I can’t figure it out. I read this article about Dan Rochkind, expert dater, and I swear I was sitting here thinking it had to be some kind of satire.
When it came to dating in New York as a 30-something executive in private equity, Dan Rochkind had no problem snagging the city’s most beautiful women.
“I could have [anyone] I wanted,” says Rochkind, now 40 and an Upper East Sider with a muscular build and a full head of hair. “I met some nice people, but realistically I went for the hottest girl you could find.”
He spent the better part of his 30s going on up to three dates a week, courting 20-something blond models, but eventually realized that dating the prettiest young things had its drawbacks — he found them flighty, selfish and vapid.
“Beautiful women who get a fair amount of attention get full of themselves,” he says. “Eventually, I was dreading getting dinner with them because they couldn’t carry a conversation.”
He’s got a day job pushing money and paper around, and he spends his evenings trying to have sex with younger women, and he’s got the nerve to accuse them of being “flighty, selfish and vapid”? Look in a mirror, guy.
But what had me most baffled about the nature of the article was this photo caption.
Dan Rochkind used to date swimsuit models, but he’s happier now that he’s engaged to a merely beautiful woman, Carly Spindel (right).
Mind…blown. What was the writer trying to say? What does Carly Spindel think of that? Is Dan smirking at that? What’s the difference between swimsuit models and merely beautiful women?
I don’t think I want to learn any more about the NY Post’s universe. It seems flighty, selfish and vapid.
“What’s the difference between swimsuit models and merely beautiful women?
They’re wetter?
Also, the guy does NOT have a “full head of hair” (his hairline is clearly receding) and he’s not even all that good looking. This issue of the Post was apparently beamed in from some alternate universe.
Zapp, is that you?
You read, I read, we read; they win.
Questions?
See CNN post.
Still questions?
Umm, was that “(right)” in the caption necessary? So, ‘merely beautiful’, which tells you that’s still pretty much all he cares about, because goodness knows, no matter how attractive someone might be, if they don’t have that beautiful candy coating, they don’t count. I’m quite glad I never would have figured in the worlds of such dudes.
Truth be told, my PhD trophy wife would find this asshole “flighty, selfish and vapid” and unable to carry a conversation on something as simple as orbital mechanics.
Jezebel has a good take down of him. As does David Futrelle.
David Futrelle, professional mocker of pickup artists and MGTOWs and misogynists in general, had the perfect response to that bit of silliness, on his site “We Hunted the Mammoth”:
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2017/04/13/why-i-wont-pet-cute-kittens-any-more/
Note that the “merely beautiful” woman he is now dating is VP of a matchmaking company, who was set up with him by her mother, the president of that company. Seems to me like the NY Post decided to give some free advertising to their company, which I’m sure would love to sign up some more private equity dudebro clients.
Of course, it’s worked out fine for the Post too.
“Dude realizes dating women half his age is not working for him, switches to dating women 3/4 of his age instead” is such a non-story that I have to believe that screechymonkey @8 is correct and that this is some kind of advertorial that the Post either didn’t actually get paid for or didn’t mark as such.
“Are you in your 40s and still as shallow and obsessed with status as you were 20 years ago but find that dating 20 year olds now makes you feel old? Check out our matchmaking site where we can set you up with other shallow, status obsessed woemn who are closer to your own age. But still younger of course, because we know that’s important to you.”
Gosh isn’t the lady flattered that she was deemed sufficient while being “merely beautiful”?
If that were me (and it wouldn’t be me) he’d have to “downgrade” yet again because his “merely beautiful” fiance just left him.
The great thing about this world is that there are plenty of “flighty, selfish and vapid” folks of all sexes and genders. This also happens to be one of the horrific aspects of our world.
I read the article and there were women that were equally as bad being interviewed. In particular, one who changed from dating gorgeous men to dating “superballers”. Which from the context appears to be finance guys solely focused on accumulating wealth. It was unclear to me how this woman’s target date changed for the better.
In summary the article made me want to avoid any future interactions with folks in the finance industry.
I thought the New York Post was a trashy rag, not to be taken seriously…?
Dear God, People! You read an article with a picture of Adonis, playing a violin, who speaks 7 languages, and has a PhD? Or poor Chitre, a self-rated 9 or 10 environmental lawyer who has given given up on hotties and now only dates superballers?
Look, this is New York. We have four humor magazines:
1. The New Yorker. Good long reads, with cartoons. All cartoons can be recaptioned with “Christ, what an asshole!” without loss of information.
2. The New York Times. Good current news, with one joke: “area man struggles on $360K/year, here is his budget”
3. The New York Post. High school reading level version of #2. Better headlines (“Headless body in topless bar”) and same joke, simplified: “area model struggles to find love, here are his girlfriends.”
4. The Wall St Journal. This is our export-only product: no one in New York reads it, but apparently the editorial page is quite funny once you understand the joke.
If you pick based on looks, you get looks. If you want conversation, you should pick for conversation. That’s not a tricky concept. If it took me that long to figure out something that simple, I don’t think I’d be bragging about it.
A delightful example of selection bias at work. This isn’t really evidence of what “the prettiest young things” are like, it’s evidence of what members of the subcategory of “pretty young woman who, despite all of the options available to her, chooses to date older finance dudebros” are like. And yes, the kind of woman who prioritizes a man’s paycheck when selecting dates is going to seem “flightly, selfish and vapid.”
Oh, and let’s not let off the hook this woman:
Yeah, you sure discovered new depth, going after the “superballer” men with high-paying careers, who you think are going to be especially empathetic guys who intend to spend lots of time with their families. Because high-paying, high-status jobs are famous for offering loads of free time, and the men who are attracted to those jobs are totally going to leave work early to attend little Braydyn’s baseball practice. Sure.
And it just keeps on giving. Another satirical response:
http://jezebel.com/as-a-hot-woman-im-heartbroken-1794300499
Ignoring the blatant sexism, guy dates hundreds of women without establishing a long term relationship and thus becomes a dating expert? What’s next? A “degree expert” who has tried fifty different majors and universities and has dropped out of all of them?