Cracker Jack Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 The real question you need to ask yourself is: why would anyone want to date someone who has such an outrageous, low opinion of themselves? Seriously, why would they?
Author verhrzn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 Can you put out that list of what you want in a partner? Once we know what you are looking for' date=' it may be easier to give advice that is actually tailormade to get you a guy to your liking?[/quote'] Hmm. If I had to paint my ideal guy I guess it would be: -enjoys reading (intellectual and curious about learning) -likes documentaries and quirky, humorous movies (silly sense of humor) -enjoys some physical activity but isn't slavishly devoted to it (so, healthy and active but not "fit") -has similar interests to me -has a circle of friends he is devoted to (loyal, socially mature) -open minded sexually/at least somewhat kinky -isn't competitive with me. Here's how I imagine a Sunday in my ideal relationship: we wake up in the morning, have some fun physically, he tells me about the new quantum mechanics theory he read about and we discuss the scientific possibility of souls. We then walk to the library and sit reading books together for a few hours, go home where he cooks and I clean the kitchen, then finish the night playing a new RPG or a game of Magic.
Author verhrzn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 The real question you need to ask yourself is: why would anyone want to date someone who has such an outrageous, low opinion of themselves? Seriously, why would they? Why is it a low opinion to know what you can attract?? My goodness, posters on this board are just never satisfied: first I have too high of expectations and am shooting "outside my league", and now I have too low of expectations by having "a low opinion of myself" when I realistically say I can't attract sporty hot guys! Well, which is it, make up your minds!
Cracker Jack Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) You're not even sure of which type you attract. I don't see why you're so sure a "jock" being attracted to you is out of the realm of possibility. Also, I can only remember like two posters talking about the league stuff in regards to you. My main point is I wish you start believing in yourself. Sometimes you're as tough to penetrate as Cap's shield, but I think you're capable of so much more than this. Edited May 28, 2012 by Cracker Jack
Author verhrzn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 You're not even sure of which type you attract. I don't see why you're so sure a "jock" being attracted to you is out of the realm of possibility. Also, I can only remember like two posters talking about the league stuff in regards to you. Not the league stuff, exactly, but I have been told by a LOT of male posters that my expectations are "way too high." Well, I can't imagine any higher expectations for a girl like me expecting to attract a hot jock. I am sure what type I can attract, because of who I have attracted in the past. Jock/sports guys have never, ever been interested in me. In fact, they're kind of repulsed by me. I can't say why, but whenever I've interacted with those kinds of guys, they act offended just by my mere existence. Why in the world WOULD I think I could (or should!) attract those types of guys?
gibson Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 All of your issues are between your ears. It's not men or the way you look.
Els Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Hmm. If I had to paint my ideal guy I guess it would be: -enjoys reading (intellectual and curious about learning) -likes documentaries and quirky, humorous movies (silly sense of humor) -enjoys some physical activity but isn't slavishly devoted to it (so, healthy and active but not "fit") -has similar interests to me -has a circle of friends he is devoted to (loyal, socially mature) -open minded sexually/at least somewhat kinky -isn't competitive with me. Here's how I imagine a Sunday in my ideal relationship: we wake up in the morning, have some fun physically, he tells me about the new quantum mechanics theory he read about and we discuss the scientific possibility of souls. We then walk to the library and sit reading books together for a few hours, go home where he cooks and I clean the kitchen, then finish the night playing a new RPG or a game of Magic. Still annoyed that the bf decided to quit Magic after losing a few too many times to me. But that does remind me of something. He mentioned that Magic is largely about luck, and he decided that he prefers games which have a smaller luck component - which is all true. However, how do you, personally, decide when you lost because of 'luck', and when you lost because you were outplayed? Your answer might provide some insight into how you view 'luck' in your life generally. I don't think your ideal is too 'high' an expectation - I think that such men as you described tend to be undervalued socially, so there is a good chance of them still being available. That being said, I do think you have not tried everything available to you, and to me, you do need to try everything available before you decide it's 'luck'. Just like how you don't put one Birthing Pod in your deck and no artifact retrieval, and say it's 'luck' that you didn't draw it out. Sure, you might have drawn it if you were 'luckier', and sure your opponent did, but it doesn't mitigate the fact that you didn't do enough to increase your chances of getting it. 1
d'Arthez Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Hmm. If I had to paint my ideal guy I guess it would be: -enjoys reading (intellectual and curious about learning) -likes documentaries and quirky, humorous movies (silly sense of humor) -enjoys some physical activity but isn't slavishly devoted to it (so, healthy and active but not "fit") -has similar interests to me -has a circle of friends he is devoted to (loyal, socially mature) -open minded sexually/at least somewhat kinky -isn't competitive with me. Which of these are absolutely non-negotiable and which would be "bonus" (I know some of these traits are not binary, but you know what I mean) ? The list seems reasonable enough. None of the criteria really seem to be really at odds with another criterion (though obviously some tensions do exist - but hey, this is your ideal, and nothing wrong with having an ideal). What do you mean with "is not competititve with me"? Someone who does not argue every decision with you, someone who does not tell you what to do? I am asking for a clarification, since this is probably the criterion that is giving you the most grief?
Author verhrzn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 Which of these are absolutely non-negotiable and which would be "bonus" (I know some of these traits are not binary, but you know what I mean) ? The list seems reasonable enough. None of the criteria really seem to be really at odds with another criterion (though obviously some tensions do exist - but hey, this is your ideal, and nothing wrong with having an ideal). What do you mean with "is not competititve with me"? Someone who does not argue every decision with you, someone who does not tell you what to do? I am asking for a clarification, since this is probably the criterion that is giving you the most grief? "Is not competitive with me," as in, doesn't get upset if I am better at him in something. Example. My longest bf was pretty much exactly this list, except he was constantly trying to upstage me. We once got into a huge argument because, even though I clearly and unequivocally have more experience in the tech world (worked tech jobs through college, done some basic programming, working a tech job NOW) he still claimed to know more than me. He was constantly criticizing my writing, my artistic ability, my knowledge of any subject: he didn't tell me I was bad, just that he was better. That being said, I do think you have not tried everything available to you, and to me, you do need to try everything available before you decide it's 'luck'. Just like how you don't put one Birthing Pod in your deck and no artifact retrieval, and say it's 'luck' that you didn't draw it out. Sure, you might have drawn it if you were 'luckier', and sure your opponent did, but it doesn't mitigate the fact that you didn't do enough to increase your chances of getting it. Your Magic analysis made my day, thank you! I am interested to hear what you think I haven't tried, as far as options that are available. I've tried scanning the thread to see if you mentioned, but the discussion seemed to get caught in mathematic discussions and philosophical off-shoots.
lospantalonsfancie Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Hmm. If I had to paint my ideal guy I guess it would be: -enjoys reading (intellectual and curious about learning) -likes documentaries and quirky, humorous movies (silly sense of humor) -enjoys some physical activity but isn't slavishly devoted to it (so, healthy and active but not "fit") -has similar interests to me -has a circle of friends he is devoted to (loyal, socially mature) -open minded sexually/at least somewhat kinky -isn't competitive with me. Here's how I imagine a Sunday in my ideal relationship: we wake up in the morning, have some fun physically, he tells me about the new quantum mechanics theory he read about and we discuss the scientific possibility of souls. We then walk to the library and sit reading books together for a few hours, go home where he cooks and I clean the kitchen, then finish the night playing a new RPG or a game of Magic. Sounds like you want Leonard Hofstadter of "The Big Bang Theory." Am I about right? Raj and Howard would also hit most of the points on your list. Even Sheldon would hit about half of them... Sounds like you need to find a more geeky crowd. Seriously, have you considered going to gradschool in engineering or hard science? It would be a veritable buffet of the kind of guys you want... Trust me I've been there and can vouch for it...
Els Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 "Is not competitive with me," as in, doesn't get upset if I am better at him in something. Example. My longest bf was pretty much exactly this list, except he was constantly trying to upstage me. We once got into a huge argument because, even though I clearly and unequivocally have more experience in the tech world (worked tech jobs through college, done some basic programming, working a tech job NOW) he still claimed to know more than me. He was constantly criticizing my writing, my artistic ability, my knowledge of any subject: he didn't tell me I was bad, just that he was better. I've rolled with many, many intellectual geeks, and I've not found any that fulfilled this list 100%. There are bound to be one or two things lacking. I assumed you meant you did not need ALL of the above fulfilled though, just that they would be nice to have. Did you? Being very competitive is a hallmark of the intellectual male geek, IME. For some of them, they are able to temper it with maturity and restraint, but the natural desire still lurks in the background. My bf fulfills all of your above requirements but is somewhat middling in this aspect. It does annoy me sometimes, but it's just one of those things to me, like someone leaving his dirty socks in the hallway. In fact, I myself fail at it sometimes. But as long as both partners exercise, again, maturity and restraint, this should not be a large relationship problem. But I can fully see why, with your nature, them lacking in this aspect would be like flint against tinder. Basically, my point is, often we can form 'new' ideals when we meet someone we genuinely fall in love with. Most of us realize that in the end, theoretical 'ideals' are just a basic framework, and do not usually describe the person we fall in love with to a tee. Your Magic analysis made my day, thank you! I am interested to hear what you think I haven't tried, as far as options that are available. I've tried scanning the thread to see if you mentioned, but the discussion seemed to get caught in mathematic discussions and philosophical off-shoots. You're welcome! Well, I had mentioned them in other threads, but you had reasons for being unable to do them, or felt that they were 'not worth doing' as opposed to concrete actions, or felt that they were such a key part of your personality that you would rather be single than try to work on tempering it. My key suggestions were: 1) Get therapy, somewhere, somehow, 2) Work on your negativity and overly-aggressive persona either by yourself or with a professional, 3) Broaden your horizons and give some things a chance, as per the above paragraph, you don't lose anything if you try and decide a man isn't for you, as long as you don't lead them on after you try.
Author verhrzn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 Sounds like you want Leonard Hofstadter of "The Big Bang Theory." Am I about right? Raj and Howard would also hit most of the points on your list. Even Sheldon would hit about half of them... Sounds like you need to find a more geeky crowd. Seriously, have you considered going to gradschool in engineering or hard science? It would be a veritable buffet of the kind of guys you want... Trust me I've been there and can vouch for it... I'm going back to school for software development. I am awful at math and the "hard sciences," so grad school is absolutely out. And I'm also convinced you live in a parallel dimension. I have a few friends in chemistry/history grad programs, and all of the grad students are married or in long term committed relationships.
lospantalonsfancie Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 I'm going back to school for software development. I am awful at math and the "hard sciences," so grad school is absolutely out. And I'm also convinced you live in a parallel dimension. I have a few friends in chemistry/history grad programs, and all of the grad students are married or in long term committed relationships. Well, I must live in a parallel dimension then. I just finished gradschool, and most of my incoming class was, and still is, single. Geeky guys who fit your description to a T...
lospantalonsfancie Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 I'm going back to school for software development. I am awful at math and the "hard sciences," so grad school is absolutely out. And I'm also convinced you live in a parallel dimension. I have a few friends in chemistry/history grad programs, and all of the grad students are married or in long term committed relationships. Also, chemistry and history are not nearly geeky enough. You need physics, pure maths, computer science, or electrical engineering for the degree of geek you are searching for...
Author verhrzn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 Also, chemistry and history are not nearly geeky enough. You need physics, pure maths, computer science, or electrical engineering for the degree of geek you are searching for... I actually briefly dated an engineer about a year ago, but he dumped me for a hotter girl. I work at a tech company, and all of our programmers are married. I guess the under-age-22 interns might be single... so, yeah, you definitely live in a parallel universe.
lospantalonsfancie Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 I actually briefly dated an engineer about a year ago, but he dumped me for a hotter girl. I work at a tech company, and all of our programmers are married. I guess the under-age-22 interns might be single... so, yeah, you definitely live in a parallel universe. It just occurred to me that it might be the fact that you live in the midwest... The west coast is known for being very male-heavy, particularly because of the tech industry out here. Have you considered moving somewhere like silicon valley or seattle? Your dating prospects would certainly improve in a place like that due to simple supply and demand...
Author verhrzn Posted May 28, 2012 Author Posted May 28, 2012 It just occurred to me that it might be the fact that you live in the midwest... The west coast is known for being very male-heavy, particularly because of the tech industry out here. Have you considered moving somewhere like silicon valley or seattle? Your dating prospects would certainly improve in a place like that due to simple supply and demand... Well I supposedly live in a Midwest city with a high single male population.... Either way, I really don't think re-locating would be the answer. For one, while there might be more males, the West Coast seems to be a LOT more looks-centric. All the hot hipster babes and California blondes... if Midwest guys think I'm below-average in looks, I shutter to think what California guys, used to being surrounded by the hot actress-wannabees, would think.
lospantalonsfancie Posted May 28, 2012 Posted May 28, 2012 Well I supposedly live in a Midwest city with a high single male population.... Either way, I really don't think re-locating would be the answer. For one, while there might be more males, the West Coast seems to be a LOT more looks-centric. All the hot hipster babes and California blondes... if Midwest guys think I'm below-average in looks, I shutter to think what California guys, used to being surrounded by the hot actress-wannabees, would think. What you are worried about is a localized phenomenon restricted to SOUTHERN California. Everywhere north of Santa Barbara should be no worry as far as hot-babe competition...
zengirl Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 V, Hubby fulfills most of your requirements. Except that he is competitive, but he doesn't care if I'm honestly better at something --- it makes him want to compete, sure, but I don't let him compete with me, so it's no problem. Though Hubby is also deeply, deeply into baseball (egads, no! A sport! And one I couldn't give two figs about if I tried). Re: Competition. I had a similar issue to yours when I was younger, and I've since realized it was all about the way I acted. If you act like one of the guys, then men will compete with you like one of the guys. This is part of the way men socialize, with male and often female friends (some female friends take a more sisterly role, so there can be that dynamic but it's rarer). If you act like a partner, you can eliminate a lot of that, because I don't think MOST men want to compete at the expense of the health of the R. Of course, some men are more easy-going than others. Easy-going men don't tend to be nerds (remember that being a nerd requires "nerding out" sometimes and having strong, counter-culture interests, so it's literally the opposite of 'going with the flow'), though they may have a few nerdy interests or skills. Easy-going men go with the flow. And it's a spectrum, it's not "easy going" and "competitive" --- there are in betweens. I married a man who is DEEPLY competitive. Hell, I'm deeply competitive too. Neither of us are easy going really at all. We don't compete with each other because we're a team, but I do think one person often has to set that tone and men are simply not as often socialized as women to be able to do so. I would think however that if V. was acting in an aggressive manner towards people' date=' that some people would have pointed it out to her. It certainly would not explain the fact that if she plays a more passive part (in social settings or online) why she would be struggling for attention. [/quote'] Well, they have on the board. I always go back to the Zelda story. A lot of the ways she's expressed approaching men simply seem counter intuitive to her goals to me and very aggressive. Most people vacillate between passive and aggressive. I'm not saying she's not often passive. I think most people struggle to be assertive and find real solace in identity, and that V would be in that stage of being. Here's how I see things: Passive is somewhat bad. Aggressive is worse. Passive-aggressive is the worst. Assertive is good. Going by my experiences in real life: I would calmly state my points in discussions, not in an aggressive manner, not even raise my voice (though I am soft-spoken), and people still got the idea that I was very intense. Which seems quite bizarre, since in my daily life I am laid back, I happily let others take the lead in social situations. Note, that I have the "advantage" of being male, and thus that being intense is not seen as much as a flaw than if I were female. Going by my experiences in real life, being seen as intense has not really been a bad thing. I agree with you that one can be seen as intense even when not acting aggressively, and I think that's important to point out for sure! When I acted aggressively, it was seen negatively. However, my intensity, even as a woman, has often been a benefit! (I imagine V thinks that's because I'm pretty and thin, but I've known women who were intense and not nearly as pretty as her and still seen positively. It depends where you put your intensity, really.)
Els Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 V, Hubby fulfills most of your requirements. Except that he is competitive, but he doesn't care if I'm honestly better at something --- it makes him want to compete, sure, but I don't let him compete with me, so it's no problem. Yep, this is one of the ways I 'give in', or rather, try to, in my R. It may sound bad to some, but Rs really are all about give and take, and as long as my partner 'gives' more in other ways, I'm happy to be the one to do so in this one. It's still a work in progress, though, since I'm naturally competitive myself, but it helps to channel it towards other people instead. Competition becomes a very sticky thing when mixed up with other emotions and loved ones - possible to do, but really just something easier to avoid, for me. As I said in my previous post, though, I agree with V listing this as a requirement, because she really does need someone of a non-competitive nature IMO. I foresee huge fireworks otherwise.
Author verhrzn Posted May 29, 2012 Author Posted May 29, 2012 Well, they have on the board. I always go back to the Zelda story. A lot of the ways she's expressed approaching men simply seem counter intuitive to her goals to me and very aggressive. Most people vacillate between passive and aggressive. I'm not saying she's not often passive. I think most people struggle to be assertive and find real solace in identity, and that V would be in that stage of being. Here's how I see things: Passive is somewhat bad. Aggressive is worse. Passive-aggressive is the worst. Assertive is good. I still have no idea what I could have done differently in that situation. The guy argued with me, I was just trying to have a conversation and he kept correcting and slighting me. I mean... are you saying that when my ex-bf told me that my writing was pedestrian and that he was way better at technology, I should have just said," Yep, you're totally right, you are way better than me." Or when a guy in a bar makes a crack about how he's totally better at video games/martial arts, I should just agree with him even when he's wrong?? That seems like a recipe for low self-esteem and boundary-crossing. Yep, this is one of the ways I 'give in', or rather, try to, in my R. It may sound bad to some, but Rs really are all about give and take, and as long as my partner 'gives' more in other ways, I'm happy to be the one to do so in this one. It's still a work in progress, though, since I'm naturally competitive myself, but it helps to channel it towards other people instead. Competition becomes a very sticky thing when mixed up with other emotions and loved ones - possible to do, but really just something easier to avoid, for me. I'm not a competitive person by nature... it's part of why I hate sports. When someone "competes" with me, I easily feel threatened and put down, and I go into fight mode. I really don't LIKE myself in competitive situations, which is why it is so very necessary to have a guy who is not competitive. I'm still confused why people think I'm overly aggressive. Pardon the "feminist rant," but I think it really does come down to gender: if I was male, no one would blink an eye, but because I'm female, I'm "overly aggressive" just because I'm not demure and passive. That really gets under my skin, that I have to socially manipulate situations in order just to have an opinion and not be seen as "aggressive." From everything you and Zengirl say, it's like yeah you're "assertive" but only by twisting yourself into pretzels to behave a certain feminine way. If I have to completely change my personality and level of intensity JUST because I'm female, JUST to be acceptable to males, that seems... awful. I also have no idea what you mean by broaden your horizons. Could you please elaborate?
Els Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) I'm not a competitive person by nature... it's part of why I hate sports. When someone "competes" with me, I easily feel threatened and put down, and I go into fight mode. I really don't LIKE myself in competitive situations, which is why it is so very necessary to have a guy who is not competitive. I'm still confused why people think I'm overly aggressive. Pardon the "feminist rant," but I think it really does come down to gender: if I was male, no one would blink an eye, but because I'm female, I'm "overly aggressive" just because I'm not demure and passive. That really gets under my skin, that I have to socially manipulate situations in order just to have an opinion and not be seen as "aggressive." Hrm. A man who was very aggressive would find himself in some trouble socially as well, methinks, most likely a broken nose or two and some jail time. Yes, it's still more socially acceptable for men to be 'aggressive'. That's absolutely right, and you're absolutely right that it's unfair. But it's what society is. A girl who wears dresses and owns a collection of 'pretty stuff' is not going to find that many of her potential mates mind that, but a man who does so will certainly find that many of HIS potential mates mind that. Genders are coming close to equal, but people still do have different expectations in general. From everything you and Zengirl say, it's like yeah you're "assertive" but only by twisting yourself into pretzels to behave a certain feminine way. If I have to completely change my personality and level of intensity JUST because I'm female, JUST to be acceptable to males, that seems... awful. Not exactly, no. I don't pretend to be feminine, nor am I 'girly' in the way many girls are. I do try to learn to temper my 'RAAWGGRR' behaviour with maturity, restraint, and finesse, though. FTR, I think my bf tries too, himself. There are ways to 'win' that don't involve grisly, hardball competition, especially if it causes fractures with your relationship with potential crushes/partners. When I refuse to compromise and focus only on competing against the bf, I may win the battle, but when I channel my competitiveness in other aspects, we both win the war. As I said before, no need for a 'complete change of your personality'. Only in the way you express it. FWIW, even if you were male, you might still find yourself having some problems with over-aggression. But the thing is, women in general are less competitive in a skill or knowledge-based sense, so you would have a higher chance of finding one who does actually kowtow completely to you in that aspect (not certain if that would be a good idea, but still). Intellectual geeks are usually not inclined to do that. So you would have fire and fire. Good if both of you know how to smooth it out, bad otherwise. I also have no idea what you mean by broaden your horizons. Could you please elaborate? For instance, give the men your friends are introducing to you, one date. You haven't even met them, you've just heard of them. At least meet them before you decide. Edited May 29, 2012 by Elswyth
Els Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 Also, was that the only issue you had with that previous bf? I thought you'd said that they had 'all dumped you for hotter girls'.
d'Arthez Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 I mean... are you saying that when my ex-bf told me that my writing was pedestrian and that he was way better at technology, I should have just said," Yep, you're totally right, you are way better than me." Or when a guy in a bar makes a crack about how he's totally better at video games/martial arts, I should just agree with him even when he's wrong?? That seems like a recipe for low self-esteem and boundary-crossing. Definitely don't let it slide. These are things you are passionate about. These things define who you are, and if a guy cannot be respectful of that, he should not be part of your life. I'm not a competitive person by nature... it's part of why I hate sports. When someone "competes" with me, I easily feel threatened and put down, and I go into fight mode. I really don't LIKE myself in competitive situations, which is why it is so very necessary to have a guy who is not competitive. The situations you describe are all about things you have invested a lot in. The guy who put you down for your writing skills, or your computer skills. It is a form of extreme disrepect towards you for the guy to downplay the things you are good at. I think if the skill is something you don't feel particularly strongly about (cooking perhaps?), you would feel much less threatened by a guy who'd say "your cooking sucks". Not nice to hear, but I think you'd let it slide much more easily.
Els Posted May 29, 2012 Posted May 29, 2012 The situations you describe are all about things you have invested a lot in. The guy who put you down for your writing skills, or your computer skills. It is a form of extreme disrepect towards you for the guy to downplay the things you are good at. I think if the skill is something you don't feel particularly strongly about (cooking perhaps?), you would feel much less threatened by a guy who'd say "your cooking sucks". Not nice to hear, but I think you'd let it slide much more easily. Hrm, my impression of what she said was that he did not put down her ability in the way you mention, but just competed with her so that he could be 'better than her' at it. Of course, if the guy genuinely did the former, nobody is asking her to happily sit around and take it. On the other hand, the latter is just second nature to most of guys who fulfill her other requirements - they compete with just about anybody they can find, even their best friends whom they do respect, and this often takes the form of 'I'm better than you' jibes. There's a big difference.
Recommended Posts