Men and women were asked, if they [had] any deal-breakers for going on a second date, what would those be? And men named three. If she's cute enough ... warm and kind ... and interesting enough to talk to, she gets a second date.
Women named 300 things that would be deal-breakers for a second date.
There's a survey in the book where men and women are asked, "If you got 80 percent of everything you wanted -- of your ideal traits in a mate or partner -- would you be happy?" The majority of women said, "No, that's settling," and the majority of men said, "Eighty percent? I'd be thrilled; that's a catch."
Even being female myself, I can't understand this. 80% is plenty enough, and I can't believe that they would say 80% 'is settling'. I must say, I feel as if whilst some females may believe this they must not all stick to it, since the whole idea of dating would be ruined if it was simply 'You must be better than this ideal 80%'.
I am no biologist or anthropologist. But the reasonable biological explanation is that for women the reproductive process is rather laborious, for men, it isn't, so women are naturally more careful when selecting a partner. Of course evolution hasn't accounted for contraception..
"Interesting, funny, caring, attractive, but is a paedophile" is a slightly different prospect from "Interesting, funny, caring, attractive, but occasionally leaves his socks on the floor."
Even being female myself, I can't understand this. 80% is plenty enough, and I can't believe that they would say 80% 'is settling'. I must say, I feel as if whilst some females may believe this they must not all stick to it, since the whole idea of dating would be ruined if it was simply 'You must be better than this ideal 80%'.
But of course, that is just my opinion
Because everyone has good, bad and different points. You ahve to elarn how to appreciate or live with them all. On the basis of 80%, then men are realists, plus they also know if they waited till 100%, then they may never get dates at all. Its called being too picky. Considering people change over time and an important factor is companionship and sex, then why not try people who have most of what you want? You might find the other 20% is not so bad after all. If they dont suit then you find someone else. 80% isnt a bad place to start.
"Interesting, funny, caring, attractive, but is a paedophile" is a slightly different prospect from "Interesting, funny, caring, attractive, but occasionally leaves his socks on the floor."
Exactly. I'd like someone who shares my interests but that not a necessity. I would think very hard about anyone who wouldn't want pets because I don't think it would work long term. But someone who has no ability to deal with my mental illnesses wouldn't get a second more of my time.
"Interesting, funny, caring, attractive, but is a paedophile" is a slightly different prospect from "Interesting, funny, caring, attractive, but occasionally leaves his socks on the floor."
Exactly. I'd like someone who shares my interests but that not a necessity. I would think very hard about anyone who wouldn't want pets because I don't think it would work long term. But someone who has no ability to deal with my mental illnesses wouldn't get a second more of my time.
I'm pretty sure being a paedo is on most people's most default ''do not want'' lists, that's not the question here. I mean look at most women's ''shopping lists'', they go on and on with the most ridiculous ''wants''. The author is talking about women's idea of ''perfection'' and how they reject men for the most ridiculous reasons like ''he did an impersonation of Austin Powers'' or ''his belt didn't match his shoes''. Also remember that these are men who have already passed the first test (looks, height, job, social proof, interesting texting convos etc..) just to obtain that grueling first date.... dating a semi-attractive , educated woman these days is like going to an interview for a job at Google.
The ''Groundhog day'' and ''Up in the air'' scenes are great examples:
Oh and btw in US couples where both partners are college educated the wife is the divorce initiator 90% of the time. 90%. Let that sink in for a minute..
I'm pretty sure being a paedo is on most people's most default ''do not want'' lists, that's not the question here. I mean look at most women's ''shopping lists'', they go on and on with the most ridiculous ''wants''. The author is talking about women's idea of ''perfection'' and how they reject men for the most ridiculous reasons like ''he did an impersonation of Austin Powers'' or ''his belt didn't match his shoes''. Also remember that these are men who have already passed the first test (looks, height, job, social proof, interesting texting convos etc..) just to obtain that grueling first date.... dating a semi-attractive , educated woman these days is like going to an interview for a job at Google.
The ''Groundhog day'' and ''Up in the air'' scenes are great examples:
The first one shows Bill Murray being really quite persistently creepy and obnoxious, while Andie McDowell lists qualities in her "perfect" man - NB doesn't say nobody else stands a chance. The second one shows an older woman describing how her preferences changed over time, and the younger woman realising that just because a man "ticks all the boxes" it doesn't stop them being a prick. That's not being too picky!
Oh and btw in US couples where both partners are college educated the wife is the divorce initiator 90% of the time. 90%. Let that sink in for a minute..
What are you trying to imply from that? I don't think divorce stats are necessarily relevant to a discussion on choosing a second date.
I'm pretty sure being a paedo is on most people's most default ''do not want'' lists, that's not the question here. I mean look at most women's ''shopping lists'', they go on and on with the most ridiculous ''wants''. The author is talking about women's idea of ''perfection'' and how they reject men for the most ridiculous reasons like ''he did an impersonation of Austin Powers'' or ''his belt didn't match his shoes''. Also remember that these are men who have already passed the first test (looks, height, job, social proof, interesting texting convos etc..) just to obtain that grueling first date.... dating a semi-attractive , educated woman these days is like going to an interview for a job at Google.
The ''Groundhog day'' and ''Up in the air'' scenes are great examples:
Oh and btw in US couples where both partners are college educated the wife is the divorce initiator 90% of the time. 90%. Let that sink in for a minute..
1. No-one HAS to date anyone. Someone could theoretically fit every single thing that you want in a partner and you could still not want to date them because you're just not feeling it. And that's totally acceptable.
2. You only have to look at the posts on this forum to know that the list of things that some men consider to be deal breakers are way longer that you listed:
Wearing make-up OR not wearing make-up. Having short hair. Having dyed hair. Having had sex with 'too many' people. Being mentally ill. Being trans. Wearing short skirts. Being a feminist. Having kids. Wanting OR not wanting kids. Having guy friends. Being too fat. Being too thin.
These are just a few things that some guys say are deal breakers. You cannot say that guys will always want a second date if a girl is cute, kind and interesting. Because that is completely wrong.