Support NeoGAF

[MaestroMike]

I was going to chime in something like this. Some husbands who really love their wives might even bury their pride and try to help her however they can. Love is a mysterious thing.

You can brag at parties that Brad Pitt got your sloppy seconds !

 

[llien]

 

[eot]

This is the piece that actually makes that claim

 

[thefool]

In my experience most girls never go straight from tinder or dating app to a in-person meet up and for me personally I like to have a video call just to make sure the girl looks the same as her pictures.

Brother, they do.

I don't necessarly see anything wrong with actually talking with a person (I can see the whole video-chat thing being a generational thing), but I've only done that once (she asked me to) and it was actually great because I noticed she was batshit insane.

 

[dorkimoe]

Women still believe in fairy tales and think rom coms are realistic so this doesn't surprise me.

 

[prag16]

If this is true, I have to place the vast majority of the blame on Hallmark movies and other such related nonsense.

That being said, in my social circles, the females on average put the males to shame in terms of couples. Probably an average spread of around 2 points on the traditional 1-10 scale. I know some women like 'bear like' larger men (polite way to say 'fat fucks') which wouldn't be my cup of tea if I decided to switch teams, but who exactly has a preference for the 5 foot nothing 100 and nothing type (who are not loaded with cash)? Apparently some do? And these aren't busted women I'm talking about. In some cases we're talking perfectly legitimate 7s (granted I mean a real 7, not a gaf "Kayleigh McEnany has a weird nose 3/10 would not bang" type 7).

 

[Bogey]

Didn't matter if they were good looking or was a great dad. Financial stability and "I don't want to use my money to pay for his stuff" were big deals.

To be fair, that goes both ways. I don't think I would have ever dated a woman who earns significantly less than me (as in, say, much less than half). Most of my mates in high(ish) income brackets explicitly say the same. The days of "doctor dates nurse" large largely over, in my opinion.

That's coming from a central/northern European standpoint though, where it's not as common for guys to be comfortable paying for everything in a relationship.

 

[nush]

To be fair, that goes both ways. I don't think I would have ever dated a woman who earns significantly less than me (as in, say, much less than half). Most of my mates in high(ish) income brackets explicitly say the same. The days of "doctor dates nurse" large largely over, in my opinion.

That's coming from a central/northern European standpoint though, where it's not as common for guys to be comfortable paying for everything in a relationship.

You would want to be in a similar social bracket, I'd never be in a relationship with a long term unemployed woman. She would just be a dead weight leech no matter how nice she was. I've seen it play out a couple of times. She does not need to earn the same or be close, but she should have enough drive and ability to be self sufficient.

 

[iconmaster]

Very interesting article and worth reading through:

The result of these cultural changes is that the highly unequal social structures of the prehistoric savanna homo sapiens are reasserting themselves, and with them the dissatisfactions of the unattractive "sexually underprivileged" majority are coming back. It is ironic that the progressives who cheer on the decline of religion and the weakening of "outdated" institutions like monogamy are actually acting as the ultimate reactionaries, returning us to the oldest and most barbaric, unequal animal social structures that have ever existed. In this case it is the conservatives who are cheering for the progressive ideal of "sexual income redistribution" through a novel invention: monogamy.