# Realistic Romance - What are you looking for in a partner?



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

I've almost finished reading Lori Gottlieb's brilliant book Mr Good Enough (UK title)/Marry Him (US title), and although the target audience is obviously aimed at middle class American women above 35, I've taken a lot from this book. Before reading it I had come to the conclusion that searching for compatibility was more important to me than searching for 'chemistry', and this book further cemented that conclusion.

Shes makes the case via cultural commentary, anecdotes and conversations with sociologists, psychologists, and dating experts that US (and by extension UK) cultural obsession with 'chemistry' and narcissistic traits has contributed to the growing number of above 35 single people, and the high divorce rate.

The book culminates with the advice that searching for compatibility is more important than chemistry, because not only can chemistry develop over time but if it does it has the long term foundation of compatibility. (The book proposes a ratio; 8 compatibility and 4 chemistry - or something similar.) And to think about the kind of value or traits that would lead to life long companionship and/or a stable family.

One of the most useful things I got from the book was differentiating between objective criteria and subjective criteria. And I learned that the core mistake that 'picky' people make is believing that objective criteria indicates subjective criteria.

Objective;

Height, Size/Build, Education, Job, Income, Location, Hair, interests, etc,

Subjective;

Intellectual curiosity, Spontaneity, Communication style, Kindness, Reliability, Optimism, humor, financial stability, etc

She says that if we desire compatibility then the subjective criteria is more important than the objective criteria. And her dating coach advised her to have 3 core subjective criteria that is a necessity for a long term partner - and to use that as the main factor that determines if you will date or not. Basically those 3 are our needs, and everything else are wants.

It is also points out with great insight that much of our criteria is probably incongruent - or at the least incredibly rare. And that we tend to forget that our criteria has implications that we may find irritating and we will have to simply accept may come with those traits/values;

_*"I want someone with strong opinions... who never argues. I want someone who's spontaneous and wild... who has a stable job."

...Evan said he hears this story all the time: Women complaining that the attractive alpha males are egocentric or unreliable, but that the nice guys don't turn them on.

..."Women say they want an alpha male who's nice," Evan said. "Or maybe a nice guy with balls. They want someone to make them feel excited and safe, simultaneously."

(Another example from the book is a 40 year old man looking for a slim but mature women. And complaining that young women aren't mature enough, but mature women aren't slim enough.)
*_
The book also points out when we are looking for a partner, we forget to remember that compatibility means that we have to assess our own objective and subjective criteria, and the possible implications of our own values/traits. And that if we take into consideration our subjective criteria and it's probable implications, we can be in a better position to find compatible people and accept others flaws.

It also points out that many people don't reflect that perhaps the kind of person we desire, generally doesn't desire the objective or subjective criteria that we have (ie. a 40 yr old women looking for a never married 35 to 45 yr old man - whilst the majority of never married men in that age bracket want to start a family and are looking for someone younger). 

So my questions (expecting to get flamed by my fellow NFs);

*What do you think about searching for compatibility over chemistry, and giving chemistry a chance to develop gradually after compatibility is found?*

*What do you think are your 3 subjective criteria needs, and what are their implications?* 

(I'm still thinking about my 3 - reflecting on past relationships and friendships)


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Prepare to get flamed!... just joking.  I guess that there are valid points in your post, so I'm not sure why you'd say that NFs would flame you, maybe I'm lacking some Se here and not seeing something? (sometimes I can be clueless of things I read or perceive, should develop Se better instead of Ni)

The problem is that all the cultural expectations and society's ideals blurs us from understanding how relationships actually are. We grow up having higher expectations, perhaps too high, that we end up chasing the best (of what we perceive as the best), expecting the best, and then get disappointed as we can't find the best. Look at movies like Twilight, all the perfect love, so strong and deep even before the couple knew each other enough time. A love that is supposed to flourish through the years, the couple has that not long after they just met.
Also, there's all the idealizations like "if someone loves me then he/she would accept all my flaws" or that if a relationship is not going well then maybe it's better to just break up and find the perfect one. These makes us unaware of ourselves and not caring for self improvement, and blaming everything simply to incompatibility. Relationships can take work and sometimes we realize that we have some bad flaws that needs to be improved.
On the other hand, expectations would make people feel insecure, as they wonder if they are not good enough when they can't satisfy the expectations of their genders.

All in all, I wish that people could be encouraged to pursue relationships naturally and acknowledge it as two imperfect individuals interacting with each other. It's about learning about each other and ourselves, letting feelings develop sincerely and by its own time.

It's important to think, are our expectations reasonable? What are our real needs? A balance here is important - idealizing too much would just blur us of what we can have, while it's important to not settle for something that does not satisfy our vital standards.

In my case, I'd say that physically, I need to find my partner attractive (not some Adonis, but I have to have some attraction, relationships has a physical component too after all); when it comes to inner, I'd say similar/compatible beliefs, interests and lifestyle, plus respect and care for me. In terms of career and money, I prefer someone who has a similar background, coz we can't feed from love after all  and then I can't really stand it if someone does not care about any responsibilities at all (how can I build a family with someone like that?). This is not the same as a man staying home to take care of the kids while the woman works, I'm taking about men who really doesn't seem to care.

All in all, I remember once someone mentioned - it's about finding someone with compatible mess.  (as in finding someone with whom our set of negative traits are compatible)

(I apologize if this post is a mess, I'm sleepy right now and throwing ideas I have in Ni style while Ti is getting too lazy to structure all these)


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

> *What do you think about searching for compatibility over chemistry, and giving chemistry a chance to develop gradually after compatibility is found?*


I definitely understand the rationale of the book and I think that women of a certain age (and I say women because lets face it, women have a much shorter time frame than men when it comes to certain things.....) need to start assessing WHY they are still single. I don't think they should marry just to marry. But at the same time, I think they need to realistically look at their relationship(s) and determine what is going on. Are they chasing after men that never want to settle down? Are they perpetually going after men that are missing a particular need? Or are they simply preoccupied with, as you pointed out from the book, these objective and superficial traits and not necessarily the important things? And lastly, are they die-hard idealists that follow Carrie Bradshaw's advice of never settling for anything less than butterflies. The real world is not Hollywood!!! If society was less focused on what movies and TV say relationships are, and more focused on *real* relationships, people's expectations would be more reasonable. Reality is not fairy tales, nor is it the Real Housewives, nor some sappy Nicholas Sparks novel turned film.

I also think that long-term, things like compatibility are more stable. Chemistry is so tied to hormones, to limerence, to infatuation. Compatibility is tied to personal traits, which usually remain stable over time. Things like morals, work ethic, life goals, intelligence, and communication style are all fairly stable over ones life, so finding a partner that either shares or complements you in these areas is much more stable of a relationship than one where you just have this overwhelming "connection". 

Obviously the best is when you have both of these things. And sometimes you have that instantaneous chemistry with someone and find that you are not compatible. And sometimes you have that chemistry and find out you are. 

I guess my idealistic self still believes that one should never settle, and that experiencing that connection right off the bat is so powerful both in our collective mind, but also deep in our souls, that we can't ignore it. What we need to get better at is assessing compatibility at the same time, and to know when there is a person with whom we might form an intense connection with, but that beyond that there is little in way of compatibility. 

I guess my question is can chemistry really develop over time?? I know that love can develop over time (listen to couples who were in arranged marriages for example....not all but some actually did develop deep and intimate love for their spouse even though that love wasn't there at first). But what are we truly defining chemistry? To me it's infatuation and passion....but also unconscious things that we can't control like pheromones. So to say we can develop those things later in a relationship doesn't make sense to me as they are not necessarily under our control. I think that as a relationship matures that love changes and I think that there can be an emergence or resurgence of that passion, but to say that it's chemistry and that you can go from Mr Just Good Enough to the man of your dreams over time seems a bit far-fetched too.*




What do you think are your 3 subjective criteria needs, and what are their implications?

Click to expand...

*1. Intellectual curiosity - you don't have to be Mensa qualified, but you need to be educated, well-read, and eager to learn, and have a healthy appetite for discussion

2. Life goals - I want to get married and have a family, but I also don't want to give up my career so being able to balance these things is important in my life, and I need someone who wants to and is able to do both of these things as well because I don't want a workaholic hubby that our children never see....also an aside though very related, someone who loves kids and desires kids personally because I need someone who will also be a good dad

3. Values/beliefs - I'm not religious, but I consider myself a very moral/ethical person and I have very strong values and political beliefs, and I need someone who shares these things as a common ground (not to say there will be differences of opinion at times, but the foundation should be the same).



And now I feel all giddy inside because I know how lucky I am to have found someone who is both extremely compatible with me and also that we also have great chemistry:kitteh:


----------



## searcheagle (Sep 4, 2011)

@ strangedude I think this illustrates a big problem in relationships today. They are built on a feeling not on a true commitment or a true compatibility.

And many of those standards are unrealistic. Many girls dream of guys from romance novels and chick flicks. Many guys dream about dating a supermodel. And when the reality sets in, and the realistic truth comes out, the relationship doesn't last.


----------



## searcheagle (Sep 4, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I guess my question is can chemistry really develop over time?? I know that love can develop over time (listen to couples who were in arranged marriages for example....not all but some actually did develop deep and intimate love for their spouse even though that love wasn't there at first). But what are we truly defining chemistry? To me it's infatuation and passion....but also unconscious things that we can't control like pheromones. So to say we can develop those things later in a relationship doesn't make sense to me as they are not necessarily under our control. I think that as a relationship matures that love changes and I think that there can be an emergence or resurgence of that passion, but to say that it's chemistry and that you can go from Mr Just Good Enough to the man of your dreams over time seems a bit far-fetched too.


I was meaning to bring up the arranged marriages thing. They prove that relationships can built without the Hollywood buzz because those marriages last longer the the ones where the participants chose each other. Prolly because the infatuations results in people focusing on the unimportant stuff---err stuff that doesn't last.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I think that a lot of high quality people are overlooked because of a lack of initial chemistry. My inner cynic would say that a lot of high quality people are overlooked because the rest are shallow and, therefore, low quality people.:frustrating: (depending on the day, I could qualify as both)

I guess my 3 subjective things would be:

Intimacy Maturity (which could imply clingy)
Willingness to Communicate (which could imply being very opinionated)
Compassionate (which could imply being over-emotional)


----------



## searcheagle (Sep 4, 2011)

I also think that Online dating can reveal many of these high standards. Dating services advertise that they can find your "prince charming" or your sexy, supermodel.

These work fine for people who walk into them with reasonable standards but they also attract people who expect perfection, because that is what the sites themselves are adverting. Dating sites, more than in real life, give you the ability to filter out alternatives without using many methods to evaluate them. You can see what their top 16 interests are to see if you have something in common- or find one interest so distasteful that it turns you off from them all together. 

And one site more than others, claims to match you up with your special loved one:













(I want to point out that these sites are merely tools. It's up to you to use them responsibly.)


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

searcheagle said:


> I was meaning to bring up the arranged marriages thing. They prove that relationships can built without the Hollywood buzz because *those marriages last longer the the ones where the participants chose each other.* Prolly because the infatuations results in people focusing on the unimportant stuff---err stuff that doesn't last.


How much is that is due to the cultural and/or religious beliefs of those who enter arranged marriages though?? Most, if not all, come from cultures that are very conservative and/or religious and those doctrines frown upon (and in some places it's illegal) to divorce. So they are forced to suck it up and deal with their spouse.


Though I agree that focusing on infatuation means that when that dies out, as it inevitably will, the relationship will die as well.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

1. Intellectual compatibility: I can't live without great conversations once in a while.
2. Maturity/Responsibility: Speaks for itself. Should be open minded and willing to negotiate.
3. Matching habits and beliefs: They don't have to match _exactly_, but they should on major points of contention. I, for one, cannot marry anyone who's seriously religious.

Anything else can be negotiated. I'm hoping #2 means the two of us can compromise, because a mature person would know the value of compromise. I personally am ambivalent on children (but more prefer NOT to have them), but if I meet the right person and it's important to him I will consider it (but it has to be pretty damn important). I'm currently with a guy who meets all three criteria. We didn't have amazing fireworks or chemistry but it doesn't bother me. The only question left is whether he will commit to me. Because there's no such thing as a casual relationship for me. There's nothing in between a fling and a serious relationship. It's either one or the other.


----------



## iowagal22 (Dec 17, 2012)

*What do you think about searching for compatibility over chemistry, and giving chemistry a chance to develop gradually after compatibility is found?*

I don't understand why there is a separation here. I think that in order to be compatible with somebody, especially romantically, there needs to be a sense of chemistry. If there is no spark, I don't see it becoming a relationship. That, to me at least, is the cornerstone of compatibility. Chemistry is not about a physical connection, it is more of a general mental reciprocation.

*What do you think are your 3 subjective criteria needs, and what are their implications?*

1) Interesting/curious. --> somebody who has a lot to offer intellectually. This does not necessarily need to be presented in an extroverted 'let me tell you all that I know immediately' sort of way (I follow a trend that favors introverts), but an ideal partner would always have some sort of new idea or topic to discuss. Or at least a large enough curiosity to discover new things with me.

2) Compatible humor. --> I like dark humor, word play, and pop culture references. These kinds of jokes pepper my speech patterns. I want somebody who not only understands these jokes, but also makes ones in that sort of style (not necessarily identical, but similar enough to be compatible).

3) General understanding. --> I would like a partner that understands and appreciates my worldview and behavioral patterns. Somebody who values what I have to say/what I have to offer. I would do the same for him.

I don't think that these things are all that unreasonable. I am looking for more of a certain mental feeling when I am with somebody rather than a laundry list of objective specifics-- this feeling is not exclusive, but it is definitely elusive.


----------



## searcheagle (Sep 4, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> How much is that is due to the cultural and/or religious beliefs of those who enter arranged marriages though?? Most, if not all, come from cultures that are very conservative and/or religious and those doctrines frown upon (and in some places it's illegal) to divorce. So they are forced to suck it up and deal with their spouse.
> 
> 
> Though I agree that focusing on infatuation means that when that dies out, as it inevitably will, the relationship will die as well.


Oh, I'm sure there are elements to what you say. But there are also studies that say that those marriages are happier. And I think a lot of that comes from an expectation that the marriage won't pixie dust and unicorns and therefore enter into it with more realistic perspectives.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

searcheagle said:


> Oh, I'm sure there are elements to what you say. But there are also studies that say that those marriages are happier. And I think a lot of that comes from an expectation that the marriage won't pixie dust and unicorns and therefore enter into it with more realistic perspectives.


"Happier" is relative. 

It always seems to me that those who try to take human interaction and try to decipher them in a mechanical way tend to have a harder time getting out of their own way. Is there really a need for a how-to guide in relationships?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> It is also points out with great insight that much of our criteria is probably incongruent - or at the least incredibly rare. And that we tend to forget that our criteria has implications that we may find irritating and we will have to simply accept may come with those traits/values;
> 
> _*"I want someone with strong opinions... who never argues. I want someone who's spontaneous and wild... who has a stable job."*_


I have observed that the traits that attract us to a partner may be the same things that annoy us about them. That person who has strong opinions may be argumentative. That spontaneous and wild person may not like to keep a steady job. Is that trait something you can live with? If so, then reframe it. You accept the annoying aspect along with the attractive aspect because you love that person for who s/he is. 



> ..."Women say they want an alpha male who's nice," Evan said. "Or maybe a nice guy with balls. They want someone to make them feel excited and safe, simultaneously."


Absolutely. Blogger Athol Kay identifies "alpha" traits/behaviors that stimulate attraction, and "beta" traits/behaviors that make a partner comfortable. Women (and men too) crave both and both should be cultivated. A man who is alpha _and_ beta is very attractive to women.



> So my questions (expecting to get flamed by my fellow NFs);
> 
> *What do you think about searching for compatibility over chemistry, and giving chemistry a chance to develop gradually after compatibility is found?*


I'm assuming by "chemistry" you mean sexual compatibility and passion? I think chemistry arises from our visceral instincts and childhood experiences. If you have some unhealthy junk in your head, then chemistry might not be too good for you. If your feelings lead you astray then you need to get that fixed. Between people who are reasonably healthy, I think chemistry is a necessary part of compatibility. You have to feel each other emotionally and be sexually compatible. I believe women are more sensitive to the literal chemistry between people's bodies, and it makes a difference in how much a woman enjoys sex with her partner. This aspect of compatibility is distorted by birth control, unfortunately.



> *What do you think are your 3 subjective criteria needs, and what are their implications?*


Only three? I'll put everything into three categories...

I need to feel physically and emotionally safe. I need someone who is a trustworthy partner in life. He must be competent and dependable so I know he has my back. He must be sensitive to my needs/feelings so I don't have to fight for my own interests. He must care about other people, children and animals. He must be free of addictions, able to hold a job and have a set of practical skills. (Practical skills might include cooking, cleaning, repairs, gardening, etc.) 

I need intellectual stimulation and challenge. Learning, discussion and debate! Yet we understand each other most of the time. We're on the same "wavelength." Compatible social, political and spiritual beliefs. Preferably someone with complementary skills/aptitudes. Example: I'm more academic/technical while he is more sociable/creative.

I need intimacy, chemistry, and passion. I have neglected this before, but it's vital. I will get bored without it. It's what makes the difference between a friend and a lover. A life-partner is both friend and lover. I am drawn to the aesthetic of roles and contrast: masculine/feminine, king/adviser, dominant/submissive. I need to be able to fill the role that feels natural to me and for my partner to fill his role naturally. Roles cannot be rigid, however. Both can switch as needed. Ideally, we are free to be emotionally honest.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Nitou said:


> I have observed that the traits that attract us to a partner may be the same things that annoy us about them. That person who has strong opinions may be argumentative. That spontaneous and wild person may not like to keep a steady job. Is that trait something you can live with? If so, then reframe it. You accept the annoying aspect along with the attractive aspect because you love that person for who s/he is.
> 
> Only three? I'll put everything into three categories...
> 
> ...


Do you see any conflicting implications in your subjective expectations?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> Prepare to get flamed!... just joking.  I guess that there are valid points in your post, so I'm not sure why you'd say that NFs would flame you,


IMO NF's - or perhaps INFP's (which I am) - are the most likely to favor being guided by chemistry/'the spark'/'fate' when looking for a long term partner so I thought this approach would rub many the wrong way. 

Great post BTW.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I also think that long-term, things like compatibility are more stable. Chemistry is so tied to hormones, to limerence, to infatuation. Compatibility is tied to personal traits, which usually remain stable over time. Things like morals, work ethic, life goals, intelligence, and communication style are all fairly stable over ones life, so finding a partner that either shares or complements you in these areas is much more stable of a relationship than one where you just have this overwhelming "connection".


Very well said.



> I guess my idealistic self still believes that one should never settle, and that experiencing that connection right off the bat is so powerful both in our collective mind, but also deep in our souls, that we can't ignore it. What we need to get better at is assessing compatibility at the same time, and to know when there is a person with whom we might form an intense connection with, but that beyond that there is little in way of compatibility.


That's the problem with relying on chemistry to guide whether you want to date beyond the first meeting is that it can be so overwhelming that you rationalize or ignore incompatibility. Her point seemed to be don't ignore chemistry or lack of, but to be more mindful of compatibility and that in the long term that is what will keep you together. 



> I guess my question is can chemistry really develop over time?? I know that love can develop over time (listen to couples who were in arranged marriages for example....not all but some actually did develop deep and intimate love for their spouse even though that love wasn't there at first). But what are we truly defining chemistry? To me it's infatuation and passion....but also unconscious things that we can't control like pheromones. So to say we can develop those things later in a relationship doesn't make sense to me as they are not necessarily under our control. I think that as a relationship matures that love changes and I think that there can be an emergence or resurgence of that passion, but to say that it's chemistry and that you can go from Mr Just Good Enough to the man of your dreams over time seems a bit far-fetched too.


Yeah 'chemistry' was left vague - although it partially refers to infatuation. I think it can develop overtime, but probably not to the overwhelming degree that instantaneous chemistry forms, it's probably more 'quiet'. One day you feel 'warm' when you see them for the first time that day.

Also the title Mr good enough is purposefully provocative, but by the end of the book it makes the case that mr/mrs good enough is actually mr/mrs right - if we introduce practicality into romance. And it advise that our notion of Mr/Mrs Right (the alpha who can seamlessly transition into twilight level devotion) is actually Mr/Mrs Fantasy.



> And now I feel all giddy inside because I know how lucky I am to have found someone who is both extremely compatible with me and also that we also have great chemistry


If this thread helped to remind you how grateful you are, then I'm happy you read it. :happy: 

In the book it was shocking to read the stories of women who left decent guys because they weren't perfect guys - at one point I said out loud exasperated "No wonder you're fucking single!"

(One left because she had a successful career as an ad executive, and he was a non-self employed non-management children's party entertainer who was 'nice'. And despite them having a good relationship she was ashamed of his job because it wasn't an 'alpha' career and he wasn't 'Alpha' enough. I shook my head in disgust. But I guess Patrice O Neal was right women *generally* want to date someone who they see as 'better' than them in objective criteria.)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

iowagal22 said:


> *What do you think about searching for compatibility over chemistry, and giving chemistry a chance to develop gradually after compatibility is found?*
> 
> I don't understand why there is a separation here. I think that in order to be compatible with somebody, especially romantically, there needs to be a sense of chemistry. If there is no spark, I don't see it becoming a relationship. That, to me at least, is the cornerstone of compatibility. Chemistry is not about a physical connection, it is more of a general mental reciprocation.


The point in the book is that initial chemistry is no indicator of compatibility - which is what keeps people together happily long term. And it presents the perspective that many relationships become fulfilling long term relationships despite there being no initial spark - the first few encounters may even be 'neutral' or 'nice'. But then eventually you get a smile when you hear their voice on the phone, or see them again after not seeing them for a few days


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

android654 said:


> It always seems to me that those who try to take human interaction and try to decipher them in a mechanical way tend to have a harder time getting out of their own way.


Like people who are interested in attempts to categorize personality dispositions into 16 categories? :happy:



> Is there really a need for a how-to guide in relationships?


A problem I've noticed is that many 'naturals' in whatever context; happy relationships, picking up women, confidence, social skills, etc find it baffling that anyone would try to consciously analyze what they acquire unconsciously. They have a hard time empathizing with others who may not have learned unconsciously like they have, and have had a challenging time doing so.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Like people who are interested in attempts to categorize personality dispositions into 16 categories? :happy:


Anyone who takes MBTI as something more than a slight analysis that provides some insight into some behavior is an idiot. MBTI is not a cypher to decode who you are as a person or how to live. Books like these, however, are.



> A problem I've noticed is that many 'naturals' in whatever context; happy relationships, picking up women, confidence, social skills, etc find it baffling that anyone would try to consciously analyze what they acquire unconsciously. They have a hard time empathizing with others who may not have learned unconsciously like they have, and have had a challenging time doing so.


I wouldn't put myself in that category and I certainly don't lack empathy for people who have problems with relationships. What I am disagreeing with is people bypassing experiences with people in favor of finding the holy grail of barely passable counseling, in hopes of finding that magic bullet to make them happy.

I also don't see the merit in sacrificing passion (chemistry) for comfort (compatibility). I think that's how people find themselves in loveless relationships.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nitou said:


> I have observed that the traits that attract us to a partner may be the same things that annoy us about them. That person who has strong opinions may be argumentative. That spontaneous and wild person may not like to keep a steady job. Is that trait something you can live with? If so, then reframe it. You accept the annoying aspect along with the attractive aspect because you love that person for who s/he is.


Exactly.



> Absolutely. Blogger Athol Kay identifies "alpha" traits/behaviors that stimulate attraction, and "beta" traits/behaviors that make a partner comfortable. Women (and men too) crave both and both should be cultivated. A man who is alpha _and_ beta is very attractive to women.


I think that's more of a female requirement. *Most* hetero men I've known wouldn't care if their partners aren't alpha. I think more women than men want an 'edge' to their partners*.*

In the book her dating coach makes an interesting observation based on his experience; many 'alphas' eventually marry 'betas' because they desire comfort at home rather than the 'alpha' environment of their workplace.



> I'm assuming by "chemistry" you mean sexual compatibility and passion?


Kinda. That unconscious initial magnetism that people often experience. 



> Between people who are reasonably healthy, I think chemistry is a necessary part of compatibility. You have to feel each other emotionally and be sexually compatible.


For some reason I've never been bothered about 'that spark', and the best relationship I had (which broke up due to me becoming devoutly religious) was based on a gradual attraction that developed at work.



> I believe women are more sensitive to the literal chemistry between people's bodies, and it makes a difference in how much a woman enjoys sex with her partner. This aspect of compatibility is distorted by birth control, unfortunately.


I think there is research backing up that hypothesis. But I'm too lazy ATM to search.



> Only three?


Yes.



> I need to feel physically and emotionally safe. I need someone who is a trustworthy partner in life. He must be competent and dependable so I know he has my back. He must be sensitive to my needs/feelings so I don't have to fight for my own interests. He must care about other people, children and animals. He must be free of addictions, able to hold a job and have a set of practical skills. (Practical skills might include cooking, cleaning, repairs, gardening, etc.)
> 
> I need intellectual stimulation and challenge. Learning, discussion and debate! Yet we understand each other most of the time. We're on the same "wavelength." Compatible social, political and spiritual beliefs. Preferably someone with complementary skills/aptitudes. Example: I'm more academic/technical while he is more sociable/creative.
> 
> I need intimacy, chemistry, and passion. I have neglected this before, but it's vital. I will get bored without it. It's what makes the difference between a friend and a lover. A life-partner is both friend and lover. I am drawn to the aesthetic of roles and contrast: masculine/feminine, king/adviser, dominant/submissive. I need to be able to fill the role that feels natural to me and for my partner to fill his role naturally. Roles cannot be rigid, however. Both can switch as needed. Ideally, we are free to be emotionally honest.


You're doing it wrong. :happy: 

But you're in a fulfilling relationship, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

android654 said:


> What I am disagreeing with is people bypassing experiences with people in favor of finding the holy grail of barely passable counseling, in hopes of finding that magic bullet to make them happy.


You've completely missed the point. Honestly you are way off the mark. If you read the book you'll see that it is advocating conscientiousness when looking for and maintaining relationships - no magic bullet.

Her advice is for people who put objective criteria over subjective criteria, and those who put chemistry over compatibility. 

Chemisty/'the spark' is the attempted magic bullet ('love conquers all', 'opposites attract', etc), not the conscious attempt to uncover compatibility over a period of dating.



> I also don't see the merit in sacrificing passion (chemistry) for comfort (compatibility). I think that's how people find themselves in loveless relationships.


Fair enough view point. I would argue it's possibly because there is no compatibility either, because IMO and IME a 'quiet' love develops with shared experiences and compatibility, mixed with time.

I think this approach will appeal to people who have tried following chemistry and it has ended in a succession of bad/short-term relationships.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I
> *What do you think about searching for compatibility over chemistry, and giving chemistry a chance to develop gradually after compatibility is found?*
> 
> *What do you think are your 3 subjective criteria needs, and what are their implications?*



My relationship to my SO, it's not really exciting. It's not boring but there's no thrill or suspense. If I ask contemporary culture; the TV shows, the magazines, the tabloid "experts" etc. they would say that this is bad and that we really need to develop some tension. We should stop being so relaxed and comfortable with eachother so that we will get the "spark" back.

And there's a lot of couples who act that way. When they come "to close" they withdraw, they begin to fight and play stupid games etc. in order to create distance and insecurity that will provide kicks and intense emotions. But love doesn't die when infatuation ends, it begins. Love dies when communication and respect dies.


I actually love that I can be together with my SO and just be totally at ease. That there can never be any awkward silences. Or awkward situations at all. There's no preassure. I won't be judged. It's not as much about what we feel when we're together, as about everything we do _not_ feel. And about feeling, it's more important to be able to experience bad feelings together - being sad, frustrated, angry, anxious etc. The good times are much easier. 

Sure, I as much as anyone love the excitment of pursuing new interesting persons, of lusting and longing for the unknown, romance and sexual tension etc. But you can't have this with a person you lived with for many years and who you know pretty much everything about. You can have great times together, you can develop _a lot_ and sometimes surprice eachother (and yourself), but you can not have it "like when we first met". 

But you can have such experiences with other persons. That's one of the many great things with a close, totally relaxed relationship where you completely trush and love eachother and can talk about anything. We not only accept it, we actually want eachother to flirt, have sex and be romantically involved with others. 


As for the subjective criteria I'd say it's primarily about acknowledging, understanding, respecting and supporting eachother. And being able to communicate and sharing and developing mutual values and mutual goals in life. Making your future better and better.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@Eos_Machai 

I'm envious. 

Great post.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> I've almost finished reading Lori Gottlieb's brilliant book Mr Good Enough (UK title)/Marry Him (US title), and although the target audience is obviously aimed at middle class American women above 35, I've taken a lot from this book. Before reading it I had come to the conclusion that searching for compatibility was more important to me than searching for 'chemistry', and this book further cemented that conclusion.
> 
> Shes makes the case via cultural commentary, anecdotes and conversations with sociologists, psychologists, and dating experts that US (and by extension UK) cultural obsession with 'chemistry' and narcissistic traits has contributed to the growing number of above 35 single people, and the high divorce rate.
> 
> ...


Here's what I look for:
-Good-hearted
-Treats me well and with respect
-His family must treat me well and with respect.

On the opposite, I have three aspects that I find disagreeable:
-Engage in vices
-Greed of any kind
-Has an addiction or personality disorder

I hope that I'm not asking for too much...


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> That's the problem with relying on chemistry to guide whether you want to date beyond the first meeting is that it can be so overwhelming that you rationalize or ignore incompatibility. Her point seemed to be don't ignore chemistry or lack of, but to be more mindful of compatibility and that in the long term that is what will keep you together.


I totally agree. I guess in many ways that's one of the benefits of online dating - you get to know more about the potential mate's personality (likes, dislikes, sense of humor, life goals, intelligence, etc.) before meeting so that you can weed people out beforehand that don't meet the most basic compatibility needs. I don't know if people are using it in that manner, but they can and should. I think it's why I liked OKCupid, because the questions really gave you a lot of insight into the person and they also do a matching %....but not in the way Eharmony does where they only show you certain people and you don't know how or why you're matched. 



> Yeah 'chemistry' was left vague - although it partially refers to infatuation. I think it can develop overtime, but probably not to the overwhelming degree that instantaneous chemistry forms, it's probably more 'quiet'. One day you feel 'warm' when you see them for the first time that day.


Okay, I can see that.



> Also the title Mr good enough is purposefully provocative, but by the end of the book it makes the case that mr/mrs good enough is actually mr/mrs right - if we introduce practicality into romance. And it advise that our notion of Mr/Mrs Right (the alpha who can seamlessly transition into twilight level devotion) is actually Mr/Mrs Fantasy.


Agreed. I guess to me I see the title Mr Good Enough as settling, but now that I'm looking at it more I'm realizing that if someone is calling a mate "Good Enough" but not, then that's an expectation problem. If they are good enough for what? For going out on the town? For fucking? But suddenly they're not good enough to settle down with? 

I think that in a culture that pushes young people to serial date (essentially indiscriminately), it doesn't teach people to be aware of characteristics and individuals with whom you are compatible with for long term commitments. For me, I did some casual dating, but I never entered into a relationship with someone unless I felt that it could potentially be for forever. And while it may make me inexperienced compared to my peers, I think it taught me to assess these things like compatibility from the start, instead of just following my hormones. Maybe it means I'm demisexual, I dunno.

But my point is, serial dating is based in attraction and chemistry alone, so if that's how people are learning how to date and entering relationships from, of course they're going to be entering relationships without assessing compatibility first.


> If this thread helped to remind you how grateful you are, then I'm happy you read it. :happy:


Awww!!



> In the book it was shocking to read the stories of women who left decent guys because they weren't perfect guys - at one point I said out loud exasperated "No wonder you're fucking single!"
> 
> (One left because she had a successful career as an ad executive, and he was a non-self employed non-management children's party entertainer who was 'nice'. And despite them having a good relationship she was ashamed of his job because it wasn't an 'alpha' career and he wasn't 'Alpha' enough. I shook my head in disgust. But I guess Patrice O Neal was right women *generally* want to date someone who they see as 'better' than them in objective criteria.)


Hmmmm.....wow.

With the example, I get the whole wanting a guy who's an Alpha Male (not my cup of tea, but to each their own), but what strikes me is that instead of saying Alpha Male rather, they were incompatible because being career driven was very important to the woman and the man was not "driven" enough for her. To me, that would be a very bad pairing and not compatible, so I guess my confusion is if the author is saying this woman should have accepted these things in this man. Because I honestly see that as potentially a disaster waiting to happen simply because she's so ridiculously shallow. 

Though I think the idea of women wanting someone who is "better" than them is a societal norm. In decades/centuries past women relied on the man almost entirely for financial stability, so it was in her best interest to find someone who was essentially superior. Today that has turned into the idea that men should still be the breadwinner, but it's so much harder for them because women are now also working and having careers so it's forcing men to try to continue to compete and make more money and have more powerful/respected/glamorous careers.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> To me, that would be a very bad pairing and not compatible, so I guess my confusion is if the author is saying this woman should have accepted these things in this man. Because I honestly see that as potentially a disaster waiting to happen simply because she's so ridiculously shallow.


Sorry I should have 'fleshed it out'. The women was reminiscing that although they had a good relationship she let him go for those reasons, and now whilst she has had a series of unfulfilling short-term relationships with 'alphas, he got married and was a great father because he loved child. She was still single and looking for an 'alpha nice guy' to marry ie. chasing the dragon.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Sorry I should have 'fleshed it out'. The women was reminiscing that although they had a good relationship she let him go for those reasons, and now whilst she has had a series of unfulfilling short-term relationships with 'alphas, he got married and was a great father because he loved child. She was still single and looking for an 'alpha nice guy' to marry ie. chasing the dragon.



Okay, now that makes waaaay more sense!!

I guess I don't feel bad for these women, but superficiality has never been something that I find appealing.

BTW I just read the original article (that Gottlieb wrote in 2008 in the Atlantic) that precursed the book:Marry Him! - Lori Gottlieb - The Atlantic

And wow. I'm feeling like this is some sort of twisted over-35 female version of PUA. While I think some of her points are valid, the language just disgusts me for several reasons. 

And maybe it's because I'm 28 and in a LTR with the man I plan on marrying, that I just don't get it. But these women sound like they think they're entitled to husbands.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> Okay, now that makes waaaay more sense!!
> 
> I guess I don't feel bad for these women, but superficiality has never been something that I find appealing.
> 
> ...


I felt that way when I read it too. Nevertheless, I concur with the author that many women have unrealistic expectations of men and often pass up on many potential relationships which would be fulfilling for them.


----------



## Dr.Horrible (Jul 12, 2012)

1.grounded in principles identical or close enough to mine 
2.a person who can see me spiritually and intellectually , and is capable of spiritual and intellectual growth together that has no limit
3.someone who can see me for what I am from the get go and accept me and admonish me to be a better person once in a while
4.someone that shares all the passion I have for the same stuff (this can all be reciprocated with inside jokes no one else gets,and also be a part of the spiritual/intellectual growth and needs)

I basically want a romance that is devoted, and the depth has no boundary because I believe a couple should be able to gaze straight to the bottom of each others very souls


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Do you see any conflicting implications in your subjective expectations?


Yes. Emotional safety and honesty can be in conflict. For example, say a man is flirty and popular with women. That makes me feel insecure/unsafe. He cannot tolerate jealousy because that makes him feel controlled/unsafe. So we navigate it this way: I reassure him that my feeling jealous does not mean I want to control him. He reassures me of his loyalty to me. Both safety and honesty are improved. It comes back to loving and accepting a person as they are. 



strangestdude said:


> In the book it was shocking to read the stories of women who left decent guys because they weren't perfect guys - at one point I said out loud exasperated "No wonder you're fucking single!"
> 
> (One left because she had a successful career as an ad executive, and he was a non-self employed non-management children's party entertainer who was 'nice'. And despite them having a good relationship she was ashamed of his job because it wasn't an 'alpha' career and he wasn't 'Alpha' enough. I shook my head in disgust. But I guess Patrice O Neal was right women *generally* want to date someone who they see as 'better' than them in objective criteria.)


Done that. Yeah I was a player. It was because of ignorance and not malice that I went through men like I do shoes. Always unsatisfied and looking for a shiny new toy. Finally I got married to break that pattern, but my husband was the worst of them all- narcissistic, mean and childish. As I contemplated divorce I worried that my old pattern would flare up again. Now my S/O is different from any man I've been with before. He's more alpha. And yes, I do want to feel like my man is better than me in some ways, but not necessarily objective trait



strangestdude said:


> I think that's more of a female requirement. *Most* hetero men I've known wouldn't care if their partners aren't alpha. I think more women than men want an 'edge' to their partners*.*
> 
> In the book her dating coach makes an interesting observation based on his experience; many 'alphas' eventually marry 'betas' because they desire comfort at home rather than the 'alpha' environment of their workplace.


Athol defines "alpha" a bit differently for men and women. (I enjoy his blog so I'm using concepts as he has defined them.) By his definition an alpha woman would be beautiful, sexually available, etc. Beta for either sex would be knowing how to make a sandwich.



> You're doing it wrong. :happy:
> 
> But you're in a fulfilling relationship, so it doesn't matter.


Ahh... how about this: Safe, Smart, Sexy.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

marked174 said:


> I felt that way when I read it too. Nevertheless, I concur with the author that many women have unrealistic expectations of men and often pass up on many potential relationships which would be fulfilling for them.


I 150% agree that many women have unrealistic expectations...but the Atlantic article put a foul taste in my mouth.

Maybe because it's geared to "women of a certain age" who are desperate for kids.

I think what is more important is that women need to lower their expectations, but not necessarily settle. I think settling implies they are marrying because they want a baby, not because they love the man. Whereas lowering ones expectations is accepting that everyone has flaws and determining which you can live with and which you can't live with, and finding someone who you love that isn't perfect or your dream guy, but that you have a good relationship with and care deeply about.


Lesson learned, if you hold out til you're 35 you're going to become a deranged baby-crazed insane person. Definitely attractive qualities when looking for a spouse.....


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

Eos_Machai said:


> Sure, I as much as anyone love the excitement of pursuing new interesting persons, of lusting and longing for the unknown, romance and sexual tension etc. But you can't have this with a person you lived with for many years and who you know pretty much everything about. You can have great times together, you can develop _a lot_ and sometimes surprise each other (and yourself), but you can not have it "like when we first met".
> 
> But you can have such experiences with other persons. That's one of the many great things with a close, totally relaxed relationship where you completely trust and love each other and can talk about anything. We not only accept it, we actually want each other to flirt, have sex and be romantically involved with others.


Interesting take. I couldn't live that way personally knowing my wife was out with other men, but to each his/her own. I think you are correct about the initial excitement, it can be challenging to recover that initial feeling, and many times people think the relationship is dead after it goes away. I would argue that it can be recovered though to a certain extent with some creativity, marriage has sometimes been described as falling in love with the same person over and over.



> As for the subjective criteria I'd say it's primarily about acknowledging, understanding, respecting and supporting each other. And being able to communicate and sharing and developing mutual values and mutual goals in life. Making your future better and better.


Well said.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I 150% agree that many women have unrealistic expectations...but the Atlantic article put a foul taste in my mouth.
> 
> Maybe because it's geared to "women of a certain age" who are desperate for kids.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this.

It does lead one to ask, though... Why are the unrealistic expectations so prevalent; especially in the cases where they contradict each other (nice/but not a pushover, opinionated/ but not argumentative). It seems like it would be intuitively illogical, therefore, easy to call out. Yet the problem is widespread enough to garner this level of attention. How is that so?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> Okay, now that makes waaaay more sense!!
> 
> I guess I don't feel bad for these women, but superficiality has never been something that I find appealing.
> 
> ...


While I agree that feeling entitled to a particular someone is bad, I don't think it's bad to have these kinds of expectations. What I mean by that is that it's a very human expectation to engage in all the things that everyone around you experiences. While the language ma be crass, I don't think it's wrong to have an expectation that you too will take part in what everyone else has.


----------



## Delilah (Nov 11, 2012)

Pure emotional, mental and physical connection on a deep deep level. Truth. Stability. Love. 

Pretty simple =) lol.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> And wow. I'm feeling like this is some sort of twisted over-35 female version of PUA. While I think some of her points are valid, the language just disgusts me for several reasons.


Trust me, the book is *very* different to the article. It's a lot warmer.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I think what is more important is that women need to lower their expectations, but not necessarily settle. I think settling implies they are marrying because they want a baby, not because they love the man. *Whereas lowering ones expectations is accepting that everyone has flaws and determining which you can live with and which you can't live with, and finding someone who you love that isn't perfect or your dream guy, but that you have a good relationship with and care deeply about.*


Trust me, that is the tone of the book. In the beginning of the book she said that she feared that the article gave the wrong impression.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Dr.Horrible said:


> 1.grounded in principles identical or close enough to mine
> 2.a person who can see me spiritually and intellectually , and is capable of spiritual and intellectual growth together that has no limit
> 3.someone who can see me for what I am from the get go and accept me and admonish me to be a better person once in a while
> 4.someone that shares all the passion I have for the same stuff (this can all be reciprocated with inside jokes no one else gets,and also be a part of the spiritual/intellectual growth and needs)
> ...


Obvious troll is obvious.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

marked174 said:


> I agree with all of this.
> 
> It does lead one to ask, though... Why are the unrealistic expectations so prevalent; especially in the cases where they contradict each other (nice/but not a pushover, opinionated/ but not argumentative). It seems like it would be intuitively illogical, therefore, easy to call out. Yet the problem is widespread enough to garner this level of attention. How is that so?


I actually blame feminism. I think while it has done some really great things for getting women equality, at the same time it's taught us that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can have our education, our high-powered career, but that we can also have the hubby and little ones. And reality is, you can't have it all. You have to sacrifice or compromise somewhere. The author went out on her own and had a kid with a stranger/sperm donor and now regrets it (note, she still loves her kid, but it's far from the ideal situation). But she was told she could have it all, that she could wait until she was of that certain age and that she could get her education and her career and not worry about it that Mr Right would just appear. 

And of course Mr Right has to have x, y, and z qualifications (insert: tall, dark, handsome; or tall, blonde, rich; or whatever else the desired "ideal" is), and we are told from so young that our Prince Charming would be there and he would make all our dreams come true. Sorry, but if that's your goal you're going to end up with gigantic rodent as your spouse....

This is why I believe it's entitlement that's at fault. And this sense of entitlement, not surprisingly, started with Generation Xers --- aka "The Me Generation". And guess who is in the 35+ age group currently?!?! Coincidence?? I think not.



android654 said:


> While I agree that feeling entitled to a particular someone is bad, I don't think it's bad to have these kinds of expectations. What I mean by that is that it's a very human expectation to engage in all the things that everyone around you experiences. While the language ma be crass, I don't think it's wrong to have an expectation that you too will take part in what everyone else has.


Expectation is different than entitlement.

*expectation |ˌekspekˈtā sh ən|*
noun
a strong belief that something will happen or be the case in the future _: reality had not lived up to expectations _| _an expectation that the government will provide the resources _| _he drilled his men in expectation of a Prussian advance._
• a belief that someone will or should achieve something _: students had high expectations for their future.

_*entitlement |enˈtītlmənt|*
noun
the fact of having a right to something _: full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered _| _you should be fully aware of your legal entitlements._
• the amount to which a person has a right _: annual leave entitlement.


_See the difference??? Expectation is a belief or desire for something to occur. Entitlement is believing you have a RIGHT to something (or someone). It's perfectly acceptable for anyone and everyone to have an expectation to marry have babies, I expect it and always have. But believing that you have a RIGHT to that is taking it a step too far. It basically implies that the person believes they should get it without or with minimal work involved just because they are who they are...in this case attractive, intelligent women.


----------



## Dr.Horrible (Jul 12, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Obvious troll is obvious.


explain how that is considered trolling sir.


----------



## Kyandigaru (Mar 11, 2012)

someone that is ready to be a functioning adult. A man that dont have to shout to prove he's a man, is the man for me.


----------



## stephiphi (Mar 30, 2012)

Eos_Machai said:


> My relationship to my SO, it's not really exciting. It's not boring but there's no thrill or suspense. If I ask contemporary culture; the TV shows, the magazines, the tabloid "experts" etc. they would say that this is bad and that we really need to develop some tension. We should stop being so relaxed and comfortable with eachother so that we will get the "spark" back.
> 
> And there's a lot of couples who act that way. When they come "to close" they withdraw, they begin to fight and play stupid games etc. in order to create distance and insecurity that will provide kicks and intense emotions. But love doesn't die when infatuation ends, it begins. *Love dies when communication and respect dies.*
> 
> ...





RetroVortex said:


> You know. I think I just want someone who i can enjoy being around and have fun with, and that they care about me, and can communicate that with me to reassure me a bit.
> 
> You know, the kind of girl you can hang out with day to day, who you can goof around with and talk to. An actual discussion rather than lame small talk.
> The kind you could go have a hot drink in a cafe with, or a nice meal in the evening, or a day out or even a nice holiday with, but isn't afraid to get a quick burger or a curry if neither of us can be arsed to cook a regular meal, or is happy just living the day to day life stuff.
> ...


All of this. Thanks to both of you far beyond my mere PerC "thanks" click, because this has been on my mind for awhile.

I have this safe, trusting warmness with my SO; and since we went from being friends to more than that, there wasn't really a distinct spark. It feels more like it started out as a dim, flickering light and slowly grew into a steady brightness. We have slight emotional ripples, but they aren't rollercoaster ups and downs - and we are not the type to want that anyways. It's my first relationship, so I didn't know if not having that magnetic pull meant something ominous for our future - but... I need to stop worrying about that and just live one day at a time.





Edit: Just noticed the "wanting each other to flirt, have sex, and be romantically involved _with others_" portion of the post I quoted. Is that relationship polyamorous?


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm starting to notice a trend. It's easy for people to post what they want, but not so easy to stop and think about the probable implications of those qualifiers. 

For example: I stated that I wanted someone who is compassionate, but I also took the time to analyze that it might mean that she is also very emotional. Then I asked myself if that is something that I could put up with. 

I think this exercise in realistic romance would be better served by thinking about the implications of our expectations and realistically asking ourselves if we are willing to put up with them, instead of just making a Santa's list of what we want.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

marked174 said:


> I'm starting to notice a trend. It's easy for people to post what they want, but not so easy to stop and think about the probable implications of those qualifiers.
> 
> For example: I stated that I wanted someone who is compassionate, but I also took the time to analyze that it might mean that she is also very emotional. Then I asked myself if that is something that I could put up with.
> 
> I think this exercise in realistic romance would be better served by thinking about the implications of our expectations and realistically asking ourselves if we are willing to put up with them, instead of just making a Santa's list of what we want.


Well, my requirements are:
-Good-hearted
-Treats me well
-His family members treats me well too.

I don't think that there are any drawbacks to such characteristics, except that he might be someone who's easily taken advantage of.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Athena Avril said:


> Well, my requirements are:
> -Good-hearted
> -Treats me well
> -His family members treats me well too.
> ...


define "good-hearted"
define "treats me well"


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

marked174 said:


> define "good-hearted"
> define "treats me well"


Good-hearted, as in someone who does not seek for his own gain at the expense of others and does not harm others intentionally.
Treats me well, as in respecting my rights and accepting me for who I am (not seeking to change me to suit himself).


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

Athena Avril said:


> Well, my requirements are:
> -Good-hearted
> -Treats me well
> -His family members treats me well too.
> ...


And I'm sure if you loved him enough, you'd be more than willing to help him with those kind of issues.

But that is one of the things I worry about, could girl X cope with my eccentric nature?
(And many times its a no. Because they just seem too .. well... Normal for me kinda. The activities and behaviour don't match up. I wouldn't want to drag her down because I'm not social or particularily ambitious, or decisive. I talk about videogames. ALL THE TIME. And my Ne bounces my nerdy fandom around everywhere, with jokes and references. I don't want either of us to be frustrated because one couldn't even understand the other.)

I mean romance is great, but on the day to day I wouldn't think it fair to make my potential SO suffer.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

RetroVortex said:


> And I'm sure if you loved him enough, you'd be more than willing to help him with those kind of issues.
> 
> But that is one of the things I worry about, could girl X cope with my eccentric nature?
> (And many times its a no. Because they just seem too .. well... Normal for me kinda. The activities and behaviour don't match up. I wouldn't want to drag her down because I'm not social or particularily ambitious, or decisive.)
> ...


Yep, I probably would.

I get the same thing as well. I have friends and ex-boyfriends call me "weird" or "special" in some way. Perhaps they were trying to tell me that I'm too eccentric. You might need to find something that you're passionate about to ground yourself. When I was lost and directionless, I find that life is bland and meaningless.

You will need to find someone as eccentric as you, so that you won't worry about her "suffering".


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Athena Avril said:


> Good-hearted, as in someone who does not seek for his own gain at the expense of others and does not harm others intentionally.
> Treats me well, as in respecting my rights and accepting me for who I am (not seeking to change me to suit himself).


Most gains are at the expense of someone else. This depiction implies a man who cares more about ethics than he does success. He will not be ambitious, nor aggressive. You might end up with a people pleaser; he's definitely the kind of person who worries about what you might think. 

This, more likely than not, will verge into "nice guy" zone. Someone who is overly apologetic because he both: 1. doesn't want to gain from the loss of others (possible pushover) 2. doesn't want to be seen as non-accepting of you or your rights.

Most girls can't stand guys like this, calling them everything from boring to being a pussy.

Are you okay having a life-long relationship with such a person?


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

marked174 said:


> Most gains are at the expense of someone else. This depiction implies a man who cares more about ethics than he does success. He will not be ambitious, nor aggressive. You might end up with a people pleaser; he's definitely the kind of person who worries about what you might think.
> 
> This, more likely than not, will verge into "nice guy" zone. Someone who is overly apologetic because he both: 1. doesn't want to gain from the loss of others (possible pushover) 2. doesn't want to be seen as non-accepting of you or your rights.
> 
> ...


Being with a nice guy is better than being with a jerk, so why not? I would be more worried about being with a guy who's eyeing my wealth. I am sure that he can learn how to stand up for himself, and I don't mind so much about the boring part.

You have a gift of accurately judging people!


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

marked174 said:


> I'm starting to notice a trend. It's easy for people to post what they want, but not so easy to stop and think about the probable implications of those qualifiers.
> 
> For example: I stated that I wanted someone who is compassionate, but I also took the time to analyze that it might mean that she is also very emotional. Then I asked myself if that is something that I could put up with.
> 
> I think this exercise in realistic romance would be better served by thinking about the implications of our expectations and realistically asking ourselves if we are willing to put up with them, instead of just making a Santa's list of what we want.


Great observation. I agree.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

RetroVortex said:


> And I'm sure if you loved him enough, you'd be more than willing to help him with those kind of issues.
> 
> But that is one of the things I worry about, could girl X cope with my eccentric nature?
> (And many times its a no. Because they just seem too .. well... Normal for me kinda. The activities and behaviour don't match up. I wouldn't want to drag her down because I'm not social or particularily ambitious, or decisive. I talk about videogames. ALL THE TIME. And my Ne bounces my nerdy fandom around everywhere, with jokes and references. I don't want either of us to be frustrated because one couldn't even understand the other.)
> ...


If I was you I'd give up any chance of finding a partner. 

I doubt you have any interesting traits like introspection, self depreciating humor, etc.

No woman likes a man with passion. And no woman likes video games. Female nerds don't exist....

Wait...


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> If I was you I'd give up any chance of finding a partner.
> 
> I doubt you have any interesting traits like introspection, self depreciating humor, etc.
> 
> ...


XD

Nice one dude.

But yeah, of course I know I got some good aspects to myself. I make people laugh, I make kids smile. Hell, I had a performance review at work, and the woman interviewing me was beaming, saying how well and how hard I work, and how much I've come out of my shell since stepping up a bit, (I guess I was missed a bit when I switched departments.)

I just don't seem to get myself into the right environment where I truly shine. Or at least I can't seem to find it.
(University was really tough because I seemed to be the ONLY proper gamer in the business school. (Hell, i tried reaching out on the community forum and ended up proving myself right. All the gamers were on the artsy campus down the road...-_- (and I commuted, so I couldn't just go there after hours) And I felt so awkward when I got chatty with even the friendliest people because they would just look at me like I'm an alien or something.)

I guess since I went to a Grammar school for my teen years there were loads more nerdy people like me there so I had alot more friends, I had places to go, people to chat with about stuff. It felt normal. But of course outside in the regular world, I feel uncomfortable because the distribution difference and variety of culture sometimes overwhelms me.

The problem is ultimately about 80% me. I got a lot of weird issues to deal with rooted in social anxiety and depression. But again, I acknowledge that, and I deal with it, and that's why I don't want to just go burdening myself on people. It wouldn't be fair.
(But of course, part of the solution IS people, so I have to get the right balance and more importantly, the right people, else despite the meta awareness my fear is going to kick-in and i'll relapse)


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

I viewed chemistry AS compatibility, but now I'll have to rethink it.

*The three main subjective criteria I look for:*
-Sexually liberated
-Inspirational
-Supportive

*Other criteria I look for:
*-Playful
-Open-minded
-Independent
-Creative


*The three main subjective qualities I offer:*
-Intelligent
-Driven
-Highly open & curious


*Other possible criteria I offer:*
-Brave
-Decisive
-Direct
-Honest
-Funny
-Creative/original
-Independent
-Motivating
-Sophisticated


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I am stuck at the question of why someone would want to date? Is it the sexual instinct? Is it to further self-realization, understanding, and development? Is it to have physical/economical support (someone to clean your house, cook for you, and birth children--or someone to pay your bills)? Is it to have a like-minded person to keep company (you two might be perfectly happy sitting on a riverbank eating worms for the rest of your life--or both of your lives revolved around being the best at tennis)? 

Because I just don't know. People seem to have so many different reasons for being in relationships. It seems like this would be the first aspect of compatibility--that you both want to come together for roughly the same reasons.

When I hear things like "women want a guy who has balls but is nice" etc. It makes me think of the concept of opposites attracting. Or Jung's animus/anima complex. Like--personally, I am drawn to people for reasons unknown to me. I think that part of that is because I am very interested in understanding myself and developing my own potential. So, if I were to list the things I want in a man, I might actually just be listing some things I need to develop in myself. Especially if they are contradictory. That term, "with balls" suggests that the woman is either using colorful language, or that she is projecting assertiveness etc. onto the masculine sex and then becoming attracted to it. But if she never realizes that is what she is doing, then she will not gain as much from the actual relationship with an actual person, or from her own realizations about herself via her acknowledging her projection/repressions/desires etc.

Edit:
I guess that right now, for me, a compatible relationship is one where people both complement and compliment each other, with a middle ground of similarity. This seems really rare.


----------



## milti (Feb 8, 2012)

I'm just looking for a friend. A best friend for life. :crying:

Oh, and also someone who likes to read.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< I just want someone I understand and who understands me, if life with her is fun and we get a long really well / I'm sexually attracted to her  then she is it. (note that getting along really well does not mean no fighting or conflict)

Basically I want my best friend+good sex. Don't meet the good friend criteria? <.< then you are out! NEEEXT!


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

> *What do you think about searching for compatibility over chemistry, and giving chemistry a chance to develop gradually after compatibility is found?*


*
*I think it's valid, just as much as going for chemistry first... But honestly, I've been lucky. I never feel chemistry unless there is mental compatibility. I couldn't be with someone that didn't give me the butterflies in my stomach from the start, but I could never feel them if the person wasn't compatible with me. *




What do you think are your 3 subjective criteria needs, and what are their implications?

Click to expand...

*I don't think I'd last with someone that didn't bring me some kind of excitement to my life. I know the initial passion fades and things change; I'm aware that in the long run, communication, respect, patience and honesty are the main keys to make a relationship work - and it takes work, it does. But if there aren't interesting conversations and great sex at least once in a while, I'll move on.
So I guess my 3 needs are:
*1. Stimulating conversations*. We don't have to agree on everything, or even like the same things; just to be able to understand each other, and find each other's minds interesting. Stupid or narrow minded people just don't seem physically attractive to me.
*2.Good sex*. Yes, that's a need. Someone who I have no connection with physically, who I don't want to touch that way, who don't make me feel comfortable with my sexuality, will end up in the friendship realm.
*3.A decent amount of empathy*. That's it, nothing more. Just someone who's able to put themselves in my shoes and take my feelings into consideration.

I'm not that picky... Except the number of people who don't fit the first criteria is huge. And objective things, well... I make so many exceptions that they are more like bonuses, not needs.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

I think I'd disagree with compatibility over chemistry. While it would be ideal, chemistry is what bonds us humans together to begin with. We can be compatible all day long, but it's for naught if there is not chemistry to tell one another, "Hey, you've got a possible mate over there, go talk to her!". 

In terms of what I look for: Playful, intelligent, enjoys a small amount of debate and willing to have discussions just for the hell of it, high sex drive, a Christian-skeptical Christian belief system (if full on, be able to acknowledge I tend to question), enjoys camping, traveling, doing new stuff, social enough to pull me out of my shell occasionally, *optimistic*, willing to communicate, and patient (with me, you will likely need it)


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Qualities or attributes of the next Ms. me.

1. My Respect. Without my respect, I am gone.
a. Intelligence on the high end. there are many forms of intelligence, any of them are fine.
b. Honesty. Honesty by the strictest definition as that is the standard I hold myself to.
c. Reasonable Fe. My definition is the ability to hold someone else's opinion and needs on the same plane as her's, or even higher.

2. Independence/Maturity. I believe if you become mature enough, you do not NEED someone, but would LIKE a good person to be around. And no one is much better than "anyone" for such a person.

3. Huge sex drive with a pretty open mind by western standards.


Consequences. This person will NOT be obedient, stand by my side, nor wait around for me all the time. This person will be her own person with her own life. 

This person will have plenty of exes running around, probably kids. This person could go weeks without talking with me, but hopefully CHOOSES to communicate on a regular basis.
This person may not be monogamous.

I need to work on my consequences some more.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Seems very few people want to think about the possible negative correlations with their desired traits/values.


----------



## Random User (Apr 5, 2013)

I generally just make friends until some kinda close bond has been made, then see where that goes. All I'm really looking for is someone that is A: Able to understand me, and B: not want kids. I really really don't want kids. More than anything I don't want.


----------



## Jman Ninja (Apr 4, 2013)

Random User said:


> I generally just make friends until some kinda close bond has been made, then see where that goes. All I'm really looking for is someone that is A: Able to understand me, and B: not want kids. I really really don't want kids. More than anything I don't want.


I think the traits i would look for is someone who is fun/interesting to be around - someone who always looks for something new to do or place to go or subject to look into, someone who has the same values and morals that I do, someone who is going somewhere in their life, (basically someone who isn't a drug addict or someone who doesn't like working etc..) and someone who has a passion which they love, and can relate to my own passions that I love. I like making people laugh, so hopefully it's a girl who has a bad sense of humor, as I kind of have a bad sense of humor. XD


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Seems very few people want to think about the possible negative correlations with their desired traits/values.


I tried to, but I can't think of anything negative coming from a person with an interesting conversation, that connects with me sexually and has empathy. What are the negative implications of that?


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

CaMiMa said:


> I tried to, but I can't think of anything negative coming from a person with an interesting conversation, that connects with me sexually and has empathy. What are the negative implications of that?


Someone who is an engaging talker can be 'over' talkative. 

Sometimes compassionate people (I'm assuming you mean that form of empathy) can lack assertiveness, can be hyper sensitive emotionally, and be wishy-washy.

Those are the possible correlations I can think of based on experience. (People have said I have interesting things to talk about, but I can talk a fucking lot when I'm into something and at times be overbearing).


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

CaMiMa said:


> I tried to, but I can't think of anything negative coming from a person with an interesting conversation, that connects with me sexually and has empathy. What are the negative implications of that?


if someone talks a lot, perhaps they rarely shut up. perhaps they talk a lot, and don't listen. on occasion, i like to just sit and enjoy the silence. not everyone does. 
Empathy means they may not be driven to take care of their own desires. They may lack motivation, they may give away too much money, they may give away too much of their time listening and caring or others. 

Is a great talker and someone tons of empathy the same person?


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Someone who is an engaging talker can be 'over' talkative.
> 
> Sometimes compassionate people (I'm assuming you mean that form of empathy) can lack assertiveness, can be hyper sensitive emotionally, and be wishy-washy.
> 
> Those are the possible correlations I can think of based on experience. (People have said I have interesting things to talk about, but I can talk a fucking lot when I'm into something and at times be overbearing).


Oh, when I said someone with an interesting conversation, I didn't mean someone who engages in conversation. I just meant someone that is capable of maintaining a conversation without me thinking "what an idiot" or getting bored. A person who can respect my opinions even though we don't think the same, and show me different points of view. That doesn't mean they talk _all the time_; just that when talked to, they won't be narrow minded or dumb. And maybe having some sense of humor helps keeping a conversation interesting too... It's a little subjective, but overall, it just means that they are able to keep my attention in a positive way when we talk. 

And given your example, I don't really think that's negative. If you can talk a lot when a subject interests you and I find the topic interesting, we'll talk for hours. If I don't, I'll just say "shut up".  That's the beauty of honesty.
But I don't remember getting bored with any of my exs because they talked too much about something. In fact, if they are enthusiastic about a specific topic of conversation, I'll probably like listening and learning something new.

By empathy I just meant being considerate, as in thinking about how I'll feel too. I don't think being capable of empathy means a person will always do what's best for the _other_, but they certainly understand their partner's emotions a little better.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> if someone talks a lot, perhaps they rarely shut up. perhaps they talk a lot, and don't listen. on occasion, i like to just sit and enjoy the silence. not everyone does.
> Empathy means they may not be driven to take care of their own desires. They may lack motivation, they may give away too much money, they may give away too much of their time listening and caring or others.
> 
> Is a great talker and someone tons of empathy the same person?


As I explained in the post above, I didn't mean someone who talks a lot. And maybe my concept of empathy is different, I don't know... I guess I have to find a better word to describe what I mean. Generosity isn't empathy to me. 

But yes, all my relationships have been with people I liked talking to and that had a fair amount of empathy for me, or in other words, who were capable of understanding how I felt either by their own perception or when I tried to explain it. Saying someone has an interesting conversation also means that they know how to have a dialogue - talking and listening, and being a good listener isn't far from what I mean by "empathy".


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

CaMiMa said:


> But yes, all my relationships have been with people I liked talking to and that had a fair amount of empathy for me, or in other words, who were capable of understanding how I felt either by their own perception or when I tried to explain it. Saying someone has an interesting conversation also means that they know how to have a dialogue - talking and listening, and being a good listener isn't far from what I mean by "empathy".


so you want Fi - the guy understands your emotions. means he has high Fi. He probably won't be a studly football player. He won't be super "masculine" by most definitions. Not to say he won't be a strong, confident man, but he won't follow society's standards at first glance. 
If you tell such a person to "shut up" his feelings will be hurt.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

CaMiMa said:


> By empathy I just meant being considerate, as in thinking about how I'll feel too. I don't think being capable of empathy means a person will always do what's best for the _other_, but they certainly understand their partner's emotions a little better.


I'm not saying they *will* have those associated traits. (I tried to make that clear by underlining the word can) I was suggesting that they may be a negative *correlation *with that desire trait.

So you don't think there are any possible negative traits that make be correlated with the positive ones you desire?

That's the point of the thread title *realistic* romance. :happy: 

It's about brainstorming what's important, and what we can may have to accept may accompany what we consider important.

In the OP and in the book, her and other 'dating experts' talk about people who won't accept negative correlations with desired traits ie. a white collar 'alpha' male probably won't be as considerate as a non-career minded 'nice guy'.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> so you want Fi - the guy understands your emotions. means he has high Fi. He probably won't be a studly football player. He won't be super "masculine" by most definitions. Not to say he won't be a strong, confident man, but he won't follow society's standards at first glance.
> If you tell such a person to "shut up" his feelings will be hurt.


Haha... I would never say shut up seriously. But you're right, I like high Fi. That explains why I married an INFP and why I'm so drawn to them. And I never liked super "masculine". 
Also, someone who doesn't fit society standards? That's a huge bonus to me.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I'm not saying they *will* have those associated traits. (I tried to make that clear by underlining the word can) I was suggesting that they may be a negative *correlation *with that desire trait.
> 
> So you don't think there are any possible negative traits that make be correlated with the positive ones you desire?
> 
> ...


Well, as I said, if a conversation is interesting, I wouldn't mind if they talked too much sometimes.

I did try to brainstorm, but I really couldn't find anything negative (to me) about those traits. I do see negative traits in people I like, though, but they differ from one person to the other and don't seem to be related to those three traits specifically. 

Maybe I shouldn't even post here, because I don't believe in "happily ever after". I don't search for a relationship that would last my entire life because in my opinion, everything ends. I'm not sure if that's realism or pessimism... Anyway, I think that a relationship is succesful as long as it makes both parties happy. When it doesn't anymore, then it's time to move on. 

That's only my opinion, of course; I know some people might enjoy having a different type of relationship and try to make it last for the rest of their lives. To each their own, I guess.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Realized I haven't done my 3;

Softness - has gentle verbal and non verbal communication.

Correlation/implication; May lack assertiveness. Overly emotional. Meek.

Free Thinker - generally questions social conventions, even if they later agree with them.

Correlation/implication; Lacks long term planning. Lacks social congruence and so lacks social intelligence. 'Quirky'. Not 'down to earth'.

Health enthusiast - physiological health is important.

Correlation/implication; Combined with a free thinker may be a new ager.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Seems very few people want to think about the possible negative correlations with their desired traits/values.


1. Intellectual curiosity - you don't have to be Mensa qualified, but you need to be educated, well-read, and eager to learn, and have a healthy appetite for discussion

Negative correlation: Could be socially awkward or unattractive??? I don't believe this one bit but I'm sure one could argue that the higher the IQ the less attractive a person is - at least by conventional standards. I'm sort of attracted to the dorky types anyways. 

2. Life goals - I want to get married and have a family, but I also don't want to give up my career so being able to balance these things is important in my life, and I need someone who wants to and is able to do both of these things as well because I don't want a workaholic hubby that our children never see....also an aside though very related, someone who loves kids and desires kids personally because I need someone who will also be a good dad

Negative correlation: I want someone balanced between work and family (and fun)....is that really that hard??? Maybe that he won't make as much money? That's not important to me beyond being able to live reasonably and have a kid or two and be able to financially provide for them. Sure if he were rich it would make things so much easier, but most likely that would mean I wouldn't get to spend as much time with him because he would be busier with work and whatnot. 

3. Values/beliefs - I'm not religious, but I consider myself a very moral/ethical person and I have very strong values and political beliefs, and I need someone who shares these things as a common ground (not to say there will be differences of opinion at times, but the foundation should be the same).

Negative correlation: Again, I really don't see where the negative would be in this.


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

None of this is new, we have one of the anecdotes of Nasreddin for example.



> Mulla Nasreddin was sitting in a tea shop when a friend came excitedly to speak with him. "I'm about to get married, Mulla," his friend stated, "and I'm very excited.
> 
> Mulla, have you ever thought of marriage yourself?"
> 
> ...


Waiting, waiting, waiting...



BuckeyeENFP said:


> Negative correlation: Again, I really don't see where the negative would be in this.


There are definitely negative sides. Any strength is also a weakness. The realisation perhaps, is that you are fully prepared to live with them, whereas those women in the book were not.

In my own experience, sometimes those 'negative' sides aren't as much of a downside as one may first expect (I do consider these things), often it just means that they are different from what you'd expect. At the same time I have a hard time disliking someone just because they might share the same weaknesses as me, for example.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Snow Leopard said:


> None of this is new, we have one of the anecdotes of Nasreddin for example.


Where did I claim that it was new?


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Where did I claim that it was new?


You didn't I was just making an observation.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> None of this is new, we have one of the anecdotes of Nasreddin for example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well in my relationship my boyfriend and I both suffer from anxiety. And this is definitely an example of there is a positive and a negative. The positive is we "get" each other. We are able to empathize when they other is going through a stressful situation or feeling panicky and we are able to give constructive advice (most of the time) to help the other. We actually are two very different types of therapy so something that does cause some conflict in that I get defensive to the CBT training he gets and he thinks my talk therapy doesn't address specifics. We have learned to try to communicate what we actually NEED. And he's learned that sometimes all I really want is a hug, and not a truckload of advice. 

But the biggest negative consequence of this is that, well, we both can be and are somewhat emotionally unstable at times, and while we have improved significantly in this area we used to and have the potential to trigger anxiety in each other from our own anxiety. But we are both working hard at being better and getting better. 

We're also both intense and highly sensitive people (HSP), so it makes us both very emotionally available to the other, but it also can cause us to unintentionally hurt one another too. Yes, he's probably one of the few ISTJs who is extremely emotionally available and sensitive. 

So I totally get that any strength is also a weakness. I just saw that the 3 things I picked as my objective needs were not necessarily things that have a huge "negative" impact. The things above were added bonuses and added stressors to my current relationship. But it also adds to our compatibility and what makes us "work" so well. 

I'm truly a believer in the idea that if a relationship is meant to be that hardships and things that would normally tear most relationships apart actually make the relationship stronger.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

From my early years of dating, I've always approached finding someone compatible with how well we click together- has nothing to do with looks, status, titles, whatever. What we have to me, has to feel _natural._

Call it pheremones, but when someone clicks with you and you feel at ease, that's a starting point for me.

I can find someone who fits my most wanted compatibility list such as someone: genuine, kind, intelligent, and emotionally gets me, but if we for some reason aren't bonding, we just aren't. Most likely, if we're clicking intellectually and emotionally, then more likely than not, we're closer towards compatibility.

So my realistic approach to dating is keep it simple. Hit or miss. And, if the shoe doesn't fit, let it go. Least I can gain is an acquaintance.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

RetroVortex said:


> I just don't seem to get myself into the right environment where I truly shine. Or at least I can't seem to find it.


Saw these vids and thought of you...

I had to clap alone in my room for the most creative pick up I've ever seen...

(fast forward to 3:40)


----------

