Author northern_sky Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 Should you not shop for both? Is there a point of having the most faithful, loyal, honest, etc guy in the world, but you're not attracted to him? I agree with your opinion re: traits that make a man good in a relationship, but I honestly think discussion of such is rather perfunctory. Everyone (or at least, almost everyone healthy) wants a faithful, loyal, honest, attentive, communicative, etc etc partner, so that isn't really an individual preference, as this thread is asking. Great points! This is what I was getting at.
Star Gazer Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Him........ Could've gone either way, right? Really no need for the rolling eyes. Should you not shop for both? Is there a point of having the most faithful, loyal, honest, etc guy in the world, but you're not attracted to him? Well sure, attraction is a given - you have to be attracted to him. But to me, one's "type" IS who they are attracted to. When it comes to relationships, it makes more sense to me to look for relationship-like traits first and then see if there's attraction, rather than the other way around. Why? Because many get hooked by someone who's not good for them based on the attraction factor alone. I'm more interested in how the guy I'm attracted to behaves in a relationship than I am how attracted I am to him as a person. Does that make sense? I agree with your opinion re: traits that make a man good in a relationship, but I honestly think discussion of such is rather perfunctory. Everyone (or at least, almost everyone healthy) wants a faithful, loyal, honest, attentive, communicative, etc etc partner, so that isn't really an individual preference, as this thread is asking. I think it is a preference. The priorities shown in this thread are really telling. This thread has demonstrated - to me, anyway - that emotionally unhealthy people do not prioritize a person's relationship qualities/abilities, but rather an individual person's unique qualities which really have nothing to do with that person's capacity to be in a relationship. Again, this goes in line with shopping for a relationship you want, not the guy you want. If you find the right relationship, he'll naturally be the right guy, but not necessarily the other way around.
Author northern_sky Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 Precisely. It's the relationship with a man/woman who is compatible that most people want anyway. I always recommend the Tao of Dating (there's one for men and one for women) because it illustrates this so clearly. Like all dating books, it's a bit simplistic, but really great at reminding where the focus should be. Not going to get into the OP perse, because I don't know her well enough to psycho-analyze. But I will say that most people who are unhappy in general (hey, I've been there) don't realize how unhappy and angry they were till they get out of the fog. Then, you look back and you realize how bad it was. But it becomes numbing after awhile. Just a thought in general that your post made me remember. Being "unhappy" on average doesn't mean you don't have moments of joy and happiness, which I definitely do and not infrequently, especially when I'm spending time with people I care about. Mood isn't a permanent state of being. People have their ups and downs. It's very possible to have joie de vivre at times and still be depressed on average. Given that I'm the only person privy to the workings of my own mind, I find it odd that other people are speaking for my experience of the world.
zengirl Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Should you not shop for both? Is there a point of having the most faithful, loyal, honest, etc guy in the world, but you're not attracted to him? I agree with your opinion re: traits that make a man good in a relationship, but I honestly think discussion of such is rather perfunctory. Everyone (or at least, almost everyone healthy) wants a faithful, loyal, honest, attentive, communicative, etc etc partner, so that isn't really an individual preference, as this thread is asking. Yes, but I find when it isn't included in the "What I want" discussion, when the 'type' doesn't point out traits that link to that -- particularly individual values that are more complex than "honest" -- then people tend to act in ways that aren't in their best interest. Just an observation. From your list, especially the levels of "attentive" and "communicative" vary a lot, and people have different views of that and the way they'd like it to be shown. Besides, almost everyone wants a smart (at least in some way), attractive partner, too, and people took the time to list those traits. I think what you list when you think of a good partner says a lot about how you approach dating and the level of success you'll have.
Author northern_sky Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 I think it is a preference. The priorities shown in this thread are really telling. This thread has demonstrated - to me, anyway - that emotionally unhealthy people do not prioritize a person's relationship qualities/abilities, but rather an individual person's unique qualities which really have nothing to do with that person's capacity to be in a relationship. Again, this goes in line with shopping for a relationship you want, not the guy you want. If you find the right relationship, he'll naturally be the right guy, but not necessarily the other way around. Not necessarily. I'm sure there are wonderful guys out there who would treat me like gold, but with whom I have nothing in common or who would bore me to death, or whom I don't find physically attractive, or any number of things. You need BOTH.
Star Gazer Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I think a sixth question should be added: Your type might be what you want, but is what you want good for you? Is your want what you really need? My answer to that question: Hell no! Hey, at least you're honest with yourself! Ya just gotta work on changing your type to be someone who IS good for you and IS capable of being in a healthy relationship.
zengirl Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Being "unhappy" on average doesn't mean you don't have moments of joy and happiness, which I definitely do and not infrequently, especially when I'm spending time with people I care about. Mood isn't a permanent state of being. People have their ups and downs. It's very possible to have joie de vivre at times and still be depressed on average. Given that I'm the only person privy to the workings of my own mind, I find it odd that other people are speaking for my experience of the world. Yes, but if one is unhappy overall (particularly depressed), the joys are much more dulled. Only it's hard to realize until you're really out of it. Also, I specifically said that my comment wasn't about you. As far as the earlier ones, we're just using the words you gave us to describe you. That's all we have, generally -- what you give us, and our impression of what those words mean.
Author northern_sky Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 Yes, but I find when it isn't included in the "What I want" discussion, when the 'type' doesn't point out traits that link to that -- particularly individual values that are more complex than "honest" -- then people tend to act in ways that aren't in their best interest. Just an observation. From your list, especially the levels of "attentive" and "communicative" vary a lot, and people have different views of that and the way they'd like it to be shown. There's some variation, but I think the definition of good treatment is pretty universal. Most of the variation occurs in other qualities. Btw, I don't consider a trait like intelligence superficial, or of even lesser importance. To me intelligence type is an incredibly important trait in a partner, as I need to feel a strong intellectual/spiritual connection to grow emotionally attached to a guy.
Author northern_sky Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 Yes, but if one is unhappy overall (particularly depressed), the joys are much more dulled. Only it's hard to realize until you're really out of it. Also, I specifically said that my comment wasn't about you. As far as the earlier ones, we're just using the words you gave us to describe you. That's all we have, generally -- what you give us, and our impression of what those words mean. There is no one way of being depressed. Some people have dysthymia, others experience high peaks followed by long troughs. My highs are not dulled, if I compare to the periods in my life where I was happy. You can only speak with confidence for you own experience, not mine.
Author northern_sky Posted January 13, 2011 Author Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) Over im, I just asked my best friend to describe me. I've known him for 8 years and dated him for 2. He said: complex, willful, independent, creative, passionate, brilliant, sweet, vulnerable... and spethal!! Not sure what the last adjective was about, but the rest were sweet. Edited January 13, 2011 by northern_sky
Els Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Well sure, attraction is a given - you have to be attracted to him. But to me, one's "type" IS who they are attracted to. When it comes to relationships, it makes more sense to me to look for relationship-like traits first and then see if there's attraction, rather than the other way around. Why? Because many get hooked by someone who's not good for them based on the attraction factor alone. I'm more interested in how the guy I'm attracted to behaves in a relationship than I am how attracted I am to him as a person. Does that make sense? Not really, I'm afraid. Saying you are 'more' interested in one than the other signifies that you may be inclined to sacrifice the other. If both are necessary, would they not 'both' be priority? The problem is that, I think, you don't always know how someone will act in a relationship until you try. You can guess, based on how they act around other people and what they say, but you will never fully know, often not until months or years into the relationship. Whereas the attraction factors are there from the beginning.
Els Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Yes, but I find when it isn't included in the "What I want" discussion, when the 'type' doesn't point out traits that link to that -- particularly individual values that are more complex than "honest" -- then people tend to act in ways that aren't in their best interest. Just an observation. From your list, especially the levels of "attentive" and "communicative" vary a lot, and people have different views of that and the way they'd like it to be shown. Besides, almost everyone wants a smart (at least in some way), attractive partner, too, and people took the time to list those traits. I think what you list when you think of a good partner says a lot about how you approach dating and the level of success you'll have. All of the 'good traits' I have seen people list are mainly the same, though. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but there are only so many, "Kind, caring, honest, loving, attentive, sweet, sensitive, loyal, etc" that you can read before they all start to gel together. I can't think of anyone who WOULDN'T want any of the above. Just because they don't say it doesn't mean they don't want it - it just means that they forgot to list it. Attraction, on the other hand, seems to span a larger spectrum. Some want 'nerdy', whereas that certainly doesn't fit others' bill. Some want 'introverted', others 'extroverted'. Some want 'athletic', whereas some are not interested. While that should not literally be one's ONLY concern when dating, it certainly is a lot more useful to talk about.
zengirl Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 There's some variation, but I think the definition of good treatment is pretty universal. Most of the variation occurs in other qualities. Btw, I don't consider a trait like intelligence superficial, or of even lesser importance. To me intelligence type is an incredibly important trait in a partner, as I need to feel a strong intellectual/spiritual connection to grow emotionally attached to a guy. I don't consider intelligence to be superficial either. (I even wrote it in my description---smart is key for me as well.) But nor do I find kindness to be superficial or of lesser importance. In fact, while not enough by itself, of course, I find it to be of the most importance. Though I'm not just speaking to traits that are universally liked -- like intelligence or kindness -- but to values that are more unique to individuals and subjective. Your list is almost completely lacking in traits you can interact with, in terms of relationship work, and I found that interesting and telling. There is no one way of being depressed. Some people have dysthymia, others experience high peaks followed by long troughs. My highs are not dulled, if I compare to the periods in my life where I was happy. You can only speak with confidence for you own experience, not mine. Well, I've studied the subject. Of course there are different kinds of depression, and again, I wasn't speaking specifically to your anything with that comment, as I said in the comment, and then said again. I think, since I've researched it, I can speak to more than my own subject. I'm working on a dual counseling/education leadership PhD at present, and I have a psych portion on my B.A., plus a lot of natural interest in sociology/psychology that has led me to do plenty of research. Which is not to say I know your experience, or even everything on a clinical level, but to say I know "only" my own experiences is kind of untrue. But no worries if you disagree with me. The fact is that if someone is habitually depressed/angry/unhappy/emotionally unsettled/having issues in relationships, their frame of reference (again, this isn't about YOU specifically) is skewed, which was my main point.
Star Gazer Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Not necessarily. I'm sure there are wonderful guys out there who would treat me like gold, but with whom I have nothing in common or who would bore me to death, or whom I don't find physically attractive, or any number of things. You need BOTH. Yes, necessarily, because as I have said, the right relationship for me includes being with someone who makes me feel good, someone I'm attracted to, have things in common with, etc. You don't look for a relationship in a vacuum, obviously there's someone else involved. But when you prioritize things that aren't a benefit to the relationship (such as, to use your and OG's descriptors: arty, deep, intellectually aggressive, thinking over feeling, emotionally withdrawn, quirky, complex, pessimistic, academic, moody), and find yourself attracted to those traits and dubbing them your type, clearly you're shopping for the guy who gets you doing downstairs, regardless of whether he's capable of a healthy relationship. Maybe you and the others who prioritize these and other non-relationship qualities just aren't attracted to emotionally healthy people? Yet, that is. Hopefully, eventually you will be.
Author northern_sky Posted January 14, 2011 Author Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) Well, I've studied the subject. Of course there are different kinds of depression, and again, I wasn't speaking specifically to your anything with that comment, as I said in the comment, and then said again. I was a psych major for three years in college with a concentration in abnormal psychology, and have also read many books on my own. People vary a great deal in how they experience depression. The diagnostic criteria are just a guideline. Edited January 14, 2011 by northern_sky
Star Gazer Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Over im, I just asked my best friend to describe me. I've known him for 8 years and dated him for 2. He said: complex, willful, independent, creative, passionate, brilliant, sweet, vulnerable... and spethal!! Not sure what the last adjective was about, but the rest were sweet. How is this relevant to the OP? All of the 'good traits' I have seen people list are mainly the same, though. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but there are only so many, "Kind, caring, honest, loving, attentive, sweet, sensitive, loyal, etc" that you can read before they all start to gel together. I can't think of anyone who WOULDN'T want any of the above. Just because they don't say it doesn't mean they don't want it - it just means that they forgot to list it. I don't think anyone forgot to list these qualities. They just don't PRIORITIZE them. They're really not a given for everyone, as you claim. The choices in men by some of our infamous posters proves this. I am attracted to emotionally available men who are capable of having a LTR. THAT is my type, first and foremost.
Author northern_sky Posted January 14, 2011 Author Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) I don't consider intelligence to be superficial either. (I even wrote it in my description---smart is key for me as well.) But nor do I find kindness to be superficial or of lesser importance. In fact, while not enough by itself, of course, I find it to be of the most importance. Though I'm not just speaking to traits that are universally liked -- like intelligence or kindness -- but to values that are more unique to individuals and subjective. Your list is almost completely lacking in traits you can interact with, in terms of relationship work, and I found that interesting and telling. Traits like honesty, loyalty, generosity are much harder to assess before you actually have a relationship with somebody. I'm talking about traits that are visible from a greater distance, that initially attract you to somebody and make you want to get to know them better, in order to see if that deeper compatibility is even there. Edited January 14, 2011 by northern_sky
pandagirl Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 I don't think anyone forgot to list these qualities. They just don't PRIORITIZE them. They're really not a given for everyone, as you claim. The choices in men by some of our infamous posters proves this. I am attracted to emotionally available men who are capable of having a LTR. THAT is my type, first and foremost. Actually, those traits ARE just kind of a given for me. Who doesn't want someone who is essentially nice and kind? I don't think being a great human being is a "type"? Isn't that EVERYONE'S type?!
Author northern_sky Posted January 14, 2011 Author Posted January 14, 2011 TBH, it's also hard for me to relate to or imagine a guy my age who has those deeper traits, simply because I don't know any (OK, aside from my best friend whom I'm not attracted to). The one guy I dated recently who I thought had them turned out to be a jerk (my ex). Right now those qualities in a guy seem theoretical and hard to grasp. I am even more skeptical that there are many smart, attractive, driven guys and are also kind, warm, marriage-minded. Most smart, attractive, ambitious guys I know are kind of jerks and suck at relationships.
zengirl Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Traits like honesty, loyalty, generosity are much harder to assess before you actually have a relationship with somebody. I'm talking about traits that are visible from a greater distance, that initially attract you to somebody and make you want to get to know them better, in order to see if that deeper compatibility is even there. I disagree. The depths of someone's intelligence are no easier for me to see than the depths of someone's kindness. In fact, kindness is one of the easiest traits to see sometimes. Some little things that give it away? Letting other people go first, in traffic or in crowds. Thanking people, being kind to service people, paying attention when someone is speaking, maintaining strong, healthy bonds and relationships that are not easily threatened, going out of your way to help strangers, particularly elderly people or children. I see virtual strangers expressing these kinds of kindnesses, and I express them daily. For instance, I happened to arrive at my first date before my now-BF did. I was waiting in the parking lot. I knew his car (because he'd told me what it was) and I noticed very clearly that he didn't zip into the best open spot, but let the other person who'd gotten there at roughly the same time take it. Someone zipping into that spot, even though the other person was there around the same time, just because he could, would have been expressing something very different. Little things are generally indicators of overall behavior. P.S. I thought of one to add to my "Type." Generally speaking, I only date men who tolerate no unneccesary drama in their lives.
pandagirl Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Two of my friends have always has steady boyfriend, their number one requirement: "They have to be really into me."
Author northern_sky Posted January 14, 2011 Author Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) I disagree. The depths of someone's intelligence are no easier for me to see than the depths of someone's kindness. In fact, kindness is one of the easiest traits to see sometimes. Some little things that give it away? Letting other people go first, in traffic or in crowds. Thanking people, being kind to service people, paying attention when someone is speaking, maintaining strong, healthy bonds and relationships that are not easily threatened, going out of your way to help strangers, particularly elderly people or children. I see virtual strangers expressing these kinds of kindnesses, and I express them daily. Meh, I don't think that stuff means much. My ex was polite and generous with others because he was raised that way, but ended up being weak and hurtful with the person he was closest to. Spookie's ex was also like that. He was the kind of guy who would help an old lady cross the street, but he was emotionally cold with her. That's not to say daily politeness has no value. It's definitely something I respect, and I wouldn't date a guy who was rude to strangers, but I don't think it necessarily indicates a deeper sort of kindness and emotional availability. There are lots of people pleasers who suck when it comes to their deepest relationships. Edited January 14, 2011 by northern_sky
pandagirl Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Meh, I don't think that stuff means much. My ex was polite and generous with others because he was raised that way, but ended up being weak and hurtful with the person he was closest to. Spookie's ex was also like that. He was the kind of guy who would help an old lady cross the street, but he was emotionally cold with her. That's not to say daily politeness has no value. It's definitely something I respect, and I wouldn't date a guy who was rude to strangers, but I don't think it necessarily indicates a deeper sort of kindness and emotional availability. There are lots of people pleasers who suck when it comes to their deepest relationships. But being a people pleaser doesn't mean you are a kind, giving person at all. I think you just know when someone is actually genuine, because you feel comfortable and at ease. Shadow, I remember with your ex, it seemed like you never really trusted his intentions. With all his proclamations of love and forever and etc, I think you KNEW somewhere deep down inside that there was something off with him. IME, when someone over-does anything, it's compensating for something else big time.
Author northern_sky Posted January 14, 2011 Author Posted January 14, 2011 I'm sorry, Shadow, but those qualifiers don't sound like much. =/ You were a psych major for 3 years of college which equals out to: 2 years of clearing out your general education courses. 1 year of your basic and *maybe* upper level psych classes. I don't see how you even got the chance to focus a concentration on anything. Not saying you don't know much about psychology, but your education with it sounds limited. Nope, I meant three solid years after I declared my major at the end of my first semester freshman year, which meant 2.5 years of upper level courses, including several intensive small group seminars. In fact, I was nearly done with my major and close to graduating. Seriously, you're nitpicking this crap? Don't you have anything better to do?
zengirl Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Meh, I don't think that stuff means much. My ex was polite and generous with others because he was raised that way, but ended up being weak and hurtful with the person he was closest to. Spookie's ex was also like that. He was the kind of guy who would help an old lady cross the street, but he was emotionally cold with her. That's not to say daily politeness has no value. It's definitely something I respect, and I wouldn't date a guy who was rude to strangers, but I don't think it necessarily indicates a deeper sort of kindness and emotional availability. There are lots of people pleasers who suck when it comes to their deepest relationships. I agree that kindness doesn't mean people are (a) emotionally available, or (b) good at relationships. After a few conversations with someone -- certainly enough to determine what kind of intelligence they have -- I can assess emotional availability as well. See what they choose to talk about -- do they actually share things about their lives with you, do they seem attentive to the relationships they already have (friends, family), etc. As for if they want a LTR, which is different from emotional availability for one, I just express that I don't date casually. I do it lightly without any intensity -- this doesn't mean I expect to be someone's GF immediately, but that I want to let them know what my relationship style/goals are off the bat, in case we're incompatible. (Sure, there are some men who'd lie to try to sleep with me, but mostly, they realize (a) they aren't going to fool me and (b) it isn't worth the effort and time. Never really had an issue since I started being upfront.) Whether they want a LTR with ME obviously can't be assessed that early, but I only date men who value long-term relationships. That's just me. Some people are fine, or even desire, with a guy who doesn't want relationships but begrudgingly enters into one with them. It boosts their ego to have "won" something difficult. All these things can be assessed, is my point. Intelligence, particularly different kinds, is assessed in much the same ways---talking to people and viewing their actions and interests. It is revealed at generally the same pace as everything else. And, yes, politeness and kindness are not always the same. Those were just a particular subset of examples.
Recommended Posts