Anonymous wrote:Today men want & need women more than women want & need men. Thus women are choosier.

I think both women AND men need each other less nowadays. 125 years ago a person might need to make their own clothes, make their own bread from scratch, wash their clothes by hand. Plus work shifts were often longer and involved more manual labor. Imagine working a 12 hour manual labor job and when you get home you have to wash your clothes by hand, start fiddling with yeast if you want bread, need to go to a pump to get water, etc. Literally impossible. Most single males would live in homes that included a room AND board for that very reason.

Nowadays, there are takeout options, meal-prep services ready made bread and other goods. A washing machine and dryer makes cleaning clothes a snap. Vacuum cleaners make tidying up a lot easier. It's feasible for a single guy to live alone and get by. I know because I was a single guy for 5 years when I was in my 30s and got along fine.

The strongest evidence that men don't "need" women the way they used to is men's refusal to meet many of the standards set by modern women. If the men really needed women, they would take the steps necessary for their survival and meet women's standards. The fact that many don't just shows the men don't really need women.

Sure some men will say they want a woman who they expect to cook and clean and be sexy while they sit around playing video games. But this "want" or "need" should be given as much credence as me saying I want breakfast in bed everyday.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so there are repercussions for oppressing women for hundreds of years and now they get enhanced choice in who they procreate with? Boo hoo to you.

Poor, oppressed thing, not allowed to work in a coal mine or get blown to bits in the Civil War, WWI, etc etc etc.

Anonymous wrote:Where did this data come from? Who did the research?

+1000

So OP are you going to answer and tell us WHO did the “chart” and where the “research” came from?

Kinda like the Epstein files….where people keep asking but MAGA doesn’t want to give ALL the info.

Meh. Women f the men who are 8-10’s and marry the 4-5’s with money. Then, they get bored of sex without the chemsitry they’re used to and stop sleeping with their husbands after they get the ring and the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so there are repercussions for oppressing women for hundreds of years and now they get enhanced choice in who they procreate with? Boo hoo to you.

lol…oppression Olympics.

I live how women say they’re oppressed yet men routinely fight and die in wars to protect the very women who say they’re oppressed. Or they work dangerous jobs that equate to men have 95% of workplace deaths.

Don’t see women clamoring to be working the in coal mines, oil fields and risking their lives in cargo ships so you can buy the latest Lululemon to complete your clean-girl aesthetic.

But yeah…women are oppressed….

That's because animals like you physically assault and rape women who enter such jobs, but you already knew that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take a look at the beauty forum on this website. Women spend A LOT of time on looking good. Of course they are more attractive.

I have three boys and one girl. My daughter is 12 now and starting to have to do all of this stuff that her brothers don’t just to fit in (hair, jewelry, eyebrows, shaving). She’s pretty resentful of it, so I notice it more.

I bet if you spent $50/wk and one hour a day trying to make yourself more attractive (in addition to working out), you would find that women notice you more.

As a man, if I had $50 a week to spend on grooming, I'd be able to save about $48 a week. I really have no idea what products I'd buy for that price. I use the same razor for about two weeks. A bottle of shampoo lasts me months. No conditioner. Some body lotion in the winter months. My tweezers are a few decades old and my nose hair trimmer costs less than $10.

I do feel sorry for your 12 year-old daughter. That seems way too soon to be concerned with all that. My daughter was playing soccer at that age and didn't do any of that until later.

I work with several gay men and they know where it's at. They all have wonderful skin thanks to tretinoin, botox, sunscreen. They do look better than my husband, who refuses to do all those things and looks terribly aged.

But your husband is a real man. The gays are just … well, gay.

NP. Why do you think being ashy, crusty, smelly, rude, gross and ugly to every sense is what real manhood is about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today men want & need women more than women want & need men. Thus women are choosier.

Until they reach their mid 30s and start pressuring their boyfriends for marriage and kids. Women will not admit it. But many who waited until their mid 30s to have kids eventually ended up settling.

Perhaps that is why many women "unsettle" aka divorce when the kids are older, which is a shame because if the not good looking men who women settled for actually were participatory dads, did equal household and kin-building work, and were kind, good partners, the vast majority of women wouldn't divorce them.

So, is it really a problem that women mis-judge men's looks or is it a problem that men think that they do not have to be contributors to relationships in any way - looks, money, labor participation, etc.?

I love how you put this: "unsettle." I realize that's exactly what I did with my ex-husband. I settled for him under pressure to be less "picky" (aka stop seeking my equal). 10 years later, I unsettled because life is too short to spend it trapped with a bitter, venomous man who won't improve himself. Life is great now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so there are repercussions for oppressing women for hundreds of years and now they get enhanced choice in who they procreate with? Boo hoo to you.

lol…oppression Olympics.

I live how women say they’re oppressed yet men routinely fight and die in wars to protect the very women who say they’re oppressed. Or they work dangerous jobs that equate to men have 95% of workplace deaths.

Don’t see women clamoring to be working the in coal mines, oil fields and risking their lives in cargo ships so you can buy the latest Lululemon to complete your clean-girl aesthetic.

But yeah…women are oppressed….

This x 1 million. You know what my Great Grandmother was thinking when her in 1944. It was “I wish I wasn’t so oppressed so that I could dodge a barrage of MG42 bullets to storm a gunner’s nest in Normandy. I have to toil doing unpaid care work while my husband is out galavanting around the beaches of Western Europe! What an oppressive monster!!”

If you read, which ignoramuses like you don't, you'd know that your great grandmother was thinking "I wish I wasn't so oppressed that I had no say over these horrible wars that men start and my children die in. I wish I wasn't so oppressed that, due to laws made by men to keep women like me under men, I have no way of making money when my husband is off fighting wars started by men like him and am looking at homelessness or prostitution if he doesn't return. I wish I wasn't so oppressed that I'm dealing with chronic physical injuries from childbirth and my pain isn't taken seriously by the men who dominate the medical profession."

I could go on, but let's face it: You don't give a shit about your great grandmother or any woman because you're a nasty, miserable misogynist whom the woman who gave birth to you should have ended with a coat hanger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take a look at the beauty forum on this website. Women spend A LOT of time on looking good. Of course they are more attractive.

I have three boys and one girl. My daughter is 12 now and starting to have to do all of this stuff that her brothers don’t just to fit in (hair, jewelry, eyebrows, shaving). She’s pretty resentful of it, so I notice it more.

I bet if you spent $50/wk and one hour a day trying to make yourself more attractive (in addition to working out), you would find that women notice you more.

As a man, if I had $50 a week to spend on grooming, I'd be able to save about $48 a week. I really have no idea what products I'd buy for that price. I use the same razor for about two weeks. A bottle of shampoo lasts me months. No conditioner. Some body lotion in the winter months. My tweezers are a few decades old and my nose hair trimmer costs less than $10.

I do feel sorry for your 12 year-old daughter. That seems way too soon to be concerned with all that. My daughter was playing soccer at that age and didn't do any of that until later.

I work with several gay men and they know where it's at. They all have wonderful skin thanks to tretinoin, botox, sunscreen. They do look better than my husband, who refuses to do all those things and looks terribly aged.

But your husband is a real man. The gays are just … well, gay.

Lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take a look at the beauty forum on this website. Women spend A LOT of time on looking good. Of course they are more attractive.

I have three boys and one girl. My daughter is 12 now and starting to have to do all of this stuff that her brothers don’t just to fit in (hair, jewelry, eyebrows, shaving). She’s pretty resentful of it, so I notice it more.

I bet if you spent $50/wk and one hour a day trying to make yourself more attractive (in addition to working out), you would find that women notice you more.

As a man, if I had $50 a week to spend on grooming, I'd be able to save about $48 a week. I really have no idea what products I'd buy for that price. I use the same razor for about two weeks. A bottle of shampoo lasts me months. No conditioner. Some body lotion in the winter months. My tweezers are a few decades old and my nose hair trimmer costs less than $10.

I do feel sorry for your 12 year-old daughter. That seems way too soon to be concerned with all that. My daughter was playing soccer at that age and didn't do any of that until later.

I work with several gay men and they know where it's at. They all have wonderful skin thanks to tretinoin, botox, sunscreen. They do look better than my husband, who refuses to do all those things and looks terribly aged.

But your husband is a real man. The gays are just … well, gay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so there are repercussions for oppressing women for hundreds of years and now they get enhanced choice in who they procreate with? Boo hoo to you.

I don’t think you understand what this chart results in. You end up with a very small number of men that have enhanced choice. Many men that have no partners at all. And women who are pressured to have sex rather than relationships in the forlorn hope that the former will turn in to the latter.

What is wrong with having sec but no relationship? That seems to be what girls and women are into these days.

It’s like you think all females want relationships or something? Often, they just want to get laid with no strings attached.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so there are repercussions for oppressing women for hundreds of years and now they get enhanced choice in who they procreate with? Boo hoo to you.

lol…oppression Olympics.

I live how women say they’re oppressed yet men routinely fight and die in wars to protect the very women who say they’re oppressed. Or they work dangerous jobs that equate to men have 95% of workplace deaths.

Don’t see women clamoring to be working the in coal mines, oil fields and risking their lives in cargo ships so you can buy the latest Lululemon to complete your clean-girl aesthetic.

But yeah…women are oppressed….

This x 1 million. You know what my Great Grandmother was thinking when her in 1944. It was “I wish I wasn’t so oppressed so that I could dodge a barrage of MG42 bullets to storm a gunner’s nest in Normandy. I have to toil doing unpaid care work while my husband is out galavanting around the beaches of Western Europe! What an oppressive monster!!”

Good lord. Do people have no grasp of history?

In WWII, women were discriminated against and were not permitted to join active military service, for the most part. But, women did clamor to serve in WWII in the ways that they were allowed. In fact, women have been fighting in America's wars since the beginning, "The WAAC was the first women’s corps to serve within the US Army. However, prior to World War II, 20,000 women assisted the Continental Army during the American Revolution, acting as camp followers, spies, nurses, and some dressing as men to participate in combat. Women also served in the Civil War in the same roles. During World War I, switchboard operators known as “Hello Girls” were members of the Army Signal Corps but were considered civilian contract employees." https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/womens-army-corps-wac-world-war-ii

The Navy had a similar program but Navy women were actually part of the military, not an "auxiliary force" like in the WAC. "More than 350,000 women joined the US military in World War II. By the end of 1942, 3,190 enlistees and 770 officers joined the US Navy as Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, also known as the WAVES. By July 31, 1945, the WAVES had 73,816 enlisted women, 8,745 officers, and nearly 4,000 in training, far exceeding the Navy’s early projections for recruitment.[1] Despite early challenges to women’s place in the Navy, the WAVES’s establishment as a part of the Navy itself, not a corps or auxiliary like the WAACs, was “precedent-breaking.”[2] The WAVES challenged wartime gender perceptions and offered new opportunities for women desiring to enter the US military."https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/waves-us-navy

Women have been fighting to get into the military since the beginning, and under the Obama administration and Defense Secretary Panetta, the military lifted the "combat exclusion rule," allowing women to serve in all combat roles. https://www.history.com/articles/women-us-military-timeline

And women have been fighting to be full and equal participants in the military, despite a rate of military sexual assault that is 12 times that of men (1.9% of men suffer sexual assault in the military versus 24% of all women). https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/paper/deserted-us-militarys-sexual-assault-crisis-cost-war

Why do women want into the military so badly? The same reason men want to serve -- good pay and benefits, an opportunity to serve the country, and access to post-military benefits and career support networks and entry into high level politics and government positions.

Despite the fact that all 5 services and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testifying that they have yet to see any indication that women serving in combat units have caused standards to lower (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/02/12/no-evidence-women-in-combat-roles-lower-standards-top-enlisted-leaders-say/), current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has long said the opposite (without basis). And, as SecDef, he has done all he can to purge women military leaders, cut benefits for military women, eliminate the DACOWITS which advises on women in the military, etc., even though women are 18% of all US service members. https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/pete-hegseth-wants-women-out-of-the-military-and-hes-not-hiding-it

You PPs are complete idiots.

And, to get back to the thread, "the problem in modern dating" isn't that we think you men look uglier than you are, it's that you continue to display your ignorance and misogyny at every opportunity, and women have no interest in living with that. That is why the Trump Administration is trying to do things that force women back into marriage, instead of letting the dating marketplace determine which men are able to date or marry women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today men want & need women more than women want & need men. Thus women are choosier.

Until they reach their mid 30s and start pressuring their boyfriends for marriage and kids. Women will not admit it. But many who waited until their mid 30s to have kids eventually ended up settling.

Perhaps that is why many women "unsettle" aka divorce when the kids are older, which is a shame because if the not good looking men who women settled for actually were participatory dads, did equal household and kin-building work, and were kind, good partners, the vast majority of women wouldn't divorce them.

So, is it really a problem that women mis-judge men's looks or is it a problem that men think that they do not have to be contributors to relationships in any way - looks, money, labor participation, etc.?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, so there are repercussions for oppressing women for hundreds of years and now they get enhanced choice in who they procreate with? Boo hoo to you.

lol…oppression Olympics.

I live how women say they’re oppressed yet men routinely fight and die in wars to protect the very women who say they’re oppressed. Or they work dangerous jobs that equate to men have 95% of workplace deaths.

Don’t see women clamoring to be working the in coal mines, oil fields and risking their lives in cargo ships so you can buy the latest Lululemon to complete your clean-girl aesthetic.

But yeah…women are oppressed….

This x 1 million. You know what my Great Grandmother was thinking when her in 1944. It was “I wish I wasn’t so oppressed so that I could dodge a barrage of MG42 bullets to storm a gunner’s nest in Normandy. I have to toil doing unpaid care work while my husband is out galavanting around the beaches of Western Europe! What an oppressive monster!!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, take a look at the beauty forum on this website. Women spend A LOT of time on looking good. Of course they are more attractive.

I have three boys and one girl. My daughter is 12 now and starting to have to do all of this stuff that her brothers don’t just to fit in (hair, jewelry, eyebrows, shaving). She’s pretty resentful of it, so I notice it more.

I bet if you spent $50/wk and one hour a day trying to make yourself more attractive (in addition to working out), you would find that women notice you more.

As a man, if I had $50 a week to spend on grooming, I'd be able to save about $48 a week. I really have no idea what products I'd buy for that price. I use the same razor for about two weeks. A bottle of shampoo lasts me months. No conditioner. Some body lotion in the winter months. My tweezers are a few decades old and my nose hair trimmer costs less than $10.

I do feel sorry for your 12 year-old daughter. That seems way too soon to be concerned with all that. My daughter was playing soccer at that age and didn't do any of that until later.

I work with several gay men and they know where it's at. They all have wonderful skin thanks to tretinoin, botox, sunscreen. They do look better than my husband, who refuses to do all those things and looks terribly aged.