When I was dating in my mid-to-late 30s I noticed that women increasingly were into money, stability, family-orientation and not into zing. Often it seemed to me that the qualities that I liked in twentysomething women (hipness, intellectual curiosity, even empathy) tended to vanish after age 32 or so.

I don't know if this is the right answer. I have seen women in their 30's get desperate and because they want the "Big Wedding," kids etc... they shower a guy with being nice, lots of great sex and then they get married and think they may have settled.

Thinking they have settled is like the princess and the pea. They have something gnawing at them and want to "test other waters."

This eventually leads to divorce, splitting the family and kids.

I think if a woman thinks she has "settled" it will eat away at her and cause problems for the husband and any kids. This can end up being a selfish act for women as both the man and the children suffer. Put me down as a no.

We covered all this a couple weeks ago: What is this "settling" shit? Are these women finding themselves at the boiling center of marketplace desires in any circles, let alone the ones they imagine themselves most entitled to live in?

Yeah, I'd like a definition of "settling," too. Is it accepting that her partner is flawed and valuing the good things about him over the bad, or is she taking the first person who proposes?

A lot of this depends on what you want out of a relationship. My parents, for example, had a relationship that would have made me miserable. They had few interests in common and they bickered constantly. But they were happy with each other and got what they needed from each other. Mom gave Dad structure and family and Dad gave mom stability.

Other people need the zing. If you truly need the zing, then I would suggest not settling, because it'll just make you angry that it isn't there.

Eh. I have no interest in marriage or kids. So I am spared all this nonsense. Life is so much better when you can simply enjoy it, without a bunch of self-inflicted deadlines.

This whole "zing" thing: doesn't it also make a difference what kind of zing you expect? Do you expect the same kind of zing you felt when you were eighteen? Remember, part of the thrill of romance in one's younger years is based on the novelty of new, untried emotions. One can't expect to feel at 36 the same way one feels during adolescence, at least not for very long.

That makes me sound unromantic, which is pretty accurate, but sizing up potential mates as commodities, whether you're male or female, strikes me as fairly realistic. Looks, dash, and élan are fun in the younger years, but dependability and respectability move into the forefront as you get older.

>>Often it seemed to me that the qualities that I liked in twentysomething women (hipness, intellectual curiosity, even empathy) tended to vanish after age 32 or so.

I am going to say something here, and please spare me the imbecilic comments about pedophilia, because that is not the case.

I have observed women for nearly 70 years. From Junior High the same thing was true. Girls (young women to those who worry about PC) are at their sweetest and nicest right after physical maturity, in the area of maybe 15 years old, which may be why weak men with no impulse control get in trouble.

Every year after that is downhill as far as nice goes, though of course there are going to be individual variations. There are going to be a few nice 50 year old women, for example.

I don't know why that is, though I am sure the feminists can generate millions of words, blaming men for the phenomenon, and as always assuming women are mindless idiots with no control over their emotions or lives.

If you marry a person because of the zing, there's a very good chance you're not in love with the person. You're in love with the zing.

You mostly live in a nation whose history proves that zing based marriages are a disaster.

Many years ago, a fellow worker said, "Everyone marries for the hornies. If you haven't learned to like each other before the hornies go away, you will be divorced."

I don't know why that is, though I am sure the feminists can generate millions of words, blaming men for the phenomenon, and as always assuming women are mindless idiots with no control over their emotions or lives.

Millions of words not needed. Life happens, and people become less nice when they've been shit on a few times. Happens to men, too.

And if you're sure 15-year-old girls are nice, well, nevermind. I remember BEING a 15-year-old girl with friends who were 15-year-old girls.

So, when they were 18, did they get better or worse? Or, did getting out of school give you some space?

Also, you are assuming girls interact with boys the same as they do with women. I do not make that assumption.

The nicer people are usually the ones who are happier. I'm certainly a lot happier at 40 than I was at 15!

"Girls (young women to those who worry about PC) are at their sweetest and nicest right after physical maturity, in the area of maybe 15 years old, which may be why weak men with no impulse control get in trouble." When I was in High school there were nice and nasty, sane and crazy. At my 10 year nothing really changed, the nice were generally nice the nasty had grown more bitter and viscous. The crazy were still unquestionably bat shit. However you may have a point as I'm talking about 30s not 50s. I've seen that from my parents friends, and yeah it gets pretty ugly for most. These are usually the career less divorced house wives.

There are two forms of settling I've observed. One isn't all that unhealthy the other tends to leads to bitter hate fueled divorces. When a person (regardless of gender) realizes that movies are fantasies and you will not be getting David Laraby or Jerry Hall (at 25) you readjust your sites. Make your expectations reasonable and then find someone who you fit well with. Some never do this and believe that the man/women of their dreams is just around the corner. Then they panic and grab the first person willing to sleep with them. Then the bitterness and superiority sets in. Though from observation a women with a successful career is much less likely to do that.

Also, you are assuming girls interact with boys the same as they do with women. I do not make that assumption.

Not assuming anything. Girls certainly treat other girls differently than they do boys. I'm talking mainly about male-female relationships, though. 15-year-old girls have no reason not to be nice. It's unlikely they've been through a whole lot of heartbreak at that point. Being hurt can make people mean.

Getting back to the zing: It's nice to be sexually attracted to the person you are going to be having sex with for the rest of your life. But I've seen happy marriages thrive without it. It all depends on why you're getting married in the first place.

Apu: "But mother, you know that 1 out of every 8 arranged marriages ends in divorce!"

I bet if someone began non-religious (or all inclusive) monestaries and convents for older folks, they would become a new alternative lifestyle. By the time most of us are 50, the women are forever pissed off at men and men are sick of dealing with emotions, and nobody seems to be getting laid much anyway.

I'd had a lot more sympathy for Gottlied until I'd read a few of her interviews and gleaned her attitudes towards men and marriage.

When she says 'settle' she doesn't mean to be pragmatic and make it work, she means, get what you can, take what you want, and leave if it suits you. She's really advocating that single middle aged women should snare who they can to establish an 'infrastructure' (i.e. a home, child support, assets, potentially alimony). But she also promotes that they should have no qualms about leaving the marriage if they're ever unhappy or don't feel 'fulfilled'. The male in this model is really just there to provide the necessary resources.

What women like Gottlieb fail to recognize is that men can recognize her attitudes and intentions, even if they're concealed. This is really the factor that sinks a lot of women in their 30's. It's not their appearance, it's that they become unattractive people.

I think we're missing the bigger picture here. It seems to me over the last several years women have been encouraged to look at men as nothing more than sperm donors and wallets to support a woman's desire to have the big white wedding and have kids. I know not all women are like that (I'm not, but I know one baby-rabid woman for sure who truly believes that men were put on this planet to "take care of women") but I can't be the only one who's noticed that men are increasingly being looked upon in this way.

Am I?

And, let me add, it think that mindset sucks. Men are more than their money or their genes. I've been with my boyfriend for 9 years because he's witty, kind, a master of sarcasm, and is the guy who ran over to my house when my bird died and let me cry on his shoulder. I don't care about his money or his genes, I care about HIM.

Vlad touched on what I've noticed recently: a lot of writers who target the female audience regarding this issue are swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other. According to their advice, women are supposed to either (1) hold out for billionaire Prince Charming on a white horse, or (2) marry the next thing with a penis that walks by. Both positions are of course silly and self-destructive.

My advice would be: don't settle. Decide what you want and go after it. The caveat there is that "what you want" has to be in fact what you really want, and not just a vague and contradictory mish-mash used to put up walls and make excuses. You need to get it down to a few of your most important criteria, some physical and some not. When I was 35 and single again, here's the list I came up with:

(1) redhead
(2) curvy
(3) has her own career
(4) not interested in (more) children
(5) trustworthy
(6) tolerant of bad puns

That was it. Now, I knew that some of these were going to limit my market (natural redheads are, what, 10% of the population?), but that was the picture in my mind that I found really attractive, and so I made up my mind to work hard to find that person. And I did.

It seems to me over the last several years women have been encouraged to look at men as nothing more than sperm donors and wallets to support a woman's desire to have the big white wedding and have kids.

I'm not sure this is an actual trend as much as an e-trend. (People bitching about it on the Internet makes it seem more widespread.) Women marrying for security and children is not new. I find this attitude less prevalent in my peers than I do in my parents' generation, though. That generation seemed to have more clearly defined "jobs": men provided the money, women had the children and took care of the home, and it didn't matter a whole lot whether they still wanted to shag each other at the end of the day.

Some of my friends have gotten the baby rabies in their 30s, but they seem to genuinely want it all: a home, a child and a husband they love and who loves them. Not a single one of my close friends has married the first guy willing to have a family with her, even as their fertility winds down. Maybe I just have awesome friends.

Everybody settles, except possibly the Sultan of Brunei.

I prefer to think of it as I tried the rest and found the best. If I've settled, I settled well. I'd do it again, in a heartbeat. None of which helps LW.

Mr Right could be right around the corner, or the last guy you dated could be the best you'll ever find. Life is a series of choices with imperfect information. How do you improve your odds? As my mother-in-law said, "Go into marriage with both eyes open. Then close one eye."

LW is probably not a sane Megan Fox lookalike with money, and the next guy to date her isn't going to be Brad Pitt's better looking, richer brother either. Find a good guy, make the both of you happy, and stop looking.

A certain amount of material concern is bred into women I think. Hell a woman who doesn't have it would be insane I should think. The McCormack family from South Park fiction comes to mind.

If the wife of that piss poor family had been a little more concerned with her husband's ambition or lack thereof her kids wouldn't be eating frozen waffles for dinner every night.
----------

Not wasting life looking for the "perfect" man is good sense, since nobody is perfect. Find a good man with some compatibility with you and some decent prospects, and work hard to build a life together, and you'll probably be happy. Doing things for each other is an excellent way to build things up.

From what I observe, the women most unhappy and likely to leave, are the ones who do little to nothing out of their way for their husbands, and can't imagine doing so. And the women whose husbands are the same in reverse.
-------------

As far as the rest, I learned a long time ago that pussy is replacable. So is a penis quite frankly. If someone is a douchebag, find someone else. Its not that hard, good men and women are out there, just look in the right places. The bar at 1145 Sunday night probably isn't it, but the grocery store at 9 a.m. Saturday morning might be.

I am a 39-year-old woman who had 10 unsuccessful years of dating. Six months ago I met a fabulous guy -- he's funny, gorgeous, and treats me really well. Did I settle? No. I am lucky to have him and I am as in love with him as I was in love with my first boyfriend. So you don't have to "settle," whatever that means. The one change I did make, from all my dating and poor choices, was that I decided I had to start dating from the "end." Meaning, I had to see what I ultimately wanted -- which was someone who adored me and would treat me well -- and see how that squared away with my dating patterns.
I found that I tended to reject ardent men, and what I ended up with were tepid men who were not that into me six months in.
As soon as I decided I had to deal with my discomfort over men who were "too" into me, I met the man of my dreams.
Now I'm not saying this is everyone's problem -- but most people have contradictory wants. If they examine what they want in the end, they can focus on it in the beginning.

Anyone who wants to read Lori's book must read this first: http://jezebel.com/5467630/email-interview-with-lori-gottliebs-ex-tim

Former relationship--lot's of zing, no future.

Husband of last twenty-years, a little zing, a lot of nice. All I'm saying, is give nice a chance.

"And if you're sure 15-year-old girls are nice, well, nevermind. I remember BEING a 15-year-old girl with friends who were 15-year-old girls. "

Indeed. Irlandes, did you raise a daughter? Maybe 15 year old girls are nicer to boys (though I hurt a couple because I didn't know how to deal with emotional connections maturely) but they sure aren't particularly nice to other girls or to their parents.

As for "zing" it definitely depends on the definition. Anyone who expects the thrill of infatuation to persist in a relationship will be disappointed, but after 14 years, my husband and I still love each other, love to be together, and laugh and have a blast in all sorts of ways. Two keys: treat each other with respect at all times (especially when angry) and don't be attached at the hip.

"How does this sort of man as commodity work for all you men out there?"

It's demeaning, the way she puts it. But that's not the end of the world because as others have pointed out, she probably isn't all the representative of anything other than a desitre to say soemthing extreme enough to get noticed. If she has that instrumental an attitude towards herself, it's not too surprising she feels that way about others. But her attitude is marginal. I can't beleive most women think so little of themselves as to saddle themselves with a relationship like what she is touting.

When my wife and I first met she was confused because I wasn't what she expected (she was in her mid 30's and still had visions of knights on white horses). It took her a while to realize that I may not have been the kind of guy she always imagined being with, but I was still a good guy. Once she realized that the white horse wasn't a necessity (I actually drove, and still drive, a black Mustang though) she was much happier. If that's what the author means about "settling" and lack of "zing", maybe it's just a maturing process.

On the other hand (where I have different fingers) I've known LOTS of women who thought they were entitled to the four animals (mink in closet, Jaguar in garage, tiger in bedroom, and jackass to pay for it all). The first of those I met had me tied up for a while, but first glimpses of such afterward were enough to send me packing.

Oh, I also want to know where Irlandes met all those nice 15 year old girls, darn few of them went to MY High School. Most of the ones I knew enjoyed teasing the fat pimply kid with glassess into a case of the hornies, then telling him they really didn't like him.

In case you're wondering, we've been happily married for over ten years now, neither of us could imagine being with anyone else.

This may not be the case for everyone, but having recently done some reflection of my own, I found in my case that several of the qualities that I had been looking for that specifically gave me a 'high zing factor' were actually pretty bad qualities. I made some rational adjustments, because I want a longer-term happiness, not a short-lived rollercoaster of thrills and excitement and dips. The very idea of choosing a partner sensibly and decently seems less exciting. I think this is almost inherent; when we choose someone with poor qualities which we subconsciously know it's going to fail, we can dream about and anticipate an imagined life of potential but unrealistic levels of excitement. It's the fiction that is exciting. As soon as we choose someone "for real", they can't live up to our dreams ... it becomes real and permanent and by the very nature of what that is, more mundane.

Pursuing animal impulses and satisfying animal cravings isn't inherently morally or intellectually superior or noble. Nobody is ever perfect, so I suppose the definition of "settling" is a blurry continuum and not a fixed line, and based on a lot of variables. Nobody has all the qualities you are looking for. Bottom line is are you going to be happy (and is the other person).

"Girls ... are at their sweetest and nicest right after physical maturity, in the area of maybe 15 years old"

Yup ... like perfectly ripened fruit! (Of course, you can't openly admit such obvious things with the pedo-hysteria of today.)

"Life happens, and people become less nice when they've been shit on a few times. Happens to men, too."

Yeah, we all become substantially more battle-hardened as we get older. Which is part of the appeal of youth; the lack of that 'weariness' that grown-ups wear in many subtle ways.

"As soon as I decided I had to deal with my discomfort over men who were "too" into me, I met the man of my dreams."

Smart girl. If only more than 1% of women today had the brains to get that far in their reasoning processes.

"It seems to me over the last several years women have been encouraged to look at men as nothing more than sperm donors and wallets to support a woman's desire to have the big white wedding and have kids. I know not all women are like that (I'm not, but I know one baby-rabid woman for sure who truly believes that men were put on this planet to "take care of women")"

I think women have always been inclined this way (nothing wrong with that, in fact it's highly rational), but I would guess what's worsened this entitlement behaviour, if anything has, is modern alimony laws that do literally turn men into "sperm donor + wallet"; women are basically taught they just need to pop out a baby and they're entitled to paychecks forever without having to put anything further in from their end to maintain a loving two-way relationship.

"maybe it's just a maturing process."

Yup; these are just sensible, realistic values that used to be taught to girls until we all apparently collectively decided to revert to being more feral.

"Oh, I also want to know where Irlandes met all those nice 15 year old girls, darn few of them went to MY High School. Most of the ones I knew enjoyed teasing the fat pimply kid with glassess into a case of the hornies, then telling him they really didn't like him."

Funny, I was a scrawny nerd in high school and was bullied a lot by the guys, but girls were usually nice to me, I actually don't even remember ever being bullied or teased by a girl.

"We covered all this a couple weeks ago: What is this 'settling' shit? Are these women finding themselves at the boiling center of marketplace desires in any circles, let alone the ones they imagine themselves most entitled to live in?"

Thread-winner.

On a related note, I find it interesting when women advance their careers into their mid-thirties to a point where they have some professional and financial comfort, and at that point decide to find a mate. It appears to me that they assume women, like men, will be able to use their social status when looking for a mate. That is, they think that men will be attracted to them for their professional success, much like women are attracted to men for that reason.

Wrong. Guys generally don't desire such stuff when looking for mates.

In my experience, this plays out this way: I get a request for me to "think about someone among your guy friends who Ms. So-and-So could date." Ms. So-and-So is typically a professional with multiple degrees in her mid-thirties to forties who cannot land a date.

I never say it, but the problem is Ms. So-and-So wants to meet a college-educated doctor, lawyer, professor, higher-status business owner (e.g., successful, trendy restaurant) or other professional sort. She will not date a plumber, cop, etc. That leaves her a small pool relative to the actual pool. And that small pool she *will* consider are selecting their mates on different criteria--namely the physical attractiveness of the women and her personality, not social status. (Yeah, yeah, cue the gals saying such things are important to them. But let's be honest: not as important relative to men. Gals generally want to date someone who inspires envy in their friends.)

The painful truth, which I never share with the person requesting my match-making assistance, is that the guys I know who Ms. So-and-So *wants* to date, will likely turn her down. Because they simply have better options readily available. As successful guys in their thirties and forties, they have a wider selection, and Ms. So-and-So just cannot compete.

Life is not fair that way. The gals apparently thought men were like women, and that as they progressed through career success, they would have the same options in their 30s as similarly-aged and credentialed men would.

Sadly, in my experience, this was an error in their thinking. They do not have the same options.

I think what she is saying (poorly) is that women's standards - especially Manhattan-type professional women's standards - have gotten too high, and that to find fulfillment, it would be best to drop them down a bit.

I mean, it's relative. The average woman in middle America probably doesn't have such impossibly high standards, so they shouldn't drop much.

Plus, "zing" is just not as important to some women as others. My girlfriends and I were discussing this last night while watching "The Bachelorette". Some were swayed by the guy's with hot abs and physical chemistry, and others were more interested in things like what kind of dog he had ("aw, he's an animal lover!"). Some couldn't live without that physical chemistry and others would be fine without it.

If it's not high on your list, you can probably eliminate it, but never settle on your top priorities or you'll end up regreting your choice.

I agree w/ Amy that a lot of LG's advice, and perspective, is projection. She's very very very self absorbed, and kind of childish.

Lobster I think that what's changed is that women are now encouraged to see men as inferior. This is what justifies such a mercenary attitude for many women - i.e. they're all beneath me, so I should just take what I want.

Also, Spartee, it doesn't help if Ms. So-and-So is like most other women - fat.

You're absolutely right. The high-achieving woman in the corner office isn't going to land that type of man unless she has what men want - looks and personality. Men just don't care how much money you make, unless they want your money for themselves. Granted, if you are an absolute disaster with money, a guy doesn't want a liability. But high-achieving men are going to want the pretty receptionist with the sweet smile and big boobs. Will they stay with her? Maybe, if she's not too dumb. If the guy has money, then he figures she doesn't really need to have her own. He will in fact probably be proud of being able to give her whatever she wants.

Zing is actually ageless. I recently ran into a woman I had not seen for 20 years. She was every bit as nice, and every bit as hot, as twenty years ago. The platinum hair just made her look better.

My personal opinion for people who use the "settling for Mr. Just Good Enough" argument are people who have not done any introspection about themselves there entire lives.

When you work on your self and addressed those things about yourself (ones that are maybe not so great) that others may have brought up to you a few times (politely or not), and done your best at self assessment and change...and when you are happy with yourself - there is no such need to "settle" or need to find someone with "zings". You get the freedom of choosing someone you have fun with and enjoy their company - one you actually like being around...AND SOMEONE WHO LIKES BEING AROUND YOU.

When you are happy with yourself, I think that will go a long way for personal security and happiness...making you not so dependent on the other party always behaving like you want them to or meeting your every expectation the way you want them to.

Zings are fun though!

I assume that "settling" means that a woman can attract any male that falls below her status (vis-a-vis looks, socioeconomic class, etc.) IMHO, this is a flawed assumption. After all, there are reasons why this woman has never been married.

Regardless, any man with even the barest hint of intuition should be able to tell that he is being settled for. It should show itself in many different ways. When the realization dawns, then the man has two choices. If she has something he really wants (like super model looks or Oprah Winfrey cash) then go for it and learn to deal with the bad relationship. Otherwise ... run Forrest!

I'm in my late thirties, and have several friends who are single and have never been married. What I've found is that both the men and women have gotten more and more picky as they've grown older. For most of them, it's to the point where there is no person on the planet that could measure up. Their justification is that "I deserve the absolute best". Never mind that they come with baggage galore.
In my opinion, you need to have a small, core criteria of things you just won't be able to compromise in a marriage at all (religious views, how money is spent, etc.) Then grow up and learn that the person who will fit into this picture won't necessarily be wealthy, gorgeous, and dynamic.
I have two attractive girlfriends who claim to be desperate to get married, but turn their noses up at a man who isn't pulling down six figures a year. Maybe giving up that 'zing' means taking a long hard look in the mirror and realizing that you ain't no Angelina Jolie. So stop expecting Brad Pitt.

Regarding UW Girl's observation, I wonder if there is a romantic corollary to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where relatively incompetent people overestimate their relative competence, making it impossible for them to see their relative position as against more competent peers?

So I wonder if those unmatched folks UW references are incapable of discerning that they are not, in fact, Angelina Jolie when it comes to romantic marketability? In sum, they deserve the best, they think, because they are the best, in their own estimation.

"After all, there are reasons why this woman has never been married."

BINGO - Nail and Head!

Beyond turning this into the woman bashing blog -- which has been a huge disappointment to me -- I want to know how many of you guys have beer guts, or bad comb overs, or never saved any money, or prefer video games to girls, or. . .I'm sorry, the way you talk about women in post after post makes most of you sound like horrid catches, men who'd only attract someone desperate enough to settle for absolutely anything that came along. And that's as it should be, since it feeds into your huge paranoia about the evil that is woman and that all women are out to get you. You sound bitter and angry and immature -- and then project those qualities in yourself onto women instead of taking any responsibility for yourselves. Ick.

"Also, Spartee, it doesn't help if Ms. So-and-So is like most other women - fat." Well that would be the actual deal killer wouldn't it. It ain't career or age then it's looks, which goes back to the setting reasonable expectations issue. Rich fat ugly guy only get gold diggers too.

So I wonder if those unmatched folks UW references are incapable of discerning that they are not, in fact, Angelina Jolie when it comes to romantic marketability? In sum, they deserve the best, they think, because they are the best, in their own estimation.
Spartee -
That is exactly what the problem is. Yes, these men and women are my friends, and yes, they are wonderful people. I think perhaps because they have been successful in one area of their life (mostly career), it has distored their image of the whole.
No one likes to stand naked in front of a mirror and stare at the bad spots, both literal and figurative. But I think it would do a lot of these people some good.
I just remember a male friend making a snide comment about a girl being "not a real blond" and thinking, "Ummmmm, you're 20 pounds over weight and have adult acne, and you're dismissing a girl because she dyes her hair. Really? REALLY?!"

LG might have a few good ideas but she is so irksome it gets lost. This is a pretty good blog post about her:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/dont_settle_for_the_man_you_wa.html

"No one likes to stand naked in front of a mirror and stare..."

Jeez, why else would I spend all that time working out?

"I want to know how many of you guys have beer guts, or bad comb overs, or never saved any money, or prefer video games to girls, or" Mostly gone, full head of hair, 6 figure annual, own house, successful career. Though many of the guys I hear bitching in my circles really don't have all that much to offer and have a taste for Miss America caliber looks, so I'll concede you have some justification.

"since it feeds into your huge paranoia about the evil that is woman" Won't touch a women unless she has her own career. It's not a function of evil it's simple desperation. She wants to be taken care of all her life then when she gets bored tosses me and leave with my kids, car, house and paycheck.

Gretchen, that link was brilliant. Good stuff.

Well, Vlad, in my world I've seen it work the other way time and again. Man wants to feel young and desired and have his every whim met and when he starts to feel older and in need of something fresher -- GONE. Leaving the ex to hugely reduce her standard of living in order to support her kids.

Outside of very rarified circles, have never ever met a single mom who was living high off alimony or child support. And I know plenty that don't get anything at all. So much for taking great guys for all they're worth (and of course of course on this blog the guy's never responsible for the breakup and never ever withholds money for the children to punish the ex and always always wants to spend every waking minute with the children and not the new girlfriend and stays home from his job when one of them is sick and. . .such male perfection. Amy ought to launch a dating service for you; she'd make millions).

Still, I'm not paranoid about all men. I prefer to love them. I just detest the bad ones and, especially, the whiny ones who blame women for everything wrong in their lives and who seem increasingly to live on this blog.

P.S. The love of my life was bald. But no comb over. Not ever. Ick.

"Leaving the ex to hugely reduce her standard of living in order to support her kids." This will vary greatly by state, and economic status. You and I could be looking at two unrelated pools and drawing the wrong conclusion about the other. The main shaft point in a divorce is not gender but pay. The spouse that makes more money will get shafted. Especially if the other spouse (irrespective of gender) was a stay at home, even with grown kids.

Personal disclaimer: My later years growing up were in a very affluent area so my view is very much colored by this.

"how many of you guys have beer guts, or bad comb overs, or never saved any money, or prefer video games to girls ... most of you sound like horrid catches, men who'd only attract someone desperate enough to settle for absolutely anything that came along"

Wow, bitter much?

(I don't know what directions you were throwing your comments at, but FTR, I'm in good shape, have a successful business, save money, and currently in a relationship with a wonderful woman ... I doubt your comments describe any of the regular men on this forum.)

"Outside of very rarified circles"

The plural of anecdote is not 'data'.

"I prefer to love them"

"Prefer"? Wow, so it was a choice for you, a moral one, as if it were an achievement ... your wording reveals an implicit parenthetical 'in spite of how horrible I think they are' in your reasoning.

"Man wants to feel young and desired and have his every whim met and when he starts to feel older and in need of something fresher -- GONE. Leaving the ex to hugely reduce her standard of living in order to support her kids."

So you didn't let your man/men feel desired? *Everyone* likes to feel desired ... maybe if you'd let him feel desired he wouldn't have felt the need so much to fulfil that desire elsewhere. It might make you feel better to bash men than to admit you might just not be that pleasant to be around ... you're just spewing bitterness, and bitterness is never an attractive quality, even when justified. You go around making broad sweeping belittling statements and generalisation about men and you wonder why men don't feel happy and excited to stay around for long to keep listening to more of that. I've met these bitter angry 'men are so lousy' types.

Ick, it's very socially acceptable and politically correct, even encouraged, for women to express contempt for men publicly. On the other hand, there are very, very few places where a man can criticize an individual woman or a class of women and not face social/career repercussions. Amy has generously provided us a with a sort of safe space here, where we can make observations and criticisms and not be attacked for political incorrectness. Of course, she demands that our positions be well reasoned, and we demand the same from each other. But at least we can debate and not face public condemnation just for bringing issues up. The rabid gender feminists are all terrified of Amy, so they don't come here.

In reading any thread about gender issues here or at similar forums, you have to do some sorting out of personal frustrations on the commenter's part. Remember, this is a place where guys (and some women too) get to express feelings that they are forbidden from expressing anyplace else, so sometimes things get a bit over-wrought. But you can never tell a person that, just because they are a member of a politically or socially disfavored group, that invalidates their personal experience.

"I prefer to love them"

In fact, I think you don't love men at all, you hate them ... you prefer to believe and claim that you love them because it helps you retain this false mental construct of yourself as the one lacking 'issues' and doing things right, and admitting that you hated them would not allow you to maintain that delusion. But it's clear from your posts that you are bitter. Misandry probably develops for much the same reasons as misanthrope, and it's a logical reasoning error; as Socrates said ""Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable...and when it happens to someone often...he ends up...hating everyone."

Feebie: Gretchen, that link was brilliant. Good stuff.

Feebie is right. Clever...and very funny link.
(Thanks, Gretchen).

The practice of developing very long checklists of "non-negotiable" requirements for a prospective spouse has many of the same problems as the similar practice in the hiring of employees. See my post about hunting the five-pound butterfly.

so, Ick... yeah, there is some selection bias based on people who would write in, and share on a specific blog topic, too true. So there are any number of men/women in here that have had their lives imploded when a significant other has done things to them that they can't imagine, or weren't prepared for. The trend for guys, is that their ex- had the government to help out in that implosion, and sometimes, years later the pain just goes on. I'll leave it up to the other femmes on the thread to describe ex- guyfriends, but you get the picture. To make sense of the world, you have to look for proxies in your own life and the lives closest to you...

But I think you are insinuating that everyone is looking for some kind of perfection, when they really aren't. That is what the whole "settling" question is ACTUALLY about. It's aiming impossibly high, and then settling for the mark hit, rather than aiming for a realistic mark and hitting it.

The catch is, as vlad and other point out, when one gets that settled on mark, they don't keep them. Especially highly educated women, know full well and are reinforced constantly, that if they feel unfullfilled they have a "right" to kick him to the curb. Along with that "right" is everything they had together in the marriage, and the children.

Settling is AT LEAST as dangerous to men as women, because the man is the person that she is going to crater for no other reason than he was less than she wanted to start with. Men do other things in this regard, especially in the looks department, and how women may age out of that and change. The difference is, that women are incentivized to get out and take everything as a reward. That is why the estimate that 75% of divorces are started by women.

Single men eventually figure this out, after having their friends go through various things and watching it they become a bit gun-shy.

Also? dunno if anyone mentioned it explicitly yet, but women tend to want to marry up. So... for a very edumacated eastern elite woman, her dating pool is really small. Essentially because she won't look at anyone lesser than her, regardless of what kind of guy he is. UNTIL she decides to settle to get the other things she wants, and THEN she resents him from the get-go, because he isn't good enough.

Which leads me to always suggest to anyone that they need to learn to accept than to settle. You accept an individual. You settle on a RANGE, and then you are always looking for a better.

>>I am going to say something here, and please spare me the imbecilic comments about pedophilia, because that is not the case.

I have observed women for nearly 70 years. From Junior High the same thing was true. Girls (young women to those who worry about PC) are at their sweetest and nicest right after physical maturity, in the area of maybe 15 years old, which may be why weak men with no impulse control get in trouble.

Every year after that is downhill as far as nice goes, though of course there are going to be individual variations. There are going to be a few nice 50 year old women, for example...

irlandes,
I'm not going to give you any nonsense about pedophilia - because clearly you like tits.

Yummy young girls - with tits.

Fine by me. Since I imagine you know only to look - never leer, (heaven forbid!) & thus make the sweet young things feel in any way soiled by your unsolicited approval?

However, I am going to point out that the rest of your taunts about women reveal a mindset from the Dark Ages.

Are you quite sure you're only pushing 70?

"Which leads me to always suggest to anyone that they need to learn to accept than to settle."

That's right. Some folks also think being "content" is the same as being "resigned".

Wow...so, when I thought the author of this book was just trying to get women to let go of the Mr. Darcy fantasy, I was okay with her. After reading that interview, though, I no longer feel that way.

I actually know a woman like her, too, which is crazy. She won't date a guy unless he has a Master's, and there's no such thing as a job where a Master's won't help much. She's over 40 and single, but sorry to ruin the illusion guys, she's very thin and quite attractive. On the outside.

Anyway, I would think that if you settle for something you don't want, you would become resentful of it. There must be attraction and respect. You must trust your SO. Even if you say, "this is the best I can get," if there's nothing there you want, why fight for it?

I said the last time this book was brought up that I'd prefer a lifetime of contentment to a hot flame that went out very quickly, and I stand by that. But I can't be content without the love and respect. I wouldn't do that to someone else, and I certainly wouldn't do that to any children I might have.

Like Heidi, I was mostly on board with the concept of letting go of ideal fantasies in favor of realities in relationships. This was before I actually read that Atlantic article and excerpts from the book. I'm still on board with the idea that women need to have realistic expectations of men and relationships. But from what I've read (and I haven't read the entirety of her books, just excerpts and articles), this seems to be a sort of smokescreen for what Gottlieb really thinks. Take this paragraph (found in the link Gretchen provided):

My advice is this: Settle! That's right. Don't worry about passion or intense connection. Don't nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling "Bravo!" in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go.

She has me until the end. I'm all for letting go of the little annoyances if you can live with them (though I would require something be done about the halitosis). That sounds quite sensible and empowering, like you really can have great relationships, you just need to get over yourself first. But, oh, that last sentence. Women apparently want the structure of a family (no word on whether they want the family itself in all its messy glory), so they need not concern themselves too much with the actual man. This is every bit as damaging as wanting the fairytale wedding without giving a fig about the groom. It's just dressed up in a power suit.

I thought this quote from Gretchen's link was quite insightful:

The problem is she is daring someone to like her.

I put this attitude up on the bullshitometer close to those people who claim not to care what anyone thinks. She claims to want a relationship, but she is so insecure that she thinks that dating a man who actually wants her must mean she is settling for him, because there's obviously something deficient in him if he wants her, i.e. he is also settling. I think my head may be spinning.

Like I said earlier, I'm totally with the idea that having the fantasy of the ideal man and the ideal relationship (without thinking of reality) will likely end in disappointment and resentment. But I don't see how Gottlieb's advice here is a better alternative. In fact, it's sort of the same. Instead of focusing on being swept off your feet, focus on the infrastructure you want. Insert man here. The article at the link said it well, I think:

There's a human being there who existed well before you got to them, and they weren't built for you or your needs or your parents or your future dreams as an actor.

This is where I believe Gottlieb's advice falls short. It still does not acknowledge that there are actually people involved other than the woman who wants the relationship. Her idea of settling for what you can get so you can get what you want is still too neat and tidy for the real world. Real people tend not to conform to your ideas of what a relationship should look like. They're messy and unpredictable and run outside the lines a bit. That's what makes them fun. Using mercenary tactics in finding a man sucks all the fun out of the process and means you'll potentially miss out on a good man if you're too focused on the end product. A bad outcome I see from following Gottlieb's advice would be to marry and procreate with the man you've settled for, thus giving yourself the things you wanted, while missing the fact that he's actually funny, quirky, and a good guy. But those things don't seem to matter to her, other than they're the minor annoyances you need to get over in order to get what you want.

I have to admit I am really enjoying the Deconstruction of Gotlieb. Especially the interview with her ex.

Sometimes the "zing" is misleading. I wasted my early twenties pursuing the men with zing.

I found a different type of zing, perhaps a zang? And its' much better.

NumberSix, I couldn't have said it any better! The thought of that woman writing self-help books is actually quite scary.

I read the links provided here, and I can say, she has the insight and maturity I had when I was 17. And not even then could I be as self-centered as she is. And not even in my darkest hours of loneliness and desperation, looking for 'zing' all over the wrong places, and getting burned and bruised every time, could I have grown as much hate and resentment for men as this lady in such a passiv-agressively way is showing.

...NOW I understand Amy's sentence "Manhattan as a state of mind". Very well said, I love it! :)

A very long time ago when I had a crisis in my life, someone said to me about relationships: Maybe what you want isn't what you need.

And it turned out to be true. Sometimes you have to work on desiring what is actually good for you.

Thanks to all the sensible men who've responded and. . well, Lobster, thanks for the laughs. You know nothing but apparently that doesn't stop you from sweeping generalizations about strangers. You aren't by any chance Irlandes' son, are you?

"You know nothing but apparently that doesn't stop you from sweeping generalizations about strangers"

Um, by definition you can't make a 'sweeping generalization' about a single individual. It's a pity you're so defensive and closed to listening to anything about yourself, because it is *plainly obvious* from the things you write - you aren't hiding anything except from yourself. But I expected it; the reason you are where you are, spouting venom at random groups of people on a forum, is because the only path to self-improvement is self-criticism, and if you were capable of listening to criticism reflectively, you wouldn't have had so many problems.

"so they need not concern themselves too much with the actual man[or woman?]." NumberSix

This is is true of many people, and not necessarily just women, or even the high flyers. It is an EXPECTATION, an idea of an existence. If a person is way down the list of desires after the wedding, house, and kids, things will go bad. I don't want to be A man in your life, I want to be THE man in your life. I'm sure women feel the same, at least some do. Probably some don't really care if they are valued that way, as long as they are in charge.

This is where the fairy tales are a disservice, IF you believe they might be true. This is also where Gottlieb's ideas are just cover for rationalizing that you aren't trying to find an idividual, but a group. Any guy will do? I think men do this entriely different in general. We aren't focussed on marriage in general, we just want someone to bed, as a basis.

This makes sense from the evopsych direction, where men are just spreading seed around. So guys are making a tradeoff to only have one partner, aligning themselves to one woman, and to have only one kid at a time. We have made LOTS of structures in society to make that work...

In some ways, the structures have swung the other way, and this is why the trend is bad. There is quite a lot of ink on why men don't "grow up and commit." Just as there is plenty of ink, on settling, or "how to train your man." Makes me shake my head. Why would a guy WANT to get to get involved in that?

Just because a group of women in society demands it? It has become a lot of downside, with the traditional tradeoffs gone. Personally, I don't know if it was ever not one extreme or the other. Apparently my grandfather was a cad, but my grandmother didn't have much of a way to get out of that, and suffered in silence. Meanwhile my independent, liberated ex, has decided to do everything she can to make sure I'm punished for marrying her. I made a bad choice, and suffered in silence, and it actually got worse.

So, one wonders what Gottlieb is actually searching for... how far down is she going to have to go to settle for a guy that isn't smart enough to know better?

The thing in these cases ISN'T that all women are bad, or that all men are bad. It is the underlying idea, that Gottlieb veils, but some don't even veil. That, at any time, one person in a relationship can destroy the other, by kicking them out or leaving. It has always been the case that there were just some bad people out there, male or female. But the institutionalized relativeism is harming everyone, especially kids.

If you only get into a marriage to get what you want, and it's not the person... Then how hard is it to get out? Especially when you are backed up by courts and lawyers? On the guy side, why even go there, when there isn't anything different that you can't get without taking the chances?

That people still pair off and stay, is sometimes surprising, but I think it's more that it's a robust human system to start with, then anything we have thunk up to do about it. Importantly, the cultures that are still successfully making babies and replacing themselves, are going to inherit the earth, while everyone that thinks tons of thinky thoughts, and has made many arguments against the core of having a family are writing themselves out of existence. A peiece like Gottlieb's doesn't help, when it doesn't even ask questions about why it's a good thing to get together, and what are the reasons to do so.

It's all about doing it because you'll look fabulous in the wedding dress.

You've decided many things about me, all of them untrue. That would be a sweeping generalization about me.

I'm only closed to listening to comments from people whose words have never given me a single reason to respect them.

Please go bash some other woman now. It's what you do.

"What is this "settling" shit? Are these women finding themselves at the boiling center of marketplace desires in any circles, let alone the ones they imagine themselves most entitled to live in?"

Gold! What's been bugging me about the word 'settle' since I first read it, crystallized!

Ick, this post is discussing women's attitudes toward dating and marriage. When discussed honestly, this is not "bashing" but TELLING THE TRUTH....there are legions of 40-somethings out there looking for sperm donors because they waited too long looking for Mr. Perfect. One look at women's online dating profiles will show you yard-long laundry lists of height , weight, educational and financial 'must-haves' in a potential mate. It's the reason these articles and books about 'settling' are coming out so often recently. Too many women are chasing rainbows.

Your comment about 'beer guts' and 'comb overs' would be valid IF those men were expecting to marry Miss America or some supermodel and stubbornly remaining single until it happened, but you don't see that happening much, do you?

Ick's style reeks of our resident troll BOTU.

I think the single biggest problem is that expectations are completely out of line with available reality.

Everyone, man and woman, thinks that they are entitled to the perfect mate. We're often told by friends when we lament our singleness that "there's someone out there for you". Popular media teach us to expect perfection and nothing less.

The problem is, there is no perfect person. And on the surface, LG's advice seems sound - adjust your expectations to suit reality.

But a bunch of girls who have spent their formative years being fawned over and called "princess" are not gonna settle for a regular guy. And boys who have grown up being told that they need an MBA and a hot wife aren't gonna settle for the mousy little nerdette down the way.

The question becomes one of "What am I supposed to want"? Was that ever taught to young people at some point in history? Because frankly I don't have a clue.

And dating is a bitch when you don't know what you want, how to figure out what you want, or how to go get it.

"(and of course of course on this blog the guy's never responsible for the breakup and never ever withholds money for the children to punish the ex and always always wants to spend every waking minute with the children and not the new girlfriend and stays home from his job when one of them is sick and. . .such male perfection. Amy ought to launch a dating service for you; she'd make millions)."

And it's never a case of the wife being a bitch, and withholding sex, these men always leave home at the drop of a hat, leaving a perfectly happy marriage behind.

It's always the man who's evil, but without a willing other woman, no man could cheat or leave his wife. The other woman IS OKAY with him leaving his wife and kids....aren't you mad at the other women too?

hmm. If zing = physical attraction, then no. You cannot compromise on that EVER. I would have throttled my boyfriend to death long ago, were it not for the desire to continue having sex with him.

>>irlandes,
>>I'm not going to give you any nonsense about pedophilia - because clearly you like tits.
>>Yummy young girls - with tits.
>>Fine by me. Since I imagine you know only to look - never leer, (heaven forbid!) & thus make the sweet young things feel in any way soiled by your unsolicited approval?
>>However, I am going to point out that the rest of your taunts about women reveal a mindset from the Dark Ages.
>>Are you quite sure you're only pushing 70?
>>Posted by: Jody Tresidder at May 25, 2010 1:03 PM

That is just about the most offensive, stupid posting I have ever seen on Amy's Blog. How f'ing dare you make up lies like that? There was absolutely nothing in my posting to justify such nasty, ugly remarks. Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I meant by imbecilic remarks about pedophilia. This is not the first time I have encountered people of your sick nature.

Most women today in the US would be surprised what most men really think of most women. For 40 years we have had to put up with every imaginable insult at the hands of women. No matter how hard we try all we get are insults and criticisms. And, as other men have pointed out any attempt to ask women to tone it down is met with more insults and name-calling.

Does that make men feel differently? No, it just shuts them up. So, when you encounter a man who you cannot shut up, you really imagine there must be something terribly wrong with him. "Every other wimp shuts up when I call him nasty, ugly names. What is wrong with his fiend?"

>>Funny, I was a scrawny nerd in high school and was bullied a lot by the guys, but girls were usually nice to me, I actually don't even remember ever being bullied or teased by a girl.

You noticed that, too? Thanks for sharing.

>>Indeed. Irlandes, did you raise a daughter? Maybe 15 year old girls are nicer to boys (though I hurt a couple because I didn't know how to deal with emotional connections maturely) but they sure aren't particularly nice to other girls or to their parents.

Yes, I certainly did raise a daughter, and she is nice to everyone.

>>Well, Vlad, in my world I've seen it work the other way time and again. Man wants to feel young and desired and have his every whim met and when he starts to feel older and in need of something fresher -- GONE. Leaving the ex to hugely reduce her standard of living in order to support her kids. --Ick

I'm sure you have seen it work the other way. However, the stats show it is women who mostly dump their husbands. Around 80% of the time, varying depending upon the state. My guess is you see what you expect to see.

A major study of divorce printed in my eldest daughter's college textbook showed that most divorce did not involve serious problems as such. No violence, no more than one verbal quarrel a month average. They did not mention that most women who file for divorce have already met their next lover.

This thing about divorce being evil men dumping faithful, loving wives for a younger women is part of the feminist fiction to keep women whipped into a lather of hatred for men.

Women say things like, "I wasn't happy." In most cases, they weren't happy as a girl; they weren't happy as a young adult; they weren't especially happy when they married. Then when they were married and still weren't happy, they conclude the problem is the husband.

>>irlandes,
>>I'm not going to give you any nonsense about pedophilia - because clearly you like tits.
>>Yummy young girls - with tits.
>>Fine by me. Since I imagine you know only to look - never leer, (heaven forbid!) & thus make the sweet young things feel in any way soiled by your unsolicited approval?
>>However, I am going to point out that the rest of your taunts about women reveal a mindset from the Dark Ages.
>>Are you quite sure you're only pushing 70?
>>Posted by: Jody Tresidder at May 25, 2010 1:03 PM

I went back after a while, and re-read my postings to see if I missed something I wrote that set you off on a rage, and I had not. There was nothing in there to justify your nasty, ugly posting. You just made up the nastiest, ugliest things that you could make up.

Your posting tells much more about you than it does about me.

Since you have pulled my string, I am going to say something here I do not usually say where women are. It is women exactly like you, meaner than a junk yard dog, who are the reason I am in Mexico. No one should live any place where they are treated like that.

irlandes, you might want to scroll up a bit and read all the posts by women like myself that have been defending men against uberfeminist attacks. You're spewing venom at people who would otherwise support you.

I'm not Jody, so I can't say for sure what she really meant by her post, but I didn't take it to be as offensive as you did. I think your reaction is way overblown, especially since, in your post, you said please spare me the imbecilic comments about pedophilia. If you feel the need to preface something you're going to say with a phrase like that, then maybe you need to think again about what you're going to say. You brought the pedophilia into the equation here. I wouldn't have gone to the pedophilia place if you hadn't mentioned it, and I don't think it's true. I think Jody's assessment is pretty accurate from what I've read on here. You like to look at young women's bodies. There's nothing wrong with that, yet you preemptively strike with the pedophile comments.

No matter how hard we try all we get are insults and criticisms.

You can't see it, but I'm miming playing a tiny violin right now. Spare me the vitriolic whining about how men can't win. You can, but it's easier for you to not try and then bitch about how no one will let you win. I've asked this of you on another thread, but I'll repeat myself: please stop with the whining and actually do something since you feel that strongly. You're not making things any better for yourself or the men you claim to want to help by sitting back and doing nothing while ranting about how hard it is. It is hard. Yet there are so many men that have found a way to have a good life with a woman who doesn't want to make him miserable. They didn't get that by moaning about the injustice of it all from outside the fight.

So let me get this straight:

Woman makes a living by publicly writing about every relationship with every human being she has ever been in. She spends countless pages analyzing every interaction she has ever had. Always coming out as the victim of circumstance...

And bitch cant get a man? Get the fuck outta here.

Always coming out as the victim of circumstance...

Nail right square on the head, Ppen, because that's a damn good point. What makes it worse, in my view, is that she's applied a colorful candy coating of supposed practicality onto her self-administered victimization. Some of her advice is actually really good (like letting go of unrealistic expectations of relationships), but it gets undercut by the rest of the crap.

People who revel in their victim status annoy the holy hell out of me. Please attach that sentence to the end of my last post, as well.

Does the vigor of this thread have something to do with the release of that film? Is this what late springtime has come to mean in the United States nowadays?

Here's a thing about tits.

Y'know, peeps, a lot of commenters in here have been sensibly explicit about the actual human connections that have to happen before a love union goes well. Talk from young women about "settling" isn't just repugnant, it's embarrassing. And from aging women, it's even worse. I'd always liked to think that the way stupid young men talk about women –all that typical schoolboy bravado– was a gender-specific problem... That maybe it was the product of sports culture, or some sort of insufficiently-feminized pre-American ethnic & national origins, or something like that. Yet for some, perhaps including our hostess, this wording is appropriate. Is there anyone reading this blog who wouldn't think of a man who spoke of "settling" as as a narcissistic (as well as coal-hearted) fool?

But here we see there are a lotta women out there nowadayz who, with chatter about "settling", are just as naive... Just as eager to think that this dearest human bond is just another realm of competition, or at least of market savagery: A context where, when she doesn't like the way an outcome is beginning to jell, our protagonist can righteously FORCE a desired conclusion. (For example, surrendering no intimacy or trust to a man with whom she'll spend [maybe half] her life, attaching solely for access to his family-sustaining wealth and resources.)

Well, yeah, y'know, t'was probably ever thus. Earlier this year, I happened upon a short narrative of Frank and Viola. (PgDn at time or two for their wedding portrait, preceded by a little info on how they came into each other's lives.) Maybe they both thought they were "settling", too... But I bet neither of them said so to anyone, before the wedding day or after. Maybe on the way to the church that morning, one or both muttered something to their dearest friend.

"Settling" is just not the mentality of someone who's into it. And by "it", I mean human connection.

The motivation for marriage is the least important thing in this equation. In the end, what matters is how two people treat each other.

If a woman settles, that's ok, as long as she gives her husband what he needs to continue feeling loved.

99.9% of relationships lose their zing. It's why we have expressions like "the honeymoon's over." It is driven by a lot of hormones in our bodies. It's easy to "love" someone with those drugs coursing through the bloodstream.

Real love begins when the hormones stop and the people in the relationship choose to continue to give love to each other.

Any person who gets married, then withdraws love because they just don't feel the zing anymore is not mature enough to be in a long-term relationship.

Tony

""Settling" is just not the mentality of someone who's into it. And by "it", I mean human connection."

I think that a lot of these "settlers" can't accept a real connection with another human. They over analyze and over think everything to the point of insanity. Everything is a slight. Every action is backed by an evil ulterior motive. Maybe a guy is just nice, and that's why he held the door open - he didn't do it because he thinks you're weak and incapable. He isn't a sexist. And if a guy doesn't call you after a date it's because he isn't interested in seeing you again. Stop making excuses for him in order to feel better about it (or at least, if you do make excuses over some pints of B&J's with your gf's, know in your heart he doesn't like you and then move on. Promptly.).

The Settling Women grasp on to an idea of perfection in all areas of life that can't exist. They don't just hold men up to this 1000x magnifying lens of judgment - they hold themselves up to it, too. Lori G. seems like a miserable motherfrakker. I feel *bad* for her b/c I'm not sure she'll ever be happy - b/c she doesn't want to be happy. She can't let go of her neuroses b/c she gets off on the drama and keeping people in their place. Everything's a fucking competition and everything is a fight. Human connection, for them, is the fantasy and Prince Charming is the reality. This woman still believes in Mr. Right/Prince Charming and is just trying to convince herself it's okay to stop waiting around for him. B/c her lack of foresight and poor decision making meant she didn't fully realize how much raising a baby alone sucks hairy donkey balls.

Real human connection is too scary. It's an urban legend to these people - b/c how can you have a REAL connection with someone who isn't PERFECT? Her whole book attempts to deny this idea, but if she honestly didn't cling to the idea of Mr. Perfect, she'd find, quickly, that a connection with a Human (not Mr. Perfect) is satisfying and wonderful and has Zing...that isn't settling it's called having a non-middle school relationship.

I wouldn't date her even if I were into it. And by it I mean nominally attractive, 40-something year old women with a kid and with a faux superiority complex that she uses as a defense mechanism to push people away because she hates herself. She's a fucking mess. But I'll give her one thing: she's suckering- in people to help her turn a profit on her psychological issues.

... wait... fifteen year old girls are *sweet*???

ROFL!!!

As someone who has taught High School...

ROFL!!! ROFL!!! ROFL!!!

And no, it's not just the other girls that they play mindfuck with....

I will concede that they -look- sweet. And know how to act.

That is just about the most offensive, stupid posting I have ever seen on Amy's Blog. How f'ing dare you make up lies like that? There was absolutely nothing in my posting to justify such nasty, ugly remarks. Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I meant by imbecilic remarks about pedophilia. This is not the first time I have encountered people of your sick nature.

Give the stuffy outrage a rest, irlandes.

I barely did more than rewrite your own words more robustly.

Is it my use of "tits" that so got up your nose?

I even agreed with you!

I specifically said that men who make a lip-smacking song and dance about the delicious charms of 15-year-old females "right after physical maturity" [your phrase] should NOT be accused of pedophilia!

And as for this bit, irlandes! (Brace yourself, baby):

"Since you have pulled my string, I am going to say something here I do not usually say where women are. It is women exactly like you, meaner than a junk yard dog, who are the reason I am in Mexico. No one should live any place where they are treated like that."

You dare to pretend that's "something I do not usually say"??!

You say it practically every freaking time you comment here!

Every single time you urge men to scoot for the border and go shopping for more culturally compliant wives down Mexico way,
you make a crack about the nagging feminist harridans who have overwhelmingly ruined the love market in the US of A.

And I'd like to thank NumberSix for beautifully expressing what was hinky about your original comment.

As NumberSix noted: "You said please spare me the imbecilic comments about pedophilia. If you feel the need to preface something you're going to say with a phrase like that, then maybe you need to think again about what you're going to say..."

You can't see it, but I'm miming playing a tiny violin right now. Spare me the vitriolic whining about how men can't win.

Outstanding. One thing I've noticed about many men is that they criticize the victim mentality while doing their best to embrace it for themselves.

Ick's style reeks of our resident troll BOTU. - brian

I dont know man, no matter his moniker BOTU invaribably mentions something being stuck in his ass at somepoint in his posts

Right on, Jody! Irlandes says that ALL the time. Is there anybody here who didn't know why he's in Mexico?

He also shares his love of young, compliant girls (who have oddly developed "crushes" on him) a bit more often than makes me comfortable. But he did share once about his wife and their still great sex life, so I assume he's just a harmless old guy, nostalgic for his youth, which must've been in the dark ages.

And what Ick said said was true. You guys turn every thread, and every topic, into a female bashing session. You never admit that men can do any wrong...break up marriages, cheat, not want to see their kids...and pollute the whole fucking Gulf of Mexico...things like that.

I don't think there are any true man-hating women here. We hate bad men. Rapists, pedophiles, politicians, and BP Oil executives. A high percentage of those categories are male.

Each gender has many wonderful people and some truly horrible people. We can talk about the horrible people and things they do, and books they write, without it being turned into a referendum on the entire gender.

re: Gottlieb's weirdness

This is what I was referring to in my earlier post, and I wonder whether it motivates some of the reaction to her by other women. As Gretchen has noticed, Gottlieb is a piece of work. She has a lot of issues, along with several very negative character traits, and holds herself up as a template for other women. So it's not surprising that many women chafe at the comparison. Also her construction of 'settling' is mercenary and desperate. She really does seem to regard men as substitutable.

The shame of it is that Gottlieb had the chance to recast 'settling' in a way that might be helpful. Because in my experience there are a lot of women who sabotage themselves with their 'list'. The popular culture seems to reinforce this tendency. A more sympathetic account could have imparted some needed balance here.

"Right on, Jody! Irlandes says that ALL the time. Is there anybody here who didn't know why he's in Mexico?

He also shares his love of young, compliant girls (who have oddly developed "crushes" on him) a bit more often than makes me comfortable."

Amen. Female compliance is a virtue, and the younger they are, the more compliant. Imagine that. 'Round these parts, we have a term for 15-year-old girls: Jailbait. I guess that makes me some sort of shrew, for pointing that out.

You never admit that men can do any wrong...
pollute the whole fucking Gulf of Mexico...
things like that - LS

Like women never use products derived from crude oil.

Incidentally wasnt the original point of this thread to bash Gottlieb(a woman)

How is it we are in the wrong even when doing what we are supposed to do?

These threads tend to start out with bashing one woman, then degenerate into some half-assed "discussion" on the treacherous, nasty nature of American women.

"Like women never use products derived from crude oil."

Or British Petroleum has no female employees.

It's pretty naive to think that when a group of men are asked about how it feels to be used by a woman, that a little misogyny wouldn't inevitably creep in. I also find it ironic that every poster complaining about female bashing ends their comments with a healthy dose of male bashing.

"If a man yells in the woods and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"

>i>It's pretty naive to think that when a group of men are asked about how it feels to be used by a woman, that a little misogyny wouldn't inevitably creep in.

So we should expect misogyny? And never call men on it?

"I think that a lot of these "settlers" can't accept a real connection with another human. "

Gretchen, I think you just peeled every single layer off of that onion in one sentence. The "settlers", men and women, got themselves into that situation because they are terrified of intimacy. (And I'm not even talking about sexual intimacy necessarily; it's any kind of intimacy that they have the problem with.) The entire rest of the story is just rationalization.

"These threads tend to start out with bashing one woman, then degenerate into some half-assed "discussion" on the treacherous, nasty nature of American women." Pretty much the same as when men getting the shaft end in a divorce gets discussed and some posters start with how men take advantage of women. And that we are all bastards that leave our families for some young tail. How we are evil perverts who deserve to be shot for asking our wives to wear sexy stuff.

"How is it we are in the wrong even when doing what we are supposed to do?" Discuss a topic not go off on a whole gender.

Gender baiting just like race baiting degenerates a topic quite graphically. Throw in a few misanthropes like Crid and it's a fucking party.

I think both sides are sensitized, we all know stories of shit examples of our respective gender. When a fellow male gets short ended we see this as a possible out come for us. Then we hear some feminist pundit looking to be a paid media whore shoot off about how he deserved it for being male, voila. Powder keg with a drunk smoking money on top. Or the revers where so hyper conservative (media whore in disguise) starts with she asked for it.

"the delicious charms of 15-year-old females" As an uncle the idea of any adult looking at one of my nieces as compliant or delicious makes me want to open carry the biggest thing I can get my hands on.

Then we hear some feminist pundit looking to be a paid media whore shoot off about how he deserved it for being male, voila.

You hit on something important here. I think we need to stop spending so much time listening to media whores and spend more time looking at the real people in our lives.

Cousin Dave: And I didn't even shed a tear on that damned onion!

It's all quite obvious. Gottlieb and the like (men and women) are narcissists.

She dated a "fatty" and tried to change him. She wasn't attracted to him but realized 1) he was nice and 2) made her feel better b/c he was nice TO her but at the same time her self-perception is so inflated she felt too "good" to date someone who was fat. EG: the fat guy is not as good as her. So she beat him down emotionally and was outwardly embarrassed by his looks. And she supposedly has some kind of knowledge we can use positively? She is a walking contradiction and cannot keep track of her own emotions or motivations for things; how can we believe anything she says, when she doesn't believe them herself?

It was never about cultivating a deep, meaningful connection (you gotta say the word connection in a silly voice.). The relationship was a means to an end:
1. to help her validate her worth b/c she is *wanted*
2. to help her validate her worth b/c she is better than someone (fat boyfriend = less good)
3.to improve the outward, public perception of her, b/c people in committed relationships are somehow revered or better than single ppl (again, I'm just ripping her apart b/c the more I read about her/read her work the less I can tolerate her).

Fat Boy "Tim" was never important to her. He was an object in her game to improve her public and self-perceptions. Even her fucking bastard, sperm bank baby is a pawn. It makes her feel LOVED! And NEEDED! A baby validated her existence when she couldn't find it in herself. What better way to fix your broken soul than the creation of a new one - a clean slate to fuck up! If she can't trick a man into staying with her, a baby is a great solution b/c it can't fight back or walk away.

YET.

I can't wait for the parenting book she'll write in 10 years.

"drunk smoking money" sorry should be "drunk smoking monkey"

Wow, Gretchen, you're on fire. Great analysis.

I attended a meeting about BP last night, and the top executives are almost all male - British knights with Sirs in their titles. The little David against Goliath attorney has been fighting BP for years and detailed their corrupt and often criminal way of conducting business.

While I hate these (mostly) men who made the decisions to risk lives and the environment by taking unnecessary shortcuts, I really liked him.

Good men/bad men. Good women/bad women. There are some people we should simply all despise. Gottlieb is a stupid, selfish woman. Saying so doesn't make anyone a misogynist. Saying that some men are selfish and stupid doesn't make anyone a misandrist either.

But when we expand that into talk about all women or all men being of a certain nature is when these threads run off track.

Regarding the BP distaster, I'll point out that the 11 "workers" who died in the oil rig explosion were also men.

"I attended a meeting about BP last night, and the top executives are almost all male - British knights with Sirs in their titles."

I'm always amused by the feminist opinion that the world would be so much better if only women were in charge.

While this may indeed be true, my experience with female leadership in the corporate world is that these women are at least as power hungry, cruel, and biased as their male counterparts. People are people and power corrupts.

Energy production is a dangerous and risky business, no matter who's in charge. Until you go completely off of the grid, it is pure hypocrisy to blame the dealers for issues which resulted from your addiction.

It wasn't "issues related to our addiction". BP has a long history of negligence for the sake of pure greed, and they made specific decisions to ignore warning signs and go forward even with a damaged blow-out preventer. This disaster was entirely avoidable. 11 men lost their lives and countless more of us, male and female, who make our livings from the sea or related tourism are suffering, not to mention all the marine life and shorelands.

But I agree that there are certainly female BP executives with blood on their hands too. No doubt.

"Energy production is a dangerous and risky business, no matter who's in charge. Until you go completely off of the grid, it is pure hypocrisy to blame the dealers for issues which resulted from your addiction."

Exactly. It never fails to amaze me how people can project everything onto those "greedy" oil execs as though they themselves are not eager consumers. A "friend" of my mom started berating her about the oil and gas industry (of which my father is a part) and their price gouging. I asked where said friend was in the 80s and 90s when gas was cheap and petroleum workers were getting laid off. I don't remember many thanks then.

It doesn't need to be that risky and dangerous. This was entirely avoidable, and if we just make apologies for them "'cause it's so dangerous", that's what they want, so the public won't see how many corners they cut and lives they willfully and knowingly risked doing so.

As a business owner, I was kind of in that mindset myself at first - mistakes happen - but, after that meeting, I believe BP is a dirty, corrupt company that's been getting away with this for years. This wasn't just human error. This is a company that has been warned countless times about lax safety and lack of preparedness and arrogantly ignored the warnings.

Last night, the attorney who has sued them multiple times, said that BP, in fact, was the reason the Exxon Valdez spill was so damaging. BP had promised the Alaskan gov that they had plenty of booms to contain a spill, but afterwards, it came out that they had absolutely none up there. They lied, and as result, the environmental damage was far worse than it would've been. Yet, did they learn from this? Apparently not.

>>"Energy production is a dangerous and risky business, no matter who's in charge. Until you go completely off of the grid, it is pure hypocrisy to blame the dealers for issues which resulted from your addiction."

AllenS,
Then when exactly was the last super-slick, mega-buck corporate marketing campaign - that informed consumers of the real risks of filth and death in the energy industry?

You are wrong about the hypocrisy here.
The "dealers" should take the blame for this one, smack in the kisser.

Lovelysoul you need to consider that you're getting this from someone w/ a huge financial incentive to paint BP as negligent.

Jody if you didn't realize that Oil recovery is dirty and dangerous, you've really got no business commenting on any of this.

FWIW BP doesn't own the platform or the affected infrastructure. They're financially liable, but it wasn't their operation that let this stuff fall through the cracks.

Wow, I can't believe there's so many oil company apologists here.

I understand that, malromo, but you are apparently unaware that it was BP employees who made several key decisions on that rig prior to the explosion. They overruled the Transocean experts on the rig and insisted on using a faster, less safe method involving seawater over mud, ignoring the fact that peices of rubber from the blowout preventer had already come to the surface and the battery wasn't working on one side. They also ignored warnings of higher pressure several hours before the explosion. More and more, it's become apparent that BP specifically called the shots that led to this disaster, and that doesn't even address their general lack of preparedness.

>>Jody if you didn't realize that Oil recovery is dirty and dangerous, you've really got no business commenting on any of this.

Huh?

Where did I say anything of the sort, malromo?

I was talking about the mega-bucks marketing of the energy industries. The messages are all about clean/efficient/safe/responsible production.

Then when the shit hits the fan - it's somehow the fault of dumb consumers? Or - as you've just done yourself - we get X pointing the finger of blame at Y...

> Then when the shit hits the fan - it's somehow
> the fault of dumb consumers?

A shitty truth is that this was going to happen. Congress hears all sorts of whining about oil prices, so when BP (or whomever) says they need a little regulatory relief, they get it. This is much like the banking / real estate crisis: The problem is that government didn't do the right things, the problem is that people think other human beings can be paid to watch out for their broader best interests at competitive rates... Which is not so.

Hey LS, do you know of a source for more info on the timeline of the accident? I've been looking for one, and I haven't come up with anything that is both detailed and appears trustworthy.

I think the problem is that activists who want to hold oil companies to account (which there's nothing wrong with) are waaaaay too quick to jump from there to broad condemnation of the entire energy industry and everyone who uses energy. They've allowed the Luddites and monkey-wrenchers to set the agenda, and by doing so, they've destroyed their credibility. If they'd keep their eye on the ball, they'd have a lot more public support. I'm as pro-petroleum as anyone here, but I'll be the first to say that there's a lot of blame to be assigned in this BP thing. From what I've read, this accident was absolutely preventable and some of the technical and managerial decisions that were made are inexplicable and unforgivable.

(How did we from "zing" to oil spills?)

>>(How did we from "zing" to oil spills?)

Via the slippery slope, Cousin Dave!

I was wondering about that myself, Cousin Dave. Made perfect sense at the time.

I realized I never gave my take on the original question, so if you're still interested, Amy, I have some thoughts.

I think the base question here is about motive. If you're chasing only the zing, then you're probably doomed to fail. If you just want a fling or a short-time thing, then that's all well and good. But the problem comes in claiming to want a stable relationship and still only going after the zing (read: guys who are bad for me but that I find sexy because of that). Not looking at character will only end badly.

Conversely, and what I think we've been addressing here, if you treat looking for a man to have a relationship with like you're looking for the right equation on a spreadsheet, then you're probably doomed to resentment. This is the "settling" we've been talking about. Completely discounting the zing in order to get what you want (read: the infrastructure of a family) will likely not make you any happier, even if you get what you claimed to want. Mercenary tactics do not happy, healthy relationships make.

It's important to find a mate with good character. Probably more important that the zing, all things being equal. There are plenty of men to zing with that you wouldn't want to date. But a relationship that you want to last a while that doesn't have any zing, especially if that's by design (I'm looking at you, Lori Gottlieb), won't necessarily be any better. I think that's where a lot of people go wrong here. They think that because they're being so pragmatic that they're owed a happy relationship. Those people are likely the ones who start to wonder what that zing is cracked up to be and cheat on their perfectly nice spouses.

So zing if you want, don't if you don't, but examine your motives.

"Fat Boy "Tim" was never important to her. He was an object in her game to improve her public and self-perceptions. Even her fucking bastard, sperm bank baby is a pawn. It makes her feel LOVED! And NEEDED! A baby validated her existence when she couldn't find it in herself. What better way to fix your broken soul than the creation of a new one - a clean slate to fuck up! If she can't trick a man into staying with her, a baby is a great solution b/c it can't fight back or walk away.

YET."

Amen to that, Gretchen! In fact, Amen to your entire posting...

I wouldn't take any advice from that Gottlieb; instead, I can't wait to read your book ;-)

"It doesn't need to be that risky and dangerous." If we are talking about off shore drilling then no you are very much mistaken. There is nothing remotely safe about saturation diving or working at 151 atmospheres of pressure. Or moving what is essential explosive gel from 5000 feet under water to shore where it is refined. This has and always will be inherently dangerous process. Alternative energy while nice isn't quite at the level where it can really compete with petroleum. Otherwise BP would be licensing solar cells and other green tech. Those have a much lower over head and a simpler infrastructure, which means big fat payouts for execs.

To those that might think I'm a BP apologist. BP should be raked over to coals for this as hard as possible. A few executives with support staff should do a few years in a real prison and their oil rights get forfeited and sold to the highest bidder. Alternatively just institute a ban on BP products and link the bans to the their top brass. That said we are dependent on oil so these things will continue to happen because green is not at the level where it becomes a viable alternative.

> A few executives with support staff should
> do a few years in a real prison

Daydreams like that are s emotionally gratifying, aren't they. But do you know what would happen?

Good oil companies, RESPONSIBLE ones, would demand ever-more government involvement and protection before they did any drilling. And meanwhile, prices would skyrocket.

Of course there'd always be fly-by-night guys who'd be ready to roll the dice with substandard technique.

Off with their heads isn't likely to move us forward with this.

"And what Ick said said was true. You guys turn every thread, and every topic, into a female bashing session. You never admit that men can do any wrong...break up marriages, cheat, not want to see their kids...and pollute the whole fucking Gulf of Mexico...things like that.

I don't think there are any true man-hating women here. We hate bad men. Rapists, pedophiles, politicians, and BP Oil executives. A high percentage of those categories are male." - Lovelysoul

LS, it's a shame you have lapsed into your old habits when I thought I was making such progress.

As another poster commented, it is amazing how many posts condemn female-bashing and then add a large dose of male-bashing for good measure. This mode of argument ('You're nasty'. 'No, you're nasty') does become tedious and juvenile after a while.

Most of the men who post here usually offer more substantial contributions than Ick, who invariably posts nothing but boring whines about how good for nothing all the men in her life have been. So I don't see why she gets a free pass while all us guys get condemned.

And I just love the line that men are responsible for oil spills and environmental damage. Of course men preside over most environmental disasters and similar things. But how is it fair to blame men for the negative side effects of scientific and technological progress while not giving men credit for the achievements of scientific and technological progress themselves? This is like a man who blames his wife for the occasional domestic mishap, but doesn't give her any credit for doing such things well the other 99% of the time.

Sigh. Is it any wonder men are unhappy with the current state of things?

"Women marrying for security and children is not new. I find this attitude less prevalent in my peers than I do in my parents' generation, though. That generation seemed to have more clearly defined "jobs": men provided the money, women had the children and took care of the home"

In reality, the exact opposite is generally true. As women advance up the income and career ladder, they tend to look for men who are at least as successful as themselves, if not more so. So this actually increases the burden on men to achieve more, rather than reducing it.

The earlier generation of women's libbers managed to convince naive men that if only women were given more opportunities it would relieve men of the burden of being breadwinners and help liberate men as well. It is always foolish to think that you can overturn millions of years of evolution and natural selection with one or two generations of social engineering and entitlement thinking.

I agree that traditional gender roles are not as strong today, especially among younger generations, than they used to be. But this has mostly benefited women, not men. It seems that women today are freer to simply dump their side of the traditional bargain, while still expecting men to keep their end of the bargain.

Women in today's society have more opportunities than men (education is geared toward females, affirmative action, women-only networking etc.), yet men are still judged more than women by their career success and income. This situation is not only unfair to men, but it is clearly socially unsustainable.

It is funny how everyone sits around scratching their heads, trying to work out why modern families, relationships, dating, et.al don't seem to work. When you are trying to fit square pegs into round holes, what do you expect? These problems cannot really be solved because the debate has become so dominated by falsehoods, and we cannot acknowledge simple truths.

I actually found Jody's comment quite amusing, and I think Irlandes did overreact a bit.

I must confess to having a soft spot for sweet young things with tits myself, so I felt a certain knowing mirth on reading that.

Thanks Lourdesv.

The title of my book, which is slated for release in mid-2014, (I need to go to school, get more experience, do lots of research...then write it) is:

"The Prince Fucking Charming Complex. And why American women today can't be happy - unless they pay me $25 for my book to learn how to undo the damage done by their parents ("You're SPECIAL!") and Hollywood ("Don't give up! He's out there waiting for you!") and the Gottliebs of the world "I'm a failure - I'm perfect for giving you advice!")."

Could I fit in a little more punctuation there?

Of course the second half is supposed to be a bit inflammatory. Yanno, to grab their short attention spans and make them feel so awful they have no choice but to seek redemption from reading my book. Then I will go head-to-head with Gottlieb in some kind of Relationship Book Authors' conference and I will fight her verbally. Mwuhaha.

>>I actually found Jody's comment quite amusing, and I think Irlandes did overreact a bit.I must confess to having a soft spot for sweet young things with tits myself, so I felt a certain knowing mirth on reading that.

Thanks, Nick S.

I was mainly having fun at irlandes' expense.

It amused me that he was so intent on proving he wasn't a pedo - he didn't notice he was outing himself as another sort of social hazard altogether!

He reminded me of the sort of honorary uncle who brightens horribly at the sight of any spare teenage daughter in the house, pats his knees and coos: "Now who wants to come and sit on my lap..?"

"He also shares his love of young, compliant girls (who have oddly developed "crushes" on him) a bit more often than makes me comfortable."

Hate to point it out, but finding 15-year old girls physically attractive for men is completely normal (heck, that should be *obvious* if you think about it for more than 10 seconds). It's *admitting it* that is considered not normal. And it's physical attraction to *prebuscent* girls that is not normal. So yeah, people get uncomfortable when uncomfortable truths are pointed out. Kate Moss was "discovered" when she was 14, and frequently hot models in magazines etc. are scarcely 16 or thereabouts; most of the time we don't even think about this huge glaring contradiction in how we express our supposed values as a society. Hell, often we can't even tell a girl's age with any reasonable accuracy.

"Please go bash some other woman now. It's what you do."

Heck, I wasn't even woman-bashing (???), and obviously you've never read my words, but again, that just proves even more how closed you are, and how messed up you are in blindly making assumptions about me just because I'm a man ... it is sad.

Let me try put this in perspective for you: You came onto a public forum in an otherwise reasonable discussion, and simply openly declared that all the men on this forum are, amongst other things, 'horrid catches' and that they're all out of shape and play video games etc. Hello!? Does this seem normal to you? Is your benchmark really so far off that you cannot see how distorted and abnormal a thing that is to do? Who posts stuff like that? Certainly *not* people with a healthy, reasonable attitude. How can you not see that? Or are you just trolling?

"Please go bash some other woman now. It's what you do."

Oh I get it now, you're accusing me of bashing you 'because you're a woman' ... lol! That's hilarious, like the 'is it because I'm black' defense. No, I'm bashing you because you're a bitter, closed, overly-defensive venom-spewing ignorant dolt ... it has absolutely nothing to do with your gender, if you were a man you'd have earned my bashing just as easily. But that really shows how deeply and badly twisted up you are in this whole gender-based anti-male worldview that you even assume that any criticism from a man is automatically patriarchal misogynist woman-bashing.

>>Hate to point it out, but finding 15-year old girls physically attractive for men is completely normal (heck, that should be *obvious* if you think about it for more than 10 seconds). It's *admitting it* that is considered not normal.

Yes and no, Lobster.

Seriously, I'm a straight middle-aged woman and even I've felt giddily side-swiped with the pleasure of looking at dynamite young women.

I always remember a rodeo in Wyoming during a long summer dusk - a group of local girls, some were riding, they were all 15 or 16 - were milling & strutting delightfully about next to us; every one a bewitching knock out, all in tight shirts with tanned, fit, pneumatic bodies - all totally aware of the suddenly electrifying effect they were having on every urban cowboy (and doubtless a few cowgirls too!) nearby on the benches (including my husband & teenage sons.)

I felt even I had an inkling of their phenomenal, almost dizzying power.

So I wasn't simply getting "uncomfortable" with an "obvious" red-blooded observation from irlandes at all.

It was the fact that irlandes used his observation, which he boasted was based on "nearly 70 years" of experience, to denigrate the character of every other female over the freaking age of fifteen.

As he wrote: "Girls (young women to those who worry about PC) are at their sweetest and nicest right after physical maturity, in the area of maybe 15 years old, which may be why weak men with no impulse control get in trouble. "Every year after that is downhill as far as nice goes, though of course there are going to be individual variations."

Also, he just pisses me off generally.
(The Mexican stuff...)

Ah, so it was more about getting a little jibe in then.

Wow, how far off track could this topic possibly get?

A relationship without zing is doomed to fail. Who in their right mind would be content thinking someone is "settling" for them? Settling = doomed to failure, on multiple levels.

No relationship is better than a bad one.