Does Success Hurt Woman's Dating Chances

[Preety_India]

13 minutes ago, Arcangelo said:

Hold on. Are you saying the Halo Effect is not real?

What does that mean?

 

[Derek White]

I must add that women like success because it is an indicator of ownership. A guy who doesn't take ownership (weak guy) is a disaster for the woman. Weak men take more than what they give from the relationship. Weak men won't support their women in their ambitions, because they're lazy. Weak men don't have their own ambitions either, which leaves the woman helpless. Overall they are just a burden on the woman and the family, and the woman has to work double to sustain the relationship. 

Also, men have two games. 1st one is to have sex with as many women as possible, which is unconscious and only focuses on superficial attraction. 2nd one is finding a life partner. If you are playing the 2nd game, I recommend you find a woman who takes ownership. One of the best indicators of ownership is career success and profession. A woman that only focuses on children may initial seem like a good choice, but as Emerald pointed out, she puts a lot of pressure on children. 

[Consept]

31 minutes ago, Arcangelo said:

Hold on. Are you saying the Halo Effect is not real?

It is but apparantly not when it comes to making money. The halo effect works for things like making friends, attracting partners etc. But in terms of making money a lot of studies have shown more unattractive people make more, there's a few reasons if you read the stories I posted earlier 

[Preety_India]

1 hour ago, Consept said:

The equivalent of what you said would really be something like  'a man's physical strength is proportionate to his success' which obviously doesn't make any sense. 

But the whole thing of if you're not that good looking you'll always be behind good looking people, is again not true and basically incel mentality. 

You tend to take things out of context or derive a different implied meaning out if it. There is nothing implicit that you're looking for.  Men are physically stronger than women, it's just a basic statement based on facts not biases, I have never implied or mentioned that a man's physical strength  is proportional to his success so no idea how that came out of nowhere 

Also if I said that women generally seek high status or wealthier guys, and low value (status wise ) guys find themselves behind high income guys in the dating arena, would that be an incel mentality, absolutely not, it's just a fact based statement,  a general observation. Incel mentality is when you think you assume that you can never get something especially when you didn't even try,  but stating an obvious observation based on social trends is called keen observation and awareness. 

Similarly when I stated that looks really help women with a lot in life, that's not incel mentality,  that's stage orange mentality where looks and superficial factors are given more value and precedence over strength of character or ability. 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Preety_India

[Raptorsin7]

7 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

You tend to take things out of context or derive a different implied meaning out if it. There is nothing implicit that you're looking for.  Men are physically stronger than women, it's just a basic statement based on facts not biases, I have never implied or mentioned that a man's success is proportional to his success so no idea how that came out of nowhere 

He's not taking anything out of context. He has provided reasons and details in every post. I think you're are triggered by what he's claiming and so you want to denigrate his argument style

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

He's not taking anything out of context. He has provided reasons and details in every post. I think you're are triggered by what he's claiming and so you want to denigrate his argument style

I haven't mentioned such a thing. So it's obviously taken out of context. 

I'm not triggered at all. Often when a woman is trying to counter a man's argument, she is usually labeled as "triggered "... Not a good way of having a fair argument. 

 

 

[Consept]

27 minutes ago, Derek White said:

I recommend you find a woman who takes ownership. One of the best indicators of ownership is career success and profession.

I think this a good take, a lot of people don't take responsibility or ownership for their actions or choices and this of course will have a massive impact when you get into a relationship. Obviously women don't want a guy who just kinda goes whatever way the wind blows him as they want stability esp when raising kids. So yes job and wealth is an indicator of it. The thing is there are always reasons for women's preferences, it's not necessarily or usually the case that they're shallow. But when a guy says women put success in a guy high up its usually taken that he means they're shallow or a gold digger so it's often hard to talk about it, it's been the case in this thread as well. 

32 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

You tend to take things out of context or derive a different implied meaning out if it. There is nothing implicit that you're looking for.  Men are physically stronger than women, it's just a basic statement based on facts not biases, I have never implied or mentioned that a man's physical strength  is proportional to his success so no idea how that came out of nowhere 

It's an example which I'm drawing an equivalent meaning to what you said when you said a 'woman's success is directly proportional to her looks'. You stated this as a fact and I've shown that it's wrong using actual facts and studies and then an equivalent statement which is just as out there. 

But I have noticed that you draw your conclusions only from what you see around you, I understand why you do that it makes sense. However if we are having a discussion about wider societal trends it is pretty useless. As I said if you say I know 10 good looking successful women and I say I know 10 ugly successful women, what conclusion are we even coming to? It's just a nonsense argument based on examples we can find to prove our own point. Which is why I looked for more information so we can have a wider view of it. Truth can encompass more than one view, I often find people are not wrong, it's just the data input is limited so they haven't taken in the whole picture and have drawn conclusions anyway. 

If I was to give advice to you which I'm sure you'll dismiss, it's try and understand where the other person is coming from and how they've got to it before arguing that they're wrong. 

 

[Preety_India]

@Consept I get your point but I think truth is not one thing, it's sort of mixed and subjective. 

 

[diamondpenguin]

On 4/21/2021 at 2:14 AM, Raptorsin7 said:

I've been listening to a youtuber named Kevin James recently and he brought up something about modern dating that i thought was interesting, and i'm about people's thoughts on the phenomena.

According to him, woman are becoming more and more successful these days (income, education, etc) and as a result you have a group of woman who are very successful and so they refuse to date men who they consider below them. But because men don't judge woman according to their income/education etc, something I agree with, you have a situation where these woman aren't attractive in the eyes of men they find attractive, but they won't consider dating someone who is not as successful as them. 

I thought this was interesting predicament and it could generate an interesting discussion.

Sounds like discrimination to me. I smell extreme ego fumes. 

[Raptorsin7]

@diamondpenguin Haha

[diamondpenguin]

1 minute ago, Raptorsin7 said:

@diamondpenguin Haha

yea, that doesn't sound like a relationship built on love, which is what it should be all about. That's why lots of relationships always fail: insufficient love. The marriages and relationships that last are full of love and joy. 

[Raptorsin7]

@diamondpenguin Do you have a relationship filled with love?

Do you have "Ego fumes"?

[Zeroguy]

12 minutes ago, diamondpenguin said:

yea, that doesn't sound like a relationship built on love, which is what it should be all about. That's why lots of relationships always fail: insufficient love. The marriages and relationships that last are full of love and joy. 

Don't be so naive and never deny this stuff. It's perfectly fine nothing wrong  with it. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Zeroguy

[Lyubov]

Not to sound shallow but I could literally fall in love with and marry a girl that has only ever worked at a mcdonalds. income/education/statues in a partner does literally nothing for me. in fact career women often aren't sexy to me... not trying to be mean or say they shouldn't follow their dreams, just speaking on what i find attractive. i find myself attracted to women that wanna be a housewife/mom. nothing wrong with a girl wanting to be that or wanting to be a career. both are fine if that is what a person wants to do with their life. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Lyubov

[Raptorsin7]

22 hours ago, modmyth said:

A lot of people actually do check out after this time period so you're left with whatever is left, for better and for worse.

Things are a bit different when you've spent that much time growing with and alongside somehow (again, for better and for worse).

Yeah this has been something I thought about, especially for high value girls. I'd imagine that a very attractive girl was likely very attractive for most of her dating life so it would make sense that she would end up with someone, and said person would likely have a strong incentive to maintain the relationship. I wonder how many incredibly desirable woman don't make it past 18 years old. That limits the supply quite bit a think.

Do you think that woman's drive to find a higher value man than herself is intrinsic/biological? I wonder how many 30+ year old very successful woman can just suddenly drop their standards and accept that men of equal value are making 50-60k a year and they would be fortunate to be with someone like that.

22 hours ago, modmyth said:

I kind of wonder if this is a greater Vancouver thing. We're known for being pretty insular and not that friendly to people outside our (sometimes rather limited) social groups compared to other major Canadian cities. I've heard it's actually really hard to meet new people compared to other places.

I don't think it's limited to Vancouver, but i bet it's enhanced by the stuff you talk about above, anti-social tendencies etc.

I have an uncle in hs mid 30's who has been seeking a partner for a few years and I heard the Vancouver dating market can be very difficult. But i've heard from a lot his friends that Vancouver has some of the best looking woman on the west coast. All the silicon valley nerds come to Vancouver for dating haha

[Parththakkar12]

5 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Not to sound shallow but I could literally fall in love with and marry a girl that has only ever worked at a mcdonalds. income/education/statues in a partner does literally nothing for me. in fact career women often aren't sexy to me... not trying to be mean or say they shouldn't follow their dreams, just speaking on what i find attractive. 

Ikr!! Life just becomes easier when they don't have this huge career distracting them from the relationship. I, quite frankly, see being 'career-driven' as an avoidance-strategy in relationship. This is how it's been for me and after I'm fully done healing my avoidant attachment-style, I'm not so 'career-driven' anymore! Once your self-worth is fixed, you don't have to be a workaholic anymore, as Leo says in his video on workaholism.

[Raptorsin7]

14 minutes ago, Zeroguy said:

Don't be so naive and never deny this stuff. It's perfectly fine nothing wrong  with it. 

@diamondpenguin Woman are  not stupid. Look around, life is still about survival. If a woman can secure millions for herself and her children, she is willing overlook a lot of stuff.

Also that lack of love thing is so misleading. You could say everything and anything fails because of a lack of love and you'd be partially right. Anywhere there is a problem you can say the cause is a lack of love

[Zeroguy]

@Lyubov Men are different. We don't care.

But what kind of a man you are if you can't take your lady out in decent restaurant atleast?! Just an example. 

 

 

[Raptorsin7]

11 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Not to sound shallow but I could literally fall in love with and marry a girl that has only ever worked at a mcdonalds. income/education/statues in a partner does literally nothing for me. in fact career women often aren't sexy to me... not trying to be mean or say they shouldn't follow their dreams, just speaking on what i find attractive. i find myself attracted to women that wanna be a housewife/mom. nothing wrong with a girl wanting to be that or wanting to be a career. both are fine if that is what a person wants to do with their life. 

Yup agree 100%. I would prefer an educated, wealthy etc partner but it's not a deal breaker in the way you described above.

Meanwhile, if I wasn't very attracted to a girl physically and she didn't have a well developed feminine part too herself there would be 0 chance. Nothing else matters unless those criteria are met

[Preety_India]

@Parththakkar12 well if someone came with a huge inheritance, they don't need to struggle so hard for a living.kinda easy to say airy fairy things. 

The world population is rising, job opportunities  are constantly getting lower, with automation even harder, talent pool is huge, unless you with a forever meal   ticket from your parents and a house, you aren't going to beat the market without being career driven especially if you come from poverty. The luxury of following your dream passion without a wage slavery job that doesn't focus much on stage orange ideals is right now only afforded by the rich, how do you account for the millions of people struggling to make a living, when even getting a low end minimum wage job means you have to be extremely career driven and hard working. In a situation where the guy doesn't make much, both the girl and the guy can only have a family if both work.. So you can easily say that career is a distraction, but if a husband is superbusy earning to help the whole family, it's not for distraction It's a need for survival, in fact the poorer the couple, the more hard work both have to put in. You act like socioeconomic factors just don't exist..