Unrealism in Modern Dating
I have a story that rather reinforces what the wise woman below says:
I was sitting in a Wimpy restaurant in Kings Cross years ago having some late lunch. There were no other customers about so I overheard the two waitresses talking to one-another. Discussing relationships, one of them said "I'm waitingfor my millionaire". So who and what was she? She was short, overweight and with short bleach-blonde hair. Millionaires have choices and none would choose her. But she seemed to believe that she had prospects of partnering with a millionaire. Extraordinary unrealism
When I was in college, a woman a few years older than me gave me this piece of advice. “You deserve a 10. Don’t settle for less.”
So — what exactly is a 10? Whenever I ask single women what they want in a partner, it usually sounds something like this:
“First, I have to be attracted to him. He should be tall, have good hair, and a fit body. Lots of other girls should find him cute, but he shouldn’t have a ton of exes or a high body count, cause he’s gonna need to be loyal and committed to me.
Oh, and he needs to have a REAL job, like one that pays enough that he can have his own car and apartment and pay for dates and take me on vacations.
He should come from a nice family, and be educated and classy. But his family can’t be judgemental of me. And he should have lots of friends and a vibrant social life, but they shouldn’t be girls because that’s suspicious.
He should love me the way I am and call me beautiful every day. And want to marry me and have kids. He needs to fully trust me with finances, cause I’d never sign a prenup. Also, he can’t have any kids with other women cause that’s a dealbreaker.”
There you have it, folks. He’s the 10/10. There’s just one teeny, tiny problem —
He doesn’t exist.
Why does everyone assume that they deserve a perfect partner?
Nobody ever imagines that they will end up with a man who’s short, chubby, with a regular job, and flaws like everyone else.
There’s always a wishlist of requirements. Attractive, six-figure salary, similar hobbies and interests, humor, great body…you get the gist.
What amuses me the most is when women have high standards for men, while they aren’t offering anything of value.
We love to list the qualities we’re looking for but seldom stop to think about what we can offer.
It’s socially acceptable for women to assert their standards and have other women cheer them on. Nobody is brave enough to ask, “And what are you going to offer a man in return?”
And if I do ask, I always get a shallow, completely lacking in self-awareness response that amounts to nothing more than, “well…he gets me!”
Out of all available women, why would he choose you?
Imagine if the average man had a similar response when asked about his standards. Picture a group of guys at the sports bar, talking about women. One of them says:
She has to be beautiful. Blonde, D-cup boobs, long legs, and nice butt. She can’t be taller than 5'6 or heavier than 120 pounds. She should be a virign (or close to it) cause I don’t want a woman who’s been with everybody.
But she has to be amazing in the bedroom, and willing to sleep with me after a month or two cause I’m not wasting my time in a sexless relationship. And she can’t be jealous and crazy over the other women I’ve slept with. That’s not her business.
She should be educated, but not too educated cause I don’t want a radical feminist who thinks she doesn’t need me. She also has to make her own money so I know she’s not a gold digger.
She has to want sex at least three times a week, and be able to keep my apartment clean if she lives with me. She can’t have any serious exes who she still talks to or any kids with any other men. She has to let me go out with the boys whenever I feel like it. She can’t nag me about marriage cause that’s a dealbreaker.
Would it be a surprise if this hypothetical man is single? Would it be shocking if he — an average man — couldn't attract this type of woman? Again, out of all the men this ideal fantasy woman could date, why would she choose him?
The “never settle” mentality only works if you’re prepared to be single for the rest of your life. At some point, compromise will be necessary.
We should take note of the types of people who are attracted to us. This may be a good barometer for the value that they bring to potential partners in the dating sphere.
Are you attracting the types of people you desire? If not, this may be an indicator that your perceived value to men (or women) is not quite accurate.
We would all do better to have more realistic standards. Because guess what? Perfect people don’t exist.
Final thoughts
Should we have standards for the people we choose to spend time with? Of course. But we shouldn’t let those standards get so out of hand that we find ourselves waiting for an imaginary dream guy (or girl).
Rather than making a checklist of all the things we want, we should make a checklist for how we will better ourselves and strive for virtue in our lives.
Until we do this, choosey beggars will be single.
https://medium.com/hello-love/modern-dating-where-every-beggar-can-be-a-chooser-e044a7c951cf
*************************************************Elon Musk unleashes in fiery Joe Rogan podcast: Tesla owner slams George Soros for 'eroding the fabric of civilization'
Elon Musk on Tuesday declared that George Soros 'hates humanity', because he backs policies which 'erode the fabric of civilization'.
Musk, 52, appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast, with the pair swilling what appeared to be whisky and smoking cigars as they roamed over a broad range of issues over two hours.
The X CEO said he bought Twitter a year ago because he felt it was 'having a corrosive effect on civilization', and spreading the 'woke mind virus' at a dangerous pace, and condemned COVID restrictions, claiming that people put on ventilators were killed by the ventilators, not the virus.
The pair - Rogan in a blonde wig and Puerto Rico shirt for Halloween; Musk with a silk scarf around his neck - even went out to the parking lot to fire arrows at Musk's Tesla Cybertruck.
Musk bet Rogan $1 the arrows would not pierce the truck's sides. Musk won.
Musk repeated his long-running criticism of billionaire financier George Soros, 93, who has for decades backed progressive causes and angered Musk in May by dumping his Tesla stock.
Soros, born in Budapest, survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary and moved first to Britain, then the United States, where he began his hugely-influential philanthropy.
'He is I believe the top contributor to the Democratic party,' Musk told Rogan. 'The second one was Sam Bankman-Fried.
'And Soros, he had a very difficult upbringing.
'In my opinion, he fundamentally hates humanity. That's my opinion.'
Musk said that he was deeply opposed to Soros' work backing progressive district attorneys, who pursued policies he saw as soft on crime.
'He's doing things that erode the fabric of civilization - getting DAs elected who refuse to prosecute crime,' said Musk.
'That's part of the problem in San Francisco, and LA, and a bunch of other cities.
'So why would you do that?'
Rogan asked: 'Is it humanity, or just the United States?'
Musk said it was worldwide.
'He's pushing things in other countries as well,' Musk said.
Musk told Rogan that he thought Soros was 'basically a bit senile at this point' - in June, Soros handed control of the Open Society Foundations and the rest of his $25 billion empire to his 37-year-old son, Alex.
The foundation directs about $1.5 billion a year to groups such as those backing human rights around the world and helping build democracies. Alex Soros said he intends to broaden the foundation's priorities to include voting and abortion rights as well as gender equity.
Musk said that the elder Soros had been 'very smart' in using his money to achieve his goals.
'He's very good at arbitrage - famously he shorted the British pound,' explained Musk. 'That's how I think he made his first money.
Arbitrage is spotting value for money that other people don't see.
'And one of the things he noticed is that the value for money in local races is much higher than it is in national races.
'The lowest value for money is a presidential race. Then next lowest value for money is a senate race, then a congress.
'And when you get to city and state district attorneys the value for money is extremely good.'
Musk said that Soros found he could help push policies he approved of through local officials.
'Soros realized that you don't have to actually change the laws,' said Musk.
'You just need to change how they are enforced.
'If nobody chooses to enforce the laws, or the laws are differentially enforced, then its like changing the laws.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12695205/elon-musk-joe-rogan-george-soros-twitter-x.html
***********************************************'Traditions Are Experiments That Worked': Feminist Author Argues Against the Sexual Revolution
The undermining of traditional ethics in the sexual revolution brings more harm than good and results in children being the greatest “losers,” a British feminist has argued.
Louise Perry, journalist and author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, told the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference on Nov. 1 that most women are not the winners in the sexual liberation, but rather some individual men.
The sexual revolution, which was influenced and encouraged by neo-Marxism, came to the fore in the United States in the 1960s and led to the weakening of traditional family values.
Ms. Perry, who is the director of The Other Half, a London-based feminist think tank, told the panel that while the rejection of traditional sexual norms is at the core of the sexual revolution, it was traditions that were the “experiments that worked.”
“The idea that we can just throw them out the window and have one very simple rule, which is that everyone should be able to consent. And then apart from that, you sort of make it up as you go along,” she said. “What we have found, having rejected the sexual norms of the past, is that they were there for a reason.”
The British author also noted that children lose out the most because of the sexual revolution, pointing to the high rates of fatherlessness. She added that traditional sexual ethics fostered a “good culture” that encourages people to “make decisions that are good for us long-term and also good for our descendants.”
The sexual revolution also has a material aspect which manifests as technological changes. This includes the introduction of the birth control pill, among other inventions, she said, noting that such changes have “transformed our lives and transformed gender relations.”
'Transhumanist Revolution'
The sentiment was echoed by British columnist and author of the book Feminism Against Progress, Mary Harrington, who argued that technological development was the foundation of an “illusion” where people could escape traditional sexual norms by trying to “flatten the fundamental differences between the sexes.”
She compared this process to a “trans humanist revolution.”
“Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve been using technology to overcome the apparent limits of the human condition,” Ms. Harrington told the panel.
“The sexual revolution is distinctive because that was the point at which we turned those technologies inward to the human body, you know, in that sense, I see the sexual revolution more accurately as the transhumanist revolution.
“That was the 90s; we were 50 years into the transhumanist revolution. And we've been we've been living in that world for all of that time.”
The British writer argued that while technological advances seemed to have led to increased freedom in gendered relations, they didn’t necessarily lead to human flourishing.
“I would challenge everybody here to think to try and think as concretely as possible about what we really mean when we say progress,” she said.
“Do we just mean more freedom underwritten by technology?
“Because I would put it to you, based on the evidence from the sexual revolution 50 years of transhumanist revolution, that it comes with as many downsides as costs.”
Ms. Harrington noted that the challenge people face now is to grapple with technological advances and “reorder those technologies to human flourishing rather than to their individual liberties.”
**************************************************
Feminism is no guarantee of women’s happiness
Claire Lehmann
Prior to the 1970s, survey data shows the happiness gap favoured women. Another 2022 follow-up study found that contemporary women still experience more unhappiness in the form of anxiety, fearfulness, depression, loneliness and anger relative to men.
Of course, many other social changes – aside from the sexual revolution – have occurred since the 1970s, so one has to interpret such results with caution.
Nevertheless, the data does indicate that despite the advances women have made in the economic and political spheres, and despite the breaking down of traditional gender roles, women – at least in the aggregate – have not become happier.
Mainstream feminists will argue that women are unhappier today because the revolution has not gone far enough. Australian feminist Clementine Ford, for example, has just published a new book arguing that marriage is an oppressive institution and needs to be abolished. Other feminists will argue that gender norms need to be broken down further, and the very concept of “gender” needs to be erased.
But, while conventional feminism is recycling the radicalism of the past, women such as Perry offer something new. She does not argue that we need to wind back the clock and uninvent the pill – the technology that made the sexual revolution possible – but simply that we should encourage an awareness that “traditions are experiments that have worked”, and endless exploration of gender roles has diminishing returns.
Perry discusses a concept familiar to psychologists, but she presents it in a straightforward manner that strikes a chord. Evolutionary psychologists have theorised, for example, that traits that were adaptive in our evolutionary past can sometimes become “mismatched” to our modern environments. And the stress of this mismatch can cause disease.
One example might be our preference for sweet foods. In a hunter-gatherer environment, having a preference for sweet foods was not a problem, as the only sweets available were mother’s milk and fruits. But in our modern environment, where ice cream and chocolate can be accessed from the convenience store at any time, this preference for sweetness may lead to diabetes.
A corollary can be made with regard to sexual behaviour. In our evolutionary past, it paid for women to be careful about which men they had sex with, because any act of sex could lead to pregnancy. In our modern environments, of course, sex has become unlinked from pregnancy, allowing women to have much more freedom with respect to sexual partners. At the same time, however, this freedom has created stress.
Perry argues that even if women can control their fertility with reliable contraception, if they are having sex with a man who they would not want to have a baby with, then this may cause emotional harm.
The other scenario that may cause emotional harm is the feeling of being used or exploited by a noncommittal male. Researchers in evolutionary psychology know that, on average, men prefer a higher number of sexual partners than women.
They also know a certain subset of men, who are high in “Dark Triad” traits (psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism) pursue short-term mating strategies and may use deceptive and underhanded tactics when doing so.
Previously, societal norms protected women from men with these Dark Triad traits by setting standards for both male and female sexual behaviour.
Now that these norms have been loosened, this small subset of men are free to pursue and exploit women with very little consequence. And the result for many women is misery.
A potential flaw in Perry’s argument is that she overly simplifies and idealises a past that was often harsh to women but in different ways.
Before the sexual revolution, women who fell pregnant and who were unmarried were often pressured to give up their babies, causing lifelong emotional scarring to both mother and baby.
The babies of unmarried mothers were often abandoned, in foundling hospitals or orphanages, and so-called “illegitimate” children were often raised in terrible conditions, with a social stigma attached for life. The fact that we have moved on from this archaism is an undeniable form of progress. We should not want to go back.
Perry might sometimes simplify complex topics, but her points are valuable and she presents them clearly. She believes that while we can’t undo the invention of the pill (and we wouldn’t want to), women should understand that their nature differs from men’s. Recognising this distinction is crucial for mental wellbeing. Perhaps the problem is not the sexual revolution, but rather the refusal to acknowledge our inherent differences.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment