[mootothemax]

Of course, men have it harder than women in the mating game.

I think this is a myth. I wish years ago someone had told me all I needed to do was walk up to someone I found attractive and say "Hi, my name's Tom, how're you?" The day I started doing so, my dating life was revolutionised.

Actually, this applies to most situations: parties; conferences; seeing a new face at work.

With exception of special cases (maybe alpha males or older women), women on the average have is so much easier when it comes to finding their partner.

Again, I disagree; just like hiring someone, how do you sort through the cruft to find the jewel in X number of applications? I'm not talking about seeking perfection, just someone whose quirks - and we all have them - you can tolerate enough to enjoy a successful relationship.

[jaems33]

Eh, sort of.

I'd be interested to know your race and your height.

At the end of the day, women still have deal breakers regardless of your personality, boldness, income, skills, etc.

The reason why I think women have it easier is that they can both wait for someone to approach AND take the initiative and go up to a guy if they so choose. Whereas guys not named Ryan Gosling almost always must take the initiative.

[mootothemax]

I'd be interested to know your race and your height.

Pasty white with a beer gut that shrinks and grows according to the season, and somewhere around 5'10" or 5'11".

At the end of the day, women still have deal breakers regardless of your personality, boldness, income, skills, etc.

Are you saying that men don't? I think it's fair to say that everyone has deal breakers. Personally, I'm put off by people who judge others according to their income - or lack thereof.

The reason why I think women have it easier is that they can both wait for someone to approach AND take the initiative

You're right in that women are approached by guys far more often than the other way around. Given the number of unhappily single women out there though, sitting back and hoping doesn't seem to be a successful strategy.

[jaems33]

In terms of race, you have your choice of white women PLUS higher probability of success with other races (based on inter-racial marriages rates, OKCupid stats).

Then with height, you are about average, which is a good thing. You have your pick of women who are short or average height.

I realize everyone has deal-breakers but height and to some extent race for women are almost universal. It is extremely rare that a taller women will marry a shorter guy. I've travelled around the world many times, and count the one and only time I've seen a tall woman (6 ft) go out with a short guy (< 5'8): once in New York City. And statistically, white women are the least likely to date outside of their race.

Though I don't see how choosing a person based on their income is any less 'offensive' than visual superficialities. At least the former is somewhat based on merit. The fact that I worked my tail off in university and on the side to build up my skills so that I could earn a great living should be more of an attraction than say the fact that I inherited certain genes from my parents.

[chii]

"The fact that I worked my tail off in university and on the side to build up my skills so that I could earn a great living should be more of an attraction than say the fact that I inherited certain genes from my parents."

if only that were true - good genes almost always trumph hardworking mentality. Wealth can trumphs genes (but only if its vast amounts). In other words, good looks (which is an indication of good genes, not just good clothes etc), is highly desired. And rightly so, for the biological requirement of reproduction demands such selection.