Am I Being Unrealistic About Relationships?
Pages: 1 2
Hi Evan. First I wanted to thank you for creating a fantastic forum for dating enlightenment and for changing the way I view relationships. Here’s my question: I have met what most of your readers would call the man of our collective dreams. Absolutely gorgeous, smart, highly educated and very passionate about his job, which pays very well and is stable. He has a wonderful masculine energy but also a very sensitive and romantic side. He is madly in love with me and we have had a wonderful relationship that has lasted just over two years. He tells me he loves me many times a day, showers me with kisses, his family welcomes me, and he makes it very clear every day he wants to be with me for the rest of his life.
Here’s the rub: he’s not as charismatic as I would ideally want. He listens attentively and communicates clearly, but we lack the verbal banter that I find such a turn-on. We do have fun, but I find sometimes I meet people whom I “click with” verbally. I’m still young and eligible. Should I keep looking for someone who perhaps lacks his many blessings, but that can make me laugh more, or am I just being unrealistic, and that after multiple years of being together, conversations just get a little duller? –Sam
Dear Sam,
I don’t think you’re being unrealistic about relationships.
When you have a 20, you don’t take another card and hope for an ace. Chances are, you’re gonna bust.
I think, if anything, you’re being completely clear-eyed and realistic.
You realize that you’ve got a winner on your hands.
Your description of your boyfriend would make any woman want to swap positions with you in a heartbeat: gorgeous, smart, educated, passionate, stable, successful, masculine, sensitive, romantic, family-oriented, devoted.
A few readers probably had an orgasm just by reading that.
This does not mean you have to marry him.
It does mean you should think twice before tossing him away.
The only reason breaking up wouldn’t be a devastating decision is because you’re young. And if you have ten more years to date, I’m confident you will find true love again.
But even that relationship might not be as healthy as what you have now.
Put it this way: your description of your partner is a laundry list of the perfect guy and you know it.
But you want more – you want charisma, butterflies and sparkling dialogue straight of a romantic comedy. Since you’ve felt this before, you ask the very reasonable question: why not? Why can’t I get the same exact guy with just one more great quality: charisma?
 |
Why He Disappeared is the smart, strong, successful woman's guide to understanding men. If you want to learn how men think, and rediscover how to have meaningful relationships - all from a man's point of view - click here to learn Why He Disappeared. |
Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?
If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.
96 Comments »Filed Under Chemistry
Wendy 1
Wow. My current guy has only seven of the qualities Evan mentioned (gorgeous, smart, passionate, masculine, sensitive, romantic, devoted) and I wouldn’t trade him for the world. I don’t think I’ve ever dated anyone with all of these 11 qualities, and she wants 12? I can see her next post: “Evan, I’ve met a guy who is gorgeous, smart, educated, witty, stable, successful, masculine, sensitive, romantic, family-oriented, devoted, but he lacks the passion I require.” Then her next one will be “Evan, I’ve met a guy who is witty, smart, educated, passionate, stable, successful, masculine, sensitive, romantic, family-oriented, devoted, but he lacks the physique I require.” I suspect someone like her will never be happy, no matter who the man.
Maya 2
Yep, dated really charismatic, funny, masculine, passionate, educated, successful and attractive guy with a great career and “lost of money”. Fact is he was consistent in our relationship, but intimacy, love and above all loyalty were words he didn’t know. Oftentimes I would cry myself to sleep wandering if he was with some other. I’d swap loyalty over charisma.
Helen 3
Evan, I could not agree more. Sam, I’d add one thing (and I know Goldie and amy among others disagree): the “verbal banter” that you find “such a turn-on” is just not that important to a marriage. How do I know? Because I used to be a sucker for verbal banter myself, and still am. When hub and I were young, we had those kinds of conversations all the time (not witty, but deep and philosophical). But that has a way of disappearing when you have kids and a busy life together, and you have to have other elements holding the relationship together down the years. Affection, a shared sense of humor, willingness to let each other off the hook for minor slights, kindness.
I’m not too sure much else matters. You describe this man as being the man of all women’s collective dreams, but honestly, the looks don’t matter much, nor does the excessive education or showers of kisses. That he is sensitive is good, as long as you mean sensitive to your feelings and not just his own. That his family loves you and that he has a stable job are terrific. Does he have those other characteristics: kindness, a sense of humor, and easygoingness? That matters a lot more.
Andrew 4
Standard advice given to girls like Sam:
“Sam, never settle for anything less than everything you want in a man!!! You DESERVE the most absolutely perfect man. Don’t worry, Prince Charming is right around the corner. He can be the very next online dating profile. He’ll sweep down on his white horse to whisk you away to a life of bliss, affluence, and healthy babies! You go grrl!”
Then, Evan steps up to the podium and tells Sam the real deal. He gets the golf clap for that.
dan 5
two years later and she wants rom-com banter and butterflies? Oh, brother….
Caitlin 6
SAM KEEP YOUR MAN!!!
Angie 7
Sam,
Are you sure you just aren’t bored? “Charisma” and “witty banter” just sound like you need entertainment. I actually prefer my guys not to be so charismatic, because I find them to be more flighty and sometimes bordering on obnoxious.
I also think there was a fact in Lori Gottlieb’s “Marry Him” (Evan, did you tell Lori this?) that the average happily married woman can name 10 “flaws” with her partner. None of which are actual flaws, such as “he is abusive”, but things like “could be wittier”.
I do agree one should live without regrets, so if your preference is to see what life is like with someone else, go for it. I just don’t think you’d write to an advice columnist if you thought you wouldn’t have regrets… I think your letter would have said “I met Mr. Wonderful but I’m only (age) and don’t feel ready to settle down yet. Would it be stupid to break this off to pursue career/adventure/excitement?” Instead, you wrote “I’m dating Mr. Wonderful, do you think if I break it off I will find Mr. Wonderful +”. I LOVED Evan’s blackjack analogy.
Donna 8
A quote a friend once sent me, “Never leave someone good in order to find someone better, because once you realize you had the best, the best will have found better.”
Lemon Zest 9
Is witty banter even a realistic expectation?
Alicia 10
Totally agree with Evan. Weren’t we all told at some point that there it’s no such thing as the textbook perfect person? Relationships require a level of sacrifice. I’m sure you have qualities that he might find to be less than ideal so don’t be so quick to leave such a wonderful man. There aren’t masses of good men and it doesn’t seem to be changing any time soon. Besides, imagine you have children someday. Are you just going to put a child up for adoption because it doesn’t fit what you would like?
This isn’t a fairytale and Prince Charming is generally unrealistic. Appreciate the exceptional qualities that you find in your man and don’t focus on what you wish he had instead.
nathan 11
Is humor in general lacking from the relationship? That’s the thing I wonder about from her letter. It’s one thing to obsess over a lack of wittiness (which isn’t that important), but it’s quite another to spend a lifetime with someone who doesn’t inspire laughter and joy. Having “fun” together may, or may not, indicate the presence of laughter and joy. So, if those qualities are truly missing, then perhaps she needs to reconsider. However, if it’s just about witty banter, I seriously hope she can find a few friends to banter with, and get over the need for rom-com perfection.
Heather 12
Sam, if you leave this guy, you will be sorry. It happened to me, three years ago. I met a guy who was shorter, younger, and alot more quiet than I really liked. I really tried hard to make the relationship work, but for whatever reason, despite that, I wanted out, and I did get out. And what happened next were almost three years of heartaches. Oh I found my taller, more witty, more talkative types. One broke my heart, not intentionally, he had his own issues to settle and I had to let him fade away. And one became verbally abusive.
Flash forward some time, and I meet my guy. Tall, rather handsome with beautiful blue eyes (OK he needs to lose a few pounds but who doesn’t when we’re in our later 30s, ha). Extremely smart (MBA and has a great job with the federal government), romantic, caring, mostly pretty darn thoughtful. My friends and family adore him. He stood by my side during emergency surgery, and has supported me during my Mom’s battle with cancer, held me as I’ve cried my eyes out too many times to count. He is patient and kind and just great. Do I wish he’d read more? Yes. Do I wish that a couple of other small details were different? Yes. But I am not about to toss this guy overboard. I’ve learned and learned well, that it’s better to keep a good man who loves you and wants to make things work. Chasing after a guy who has it “all” is going to break your heart. Been there, done that, got the bumps and bruises and hurts to prove it.
Evan Marc Katz 13
Nathan – Sounds to me like she’s been perfectly content with this guy for a long time. It’s just that there are other men in the universe who are funnier/more charismatic. And to flip it around, Sam, do you think there are other women who are more attractive than you? What would you say if your boyfriend said that he questioned your relationship every time he met a hotter woman? You think he should pursue those options? Somehow, I doubt it…
Kerren 14
Forget ‘witty’. I had hoards of guys coming onto me and taking me on dates. I use to shift them by choosing on the witty ones. Ill tell you something about witty guys. A lot of them have pocker faces and are more focused on their views but yours. I refused to marry a guy a whilke back because he wasn’t witty. He should have looked at his other qualities. Don’t make the mistake I did.
Selena 15
If verbal banter is such a turn on for you, how is it that you are with this guy two years later instead of one of the funny fellows in your past? Did you find charisma is sometimes accompanied by other undesirable traits?
If you thought this guy was dull as dirt, or a terrible communicator your dissatisfaction would be understandable – but your complaint is he doesn’t banter with you? Do you have friends you can banter with? I’m guessing you do. Why isn’t that enough? If you want to laugh more, prevent conversation getting dull are you putting any effort towards that, or do you expect him to be the one to entertain you?
Lack of witty banter seems like a ludicrous reason to end a good relationship to me. You say you’re young – perhaps you are not ready for a permanent relationship and looking for a way out? Give it some thought.
Serena27 16
Wow, my boyfriend is passionate, stable, masculine, sensitive, super-romantic, family-oriented, devoted. He’s also cute and sexy, and although I actually like balding guys, I must admit his dark, slightly curly, ‘superman’ hair is fantastic (it would even get a curl at the front if he didn’t get it cut every 3 weeks). He is passionate and proficient in his hobby, and at work, but he is a high school graduate so it’s not in the corporate world. I have a masters degree, I’m a very smart cookie and I generally hang out with people smarter than me. My ex was smarter than me too. His favourite emotion was anger, and I think the daycare workers are afraid of him. We had intellectually stimulating conversations about science and medicine and politics, but we were a terrible team and I was so lonely. Not only can my new guy articulate a variety of feelings in a healthy way, he ASKS me about MY feelings and expresses his love and affection for me regularly. He has no interest in politics and his spelling’s atrocious. I am a bit of a grammar Nazi (I don’t point out other’s mistakes b/c I know I make mistakes, but I do tend to laugh at them, privately) but I’m not going to dump him b/c there are typos in his love notes. I’m just ecstatic that he writes love notes! He’s an absolute treasure and I wouldn’t trade him for anyone. There is nothing greater than feeling loved, supported and accepted.
Sam, follow Nathan’s advice and find some witty friends, or hang out with them more. You’re two years into your relationship? Any chance you’ve let your friends fall by the wayside? Go do something with them. Go on a road trip with the girls. I bet you will appreciate your guy when you get back.
Ruby 17
Maybe Sam needs to get some entertainment or stimulation outside of the relationship, through learning some new skills, volunteering, or making new friends. I’m guessing if her boyfriend is truly dull as a doorknob, she wouldn’t have made it this far with him. Maybe she should take her boyfriend to a comedy club for some extra laughs. I’m not entirely joking here.
Finding a wonderful guy who tells you he loves you many times a day, showers you with affection, and wants to marry you, is a man not to be thrown away lightly, no matter how young and eligible one may be. In fact, as Selena said, is it possible that Sam isn’t really mature enough for marriage herself, and she’s picking at her man’s “flaw” as a way out? No one, including Sam, is 100% perfect, not even for another person.
erica 18
My advice would be to keep the man for all of his wonderful qualities and then forge some friendships that meet the few other needs you seem to have. No one person will ever meet all of our needs, it’s just to much to ask of another. I have my love and we share so much, but then I have my friends/family/career/hobbies to fill other needs. If he is kind, generous, respectful and honorable, those matter WAAAAY more then a little random banter every now and then.
Peter 19
Two years is the point by which the first set of attraction hormones have worn off. You probably have a realistic view of him now. The next man will float in on a stimulus of novelty and your judgement will get warped. If you seriously want to settle, review your present options. Don’t chase new ones.
K 20
I pretty much agree with what everyone is saying here, especially if you are in your 30s. You say you are “young and eligible” and I don’t really know what age that is. If that is 24, then maybe you should move on because you may need to lose a great guy to ever appreciate the right guy. At 24 I’m pretty sure my ex broke up with me over something very trivial, but it was his first real relationship. Had he stayed with me he probably would have thought he could have found someone that was great plus that missing thing. I don’t think he has found it yet, but I think he wouldn’t have walked away that easily had he experienced more relationships. As I said I don’t really know your age or how many relationships you’ve had. Now in my 30s I would certainly be happy with someone who has half the things that your guy has.
eve 21
It sounds as if she has come down from the romantic high of the honeymoon phase of a relationship. When the neurotransmitters in the brain begin to settle down, it is only human nature to want to seek a new mate that can create the high all over again.
Tash 22
hehe, she’s obviously very young & most likely never been married. I’m a 40 year old widow. The traits of charisma etc that she is wanting at my age pretty much all boils down to a guy who’s possibly just full of ‘hot air’. Not really traits that will ensure a long & happy relationship. Gee, what ever happened to gratitude?
helene 23
“…am I just being unrealistic, and that after multiple years of being together, conversations just get a little duller”
In fairness to the OP, and to provide a balanced perspective (though not necessarily a solution) I have to say that no, conversations do not necessarily get duller after a few years together. My ex husband had his share of faults, but our verbal/intellectual connection was extremely strong and interesting thoughout our 15 years together, and continues to be so, 8 years after out break-up. He was exasperating, exhausting and insisted on the forks going in the dishwasher “prongs up” (or was it “prongs down”?!) but he was never boring. And I’m sure he would say the same about me. In fact, i would go so far as to say it was this connection that kept us together all that time, despite the other issues that eventually drove us apart.
Its all a question of what you need to feel happy and alive within your relationship. For some people, security is their top priority, for others its intellectual stimulation, for others its a strong sexual connection. I understand the OPs concern about the lack of a “verbal click” with her otherwise wonderful boyfriend, but its all about asking herself what she’s prepared to give up to achieve it. Sure, she wants it, but does she want it MORE than all the stuff she already has? One thing is certain, there’s basically no “trading up” from her current boyfriend – there is only exchanging one deficiency for others. That may be a trade off she has to make; which is fine as long as she it totally realistic about the fact that it IS going to be a trade -off.
helene 24
Can I just add that I think one important consideration is whether the OP is planning to have children soon? Someone like her current boyfriend would make an excellent father, wheras someone like my ex-husband would not. Men who are charismatic, witty, with high levels of intellectual curiosity tend to dislike anything mundane or routine, and can struggle to handle the humdrum nature of daily life that childrearding inevitably brings. Sure, my ex would have been a great dad from the KIDS point of view, teaching them to build a steam engine or understand the solar system or breed butterflies, but as a supportive husband, talking them to get new shoes or visit the dentist or get them ready for school – forget it! Witty banter is a poor substitute for someone prepared to change daipers, get up in the night when a child is sick or be home when he says he will to be at their birthday party.
Allison 25
totally agree with helene. i had sparkling banter with my ex-boyfriend, but he was totally uninterested in boring things like being on time and making plans that worked with my schedule. if we had had kids, i’m sure he would have planned awesome trips…and never packed a lunch or changed a diaper. charismatic men are awesome, but a lot of them can’t do the consistency thing, and being with them can make you feel really, really lonely. as others are saying, it’s a trade-off, not necessarily a trade-up. that said, if you really don’t get each other’s sense of humor, or don’t really enjoy talking to him– then i think it’s going to be hard to make it work.
sarahrahrah! 26
I tend to agree with what helene and nathan have written.
Sam, you have to decide what you value most. If you dated someone who was perfect in every way, he would also likely be arrogant or taken. For you, is the verbal connection more important than other elements? For me, it is very important and I’ve made concessions in other areas (usually in the looks department) so that this element has been present in my best relationships.
I would tend to agree with helene that — in general — these verbally gifted guys don’t necessarily make the best fathers, but I don’t think that is true across the board. Some of them are more in touch with their feelings and their “inner child” and therefore make excellent fathers. Everyone is unique and people have all kinds of strengths and weaknesses.
Mavis 27
this is a bit controversial for me…i don’t really think people should settle and if she’s not happy maybe she should move on. i mean would the guy be happy knowing that she just settled for him? then again i’m 30 and still single so maybe don’t listen to me lol.
Mavis 28
i’ve also been told i’m way too picky…but just haven’t found that “connection” i’m looking for.
Mia 29
I personally think having a verbal click with someone could be more important than him being gorgeous and well-educated and having a good family. I’ve been with those guys who are kind and adoring but with whom there is just not much of a deeper intellectual connection and they were NOT the right guy. I don’t need someone to entertain with witty banter, but I’d like to be on the same wavelength. This woman seems like she struggles with having a guy who meets checklist requirements but may not connect with her on a deeper level … However, she should realize that if she goes in search of a guy she better connects with in that way, she’d better be prepared to be compromising on other traits less important to her.
S. 30
“And if you have ten more years to date, I’m confident you will find true love again.”
I didn’t quite understand this sentence. Is there a time limit on finding true love again? Unless one is terminally ill . . .
I remember you describing meeting your wife and not rushing, even though you wanted to have kids. And everything happened the way it happened and you’re happy. So why should anyone rush? This reader is definitely hitting on 20 but are you saying it’s okay to hit on 20 if you’re young enough?
I think she’s taking her chances if she lets this one go. Young or not. Someone good doesn’t always come around ten or even twenty years later. I’m a take the money and run kind of person myself but if Sam isn’t feeling this man or this relationship she isn’t. No matter if she’s 20 or 60.
Molli 31
I rarely feel compelled to post here but MY GOD how UNGRATEFUL is this woman? The only thing missing is some witter banter? Wow. So many should be so lucky. And trust me, I love intellectual conversation and banter more than most but to have all those other things and give it up for that?
susan 32
hang on a cotton-pickin minute! yep he’s the collective dream of the rest of us…she has listed his qualities and he sounds perfect…except that, EXCEPT that, she didn’t say, or even ALLUDE to the idea that SHE loves HIM!
Um I think everyone missed a vital point here. This is nothing to do with banter.
Here’s a smart girl who knows shé’s got Mr Perfect but the reality is she is NOT IN LOVE with him.
If she was, banter would be beside the point.
And if the boot was on the other foot, we all know we hear all the time ”you are wonderful, you are perfect, it’s just……
Maybe I’m a lone voice here, but I say, if she doesn’t see herself growing old with him – if the thought of breaking up is even a consideration, run, run like the wind, and let a woman who will love him like he loves her take her place.
Clare 33
I agree with Evan’s advice, but I think it’s because I don’t think romantic relationships should provide for every need that we have. They are about having someone who loves you and whom you love, someone who is there for you.
If it’s witty banter and intellectual stimulation that Sam requires, I think she should feel free to pursue that through friends and hobbies. As long as Sam and her boyfriend do still talk easily and they are on a more or less similar level, I don’t see why this should provide an obstacle.
I think expecting our partners to be all things at all times and being disappointed when they are not is an unfair burden on them, and undermines the many wonderful things that they do bring.
I think many people would be considerably happier if they focussed on how blessed they are to have someone in their lives who loves them and is there for them unconditionally, and gave themselves permission to find other ways of satisfying every need and feeling of restlessness.
Appreciate that person who is devoted to you. Life is very lonely without them.
Gen 34
Is it the verbal banter that she misses or is it that she just isn’t in love with him? Does she have passion for this guy? Love him? Admire him? It sounds like that is what’s really missing…
Mark 35
I think the problem with the “total package” concept is that he or she DOESN’T exist. None of us are the “total package”.
We are ALL lacking in one or more areas.
What you need to do is review your “list” and find the character traits that are most important to you and a long-term relationship (if that’s what you want).
I’ve always said you don’t need a list of 84 criteria. All the criteria you need for a good relationship you should be able to count on 1 hand.
Banter is nice. I’ve always been a sucker for the verbal banter and actually anyone I’ve fallen hard for had that banter. But that isn’t even a criteria of mine. At least consciously
KTR 36
I completely agree with Erica (16) above. I’d recommend the writer keeps her man and starts looking for intellectual stimulation elsewhere – nothing disloyal about this – its unhealthy to expect one person to meet ALL your needs. Maybe she’s bored. That’s fine, it’s the modern disease we all suffer from time to time – we all have existential crises from time to time.
Go on a course, learn a new skill, make new platonic friends, use internet forums to find people to just exchange silly comments with or discuss the issues of the day with.
Just another comment. I happily internet date, and love and enjoy the men I meet and pick. One thing I have NO interest in is men who state “banter/sarcasm” as one of their qualities or desirable traits in a partner.
Often, the “banter” is tinged with bitterness and just a front for being quite insubstantial in other areas of their life . Men with the masculine qualities I find attractive and desirable – stability, protectiveness, strength, loyalty – haven’t had the time to sit there working on their funny one liners because they’ve been too busy working on progressing their career or getting financially good or their serious interests/sports, not working out how to impress girls with the repartee.
Often a pre-requisite for being quite “charming” and “witty” is a lack of authenticity and a lack of consideration for other people’s feelings. Good, principled people often don’t like saying things that aren’t true and kind and “right”.
Nothing wrong with frivolous/ “random” conversation, and indeed the writer shouldn’t worry about bringing it into her man’s life – a lot of serious men like having some feminine silliness, its the differences that are sexy. But in my experience, a desirable man doesn’t NEED to learn how to “trick” women into overlooking his bad finances or his lack of life direction with his witty statements. With a few exceptions( hi Evan!) a lot of competent, successful men aren’t very verbal creatures at ALL.
Helen 37
helene 24: amen, amen, amen. Yes, that’s three amens, from a mother.
susan 32: I think you hit the nail on the head. There is no evidence in Sam’s letter that she actually loves this guy. Dare I suggest that she might just be hanging on to him to show him off to the world in general: “Look at what a great catch I got”? If she is asking such trivial and doubtful questions to a dating coach about her man, she is probably more attracted to what OTHERS see in him than what SHE sees in him.
BeenThruTheWars 38
Sam: You want witty verbal banter? Join Mensa. You want a great husband? Open your eyes and look at the man standing right in front of you. Evan is spot-on with his advice, and having played plenty of blackjack in Vegas, if some idiot at the table was splitting 10s or hitting on 20? I would get up and find another table to play at.
Laura S. 39
She has the perfect man except for one deficiency in her mind. He’s not a bullshit artist. That’s what coworkers, customers, friends and family are for.
She should kick him loose, there are hundreds and thousands of us waiting for a great guy like him to become available.
Bill 40
It is all in your head. “There are studies that show placebo almost as effective as actual chemo in treating cancer. The human mind is THAT strong.”
Half of those traits you describe another women wouldn’t see them.
Joe 41
Sam, if you’re looking for Mr. Perfect 21, odds are someone else has already grabbed him up. And if he hasn’t been snapped up, don’t you think he’ll have hordes of women interested in him? And that being the case, do you think you’re a 21 and none of those other women are?
Heather 42
@ Joe, I think that happens alot, with men and women. I watched my uncle leave my aunt for what he thought was “better.” And now he’s realizing that his “better” might not be all that’s cracked up to be, because he keeps seeing my aunt. (Why she’d even tolerate a minute of his bullshit is so beyond me, maybe I should have her read EMK’s blogs hehe)
There is no perfect person out there. I’ve learned that good and well. It’s better to find someone who shares your values, dreams, feelings, and loves you and treats you well, rather than go chasing after this crazy Hollywood romance crap. I had witty banter with my last real relationship before my guy came along…..and that witty banter was turned on me, to where the guy “jokingly” called me a whore, in front of his ex-girlfriend.
The witty banter, I can find elsewhere. Hell, I have a girlfriend who has a PhD in finance and she and I hold very intelligent conversations. But a guy who’d treat me better than the guy I’m with now, I’m almost positive now does not exist. So I’m staying put. Not because I think I’m “settling” in the sense of, “Oh, I guess he’ll do.” But more because I know what it’s like out there in that search and I think I’d rather have a root canal without novocaine, than go through that bullshit all over again.
Mia 43
Heather makes a really good point. While I don’t think we should have to settle for someone who’s not a good fit deep down – and I’m not talking about superficialities like looks, charisma, and money – the endless carousel of bad dating experiences could certainly make one a lot more realistic about what’s out there.
In fact, I wonder if it’s better to just make a lot of life mistakes while we’re still young, so that by the time we’re older and settled and getting restless in our jobs, relationships, and homes we have some mental frame of reference for what the outcome could be if we went in search of greener pastures. I feel a little scared for those people that dated very little before getting married because they might not be prepared when they’re middle aged and uncertain and antsy.
Sam 44
Hi everyone,
I wanted to thank you all for your comments and guidance. I never expected my question to get posted and really appreciated Evan for choosing it and providing very wise advice. Thank you for all these follow up comments as well.
I apologize if I came across as ungrateful and unloving. I love my boyfriend very much, and we have had a fantastic two years. I haven’t dated a lot of men and through my twenties ended up in relationships with men who were wrong for me, but very decent. Sadly, perhaps if I had dated more jerks, I would realize what a gem I have and never question it.
Thank you all for reminding me. I’ll stick
KTR 45
@Sam
What a lovely reply, I think sometimes one forgets there is a person behind the question – I don’t think you need to apologise for anything. Enjoy your lovely man
Just generally, I’ve really enjoyed reading all the comments, especially the ones about having experienced for the “not so good things” to appreciate the good ones more. I’m 27 and probably bypassing, have recently bypassed some astoundingly good prospects at the moment in favour of a bit more excitement and “seeing what’s out there” (to be fair, my work puts me about a bit)
But I’m definitely thinking of “cashing in” over the next 3-4 years. I do think I’ll appreciate having had these wonder years and have had loads of personal development from all the encounters I’ve had. Hopefully when I’m with the forever Mr KTR I won’t be thinking longingly “oh, I wish I was with that guy who had X job or was this or that” because I’ll remember what the pay-offs were for being in that relationship situation, and how they wouldn’t suit me for a forever partner (that said, good memories eh, eh??
).
Emma 46
Send him to me then
AnnieC 47
@Sam
I think you are at the stage in your relationship where one see’s it in a different light and can begin a new kind of journey with your loved one.
I think of long term relationships as sort of a base camp, sitting at the bottom of a mountain range. Both people may choose to climb a different mountain periodically, but they always need to come back to home base.
I suspect your first 2 years were the 2 of you climbing the mountain together.
Now it’s time to go climb your own mountain. Time for some growth in other words.
When you keep coming back to home base, as does your partner, you will begin to realize how wonderful a supportive relationship can really be, and how nurturing it is. It sets you free, because it provides you with the stability you need need to live your life.
He sounds like a keeper. Try and think of how you may be able to grow a bit in your own life, and follow a few dreams. Climb a few mountains by yourself.
Never forget home base
Irina 48
What an interesting post!
It made me think of an old joke I heard about women never being satisfied with what they have:
Recently a “Husband Super Store” opened where women could go to choose a husband from among many men.
It was laid out in five floors, with men increasing in positive attributes as you ascended. The only rule was that once you opened a door to a new floor, you either had to choose a man from that floor, or ascend to the next floor. You could not go back down a floor, except to leave the store, never to return.
A couple of girlfriends went to the store to find a husband each.
First floor.
The door had a sign saying, “These men have jobs and love kids.”
The women read the sign saying, “Well that’s better than not having a job and not loving kids, but I wonder what’s up further?” So up they went.
Second floor.
The sign read, “These men have high paying jobs, love kids, and are extremely good looking.”
“Hmmm,” said the ladies, “But, I wonder what’s further up?”
Third floor.
This sign read, “These men have high paying jobs, are extremely good looking, love kids and help with the housework.”
“Wow,” said the women, “Very tempting.” But there was another floor, so further up they went.
Fourth floor.
This door had a sign saying “These men have high paying jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking, help with the housework and have a strong romantic streak.”
“Oh, mercy me,” they cried, “Just think what must be awaiting us further on! So up to the fifth floor they went.
Fifth floor.
The sign on that door said, “This floor is empty and exists only to prove that women are impossible to please. The exit is to your left, we hope you fall down the stairs.”
Don’t get me worng, I think this principle applies to many men as well.
Heather 49
@ Mia,
You raise an interesting point about people not having dated much before they married, and then realizing what’s going on later, when they’re unsure. I see it go on all the time. The college I attended for two years, put a TON of pressure on students to get engaged by senior year, married soon after graduation. And a LOT of those marriages did not stick. They were too young, had too much growing to do, and once they realized who they were as adults, well, the divorces started going right and left.
My uncle and aunt were the same way. Married at like 18, high school sweethearts. And now my uncle broke my aunt’s heart, running after what he thought was better. And now, he’s seemingly trying to come back into her life. Were I my aunt, I’d have simply told my uncle, “You had your chance. You blew it. Piss off.”
I’ve seen the worst, was married to the worst, so I know how bad it gets out there on the dating scene. I like and love my guy, we are doing just fine, and I see zero need to go elsewhere, unless he becomes abusive or treats me badly.
Mia 50
Heather, exactly. While I haven’t had much experience with truly bad men who are abusers or anything, I’ve experienced time and again how hard it is to meet someone who truly wants to make you part of their life, brings soup over when you’re sick, thinks about you when you’re not around, and makes a commitment to you.
Sure, any 20something woman who is at least kind of cute is swimming in men, and that could mislead a girl into thinking there are endless options. But there really aren’t. Yes, you can get sex with a hot guy whenever you want it, have lots of fun dates, flings, and so on, and its awesome. But a solid relationship is hard to come by. And if it’s this hard at a young age, it must be a nightmare at middle age. So while I’m open to being single in my 30s and 40s if I eventually decide that’s the best choice for me, I would do it only after making the smartest dating decisions possible in my youth and realistically evaluating what’s out there.
susan 51
I agree Mia, it is incredibly hard to find that ”right” fit – and even more so in a town/country with small population like mine.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that for all this ”there are lots of good guys out there” rhetoric, actually there are less and less ‘great catches” as we get older. Men and women for that matter. I think maybe there IS a reason someone is still single or has had a string of relationships by the time they get to 40 or 50. It’s a depressing reality actually.
That said, like Mia, i would rather be single than in the wrong relationship and beleive me I have made some whopper mistakes (oops I mean learning opportunities) in the past few years.
AllenB 52
@AnnieC 47
How well put and wise! In the third year of my relationship, the deep chemical addiction of young love has mellowed to a comfortable place where there is no fear of judgement and rejection and we have very open communication. We have a sense of stability and safety that was not entirely present in the early stages. It is OK to be quiet sometimes, like Evan recently talked about during that dinner in Tahiti. It is fine to have dirt under your nails from time to time and to stay in sweat pants until 3 PM now and then. We still dress up and have lively conversations, but we can also relax and find support for who we are as we are, and it is wonderful.
Leigh 53
Listen up girls! THIS is by far an important post to internalize
AnnieC 54
@52 Allen B
Thanks
Zaq 55
@Irina
A girl friend told me this joke, and I really think it resonates with women. It doesn’t with men. If the first floor had hot women in, they would be happy to stay there.
Again men do not set the bar that high when it comes to “hot”, but they are visual and will make a yes/no decision very quickly.
The statement “I wasn’t attracted to him at first” is something you hear from women, but the equivalent, not so much from men.
The problem is that men judge ALL women by the same measure – irrespective of age. So fewer older women make the cut.
A young woman waiting for a man to meet all her requirements will only succeed in reducing her options because her value is falling.
Women choose men, the ball is in your court. You get to choose from the men who ARE attracted to you. Not from the men who are not. Waiting is a poor option.
Irina 56
@Zaq
Oh I completeley agree with you when we are talking about initial attraction, if a woman is attractive (above-average), she will probably be the one chosing from men who are interested in her. However, these are the men who are interested in getting to know her and not necessarily a LTR.
If we nitpick at this joke a little, it is about a Husband store (so the male heterosexual equivalent would be a Wife store:). So we can assume that men can choose from all the ‘articles being sold’. And when it comes to chosing a partner to spend the rest of their life with, my experience is that men are just as critical if not more so. At least, my male friends are. Although the criteria that men use to decide whether a woman is suitable for marriage/LTR do differ from the criteria that women use.
Heather 57
@ Mia and Susan,
Exactly. I know darn well that because I’m coming closer to 40, and do not wish to have children, if I were to decide to ditch my guy for “someone better”, it will be a nightmare. It already was emotionally exhausting for me out there as it was, before I met him. There are fewer and fewer truly “good catches” out there as we get older, alot of the ones that are out there can be pretty darn scary, commitmentphobic, have WEIRD ex-wife issues and boy do I mean weird, etc.
It’s like the old saying goes, to a degree. “Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t” but only if the guy isn’t bad, mistreating you, or abusive. If my guy starts down that path of disappearing, “needing his space” or “not knowing what he wants”, he’ll be sent packing and I’ll just get a dog. MUCH easier. And I get the remote, too. Win-win!
Helen 58
Zaq wrote: “men do not set the bar that high when it comes to “hot”, but they are visual and will make a yes/no decision very quickly. The statement “I wasn’t attracted to him at first” is something you hear from women, but the equivalent, not so much from men.”
That is very interesting. So, is what you are saying that men do not typically “grow” interest in a woman to whom he is not attracted at the very beginning? So if a man isn’t attracted to a woman at first, chances are likely that he would never be (despite personality, etc.)?
Ruby 59
Heather #57
“There are fewer and fewer truly “good catches” out there as we get older, alot of the ones that are out there can be pretty darn scary, commitmentphobic, have WEIRD ex-wife issues and boy do I mean weird, etc.”
Unless you are under 30-35, I would also agree. I’ve got about a decade on you, and it took me years to find the great guy I have now, for exactly the reasons you state. We are still getting to know each other, but I continue to be surprised at how relatively un-neurotic he seems.
Zaq
At the Wife Store, men would be falling all over themselves trying to get to the top floor, to their very own Angelina Jolie. Oh wait, at 37, she’s already too old for many of the men, so maybe some Sports Illustrated swimsuit model?
Tom 60
I don’t agree with Zaq on every issue but regarding initial attraction I do agree. When I meet a woman I’m either (instantly) attracted or I’m not, and if not I never will be. The rest of the time spent dating her is to see if we’re otherwise compatible. If we have a great connection but no attraction, she goes in the dreaded ‘friend’ category.
Regarding Sam who asked the question, you just know that if she did ever find someone better, he probably wouldn’t really be into her, thus making her want him more, and so the cycle continues…
Zaq 61
@Helen
Yes I am. People can become MORE attractive when you get to know them. They do not BECOME attractive. They become friends.
And I’m not sure about women. There is a video on the internet of a speed date study where everyone was given a knob to turn to show how interested they were in each new “date”. Before the verbal interaction all the men moved around without saying anything. The daters turned the dials to show level of interest based purely on visual cues.
The researchers were then able to measure the difference when the daters had normal conversations and personality came into play.
Personality had ZERO effect. The women had made their decision even before the men had sat down. The scientists watching this noted that the only thing the successful men had in common was their height. They were tall.
In women’s defense, from analysis of other speed dating studies it has been hypothesized that women, given too much choice are overloaded with information and just revert back to basic physical factors.
@Irina
No, doesn’t matter how attractive the woman is – she always gets to choose. The less attractive woman has a smaller pool to choose from.
Good point about the WIFE store. I will point out that men will have casual sex with women they find LESS attractive. The exact opposite of women.
You cannot judge a mans level of interest in a LTR based on his desire to have sex.
Zaq 62
@Ruby
I am sorry I do not sugar coat this, but I do not see a great deal of sympathy coming from women on this blog for say “short” men.
As one woman said ” I don’t discriminate against short men – I just wouldn’t date one !”
I accept this. Women Can not help what they are attracted to.
Please read my comment again. Age is irrelevant. Men measure ALL women by the SAME standard. Angelina Jolie is judged against ALL women irrespective of age. She still wins. Many older women win.
Ruby 63
Zaq
First you said, “The problem is that men judge ALL women by the same measure – irrespective of age. So fewer older women make the cut. A young woman waiting for a man to meet all her requirements will only succeed in reducing her options because her value is falling.” Then you said, “Age is irrelevant. Men measure ALL women by the SAME standard. Angelina Jolie is judged against ALL women irrespective of age. She still wins. Many older women win.”
First it sounds like this measure is based primarily on a woman’s youth, then it is not, and maybe is based more on beauty? That seems contradictory to me. But I’m not really sure what this standard is.
There was also a speed dating study where both men and women were given the opportunity to move around the room to different partners. Typically, it’s the men who move around and the women sit still. Regardless of gender, they found that whomever was actively moving through the prospective dates tended to like them more, and find them more attractive as a whole. The mere act of approaching gave both sexes more confidence, and made them feel more positively towards the opposite sex. Conversely, being approached by many members of the opposite sex made both sexes more selective.
Helen 64
Zaq and Tom, thanks for the clarification. I do find it funny how it’s described as the “dreaded ‘friend’ category” – it’s not so bad to be friends with a member of the opposite sex. But maybe our egos don’t like the idea that someone doesn’t find us attractive, too. At the end of the day, though, we can only be with one person at a time, circular dating notwithstanding (wink in Evan’s direction). The next best thing for everyone else is friendship.
On the other hand, I’ve heard it said that men can’t be friends with women whom they find attractive. I don’t know how true that is, but if it’s true, then… it is all very complicated.
Joe 65
@ Mia # 50:
I think women in their 20s have it best. They attract men a couple years younger through many years older. I don’t think women older than their 20s have quite the range of suitors (in general).
@ Helen # 58:
Possibly, but I believe it’s been established that men have a lower bar when defining attractiveness–in general, men find more women attractive than women find men attractive.
nathan 66
I don’t know about the other men here, but I tend to find a lot of women physically attractive. In fact, as I have gotten older, the field of what/who I find attractive has gotten wider, not narrower. Whatever “standard” Zaq is talking about isn’t in my experience. In fact, I think it’s kind of immature to have a single, ideal physical image you chase after, and measure all your dates against. Which leads me to my broader point: while there are biological elements to attraction that aren’t really in our control, a fair amount of what we find attractive is a choice. And/or is a product of pop culture narratives, and generalized peer pressure.
At the end of the day, though, physical attraction is simply one element. One that has a fair amount of fluidity if it’s present at all. I have had highly intense chemistry with a few women over a short period of time, and now barely feel a blip of attraction towards either of them because of knowing who they are more deeply. On the other hand, I have had a few relationships where a small bit of attraction grew much more intense over time for the same reasons. As long as there is something there in the beginning, you never know what will happen. And I really do think that those who let go of romanticized, stylized images such as celebrities as their yardsticks, find that there are more options. Not because the biological piece changed, but because all those that they used to be blind to are suddenly visible.
Zaq 67
@Ruby and Nathan.
I keep saying this. Beauty is NOT in the eyes of the beholder. Watch the video I posted in another thread.
It is hard wired in our brains. We have NO say in it. It is not based on an arbitrary social standard.
Men and women are driven by evolution to find certain things beautiful/attractive.
Does the individual look healthy. Healthy compared to everyone else. Healthy equals fertile. The young are more likely to be healthy.
Youth and beauty are two sides of the same coin.
Remember, men set the bar low. Women into their 40s can still pull off the “healthy” look
helene 68
I would agree with the men who say that they feel an instant physical attraction to a woman – or not. This is one of the things I LOVE about men – they are very easy to read. Turn up at a social event or a work event where you don’t know anyone and its very easy to assess what any of the men there think of you: if they like you, they talk to you. if they don’t lie you..they ignore you. Now other WOMEN… that’s a whole different ballgame. They can be so charming to you and secretly have decided they hate you…scary!
Nathan 69
Zaq apparently doesn’t think humans have much free will. I, on the other hand, do. Next, he will be saying that men are hardwired to cheat and that women shouldn’t expect monogamy. These evo psych theories are so tiresome.
Tom 70
Actually Helen “dreaded” might be a bit strong, but you’re right, my ego does take a little hit when I get the “let’s be friends” line! And yes it’s great having female friends
You make an interesting point wondering if men can be friends with women they’re attracted to; you’re probably right that many would secretly hope that one day it’ll happen.
I agree Nathan, I’m also attracted to a huge range of women (that’s my problem, I can’t pick one!)
Paragon 71
@ Ruby
“There was also a speed dating study where both men and women were given the opportunity to move around the room to different partners. Typically, it’s the men who move around and the women sit still. Regardless of gender, they found that whomever was actively moving through the prospective dates tended to like them more, and find them more attractive as a whole. The mere act of approaching gave both sexes more confidence, and made them feel more positively towards the opposite sex. Conversely, being approached by many members of the opposite sex made both sexes more selective.”
Are you sure this isn’t reversing causality, in that we should expect that those who are doing the approaching, are pursuing optimal outcomes(and thus, will always be attracted to those individuals whom THEY are approaching, while the same can not necessarily be said for when someone is being approached by someone else)?
@ Nathan
“Zaq apparently doesn’t think humans have much free will. I, on the other hand, do. Next, he will be saying that men are
hardwired to cheat and that women shouldn’t expect monogamy. These evo psych theories are so tiresome.”
People make compromises given their options.
And the more these options deviate from some hypothetical evolutionary optima, the more we should expect they resist compromise(we should also expect that men are more prone to compromise than women).
Zaq 72
Paragon, there are those among us who refuse to accept the findings of science on the nature of reality. No doubt they still think the earth is flat, and 6,000 years old.
@Helen @Tom
I agree friendship is difficult where there is physical attraction. I think the conclusion reached in “When Harry met Sally” is probably true.
And Tom, of course you are attracted to a wide range of women. That’s exactly what you are designed (evolved) to do.
Nathan 73
Painting those who disagree with you in the most extreme, negative light – that’s quite a classic dodge there Zaq. Bravo!
Ruby 74
Paragon #71
“Are you sure this isn’t reversing causality, in that we should expect that those who are doing the approaching, are pursuing optimal outcomes(and thus, will always be attracted to those individuals whom THEY are approaching, while the same can not necessarily be said for when someone is being approached by someone else)?”
The point is that it’s traditonally men who approach and pursue. So it’s not necessarily true that women are inherently more selective, and men more open; when the roles of pursuit were reversed, women also became more open to different men, while the men who were approached became more selective. Women approaching men were found to be no pickier than were the men who did the approaching.
Zaq 75
@Ruby 74
Science. A wonderful thing.
Many studies have been done which show that women are more selective. Indeed most female creatures are.
In this study we have women approaching men, and a (partial) reversal of the normal results. More women open to men.
However this one study does not invalidate all the other studies.
Scientists must investigate why the women exhibit this unusual behavior.
One possibility may be because the women were being forced to do something they wouldn’t naturally do, unless the men were extremely attractive. Men have evolved to approach women. It may be fooling the women’s brains into thinking the men must be attractive because why else would they be approaching them.
Another example of this is in trying to get someone to like you.
A psychological trick is not to do something helpful for them, but the reverse – ask them to do something for YOU.
This makes their brain think they must like you, because why else would they be expending all this energy for you.
It is easy to confuse peoples brains.
Bottom line, you must consider ALL study results, not cherry pick the ones that support your world view.
Paragon 76
@ Ruby
“The point is that it’s traditonally men who approach and pursue. So it’s not necessarily true that women are inherently more selective, and men more open; when the roles of pursuit were reversed, women also became more open to different men, while the men who were approached became more selective. Women approaching men were found to be no pickier than were the men who did the approaching.”
I was confused.
I think I located the study, and if so, I suspect the results are explained by the fact that the non rotating(non approaching) party will tend to assume interest from everyone who approaches.
Thus, they will (spuriously) consider many more ‘options’, making them more selective in focusing on an optimal choice(while the approaching sex will be less inclined to make these same assumptions, and thus less likely to fixate on any one particular prospect).
So, I think the results speak to a cognitive effect, which is, in any case, the consequence of controlled experiment, and far from real world expectations(where the fact that males tend to initiate is an indication that they are less selective).
But, we don’t need studies to confirm that women are more selective, we have corollary with a male biased operational sex ratio(among other evolutionary principles).
Helen 77
Zaq wrote: “Another example of this is in trying to get someone to like you. A psychological trick is not to do something helpful for them, but the reverse – ask them to do something for YOU. This makes their brain think they must like you, because why else would they be expending all this energy for you.”
I wonder where you heard this? And if it was an experiment done only on men. Because I don’t like a person better if he or she asks me to do something for him/her.
I would be curious about whether this is true of men, though: that they like it when others ask them for favors. I have noticed that when I ask men for help, most seem eager to respond. Honestly, that’s one thing I like about men; they are always happy to help. I didn’t think it necessarily meant they’d like ME better for asking, though.
Paragon 78
@ Helen.
When people are approaching YOU in a speed dating context, the reasonable assumption is that they are interested(which may have something to do with formal ‘approach’ body-language – smiling, etc. – being misconstrued for genuine indications of interest).
If MANY people are approaching someone in such a context, that someone is going to assume they have MANY options, which is naturally going to make them MORE selective, than if THEY were doing the approaching.
This happens because the former case is generally(ie. when these behaviors are not being experimentally manipulated) communicating more reliable information about a higher number of interested parties.
Helen 79
Paragon: thanks, but I’m not sure that entirely answers the question. Does a man like a woman better just because he does something helpful for her? That seemed to be what Zaq was insinuating.
Paragon 80
@ Helen.
I don’t know – it would be something to ask a neuro-scientist, perhaps – or someone who is familiar with any relevant studies on the subject.
But, many cognitive biases can be manipulated by spurious stimuli, so I would think it is possible.
And, I think that this particular speed dating study was speaking to just such an effect, in that speed dating manipulates the normal parameters of courtship(ie. selective interactions), sufficiently to ‘confuse’ our perceptions.
The way this works, is I think that people are misinterpreting courteous body language(like smiling, etc.) as genuine signals of interest.
I think the confusion happens because speed-dating precludes selective interactions which would normally *limit* spurious signals of interest, keeping them to a minimum(ie. that courtship interactions imply genuine interest is generally a justified assumption in other contexts).
But, in the case of speed-dating, the lack of selective interactions ensures a high incidence of spurious signalling, which is (apparently) difficult to falsify – lending to overconfidence, and greater selectivity, in the party being approached.
Evan Marc Katz 81
Is it me or can anyone else not understand a word that Paragon says? You’re a very bright guy – and we agree on most things – but I find it terribly hard to connect with your posts. Sometimes simpler words are more powerful.
Helen 82
Evan, I think I get the general point of what Paragon is trying to say. It is that speed-dating is not a reliable way to test how courtship proceeds in real life, which goes back to a point Ruby raised about how a speed-dating study showed that when women did the approaching, they found more men attractive, and men found fewer women attractive.
THIS, in turn, went back to how several men here claimed that women are more selective than men, which in turn goes all the way back to our OP and whether her expectations for her wonderful man were unrealistic.
To all this,
I have this to add: yes, I do think women are more selective than men in courtship. But it is not because we are morally inferior or overconfident; it is because historically, we’ve risked losing more if a particular mating does not work out. Women are the ones who enter the risks of pregnancy and childbearing (not to mention a higher risk of STIs), and for the sake of spreading genes do not gain as much as men by widespread sexual activity. Hence, our species has evolved such that women look for men who are likely to commit to them long-term and can provide resources. Modern society is changing some of these norms, but many of the old norms are still around.
But here’s a catch: the way our society has evolved, the traits that make a man a long-term committer vs. a man who can provide resources are not necessarily the same! And I think THIS is the dilemma that has motivated many of the comments on this thread and others. What many of us, male and female, found objectionable about Sam’s original letter is that she found a man who appears to have BOTH sets of traits, yet she still wasn’t satisfied. (But later she posted back with a different viewpoint, which is good to see. See, Evan, your blog is doing a world of good.)
Paragon 83
Sorry – I was just trying to communicate that because speed-dating is such an unconventional courtship practice(ie. everyone meets everyone else), the non rotating sex(traditionally females, but in this study, both)may be confusing friendly/courteous body language for genuine signals of interest(since such signals DO tend to imply interest in other settings – but not necessarily in a speed dating context, where these behaviors are procedurally manipulated).
This could result in overconfidence(ie. assuming a genuine level of interest from everyone who sits down with you and ‘smiles’, etc.), and thus higher selectivity, for the non-rotating sex(again, traditionally females).
It is simple to test this hypothesis, but I won’t be holding my breath.
susan 84
spurious stimuli….hmmm sounds like a dodgy kind of date to me:)
Karl R 85
Evan asked: (#81)
“Is it me or can anyone else not understand a word that Paragon says?”
I can understand what he says, but I agree that he could express himself better using simpler language.
My initial impression was that he was deliberately being more complex than necessary in order to sound impressive. I’ve since decided that this is his normal writing style, not an affectation. Regardless, it comes across as overblown; by the time I get to the end of his posts I no longer care about the point he was trying to make.
Helen said: (#82)
“I do think women are more selective than men in courtship. But it is not because we are morally inferior or overconfident; it is because historically, we’ve risked losing more if a particular mating does not work out.”
“Hence, our species has evolved such that women look for men who are likely to commit to them long-term and can provide resources.”
I agree with your assessment. But I’d like to add one observation to it. After reading this blog for five or six years, I’ve seen people use these evolutionary psychology (on a personal level) in two ways.
1. Some people see the evolutionary basis for their own behavior, realize that it’s no longer applicable to their own lives, and make a conscious choice to override instinctive behaviors.
2. A larger group (or perhaps it’s just a more vocal group) point to these instinctive behaviors as justification to not change, even though these behaviors prevent them from pursuing/accepting good, available potential partners.
Discussions of evolutionary psychology are useful … up to a point. The real benifit (or detriment) comes from how people choose to use the information.
Helen 86
Karl R: I agree. I tend to go easy on people who follow these norms, though, because it’s not just about biology or evolution. It’s also part of society and culture. Taken together, these norms are VERY difficult to overcome. Many are not aware that they’re following them; even when they can see rationally that an old norm doesn’t apply to them, it can still be difficult to overcome. Changing paradigms has never been easy, especially when your genes and all of society are pointing in another direction.
Having kids is one example. The human species doesn’t need to worry about extinction if a number of individuals don’t reproduce. But many do want it because they feel a biological urge to spread their genes. It’s not just biology, though. Even those who can’t or don’t want kids often feel shamed or at least questioned by society. It’s unfair and irrational (whether someone else has kids is none of our business), but it happens, and this pressure is hard to overcome.
Your point about overriding instinctive behaviors: again, I agree with you. But I think that people often believe that their instincts exist for a reason, and that reason has to do with their survival (or their genes’ survival). Even though they don’t state it explicitly like this, that is what they think, and why they don’t make more of an effort to override instinct.
Eljem 87
@ Helen #77
I did a bit of googling and I think a study carried out in 1969 supports Zaq’s point (John Jecker, David Landy “Liking a Person as a Function of Doing Him a Favour”). According to Wikipedia, this is also sometimes called the Ben Franklin effect. I didn’t check to see if the study has been endorsed/discredited though.
Just for interest, Machiavelli was saying the same thing five centuries ago: “The nature of man is such that people consider themselves put under an obligation as much by the benefits they confer as by those they receive.” (Chapter 10, The Prince). Not that this is scientific proof, of course!
Also, I too have noticed that most men respond positively when I ask them for help (albeit more so for lifting heavy boxes than with food shopping).
Paragon 88
@ EMK
I sincerely accept all the valid criticisms everyone has made of my posts.
I have a bad habit of posting late, compounded by inadequate proof-reading.
I will endeavor to improve.
@ Helen
“Evan, I think I get the general point of what Paragon is trying to say. It is that speed-dating is not a reliable way to test how courtship proceeds in real life”
Yeah, and because speed dating is so different, many of the physical cues we rely upon to identify romantic interest(ie. like a benign approach), are no longer a reliable means of information.
My argument is, that our perceptions may be so sensitized to these kinds of cues, that we are still influenced by them, even in an unconventional setting where they are unreliable(like speed-dating).
“To all this,
I have this to add: yes, I do think women are more selective than men in courtship. But it is not because we are morally inferior or overconfident”
No, they are more selective because they evolved that way, to compensate for their lower reproductive potential(relative to males) – a bias for quality over quantity.
“Hence, our species has evolved such that women look for men who are likely to commit to them long-term and can provide resources.”
Yeah, but we should expect a selection bias that is in some proportion to the advantages that long-term mating poses to the (reproductive)success of her offspring.
Thus, if the advantages are small, then there will be less selections bias for long term mating(which explains a large population of single, and increasingly disinterested, women).
“But here’s a catch: the way our society has evolved, the traits that make a man a long-term committer vs. a man who can provide resources are not necessarily the same!”
That’s part of the dilemma.
The other part, is that guys are most likely to commit to the highest value women they can get, and engage the rest in short term relationships(which, as far as commitment is concerned, recommends males with modest options, or risk averse males who appreciate the value of a good catch – assuming a good catch, of course).
Zaq 89
@Helen
Sorry can’t remember where I read the original article – psychology website ?
Point here is “liking” not “desiring”.
Getting someone to desire you involves exhibiting those cues that the other gender will instinctively respond to.
Women are usually good at this – men less so.
But whether Karl likes it or not, men exhibiting high status will be pressing the right button to trigger female attraction, and should seek to do so.
Exhibiting wealth is one way, but being very good at something also works – say dancing for instance !
Attraction IS biology, and as you point out, is very difficult to override. My testosterone levels will rise, just by being in the proximity of fertile females. I really don’t have a say in it,
Helen 90
Thanks, all, for the clarifications. Eljam, you remember more of “The Prince” than I do. And I totally agree about men helping us with heavy boxes – they’re great.
Karl and Zaq: your comments have been providing me food for thought. I’ve come up with one example where societal and cultural norms seem to overcome instinct (genes), and that is racism in mating. Some studies have attempted to link racism as a whole (not racism in mating) with ancient times (possibly even before we diverged from modern-day chimpanzees), in which a member of your own tribe was more likely to help you than a member of a different tribe.
But biologically, it is better to mate with someone who is very different from you genetically, to ensure the healthiest offspring: “hybrid vigor.” This, too, was proven in a scientific experiment in which women were asked to smell the t-shirts of men who had worn them for some time, and choose which man they found most attractive based on scent. These women did not all choose the same shirt (the same man) as being the most attractive. They each, individually, chose the man whose smell indicated that his genes were the most different from hers: differences in histocompatibility.
This being the case, one would think there would be more interracial couplings as the world becomes ever smaller. And the number of these is indeed increasing. But to some degree, societal norms still hold us back.
Paragon 91
@ Helen
“Karl and Zaq: your comments have been providing me food for thought. I’ve come up with one example where societal and cultural norms seem to overcome instinct (genes), and that is racism in mating. Some studies have attempted to link racism as a whole (not racism in mating) with ancient times (possibly even before we diverged from modern-day chimpanzees), in which a member of your own tribe was more likely to help you than a member of a different tribe.”
The Justification is observed in parochial altruism.
“But biologically, it is better to mate with someone who is very different from you genetically, to ensure the healthiest offspring: “hybrid vigor.””
Yes, all else being equal, heterozygote advantage will help resist deleterious recessives(loss of function mutations), and result in a better adapted organism.
“This, too, was proven in a scientific experiment in which women were asked to smell the t-shirts of men who had worn them for some time, and choose which man they found most attractive based on scent. These women did not all choose the same shirt (the same man) as being the most attractive. They each, individually, chose the man whose smell indicated that his genes were the most different from hers: differences in histocompatibility.”
But, of course, scent is not a strong determinant of human mate choice.
“This being the case, one would think there would be more interracial couplings as the world becomes ever smaller. And the number of these is indeed increasing. But to some degree, societal norms still hold us back.”
Yes, but scocietal norms are subject to the principle of Koinophilia – where populations are under evolutionary pressure that works to limit deviation from population normal – this pressure manifests in the kinds of ‘social’ biases that you are observing.
Karl R 92
Zaq said: (#89)
“But whether Karl likes it or not, men exhibiting high status will be pressing the right button to trigger female attraction, and should seek to do so.”
The advantage comes from being able to deliberately push other people’s buttons, without blindly reacting when your own buttons are pushed.
So I recommend that men exhibit high status behaviors, -and- I recommend women avoid falling for those behaviors.
Zaq said: (#89)
“Attraction IS biology, and as you point out, is very difficult to override. My testosterone levels will rise, just by being in the proximity of fertile females. I really don’t have a say in it,”
I don’t want kids. While my instinctive tendencies may draw me towards fertile females, their fertility provides no benefit to me.
And I think you overestimate the intelligence of biology. My testosterone level goes up when the opportunity for sex arises … regardless of whether the female is fertile or not.
Zaq said: (#75)
“Another example of this is in trying to get someone to like you. A psychological trick is not to do something helpful for them, but the reverse – ask them to do something for YOU.”
Zaq said: (#89)
“Point here is ‘liking’ not ‘desiring’.”
I’ve gotten a few girlfriends that way, so I’m not certain there’s a strong distinction between the two.
Rosy 93
Evan, hitting on twenty; super metaphor!
And Sam, if your chap is overall a decent fella, and he certainly sounds it, if there are a few areas in which you feel he’s slightly lacking (witty banter and the like) do you have friends who are experts in these areas? If not, maybe now’s the time to look for some?
Aubrey 94
This is all so true! It doesnt matter if a guy has it all if you dont feel that spark! I wish I had realized that before dating people with qualities on my list but who I didnt feel excited about. I guess thinking someone is cute because of their picture isnt all that matters, even if it is from datingheadshots.
Goldie 95
Oh noes, I found my name in #3!
Helen, like I said before, I’m sure you and your husband have some kind of intellectual connection going on, so in no way do I disagree with the way you run your family 
I do disagree with the statement that a couple doesn’t need all that intellectualy, bantery stuff, because they’ll be too busy raising kids to ever chat with each other anyway. And the reason why I disagree is that, unless the couple’s last name is Duggar and they plan on having a new baby every year till the end of time, in 16-20 years their children will be driving and only coming home to sleep, if that. In 20-25 years, their children will be out of the house altogether. This happens sooner than you think, time goes by pretty darn fast! And it is quite shocking to suddenly find yourself (I mean the general “you,” of course) in an empty house with a person you have no common interests and nothing to talk about with. In fact, at that point, it is likely that you won’t find yourselves in an empty house together, because each of you will be off with your own friends, doing your own thing, living under the same roof as roommates. This is actually how people get divorced after 20-25 years together. On the other hand, if the couple has the verbal banter going, but cannot work together as a team on mundane household/childrearing jobs, that doesn’t bode well either — no amount of verbal banter will help you retain respect for a spouse who has let you down and offloaded his or her share of work on you multiple times over the years. So I’d say a good husband would need to have all the qualities you list – kindness, easygoingness etc, plus have some level of intellectual connection as well. It appears that Sam’s BF has all these qualities, so it’s great that she’s decided to stick with him!
Helen 96
Goldie, you do bring up good points. I had taken for granted the fact that hub and I do have the same friends, rather than all our friends being separate (although since we each befriended different people through our work and elsewhere, we may feel closer to one than the other does). We enjoy doing activities together, but since neither of us talks much, we don’t seem to spend much time talking. I think it might well be the case that everyone’s need for conversation is different. (What is that: an introvert-extrovert thing?)