Law school hook up culture?

[Anonymous]

It was like this when I was in law school a few years ago, but it was also pretty much like this for all of my non-law student friends. I think it's pretty endemic to people in their early to mid twenties. For what it's worth, what I observed in law school was also a mixed bag- some random hook ups, some law school relationships that ended after, and some marriages.

I do think that if you went to law school expecting to land a husband, that's your problem- not the fault of those women in your class who aren't necessarily gunning for marriage right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No guy below the age of 28 is even ready for a serious relationship nowadays. Women need to know this and use their 20s to invest in their own self instead of chasing for a long term relationship.

Women - get educated, get fit, cultivate good interests and hobbies, travel the world, save and invest your money - get a life and lead an interesting, healthy, fulfilling life - without chasing these guys. Trust me that when these men turn 30 - they will see you as the one who is a 8,9, 10. And you will have your pick.

+1. As a guy I agree, especially since I met supposedly 'the one' out of high school, had a serious relationship through college, married at 27, and divorced by 30!

The trouble with some women though PP is that they allow their biological clocks and traditional values to rule them in their 20s, instead of realizing that the world has changed, and so will people as they get older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No guy below the age of 28 is even ready for a serious relationship nowadays. Women need to know this and use their 20s to invest in their own self instead of chasing for a long term relationship.

Women - get educated, get fit, cultivate good interests and hobbies, travel the world, save and invest your money - get a life and lead an interesting, healthy, fulfilling life - without chasing these guys. Trust me that when these men turn 30 - they will see you as the one who is a 8,9, 10. And you will have your pick.

I really dislike this way of thinking. Why is this extended adolescence the ideal? No wonder so many people are infertile now. I see nothing wrong with settling down in your 20's.

You may dislike this way of thinking but this is the reality. Women need to look after themselves first and not waste their 20s. which is the prime years to get higher education and a career, in the quest of being married. Guys in their 20s are doing the exact same thing - building their careers and financial worth. Especially true for those careers where graduate school or professional higher education is a must.

Women who invest in themselves will be in demand from the guys who are equally successful.

Of course, being young and extremely hot also works in getting a loaded and successful older man in giving you the MRS degree. However, if women want to marry their contemporaries in high earning fields, they need to know that marriage or LTR is not in the agenda of any guy who has not established himself in his career or is just starting out.

28 years translate to 6-8 years in college and a couple years of work experience for such men - doctors, lawyers, wall street types, silicon valley entrepreneurs....

Men think of LTR and marriage when they are settled in their career - women need to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I did not find this to be an issue. I had a boyfriend from my law school class for 2 years of school. Others from our class dated and married each other. Some people hooked up, if that was what they wanted to do. It was a mixed bag, like everywhere in life.

My experience, also. I'm now married to the guy I sat next to in my first semester property class 9 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I did not find this to be an issue. I had a boyfriend from my law school class for 2 years of school. Others from our class dated and married each other. Some people hooked up, if that was what they wanted to do. It was a mixed bag, like everywhere in life.

My experience, also. I'm now married to the guy I sat next to in my first semester property class 9 years ago.

PP here again---to fill out the picture: we have 2 small children and we're both still practicing attorneys. (private practice, gov't)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No guy below the age of 28 is even ready for a serious relationship nowadays. Women need to know this and use their 20s to invest in their own self instead of chasing for a long term relationship.

Women - get educated, get fit, cultivate good interests and hobbies, travel the world, save and invest your money - get a life and lead an interesting, healthy, fulfilling life - without chasing these guys. Trust me that when these men turn 30 - they will see you as the one who is a 8,9, 10. And you will have your pick.

I really dislike this way of thinking. Why is this extended adolescence the ideal? No wonder so many people are infertile now. I see nothing wrong with settling down in your 20's.

You may dislike this way of thinking but this is the reality. Women need to look after themselves first and not waste their 20s. which is the prime years to get higher education and a career, in the quest of being married. Guys in their 20s are doing the exact same thing - building their careers and financial worth. Especially true for those careers where graduate school or professional higher education is a must.

Women who invest in themselves will be in demand from the guys who are equally successful.

Of course, being young and extremely hot also works in getting a loaded and successful older man in giving you the MRS degree. However, if women want to marry their contemporaries in high earning fields, they need to know that marriage or LTR is not in the agenda of any guy who has not established himself in his career or is just starting out.

28 years translate to 6-8 years in college and a couple years of work experience for such men - doctors, lawyers, wall street types, silicon valley entrepreneurs....

Men think of LTR and marriage when they are settled in their career - women need to do the same.

I couldn't agree with you more PP

[Anonymous]

I graduated 15 years ago and so many of my classmates married each other (this was at UVA).

[Anonymous]

I married a classmate, as did lots of friends. There was no big hook-up culture. People were either in serious relationships, or did not date at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a woman, not just a former law student, I find this question and thread offensive. Women can do what they want with their bodies. If your crush doesn't want to date you, that's isn't the fault of every woman in your class.

+1

Who has time for serious relationships in law school? Shouldn't you be reading your cases for tomorrow or working on your outline, anyway? Buckle down and get serious about the work, OP. That's what your classmates are doing.

--32 year old associate now stuck in a law firm office at midnight with no life....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a woman, not just a former law student, I find this question and thread offensive. Women can do what they want with their bodies. If your crush doesn't want to date you, that's isn't the fault of every woman in your class.

They need to move fast before their "sell by' date.

[Anonymous]

OP, you've finished what, one semester of law school? Everyone is still getting to know each other, figuring out how law school works, freaking out about their first set of grades, etc. They don't want to add the pressure of a relationship to the mix, in their down time they want to drink and hook up and blow off some steam a bit. People do date in law school, lots of people meet their spouses in law school, but it doesn't usually happen in the first semester.

As for the notion that the guys you're interested don't want to date you because they have too many casual sex options, that's just silly. Casual sex is a completely different animal from a relationship, and someone who wants the latter isn't going to be satisfied by the former because relationships are (or at least should be) about more than sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of the market value of women makes me want to upchuck. Revolting and a crick if sh-t.

it isn't a woman only concept.

men have a market value too.

market value doesn't literally mean dollars and cents. it is a place holder of how competitive you are in the dating pool in relation to others.

If you don't think competition exists in the dating pool, you are deluding yourself.

It is better to get smart and educated so you can optimize your mating strategy over being naive.

Your idea of SMV is so naive that you think competition rankings are defined by looks alone for women.

Are you familiar with the concept of assortative mating? If not, you should be.

An upper-class 6 woman is much more likely to marry an upper-class 8 man than a working-class 10 woman. Men aren't stupid. They know beauty is a perishable asset while family standing, money and education are appreciating assets. When a man is looking to marry, he is looking for a mother of his future children, meaning she should be good not just for fucking, but for raising children. For this job, beauty is of limited utility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in law school 20 years ago, and that's how it was then too.

Me too, and it was 30 years ago in my case. I work at a law school now and it's still this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea of the market value of women makes me want to upchuck. Revolting and a crick if sh-t.

it isn't a woman only concept.

men have a market value too.

market value doesn't literally mean dollars and cents. it is a place holder of how competitive you are in the dating pool in relation to others.

If you don't think competition exists in the dating pool, you are deluding yourself.

It is better to get smart and educated so you can optimize your mating strategy over being naive.

Your idea of SMV is so naive that you think competition rankings are defined by looks alone for women.

Are you familiar with the concept of assortative mating? If not, you should be.

An upper-class 6 woman is much more likely to marry an upper-class 8 man than a working-class 10 woman. Men aren't stupid. They know beauty is a perishable asset while family standing, money and education are appreciating assets. When a man is looking to marry, he is looking for a mother of his future children, meaning she should be good not just for fucking, but for raising children. For this job, beauty is of limited utility.

PP you are quoting. I NEVER said it was purely looks driven.

I'm keenly aware that isn't the case. MY persian FWB is a 8-9 hottie.

The girls I pursue relationships are 6/7 highly educated women that even if I have an oops baby with, i'll be able to put up with them long term and my kid will be semi smart since i believe intelligence is heritable.

SMV encompasses a host of factors, with each person assigning different weights.

[Anonymous]

PP - if SMV includes a host of factor to which each person assigns different weights, it becomes a meaningless indicator.

You never said it wasn't looks-driven. A numerical indicator in the context of women has always been associated with looks, nothing else, and you know it perfectly well.

Even in your own post you clarify that you pursue relationships with 6/7 educated women - so you feel the need to insert the word "educated" because you know the number alone in the context of women gives no credit to education.