Mar21

Where Are All the Emotionally Available, Mentally Healthy Men?

03:52 pm on Mar 21st 2007 Evan Marc Katz

Finding the One Online is a comprehensive, life-changing program that covers everything I teach my clients about online dating. If you want to get your love life on track and aren't sure where to start, Finding the One Online is the best investment you can make.

121 Comments »Filed Under Favorites, Sex & Relationship Advice

121 Responses to “Where Are All the Emotionally Available, Mentally Healthy Men?”

1. JimmyE Apr 3rd 2007 at 08:39 pm 1

   Everyone talks about how middle aged men want to date younger women, but take a look at some twentysomething profiles and you’ll notice how many are willing to date men up to twenty years older then them, but rule out candidates born 12 months after them.
   That’s their perogative, but i can’t help but wonder how many women dated older men in their twenties, and then complained that their peers considered them too old 10 years later.

2. Vicki Apr 5th 2007 at 06:30 pm 2

   JimmyE,
   I am 38, and I adore younger men. I have had a crush on a younger guy (he looks about 17 or 18, but I don’t dare ask him!) who works as a waiter at a restaurant I frequent with my parents. I actually have a mental block about dating older men, even a couple of years older seems so very very old to me! lol I think it is just each person has their own tastes you know. Unfortunately, society praises the older man-younger woman pairings, and disparages older women-younger men pairings. The pressure can be a bit daunting. Many people who are cool about seeing gay couples out together are openly horrified if they see a woman out with a younger man. Why is that??? It is the final frontier, in my opinion, and I guess I want to be a trailblazer! lol. So, not all women exclude younger men. I only wish more of them would date me!

   Vicki

3. Hadley Page Jul 12th 2007 at 09:24 am 3

   Evan Has hit it on the head. We want easy.

   First some back ground. I am a. 49 yr old lawyer, divorced w 2 kids that I have 1/2 time. I am relatively sane, relatively reasonable & considerate, relatively presentable, relatively fun & entertaining and relatively financially secure. And yes, I have my fair share of issues just like everyone else.

   I don’t have much of a problem meeting and dating women. But I do have a challenge meeting women that I am interested in having an LTR with. Why? Because at this point in my life I don’t want a women who is trying to change me> I don;t want hassles. I don’t want difficult. I want easy. After pondering this for a few years I have concluded that easy and pleasant are the 2 most important qualities in a women for me — More important that attractiveness, more important than great sex.

   In theory I have no issue with successful, intelligent women. But my experience has shown me that, as Evan says, they can often be anxious, self-righteous, negative, and entitled. (NOT EASY)

   Sorry, I wish it wasn’t true, but for me it seems to be.

   Ladies., if you want to get into an LTR you might consider thinking about what is really important for you and what you can live without.

   Hadley Page

4. Suze Jul 25th 2007 at 04:55 pm 4

   I’m coming into this discussion late.

   Have you noticed in this exchange that women’s behavior/demeanor etc is being put to blame here, and men are being let off scott free?

   Don’t get me wrong. I think it is quite valid to point out that older women who have developed higher standards should put a plug on their nagging harpie tendencies–if indeed that is truly how they are coming across.

   But is it?

   How are men coming across? Likeable? Confident? Mature? Chivalrous? Relationship material?

   The underlying message in the commentary here is that women are the ones who need to change their flawed behavior.

   Why? Because we want relationships more than men do?

   Here is the sad truth: more women, across the board, at all ages, are opting to be single because they do not like the quality of men out there.

   There are now more single women than married women and the numbers are expected to grow. This is an historical development

   the numbers are going to continue to grow until men elect to examine their own behavior and not put the responsibility of change squarely on women.

   So I guess there is going to be a whole lot of sexual frustration going on in both corners.

   c’est la vie.

5. Alison Aug 18th 2007 at 11:31 am 5

   Ah, Fun one.

   I think Evan is quite right, fair or not!

   Us fabulous, wonderful, sexy, and smart older women do need to learn to project oursleves in a more easy going manner.

   We need to also examine our expectations AND our preferences.

   Sadly statistics are NOT in aging women’s favor and so even MORE reason to learn to play more effectively and extend the playground. The keyword here is ‘play’ and being ‘playful’.

   Even if older, that attitude will help us appear as youthful and fun. (and we will feel and benefit from that too)

   Yes, our stage of life and what one is willing to embrace does effect the pool of possibilities.

   As one’s children are out of the home, one could maybe date a younger man who does not wish children, as well as an older man whose children are also gone. Also at that stage one may be more ‘easy-going’ and relaxed as pressures lift and priorities change.

   Christian Carter is a consultant to note, who speaks to what men want very clearly and understands a perspective of women. Like it or not, women should listen.

   In fact a woman should listen carefully to what each of the men she dates say, and can question (lightly and playfully) to seek to understand. She can also ask for feedback from male friends.

   That said, Suze is correct too. Many men want easy and simple – ’seamless’.

   Some are as deluded in their search as some women, not ready to realize that life itself is never seamless and it takes work to maintain and repair.

   They may find simple in a younger woman (at first) but as she matures, or feels sercurer in a relationship, she may start making more ‘demands’ and set more limits too. Also circumstances may make things more complex and the skill set a woman has to deal with this may become more important.

   ALL could benefit by examining preferences, willingness to flex, and to communicate better- in a more attentive and easy-going manner.

   Suze is right- many women choose to divorce and stay single because many men ARE so difficult and inflexible, and not fun or easy-going (remember Girls just want to have fun too)

   In the midst of so many work, family commitments, financial stressors- it is hard to be ‘easy-going’.

   The trick is finding a way to center still, flirt, maintain openess.

   Luck helps too. Also one’s skills at discrimination,

   As Evan says- great to keep being out there and not mistake lack of success as a sign that it is impossible , or to justify a judgment of the pool of ALL men.

   Sometimes we just don’t match up. C’est la vie.

   And the ones that reject us to enter a relationship of drama with someone else- well those are ones we may not want anyway. Don’t be jealous. It may not be happy for those two- nor last.

   I am 53 and 10 years post divorce, have at times felt hopeless, but have continued to be ‘out’ there, with my interests, with my family, online- wherever. It does take energy, creativity and means.

   I have recently begun a very hopeful relationship with a man who is early in the divorce process. Could be an issue but I determined it was worth a go. We are both aware of the potential pitfalls.

   So far we meet each others preferences and can match desires.

   The best part is we BOTH are taking personal responsibilty, are seeking balance in our own lives, COMMITTED to FUN, and not expecting perfection. We are each committed to creating beauty in our lives with each other and others- regardless of what lasts or does not last.

   Timing and luck has played a part in allowing this to unfold, willingness and grabbing opportunities another piece, and the rest has been the self-evaluation and growth we have undertaken before meeting. We are committed to continuing wherever it may lead.

   No guarantees-

   Best,
   Alison

   Also you may enjoy going to my blog and following links to some commentaries on Midlife dating, dating dilemmas, realistic or unrealistic preferences and expectations, how to manage being hot (or not) at 50, and when nice is not so nice.

   You can also google the Amherst Bulletin on these topics.

   and I highly suggest tango or other partner dancing to both sexes to develop better skills, awareness, and to maintain youthfulness.

6. downtowngal Oct 8th 2007 at 05:58 pm 6

   You have to consider the big picture that you’re not going to click with every guy. I wonder how Joan has been going about meeting men other than online, and if this is her first foray into the dating world after being married.

   Also, what kinds of track records do these men have? I’ve found a huge difference when dating men who are beyond a certain age and have been married or in LTR’s vs. those who have not – a certain maturity and realistic expectations when it comes to relationships.

   If a guy can’t handle dating an emotionally balanced woman you wouldn’t want to be with someone like that anyway. It can seem daunting if you keep meeting these types of men but I believe there are good guys out there, just need to change your ways of meeting them beyong bars, online, etc.

   And Evan, I don’t believe that women over 35 have their options limited – I know of many women into their 40’s who’ve ended up finding someone AND having children. I’m sure that some women have issues preventing them from having fulfilling relationships but I think that men who reject women because of their age generally don’t do so because they want children (as they claim), they’re really afraid of commitment and ‘being rushed’. I know of some of these men and they’re into their late 40’s and STILL single, still looking for that perfect woman who doesn’t exist, meanwhile dating psycho-chicks.

7. verbosity Oct 9th 2007 at 11:37 am 7

   Wow, where to start? I must first comment that I have heard the term ‘emotionally available’ (or unavailable) regarding men defined at least a dozen different ways by a like number of people of both sexes. It is an amorphous phrase with no specific meaning. I therefore do not know what Joan writes about.

   Since most of the posts are from women, I’ll state things from my oh so humber male perspective. I write not to cast stones at the fairer sex, but to balance the viewpoints a bit.

   One must realize that in the age brackets we discuss here (40+) most of the men (and women) have been through at least one divorce, long-term relationship, or other similar trauma. Of the divorces (btw, the divorce rate in Scottsdale, where I am, is approximately 70%), 70% of them are initiated by the women (can be independently verified). I am going to assume for sake of argument that the numbers are similar for non-marriage relationships also. What I’m getting at is that, in all likelihood (70%), a man had his marriage or most significant relationship ended by a woman. I’m not getting into questions of blame – that’s another discussion. Simply, she initiated the breakup.

   So, men in the 40+ age range are more likely to be cautious in committing their hearts, minds, and assets to a realtionship.

   I could not disagree with Suze more. She wrote “I think it is quite valid to point out that older women who have developed higher standards should put a plug on their nagging harpie tendencies–if indeed that is truly how they are coming across.” Developed higher standards? Is she so much better? Sorry to say, but these superioroty assumptions and entitlement mentality are why so many older men are reluctant to jump into relationships. No man should deal with any nagging harpie. The ‘nagging harpie’ usually surfaces after marriage and the legal commitment exists. But I digress….

   Suze further wrote, “Here is the sad truth: more women, across the board, at all ages, are opting to be single because they do not like the quality of men out there.” See my comment on divorce, above. Women are opting to be single, particularly in the 40+ range after divorcing. They are ‘opting’ to discard the life they initially chose like an outdated outfit, particularly the men they initially chose.

   It’s interesting. Suze thinks that men need to change further to suit women, it appears. My personal belief is that men should, for the most part, ignore chasing women. Instead, they should focus on their careers, friends and community. Women will seek them out.

   Alison also writes thoughtfully on the subject of family pressures, children and the like. I would like to note that she also shares the same wrongheaded assumptions Suze possesses when she wrote, “Suze is right- many women choose to divorce and stay single because many men ARE so difficult and inflexible, and not fun or easy-going (remember Girls just want to have fun too).” Huh? Difficult and inflexible? I don’t want to parse words, but my general observation is that men in general do not change their personality over time. Perhaps she thinks she should change for her – a wrong belief….

   Here is man’s perspective. Men like younger women. They are usually more fun, usually physically more attractive, less likely to have shrew-like harpie tendencies. After the aforementioned divorce or ended long term relationship, most men I have talked to just want something simple and to have fun. They often see their 20’s and 30’s as a waste of their youth and fun time due to their previously mentioned divorce, LTR. Now in their 40’s they prefer younger, simpler women.

   However, Alison alludes to something powerful – “They may find simple in a younger woman (at first) but as she matures, or feels sercurer in a relationship, she may start making more ‘demands’ and set more limits too.” Why demand? What limits? Most men have experienced this, particularly ones who were married. What I’ve founds is that as soon as there is some tpye of significant entalglement (living together, joint bank account, marriage, etc…) women get more ’secure’ and start making more demands, since for the man, extricating himself from the relationship is now messy, expensive, and difficult.

   The above paragraph brings me to another point – ladies would be well-served to quit worrying about a man’s income, and assets so much. This is its own separate subject, but every time I or my friends meet a woman, the inquiry is always about my occupation and neighborhood, indirectly inquiring about my income. This is treated on other parts of this site, but it should be mentioned here. I bring this up to make the point that men have no qualms going for younger women, since all women, younger and older, look at him and his wallet. This is a generalization, but an accurate one.

   Also, this is very non-PC, but so what? Men can afford to go after younger women also. Not monetarily speaking, but in this way – Men, as we age, generally get more distinguished and attractive (presuming we don’t go completely to pot) to a wider range of women older & younger. Our options increase. Women simply do not. Their options therefore reduce as men’s options increase.

   Additionally, regarding men’s preferences – Men without children almost always do not want to date women with children. I will state this simply (and do to women I meet) – I do not want my dating and social life to revolve around someone else’s children and their soccer games, practices, after school activities and the like. I chose not to have children, value my freedom, and act accordingly.

   One man’s perspective….

8. Hadley Paige Oct 9th 2007 at 12:40 pm 8

   I am reminded of the quote “Men marry women and hope they don’t change. Women marry men and hope they do”.

9. just my thoughts... Oct 9th 2007 at 02:10 pm 9

   Verbosity, “emotionally unavailable” generally means not able to commit emotionally to a relationship, whether someone wants to or not.

   Just because most relationships/marriages are ended by women (according to the stats you cite) doesn’t mean that the relationship was a good one. Some women end relationships because men are not willing or able to take it to the next level – i.e. dating exclusively or marriage. Other times it’s because the marriages weren’t good ones and despite all the counselling it’s not working, often times it’s the man who’s unwilling to change enough to focus on his relationship with his wife.

   If a guy wants to be with a ‘younger simpler’ (naive?) woman to try to relive his 30’s that he lost being married, that’s not the guy who’s looking for a serious mature relationship IMHO.

   There are a number of men who haven’t even been married and haven’t a clue how to treat a woman respectfully. I think these are the guys Joan is referring to.

10. downtowngal Oct 14th 2007 at 01:07 pm 10

    Verbosity, the kind of guy you describe sounds like someone who doesn’t want the emotional responsibility of being in a serious relationship.

    True, you can’t change someone’s values or personality quirks. But that’s different than being willing to compromise on certain things, like $$, household chores, etc. If you think that’s what makes someone ‘demanding’ or nagging then there’s a bigger issue here.

11. verbosity Oct 15th 2007 at 10:17 am 11

    downtowgal, I don’t wish to write a lengthy response. However, I am afraid the context in which I describe the kind of guy appears to be missing from your comment. The salient point I made was that a man, 40-ish, is exactly less likely to jump into a serious relationship. This is so due to some of the factors I stated (see above). Generally, one is reluctant to place their hand on a stove once it has already been burned.

    I do not mean this to sound flippant, but I have no idea what that phrase “emotional responsibility” means. It helps to know what that phrase truly means, particularly when used as an ad hominem attack instead of facts, as it is used here.

    Regarding money, demands and compromises…my opinion is that men should never, ever commingle money (or loan, or borrow from, etc) with a woman. Why would a woman care how much a man made unless she thought she would benefit from it in some way? By not commingling money (even if married), a potential area of conflict is solved. Further, since women can do the same jobs and earn the same (actually more than) as men for the same work, they should not care one bit what a man makes.

    What I think I’m trying to convey regarding the ‘demanding’ issues specifically, is a ceaselesss focus on the faults of guys. We’re not talking about forgetting to take the trash out occasionally. We’re talking about actually telling him on occasion the good things he is/does. Too often it appears the woman’s compromise (in her eyes at least) is even being with the guy at all. Not a good relationship point of view…

12. Suze Oct 16th 2007 at 04:18 pm 12

    Verbosity–I don’t know what era you are from but women are less likely to get into relationships these days. It’s at a 50% level and it’s by choice. Wake up.

    Men don’t have leverage on this. You don’t seem to get it.

    I think women’s lib turned men into a bunch of angry squalling infants.

    I partly blame the whole feminist shift for that…but the end result is that most single men are emotionally crippled and well…not appealing.

    I’ve always been this kinda bitchy though…so I won’t pin it on age. I am just super fussy and when I meet the right guy, that’s that.

    And quite frankly, the normal healthy guys are generally married (and stay married) by age 35. So you’ve got some mighty slim pickings.

    All that means is that it’s going to take longer–and requires patience

    So ladies, be patient, and know that a good thing is worth holding for.

    Women in their 40s are probably better off with men in their 50s and up. Just make them work hard for your love. That’s all.

13. Suze Oct 16th 2007 at 04:26 pm 13

    By the way, you really have to wonder about a guy who comes onto a woman’s dating advice board and starts harping and nagging and getting all hostile and defensive.

    Kinda makes my point, doesn’t it?

14. verbosity Oct 17th 2007 at 09:45 am 14

    Suze, just to be clear–this is a blog run by a man who gives dating advice to both sexes. Before you engage in an ad hominem attack not on the subject matter, you should first be correct on the basis for your attack (not a women’s dating board only).

    Further, Rather than have a rational discussion and a logical disagreement regarding the posted subject with some basis in fact, none was unfortunately posted. I have no idea what you mean by “It’s at a 50% level and it’s by choice.” What exactly is at a 50% level. Divorces? Or the gender initiating divorces? Or something else?

    Actually, sorry to rain on your diatribe with some fact, but the divorce rate in AZ is 65% for 2005 (see cdc.gov). CA, the 800 pound gorilla in terms of population (and who do not report divorce stats to Census), is very high:

    Year, CA Div.,L.A. Div.,CA Mar.,Divorce %
    1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
    1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
    1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
    2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
    2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
    2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
    2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%

    Average Divorce Rate: 75.54%** (Reference: Court Statistics Reports for 1996-2004.)

    To be fair, many other states are below 50%….TX, for example, has gone from 47% in ‘03 to 43% in ‘05. based upon this information, it think it fair to assume the overall divorce rate exceeds 50%, eepecially when the rate of 2nd & 3rd marriages far exceeds 50%.

    Of this over 50% divorce rate, women do initiate approximately 70% of all divorces. See Discovery Health, AARP. The whys are irrelevant for this point at least.

    The point, you ask? Simple. Many older men, likely having gone through a divorce (and by proxy, a split of a long term relationship) they likly did not initiate, are understandably reluctant to get into another relationship. To ignore this reality is foolish.

    I do not understand what Suze menas by “Men don’t have leverage on this.” What is ‘this?’ Many men do not understand they have absolute leverage, particularly as they get a bit older and more established. See above for further explanation, which also refutes Suze’s comment of “Women in their 40s are probably better off with men in their 50s and up.”

    There is no merit in addressing or even characterizing The rest of Suze’s comments. They unfortunately speak volumes by themselves…

15. Melina Oct 24th 2007 at 06:55 am 15

    I don’t mean do add fuel to all that’s been said…but as a lawyer I can tell you: Anyone can pull up statistic with internet and conjure up some very “scientific conclusion (but totally teinted on the person owns perspective on the subject)”. Like the saying goes..” 99.6% of people knows that”. (joke)

    So really…using divorce statistic rate to make a point about man “absolute leverage” as so nicely said by Verbosity, it’s not only biased on perhaps his own perspective/or views on the “bad women who actually leaves mans – either divorce or end of LTR” but also look down on women who are in their 40’s because clearly…as said before :”Men, as we age, generally get more distinguished and attractive (presuming we don’t go completely to pot) to a wider range of women older & younger. Our options increase. Women simply do not. Their options therefore reduce as men’s options increase.”. This is not only a presumption and very condescending but also it created a double standard about women’s worth in the dating game. It’s my opinion that this is not a fact…but clearly again, like Evan nicely said, ” a type of false thinking that doesn’t lead to anything positive.”

    I personally believe that womens over 40’s are of equal worth against man in the dating game. We as womens do get more distinguished, confident and also more wise about what’s really important as we aged.

    Maybe mens want “simple”…Sadly, I agree on that. But I’m kind slightly disappointed in womans older then myself…Women wiser and into their 40’s….I mean as a women over 40’s you have to think about this for second. At this stage, you have probably raised children successfully, they’re grown and have their own life, you might have been through divorce or a failed relationship (who dumped who here or statistic is so not relevant ), you been around the “stage” of dating long enough to know a few hidden tricks going on behind the curtains and you also have on the other hand, possibly LTR or a marriage during a number of year and also lead /or still lead a very stimulating career. I’m not trying to play the feminist card or anything like that. But my question is :With clearly the value of life’s experiences that womens over 40’s possess why not wonder : why are some mens over 40 singles? It’s just a thought…There might be something there!

    Ok,the mens over 40 or even men under that age group in fact, may want “simple”, “easy come and easy go” type of attitude or “fun “…The truth as i see it, It’s true!! Fun, simple and quietly breezy is great!!! But clearly not in the long run. Let’s face it and be honest about this, life doesn’t cut it for “simple” and “take it easy” attitude always. I think that It might be quite a change from life’s demanding nature to have “simple” for a while, but “simple” just don’t last in the long run. I might also add and it’s only my legal point of view but…some marriage might have failed because after a few years and a lot of unresolved issues on both parts…”simple” is the way to do things, nothing gets solved and things then fall apart. We tend to put things underneath the surface just to keep the peace or the harmony in the relationship. What happens to “commitment” ?? (see “commitment” : when you are willing to give your time and energy to something that you believe in, or a promise or firm decision to do something (Cambridge dict.))

    My point is exactly this : as we get older we want someone to be there for all of it not just the “simple stuff” but even the heavier-unexpected-stuff that are bounds to come down the road. “Simple” doesn’t really last, “simple” is gone out the door the minute a bump in the road comes along. That’s telling it like it is. Womens shouldn’t put their judgment aside and try to be “all is breezy” and “let’s not think to much it might scare the poor fella away”. They should in the beginning of a relationship be able to let loose and enjoy the moment, be able to “take it easy”, it’s nice for a while. But I personally think that a really “distinguished man” who have any life’s experiences and some backbone will no doubts embrace and appreciate a women who can be “the deep and wiser” women that the women over 40 is, and put the breezy “fun and simple” on the side.

    I also have to say to men…Simple is fun for anyone, under or over 40, sure “simple” makes very good dating in the short term but it’s not what makes it in the long term. The problem might be that, as we do with other subjects…we don’t wanna see the tough truth behind things, it’s either better to blame the person in front of us or simpler to be in denial…

    Also, I might be overly idealistic about it or us as womens..but ladies I can only say this : you should believe in things that “empower” the essence of who you are as a women and as a person. Not the “simple” version of it that leaves us with a sense limitation about our worth.

    I might be younger, i might even be able to still act the “simple carefree naive way” from times to times that mens seem so fonds of…but I already know from life experiences that “simple” doesn’t make it in the end. I believe that for a true LTR, strong, authentic, distinguished mens with character go for womens who possess the qualities they possess themselves. A strong, authentic and distinguished women with character who surely can “take it easy” and be up for some “smooth sailing without excess complications”….but not for a women who define herself or let mens define her as “simple”.

    P.s. I also need to add that i think that it’s for the same reason younger man are now considering dating womens older than them or in their 40’s …simply because womens in their 40’s know what they want, they have character and depth…because that’s so much more than “simple”. It’s way better;)

    As a younger women, I would really appreciate comments from womens older than I am about my opinion stated in my post. Thanks you in advance.

    Nota bene…I know there is more than one error in grammar, verbs, etc…Just be nice and understanding please Thanks!

16. Patti Nov 10th 2007 at 04:36 am 16

    I for one am sick of all the “self-help” people telling women they have to change to please men. Why? Why do we have to put up with dishonesty, not calling, game playing and cheating and then be “fun and easy going” (i.e., ignore/forgive their bad behavior.). Smart women have trouble dating because we see through – and won’t put up with – a man’s lies and bad behavior. We call them on it and it makes men uncomfortable when they get caught in their lies. Also, being smart women ourselves, we’re not that enamoured or impressed with their accomplishments because we’re equally accomplished. When you think about it, with the creation of sperm in the laboratories, test tube babies and electric jar openers – men will be obsolete in a few years anyway – just keep them around for the sex (well, we don’t really need them for that either……) and go out with your fabulous girlfriends!

17. mev Nov 11th 2007 at 09:27 pm 17

    Patti you are right on the money. Believe me, I understand the differences in the sexes- men are visual, driven by their animalistic urges and trillions of sperm, yada, yada, yada. Hey, as a very well-educated woman who is 41 and mighty proud of it, and extensively well-read I too can come up with any statistic, fact, anecdote, etc to challenge someone such as Verbosity (I know it scares ya, hon). And, according to all the self-help gurus a true man desires a woman with confidence, intelligence, money of her own and experience. And, again these same gurus (such as Evan-sorry bud) state that you must trust your instincts, not be a doormat, not to settle for less than your worth; yet, by the same token this same woman should discard all that advice if she is over 40 because she is too thoughtful, not light (uh, do you mean I have a brain) and unwilling to compromise on her core values. Maybe, it’s because she does not have to because she has the wherewithall, knowledge, self-acceptance and insight not to accept anything less than what she feels she deserves. Isn’t this what the dating gurus “harp” to us single women? So the question remains if this is what a true man needs then why would he want someone “simple”? Are men really this base? Are they so low on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs??? And, why is no one mentioning that contrary to Verbosity’s viewpoint, many men over 40 do NOT look more “distinguished.” Unless he’s Sean Connery. In fact, the most classy, elegant women I know are over 40 and look unbelievable. And, thank goodness there are images today of women over 40 who are absolutely beautiful-and here’s the kicker-inside and out. Think Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Teri Hatcher and the list goes on. Nothing can substitute for experience, knowledge and a life well lived. I sincerely believe that simple, free and easy are being euphemistically substituted for naive, stupid and passive. And, to which, I am positive no honest good man would desire in his life.

18. Sindee Dec 13th 2007 at 03:24 pm 18

    Whew…..

    Well Melina, why not pull the feminist card.

    As a 40 something year old woman, raised in an era of equal opportunity and strong women as a role model, I have supported two husbands at the sucessful peak of their careers only to be divorced and replaced with younger women so the men could shoulder the glory as their own. Both – now addicts of one sort or another and less successful.

    Still, I maintained hope and belief in my intellect, well kept my body, and hoped to share a good life with a good man.

    I have concluded, that the opinionated data found on the internet and consumer psychology supports the “BackLash Theory” . The one thing which was overlooked by the men behind the theory is the backlash on the backlash.

    Now, women have harnessed their sexual power and demand careers – as the corporate ladder is replaced by golden poles at gentlemen clubs – $4,000 a week can be garnished from their new found power.

    Young girls go out with old guys because they buy “bling bling”, or clothing, etc. Cheaper than the marriage contract of splitting your pension 50/50 – sooner or later – the women will wise up and start to teach their offspring.

    I have my own personal spin on this. To those older women out there who understand the old double standard game. Recognize the bottom line is this. You can hook up for a one night stand and get sex. Look on Craigslist. You can also spend lot of money (did you know that on average a woman spends $65,000 coloring her hair over her lifetime?) trying to stay young and beautiful. But – as you trade in the tight abs for a steel mind – you recognize the joke has been played on you.

    My real bottom line is this. For what? A bunch of fat old men who are basically pedaphiles? Who wish to bolster their flaccid egos with imagery and spend hard earned moments for a 5 minute finale?

    I have lost respect for the majority of men out there. Fortunately for me, this frees a great deal of my time and energy for myself. I can’t really see spending time finding “one of the few good guys left”. I also know, if I want a hot sexual tryst – I can find it. In fact, the sex trade industry flaunts the new fad in Kenya – hot young studs for older women. Frankly, I don’t think that two wrongs make a right. The backlash on the backlash is that sex has been irretrievably damaged an taken out of the equation of love. Women are deemed assets with short term shelve lives. Youth has a high trading value. As a society we have become whorish.

    Shallow men are a turn-off. So – I’m judgmental. Old Fat Men chasing young girls are juvenille. Men in big cars imply big disappointment.

    I spoke today to a 48 year old who was telling me about his disappointment in a 28 year old he was dating. He ended it when she demanded his credit card and joint signatures. LOL –

    Bottom line. Take a long hard look at what’s paid off. Intelligent Women in their 40’s see the light. Men can’t get over on them.

    All of the subliminal and overt manipulation of consumer advertisements (propaganda) has screwed up a very basic element of life that makes it healthy and loving for both men and women.

    Too bad for all the old fat loser men who are chasing young girls. You are too foolish to see your game of power has you defined as loser – right along with the older women you seek to disempower.

    This gal has found new joys and if I want hot sex – I know where to find it. So old guys – keep your power & hope your pretty little theives will take care of you when you are old and grey.

    Maybe that is the femist card. If so – proud to carry it.

19. hunter Dec 13th 2007 at 06:01 pm 19

    …ladies….I am sorry men have’nt turned out to be what you expected……..

20. verbosity Dec 14th 2007 at 11:06 am 20

    Reading reading the above comments certainly fascinates. Evan’s right in that both sexes are to blame. Rationalizing the superiority of your position and/or refusing to see another’s point of view is precisely heart of Evan’s point. That said, I feel I must share some observations.

    Melina, in everyday life, people use statistics and measures in order to make decisions. No one claims the conclusions are ’scientific.’ However the issue is whether the conclusions are reasonable based upon the available information. You offer no contradictory information to challenge the reasonableness of the assertion (that men are cautious about entering into a serious relationship after divorce or LTR), just an ad hominem attack on me with no basis in fact. I provided the statistical cites. As an attorney, you should know this is not persuasive argument to a court.

    What I find amusing and disheartening about Melina’s post (and similar ones), is a complete disregard for my point that “many older men, likely having gone through a divorce (and by proxy, a split of a long term relationship) they likly did not initiate, are understandably reluctant to get into another relationship.” Is it really so hard to understand or more importantly, to feel empathy for this point? I would submit such understanding is vital to communication, and therefore, vital to a successful, mature relationship. The absence of such understanding in these posts is telling.

    What I also find fascinating is that several posters seem to think that Evan is lying when he says they want ’simple.’ He wrote an intelligent explanation regarding what he meant by it, specifically taking care to mean it did not include ‘brainless chimps.’ I would submit that ignoring this point does nothing further to enhance understanding between the sexes, and is quite disrespectful.

    Also, my impression of the ad hominem personal attacks on me for stating an admittedly politically incorrect perspective (based in fact) is that there are an awful lot of angry women out there, for there is no reason to personally attack someone for stating a contrary opinion. I can only guess that those posters who have engaged in such ad hominem attacks are angry I have contradicted or indirectly challenged their paradigm of the male-female interaction. I would further submit that expending such anger in hardening one’s defenses proves counter-productive to establishing healthy relationships with the opposite sex.

    Hunter said it so well above….

21. Lyall Taylor Dec 15th 2007 at 04:42 pm 21

    Suzi, nobody is trying to say that men are perfect, or lay all the blame squarely on women’s shoulders. But men are tired of being told that things are always their fault, and rightly or wrongly, for any women trying to improve their relationship status or find that someone special, that attitiude will be of absolutely no help.

    You say the following:

    “Have you noticed in this exchange that women’s behavior/demeanor etc is being put to blame here, and men are being let off scott free?

    The underlying message in the commentary here is that women are the ones who need to change their flawed behavior.

    Here is the sad truth: more women, across the board, at all ages, are opting to be single because they do not like the quality of men out there.

    the numbers are going to continue to grow until men elect to examine their own behavior and not put the responsibility of change squarely on women.”

    All this presumes that women are faultless and men are the ones who need to change – you are basically doing exactly what you accuse men of doing in this discussion. THis attitude is exactly why MEN are also choosing not to enter into relationships, and also have extreme difficulty finding the types of women they are looking for.

    We simply do not like being with women who always presume we are at fault and we need to change. The presumption is always that men need to change to accommodate a women’s relationship needs and a man’s needs are almost always considered largely irrelevant (even if only unconsciously). Mens needs, desires, aspirations etc are so unappreciated that often women do not even realise that they exist independently of her needs.

    The reality of the situation is very simple. Men simply want women who are physically attractive and sensual, who like them for who they, are who aren’t always complaining/trying to change them. That’s all. Hadley Page has even noted that the phyically attractive bit takes backseat to being fun/easy going.

    And the reality is that those traits ARE difficult to find. And it is constructive advice to women that if you are that way, you will increase your relationship success. Assuming that women are already perfect and don’t need to change will not increase relationship success.

22. Lyall Taylor Dec 15th 2007 at 04:56 pm 22

    Patti – you say the following:

    “I for one am sick of all the “self-help” people telling women they have to change to please men. Why? Why do we have to put up with dishonesty, not calling, game playing and cheating and then be “fun and easy going” (i.e., ignore/forgive their bad behavior.). Smart women have trouble dating because we see through – and won’t put up with – a man’s lies and bad behavior. We call them on it and it makes men uncomfortable when they get caught in their lies. Also, being smart women ourselves, we’re not that enamoured or impressed with their accomplishments because we’re equally accomplished. When you think about it, with the creation of sperm in the laboratories, test tube babies and electric jar openers – men will be obsolete in a few years anyway – just keep them around for the sex (well, we don’t really need them for that either……) and go out with your fabulous girlfriends!”

    Lets just think about this a little bit. Women can also be dishonest. Women also often don’t call. Women most definitely also play games. And women also cheat.

    Yet it is only men who are to blame and women shouldn’t have to ‘put up with mens bad behaviour’. Are women ever accountable when they behave in a similar way?

    And to say men are essentially obsolete – this is an incredibly offensive statement to make. It’s worse than a man saying “we only need women for sex, and now that we have prostitutes and pornography, women for relationships is essentially a waste of time”. Can you imagine the wrath a comment like that would attract.

    It is these attitudes that men find so unattractive. We are tired of always being wrong. If a man cheats, he is a dog. If a women cheats, he must not have been attending to her needs. Do you not think that a man cheating might also have had something to do with whether the women was being attentive to his needs?

    If a man asks a women to change at all, then he is being selfish and putting all the blame squarely on women. If women criticise men’s behaviour, and he doesn’t change, then men are being insensitive and selfish and women will “choose not to get into relationships until men clean up there act”.

    I really find all this quite upsetting and I think I can speak for many men in saying that we can’t understand what we ever did to deserve to be treated this way.

23. Hadley Paige Dec 18th 2007 at 02:08 pm 23

    Patti wrote “… being smart women ourselves, we’re not that enamoured or impressed with their [men] accomplishments because we’re equally accomplished.”

    Patti’s world view is representative of why I ( and many other men) feel that “successful ” women are not good material for successful marriages. Yes, they are fun to date & bed and are “fabulous”. But they are not that impressed with us (so it is likely that a marriage won’t work out). Since many men feel that marriage is a crap shoot they can’t win if divorce occurs we tend to take women who, among other important traits, ARE “enamoured or impressed” with our accomplishments.

24. m Dec 19th 2007 at 01:41 pm 24

    “But they are not that impressed with us (so it is likely that a marriage won’t work out). Since many men feel that marriage is a crap shoot they can’t win if divorce occurs we tend to take women who, among other important traits, ARE “enamoured or impressed” with our accomplishments.”

    Men crack me up sometimes.

    What if your “accomplishments” just AREN’T THAT IMPRESSIVE?

    That just seems to occur to so few of you. Like Lake Wobegon, where “all the men are above average”.

    Sheesh.

25. hunter Dec 19th 2007 at 05:08 pm 25

    …..a shortage of men? Physically speaking, a shortage of men?……..I have heard that saying the entire half a century that I have been on this planet………who knows, maybe, it will happen….

26. verbosity Dec 20th 2007 at 02:53 pm 26

    I just love reading M’s post. It is completely devoid of rational, logical, respectful discussion. It seeks only to insult men in general, and contributes nothing to the discussion. In fact, it seems to reinforce the logical, rational, thoughtful points made in this thread.

    And to add something to Lyall Taylor’s posts, I would respectfully disagree with him. Men do need to change. Men do need to realize, truly realize, that they are in the driver’s seat regarding the opposite sex. They should focus on their careers, health (physical AND mental), family and friends. Women will therefore seek them out, like the original poster.

27. Hadley Paige Dec 28th 2007 at 02:15 pm 27

    In response to the observation that perhaps men seek out women for LTRs that are impressed with their accomplishments, M writes: “Men crack me up sometimes. What if your “accomplishments” just AREN’T THAT IMPRESSIVE?”

    For you M, perhaps most mens accomplishments are not that impressive. Consequently you have a challenge before you relationshipwise. But regardless of how unimpressive you find any particular male, there is a pool of women who will likely be content with that level of accomplishment. Hence back to the original point that “successful” women have a challenge meeting suitable (does that really mean impressive???) men.

28. hunter Dec 29th 2007 at 06:34 pm 28

    yes, to lyall taylor,….in case you haven’t heard,… men do have to admit they are wrong,….. if they want to get laid….it comes down to this, do we want to get laid, or do we want to be right?….

29. verbosity Dec 30th 2007 at 08:43 am 29

    Haha, hunter. You are unfortunately correct for the vast majority of situations.

    I still keep coming back to the concept that men in general (women also), should spend more time on themselves pursuing career success (whatever that means to your chosen career), physical and MENTAL health, and a family/friend life balance. In short, they should seek to be balanced, happy people. Members of the opposite sex will therefore seek them out as standouts from the rest of available options.

    Just chasing tail only seems a recipe for disaster.

30. hunter Dec 30th 2007 at 03:12 pm 30

    to Verbosity,

    …a recipe for disaster.” I agree with that,yet, many single men are “clueless.” I am not for constant chasing, but, I am all for raising the level of conscience awareness…making men(and some women) aware of the “dating code.”

31. Sam Dec 30th 2007 at 04:57 pm 31

    “Men do need to change. Men do need to realize, truly realize, that they are in the driver’s seat regarding the opposite sex. They should focus on their careers, health (physical AND mental), family and friends. Women will therefore seek them out, like the original poster.”

    Come on, there’s so much overlap. A good looking woman is going to have more options than an ordinary looking guy. A woman with a good career is going to have more options than a guy with an unimpressive one. Etc etc.

    Women in their 20s have more options than men in their 20s. As we age a male advantage develops, but IMO, there’s parity while we’re in our thirties.

32. verbosity Jan 2nd 2008 at 12:55 pm 32

    Hunter, I agree completely.

    I do not understand Sam’s post. He/She (Samantha?) wrote, “Come on, there’s so much overlap. A good looking woman is going to have more options than an ordinary looking guy. A woman with a good career is going to have more options than a guy with an unimpressive one. Etc etc. Women in their 20s have more options than men in their 20s. As we age a male advantage develops, but IMO, there’s parity while we’re in our thirties.”

    There is nothing inconsistent with what I wrote. Sam’s comments are loaded and general and some are the subject of other threads. I will address a few of the general points he made. Let me first say that there is an underlying assumption to my comments – that men desire a good, healthy (physically and mentally) match for them for the long term, not just some hot piece of tail. That said, women in their 20’s likely do have more dating options than men in their 20’s, generally speaking (particularly if they are good-looking). My belief is that women in general are more likely to choose men who make and/or have significantly more money. So women in their 20’s have the option of men in their 20’s, 30’s 40’s & up.

    Money is not the only reason for these additional options in their 20’s. Further, I would submit that truly healthy women in their 20’s are not placing inordinate importance on money. Money and dating are the subject of other threads on this site and explore it more fully.

    It’s true that good looking women have more options ordinary looking guys. No kidding. That’s comparing apples and oranges. Women, good-looking and ordinary-looking, have more options for dating.

    We can look at the flip side of all of Sam’s assertions (women with better careers have more options than men with unimpressive careers) (as opposed to men with great careers and women who do not have good ones), but the point of my post is that men should focus on their own lives to become good, successful, healthy and balanced. They will not only attract more women that way, but they will attract more women better suited to them that way. I submit they will also be far better suited to choose a good, healthy match for themselves. I think this rings true through all age ranges.

33. Sam Jan 7th 2008 at 08:33 am 33

    Verbosity,

    Thanks for commenting. I was merely qualifying what you said about men being in the driver’s seat. I think that how in control of a relationship you are depends on what your other options are, and how many options you have depends on your looks, brains, career, and age. If you have other options you don’t need to chase someone who isn’t that into you.

    There probably are more instances (like 40+ dating) where the man has more options, but there are almost as many where the woman has more. I certainly don’t feel advantaged in my relationships at all. Most of the time I’m the one doing the chasing.

34. verbosity Jan 7th 2008 at 02:13 pm 34

    Sam,

    Thank you for clarifying where you are coming from. I think we see each other’s point. Based upon your comments, I guess you to be in your mid to late 20’s (please don’t confirm or deny if you wish). I think you are correct that women in their 20’s have more options….Being in my mid-30’s, I have dated women ages 23-42 in the last 12 months. The point being that the women in their 20’s have more options of guys in their 20’s – 40’s (usually).

    One cannot ignore this reality. However, my point is this…have you ever noticed you find it easier to meet and attract women when you don’t think about it? Like when you spend more time and energy at work or other hobbies and not just work and seek women? I submit it is at these times, where you lead a more balanced life, that you maximize your options. What I guess you desire is that you wish to maximize your options to women in their 20’s. However, beyond that, I suspect you’d like to maximize your options to GOOD (for you) women in this age bracket. Of course you have to do some chasing… after all, men almost always have to initiate action (women’s lib be damned!).

    But realize that life and dating is a race. It isn’t a 100 meter sprint. It’s a marathon. You may not feel advantaged in your relationships now, but as you spend more time on work, friends, hobbies, etc. (ie. – yourself). I submit the more comfortable you are with these major aspects of your life, you will feel more advantaged and in control of your relationships. I’ve found it helps to be more at peace with myself before being with another.

    I hope this post doesn’t condescend. I simply desire to make sure my communication is clear.

35. hunter Jan 7th 2008 at 05:56 pm 35

    …somehow I think relationships are more about information/being consciously aware of what you are doing….

36. Paul Jan 8th 2008 at 01:19 pm 36

    We need our women back…
    I just got done reading every post on here. I found that the women seem to be very angry and really could not come back with much that made sense at all. If you look into the faces of all the women driving home from work, at, lets say arund 6:00 at night, what you’ll see is a deep sadness. It’s not what they truely want or are made for. If you look back in the last 50-60 years and ask yourself who has changed the most, it would have to be women due to the womens movement and womens liberation. I don’t think there can be much argument there. It has had unplanned consequesces and devastating effects to our society, as evidenced by the lady commenters on this thread, kids not coming home to a mother in the house, etc. Do you think it is an accident that the divorce rate, which held for decades at about 20 %, skyrocketed to almost 75% during the same period? So who probably needs to change the most? Hmmm…women maybe? I can’t imagine going out with some of the women who attacked the men posters here…yek! No leverage? What a joke…we have all the leverage we want. These women are exactly the cause of the problem in my opinion (and that is all this is btw…my opinion…you DO NOT have to agree with it). Guys after all, are really pretty simple and easy to please. We don’t want much, but ladies, harmony in the household is something we do need. Verbosity is correct. Your opinions? Sure, we’ll listen, and need them, but guess what…father does know best usually. Your independance? Where does it say that women are supposed to be independant? It is just the other way around actually…we are all supposed to be interdependant and we’re made for relationship. Men have been imbued with the leadership responsibilities in this world. That is as it should be. Women just don’t seem to want to admit that as a woman ages, lots of them tend to get more grumpy, temperamental, judgemental and just plain sour. Who wants that? We have gotten so far away from the biblical model for husbands and wives (on both sides to be fair), as politically incorrect as it is, but it must be remembered that women were made FROM the man, and made FOR the man to be his helpmate…it is not the other way around. Just to be clear on that…we lead, you follow. You want your man to be more responsible, then help him to be that way. Yopu want him to be a better leader? Then help him to be that way. The fact is, we need you, can’t get along without you, don’t want to. But we need you back the way you were meant to be…not the way you are now. Sure there will be women who point out that there have been men that have abused our God given authority, and there have been, no doubt. But I think a lot of that is simply our tendancy to jump to the opposite conclusion. There have been many, many more that haven’t. On the other side of the coin, I think we need more men like Verbosity who are not afraid to make a point, however unpopular…I think we need more REAL men out there who show true gentle leadership, responsibility taking, control taking and who know how and when to take command of a situation in life. We are the ones who handle things – to protect and provide. If you want to say I must be living in another decade, that’s fine…those were much happier days back then frankly. Men were men and women were women. Now what we have is women becoming more like men, and men becoming more like women! When it says we are to treat women as to the weaker vessel, what it means is we are to treat women like a fine china cup. Men, we are to love our women, and women, you are to respect your men…and both are unconditional!
    Good reads are “Love and Respect” and “Wild at Heart”.
    Thanks,
    I hope I’ve ruffled some feathers.

37. Jamie Jan 8th 2008 at 02:46 pm 37

    Wow, Paul.

    I am a parent. I have a great job. I was ordained when I was 26 years old. I have my doctorate. I drive home with a smile on my face -but sometimes I work at home -still smiling. I earn much more than my spouse -we get along great! I know I am one of the most blessed people on the planet. I was on the phone today with TIAA-Cref updating my retirement profile -good things there. There are so many good, good things I wouldn’t trade for anything. I know I would not be where I am without Jesus on my side! I also am a woman. I’m glad you did not have a say in my life. I hope it continues to be the case.

    Best,
    Jamie

38. verbosity Jan 8th 2008 at 04:03 pm 38

    How many “I’s” did Jamie just use in personally bashing Paul? I respectfully submit that these posts remain about the subject matter at hand (Where Are Emot. Avail., Mentally Healthy Men), rather than personal insults levied against the posters.

    I happen to disagree with the thrust of Paul’s post. However, there is a way to disagree without being disagreeable while keeping to the subject matter at hand, not the person posting it.

39. Jamie Jan 9th 2008 at 06:03 am 39

    In response to the bash from verbosity… “I” was using a literary technique in illustrating a point in using myself as the example. A very common technique. Ok, maybe it would have been better had “I” been used once with a lot of commas….(???) -but “I” used in consecutive fashion is a way to… I’m not going to explain writing style.

    Anyway, “I” posted my POV as all of us -which is inherently personal. The entire notion of a post is personal -such as with your last post, verbosity. [Which I find joyfully hypocritical]. This isn’t BBC news or CNN. Thank you.

    I am supposing silence (even with the written word) is the better response here.

    Best to you,
    Jamie

40. verbosity Jan 9th 2008 at 11:32 am 40

    Jamie,

    Your supposition silence is better is incorrect, and I am joyfully not hypocritical. Your ‘literary technique’ had one end goal – to belittle Paul, verbal niceties aside. My little comment about the use of I’s was simply a literary device to draw attention to the fact you personally attacked Paul (”I’m glad you did not have a say in my life. I hope it continues to be the case.”). If you feel that way, fine. Send it to Paul directly, outside of this public forum. Most importantly, it did absolutely nothing to add to the thread’s subject matter.

    By all means, share your POV on the issue of emotionally available, mentally healthy men. However, i submit sending broadsides Paul’s way regarding your life is unrelated to the subject matter of emotionally available, mentally healthy men.

    Posts are personal and so are the opinions expressed in them. However, there is a difference between disagreeing with a person’s opinion and taking a verbal shot at them, not their opinion. I do not know if you can discern the difference.

    My basic point is you were blatantly disrespectful to Paul. Further, You mentioned that Jesus was on your side. I wonder what He would say about treating someone else in that manner, particularly when Paul said nothing provocative to you directly. Please do not throw the hypocrite label at me.

    Curiously CNN and BBC receive criticisms from many areas their news reporting is colored by their political opinions, but I digress..

41. verbosity Jan 9th 2008 at 01:05 pm 41

    In regards to Paul’s posting, I see his points. However, I respectfully disagree with him. We need our women back? Those horses left the corral.

    If I read his post correctly, he would like women to change to a more traditional, Bible-oriented approach to life. (Paul, feel free to correct this paraphrase). The problem with this approach is that it is near-impossible to change someone else’s behavior, particularly when that someone else has little to no incentive to change.

    So why bother worrying about what women do? Lyall Taylor had an interesting point – “And to say men are essentially obsolete – this is an incredibly offensive statement to make. It’s worse than a man saying “we only need women for sex, and now that we have prostitutes and pornography, women for relationships is essentially a waste of time”. Can you imagine the wrath a comment like that would attract.”

    I say don’t worry about what women do. You cannot change their behavior, only your own. Spend time on YOUR career, men, YOUR friends, YOUR hobbies/interests, YOUR physical and mental health. And, much like the cat who wants to be petted by the only person in the room ignoring it, they will come.

    If there is a common thread among many comments by ladies throughout this topic and the topics that deal with $ and dating/relationships, it is that they want men who are secure emotionally and monetarily. I submit that by focusing your energies as stated in the preceding paragraph, men not only become that, but they will also be in a position to better choose women that are emotionally healthy, not primarily focused on men’s earnings, non-harpies, etc., and attract more of them.

    I believe only in focusing on their own lives in this way can they realistically change these issues.

42. Julz Jan 9th 2008 at 06:14 pm 42

    In regards to Paul’s comment about guys being “easy to please” what a load of crap! Men want to have sex whenever they want and then they end up falling asleep afterwards because it’s not their fault. Poor boys! They want a girl they can show off to their mates to boost their own ego and self esteem. They want their meals cooked to their liking, things perfect at home without them lifting a finger to help. They want to be able to watch sports, hang out with the boys, drink beer, look at other women to see what’s out there. Ugly guys still want perfect girls but they have lost the mirror to check themselves out. Women will like a guy regardless of his looks if there is something to attract them but a guy is usually only attracted to a women’s looks and that’s why the attraction on his part fails. They don’t care what a woman says just what sexual favours she can perform in the bedroom and if she is hot enough to show his mates. That’s why so many great women are single.

43. hunter Jan 9th 2008 at 06:30 pm 43

    to julz,

    I agree with you, there should be more info written, for men, on “attraction”…

44. verbosity Jan 10th 2008 at 08:59 am 44

    Julz is soooooooooo right. That is the perfect description all men. They are 100% responsible.

    I usually refrain from sarcasm, but cannot help it…

45. Julz Jan 10th 2008 at 01:40 pm 45

    Verbosity, I am not saying men are 100% reponsible. I am being serious so I don’t appreciate the sarcasm towards my response. Men need to realise that their actions have consequences just like ours do. If your hearts not in it don’t lead a girl on to believe he wants the same thing. You try to talk about feelings but the guy closes up so you don’t really know where you stand. I chose to stay with a guy who in the end couldn’t commit to an adult relationship which involved meeting friends and family. I take responsibility for that. I don’t take back the rest of the stuff I said about what men want.

46. mrs. vee Jan 10th 2008 at 04:44 pm 46

    Paul said, “I found that the women seem to be very angry and really could not come back with much that made sense at all. If you look into the faces of all the women driving home from work, at, lets say arund 6:00 at night, what you’ll see is a deep sadness.”

    Paul, I am a working woman, successful, happily married. Mr. Vee and I equally respect and admire one another. I love my life.

    In your mind, is something wrong with this picture?

47. Paul Jan 11th 2008 at 07:02 am 47

    Mrs. Vee,
    Absolutly not. If you read proverbs 31, “The Wife of Noble Character”, God clearly says the wife works, or at least does something to bring in income. In a way, she too provides – “She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vinyard. She sets about her work vigorously, her arms are strong for the task. She see’s that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.” I don’t think though God had careers for women in mind when he wrote that. A womans husband and family should be her “career”. In proper alignment, the wife is under the husbands umbrella of protection. Just as it goes that first there is God, then Jesus is submissive to Him, the husband is submissive to Jesus. Then the wife is in submission to the husband…he has authority over her and in the house. He is the head of the household. That is the way God wants it to be…that is not my idea by any stretch of the imagination! “She watches over the affairs of her household.’ Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.” The income is just to suppliment the family.
    Much of what I say in my earlier post that has got so much attention is straight from the bible. Woman are made from man (ie. the rib) and for man (to be his “helpmate” – not slave!) because God knew it was not good for man to be alone and that we needed each other. It does not demean or belittle women in any way. In fact just the opposite. It holds them up. I love women and respect women. And I think it is great when a women comes out and says she and her husband admire each other.
    I run a relationship small group, all based on biblical principles. After two divorces, I said to myself this was not going to happen again, so I turned to the bible and several Christian relationship books to find out what does work in relationships. All I can tell you is if you guys could see a marriage work like God says it should, you’d be amazed how happy you can be. Ever since the womens movement, the roles that God set forth have been skewed. And that is not good and that is why there are so many problems in relationships these days.
    “A wife of noble character, who can find. She is worth far more than rubies.” A men.

48. verbosity Jan 11th 2008 at 09:24 am 48

    I don’t pretend to speak for Paul, but I think I can safely say that the main thrust of Paul’s comments, as quoted by Mrs Vee, is that many of the responses from women are angry, ad hominem attacks without much by way of refutation. I think he expressed a frustration I share – that Paul and other male posters have posted thoughtful responses from the male perspective why there are fewer emotionally available, mentally healthy men, and some in response to why many men date women younger than their contemporaries.

    However, instead of refuting Paul’s points (which I have done) or many other men’s posts (including mine re: reasons and context within which men make dating decisions), I must note that there have been little, if any refuting posts to many of the aforementioned men’s points. Lyall Taylor (post 22) wrote a great post that was thoughtful. I noted above that there has been little to refute these points and that ad hominem attacks on myself and other posters seem to be the main order of response from most women.

    As I wrote above, is it really so hard to understand or more importantly, to feel empathy for men’s points? I would submit such understanding is vital to communication, and therefore, vital to a successful, mature relationship. The absence of such understanding in these posts is telling, which is why I suggested additional things men can do (instead of hoping women change), above. Ignoring the valid points made, often with statistics and articles to support the points, attacking the messenger instead, is disrespectful.

    In regards to Julz’s comments and response, I was admittedly sarcastic. The reason I posted the sarcastic line was to point out that she painted ALL men with the same overly broad brush. Additionally, I would further note all she paints the same sexist, stereotypical of all men that does nothing to further better communication.

    Please bear in mind that any man san state, as Julz did, that all women are gold digging, attention whoring, shoe-addicted, Juicy Couture wearing, fake french manicure having, emotionally needy, too much makeup wearing, lazy slobs who want nothing more than to sit home on their backsides while their men pay for their shopping, lunches with girls, while they cackle about how much they spend, how little they do, and how much it’ll cost him to leave (assuming marriage). FYI – notice how I left sex out? See how that does nothing to further the discussion? One can refute what I just wrote in this paragraph and what Julz wrote in so many ways, that it simply is not worth the time or effort to do so in any way.

    Additionally, I understand Julz may be upset with my use of sarcasm, However, I respectfully point out that both of her posts provide absolutely no basis for discussion, but conclusory statements about how all men are bad and/or wrong. I understand that she may feel frustration, but the picture she paints does not represent reality.

49. angelique Jan 11th 2008 at 02:08 pm 49

    verbosity…

    so I guess, to you, quoting the Bible like Paul does is a non-objectionable basis for logical argument, but ad hominem attacks (which you are evidently vigilant for) are grounds for dismissing a person’s point of view?

    i don’t get you.

    everybody’s got their own arbitrary set of rules of engagement, and you’re no exception.

    pardon me if you perceive my observations to be “ad hominem attack”.

50. Julz Jan 11th 2008 at 02:16 pm 50

    Verbosity, I am not getting into a slanging match with you. I have read through your comments and you do make a few valid points. I didn’t intend to paint all men in the same way. I admit it did sound that way reading it over. I was actually talking about the men I have experience with. I can only comment on those men. I am aware that not all men are the same and when I get into a relationship with a guy I do not judge them on my past experiences. I understand that both people are responsible for the success or failure of a relationship. I never said men are 100% responsible.
    As far as my posts making no basis for discussion that is harsh. This is a forum for people to air their views, frustrations, personal stories, etc. I appreciate the support I get from others in the same situation and listen to those who have a different point of view. However, I do not appreciate a personal attack. Good luck!

51. verbosity Jan 11th 2008 at 03:05 pm 51

    julz,

    Well, I certainly do not think my post was a personal attack at you. For definition’s sake, I consider a personal attack to be something long the lines of what Suze write about me in post 13 -” By the way, you really have to wonder about a guy who comes onto a woman’s dating advice board and starts harping and nagging and getting all hostile and defensive. Kinda makes my point, doesn’t it?”

    You can see where a comment like the one above attacks the person it was directed to (me) without discussing the subject matter. An example of a personal attack is to say, for example, “Julz is a bitter woman” – something I did not do at all. I took pains in my remarks about your statements to limit the remarks to your statements and their implications, not you personally. I understand you may think I overstated my points, and I respect that. I am glad, however, you see my point about over-generalizations.

    I am sensitive to the fact you shared your experiences as a basis for discussion and appreciate it. My constructive criticism is that you made entirely conclusory statements, all of them the worst of men. An analogy is that I came on here and posted “All women are bitches.” Without any background facts or stories, it is difficult, if not impossible to adequately comment. As they say there are 2 sides to every story. I appreciate the fact you may not like what I said or how I said it. However, I think if you read my comments again you will agree that I limited my critique to the content of your words, not of you or your character.

    I understand you and many others view this is a forum for people to air their views, frustrations, personal stories, etc. I agree, but would like to add that I also view it as a forum for people to clarify and critique others’ statements, including factual and logical omissions, with the goal of understanding differing views. In other words, I do not view it as a rant board (not to say you did that).

    That said, I am sorry if your experience with men is as you’ve described. I wish you the best of luck and do look forward to further discussions.

52. Selena Jan 11th 2008 at 03:08 pm 52

    Ladies,
    Why are you bothering? Haven’t you noticed Verbosity is systematically posting the same thing (cutting and pasting!) on this blog thread by thread? Any criticism is perceived as an ad hominem attack. I don’t know about you, but this is getting waaay old for me.

53. verbosity Jan 11th 2008 at 04:03 pm 53

    Angelique,

    I do not have arbitrary rules of engagement at all, contrary to what it appears you think. I will say that procedurally, my issue is where others do not respond to the contents or implication of comments, but about the commentator, as you have done.

    If a goal of this forum is to have a healthy debate about the male/female condition, posting insults about others posters while ignoring their comments does nothing to further the debate. It merely coarsens, cheapens the debate, and shows great disrespect for everyone else, particularly the targets of the comments. I mentioned Suze’s comment about me in post 13 as an example -” By the way, you really have to wonder about a guy who comes onto a woman’s dating advice board and starts harping and nagging and getting all hostile and defensive. Kinda makes my point, doesn’t it?”

    Angelique, there is nothing in these ‘attack the messenger’ tactics that advance the debate. For example, if I point out that women initiate 70% of divorces as a reason men are hesitant to commit and you call me a bitter whiner, you (A) do not respond to my point and (B) attack me personally in the process. I trust you understand this distinction.

    I also think you misread my posting regarding Paul’s comments. Paul has stated his Biblical approach to man and women as a basis for his viewpoint. As I mentioned above, I don’t think the model applies now. I therefore submit your comment (” . . . so I guess, to you, quoting the Bible like Paul does is a non-objectionable basis for logical argument . . .”) is wrong.

    Also, for your reference, your posting questioning me, implying I am arbitrary is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. It does nothing to advance the debate, but seeks to harm the messenger.

54. verbosity Jan 11th 2008 at 04:07 pm 54

    Selena,

    I am not going to post a lengthy reply. Suffice it to say, I have found the main debate tactic here to simply attack me, not to respond to anything I say, the vast majority of which is supported by statistics and surveys.

    Curious how no one, including you, has responded to the content. If it gets waaaay old for you, then I respectfully suggest you add something constructive.

55. Selena Jan 11th 2008 at 04:29 pm 55

    Two words Verbose. Ho Hum.

56. angelique Jan 11th 2008 at 05:16 pm 56

    I’d like to second your ho hum, Selena. You’re so right. I was hesitant to even bother with him.

    As as long as it’s clear that silence is not acceptance of verbosity’s remedial Rhetoric 101 tactics, of which, he’s only perfected the whiny “Ow, you’ve ad hominemed me!” maneuver, I’m satisfied.

57. mrs. vee Jan 11th 2008 at 05:53 pm 57

    You know, I used to be a walking doormat, letting men make any observation they wanted to about me. But no more. Today I would draw the line at being on the receiving end of a slur as grave as “arbitrary”. Once, Mr. Vee called me “mercurial”, and I just about called up my divorce lawyer!

    I read in The Times that ad hominem attacks now only trail behind heart disease and car crashes as the nation’s leading killers (although the CDC has recently added tautologies and straw men to its “watch list”).

    

58. verbosity Jan 11th 2008 at 06:32 pm 58

    Funny how no one still responds to the content. Typical.

59. Evan Marc Katz Jan 11th 2008 at 06:40 pm 59

    Please stop fighting, kids. Your father’s trying to sleep.

60. sheseizereason Jan 11th 2008 at 07:39 pm 60

    verbosity: “Funny how no one still responds to the content. Typical.”

    A guy walks into a bar wearing a gorilla suit and wants to talk about the upcoming election, but no one wants to discuss that subject with him. They just want to talk about his gorilla suit.

    Typical.

61. Paul Jan 11th 2008 at 09:48 pm 61

    Goodness Gracious!
    Not one of the women who have responded on here, especially to Verbose and maybe even me, have come back with anything remotely resembling logical reasoning. You gals sound like your about 14 years old! Where have all the emotionally availablle men gone? They are running like heck from all the emotionally immature women like you, that’s where! Get a grip girls! Just because you were stupid enough to be doormats, doesn’t give you license to take it out on everybody and launch verbal attacks just because you don’t agree with their reasoning or opinions! Verbose is right…you simply attack the messanger, which means any argument you might have can’t stand up to scrutiny! No wonder why you’ve had problems. And why is a happily married woman, who respects and admires her husband doing on an advice from a single dating experts blog anyway? Ya, that’s respect alright. Verbose is right, you aren’t going to change behavior…I’m looking for someone who doesn’t need it!

62. Julz Jan 11th 2008 at 11:27 pm 62

    Are we going to get spanked?

63. sheseizereason Jan 12th 2008 at 12:13 am 63

    Paul:“Just because you were stupid enough to be doormats…”

    Congratulations on your superb point-missing abilities.

64. verbosity Jan 12th 2008 at 09:34 am 64

    Lovely….all variants on the same thing. Attack the messenger and insult him/her. At least sheseziereason is cleverer about it. Also, I would like to respectfully point out that Paul has also engaged in an ad hominem attack above, which I do not condone as respectful discourse. I will not engage in that. Simply, I will continue to discuss the thread’s subject and point out where people’s opinions may or may not have logical flaws (including my own), and to draw attention to instances where people do not discuss the subject, but attack posters instead. Such attacks do nothing to advance or discuss the subject matter.

    I believe Paul is correct in one instance – attacking me, him or other posters without responding to the points he, I or other posters make indicates such attackers have no argument that may withstand scrutiny.

65. hunter Jan 12th 2008 at 04:54 pm 65

    to Paul,

    I believe you wrote, “….have come back with anything remotely resembling logical reasoning”…..I have news for you,.. did you know that the male mind is limited by logic?……..Men bifercate, his thoughts go either to the left or to the right. A female, will go left and right….hhmmhhh, just writing this makes me smile…

66. hunter Jan 12th 2008 at 05:10 pm 66

    to verbosity,

    ….according to research, 2/3 of all females, are looking for financial stability, and “1/3″ for sensual and sexual. Whereas, 2/3 of all men, are looking for sexual and sensual, and, 1/3 for financial gain.

    30% of females looking for sensual, that is a good portion…….

67. Paul Jan 12th 2008 at 10:01 pm 67

    Hunter, the male mind is NOT limited by logic. That’s really kinda limiting to say that. Tell that to a lawyer or computer guy. Men tend to be more logical and women tend to be more emotional, but we need both in this world. As for your other post, women are wired to seek security. Do they look at a potential mates earning potential? They’s be stupid not to be. No woman wants to be romanced by a buffoon, and no woman wants to wake up 20 years later only to realize she married a guy who is going no-where. If it wasn’t for their want for security, we guys would largely be at the same level we were when we were in our early teens. In the book “Millionaire Minds” (same people that did “The Millionaire Next Door), they found that of all the people who achieved wealth, 98% of them were married or had a partner when they achieved their wealth. That means that only 2% did it alone. Behind every good man there is a better women to be sure. A good woman makes a good man a better man.

68. Paul Jan 12th 2008 at 10:06 pm 68

    Also Hunter…marriage counselors did a 20 year study…they asked every couple who came to them to list their top 5 most important relational values…universally, men listed sexual fulfillment as the number one most important value, and universally, sex wasn’t even in womens top 5!

69. male or female... Jan 13th 2008 at 11:36 am 69

    quoting the Bible is NOT a logical basis to support any argument.

70. verbosity Jan 13th 2008 at 01:26 pm 70

    male or female….

    I respectfully disagree with that assertion. We may or may not agree with much of the Bible’s contents. However, many millions of men and women have successfully lived according to their roles set forth in the Bible for 2 thousand years. That doesn’t mean the roles as set forth in the Bible are illogical. Also, many have been unsuccessful. One cannot ignore this also. I believe that such a blanket dismissal is therefore not applicable. Would you care to explain how it is not logical?

71. hunter Jan 13th 2008 at 10:28 pm 71

    to Paul,

    you are right not all men are limited by logic. The left handed ones, to include, Albert Einstein, Paul Mcartney, Thomas Edison, Ulysses Grant, Robert E. Lee, General Patton, Bill Clinton, etc….are not, because they are said to have the brain of a woman with in the body of a man(testosterone)….See the female mixes her feelings with her thoughts….she can do this because, their brain has a super thick set of blood vessels, connecting the the right side of the brain, to the left, called the “corpus colousom”…..allowing them to process information very fast……

72. hunter Jan 13th 2008 at 10:32 pm 72

    to paul,

    you said, “marriage counselors did”….yes, that is fairly accurate, you said, “universally” and my post was,,”2/3″, that is fairly close…..I agree their also…..

73. male or female... Jan 14th 2008 at 01:49 am 73

    Nice try with the half-logic there, verbotchity.

    An acceptable premise for a logical discussion must be one which is undeniable by both parties before discussion may proceed. Many “millions of men and women have successfully lived according to their roles set forth” not just by the bible, but in the Koran, the Vedas, the Zendavestas, the Book of Mormon …insert any widespread scripture here… also for thousands of years. And yet each sacred text will conflict in content with another in some way. They can’t all be undeniably true, and the mere fact that some have made the rules of Scripture work for them does not mean the tome is categorically truthful, correct, or so applicable to all that it serves as unquestionable basis in an argument. By your logic, if hedonism or incest were practices by which “millions of men and women have successfully lived” then a book preaching those practices would be equally acceptable as basis for logical discourse.

    However, you’re not so logical anyway, so you don’t really deserve this explanation.

    Stop congratulating yourself that you’ve won an argument just because no one will engage with you. That is a false conclusion.

    There comes a point when a person becomes so tiresome that no one wants to interact with him. You, with your laughable conclusory jumps (as above), abuse of the cut-and-paste, and overpreoccupation with only one logical fallacy – the ad hominem (ad nauseum) – have reached that point.

    And since you’ve demonstrated at least a thin understanding of fallacies, allow me to point out one more falsehood to you: that anyone need pay you any attention at all. No one is obligated to answer you, with or without ceding to your points. The refusal to engage you does not default to the correctness of your assertions.

    People are dismissing you, because your behavior has become ridiculous. It is a well-known strategem that when someone becomes obnoxious or unpleasant in a forum
    such as this, that the most effective response is to ignore that person. If people don’t respect a person, what’s the incentive to persuade him of anything? Or, to put it bluntly, what’s the incentive to talk to someone who’s a known ass-hat?

    We’re here for Evan’s wisdom, not Paul’s bible thumping or your wacky hypotheses which you mistake for well-reasoned conclusions.

    Therefore, know that going forward, people are shunning you not because you’re undeniably right, but because you’ve been odiously unlikeable, and people just aren’t that into you. Hope you are at least smart enough to recognize that the alternative explanation for the silence in response to you (and sanctimonious self-appointed judges like Paul) is that you’re just not worth it.

74. Selena Jan 14th 2008 at 10:48 am 74

    Amen.

75. verbosity Jan 14th 2008 at 11:01 am 75

    male or female,

    I asked you to please explain further, and so you have.

    Perhaps you did not understand my point, either intentionally or unintentionally. I did not say the bible overall was a logical basis for discussion at all. However it is a fact that for 2000 years, many people worldwide have lived according to those roles. Many have done so successfully, many unsuccessfully, which I also noted.

    I don’t care if it’s the bible that set those roles or ET the Extra Terrestrial, or that they are or are not undeniable true. That was not the point at all. The point is that since the writing of those roles, people have lived both successfully and unsuccessfully under those roles (which are undeniable true), whether they are true or not. Therefore, dismissing the fact that people have lived for over two thousand years according to those roles (whether ‘true’ or not) is not fully logical or reasonable. I trust you understand the distinction.

    I have not, and will not, sling mud at other posters, no matter how much they may do so to me. Insofar as the rest of your diatribe is concerned, it is worth no further response.

76. verbosity Jan 14th 2008 at 11:10 am 76

    to hunter,

    I’m trying to focus on that 30% you mentioned. Gotta sift through the other 70% though. Perhaps add a few percentage points to the 30 along the way…

77. hunter Jan 14th 2008 at 06:46 pm 77

    to verbosity,

    …I am told that, the “30%”, don’t really advertise,… they are comfortable where they are at,…. so,.. they stay in their own little circles….

78. verbosity Jan 15th 2008 at 02:46 pm 78

    hunter,

    Those circles are more numerous in some areas than in others. C’est la vie…

79. hunter Jan 15th 2008 at 06:05 pm 79

    to verbosity,

    Ha, ha, how funny!…hhhmmmhh, really? Tell me more!…..

80. Hadley Paige Jan 16th 2008 at 09:09 am 80

    (1) After reading all the posts here I am forced to conclude that the answer to the question “where are all the emotionally available, mentally healthy men?” is… Same location as the non-overbearing, non-demanding, non-bossy, non-cranky, nurturing, kind, supportive, loving, home&children oriented women.

    (2) to Male or Female: I would be very interested to know if the poster is a man or a woman. It helps to understand where someone is coming from when they talk about the perspectives.

81. verbosity Jan 16th 2008 at 09:36 am 81

    hunter,

    In all seriousness, I discussed this with a buddy of mine. My theory is that in urban areas that have higher ‘intellectual capital’ (higher # of universities per capita, graduate degrees per capita, sophisticated business climate – like Bay Area, for example), you have fewer #’s of women looking at male earnings. This obviously translates into higher #’s who seek compatible personality traits, not monetary ones. I know this is general, untested, and subject to much criticism, but I think it works in theory.

    So, in a place like Phoenix (where I am), you only have 2 universities (yes, I am ignoring NAU). Simply put, there isn’t that much intellectual capital here, comparatively speaking, to a place like SF, Chicago, or Wash, DC.

    Ok… my silly theory aside, it would make sense to focus a search (if you actively search) like a job search. What traits do you desire? Brains, beauty, religion, hobbies? And try to find groups, activities, pursuits, etc., that match that. It’s about increasing probabilities, I think.

    Mu $0.02

82. Mattie Jan 16th 2008 at 05:05 pm 82

    Hello, and greetings – oh, and if it’s not too tardy: happy New Year!

    You all sound to this ancient, Brit bat as if you are bright, lively and interesting people. Yes, I did say “all” … But (you knew there’d be one of those), at the same time I find myself feeling sad that so many of you are angry, disappointed and frustrated. I’m sure you don’t deserve to be. Sadly, the situation is comparable over on this side of the pond, BTW, where Thurber’s hilarious ’sex war’ is beginning to be enacted for real – looking less like an entertaining diversion and more like a genuine battleground. And there are far too many of those in the world already; we don’t need more of ‘em.

    So I wonder if I might make a few comments from my august position as a complete loser in the game of love. As a divorced woman in her 50s who’s retired from the fray due not so much to lack of interest – on my part or theirs – more because I’m sick of being categorised and treated accordingly. We won’t go into all the gory details (which are, naturally, mind-numbingly tedious): suffice it to say that nobody does anybody else any favours at all by attempting to force them, market research-style, into a rigidly-determined pre-defined box!

    We’re each and every one of us unique. This is love, affection, partnership – romance, even (why not?); it is not sociology – with the honourable exception of Zygmunt Bauman’s ‘Liquid Love’, (which has some scathing things to say about the consumer society’s extension of consumerism to male-female relationships), we are looking at this matter from the point of view of private individuals trying to make sense of what we see and feel.

    So thinking in broad swathes is dangerous – sentences that begin “all/most men/women are” really aren’t helpful. “Some” might just cut it, though. There’s always one … or two … or even three fuckwits around. Watch out for 3, though: if you’ve met 3 in a row (and this is the number where a sequence first becomes apparent), then you might just benefit from taking a Very Close Look at yourself.

    That said, I like Verbosity’s last post re ‘intellectual capital’. I think it’s valid. The old saw about like attracting like really does apply. So, if you are seeking an intelligent, well-informed, well-read and reasonably cultured partner, then you probably need to be in a place where these types abound.

    But do older divorced men want an easy time of it? Well, obviously not all of them. One of my friends, aged 65, whose 28-year marriage (his second) to a delightful and wonderful but often contrary woman 15 years his junior hit the rocks a couple of years ago. Does this charming, calm, kindly and handsome chap he go for a straightforward female even younger than his ex? Nope. The new ladylove is … well, of the same age as former wife and just as complex, awkward and cantankerous! And the old darling has moved into her house, which clearly puts him in a position of relative domestic inferiority (always a recipe for disaster, in my experience), where he remains to this day – perfectly happy.

    It’s a case of what you’re used to, to a great extent. This man (above), as his ex-wife admits “likes difficult women”. Others may not.

    Human beings have a way of resisting theories or theoretical frameworks. Thank God.

    So why not just enjoy being your complicated, demanding, bright and interesting selves – get out there and do exactly as you please, and sooner or later you are bound to attract someone who may not be perfect but who is perfect for you.

    Make a list of what you want/need in a mate by all means – but be prepared to throw it out when he/she hoves into view, confounding all your expectations! Anything you can think of to help you find a partner which feels right to you – from visualisation to joining a choir – DO IT! It might work; it might not – but you’ll enjoy it nonetheless.

    Yes, you’ll probably be disappointed – many times. Learn the lesson, and move on. Your motto in these circumstances should be “next, please!” As Samuel Beckett said “fail. Fail again. Fail better.”

    Give people a chance. A friend of mine (female, lovely, clever, 40s with a vile father and history of rotten relationships with even more rotten men) went out with someone she found initially uninspiring, albeit sweet-natured and kind. By the third date she was beginning to like him; by the fifth, she found she was fancying the pants (?’shorts’) off him! Now, 18 months later she’s happily involved with him in a relationship that entails mutual respect, confidence, a feeling of mutual growth and encouragement – and, yes, love.

    Never ignore your gut reactions, though: they’re there for a good reason – nature’s atavistic way of telling us there’s a dirt gurt sabre-toothed tiger stalking us (in this case, gender is irrelevant: male or female of the species = equally lethal)! These red lights really do mean ’stop’; they’ve saved so many of us from some hideous mistakes, even from danger, damage or death.

    Listen to your feelings. YOUR feelings – other people’s feelings are theirs, and you are not responsible for them. What are you about? Your needs/wants? If you’ve passed the 40 mark, odds on you’ve become a bit detached from them, being engaged upon progressing a career, raising a family, all that. Now you’ve a chance to listen to your own inner promptings.

    And now I’m off to my virtuous couch, before I talk even worse nonsense to you all!

    Goodnight – and God bless – and, most of all, good luck to you all. The good luck I’m sure you all deserve.

    Mattie xx

83. hunter Jan 16th 2008 at 05:41 pm 83

    to verbosity,

    …you might be right, ’cause, I can think of one man that moved to S.F. bay area and married up, financially,..

84. naturegirl Jan 17th 2008 at 10:45 am 84

    Thanks Mattie for the words of wisdom!

85. legal guy Jan 17th 2008 at 10:48 am 85

    verbo-

    I slogged through most of the exchanges here and you have some points, but do you really consider “arbitrary” an ad hominem attack?

    I think of an ad hominem attack as an attack on a person’s character.

    To refer to someone’s rules of discourse as “arbitrary” is simply a critique on the extent to which a person is able to think and reason consistently. This seems clearly fair game by your standards of “respectful” discourse.

86. verbosity Jan 23rd 2008 at 12:39 pm 86

    legal guy,

    An ad hominem argument stemming from the Latin (”argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. Paraphrased from Wiki..

    Calling a poster arbitrary is the very definition of an ad hominem argument (or attack), by calling me arbitrary. It does nothing to respond to the substance of any argument or claims I and others advanced. It simply seeks to call me ‘arbitrary’ for pointing out these fallacious argument methods.

    I disagree with your reasoning. I gather from your name you are an attorney, or involved in the law, where discrediting a witness (by their honesty, potential financial gains, biases, etc.) to cast doubt on his/her veracity/truthfulness is par for the course and common. This is not the case, and this is most definitely not a courtroom.

    Further, simply engaging in an ad hominem argument is simply a diversionary tactic to distract and divert the real argument away from its true substance. Sadly, it appears all to many people not only understand and do this, but it also appears all too many people do not understand it is being done and buy into the fallacious method.

87. Jessica Jan 23rd 2008 at 03:24 pm 87

    Mattie – excellent post! Very thoughtful and well-thought-out and thought provoking as well : ) I very much appreciate you sharing your wisdom with us. You sound like a nifty, and very sharp lady, with as good a sense of humor as you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. Thank you for sharing.

88. jack Jan 24th 2008 at 01:19 am 88

    verbosity: ” I gather from your name you are an attorney, or involved in the law, where discrediting a witness (by their honesty, potential financial gains, biases, etc.) to cast doubt on his/her veracity/truthfulness is par for the course and common.”

    Ad hominem attack!

89. tony Jan 24th 2008 at 01:27 am 89

    verbose -

    dude, you are totally arbitrary, and by that I mean an inconsistent and illogical thinker. plus a hypocrite for personally attacking legal guy’s profession. Judging by the amount of time u spend on this blog, i’ll bet you haven’t had the “fallacious method” performed on u 4 awhile.

    rotflmao.

90. Mattie Jan 24th 2008 at 04:18 am 90

    Naturegirl and Jessica:

    Greetings, and many thanks for your kind comments (I am blushing!).

    Best to you both, and good luck – it’s a rocky road to love!

    Mattie x

91. cerise Feb 15th 2008 at 04:13 am 91

    Thank you, Mattie, for restoring some humanity to this long and bitter thread, not to mention throwing us the references to Bauman and Beckett – I love the Beckett quotation and often say it to myself. I haven’t read Bauman;s book – although I attended some of his lectures many years ago – but I will definitely look out for it now.

    I am also a fifty-something woman in the UK. Unlike you, I am not retiring from the fray, but about to enter it. I came to this website to read, learn and prepare, but I have to admit that discussions like this one are almost enough to make me give up before I even begin!

    Surely the real problem is not ‘men are this’ or ‘women are that’, but the fact that most of us – male and female, young and old – lack emotional maturity? We would all like to meet someone who is just perfect for us and who makes everything easy! After ready-made meals, we want ready-made relationships! We are disappointed and angry that other people don’t meet our expectations, however unreasonable. I do think that the myth of romance has a lot to do with this, at least so far as women are concerned.

    I agree with Verbosity that it is better to spend time developing yourself, emotionally, physically and materially, rather than chasing an imaginary ideal partner, expecting them provide what you lack and somehow make you ‘whole’. Actually, this kind of advice has been given to women for years, in self-help books and the like. Strangely, it is not generally found in dating manuals, which tend to approach the whole subject of dating and relationships as a series of exercises in marketing, sales, closing the deal, negotiating, re-negotiating …. perhaps this fits with Bauman;s ideas on the subject?

    Anyway, Mattie, I loved your post. It has encouraged me not to give in to despair just yet. I wish I could have someone like you as a mentor …. let me know if you are available for this role!

    Best wishes to everyone – may we all find what we need in ourselves and what we love in another.

    cerise xx

    ‘Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.’

92. Mattie Feb 15th 2008 at 11:54 am 92

    To Cerise:

    Salut, copine compatriote aux cerises!

    Thank you for your very kind remarks, which are much-appreciated – and doubtless undeserved (I mean, have you actually read any of my more confessional posts?! Aargh, the shame …)!

    I do wish you all the very best. You clearly possess one of the principal success factors for this arena: courage. A rare quality, indeed. And you’re spot-on about emotional maturity – which entails sufficient self-knowledge, based on experience, to enable a reasonable degree of risk-taking. A point which brings us neatly back to psychological square one, ie sheer guts!

    I envy your attendance at Prof B’s lectures. (One of his daughters is a beloved friend of mine.) But I went through school, university, post-grad training, etc., exclusively in the south.

    Thank you for correcting my Beckett misquote, ahem. Ah, Jaysus, and me from an Anglo-Irish background!

    While working on recovering my own bottle, I have also posted on the lovely NML’s blog, Baggage Reclaim; she could put you in touch.

    In any event, I wish you every success and happiness.

    Bisous,

    Mattie xx

93. cerise Feb 16th 2008 at 03:20 am 93

    Salut Mattie!

    Oh yes, courage is essential! But whether I have it – or enough of it – I am not so sure. That’s something I am working on. The need for courage is a fairly recent discovery in my life. But the lack of it, when I was younger, played a major part in the mistakes I made.

    I don’t think i have read your other posts, but I am sure you don’t need to feel any shame! I am always grateful to the people who post so openly and honestly about their experiences online, both here and elsewhere.

    Ah, Baggage Reclaim! I think it was a link from there that originally brought me to this blog! I subscribe to nml’s newsletter, so I have emailed her to ask if she would give you my address.

    Best wishes,

    cerise xx

94. Hot Alpha Female Feb 21st 2008 at 08:38 pm 94

    Hey guys,
    I think the most important thing to remember when it comes to be single and trying to find a man, is to NOT LOOK SO DAM HARD!

    Sometimes when we have been single for a period of time that WE consider to be a long …. then we start to get the desperate cravings for a man to fill out life.

    Its important to remember first and foremost that YOU are the only person that can make yourself feel complete. Being single is a great time to really learn more about yourself and help develop some empowering beliefs.

    When Joan says that there are no good men out there, she is programming in her mind that there isn’t.

    This means that even if there are good men out there that she is passing in her immediate life space .. that she doesn’t even recognize that they are there.

    That i think is the most serious problem in this situation. Its time to start focusing more on yourself and believing that there are PLENTY of available and worthy men that are ready for a happy and fulfilling relationship …

    I think that will make the search that little bit easier.

    Hot Alpha Female

    http://www.hotalphafemale.blogspot.com

95. JerseyGirl Feb 28th 2008 at 12:56 pm 95

    Ironic how men want women to be these wonderful happy creatures that are confident in themselves with no baggage yet men look down on women for naturally aging, put them down, tell them how they aren’t good enough. I have learned from this sight that women age, and apparently that is enough to make her appear as “less” to a man and that men age but men are always wonderful and women are just less. Must be nice for the men but it certainly doesn’t make me as a woman have much faith in the male gender.

96. m Feb 28th 2008 at 04:34 pm 96

    Ironic how men want women to be these wonderful happy creatures that are confident in themselves with no baggage yet men look down on women for naturally aging, put them down, tell them how they aren’t good enough.

    Right on, JerseyGirl.

    Comments on this, Evan?

    ‘Cause it’s a he** of a point.

97. m Feb 28th 2008 at 04:52 pm 97

    Matter of fact, you don’t even have to be too old (although we all age from Year One, which so many men seem to conveniently ignore)!

    As a woman, you can also be too young (”it’s just wearing on me; I’ve seen so much more of life than she has”), too thin (”She’s just skin and bones; I need some curves”), too fat (seen the articles about the Orthodox Jewish men who are asking their shidduchs if the girl’s mother is above a size 8??? ‘Cause if she is, you know what’s going to happen to the prospective wife when she gets to be, let’s say, 60! The horror!!), too short (”I feel like I’m cradle-robbing”), too tall (NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for short men who won’t date these women), too broke (the ever present “gold-digger” epithet), too rich (”I don’t feel like the MAN in the relationship” — don’t even get me started) …

    And after getting the psychic crap beat out of us day after day after day after day after YEAR after YEAR AFTER YEAR of this endless bile spewing against our entire sex (’cause you know, if it’s happened to a man with one woman, then ALL women are of course like that — so logical**) we’re supposed to be happy in ourselves. And confident! And gee golly gosh, men just don’t understand why we’re not! But if we’re not, well then, we just suck as women.

    Awesome.

    **BTW, you know, guys, as a whole, you’re not really any more LOGICAL and RATIONAL than women, in general.

    First, you’re just as emotional (anger management, anyone? Punching a hole in the wall? Verbally abusing your employees? Beating up on the wife, kids, dog? Women outliving men because of all those heart attacks and strokes precipitated by the blood vessels burst in the course of the yelling and shouting?).

    Second, your thought processes aren’t necessarily LOGICAL. They’re LINEAR.

    There is a difference.

98. r Mar 31st 2008 at 08:55 pm 98

    Keep bashing the guys ladies. You look so much more attractive when you do. LOL.

99. vino Apr 1st 2008 at 06:59 am 99

    Just read this thread.

    All I have to say is WOW. Here’s what I’ve seen in brief. Where are all the healthy, emotionally available men? Evan and several other male posters answered, and were attacked in kind for their replies.

    It seems that many lady posters do not like the answers offered by Evan and others. Verbosity brought up the point and stats about post-divorce and caution to cliff-dive into a another deeply entangled relationship I find perfectly reasonable. Yet the venom directed towards him was swift and copious. As he noted, no one refuted him.

    Lyall Taylors posts around #22 were terrific. I’m not blamin’ women, just pointing out that a question has been asked, and rather than listen to the answers, processing them, and respecting them, the reaction is vituperative and attacking.

    I’m going to circle back on the thread of Where Are All of the Cute, Stable, Successful… thread that Evan closed. Notice many of the guys on that thread had seemingly ‘checked out’ from dating and mating for many reasons. You may say ‘great’ to that re: those posters.

    But my point is different. If good, emotionally available guys tell ladies what they want and they are very harshly attacked for it, it’s very possible they too have left the dating game as not being worth it to them. So perhaps bashing men (or women) who don’t tell you what you want to hear isn’t an effective tactic.

    Something to think about.

100. amanda Apr 1st 2008 at 08:49 am 100

     verbosity made some interesting points. also his style was quite easily lampoonable.

101. jules Apr 1st 2008 at 09:01 am 101

     ” If good, emotionally available guys tell ladies what they want…”

     …then level-headed ladies will not object. However, I don’t feel verbosity came off as such by a long shot. You’ll notice that Hadley Paige often expresses the same or similar sentiments as verbosity, and rarely gets attacked. He has a markedly more expository and diplomatic style.

     And at the end of the day, when we’re sharing ideas about dating, you want to hear from the person who sounds like someone you’d want to date.

102. vino Apr 1st 2008 at 09:23 am 102

     I can see your points re: style. But the next question that comes to mind – So to not be attacked people have to post in a style that others demand or expect? I don’t get it. One may not like his style of writing as ‘too blunt’ or another adjective.

     But of he had some points, why attack him instead of respond to the points? I don’t get it.

     I thought this is a place where people can post and all ideas are welcome, even if controversial. isn’t that part of being individuals?

     Jules wrote: “… at the end of the day, when we’re sharing ideas about dating, you want to hear from the person who sounds like someone you’d want to date.”

     I’m not nitpicking, but that seems a bit unreasonable, expecting someone to sound that way in this manner, particularly if they are putting forth differing, and sometimes opposing views.

     I write this as someone actually trying to understand, not as criticism.

103. JerseyGirl Apr 1st 2008 at 12:58 pm 103

     Keep bashing the guys ladies. You look so much more attractive when you do. LOL.

     —————————————————————————-

     I wasn’t bashing men. It is really frustrating how men take any form of critism of them as “bashing”. Critism and bashing are not the same thing. I was saying what I felt was true. Men expect women to be these happy little creatures but at the same time men have some many unrealistic expectations about what they want in a woman, what they wish women were more like (just look at porn), and yet men don’t expect these things to have an efffect on women? That is unlogical.

     It is unrealistic to expect a woman not to have baggage. Any woman over the age of 15, is going to have some kind of baggage. Because guess what, any girl over the age of 15 most likely has encountered some hurt in her life with other people male and female.

104. $Francisco Apr 1st 2008 at 02:17 pm 104

     It is unrealistic to expect a woman not to have baggage. Any woman over the age of 15, is going to have some kind of baggage. Because guess what, any girl over the age of 15 most likely has encountered some hurt in her life with other people male and female.

     But does the baggage need to be so big? It’s not that it’s a change purse or even a overnight bag. We’re talking about steamer trunk size baggage! The kind of baggage that the airlines will charge you a couple of hundred dollars to carry. And it’s old baggage, not new baggage. Ladies, unpack your bags; trade in the Samsonite luggage for a nice DG and carry the “important” things.

105. Hadley Paige Apr 18th 2008 at 05:59 am 105

     RE” Jules post @ 101 >> “You’ll notice that Hadley Paige often expresses the same or similar sentiments as verbosity, and rarely gets attacked.”

     Ladies and Gentleman –”Its not what you say its how you say it.” Ain’t that the truth.

     I am a lawyer (biz & real estate). I make my living by making deals work. That means that boths sides need to feel like they got something & feel good about the process. In order to do that, it requires not getting people on opposite sides of the deal (or a view point) angry or reactive.

     I never cease to be amazed at how one can tell people things they don’t want to hear (REALLY don’t want to hear), things that will affect them in a really negative way (say an eviction for example) and have them be comfortable with it and not hate you. How? Treat them as human beings deserving of respect who have a point of view and want to be heard.

     Someone once told me that where there is anger there is pain. That has helped me alot in my dealings w people.

     I suggest these dialogs would benefit from such a perspective.

106. cessie Jul 20th 2008 at 05:32 pm 106

     After all these threads, I had to read again what started all this:

     I think Evan really didn’t listened (read) to what Joan said (Sorry Evan). She said she felt she was a “pretty, happy, vivacious, cool chick”. There’s no dark lining in her words. She did not come across to me as “anxious, self-righteous, negative, entitled”. In fact, she mentioned that she had been in a couple of relationships where some were still grieving and two relationships wherein they chose to revert back to women with major drama issues, not because the women were “easy” or “light”. How can Joan possibly be “anxious or self-righteous, etc.” when she’s involved with men such as these? I think Joan needs to look at why “she” is choosing men who have this inner need for drama. She is an intelligent woman, she can see the signs, the signs are there long before it gets too deep, she’s just not listening to them. Maybe she has a subliminal need for caretaking.

     Mattie in #82 said it best: “Give people a chance; Never ignore your gut reaction; Listen to YOUR feelings”, that goes for men and as well as the women. Taking sides and digging our heels in will get us all nowhere.

107. Blandion Aug 8th 2008 at 11:11 pm 107

     Where are all the emotionally available, mentally healthy men? Well, let’s see, emotionally available men happen to be vulnerable enough that once their heart gets broken they are no longer mentally healthy. (Men don’t handle break-up as well as women)

     Once you rule out those men, that just leaves emotionally unavailable men that are trying to protect themselves from having their heart broken by being assholes .

108. JerseyGirl Aug 10th 2008 at 04:17 pm 108

     I like emotionally unavailable men!

     No seriously, I do, and it stinks.

109. moonsical Nov 16th 2008 at 12:58 pm 109

     Whew. An old and exhausting thread. I meet men daily that seem healthy enough. Now to find one cute to me.

     As for women being submissive to their men. Wow. I thought that went out with the Dark Ages. I’m of the age now where the majority of my friends are divorced. Many of whom tried to be the “little woman,” stay home with the kids, etc. They ended up bored, not using their skills, and in a financially stressed household, which, if you haven’t paid attention, is the number one things couples fight about: money.

     The successful marriages (and I mean thriving, not just towing the line) I know have two people equally pursuing their dreams and goals, often taking turns if needed, both contributing to the financial and domestic well-being of their home. Women provide more than “supplemental” income–sometimes they are the major breadwinner–men cook and clean. Deal with it!

     moon

110. Been There, Done That Dec 9th 2008 at 12:27 pm 110

     I find the whole older man dating younger women because it’s easier since younger women don’t have the baggage older women do to be ridiculous.

     Everyone has baggage. However, most men don’t think they have baggage; it’s always the women who have the baggage because they cause trouble and make life difficult by wanting something from men. Even “bad boys” don’t have baggage, they are just bad.

     As someone, who at age 19/20/21 dated rich and successful men age 40 or older because I could, I want you to consider the following: where the hell did you think I got all the baggage that I’m now carrying around in my 40s! Doh!

     Plus, with all that baggage comes with experience, both good and bad. I would never want to be in my 20s again and be as clueless as I was back then. As the saying goes…If I knew then what I know now, I would have done things a lot differently.

111. starthrower68 Dec 10th 2008 at 07:35 pm 111

     Both sides have legitimate points; if it’s happened to you, then your perception is truth to you. I’m amazed yet again that any relationship ever makes it.

112. Seductress Within Dec 21st 2008 at 06:20 pm 112

     Wow, I’m exhausted reading through this thread. Both sides have some valid points.

     My 2 cents:
     Yes, men do prefer easy to be with, uncomplicated, fun women.
     Yes, I think many women need to lighten up a bit. Not saying this is the original posters problem-I have no clue.

     But does “fun”=”younger” in some cases sure, but I believe there are other reasons men go for the younger woman.
     It makes THEM feel younger, and it’s a pride/status thing-it makes them look good to other men to have a pretty younger woman on their arm.

     None of this offends me as a woman by the way. I LIKE to be the pretty younger woman on a man’s arm. But only if he’s fabulous in every other way too.

     Do men have their fair share of issues. Or course, but what I don’t hear much of on this thread is optimism. Geesh, most of the posts sound so jaded. Dating is difficult and being let down time and again can get to you. But blaming the other sex solves nothing.
     If you keep getting the same result, then you HAVE to examine what YOU can do different.

113. Sayanta Apr 6th 2009 at 10:01 am 113

     Moonsical-

     I’m glad to have read your post #109- it’s a relief to know that SOMEone knows people in thriving marriages. I thought such a thing was as rare as unicorns.

114. vino Apr 6th 2009 at 02:42 pm 114

     I just re-read the OP’s original letter and a few things struck me. First, she’s a single mom. While there are many men that are fine with single moms, most men I know with their acts together will simply not entertain that notion.

     Also, of the available men in the OP’s age range (40-45), I’m sure that there are more than a few divorced ones, or whose good friends or family are divorced. Of these, I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that the once bitten, twice shy theory would apply.

     And last, I have no idea what emotionally available means. It sounds like psychological gobbledy-gook to me.

115. Sayanta Apr 6th 2009 at 05:33 pm 115

     “While there are many men that are fine with single moms, most men I know with their acts together will simply not entertain that notion.”

     Hmmm- if it works for Jake Gyllenhall and Ashton Kutcher, why not for these ‘regular’ men?

116. A-L Apr 6th 2009 at 06:19 pm 116

     Well, the beauty of this post is that we actually know what happened afterwards. The Secret to Love: Mr. Imperfect is Acually Mr. Right http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/secret-to-love-mr-imperfect-is-mr-right/

     I agree with Vino that most men would prefer a woman without children to a woman with children. But at a certain point in time guys realize that their dating pool is also shrinking (though not to the same extent as women’s) and that they need to be open to the idea if they are to have any dates, as most women by the age of 40 have children. There are also those guys who want to be a father so badly (but haven’t yet) that will take the insta-family presented by a single mother, even if their ideal is to start one from scratch.

     Stealing my statistics from the “My Faithful Boyfriend” thread:

     12% of men 35-44 are divorced
     14.7% of men 45-54 are divorced
     29.9% of men 35-44 are single (divorced & never married)
     24.4% of men 45-54 are single (divorced & never married)

     By the time she’s in the 45-54 range there are more single women than there are single men. Interestingly, the same phenomenon occurs with women 30-34 but not 35-44. Food for thought.

     As far as emotionally healthy is concerned, I’d say it’s someone who has good self-esteem (that contentious word!), isn’t needy, isn’t a commitment-phobe, and knows how to express his/her emotions without bottling them all up inside or having huge eruptions of them all the time.

117. vino Apr 7th 2009 at 12:18 pm 117

     A-L wrote:

     “As far as emotionally healthy is concerned, I’d say it’s someone who has good self-esteem (that contentious word!), isn’t needy, isn’t a commitment-phobe, and knows how to express his/her emotions without bottling them all up inside or having huge eruptions of them all the time.”

     This is going to sound like the picky high school teacher, but after reading that I still don’t know what emotionally available means. Self-esteem (as A-L & I have discussed in another thread) is a term that means different things to different people, and therefore useless to me as a clarifying term. Commitment-phobe is another term that doesn’t mean anything. Heck, I bet Webster’s has no definition for it.

     Perhaps that for people of either gender, they aren’t ready to ’settle down’ or ‘commit’ until they meet someone they feel they can do that with. That doesn’t make them ‘emotionally unavailable,’ which seems to present a negative characteristic (to my eyes, at least). Maybe it just means they are ‘emotionally available’ to someone else.

     Maybe it’s just that the phrase is most often used as a sword.

118. A-L Apr 7th 2009 at 05:30 pm 118

     Alright, I’ll revise my definition.

     As far as emotionally healthy is concerned, I’d say it’s someone who is confident, not afraid to be alone, is willing to commit to someone if s/he feels it is a match, and knows how to express his/her emotions without bottling them all up inside or having huge eruptions of them all the time.

     Is that clearer?

     Though there are undoubtedly people who use the word commitment-phobe to describe someone who didn’t want to date them, I think the word came about when a significant other has said, “You’re everything I’m looking for but I’m only looking for something casual/am not ready to settle down.” Or it is one who purposefully screws up a good relationship because s/he has his/her own emotional issues regarding relationships that s/he needs to deal with (ie, having an affair or picking an argument to get the other person to break up with him/her). A lot of these people are people with abandonment issues, so if they do something to screw up the relationship, causing their S.O. to dump them, then it was really them who controlled the relationship, they weren’t abandoned. Though it’s not a term I use often, I think that emotionally available/unavailable is a specific term.

119. Rob Jun 4th 2009 at 04:50 pm 119

     I read the original article after doing a web search on available and mentally healthy, and stayed to read a good amount of the comments, although I skipped over the ones that seemed to not be able to walk away from making an argument by repetition.

     As a mid 40’s man, I wanted to throw my own thoughts into the ring. A couple of things that stood out in the original post. First, in the original letter the writer made a point that they looked “young” and went on to say they looked 35 instead of 42? I don’t see a lot of difference with those ages. Also, her point was that she was attractive because she was the “cool chick” and her guy friends confirmed this for her. Did she qualify their advice by their own track record of success and did she ask them for some constructive advice on what she could do to be a better person in general and in relationships. These guys may be great resources for her or a boat anchor dragging her down with bad advice.

     As someone that’s currently dating someone 10 years younger, I don’t see the age thing as that significant. I would date a woman 10 years older as well. There’s really not that much difference, in my opinion, unless you’ve decided you don’t want to give up the possibility of having your own biological children.

     From my own experience, and I’m trying to be honest, I think I have a much easier time finding successful, available, interesting women to date. So as far as the man vs woman wars commentary, I don’t think I’ve seen what some comments indicate that “women rule the world” or however it was phrased. That seems a lot like another episode in the “All About ME!” show, that I think both men and women dating suffer through too often.

     I guess my advice is be realistic, if you want to take more than you’re willing to give in a relationship, you’ll only find unhealthy and short term relationships. Also, if you are not meeting the quality of people that you are happy with, take a break, go back and work on yourself. This will keep your attitude positive and bring the right kind of people into your life. After a period of time doing that, then start thinking about trying new things and expanding your opportunities to meet people. That has been what has worked for me.

     I know more single women that I wouldn’t date that have an “in your face” kind of attitude. Really, women that are strong and confident don’t need to do this, their lives speak for themselves. Just like men that suffer from being an adult boy, the little princess syndrome is a fatal flaw.

     I’m not picking on women, I just only have the male perspective and my experiences to offer on this. Obviously, the experts on how it is for women are women.

120. starthrower68 Jun 6th 2009 at 07:02 pm 120

     Rob,

     With regard to the “in your face” type of women, I think sometimes women mistake “meekness” for “weakness” and the two are not the same. I believe meekness means strength under control. I don’t think an emotionally healthy, self-respecting man wants a woman to “out man” him. But I would also say that in some cases, the “in your face” attitude is a defense mechanism rather than an actual attitude. Maybe they are expecting to be hurt. I’m not saying it’s right, just speculating.

121. june Jun 26th 2009 at 07:46 pm 121

     Wow, what a lot of commentary going round and round in circles! I can only speak from my experience about men.I am saddened that the men I seem to attract are not very nice. They want some kind of relationship with me because I am easy to be with and not demanding..that has been my downfall. There are men on this site that tell women to just relax and give the guys they date an easy time. Well, I have done that and have always end up being used and dumped. I have not been demanding, I have not rung constantly, not complained and been thoughtful and giving, thinking I would be loved in return…wrong. The men I have been with have taken my easy going attitude as permission to treat me with disrespect. I am not a stupid woman, just trying to be uncomplcated but men have then walked all over me. No wonder I am now disillusioned and angry. I think I have given and given and given only to have men take and take and take. And don’t get me started on the good sex I have given them only to have them refuse to please me in bed! I never wanted to be a doormat and never thought I was..just trying to be nice and giving but it certainly is not true that the more you give the more you receive!

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply