Search Results: which man would you rather date

From my question which addresses a recent article in which women complains they just aren't enough single guys for them.


Link:Not enough single men for single women

In the above article, many women do not want to date guys who did not have a college degree basically writing them off as potential mates. With more girl's graduating college than men, many women now have a shortage of guys who they would actually choose to go out with. It may seem now that if men aren't the total package women just don't want them. i. e. Tall, RICH, Handsome and well educated.

Now a recent article comes up where Jennifer Lawerence:



Going on a date with JL:



"“No one ever asks me out,” she said. “I am lonely every Saturday night. Guys are so mean to me. I know where it’s coming from, I know they’re trying to establish dominance, but it hurts my feelings. I’m just a girl who wants you to be nice to me. I am straight as an arrow. I feel like I need to meet a guy, with all due respect, who has been living in Baghdad for five years who has no idea who I am.”

Link:https://time.com/4109970/jennifer-lawrence-vogue-cover-hunger-games/

This leads me to my question: Do women these days who complain about being single, or guys not approaching them just voluntarily place themselves in that situation because they don't acknowledge the advances of men who aren't up to their standards.


It seems modern day women would rather place themselves in a state of victimhood than try to change themselves and lower their ridiculous standards for men.

There seems to be a lot of lies surrounding this war on terror. It all dates back to September 11th 2001 when George W. Bush stated on no less than two occasions that he saw the first plane hit the WTC on Sept 11 but footage of the first plane crashing into the WTC didn't surface until the day after.

He claimed his government had no prior knowledge of 9/11 happening yet instantly seemed to know that it was Osama Bin Laden and laid the blame on Al-Qaeda and then a few short weeks later invaded Afghanistan. About six months after the invasion of Afghanistan, he was asked about Bin Laden and shrugged the question off stating he knew nothing about the man's whereabouts and that the war in Afghanistan was more than just finding one man; the man allegedly responsible for the heinous crime. The objective of the war of Afghanistan seemed to have changed to become about nation building rather than bringing the alleged puportator to justice.

Then there was Iraq; Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was the narrative used to invade Iraq without the UN weapons inspectors finding any W. M. D's. The narrative again changed to Saddam having the capabilities of creating weapons of mass destruction and that he committed grave atrocities against his own people. So no evidence of weapons of mass destruction then?

Then enters Obama who says he'll shut down Gitmo and fast forward nearly seven years later and the last British suspect has been flown home from the detention camp. He pulled US troops out of Iraq in 2009 which created a power vaccum in which ISIS has grown and it's reported that the US government along with others had helped finance ISIS in recent years. Then there's the whole "we found the world's most notorious bogeyman hiding in Pakistan and we shot him, killed him and buried him at sea" with no evidence to back this claim up.

This War on Terror has been going on for fourteen years and in that time our freedoms have been assaulted with legislation designed to restrict our personal freedom in order to ensure our safety. It's all getting a little 1984 for my liking, a little bit Stalinist and I have to ask whether anyone else feels like they have been lied to constantly about this War on Terror?