# All the attractive, quality women are taken.



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

NEW EDIT: This post has now been sanitized for everyone to read. I wish to retract my original post because I was frustrated and said many irrational things.

Women are attractive no matter how they look. They are all equally attractive because they are individuals and different men have different tastes.

If a woman is 600 lbs morbidly obese, that doesn't mean she is un-attractive. It means she is just as attractive as what most of society views as a "hot babe".

I was mistaken in my earlier assumption. Attractive women (from the view of society) are usually not taken. In fact, most of them are single. It's the women that most view as un-attractive that got married first.

Women who are considered pretty by most usually have the most diffuculty with finding a significant other. It is the women who are considered unattractive by most that are usually tied up in long term relationships.


----------



## CopadoMexicano (Aug 21, 2004)

Now What!? :um


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

Huh?


----------



## SilentOrchestra (Jul 26, 2010)

I'm so painfully shy and *extremely *picky I might never even go out on a date with someone, let alone get married. :/


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

SilentOrchestra567 said:


> I'm so painfully shy and *extremely *picky I might never even go out on a date with someone, let alone get married. :/


Same here, it's the WORST combination, because girls who are extremely picky are usually very very aggressive.

Thanks for just increasing my anxiety by 10 :afr


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

And remember, when you're ready to make a selection _always_ get the extended warranty. There's nothing worse than having the parts go to **** just after you've made a commitment.

Wait, we're not talking about cars? Then what the hell _are_ you talking about?


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

I have really got to stop reading threads like this.
They make my anxiety worse, and only serve to convince that part of my brain that I was right all along.

Just sayin' is all. :-/ 

Then again, I guess this is your own form of anxiety. Good luck with it.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

Not of all us chicks want to settle down and pop out babies right away.


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

^ or at all.


----------



## LALoner (Dec 3, 2008)

Relaxation said:


> There really is only about a 5 year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market".
> 
> After that she will get married and have kids.
> 
> ...


There's a lot of truth in this but I don't think it means people should give up hope.

Its true that women who are still available after a certain age usually have issues. But if your a man who has issues I don't see how you can expect to be with a woman who is better adjusted than you are. I think the crazies have to reconcile to being with other crazies.


----------



## Onkaparinga (Aug 1, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> There really is only about a 5 year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market".
> 
> After that she will get married and have kids.
> 
> ...


Haha I've been struggling with this issue myself the past couple of weeks (might have to stay away from this forum now as it is "unfacilitated" and we are not helping eachother). They don't have to necessarily have to be married and have kids, just be in a long-term relationship with a person with none of our issues who was at the right place at the right time.

It's pretty depressing to think about (I'm mourning the loss of those years) but relationships end, and all we can do is improve ourselves to increase our own attractiveness and find ways to meet more women (and have the courage to introduce ourselves to them) and hopefully find someone available who we would be able to live an exciting, interesting life with.

I've never even had a girlfriend, never held hands, never kissed so there.


----------



## Onkaparinga (Aug 1, 2010)

pollster said:


> I have really got to stop reading threads like this.
> They make my anxiety worse, and only serve to convince that part of my brain that I was right all along.


I'm pretty much staying away from this forum after this (he didn't reply to a thread I asked questions in also). I didn't come here to act as a supporter as I need support myself. I guess I'll just ask questions or put forth proposals if I have any and stay away from browsing people's negativity. Not to single out Relaxation though, I used to be a heavy anxiety forum user on MSN groups and I think I've had a brief visit to my bad old days by coming here. I think unless you come across a group that's "facilitated" by former anxiety sufferers (I know of none that are currently active) you're just wasting your time.


----------



## Hot Chocolate (Sep 29, 2008)

I don't agree with you. I know of many lowly educated and ugly women that pops out tons of babies and some of them are either depending on their parents or on some sort of government welfare (due to their race I guess)

I am glad I am not one of them. (Or do you actually really refer to them as your type?)


----------



## Jessie203 (Feb 20, 2008)

WTF?! This is twisted... lmao
I will be quality til the day I die, thanx.


----------



## emptybottle2 (Jan 18, 2009)

You're just making excuses. What about all the people who get married in their thirties? Educated women who delay wedding fever to focus on their careers and grad school? Or do women over 25 not even count for you?


----------



## mbp86 (May 11, 2010)

Most attractive women aren't quality.


----------



## Dub16 (Feb 28, 2010)

Hot Chocolate said:


> I know of many lowly educated and ugly women that pops out tons of babies


Jerry Springer, is that you????


----------



## nemesis1 (Dec 21, 2009)

Relaxation said:


> There really is only about a 5 year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market".
> 
> After that she will get married and have kids.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with this. I spent years having high standards......and its gotten me NOWHERE.

Now ive resided to the fact that im never gonna get this dream woman ive been holding out for. Now im only looking to date average women.


----------



## Cleary (Nov 10, 2007)

Waiting for a certain SASer to come and chime in and compare divorced women to used vehicles.


----------



## googleamiable (Jun 5, 2009)

if you mean drealm he's banned afaik


----------



## accepting myself (Jun 27, 2010)

Cleary said:


> Waiting for a certain SASer to come and chime in and compare divorced women to used vehicles.


Or worse a used kleenex,

don't mind me I'm in a silly mood this morning :sus


----------



## Cleary (Nov 10, 2007)

michael1 said:


> if you mean drealm he's banned afaik


No, there's another a guy with similar views about women.
I'm not allowed to say any names because it's a ~personal attack~ even though the he actually made the comparison and I could probably find the post where he said it.


----------



## googleamiable (Jun 5, 2009)

ohio fatso


----------



## pita (Jan 17, 2004)

OP, I'm sorry you feel frustrated and lonely. That sucks.

However, I imagine that some of the single women on this forum are going to feel pretty low after reading your post.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

pita said:


> However, I imagine that some of the single women on this forum are going to feel pretty low after reading your post.


Maybe. But, according to poll after poll and post after post, a significant proportion of them don't want us (SA sufferers/guys without "balls") as partners anyway, so it shouldn't be a big deal... right?

FWIW, I disagree with the OP in that I don't think all "quality" women are taken after a certain age. But, the vast majority have a lot more romantic and sexual experience than we do, and that in itself often puts them out of our league.

That said, I do believe there are some amazing women out there who have less experience -- for example, moderate to severe SA sufferers who have avoided dating out of fear. It's just that they're extremely rare and, again, they often look for other types of men (how often do we see posts along the lines of, "I need an extrovert to balance my personality," "I need someone outgoing who will motivate me," etc.?).


----------



## Space Ghost (Jul 13, 2010)

I disagree with the OP 100%. There are plenty of other places to meet people; not just school and work. It may be convenient to be at school or work and have potential mates forced in your social circle but this can happen anywhere if you make the effort to get people in your social circle.

You just gotta muster up the courage to get out there. or else you will be limited to just the people who haphazardly enter your life through school and work.

BTW i have no idea where you got the 18 to 20s thing and quality. Its all untrue.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

LALoner said:


> Its true that women who are still available after a certain age usually have issues.


:um Is it? Or maybe those who are "still available after a certain age" know enough to stay the hell away from immature guys?



Cleary said:


> Waiting for a certain SASer to come and chime in and compare divorced women to used vehicles.


I tried, but I just don't think I have the commitment to follow it through.

Yay for misogyny!!


----------



## silentcliche (Jun 30, 2010)

Wow, many of you guys make it sound a lot more sordid than it actually is.


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin (Nov 28, 2009)

Relaxation said:


> There really is only about a 5 year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market".
> 
> After that she will get married and have kids.
> 
> ...


 This sounds like a cop out, a giant self fulfilling cop out. I wouldn't take offence ladies if this makes you feel self concious, this sounds like the lame rationalistaion of a self destructive introspect.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

nightrain said:


> Some of the guys on here have such twisted/weird/crazy views of women. It makes me sick.





zookeeper said:


> :um Is it? Or maybe those who are "still available after a certain age" know enough to stay the hell away from immature guys?
> 
> I tried, but I just don't think I have the commitment to follow it through.
> 
> Yay for misogyny!!


Ah, yes, automatic outrage at socially unacceptable ideas... the easy path to acceptance and applause, both here and in the real world.

I take it you both disagree with the OP. That's OK; I do too, to some extent.

Attacking him and shutting out the idea he proposed from discussion on its merits gets us nowhere, though. The fact that his idea is unpleasant and may not sit well with a certain segment of readers doesn't reduce its validity at all. If you feel he's wrong, why don't you try explaining why and how?

I mean, if you actually sit and _think_ for a minute about his claim, it sort of makes sense. Obviously there are exceptions and nuances, and a blanket statement along the lines of "there are no decent women available starting at 25.0 years of age" is ludicrous. But is it possible there are real-world tendencies that support the general idea? I'd say that possibility is more deserving of careful consideration than frothy outrage.

You all can keep frothing over supposed misogyny and such if you'd like; as for me, I'm more upset by the de facto censorship and lack of critical, nuanced thinking when controversial topics are brought up on SAS.


----------



## Cleary (Nov 10, 2007)

-


----------



## Narcissus (Aug 28, 2007)

I wish the OP were the case, because then I would be able to stop looking. However...


----------



## BetaBoy90 (Jan 5, 2010)

I'm looking for quirky women who aren't into having children. I think I'll be finding plenty of womens over 24 who fit my needs!


----------



## ctrlaltdelete (May 13, 2010)

anomalous said:


> You all can keep frothing over supposed misogyny and such if you'd like; as for me, I'm more upset by the de facto censorship and lack of critical, nuanced thinking when controversial topics are brought up on SAS.


If you're looking for critical thinking, this is not the place to come. You will be hounded relentlessly by the PC crowd for imaginary crimes against humanity. Don't dare voice your opinion lest you become targeted by crusaders that will label you a misogynist, racist, or anti-egalitarian baby eater.

OP simply made an observation and it was made out to be a slight against all women.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

anomalous said:


> I mean, if you actually sit and _think_ for a minute about his claim, it sort of makes sense. Obviously there are exceptions and nuances, and a blanket statement along the lines of "there are no decent women available starting at 25.0 years of age" is ludicrous. But is it possible there are real-world tendencies that support the general idea? I'd say that possibility is more deserving of careful consideration than frothy outrage.


I'd hardly call it outrage, more dejected annoyance that _another_ male on here has decided that women are objects that exist solely to enhance his life; that there are "good" women and "bad" women and, even worse, "slightly used" woman, who are no good for any male out there (too "****ty" to be perfect, mary-esqe virginical relationship material, but not ****ty enough just to sleep with. These elusive creatures are known as _normal everyday women_). By your own admission, the idea is stupid and a gross generalization and over-simplification. Perhaps I should start a thread exploring the idea of how jews are cheap? Then we could get some real nuanced discussion going.

Really, I'd just suggest that people actually talk to people in the groups they're stereotyping before they make judgments. Stereotypes can be a huge timesaver, but at least get them right.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

Cleary said:


> oh haha I didn't see that.
> 
> Zookeeper, I'd let you test-drive me.


----------



## ctrlaltdelete (May 13, 2010)

zookeeper said:


> Perhaps I should start a thread exploring the idea of how jews are cheap? Then we could get some real nuanced discussion going.


Hey, a race card carrying straw man. You don't see these often.:roll


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

ctrlaltdelete said:


> Hey, a race card carrying straw man. You don't see these often.:roll


If you have a logical argument supporting the OP's position I'd love to hear it.

It's ok, I'll wait. 

EDIT: Oh, and guys, I understand the frustration of being a late-teens/early-twenties dateless virgin, but women aren't the problem. If anything, it's attitudes like those expressed in the original post that keeps guys from getting a date.

Though, I'm sure there are some women who love being talked about like merchandise, so who knows? There may be hope!


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

zookeeper said:


> If you have a logical argument supporting the OP's position I'd love to hear it.


How about basic common sense? Conventionally desirable partners are snatched up before less desirable ones, just like candy in a shop (and no, that analogy does _not_ imply women and candy have the same value or purpose in a man's life). It's nature. It's also about as common-sense as you can get, and it's certainly not exclusive to one gender or the other, even if the OP focused on women out of personal frustration.

Of course, if you want to make this about the OP's clumsy wording and marginal exaggerations as a convenient distraction from the real issue, I can't stop you. But the fact is, even if he'd added the requisite qualifiers ("*most* desirable women *by conventional standards* are married off by X age"), the feminist brigade and its male lapdogs would still be frothing and equating a naturalistic view of human society to pure, unadulterated objectification.



> EDIT: Oh, and guys, I understand the frustration of being a late-teens/early-twenties dateless virgin, but women aren't the problem. If anything, it's attitudes like those expressed in the original post that keeps guys from getting a date.


My favorite myth of all! The implication of direct causality between frustration with women and failure to attract them is parroted on an hourly basis here, but that doesn't make it true, sad to say (if only it was so simple for us as to start _believing_ women are romantically and sexually interested in us!). Of course, like most of the feelgood PC stuff, it's entirely irrational: the male's frustration typically _arises_ from preceding, and often repeated, failures with women! So how it can be the _cause_ of those failures is beyond me. Speaking of waiting for an explanation...

But, I must confess, I do understand the appeal of your argument: it jives perfectly with the ever-popular contemporary ideal that says we can all make anything of ourselves if we just try hard and do the right thing (in this case, by "respecting" women). Offloading the blame for SA guys' failures with women from real inadequacies (looks, personality, social reputation, etc.) to their frustration, which ostensibly is a poor choice they make, is the perfect way to perpetuate the larger myth that life is basically fair and that good, honest people are likely to succeed in the relationship department.

I suppose it's too unpleasant to face the fact that most of the guys here who are fed up with failure and express it in less-than-PC terms still wouldn't be getting any even if they were the nicest, most pro-feminist guys in the world. (Hell, just look at most of the nice, pro-feminist guys on SAS...)



> Though, I'm sure there are some women who love being talked about like merchandise, so who knows? There may be hope!


I think there's a lot of truth to the idea OP proposed, and I respect women as independent human beings to a fault. The "misogyny" cries on SAS are completely and utterly out of control lately. I'd wager about 10-15% of the guys whose posts are labeled as such actually harbor true sexist viewpoints, i.e., think they are entitled to a woman and view them as objects for gratification.

Frustration with certain tendencies in the opposite gender that are unfavorable to your own ambitions in life != you view them as objects or subhuman.


----------



## andy0128 (Dec 19, 2003)

Relaxation said:


> There really is only about a 5 year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market".
> 
> After that she will get married and have kids.
> 
> ...


I think you're largely correct. The pool of quality available women seems to shrink substantially once you get past your early twenties. Then if you're lucky there is still a chance of meeting someone that doesnt have issues or is saddled with about 4 kids. During the 18-23 period i had minimal success with women. The occasional snog or one night stand. One relationship of 5 weeks and it wasn't for want of trying, but i was an outsider. All my friends were guys and i used to hang around with them. At university there were many people that seemed to have good social circles that would open the door to meeting these women, but i never managed to work my way into one.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

anomalous said:


> How about basic common sense?


If it's common sense, then surely women would also agree with this statement? How come none of them do?

Ladies? Speak your piece.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

I'm just generally curious about two things in particular. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of the men here who _agree_ with the original poster (seriously)...

1. For all of you who have said that it's impossible (or more difficult) to find a single [as in unattached] woman past X age who isn't saddled with issues... I'm sure you see the irony here that you all have issues (apparently) just by the very fact that you are members of this forum for social anxiety. I find it strange and curious that there are so many men with "issues" who are avoiding women with "issues... although I'm not really sure what issues all the men are talking about. (like if we're including anxiety there) [And anyways, who the heck doesn't have some issue nowadays, but that's besides the more specific point I'm making above.]

2. Like Pita mentioned, to any single woman here who's over early 20s, obviously it can hurt reading a post like the OP's - even though I'm fully aware he's entitled to his own opinion. I guess personally, I would never come on here (especially given that it's a forum for social anxiety) and make a thread about how there are no "quality" men available after X age. Totally asking seriously now - how would you men feel if women on here went around saying that all the good/quality men are taken after 25 or something? If any women here have said that, then I strongly disagree with them, and I think that's hurtful on a website that's trying to help people.

Just my two cents. That's all.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

*hmm*

"There really is only about a 5 year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market"."

Really? Because some of my friends are in their mid twenties and they are gorgeous (to me anyway). I've just come from a social event wishing I'd spent more time talking to this absolutely gorgeous 30 year old woman. Basically, with respect, this is a belief system. The blind, sweeping assumption that somehow all the "attractive women" on the face of the planet have settled down by the time they reach their mid twenties and there's no possible way of meeting someone you find attractive/get on with etc.

Who is and who is not "attractive" is relative, subjective, fluid and moving. Yes, some women may well have met someone and decided to settle down and start a family or whatever. Some may be in long term relationships. Some may be seeing some bloke but it's not serious. Or some women may have chosen not to settle down that early in life and a whole host of other factors. But it is still possible to expand the social circle and meet other people. As usual, the outside world is beyond the scope of a negative belief system and outcome dependency once again comes into play. I have to go out and meet and "attractive" or "quality" woman or else I'll have failed. No, you go out and have fun. What happens happens. Yes, goals are important. But when the scope of those goals is not 100% within the control of the individual, "going with the flow" and detaching from the outcome become powerful things.

"After that she will get married and have kids."

Assumption. Basically a guess.

"If you are a guy who has standards, it's too late."

No it isn't.

"By the time you've battled with SA and (hopefully) gotten over it, all the girls your age have already started their own families."

Sweeping assumption. First of all, all the girls "your age" on the face of the entire planet are not likely to all be in relationships/starting families. Some may be, some may not. And you can go out and meet girls older than you or younger than you.

"Sure, you could go out with girls who are younger; the problem is how would you meet them? Most people meet others through school, work, or social circle. If you are out of school, you are now likely stuck with the 10 people you work with (most of them will be older than you, only about 5 will be women) and the 3 people who may be in your social circle."

40% of ice cream is made from the discarded wings of fairies. 30% of people discover that time is actually made out of balloons. Sorry, with respect, where on earth are you getting your statistics from? Most people meet others through school, work or social circle? Yes, some do. But there are many other ways to meet people. If you are out of school then you are most likely stuck with the 10 people you work with? Why 10? Where did that number come from? I'm out of school. Am I stuck with the 10 people I work with? No. I have an active social circle which I push forward and increase as much as possible at the moment. Mostly because I'm sat on her encouraging other people to go out and meet new people so I pretty much ought to do it myself.

Most of them will be older than you and only about 5 will be women? With respect, that is a guess.

And the 3 people who may be in your social circle? Well, there's more than 20 in mine. Not a competition. I'm not better than anyone because of that fact. Just demonstrating that these statistics aren't really founded on anything concrete.

"Thus, going for a woman who is good looking and also intellegent with shared interests will be very challenging. We were not the ones blessed with an easy life."

It's challenging for quite a lot of people without SA too. It's challenging for the so called "players" to. But this theory of things has no real correlation with how easy it will or will not be for someone to find someone. I hope I haven't come across as harsh or attacking anyone by what I have said. That is not my intention. I respect the original poster and their viewpoint. But there's always room for the alternative argument.


----------



## JayDontCareEh (Jul 16, 2007)

Women 22+ with issues are considered social undesirables? :fall

_Uh... Hi, kettle?.... Yeah, hi, it's Pot.... You're black!_


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

And by the way, logic and common sense are not the same thing and should never be used interchangeably. Logic is a series of evidence-based or _a priori_ arguments that work together to prove a point; common sense is burning a woman because she floats and is therefore a witch.

If you were going to use logic, you could quote stats such as what age "conventionally attractive" women get married and when they have kids.

If you were going to argue philosophically, I would approach it from the perspective that the role of women in society is not solely to get married to a man and breed. Later marriages and childbirths are easily attributable to women taking control of their lives and bodies and choosing to focus on things other than raising a family, such as a career.

But you went with common sense, and that's ok (no it's not). Still, common sense tells us that women are individuals. Unless you're going to be marrying women as a whole (god help you!), then it's all about finding a partner that works for you. I work with a women who's 31 years old. Attractive, funny, smart, passionate about her job and her interests, never married with no children. What's wrong with her? Her "problem" is that, while she's been in a few long term relationships, she hasn't found a partner that she's willing to "spend the rest of her life with" (whether that involves marriage or not would be up to them). If anything, I'd say her "problem" is that she's not willing to take the first guy that shows up and I say good for her.

"Conventionally attractive" women get taken young? Do you mean blonde cheerleaders who go out and party every weekend? Sure, they might get picked up young. But is that the kind of partner you're looking for? I'm not. So why do you care what they do?

But then again, I'm just a PC feminist male lapdog (I'm probably a commie and gay too!) so what the **** do I know?


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

*hmm*

"How about basic common sense? Conventionally desirable partners are snatched up before less desirable ones, just like candy in a shop (and no, that analogy does not imply women and candy have the same value or purpose in a man's life). It's nature. It's also about as common-sense as you can get, and it's certainly not exclusive to one gender or the other, even if the OP focused on women out of personal frustration."

That's not really nature. That's an interpretation of nature. Who exactly are these so called "conventionally desirable partners"? Talking about attraction in terms of a "static" again. I'm in my late 20's and at the moment I cannot stop meeting women I'm attracted to and have things in common with. Whether anything comes of it, I don't know. Am I what they looking for? Are they what I am looking for? Who knows. But things are a lot more fluid, relative and subjective than the "candy shop" analogy allows for. There's no such thing as the "beautiful people" in terms of a static, universally acknowledged group of people.

"Of course, if you want to make this about the OP's clumsy wording and marginal exaggerations as a convenient distraction from the real issue, I can't stop you. But the fact is, even if he'd added the requisite qualifiers ("most desirable women by conventional standards are married off by X age"), the feminist brigade and its male lapdogs would still be frothing and equating a naturalistic view of human society to pure, unadulterated objectification."

Well, I am a feminist and I am nobody's lapdog. The "conventional standards" do not hold. They may bleed into the general understanding sometimes but their presence is not powerful enough to inform or dictate. Only to create moments of doubt and the odd insecurity. The media has an idea (in some quarters) about what I should think of as attractive. I choose to dismiss such information and make my own choice.

"My favorite myth of all! The implication of direct causality between frustration with women and failure to attract them is parroted on an hourly basis here, but that doesn't make it true, sad to say (if only it was so simple for us as to start believing women are romantically and sexually interested in us!). Of course, like most of the feelgood PC stuff, it's entirely irrational: the male's frustration typically arises from preceding, and often repeated, failures with women! So how it can be the cause of those failures is beyond me. Speaking of waiting for an explanation..."

It can be the cause of those "failures". Some people get rejected a couple of times and this leads them to make massive, sweeping assumptions about themselves along the lines of how they are ugly, not attractive, not good with women etc. This eats into the confidence and allows the development of doubts and insecurities and sometimes these can run on autopilot or stop people from approaching women in the first place. There is an explanation of how, in some cases, the frustration can cause a lot of missed opportunities for both sexes in terms of the dating "game".

And a lot of the negative stuff is a lot more irrational than the so called "feel good PC stuff".

"But, I must confess, I do understand the appeal of your argument: it jives perfectly with the ever-popular contemporary ideal that says we can all make anything of ourselves if we just try hard and do the right thing (in this case, by "respecting" women)."

I haven't been following the argument but we can make anything of ourselves. Always in a dance with circumstance and there's a lot more to it than that but the human being is brilliant. The sheer demands on the system needed to create a state of anxiety that many people on her experience automatically on a daily basis is immense. If a person can do that then a person can do a lot of things.

"Offloading the blame for SA guys' failures with women from real inadequacies (looks, personality, social reputation, etc.) to their frustration, which ostensibly is a poor choice they make, is the perfect way to perpetuate the larger myth that life is basically fair and that good, honest people are likely to succeed in the relationship department. "

SA guy's failure's with women? What failures? The SA guy is not 100% in control of the situation or of the other person. Just like any other guy. And yet, when things don't go right, it's chalked up to a failure? As if, somehow, all the power was in the hands of the individual. A lot can be done by a person. But you can't control another person or some outcomes some times. That doesn't necessarily mean a failure.

And if the other person decides, for whatever reason, that they don't feel they like what they think of as your looks, personality, social reputation etc, is that really talking about any kind of real inadequacy within the self? Or is it just someone's opinion as they reject the idea of dating you? Opinions. Ideas. Not necessarily evidence of a personal inadequacy. I am a recovered self hater. I know what the assumption of a personal inadequacy and the search for it can do to a person.

"I suppose it's too unpleasant to face the fact that most of the guys here who are fed up with failure and express it in less-than-PC terms still wouldn't be getting any even if they were the nicest, most pro-feminist guys in the world. (Hell, just look at most of the nice, pro-feminist guys on SAS...)"

People get fed up. Venting is more than fine. Detachment from the outcome may help but yeah, it's annoying when things don't go right. It's not failure. It's what happens. You've got influence but not control. If you had a haircut and nobody commented on the fact that you had had a haircut, is that a personal failure? Should you take responsibility for that "failure"? No. Because it is outside of your control. Yes, you had influence. You could have made a point of showing people that you'd had a haircut or get them talking about it. But beyond that, you could not control them or what they would say about you. So it's not a failure and neither is dating.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

zookeeper said:


> If it's common sense, then surely women would also agree with this statement? How come none of them do?


How do you know none of them do?

I'm sure *some* do feel the same way about men who are still perpetually single into their mid-late 20s. Need I dig up some old threads in this subforum where a good number of women listed virginity as a turn-off?

Plus, even among women (and men!) who agree with OP's sentiment, you can't expect that all of them will come out and say it. It's a touchy subject.



pollster said:


> I'm just generally curious about two things in particular. I'm interested in hearing the opinions of the men here who _agree_ with the original poster (seriously)...
> 
> 1. For all of you who have said that it's impossible (or more difficult) to find a single woman past X age who isn't saddled with issues... I'm sure you see the irony here that you all have issues (apparently) just by the very fact that you are members of this forum for social anxiety. I find it strange and curious that there are so many men with "issues" who are avoiding women with "issues... although I'm not really sure what issues all the men are talking about. (like if we're including anxiety there) [And anyways, who the heck doesn't have some issue nowadays, but that's besides the more specific point I'm making above.]


I disagree with the rigid, absolute statement you posted (i.e., you won't find "a single woman past X age"), but I think OP has the right idea in general.

With regards to irony, you raise a good point, but it's more complicated than pot-kettle-black. I think the types of issues some of us have in mind are much different than SA. Kids, emotional baggage from previous relationships, unfaithfulness, etc. True, SA is an issue just like any other on that list, but I think those are the very types of issues an SA guy would be least suited to deal with.

In reality, *most* SA guys do not consider a girl having SA to be an "issue" at all, and we'd gladly snatch up a girl whose biggest "issue" is that. So, as far as clear-cut hypocrisy, I don't see a lot of that coming from our end. In this regard, there's almost certainly more so-called hypocrisy coming from SA girls, judging by several polls that have appeared in this subforum.



> 2. Like Pita mentioned, to any single woman here who's over early 20s, obviously it can hurt reading a post like the OP's - even though I'm fully aware he's entitled to his own opinion. I guess personally, I would never come on here (especially given that it's a forum for social anxiety) and make a thread about how there are no "quality" men available after X age. Totally asking seriously now - how would you men feel if women on here went around saying that all the good/quality men are taken after 25 or something? If any women here have said that, then I strongly disagree with them, and I think that's hurtful on a website that's trying to help people.


A couple points.

1. True, it could be hurtful. But I value truth over platitudes. And it's a two-way street: I'd rather the women on this board post their unfiltered opinions and preferences pertaining to men than withhold information that might make me feel bad about myself. If they aren't attracted to a certain attribute of mine, it doesn't make me happy, but I'd rather know than be given false encouragement. That's just me, though.

2. Somewhat related to #1: it's not as if the women of SAS never post anything that's discouraging to SAS men. You pose the question "how would you feel if women on here...?" as if it's purely a hypothetical. It's not. Sure, there may not be any threads explicitly started to complain about the lack of desirable men over 25, but girls are constantly posting about how they find low confidence and virginity to be turn-offs -- even though both are inherently likely to apply to SA guys! And you know what? As much as it "hurts," I respect the ones who admit it far more than the ones who have the same preferences but pretend they don't.

Basically, my point is that women on this board _do_ say things that are hurtful to SA men -- they're just a bit more subtle usually.

BTW, thanks for at least engaging in rational discussion instead of doing a drive-by one-liner like certain others have.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

Thanks for your response, anomalous. I will reply to some of your comments, with the full understanding that this is your opinion, and that it's possible the OP has some differing opinions (or variations on the theme, let's say). If he does, I'd be interested in hearing from him as well.



anomalous said:


> I disagree with the rigid, absolute statement you posted (i.e., you won't find "a single woman past X age"), but I think OP has the right idea in general.


Okay. Also, even though this might not change what I meant too much, I meant "single" as in unattached, as opposed to the number of women (as in zero). I've since edited my post to make this more clear.

I guess I would argue that young women aren't without their issues either. But again, I guess that all depends on the issues in question.



> With regards to irony, you raise a good point, but it's more complicated than pot-kettle-black. I think the types of issues some of us have in mind are much different than SA. Kids, emotional baggage from previous relationships, unfaithfulness, etc. True, SA is an issue just like any other on that list, but I think those are the very types of issues an SA guy would be least suited to deal with.


So you prefer a "blank slate" so to speak, due to your SA and lesser experience (at least perceived anyway) of most non-SA men. Am I interpreting you correctly?



> In this regard, there's almost certainly more so-called hypocrisy coming from SA girls, judging by several polls that have appeared in this subforum.


Well, I can't speak for all women (just as I know you can't/don't speak for all men), but I'm probably less aware of the hypocrisy you speak of (or the larger extent of it). Maybe I'm not just reading the same threads though.



> I'd rather the women on this board post their unfiltered opinions and preferences pertaining to men than withhold information that might make me feel bad about myself. If they aren't attracted to a certain attribute of mine, it doesn't make me happy, but I'd rather know than be given false encouragement. That's just me, though.


I understand. I guess I just took the OP to be over-generalizing though. Generalizations really bother me.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

Oh, and I almost forgot...



anomalous said:


> With regards to irony, you raise a good point, but it's more complicated than pot-kettle-black. I think the types of issues some of us have in mind are much different than SA. Kids, emotional baggage from previous relationships, unfaithfulness, etc. True, SA is an issue just like any other on that list, but I think those are the very types of issues an SA guy would be least suited to deal with.


The title of the thread is "All the attractive, quality women are taken." So in addition to potentially having kids, or emotional baggage from previous relationships, "we" are ugly and poor quality, because all the truly pretty girls would be taken by now. And if they become single again, then obviously there must be something wrong with them.

I think the title of the thread is more ugly than your explanations suggest. I realize you are not the OP though. But I'm just saying.

EDIT: SAS website is pissing me off right now! Anyone else having trouble? Oh well.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

Dating tip #432 -

"So how old are you?"
"27."
"And you haven't found a partner yet? Well, you're not _that_ ugly, so what's wrong with you?"

Don't do this.


----------



## pollster (Oct 4, 2009)

Hi Relaxation,

I see you added a disclaimer to your original post. Interesting.

Read the title of your thread again. Regardless of whether a woman has anxiety or not, don't you think most - if not all - women would find that offensive? Particularly if they are over the _5-year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market_"?

I'm not trying to beat this to death. I just find it interesting.

Also, this is a public forum. Never assume only men will read your threads - especially with such provocative titles. :b



Relaxation said:


> *Disclaimer: This post was not meant as an insult to the women on this site. If you are a woman and you have anxiety, please stop and do not read my post. I honestly thought that only guys would click here. This was bascially just me letting off some steam.*
> 
> There really is only about a 5 year time span from 18 to low 20's where an attractive female is "on the market".
> 
> ...


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

Hello everybody. I did not mean to offend. After skimming through some of the replies I have decided that I have been wrong. Therefore, I have re-written the entire original post to reflect a more correct opinion.


----------



## LALoner (Dec 3, 2008)

zookeeper said:


> :um Is it? Or maybe those who are "still available after a certain age" know enough to stay the hell away from immature guys?


No, its the issues. Thanks for trying though.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

JayDontCareEh said:


> Women 22+ with issues are considered social undesirables?
> 
> _Uh... Hi, kettle?.... Yeah, hi, it's Pot.... You're black!_


:lol


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

zookeeper said:


> But then again, I'm just a PC feminist male lapdog (I'm probably a commie and gay too!) so what the **** do I know?





joinmartin said:


> Well, I am a feminist and I am nobody's lapdog. The "conventional standards" do not hold. They may bleed into the general understanding sometimes but their presence is not powerful enough to inform or dictate. Only to create moments of doubt and the odd insecurity. The media has an idea (in some quarters) about what I should think of as attractive. I choose to dismiss such information and make my own choice.


I AM SO TURNED ON RIGHT NOW. :b


----------



## EagerMinnow84 (Sep 1, 2007)

zookeeper said:


> :um Is it? Or maybe those who are "still available after a certain age" know enough to stay the hell away from immature guys?


Very very very _very_ much this. :b



strawberryjulius said:


> I AM SO TURNED ON RIGHT NOW.


:teeth

Dear Zookeeper and Joinmartin,

On behalf of womankind,

We love you.


----------



## introvert33 (Jun 23, 2010)

:roll at the OP edit.

when will people learn the simplest way to avoid sidetracks into gender wars is to make the statement non-gender specific. 

You could have easily said the pool of attractive and quality potential mates decreases significantly after mid-twenties (even leaving the title the same) and people would have chimed in agreeing or disagreeing with your thought, without getting into whether the sentiment is hurtful or misogynistic. Oh, but I guess giving-in to PC language is a cop out and makes you less of an individual. :| But it does get you to what you want to be discussing. Unless you truly think its only women who, if desirable, are "taken off the market" by mid-twenties. In that case it couldn't have been avoided.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

I appreciate the edit the opening poster made to the original post. As a woman on here, sometimes I feel I like none of the replies I make to threads like there ever get read by the men who man who start them. While it was no only women who responded to this thread, it was really refreshing to see that he took a lot of the replies to heart.

Edit: This post is no longer valid. The OP has now been changed to something ridiculous.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

My friend said its fact that women who reach their thirties without marriage or babies are mentally unfit. I then proceeded to do nothing, but if I wasn't a pacifist I would have knob-jobbed his blow-knob. Wait, I would have job-blobbed his gonads? Wait..


----------



## Drella (Dec 4, 2004)

Every good person ever is in a relationship. All that remains are saddle-bagged homunculi with an insatiable hunger for virgin flesh.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

Man, it is too bad that all those Chinese men will have to go gay. What? Wrong forum?


----------



## introvert33 (Jun 23, 2010)

:lol I'm glad a few can see the humor in this


----------



## ctrlaltdelete (May 13, 2010)

Relaxation, the Ministry of Truth would like to thank you for slipping your opinion into the memory hole. Any future incidence of thoughtcrime should be dealt with likewise, posthaste. Have a great day!


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

ctrlaltdelete said:


> Relaxation, the Ministry of Truth would like to thank you for slipping your opinion into the memory hole. Any future incidence of thoughtcrime should be dealt with likewise, posthaste. Have a great day!


I'm still waiting.


----------



## introvert33 (Jun 23, 2010)

Perfectionist said:


> I appreciate the edit the opening poster made to the original post. As a woman on here, sometimes I feel I like none of the replies I make to threads like there ever get read by the men who man who start them. While it was no only women who responded to this thread, it was really refreshing to see that *he took a lot of the replies to heart*.
> 
> Thanks man.


I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't actually read the post.



Relaxation said:


> NEW EDIT: This post has now been sanitized for everyone to read. I wish to retract my original post because I was frustrated and said many irrational things.
> 
> Women are attractive no matter how they look. They are all equally attractive because they are individuals and different men have different tastes.
> 
> ...


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> NEW EDIT: This post has now been sanitized for everyone to read. I wish to retract my original post because I was frustrated and said many irrational things.
> 
> Women are attractive no matter how they look. They are all equally attractive because they are individuals and different men have different tastes.
> 
> ...


I didn't see your original post, but I think I'm glad you edited it. The title suggests what may have been here. I haven't read any of the other posts either, so...

You still seem to be a BIT off the mark, don't ya think? Both classic beauties and regular-looking people are both single and attached. It's just a matter of finding another person with whom you can relate (sorta...not all couples are good either). Ack! Ignore me, I'm nitpicking.

Anyway, I thought you weren't looking. ??? Well, whatever the case, it's normal to get frustrated. That doesn't mean you won't find someone who is good for you.


----------



## iAmCodeMonkey (May 23, 2010)

zookeeper said:


> and remember, when you're ready to make a selection _always_ get the extended warranty. There's nothing worse than having the parts go to **** just after you've made a commitment.


wtf??!


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

introvert33 said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't actually read the post.


I was referring to the original disclaimer he had added below. This whole complete rewrite thing is just ridiculous.

_Disclaimer: This post was not meant as an insult to the women on this site. If you are a woman and you have anxiety, please stop and do not read my post. I honestly thought that only guys would click here. This was bascially just me letting off some steam._


----------



## BetaBoy90 (Jan 5, 2010)

Crazy cat ladies hit their sexual peaks in their mid 50's, hopefully I'm not tied die with a "quality" gal by then


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

EagerMinnow84 said:


> Dear Zookeeper and Joinmartin,
> 
> On behalf of womankind,
> 
> We love you.


I don't necessarily believe it all, I just say it to pick up women. :b


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

Okay, so now I've read through most of this thread.



nightrain said:


> Some of the guys on here have such twisted/weird/crazy views of women. It makes me sick.





zookeeper said:


> :um Is it? Or maybe those who are "still available after a certain age" know enough to stay the hell away from immature guys?





Mercurochrome said:


> My friend said its fact that women who reach their thirties without marriage or babies are mentally unfit. I then proceeded to do nothing, but if I wasn't a pacifist I would have knob-jobbed his blow-knob. Wait, I would have job-blobbed his gonads? Wait..


& Joinmartin, whose posts are a bit long for me to find the quotes...I is lazy.

:kiss

(For standing up...who said chivalry was dead?)


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Really wish I would listen to that voice in my head that tells me halfway through the revised original post to JUST STOP READING. It's that tiny devil that wins out and I entertain evil thoughts of ruling the world.


----------



## estse (Nov 18, 2003)

There was an original post? Oh ****...


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

BetaBoy90 said:


> Crazy cat ladies hit their sexual peaks in their mid 50's, hopefully I'm not tied die with a "quality" gal by then


I will be coming after you...r wife/girlfriend. :b


----------



## BetaBoy90 (Jan 5, 2010)

strawberryjulius said:


> I will be coming after you...r wife/girlfriend. :b


Sounds really great, I have a 20 cat minimum though, you better step up your game or I'm gonna have to take my searches to the local AA meetings:|


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

I'll just be a reckless breeder. Kittens better count.


----------



## TRENNER (Sep 21, 2009)

Yes, women who are goodlooking _and personable_, meaning they are outgoing and easy to talk to, get snapped up fast. They don't spend much time involuntarily alone. However, I disagree that they all get married young. Many of them break up with boyfriends and thus there are (brief) windows of opportunity to link up with them before they are in another committed relationship. Remember also that besides these women, there are plenty of others--gorgeous but shy or extroverted and less beautiful. These women tend to spend more time single.


----------



## TRENNER (Sep 21, 2009)

andy0128 said:


> I think you're largely correct. The pool of quality available women seems to shrink substantially once you get past your early twenties. Then if you're lucky there is still a chance of meeting someone that doesnt have issues or is saddled with about 4 kids. During the 18-23 period i had minimal success with women. The occasional snog or one night stand. One relationship of 5 weeks and it wasn't for want of trying, but i was an outsider. All my friends were guys and i used to hang around with them. At university there were many people that seemed to have good social circles that would open the door to meeting these women, but i never managed to work my way into one.


I agree that dating is like a sale at a department store. On the first day of the sale, there are plenty of good bargains to be had. However, by the last day, one has to pick through a lot of garbage. That being said, I have found from my personal experience that around age 40, things get markedly difficult. People single around that age and older often tend to be single for good reason---too picky, asexual, and/or with severe psychological issues.

Around your age, 30, there still are a good number of decent prospects though.Plenty of men _and women _weren't ready younger or didn't find anyone before.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

opcorn




This has been interesting, I'm sure there is someone out there that you can be happy with. 

:squeeze

If not, I'm sure my signature appropriately covers it.


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX (Aug 13, 2007)

ctrlaltdelete said:


> If you're looking for critical thinking, this is not the place to come. *You will be hounded relentlessly by the PC crowd for imaginary crimes against humanity. Don't dare voice your opinion lest you become targeted by crusaders that will label you a misogynist, racist, or anti-egalitarian baby eater.*
> 
> OP simply made an observation and it was made out to be a slight against all women.


Don't forget having your topic locked and getting banned. :b


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

Nausea said:


> Women like you deserve to be alone.
> 
> Maybe you need to realize that people have inadequacies just like you do and you should be mature and accept them.


:um


----------



## Louis (Jun 30, 2009)

someone being taken doesnt mean no, 3 out of the 4 girls I've been with were with someone, so what if your better you'll win out, its easier to start off as friends and get comfortable before you make your move anyway. 

yah, most people are taken, but it shouldnt stop you, if a girl is taken or not taken its all about making that first contact and continuing it, hard as it is to get the courage, liquid courage does help though.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

> All the attractive, quality women are taken.


You're right. My girlfriend is taken.


----------



## ctrlaltdelete (May 13, 2010)

It seems that resident poster "nausea" has been taken to room 101 in the Ministry of Love for reformation. Hopefully he will be dealt with accordingly and absolved of all infractions via a rigorous course in doublethink.


----------



## mcmuffinme (Mar 12, 2010)

thanks for confirming that i am a piece of s***


----------



## mbp86 (May 11, 2010)

I saw this attractive woman at the grocery store and then a few minutes later she was with a man. Thank God I didn't ask her out. It would have been a total fail.


----------



## XxArmyofOnexX (Aug 13, 2007)

For me its not that certain women seem taken, its the fact that it seems EVERYONE is in a ****ing relationship, or are five minutes away from one. "My bf / gf and I broke up, I'm so lonely, blah blah blah" *2 days later* "I"M TAKEN YAYYYY"

Even here sometimes tbh. Sure, there's no global way to tell as not everyone will reveal it but there's a lot to be said when even on a social anxiety site one feels out of place. 

Frankly I feel like I'm mbp's avatar at times.


----------



## mbp86 (May 11, 2010)

I hate it when I'll see a woman I want to be with and then next time, she comes in with a husband and kids.


----------



## strawberryjulius (Jun 28, 2009)

All this time I've been wanting to say, "Why yes, I am taken...and if I'm ever un-taken, I won't be going after men.." so there you go. :b


----------

