Really interesting. On the struggles of successful women in finding partners due to "filtering" potential partners on conventional attractiveness traits. I wonder about the following two effects:
1) successful women tend to be more concerned with status and appearance. This is often what motivated them to become very successful. Thus, they tend to think it necessary to have a boyfriend which elevates their appearance and status.
2) Women find a guy with a lot of money very attractive. But the reverse doesn't hold (i.e., men care far more about appearance and personality than salary). Yet many women do not realize this. Thus, very successful women believe like they are more attractive than they are (since they think their wealth to be a plus). They are thus very picky. And many are confused and frustrated when this strategy does not work out.
Yes and yes. And I'm actually sympathetic to the second point. It sucks to not be rewarded on the dating market for the things you're most proud of yourself for. However, I think women's intelligence is rewarded on the market even if the money they make with their intelligence isn't so much.
"However, I think women's intelligence is rewarded on the market even if the money they make with their intelligence isn't so much."
I would say yes, up to a point. The average frustrated dude doesn't necessarily want to be paired with an embarrassing airhead, but he also doesn't want to feel like an idiot every time his GF opens her mouth as she twirls her spaghetti to muse about non-euclidean geometry in the fifth dimension or whatever it is the smart people think about.
Status plays a large role here. Intelligence is high status, but again, only up to a point where it doesn't interfere with other functions.
While man looking for a date might not set out to find a high earner, financial troubles are a top cause of relationship difficulties. “Won’t cause me to struggle with rent while sighing over a friend’s foreign trip” is one of those things a gentleman won’t mention but may consider. This is more financial responsibility than income, but a higher level of income makes an average level of financial responsibility more comfortable.
This may not be the issue here, if Ms Tsantekidou’s article is correct- she seems to have a decent salary and claims to be a cheap date. She also seems aware that a higher salary isn’t as strong an attractor as it could be, and claims not to be overly picky regarding status, accomplishments, etc. Maybe this just isn’t the case, or maybe she was hoping for Hugh Grant in Notting Hill and got a string of Hugh Grants from Bridget Jones. One other possibility is that the guys who do want long-term relationships just aren’t that good at the mechanics of romance- I seem to remember a lot of engineers in my university class having long-term girlfriends.
You can definitely see this in women's bios on dating apps. A lot of them highlight their careers, that they own their own home, and their pics are showing off professionalism and status. It's as if they're trying to attract a straight woman.
(2) is really interesting and I hadn't thought about that. It's like the flip side of how men think that getting jacked is going to massively improve their success with women.
Though getting jacked is different I think, in that it has no negative effect on male satisfaction. Observe that a woman who makes a lot of money is subconsciously inclined to compare her man's income to her own. If her man makes less, she often can't help but be turned off by this. Her satisfactory options are thus confined to a small number of rich men, who often have many women interested and prefer to play the field. In contrast, a jacked guy looks at a hot girl exactly the same as a skinny guy does. He does not compare his muscles to hers.
A more fitting analogy I think would be height. Most girls desire a man who is taller than them. So very tall women are often in a tough spot where there are few guys tall enough to fit their needs.
Men are attracted to jacked men more than women are. A fit, healthy, muscle toned body is attractive to women. The "jacked" look, not so much. What's worse is when men advice short men to "get jacked" in order to compensate for their height and attract women. Jacked short men just end up looking like the Michelin Man. Cartoonish. Now, other men might be attracted to the Michelin Man look, but women, not so much. The whole GymBro/Jacked Chad phenomena is really just a form of homosocial bonding and male one-upmanship mixed in with some typical Freudian "latant homosexualism". It's not a thing for women.
> these lists are often less about what would really make someone a great partner for you as they are about what would make someone look like an obviously great partner for you.
Reminds me of a quote from Contact by Carl Sagan:
“Some women, it seemed, set out to implement a campaign of military thoroughness, with branched contingency trees and fallback positions, all to ‘catch' a desirable man. The word 'desirable' was the giveaway, she thought. The poor jerk wasn't actually desired, only 'desirable' - a plausible object of desire in the opinion of those others on whose account this whole sorry charade was performed. “
Great quote! And I think this applies to how men sometimes view female beauty as well - Jacob Falkovich had a post about types of female beauty that convey status for the partner of the woman vs. those that men actually find sexually desirable, but I can’t find it
This really resonates with me, though I can also empathize with the point of view expressed in Stella's article. I have personally never primarily focused on the traits you mention as making someone "look like an obviously great partner for you." I found a man I deeply loved in my mid-twenties. We are now married. He is hardworking, smart, athletic, kind, and honest, traits which are worth more than gold, in my opinion. All that being said (and it feels weird to say, because I think he's the best man ever), he doesn't have a lot of the markers I know some of my friends look for in their partners: top college education, career in something prestigious like finance, wealthy family, same age, must be politically liberal, etc. If I had required my partner to be obviously impressive to my friends in the ways I just listed, I quite frankly would still be single. I mean, it's already hard enough to find a man who has the important traits (honesty, compassion, patience, dedication, strength, willingness to work hard, etc.). Then, on top of that, he has to be an Ivy League graduate neurosurgery resident?! There are probably 5 men like that in all of NYC. I know myself and I am simply not hot enough to command such attention, haha.
But... I can empathize with where they might be coming from. It's really hard to do what will actually give you the greatest chance at happiness versus doing what you think will make you look good to other people. Impressing others provides a temporary high which is easy to be misled by. And it is totally reasonable that a woman with a prestigious education and career might want a man who has a similar background. I just think it's probably hard for to achieve such a relationship, because men care less about those things, and therefore have a larger pool to choose from.
Thanks Katerina! I totally agree with your take and with the traits you identify as being worth being picky about :) I also empathize with successful educated women who are seeking a partner with equivalent external success markers and agree that "it's probably hard for these women to achieve such a relationship, because men care less about those things, and therefore have a larger pool to choose from" - I talk about this in another post "The Desire to be Objectified" linked below:
Thanks for engaging with my post, Regan, I agree that spending time and money on your interests and passions makes one a far more attractive partner than someone who wastes her resources on feeble external appearance extras.
Great post. I find both the original article and your caveat very persuasive. I do think Stella T describes something real in London. A couple of years ago I casually told a close female friend I would find her someone because I thought it would be pushing against an open door (I'd never tried to find a man before). She's conventionally beautiful, intelligent and like you has lots of interests men love talking about. I soon discovered how difficult it was. The men I knew who were interested in commitment all seemed to be in relationships. I'd never realised before how uncommon it is for men in their 30s to be single. 29 herself, she was happy to date the men I know in their mid 20s, but those men seemed underwhelmed by her photographs in a way no man 5+ years older than her would be. When I told the men in their 20s and early 30s her age they would say dismissively, "She'll really be looking to settle down fast" in the kind of way they might say "She's moving to the other side of the world next week, anyway, so what's the point?". I didn't get her a single date.
So she was fishing in a genuinely shallow pool of single men at least a bit older than her. But at the same time, she wasn't open to dating men she was likely compatible with if she didn't feel chemistry the first time they met. This was clearly just socially dominant personalities who flirted with a pretty girl instantly. As you say, she was filtering out anyone who didn't have the kind of personality that makes single, promiscuous life for a man very enjoyable and being tied to one woman feel like a highly restrictive diet. She had a lot of sex with these men but no relationships. She dismissed one man I know because a photo made clear he wasn't broad enough in his shoulders. Last year she started dating a great guy she went to school with who is nothing like this and they're now married with a baby on the way and she's clearly never been happier. There are a million articles telling women never to 'settle', but I'm glad she relaxed those standards.
Your point about people coupling up and being removed from the market is a good one - this can make even a minor overall sex difference in a city quite meaningful on the relevant dating market. And the age gap stuff is difficult, as a 31 year old I probably wouldn’t initially consider dating younger guys if I were single because I *would* be looking to settle down quick lol.
“She dismissed one man I know because a photo made clear he wasn't broad enough in his shoulders.” - brutal! Glad she found a great guy :) I think some standards are worth keeping high, but the rest of them can be relaxed without much loss to you or your potential relationship quality. For me, as a tall woman, requiring that a guy be a lot taller than me is one that I think is worth relaxing, whereas someone I can have great conversations with is one where I’d keep the bar high.
I think a lot of people - male and female - struggle to believe that it's possible for love and chemistry and lust to grow for someone they feel meh about at first. They take it for granted that if they don't feel an initial spark with someone then they never will, and say no to second dates accordingly.
I am no naturally wise man about this myself, either. I only know better because I've found myself falling hard for women I initially saw little long-term potential with, but enjoyed the dating and sex enough to keep seeing her and then my feelings really started to change. I've heard it called the "repeat exposure effect". Logan Uri's phrase for this is "Fuck the spark".
"as a 31 year old I probably wouldn’t initially consider dating younger guys if I were single because I would be looking to settle down quick"
Based on my experience, I think that's right. What would be your upper age limit? I think women sometimes either fail to realise how much more attractive they are to a man 10 years older than to a man their age, or they wouldn't consider that much of an age gap unless they're from more traditional countries like Poland or Romania. So they are limited to men their age who mostly either don't want to settle down or already have.
My upper age limit would be mid-late 40s. I also have a lot of friends in their 40s so it wouldn’t feel out of place to date older given my social group. My actual boyfriend is my age, so not saying women have to date older, but I think it often makes a lot of sense and at least being open to it seems worth it!
Hi Regan good article. Found your substack when Richard Hanania posted about you on twitter. We are actually distant cousins. My Mom is first cousins with your Grandma Judy. Looking forward to reading more of you.
Totally agree with this! I’ve also never had this issue. I would even say that I tend to date men with highly legible either education or financial markers (or both) so I don’t even think it’s that per se. Its more like not selecting for traits like narcissism
Yes, same, good point. But I think some legible traits (like education or financial markers) are generally more relevant to the quality of your relationship and quality of your life than others, like physical characteristics. And I don't think it's a good idea to explicitly say to yourself "I will only date someone with X education and Y financial markers", because I think it could create an unnecessarily restrictive mindset (not that you're saying you do that).
True. I’m a very tall girl (178cm) and I’ve always dated guys not much taller than me or equal to my height. That means that in heels I’m taller than my bf atm! But it’s not something that bothers me and it would have been a horrendous mistake to filter him out based on this.
Same (not quite, I'm 170cm but Americans are shorter), same (generally dated not much taller), same (taller than my bf in heels), same (doesn't bother me) and same (would've been a horrendous mistake to filter)!
This is one of the very few areas where we homosexuals are simply saner about male appearance than straight women are. Somebody in a couple has to be taller! It really doesn't matter very much!
1) Being jacked doesn’t make men particularly less attractive to women the way, say, being fat does. It’s just that it doesn’t really move the needle.
2) For straight guys the appeal of a jacked body isn’t sexual. It’s that they find the implied power and violence of a jacked body very impressive. An irony being that a pro boxer or MMA fighter would kick the crap out of a pro bodybuilder.
""So I have to wonder… might she be filtering for precisely the type of traits that are not only not required for a productive and happy partnership but are also most common among the men who are the least likely to want to commit.""
I asked her (Stella) this myself in a comment on one of her columns. She insisted that all she wants is someone who can communicate with her at her level. I didn't respond but I think her answer is delusional. She lives in London for heavens sake. You mean to tell me that there are no man in London who can communicate on her level? Of course that's not the problem. The problem is, her ideal man has to be 6ft, earn 250,000 Euros and look like a model. Oh and be able to communicate on her level.
Marriage rates are falling across the board. Something must explain this trend. Either (1) people don't want to get married as much as they did in the past, or (2) people want to get married but find it more difficult to do so. I personally find it very puzzling: almost everyone wants a monogamous, lifelong relationship, but people aren't entering them.
The funny thing is that my partner probably hits almost all of the items on that Twitter list. (My requirement was "doesn't like NYC" and we live well away, thank goodness.) He didn't take up running til 9 years in, though. Requiring your partner to be in the top 8% of earners in the country is excessive, but wanting someone with an appealing personality and an appreciation for good health is not. (One guy I dated died of a heart attack 5 years later. I was not surprised.) And everyone's idea of adorably quirky is different.
"One of the reasons I’ve always felt relatively confident that I’d be able to find another relationship if the one I was in failed is that many of my interests are more common among men than among women. This gives me a big advantage in that I’ve naturally found myself in male-dominated social situations that I actually enjoy. NYCs bad sex ratio is completely irrelevant to me because the circles I socialize in are 75% male!"
So how does this work if you are a human female who isn't genuinely interested in stuff that dudes are into? Fake it until you make it?
Stella T has responded in a new post. What do you think? She says: "Ok, I am being flippant here, but I needed to illustrate the rediculusness of some of these people, including those who suggest I should move to rural US. Like this response to my piece by Regan Arntz-Gray. I think Regan is perfectly right about her observations of her friend in non-urban US settings and about the unrealistic high standards some urban women harbor (I see that too in women who have more materialist values than myself) BUT her piece and a lot of others drip contempt for women who are, well, pretty fucking above average. Succesful, hot, glamorous, smart, funny, 10/10 and looking for a MAN what of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11! And guess what, they also want to live in the big FUCKING apple, because they only live once and they were raised on SATC and you know what; Good. For. Them. Don’t overcorrect. There was cringe in Girl Boss Feminism. There was also truth and power."
I saw her post - I wrote a note in response linked below. I was quite surprised by her characterization of this piece. Perhaps I didn't communicate as clearly as I thought or perhaps her criticism was more generally directed to other people's posts in addition to mine. But I certainly don't have contempt for successful women or think Stella should move to the countryside to find a man. I don't think she attempted a convincing or logical rebuttal of anything I said here, in fact she seems to largely agree with me, as she says "I see that too in women who have more materialist values than myself".
Thanks for the link! I agree with your take, especially "I was quite surprised by her characterization of this piece... I don't think she attempted a convincing or logical rebuttal of anything I said here".
I took what you said as a musing and a question: if she keeps dating men who want to fuck her but not love her, is it because she's pursuing men with "precisely the type of traits that are not only not required for a productive and happy partnership but are also most common among the men who are the least likely to want to commit"? There are at least two answers to that, but I don't think responding that she and the women she writes about are "Succesful, hot, glamorous, smart, funny, 10/10" answers it at all. And where is the contempt in asking that question?
I think you could reverse the sexes throughout these pieces. A male equivalent would be something like: "I am going through a real dry spell. All the women I really want casual sex with want tangible evidence of commitment before sleeping with me. I want them to fuck me quickly, but they first want me to love them!". (It goes without saying that the man's neediness is for something much shallower than Stella's in this scenario but let's be realistic about that sex difference).
One could ask that man: "Are you pursuing women with precisely the kind of attractive traits that makes it easy for those women to find the loving relationships they want? The ones who are not on the market for casual sex? They're not any more interested in loveless sex than you are in a committed relationship with them?" He could say absolutely that he isn't actually going for the busty blondes 10 years his junior. Or he could say he is and he doesn't get why he's struggling to bed them. But if he just said "I think this question shows contempt for me and my status as a 10/10" it wouldn't be convincing?
It's a numbers game, and in world cities like NY and London the numbers are stacked against educated women. It's not like the demographic research is hard to do these days. No-one is unique: turn off your feelings for a while, and look at the numbers. Then consider the incentives for representatives of the various groups. That should be the default mode for anyone working in politics, like Stella, but sadly it still isn't.
Really interesting. On the struggles of successful women in finding partners due to "filtering" potential partners on conventional attractiveness traits. I wonder about the following two effects:
1) successful women tend to be more concerned with status and appearance. This is often what motivated them to become very successful. Thus, they tend to think it necessary to have a boyfriend which elevates their appearance and status.
2) Women find a guy with a lot of money very attractive. But the reverse doesn't hold (i.e., men care far more about appearance and personality than salary). Yet many women do not realize this. Thus, very successful women believe like they are more attractive than they are (since they think their wealth to be a plus). They are thus very picky. And many are confused and frustrated when this strategy does not work out.
Yes and yes. And I'm actually sympathetic to the second point. It sucks to not be rewarded on the dating market for the things you're most proud of yourself for. However, I think women's intelligence is rewarded on the market even if the money they make with their intelligence isn't so much.
"However, I think women's intelligence is rewarded on the market even if the money they make with their intelligence isn't so much."
I would say yes, up to a point. The average frustrated dude doesn't necessarily want to be paired with an embarrassing airhead, but he also doesn't want to feel like an idiot every time his GF opens her mouth as she twirls her spaghetti to muse about non-euclidean geometry in the fifth dimension or whatever it is the smart people think about.
Status plays a large role here. Intelligence is high status, but again, only up to a point where it doesn't interfere with other functions.
While man looking for a date might not set out to find a high earner, financial troubles are a top cause of relationship difficulties. “Won’t cause me to struggle with rent while sighing over a friend’s foreign trip” is one of those things a gentleman won’t mention but may consider. This is more financial responsibility than income, but a higher level of income makes an average level of financial responsibility more comfortable.
This may not be the issue here, if Ms Tsantekidou’s article is correct- she seems to have a decent salary and claims to be a cheap date. She also seems aware that a higher salary isn’t as strong an attractor as it could be, and claims not to be overly picky regarding status, accomplishments, etc. Maybe this just isn’t the case, or maybe she was hoping for Hugh Grant in Notting Hill and got a string of Hugh Grants from Bridget Jones. One other possibility is that the guys who do want long-term relationships just aren’t that good at the mechanics of romance- I seem to remember a lot of engineers in my university class having long-term girlfriends.
You can definitely see this in women's bios on dating apps. A lot of them highlight their careers, that they own their own home, and their pics are showing off professionalism and status. It's as if they're trying to attract a straight woman.
(2) is really interesting and I hadn't thought about that. It's like the flip side of how men think that getting jacked is going to massively improve their success with women.
Though getting jacked is different I think, in that it has no negative effect on male satisfaction. Observe that a woman who makes a lot of money is subconsciously inclined to compare her man's income to her own. If her man makes less, she often can't help but be turned off by this. Her satisfactory options are thus confined to a small number of rich men, who often have many women interested and prefer to play the field. In contrast, a jacked guy looks at a hot girl exactly the same as a skinny guy does. He does not compare his muscles to hers.
A more fitting analogy I think would be height. Most girls desire a man who is taller than them. So very tall women are often in a tough spot where there are few guys tall enough to fit their needs.
"Though getting jacked is different I think, in that it has no negative effect on male satisfaction."
The GymBro/Jacked Chad phenomena is by men, for men, not women. See my comment detailing this elsewhere in the thread.
Hah, exactly!
Men are attracted to jacked men more than women are. A fit, healthy, muscle toned body is attractive to women. The "jacked" look, not so much. What's worse is when men advice short men to "get jacked" in order to compensate for their height and attract women. Jacked short men just end up looking like the Michelin Man. Cartoonish. Now, other men might be attracted to the Michelin Man look, but women, not so much. The whole GymBro/Jacked Chad phenomena is really just a form of homosocial bonding and male one-upmanship mixed in with some typical Freudian "latant homosexualism". It's not a thing for women.
> these lists are often less about what would really make someone a great partner for you as they are about what would make someone look like an obviously great partner for you.
Reminds me of a quote from Contact by Carl Sagan:
“Some women, it seemed, set out to implement a campaign of military thoroughness, with branched contingency trees and fallback positions, all to ‘catch' a desirable man. The word 'desirable' was the giveaway, she thought. The poor jerk wasn't actually desired, only 'desirable' - a plausible object of desire in the opinion of those others on whose account this whole sorry charade was performed. “
Great quote! And I think this applies to how men sometimes view female beauty as well - Jacob Falkovich had a post about types of female beauty that convey status for the partner of the woman vs. those that men actually find sexually desirable, but I can’t find it
Some men maybe. When I make up my mind about a girl no way my friends are gonna talk me out of it. I know what I want!
This really resonates with me, though I can also empathize with the point of view expressed in Stella's article. I have personally never primarily focused on the traits you mention as making someone "look like an obviously great partner for you." I found a man I deeply loved in my mid-twenties. We are now married. He is hardworking, smart, athletic, kind, and honest, traits which are worth more than gold, in my opinion. All that being said (and it feels weird to say, because I think he's the best man ever), he doesn't have a lot of the markers I know some of my friends look for in their partners: top college education, career in something prestigious like finance, wealthy family, same age, must be politically liberal, etc. If I had required my partner to be obviously impressive to my friends in the ways I just listed, I quite frankly would still be single. I mean, it's already hard enough to find a man who has the important traits (honesty, compassion, patience, dedication, strength, willingness to work hard, etc.). Then, on top of that, he has to be an Ivy League graduate neurosurgery resident?! There are probably 5 men like that in all of NYC. I know myself and I am simply not hot enough to command such attention, haha.
But... I can empathize with where they might be coming from. It's really hard to do what will actually give you the greatest chance at happiness versus doing what you think will make you look good to other people. Impressing others provides a temporary high which is easy to be misled by. And it is totally reasonable that a woman with a prestigious education and career might want a man who has a similar background. I just think it's probably hard for to achieve such a relationship, because men care less about those things, and therefore have a larger pool to choose from.
Thanks Katerina! I totally agree with your take and with the traits you identify as being worth being picky about :) I also empathize with successful educated women who are seeking a partner with equivalent external success markers and agree that "it's probably hard for these women to achieve such a relationship, because men care less about those things, and therefore have a larger pool to choose from" - I talk about this in another post "The Desire to be Objectified" linked below:
https://open.substack.com/pub/reganarntzgray/p/the-desire-to-be-objectified?r=ipqw&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thanks for engaging with my post, Regan, I agree that spending time and money on your interests and passions makes one a far more attractive partner than someone who wastes her resources on feeble external appearance extras.
Great post. I find both the original article and your caveat very persuasive. I do think Stella T describes something real in London. A couple of years ago I casually told a close female friend I would find her someone because I thought it would be pushing against an open door (I'd never tried to find a man before). She's conventionally beautiful, intelligent and like you has lots of interests men love talking about. I soon discovered how difficult it was. The men I knew who were interested in commitment all seemed to be in relationships. I'd never realised before how uncommon it is for men in their 30s to be single. 29 herself, she was happy to date the men I know in their mid 20s, but those men seemed underwhelmed by her photographs in a way no man 5+ years older than her would be. When I told the men in their 20s and early 30s her age they would say dismissively, "She'll really be looking to settle down fast" in the kind of way they might say "She's moving to the other side of the world next week, anyway, so what's the point?". I didn't get her a single date.
So she was fishing in a genuinely shallow pool of single men at least a bit older than her. But at the same time, she wasn't open to dating men she was likely compatible with if she didn't feel chemistry the first time they met. This was clearly just socially dominant personalities who flirted with a pretty girl instantly. As you say, she was filtering out anyone who didn't have the kind of personality that makes single, promiscuous life for a man very enjoyable and being tied to one woman feel like a highly restrictive diet. She had a lot of sex with these men but no relationships. She dismissed one man I know because a photo made clear he wasn't broad enough in his shoulders. Last year she started dating a great guy she went to school with who is nothing like this and they're now married with a baby on the way and she's clearly never been happier. There are a million articles telling women never to 'settle', but I'm glad she relaxed those standards.
Thank you, Tom!
Your point about people coupling up and being removed from the market is a good one - this can make even a minor overall sex difference in a city quite meaningful on the relevant dating market. And the age gap stuff is difficult, as a 31 year old I probably wouldn’t initially consider dating younger guys if I were single because I *would* be looking to settle down quick lol.
“She dismissed one man I know because a photo made clear he wasn't broad enough in his shoulders.” - brutal! Glad she found a great guy :) I think some standards are worth keeping high, but the rest of them can be relaxed without much loss to you or your potential relationship quality. For me, as a tall woman, requiring that a guy be a lot taller than me is one that I think is worth relaxing, whereas someone I can have great conversations with is one where I’d keep the bar high.
I think a lot of people - male and female - struggle to believe that it's possible for love and chemistry and lust to grow for someone they feel meh about at first. They take it for granted that if they don't feel an initial spark with someone then they never will, and say no to second dates accordingly.
I am no naturally wise man about this myself, either. I only know better because I've found myself falling hard for women I initially saw little long-term potential with, but enjoyed the dating and sex enough to keep seeing her and then my feelings really started to change. I've heard it called the "repeat exposure effect". Logan Uri's phrase for this is "Fuck the spark".
"as a 31 year old I probably wouldn’t initially consider dating younger guys if I were single because I would be looking to settle down quick"
Based on my experience, I think that's right. What would be your upper age limit? I think women sometimes either fail to realise how much more attractive they are to a man 10 years older than to a man their age, or they wouldn't consider that much of an age gap unless they're from more traditional countries like Poland or Romania. So they are limited to men their age who mostly either don't want to settle down or already have.
My upper age limit would be mid-late 40s. I also have a lot of friends in their 40s so it wouldn’t feel out of place to date older given my social group. My actual boyfriend is my age, so not saying women have to date older, but I think it often makes a lot of sense and at least being open to it seems worth it!
Hi Regan good article. Found your substack when Richard Hanania posted about you on twitter. We are actually distant cousins. My Mom is first cousins with your Grandma Judy. Looking forward to reading more of you.
Thank you so much! And great to connect with you cuz
Totally agree with this! I’ve also never had this issue. I would even say that I tend to date men with highly legible either education or financial markers (or both) so I don’t even think it’s that per se. Its more like not selecting for traits like narcissism
Yes, same, good point. But I think some legible traits (like education or financial markers) are generally more relevant to the quality of your relationship and quality of your life than others, like physical characteristics. And I don't think it's a good idea to explicitly say to yourself "I will only date someone with X education and Y financial markers", because I think it could create an unnecessarily restrictive mindset (not that you're saying you do that).
True. I’m a very tall girl (178cm) and I’ve always dated guys not much taller than me or equal to my height. That means that in heels I’m taller than my bf atm! But it’s not something that bothers me and it would have been a horrendous mistake to filter him out based on this.
Same (not quite, I'm 170cm but Americans are shorter), same (generally dated not much taller), same (taller than my bf in heels), same (doesn't bother me) and same (would've been a horrendous mistake to filter)!
This is one of the very few areas where we homosexuals are simply saner about male appearance than straight women are. Somebody in a couple has to be taller! It really doesn't matter very much!
But I do feel like society is trying to make height a bigger deal than it it.
Sorry but this is much too sane and boringly correct to get much internet readership.
lol just saw this, thank you!
Two thoughts:
1) Being jacked doesn’t make men particularly less attractive to women the way, say, being fat does. It’s just that it doesn’t really move the needle.
2) For straight guys the appeal of a jacked body isn’t sexual. It’s that they find the implied power and violence of a jacked body very impressive. An irony being that a pro boxer or MMA fighter would kick the crap out of a pro bodybuilder.
""So I have to wonder… might she be filtering for precisely the type of traits that are not only not required for a productive and happy partnership but are also most common among the men who are the least likely to want to commit.""
I asked her (Stella) this myself in a comment on one of her columns. She insisted that all she wants is someone who can communicate with her at her level. I didn't respond but I think her answer is delusional. She lives in London for heavens sake. You mean to tell me that there are no man in London who can communicate on her level? Of course that's not the problem. The problem is, her ideal man has to be 6ft, earn 250,000 Euros and look like a model. Oh and be able to communicate on her level.
Yes, the unstated requirement zero. "[Of the men to whom I am attracted,] I want a man who is able to communicate on my level."
A very apt question at the end.
Marriage rates are falling across the board. Something must explain this trend. Either (1) people don't want to get married as much as they did in the past, or (2) people want to get married but find it more difficult to do so. I personally find it very puzzling: almost everyone wants a monogamous, lifelong relationship, but people aren't entering them.
The funny thing is that my partner probably hits almost all of the items on that Twitter list. (My requirement was "doesn't like NYC" and we live well away, thank goodness.) He didn't take up running til 9 years in, though. Requiring your partner to be in the top 8% of earners in the country is excessive, but wanting someone with an appealing personality and an appreciation for good health is not. (One guy I dated died of a heart attack 5 years later. I was not surprised.) And everyone's idea of adorably quirky is different.
"One of the reasons I’ve always felt relatively confident that I’d be able to find another relationship if the one I was in failed is that many of my interests are more common among men than among women. This gives me a big advantage in that I’ve naturally found myself in male-dominated social situations that I actually enjoy. NYCs bad sex ratio is completely irrelevant to me because the circles I socialize in are 75% male!"
So how does this work if you are a human female who isn't genuinely interested in stuff that dudes are into? Fake it until you make it?
Of course other traits are more important, but everyone, male and female both, feels good when a good-looking partner is on their arm.
Stella T has responded in a new post. What do you think? She says: "Ok, I am being flippant here, but I needed to illustrate the rediculusness of some of these people, including those who suggest I should move to rural US. Like this response to my piece by Regan Arntz-Gray. I think Regan is perfectly right about her observations of her friend in non-urban US settings and about the unrealistic high standards some urban women harbor (I see that too in women who have more materialist values than myself) BUT her piece and a lot of others drip contempt for women who are, well, pretty fucking above average. Succesful, hot, glamorous, smart, funny, 10/10 and looking for a MAN what of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!11! And guess what, they also want to live in the big FUCKING apple, because they only live once and they were raised on SATC and you know what; Good. For. Them. Don’t overcorrect. There was cringe in Girl Boss Feminism. There was also truth and power."
I saw her post - I wrote a note in response linked below. I was quite surprised by her characterization of this piece. Perhaps I didn't communicate as clearly as I thought or perhaps her criticism was more generally directed to other people's posts in addition to mine. But I certainly don't have contempt for successful women or think Stella should move to the countryside to find a man. I don't think she attempted a convincing or logical rebuttal of anything I said here, in fact she seems to largely agree with me, as she says "I see that too in women who have more materialist values than myself".
https://substack.com/@reganarntzgray/note/c-50795345?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=ipqw
Thanks for the link! I agree with your take, especially "I was quite surprised by her characterization of this piece... I don't think she attempted a convincing or logical rebuttal of anything I said here".
I took what you said as a musing and a question: if she keeps dating men who want to fuck her but not love her, is it because she's pursuing men with "precisely the type of traits that are not only not required for a productive and happy partnership but are also most common among the men who are the least likely to want to commit"? There are at least two answers to that, but I don't think responding that she and the women she writes about are "Succesful, hot, glamorous, smart, funny, 10/10" answers it at all. And where is the contempt in asking that question?
Thanks, Tom, I totally agree!
I think you could reverse the sexes throughout these pieces. A male equivalent would be something like: "I am going through a real dry spell. All the women I really want casual sex with want tangible evidence of commitment before sleeping with me. I want them to fuck me quickly, but they first want me to love them!". (It goes without saying that the man's neediness is for something much shallower than Stella's in this scenario but let's be realistic about that sex difference).
One could ask that man: "Are you pursuing women with precisely the kind of attractive traits that makes it easy for those women to find the loving relationships they want? The ones who are not on the market for casual sex? They're not any more interested in loveless sex than you are in a committed relationship with them?" He could say absolutely that he isn't actually going for the busty blondes 10 years his junior. Or he could say he is and he doesn't get why he's struggling to bed them. But if he just said "I think this question shows contempt for me and my status as a 10/10" it wouldn't be convincing?
Yes, exactly!
I've posted something similar to the above in the comments to her article.
It's a numbers game, and in world cities like NY and London the numbers are stacked against educated women. It's not like the demographic research is hard to do these days. No-one is unique: turn off your feelings for a while, and look at the numbers. Then consider the incentives for representatives of the various groups. That should be the default mode for anyone working in politics, like Stella, but sadly it still isn't.