Are my standards for women too high?
 

I had a discussion with my friend last night about women. He says I'm too picky and that's why I don't have a girlfriend right now. Anyway here's what I look for in a woman in no particular order:

1) Smart. Head on her shoulders
2) Great sense of humor
3) Cute, skinny or petite.
4) Loves to eat and try new foods.
5) Likes me for me.

Is that too much to ask for?

what are his standards? Having a pulse?

I see nothing wrong with what you want. Although if they were mine #3 an 4 wouldnt be there....1,2,5 are much more important than body shape and food

Not at all. I'd hardly consider that a shopping list.

I've been accused of having too-high standards and that's a crock, unless you're just looking for alternating sleeping partners.

Never settle.

You should be able to find all of these things, but you just might be looking in the wrong places for them. Don't write someone off right away because they don't immediately seem to fit all of your "requirements," since getting to know someone's sense of humor, real intelligence, etc. often requires a little more time than a first date. You can get a good impression from the first date, but if it's an "almost," you should perhaps try again.

Also, instead of cute/skinny/petite (to avoid being offensive to some members on this forum, I guess), why can't you just use the term attractive? Different people have different definitions of attractive.. I'm sure you don't find every skinny/petite girl attractive, nor do you find all larger women unattractive.

All of my little superficial "standards" have been met recently, along with the more important ones (intelligence, humor, communication, etc.) so it's not impossible. Sometimes you just have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince or princess. ;)

Also,

What she said. There are enough people in the world that no one should have to settle.

Do you date at all? Do you try to date, but get shot down? Do you reject before giving people a chance? It's all about how you approach your list, not the content of the list itself.

I'm not trying at all right now. I'm currently working on finding happiness in myself before I get back into relationships. Obviously I don't dismiss someone because they fit everything on the list. They are just qualities I look for.

Not enough information.

The list seems 'fine' but what do you consider smart? IQ 105 or IQ 180?
Cute? Do you mean not deformed or uber hot?

Two people with the same list could be VERY different in how they apply it.

Smart move. Too many people look to others for happiness they'll never find until they are comfortable in their own skin.

I totally disagree. Once you get past basic character requirements, then it becomes a shopping list and you're limiting yourself. The rest is up to interaction and chemistry.

What are you disagreeing too?

I don't have enough information to decide if he is being too picky.

I for one don't like shopping lists for mates either, but thats not what his question was. There is nothing wrong with saying someone should be generally smart or attractive.

I for one wouldn't date a stupid ugly woman, its not on a list, but lets call it chemistry. Where one draw the line at stupid and ugly is where one may be too picky.

This all seems moot to me. You know what you want, and you are looking for it. Anything less = settling.

You could add "huge tits" and "great ass" to that list, and I still wouldn't say you were asking for too much. I would simply wish you good luck, and make a wager that 10 years down the road you'll remove those conditions and rearrange the ones that are left, because you'll know what is actually important to you.

To be honest, though, anyone that lists what they want, regardless of circumstances, is not my type.

Only you would see it that way. :lol:

Don't you think we all want someone who's at least as bright as we are?

Hey, I could be wrong, but I figured that was a given.

I can see it now. Excuse me, sir. I had a great time tonight. I need you to take this assessment test to determine if we qualify for a second date. You can take it home, but no googling, okay?

I won't even address the "ugly" issue. There wouldn't be a question if there was no attraction at all, hence the line is in the eye of the questor.

I think perhaps this discussion would've been better had if it were split gender-wise. The things that men really have on their list would have to be omitted for the feelings of some women, and the things that women really have on their list would probably have to be omitted for the men.

Anyone who denies this is either trying to seem like the PC good guy or doesn't realize that there's a very big difference between what we consciously list as "what we want" and what we actually desire. There has been study after study after study that concluding that what someone lists on a "ideal mate" checklist relates only incidentally to what they are ACTUALLY attracted to on a physical and emotional level. I'll be glad to provide sources if anyone is interested.

I'm not sure anyone can really be HONEST about what they want without upsetting someone else (Well, I don't have X Y and Z, why do you like me?)

I'm not sure you CAN be too picky. It will naturally coincide with your success rate. If you continue to fail (or find a lack of) women who meet your criteria, you will naturally lower your standards.

I think settling is far worse than being overoptimistic. Optimism can be fine-tuned and more realistic expectations set, but "settling" never can be.

My list:
1) Intelligent. I probably won't connect with a woman on an intellectual level unless she can keep up (or, if I'm lucky, surpass) me in conversation or debate.
2) Empathetic. One of my biggest turn ons is a woman who cares as much about people as I do. If a woman isn't effected at all by the suffering of others, she's probably not right for me.
3) Attractive. If I'm not physically attracted to you, we're staying friends. Sorry.
4) A life of her own. I've already got an established personality and life. I won't latch on to your family and your friends and your interests. I expect the same. A relationship only works with two distinct people.
5) Fucking hilarious. I love laughing and joking. It's a part of who I am.
6) Likes me, a lot. If she has a list and I fit it or she has to revise the list because I have things she likes that she forgot, awesome. I don't like women who want to "change a man". I mean if I do something stupid or wrong, I appreciate your opinion of course, but if I don't want frosted tips I won't be getting frosted tips. If I don't want to be a vegan, I won't be a vegan.
7) She won't grind my junk onto oblivion trying to work out her stress from working for Bill Lumburg all day.

See? Your list isn't bad at all.

Quote of the year right there.

With being overoptimistic, when you find someone, they can still have their faults, but still be well above average in your eyes.

If you settle for something, you're doomed to failure. If you genuinely love that person, you're not really "settling" for them anyways.

Of course, certain traits will also need to take priority.

For example, my most recent ex was by far the most "normal" of the bunch by others standards, but that's a good part of why our relationship failed. She was too nice, got along with me too well, and it ended up becoming stagnant and boring faster than ever before.


As far as lubeboy's original list goes, that has got to be the SHORTEST list of demands I've ever seen. Smart, humor, and me for me are total gimmes anyways. How the hell can anyone think its wrong to try and find a WHOPPING two unique traits? Even the petite should be a blow off, as there's no point in having a relationship with someone you don't find physically attractive anyways.

(1) how smart? Remember, the smarter she is, the smarter she will probably want you to be. Say top 20%?

(2) how funny? Top 20% humor wise?

(3) how cute/skinny? Bottom 20% of the population your age? You do realize that this will somewhat anti-correlate with (1)?

(4) you do realize that this will somewhat anti-correlate with (3), right?

(5) requires that you be at least as good, and that she has similar criteria. Most women are in a relationship already and won't find you worth the effort to see if they want to 'trade up' (or down) for you. Let's say 20% will like you!

Let's assume that each of 1 through 5 is a 20% chance, and the correlations and the anti-correlations cancel out.

The girl that passes those tests is a one in 3125 girl.

At 1 date with a new girl per week, that's 60 years to find your girl.

...

A way to get the girl of your dreams: find out what categories that people in general care about that you care about less. And don't care about them.

If your goal is a gymnast doctor who does improv comedy on the side, realize that that same girl is quite capable of picking up a ridiculously high status high quality man instead of you. And that woman has men throwing themselves at her, using every pickup trick in the book: you won't be worth considering as a romantic partner.

So if your standards are high, you have to be high quality to even get in the door, because she won't have the time to try out every man who wants to be with her.

Your list aligns with the typical status ordering of attractiveness of females. So depending on how picky you are, you are competing with the most possible men for your degree of pickyness.

That's a kick-ass post, Yakk.

I'm not too picky. They just have to look exactly like this and be willing to fuck me.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...ing/Shawna.jpg
(Yes, that's my girlfriend.)

Numbers 3 & 4
Cute and skinny? But she have to love to eat food...ok thats really realistic. Might as well look for Grace from that show Will and Grace.
Most skinny girls concern over eating too much so they have to ensure that they stay skinny.

You want what every man wants...go figure what else is new.

You're not with someone right now because you choose not to be. Your friend is giving you a hard time over nothing.

Cute/skinny and like to try new foods often go together. When one knows moderation in diet, they often like to try new dishes.

Cute/skinny and intelligent can go hand in hand. Now, if you're looking for someone with a 4.0 GPA from one of the top 5 universities nationwide, and you want that person to have perfect skin, hair, and makeup all of the time, then I'd say your standards are too high. If you want a thin woman with a GPA above 3.0 and attends a top 50 university, who can clean up nice when she's not in the midst of exams -- I'd say you stand a good chance of finding someone.

It's not a rediculous list. It's a list. That's all. These are not high standards.

Now, if you had a list with about 100 more qualifications, then I'd say you're being picky.

That's my new list.

She's fuckin' hot.

Yes. Yes she is. Thank you.

Basically a foodie with a fast metabolism. I have dated and known quite a few in my day :)

QED?

When you finally find the person who's right for you, she will fit criteria you never thought you had.

QFT.

DIBS!

errr...


shit.


Yeah, she's my type o.O

Aren't you afraid she'll slit your throat while you sleep, or maybe have a four-way gangbang with your neighbor?

Maybe I just like the vanilla-looking girls too much?

But those are the ones you should truly fear; they're probably hiding something with that plain appearance.

and there you have it!

i had standards:
-Twiggy girl, maybe even as skinny as i
-no big ta-ta's
-calm hippy type
-parties just as fucken hard as i do.

The girl i have now, and love more than anything on this fucken earth has none of those qualities, except the last. Shes a bit on the chunky side but it works well for her, has tits as big as my head, and is the most violent girl ive ever fucking met. But we click and we click well.

thats all that fucken matters :)

Yes, my standards are too high.

I'm in a long term relationship but if I was to date again, I would have high standards. When I meet someone interested I tend to forget those standards that I have... which is bad.

I have to say GG I love you to death but I completely disagree. Having someone enjoy what they eat and being open to new things are a huge turn on. I hate going out to eat and having a date say "I'll get the salad" and I know I love to cook new things. I love cooking new things and get bored making the same things over and over. Being adventurous and hungry have nothing to do with being thin. I don't think saying "I love only skinny girls" is for me, because skinny doesn't mean beautiful. But I think everyone would agree that you are very beautiful and I hope it isn't because you limit what you love. Thats my two cents.

Ha, yeah pretty true. There are a lot of girls out there though, who are naturally thin and can eat a lot, but I don't think that's true for a lot us...

Yakk nailed it dead. We can all have these lists of qualities that we like...but the simple fact is, the dating world is a marketplace where what you have to offer is as important as what you're looking for. There are exceptions to these rules, as "bargains" can be found anywhere, but look around you. People tend to "find their level" when dating and especially when marrying.

That said, when it clicks, it's amazing how many things you thought you wanted, you really don't care much about. I've discovered a lot about myself and my preferences by "dating out of type". You never lose anything (except time and maybe the cost of a meal) by dating anyone. And you might be surprised at how funny that slightly less than petite girl is, or discover that the brainiac is downright annoying.

WK....shes very pretty

My type... Ambulatory!

Alyson Hannigan gone badass.

And so back to the original question: "Is that to much to ask for?" I don't think anyone on this site or anywhere else can answer that question. It may be an opinion from someone else but the answer can only be found in yourself.

There have been so many guys unwilling to ask out a hot chick because they didn't feel the were worthy. Yet think about all the times you've seen a hot chick with a total dork. What happened? I suspect that he set his bar high, had some balls to stick with his criteria and made his move. Or perhaps she set her bar too low. Or perhaps, even, too many guys set their bars too low and she settled. Whatever the reason, a dork is with a hot chick.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Yakk, I think your numbers there are a little off, you assume that he's going to actually date girls that don't meet his criteria. While for some criteria it will be true, in some instances he won't need too. For example, any physical criteria (3) can be evaluated at a glace, assuming he doesn't date girls that don't meet his physical criteria(why would he?) that category can be completely discounted.

Also, (1) & (2) can be reasonably ascertained, at least in the pass/fail sense, in casual conversation. How many new girls can you strike up a casual conversation with a week? 3? 4? 50? Even if we lowball it, and say one every other day, thats at least 3 per week.

Of those 3 per week if he can get a date with one out of every 5 (20%) that gives him a date every 10 days to figure out (4) & (5). In this scenario, off of your numbers, a girl thats “good enough” will occur once in every 25 dates. Thats 8-9 months of dating before finding someone “good enough” to go long term with.

Not quite so depressing. Especially if he's the type to casually date multiple girls before (or, I guess, even after) things turn serious/long term/ commitment bound.



Lubeboy, I wouldn't worry about what your friends think. They aren't the ones that are going to have to put up with a sub-par girlfriend if you lower your standards, you are.

I didn't do so well at discrete math, but I think your odds are a little off there. Let's say you had a sample size of 10,000 women. 20% are the top 20% in intelligence (you could use something else that is more definite like religion, hair color, weight, eye color, ...), so you have 2,000 remaining. Now lets say you wanted the next item, which is the top 20% in humor. You have to go back to your full 10,000 women to get the funniest top 20%. If you wanted the funniest 20% out of the women who passed the first condition, you may be left with the all of the un-funniest girls to choose from (imagine that smart=unfunny, stupid = funny). If you applied the first condition to take out the people who aren't smart enough, you may get women ranking numbers 8000 - 8400 in humor. Or you might find the opposite, where (smart = funny, unsmart=unfunny) and the top 20% in both intelligence and humor would leave you with 400, when in fact you should have 2000 left that he would be happy with..

But like I said, I might be wrong, statistics and discrete math weren't my favorite classes. And maybe I just didn't understand what you meant with your 'correlations and the anti-correlations cancel out' statment (sorry I re-read your post one more time once I wrote everything out).

There's also the fact, that he might just happen to be visiting a comedy club on women's night on a college campus with lots of international students that liked weird food in San Diego or Miami, he would be in a 'target-rich' environment. Where the odds of meeting his 'acceptable' girl are a 0% to 20% chance(or whatever the rarest condition % is) in the general public. His odds in real life went way up because every girl he sees here could meet his standards.

While I'll agree that you shouldn't filter out people lke this, because you may be throwing out a few girls you would be happy with while chasing after the 'perfect' girl that may not exist.

Then again, the only othere option to get the true number is to use the census data to get a accurate number of 18 million 20-29 year old females. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uspop.svg
But you would have to resurvey those remaining to see how many remain after applying more filters, (unless that data is collected by the census bureau and they have the information and data from everyone) Using my filters, lets say 18 million are in the age bracket, after resurveying those you get 17 million are non-smokers, after surveying those there are 14 million are left if you consider exercise or activivity levels, and maybe there are actually 60,000 left if you say they need to live 50 miles away or less from me.

I don't know, I've written too much. But it is something I have spent a lot of time thinking about. The only plus side is that so many people end up in relationships, that it can't be too hard. I can go to the grocery store and see a few girls each time that I would like being in a relationship with, and if they asked me out, I would say yes.

A couple of things stand out...

That's with all people including friendships. This has remained true each and every time I have relocated my home.

I want to win the lotto but because of my principals and values, it proves difficult. I won't buy a ticket. I won't play any numbers. I won't do scratch offs. This leaves me with just finding the winning ticket on the ground as I walk past AND requires that I bend over and pick it up to collect it. I pass many scratched offs, and numbered tickets, but since I don't even bother to pick up the ticket to check, I'm definitely not getting any closer to winning any lotto jackpots.

You've got to be in it to win it.

To the OP, that list is what makes sense for you, and all those parameters have function and form that is different to anyone else who has the exact same list.