Yo New York Ladies

8 reasons why New York women can’t get a husband

seems legit

fav quotes

You should also question whether a Second Avenue dive that shutters at 4 a.m. is the best hunting ground for love. “At best, it’s an undignified place to meet men; at worst, it’s a dangerous place to encounter possible psychopaths,” warns Patton

“If you offer men sex without commitment, you eliminate the incentive for them to commit.” Granny was right: Men won’t buy the cow if the milk is free. “The women who troll the Meatpacking District are in the business of one-night stands, but if you are looking for a more substantial relationship, you have to pace yourself and engage in a very slow dance towards intimacy,” she warns.

All these lists are non sense. You think if Sofia Vergara did any of these things she wouldn’t find a taker?!

The truth is most women don’t have much to offer for what they are looking for. You want a man that is successful, fit, smart, confident, tall, good looking, great with his hands? You better be among the top 5% of women out there.

^Here we go again.

Funny enough, I stopped at lunchtime at the Metropolitan Museum of Art because my meeting that had just finished up was right there.

When I was single, I remember hearing that the museum was a great place to pick up women, but everyone there seemed kind of cold today. They take their Art very seriously.

i tried talking to a chick once in a museum, i didnt know anything about the art - she knew that and i just looked stupid. i did make her laugh a few times tho

^ Failure is a necessary component of growth. Guys that never strike out are underachievers.

This woman implicitly, but maybe unintentionally hits the main point as it relates to her book: attending an elite university does not make women more attractive for long term relationships. Certainly, education is an attractive trait among women. However, the cutoff after which attending a better university results in no marginal attractiveness happens far below the HYP level. It is not surprising, therefore, that women such as Ms. Patton, upon graduation and entering the real world, find that they can no longer attract the mates that they are used to and that they feel that they “deserve”.

Males who attended elite universities like Princeton are typically successful in their careers and have above average financial resources. These men do not need to attract women of the highest professional and academic caliber to supplement their household income, nor do they desire a spouse of elite academic pedigree to convey legacy status to their children for the purposes of university admissions. Instead, these men will gravitate towards women who are lesser in these respects, but superior in terms of appearance and congeniality. The cards have been reshuffled, and women from elite universities no longer hold the advantage that they believed they had.

Now, also consider that women at HYP are ugly. Women at MIT, Caltech and Stanford are even worse. These women have spent their formative years studying alone, rather than nurturing the characteristics that could have made them more attractive adult women. So not only do these women not have an advantage in dating from their superior academic standing, but they often are disadvantaged since they have sacrificed other skills in order to strengthen their academic records.

Thus, the optimal strategy for these women is to, while in college, “lock in” a naive and inexperienced male, since after graduation, these women will lose their advantage of fishing in a pre selected pool.

The women who are offended by this are fools, undoubtedly driven to rage by their ineluctable hormonal imbalances. Everyone wants to get married at some point. Everyone wants to marry a superior mate. To women, a Princeton or similar male is almost always preferable to a male of lesser pedigree, all else equal. If locking in a college spouse results in the highest probability of attaining such a relationship, then it is the optimal strategy.

The list in that article, however, makes no sense, and is likely the drunken rambling of a recently divorced and possibly depressed menopausal woman.

As usual, I have nothing to add after ohai has laid down the law.

Back when i lived in NYC I was walking back from the gym (gleasons for you boxing fans) and walked by a neighborhood bar in bay ridge. I kid you not, i was cat called by this little girl in black who called after me enough for me to take off my head phones and ask her if she was alright. Her first question to me “why do i not find guys like you in bars like this”…

New York seems like a horrible place to meet women. You have to go to a warm climate where less clothes means more incentive to not be disgusting.

I did not read the above article, but I went on a few dates not too long ago with a Director of a hedge fund. Her social skills were completely in the toilet and just seemed like she had a hard time operating outside of her work environment. I find that most NYC women in prominent positions are either extremely hard to please or no nothing more than their job.

I agree and disagree. I think you can meet a lot of girls from the midwest/ other parts of the states that still possess good attributes before being turned into the she-devils (aka native nyers). Also, ny is a mecca of other cultures so you can find plenty of other women from around the world who have their ish together. I’m not saying that all girls born-raised in nyc are crazy & delusional, but from my exp a lot of them have pyschological problems not (yet) exhibited in foreign girls.

That lady is a troll, but god do I love the NYPost.

I think that a better way to explain why the author makes a good point is that what one looks for in a committed relationship is not the same as what one looks for in an employee, or even a good friend, aside from general “competent enough not to screw basic things up on a regular basis,” which is something we look for in pretty much everyone we have to deal with regularly. What that means is that all the things that modern American feminism prioritizes: women being kick-ass at all things physical and mental, etc., showing you’re as good as men - if not better - at everything, while trying not to look too attractive for fear of “selling out to patriarchy,” just doesn’t get you very far in attracting a mate if you’re a heterosexual woman. And simply having sex now and then while drunk (or sober) and hoping the guy will stay - while effective at relieving the short-term sexual tension that all of us experience from time to time - isn’t going to make up for the fact that hypercompetitive women do not generally make for good romantic partners. This is because being competitive all the time means that neither partner can afford to let themselves be vulnerable, and if you can’t be vulnerable, you can’t build intimacy, and if you can’t build intimacy, you can’t really connect romantically. At best, you can have a kind of business partnership with a supposedly romantic companion, but we know what happens with business partnerships once one party’s priorities change or one feels they can get a better deal elsewhere. What women are discovering is that hypercompetitive, career-driven women are just as unpleasant to be with as the hypercompetitive, career-driven men they love to complain about. It is not without irony that this is a victory for equality. Women want to be loved for their talent and their achievements, etc., but that’s not what most men will love them for. Men can respect, even admire women for those qualities, but that’s not what makes them loveable. To most men, women are loveable for the traditionally feminine characteristics… compassion, caring, affection, etc… Not surprisingly, the same qualities women typically say they want in a man (especially after being treated badly by a jerk). Looks are important for attraction, but it’s the personality, common interests, and ability to connect that matters for a relationship that endures more than a month or two (or more than a night). Intelligence is important, so that you can converse on interesting topics one the excitement of a new sexual partner has worn off, but one-upsmanship generally isn’t, because it gets tiring, and tired partners aren’t engaging partners. None of this means that opening up career opportunities and ensuring that women have career-important talents isn’t an important thing to ensure women continue to have and expand. It’s just that those are tools for addressing a different set of challenges women face, and overly relying on them to tackle the mating game doesn’t tend to work, because this stuff doesn’t make them more loveable to the vast majority of men. To the extent that a career makes a woman feel more secure about herself and her financial situation, perhaps it will reduce her stress levels and make her more loveable. But most careers these days - whether for men or for women - are stress inducers, and this makes both men and women less loveable. One difference is that many women see career-success as more attractive in men simply for the fact of being more successful. Perhaps this is genetic, perhaps it is socially induced, or perhaps both. So a successful, stressed-out, alpha male type can be seen as a kind of trade off (yes, he’s a jerk often, but he brings home the bacon, and that’s good enough for me and Juan the gardener). But it doesn’t seem to work that way in reverse, because men tend evaluate women differently (again, perhaps for genetic, and perhaps for socially constructed reasons). What seems to be happening is that many young women feel that part of feminism should be about forcing men to evaluate women on principles similar to the way women evaluate men, meaning that men should see career succes and competitiveness as more than admirable and worthy of respect, they should find it endearing. And maybe there are theoretical reasons that men should evaluate women’s loveability on different criteria than they currently do, but it just doesn’t seem like something that is going to happen in the next 15 years or so.

I’m just trying to avoid single moms.

Women (not just NY women) have screwed themselves over via the sexual revolution. Young men prize sex and young women prize relationships. Women disincentivize relationships by providing men with sex without requiring a committed relationship in return. And since sex is now so commonplace, a few women who withhold it are powerless against the broader market; a man can just move on to another woman who provides it.

Viva feminism!

I think they made a youtube video about this. Tried to show how men would feel if women catcalled men. I wouldn’t mind.

I would go one further. A woman who is wtiholding might think she is signalling she wants a relationship, but that doesn’t mean that men can properly interpret that signal. Most girls want relationships, how is she any different? What she’s really signalling is that she’s less interested in sex than other girls.

she must have never been to Bensonhurst.

But they can find a husband.

In NY, the avg women goes out on a date on a thurs night with a nice guy, he takes her to a nice restaurant, he spends money on her food and a bottle of wine. He drops her off early knowing she has to work the next night. He hits her up on FB and sees she’s going out on sat night with her girlfriends and tells her to have fun. On sat night at the bar she notices a guy and asks him to buy her a drink but he’s a jerk. He comes back with whiskey for himself and a coke for her. He’s talking to other girls for the rest of the night. At the end of the night he goes up to her and says lets go. she acts all offended but decides to leave with him and he smashes with no condom. the next week she gets many texts from the nice guy but doesn’t want to lead him on. she texts the jerk and he never responds.

Yeah, people really just need to get out of their own way. “What Women Want” the movie was totally unrealistic. If Mel Gibson could really read women’s minds they would mostly say “I don’t know.” For guys it would say “Let’s get it on.” People don’t self-examine enough.