The Definition of a High Quality Man

[Dust]

Out of curiosity, why did the CFO lose, and how did the guy who is your now husband "win"?

 

He was probably short or something?

 

I mean she makes it sound like she was on the bachlorette tv show and had to chose between the two guys. Was the CFO guy even that broken up when he lost her... I mean it sounds like she wasn't even seriously dating the guy when she decided to end it.

 

I'm curious to why were you more attracted to the other guy? Was he taller?

[serial muse]

He was probably short or something?

 

I mean she makes it sound like she was on the bachlorette tv show and had to chose between the two guys. Was the CFO guy even that broken up when he lost her... I mean it sounds like she wasn't even seriously dating the guy when she decided to end it.

 

I'm curious to why were you more attracted to the other guy? Was he taller?

 

OK, I can't see if you're just being cynical for the sake of it...she was obviously directly responding to your post, in which you said a woman would never choose the poor, less attractive guy over the rich guy. I mean, that's what you said, and she said she did do exactly that, so I don't get why people can't just let it lie. Do you need that badly to have your hypothesis proven?

 

Your idea was wrong, in her case. The stand-up thing to do would be to admit it, not tear her down for doing what SO MANY guys on this site deeply wish women would do. Well, sometimes they do, for God's sake.

 

She wanted to be with the non-rich dude. She preferred who he is, as a person, which is what she clearly said. Why is that so hard for the guys on this forum to believe? I'm not saying that people never choose the good-looking, rich ******* over the average joe...sometimes, women do that. Sometimes, men do. But obviously, sometimes the nice guy/gal does win. None of this proves any hypothesis of any kind. See my .sig.

 

I just find it fascinating that even when someone says, "OK, you said a person of my gender never does this, but, well, I did it" it still cannot die. Someone has to accuse that person of lying. It's tiresome.

Edited December 20, 2011 by serial muse

[Janesays]

Your idea was wrong, in her case. The stand-up thing to do would be to admit it, not tear her down for doing what SO MANY guys on this site deeply wish women would do. Well, sometimes they do, for God's sake.

 

She wanted to be with the non-rich dude. Why is that so hard for the guys on this forum to believe? I'm not saying that people never choose the good-looking, rich ******* over the average joe...sometimes, women do that. Sometimes, men do. But obviously, sometimes the nice guy/gal does win. None of this proves any hypothesis of any kind. See my .sig.

 

I just find it fascinating that even when someone says, "OK, you said a person of my gender never does this, but, well, I did it" it still cannot die. Someone has to accuse that person of lying. It's tiresome.

 

Thank you for posting this.

 

My theory is that a lot of these guys on here that are having trouble with women desperately want to believe the reason is because they aren't rich, they don't have status, they don't have shiny pieces of junk A and B.....YET. But when they do, God help us all, they'll become instant ladies men.

 

So when a woman comes along and says she doesn't care about all that nonsense and MEANS it, they wonder why then, are they having trouble with women.

 

There are women out there who care about that stuff. And if they get it, they will probably snag them. But....do they really WANT them? Maybe.

 

As for myself, I've always been a do-gooder type. So yes, I go for nice men. Kind is my number one priority.

 

I've had plenty of stereotypical 'alpha men' try to woo me in my life and they are always shocked when I have no interest in them. In my oh so humble opinion, they've spent more time acquiring expensive status symbols than they did developing their personalities. And they bore me.

 

And what is with all these men here who are obsessed with height? Maybe it's because I'm only 5ft tall, but EVERYONE is tall to me, so who cares? I think my boyfriend is 5'9ish? Maybe taller, maybe shorter. Who gives a crap.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Janesays

[Dust]

OK, I can't see if you're just being cynical for the sake of it...she was obviously directly responding to your post, in which you said a woman would never choose the poor, less attractive guy over the rich guy. I mean, that's what you said, and she said she did do exactly that, so I don't get why people can't just let it lie. Do you need that badly to have your hypothesis proven?

 

Your idea was wrong, in her case. The stand-up thing to do would be to admit it, not tear her down for doing what SO MANY guys on this site deeply wish women would do. Well, sometimes they do, for God's sake.

 

She wanted to be with the non-rich dude. She preferred who he is, as a person, which is what she clearly said. Why is that so hard for the guys on this forum to believe? I'm not saying that people never choose the good-looking, rich ******* over the average joe...sometimes, women do that. Sometimes, men do. But obviously, sometimes the nice guy/gal does win. None of this proves any hypothesis of any kind. See my .sig.

 

I just find it fascinating that even when someone says, "OK, you said a person of my gender never does this, but, well, I did it" it still cannot die. Someone has to accuse that person of lying. It's tiresome.

 

I find it fascinating that you would have me believe women are as a majority impressed by the things the 32 year old virgin.

 

Yes I was wrong to say a rich guy beats out poor guy 100% time. What I meant to say is that rich guy always beats poor guy when you look at the world as a entirety.

 

Also the fact that her now husband makes a living fundraising points to some one who isn’t necessarily poor. So she never proved me wrong on what I will already admit was a wrong statement. She just pointed out that she could have been with a guy who was supposedly rich and instead went with some one who wasn’t rich? Never said he was poor.

[Lonely Ronin]

She wanted to be with the non-rich dude. She preferred who he is, as a person, which is what she clearly said. Why is that so hard for the guys on this forum to believe?

 

since I also wanted to know why, I'll give my 2 cents...

 

I just wanted to better understand why she dumped the CFO for the fundraiser. I mean was the guy a douchebag, conceited what? Usually people don't leave one relationship for another unless they find something fundamentally wrong with the first person.

[Oxy Moronovich]

He was probably short or something?

 

I mean she makes it sound like she was on the bachlorette tv show and had to chose between the two guys. Was the CFO guy even that broken up when he lost her... I mean it sounds like she wasn't even seriously dating the guy when she decided to end it.

 

I'm curious to why were you more attracted to the other guy? Was he taller?

I just read another thread by sunshinegirl:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t201640/

 

Apparently, she has been mistreated by jerks before. So she finally decided to settle for the nice guy, mainly because at 36, she's not getting many other offers.

[Lonely Ronin]

And what is with all these men here who are obsessed with height? Maybe it's because I'm only 5ft tall, but EVERYONE is tall to me, so who cares? I think my boyfriend is 5'9ish? Maybe taller, maybe shorter. Who gives a crap.

 

You know how society tells women slender/fit is attractive, tall is male equivalent.

[Taramere]

Quality...high enough intelligence to stand out from the crowd, but shows rather than tells. Good conversationalist and good listener. Good listener is key, because there are a host of other qualities, not to mention wisdom, that come with being a good listener and it's also vital for good communication.

 

Has a well thought out code of ethics that he's developed with some reference to his own experiences and tries hard to live by. Is able to own and learn from his screw ups (I'm not interested in young guys who haven't had time to screw up or people who are too cautious to ever take a risk that didn't pay off). Follows a healthy lifestyle. Picks his battles carefully, and is able to stand up for himself without making a lot of drama about it.

[Dust]

I just read another thread by sunshinegirl:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t201640/

 

Apparently, she has been mistreated by jerks before. So she finally decided to settle for the nice guy, mainly because at 36, she's not getting many other offers.

 

I think the fact that a guy cheated on her says more about him then her. Unless she knowingly put up with it.

 

But you make me think of a good point. She's in her 30's and settling for a nice guy. I want to see the hs girls and college girls, and twenty somethings going after the suposed quality man. not just the women approaching 40. Not that I have anything against women who are aproaching 40 or are 40 some are very hot... the great majority aren't

[Woggle]

There are some women who truly do go for good men. They are not common but they do exist. If any women on here are one of those women then props to them.

 

That being said any man who has been in the modern day dating world knows what tends to attract a lot of women and it is not what the OP described.

 

It is no coincidence that after my divorce when I started going to the gym and making good money plus a take it or leave it attitude is when I did my best with women. I had them begging me for more instead of the other way around. I married a woman who didn't like me at first but fell in love when she saw my sensitive but was after god knows how many dates.

[bean1]

I think the fact that a guy cheated on her says more about him then her. Unless she knowingly put up with it.

 

But you make me think of a good point. She's in her 30's and settling for a nice guy. I want to see the hs girls and college girls, and twenty somethings going after the suposed quality man. not just the women approaching 40. Not that I have anything against women who are aproaching 40 or are 40 some are very hot... the great majority aren't

 

I did. I met & married my "nice guy" at 23 while rolling my eyes around my 35+ year old coworkers who would sit & complain that "all men were jerks". It takes some girls a very long time to figure these things out.

 

That being said, I wouldn't have any interest in a 32 year old virgin. For me, another important aspect was that he had already been around the block a few times, picked up some skills, and learned what he really wanted in a woman.

 

OP's "nice guy" might have just settled too. I suppose likewise, many "nice guys" end up settling for the woman who took 15 years to learn this lesson after being burned by three dozen men.

[Necromancer]

I never listen to what women say when they are talking about qualities in a man and what they want,because they say they want something in a guy and then they respond totally different.

 

I always look how they respond,in 90% cases...they take looks over personality.

 

I am young through.

[TheFinalWord]

I would say in my opinion one high quality is not to have a negative attitude. No one wants to be around a negative person all the time. Too many people here have a very negative view of women. First, a lot of guys are jerks too. Second, you can't really stereotype all women the way it's being done here.

 

If a girl only cares about looks and money she must be pretty shallow so she is doing you a favor by blowing you off. I would rather be at home by myself than deal with a girl that is highly materialistic. I have dated a materialistic girl and it put a lot of stress on me to be someone I'm not. She had a lot of expectations for her lifestyle that I was not comfortable promising I could deliver. Once I removed that girl my life was a lot better.

 

Yeah, looks matter to women, but from what I have found is that women care more about hygiene and being groomed than necessarily having dashing good looks. By the way those are all things a man can change. Plus if you're over 30, having a trim waist and a bit of muscle tone puts you in the upper echelon. That can also be changed. So it's all how you approach it. A wise friend once told me its not about finding the right person, its about becoming the right person. Work on yourself and everything else will fall in place. If you want a bit of psychology research internal and external locus of control.

 

I feel I have a lot of good qualities and am still single; yet, I'm not going to blame all women for that or tell them what they really want is a jerk. Girls may want that kind of guy, but women will have more respect for themselves than that. At least I hope I am right haha...ladies?

[MaxNoob]

Yes I was wrong to say a rich guy beats out poor guy 100% time. What I meant to say is that rich guy always beats poor guy when you look at the world as a entirety.

 

If the world in its entirety was just about survival of the fittest, then you'd expect money and muscle to be the only reasons why people fall in love. But no, money can't buy love; The Beatles said it, and regardless of how cliche it sounds, it's the truth.

 

There is evidence that greatest advancements in life were not about survival of the fittest, but survival of the nicest. If one group of apes exhibits signs of altruism while the other group spends all their time beating each other up to see who's the strongest, the altruistic group will survive and pass on their genes. And it shows; primates are very rarely violent and they'll put their own life at risk to save others in the tribe.

 

Even billions of years ago, it wasn't the toughest single cells that won. It was the cells that showed altruism and cooperation to form the first multicellular organisms that won. And in business - there was a nobel prize winning economist who demonstrated that the best outcome occurs when we do what's best for ourselves and everyone else.

 

Maybe that's why falling in love is caused by kindness and intelligence. Money can get a woman to sleep with a guy and pretend that she loves him, buy it cannot buy love. If a woman is in love with a poor nice guy, she'll choose him over a rich guy, and there's no amount of money that could get her to feel differently. It's not some rare characteristic of the woman that caused her to make that decision; it's the special qualities of the man that caused her to fall in love.

[Dust]

Quality...high enough intelligence to stand out from the crowd, but shows rather than tells. Good conversationalist and good listener. Good listener is key, because there are a host of other qualities, not to mention wisdom, that come with being a good listener and it's also vital for good communication.

 

Has a well thought out code of ethics that he's developed with some reference to his own experiences and tries hard to live by. Is able to own and learn from his screw ups (I'm not interested in young guys who haven't had time to screw up or people who are too cautious to ever take a risk that didn't pay off). Follows a healthy lifestyle. Picks his battles carefully, and is able to stand up for himself without making a lot of drama about it.

 

I was trying to see if I stacked up to what you consider a quality man. I'm still working on my code.

 

I did. I met & married my "nice guy" at 23 while rolling my eyes around my 35+ year old coworkers who would sit & complain that "all men were jerks". It takes some girls a very long time to figure these things out.

 

That being said, I wouldn't have any interest in a 32 year old virgin. For me, another important aspect was that he had already been around the block a few times, picked up some skills, and learned what he really wanted in a woman.

 

OP's "nice guy" might have just settled too. I suppose likewise, many "nice guys" end up settling for the woman who took 15 years to learn this lesson after being burned by three dozen men.

 

Well most people wouldn't be that into a 32 year old virgin of course until they found themselves in that situation. So while I do not doubt the OP's feeling toward her man this thread seems like some odd push to prove something she doesn't need to. If they are settling for eachother its all good as long as they don't think of it that way!

 

If the world in its entirety was just about survival of the fittest, then you'd expect money and muscle to be the only reasons why people fall in love. But no, money can't buy love; The Beatles said it, and regardless of how cliche it sounds, it's the truth.

 

There is evidence that greatest advancements in life were not about survival of the fittest, but survival of the nicest. If one group of apes exhibits signs of altruism while the other group spends all their time beating each other up to see who's the strongest, the altruistic group will survive and pass on their genes. And it shows; primates are very rarely violent and they'll put their own life at risk to save others in the tribe.

 

Even billions of years ago, it wasn't the toughest single cells that won. It was the cells that showed altruism and cooperation to form the first multicellular organisms that won. And in business - there was a nobel prize winning economist who demonstrated that the best outcome occurs when we do what's best for ourselves and everyone else.

 

Maybe that's why falling in love is caused by kindness and intelligence. Money can get a woman to sleep with a guy and pretend that she loves him, buy it cannot buy love. If a woman is in love with a poor nice guy, she'll choose him over a rich guy, and there's no amount of money that could get her to feel differently. It's not some rare characteristic of the woman that caused her to make that decision; it's the special qualities of the man that caused her to fall in love.

 

Well you make some good points. Still though the Quality man described in the OP isn't a panty dropper!

[insertnamehere]

he wants under privileged boys to have a strong male role model

 

Is it too soon since the Penn State scandal to crack wise on this one?

 

A high quality male remembers what your favorite flower is even though you only mentioned it in passing once 9 months ago.

 

I wasn't too upset at you until I got this bull**** here. ****in seriously? Is it really that hard for women to just let go of this "give me a flower" crap in order to recognize men for their strengths?

 

Ladies? You're not a Roman emperor. No one is required to trip over themselves to make sacrifices at the altar of your ego.

 

As for the clothing thing, I'm sorry but the "sharp-dressed" man is proven and re-proven every generation. In a world where love is a battlefield, clothes are field-tested and time-honored.

 

Kindness is so rarely listed as a requirement. I'm surprised when I see it mentioned, like in this Anne Hathaway quote:

 

"Kindness is really important to me in finding my own prince - so are patience and a sense of humor. Without those qualities he's no Prince Charming!"

 

Anne Hathaway can hardly be taken seriously. You're talking about a woman who has dated a convicted serial fraudster and an alleged gun runner. By all accounts, her man-dar is pretty piss poor.

 

Sorry . . . it's too easy to wax philosophical. The dating world -- time-tested, battle-hardened -- demonstrate the exact opposite. A high quality man is by all evidence a serial adulterer, often a fraud and sometimes an abuser.

 

She wanted to be with the non-rich dude. She preferred who he is, as a person, which is what she clearly said. Why is that so hard for the guys on this forum to believe?

 

I have money. I make a point of not letting women be aware of it until as late into the conversation as I possibly can. Why?

 

Because you can see the goddamned switch go on when they find out. I can bed a woman in 10 minutes once the money is out there. For me, this causes every light on the board to flash red, because I have crazy trust issues. For me, it's the most depressing of all outcomes and it pretty much fast tracks me as far away from a woman as possible.

 

Why can't I believe a girl went for the "non-rich dude"? Because I've seen how radical the change is in the conversation once money is listed up on the board with a man's positive traits.

 

If the world in its entirety was just about survival of the fittest, then you'd expect money and muscle to be the only reasons why people fall in love.

 

Another case where human sexual diversity is not given its due.

 

By far the traits women list most heavily on dating profiles as desirous are height and intelligence. Height is an indicator of childhood nutrition and speaks volumes about the broader gene pool a man comes from. Intelligence, well, hell that's just what it takes to get ahead.

 

I think, also, it ought to be noted that women are much better at coding their dating profiles. For example, "I could never date a man who couldn't make laugh" is code for intelligence. Humor is an intricate subroutine of intelligence and its presence signals underlying quality genes governing brain development.

 

You don't see a lot of dating profile that demand huge muscles. In terms of physique, most women are just trying to avoid grotesquely fat men (coded as "outdoors" by the subtle ones and "takes care of himself" by the less subtle).

[KathyM]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Which is why it is important to be both......

Agreed. Someone with the whole package is how I define a quality man. Has both the altruistic interests, as well as personal interests in achieving his ideal.

[KathyM]

Politically correct way to say i want a hot man making a lot of money

Yeah, I admit, I like me some handsomeness in a man, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. lol. And a man who is successful is also a desirable trait. But I realize what is truly important is a man's character and his heart, and more superficial things are of less importance. I'll take the whole package. I wouldn't want a man who is only concerned with himself and his own life, just as I wouldn't want a man who doesn't care about goals, is not interested in having a zest for life, and doesn't take care of his body or care about his appearance. Both sides in a man are important.

[counterman]

From my experience, what is described by the OP is not what attracts most women in my age group, the early 20s. 'High quality', I believe, would certainly be picked over 'low quality', all else being equal but if you consider looks and other traits, a low quality man could certainly be picked over a high quality man. You often see a lot of girls in their 20s with douchebags. These guys aren't high quality guys and do not demonstrate much (if any) of what the OP has stated but still get the girls because of other qualities that may be desirable. Many of these girls may come around to end up with high quality men but some don't and rue the fact that they've picked the wrong guys in the past.

 

I like Taramere's definition, with some points I can align with myself and other guys I deem high quality, such as being a good listener (I have not met many people that are so). Surprisingly, there aren't many high quality guys I know out there, with a stricter view of what it means by high quality. Also, Carhill's statement strikes accord with me. A high quality guy just is. You'll know one when you meet one. I, personally, align quality with people's core values and how they treat others, along with their personal pursuits and their approach to life. A high quality person has respect for others and himself/herself, is assertive, honest, caring, compassionate, accountable, and so many other things... However, being a great guy in my last relationship didn't get my girlfriend 'wet'; she's now with a doucebag. Does that stop me from working on myself and being the best that I can be? No, but I have accepted the fact that a lot of the girls in my age group simply aren't looking for a high quality guy, not now anyways.

[Taramere]

I was trying to see if I stacked up to what you consider a quality man. I'm still working on my code.

 

My impression is yes. But you're still too young for me. Or I'm too old for you (being fair here, it's not all about me etc etc)

 

There is evidence that greatest advancements in life were not about survival of the fittest, but survival of the nicest. If one group of apes exhibits signs of altruism while the other group spends all their time beating each other up to see who's the strongest, the altruistic group will survive and pass on their genes. And it shows; primates are very rarely violent and they'll put their own life at risk to save others in the tribe.

 

I read an article about that some months ago too. It does make sense. Strength in numbers. I think most of us are constantly trying to achieve a good balance between altruism (for the community's good) and individualism (doing what makes them happy). It's a pity people so often insist on seeing those two things as being mutually exclusive....as evidenced by, for example, the Nice Guy v Jerk debate.

 

 

I would say in my opinion one high quality is not to have a negative attitude. No one wants to be around a negative person all the time. Too many people here have a very negative view of women.

 

Definitely. There sometimes seems to be this kneejerk reaction of "oh....woman speaking. Dishonesty alert!" Which is bound to make women switch off from the man who does it.

 

 

some points I can align with myself and other guys I deem high quality, such as being a good listener (I have not met many people that are so).

 

Lots of people will think they're being good listeners because they stay quiet and let the other person talk interrupted....but if they're zoning out they're not being a good listener. Admittedly sometimes there's sound reason for zoning out, but it means you can miss information people are giving them about themselves.

 

Janesays mentioned liking a man who remember little things about her (her favourite flower), and was mocked...but perhaps she's talking anecdotally about a man who happened to listen to and remember this little detail about her and made an impression by doing so.

 

The more attention you pay, the more likely you are to remember fairly small details about a person at a later date. Which is a compliment to them, or will make them nervous (if they were planning to tell you a pack of lies).

Edited December 21, 2011 by Taramere

[Eve]

I am not feeling the term high quality.. but ok I will go with it out of respect to the OP. A high quality man to me equals someone who means what he says and can universally live well by those words/actions.

 

Not bothered about wealth as the first priority. Money can be made easily enough, character and poise are a different level of concern that can carry a couple through all manner of ups and downs.

 

Altogether, how one acknowledges and deals with their less brilliant points is probably most key. This is the what usually ruins relationship whether someone is rich or poor.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Taramere]

That's why LS dudes shot the OP down like it was a game of racketball. Post after post, dudes on this forum smacked the OP's definition of a "high quality male" without a moment's hesitation, like they were swatting a fly or something.

 

I think there were plenty of men who have contributed constructively to the discussion and put their brains in gear before putting fingers to keyboard to enable it to be a discussion. Rather than just smelling an opportunity to smack a woman down for expressing an opinion that differs from theirs.

[counterman]

Lots of people will think they're being good listeners because they stay quiet and let the other person talk interrupted....but if they're zoning out they're not being a good listener. Admittedly sometimes there's sound reason for zoning out, but it means you can miss information people are giving them about themselves.

 

Janesays mentioned liking a man who remember little things about her (her favourite flower), and was mocked...but perhaps she's talking anecdotally about a man who happened to listen to and remember this little detail about her and made an impression by doing so.

 

The more attention you pay, the more likely you are to remember fairly small details about a person at a later date. Which is a compliment to them, or will make them nervous (if they were planning to tell you a pack of lies).

 

I had a friend who recently said he zones out whenever I, and others, tell him a story and he wonders how I even manage to remember little details he tells me; he can't even remember what he says to me. So, zoning out definitely is not being a good listener. Reminds me when I was with my ex and she use to say 'yep' and nod her head when I told her something. She would forget details and even stories that I've told her.

 

It's lovely to have a good listener, someone who doesn't necessarily have to input or feel the need to 'one-up' you with a 'better' story, someone who pays attention and actively show that they care about what you have to say. This is a must for me in the girls I date and relationships. The last girl I dated forgot how old I was...

[bean1]

I think a lot of the men here have a very good point - if the OP is 36 and has just found this "high quality man", then who was she dating for the past 20 years? Or was she focusing on the guys that didn't have these "high qualities"? It seems the ideal guy has been passed by for 20 years because he wasn't the squeaky wheel...

[fitgirl]

Wrong! When I first met my H, I had also recently started spending time with a guy who turned out to be the CFO of a major national restaurant chain (guarantee that 75% of people on LS have eaten there before and everyone would recognize the name). He had all the externals we're debating here - he was hot, rich, had a nice car, was successful, etc.

 

Well guess what? He LOST to the "chump" I married, who is a fundraiser for a network of elderly care facilities (ie not rich!), loves elderly people, would give the shirt off his back to someone who needs it, constantly overtips at restaurants and hotels, etc. Oh, and he's overweight and balding. I couldn't be happier.

 

Now when we, on occasion, patronize said major national restaurant chain, my H feels like it's a charitable contribution to the CFO who lost me. "I got the girl, so out of pity we'll spend some money at his establishment."

 

awwwww sooooooo sweet