NYT: "The Trouble with Men"

[Anonymous]

The title of the article is the trouble with WANTING men and it’s about the authors unique and personal experience. Living NYC, in an open marriage, etc etc. I really don’t see this as a reflection of most men and women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

As women gain economic power, they no longer need to settle for sexually unattractive partners just to have kids. Marriage is hard, living with someone you don’t desire, enduring sex every week, birthing kids with him. Are you f…g joking ? Do you yourself want to sleep with a woman you don’t desire just to have a “family”? Most marriages are unhappy for that very reason -people “settling”.

Most women would rather stay single or have kids on their own.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

And then, he decides he needs a younger model and the current wife should gracefully withdraw into genteel poverty.

End no-fault divorce and throw that guy in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BTW, I've been married for 20 years. I would not want my DD to settle. My DS will have 3 degrees in a STEM field and will be earning good money. He also knows how to cook, do his own laundry, and clean his bathroom (DD oth is a slob; we're still trying to teach her).

That's great, but that alone does not make one a good partner. My ex knew how to do all of those things, and had 2 degrees in a STEM field, yet would criticize my daughter and I relentlessly. We get along fine as acquaintances now, but he was not a good life partner.

of course, personality is important. He's pretty chill and wants to have a family one day. But, we aren't talking about just personality, but about what women are looking for in a partner.

You obviously didn't know he was going to be that critical of your child when you married him.

She did. She was in awe of his accomplishments and how perfect he was in everything he touched, but she didn’t realize that people like that don’t place high demands on just themselves.

[Anonymous]

Woman: "Men don't want me badly enough. They should be mad with passion for me and devote themselves to me."

The Woman:



"Settling" is more often than not, appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Looking back at my class of 1998 at an affluent UMC high school that sent plenty of grads to Ivies and top colleges, I'd estimate almost all the heterosexual men are married or divorced and dating, only a few are permanently single. The gay men are mostly single but that's a different set of circumstances.

However, a high percentage of UMC girls I grew up with ended up single. And not by choice. Very few by choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman I do not relate to this article at all. There’s another article I could write with the same title but it’s quite different and focuses on the wanting (an action by women).

The wanting here does not seem to be for relationships but rather just a consistent fork?

Yeah, this woman doesn't really seem interested in creating a life with another person. She sounds like a classic narcissist who views other people as a means to getting her needs met and nothing more.

Like, sorry for the cliche, but marriage (or any longterm partnership) is about compromise. That's actually what makes it special. In a successful longterm relationship, you both learn to let go of your ego for the sake of the partnership. This is very powerful. It is not possible to make this happen on a short-term basis (it's the longevity of the commitment that makes a marriage what it is) and it won't be successful if one or both partners always puts themselves first.

But then, who would take relationship advice from a divorced mom who can't even figure out if she wants to be monogamous or not? There's just no point.

Men are very, very infrequently expected to make compromises in marriage. They (statistically, not anecdotally) leave when their spouses become ill, are excused for cheating if their wife isn’t conventionally attractive or gains weight, and are praised like heroes for taking on the most basic household tasks and certainly are never expected to take any career hits in pursuit of family goals. So your advice while likely accurate rarely has to do with men.

The main study that showed that was retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/

And multiple new studies replaced it showing the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

As women gain economic power, they no longer need to settle for sexually unattractive partners just to have kids. Marriage is hard, living with someone you don’t desire, enduring sex every week, birthing kids with him. Are you f…g joking ? Do you yourself want to sleep with a woman you don’t desire just to have a “family”? Most marriages are unhappy for that very reason -people “settling”.

Most women would rather stay single or have kids on their own.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

And then, he decides he needs a younger model and the current wife should gracefully withdraw into genteel poverty.

+1
There is no point in settling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman I do not relate to this article at all. There’s another article I could write with the same title but it’s quite different and focuses on the wanting (an action by women).

The wanting here does not seem to be for relationships but rather just a consistent fork?

Yeah, this woman doesn't really seem interested in creating a life with another person. She sounds like a classic narcissist who views other people as a means to getting her needs met and nothing more.

Like, sorry for the cliche, but marriage (or any longterm partnership) is about compromise. That's actually what makes it special. In a successful longterm relationship, you both learn to let go of your ego for the sake of the partnership. This is very powerful. It is not possible to make this happen on a short-term basis (it's the longevity of the commitment that makes a marriage what it is) and it won't be successful if one or both partners always puts themselves first.

But then, who would take relationship advice from a divorced mom who can't even figure out if she wants to be monogamous or not? There's just no point.

Men are very, very infrequently expected to make compromises in marriage. They (statistically, not anecdotally) leave when their spouses become ill, are excused for cheating if their wife isn’t conventionally attractive or gains weight, and are praised like heroes for taking on the most basic household tasks and certainly are never expected to take any career hits in pursuit of family goals. So your advice while likely accurate rarely has to do with men.

The main study that showed that was retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/

And multiple new studies replaced it showing the same thing.

Link to them for me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

As women gain economic power, they no longer need to settle for sexually unattractive partners just to have kids. Marriage is hard, living with someone you don’t desire, enduring sex every week, birthing kids with him. Are you f…g joking ? Do you yourself want to sleep with a woman you don’t desire just to have a “family”? Most marriages are unhappy for that very reason -people “settling”.

Most women would rather stay single or have kids on their own.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

And then, he decides he needs a younger model and the current wife should gracefully withdraw into genteel poverty.

+1
There is no point in settling.

It is mentally difficult to try to marry someone that you aren’t all that interested in. You’re expected to have sex with that man for decades, and eventually you will run out of steam pretending you like it and end up with some messed up dead bedroom marriage. I’ll pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman I do not relate to this article at all. There’s another article I could write with the same title but it’s quite different and focuses on the wanting (an action by women).

The wanting here does not seem to be for relationships but rather just a consistent fork?

Yeah, this woman doesn't really seem interested in creating a life with another person. She sounds like a classic narcissist who views other people as a means to getting her needs met and nothing more.

Like, sorry for the cliche, but marriage (or any longterm partnership) is about compromise. That's actually what makes it special. In a successful longterm relationship, you both learn to let go of your ego for the sake of the partnership. This is very powerful. It is not possible to make this happen on a short-term basis (it's the longevity of the commitment that makes a marriage what it is) and it won't be successful if one or both partners always puts themselves first.

But then, who would take relationship advice from a divorced mom who can't even figure out if she wants to be monogamous or not? There's just no point.

Men are very, very infrequently expected to make compromises in marriage. They (statistically, not anecdotally) leave when their spouses become ill, are excused for cheating if their wife isn’t conventionally attractive or gains weight, and are praised like heroes for taking on the most basic household tasks and certainly are never expected to take any career hits in pursuit of family goals. So your advice while likely accurate rarely has to do with men.

The main study that showed that was retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/

And multiple new studies replaced it showing the same thing.

Link to them for me?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/mar/30/the-men-who-give-up-on-their-spouses-when-they-have-cancer

This article links a few of the different ones.

It should also be noted, the other study was retracted due to a calculation error, but most of the data was still solid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a younger friend I volunteer with who would date the bank teller. She's shorter than him and very kind, friendly, and smart. She has a cool (but not highly paid) job and no kids.

She's overweight and not conventionally beautiful, though. She has a hard time dating for these reasons (and no, she's not chasing the 6-6-6s). Seems like a lot of Average Joes don't want to pair up with Average Janes - it's not "settling" to pair up with somebody of a similar attractiveness level.

The Average types have a near impossible time on dating apps. It’s all about advertising your looks and your stats without actually knowing the persons personality.

I'm the PP and that's why this friend stopped bothering with the apps and is trying to get more involved in volunteer work, church community, hiking group, etc. where she might meet people organically. I once tried to play matchmaker with an Average Joe in our group she'd expressed some interest in but he was like "nah, Katie's cool but I'm not into her in that way. But could you put in a word with Jessica?"

Jessica being a tall, gorgeous former high-level swimmer who last I heard was dating a pro athlete. SMH!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

As women gain economic power, they no longer need to settle for sexually unattractive partners just to have kids. Marriage is hard, living with someone you don’t desire, enduring sex every week, birthing kids with him. Are you f…g joking ? Do you yourself want to sleep with a woman you don’t desire just to have a “family”? Most marriages are unhappy for that very reason -people “settling”.

Most women would rather stay single or have kids on their own.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

And then, he decides he needs a younger model and the current wife should gracefully withdraw into genteel poverty.

+1
There is no point in settling.

+1

Settling— especially for the reason of having children “in wedlock”— is a poisoned chalice. If a woman is financially able be a single mother it is a much wiser decision to do so, and then pursue marriage/partnership later in life if wanted. Because that guy you “settled”
for now gets to take your kid (you know, the reason you settled for him…) away 50% of the time. Not to mention the statistics around murder and abuse which absolutely include men who were settled for.

Better to have 100% custody of your child (and use high end genetic material) than 50% and an ex you didn’t even want in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

As women gain economic power, they no longer need to settle for sexually unattractive partners just to have kids. Marriage is hard, living with someone you don’t desire, enduring sex every week, birthing kids with him. Are you f…g joking ? Do you yourself want to sleep with a woman you don’t desire just to have a “family”? Most marriages are unhappy for that very reason -people “settling”.

Most women would rather stay single or have kids on their own.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

And then, he decides he needs a younger model and the current wife should gracefully withdraw into genteel poverty.

+1
There is no point in settling.

It is mentally difficult to try to marry someone that you aren’t all that interested in. You’re expected to have sex with that man for decades, and eventually you will run out of steam pretending you like it and end up with some messed up dead bedroom marriage. I’ll pass.

Agreed. I wonder about the people who tell others to settle. Did they settle? Are they happy? Did their partner settle for them? Do they not believe that real love and compatibility is possible? Do they believe having a home and children with a subpar man/partner is "worth" being unhappy for? Idk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman I do not relate to this article at all. There’s another article I could write with the same title but it’s quite different and focuses on the wanting (an action by women).

The wanting here does not seem to be for relationships but rather just a consistent fork?

Yeah, this woman doesn't really seem interested in creating a life with another person. She sounds like a classic narcissist who views other people as a means to getting her needs met and nothing more.

Like, sorry for the cliche, but marriage (or any longterm partnership) is about compromise. That's actually what makes it special. In a successful longterm relationship, you both learn to let go of your ego for the sake of the partnership. This is very powerful. It is not possible to make this happen on a short-term basis (it's the longevity of the commitment that makes a marriage what it is) and it won't be successful if one or both partners always puts themselves first.

But then, who would take relationship advice from a divorced mom who can't even figure out if she wants to be monogamous or not? There's just no point.

Men are very, very infrequently expected to make compromises in marriage. They (statistically, not anecdotally) leave when their spouses become ill, are excused for cheating if their wife isn’t conventionally attractive or gains weight, and are praised like heroes for taking on the most basic household tasks and certainly are never expected to take any career hits in pursuit of family goals. So your advice while likely accurate rarely has to do with men.

The main study that showed that was retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/21/to-our-horror-widely-reported-study-suggesting-divorce-is-more-likely-when-wives-fall-ill-gets-axed/

And multiple new studies replaced it showing the same thing.

Link to them for me?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/mar/30/the-men-who-give-up-on-their-spouses-when-they-have-cancer

This article links a few of the different ones.

It should also be noted, the other study was retracted due to a calculation error, but most of the data was still solid.

But the data did not support the (false, retracted) conclusion ffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Often its the case of too many choices and too high expectations lead to waste of too much time and in too much desperation women settle for who ever says yes before fertility window closes otherwise keep dating until a divorced dad comes along.

I'm a shorter, single 39 year old man with a pretty wide friend group. The same single women that didn't pay any attention to me 10 years ago are now showing interest in me. It seems like they're trying to lock down somebody "good enough" before their fertility window closes. I'm not falling into that trap. I'd rather be single and live on my own terms.

It bears repeating that women can get men to sleep with them but not commit to them. The men who are passed over while the women are passed around understands that women are marking him as a second choice. No man wants to be considered a second choice, so they exit the market when they grasp this reality. For attractive women, there is always another man to be had. For most women, however, they are not attractive enough in their mid-30s to get men to overlook the years of riding the carousel.

The dynamic still holds that women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep relationships. If women want relationships, they have to stop chasing sex and they have to lower their standards to their relationship-match, which is much different than their sex-match. For reasonable evolutionary reasons, I don't expect it to happen, so the status quo will prevail.

As women gain economic power, they no longer need to settle for sexually unattractive partners just to have kids. Marriage is hard, living with someone you don’t desire, enduring sex every week, birthing kids with him. Are you f…g joking ? Do you yourself want to sleep with a woman you don’t desire just to have a “family”? Most marriages are unhappy for that very reason -people “settling”.

Most women would rather stay single or have kids on their own.

No, they don't need to settle if they want to have sex. They need to settle if they want to have children in wedlock.

Marriage is great so long as husband and wife are on the same page, especially if that page is traditional.

And then, he decides he needs a younger model and the current wife should gracefully withdraw into genteel poverty.

+1
There is no point in settling.

+1

Settling— especially for the reason of having children “in wedlock”— is a poisoned chalice. If a woman is financially able be a single mother it is a much wiser decision to do so, and then pursue marriage/partnership later in life if wanted. Because that guy you “settled”
for now gets to take your kid (you know, the reason you settled for him…) away 50% of the time. Not to mention the statistics around murder and abuse which absolutely include men who were settled for.

Better to have 100% custody of your child (and use high end genetic material) than 50% and an ex you didn’t even want in the first place.

I have seen SO MANY TIMES on this site, "Oh I can't divorce because Ill lose 50% of my time with my kids" so instead they stay with a cheater, an abuser, an addict. If you hadn't have settled for this loser and done SMBC youd not have to settle for a crappy man and you'd get 100% of time with your kids.

What is the downside again?