Quote: (01-25-2012 05:37 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:
Quote: (01-25-2012 05:28 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:
I lived in SF for about ten years about ten years ago, I liked it a lot, beautiful city but I felt like I "aged out" quickly. I am only into girls under 27 and when I hit 40 it was like hitting a wall. Being cool and young is extremely valued and that works both ways.
Once you are not seen as all fun all the time you are a downer on their fantasy world.
Interesting take.
I always imagined SF would be better than Southern California for the ageing playboy.
What's your take?
If you want younger girls, SF is really bad for older guys. Exception: Hotel bars (but the girls want "daddys").
There's a huge difference why LA and SF girls differ.
LA girls, "fresh off the boat," i.e., from the Midwest, is a lost soul. She will latch onto an older man who will shower the ropes. Poison's "Fallen Angel" video does a good job of showing this.
In SF, there is dignity in being poor. Girls will live 4-5 in an apartment. Hipsters have made being poor OK.
So you're not going to find many lost souls in SF.
Also, girls in SF tend to have pretty good jobs. So they don't need a man like girls in LA.
Also, in LA, women over 30 still tend to look good. They do yoga, pilates, and have had work done. If you're in your 40's, a girl in her 30's is not a bad catch.
SF is the best place I've been for meeting women, but if you're over 38 (unless you look really young), you're only going to get women in their 30's. Unlike in LA, there is not nearly as much of an emphasis on appearance, and SF girls past 30 don't look so great.