Too fussy

meeeeh

There is nothing wrong in picking somebody who is successful and rich. But I just hope that is not the only criteria. You could pick a successful builder in 2006. Unless the relationship was based on something more, there would be nothing left by 2008.

Catari Jaguar

eviltwin wrote: »

I must have missed the memo on that. Or else my genes must be defective.

I certainly didn't end up with a man who is successful and who can provide for me but I'm no worse off for it

Yea, but would I be right in assuming he's not a useless lay about with no aspirations or skills who can't take care of himself?

Though the way some Irish mammies raise their sons they'd think that's the cream of the crop for us!

April O Neill

seenitall wrote: »

As is their right.

It's also people's right to consider that view snobbish.

April O Neill

OP, it is REALLY important to give a guy a shot before discounting him. I'm a believer in not judging someone on the first impressions. I had so many preconceptions about my boyfriend that I was sooooo wrong about. He quickly won me over. I am so unbelievably glad I got to know him better.

beks101

April O Neill wrote: »

Any one who thinks a lack of degree indicates a lack of intelligence is misguided. And despite what many people insist, that will be the reason some of them won't consider a degree-less person as a partner.

Of course. Which shows a lack of intelligence on their part, somewhat ironically.

Having a degree could mean many things. It could mean you followed what may have been a conventional path in life, went to a few lectures and crammed appropriately the night before the crucial exams for a couple of years.

Or it could mean you worked yourself stupid during Leaving Cert to get the necessary points to go to a college that would put you under financial and social strain, dedicated your life to your studies for a few years and put your mental health at risk to get to where you want to go in life.

I know people on both those ends of the spectrum. I've dated people on both ends of the spectrum. And then my big recent ex wasn't academic at all, but was one of the most copped on, ambitious go-getters I know.

Some people stick with what they know. Some people grew up with education as a big priority in life. Both my parents were professional over-achievers, I grew up in a household where college and a career were not just an option, they were an expectation. It's shaped my life in a big way.

So obviously, I'm going to find education and ensuing career path is a big thing to have in common with someone. But it's not a "term and condition" that I attach to romantic relationships, I don't think many people do that to be honest. None of us are looking for a business partner, we're looking to be understood, respected, intrigued and wanted by someone.

The education thing is just something that may linger in the background as a possible indicator that you may have something in common with someone, just like religious or political views may indicate the same.

Is it unreasonable to have that as an interest, as something that attracts you to someone else because of the shared value it indicates? Each to their own I say.

Call Me Jimmy

seenitall wrote: »

Well I don't understand how judging on the basis of the ability to cook well, or on the basis of having lots of money, or on the basis of the belief in a beardy man in the sky, will help find someone. Yet some people do, and as far as they are concerned they are not limiting themselves, they are just exercising their preferences. Which is their right.

Being able to cook well (and assuming they enjoy it) will have a good effect on a relationship in t hat as a couple you can eat well regularly and enjoy food together.

Money as a criteria means you either want to leech off someone or you don't want someone leeching off you.

Belief of a beardy man in a sky is a common interest and will mean you are more likely to think on the same terms.

A college degree is usually an avenue to a job, unless two people have the same job/degree it won't help in any way to make a relationship better between them than if it weren't present. You'd also both have to really love your same jobs for it to benefit the relationship as well.

Exercising preferences is fine, and of course anyone has the 'right' to do most things but I don't think that needs mentioning when a topic comes up for discussion.

clairefontaine

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Exercising preferences is fine, and of course anyone has the 'right' to do most things but I don't think that needs mentioning when a topic comes up for discussion.

It's not so much that someone has the right to their preferances, this goes without saying.

It's more that no one has the right to try to rewrite someone else's desire's, that to me, is utter obnoxiousness, mothering in its worst form.

seenitall

April O Neill wrote: »

It's also people's right to consider that view snobbish.

People who think other people are snobbish for having preferences for themselves... that's being judgmental. That's what most of my posts on this thread are about.

for yourself too.

April O Neill

seenitall wrote: »

People who think other people are snobbish for having preferences for themselves... that's being judgmental. .

I said it was a right. I didn't say it couldn't be anything else in addition to that.

HTML5!

seenitall wrote: »

People who think other people are snobbish for having preferences for themselves... that's being judgmental. That's what most of my posts on this thread are about.

for yourself too.

A preference such as a physical trait is fine. To disregard someone because of that off the bat is just shallow. This is a fact. And yes they have a right to be shallow.

To not consider someone because they're not studying something you want to is utter stupidity. I wouldn't even dignify that by calling it shallow. Again, the person has every right.

You can dress up your argument any way you want, but it's not conducive to opening up healthy relationships.

clairefontaine

You wouldn't get half the judgementalism if it were someone who didn't want to date teetotalers or smokers.

Uh god you only want to date men, that is seriously limiting yourself lady.

seenitall

eviltwin wrote: »

I must have missed the memo on that. Or else my genes must be defective.

I certainly didn't end up with a man who is successful and who can provide for me but I'm no worse off for it

I don't know about this stuff being biological. If there is scientific proof, fair play.

However, ever more women in the West are completely financially independent, and this is a trend that has been going in only one direction for decades now.

Therefore ever more men are able to 'marry up', so to speak, and ever more women have been having to 'marry down', (I put it in italics, as it's going against traditional social norms; I of course think the increasing financial parity between genders, with whatever consequences it brings, is a good thing).

So, to cut a long story short, I think many men are looking for wealth/money/financial savy and good standing in a woman these days, as well.

There was a guy recently in RI who seemed completely knocked for six when his girlfriend told him she wanted to be a housewife and a SAHM when they marry. He wanted advice on how to deal with her expectations because he never even envisaged he'd be the sole bread-winner.

Ok, the above is kind of an extreme example, but I have heard men say they would be looking for a woman with a good job. It's normal these days.

So where would biology fit into that?

I think it's more of a case of a disenfranchised gender not having much choice in the past but to 'latch on', so to speak, on to the partner's resources. As things are changing regarding this situation, we are seeing that pragmatic considerations such as this when choosing a partner, are not strictly the preserve of one gender.

seenitall

HTML5! wrote: »

A preference such as a physical trait is fine. To disregard someone because of that off the bat is just shallow. This is a fact. And yes they have a right to be shallow.

To not consider someone because they're not studying something you want to is utter stupidity. I wouldn't even dignify that by calling it shallow. Again, the person has every right.

Yes, the person has every right, and you have every right to think of that what you will, and I have every right to think of you for your opinion what I will. We've established all that pretty firmly on this thread already, I'd say.

What's more interesting to me is how you can claim so confidently that someone's relationship will be unhealthy because they like dark-haired men or IT geeks so darn much, that they have in fact set their heart on finding themselves a dark-haired guy/an IT geek.

That is quite a leap. An amusing one, I have to say.

meeeeh

Everyone has different preferences but for me are the most important ones that impact your everyday life long therm. Religious views are not important as long as they don't impact your life in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Level of education doesn't realy matter if the person is not an idiot. Dating smoker is not a problem if you are not revolted by smoking... Preferences don't overly matter when you click with someone. But when you don't connect at the beginning then every little thing can be a deal breaker. And thank god we don't like the same things or most if us would have no chance.

southsiderosie

clairefontaine wrote: »

You wouldn't get half the judgementalism if it were someone who didn't want to date teetotalers or smokers.

Uh god you only want to date men, that is seriously limiting yourself lady.

seenitall wrote: »

People who think other people are snobbish for having preferences for themselves... that's being judgmental.

The title of this thread is "Too fussy". The OP put down education as something on her 'list'. Now people are telling her that she is, in effect, being too fussy by putting it on her list, and this is somehow being seen as judgmental? We were asked to judge whether or not she is being too fussy!

southsiderosie

beks101 wrote: »

The education thing is just something that may linger in the background as a possible indicator that you may have something in common with someone, just like religious or political views may indicate the same.

Is it unreasonable to have that as an interest, as something that attracts you to someone else because of the shared value it indicates? Each to their own I say.

But the broader point is that education is not necessarily an indicator of a 'shared value'. Being a practicing Catholic or Jew or Buddhist signals a clear set of values: if someone said that they were an Orthodox Jew, you can be pretty sure that they have specific views on family, keeping kosher, etc. without any further conversation. Political views also carry an implicit set of values: if someone said that they were a libertarian, I would know that they have a certain set of views on the role of the state in society; if someone said that they were a Republican 'values voter', I would instantly know how they felt about abortion and gays.

If someone says 'I have a degree', it doesn't tell me anything about if they actually value education, if they are intellectually curious, or even if they are intelligent. It just means that they have a degree.

seenitall

southsiderosie wrote: »

The title of this thread is "Too fussy". The OP put down education as something on her 'list'. Now people are telling her that she is, in effect, being too fussy by putting it on her list, and this is somehow being seen as judgmental? We were asked to judge whether or not she is being too fussy!

Correct. We can all express our opinions on this thread. There are a few people who think the OP/others like her are being too fussy, or too shallow, or too snobbish with their checklists or preferences, and there are others who disagree. I disagree pretty strongly with judging the OP as too fussy etc. so IMO the people judging her thus are being a tad judgmental.

Surely not all that controversial for a TLL thread?

clairefontaine

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the broader point is that education is not necessarily an indicator of a 'shared value'. Being a practicing Catholic or Jew or Buddhist signals a clear set of values: if someone said that they were an Orthodox Jew, you can be pretty sure that they have specific views on family, keeping kosher, etc. without any further conversation. Political views also carry an implicit set of values: if someone said that they were a libertarian, I would know that they have a certain set of views on the role of the state in society; if someone said that they were a Republican 'values voter', I would instantly know how they felt about abortion and gays.

If someone says 'I have a degree', it doesn't tell me anything about if they actually value education, if they are intellectually curious, or even if they are intelligent. It just means that they have a degree.

I know so many individual cases that violate the expectations of those classifications, I wouldn't even assume those values any more.

And saying "I want someone with a degree" doesn't tell you anything about that person either, other than they want someone with a degree, and yet people seem to know her, know what she needs, that she's a snob, and feel quite free to start telling her how to live. She asked for her criteria to be assessed, not for her personhood to be evaluated and judged. And then it turned into hell why don't we judge everybody who wants someone with a degree, because let's just assume people are all the same.

southsiderosie

clairefontaine wrote: »

And saying "I want someone with a degree" doesn't tell you anything about that person either, other than they want someone with a degree, and yet people seem to know her, know what she needs, that she's a snob, and feel quite free to start telling her how to live. She asked for her criteria to be assessed, not for her personhood to be evaluated and judged. And then it turned into hell why don't we judge everybody who wants someone with a degree, because let's just assume people are all the same.

Who said anything about judging the OP as an individual or about telling her how to live? She wants to be in a relationship, presented a checklist, and asked if she was being too picky. People are telling her yes, and giving reasons why. If she didn't want her list to be judged, then why put it out there? This isn't an affirmation board, it's a discussion board, and given that we were asked to judge a specific set of criteria, I find the pearl clutching in reaction to 'judgemental' posts to be more than a wee bit over the top.

clairefontaine

southsiderosie wrote: »

Who said anything about judging the OP as an individual or about telling her how to live? She wants to be in a relationship, presented a checklist, and asked if she was being too picky. People are telling her yes, and giving reasons why. If she didn't want her list to be judged, then why put it out there? This isn't an affirmation board, it's a discussion board, and given that we were asked to judge a specific set of criteria, I find the pearl clutching in reaction to 'judgemental' posts to be more than a wee bit over the top.

Ok, well we see it differently.

I don't know what you mean by "pearl clutching." I haven't come across that phrase.

beks101

southsiderosie wrote: »

If someone says 'I have a degree', it doesn't tell me anything about if they actually value education, if they are intellectually curious, or even if they are intelligent. It just means that they have a degree.

Which means an investment of their time, energy, life and money in third level education.

Obviously that could mean Daddy paid their way and they sat at home all day smoking weed and watching box sets until exam season. But you can generally weed those ones out fairly swiftly! (pardoning the pun)

fits

To be honest, I think a lot of women aren't fussy enough. Could apply to me in the past too. You learn to be more fussy as you go on.

riveratom

fits wrote: »

To be honest, I think a lot of women aren't fussy enough. Could apply to me in the past too. You learn to be more fussy as you go on.

The result largely being that there is a 'crunch period' around the late twenties and thirties, where there a 'stalemate' of sorts between the sexes. Women are afraid of picking the 'wrong guy' (whatever that is), and men get frustrated and look for someone younger and less 'fussy'.

seenitall

riveratom wrote: »

men get frustrated and look for someone younger and less 'fussy'.

This cuts both ways. The younger guys I meet out and about these days seem to be much more interesting, laid back, open and all-round attention-worthy for any woman, than the older ones, who I find to be more critical, more cynical, and less open to new experiences in general.

I know it's a wild generalisation, but it also stands to logic in both genders. The more relationship fails or outright disasters (AKA experience, which comes with age) you've accumulated, the 'fussier' you get; and it can be a very good thing too, according to one's individual needs.

jackofalltrades

seenitall wrote: »

Therefore ever more men are able to 'marry up', so to speak, and ever more women have been having to 'marry down', (I put it in italics, as it's going against traditional social norms; I of course think the increasing financial parity between genders, with whatever consequences it brings, is a good thing).

So, to cut a long story short, I think many men are looking for wealth/money/financial savy and good standing in a woman these days, as well.

Ok, the above is kind of an extreme example, but I have heard men say they would be looking for a woman with a good job. It's normal these days.

From a Man's points of view, I've never heard a man looking for a woman with a good job/plenty of money. Personally I would only be looking for a woman who isn't swamped by debt/really bad with money.

The only time I hear another man mention his girlfriends/wife's job is in answer to the question, "what does she do?". And it never really goes any further than that in conversation. Men marry women who earn more than them. But I've never heard of a man actively looking for a woman who earns more than them.

seenitall

jackofalltrades wrote: »

From a Man's points of view, I've never heard a man looking for a woman with a good job/plenty of money.

Well, I have.

I haven't said that most men, or you, would be looking for these things in a woman, but of course there are men out there that do; and why wouldn't there be?

I think it's a reasonable expectation for a man to have these days (the 'good job' bit; 'plenty of money' may not be as realistic, but that is, again, not particularly gender specific).

fits

jackofalltrades wrote: »

From a Man's points of view, I've never heard a man looking for a woman with a good job/plenty of money. Personally I would only be looking for a woman who isn't swamped by debt/really bad with money.

The only time I hear another man mention his girlfriends/wife's job is in answer to the question, "what does she do?". And it never really goes any further than that in conversation. Men marry women who earn more than them. But I've never heard of a man actively looking for a woman who earns more than them.

If my friends were waiting to marry a man who earns more than them, few of them would be married.

Actually few of them are married but that's mostly because they're not that bothered about it, not because its not an option.

Times have moved on, we've got our own money now dear. But we still look for a partner with ambition and intelligence because those traits are admirable in anyone.

April O Neill

jackofalltrades wrote: »

From a Man's points of view, I've never heard a man looking for a woman with a good job/plenty of money.

Really? I have.

jackofalltrades

No seriously, I've never heard any of my male friends list good job/good earnings/financially comfortable as a trait that they would look for.

All that is usually said when they do go on a date/start a relationship is what their job is and if their happy in that job.

I'm not saying there aren't men out there who look for a good job/plenty of money it's just I've never come across it.

Maybe the "man as the provider" stereotype means that they would be less comfortable in sharing this opinion with another man for fear of judgement.

riveratom

seenitall wrote: »

This cuts both ways. The younger guys I meet out and about these days seem to be much more interesting, laid back, open and all-round attention-worthy for any woman, than the older ones, who I find to be more critical, more cynical, and less open to new experiences in general.

I know it's a wild generalisation, but it also stands to logic in both genders. The more relationship fails or outright disasters (AKA experience, which comes with age) you've accumulated, the 'fussier' you get; and it can be a very good thing too, according to one's individual needs.

It's definitely a massive generalisation as I'm early 30s and know I don't match up with that description. Also, not everyone has had that many relationships over the course of their 20s or 30s, let alone bad ones.

My theory, as I mentioned above, is that it works much more this way for girls than guys. If you're a girl in your late 20s or 30s and you want marriage/family, then you probably feel there is a lot more 'risk' going into a relationship with someone and it not working out. So, the result is that women in this age group probably set 'the bar' a bit higher. A girl in her mid-20s might go with the flow a lot more and decide to just see where it goes.

I'm reminded of a date I went on last summer with a girl I met at a dating event. We had gotten on really well on the night and arranged to meet a week or so later. It went more like an interview than a date and all that was missing really was one of those big lamps you see at interrogations

clairefontaine

Making lists doesn't seem to be what guys do in the first place.

riveratom

clairefontaine wrote: »

Making lists doesn't seem to be what guys do in the first place.

I find it incredible that anyone would make a list, instead of taking someone at face value and keeping an open mind as to what you might really like in someone.

seenitall

riveratom wrote: »

My theory, as I mentioned above, is that it works much more this way for girls than guys. If you're a girl in your late 20s or 30s and you want marriage/family, then you probably feel there is a lot more 'risk' going into a relationship with someone and it not working out. So, the result is that women in this age group probably set 'the bar' a bit higher. A girl in her mid-20s might go with the flow a lot more and decide to just see where it goes.

I'm not the only one here massively generalising, though.

As I said in my earlier post, it doesn't work much more for girls than guys, it works both ways equally. Men may not be as cautious as women, but they do get more jaded as they age. I never said you were one of those men.

meeeeh

clairefontaine wrote: »

Making lists doesn't seem to be what guys do in the first place.

Neither do women I know.

livinsane

I fell hook line and sinker for my boyfriend the first night we met. I don't even know how it happened! I wasn't looking for a partner, I wasn't supposed to be in that particular place, I didn't even find him attractive at first (well I wasn't really thinking about it either). But as the night developed, I realised that I was more comfortable in his presence than anyone I'd ever met, and I suddenly thought he was the biggest fine thing I'd ever seen! Moved in together after six months and five years later we are expecting our first child and are as crazy about each other as we were at the beginning. We don't share the same hobbies (although we have the enthusiasm to try!), have very different personalities but we would do anything for each other and the big thing for me, and both of us I'd say, is that we don't have to censor ourselves in any way. I could say or do anything in front of him and he wouldn't love me any less and vice versa. I'm not saying it didn't take work. If you are going to live with someone and share your life, you will have to compromise in some if not many ways.

To be honest, I'd say most people would know if they were interested in someone within one conversation. You either feel it or you don't. And after that, you'll solve any problems if the relationship is worth it.

riveratom

seenitall wrote: »

I'm not the only one here massively generalising, though.

As I said in my earlier post, it doesn't work much more for girls than guys, it works both ways equally. Men may not be as cautious as women, but they do get more jaded as they age. I never said you were one of those men.

I know you didn't, I was just using myself as an example to highlight the generalisation - which you already knew about

I think you are talking about something else here though. I'm not referring to people getting more cynical or wary as they get older. I'm saying that all else being equal, women are more likely fussier than men because they have more to lose.

seenitall

riveratom wrote: »

I'm saying that all else being equal, women are more likely fussier than men because they have more to lose.

Hmmm. Perhaps, although, as you must know, having more to lose is very far from being the only reason people are 'fussy'.

What I am saying is that younger men are every bit more likely to 'go with the flow more and see where it goes' than the older ones, as is the case with women.

riveratom

seenitall wrote: »

Hmmm. Perhaps, although, as you must know, having more to lose is very far from being the only reason people are 'fussy'.

True alright, although it's probably one of the major ones I would guess.

seenitall wrote: »

What I am saying is that younger men are every bit more likely to 'go with the flow more and see where it goes' than the older ones, as is the case with women.

I think we don't agree so Surely that can't be right. Your average 24 year old girl or guy is likely to be more apt to just 'go with the flow' than your average 32 year old girl or guy (who may be thinking of settling down or looking to get married sooner rather than later, etc).

It's horses for courses all said though. Sure there are plenty of people out there who don't even want kids and/or marriage (albeit certainly in the minority).

seenitall

riveratom wrote: »

I think we don't agree so Surely that can't be right. Your average 24 year old girl or guy is likely to be more apt to just 'go with the flow' than your average 32 year old girl or guy (who may be thinking of settling down or looking to get married sooner rather than later, etc).

Completely confused now by the above, riveratom, as it seems to me that we do agree younger people of both genders seem more appealing prospects to the opposite sex in general, than the older ones. It may be for slightly different reasons, but nonetheless there.

riveratom

seenitall wrote: »

Completely confused now by the above, riveratom, as it seems to me that we do agree younger people of both genders seem more appealing prospects to the opposite sex in general, than the older ones. It may be for slightly different reasons, but nonetheless there.

Em what...?! I think we've moved onto something else now..!

I also wouldn't agree with that, as men are generally attracted to women who are younger than them, whereas the opposite is usually the case for women?

Really all I'm saying is that women are more cautious than men as they get older, although in general both get more cautious as they get older.

So, both get more cautious as they get older, but women more so than men

Nolimits12

This college degree thing is ridiculous!

I came from a generation where it was expected of us all to go to college straight after we did our leaving cert. Friends of mine and myself included all see our first degree as a completely idiotic decision. Now wish we didn't meet the 'norm' and instead, done something else rather than choosing our career at 17 years old.

This college malarky is bull, I will never force my kids to go to college after school like my parents. College is not the right choice for everyone.

Daisy78

riveratom wrote: »

Em what...?! I think we've moved onto something else now..!

I also wouldn't agree with that, as men are generally attracted to women who are younger than them, whereas the opposite is usually the case for women?

Why do you assume women would generally prefer older men...I'm intrigued by this assertion....older men would personally not appeal to me at all and many of my female peer group would feel the same way.

Wibbs

riveratom wrote: »

So, both get more cautious as they get older, but women more so than men

Speaking as a somewhat decrepit chappy and having observed a fair few number of men and women as they hit their 30's and 40's I'm not sure I agree. In my experience I've found women more open to falling in love again than men. However, I've found more women to be more vocal about being "fussy", even if like I said they're more open to options. I've found men much more likely to take a "never again" stance after a few bad experiences, though they're more likely to be publicly quiet about it. Yea basically I've found women more emotionally resilient when it comes to recovering after bad relationship experiences.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Speaking as a somewhat decrepit chappy and having observed a fair few number of men and women as they hit their 30's and 40's I'm not sure I agree. In my experience I've found women more open to falling in love again than men. However, I've found more women to be more vocal about being "fussy", even if like I said they're more open to options. I've found men much more likely to take a "never again" stance after a few bad experiences, though they're more likely to be publicly quiet about it. Yea basically I've found women more emotionally resilient when it comes to recovering after bad relationship experiences.

Really? I found the opposite. Well when I say that, what I mean, is that of couples I know where they break up, the man starts dating again sooner. Don't know if that's what you count as "emotionally resilient."

seenitall

riveratom wrote: »

Em what...?! I think we've moved onto something else now..!

I also wouldn't agree with that, as men are generally attracted to women who are younger than them, whereas the opposite is usually the case for women?

Really all I'm saying is that women are more cautious than men as they get older, although in general both get more cautious as they get older.

So, both get more cautious as they get older, but women more so than men

Hehe, completely disagree with that as a single woman now in her late thirties.

As I said, and I will say this time for whatever reason as I don't want to offend your whole age group and have you protest that you're not like that, twenty-something men have for a few years been the ones that are showing more interest in me than the ones that are closer to my age, let alone men older than me.

Therefore realistically, the young 'uns are the ones I should be paying more attention to (although I haven't managed that yet very successfully so far, on the whole - I keep thinking: NO, HE IS TOO YOUNG, let's not go there, and then I go for a thirty or a forty-something man where it's a regular wash-out).

And I do think that that is where a younger person's open-mindedness comes in; they simply seem to be less stuck in their ways and more open to me as a potential, than the older guys, who may or may not have settling down on their minds, as well.

I would have thought in the past it was bound to be the other way around, but it really is true!

On the cautiousness bit, yeah, we disagree, but I have already said my piece on that... so yeah.

riveratom

Daisy78 wrote: »

riveratom wrote: »

Why do you assume women would generally prefer older men...I'm intrigued by this assertion....older men would personally not appeal to me at all and many of my female peer group would feel the same way.

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that women went for guys around the same age or a bit older, and men generally preferred women around the same age or younger.

Sure in most married couples the man is generally older by a few years or so, no? Haven't seen any stats, that's just from what I reckon, and what I've observed over the years.

Also, based on my experience of online dating, I can tell you that I rarely/never see a woman's age range for a potential partner down as younger than her own age. In other words, if the woman is say 29, she will usually have 29-36 down as her desired age range, etc.

CathyMoran

riveratom wrote: »

Daisy78 wrote: »

I thought it was fairly common knowledge that women went for guys around the same age or a bit older, and men generally preferred women around the same age or younger.

Sure in most married couples the man is generally older by a few years or so, no? Haven't seen any stats, that's just from what I reckon, and what I've observed over the years.

Also, based on my experience of online dating, I can tell you that I rarely/never see a woman's age range for a potential partner down as younger than her own age. In other words, if the woman is say 29, she will usually have 29-36 down as her desired age range, etc.

From personal experience I tended to go for younger men and am married to a younger man.

Ah, it is tough, you need certain basic traits in someone to make a relationship work - the best piece of advice that I got from my late mother was to go for someone that I could always talk to and whom would never bore me.

riveratom

seenitall wrote: »

Hehe, completely disagree with that as a single woman now in her late thirties.

As I said, and I will say this time for whatever reason as I don't want to offend your whole age group and have you protest that you're not like that, twenty-something men have for a few years been the ones that are showing more interest in me than the ones that are closer to my age, let alone men older than me.

Therefore realistically, the young 'uns are the ones I should be paying more attention to (although I haven't managed that yet very successfully so far, on the whole - I keep thinking: NO, HE IS TOO YOUNG, let's not go there, and then I go for a thirty or a forty-something man where it's a regular wash-out).

And I do think that that is where a younger person's open-mindedness comes in; they simply seem to be less stuck in their ways and more open to me as a potential, than the older guys, who may or may not have settling down on their minds, as well.

I would have thought in the past it was bound to be the other way around, but it really is true!

On the cautiousness bit, yeah, we disagree, but I have already said my piece on that... so yeah.

So the guys who are older than you or around the same age as you have less interest than the guys in their 20s?

You do realise you've just proven me right and that you do in fact agree with me, don't you?

Wibbs

clairefontaine wrote: »

Really? I found the opposite. Well when I say that, what I mean, is that of couples I know where they break up, the man starts dating again sooner. Don't know if that's what you count as "emotionally resilient."

Dating again and being fully open I'd see as two slightly different things or can be CF. They're dating, but are they serious about actually dropping their emotional guard if you know what I mean.

Part of this might be what S is getting at here;

seenitall wrote: »

And I do think that that is where a younger person's open-mindedness comes in; they simply seem to be less stuck in their ways and more open to me as a potential, than the older guys, who may or may not have settling down on their minds, as well.

And I'd agree as this is also something I've seen more in my male mates and acquaintances too. I have found - and this is generally lest I take flak for it:) - that men as they age are less adaptable than women. Both emotionally and in their lifestyles. More likely to as you say set in their ways. Among my male mates the exceptions to this do tend to stand out.

seenitall

riveratom wrote: »

So the guys who are older than you or around the same age as you have less interest than the guys in their 20s?

You do realise you've just proven me right and that you do in fact agree with me, don't you?

Whatever you say, riveratom. As long as we agree the younger guys and girls are a more attractive (and realistic, I suppose) proposition for both our genders!