More And More Men Are Settling For Ms. Good Enough


This week, my friend Arielle Ford, author of The Soulmate Secret, sent me a link to a Daily Beast article. The author of the article interviewed anthropologist Helen Fisher, PhD, of Rutgers. (Fisher has written five books and conducted extensive research on the evolution and future of human sex, love, marriage, gender differences in the brain and how your personality type shapes who you are and who you love. Her latest is Why Him? Why Her?: How to Find and Keep Lasting Love.) Fisher’s latest study is of singles in America.

Fisher explains it this way. “We have a stereotype in this culture that it’s men who are the ones who don’t want to commit, who don’t want to settle down, who are the scarce resources. But in fact, it’s the opposite.”

There’s an old adage: a woman who can’t find a man is a spinster; a man who doesn’t want a wife is the envy of all his friends. Fisher says “We have a stereotype in this culture that it’s men who are the ones who don’t want to commit, who don’t want to settle down, who are the scarce resources. But in fact, it’s the opposite.”

There’s an old adage: a woman who can’t find a man is a spinster; a man who doesn’t want a wife is the envy of all his friends.

Rather than living up to the stereotype of commitment-phobic bachelors, modern men reported that they fell in love just as often as women, and were just as likely to believe that marriage is “forever.”

The study found that 31 percent of adult men said they’d commit to a person they were not in love with –- as long as as she had all the other attributes they were looking for in a mate —- and 21 percent said they’d commit under those same circumstances to somebody they weren’t sexually attracted to. The equivalent numbers for women were far lower.

“There’s this transformation going on,” says Tom Matlack, co-founder of The Good Men Project, which aims to discuss and debunk modern male stereotypes. “It’s kind of like feminism on its head: for years, women were trying to earn the right to get out of the house, and here are all these men dying to get back into [it].”

Said one study participant, “We all marry our second or third or fourth best choice. It’s just life.”

This article echoes Lori Gottlieb’s Atlantic article-turned-bestseller, Marry Him! The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. In it, Gottlieb counseled women to forget the search for a mythical soulmate and nab a good man who wants to be a husband and father (lest they end up, like Gottlieb herself, alone and regretful at 40).

Read the article here. As always, I’d like you know what you think.

1
7

Join 7 Million Readers

And the thousands of women I've helped find true love. Sign up for weekly updates for help understanding men.

I hate spam as much as you do, therefore I will never sell, rent, or give away your email address.

Join our conversation (116 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 61
    AnnieC

    @17

    You are talking about a very real phenomenon that is happening way, way too often.

    Look up the concept of Co-dependancy, although your experience pretty much reflects what happens.

    A man/woman need the “drama” that another creates, because they need to either be in a high state of anxiety(the white knight/rescuer) or they need unconditional love and push and push a person to give it to them. These are the Narccisistic personality disordered people matching up with borderline personality individuals(as an example).

    When you come across some-one like this, you just have to walk away. People who feel uncomfortable with genuine kindness and acceptance, have issues that you will not be able to resolve for them.

    @P 53

    That was fascinating. You sound like you really do know what you are talking about. Thanks for posting that. :)

  2. 62
    AnnieC

    Reading all these comments, I really think there is a growing problem in people’s ability to love and desire some-one for who they are, rather than what they “do for me” or “make me feel”.

    One of the simplest way’s to change ones mind-set is to gain a sense of gratitude(I said simplest way not easiest). People have become increasingly entitled(both men and women), and no longer seem to even be able to recognize what another does for them.

    No-one is entitled to anything. Not friendship, not a job, not an education, not good health and certainly not love. But we have become so spoiled, believing these things are rights, that we have lost our sense of gratitude and ultimately our capacity to be humble.

    If a man goes out and provides for his family, how often does the wife, say to him “Thank you for working so hard for us?”. If a woman does choose to stay at home and work hard on producing a nice home, healthy happy children and supports her husband, how often does he say “Thank you?”

    We seem to think it’s the other persons JOB to do and say things for us. Gain a grateful heart, and you will recognize that people are choosing to do things and say things for you, only then will you feel genuine love, rather than entitled desires.

    It is quite easy to love and romantically desire a person, regardless of how they look, when you have a grateful heart.

    It does however, unfortunately go against what our ego’s demand. That’s why it must be practiced and learned.
     

  3. 63
    Dagaz

    i don’t understand the point of the article, frankly speaking.
    marriage – it’s a lot of work. inner and outside. it’s a lot of compromising and dealing with own dark sides, which you had no idea they were existing.
    it is never easy (i’ve been married twice). it’s not easy when the mutual feeling between the spouses is strong and vivid – perhaps, author cannot imagine how hard it becomes when people faces all those challenges without such support as love.
    no. no marriage “just because”, please.

  4. 64
    Zaq

    @58 Christie Hartman

    Sorry Christie, but there are so many studies showing the same thing over and over again. Women rejecting average men.

    In speed date studies, the women select far fewer men than the men do women.
    In the Freakonomics study, which backs up the OK Cupid study, the men did indeed contact the “hot”women, but they contacted the average women too, just not as frequently.
    Whereas the women ONLY contacted/ replied to the most attractive men.
    These are studies involving many thousands of dating interactions.

    I have not seen a single study that shows that men are pickier than women. Scientists have advanced the hypothesis that women, having a limited supply of eggs, and a huge investment in the  bi product of sexual interactions that they have evolved to be picky.

    Trouble is women’s expectations have increased as a result of having more control over their life to the point where they defer mate choice to time when they no longer have much to offer the opposite sex.

    I love the quote on a female friend’s  facebook page.
    “If all men are the same, why do women take so long to choose one ?”
    Why indeed 

  5. 65
    Ruby

    I find the comments that women might be pickier than men because they have become entitled, feminist princesses, laughable, and say more about that particular person’s discomfort with gender equality than anything else.
    One the the theories that scientists have long believed is that women are more selective because they are more invested in potential offspring. Women carry a child for nine months of pregnancy, and therefore want to choose a good partner. They also tend to be less interested in casual sex. But a recent study I read about suggested that the act of approaching increases desire. The researchers set up speed-dating events. Sometimes the men rotated between different women and did the approaching, and other times, the men did. The researchers found that, regardless of gender, whomever was doing the approaching “experienced greater romantic desire, chemistry, and eagerness to see a speed date again compared to those who sat.” The initiators also felt more self-confidence than those who sat still. Since men are traditionally expected to approach women, this could be another explanation as to why women are more selective.

    1. 65.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      @Ruby: “One the the theories that scientists have long believed is that women are more selective because they are more invested in potential offspring.”

      What about all of the selective women over the age of 45? Is that also biology?

  6. 66
    Ruby

    EMK #65
    <<What about all of the selective women over the age of 45? Is that also biology?>>
    Is it your experience that women over 45 are more selective than men over 45? I’d say that is not the case, at least among the women I know, who have had to become less selective in their choices as they’ve aged. However, men over 45 have more options in terms of their partner’s age; not only can they date older, but they can date several years younger, something that is still more difficult for women, so maybe they can afford to be choosier. But as the study I cited shows, there is likely more than one explanation for men’s and women’s selection behaviors, including both biological and social influences. At any age, men are still expected to do the approaching, and women remain less interested in casual sex, even when they don’t have to worry about pregnancy.

  7. 67
    Ruby

    EMK #68
     
    Could it be that older women are more selective because old habits die hard? In another way, maybe they can be choosier because they don’t have to worry about their biological clocks. Also, by the time a woman is older, she has accumulated more resources, and is less reliant on financial support from a man. The research suggests that older people in general are more set in their ways. As one of the studies noted, older singles are “eager to meet the right person, but not desperate to meet just anyone.”

  8. 68
    P

    @Ruby

    While I find the use of “princesses” and other comments about women’s relationship expectations offensive personally as I don’t see the need for derogatory language, there actually is a point here that’s being more and more widely recognized by those like myself who are in the fields of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Women’s marriage (and long-term relationship) expectations have become increasingly unrealistic from the standpoint of maintaining said relationships over time.

    To qualify this, and derail any start of the “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” arguments, this isn’t about inherent qualities in the gender.  Rather, its a byproduct of a changing society where societal values have skewed the course (and again, this isn’t saying which way is better–its just a statement of observational fact). Its an environmental byproduct, related to the differences in how women and men are raised and cultured in society.

    Consider marriage. Marriage, or ceremonious unions like it, have been around a long time. However, throughout history, the primary purpose of marriage (or life-long pair bonding) has not been driven predominantly by romance, sexual drive or attraction, or even our modern concept of “romantic love.”  Throughout history, such unions were predominantly socioeconomic methods of support between partners and families. They were held together by a number of things, with duty and familiar advancement (or maintenance) being a highly valued goal.  Yes, there was the “lack of choice” element as well…but that’s often misunderstood today in this age of widely swinging feminist rhetoric. Its misunderstood by many that it was women who were the ones without choice when in fact, it was often both parties who entered into such unions under those circumstances. Both sides were taught, by society, to maintain their unions for the sake of family, tribe, and so forth, and were duty-bound to do so. A lot of this has become very misunderstood by current mass-media depictions of historical relationships.     

    What is also misunderstood is that many of these unions DID involve “love” as they were striving towards a common goal. No, it wasn’t the concept we have today of “romantic love” where there is an obsessive desire for one another. In fact, throughout most of history both men AND women have written about the temporary nature of such passions and have cautioned one another about believing such feelings to be anything but transitory. Yes–BOTH men and women have written about this throughout history and have passed on such teachings to their children.

    When viewed from a social standpoint, this concept of marriage actually worked out fairly well. The values that kept marriages functional were in place rather firmly and were reinforced by religious views, state views, and so forth.

    A few hundred years ago, some things began to change. During the romantic period, the Victorian era, and so forth there was a slight nudge in the direction towards marrying for “love”–with a redefinition of “love” as being the “eros love” or as we call it today, “romantic love.” There was also a de-emphasis which began on the teachings that this type of “love” is temporary and an emerging emphasis on the belief that such feelings COULD be held indefinitely by an individual.

    Most of this remained low-level and on the outskirts of how functional unions operated for most people in society for quite some time. Romantic fiction was written of course–but in reality most people still viewed such things as fantastic tales and exactly what it was: fiction.

    Fast forward a bit into feminism as it began to emerge into the general population of western society in the past few decades. In addition to this, we now live in a culture that has become extremely sexual in nature, and has a mass media engine that continuously bombards people with messages about how things “should be.” Couple that with much easier access to romantic fiction and messages, and now we have a culture which indicates marriage’s primary purpose is a union between people based on “romantic love” and the endurance of such love. The value system of society has changed from familiar duty and common goal creation to one of self and overwhelming “feeling.” Because of traditions built up during the beginnings of the “romantic periods”, women ARE still told “faery tales” and are bombarded by faery-tale like messages by the media and even self-supporting systems that have grown into place.  Conversely, by a large degree, men are still taught somewhat to take a more practical view of marriage and pair-bonding–although that has taken an impact as well it just hasn’t been as pervasive as it has been with women.  Again, this is not saying one is “better” or “worse” than the other–its simply a behavioral quality that is learned from society.

    Simply put, its a recipe for epic disaster psychologically when it comes to the concept of marriage and we are seeing that, and have been seeing that in the failure rate we have today.  Why is this a disaster?  Well, because the concept of marriage is still that of a “permanent” union, but the expectation of what that union contains have changed from a value system that centered on family well-being (and less on innate “feeling”) to a more self-centered view of personal feelings and, unfortunately, an over-sexualized emphasis on rather temporary “romantic” bases. 

    Now, before anyone goes off saying “well, the previous concept of marriage sounded awful” I’ll say–of course it does.  To what you’ve been indoctrinated into in this society right now. Despite what the mass media depictions of societal life in the past might have you think, there’s a LOT of historical evidence that marriages of past were NOT considered (by either party) to be a miserable state of co-habitation. There was in fact “love”–but it just wasn’t the “romantic love” concept we have today. The love described was more akin to familiar and supportive–much more commonly referred to as “friendship” love today. And, as I said, our ancestors KNEW that “romantic” or “eros” and obsessive “love” was a fleeting, temporary thing.  The psychology was different…there was no expectation that such “feelings” could ever be maintained and therefore there was no quest to create such within a union. Expecations were different.  Its ironic that our ancestors knew about these fallacies and actively worked towards cautioning people to take care in such fantasy, and yet today we actively PUSH such fantasies as being expectations.

    Back to my point though.  Ruby, the reality is that women ARE more selective biologically and to some degree due to their limited fertility.  HOWEVER…and this is HUGE however…that increased “selectivity” only applies to MATING.  Lest we forget, the MATING instinct is NOT permanent between people. Biologically, we are NOT monogamous creatures.  That instinct lasts long enough to mate, create an offspring, and allow it to reach a certain age (and…that age is not 18…its along the lines of 5). Then, we wander off and create a different offspring with a new partner in order to propagate proper gene expression.  THAT is what romantic “feelings” and romantic “love” embodies. THOSE feelings.  By default, they are temporary, and for a very good biological reason–at least from a historical perspective. 

    The problem with this and marriage is…marriage was not originally designed to be a vehicle for the expression of the mating instinct.

    So it all comes down to this.  If you need constant “romantic” love in your life, then fine.  Be a serial monogamist…or a polyamorous individual.  But…marriage, as its currently defined, was meant to be a commitment between two people to remain together for OTHER reasons.  If you don’t value those other reasons as much as “romantic” love feelings, then you have no business considering marrying anyone. Its a simple as that. You can’t build a life-long relationship with someone when you have expectations that cannot rationally come to fruition.
            

      
                    

  9. 69
    AnnieC

    @70. Best explanation I’ve read to date. :) Thanks for that :)

  10. 70
    Michael17

    EMK #66: What Ruby said. People who no longer have the drive to reproduce “should” become even more fussy. See now, what’s the rush? There’s no biological clock ticking anymore.

  11. 71
    Alphan Njogu

    This conversation is really interesting. The divergent views given here practically show how the human nature can prove to be hard to understand. No wonder not everyone feels the referenced study is spot on. While it’s a bright idea to wait for a soul mate, and well and good if she eventually shows up, not everyone will find his or her perfect match. Living happily ever after doesn’t necessarily mean a perfect life. If there’s a reasonable percentage of the things you’d want to see in a man or a woman, settling would be a perfect thing to do. The remaining percentage will take shape as you grow together as complements.

  12. 72
    Michael17

    I’m not putting too much stock in this survey, by the way. I haven’t read through all of the other posts, so I don’t know if this has been said already–apologies if it has–but this is my main beef: People are answering HYPOTHETICAL questions in this survey. How they might act if it actually comes time to make a decision could be quite different.

    Thing is, there are a lot of guys who feel powerless in dating, as there are women. They would have a hard time imagining themselves in a relationship with a woman who meets all their criteria, and not being happy. They also might have been caught by the survey at a frustrating time for them dating-wise. Hey if the last 5 women turned down a second date because of something known as The Chemistry Thing, the idea of settling down with someone does seem rather appealing! They might feel differently once they are in a relationship.

    What’s the saying: If you want to find out how someone really would act, follow their actions and not their words? I think that follows here.

     

  13. 73
    Francesca

    I think the study misses the point a little. I think when it comes to marriage aspect of the relationship its not about how the other person makes you feel. Its about how you make the other person feel. So from that point of view being in “love” is a bit unnecessary.  Doing things for the other person, feeling happy because you’ve made someone else happy. Regardless of how much you want to do the item in question. 

    My Mum used to say “your nana sounds grumpy, but she loves you because she made you this stew”. I think there is a lot of truth to that, and I have found it to be true in all my relationships with friends and family. 

  14. 74
    Jadafisk

    2. Additionally, single women in our society who want to enjoy the company of children are given many opportunities to do so. In some communities, they’re expected to take part in caregiving activities, even if they aren’t so inclined. Single men are not, and their only legitimate and non-socially suspect means of regularly doing so is as a parent. That’s going to put some pressure on a man who already wants to be a father.

  15. 75
    M

    Comments 7 and 8 are very bright and thoughtful.

    Of course men settle. What’s the alternative? When you have been rejected by the first 10, 20 or more women you have approached in your life, you can either ask some more out or give up for good.

  16. 76
    Kirt

    This doesn’t seem that surprising as there really are few good women available. So many women completely let themselves go, so if a man wants a reasonably fit or at least thin woman, he might have to take what he can get. Contrary to what women might think, no man really wants to marry a promiscuous woman either, but many men will have to settle for that if they want to settle down and start a family.

  17. 77
    Paragon

    @ P 70

    Great post(I’ve bookmarked this discussion).

    And yes, short-term/long-term mating really are competing evolutionary strategies with dispirate optima, which explains why the stability of a long-term fitness strategy(like marriage) is not well served where short-term benefits(ie.
    physical attraction in short term mating) accrue at the expense of long-term ones(which female sexual choice will always press for, given a stronger qualitative bias compared
    to males).

    But, I would add that, in evolutionary terms, the only dynamic which works to ensure systemic pair-bonding(in the form of
    social monogamy) is bi-parental advantage(where stable parental-pair bonds accord a competitive advantage in offspring success).

    The problem is, these advantages will erode through a relaxation of ecological stress(such
    as prevails in prosperous developed world populations), in turn relaxing the pressures which would otherwise constrain a ruinous mating latitude(again, particularly with respect to the limiting sex – females).

    Beyond merely rendering marriage ‘unreliable’, this will precipitate population trends towards sub-replacement fertility, and consequent evolutionary instability(ie. the demographic economic paradox).

  18. 78
    Helen

    P 70: I echo those who say that yours is an excellent post.

    The one thing I would add is that reliable birth control played a major role in shifting how we think about marriage today. You are correct in pointing out that marriages used to be about what was good for the family as a whole – well, that nearly always included children. In historical times, children were necessary to help on a smaller scale with the family business, and on a larger scale with keeping the society populated and thriving.

    Today, that is no longer the case in most parts of the world. Couples can marry for the sake of enjoying each others’ company without children. It is a lot easier to take care of two adults than it is to include children in the mix, so people naturally focus more on gratifying themselves. Moreover, because children are no longer an economic or societal necessity, the way we think about children has shifted as well. Many couples think of children as a pleasure – almost as a luxury good, if you will – than as a critical component to maintaining familial or tribal livelihood.

    I’m not passing judgment on people seeking to gratify themselves in marriage. This is what our society has been working toward for millennia: making everyday life more convenient and flexible, so our descendants would have the opportunity to live easier lives and enjoy themselves. Of course, the truth is that few things make us more genuinely happy than working hard toward a worthwhile goal, and that message can get lost in the shuffle of self-gratification.

  19. 79
    Cat

    I think men settle all the time. In reality all men want a super hot wife, but all men can’t get a super hot wife, so they settle for who they meet & fall in love with & then just fantasize about a super hot wife the rest of their life. lol…That’s the reality of it. All the men I know would LOVE to be married to a super hot woman I’m sure, but they still “love” the wife they have. It’s unavoidable because men are so absolutely driven by the visual, that’s just real life. And if said men did have a super hot wife, he’d still be fantasizing about other super hot women…I am convinced that men & women love so completely differently. Men settle all the time. And they are never completely satisfied with their wife’s appearance and continually need the visual stimulation of other women for life.

  20. 80
    hespeler

    Cat 81,

    Are you a man or woman because that’s a pretty darn good description of the male psyche right there…

  21. 81
    James

    I think there is a difference between men and women when it comes to how we rate each other. Us ‘men’ can look at a woman who may have a nice set of jugs and a nice rear end but an average face and we may rank her as ‘hot’.  But when women see a man who has a nice body but average face they me rank him as just average or even below average. Women seem to critique each other much harsher as well.  I see women all the time that I think are hot but other women don’t rank those women nearly as high. I do agree with many of the comments on here that women are pickier about looks then men are.  I have also found that, now I am in my mid 30’s, I appreciate more things about a woman which may make her more attractive to me. How she carries herself, her attitude, and her self esteem all effect how attractive I see her. I think that women who cant get past looks and to a certain extent “settle”,  will have a very hard time finding the ‘one’.

  22. 82
    Helen

    Zaq wrote: “The results for women were highly skewed, with most men being scored less than a 5, which is ridiculous, but shows what powerful evolutionary forces are pushing women to accept only a minority of men.”
     
    Is it really “ridiculous”? Let me throw this idea out there: that the reason men’s looks on average scored below 5 is because women are unconsciously comparing men not just among themselves, but also among women. And maybe women really are, on average, more attractive than men. I don’t mean biologically; I mean socially. We wear a lot more makeup, invest more in our clothes, and care more for our hair and bodies. In fact, if we WEREN’T more attractive than men after all our additional effforts, then we’d have to have been much uglier to begin with au naturel!

  23. 83
    Karl R

    Helen said: (#84)
    “Let me throw this idea out there: that the reason men’s looks on average scored below 5 is because women are unconsciously comparing men not just among themselves, but also among women.”
     
    Is a 5’7″ person tall or short?
     
    I don’t call a 5’7″ woman short, even if she’s several inches shorter than me. She’s clearly above average height. Similarly, a 5’7″ man is clearly below average height.
     
    Helen asked: (#84)
    “Is it really ‘ridiculous’?”
     
    If someone is incapable of consciously avoiding the kind of comparison that you hypothesize…
     
    Yes. It’s ridiculous.

  24. 84
    Cat

    @hespeler (81)…I’m a woman. Very much still learning about men in my older age. My husband has forced me to learn some hard lessons & sadly I am much less optimistic about men in general. But glad I was right on about men & settling, I think it happens all the time. 

  25. 85
    James

    @Helen
     (#84)
    I have to cry foul here. Your trying to compare apples to oranges here. Comparing the sexiness of a man with the sexiness of a woman is like comparing dogs to cats. Men have distinct different traits that would make them attractive that are totally different with what makes a woman attractive.  Everyone has their own taste as to what is attractive and what is not, but most of the time women would consider masculine traits to be attractive in a man. (facial hair, hard muscles, etc). On a woman attraction would be more feminine traits, (curves, boobs etc).  I don’t know how you can compare the two.  I think the reason men rate women higher on the looks scale is because most men have the ability to rank a woman based on separate features. A woman with an average face but a very nice body would most likely be ranked as “hot” by men. A woman with a VERY pretty face and just above average body can still be ranked as ‘hot”. Where as a man with an average face and a very nice body may only get “above average” rank from women. When it comes to looks it seems most women are much pickier then they care to admit.

  26. 86
    Lynn

    The men described in the article are the ones who will divorce you 7 years later, saying “I love you but I’m not *in* love with you.” The cliche to end all cliches. I once worked with a guy who complained bitterly about his wife at the office, constantly. Apparently, she was his mom’s business partner, and his mom wanted them to get together, so he married her. Spineless!!!

  27. 87
    JoeK

    @Lynn #88
     
     I find it hard to believe that a man who is content to marry a woman he isn’t “in love with” but “had all the other attributes they were looking for in a mate” is likely to be the one initiating a divorce (especially with women initiating most divorces by a significant margin today). Logic tells me that such men (31% – not a majority) are possibly less likely to “fade” when “that feeling” is gone…since “that feeling” isn’t what drove them to marry in the first place.These are the ones that are likely still married, assuming they chose a wife well (which I think is more likely because they’re not focusing on being “in love”).
     
    After all, it isn’t “being in love” that keeps people together, it’s being committed to each other (you know – all those other attributes).
     
    These men sound more pragmatic about it (but they’re represent just 31% of men). I’d posit that the men you’re talking about are the ones who follow their passions instead, as those who “follow their passions” are often seen as more transient in their natures.
     
    Sorry to burst the fairy-tale bubble, but marrying for common values is a more successful strategy than marrying for “love”. We’ve had a pretty good experiment with marrying primarily for “love” over the last 100 years – how’s that been working for us?
     
    Aside – my guy friends never talk about “being in love with” their girlfriends or wives…when they praise them, it’s consistently in the form of how easy she is to get along with, how fun she is to be around, how nice she is, how pleasant she is (attractive and sexy are mentioned too). Not how much money she makes, not how powerful she is at work, not how she gives him butterflies when they kiss, but in how she makes his life better, more enjoyable, less stressed.

    1. 87.1
      Geoff Gander

      @JoeK:

      Your last paragraph is spot-on.  When I talk to other men (who have partners), they rarely talk about the softer, emotional side of their attraction.  What I hear most often is something along the lines of, “[Partner] is awesome.  She’s [pick one or more] so laid back/doesn’t make a big deal about things/shares my favourite hobbies/is fun to be with/just takes me as I am.”

  28. 88
    Scott

    Not suprising that a significant percentage of men will marry a woman they do not find sexually attractive. Many of them probably figure that once he marries her, within a few years (or once the kids arrive) she’ll stop having sex with him anyway. Might as well be turned down by someone you don’t find attractive! ;) Like that old song “if you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife”.

    And do not kid yourself that men are universally unable to have sex with women they find physically unattractive. Sex with an unattractive woman is still sex with a woman! To most heterosexual men, sex with any woman beats not having sex.

  29. 89
    SparklingEmerald

    Didn’t read the accompanying article, just the blog post. However, if I discovered I married a man who didn’t find me attractive, but was merely “settling” I’d be heartbroken. Of course, I want him to be MORE than merely attracted to me, but if that element is missing, I just wouldn’t fell like I was truly loved.

  30. 90
    Bobby

    Really really sucks.  I am one of those men who “settled” for a woman who is not my type, I think most men commit WAY too soon in life.  We don’t hit our peak until late 30s to mid 40s due to the fact that confidence and success elude the younger male.
    I think midlife crisis is a phenomenon of mid-aged men who really should have held out for a younger attractive woman, but instead is faced with two facts: 1) They are peaking and able to upgrade in a big way; 2) They are in witness to their wife who is free falling in her sexual currency.   Put these two dynamics together, and you have a crisis.
    Men, DO NOT SETTLE!  Hold out until you have some currency to cash in on the woman who meets your expectations.  She will be happier, and so will you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>