# Another "What Women Want" thread



## southbound

When women list what they want or what they are attracted to in a man, whether it be on TAM, a dating site, or in real life, the list usually goes something like this:

- honesty(no liers or cheaters)
- has sense of humor; I love to laugh
- is financially stable
- has to be a good guy
- intelligent
- confident
- good communication

The list could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the idea.

Even if a woman attempts to describe why she is attracted to her husband of many years, it’s usually a similar list. 
For me, that is a list of things that I don’t feel is even worth mentioning. Who wouldn’t want those things? I have never in my life read a list of “what women want” and thought to myself, “Wow, that is a tough list. There’s no way that I or any man I know could live up to that.” I’ve noticed that even if a man does fit that list, that does not guarantee attraction. That’s also why I feel it’s a useless list; it runs deeper than the generic list, and that deeper list is what men would like to know. It’s like asking what you want in your next automobile, and someone says, “I want an automobile with an engine that runs, I want power steering, and I want seats.” Well, who doesn’t want those things in an automobile? I just assume those are givens. That’s every car on the lot, yet there is probably one or two that will really catch your attention. 

The real question is, aside from those general things everybody would want, what makes a car stand out to you? What special things do you want? Do you need a vehicle with lots of room because you have kids? Are you tall and, therefore, need a car that accommodates that? Do you plan to go off-road and need four-wheel drive? What special things would sell you on a vehicle? 

In a similar fashion, aside from those givens, what do you want in a man that you want to spend a lot of time and possibly the rest of your life with?
There can also be a list of things that women don’t want and would not attract you, and again, not an obvious list. Of course, no woman wants a cheater, drug addict, or serial killer, so no need to list those, but what are some things that can be common and aren’t necessarily a negative, but would not attract you? For example, do quiet, laid back guys generally turn you off? 

I’ve seen some women on a dating site say they want a tall man. They are 5’11” and usually not attracted to shorter men. Even though that seems a little shallow, if that is a hard-fast rule, I get that because I can understand exactly why a guy doesn’t fit her needs if he’s 5’7”. 

Perhaps the description only come after you click with somebody? Do you meet someone that you like, and then you try to explain why? In other words, is there no way to put into words what really attracts you. You either click or you don’t.


----------



## Faithful Wife

southbound said:


> When women list what they want or what they are attracted to in a man, whether it be on TAM, a dating site, or in real life, the list usually goes something like this:
> 
> - honesty(no liers or cheaters)
> - has sense of humor; I love to laugh
> - is financially stable
> - has to be a good guy
> - intelligent
> - confident
> - good communication
> 
> The list could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the idea.
> 
> Even if a woman attempts to describe why she is attracted to her husband of many years, it’s usually a similar list.
> For me, that is a list of things that I don’t feel is even worth mentioning. Who wouldn’t want those things? I have never in my life read a list of “what women want” and thought to myself, “Wow, that is a tough list. There’s no way that I or any man I know could live up to that.” I’ve noticed that even if a man does fit that list, that does not guarantee attraction. That’s also why I feel it’s a useless list; it runs deeper than the generic list, and that deeper list is what men would like to know. It’s like asking what you want in your next automobile, and someone says, “I want an automobile with an engine that runs, I want power steering, and I want seats.” Well, who doesn’t want those things in an automobile? I just assume those are givens. That’s every car on the lot, yet there is probably one or two that will really catch your attention.
> 
> The real question is, aside from those general things everybody would want, what makes a car stand out to you? What special things do you want? Do you need a vehicle with lots of room because you have kids? Are you tall and, therefore, need a car that accommodates that? Do you plan to go off-road and need four-wheel drive? What special things would sell you on a vehicle?
> 
> In a similar fashion, aside from those givens, what do you want in a man that you want to spend a lot of time and possibly the rest of your life with?
> There can also be a list of things that women don’t want and would not attract you, and again, not an obvious list. Of course, no woman wants a cheater, drug addict, or serial killer, so no need to list those, but what are some things that can be common and aren’t necessarily a negative, but would not attract you? For example, do quiet, laid back guys generally turn you off?
> 
> I’ve seen some women on a dating site say they want a tall man. They are 5’11” and usually not attracted to shorter men. Even though that seems a little shallow, if that is a hard-fast rule, I get that because I can understand exactly why a guy doesn’t fit her needs if he’s 5’7”.
> 
> Perhaps the description only come after you click with somebody? Do you meet someone that you like, and then you try to explain why? In other words, is there no way to put into words what really attracts you. You either click or you don’t.


We can only list our own preferences. Which will probably end up being a lot of different lists.

Do you want to see if there are commonalities that all women want, by comparing our lists?


----------



## uhtred

A surprising number of people don't live up to that list. (just look at stories here).

Something like 50% of people are cheaters.
How many are in enough debt to have a problem?
Intelligent? Almost by definition that is < 50%
confident? The pickup truck and sports car market is supported by men lacking confidence :smile2:

They are all reasonable things to want, but I think a lot of people don't meet that list. 





southbound said:


> When women list what they want or what they are attracted to in a man, whether it be on TAM, a dating site, or in real life, the list usually goes something like this:
> 
> - honesty(no liers or cheaters)
> - has sense of humor; I love to laugh
> - is financially stable
> - has to be a good guy
> - intelligent
> - confident
> - good communication
> 
> The list could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the idea.
> 
> Even if a woman attempts to describe why she is attracted to her husband of many years, it’s usually a similar list.
> For me, that is a list of things that I don’t feel is even worth mentioning. Who wouldn’t want those things? I have never in my life read a list of “what women want” and thought to myself, “Wow, that is a tough list. There’s no way that I or any man I know could live up to that.”
> snip
> .


----------



## 2ntnuf

I thought this was a, "Noww what do they want?!", thread.


----------



## southbound

Faithful Wife said:


> We can only list our own preferences. Which will probably end up being a lot of different lists.
> 
> Do you want to see if there are commonalities that all women want, by comparing our lists?


Yes, I think that would be great! I think there has to be some commonality among the lists, and even though there will be differences, there could be some light-bulb moments.




uhtred said:


> A surprising number of people don't live up to that list. (just look at stories here).
> 
> Something like 50% of people are cheaters.
> How many are in enough debt to have a problem?
> Intelligent? Almost by definition that is < 50%
> confident? The pickup truck and sports car market is supported by men lacking confidence :smile2:
> 
> They are all reasonable things to want, but I think a lot of people don't meet that list.


That's true, not everyone meets that list, but it still runs deeper than that. There are plenty of guys who do meet that list that don't seem to attract the ladies.


----------



## Spicy

Yes, I personally need to meet someone to know if there is even a chance.
You can weed out a decent amount by chatting a tad. (Morons etc) 

I also didn’t do a list for the short time I was OLD, that I remember. I agree that those main things are a given. Very high on my list was that I wanted someone that was a genuinely happy person day in and day out.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok to your list I would add:

He has to be interesting. His conversation, his lifestyle, his history, all or some combo of these need to be interesting to me. 

GGG, highly sexual and mutual chemistry and attraction with me. (Level of experience is irrelevant if these things are present).

Liberal. Doesn’t have to agree with me on all topics, just has to be a lefty and understand the issues I think are important (even if he thinks other issues are more important).

My family has to like him.

Kind to others, generally. 

Those would be the minimum requirements. I have minimum physical requirements too but I don’t think they are that relevant to this list.


----------



## MJJEAN

What attracts me to a man is chemical. Personality traits, however, might make me want to stay past breakfast.


----------



## southbound

Faithful Wife said:


> . I have minimum physical requirements too but I don’t think they are that relevant to this list.


Oh, I think it would be very relevant; that is part of the package. It might even be more telling than other items.


----------



## Faithful Wife

southbound said:


> Oh, I think it would be very relevant; that is part of the package. It might even be more telling than other items.


He has to be tall and/or big. 5’11 is ok if he’s super built, not ok if he’s on the smaller side. I am short, but I’m thick. My thighs are thicker than most men’s. So when it’s obvious my thighs are thicker than his when we sit next to each other, I just can’t do it. I had a date recently who was 6’1. Really cute, too! But he maybe weighed about 160 or so, which I noticed when we sat next to each other and I saw our thighs next to each other (and then we were touching each other around the waist and back, hugging, etc. and I felt how small he was.) A super skinny girl would love him! But I’m just too thick. Mine needs to have broad shoulders and strong arms. I don’t need visible biceps if their arms are strong (but it’s a bonus).

Doesn’t have to be completely fat free, but I expect at least that he doesn’t have more than I do. I have some, I’m not a board-like hard person. But mine is minimal and makes my shape sexy still, I expect the same from him.

Has to be handsome/hot to me. This can vary greatly. I like men of all colors, I like facial hair but like clean shaven also, I like long and short hair, I like bald, I like ones that look like intellectuals (say, **** Cavett) and I like ones that look like cute chubby baby faced boys (some people just always have a baby face) and I like ones that look like wild Vikings like Ragnar. The look that attracts me can’t really be narrowed down to a list when it comes to his face. Know it when I see it.

He has to have a reasonable penis. Can’t be too small (obvi) but also can’t be too big or there’s a basic fit problem. A bonus for an amazing penis, but the minimum is reasonable (and reasonable is a very lovely thing, too).

Obvious things like hygiene should be on your original list, too.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

I like men who are fit and like the outdoors. Like a person who likes to mountain bike and lives in Colorado for example. 

I also like older men. Like some guy that might live in Texas. Works with boys. Maybe like a football ref or similar. Something like that.

Another one that gets me is those guys that raised really smart kids. Someone into tech and gadgets. Like the type who would be at CES every year in Vegas. The type of guy who likes really big cats.


----------



## 269370

*Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



southbound said:


> When women list what they want or what they are attracted to in a man, whether it be on TAM, a dating site, or in real life, the list usually goes something like this:
> 
> - honesty(no liers or cheaters)
> - has sense of humor; I love to laugh
> - is financially stable
> - has to be a good guy
> - intelligent
> - confident
> - good communication



This list screams like “I’m an entitled, emotionally immature hypocrite” to me. Actually any lists or the need to make lists kinda do a bit. Next. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Luminous

Don't confuse 'wants' with 'needs'.

You could send yourself insane trying to figure that out.

Ever heard of someone saying 'there was just something about him/her' when meeting? People will say it's chemistry, and since chemistry can override any of that so-called list, I still say that most people don't consciously know what they need, until that need is met.


----------



## southbound

Luminous said:


> Don't confuse 'wants' with 'needs'.
> 
> You could send yourself insane trying to figure that out.
> 
> Ever heard of someone saying 'there was just something about him/her' when meeting? People will say it's chemistry, and since chemistry can override any of that so-called list, I still say that most people don't consciously know what they need, until that need is met.


I have always wondered about this. It’s as though some men just exude something from the pores that draw women in. Most men have it at various degrees, then there are a few men who can meet every positive characteristic on the list, but they just don’t don’t seem to deliver the invisible chemical that attracts women.


----------



## NotEZ

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



Luminous said:


> Don't confuse 'wants' with 'needs'.
> 
> You could send yourself insane trying to figure that out.
> 
> Ever heard of someone saying 'there was just something about him/her' when meeting? People will say it's chemistry, and since chemistry can override any of that so-called list, I still say that most people don't consciously know what they need, until that need is met.


I can somewhat speak to this. I wouldnt have given, and didnt for months, my SO a chance if it wasnt for the fact we were together multiple times a week due to common friends. He was nowhere near the person I saw myself with. 2 years later, he is now someone I cant see myself without.

Sent from my SM-A530W using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Luminous said:


> Don't confuse 'wants' with 'needs'.
> 
> You could send yourself insane trying to figure that out.
> 
> Ever heard of someone saying 'there was just something about him/her' when meeting? People will say it's chemistry, and since chemistry can override any of that so-called list, I still say that most people don't consciously know what they need, until that need is met.


Personally, I’m always open to this. If I met a man who didn’t check any of my boxes but he had something that attracted me greatly nonetheless, even if it wasn’t something I could describe, I would go for it.

Years ago I worked with a guy who was 5’3 and not conventionally good looking (though not unattractive at all). He was Samoan. He was this complete bad ass short dude, and you could see his incredible fiery ancient personality seeping through every part of him. There was at least one other woman I worked with who had a crush on him. But I don’t know what any on the street woman would have thought of him. I knew him a bit, and that’s what combined with his unique look to make me have a crush on him.

The main thing about his personality that was attractive? A calm, cool feeling. Like someone who meditates. But also is a warrior. Like one instant BAM he could go from zen to battle. 

He never ever did anything resembling battle around us. He never even got angry or aggressive or anything like that (that we saw). But anyone could sense that he was a total badass, quietly standing there in all of his glory, without ever saying so himself.

He was a kind and revered manager where I worked. He was known to bust into tears if one of his employees was hurt on the job or (sadly) was killed (not at work, but we had a death in his department). He was highly emotive in a manly way. Swoon.


----------



## Blondilocks

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



inmyprime said:


> This list screams like “I’m an entitled, emotionally immature hypocrite” to me. *Actually any lists or the need to make lists kinda do a bit. Next.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep.


----------



## Laurentium

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



inmyprime said:


> This list screams like “I’m an entitled, emotionally immature hypocrite” to me. Actually any lists or the need to make lists kinda do a bit. Next.


It's interesting. I am attempting a little bit of online dating right now, and there seem to be two kinds of profiles: ones that say "what I'm like", and ones that say "what I'm looking for". Unfortunately in both cases, people tend to have very inaccurate perceptions of what they are like and what they want. That's just how it is. I'm not sure it's hypocritical, I'd just say emotionally immature.


----------



## Lila

Laurentium said:


> inmyprime said:
> 
> 
> 
> This list screams like “I’m an entitled, emotionally immature hypocrite” to me. Actually any lists or the need to make lists kinda do a bit. Next.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting. I am attempting a little bit of online dating right now, and there seem to be two kinds of profiles: ones that say "what I'm like", and ones that say "what I'm looking for". Unfortunately in both cases, people tend to have very inaccurate perceptions of what they are like and what they want. That's just how it is. I'm not sure it's hypocritical, I'd just say emotionally immature.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's emotionally immature to have these preferences, to communicate them on a profile, or for a different reason altogether?

I actually think having a list of preferences spelled out on a dating profile represents clear communication. My most treasured commodity is time. I don't want to waste it with someone whose preferences I so clearly do not meet.


----------



## Lila

southbound said:


> When women list what they want or what they are attracted to in a man, whether it be on TAM, a dating site, or in real life, the list usually goes something like this:
> 
> - honesty(no liers or cheaters)
> - has sense of humor; I love to laugh
> - is financially stable
> - has to be a good guy
> - intelligent
> - confident
> - good communication
> 
> The list could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the idea.
> 
> Even if a woman attempts to describe why she is attracted to her husband of many years, it’s usually a similar list.
> For me, that is a list of things that I don’t feel is even worth mentioning. Who wouldn’t want those things? I have never in my life read a list of “what women want” and thought to myself, “Wow, that is a tough list. There’s no way that I or any man I know could live up to that.” I’ve noticed that even if a man does fit that list, that does not guarantee attraction. That’s also why I feel it’s a useless list; it runs deeper than the generic list, and that deeper list is what men would like to know. It’s like asking what you want in your next automobile, and someone says, “I want an automobile with an engine that runs, I want power steering, and I want seats.” Well, who doesn’t want those things in an automobile? I just assume those are givens. That’s every car on the lot, yet there is probably one or two that will really catch your attention.
> 
> The real question is, aside from those general things everybody would want, what makes a car stand out to you? What special things do you want? Do you need a vehicle with lots of room because you have kids? Are you tall and, therefore, need a car that accommodates that? Do you plan to go off-road and need four-wheel drive? What special things would sell you on a vehicle?
> 
> In a similar fashion, aside from those givens, what do you want in a man that you want to spend a lot of time and possibly the rest of your life with?
> There can also be a list of things that women don’t want and would not attract you, and again, not an obvious list. Of course, no woman wants a cheater, drug addict, or serial killer, so no need to list those, but what are some things that can be common and aren’t necessarily a negative, but would not attract you? For example, do quiet, laid back guys generally turn you off?
> 
> I’ve seen some women on a dating site say they want a tall man. They are 5’11” and usually not attracted to shorter men. Even though that seems a little shallow, if that is a hard-fast rule, I get that because I can understand exactly why a guy doesn’t fit her needs if he’s 5’7”.
> 
> Perhaps the description only come after you click with somebody? Do you meet someone that you like, and then you try to explain why? In other words, is there no way to put into words what really attracts you. You either click or you don’t.


 @southbound, my "list" would probably look similar to the one listed above but it would be more of a "this is who I am and I'm looking for someone similar". The who I am would include values, lifestyle, and personality. 

I would also mention I'm only interested in meeting monogamous men who are looking for a long term partner. 

The only thing I would specify is physical criteria, and by that I mean the Goldilocks range - not too x, not too y. 

Come to think of it, I car shop in a similar way. I figure out what I can afford and then narrow down that list to what I like from the available choices.


----------



## 269370

Lila said:


> Do you think it's emotionally immature to have these preferences, to communicate them on a profile, or for a different reason altogether?
> 
> I actually think having a list of preferences spelled out on a dating profile represents clear communication. My most treasured commodity is time. I don't want to waste it with someone whose preferences I so clearly do not meet.




But the list above is not what you can OFFER to anyone, it’s what you would REQUIRE. Which spells out entitlement.

Apart from bad form it also comes across as pointless. In terms of describing their own qualities it’s also pointless: people are the worst at assessing THEMSELVES objectively and will obviously embellish.
The best way to find out is to meet someone in person and see why they are like.

But I was mainly referring to the list in the opening post: it reads to me like it was written by a 14-year old teenager.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I've never OLD, only because I got married before the internet 😊😊 but I'd imagine everyone would have their preferences before committing date time. I see pros and cons to OLD.

Imo, whether gleaned from lists, or lifestyle descriptions one will get at least some preferences checked off prior, if the profiles are somewhat truthful. 

In OP orig list, all but the first few can be a little to highly subjective.

If most are being honest, it's the first few minutes when actually meeting that likely determine if a second date is even remotely in the cards.

Certain characteristics should be like picking the first (most statistically helpful) letters if playing Wheel of Fortune; RSTLN and E. 

Things that go without saying, but most feel better if iterated. 

So beyond those are true and helpful compatibility components I'd think. 

And what "most" women (or men) prefer isn't what "all" prefer.

Physical attributes as an ingredient in the entire recipe is a reality, folks should own up to that. Not saying which attributes are better, but searchers must have some preferences in that department. 

All my comments are my opinion, re my original disclaimer so hey pls point out if/where my interpretations conflict with reality. Maybe I'm coloring my opinions with personal logic in an ideal example. 

😊😊


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I do have to say, playing the what if game, that if I was single and looking:

I'd be trying to meet someone in person. Imo there's no substitution for face to face meeting, then getting to know more, in person. 

If one meets someone out and about it may be at an event doing something enjoyed, so there's one common item between two people. 

If you reach out to meet said person, then the physical attributes are there, possible chemistry. 

If still attracted after a few minutes of talking then a few more items checked off.

So in the long run, if specifically looking for a ltr it may not be quicker to go through an OLD site because immediately only vetted options advance.

True, perhaps different pools get "unfished" but would those last anyway?

If not primarily looking for an ltr then to me anyway, OLD seems like more worth the time. Then if one develops it may be more on the face to face after finally meeting, anyway.

I'm not saying OLD isn't good I do see pros and cons. Another tool in the belt, but not the only tool.


----------



## Laurentium

Lila said:


> Do you think it's emotionally immature to have these preferences, to communicate them on a profile, or for a different reason altogether?


For a somewhat different reason. There's nothing wrong as such with having preferences and communicating them. What's immature is, as I tried to say, having an inaccurate self-perception about what they themselves are like, and what they want. 



> I actually think having a list of preferences spelled out on a dating profile represents clear communication. My most treasured commodity is time. I don't want to waste it with someone whose preferences I so clearly do not meet.


I agree, if it is indeed "so clearly". 

To invent an example, if it said "I am an advanced skiier, and want to meet someone who can ski well so we can holiday together", that would be very helpful to me (in ruling me out immediately). If however it asked for someone with "a good sense of humour" or "fun loving", that tends not to be "so clear". I hope that makes sense.


----------



## 269370

*Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



Laurentium said:


> For a somewhat different reason. There's nothing wrong as such with having preferences and communicating them. What's immature is, as I tried to say, having an inaccurate self-perception about what they themselves are like, and what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, if it is indeed "so clearly".
> 
> 
> 
> To invent an example, if it said "I am an advanced skiier, and want to meet someone who can ski well so we can holiday together", that would be very helpful to me (in ruling me out immediately). If however it asked for someone with "a good sense of humour" or "fun loving", that tends not to be "so clear". I hope that makes sense.




Yes, that. I want someone with a 9 inch **** and I want someone fun loving is both stupid but for two separate reasons.
All the guys will hear is ‘I want I want I want’ (even if I had a 9 inch ****, I still wouldn’t reply’. ‘Cos my **** is 10 inches. In girth. Obviously.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding

southbound said:


> When women list what they want or what they are attracted to in a man, whether it be on TAM, a dating site, or in real life, the list usually goes something like this:
> 
> - honesty(no liers or cheaters)
> - has sense of humor; I love to laugh
> - is financially stable
> - has to be a good guy
> - intelligent
> - confident
> - good communication
> 
> The list could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the idea.


The problem with a list like this, what are we talking about. Are we talking about attraction in terms of a possible LTR, or are we talking about attraction in terms of bend me over the couch? I imagine the list would look much different depending on the desired outcome.

Honestly, looking at that list, seems like a no brainer to me for a LTR and not really something novel or groundbreaking


----------



## Lila

inmyprime said:


> But the list above is not what you can OFFER to anyone, it’s what you would REQUIRE. Which spells out entitlement.


It's entitlement to have preferences? We will have to agree to disagree.



> Apart from bad form it also comes across as pointless. In terms of describing their own qualities it’s also pointless: people are the worst at assessing THEMSELVES objectively and will obviously embellish.
> The best way to find out is to meet someone in person and see why they are like.


Online dating is like looking for a job by way of a wanted ad. 

A employer is looking to find the best fit for a particular job. They are going to weed through hundreds if not thousands of resumes to find potentially qualified candidates to conduct a phone interview. After the phone interview, a few candidates may decide the job isn't a good fit for them and will fall out of the pool. There will also be those whom the employer may weed out. The handful that are left are brought in for interviews. 

A person using OLD is looking for a particular person for a particular type of relationship. They are going to weed through hundreds of profiles to find a handful of people they think would be a good fit. They will message or respond to messages to those that meet their preferences and they feel would be a good fit for them. Only a few will actually make it to the date stage. 

It would be a waste of time and resources for a potential employer to interview every candidate that submits a resume. It would be a waste of time and resources to date every person with an online profile. 

So no, it's not pointless. It's the point of online dating. You may not like it but it is what it is.


----------



## Lila

Laurentium said:


> I agree, if it is indeed "so clearly".
> 
> To invent an example, if it said "I am an advanced skiier, and want to meet someone who can ski well so we can holiday together", that would be very helpful to me (in ruling me out immediately). If however it asked for someone with "a good sense of humour" or "fun loving", that tends not to be "so clear". I hope that makes sense.


What if the person really is just looking for someone with a great sense of humor and fun loving? Maybe they are open minded about how the sense of humor or fun loving aspect presents itself. In other words, there's more wiggle room or flexibility in what they like.


----------



## 269370

Lila said:


> It's entitlement to have preferences? We will have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Online dating is like looking for a job by way of a wanted ad.
> 
> A employer is looking to find the best fit for a particular job. They are going to weed through hundreds if not thousands of resumes to find potentially qualified candidates to conduct a phone interview. After the phone interview, a few candidates may decide the job isn't a good fit for them and will fall out of the pool. There will also be those whom the employer may weed out. The handful that are left are brought in for interviews.
> 
> A person using OLD is looking for a particular person for a particular type of relationship. They are going to weed through hundreds of profiles to find a handful of people they think would be a good fit. They will message or respond to messages to those that meet their preferences and they feel would be a good fit for them. Only a few will actually make it to the date stage.
> 
> It would be a waste of time and resources for a potential employer to interview every candidate that submits a resume. It would be a waste of time and resources to date every person with an online profile.
> 
> So no, it's not pointless. It's the point of online dating. You may not like it but it is what it is.




I think we are talking past each other: having preferences in itself is not a problem. Stating pointless and nebulous preferences is.

Applying for a job is a strange example but ok: “we are looking for a very hard working employee who will work overtime, hard and continuous. Also never gets sick, doesn’t take holidays and has more qualifications than can fit on an A4 sheet.”

Apart from it being laughable and meaningless, the main part - how much the salary is going to be - is not even mentioned anywhere.
So yeah, I wouldn’t expect any applications and would never apply myself.
If OLD is like applying for a ridonculous job to work for free, then good luck to the ‘company’ finding anyone.

But being serious: you don’t think there’s anything wrong spewing out demands at strangers in a form of lists rather than simply writing about your own interests? What kind of guy do you think is going to reply or bother with this?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I see the pros and cons, but to me the effort spent in weeding out "thousands" seems exhausting. 

I've already weeded them out if I'm open to meeting people in the places I go or even those I talk to on the phone.

I get the many fact (I'm not saying everyone) aren't comfortable just starting a conversation with a new person face to face, the possibility of rejection and all that.

I'm not one of those, so to me face to face isn't stressful, it's aways been a filter.

And I'm not a skier, either &#55357;&#56842;&#55357;&#56842;&#55357;&#56842; not much chance of talking with someone at a ski resort.

But I would at a beach, fishing, night club, bar, grocery store, ie places I go. Locations; also a filter.

But this is is just me. And many of my friends (single friends). Granted it's a personality trait I suppose.

When I was single, I was on the hunt (if I can use that term loosely) every day, no matter where I was, all day.

And talking on the phone. After I got/gave phone number, there was time set aside for calling / calling back.


----------



## 269370

Lila said:


> What if the person really is just looking for someone with a great sense of humor and fun loving? Maybe they are open minded about how the sense of humor or fun loving aspect presents itself. In other words, there's more wiggle room or flexibility in what they like.



And what if they are really boring and ‘sad’ loving themselves? 
Anyways, I am not sure most guys will read. They will probably look who has the most pouty/BJ-like lips and take it from there.

Do you remember how ‘Face’book started?

I don’t mean to be too cynical. Though i do know of one couple who met that way (and are still married). And I know of 10+ people who didn’t get anywhere and got fed up with it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila

inmyprime said:


> But being serious: you don’t think there’s anything wrong spewing out demands at strangers in a form of lists rather than simply writing about your own interests? What kind of guy do you think is going to reply or bother with this?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I do not think there's anything wrong with spewing out "preferences" something you continue to describe as "demands" and "entitlement" in the form of lists. It's an individual choice how each person sets up their online profile. 

I do not have an online profile but since OP says they are common, I must assume plenty of men respond to vague profiles like the one he described. I mean if it works why change it. 

And FTR, I have read plenty of profiles by men who have the same preferences listed for a dating partner so this isn't a male/female issue. They want honest, caring, faithful women. I've also seen vague preferences like wanting "drama free" and "no baggage".


----------



## Rowan

Interestingly, I never had any of the issues with online dating that so many people seem to face. Well, I mean, I had the occasional creeper, the handful of unsolicited **** pics, and a few baggage-laden guys who just really shouldn't have been dating. But I never had any of the ongoing drama and enveloping flood of crazy that so many seem to encounter in online dating. I'm not sure why that is, other than the fact that I was always very selective about who I communicated with and who I met. 

I'm not a 10, and I'm certainly not the sort of pretty, and overtly sexual, young thing that a lot of men my age seem to go for. I didn't draw a huge amount of attention when I was online dating. I never had the problem of my inbox being flooded with hopeful gentlemen's messages. But I always had a small handful who expressed interest. I met some wonderful men, had a couple short relationships, and eventually found my SO of just over three years. Apparently, I mostly attract the sort I tend to be attracted to. Or, at least, I'm very good at spotting them and weeding out those who don't fit the bill. 

I prefer taller men, because I'm taller myself and come from a tall family. I'm not a fitness fanatic, but I maintain my figure to a comfortable and healthy level and prefer my guys to do the same. I prefer a man that dresses generally well and appropriately for the occasion. I'm not really particular about hair, so long as it's clean, well kept, and he's owning whatever the state of his hair actually is. No comb-overs, no obvious hair plugs and no toupees. I don't mind gray or graying, and would object to a man coloring his hair. Oh, and I'm very anti-manbun. I'm not a big fan of tattoos and wouldn't date anyone who was heavily inked. No piercings. I'm okay with well-maintained facial hair, but long hillbilly beards and anything that brings Santa to mind are a hard 'no'. 

I like my guys to be squared away with a good job, financially responsible, generally home owners, who like cars, shooting sports, and the sorts of physical outdoor pursuits that interest me. I prefer them to be intelligent, with a biting wit and good sense of humor, and interesting to talk to. Rabid political or religious views, in any direction, do not interest me. I like men who read for pleasure, enjoy sci-fi, like to watch college football, enjoy cooking together, like to get dressed up and go out from time to time, have excellent manners and know enough etiquette to move with ease in a variety of social situations, enjoy trying new things and seeing new places, and are still interested in learning and growing. I was also looking for a man who had children, but preferably not young kids at home, as that seemed to work best with my own life stage. Bonus points for Jeeps, a well trained hunting or working dog, a preference for good bourbon and good shotguns, and anyone who fits in well with my family. 

Essentially, I prefer confident, self-aware, gentlemen who are of a similar background, socioeconomic status, and standard of living to myself, with a similar sense of humor, similar hobbies and interests, and who are at a similar stage of life. In other words, I like men who fit into my lifestyle, and thus me into theirs, with relative ease, and who are not only willing but happy to be a real partner to do real life with. And, of course, we need to be sexually attracted to one another. Without that spark, all the rest is sort of meaningless when you're looking for a romantic partner.


----------



## uhtred

I agree. OTOH people have to be a little careful about understanding the differences between their own "preferences" and "requirements". If you apply too many cuts you may end up with a very small pool of possible "employees", and miss out on some of the best ones.

I think it helps to give more details. eg., not "I want someone athletic", but "I'm looking for someone who will enjoy running a few miles with me before work", or "I'm looking for someone who will enjoy joining me in the next western states ultra"....







Lila said:


> It's entitlement to have preferences? We will have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Online dating is like looking for a job by way of a wanted ad.
> 
> A employer is looking to find the best fit for a particular job. They are going to weed through hundreds if not thousands of resumes to find potentially qualified candidates to conduct a phone interview. After the phone interview, a few candidates may decide the job isn't a good fit for them and will fall out of the pool. There will also be those whom the employer may weed out. The handful that are left are brought in for interviews.
> 
> A person using OLD is looking for a particular person for a particular type of relationship. They are going to weed through hundreds of profiles to find a handful of people they think would be a good fit. They will message or respond to messages to those that meet their preferences and they feel would be a good fit for them. Only a few will actually make it to the date stage.
> 
> It would be a waste of time and resources for a potential employer to interview every candidate that submits a resume. It would be a waste of time and resources to date every person with an online profile.
> 
> So no, it's not pointless. It's the point of online dating. You may not like it but it is what it is.


----------



## Lila

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I see the pros and cons, but to me the effort spent in weeding out "thousands" seems exhausting.
> 
> I've already weeded them out if I'm open to meeting people in the places I go or even those I talk to on the phone.
> 
> I get the many fact (I'm not saying everyone) aren't comfortable just starting a conversation with a new person face to face, the possibility of rejection and all that.
> 
> I'm not one of those, so to me face to face isn't stressful, it's aways been a filter.
> 
> And I'm not a skier, either ������ not much chance of talking with someone at a ski resort.
> 
> But I would at a beach, fishing, night club, bar, grocery store, ie places I go. Locations; also a filter.
> 
> But this is is just me. And many of my friends (single friends). Granted it's a personality trait I suppose.
> 
> When I was single, I was on the hunt (if I can use that term loosely) every day, no matter where I was, all day.
> 
> And talking on the phone. After I got/gave phone number, there was time set aside for calling / calling back.


 @Ragnar Ragnasson, I don't have an online dating profile but I too came from the world of meeting people IRL. 

It is rare to meet relationship partners IRL these days. An online presence is necessary, either through Facebook or Instagram or OLD.


----------



## Lila

uhtred said:


> I agree. OTOH people have to be a little careful about understanding the differences between their own "preferences" and "requirements". If you apply too many cuts you may end up with a very small pool of possible "employees", and miss out on some of the best ones.


Very true. That's why a little vagueness is good. 



> I think it helps to give more details. eg., not "I want someone athletic", but "I'm looking for someone who will enjoy running a few miles with me before work", or "I'm looking for someone who will enjoy joining me in the next western states ultra"....


But what if the person writing the profile is really just looking for athletic and doesn't care if they can run or not? Any version of athletic will do. 

See I would read that blurb about running a few miles before work and think "nope, not me" and move on to the next. Maybe the running wasn't even that big of deal to the owner but because of it's specificity, I would think it must be really important to them and I'm not a good match.


----------



## Rowan

Lila said:


> I do not think there's anything wrong with spewing out "preferences" something you continue to describe as "demands" and "entitlement" in the form of lists. It's an individual choice how each person sets up their online profile.
> 
> I do not have an online profile but since OP says they are common, I must assume plenty of men respond to vague profiles like the one he described. I mean if it works why change it.
> 
> And FTR, I have read plenty of profiles by men who have the same preferences listed for a dating partner so this isn't a male/female issue. They want honest, caring, faithful women. I've also seen vague preferences like wanting "drama free" and "no baggage".



I agree. I never had a list of demands or things I thought I was entitled to when I was doing online dating. My profiles were of the "this is what I'm generally like and enjoy" type. But I saw a lot of men's profiles with very specific requirements, sometimes even in bullet-point lists. And, yes, sometimes with "if you aren't X, Y or Z, don't even bother to message me" types of statements. Always love seeing "no fatties" or "if you're over 30 you're too old for me" from mid-40-something guys who were starting to get more than just a little soft in the middle themselves. But I suppose being demanding, not being self-aware, and feeling like you're entitled to more than you're able to offer is more of a human thing, rather than a male or female one. People, of either gender, can just be obnoxious.


----------



## 269370

*Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



Lila said:


> I do not think there's anything wrong with spewing out "preferences" something you continue to describe as "demands" and "entitlement" in the form of lists. It's an individual choice how each person sets up their online profile.
> 
> I do not have an online profile but since OP says they are common, I must assume plenty of men respond to vague profiles like the one he described. I mean if it works why change it.
> 
> And FTR, I have read plenty of profiles by men who have the same preferences listed for a dating partner so this isn't a male/female issue. They want honest, caring, faithful women. I've also seen vague preferences like wanting "drama free" and "no baggage".




Well everyone is free to try it: if it works for them, great! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Luminous

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*

Something that has been eluded to previously, and that is how an online dating profile is structured.

Having someone list their 'wants', whether one likes it or not, does tend to come across as entitled. 

However, if one can display what they can OFFER to a prospective partner, it gives a better idea of who this person is. Describing your own personality traits, your hobbies, your hopes, your experiences (all of course in abbreviated form) gives another person a clearer insight.

Someone who mainly tells what they want, displays very little information about themselves.

I met my last LTR in completely random circumstances whilst overseas. I have tried online dating, but to me it never felt 'organic' and quite forced. Perhaps that is a fault on my part (mindset), but that's how it felt.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rowan said:


> I agree. I never had a list of demands or things I thought I was entitled to when I was doing online dating. My profiles were of the "this is what I'm generally like and enjoy" type. But I saw a lot of men's profiles with very specific requirements, sometimes even in bullet-point lists. And, yes, sometimes with "if you aren't X, Y or Z, don't even bother to message me" types of statements. Always love seeing "no fatties" or "if you're over 30 you're too old for me" from mid-40-something guys who were starting to get more than just a little soft in the middle themselves. But I suppose being demanding, not being self-aware, and feeling like you're entitled to more than you're able to offer is more of a human thing, rather than a male or female one. People, of either gender, can just be obnoxious.


Yes, some of their lists make a person sound entitled (I’m sure this happens equally on men’s and women’s profiles). But that’s ok too, because then you can just avoid them without making contact. It’s good to know if someone is really weird about their lists of wants. It comes through pretty clearly.

My bumble profile literally says only “just browsing”. To know more, we start talking. I actually have some logistical needs, ones that I cannot compromise on. Namely that the person can’t live more than 15 minutes away from me. This is because I’m going to have to do all the driving to their place if we end up in a relationship (because my mother lives with me) and I know I just won’t be able to keep up with it if he lives farther than that. But I can’t explain all of that in my profile. So I try to only swipe guys who the program says are close to me. That’s helpful and usually accurate. There are lots of really great guys who I have to pass by because it is clear they live 40 minutes away from me. I just can’t do it.

Sometimes if it isn’t clear where they live we will swipe each other and start chatting, and it will then come out that he lives too far away. Then I’ll explain that no, I can’t do it, it’s just too far. Some of them are disappointed of course, but it can’t be helped. Wish each other well and move on.

I have other deal breakers, but they aren’t listed anywhere. I don’t talk about them to anyone (other than when I ask if they are a trump supporter). Otherwise, I’m just watching and noting for myself if any of my other deal breakers seem present, and ask questions if things come up. So far I have done very well with screening and the ones I’ve ended up on a date with are all really good guys. No regrets or complaints.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lila said:


> What if the person really is just looking for someone with a great sense of humor and fun loving? Maybe they are open minded about how the sense of humor or fun loving aspect presents itself. In other words, there's more wiggle room or flexibility in what they like.


This is actually me. I LIKE having what I call old tried and true fun AND being exposed to fun I had never thought about. I do know a fair number of pretty ho hum people.


----------



## southbound

My original post was basically just to say that most characteristics that women say they want in a man is usually pointless, because it’s things that seem like a given or something that everyone would want. 

So, my question was, beyond those givens, what is it that really makes the difference for women? From what I think i have learned from this thread is that every woman has her own list. It may not be writte down or spoken, but every woman has things that attract her. 

It seems, however, to boil down to a chemistry that can possibly override that list. Two people click and have chemistry or they don’t. It’s possible to think you didn’t want a guy under 6’, but it’s possible that you could have a chemistry with a shorter guy and that chemistry overrides your height requirement. Is that about right?


----------



## FeministInPink

southbound said:


> My original post was basically just to say that most characteristics that women say they want in a man is usually pointless, because it’s things that seem like a given or something that everyone would want.
> 
> So, my question was, beyond those givens, what is it that really makes the difference for women? From what I think i have learned from this thread is that every woman has her own list. It may not be writte down or spoken, but every woman has things that attract her.
> 
> It seems, however, to boil down to a chemistry that can possibly override that list. Two people click and have chemistry or they don’t. It’s possible to think you didn’t want a guy under 6’, but it’s possible that you could have a chemistry with a shorter guy and that chemistry overrides your height requirement. Is that about right?


I think chemistry can override the list (for example, my XBF was 5 yrs older than the age range I was thinking of for a potential partner), but sometimes that only applies for the short term, and not meeting the items on the list means that a LTR relationship is out of the question.

I dated this guy for a short time after my divorce. The chemistry was amazing, and he was an incredibly attractive man who was fantastic in bed. He was also dumb as a rock. Conversation with him was challenging, but we made it work for a little while... until it didn't work anymore. He didn't complete the intelligence requirement.

It's more of a question of which items are negotiable and which are not.


----------



## FeministInPink

Lila said:


> I do not think there's anything wrong with spewing out "preferences" something you continue to describe as "demands" and "entitlement" in the form of lists. It's an individual choice how each person sets up their online profile.
> 
> I do not have an online profile but since OP says they are common, I must assume plenty of men respond to vague profiles like the one he described. I mean if it works why change it.
> 
> And FTR, I have read plenty of profiles by men who have the same preferences listed for a dating partner so this isn't a male/female issue. They want honest, caring, faithful women. I've also seen vague preferences like wanting "drama free" and "no baggage".


My experience has been that the ones who want "drama free" are actually the ones who create the drama, and who say "no baggage" have more baggage than anyone else. Those are profiles I run from.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> My experience has been that the ones who want "drama free" are actually the ones who create the drama, and who say "no baggage" have more baggage than anyone else. Those are profiles I run from.


Yes, the ones who even mention drama are the ones who have drama following them around everywhere (hint: they are the common denominator!)

Disclaimer: applies equally to men and women.


----------



## 269370

FeministInPink said:


> My experience has been that the ones who want "drama free" are actually the ones who create the drama, and who say "no baggage" have more baggage than anyone else. Those are profiles I run from.




Exactly what I said before: these lists are full of hypocrisy = pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## notmyrealname4

southbound said:


> - honesty(no liers or cheaters)
> - has sense of humor; I love to laugh
> - is financially stable
> - has to be a good guy
> - intelligent
> - confident
> - good communication
> 
> T



It would be rare for anyone to possess all of these qualities.

And I don't think they are equally important to all people.

Honesty is important at a basic level. But I don't want blunt, callous statements aimed at me, even some of the time. If I am dumb enough to ask if I look fat in these jeans; it's fine to fob me off with a "yeah, you look fine". Excruciating honesty is overrated. I don't want to know if you think my sister is prettier than me.


Not everyone is funny in the same way. Offhand remarks about everyday life; or an observation stated with a certain tone in the voice, are funny to me. Practical jokes, one-liners, humor at the expense of others dignity; isn't funny.

I don't have a lot of money. Neither did my family. I do not have the education or talent to earn a lot of money. Why would I expect to be with someone "financially stable"? Just being employed full time is adequate. I would feel uncomfortable being with someone who earned a lot more than me. We come from different worlds, and, in the end; probably don't have enough in common.

"Has to be a good guy". This is so subjective, it is almost impossible to define. For me, it would mean not having a criminal record, not being a drunk or dopehead, not a gambler, not physically abusive, NOT CRUEL TO ANIMALS.


I don't want anyone much more intelligent than me. If I'm dating "Bill Gates"; he's bored and a lot of the things he's interested in are going straight over my head. It's like money; I would prefer to be with someone that's pretty close to my level.

I don't like overly confident people. I feel like, if you're that confident, then you don't know what the world is really like. You've never been knocked down and humbled. You probably don't have what I would consider to be wisdom.

Good communication would be really desirable. That is one of the worst areas of my marriage, I would say. I think it's a type of chemistry that you either have, or you don't. You work around it; but poor communication has a deleterious effect on everything else in your relationship.

The only thing I would add is that I do have a height requirement. My height or taller. I did date men a few inches shorter in the past, and I didn't like the way it made me feel.

I guess the physical chemistry has to be there too. Though, I really believe that in the long run, it's more important how the person treats you.


----------



## Laurentium

FeministInPink said:


> My experience has been that the ones who want "drama free" are actually the ones who create the drama, and who say "no baggage" have more baggage than anyone else. Those are profiles I run from.


Agreed, and I think that applies to the "sense of humour" and "fun" things too. We all like those things. Ditto for honesty or good hygiene. But those that feel the need to explicitly ask for them tend to be those who lack them. It shows a lack of self awareness.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> My original post was basically just to say that most characteristics that women say they want in a man is usually pointless, because it’s things that seem like a given or something that everyone would want.
> 
> So, my question was, beyond those givens, what is it that really makes the difference for women? From what I think i have learned from this thread is that every woman has her own list. It may not be writte down or spoken, but every woman has things that attract her.


I am kind of surprised that this comes as a surprise to you. 



> It seems, however, to boil down to a chemistry that can possibly override that list. Two people click and have chemistry or they don’t. It’s possible to think you didn’t want a guy under 6’, but it’s possible that you could have a chemistry with a shorter guy and that chemistry overrides your height requirement. Is that about right?


This one would be difficult for me since I can't imagine having a height "requirement". IF it were me, and someone had ... say a leg length "requirement" that would be enough information to move along and dismiss the person.


----------



## Married but Happy

Lila said:


> What if the person really is just looking for someone with a great sense of humor and fun loving? Maybe they are open minded about how the sense of humor or fun loving aspect presents itself. In other words, there's more wiggle room or flexibility in what they like.


IMO, "a great sense of humor and fun loving" would be woefully insufficient without more detail. Does a sarcastic sense of humor qualify? Or perhaps a cruel sense of humor? How about practical jokes? Fun loving might mean carpet bowling at the senior center, or poking fun at disabled people - specifics matter! Who doesn't like humor, and fun? However, we need to overlap significantly on what that actually means.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Married but Happy said:


> IMO, "a great sense of humor and fun loving" would be woefully insufficient without more detail. Does a sarcastic sense of humor qualify? Or perhaps a cruel sense of humor? How about practical jokes? Fun loving might mean carpet bowling at the senior center, or poking fun at disabled people - specifics matter! Who doesn't like humor, and fun? However, we need to overlap significantly on what that actually means.


Specifics do matter. 

The types of humor thing is spot on.

Kind of someone saying they caught a big fish over the weekend. Big in relation to what? 

One who catches marlin routinely won't think a 14lb bass is big, but both are big....in their arenas.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Married but Happy said:


> IMO, "a great sense of humor and fun loving" would be woefully insufficient without more detail. Does a sarcastic sense of humor qualify? Or perhaps a cruel sense of humor? How about practical jokes? Fun loving might mean carpet bowling at the senior center, or poking fun at disabled people - specifics matter! Who doesn't like humor, and fun? However, we need to overlap significantly on what that actually means.


When I wrote that in my profile, I was trying to weed out the rescuers like this one guy who did literally NOTHING but work thinking that a woman was going to rescue him from his boredom. I needn't have bothered since he did not feel he was not fun. He just felt his fun was lurking there for some woman to unlock in him. Not my cup of tea.


----------



## southbound

FeministInPink said:


> I dated this guy for a short time after my divorce. The chemistry was amazing, and he was an incredibly attractive man who was fantastic in bed. He was also dumb as a rock. Conversation with him was challenging, but we made it work for a little while... until it didn't work anymore. He didn't complete the intelligence requirement.


This is another area that is difficult to fully understand just through typed words, and I have seen it many times. A lot of women mention "deep conversation" and "intelligence." I get those to a point, but I often wonder if that is just to weed out the guys who only know how to talk about football or just wants to play a video game all the time. What topics is it that women want to discuss so deeply? I often picture a woman grabbing the New York Times and watching the World News and then wanting to discuss every major story deeply and in detail. Although I am a formally educated person, that would bore the crap out of me, especially on a daily basis. To me, that's the equivalent of buying someone a new tire for Christmas instead of something fun. 

I guess I have never experienced that in real life either. Most women I was ever around just wanted to talk about fun stuff, everyday life, or personal hobbies as opposed to the state of the union, yet on every site where desires are described, the deep conversation and intelligence thing often pops up. Take my x wife for example. History, politics, and all that type just wasn't her bag; she hated playing Trivial Pursuit; however, she knew how to be a good mother, knew how to manage money, was a good planner, etc. So, I never viewed her as "dumb" and never wished she would sit down and discuss politics in detail with me.
The state of the union, so to speak, is probably not what women mean when they speak of deep conversations, but I'm curious as to what they do mean. 

When you say he was dumb as a rock and conversation was challenging, would you care to share some examples?


----------



## EllisRedding

notmyrealname4 said:


> It would be rare for anyone to possess all of these qualities.


clears throat ...


----------



## EllisRedding

southbound said:


> A lot of women mention "deep conversation"


I always crack up when I see "deep conversations" mentioned. What does that mean, talking while in a submarine??? The problem, generally you would have a deep conversation about something that interests you. If you are unable to have a deep conversation with someone else, odds are it is b/c you have different interests or aren't quite compatible.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> I always crack up when I see "deep conversations" mentioned. What does that mean, talking while in a submarine??? The problem, generally you would have a deep conversation about something that interests you. If you are unable to have a deep conversation with someone else, odds are it is b/c you have different interests or aren't quite compatible.


I don't know what a deep conversation is either.


----------



## 269370

*Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



EllisRedding said:


> I always crack up when I see "deep conversations" mentioned.



I always thought that was a common abbreviation for deep throat..? 
I speak German so a lot of the words do have to come from the throat so...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred

Many people don't have all those qualities, but I think some do. 

I agree that "honesty" needs more definition. Most people though feel that honesty can include a little shading. "you look beautiful", may not be 100% honest in all cases, but if what it means is "I love you and you look beautiful *to me*" I think its OK.


I see "financially stable" as different from wealth. It means someone who's financial situation is... well stable. It means that they are in a position to deal with most financial surprises. They have saved enough money relative to their income to prevent minor misfortunes from becoming critical problems. 

Confident vs over-confident is a fine line. My feeling is that with confident people the issue never comes up. 




notmyrealname4 said:


> It would be rare for anyone to possess all of these qualities.
> 
> And I don't think they are equally important to all people.
> 
> Honesty is important at a basic level. But I don't want blunt, callous statements aimed at me, even some of the time. If I am dumb enough to ask if I look fat in these jeans; it's fine to fob me off with a "yeah, you look fine". Excruciating honesty is overrated. I don't want to know if you think my sister is prettier than me.
> 
> 
> Not everyone is funny in the same way. Offhand remarks about everyday life; or an observation stated with a certain tone in the voice, are funny to me. Practical jokes, one-liners, humor at the expense of others dignity; isn't funny.
> 
> I don't have a lot of money. Neither did my family. I do not have the education or talent to earn a lot of money. Why would I expect to be with someone "financially stable"? Just being employed full time is adequate. I would feel uncomfortable being with someone who earned a lot more than me. We come from different worlds, and, in the end; probably don't have enough in common.
> 
> "Has to be a good guy". This is so subjective, it is almost impossible to define. For me, it would mean not having a criminal record, not being a drunk or dopehead, not a gambler, not physically abusive, NOT CRUEL TO ANIMALS.
> 
> 
> I don't want anyone much more intelligent than me. If I'm dating "Bill Gates"; he's bored and a lot of the things he's interested in are going straight over my head. It's like money; I would prefer to be with someone that's pretty close to my level.
> 
> I don't like overly confident people. I feel like, if you're that confident, then you don't know what the world is really like. You've never been knocked down and humbled. You probably don't have what I would consider to be wisdom.
> 
> Good communication would be really desirable. That is one of the worst areas of my marriage, I would say. I think it's a type of chemistry that you either have, or you don't. You work around it; but poor communication has a deleterious effect on everything else in your relationship.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that I do have a height requirement. My height or taller. I did date men a few inches shorter in the past, and I didn't like the way it made me feel.
> 
> I guess the physical chemistry has to be there too. Though, I really believe that in the long run, it's more important how the person treats you.


----------



## uhtred

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know what a deep conversation is either.


To me its getting beyond the most superficial level of a discussion. Its showing that someone thinks about issues, views them from all sides, an openness to ideas and enough intelligence to sort through those ideas. I think it implies someone who is not going to make snap judgments, or many stupid mistakes - a useful skill for both life and relationships. 

I think a shallow person will get boring quickly - you will always know what they are going to say - or at least will not find out anything new after the start of a conversation. Someone who thinks more deeply will provide interest and surprising insight for a longer time.


----------



## uhtred

I don't think intelligence is about discussing every story in the NY Times in detail, but more its able seeing stories from different angles. If its political stories, its understanding the surrounding circumstances and thinking about alternatives. If Trump decides to pull troops out of Syria, I think an intelligent conversation is not just a Democrat / Republican good / bad opinion, but taking an overall view of the consequences and options. 






southbound said:


> This is another area that is difficult to fully understand just through typed words, and I have seen it many times. A lot of women mention "deep conversation" and "intelligence." I get those to a point, but I often wonder if that is just to weed out the guys who only know how to talk about football or just wants to play a video game all the time. What topics is it that women want to discuss so deeply? I often picture a woman grabbing the New York Times and watching the World News and then wanting to discuss every major story deeply and in detail. Although I am a formally educated person, that would bore the crap out of me, especially on a daily basis. To me, that's the equivalent of buying someone a new tire for Christmas instead of something fun.
> snip
> ?


----------



## southbound

notmyrealname4 said:


> It would be rare for anyone to possess all of these qualities.
> 
> And I don't think they are equally important to all people.
> 
> Honesty is important at a basic level. But I don't want blunt, callous statements aimed at me, even some of the time. If I am dumb enough to ask if I look fat in these jeans; it's fine to fob me off with a "yeah, you look fine". Excruciating honesty is overrated. I don't want to know if you think my sister is prettier than me.
> 
> 
> Not everyone is funny in the same way. Offhand remarks about everyday life; or an observation stated with a certain tone in the voice, are funny to me. Practical jokes, one-liners, humor at the expense of others dignity; isn't funny.
> 
> I don't have a lot of money. Neither did my family. I do not have the education or talent to earn a lot of money. Why would I expect to be with someone "financially stable"? Just being employed full time is adequate. I would feel uncomfortable being with someone who earned a lot more than me. We come from different worlds, and, in the end; probably don't have enough in common.
> 
> "Has to be a good guy". This is so subjective, it is almost impossible to define. For me, it would mean not having a criminal record, not being a drunk or dopehead, not a gambler, not physically abusive, NOT CRUEL TO ANIMALS.
> 
> 
> I don't want anyone much more intelligent than me. If I'm dating "Bill Gates"; he's bored and a lot of the things he's interested in are going straight over my head. It's like money; I would prefer to be with someone that's pretty close to my level.
> 
> I don't like overly confident people. I feel like, if you're that confident, then you don't know what the world is really like. You've never been knocked down and humbled. You probably don't have what I would consider to be wisdom.
> 
> Good communication would be really desirable. That is one of the worst areas of my marriage, I would say. I think it's a type of chemistry that you either have, or you don't. You work around it; but poor communication has a deleterious effect on everything else in your relationship.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that I do have a height requirement. My height or taller. I did date men a few inches shorter in the past, and I didn't like the way it made me feel.
> 
> I guess the physical chemistry has to be there too. Though, I really believe that in the long run, it's more important how the person treats you.


What you wrote here to describe yourself seems like a "real" person just being honest. This kind of profile would actually attract me on a dating site, but I never see anything like this. Women on dating sites appear to be auditioning for the next bachelorette. Personally, I wouldn't give fifteen cents to be in a LTR with any of those personalities on the bachelorette. I'm sure they would be great for some short term fun, but what happens when real life sets in?

I find that I still have to go to work, cook, clean, mow the lawn, go shopping, manage my finances, and all that kind of life stuff. I'm not expecting someone to give their laundry schedule on a dating site, but they try to show a lifestyle that is so beyond anything real, I just can't relate. Does nobody else just come home and crash through the week? Is everybody's work schedule so light that they feel like skydiving and kayaking every day of the week?

In addition, I would assume a life filled with boats, vacations, and constant activities has a price tag. Do only people who are financially well-off get on dating sites? Where's the people with a little less income who just do dinner and a movie or maybe some hamburgers on the grill?


----------



## Faithful Wife

southbound said:


> In addition, I would assume a life filled with boats, vacations, and constant activities has a price tag. Do only people who are financially well-off get on dating sites? Where's the people with a little less income who just do dinner and a movie or maybe some hamburgers on the grill?


Where do you live? Just curious if location has anything to do with it.

I do see a lot of profiles by men who clearly just do dinner and a movie or maybe some hamburgers on the grill...and that they probably don't have much desire to do anything more than this on weekend evenings.

While I would say some version of that is how I am going to end up spending weekend evenings with a boyfriend, I do also want to know that he is up for something different sometimes, or to travel (reasonably, not flying around the world all the time). So when I see profiles that look like a man mostly is home with his campfire and fishing rod and fresh dinner on the frying pan, I can admire his lifestyle but it does give me pause.


----------



## WorkingWife

I think the missing item on the list is chemistry. You have to meet and interact to see if you feel it. How can you define it?

Being able to laugh together is really important to me -- but there are a LOT of humor styles. They have to appreciate my sense of humor and I want to appreciate theirs.



southbound said:


> When women list what they want or what they are attracted to in a man, whether it be on TAM, a dating site, or in real life, the list usually goes something like this:
> 
> - honesty(no liers or cheaters)
> - has sense of humor; I love to laugh
> - is financially stable
> - has to be a good guy
> - intelligent
> - confident
> - good communication
> 
> The list could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the idea.
> 
> Even if a woman attempts to describe why she is attracted to her husband of many years, it’s usually a similar list.
> For me, that is a list of things that I don’t feel is even worth mentioning. Who wouldn’t want those things? I have never in my life read a list of “what women want” and thought to myself, “Wow, that is a tough list. There’s no way that I or any man I know could live up to that.” I’ve noticed that even if a man does fit that list, that does not guarantee attraction. That’s also why I feel it’s a useless list; it runs deeper than the generic list, and that deeper list is what men would like to know. It’s like asking what you want in your next automobile, and someone says, “I want an automobile with an engine that runs, I want power steering, and I want seats.” Well, who doesn’t want those things in an automobile? I just assume those are givens. That’s every car on the lot, yet there is probably one or two that will really catch your attention.
> 
> The real question is, aside from those general things everybody would want, what makes a car stand out to you? What special things do you want? Do you need a vehicle with lots of room because you have kids? Are you tall and, therefore, need a car that accommodates that? Do you plan to go off-road and need four-wheel drive? What special things would sell you on a vehicle?
> 
> In a similar fashion, aside from those givens, what do you want in a man that you want to spend a lot of time and possibly the rest of your life with?
> There can also be a list of things that women don’t want and would not attract you, and again, not an obvious list. Of course, no woman wants a cheater, drug addict, or serial killer, so no need to list those, but what are some things that can be common and aren’t necessarily a negative, but would not attract you? For example, do quiet, laid back guys generally turn you off?
> 
> I’ve seen some women on a dating site say they want a tall man. They are 5’11” and usually not attracted to shorter men. Even though that seems a little shallow, if that is a hard-fast rule, I get that because I can understand exactly why a guy doesn’t fit her needs if he’s 5’7”.
> 
> Perhaps the description only come after you click with somebody? Do you meet someone that you like, and then you try to explain why? In other words, is there no way to put into words what really attracts you. You either click or you don’t.


----------



## southbound

Faithful Wife said:


> southbound said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you live? Just curious if location has anything to do with it.
> 
> I do see a lot of profiles by men who clearly just do dinner and a movie or maybe some hamburgers on the grill...and that they probably don't have much desire to do anything more than this on weekend evenings.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually live in a very rural area. I sometimes wonder if that has anything to do with it. Perhaps they know it’s a rural area and feel they need to step outside that and seem more adventurous. I’m not even saying they are lying, but they just make the vacations, kayaking, traveling, and whatnot the focus of their profiles. They make it seem like they are so active and exciting, but I often wonder if that lifestyle is perhaps something they do once in a blue moon as opposed to a regular lifestyle.
Click to expand...


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

If you listen too much about what women want, you will just end up being their best friend. You know, friends without benefits. Those things are what women want in a LTR, but first you have to build the attraction. And guess what, most of the nice guy qualities they list doesn't get their panties wet.


----------



## southbound

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> If you listen too much about what women want, you will just end up being their best friend. You know, friends without benefits. Those things are what women want in a LTR, but first you have to build the attraction. And guess what, most of the nice guy qualities they list doesn't get their panties wet.


I’ve thought if that too. Isn’t this relationship thing just way too complicated?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

southbound said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you listen too much about what women want, you will just end up being their best friend. You know, friends without benefits. Those things are what women want in a LTR, but first you have to build the attraction. And guess what, most of the nice guy qualities they list doesn't get their panties wet.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve thought if that too. Isn’t this relationship thing just way too complicated?
Click to expand...

Its sure is. You have to relearn to 'hunt'. Put your idealism away for awhile and rely on base instincts. Get in touch with your inner caveman.


----------



## FeministInPink

southbound said:


> This is another area that is difficult to fully understand just through typed words, and I have seen it many times. A lot of women mention "deep conversation" and "intelligence." I get those to a point, but I often wonder if that is just to weed out the guys who only know how to talk about football or just wants to play a video game all the time. What topics is it that women want to discuss so deeply? I often picture a woman grabbing the New York Times and watching the World News and then wanting to discuss every major story deeply and in detail. Although I am a formally educated person, that would bore the crap out of me, especially on a daily basis. To me, that's the equivalent of buying someone a new tire for Christmas instead of something fun.
> 
> I guess I have never experienced that in real life either. Most women I was ever around just wanted to talk about fun stuff, everyday life, or personal hobbies as opposed to the state of the union, yet on every site where desires are described, the deep conversation and intelligence thing often pops up. Take my x wife for example. History, politics, and all that type just wasn't her bag; she hated playing Trivial Pursuit; however, she knew how to be a good mother, knew how to manage money, was a good planner, etc. So, I never viewed her as "dumb" and never wished she would sit down and discuss politics in detail with me.
> The state of the union, so to speak, is probably not what women mean when they speak of deep conversations, but I'm curious as to what they do mean.
> 
> When you say he was dumb as a rock and conversation was challenging, would you care to share some examples?


This was almost five years ago, so I don't really remember enough to come up with specific examples. I suppose dumb as a rock is a relative term, relative to me and the people I tend to surround myself with. I went to an ivy-level college and grad school, as have many of my friends, and so all that "deep conversation" stuff happens between all of us naturally. My friends who have less formal education are curious and self-educated and have no problem keeping up. I read quite a bit, as do my friends, and we do discuss politics, world events, literature, new scientific theories, psychology, etc., and play trivia and difficult strategy games, among other things. This particular man never met any of my friends... he would have been a fish out of water and would have had nothing to contribute if he had met them. And even though he professed to be interested in history, when I would bring up such topics of conversation, his frequent response would be, "I dunno."

It was like when I was home for Thanksgiving with my mother's family several years ago... we were at the dinner table, and I made a comment about something, and my uncle said to me, "Stop using big words. None of us can understand you." I didn't know how to respond to that; this is just the way I converse. And it had never occurred to me before that moment, but my mother frequently stops me and asks me to explain words that I use. The difference is that my mother is proud of me, and my uncle was just frustrated. Since that day, I don't talk much at family gatherings.

Anyway, I think that this guy that I was dating might have felt a little like my uncle when he was with me. And he did regularly ask me to explain words that I used, because he didn't know them.

But also, he just made stupid decisions in his personal life. He would tell me about stuff with his mom/family, or things about his relationship with his ex, and in my mind, I'm thinking, "Why in the world did you do that/make that decision? That was just a dumb move." Like he behaved and made decisions with his id rather than his ego.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> This was almost five years ago, so I don't really remember enough to come up with specific examples. I suppose dumb as a rock is a relative term, relative to me and the people I tend to surround myself with. I went to an ivy-level college and grad school, as have many of my friends, and so all that "deep conversation" stuff happens between all of us naturally. My friends who have less formal education are curious and self-educated and have no problem keeping up. I read quite a bit, as do my friends, and we do discuss politics, world events, literature, new scientific theories, psychology, etc., and play trivia and difficult strategy games, among other things. This particular man never met any of my friends... he would have been a fish out of water and would have had nothing to contribute if he had met them. And even though he professed to be interested in history, when I would bring up such topics of conversation, his frequent response would be, "I dunno."
> 
> It was like when I was home for Thanksgiving with my mother's family several years ago... we were at the dinner table, and I made a comment about something, and my uncle said to me, "Stop using big words. None of us can understand you." I didn't know how to respond to that; this is just the way I converse. And it had never occurred to me before that moment, but my mother frequently stops me and asks me to explain words that I use. The difference is that my mother is proud of me, and my uncle was just frustrated. Since that day, I don't talk much at family gatherings.
> 
> Anyway, I think that this guy that I was dating might have felt a little like my uncle when he was with me. And he did regularly ask me to explain words that I used, because he didn't know them.
> 
> But also, he just made stupid decisions in his personal life. He would tell me about stuff with his mom/family, or things about his relationship with his ex, and in my mind, I'm thinking, "Why in the world did you do that/make that decision? That was just a dumb move." Like he behaved and made decisions with his id rather than his ego.


I’m a little surprised when people are saying they don’t know what deep or intelligent conversation is. It’s just what I do. Every thing you described, yes. Plus philosophy, our personal world views, our thoughts on what happens after this life, alternate universes and reincarnation, we discuss exciting things NASA is doing or new discoveries in Egypt and other ancient places, we discuss difficult topics we or our friends or relatives may be going through (someone’s kid is in trouble for instance and we will discuss the ethics or implications involved), we discuss different cultures, racism, classism......there is never a shortage of interesting topics.

My sweet younger boyfriend is a scientist from another country. We could talk all day about science, and our 2 different cultures. He was a brilliant conversationalist.

My ex h and I used to get into studying what that one little bird we keep seeing in the backyard is and the next thing we know we are discussing the 30 different species who regularly visit our yard and all of their habits, songs and markings. Or we would be in Home Depot for one thing, but stop to discuss how we wish we had room to add this or that, and then discuss all the things that would have to happen to do that (I mean in detail, we both work in construction). 

Or we could simply talk about how into each other we are, for a long time on that topic. This would include many sappy, sugary lovey dovey things that no one else in the world would want to hear. But to us it was stimulating and erotic. We discussed how much we loved this time we did this one amazing thing and how awesome he was when he did that other thing that saved the day that night and remember when I surprised you with the thing and we had so much fun that night? Also you looked so beautiful just like you do now...smooch...cuddle...swoon...

See? Gross right? :laugh:

But to us it was incredible. Normally we just had the usual deep interesting conversations, not the gross ones. We never ran out of things to talk about, and we still don’t. I see him a couple times a week.


----------



## Laurentium

FeministInPink said:


> we do discuss politics, world events, literature, new scientific theories, psychology, etc.


The definition of deep conversation varies. Unfortunately for some it simply means conversation about whatever their hobby-horse topic is, which is often the evils of some other group of people. 

I have a group of very intelligent friends, whom I love very much, we went to the same ivy league etc, but unfortunately their conversation is almost entirely about electronic circuits. That's what fascinates them. Why do I say "unfortunately"? It's only unfortunate for me. They enjoy it, and why shouldn't they? So I have no complaint. It's a conversation that certainly needs a lot of intelligence and learning. But for me, it might as well be about stamp collecting or what size fish I caught yesterday. I tune the words out, and enjoy them for the kind, intelligent people that they are. 



> It was like when I was home for Thanksgiving with my mother's family several years ago... we were at the dinner table, and I made a comment about something, and my uncle said to me, "Stop using big words. None of us can understand you."


If that's what he said, I admire it. If he didn't say "YOU don't know what they mean" or "you are showing off" or "you sound stuck up" nor even just "shut the **** up"; if he just said "none of us can understand you", I like it. It carries an implication of "_....and we'd like to_".


----------



## FeministInPink

Laurentium said:


> The definition of deep conversation varies. Unfortunately for some it simply means conversation about whatever their hobby-horse topic is, which is often the evils of some other group of people.
> 
> I have a group of very intelligent friends, whom I love very much, we went to the same ivy league etc, but unfortunately their conversation is almost entirely about electronic circuits. That's what fascinates them. Why do I say "unfortunately"? It's only unfortunate for me. They enjoy it, and why shouldn't they? So I have no complaint. It's a conversation that certainly needs a lot of intelligence and learning. But for me, it might as well be about stamp collecting or what size fish I caught yesterday. I tune the words out, and enjoy them for the kind, intelligent people that they are.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what he said, I admire it. If he didn't say "YOU don't know what they mean" or "you are showing off" or "you sound stuck up" nor even just "shut the **** up"; if he just said "none of us can understand you", I like it. It carries an implication of "_....and we'd like to_".


It's an exact quote.

I don't know if he meant it exactly the way you interpreted it, but it would be nice if that was what he meant. I can't really be sure. There are a lot of loaded family dynamics that come into play with this one statement that I'd rather not go into.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m a little surprised when people are saying they don’t know what deep or intelligent conversation is.


I guess I too deep to mean emotionally deep. I thought that people talking about topics was a given. One reason not to mention it in a profile is that if someone can't do that, they don't know that they can't do that.


----------



## southbound

FeministInPink said:


> This was almost five years ago, so I don't really remember enough to come up with specific examples. I suppose dumb as a rock is a relative term, relative to me and the people I tend to surround myself with. I went to an ivy-level college and grad school, as have many of my friends, and so all that "deep conversation" stuff happens between all of us naturally. My friends who have less formal education are curious and self-educated and have no problem keeping up. I read quite a bit, as do my friends, and we do discuss politics, world events, literature, new scientific theories, psychology, etc., and play trivia and difficult strategy games, among other things. This particular man never met any of my friends... he would have been a fish out of water and would have had nothing to contribute if he had met them. And even though he professed to be interested in history, when I would bring up such topics of conversation, his frequent response would be, "I dunno."
> 
> It was like when I was home for Thanksgiving with my mother's family several years ago... we were at the dinner table, and I made a comment about something, and my uncle said to me, "Stop using big words. None of us can understand you." I didn't know how to respond to that; this is just the way I converse. And it had never occurred to me before that moment, but my mother frequently stops me and asks me to explain words that I use. The difference is that my mother is proud of me, and my uncle was just frustrated. Since that day, I don't talk much at family gatherings.
> 
> Anyway, I think that this guy that I was dating might have felt a little like my uncle when he was with me. And he did regularly ask me to explain words that I used, because he didn't know them.
> 
> But also, he just made stupid decisions in his personal life. He would tell me about stuff with his mom/family, or things about his relationship with his ex, and in my mind, I'm thinking, "Why in the world did you do that/make that decision? That was just a dumb move." Like he behaved and made decisions with his id rather than his ego.


I appreciate your response very much. So, for you, it is exactly what I would think about when someone mentions intelligent, deep conversation. You went to an Ivy League school, and you do want to discuss politics, world events, literature, scientific theories, and that kind of stuff. I guess the reason I needed clarification is because I've never dated a woman in real life who is like that. Most people want to talk about their daily lives and events, hobbies, and just fun stuff, like their favorite movies or music. I'm not saying those other things never get mentioned, but it would just be more in passing comments and not lengthy conversation. Remember, most women like a guy who can "make them laugh." 

I have a Master's degree myself, but talking politics and world events would bore the soup out of me. I can understand you thinking he made dumb decisions in his life. I consider myself a logical person, and I try to make smart decisions. Another mark against me is that I'm more the quiet type, at least compared to some. I don't have a burning desire to be talking 24/7. I have to be honest too, politics do not interest me to the point I would be deep with them. I suppose it could be a matter of interest. Personally, human behavior has always interested me. I like to know what makes people tick, so I could discuss that. As for other topics people have mentioned, I could go for:
- the Home Depot discussion of making a project work
- human behavior
- daily life 
- cattle
- how much I am into my partner

What would bore the soup out of me is:
- politics
- NASA
- discoveries in Egypt

So, maybe when women mention intelligent conversation, they actually do mean they want to talk academics. I just didn't realize that was everybody's cup of tea. I guess I'm an anomaly. I do have a Master's degree, but there is a lot of just "regular guy" in me. I guess it's just not my crowd.


----------



## Faithful Wife

southbound said:


> I appreciate your response very much. So, for you, it is exactly what I would think about when someone mentions intelligent, deep conversation. You went to an Ivy League school, and you do want to discuss politics, world events, literature, scientific theories, and that kind of stuff. I guess the reason I needed clarification is because I've never dated a woman in real life who is like that. Most people want to talk about their daily lives and events, hobbies, and just fun stuff, like their favorite movies or music. I'm not saying those other things never get mentioned, but it would just be more in passing comments and not lengthy conversation. Remember, most women like a guy who can "make them laugh."
> 
> I have a Master's degree myself, but talking politics and world events would bore the soup out of me. I can understand you thinking he made dumb decisions in his life. I consider myself a logical person, and I try to make smart decisions. Another mark against me is that I'm more the quiet type, at least compared to some. I don't have a burning desire to be talking 24/7. I have to be honest too, politics do not interest me to the point I would be deep with them. I suppose it could be a matter of interest. Personally, human behavior has always interested me. I like to know what makes people tick, so I could discuss that. As for other topics people have mentioned, I could go for:
> - the Home Depot discussion of making a project work
> - human behavior
> - daily life
> - cattle
> - how much I am into my partner
> 
> What would bore the soup out of me is:
> - politics
> - NASA
> - discoveries in Egypt
> 
> So, maybe when women mention intelligent conversation, they actually do mean they want to talk academics. I just didn't realize that was everybody's cup of tea. I guess I'm an anomaly. I do have a Master's degree, but there is a lot of just "regular guy" in me. I guess it's just not my crowd.


Just wanted to say, during any conversation, even about topics like politics or cultural issues, we are still laughing. Like you said, we want a man who can make us laugh. As we weave through a conversation about literally anything, he and I both will still weave our humor throughout the conversation and be laughing and smiling the whole time. 

Topics like NASA and discoveries in Egypt would be just passing topics, based on a headline one of us saw that day. Or some documentary we watched. There would be many other examples but they would each be just a one time conversation usually. 

I’ve found that discussing hobbies isn’t as mutually fun unless the hobby is also mutual. I love hearing my man talk about his golf game that day, but only for a bit, because I don’t golf. Similarly, he doesn’t swing dance. So me talking about my dance hobby won’t be interesting to him for very long. We do it but not at length.

Whereas if it is a shared hobby like home improvements, we can talk all day. And still be laughing. And also be touching and interjecting some sexy into every conversation. :wink2:


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> This one would be difficult for me since I can't imagine having a height "requirement". IF it were me, and someone had ... say a leg length "requirement" that would be enough information to move along and dismiss the person.


I do have a height requirement, but I would never say so on my profile.

Though I see a lot of sentiments on men’s profiles like “I am X’X”, since is seems to matter to you ladies”. So I assume that means women are somehow communicating on their profiles that they have a height preference.

Or it could be because if they don’t list their height, and they message a woman, one of the first things she might ask is how tall are you.


----------



## FeministInPink

Faithful Wife said:


> Just wanted to say, during any conversation, even about topics like politics or cultural issues, we are still laughing. Like you said, we want a man who can make us laugh. As we weave through a conversation about literally anything, he and I both will still weave our humor throughout the conversation and be laughing and smiling the whole time.
> 
> Topics like NASA and discoveries in Egypt would be just passing topics, based on a headline one of us saw that day. Or some documentary we watched. There would be many other examples but they would each be just a one time conversation usually.
> 
> I’ve found that discussing hobbies isn’t as mutually fun unless the hobby is also mutual. I love hearing my man talk about his golf game that day, but only for a bit, because I don’t golf. Similarly, he doesn’t swing dance. So me talking about my dance hobby won’t be interesting to him for very long. We do it but not at length.
> 
> Whereas if it is a shared hobby like home improvements, we can talk all day. And still be laughing. And also be touching and interjecting some sexy into every conversation. :wink2:


I think Faithful Wife hits it on the head with this post. My friends and I don't talk about this "high brow" stuff all the time; we talk about the regular stuff that @southbound mentioned in his previous post the majority of the time, I would say, and "high brow" topics the minority. But even talking about regular stuff with intelligent people tends to be a little more nuanced, from my experience.


----------



## Luminous

I find myself laughing quite a bit a people that have 'height' requirements.

I can only imagine how upset some people would get if guys advertised a 'chest' requirement.

After all, it's only another sort of physical characteristic...


----------



## uhtred

Not everyone wants deep conversations. That's fine - and a good reason to talk about it on a dating site. A relationship between someone who enjoys deep conversations and someone who doesn't won't work that well.






southbound said:


> I appreciate your response very much. So, for you, it is exactly what I would think about when someone mentions intelligent, deep conversation. You went to an Ivy League school, and you do want to discuss politics, world events, literature, scientific theories, and that kind of stuff. I guess the reason I needed clarification is because I've never dated a woman in real life who is like that. Most people want to talk about their daily lives and events, hobbies, and just fun stuff, like their favorite movies or music. I'm not saying those other things never get mentioned, but it would just be more in passing comments and not lengthy conversation. Remember, most women like a guy who can "make them laugh."
> 
> I have a Master's degree myself, but talking politics and world events would bore the soup out of me. I can understand you thinking he made dumb decisions in his life. I consider myself a logical person, and I try to make smart decisions. Another mark against me is that I'm more the quiet type, at least compared to some. I don't have a burning desire to be talking 24/7. I have to be honest too, politics do not interest me to the point I would be deep with them. I suppose it could be a matter of interest. Personally, human behavior has always interested me. I like to know what makes people tick, so I could discuss that. As for other topics people have mentioned, I could go for:
> - the Home Depot discussion of making a project work
> - human behavior
> - daily life
> - cattle
> - how much I am into my partner
> 
> What would bore the soup out of me is:
> - politics
> - NASA
> - discoveries in Egypt
> 
> So, maybe when women mention intelligent conversation, they actually do mean they want to talk academics. I just didn't realize that was everybody's cup of tea. I guess I'm an anomaly. I do have a Master's degree, but there is a lot of just "regular guy" in me. I guess it's just not my crowd.


----------



## uhtred

Technical conversations (for example about electronics) can be deep or not - its difficult to know if you are not knowledgeable in the field. They are of course boring to anyone who is not in the field. 

I have very amusing, but highly technical conversations sometimes - but only when the people around are interested. 




Laurentium said:


> The definition of deep conversation varies. Unfortunately for some it simply means conversation about whatever their hobby-horse topic is, which is often the evils of some other group of people.
> 
> I have a group of very intelligent friends, whom I love very much, we went to the same ivy league etc, but unfortunately their conversation is almost entirely about electronic circuits. That's what fascinates them. Why do I say "unfortunately"? It's only unfortunate for me. They enjoy it, and why shouldn't they? So I have no complaint. It's a conversation that certainly needs a lot of intelligence and learning. But for me, it might as well be about stamp collecting or what size fish I caught yesterday. I tune the words out, and enjoy them for the kind, intelligent people that they are.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what he said, I admire it. If he didn't say "YOU don't know what they mean" or "you are showing off" or "you sound stuck up" nor even just "shut the **** up"; if he just said "none of us can understand you", I like it. It carries an implication of "_....and we'd like to_".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Luminous said:


> I find myself laughing quite a bit a people that have 'height' requirements.
> 
> I can only imagine how upset some people would get if guys advertised a 'chest' requirement.
> 
> After all, it's only another sort of physical characteristic...


It’s fine with me if they do. In fact, that would be helpful to me.

Also it would be helpful if I knew they just aren’t that into boobs, because then we could not waste each other’s time. But unfortunately I have to wait until a bit later to find things like that out.

I met a guy who had a bit of a foot fetish recently. I was honest and said ok yeah, I could maybe get into that. I have nice feet and they would love to be worshipped. But as he was talking about his love of feet, he also said off hand “yeah that’s me, I love the feet and the lower body. Boobs, not a big deal to me”. He was saying this almost like I should be relieved that he’s so different and not hung up on boobs.

At the end of the date I had to let him know that although I would love attention on my feet, that’s his deal and not mine, while my deal is that my boobs need to be worshipped properly by someone who is into them. He immediately started back tracking and saying “but wait, I didn’t say I hated boobs! I can treat your boobs right!” And I said “but the guy who is right for me would not ever say he just isn’t that into boobs. So being able to handle them right but only doing it because I want it isn’t what I’m looking for, sorry”.

I’m glad he was just honest. Things like that help you next people, but you don’t always find out right away. Sometimes you waste time getting to know someone only to find out something like that after several dates. And although I know he wanted a chance to show me he could “treat my boobs right”, I wasn’t interested in someone who would be more into my feet than my boobs. Again, it was kind of funny how he almost was boasting to me about his lack of interest in boobs. Like he was more evolved than men who are into boobs, or like I must be tired of all the dudes who are so into them.

Also by the way, all men have weight requirements even if they don’t say so in their profiles.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

uhtred said:


> *A surprising number of people don't live up to that list. (just look at stories here)*.
> 
> Something like 50% of people are cheaters.
> How many are in enough debt to have a problem?
> Intelligent? Almost by definition that is < 50%
> confident? The pickup truck and sports car market is supported by men lacking confidence :smile2:
> 
> They are all reasonable things to want, but I think a lot of people don't meet that list.


This part is rather a shame... I could see where Southbound was coming from though in his original post... the thing that gets me is... lots of women DO fall for cheaters, even KNOWING they have cheated...if such men have other attributes they want , Crazy Charm, humor, gorgeous / successful....this aspect easily goes out the window... 



inmyprime said:


> This list screams like “I’m an entitled, emotionally immature hypocrite” to me. Actually any lists or the need to make lists kinda do a bit. Next.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Personally I don't see anything wrong with having a list (or standards) that you KNOW down the road would cause hell with someone very different from yourself.. best to weed them out from the get go. 

I know myself enough to know there are certain men that would NEVER EVER work with me, they wouldn't want me either [email protected]# Best to weed them out and not waste anyone's time. 

.. I NEED certain areas to be clicked or we'd end up resenting each other..... I think it is wise to know what works for you and what would not... 

I am very different over FW for instance .. I would seek a more conservative man, although if he was a "staunch Conservative" Politically speaking , this would cause a firestorm between us... I like Older fashioned men/ family types.. I am not attracted to bald and I like them thin or I'd probably lose attraction to his body, and seek to put him on a diet.. 

I also could not be with someone who hung out in Bars (not my scene), who was careless with his $$ , living beyond his means while buying new toys/ cars, etc...(I can not stand being in debt, this would cause major fights between us- I don't need a rich man, but I need a frugal one if he's blue collar)....

I could not be with a guy who insisted on living in the City.. I hate the city and Lust for "country life", cow pasture views, green lust grass and serenity.... I could not be with a man who wasn't touchy feely, seeks to cuddle & loves physical intimacy....... This is how I long to show affection as it's a top love language and would seek the same in return.. if I felt I was "crowding someone" and invading their space by being who I was, what delights me ... we wouldn't be a suitable match, I'd find myself longing for "more"...



Luminous said:


> Don't confuse 'wants' with 'needs'.
> 
> You could send yourself insane trying to figure that out.
> 
> Ever heard of someone saying 'there was just something about him/her' when meeting? People will say it's chemistry, and since chemistry can override any of that so-called list, I still say that most people don't consciously know what they need, until that need is met.


 I am not one who believes "Chemistry" will LAST.. if a man & women's values / life dreams, goals to achieve , experience together are not in alignment to enough of a degree ... it will be a very very rough road ahead.. despite any initial chemistry/ attraction.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



Laurentium said:


> It's interesting. I am attempting a little bit of online dating right now, and there seem to be two kinds of profiles: ones that say "what I'm like", and ones that say "what I'm looking for". Unfortunately in both cases, people tend to have very inaccurate perceptions of what they are like and what they want. That's just how it is. I'm not sure it's hypocritical, I'd just say emotionally immature.


The sorry fact is... the majority of people today have made a habit out of stretching the truth, add some exaggeration, even defending outright lying to save face, if it will make them sound more attractive, / exciting...whatever works...meanwhile "self awareness" is in short supply...I swear it's the culture we live in... 

Heck I have done threads HERE on Lying and found posters "defending" so much lying, especially WHITE lying... One has to weed out the bold faced liars with the sincere, that's just the world we now live in  ...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

inmyprime said:


> But the list above is not what you can OFFER to anyone, it’s what you would REQUIRE. Which spells out entitlement.
> 
> Apart from bad form it also comes across as pointless. In terms of describing their own qualities it’s also pointless: people are the worst at assessing THEMSELVES objectively and will obviously embellish.
> The best way to find out is to meet someone in person and see why they are like.
> 
> But I was mainly referring to the list in the opening post: it reads to me like it was written by a 14-year old teenager.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wow.. that was sure rude.. I don't see this the same ....again... the majority of people are not self aware ...but that doesn't mean there are those who ARE on such dating sites (though few & far between) and could assess themselves respectfully accurate in what they seek and what they have to offer. 

Yes...many "embellish" , making themselves sound more exciting, more whatever to draw more hits...yet it doesn't mean everyone is like this... "Southbound" is not this type....he's been here many years.. he's very humble, never one to make himself sound "higher" than he is.. if anything.. will be the 1st to point out his flaws in honesty.. I would say he is one of the "self aware" ones without any "puffing up" going on.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



Luminous said:


> Something that has been eluded to previously, and that is how an online dating profile is structured.
> 
> Having someone list their 'wants', whether one likes it or not, does tend to come across as entitled.
> 
> *However, if one can display what they can OFFER to a prospective partner, it gives a better idea of who this person is. Describing your own personality traits, your hobbies, your hopes, your experiences (all of course in abbreviated form) gives another person a clearer insight.*
> 
> Someone who mainly tells what they want, displays very little information about themselves.
> 
> I met my last LTR in completely random circumstances whilst overseas. I have tried online dating, but to me it never felt 'organic' and quite forced. Perhaps that is a fault on my part (mindset), but that's how it felt.


A good balanced self aware Dating profile would have THIS in it... always.


----------



## 269370

*Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*

My weight requirement is to make sure she has enough mass to not be flung out into space 

In terms of compatibility: I would have thought ‘good will’ and eagerness to learn and please is actually more important than being precisely into the same things (sexually). My wife doesn’t need to be exactly into the same stuff as me and vice versa but over time partners learn what the other likes, what their preferences are and ‘learn’ to like them too, because they see how much it turns the other one on (empathy), rather than making it into a power struggle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

*Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



SimplyAmorous said:


> Wow.. that was sure rude.. I don't see this the same ....again... the majority of people are not self aware ...but that doesn't mean there are those who ARE on such dating sites (though few & far between) and could assess themselves respectfully accurate in what they seek and what they have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...many "embellish" , making themselves sound more exciting, more whatever to draw more hits...yet it doesn't mean everyone is like this... "Southbound" is not this type....he's been here many years.. he's very humble, never one to make himself sound "higher" than he is.. if anything.. will be the 1st to point out his flaws in honesty.. I would say he is one of the "self aware" ones without any "puffing up" going on.



Which part was rude? You did understand (I hope) that that list was not Southbound’s own list, but a list that he comes across on dating sites, right? (And that he himself doesn’t understand the meaning of - because it’s incredibly shallow).

Are we reading the same thing? And why so intolerant towards teenagers? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

SimplyAmorous said:


> Personally I don't see anything wrong with having a list (or standards) that you KNOW down the road would cause hell with someone very different from yourself.. best to weed them out from the get go.



I’m not sure how you got from my post that standards are not important. There’s a difference between having your own (high) standards (and abiding by them) to a list of superficial generalities that have a million different meanings to a million different people. What the original list quoted says to me:

“I have no idea what I’m looking for in a partner but I want to appear like I’m very discerning by listing a bunch of big words that appear to sound like I know what I’m talking about. Moreover I expect that mystery man to just drop onto my lap without having to show anything for myself because I deserve it”.

On the other hand, the stuff you (and others) listed may well be useful (whether in terms of logistics or the more obvious things etc). I also get that that is the language and standards used by dating sites currently so obviously I’m behind the curve as I’m not using any of those.

I do however think that someone just browsing may actually get the wrong impression or miss a lot that they otherwise wouldn’t, if they met some people in person. Not only do we not always know WHO we are (in a deep, philosophical sense) but very often, the new people we meet will bring out entirely new qualities in us that we may not even know exist in us. I believe rigid lists (and requirements) will restrict those chances.

I think one needs to use a bit of common sense, in terms of what is ‘negotiable’ and what are dealbreakers (which I’m sure people with experience do anyway).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

EllisRedding said:


> notmyrealname4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be rare for anyone to possess all of these qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> clears throat ...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think those qualities are the bare minimum for someone to date. I have them all, too, so it's certainly possible.

But the people without them have a vested interest in pretending to have them. That's the tricky part to navigate, figuring out the liars.

I want someone similar enough to me to be compatible, and different enough to be intriguing. It's a fine balance, and I haven't found it yet.


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



SimplyAmorous said:


> The sorry fact is... the majority of people today have made a habit out of stretching the truth, add some exaggeration, even defending outright lying to save face, if it will make them sound more attractive, / exciting...whatever works...meanwhile "self awareness" is in short supply...I swear it's the culture we live in...
> 
> Heck I have done threads HERE on Lying and found posters "defending" so much lying, especially WHITE lying... One has to weed out the bold faced liars with the sincere, that's just the world we now live in  ...


I wonder what they think will happen when they lie on their profile... then meet someone? How are they going to explain the difference?


----------



## EllisRedding

Hopeful Cynic said:


> Yeah, I think those qualities are the bare minimum for someone to date. I have them all, too, so it's certainly possible.
> 
> But the people without them have a vested interest in pretending to have them. That's the tricky part to navigate, figuring out the liars.
> 
> I want someone similar enough to me to be compatible, and different enough to be intriguing. It's a fine balance, and I haven't found it yet.


yeah, I mean, I am in no way trying to come across as arrogant and don't believe I am special in any way. I just don't see why that list is so challenging for people to meet.


----------



## wild jade

I am one of those people who wants adventure and deep conversations.

What I mean by that is that I like to travel, try new things, get out of my comfort zone. Not always, not every day, or every time I step out the door, but it's an important part of my life. I want to be able to talk about my travels and adventures without sounding like I'm showing off or deadly boring. I want to hear other stories ... because they are interesting. I want to try new foods, listen to different kinds of music ... I won't promise to like it, but will try most things at least once. 

For conversation, I like to talk about world events, philosophy, ethics, economics, history, literature .... you name it. Sometimes as passing jokes. Sometimes in depth. I like it a lot when others get my references, and I get theirs. I like it when I can explore ideas and not sound like I'm droning on. I like it when someone challenges me with new ways of looking at things!!

Mostly I want a guy who "gets" me -- and who I "get". And experience tells me that there are not very many in this world that would or would want to. Lucky for me, though, my guy fits the bill.


----------



## NobodySpecial

wild jade said:


> I am one of those people who wants adventure and deep conversations.
> 
> What I mean by that is that I like to travel, try new things, get out of my comfort zone. Not always, not every day, or every time I step out the door, but it's an important part of my life. I want to be able to talk about my travels and adventures without sounding like I'm showing off or deadly boring. I want to hear other stories ... because they are interesting. I want to try new foods, listen to different kinds of music ... I won't promise to like it, but will try most things at least once.
> 
> For conversation, I like to talk about world events, philosophy, ethics, economics, history, literature .... you name it. Sometimes as passing jokes. Sometimes in depth.


I was lost at classifying these things as "deep" or .... top brow or whatever classifications that these are somehow above the norm. I mean, if your favorite tv show is "Ow, My Balls" more power to you. But not for me.


----------



## personofinterest

> “I’ve noticed that even if a man does fit that list, that does not guarantee attraction. That’s also why I feel it’s a useless list; it runs deeper than the generic list, and that deeper list is what men would like to know.”


This was way back in your first post, and I have quoted it because I suspect this is really what it is all about. On another forum, this was the theme of countless posts (lots of them written by one guy, but that’s another story). The theme was, “But I AM (insert quality here) and the woman I want still won’t date ME.” Thereby proving she doesn’t mean what she says and is probably an entitled princess who plays guys. Or a gold-digger. Or something.

Dating and relationships are not math. They are not math. They are also not an online game for which you can buy cheat books and figure out how to win all the quests.

You can have everything on their list. But if she is not attracted to YOU, she won’t date you. And that doesn’t mean something is wrong with her or you. And no….she is not duty-bound to “give you a chance.”

AND….she might date a guy she IS attracted to who is missing something on the list.

That is none of your business, and it ALSO doesn’t mean something is wrong with her.

There are no guarantees or shortcuts or magic keys. You do the best you can. You take the risk. A lot of times it won’t work. Occasionally it will.

If it NEVER works……the problem is not the opposite sex, and buying a new suit won’t fix it. Neither will spending time on incel and PUA sites. Those will just turn you from a frustrated man to a bitter, pathetic, small one.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

I dunno. On the lists' thing.

(Full disclosure I have no experience using OLD sites.)

I've shares that in-person meeting folks seems best, but I don't know all things about all things.

If, one was using OLD as primary, it seems that would be a place to have some qualifiers at least.

If there are any honest list makers and list responders. 

Seems a great way to deceive outright or partially. Yes, that can happen irl and old, I get that.

So, in thinking on list making. I buy into the concept in a profile, describing one's life style (may?) be better rather than a generic list of attributes because everyone thinks they're a saint to a degree. And scale of good and bad, tragically, is in today's times, subjective. 

Should there be a current picture? Yes. Without cartoon adds or photoshops. Flattering? Of course, but I read in this thread I believe, some add cat ears, faces, etc. Whaaattt???

What I'd respond to? (pls excuse, this is my only frame of reference)

First, and shoot me if needed, her picture. I'm just using filters from wide exclusion to narrowest exclusion, towards those in final 10 or so. And objective of old; something that might turn into ltr.

Second; locality. Long distance relationships just don't have good odds from either direction. 

Next; age. Near my age mid 50s, (But yes, if a 30yo was interested and settled, I may take a gander but no thoughts of an ltr there.) And I know that fact may skew things but hey.

Next; kids and approx ages. Yes/no, number, living where, may or may not impact "advancing to next filter).
It depends on the person. 

Not in (large, no collateral) debt that could impact me. 

See, here, unless I'm looking at something like a multiple choice test page, I'm starting to draw a blank. 

Many continuing attributes don't fall into yes/no to excluding/advancing because each has to be viewed with relationship to other attributes one can find out only after talking and meeting, ie "the big picture ". 

By far not just any of the exclusions/ requirements I listed here.

Wow, this would be hard to do 😀.

I'd likely treat it more like fishing. Just put my profile up and answer just some of anyone responding. I guess.

And I'd likely be most suspicious, in case of nuts. 
As in use a second phone. And look to actually talk on phone early to get at least some sort of vocal body language besides texts. 

I don't know, maybe OLD is like anything else, the more you do the better you get. Maybe I'm just socially old fashioned. 

Put me in a room with options and in-person "fishing" would go well, immediately filtering (and being filtered, I'm sure), but efficient, and enjoyable. 

It may change if I was single but likely wouldn't. 

Anyway, just a few comments on the "lists" topic!


----------



## ConanHub

@southbound

You seem like a good guy with good intentions.

I've gotten the general feeling, over the years you have been posting, that you are simply looking for a mate?

Is that about it?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



NobodySpecial said:


> I wonder what they think will happen when they lie on their profile... then meet someone? How are they going to explain the difference?


They will just GHOST them.. I recall hanging out with a single friend years ago during a game telling me all about her experiences on a dating site.. I was rather shocked.. I forget some of the details now.. but there was at least 4 men she caught blatantly lying.. one even had 2 profiles with different names or something, she did some sort of digging & came to figure this out....I was a little shocked as this was supposed to be a more conservative site attracting Christians even..what a joke.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



inmyprime said:


> Which part was rude? You did understand (I hope) that that list was not Southbound’s own list, but a list that he comes across on dating sites, right? (And that he himself doesn’t understand the meaning of - because it’s incredibly shallow).
> 
> Are we reading the same thing? And why so intolerant towards teenagers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 I misunderstood you.. when I read this part "But I was mainly referring to the list in the opening post: it reads to me like it was written by a 14-year old teenager.".. I did take you to mean his post... but I can see now I read this TOO FAST. 

You just seem against explaining more in a profile to me.. whereas I am someone who would more appreciate that.. is all. I do agree that one takes the chance coming off badly in how they do it.. so it needs to be handled with care... I just find the more honest look into our character and what we are about, what we seek to find .. is a good thing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Another &quot;What Women Want&quot; thread*



SimplyAmorous said:


> They will just GHOST them.. I recall hanging out with a single friend years ago during a game telling me all about her experiences on a dating site.. I was rather shocked.. I forget some of the details now.. but there was at least 4 men she caught blatantly lying.. one even had 2 profiles with different names or something, she did some sort of digging & came to figure this out....I was a little shocked as this was supposed to be a more conservative site attracting Christians even..what a joke.


I really meant ... oh the dopes... what were they THINKING... when they lie on their profiles. None but the thickest of skinned should be on OLD. People who lie are likely whining about people who ghost.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I was lost at classifying these things as "deep" or .... top brow or whatever classifications that these are somehow above the norm. I mean, if your favorite tv show is "Ow, My Balls" more power to you. But not for me.


A long time ago, I would be sitting at the counter at Denny's reading Will Durant's History of Civilization Volume IV and the waitresses would comment on how smart (or in some way superior) I must be because of what I was reading.

I'd point out that I was only reading that because I enjoyed it. Which was the same reason I watched The Beverly Hillbillies.


----------



## personofinterest

Buddy400 said:


> A long time ago, I would be sitting at the counter at Denny's reading Will Durant's History of Civilization Volume IV and the waitresses would comment on how smart (or in some way superior) I must be because of what I was reading.
> 
> I'd point out that I was only reading that because I enjoyed it. Which was the same reason I watched The Beverly Hillbillies.


I love this. It has always been funny to me that people think if you are smart you can only be interested in "top tier" things. How silly.


----------



## southbound

ConanHub said:


> @southbound
> 
> You seem like a good guy with good intentions.
> 
> I've gotten the general feeling, over the years you have been posting, that you are simply looking for a mate?
> 
> Is that about it?


Thank you. My situation is basically this:

I've been divorced 8 years, was married for 18. My wife asked for the divorce. there were no issues on my part like cheating or abuse; she had one of those "I'm not happy anymore" feelings and wanted to check out the green grass other places.

I am basically a person who is happy from within. I've discovered that even more about myself since the divorce. I'm a happy person, and I think that's a positive thing. I didn't ask to be divorced, and it's nothing something I'm elated about, but it's where I am, and I've discovered that I'm fine with myself and with being single. 

I have not written off ever being in another relationship. I'm perfectly open to it, but I'd like it to happen somewhat naturally. If I ever get married again, I want it to be because I meet someone and as time goes by, I feel I really want this person in my life and I love them, but not simply because I'm lonely(which I'm not) or because I want companionship and decide to go looking and finally pick out somebody. If I never have a relationship or marriage again, I'm perfectly fine with that. If I meet someone and hit it off, that's great too. 

The barrier seems to be that things have apparently changed since I was dating years ago. I just assumed dating in the 40s and 50s would be even easier than when I was a teen because i assumed people were all grown up and a lot of smoke and mirrors were laid to rest. I can't find anyone that I'm attracted to beyond their physical appearance. Sure, I can flip through a dating site and see several women that are attractive, but when I start reading profiles, there is nothing that attracts me. When I think of a LTR, I don't necessarily think of adventure, skydiving, and kayaking. I think more about what people do in their everyday lives. When I read these profiles, it's like they are interviewing to guide someone through the Amazon Jungle instead of trying to attract a relationship. 

Maybe I'm just too average. There was a song several years ago titled, "Where Have All the Average people Gone?" I can relate.


----------



## FeministInPink

@southbound I think one of the biggest challenges dating after divorce is that so many people are damaged and dysfunctional and don't know it. Even if you are somewhat aware, and make attempts to be healthy in your relationships, your subconscious can sometimes still cause you and your partner to act out unhealthy behaviors and patterns that you aren't aware of.

In my most recent relationship, which was the healthiest I've been in, and in which we were both consciously making an effort to create a healthy relationships, what we didn't know hurt us, and we ended up playing out a repetitive, dysfunctional behavioral pattern. We know now, but it's likely too late.



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Rowan

southbound said:


> Thank you. My situation is basically this:
> 
> I've been divorced 8 years, was married for 18. My wife asked for the divorce. there were no issues on my part like cheating or abuse; she had one of those "I'm not happy anymore" feelings and wanted to check out the green grass other places.
> 
> I am basically a person who is happy from within. I've discovered that even more about myself since the divorce. I'm a happy person, and I think that's a positive thing. I didn't ask to be divorced, and it's nothing something I'm elated about, but it's where I am, and I've discovered that I'm fine with myself and with being single.
> 
> I have not written off ever being in another relationship. I'm perfectly open to it, but I'd like it to happen somewhat naturally. If I ever get married again, I want it to be because I meet someone and as time goes by, I feel I really want this person in my life and I love them, but not simply because I'm lonely(which I'm not) or because I want companionship and decide to go looking and finally pick out somebody. If I never have a relationship or marriage again, I'm perfectly fine with that. If I meet someone and hit it off, that's great too.
> 
> The barrier seems to be that things have apparently changed since I was dating years ago. I just assumed dating in the 40s and 50s would be even easier than when I was a teen because i assumed people were all grown up and a lot of smoke and mirrors were laid to rest. I can't find anyone that I'm attracted to beyond their physical appearance. Sure, I can flip through a dating site and see several women that are attractive, but when I start reading profiles, there is nothing that attracts me. When I think of a LTR, I don't necessarily think of adventure, skydiving, and kayaking. I think more about what people do in their everyday lives. When I read these profiles, it's like they are interviewing to guide someone through the Amazon Jungle instead of trying to attract a relationship.
> 
> Maybe I'm just too average. There was a song several years ago titled, "Where Have All the Average people Gone?" I can relate.



The fact is, most people are average. By definition. But few want to come across as deadly dull and aggressively boring in a dating profile. Or, in real life either, for that matter. And even fewer are actually seeking that quality out in their prospective mates. 

I've had the general impression that you basically want someone safe who fits into your life with minimal effort. You want comfortable and aren't interested in being challenged or having your comfort zone disrupted. And if I'm seeing that in your posts, then it's likely women are seeing that in your online dating profiles. While there is nothing at all wrong with that, per se, you should be aware that it will limit the pool of potentially interested women. 

I also think that your desire for safety, comfort, and low-effort may also be leading you to discount women who might otherwise be a good match for you. Where you seem to be getting stuck is that you appear to be perceiving _any_ desire for adventure of _any_ type, or even a penchant for simple activity, in women's online dating profiles as somehow unsafe. You're getting triggered. Some part of you is reading those things and automatically assuming that these women share the same inconstancy and desire for novelty that led your ex-wife to leave you out of the blue for greener pastures. So, you don't bother. Essentially, you're setting yourself up for failure with online dating. 

I think what you should be looking for is a woman who has the capacity for contentment and who doesn't require you to entertain her all the time. And that, I'm here to tell you, is available even in women who like to try new things, have dinner out sometimes, and...yes...even in those who kayak. Liking to try new things or to spend some portion of your recreational time somewhere other than at home, does not automatically mean that person is a flake who can't keep her commitments. But I suspect that your own baggage is blinding you to that possibility.


----------



## uhtred

There may be a bias that older people who are dating may be more likely to be looking for adventure. 40s-50s is a time of life when people start to recognize their mortality, and want to see and experience more before they die. 

Many of these "adventurous" things are not actually difficult or dangerous.

Kayaking doesn't have to mean going down rapids in slot canyons. My wife and I greatly enjoy kayaking - which for us means paddling down calm rivers in Hawaii where the green jungle forms a tunnel over the water, beautiful and relaxing. 

These days going to the Amazon may mean sitting on a luxury air conditioned boat watching the river banks go by. Hiking in the mountains may mean walking for a couple of hours on a a well maintained trail before stopping at a mountain restaurant in the Swiss alps. 

There is a wide range of "adventure" - some people want difficult challenging adventures, others want new interesting experiences, but without the challenge. Both are fine. 

I don't think a desire for new experiences means that someone is a flake. It may just indicate that they feel alive and vibrant and want to continue to enjoy life.


----------



## FeministInPink

uhtred said:


> There may be a bias that older people who are dating may be more likely to be looking for adventure. 40s-50s is a time of life when people start to recognize their mortality, and want to see and experience more before they die.
> 
> Many of these "adventurous" things are not actually difficult or dangerous.
> 
> Kayaking doesn't have to mean going down rapids in slot canyons. My wife and I greatly enjoy kayaking - which for us means paddling down calm rivers in Hawaii where the green jungle forms a tunnel over the water, beautiful and relaxing.
> 
> These days going to the Amazon may mean sitting on a luxury air conditioned boat watching the river banks go by. Hiking in the mountains may mean walking for a couple of hours on a a well maintained trail before stopping at a mountain restaurant in the Swiss alps.
> 
> There is a wide range of "adventure" - some people want difficult challenging adventures, others want new interesting experiences, but without the challenge. Both are fine.
> 
> I don't think a desire for new experiences means that someone is a flake. It may just indicate that they feel alive and vibrant and want to continue to enjoy life.


I think you hit the nail on the head here. I'll turn 40 this coming year, and I've had this feeling for the last few years that if I don't start being more intentional about trying and experiencing new things, I will quickly reach the day when I no longer have the health or ability to do so, and after that I will die and never have that chance again!

It's been a bit slow going... present financial limitations have certainly put a damper on these plans, and my XBF wasn't interested in doing the same, which also placed a damper, but in the last few years I've been able to fit in a few things. Like I went to Savannah, GA for the first time, which has been on my bucket list for ages. This past fall I went to a treetops adventure/zipline park that was absolutely exhilarating; I found myself confronting my fears and overcoming them, challenging myself, and generally had a great time. And I only did the two easiest trails/challenge courses... I can't wait to go back and do more. It's also given me a goal to work towards, and inspiration for getting into better shape so that I will actually be physically able to tackle some of the harder courses.

I think a lot desiring new experiences is also about pursuing growth and continual learning. At least, that's the way I see it.


----------



## ConanHub

sb, The thing I can tell immediately is a lack of hunger. Hungry hunters make better killers and hungry lovers make better mates.

High desire would probably drive you to invest and risk a relationship. Once you get back into it, you could probably better determine if someone was worth going the distance with.

I never have, and Lord willing, never will, use dating sites.

In the unlikely event that I found myself single again, I would socialize to find someone.

You will probably have to risk a date or three to get to know a lady a little better.

I will say that they might be trying to appear adventurous because many experts tell women that men want a partner for adventures.

I definitely fit that description but some of the profiles you are looking at might just be trying to appear more attractive to men in general.

Grab a kayak and go fishing for women!😁


----------



## Faithful Wife

FeministInPink said:


> This past fall I went to a treetops adventure/zipline park that was absolutely exhilarating; I found myself confronting my fears and overcoming them, challenging myself, and generally had a great time. And I only did the two easiest trails/challenge courses... I can't wait to go back and do more. It's also given me a goal to work towards, and inspiration for getting into better shape so that I will actually be physically able to tackle some of the harder courses.
> .


OMG, I did one of those a couple years ago and I will NEVER AGAIN!!!! It was TERRIFYING!! And I'm actually sort of a Spider Man when it comes to the balance and skills required. That didn't matter at ALL, I was still terrified every bit of the way and couldn't wait to get off and on solid ground again. :crying:

I was glad to say I did try it, though!


----------



## southbound

Rowan said:


> The fact is, most people are average. By definition. But few want to come across as deadly dull and aggressively boring in a dating profile. Or, in real life either, for that matter. And even fewer are actually seeking that quality out in their prospective mates.


I appreciate your response. You make some good points. I suppose "average" is a matter of opinion, and i'm sure it's changed to a higher level as years have passed. 



Rowan said:


> I've had the general impression that you basically want someone safe who fits into your life with minimal effort. You want comfortable and aren't interested in being challenged or having your comfort zone disrupted.


Even though that may not sound great in our current culture, I suppose the answer is yes. Maybe there is a drawback to being inwardly happy like I am. If I'm happy, why would I want to enter into a lifestyle that suddenly changes my entire lifestyle? Why would I want to go from laid back to a day that now requires a great effort to maintain a relationship? Why wouldn't anyone want comfortable? I have to ask myself what the gain would be. 



Rowan said:


> I also think that your desire for safety, comfort, and low-effort may also be leading you to discount women who might otherwise be a good match for you. Where you seem to be getting stuck is that you appear to be perceiving any desire for adventure of any type, or even a penchant for simple activity, in women's online dating profiles as somehow unsafe. You're getting triggered. Some part of you is reading those things and automatically assuming that these women share the same inconstancy and desire for novelty that led your ex-wife to leave you out of the blue for greener pastures. So, you don't bother. Essentially, you're setting yourself up for failure with online dating.


You may have something there. I heard someone once say that today's culture doesn't match their upbringing. I just didn't see all this complexity in a relationship when I was growing up. I never heard either grandmother, aunts, great aunts, or my mother say they married because he was adventurous; they had other standards that seemed more normal to me. 



Rowan said:


> I think what you should be looking for is a woman who has the capacity for contentment and who doesn't require you to entertain her all the time. And that, I'm here to tell you, is available even in women who like to try new things, have dinner out sometimes, and...yes...even in those who kayak. Liking to try new things or to spend some portion of your recreational time somewhere other than at home, does not automatically mean that person is a flake who can't keep her commitments. But I suspect that your own baggage is blinding you to that possibility.


I understand, and I'm not saying that I never, ever want to leave home and that Netflix is all I need. I don't have a desire, however, to go kayaking and hiking every other weekend and take 2 or 3 vacation trips every year. 



uhtred said:


> Many of these "adventurous" things are not actually difficult or dangerous.


I get that. that's not really the reason I don't do it, most of that stuff is just not my cup of tea. 



uhtred said:


> I don't think a desire for new experiences means that someone is a flake. It may just indicate that they feel alive and vibrant and want to continue to enjoy life.


I get that too, but I consider myself a person who wants to enjoy life, and I consider myself to feel very much alive. I guess i just find enjoying life easier to do. I like the simple things in life I suppose. I've often said that if a person could be hooked to a machine that could measure happiness, I really don't see how anyone could measure higher than me. I feel like I'm truly a happy person; I just don't need constant activity to maintain that happiness.


----------



## uhtred

What do you enjoy doing with your time?




southbound said:


> snip
> I get that too, but I consider myself a person who wants to enjoy life, and I consider myself to feel very much alive. I guess i just find enjoying life easier to do. I like the simple things in life I suppose. I've often said that if a person could be hooked to a machine that could measure happiness, I really don't see how anyone could measure higher than me. I feel like I'm truly a happy person; I just don't need constant activity to maintain that happiness.


----------



## uhtred

Long ago I went bungee jumping. It was an amusing psych experiment to see if I could jump off the edge. (it was a difficult step, but as soon as I started to fall, it was fun). Then a couple of seconds of entertaining zooming toward the ground followed by a few minutes of uncomfortable hanging upside-down by my ankles. 

I would love to do adventure sports but I simply do not have the skills, or the physical capability to do them. 






Faithful Wife said:


> OMG, I did one of those a couple years ago and I will NEVER AGAIN!!!! It was TERRIFYING!! And I'm actually sort of a Spider Man when it comes to the balance and skills required. That didn't matter at ALL, I was still terrified every bit of the way and couldn't wait to get off and on solid ground again. :crying:
> 
> I was glad to say I did try it, though!


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Long ago I went bungee jumping. It was an amusing psych experiment to see if I could jump off the edge. (it was a difficult step, but as soon as I started to fall, it was fun). Then a couple of seconds of entertaining zooming toward the ground followed by a few minutes of uncomfortable hanging upside-down by my ankles.
> 
> I would love to do adventure sports but I simply do not have the skills, or the physical capability to do them.


When I went skydiving, I did a tandem jump. I thought I would have more time to do the stuff they had drilled into me that I had to do. So the instructor guy basically pushed me while I was still working it out. tee hee. One of the guys at the drop zone told me skydiving was better than sex. Not quite. But damned close.


----------



## southbound

uhtred said:


> What do you enjoy doing with your time?]


Since I have a 9 to 5, so to speak, I just enjoy relaxing in the evenings. There is always a few things that need doing around the house, and Netflix looks good in the evenings. 

I own a small farm of 135 acres and 20 cows. I have things fixed so that’s not a headache, but I enjoy tending to that when needed. I probably get more of an outdoors feel just naturally. I have fields, woods, ponds, and creeks. I don’t really have a burning need to go check out someone else’s woods and waterways. 

I also enjoy listening to music. I am a member of a local band. We don’t do much during the winter, but we play some local dates in the warmer months. We even
played at a small venue in Nashville once. 

All that is set up so that it’s not stressful. 

I’m also an introvert, which might play into it. I do t have to be among action all the time to be happy.


----------



## uhtred

Haven't done skydiving (bad shoulder) but did a tandem parasail jump off a mountain. Absolutely awesome. (my wife went on the next one!). Flying is completely amazing. 






NobodySpecial said:


> When I went skydiving, I did a tandem jump. I thought I would have more time to do the stuff they had drilled into me that I had to do. So the instructor guy basically pushed me while I was still working it out. tee hee. One of the guys at the drop zone told me skydiving was better than sex. Not quite. But damned close.


----------



## uhtred

Music might be a nice angle. Its interesting and really enjoyable for some people. 

I can understand that if you spend a lot of your time outdoors, you might not be looking for more outdoor activities. 




southbound said:


> Since I have a 9 to 5, so to speak, I just enjoy relaxing in the evenings. There is always a few things that need doing around the house, and Netflix looks good in the evenings.
> 
> I own a small farm of 135 acres and 20 cows. I have things fixed so that’s not a headache, but I enjoy tending to that when needed. I probably get more of an outdoors feel just naturally. I have fields, woods, ponds, and creeks. I don’t really have a burning need to go check out someone else’s woods and waterways.
> 
> I also enjoy listening to music. I am a member of a local band. We don’t do much during the winter, but we play some local dates in the warmer months. We even
> played at a small venue in Nashville once.
> 
> All that is set up so that it’s not stressful.
> 
> I’m also an introvert, which might play into it. I do t have to be among action all the time to be happy.


----------



## southbound

uhtred said:


> I can understand that if you spend a lot of your time outdoors, you might not be looking for more outdoor activities.


Im sure that’s it. I get enough hiking when I check fence. Being outdoors is fine, but going somewhere else to walk a trail or look at birds and trees just isn’t that thrilling. I get that on a daily basis. I see deer and turkey every day, so I guess “outdoors” is just normal to me and not a point of fascination.


----------



## uhtred

So do you find cities novel and exciting? (serious question). Do you enjoy the bustle and crowds, the buildings and activity?

I live in suburbia, so I enjoy the novelty of both the outdoors and of cities - in opposite directions. 





southbound said:


> Im sure that’s it. I get enough hiking when I check fence. Being outdoors is fine, but going somewhere else to walk a trail or look at birds and trees just isn’t that thrilling. I get that on a daily basis. I see deer and turkey every day, so I guess “outdoors” is just normal to me and not a point of fascination.


----------



## FeministInPink

Faithful Wife said:


> OMG, I did one of those a couple years ago and I will NEVER AGAIN!!!! It was TERRIFYING!! And I'm actually sort of a Spider Man when it comes to the balance and skills required. That didn't matter at ALL, I was still terrified every bit of the way and couldn't wait to get off and on solid ground again. :crying:
> 
> I was glad to say I did try it, though!


It's not for everyone, but I loved it! At least you tried. Better to try and not like it, than never try at all.



uhtred said:


> Long ago I went bungee jumping. It was an amusing psych experiment to see if I could jump off the edge. (it was a difficult step, but as soon as I started to fall, it was fun). Then a couple of seconds of entertaining zooming toward the ground followed by a few minutes of uncomfortable hanging upside-down by my ankles.
> 
> I would love to do adventure sports but I simply do not have the skills, or the physical capability to do them.


I'm on the fence about this... not sure if I would try bungee jumping. The Six Flags near me has something like this on a smaller scale. I never tried it when I had a season pass, because it costs extra to do, but it might be a place to start. It also makes me feel safer because they have a large net under the bungee contraption. I've seen videos of people doing it off bridges, and I've never seen a safety net strung up under one of those. I think I would only do it if there was a safety net.



NobodySpecial said:


> When I went skydiving, I did a tandem jump. I thought I would have more time to do the stuff they had drilled into me that I had to do. So the instructor guy basically pushed me while I was still working it out. tee hee. One of the guys at the drop zone told me skydiving was better than sex. Not quite. But damned close.


This is one of those things that is presently on my "hard no" list... I keep thinking about that episode on King of the Hill, where Peggy's parachute didn't open. But who knows? Maybe after trying some other stuff, I might decide to try skydiving.

I DEFINTELY want to try one of those indoor sky diving places. That's a cool idea for my birthday this year.



uhtred said:


> Haven't done skydiving (bad shoulder) but did a tandem parasail jump off a mountain. Absolutely awesome. (my wife went on the next one!). Flying is completely amazing.


I find parasailing intriguing, and something I think I would want to try--with a very reputable company with an excellent safety record


----------



## southbound

uhtred said:


> So do you find cities novel and exciting? (serious question). Do you enjoy the bustle and crowds, the buildings and activity?


Not at all. If i have to go to a city for a reason, I deal with it and am fine, but it’s not where I generally go for fun unless there is a specific attraction i want to see. I will say, however, that I do enjoy the indoor sites as opposed to outdoors. For example, I went to the beach a couple of times with my x, and I enjoyed the museums, shows, and shops much more than just hanging around the beach. I’ve been to the Smokie Mountains a couple of times, and I liked the shows and shops much more than goofing off in the woods.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> When I went skydiving, I did a tandem jump. I thought I would have more time to do the stuff they had drilled into me that I had to do. So the instructor guy basically pushed me while I was still working it out. tee hee. One of the guys at the drop zone told me skydiving was better than sex. Not quite. But damned close.


My wife will occasionally ask what the best moment of my life was, even though she already knows the answer.

Skydiving.

When I did it, I don't think there were tandem jumps. A static cord was used that opened the chute automatically (which was good since I never would have trusted myself to open it on my own).

We went up in a small plane (which was scary enough on it's own). When your turn came, you stepped out of the plane onto a small platform and held on to the door with one hand and the wing strut with the other. When the instructor tapped you on the butt and said "Go", you jumped.

15 seconds of terror followed by the most peaceful descent you can imagine, just floating in the sky. Also, the satisfaction that, when they said "Go", you went.

What a rush.

Did it several times one sumer between wives. I'd do it again in a heartbeat but my wife would have to die first. I've told her that if, by some chance, she does die first, I'm going to parachute in and drive a motorcycle to her funeral.


----------



## Buddy400

FeministInPink said:


> The Six Flags near me has something like this on a smaller scale. I never tried it when I had a season pass, because it costs extra to do, but it might be a place to start. It also makes me feel safer because they have a large net under the bungee contraption.


I've done that a lot.

I usually find hanging there and being slowly cranked up to the top to be the scariest part.

Highly recommended.


----------



## uhtred

Bungee jumping is amazingly safe - even for the bridge jumps. Death rates are tiny. I found it very interesting, but not actually much fun. 

Parasailing is more like skydiving, there is a significant risk. (A college friend of mine died on his 300th jump). The commercial outfits are pretty safe, and to me the amazing awesomeness is worth it. 



FeministInPink said:


> It's not for everyone, but I loved it! At least you tried. Better to try and not like it, than never try at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on the fence about this... not sure if I would try bungee jumping. The Six Flags near me has something like this on a smaller scale. I never tried it when I had a season pass, because it costs extra to do, but it might be a place to start. It also makes me feel safer because they have a large net under the bungee contraption. I've seen videos of people doing it off bridges, and I've never seen a safety net strung up under one of those. I think I would only do it if there was a safety net.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of those things that is presently on my "hard no" list... I keep thinking about that episode on King of the Hill, where Peggy's parachute didn't open. But who knows? Maybe after trying some other stuff, I might decide to try skydiving.
> 
> I DEFINTELY want to try one of those indoor sky diving places. That's a cool idea for my birthday this year.
> 
> 
> 
> I find parasailing intriguing, and something I think I would want to try--with a very reputable company with an excellent safety record


----------



## southbound

ConanHub said:


> sb, The thing I can tell immediately is a lack of hunger. Hungry hunters make better killers and hungry lovers make better mates.
> 
> High desire would probably drive you to invest and risk a relationship.


This is correct, I don’t have a high desire. Another thing that messes with my mind is how things have changed, not only culturally, but just how things change with age. 

When a person is young and in high school or college, there is always a girlfriend around the corner, so to speak. Another thing is that my x wife pursued me. I won’t go into detail, but she sent word, called me to ask me out, and so on. She made the moves. 

Now, I guess I keep looking for it to happen naturally, but it hasn’t. On the other hand, I’ll be perfectly all right if I don’t find anyone.


----------

