Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 It seems you wish that gals didn't had limited options so they'd be forced to see you as one or more of one. By date by default do you mean the gals that suit your requirements, standards, and/or preferences would date or be expected to date you? Would you still want to date by default if you're expected to date incompatible gals you have no to little attraction for? Funny you mentioned that, but I think I know what kind of rebuttal you might have after this post. I find myself not really caring THAT much about the physical....but that's up to interpretation, but when I compare myself to other men....when we compare our level attraction to the same women....seems those men are more selective than I am. I have found that I'm still attracted to women that a lot of men have felt not so attracted to, for whatever their limited criteria is as well. I'm just saying, as long as the woman isn't a behemouth (spelling?) weighs the size of a dumptruck, has hair curlers, and has 3 kids by 3 different men....I'm pretty much willing to date MORE women that I'm attracted to than most of the men are attracted to. When I was in a room with a guy...and there were alot of owmen..he said, "Man there's a lot of fat chicks here" , thought that was kind of rude ...even though he whispered it to me....I really didn't share that thought with thim at all, found quite a few to be average built, and rather pretty. I am not sure if you think I'm going anywhere with this, I am just saying it doesn't take MUCH for me to be attracted to a woman that's within reason.
Radu Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 To me those things are either 'reevaluate what you want' or 'settle' depending on the person. Well, i don't think i can give up sex ... even if i don't get to meet anyone i would want to spend my life with. And i want kids, how about you ?
Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 irc, you do a lot of criticizing women's profiles, and women's dating mistakes, but what about you? That's a toughy, but will take some thought....because it's hard to look within yourself, but easier to be on the outside looking in. Again, I might have to think on this.......I CAN say though, that I'm not as overly picky as some people , in comparison. I have a male friend that wont' date red heads, and I'm like, "you're kidding, right.....it's just hair color" Personally, if one found a red head with a nice body on her....why would you not date her because of her hair color? I just find that quite odd. (I'm not sure if by giving examples this will help you in your responses to this post?) To me those things are either 'reevaluate what you want' or 'settle' depending on the person. Well, if anyone has seen that article or TV clip on the TODAY Show by Larua Gottlieb (you can Google her) Her book "When is it okay to settle for Mr Good Enough" Yep, the advice on dating when it comes to actually SETTLING. ;-)
udolipixie Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) (I'm working on accepting being alone, but wanting children makes it a difficult option.) If it's too personal I apologize and please dismiss: Why? Do you feel children need a two-parent unit or that incapable of raising & supporting a child on your own? Going by studies it's happy healthy two-parent units & units that don't show they are unhappy that count the notion that two-parent vs one-parent is better is a skewed going by research. I'm curious as I plan on being alone and raising children when I turn 23 and haven't encounter any 20-40 something gals who accepted being alone but found wanting children made it a difficult option. Edited May 22, 2012 by udolipixie
udolipixie Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 I am not sure if you think I'm going anywhere with this, I am just saying it doesn't take MUCH for me to be attracted to a woman that's within reason. Does it take much facial feature wise could you post a picture of what would you consider within reason? I also stated incompatible though telling that post about how low in comparison your physical standards are so: Would you still want to date by default if you're expected to date incompatible gals you have no to little attraction for?
xxoo Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 That's a toughy, but will take some thought....because it's hard to look within yourself, but easier to be on the outside looking in. Again, I might have to think on this.......I CAN say though, that I'm not as overly picky as some people , in comparison. It is difficult to look within. Do you have any married friends? Could you ask a friend's wife for some feedback about how you come across to women? I don't suspect that your problem is that you are too picky.
iris219 Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 If it's too personal I apologize and please dismiss: Why? Do you feel children need a two-parent unit or that incapable of raising & supporting a child on your own? Going by studies it's happy healthy two-parent units & units that don't show they are unhappy that count the notion that two-parent vs one-parent is better is a skewed going by research. I'm curious as I plan on being alone and raising children when I turn 23 and haven't encounter any 20-40 something gals who accepted being alone but found wanting children made it a difficult option. I would prefer a two-parent home, for sure. I want a traditional family. Also, I don't want to be pregnant and give birth alone. It would be too depressing. I will consider adoption in about 10 years (I'm 33). 1
LittlePrince Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 I would prefer a two-parent home, for sure. I want a traditional family. Also, I don't want to be pregnant and give birth alone. It would be too depressing. I will consider adoption in about 10 years (I'm 33). Well perhaps you should think about getting a boyfriend for now.
Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 Does it take much facial feature wise could you post a picture of what would you consider within reason? I also stated incompatible though telling that post about how low in comparison your physical standards are so: Would you still want to date by default if you're expected to date incompatible gals you have no to little attraction for? Udole Pixie...this is what I could find...rather quickly.... Within Reason NOT within reason The first, is cute, has a girl next door quailty about her. Kind of reminds me of "Flo" from the Progressive commercials....lol...cute. The other, has model quality features...though the latter would be bonus, but NOT within reason. (for me). I'd be swining for the fences on the bikini woman.
LittlePrince Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Udole Pixie...this is what I could find...rather quickly.... Within Reason NOT within reason The first, is cute, has a girl next door quailty about her. Kind of reminds me of "Flo" from the Progressive commercials....lol...cute. The other, has model quality features...though the latter would be bonus, but NOT within reason. (for me). I'd be swining for the fences on the bikini woman. I would have put both of them in the same league.
udolipixie Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Udole Pixie...this is what I could find...rather quickly.... Your pictures of within reason seem to be in sync with other guys I know who think their cute/slightly above average standards are relatively low in comparison with other guys it not taking much for them to be attracted. Have you ever had consistent success with gals you found within reason and compatible? I'm guessing it's a no on wanting to date by default if you're expected to date incompatible gals you have no to little attraction for. Care to answer exactly why you wish people would date by default as many already tend to pursue or select those they find attractive and compatible or is it an advantageous solely or mainly to you bit?
Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 Really? I wouldn't, one is rather slender, not much of a figure, while the other has modelesque figure (wondered why she's even on a dating site) Perhaps I should start posting more, to form a basis of comparison. This one? Within reason? Trying to find what's universally attractive to most. I would have put both of them in the same league.
Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) Note, the 2nd picture was NOT within reason....pretty much WAY up there on the looks scale, while the other one...rather average to above average/ cute scale. Your pictures of within reason seem to be in sync with other guys I know who think their cute/slightly above average standards are relatively low in comparison with other guys it not taking much for them to be attracted. Have you ever had consistent success with gals you found within reason and compatible? I'm guessing it's a no on wanting to date by default if you're expected to date incompatible gals you have no to little attraction for. Care to answer exactly why you wish people would date by default as many already tend to pursue or select those they find attractive and compatible or is it an advantageous solely or mainly to you bit? I would have put both of them in the same league. Definately not within the same league. One looks rather conservative, has a build more like a skinny woman, very little curves. The otherh as a perfect 10 body, is a marathon runner (from her other photos). High maint. type. Edited May 22, 2012 by irc333
xxoo Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Note, the 2nd picture was NOT within reason....pretty much WAY up there on the looks scale, while the other one...rather average to above average/ cute scale. Definately not within the same league. One looks rather conservative, has a build more like a skinny woman, very little curves. The otherh as a perfect 10 body, is a marathon runner (from her other photos). High maint. type. Both of those women have figures that would be VERY attractive to most average men. Obviously one is more "sexed up" and styled than the other.
udolipixie Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Note, the 2nd picture was NOT within reason....pretty much WAY up there on the looks scale, while the other one...rather average to above average/ cute scale. I noted that. As I said your pictures of within reason seem to be in sync with other guys I know who think their cute/slightly above average standards are relatively low in comparison with other guys it not taking much for them to be attracted.
Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 Your pictures of within reason seem to be in sync with other guys I know who think their cute/slightly above average standards are relatively low in comparison with other guys it not taking much for them to be attracted. Have you ever had consistent success with gals you found within reason and compatible? I'm guessing it's a no on wanting to date by default if you're expected to date incompatible gals you have no to little attraction for. Care to answer exactly why you wish people would date by default as many already tend to pursue or select those they find attractive and compatible or is it an advantageous solely or mainly to you bit? The basis for "dating by default"...is also based about "Settling for Mr Good Enough" which doesn't mean lowering your standards, and not about finding a perfect partner NOT the perfect person. It's about finding reasonable expectations See TODAY show clip here.
LittlePrince Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 I found within reason to be more attractive than not within reason though they both look plus size to me.
Mme. Chaucer Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 I found within reason to be more attractive than not within reason though they both look plus size to me. PLUS SIZE?? Are you kidding? Well, the boobs on the "not within reason" example are plus size, I'll give you that. Does "plus size" now mean anything above a negative size ("0")? I am so happy I don't have to navigate a dating world where women like those pictured could in ANY way be considered "plus size." I am fine with any preferences anybody might have. If you like size 0 girls and Kate Moss has your ideal figure, that is A-Okay. But to deem women beyond that "plus size"? It's like anorexia by proxy, or something. 1
mtber75 Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 I just had a discussion about this with my friend, he prefers dating online because they are complete strangers. I told him that won't it be more awkward to date a complete stranger? He said that if he dates friends and it doesn't work out it"ll be very uncomfortable. So he sees the glass half empty here. I see the positive in dating a "friend." Isn't it the point to date someone who shares the same interests as you and a opposite sex friend is the most logical choice. My friend just don't believe that men and females can be just friends...That's bullsh*t!
udolipixie Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 The basis for "dating by default"...is also based about "Settling for Mr Good Enough" which doesn't mean lowering your standards, and not about finding a perfect partner NOT the perfect person. It's about finding reasonable expectations See TODAY show clip here. I saw the clip, I saw the show, and I read the book and got the impression of of radical male anti-feminism and MRA trite. As well as her behavior she labeled picky such as not dating a guy named Sheldon I haven't encountered as a common bit in gals. I also know some gals in their 20s-40s who followed her advice: Ten killed themselves. Two killed their children and attempted to kill themselves. Twenty divorced immediately to me as it was within 1 year. Five are cheating with their husband's younger brother. Three are cheating with their husband's cousin. One is cheating with her husband's intern. I have yet to encounter a gal that followed her advice who doesn't have a disastrous, unhealthy, unsatisfied, and/or unfulfilled relationship or or felt she settled or lowered her standards just to say she has a man. Perhaps it's due to it seems the meme of what's reasonable expectations for a gal to have is default expectations of a human being and adult- nice, not grotesque, and financially stable. Much else such as romantic, sexual, and relationship partner standards/preferences are picky, overly picky, unrealistic, or unreasonable. Such as an American gal having a 5'10'' height requirement that's the average is picky while an American guy not wanting a fat gal when the average gal is overweight is reasonable.
Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 PLUS SIZE?? Are you kidding? He's troll posting, pay him no mind, tis a common theme in his posts.
LittlePrince Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 PLUS SIZE?? Are you kidding? Well, the boobs on the "not within reason" example are plus size, I'll give you that. Does "plus size" now mean anything above a negative size ("0")? I am so happy I don't have to navigate a dating world where women like those pictured could in ANY way be considered "plus size." I am fine with any preferences anybody might have. If you like size 0 girls and Kate Moss has your ideal figure, that is A-Okay. But to deem women beyond that "plus size"? It's like anorexia by proxy, or something. Women of their size are the kind of women you would see modeling clothing for a plus size women's shop in my local mall so I know I am not off by labeling them as such no matter how ridiculous you think I am being.
iris219 Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Udole Pixie...this is what I could find...rather quickly.... Within Reason NOT within reason The first, is cute, has a girl next door quailty about her. Kind of reminds me of "Flo" from the Progressive commercials....lol...cute. The other, has model quality features...though the latter would be bonus, but NOT within reason. (for me). I'd be swining for the fences on the bikini woman. The one with those crazy boobs would be considered gross in my social circle--not so much because of her boobs (well, maybe) but because of her sexed up persona. The thin one is pretty (prettier face than the other) and has a very good body. She’s thin, but has curves. Where do you see no curves?! She's dressed conservatively and you can still see that she has a nice chest. She’s not average AT ALL; she’s more attractive than bikini girl. I’m willing to bet this woman gets more messages from higher quality guys than the other one.
Author irc333 Posted May 22, 2012 Author Posted May 22, 2012 Though unfortunate, do you think that the men that followed said advice was a catalyst for the grim end result? Usually, they "settled" with the guy who was abusive or a substance user, as opposed to the "clean cut" guy. I'm sure this didn't happen with women who "settled' on a guy that was less that 6 feet tall. I'm sure they didn't kill themselves on the height difference there. I'm sure some may have followed the advice, and said, "Okay, I'm 40, time to get reasonable and date the shorter guy that asked me out a month ago." I'm sure THOSE didn't end in such unfortunate circumstances? I'm just saying, a person cannot be completely miserable with someone who was a couple of inches short of that woman's height criteria or nose size. The author is suggesting to have SOME kind of wiggle room in their criteria, and should not be set in stone. I saw the clip, I saw the show, and I read the book and got the impression of of radical male anti-feminism and MRA trite. As well as her behavior she labeled picky such as not dating a guy named Sheldon I haven't encountered as a common bit in gals. I also know some gals in their 20s-40s who followed her advice: Ten killed themselves. Two killed their children and attempted to kill themselves. Twenty divorced immediately to me as it was within 1 year. Five are cheating with their husband's younger brother. Three are cheating with their husband's cousin. One is cheating with her husband's intern. I have yet to encounter a gal that followed her advice who doesn't have a disastrous, unhealthy, unsatisfied, and/or unfulfilled relationship or or felt she settled or lowered her standards just to say she has a man. Perhaps it's due to it seems the meme of what's reasonable expectations for a gal to have is default expectations of a human being and adult- nice, not grotesque, and financially stable. Much else such as romantic, sexual, and relationship partner standards/preferences are picky, overly picky, unrealistic, or unreasonable. Such as an American gal having a 5'10'' height requirement that's the average is picky while an American guy not wanting a fat gal when the average gal is overweight is reasonable.
mtber75 Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 It is a convenient excuse. If the attraction were there, they'd date a friend of a friend. This is also right on about online...If it doesn't work out, they can easily move on to the next. But if you are friends, its lot harder to just move on!
Recommended Posts