Anecdote: as a bisexual guy (now married to a woman), dating women was much, much harder than dating men. This extends beyond sexual encounters to actual relationships: for every relationship opportunity with a woman, I'd guesstimate I had five opportunities with men. And I essentially never had the opportunity to date a woman with over half my income (at least until I met my wife), while I regularly dated men making substantially more than me.
I think the mismatch is largely due to implicit standards on the part of women (must be a certain race, must be at least average height, must be gender conventional) that are so ubiquitous that they don't even consider them standards.
Having talked with several hetero female friends, they have dating difficulties as well. They’re different, but not obviously lesser, than those of hetero males.
Women and men have roughly the same value overall in the dating market. The guys who say this kind of thing tend to have a narrow view of what kind of woman makes an acceptable relationship partner, and ignore a whole lot of women that are available and aren't nearly as well valued by 'the market'.
While many Gen Z women identify as bisexual, very few are actually dating women. Most bisexual women have never dated or done anything sexual with a woman.
It's a fallacy to assume because a man can get with women, he is not emotionally stunted. Plenty of women are dating/sleeping with emotionally stunted men by their own admission and complaints. Many of the attributes it takes to get with a lot of women (especially arguably the most important: be hot) have very little correlation with being emotionally intelligent or a good person/partner to women. Hence the many "f-boy" archetype experiences many women have and complain about.
I mean, given a roughly 1:1 gender ratio that would be difficult to be entirely true. And I suspect if you speak with many women, you'll get some pretty strong pushback on this. More systematically, surveys consistently show equal levels of dissatisfaction with their dating lives between men and women.
For both men and women, it's actually relatively easy to find a partner that you wouldn't consider dating; finding an optimal partner is hard.
While we're throwing around baseless stereotypes, the one I've heard is that men are reluctant to "date up", and successful women have trouble finding mates because of this.
I've heard several different complaints, but probably the most common one is that it's hard for women to find compatible men who are interested in real relationships. Most men seem to just want hookups, not taking the time needed to build something with substance.
This isn't a complaint I hear men make about women.
There is no denying that there are huge differences between men and women. Nothing highlights this more than the dating arena. Women are after not only a good time but also a long time.
I've read through the comments related to relationships here and a lot of the same arguments were made. One that stood out was "Women are selectors and men take what they can get" (paraphrased) and a few similar statements.
This isn't a bad thing. [1][2][3][4] If you as a straight man are putting some effort into being a decent human being and better dating prospect, in the long term you're far more likely to have a good outcome than a woman of "equal" "value" (subjective concepts).
> anecdotally, this hit a note I’ve heard regularly from my mid-career female friends - dating men is a drain. It’s quite the cultural statement that an LLM outperforms most men on how to be present for a conversation with their date.
The thing about dating in "mid-career" (for both genders) - which I consider to be mid-30's to mid-40's in most cases, is that those people are still dating for a reason. The good prospects already settled down, and they are now scraping the bottom of the barrel (and to be honest, they are bottom of the barrel material as well).
>Finding an "equal" man in your mid-thirties as a women is very hard.
Finding an "equal" woman in your mid-thirties as a man who doesn't want to date down in terms of education, status, wealth, or mental health is just as difficult.
And some other people are not suitable as partners. As in, there are people dating who is profoundly bad idea.
And then there are people who are not in position to have partner, because they work long hours and/or lack privacy. In particular, 80 hours a week working dude in startup with nearly males only employees has zero chance to find a girl, altrough he may be nice and cool dude.
Through, I noticed gender difference in how people talk and think about it all too.
Is it just me or are most of these mainstream media dating articles written from a woman's perspective? I rarely see mainstream media discussing the struggles of modern dating from a straight man's perspective.
I'm not seeing what he said wrong in the context of dating for men in the bay area. Anyone will be more choosy if they have plenty of options, so yes women act different in heterosexual dating when they have tons of options (like in the bay area) vs where they have to compete with other women.
Oh boy, the asymmetry of modern dating is really something.
Just imagine if a man tried to do what this woman is doing. Just imagine being a man and asking a woman you're dating to "approach our relationship as an experiment" that runs in 2 week "sprints" where you require your partner to "commit to radical transparency and empathy" and "commit to continuous improvement" to find out every 2 weeks if you dump them.
I guess being a woman means you can "co-create" your own rules for dating and men will just line up to compete each other for your favor. No matter how many obstacles you throw in your own way, you can still find happiness, because the world will bend over backwards to accommodate your every whim. Must be nice.
Unfortunately that is undoubtedly a deal breaker for the vast majority of women. It can be overcome to a certain extent with personality and income, but in an already extremely competitive dating market for men I can understand drastic measures.
I think the mismatch is largely due to implicit standards on the part of women (must be a certain race, must be at least average height, must be gender conventional) that are so ubiquitous that they don't even consider them standards.
reply