Where did all the good men go in the UK?

[DadAManger]

I am asking this for a friend - really!

I hear over and over now from my single friends over 30 that there is a massive shortfall in good quality men in the UK?

Do MN users and readers agree? What are your own experiences? Many happily married women on here I'm sure, so what's your view?

One thing I do notice myself - but don't necessarily share with my single friends (I like them) - is that a lot of them seem to have long lists of "must-have/must-be" points for a guy to be up to standard for them?

When I was dating I didn't find it very hard to find nice men but that was at that life stage - post children for both of us. One of my daughters married last month. She and her husband met at work.

I jhink it's reasonable that people want someone of a similar level of looks, IQ, education, assets and income - that's just parity and similarity and is what most traditional matchmakers would seek anyway. I was 21 when I got married. He was 27.

[quote coronaway]@Gymsmile21 do men have the will of impetus to change though? Isn't that the worry? Maybe it's just the circles I run around in but from my social circle it's the women who tend to be very keen on relationships and the men less so. Maybe men just talk about it less than women.[/quote]
This wasn't at all my experience when I was single (which is admittedly a while ago now) -- when I made it politely clear I was only after something casual, especially if I'd slept with the person, he often got quite arsy and /or wounded and I had the impression I was wrecking his script, which was that he was all free, single hound dog about town, having to beat off clingy women who wanted to settle down and pick out prams with him the second he got their bra off.

Is what men and women find attractive in a partner symmetrical though? And if not why not?
You often see a rich unattractive man with a beautiful woman. I guess it’s an evolutionary thing. Everyone likes good looks but I don’t think it’s as important to women.

I don’t think ‘evolution’ has anything to do with it. The beautiful women you mention have been socialised in the idea that exchanging the ‘capital’ of their youth and beauty for the wealth and prestige of a powerful man is normal — theirs is a time-sensitive asset, his isn’t. They are ‘buying’ access to one another.

@Donitta

Is what men and women find attractive in a partner symmetrical though? And if not why not? You often see a rich unattractive man with a beautiful woman. I guess it’s an evolutionary thing. Everyone likes good looks but I don’t think it’s as important to women.

So to follow on from your previous post it's not that the men aren't attractive enough to get the women they desire but rather they're not rich enough?

@Donitta

But if we accept this stance, it kind of undermines the assertion that these hypothetical men are being unreasonable in wanting that. Because if women want the male equivalent, then what’s the fuss? Well I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want someone you find attractive, whether that’s looks or money or whatever. What’s unreasonable is to complain when you can’t get what you want, because what you want is way out of your league. If you’re unattractive then you aren’t going to have the option to date the most attractive members of the opposite sex.

Which I suppose brings us back to what prompted this thread. Many women will want a “hot” (personally I’ve been told being over 6ft and physique counts as much for this as good looks for women) or rich man but if they’re not in these guy’s league they should accept they need to compromise - regardless of whether they deem these essential in terms of finding someone attractive or not.

@Donitta

Is what men and women find attractive in a partner symmetrical though? And if not why not? You often see a rich unattractive man with a beautiful woman. I guess it’s an evolutionary thing. Everyone likes good looks but I don’t think it’s as important to women.

This makes me wonder if you have seen any rich men in RL or what your definition of beauty is. Many of the parents who send their kids to my nursery are rich or rich and famous but apart from being well dressed, and well groomed (and in vaguely decent shape) I wouldn’t call any of their partners beautiful. Most of them aren’t even distinguisably young compared to the rich / famous partner.

One of my friends comes from a rich family and did say rich men are more likely to chose rich women their own age - I didn’t believe her until I started working here.

I think they forgot the bit where these same family men are probably having an affair with a younger women on the side - happens all the time. The wife is for appearances and to help look after the family unit.

"Is what men and women find attractive in a partner symmetrical though? And if not why not?

This is something I was only really made aware of when I hit my kid 30s."

I'm quite surprised at some of these comments that appear on MN from time to time. I have very little dating experience, but watched a lot of TV growing up so this has always been obvious to me!
The reasons why have already been given.
Some people say evolutionary biology, others will say it's do with men and women's status in society. If women were the richest and most powerful, would young men then compete for ugly, fat but high status older women?

"I jhink it's reasonable that people want someone of a similar level of looks, IQ, education, assets and income - that's just parity and similarity and is what most traditional matchmakers would seek anyway. I was 21 when I got married. He was 27."

Traditional matchmakers went on the class background of the parents, not of the young people themselves, although nowadays they may go on their potential earning capacity. This is apparently how semi-arranged marriages work in India where parents try to introduce their children to someone who is significantly 'successful' for them. What a sad way of looking at the world.

"Many of the parents who send their kids to my nursery are rich or rich and famous but apart from being well dressed, and well groomed (and in vaguely decent shape) I wouldn’t call any of their partners beautiful. "

Is this for the first or second marriage though?

So to follow on from your previous post it's not that the men aren't attractive enough to get the women they desire but rather they're not rich enough?
Haven’t you ever seen rich older men with dolly birds on their arms? Or noticed that the second wife tends to be prettier? Men can get women by being attractive but they can also get women by being rich or powerful.

Many women will want a “hot” or rich man but if they’re not in these guy’s league they should accept they need to compromise
Ditto for men. “Incels” complain they can’t get women but invariably they’re men who aren’t good looking or rich and they exclusively want slim attractive women who are out of their league. They could probably get a less attractive woman no problem.

Which I suppose brings us back to what prompted this thread
There are lots of “nice guys”. They tend to be the guys you don’t want to go out with because they’re not handsome, confident, well off.

Many women will want a “hot” or rich man but if they’re not in these guy’s league they should accept they need to compromise

Ditto for men. “Incels” complain they can’t get women but invariably they’re men who aren’t good looking or rich and they exclusively want slim attractive women who are out of their league. They could probably get a less attractive woman no problem.

Well... not if the women are behaving like the incels as well, no. Which is the question this thread was asking: are women lowering their chances of being someone by having unrealstic expectations - ie. what you would term rejecting men more in their "league".

There are lots of “nice guys”. They tend to be the guys you don’t want to go out with because they’re not handsome, confident, well off.

Am I right in thinking you feel suitably "hot" yourself in the eyes of men, that you can have the luxury to make that choice?

"There are lots of “nice guys”. They tend to be the guys you don’t want to go out with because they’re not handsome, confident, well off."

We're getting somewhere here.

Am I right in thinking you feel suitably "hot" yourself in the eyes of men, that you can have the luxury to make that choice?
When I was younger, yes. 20 years ago I had my pick of men. Then I aged and had kids which ruined my body. I’m under no illusions about being able to attract the same quality of man now. I’m invisible. My desirability has declined while DH’s has skyrocketed because he’s quadrupled his salary. If we met now he certainly wouldn’t date me.

So the takeaway is we either date someone we're not attracted to or stay single? Great.

@coronaway

So the takeaway is we either date someone we're not attracted to or stay single? Great.

That's kinda what I'm taking away from this... I just can't have a relationship with someone I'm not attracted to :(

@Miasicarisatia

Men haven’t changed I agree many relationship survived in the past because women didn't have a better alternative, now that they do they have less incentive to stay in a relationship where they are being exploited. Men no longer have the leverage that they used to but are reluctant to accept this, understandable! no one cedes power willingly

Men clearly had all the power in the past, but for many reasons given in this thread it isn't clear that they behaved worse in relationships then than now.

Years back I read a Guardian article about it - can't find it online, but the point it made was that the key attribute people looked for in a life partner was "beneficence", ie, kindliness, reliability before all else, any this was true for both men and women. There was less emphasis on connection and hotness or finding a soulmate (after all, friends could help there). Sexual attractiveness was way less important, good sex way down the list. It was a much more dull and functional approach, if I were to boil it down to one word, and it was family orientated rather than self-orientated.

Also, thinking about my DGPs marriages, and my DW's DGP's marriages, theirs were spoiled by WW2 and the trauma the husbands (who were all in actual combat) brought back home.

@coronaway

So the takeaway is we either date someone we're not attracted to or stay single? Great.

Perhaps, but also that there are good men and you may need to compromise to find one. So perhaps the OPs title question isn't entirely accurate.

As an aside my Dad found a new partner at 50. They've been together for the past 15 years. But from the outside I have no idea how or why he puts up with her. She has a difficult relationship with her eldest and isolates my Dad from his own friends and family. She very much controls him. Given they don't have kids together I struggle to understand why he's with her as she's quite toxic. If this is what it takes to find someone in later life I'd much rather be single. I understand coming onto a female board you have to.accept the failings of men are going to be primarily examined but I think a bit more introspection would probably also help.

Years back I read a Guardian article about it - can't find it online, but the point it made was that the key attribute people looked for in a life partner was "beneficence", ie, kindliness, reliability before all else, any this was true for both men and women. There was less emphasis on connection and hotness or finding a soulmate (after all, friends could help there). Sexual attractiveness was way less important, good sex way down the list. It was a much more dull and functional approach, if I were to boil it down to one word, and it was family orientated rather than self-orientated.

And this is what I think online dating has massively affected - and not for the good. A combination of not being able to see anything other than physical attributes plus, as I mentioned before, the fact that most men take awful photos! I got along great with a friend of a friend at the weekend and we ended up kissing - but his profile photo is one I'd probably not swipe yes on. It can't be reduced to purely physical attraction as many TV shows have proved time and again. But online dating, or perhaps tinder the most, does reduce it to purely that. Which gives an unfair advantage to the less classically attractive probably and allows open season for the cocky w*nkers.

So what is the answer?!

@Oreo01 interestingly my dad remarried a very similar sounding woman! But he also believes that being in any relationship is better than being alone, and hence really struggles when I end relationships for very valid reasons (other than abuse/cheating). Maybe it is tolerance levels which have changed for many people?

I think one thing is a lot of older men really don’t age well and hence a lot of women in their 40s and 50s actually find it hard to be attracted to men their own age and older- whereas I feel there are far more women of that age who still look great . Older men though tend to try and get younger girlfriends as I feel having read many threads on here a lot of younger women seem more prepared to put up with shit, pander to demands etc, especially if the guy is well off or even comfortably off

[quote Misty9]@Oreo01 interestingly my dad remarried a very similar sounding woman! But he also believes that being in any relationship is better than being alone, and hence really struggles when I end relationships for very valid reasons (other than abuse/cheating). Maybe it is tolerance levels which have changed for many people?[/quote]
I think with my Dad he didn't like the idea of being alone. When my parents separated it was more his fault and he accepts this, although he gets on well with my Mom to this day. I kind of think yeah you got things wrong Dad but not this...

Yeah I think there is a tolerance issue. Maybe my Dad's experience is making me a bit avoidant in terms of not wanting to go down that route. Although I've also swore to myself if something doesn't feel right then move on and perhaps thats some of it as I had a 12 year relationship and I suppose looking back there was a lot of compromise I just wouldn't make now. Maybe I'll feel different in time but I kind of feel I'd only really want companionship and not necessarily the whole full blown warts and all relationship.

Like has been mentioned on this thread it seems some do fall into a new relationship whereas others simply don't or perhaps bumble a long a bit on the periphery, which is kind of where I am. I do genuinely think I could commit but am becoming increasingly sceptical it will happen.

@Misty9

Years back I read a Guardian article about it - can't find it online, but the point it made was that the key attribute people looked for in a life partner was "beneficence", ie, kindliness, reliability before all else, any this was true for both men and women. There was less emphasis on connection and hotness or finding a soulmate (after all, friends could help there). Sexual attractiveness was way less important, good sex way down the list. It was a much more dull and functional approach, if I were to boil it down to one word, and it was family orientated rather than self-orientated.

And this is what I think online dating has massively affected - and not for the good. A combination of not being able to see anything other than physical attributes plus, as I mentioned before, the fact that most men take awful photos! I got along great with a friend of a friend at the weekend and we ended up kissing - but his profile photo is one I'd probably not swipe yes on. It can't be reduced to purely physical attraction as many TV shows have proved time and again. But online dating, or perhaps tinder the most, does reduce it to purely that. Which gives an unfair advantage to the less classically attractive probably and allows open season for the cocky w*nkers.

So what is the answer?!

Tinder started in about 2012 right. So a recent phenomenon. Maybe it and it's counterparts will change/ develop into something that addresses some of this as typically the market corrects itself right. Although no sign so far....

@Misty9

Years back I read a Guardian article about it - can't find it online, but the point it made was that the key attribute people looked for in a life partner was "beneficence", ie, kindliness, reliability before all else, any this was true for both men and women. There was less emphasis on connection and hotness or finding a soulmate (after all, friends could help there). Sexual attractiveness was way less important, good sex way down the list. It was a much more dull and functional approach, if I were to boil it down to one word, and it was family orientated rather than self-orientated.

And this is what I think online dating has massively affected - and not for the good. A combination of not being able to see anything other than physical attributes plus, as I mentioned before, the fact that most men take awful photos! I got along great with a friend of a friend at the weekend and we ended up kissing - but his profile photo is one I'd probably not swipe yes on. It can't be reduced to purely physical attraction as many TV shows have proved time and again. But online dating, or perhaps tinder the most, does reduce it to purely that. Which gives an unfair advantage to the less classically attractive probably and allows open season for the cocky w*nkers.

So what is the answer?!

I wish the people on that ch4 first dates show could set me up with someone. I always think they set people up really well. I would hate to be on TV though.