I’m 34 and Want Children. Should I Marry a Good Man Who Doesn’t Satisfy My Soul?

2 Shares

I’m 33 and in a 2-year relationship with a guy who is stable, kind, dependable and attractive. He’s much less educated than I am but that doesn’t bother me in the least as he’s a hard worker with his own personal goals in life. He and I argue frequently about social issues (he’s insensitive and I’m sensitive, he’s conservative, I’m liberal). I respect his views are different than mine and he does the same, but we never seem to be on the same page.

I think I might want children someday and, given I’ll be 34 in a few months, it seems I have a choice to either go all in and make things work with this great guy (who may not be that great for me but would be an amazing father) jump ship, knowing it might mean never having children, or meeting a man who I “click” with but who lacks my current partner’s many admirable qualities.

it’s just not a soul-satisfying love

I do love this man I’m with, by the way, it’s just not a soul-satisfying love and I’m not sure it ever could be due to the fact we don’t see the world the same way, leading to a lack of that feeling of “connection”. (We are aligned on money, family, religion and life goals – we never argue about these things). What is your advice for women my age who feel the pressure to choose between love and the chance to have children? It’s a taboo subject, I know, but I think it’s a real dilemma that women have faced throughout time and I feel the same pressure now. It would be nice if we could address it openly.

Jan                                                                                                        

I’m not going to touch the politics of your question. I’ve done it before, but the truth is, your question isn’t really about politics. It’s about compatibility and the definition of settling.

It’s not my place to tell you if you’re settling, only to hold up a mirror so you can see yourself more clearly. So, Jan, what would you say to a friend who told you this about her boyfriend?

  • He’s insensitive.
  • He may not be that great for me.
  • I don’t “click” with him.
  • It’s not a soul-satisfying love and I’m not sure it ever could be.
  • We lack a feeling of “connection.”

You don’t need to be a dating coach to point out that perhaps this isn’t the best foundation upon which to build a marriage. That doesn’t negate that he’s a decent person and has the potential to be a good husband and father. That only acknowledges that, in this scenario, the only question that matters is whether he has the potential to be a good husband and father for YOUR family.

“Connection” is hard to measure, but it’s a real thing that matters a LOT

“Connection” is hard to measure, but it’s a real thing that matters a LOT. Your connection is what will sustain you through financial hardship, bring you joy when you’re tired with a toddler, and buoy you when your sex life starts to dwindle. Connection, to me, is different than chemistry; it’s less about a dizzying passion and more having a partner who feels like home. Despite different backgrounds and interests, my wife and I have that connection, and I would hesitate to recommend that anyone marry without it.

The fact that you’re 34 and want kids may be what drove you to ask this question, but it’s a smokescreen for the fact that you’re in a two-year relationship with someone who doesn’t fully make you happy. In other words, take away the fact that you’re 34 and want kids and you would know exactly what to do in this situation.

So, unless you want to be another statistic — either part of the 35-40% of those who get divorced or part of the 2/3rds of unhappily married couples — I feel it would be a mistake to march down a path that doesn’t feel good. Life is a really long time. Better to find your true love at 38 and figure out how to create a family together than to dive into a marriage that already feels wrong. Best of luck to you. You’re brave for asking the question and braver for taking the action that brings you the most long-term joy.

Join our conversation (221 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 21
    Mrs Happy

    More information is needed from the OP but I sure wouldn’t advise she break up the relationship.   She loves him and he loves her; that alone counts for a lot.   I’m having difficulty imagining how I could be in love with and love someone, but not feel connected to them, hence I don’t really understand her stance on the lack of connection.

    Cultures are so different.   I recently read a book on arranged marriages and I have a number of friends who entered arranged marriages 2 decades or more ago.   In these situations there is an expectation of growing in togetherness and connection over the years.   When the basics are there (e.g. aligned values, similar life goals) the people in these cultures are expected to build upon that.   It’s a different attitude to making a marriage and family work.   Soul-soaring chasing-rainbows-he-just-gets-me-connection isn’t even on the table.

    My experience has been that once within a marriage, things I thought were important when I was single, barely matter.   The OP mentions politics.   My husband and I have walked together to the local polling booth to vote for every federal, state and local government election for the last 10+ years, and I’m not privy to how he voted at most of them.   In lots of couples I know the spouses basically cancel each other’s vote out at federal election time.

    I’d like the OP to define ‘soul’.   To speak to her married and single friends and family and see what is their take on her situation. I’m nowhere near as pessimistic as other commenters in assuming this won’t work or will all end in divorce tears.   The only big thing they argue about is social differences.   That’s not a bad statistic w.r.t. fighting frequency.   They’re in love, remember – in their mid-30’s;   almost the holy grail if dating site stories are to be believed.

    1. 21.1
      Selena

      Mrs. Happy:

      “I’m having difficulty imagining how I could be in love with and love someone, but not feel connected to them, hence I don’t really understand her stance on the lack of connection.”

       

      I also wonder how the LW defines connection. For me, connection is determined within 1-3 months of dating as two people get to know each other. If it’s there, they remain interested and continue. If it’s not…either or both break it off knowing they “just aren’t that into it”.   I’m mystified how someone could get serious  without feeling a connection with their lover. And to keep it going for 2 years?

      I’ve wondered too, if some folks stay in relationships often out of inertia – “It’s better than nothing” attitude?

    2. 21.2
      Jeremy

      Only the OP knows for sure how she really feels, but my sense from her post is that what is missing for her is the most important part of the relationship.   After all, what is “connection” but friendship?   When we make friends, we do so based on connection – shared feelings, shared perspectives.   Not to say we have to be identical with our friends – we can have our differences – but the feeling of connection is the defining element of friendship.   In romantic relationships we need to have attraction and compatibility as well as connection – and the OP has said she feels attraction to him and compatibility with him as future co-parents.   But given that the best research I know of shows that friendship – connection – between spouses is THE most important variable in the long-term viability of a marriage, I’d say the OP is missing something pretty vital.   Far more so than if she had written to Evan that she feels like he is her best friend but only feels a 6 in arousal with him.   I’d be far less quick to criticize such a relationship.

       

       

      So are they “in love?”   She says she loves him, yet in the next sentence she writes that she worries she’s trading love for children.   She writes that the love she feels for him isn’t the kind of love she wanted to have for a spouse.   I love you, but I’m not in love with you.   I have feelings for you, but I’m not sure I like you.   I want to marry you, but don’t feel a connection with you??

       

       

      1. 21.2.1
        Emily, the original

        Jeremy,  

        Far more so than if she had written to Evan that she feels like he is her best friend but only feels a 6 in arousal with him.   I’d be far less quick to criticize such a relationship.

        What about if you feel a strong friendship/connection — you really “get” each other — but not a much of a sexual desire? Is that what you’re talking about? The person isn’t unattractive to you but it’s not a situation where you think, “I really want this guy to kiss me.”

        1. sylvana

          Emily,

          I’d say you’d be better off staying friends. That’s bound to go down the drain soon as well. You can’t force desire. And once other stressors enter the relationship (such as children, career demands, financial problems, etc.), it’ll end up being a sexless relationship soon.

        2. Jeremy

          @Sylvana, you wrote, ”  That’s bound to go down the drain soon as well….it’ll end up being a sexless relationship soon.”     Sylvana, you keep extrapolating your personality to the world.   I say this fondly, because we all tend to do it, but the beginning of wisdom is realizing that different people have different motivations.   The type of relationship may or may not end up sexless in the future.   A relationship where chemistry was initially high might also.   The stats show that relationship success is best predicted by friendship, not chemistry.   See Gottman’s work on the subject.   That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a concern about the type of relationship I mentioned above.   Doesn’t mean I’d necessarily recommend it.   Doesn’t mean I don’t see some potential red flags, especially depending on the personalities of the couple – and particularly if one had a personality like yours.   But rather to say that I’d approach that sort of relationship cautiously whereas I’d nix one entirely where, after years of a relationship, a feeling of no connection exists.

        3. sylvana

          @Jeremy,

          I absolutely agree with you that connection basically equals friendship. And that a relationship with friendship and low sexual desire has a better chance of surviving than one with high chemistry and no friendship/connection.

          But, come on! How many men complain about their wives no longer wanting sex? Do you honestly believe a woman whose sexual meta-goals are children and connection/friendship will keep having desire to sleep with a man she had almost no desire to sleep with to begin with once children and career, money, other daily problems come into play?

          Are you saying that a woman who has very low sexual attraction to her partner is not more likely to no longer desire sex after her meta-goals are met? That would assume all those women’s meta-goals are to please their men, instead of children and connection/friendship.

          It’s not extrapolating my personality onto the world. It’s being realistic.

          Someone like me would never even enter a relationship with a man I wasn’t strongly sexually attracted to. My sexual meta-goal in a relationship is sex. End of story. No other aspect of a relationship will make me overlook that.

          But you’re saying that a relationship where a woman with normal to low sex drive who mostly wants children and friendship and who isn’t really sexually attracted to the man is NOT more likely to end up sexless?

          Sure, I fully acknowledge that people have different motivations. But do you honestly believe that if she spreads her legs for him just to keep him happy that he wouldn’t eventually catch on?

          Honestly, I don’t see either of those relationships lasting. One, because there is no foundation (friendship/connection). And the other, because – like you always say – men want their wives to be friends and lovers.

          Whether she still has sex with him or not, a lack of sexual attraction is likely to show, and get worse after her meta-goals are met. That doesn’t give him a lover. It give him a body to sate himself with.

          So the only way a relationship like that would last is if the man is willing to overlook the sexual aspects. Or if she is willing to overlook him cheating.

           

  2. 22
    shaukat

    With our friends and other people we care about, we can see that a range of motivations influence their behaviour. Somehow, in dating, we want to distill people down to things like SMVs

     

    Yes, precisely. I like Tom, but this is where he trips up with his reductionist arguments. You cannot apply base evolutionary processes to human affairs in these type of environments, since actions are now mediated by a full range of emotions, and are further complicated by intangibles such as affection, bonding, chemistry, empathy, etc. There are also a range of institutions and political/social factors that affect outcomes. Darwin’s theories were never meant to apply in such contexts in fact.

    1. 22.1
      Tom10

      @ Shaukat 22
      “I like Tom”

      Haha. Aw thanks shaukat. I like you too. And I also like Jeremy, Adrian, Emily, KK, Clare and many other commenters very much.

      *Group Hug?*

      “but this is where he trips up with his reductionist arguments”

      Well, firstly I didn’t introduce the term “league” to the argument (Gala did comment 11.4.1); nor did I introduce the term “SMV” (Jeremy did in comment 11.4.1.1) so it’s unfair to criticize me in this instance for wanting “to distill people down to things like SMVs”. In fact I explicitly don’t refer to leagues, SMV or looks (on their own) in my comments anymore due to Emily’s influence.

      I prefer to use the terms higher or lower “quality” which is probably a fairer representation of human dynamics.

      Semantics perhaps? Whichever terms we use will upset some people because no-one wants likes to acknowledge when it…applies to us.

      Anywho….

      “You cannot apply base evolutionary processes to human affairs in these type of environments, since actions are now mediated by a full range of emotions, and are further complicated by intangibles such as affection, bonding, chemistry, empathy, etc.”

      This must be our fourth time to discuss this? Lol.

      All I’ll say this time is all of these “intangibles” probably aren’t really that intangible per se; rather that we simply haven’t yet developed the tools or analyses to distil what each of these are. Our computers and logarithms are currently too primitive to quantify the millions of variables and crunch the data; we have to go on gut-feelings/instinct. Which is why some commenters “get it” and some…don’t.

      However, I won’t delve into all that today.

      @ Mrs. Happy 21
      “She loves him and he loves her; that alone counts for a lot.”

      The OP wrote:

      “I do love this man I’m with, by the way, it’s just not a soul-satisfying love and I’m not sure it ever could be due to the fact we don’t see the world the same way, leading to a lack of that feeling of “connection”

      This sounds like a classic case of she loves him…but she’s not “in love” with him…

      1. 22.1.1
        shaukat

        Tom, I replied to your points on evolution in more detail in my post up thread, which I’m not sure if you saw, but I agree we’ve probably exhausted the topic. I’ll simply add that I really don’t think your position is representative of mainstream science. Even if it at some point neuro scientists are able to identify the portion of the brain responsible for consciousness, and even if we could reduce raw emotions to hard data (highly unlikely), it still would not mean that we could reduce every human action/reaction to Darwinian reproductive mechanics. To say this is not to bestow consciousness with divine or spiritual qualities, it’s simply to recognize that human behavior and psychology is complex.

        1. Tom10

          @ shaukat 22.1.1
          “I really don’t think your position is representative of mainstream science”
            
          I’m probably a few years ahead of mainstream science shaukat; a maverick theoretician forging a path for others to follow. Some might say an iconoclast even! Hahaha.
            
          I was actually listening to a biochemist on the radio yesterday discussing this very topic; his understanding of what consciousness actually *is* and where it came from was very limited to say the least. Indeed, it seems despite all our recent advancements in medicine and science we still have a very limited understanding of the brain and how it functions.
            
          “Even if it at some point neuro scientists are able to identify the portion of the brain responsible for consciousness, and even if we could reduce raw emotions to hard data (highly unlikely), it still would not mean that we could reduce every human action/reaction to Darwinian reproductive mechanics.”
            
          I guess it’s easy to postulate concepts without needing to substantiate my claims with any research or evidence; hence why I’m writing them on a blog rather than in a science journal. That’s what makes this blog so much fun though eh? Anyone can put forth any ideas they like and then await response to test the ideas’ merits.
            
          “To say this is not to bestow consciousness with divine or spiritual qualities, it’s simply to recognize that human behavior and psychology is complex.”
            
          Agreed that it’s complex.
            
          Yet somehow some people, such as Evan, seem to be better able at navigating and comprehending these complexities better than others; why is that? I suspect it’s because those people are naturally better at reading and interpreting cues/body language/social dynamics etc. These are all tangible entities that can be dissected and understood. There’s nothing divine or spiritual there.
            
          Take music for example. For many music is a wondrous thing; an inexplicable gift bestowed from the divine. Whereas I think it’s much more mundane than that.
            
          When I used to teach music I’d be fascinated by how musical talent is almost entirely a function of one’s genetics; some kids were just naturals and others really struggled. If the kids’ parents were musical it’s almost guaranteed the kid would be too. And vice-versa.
            
          However, the solution for the strugglers wasn’t for them to simply give up altogether; it was for me to work harder at translating what makes music work; atomizing it into comprehendible logic, sequences, patterns, chord progressions, modulations etc and rationalize the result into reasonable sounding music.
            
          Now, even if they never quite reached the exalted levels of their gifted peers their efforts were twice as commendable as they displayed double the perseverance and determination.
            
          I think the same principles can be extended to dating. With enough determination we can indeed atomize all the different elements with the ultimate goal of…becoming expert daters.
            
          And of marrying a 10 of course 🙂

      2. 22.1.2
        Adrian

        Hi Tom10,

        Would you mind helping  me understand something.

        You said, “In fact I explicitly don’t refer to leagues, SMV or looks (on their own) in my comments anymore due to Emily’s influence.”

        I guess I just don’t see what the big deal in using SMV or numbers in context instead of writing out long sentences of descriptors for every individual we talk about in dating. I haven’t been on the blog as much lately so perhaps some commentors have been using SMV to nastily belittle others of the opposite sex but from what I remember most people just used it to help a reader visualize a point in their conversation not reduce a person down to a number.

        I have been reading the comments of Marika, Emily, and Clare, three commentors I respect. So I am trying to understand their feelings of disgust about sexual market value ratings, which is why I am asking you since you have stopped using them.

        Maybe it goes back to a conversation I once had with Karmic Equation about looks and body shape being so important in dating, yet everyone treated them like a taboo subject and pretended that the physical didn’t matter. People pretend that only a very small part of why someone initially approached or accepted a date with someone new was because of looks… Which isn’t true! As if a you go on a date with a stranger because you know they have a good heart after talking to them for only 5 brief minutes; Ask any good hearted man or woman who is not attractive that is sitting home alone this weekend if SMV ratings matters?

        …     …     …

        As far as your conversation with Shaukat, another question I have for you is why do you think some people (people in general not shaukat or any commentor specifically) will be quick to believe in scientific theories about relationships when it confirms their beliefs but the moment a science based theory conflicts with their personal beliefs or experience than they will be quick to say you can’t believe what the scientist said because they didn’t consider blah blah blah?

        I first noticed this phenomenon when Evan first started posting articles about the differences in male and female dating habits when it came to sex. Evan would say a man or woman isn’t wrong or bad for doing what is natural for them then link an article to the study. However, many people of the opposite gender would quickly saying you can’t believe those studies or the scientist didn’t consider, or that doesn’t apply to such and such situation as if they are smarter than the scientist.

        Anyone who has taken any statistics and science classes in college like I did know that there are many things you have to do and many qualifications a study has to pass before it can even go from a hypothesis to a theory-to go from theory to a fact has even more of a rigorous set of requirements.

        I am by no means saying science is perfect and a theory is not fact though some people try to treat it as such, I am just curious about your opinion on something I’ve noticed when it comes to accepting studies and research in the comments section.

        1. Tom10

          @ Adrian 22.1.2
          “I have been reading the comments of Marika, Emily, and Clare, three commentors I respect. So I am trying to understand their feelings of disgust about sexual market value ratings, which is why I am asking you since you have stopped using them.”
            
          I don’t get it either Adrian; but I think I might keep my feelings as to possible explanations on this one to myself if you don’t mind.
            
          It must be just the way men and women see the world differently. Emily and Clare are such kind-hearted and decent commenters that I truly believe that they’re reporting honestly how they see dating matters.
            
          That said KK, Karmic Equation, GoWithTheFlow, Henriette, Gala and Theodora do seem to acknowledge SMV/leagues whereas Karl R and Obsidian don’t; so it seems it’s more of an individual thing than a gender divide.
            
          What do you think is going on?
            
          I’ve stopped using referring to those terms where possible as it ticks too many people off and it forces me to think of other means of communicating my thoughts; (although I’ve been woefully unsuccessful at this task so far 🙁 ).
            
          “As far as your conversation with Shaukat, another question I have for you is why do you think some people (people in general not shaukat or any commentor specifically) will be quick to believe in scientific theories about relationships when it confirms their beliefs but the moment a science based theory conflicts with their personal beliefs or experience than they will be quick to say you can’t believe what the scientist said because they didn’t consider blah blah blah?
            
          Well the first thing that springs to mind when anyone rebuts a generalized theory with a personal anecdote is that one can’t use a singular example to deny an overall statistical trend.
            
          But the obvious flaw with that argument is that I derive my “generalized theories” from my own experiences and observations, so I can’t really have it both ways.
            
          Unless we substantiate our ideas with evidence and/or research we’re all just throwing forth ideas until they resonate with people and not resonate with others. Therefore, inevitably we’re going to have some people who reject suggested theories when they clash with their personal experiences, and some who support the theories when they coalesce.
            
          But sure that’s what it’s all about eh?
            
          —————-
            
          Actually, while you’re here Adrian, what did you think of the topic Jeremy/Gala/Shaukat/KK and I discussed upstream; when someone is taken for a ride by a member of the opposite sex who is at fault?
            
          The two usual scenarios this situation happens are:
          –                   when a woman wants to settle down and have children but the guys she feels ”a connection” with don’t stick around, so she’s forced to compromise on the connection with a man she doesn’t love (such as in this thread) to achieve her goal
          –                   when a man wants NSA sex but gets short shrift from the women he really likes, so he’s forced to compromise on attraction/love/”a connection” in order to achieve his goal.
            
          Do you think these are immoral transactions/relationships where one party is cynically manipulating the other for their own gain at the other’s expense, or do you think both parties are receiving something from the deal but one just won’t/can’t see it and then tries to use the word “love” to hide the fact that they’re just as self-serving (on an instinctive, if not intentional level)?
            
          You’re a balanced contributor who’s well-respected and liked by the female contributors so your opinion is important. 🙂

        2. Clare

          Adrian,

          I suspect you might have reduced our (mine, Emily’s, Marika’s etc.) argument down to overly simplistic terms.

          It’s not that looks and attractiveness are unimportant… that is a preposterous statement, and I defy you to point out even one place where any of us have said that.

          I’ll speak for myself now – what I have taken pains to point out is that attraction is a much more  COMPLEX (see there, I bolded and capitalized it to make it clear that this is the crux of what I’m saying and so that you don’t misinterpret again) affair than just reducing someone to numbers or SMVs or leagues.

          Attractiveness is enormously important. But it is far more subjective than what you and the other commenters who use terms like leagues and SMV allows. There are so many nuanced things that go into why someone finds another person attractive. People have such different ideas of what they find attractive. I don’t particularly care for blonds. I have a guy friend who likes very chubby women. I have another friend who are very muscular (I don’t particularly care for this look), and so on. That’s not to say that there aren’t more universal ideas of what is attractive. But then you start factoring in what people smell like (pheromones are a very real part of attraction) and that explains part of why you might not be attracted to someone who is, objectively, attractive. Because you don’t like how they smell.

          Then you start factoring in the different personality traits people are looking for. Common interests, compatible values, introvert vs. extrovert, sense of humour, and so on. The list is virtually endless.

          Then you get to age preferences. Whilst it is assumed that younger is better, I know of  many, many more people for whom this is not true. As Evan so often reports, most people would actually like to date people within a 5 year age range of themselves.

          Then you get comfort and connection. Someone you can be yourself with and relax with becomes enormously attractive. Similar life goals. Being able to share and talk about anything.

          This is just a quick and dirty rundown, but you quickly see how things like “rating” and “SMV” and “league” start to lose their relevance remarkably quickly. It’s not that they don’t exist – it’s that to reduce human interactions to them is to ignore vast fields of information about relationships. Love is soooooo much more complex than these concepts – so much so that I find them almost irrelevant.

        3. Clare

          So many typos tonight, I’m sorry.

          *another friend who likes very muscular guys

        4. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          when a woman wants to settle down and have children but the guys she feels ”a connection” with don’t stick around, so she’s forced to compromise on the connection with a man she doesn’t love (such as in this thread) to achieve her goal

          I don’t think it’s that black and white. She probably does love him, she just isn’t wildly attracted to him, but there’s no saying she’d be able to love the man she does feel wildly attracted to. It’s also a gamble, too, in that infatuation does not always move into “love” or “connection.”

          At the end of the day, all you can pick from is the people who keep showing up. Of those people, how many are you wildly attracted to, connected to, compatible with, share similar goals with, respect, want to share you life with, etc.? That’s tall order, and something’s got to give.

        5. Adrian

          Hi Tom10

          You said, “I don’t get it either Adrian; but I think I might keep my feelings as to possible explanations on this one to myself if you don’t mind.

          Ahh you do understand or at least have a theory but you don’t want to ofend anyone… I respect that, so yes I don’t mind.

          You said, “What do you think is going on?

          Well I’ve never used the term leagues but I think “within context” of what we are talking about it’s synonymous with SMV rating; and yes I believe in it. I agree with Marika that you can not reduce a person to a number but I still think it is a good way to summarize qualities and it is faster than listing 20 different thing that are classic standard attractants of the opposite sex.

          Who’s really popular right now Beyonce and Gal Gadot, most would acknowledge that these two women are “attractive” and yet I feel no “attraction” for either. Yes logically I know those 2 women are attractive but personally I would not date either; now does that mean that they don’t have high SMV rating because I or a few thousand other men don’t find them attractive? There are millions of men who do, so it doesn’t matter if I won’t date them or not the standards for getting a date with them will be high… There DATING VALUE has NOTHING to do with their Human VALUE!!!

          I digress, so what do I think is going on? Hmmmm… Well that would cause me to venture into waters I would rather not, like I said I really enjoy all three commentors so I-like you-would rather not voice my speculations. I will just say that I acknowledge their distaste for people who use SMV ratings and Leagues as a way to feel superior to others, I’m not around those type of people so that is why I struggle with many things we talk about on this blog.

          You said, “But sure that’s what it’s all about eh?

          I think a lot about my EMK comments section persona and I know why many guys think I am weak or beta, it’s because I don’t mind putting myself in the position of the student, I don’t mind not trying to impress, nor do I mind not sounding confident about my sexaul prowess. So if you Evan or anyone corrects me or has a better opinion I listen and acknowledge I’m wrong because I am here to grow.

          That’s what it’s all about!

          Again I have taken many science classes and the steps and qualifications for something to be accepted as a hypothesis, theory, or fact is high for each category; hell I remember a doctor once saying that a lot of medical practices are just theory.

          Tom10 you once made a comment about how it seems that all the men are Alpha on our blog and all the women are Alpha’s and yet you wondered were these people all really so bold without the aid of anonymity and the ability to hide behind a keyboard.

          People fight certain facts because they can on here, it’s not about science or about learning it’s about being right or making others feel the pain you went through, or converting others so that your views can be validated. How many times has someone grabbed something from wikipedia to prove a point or some random website, now contrast that to how many times someone has pulled something from an actual peer reviewed journal website (yes they exist). It is easier to win arguments with anecdotal pseudoscience than actual studies.

          You asked, “Actually, while you’re here Adrian, what did you think of the topic Jeremy/Gala/Shaukat/KK and I discussed upstream; when someone is taken for a ride by a member of the opposite sex who is at fault?

          Hmmm… Logically I agree with you but emotionally I agree with the others. Tom10 believe it or not outside of the blog I am looked at as being very callus by my friends and co-workers on certain subjects because I have never been used or cheated on and believe it or not outside of the dating arena I am very confident so my answers are always logic based leaving out the human element (for an example of this look at my exchange with Jeremy on the subject of staying in a sexless marriage).

          What I learned is to lead with emotion but substantiate with logic. Take the example of children, I don’t have them so to me when a child cries “only” because it is spoiled and demands to be picked up I say just leave them there until they get the message; most people with children would say that is cruel, most books about raising children in a non-spoiled way would say I am right.

          But do you really think mothers, fathers, and grandparents want to hear that? So instead I try to find answers to show the parent that it is okay to not always give their child want he/she wants while still showing the child they love him. Same thing just more difficult to explain but it makes them happy and makes them receptive to my message.

          Tom10 I think you sound like the me who would say just let him cry eventually he’ll get the hint and that is why Shaukat make his point about your answers. Now for the record I love your comments and I hope you don’t change, I was just illustrating how others possibly see your comments. They are truthful but to people that have been cheated on or used your science theory based answers seem callous and unfeeling like a robot.

          When Shaukat says you have to take into account the environment what he is really saying is that you have to consider the individual feelings of the people involved. Let’s be real, I have studies enough history to know that the environmental patterns are very similar and no individual or their situation is unique but again no one wants to hear that; people want you to acknowledge their feelings of hurt.

          Gala reminds me of Stacy2 in so many ways they would make one hell of a tag team. Because Gala like Stacy2 is very blunt and acknowledges one’s personal needs always does or always should come first which rubs so many people the wrong way that they don’t even want to acknowledge the bits of truth in her statements… Well that and sometimes there is a viciousness in her comments something you lack which is why people engage with you in a friendly manor because your logic doesn’t come across as cold or mean.

          Anyway I think both sides were right, it’s all in the wording.

        6. shaukat

          @Adrian & Tom,

          A few points.

          When Shaukat says you have to take into account the environment what he is really saying is that you have to consider the individual feelings of the people involved.

           

          1). This is not at all what I am saying. I don’t think you’re being deliberately dishonest, but I think you misunderstand the science on this. Every reputable scientist will point out that behavior and traits are the result of both genetics and environment, you simply cannot reduce important behavioral characteristics to just one. Case in point, IQ. Most psychologists and geneticists will agree that general intelligence is shaped by both an individuals genetics and environment, and adoption data bears this out. Moving from lower class to an upper middle class environment can raise a child’s IQ score, though of course there are also genetic limitations to this. When Tom talks about genetics and reproduction, he often leaves out this important variable, and he leaves out consciousness, which is affected by environment, and which can also impact the environment in turn. Nothing I said is due to confirmation bias, and I am not concerned about people’s feelings when it comes to scientific fact and theory.

           

          2). I have never denied that SMV and leagues exist, on the contrary. Anyone who claims that sex appeal and looks are not tremendously important, at least when it comes to getting your foot in the door. is deluded. What I claimed was that you cannot reduce every single relationship dynamic to SMV, and that such an approach is simplistic and reductionist, and I stand by that. You talk about how Tom’s position is more ‘logical’ and my position is grounded in ’emotion,’ please supply a broad theoretical framework that would support Tom’s position on SMV and behavior. You find it; the closest you’ll get in evolutionary psychology, which offers many important insights, but ultimately is forced to work backwards and weave stories from certain postulates.

        7. Emily, the original

          Clare,

          There are some people for whom attraction is solely based on attractiveness. Trying to explain all the other factors that go into attraction for you will not make sense to them. They’re way of thinking is as foreign to me as it is to you. It would mean I would feel attracted to almost every handsome man, which is hardly the case. They can look at a picture and feel attraction, whereas all I can tell is how aesthetically appealing someone is. I have to meet in person before I can determine if I’m attracted. Attraction and attractiveness are two different things, but you explaining it to them sounds to them like hearing the grown ups on Charlie Brown talk. WHAH WHAH WHAH WHAH     !!     It does not compute.

        8. Clare

          Yeah, Emily, it’s like beating my head repeatedly against a brick wall.

          Evan will have an OP writing in with a wonderfully nuanced relationship problem full of detail, and he’ll give a sensitive and balanced reply, backed up with data. And then you’ll get Adrian or YAG in the comments section saying:

          “I know! All their relationship problems must stem from the fact that he is hotter than her and doesn’t want her any more!”

          I’m being flippant of course, but that is how it often feels. I literally want to scream when perfectly intelligent people insist on boiling human relationships down to looks. Again, I’m not saying they are not important, but there is just soooo much more to it than that.

          People who use “SMV” and “leagues” etc. will defend these terms as shorthand, but I actually don’t find them useful at all. As I have taken pains to point out, this is a minuscule amount of what makes a relationship work. Anyone can go home with a hot stranger that they are attracted to from across the bar… and then what? 99% of these relationships (even between two extremely attractive people) never get off the ground. And what have we learned? Of what fucking value is this SMV and league crap?

          When two people are happily coupled up (because they balance each other out and have strengths that the other lacks and feel comfortable and connected to each other) they literally COULDN’T CARE LESS about the SMV and league of their partner.

          But like you say, Emily, for people who insist on beating this drum into infinity, I’m like the adults in Charlie Brown’s world talking…. WAH WAH WAH WAH.

        9. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “She probably does love him, she just isn’t wildly attracted to him…At the end of the day, all you can pick from is the people who keep showing up. Of those people, how many are you wildly attracted to, connected to, compatible with, share similar goals with, respect, want to share you life with, etc.?”
            
          Right. And I have no problem with women doing what they have to do in this situation.
            
          As I said before, and which you seem to agree with; the Creator has set up the game so that these dilemmas are an inherent part of the process.
            
          P.S. my c.i.p. is almost complete; I’m gonna start my serious search in a few weeks. You never know Emily, I might be happily coupled in a few months.
            
          Are you feeling another challenge? hehehe 🙂
            
          @ Adrian.
          “Ahh you do understand or at least have a theory but you don’t want to ofend anyone”
            
          Exactly.
            
          “Well I’ve never used the term leagues but I think “within context” of what we are talking about it’s synonymous with SMV rating;”
            
          I see the terms as very different. SMV is essentially looks and age. Whereas one’s league encompasses those two attributes plus everything else: status, intelligence, IQ, demographic profile, fashion, politics, assets, fame, clothing, accent, health, education, attitude, criminal history, psychiatric history, wealth, personality, humour, laziness, drive, fitness, earning capacity, demeanor, talent, kindness, aptitude, etc. etc. etc. etc. And each characteristic is weighted differently according to the individual.
            
          I must have explained this differentiation a thousand times on this blog but I’m still repeatedly accused of simplifying matters into +/- SMV; it’s like banging my head against a brick wall!!! Lol.
            
          Some people are instinctively/analytically able to interpret and weigh up these various characteristic elements to predict how our date might behave in the future whereas others…aren’t; they seem to rely on happenstance and serendipity to navigate dating matters, then years later wonder how they ended up divorced!
            
          “So instead I try to find answers to show the parent that it is okay to not always give their child want he/she wants while still showing the child they love him”
            
          Well I’d never show a parent how to best parent their own children; that’s their business and I can’t imagine anyone would respond positively to that. I don’t know enough about parenting yet to comment about what I’d do for my own.
            
          “I was just illustrating how others possibly see your comments. They are truthful but to people that have been cheated on or used your science theory based answers seem callous and unfeeling like a robot”.
            
          Truth hurts sometimes eh? Maybe I am a robot; a bot just playing with y’all’s emotions. Kidding.
            
          But point taken; I realize that sometimes I can seem cold. But I can also be warm 🙂
            
          I’ll work a bit more on that so Adrian; I appreciate your feedback.
            
          “Gala reminds me of Stacy2 in so many ways they would make one hell of a tag team”.  
            
          I presume you’re kidding; you do realize that Gala is Stacy2?
            
          “Anyway I think both sides were right, it’s all in the wording.”
            
          Ha. Diplomatic response; get off that fence Adrian! 😉

        10. Adrian

          My original post to Tom10 “Would you mind helping  me understand something.  I guess I just don’t see what the big deal in using SMV or numbers in context instead of writing out long sentences of descriptors for every individual we talk about in dating.

          I haven’t been on the blog as much lately so perhaps some commentors have been using SMV to nastily belittle others of the opposite sex but from what I remember most people just used it to help a reader visualize a point in their conversation not reduce a person down to a number.

          I have been reading the comments of Marika, Emily, and Clare, three commentors I respect.

          I did not understand their point of view so I asked to understand it

           

          Clare replies, “see there, I bolded and capitalized it to make it clear that this is the crux of what I’m saying and so that you don’t misinterpret again

          Ah… A little snark thrown in. WOW!

          Emily adds to the conversation, “They’re way of thinking is as foreign to me as it is to you. but you explaining it to them sounds to them like hearing the grown ups on Charlie Brown talk. WHAH WHAH WHAH WHAH     !!     It does not compute.

          All I can say is just WOW!

          Clare replies, ”  it’s like beating my head repeatedly against a brick wall.
          Evan will have an OP writing in with a wonderfully nuanced relationship problem full of detail, and he’ll give a sensitive and balanced reply, backed up with data. And then you’ll get  “”Adrian””  or YAG in the comments section saying:
          “I know! All their relationship problems must stem from the fact that he is hotter than her and doesn’t want her any more!””

          Again just WOW!

          Lesson learned just because I respect commentors doesn’t mean they respect me

          Thank   you both for the lesson. Now I’m bowing out of this conversation

        11. Adrian

          Hi Shaukat,

          This is Tom10’s conversation with you not mine so I don’t have the same inclination to debate it thoroughly with you.

          I will say that yes I was wrong in assuming your point I should included the words, “What I think Shaukat means.”

          Other than that I disagree with you about enviroment and genetics both being equal factors. To me genetics is the destination but enviroment and upbringing determines the route you take to get their.

          So a woman is still going to find certain traits attractive in a man because of genetic but how she acts or the traits that she prioritizes will be determined by her environment.

          When I read Tom10’s comments I “think” he is just focusing on the core motivations. It doesn’t mean that he is wrong just as it doesn’t mean you are right, it just means (to me) you both are only looking at parts while thinking you see the whole.

          And finally I completely disagree with you on IQ. Most scientist actually don’t consider IQ as a repeatable mark of intelligence because all it test is one’s ability to memorize.

          But again like I said this conversation isn’t one that interest me so I will respectfully bow out now.

        12. Adrian

          Hi Tom10,

          You said, “I’ll work a bit more on that so Adrian; I appreciate your feedback

          NOOO! Tom don’t change! No matter how dark the comments section gets you have always been a bright fun spot.

          You said, “you do realize that Gala  is  Stacy2?

          Sigh… Tom yes we all suspect but you weren’t supposed to say it out loud (^_^).

          You said, “I’m gonna start my serious search in a few weeks. You never know, I might be happily coupled in a few months.

          Out of curiosity when you start back up what venues will you use? I started dating seriously earlier this year but I haven’t focused on one particular venue like online or speed dating. The last few women I’ve gone out with have all been random women I met while out. I am currently debating the quantity vs quality approach to dating.

        13. jo

          Tom10, I am sorry to hear that you are bowing out, because your comments have always been respectful and funny. If it’s any comfort, I think other people’s reactions are more about their dislike of ‘SMV’ and ‘leagues’ than you as a person.

          I wrote another comment below that I think hasn’t entered the debate yet, which is why certain people focus so much on SMV and leagues. It’s not just about sex, but about how they can show off their partner to the world at large to gain status. Some people seem to need this A LOT more than others. You can always tell who those people are, the ones who need to show off when they’re dating someone famous or hot or otherwise a catch. They need that broader social validation. And other people just don’t care. They want to be with the person they like best, no attention given to whether the world approves or not. Now I fall into that category of people who don’t care, but when I was younger, yeah, I thought it was a good thing to get the guy that everyone else knew as famous or hot or a catch. That was immature and unwise, even when they were good guys.

        14. Clare

          Adrian,

          I’m sorry you felt disrespected. I do respect you and the thoughtful and sweet way you word your posts.

          All I can say is that while mine (and Emily’s) tone might have been flippant, it was not (and was not meant to be) disrespectful.

          I was trying to express my exasperation through the only means I know – flippancy. I’d be willing to bet good money that Emily was doing the same. Whilst it is easy to get offended that we took a certain tone (not snarky, not at all… flippant and exasperated), if I could count the number of posts that drone on about SMVs and leagues and ratings on this blog, it would probably number in the hundreds of thousands.

          It just gets absolutely nauseating to see human relationships constantly reduced to the most superficial of criteria. After a while, it all starts to sound like “he left her because he was out of her league,” “she cheated on him because she was hotter than him,” “he doesn’t get laid because he’s a 4,” “she tries harder because her SMV is lower,” and so on and so on. Tell me I’m wrong?

          I have set out my views so many times on this blog as to why I believe these ratings etc. are a very small part of human relationships. Even down to explaining that the notion of what constitutes a “perfect 10” varies greatly across cultures and time periods. It gets so disheartening to do this again and again, only for commenters to say things like, “You know, Clare, Emily and Marika seem like intelligent women… how is it that they can be so stupid as to think looks are not important?”

          Aaaargh.  (insert frustrated scream here).

          So again, Adrian, I’m sorry you felt disrespected. I was not being snarky with you. I appreciate your insights and opinions on this blog and your respect for mine. Truly I did not mean to hurt your feelings, and I hope you continue to participate.

          Just try to understand where we are coming from. (Hundreds of thousands of posts on SMV etc….)

        15. Shaukat

            ‘I presume you’re kidding; you do realize that Gala  is  Stacy2?’

           

          Lol, pretty much. Almost positive an IP check would confirm. Not that I actually care.

        16. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          P.S. my c.i.p. is almost complete; I’m gonna start my serious search in a few weeks. You never know Emily, I might be happily coupled in a few months.

          What’s a “c.i.p.” ? C**k in progress? Surely you could find someone who could help with that “journey”?   🙂

          Are you feeling another challenge? hehehe 🙂

          I’m afraid I am not myself of late. I have lost the killer instinct.

        17. Tron Swanson

          Clare,

          “…they literally COULDN’T CARE LESS about the SMV and league of their partner.”

          Or, they chose their partner for just those reasons, but it isn’t respectable to do so, so they have to come up with a sort of cover story.

          The vast majority of human beings strive for two things. The more universal one is consistency: that is, we have publicly-professed beliefs, and we don’t want to seem like hypocrites. The other thing is respectability. Either mainstream social approval, or approval within our particular region or culture.

          The women that I know…well, they’re all quite vocal about what they want in a man. And almost all of them have ended up with men who are the exact opposite of what they claimed to want. So, to appear consistent and respectable, the spin-doctoring begins. This aggro, grunting dudebro is actually a very sensitive and enlightened soul, and a feminist ally to boot! This shady, employee-betraying, good-old-boys-networking businessman is actually very skeptical of capitalism, and seriously committed to social change…but it’s okay to have a big house and a comfortable life in the meantime, right?

          I urge everyone, men in particular: pay attention to actions, not words.

          As a final not, let me say that SMV and leagues are absolutely real. Obviously, women don’t want to acknowledge this: it benefits them, but it doesn’t look good, and it’s human nature to cover up advantages that aren’t socially-approved.

        18. Emily, the original

          Adrian,
          I have been reading the comments of Marika, Emily, and Clare, three commentors I respect.
          I did not understand their point of view so I asked to understand it
          I’d like to know something, Adrian. WHO DO YOU FIND ATTRACTIVE? You’ve posted about celebrity women who do nothing for you and these women you date who want you but you don’t feel the same way. The only woman I have EVER heard you mention who you like is the woman you used to work with (the twin) who had a boyfriend. Who gets Adrian going? There has to be somebody who gives you the male version of ‘gina tingles. And I need an answer from the gut. Not the intellect.     (Btw … welcome back.     🙂   )

        19. Yet Another Guy

          @Tron

          I urge everyone, men in particular: pay attention to actions, not words.

          Bingo!   Actions are the only true way to gauge a person.

        20. Tom10

          @ Adrian
          “NOOO! Tom don’t change!”
            
          Haha, okay then; I’ll stay my same old callous and robotic self so : )
            
          “we all  suspect  but you weren’t supposed to say it out loud
            
          Oopsie.
            
          “Out of curiosity when you start back up what venues will you use?”  
            
          Well the bar scene was my go-to venue for my 20s but that’s almost entirely gone as an option now and I work in a male-dominated industry so online is my only real option. So far I’ve had limited success comparatively but I’ve made no effort yet either. Tinder for the mo but I’ll probably expand into a few different apps in a more serious manner shortly.
            
          @ jo
          “Tom10, I am sorry to hear that you are bowing out”
            
          I think ya got me half confused there with Adrian jo; I’m not bowing out; Adrian is. Kind of.
            
          “your comments have always been respectful and funny”
            
          This part, however, obviously, and accurately refers to me. Why thank you jo; how nice of you to say 😉
            
          I’m looking forward to reading more of your lovely comments going forward.
            
          @ Emily, the original
          “What’s a “c.i.p.” ? C**k in progress? Surely you could find someone who could help with that “journey”?”
            
          Yes Emily, my c**k in progress; it’s an almighty monstrosity, nearly ready for its official unveiling. I’ve had the best surgeons working on it round the clock for months. Prepare to faint at its launch.  
            
          Yikes!
            
          Haha, ah it’s my career in progress. I’ve spent most of the last 2 — 3 years working on launching a business so postponed serious dating ‘til I got back on my feet; it’s been long enough now so I’m just gonna jump dive right in. Come on — join me!
            
          “I’m afraid I am not myself of late. I have lost the killer instinct.”
            
          Ah Emily, that’s not the spirit! 🙁
            
          “WHO DO YOU FIND ATTRACTIVE?”
            
          Adrian mentioned he has no attraction to Beyonce or Gal Gadot; I agree on Beyonce, however, Gadot is sensational; have you seen her in the new Maroon 5 video? Oh my. Also Olivia Munn 😉
            
          Who’s your crush Emily; I think I remember you saying you like small rocker dudes who are unconventionally attractive?

        21. Clare

          Tron,

          Cover story? Surely you jest. For whom?

          Human beings strive for consistency and respectability above  everything else? Really??

        22. Tron Swanson

          Clare,

          Number one, I didn’t say “everything else.” Not (usually) more than food, shelter, sex, etc.

          Number two, no, I’m not jesting. I see it all the time. Women say they want A, they actually want B, and they then try to convince the world that their new guy is actually A. (Men also do this, though not as much. We say we want a woman to have certain qualities, and then we find a hot woman who doesn’t, and pretend to act like she does. But we aren’t as social as women, so we don’t try as hard to convince others.)

          My first girlfriend is the perfect example. She said she’d never date divorced guys or guys with kids, and she said she wanted a sensitive, artistic guy. A year later, she was living with a musclehead guy who was still married, and had a kid he hardly ever saw. Once he was divorced, they immediately got married. She obviously couldn’t deny that he was divorced and had a kid, but she’s really tried to convince her social circle that this quasi-sentient lump of flesh is actually a cosmopolitan intellectual.

          Lest you think that I’m taking this formative event and engaging in projection, let me assure you that, if I had to, I could name a hundred other women I’ve known who have done the exact same spin-doctoring. Again, there’s what people say they believe and want, and what they actually do.

        23. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          Yes Emily, my c**k in progress; it’s an almighty monstrosity, nearly ready for its official unveiling. I’ve had the best surgeons working on it round the clock for months. Prepare to faint at its launch.    I never faint at viewings. I wait to see if the owner has any talent in managing it.     🙂  Haha, ah it’s my career in progress. I’ve spent most of the last 2 — 3 years working on launching a business so postponed serious dating ‘til I got back on my feet;

          That’s funny. I just started back working on my side hustle. I promised myself I would, and since I am trapped in Butt***k nowhere, it’s probably good timing.

          Adrian mentioned he has no attraction to Beyonce or Gal Gadot; I agree on Beyonce, however, Gadot is sensational; have you seen her in the new Maroon 5 video? Oh my. Also Olivia Munn 😉

          Beyonce is gorgeous. The other two are a bit generic.

          Who’s your crush Emily; I think I remember you saying you like small rocker dudes who are unconventionally attractive?

          Prince

        24. shaukat

          It just gets absolutely nauseating to see human relationships constantly reduced to the most superficial of criteria… “he doesn’t get laid because he’s a 4..”

          Actually Clare, that statement is generally true. Show me a guy who is a legit 4/10, and I’ll show you a guy who gets laid rarely. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater:)

          @Tom,

          Why won’t you consider the bar scene anymore? You’re only in your thirties, it can still work:)

          @Adrian,

          Hi Adrian, it’s clear you’re not very familiar with the literature on genetics, environment, or IQ, but since you don’t want to debate I’ll drop it.

        25. Emily, the original

          Shaukat and Tom,
          Why won’t you consider the bar scene anymore? You’re only in your thirties, it can still work:)
          The bar scene really only works up until about mid-20s, when everyone is around the same age and still available. Even if Tom were to go to bars with women in their early to mid-20s … well,     there’s too much of a life experience gap. I remember getting asked about by a 32-year-old when I was 24. He was very cute, until he started talking about his house and his job, which I found uninteresting and a life stage I couldn’t relate to. I was still in party mode. And a lot of the women in the bar scene who are Tom’s age will probably be married or taken and just doing a girls’ night out.

        26. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “I never faint at viewings. I wait to see if the owner has any talent in managing it”.
            
          Surely with such a weapon at my disposal I simply need to show up and say; “you’re welcome”. 😉
            
          “Beyonce is gorgeous. The other two are a bit generic”.
            
          Lol.
            
          “I just started back working on my side hustle. I promised myself I would, and since I am trapped in Butt***k nowhere, it’s probably good timing”
            
          Do it Emily!
            
          “Prince”
            
          Ah yes; as I thought so. He’s a bit, um, dead though isn’t he?
            
          @ shaukat
          “Actually Clare, that statement is generally true. Show me a guy who is a legit 4/10, and I’ll show you a guy who gets laid rarely. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater : )”
            
          Ha; we’ve gone full circle.
            
          It must just be the way men and women experience rejection differently; men experience leagues so viscerally as when we approach women out-of-our-league we’re usually/often blanked, brutally-shot-down or kindly friend-zoned. Whereas when women approach men-out-of-their league they’re often strung-along for validation/casual/kicks for weeks/months/years until he finds someone better, so the penny takes much longer to drop?
            
          Cue the ladies; “no shaukat, I didn’t reject him because he’s beneath my league; I rejected him because I didn’t feel any chemistry! He’ll make a great catch for someone else! We’re just not a match! There’s no such thing as leagues!”
            
          “Why won’t you consider the bar scene anymore? You’re only in your thirties, it can still work:)”
            
          Two practical reasons:
            
          1)           Most of my bar-buddies have begun to settle-down and rarely go out as much anymore; once or twice a month now maybe as opposed to 2 or 3 times a week previously.
          2)           I probably over-did it in my 20s therefore the physical toll now is heavy. Pros/cons and all that.
            
          Would you hit the bars on your own Shaukat? I admire people who can.
            
          “it’s clear you’re not very familiar with the literature on genetics, environment, or IQ, but since you don’t want to debate I’ll drop it”
            
          I’m not familiar with the literature either, however, one can still form opinions from one’s own experiences since, well, all of us have genetics, an environment and an IQ.

        27. Clare

          Tom10,

          “men experience leagues so viscerally as when we approach women out-of-our-league we’re usually/often blanked, brutally-shot-down or kindly friend-zoned.”

          At the risk of trying to weaken this whole leagues business with a personal anecdote, I reject men who approach me just as often for the way they behave as they look.

          Case in point,  today I was out walking in my neighbourhood, as I do everyday, for exercise. I had my walking shoes on and I thought it was very clear what I was doing. A guy drives past me in his car, then slows down a few metres in front of me and kind of leers at me asking if I want a lift. Since I had passed several elderly ladies walking whom he clearly had not thought to offer a lift to, and I was the only blonde, fairly attractive woman walking on the road, and he was about my age, I assumed this was some sort of pick-up. I indicated to him that no thanks, I would not like a lift. He proceeded to tell me that he hated walking and was trying to save me from having to do it.

          Now, he was quite good looking and around my age, but there was no way I was going to respond positively to this scenario. Not because he had the audacity to approach me but because he a) thought it was appropriate to shout at me with his window wound down, and b) decided to tell me that he thought my chosen method of exercise was awful.

          Do you not think a guy’s success could have anything to do with his delivery? Do you really put it  all  down to leagues? Like a guy who is gorgeous, successful and young needs no charm and grace at all?

           

        28. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          Surely with such a weapon at my disposal I simply need to show up and say; “you’re welcome”. 😉

          I had an older female friend who was married to a man who was quite endowed. This was the 60s, when researchers were just figuring out what it took to get women off. When her husband heard it took more than just sticking it in, he was pissed off … he thought he’d won the genetic lottery, and that was all it took. Maybe he realized his previous partners probably didn’t have that good of a time.    Ah yes; as I thought so. He’s a bit, um, dead though isn’t he?

          He emits more sexual energy dead than most men do alive, in their prime.        🙂

        29. Tom10

          @ Emily, the original
          “The bar scene really only works up until about mid-20s, when everyone is around the same age and still available”
            
          Depends on location; whether it’s rural/urban,   educated/not educated, demographic profile etc.
            
          Where I live most people only begin settling down early-mid 30s. Therefore bars worked really well for me until 32/33 then tapered off. I’d guess that New York, London and L.A. are probably even later again? Whereas in more rural areas people probably begin to get hitched in their teens/early 20s?
            
          “I remember getting asked about by a 32-year-old when I was 24. He was very cute, until he started talking about his house and his job, which I found uninteresting and a life stage I couldn’t relate to. I was still in party mode.”
            
          But you still find that stuff uninteresting Emily!
            
          “And a lot of the women in the bar scene who are Tom’s age will probably be married or taken and just doing a girls’ night out.”
            
          Not quite. I rarely see married women out. In fact there are more single ladies than men in bars where I live, however, I don’t get the same kicks I once did therefore the price exceeds the gain.
            
          @ Clare
          “Do you not think a guy’s success could have anything to do with his delivery? Do you really put it  all  down to leagues? Like a guy who is gorgeous, successful and young needs no charm and grace at all?”
            
          That is a fair point.
            
          When I receive the “hi” or “hey there” messages I usually delete straightaway, no matter how hot she is. I also usually ignore the long-detailed explanatory intro messages too; the too casual/too invested balance is just all wrong.
            
          That said, one could argue that poor delivery is part of a guy’s overall package; a sign of his low emotional intelligence, thus his lack of quality.
            
          “I was out walking in my neighbourhood, as I do everyday, for exercise. I had my walking shoes on and I thought it was very clear what I was doing. A guy drives past me in his car, then slows down a few metres in front of me and kind of leers at me asking if I want a lift”
            
          Exhibit A of ridiculous behavior.
            
          In fairness I don’t blame women for brutally shooting guys sometimes; certainly in this instance.

        30. shaukat

          Clare, really, you’re using an example of a strange guy trying to pick you up in his car while you’re walking to illustrate that more than SMV matters? No one said looks are the only factor determining success, but also you would have to have been bonkers to get in that car with some guy you’ve never met before, especially in South Africa, where assault and violent crime are through the roof. I’d be interested in an example where you actually dated a guy low in SMV (4-5/10 or so), because he compensated with other traits.

          @Tom, I haven’t tried going to bars alone consistently for that reason. I’ve know some guys who can pull it off though I also did the bar scene in my late 20s. If you end up using tinder make sure to get tinder plus–apparently they changed the algorithm, so now if you’re guy you need to pay just have your profile seen.

          Also, Tom, I disagree that you can form coherent, valid opinions on topics such as IQ, genetics, and environment without at least looking at the science. Otherwise you wouldn’t even be aware of the processes shaping you, despite what you think. Anecdotes can be useful, but they can’t replace studies, and many have been conducted to better understand such variables. Your position would imply that someone who knows nothing about the science on the harms of smoking could form a valid opinion on the topic simply because he’s been smoking a pack a day for years and has no health problems.

          @Yag, I think you’re being reductionist with your SMV claims. There are plenty of attractive women who aren’t crazy, and the latter trait has a lot more to do with some form of dysfunction rooted in psychological factors.

        31. Adrian

          Hi Tom10,

          You said (to Emily), “Are you feeling another challenge?

          I’ll join you and Emily if it’s a challenge to go out, meet people, and get dates instead of sitting online writing about being single.

          Though I have never been to a bar I agree with you about not trying to pick up a woman there (though I’m getting my opinion of bars from the movies ^_^).

          Have you thought about places to approach women outside of bars? I have never really done online dating either, but like you I’m thinking about trying Tinder. Have you thought about singles parties and speed dating? I plan on trying both in addition to online but I think just a normal approach while out would probably give me the best results since their will be less visible competition; repeated rejection would be the price for the reward right?

          I see plenty of attractive women out and about and as Karl R and Jeremy have said doing something will give you better results than doing nothing. I would say that about 95% of the dates I’ve been on since I’ve started dating again have all been women who approached me or initiated conversation with me. I want to get more proactive and start approaching; I think your challenge (if that’s what it is) will be good motivation for me-plus I won’t be doing it alone which would be good support.

          I wonder if YAG’s low-effort easy sex system applies to women he has to approach in public? Surely the blows of repeated rejection wouldn’t be worth it for a woman you are not attracted to… In fact being publicly rejected by a woman you are not attracted to would seem to do more harm to your confidence…

          …     …     …

          As far as you know who possibly being you know who…

          The reason I didn’t want to say anything was because I didn’t want to scare her off. I actually enjoy a variety of comments where people disagree with Evan or the main view on this site; it adds perspective and ideologies on dating that I would have never knew existed.

          That’s why I wish Yet Another Guy would word his post better, I LOVE his dissenting views because it causes people to verify with a certain amount of logic his being wrong or right. I think he just offends to many people so we can never get a good debate going; since his words offend no matter what he says he is seen as an unreliable witness… by some.

          …     …     …

          You said, “I’m not familiar with the literature either, however, one can still form opinions from one’s own experiences since, well, all of us have genetics, an environment and an IQ.

          Actually much of the studies on IQ and Nature vs Nurture aka genetics versus environment is conflicting and steeped in “pseudoscience” that is why most of it is still locked in the hypothesis or theory stage and not considered fact; also the notion of IQ equating someone’s intelligence has become very controversial in the academic world recently.

          But I know Shaukat and engaging him in a debate I have little interest in would be exhausting, there is too much “popular literature” supporting both sides of the argument and I don’t want to get locked in an ongoing discussion where I wouldn’t be motivated to do serious “peer reviewed” research and study.

          …     …     …

          Jeremy said, “because the factors that lead to dating success aren’t those that lead to marital success.   In fact, they are often opposite.

          What do you think about this?

          Will this affect how you approach women when you start seriously trying to date?

          It almost seems counterproductive doesn’t it?

           

          Oh and to answer Emily’s question my problem is that I haven’t learned how to see a woman as just hot or sexy, I always assess them for long-term potential: personality, morality, drive, humor, etc… I’m trying to learn to turn that off and just be a person who can enjoy the moment, this is why I always end up on dates with women who are great catches on paper but who I feel little sexaul desire for.

        32. Jeremy

          @Adrian, working up the courage to approach women yourself is definitely going to be helpful – both to your dating success and overall self-esteem.   One personal hack I’ve found helpful when forcing myself to do something I find difficult is to create a personal points system.   Say, 10 points for each approach, and an additional 10 for rejection.   Every 100 points entitles you to a special treat for yourself.   Additional points for rejection to overcome the impulse to dread rejection.   Might not work for you, but works for me and many others I’ve advised to do this.   My sister, for example, recently went back to work part-time after an extensive round of chemotherapy for her cancer.   She dreads people asking her how she is doing, doesn’t want to talk about it but feels she has to.   I advised her to institute a points system – 10 points for each time she’s asked how she’s doing, additional 5 points if a concerned head-cocking is present, 5 more if they refuse to change the subject.   Every 100 points a facial or massage at a local spa, my treat.   Makes it fun.

           

           

          Oh, and regarding what I wrote about qualities that make one successful in dating differing from those for marriage – it all depends on the purpose of dating, right?   If the purpose is to have sex with as many different people as you can, what I wrote applies.   If it’s to get your foot in the door with as many women as you can, it applies.   But if the purpose is to find the one right person and to weed out the rest, doesn’t apply.   Same traits.

        33. Tom10

          @ Adrian
          We’re deriving some longevity from this sub-thread aren’t we!
            
          “I’ll join you and Emily if it’s a challenge to go out, meet people, and get dates instead of sitting online writing about being single.”
            
          In the voice of Ross Gellor:
            
            “ooh, challenge extended” .
            
          Challenge accepted, my friend.
            
          I’m in. Emily, wanna reconsider?
            
          All we need now is someone to set the rules of the challenge. Mrs. Happy perhaps?
            
          “Though I have never been to a bar I agree with you about not trying to pick up a woman there (though I’m getting my opinion of bars from the movies ^_^).”
            
          Wait, what?! You’ve never been to a bar! You need to go to one right this weekend! If I was anywhere near you I’d drag you out. Tag-team.
            
          “Have you thought about singles parties and speed dating?”
            
          I’ve done speed dating before years ago but probably didn’t take it seriously at the time; I definitely will try it again. I’m not familiar with singles parties, but they sound like a decent option. Indeed I work best face-to-face and really enjoy rapid back-and-forth verbal sparring; on-line just takes too long to generate that tension. Also, several times I’ve enjoyed sparring with someone on-line only to be so disappointed when we actually meet. At a party/speed dating one can make their excuses within 3 minutes and slink away.
            
          “As far as you know who  possibly  being you know who…
          The reason I didn’t want to say anything was because I didn’t want to scare her off”
            
          I actually quite enjoy Gala’s comments (oops, I did it again!); she’s very smart and funny albeit in a somewhat acerbic manner; indeed I sometimes cringe at the treatment she receives, although some blow-back is inevitable. I too hope she continues to post. Marika’s comment about her in comment 29 was an unnecessary low-blow.
            
          “Actually much of the studies on IQ and Nature vs Nurture aka genetics versus environment is conflicting and steeped in “pseudoscience” that is why most of it is still  locked  in the hypothesis or theory stage and not considered fact; also the notion of IQ equating someone’s intelligence has become very controversial in the academic world recently.”
            
          I agree with this; analysing the influence of nature vs nurture is a debate that will probably rage on forever; most of us want our children to have the best of nature and nurture, hence why we’re all so loathe to, (oh no!) “settle”.
            
          ———————-
            
          “Jeremy said,  “because the factors that lead to dating success aren’t those that lead to marital success.   In fact, they are often opposite.
          What do you think about this?
          Will this affect how you approach women when you start seriously trying to date?
          It almost seems counterproductive doesn’t it?”
            
          Yes he’s completely correct; I respect Jeremy’s opinions a lot.
            
          My biggest challenge when considering serious dating is adjusting my fundamental perspective to match my ultimate goal; to be successful at casual sex one needs to foster a “my way or the high-way” attitude and not give a damn about who you’re dating, whereas for a successful ltr one needs to foster a compromise mindset in order to create a greater unit. Um, I think, from what people tell me anyways.
            
          Total opposites. Total different skill-set.
            
          However, ltrs follow from strs so we actually have to learn both skill-sets and then be able to shape-shift from one to the other as the ltr dynamic changes over time. No mean feat indeed!
            
          Now I’m starting from scratch; luckily we have Jeremy’s back-catalog  of comments to give us a head-start. 🙂

        34. Adrian

          Hi Clare and Tom10,

          Clare said,  Do you not think a guy’s success could have anything to do with his delivery? Do you really put it  all  down to leagues? Like a guy who is gorgeous, successful and young needs no charm and grace at all?

           

          I just wanted to point out that we actually discussed something similar to this situation perhaps a year or 2 ago on this blog and from what I remember many women were equally just as turned off or at the very least very cautious of a man that was “too smooth” or seemed “too adept” at talking to, asking out, etc… women.

          Likewise from what I gathered many women are like YAG when it comes to a very attractive men approaching them who did “say all the right things” dress nicely, had a good looking face and body, etc… They said they were suspicious of him.

          Perhaps it’s different in your two countries but I just thought I would point that out.

        35. Emily, the original

          Tom10,

          Depends on location; whether it’s rural/urban,   educated/not educated, demographic profile etc.  Where I live most people only begin settling down early-mid 30s. Therefore bars worked really well for me until 32/33 then tapered off.  

          Well, if it’s still an option then do the bar scene. I grew up in a fairly large city in the Midwest. The bar scene was dead by your late 20s. I remember a friend telling me that, if you didn’t have somebody by 30, you were pretty much screwed, and I think my voice hit 6 octaves higher. “Thirty?” Which seemed so young (I was your age at the time), but there was some truth in what he said.    But you  still  find that stuff uninteresting Emily!

          Very true! Even my single, childfree friends start veering off into conversations about their yards. Ugh.    

        36. Emily, the original

          Adrian,

          Oh and to answer Emily’s question my problem is that I haven’t learned how to see a woman as just hot or sexy, I always assess them for long-term potential: personality, morality, drive, humor, etc… I’m trying to learn to turn that off and just be a person who can enjoy the moment, this is why I always end up on dates with women who are great catches on paper but who I feel little sexaul desire for.

          But you’ve also written that women see you as the husband type and not the boyfriend type. The boyfriend type … has a dirty mind.     🙂

        37. Emily, the original

          Tom and Adrian,

          I’ll join you and Emily if it’s a challenge to go out, meet people, and get dates instead of sitting online writing about being single.”  

          I can’t compete with you two. I’m more than a decade older and live in a very small town in the middle of the Bible Belt. THEY PLAY RELIGIOUS MUSIC AT MCDONALD’S. Do I need to say any more?

        38. Emily, the original

          Hi Adrian,
          I just wanted to point out that we actually discussed something similar to this situation perhaps a year or 2 ago on this blog and from what I remember many women were equally just as turned off or at the very least very cautious of a man that was “too smooth” or seemed “too adept” at talking to, asking out, etc… women.
          A man who is super smooth acts that way when he approaches women because he doesn’t really care about the outcome. He approaches a lot of women and will likely approach more that evening if the one he is currently talking to isn’t receptive. A woman wants a man who has some game but is still displaying a bit of nervousness — shows he isn’t a complete player and may really like her (thus the nervousness). I know I get tongue-tied when I get around someone I like. But I can flirt outrageously with someone I have no interest in. With the latter, I have no stakes in the game.

        39. Clare

          Shaukat,

          I’ve actually been dying to respond to you and now finally have a few minutes in which to do it.

          “you would have to have been bonkers to get in that car with some guy you’ve never met before, especially in South Africa, where assault and violent crime are through the roof.”

          Fair enough.

          “you’re using an example of a strange guy trying to pick you up in his car while you’re walking to illustrate that more than SMV matters?”

          What I was responding to here was Tom’s comment about leagues being more viscerally felt by men because they get rejected more often. My point was that being rejected may have nothing to do with what league one is in… it may be all about delivery. This was just one example that was very current for me. I could have used a dozen others. I did not choose it because it was *the* quintessential example… it was just one of many where a guy hurt his chances because of the way he chose to approach a woman. And this is something which has nothing to do with leagues or SMV at all.

          “No one said looks are the only factor determining success”

          No, you’re right. They also harp on about age and wealth.
          Now, to be fair, Jeremy is more complex than this and says that a woman, for instance, needs to be able to *respect* her man, a notion with which I entirely agree. However, the qualities that people respect in others vary from person to person. They can’t be narrowed down to something as simplistic as leagues and SMV.

          I really do suspect that the X factor which a lot of people are trying to explain away as SMV or leagues has to do with self-confidence and self-esteem. So many people are incredibly desirable to others simply because they are so self-assured and don’t doubt themselves.

          “I’d be interested in an example where you actually dated a guy low in SMV (4-5/10 or so), because he compensated with other traits.”

          Here I get to answer this part of your post and a previous post of yours where you said a guy who was a 4 probably does not get laid often. Hm, case in point. Last night, I went on a third date with a school teacher (comfortable-ish, but not well-off). He’s maybe a 5 or 6 in looks. Perhaps a bit geeky. He could not regarded as being in the upper echelon of leagues or SMV by the definitions on this blog by any means.
          But I felt very attracted to him, and I would absolutely date him. He takes good care of his body, was very gentlemanly on dates, very good company (he asks me questions and listens to what I have to say), he’s self-contained and funny, not needy, he’s affectionate without being too much. He’s well-read and interesting to talk to. Just overall a good date and good company, so yes, would definitely continue to see him, and in fact, I am.

    2. 22.2
      Marika

      Not to speak for Tom, but I wonder if it’s done (by a range of regular commenters, not just him) to justify some not so great behaviour towards people in dating. If they are just a number or a ranking or whatever, it’s fine to treat people as ‘less than’. If you see them as full human beings who experience all the range of emotions you do, you have to actually, you know, follow up, be honest, not ghost etc.

      I see it all the time here where people try to justify some clearly crappy behaviour by one party by somehow making it the other person’s fault (e.g. for daring to date above their station..whhaaa??..or missing the subtle cues that the person was, in fact, horrible).

  3. 23
    Yet Another Guy

    @KK

    “(1) Typically, men are the initiators…

    Therefore, when a lower SMV guy is trying to woo a higher SMV lady, he will put out a lot of effort to win her over.”

    This behavior is definitely the result of being the initiator. Women also tend to reach up when they are the initiator. Not only do women reach up when they reach out, they tend to go big with at least an SMV +2 grab, which is why guys get suspicious when equal or higher SMV women approach them on dating sites.

    1. 23.1
      jo

      YAG, I would hope men aren’t that cynical when a ‘high-smv’ woman approaches them. It could be that this woman values the man for qualities other than whatever relates to smv (looks, money, etc), and instead values his personality and character and compatibility with herself. That would be a good partner in my book, and hopefully in his.

      1. 23.1.1
        Yet Another Guy

        @jo

        I am willing to bet that most guys who have enough “enoughs” (attractive enough, tall enough, smart enough, educated enough, successful enough …) to be successful on a dating site get suspicious when they are contacted by a woman of equal or higher SMV. Why? Because it means that a woman is reasonably attractive, and reasonably attractive women never have to reach out on a dating site due to men being the pursuers. Regardless of their own looks and level of success, women almost always reach up when they reach out. It is part of their biological programming.   Evan wrote a blog entry about this phenomenon. I cannot locate it at the moment, but it was good to see what I have experienced covered by another man.

         

        1. jo

          YAG, so we were talking about different things. You were talking about dating sites. I am talking about getting to know people face to face over time.

        2. Tom10

            
          @ Yet Another Guy 23.1.1
          “Regardless of their own looks and level of success, women almost always reach up when they reach out. It is part of their biological programming.”  
            
          Tell me Yag; how often do you reach down when you reach out?
            
          So is it a woman thing or rather, as KK pointed out in a recent post; a pursuer thing? Isn’t that the whole point of being a pursuer; higher risk, higher reward?
            
          What’s the point of pursuing unless you’re reaching up? Otherwise one might as well sit back with no risk and simply pick from the selection of poor choices pursuing them.

        3. Yet Another Guy

          @Tom10

          Tell me Yag; how often do you reach down when you reach out?

          To be completely honest, I have no problem whatsoever going SMV -1. While I prefer equal SMV, I definitely go SMV -1 significantly more often than SMV +1.   SMV -1 women are a lot less work than SMV +1 women, and they are not so unattractive that I would not introduce them to my friends.   However, then again, I am twenty years older than you.   I have beaten my head against the wall enough times to know that a guy needs to have an ace in the hole when going SMV +1 or greater. I also no longer do crazy, and high SMV woman tend to be less sane.   They are used to having their way, and can become quite irrational when they do not get it.   I am no longer willing to play that game.

          is it a woman thing or rather, as KK pointed out in a recent post; a pursuer thing? Isn’t that the whole point of being a pursuer; higher risk, higher reward?

          I believe that reaching up is an inexperienced pursuer thing.   Younger men do it until they grow tired of having their heads smashed against the wall. Women never stop doing it because men are more than willing to date down for less challenging sex.

          It amazes me how many times I have heard women complain about being used for sex, but it is because they ignore the red flags when dealing with a higher SMV man.   No dear, he is not enticed by your wonderful personality or wit.   He is in it for the low-effort sex.   To expect him to put forward the same kind of effort he would if he considered you his equal is like expecting pigs to sprout wings and fly.   He will be vanish like a ghost the moment you attempt to make him put forth real effort.

           

           

        4. Yet Another Guy

          @jo

          I am talking about getting to know people face to face over time.

          That rarely happens at my age. That is why the dating sites are so popular with people who are re-entering the dating world after being married for long time.   The localized variety of partners that one enjoyed when one was younger does not exist after age 40.   Whether in real life or on a dating site, dating is a numbers game.   The difference is that we do not keep track of the number of people we have to meet in real life before we meet someone with whom we would like to be more than friends. That is why women who take the “no serial daters” approach to online dating fail.   Online dating is serial dating.

        5. Adrian

          Hi Marika, Clare, and Emily

          YAG said, “It amazes me how many times I have heard women complain about being used for sex, but it is because they ignore the red flags when dealing with a higher SMV man.   No dear, he is not enticed by your wonderful personality or wit.   He is in it for the low-effort sex.   To expect him to put forward the same kind of effort he would if he considered you his equal is like expecting pigs to sprout wings and fly.   He will be vanish like a ghost the moment you attempt to make him put forth real effort.”

           

          Fine I yield. I should have read through the comments section before posting; I see why so many people are upset by the SMV talk.

           

          Yet Another Guy I am not saying you are “completely” wrong but I would suggest thinking about your wording, many of your statements paint ALL men and ALL women a certain way just because the ones you know act a certain way towards the opposite sex…

          Of course I know if Jeremy can’t convince you I have NO CHANCE.

          But if you don’t mind I would like to offer this advice… From your comments about Gala, the way how she words her views affect you is the same way how you word things affect many of the other readers.

        6. Nissa

          @YAG, I have to say that I have reached out to many men online, and I would agree that I was contacting men I found attractive, and not contacting men I didn’t find attractive.

          However, the group I contacted included men that had a plus or minus factor. Meaning, I would add a 10% margin in both directions on my preference, and if the man fell within the margin & I found him attractive, I would reach out. So I ended up contacting men that had lesser SMV’s. Did I hope to hear from the higher ones? Of course, but that didn’t mean I ruled out the lower ones either. That’s pretty much nature of the online dating game.   But I do include non arousal factors in my estimation of ‘attractive’. For example, a man with kids is less attractive to me, as is someone who smokes, drinks or is in a band. It’s highly arbitrary. The same factor that makes a guy a higher SMV for most women is the same factor that makes him lower SMV for me. So you just never know.

          I don’t even know how they will react to me, as being higher or lower SMV for the same reasons. I don’t want or have kids; I do want & have dogs. Both those things have incited major interest or disinterest on men in my dating pool…but it’s hard to guess how it will be received.

          On the other hand, my young man friend was telling me yesterday that he routinely gets messaged on POF by women that are high SMV…and clearly escorts. He was surprised to hear that I was just as frustrated at getting too many messages from other than those from whom I wanted to hear. So it’s universal.

           

        7. Clare

          Adrian,

          Yes, your quote from YAG is exactly the kind of thing that I was referring to and have seen countless times on this blog, from YAG and others. Unfortunately, I lumped you in with them because it seemed (to me anyway) as if you were overly focused on the way women look.
          I can see you have much more depth and sensitivity than I gave you credit for 🙂

          I am not even going to bother responding to the quote which you set out from YAG. He clearly thinks he has struck gold with this theoretical framework, and no amount of real-world evidence will make the slightest bit of difference because he is so invested in his worldview.

        8. Nissa

          @YAG,

          Consider that women are counting things in their SMV that might not be valued at the same level as men. I have a friend who was in her early 40’s, who was dumped by a guy in favor of a woman in her 50’s. My friend was hurt and baffled, because she “could give him babies, and this other woman can’t!!”. She saw that as serious value, never thinking that this man (in his late 30’s) might not  want kids, or at least, not at that time. But she definitely saw herself as having a much greater SMV that this other woman, based on that one feature alone.

  4. 24
    No Name To Give

    Is there really any such thing as a soul-satisfying love? I’d like to think so, but I’m skeptical.

  5. 25
    Lynx

    I was in a similar position to OP (a bit younger and not the specific areas of disagreement, just knew we weren’t a profoundly compatible couple), chose to marry, had 2 kids, separated after 23 years. To be honest, I don’t regret it because, given the person I was at the time, I would not have made a better choice. I would have dumped him and just chosen some other narcissist, because that’s where my un-self-aware head was.

    The person I am today would have spotted the red flags somewhere around date #3 and opted out. But, that wise woman was sleeping dormant back then.

  6. 26
    Marika

    Shaukat said

    I agree with your overall point, Marika, but not your statement that when certain people use such terms it’s a symptom of being single and/or unhappy

    Yes, agreed. I read over what I said and it was unclear. I meant people who try to explain every dating behaviour based on simplicist explanations like SMV,..black & white thinkers…these don’t seem to be happily coupled, non-bitter types. No judgement on single people (I’m single!), but the happily coupled, happy in themselves people tend to write balanced, nuanced posts. They don’t tend to write controversial things that reduce people to numbers / leagues.

  7. 27
    Marika

    Welcome back, Adrian

    Admittedly I didn’t read all of what you wrote, but this   “I  still think it is a good way to summarize qualities and it is faster than listing 20 different thing that are classic standard attractants of the opposite sex”  

    ..for me, Clare and I think Shaukat, isn’t the issue. I understand leagues/SMV are good short cuts we can all understand. I also think attraction is very important.

    What I strongly disagree with, is that all dating, and certainly relationship behaviour can be explained by SMV and one’s SMV relative to another’s. I know from personal experience that this isn’t the case, and it only takes a basic understanding of human nature to know that we are more complex creatures than that.

    I also strongly disagree with the notion of marrying someone who you believe is below you from an smv perspective, in an effort to ensure their undying devotion. Being hotter than someone is not a good basis for a healthy, long lasting relationship. IMHO.

    1. 27.1
      jo

      Marika, I agree with you and others who don’t agree with ranking people by SMV, numbers, or leagues.

      Someone asked what’s the difference between people who rank by SMV and who don’t. I don’t think it comes down to if someone is a good or bad person. Instead it comes down to personality. There is a personality test MBTI that ranks people in four areas. You can take this test online. If you are SJ (sensing and judging), you care more about what everyone else thinks of you and follow a social pecking order or hierarchy more. You would feel ashamed to be with someone who isn’t of your class and make all sorts of assumptions about how you rank relative to them. But If you are N (intuitive), you don’t care about social pecking order as much or at all.

      anyway, you should check it out. Maybe the S people who care about social rankings should stick together, and the N people who don’t care about that type of ranking, should be together. That would make the happiest couples.

      1. 27.1.1
        Jeremy

        Jo, please be careful with these assumptions.   The Myers Briggs concepts are quite flawed, though they are fun.   Thinking and Feeling – not opposites on one spectrum.   Sensing and intuiting – not opposites on one spectrum.   All remaining measures are spetra, not absolute.   Cognitive functions do not stack.   And the guys and gals on this blog who seem to most invest into the concept of SMV are those I’d peg as not only “P’s” on the J-P scale, but far-end P’s.   All this is to say that while a person’s personality might factor into how they see the concept of SMV or “leagues,” likely their lived experiences factor much more than their predisposition.

         

         

        For example, a person who was not initially considered attractive by the opposite sex and who suffered low self esteem as a result, might decide to hit the gym or get plastic surgery.   Or might learn Pick-up artist techniques in seduction and mannerisms.   And due to their newfound appearance and manner, they might notice a significant change in how members of the opposite sex interact with them, and reach the conclusion that SMV or leagues are the main determinant in dating success.   And why shouldn’t they assume that?   It jives with their experiences, never having been married or in significant long-term relationships.   Does beg the question, though, why most Hollywood stars are divorced, even when originally married to their league equivalent.   Obvious answer – because the factors that lead to dating success aren’t those that lead to marital success.   In fact, they are often opposite.

         

        You can’t predict long-term pairing success with Myers Briggs, nor with cognitive function stacks.   Doesn’t work that way.   These only suggest what the challenges for any particular couple might be, not their chance of success.

        1. jo

          Myers Briggs or not, there’s no question that certain personality types are more likely to seek status and external approval – not just through their fashion and jobs, but also in their choice of partner. It’s as though the world chooses for them, not they themselves. So they have to go with whoever is considered by the collective as ‘hot’ or ‘desirable,’ regardless of whether that person is compatible with them. They lose a lot of their own agency by always deferring to upholding a certain image. We all know people like that. For me personally, I’ve seen many SJs act like that. YMMV.

          So while I’m not gonna judge people who choose partners based on SMV and league, I feel sorry for them, because relationships are private and these metrics are more based on public signals. They’re cheating themselves out of true good matches.

    2. 27.2
      Adrian

      Hi Marika,

      You said, “I didn’t read all of what you wrote

      But you still comment on it??? I thought you were a dating Kung Fu master now? (^_^)

      I’m just teasing, basically what my point was is that OF COURSE SMV ratings CAN’T account for all the complex nuances that go into dating that is why I repeated said within context and to use it to summarize.

      You said, “What I strongly disagree with, is that all dating, and certainly relationship behaviour can be explained by SMV

      Could you, Clare or Emily show me where I said this???? Well not Clare or Emily I have no desire to talk with either of them.

      You said, “I also strongly disagree with the notion of marrying someone who you believe is below you from an smv perspective, in an effort to ensure their undying devotion.

      Could you show me where I said this? Heck! I’ll even take you showing me where I simply implied this.

      You said, “Being hotter than someone is not a good basis for a healthy, long lasting relationship

      Again where did I say this? My entire long post was just about using SMV rating to condense long paragraphs. Even Evan uses places chemistry and compatibility in separate categoriesd.

      Marika just think about this, I could be wrong but it seems to me that in some commentors zeal to be right, to he heard and understood, that they completely skipped over my point (apparently I am just like YAG). HELL you quoted me and still attributed me to saying something that I did not.

      You said, “Welcome back

      Thanks but it’s honestly so draining that is why I barely come back. I originally came for dating advice but as you know we talk about the same things over and over so I mainly just came for the fun conversations with like minded individuals but of late it’s been less and less fun and about learning and more about picking a side in a debate.

      You said, “Short answer: I haven’t! I continue to struggle with this, and especially when I really like them (as you say). It’s what keeps coming me back to this blog

      Yeah this is a problem for me also. My parents were like Jeremy’s always busy with work and though as long as they mainly provided clothing, food and shelter their child would be okay; that is why I have an anxious attachment style. But I remember you saying you had a loving happy childhood, so what do you think is the source or your attachment style? Your ex husband?

      You said, “In terms of your other question, you’re confusing me with Malika. That’s her job…  But I can understand a busy professional

      Oops! (^_^). I thought I was doing so good telling you two apart.

      Honestly I can’t understand spending that type of money for just what is essentially a blind date. At least with Evan he walks you through the process and holds your hand.

  8. 28
    Marika

    Clare

    Sorry to hear it. But it sounds like the right decision for all involved 🙂

    Shaukat

    Can’t see much to disagree with in your points to Adrian & Tom.

  9. 29
    Marika

    Adrian  

    Re all your questions asking where did you say those things: you didn’t. And if you read over my posts..I didn’t actually say you did ☺..You chimed into this conversation quite late. Those things were said or alluded to by others in the thread.

    The thing about it always being about SMV/leagues is a theme that gets played here a lot….surely you’ve noticed that?

    I think you bore the brunt of frustration, coming into the conversation late.

    I wouldn’t write off Clare or Emily: it’s pretty clear to me that they respect you. It’s just a frustrating, ad nauseum topic…

    For me, the ideal is a healthy relationship. So I look at the comments of those in one. Do they talk on and on about leagues? Do they brag about nabbing a hottie or alternatively a minus 1 SMV to ensure they will idolize them forever? That, to me, smacks of using someone for their use to you (the royal you), not treating them like a fellow human..and is what I find so abhorrent. (It’s also very Stacy2, the source of all evil..;) ).

    My childhood wasn’t idyllic. My parents were caring and involved, but also strict, I’m part of a big family and low down the food chain, my parents don’t get along but won’t divorce due to religious reasons…lots of reasons for me to be anxiously attached ☺

  10. 30
    KK

    “With our friends and other people we care about, we can see that a range of motivations influence their behaviour. Somehow, in dating, we want to distill people down to things like SMVs, dehumanising them and acting like the opposite sex is some ‘other’ you can easily put in a box. It’s not like that. Let’s try to treat our dates as fellow, complex humans”.

    Hi Marika,

    Would you mind telling me where you got this idea from? I may have missed the comment(s) that stated or somehow implied this was anyone’s viewpoint.

     

    1. 30.1
      Marika

      Hi KK

      To be honest, I’d prefer not to go there again or single out anyone.

      If you haven’t noticed this mentality, that’s great.

  11. 31
    KK

    “To be honest, I’d prefer not to go there again or single out anyone”.

    No worries, Marika.

    “If you haven’t noticed this mentality, that’s great”.

    I’ve noticed it typically comes from the same 2 or 3 commenters, but I didn’t notice it on this particular thread, which is why I was trying to figure out what I missed. Lol.

     

    1. 31.1
      KK

      Marika,

      After reading the most recent set of comments, I’d like to formally withdraw my previous statement. Lol.

      1. 31.1.1
        Adrian

        Hi KK

        Yes I’ve learned my lesson as well. Best not to jump in and comment without reading the entire blog first just to make sure you aren’t stepping into a landmine of emotion.

  12. 32
    Yet Another Guy

    @Tom10

    It must just be the way men and women experience rejection differently; men experience leagues so viscerally as when we approach women out-of-our-league we’re usually/often blanked, brutally-shot-down or kindly friend-zoned. Whereas when women approach men-out-of-their league they’re often strung-along for validation/casual/kicks for weeks/months/years until he finds someone better, so the penny takes much longer to drop?

    You have hit the nail squarely on the head.   Women do not experience leagues as viscerally as men because men are more than willing to date down for easy sex and continue to date down until the BBD (bigger, better deal) comes along.   This male behavior can leave a woman with an elevated sense of her SMV.   If guys would just stop dating down for sex, women would feel what it means to attempt to date out of one’s league.   We even see this male behavior on dating sites when men respond to women they would not date because it may be an opportunity for easy sex. From my own personal experience, an SMV -1 women is pretty much a guaranteed thing whereas an equal SMV woman requires some effort and an SMV +1 woman can be a true investment.

    1. 32.1
      Jeremy

      YAG, sometimes you make my head hurt.   It is possible that some women don’t perceive leagues because they’ve dated men who were higher, sure.   And it’s also very possible that they don’t perceive leagues in the same way because they’ve dated, and often married, men who were lower than them in SMV but were still happy.   Happy because these men were higher in other traits that the women considered more important – either from an attraction perspective or a respect perspective.   That these women saw their own attractiveness, realized how hollow it was, and chose men with more worthy attributes as they saw them (though still meeting a threshold attractiveness).

       

      Have you ever read any of Dan Ariely’s books?   He is a behavioral economist who was badly scarred by an explosion.   He writes about how he found an amazing wife who is not only beautiful but also kind and intelligent – and he writes that if his gender were different, if he was a woman disfigured by burns, he would have been far less likely to find a handsome, kind, intelligent husband.   Because women are far less obsessed in the SMV of their partners than men, in general, and have a far broader base of factors that make up what they consider desirable in a partner.   Hence, you know, not seeing leagues the same way guys tend to.

       

      Of course, given that we are defining “leagues” as including whatever we want them to include, they are not really generalizable.   Better to simply say, as I’ve said before, that women look for a man to respect – whatever respect means to them.   While men look for a woman who makes them feel good about themselves and also horny.   Pretty much.

       

      Finally, I wish you’d stop the nonsense about SMV-1 women.   Based on everything you’ve written about your marriage, it seems you were the lane-changer, not your wife.   You dated one type of person, married another for relationship goals, lost interest sexually, and viewed her in terms of what you could get from her.   And now you’re back to your original goals.   Everything I’ve ever written about lane-changing women applies to you, not your ex.   Marry an SMV-1 woman and you’ll be all set?   Were YOU all set?   And how did your ex feel about all of that?   How’d it work out in the end?

       

      I don’t mean to add to the general pissy tone of the comments on this thread, but I guess some of them have triggered a bit of moodiness in me.   But it pisses me off to hear comment after comment displaying obvious tactical intelligence, but not much introspection.

      1. 32.1.1
        Yet Another Guy

        @Jeremy

        How do you explain women reaching up on dating sites? I am not the only guy I know who has discussed this issue.   I am not talking about merely reaching up in looks and fitness level (which I guess is an extension of looks).   I am talking about educational attainment level and overall level of success.   You can make the argument that it is about having someone to respect, but can these women not see that making such a large grab is a complete waste of time unless they want to get used for sex?   Why do these woman not reach out to guys who are their equal? Why does he have to be better?   Evan has discussed this phenomenon several times.

        One more thing, I rarely encounter a man who married an SMV +1 or higher woman.    That only time happens is when there is a huge disparity in income earning potential, and I have no interest whatsoever in provisioning a woman.   I desire an equal. Just as a woman who chases guys with a higher SMV should not be surprised if she gets used for sex, a guy who chases an SMV +1 or higher woman should not be surprised when she takes him to the cleaners.   After all, nine times out of ten, she married him for his provisioning ability, not his looks.

        1. Marika

          YAG said

          I desire an equal.  

          Would your equal be equal in all respects? From what you’ve written here, I’m not sure you would be attracted to your female clone. So, maybe, in some respects she may be better than you? Would that mean you’re reaching?

          I wonder if we got women in your age group to rank your looks out of 10 (or any one of us) if every single one would give the same number? My guess is no. Which probably means that leagues/SMV are a rough estimate at best.

        2. Gab

          I’d really like to see examples of your smv ratings for both sexes for people in their 40s and 50s.

          As a 44 yr old woman who approached men online, looks only played a part in who I approached. Spelling and grammatical errors, poorly written or uninformative profiles, aged outside of 40 to 55, childless, too many hobbies I have zero interest in (e.g. gym or sports obsessed guys), negativity or bitterness towards women in their profile, guys looking for casual only, glaring lack of compatibility in lifestyles, were disqualifiers. Of all the men I met for a date, they were either equal or less than me in physical attractiveness, and similar to me in terms of station in life.

          My bf who i met on Tinder swiped every non-ugly woman without any age restrictions and within a very broad geographical area. He only started culling when matched. That is, he only read my very witty profile AFTER we matched. From talking to other men this is a very common approach. Men reach out in all directions but it doesn’t mean a thing in terms of who they will commit to. Men don’t commit down any less than women don’t fuck down.

      2. 32.1.2
        jo

        Jeremy, THIS.

        Earlier I wanted to give yag a chance, but after seeing this comment, I totally get where the blowback toward him is coming from. This and other comments ARE misogynistic because he sees women as objects that can be ranked and categorised on traits that don’t respect her as a full human with a mind and soul (in addition to a body).

        I think you are right that women care less about smv than men. Maybe it’s because our culture encourages that in men but not in women, in ads, tv, etc. Maybe without the cultural influence, we would be closer to the same in how we view potential partners.

      3. 32.1.3
        Clare

        Jeremy,

        You have perfectly captured the reason for  my  pissy tone and flippancy… which unfortunately Adrian bore the brunt of.

        It’s this highly simplistic, emotionally tone-deaf habit of categorizing people as SMV+1 and SMV-1 etc. which YAG clearly finds  totally acceptable which actually just frankly makes me very pissy and angry.

        It’s not the first time YAG has incited those emotions in me, so I should not be surprised. Clearly he is talking about all of this in a theoretical vacuum, convinced of his own rightness, but with no actual evidence to back it up. He doesn’t seem to realise what it makes him sound like.

        I have also rarely, if ever, seen people on this blog who subscribe to the whole SMV-1 school of thought demonstrate any sign of self-reflection or humility or introspection to any great degree. They just sound pompous, frankly.

        I probably just need to get off the blog before I get angry.

    2. 32.2
      Emily, the original

      Jeremy,

        It is possible that some women don’t perceive leagues because they’ve dated men who were higher, sure.   And it’s also very possible that they don’t perceive leagues in the same way because they’ve dated, and often married, men who were lower than them in SMV but were still happy.

      Is it also not possible that they don’t perceive leagues because they’ve always dated the men they wanted? Leagues only become an issue if you can’t attract what you want.

      1. 32.2.1
        Yet Another Guy

         

        @Emily, that original

        I will agree that some women get the men they want, but many women apparently do not end up with the man they wanted.   Why else would women initiate 70% of the divorces in the United States?   If they did not feel like they could do better, they would remain married.   Sure, there are women who initiate divorce due to infidelity and abuse, but a marriage is statistically more likely to survive the husband’s infidelity than the wife’s.

        If most women do not believe that they can do better, why do they find 80% of the men on dating sites to be of less than average attractiveness?   The fact that women find 80% of the men on dating sites to be of less than average attractiveness is unbelievable.   The women who end up dating men from this 80% have to feel like they are settling.   Average attractiveness is a 5, so this 80% is looked upon as being 4s or less, in essence too unattractive to date.   Most guys above the age of 25 are acutely aware of where they fall within the pecking order.     Most men know exactly how attractive they can go without getting rebuffed because they have had to deal with it their entire lives.   As body image conscious as women appear to be, I do not believe that they are as conscious about this reality.   They continue to hold out for a guy who is hotter than they can obtain and will drop the man they are dating if a more attractive man comes along.   Sadly, I have been the guy who took women away from a guy who treated them much better than I did when I was younger.   I was only interested in sex.   Is my experience unique to me?   I find that to be very difficult to accept.

        1. jo

          yag – you’re conflating two different things – why women pursue men online and why women divorce. IME women divorce not because they want another man (which is what you seem to believe), but because they are sick of marriage and doing what they consider more than their fair share of work. Divorce for women rarely has to do with looking for a higher smv as you suggest, but feeling like they are trapped in an intolerable situation and wanting to get free.

      2. 32.2.2
        Emily, the original

        YAG,

        I will agree that some women get the men they want, but many women apparently do not end up with the man they wanted.   Why else would women initiate 70% of the divorces in the United States?

        Well, people divorce for a variety of reasons, but if a man or woman is landing the partners they want, having the kind of relationships they want with the people they want, THERE WOULD BE NO DISCUSSION of leagues and SMVs. Neither would be on the radar screen. Why would they care? It’d be a story of two people clicking and going about their merry way.

        1. jo

          Emily, that’s a great point. Earlier I wrote that it all came down to personality, whether someone cared about smvs and leagues. But maybe instead of (or added to) personality: people who are not satisfied with their current relationship status talk about smvs and leagues, while people who are happy with their status, whether they are single or in a relationship, don’t focus on those things.

          After all, you get the sense that those who talk about smvs and leagues are striving for something, still looking or otherwise not completely satisfied. When someone is satisfied, he tends to be more at peace, not seeking to judge or rank others.

        2. Emily, the original

          Jo,

          After all, you get the sense that those who talk about smvs and leagues are striving for something, still looking or otherwise not completely satisfied. When someone is satisfied, he tends to be more at peace, not seeking to judge or rank others.

          Yes. That’s it in a nutshell. Their obsession with SMVs and leagues reveals a lot about them.

    3. 32.3
      Nissa

      @YAG, Have you considered that the women are reaching out to men that they DO consider their equal? After all, I’ve seen it several times on this site that women feel they are having success in dating the men they like by initiating. And just because the women feels she is his equal, does not mean he feels the same. In fact, the women I am seeing reach out to men, especially on sites like Bumble, are choosing men that one sees called beta based on his approachability and willingness to let the woman lead.

      I think I notice it a bit more because it is something I don’t do. I used to contact men, but haven’t in a long time, because those men weren’t interested enough in me (for whatever reason, SMV included) to actually ask for a date. In a funny way, it’s less of a rejection when they do that, because they rejected you based on circumstantial things or lifestyle vs not liking me as a person. On either side, it’s best to assume that if it’s not a match, better to know that right up front.

      1. 32.3.1
        Adrian

        Hi Nissa,

        You said, “because those men weren’t interested enough in me (for whatever reason, SMV included)… to actually ask for a date  they rejected you based on circumstantial things or lifestyle vs not liking me as a person.”

        But this is YAG and Tom10’s point, whoever does the approaching (usually men) will get rejected BECAUSE of outward things such as looks-none of the women doing the rejecting know him as a person…

        That is why Tom10 said men unconsciously associate low attractiveness or SMV and leagues with getting turned down by women, because they know they are being rejected at least 70% of the time due to something superficial and outward that the women sees when guys approaches. I think Clare’s example makes up at least another 20% of why guys are rejected and the last 10% could be for her own personal reasons.

        Even if you drop the number down to the reason why men are rejected 60% of the time, the majority would still be due to his outward physical desirability in her eyes. Point being when a person is use to being rejected the overwhelming majority of the time because of how they look it is understandable (as Jeremy and Tom10 said) that they would assume that SMV ratings matter so much in dating success.

        But the hole I see in this hypothesis is because of something Jeremy said.

        He mentioned, “Because women are far less obsessed in the SMV of their partners than men, in general, and have a far broader base of factors that make up what they consider desirable in a partner.   Hence, you know, not seeing leagues the same way guys tend to.

        Assuming what women say is true, that men are more look obsessed and more women are rejected because of how they look than any other factor, then my earlier hypothesis for the reason men assume looks and SMV rating matter so much can’t be true or women would be just as obsessed with SMV ratings as men.

        1. Nissa

          Whereas when women approach men-out-of-their league they’re often strung-along for validation/casual/kicks for weeks/months/years until he finds someone better, so the penny takes much longer to drop?

          I actually agree with this. I think the change in the time frame means women are assuming that they initially met with approval, but incorrectly believing that something in their behavior or personality caused the man to not like them, when she in fact never actually had his approval for anything other than sex.

          I have to agree with YAG that this might in fact be because women in general don’t approach & experience rejection. I have, so perhaps I see it differently.

          Jeremy’s words are interesting to me, but if true, I think it’s not a good thing. After all, if women were a little more honest with themselves about how arousing they actually find the man in question, maybe they wouldn’t be ending up in all these sexless marriages.

          What I don’t see being taken into account is presentation. I’ve seen many online photos of men that were average to cute, who would have been much more attractive if presented differently. That’s a subtle nuance. It’s fair to say that women are more likely to see this nuance, and include that in her estimate of his SMV. Men might be more likely to miss that nuance and reject the woman based on current presentation. That’s one of my explanations for SMV being critical for both sexes, but more malleable for women.

          Clare, I know it’s important to you to validate the worth of each of us – of course. Remember that each of us has energy that we present, that others will feel and to which we react. Our looks and our energy together are generally received as one message, when they are not – it’s at least two messages, maybe more. Men in general would be more likely to only notice the literal physical information message, a woman’s looks. Women are more likely to notice the meta-message of ego / personality. Those who are sensitive will pick up the literal message, the ego / personality message AND the soul message. Where it is puzzling to non sensitives is that they are making the choice based on less information, but are unaware of that. So to them, what is only a small portion of your decision making is almost all of it. See how that explains both sides?

           

        2. Yet Another Man

          @Adrian

          Here’s something that is bound to make the ladies go ballistic.   Let’s look at the problem from four combinations of two attributes.

          Woman A – equivalent looks and status

          Woman B – equivalent looks/lower status

          Woman C – lower looks/equivalent status

          Woman D – lower looks and status

          I have enough experience getting women to sleep with me that I can say without question that Woman A will require the most investment.   There difference   is often striking.   Sleeping with her on the first date is a stars aligning perfectly event.   Woman B will require some work, but it can happen as long as no mistakes are made.   Woman C is pretty much a sure thing on the first date, and Woman D will fall all over herself to make sure that I am happy.   To say that she will be compliant to my demands is an understatement.   You have to be a man and see how Woman C and Woman D look at you in this situation to fully understand this dynamic. When a man is better looking than the men a woman normally attracts, it is like the brake pedal does not exist and the accelerator is smashed to the floor.   While what I am saying may sound misogynistic, it female behavior that I have witnessed so many times that it has to hold.

          Earlier, some women were complaining about my stance on “no hookups.”   They said things like a woman may be thirsty, and I may have been the first man with whom they wanted to have sex.   Yet, many women on this site women deny the existence of leagues and SMV.   One cannot have it both ways. I can assure you that these women wanted to have sex with me because I am a higher SMV male than they usually attract, and I carry myself like a higher SMV male.   The look on their face when we meet is priceless. They are used to men my age looking like old men.   A guy shows up who has all of hair, and it is not colored and nor is it gray.   He still has a muscular build and has little in the way of wrinkling (they are thinking that I posted very old photos before we meet).   What is turning these women on is purely cosmetic because I have yet to open my mouth.   At this point, it is up to me to sink my own ship, and I am not that naive.   These women are subconsciously throwing off IOIs (indicators of interest) that only a clueless man could miss. There are times where I barely get to sit down before they subconsciously break the touch barrier. Recently, I had a women thirteen years my junior put her hand on my thigh only couple of inches from my crotch within the first couple of minutes of sitting down.   Thirteen years is not an insignificant age gap. Granted, it does not happen all of the time, and most often it happens with women in whom I have little interest after we meet. Yet, it demonstrates that women are just as, if not more visual then men, and that their mating triggers are highly visual.   Yet, women want to hide because the qualities argument.   There is more than a grain of truth behind the alpha fux/beta bux argument.   A man has to have a higher SMV or he better have a thicker wallet to be successful with women.

        3. Adrian

          Hi Marika, Clare, and Emily,

          So I can’t speak for any other guy but for me when I refer to SMV I am “ONLY” talking about the time from when you first notice a woman until the time you talk to her.

          Once you talk to a person you get a feel for their personality; it can be when you first approach or perhaps when you call them on the phone to arrange the first date… conversation allows you to go beyond looks but looks is what motivated you to approach.

          I guess my disconnect with the people upset over the use of the SMV is that how else can you qualify a stranger who you only see but never spoke to?

          Again I can’t speak of the other guys but for me a woman’s looks are all I have to go on until I talk to her and as YAG said I can usually tell if I have a chance or not with a woman before I approach by gauging the gap between our attraction levels. You all gave stories of guys who you would date that are objectively not that attractive but as Evan always says, “The exception does not make the rule.”

          As far as leagues I don’t use the term as much as others but I do recognize they exist. When I first met my new boss I knew immediately that she was way out of my league. She is seriously wealthy, a branch CEO of a major international company, she has lived in many countries, speaks a few different languages, she literally knows a few celebrities, she is 60 years old but could easily pass for 40, she has a body that puts many women my age to shame, her face is seriously gorgeous, and she just radiates confidence.

          Now that I know her and speak to her regularly I am now able to see that (to my knowledge) the only reason she wouldn’t-hypothetically-date me if I asked her out is because of the age gap and not because she thinks she is better than me. However, initially before we got to know each other we both knew that she was in a higher league and just based off of looks alone her SMV rating would easily be an 8.

          You all are upset with how YAG uses SMV rating in relation to the person as a human, I to disagree with that, but don’t forget that this site is to understand men. No other guy on here has said that he uses SMV for anything deep or to rate a woman’s for a relationship, it’s just something he uses to gauge his interest in her before he approaches or gets to know her.

          My guess is that since you are women and you were approached more than you did any approaching you got the advantage of hearing a guy talk before you made your judgment about if you would go out with him because what he said and how he said it gave you a glimpse into his character (Clare’s example). But for us guys, what do you think motivates us to approach a woman in the first place? We don’t know anything about her so how can we gauge her character? Again to most guys SMV ratings only matter in as much as how much of a chance we think we have in getting a rejection; once you are on the first date it’s all about character for most guys that are looking for a girlfriend.

        4. Emily, the original

          Adrian,
          I guess my disconnect with the people upset over the use of the SMV is that how else can you qualify a stranger who you only see  but never spoke to? …  Again I can’t speak of the other guys but for me a woman’s looks are all I have to go on until I talk to her
          I have felt powerfully attracted to men (it’s rare, but   it’s happened) who I’ve never spoken to, who I saw from across the room, who were, for all intents and purposes, comparatively average-looking and by no means the best-looking guys in the room. I don’t know what causes it, but when it happens, he’s the only guy in the room, at least to me.

          But if you haven’t experienced this, I can’t convince you of it, and neither can any of the other women who post here. You (and most of the men on this blog) experience things differently. THAT’s the disconnect, and I don’t think it can be fixed.

  13. 33
    Marika

    Jeremy  said

    I don’t mean to add to the general pissy tone of the comments on this thread, but I guess some of them have triggered a bit of moodiness in me.   But it pisses me off to hear comment after comment displaying obvious tactical intelligence, but not much introspection.

    Spot on.

  14. 34
    Adrian

    Hi Jeremy,

    Thanks for the advice I plan on putting it into practice starting on the first; so tomorrow.

    After reading this particular blog post I would like your opinion on something, Jeremy how do you or have you found a way to differentiate a troll from a person who is sincere? Perhaps mean but they sincerely believe what they write about dating, relationships, and the opposite sex?

    Sometimes I can’t tell; even though I don’t agree with their words I am more tolerant of a person who has been hurt or who is hurting verses a troll that just likes to say hurtful things because they want to do emotional damage.

    Or do you think it doesn’t matter a person’s sad backstory there should be no excuse for saying certain things about an entire gender in the comments?

     

    1. 34.1
      Jeremy

      I assume sincerity, right or wrong.   Even if the person proves to be a troll, valuable conversations can be had and insights achieved for all the readers, if not necessarily the poster.   Sometimes/oftentimes I’ve refined my own beliefs based on conversations that might have begun based on trolling.   And truly, someone might write an insulting post after having a traumatic experience.   Someone might write an irate or petulant post because they are frustrated.   If we mirror their emotions back at them, those emotions will only intensify.   If we treat them jokingly, we reduce our own empathy.   But if we mirror back to them the emotions we want them to feel, they stand the most chance of reciprocating those emotions and hearing the logic of our arguments.

  15. 35
    Marika

    Tom10

    Um..re comment 29 I was joking..hence the wink.

    Jokes aside, a lot of people have said a lot of far worse things on here. Why would you focus on that?

  16. 36
    Marika

    Jo

    Very true. People get divorced for a range of reasons. Who initiates divorce tells us very little. Some men would be happy to remain in a marriage indefinitely where they were emotionally checked out, abusive or even cheating..until the wife finds out/gets sick of it and initiates a divorce.

    And I think that Evan has put up posts/data before showing that divorced men are more likely than divorced women to remarry (or maybe it was remarry quickly, it was one of the two).

    I’m only focusing on one gender to redress the imbalance in this “women trading up” obsession. Of course, there are men who get cheated on or try harder in their marriages too.

  17. 37
    Marika

    Ahh Jeremy, you’re like our conscience 🙂

    I always try to consider..hmm now how would Jeremy write this..then half the time I slip up and get snarky anyway ;). Some topics are Just.So.Draining..

  18. 38
    Tom10

    @ Marika,
    Looks like I misreported the wink and didn’t pick up the tongue-in-cheek tone; my comment was also unnecessary; my apologies.
      
    I suppose the rattiness of this thread in general has made us all a bit grumpy.  

    1. 38.1
      Marika

      No worries Tom10. Group hug 🙂

      Yep, it’s an annoying and superficial thread alright. We are all going to need a holiday/group therapy after this one! Hehe

  19. 39
    Adrian

    Hi Tom10 and Emily,

    Tom10 said, “Challenge accepted, my friend…  All we need now is someone to set the rules of the challenge.

    Well I know you want to wait until your Career In Progress is finished so let me know when you would like to start-though I’ve started already today since I am so behind for my age.

    One rule I have thought of is thanks to YAG and that is NO asking out women who you are not really attracted to, or who you know would easily say yes to a date (unless she is someone you really wanted). I’m using you as a motivation partner so as we say in the gym “Go Hard Or Go Home!” (^_^)

    If it’s going to be a challenge it should be a Challenge! We should aim for someone above our… … … words that we can’t say (o_O) (now like you, I’m struggling to find a substitute for describing a person above our… those words). I approached, made small talk with, then asked out this ridiculously gorgeous woman with a perfect body in the gym this morning… then her boyfriend showed up (^_^).

    Tom10 said, “Wait, what?! You’ve never been to a bar! You need to go to one right this weekend! If I was anywhere near you I’d drag you out. Tag-team.

    Haha! Yeah super conservatively religious upbringing remember? That’s why I’ve only really dated and been with one women sexually, the woman I was going to marry. I didn’t start thinking for myself-so to speak-until about 4 years ago when I turned 27 (^_^).

    Tom10 said, “I’ve done speed dating before years ago… I definitely will try it again. I’m not familiar with singles parties, but they sound like a decent option. On-line just takes too long to generate that tension.

    So different rules for different venues or ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL!..   I mean rule for them all? (^_^)

    Tom10 said, ”  luckily we have Jeremy’s back-catalog  of comments to give us a head-start.

    I laughed so FREAKING hard at this statement that my assistant and a few different co-workers actually peaked  their heads into my office to see what was so funny! Honestly I thought I was the only one who constantly  goes back to re-read most of Jeremy’s comments from post he made months ago.  

     

    Emily said, “I can’t compete with you two. I’m more than a decade older and live in a very small town in the middle of the Bible Belt. THEY PLAY RELIGIOUS MUSIC AT MCDONALD’S. Do I need to say any more?

    Emily everyone knows a party isn’t a party (or challenge) without you, I’m too much of a white bread square for cool Tom10; we still have a little time until Tom10’s C.I.P has blossomed so I hope you will reconsider by then.

    On a slightly different note, at my job there is this senior finance analyst who was really fun and always upbeat-I loved talking to him (picture a silver haired  Ben Browder with a slight belly)-until one day we got a female tempt who casually mentioned she had a girlfriend. Afterwards he (behind her back) started preaching none stop how it was a sin and how god said in the bible burn homosexuals and blah blah blah. After that you could not even say hi to him without him finding some way to bring Jesus into the conversation… he just drains the fun out of a room – so I know where you’re coming from Emily.

    By the way how is work? Still stressing you out? Do you still have your one female friend in that town or have you made other friends to go out and stress relief with?

    Emily said, “A man who is super smooth acts that way when he approaches women because he doesn’t really care about the outcome. He approaches a lot of women and will likely approach more that evening if the one he is currently talking to isn’t receptive. A woman wants a man who has<strong> some</strong> game but is still displaying a bit of nervousness — shows he isn’t a complete player and may really like her (thus the nervousness).”

    But women always talk about confidence and women always say a guy who seems nervous when approaching them is a turn off; so I don’t understand this… Or is it just a case of “if a woman is interested in a guy it doesn’t matter what he says or how he says it?”… BUT at the same time she wants to feel special like she is the only woman he is interested in???

    1. 39.1
      Emily, the original

      Hi Adrian,
      One rule I have thought of is thanks to YAG and that is NO asking out women who you are not really attracted to, or who you know would easily say yes to a date (unless she is someone you really wanted). I’m using you as a motivation partner so as we say in the gym “Go Hard Or Go Home!” (^_^)
      For once, I agree with YAG. You’re one of the rare people who needs to focus MORE on physical attraction. If you don’t take one look at a woman and think, “I want to nail her, ” DON’T ASK HER OUT.

      Tom10 said, “Wait, what?! You’ve never been to a bar! You need to go to one right this weekend! If I was anywhere near you I’d drag you out. Tag-team.

      I thought the same thing. Wait, what? NEVER? OH, my my. Tom and I need to take you out, and we need to get you very drunk.   🙂

      By the way how is work? Still stressing you out? Do you still have your one female friend in that town or have you made other friends to go out and stress relief with?

      Yes, the job is still awful, and I have no friends here. I have made no effort, which is on me.

      But women always talk about confidence and women always say a guy who seems nervous when approaching them is a turn off;

      It’s a balance. A woman wants someone who can approach her, who can ask her out and plan the date but not someone who is super slick. I don’t think you need to worry about coming off as slick. I think most women can tell when a man is a bit nervous around her because he likes her, and if she really likes him, she probably feels a bit nervous herself. They can it sexual tension for a reason.

    2. 39.2
      Nissa

      @Adrian,

      Why not do a Match.com event? I always think of them as ‘stacking the deck’. Meaning, everyone there is single & looking, you get to pick events based on age range, so they are close to you in age, and if you see someone you like, you can check their profile to see if you match in lifestyles (wants kids, income, interests). Plus, you get the magnificent bonus of seeing them in person, which for me is sine qua non of dating in knowing if you actually want to date them or not.

  20. 40
    Marika

    Clare

    Re dating an (insert low number out of 10 here!) guy. I know this probably won’t change anything really..but I just wanted to offer some support & agreement in terms of what you said.

    More than 10 years ago I spent a day with a German guy who I met in Vienna. We only had a day together as he was leaving to go back to Germany the night I arrived in Vienna. He was nothing to look at and overweight. Looks-wise maybe a 4 or 5. I barely noticed him until he started speaking to me. By the end of the day, I was smitten – and I still often think of him to this day. He was funny, engaging, interested in me, witty, intelligent. I have no idea of his monetary situation or education level. We met his friends in the evening to listen to some music and he had the whole group captivated. I came back from the bathroom and all the seats were taken – he said to sit on his lap and I happily did :). We stayed in contact for at least a year afterwards, flirting and chatting…if we lived in the same country I would’ve happily dated him (and felt proud and lucky to do so, despite his 4-ness..:) )

    I wrote before that some time ago I went on a date with a definite 10/10 – he was a supermodelly looking Brazilian guy. The most gorgeous person I’ve ever seen outside of a magazine. Great kisser. BUT: I had no interest in a. ever seeing him again, or b. sleeping with him. He tried both (clearly ‘dating down’ for sex..haha), but given all he could talk about was himself, nutrition and fitness, he lost all appeal in my eyes.

    It bears repeating that while looks do matter (particularly in online dating) and for me I get the SMV/ranking thing can be a ‘quick & dirty’ shorthand…but it by no means is: a. cut & dried, b. indicative of any kind of long-term happiness, or c. restricts who dates and ends up with who.

    You can be gorgeous and the worst date ever, or not great looking, but (if you manage to get your foot in the door), an amazing catch. Maybe not everyone can appreciate that, but hopefully they can at least admit that this reality exists, for some. Actually, probably not. But you never know 😉

    1. 40.1
      Clare

      Marika,

      Yeah, you nailed it. This is it, exactly.

      And as much as the guys on the blog might like to make out as though your story with the 4 guy was an exception, it’s not. Personal chemistry and connection counts for so much more.

      As I mentioned, right out of the gate after breaking things off with the guy I was dating, I had two options. One guy was a clear 8.5/9. Also modelly looking. Tall, great body, Ken-doll type face, blue eyes, and very keen on me. Too keen in fact. Honestly felt a bit intense and pushy for me. Had a habit of getting really serious and looking into my eyes and telling me all the things he liked about me. Also something about his smell and the way I felt when I hugged him didn’t feel quite right. He’s also successful and well-off.

      And then there was the 5/6 teacher guy. Who felt great when I hugged him.

      I had a clear option between the two, and I opted not to go out with the 8/9 guy. It was no contest for me, frankly.

      Yeah. So, like you, I’m certainly not denying the initial importance of being attracted to someone, but it can be so much more primal and personal than we even realise.

      1. 40.1.1
        Emily, the original

        Clare,

        And as much as the guys on the blog might like to make out as though your story with the 4 guy was an exception, it’s not. Personal chemistry and connection counts for so much more.

        I think this can happen for women and some men — personal chemistry/connection trumping SMV– but not for a lot of the men who post here. They won’t feel chemistry/connection UNLESS the women is extremely physically attractive.

      2. 40.1.2
        ScottH

        I don’t disagree with this at all.   Once you get to know someone, looks (good or bad) don’t matter.   And a smile (or lack of) can make a huge difference in someone’s appeal.

Leave a Reply

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