My point is that most young women have a large selection of men to choose from, so they have to turn many men down. I'm not claiming it's bad or good. It's just reality. Many young men are not successful in the dating market because they have so much competition.
Many women will turn down a man politely, but, if a woman turns him down rudely, then she did him a favor because she showed him her true colors.
I understand dating life is difficult, and I know that a large number of young men do not date at all.
- "Might not their overall appearance, eye-contact, grooming, cosmetics, and behavior (incl. tattoos, nose-piercings...) have contributed to this?" -
She only has to be young and alone.
- "If we could return to traditional values and ways of life (hopeless, I know!), a lot of the problems we are discussing here would vanish." -
We agree on that point!
My point is that most young women have a large selection of men to choose from, so they have to turn many men down. I'm not claiming it's bad or good. It's just reality. Many young men are not successful in the dating market because they have so much competition.
Well, I'm claiming that it's bad, and unnatural!
In a healthy society, young people would pair up in a process known as assortative mating. Since there are roughly as many young men as there are young women, neither sex would be at an advantage. A (male) "7" would pair up with a (female) "7," a "4" with a "4," and so on.
(Of course, ideally, this whole process would be curated by the parents - but that would be only an added benefit, and isn't an absolute prerequisite for this set-up to function.)
Instead, in today's society, a female "4" can - at least temporarily - hook up with a male "9." The female "4" then thinks that she must, in actuality, be at least a "6" or a "7." (This fault of female psychology is now even amplified by the current "You're a QUEEN" meme.)
In actuality, the male "9" ends up having a loose "harem" of lower-ranking women (some of whom delude themselves into believing that they are enjoying exclusivity, and/or have at least a chance to "land" the man - perhaps by "accidentally" becoming pregnant).
And by the same token, the majority of men (ranging from "6" on downwards) have to scramble for the crumbs. They, in contrast, will experience year-long "droughts," struggle with self-esteem issues, etc.
The familiar pattern then emerges: Come age 30 ("The Wall"), these lower-ranking women, whose pair-bonding ability has been shot to hell (clinical studies show this), suddenly experience an "epiphany."
"Hallelujah! I'm a born-again virgin! And (paradoxically) I'm gonna RAISE my standards!"
The (middle- and low-ranking) men who have been struggling through their 20s are now understandably loathe to "bail them out."
Is any of this making sense to you? Does it ring at all true to you?
The situation is actually much worse, because feminism + liberalism + the Nanny State + the generally gynocentric culture (Oprah) have convinced ALL of these women that "they are the PRIZE." Secondary and tertiary effects mean that you can actually encounter statistically significant numbers of women who flatly state that they got pregnant (without any prospect of marriage) because they wanted to have a baby to pamper and coddle and play with!
In a large section of the Black population, one actually finds the mindset that getting married is a bigger and more-momentous decision than getting pregnant! Of course, some of that may be due simply to retroactive self-justification and rationalization (they didn't really want it, but now they've got to pretend that it was their "master plan" all along) - but by all appearances, a great many of these Black women hold husbands for superfluous!
You imply that men are equally to blame for the desolate state of modern "dating" (I always put that in quotation marks, because TRUE dating should always be a short, deliberate, and mindful process whose ultimate goal is to STOP DATING.) But the "dating" behavior of men is dictated 95% by their gonads, and men's gonads haven't changed all that much since the Pleistocene Epoch. Men have always striven to spread their seed as far as they can. Men don't need a reason (to couple), just an opportunity. Etc., etc.
In contrast, the behavior of women (in the sexual realm) is determined not so much by visceral urges, but rather by social cues, social one-upmanship, a need for social validation, gossiping, group dynamics, and manipulating men by dangling/withholding sex in exchange for resources.
The amplification of bad and, in many cases, downright evil messaging ("Men and women have equally strong sex drives!" "Men and women should both play around!" "Don't need no man!" "A single mother is brave, strong, and independent!" "As the 40-year-old mother of four kids - through three baby-daddies - my value has only increased!") through feminism, and abetted by a Nanny State that funds their insanity, has only worsened the situation.
Regards,