Dating must-haves, wish lists and dealbreakers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

I guess you missed the part where PP said was a SAHM. And she of course she doesn’t look down on other women, while repeating the condescending things the men she chooses to associate with said about other women.

It’s not condescending for men to say they want a woman who has more to offer than birthing children.

I work with a lot of guys in their 20s/30s, and the #1 dating complaint I hear is that they’ll meet a woman who is nice and pretty, but she has no ambition or goals for her life. It’s okay for men to have preferences.

Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

I guess you missed the part where PP said was a SAHM. And she of course she doesn’t look down on other women, while repeating the condescending things the men she chooses to associate with said about other women.

It’s not condescending for men to say they want a woman who has more to offer than birthing children.

I work with a lot of guys in their 20s/30s, and the #1 dating complaint I hear is that they’ll meet a woman who is nice and pretty, but she has no ambition or goals for her life. It’s okay for men to have preferences.

Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

You seem to be making a lot of poor logical leaps there. I suppose that high powered job isn’t keeping your brain as sharp as you seem to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

Agree.

It’s really no different from the book we all tried to follow back in college: The Rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

I guess you missed the part where PP said was a SAHM. And she of course she doesn’t look down on other women, while repeating the condescending things the men she chooses to associate with said about other women.

It’s not condescending for men to say they want a woman who has more to offer than birthing children.

I work with a lot of guys in their 20s/30s, and the #1 dating complaint I hear is that they’ll meet a woman who is nice and pretty, but she has no ambition or goals for her life. It’s okay for men to have preferences.

Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

I'm with you. The divorced SAHMs are usually dull as rocks. But some very interesting women have serious pursuits that don't generate a whole lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

I agree and think it was inappropriate to attack you for saying this. The infamous misogynist Roissy/Heartiste had a point when he caustically blogged "It’s Time To Start Calling Out Women Who Are Losers." Women on this forum judge men constantly and we have this long thread that focuses on dating requirements for men. Yet men's labor force participation and income still exceeds women's. Personally I met a plenty of unemployed alcoholics, drug addicts, and custody-abductors while dating women in my forties.

The Wikipedia article on The Rules says that book taught women "to play games that toy with men" and "that the emergence of seduction communities happened "almost as a direct response to this hard-to-get femininity". The book basically taught women to play hard-to-get. To be fair, it might help some women set healthy boundaries. The women authors had no professional qualifications and cited no sources. One of them subsequently divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

I agree and think it was inappropriate to attack you for saying this. The infamous misogynist Roissy/Heartiste had a point when he caustically blogged "It’s Time To Start Calling Out Women Who Are Losers." Women on this forum judge men constantly and we have this long thread that focuses on dating requirements for men. Yet men's labor force participation and income still exceeds women's. Personally I met a plenty of unemployed alcoholics, drug addicts, and custody-abductors while dating women in my forties.

The Wikipedia article on The Rules says that book taught women "to play games that toy with men" and "that the emergence of seduction communities happened "almost as a direct response to this hard-to-get femininity". The book basically taught women to play hard-to-get. To be fair, it might help some women set healthy boundaries. The women authors had no professional qualifications and cited no sources. One of them subsequently divorced.

1. Except wanting to be a SAHM isn't the same as broke and lazy you know this.

2. You braindead manosphere posters should be banned from posting here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say, from the perspective of a guy in his 40's who is tall and makes a good salary (since that's important here) that PP with the list for men doesn't sound that bad.

I'm happily married but if something happened about the only off-putting thing is the part about spending on her kids. If she makes as much as she claims she should be able to do that herself. Also the Doordash thing...I might go get the food myself but I'm careful financially and refuse to pay Doordash fees on top of everything else.

I mean, why on earth should he support her kids or Doordash her food? The entitlement is staggering, and I'm a woman.

He's not paying my mortgage or funding my kids' college tuition, so I don't see it as supporting them.

A long time ago, I was having a rough day, I mentioned it to the guy I was seeing when we were texting, and he immediately DoorDashed my kids and me dinner. I liked it, so now it's a standard for the men I date.

I don't say upfront "hey, you need to buy us dinner". But when I'm dating multiple guys, I'll mention when I'm having a rough day and see who steps it up. That's who I continue dating. And why not? I have multiple options, I'm going to pick the best one.

Too many women settle for scraps from men. The higher your standards, the more they respect you and rise to those standards.

What you are describing is not high standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

I guess you missed the part where PP said was a SAHM. And she of course she doesn’t look down on other women, while repeating the condescending things the men she chooses to associate with said about other women.

It’s not condescending for men to say they want a woman who has more to offer than birthing children.

I work with a lot of guys in their 20s/30s, and the #1 dating complaint I hear is that they’ll meet a woman who is nice and pretty, but she has no ambition or goals for her life. It’s okay for men to have preferences.

Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

A 40+ divorced momma who pimps men to DoorDash her and her wolves food can’t tell me chit!

Get a grip

[Anonymous]

Yeah I'm not seeing what's groundbreaking. She doesn't expect anything serious from men she has sex, gets flown out for sex and occasional dinners. Men have and will continue to be interested in women who are interested in sex with minimal effort on their part. That's in part what makes dating difficult because many if not most women want a commitment it's very easy to find a man to bang you and buy you dinner. Harder to find one worth marrying.

[Anonymous]

Back to op's original question.

A sense of humor hopefully similar to mine so we can make each other laugh.

Doesn't take themselves too seriously but knows when to be serious.


A self starter I don't mean career or money wise but someone who notices what needs to be done and does it doesn't wait for someone to tell them to
Kind and respectful.

Not a bean counter.

Ambitious in away that's not about salary the make lemonade out of lemons type.

Someone who is aware of their faults and willing to work on them

Willing to learn, grow and change.

Likes dogs


I find physically / sexually attractive and satisfying.

[Anonymous]

No woman should have to put up with a short man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No woman should have to put up with a short man.

like Stephen Miller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

I guess you missed the part where PP said was a SAHM. And she of course she doesn’t look down on other women, while repeating the condescending things the men she chooses to associate with said about other women.

It’s not condescending for men to say they want a woman who has more to offer than birthing children.

I work with a lot of guys in their 20s/30s, and the #1 dating complaint I hear is that they’ll meet a woman who is nice and pretty, but she has no ambition or goals for her life. It’s okay for men to have preferences.

Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

But these women are encouraged to be that way. They are simply living the “cozy-girl,” or “soft-girl” life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A lot of you sound like crazy old trolls. Why are you so upset about the 40 year old who has her pick of guys? Why isn't she allowed to have standards or preferences?"

+100

I really don't get why anyone has a problem with what she's written about her approach to dating. She's taking care of her own kids financially. She's financially independent and not hunting for a rescuer. She is clever and engaging enough that men can comfortably bring her around their colleagues and clients. Let's face it - most SAHMs are not the sort of people you could do that with, and a certain type of man values that. It's a very attractive quality to women too. My partner was someone I took to a client's annual party at her Annapolis waterfront estate within the first month of dating him. I loved that I knew he'd show up wearing the right thing, with the right bottle of wine for the hostess, and that he charmed all the people I wanted to impress.

And why should she, or anybody, remarry anyone who can't substantially improve her current situation? She doesn't NEED a man. She's only going to put up with the downsides of marriage if the good stuff outweighs them. Makes sense to me.

I guess you missed the part where PP said was a SAHM. And she of course she doesn’t look down on other women, while repeating the condescending things the men she chooses to associate with said about other women.

It’s not condescending for men to say they want a woman who has more to offer than birthing children.

I work with a lot of guys in their 20s/30s, and the #1 dating complaint I hear is that they’ll meet a woman who is nice and pretty, but she has no ambition or goals for her life. It’s okay for men to have preferences.

Not really sure why it’s fine for women to say they don’t want a broke, lazy man, but not vice versa.

But these women are encouraged to be that way. They are simply living the “cozy-girl,” or “soft-girl” life.

+1

It’s a lifestyle choice.