Elisabeth

I get it. Thank you. I haven't been here for a few years and likely I won't stick around. It was nice to hear from you.

I agree one should make that distinction. However, I see how Leo's auction analogy would apply to both. It's just that there are different values at play. If I want a relationship, I'll place value on kindness and compatibility. If I can't get a guy that's attractive, kind and compatible, I'll settle for a worse relationship. Are guys doing the same? I think so. The ones that are looking to have a family, and there are such guys, they do.

Thank you, I see your argument. If true, thank god this is mostly unconscious. It isn't healthy to think of yourself or your partner as 'scraps'. Please consider finding a way of teaching that doesn't dismiss 80% of people as scraps or mislead guys into thinking that if they aren't top 20 no woman will ever date them.

Then, what's your take on the fact that most men do find a partner eventually?

I couldn't help thinking about this yesterday. This just doesn't match my experience. I know you must have said it a 1000 times on this forum already, but would you care to elaborate anyway? Do you think there is an objective scale on which women rate men? Or is this like a personal number (with some factors contributing more often than others)? I argue the scale is personal and thus the statement is very misleading, giving guys unnecessary bad self-esteem. I'am attracted to men who are intelligent, if they studied math that's a bonus. So I date an IT guy who's also emotionally available. My friend? She doesn't see value in education. She's artsy. She dates a good-looking carpenter. The guys both have some qualities, but she wouldn't date my guy and I wouldn't date her guy. Are they top 20%? Well, they guys also have their problems. Most my friends wouldn't rate either one top 20 because of their issues. I'm into guys who are rather robust and I don't mind fat, unless it's extreme obesity. You can lean on them. Another of my friends? Her guy has to be extremely skinny, otherwise, she's repelled. I'm not saying great flirting skills (or "game") combined with money, looks, status won't work for sex attraction. That man teaching the tantric bdsm workshop? Oh my god, he had me instantly. (Only later did I learn he's also a mathematician and founder of a bank. Gulp.) The to 2% who tick all the boxes? They can really choose. But my friend attending the same workshop? She thinks he's an ego maniac. She's repelled. Sometimes, money is totally unimportant. There are even girls who are attracted to homeless anarchists. Some women date poor people with disabilities who will never be able to provide for them as long as they have a good heart. Sometimes looks is unimportant. If you fall in love for other reasons, your guy suddenly seems much more good looking. Sometimes I'm attracted, but then the attraction vanishes instantly when they guy voices a political opinion. But, I argue the majority of guys will have qualities which make them attractive to someone. This goes well with the fact that most people end up having a family. This is not false hope for those who hide in a basement, play computer games and voice negative opinions about women. You have to go out, be social and have some skill. Almost any skill of your choosing plus some basic level of social intelligence.

What happens for white, privileged women like me is we get all the education, but then we don't get the opportunity to apply it fully. Under the best of circumstances (fair assessment), 'meritocracy' means only those able and willing to sacrifice for their jobs will get the highly competitive ones. If we do get children, we can't do it - we're unable to devote enough resources to career development for a decade. Also, caring for ageing parents and in-laws is usually on the woman's shoulders. For example, in physics (which I do), there is like 30% of girls in undergrad courses, almost a similar fraction continues to a PhD, but after that, a sharp drop occurs, since women in their 30ties really can't go travelling round the world to gain experience at postdoc positions. Even if women sacrifice having a family, there are often glass ceilings that will prevent her from advancing to an in-demand position, such as habitual mistrust in women's leadership abilities, double standards on behaviour, lack of good role models and mentoring,... (leaving out downright sexism). Another thing I observe, girls are generally less encouraged to find their life-purpose or focus on one thing to get good at. It's like when a teenaged guy has a serious hobby, he's seen as gaining valuable skills for the future or having a strength; if a girl has a hobby, it's kind of cute (since she's gonna end up as a caregiver anyway). In some cases, we're actively discouraged from focusing. And, oh the pressure on being "feminine" (=beautiful and submissive)... you'll still stir a lot of hate if you aren't. I know men are fighting hard against nasty stereotypes too, but no guy has ever been accused of not being masculine enough for working on his career, while being ambitions is seen as unhealthy in a woman. 'Spiritual' new age circles are the worst for that - I've been literally told that a women is not to do math, she's to dance and sing (needless to say, I blocked that guy), or that logic is not feminine enough and I should be connected to earth instead (I'm never going to a women's circle again). This nonsense makes me doubt the path I've chosen, so I declared war on all "masculine vs. feminine" talk long ago.

From my personal experience, liking my partner's lifestyle was a big part of making me fall in love with them. However, there are two however: 1) by lifestyle I don't exactly mean money, I mean his hobbies, friends, skills, education, curiosity, vision... [Note: I don't deny the importance of a roughly similar socio-economic backgrounds --- I probably wouldn't date way down, but I wouldn't date way up either, because a very rich man would have probably little in common with me in terms of values.] 2) I'm talking about this initial stage of "falling in love". It's only later in a relationship that more stable love, informed by true knowledge of each other, can grow. Lifestyles change all the time (someone gets sick, children are born, money is lost...), but with mature love, couples deal with that.

Great idea taking this online!

I agree. If you've got great bdsm skills, yeah, you can have a lot of fun. Rope teachers will have tied up a hundred people on their learning journey. It's possible to do that respectfully and ethically. The ethics of having multiple dom-sub relationships gets soooo intricate and situation specific. I'd say if the women are exclusive with you, you're into shady territory even if all parties try their best to keep good consent practices. Especially if they're new to the scene. Heck, if you're into power exchange out of the bedroom, you're navigating difficult waters every single time. But if you're in the scene, you're aware, and this thread is not specifically for that.

I won't argue with that!

Then we're fundamentally in agreement! I had to laugh about "traditional means". Traditional means to me are what I said: Meet people in real life (through school or work, hobbies, existing friend circles), people you have something in common with, and only invite someone on a date if you already like them. Online dating is good if your social options got limited, which does happen for many people later in life when school is no longer a thing and most friends are already paired off. (That's what I see - I do agree I have a very European perspective, and social isolation of the youth may be much worse in the US.) The only thing I was worried about is that I view the "approach tons of women" thing as one of the myths. If it does not work, he might go "See? Women don't want ordinary guys like me. I've proven it." - while he only reason he's been rejected because there was no prior connection at all. Thank you for your sad post.

But why would you do it on a grander scale? What's a grander scale here? More sex? If we're talking about relationships - and "girlfriend" describes a relationship in my vocabulary, but maybe it's just a keyword for something else in yours - most people will be able to handle one, two, max tree serious ones. There's not a hard on limit fwb's, people you see once in a while, short-term summer romances or people you just hook up with, if you've got the time, energy (and yes - money). Some poly people do that. If a lot of sex is all you're after and "game" is just a word for deception, we need not speak.

What's your hypothesis that you want to test with this approach? That it's easy to get a date by just approaching en masse? You could end up reinforcing that poor guy's beliefs. Because most women don't go on dates with guy that have no serious interest in them, specifically. We won't feel well if we're one of fifty. A scientific experiment. I'll argue an alternative hypothesis. I'll argue that approaching one girl at a time, girls that you've at least had an interesting conversation with, girls that you are interested in because they are fun and share common interests, gives you much better chances. It's a myth that men approach and women select. For serious relationships, men have to choose just as carefully. We're talking about a match of both chemistry and personalities here, a match that will allow two people long-term cooperation.

@Basman Journaling can certainly be effective. There's a youtube channel called "Crappy Childhood Fairy", I believe she's had better success with journaling than therapy. However, there's something a journal won't give you, which is the experience of being with a person who's really attuned. Some believe this is the most important mechanism of how therapy works. Why don't you try a lot of journaling with some therapy, just picking the topic which came up as most significant in your journalling sessions to work on with the therapist.

If he has the freedom to date whomever, she will sooner or later want it too. She'll get curious about guys and fed up with the double standard. It's only a matter of time. You could do something like "let's only date women we both like", but that, in general, doesn't work well (because there's always the unspoken "...and who like both of us", and because "veto" arrangements in general don't work). I've been a member of a polyamory forum for years and years by now. I've read about all the failures and fuck ups. Hundreds of stories. Polyamory only works if 1) all people involved actively want it, 2) they are free to choose their own partners (with few reasonable limits like "please don't date my sister/ my boss"), 3) all people are ethical in their choices and considerate of their partners, 4) generally, all people can stand on their own feet if necessary, ie do not dependent on their partners for finance or care (I've seen some exceptions to this one, there's been a woman with ME/CFS whose partner was happy to provide for her and grant her the freedom to date at the same time, but the cases where power dynamics are reversed - includingthe man is a jerk who starts dating while his wife cares for a newborn - tend to be fucked up).