Question for anyone in their late 20s/early 30s and haven't been in a relationship in a long time or ever - do you feel like you missed out on something?
I'm currently 25 and going to enter a high paying but highly stressful and intensive field in the near future. From what others have told me, unless you are already in a relationship or married when you start, you have little chance of finding anyone later on. Even if I had the social skills to start or maintain a relationship, my career would prevent me from doing so. I'm wondering if there's a social stigma around middle aged people who don't have any relationship prospects.
>do you feel like you missed out on something?
Short answer: No. I'm concerned with what's ahead of me. I can't change the past so it does not bother me in the least.
>If i can't affect it - It does not concern me
Learned that from reading about Stoicism.
I cannot say for sure but im 25 too and everyone i work eith is 23-32 and none of them are in a relatiinship (including myself) and noone has a problem with it. Though all the women are in a relationship. Odd now that i think about it
>>16902588
Why is it that all women seem to be in relationships but not a lot of men are? Is the "20% of men" thing actually true?
>>16902588
Yeah same here. I work part time and all my coworkers are around my age (24). Every single guy including me is single, but not the women. It's 6 guys and 8 girls. Sometimes I think woman have it easier relationship wise haha
no, there's a social stigma around people with low emotional intelligence. Whether those people are middle aged or teens, not sure it really matters
>>16902596
The first time ive heard of this. It may be true
>>16902603
Emotional intelligence?
>>16902596
How in the world can that be true? Unless there is a vast difference in the number of men vs women in the world or polygamy is a lot more widespread, it's not possible. If we assume there are roughly the same number of heterosexual men and women around, for every woman in a relationship, there's a man in a relationship. Therefore, the single men and women should be pretty equal too. Think before you make stupid statements please.
>>16902609
In his defense you also have to take into consideration all the lesbians/bi/open relationships/religion that allows multiple wives and ect..
>>16902609
I know it doesn't make sense. I'm wondering about it because from my personal experience and some people in the thread, a lot of women are in relationships but the same amount of men aren't. It could also be because women broadcast the fact that they're in a relationship more than men do
>>16902608
people without social skills generally score poorly on emotional intelligence tests, can't get into or maintain relationships, etc.
>>16902621
I said assuming there's roughly an equal number of heterosexual men and women which means lesbians are not a part of the group we're discussing. I guess we're also assuming the number of bi men and women are equal and they date the same gender/different gender at the same rate too, or at the very least the difference is negligible. And if we're sticking to the Western world, the number of polygamists are probably negligible too.
And even if we don't make those assumptions, there's no fucking way that 20% of men are dating 80% of women or whatever the saying is. That's just plain stupid and you'd have to be a moron to believe it.
I'm 31, haven't had a girlfriend since high school. It's not like I don't care but it also hasn't been a priority for me. I'm pretty self-sufficient emotionally speaking, and I've seen friends get into all sorts of different relationships, so I'm just working on myself until the right person comes along.
>>16902623
There are other people out there who have the opposite experience and know more men than women in relationships. Personal experience doesn't mean jack shit when we're discussing something at a population level. Like I said, think before you post something stupid.
>>16902609
>How in the world can that be true?
Not him, but when you narrow the field down to "attractive" men and women, there are a lot more acceptable women than men. See pic. Not even unattractive people want to date each other (though they often settle), so the numbers get skewed.
To what degree is up for debate, of course.
>>16902646
Do you seriously think that your picture proves anything...? Christ sake, check yourself my man. It's a meme picture that someone drew in MS Paint.
>>16902646
That really doesn't make a difference though. If we're making the assumptions I said, then for every woman in a relationship, there's a man in a relationship. That's just common sense. There's no way that there can be a majority of one dating a minority of another.
>>16902650
>>16902636
Someone's being edgy today
>>16902659
First of all, that's two different people. Secondly, using common sense isn't edgy.
>>16902664
Being a huge fedoralord for no reason is
>>16902667
Are you implying that the people who believe that 20% of men date 80% of women are not the ones in the fedoras?
There are a lot of people that get single again in their late 20's. You change so much, it happens often that relationships don't survive the tweens. Early twenties you have different priorities in a partner than when you get into your 30's. I was single the last 5 years, soon to be 28 and i'm now dating the most amazing guy i ever met.
>>16902576
Possibly, but I never wanted it back then and I don't now. It's like missing out on bungee jumping I guess.
>>16902672
Being an asshole for no reason and seriously believing in the 20/80 theory are both fedora worthy
>>16902677
I don't see anyone being an asshole here.
>>16902650
>Do you seriously think that your picture proves anything...?
No, dumbass. It's not offered as "proof", it's offered as a visual aid for the concept.
>>16902652
>there's no way
I really hope you're not being this stupid, but yes there is:
Five girls, five boys: Amy, Betty, Carol, Dana, Evelyn; Zach, Yancy, Xander, Will and Victor
A dates Z
B dates Z
C dates Z
D dates Z
E doesn't date anyone.
4/5 women are in a relationship (80%)
1/5 men are in a relationship (20%)
that's how it's "possible" (whether it's really the case is another story, but the idea is this happens to some degree)
>>16902596
They date older guys, so guys of your age are less likely to have someone than the women.
>>16902681
>If we're making the assumptions I said
Can you not read? One of the assumptions was disregarding polyamory/polygamy.
>>16902686
who says these are poly situations? This is called "dating the field" or "cheating".
Anyways, you're just dismissing the answer before you get it. It's like saying "disregarding that it's made of water, why is the ocean wet?" That's the answer, dude.
>>16902703
If it's dating the field, then that's not a relationship. If we're talking about cheating, then we'd have to assume that women cheat as much as men in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, which also evens us out back to equalish numbers. And even then, we'd be assuming that a side bitch counts as an actual relationship.
>Anyways, you're just dismissing the answer before you get it
Because we're talking about whether it actually happens. The whole discussion is based around whether 20% of men date 80% of women. We're not talking about hypothetical scenarios where it's possible, we're talking about the reality.
i miss the sex, not much else
and possibly having kids, but im a male so the clock isnt really ticking
>>16902603
THIS. Greetings my brother/sister in arms trying to knock some fucking sense into these kids.
>>16902719
>then we'd have to assume that women cheat as much as men in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
Oh we would, would we? Why's that?
>which also evens us out back to equalish numbers
No, not at all. Even assuming that women cheat at the same rate as women, the cheating can still happen
A cheats with Z
B cheats with Z
C cheats with Z
D cheats with Z
E still just buying more cats
(obviously "Z" isn't a single person, but a 20% segment of the male population)
I mean what are you, stupid?
>We're not talking about hypothetical scenarios where it's possible, we're talking about the reality.
I'm glad you pointed this out. While I don't think there is any real way to find the statistics on this (since in real life "relationships" are usually transitory social states, unlike your assumptions), we do know that our gene pool consists of about 67% women and 33% men, which means that if you assume men and women constitute 50% of the population that women are out-reproducing men at a 2:1 clip. So maybe not 80-20, but not too far off, either.
