There's tons of dating apps out there where you can find a person to meet, but in the end you have to go out and meet them, in person, to really figure out who they are.
It's not any more complicated than it's always been.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
Unthinking Majority wrote:Maybe the problem isn't women, maybe the problem is you. Maybe women don't want to date you because they don't like you because you don't brush your teeth or you're a douche or something, I dunno. But if you're not attractive to women in general the problem isn't women.
That argument seems to assume that women only marry for money.
If that were the case, I would not have been married either time.
Perhaps the solution is for men to be attractive to women for a reason other than having enough money to attain a certain standard.
Steve_American wrote:Is the 'you' there a 3rd person you? Or, did you intend it to mean me?
The video advanced a theory backed by data. It referred you to 2 books. It was not based on anecdotal evidence.
If you meant me, personally, I'm married and 75 yo. I don't date.
In a reply to Crantag, I made my case. Women want a provider. Because of 40 years of declining real wages (if the proper CPI had been used) a majority of men do not earn a family wage. They are not seen as a good provider. Women don't need to date and get married. They can hook-up easily. When they do, they can pick from the top 10% of men. They can use toys. They can play with women. They have other options than marriage.
In fact many men couldn't find any job that paid a living wage before covid. Now, many men have dropped out of the labor market, because there are no decent jobs available. Some earn some on-line in some way. Many moved back home.
Just like the Olympic Games where it is impossible for most athletes to win a medal, the rules in the current economy make it impossible for most men to earn a decent family wage. There are not enough of those job to go around. And women don't need to settle for the best they can find. They can be happily single.
Therefore, the problem is the system, and not the individual.
tomskunk wrote:@Steve_American @Igor Antunov @Godstud @snapdragon @Unthinking Majority
If I were single today and dating, I would only take all women I dated out for coffee only and pay for her coffee. I have no way of knowing if the woman I decide to date is like an ultra-feminist who insists that she pay her half all the time or who assumes that most men pay for a meal just to get sex. Given that is the case, only a cup of coffee and just meet her at a coffee shop. Do the man thing and pay for her coffee and just get to know each other and if one or the other or both decide they don't like each other, no big deal, it's just a cup of coffee (not that a meal should be a big deal either, but sometimes that can turn into a big deal when deciding if the guy should pay for everything or the check should be split, so to solve that problem just take her out for a cup of coffee only).
Now, if the woman has a problem with a guy paying for a cup of coffee and thinks that the guy expects to get sex over a cup of coffee in return, then, that's probably not somebody a guy wants to get to know further because she probably has mental issues. There are crazy women out there and you really have to watch out who you hook up with. Not every woman is crazy, but you have no way of knowing who they are.
So, I think because the idea of if a check gets split or not can turn into an issue, then I would simply solve that problem and only take women out for a small cup of coffee. That way nobody feels pressured and everybody is happy and the woman shouldn't have a problem with a guy paying for her cup of coffee. I mean, it's just a cup of coffee. It's not going to break anybody's bank and it's so small that nobody should expect anything in return or feel obligated to give anything in return. And if the woman thinks she might want to get to know you better, she shouldn't insist on anything above coffee for the first 4 or 5 dates if it ever even goes that far.
Unthinking Majority wrote:Incels need to realize that the male-female ratio on dating apps is like 20:1, so if they're average looking (which most are) the only people they'll match with are fat chicks with kids who are 5+ years older than them because the top 20% of guys in terms of looks are getting 80% the girls, lying to them that they want a "real relationship" just to have sex with them, and then throwing them to the curb in order to repeat the process.
Godstud wrote:Your knowledge of Thailand is limited to what you read on 4chan blogs,
Steve_American wrote:PoD, I only said that women want a provider, and that women don't NEED to settle.
You took that to mean that women ONLY marry for money.
You made the non-total statements into assertions that "all women do _____________".
Your anecdotal experiences do not disprove that women want to marry a provider.
Were you a non-provider? That would help your case, but would still not prove your "all women aren't ________" claim.
It is a question of numbers in the mass of people. The video askes that 'if very many men quit trying to get ahead and settle for a life of minimum consumption and work to support society', then will the economy collapse? It asserts that men do most of the critical work, and women do mostly non-critical work. That women's work is massively non-critical may not be true, BTW. As the society ages and the numbers in later generations fall, having many young men stop working would, at a minimum, be a bad thing for the health of the society.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So if we agree that women do not just marry for money, then men should be able to date and marry and have a family even if they do not have high paying jobs.QFT. That's the reality.
Do you know how to fail at dating? Or even if successful in dating then fail at marriage? Here is how.
Start by worrying about your rights in the relationship. Forget that romance bullshit, this is about equality. Maybe develop a schedule for who gets on top if the merger gets that far. Don't think your woman/man is special under any circumstances. Just realize that this is a pair-bonding outside of the ancient love/desire paradigm. Understand that you both have sexual desires and figure out a way to quantify that. When it comes to money make sure that neither of you pay more than the other because, you know, the patriarchy.
My generation fucked up the climate for sure. You people are fucking up love (if that is not a pejorative word I will be banned for.)
There is a lot of talk in this thread about mechanics but no talk about falling in love. Expressions of respect, interest and love are just remnants of the patriarchy. I guess that has fallen out of style. Enjoy your barren uninteresting lives with your co-equal domestic partners.
What about a guy who doesn't show up on time? I did that to my current wife and she was not happy . Somehow, I still ended up marrying her. I should have justified myself to her by saying "don't be such a control freak!" I don't think that would have gone over too well with her though. I apologized to her at the time. But she wasn't happy about being kept waiting. I didn't do it intentionally, I just got caught up in my work at the time and forgot about the date!
This brings me to an interesting question. Let's say you are a single woman and you insisted on splitting the check. The guy agrees and you split the check. He tells you he honestly had a great time and would like to see you again. You agree, but then the second time you go out with him you are kept waiting but he does eventually show up and looks forward to going out with you again that night for the second date. He explains something unexpected happened or that his job unexpectedly had him working late. How do you react?
Pants-of-dog wrote:That argument seems to assume that women only marry for money.
If that were the case, I would not have been married either time.
No. I would rather force airplanes to fly back to[…]
Well there is no doubt @Doug64 that Republican[…]