The research I was referencing is a bit dated I'll admit, and women's standards are indeed rising at a rapid rate. It is still true that men shoot for the moon, but now women are doing the same. I'll retract my original statement and make this one instead: Both men AND women seek someone more attractive than themselves.HappyGuy wrote: ↑December 10th, 2019, 10:34 pmWhere have you been? Maybe it's like this in Brazil where every fat guy has a beauty on his arm but in America for at least the last 20 years many women refuse to settle and men will settle for anything with a hole. So you get millions of lonely single men, and millions of lesbians who hate all men because they couldn't bag one in the top 1%. When women tell you to lower your standards they are projecting their own shallowness and telling you to do what they'd never do themselves. The women who aren't shallow and will date ugly guys even if they are very sexy themselves assume everyone is kind like them and wouldn't accuse you of being an asshole even though most men are.
As for what they are willing to settle with (a different question than what they are shooting for) I agree that men are increasingly settling for bottom of the barrel. A troubling trend.
That you could get this many things wrong in a single sentence is amusing to me. Almost cute.
I'm not much into porn. I don't feel entitled to anything in life. I certainly do not consider most women to have better genes than myself (whether at chess or at video games or at basketball or at arm-wrestling or at Scrabble), I've yet to meet a woman who could beat me at anything competitive). As for being a pig...well, if I'm a pig then that is simply because I am human. Men and women are pigs by nature.
Going for the dependable guy isn't "giving love a chance". If anything, going for the hot bad boy who turns you on is closer to how women view love, foolish and short-sighted though that may be. How many romance books and movies in which a female protagonist chooses the young exciting hot guy over the mature stable but boring provider do there have to be in order for that point to be made?
Limitations of the English language lead to ambiguity when discussing love. Of the several Greek concepts of love, Eros is marked by lust and is the type of love that I was talking about. Agape, Philia, Storge, and other types of love can be between friends, family, or fellow man. Eros is the most relevant type of love when discussing romantic/sexual relationships between man and woman. It is fundamental to romance.
How can women be the romantics when they are, as you said, looking for money? What is romantic about having a financial motive in the relationships you seek with the opposite gender?Most women today are not interested in love, or they have given up on it after too many shallow boyfriends. Now they are only looking for money and good looks for sex, what they value more depends on their age mostly. Most men today also do not believe in love, actually there are more women that do than men. It's a misconception in the west that women are the shallow ones. That might be true elsewhere like the 3rd world but in the west men are the shallow and money obsessed pigs and women are the romantics. Most men today also do not believe in love, actually there are more women that do than men. It's a misconception in the west that women are the shallow ones. That might be true elsewhere like the 3rd world but in the west men are the shallow and money obsessed pigs and women are the romantics.
I don't know which gender is more shallow--I think that's a more complex question than you realize--but I do have an opinion on which gender is more romantic and it ain't women. I see women as being practical, almost Machiavellian, in their approach to relationships. Financial utility is a rational and practical thing to be seeking from another person, not an emotional or romantic thing.