What a jerk. So, any woman who wants to get married and possibly have a family has to just take what ever comes down the pike? WTF is that? Some BS get out of jail free card for men to behave any way they please because if we want a man so badly we'll just have to put up with it? Um...sorry but a lot of us are in the "Better single than sorry" catagorie. And YOU my little hombre are definatly SORRY!!!

Posted by: Chris Feeney at July 23, 2008 3:37 AM

What's the big deal about being alone, anyway? I was married for 13 years and have been single for 7 years (yes, I'm admittedly very, very gun-shy to be married again). Even though I've always earned enough money to support myself, even when I was married, and even though I certainly have less disposable income as a single person, I have found I really enjoy my freedom. For me personally, that doesn't mean a wild -n- crazy lifestyle (nothing against it, it's just not for me). But I like making all my own decisions--about my money, about where I live, when I go out, who I visit, where I go on vacation, etc. etc. I'm lucky to have several close friendships and many hobbies, so I rarely feel lonely. Sure, if I met someone who seemed compatible, I'd certainly pursue it, but I'm just not even at the point of trying to find dates. Being alone may not be for everyone, but I really enjoy it and have no clue why it's seen as a put down or worst-case scenario.

Posted by: Monica at July 23, 2008 5:00 AM

There's a BIG difference between being lonely and being alone. You can be lonely even if you're in a committed relationship, if you and your partner aren't communicating well (or at all). I think some people just have to have somebody else to focus on, because they still aren't comfortable with who they are. But the bottom line is, no matter where you go, there you are. There's no getting away from that, and you can't depend on someone else to fulfill that void in your life. I settled once. Got less than I settled for. Will NOT be making that mistake ever again. o_O

Posted by: Flynne at July 23, 2008 5:36 AM

Sign over a bar in a Meat Market - "It is better to be lonely than miserable."

Posted by: WolfmanMac at July 23, 2008 6:13 AM

Quite frankly women who are fine being alone are far more fun to have a relationship with than someone desperate to settle down

Posted by: lujlp at July 23, 2008 6:14 AM

I just read where Katie Couric said sexism is more prevalent than racism these days, and this is a good example. Notice how this moron didn't say anything about middle-aged guys ending up "alone" because they won't date anyone over 30. He probably considers that reasonable. But we're just supposed to take whatever fat, boorish, impotent loser comes our way.

He's obviously one of the ones we're not "picking" so we must be "too picky".

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 6:39 AM

It's worth noting that there's a logical error in his letter as well.

Postulate A = Teenage girls are no longer satisfied with the notion that finding someone (anyone!) and breeding is the be-all and end-all of life. They want lives of their own.

Postulate B = Some women who have lives of their own might never find someone (anyone!) and breed.

So, many women might end up in a situation that they've said they not only don't mind, but are quite keen on. And this is a problem . . . why?

Posted by: Anathema at July 23, 2008 6:54 AM

What's that? I'm sorry. I've been laughing too hard since the end up alone thing stated like it's the worse thing that could possibly happen to really pay attention. Frankly, it's the best thing that's ever happened to me. I like being queen of my castle and my life. But Monica said it best. She expressed exactly the way I feel about it.

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 23, 2008 6:59 AM

The supply of 'good men' is very limited and the demand is very high. And, with consideration that men are now avoiding marriage because it is a risky financial decision, plagued with a legal system stacked against them, it is no suprise that women ultimately have to take what ever comes thier way.

While I disagree with Realist, that she has to settle for scum, I also wonder the probability (at her age) that she would find a decent partner at least a little better in quality who is also looking for somoene of her age and situation. The odds don't look good for her, and perhaps being single is acceptable.

Posted by: J.D. at July 23, 2008 7:00 AM

I suppose it could be a problem for some women...though I don't know any. Maybe because in my 40s now, but I don't have any friends who are like, "OMG, what if I end up alone? What if I don't find a man?"

That seemed to be more the case in the late 20s/early 30s when some women were feeling the biological clock ticking and wanted kids. But, even then, it was more about breeding than being "alone".

Now, most of my friends are accomplished, happy, and single...or at least the single ones are happy. lol

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 7:06 AM

I disagree with you J.D. In my 4 years of being single, I've met a lot of "good guys" who really wanted to settled down. I could've married any number of them, but many were not adventurous or passionate enough for me. I'm not trying to have kids, or be taken care of financially, so it was more like, "Why settle for mediocrity? I don't NEED to get married."

Yet, there's no shortage of good guys if a woman really wants to marry...and knows the qualities to look for, which is a big thing. Unfortunately, many women are drawn to the "bad guys" not the good ones.

And I also think that when a women says that she "doesn't want to end up alone" she's usually referring to a breakup with a particular guy, and really what she's saying is, "I don't want to lose my INVESTMENT in this relationship." It's back to that discussion some columns ago about how we don't want to admit we're wrong when we've made a bad investment.

That's usually the only time I hear that phrase - during a breakup. Once the emotions clear, and he's out of her life, she's usually glad she's "alone".

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 7:22 AM

Based on the girlie comments above, I might get the idea that modern women are strong and independent and don't need a man. That may be sort of true, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In a divorce situation, women nearly always need alimony and child support and "equal" division of assets, even if the man earned $100k and the wife sat at home, watching Oprah and reading Cosmo. She "sacrificed her career" (AKA retired early) and "supported him emotionally", so that he could earn the big paycheck, yada yada.

Furthermore, what women really don't want is someone they deem a "beta". Anyone sufficiently "alpha", will not be able to date one of these independent women for very long before he finds her whining, nagging, and stamping her foot for a government marriage contract.

If modern women were so independent and strong, then things like marriage, alimony, child support, affirmative action in the workplace, and "protected class" status in the corporations would completely disappear entirely because hard charging, "have it all" women could easily provide for themselves and their children. All they would really need is a stud to knock them up, and then they could part ways, with no further entanglements.

Posted by: P at July 23, 2008 7:39 AM

You can kid yourself that you're an "alpha male" but that's just code for misogynist. There's still a lot of sexism out there, and God knows we pay our dues listening to your sexist rants, at home and work. Anyone married to you would divorce you.

It never ceases to amaze me how jerks like this get married, whine their sexist crap at home, demean and devalue their wives as partners and mothers, then they're SURPRISED when she leaves! And so they play victim about how "taken advantage of" they are by the system. Why? Because it's not all set up like it was in the 1950s anymore, where you could keep us as slaves and share none of the marital assets?

Men like you who think women "read Oprah" and do nothing at home are garbage, plain and simple. We are certainly strong and independent enough not to need someone like you in our lives. You're just mad that we have a choice.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 8:25 AM

lovlysoul: I use the term "good guys" to distinguish them from the "nice guys" (who are chumps, pushovers, and such; see the TLC Show "must love kids" where some of the guys had purchased presumptuous gifts before they even met her), and the "bad boys" (who women are always attracted to but make poor lifelong partners: try as you might, you cannot 'train' them...).

"Good Guys" are a mix of both. The benefits of both without the bad parts.

Posted by: j.d. at July 23, 2008 8:27 AM

J.D, I agree with that, though it's a little confusing. The "good guys" and "nice guys" are out there, but they often make a bad impression trying too hard.

My point is that if a woman really wants to find good husband material, she can if she gave more of those guys a chance. Perhaps because I started out with a "bad boy", I learned how to spot "good guys". It's a skill more women should develop. They're everywhere if you know what to look for. Unfortunately, many women are still drawn to the self-absorbed, commitment-phobic types...or the downright abusive ones (see above)...then complain that there are no "good guys" left.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 8:39 AM

"You can kid yourself that you're an "alpha male" but that's just code for misogynist. There's still a lot of sexism out there, and God knows we pay our dues listening to your sexist rants, at home and work."

Misogynists aren't born, they're made. Of course, one could say the same about misandry. The difference in my opinion is that misandry is promoted and damn near condoned by modern western society. Realist is clearly wrong if you take the original LW in this case. Overall, I think he's right in that many women might have to be ready for a single life. For some, thats fine (especially those burned badly in relationships) but IMHO for most thats not what they want.

Posted by: Sio at July 23, 2008 9:05 AM

P, with the exception of child support, I'll sign on for that:

Sorry I ever was stupid enough to marry. Won't be again.

No, no need of alimony. Been working since 16, self-supporting since 18. No need and definitely no fucking way will ever God damn be financially dependent on a man or anyone other than myself.

Raised a child without child support or assistance. Child support = dependent; being free of her father = priceless.

Affirmative action has been discussed here time and time again. Most of us concur that it's mainly been counterproductive. What affirmative action was intended to do would have been better served by discrimination laws. Best qualified person for the job, period. Not someone getting an edge for gender or skin color (whatever skin color; whichever gender).

Caveat on the child support, however. While I was all to happy to forgo it, in our case, don't act like women make a baby alone. Don't want to pay, don't play. Or have a freaking vasectomy. Don't freaking trust a woman saying she's on the pill or claiming she's had her tubes tied. That's just plain stupid. But if you don't want to support a child, you prevent conception. That said, if a woman does something insane like steal sperm from a guy's condom then -- and only then -- is he off the hook for making baby. If a guy's indigent, there's already laws covering that but what the freak is he doing making a baby then anyway?

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 23, 2008 9:22 AM

For some, thats fine (especially those burned badly in relationships) but IMHO for most thats not what they want.

But people have to realize that it's not up to someone else to make them happy. It's not up to someone else to provide them with everything they need to be happy, because that just isn't possible. If you can't live with yourself, alone or with someone else, no one can fix that except for you. Too many people think that once they find their "perfect love", their life will be all they want it to be. They don't want to (or can't) understand that their happiness comes from within. I'm probably not saying this very well but I know what I mean. The time I wasted looking for someone else to make me happy would have been better spent if I had used it to find out for myself what made me happy. YMMV

Posted by: Flynne at July 23, 2008 9:23 AM

Call me a skeptic, but there's something deep down inside me that demands proof to back up assertions. This "girls want to become full time mommies"-myth is one of those assertions. Having a baby is one of those life events that a person has absolutely NO concept of whether they will like or dislike until it's "too late." Playing with other people's kids is not like being a parent. Having a baby before the age of 22 is becoming legally responsible for another human being for longer than you can literally fathom. Off my soapbox, now.

In a divorce situation, women nearly always need alimony and child support and "equal" division of assets, even if the man earned $100k and the wife sat at home, watching Oprah and reading Cosmo.

Um, yeah. By your example if I was about to start over as a single mom with several years of "unemployment" (if you can call having a baby while your husband is gone 8 hours a day "not working") I'd being suing his ass for equal distribution, no question. Your problem comes when you imply that the couple has kids. Little Jimmy and Susi shouldn't have to go from living with Mommy in the lap of luxury to living with Mommy in the projects just because Mommy and Daddy wanted a divorce. If your point was to imply that all women who marry "rich" men and have their children are money-hungry and lazy- you should stop watching "Real Housewives of Orange County," because it's rotting your brain.

And here's a story that will completely blow your mind, P. My fiance is by ALL accounts an "alpha male." Like, the professional manager, go-to guy, saved people on 9/11 "alpha male." I am also a professional manager, financially sound, don't need a relationship "independent female." Now, this is the part that might not make sense to you: My fiance asked me to marry him, without any nagging, whining or foot stamping on my part. He asked me to marry him because he felt we made good PARTNERS. Interesting concept, huh? Marriage being a partnership...?

Posted by: Homeless in Seattle at July 23, 2008 9:55 AM

Jaysus, are you hard up for real problems? A letter about a letter? From an arse? Isn't that what this comments section is for?

Posted by: Dom at July 23, 2008 10:10 AM

It's a letter about an issue -- one a lot of people worry about. There are already 20 comments here, so clearly it's of interest to a few people besides you.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 23, 2008 10:23 AM

Great points, homeless. But guys like him don't have a clue about being a good partner. Plus, he gives "alpha males" a bad name - he thinks it means being dominant over women.

Maybe some of these guys really get off on the idea that, in this modern age, there are women still sitting around going, "Oh gosh, what if I don't find a man?" Maybe that comforts them. They think that if they can frighten us about the scarcity of men who'll marry us, then we'll settle for assholes like them.

But I really don't think there's a scarcity, especially since a lot of women are simply opting not to marry. Yet, even if there is, a woman wants a truly good partner - one who values her contributions, independence, and unique spirit - not just ANY guy.

We don't need a partner just for the sake of having one. Even a "good guy" might not end up being physically or emotionally compatible with us...so we're ok being by ourselves. Some women, like me, would love to find that "good guy" who compliments our lives, but it isn't a necessity.

My boyfriend is wonderful - caring, passionate, and supportive. He doesn't "make me happy", but he does make my life more enjoyable. I don't have to babysit him, constantly stroke his ego, or listen to him spew a bunch of venomous, rage-fueled philosophies. He's upbeat and positive every day, and that is the only type of person I want to come home to anymore. Otherwise, I'd truly rather be alone, which is the case for most intelligent women these days.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 10:45 AM

Something about that letter reminds me of the old joke about two people complaining about a restaurant:
woman 1: "The food here isn't very good."
woman 2: "Yeah, and such small portions!"

Mmmmm, a dearth of marriagable guys, and those that are around, I'm not attracted to? Sounds great! Sign me up for one of those!

Also, the LW begins: "Women these days think they have the luxury of being picky about men". These days?? This rant is very similar to what Charlotte Lucas said to Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, published in 1813, just before she married one of the biggest morons in all of literature. The difference is that if our fictional Charlotte, an old maid at 27, had not married in 1813, she would have ended up dependent on the charity of her brothers for a roof over her head, food, and clothing. She couldn't have worked, except as a servant. She couldn't have had sex, lest she end up a fallen woman, kicked out of her brother's house and forced to turn to her only recourse, prostitution. Indeed, unmarried, she would have ended up like Jane Austen herself did--living off the charity of her brothers, along with her old maid sister and widowed mother, with no way to determine her own destiny. Followed by repeated moves to a succession of increasingly decrepit houses, and eventually dying of, most likely, tuberculosis, an opportunistic disease much more common in the poor and malnourished than in the well-off. But today, she could make her own salary and way in the world, and not have to depend upon anyone--we've got more options than ever before. So I'm wondering if the LW's whiny complaint has more to do with the fact that it's getting harder and harder for guys like him to convince a woman to give up so much of what she has for his dubious charms, now that the prospects of poverty, dependence, and low status are no longer the stick with which to beat women into holy matrimony? And make no mistake, she is giving up a lot. Because while marriage is a partnership, with a division of labor that is necessitated by the requirements of raising children, there's always the possibility that the husband will turn into a guy like P above, who seems to think that all the marital assets belong to the husband, while the debts (i.e. the funds to raise the kids) belong to the wife. And while you might be lucky enough to equitably divide material assets in court, the husband nevertheless gets to keep the more abstract, indivisible capital, like seniority and experience in the work force, and the wife gets to find out how little her parental activities are worth in the workplace.

Posted by: Quizzical at July 23, 2008 11:35 AM

"So I'm wondering if the LW's whiny complaint has more to do with the fact that it's getting harder and harder for guys like him to convince a woman to give up so much of what she has for his dubious charms, now that the prospects of poverty, dependence, and low status are no longer the stick with which to beat women into holy matrimony?"

Brilliant, Quizzical!!!

Posted by: Lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 11:46 AM

I settled once and will never do it again. 8 years married to the wrong person was enough. I have loved being single since my divorce. I love being independent and eating yogurt and blueberry egos for dinner without worrying about feeding the parasite on the couch. I am also in the legal profession and make more than enough money to support myself and my daughter. I declined child support because I didn't need it and knew her father couldn't afford it. As long as he takes good care of her when she is with him, I am happy with our arrangment.

I am happy with my life and I don't need a man. I can take care of myself and live the life I dreamed of all on my own. Now cocincidetally, once I figured that out and started living the life I wanted I met a man that appreciated me for who I am. We've been dating for over a year and are very happy. I am in no rush to marry again but if he asked me to I would say yes. If he doesn't ever ask, it wouldn't make me any less happy in the relationship and in my life. I don't need a man to sign a marriage certificate for me to feel complete or successful.

I like me and I am happy with me. The fact that he likes me too is just icing on the cake.

Posted by: katie at July 23, 2008 11:55 AM

"The time I wasted looking for someone else to make me happy would have been better spent"

True, Flynne, but you probably wouldn't have learned that quite as thoroughly had you not gone through it.

It's been my experience that timing is the key. I can't be particularly swayed to desire a relationship with anyone right now because I like my solitude so much that Solitude has become my relationship. It took me a long marriage to appreciate this alone feeling and to understand my own desires clearer.

It's human nature to want to couple up with someone, but because I already have done it before, I don't feel any type of desperation as a single person to do so now. If this feeling changes, and it probably will, I won't stay long in a Trifling Arrangement; and, I will be wise enough to value a good thing.

"Sorry I ever was stupid enough to marry." Maybe you were stupid, T's Grammy, but that stupidity taught you valuable lessons about life and about yourself.

The way you repetitiously 'mention' that you wished you had no daughter or grandson kind of gives me the eeebie jeeebies every time you remind us here. Then, after a day of hysterical ranting, you confess that your daughter's sorry-ass ways are due to mental illness? Hmmmm. Apple. Tree. I bet you were pure joy to live with. Just the picture of a loving mother. No wonder she's bat crazy and helpless. A little emotional battery goes a long-ass way. And then that thing about purposely not loving another grandchild cuz you fucked your own daughter up so good. That bitterness of yours has sure paid off. I'm actually not trying to be a total bitch, and I certainly don't know all the details, but have you ever thought that your very conscious loathing has fostered your daughter's blooming mental health issues.

Try a hug. A real one.

Posted by: kg at July 23, 2008 11:57 AM

There's wise stuff in this book by Ms. Michael Drury, who's probably in her 90s now, about how nobody else can "make" you happy, and that's too much responsibility for another person.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 23, 2008 12:33 PM

I don't think a true alpha male is looking for a partnership either. Since they ARE the dominant type, if they find you acceptable and want to marry you, it means that they think you will be useful to them, kind of like a good employee. They might pay lip service to the idea of making all decisions together, etc. etc., but when the honeymoon is over, they will assume command and expect you to toe the line.

I believe this is a crucial point where women and men differ in their understanding of a relationship, and why so many of them fail. Women assume they are entering into a full equal partnership, and men think they are taking responsibility for a woman (which is why they want to make sure of her loyalty, and their ability to control her). Things inevitably fall apart and everybody's hurt.

I'm generalizing of course, but I think there is a core of truth in this, mostly because of the way boys and girls are socialized growing up, as well as the hormones that affect our behaviour.

I was married and didn't find it to be a partnership at all, and since I'm very independent and always have been, I have no interest in getting married again. I've met lots of guys over the years that were great, decent guys that wanted to get married, or even live together, but it never interested me.

The best thing for me is just dating one guy, we keep our own places, and enjoy missing each other, instead of getting sick of looking at each other every minute of the day.

Posted by: Chrissy at July 23, 2008 12:35 PM

Great comment Quizzical, I think you've got the LW's bitterness figured out.

Posted by: Chrissy at July 23, 2008 12:40 PM

Interesting take on things, Chrissy. I really think a guy's ability to have a real partnership depends on his level of satisfaction with himself and confidence (true confidence, not a fake cover-up for deep insecurities). If he's insecure, he'll always view your independence as a threat.

I'm with you on the separate spaces too. I visit my boyfriend only a few days at a time, and usually by the end, I'm ready to come home to my own place, my own routine. I have noticed that urge lessening a little...like maybe I could stand a thrid or fourth day with him (lol)...but, as great as he is, I'm not sure I'll ever be fully ready to cohabitate or marry again.

Once you get used to being able to do whatever you want, whenever you feel like it, it's hard to readjust to having another person there all the time.

I guess this is somewhat threatening to guys like the LW. I mean, as quizzical pointed out, we really don't have the incentives to marry anymore. So, a guy has to be pretty spectacular to even make us consider it, at least by middle age.

I think it's safe to say that the blush is off the rose for most of us regarding relationships. We know, all too well, how challenging they can be. We aren't starry-eyes romantics anymore.

This means men have to really up their game if they want marriage. Learn to share and play fair...even cook and clean. Some probably resent that change, but overall, I think it's made for better-quality relationships among those who can rise to the challenge. Most younger men today wouldn't dream of dominating and controlling a woman the way a guy raised a few decades ago might. And they wouldn't be caught dead calling themselves "alpha males" because they'd realize they sound moronic.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:17 PM

Chrissy - except for one thing - I think the LW is a chick.

I know that the article that conveyed the message of "marry him, already" was written by a woman who was urging women to settle for whatever sperm donor fell into their bed. I guess because being maltreated is better than being alone.

That said, I think that with more men opting out of marriage and even relationships that go beyond FwB, you're going to hear a lot more of this kind of whining.

Because just as a woman no longer needs to marry to survive, a man no longer needs to marry to be considered respectable.

More to the point; other than kids, what the hell do we need each other for?

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 1:22 PM

lovlysoul:

This means men have to really up their game if they want marriage. Learn to share and play fair...even cook and clean. Some probably resent that change, but overall, I think it's made for better-quality relationships among those who can rise to the challenge. Most younger men today wouldn't dream of dominating and controlling a woman the way a guy raised a few decades ago might. And they wouldn't be caught dead calling themselves "alpha males" because they'd realize they sound moronic.

I suspect that the majority of men are not interested in marriage. Most aren't even interested in long-term romantic entanglements. And if the whole "alpha male" thing is passé, please explain this phenomenon.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 1:25 PM

No, brian, I doubt it. Women don't talk to each other in condescening terms like that ("Face it, ladies!"). Realist is a guy...a very unattractive, frustrated guy, most likely. I mean, he's been reduced to using statistics to try and attract a woman...how sad.

As for your question, some of us really like each other.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:29 PM

There's reading material for every type of deviant on the web...women who screw horses, pedophiles, rapists, etc. Doesn't mean that's the norm...or that it's a "phenomenon"... though it does explain your attitude regarding relationships if that's what you choose to fill your brain with.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:34 PM

I'm going to guess you either didn't click through that link, or you really just massively insulted your man (and probably yourself).

No, you didn't click the link. Click, and be horrified. For they are the Future Of America™

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 1:34 PM

Nah, my attitude regarding relationships was formed 25 years ago. It's only gotten worse.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 1:35 PM

lovlysoul:

Women don't talk to each other in condescening terms like that ("Face it, ladies!").

No, you're right. They're usually far more vicious when they're intending to be mean. Especially to each other.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 1:37 PM

I only needed to glance at it to see what it was...stupid and degrading to both sexes. Insecure men try to find some "system" to luring women or else they demean women with those kinds of labels. You're only insulting yourself to read that crap...and of course, you'll have bad relationships. What quality woman wants to be with a guy who visits sites like that?

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:43 PM

and of course, you'll have bad relationships.

Actually, I've had none. And that's better than one bad one in my book.

And "douchebags" refers to the over-sprayed polished guys who seem to attract no end of high-value (from an appearance standpoint, anyhow) tail. In fact, the lesson learned from such things is "the bigger an asshole you are, the hotter the chicks you will bang."

Which just means I'm not enough of an asshole.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 1:47 PM

Trust me, you're plenty enough of an asshole. But that's not your problem. If you talk about women like that, you won't get any that are really worth having....those girls are idiotic bimbos. Grow up, read some books, spend time helping others, become a quality guy. Even if you don't ever have a relationship, you'll be doing something worthwile for yourself and society....but take my advice and you just might end up happy with a beautiful woman of substance.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 1:53 PM

Grow up, read some books, spend time helping others, become a quality guy.

It's one hell of a presumption on your part to think that I haven't already done all those things.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 1:56 PM

"No, you're right. They're usually far more vicious when they're intending to be mean. Especially to each other."

I'm with Brian on this one. Even in circles where we're supposed to be civil (church committees, PTA, kids' sports) some 'yatches just can't keep from eviscerating someone to maintain their rank amongst the rest of the hyenas. Still living the glory days of high school cheer squad, I guess. Nothing more grotesque than a middle-aged, dried up, bitter Mean Girl in a mini-van, drinking herself into obesity with Starbucks.

Posted by: Juliana at July 23, 2008 2:05 PM

Hee hee .... sorry but that made me laugh. A man who admittedly has never been in a relationship thinks he knows there is eveyrhting to know about women and relationships. Now that's just pure comedy.

Posted by: katie at July 23, 2008 2:18 PM

No, Jack Nicholson was pure comedy:

"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability."

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 2:33 PM

First thought upon reading the LW's letter: "But the reality, ladies, is that we do have that luxury." We can hold jobs, own homes, and all of that stuff. Because of that, we have the privilege of being pickier. I for one would be happier to see more women realize that, pick a set of standards for a relationship that they absolutely must have, and stick to it.

I also think I can't really imagine a respectable man who would be content to carry the title of 'the one she had to settle for' instead of 'THE ONE.' You know what I mean?

Posted by: JMoczy at July 23, 2008 2:45 PM

""But the reality, ladies, is that we do have that luxury." We can hold jobs, own homes, and all of that stuff."

Amen to this exact point- I had a laugh out loud moment in the middle of a sermon on divorce. Not a good time for that, believe me. The pastor made this same point, that since women are more independent and don't have to tolerate the intolerable, divorce rates have skyrocketed. However, he then missed the point that needed to be made. He challenged women to work harder on their marriages rather than abandoning them; instead, he should have challenged both the women AND THE MEN.

Fortunately, there were enough strong, independent, confident women in the congregation that held him accountable for such a gaffe.

Posted by: Juliana at July 23, 2008 3:09 PM

"I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability."

Oh, you're such a sad loser, Brian. I hope you're prepared to remain a virgin...or whatever you think you are. Any man who hasn't even had a relationship - and who bases his "beliefs" on some sick website urging him to be a "douchebag" so dumb bimbos can give him "tail"...and yet he never even gets any...except for maybe a one-night-stand (if that)...is so pathetic! Omg!

And yes, women can be catty towards each other. But, in my experience, we also usually have deeper friendships than men. Our relationships involve more than beer and golf (though that can be included :-).

Sad little men using terms like "'yatches"...hilarious! The only guys I know who are this immature are still in high school. Please, do yourselves a favor and GROW UP. You have no idea what being a real man is about.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 3:55 PM

You're a fool if you think I'm taking relationship advice from the internet, ESPECIALLY from a site like HCwDB (which I read for the sad humor value more than anything else).

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in a relationship. If I can get no-strings-attached sex with a minimum of effort, I'll take it. But even going to the lengths of douchbaggery on the site I linked is too much work.

I've just never found any reason to waste the effort.

And if that makes me something less than a "real man", oh well. Tell me what's in it for me, maybe I'll consider expending the effort.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 4:14 PM

Well, you're the one who called it a "phenomenon", so obviously you feel it's more than just "humor value".

I can't even begin to tell you what you're missing...and I guess you'll probably never know. "No strings attached" sex doesn't begin to touch the kind of sex you'd get from a woman who feels really safe and loved within your arms. We give as good as we get, and if you haven't progressed to the advanced level of a relationship, then let me assure you that you're only getting the "sex light" version. If that's good enough for you, then fine, but most men ultimately want more.

My boyfriend is a fantastic lover - because and he treats the women in his life with respect. He and I go to Hedonism in Jamaica and have wild, unhibited, nude, out-in-the-open-sex that you can't even imagine! It's not some quick-impersonal-faked-orgasm sex I'd have with a "no strings attached" stranger. It's the multiple-orgasm-reaching-in-every-position-possible-sex that people who are open, loving, supportive and experienced have with each other.

You can't reach that advanced state with "no strings attached" bimbo sex. You'll always be at the beginner level. So, if you really want to grow and evolve, stop believing that "douchebag" crap. That's for adolescents. You'll get much better quality sex by being a good guy, not a jerk. When a woman really WANTS to give you a peak experience, you'll know what I mean, but you're not going to get there by doing what you've been doing.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 4:47 PM

Well, you're the one who called it a "phenomenon", so obviously you feel it's more than just "humor value".

Well, it's kind of a black humor, since I see it all around me every day, so I assume that site is a documentation of the ever increasing debasement of humanity.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 5:17 PM

lovlysoul: "Yet, there's no shortage of good guys if a woman really wants to marry"

Thank you for that bit of sensible and honest commentary. I enjoy your comments, you are one of the few true 'thinkers' on this little planet. I'm tired of the hypocrisy one hears over and over from women who pick idiots while rejecting perfectly decent guys over stupid nitpicky things ("omg, he brought the wrong kind of flowers, run!!"), and then instead of accepting responsibility for their choices, try to lay the blame elsewhere by pretending "oh you know all the good guys are taken". No, they're not.

(BTW, the preceding paragraph, if the genders were reversed, would sound rather like the classic bachelor who just wants to play around ... I don't mean that offensively)

Posted by: Frogz at July 23, 2008 5:18 PM

"I also think I can't really imagine a respectable man who would be content to carry the title of 'the one she had to settle for' instead of 'THE ONE.' You know what I mean?"

"Settling" does sound bad, but OTOH, I am not interested in any naive women who even believes in the false concept of "THE ONE". That's a romantic fairy tale for 11-year old girls, and drives some crazy and ultimately COMPLETELY unfulfillable (sp?) search for perfection. There is no "the one", but I do think there is such a thing as lasting, deep, mutual friendship with mutual physical attraction ... it won't work if you're looking for "the one" though, you have to understand that nobody is perfect and that you stay friends because the benefits of doing so outweigh the negative bits.

By modern definitions we've somehow been promised we can "have it all", and now almost any imperfection is enough to put somebody into the "settling" category.

Posted by: David J at July 23, 2008 5:28 PM

Thanks, Frogz, that's very nice. I see that among my girlfriends, and I just want to shake them. But, in a way, it's what our culture teaches, which is sad...or maybe Amy would argue it's from years of evolution where the caveman with the biggest club got the woman.

I guess that's sort of what Brian is being influenced by - the biggest "douchebag" gets the girl - but it's not true anymore. Maybe temporarily, but most women who've had the douchebag (which is most of us over 30) learn to recognize the good guy. I met a lot of them, really....sweet cops, adorable geeky accountants, responsible single dads just trying to do the right thing...

And even thought many weren't well-matched for me for various reasons, I finally found one who was perfect for me. If a woman keeps trying and keeps in mind the important qualities to search for, she can find a very good guy.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 5:36 PM

>> My boyfriend is a fantastic lover - because and he treats the women in his life with respect. He and I go to Hedonism in Jamaica and have wild, unhibited, nude, out-in-the-open-sex that you can't even imagine!

ah yes, the sexually liberated female. Just what every man dreams of, someone with "experience", and "good in bed". The perfect mothers of our children. I don't know why any man would get legally entangled (ie. married) with one of you, but they do, and in great numbers as well, so my hats off to you. I guess its not as much an issue these days, as a man at least can fall back on DNA testing to see baby if is his. "Mama's Baby, Daddy's Maybe".

On the other hand, the state laws are configured (probably because of female voting), to lasso whatever sap/sucker/loser happens to be married to one of these sexually liberated princesses and compelled by the state law enforcement (ie. guys with guns) to "provide" for her and her child, whether it is genetically his or not, and whether wife leaves him or not.

And with those (men) in the middle class getting their wages garnished at a rate of $1200+/mo, for up to two decades, this is not something to be taking lightly. Its all for "whats best for the children", and keeping her "in the lifestyle she has grown accustomed to". Its a little ironic that the courts consider child welfare in this case, but give women 100% freedom to abort their child because "its her body". A man has no rights, only obligations to pay.

No doubt this is the golden age of feminine privilege and power.

Posted by: P at July 23, 2008 5:44 PM

P: Dang! I thought I was jaded.

lovlysoul - I cannot tell you the number of women I have talked to who are with men who treat them horribly. I'm a complete asshole, and I wouldn't treat my enemies the way these women are treated by men that they love.

So what conclusion am I supposed to draw from the educated, intelligent 21 year old woman who stays with a man who calls her a "fat cow" and a "stupid cunt"?

I'll tell you the conclusion I draw - and it's that too many of them are listening to the letter writer and that idjit that wrote the book "Marry him, already".

Douchebags have obviously figured out how to keep a woman coming back for more. I just can't bring myself to behave that way. I was raised better than that.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 5:52 PM

God,P,what an idiot you are. Sexual experience equals not knowing who your baby's father is? That's a leap!

If it makes you feel better, both my children were conceived when I was a virginal bride. And I'm not about to have any more, so no need to worry. I think I'm free to have as much fun as I want at this point.

How sad that you don't think women should learn to enjoy sex...that we should be powerless over our bodies and the sexual experience. You must be one hot, "alpha-male" lover.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 6:04 PM

Brian, that's good to hear.

Well, first off, she's only 21. Cut her some slack. Unless she's a total fool, she'll eventually wise up. A lot of younger girls make that mistake - they fall for the super-attentive (ie: obsessive) guy, who tells them what they want to hear during courtship, then suddenly becomes a controlling asshole after they're more committed. It's a shock...and she's likely hoping he'll return to being "prince charming" once she succeeds at being whatever he wants. Eventually, she'll realize this is totally futile, but right now, she probably thinks it's within her control somehow. She's very young.

Just try to be the good guy you were raised to be. I promise you that there are a lot of nice women who will one day appreciate that. Yes, there are some airheads who don't, but that's no reason to abandon all civility and embrace the debasement of humanity.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 6:16 PM

Because it's not all set up like it was in the 1950s anymore, where you could keep us as slaves and share none of the marital assets?

Fascinating piece of feminist agitprop you wrote there, "lovly"soul.

So housewives and mothers were nothing more than slaves prior to the 60's? That's not how my Grandmother's would describe there lives as stay at home mothers and matriarch's of their families.

Everything you have written in this thread is the perfect representation of the cognitive dissonance that makes up the typical, modern American woman's psyche. You don't 'need' a man...but than you talk about how you cannot achieve the kind of mind-blowing sex unless you have a deep, intimate connection with....a man.

I guess that's sort of what Brian is being influenced by - the biggest "douchebag" gets the girl - but it's not true anymore. Maybe temporarily, but most women who've had the douchebag (which is most of us over 30) learn to recognize the good guy.

LMAO - your self-centered narcissism is quite amusing to behold. This is EXACTLY the "good guys" lament for which you've spent this comment thread excoriating brian for.

He's 21, and no women in his age range give him the time of day. He looks in bewilderment at all of the young, beautiful hot women around him and sees that they do not value him for what our feminist-warped society tells him he should act like to be a "perfect, sensitive, in-touch with his feelings, new-age man!"

But once they hit YOU'RE age range, after having spent their prime years of sexual fertility and head-turning beauty chasing the excitement of the bad boys...NOW it's time to find the good guy to settle down with...after your 30+ years old, your looks begin to fade, and the kind of guys that provide you with excitement are now chasing after no longer give you the time of day. Now it's time for the nice guy, right?!?!?! LMAO.

Plenty of nice guys are wising up to the dynamics of a society that have made this behavior and attitude the norm, and are no longer choosing to play that game.

It's no coincidence that the only women you will here lamenting that "There are no good men anymore" are the women who are past their sexual prime, and no longer command the power of attraction to gain the favors of the kind of men THEY find attractive anymore.

Posted by: Dave from Hawaii at July 23, 2008 6:48 PM

He's 21, and no women in his age range give him the time of day. He looks in bewilderment at all of the young, beautiful hot women around him and sees that they do not value him for what our feminist-warped society tells him he should act like to be a "perfect, sensitive, in-touch with his feelings, new-age man!"

You're new here, ain't ya?

I'm not 21, I'm not sensitive, in touch with my feelings, or a new-age man.

What I am is 39, jaded, unaware of my feelings, and something of a traditionalist. I'm not exciting by any stretch. I'm just a completely average specimen of Nerdus Americanus.

I know plenty of excellent women. They all share one common problem - they are all happily married to their first husbands, they have families, and they aren't looking for new adventures.

I also know plenty of fuck-ups. They are single, married, divorced or involved, and all of them, to a woman, miserable. They vent their agony to anyone who will listen and are utterly unfazed by the decent men in their midst.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 7:15 PM

I finally found one who was perfect for me. If a woman keeps trying and keeps in mind the important qualities to search for, she can find a very good guy.

Hang on, I thought you were happy single and wasnt lookin, but it just happened.

Lol, not looking for an argument today. My take on the comments so far is that both sexes have some real points, but neither is taking any notice of them.

The LW is whining stupidly, but I think his point might be that many women are desperate to find someone, but allthough they may be four foot wide and discusting they are often still armed with a list of how their ideal partner will be. Many men are just as urealistic and I think its fairly even between sexes on this. Some people will allways live in fairytale land and end up alone and miserable, blaming the other sex for their misery.
Lovelysoul, you seem to take so much about women so personally even when you admit that many women are not as perfect as you, I do get the feeling you are here for validation tho and things might not really be that perfect. You do say some very good things too and I do hope you are as happy as you say you are.
I dont think anyone should settle for someone they dont like or respect or is less than what they are happy with, but the longer the list of criteria, the less the chances of finding someone.
A strange thing about finding relationships is that people who are searching never find what they want, Yet when you just start to be happy with yourself and life, amazing things happen. Desperation is obviously unattractive, and happiness is attractive. I suppose that is why women are attracted to guys who dont really want relationships, and guys are attracted to women who are confident and self assured.
I really hope this gap never closes because anything that stops people breeding at the unsustainable rate they, do is a good thing in my book.

Posted by: Al at July 23, 2008 7:25 PM

Everything you have written in this thread is the perfect representation of the cognitive dissonance that makes up the typical, modern American woman's psyche. You don't 'need' a man...but than you talk about how you cannot achieve the kind of mind-blowing sex unless you have a deep, intimate connection with....a man.

You seem to be unclear on the difference between want and need. That's not cognitive dissonance, that's vocabulary. "need a man"=can't make one's own way in the world, can't get a fulfilling job or earn one's own living, can't have the status of a mature adult without a husband.
"want a man"=enjoy exploring all the facets of a complex and intimate sexual and/or romantic and/or emotional relationship with a man, because you're both having a lot of fun, not because other options are limited.

re: Plenty of nice guys are wising up to the dynamics of a society that have made this behavior and attitude the norm, and are no longer choosing to play that game.

You and the LW keep warning that the boys are going to take their toys and go home once women get too old and have waited too long. But we keep saying "So what? We don't need you!" So next time, choose a threat that isn't just a transparent wish of yours that things were that way in order to fulfill your bitter revenge fantasies.

Posted by: Quizzical at July 23, 2008 7:35 PM

Sorry for my mistake - after re-reading everything, I guess I mixed up your references to a 21 year old woman w/ yourself in my haste to reply to lovlysoul.

Al - Lovelysoul, you seem to take so much about women so personally even when you admit that many women are not as perfect as you, I do get the feeling you are here for validation tho and things might not really be that perfect. You do say some very good things too and I do hope you are as happy as you say you are.
I dont think anyone should settle for someone they dont like or respect or is less than what they are happy with, but the longer the list of criteria, the less the chances of finding someone.
A strange thing about finding relationships is that people who are searching never find what they want, Yet when you just start to be happy with yourself and life, amazing things happen. Desperation is obviously unattractive, and happiness is attractive. I suppose that is why women are attracted to guys who dont really want relationships, and guys are attracted to women who are confident and self assured.

While much of this is spot on, I think you got the last part wrong. Guys are attracted to women who are 1) physically beautiful, and 2) pleasant company.

I'll take a shy, uncertain and not so assured woman who is polite, thoughtful and pleasant to be with over a "confident and self-assured" shrew any day.

Posted by: Dave from Hawaii at July 23, 2008 7:35 PM

You and the LW keep warning that the boys are going to take their toys and go home once women get too old and have waited too long. But we keep saying "So what? We don't need you!" So next time, choose a threat that isn't just a transparent wish of yours that things were that way in order to fulfill your bitter revenge fantasies.

Au contraire...I have no bitter revenge fantasies.

It's quite fascinating to see the assumptions (like I have a bitter revenge fantasy) and shaming language SOME of you ladies resort to anytime any man has nary a negative word to say about the current feminist zeitgeist.

Posted by: Dave from Hawaii at July 23, 2008 7:39 PM

Dave, all I can say is that the men I attract now are even hotter than the men I attracted when I was an innocent little 20-something. Yet, when I was younger, I didn't quite realize the power I had, so I "settled" for a "bad boy" because, quite frankly, "bad boys" were the only ones who had the guts to approach me. The "good guys" were too shy and figured I wouldn't date them....and, unfortunately, I was too shy to approach them.

Yet, as I matured, I realized this and learned to be more assertive. I CHOOSE to be with a good guy now - one who is also drop-dead gorgeous. There's nothing desperate about it, and I hope that Brian ignores your hateful cynicism and maybe realizes earlier what I did much later - to overcome that shyness and go after what what he truly wants. Beautiful girls his age are often very shy too...which makes them easy prey for the assholes out there, who are usually bold enough to walk over and buy them a drink while the shy "good guy" watches from afar.

I can't speak for every girl, but that is honestly how I ended up with a "bad boy" type - he literally chased me down the street! Then, gave me some really smooth lines and wouldn't take no for an answer. Today, I still get the same kind of attention - I'm just smart enough not to fall for that anymore.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 7:47 PM

Dave - you should try having a conversation with a non-fucked-up 22 year old. You'll find that most women in the next generation have written off "gender feminism" as the abject failure it was.

You need to simply accept the fact that a not insignificant part of the last two generations of women in the Western world have given themselves over to the bitterness of "fighting the patriarchy", whatever the fuck that means. And the ones that didn't are happily attached and aren't looking for someone who's going to spew venom at them for their ill-behaved contemporaries.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 7:54 PM

Dave I hear what your saying:
I'll take a shy, uncertain and not so assured woman who is polite, thoughtful and pleasant to be with over a "confident and self-assured" shrew any day.
When I was younger that is how I felt, and very strongly, but after marrying that very sweet girl I have found that without the confidence and self assurance, it gets pretty boring, It is a joy if she blooms into self assurance and confidence, but sometimes not even the nicest guy can help her do it.

Lovelysoul is dead on too with this:

Beautiful girls his age are often very shy too...which makes them easy prey for the assholes out there, who are usually bold enough to walk over and buy them a drink while the shy "good guy" watches from afar.

It is a shame that many women confuse self assured confidence with spiteful arrogance.

Posted by: Al at July 23, 2008 8:06 PM

Or more accurately use spiteful arrogance to make up for lack of confidence.
This is also the case I feel with the women who have a huge list of requirements for a mate, they project that no one is good enough for them because they feel that they are actually not good enough for anyone, Lack of confidence and fear breeds many things in many people, it is usually very clear to those around them but totally invisable to themselves

Posted by: Al at July 23, 2008 8:16 PM

"Tell me what's in it for me, maybe I'll consider expending the effort."

Brian, honestly I think you know what's in it for you and that scares the hell out of you. I've got nothing against no strings attached sex, but a steady diet of anything gets boring after a while. Not to mention having nothing but casual encounters prevents you from having to become truly intimate with someone. So you never have to risk the possibility of getting hurt. Sad, but it's your life. Something tells me that you might be a better guy than your insulting and thoughtless comments would suggest, though. You sound more hurt than bitter.

Posted by: Lucy at July 23, 2008 8:26 PM

Al, I think it can be confusing for a lot of women. Knowing what I know now, I feel like I could teach some young girls (and older ones)the difference between healthy self-confidence and arrogant manipulation.

I remember my dad saying, "He never lets you breathe!" My ex called all the time, sent gifts, showered me with affection and attention. It was too much...obsessive. Looking back, I can see how my dad was right. Yet, we women are kind of culturally trained to believe all those actions are POSITIVE signs...that he really loves us so much...not that he's obsessive and controlling...and possibly dangerous.

I haven't had a perfect life. I really appreciate the good parts of my life now because my earlier life sort of resembled Julia Roberts in "Sleeping with the Enemy". For many years I lived in fear and under domination of a very controlling, highly manipulative, emotionally unstable man, so I am personally sensitive to that. I wish I could spare every young girl what I went through.

But I really don't consider myself anti-male. I very much respect and appreciate most men. Despite my marital experience, I've had some wonderful men in my life - dad, brothers, and lovers. It's just hard to talk about the bad guys without sounding that way.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 8:29 PM

But I really don't consider myself anti-male. I very much respect and appreciate most men. Despite my marital experience, I've had some wonderful men in my life - dad, brothers, and lovers. It's just hard to talk about the bad guys without sounding that way.

Ah, consider too that it is exactly the same for men

Posted by: Al at July 23, 2008 8:33 PM

Something tells me that you might be a better guy than your insulting and thoughtless comments would suggest, though. You sound more hurt than bitter.

Where the hell did THIS come from?

I'm not hurt. I simply gave up.

Posted by: brian at July 23, 2008 8:37 PM

Despite my marital experience, I've had some wonderful men in my life - dad, brothers, and lovers. It's just hard to talk about the bad guys without sounding that way.

You need to take responsibility for who you let in your life, for what you didn't look at. Most people don't change. What changes, usually, is that you're forced to finally deal with the truth you probably tried to ignore all along out of wishful thinking. And that sort of thing usually comes out of an unhealthy need for a partner.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 23, 2008 8:43 PM

I know ive asked this before but who was the famous female singer over there who said:

Why is it that women marry a man with the intent to change him, only to leave later saying 'your not the man I married'

Posted by: Al at July 23, 2008 8:52 PM

Absolutely, Amy. I didn't see it. And then, when I did see it, I tried to make it better by getting us into therapy and hoping things would change. But he is a bi-polar narcissist with a 160 IQ...who could even sway hardened therapists. Some medicated him. Didn't help. One finally made me see what I was up against and that it wouldn't likely improve.

But, you're right, it all was due to an unhealthy need for a partner. I was 19 when we met, alone for the first time, living in NYC. I was scared and he seemed protective.

Now, I know you can only protect and fulfill yourself. I accept where I failed there, but I've also forgiven myself because I was indeed very young and naive...and he was (and is) extremely charming, and even to this day, some of my closest friends don't "see it." They only see the gifts and flowers and jewelry and money...his attractiveness and charisma.

So, I've had to stand against a lot of opposition, actually, which has made me pretty strong. I believe I'm strong enough not to make that mistake again. I've spent a lot of time (and therapy) considering who I should let into my life...which is why I know that women can be more aware of the positive and negative signs, and they should never feel so needy to have a relationship that they ignore their own best interests.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 23, 2008 9:14 PM

The original letter writer had a point, and women delude themselves on it.

Their value on the marriage market, i.e. what kind of man they can attract and marry, degrades over time. Because their beauty and fertility fades. And no amount of cosmetics and exercise and yoga and fertility treatments (hideously expensive, often dangerous and associated with cancer and/or birth defects) can change that. It's biological reality.

JUST as important is the character of the man, i.e. a man inclined to loyalty, trustworthiness, who will stick by the woman when times get tough.

If a woman wants to marry, she ought to do it when younger than when older, all things being equal. If not, realize that she can't go back in time and be young again. Reality: most of the high-value, accomplished, loyal-faithful, attractive, good men are off the market by their late twenties or early thirties. Married to, btw, a woman 4-6 years their junior. A woman at age 45 is NOT going to attract much interest from her age peers, EVEN IF she's Teri Hatcher or the like. Male attention will be from men in their late 50's and 60's. This is reality. Men the woman letter writer's age who are "worthwhile" marrying (high income, loyal, attractive, good character) will have no problems attracting a mate 10 years or more their junior. This is also social reality women should not delude themselves upon.

Yes of course a woman can and should have her own financial independence. Be able to provide on her own. BUT ... If she wants a marriage she ought to maximize her ability to choose the best man when she has the most power. A woman is not as beautiful and fertile and attractive at 45 as she was at 25. Men don't care much about status and education, more physical beauty (indicative of reproductive ability) and character and decent intelligence. This is also a biological truth women seldom admit but is like gravity nonetheless true.

As for being alone, women often fool themselves on this point. Women not famous columnists lack social networks to provide for them. The idea that fragile, constantly churning networks of "friends" will provide some "sisterhood" support over a lifetime is laughable even though I've seen it time and again (almost always expressed by women in denial about their own fate). The atomized nature of modern society, extreme mobility combined with social isolation makes keeping any network of friends long-term impossible. Quick, how many Junior High friends still are next door to you a full 30 years or more later? Marriage is a way to keep companionship around and loneliness at bay, providing one chooses WISELY.

A woman who delays marriage too long (or chooses the wrong man to commit to) risks ending up alone. No one is more "INVISIBLE" and poorly treated than a woman past menopause, ignored by pretty much everyone ... save her husband if he's a good man and loves her.

I would agree with Alkon above. Theodore Dalrymple (pseudonym, retired UK Physician Anthony Daniels, no relation to the Star Wars actor), noted in "Life at the Bottom," that women in violent relationships (his patients) went from one violent and abusive man to the next. The pattern was pronounced and repeated. Even his nurses chose violent men, and found ordinary decent chaps "boring." His questions, did they not see the tattoos extolling violence, the scars on the shaved heads indicating bar fights, the prison tattoos? Yes they all saw it but believed they would exhibit more control over the men than they actually did. They wanted more masculine, macho, violent men because they found them "exciting."

Women are IMHO better served by a more realistic appreciation of the limits of their beauty and ability to control men, and more reasoned and lengthy assessments of men's character. Rather than short-term decision making. Less sex, more love in other words.

Posted by: whiskey at July 23, 2008 11:43 PM

David J: I don't really think there is such a thing as "THE ONE," either; the use of that term was just to illustrate the difference in levels between something like "what have I got to lose" and "with you, I've got nothing to lose."

It's perfectly fine to settle, compromising on the things that you find you can compromise on. What isn't fine is the kind of settlement people make that eventually let down both parties. Changing your religion (or changing to one), deciding that you can/can't have children because your partner does/doesn't want them while you do/don't, 'overlooking' reprehensible traits, and so on. If people could just pick and set their priorities and learn to cope with not necessarily getting what they want right away (or having to work at certain aspects of themselves first in order to get what they want), I think they could more and more increase the value of their partners and themselves.

Posted by: JMoczy at July 24, 2008 1:26 AM

JMoczy:

If people could just pick and set their priorities and learn to cope with not necessarily getting what they want right away (or having to work at certain aspects of themselves first in order to get what they want), I think they could more and more increase the value of their partners and themselves.

Yes, but how many people truly know what they want in a mate? Hell, how many people truly know what they want in a house?

I've done more thinking about what I want in my next television than what I want in a woman. Mostly because I haven't a clue what I'm SUPPOSED to want. People aren't neatly quantifiable into resolution, image quality, and response time.

Posted by: brian at July 24, 2008 4:58 AM

We do a lot of defending here on a woman's right to choose to be alone. So, why, all the attacks on Brian for choosing to be alone? It's just as perfectly acceptable for a man as it is a woman. Of course, maybe I'm defending it because I understand that choice.

Look, man or woman, if you're not willing to put the work into a relationship, or don't like what your choices out there are, and you are fine by yourself and enjoy the pleasure of your own company, alone is a valid lifestyle choice. Not only valid, but if you don't think a relationship worth the effort (and I don't), it's really the responsible choice, just as you shouldn't have children if you aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

As for this, whiskey: "The idea that fragile, constantly churning networks of "friends" will provide some "sisterhood" support over a lifetime is laughable even though I've seen it time and again (almost always expressed by women in denial about their own fate). The atomized nature of modern society, extreme mobility combined with social isolation makes keeping any network of friends long-term impossible." Friends come and go. No shit? Whoever said that it remains constant? Newsflash, when you reach adulthood and make an initial group of friends, there's no law that they are the only friends you make for the rest of your life. You will make friends, you will lose friends. Some friends will be the kind you can lean on in an emergency and some will not. The thing is, unless you have serious issues and are not there for your friends, you will have friends that are there for you when you need them. Duh.

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 24, 2008 6:08 AM

Whiskey, you are so wrong. Perhaps if you're talking about wealth or procreation alone, but definitely not character. If anything, I'd advise young girls to WAIT to find a mate because the guys they attract may only be interested in their looks, not in them.

I married young - the peak in your theory - and I didn't get the "best guy withim my power". Wealthy narcissist - yes. Good character - no.

And when it was over, and I began dating online, I had HUNDREDS of responses within hours! Attractive, nice men...many much younger than me. So, unless you've actually BEEN on the dating market as a single woman, how can you know?

I've actually been on that market, and, trust me, there is still plenty of selection. Very few mens ad's say, "I'm looking for a womb". They're not all interested in younger women and they're not all taken by 40. In fact, I met a lot of men who had never even married by 40, which surprised me.

Some, like my boyfriend, had married hopelessly immature women, who left them, so they are definitely not interested in revisiting that scenario.

There are some dating sites dedicated to wealthy people. The men there, in general, were looking for young "sugarbabies". They'd say so, straight out, in their ads. Those guys are not, in my opinion, of high-character, but they're entitled to search for whatever they want. I still met a few nice guys there too.

My point is that in this age of online marketing - which vastly increases what anybody can look for - at any time - there are broad selections for EVERYONE. Old women, fat women, rich men, sugarbabies, sugardaddies...guys in wheelchairs...the list is endless!

So, after my experience, I especially don't think any woman should feel that her best days - or best guys - are behind her. Character tends to IMPROVE with age, for both genders.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 6:16 AM

This is a funny story about two middle-age women finding lots of sex - and maybe even love - online. It's called "Sleeping Around Craigslist"

http://www.alternet.org/sex/90855/sleeping_around_craigslist/

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 6:42 AM

Whoa- smoking hot thread on this topic, may be way forgotten by now, but to be fair, lovlysoul, Brian did not use the term yatches in his post as you asserted: "Sad little men using terms like "'yatches"." That was moi...

Posted by: juliana at July 24, 2008 6:45 AM

kg, at least you admit you're an ignorant ass when you condescend to admit you don't have all the details. Frankly, it's glaringly obvious that you read half a post and still carry a grudge over a previous difference of opinion. Get over yourself already. You are not all that.

As for "loathing" my daughter, screw you. If I didn't love her, she would be out of my life already. I don't have anything to do with people I loathe. (My, my, my, don't we sound intelligent using a fancy word for hate?) Just because I love my daughter and my grandson, doesn't mean I have no reason to regret having her and your only problem with me is that I have the balls to admit it. Yes, I know it sacrilege for a mother -- let alone a grandmother -- to admit she wouldn't (gasp) have any children if she had it to do over again but that's a mentality I won't condescend to -- it's exactly the same mentality that keeps women in burkas in some places in the world. I will slay a sacred cow and say if I knew then what I know now, if I knew just how hard it was going to be, I wouldn't have had a child. I'm honest, deal with it. Doesn't mean I don't love her. If I didn't we wouldn't have made it through her first year of life together let alone her current 25.

Also, it's glaringly obvious you only half read my posts, see red at my brutal honesty (one of my favorite movie quotes is springing to mind: you say you want the truth, you can't handle the truth) and spout off without all the facts. Her mental illness stems from a mixture of genetics, being molested by her father and skipping state to protect her from said father -- not me. She had a nervous breakdown and made a suicide attempt (I thought by now the high suicide rates among children who were sexually molested was common knowledge, my bad not guessing the depths of your ignorance) a little over a year ago. She had a falling apart -- doesn't even really reach the same level of nervous breakdown -- a few months ago, not even close. She's coming out of that now (due in part to my forcing her to stand on her own two feet; due in part to CPS placing T with his daddy and putting certain conditions like treatment and medication on her getting him back and moderating her to see that she maintains them; due in part to treatment and going back on medicine after having gone off it) and knew I was feeling like I failed her and set me straight, telling me straight out that I was largely the reason she didn't make another suicide attempt, that she would have been much worse off without me, that I have taught her, by example, to fight, that she only has confidence that she can learn to manage her illness (since you're ignorant about mental illness I'll fill you in on this newsflash -- from diagnosis to management takes years; hell, full diagnoses of all that's wrong can take years in and of itself, then there's finding the right medications, therapies, etc. and it's extremely individual).

One thing all knowledgeable parties do concur on: she'd be dead right now if not for me. She'd have never lived to be an adult. Bad mother that I am I gave up my whole life to save hers. OMG, yes! You are so right! What I gave up for her does seem to her astounding. She does get overwhelmed by the enormity of it when she thinks about it. But I wouldn't change that if I could because the only way to change the enormity of my sacrifice to her would have been not to make it and every day that she was safe was a day I was grateful to myself for having the strength. Not every woman would have.

She says she wouldn't have come back from her depression without my support and her desire to mother her son. Her best friend endured sexual abuse her whole childhood because she had a mom not half as strong as me who looked the other way and refused to believe the obvious. My daughter very bluntly told me, I know it seems like I'm screwed up but you're the reason I'm not worse like her. (This woman is a good woman but she has some very out-there problems sometimes -- she goes through stages of things like thinking her house is possessed and periodically freaks out over how emotionally reliant she is on her husband who is incredibly patient and loving with her. She has mental and emotional issues that are so extreme she's on disability.)

Now that I've told you a bunch of shit that's none of your business, I fully expect you to still find a way to twist this around and blame an uncontrollable thing like mental illness (which you are obviously ignorant about) on me. Go ahead. Just don't wonder why I ignore it. Tell me, would you also blame me if she was diabetic or had cancer? Unfortunately, what she is ill with is even more complicated than those two complicated diseases and cannot be diagnosed or treated as easily.

Bottom line, something I've said all her life that still holds true -- as far as I'm concerned there's only one person in this world who gets to judge me as a mother and while that person these days vents on me quite a bit, she still says I'm a good Mom.

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 24, 2008 6:48 AM

T's Grammy, I know we've had our differences, but I just want to concur that dealing with mental illness takes many years - to get proper diagnosis, meds, and management. Nobody should judge you - just like they shouldn't judge me for sticking it out so long with my ex, trying to get help with those same issues - because nobody fully understands unless they've walked in your shoes. It's painful and exhausting, and I can completely understand why you would say you wouldn't choose to do it again if you could go back in time.

I also have a mentally ill, retarded brother. It's been a nightmare - getting the right diagnosis, finding meds that work...then, they stop working and you have to try something else...on and on.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and I'm sure my parents, deep down, regret his adoption, but they love him and have done right by him. They are wonderful parents for enduring it all...and so are you.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 7:33 AM

Thank you. lovlysoul. Exactly.

I don't know if you go to any family support but it's been invaluable to me -- in education about mental illness alone. And because those who don't have to deal so intimately with the mentally ill don't understand.

Hell, it's pretty new with us and I'm just beginning to understand. I think she's catching on quicker than me actually because she also tells me you don't get it, I think differently than you do. It is very, very hard to comprehend.

Posted by: T's Grammy at July 24, 2008 7:50 AM

"And "douchebags" refers to the over-sprayed polished guys who seem to attract no end of high-value (from an appearance standpoint, anyhow) tail. "

Douchebag: A man who actually puts some time, money and effort into his appearance to attract women. Usually has good social skills.

Nice Guy: A lazy, pudgy, badly dressed slob with no social skills who thinks he deserves a supermodel and who can't get laid.

Posted by: JoJo at July 24, 2008 8:20 AM

Jojo - try this instead:

Douchebag: A man who puts excessive effort into making himself appear to be wealthier than he is, who invests tremendous time in social manipulation to convince women to put out. Women he will ditch in two to three weeks.

Nice Guy: A guy who gets shit on for the first 20 years of his life and decides to say "fuck the human race".

Posted by: brian at July 24, 2008 8:33 AM

"He's 21, and no women in his age range give him the time of day. He looks in bewilderment at all of the young, beautiful hot women around him"

And how 'hot' is this 21 year old man? If he can't get a 'hot chick' maybe he should take a good look at himself and ask himself "why would a hot woman want me?"

Or just maybe, looks shouldn't be the only criteria for picking a date.

Posted by: JoJo at July 24, 2008 8:47 AM

Oh, c'mon, now, Brian. Good douchebag definition, but nice guys do not have to be victims, any more than nice girls do.

Nice Guy - a man who has standards and integrity he won't compromise just to get laid, who treats women with respect, and who realizes that not every woman will find him irresistable but that doesn't mean the whole gender is wicked or that the whole human race is fucked. He keeps trying until he succeeds.

You shouldn't whine, "poor me...I got shit on." That isn't attractive to many women (or men). My guess is that you haven't had it any worse than many of us here. We've all had our crosses to bear. We've all dealt with jerks and people who've taken advantage of our good nature, and people who broke our hearts or rejected us. That happens to everyone if they live a life.

You can't just take your ball and go home, whimpering, because you didn't win a few games. So what? There are other chances! If you quit playing, of course, you'll never win. But what will that prove? That you're "right" about the human race? You're just setting yourself up for failure so you can justify not trying anymore.

Don't quit, Brian. If you've not been successful, then evaluate why. Ask a friend to give you an honest assessment of things you might change. Read something besides douchebag.org...that is NOT a good system.

Yes, those guys get laid a lot, but when they're 50, they've already had 3 divorces and several kids who hate them, and they're on "Sugardaddy.com" with a bad toupee and a beer belly trying to get some callous Russian golddigger, who's not even that hot, to have dinner with them. It's much sadder than whatever you think your life is.

You're actually ahead of the game now. You're in the prime of life and you've got a chance to find someone worthwhile to love.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 9:01 AM

And how 'hot' is this 21 year old man? If he can't get a 'hot chick' maybe he should take a good look at himself and ask himself "why would a hot woman want me?"

Given how many guys that are significantly uglier than I am that are in relationships at some level?

But again, why argue substance when straw-men are so much more fun?

I think the reason for the popularity of the DB is that many young women have convinced themselves that all they want is a "good time" which seems to involve large amounts of alcohol, tattoos of celtic knots over their ass-cracks, and posting drunken, naked pictures of themselves on MySpace.

Then by the time they're 30, they hear the biological clock ticking, their mothers are pestering them for grandchildren, they're bagged out from all the partying, and no man wants them.

And then fucknozzles like the LW are urging these women to "settle", so they get knocked up be an aging DB who wakes up one morning to decide she's just not hot enough, and off he goes. Or they marry some nice guy, get bored with him, make up some shit about abuse, and leave with the house, the kids, and half his pay for the next 20 years.

so maybe the question you ought to ask is "why are so few women attractive to the aging nerd?" It might give you an insight into why the majority of the women I find attractive are already spoken for.

Posted by: brian at July 24, 2008 9:14 AM

Look, you can always find examples of the worst of human nature - the dumbest people searching for the dumbest things. If you focus on that, it will be all you see. And you can convince yourself that there's nothing worthwhile for you because all you see is either married women you want or "coke whores" (as we affectionately call them here in FL)that you don't.

But you're just taking two extremes and not looking for the middle ground. I simply do not beleive that there are no eligible, attractive women your age loooking for a nice, nerdy guy. Nerds are in these days!

I do, however, believe that most of the women who fall in that category do not want a whiner...somebody who talks about getting "shit on" by the human race. Keep saying that, and your prospects are dim.

Posted by: lovlysoul at July 24, 2008 9:31 AM

If Brian wants to take his ball and go home, that's well within his right to do so, and I doubt he'll find many people who care one way or the other. Relationships aren't for pussies. They take stamina, the willingness and ability to learn from one's mistakes and a strong psyche.

Posted by: MonicaP at July 24, 2008 10:12 AM

BRAVA, Amy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Marie E at July 24, 2008 10:16 AM

I haven't punished myself by reading this whole thread, but I think I can summarize:

Women to Men: We don't need you to be happy! We're just fine all alone.

Men to Women: We don't need you to be happy! We're just fine all alone.

The women blame the men 100%, and the men blame the women, 100%. No self-reflection or insight to be seen.

And yet...here you are saying it again and again to each other, apparently in the belief that repetition will make the mantra true.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher at July 24, 2008 10:38 AM

No, Todd. I'm saying that the risk-reward ratio doesn't work out.

MonicaP:

They take stamina, the willingness and ability to learn from one's mistakes and a strong psyche.

The ability to learn from mistakes (whether one's own or other's) is what drives many to stay alone.

Perhaps it's living in the northeast that's the problem, I don't know. I do know that there is a massive difference in the way people behave up here compared to other parts of the country that I've visited.

Posted by: brian at July 24, 2008 10:51 AM

"I do, however, believe that most of the women who fall in that category do not want a whiner...somebody who talks about getting "shit on" by the human race. Keep saying that, and your prospects are dim."

lovlysoul I can see where you're coming from 100% but I'm 31 and in that boat and don't see a way out of the cycle. Because sometimes this is just a fact, and you can't very well LIE going into a new relationship can you? ("oh yeah I've had a fantastic life" *nix*). I don't just "feel like" I've been "shit on" my whole life - I really HAVE, much more than 95% of other people, consistently for the first 20 years of my life, and I had no support system at home or elsewhere - I don't know if you can ever appreciate what it's like to be an intelligent male on the bottom of the social rung, apart from a family background of being bullied since small, you don't know what a guy knows through, it can't be described, males are vicious things when u r an outcast.

When younger I somehow managed to block it all out and pretend throughout my 20s that I was over it all, and during that time I was never single, felt (mostly) happy, and had mostly good (and steamy) relationships with some very attractive women.

Then one day I came to a rapidly dawning realisation I was still badly playing the "submission" role in certain work relationships and elsewhere, to great harm ... so to try conquer this I dug deeper into the 'whys' and bam, sudden midlife crisis and in the process all those crappy memories started coming up. There I am working through all this tough sorry crap in my past, expecting support from my supposed life partner I'd been with for YEARS, and bam - almost instantly get-dumped (at the same time I also had a nasty attack at knifepoint by a street gang which was rough on me at just the wrong time, then she ran like the wind, so much for support). So yeah women don't want to be in the same room as the guy who even admits after five years he's been the loser who got shat on. But now TF what? I can't block it all out again, I gotta deal with it, and I surely can't lie about it, nor can I claim I was born at 30. And you can't dodge these things when you're getting to know someone new seriously.

A moderatively attractive female who has been through hell will have little trouble finding a decent man who will love and support her. A guy who has been through similar is - and you even admit - automatically an outcast who has virtually no chance. You talk about your experiences but it's just not the same for men; by your own description you had plenty of guys running after you and still do, most guys aren't much put off by a woman who was treated badly. Try that being a man.

Men are required to give emotional support to women in relationships but it's fully a one-way street, anything in the opposite direction seems to be "immediate dump the guy" grounds. A woman loses respect for a man who ever needs her support during tough times - but isn't that what a relationship - partnership - is supposed to be?

Now if you say no woman will want a guy like this then maybe brian is right, the answer is to give up and find something else? Maybe a sugarbaby.

Whatever the case this is something I'm working through. I have to. But now I'm in the odd position that I must pretend that some big issue for me doesn't exist if I want to enter a new relationship, WTF. Or be honest and have 99.9% chance of getting dumped. Which makes the situation worse, it's a snowball. Hiding the issue doesn't help, women of course sense you're hiding something and then run away. I've found so far if they sense ANY sign of unhappiness they are too selfish to even ask, they just turn and run, those are my experiences as 'newly single guy'.

"And how 'hot' is this 21 year old man? If he can't get a 'hot chick' maybe he should take a good look at himself and ask himself "why would a hot woman want me?""

Yeah right. Fact - 99.9% of hot women really "just want to have fun" and have air in their heads (no exaggeration - I did a little informal polling of hot women's descriptions on online dating site and the pattern is so precise it is frikkin scary, it's like someone cloned all these women ... they state openly they want "fun fun fun", the few who want money too will phrase it subtly e.g. "i love to travel") - anyway, some men just don't fit the "fun x 10" profile - I contend a mere fundamental personality incompatibility with any man who has even half a brain, rather than anything personal or anything the guy has "done wrong". These "hot" women who like douchebags just want fun and excitement, they're instinctively and probably brainlessly acting out some genetic programming. Many of these may never even achieve sentience, but the few capable of "learning" will later use rationalizations to justify their earlier "mistakes". Exceptions exist but are rare. Genetically, women have some programming to want to "fuck the bad guy to get his genes, then use the nice stable guy they don't have the hots for for security to raise the child", and one way or another many try play that programming out in this 'post-feminism' world. This would only be natural in nature; the 'bad guys' were strong but didn't hang around - so you had two imperatives, (a) get good seed and (b) raise the resulting offspring - and two different male profiles are required for each task.

But if you're just looking for "hot women" and resentful for not getting the "hot woman" because you - arguably - are superior to Joe Fun-Fun-Fun Airhead ... well, you gotta just get over that these are the wrong types of women for you, they're dumb as bricks, rather go look for someone with the right combination of attractiveness and intelligence. Complaining that the hot chicks don't dig you while ignoring some that might, is a lot like the hot chicks who complain to their decent nerd friends how they "can't find a decent guy" while f-cking some douchebag.

Posted by: Frogz at July 24, 2008 11:04 AM

PS nerds aren't "in", never have been, never will be - not amongst Western cultures anyway.

P