Consciously my highest ranked priorities are similarity in interests. Me not being the best when it comes to constant small talk stuff, I rely heavy on meeting people I have similar interests in. I really realized many years ago that if I could take some of my best friends (guys) and turn them into girls, they'd be the best match, and that is what I've been searching for ever since.

I want someone that can accept and has the same interests in technology, anime, manga, politics, economy, science, life. Also they have to want to talk about this stuff. I'm an introvert but for whatever reason I love to talk/debate/argue ad nauseam about stuff I'm interested in.

Someone with similar priorities in buying stuff, preferably someone that can tell me "No, we can't buy that now." But also someone that has no trouble saying yes when we can. This also includes "What to buy." Don't need a girl obsessed with clothes that will want all the money to fuel her obsession and not see my desire too. This goes with "acceptance" as well.

Kind, empathic, intelligent, fun, independent, blah blah, the usual stuff.

Sexual match. I won't go into much detail on this, but simply say that relationships where couples aren't compatible sexually (be it in interest, frequency, etc); tend to have rocky relationships.

Final point before I touch on physical features. I need someone that can be accommodating or have similar needs for "attachment." Someone that has to meet everyday, or go out every weekend, or constantly needs to be doing something together. That person would wear on me immensely.

In the "want a Japanese g/f" thread I did come down hard on the "looks" sector but I will say this about physical appearance. Unless you are meeting all your potential g/f or b/fs online, the odds are good that in real life you are already passing every person you meet through an on-the-fly filter to determine looks. Given a selection of 4 people you would approach to chat with, you are PROBABLY going to choose the person that is most attractive of the 4. On top of this, because of the way human psychology works, you could end up marrying someone that meets your criteria well but at first never was attractive. Through simple repetitive exposure you slowly came to find them attractive. This is a well known effect. (/rambling)

That said. I will pretty much always put asian women over any other race. Beyond that in terms of appearance, I'm very liberal in what I like. I tend to like the very bland (すっぴん) looking Japanese(/Asian) girls over the ones dressed like models. I would probably avoid any massively overweight woman, but skinny all the way to ぽっちゃり/chubby are fine with me. Beyond that I don't have any qualifying features on women. I have 'preferences' for some stuff but I wouldn't let them ever cloud any judgements on a person.

EDIT: Zgarbas's post actually reminded me about something else that I forgot. The above are what I consider important when first meeting someone. If I were trying to decide whether to marry someone though, we would have to live together for a year. Its one thing to date someone for a year, but another to decide you want to move in and spend most waking hours at home, with them. Theres all sorts of nitty-gritty things that come into play for that.

Last edited by vix86 (2012 January 13, 5:23 am)

Zgarbas wrote:

TBH the biggest flaw in my current relationship is the complete co-dependence. But I guess that's what happens when two shut-ins live together=/.

Actually I did think of one. important. criteria.

I would never, ever once again have the patience to teach a man about how to do his housework. Boys, learn to do the dishes!

In my house I actually have to clean dishes every other day or when needed. I vacuum, clean my basement, my room and take out the trash. I know a lot of people who don't do anything and there families do everything for them. I wouldn't say their lazy or anything but maybe spoiled?

nadiatims wrote:

In fact I suspect the idea of finding someone to settle down with for the long term and raise a family with is an entirely modern invention. I don't think monkeys/apes form monogamous couples and raise nuclear families together.

This is something i've heard various times from people who don't think they can hold down a monogamous relationship. It's definately not true. (though that doesn't mean that having a preference for non monogamous relationship is wrong, i think it's really up to preference, personality, willpower, etc.)

The closest species to us that are almost totally monogamous is gibbons. They have one partner for life, and live only with their families. The male defends their territory aggressively. Occasionally, you get a female who cheats with outside males, but it's done very secretively, and they don't change their nuclear family structure often.

In terms of how long ago we diverged, it goes, 1. humans, 2. chimpanzees / bonobos, 3. gorillas, 4. orangutans, 5. gibbons.
I don't know as much about monkey populations, but probably you can find examples of monogamy there too. One thing you should note is that every single species of ape has a very different structure in terms of sexual relationships, so it's very hard to draw conclusions about humans based on this. There's only the testicle size correlation with monogamy that i mentioned before.

******
As for people staying with partners that are bad for them, i don't know if just the explanation "they're secretly attracted to that type of person" really holds.
I don't think it's really attraction in that case, it seems to be more of a very unhealthy sort of dependence.

Like, one thing i've noticed in watching my friends relationships, as well as looking back on my own, is that it's quite common in these circumstances that their partner is doing that push away - pull back thing (either knowingly or unknowingly) where there doesn't seem to be any logical pattern in when they're giving their partner attention and love and when they're going cold on them. This basically creates an unstableness where someone no longer really knows what they should do to please their partner, and it ends up taking away their sense of self, and them being dependent on their partner for how they view themselves. Because it's such a stong feeling, it's mistaken for love.

Anyway, i think as soon as you get wise to this, you become a stronger person, and become immune to these tactics, but some people continue the cycle in new relationships rather than really realising what's happening.

Actually, i think there are studies on this, and it's quite a well known tactic for creating dependence, but i am too lazy to look for them right now

Last edited by IceCream (2012 January 13, 12:09 pm)

dizmox wrote:

vix86 wrote:

I want someone that can accept and has the same interests in technology, anime, manga, politics, economy, science, life. Also they have to want to talk about this stuff.

Do they have to have all of these interests? Given that they're typically male pursuits,  there'd be hardly anyone left to choose from... statistically it's impossible that every geek will find a geeky girlfriend in the end. Just as it's impossible that every girl into romance novels/Dr Who will find a guy into them.

It's better just to look for someone who's open to trying new things.

I won't argue with anything you said, I think its all a valid point. I personally am not looking for my secret female clone in life; but merely someone with enough similarities that overlap that there is common ground. I think for relationships to form, be they friendship or romantic, you need either A) Something already in common to build on or B) you need to meet someone that is open to new ideas that doesn't mind building on something common. I think with one of the two you can build a positive relationship, because after the infatuation/lust dies down in a relationship you need something concrete to build on.

Last edited by vix86 (2012 January 14, 1:21 am)

nadiatims wrote:

In fact I suspect the idea of finding someone to settle down with for the long term and raise a family with is an entirely modern invention. I don't think monkeys/apes form monogamous couples and raise nuclear families together. Think about it, how often do women/men complain that their bf/gf is an a-hole/bitch or that they are neglected/abused/etc while still desperate to maintain the relationship? They'd rather have whoever they see as closest to their constructed ideal (whatever that may mean) that is attainable than be treated well.

It's funny because I'm in a monogamous relationships whilst being anti-monogamy for the opposite of this precise reason.

The settling down thing has happened since prehistoric times, and is in no way modern. Marriages without attraction have existed for quite some time, though usually they were more about the man just finding a beard(see the entirety of Greece), as women rarely had the power to choose their mate (though it did happen from time to time).

However, monogamy is extremely convenient. You just have to find someone who you can stand and voila. Many complications are settled, you have secured yourself a family and may procreate. Monogamy is an extremely convenient way to solve most procreation-relation issues, especially since the alternative is to get stoned to death for adultery.

What I have against modern monogamy though,  is the fact that it is rather...forced. I think the fact that we have access to all this media which always features the perfect love story has gotten into the collective mind the idea that everyone should find this "true love". Everyone should live that "amazing adolescent love". So you have kids as young as 14 getting into abusive relationships because that's what they think they have to do. People have stopped getting into relationship for practical or emotional reasons and just pick a random person and do their best to hold on, regardless of how well or bad the relationship would go.

Another reason why they get into these complicated, meaningless relationships is because apparently people are too busy to solve their own problems now. You get chicks with issues who get into relationships because their SO will "magically solve them", and guys with issues who become abusers in relationships because of their own anger issues(not that the reverse situations don't exist, it's just that these two are painstakingly common). Instead of helping themselves and grow as a person they just choose to find someone who will stand them and unleash their problems of them; they can't accept themselves, so they just find someone who will accept them.

Not to mention all those people who are actively pursuing broken significant others for whatever reasons (cause they like to fix them, cause they like to be the mature one, cause they want someone as broken as them, etc.)

So yeah. I do think the modern concept of monogamous relationships kind of breeds insecurity. But monogamy as an entity has always been there.

Also I do kind of hate how polyamorous people get into monogamous relationships and just screw over so many people by cheating. If you're gonna cheat, don't get into a relationship, douche. *sigh*.
(<-has not actually been cheated on, just doesn't understand why so many people do)

ta12121 wrote:

In my house I actually have to clean dishes every other day or when needed. I vacuum, clean my basement, my room and take out the trash.

Now that's advertising your skills .

Last edited by Zgarbas (2012 January 14, 5:11 am)

It was not as forced. Sure, Romeo&Juliet existed, but it was a parody and treated as such. Nowadays pretty much every mainstream movie is a boy meets girl, which rarely strays from the "fall for the first person you see and fight to the death for him/her" pattern. Books too, to the point where even bestsellers which are acclaimed for their original ideas are focused around that particular situation (sure, the time traveler's wife could be about the trials of living with the time traveling condition... instead it is about that redhead falling for the guy because he was always there, and him falling for her because she showed interest). Hey, even that movie about Brandon Teena was mostly about him falling for that chick and doing everything to get with her, risking his life for it... the minor fact about it being a coming-of-age story about a transgender man who got beaten to death took less screen time than the love story...

The details change, but the situation is pretty much the same.

Let's compare (btw, this is off the top of my head and I tend to confuse currents. Feel free to correct me since I'm probably wrong at some points, but I'd like to focus on the greater picture than on the details).

Antiquity= Traditional man battling the gods stories. Love stories were indeed present, but usually as a sidestory and not important to the plot. Women rarely mattered because...well...women didn't exist as people back then. Off the top of my head the love story which got the most attention was that scene with Dido in the Aeneid, which was treated as an impediment rather than an important thing. The rest were usually stories of conquest, like wanting a beautiful woman as conquest(illiad). Couple love didn't matter(reflection of the situation back then). Sex did make appearences, but it was rarely with emotions attached. Even when the writings became more sophisticated and dabbled in more existential matters, love was not of importance.
I'd rather not bring the lesbos poets into this since they were pretty special.

Early middle ages were all about religion and adventures. Love stories started showing up, but again not "traditional" love stories. Sort of. Well, Beatrice got to be the Virgil's guide after all.

Of course, at one point the troubadours showed up. IIRC they placed limerence above requited love, though. Which was pretty much a defining point of literature up to the 18th century. As love slowly got more attention in literature, people realized that it made a good plot point. However, it was mostly a hero-to-muse, hero-to-damsel in distress kind of thing. It was played for the lulz at times (see Shakespeare). Limerence showed up predominantly, though often it was a combination of topics. Apparently limerence goes well with everything from the passing of time to missing your mother, so that had something to do with it. Hell, they made love stories be about their countries! So though love stories clearly existed, they were usually just a means to a plot.

Note that poetry was full of love sonnets and what not, but I wouldn't call them love stories for the simple fact that they are usually odes to their loved ones rather than stories. Your mileage may vary on this one, obviously.

Of course then the 19th century showed up, which indeed featured the prototype of the love stories we know today. Poor man sees rich woman, rises up in power to get her. Man sees woman, falls in love and loses everything for her. Woman sees sexy guy and decides to be a dumb wench and give him all her money because the romance novels says love conquers all (dear god I hate madame Bovary). Woman sees sexy guy and lusts for him in secret until she is successful enough to be worthy of him, in a story about a woman's coming of age. This pretty much changed literature since people realized that they like reading trashy stories about love. However, note that though the love story was the intrigue, the novel occasionally digressed. Many times the point was that the love story was not good for them and that they should abandon the thought and move on, though their desire was stronger than their rational thought. At least they tried.

Then comes the eclectic jumble of currents which marked the 20th and early 21st century. It had everything from existentialism to trashy romance novels, from stories about paupers to ones about the most luxuries bits of society. Love storie showed up in every shape and form, from unrequited to happy couples, to the happy couple goign through crisis trope, to what not. You could literally find any sort of story you wanted in this period. Movies showed up, which experimented with pretty much every field.

....and then...Well. The guys who made the stories realized that people really dig love stories. At first they stuck to making them love stories with a twist. Then Harry met Sally and since then every movie has been a lame copy of that. The romantic comedy genre is just Harry met sally revisited.
As for literature, though arguably overabundant these days and with every genre having its niche, if you look at best-sellers love stories account for about 90% of sales. And not good ones either. Simplistic meet cute scenarios, which are played out in such a manner in which the getting together is the main part, with obstacles being clearly put there to prolong the story.

And when everything you're exposed to acts out a certain scenario, is it outrageous to assume that maybe that is the scenario everyone should follow?

undead_saif wrote:

(...) as no one is perfect.

Aww crap!

I didn't mean anything really, just goofing around. :p