‘We could soon see a Jane Austen-style marriage market’: how the housing crisis is turning modern dating on its head

[Casual-observer]

5 minutes ago, sta100 said:

There's 7.9 ish billion people on the planet who have  pretty much screwed it up and continually develop ways of screwing it up, did nature intend that?

Funny how 'nature' has come up with a significant amount of human suffering, but when it comes to twenty something women partying then they need to fall back in line with what 'nature' intended. A real serious issue that one.

It's amazing what lengths people will go to with these c0ck and bull stories just because they don't get to shag everything.

 

Screwed what up? if you want to make a point it has to make sense first. 

No one ever said life on planet earth was ever going to be easy, it's not written into the bedrock. 

The reality is non monogamous societies are historically more violent societies, whether we like it or not.  

If enough women don't fulfil their primary function then men in turn will begin reverting to their primary function, conquering.

It's the ying to the yang and I'm unclear what historical reference you're going off to say it's a load of cobblers. 

[zugzwang]

3 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Screwed what up? if you want to make a point it has to make sense first. 

No one ever said life on planet earth was ever going to be easy, it's not written into the bedrock. 

The reality is non monogamous societies are historically more violent societies, whether we like it or not.  

If enough women don't fulfil their primary function then men in turn will begin reverting to their primary function, conquering.

It's the ying to the yang and I'm unclear what historical reference you're going off to say it's a load of cobblers. 

 

Recent anthropological data suggest that the modern concept of life-long monogamy has been in place for only the last 1,000 years. How then do you explain the history of the United States, at war continuously since its inception? Or the vast criminogenic enterprise that was the British Empire?

 

[sta100]

16 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Screwed what up? if you want to make a point it has to make sense first. 

No one ever said life on planet earth was ever going to be easy, it's not written into the bedrock. 

The reality is non monogamous societies are historically more violent societies, whether we like it or not.  

If enough women don't fulfil their primary function then men in turn will begin reverting to their primary function, conquering.

It's the ying to the yang and I'm unclear what historical reference you're going off to say it's a load of cobblers. 

Yeah it's womens fault that men revert to their violent nature if they don't fit into your model of what they should be. i.e, men's property and childrearing function.

I got what you said a while back, you didn't need to invent some reasoning for it.

Edited July 24, 2023 by sta100

[Insane]

27 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Nature built women to be their most attractive at a young age because having kids and raising them is a young persons game. You need youth on your side to do it and that's why men are programmed to prefer women in their youthful prime..what nature didn't intend was for women to commoditise that aspect, forgo kids and spend their 20's partying. 

Well not quite Nature moves on and changes. People are younger and fitter for longer you could say mid 30's is the new mid 20's. The advantage of this is that as well as still being young in body people are more mature when having children. Women having enjoyed themselves in their 20's partied, travelled and enjoyed spending their money are going to be more relaxed when the thrills have worn off about setting down to the nitty gritty of raising children. Instead of going straight from school , work a few years and reproduce. It's the same for men. 

32 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

You can't ignore the impacts of what modern technology is enabling and if it's sustainable from a societal aspect long term. As I said before if it wasn't for immigration from less modern societies a lot of plates in the west would stop spinning overnight. 

Because successive governments have made it so expensive to marry buy a home and reproduce. Modern technology is not the problem. 

34 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Monogamy came about to essentially give more men a stake in their society but without religion we do appear to be reverting back to the old status quo. If enough men don't have a wife and kids to get them out of bed in the morning to do the menial jobs modern society needs them to do  then it reopens doors to the past and the modern society you take for granted starts reverting backwards. 

No it came about to give a more stable foundation to the offspring. Men shagging and leaving left the mother and children vulnerable to predatory males who had no stake or interest in the first mans offspring. 

36 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

The geographic restrictions that limited women's availability to their pick of men have evaporated and western demographics are representing this reality. 

LOL. 

People men and woman can both travel. As another poster said someway back on this thread women can increase their audience but then so can the men. 

[Casual-observer]

Just now, sta100 said:

Yeah it's womens fault that men revert to their violent nature if they don't fit into your model of what they should be.

I got what you said a while back, you didn't need to invent some reasoning for it.

You seem to be alluding to it being peoples 'faults' when much defaults to basic human survival in both genders. 

Men were created to be violent beings on the the very basis they got off their ar4e to go spear a woolly mammoth so his tribe could eat. 

In turn it's why women are attracted to more dominant men. Is it the fault of women that they gravitate to taller men? It goes back to the basis they want the biggest toughest b@stard capable of swinging an axe into someone's head for 'protection'. 

It's not 'my' model...it's THE model...if it wasn't then women wouldn't prefer tall men. 

The reasoning is based on survival, yet you seem to think humans can switch out of this reality like a light switch. 

[Bob8]

7 minutes ago, sta100 said:

Yeah it's womens fault that men revert to their violent nature if they don't fit into your model of what they should be. i.e, men's property and childrearing function.

I got what you said a while back, you didn't need to invent some reasoning for it.

The strange thing I find with people who make the arguments such as Casual makes are that they typically have no interest in economic equality. If you want to encourage monogamy, then it cannot be done when you have a small number of very wealthy men adn lots of poor ones.

[Casual-observer]

11 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

Recent anthropological data suggest that the modern concept of life-long monogamy has been in place for only the last 1,000 years. How then do you explain the history of the United States, at war continuously since its inception? Or the vast criminogenic enterprise that was the British Empire?

 

But isn't it evidence enough that the last 1000 years also heralded the most stable societies thereby allowing those societies to become modern. 

[Insane]

2 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

In turn it's why women are attracted to more dominant men. Is it the fault of women that they gravitate to taller men? It goes back to the basis they want the biggest toughest b@stard capable of swinging an axe into someone's head for 'protection'. 

It's not 'my' model...it's THE model...if it wasn't then women wouldn't prefer tall men. 

The reasoning is based on survival, yet you seem to think humans can switch out of this reality like a light switch. 

Well society has moved on in the years since Mr Average needed to swing an axe everyday yet people have constantly grown taller, so the above does not really fit. 

 

[Casual-observer]

2 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

The strange thing I find with people who make the arguments such as Casual makes are that they typically have no interest in economic equality. If you want to encourage monogamy, then it cannot be done when you have a small number of very wealthy men adn lots of poor ones.

No, you're wrong. 

I do want economic equality and it is out of my own self interest as outlined. What is happening is the wealthy elite are hoovering up the resources (including women).

That in turn will drag down wider society which will impact the likes of you and me. 

[sta100]

3 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

You seem to be alluding to it being peoples 'faults' when much defaults to basic human survival in both genders. 

Men were created to be violent beings on the the very basis they got off their ar4e to go spear a woolly mammoth so his tribe could eat. 

In turn it's why women are attracted to more dominant men. Is it the fault of women that they gravitate to taller men? It goes back to the basis they want the biggest toughest b@stard capable of swinging an axe into someone's head for 'protection'. 

It's not 'my' model...it's THE model...if it wasn't then women wouldn't prefer tall men. 

The reasoning is based on survival, yet you seem to think humans can switch out of this reality like a light switch. 

You just undermined your own reasoning, because if monogamy was what nature intended they would have evolved to be attracted to caring supportive men.

 

 

[Casual-observer]

Just now, Insane said:

Well society has moved on in the years since Mr Average needed to swing an axe everyday yet people have constantly grown taller, so the above does not really fit. 

 

It hasn't though. 

Your current modern western society is increasingly reliant on displaced third world labour (men) filling the void modern western women aren't filling via a lack of births. 

These men by the way aren't entertained by the average western women who won't give them the time of day on when it comes to relationships... so they can hang around wealthy men on a boat in the med. 

It's similar to how the Roman empire became increasingly reliant on barbarians to keep their own plates spinning....eventually it all just unravels. 

 

[sta100]

2 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

These men by the way aren't entertained by the average western women who won't give them the time of day on when it comes to relationships... so they can hang around wealthy men on a boat in the med. 

 

 

This is what the average western woman does?

Edited July 24, 2023 by sta100

[Casual-observer]

3 minutes ago, sta100 said:

You just undermined your own reasoning, because if monogamy was what nature intended they would have evolved to be attracted to caring supportive men.

 

 

I never said monogamy was what nature intended...I didn't say that. 

It was a model pushed by our forebears to bring more stable societies historically but you needed a 'religion' to push it....something the atheist west now doesn't have 

[Casual-observer]

Just now, sta100 said:

This is what the average western women does?

The average western woman isn't going for the average man anymore, that is correct. 

Again, the collapse in birth-rates of the average western woman backs this up. 

[sta100]

Just now, Casual-observer said:

I never said monogamy was what nature intended...I didn't say that. 

It was a model pushed by our forebears to bring more stable societies historically but you needed a 'religion' to push it....something the atheist west now doesn't have 

The ownership of women was a model pushed to bring more stable ssocietites... well that's one interpretation. I'm sure this was done for the greater good of course.

You do know evolution means that we don't actually have to go backwards to something that's worked previously?

[sta100]

9 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

The average western woman isn't going for the average man anymore, that is correct. 

Again, the collapse in birth-rates of the average western woman backs this up. 

Yeah of course it does. You'll have to excuse me for taking a rather large dose of salt especially after you suggested average western woman pimps herself out to sit around with wealthy men on boats in the med.

I wonder if the average western man or woman always went for the average western man or woman. Or if the average western man used to slap around the average western woman, while the average western woman just used to grin and bear it. The good old days eh.

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by sta100

[jiltedjen]

I think economic prospects are certainly a ‘must have’ but ‘having a house’ is not really a huge deal considering the average ages people actually meet people.

more ‘good job’ or ‘savings’

equally most ladies would like a share of the house and feel in a equal partnership, it’s harder when a woman moves into a blokes house, it will always feel like his house. 

Economically it’s best to buy in a couple also.

housing pressures probably mean there are more relationships than there would be otherwise. And scrimping and saving is a good test of relationship strength also, if you can enjoy each other’s company without the need of spending money on booze, or entertainment, and can make fun out of walks, or have a laugh even just food shopping. ideal.

regarding my comment on ‘I would be off a bridge without her’ just to clarify, if she left me, then she obviously didn’t love me anymore, and thus she wouldn’t be my mrs jiltedjen anymore and I’m not that dramatic.

The comment was more ‘if she died’ as she’s is my world, and I wouldn’t be the first person in the world to seriously struggle to face the world without her, maybe too much of flippant comment, but I sure would consider it, not everyone has a loving family or a support network outside of their partner.

[Insane]

6 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

It hasn't though. 

Your current modern western society is increasingly reliant on displaced third world labour (men) filling the void modern western women aren't filling via a lack of births. 

These men by the way aren't entertained by the average western women who won't give them the time of day on when it comes to relationships... so they can hang around wealthy men on a boat in the med. 

It's similar to how the Roman empire became increasingly reliant on barbarians to keep their own plates spinning....eventually it all just unravels. 

 It is the other way around the third world labour has cut wages while still needing housing and resources in the west. As they don't earn enough to cover their own costs those already in the west make up the difference.

While paying for others those in the western society cannot also afford to reproduce (unless) they agree to a standard of living like the third world. They don't want this so the lack of births follows. 

[Insane]

11 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

The average western woman isn't going for the average man anymore, that is correct. 

Again, the collapse in birth-rates of the average western woman backs this up. 

They are but they are not having enough children. 

I know many average people who are having 1 or a maximum of 2 children. It is due to cost. 

[winkie]

When a woman is wealthy/content enough, can make her own way in life, why would she look for money in a man if that man has far superior personality qualities.....the same goes for both sexes, works both ways.

What is preferable an ugly rich woman or a beautiful woman with nothing?

[Insane]

1 minute ago, winkie said:

What is preferable an ugly rich woman or a beautiful woman with nothing?

That depends. 

I was once in quite an expensive resort abroad and in a very expensive restaurant. Only guessing but most of the people looked quite comfortable financially. They were also getting on a bit even most of the men looked like they had had plastic surgery. 

I wondered how much they would give of their wealth for each year they could turn the clock back on their age? 

 

[winkie]

13 minutes ago, Insane said:

That depends. 

I was once in quite an expensive resort abroad and in a very expensive restaurant. Only guessing but most of the people looked quite comfortable financially. They were also getting on a bit even most of the men looked like they had had plastic surgery. 

I wondered how much they would give of their wealth for each year they could turn the clock back on their age? 

 

So what you are saying is the older midlife crisis men go for the young totty, plastic surgery, hair implants......that is not a relationship, that is a game......one or the other will get bored eventually..... can't turn the clock back, not that many young women wants to one day look after an old man ~30 years older than them unless the money was the main motivation...

[Bob8]

6 minutes ago, sta100 said:

This is what the average western woman does?

I was a good looking young man with drive and a future.

Much later in life I was a well off middle aged man.

THere is no question which young women typically found more attractive. Except that is not really true, as a young man, I was one of many young men and a bit more skint than most of them.

Actually, a small minority of young women like older men, but those that do rarely get the chance with one who has a good career, social status, is not bad looking, is not an bumhole and in good shape.

44 minutes ago, sta100 said:

Yeah of course it does. You'll have to excuse me for taking a rather large dose of salt especially after you suggested average western woman pimps herself out to sit around with wealthy men on boats in the med.

I wonder if the average western man or woman always went for the average western man or woman. Or if the average western man used to slap around the average western woman, while the average western woman just used to grin and bear it. The good old days eh.

The thing is, a small group of hugely wealthy men will have plenty of attractive young women. Sail your yacht into a city harbour and you can get pretty young women easily enough. But, there are very few people with yachts and even a minority of attractive young women wanting to jump on that boat will be a surplus.

[Nick Cash]

The only questions worth asking on this thread is:

Do women today want a tall axe swinging man, or a short house owning man?

or Would a woman prefer a short ugly IT consultant who can prove via an excel spreadsheet that they are solvent versus a 6 foot 3 scaffolder with wide shoulders and a tiny waist.

Physical attraction is only one of the thousands of characteristics we all look for at different stages of life.

 

[canbuywontbuy]

9 minutes ago, winkie said:

What is preferable an ugly rich woman or a beautiful woman with nothing?

If a man values money more than looks (e.g. he's desperate for money to support his parents and extended family), he will go with the ugly rich woman.

If a man values looks more than money, he goes for the beautiful woman with nothing.

If a woman values looks more than money, she goes with the good looking guy with nothing.

If a woman values money more than looks, she will go with the ugly rich man over the good looking guy with nothing.

On and on.

We look for the biggest advantage and gain for ourselves. People like to place an acceptable layer of romanticism on dating to cloak the rather mercenary nature of humanity, but we always look for that advantage. Even if the advantage is "wanting to feel loved", that is no more edifying.  Once that feeling is satiated, the sands can shift and suddenly that person has another need.