Being Amazing May Hurt Your Chances To Find Love
- Dating, What You May Be Doing Wrong
No one wants to be merely average.
And, if you ask around, few of us think we’re average. In fact, I’ll bet that you feel you are smarter than average, kinder than average and better looking than average.
But what you may not have considered is that having high self-worth can actually be detrimental to your chances to find love.
It certainly was for me, your humble dating coach.
I tell my story – and illustrate how it reflects on you – in the first chapter of my book, “Why He Disappeared – The Smart, Strong, Successful Woman’s Guide to Understanding Men and Keeping the Right One Hooked Forever.”
Now don’t get me wrong, it’s great to have self-esteem, especially when it comes to dating. Self-esteem carries us through tough times – through loneliness, through rejection – and allows us to keep getting out there even when things are bleak.
Moreover, when confidence comes with true self-esteem, it proves to be an extremely attractive quality. According to the Harlequin Books Romance Report (for which I was a spokesman in 2006), both men and women feel that confidence is the most important attribute in a partner. Which is why it pains me to report that confidence has a serious downside as well.
The downside of confidence is that it’s only a hair’s breadth away from arrogance. And if you think you’re better than others, it will inadvertently come across.
It’s not only cute, Ivy League investment bankers that give off a whiff of arrogance.
The downside of confidence is that it’s only a hair’s breadth away from arrogance.
It’s the vegan who can’t stand meat eaters.
It’s the born-again Christian who looks down on non-believers.
It’s the Democrat who thinks all Republicans are evil.
I’m not singling out those people, per se. After all, we all do this, to some degree – mainly by putting our own beliefs up on a pedestal. Basically, most people’s worldviews are: “If you agree with me, you’re right; if you disagree with me, you’re wrong.”
Except that’s not how the world works. People don’t want to be with someone who makes them feel “wrong.”
I couldn’t be with my wife if she were always reminding me how I’m going to hell for not being Christian.
She couldn’t be with me if I were constantly harping on her to get a more lucrative job.
This confidence (which is actually narcissism) comes out of insecurity. Instead of accepting the fact that other people have different beliefs, most of which are perfectly valid, you expect your dates to be in complete lockstep with you.
I can’t tell you how many times I have had a client – a bright, kind, lovely woman – tell me that her partner had to have certain beliefs in common to be her husband.
You don’t need a clone. You need a PARTNER.
You’ve been in relationships before. Isn’t most of your time spent talking about what you’re going to eat, where you’re going this weekend, what’s happening at work, how much money you’re saving, and all the things you’d like to do in the future? When you have kids, I’m pretty sure they’re the dominant topic of conversation.
You know how much time we spend talking about the Iraq War? Pretty much none.
So to stake your relationship – which is more dependent on kindness, consistency, values and long-term goals – on his belief about what happens after you die, or about the merits of big government – is incredibly shortsighted.
My relationship survives just fine when I go on some liberal rant to my wife. She doesn’t have to agree with everything I say in order to love me.
She loves me because I put her needs first, because I’d do anything for her, because I make her laugh, because I protect her. If she got rid of me because of politics, religion, or my inability to run a 5K, I predict she’d be making a big mistake.
I can’t stress this enough: You don’t need a clone. You need a PARTNER.
So while it’s normal to want a partner who’s on your exact wavelength, it is, by no means imperative. In fact, if you look at relationships in your past, you may just find that the man who was too similar to you did NOT make a good fit for your life.
To give you a stark portrayal of how your desires may be not only detrimental, but unrealistic, I’d like to ask you to do this simple math exercise. So, please write down your answers so you can do the multiplication…
What percentage of men is attractive enough to date?
What percentage of men is intelligent/interesting enough to date?
What percentage of men is emotionally available enough to date?
What percentage of men is financially stable enough to date?
What percentage of men do you “click” with on a date?
Finally, what percentage of men feel that YOU are attractive, intelligent, emotionally available, financially stable, and compatible?
When you go through this exercise – and multiply those numbers together – you’ll see that, by your standards, almost NOBODY qualifies for a date with you. .0001%, maybe.
But wait, there’s more!
See, amazing and unique women often aren’t content finding a mate who is in the .0001 percentile. You still need to do a little more filtering beyond being cute, smart, successful, available, and having chemistry. For example:
Frankly, I think you’re lucky if you find someone who PUTS UP with your obsession.
“I’m a huge dog person – I have three of them – and the man I’m with has to feel the same way about animals.”
“I’m a triathlete and wake up at 5:30am every day to train – and I want to be able to share my passion with my girlfriend.”
“I’m an indie music freak. There’s nothing worse to me than a guy with middle of the road taste in music.”
Factor in these kinds of things, and it becomes nearly impossible to find love. What percentage of men has three dogs? What percentage of women wants to wake up and run 5 miles? And why in God’s name do you have to share these interests anyway?
Frankly, I think you’re lucky if you find someone who PUTS UP with your obsession.
And that goes for anyone who does something in the extreme: work, travel, spend time with family.
It’s a lot to ask for someone to be agreeable; it’s unfair to ask them to feel the same as you feel. If you DO find the person who is an extreme dog person, then you may have to accept the fact that he’s may not be as financially stable or attractive as you’d like.
Relationships involve trade-offs.
Compromise isn’t just for “other” people who have to put up with you.
And if you make EVERYTHING a deal-breaker, you can’t be too surprised when you’re still standing alone.
Gem says
Evan,
“So to stake your relationship — which is more dependent on kindness, consistency, values and long-term goals — on his belief about what happens after you die, or about the merits of big government — is incredibly shortsighted.”
Gotta disagree here. You are putting profound religious and political beliefs in the same category as hobbies, music appreciation and the love of pets. If relationships are dependent on “values,” as you say someone who takes their religious belief seriously as in “Truth” and not just a social feel-good endeavor, most certainly SHOULD choose someone like-minded. Political issues are often are value-based as well.
I agree wholeheartedly that not everything should be a deal breaker but just because you and your wife don’t consider religion/politics necessary ideals to share doesn’t mean others who do are “shortsighted.”
I say pick 5 must haves and seriously flex on the rest, but it’s up to each person to decide which things are frivilous, not the dating coach.
Goldberry says
I agree, Gem. Especially if you want to raise your children with certain beliefs and to be united as a family in that way. For some people that’s not important, but having extremely divergent religious or political views in one family communicates to children that the difference isn’t important. For some political issues I could accept that, but not religious ones.
Francesca says
Hi Evan,
I recently re-discovered your site and just ordered and read (last night) your ebook WHD (very good, btw, but I think I need to read it a few more times to let it all in). This is my first time commenting.
This post resonated with me, and I think I sometimes do or can be a little of both: compromising and uncompromising when it comes to the “little” stuff. Example: I’m a foodie. It’s a big part of how I socialize and cooking is how I show love and appreciation for people. I also love animals. If I meet a guy who’s not so into cats, but digs dogs, I can deal with that. But if he doesn’t so much care about food, even if I make it for him, that’s a little harder for me to accept b/c it makes me feel unappreciated or not “seen.” Am I being unfair to this otherwise good and good-for-me guy?
Not sure that made sense. Just curious what your thoughts are.
Thanks 🙂
Cat says
Francesca, #3, If he’s truly an “otherwise good and good-for-me guy” then you should keep him! Learn to accept that he’s not a foodie like you and won’t make the big deal over food that you’d like him to. However, you don’t have to give up your enjoyment of cooking, so make sure you invite friends over regularly who will give you the oooh’s and aaaaah’s that you need. (Hey, I get it, I love to cook, too! A cook without an appreciative taster is like a writer with no readers.)
Evan Marc Katz says
Thank you, Gem, for deftly illustrating the problem with religion and any other sort of belief that impedes one from finding love. As long as my wife and I are good to each other, it really doesn’t matter that I’m an athiest and she’s a believer – unless she MAKES it matter. And if she MADE it matter, she’d be missing out on a pretty decent husband. As such, ALL dealbreakers are completely arbitrary. If you make height matter because you’re a 5’10” woman, that’s fine. Just know you’re cutting off over 50% of the population. Religious people of any stripe who insist that their partners believe as they do are doing the exact same thing under the guise of “values”.
Listen, if you go to church every Sunday and tithe 10% of your money and he doesn’t, that’s HABITUAL, and could be a dealbreaker. But beliefs? Who cares? I believe in higher taxes and my wife believes in lower taxes; I couldn’t think of a stupider thing to break up a couple.
By the way, if you insist that a man has inferior values because he doesn’t believe in, say, an afterlife, you’re right, you probably should find a guy more like you – narrowminded and narcissistic enough to think that there’s something wrong with someone who isn’t in complete lockstep with them.
Marriage is all about agreeing to disagree and loving each other anyway.
I can’t tell you how foolhardy it is to marry because you both love skiing or Coldplay or, yes, Jesus. Because none of those are true substitutes for kindness, compatibility, ways of dealing with money, ability to fight and make up, loyalty, honesty, and humor.
Goldberry says
I agree, Gem. Especially if you want to raise your children with certain beliefs and to be united as a family in that way. For some people that’s not important, but having extremely divergent religious or political views in one family communicates to children that the difference isn’t important. For some political issues I could accept that, but not religious ones.
And Evan, you and possibly your wife must be relativists. Many people are not and don’t see a need to be. In fact their religious beliefs are *more of a priority* to them than finding love… Why should they be swayed by someone else’s insistence that their values are out of whack? They are focused on eternity instead of just getting what they want now at any cost.
lawyerette says
As someone who is the product of a mixed-religion, mixed-race marriage, I will jump in and say absolutely religion is something you can discriminate on for a marriage partner. I think it’s easy to assume that it is not a big deal day to day, because it really doesn’t matter for most people until children enter the picture. If BOTH spouses are okay with not giving the children any religious instruction, then it can work. If they agree to let one religion take the lead, then it can work. But what happens when Mom wants the baby baptized and Dad thinks its stupid/pointless? Or doesn’t want it? Then it becomes a huge issue. Same for Sunday school, or parochial schooling.
I think Evan thinks about this the wrong way because he’s not religious and is discounting the fact that religion is a way of ordering the lives of believers. Ie, it’s not just something that you think or feel internally, but is the way you LIVE. If you let Christ or Buddha or Mohammad or whoever order your steps, then it’s going to be difficult for you to share a life with someone who is not obeying those same orders. If a marriage boils down to a shared life together, then that life has include religion or not. Religion is a HUGE component of long-term compatibility.
Evan Marc Katz says
That’s exactly what I said, Lawyerette. If your life revolves around church, mosque or temple and all of the rituals involved, it could be a dealbreaker. If it’s just a belief, however, you’d be wise to live and let live.
Francesca says
Thanks, Cat! That makes a lot of sense…especially how you related it to being a writer with no readers. I know that your mate shouldn’t and can’t provide for your every need and that’s why you have girlfriends and all different types of friends, but I guess I keep thinking how much richer life would be to be able to share and appreciate something that’s so important to the other person’s life and/or personality. By the way, there is no guy…it was just a hypothetical situation. And, all other things being good, I don’t believe I would dismiss the guy for this one thing. It might tip the cart if it were one of a bunch of things that we couldn’t appreciate each other for.
This is a really good discussion by the way. I think it’s highlighting the need to clarify what we mean when we say “compatible”…where do you draw the line of x, y, z means we’re compatible, but a, b and c don’t matter. It’s not about being clones, it’s about valuing what the other person values, to an extent. How much do you need to have in common? What do couples’ conversations consist of if they don’t have things in common?
Goldie says
@ lawyerette #4, as someone who’s been on both sides (Atheist -> Christian -> Atheist-leaning Agnostic), I completely agree with you that “religion is … not just something that you think or feel internally, but is the way you LIVE.” But people change their religious views every day. My local meetup group is full of atheists who used to go to church and pay tithe. Therefore, I still would not advise to choose a partner based on that. Instead, I’d suggest to look for an open mind and tolerance of other opinions (provided, of course, that you’re an open-minded and tolerant person yourself). This way, no matter how both your worldviews change in the future, it won’t pull the rug out from under your relationship.
From my short dating experience so far, the first guy I got serious with after my divorce, had views and interests 100% compatible to mine. But his outlook on life was way different – my glass is half-full, his is half-empty. Things fell apart very quickly between us, even though we listened to the same music and voted for the same people. I then started dating an old friend of mine. On our second date, one of us accidentally mentioned politics and that was when we found out that his views were complete opposite of mine. So here I am with a great guy that I’ve known for ten years and always had an amazing connection with – but he voted for McCain. What to do? Right there and then, we made a pact not to talk about politics, and stuck with it the whole four months we were together. We both had a great time, and ended things for reasons not related to our incompatibility.
I think people’s personalities and general attitudes/outlooks are a bigger part of long-term compatibility than the likes/dislikes/beliefs they happen to have at the moment.
P says
I don’t know, Evan. Sometimes I love your advice and other times you baffle me. Are you saying that beliefs don’t matter at all? For example, if I support gay marriage, and want to raise my kids with someone who not feels the same way but is also going to accept our child should they be gay… I’m being silly and narrowminded? I don’t think things like that are negotiable. I don’t care about my partner’s views on taxes, or abortions, or war. But I do care when it comes to them being adamently opposed to someone because of their sexuality. Or color or race, or anything else. How can that not matter? How can I “live and let live” with someone who thinks my gay friends and family members shouldn’t be allowed the same rights they have? I get that it’s really irrelevant whether we like the same music or movies, but to say core beliefs don’t matter.. I don’t know, I just have to disagree. I also don’t think that’s being stubborn or not compromisable to want to date someone you’re attracted to, who’s also emotionally stable and intelligent and that you click with. If I have to spend the rest of my life with someone, we HAVE to click. Why get married otherwise? Because the guy was a good option? That doesn’t sound right.
Evan Marc Katz says
Okay, P. I’m going to play God for a second. I hereby give you an amazing man who could make you happy forever: tall, cute, successful, giving, doting, family-oriented, sane, stable, funny, warm and excellent in bed. He doesn’t believe in gay marriage. You can break up with him for it, or you can marry him because he’s the perfect husband, and trust, that in the slim chance you have a gay daughter, he’ll likely change his mind about gay marriage. It’s your call.
But these are silly hypotheticals. Because really, do you think you’d find the perfect man who makes you happy who is also an avowed racist? That’s really not that point of my piece and it takes us far off track.
The point is that a person doesn’t have to be in lockstep with you to be an amazing life partner. And if you think they do, you’re probably going to struggle in love. That’s it from me for today.
Gem says
Evan,
“Thank you, Gem, for deftly illustrating the problem with religion and any other sort of belief that impedes one from finding love.”
Purposely choosing to find a partner with the same religious viewpoint need not impede a person from finding love. That’s a bit pessimistic for a usually optimistic guy.
“it really doesn’t matter that I’m an athiest and she’s a believer – unless she MAKES it matter.”
Agreed, and if it matters to someone else, that is not a foolish position to take. Isn’t that the whole point of deciding what criteria to look for in a partner? Because we’re MAKING those things matter? Otherwise, I may as well pick a name out of the phone book.
“if you insist that a man has inferiior values because he doesn’t believe in, say, an afterlife, you’re right, you probably should find a guy more like you – narrowminded and narcissistic enough to think that there’s something wrong with someone who isn’t in complete lockstep with them”
If religious belief is on the list for a person because it represents a construct of values, a moral compass and deep belief in what is true which permeates every aspect of the way they lead their life, who are any of us to say the desire to find a partner with the same conviction is narrow minded and narcissistic? That’s quite a judgment on your part. If anyone sounds as if they think another’s beliefs are inferior and wrong, it’s you.
I hold no judgment on anyone who seeks to find a partner with certain qualities, whatever they may be. If someone is very social and refuses to date complete homebodies, because they know they would be unhappy long term with that very different lifestyle then I respect that they know what they need and should get it. I wouldn’t presume to tell them they are narrowminded and narcissistic and have impeded their chance at love.
Are people narrowing the dating pool the higher their list of qualities gets? You betcha. So saying to have perspective about what is really important and let go of the little things is wise. Discerning the difference is even better.
Evan Marc Katz says
I never talk about “right and wrong”, Gem. I talk about “effective and ineffective” in terms of finding love. People who think their partner has to be a triathlete, 6’2″, a good dancer, or a devout Jew aren’t at all wrong. They may just be passing up a lot of amazing life partners for something that has very little to do with the day-to-day machinations of a real relationship. Good luck to you.
Karl R says
lawyerette said: (#4)
“If you let Christ or Buddha or Mohammad or whoever order your steps, then it’s going to be difficult for you to share a life with someone who is not obeying those same orders.”
What makes you think that different religions are following different orders?
Christianity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Baha’i: And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself.
Confucianism: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.
Hinduism: One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
Islam: That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.
Jainism: Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality, treat others with respect and compassion.
Judaism: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation.
Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
That’s a starting sample. Lots of atheists, agnostics and humanists would also agree that those statements are a foundation for ethical behavior.
The whole concept that you can only follow one religion is very much a Western line of thought. In China it would not be uncommon to find someone who is a practicing Buddhist, Confucianist and Taoist. In Japan you could find someone who is a Buddhist, Christian and Shintoist.
Francesca asked: (#6)
“How much do you need to have in common?”
My guideline is that I want to have one shared interest with a girlfriend. That way there’s something we enjoy doing together.
Francesca asked: (#6)
“What do couples’ conversations consist of if they don’t have things in common?”
I don’t share my girlfriend’s love of animals. That doesn’t mean I’m bored if she’s telling me something about them. The same is true for a few of my interests (like compartive religion). And as a couple, we spend some time each day talking about our jobs. Current events are another recurring topic.
And you can’t underestimate the conversation potential of gossip, especially if you have mutual acquaintances.
JB says
Evan is right,you gals are missing the point(I’m assuming most of you disagreeing are women).I think he’s saying that if you have a gigantic list of “must have’s”,”deal breakers” etc…. and you’re not flexible on at least some of the things you MAY be missing out on a guy who would be a great boyfriend/husband.
He preaches that all the time. If you want to wait for “Mr.Doesn’t Exist”(.0001%)to come along at least you’ll know why he never shows.
Internet dating has made it too easy for everyone to “disqualify” everyone by checking off so many little boxes that your search results come back with very few on a site where there’s a 500,000 or more people. They think you have to have everything in common on top of being “totally hot”,make”x” amount of money and have a graduate degree in order to be compatible. Good luck with that! I wonder if when I’m in a nursing home I’ll STILL be getting disqualified for what my degree was in,what my job title WAS or what kind of music I listened to?….lol Maybe by then my charming personality will be enough to get a lovely lady to sit and play “Bingo” with me. Nahhhh…she’ll probably be disqualifying me because my hair is thinning and my wheelchair isn’t a newer motorised model…..
Ohh well…her loss. 😉
Honey says
I’m with JB, though I would hypothesize that most folks are deliberately obfuscating the point because it is easier (and less scary) than making a change in their lives.
As long as you approach love with a list of demands and things that you MUST get out of it before you will deign to participate – you will almost always fail to find it.
It is when you approach love with a list of things you are willing to sacrifice and things that you want to give to someone else – that you will find the one who gives back.
I don’t think Evan is saying that your must-haves need to be the same as his (though he is so defensive this doesn’t come across clearly). Atheists, particularly, are guilty of the myopic view that religion doesn’t or shouldn’t matter (I should know, I’m an atheist too). But there is a big difference between being devout, and practicing, and nominally affiliated with a particular religion, and I think what he is getting at is that a lot of people who would consider themselves “nominally affiliated” if questioned closely approach the dating process as if they were devout, and because of that they overlook a lot of people.
Similarly, when it comes to politics there is a big difference between an elected official, someone who volunteers for MoveOn or CPAC during election cycles, someone who just sends in their write-in ballot, and someone who doesn’t follow the news at all. A lot of people who just send in their ballots every election cycle approach the dating process as if they were elected officials, and because of that they overlook a lot of people.
By all means, if you ARE devout or if you ARE an elected official, obviously that dominates your entire life in a way that compatibility in that arena is a must-have. Otherwise, there is probably a lot more wiggle room for compromise than you are currently admitting. And in any case, organized religions and political parties have so many people in them that they aren’t even really going to be the dealbreakers that matter.
The point is – for every thing that is non-negotiable, you are going to have to be negotiable on 5-10 other things to make it happen. And, it’s not really productive (or fair) to rule out 99.999% of other people and then complain that no one’s willing to date YOU.
Sayanta says
Gem and Lawyerette-
I’m with you guys on the religion thing. I guess it’s just difficult for someone who’s not religious to understand the significance of it. A little like a white dude trying to know what it’s like to be black. Or vice versa.
starthrower68 says
I’m one of those dreaded born-again types, and here’s my take: Mr. & Mrs. EMK followed their hearts and conscience and made the decision to wed. I don’t believe that it’s my place to judge them as having done something bad and that EMK is destined to go to hell. It’s not for me to judge any couple, and I certainly wouldn’t call Evan and his wife wrong or bad for getting married.
There is a piece of scripture, however, that Christians point to when making the decision to only be with a fellow believer. 2 Corinthians 6:14 which says, “do not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever”. I’m not dismissing what Karl says when he compares the basic tennents of the major religions and I’m not dismissing Evan’s question. But people who hold matters of faith imporant may view this differently. Please note I’m NOT saying Mrs. EMK doesn’t hold her faith important. And it isn’t quite like political affiliation or music tastes, etc. Mileage will greatly vary from person to person on this one.
BeenThereDoneThat says
What an interesting discussion! I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints; LDS for short and Mormon to most of the world. AND I am a democrat – in Utah; the self proclaimed reddest state in the Union. If I were only willing to date others who were LDS and democrat, I would never have a date. Personally, I’d prefer a wonderful guy and if he happens to be LDS, icing on the cake. If not, I’d still be happy.
I like the idea of being tolerant of others and thier views. Just because they might not be mine, doens’t make them invalid. Here is the thing I’ve found though. Using the example of gay marriage again. If I met someone who was anti-gay and made comments to me constantly on how my views were wrong and made derogatory comments about or to those who are; I’d find his attitude intolerant. AND intolerance is a trait I have trouble overlooking.
For me, it is about values. Do we have the same views on honesty, does he have integrity, will he have the same idea of commitment that I do? Those are the kinds of things I think are important.
Shay says
I totally agree with Sayanta (#16).
Church is a big part of my life. I practically spend my weekends in church. Well, you can say that devout or staunched. I am not looking for a 100% devout or staunched Christian. I am looking for somebody who would not mind to spend some time with me doing things to benefit other people in church. Make room for our lives for church. Sometimes we may even have to cancel or reschedule our plans due to church.
Unfortunately, he has to have pretty strong convictions to head our lives in that direction.
But what Honey (#15) is saying is also true…I’m trying hard to be flexible on other areas. Carefully evaluating what I can let go of. And not whining that nobody is willing to date me. 😀
I may even have to be prepared to remain single if I can’t find a person who shares my direction in life.
Life is difficult. However, that does not mean I won’t put up a fight for myself to get what I want. Haha…hopefully the journey is rewarding enough.
Evan Marc Katz says
Thanks for the note, Shay. Just reminding you that my incredible love story began with me putting aside the thought that my wife HAD to be likeminded (Jewish athiest – there’s actually a bunch of us), and opening up to the best PERSON in the world – the one who would be by my side in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, ’til death do us part. The thought that I’d pass up my wife because I strongly disagree with her religious beliefs is preposterous.
The more dealbreakers you have, the more likely you are to be standing alone.
So I give you a test that I give to some of my, um, selective clients:
Would you rather…
Be alone for the rest of your life, or marry a man who is 5’8″?
Be alone for the rest of your life, or marry an agnostic?
Be alone for the rest of your life, or marry a guy who doesn’t like running?
You’d be surprised how people change their minds when it’s presented just like this. Because, make no mistake, that IS the choice you’re making.
starthrower68 says
@Been There,
What you stated is what I meant on “your mileage may vary”; for instance, I don’t take umbrage with other faith traditions. I don’t think they are bad or unworthy people. But for me it would be a deal breaker. It does’t mean I’m intolerant of their views, but this is a core value for me. Where I can compromise is say, Methodist dating Presbyterian. I don’t hate Buddhists or Shintoists or Muslims. But for me, that is more of a difference than I can compromise on. I think that there has developed a mindset in this day and age that we can’t disagree agreeably. That if we have a differing opinion from someone else they are bad. I don’t believe that. I’m also fully aware that there are undatable Christians because they are Christian in name only.
mc says
Keep it simple all! I think all Evan was trying to say is to try and avoid looking for perfection, or someone with ALL the same interests and traits as you. There has to be compromise somewhere and sacrifice in every relationship. Obviously if religion or politics is very important to you and it is something you like to talk about quite often and you think disagreement would get in the way too much then move on if its not making you happy. Everyone defines compatibility differently but give it a chance.
At the same time keep an open mind and give EVERYONE a chance thats all. Becasue they think one way or like to live a certain or different way, Dont’ shun an amazing guy off because of just one thing or miss out on true love because of one quality that doesn’t meet your list of requirements.
I am a christian and dated a great catholic guy for 5 years. I being very open minded didn’t care that he was catholic and he was a regular church goer and I wasn’t. I don’t expect everyone to live the same as me or believe the same things as me. He would have done anything for me and had a ton of great qualities, and it was great for quite some time, but unfortunately I had to end it because he eventually went as far as saying me and my family had no morales becasue we weren’t church goers and we accept gay people. I’m definitley not homophobic like he was, etc…so our belief systems were completely different and it was one too many fights and it obviously went as far as him disrespecting me so in this case get out. He was very judgemental too and I saw the glass half full and he saw it half empty. So in a situation like this there was a lot more going on, totally opposite view points, too much disagreement. Does this make me stay away from Catholics? Defiitely not. Lets not generalize or stereotype.
I also dated a triathlete for 1 1/2 years and me being an avid early morning swimmer, athlete and personal trainer I was clearly around fitness all day and passionate about working out as well and thought it would work well, mainly because our sense of humor was so similiar. I am really good about balance and non obsessive exercise. I want to enjoy life too. But he didn’t want to live like that..He was just way too obsessive…workout, sleep and eat. I ended it with him. He didn’t want to do anything outside of his workouts, no going out and he couldn’t even come with me to my families even for the holidays because he had to rest before his next workout…. IT was like dragging him anywhere even for the holidays, so no thanks not for me at all. So since then, I have actually steered away from triathletes fearing the same thing. I don’t want to generalize but most are very self absorbed and this is all they want to do but I also know a lot of triathletes who do it more for fun so again I won’t stereotype or judge. Being on Match.com I have to be honest…I have deleted every triathlete and see it as a major red flag. But I know I shouldn’t think that…I do know plenty of people including some of my friends who go out on top of it all too. So again, if they are a triathlete or if they are of a different religion, should I forget it? no I don’t think so. There are plenty of good people that are into triathlon but can enjoy life, but again if he takes it as far as no time for anything else or you or for family, then just move on. After reading your blog Evan, I will keep even more of an open mind. : ) Thanks again!
Honey says
Haha Evan, the height thing always makes me laugh. I let Jake pretend to be 5’8″, I think he is 5’6″ or so!
SS says
I think everyone has one or two big dealbreakers that no matter how wonderful another person is, if he or she is X, a happy relationship won’t be possible (for the person making the decision).
The trick seems to be to really make sure that those dealbreakers are very few.
Using Evan’s questions in No. 21, I could marry the 5’8″ guy (I’m 5’4″ anyway), marry the guy who doesn’t like running (and I do 5Ks regularly), but I would hesitate on the agnostic. However, the agnostic probably has a better chance with me than the atheist. I have no problems with atheists and respect the fact that they choose not to believe in a god — actually, I find atheists to often be deeper thinkers than many evangelical Christians (the type of folks I grew up around) and probably have better conversation with them than I do with more religious people!
So my compromise was that I didn’t care about Christian denomination, and that I was open to Catholics, LDS, etc. Judaism was fine too. I think that gave me enough of a selection of men to choose from.
Women in general seem to be more religious than men, and I find that a lot of women place more importance on it than men do. While that’s fine, I find that too many women end up ruling out perfectly fine and decent men because of differences of opinion in terms of the importance of a denomination and the frequency in which a man wants to attend services. I know a LOT of women who make it an issue that their partner doesn’t want to attend church with them every week or let go of a man for that reason. And I question, honestly, if frequent church/temple/etc. attendance really makes a relationship stronger for both parties and why women put so much emphasis on that.
(And yes, I’m a woman.)
As for me, I’m a moderate Democrat who married a self-proclaimed independent… who 90% of the time votes Republican. He goes to church about twice a year. It’s also the best relationship I’ve ever had.
Goldie says
@ Evan #21:
“Would you rather…
Be alone for the rest of your life, or marry a man who is 5’8”³?
Be alone for the rest of your life, or marry an agnostic?
Be alone for the rest of your life, or marry a guy who doesn’t like running?”
I agree that getting hung up on an extra inch of height or on one hobby like running is just silly, but you have to draw the line somewhere. One example. Would be I rather be alone for the rest of my life than be with a guy who has a drinking problem? Heck, yeah! Even if you don’t go to these extremes – say, a woman likes outdoors and considers her weekend wasted if she hasn’t spent any time outside biking/hiking. Now let’s say she marries a couch potato who is in every other way an awesome person. You just cannot make him go outside. Fast forward a year, I guarantee you will find these two either fighting over every weekend/vacation, or living separate lives.
There are worse things than being alone. Out of those, the worst is being stuck in a bad marriage. Living alone is actually pretty neat compared to that 🙂 We’re here to learn how to find a life companion/friend/partner, not how to make ourselves and some guy miserable together – most of us (myself included) are already pretty good at that 😉
Evan Marc Katz says
@Goldie? Where are you all getting this stuff from? I didn’t say marry the alcoholic? I said marry the athiest! Are we really the same thing in your mind?
One of the wisest women I know, relationship guru Carol Allen, SAVED HER marriage by learning to accept that her husband was more of an introvert, instead of fighting it. Now, when they go to a party, they take SEPARATE cars. He says for 90 minutes, she stays for 4 hours, and they come home and continue to love each other. If you think that your man has to want to run with you, that’s fine. Just know that only what – 10% of men are runners? So that’s your dating pool, before we’ve factored in height, weight, age, income, humor, kindness, sex appeal, luck, timing, chemistry, kids, etc. Good luck with that.
Nowhere in any of my writing can you find me advocate for being miserable. But if you’ll be miserable because he doesn’t think exactly like you do, you’re pretty much in a self-imposed prison.
Malcolm says
That’s just brilliant (!) And I bet if you talk to the husband, he’s only hanging in there for the last 30 of those 90 minutes because he knows if he does it . . . he’ll have a happy wife coming home to him (when she finally does).
Karl R says
Shay said: (#19)
“Church is a big part of my life. I practically spend my weekends in church. […] I am looking for somebody who would not mind to spend some time with me doing things to benefit other people in church. Make room for our lives for church. Sometimes we may even have to cancel or reschedule our plans due to church.”
Let’s say you find someone who shares your commitment to the church, or perhaps even exceeds it. He spends his entire weekend at church and some of his weeknights as well. He’s dedicated to the church (and related charitable organizations) and feels a deep responsibility for their continued well-being. He often rechedules other events to meet his church commitments.
The only catch: he attends a different church.
Would you be willing to leave your church for this man? If you aren’t, then it’s a safe bet that he’s unwilling to leave his church for you. This may even be true of some men who are less devout than you.
And if you (and those men) are unwilling to compromise regarding church, then you’ve already met your entire dating pool. They all belong to your church.
I suspect you’ve already noticed the ratio of single men to single women at church.
If you want to have a relationship, you’re going to need to compromise. Not just on what traits you expect your partner to have, but also your relationship with your church. I read your description of your life, and I don’t see room for another person … unless he subordinates his schedule to yours. That’s not compromise.
Would you be willing to date a man who expects you to subordinate your schedule to his?
Lance says
EMK, great post, as always. From my experience, I’ve determined the two highest priority factors for me having a successful relationship. I stress this works for me, and it may or may not be enough for anyone else:
1. Companionship
2. Sexual compatibility
If the companionship is great, then all the other details (music, religion, diet choices, fitness, etc) are icing on the cake, but NOT the cake. I define companionship as simply the day-to-day relationship, the dialogue, the interactions, the friendship, the emotions you give each other, the shared experience.
Sexual compatibility is a whole other post and that’s a big factor too.
Sophie says
Great advice, and I agree with Evan. My boyfriend has opposite values (e.g. he’s conservative, and I’m liberal. He’s religious, and I’m not. I’m feminist, and he’s not.) and it bothered me a little bit in the beginning, but not anymore. When he rants about politics, most of the time I disagree with him but I just listen and smile. I love everything else about him and that’s what’s important to me.
Diana says
I understand and agree with some of the postings here, like Shay’s. A person’s strong religious beliefs and practices are going to be vitally important to them. It becomes a way of life, of living and breathing, such a deep part of who they are that it defines their very existence. I do not equate this on the same level as hobbies, physical traits, money, success, etc.
For the record, I am an agnostic. I would not choose to live the rest of my life with a truly devout and practicing religious individual, though there are many who say they are a Christian, etc., but they do not practice their faith. I grew up in the Baptist faith and at one time, I was deeply connected and involved with the church and God. I completely respect those who walk ALL paths of faith because I know first hand what it means to them and it is not my place to judge.
I have sometimes thought that my no longer being involved with the church has worked to my detriment from a dating perspective. While there are many different types in church, most of the people I have known had many of the qualities I seek: compassion, kindness, loyalty, integrity, love (not that they can’t be found elsewhere), but to return would make me feel like a user and that’s not me. My heart follows a different path now. And there are no universal gatherings here; drat!
Stacy says
Evan,
you lumping together many different things here. First, being “amazing” per se does ot impede anyone’s chances of finding love, impossible standards do.
Second, discarding ALL standards as you seem to be advocating is not only unwise but also impossible. If nothing – not tastes, looks, religion, politics, income, moral character or anything else matters, then I can just go out and marry the first available stranger on the street, right? Does this sound like a good plan to you – I think not.
Most dating books that I read advise to come up with a list of “must haves” and “nice to haves”, keeping the “must haves” as short as possible. And clearly, the list of must haves will be different for different people based on their values, and it is up to them to decide what it is.
Evan Marc Katz says
Stacy,
Please show me the line where I said to “discard ALL standards”. I merely pointed out that if you make any given thing a dealbreaker, it makes finding love that much more difficult. So you get a guy who has everything going for him, except height, so you break up with him. Everything going for him except proper spelling, you break up with him. If you’re going to argue with me – which is fair – at least make sure you understand what I’m saying.
And if you read Lori Gottlieb’s “Marry Him”, you will see the first three pages of the book are her “nice to haves” list. My only contention with this is that your “nice to have” list is actually a “must have” list, and you dissect every single guy who doesn’t give you everything you dreamed of.
Whether this is a result of Hollywood fantasy, societal conditioning, parental coddling, simple delusion, or “being amazing” doesn’t really matter. This is a real phenomenon and every single person stands the chance of being alone forever because of it.
Goldie says
@Karl #26, in the 20 years I spent in church (several different churches, to be exact), I’ve seen people switch churches to their husband’s or wife’s all the time. Last one I attended was a Greek Orthodox church. At least half of the regular/active parisioners were Anglo-Saxon, Protestants (mostly women, but a few men as well) who had converted when they married a Greek, so their whole family could attend church together. Many of these people ended up on the parish council; their kids were in Sunday School with mine, altar boys, on the church’s sports teams etc. in other words, all family members were very active in church together. As long as it is basically the same faith and the same creed (which as you know can include millions of people worldwide, depending on the religion), to the majority of people, it really doesn’t matter if we both go to my church or yours, as long as we go to church together as a family. The point I’m trying to make is, it’s not as bad for Shay as you say it is.
Cherry says
Compromise isn’t one size fits all. For example, if you’re very liberal politically, you’d probably clash with a political conservative, unless politics isn’t all that important, or you happen to enjoy that sort of intense debate. But you might be more willing to date a short guy who’s liberal, than a tall conservative, even if you have a preference for tall men.
As far as the last couple of men I dated, one was an avowed “liberal” who loved making racist jokes. Pass. The other was handsome and affectionate with shared interests, but also very needy and controlling, with emotional issues including a mean streak. Again, pass. Before that, there was the man with whom I had a million things in common, but he wasn’t looking for a serious relationship. Damn.
I consider these very different deal-breakers beyond superficial things like height, or things like religion which aren’t superficial, but are still important. Believe me, if all I had to worry about was a man’s height or a man who doesn’t share all my interests, dating would be a lot easier.
Goldie says
@ Evan #33:
All I am saying is, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I draw mine at alcoholics, someone else may well draw theirs at atheists. This will probably exclude me from their search, but I think it’s a better outcome for us both than getting together and being miserable because of our differences.
You said that a relationship is “more dependent on kindness, consistency, values and long-term goals”. Now would you consider it possible that, for some people, their religious beliefs and political stance determine their values and long-term goals?
And, yeah, I’ve done separate weekends, separate vacations, separate bedrooms, the whole nine yards. Then I got tired of it and quit. Remember, at least half the people on here used to be married, some for decades. We know what it’s like when it doesn’t work out.
Also, where I’m getting this stuff from? I’m getting it from the test questions that start with “would you rather be alone for the rest of your life than…” (fill in the blanks). Sorry, but it just irks me when put this way. Like being alone is so horrible, we should do anything to avoid it? Just curious, has any of your clients ever answered “yes” to these questions? What will you say to a client that does?
Stacy says
Evan #33:
you wrote in the original post “if you make EVERYTING a deal-breaker, you can’t be too surprised when you’re still standing alone”.
Now, while in terms of formal logic it is not the same as saying “you should make nothing a deal-breaker”, but it comes off like that. Because NOBODY makes EVERYTHING a deal-breaker. But everybody has SOME deal-breakers. And why would you judge somebody else’s deal breakers just because these things turned out to be not important to YOU? The whole thing is just a moot point IMO.
Also, I wholeheartedly agree with Goldie #35. Would I rather be single than with a short liberal man who makes 1/4 of what I make and shares none of my interests? Hell yeah!
Evan Marc Katz says
Stacy-
Once again, you misinterpret me. “I don’t want a short, liberal, man who makes 1/4 of what I make and shares none of my interests.” I challenge you to show me where I wrote (or even suggested) this.
You’re putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say, and asking me to defend it. I will soon accuse you of hating athiests, even though you didn’t write that anywhere.
Listen, deal-breakers are whatever you say they are. Just know that if you always find deal-breakers, you’ll never get a deal. That’s your prerogrative. I just think it’s awful narrow minded to break up with someone because he’s either short or liberal or doesn’t share your interest in art. Not ALL of those things, but ANY of those things. You still want to argue with this premise?
Karl R says
Goldie said: (#31)
“to the majority of people, it really doesn’t matter if we both go to my church or yours, as long as we go to church together as a family. The point I’m trying to make is, it’s not as bad for Shay as you say it is.”
I’m making a related point. It becomes easier for Shay if she’s willing to compromise.
Does he have to join her church, or is she willing to join his? Does she have to spend most weekends at church, or can she spend her Saturdays doing other things with her partner? Is she okay with him continuing to attend his church while she continues to attend hers? Does the church schedule have to interrupt theirs (as a couple), or can they miss church events to fulfill their previously scheduled plans?
The more flexible she is, the more her options open. And if a person isn’t willing to be flexible, it’s not terribly reasonable for them to expect their partner to be. They might get lucky in that regard, but I wouldn’t count on it.
In every couple that you mentioned in your church, at least one of them was willing to compromise on church/religion. Shay can guarantee that degree of compromise in her relationships if she’s willing to be the one compromising.
Helen says
Reading the comments here, my own thought is that the choice doesn’t have to be so hostile or laced with underlying anger or dissatisfaction. It is all about free and rational choices as adults, and how you optimize your outcome.
No one is holding a gun to your head, saying that you have to be in a relationship. Yes, people can be perfectly happy single. Some people who do not want to compromise on the 3 dogs, early morning runs, one particular church, etc., may be perfectly willing to accept the fact that s/he is less likely to find a partner who will deal with that, because s/he is fine with being single. (Indeed, someone who has found such a passion in life is fortunate, and may not need a partner at all.) On the other hand, those who value a long-term relationship above adhering to a particular lifestyle would do well to look outside the box and to be more accepting.
Evan, I do want to comment on one part of your entry: that you’ll spend no time talking about the Iraq War (or any political or philosophical topic) after marriage and children. Before we had kids, hubby and I had plenty of time to delve into deep philosophical discussions about everything. Now we’ve been parents for a number of years. Recently we went out to dinner alone, and as embarrassing as it is to admit, I felt flummoxed about what to talk about. In a family context, we’d been talking about household-related and kid-related things for so long that when we were together again, with a space of silence between us, we didn’t know how to fill it . And this is coming from two people who pride themselves on being intelligent and philosophical!
So it just goes to show you… even marrying someone who is similar to you doesn’t guarantee that you’ll always enter easily into deep conversations. Maybe we’ll regain that function after the kids leave the house. Thank goodness that love, appreciation, and respect go deeper than intellectual matching.
Abetrics says
Eeesh…I don’t know how old this blog entry is, nor the response above but I have to add a note for posterity. The poster Helen said:
“Thank goodness that love, appreciation, and respect go deeper than intellectual matching”
Uhh…no they don’t. Does anyone pay any attention to the divorce stats on this site or is there some sort of agreed upon state of denial necessary for participation? Yeah…some marriages such as the EMK’s may be able to overcome what is a huge stumbling block for many marriages, a difference of belief, but we have to remember that anecdotal exceptions do not negate substantial statistical evidence that runs to the contrary of the exception.
I noticed that a poster mentioned that many people who come to this site were once formerly married. Okay, then as the formerly married we know certain things: we got divorced for a reason and it wasn’t because we liked to fill out paperwork. Usually the differences that seemed okay or even “cute” during the courtship and dating phase began to be outright distasteful once the day-to-day rub of everyday life took it’s toll. Many people are focusing on religious belief (and let me tell you, for no small reason because it continues to be one of the biggest issues that couples argue about right after money), but then there are the lifestyle differences as well. The woman who is an avid runner and outdoor enthusiast may initially embrace compromise and separate activities for a while. They may even marry…but how long do we expect that compromise to last before she meets an avid runner during one of those weekends when her husband sits at home?
In addition to a high rate of divorce, there’s also a very high rate of marital infidelity. I thought the entire point of dating was to eventually make a lifetime commitment which would include sharing each other’s lives? I don’t see how constantly having to go separate ways due to a difference in belief or lifestyle accomplishes that.
Now in regards to Helen? She’s in big trouble. No, marriages don’t wait for the kids to leave the house. Eventually one partner begins to desire those philosophical conversations again…and it may not be with their spouse.
Marriage is as active an interaction as the dating scene with only slightly more security. I have seen it time and time again and the stats surrounding marriage and infidelity support my position—–people cheat or choose to leave when compatibility becomes a significant issue.Lack of compatibility destroys the emotional bond between two people because in the end we don’t live in a bubble and neither do our relationships. Compatibility revolves around similar beliefs, backgrounds, worldviews, and even intellect. I have seen too many marriages end because people either could not or they were unwilling to overcome the obstacles posed by difference. Not a difference in height or salary but a profound difference in the essential that makes us tick: how we conceptualize the world(spiritual belief or lack thereof), where we came from (family and class), and how we view our environment mentally (intellectual)…to pretend as though ignorance of the significance of these factors is a desirable thing is foolhardy.
Gem says
“I will soon accuse you of hating athiests, even though you didn’t write that anywhere.”
No, but you did say this…
“if you insist that a man has inferior values because he doesn’t believe in, say, an afterlife, you’re right, you probably should find a guy more like you — narrowminded and narcissistic enough to think that there’s something wrong with someone who isn’t in complete lockstep with them.”
And no where did I say anyting remotely close to that.
See, I have no problem with your premise that if you have too many deal-breakers, you’ll not make a deal, but you take it a step beyond and suggest WHAT people should and shouldn’t care about AND suggest that if they don’t let go of their deal-breaker of a shared belief system they MUST be arrogantly looking down their nose at others.
Just because certain things possess no meaning for you, doesn’t make it good advice for you to suggest these things equally shouldn’t matter to someone else.
Stick with the broad message and encourage people sort out their own particular needs and I’m all with ya because not all deal-breakers are arbitrary as you seem to think they are.
Luxe says
Wow, I think a lot of people are taking this too literal. The basic principle remains. The more you excude certain things as dealbreakers the more you limit yourself. Just pick and choose wisely people. It’s always going to be different for everyone. Everyone gets so touchy when religion or politics are mentioned.
Karl R says
Goldie said: (#35)
“would you consider it possible that, for some people, their religious beliefs and political stance determine their values and long-term goals?”
Given the way you phrase this, I’m assuming that you have some values and long-term goals which are determined by your religious beliefs and/or political stance.
Would you consider it possible that a different person may have arrived at the same values and long-term goals despite having different religious beliefs and political stances from yours?
Feel free to name any values or goals that you have which derive from your political stance or religious beliefs. I’ll do my best to come up with an example of someone from a different religion or political party who shares your viewpoint.
Shay says
Karl R (#26)
Absolutely sure!!! I would be glad to attend his church.
Evan (#21)
I absolutely agree with your article. The dealbreaker should not be trivial. It should be something people are confronted on a day to day basis. And how to spend our time is quite big, isn’t it?
Just for that, I can compromise to some extend on physical aspects, habits, etc. Like dating short man, not being a runner, etc. If we can get along and have same vision for the future, why not?!
But it really is difficult if I compromise on my wish and in the long run, when the initial passion ends, we become room mates.
Goldie says
I’ve been thinking about this principle a lot since I started reading this blog. What I have learned so far, both from Evan’s posts and my own experience, is that, one, I really have a lot less dealbreakers than I thought I did. Over the course of last year, I found myself dating people that I would have passed over if I saw their profiles online, because they wouldn’t fit my checklist – too young, still a student back in college, never went to college, dropped out of college, too short, too overweight, no kids, too many kids… the list goes on and on. And the one guy I managed to find that fit every item on my checklist, turned out to be dead wrong for me. This definitely made me think. And this leads me to the second thing I’ve learned – before you add something to your list of dealbreakers, you should at least try it out and see if it works for you. Like, there may be short liberals out there that are an amazing fit for Stacy, but she won’t know it unless she tries one 😉
But with that said, we’re all human, and eliminating each and every dealbreaker on our list, well that’s just not going to happen. There will always be something that we cannot live with, and these things will be different for every one of us. At the end of the day, all I can do is come to peace with my own few real dealbreakers, and respect those of my date. Like, if a man tells me that he likes me and wants to meet, and then in the same breath adds that he’s looking for a godly woman, I’m pretty sure it’s my duty to warn him 😉
How’s that for a middle-of-the-road solution? 🙂
Shay says
Pretty good Goldie!
Thanks Goldie and Gem for backing me up! 😉
If I can have somebody who shares my envisioned future (our family active in church together) there are so many things I can think of that I can be flexible with:
1. Going to his church even if it means it’s a different denomination.
2. If he is an evangelist/pastor, maybe I have to change my job/country/neighborhood/area of serving to accommodate his calling.
3. I might have to make do with less income.
4. I might have to give up on my other interests and hobbies e.g reading, shopping, traveling, etc and that he might not share any one of it.
5. I might have to compromise on various extends such as physical appearance, age, personality, ethnic group, etc.
To what extend I can compromise, I don’t know. It depends on the person as a whole package.
And yes! Being single is really not too bad…compared to a bad marriage or a marriage similar to that of just having a roommate.
Evan Marc Katz says
You ever notice that the people who are in relationships (Karl, Helen, Honey, BeenThruTheWars, A-L) are the ones who are very happy that they were able to make the compromises to which I refer?
And the single people are the ones who accuse me of telling them to lower their standards?
Perhaps there’s a correlation between happy couples and people who understand what a dealbreaker really is.
Similarly, when I wrote “Why He Disappeared” and shared it with 10 women friends, the five who LOVED the first draft were all in relationships. The five who felt I was being harsh were all still single.
Just sayin’… 🙂
Happy weekend to you all.
Mom flies to town tomorrow in anticipation of the baby.
New blog posts to run next Monday, Thursday and Sunday but I’m not going to be monitoring closely.
I thank you deeply for your participation and differing opinions. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed.
Oh, and keep voting every day using the box on the upper left. My competition must be paying her friends to vote every day, because she’s cut my lead in half already!
See you when I’m a Dad…
Your friend,
Evan
Annie says
Evan,
I’ve often thought that one of the things that you do as a dating coach, is to gently lead people away from their narcissistic tendancies, towards a more open connection with others. I’m surprised you used the word narcissism however, it has such negative conotations and is very difficult for people to understand.
You are right, in that expecting people to alway’s agree with you, behave like you, do the things you do and getting hostile with some-one, arguing over every little difference, or simply blanking a person because of it, indicates a fundamental insecurity. They need some-one else to be like them, for validation.
When you finally begin to move beyond this thinking the results are liberating to say the least. You can still love, and be loved without being the same.
I think I realize now though, I do have one criteria..One deal-breaker. I will never date a highly narcissistic person. I’m okay with that deal-breaker 😛
Annie says
Oh and GL with the baby. Hope everything goes well.
SouthrnPhoenix says
After ending a long marriage to a truly uncompromising man, I began a journal. Somewhere along the way, I started listing what I wanted out of my next relationship. It started out with a long list of what I want and another long list of what I didn’t want. I spent a year getting over the loss of the marriage, and during that time, the list morphed. The list turned into 2 very different columns: must-haves and nice-to-haves. Eventually, it turned into a list of 5 must-haves and 10 nice-to-haves. My focus is so completely on the must-haves, that I don’t tend to remember my nice-to-haves. I am not religious, moderately political, moderately successful, and so on. None of my must-haves have anything to do with religion, politics, or career (other he needs to be financially stable – to me, that means he pays his own bills, which usually requires a job).
The point is, keep your must-have (dealbreaker) list short, specific, and true – a real must have. Feel free to give it some thought and to change your mind as your life changes. I would absolutely love to be in a warm, healthy long-term relationship. I believe that will happen. I’m not in a rush, and if I do not find someone that meets my list, then I’m okay with remaining single. But if it’s that important that you get married or have a long-term relationship, then Evan is most certainly right. You should cut out as many must-haves as you can to give yourself as many chances as possible to find the man or woman that will be right for you; focus on the things you really want. You don’t have to accept just anyone or toss out your standards; just don’t let what you think you want prevent you from finding what you really want.
mc says
Gem and Luxe so well said!! Thank you for closing this blog with such valid great points and for the positive encouragement! I wish this was said 40 comments ago. ; ) It really is that simple. Too many deal breakers limits your possibilities thats all.
And if there is that one belief whether its religion or politics..that you feel so strongly about than that is okay. Rather than saying you’re narrow minded, I say no worries, thats okay if you know you want and need that in a partner than that is what you want and that is what you will find. There is someone out there for all of us! : ) Good luck to all of you!!
Harriet Bond says
I see your point, that we should be open to the opinions of others etc. but at the same time I would find it so difficult to get on with someone who had, for example, opposing political views, because a person’s politics actually go some way to informing how they view the world and the people around them, and therefore are extremely important. I can cope with someone who doesn’t like gherkins, but not someone who thinks capital punishment is a great idea!!!
Diana says
I do believe there is an epidemic in the dating world concerning deal breakers over a lot of things that don’t really amount to a hill of beans in the context of a great, lasting and loving relationship. In the many years that I was married, we both learned how to compromise on countless things. It’s interesting how I don’t think either of us felt like we were “compromising,” or we didn’t think of it in such a direct way. It felt more effortless or almost without thought; it came from a place of giving and more importantly, of loving.
Everyone has deal breakers to one degree or another. I have only two, true deal breakers: they cannot smoke (which does drop a lot of men from my generation out of the picture) and I would not likely feel comfortable living with someone who, as I mentioned earlier, were a devout and practicing religious individual, though I do enjoy eastern philosophies and wisdom. They feel more in line with my spirituality.
Everything else is up in the air for me. I have never prepared a “must have” or “nice to have” list. Maybe that’s because of my marriage experience. I have thought about what do I want or need from an emotional standpoint, which has nothing to do with what I believe to be superficial qualities, like height, money, chemistry, hobbies, etc.
Even Evan had deal breakers, until the right woman showed him the error of his ways. 😉
Good luck with the new baby, Mr. and Mrs. Katz. It’s an amazing experience you just won’t believe! 🙂 All of life’s answers will come to you in the flash of an instant.
A-L says
I’m with Honey (#15) on this one. Evan’s general concept is right, and one’s degree of involvement in religion/politics (etc.) should be reflected in the degree of importance that quality has to one’s various relationships.
I also think it’s important to figure out what it is about religion or politics (or whatever dealbreaker you have) that is important to you from a partner. I would probably qualify as “devout” by this board’s standards, and I realized that what was important was that any future children attend church, and preferably that my partner join me at church, at least occasionally. I used to date an agnostic and when we talked about kids he was happy to raise them in the church so long as we exposed them to the beliefs of other religions as well. That was a compromise I could live with. Until we got married my husband, who considers himself more spiritual than religious, worked on Sundays. Though he knows I don’t expect it, he has come to church every Sunday since we got married and would raise our kids in the church should we have any. These were all solutions that worked for me, but never would have happened if I was looking for a guy who was at church every Sunday, tithing, and involved in other religious activities.
So basically, I would say to figure out what it is about your dealbreakers that is important, because that may be able to be satisfied in ways you didn’t originally think of.
Goldie says
Ahhhh, Evan #46, must we go the old “if you ladies are such relationship experts, then how come you’re still single?” route again?I can answer this question, of course. But first, good luck to your wife and you with the new baby! You will make a great Dad! Looking forward to seeing a parenting blog in the near future 😉
Onto my answer. I married a guy that I met when we were 19 and 20. We were from different backgrounds, had very little in common, our decision to marry was based pretty much on physical attraction and on the fact that we both loved animals and Jesus. Oh yeah, religion played a part too. The missionaries that converted me, did not believe in sex before marriage and managed to pass this belief on to me, and from me to my BF, who promptly proposed.
Two months before the wedding, I already knew it would be bad. I’d just underestimated exactly how bad. The first few years were a nightmare. I try not to think of them. Tried to end it several times, but in the end, we stuck together for 18 years of marriage, 22 years total. So guess what? My ex and I could write a book together on compromise and adjusting to each other. To reiterate, this was a relationship that should have never worked to begin with, and we somehow stuck it out for twenty-two years, that, I may add, were not all bad. We had some really decent moments 🙂
So, I think it’s safe to say that you can throw any man in with me, and I will figure out a way for me and him to live together without killing each other. The question is, why do that in the first place? What would that accomplish?
Religion definitely helped. It’s easy to overlook the general crappiness of your marriage if you think you’re going to live forever. As soon as I walked out of the church, I asked myself – why are we both doing it to ourselves? Both he and I can do better than this.
It’s like buying a great pair of designer shoes that is amazing in every way, except you’re a size 9, and the shoes are a size 7. I grew up in a country with a shortage of everything, so I know for a fact that there are actually ways to stretch your size 7 shoes and adjust them so you can wear them for years. They’ll still be uncomfortable and look pretty bad from stretching, but you’ll be able to walk around in them. Meantime, somewhere out there are perfect pairs of size 9 shoes, and women with size 7 feet that your shoes would have fit perfectly. Why do this to ourselves?
Oh, but, I said I’d explain why I’m still single. Two reasons. One, this coming Monday will be nine months since my divorce, so I’m not even sure the word “still” applies to me. No one I’ve spoken to recommends jumping straight out of one LTR into another. You need time to regroup. And reason two, this time I want to do it right. I bought the FTOO, believe it or not, I’ve listened to the audio version and learned a lot, I’m working through the worksheet, I’m going to put a lot more work and thought into finding a life partner than I did the first time around. I also now have two children living with me, and I consider it my obligation to them that I choose my next partner very carefully.
@ SouthrnPhoenix #49, really liked your comment!
“I would absolutely love to be in a warm, healthy long-term relationship. I believe that will happen. I’m not in a rush, and if I do not find someone that meets my list, then I’m okay with remaining single.”
This is my plan as well 🙂
@Karl #42,
Feel free to name any values or goals that you have which derive from your political stance or religious beliefs. I’ll do my best to come up with an example of someone from a different religion or political party who shares your viewpoint.
I have no religious beliefs anymore, but I remember the values and goals that I had back when I was religious, so I’ll be happy to share those. First of all, as I was taught, the underlying idea is that all your resources – your time, your money, your energy, your health – do not belong to you in the first place. They come from God and have to be given back. You should not worry that you may run out of money or other resources yourself, because God will provide. So I had a pretty different attitude about finances then than the one I have now. I’d sent sizable amounts to friends in need, charities, and church. I also spent a good amount of time in church every week, both with my children and on my own.
Another thing that comes to mind, I met a number of women online (and one such couple IRL) who believed that they were called by God to be “quiverfull”. This means you use no birth control and have as many children as God will see fit to give you. This, by the way, is what the Duggars are.
Just two examples to illustrate my point that a person’s religious views can affect their goals, values, and way of life in a lot of ways. Can you name me any agnostics/atheists that share any of the viewpoints listed above?
Karl R says
Goldie said: (#54)
“You should not worry that you may run out of money or other resources yourself, because God will provide. […] I’d sent sizable amounts to friends in need, charities, and church.”
That reminds me of a good friend of mine. I’d describe him as nominally Christian. He doesn’t attend church. He’s an actively practicing bisexual. He’s extremely generous to friends in need, and to causes he believes in.
While he doesn’t think that God will provide, he’s pretty certain his parents will.
Other related non-Christian values:
Many Buddhist monks depend directly on the lay community for their daily meals (begging for rice).
Jews are instructed to tithe (10% of income)
Muslims are obligated to give 2.5% of their wealth (not just their income) to the poor annually
Baha’i give 19% of the annual increase of their net worth to charity
Goldie said: (#54)
“I met a number of women online (and one such couple IRL) who believed that they were called by God to be “quiverfull”. This means you use no birth control and have as many children as God will see fit to give you.”
I had an agnostic girlfriend who wanted lots of kids. I don’t think that she ever specified a number, but she implied somewhere in the vicinity of 8.
Having grown up in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood where numerous families were morally opposed to birth control, I would say that 6-8 children is reasonably normal for people who avoid birth control.
Since I didn’t want any kids, that was the reason for the breakup.
I knew one couple (in real life) who held that “quiverful” belief. Either God “wanted” them to have 5 kids, or that’s the point when they changed their minds.
mc says
Yea true…I agree Harriet # 51. A belief based on politics or religion could very well carry over to how you view and treat people around you, so it could be a dealbreaker for me too! It would have to depend on how extreme their beliefs are. I just can’t date anyone who is too closed minded. I am the complete opposite, open minded and accepting of everyone no matter what their beliefs are but it doesn’t mean it could work in a relationship. I am spiritual but non denomination and I don’t attend church so of he expected me to go to church every Sunday I couldnt’ do it.. Good for you, but its not for me. And more importantly if he is homophobic for example, or if he is so judgemental to the point of disrespecting others….then it would not work for me at all. I’ve done it once and it was just never ending fighting. We never saw eye to eye on anything. Dealbreaker #1!!
mc says
And turning the subject away from religion and politics if thats okay, can I get anyone’s thoughts on having dogs? Being on Match.com especially, it seems like every single guy has a dog and a lot of them say its a must have. Well, I am an animal lover but I just can’t own or live with a dog and that seems to rule out a ton of guys!! Especially the nice warm hearted giving guys! I am not a priss by any means I just prefer living without pets mainly because 1: I’m not home much and 2: a lot of it has to do with the cleanliness! Hair, and constant licking and jumping on me drives me nuts!! So I know its bad but I’ve been deleting most of the guys that have a ton of photos of their dog and if their profile says I have and love my dog or I definitely want a dog I rule them out.
A-L says
RE: MC’s #57
Speaking as someone with a dog, I think it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to get a guy to get rid of a dog if he really is a dog-lover. For dog lovers, their pet is a part of the family. As far as your first concern, if he has a pet, then it’s likely that his hours at home are sufficient for the care of the pet. As far as the hair/licking/jumping, if the dog is well-trained it shouldn’t be jumping on anyone and can be told to stop licking someone as well. In terms of the hair, some dogs shed and others don’t. But out of curiosity, do you have any children or want to have any children? Kids cause a much greater mess than dogs do. Anyway, good luck with your search!
SouthrnPhoenix says
MC # 57:
If you absolutely can’t have a dog in the house, I suppose passing on the ones that say you must own a dog or love theirs is no problem. I wouldn’t necessarily pass on every man that has pictures of him and his dog though, even if there are a lot of pictures. Things change. I’ve known people, myself included, that never replaced a pet after losing one. Get to know them, find out if they still have the dogs, check out their values before saying no. You just can’t tell what you might find out and what you might find you are willing to tolerate for a really terrific person. I also haven’t noticed an appreciable smell when a person has one dog and takes regular care of the animal. Maybe you’ve had a few bad experiences that are coloring your perspective? If so, you might find one of those warm-hearted dog owners that takes good care of his dog and will take good care of you too. 😉
Karl R says
mc, (#57)
I recommend against trying to talk someone into getting rid of their pet. Many single people view their pets as family members. And that family member has been around longer than you.
I’m allergic to cats and dogs (more to cats than dogs). And if I ruled out every woman who has cats or dogs, that would be the majority of them.
That’s not in my best interest.
Figure out where you can possibly compromise. Figure out where he can compromise. The dog no longer sleeps in bed with us. I trained him to get out of the bed on my command. I can’t keep him out of the bed when I’m gone, so I make the bed so he only gets on top of the bedspread. I move the pillows off the bed so he doesn’t sleep on them.
My girlfriend agreed that the dog could move out of the bed. I put in the effort to make the situation work for me, though she does help reinforce the training. People are a lot more willing to compromise (especially on your behalf) if you do most of the work.
Vaccuum frequently to remove most of the dog hair. Learn which chairs the dog likes, and avoid those. Train the dog not to jump on you. Don’t put your hands/face where the dog can lick them.
If the guy doesn’t own a dog, but wants to, you have more leeway. You might be able to talk him out of it. You definitely can negotiate a lot of compromises: a breed that sheds less, that’s easy to train. I would suggest a labrador/standard poodle mix as one that meets both criteria.
Stacy says
mc #58
Some dog owners are nut jobs and think that their dog is God’s gift to humanity. They think it’s “cute” when it barks for 2 hours non-stop or jumps kids in the park. These weirdos also often refer to their pets as their “babies”.
Others are quite normal, train their dogs well and don’t drool over them. A well-trained dog would not bark, jump, and is often kept in a special cage (it’s not bad, dogs actually think about it as their “house”).
So you may want to give those dog guys a chance, meanig at least a first date to see what their relationship with the dog is like.
Also, guys who say they “definitely want a dog” may actually mean 10 years from now when they live in a large house in suburbs with 2 kids. Its a part of their vision of the american dream lifestyle. Definitely NOT a deal breaker.
IMO, having a pet could be a dealbreaker if there’s allergies involved. I once met an overwise absolutely great guy who was allergic to cats. I have a cat. I really struggled with it (absolutely great guy after all!) – but what was I supposed to do, give my cat to a shelter?? That’s no who I am.
mc says
Thanks a lot everyone..that really helps a ton!! Southrn Phoenix #59, thanks for the encouragement…my thoughts exactly, a pet owner is most likely a warm hearted good caretaker. That is why I was battling with this and almost wililng to suck it up for this reason and just bear having a dog, but the more I think about it, the more I realize I really can’t live with them. It took me soooo long to admit this, I still feel really bad about it and don’t share it often.
And yea thats true, it sounds like most of the pet owners I have come across don’t train their pets too well. Their house smells like dog and so do they. ; ) But great I will take your advice and wont’ pass up on the guys with all their dog photos..because you just never know what the situation could be.
And Stacey #61…that was too funny! I’m glad I’m not the only one that thought some people are a bit weird and crazy about their dogs..aka their “babies”. : ) But I completely understand that they do become a part of the family though, and I understand and can relate to the attachment no doubt. I could never and would never take that away from someone or ask them to give it up.
Good to know..thanks A-L #58. Trust me I have asked myself that numerous times…” If I can’t even handle a pet how can I handle a child?” Well to be honest another thing that took me forever to come to terms with after years of debate, is the fact that I don’t think I want children. I am an aunt of my 3 sisters and love love love kids!!! I am around plenty of babies and love being the aunt and the older sister. I have plenty to take care of and lots of family to love and be around always. I just have a lot I would like to do in my life still and haven’t had the opporutnity to do so, ie. travel with my hopeful significant other some day…. Being a mommy just isn’t for me..I give mom’s huge huge props by the way!!!
So anyway, there are the 2 big big possible dealbreakers for me and this may be a good reason why I’m still single!!!!
Sarahrahrah! says
Hey, y’all:
I think we can all acknowledge that this is a fantastic blog and Evan is very generous to provide high quality content and this forum for respectful debate.
As a gesture of thanks, please join me in trying to vote for this blog in the “best of” contest at about.com. I think it’s a small gesture in response to this wonderful service.
http://ht.ly/3ZGtM
Please be sure to vote everyday until March 8th at midnight!
Evan Marc Katz says
Thank you, Sarahrahrah. Something’s fishy with that election but there’s not much we can do but to vote every day and show that our readers are passionate and proud of the community you’ve built here. Hope we can pull it out!
Annie says
@51
Why wouldn’t you date some-one who supported the death penalty? Why would that belief mean you couldn’t have a good relationship with them? As evan indicated, an individual just doesn’t have to agree with you on everything. How many things would they have to agree with you, before you would even consider them?
@54 I can point out many athiests that have very firm “views” on the way things should be and how everyone else must behave. They don’t use religion to justify their view’s, but they are just as dogmatic.
This isn’t the domain of the religious. Some athiests are just as ideologically fanatical as some believers. The issue, is in their attitudes, doesn’t matter wether it’s religious or not.
Laine says
I would never break up with a guy because he was too short. I’d just never go out with him in the first place 🙂
Helen says
Evan, I did not know you and your wife were expecting! Congratulations and best wishes to both of you. Boy or girl?
Now I feel terrible writing earlier in this blog about all the trials of parenthood… what can I say… it IS difficult, but it really does get easier all the time (at least till they’re teenagers, so my friends tell me). There are many rewarding moments, and parenthood teaches me – at least – important skills that I need to learn, such as patience and the ability to deal with emergencies. You and your wife are in for a life-changing moment. Best wishes.
mc says
That is a good one Laine! ha ha. I’m thinkin’ you’re in the same boat as me..I am almost 5’11 and it is sooooo tough finding a taller man! Where are all the tall men????! ; ) So are serious when saying you wouldn’t date a shorter man? I have a hard time with it too! I know its bad becasue its more about personality and the way he treats you and the way you feel when you’re with him but it feels sooooo awkward! I’ve done it once and it didn’t work out for other reasons but it still felt so strange.
mc says
Hi Annie, I agree..I don’t see how the death penalty would get in the way in a relationship. How often does it come up for one and for two how does it effect how he or she treats you or others.
And Annie, you said it right..it is tough when people take religion as far as saying this is how everyone SHOULD be and everyone SHOULD behave. That is when things could be problematic in a relationship. I’ve been there!
I agree Sarahrahrah. Thanks and thanks Evan for making these helpful blogs even possible! I am continuing to vote! Good luck!
Sarahrahrah! says
I was thinking about this and wondering about the ways I am picky about guys I will accept. It occurred to me that I really don’t want to have a long term relationship with someone who doesn’t have a sense of humor. Of course, having integrity, being trustworthy and caring are right up there at the top of my list as necessary qualities in a potential mate, but having a sense of humor is very important to me, too. However, I wonder if I’m passing up some great guys over this qualification.
As a single mother, I love running my household with humor. I find it works a lot better than trying to be a dictator or can also be a lot more efficient than being “democratic” when short on time. Humor cuts through tension and makes chores and mundane tasks fun. I love sharing this with my kids and I can’t imagine giving up this kind of culture in my home. The problem is, it seems like humor is a very attractive quality in men and I haven’t found a single man yet who seems to have a sense of humor that gibes with mine.
I am wondering: am I being too picky? Can people can sharpen their sense of humor over time and in encouraging environments? At middle age, should I give this up on my quest for a man with humor and be thankful if I find a man who has the other big three?
Sarahrahrah! says
About that election….
I think there is something fishy, too. I think that someone might have figured out that if they clear their “cookies” (usually in the preferences and/or security section) from their internet browser that they probably can vote more than once a day. This is just a theory that I had about that situation.
Still, it’s not something to not get wound up about, so I will continue to vote and be appreciate of this excellent blog!
Goldie says
@ Annie & mc, of course there are obnoxious atheist, heck a lot of people are just obnoxious by nature. My post was in response to Karl’s, where he asked me to prove my point that a person’s worldview, beliefs etc. will determine their values, goals and lifestyle. I still maintain that for most people, they will. And I don’t even have to have my religious views (or lack thereof) dictate how everyone should be. As long as, to me, they dictate how I should live and how my children should be raised (which IMO is only natural, otherwise why bother holding this worldview at all if you’re not living it out), this may already create problems in my relationship, if my partner believes otherwise. If I think I absolutely have to tithe, and he thinks we absolutely have to save as much as we can… we’ve got a problem.
Goldie says
@ Helen #67, I actually find parenting teenagers a lot of fun! It’s not as bad as they say. Apologize for the double post.
Karl R says
Goldie said: (#72)
“My post was in response to Karl’s, where he asked me to prove my point that a person’s worldview, beliefs etc. will determine their values, goals and lifestyle.”
Actually, I stated that I could find someone with a different worldview, belief, etc. who could still end up with the same values, goals and lifestyles. I asked you to find an example where that wasn’t the case.
If a person values generosity, they may do so because they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Baha’i … or they may do it because they were raised by philanthropic parents.
If a person doesn’t set aside money for tomorrow, that’s their lifestyle … regardless of whether they think God will take care of it, their family will take care of it, a government safety net has them covered, or they just don’t plan in advance.
If a person has a goal of lots of children, it doesn’t matter whether they’re rationalizing it through a Catholic belief that birth control is wrong, whether they just love having lots of kids, or whether they’re agnostics who think that their superior genes should be more heavily represented in future generations. (I dated a girl whose grandparents held this belief.) Do you really think those “quiverfull” women would have knowingly married a man who was sterile?
Goldie said: (#72)
“I don’t even have to have my religious views (or lack thereof) dictate how everyone should be. As long as, to me, they dictate how I should live and how my children should be raised […], this may already create problems in my relationship, if my partner believes otherwise.”
Are you trying to raise little clones of you, or self-deterministic human beings who intelligently choose what they believe?
If it’s the latter, then you teach them that different people have different beliefs (like you and your spouse). You teach them the values that the two of you share (since a good marriage will share the same values, even if they derive from different beliefs). And you face the reality that your children will eventually decide what they believe … regardless of whether you try to mold them into clones of you or not.
Goldie said: (#72)
“If I think I absolutely have to tithe, and he thinks we absolutely have to save as much as we can… we’ve got a problem.”
If you can’t reach a mutual agreement on money differences, you have trouble … even if you share religious beliefs. If you can reach a compromise, religious beliefs aren’t going to be an insurmountable issue.
My girlfriend and I both believe in living within our means. We both believe in saving for the future. I tithe out of my income. The amount she gives out of her income is more modest (and she gives to different things than I do). On the other hand, she spends money on other things that I don’t: taking care of her pets, trips with her girlfriends, clothes, etc.
It’s not that hard to reach a reasonable compromise.
Goldie says
@ Sarahrahrah! #70,
At the risk of being thrown into commenters hell for three comments in a row, I have to say I totally agree with this:
It occurred to me that I really don’t want to have a long term relationship with someone who doesn’t have a sense of humor.
I think you may actually be on to something big here, because, from my observations, a humorous outlook on life trumps all other differences – religious, political, you name it – because the person with a sense of humor will be able to work through these differences together. Sadly, I find that the opposite is also true. No matter how your views match the guy’s, if he cannot laugh at his life events and himself, it will affect his outlook on life like no religion ever will. It’s really tough being with someone who sees his life as this long stretch of doom and gloom where everyone is out to get him. Life is tough. You’ve got to laugh at it, or else you’ll end up constantly depressed or angry. As mother of two teenagers, I’d say I am more than qualified to make this statement 😉
So, yeah, humor is definitely number one on my short list, along with, I guess, integrity, being trustworthy and caring (borrowing from your list here), and being open to new things/ideas.
PS. I’ve met guys with a sense of humor similar to mine. They do exist. Keep looking, and you’ll find one that jibes with yours, too 🙂
Goldie says
@ Karl #74,
If a person doesn’t set aside money for tomorrow, that’s their lifestyle … regardless of whether they think God will take care of it, their family will take care of it, a government safety net has them covered, or they just don’t plan in advance.
Out of the four cases you have listed, the person believes it is their obligation not to care about material needs (Matt. 6:25-34, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=NIV). In the other three, the person just hasn’t given their finances a lot of thought, and can be persuaded to change their attitude. I see a fundamental difference here.
Same thing with having lots of kids. It’s one thing if having a large family is your personal preference, and a whole other thing if you think you have a responsibility to a higher power to have a large family. Nice-to-have in the first case, must-have in the second.
Liked your example about financial compromises, though.
Karl R says
Goldie said: (#76)
“Out of the four cases you have listed, the person believes it is their obligation not to care about material needs”
Theologians seem to disagree with that interpretation.
They claim that the sermon cautions against “disquieting, worrying thought” and a “distrustful, unbelieving thought,” which could perhaps be better described as “anxiety” or “insecurity.”
In particular, one theologian states, “[Jesus] does not hint for a single moment that we are to be careless or improvident.”
Goldie said: (#76)
“In the other three, the person just hasn’t given their finances a lot of thought, and can be persuaded to change their attitude.”
You can educate Christians so they better understand passages they previously misinterpreted. I would say that it’s no more difficult than persuading a thoughtless person to start planning for their financial future (which is, admittedly, not a simple thing).
But you’re completely overlooking my point.
I initially asked you to give values/goals that were determined by your beliefs. Since you gave some values/goals that were determined by other people’s beliefs, you’ll have to put yourself into their shoes.
Imagine that you’re still a devout Christian who believes in giving generously, believes that God will care for your future needs, and who believes birth control is wrong. You’ll have as many kids as God wants you to have (like that woman you knew).
You’re not looking for someone to persuade you to change your mind.
You meet a Jewish man who believes that he’s obligated to tithe. He doesn’t think birth control is wrong, but he grew up as an only child, envious of his cousins who had lots of brothers and sisters, and wants to have as large of a family as possible. Since he’s an only child, he’s certain that his parents will help financially support their son and grandchildren if times get tough.
He has different beliefs from you (as our hypothetical devout, generous, quiverfull Christian). But he thinks tithing is mandatory, giving beyond that is optional. He isn’t concerned about finances. And he’ll keep wanting more kids up until you reach menopause (or possibly beyond).
Whether or not he could be persuaded to change his mind is irrelevant. He doesn’t want to change his mind any more than you do. Since he shares the same (hypothetical) goals/values/lifestyle, you won’t be trying to convince him to change his mind.
This applies to any values/goals/lifestyles. I don’t want kids. I’ll only marry a woman who agrees with that. I don’t care why she agrees. If she had kids (who are now grown and gone), or if she gave up on the idea at menopause, or if she had her tubes tied at 30 because the idea of being a mother terrifies her, it’s all good enough for me.
Goldie said: (#76)
“humor is definitely number one on my short list, along with, I guess, integrity, being trustworthy and caring […] and being open to new things/ideas.”
None of those qualities is dependent upon a particular religion or political affiliation. I know Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheits, agnostics and humanists who have those traits. I also know people of varied political affiliations who share those traits.
In general, it’s not a couple’s beliefs that will make or break a relationship … unless one of them feels they need to share the same beliefs.
mc says
Goldie 75 and Sarahrahrah 70…I sooooo agree! So well said Goldie!! Having a sense of humor is actually numero uno on my list. ITs an absolute must must must in my eyes and it has been since I can remember. I always knew I had to have that in a partner. That is the one thing I always look for and make sure we both vibe together on otherwise forget it it won’t work for me! My best relationship was with a guy who was a complete riot!! He made everyone laugh and we would laugh together all the time and we had a blast together!! Its my most memorable and mu most missed relationship.
A sense of humor is definitely one of the biggest turn ons for me! It makes a man soooooo much more attractive. A sense of humor is more than just being funny..its about not taking life too seriously, its about letting go and having a good time regardless of the situation, its about enjoying life and laughing about whatever it may be even the small things…its about making a bad situation into a good one, making things less stressful then they need to be. A guy who can laugh and be silly and goofy and just be comfortable to be himself around you is the best. Usually they are just so much more positive and social and friendly with everyone no matter what, so that is another quality I want in a man too!!! To me a guy without a sense of humor just takes life way too seriously. So no way is that too picky! Don’t drop your standards or settle for anything less. There are a ton of guys with a great sense of humor and who knows how to enjoy life to the max!! We will find it! So keep the faith! : )
Honey says
@mc, the dog thing is actually a good example of where Jake and I have compromised. I have cats, and for me their presence in my life is non-negotiable. I will ALWAYS have cats, and probably more than one. When I met Jake, he had no pets, loved cats, hates dogs. Perfect!
Then after we had been dating for a year he found a dog in a parking lot. She is 10 lbs, a poodle so hyperallergenic, almost never barks, very well housetrained, loves everyone – in short, she is basically the perfect dog. I HATE her. I hated her from the BEGINNING.
Fast forward 4 years and she is still around, and will be until she dies. The compromise? She sleeps in a crate (NOT the bed, though the cats do sleep in the bed!) and we will NEVER replace her with another dog after she is gone. Is Jake worth it? Of course! Living with an animal you can’t stand is a pretty significant compromise, but one that is possible for the right partner.
(FWIW, I find Jake’s stance on immigration APPALLING, and somehow we’ve worked it out for 5 years.)
Karl R says
mc said: (#78)
“So no way is that too picky! Don’t drop your standards or settle for anything less. There are a ton of guys with a great sense of humor and who knows how to enjoy life to the max!! We will find it! So keep the faith!”
You go girl!
Don’t let reality get in the way of your fantasy.
Let me review what you’ve said in this thread:
“I just can’t date anyone who is too closed minded.” (#56)
“I just can’t own or live with a dog and that seems to rule out a ton of guys!! Especially the nice warm hearted giving guys!” (#57)
“Being a mommy just isn’t for me” (#62)
“I am almost 5’11 and it is sooooo tough finding a taller man! […] it feels sooooo awkward!” (#68)
“Having a sense of humor is actually numero uno on my list.” (#78)
I’m going to make some guesses about the men you meet. Since I don’t know the men who are around you, take note of when my guess is off. I can certainly redo this with more accurate numbers.
I’ll assume that 80% of all men (4 out of 5) are sufficiently open-minded for you.
Since you complained about the difficulty of finding warm-hearted, giving men who don’t own or want dogs, I’ll assume that no more than 20% (1 in 5) meet those combined criteria.
25% of men are taller than you.
18.9% of men are volutarily childless. While there are some men who already have children, but have no involvement in the children’s lives, I’m assuming those men aren’t warm-hearted and giving. Therefore, I have not tried to include them.
I’ll assume that you find about 25% of men (1 in 4) to have a good sense of humor.
If my assumptions were correct, you’ve ruled out 99.81% of all men, just on the criteria listed.
There are men who meet those criteria. I’m 1/2″ taller than you. I’m not interested in having kids or dogs. My girlfriend chooses boyfriends based on intelligence and humor, so I’ll assume that I make the grade there. But I’m fairly certain that you’d rule me out for additional reasons. (I’m kind of messy. You might not find me attractive. Etc.)
So (at best) 1 man in every 500 meets your criteria. However, there’s no guarantee that those men are interested in you. Let’s assume that 10% of those men are mutually interested (which requires men to be 50 times less picky than you … something which I find unlikey). That would mean only 1 in 5,000 have mutual interest.
How many men do you know? How often do you meet new men?
There is hope. Since you don’t want children, you have decades to search for a man who meets your criteria. And as the men get older, their children start moving out of the house. (For women that becomes a noticeable shift in their mid-40s. For men it might be a few years later.) That makes it easier to find (effectively) childless men.
Since I don’t want kids, I’ve assumed that I have about 40 years to find a wife. However, I would prefer to find one sooner instead of later. Therefore, I decided that it was in my interest to find areas where I could compromise.
mc said: (#78)
“Don’t drop your standards or settle for anything less.”
You don’t have to. Maintaining those standards will cost you time, but that is certainly your choice.
Cat says
Karl, #80, Well done! Reminds me of this video of Evan discussing: How Many People Are Dateable?
Stacy says
Karl #80
Math is a funny thing. As any fixed income speculator or arbitrageur knows, tiny percentages applied to huge notional amounts can result into good profits. So..
Suppose you’re right and mc rules out 99.8% of all men. That leaves 0.2%, which in a NJ-NY metropolitan area with total population circa 21m and assumed male population at 50% of total with suitable age group of 30% of male population, means that she’d be looking at a dating pool of 6,300 men. It would take her 60 years to meet all of them assuming 2 dates per week eery week with no breaks. How’s that? I’d argue she is not picky enough. Just sayin.
Hadley Paige says
RE: Karl @ 80 “you’ve ruled out 99.81% of all men, just on the criteria listed.”
This simple reality should be shouted from the rooftops. Women who complain about being unable to find suitable men (and believe that their criterion are reasonable) should do this simple math.
Ladies, you can rationalize all you want as to why you need (the non-negotiables) what you need in a man. But write the list down and do the math (don’t forget to multiply your result by the percentage of men who make your cut who find you reciprocally attractive. What you have in front of you is your likelihood of success. A sobering number, no? As President John Adams famously said “Facts are stubborn things”. Maybe its time to get more flexible.
My suggestion to women. Don’t look to find a man for everything you need & want. Look to him for what unique qualities he can offer & you value that you can’t get from yourself. Get the rest from your girlfriends. This will help keep your list as short as possible.
Karl R says
Stacy said: (#82)
“assuming 2 dates per week eery week with no breaks.”
You’re assuming a lot more than that.
You’re assuming that all of the men in NY/NJ metroplex are single.
You’re assuming that she has some way to meet all of them.
You’re assuming that she can arrange it so every man she dates meets all of her criteria … and she meets all of theirs.
Heck. If MC could arrange the last one for just one date, she’d be in a long-term relationship already.
Stacy said: (#82)
“Math is a funny thing.”
Math is a funny thing. You can’t just ignore the inconvenient variables.
It doesn’t matter how many single men are in the city MC lives in. It matters how many she’s sufficiently acquainted with to where they might go on a date.
I checked Match.com to get a feel for how many men were in the NY/NJ metroplex. If she’s looking for men aged 30-39, that would be around 8000 to 8500 men. (I think Match assumes a search radius of 25 or 50 miles.)
Even if we assume twice that many men (16,000 to 17,000), there are about three or four men on Match.com who are actual matches for her.
Evan would have passed up his wife if he saw her profile online. I would have passed up my girlfriend if I saw her profile online. You have to consider the possibility that those three men would do the same thing if they saw MC’s profile … or she would do the same thing if she saw theirs.
And what if they don’t feel that magical spark on the first date?
Stacy said: (#82)
“I’d argue she is not picky enough.”
Could you rephrase that arguement more persuasively?
Karl R says
Let me clarify one thing in my previous post.
I checked Match.com to see how many men were using online dating in the NYC area … since that’s the only way she’d have access to those outside her circle of acquaintances.
Stacy says
Karl #84
I make no such assumptions. 1) a man doesn’t have to be single to be interested in her 2) This assumption is not necessary as I am merely estimating the size of the dating pool (i.e. all men that are available for meeting) and 3) this assumption is already baked into your 0.2% – no double counting please.
regarding 1) – even if you insist that divorces and breakups rate is zero, FYI 40% of men in NY metro are single, so applying it fully to my previous calculation would leave her with “just” 24 years to meet all of them!
The rest of your post, basically, deals with the fact why online dating is so limited – as you can clearly see only a small % of eligible men use it.
So. my argument here is that it is actually o.k. to exclude 99.8% of all men, for as long as your dating pool is large enough to assure sufficient supply of potential dates. Which in big metro areas it is absolutely is. It’s a very simple math, really.
And regarding #85? One sure way to access those outside your circle of acquaintances is to expand your circle of acquaintances.
Karl R says
Stacy said: (#86)
“One sure way to access those outside your circle of acquaintances is to expand your circle of acquaintances.”
How many people are in your circle of acquaintances? For me, that number is probably around 1,000. That includes those whom are male, age inappropriate, and married. Perhaps 200 are potential dates. Let’s assume MC is twice as sociable (400 potential dates), she has to expand her circle of acquaintances by 12 times to stand a reasonable chance of having a partner in that circle.
Stacy said: (#82)
“she’d be looking at a dating pool of 6,300 men. It would take her 60 years to meet all of them assuming 2 dates per week eery week with no breaks.”
Stacy said: (#86)
“this assumption is already baked into your 0.2% — no double counting please.”
You’re assuming that she can meet 2 of the 6,300 men per week. Given that those men are 1 in 5,000, I’d assume that most of her dates aren’t going to be with those 6,300 men. They’ll be with the other men.
By the way, your number is based on there being 210 million people in the NY/NJ metroplex.
50% male = 105 million
30% age appropriate = 31,500,000
1 in 5,000 dateable = 6,300
There’s only 19 million people who live in that area. Assuming 50% male, 30% age-appropriate, 40% single, 95% heterosexual … that’s down to 217 men in all of NYC who might be a potential match … if she can find them amongst the 19 million people.
And as I keep saying, finding them is the part that takes time. If she already knew where they were, she’d already be in a long-term relationship.
Stacy said: (#86)
“my argument here is that it is actually o.k. to exclude 99.8% of all men, for as long as your dating pool is large enough to assure sufficient supply of potential dates. Which in big metro areas it is absolutely is.”
Your hypothetical “dating pool” has 1,083,000 single, heterosexual, age appropriate men in it. If MC spends 60 seconds meeting each man, for 8 hours per day, every day, it will still take her six years to get through all of them.
Maybe she should try speed dating. If she speed dates (taking 5 minutes per man), for 8 hours a day, every day, it should only take her 52 days to meet one of the 217 men.
Of course, if she slacks off and only speed dates on 2 evenings per week for three hours at a time, it will take her an average of 16 years. Provided the first Mr. Right doesn’t make a bad first impression. If he does, she’ll be at it for approximately 16 more years.
Does this sound practical?
Stacy says
Karl … this is getting tiresome. You should check your math as my numbers are correct. I actually built a small excel model to de-stress from work stuff 🙂
Secondly, you constantly confusing opportunity/”market” size, which is what I am referring to, with the actual number of guys she can realistically meet. The former is pure math, the latter is a function of her apperance, social skills, family connections and many other factors. Lets not mix it up.
The bottomline is that the “0.2% argument”, while entertaining, is flawed from the analytical standpoint for any large/densly populated area… and this conversation is a good example of how NOT to communicate with men 🙂 it is, evidently, impossible to get Karl to admit that a small percent of a huge number is still a pretty big number 🙂
A-L says
If you take issue with Karl’s math (and I don’t), then think of it this way. Think of all the people you’ve dated. How many of them had all the characteristics you want? And of course, those people were already pre-filtered, either from conversations, profiles, e-mails, etc. So how many of the people did you ever communicate with meet those criteria? And then how long have you been dating? If you’ve been dating for X amount of time and have dated X number of people and haven’t found a single person who met your basic requirements, how likely are you to find one who has more than those?
Karl R says
Stacy said: (#88)
“You should check your math as my numbers are correct. I actually built a small excel model”
Recheck your model. My Excel model says yours is wrong. I suspect you typed in an extra zero into your starting population.
Stacy said: (#88)
“Secondly, you constantly confusing opportunity/”market” size, which is what I am referring to, with the actual number of guys she can realistically meet.”
I’m not confusing it. I’m saying market size irrelevant. You could call the entire world the market of available partners, but MC has no way to meet the vast majority of them.
Explain to me how “the actual number of guys she can realistically meet” is not the relevant number when it comes to her finding a partner.
Stacy said: (#88)
“the latter is a function of her apperance, social skills, family connections and many other factors.”
I was factoring her appearance and social skills into my estimate of 10% of the men being interested in her. If she’s ugly and socially awkward, that number will be much lower.
How useful are family connections? My parents’ acquaintances are primarily their generation, not mine. If your mother has a friend who has a son “who would be just perfect for you,” how interested are you in meeting him?
I’d start finding excuses before my mother finished the sentence.
Stacy said: (#86)
“1) a man doesn’t have to be single to be interested in her”
“regarding 1) — even if you insist that divorces and breakups rate is zero”
There’s a woman in my dance class who is single, attractive, fun to chat with and dance with. By your standard, you could say I’m interested in her.
But I’m not sufficiently interested in her to break up with my girlfriend. She can wait until I’m a divorcee or widower, but I think she’ll be in for a very long wait.
Of course, MC could meet a married man who will happily ditch his wife in order to start a relationship with her. Of course, she’ll be kicking herself if/when he ditches her for another woman. Unfaithful people don’t make the best partners.
Stacy said: (#88)
“it is, evidently, impossible to get Karl to admit that a small percent of a huge number is still a pretty big number”
A small percent of a huge number is a significantly large number.
A correct analysis, but an irrelevant one.
Let’s work this in reverse. MC needs to end up with 1 man.
We’re assuming 0.189% of the available men are suitable to her.
We’re assuming she’s suitable to about 10% of the suitable men.
We’re assuming about 11.4% of men are single, age appropriate, and heterosexual.
We’re assuming about 50% of the population is male.
That implies a minimum nuumber of 92,800 for her circle of acquaintances. She could take your suggestion and expand her circle of acquaintances.
And you also said that she’s being “not picky enough.” So she’ll probably need more acquaintances than that.
Stacy says
Karl #90
Unless they invented some sort of alternative math while I was sleeping,
21,000,000 x 50% x 30% x 0.2% still equals 6,300 – sorry. Reality bites.
I am not sure how old you are, but i my age group (27-32) lots of people get introduced through their family connections, country clubs, etc. Obviously, not to their parents’ friends but to their parents’ friends’ kids. Why wouldn’t you want to meet them?
Now, allow me to explain why the market size is relevant and the rest is not. It is because for as long as the market is there, you can always figure out a way to get a lion’s share of it. You do not control how big your market is. This is something that you’re presented with. But you do control the amount of effort and thought you put into maximizing it for yourself. So for as long as you know that there’s years of supply of eligible singles in your market, it is up to you to find ways to meet them. And there’re always ways. So if you’re not lazy, you’ll be just fine.
starthrower68 says
Are you kidding me? Dueling Excel models? Really?
Karl R says
Stacy, (#91)
It’s 0.02%, not 0.2%. Well, technically it’s 0.0189% … asssuming that 10% of the men are interested in MC (not 100%). And you’re still assuming that every man in NYC metroplex is straight, and you’re assuming that MC is comfortable dating married men. I find both assumptions highly unlikely.
Redo your math.
I can see how it’s possible to narrow down the market to mostly singles, mostly age appropriate, and mostly straight. Where do you go to find mostly tall men? Mostly funny men? Men who don’t have dogs? Men who don’t want (or have) kids? Open-minded men? Caring men?
If you could narrow down your target demographic that well, then you’d be the top-paid marketing exec in the world.
I don’t believe that you know how to winnow that one man out of 5,000. Explain to me how you’d do it.
mc says
Okay I get it…I’ll move to NY and increase my pool of acquaintances…; ) Kidding of course! Wow I was definitely in a fog reading all of those numbers!! I’ve never really thought about the stats so that is definitely a different way of looking at things. Although I don’t live life based on stats, it was still a good eye opener.
Karl #80 thanks a lot for your thorough response. Really only 1 out of 4 men have a good sense of humor? I’m shocked! Where did you get all those numbers. Well in any event, numbers aside, I may have to disagree with “most childless and dogless men aren’t warm hearted or giving. Although I worry about that sometimes, I do know some guys(taken) who are great guys who don’t want kids or dogs either… And I am a very very giving generous warm hearted and genuine person so there has to be some men out there like that too!
And by the way, I do look at personality more than looks too. He does have to be attractive obviously but to me, a good personality makes them more attractive. And don’t get me wrong, I am not a perfectionist, and I am not perfect myself, so I don’t expect to be with a guy who is clean all the time as long as he’s not a complete lazy slob. haha. I figure if KArl you are a dogless childess guy with a good sense of humor there is more out there like that too right?; ).
I honestly don’t think that is a lot to ask especially being 34. And that was funny..I am actually not ugly or socially awkward. I’m a social butterfuly and get along with everyone.
Karl you asked how many new men I meet. Not many at all!! I have only been on a few dates on match but no real connections just yet. I could definitely make more of an effort to go out and meet the single people and increase my pool of acquaintances. Good point that I will work on! I might be able to think twice about guys with kids already if they are old enough, but it will be tough. I won’t make it a requirement for him to be 5’11 or taller. It would just be a bonus. : ) If dogs are a must have for some guys sorry I won’t change my mind on that one.
Honey #79, that was too funny. Thanks a lot for your tips! And wow that is quite a compromise. Cats I can do, but dogs sorry I just can’t do it!
And a sense of humor I gotta have it! And I know they are out there!
Thanks a lot Cat #81. I’ll check out that article! I hope I am dateable!!
Thank you Hadley #83. I love what you said, “Don’t look to a man for everything you need and want!” So well put and so true! I will expand my horizons and give men more of a chance, I will get out more, and try not to be so selective. Thanks everyone for changing my outlook!!! : ) I really really appreciate it!!
mc says
https://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/video-how-many-people-are-dateable/
Wow Hadley great video!! Thanks a lot for that! So helpul. That is sooooo me to a T!! I will scroll down a list of at least 100 guys every week on Match and I will not find 1 guy that I like that is “dateable” to my standards. Okay thanks to all of you I am changing my ways now! Time to start shortening up that list… Thanks again : )
mc says
And thanks to you too EVan for posting such great articles and videos. I love that video, great points always!. It was nice to see you live in action too : )
Annie says
@88
This is why it’s impossible to argue with men? You’ve been arguing for several responses, I don’t see you finding it impossible.
@MC, I don’t think Karl is really trying to judge you here, just trying to point out how restrictive we can be without realizing it. And more importantly, some of the things you may percieve to be deal-breakers really aren’t. You just can’t expect some-one to like everything you like and agree to everything. It really DOESN”T matter. An emotional connection, is not..some-one alway’s feeling the way you do.
Goldie says
Stacy,
21,000,000 x 50% x 30% x 0.2% still equals 6,300 — sorry. Reality bites.
Okay. Like Karl pointed out, how many out of these 6,300 are married or in an LTR? (and if there’s any woman on this blog that actually plans on pursuing a man who’s married or in a relationship, on the off chance that he may one day be single, that’s a delusional approach at best).
How many of these men are not into women? as in, gay? I’ve heard it’s one out of every ten guys, on average, but the percentage might be higher in large metro areas. How do you expect mc to date those guys? there’s no way.
How many are not looking for whatever reason, and you cannot persuade them to start until they feel they’re good and ready?
I’ll throw a few more questions into the mix, how many of these guys have no income? how many live on the street or in homeless shelters? How many have a serious criminal record? serious addictions? are registered sex offenders? mentally ill with a history of violence? Heck, how many are doing jail time as I type this? You cannot just apply your simple math to every single male in the area in a certain age group. You’ve got to first limit the group to the ones that are available and meet minimal acceptance standards. And that’s limiting it by a large percentage.
And that’s before we get into dogs and kids and all that stuff.
@mc,
Karl you asked how many new men I meet. Not many at all!! I have only been on a few dates on match but no real connections just yet. I could definitely make more of an effort to go out and meet the single people and increase my pool of acquaintances.
I found that many guys in meetup groups, are actually looking, and come to meetups in the hopes of finding someone. You may want to try that. At least this way you’ll know he has at least one hobby that’s the same as yours. And if you don’t like him, you’re under no obligations to continue interacting with him, since it is a meetup and not a date.
DancingFaun says
Much as we would love to believe that amazing, accomplished people are “punished” for being “superior” by having awful relationships, I don’t see this to be true in the world at large.
I see banking professionals and good-looking people and elite, educated people with stellar relationships. I also see these same kinds of people with awful relationships. What I don’t see is a correlation between level of amazingness/accomplishment/attractiveness and terrible relationships.
People don’t have to be accomplished to be arrogant. People don’t have to be nice to have a relationship. You don’t have to be any one thing to have a relationship. Just look around you.
Stacy says
Karl #93
Are you kidding me? Look, I seriously hope you don’t do anything analytical for a living. 100% – 99.81% = 0.19%, approximated to 0.2%
And, personally, i think it is a bad idea to be “narrowing down” your pool, you need to be expanding it while targeting those in it with attractive characteristics.
Karl R says
mc asked: (#94)
“Really only 1 out of 4 men have a good sense of humor? I’m shocked! Where did you get all those numbers.”
Every person will tell you that they have a sense of humor. But you will probably disagree with some of them. The appropriate question is, what percentage of the men in your dating pool do you find funny. I can’t answer that question. I don’t know the men in your dating pool, and I don’t know what you find funny.
On the other hand, with regards to humor, you were talking about the importance of a man being able to use humor to deal with stress, discomfort and tension. In my experience, that’s a less common skill. But if it’s highly common in your dating pool, your estimate would be the relevant number.
What percentage of the men that you meet have a good sense of humor (by whatever measure you find meaningful in a relationship)?
mc said: (#94)
“I may have to disagree with ‘most childless and dogless men aren’t warm hearted or giving.’ Although I worry about that sometimes,”
mc said: (#57)
“I just can’t own or live with a dog and that seems to rule out a ton of guys!! Especially the nice warm hearted giving guys!”
It seemed to be your belief regarding warm hearted men owning dogs. I disagree with it, but I’m not the one deciding whether your potential boyfriend is warm hearted or giving. If you limit the assumption to dog ownership, 39% of households own at least one dog. I could find no demographics to determine whether single men were more/less likely to own dogs than the average population.
Regarding children, I only extended it to the men who have children, but aren’t involved in their lives. 18.9% of men don’t have kids and don’t want them. I made no assumptions whether they were caring people.
mc said: (#94)
“I honestly don’t think that is a lot to ask especially being 34.”
Let’s rework the statistics. You’re willing to be flexible on height, so we’ll count all men as being tall enough. We’ll assume 61% of single men don’t own dogs (the same as the national average). We’ll assume you find 75% of all men attractive, and we’ll assume you find half of all men to be warm hearted. We’ll also assume that you consider 90% of all men to have a good sense of humor.
As before, feel free to tell me how many men you think are attractive, funny, or warm hearted. Since the outcome is heavily influenced by the assumptions, and you can make better assumptions about what you find attractive/funny/etc. than I can, your input is more valid than mine.
Calculating those (assumed) numbers up, you’ll be interested in 3.9% of all single, heterosexual, age-appropriate men you encounter.
And we’ll still assume that 10% of the men you’re interested in are likewise interested in a long-term relationship with you. (Feel free to tell me if that’s incorrect.)
That means that 0.39% of the single, age-appropriate men (or 1 in 257) will be a mutual match for you.
mc said: (#94)
“Karl you asked how many new men I meet. Not many at all!!”
This heavily affects whether you’re your criteria are “a lot to ask” for or not.
Based on our current assumptions, if you’re meeting 2 new single men every week, it will take approximately 2 1/2 years for you to meet a mutual match (unless he’s already in your current circle of acquaintances). If you’re meeting 2 new single men every month, it will take approximately 10 3/4 years to meet a mutual match.
And those numbers are only as accurate as the assumptions they’re based on.
mc said: (#94)
“I will expand my horizons and give men more of a chance, I will get out more, and try not to be so selective.”
All of those actions will make your search easier.
Karl R says
Stacy said: (#100)
“Are you kidding me? Look, I seriously hope you don’t do anything analytical for a living. 100% — 99.81% = 0.19%, approximated to 0.2%”
That’s the percentage of men that MC is interested in. I’m also assuming that only 10% of those men are interested in her.
10% of 0.2% is 0.02%.
You dropped a variable (10%) out of the equation. Or you assumed 100% of all men are interested in MC.
Goldie says
Oh, this is not going to end well 🙂 Stacy, if you can re-read Karl’s ##80 and 93. Assuming MC has ruled out 99.81% of all men, (which would leave 0.19%), he then states that, out of those 0.19%, only one in ten might be interested in her, which brings us to 0.019%.
And, personally, i think it is a bad idea to be “narrowing down” your pool, you need to be expanding it while targeting those in it with attractive characteristics.
The only thing this post is saying is that we need to review and minimize our list of attractive characteristics, otherwise we’ll be left with nothing.
Or, I will add from my own experience, we’ll meet the man who has every one of our attractive characteristics and he will be a giant douchenozzle. This is what happens when you clutter your list with dozens of random items, instead of the few important ones.
Helen says
mc, don’t you love how we strangers are dissecting your hypothetical love life? 🙂
A few of the earlier posts that tried to estimate how much time it would take you to find “The One” are missing a crucial mathematical / statistical point. It could take you years to sort through all 630 eligible + thousands of ineligible men till you find The One. Or, you could meet him tomorrow.
It’s called the Poisson distribution.
In reality, what’s much more likely to happen is that you’ll find a terrific man who doesn’t quite meet all your preconceived standards, but you’ll find that you like him so much that you’ll compromise on some of those things for his sake. And if you’re in it together for the long haul, you’ll discover that those things didn’t matter much at all.
Karl R says
Goldie asked: (#98)
“Like Karl pointed out, how many out of these 6,300 are married or in an LTR?”
According to the U.S. Census Current Population Survey for 2010, about 60% of the men are married. It appears that 13% might be living with a significant other (sharing a houshold with a non-relative). I don’t have a way to track other LTRs.
If we rule out 73% of the men, it won’t be exact, but it will be in the general ballpark.
Goldie asked: (#98)
“How many of these men are not into women? as in, gay?”
Estimates on male homosexuality vary. It’s anywhere from 2% to 10%, depending on which survey you believe. That’s why I went with 5%.
Goldie asked: (#98)
“how many of these guys have no income? how many live on the street or in homeless shelters?”
Homelessness depends on the study, but estimates range from 0.22% to 1.16% of the total population.
For no income, it’s 10.85% of the male population (age 30-44). An additional 2.89% of the same population earned less than $5,000.
Goldie asked: (#98)
“How many have a serious criminal record? serious addictions? are registered sex offenders? mentally ill with a history of violence? Heck, how many are doing jail time as I type this?”
0.75% are incarcerated. They might not count toward the total (if they’re housed outside the area), but they may reduce the number of men who are part of the total population to begin with.
0.8% are in institutions due to mental retardation. (An additional 1.6% aren’t in institutions, but there may be significant overlap with the incarcerated and homeless populations.)
0.24% are registered sex offenders, some of whom are currently incarcerated.
8% to 10% used illegal drugs during the last month. Not all of them would meet the definition of addicts.
Helen said: (#104)
“In reality, what’s much more likely to happen is that you’ll find a terrific man who doesn’t quite meet all your preconceived standards, but you’ll find that you like him so much that you’ll compromise on some of those things for his sake. And if you’re in it together for the long haul, you’ll discover that those things didn’t matter much at all”
That’s what happens when people start to relax their preconceived standards.
But it may happen in a different order. I met one woman in October of 2008, but I didn’t date her because she was too old for me. During 2009 I began changing my mind about what was “too old”. If I hadn’t changed my mind, I might still be looking for a long-term relationship … even though a terrific woman was already in my circle of acquaintances.
Helen,
I understand a Poisson distribution. I’m just at a loss for how to explain it to someone who doesn’t understand it. I use estimates as a quick & dirty way to get the general point across.
Hadley Paige says
RE: Helen @ 104 “what’s much more likely to happen is that you’ll find a terrific man who doesn’t quite meet all your preconceived standards, but you’ll find that you like him so much that you’ll compromise on some of those things for his sake. “
I don’t see what you say above as what is more likely to happen. The entire point of this discussion is to attempt to show that the longer a woman’s list of “must haves” is the less likely it will be that she will even meet that “ terrific man who doesn’t quite meet all (her) preconceived standards”.
She will not meet him because she will disqualify him prior to getting to know him. The point of this discussion is to show that a woman should make her list of “must haves” as short as possible so that she may in fact actually meet a man who does not have all her “must haves”; but in person is so compelling in unanticipated ways that the woman is willing to over look a “must have” or two that the fellow lacks.
mc says
YEs Helen(#104)..lol..yes its just too funny. My thoughts exactly.. It really is being analzyed to the decimal. : ) But all in all, the advice around all the crazy numbers have still been helpful. ; ) And I also hope its helping other readers too!
Thanks so much for your encouragement Helen #104..I loved your last paragraph. I so agree…I’m not going to get hung up on numbers especially with the estimations on how long it would take me to find someone. Yikes!! Because just as you said, I could meet him tomorrow! You just never know. You’re so right, things that I don’t think I’d compromise on will probably change WHEN I do meet someone amazing.: )
Annie #97, I agree. You’re right. We can be restrictive without realizing it. ITs all about finding the emotional connection, and not expecting to agree on EVERYTHING or living our lives so parallel.
I tend to expect a lot of people in general, so time to shorten that list! Thats what it comes down to.
Thanks a lot Goldie #98 I never thought about the meet up groups so that is great to know! Thanks a lot. I will look into that. That is one way to expand my pool of acquaintances. Thanks again all!
mc says
oops sorry for my above mistake..I thought I deleted part of it and instead I ended up repeating myself. Hope its not too confusing! Does anyone know how to edit a comment once you hit done? Thanks!
Cat says
mc, #109 asks: Does anyone know how to edit a comment once you hit done?
Write a comment in the same thread with the text you want corrected. If it’s just to clarify your content or correct mistakes–and doesn’t make it confusing for all the comments that follow, such as completely changing an argument–the mod will usually fix your previous comment and delete the one which asks for correction.
Karl R says
mc said: (#108)
“Does anyone know how to edit a comment once you hit done?”
There is no technical way to do so. The blog moderator and Evan have the access to do so. I’m not aware of any time they’ve retroactively edited a post, however.
starthrower68 says
We’ll get back to our thread right after this word:
http://www.someecards.com/confession-cards/dating-sites-profile-man-woman-funny-ecard
Stacy says
Karl #102
Ok, now I see how you did your math, but it makes very little sense. Her dating pool is still 6,300, and what % of that she manages to attract is the function of her effort and NOT her selection criteria.
Also, assuming a static number for this is wrong beacuse it is subjective (unlike data like metro population, etc.) and completely off the cuff (also known as garbage-in-garbage-out in financial modeling). What we’d usually do in this case is sensitivity analysis, assuming ranges from 5% to say 50%. And again, this would take it one step further, it’s not just the size of her dating pool, but the actual number of guys she can take to the city hall. Have I sufficiently bothered you yet? 🙂
The reason I am persisting in showing the fallacies of this “0.2%” argument is because frankly, I am growing tired of all the attempts to put down women based on what they want out of life and their partners.
A good analogy in this case is job search. If you believe you’re highly skilled in a certain area and you’re looking for a job, you could go after a high-paying job with benefits and lots of potential. The number of such jobs in your field, especially if you have narrow specialization, is going to be very small. Probably around 0.2% of all jobs offered in your city. Heck, some of these positions are not even advertized on monster.com – you actually have to do some real life networking to learn about them! Moreover ,some of them don’t even exist, but you can convince people to create one for you. This sounds like hard work. You can go down this path, devise a smart plan, put in a lot of effort and get a job of your dream (or not). Alternatively, you could surmise that since there’s so little jobs of that quality offered, you sould broadern your criteria. You could fill-in an application in each and every drug store and Walmart in your area and spend the rest of your life doing paper-or-plastic.
Honey says
@mc, well at least I am funny 🙂 I will say I agree with Karl R, a sense of humor was the last useful criteria to use to try and screen people in advance, because everyone thinks they are funny. And probably everyoe is – to someone. Just not to you, unfortunately.
The point to my dog story is (and Evan will love this!) – I stayed with Jake when he decided to keep the dog because at that point we had already been dating well over a year and just come home from spending 20 blissful days in Europe together. If Jake had already had the dog when I met him, I probably wouldn’t have dated him long. And that would have been MY loss, since we’ve now been together for the best 5 years of my life.
Goldie says
@ Honey #113:
I will say I agree with Karl R, a sense of humor was the last useful criteria to use to try and screen people in advance, because everyone thinks they are funny.
Did anyone say anything about screening people in advance on that? like, on a dating site? If it was me, I apologize for giving the wrong message. It is impossible to screen in advance on that factor. On one hand, you have guys who embellish their profiles and possibly enlist friends or professional help to fill those out. On the other hand, the dude whose profile I saw last week, whose “About Me” session consisted of “this sucks, do i really have to write all this? looking for a fun girl to go out with. don’t tell me i have to write more. this is bullcrap.” might be the funniest guy in the world. (although probably not the most positive and upbeat). It’s just hard to tell from what he put in his profile.
Not that I agree with Stacy’s job-search analogy, but online profiles remind me a lot of what I’ve heard from my manager friends about people applying for jobs. – According to their resume, everyone’s an expert in the exact same area that the company is hiring for. You’re not going to know if it’s true until you’ve talked to the person face-to-face several times.
The way I understood it, the post was about doing an actual search on a dating site, narrowing your criteria down to a 6’2″ libertarian with two dogs, black hair and blue eyes, and having your search return one person, who’s not going to write you back.
By the way, on to Stacy’s job-search analogy #112:
A good analogy in this case is job search. If you believe you’re highly skilled in a certain area and you’re looking for a job, you could go after a high-paying job with benefits and lots of potential. The number of such jobs in your field, especially if you have narrow specialization, is going to be very small <…>. You can go down this path, devise a smart plan, put in a lot of effort and get a job of your dream (or not). Alternatively, you could surmise that since there’s so little jobs of that quality offered, you sould broadern your criteria. You could fill-in an application in each and every drug store and Walmart in your area and spend the rest of your life doing paper-or-plastic.
Sorry, this is NOT what the post was about at all. To continue with the job-search stuff, the way I understood Evan’s post, it’s like this. Say you’re a software developer (okay, I am). You’ve spent your last ten years working at a manufacturing company, writing code in VB6 and SQL Server 2000. You are looking for a new job. You can narrow your search to what you’re used to, which would be manufacturing companies that need someone to program in VB6 and SQL Server 2000, in which case, good luck with that. Or you can broaden your criteria (notice it’s “broaden”, not “lower”) and look for developer positions at any company in your area that uses a more-or-less up-to-date platform and will let you learn on the job, if needed. This is what Evan et al meant by broadening our search, not “paper-or-plastic”. Which BTW you won’t be hired for, because you’re overqualified.
frankly, I am growing tired of all the attempts to put down women based on what they want out of life and their partners.
No one’s putting them down, people are just saying that those women may spend all their lives waiting for a fictional guy that doesn’t exist.
I would say the same to a 40-year-old man who would only settle for a 22-year-old with model looks and an Ivy League Master’s degree.
Karl R says
Stacy said: (#112)
“what % of that she manages to attract is the function of her effort and NOT her selection criteria.”
Really?
Just like MC (and every woman), I have my own selection criteria and dealbreakers. If you don’t meet them, you’re out. I’m not unique among men. Every man has his own selection criteria and dealbreakers.
I could meet every one of your “must haves” and “nice to haves”, but if you’re missing one of my “must haves”, I’ll break up with you.
One of my “must haves” is intelligence. I rule out 80% to 90% of women based on that alone. Either MC is smart enough, or she’s not. If a less intelligent woman puts in effort (like you recommend), she might persuade me to have a fling with her, but not a serious relationship.
I don’t date smokers. I can’t stand the smell, I can’t stand the taste, and it triggers my allergies. If a woman is unwilling/unable to put in the effort to kick her nicotine habit for health reasons, do you think she’ll do so just to get a first date?
A lot of men use race as a selection criterion. Can MC change her race with enough effort?
Go through MC’s list and tell me which one of those a man could change if he put in the effort. Humor? Try harder, be funny? Is he going to get rid of his dog just to have a first date? Can he try hard and grow taller?
If a man can’t meet MC’s criteria through effort, what makes you think that she can meet men’s criteria through effort?
Stacy said: (#112)
“What we’d usually do in this case is sensitivity analysis, assuming ranges from 5% to say 50%.”
You have claimed that MC is “not picky enough” when she accepts 0.2% of all men. But you think that 5% to 50% of men are going to find her acceptable? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that men are approximately as picky as women? We might lower our standards for a one-night stand, but for marriage?
Stacy said: (#112)
“assuming a static number for this is wrong beacuse it is subjective (unlike data like metro population, etc.) and completely off the cuff”
Of course it’s an arbitrary number. That’s why I chose a number that was ridiculously high (not as ridiculous as 50%, but you get my point). Since none of the women on this blog would be willing to accept 10% of all available men, then it stands to reason that none of the men would be willing to accept 10% of all women.
I take that back. There’s one guy on this blog who has abyssmally low self-esteem. I think he’d accept more than 10% of all women. Let’s call him a statistical outlier.
Arbitrary and off-the-cuff, yes. But it sets an upper limit to what MC could reasonably expect. And if the best-case scenario looks grim, then the reality is probably worse.
Stacy said: (#112)
“A good analogy in this case is job search.”
“You can go down this path, devise a smart plan, put in a lot of effort and get a job of your dream (or not).”
Perfect anology. I love it!
Let’s say my dream job is to play-test video games. I’d like to work 20 hours per week, get a full benefits package, and get a salary of $250,000 per year.
No matter how much effort I put in and how smart my plan is, I won’t get this job. So many people want to play-test video games that an employer can get someone with my intelligence, skills & education, can work them for 60 hours per week, and can pay them $25,000 per year.
It’s hard to elbow your way into that 0.2% job when 5% of the population is willing to fight for it. That’s why the hours are so long and the wages so low. Even the best applicants have to compromise to get that job.
I could hold out for my dream and be unemployed for the rest of my life. Or I can have the sense to realize that my expectations are out of line with reality. When that happens, it’s time to change my expectations.
It’s easy to overprice yourself out of the market. We all like to think of ourselves as being priceless. But in the dating market, the other person thinks they’re priceless too.
Stacy said: (#112)
“I am growing tired of all the attempts to put down women based on what they want out of life and their partners.”
If a 60 year-old, overweight, middle class man wants a 20 to 25 year-old hottie for a wife, what’s your opinion of him?
Most men would be interested in a 20 to 25 year-old hottie. But this man is looking for something he is unlikely to ever get. I could encourage him to pursue his dream woman, or I could encourage him to pursue someone who would make a great partner and whom he could realistically end up with.
Am I putting him down by encouraging him to accept reality?
Stacy said: (#112)
“this would take it one step further, it’s not just the size of her dating pool, but the actual number of guys she can take to the city hall. Have I sufficiently bothered you yet?”
No bother at all. By taking it “one step further” you’ve finally caught up to where I was in post (#80).
Going back to our 60 year-old, overweight, middle class man; he should have better luck than MC. Even if he limits himself to the hotest 1% of the women, that still leaves him with a dating pool of 7,350 women in the NYC metroplex. And applying your “sensitivity analysis” range of 5% to 50% who would be interested in him, that still leaves a minimum of 367 women who would be perfect partners for him.
All he needs to do is put in the time and effort and network and his dream can come true!
Of course, I would expect there are at least 70,000 such men in NYC trying to do exactly that, and I expect far fewer than 367 to be successful.
MC wants a man who is tall, warm-hearted and funny. What percentage of the single women in NYC do you think are looking for those traits? Over 90%? So not only would she need to find one of these 6,300 men in NYC, she’d also need to fight her way through the hundred or so women who found him first … the women who have a head start to City Hall….
Do you still think 5% to 50% is a good range for the “sensitivity analysis”?
Evan Marc Katz says
The winner, and still reigning logical analysis champion, Karl R!
Selena says
Re: Goldie # 114
“Or you can broaden your criteria (notice it’s broaden, not lower)…”
I would like to see the term broaden replace its somewhat negative siblings “settle” and “compromise”. Much better discription of the point many here try to make.
starthrower68 says
Spelling might be more important than you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJMDzNZWsE
Stacy says
Karl #115
Since none of the women on this blog would be willing to accept 10% of all available men, then it stands to reason that none of the men would be willing to accept 10% of all women.
Not really. Through her criteria she’s already deselecting those who’d be unlikely to accept her in the first place. It stands to reason that in her selected group the acceptance rate would be much higher than average. And, Karl, outside of race and height, there’s really very little that can’t be changed.
If a 60 year-old, overweight, middle class man wants a 20 to 25 year-old hottie for a wife, what’s your opinion of him?
He should go for it. Who am I to tell him otherwise. Being rich would help him a lot though. He would have to put in some effort though – as I said – and change to make himself more attractive. Like lose weight.
Let me ask you this: if a 38 year old lower middle class woman with average looks (i am being generous) wants to marry a billionaire and have a child, what’s your opinion on her? After your form it, you may want to google Karen Hader.
It’s hard to elbow your way into that 0.2% job when 5% of the population is willing to fight for it.
There. I think you nailed it.
I personally got a 0.001% job for which god knows what % of the population was fighting for in a year when people in that industry were being laid off in droves. Held out till the last moment too (had less than $100 in my checking left). I never expected it to be easy, but would never sell myself short as to compromise for something I didn’t want.
The way we approach things like that says a lot about who we are. Do we accept our fate, or do we create it. Do we take the low-hanging fruit because it is safe, or do we shoot for the moon. Do we believe that for as long as there’s opportunity, there’s a chance, or do we talk ourselves out of trying.
You think that you’re being logical here and that you’re trying to get some woman to accept “the reality” that she wouldn’t be able to find a tall guy with a sense of humor and no dog. But what you’re really doing is imposing your system of beliefs on her, which has nothing to do with the reality or logic. What can I say to that? “Whether you believe you can or cannot – you’re right”.
Karl R says
Stacy said: (#119)
“Through her criteria she’s already deselecting those who’d be unlikely to accept her in the first place.”
Really?
MC has selected down to a narrow group of men. Since I’m in that group, let’s review some of my selection criteria:
How did MC make it less likely that I would deselect her for intelligence? None of her criteria address that. How did she make it less likely that I deselect her for being a smoker? None of her criteria address that either. In fact, the only way that she avoids being deselected is by being smart and being a nonsmoker. I choose her based upon what she is, not upon whom she has chosen.
How does her criteria make it less likely that I’ll deslect her for being unattractive? None of her criteria address that. Taking it one step further, even if she rules out 80% of men because they’re unattractive, that doesn’t make her any more attractive to the remaining 20%.
I made MC’s cut because I don’t have a dog. She doesn’t have a dog. You’ve implied that should help her make my cut. Except my girlfriend has a dog. MC’s dealbreakers aren’t the same as mine. By not having a dog, it was somewhat easier for me to date my girlfriend. I could spend the night at her place without worrying about caring for a pet. I didn’t have to worry whether my pets would get along with hers.
Some men don’t want a tall woman. All MC has to do to deselect them is be tall. My girlfriend didn’t want to have children. She got her tubes tied, and the men who wanted children deselected themselves. The people who don’t want you will take themselves out of your dating pool … no strategy is required.
Stacy said: (#119)
“outside of race and height, there’s really very little that can’t be changed.”
A friend of mine has limited dating options because she’s 60. Her options would be much better if she was 40. How should she go about changing that?
An ex-girlfriend has hepatitis C (she got it from a transfusion). Like any other incurable STD, it gets in the way of dating. How should she go about changing that?
My uncle is handicapped (he’s an amputee). How should he go about correcting that?
My brother’s a bigot/chauvanist/homophobe, so it’s embarassing to introduce girlfriends to him. How can I change him to make him more open minded?
One of my criteria is intelligence (not to be confused with eductation). A person can make themselves better educated. How do they go about making themselves more intelligent?
How many more examples would you like?
Stacy said: (#119)
“you may want to google Karen Hader.”
If a “38 year old lower middle class woman with average looks” wants to marry a billionaire, I’d say she has a much better chance if it’s the billionaire’s idea.
Since the article talks about Kevin Silverman using the world’s worst pickup line, I’d say the billionaire wanted to date/marry a 38 year old yoga instructor.
Under those circumstances, if she wants to marry a billionaire, she just needs to say, “I do.”
Stacy said: (#119)
“I personally got a 0.001% job for which god knows what % of the population was fighting for in a year when people in that industry were being laid off in droves. Held out till the last moment too (had less than $100 in my checking left).”
When I hit two months living expenses, I started doing temp work. I eventually ended up with an assignment at a company that I’d never heard of. After I began working for them, I realized that their job was a perfect fit for my skills & interests, and they realized I was a perfect fit for the job … even though my resume wouldn’t have made HR’s first cut, because I lacked the preferred degree/major.
I ended up with the perfect 0.001% … a job that I’d never realized existed before working for the company. And I didn’t even have to risk starving/being homeless in order to get it.
The best job might not be the one everyone’s desperately fighting for. It might be the one you haven’t even heard of. That’s true for significant others too.
Stacy said: (#119)
“The way we approach things like that says a lot about who we are. Do we accept our fate, or do we create it.”
Do you limit yourself to the path that you planned, or do you open yourself up to possibilities that you hadn’t been aware of?
My terrific girlfriend did not make herself younger to conform to my idea of what age she should be. When I decided that my girlfriend didn’t have to be a specific age, I discovered a terrific girlfriend.
Stacy said: (#119)
“But what you’re really doing is imposing your system of beliefs on her, which has nothing to do with the reality or logic.”
I could say the same about you. And I just did.
People can’t impose beliefs upon someone else. At best, you can show them the flaws in their own beliefs and get them to consider that other beliefs might be valid.
Stacy said: (#119)
“Whether you believe you can or cannot — you’re right”.
An acquaintance of mine intends to take his entire savings, go to Vegas, and bet it all on one spin of the wheel. That’s his retirement plan.
You’re saying he’s right?
I’d say his odds of succeeding this time are about 1 in 32 … about the same as his odds the previous time he tried it.
Jadafisk says
Is anyone really suggesting that a picky person should relax moral standards re: married and attached men, or are they just contending that the reality of today’s world means that quite a few people that are attached today in LTRs and marriages (especially the former) are not going to be forever? The catalyst for the dissolution of these relationships doesn’t necessarily have to be the man engaging in infidelity with a woman who considered him still “in play”, relationship status nonwithstanding.
starthrower68 says
Jadafisk,
I don’t think that’s what is being said; I might have missed something in all the quantum math, but there was discussion about say, a person of faith being willing to get involved with a person who does not believe as long as the non-believer was treating you well. That is such a personal thing that it works for some and for others, it’s not an area that can be compromised.
Karl R says
Jadafisk asked: (#121)
“Is anyone really suggesting that a picky person should relax moral standards re: married and attached men, or are they just contending that the reality of today’s world means that quite a few people that are attached today in LTRs and marriages (especially the former) are not going to be forever?”
I was primarily pointing out the flaws in the opposing arguement. Most sensible and/or ethical women do not consider “taken” men to be part of the available dating pool.
Even if they might not be taken forever.
Three years ago I asked a woman out. She declined, saying that she’d recently started dating someone else. After observing her with her boyfriend, I concluded that the relationship was not going to last. (He wants a more serious relationship with her than she does with him.)
At this point, I expect to be married before that couple breaks up, and I’m not in any rush to reach the altar.
Is there any way that I benefit by treating her as part of my available dating pool? Especially if we look at the situation in terms of pickiness?
There’s a temptation to look at a man/woman in that kind of relationship and think, “I know she’s attracted to me. I know the relationship won’t last. Why should I accept the woman I’m with, when I could get someone better just by waiting?”
And I think that mindset hampers our ability to find a good relationship.
Jadafisk asked: (#121)
“The catalyst for the dissolution of these relationships doesn’t necessarily have to be the man engaging in infidelity”
True.
Different woman, similar situation. This time, she was in a LTR when I met her. I knew she found me physically attractive. I knew she enjoyed my company as well.
Two years ago she broke up with her boyfriend. As soon as that happened, I started considering her to be available. I asked her out, and we dated.
And I discovered that she appeared to be a much better girlfriend when someone else was dating her. She’s rather difficult to get along with in a relationship.
If you pass up potential partners while waiting for a particular relationship to end, you may eventually discover that you wasted a lot of time waiting for someone who wasn’t a great partner. If you reduce the waiting period (by being the catalyst for the dissolution of the relationship), you eventually earn a reputation which could cause some of the best partners to avoid you.
If a terrific person becomes single, go ahead and take advantage of their “currently available” status. But I can’t see any benefit to viewing them as single before that occurs.
Goldie says
@ Karl #123:
Two years ago she broke up with her boyfriend. As soon as that happened, I started considering her to be available. I asked her out, and we dated.
And I discovered that she appeared to be a much better girlfriend when someone else was dating her. She’s rather difficult to get along with in a relationship.
Ah, there’s the rub. Right after a person gets out of an LTR, they’re not yet ready to start a new one. Even if this person tells you otherwise (“yeah, we only separated last week, but I’ve been over her for years”) Not to say that your friend isn’t in fact a difficult person – she might or might not be – but the fact that you asked her out as soon as she’d broken up with her boyfriend was, IMO, an additional complicating factor.
Bottom line, from what I’ve seen so far, if a person is taken, they’re out for the count. To think otherwise, and consider them as potential relationship partners, is self-destructive.
L says
I agree with Evan, I do conciously make the choice to cut out 50% of the dating pool by wanting to be with a man who is taller than my 6′ self.
I am a devout Catholic, but I wouldn’t mind marrying someone of a different religion if there were agreeable to raising our future children Catholic and attending Mass. Politics wouldn’t be a dealbreaker either, but it’d certainly help to be dating a Republican so we could indoctrinate the kids properly (kidding). 😀
Terri says
You are wonderful. Have put your page in my favorites. Excellent common sense advice, some of which crossed my mind before……
FashionMaven says
I think what Evan says in his blog post is correct. If your #1 goal is to find love, and that trumps everything else, then having certain dealbreakers (which Evan is arguing actually may not impede a happy marriage) would get in the way of having that love.
The issue that I see many people of faith trying to get Evan to understand is that for them, finding love DOES NOT trump their faith. For me, if I have to choose between God and an unequally-yoked partner, I would choose God. The reasons are that my faith demands that I am not to put anything or anyone before God (it makes them an idol).
So, I follow my faith first and THEN I search for a partner.
So Evan is right – I may end up not marrying. But that’s the price I pay for my faith. My faith (which Evan might deem wishful thinking) does give me comfort that if God has someone for me, then He has someone for me.
Case in point: I recently dated a man who claimed Christianity but his life did not reflect that AT ALL. In the Christian faith, we have a concept called “Being transformed by the renewing of your mind”. It means that you make the conscious effort to turn from all worldly pursuits daily. This man was not on the same page at all and it caused us severe conflict – especially around the area of sex (he wanted it, I believe – as the Bible states, that sex is for marriage only – yeah I know I’ve blown the minds of many here and many probably think I’m a fool – I can live with that). I can only imagine what would happen if we’d married and then gotten into it when I wanted to tithe 10%. In a Christian family, God covers the husband, the husband covers the wife, etc.. – that’s what makes it palatable for the wife to submit to the husband, etc.. Plus, the reason that tenet is there is because usually, when you are yoked with an unbeliever, your faith suffers because you – what? – compromise your faith in order to “get along” with your partner. So, if your partner doesn’t believe in tithing, you relax that standard. If your partner doesn’t believe premarital sex is wrong and worse – pressures you – then you might cave into that. Usually in an unequally yoked situation, the believer is the one who tends to compromise, while the unbeliever tends to stay exactly the same. Some people are okay with the compromise – but I posit that if you are truly devout – if you are truly transformed (see Romans), this would present a huge internal conflict.
Anyway – I completely agree with not having such a huge list of dealbreakers that you price yourself out of the market… but for me, faith is a way of life. It’s not just a “belief” and it’s not on the same level as a “hobby”. It permeates my being. And if the result is that I have to choose faith over love, then faith (God) wins.
I won’t apologize for that – but I won’t whine over it either should I never find a mate.
Myshelles says
My online profile describes my medical condition. I put it on there because I have had a previous relationship that could not handle it. While it is not life threatening in the short term or even much of an issue in my eyes, it does limits where and what I can eat. In an nutshell I have celiac disease which means no wheat, barley, or rye or I get terribly sick. I have found that this is a huge turn off for most men as it is viewed as being “picky”. For me, if a guy can’t deal with my disease, it is a deal breaker. This is not because I am picky, I would just rather be upfront about the realities of my life. Plus for me, I don’t care if my partner eats gluten or not…I view it as their choice. They just have to be able to accept that I can’t. After all, I have practice with this, my kid is not on a gluten free diet. Anyways, my point is that there can be real deal breakers out there. I have had a lot of guys take a pass on dating because of a lack of understanding but then again I have met guys that don’t have my condition but are accommodating and are actually willing to work around it.
Marie says
I feel like disagreeing, some people can have strange lives and actually be different from the majority without actually overestimating themselves.
I am a HSP (hyper sensitive person) I grew up in an abnormally cultured environment, I received abuse of various kinds when I was small, I went through two nearly fatal accidents, one of which left me in a wheelchair for six years and could be overcome only with huge commitment and some luck, I managed to stay emotionally healthy in spite of all these things, I still have most of the friends I made since primary school, I lived in 5 different countries, I have three graduate and post graduate degrees, I was exposed to extreme poverty and extreme riches, I started and failed two companies, I am not ugly but not even outstandingly beautiful and I just turned 40. How on earth can I find someone compatible with me? I tried the inter-class thing, and I really don’t care about social position, but it simply was too much difference. Those of my education and background want prettier and younger women, always did, and also have limited life experiences and when they know more of me think that I am a freak, and those with a lot of life experiences like me that I met were horribly screwed up, and that I don’t think I deserve. It’s not that I am Special, but I am in a sense “special”, with less than common experience and needs, and I fear it’s not a matter of overestimating oneself.
marymary says
Marie
Someone can be compatible with you without being the same as you or having had the same experiences.
My boyfriend doesnt understand half of what I’ve been through and that’s fine by me. He isn’t hypersensitive like I can be or nor does he have a delicate conscience like I do. I appreciate his self-confidence (not arrogance) and solidity. It wouldn’t help me to find a man who enables my reticence, anxiety and pessimism, borne from a history of abuse in childhood and then in adulthood. He’s helped me to be a brighter person. I don’t feel less like me, I feel more like me. That baggage was not an inherent part of me and I’m lighter without it.
I don’t need a therapist, I don’t need anyone to make allowances for me, I don’t need special understanding. I’m not a delicate flower. I need a man who is committed, loyal and kind. I also find him sexually attractive.
You thinking that the men you want don’t want you is a common complaint from women of all ages, races, incomes, education and levels of attractiveness. It’s a recurrent theme on this blog and most dating blogs. It’s almost laughably common. I say “almost” cos I know it’s not funny when you’re living it but if we can overcome our pessimism, our belief in our own undateability (for whatever reason), we can meet someone.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I think I’m too unique/flawed/special to meet someone worthwhile then I won’t. I’ll chase men who aren’t suitable and chase off ones who are, cos that caters to my beliefs. We don’t like having our beliefs challenged. It’s uncomfortable and puts the responsibility firmly back where it belongs. With us to change.
marymary says
Fashion 127
Sorry about the multiple post but your comment caught my eye because my pool is also limited to fellow Christians. I met my boyfriend at church over a year ago and we have been dating for about six months. it took a while to get off the ground – don’t expect religious men to be expert seducers as well as living their religious values. We are also abstaining from sex before marriage. i don’t believe in 10% titheing. would you discount a man for that? Even if he is a christian, there are going to be differences, compromises and sacrifices.
I think christians do themselves a disservice by saying “God has someone for me” and then not try to meet someone. You don’t wait for God to find you a job or open your bible for you. You do have the freedom to make active choices. You are not sinning or letting the side down by looking for a husband or wife. My church is chockful of attractive single men and women who don’t seem to want to get together. I don’t know what that’s about. Fear and an overactive conscience maybe, or they’re waiting for A Sign. If there are no single men at your church, go to conventions or visit other churches.
Single for the rest of your life is a valid, worthwhile option. So is marriage.
“I’m single for religious reasons” sounds better than I’m single because I’m too old/fat/thin/poor/special/divorced/picky/bitter but I wonder if it’s just another variation.
I didn’t have a date for six years before I met my boyfriend. If I can meet someone, anyone can.
Lucy says
Thanks. I feel better. A man just dumped for me “not being outgoing enoug”h. He goes on regular bike rides which are hundreds of miles at a time. He wants a woman who’ll do the same thing and also challenge him. I don’t actually know any who would fit that description, and that’s even out of the women I know who work out more than me and are more active.
K says
@Lucy, if you weren’t so much younger than me I’d assume we dated the same man. I dated a man several years ago who basically gave me the same BS excuse. That’s all it is an excuse (consciously or otherwise). Just swap bike riding with anything, you aren’t into sports/church/drugs/music, whatever it may be. The person who wants to be with you won’t need you to be exactly like them. If a guy is into riding bikes and you were open to it he could take you on an easy ride to develop your interest. I had suggested that to my guy and he scoffed. I know expert cyclists who are married to women who won’t even ride a bike, but they show up to their races and cheer them on. It was enough for them. The man who wants to be with you will find a way to fit you into his life as you would for them. If my man wasn’t into my hobbies, but showed some interest in them I’d be delighted. I’m dating a few guys right now who probably have a passing interest in football at best. But I love that they keep up enough to talk to me about it.
Laura says
Great article Evan. It is crazy how these comments have gone to extremes. I have definitely read from you and others how to be aware of what you want in a man, but also be aware that all of these are not “must haves” for happiness!
Sara says
Honey, I’ve been working backwards through the posts, and in this one I found a long, thoughtful one from you that didn’t include the word ‘Jake’! Then into it next response, back it was again. I’m happy for you (and I have a wonderful partner too), but I would pay a lot more attention to your posts if you didn’t mention Jake all the time – it gets in the way!
Hannah Shayne Neely says
Um I believe you have to agree on your mostpassionate beliefs to have a strong and successful relatiobship. Ican’t date a homophobe. Why?? Because I find the beliefs insulting, cruel, and heartless. I also can’t date a Christian because faith is so important to them and I don’t believe in it. The person I’m with also has to have a huge compassion for animals. We need the most important things in common to work or even LIKE each other.I’m not gonna fall in love with soneone i think is an asshole.
(Sorry for the typing issues but my phone obviously hates this website.)
Hannah Shayne Neely says
Maybe you can do it, but I can’t start a relationship with someone who doesn’t share my most fundamental values and beliefs. That is what draws me to a person as well as their compassion and affection.
beauty salon says
your post is so informative thanks