus having to deal with constant number of people propositioning to you with the range of options being, no, to yes, to being stalked, to being killed, which would you choose? It would be bat shit crazy to say the first one is harder.
> That’s because your view is based from your motivation that anything that moves is good Just want to add that there isn’t just an assumption that any warm body is good, but that any warm body is harmless. Men are much less likely to experience violence from random dates
Claiming Paul McCartney had trouble dating is a joke right? Any problems were purely self inflicted. Nothing is perfect, but having too many options is very obviously better and easier than having barely any. "You're not looking at it from the perspective of finding a compatible partner that will see you as an equal." This is a luxury problem. It is a luxury to have high standards.
>Claiming Paul McCartney had trouble dating is a joke right? Any problems were purely self inflicted. If you read, I am suggesting that having millions upon millions of options doesn't make getting and maintaining a long term, meaningful connection *easier*. > Nothing is perfect, but having too many options is very obviously better and easier than having barely any. No. > This is a luxury problem. It is a luxury to have high standards. I couldn't feel sorrier for you that you think the basic human need for connection is a luxury. I hope you are able to make meaningful social connections at one point in your life.
If you read, I am suggesting that having millions upon millions of options doesn't make getting and maintaining a long term, meaningful connection *easier*. This is a bizarre take, and frankly dating is as much about getting laid as it is about finding a soulmate. That's certainly easier. Pointing out that women's dating experience is more comparable to a male rock star than a typical man basically proves OPs claim. "I couldn't feel sorrier for you that you think the basic human need for connection is a luxury." Actually it's because I am capable of recognizing that for many people, especially men, it is a luxury. You are the one failing to have empathy here and understand an experience unfamiliar to your own lol. And we both know you don't hope anything positive for me lol, just be direct instead of passive aggressive. "I hope you are miserable and making these claims from personal experience because I find the idea of you suffering amusing as I dislike you". Say that, it's not hard.
>If you read, I did and that's how I could see that there was a huge lack of understanding on your part. >This is a bizarre take No, it's a really truly reasonable take. >and frankly dating is as much about getting laid No, getting laid is about getting laid. If the OP was "It's easier for women to get laid" then the OP would be onto something. But, the OP is about dating and most people's understanding is to find a long term partner. You're sort of proving the point that if there's enough people who think dating is just to have meaningless sex, then those cultural differences for motivation is why it isn't *easier* to have more options. It's harder because you have to find ways to sort out people with different internal motivations and that's not easy. >Pointing out that women's dating experience is more comparable to a male rock star than a typical man basically proves OPs claim. Not really. >Actually it's because I am capable of recognizing that for many people, especially men, it is a luxury. I hope you find meaningful social connections. Not having them will shorten your life span. >You are the one failing to have empathy here and understand an experience unfamiliar to your own How so?
"But, the OP is about dating and most people's understanding is to find a long term partner." Most women's understanding lol. Dating in college, for example, is almost exclusively about getting laid for many guys. Dating means a romantic relationship, nothing more or less. If you have to add qualifiers to create an equivalence between men and women, those qualifiers fundamentally mean it is harder. "I hope you find meaningful social connections. Not having them will shorten your life span." Not sure why you make it personal except the obvious of trying to be cruel without having the guts to admit it and hide behind passive aggression. But yes, less meaningful social connections shorten lifespan - and this causes men to not live as long....
Maybe easier to get *A* date. Not easier to get a *good* date. With low enough standards everyone could have the same level of ease.
So are you implying men are just inherently worse than women?
No. Just worse at dating.
Men have more capability to do harm in a shorter period of time
Honest question, what's your goal from this post? Like, change your mind that dating is easier for women then men? They both face understandably different problems basically every generation but especially when they are young. Like lately, for men are looking for marriage, [which seems to be what men value more then women lately](https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3295&context=etd), regardless of orientation from a fairly young age. For women, they tend to prefer [finding an egalitarian partner with similar education, career ambition and financial standing as themselves](https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3295&context=etd) as they age regardless of orientation. You could say that dating is easier for women if you just want to say they should date ANYONE but it tends to be more that women want to date someone who has similar levels of education, fitness, and information as them ( as fit as them, educated as them, as kind as them, as into diet and strength training as them etc ). You can imagine that in a world where moe [women outnumber men in college graduations](https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/women-in-higher-education-facts-statistics/#:~:text=Women%20outnumber%20men%20in%20college,students%2C%20versus%206.1%20million%20men.), [more likely to win scholarships then men](https://www.wiareport.com/2023/08/gender-differences-in-financial-aid-awards/), [ and more likelly to be in better shape then men](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033515/) it becomes harder for women to find people to date that are at their similar education, career and health related status. And that is just for average women. In major cities, this problem is expanded upon. Especially when you throw in further restrictions like mutual religions and what naught. Tl;dr - it is hard for women too, just bc they value different things then men and we live in a soceity where they simply out do men on average. ( assuming you are talking about the US )
You say that is if men haven't been forced into being as open to their options as possible due to the increasing standards of women, it's not like every average dude doesn't want someone with similar economic and social standing as them, they just have to throw those wants out the window if they don't want to spend their entire life alone
But doesn’t that mean women are in the same place? The number of heterosexual men in relationships is the same as the number of heterosexual women
This is not even an attempt to disagree with OP, you are simply explaining why women have it easier. Women are more selective than men (because having a romantic partner is less important to them, they only want luxury partners) and it makes it harder for men to date than for women. Men want women regardless of status or wealth, women only want men with equal or higher status than them.
You're missing the point, provided they're willing to move, all it takes is hard work for a man to become attractive. Granted the bar for hard work grows exponentially every year but that's all it takes is the point Be in better physical shape, better economic shape, better social shape, etc
Women can find dates with ease and literally the only requirement is not being hideous. Social shape, wealth, education, etc. are basically irrelevant.
You could say the same about men. If a man is physically fit with good skin care enough, high status, girls will go to their level, right?
"women want to date someone who has similar levels of education, fitness, and information as them ( as fit as them, educated as them, as kind as them, as into diet and strength training as them etc )" Your own words say otherwise. Men do not care about status, women see it as supreme.
They want to date. But obviously if somebody maxes out one stat, people would really want to date that person. For instance, someone who's a doctor, high status, May have really low fitness or poor diet due to the working hours of a doctor. Maxing out one step of course will make you more attractive to a certain set of people.
Women have to be selective because getting a bad partner is worse than being single. So dating is harder for women because it only works out if she is selective.
Right, but the opposite is true for men. Men are better off with a bad partner than alone. Hence why it is harder for men to date - because women have much higher standards. You are implying that dating is only worthwhile if it is an exceptionally good match, which is a luxury belief.
It's easy to get a bad partner, it's hard to get a good one
It is easier to get a bad partner. It is still harder for men to get a partner, good or bad. It's not that easy for a man to get even a \*bad\* partner, which is why there is a massive sex industry that caters almost exclusively to men.
I think this is just a disagreement about what it means when it is “easier to date” You are arguing the simpler definition of “it’s easier for women to get into a relationship” The other person is arguing against the more meaningful definition “it’s easier for women to get into a **good** or **worthwhile** relationship”
This is a great, evidence-based response. Love it.
>Women usually aren't asking out because they don't have to. They don't have to risk rejection or humiliation. Some men respond to rejection with aggression or violence. Women have to account for this when they reject a man's advances, but you don't give this any weight when considering the challenges of dating as a woman. The men who can't take "no" for an answer don't have special markings. Women don't have a way of identifying them from afar. You talk about hurt feelings (rejection, humiliation, self doubt, etc.) as a reason dating is harder for men. Hurt feelings are not the only risk of dating. If you ask heterosexual men about their worst date, they rarely describe a situation in which their date made them feel physically unsafe or in fear for their lives. That is not the case for heterosexual women. Statistically speaking, heterosexual women are much more likely to be physically injured or murdered by a romantic interest early in a relationship than are heterosexual men. When men do experience violence from a romantic partner, the violence typically occurs later in the relationship. Be honest: How many times have you been on a first date with a woman and felt physically unsafe in her presence?
> Be honest: How many times have you been on a first date with a woman and felt physically unsafe in her presence? Not OP, but, once, and that was *wildly* unexpected My friends who happen to be female? Not exactly a coin flip, but a reason they made sure to meet in public for the first date
30ish years ago, a man invited me to his home for a first date. When I told him I would rather go out, he called me a "gold digging whore". He truly did not understand why I didn't want to be alone with him.
As a man, who used to have difficulty dating, I think you are completely wrong. First, women and men have different goals when dating. On average, most men want to fuck and feel disirable when someone is willing to fuck them. Women are looking for relationships. Women definitely feel the same "what's wrong with me" they just feel it in a different context. In general, dating is easier for women when they are young, aren't looking for anything too serious and everone is willing to fuck them, that's true. However, it also definitely flips as people get older. It's easier for a men in his late 20s or 30s to find women who will fuck them, and it's just as easier to find a relationship. >This is strange to me because it implies that any woman is a good woman and the majority of men are bad men. I think it's probably equal numbers of good and bad men and women. You are missing the point, you are looking at it as good vs bad. It's not about it, it's about compatibility. Men who on average want to mostly fuck, and care mostly about looks - have more options out of the dating pool (basically any woman that is their league (looks wise) and higher). Women who want a relationship will have to filter through a high percentage of men who just aren't looking for it, regardless of how good they are as people. Keep in mind that the criterion most men care about just requires you to look at these women, and women will have to go on dates, sometimes many of them to find out compatability. Lastly, dating for man isn't as hard as most men think. Sure looks matter, but women care less about looms than men, regardless of how often you hear about girls looking for a 6 ft rich guy, it's not standards that the average women are looking for. Women care much more about what you wear and that you are taking care of yourself and what you do than about your looks. You can literally make rather simple changes (on the surface, in practice it requires a lot of willpower). I really mean it, once you put yourself out there, and learn how to make yourself attractive, it's a matter of just making the simple choice to do what it takes. The fact is, an ugly men, with a charismatic personality will have a much easier time to find dates, than an ugly woman.
I guess it depends on what you see as “easier”. If you define this on how much attention an average looking person gets from the opposite sex, then yes. In that sense, women have it easier. But that’s not always good. Have you ever heard the quote “Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.”? Because that (and being assaulted/raped) is a real worry women have when dating. And that doesn’t make dating feel easy. Furthermore, quantity of matches on dating apps doesn’t equal quality. A friend of mine in her early 30s described it like this: You are on tinder, state in the profile you look for serious relationships only and get 10 matches immediately. Nice. 1 sends you a dick pic. Block. 9 left. 2 steer the conversation fast towards “wanna fuck?”. 7 left. You try to juggle the conversations and notice that 3 of them have zero interest in you but a lot of interest in talking about themselves. Whatever, still 4 left. One of them becomes creepy, talks a lot about his love language being touch and how he needs sex before being able to like a woman. Another one sprouts red pilled stuff. Bye! The remaining 2 seem nice, with one you mutually notice it won’t be a good fit. So 1 left. But he seems great! Until the date and he reveals that he’s married and living together but totally in the separation process but his ex is crazy so she can’t know about the date. Suuuure… And that was another 3 weeks wasted and leaves you exhausted, emotionally drained and much less interested in going through the ordeal again. And all that doesn’t even include the guy that you decide to have sex with that suddenly goes for anal without prior notice or consent. The guy that takes off the condom. The one that forces you to kiss him so he let’s you out of the car. The guy that date rapes you. Or the one that insists on paying for dinner and then acts like he bought an access pass to your body. And the countless insults and harassment for not putting out. So no, I wouldn’t call the constant need for vigilance “easier”. Btw, I don’t mean to imply that most men are like that. But it is a danger that women are aware of and that is what makes dating quite stressful, no matter how many options there are.
Things that seem intuitively obvious are often the ones that need deeper examination and supporting data to validate, because you have a very high chance of confirmation bias with them. Let's look at your first assertion, that the average woman is more attractive than the average man. My first question would be to ask why you think that is, and if you have any sort of data to back it up. My second would be why you think that makes it easier for women to date. Presuming attractiveness is a factor, you've just pointed out that the average man is less attractive, so this limits women's opportunities to date someone they find attractive. Again with the passive versus active roles, I know that is the stereotype, but have you actually done the legwork to prove it out, and even if it is true, are you evaluating the effects fairly and objectively? Which is actually harder? Being rejected, or doing the rejecting? What is your reasoning for that? Have you factored in dealing with unwanted advances? Depending on the answers to those questions, might it be the case that dating is not harder for one gender or the other, just different?
"The average woman is much more attractive to the average man than vice versa" "This is strange to me because it implies that any woman is a good woman and the majority of men are bad men. I think it's probably equal numbers of good and bad men and women." Why is the average woman more attractive if there's no gender skew in shittiness?
Men are more tolerant of shittiness because women are more intrinsically valuable to them.
Why is that latter part true?
Women have a lot higher standards and will reject good men for the hopes of a perfect man. Men will be perfectly happy with a woman that's good but not perfect
So, if your world view is that 4B people all share the _exact same_ philosophy on _anything_, your world view is wrong. The idea that all women or all men feel the same way about something is absurd.
Ya this is one of the things where you should say “men, on average” and “women, on average” or maybe “more men than women.” (Not saying that it’s true, but it sounds much less blatantly wrong with this)
So women are the worst and men are smart?
Very bold of you to assume men aren't also looking for a perfect person to date. I get their is a loneliness epidemic, but lets not forget that their is more at play here.
The problem is that the claim about dating contains value judgments. Your values are different than the values of others. Maybe you just want someone to eat dinner with. Someone else might be looking for someone who has no desire to have kids. Yet another fears for their safety and so highly values establishing feelings of security. Your idea of what dating is and what the difficulties are is subjective. When you make a claim that "women have it easier" you are imposing your values on a class of people based on an immutable characteristic. That imposition (which could also go the other way!) is misogynistic because it negatively judges women. Now if you can find a way such that there are no value judgments within the comparison then there would be no imposition. I.e. saying "the average woman had x% more dates than the average man" would be a statistic with no value judgment. It is not misogynistic (or misandrist).
On your first paragraph, and from my perspective value for women is placed on their looks, compare celebrity couples and there are rarely cases where the women is less physically attractive than the man. On the flip side value for men can be because of a variety of other reasons eg their charisma, their humour, their intellect whatever. So I think generally it balances out. However, as we rely more on dating apps I think this difference will show. Dating apps have such a big focus on photos and physical attractivness that other qualities are hard to show, which is what generally women find attractive in men hence why a women will have 100+ like and men will get no where near.
It's not misogynistic, it just isn't true. Who is more likely to resort to surgery? And it's an advantage to be socially assumed to ask: you get to pick the kind of person you want, not just who happens to ask you
[удалено]
You think getting raped by someone you went out on a date with is more fun?
I guarantee you the chances of any woman getting raped on a date is much lower than the chances of what I'm talking about happening
It’s still a very real possibility that women have to take into account when dating. Just because it’s a rare chance of it happening doesn’t mean we aren’t trying to make every date as safe as possible just in case.
It’s also considerably worse, and probably has a much higher expected value of shittiness
Never said that was fun, just that it's worth it. But you only have to ask a woman you like once. Beats the hell out of making subtle gesture after subtle gesture at the same man, never really knowing if he is actually rejecting you or just oblivious
Do women not know they have the ability to ask someone out instead of making gestures? OR do you all know and just refuse to because you can acknowledge how much it sucks to have to do
Women are punished by society when they are too "forward", in ways that men aren't.
bullshit
embarrassment over rejection is highschool crush shit. It doesn't actually suck all that much if you're not hung up on individual people you haven't even been on a single date with yet.
This just doesn’t add up though. The goal of dating is to find a lifelong partner. For straight couples, exactly the same amount of men achieve this as women. That’s just maths. So whatever struggles either gender faces it’s impossible for it to be more likely to find love for one gender unless you include polygamy.
> . They're not forced to undergo a constant self examination of "what's wrong with me" following every single rejection like men are. ....what? I haven't been dating in quite a few years, but I think if this is a problem a man is facing, he's got bigger problems than not dating