nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Single life as a guy...

LordNorbury

Hi folks, just thought I'd start this thread, I'm a guy in my mid 30's and single, it occurred to me to start a general discussion on single life for guys in their 20's and 30's (and upwards!)... I'm single a few years now, after a few really long term relationships, was never married and never had kids.

I don't want this to be a thread on internet dating or how to pull women as a single guy, more about the pro's and the con's of single life, the best and the worst of it, aspirations for the future, maybe regrets about the past, what you do that is important to you to have and to enjoy your life, that is generally configured very differently from many people around you, (who at this age are generally settled down with a partner and kids)...

Just interested in generating some discussion on the subject, as your man on Star Trek says, "engage!"...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PucaMama

GFT wrote: »

Didn't you get the email? Men aren't allowed preferences. :rolleyes:

Why is it never just a preference when women prefer taller men?

johnnyskeleton

PucaMama wrote: »

Why is it never just a preference when women prefer taller men?

How do you mean? No one has denied women aren't allowed prefer tall men?

NI24

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That can't be true. Given (roughly) equal population of each then for every single man there is a single lady.

You'd be wrong. There are roughly the same amount at birth, but by the time men and women reach sexual maturity, women start to outnumber men and this continues into old age. In fact in some countries, by the time men and women reach the age of 65, women outnumber men in a 2 to 1 ratio. Researchers have many theories as to why, but they don't really stand up to scrutiny. For instance, war is usually touted as a reason for low numbers, yet Middle Eastern countries are some of the few countries in the world where men actually (slightly) outnumber women, and those countries are constantly at war. So lots of theories, but few conclusions.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Based on the above this must be equal too.

Once again, wrong.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

We are talking about a minute percentage of the poulation here that would have no impact on overall figures.

Only if taken in isolation. But when added to the number of men who are criminals, pedophiles, mentally ill, and drug abusers etc. (all of these things occur in men in much higher numbers than in women) then that starts to have a noticeable impact on overall figures. To such an extent that sociologists and researchers have done studies on it.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

FYP
I would argue that your conclusions are based on some very shaky suppositions.

I'd say you need to go back and fix your own post and come back when you have statistics on your side because that's exactly what my conclusions are based on.

So basically you have men surrounded by a plethora of women, yet it's the women who have unrealistic standards? Sorry, don't buy it. I've seen too many good looking women with great personalities stuck with old assholes and I have yet to see the reverse.

NI24

fits wrote: »

Agreed. Studied engineering and the male classmates were complete ****s when talking about what they considered to be unattractive women. (young, but still)

It's not just the young ones. I've heard a man refer to women he deems physically unattractive as "boilermakers" and he was in his 30s at the time. Misogyny has no age. And yes, I consider the constant scrutinization of women's looks and the ensuing insults to be misogyny.

Pawwed Rig

NI24 wrote: »

You'd be wrong. There are roughly the same amount at birth, but by the time men and women reach sexual maturity, women start to outnumber men and this continues into old age. In fact in some countries, by the time men and women reach the age of 65, women outnumber men in a 2 to 1 ratio. Researchers have many theories as to why, but they don't really stand up to scrutiny. For instance, war is usually touted as a reason for low numbers, yet Middle Eastern countries are some of the few countries in the world where men actually (slightly) outnumber women, and those countries are constantly at war. So lots of theories, but few conclusions.

Once again, wrong.

Only if taken in isolation. But when added to the number of men who are criminals, pedophiles, mentally ill, and drug abusers etc. (all of these things occur in men in much higher numbers than in women) then that starts to have a noticeable impact on overall figures. To such an extent that sociologists and researchers have done studies on it.

I'd say you need to go back and fix your own post and come back when you have statistics on your side because that's exactly what my conclusions are based on.

So basically you have men surrounded by a plethora of women, yet it's the women who have unrealistic standards? Sorry, don't buy it. I've seen too many good looking women with great personalities stuck with old assholes and I have yet to see the reverse.

There you go

http://www.indexmundi.com/ireland/age_structure.html
You will see a very slight outnumbering for men over women but as I said the relative difference is miniscule so essentially equal.

So if you could provide the statistics that your conclusions are based on we can go from there

Wibbs

NI24 wrote: »

Only if taken in isolation. But when added to the number of men who are criminals, pedophiles, mentally ill, and drug abusers etc. (all of these things occur in men in much higher numbers than in women)

Actually women are the ones far more likely to present with mental illness than men, are 70% more likely to present with depression and twice as likely to suffer anxiety. Antidepressant meds? Women are again over twice as likely to be taking such medications than men and nearly a quarter of women in their 40's in the US are on such therapies. Suicide ideation is slightly higher in women than men, as are attempts, but men "succeed" in suicide more than women. In a quite horrible sense they're "better" at it, because they tend to go for more sure methods(and women are more likely to announce an attempt). These are US studies but I believe that's where you hail from so more relevant for you. Here in Ireland I would suspect the meds stats at least to be lower as medicine is less of an cash cow industry here. Still, a man is more likely to have to avoid mentally ill women than a woman is to avoid mentally ill men. Plus anxiety in a woman can be seen by some men as a plus, those knights in shining armour chaps who want to "save someone"(Been there guys. Don't). Anxiety in a man is pretty much an instant turn off for women.

Men who are criminals and/or in Gaol? Again there's some local colour there too as Americans incarcerate more of their citizens than any other nation on earth. Drug abusers? Interesting bit of research here.. The upshot being that it may be as much down to opportunity to become addicted and the rates among women are rising. Women are also quicker to escalate to addiction, become addicted more rapidly and find it harder to give up addiction.

Potatoeman

NI24 wrote: »

So basically you have men surrounded by a plethora of women, yet it's the women who have unrealistic standards? Sorry, don't buy it. I've seen too many good looking women with great personalities stuck with old assholes and I have yet to see the reverse.

Why are they with them? If they have all the above going for them, then why didn't you set them up with a male friend?

I know some women date down but it's usually in their late twenties/early thirties when they are in baby mode and scare guys off.

NI24 wrote: »

It's not just the young ones. I've heard a man refer to women he deems physically unattractive as "boilermakers" and he was in his 30s at the time. Misogyny has no age. And yes, I consider the constant scrutinization of women's looks and the ensuing insults to be misogyny.

That is not misogny. It's mean but not hateful. Anybody can be mean.

fits

Potatoeman wrote: »

That is not misogny. It's mean but not hateful. Anybody can be mean.

Its a depersonalisation of women who don't meet an idea of attractiveness. If you are 'ugly' you are not even a person worth any respect in some eyes. Eg landwhale... Its an awful and yes its a hateful term.

Pat Mustard

fits wrote: »

Its a depersonalisation of women who don't meet an idea of attractiveness. If you are 'ugly' you are not even a person worth any respect in some eyes. Eg landwhale... Its an awful and yes its a hateful term.

It's weight for women and height for men. It is unpleasant when somebody is insulted about either.

Ultimately, there is little difference.

Except you can't really change your height.

fits

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It's weight for women and height for men. It is unpleasant when somebody is insulted about either.

Ultimately, there is little difference.

Except you can't really change your height.

I have never heard such derogatory terms coined for short men though.

smash

fits wrote: »

I have never heard such derogatory terms coined for short men though.

Short arse, pip squeek, little man syndrome... etc etc

Have a look at this reaction when a girl is confronted about slagging 'short' men. Something that they can't ever change.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I think the thing to focus on is that both men and women are fully entitled to have their preferences as to what they find attractive. However there is no need to be mean about it and use un-necessarily hurtful terms.

And it's a huge turn-off for most people I think if someone they are possibly interested in uses crappy terms to describe other people when you're in their company. Doesn't come across well.

Azalea

I don't think height and weight are comparable anyway - you can control one, you can't control the other.
Not that that excuses stuff like "landwhale" but if a person finds it unattractive/unhealthy, there's nothing wrong with this. If someone writes off all short men, this is a bit more superficial imo as, as I said, it's not something he can control. I guess my ideal is a man who is my height or taller (I'm only 5ft 5 so I don't mean a super-tall man) but I have still met men who are shorter than me whom I've found very attractive.

There are definitely derogatory terms for short men, although tbh, I hear men using them more than women.

Azalea

smash wrote: »

Short arse, pip squeek, little man syndrome... etc etc

Have a look at this reaction when a girl is confronted about slagging 'short' men. Something that they can't ever change.

What a hypocritical idiot she is.

Potatoeman

fits wrote: »

Its a depersonalisation of women who don't meet an idea of attractiveness. If you are 'ugly' you are not even a person worth any respect in some eyes. Eg landwhale... Its an awful and yes its a hateful term.

People that do it usually don't limit it based on gender. The term landwhale is not gender specific.

Azalea

Potatoeman wrote: »

People that do it usually don't limit it based on gender. The term landwhale is not gender specific.

Dunno about that. Hatred of overweight people on the Internet seems moreso to be about women, the stories of being shouted at on the street seem to be more in relation to women.
Not saying there aren't situations where men get the worse deal (there are) but I have never known of the term whale to be used in relation to overweight men.

smash

Azalea wrote: »

Dunno about that. Hatred of overweight people on the Internet seems moreso to be about women, the stories of being shouted at on the street seem to be more in relation to women.
Not saying there aren't situations where men get the worse deal (there are) but I have never known of the term whale to be used in relation to overweight men.

I've never heard of a man being described as a landwhale either. I think the only time I've heard of a man getting attention or support over fat shaming was the guy who was photo'd while dancing and eventually had a party/concert thrown in his honour. Again though the whole thing was organised by women, presumably the same types who keep pushing the phrases 'curvy', 'plus sized', 'real woman' instead of saying fat or obese etc.

Azalea

They were slim dancers actually.

But I hate all that "real women" stuff.

Potatoeman

Azalea wrote: »

Dunno about that. Hatred of overweight people on the Internet seems moreso to be about women, the stories of being shouted at on the street seem to be more in relation to women.
Not saying there aren't situations where men get the worse deal (there are) but I have never known of the term whale to be used in relation to overweight men.

As the poster below you points out, men don't seem to try and use different terms to describe themselves to the extent some women do. The fat acceptance movement seems to be driven by women and it's the public face that will get the abuse and comments online.

I've never heard of a campaign for more plus size male models.

Confucius say

I'm 181cm in height, which is 1.88cm under 6ft (ffs), and still a lot of the women I'd like the look of when I was online dating were unmessageable as they only wanted guys over 6ft.

They've every right to do so of course, I probably wouldn't want to be with a girl under a certain height either as I prefer taller girls, but having a specific height range like that is going to narrow your changes IMO.

I really am glad I'm not short though, it must be tough for a man, it's definitely a big plus from my experience to be in or around the tall area.

Sleepy

I think a large part of it is that men, in general, seem to be better at accepting reality than women.

In my experience, the vast majority of those who believe in homoeopathy, healing crystals, fortune tellers, vaccinations being harmful etc. are women. The Catholic Church in Ireland would fall apart without the army of women inexplicably giving their time to an organisation that treats them as second class citizens. It's rare and refreshing for a woman to recognise and refer to herself as fat, whereas many lads (myself included) will readily admit they've gotten fat. Even our attitudes to it seem to be different, men are more likely to take the simple (and correct approach) of cutting down on the food and hitting the gym whereas a large subset of women will attempt miracle crash diets, faddy fitness trends, body wraps, slimming pills etc. that eventually just cripple their metabolism.

It'd be interesting to see where this comes from tbh. Why are women the more gullible gender?

GFT

smash wrote: »

Short arse, pip squeek, little man syndrome... etc etc

Have a look at this reaction when a girl is confronted about slagging 'short' men. Something that they can't ever change.

Perfect example of the double standards that exist in this thread and society in general.

Confucius say

Sleepy wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see where this comes from tbh. Why are women the more gullible gender?

Right but at the same time the Catholic church is 100% made up of men who believe in really crazy sh*t.

Jim Bob Scratcher

What's the deal with women rejecting men because of their height ? I've heard in the past that it's because it makes them feel secure, is that it ? If so christ on a bike! :rolleyes:

Confucius say

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

What's the deal with women rejecting men because of their height ? I've heard in the past that it's because it makes them feel secure, is that it ? If so christ on a bike! :rolleyes:

It's not that hard to understand really is it? Tall men/people have much more of a presence and even men seem to respect tall men more. I can see why it's attractive.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Confucius say wrote: »

It's not that hard to understand really is it? Tall men/people have much more of a presence and even men seem to respect tall men more. I can see why it's attractive.

Yeah I get it, but what's with women wanting someone tall just to feel secure and protect them ?

smash

Confucius say wrote: »

I'm 181cm in height, which is 1.88cm under 6ft (ffs), and still a lot of the women I'd like the look of when I was online dating were unmessageable as they only wanted guys over 6ft.

When I did the online dating thing a few girls asked me my height but only one really stuck out. I was an inch smaller than her and she said out straight to me that it probably wouldn't go anywhere but that she had loads of single friends and I should go out drinking with her and her friends. I thought it was a pretty cool proposal and we did text about it but unfortunately I didn't get the time to meet up with her.

the evasion_kid

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

What's the deal with women rejecting men because of their height ? I've heard in the past that it's because it makes them feel secure, is that it ? If so christ on a bike! :rolleyes:

to feel protected from robbers.....or an atom bomb

Carlos Orange

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That can't be true. Given (roughly) equal population of each then for every single man there is a single lady.

Men have emigrated since there aren't jobs for them (men are 30% more likely to be unemployed).

men
15 - 24 years 265.6
25 - 44 years 669.6
45 - 64 years 548.9

women
15 - 24 years 251.1
25 - 44 years 707.9
45 - 64 years 556.9

2015 figures

http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=pea01

These are narrower bands but older data.
There used to be more men than women in the prime manageable age range but the reverse is true now.

968 females per 1000 males aged 30-34 2006
1,023 females per 1000 males aged 30-34 2011

http://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=cna16

Mister Vain

I'm 5'8" and I'd probably get 2 replies for every 100 messages I send, and I'd be good looking from the neck up.