Not someone for everyone
jenbit
Posts: 4,252 Member
Saw this on another site and thought it was interesting to bring in here and see what other peoples thoughts are ....
There is No Longer Someone for Everyone
One of the common myths about dating is that there's a soulmate out there for everyone. Dating services have made millions promoting the idea that your perfect partner is out there, you just need to try harder to find them. This seems to make sense since there are an equal number of men and women. The reality is that in promiscuous culture, a small percentage of men can monopolize sex with a majority of women. When this happens, the matching up process does not occur, and singles end up floating indefinitely around the dating pool.
The Attractiveness Hierarchy
In the monogamous marriage system of the past, the majority of men and women found mates and got married. In that system, singles knew roughly where they were ranked in overall attractiveness and married a mate of roughly equal rank as soon as they could, usually by their early 20's. There were strong economic and sexual pressures to marry early, and this motivated singles to quickly find a mate of roughly equivalent attractiveness rather than wait for their "perfect soulmate." In the monogamous system, if one waited too long, the pool of eligible mates shrank, and it became more difficult to find a quality partner. (See The Pill and the Decline of Dating and Marriage).
In today's society, birth control removes the incentive for singles to settle into their place in the attractiveness hierarchy. Because women freed from birth control can have sex without marriage, they can engage in temporary physical relationships that have no marriage potential while they wait and hope for Mr. Right. These strings of temporary relationships help women meet their short-term emotional needs but delay them from pursuing serious marriage partners. Men have a greater evolved desire for unfettered sex, and generally prefer more sex partners rather than a commitment to marriage and raising children. Because women are willing to have premarital sex, the attractive men who have ready access to many new sex partners have little incentive to pursue marriage at all. They generally prefer to circulate among women rather than settling down.
(Note: Robert Trivers' 1972 parental investment theory proposed that men's stronger sex drive and stronger desire for variety in their partners is the result of a basic biological difference between the sexes. In order to procreate, men need only invest the few minutes to have sex, while women must invest at least nine months of pregnancy to bear the child. From a biological standpoint, sperm is cheap and easy to produce, while wombs are much, much more valuable. Women possess the more valuable reproductive resource, so sex and pregnancy imply a much greater investment on the part of women.
A result of this investment differential was that before the invention of contraception, sex improved the reproductive potential of man much more than it did a woman. When a man had sex with more women, he could have more children. One prolific example, Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty, fathered 888 children out of a harem of 500 women. A woman, on the other hand, can have only one child per nine months no matter how many men she has sex with. Because of this differential, over the course of evolution, women became pickier about the quality of their sex partners while men became the more sexually aggressive and less choosy gender.)
There is No Longer Someone for Everyone
One of the common myths about dating is that there's a soulmate out there for everyone. Dating services have made millions promoting the idea that your perfect partner is out there, you just need to try harder to find them. This seems to make sense since there are an equal number of men and women. The reality is that in promiscuous culture, a small percentage of men can monopolize sex with a majority of women. When this happens, the matching up process does not occur, and singles end up floating indefinitely around the dating pool.
The Attractiveness Hierarchy
In the monogamous marriage system of the past, the majority of men and women found mates and got married. In that system, singles knew roughly where they were ranked in overall attractiveness and married a mate of roughly equal rank as soon as they could, usually by their early 20's. There were strong economic and sexual pressures to marry early, and this motivated singles to quickly find a mate of roughly equivalent attractiveness rather than wait for their "perfect soulmate." In the monogamous system, if one waited too long, the pool of eligible mates shrank, and it became more difficult to find a quality partner. (See The Pill and the Decline of Dating and Marriage).
In today's society, birth control removes the incentive for singles to settle into their place in the attractiveness hierarchy. Because women freed from birth control can have sex without marriage, they can engage in temporary physical relationships that have no marriage potential while they wait and hope for Mr. Right. These strings of temporary relationships help women meet their short-term emotional needs but delay them from pursuing serious marriage partners. Men have a greater evolved desire for unfettered sex, and generally prefer more sex partners rather than a commitment to marriage and raising children. Because women are willing to have premarital sex, the attractive men who have ready access to many new sex partners have little incentive to pursue marriage at all. They generally prefer to circulate among women rather than settling down.
(Note: Robert Trivers' 1972 parental investment theory proposed that men's stronger sex drive and stronger desire for variety in their partners is the result of a basic biological difference between the sexes. In order to procreate, men need only invest the few minutes to have sex, while women must invest at least nine months of pregnancy to bear the child. From a biological standpoint, sperm is cheap and easy to produce, while wombs are much, much more valuable. Women possess the more valuable reproductive resource, so sex and pregnancy imply a much greater investment on the part of women.
A result of this investment differential was that before the invention of contraception, sex improved the reproductive potential of man much more than it did a woman. When a man had sex with more women, he could have more children. One prolific example, Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty, fathered 888 children out of a harem of 500 women. A woman, on the other hand, can have only one child per nine months no matter how many men she has sex with. Because of this differential, over the course of evolution, women became pickier about the quality of their sex partners while men became the more sexually aggressive and less choosy gender.)
0
Replies
-
I don't need a soulmate. I already have two non romantic soulmates. My dog and my best friend.
I just need someone that I like and has good sex.
The science makes sense to me though.0 -
I don't need a soulmate. I already have two non romantic soulmates. My dog and my best friend.
I just need someone that I like and has good sex.
The science makes sense to me though.
lol my thought was who says I'm looking for a soul mate... Of course according to this its men who loose out on getting some not women0 -
I was totally born in the wrong era...don't get me wrong many days I like my freedom and I think early 20s a little early to get married, but my ideals are more suited for a earlier time. I wish dating wasn't so difficult and complicated. I'm not asking for a guy to come "whisk" me away and take care of me, but I just want a relationship (most days lol), but one of the major problems is the promiscuity of today, in my opinion. Why would a guy (who most men will agree is motivated by thoughts of sex) bother asking a girl on a date, buying her a meal, taking her out on more dates, promising exclusivity (and then maybe have sex or maybr wait for marriage) then proposing and planning a wedding and then only getting sex when he can meet several girls and have NSA sex where he doesn't even have to buy them a drink??
I don't blame any guy, of course the majority of them would choose the girl willing to have NSA sex but it kinda sucks for the girls who want to wait for commitment. Where do you find these men (and for someone non-church going like me this is difficult)? I have a feeling I won't, I may very well end up as a confirmed bachelorette lol
Birth control is awesome for many, many reasons but I do agree that it may have contributed to the downfall of traditional dating.0 -
I still think there is someone for everyone.
I'm eternally grateful for birth control and the liberation of sexual suppression. For thousands of years women couldnt enjoy sex for fear of pregnancy. Now there is a choice.
For every guy getting NSA sex, there is a woman giving it to him, And enjoying it!
Sex will never replace relationships. There may be a need for NSA sex for a while in everybody's life, but by all accounts people still need love and companionship. I think this article is confusing the very nature of humans and their need to love and be loved. Sex on its own will never fulfil that need.0 -
I don't believe in soul mates. I believe that any two people who really want to can make something work, and that the trick is to choose someone that you are compatible enough with to minimize the amount of effort it takes to make each other happy (and maximize the fun!!).
I also don't believe that there is someone for everyone. I think that some people are so set in their ways and exude so much negativity that no one has time, energy, or desire to put up with them. I just hope I don't turn into one of those when I get older.0 -
There never was someone for everyone. War and childbirth related death has always caused there to be some sort of discrepancy.
Either way, I'm sick of the American Marry-Go-Round. Makes me emotion sick just thinking about it. I have decided I do want to get married sometime in the next couple of years, but like everything else, I figure my chances of that are much better outside the US given my political stance alone.0 -
I like this. I think this is how it is, fundamentally.I don't believe in soul mates. I believe that any two people who really want to can make something work, and that the trick is to choose someone that you are compatible enough with to minimize the amount of effort it takes to make each other happy (and maximize the fun!!).
I also don't believe that there is someone for everyone. I think that some people are so set in their ways and exude so much negativity that no one has time, energy, or desire to put up with them. I just hope I don't turn into one of those when I get older.
I agree with the article for the most part. Reading the following part, it doesn't seem to be a problem for women though...
The reality is that in promiscuous culture, a small percentage of men can monopolize sex with a majority of women. When this happens, the matching up process does not occur, and singles end up floating indefinitely around the dating pool.
Overall, I'd rather have more time to chose, as I don't think any optimal choice can be made out of necessity.
Now, on the other hand, I think some people are abusing this choice and freedom and will act like Buridan's *kitten* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_*kitten*).0 -
Hmm.. personally I think the message of this article is BS (the science may be sound) as it sounds like a conservative attempt to blame human/female sexuality for the demise of society and the breakdown of the institution of marriage.
Historically, people settled for a partner based on the idea of good enough in terms of equal rankings of attractiveness, suitability, economics and societal norms. Happiness in itself, was much less of a consideration than today, and it was based on accepting and being grateful with what you had...simply put, expectations were way, way lower..particularly for women.
Additionally, there has always been a subset of the population (a suggested 10% minimum) that does not marry.
Do I personally believe in soulmates? Not for myself. I can be happy in many situations and with many people. When it comes to that make or break moment...I have to decide whether to work harder for the relationship, or if I would be happier on my own or potentially with someone else. I am grateful that being financially independent and liberal sexually allows me this choice. I don't have to be unhappy or settle if I don't want to. That is very much a factor in the breakdown of marriage today...yes. But is valuing yourself and your happiness over the need to be tied to someone else "just because" a bad thing?
I just woke up. Many holes in above argument. lol0 -
I personally do not completely agree with the article just thought it would be interesting for the group to discuss...
I do not believe in soul mates, thats romance movies crap lol....I do beleive you can fall in love and have happiness with work and dedication to someone0 -
I never bought the Soul mate deal... with all the people in the world it would be nearly impossible to find them. I think love builds and sometimes it last and others it doesn't. Look for chemistry instead of the white knight and you increase your pool and chances. And chemistry doesn't mean you both like Aerosmith or she has big tits or whatever. I've found chemistry with a variety of people from all sorts of differing factors.0
-
Historically, people settled for a partner based on the idea of good enough in terms of equal rankings of attractiveness, suitability, economics and societal norms. Happiness in itself, was much less of a consideration than today, and it was based on accepting and being grateful with what you had...simply put, expectations were way, way lower..particularly for women.
I agree with everything I deleted and wanted to add on to this part of your answer. In the past peoples dating pool was restricted to basically their hometown or state at best... it's a lot easier to make a decision for dinner when there are two restaurants in town. On top of that the world has changed so much... I think we've just moved beyond the soul mate bit, it actually seems silly to believe in it beyond fantasy.0 -
Historically, people settled for a partner based on the idea of good enough in terms of equal rankings of attractiveness, suitability, economics and societal norms. Happiness in itself, was much less of a consideration than today, and it was based on accepting and being grateful with what you had...simply put, expectations were way, way lower..particularly for women.
I agree with everything I deleted and wanted to add on to this part of your answer. In the past peoples dating pool was restricted to basically their hometown or state at best... it's a lot easier to make a decision for dinner when there are two restaurants in town. On top of that the world has changed so much... I think we've just moved beyond the soul mate bit, it actually seems silly to believe in it beyond fantasy.
But to argue...is it realistic to "date" someone many miles away? This dating guru told me once online dating with someone more than two hours away is unrealistic and I tend to agree.0 -
Historically, people settled for a partner based on the idea of good enough in terms of equal rankings of attractiveness, suitability, economics and societal norms. Happiness in itself, was much less of a consideration than today, and it was based on accepting and being grateful with what you had...simply put, expectations were way, way lower..particularly for women.
I agree with everything I deleted and wanted to add on to this part of your answer. In the past peoples dating pool was restricted to basically their hometown or state at best... it's a lot easier to make a decision for dinner when there are two restaurants in town. On top of that the world has changed so much... I think we've just moved beyond the soul mate bit, it actually seems silly to believe in it beyond fantasy.
But to argue...is it realistic to "date" someone many miles away? This dating guru told me once online dating with someone more than two hours away is unrealistic and I tend to agree.
I agree with you... but you know people still try.0 -
I believe in "soulmates" but I think once again I have a different perspective on what that is than a majority of you do - I say my dog is my soulmate, and my best friend is another soulmate. It's not a romantic thing, it's that they're a huge, giant part of my life and a piece of me will always be missing if/when they are no longer a part of it. That isn't to say I would be miserable for the rest of my life, I'll find other people/things/ways to get on in life that might even be better as time goes on. But for now these two creatures make my life as perfect as it can be at this juncture.0
-
The more I think about this the more I realize we women are just being unfair to the men. We need to sleep around more while we're dating and not allow ourselves to be monopolized like that.0
-
There's someone for everyone, unfortunately not everyone believes it enough to be patient. Then their awesome counterpart finally shows up and finds out they took too long and are now doomed to be with someone subpar forever.0
-
'nearly impossible' is what makes something invaluable to me. priceless. perfect.
just like overcoming obstacles in your job, in your home life, with your parents, on the track, on the bench, in the squat rack, against your past, changing your path for your future, making tough decisions, all of these things can reach a level that is nearly impossible to achieve.
for me - 'nearly impossible' is the only thing hard enough to deserve my whole hearted effort. And if 'nearly impossible' is referring to a situation with love... whole hearted effort is the only way to go.0 -
Nah.
The soulmate mentality is overrated.
I want a best friend (and I mean BEST FRIEND, not just a close friend) connection with hot sex in the mix.
Perfect.0 -
I believe everyone has multiple soulmates out there, male and female, and that timing is a b*tch.
My interpretation of a soulmate is someone that "gets" you. They understand your inner workings, accept you as you are and love you for who you are. It could be in a love as a friendship/family love, or as a longterm spousal/partner love.
I moved away from my family almost 16 years ago and since then I've made so many lasting friendships and created new family bonds. My "real" family is still family of course, but these other friends are closer than any other friends I've ever known and they truly get me.
I've also been luck to have fallen in love more than once. I was married, that was a mistake. He was my best friend and had we not married, he'd probably be my best friend still today. Since then, I've fallen in love a few more times. I don't give my heart away easily and I don't give it away unless I can imagine myself with that man for the rest of my life. I've learned since my divorce that love takes more than just "feeling" in love. It takes work and it takes commitment. You have to accept the good and the bad and be ready to work through it. With each of the men I fell in love with, I knew that we had all of the fundamentals to make it through life together, IF we could make it through the challenges together. And, that is the big IF in love. The challenges. I've found that a lot of people want quick fixes now...we are so ingrained with instant gratification that when life throws us for a loop, we have to fix it now or throw it away. So, for me love is more about finding your best friend, the one that wants to go through the adventure, who will take you as you are, good, bad, everything, and will still be there in the end.0 -
I don't need a soulmate. I already have two non romantic soulmates. My dog and my best friend.
I just need someone that I like and has good sex.
The science makes sense to me though.
This is the best thing I've heard in a long time.
I just wish my best friend was the one who brought me the good sex. Just sayin' ;-) 0
