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.
When you ask people what they're looking for in a potential partner, you'll often hear a list of dealbreakers. Can't have kids, can't be a smoker, can't be overweight, etc. Now I can understand why you'd have such requirements. After all, if you don't like kids, then it's probably best you avoid dating someone who has them. But that's not really the answer to the original question, which is "what are you looking for?", not "what are you trying to avoid?" It seems like a lot of people are more concerned with what a person isn't rather than what they are. Process of elimination is certainly a good way to narrow down your options. Chances are, you do this anytime you look for a new job or shop for a new car. But what does it say when you're more concerned with what someone isn't instead of what they are?
In a way, this relates back to the "nice guy" threads we've been seeing a lot of lately. The nice guy figures that since he's not a jerk, liar or cheat, that automatically makes him a great catch. Does he really think that's enough? It kind of reminds of elections when a candidate says "vote for me because I'm not as bad as the other guy."
Yes, I had a feeling this was always heading in the NG direction ...
I'm not trying to turn this into another "nice guy" thread. We have plenty of those already. What I am interesting in discussing is one, why people evaluate others in terms of what they aren't rather than what they are and two, how people overvalue themselves based on the fact that everyone around them is so awful.
Process of elimination is certainly a good way to narrow down your options.
I read once an interesting opinion about the outcome of first dates for men and women. The author was saying that because men's lists consist of 4 or 5 requirements, they don't call a woman back when she lacks even one of them because the missing quality would represent a good 20 to 25% of the whole picture, whereas women are more likely to be willing to see a guy again because they have a laundry list of requirements and a few missing ones don't make such a significant difference.
I read once an interesting opinion about the outcome of first dates for men and women. The author was saying that because men's lists consist of 4 or 5 requirements, they don't call a woman back when if she lacks even one of them because the missing quality would represent a good 20 to 25% of the whole picture, whereas women are more likely to be willing to see a guy again because they have a laundry list of requirements and a few missing ones don't make such a significant difference.
LOL. That's a good point. A lot of men claim that women are the pickier gender. But as you just illustrated, having a lot of requirements doesn't necessarily mean you're pickier than someone who has few requirements. It comes down to how much weight you assign to each of them.
LOL. That's a good point. A lot of men claim that women are the pickier gender. But as you just illustrated, having a lot of requirements doesn't necessarily mean you're pickier than someone who has few requirements. It comes down to how much weight you assign to each of them.
what is your number one (1) requirement for a woman?
What I am interesting in discussing is one, why people evaluate others in terms of what they aren't rather than what they are
Isn't it just phraseology for convenience though? If people arenot something, then they are something else. Speaking in the negative is not the same as being negative.
For instance, if I liked larger ladies, I may say so in my ad. However, if I decided instead to put "not a skinny girl" it might be because that is simply how I wish to phrase it, maybe for clarity or accuracy or whatever. It doesn't mean I am focusing on "what people are not rather than what they are". Similarly, when people say they don't want someone with kids it is just a preferred way of saying they would like a childless woman. Or a woman who has bundles of spare time after work and at weekends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
...how people overvalue themselves based on the fact that everyone around them is so awful.
Yep, as Robbie Burns said:
O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us...
When you ask people what they're looking for in a potential partner, you'll often hear a list of dealbreakers. Can't have kids, can't be a smoker, can't be overweight, etc. Now I can understand why you'd have such requirements. After all, if you don't like kids, then it's probably best you avoid dating someone who has them. But that's not really the answer to the original question, which is "what are you looking for?", not "what are you trying to avoid?" It seems like a lot of people are more concerned with what a person isn't rather than what they are. Process of elimination is certainly a good way to narrow down your options. Chances are, you do this anytime you look for a new job or shop for a new car. But what does it say when you're more concerned with what someone isn't instead of what they are?
In a way, this relates back to the "nice guy" threads we've been seeing a lot of lately. The nice guy figures that since he's not a jerk, liar or cheat, that automatically makes him a great catch. Does he really think that's enough? It kind of reminds of elections when a candidate says "vote for me because I'm not as bad as the other guy."
If this is in reference to yourself : I get the feeling these girls list a huge NO NO dealbreaker list of what they do NOT want.
The same applies for men who have a HUGE list of things they do not want :
PASS them both by ! If they can't write a positive profile you are dealing with someone who has big issues regarding the opposite sex.
You are dealing with someone who was burnt and they have no business posting a negative synopsis of what they do not want. This is counterproductive because the very things you do NOT want : You attract.
Like if a guy says : No cheater, liars or whores ! He has dealt with all 3 and no matter what he enounters you are a potential of all 3 in his eyes .
Isn't it just phraseology for convenience though? If people arenot something, then they are something else. Speaking in the negative is not the same as being negative.
How you phrase things does leave a certain impression though. Imagine if you were in a job interview and they asked you why you wanted the job. And then you said, "because I wouldn't have to travel, I wouldn't have to work past 5, and I wouldn't have to deal with customers." Those may be true statements, but they're not exactly the kind of thing an employer wants to hear from an applicant since they don't play up what you actually like about the company. Likewise, imagine you were a woman and some guy was interested in you. You ask him why and he says, "because you're not fat, you're not reckless with money, and you're not a smoker." You may see those as things in her favor, but chances are she won't find it flattering that you singled her out for what she's not instead of what she is.
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.
