Stahlmann wrote:I use short sentences just to convey messages.
I am totally dissatisfied with direction the topic went.
To this moment nobody has responded to fundamental problems stated in the topic.
Yeah, you didn’t get a ‘He-Man woman haters’ team going like you hoped?
Stahlmann wrote:What kind of credentials do you expect me to have to end this debate over my sexual fulfillment?
I gave some info about me because I know that sooner or later there will be ,,you are ugly"-argument.
Unfortunately whole discussion focused on ,,just be better and have sex, mate".
Very sad and disgusting.
Stahlmann wrote:For me it's ultimate proof of gynocentrism. Whatever I do, the problem is that I am not getting laid. Are you serious, my fellow ERE friends?
You are talking about how hard YOU have it for dating, how you are not getting laid, and how unfair it is using extremely one-sided arguments. People are responding to you personally because you keep talking about how hard you personally have it. If you want a discussion about the overall landscape, then talk about the overall landscape (and do it realistically, not just with the kind of ridiculous hyperbole I’ll quote below)
Stahlmann wrote:Heh, some kind of venting, but it happens when women don't flock to you
I don't want to change world, but at least prostitution should be legalised (in that way I can not be beaten by pimp etc.).
You sound entitled. Women don’t just come flocking to you, so there must be some conspiracy?
And again, as I’ve asked you before: What do you want? If you want a he-man woman hater thread, that is totally possible here. You’re just doing a really bad job of guiding the thread there. You’re presenting your arguments in one-sided and absurd ways.
Stahlmann wrote:Can I find nice girl? No, Tinder has inflated her ego, that I need to be like sport model.
Is “nice” really what you’re looking for? Come on, really?
Stahlmann wrote:times are rougher than ever for men.
Totally absurd. There were periods of time in regions where men outnumbered women like 100 to 1. Yes really. Imagine trying to get a woman then. Imagine trying to get a woman in Polygamous societies where a rich man gets ten wives and the other 9 men get manual labor jobs and masturbation.
Stahlmann wrote:The man is the person who kneels down in front of the woman. This is real oppression.
Ridiculous
Stahlmann wrote:Do you really want to be treated as meat dildo for them? I don't want to.
What are you even talking about? What is a meat dildo? I think I may want to be treated like that.
Stahlmann wrote:Maybe I lack perspective as men. For me it's women who have been receiving free pass in life and been validated since junior high-school. It shows how gynocentric our society is
You do.
Stahlmann wrote:Finally, it's woman who receives free lunch...And man is rated as not attractice enough. Nice.
Do you understand how much women feel they have to spend on their appearance just to look normal? (It’s often way more than men have to spend on dating.)
Stahlmann wrote:The problem is women set so high standards that there is no entry for many men. There are no ,,virgin neckbeard women who live in parents' basement”.
Every single part of “virgin neckbeard women who live in parents' basement” can be fixed. For women, there is much. There is ugly, resting bitch face, cottage cheese legs (cellulite), flat chested, pear shaped, apple shaped, banana shaped (every shape except “hourglass” is the wrong one). A virgin neckbeard can shave and find one vulnerable slutty girl and he’s 2/3 of the way there. That can be done in two days. Banana to hourglass takes over a year and in many cases is completely impossible.
Stahlmann wrote:Well, I don't care. I want to present in this topic that men are discriminated nowadays more than women before 70’s
….
Stahlmann wrote:Hey, hey! How about whole dating is pedestalization of women (needs')?
Who is responsible for: asking out, planning and paying?
I am not bitter. I just want point there are many guys who can not join the fun bus.
Asking women out can be easy. Dating can be completely free. There are threads about that on this forum. But you’re not interested in learning that are you?
(though with the current hold that consumer culture has on dating it does take quite a bit of effort or even a sort of negotiation or tightrope walking. It totally depends on the girl though. You date a consumerist girl, she expect spendy dates. You date a girl that’s not a consumerist, she’ll be happy to meet you at the park or the library.)
My Point here:
My point is - the reason people aren't agreeing with you like you'd hope is that you're arguing in an ineffective manner. Get a better understanding of the womens' side of things. Show that you have a balanced, accurate view. Don't just present lopsided complaining.
Onward
Here’s some other OK Cupid data that:
1 - Confirms that a guy your age has the cards stacked against him
2 - Should make you feel better about men your age over the next 20 years:
https://stagetwo.wordpress.com/2010/04/ ... on-of-age/
Yeah, women at their peak are considered more attractive than men at their peak. (Other charts I found of the same thing showed less discrepancy in the peak heights). A woman’s peak attractiveness lasts about 5 years. A man’s lasts about 20. That is a huge advantage for men. Guess what, this means that when you’re 47, you can still date a 27 year old woman. That is pretty fucking awesome for men. If you fit the norm on this chart, you’re at only about 20% of peak attractiveness. This is because most guys your age don’t know what the hell they are doing in dating/sex/relationships or have some huge singular weakness (fear of rejection is a common one). I certainly didn't know what I was doing at that age, and it appears you’re similarly confused.
Some more charts for you. Look how absurd men are:
OK, well, I mean the men aren’t entirely wrong. This is aligned with the previous chart above, and younger women do generally look better (though I’d say women look best closer to 25)
Compared to women:
What do these mean for you? It means that every single man, no matter their age, wants to fuck and date that same 20 year old that you do. That’s tough. Who’s fault is it? The 20 year old girl? No, its all those men.
What else does it mean for you? It means that as you get older, your stock gets higher and higher with women. And it NEVER goes down lower than a woman's. Even when you get over 50 and you’re past your peak, you're still more attractive than women your age, now the men are dying off quicker than women, so there are more women for every man left.
Consumerism
I'd say that for guys like us, who are ERE-types, the biggest challenge in dating and relationships is the impact that consumerism has had on them. Some really stupid expectations are now set in place in dating, ones that came from consumerism. Expensive dates, flowers, diamond rings, "romantic getaways" (don't even get me started on how stupid it is to think that it's romantic for people (who don't have kids at home) to go stay in some hotel room)). Now both men and women think these are an important part of relationships. For the men uninterested in spending on these things, a significant portion of women are eliminated as potential mates.
Viewed on it's own, a man's refusal to consumerize dating is absolutely valid and realistic. I mean, flowers and diamond rings mean fuck-all (nothing) about love. The problem is that in the cultural landscape of dating, women spend a bunch of money and time on making themselves look more attractive, and men spend a bunch of money (and time earning it) on dates, rings, etc. That's the current deal. When the man points out how stupid it is to do his side of this, it's not fair within the dating landscape when women are still spending all the time and effort on their appearance.