[willcipriano]

Mens value in the dating marketplace goes up over time. If you are relatively sane, sober and employed around 28, mother nature helps you out with her biological alarm clock. Keep your head up, it's going to get easier from here on out.

[bradlys]

As someone who did get older and went through this - it does not get better. Your hair doesn’t suddenly get thicker. The pounds don’t suddenly become easier to keep off. Your skin doesn’t tighten. Your complexion doesn’t smoothen out.

It gets worse. This is just copium we give to men to make them think it gets better. The stats show that it doesn’t get better. If you’re single now and have never been on a date - the only thing that increases is your time on the market. Your value though - it will continue to plummet unless you do something about it.

Often the stories about men who didn’t do well in their early 20s but managed well later are due to weight loss, fashion sense, not being poor, etc. If you didn’t catch on already - none of these are unsolvable at 22. You can fix them at 22 and be much better off than a 28 year old.

The quality of people you’ll be able to date will also vary even more wildly. You’re going to get far more jaded people who used their 20s to burn every emotionally healthy neuron they had in their brain, people who are desperate to settle down but are bad at making long term choices with it (thus high risk of divorce), and many single parents. (40% of children are born out of wedlock today)

It does not get better as you age. This is a myth. If you’re a shit candidate at 22 - you will be a shit candidate at 28 unless something markedly changes about yourself. (Which - again - can happen at 22 - there’s no reason to wait)

[pizza234]

> Your hair doesn’t suddenly get thicker. The pounds don’t suddenly become easier to keep off. Your skin doesn’t tighten. Your complexion doesn’t smoothen out.

If the only change that occurs to a person until the more advanced age, is only physical decline, then they're certainly "less valuable" than their younger counterpart.

However, there are people (I hope most) that actually do have many other (inner) qualities that grow with them, and compensante and exceed the physical decline, thus, their "value" is higher than their younger counterpart.

[bradlys]

Inner qualities don't matter with online dating. You're not choosing someone based on inner qualities with online dating or even first dates. You're choosing your dates based off of superficial qualities then hoping maybe there will be good inner qualities that come along.

This is why if you're not getting dates now - you will not get them later unless you change something about your most superficial appearance.

[tasuki]

> Inner qualities don't matter with online dating.

Were we talking about online dating? Afaics it hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the chain you're replying to.

[bradlys]

https://www.statista.com/chart/20822/way-of-meeting-partner-...

Tell me - what does it look like here as to how people are going to get into relationships? Do you think bars and especially clubs are going to be great places to really get to know someone and let their personality shine for greater than 5 minutes?

I'm not gonna bother getting newer stats but they show the trend getting even more pushed towards online dating. You're not escaping it.

[BlargMcLarg]

>not being poor

That's a pretty darn big reason when women select for financial stability rather aggressively and with the "do your dues" mentality the job market has combined with prolonged studying. By far most people would not point out "just age" as the cause, but the things which come with age to most men naturally.

[bradlys]

Poor is different than not-rich. I've seen many "poor" men get many relationships and dates. Money is only a minor factor. SV should be an indicator of that - we have an overreaching amount of men making $400k+/yr and yet they're also some of the most single people out there.

Besides - when it comes to online dating and getting first dates - not looking poor just means don't appear homeless.

[BlargMcLarg]

Not sure why you're arguing in extremes when we both agree "don't appear homeless" is a pretty big deal, in fact "don't be homeless" is an important deal to most women, and more and more men early to mid 20s aren't in a position to afford rent due to their life choices and economic pressure on young adults in particular.

If you're going to argue being financially stable is in fact a pretty big deal, aging and gaining experience to remain financially stable is a pretty obvious perk that comes with age. Especially outside SV and the US. If only as simple as to afford going to places with more prospects and bringing someone home to your place without hassle or worries. It doesn't need "rich" money but it sure as hell needs "money" spent in an effective manner.

[kbelder]

Sorry. You appear to be in the subset where it didn't get better.

For many men, it works the other way. You become smarter. More confident. More emotionally, psychologically, and financially stable. All those make you more attractive. Your prospective partners are the same. Everybody has more experience, and doesn't freak out and act self-destructively like they did when they were 23. People are more aware of what a relationship entails.

Simply, relationships are just more pleasing.

At least for some subset of those growing older.

[bradlys]

Tell me you haven't dated in the last 10 years without telling me you haven't dated in the last 10 years.

> You become smarter. More confident. More emotionally, psychologically, and financially stable.

Cause all those are relevant for online dating and getting first dates.

[willcipriano]

> Your hair doesn’t suddenly get thicker. The pounds don’t suddenly become easier to keep off. Your skin doesn’t tighten. Your complexion doesn’t smoothen out.

All of this is also true for women.

[bradlys]

And?

[willcipriano]

The women you are trying to date get older as well, so you getting older is less of a factor.

How often do you see women in their 30's dating 22 year old men? If youth is what they are after I feel like you would see that a lot more often.

[globular-toast]

The thing is a man's attractiveness is not one-dimensional. We all know that one guy who does well despite not being physically attractive. But if you're talking about online dating only then you are probably right. Online dating isn't really good for us.

[annyeonghada]

>We all know that one guy who does well despite not being physically attractive.

I actually don't. I keep seeing these meme constantly repeated and I actually made a list of unattractive males... and they, mostly, have never had luck with relationship. Physical attractiveness is very important, whatever the consensus du jour say about it.

[globular-toast]

I think you either don't know many people or you're subconsciously focussing on the negative examples. We also all know that one guy who isn't successful but defeats himself by setting ridiculous standards. Just walk around town one day and look at the couples. You'll see most of the men really aren't anything to look at.

It's amazing how your mindset can make the world look completely different. That mindset also makes you completely unattractive to women. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The information is out there to help, if you want it. The short version is to socialise more and think less.

[bradlys]

Same. I don't know any of these men and have never known any either. Sometimes I've wondered why some guys get some gals but then I talk to the women and they're like, "Oh, he's actually very physically attractive." So just because I couldn't see it doesn't mean the women didn't.

At no point have I heard multiple women say they are falling head over heels for a man due to his personality alone. Almost always - the man is physically attractive to them as well.

[dheera]

> mother nature helps you out with her biological alarm clock

Which can also be another can of worms.

I'm single, in my mid-late 30s, and a lot of the women I encounter of compatible age seem to want kids yesterday, and that kind of rush doesn't work well for establishing a healthy relationship.

[giantg2]

Random thought. I wonder if there's any generalized correlation in personality traits and being single/childless at that age as a woman. For example, are there higher levels of procrastinators or are they more A-type and career oriented? Etc

[bradlys]

Type A + career oriented is uncommon for wanting kids. One of those has to give in that dynamic. I've known plenty of women who are both but they're uncommon and while they love their kids - when they think abstractly... They didn't really like kids except for the part where they're not missing out on something.

Procrastinators aren't really a thing - IMO. I think people who have too high of standards are the main issue. They try to get someone who isn't going to ever settle down with them and constantly chase that. By the time they realize they cannot get that person and will constantly get non-committal relationships with them - they are past their prime and will slowly settle (or just get a dog and be alone while having sex with random people to boost self-esteem here and there).

So, character traits I'd say that lead to being single at that age as a lady are ones where someone has an inflated ego, doesn't work on themselves, and/or is generally expecting more than what they offer. That's what I've noticed a lot. (I know a lot of women - most of my friends are women)

[IE6]

To be honest this reply smells like "man-o-sphere" logic...

PSA: To anyone struggling with this please try and ignore any advice online that focuses on the opposite sex and their inherent value (or lack thereof). Actually talking to the opposite sex even in a casual way is a really good way to get over this type of thinking.

[Dracophoenix]

I'd counter that and say one should consider any advice in terms of the motives for giving it whether it comes from a member of one's own sex or the opposite. Talking to the opposite sex, for example, may only result in receiving information in what opposite sex believes about themselves rather than what they actually do.

The point shouldn't be to get over this type of thinking per se, but rather to determine which type of thinking is most consistent with reality and subsequently dispense with the rest as chaff and empty platitudes. If "man-o-sphere logic" is ineffective or counterproductive, then the only way to find out is to scrutinize it or apply it and observe the outcome.

[Johanx64]

I believe the "man-o-sphere" logic in regards to woman giving misleading information is something along the lines of:

Women want the genuine article with qualities of X, Y, Z.

They do not want a guy who doesn't have those qualities innately. Naturally, upon receiving the information that these qualities are sought after, guys will try to best of their ability to fake them. The fact that a guy has to be told what to do in the first place is very unappealing in itself.

Shortly -it is against their best interests to be open and honest about what they desire.

Because 1) you will get a lot of fakes and 2) it can be dangerous as it can upset some undesirable guys

Consequently the way to understand woman - if we are following along with this logic - is by observing how they act and react and not by listening and believing to what say necessarily.

Or to rephrase - they want you to be a MAN and act like a MAN, and not to be told to be a man and act like a man.

If you have to be told to be more like a man, you're not it obviously.

On top of it, these desires contain certain "manly physical and appearance" qualities that can't really be faked either way.

[Johanx64]

Eh, instead of poking holes in so called "man-o-sphere" logic, you just reject it outright as a matter of principle. Why would anyone reject logic, especially if it makes sense?

Unfortunately, this kind of logic and thinking has already entered mainstream internet consciousness via memes and such, and the only way to address it is to face it head on.

And if you can't then what does it mean?

[anon291]

I'm not part of the 'man-o-sphere' (got married at 22, so no time for 'dating'), but I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. No one marries another for 'inherent value' You marry for looks, money, reproductive capacity, etc. By its nature monogamy means looking for more than the inherent value, because if we just considered inherent value, all prospects would be equal, and clearly they are not.

[IE6]

I don't know OP nor do I know their intent with their comment but taking it at face value the idea that men's value will gradually increase so long as they are successful and by inference women's value will either stagnate or decline and eventually women will have no choice but to give a man his chance is at best man-o-sphere adjacent ideology. Perhaps it's just a mixing of words and that was not the intent of the OP.

I don't think we're talking about the same concept though. You're touching on preferences and in general attraction which is just a normal part of being and doesn't represent some kind of value system where you have high-value and low-value people.

[annyeonghada]

>Actually talking to the opposite sex even in a casual way is a really good way to get over this type of thinking.

Talking to the sex you're attracted to will result, at best, in what people of that sex think they want, not what they actually want and do to get it, at worst, in some unempathetic platitude or even outright insults.

[IE6]

> to the sex you're attracted

Yes, it's not what I typed but this is what I meant. I think from there it's just the normal process of getting to know people. Much better than seeing it as a transaction and a push/pull of low-value and high-value system.