Are most of girls after 25 married?

Post Reply New Topic

I think most of them are of those who almost live in the office trying to reach CEO chairs and thus just don't interested in relaions if they doesn't help their career. Or I am wrong?

er?not "wrong," more like only half-right.

I mean, that's not how it works. People date within their own social circles. Someone, and I don't care if it's a man or a woman, who aspires to be a CEO type will only surround themselves with other CEO-types or aspiring CEO-types. If that's the direction you want to go, you have to hang around these people, learn EVERYTHING you can from them, and model your own business after effective strategies you learn from CEOs. Heck, even I'm a CEO?it's just my instructional business isn't doing too well at the moment and I'm seriously thinking about going a different direction anyway. These are people who if they can't get ahead in someone else's business, they will start their own and expand that business quickly based on the needs of the public. The Donald Trumps and the Steve Jobss out their are not these ethereal, unreachable people--if you can't get to them, you can get to some guy who works for them, and somewhere in there is someone willing to let you in on the big secrets (there aren't any, but whatever), and if you're smart you can turn that into personal success where ever you are.

A woman who is that determined won't be hanging out with someone like me who is struggling to make it. Not that she thinks I'm beneath her station, but simply because our paths just aren't going to cross. The only people she'll hang out with are the more high-powered types because she's going the same places they are. Out of that group, there are some men she's going to get to know and spend a LOT of time with. Out of those men are maybe one or two who are even husband material, and that's who she's going to end up with.

Same thing if you're getting social security and have no work aspirations/abilities whatsoever. The only people you hang out with are predominantly other welfare folks.

Whether you're an aspiring CEO or you're a welfare bum, you do have some control over what social circles you draw your dating pool from. A high-powered CEO might do volunteer work and fall in love with a welfare bum; a welfare bum might start hanging out in more "high class" places where she'd be more likely to meet someone like that. I married into what was at one time a prominent farming family, and that was just a matter of right time/place. Anything is possible. What's actually going to happen in reality is going to depend on what you set yourself up for. If you want to end up with a career-oriented woman, you need to be career-oriented yourself.

I never wanted to be with career-oriented woman but rather with self development-oriented, whith those who believs that life is to realize yourself in the area which you like.

And I won't agree with you that people have such monophonic social circle - many peple have good relations with neighbours who are of other circles, many have relatives of another circles, old school friends, friends from first workplace and so on. I can't believe there are many people destroying long friendship because firend is more fond of painting pictures than strating businesses. While I'm not very social person, I was familiar with lots of really different men - from junky street criminals to academic professors, often at the same time.

But let's return to dating and girls I meant originally that even if somewhere there are many single girls of 25 years it doesn't mean they all are aspiring to have relations and instead they may be not interested in them so chances to meet future spouce there are tending to zero.

Not the point, though. The point is people tend to date those they spend the most time with. It's a simple matter of probability. Career-women are more likely to spend more time with career-men; academic women are more likely to spend more time with academic women. I mean, it's all about what you do all day long.

What's going to interfere with meeting someone of the opposite sex isn't a matter of mutual interest but rather what monopolizes one's time. If relying ONLY on the internet to meet someone, you will fail. Why? Because the relationship is strictly virtual by nature. Without actual f2f time in the physical world, you won't have a meaningful relationship. The internet is perfect if you want to get into strictly virtual polyamorous relationships because it's easy to hide and you have a certain level of anonymity and privacy. As long as you stay sequestered behind a monitor, any relationship is pretty much just a RPG.

If video games monopolize your time, again, you're missing out on all the 1-on-1 contact meaningful relationships require. At some point, your focus has to shift to connecting with real people in real time in the physical world.

And it's not just computers/video games?education and career can monopolize time as well if you allow it to. If all your relationships are strictly work relationships, you can't connect with a person in a meaningful relationship.

MOST people don't work that way. You can meet someone at work, spend a lot of time with that person, and eventually move towards a relationship. Workplace dating is generally frowned upon, because of the potential liability (ethics, misconduct, harassment, creating a hostile work environment, etc.). As long as grownups act like grownups and separate the personal from business, there's nothing wrong with a couple of colleagues getting together after work for drinks. What eventually happens is those two people who get together after work for drinks will do that often enough that they only get together for drinks WITH EACH OTHER. This is more likely to happen between peers at work because of the constant contact, rather than hooking up with someone you'd never ordinarily meet.

I'm not "above" dating a homeless girl per se. First of all, it's not all that likely I'd meet a young homeless girl often enough to get to know her. Second, I'd be interested in knowing why she's homeless. Was she bounced around foster homes until she aged out and just needs a leg up? Or is she doing the whole Amanda Bynes routine? It's not about money or social standing?I just don't want to date the next Jodi Arias.


Not quite clear on what you're saying here. Quite simply, no, not all girls at any age at any stage of life/career/education are interested in all the exact same things. You MIGHT find a girl who meets every single criteria you set for a mate or a hook-up. You MIGHT NOT. I dunno. I think reasonable and cautious flexibility is going to be anybody's best bet in finding a bf/gf or spouse. Your outlook will always be favorable for as long as you keep time on your side, i.e. you are patient and persistent achieving goals that really matter.

My goal was never finding "THE ONE." It was finding "SOMEONE." In my experience, the two are one and the same.

I am nearly 23, pursuing my second degree and single. And no, that's not because I want to be single.

they likely only want more educated men, so they wait for those types who may be few. quite a bit of those women here, but not a lot of high educated men to date them.



I am on social security, yet I don't know anyone else who is, except my mom. most the people i know are either college students, middle class, or min wage workers.

also you do know you can meet people from the internet right. it doesn't stay virtal. i've met half friends over the net and then met in person.

i suspect you limit yourself to guys who have degrees as well?
nothing wrong with it but it will decrease the number of possible mates.

No, I would also date guys with a professional or vocational education. No people that have only finished high school though, I need to be on the same intellectual level with someone.

That was my point, actually. Nobody "meets" anyone over the internet. Yes, there's some communication, but for it to be meaningful, especially meaningful in a romantic sense, there has to be an offline component--preferable one that leads to some kind of regularity.

there have been and are people who never went to college who are probably just as smart. I have also met alot of stupid people at my college who got degrees. a college degree doesn't make people smart just as not having one doesn't make people stupid.
I have a degree yet don't' work in the field. all a degree shows is you went to school and were able to retain information long enough to pass tests. a lot of people will then forget all the information they learned the term before. they end up with a degree but don't remember most of what they learned. i had teachers complain about those types often.

if i remember right bill gates never went to college and hes super smart and rich. my sister never went to college and shes smart and has some of her poetry published. try to remember that a degree is just a title not proof of intelligence.

I think a better way of judging intellectual level is to find out what they know about shared interests. you may find someone with only high school that knows a butt load about science and theories. just food for thought. i could have likely got another degree too, i'm good at tests.

Depends on the degree, I think. Masters and doctorates aren't really like that. The old-school way of looking at masters degrees is they demonstrate actual mastery in the field of study. For me, it was all about being independently creative. There's not really a test that can measure that. My profs were more concerned with whether I could form an original independent thought. My oral exam was perhaps the highlight of my educational career.

Doctorate degrees are all about demonstrating that you can make a significant contribution to your field of study. The thing that disturbs me is how easy it is to do bull$#!+ dissertations. My undergrad clarinet prof. did her dissertation on the collected clarinet works of Arthur Frackenpohl (famous for his work with the Canadian Brass, all around great guy, proud to have personally gotten to know him). Everyone who has ever met Art loves him. Cataloging a given composer's work by instrument is a good thing to do. But THIS is what passes for scholarship? My clarinet teacher was highly respected by her teachers at her undergrad alma mater, and I happen to know of one or two of those profs who were disappointed at her choice of dissertation "work." But, then again, given who her dissertation adviser was, it shouldn't be any big surprise...

While I don't intentionally limit the pool of "dateable" or "date-worthy" guys to those with graduate degrees... Pretty much every guy I've ever dated as an adult HAS a graduate degree. As do all of my friends - and it's NOT intentional. Not at ALL.

It is mostly that I have a grad degree and got a job that requires one - so everybody I've met through work has one too. (I'm a quant; the job does not TECHNICALLY require one, but 15+ yrs in VC & investment banking? Have yet to have a colleague that doesn't have one).

This is exactly what I was getting at earlier. No, it's not necessarily an intentional thing?it's just how it's more likely to work out.

It's the same principle no matter who you are, your level of education, or your career level. I was surrounded by girls all the time and it was never hard for me to meet them. Why? I played the clarinet in band. It's kinda hard NOT to meet women when you're a woodwind person! While in college I dated a few music majors. Not married to a former music major, but music was always a part of her life and she's a fabulous singer. What you do in life is going to determine who you hang out with the most, which in turn makes it more LIKELY you're going to date someone like that. .

It doesn't have to be intentional. It's just de facto status quo.

As to what you DO intentionally limit yourself to, I think that's your business and yours alone. I don't judge people for being selective or having a selection process. I'm more concerned with outcomes and how we can get the best opportunities to meeting someone that might lead to a LTR. Your motives, intentions, strategies, criteria, etc. are yours. I have nothing to do with that.

But if your hobbies are very unusual for opposite gender in your country/society (or for opposite gender at all) then chances of that decreasing significantly. That's my problem - I know no one girl who really loves military history, weapons, political sciense and so on. The most I was able to find is girls who are history majors in college but they do it just to have any degree, not because they love history.

around here, I don't really know. "Married" is less a thing and "shacking up" has pretty much replaced it. BC is one of the highest rates of nonmarried cohabiting (Common Law relationships) in Canada. 3 of my RL friends are not married and never have been. Two are around my age and the other is around 50. Two of them have a bit more dating experience, one has hardly any (I have none at all), but the two that actually have dating experience are really jaded about men.

Getting married or not has been taken completely out of my hands, and I'm 41. You can't marry someone that is not there. Never rejected anyone, because there was nobody to reject.

There are probably some people that never went to college who are just a smart and if they can prove or show that to me then fine. On the whole though, I have experienced a huge intellectual dismatch with individuals with an intermediate vocational education. I find them to be worse thinkers with less of an interest in the world around them.