Got some preferences in women I would like thoughts on.

[tree]

I don't believe that saying each sex/gender has preferences
invalidates any one.

 

[Magna]

Hummm... I'd be very wary of any such generalization "women are xyz", "men are xyz".

If "generalizing" is taken so broadly that it lumps every person in a certain category as being the same in what they prefer, etc then I agree.

However, if "generalizing" is used as a term to mean "the norm", the majority, most, then it's simply fact. I've said this before in the forum and I'll likely say it again many times as it's germane to so many different topics, but exceptions to not negate the rule. I've often wondered if they're teaching the incorrect maxim in schools that exceptions DO negate the rule. Not correct. False.

An example of what I'm speaking of: Most people in the U.S. prefer to eat three meals per day. In fact it's been taught as being recommended for many many decades. The majority of people in the U.S. prefer to eat three meals per day. That's the "rule". Generally, (ie most) people in the U.S. prefer to eat three meals per day.

The problem I see more and more is people who react to the above statement by pointing out that not ALL people prefer to eat three meals per day (that's obvious). The error lies in the following: Pointing out that since ALL people don't prefer to eat three meals per day...the generalization, the "rule" can't be correct. Wrong. Exceptions to a rule DO NOT negate the rule. Also, I think very few people on any topic would believe that a "rule", a generalization literally applies to ALL people.

Let's bring it back to preferences: It's a true statement that generally, most people have a preference that any potential mate be hygienic. However...not ALL people care about that kind of thing. The trend I see again is that on forums, real life, etc someone may likely pipe in and say that they don't care how often their partner bathes. And as such, since they themselves don't care, they believe that the generalization for hygiene preference is false. It's not false. It's true. The exception does not negate the rule.

 

[tree]

Still, discovering things I do and don’t like but here’s what I got so far.

Can’t be a smoker. I don’t do well around people who smoke a “lot”.
Doesn’t do drugs.
Not against her having drinks so long as she is responsible about it.
Won’t accept someone who has a lot of credit card debt from frivolous shopping.
No children. I can’t handle the stress a little one brings in so far as constant attention and supervision is required.
Must work. Can’t be the only one times are too hard. Pay for her gas, car maintenance, half the bills and food costs.
I can take or leave cooking.
Cleaning would be a plus.
Especially laundry.
Similar ideals and viewpoints.
Don’t mind a tall woman. White skin, blue eyes, and a ponytail. Not frumpy or too skinny.
Most of all I’d like to feel safe around them. Talk about anything.
Of course loyal.
That’s what I got.

What was your best hope for this as a topic?

 

[AO1501]

...I did not know common sense had to be proven...

That's somewhat of a mischaracterization of what was said to you, but the point I would make is that there is little tangible value to the kind of sweeping generalization you made, since while it is likely true that most people have values, it tends to undermine the argument you make when you claim to speak for them. Indeed, it has done exactly that since the discussion is now not about the OP and their values, but about your sweeping generalization.

What I think makes perfect sense is to say that most people have their own values, and just like the OP's in this thread, they may or may not make sense to others, may or may not be acceptable to others, but are valid for the individual concerned. In that respect, some other points you made in your initial post are totally valid, such as: "we all can choose who we prefer to be with, and we all will be responsible for our decisions"

However, that isn't the question being discussed, because aside from pondering what the OP's purpose might be in posting the thread, which seems highly pertinent to me, the real question must surely be if the OP's values and requirements are more, or less, likely to result in a relationship, and if it does, will that relationship be more, or less, likely to be a satisfying one than if having an open mind, or perhaps just different values.

 

[Wolfnox]

What was your best hope for this as a topic?

Getting useful replies. Apologies I probably should have been clearer.
More or less I’m working on understanding things I would or wouldn’t want in a girlfriend. I’m not excluding on physical traits however. Just some things I might consider positives. As in I would like that about a woman.

Formal apologies to all for lack of clarity.

Merely seeking educated wisdom and opinions on what I listed.

 

[tree]

Have you received any?

Useful how?

 

[Wolfnox]

That is a very spesific list, could it be that you are overthinking this? Relationships usually don't start with a list of how you want a partner to be. Also, remember that relationships are also about you being a good partner.

Just a few things I have considered. Not having dated I have nothing to fall back on information was.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Magna

FYI: the confusing "exception proves the rule" formulation is a mistranslation from a legal term in classical latin.
"exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Proving_the_existence_of_the_rule
A simplified version of the "Parking Sign" example works in conversation, but only with people smart enough that they generally don't use the misleading formulation.

I can't imagine English ever getting rid of the incorrect version/interpretation /sigh.

 

[Magna]

@Magna

FYI: the confusing "exception proves the rule" formulation is a mistranslation from a legal term in classical latin.
"exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Proving_the_existence_of_the_rule
A simplified version of the "Parking Sign" example works in conversation, but only with people smart enough that they generally don't use the misleading formulation.

I can't imagine English ever getting rid of the incorrect version/interpretation /sigh.

Unless I misunderstand you, my true statement that exceptions do not negate a rule isn't the same as "exception proves the rule".

An example of exception proving the rule would be a sign that says: "No parking on Sundays" (Sunday is the exception) proving the "rule" by default that parking IS allowed there all other days of the week.

 

[Wolfnox]

Everyone is different, but I've never really understood very specific requirements on appearance as being factors for what one finds attractive in another.

Just to be clear on this I mentioned the physical traits as an idea. Not an actual preference I “like” the idea of a woman who’s taller than me. But, I’m not closing myself off to a woman who might be shorter. Physical traits are a consideration not something I must have.

 

[Rogue Princess]

Just to be clear on this I mentioned the physical traits as an idea. Not an actual preference I “like” the idea of a woman who’s taller than me. But, I’m not closing myself off to a woman who might be shorter. Physical traits are a consideration not something I must have.

That's great because most women prefer a man who is taller than them.

 

[Wolfnox]

That's great because most women prefer a man who is taller than them.

Darn. I wanted to name my kid Hagrid.

 

[Magna]

That's great because most women prefer a man who is taller than them.

^ That could be true, but ChatGPT refuses to answer whether it's factually so. It ties itself in knots trying not to answer the question like it does with evading many other kinds of questions too.

 

[tree]

ChatGPT is hardly to be relied upon as an infallible source of information.

 

[Hypnalis]

Unless I misunderstand you, my true statement that exceptions do not negate a rule isn't the same as "exception proves the rule".

Yes.

"Exceptions not negating a general rule" is a completely different thing, and is more likely to be true than most rules
I originally wrote something agreeing with that part of your post, but deleted it because it seemed redundant.

IRL in discussions, I sometimes go with "No rule concerning human behavior is correct 100% of the time".
With annoying people (generally online, and in less polite places than this) I sometimes prefix it with "I'm not interested in discussing 1 in 1000 exceptions".

You wouldn't expect that "1 in 1000" thing to work well, but it's quite effective.
I suspect people who try to disprove a statement with a random exception (usually made up on the spot) know at some level that they're doing it, but don't have a similar system for explaining it away.

BTW: there's scientific evidence (source: an interview of David Pinsof) that people in general don't really know the true reasons for why they do things. If they (we) discuss them, what's said isn't based on accurate introspection of their motivations and goals - it's (quoted from the interview) "a nice-sounding self-flattering story".

So that's my current theory of why so many people use 1 in 1000 exceptions to deflect discussions of uncomfortable topics. But it has the same "stinger" as Dunning-Kruger - nobody is immune

It's no wonder that his discipline (Evolutionary Psychology) is actively being suppressed in the universities /lol.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I certainly hope that most men have standards and preferences too!

I bet there's a plethora of men out there who could reject me, not because they're too selective, but because we're not a good match (I'm a woman).

It was the hardest thing for me to learn, that if she declines an offer of a date she probably had reason to believe we were not a good match: Nothing personal.

Last year my spouse and I were talking about the things that brought us together. At that time in my life, and enjoying the outings group, I was hoping to meet a woman who enjoyed outdoor activities. She told me that she was hoping to find a man she could do outdoor activities with. 44 years later we are still active, together. From that match and her acceptance of me I have been devoted to her.

 

[1ForAll]

That's somewhat of a mischaracterization of what was said to you, but the point I would make is that there is little tangible value to the kind of sweeping generalization you made, since while it is likely true that most people have values, it tends to undermine the argument you make when you claim to speak for them. Indeed, it has done exactly that since the discussion is now not about the OP and their values, but about your sweeping generalization.

What I think makes perfect sense is to say that most people have their own values, and just like the OP's in this thread, they may or may not make sense to others, may or may not be acceptable to others, but are valid for the individual concerned. In that respect, some other points you made in your initial post are totally valid, such as: "we all can choose who we prefer to be with, and we all will be responsible for our decisions"

However, that isn't the question being discussed, because aside from pondering what the OP's purpose might be in posting the thread, which seems highly pertinent to me, the real question must surely be if the OP's values and requirements are more, or less, likely to result in a relationship, and if it does, will that relationship be more, or less, likely to be a satisfying one than if having an open mind, or perhaps just different values.

Thanks for your perspectives, but nothing you said made what I said I feel to be inaccurate or offensive, but helpful for others to either understand, feel like they can express their desires or needs for others, instead of hiding such, to give more efforts if they know others need or prefer more, and to take less risks, or give proper weight to decisions, etc. Of course general statements are not true for all. That is implied, if not stated. But, it is a general rule to look out for.

Burying our heads in sands is not right, nor is not speaking our feelings in a civil way, nor is deception that occurs more often than we would like to admit through the dating processes and relationships, assuming all will give us a chance. It often takes seeing many to find the right one, if you research that. That implies judgements both genders are making, having preferences and needs, and that the others are not a fit because of such. I am trying to tell both genders it is your right to have preferences and needs, and to advertise such, as "we all" have such, none should be more deserving to express such or needing to hide such. Yep, a generalization. But, it is my right to say such there too.

This is not a forum that should nitpick generalizations done in fair and not meaning any offensive ways. Being upset at such statements make me feel some of you may or may not need to be told things or see things to believe it is true, or may base fact just on your limited experiences, or expect such general statements to apply to all, which is rarely the intent. Taking things literally, yet likely at times making general statements too, which I almost always let pass when the statement I saw on this forum I felt was more true or not. I am very good at picking up nonverbal cues and communications, people's actions and inactions too, analysis and research. Some others here are good for that as well, even perhaps you.

You did have some balance, did not just cherry pick one statement, and you gave your reasoning and perspectives that I took no offense, as it is just your opinion too.

Another forum member Magna though I believe articulated what I felt well. Some will never understand these perspectives. I am not one of those persons. There is a difference between fair generalizations we make often in life. Some statements though are more seen as generally not true or offensive, but others can be seen as more like an accurate general rule, needed and helpful at times too. I would just keep going around in circles replying to anything else, so enjoy your day everyone. You are all free to have your opinions, but I stand by what I said because as helpful as the information was to get all your points of view, I think I was very accurate and fair for any statement made, unlike other generalizations in other threads that I felt were really insulting, inflammatory, and persons maybe were too scared to disagree with, if not they perhaps agreed with.

I feel I expressed my positions well .Nothing else needs to be said on my end without repeating myself. Will go look for other threads that intrigue me, too, if not start spending the extra time with family.

 

[Aspychata]

So recently, l put a toe into the dating pool, dated a guy that wasn't my type physically,
and immediately regretted it. I do need to stay as close as l can to my type, otherwise l simply lose interest. So if @Wolfnox has a type, then that's a starting point to go from. Men and woman are visual, and we can go from there. I read a study, where it was said men will date their type, however if the personality isn't a match, few will stay in the relationship.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ical-attraction-matters-and-when-it-might-not

 

[Kalinychta]

It is a myth thus that women have a right to be more picky as they have more to lose if they enter relationships with wrong partners. I would argue both genders have equal much to lose.

The OP added “no children” as one of his criteria (I knew before I saw it that it would be on his list). Children are the reason women have so much more to lose than men. Single mothers are basically pariahs, and they struggle in every way imaginable. Only single fathers know what this is like (20% of single parents are men, 80% are women) except they’re not branded with pariah status—rather, people tend to view them as selfless heroes.

 

[1ForAll]

The OP added “no children” as one of his criteria (I knew before I saw it that it would be on his list). Children are the reason women have so much more to lose than men. Single mothers are basically pariahs, and they struggle in every way imaginable. Only single fathers know what this is like (20% of single parents are men, 80% are women) except they’re not branded with pariah status—rather, people tend to view them as selfless heroes.

True, and I feel really bad for "all" the women there (another generalization I made), as many women would need extra help and support then, and during the breakdown of those relationships.

But what about nicer guys too that met the wrong person and who may never see their children again if divorce happens, if any half truths or lies occurs, or if unfair judge, and they often will lose half everything if not more. Since they created children, of course they should pay child support. I am not talking about that.

This is why both men and women need to be more selective in who they choose as partners.