<p>You don’t sound confident online. If that’s where you’ve tried to talk to girls try offline and hopefully you don’t seem as pitiful as you seem here.</p>
<p>QwertyKey, HOW is it possible to sound not confident AND confident online? Girls don’t like confident guys these days.</p>
<p>With that being said, I’ve tried offline. I talk to girls in class but they REALLY are not interested in me…at all. They don’t even want to be my friends.</p>
<p>I’m just being honest!</p>
<p>I think this thread is fun to read. </p>
<p>There are those who say that the reporter got it wrong and/or had a preconceived notion and just waited until he found students dumb enough to say the things he wanted so that he could have a story. His general observations do not seem crazy to me. While one’s genome is not one’s destiny and even one’s epigenome is not one’s destiny, our evolutionary heritage naturally predisposes women to be more interested (on average) in monogamous relationships and males to be more disposed (on average) to spreading their DNA around more widely. [There is a wonderfully written little book called [italic] Mean Genes [/italic] that demonstrates the powerful pull of predispositions that evolved in the millenia that humans spent on the Savannah but that are counterproductive when applied today in a much different environment. What is nice about the book is that the authors relate the evolutionary argument to specific biological mechanisms that are consistent with the evolutionary argument]. In this case, the greater the supply of men relative to that of women, one would expect that the rules of social engagement would more closely match those desired by women and the greater the supply of women relative to men, the more the rules of social engagement would match those desired by men. I have observed a small number of data points. 1) My college class had about 300 women and 1100 men and there were lots of long-term relationships and much less casual dating. 2) My son applied to Sarah Lawrence and Vassar and I read about the social culture at each place. Sarah Lawrence’s F/M ratio was closer 70/30 IIRC and Vassar’s more like 60/40. In both schools, but particularly at Sarah Lawrence, the description was that of the males, half were gay and some of the straight mails were uninteresting for other reasons and that the relatively large number of heterosexual females were competing intensely for perhaps around 10% of the student body, which led to exploitative behavior on the part of the anointed males and uncomfortable feelings on the part of a number of the females. 3) As a grad student at Harvard, after I broke up with a girlfriend, a Harvard undergraduate friend invited me to parties at women’s colleges in the Boston area, at which it seemed, having dates with or a relationship with someone from Harvard was considered desirable, maybe highly so. On occasion, I’d go. My perception was that the many of these young women, perhaps the ones with lower self-esteem, felt that if they wanted to get my attention so as to have the opportunity to have subsequent dates and/or a longer relationship, they would have to leave me pleased in the short run that I’d picked them. The behavior of some of the women at these schools was not inconsistent with the description at UNC. </p>
<p>There is no reason that a young women needs to behave like the women described in the article. In fact, S0ad’s point seems quite sensible. In a world in which women are more successful than men (at least in college), why should college women retain the custom that the men should pay for drinks, dates, etc.? Overall, I suspect that the basic relationship that the reporter describes is probably accurate. Competition for dates/relationships will become increasingly intense as F/M ratios increase and lead to behavior in a segment of the female population that puts pressure on the others to behave in ways that make them uncomfortable.</p>
<p>My daughter is scoping out schools now and she immediately ruled out all schools with significantly skewed F/M ratios. Although I think there are good arguments for all women’s schools, she ruled them out because she has male and female friends and also suspects that an all girl environment will be painfully catty (is this true or is the opposite true – without men around, the women are more supportive and less catty?). In the population of mixed gender schools, I think she is correct to focus on schools with relatively even gender ratios.</p>
<p>I feel your pain… I’m creepy and too hairy. :(</p>
<p>I don’t really have close friends, but a lot of the people I’m most friendly with are girls. </p>
<p>I don’t really feel your pain…</p>
<p>I’m not hairy but I think girls have ridiculously high standards, which virtually no man can compete.</p>
<p>I’ve been called “Creepy” but in this day in age, it is “Creepy” to talk to a girl or say “Hi” to her. I don’t know what is wrong with girls but they are really starting to anger me.</p>
<p>Another note: Fallgirl is right, sorrority girls do better then non-sorrority girls. Actually, most partiers I know are high school dropouts or people who do not attend college.</p>
<p>I think women’s colleges are the opposite of catty BUT there will always be a minority group who are desperate for men. JMHO. It’s a very different experience from a coed school, but I personally would pick a women’s college over a significantly-skewed coed school like Sarah Lawrence.</p>
<p>My D has managed to find a BF each year in college with skewed gender ratio but I wish she spent more time and focus on her education. I don’t think a lot of people are emotionally ready for relationships even though they long for them. As is evident here. Actually, I think this ratio thing is a nothing but a red herring.</p>
<p>Hi Blake,</p>
<p>A little friendly advice here.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You say that you are always rejected. Do you have a female friend who will be honest with you? If you do, I suggest that you ask her how you come across to girls. A lot of terrific guys (and girls) need a little help in presenting themselves.</p></li>
<li><p>You say that the girls have “ridiculously high standards” but this goes both ways. Are you only seeking out the prettiest/most popular girls?</p></li>
<li><p>(this is the hardest part) Try to have a positive attitude, not only toward yourself but toward females in general.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m a mom and have been around for a long time and I have seen so many people (both genders) who didn’t date much/at all in high school or even in college who ended up finding someone. So don’t get discouraged.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>looks like I gotta really take the male/female ratio into account when choosing a college</p>
<p>Just because there’s more girls than guys (girls are smarter anyway) doesn’t mean the guys are going to get lucky more often than not!</p>
<p>fogfog, that article is a good read for everyone.</p>
<p>[Dating</a> Advice: 7 Mistakes Single Women Make - Love + Sex on Shine](<a href=“http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/dating-advice-7-mistakes-single-women-make-580573/]Dating”>http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/dating-advice-7-mistakes-single-women-make-580573/)</p>
<p>When those girls in the OP’s article say they only consider half of the available males at their school, they are doing what this article says many women do (be too picky).</p>
<p>Not that men don’t do it too…</p>
<p>PS Anybody read that item I posted–the article written by a woman about why women are having trouble dating…an interesting read…</p>
<p>A lot of UNC Chapel Hill women date students from NC State. It’s only 30 minutes away. Some date Duke students even. Duke is 12 minutes away. It’s absurd not to consider UNC Chapel Hill because of the male/female ratio.</p>
<p>WOW-- guy’s “getting lucky” and people referring to college girls as “sluts.” What is a 2010 “slut”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone else’s daughter.</p>
<p>Even in 2010 there is a double standard…
the woman has a questionable rep and the guy is getting some…</p>
<p>Or their mother. I don’t think my D and her friends could really handle a full recounting of the sixties behavior of her mom and her friends. And they won’t even get one! LOL.</p>
<p>I cringe when my students use this language.</p>
<p>I don’t enjoy teaching Women’s Studies courses but will on occasion because I feel obligated to combat this kind of thinking.</p>
<p>The “sexual double standard” was born of the desire of men in patriarchal, agricultural communities to leave their private property to their own progeny and not present in all societies at all. </p>
<p>Addressing this thinking is a bit of a personal crusade.</p>
<p>Sigh. I’m losing.</p>
<p>Hi mythmom</p>
<p>I think thats my point—that women are held to another standard…</p>
<p>and
perhaps we should consider WHY would a woman want to lower her behavior to behave like a man in this case…
Men and the promiscuous behavior is unbecoming </p>
<p>Its unbecoming to either gender.
This is one of the places I think the women’s movement failed our daughters–I would be much more impressed by a strong woman without the Sex in the City/Samantha views–who chooses strong boundaries/values rather than selling herself short</p>
<p>Well, in some cultures multiple sexual partners is not promiscuous, just as having coffee with many friends isn’t.</p>
<p>I <em>do</em> understand health concerns, so I <em>do</em> think some really good judgment is in order here, but pejorative notions like “promiscuous” and “slut” don’t have a place in my world view.</p>
<p>And I don’t see how enjoying sexuality with a variety of partners is “acting like a man.”</p>
<p>Studies have repeatedly shown that man fall in love faster and take longer to fall out of love than women.</p>
<p>On the other hand, for many women sex and love do need to go together.</p>
<p>I think some people compartmentalize and others don’t, and it’s not always gender determined.</p>
<p>That said, fogfog, I <em>do</em> agree that women (and men) should strive to choose behaviors that are truly comfortable for them and healthy in a large context.</p>
<p>I know my daughter is just a lot more conservative than I was at her age. I certainly support that because it works for her. I would not agree with her assessments of my behavior, I don’t think.</p>
<p>I was a the first Woodstock, pretty wild and wouldn’t change that behavior for anything. I had a really fun, interesting time and suffered no ill consequences. Lucky I guess.</p>
<p>I think both genders should strive to avoid hurting others and avoid hurting themselves, but that is the only standard <em>I</em> would apply to sexual behavior.</p>
<p>My S had a co-ed entry at his LAC, and they were very protective of each other. The guys didn’t hit on the women, and oddly, the women did a worse job of keeping up the bathroom and had drying underwear, hair dryers, assorted mess everywhere.</p>
<p>And unlike TheDad’s daughter’s bathrooms, my D’s bathrooms at Barnard were pretty gross when the women had to clean them themselves. The frosh bathrooms the staff kept up were better.</p>
<p>The only thing I would want a daughter of mine to look for in a coed college is that the campus culture supports women in valuing themselves for their own achievements.</p>
<p>At the time of bogus Duke Lacrosse scandal there were many articles with extensive quotations about the women gaining social status from snagging athletes. I would hope that kind of thinking is passe is most places. (Probably Duke too. I am not so fast to credit the journalists who jumped on that bandwagon.)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In fairness, I hear my kids use “slut” to describe men. Maybe more often than they would use it to describe women, since it doesn’t have quite the same cutting edge when used on a man. Come to think of it, I don’t think my daughter has used the term to describe a woman since she was 15, and I’m not certain my son ever has. </p></li>
<li><p>Samantha on Sex and the City has pretty much nothing to do with the women’s movement. She certainly isn’t emblematic of any women’s movement I’ve ever been aware of. There is (or used to be) something of a rift between pro-sex and anti-sex feminists (it being understood that no one ever actually stood up and proclaimed herself “anti-sex”), but both sides would have described themselves – and accurately, too – as wanting strong boundaries and values, and not selling themselves short. I don’t think you can blame promiscuity and poor self-esteem on the women’s movement.</p></li>
<li><p>It’s easy to forget that college-age kids are very much works in progress, and are often trying to figure out by trial and error who they are. So someone may “try on” a more promiscuous, aggressive sexuality for a while, to see how it feels, but often abandon it when it turns out not to be as great as advertised. Men and women, both. I think, to some extent, this is unavoidable – 19 year-olds in every generation firmly believe that they invented sex and thus have to reinvent the wheel of sexual morality, in large part because their parents (myself included) do a terrible job of being honest and nonjudgmental with them when we have the chance. But I often think that the sensational, slutty behavior that we love to be scandalized by mainly represents a three- or four-month failed experiment in the lives of an ever-changing succession of young adults.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Friends</a> with Benefits: How Friendly? How Sexual? | Psychology Today](<a href=“http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200908/friends-benefits-how-friendly-how-sexual]Friends”>Friends with Benefits: How Friendly? How Sexual? | Psychology Today)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In light of the above research, that may be a parent’s wishful thinking. Is having sex while an of-age unmarried college student with someone you have known as a friend for 14 months unbecoming?</p>