Originally Posted by Pennglock
There is some serious wisdom in this post. In NYC you cannot get away from the consequences of this attitude. A certain kind of woman who spends her 20s "hooking up," never giving serious consideration of settling down because her group of friends are doing the same thing. They have to experience life! Why would they think of getting married in their 20s? By experience life of course I mean blowing their disposable income on clothes, dining out, and clubbing, little else...
All the while these woman do not realize that the successful men who are true catches are going women in their 20s. What man who has any aspirations of starting a family wants some drying-up 30-something?
I can't think of a much worse spot than being a woman in her mid-30s looking for love. The point being that women would often be better off settling for the best thing they can get while still young enough instead of trying to live out a Sex in the City fantasy. The time for girls to fool around is in their teens and college... after that you'd better be looking for a man and forget this liberated modern woman-of-the-city attitude.
The other side of this coin is the Big-Kid Now man and his girlfriend, the Ring Chaser.
Big Kid Now (or, perhaps, Perma-Adolescent Man) is at least 25, but might be in his early 30s. He is middle class, college educated with a white or pink collar job, still plays a lot of video games, wears faux-retro t-shirts, doesn't own a decent suit (forget real leather shoes), and watches Cartoon Network. He doesn't want to grow up and is a Perma-Teenager, buying all the cool toys that he wanted 10 years ago. He's been dating his girlfriend for at least 4 years, but maybe 6 or 7 or more. There is a good chance they met in college. She wants to get married now, very badly. They are already practically 'settled down'.
What she doesn't realize is that he's a man and relatively happy: he gets to buy all the toys he wants, and he gets steady nookie and has a semi-domestic girlfriend. So he basically has no incentive to marry and there is no social stigma against them cohabitating; he getting lots of extra-marital nookie, and then can trade down in a few years. Under the old-social norms, there was social stigma against a man who deprived a woman of her prime family-formation years, and then jetted. And if they were married early, there would be divorce and a seperation of property. In the new post-feminist, Sex In The City era, there's no divorce, she doesn't get half his stuff, and he can trade down to a younger model when she gets lines around her eyes
It's all upside for the upwardly mobile dude, who's likely to age more gracefully and move into higher earning brackets (and thus become equally or more desirable to women).
She doesn't realize it, but she's wasting her prime family-formation or mate-attracting years on him. She either needs to crap or get off the pot (or, as we say, fish or cut bait). But by the time Ring-Chaser finally realizes he never intended to marry her, her upper arms are flabby, she has lines around her eyes, and unless she's a real catch
, then there are hundreds more just like her, but 5 years younger and 15 lbs lighter.
At least, this is my theory developed at 2 am over a few beers with a buddy. Feminists, who pushed for the changes that enabled this, in 5 or 10 years will find a way to blame men for it