Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums
Schulich2019

Admitted but never kissed a girl

Recommended Posts

This "debate" doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but here's my two cents to add to the discussion.

Many women spend a lot of time (and sometimes money) trying to really look good for the camera.  What you see is often the result of conscious/dedicated effort to present themselves in an appealing way: models takes this to the extreme.  Many guys assume that if they simply take a half-ass photo and they don't look like Hollywood material, then they're not up to the mark.

So this "absolute" beauty standard doesn't go that far - how many tabloid/paparazzi photos have you seen of female models/actors without makeup, not looking like anything special at all?  

That's the point - even if attractive, there's a lot of effort put into themselves portraying themselves in the best way possible.  This should be a lesson that some could learn from - yes it helps if you go to the gym regularly, but even still good clothes, smile, looking confident and showing that you have a life/interests will impress woman a lot more than being male model material, but some kind of weird recluse.  

Honestly, just adding a smile and being socially engaged ups someone's attractiveness by a lot.  Which is the point that has been made repeatedly - an average looking-guy, with a good attitude, smile, career, interests, style, etc.. can do well - yeah maybe not supermodels unless he's some sort of VC or the like, but probably much better than a guy who may be objectively more attractive, but doesn't have much else going for him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tere said:

This "debate" doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but here's my two cents to add to the discussion.

Many women spend a lot of time (and sometimes money) trying to really look good for the camera.  What you see is often the result of conscious/dedicated effort to present themselves in an appealing way: models takes this to the extreme.  Many guys assume that if they simply take a half-ass photo and they don't look like Hollywood material, then they're not up to the mark.

So this "absolute" beauty standard doesn't go that far - how many tabloid/paparazzi photos have you seen of female models/actors without makeup, not looking like anything special at all?  

 That's the point - even if attractive, there's a lot of effort put into themselves portraying themselves in the best way possible.  This should be a lesson that some could learn from - yes it helps if you go to the gym regularly, but even still good clothes, smile, looking confident and showing that you have a life/interests will impress woman a lot more than being male model material, but some kind of weird recluse.  

Honestly, just adding a smile and being socially engaged ups someone's attractiveness by a lot.  Which is the point that has been made repeatedly - an average looking-guy, with a good attitude, smile, career, interests, style, etc.. can do well - yeah maybe not supermodel material unless he's some sort of VC or the like, but probably much better than a guy who may be objectively more attractive, but doesn't have much else going for him.  

  

 

 

No one was bringing up extreme examples of super models. The discussion was about attractive women in general. A below average/ average looking guy will not get an attractive woman. period. Save your anecdotal experiences or examples where an attractive women "settled" with an average guy. It's hilarious that you think that with a smile and a sense of style a below average / average looking guy can do much better than an objectively better looking guy lol. An 8/10 guy dressed in a garbage bag with a scowl looks infinitely better than a 5/10 guy in a tailored suit and the best smile in the world in the eyes of women.  I really feel like this is going in circles, some people would do anything to let themselves believe that they have a chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire forum is so toxic. Why are you debating about "how high" a guy can pull, women are not prizes or possessions to bestow. Entering a relationship as a status symbol is narcissistic and vapid. Nobody cares about who you are dating, you need to be looking for someone who YOU find attractive as a combination of personality, goals, aspirations, views and perceptions, and very minimally looks. Seeing the interactions on this specific form has solidified all of the stereotypes of medicine being compiled of entitled, apathetic, douchebag bros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, YesIcan55 said:

No one was bringing up extreme examples of super models. The discussion was about attractive women in general. A below average/ average looking guy will not get an attractive woman. period. Save your anecdotal experiences or examples where an attractive women "settled" with an average guy. It's hilarious that you think that with a smile and a sense of style a below average / average looking guy can do much better than an objectively better looking guy lol. An 8/10 guy dressed in a garbage bag with a scowl looks infinitely better than a 5/10 guy in a tailored suit and the best smile in the world in the eyes of women.  I really feel like this is going in circles, some people would do anything to let themselves believe that they have a chance. 

You really have a vested interest in repeating this haha. Even if true (it's not), not sure how useful this would be for anyone seeking advice like the OP of this thread.

 

"you miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, YesIcan55 said:

No one was bringing up extreme examples of super models. The discussion was about attractive women in general. A below average/ average looking guy will not get an attractive woman. period. Save your anecdotal experiences or examples where an attractive women "settled" with an average guy. It's hilarious that you think that with a smile and a sense of style a below average / average looking guy can do much better than an objectively better looking guy lol. An 8/10 guy dressed in a garbage bag with a scowl looks infinitely better than a 5/10 guy in a tailored suit and the best smile in the world in the eyes of women.  I really feel like this is going in circles, some people would do anything to let themselves believe that they have a chance. 

It's so much more about social standing/status for women.  I can't tell you how many couples I see with a very attractive woman being with a not so attractive guy - but who does happen to be popular/successful/cool ... and as others have pointed out, this is especially true outside of the Tinder/etc world.  '

And vice-versa - a guys who are considered highly attractive with less physically attractive partners.

 For sure, I acknowledge there are couples where the physical attractiveness is "matched", but this to me this isn't the usual case at all.  Looks are only part of attractiveness - generally more important for men than for women, although women for sure do care, just like men often care about other traits besides physical attractiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ysera said:

You really have a vested interest in repeating this haha. Even if true (it's not), not sure how useful this would be for anyone seeking advice like the OP of this thread.

 

 "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott

It is true. If you heard what women think say about average/unattractive guys who try and shoot their shoot with them behind their back to attractive guys, you would have nothing to comment about. And no, these aren't the 'shallow' women. I got into this debate because I heard some people say some really deluded things which will give false hope to below average / average guys. It does them a disservice to know all they need is a smile, style, and good personality then they can get attractive women. Because when they fail to get these attractive women, they will then blame themselves because people here told them the steps to take to get an attractive women.  Everyone would be happier if they dated/married someone +/-1 on the looks scale (and no this is not subjective), below average guys/average looking guys need to accept that. Even the relationship will go smoother and no one will feel like they settled / have an imbalance power dynamic.  This goes for the reverse too, good looking guys with average / below average looking women does not turn out positively either for many obvious reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dentaldamn said:

This entire forum is so toxic. Why are you debating about "how high" a guy can pull, women are not prizes or possessions to bestow. Entering a relationship as a status symbol is narcissistic and vapid. Nobody cares about who you are dating, you need to be looking for someone who YOU find attractive as a combination of personality, goals, aspirations, views and perceptions, and very minimally looks. Seeing the interactions on this specific form has solidified all of the stereotypes of medicine being compiled of entitled, apathetic, douchebag bros.

Literally the first and only thing any male friend will directly / indirectly ask their friend about the person they are dating / in a relationship with is "is she hot"? Not what's her major, what is she like etc lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YesIcan55 said:

It is true. If you heard what women think say about average/unattractive guys behind their back to attractive guys, you would have nothing to comment about. And no, these aren't the 'shallow' women. I got into this debate because I heard some people say some really deluded things which will give false hope to below average / average guys. It does them a disservice to know all they need is a smile, style, and good personality then they can get attractive women. Because when they fail to get these attractive women, they will then blame themselves because people here told them the steps to take to get an attractive women.  Everyone would be happier if they dated/married someone +/-1 on the looks scale (and no this is not subjective), below average guys/average looking guys need to accept that. Even the relationship will go smoother and no one will feel like they settled / have an imbalance power dynamic.  This goes for the reverse too, good looking guys with average / below average looking women does not turn out positively either for many obvious reasons. 

That's really assuming that all men and women both prioritize physical attractiveness equally - which they don't (outside some kind of pure Tinder dating world with staged photos.. etc..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tere said:

That's really assuming that all men and women both prioritize physical attractiveness equally - which they don't (outside some kind of pure Tinder dating world with staged photos.. etc..)

It does not matter if they don't prioritize looks equally. Trust me, in long term relationships partners on an equal footing looks wise do the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YesIcan55 said:

Literally the first and only thing any male friend will directly / indirectly ask their friend about the person they are dating / in a relationship with is "is she hot"? Not what's her major, what is she like etc lol 

Men behaving like stereotypes - but this is undergrad.  People who are responding are older and have seen/gone through much more.  Does it mean all women will behave like stereotypes - not at all.

1 minute ago, YesIcan55 said:

It does not matter if they don't prioritize looks equally. Trust me, in long term relationships partners on an equal footing looks wise do the best. 

I don't think "equal looks" is important unless that's the basis of their relationship/attractiveness.  If they both superficially prioritize looks, then yes.  Otherwise, not at all.  Trust me, I've seen kids come out of happy marriages with "unequal looks", but maybe complimentary strengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tere said:

Men behaving like stereotypes - but this is undergrad.  People who are responding are older and have seen/gone through much more.  Does it mean all women will behave like stereotypes - not at all.

I don't think "equal looks" is important unless that's the basis of their relationship/attractiveness.  If they both superficially prioritize looks, then yes.  Otherwise, not at all.  Trust me, I've seen kids come out of happy marriages with "unequal looks", but maybe complimentary strengths.

lol it does not matter if the man is 18 or 60, looks are very very important. The mental gymnastics comes into play when a man suddenly realizes that they can not get the type of woman they dream of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, YesIcan55 said:

lol it does not matter if the man is 18 or 60, looks are very very important. The mental gymnastics comes into play when a man suddenly realizes that they can not get the type of woman they dream of.

I lay awake pitying Donald Trump.

Edit: I'd actually say it's worse if you do actually date attractive women (or have very attractive women hit on you)[not simply physically attractive]- then you realize what you could have as a partner.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmfao, can't believe how things escalated from giving the virgin OP advice to bringing up the toxic environment in medicine.

The truth is, once you reach a certain threshold, it becomes increasingly subjective to place people into "attractiveness tiers" because everyone has different tastes. There have been numerous times where a friend will think a certain woman is attractive and yet I only think she's "OK" and vice-versa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YesIcan55 said:

It is true. If you heard what women think say about average/unattractive guys who try and shoot their shoot with them behind their back to attractive guys, you would have nothing to comment about. And no, these aren't the 'shallow' women. I got into this debate because I heard some people say some really deluded things which will give false hope to below average / average guys. It does them a disservice to know all they need is a smile, style, and good personality then they can get attractive women. Because when they fail to get these attractive women, they will then blame themselves because people here told them the steps to take to get an attractive women.  Everyone would be happier if they dated/married someone +/-1 on the looks scale (and no this is not subjective), below average guys/average looking guys need to accept that. Even the relationship will go smoother and no one will feel like they settled / have an imbalance power dynamic.  This goes for the reverse too, good looking guys with average / below average looking women does not turn out positively either for many obvious reasons. 

No one's trying to give the OP advice to help him land supermodels or women that are 'objectively' attractive (whatever the hell that means; there are people who find celebrities/models unattractive, when their marketability literally hinges on a large proportion of people finding them attractive). We're trying to help mould him into a confident, best-version-of-himself person who doesn't have hang-ups surrounding his lack of experience, in order for him to get experience. It just so happens that taking those first steps will indeed elevate his league, bring him into a new phase of his life, and he'll only continue to improve. He's not going to start dating Jennifer Aniston. But to be perfectly frank, if we assume he and you have the same 'objective' attractiveness on this imaginary scale of yours, he still stands a better chance than someone with your attitude does. And that's the point.

1 hour ago, YesIcan55 said:

Literally the first and only thing any male friend will directly / indirectly ask their friend about the person they are dating / in a relationship with is "is she hot"? Not what's her major, what is she like etc lol 

My wager is that you're quite young, and though everyone goes through these lessons (men in particular) at vastly different times, it's easy to get bogged down in this kind of superficial thinking in your 20s. That's the way my conversations with friends tended to go when I was in my early 20s.

I would seriously suggest getting out of that headspace as soon as is reasonable; OP at least responded positively to facing his issues and improving himself, to at least reach his highest potential and then constantly evolve and improve that. All you have to offer is defeating language and what you think is a realistic view of women and the world. Get out of your own head man. You've got your entire life ahead of you. The sooner you do, I assure you, the sooner your life will improve drastically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tere said:

This "debate" doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but here's my two cents to add to the discussion.

Many women spend a lot of time (and sometimes money) trying to really look good for the camera.  What you see is often the result of conscious/dedicated effort to present themselves in an appealing way: models takes this to the extreme.  Many guys assume that if they simply take a half-ass photo and they don't look like Hollywood material, then they're not up to the mark.

So this "absolute" beauty standard doesn't go that far - how many tabloid/paparazzi photos have you seen of female models/actors without makeup, not looking like anything special at all?  

That's the point - even if attractive, there's a lot of effort put into themselves portraying themselves in the best way possible.  This should be a lesson that some could learn from - yes it helps if you go to the gym regularly, but even still good clothes, smile, looking confident and showing that you have a life/interests will impress woman a lot more than being male model material, but some kind of weird recluse.  

Honestly, just adding a smile and being socially engaged ups someone's attractiveness by a lot.  Which is the point that has been made repeatedly - an average looking-guy, with a good attitude, smile, career, interests, style, etc.. can do well - yeah maybe not supermodels unless he's some sort of VC or the like, but probably much better than a guy who may be objectively more attractive, but doesn't have much else going for him.  

What you're saying is categorically false.

But, everyone should still do everything you said. The problem is guys start living a healthier lifestyle *only* in hopes of that, then fail, and then give up the healthy lifestyle altogether.

Anyway, in the real world - people who look good naturally will almost always strive to look even better nonstop. 

2 hours ago, tere said:

I lay awake pitying Donald Trump.

Edit: I'd actually say it's worse if you do actually date attractive women (or have very attractive women hit on you)[not simply physically attractive]- then you realize what you could have as a partner.  

Billionaires and celebrities live by different rules. 

 

1 hour ago, lurker25 said:

lmfao, can't believe how things escalated from giving the virgin OP advice to bringing up the toxic environment in medicine.

The truth is, once you reach a certain threshold, it becomes increasingly subjective to place people into "attractiveness tiers" because everyone has different tastes. There have been numerous times where a friend will think a certain woman is attractive and yet I only think she's "OK" and vice-versa. 

That's very true. The keyword though: threshold. It's not exactly easy to reach it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lifeadvice said:

No one's trying to give the OP advice to help him land supermodels or women that are 'objectively' attractive (whatever the hell that means; there are people who find celebrities/models unattractive, when their marketability literally hinges on a large proportion of people finding them attractive). We're trying to help mould him into a confident, best-version-of-himself person who doesn't have hang-ups surrounding his lack of experience, in order for him to get experience. It just so happens that taking those first steps will indeed elevate his league, bring him into a new phase of his life, and he'll only continue to improve. He's not going to start dating Jennifer Aniston. But to be perfectly frank, if we assume he and you have the same 'objective' attractiveness on this imaginary scale of yours, he still stands a better chance than someone with your attitude does. And that's the point.

My wager is that you're quite young, and though everyone goes through these lessons (men in particular) at vastly different times, it's easy to get bogged down in this kind of superficial thinking in your 20s. That's the way my conversations with friends tended to go when I was in my early 20s.

I would seriously suggest getting out of that headspace as soon as is reasonable; OP at least responded positively to facing his issues and improving himself, to at least reach his highest potential and then constantly evolve and improve that. All you have to offer is defeating language and what you think is a realistic view of women and the world. Get out of your own head man. You've got your entire life ahead of you. The sooner you do, I assure you, the sooner your life will improve drastically.

Not sure I understand what you're saying. That people become less superficial as they age? So why do some guys become sugar daddies and also why do such a high number pursue escorts? I'm just being realistic. 

 

2 hours ago, tere said:

It's so much more about social standing/status for women.  I can't tell you how many couples I see with a very attractive woman being with a not so attractive guy - but who does happen to be popular/successful/cool ... and as others have pointed out, this is especially true outside of the Tinder/etc world.  '

And vice-versa - a guys who are considered highly attractive with less physically attractive partners.

 For sure, I acknowledge there are couples where the physical attractiveness is "matched", but this to me this isn't the usual case at all.  Looks are only part of attractiveness - generally more important for men than for women, although women for sure do care, just like men often care about other traits besides physical attractiveness.

Not true.

Every "case" someone has pointed out is someone average with someone a little bit above avg aka the same level basically. Almost all couples are completely looksmatched. This is also true for moderately rich guys, until you approach the celebrity/elite status type of rich (ex. pro athletes).

 

Honestly this topic isnt even debatable. The studies are consistent and anyone who isn't incredibly biased knows this. Just scroll through your social media and walk through a mall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, medigeek said:

Every "case" someone has pointed out is someone average with someone a little bit above avg aka the same level basically. Almost all couples are completely looksmatched. This is also true for moderately rich guys, until you approach the celebrity/elite status type of rich (ex. pro athletes).

Honestly this topic isnt even debatable. The studies are consistent and anyone who isn't incredibly biased knows this. Just scroll through your social media and walk through a mall.

It's amazing we look at the same empirical data sources & have read studies and yet come to vastly different conclusions.    Especially when it comes to "looksmatched "- to me it's far less common than the majority.  As I mentioned, I've seen happy marriages with kids where there's no "looks match".

Pro-athletes (unless they're at the top), don't necessarily makes heaps of cash.  So it's kind of odd to me that all of a sudden at a certain level of wealth/celebrity, different rules would apply. It's more likely, that it's just the end of the scale that you see the extreme results, but which are present at all levels.  Heck, I've seen/heard of physicians enter into relationships with  20+ yr age gaps.  

The term "trophy wife" is sad, but sometimes accurate term, for the status/relationship dynamics in society.  Maybe the feminist version is "trophy husband"?  

Besides this - you seem to believe there's some kind of absolute objective looks "standard", which honestly I'm not convinced of at all.  

1 hour ago, medigeek said:

What you're saying is categorically false.

But, everyone should still do everything you said. The problem is guys start living a healthier lifestyle *only* in hopes of that, then fail, and then give up the healthy lifestyle altogether.

What part is false then if everyone should do what I say?  I think underlying your argument is some kind of Tinder? metric which you really seem to think matters way more than it does (unless that's the only place you're looking).  Trust me, the high-school "prom king", if struggling in life/career, is not going to impress anyone, not even the women who once adored him.  True for lots of other men who simply didn't reach a certain level of success (especially after 30 or so).  

Honestly, I think you seem like the other poster to believe that there's some kind of amazing looks-meter, that transcends all culture, social-standing, etc.  and determines who should date who.  I've simply rarely seen this - it stands out if both people in a couple are physically attractive, because I haven't seen it happen that often (outside of maybe Hollywood).  I simply find it hard to believe, like @lifeadvice, that you actually believe most women, especially as they get older, date for looks for long-term relationships.   

At this point though, I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion, because we're going in circles.  At least, unlike the other poster, you seem to think there's a point in maximizing yourself, which we both can agree upon.  As side from that, peace out man!  Live and let live.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, tere said:

It's amazing we look at the same empirical data sources & have read studies and yet come to vastly different conclusions.    Especially when it comes to "looksmatched "- to me it's far less common than the majority.  As I mentioned, I've seen happy marriages with kids where there's no "looks match".

Pro-athletes (unless they're at the top), don't necessarily makes heaps of cash.  So it's kind of odd to me that all of a sudden at a certain level of wealth/celebrity, different rules would apply. It's more likely, that it's just the end of the scale that you see the extreme results, but which are present at all levels.  Heck, I've seen/heard of physicians enter into relationships with  20+ yr age gaps.  The term "trophy wife" is sad, but sometimes accurate term, for the status/relationship dynamics in society.  Maybe the feminist version is "trophy husband"?  

Besides this - you seem to believe there's some kind of absolute objective looks "standard", which honestly I'm not convinced of at all.  

What part is false then if everyone should do what I say?  I think underlying your argument is some kind of Tinder? metric which you really seem to think matters way more than it does (unless that's the only place you're looking).  Trust me, the high-school "prom king", if struggling in life/career, is not going to impress anyone, not even the women who once adored him.  True for lots of other men who simply didn't reach a certain level of success (especially after 30 or so).  

Honestly, I think you seem like the other poster to believe that there's some kind of amazing looks-meter, that transcends all culture, social-standing, etc.  and determines who should date who.  I've simply rarely seen this - it stands out if both people in a couple are physically attractive, because I haven't seen it happen that often (outside of maybe Hollywood).  I simply find it hard to believe, like @lifeadvice, that you actually believe most women, especially as they get older, date for looks for long-term relationships.   

At this point though, I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion, because we're going in circles.
 

What's false is saying that going to the gym and getting nicer clothes make you on par with a male model. That's giving extreme false hope. It's like telling your patients to take snake oil to prevent disease. Going to the gym to get a nice physique takes extreme long term dedication and very long hard hours of training. And in no way does it make you a model. Also, it's not 2005. A nice body isn't that impressive and a nice haircut/clothes are expectations rather than improvement milestones. 

I was referring to those who make a lot of money (millions) via high status jobs. From that level up, the rules change. And Im sure you have seen marriage with whatever outcome. Why not see what they were like when they first met? The fact that you are ignoring that shows bias. Also, it's very easy to focus on a couple exceptions and ignore the mainstream. Our brains are wired to do that otherwise we'd lose our minds due to pessimism.

Your "prom king" example is also false. Plenty of attractive guys who have below average jobs are with higher earning women. Literally all of those dudes from my high school barely make average money and can blow away the high earner guys in the dating scene. Its not even remotely close and it's laughable to try and argue it. 

Lastly, the rhetoric is that casual fun is all looks while serious dating is not, right? Thats your position? Lets say that is true. It also directly implies that the girl doesnt want you during her "fun phase." Yet will want you down the road later in life. How is that a good thing? lol. 

Of course, most people meet someone from age 19-23 who they then go onto marry etc. So regardless of your position, you're not being realistic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, medigeek said:

What's false is saying that going to the gym and getting nicer clothes make you on par with a male model. That's giving extreme false hope. It's like telling your patients to take snake oil to prevent disease. Going to the gym to get a nice physique takes extreme long term dedication and very long hard hours of training. And in no way does it make you a model. Also, it's not 2005. A nice body isn't that impressive and a nice haircut/clothes are expectations rather than improvement milestones. 

I was referring to those who make a lot of money (millions) via high status jobs. From that level up, the rules change. And Im sure you have seen marriage with whatever outcome. Why not see what they were like when they first met? The fact that you are ignoring that shows bias. Also, it's very easy to focus on a couple exceptions and ignore the mainstream. Our brains are wired to do that otherwise we'd lose our minds due to pessimism.

Your "prom king" example is also false. Plenty of attractive guys who have below average jobs are with higher earning women. Literally all of those dudes from my high school barely make average money and can blow away the high earner guys in the dating scene. Its not even remotely close and it's laughable to try and argue it. 

Lastly, the rhetoric is that casual fun is all looks while serious dating is not, right? Thats your position? Lets say that is true. It also directly implies that the girl doesnt want you during her "fun phase." Yet will want you down the road later in life. How is that a good thing? lol. 

Of course, most people meet someone from age 19-23 who they then go onto marry etc. So regardless of your position, you're not being realistic. 

 

Never said going to the gym would make anyone a male model (as comedic it is to assume women would prioritize that).  

It's not just about earnings, man.

People mature/change.  Getting out of undergrad is a major adjustment for many - and so their values change too.

Average age for marrying in Canada is over 30 - that's WAY after undergrad (only focusing on people that do actually go and complete a uni degree).  

Like I said, peace out!  Live and let live - whatever you think is working for you, go with it.  We're allowed to have differences of opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tere said:

Never said going to the gym would make anyone a male model (as comedic it is to assume women would prioritize that).  

It's not just about earnings, man.

People mature/change.  Getting out of undergrad is a major adjustment for many - and so their values change too.

Average age for marrying in Canada is over 30 - that's WAY after undergrad (only focusing on people that do actually go and complete a uni degree).  

Like I said, peace out!  Live and let live - whatever you think is working for you, go with it.  We're allowed to have differences of opinion.

The average age of marriage is irrelevant. Those people met years prior, in their early 20s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forget if it was brought up earlier in this monster thread, but dating patterns of dating up/down of your “class” and what is considered attractive or not varies by cultures and ethnicities. 

As soon as you step out of North American-centric attractiveness standards you see different types of couple matches. Ones that appear “mismatched” by NA standards but well matched by non-NA standards based on different attributes (physical, personality, financial, etc) valued. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...