Showing posts with label settling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label settling. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Your PhD Is His Eight-Pack

Everyone's talking about the whole "dadbod" thing, so it's been on my mind recently.

Before I say anything else, let me just make it clear that I resent having to reference something with such a retarded name. Modern American culture's tendency to come up with stupid names for stuff like this is almost as obnoxious as its ability to miss the point.

In any case, while on the surface the whole "dadbod" phenomenon looks like nothing more than a justification for men and women who want to be lazy about their appearance, I think there is something valuable in the idea, even if it lies a little beneath the surface. But in order to draw an important comparison to it, I first need to explain something else I've been thinking about recently, thanks to a recent podcast on Animus Empire and conversations with a couple girls I know...

These days, a lot of women out-perform men in the ostensible measures of "success." Whether this be with achievements in the workplace, academic degrees, financial earnings, or just the capability to make things happen, many women feel like they are better than men at their own game. And many women are.

But at the same time, a woman's physiology compels her to want to "marry up." In spite of the desire and ability to be successful by traditionally male standards, she also feels incapable of settling for a man who doesn't impress her with respect to those same standards.

Source: Snyder and Dillow, 2012

This is obviously problematic. When you as a woman are earning $100k + per year or have dual Bachelor's degrees and a Master's, it is going to be pretty tough feeling like you've found someone impressive, because the vast majority of men earn about $45k and drink their way through laughable degrees. I've met many girls in this situation – accomplished in all respects, but unhappy in their relationships and dissatisfied by their supposed success. (Perhaps unfulfilled is a better word, for reasons I explain in my new book.)

Most women don't intentionally choose this situation. They were raised in a culture that told them their personal worth was dictated by the position they could win in the office, or the degree they could earn in school. When they were too young to think for themselves and understand what their post-pubescent selves would want, they were pointed in the direction of traditionally masculine success, and told that they'd better work hard and marry their "equal" if they wanted to be happy in life. But anyone over the age of 30 knows that this is bullshit. Sure, no one wants to go back to 17th century and arranged marriages; but the idea that a woman can be happily married to a man who has no abilities in excess of her own is absurd. She might find a way to be content in that kind of marriage, sure, but content people take Zoloft.

This isn't something that only applies to women, by the way. Both sexes want spouses that are "better" than them; we just want the opposite sex to be better than us in very different and complimentary ways. Women typically want a man who is better than them when it comes to providing and protecting their family, while men typically want a woman who is better than them when it comes to raising children, creating a "home" (I mean this in the widest possible sense of the word) and keeping the family connected to the outside world. I discuss one small aspect of this dynamic in the post The Analogy Between Confidence and Beauty. If you haven't read yet, I suggest taking a minute to do so before finishing this one. The point is that women want men who are stable and capable ("confident"), while men want a woman who is fertile and a light in their life ("beautiful").

This is what your PhD or upper management position looks like.
Anyway that brings us to the "dadbod." As I said, at first glance, the claim that women like men with mediocre bodies looks like an excuse for men to be sloppy and for women to lower the standard of comparison for their own bodies. And for many people, this is exactly how the concept will be used, without further consideration. But for those of us who are willing to think and work, there is a lesson to take away from the "dadbod." After all, the article that started it all was only popular because it touched on an important yet controversial truth, namely, that women and men want different things in relationships. Both sexes want to be better at certain things than their partner, and both sexes want the other to be better than them in some ways. To some degree, it actually does makes sense for a woman to be "the pretty one." This doesn't excuse men from looking after themselves, but it does mean that men who think that they have to tone and sculpt themselves into a Greek God in order to get girls are missing something much more important than bodyfat.

As usual, the useful takeaway here is reached by flipping the comparison to the other side of the sexual divide. Most women struggle with the concept that men don't like them for their accomplishments. They see accomplished men and feel attracted, so they have a hard time understanding why that same standard doesn't apply to them too. At the same time, most women - even if they don't agree that "dadbods" are sexy - at least can identify with wanting to be the pretty one in the relationship and disliking feelings of competition with their own partner. By this point, you probably get what I am going to say: as a man, dating a woman who is highly accomplished in traditionally male arenas is a lot like being a woman and dating a man with a perfectly sculpted body. Or we could state it like this: guys feel the same way about dating women who are more accomplished than them as you feel about dating men who are sexier than you.

Now, by all means, the correct solution for a girl who feels inclined towards guys with "dadbods" is to hit the gym and learn how to present herself (so she can get guys without "dadbods"); just like a guy who feels tempted to date stupid girls should find his purpose in life and work his ass off (so he can feel confident dating smart and accomplished girls). The fact that the sexes want different things doesn't mean it is right for guys to stop working out any more than it means that it is right for women to intentionally dumb themselves down intellectually. As I've stated in a million different ways on this blog, the answer isn't a reduction of the other, it is an augmentation of the self.

No, the whole "dadbod" thing doesn't excuse laziness, but it does serve as a reminder (albeit an awkward one) that each sex is looking for reciprocal qualities in the other. So think twice before pouring several years into developing the very quality you are looking for in the opposite sex. You only have so much time and energy to spend in developing yourself - spend it wisely.


Related Posts
1. No, Your Intelligence Is Not Your Problem
2. Men Don't Care About Your Accomplishments
3. The Analogy Between Sex and Commitment
4. Human Energy Is Conserved

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Do You Really Want Dating to Be Easier?

Dating isn't easy. In fact, for anyone with romantic ambitions, it is extremely difficult. There was a time where dating options were far more limited by religion, geography, social class, and family pressure. But these days, dating options are virtually limitless, and ideals about romance are pegged to ridiculous standards, both of which make it hard for people to settle down. When you consider this in light of the fact that people have such varied tastes, it isn't hard to see why it is so difficult to fall mutually in love.

The greatest victories in sports are the ones that follow a difficult comeback. We appreciate them because they are born out of unlikely circumstances, and are the result of a tremendous effort. I remember watching basketball games when I was a kid, and actually liking it when my favorite team was down by a large margin. The way I saw it, the deficit was just potential for a big comeback - maybe an unprecedented comeback, a game people would talk about for decades. While I knew that I might be witnessing a blowout, I also knew that I might be watching sports history in the making. I also knew that I wouldn't be anywhere near as excited if my team won by a large margin - it would just be too easy that way.

When you get frustrated at your lack of success with the opposite sex, stop for a moment and recognize that the same principle applies in your dating life.  If finding a boyfriend or husband were easy, you wouldn't care much for your relationships. Every man would be replaceable, just as you would be to every man. The more you improve yourself in order to find love, or the more years you spend maturing before you can recognize it, the more unique your story will be, and the more you will value the man who marks its end.


Related Posts
1. Why Rejection Is a Good Thing
2. Self-Improvement Takes Time
3. Why Do You Want Him Back?
4. Know Why You Are Dating

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Why You Can't Get the Men You Want

Most women who complain that they "don't get any attention from men" actually mean that they don't get attention from the men they want. And the simple advice for women in this situation (which I have seen on other blogs, and have occasionally given out myself) is sometimes appropriate: "you aren't hot enough to get the guys you want; lower your standards." However, in most cases, I think there is deeper phenomenon at work.

Women tend to be aware of and rate their looks fairly accurately. I know this because a lot of readers send me pictures saying "I think I am an X out of 10, can you tell me what I really am?" Although I always refuse to give them my numerical opinion (because all men think differently), their guesses are usually very close to what I would have ranked them.

So why would they set the bar so much higher than what they know they can get? Some might point out that their "delusion" is caused by their experiences getting men who are out of their league for sex and casual dating. And though I agree that this happens, it doesn't capture the whole picture. Women just aren't that easily deceived about their own physical attractiveness. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that the problem is primarily an internal one.

Each of us has an inherent knowledge of our own capabilities and dispositions. We know the inner workings of our own mind: how honest we are, how prone we are to mood swings, our insecurities and strengths, what we've experienced, what we still need to learn, the strength of our ambitions, etc. This translates into an excellent knowledge of our personal capabilities, our personal potential. We all know roughly what we could achieve, whether or not we have achieved it. Occasionally we modify this self-perception when we realize the extent of strengths we didn't know we had, or weaknesses that have greater implications than we'd imagined. But in general, we know ourselves well; we know what we are capable of becoming. This is true in all aspects of our lives: business, working out, academic learning - everywhere. It also applies to dating. Because we know ourselves, we also know roughly what we should be able to get when it comes to the opposite sex.

A statement that often accompanies women's complaints about not getting the men they want is something to the effect of "I know I am a catch. I have so much love to give a man. Why can't men see that??" This is a symptom of the above-described phenomenon: you know that you have the right "raw material" to attract the kind of man you want (in fact, "the kind of man you want" is partially defined by your self-knowledge), but you are confused about why it hasn't happened for you yet.

The reason for this is simple: your self-perception of your potential is roughly accurate, but you aren't living up to that potential. You aren't the person you know you can be. You have the capability, but you haven't used it. You have the potential, but you haven't fulfilled it. You know you can be a fun and exciting person to be around when you feel comfortable, but you haven't confronted your insecurity in social situations, so men don't realize this. You know you have a great figure, but you haven't learned yet to show it off by correcting your posture, so no one notices it. You know you have great hair, but you don't put the effort in to style it well, so it does you little good. You know you are pretty, but you haven't confronted your fear of looking a little awkward, and this has dramatically slowed your efforts at learning how to dress yourself well. Your are well aware of your inner feminine self and you instincts to nurture and love, but you suppress them (as you've been implicitly told to do by your parents or the culture around you) and men assume you are cold and boring. You know that you are an incredibly sexual person, but because of your strict conservative upbringing, you cloak it in "modesty" and men are turned off.

The reason women can't get what they think they deserve is that we (men and women alike) always peg our standards to what we know we can be, not to what we are, while members of the opposite sex judge us - understandably - only on what we are currently. They have no access to the inner workings of our mind; and even if they did, they would have no guarantee that we'd ever reach the potential this would reveal to them. So your discontent in dating boils down to the fact that you aren't living up to your own standards - yet. Incidentally, this also explains why most people have such an aversion to settling: our subconscious knowledge of what we "should" be able to get is achievable (if not currently accurate), so it seems defeatist to accept something less.

I've illustrated an example of this in the diagram below. A woman who is a 5.5 out of 10 has the potential to be a 7.5, so she "knows" that she can get men of that caliber (red arrows). She is constantly setting her sights on men who are in the 7-8 range (dark blue arrows), and she is constantly being rejected by them. She doesn't understand why, since she thinks these men are in her league, when the truth is that she could get into their league. Her situation isn't helped by the fact that a lot of the men she wants haven't met their full potential yet either, meaning that they - also wrongly - have their sights set on women of an even higher caliber (light blue arrows).

Rank out of Ten (Combined Looks and Appearance)

So the bad news is that you probably can't get the men that you think you can get. But the good news is that you probably can eventually get the men that you think you can get - assuming you are willing to work at it, and do. The biggest takeaway, though, is that if you aren't getting the men you want (but you think that they are in your league), your first move shouldn't be to lower your standards, it should be to self-improve.


Related Posts

Sunday, May 20, 2012

The Female's Internal Conflict

It is built into our very nature as human beings to have to endure the conflict imposed by the combination of our biology and rationality, our bodies and our minds. For reasons that are beyond our abilities to completely understand, our minds work in such a way that we are driven by pride, while our bodies operate according to their inclinations to reproduce and (presumably) perpetuate the species. These two drives often push us towards opposite goals, resulting in a conflict that is reflected - perhaps at its strongest - in the dating world.

As a woman, your pride wants a man who values you above all other women, one who would do anything for you out of an overwhelming compulsion of feeling. You (like every person) need to know you are valuable and important, which is largely evidenced by feeling wanted.

Your biology, on the other hand, aches for a man who is strong and powerful, unfettered by his feelings, who can protect you and impregnate you with healthy children - children who in turn will survive and reproduce successfully.

But the fact is that men also have biologies that drive them, almost uncontrollably. They desire the most beautiful and healthiest women - those most capable of bearing their children. This means that the men who best fulfill the needs of your pride are those who are farthest below your league, and therefore want you most. But at the same time, almost by definition, the men who best fulfill the needs of your biology are those who are farthest above your league, and therefore want you least.

The reality is that - eventually, after all efforts at self-improvement - you have to choose a man who represents a balance between those two extremes. If you want a man who values you immeasurably, he isn't going to be the heroic hunk you desire sexually. If you want a man who can provide you with perfect babies, he isn't going to want you above all other women - because he probably can have all other women (at least all those at "your level").

Two factors mitigate the apparently unfortunate nature of this situation:
  1. Men are faced with a similar conflict, and they too have to compromise, meaning that the object of your biological desires has fewer women to choose from if he wants a girl that also loves him as a person. Perhaps more important than the needs of his pride is the fact that he cannot have a woman that doesn't want him. Your best possible partner will be one who recognizes this, values your love for him, and is willing to curb his desire for other women because of it. Still, the fewer options he has to forego, the easier (and more likely) this commitment will be for him to make and maintain.
  2. All men and women have different tastes when it comes to the opposite sex, so a single woman sits very differently on various men's scales. This is why I've placed "your level" in quotation marks above; is relative to each man's personal taste.
Admonitions not to "settle" are actually admonitions against settling too much - against choosing a man that doesn't fulfill one of these two needs sufficiently. In reality, we all settle in the sense that we settle for a man or woman that fulfills both of these needs, but fulfills them both only partially. No single person can fulfill both completely because the two sets of character traits that do so are (with the above caveats) mutually exclusive.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Why Rejection Is A Good Thing

If you get dumped by a guy you like, remember that although this is probably due in part to men playing below their league, it is also the product of you being ambitious in your relationships: you are trying to get the best guy you can, and therefore you are dating guys that might dump you. In moderation, this ambition is a good thing. If you were constantly settling for guys of a low caliber, then of course you would have more success, but you wouldn't be content. 

While it is certainly worthwhile to consider whether or not your standards are realistic, you should also acknowledge how lazy or apathetic you would be to settle for someone below your potential. If you aren't getting dumped by guys, you could probably be doing better.

-------------------------------------
If you liked this post, you'll definitely like my book, Beyond the Breakup, which says a lot more about the importance of rejection and how to use it to grow into the kind of girl guys really want to commit to.

Related Posts
1. Get Used to Rejection
2. Why Do You Want Him Back?
3. What It Is Like to Be Rejected by Girls