Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Btw, re fitness, I'm much more attracted to women who age gracefully while remaining feminine than ones who have a bunch of surgery and injections, on the one hand, or who give in to the practicalities of being a suburban mom 24/7 on the other hand.

Why is instant attraction a bad predictor of a good relationship ?

Because it usually reflects the familiarity of intense but dysfunctional past relationships, especially with a parent. Tons of literature on this. Do your homework.

I don’t know. I have great relationship with my parents . To me as a woman it chemistry is not there (and I know by date 2), it never grows

And you have a history of successful romantic relationships?

Strong instant chemistry can also cloud your ability to see serious problems.

E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindful-dating/202212/when-red-flags-feel-like-home/amp

Of course I do. I was with one partner for 19 years. It eventually ended but first 13 years were actually happy. It’s a good history given that average marriage duration in the US is 7 years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t mind another set of children.
I am an excellent provider.

If you think money is the only thing that gives your kids a good start, you’ll be producing sets of dysfunctional and unhappy kids. And bound yourself to gold diggers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Different PP, I agree. For me, chemistry takes a while to develop. Rare for me to have a definite feeling of "no chemistry" right off the bat in a first face-to-face meeting, though this appears to be common with women.

You and PP are talking about different things 1. PP said that instant chemistry is a bad predictor of a LTR . As a woman, I wonder why is that the case for men? 2. Second type of chemistry - the one that’s built over time. Of course, it can grow.

But my question was why 2) is a better start for a good relationship than the 1)? Aren’t men the one who value instant chemistry, soon sex etc.?

Again: Because it usually reflects the familiarity of intense but dysfunctional past relationships, especially with a parent. Tons of literature on this. Do your homework.

Ok then it’s the right approach to delay sex and wait out see if a man wants to connect in different ways.
That’s actually very helpful to know that men think that way in reality.

To me it’s just them not accepting female sexuality in a positive way: eg if she had sex with him right away, she’s a slut or immature. My personal experience is these men have Madonna-Ho complex. They tend to choose partners for LTR and marriage who are not great sexual matches and then become miserable, uninvolved, cheating husbands.

But that’s just my opinion. I guess I have to pretend I’m not all wet for him and make him wait couple months to show my maturity

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Btw, re fitness, I'm much more attracted to women who age gracefully while remaining feminine than ones who have a bunch of surgery and injections, on the one hand, or who give in to the practicalities of being a suburban mom 24/7 on the other hand.

Why is instant attraction a bad predictor of a good relationship ?

Because it usually reflects the familiarity of intense but dysfunctional past relationships, especially with a parent. Tons of literature on this. Do your homework.

I don’t know. I have great relationship with my parents . To me as a woman it chemistry is not there (and I know by date 2), it never grows

And you have a history of successful romantic relationships?

Strong instant chemistry can also cloud your ability to see serious problems.

E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mindful-dating/202212/when-red-flags-feel-like-home/amp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Different PP, I agree. For me, chemistry takes a while to develop. Rare for me to have a definite feeling of "no chemistry" right off the bat in a first face-to-face meeting, though this appears to be common with women.

You and PP are talking about different things 1. PP said that instant chemistry is a bad predictor of a LTR . As a woman, I wonder why is that the case for men? 2. Second type of chemistry - the one that’s built over time. Of course, it can grow.

But my question was why 2) is a better start for a good relationship than the 1)? Aren’t men the one who value instant chemistry, soon sex etc.?

Again: Because it usually reflects the familiarity of intense but dysfunctional past relationships, especially with a parent. Tons of literature on this. Do your homework.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Btw, re fitness, I'm much more attracted to women who age gracefully while remaining feminine than ones who have a bunch of surgery and injections, on the one hand, or who give in to the practicalities of being a suburban mom 24/7 on the other hand.

Why is instant attraction a bad predictor of a good relationship ?

Because it usually reflects the familiarity of intense but dysfunctional past relationships, especially with a parent. Tons of literature on this. Do your homework.

I don’t know. I have great relationship with my parents . To me as a woman it chemistry is not there (and I know by date 2), it never grows

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you looking for in a woman?

Someone who doesn’t ask a lot of questions or make demands.

Just enjoy the ride.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me help you:
If he is rich: a kind woman with her own financial resources who will think everything he does is great. If she is not already financially independent she needs to be smoking hot but also intelligent/educated and presentable. Unless he is an ahole, in which case smoking hot alone will suffice.
If he is poor: a nonjudgmental mother type to tell them they aren’t a loser.

obviously written by a bitter woman, not a man

Bitter women are bitter because of men.

Not in my experience. Although they often believe that but once free of the man remain unhappy and bitter. Because it never was the man.

It’s what the man did to their lives. It’s permanent damage. Getting rid of the man can’t retrieve the past or fix the lost opportunities and the harm done. It just gets rid of the proximal cause.

Men love to tell themselves otherwise because it helps them deny responsibility.

Just like you are denying your responsibility with this post? Happiness is a personal responsibility, stop blaming other people and fix your issues

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Btw, re fitness, I'm much more attracted to women who age gracefully while remaining feminine than ones who have a bunch of surgery and injections, on the one hand, or who give in to the practicalities of being a suburban mom 24/7 on the other hand.

Why is instant attraction a bad predictor of a good relationship ?

Because it usually reflects the familiarity of intense but dysfunctional past relationships, especially with a parent. Tons of literature on this. Do your homework.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Different PP, I agree. For me, chemistry takes a while to develop. Rare for me to have a definite feeling of "no chemistry" right off the bat in a first face-to-face meeting, though this appears to be common with women.

You and PP are talking about different things 1. PP said that instant chemistry is a bad predictor of a LTR . As a woman, I wonder why is that the case for men? 2. Second type of chemistry - the one that’s built over time. Of course, it can grow.

But my question was why 2) is a better start for a good relationship than the 1)? Aren’t men the one who value instant chemistry, soon sex etc.?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off the top of my head:

- in good physical shape - she takes care of herself
- emotional maturity - not still hung up on the past, willing to be vulnerable herself and accepting of me
- kids at similar stage
- financial independence
- some common interests

How come chemistry that’s mentioned so often by men is not on the list?

I'm PP. Chemistry definitely matters but there's not much a woman can do about that. Well, she should be sexual, enjoy sex. But that still doesn't mean there will be chemistry with any given person. On the other hand, realizing lightening strike right off the bat is generally a bad predictor of a good relationship and realizing that sometimes chemistry takes time to develop are important things she can control. Part of being emotionally mature.

Different PP, I agree. For me, chemistry takes a while to develop. Rare for me to have a definite feeling of "no chemistry" right off the bat in a first face-to-face meeting, though this appears to be common with women.

Anonymous wrote:Skinny
Pretty
Under 40