Who would you pair yourself with?

Again FG no is saying a woman isn't capable of taking care of herself. I get that you're all educated and hard working. WE GET IT. But just because you can doesn't mean most people want to or don't find the idea of a spouse who can cover them financially appealing and just overall success is attractive. Where's the anthropologist when I need her? Lol

 

Good post Ladybug

 

Well, the girl I would say I would pair myself with would be a hot WW with a 4 year college degree (as Dreaming Blue reiterated), that having a college degree is important. The girl also doesn't smoke and carries herself in an appropriate manner. The girl also isn't too concerned about your money/status/possessions and is with you because it's you, personally.

I'm not too concerned about it now, as soon as I'm done with being in Columbia and at HCC, I'd be in a environment with like-minded people, both socially, ethically and politically. In my opinion, that's what's most important.

 

On the contrary, I do believe that success can be an aphrodisiac, for both women and men. I haven't been dismissive at all of the concept. I even went so far as saying that I feel that way as well, and I wouldn't want a partner who lacked "self-sufficiency" either.

Now, having said that, and using the example you give above, what comprises, "the same option"? I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a partner. Remember, the premise in my earlier postings was that people are attracted to people who have similar educational backgrounds, goals, ethics, along with a physical attraction. That doesn't mean that people don't "break the rules" and decide that the most important thing is success or physical attraction, race, age, the desire to want a family or other factors important to that person specifically.

In your example, IMO, it depends on the the characteristics of the two men, and how potential partners rank those characteristics as important. The head of radiology may be more successful but he may be older, or not capable of showing affection, or selfish, any number of things. The manager at Enterprise may have the gift of gab, be an Adonis, be passionate, etc. So, success is just one factor among others. I don't believe that the average woman sets her sights on the finding the most successful man, but rather the man who has a combination of attributes that make them comfortable. In fact, the average woman probably isn't able, like the average man, to "compete" for the affections of the most successful people around.

Conceptually, I agree that people consider success, and it's importance. But, the reality of what's more important to the individual, and that person's ability to "compete" in that marketplace for the "successful" person colors their thinking in ultimately choosing a partner for themselves.

I would be interested what you think, in light of this perspective.

 

Of course there aren't any absolutes when dealing with humans but I operate from the more often than not perspective. We as humans generally operate under assumed gender roles dictated by our society and by our natural instincts. With that being said I'm sure there are women who will date men shorter than them and I'm sure there are men who like bald headed women but those aren't the majority of men and women. I know we don't live in a vacuum and other traits come into play when choosing a mate but stability and security are attractive just like small waists and big boobs are.
Competition is reality and only the most adaptable of us can dominate and thrive.

 

I wasn't referring to absolutes. and I don't know how someone can come away with that meaning based on what I wrote. I discussed other considerations and issues that I had hoped would be seen in a more balanced way. In fact, I said several times within my post that security was a factor, just not the most important factor. IMO, the importance of success is totally a function of the individual's view of it, for the reasons I mentioned in my posts, and not subject to generalities, like small waists and big boobs. Personally, I don't find small waists and big boobs, no offense intended to anyone, the most attractive look. So, again, we get back to the issue of what we individually believe.

 

So you're saying there aren't universal markers of attraction both physically and socially?

 

I co-sign with you here. It doesn't make sense to see women that have that kind of look. If you have a smaller waistline, you should have smaller boobs, correct? :smt043

 

It seems that we are veering a bit off topic, but I will give you my opinion. I think that it's a difficult question to answer unless I know very specifically what you mean by physical attraction and socially. Let me explain what I mean.

To what segment of the population are the questions directed? What do you mean by "universal markers" of physical attraction? If you ask anthropologists you will get one answer. If you ask a majority of the population you will get an entirely different answer. If you ask people based on race you will probably get a different answer.

My point is that the concept of "universal" literally means that EVERYONE agrees on a topic, and where attractiveness is concerned I don't think that's true. It means that you suggest an absolute, and as I'm sure we both agree, there're no absolutes. Besides, if the answer was as simple as "universal" standards of beauty, then we wouldn't hear diverse opinions about whether Kim Kardashian or Angelina Jolie are attractive.

I believe that the same is true for "social attraction". Let's take intelligence as an example in point. During the time preceding the presidential election, people were asked if they preferred a president who was very bright and intelligent or someone they could sit down and converse with while having a beer. For me it was amazing to hear a majority of people say that they would rather have a president who they could sit and converse with while having a beer. This seems to reflect that Americans value intelligence less than comfortability. When people are asked the question who they would like to talk if they could talk to any person in history, do they pick the most intelligent people from our history? Yet, intelligence is a factor that people might choose if asked the question in a general sense.

You could make similar arguments for success as a "universal marker". In general people might say that like successful people, but even that question must be defined by what kind of success. If success was the most important factor then why would a super successful Tiger Woods who had money and skill come to be so savaged by a majority of people. If it was only all about the money or his skills, then those should have been enough for him to rise above any personal misstep, but it wasn't.

Obviously, I'm not attempting to cover all the bases here and you could find reasons to disagree with my examples. I'm only saying that I don't believe in universals. Granted we may have some level of agreement on some topics, but if we are trying to relate general attributes and characteristics to the ideas of partners in relationships, IMO, we fail to acknowledge how close to the core individual preferences determine our selection process.

 

Swirlman, A lot of things in this world are controversial. That's why there are Democrats and Republicans. They don't agree on energy policy, climate change, immigration and things of that sort. Same thing with dating and relationships. There are BW and WM who don't agree with the idea of us talking to WW. The idea of interracial relationships is something that pisses some people off (of any race), especially in some parts of America. Perhaps it's human nature for people to not agree on things, even if it's as simple as hitting the brakes on your car when you see a "Stop" sign.

 

I'd pair myself with me, but then I'd likely smother myself in my sleep.

 

I would pair myself with that naughty british lass who lives in surrey she is untameable and i like that

 

That's cool. But what about your boyfriend/significant other?

 

He seems to be fine with my idiosyncrasies. Thank goodness!

 

Yes, of course this is true- because success often signifies somebody who is a hard worker and dedicated, which are attractive qualities. You need to be careful if they are the type to strive for it at the expense of all else, however.

Money-wise, I would draw a careful distinction between those who have worked hard to make their own and those who have only inherited it. Of course, those who inherit can also learn a work ethic from their family but not always.

Finally, looking for a 'pre made' man closes yourself off to many possibilities. dn't. It's better to build things together. You can recognise in someone the passion and ambition to achieve success even if they haven't gotten it yet, and you need to be willing to support them either way. Some women just try and scoop up a rich or successful man without having done it themselves, and don't appreciate how much sweat it takes.

Lastly, it is not to say those who are not successful financially are not necessarily damned hard working, it's about life chances too.

 

Good post!

 

Well said. Your husband is a lucky guy

 

Me and whoever can whip up blueberry pancakes while wearing a lace thong.

 

Great post, it shows penetrating insight.