you find a catch- do you put him/her back into the sea

[Disillusioned]

Crazy girls are better in the sack,there could be truth to what you're saying.

 

Crazy ones may be great, but stupid ones with an IQ of less than 80 are absolute dynamite!

[Weezy1973]

Just a further point - the good qualities you list about yourself have nothing to do with whether or not you make a good partner.

 

You can be physically attractive, accomplished, educated, intelligent etc. and also be abusive, cruel, uncomprimising, a bad communicator, not trustworthy, dishonest, closed (as opposed to open), a cheater, a user, a gold digger etc.

 

No matter how good a "catch" you think you are - you can also still be a terrible partner.

 

Generally this happens the other way - but many women are attracted to very accomplished men, and then realize after marrying them that their accomplished partners are terrible partners because they have no time. It take A LOT of hard work and time to become successful - and something has to be sacrificed.

 

For me, without a doubt, I would not be interested in a woman that has no time for me. What a waste! I have a friend (female) that is extremely accomplished. Both a PhD and an MBA. Has a textbook published, is a college professor and also works with the local health authority in epidemiology. Volunteers, is fit and runs marathons, cute, etc. But she can't get into a longterm committed relationship - which is what she truly wants. Why? She doesn't have any time! She is guilty of neglect. Her boyfriends leave her. And who wouldn't!

[salparadise]

Men will try to pick up a fire hydrant or the Queen. It's not about the men. Men are not that discriminating.

 

I love this! Eau Claire, you have a way with words.

 

1. I am shy. I don't go out of my way to socialize with people.

2. I don't talk about myself.

3. I am an intelligent, high-achieving woman

 

What I don't understand is why a man will hit on me, go out with me, and there is chemistry, but then all of a sudden when things are going well (like we'll date for a month or two) he will back out and say I'm too good for him or some other crap.

 

MissTrudy, of course it's impossible to say with any certainty, but it may be some combination of emotional unavailability (either you or them), the intimidation factor, and a man's natural desire to assume the role of provider/protecter. In other words, if you're not indicating emotional vulnerability (perhaps being read as aloof), and if your demeanor is self-assured, competent, independent with respect to practical and economic matters, then men may be asking themselves, how could I hold onto her; what's to keep this woman from getting bored, or if the grass looks a bit greener, just walking away.

 

Men want a woman who holds him in high esteem, and justifiably so, just as a woman wants a man she can look up to (literally and figuratively). A man wants to make a woman happy, and when a relationship fails simply because he can't, it's emasculating. So mutual dependencies tend to produce a feeling of safety... interlocking and perceptible reasons to open one's heart completely and take the big risk...

 

All of this basically boils down to choosing someone who is emotionally available, and being emotionally available. Your willingness to expose your soft inner core may have been what these men were looking for, and if that didn't happen then emotional binding didn't either. What do you think?

 

I do think that high intelligence, competency, self-assuredness and independence narrow the field for a woman and increase it for a man. So ability/willingness to connect on the purely emotional level becomes all the more important.

Edited January 29, 2014 by salparadise

[MissTrudy]

Just a further point - the good qualities you list about yourself have nothing to do with whether or not you make a good partner.

 

You can be physically attractive, accomplished, educated, intelligent etc. and also be abusive, cruel, uncomprimising, a bad communicator, not trustworthy, dishonest, closed (as opposed to open), a cheater, a user, a gold digger etc.

 

No matter how good a "catch" you think you are - you can also still be a terrible partner.

 

Generally this happens the other way - but many women are attracted to very accomplished men, and then realize after marrying them that their accomplished partners are terrible partners because they have no time. It take A LOT of hard work and time to become successful - and something has to be sacrificed.

 

For me, without a doubt, I would not be interested in a woman that has no time for me. What a waste! I have a friend (female) that is extremely accomplished. Both a PhD and an MBA. Has a textbook published, is a college professor and also works with the local health authority in epidemiology. Volunteers, is fit and runs marathons, cute, etc. But she can't get into a longterm committed relationship - which is what she truly wants. Why? She doesn't have any time! She is guilty of neglect. Her boyfriends leave her. And who wouldn't!

 

These are all good points. Your friend's story is quite tragic but at the same time I don't think she is walking the walk that she's talking. I think volunteer work is very important as is fitness but if she wants a bf she needs to prioritize that over her non-work engagements, and even scale back her work engagements if possible. She already knows that the odds are against her so she needs to work them in her favor and make time for dating and let her partners see that she has time for a relationship and wants to be in a relationship with them. Otherwise they'll keep running away.

 

I think I have qualities that make me a good partner but of course I am biased. I am nurturing/supportive, kind, I'm not into material things, and I motivate the people around me to be their best. I am a pretty good communicator and I try to be positive but there's always room for improvement, as is probably the case for most people. Maybe the guys I am dating or attracting, or the guys I want to attract, aren't looking for these qualities in women.

[MissTrudy]

I love this! Eau Claire, you have a way with words.

 

 

 

MissTrudy, of course it's impossible to say with any certainty, but it may be some combination of emotional unavailability (either you or them), the intimidation factor, and a man's natural desire to assume the role of provider/protecter. In other words, if you're not indicating emotional vulnerability (perhaps being read as aloof), and if your demeanor is self-assured, competent, independent with respect to practical and economic matters, then men may be asking themselves, how could I hold onto her; what's to keep this woman from getting bored, or if the grass looks a bit greener, just walking away.

 

Men want a woman who holds him in high esteem, and justifiably so, just as a woman wants a man she can look up to (literally and figuratively). A man wants to make a woman happy, and when a relationship fails simply because he can't, it's emasculating. So mutual dependencies tend to produce a feeling of safety... interlocking and perceptible reasons to open one's heart completely and take the big risk...

 

All of this basically boils down to choosing someone who is emotionally available, and being emotionally available. Your willingness to expose your soft inner core may have been what these men were looking for, and if that didn't happen then emotional binding didn't either. What do you think?

 

I do think that high intelligence, competency, self-assuredness and independence narrow the field for a woman and increase it for a man. So ability/willingness to connect on the purely emotional level becomes all the more important.

 

I agree with you completely. I think that I am emotionally available but I don't show my vulnerabilities off right away; I play down my strengths, but I don't diminish them, and let my actions speak louder than words (i.e. instead of talking about how great of a cook I am I'll make a dish; instead of talking about how great of a researcher I am I'll have to go to a conference to present my work, etc). But when it comes to talking about vulnerabilities I'll talk about them eventually, but I've only discussed those things with two guys, my first serious bf and the last guy I was seeing who I broke up with because he wasn't emotionally available. Maybe that is the problem? I put on an heir of being perfect and guys just want to know that I am not perfect, and I am not showing them until it's too late?

 

But if that's the case, how far in do you need to be in the dating process before you get into all of that stuff? It's obviously not date one stuff or even stuff for date two I think, and some of this stuff is so personal that some of my closest friends don't even know it; I am not opposed to sharing with a guy I have feelings for but I don't just share it with the world. Is that wrong? I've shared my vulnerabilities with two guys, my first serious bf and the last guy I was seeing. I feel like most of the relationships I've been involved in haven't gotten far enough to warrant me sharing my insecurities so I am trying to get to the point that I can do that. Does that make sense? Or am I taking it all too seriously? Are you talking about other ways that I can make myself seem vulnerable that I am just being clueless about it? Because I am thinking about things like my background, fears of failure, etc. so maybe I am overthinking it...

[salparadise]

But when it comes to talking about vulnerabilities I'll talk about them eventually, but I've only discussed those things with two guys, my first serious bf and the last guy I was seeing who I broke up with because he wasn't emotionally available. Maybe that is the problem? I put on an heir of being perfect and guys just want to know that I am not perfect, and I am not showing them until it's too late?

 

Perhaps. You can easily show that you don't consider yourself perfect without opening your box of intimate vulnerabilities. It's natural that we reveal sensitive things slowly, as the other person reciprocates and proves themselves worthy of our trust. Anyone who dumps that stuff too soon comes off as BSC, and probably is. I'd say continue to trust your instincts on this.

 

I'm sure you have some little quirks, embarrassing antidotes or faux pas that all of your friends are aware of. We all have our stories. You can toss out occasional self-depreciating humor (mild stuff) which helps put people at ease and demonstrates humility and self-awareness. It shows that you don't need the facade of perfection (or near perfection), are aware of your weaknesses, and this makes for a softer, more approachable kind of self-confidence. I doubt this is much of an issue since you seem to have no trouble up through the early phase. But yea, an air of perfection would be something to avoid from the start.

 

 

I am not opposed to sharing with a guy I have feelings for but I don't just share it with the world. Is that wrong? I've shared my vulnerabilities with two guys, my first serious bf and the last guy I was seeing. I feel like most of the relationships I've been involved in haven't gotten far enough to warrant me sharing my insecurities so I am trying to get to the point that I can do that. Does that make sense?

 

It makes perfect sense. Revealing the sensitive stuff requires trust, rapport, reciprocation. If the guy can’t handle it then it doesn’t get very far. In fact, there is also the possibility that his discomfort with a deeper level of intimacy when you’re pushing on that button is his cue to reach for the eject handle. So emotional intimacy requires two participants, not a participant and an observer. Guys are taught as young children to not be expressive of their feelings, particularly feelings of vulnerability. It usually has to be cultivated through conscious introspection, and that’s for the ones who aren’t shut down completely.

 

Are you talking about other ways that I can make myself seem vulnerable that I am just being clueless about it? Because I am thinking about things like my background, fears of failure, etc. so maybe I am overthinking it...

 

I doubt that you're doing anything very wrong. The definition of emotional availability comes into question here. What does it mean? In my mind there are two meanings, or perhaps levels. The more common one being: a person’s ability and willingness to share their true feelings, even at the risk of those feelings being seen as weakness or deemed unflattering or unacceptable to the other person. The second one is: a person’s openness, willingness and ability to develop feelings of deep affection, attachment and emotional dependency for another; willingness to accept the inherent risk rather than protecting against it.

 

One thing I look for is openness. I think it’s a fair indicator of emotional availability, at least by the first definition, in the early stages. So much of this is nuanced, intuitive and simply defies analysis. All you can really do is try and cultivate availability within and give it a chance to resonate with another person. Then learn to feel that resonance, or lack thereof. Obviously you can’t figure this out on the first date or two, but maybe you can within a few months. And you do need to be a bit rational and cautious until you get to know someone. There are people who do ok sharing feelings but still withdraw or sabotage when the scary feelings of vulnerability associated with deeper intimacy arise. And some are so protective that they keep all relationships completely superficial. I think it all comes down to awareness and a way of being rather than behaviors that we can moderate to achieve an effect.