Dating has changed so much in so little time

[SW15]

Average women want relationships. Average men want sex. Women date "players" on the dating apps and for most of these women, they will not end up in a longterm relationship. They get "burned out" on OLD. They lose. They become cat ladies if they don't adjust their man "picker" quickly.

Average men do not get picked on OLD. Why would they when there are so many "chads" online? Average men don't get sex.

Both average men and women lose online.

In tech assisted mating, sex gets re-distributed to a smaller percentage of males. This is why male sexlessness has been rising for the past 2-3 decades as website dating and then later swipe app dating got more commonplace. Global male surpluses has worsened this. People focus on China with the male surpluses but the United States has had a bad male surplus since around 2000 too.

Dating that doesn't involve OLD is similar to how it was in the old days for regular people. For players, they moved online. For sluts, they moved online. For introverts, they moved online. The majority of people, they are finding longterm relationship through their "social circle" or just talking to people in real life. This hasn't changed.

Many short term "relationships" are created by OLD... but not many long-term relationships. Social circles keep people in check. OLD promotes hooking up... that is all. In hookup culture, Chad wins.

How people are forming relationships is changing. It wasn't until the 2010s that 30% of heterosexual couples were formed online. It was pushing 40% in 2017. As of 2017, you're still correct that the majority of people were meeting through social circle and real life. The pandemic might have pushed that number up above 50% for 2020-21 though my sense is that couple formation slowed in 2020-21 as we have already seen information showing sexlessness increased in 2020-21.

"Met in Bar or Restaurant" is a problematic classification from this chart. Some of those couples were probably some online couples that had their first date in a bar or restaurant. This might be where the daygame formed also reside, though my sense is that daygame doesn't form a lot of relationships. Daygame is quite difficult. It's always been a niche activity to do non-bar approaching and arrange dates that way.

I do think the "online" formed relationships likely do not last as long as relationships formed through in-person means.

Meeting through friends has been declining since ~1990, showing that people have weaking social circles. Meeting at college seemed to be increasing from 1975-2000 but then started to fall in the early 2000s, just as the early Millennials were starting college. The Millennials have been a group known for having poor social skills.

 

[SW15]

The breakup process was hard back when their was no OLD. U had to have a reason to break up or your social circle called you a slut or a player. There were extremely negative ramifications if this happened and you didn't want that label.

While complete stranger to stranger dating did happen, it didn't happen alot. Since this type of relationships were rare, those that were in stranger to stranger relationships tended to treat these relationship better. No ghost, really try to make it work, etc... but a lot of people DIDNT want to be in stranger to stranger relationships. There was a higher number of players, sluts, creeps, social pariah involved in this type of dating because there was less accountability. It also had a stigma because of these reasons.

As seen above, there are only 2 ways to form romantic relationship that have been growing since the year 2000. Those two ways are online and meeting in a bar/restaurant. Both of those means eliminate social circles as a part of relationship formation.

I'm intrigued at how "Met in Bar/Restaurant" was a constant percentage from 1980-1999. From 1980 until the mid-1990s, there was no online dating. From 1995-1999, online dating was small and stigmatized. I don't know if I can say that meeting women at bars without tech assistance formed more relationships from 2005-2017 as compared to the 1980s-early 1990s.

I think you're right that stranger formed relationships (mainly in-person approaching) was considered less appealing as an option for forming relationships in the 1980s-1990s.

How would woman back in the day try to keep men under her spell? Not sure what is meant by this? If a woman was a slut, the social circle would kick her out and tell all members she was a slut only good for sex. They would then try and make the dumped guy feel better. Perhaps even look for a new girl for him. It was actually harder for slutty woman to keep regular guys under her spell back in the day. The social circle discouraged this because it wasn't good for the group as a whole.

Romantic relationships that form in social circles take on a different dynamic than the ones formed through tech-assisted means or in-person approaching means. Social circles tend to help AFCs/beta males as compared to competing for vagina on swipe apps or through cold approaching. AFCs/beta males in general are too timid to do non-bar approaching. There are plenty of beta males who can approach with alcohol in their systems at bars. The social circle is probably most beneficial to the beta as it allows him to get some attention that he wouldn't get on a swipe app, in a non-bar approach setting, or in bar approaching.

A lot of the guys who tend to have LTRs through social circles are AFCs/betas. Social circles frown upon player or serial monogamous behavior, for both men and women. This tends to encourage longer relationships. For men, social circles will not continuously feed a man prospects. He can probably get away with changing out women every 2-3 years or so without major penalty from the social circle but if he's changing women every 18 months or less, social circles will probably banish him or stop arranging dates for him. A lot of men realize that the social circle is one of the their best option and they choose to behave in a way not to run afoul of the circle.

 

[Slowhandluke]

Without social circles regulating behavior, u will have unchecked hypergamy, ghosting, etc... Chad's will have their way with unsuspecting women.

Even in the past, meeting people at a bar, they would likely be friends of a friend. The cold approach did not work often for those that actually formed longterm relationships that could ultimately lead to marriage.

Just ask those that are in their 50's and asked them how they met their wives or husband's. Alot will be through social circles not cold approaches. Memory is a tricky thing, sometimes we want to think things happened in a certain way... but sometimes it actually didn't happen that way.

Did sluts and players hook up a lot at bars back in the day? Yes. Bars were only one of the few venues where that could happen and since I'm old, meeting your bf or gf at the bar was looked down upon esp. If it was a complete stranger.


Today, because less people are using social circles, less long-term relationships are forming. But even today, social circles are the best methods for finding longterm relationships for EVERYONE. For hooking up, not so much.

Online dating worked initially because it was full of nerds and nerdette. It was full of introverts, scientist, programmers, etc.. etc. Basically normal people who weren't social. Now that sluts and players have infiltrated OLD, it's just a wasteland for people who are trying to find LTR.

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

Things have definitely changed a lot in just the past 10 years. It's pretty wild. Even the difference between 2015 and 2020 was pretty noticeable.

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

I can pick up and keep average looking chicks easy, but if you're a seven you don't really want to settle for a 5 or a 4. I'm going on the grind for the next 2-3 years and I hope to christ almighty I can get a slightly above average chick that isn't an ego maniac. If I can't even do that, fine. I'll have to find something else to keep me going.

Interesting you say this. I find the less attractive women harder to get (within reason), because they are more insecure, they almost seem to have a greater sense of entitlement and are more disrespectful and bitchy in general. Plus, some may actually have more options than hotter women, because more guys will be confident to go for them. As such they do a lot more ****-testing and other nonsense because they're so used to dealing with lame ass men all the time. A lot of guys straight up avoid hotter women because they think they have no chance. That's why it's so common to see Reddit-type men claim they don't like big titted blondes with a big ass (it's just a barrier they've setup to avoid acknowledging to themselves that they cannot get them). That's why a lot of weak men fall for the "plain jane" boring chicks; hot, exciting chicks don't even register to them because their self esteem is so low.

 

[Slowhandluke]

Interesting you say this. I find the less attractive women harder to get (within reason), because they are more insecure, they almost seem to have a greater sense of entitlement and are more disrespectful and bitchy in general. Plus, some may actually have more options than hotter women, because more guys will be confident to go for them. As such they do a lot more ****-testing and other nonsense because they're so used to dealing with lame ass men all the time. A lot of guys straight up avoid hotter women because they think they have no chance. That's why it's so common to see Reddit-type men claim they don't like big titted blondes with a big ass (it's just a barrier they've setup to avoid acknowledging to themselves that they cannot get them). That's why a lot of weak men fall for the "plain jane" boring chicks; hot, exciting chicks don't even register to them because their self esteem is so low.

Maybe, maybe not. What I do know is that there are studies that have correlated being attractive to higher IQ. With that in mind, I feel average women are more stupid and more of them fall into the trap that since guys out of their league are having sex with them, these same women think falsely they deserve relationship with these same men.

 

[SW15]

Without social circles regulating behavior, u will have unchecked hypergamy, ghosting, etc... Chad's will have their way with unsuspecting women.

Even in the past, meeting people at a bar, they would likely be friends of a friend. The cold approach did not work often for those that actually formed longterm relationships that could ultimately lead to marriage.

Yes, you're correct about social circles regulating female behavior. It can be argued they regulate male behavior as well, but male behavior is less problematic, especially in the early stages. A man will experience the worst female behaviors if he attempts to date her via tech assisted or cold approach means. In these types of interactions, women's social circles are not informed of their bad behaviors so women lack an incentive to behave in a respectful manner. Ghosting, flaking, etc. is what comes from interactions where there are no consequences for bad behavior. Ghosting and flaking are more common from tech assisted interactions than cold approach interactions. However, women still behave in less respectful ways to strange men who approach them in-person.

Just ask those that are in their 50's and asked them how they met their wives or husband's. Alot will be through social circles not cold approaches. Memory is a tricky thing, sometimes we want to think things happened in a certain way... but sometimes it actually didn't happen that way.

Did sluts and players hook up a lot at bars back in the day? Yes. Bars were only one of the few venues where that could happen and since I'm old, meeting your bf or gf at the bar was looked down upon esp. If it was a complete stranger.

If you are in your 50s right now, that means you were born between 1963 and 1972. That means you were likely in your heyday of dating in the 1980s-1990s. Look at the chart above to see how people primarily formed relationships in those years and the especially the lasting ones. They were mostly formed through friends during that time. College-formed relationships increased between 1975-2000 and college-formed relationships could be social circle or they could have been a result of forced interaction within the confines of an extracurricular club. You need some social skill to approach a female in your English 102 class, so that's somewhat of a cold approach. Some relationships formed at off campus parties too, and that's debatable if that's more like social circle or a bar style cold approach. I doubt too many college formed relationships formed from a random cold approach while walking on campus (day game).

In the 1980s-1990s, there were people meeting and forming relationships on random nights out at bars, but it was less common than meeting through friends.

Today, because less people are using social circles, less long-term relationships are forming. But even today, social circles are the best methods for finding longterm relationships for EVERYONE. For hooking up, not so much.

Yes, you can see that social circles have been forming fewer relationships since ~1990. I agree that they are best for finding medium to longer term relationships. Even though I believe the shelf life of goodness of most romantic relationships is ~5 years, you're still better positioned to have longer and more positive relationships if using social circle as the primary means of arranging dates.

Due to numerous childhood and adulthood relocations, I was never able to form a social circle capable of producing dates. Even though I've been in my current city nearly 11 years, moving here in my late 20s didn't help me. The men I've seen utilize social circle best for lasting relationships were men who had the fortune of not being relocated by their parents in childhood and remaining in that same area as an adult. They were deeply rooted in their communities. This type of man is not represented on SoSuave since he typically forms LTRs and doesn't date around a whole lot. A lot of beta males fit this description.

Online dating worked initially because it was full of nerds and nerdette. It was full of introverts, scientist, programmers, etc.. etc. Basically normal people who weren't social. Now that sluts and players have infiltrated OLD, it's just a wasteland for people who are trying to find LTR.

Yes. I have always sought extended relationship so both the website era and swipe app eras of online dating have been sorely disappointing for me when I have tried those means.

 

[Snag87]

I remember when texting first became mainstream. This was right before i phone 1. If you texted a women she would say " don't be a bytch just call like a man". Now it's the exact opposite. If you call then you are a creeper.

The same can be said for online dating. If you were dating online in the early 2000's you were a weirdo. Now if you approach in real life you are a weirdo.

The GenZ guys truly can't imagine how different it was back then. Women we're almost....fun. An average guy could have decent success well up until around 2012ish. Much of the rift between some posters is just a generation gap. The world has changed so much so quickly that it's hard for us to relate to each other.

The fact that up to 30% of GenZ guys are still virgins is astounding. This was almost unheard of in the Millennials. Back in the day some chick would give you some puzzy.

You have to laugh at this stuff sometimes. Its truly a dark comedy

30% of gen-Z guys 18 and over?

 

[SW15]

The fact that up to 30% of GenZ guys are still virgins is astounding. This was almost unheard of in the Millennials. Back in the day some chick would give you some puzzy.

I don't know if your perspective on Millennials is all that accurate. Sexlessness trends started within the Millennial generation.

I attended college between 2001-02 and 2004-05. In those 4 school years, I saw a lot of mainly early Millennial struggle to get laid. Most early Millennial college men in my era were AFCs who were pusssy beggars. They weren't getting a lot of poontang despite the fact that my university was known for its attractive female student body and had an above average party scene.

 

[ubercat]

From what I ve seen the millennials parents must have had mean girls on loop in their cribs. They approach work the same as Instagram. They have the nasty social climbing skills. Gen next are worse. My Mrs is a nursing teacher. She gently told off some student for arriving 20 minutes late to class. Some entitled b1tch said that's embarrassing her you should have gone outside and talked to her.

I told my Mrs unless they are disrupting the class don't bother enforcing any standards. These people have no standards it's just whatever they can get away with.

 

[Slowhandluke]

Yes, you're correct about social circles regulating female behavior. It can be argued they regulate male behavior as well, but male behavior is less problematic, especially in the early stages.

If a man dates a girl and that girl is a good friend of another girl in that circle (or sister or cousin of a male in that circle, etc.), a man must be on his best behavior. The average social circle does regulate male behavior even high value males. Nobody wants their best friend to be used and abused by a player. In most cases, social circles does this to ensure the well being of the circle. Heck, even before the man and girl dates, the social circle may encourage or discourage the match due to SMV, personality compatibility, etc..

A man will experience the worst female behaviors if he attempts to date her via tech assisted or cold approach means. In these types of interactions, women's social circles are not informed of their bad behaviors so women lack an incentive to behave in a respectful manner. Ghosting, flaking, etc. is what comes from interactions where there are no consequences for bad behavior. Ghosting and flaking are more common from tech assisted interactions than cold approach interactions. However, women still behave in less respectful ways to strange men who approach them in-person.

With in-person approaches, there is a higher chance a man or woman will see each other again. It's not in peoples best interest to be a **** to another person if they might see that person again. For example, if a man (or woman) approaches each other at the train stop after work, just by being at the same train stop; there are already commonalities. These people may have the same coworkers, or even friends that they don't know about. After all, they probably even live in the same neighborhood. The chances are they will see each other again, so don't be a ****. Same with grocery store... coffee shops, etc... Heck, what happens if one person needs help (like getting mugged), and the other person was there. If that person wasn't a ****, the other person could probably help by either calling the police or physically helping. There's too much of a downside to being a **** when approaching people in-person. Obviously, this applies less to places where the odds of meeting another person again is lower or nonexistent.

Meeting with tech; a couple could match even though they could be in separate counties or even separate neighborhoods with differing social economic class. This promotes ghosting and bad behavior because there are no consequences. In all likelihood, no one will see each other again. None of their friends will know about their bad behaviors, etc... The more a person is a complete stranger.. the more bad behaviors there is going to be. That is the biggest downfall of OLD. There is no accountability for bad behavior. If there was, the dating apps would produce more long-term relationships (not just relationships that last a few weeks to just a few months)... but then, these dating apps would lose money because there would be less swiping

If you are in your 50s right now, that means you were born between 1963 and 1972. That means you were likely in your heyday of dating in the 1980s-1990s. Look at the chart above to see how people primarily formed relationships in those years and the especially the lasting ones. They were mostly formed through friends during that time. College-formed relationships increased between 1975-2000 and college-formed relationships could be social circle or they could have been a result of forced interaction within the confines of an extracurricular club. You need some social skill to approach a female in your English 102 class, so that's somewhat of a cold approach. Some relationships formed at off campus parties too, and that's debatable if that's more like social circle or a bar style cold approach. I doubt too many college formed relationships formed from a random cold approach while walking on campus (day game).

In the 1980s-1990s, there were people meeting and forming relationships on random nights out at bars, but it was less common than meeting through friends.

First thing, the chart is about relationship. How long were these relationships? 1 week? 2 months? 3 years? I agree online dating is forming the most relationships NOW -- but these are short-term. To me anything less than 1 year is short term. I'm 46 years old. When I was in my 20's, if a person dating another person lasted 1 year or less, they were regarded as being a player or a slut - especially if they had a string of these types of relationships and the breakups were the results of stupid reasons (he lost his job, she lost her looks, or one of them just got bored with each other, etc). Therefore, that is going to be my definition of short-term. These short-term relationships never really amounted to a real relationship that resulted in marriage. This can be seen in the demographics now where marriage is on the decline and there are less relationships that are long term.

Yes, you can see that social circles have been forming fewer relationships since ~1990. I agree that they are best for finding medium to longer term relationships. Even though I believe the shelf life of goodness of most romantic relationships is ~5 years, you're still better positioned to have longer and more positive relationships if using social circle as the primary means of arranging dates.

Due to numerous childhood and adulthood relocations, I was never able to form a social circle capable of producing dates. Even though I've been in my current city nearly 11 years, moving here in my late 20s didn't help me. The men I've seen utilize social circle best for lasting relationships were men who had the fortune of not being relocated by their parents in childhood and remaining in that same area as an adult. They were deeply rooted in their communities. This type of man is not represented on SoSuave since he typically forms LTRs and doesn't date around a whole lot. A lot of beta males fit this description.

I agree the type of man represented on SoSuave would be either a player or a want-to-be player. I'm not sure if I agree that there's a lot of beta males that would also fit into the above mold. Do beta males want to be players? I'm not sure. I know alot of them wonder "where have all the women gone"... but do they really want to be a player? I'm not sure. I lean towards they just want to be nice people, but they just can't find nice women and they are wondering if they are doing something wrong. IDK.

Yes, there is an advantage to putting down roots somewhere and having a solid social circle. However, building a social social isn't hard. I think it probably takes a year. When a person goes to college as a freshman, he is slowly building his social circle. Its easy because he is forced to demonstrate his worth to new people - his roommate, his classmate, his prospective friends on the soccer team (or whatever extracurricular activity he is interested in); he opens up, and people decide if they want to form a social circle with him or if they want him to join their social circle.

Being an adult outside of school, it's basically the same process. Find a social group by talking to people, demonstrating your worth. I met a lot of friends while playing city softball. We trust each other because we did social things together and we did things to demonstrate that we cared about each other - heck, I known a lot of those people for 15 years now hahahah. A few of them even became couples.

In my apartment complex, I know a lot of the staff, and they know me. It took work because I had to treat them not like strangers, but like real people. Obviously, I don't think I could get a date from that social circle, but I know if something bad is about, they would tell me (like a new adjacent building is going to get built, etc.) It's nice. It's actually a community.

Yes. I have always sought extended relationship so both the website era and swipe app eras of online dating have been sorely disappointing for me when I have tried those means.

At the end of the day, it's about social circle which is a fancy way of saying be social, be nice. Talk to people and get to know them as a real person. I've recently been divorced for the past 3 years. While looking at the dating field, the things that have changed is average women don't notice how much they are being played by chads when they are OLD; However, finding dates that could lead to something long-term; that hasn't really changed that much.

 

[Slowhandluke]

I don't know if your perspective on Millennials is all that accurate. Sexlessness trends started within the Millennial generation.

I attended college between 2001-02 and 2004-05. In those 4 school years, I saw a lot of mainly early Millennial struggle to get laid. Most early Millennial college men in my era were AFCs who were pusssy beggars. They weren't getting a lot of poontang despite the fact that my university was known for its attractive female student body and had an above average party scene.

So most of these females were having sex with a few chads in colleges? Could be. Right now, I hear reports since there's more females than males in college, a lot of male students have a "golden penis" syndrome. I'm not sure what the actual situation is though. I really don't care that much. I guess that's the confidence one gets when one is older. hahahaha At least that is what I like to think.

 

[SW15]

Right now, I hear reports since there's more females than males in college, a lot of male students have a "golden penis" syndrome. I'm not sure what the actual situation is though.

I was in college in the first half of the 2000s. Ratios were balanced on college campuses then.

In that time, there was an unequal distribution of vagina. A good portion of men weren't that much of the good vagina on campus.

If a man dates a girl and that girl is a good friend of another girl in that circle (or sister or cousin of a male in that circle, etc.), a man must be on his best behavior. The average social circle does regulate male behavior even high value males. Nobody wants their best friend to be used and abused by a player. In most cases, social circles does this to ensure the well being of the circle. Heck, even before the man and girl dates, the social circle may encourage or discourage the match due to SMV, personality compatibility, etc..

This is accurate.

With in-person approaches, there is a higher chance a man or woman will see each other again. It's not in peoples best interest to be a **** to another person if they might see that person again. For example, if a man (or woman) approaches each other at the train stop after work, just by being at the same train stop; there are already commonalities. These people may have the same coworkers, or even friends that they don't know about. After all, they probably even live in the same neighborhood. The chances are they will see each other again, so don't be a ****. Same with grocery store... coffee shops, etc... Heck, what happens if one person needs help (like getting mugged), and the other person was there. If that person wasn't a ****, the other person could probably help by either calling the police or physically helping. There's too much of a downside to being a **** when approaching people in-person. Obviously, this applies less to places where the odds of meeting another person again is lower or nonexistent.

Since graduating college 17 years ago, I've lived in 2 of the 15 biggest metro areas in the USA. The overwhelming majority of the women I've cold approached, I've never seen again after the cold approaching if I didn't get her number or set a date. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the women I've been on "one date, no sex, no second date" type dates with I've never seen again. In big metro areas, it's difficult to run into the same people over and over. If there are specific circumstances, then yes, re-occurring interactions can happen. They haven't happened with me.

Meeting with tech; a couple could match even though they could be in separate counties or even separate neighborhoods with differing social economic class. This promotes ghosting and bad behavior because there are no consequences. In all likelihood, no one will see each other again. None of their friends will know about their bad behaviors, etc... The more a person is a complete stranger.. the more bad behaviors there is going to be. That is the biggest downfall of OLD. There is no accountability for bad behavior. If there was, the dating apps would produce more long-term relationships (not just relationships that last a few weeks to just a few months)... but then, these dating apps would lose money because there would be less swiping

We agree on this.

First thing, the chart is about relationship. How long were these relationships? 1 week? 2 months? 3 years? I agree online dating is forming the most relationships NOW -- but these are short-term. To me anything less than 1 year is short term.

It is unclear how long the relationships are at the moment the researchers are surveying the couples.

Do beta males want to be players? I'm not sure. I know alot of them wonder "where have all the women gone"... but do they really want to be a player? I'm not sure. I lean towards they just want to be nice people, but they just can't find nice women and they are wondering if they are doing something wrong. IDK.

I think most beta males want to have an established girlfriend and not experience sexual droughts.

Yes, there is an advantage to putting down roots somewhere and having a solid social circle. However, building a social circle isn't hard. I think it probably takes a year.

When I moved to my current city, I found a good amount of friends in my first year. However, those friends were incapable of arranging introductions for me. I have never had a social circle capable of introducing me to women. That's why I've had to look at other options.

 

[Slowhandluke]

When I moved to my current city, I found a good amount of friends in my first year. However, those friends were incapable of arranging introductions for me. I have never had a social circle capable of introducing me to women. That's why I've had to look at other options.

Assuming there's an equal number of men and women born (roughly); assuming most people pair up based equally on SMV/looks/etc - whatever you want to call it, but they are pretty much equal. A "5" pairs up with a "5", a "7" with a "7", etc. The higher you go up in the rankings, the less people there are, the less couples. It's a bell curve

In my experience, most attractive partners (meaning intelligence, looks, loyalty, common sense, etc.. ) form relationships that last longer and have a higher chance of marriage. If you are trying to get with an attractive person (female OR male; an "8" or above), it will take a while because the more attractive that person is, the chances are they are already in a relationship with another attractive person (and remember, there's less of these people). It will be very hard to break them away from their partner and it might take a while for them to have a falling out, if they ever do. A lot of these people are smart enough to know that the grass is not always greener on the other side even if we fool ourselves into thinking we can seduce them to do our bidding. E.g., "come to me, and give me sex.. I neg you like a master manipulator that I am... I sweet talk you with my amazing txting skills,... etc."

Finding quality partners takes a while. One night stands, are a dime a dozen. Do you want a girl that has a high body count, or a low one? You can't have an "easy girl" with a "low body" count. But you can find a "easy girl" quickly. She might even be beautiful... but she wouldn't be attractive (I define attractive as having looks, attitude, intelligence, loyalty, etc.) In any case, that's my opinion.

It's been approx. 3 years since I've been official divorced. I'm 46. I've never really dated around. I probably had 4 relationships in my entire life. They averaged around 2 years each excluding the 4th one. The 4th one, I married (I knew her for approx. 6 years before getting married for approx. 3 years). Most people think girls I've dated b4 my marriage were hot. All of them are have degrees now and make at least 100k a year except for one; she's a teacher. One girl is now a senior manager making close to 300k. I keep in touch with a few of them. Most of my breakups were amicable. My ex-wife is probably the worse, but than compared to other people -- it wasn't too bad. When I wasn't dating anyone, there were a few stretch's of a year or two where I wasn't seeing anyone. I'm not a chad and I'm not mentally built to "date around". Don't know why, that's just the way I am.

This is my background. Currently, I am not dating anyone. There have been women who are interested, but I wasn't interested in them. I'm waiting for someone to match me based on who I am. I've been flirting with 30 year old's or younger (I look mid 30's and some people even say early 30's). A lot of people say I am attractive. One time one of my female coworkers pointed out that the young pretty subway girl was flirting with me. hahahahah..

However, having went through a divorce, If I see any red flags, I stop pursuing. Its not easy finding quality people, but that's how it always was. You always have to be social, put yourself out there; make sure you are at their "same level"/"ranking" or above.

You can look at "other options" of meeting people other than using a social circle, however, it doesn't necessary mean what you are doing now is not the most efficient thing to do to find quality people.

Sometimes people want things now... when good thing takes time. Funny story, one of college friends was interested in a girl I was dating; I knew about it; everyone know about it. I had no problems with it. At the time, she liked me more and I liked her. It wasn't years later after the girl and I broke up, that they were able to get together. Obviously, he was dating other people before. He just wasn't waiting for us to break up. It just happened, and he happened to be single at the time. Just how things work.

In any case, these are just my thoughts and opinions. I could be wrong Wow. What a long rant. hahaha fun times on saturday night ;-) yes, I am not cool. hahahah

 

[Snag87]

Facts. You get the right girl, at the right time, say the right things and she’ll come straight over.
Birth control has allowed women to have risky sex.

But here’s what always happens. Across the board. It never ends well for them. Casual sex breaks women’s minds and it always makes them crazy, depressed and utterly useless as girlfriends. It’s sad for them because all girls want an LTR at heart. Once she hits 30 and she decides she’s finished with being a slvt and wants a bf, she discovers that her hollow, jaded heart is no longer capable of attachment.

Agree 100%. Women can't be promiscuous in their youth and settle down into stable relationships later in life in the manner men can. With each sexual fling her ability to pair bond decreases. We're too PC as a society to tell women this, so I'm unsure what the solution is.