Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh, yeah. If you're ultra-picky about your fish, the problem is you, not a lack of fish.
(I can't believe I actually had to clarify that, but whatever)
No, what you need to clarify is that having standards means you're ultra-picky. I'm not compatible with a lot of women because of different values, goals, etc. But if we go off your post, none of that seems to matter.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
No, what you need to clarify is that having standards means you're ultra-picky. I'm not compatible with a lot of women because of different values, goals, etc. But if we go off your post, none of that seems to matter.
Are those values and goals legitimate differences though, or are they excuses to prevent becoming close to someone else. I can't answer that, of course, for you, but some of the lists people have on here of dealbreakers it becomes super obvious they're self sabotaging their efforts to make connections.
No, what you need to clarify is that having standards means you're ultra-picky. I'm not compatible with a lot of women because of different values, goals, etc. But if we go off your post, none of that seems to matter.
Lol this is the first time I've ever agreed w/ you.....
If a guy just goes for just any girl that crosses his path,
that person is a loser in my book, probably with nothing to offer.
I have standards, goals, & serious values...
I've passed up many opportunities to be w/ guys who weren't in sync w/ my outlook--
(Or up to my standards)
I take a pass, just about every time.
Especially these days.
The question of standards/goals/etc. is of course highly subjective. For one observer, a given set of standards is flip and ridiculous. For another, the same set is fundamental.
I offer two candidate areas for such fundamentals, with a third that's perhaps less so.
The first is religion. A religiously devout person would seek a mate aligned with his/her religion. An atheist would seek a person who is by and large secular. The latter need not be an outright atheist, but almost certainly can not be substantially immersed in the practice, doctrine and ethos of religious observance.
The second, even more fundamental than the first, is the question of children. Should the couple have children, or not? What if one of the parties already has children? An antinatalist really couldn't find much consonance with an adherent to the Quiverfull movement.
The third, somewhat less fundamental question is that of money and money-management. To this I'll merely say that the more money that a person accumulates, the more crucial it becomes to find a potential spouse whose views are at least approximately in alignment on money-matters.
Such "standards" are in contradistinction to nugatory things like taste in music, attitude towards pets, being a morning or an evening person, formal vs. casual, outdoors vs. indoors, and body-type.
Are those values and goals legitimate differences though, or are they excuses to prevent becoming close to someone else. I can't answer that, of course, for you, but some of the lists people have on here of dealbreakers it becomes super obvious they're self sabotaging their efforts to make connections.
I don't see my standards as excuses to avoid getting close to someone. They're standards I've arrived at through a lot of trial and error. For starters, I don't want kids so it makes no sense to get involved with someone who wants a partner to have children with. Second, I'm neither religious nor spiritual and could never see myself with someone who's very religious nor do I think they'd want to be with someone like me. Third, I'm very liberal politically. My views are a reflection of my values. While I can get along and even be friends with a conservative, if they don't share my values, then why would I want to date them?
I agree that a lot of people come up with ridiculous deal breakers, like not wanting to date someone who listens to country music. I generally don't dwell on such trivial things. There are a lot of things I'm OK with that would bother other people, like being overweight, being taller, having an annoying laugh, not liking football, etc. But while these things are pretty minor, the issues I listed above are hardly trivial. I live in the south and I'm in my late 30s. Finding single attractive women is easy. Finding ones who are around my age, don't want kids, aren't deeply religious, and aren't conservative is a lot harder. And like I said, I can compromise on a lot of things like weight, but not on the stuff a person shouldn't compromise on.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
I don't see my standards as excuses to avoid getting close to someone. They're standards I've arrived at through a lot of trial and error. For starters, I don't want kids so it makes no sense to get involved with someone who wants a partner to have children with. Second, I'm neither religious nor spiritual and could never see myself with someone who's very religious nor do I think they'd want to be with someone like me. Third, I'm very liberal politically. My views are a reflection of my values. While I can get along and even be friends with a conservative, if they don't share my values, then why would I want to date them?
Fair enough. Those are all easy to find though, if you don't live in the backwoods. No issues there. Liberal, childless (and don't want children), educated professional women aren't uncommon in good places to live. Now, when I lived in places like KY and IN they were rare, but those were crapholes.
Madison, SF, Boston, Burlington VT... they're very common.
I don't see my standards as excuses to avoid getting close to someone. They're standards I've arrived at through a lot of trial and error. For starters, I don't want kids so it makes no sense to get involved with someone who wants a partner to have children with. Second, I'm neither religious nor spiritual and could never see myself with someone who's very religious nor do I think they'd want to be with someone like me. Third, I'm very liberal politically. My views are a reflection of my values. While I can get along and even be friends with a conservative, if they don't share my values, then why would I want to date them?
I agree that a lot of people come up with ridiculous deal breakers, like not wanting to date someone who listens to country music. I generally don't dwell on such trivial things. There are a lot of things I'm OK with that would bother other people, like being overweight, being taller, having an annoying laugh, not liking football, etc. But while these things are pretty minor, the issues I listed above are hardly trivial. I live in the south and I'm in my late 30s. Finding single attractive women is easy. Finding ones who are around my age, don't want kids, aren't deeply religious, and aren't conservative is a lot harder. And like I said, I can compromise on a lot of things like weight, but not on the stuff a person shouldn't compromise on.
I have a question. How close are you to an area that offers diverse viewpoints that match your own or are at least similar to your own? The reason I ask is because if you live in a rather conservative area, you're going to be searching for a needle in a haystack. That's not what dating should be. You need to be in an environment to where you have a healthy number of prospects that you can cross paths with.
I live in the South as well and I live in a very conservative state to boot. My connections with women tend to be peaks and valleys. I've found that I connect really well with transplants. People who were born and raised in my state, but moved to by town because of their career.
I have a question. How close are you to an area that offers diverse viewpoints that match your own or are at least similar to your own? The reason I ask is because if you live in a rather conservative area, you're going to be searching for a needle in a haystack. That's not what dating should be. You need to be in an environment to where you have a healthy number of prospects that you can cross paths with.
I live in the South as well and I live in a very conservative state to boot. My connections with women tend to be peaks and valleys. I've found that I connect really well with transplants. People who were born and raised in my state, but moved to by town because of their career.
I've had a similar experience. It's not that there aren't any non-religious liberals around. It's just that they're not as common. A lot of things have to line up though. Maybe I'll meet someone who isn't religious and is a liberal, but she wants kids. Or I meet someone liberal who doesn't want kids, but she also smokes. There are certain criteria that are far more limiting than others. For example, wanting a partner who doesn't want kids. If I were looking at women 45 and above, it would be easy since most women that age don't want kids. But when you're swimming among the 30somethings, it's far more common to meet someone who wants kids as opposed to someone who doesn't. Believe me, I've gone back and forth on where to compromise and where not to. The reality is that the sea I'm currently swimming in is far more limited than if I were older or lived in another part of the country. Since moving isn't an option I'm willing to entertain, I have to make the most of what I have to work with. And that's the point of this thread. It isn't that we necessarily have lots of options. It's that we have to make the most of the ones we do.
One more consideration. Much has been written about high divorce rates and the social consequences thereof. From my perch, I see the reverse. Amongst "professionals", whatever that means, the divorce rate is astonishingly low. I'd not be surprised if it's 10%. This social stratum might delay marriage until their 30s, but once they do marry, they remain married. And that's great for the couples in question, and their kids (if any), but is unfortunate as regards the fish-in-the-sea analogy. The fish have swum elsewhere, depleting the local waters.
Meanwhile, there's a "vast school of fish" who divorce and remarry, or have kids outside of marriage, or various other such relationships outside of marriage, splitting with some frequency, reuniting, switching partners, finding new ones. This I somewhat pejoratively label the "tattoo, tobacco and Bud Lite" set. They are responsible for carrying the overall divorce statistics. And they are not really my target group. I suppose that similar considerations apply to DennyCrane and Wheezerfan84.
The upshot is that during one's 30s, there is a number of stragglers amongst the educated/pluralistic/professional set, who haven't yet married. They are not common in my locale, but they do exist, and presumably they're sporadically found even in the South. Advance the age bracket by another 5 or 10 years, and matters degenerate considerably. The aforementioned stragglers are now married, and because the divorce-rate is so low, very few fish remain prowling the waters. Further, those who do have the misfortune of divorcing, have overwhelming tendency to eschew new romantic entanglements. Those fish are, if you will, swimming far out to sea, out of range of fishermen's boats.
The sea is vast, teeming with delectable creatures. But many fishermen return to port with empty nets - even with fast boats, expert crews, good navigational skills and plenty of patience.
I've had a similar experience. It's not that there aren't any non-religious liberals around. It's just that they're not as common. A lot of things have to line up though. Maybe I'll meet someone who isn't religious and is a liberal, but she wants kids. Or I meet someone liberal who doesn't want kids, but she also smokes. There are certain criteria that are far more limiting than others. For example, wanting a partner who doesn't want kids. If I were looking at women 45 and above, it would be easy since most women that age don't want kids. But when you're swimming among the 30somethings, it's far more common to meet someone who wants kids as opposed to someone who doesn't. Believe me, I've gone back and forth on where to compromise and where not to. The reality is that the sea I'm currently swimming in is far more limited than if I were older or lived in another part of the country. Since moving isn't an option I'm willing to entertain, I have to make the most of what I have to work with. And that's the point of this thread. It isn't that we necessarily have lots of options. It's that we have to make the most of the ones we do.
This says all I need to know. I'm in the same boat as well. I have an awesome career that I'd be dumb to let go of right now. They put 15% of my salary into retirement, whether I contribute to it or not. My family, friends, and career are keeping me where I'm at, but I could move 60 miles North and have a lot more opportunity. Comfort and security keeps me planted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
