Anonymous wrote:Men will return when masculinity is not attacked, diminished and outright demonized. Until then, men will come last in the home, but remain first to their young, attractive secretaries at work.

Couldn’t resist.

Define masculinity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's NYT's agenda?

Sell newspapers to democrats who lack critical thinking skills.

Like how the point of Truth Social is to attract dumb MAGA who lack critical thinking skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Spot on. I do actually believe we have a sociological problem in this country - women on the rise and wanting equal partners, men on decline and wanting the 50s back. But this article was not that at all. She was ridiculous.

Agreed. We are in a time of cultural shift to be sure, but this article is not hitting on some important part of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's NYT's agenda?

Sell newspapers to democrats who lack critical thinking skills.

There's that GOP/MAGA projection again. Truth is so hard for you guys.

Although I would add that I don't think this op ed is an example of truth. But the truth is out there and you guys won't face it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's NYT's agenda?

Sell newspapers to democrats who lack critical thinking skills.

There's that GOP/MAGA projection again. Truth is so hard for you guys.

It may be that the men that most women want to date are unavailable. My foster son is a 5'6" man who works as a bank teller and has an associates degree. He has a normal apartment that he shares with a roommate. He is a great guy who is putting himself out there and open to a relationship, but not having success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are heterosexual and have trouble being in a relationship with the opposite sex, then YOU need to change. Part of being in a heterosexual marriage is learning to get along and live with someone who is different than you.

There's no profit in telling women they need to improve their behavior. Far easier to keep blaming men.

There are plenty of heterosexual men who refuse to change and blame women for not wanting to date them or not being good partners. Neither gender has a monopoly on this.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Yes, she's selecting these bad situations. She is not high value enough to land a quality man, so she is left with the choice between settling for a mid-man or being pumped by better men who have options. She chooses the latter, and this choice is repeated across the country by countless women.

It's terrible to say but this was also my reaction. It's one thing to be in your 20s at your peak attractiveness and desirability and then be very self-involved or sort of a mess. A lot of guys will want to date you anyway. They are inexperienced too.

No 40+ guy is looking for the level of drama this middle aged lady is carrying around. I say this as someone who's around her age as well.

There was also such a "cool girl" vibe here with the open marriage etc. It was jarring to hear partway thru that she's a mom.

Open marriage is such a dumb trend. I am not a traditionalist, I don't think anyone has to get married, love who you want, structure your relationships how you want. But marriage is a monogamous agreement. That's what it is. We cannot "rebrand" marriage to look like dating. If you want to date and be non-monogamous, do that! Nothing is stopping you. But open marriage is idiotic. And when there are kids involved, I have to conclude the parents are just narcissists. Grow up!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Spot on. I do actually believe we have a sociological problem in this country - women on the rise and wanting equal partners, men on decline and wanting the 50s back. But this article was not that at all. She was ridiculous.

This, thank you. The essay was dumb and grating -- this woman keeps making stupid relationship choices and is blaming it on "men" instead of lookin inward. It's also hyper-specific to the dating scene in NYC or similar cities at a certain age. There is almost nothing universal about it.

I do think it would be interesting to talk more about gender roles in heterosexual marriages and how what people are raised to expect and want doesn't match up. I also think sometimes people want conflicting things. Like men often want a woman who will be an equal earner, but then also expect her to do the lion's share of child rearing. Women, on the other hand, will say they want a man who is a true partner at home, but then won't let their husband's take the lead on domestic matters or expect him to be an equal partner while also making twice as much. It can just be very unrealistic. And economic pressures in the US make these conflicts worse than in other countries, because without much paid parental leave and escalating housing and college costs, the pressure is really on for families to maximize their earnings, which doesn't leave anyone with much time or energy for parenting and taking care of the home, which are essential tasks.

That would be an interesting first-person essay. This lady is just click bait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are heterosexual and have trouble being in a relationship with the opposite sex, then YOU need to change. Part of being in a heterosexual marriage is learning to get along and live with someone who is different than you.

There's no profit in telling women they need to improve their behavior. Far easier to keep blaming men.

Agree. Improving one’s behavior requires rational thinking, self reflection and less emotion which many women in failed marriages lack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Yes, she's selecting these bad situations. She is not high value enough to land a quality man, so she is left with the choice between settling for a mid-man or being pumped by better men who have options. She chooses the latter, and this choice is repeated across the country by countless women.

It's terrible to say but this was also my reaction. It's one thing to be in your 20s at your peak attractiveness and desirability and then be very self-involved or sort of a mess. A lot of guys will want to date you anyway. They are inexperienced too.

No 40+ guy is looking for the level of drama this middle aged lady is carrying around. I say this as someone who's around her age as well.

There was also such a "cool girl" vibe here with the open marriage etc. It was jarring to hear partway thru that she's a mom.

Anonymous wrote:Having actually read the article, it's just clickbait for the NYT set. The author left an open marriage because she fell for one of the men she was dating and when that relationship didn't work out, she found herself in the middle aged dating pool in NYC where she goes out on dates with openly non-monogamous men. Hardly a representative sample of mainstream dating.

As a woman, the article just made me roll my eyes because the author and her friends seem to be self-selecting for these high drama relationships.

Yes, she's selecting these bad situations. She is not high value enough to land a quality man, so she is left with the choice between settling for a mid-man or being pumped by better men who have options. She chooses the latter, and this choice is repeated across the country by countless women.

Anonymous wrote:If you are heterosexual and have trouble being in a relationship with the opposite sex, then YOU need to change. Part of being in a heterosexual marriage is learning to get along and live with someone who is different than you.

There's no profit in telling women they need to improve their behavior. Far easier to keep blaming men.

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?