Lack of Men

Today, in my opinion, having a college (aka, "university") education does not necessarily correlate with one's persona, be it manners, thinking, whatever. However, if a girl raised in a Christian family, and has Christian values, I believe she would more likely find a compatible mate if someone went to a Christian bible college. Meaning many colleges give one an education that might be equal to, or no better than, a decent high school somewhere.

And then there are young ladies that want children of the same "ethnic" background, and with a dirth of educated males in that ethnic group, they marry someone from their ethnic background that has a blue collar job, perhaps. Are they happy? Did she "settle"? They may be happy, Neither might think that anyone settled. Is this any different than thinking deceased ancestors are in some Heaven? In effect, we give ourselves "fake news" at times, so we don't have to deal with a less than positive reality.

That's definitely what I see in real life.

The combination of things that make people desirable to one another are often
a puzzle to people on the outside of a relationship. In my immediate circle, the bottom line seems to be no jerks allowed - male or female. Some are physically attractive, some are financially secure. Emotional balance and confidence seem to be most highly valued.

I'm pretty sure I have talked at length with a lot more women than you have.

Funny that you pick Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, the President. First no mistress she is his "eternal girfriend." He had a failed marriage n lots of cases, he really loves the opposite sex and seems to find value in many distinct ways. he has settled now with age. Marcelo de Sousa is a case in point with what I was aiming at. A brilliant law school man, extremely charming with women, well spoken, available to people, and an acute polithical animal by nature. Not a billionaire...he is also a humanist that can speak to the masses in tangible form. Not your typical alpha male with 9000 words a day ranting and grooming. if anything he beats women that go around 21000 words a day average. A professor that loves to teach, compulsively.
To the point, you see no one is denying that women and man have some sort of Universal standards on what is or is not desirable. That was not the point. The point was that the sum of the traits is what matters not specific X or Y trait isolated as you claim to be the case.
its not "physical money", its value at large in a complex interchange of options that makes partner A over B desirable. Most of it is subcounsciously measured as I pointed out about immune system compatibility, or even genetic corrections whether you want change, betterment, or confirmation of what youy already got. Value changes from genotype to genotype. It also changes culturally from group to group when you go past the bio compatability test.
You know very well you've reduced the problem to very simple standards. If you want to go on debating it go ahead personally I think the point I have made is crystal clear from the start. Sorted.

He is the president of the country. By any definition... he is a wealthy man in a seat of power.

My question was; who is his mistress? She is quite attractive and is clearly younger than he is.

Maybe this is true... I don't know how we could possibly measure this. How many of these women that you know are attracted to men that you consider jerks? There are jerks that I know who have very little trouble attracting women.

I think the idea that dating is at all rational or idealistic... is ridiculous. Women and men are attracted to each other for emotional reasons that are often irrational and sometimes bad for them.

Women are human. So are men.

They know each other from long ago way before he was famous as a PHD Law School professor much less President. He lives in a rented house and cares little with material possessions...Knowing he is a bit of a "womaniser" in the best possible sense, a gentleman with women, she is ferociously jealous (he complains)...

I didn't mean to dig into your president's life. He is just one example. I am pointing out that when you look at the men in power in Portugal, you see the same general trend you see in most parts of the world; old powerful men with younger attractive women.

It is a normal part of human nature for attractive women to choose powerful, wealthy, older men as mates. (By "attractive women" I mean women who would be considered sexually desirable by most people compared to the population of women.)

So what do you think of this... I married a man younger than me, with lower wealth, education and salary. I have a masters degree and make not quite double his salary. He did not complete college and had accumulated little savings when I met him.

As a result we complement each other. I keep him grounded and practical while he has the athletics and more out going.

Our children are smart, studious and athletic.

When single I once went out on a date with a man who was very educated had a very lucrative job and was very wealthy. On the date he told me he could take care of me and I wouldn't have to worry about anything. The first thing I thought what the hell? I can take care of myself.

I think the opposite. Being a woman who is educated and financially independent opens more doors in the sense you can pick the guy you want not settle for someone to take care of you.

I am talking about general trends, not about specific cases. Data is not the plural of anecdote.

The OP was saying that many educated women are having trouble finding mates because they want men who are at least equal to them in that matter. I am happy for your story, Linkat, but it doesn't disprove the general trend.

That's exactly the key, Linkat! An educated, financially independent woman doesn't need to settle for a sugar daddy and she never will. She can choose whomever she wants to and if the guy is a carpenter, so what? I once had a very accomplished female accountant, she had many failed relationships with equal partners and in the end she settled for a carpenter. He had no intellectual demands on her when she got home from work being exhausted from intellectual work. He treated her exactly the way she wanted to be treated and that's all she needed.

@max, you're talking like the typical American guy who blames the older, wealthy and powerful men for getting the attractive, model type of woman. It's the American stereotype, just like Trump/Melania. Is she happy? Doesn't look that way! Is he happy? Well, let's not go down that road....

In Europe, women are pretty much financially sound. Even if they're not making a lot of money, they still have a social net behind them that will protect them, should they need it. So for a European woman the necessity to marry a sugar daddy isn't given. European woman look for different things in their mate than their American sisters. (generalized, there are exceptions, like Linkat).

Me too - we've had similar marriages, except we didn't have children (both fine with that).

...the thing is gold diggers aren't smart enough to go past appearances on where is real value...no denying there are stupid people in both sexes...it still doesn't make a case.
Mature well educated women know better and have a complex approach to choice when it comes to the ideal partner. And yes, in Europe things are a little different from the American cultural stereotypical frame of reference as Jane pointed out.

This can be a problem in more than one direction. Some men can be uncomfortable with a woman who is more educated than they are. I know this from experience.

...here is what not to marry with...found this precious bit of American macho memorabilia on the web...

Nuts, I just massacred a long post about the only woman I remember as a gold digger. I remember her because I was so astonished, although these decades later I forget the specifics about her nabbing the man she sought to make her husband, and did. She rattled off all the benefits possible, re his position. I'm not so mean that I think she wasn't attracted to him - more that I was sort of stunned by her concerted plans.

I knew her as the roommate of a pal of mine (we worked together after school at a hospital, now a many decade connection). They were then stewardesses for a major airline back in the day when they were called that. My good friend is a latina in the US, and the roommate was swedish, actually from there. Not that ethnicity is relevant, but it seems to be some ball game going on re continents in this a2k conversation.

I need to add that I consider Calamity Jane a friend - we met once, a very good day during my family type trip back to California.

You all are missing the point. I am not talking about "gold diggers" or any silly meme. I am talking about what makes certain humans more attractive than the rest of us.

There are men who are very attractive to a large number of women. If you know single people, you will know that there are certain men that most women want to be with... and other men who have trouble getting dates (and of course there are men in between). Likewise, there are woman that always get asked out. Many men want to be with them, and they never have trouble getting dates. Then there are women who rarely get asked out.

I don't know what Utopian world you think you live in... but if you think that people are equally able to attract attention from the opposite sex, then you are completely out of touch with reality. Some people are widely considered attractive. Some people are largely undatable. And there is a large number of people in between these two ends.

I am simply saying that the traits that make men attractive (in a general sense) to a large number of women are quite different than the traits that make men generally attractive to women.

This is so obvious to anyone who has ever had a social life in the real world, that I can't understand why it is being denied here. Skinny women with fairly large breasts and a good smile will get asked out a lot more then women without these traits. This is true in Europe too, and it doesn't matter if they have a good education, a job or live with their parents.

Donald Trump, George Soros, Bill Clinton are not very physically attractive men. And, yet they all attracted the attentions of younger, more attractive women.

You poor thing, this is not your thread to dominate re what we get to discuss.

Meantime, I don't think everyone everywhere is as shallow as you take them, european, elsewhere, or not. I think you are off running your own concourse.

Osso, you seem to switch from being open-minded to falling into the group think here. I appreciate it when you show the ability to see things from more than one perspective. But, in this case, you aren't defending Olivier, you are defending the group think. Olivier is a smart guy, and he has shown that he enjoys looking at issues from different perspectives. He can speak for himself.

The OP was talking about women who were reluctant to date men who had less education than they had. I am supporting the article. I am saying that the for people as a whole, the process of finding a mate is less reasoned that you are making it out to be. (The "everyone everywhere" language is something you made up; I never said that.)

The article agrees with both what I see in public life, and in what I experience as a middle-aged single.