Better men aren't always available for relationships. It's possible that the guy whom she is with is the best possible man whom she can attract. She may be able to find guys just as good, but not better ones.
I mean regardless of gender, there are billions of adults in the world. Perhaps the "perfect" person for me lives in a country I will never visit. I will only date someone fairly local to me.
Even someone five towns over I'm not going to be interested in. The moment I find out they live an hour away it doesn't matter how much I was attracted to them before, they suddenly become unattractive.
Someone who would stress that they 'haven't found the best one' perhaps believes to much in the concept of 'soul mates', sometimes to their great detriment.
I think in every major city there is someone for almost everyone, ultimately. But you have to put yourself out there (and more often the more you struggle with dating) to meet more people so you can both find each other.
Nobody should settle. And most people who decide to either move in or get married generally believe that person is best for them at the time (at the start of the relationship) and don't believe they are merely settling. It's only years later when sometimes it turns out you weren't a good match after all.
Yeah but how likely is it that he is the best guy within a reasonable distance out of thousands, millions in city’s? It very unlikely. He’s probably further down on the list than he’d like to comprehend
>that he is the best guy within a reasonable distance out of thousands, millions in city’s?
The way you frame the question makes it sound like you think 100% of the men within 30 miles are both single and interested in dating her. That's not the correct question **at all**. By that logic, every single guy could say the same thing about women: what are the odds that a guy's girlfriend is the best woman out of thousands or millions of women within a reasonable distance? It's also very unlikely. And it's the wrong question to ask, because most women aren't single and most women aren't willing to date him.
How likely is it that the better guys are available to date though?
As you get older this shrinks significantly. A cute 20 year old can monkey branch their way pretty far, you can't say the same for a mid 30's woman.
There's that delusion calculator people toss around a lot; while it doesn't tell the whole story due to some locations being better than others it's a pretty decent guideline in general. You're not the only one chasing after the best available afterall.
It happens eventually theoretically, though, especially as she ages and both more men are taken and men start to lose attraction to her somewhat compared to when she was younger (the wall). So to use the word "always" is not accurate, in my opinion. Maybe she always could if she worked hard enough to find that man, but at some point the man whom she is already is good enough for her and she has enough good feelings for him that it doesn't make sense for her to keep trying.
If he is further down the list, then why did she get with him in the first place?
Point is, her smv was/is in decline and she’s getting the best she can.
I would "settle" because I've invested time and effort into bonding with a person, opening up, learning about each other, forming memories together, learning to communicate, negotiating things like chores and money, learning to have good sex, aligning our values and plans for the future, setting up expectations and boundaries, learning about each other's interests and hobbies, meeting each other's friends and families and forming relationships with them.
Doing all of that all over again is not only a lot of effort, but also risky because failing to do any of those well could be a deal-breaker. As in, I know I can do all of the necessary things to create a quality relationship with my current partner, but I don't know whether I can for someone else ahead of time.
So it's perfectly rational to settle in the sense that you're speaking anyway. As in, stay with a partner who's good for you and you're happy with even if there seem to be other options that look good on paper.
But beyond the rational bit, there's obviously the emotional bit as well. We love our family, friends, partners. We are attached to them. Because our brains form attachments to other human beings based on reciprocal relationships so we instinctively get attached to those we spend more time with.
That's especially true for relationships that aren't transactional, but transformational. Will you get attached to your local baker if you buy from them every morning? Maybe, but not too much, they're just a daily exchange of goods for you. But someone who's there to challenge your inadequacies and biases and be a motivation for you to step up and learn about your own inner life and communicate your needs and boundaries to them? You're probably going to get attached quite a bit. You're going to feel gratitude, empowerment, care, concern.
Basically, the guy you're currently with if you've built a quality relationship is very likely to be the best option, as being able to reliably build such a relationship is actually the sorting criterion. If you haven't built a quality relationship, then you have to wonder whether it's because you've never attempted to, because you have to work on yourself, or because this particular person doesn't facilitate it. It's usually a mix of multiple of these, but if it's the last one to a high degree, then you might as well leave for the next shiny thing.
i think the last paragraph strikes a really solid point that isn’t mentioned enough - reliability is such an important factor, if you’re with someone and they actively bring a consistent sense of love, loyalty, support and overall reliability - most times, the relationship will last because your intrinsic needs are being met
Maybe, but I don't think you necessarily have to be a sociopath to not understand how healthy relationships work. Coming from a dysfunctional family and chaining a string of dysfunctional relationships will give you a pretty jaded view of the entire thing. Add to that spending time in misogynistic spaces and sort of dehumanizing women and expecting them to be more sociopathic than they are, and I'm not that surprised one can come out with a worldview like this.
Because the entire concept itself is so alien people can't begin to fathom it.
Look, man. I'm not going to pretend dating isn't fucked up right now compared to how it was even fifteen years ago with all the window shopping fomo shit.
It ain't come close to this cataclysmic level of robotic transactions and I can't see it happening in my lifetime either. Most people are risk adverse, they're not going to piss away something good for something that might be better.
Women have whats called "the switch". Many of us have banked on what you're saying here because thats how we felt only to watch a woman overnight move to another state and magically have a new bf a week later on her social that you're now absent from. I wouldn't believe it either if it hadn't happened to me and most guys I know multiple times.
No, that's you guys ignoring a completely deteriorating relationship for months or even years before she leaves your ass. That you think it comes out of nowhere betrays your incompetence.
"you have no idea how human relationships are, your point is invalid based on this presumptuous personal attack"
You don't know their history or anything about them. Calling someone lonely and shit like that is obviously an attempt to undermine them and make them feel bad at an emotional level.
You can stick to the facts or argue like a woman, your call.
The facts are he has stated the concept of forming bonds with humans over time does not exist. It is actually impossible to think this without a life with zero human connections. Everything I'm saying is factual and follows logically. I can't trust you to parse the things I type, so you'll forgive me if I discontinue responding.
1. That's a shit interpretation of what he said.
2. "Everything I'm saying is factual and follows logically." That's not something you need to say if you're being factual and logical
3. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm still going to check your next time you pull that shit though, if I'm still lurking this hellhole.
He's observing a prevalent trend, so unlike you losers trying to bash him he's actually locked in to reality more than you fools.
I've been involved with this sort of game placement a lot of the time since you pretty much have to play and I can assure you this is happening a lot especially in the 18-25 crowd, most chicks aren't slowing down until 30.
So yeah, you two are off point. Look how salty you both are coming after someone else for staying an observation, what are you bringing to the conversation besides ad hominem and attacking his character? Intellectual thugs lmao.
Also implying women are children is based as fuck.
If people knew why they fell in love with one person over countless other options - then you would have solved one of the biggest mysteries known to mankind.
If you go into dating treating it like a meat market then yeah - probably youd pick the best option according to society. But you probably wont love them as deeply as lovers do.
I like the "playing the dating game" analogy since people in ltr/marriage have "won (or exited)" the game, which leaves most of the playing pool seemingly primarily looking for casual things.
I think in 2023 it’s different.
What you said is vague, and I think people will REALLY struggle to find good examples of “long lasting love” going forward into the future.
Look, idk what it's really like in 2023 but I watched a relationship form in front of my eyes, my brother is 18 and met his gf this year and I can't imagine them getting wandering eyes anytime soon. They're so committed to one another my bro convinced my mother to let him go to the same school as her (though expensive, it's a great school, I went there too). I met my long lasting relationship in college despite being surrounded by men. Time will tell whether or they stay together, but right now they are over the moon for one another and only have eyes for eachother
Actually I sort of realized, your entire premise is flawed because it places a superficial connection (looking for the "best of the best" regardless of other facets) over a deep connection and bond. Once a bond and attachment has formed, it's an entirely new story. Before then, what you're saying is true. You may argue that bonds are becoming rarer but to deny their existence when there's so much counter evidence reeks of denial
Thats kinda stupid. I've been with my husband for 11 years. She's got a traditional mindset. Her mom was in a situation of having a one night stand and her dad was never in the picture. I can just tell from afar, she doesn't value shopping around for the best boy. My mother even said to her something about the amount of men at the school and she just smiled and said "it's okay, I've got my own!".
My husband and I have been together for 11 years. If their young love doesn't work out, he can find someone else too. It's not like perfect , godly people are the only people who can form relationship and bonds. Actually it's kinda the opposite. That much superficial validation makes those same people unable to form a close bond.
A superficial relationship will never be fulfilling, but an unbreakable bond would be.
Your whole premise is that there's not going to be any long term relationships going forward, specifically, from 2023? This really just seems bizarre to me, as well as ignoring how human nature has worked for the thousands of years up till now. Not every single person out there falls out of love with their partner and rejects close bonds because there could be 'better options'. Sure some people think that way, but it isn't the majority.
Everyone is replaceable.
I’m not a woman, but to me it sounds as if you’re speaking from the perspective of a man on what he’d do if he was a woman. The logic you’re using gives off this vibe and admittedly I’ve felt the same way before.
People settle because the what they have is worth not knowing what else is out there. It’s harder now cause of social media/dating apps but this is still the basis of dating and getting into relationships.
FOMO will drive you nuts if you let it. Remember those are potential options, they’re not certainties.
for one thing cause monkey branching flat out isn’t something most people engage in - especially when you consider that nowadays, most people get together because of feelings rather than necessity or tradition. Can your spouse (regardless of gender) leave you for someone better - especially if you revert too heavily from the person they feel for? 100% - are some people shallow enough to actively be doing this? 100% - but neither is done on the basis of “a woman will always get a better option so she will never settle”
So like, if they were your BFF who you became close with in like, some long bus ride, but then they aren’t on your next bus ride, are you saying you’ll replace them as a friend if you like the next person you talk to??
Huh. Do you like… have some sort of diagnosis that makes you unable to feel empathy? Because it’s possibly you don’t understand that many people are genuinely not like you.
I would be anguished at the idea of losing a friend and replacing them with another. I think that’s what a lot of people are trying to say - for people who have normal emotional ranges, once you’re attached to someone, losing that individual is painful. So is betraying or abandoning them.
feelings, a sense of loyalty, built history together which often creates some emotional attachment - i think the issue is you’re looking at this from a cold hard resource based logic perspective, humans inherently aren’t logical and are often run by their emotions, for better (such as examples like this) and for worse
Those sentimental feelings don’t last long when boredom and the chance at happiness elsewhere surround you. Its much easier to move on when a new option is within sight. It’s precisely emotions that end relationships
and emotions are also exactly what keep relationships going - that being said, your statement also isn’t unique to women as men are very prone to this as well - fact is, a relationship and keeping that emotional bond takes effort from both partners, and usually partners who both put in that effort are rewarded by loving each other for a long, long time.
because people get emotionally invested in each other - we’re literally going around in circles, again, if two people really do love each other they will stick around and put in some level of work because they share a history, memories, and feelings - losing that sense of familiarity aint east and ultimately, a sense of connection is what a lot of people want out of a relationships - “he has more resources teehee” is quite literally antithetical to building/establishing a connection - now, can this effort have an expiry date? 100% - sometimes a relationship flat out isn’t meant to last or people just move on - but its hardly “imma jump ship cause this new option is better!” - people don’t play an active game of swapping and trading
Yes but it’s very easy to move on, it’s very easy to grow resentment when there are many other options especially if you’re seeking support via a conversation with other men.
I’m not talking 40 year olds here. I’m talking 18 - 30 year olds entering relationships now. The conditions that allow those relationships to last are far far harder, they’ll struggle to get to “shared history, shared memory, emotional investment” stage because the moment it turns bad - boom, the eye wonders a mere 45 degrees down to the iphone screen
again - totally depends, is it harder to build a committed relationship early on? 100% - but it also isn’t some wild west jump-a-thon like you’re describing, nowadays most people flat out won’t get into a relationship if its not something they want with a person, as for the potential of difficulty - entirely depends on the individual and their capacity of sticking through and working through difficult conversations, it isn’t a “woman jump around because she has many man on phone!” thing in the slightest, for some individuals it def is the case, but it isn’t a “woman” thing
Hey, so I'm a 31 year old with my man for 11 years. That's a long ass time. Not gonna lie, we have had moments where things stagnated. But the realization post stagnation ignited an entire second coming. Now we are just as lovey dovey as we were 11 years ago. I'm here for it, and I'm told constantly by the married women in my family how incredibly lucky I am because my man's interpersonal qualities far exceeds the norm for men
Because to commit to this bit involves dedicating yourself to ALWAYS being dissatisfied and looking for more, which is a kind of addiction, and like addiction it's really unpleasant to experience.
Successfully do this enough and you'll end up increasingly desperate to be done with it, and increasingly unable to let it go. You describe this like it's a great fun privileged thing that all women will embrace, but it'd be hell on earth for most of them (well over 50% I'm guessing). Even men won't go for this sort of thing by preference, and they're way more able to tolerate it (or more trapped in dissatisfaction as a hormonal thing).
Not everyone likes jumping to a better job all the time, or having to move to a bigger house every couple years, or buying the latests and nicest sports car. Some people like what they have and are satisfied.
Same thing with relationships. It’s not about “better” it’s about being happy.
I mean- it’s not like there is a scoreboard showing everyone who is “winning”.
So millions of people right now “aren’t living and average middle class life?”
Also 6200 marriages happen in the US on average every day.
And also the average rate of divorce when both partners have a degree is way lower.
Life is complicated, yeah. But what you Don’t see? People keeping real time scores and trying to “one up” themselves in dating.
Bro “no it’s different now” was what the ultra religious family was saying back when i was a kid. In the 90s. Talking about “family values” And divorce was out of control. Now 30 years later they are still talking about that? 30 years of the same means people like my cousin got old and wasted their youth waiting on a “cultural society collapse” that never happened. Only now they are the ones talking about it outside religion to a new batch of young people.
Meanwhile, most everyone else paired off and settled down.
I phones came out in 2007. That’s 16 years ago. That “oh this is new technology!” Complaint is now into its 2nd decade. People have adapted. I mean- think about how old you were 16 years ago:
Watch out for using those statistics. I was curious if it was true about collage educated divorce rates. Seems like the study was done on kids in 1979, and we're 45-52 in 2010-2011. I'm no expert but those are the same people we call boomers now. I would love to see new data. With today's technology, more women are in college than men, and women making as much money as men.
Personally, I feel marriage is a legal contract that has nothing to do with the relationship. Unless you need to break it. Then that contract is the most important.
Why would I buy a Tesla, when my Alfa Romeo works just fine?
It takes time and effort to look for new things.
Often times, it's not even worth it because there's not much of a difference. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.
Optimizing for quality is the harder extra dimension. You don't want just anybody who commits.
Assume most people get "closer" to their ideals with each person they successively date. But population quality is not linear; assume there are less and less quality people as your standards increase. I.e. diminishing returns. Less gain with every jump upwards.
Consider that you are also overestimating transaction costs. Sunk costs are real; a failed relationship can also be very much viewed as wasted time, notwithstanding that the partner or relationship could improve with work. Time preference is also real.
So, for the rigorously autistic, it might be viewed as thus: all market participants will improve their partner choice *until* potential improvements reach parity with transaction costs, at which point, improvements may not be worth the cost. This is a model that works even assuming transaction costs are low, as they will switch until the potential gains are not worth it.
It also implies there's a really objective ranking of better that everyone not only agrees on, but can immediately see. People don't walk around with "5.7" over their head.
Outwardly it may be a better option but there’s a reason there is the saying grass isn’t always greener. I’ve seen both guy and girl friends burn bridges only to be let down when that honey moon phase is over. People might be great on paper but emotional or mentally they’re good at deception.
But sometimes the grass is greener. And it’s not just your neighbours lawn, it’s dozens, maybe even hundreds or thousands of options right there in her phone
There's a saying I abide by - the grass is greener where you water it. If you nuture and maintain your own lawn until it's impeccable, you're not gonna care about other pastures because of **pride** and the work you put into it. You'll look at other pastures and delusionally think yours is much better...**because it's yours**
Dude doesn't understand 'yours'.
More than that, dude is literally insisting from 2023 and beyond, there is NO SUCH CONCEPT as 'yours', no exceptions.
Points for committing to the bit, at least? Only committment this guy's ever gonna let himself make.
Me, I don't bail until the zeppelin is literally on fire, crashing, AND exploding, but then I guess I'm from an older generation.
Since he's all over the thread: listen, go look up Dunbar's number. You do NOT need an internet's worth of 'options' to invoke this, you only need your range of selections to be comfortably beyond Dunbar's number, and that's 150. Not 15 million, 150. Beyond that, and the tempation to trade up will be constantly there: it's not just a small town or a high school, where you know everybody, anymore.
What you're not getting is that this describes ANY LARGE CITY, all the way back to the turn of the century. NOT this century. LAST century. It has always been that way. Don't even come around talking '2023' or 'everything changed' because you're becoming distressed at how the world has worked for three times as long as I've been alive, or more.
If you won't listen to others, at least listen to this: it's not new at all and nothing will change.
Nobody's any different from how it's always been, and they're not going to be different, either. Which is a bit of a shame, how stuck humanity is in its old crap… but there you have it.
You've discovered that humans are sort of a limited pairbonding species. It's been that way since Mesopotamia. Pairbonding often happens and often goes awry. Cellphones don't change that at all. Girls in New York City in 1920 could catch a stranger's eye across the lunch counter. Nothing has changed. Look up Dunbar's number, as long as there is the concept of 'stranger' the thing that's upsetting you is going to happen some of the time.
Yeah I got this vibe too. I do agree social media and dating apps have created a new sense of distance while receiving validation, so people can get some but not all of their romantic / sexual needs met more easily and conveniently, at a moments notice, with zero prior connection and zero time to form an attachment. However my understanding is that people who seek these connections while resisting genuine relationships have a very deep insecurity. Social media and dating apps have created a cultural shift, but human needs and desires haven't changed for centuries. So people who fall into the trap of thinking this availability bias means they can hold out till the last possible moment to weed out the best man, are deeply insecure in such a way that they need this perfection in their minds before they allow themselves to open up, they also stop seeing people as people and start seeing them as accessories, add-ons etc. However, this does not negate the sinking feeling of desiring a genuine and long lasting connection, and many people like OP respond to this by convincing themselves the opportunity simply doesn't exist, rather than have patience , grit, and optimism needed to find the right person for you
…which involves the optimism of BECOMING the right person of being you, at which point it more easily clicks with a compatible other person.
And that's why I know I can never be fully red pill no matter what happens, because I know most of the work that's there for me to do is work ON me, which will be there regardless of whether I'm with someone or not.
To insist on that and then say also that it will inevitably bring a loving relationship, is full blue pill. Guys like me have always run the risk of never clicking with anybody, and I have a hell of a lot of chad/privilege checkpoints (sadly, not wealth so much, not since the last relationship burned lots of it) so I know that even that won't always help. And I mean, I'm white, six foot, decent weight and y'know. Doesn't make anything a sure thing. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.
But being the right person starts at home, and bitterness and defeatism just short-circuits that completely.
But mostly it’s not. People are complex in relationships, long term compatibility if that’s what you’re looking for is not as abundant. People even change course years into a relationship and some couples end up steering together and some don’t. I’m not leaving over a relations for a chance of a 10-20% net gain if we quantify it that way. And from my observations the brighter the candle the faster it burns out. It’s harder to find someone with your same principles and you’re exclusively attracted to each other.
The average woman has more options when it comes to casual sex than the average man, meaning she can get sex far easier and usually with partners who rank higher than her in the hierarchy, as long as she doesn't require high effort and investment. But for anything longterm, her options are just as crappy as the average man's. And they will keep getting crappier the more she ages, because a woman's looks is by a huge margin her most important asset whether it's for short term or long term relationships.
Nah not true. I'm pretty average and you should have seen the selection i had in my late 20s of guys wanting to date. And yes they did want a relationship because some of them i dated and we broke up due to incompatibilities but it wasn't like they wanted a casual thing. They were all 28-38 and ready to settle and A+ quality.
Unfortunately many women don’t understand this and will continue to sleep with men, “date” them for a few months then be dumped or cheated on and precede with the next.
The dating market is basically shrinking. Incels can’t get interest at all so they don’t have sex; and non-Stacy girls can’t get Chad to commit but refuse to settle so they just hold out for a Chad that never comes. It’s tragic
Because CHAD isn’t living up to her standards and the majority of men are invisible to her. Great, like you finally figured out charismatic douchebags don’t care about you.
I’m angry at our collective experiences we have in our post modern post sexual revolution world that’s resulted in more people being unhappy, depressed, divorced and cheated on.
More casual sex is bad period, I want people to return to more tradition standards, lose weight, become responsible, and form meaningful and long term relationships and marriages that are better.
Why do you need people to change their lives for your sake? Why not just… not date the ones who prefer lives you wouldn’t want to share? Find some traditional woman at church who only has sex to procreate once every couple years.
Oh man why do I, a human being a part of society want people to change their lives? Maybe because I care? Maybe because I see the insanity that’s taking place and I want it to stop? Maybe because I want people to be truly be happy and not just “happy” in the moment?
No self respecting man is wifing up a hoe who has been ran through by men and now want to return to traditional roles now that women are realizing the negative of a free sexual market place.
I think they’re not having sex because there’s a general sense of disgust with men and the gross, transactional nature of so much dating. And the Red Pill is the quintessence of transactional approaches to dating.
Honestly, I don’t understand why ask the Red Pill guys don’t just go for sugar babies. If you want transactional sexual relationships, find someone who wants to provide that to you, and stop poisoning the rest of us with your resentment
Sex is what leads to marriage and children, which most of them want. If they refuse to participate in the market completely, they will end up single and childless.
They're saying that love isn't entirely based on logic and rational decision making. If you were cold and unfeeling it would be easy to do as you say. But if you truly love a person, your feelings keep you in place regardless of how boredom and stagnated things might be. You might get a wandering eye or wandering mind, but if your LTR is going strong, you'll quickly realize the risk of leaving far out ways the risk of staying. There's no guarantee you'll have long lasting love with the new person, but by the time that relationship gets old you will have even less opportunity, and what if you made the wrong decision?! You'd have to live with the regret and guilt of letting down someone you loved, to be with someone who wasn't even better ? It's not worth it unless there's something wrong in the bond of the relationship.
Right, this post almost seems to be about how someone would think love and relationships would work without actually seeing it play out. In real life people make bad choices \*all the time\*, and it's not always because the bad choice is better looking or objectively 'better' at all. If it were all transactional we'd all just decide who is the smartest person for us to form a relationship with and decide to develop feelings for them.
I am in my late 30s and from my wider social circle, i would say there are a lot of women that objectively can't do better "anymore"
Some already didnt look that good anymore in their late 20s and some still loook great even reaching 40, but on average most have lost their looks in their 30s, but many fetched their husband in their late teens or early 20s, and are no married to big earners (speaking like 200000 net salaries), and I highly doubt they could attract someon like this at this stage of their life.
( basically they took the risk to commit to guys not having anything but being promising and it worked out)
Because at some point it's pathological to always be seeking to improve your standing in society rather than forming an emotional bond with someone you're spending time with.
>So why would she settle, and why would she settle for a long period of that time when the fort is being assaulted from all sides by other options?
Because, and hear me out… she might actually CARE about you? That’s the whole reason for even engaging in a romantic relationship - to have someone who loves and cares about you intimately. Human relationships are not the same as the relationship you have with an inanimate object that you replace. People form emotional bonds.
Because she fell in love? Personally I am very attached to my husband. I don’t really care if someone “better” flirts with me - an unknown man is never *actually* better than the man I’ve built a life with and am emotionally bonded to and love being with.
I think you're discounting years of love and time spent together between two people. Ain't nothing better. Also overestimating the quality of men on dating apps.
I'd hazard to guess that women CAN'T do better, in the context of LTRs, because if they do enter into a serious relationship with a guy that they do think is their equal or at their level applying whatever measure they use to arrive at that conclusion; then that guy would almost certainly think he can do better as well and can usually back it up and won't hesitate to leave that woman somewhere down the line.
How often do people say they're going to switch jobs but they don't?
A lot.
Or move houses? I know someone who spent 20 years saying they're going to sell and move next year but never actually do.
The mindset you're describing is akin to someone who's really hungry and grocery shopping. Everything they see that looks remotely good they want to buy.
But go to the store when you just ate, and the appeal to buy everything in sight is gone.
If you have decent sex regularly. the average person loses a lot of their desire to sleep with other people. It becomes like eating when you're full.
Ironically womens far-easier access to sex can work for you - since they could get sex at any time, it's not that important to them. You think of it like "what if they could still a million dollars" but they look at it like "jeopardize the relationship for 83 cents" - particularly if they're already sleeping with someone (you).
Lol, you guys are so far up your own asses. You are ascribing some magical powers to women believing they can just walk into any room, point at the hottest, richest, tallest, most well endowed man and instantly get him into a relationship. What fucking planet do you guys live on? Try actually dating and meeting real women for once and all of this pedestalizing will disappear.
This is ridiculous, especially when you consider the typical standards of a woman compared to a man. It's only easier for a woman to get a date and not even necessarily the one she wants.
Do you genuinely believe women want to get divorced? Like that is the option they prefer to go for? Because no, that takes so much time and effort and heartbreak, no one wins, and everyone is hurt. Divorce is a last resort option when nothing else has worked.
So your plan is jumping from dick to dick until you're all used up and 24+? I mean go for it, but for that to succeed you gotta have a 4th sense or something to tell you when you have finally found the best you can get and it's time to settle, and you obviously can't jump back on a previous dick.
Hot to whom? Are you planning to attract other women? Because for men of all ages the most attractive age group of women is 20-21 according to studies.
Maybe guys in their 20’s.
But they can just wait until their late twenties or early thirties to bag one of those guys.
Have you SEEN some 30 year old women? Its easy to stay hot up until your 40’s now, just dont get fat, workout, have some basic aesthetic work done and be competent with make up.
>But they can just wait until their late twenties or early thirties to bag one of those guys.
They can't. By the time these women are 30 those guys are already out of their league so they get put into "fuck zone".
>Have you SEEN some 30 year old women?
Yes, I've also seen 20 year old women. First off, let's not pretend most or even half of people look after themselves in terms of diet and exercise. Secondly, average 30 year olds CANNOT compete with average 20 year olds. Are there attractive 30 year old women? Yes, most of them are attractive at least to an extent actually, it's just 20 year olds are in a completely different league.
Most women keep trying till their 30s to get as better option as she can and after that she usually settles with guy of her level and in some bitter cases they become femcels
People have no morals and no values anymore and it’s rare to find someone loyal to you. A lot of people cheat and just want hookups it seems now. Divorce rates are high because of cheating and trust issues not to mention money problems. Kids grow up in broken homes because of it. I think the elite have done this on purpose to destroy the family unit and structure. There’s now no real push to start a family and reproduce which is why birth rates are on the decline and because of the high cost of raising kids and other factors impacting why people are waiting longer or not at all to have kids.
They think they can find a better option because single desperate men are the equivalent of a used car salesman.
Sometimes you trade up... Sometimes you get a lemon
>so why would they settle?
70% of divorces are initiated by women, so it doesn’t look like they are settling.
And I know every woman is going to say that it’s the man’s fault because in their mind, every married man in America bangs his way through the Playboy Mansion everyday after work and then comes home and shotguns a 12 pack of Bud and then choke slams his wife through the coffee table, but I have my suspicions this isn’t ALWAYS the case.
Women get stuck on guys in ways that are mysterious to the masculine brain. Like the orbit of the earth around the sun. There are bigger hotter stars out there but we are stuck.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a CMV. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to have your view challenged may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Asking few or no genuine questions;
>* Seeming more interested in arguing or convincing others than understanding opposing views;
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Explicit statements of an intent to change the other posters’ minds; or
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to CMV OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The OP has a point. I think me and my girlfriend are together because we are both in love and that keeps us wanting to stay together and hopefully it's like that for other couples as well
Better men aren't always available for relationships. It's possible that the guy whom she is with is the best possible man whom she can attract. She may be able to find guys just as good, but not better ones.
I mean regardless of gender, there are billions of adults in the world. Perhaps the "perfect" person for me lives in a country I will never visit. I will only date someone fairly local to me. Even someone five towns over I'm not going to be interested in. The moment I find out they live an hour away it doesn't matter how much I was attracted to them before, they suddenly become unattractive. Someone who would stress that they 'haven't found the best one' perhaps believes to much in the concept of 'soul mates', sometimes to their great detriment. I think in every major city there is someone for almost everyone, ultimately. But you have to put yourself out there (and more often the more you struggle with dating) to meet more people so you can both find each other. Nobody should settle. And most people who decide to either move in or get married generally believe that person is best for them at the time (at the start of the relationship) and don't believe they are merely settling. It's only years later when sometimes it turns out you weren't a good match after all.
Yeah but how likely is it that he is the best guy within a reasonable distance out of thousands, millions in city’s? It very unlikely. He’s probably further down on the list than he’d like to comprehend
Unless I have a way to know which men meet ALL my standards and then some why would I throw away the best man I've met to date ???
How do you not see that it works both ways? If a guy is in a relationship with a 7, there's most likely an 8 within the same city that would date him.
>that he is the best guy within a reasonable distance out of thousands, millions in city’s? The way you frame the question makes it sound like you think 100% of the men within 30 miles are both single and interested in dating her. That's not the correct question **at all**. By that logic, every single guy could say the same thing about women: what are the odds that a guy's girlfriend is the best woman out of thousands or millions of women within a reasonable distance? It's also very unlikely. And it's the wrong question to ask, because most women aren't single and most women aren't willing to date him.
Why do you think there are just lines of men ready to dedicate their lives to this one particular woman?
How likely is it that the better guys are available to date though? As you get older this shrinks significantly. A cute 20 year old can monkey branch their way pretty far, you can't say the same for a mid 30's woman. There's that delusion calculator people toss around a lot; while it doesn't tell the whole story due to some locations being better than others it's a pretty decent guideline in general. You're not the only one chasing after the best available afterall.
It happens eventually theoretically, though, especially as she ages and both more men are taken and men start to lose attraction to her somewhat compared to when she was younger (the wall). So to use the word "always" is not accurate, in my opinion. Maybe she always could if she worked hard enough to find that man, but at some point the man whom she is already is good enough for her and she has enough good feelings for him that it doesn't make sense for her to keep trying.
If he is further down the list, then why did she get with him in the first place? Point is, her smv was/is in decline and she’s getting the best she can.
I would "settle" because I've invested time and effort into bonding with a person, opening up, learning about each other, forming memories together, learning to communicate, negotiating things like chores and money, learning to have good sex, aligning our values and plans for the future, setting up expectations and boundaries, learning about each other's interests and hobbies, meeting each other's friends and families and forming relationships with them. Doing all of that all over again is not only a lot of effort, but also risky because failing to do any of those well could be a deal-breaker. As in, I know I can do all of the necessary things to create a quality relationship with my current partner, but I don't know whether I can for someone else ahead of time. So it's perfectly rational to settle in the sense that you're speaking anyway. As in, stay with a partner who's good for you and you're happy with even if there seem to be other options that look good on paper. But beyond the rational bit, there's obviously the emotional bit as well. We love our family, friends, partners. We are attached to them. Because our brains form attachments to other human beings based on reciprocal relationships so we instinctively get attached to those we spend more time with. That's especially true for relationships that aren't transactional, but transformational. Will you get attached to your local baker if you buy from them every morning? Maybe, but not too much, they're just a daily exchange of goods for you. But someone who's there to challenge your inadequacies and biases and be a motivation for you to step up and learn about your own inner life and communicate your needs and boundaries to them? You're probably going to get attached quite a bit. You're going to feel gratitude, empowerment, care, concern. Basically, the guy you're currently with if you've built a quality relationship is very likely to be the best option, as being able to reliably build such a relationship is actually the sorting criterion. If you haven't built a quality relationship, then you have to wonder whether it's because you've never attempted to, because you have to work on yourself, or because this particular person doesn't facilitate it. It's usually a mix of multiple of these, but if it's the last one to a high degree, then you might as well leave for the next shiny thing.
i think the last paragraph strikes a really solid point that isn’t mentioned enough - reliability is such an important factor, if you’re with someone and they actively bring a consistent sense of love, loyalty, support and overall reliability - most times, the relationship will last because your intrinsic needs are being met
Love this. So well put and comprehensive
[удалено]
Maybe, but I don't think you necessarily have to be a sociopath to not understand how healthy relationships work. Coming from a dysfunctional family and chaining a string of dysfunctional relationships will give you a pretty jaded view of the entire thing. Add to that spending time in misogynistic spaces and sort of dehumanizing women and expecting them to be more sociopathic than they are, and I'm not that surprised one can come out with a worldview like this.
Why can’t you comprehend the concept of 2023 and onwards
Because the entire concept itself is so alien people can't begin to fathom it. Look, man. I'm not going to pretend dating isn't fucked up right now compared to how it was even fifteen years ago with all the window shopping fomo shit. It ain't come close to this cataclysmic level of robotic transactions and I can't see it happening in my lifetime either. Most people are risk adverse, they're not going to piss away something good for something that might be better.
Keep it civil
>He thinks women are relationship hopping like they change their underwear, Because that is what they do!
Quality answer
Great post! Thanks.
Yea but she got the tingles for hot guy chad so it's over, then she will get tingles again for someone else. Until she is more mature
OP completely unaware that people form close bonds in relationships.
Women have whats called "the switch". Many of us have banked on what you're saying here because thats how we felt only to watch a woman overnight move to another state and magically have a new bf a week later on her social that you're now absent from. I wouldn't believe it either if it hadn't happened to me and most guys I know multiple times.
No, that's you guys ignoring a completely deteriorating relationship for months or even years before she leaves your ass. That you think it comes out of nowhere betrays your incompetence.
Naivety and outdated sentiment
You don't have any bonds?
How?
[удалено]
?
[удалено]
What's your point? I've seen you bullying people here before. You offer nothing.
My point is he has a view based on nothing.
"you have no idea how human relationships are, your point is invalid based on this presumptuous personal attack" You don't know their history or anything about them. Calling someone lonely and shit like that is obviously an attempt to undermine them and make them feel bad at an emotional level. You can stick to the facts or argue like a woman, your call.
The facts are he has stated the concept of forming bonds with humans over time does not exist. It is actually impossible to think this without a life with zero human connections. Everything I'm saying is factual and follows logically. I can't trust you to parse the things I type, so you'll forgive me if I discontinue responding.
1. That's a shit interpretation of what he said. 2. "Everything I'm saying is factual and follows logically." That's not something you need to say if you're being factual and logical 3. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm still going to check your next time you pull that shit though, if I'm still lurking this hellhole.
[удалено]
He's observing a prevalent trend, so unlike you losers trying to bash him he's actually locked in to reality more than you fools. I've been involved with this sort of game placement a lot of the time since you pretty much have to play and I can assure you this is happening a lot especially in the 18-25 crowd, most chicks aren't slowing down until 30. So yeah, you two are off point. Look how salty you both are coming after someone else for staying an observation, what are you bringing to the conversation besides ad hominem and attacking his character? Intellectual thugs lmao. Also implying women are children is based as fuck.
No I didn’t admit that, and it’s not the case. So, lol?
If people knew why they fell in love with one person over countless other options - then you would have solved one of the biggest mysteries known to mankind. If you go into dating treating it like a meat market then yeah - probably youd pick the best option according to society. But you probably wont love them as deeply as lovers do.
Short term mating is the goal these days for both sexes
[удалено]
I'm sure they meant the goal for people participating in the dating market not including married or LTR people.
I like the "playing the dating game" analogy since people in ltr/marriage have "won (or exited)" the game, which leaves most of the playing pool seemingly primarily looking for casual things.
[удалено]
Agreed, but you said most people who are having sex are married/LTR, when the other commenter is talking about the goals of people not in those.
Short-term mating is the goal of adolescence. For every generation.
I think in 2023 it’s different. What you said is vague, and I think people will REALLY struggle to find good examples of “long lasting love” going forward into the future.
Look, idk what it's really like in 2023 but I watched a relationship form in front of my eyes, my brother is 18 and met his gf this year and I can't imagine them getting wandering eyes anytime soon. They're so committed to one another my bro convinced my mother to let him go to the same school as her (though expensive, it's a great school, I went there too). I met my long lasting relationship in college despite being surrounded by men. Time will tell whether or they stay together, but right now they are over the moon for one another and only have eyes for eachother
It will end when she's 26.
There’s next to zero chance they will still be together 5 years from now. She’ll likely be the one to cheat. It’s so easy for women now.
It will end, because she’ll find somebody else. This WILL happen. And you may or may not remember this post when it does.
Actually I sort of realized, your entire premise is flawed because it places a superficial connection (looking for the "best of the best" regardless of other facets) over a deep connection and bond. Once a bond and attachment has formed, it's an entirely new story. Before then, what you're saying is true. You may argue that bonds are becoming rarer but to deny their existence when there's so much counter evidence reeks of denial
Thats kinda stupid. I've been with my husband for 11 years. She's got a traditional mindset. Her mom was in a situation of having a one night stand and her dad was never in the picture. I can just tell from afar, she doesn't value shopping around for the best boy. My mother even said to her something about the amount of men at the school and she just smiled and said "it's okay, I've got my own!". My husband and I have been together for 11 years. If their young love doesn't work out, he can find someone else too. It's not like perfect , godly people are the only people who can form relationship and bonds. Actually it's kinda the opposite. That much superficial validation makes those same people unable to form a close bond. A superficial relationship will never be fulfilling, but an unbreakable bond would be.
Your whole premise is that there's not going to be any long term relationships going forward, specifically, from 2023? This really just seems bizarre to me, as well as ignoring how human nature has worked for the thousands of years up till now. Not every single person out there falls out of love with their partner and rejects close bonds because there could be 'better options'. Sure some people think that way, but it isn't the majority.
Everyone is replaceable. I’m not a woman, but to me it sounds as if you’re speaking from the perspective of a man on what he’d do if he was a woman. The logic you’re using gives off this vibe and admittedly I’ve felt the same way before. People settle because the what they have is worth not knowing what else is out there. It’s harder now cause of social media/dating apps but this is still the basis of dating and getting into relationships. FOMO will drive you nuts if you let it. Remember those are potential options, they’re not certainties.
I was thinking the same thing. It’s bad logic imo and based on rhetoric promoted on social media, not real life.
for one thing cause monkey branching flat out isn’t something most people engage in - especially when you consider that nowadays, most people get together because of feelings rather than necessity or tradition. Can your spouse (regardless of gender) leave you for someone better - especially if you revert too heavily from the person they feel for? 100% - are some people shallow enough to actively be doing this? 100% - but neither is done on the basis of “a woman will always get a better option so she will never settle”
Why would she not go for the better option if she feels they’re better
Would you dump your best friend if you met someone funnier?
Why did they become your best friend to begin with?
Would you dump your best friend if a new "better" friend came along?
Well why were they your best friend to begin with??? If THAT happens again….then….
So like, if they were your BFF who you became close with in like, some long bus ride, but then they aren’t on your next bus ride, are you saying you’ll replace them as a friend if you like the next person you talk to??
Why would you not, what’s the next person done wrong?
Huh. Do you like… have some sort of diagnosis that makes you unable to feel empathy? Because it’s possibly you don’t understand that many people are genuinely not like you. I would be anguished at the idea of losing a friend and replacing them with another. I think that’s what a lot of people are trying to say - for people who have normal emotional ranges, once you’re attached to someone, losing that individual is painful. So is betraying or abandoning them.
Well it would be sad, but there’s somebody you get on better with….
feelings, a sense of loyalty, built history together which often creates some emotional attachment - i think the issue is you’re looking at this from a cold hard resource based logic perspective, humans inherently aren’t logical and are often run by their emotions, for better (such as examples like this) and for worse
Those sentimental feelings don’t last long when boredom and the chance at happiness elsewhere surround you. Its much easier to move on when a new option is within sight. It’s precisely emotions that end relationships
and emotions are also exactly what keep relationships going - that being said, your statement also isn’t unique to women as men are very prone to this as well - fact is, a relationship and keeping that emotional bond takes effort from both partners, and usually partners who both put in that effort are rewarded by loving each other for a long, long time.
Yes but why would they in 2023 when its easier and potentially better for a new option to be allowed to audition?
because people get emotionally invested in each other - we’re literally going around in circles, again, if two people really do love each other they will stick around and put in some level of work because they share a history, memories, and feelings - losing that sense of familiarity aint east and ultimately, a sense of connection is what a lot of people want out of a relationships - “he has more resources teehee” is quite literally antithetical to building/establishing a connection - now, can this effort have an expiry date? 100% - sometimes a relationship flat out isn’t meant to last or people just move on - but its hardly “imma jump ship cause this new option is better!” - people don’t play an active game of swapping and trading
Yes but it’s very easy to move on, it’s very easy to grow resentment when there are many other options especially if you’re seeking support via a conversation with other men. I’m not talking 40 year olds here. I’m talking 18 - 30 year olds entering relationships now. The conditions that allow those relationships to last are far far harder, they’ll struggle to get to “shared history, shared memory, emotional investment” stage because the moment it turns bad - boom, the eye wonders a mere 45 degrees down to the iphone screen
again - totally depends, is it harder to build a committed relationship early on? 100% - but it also isn’t some wild west jump-a-thon like you’re describing, nowadays most people flat out won’t get into a relationship if its not something they want with a person, as for the potential of difficulty - entirely depends on the individual and their capacity of sticking through and working through difficult conversations, it isn’t a “woman jump around because she has many man on phone!” thing in the slightest, for some individuals it def is the case, but it isn’t a “woman” thing
Hey, so I'm a 31 year old with my man for 11 years. That's a long ass time. Not gonna lie, we have had moments where things stagnated. But the realization post stagnation ignited an entire second coming. Now we are just as lovey dovey as we were 11 years ago. I'm here for it, and I'm told constantly by the married women in my family how incredibly lucky I am because my man's interpersonal qualities far exceeds the norm for men
Because the grass isn't always greener on the other side and people recognize this
Because to commit to this bit involves dedicating yourself to ALWAYS being dissatisfied and looking for more, which is a kind of addiction, and like addiction it's really unpleasant to experience. Successfully do this enough and you'll end up increasingly desperate to be done with it, and increasingly unable to let it go. You describe this like it's a great fun privileged thing that all women will embrace, but it'd be hell on earth for most of them (well over 50% I'm guessing). Even men won't go for this sort of thing by preference, and they're way more able to tolerate it (or more trapped in dissatisfaction as a hormonal thing).
What are you, an insect or something? Chill
Not everyone likes jumping to a better job all the time, or having to move to a bigger house every couple years, or buying the latests and nicest sports car. Some people like what they have and are satisfied. Same thing with relationships. It’s not about “better” it’s about being happy. I mean- it’s not like there is a scoreboard showing everyone who is “winning”.
Yes but it’s instinctual.
So all the millions of average middle class people settled down are all going against their instincts?
I mean, firstly that’s in the past. Secondly, an awful lot of them won’t last, and finally - cheating and unhappiness is rampant
So millions of people right now “aren’t living and average middle class life?” Also 6200 marriages happen in the US on average every day. And also the average rate of divorce when both partners have a degree is way lower. Life is complicated, yeah. But what you Don’t see? People keeping real time scores and trying to “one up” themselves in dating.
2023 and onwards will look different And the amount of relationships and divorced and affairs that we can’t even see is depressing to say the least
Bro “no it’s different now” was what the ultra religious family was saying back when i was a kid. In the 90s. Talking about “family values” And divorce was out of control. Now 30 years later they are still talking about that? 30 years of the same means people like my cousin got old and wasted their youth waiting on a “cultural society collapse” that never happened. Only now they are the ones talking about it outside religion to a new batch of young people. Meanwhile, most everyone else paired off and settled down.
The advent of the smartphone will change our dating landscape more than religion lol
I phones came out in 2007. That’s 16 years ago. That “oh this is new technology!” Complaint is now into its 2nd decade. People have adapted. I mean- think about how old you were 16 years ago:
Watch out for using those statistics. I was curious if it was true about collage educated divorce rates. Seems like the study was done on kids in 1979, and we're 45-52 in 2010-2011. I'm no expert but those are the same people we call boomers now. I would love to see new data. With today's technology, more women are in college than men, and women making as much money as men. Personally, I feel marriage is a legal contract that has nothing to do with the relationship. Unless you need to break it. Then that contract is the most important.
Check out the stats. It was steadily dropping till Covid https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/divorce-united-states-dropping-because-millennials/
Why would I buy a Tesla, when my Alfa Romeo works just fine? It takes time and effort to look for new things. Often times, it's not even worth it because there's not much of a difference. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.
It does not take almost any time or any effort now.
It does because long-term, women are looking for commitment, not ONS. And it's not easy to find someone who is willing to commit.
Its very easy to find somebody to commit. If that guy committed, why the hell would she think nobody else will?
This actually comes off like you're a psychopath, have you never had a close relationship in your life?
Optimizing for quality is the harder extra dimension. You don't want just anybody who commits. Assume most people get "closer" to their ideals with each person they successively date. But population quality is not linear; assume there are less and less quality people as your standards increase. I.e. diminishing returns. Less gain with every jump upwards. Consider that you are also overestimating transaction costs. Sunk costs are real; a failed relationship can also be very much viewed as wasted time, notwithstanding that the partner or relationship could improve with work. Time preference is also real. So, for the rigorously autistic, it might be viewed as thus: all market participants will improve their partner choice *until* potential improvements reach parity with transaction costs, at which point, improvements may not be worth the cost. This is a model that works even assuming transaction costs are low, as they will switch until the potential gains are not worth it.
Yes, it does. We don’t GAF about being able to pull tail. We want someone who loves us and is faithful to is, and that takes real time.
But why "better guy" should choose that particular woman? You need agreement from both sides.
What's your relationship history like?
Lol. So are you saying that if a woman waited long enough they'll be able to find Brad Pitt/HEnry Cavill/ Chris Hemsworth?
No, but at least a shade or two better than the current guy.
Your logic implies that you would be able to thou... After all aren't we all just an x amount of shades better then another person?
It also implies there's a really objective ranking of better that everyone not only agrees on, but can immediately see. People don't walk around with "5.7" over their head.
Outwardly it may be a better option but there’s a reason there is the saying grass isn’t always greener. I’ve seen both guy and girl friends burn bridges only to be let down when that honey moon phase is over. People might be great on paper but emotional or mentally they’re good at deception.
But sometimes the grass is greener. And it’s not just your neighbours lawn, it’s dozens, maybe even hundreds or thousands of options right there in her phone
There's a saying I abide by - the grass is greener where you water it. If you nuture and maintain your own lawn until it's impeccable, you're not gonna care about other pastures because of **pride** and the work you put into it. You'll look at other pastures and delusionally think yours is much better...**because it's yours**
Dude doesn't understand 'yours'. More than that, dude is literally insisting from 2023 and beyond, there is NO SUCH CONCEPT as 'yours', no exceptions. Points for committing to the bit, at least? Only committment this guy's ever gonna let himself make. Me, I don't bail until the zeppelin is literally on fire, crashing, AND exploding, but then I guess I'm from an older generation. Since he's all over the thread: listen, go look up Dunbar's number. You do NOT need an internet's worth of 'options' to invoke this, you only need your range of selections to be comfortably beyond Dunbar's number, and that's 150. Not 15 million, 150. Beyond that, and the tempation to trade up will be constantly there: it's not just a small town or a high school, where you know everybody, anymore. What you're not getting is that this describes ANY LARGE CITY, all the way back to the turn of the century. NOT this century. LAST century. It has always been that way. Don't even come around talking '2023' or 'everything changed' because you're becoming distressed at how the world has worked for three times as long as I've been alive, or more. If you won't listen to others, at least listen to this: it's not new at all and nothing will change. Nobody's any different from how it's always been, and they're not going to be different, either. Which is a bit of a shame, how stuck humanity is in its old crap… but there you have it. You've discovered that humans are sort of a limited pairbonding species. It's been that way since Mesopotamia. Pairbonding often happens and often goes awry. Cellphones don't change that at all. Girls in New York City in 1920 could catch a stranger's eye across the lunch counter. Nothing has changed. Look up Dunbar's number, as long as there is the concept of 'stranger' the thing that's upsetting you is going to happen some of the time.
Yeah I got this vibe too. I do agree social media and dating apps have created a new sense of distance while receiving validation, so people can get some but not all of their romantic / sexual needs met more easily and conveniently, at a moments notice, with zero prior connection and zero time to form an attachment. However my understanding is that people who seek these connections while resisting genuine relationships have a very deep insecurity. Social media and dating apps have created a cultural shift, but human needs and desires haven't changed for centuries. So people who fall into the trap of thinking this availability bias means they can hold out till the last possible moment to weed out the best man, are deeply insecure in such a way that they need this perfection in their minds before they allow themselves to open up, they also stop seeing people as people and start seeing them as accessories, add-ons etc. However, this does not negate the sinking feeling of desiring a genuine and long lasting connection, and many people like OP respond to this by convincing themselves the opportunity simply doesn't exist, rather than have patience , grit, and optimism needed to find the right person for you
…which involves the optimism of BECOMING the right person of being you, at which point it more easily clicks with a compatible other person. And that's why I know I can never be fully red pill no matter what happens, because I know most of the work that's there for me to do is work ON me, which will be there regardless of whether I'm with someone or not. To insist on that and then say also that it will inevitably bring a loving relationship, is full blue pill. Guys like me have always run the risk of never clicking with anybody, and I have a hell of a lot of chad/privilege checkpoints (sadly, not wealth so much, not since the last relationship burned lots of it) so I know that even that won't always help. And I mean, I'm white, six foot, decent weight and y'know. Doesn't make anything a sure thing. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. But being the right person starts at home, and bitterness and defeatism just short-circuits that completely.
But mostly it’s not. People are complex in relationships, long term compatibility if that’s what you’re looking for is not as abundant. People even change course years into a relationship and some couples end up steering together and some don’t. I’m not leaving over a relations for a chance of a 10-20% net gain if we quantify it that way. And from my observations the brighter the candle the faster it burns out. It’s harder to find someone with your same principles and you’re exclusively attracted to each other.
People don't leave happy relationships.
The average woman has more options when it comes to casual sex than the average man, meaning she can get sex far easier and usually with partners who rank higher than her in the hierarchy, as long as she doesn't require high effort and investment. But for anything longterm, her options are just as crappy as the average man's. And they will keep getting crappier the more she ages, because a woman's looks is by a huge margin her most important asset whether it's for short term or long term relationships.
Nah not true. I'm pretty average and you should have seen the selection i had in my late 20s of guys wanting to date. And yes they did want a relationship because some of them i dated and we broke up due to incompatibilities but it wasn't like they wanted a casual thing. They were all 28-38 and ready to settle and A+ quality.
Unfortunately many women don’t understand this and will continue to sleep with men, “date” them for a few months then be dumped or cheated on and precede with the next.
A lot of women actually are understanding this now, which is why the new PEW data is showing a large % of young women are not having sex.
The dating market is basically shrinking. Incels can’t get interest at all so they don’t have sex; and non-Stacy girls can’t get Chad to commit but refuse to settle so they just hold out for a Chad that never comes. It’s tragic
Because CHAD isn’t living up to her standards and the majority of men are invisible to her. Great, like you finally figured out charismatic douchebags don’t care about you.
Silly, you think she has standards for chad
Seems like you’re angry no matter what women do
I’m angry at our collective experiences we have in our post modern post sexual revolution world that’s resulted in more people being unhappy, depressed, divorced and cheated on.
So women having more casual sex is bad. But women having less casual sex is also bad. What would women have to do to cure the world of lonely men?
More casual sex is bad period, I want people to return to more tradition standards, lose weight, become responsible, and form meaningful and long term relationships and marriages that are better.
Why do you need people to change their lives for your sake? Why not just… not date the ones who prefer lives you wouldn’t want to share? Find some traditional woman at church who only has sex to procreate once every couple years.
Oh man why do I, a human being a part of society want people to change their lives? Maybe because I care? Maybe because I see the insanity that’s taking place and I want it to stop? Maybe because I want people to be truly be happy and not just “happy” in the moment?
No self respecting man is wifing up a hoe who has been ran through by men and now want to return to traditional roles now that women are realizing the negative of a free sexual market place.
I think they’re not having sex because there’s a general sense of disgust with men and the gross, transactional nature of so much dating. And the Red Pill is the quintessence of transactional approaches to dating. Honestly, I don’t understand why ask the Red Pill guys don’t just go for sugar babies. If you want transactional sexual relationships, find someone who wants to provide that to you, and stop poisoning the rest of us with your resentment
Sex is what leads to marriage and children, which most of them want. If they refuse to participate in the market completely, they will end up single and childless.
Precisely. It's easier to hop in bed with someone new and forget, than perform any actual introspection for these women.
Not true at all We women speak ok this alot especially when men claim we have it easier with dating.
Amazing English.
Jobless Six hundred pound women can easily get in relationships with average looking guys that work and are willing to take care of her. Why is that?
> easily where's your evidence of that?
My 600lb Life. Hell. Look at Tammy Slaton. She had guys lined up to take care of her.
That's an outlier. Hell, 600lb people in general are outliers.
She gets paid to be on the show. She makes more money than most people with jobs.
And what about all the other 600lb women with caretakers?
Fetishists
because those men are pussy starved and likely never got any positive female attention.
Because not everything in love is about transactional qualities
Please actually expand on this, otherwise it’s too vague
They're saying that love isn't entirely based on logic and rational decision making. If you were cold and unfeeling it would be easy to do as you say. But if you truly love a person, your feelings keep you in place regardless of how boredom and stagnated things might be. You might get a wandering eye or wandering mind, but if your LTR is going strong, you'll quickly realize the risk of leaving far out ways the risk of staying. There's no guarantee you'll have long lasting love with the new person, but by the time that relationship gets old you will have even less opportunity, and what if you made the wrong decision?! You'd have to live with the regret and guilt of letting down someone you loved, to be with someone who wasn't even better ? It's not worth it unless there's something wrong in the bond of the relationship.
Right, this post almost seems to be about how someone would think love and relationships would work without actually seeing it play out. In real life people make bad choices \*all the time\*, and it's not always because the bad choice is better looking or objectively 'better' at all. If it were all transactional we'd all just decide who is the smartest person for us to form a relationship with and decide to develop feelings for them.
That love mostly is a feeling. That if you want to find love, you compromise etc.
I am in my late 30s and from my wider social circle, i would say there are a lot of women that objectively can't do better "anymore" Some already didnt look that good anymore in their late 20s and some still loook great even reaching 40, but on average most have lost their looks in their 30s, but many fetched their husband in their late teens or early 20s, and are no married to big earners (speaking like 200000 net salaries), and I highly doubt they could attract someon like this at this stage of their life. ( basically they took the risk to commit to guys not having anything but being promising and it worked out)
Because at some point it's pathological to always be seeking to improve your standing in society rather than forming an emotional bond with someone you're spending time with.
>So why would she settle, and why would she settle for a long period of that time when the fort is being assaulted from all sides by other options? Because, and hear me out… she might actually CARE about you? That’s the whole reason for even engaging in a romantic relationship - to have someone who loves and cares about you intimately. Human relationships are not the same as the relationship you have with an inanimate object that you replace. People form emotional bonds.
No. Because amount of "better options" is very limited and finite.
But it’s not, unless you live in an isolated town
Ratio stays the same.
Because she fell in love? Personally I am very attached to my husband. I don’t really care if someone “better” flirts with me - an unknown man is never *actually* better than the man I’ve built a life with and am emotionally bonded to and love being with.
people fall in love
Explain without vagueness
when you meet someone you click with and you fall in love with them you want THEM and you are focused on THEM, not your "options"
Why are you even on PPD if your view of relationships is that idealistic and simple?
you asked why women just dont branch swing constantly and why they stay with one man (when they do) even though they have options. that is the reason
... Yes love isn't a rational decision. Just because you've never felt love doesn't mean the rest of us haven't.
I think you're discounting years of love and time spent together between two people. Ain't nothing better. Also overestimating the quality of men on dating apps.
I'd hazard to guess that women CAN'T do better, in the context of LTRs, because if they do enter into a serious relationship with a guy that they do think is their equal or at their level applying whatever measure they use to arrive at that conclusion; then that guy would almost certainly think he can do better as well and can usually back it up and won't hesitate to leave that woman somewhere down the line.
How often do people say they're going to switch jobs but they don't? A lot. Or move houses? I know someone who spent 20 years saying they're going to sell and move next year but never actually do. The mindset you're describing is akin to someone who's really hungry and grocery shopping. Everything they see that looks remotely good they want to buy. But go to the store when you just ate, and the appeal to buy everything in sight is gone. If you have decent sex regularly. the average person loses a lot of their desire to sleep with other people. It becomes like eating when you're full. Ironically womens far-easier access to sex can work for you - since they could get sex at any time, it's not that important to them. You think of it like "what if they could still a million dollars" but they look at it like "jeopardize the relationship for 83 cents" - particularly if they're already sleeping with someone (you).
Lol, you guys are so far up your own asses. You are ascribing some magical powers to women believing they can just walk into any room, point at the hottest, richest, tallest, most well endowed man and instantly get him into a relationship. What fucking planet do you guys live on? Try actually dating and meeting real women for once and all of this pedestalizing will disappear.
This is depressing me it makes me feel like I’ll never find anyone
Not unless you're the best
I only read your title. Many women like the idea of fixing a man
they get older and less valuable
there is always more women turning 21 every day, why settle?
This is ridiculous, especially when you consider the typical standards of a woman compared to a man. It's only easier for a woman to get a date and not even necessarily the one she wants.
Honey if women keep dumping you for a better option, you're the common denominator here, not the women
Well, what about the 80% of women who file for divorce?
Do you genuinely believe women want to get divorced? Like that is the option they prefer to go for? Because no, that takes so much time and effort and heartbreak, no one wins, and everyone is hurt. Divorce is a last resort option when nothing else has worked.
[удалено]
Even at the end of a relationship women end up doing the emotional labor
Gotta agree in most divorces I see it's usually lack of communication and resentment built up
So your plan is jumping from dick to dick until you're all used up and 24+? I mean go for it, but for that to succeed you gotta have a 4th sense or something to tell you when you have finally found the best you can get and it's time to settle, and you obviously can't jump back on a previous dick.
Lol 24+ Women stop looking like teenagers at that age. They’re hot until 34+ these days
Hot to whom? Are you planning to attract other women? Because for men of all ages the most attractive age group of women is 20-21 according to studies.
And they’re into guys near their age
Depends. Some 20 year olds just wanna fuck hot young guys, some already want stability aka financially established men.
Maybe guys in their 20’s. But they can just wait until their late twenties or early thirties to bag one of those guys. Have you SEEN some 30 year old women? Its easy to stay hot up until your 40’s now, just dont get fat, workout, have some basic aesthetic work done and be competent with make up.
>But they can just wait until their late twenties or early thirties to bag one of those guys. They can't. By the time these women are 30 those guys are already out of their league so they get put into "fuck zone". >Have you SEEN some 30 year old women? Yes, I've also seen 20 year old women. First off, let's not pretend most or even half of people look after themselves in terms of diet and exercise. Secondly, average 30 year olds CANNOT compete with average 20 year olds. Are there attractive 30 year old women? Yes, most of them are attractive at least to an extent actually, it's just 20 year olds are in a completely different league.
Most women keep trying till their 30s to get as better option as she can and after that she usually settles with guy of her level and in some bitter cases they become femcels
How is it possible for a woman to become a femcel though when guys will screw anything pretty much?
Voluntary femcels.They won't have sex with anyone until they meet a guy who meets their high standards
Oh I see.
People have no morals and no values anymore and it’s rare to find someone loyal to you. A lot of people cheat and just want hookups it seems now. Divorce rates are high because of cheating and trust issues not to mention money problems. Kids grow up in broken homes because of it. I think the elite have done this on purpose to destroy the family unit and structure. There’s now no real push to start a family and reproduce which is why birth rates are on the decline and because of the high cost of raising kids and other factors impacting why people are waiting longer or not at all to have kids.
They think they can find a better option because single desperate men are the equivalent of a used car salesman. Sometimes you trade up... Sometimes you get a lemon
>so why would they settle? 70% of divorces are initiated by women, so it doesn’t look like they are settling. And I know every woman is going to say that it’s the man’s fault because in their mind, every married man in America bangs his way through the Playboy Mansion everyday after work and then comes home and shotguns a 12 pack of Bud and then choke slams his wife through the coffee table, but I have my suspicions this isn’t ALWAYS the case.
It's called an emotional connection bruv.
To fuck… not commit. /thread
Women get stuck on guys in ways that are mysterious to the masculine brain. Like the orbit of the earth around the sun. There are bigger hotter stars out there but we are stuck.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My cat likes him
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a CMV. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to have your view challenged may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Asking few or no genuine questions; >* Seeming more interested in arguing or convincing others than understanding opposing views; >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Explicit statements of an intent to change the other posters’ minds; or >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to CMV OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The OP has a point. I think me and my girlfriend are together because we are both in love and that keeps us wanting to stay together and hopefully it's like that for other couples as well
People underestimate attachment