Anonymous wrote:Go for it, OP! I don't agree with posters who say it's a numbers game (because it leads to sending out high volumes of low quality messages, creating a vicious cycle of rejection) -- BUT yes, for men, rejection is just part of it. Don't pour your heart into every message or interaction. Treat it somewhat like a job and log on every day and send some messages, see what comes up, rinse and repeat.

It might actually be a numbers game where you coldly and callously approach women by the dozens and discard anyone not up for sex right away. It might be a matter of approaching women 20 years younger than you instead of your own age. Do something that works, and doing the opposite of those things doesn’t seem to work.

Go for it, OP! I don't agree with posters who say it's a numbers game (because it leads to sending out high volumes of low quality messages, creating a vicious cycle of rejection) -- BUT yes, for men, rejection is just part of it. Don't pour your heart into every message or interaction. Treat it somewhat like a job and log on every day and send some messages, see what comes up, rinse and repeat.

OP here. Didn’t think this would stick around as a topic. I found this very informative. Great advice. Thank you. I feel much better at my dating future. While divorce is a financial drain, I am coming out of it in decent shape with no long term obligations. I am in good shape, in the upper half of the room or better on the attractive side and I am not dick. That had to count for something. In addition to some of the specific advice, the main thing I am taking away from this is that I need to get comfortable with rejection and take a shot. While I personally don’t want to pursue someone that is clearly in their 20s, I am sure I will approach someone that turns out to be in their 30s. I guess at that point it is up to them. Thanks again for all the advice and I will keep reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

This is stupid and wrong.

20-somethings don't want money. They want to have fun and be entertained. This does not cost money.

The women who want your money are age 30-50. They are far more ruthless, greedy, and conniving than any 20-something.

Why do you think a 25-30yo woman is going to want to have fun with a 50yo man rather than a 25-30yo man, given that it is the same entertainment (no difference in cost)?

It all depends on the man. If you are boring and physically weak, then you are unattractive at age 30 or at age 50. If you are fun and fit at age 50, then you are competitive with the many, many 30 year old men who are boring and weak.

In general though, regardless of sex I would think that there are a lot more fun and fit 30year olds than 50 year olds, and a lot less boring and weak 30 year olds than 50 year olds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

This is stupid and wrong.

20-somethings don't want money. They want to have fun and be entertained. This does not cost money.

The women who want your money are age 30-50. They are far more ruthless, greedy, and conniving than any 20-something.

Why do you think a 25-30yo woman is going to want to have fun with a 50yo man rather than a 25-30yo man, given that it is the same entertainment (no difference in cost)?

I’m still trying to figure out what entertainment costs no money. Are you meeting up at Smithsonians that are within walking distance and not purchasing any food? Because anything else has a transportation, food, and or entrance cost unless you are hanging at someone’s house with no food provided. Once I was post college if a guy tried to suggest a stay home and chill for date 2 or 3, I would say we weren’t compatible.

There appears to be this idea that if you're 50, you have to do stupidly expensive things to entertain younger women - fly them to Paris or whatever. This is wrong. It costs no more to entertain 20-somethings when you're 50 than it did when you were a 20-something yourself.

Of course, gold-digging parasite women exist in every age group, and if she's like that you're better off finding out quickly so you can next her and not waste any more time.

It's not that, it's the recognition that your age is a drawback for a 20-something crowd, and you have to compensate for this in other ways.

It's like this. Antoine Arnault, the handsome, never-married, intelligent son of the richest man in Europe, has partnered up with a divorcee who has three kids from her first marriage. Is this a natural match? No, because men like him can easily find someone never married with no kids. Why has this match happened? Because his partner compensates for her history by being a world-known beauty and top ten supermodel with an active social and philanthropic life. This is how the balance is equalized.

Likewise, a 20-year old, all things considered, would rather be with another 20-year old. Can she be with a 50-year old? Sure. But he'd have to bring other things to the table to equalize the balance and compensate for not being 20.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

This was answered upthread. Tell me, why are you advocating for women to accept these down trodden men? Oh wait, are you in a relationship with someone who has nothing, wants nothing and is content with being where they are? If so, enlighten us on how to keep these relationships going. Are you in a relationship with a woman who could not have sex at the start of the relationship, is overweight, underemployed, and unattractive? But she is soooooo nice and sweet.

So you are a loser but you feel entitled to a rich hot man? LOL This may work in your early 20’s, but some where around 30, the dating power balance started moving towards men. By 35, the balance has switched to the men.

Some women in their 20s and 30s (or, indeed, of any age) have Daddy issues. Look for those women, OP. It won't add up to a long-term relationship but it will be fun in the short term.

In general, for a long-term relationship, try to date people who are close to you in age (5-7 years on either side). But if you just want to go on dates and have some fun, date whomever you are attracted to, of any age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

This is stupid and wrong.

20-somethings don't want money. They want to have fun and be entertained. This does not cost money.

The women who want your money are age 30-50. They are far more ruthless, greedy, and conniving than any 20-something.

Why do you think a 25-30yo woman is going to want to have fun with a 50yo man rather than a 25-30yo man, given that it is the same entertainment (no difference in cost)?

I’m still trying to figure out what entertainment costs no money. Are you meeting up at Smithsonians that are within walking distance and not purchasing any food? Because anything else has a transportation, food, and or entrance cost unless you are hanging at someone’s house with no food provided. Once I was post college if a guy tried to suggest a stay home and chill for date 2 or 3, I would say we weren’t compatible.

There appears to be this idea that if you're 50, you have to do stupidly expensive things to entertain younger women - fly them to Paris or whatever. This is wrong. It costs no more to entertain 20-somethings when you're 50 than it did when you were a 20-something yourself.

Of course, gold-digging parasite women exist in every age group, and if she's like that you're better off finding out quickly so you can next her and not waste any more time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

This is stupid and wrong.

20-somethings don't want money. They want to have fun and be entertained. This does not cost money.

The women who want your money are age 30-50. They are far more ruthless, greedy, and conniving than any 20-something.

Why do you think a 25-30yo woman is going to want to have fun with a 50yo man rather than a 25-30yo man, given that it is the same entertainment (no difference in cost)?

It all depends on the man. If you are boring and physically weak, then you are unattractive at age 30 or at age 50. If you are fun and fit at age 50, then you are competitive with the many, many 30 year old men who are boring and weak.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

This is stupid and wrong.

20-somethings don't want money. They want to have fun and be entertained. This does not cost money.

The women who want your money are age 30-50. They are far more ruthless, greedy, and conniving than any 20-something.

Why do you think a 25-30yo woman is going to want to have fun with a 50yo man rather than a 25-30yo man, given that it is the same entertainment (no difference in cost)?

I’m still trying to figure out what entertainment costs no money. Are you meeting up at Smithsonians that are within walking distance and not purchasing any food? Because anything else has a transportation, food, and or entrance cost unless you are hanging at someone’s house with no food provided. Once I was post college if a guy tried to suggest a stay home and chill for date 2 or 3, I would say we weren’t compatible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

This is stupid and wrong.

20-somethings don't want money. They want to have fun and be entertained. This does not cost money.

The women who want your money are age 30-50. They are far more ruthless, greedy, and conniving than any 20-something.

Why do you think a 25-30yo woman is going to want to have fun with a 50yo man rather than a 25-30yo man, given that it is the same entertainment (no difference in cost)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

This is stupid and wrong.

20-somethings don't want money. They want to have fun and be entertained. This does not cost money.

The women who want your money are age 30-50. They are far more ruthless, greedy, and conniving than any 20-something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

Some women just have a thing for silver foxes.

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

If a 50yo man wants to date and have a meaningful relationship with a 25-30yo woman, he probably has to bring something else to the table, something that is much more attractive than what an average 25-30yo man has. Oftentimes this is $$.
Is this so hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

And yes, he will be evaluated on his lack of savings, so he will need to up his "game" in other areas. Why do you think women should find men attractive that bring nothing to the relationship? Why?

And what do you bring other than an appreciation for his money?

This was answered upthread. Tell me, why are you advocating for women to accept these down trodden men? Oh wait, are you in a relationship with someone who has nothing, wants nothing and is content with being where they are? If so, enlighten us on how to keep these relationships going. Are you in a relationship with a woman who could not have sex at the start of the relationship, is overweight, underemployed, and unattractive? But she is soooooo nice and sweet.