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.
So, I may be ready to throw myself back into the pack of wolves sometime soon, and I've realized that I want a more down to Earth woman and that type of woman has a greater chance of liking me too.
I've typically always lived in or near major cities, and I enjoy a lot of the amenities you can't find in suburbs. But I feel city women expect a lot more out of the men they date. Try as I might, I usually don't meet that cut in terms of being interesting enough, good looking enough, or successful enough.
It seems to me a more down to Earth woman, who has less expectations in terms of that type of stuff might be found in the suburbs. The only problem is ... I'm Asian and most women in the suburbs are not. But I guess that's a roadbump I may be willing to deal with.
Does anybody have an opinion if more women in the 'burbs are more down to Earth. Not just pertaining to my specific case, but in general?
I'm also aware that women in the 'burbs are more likely to be divorced or have kids at my age. I'm totally OK with the first and probably OK with the 2nd depending on the number of kids and circumstances.
Realistically though there will always be women who are materialistic, picky, and have ridiculous standards regardless of race or location. You just have to learn how to spot the ones who aren't.
I don't think there is much of a difference in expectations between people from major cities vs suburbs.
I kind of think YOUR expectations are a little off. Meaning: I don't think you will find someone THAT different than what you were meeting in the city.
When I say 'burb I mean quite a distance away so they don't even hang in the city that much. Like more outdoorsy and homebody, non-party types.
You seem to be looking for someone less "status symbol" oriented, less flashy and/or less dazzled by flashy, a more "brass tacks" pragmatist.
There's nothing wrong with that, IMHO.
Problem with the areas outside cities is lack of population density, it's harder to meet that many other eligible persons per square mile.
Also, an area (be it urban or rural or somewhere in between) is comprised of both people who intentionally want to live there,
and people who just happen to be there for whatever reason, but really would rather be somewhere else.
So that makes it harder to generalize about city vs. suburban (or whatever residential type) populations as a whole.
I live "not quite in the middle of nowhere" (town of 12,000), but it's 2 hours to the big city-and I practically never visit there.
I chose to move here, bc. the pace of life in urban area was too stressful for me-
but there are plenty of people in this area who were born here & would leave if/when they can-
so I wouldn't say that everyone here is all that similar to each other,
as it's made up of both voluntary/intentional residents
as well as inadvertent/accidental residents-a heterogeneous demographic.
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.
