LoveDeluxe78 Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Since most people decide within a few minutes if they want to date the person or just be friends, how do you find out if they are a decent, good person? ( or is it just a feeling ) Well that's why I'm a huge advocate of dating before jumping into something serious! Dating is that period of time where you get to find out about the person and over time, the little things that they do will reveal quite a bit! It takes time... For others, being friends first is also a good way to find out if someone makes a good long term partner. Different methods work for different people.... The last guy I dated, took me 6 weeks before I started to see sides of him that made me question whether he was the most decent person, and I've since ended things....
Author Shygirl15 Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 I would ask what you feel you bring to the table to get your "well-balanced" man? Thanks Yamaha. I believe I can offer the same things I require from my "well-balanced" man, hence my resistance to settle for less.
Trimmer Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I believe I can offer the same things I require from my "well-balanced" man, hence my resistance to settle for less. Well, at least you can match up. More power to you... Are you sure they aren't out there, or are you just not finding them? Do you expect them to be common, or rare? Are women like you common or rare?
Author Shygirl15 Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 As I said, you may well find the perfect man, but don't you know it - he'll probably be looking for the perfect woman. lol... well, that wouldn't be a perfect man for me then.
Yamaha Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Well that's why I'm a huge advocate of dating before jumping into something serious! Dating is that period of time where you get to find out about the person and over time, the little things that they do will reveal quite a bit! It takes time... For others, being friends first is also a good way to find out if someone makes a good long term partner. Different methods work for different people.... The last guy I dated, took me 6 weeks before I started to see sides of him that made me question whether he was the most decent person, and I've since ended things.... I agree with your methods.... I too have had chemistry with someone I wasn't completely attracted 2 but they became very attractive to me because I liked them so much.
FleshNBones Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 I don't think you're looking for well balanced. You're looking for prince charming. To me a well balanced man means one who is: Confident but not cocky Intelligent without being demeaning Knows when to be funny and when to be serious Affectionate but not smothering Rugged and tough when need be, soft and comforting when need be Physically fit but not a meathead Responsible and reliable with a childlike spirit A freak in the sheets, a gentleman in the streets Sounds more like a gourmet dish than a human being. It appears to cover the skill set of a successful tennage boy. What do you think makes up the skill set of a successful adult?
CaliGuy Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Cali, I can see the whole thing has shifted from "financially stable" to "wealthy". These are two separate status. I'm not looking for wealthy, just someone stable enough not to drag me into whatever debts they accumulated before they met me. I believe we all do not want this happening to us now, do we? Then I would use the term financially stable because to me that seems to fit your criteria. Some of the terms you used earlier alluded to wealth. Trust me, I agree with you in the context of someone being financially stable. In other words, I don't care if they are dirt poor, as long as they live within their means, know what I'm saying? I have met many women who not only were not financially stable, they weren't close to being mentally stable either, haha. I call that "baggage." When I use that term, they think I mean kids. I mean the shape their life is in (and of course, crazy exs). I went on a date a few months ago with this lady who on the surface seemed to have her act together. We go out to dinner and 5 minutes later her crazy ex is calling her and she's arguing with him about money. My reaction? "Waiter, check please." No-freaking-thank-you.
CaliGuy Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Sounds more like a gourmet dish than a human being. It appears to cover the skill set of a successful tennage boy. What do you think makes up the skill set of a successful adult? No, his definition of being well balanced was pretty spot on.
Dark-N-Romantic Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Dating is becoming boring, boring, boring with each passing day .. Appears like well balanced men do not exist anymore, unless you want to date their fathers. They're either: - clingy/needy or emotionally guarded - bad boy/cocky types or doormats - totally clueless or think they know too much This is all there's left ladies, so take you pick! What is well-balanced to you? I consider myself well-balanced and yet I seem to find myself alone... I'm intelligent, wise, and understanding. Yes I have my moments of cluelessness and times I am a know-it-all (um this is a trait of ALL humans at some point or another). I am on average a guy who likes to be relied upon by a woman (as I also rely upon her), what is the sense of being in a relationship if the person can't, isn't, or won't be there in your time of need? I can be a bad boy, sometimes I can be a doormat, but most of the time I am just me. I have a pretty interesting life I believe, but that does not mean I have to be happy with or settle for being alone because I am a good photographer, poety, computer person, etc. Just because I find joy in things I do does not mean I am fulfilled. I mean, lets really think... If all the things people do in their lives should be enough to make them happy that we would not miss having someone to be in a relationship with, who would dare date? Who would waste their time, effort, and funds on this strange thing we call love and/or lust? We would be best becoming Vulcans. There is a reason why men and women desire each other and to say that things can replace that defies the very source of our creation, we were designed to desire each other and only the rare few are able to deny/fight it. DNR
D-Jam Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Shygirl...I was about to write a small essay on this...but I'll keep it simple. If all you seem to meet are people you don't want...then you're not looking at the right people. Plenty of balanced men out there, but too many women pass them up because said balanced men aren't physically hot enough for them and/or are not exciting enough for them. I know...because I'm one of these guys. It's amazing how many female friends thought I was such an amazing catch, but wondered why every woman I meet would reject me. Part of it was my own fault in who I picked, but a lot of it was that these women think they can have good values and hot/exciting in one. NOW...if every guy you meet isn't attractive enough for you, then it means you set your standards too high, especially if the guys who do find attractive aren't going after you. Sorry to tell you that. Let's face it, I honestly like slender brunettes with long hair and nice chests. My girlfriend has short blonde hair and smaller breasts. Did I settle? Hell no. I realized that this woman would be better to me than others, and I did think she was pretty, and her life is in order, and she doesn't play games. I realized I will not find this easily again. I've been happy since. I also find it funny how many women who sound like you, who never would even fathom me, are now either flirting and/or regretting passing me up. Not copping an ego here, but showing you that the nice decent gentlemen who might come along and make your panties dry could be the actual balanced men you want. You really need to think about this...or else you're just going to keep coming here and complaining.
BubblyPopcorn Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 I know, that's why we're all disagreeing! lol And again, we'll just speak of well-balanced men for dating, so for me, he would have to be: 1. Caring, honest, trustworthy, loyal - but these are a given 2. True Confidence - no arrogance or too much insecurity 3. Strong sense of who he is as a person - emotionally and mentally balanced 4. Passionate about life and the people in his life 5. Multi-faceted - has many interests, open to learning and trying new things 6. Ambitious - career is not as important as how passionate he is about what he does, whether he is hardworking, financially responsible (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WEALTHY), etc. 7. Sense of humor 8. Good sense of values #1 & #8 are very important, sense of humor I 've come to find is unique to the individual. I've always been attracted towards a certain sense of humor but I've also been attracted to a completely different type. I like how you phrased confidence with the word "true". I think sometimes guys get the wrong impression when women say not to be "insecure". Women are supposed to be the "insecure" ones, we are emotionally wired so we need the guy in our lives to be the one to show us that we CAN be secure. He does this by being our rock, the one who nurtures us, etc. Not to the point where he's like a father-figure but someone who makes us feel reassured. Good thread, now one of the guys should start one for the women
carhill Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 I think sometimes guys get the wrong impression when women say not to be "insecure". Women are supposed to be the "insecure" ones, we are emotionally wired so we need the guy in our lives to be the one to show us that we CAN be secure.Perhaps off-topic, but I believe a man (and a woman) can be very secure in themselves yet be very emotionally open and expressive. In fact, going further, I think such displays, for a man, speak to his security in himself. He can risk vulnerability with the steadfast knowledge of and confidence in who he is in totality. See, I took my meds today
BubblyPopcorn Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Perhaps off-topic, but I believe a man (and a woman) can be very secure in themselves yet be very emotionally open and expressive. In fact, going further, I think such displays, for a man, speak to his security in himself. He can risk vulnerability with the steadfast knowledge of and confidence in who he is in totality. See, I took my meds today Yes that is true, I def think the guy should be expressive both should and it's difficult to achieve in general, despite gender. To risk that vulerability it takes complete dedication, trust and a willingness to get from Point A to Point B. I took my meds too, I ate a cookie earlier
johan Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Every person is imbalanced in some way. It just takes longer to figure some of them out. But when you do, if you had known when you started seeing them, you probably would have broke it off. The secret then is to keep your imbalances to yourself long enough to get the other person hooked. Then instead of leaving you, they will want to help.
Author Shygirl15 Posted October 24, 2008 Author Posted October 24, 2008 Some of you have come up with very constructive criticism and I'll surely keep these in mind for future. Special thanks to those who contributed in the last two pages. I can tell your impressions from your replies, that you think I'm a princess who dismiss every guy as long as they are not physically attractive and rich. Truth is, I have given chances to many men in the past and it just turned out to be a pure waste of time. They all seemed so fine at first, matched most of what I'm looking for, however after going out on a couple of dates and start to know them better, that's when I discover something 'unbalanced' about them; still married, doormats, possessive, and my recent experience (hence this thread) obsessive/clingy. I think it's about time I set higher and more strict standards and just stick to them. I'm not sure how long I'll need to wait for 'him' to come along, but one thing I'm sure of is that I'm not prepared to waste my time for something that will never be.
monkey00 Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Some of you have come up with very constructive criticism and I'll surely keep these in mind for future. Special thanks to those who contributed in the last two pages. I can tell your impressions from your replies, that you think I'm a princess who dismiss every guy as long as they are not physically attractive and rich. Truth is, I have given chances to many men in the past and it just turned out to be a pure waste of time. They all seemed so fine at first, matched most of what I'm looking for, however after going out on a couple of dates and start to know them better, that's when I discover something 'unbalanced' about them; still married, doormats, possessive, and my recent experience (hence this thread) obsessive/clingy. I think it's about time I set higher and more strict standards and just stick to them. I'm not sure how long I'll need to wait for 'him' to come along, but one thing I'm sure of is that I'm not prepared to waste my time for something that will never be. Good for you, don't settle. I have my standards also and wouldn't settle for anything less. However, I think when it comes to attraction most people are willing to make exceptions and let the small stuff slide. Afterall when you like someone, you like them for their flaws and all right? My past relationships, weren't my ideal picture perfect beauty or personality..but I just liked them. I think you just need to find someone that balances you, not necessarily the epitome of a balanced individual..I don't think anyone is perfect. I know friends who might appear to be the typical submissive/whipped type in the relationship..and their gfs are a bit controlling...but hey both parties always appear to be happy..so I don't see anything wrong with the picture. So find the person that balances you.
carhill Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 I have given chances to many men in the past and it just turned out to be a pure waste of time Stop that, please! Be confident and decisive in your choices. If you don't have confidence in a man you meet (trusting who you are and your instincts), don't date him. Invariably, for you, if you're healthy and ready for a relationship, your instincts will be right. I can tell your impressions from your replies, that you think I'm a princess who dismiss every guy as long as they are not physically attractive and rich. You didn't hear that from me! Seriously, be honest about your standards and remain true to them. If that means that men like myself "miss out", so be it. That's the way life works
Dark-N-Romantic Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Maybe you don't need to raise your standard, maybe you need to alter how you make your selection. I.E., some men and women have good standard settings and are willing to give a person that chance to grow into some of those standards (which IS NOT a bad thing, no one will EVER fit your idea's 100%), do make sure the major one's are fulfilled though, those are the ones that you will regret later on if you let it slip. Another thing is to look at where you find your dates from. If you want a man of distinguish tastes, your probably not going to find him in some $3 div; if you want a biker, you expect to find him in some live mic cafe for poets. Lastly, maybe you date the way you date because you are just going with a flow or not ready to settle down. If you are looking for something serious, then definitely, know what you want, don't settle for someone who isn't going to fulfill your desires. But, now for goodness sakes, get it out of your mind that there is no one who is going to not be all that they cracked up to be in the beginning. Think of a man like a favorite pair of shoes... Yes they look so awesome when you first try them on, but over time the true faults and flaws start to come out. You will find they pinch in the wrong places once in a while. And that no matter how well you clean them, they just won't look the same, but you still work with them because you love them. Some issues can be overcame, insecurities, clinginess, being a bad boy, etc. All these things can be overcame if the TWO of you are willing to work at it. We all have issues, we all get on each other's nerve, this is life, this is love. DNR
DMoon Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 Shygirl...I was about to write a small essay on this...but I'll keep it simple. If all you seem to meet are people you don't want...then you're not looking at the right people. Plenty of balanced men out there, but too many women pass them up because said balanced men aren't physically hot enough for them and/or are not exciting enough for them. INOW...if every guy you meet isn't attractive enough for you, then it means you set your standards too high, especially if the guys who do find attractive aren't going after you. Sorry to tell you that. Let's face it, I honestly like slender brunettes with long hair and nice chests. My girlfriend has short blonde hair and smaller breasts. Did I settle? Hell no. But as someone mentioned earlier, men care about looks first. This is repeatedly beaten to death that men must be physically attracted to a woman before she can even get through the door. She can be caring, fiscally conservative, brilliant, etc but if she isn't good looking, then most men would look right through her. The OP mentioned that she must be physically attracted to the man in addition to other critera, thus why is she told to see beyond physical looks, when most men won't.
jadedone Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 But as someone mentioned earlier, men care about looks first. This is repeatedly beaten to death that men must be physically attracted to a woman before she can even get through the door. She can be caring, fiscally conservative, brilliant, etc but if she isn't good looking, then most men would look right through her. The OP mentioned that she must be physically attracted to the man in addition to other critera, thus why is she told to see beyond physical looks, when most men won't. Partially because men are much more flexible on everything else about a woman. The woman doesn't have to be rich, she doesn't have to advanced degrees, she doens't have to live in a certain neighborhood. Shygirl is unrealistically picky about EVERY detail about a guy.
Trimmer Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 The OP mentioned that she must be physically attracted to the man in addition to other critera, thus why is she told to see beyond physical looks, when most men won't. Because effectively, she is complaining (or was anyway, early in the thread) that (a) she has high standards, and (b) therefore she isn't meeting anyone that meets them. There are several known solutions to this quandry: either change yourself to be somehow more attractive, change your strategy for meeting/searching, or consider modifying your standards in some way. I think that at various points, each of these has been suggested in one form or another in this thread. She doesn't, by any means, have to do any of them - you go girl!!! - but then she shouldn't expect anything to change, as it doesn't seem very likely that all "those men out there" are going to change into high-quality prospects for her. I can tell your impressions from your replies, that you think I'm a princess who dismiss every guy as long as they are not physically attractive and rich. It was hard not to draw that conclusion after this exchange: Most of the well balanced men are overlooked because they are not good looking and rich.They are not well balanced, then. Truth is, I have given chances to many men in the past and it just turned out to be a pure waste of time. They all seemed so fine at first, matched most of what I'm looking for, however after going out on a couple of dates and start to know them better, that's when I discover something 'unbalanced' about them; still married, doormats, possessive, and my recent experience (hence this thread) obsessive/clingy. I think it's about time I set higher and more strict standards and just stick to them. I can't disagree with anything you've said here. Dating can be frustrating, and you've got to kiss a lot of frogs, turn over a lot of rocks... whatever metaphor you want to use. I'll reiterate that you certainly have every right to have your standards as high as you wish - I don't knock you for that for a moment; just recognize that higher standards inherently correspond to a longer/more difficult search. You can't get around that. I'm not sure how long I'll need to wait for 'him' to come along, but one thing I'm sure of is that I'm not prepared to waste my time for something that will never be. I'm not sure how this plays out, then. On one hand, you sound like you are recognizing that it may be a long wait, on the other hand you say you don't want to waste time. Do you mean that you will raise your standards of who you will date, holding out until you meet someone who you can be assured is a higher quality prospect, so you won't waste time dating less likely candidates? That's certainly a worthy goal - wouldn't we all like to figure out that shortcut? The question is, how will you put it into practice?
Trimmer Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 But as someone mentioned earlier, men care about looks first. This is repeatedly beaten to death that men must be physically attracted to a woman before she can even get through the door. Umm... I will just say that for the majority of us, it's not quite that simple, and this works in both directions: if you are not particularly physically attractive, you can't afford to take a "looks first" hard line. I'm average, at best, and I know very well - much as I may fantasize - that I can't hold out for an appearance-hottie. Back to my earlier theme: I'm well aware that if I make my standards particularly high, this will limit my pool of suitable candidates accordingly. If I can live with the consequences, more power to me, but it may be a long, dry, frustrating wait, and I wouldn't expect a lot of sympathy when I complain about how "women out there" just aren't high-enough quality to meet my criteria. Now the OP has self-reported that she is attractive, with a good career, "financially stable," and all of those other criteria in her list, so that should push her attractiveness quotient up way high, right??? Of course, she also opined that she loathes having to "deal with the generation of unbalanced, needy, immature, cheating, mind-game playing individuals calling themselves men," told us, "If anything, I'm doing you all a favor by giving you a female perspective on what we're looking for in a soulmate and you'all should thank me," and after giving us her list of criteria, continued with, "Now, as ridiculous as this list may sound to most men here (which just proves my point )..." I don't know how much of this dripping sarcasm and superiority comes through in her dealings with her dates - perhaps it's just us LS individuals that "call ourselves men" who trigger this in her - but do I have to wonder how her attractiveness is affected by the attitude that "all men are jerks... except for that perfect one I haven't found yet."
flc Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 But as someone mentioned earlier, men care about looks first. This is repeatedly beaten to death that men must be physically attracted to a woman before she can even get through the door. She can be caring, fiscally conservative, brilliant, etc but if she isn't good looking, then most men would look right through her. The OP mentioned that she must be physically attracted to the man in addition to other critera, thus why is she told to see beyond physical looks, when most men won't. I would argue that both sexes need to be physically attracted to one another to make the relationship work. I think everyone does initial selection based on looks not just men. I would also argue that everyone has different perceptions of what good looking means and part of that is how you carry yourself not just your physical features.
Author Shygirl15 Posted October 24, 2008 Author Posted October 24, 2008 Because effectively, she is complaining (or was anyway, early in the thread) that (a) she has high standards, and (b) therefore she isn't meeting anyone that meets them. Please quote where I said that. I'm not sure how this plays out, then. On one hand, you sound like you are recognizing that it may be a long wait, on the other hand you say you don't want to waste time. Once again you misunderstood my statements just like before. What I meant is that I would rather wait forever than waste my time with someone who will not deliver for me.
Author Shygirl15 Posted October 24, 2008 Author Posted October 24, 2008 I know, that's why we're all disagreeing! lol And again, we'll just speak of well-balanced men for dating, so for me, he would have to be: 1. Caring, honest, trustworthy, loyal - but these are a given 2. True Confidence - no arrogance or too much insecurity 3. Strong sense of who he is as a person - emotionally and mentally balanced 4. Passionate about life and the people in his life 5. Multi-faceted - has many interests, open to learning and trying new things 6. Ambitious - career is not as important as how passionate he is about what he does, whether he is hardworking, financially responsible (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WEALTHY), etc. 7. Sense of humor 8. Good sense of values How cute if not a bit e-harmonyish.. Good for you to come up with that for public approval. As for me, I still maintain that I have to find them physically attractive before we proceed into anything else.
Recommended Posts