Why can't I find a good man?

[rod_in_gtown]

I don't claim to be perfect, or to be looking for perfection - I just want someone who can offer the same as I can, i.e. someone single with no ex-spouses or kids, ok looking, reasonably intelligent and solvent, and no unmanageable vices.

 

Don't automatically write a person who has been married before. (I understand the no kids thing though), I was married before, I did it out of impulse and things didn't work out, that doesn't mean that I have baggage or that I'm "tainted goods". My gf told me recently that she would've never dated a divorced guy, and that she didn't notice it on my profile at first before we met, but now she says that it would have been a mistake to write me off because of that.

 

There are tons of people with worse baggage than a divorce, and SOME people who have been divorced gain a unique perspective on the importance of marriage and the seriousness of that commitment.

[JellyTot]

Yet should would expect him to date her even if she were struggling with money? Look at what I found today.

 

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/rnr/1458299756.html

I wouldn't expect a solvent guy to date me if I had financial problems - I don't expect someone else to bail me out. All I expect is equality - I only expect solvency in a partner because it's something I've strived very hard to achieve myself. My family was so poor that as a kid I hardly even had enough food to eat, but I worked hard and I got college degrees and a decent job. I put in a lot of effort and I don't deserve to struggle just because my partner didn't try so hard. It sucks that I've always been so driven and have worked really hard to do well and be respectable, yet I have to settle for someone who hasn't tried anywhere near as hard, who then reaps the rewards of my effort while I'm poorer for their lack of it.

 

Not bad. You live in the DC area by any chance?

Sadly not

[JellyTot]

Don't automatically write a person who has been married before.

My reason for that criterion is because divorced men usually have a huge financial commitment in the form of alimony, and often large amounts of debt from the divorce (I speak from experience of having dated such men). If a guy was divorced and didn't have such financial difficulties then I'd be happy to date him.

[MoreAwesomeUsername]

OK, so does that make me the perfect woman because I bring all of those qualities to the table? As I said, I'm not asking for perfection, I just want someone who's equivalent to myself. I'm not so arrogant as to think I'm so perfect that there are no guys out there who can match what I have to offer - I just figure that if I can offer those things in a relationship, there must be a guy who can also offer them to me, and I find it very frustrating that there seems to be nobody who can. Perhaps I do feel that a guy isn't "good enough" if he can't offer me the same things I can offer him. Is it so unreasonable to want someone who can give the same as they receive?

 

JellyTot here is some real advice for you, I agree with you on find someone that is your equal not because he would be perfect but it would be one less thing to worry about, (two people with good careers, eliminates potential financial conflicts/comfort, two celebrities dating, eliminates potential exterior motives/comfort)

 

JellyTot you are looking in the wrong places for quality men, start by expanding your social circles. Attend events and meet new people, talk it up with strangers you might come across, and most importantly find out where the type of men you are looking for socialize in their free time (higher end lounges/social events)

 

You'll find him, don't worry, just get out there and start expanding your social horizons and make more new friends!

 

Also, it's true a lot of good men are taken but some are just so focused on their career that they worry about finding a partner later on, be careful and don't checklist potential good guys you might meet, the minute he senses it you will be forgotten.

Edited November 9, 2009 by MoreAwesomeUsername

[sumdude]

My reason for that criterion is because divorced men usually have a huge financial commitment in the form of alimony, and often large amounts of debt from the divorce (I speak from experience of having dated such men). If a guy was divorced and didn't have such financial difficulties then I'd be happy to date him.

 

LOL I'm far better off financially since the divorce:). So believe me finding someone who is financially and otherwise stable or at least reasonably so is a criteria.

 

*sigh* a scientist who used to be a model? You sound like a major catch, keep looking. Maybe drop a few preconceived notions you may be holding on to.

Edited November 9, 2009 by sumdude

[Ms. Joolie]

JellyTot -

 

I'm by no means an expert (single and 27) but after reading what you've said these are my thoughts:

 

You want someone who is your equal, and is a good man. That IS a tall order. A lot of people settle for only attraction. Others settle for simply a "good" person. Many want both an attractive and good person. But add status and looks and finances in the mix and, well, it gets complicated!

 

I don't think you should settle, ever. Keep looking until you know you've met your match. A match doesn't necessarily have to be your equal, but someone who complements you. ....Don't give up!

 

How wide have you expanded your circle in looking for someone that you'd actually like to date? Have you gone beyond your normal boundaries? Have you tried expanding your interests and trying out those new circles? As in, if you've never taken photography or cooking classes, try those classes and get introduced to a new kind of group. New groups would be key, no? Or try getting involved with national/international groups, and interacting with people (men) beyond your home region.

 

Maybe it is a numbers game. Or it could be that you are looking too hard and completely missing the right guy for you. The right guy for you could be undercover in the shadows somewhere, in a relatively easy place that you might not think you'll find him. In other words, perhaps you need to open up your eyes, really open up your eyes, to the men who are in front of you. You could be judging too quickly. Maybe you need to take it slower. What makes a good man? Discover what makes a good man to you and renew your search with those qualities in mind, with those qualities in a man that you can truly appreciate.

 

I think though, above all, it's about attraction. If you're not finding men you want to date, or attracting men you want to date, you may have to change a thing or two about how you're going about this. You may need to take a time out to reflect about this. You may need to be single for a while longer to bring about your own fulfillment before seeking it in a relationship.

 

Unless you're just mad crazy for settling down and having a family. Then you might have to settle.

[Kamille]

Interesting thread. I can't help but feel that we're all focusing on superficial stuff though. Sure, a good job, financial stability, good looks and no bad habits make for a good catch on paper, but in my book, they're far from being what makes a relationship worthwhile.

 

But what do I know - I'm also early thirthies and possibly single.

 

My list of exes could include some of yours - with the difference that I would have no qualms about supporting someone financially, especially if they liked what they were doing. Or no qualms dating divorced dads.

 

If there is one thing I think I do right it's that I get to know the person, how they communicate, how they treat me, how we solve problems and conflicts together.

 

The one thing I need to learn to do is to know when to call it quits. I think I hang on too long to unpromising relationships. I wonder if maybe you do the same thing? Or perhaps the opposite? How long were you with each of your exes?

[Sam Spade]

Whatever .

There will be no sympathy coming from me on this thread . Why?

Because i realistically combine some of the good characteristics of the spectrum of exes you listed (and none of the bad, true story ), yet I still had some pretty rough time dating. Specifically, I'm as educated as they come, have prestiguous (and reasonably - though not exceedingly well - paid) job with multiple perks, swear by old world manners (except on this forum), confident, assertive, with a dash of international charisma and dry, dry humor; loyal, trustworthy, can be responsible; but can play too. Also, very fit.

 

==>My point being - guess what? - this is still not enough for many women, because they treat the above traits in a partner as a god-given birth right . As a man, you need all that just to get in the door of the casino, but then if you wana play, you also need to put up a good entertainment performance on the dating scene , which I resent on principle . (thank god, i was quickly able to navigate towards a girl with a different kind of values, so it's all good now).

 

I would recommend that you reevaluate your concept of 'boring' as well as your concept of important qualities and mutual responsibilities in relationships. Most partner traits are not discrete, but are points on a continuum. And expecting something beyond a reasonable treshold is setting yourself up for failure.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sam Spade

[JellyTot]

*sigh* a scientist who used to be a model? You sound like a major catch, keep looking.

Thank you for the compliment. I was only ever a part-time model doing pictures for a local agency, and I have my bad points just the same as anyone else. I'd like to think I'm an ok catch because I don't really have what most people would consider to be major dealbreakers.

 

Interesting thread. I can't help but feel that we're all focusing on superficial stuff though.

I try not to focus too much on superficial stuff; I'd rather compromise on looks or earning potential than on compatibility or decency. I still have my limits though.

 

The one thing I need to learn to do is to know when to call it quits. I think I hang on too long to unpromising relationships. I wonder if maybe you do the same thing? Or perhaps the opposite? How long were you with each of your exes?

I also tend to hang on to unpromising relationships in the hope that they'll improve - I dated some guys for a couple of months and others for a couple of years. I've dated my current boyfriend for a year now, and at least he's trying to fix some things - he's trying to improve his career and he wants to do a college degree part-time. His kids are the main thing that puts me off, but I'd rather compromise on that than on something more fundamental like intelligence. I just find it rather disappointing that I have to compromise on the major things at all

[C-i-C-u]

I liked number 5 because he reminds me of me. and can you post a picture of yourself so that we can see how you look like?

[JellyTot]

Whatever .

There will be no sympathy coming from me on this thread . Why?

Because i realistically combine some of the good characteristics of the spectrum of exes you listed (and none of the bad, true story ), yet I still had some pretty rough time dating. Specifically, I'm as educated as they come, have prestiguous (and reasonably - though not exceedingly well - paid) job with multiple perks, swear by old world manners (except on this forum), confident, assertive, with a dash of international charisma and dry, dry humor; loyal, trustworthy, can be responsible; but can play too. Also, very fit.

 

==>My point being - guess what? - this is still not enough for many women, because they treat the above traits in a partner as a god-given birth right . As a man, you need all that just to get in the door of the casino, but then if you wana play, you also need to put up a good entertainment performance on the dating scene , which I resent on principle . (thank god, i was quickly able to navigate towards a girl with a different kind of values, so it's all good now).

 

I would recommend that you reevaluate your concept of 'boring' as well as your concept of important qualities and mutual responsibilities in relationships. Most partner traits are not discrete, but are points on a continuum. And expecting something beyond a reasonable treshold is setting yourself up for failure.

 

Thanks for your input Sam. I try not to expect too much - in general I don't expect any more than I can offer. I'd be extremely grateful to just find a guy who was single, solvent, reasonably bright and not bad looking, with no serious flaws. I'm not expecting riches or model good looks or super intelligence, just an acceptable level of solvency/attractiveness/intelligence/decency which is somewhat proportional to what I have to offer. I don't generally find guys to be boring - I'm a fairly quiet individual myself and I don't like drama. I expect mutual responsibilities to be shared equally in a relationship, and the qualities I define as important are those which affect how equal those responsibilities are - e.g. a guy's ability to equally share financial responsibilities, and him not having additional responsibilities I would have to shoulder (such as kids). I'm glad you managed to find someone who appreciates your good points.

[boogieboy]

Jelly Tot you still havent explained what you are doing to FIND these guys that you want to date. How are you expanding your social circle to find these guys that you want to settle down with?

[JellyTot]

I liked number 5 because he reminds me of me. and can you post a picture of yourself so that we can see how you look like?

 

Ex #5 was the one who was nice and trustworthy and decent, wanted to marry me, but not the brightest spark, and very overweight and unfit. I dated him in spite of his looks because he seemed like a decent guy, but ultimately we weren't compatible because a lot of the things I wanted to talk about were a little over his head, and we didn't really share any interests. Without even a physical attraction to sustain the relationship, it was never going to last.

 

I'm not prepared to post a photo of myself on a public forum in case someone identifies me, but I would rate myself around 6/7 out of 10; I have no outstandingly bad features and I don't think I've aged too badly.

[Sam Spade]

Thanks for your input Sam. I try not to expect too much - in general I don't expect any more than I can offer. I'd be extremely grateful to just find a guy who was single, solvent, reasonably bright and not bad looking, with no serious flaws. I'm not expecting riches or model good looks or super intelligence, just an acceptable level of solvency/attractiveness/intelligence/decency which is somewhat proportional to what I have to offer. I don't generally find guys to be boring - I'm a fairly quiet individual myself and I don't like drama. I expect mutual responsibilities to be shared equally in a relationship, and the qualities I define as important are those which affect how equal those responsibilities are - e.g. a guy's ability to equally share financial responsibilities, and him not having additional responsibilities I would have to shoulder (such as kids). I'm glad you managed to find someone who appreciates your good points.

 

 

Well, part of the problem with the current (or any next) BF can be rectified by means of setting boundaries - as in "sweetie, I love you etc., but you can't expect me to support both you and your kids", at which point he will have a choice to shape up or ship out. There is a potentially important difference between putting it this way and using 'solvency' as an upfront filtering criterion. There are many things in relationships that can be negotiated. (Of course, there is also the "if you gotta ask you ain't got it" crowd that will instantly chime in that if you have to negotiate anything the relationship is not worth it, but I personally don't think a passive approach is preferable...)

[JellyTot]

Jelly Tot you still havent explained what you are doing to FIND these guys that you want to date. How are you expanding your social circle to find these guys that you want to settle down with?

 

When I was younger I did various things including joining music appreciation societies, dance classes, amateur dramatics, attending the usual social events at college, and even just talking to guys in bars. I didn't meet anyone who I was really into - the guys I dated always turned out to have some serious dealbreakers like alcoholism or unfaithfulness or basic incompatibility.

 

I moved to my current location about 18 months ago, and I joined an amateur dramatics society. I also go to dancing classes and organized dance events with a girlfriend, and I attend a monthly workshop for amateur fiction writers and a weekly meditation and spiritual discussion group. I chat to people as much as possible, both at work and also when I go out on the town with friends. I also tried a couple of different things such as martial arts and tabletop games clubs, but I didn't meet anyone so eventually I gave up on those.

 

I hoped to meet someone special because I was really putting myself out there and meeting lots of new people, but it never happened. I met my current boyfriend because he's a friend of the music director at the amateur dramatics group, and he used to come along to play piano sometimes. At first I didn't want to date him because he didn't really fit what I was looking for (he's divorced with kids and has a lot of financial obligations and no career to speak of) but he came across as intelligent and kind, so eventually I agreed to date him. Perhaps it was partly due to desperation and loneliness - he wasn't what I was looking for, but he was a decent guy and reasonably attractive. I still feel like I've settled though I'm not happy in my current relationship, but at the same time I feel grateful that I at least found a decent and faithful guy with no major character flaws, and I'm reluctant to end the relationship because despite all my efforts he's the best option I've come across.

[boogieboy]

. I still feel like I've settled though I'm not happy in my current relationship, but at the same time I feel grateful that I at least found a decent and faithful guy with no major character flaws, and I'm reluctant to end the relationship because despite all my efforts he's the best option I've come across.

 

OMG (this is off topic) you have to stop seeing this guy. Thats extremely selfish if hes into you and you will eventually dump him for the guy you think you want. You cannot keep dating him if youre not happy, its not fair to him at all.

[JellyTot]

Well, part of the problem with the current (or any next) BF can be rectified by means of setting boundaries - as in "sweetie, I love you etc., but you can't expect me to support both you and your kids", at which point he will have a choice to shape up or ship out. There is a potentially important difference between putting it this way and using 'solvency' as an upfront filtering criterion. There are many things in relationships that can be negotiated. (Of course, there is also the "if you gotta ask you ain't got it" crowd that will instantly chime in that if you have to negotiate anything the relationship is not worth it, but I personally don't think a passive approach is preferable...)

 

It's really difficult though - should I live in a miserable little apartment because that's all the guy can afford to pay half of? Or should I get a nicer apartment and accept that I'll have to pay more than my fair share of the rent? Should I stay home because he can't afford to go out, or should I pay for him so we can go out together? Should I have a child with him and make it do without because he can't afford to contribute, or should I pay for its upbringing myself? I'm not asking for a rich guy, just one who can pay his fair share (it doesn't even have to be exactly half!) I don't want to marry someone and end up paying off his debts or servicing his financial responsibilities, so for a long term relationship I think solvency is an important filtering criterion. Plus there's also the issue that we'll get further in life on two decent incomes than we will if I'm the breadwinner and he barely makes a living. I worked damn hard to be successful and I don't see why that should be taken away from me because I have to subsidize someone else's inadequacies.

 

When it comes to issues such as intelligence, how can I negotiate on that? Should I say "Sweetie, I'll talk about football with you if you agree to learn about Greek history so we can discuss it over dinner"? No, what happens is we end up talking about football to please him, and he doesn't have a clue about my real interests because they're way over his head. I can't have a serious relationship with someone who isn't somewhat intellectual, because I end up being unable to share things with him and unable to have a serious discussion.

[rina_r]

I think what you really lacked with all those men is LOVE. If you really were in love, his career would not matter. Even #4 - you could have inspired him to go to college and get a degree in social work or something so he could improve his financial situation... You had no chemistry, thats what. Maybe you need to stop looking and he will come one day.

[JellyTot]

OMG (this is off topic) you have to stop seeing this guy. Thats extremely selfish if hes into you and you will eventually dump him for the guy you think you want. You cannot keep dating him if youre not happy, its not fair to him at all.

 

This is exactly the point of the thread. I feel that I deserve someone who brings the same things to the table that I do, and I feel unhappy because my current partner doesn't do that (and neither did any of my previous partners). What I'm questioning is whether it's unrealistic to expect someone to match what I bring to a relationship, or whether I should just settle for less than that. My current boyfriend is intelligent and kind and faithful, and although his career isn't the best he is attempting to improve that and wants to study part-time for more qualifications. I don't like his kids but the situation is bearable because they aren't around a whole lot. Should I just feel grateful that I have a faithful guy who I get on with and who has no major character flaws, or am I justified in feeling unhappy about the inequalities in our relationship? The fact remains that in almost two decades of dating I have been unable to find someone who fits what I'm looking for, so maybe I should just settle for 70% of what I wanted, especially given my age.

[JellyTot]

I think what you really lacked with all those men is LOVE. If you really were in love, his career would not matter. Even #4 - you could have inspired him to go to college and get a degree in social work or something so he could improve his financial situation... You had no chemistry, thats what. Maybe you need to stop looking and he will come one day.

 

Perhaps you're right - I'm only evaluating other criteria because I'm not enough in love with these guys for it to override things such as whether he can pay half of the rent. I do think I'm capable of love, because I've been in love before - once with a guy who (I admit) had some flaws but I loved him nevertheless, and once with the guy who cheated on me (and if he was broke I'd have been happy to support him because I loved him). Love seems very rare though, and in lieu of love I'm simply looking for a partner who makes sense on a pragmatic level. That poses an entirely new problem though - how do you find someone to fall in love with? It's only ever happened to me twice in a lifetime, and there's no reason to expect it ever to happen again - I freely admit that I don't expect it to happen again, I feel time ticking away, and that's why I'm trying to choose a partner based on criteria other than love. I don't even know why I was in love with those particular guys, or why I didn't love the others. What a dilemma

Edited November 9, 2009 by JellyTot

[rina_r]

Perhaps you're right - I'm only evaluating other criteria because I'm not enough in ........why I was in love with those particular guys, or why I didn't love the others. What a dilemma

 

Thats exactly what i am saying - distract from these thoughts and love will find you! Just live and enjoy your life.

[boogieboy]

You cant choose based on pragmatics, you will only head straight for misery divorce in the end. What you have to do now is re-evaluate your future based on how long it will take you to find actual love again, with someone who at least somewhat independent. If you cant find that, its better to be alone than to use someone in such a way.

[Sam Spade]

It's really difficult though - should I live in a miserable little apartment because that's all the guy can afford to pay half of? Or should I get a nicer apartment and accept that I'll have to pay more than my fair share of the rent? Should I stay home because he can't afford to go out, or should I pay for him so we can go out together? Should I have a child with him and make it do without because he can't afford to contribute, or should I pay for its upbringing myself? I'm not asking for a rich guy, just one who can pay his fair share (it doesn't even have to be exactly half!) I don't want to marry someone and end up paying off his debts or servicing his financial responsibilities, so for a long term relationship I think solvency is an important filtering criterion. Plus there's also the issue that we'll get further in life on two decent incomes than we will if I'm the breadwinner and he barely makes a living. I worked damn hard to be successful and I don't see why that should be taken away from me because I have to subsidize someone else's inadequacies.

Alright, i agree with the general point, but you need to provide some details here. It is hard to believe that you'd be that destitute . In most areas, a family of 2 working adults can live very comfortably on about 100k per year. It is VERY hard to believe that the two of you can't pull this together, no mather how mediocre jobs are we talking about here. And even so, if one makes 30k, and the other 60-70k, that still comes up to a standard of living better than 99% of the world. Now if you're talking about posh coastal lifestyle, I hate to break it to you, but you're pricing yourself out of the market. Men with this kind of money would probably just rather get a much younger woman.

 

The argument "he must bring to the table what I'm bringing to the table" is adequate, but also potentially dangerous, since it shift attention away from the fact that relationships are complementary. If I wanted a woman who brings to the table what I'm bringing to the table, I'd be dating a dude. My primary expectations are complicity (not to be confused with spinelessness), femininity, accountability and sex. Nowhere in this equation you'll see how much money she makes. Conversely, while your general criteria are not unreasonable, you focus on stuff thats inconsequential for a good relationship (beyond a reasonable treshold, which of course includes a guy capable of taking care of himself).

 

 

 

When it comes to issues such as intelligence, how can I negotiate on that? Should I say "Sweetie, I'll talk about football with you if you agree to learn about Greek history so we can discuss it over dinner"? No, what happens is we end up talking about football to please him, and he doesn't have a clue about my real interests because they're way over his head. I can't have a serious relationship with someone who isn't somewhat intellectual, because I end up being unable to share things with him and unable to have a serious discussion.

Well, here you are just screwing yourself up like all women by caring about a trait that is largely inconsequential for the quality of the relationship. You are talking about entertainment value rather than about a quality of a solid partner. A guy doesn't need to have a high IQ to be that. More importantly, this is a really condescenging thing to say - unless a person is actually retarded, most people with a basic college education (and even many without) can be engaged enough for a pleasant conversation and reltionship.

 

 

 

as stated above. I'm certainly not advocating lowering expectations too much, but rather figuring out your priorities.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Sam Spade

[Sam Spade]

You cant choose based on pragmatics, you will only head straight for misery divorce in the end. What you have to do now is re-evaluate your future based on how long it will take you to find actual love again, with someone who at least somewhat independent. If you cant find that, its better to be alone than to use someone in such a way.

 

I beg to differ - making a decision based on love, rather than pragmatics, is a surer way to divorce.

I am surprised how easily our culture forgot that love and marrige are concepts that existed *independently* for the most of human history. In fact, the marriage became unstable precisely at the time when it was bestowed with the expectation to be based on love as well.

Of course I do not say that marriage is incomensurate with love, just that the odds of success are much higher if love is a consequence, rather than the sole cause of marriage.

[JellyTot]

Alright, i agree with the general point, but you need to provide some details here. It is hard to believe that you'd be that destitute

As I stated previously, the ex about whom I had major financial concerns earned $12k, and he preferred to save as much of that as possible, then take time off work (thus earning nothing at all) and flit off round third world countries. I fail to see how I could have any sort of decent lifestyle (or raise a family) with a man who earns $12k. I resented being pretty much the sole provider - I don't want to feel like the "man" in the relationship, I don't want to carry someone else (and shouldn't have to). My current boyfriend is broke, not because of receiving a particularly low salary, but because of paying child support, alimony, and discharging debts incurred from his marriage and divorce - I question how I could have a stable future with him given that he can hardly meet his rent, never mind afford to have a family with me. I'm not asking for a rich guy, just someone who earns a reasonable amount which isn't eaten up by alimony and child support etc.

 

The argument "he must bring to the table what I'm bringing to the table" is adequate, but also potentially dangerous, since it shift attention away from the fact that relationships are complementary. If I wanted a woman who brings to the table what I'm bringing to the table, I'd be dating a dude. My primary expectations are complicity (not to be confused with spinelessness), femininity, accountability and sex. Nowhere in this equation you'll see how much money she makes.

That's because you're a MAN, so you're naturally unconcerned with your woman not being the breadwinner, and you wouldn't find a woman who needed support to be unattractive (you might even find her dependency appealing). Women, on the other hand, usually want a man who they see as the protector and breadwinner - in general they find a strong and protective man to be sexually attractive, and a weak man who they have to support as unattractive. I don't want the masculine role in the relationship, I don't want a weak man who I have to support - I want a strong and desirable man who is at least somewhere close to being my equal. With regard to the other things that I want a man to bring to the table - it's mostly to do with me not being burdened with someone else's mistakes. I don't want someone else's debt, someone else's kids, someone else's problems or addictions. The parts of relationships that are supposed to be complementary are not things like him having debt when I have none, him having kids when I have none, him being an alcoholic when I am not... that's not complementary, that's me being burdened with his baggage.

 

Well, here you are just screwing yourself up like all women by caring about a trait that is largely inconsequential for the quality of the relationship. You are talking about entertainment value rather than about a quality of a solid partner. A guy doesn't need to have a high IQ to be that.

On the contrary, intelligence is a very important issue. For one thing, I could not spend a large amount of my time with a companion who could not keep up with me intellectually - we'd have nothing to talk about and no interests in common, I'd go crazy if I was stuck with someone who had no appreciation of what I was talking about half of the time. For another thing, men and women tend to view intelligence differently. A man might enjoy being more intelligent and having a woman look up to him, whereas a woman is more likely to look down on a man for being less intelligent than her. I wish I could find a guy who I could look up to intellectually - I'd be so happy if I had a guy who I could respect - but that's not very likely so I at least want someone who I don't look down on.

 

I already decided on my priorities - I prioritise intelligence and decency far above looks, and if I was really pushed I might compromise on his baggage and solvency as long as he was well up there in the intelligence and niceness stakes. It seems unfair that I have to compromise though, since he doesn't really have to compromise on any of those issues at all.