I'm pretty sure there are only like five "desirable" guys where I live...

[shadowplay]

Yep, this is the conclusion I've come to after scouring the social networks of my small city. This is why I'm going to stop looking for a relationship for now, because I know I probably won't meet anyone serious until I move to NY. Sure, I'll go on a date here and there for fun, but I'm not expecting to find a mate here.

 

Anyone else having trouble dating because of the limitations of living in a small town?

 

Of course desirable is highly subjective, but for me it's:

 

-extremely smart and fairly well-read

-good looking, fit and above average height

-ambitious and resourceful

-common interests

-good taste in artistic things

-24-years-old+ and mature

-confident and not a weirdo

 

(And no, I don't keep this list in my head. I just see potential or I don't.)

 

I live in a town with a high density of creatives and academics, but they're mostly dead-beats.

 

I think browsing OKCupid and other dating sites really made me aware of how slim the pickings are around here. First off, almost every young, post college person I know has an account, so it's pretty representative. I realized that the few desirable guys on the site were also the same people I knew in real life whom I already found attractive, the same people I kept running into through my other networks. In other words, my searches, whether in real life or online, inevitably ended in the same handful of attractive guys.

 

One of those guys I already hooked up with, but he doesn't seem relationship-minded in general. He's a blast to hang out with, but I have zero expectations about anything substantial happening. The other (an instructor of one of my classes who is friends with the first guy and also my age) seemed to find me attractive, but I turned him off with my craziness in the class...missing assignments when I was going through a rough patch, etc. And then there are like maybe one or two other guys who might be interesting, but I don't know well enough to decide.

 

It's really frustrating. Am I just too picky?

 

I guess the main deal breaker for me is lack of intelligence. Probably only the top 5% are smart enough to be what I consider dateable. Then there's only a minority of those who are actually attractive. Then even fewer who have anything in common with me. And honestly I don't find most guys over thirty physically attractive (hopefully this changes), so that leaves a narrow range of 24-30.

 

I guess this online dating thing has made me realize just how picky I am. I was only willing to meet one guy off the site in person, and he turned out to be a dud.

 

Are there other avenues of meeting people I should try, or should I just wait it out until I move in a year?

[welikeincrowds]

I just want to find a guy that's smart, worldly, attractive, in shape, successful, and likes the same things that I like. Why haven't I found him yet?!

 

 

That's what a lot of people want. You'll find it.

[shadowplay]

 

That's what a lot of people want. You'll find it.

 

Yeah, people say that taste varies, and it does to a degree, but I'm pretty sure the same sorts of guys are coveted by all women.

[JamesM]

Ironically, when the right guy comes along (and for whatever reason, we simply click with someone), your list will be thrown out of the window. Then that guy may have less intelligence than you think "appropriate" or he may be a couple of inches shorter or (fill in the blank). Whatever criteria he does not quite meet will become less important.

 

Why? Because attraction cannot always be based on a list of certain criteria.

 

But yes....I think your list is too picky. However, the list is there because you simply haven't found "the one"... although he may be right in front of you.

[Star Gazer]

Few things:

 

I moved from LA back a considerably smaller city in part to find the right guy. The size of the population doesn't mean you're any more likely to find quality.

 

Second, I don't think it's fair to look for characteristics you don't offer yourself...such as success (you haven't even started your career yet) and being wordly. Also, what's your definition of intelligence? Yours seems focused on being "intellectual" rather than functional intelligence?

 

Third, I wouldn't LOOK for a guy where you are, knowing that you'll be leaving in a year. If you happen to meet someone, awesome. But don't look for it.

[welikeincrowds]

Yeah, people say that taste varies, and it does to a degree, but I'm pretty sure the same sorts of guys are coveted by all women.

 

That's not really what I meant. The details of the laundry list are irrelevant. You, like many, are looking for someone who will inspire you. Taste varies like inspiration. We can do things to coax it but it is fickle. Keep an open mind and you will find him, I promise.

[shadowplay]

Few things:

 

I moved from LA back a considerably smaller city in part to find the right guy. The size of the population doesn't mean you're any more likely to find quality.

 

Second, I don't think it's fair to look for characteristics you don't offer yourself...such as success (you haven't even started your career yet) and being wordly. Also, what's your definition of intelligence? Yours seems focused on being "intellectual" rather than functional intelligence?

 

Third, I wouldn't LOOK for a guy where you are, knowing that you'll be leaving in a year. If you happen to meet someone, awesome. But don't look for it.

 

Lol, are you saying I'm not intelligent? I have both types of intelligence: intellectual and functional. Where did I say worldly? I said well-read, which I am. I also didn't say successful; I said ambitious, which I am.

[Star Gazer]

Lol, are you saying I'm not intelligent? I have both types of intelligence: intellectual and functional.

 

No, I'm not saying you're not intelligent. But you didn't answer my question. When you look for intelligence, what do YOU mean by that? You're definitely intellectual, can't argue that. But I'm not sure I've seen enough problem solving skills and emotional intelligence from you to confidently say you have functional intelligence...what myself and another poster refer to as "Amazing Race Intelligence" (which goes beyond reading a map, but does include reading people).

 

Where did I say worldly? I said well-read, which I am. I also didn't say successful; I said ambitious, which I am.

 

I was reading the second post and the quote that went with it, I thought it was yours? But you did agree with it.

 

But still, what's "well read" to you? What's ambition? Because again, based on MY definitions, you're probably not either of those things. But based on your definition you are. Does that make sense?

 

I find this 180 confidence shift you're experiencing since your hookup the other night to be very interesting...

[shadowplay]

No, I'm not saying you're not intelligent. But you didn't answer my question. When you look for intelligence, what do YOU mean by that? You're definitely intellectual, can't argue that. But I'm not sure I've seen enough problem solving skills and emotional intelligence from you to confidently say you have functional intelligence...what myself and another poster refer to as "Amazing Race Intelligence" (which goes beyond reading a map, but does include reading people).

 

 

 

I was reading the second post and the quote that went with it, I thought it was yours? But you did agree with it.

 

But still, what's "well read" to you? What's ambition? Because again, based on MY definitions, you're probably not either of those things. But based on your definition you are. Does that make sense?

 

I find this 180 confidence shift you're experiencing since your hookup the other night to be very interesting...

 

problem solving skills? Please, I had nearly perfect SATs and an IQ that placed me in the well above the 99th percentile when I was tested as a kid.

 

Lol, how would you even know if I"m well-read? Do you have a list of everything I've read?

[Star Gazer]

problem solving skills? Please, I had nearly perfect SATs and an IQ that placed me in the well above the 99th percentile when I was tested as a kid.

 

You just proved my point without realizing it, Shadow.

 

Life isn't an SAT test or math problem.

[anne1707]

problem solving skills? Please, I had nearly perfect SATs and an IQ that placed me in the well above the 99th percentile when I was tested as a kid.

 

Lol, how would you even know if I"m well-read? Do you have a list of everything I've read?

 

 

What about real life problem solving skills as opposed to just the ability to pass an exam?

[Star Gazer]

Lol, how would you even know if I"m well-read? Do you have a list of everything I've read?

 

Did you even read my post about being "well read" based on MY definition?? I don't need a list to know we read very different things.

[shadowplay]

What about real life problem solving skills as opposed to just the ability to pass an exam?

 

Well, I don't know what "functional" intelligence even means. Sounds like a BS term.

 

My abstract reasoning abilities are extremely high. I don't have much practical intelligence, but that's more because of lack of experience than anything.

 

And, no, practical intelligence isn't what I prioritize in a mate, as long as they have enough to function. The ability to solve abstract problems and think through ideas is more what I look for.

[shadowplay]

Did you even read my post about being "well read" based on MY definition?? I don't need a list to know we read very different things.

 

No, what post?

 

The thing is I don't care what your definition of well read is...

[anne1707]

OK.

 

My brother would probably class himself as an extremely well-read intellectual (as would I). Yet he cannot hold down a job for more than a few months and has achieved sweet FA with his life. Is that what you want?

[shadowplay]

All of the guys I've been interested in and found exceptionally bright (both in terms of problem solving ability and more intellectual skills, whatever that means) always appreciated my intelligence. I've never dated a guy who wasn't blown away by my smarts. So, yes, I have to offer what I seek in that regard.

[USMCHokie]

Well, I don't know what "functional" intelligence even means. Sounds like a BS term.

 

My abstract reasoning abilities are extremely high. I don't have much practical intelligence, but that's more because of lack of experience than anything.

 

And, no, practical intelligence isn't what I prioritize in a mate, as long as they have enough to function. The ability to solve abstract problems and think through ideas is more what I look for.

 

You remind me a lot of a female Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory...

 

Practical intelligence does not require extensive amounts of experience. It is a skill set in itself that usually comes naturally but can be learned through training and experience.

[SteveC80]

Sweet mother of God get over yourself

 

Lets be honest here if the op and her other whacko friend were Men theyd be chewed up and spit out along time ago with therye incrediible shallowness whining and self pity on here but women are coddled and giving a longer rope to hang themselves then Men

 

Tired of your pity posts and ramblings about how nobodies good enough for you

 

You need tough love,get some professional help you are not right in the head

[USMCHokie]

problem solving skills? Please, I had nearly perfect SATs and an IQ that placed me in the well above the 99th percentile when I was tested as a kid.

 

Not to downplay your remarkable performance on the SAT, but did you prepare for them in any way...? My one beef with any kind of standardized test is that test takers are allowed to prepare for them with practice tests, prep classes, and whatever other methods are available. Anyone can spend the time and money to learn the special methods to taking each particular test to get an artificially high score.

 

My view is that people should be required to take these tests blind without having had any exposure to the test beforehand. But of course that'd only happen in an ideal world...but a boy can dream...

 

Sorry to stray a little off topic there...

[shadowplay]

Not to downplay your remarkable performance on the SAT, but did you prepare for them in any way...? My one beef with any kind of standardized test is that test takers are allowed to prepare for them with practice tests, prep classes, and whatever other methods are available. Anyone can spend the time and money to learn the special methods to taking each particular test to get an artificially high score.

 

My view is that people should be required to take these tests blind without having had any exposure to the test beforehand. But of course that'd only happen in an ideal world...but a boy can dream...

 

Sorry to stray a little off topic there...

 

No, I didn't. Nor did I prepare for the IQ test obviously. In fact I was pretty much a slacker as kid, especially in high school.

 

That's not true with the SAT, at least the older version I took. They've done studies that show people can only boost their score a finite amount with practice.

[anne1707]

But it is still only a piece of paper and not a real life test

[USMCHokie]

No, I didn't. Nor did I prepare for the IQ test obviously. In fact I was pretty much a slacker as kid, especially in high school.

 

That's not true with the SAT, at least the older version I took. They've done studies that show people can only boost their score a finite amount with practice.

 

Groovy.

[shadowplay]

Not to downplay your remarkable performance on the SAT, but did you prepare for them in any way...? My one beef with any kind of standardized test is that test takers are allowed to prepare for them with practice tests, prep classes, and whatever other methods are available. Anyone can spend the time and money to learn the special methods to taking each particular test to get an artificially high score.

 

My view is that people should be required to take these tests blind without having had any exposure to the test beforehand. But of course that'd only happen in an ideal world...but a boy can dream...

 

Sorry to stray a little off topic there...

 

Honestly, I find it a bit insulting/surprising that you seem to be questioning my intelligence...especially coming from you, since you're usually such a sweetheart.

 

I could offer more "evidence" if you'd like, but what's that worth? As a kid and teenager, teachers often remarked that I was one of the most gifted in their classes. Growing up we had to constantly take aptitude tests (again unprepared) and I consistently scored at the very top. I didn't study my ass off. I was usually underprepared for classes and tests.

[GorillaTheater]

No, I didn't. Nor did I prepare for the IQ test obviously. In fact I was pretty much a slacker as kid, especially in high school.

 

That's not true with the SAT, at least the older version I took. They've done studies that show people can only boost their score a finite amount with practice.

 

I can relate. Always had a knack for test-taking, but was (am?) a bit of a slacker, too. National Merit Semi-Finalist, but missed out on finalist because I was too busy screwing around to get good grades. 95 percentile on the LSAT without any prior prep.

 

Just think of what I could have done if I, you know, cared.

[shadowplay]

But it is still only a piece of paper and not a real life test

 

I don't even know what that means. As I already wrote, practical intelligence isn't something I really value, as long as someone has enough to be functional. I'm not going to swoon because some guy can survive in the wild for an indefinite amount of time, or because he's good with tools. Sure, it's attractive, but it's not something I really value.

 

I'm more interested in somebody who's a good conversationalist. And, yes, I have that to offer as well. Everyone who knows me well has remarked on how lively their conversations with me are.