Deleting my dating profile and settling for the next guy I date.

[Versacehottie]

2 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

It's true. The fact that everyone I know is in relationships only reminds me that I'm not. I'm not even having sex! (I'm not the kind of person to have one night stands). This would be easier if I had single friends to spend time with or relate to, but I'm literally the only one. Plus, I WANT to be in a relationship. I'm a relationship person and have always enjoyed them more than being single.

It's a terrible feeling to be at social gatherings where everyone is affectionate or physically close with their partner, meanwhile I'm standing alone and have to think of increasingly creative answers to "why are you single?".

 

You are focusing on what you don't have vs what you do and are, like being whole without another person while although you might want a relationship that fact doesn't define you.  

I'd bet a ton of money that is playing into the reason you are struggling to find the right someone.  And it's wouldn't be "hard" to think of creative answers if you indeed like where you are now in life even though you can also imagine a relationship in your future.  I've read your threads for a while and the vibe that you are 'less than' because you are single is out there (sorry!!, forgive me).  You, in spite, of how you are feeling are not no one without a relationship.

Here's the obvious, if you can't even find a guy you want to hook up with and somewhat fall or trick yourself into that (not a true one night stand but more of a mistake or thinking it might become a relationship), how in the world do you think you are going to be fine for weeks, months or years on end with some guy that you most likely will not fully be attracted to (physically, emotionally whatever)????

Also since money seems to come up in this equation of yours, guys with money have options as well.  Meaning you might have to really really downgrade in the physical attractiveness part to get the security you seek.

I can't imagine being such a great actress that you will be able to hide that you are not fully into someone and at same time draw them to you for a sustained and committed relationship that progresses to marriage.  Then there is the moral aspect of doing so.  If he's a jerk, ok maybe but a nice guy with genuine feelings wow that's some bad karma.

The only good I can see coming out of this is that maybe some initial aloofness will help you draw people to you, such as if you have been so desperate for a relationship that you are unconsciously pushing them away by being to available and accommodating. While you would be doing the same thing because you will certainly make yourself available and accommodating in the attempt to get the relationship with a lack of genuine emotion behind it, the guy could really be drawn in in an attempt to constantly win you over.  I've seen that for sure.

This is a beyond simple solution: expand your friend group if all your friends are paired up.  Get some single girl friends and guy friends. There is something to be said for living the life you have while you have it.  Your long standing friends with married and coupled lives have room in your life but not as much since your lives match up less right now.  They are doing it to you effectively.  Why wouldn't you advocate for yourself and "do it to them" by filling your life with additional friends that represent your needs right now?

Lastly, to whoever said, they didn't believe finding this guy would be so easy.  I completely agree.

It's a unique experiment. Let's see how it goes.

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Versacehottie

[Miss Spider]

6 minutes ago, ShyViolet said:

If you are "settling" for someone who you're not sexually attracted to, what is even the point of being in that relationship??  I don't even get it.  Why would you enjoy dating someone who you are not attracted to?

Sounds like a nightmare honestly. I’ll never understand that level of desperation for a relationship 

[Versacehottie]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

I was not harsh. He lied and was deceptive, therefore automatically falls outside of the category of decent men to settle for. 

well, which is worse?  after all, his lie was about inches in height and yours is going to be settling for some "decent" guy who will build a family with you...

not saying you should stick with that guy but your upcoming falsehood is pretty major 🥶

[Versacehottie]

1 hour ago, enigma32 said:

Attractiveness is a matter of perception. You could be conventionally attractive to most men but if a guy has all the options in the world, maybe your competition is even more attractive. Men do like the type of women you say you are. 

And if I'm being real when I read that description of the OP it sounded loyal and yes wife material but I think "heat" is lacking at the beginning.  I wouldn't think she would brag about it but I also don't feel like it's there or shown to her dates.  The description is a little like a business resume for wife, try to be a little more like fire for the girlfriend role and then I think it's more bonding for a guy to be into that initially.  You can prove the wife/loyalty/good on paper stuff later.

[Weezy1973]

I think @Hopeful30 you’re likely experiencing aspirational dating. Which basically means the men you’re most attracted to, have more attractive options than you. 
 

Put another way, you have unrealistic expectations. If you truly want a meaningful relationship, that would mean setting your sights lower on some of the superficial stuff (like height for example), but keeping it high for meaningful stuff (like honesty, kindness etc.).

[miranda561]

5 hours ago, ShyViolet said:

If you are "settling" for someone who you're not sexually attracted to, what is even the point of being in that relationship??  I don't even get it.  Why would you enjoy dating someone who you are not attracted to?

Im guessing kids/companionship..not to look like the odd one out without being in a couple

[miranda561]

2 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

I think @Hopeful30 you’re likely experiencing aspirational dating. Which basically means the men you’re most attracted to, have more attractive options than you. 
 

Put another way, you have unrealistic expectations. If you truly want a meaningful relationship, that would mean setting your sights lower on some of the superficial stuff (like height for example), but keeping it high for meaningful stuff (like honesty, kindness etc.).

So basically you're  saying she's not  as great looking as she thinks she is in comparison to the men she fancies. 😯 and that they go for women better looking than her

[nospam99]

Coming late to the party.

As a self-described 'unsuccessful' male dater, it always bothers me to see a woman complaining that SHE'S unsuccessful. Aside from my assumed dealbreakers of height and age, I think I'm a 'catch' and therefore further assume that there must be loads of other male catches swimming around in the pond. I'm going to stick with the pond metaphor.

So, Hopeful, Ms I'm going to settle, I've got to wonder where you've been fishing.

You said ''Online dating is neither here nor there.'' Have you checked out out ALL the sites and apps? (I can only, very weakly, suggest Match, solely because participation is high where I live and I've seen and met more than enough women I liked there. Other posters can recommend their favorites.) How thoroughly have you reviewed all the men's profiles? Only creeps, phonies, and guys who don't respond if you contact first? Really?

How about meetup.com meetups? (Ain't hap'nin' during lockdown :( )

Those are just my two personally preferred fishing holes. Other posters probably have others. One I don't use but think it has potential is adult night classes (guitar? karate? LOL I took a guitar class 40 years ago and met two really sweet nuns).

Another thought .... ever look into Parents Without Partners? You may not be a parent, but you may meet a widowed or divorced guy who is better than 'settling'.

If you're going to settle anyway, settle for a fish that you find swimming in a pond that has something going for it.

[miranda561]

7 hours ago, Cookiesandough said:

 

Most guys don’t want dumb women. Also why would you hide you have money? No guy is going to stop being attracted to you have money lol.
You should see if you can look up what it is to be feminine because it isn’t about wearing dresses. It’s about embracing your own womanhood and the characteristics of women that men are naturally drawn to. Guys are generally looking for that I’m a woman they are physically and mentally attracted to/find interesting. It’s not that they see anything wrong with your independence or your success. It’s might be they don’t care as much about that. You’re working so hard on being successful and strong and masculine, but the guys you’re dating might not be prioritizing that: . They might also sense you’re not being genuine. 
 

Anyway, best of luck to you whatever you choose 
 

Men get intimidated by a masculine energy. 

[miranda561]

7 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

I was not harsh. He lied and was deceptive, therefore automatically falls outside of the category of decent men to settle for. 

No offence but maybe the taller guys that you like are just not as attracted  to you physically as you think they should be.

As another poster said especially online dating..its very competitive. There may be a handful of women that the men prefer to you. 

A friend of mine who is online dating.. he likes to show me the picture of all the women he speaks to and pretty much all of them are between 8-10  out of 10s. 

Just saying men have a hell of a lot of choice. 

[Hopeful30]

6 hours ago, ShyViolet said:

If you are "settling" for someone who you're not sexually attracted to, what is even the point of being in that relationship??  I don't even get it.  Why would you enjoy dating someone who you are not attracted to?

Isn't it more unreasonable to keep rejecting good men just because one element, of many, is missing? That's my definition of too picky or unrealistic. I have been taking care of myself sexually my entire life, I don't depend on a man to do it. I don't see why that should change just because I am in a relationship. 

6 hours ago, Versacehottie said:

You are focusing on what you don't have vs what you do and are, like being whole without another person while although you might want a relationship that fact doesn't define you.  

I'd bet a ton of money that is playing into the reason you are struggling to find the right someone.  And it's wouldn't be "hard" to think of creative answers if you indeed like where you are now in life even though you can also imagine a relationship in your future.  I've read your threads for a while and the vibe that you are 'less than' because you are single is out there (sorry!!, forgive me).  You, in spite, of how you are feeling are not no one without a relationship.

Here's the obvious, if you can't even find a guy you want to hook up with and somewhat fall or trick yourself into that (not a true one night stand but more of a mistake or thinking it might become a relationship), how in the world do you think you are going to be fine for weeks, months or years on end with some guy that you most likely will not fully be attracted to (physically, emotionally whatever)????

Also since money seems to come up in this equation of yours, guys with money have options as well.  Meaning you might have to really really downgrade in the physical attractiveness part to get the security you seek.

I can't imagine being such a great actress that you will be able to hide that you are not fully into someone and at same time draw them to you for a sustained and committed relationship that progresses to marriage.  Then there is the moral aspect of doing so.  If he's a jerk, ok maybe but a nice guy with genuine feelings wow that's some bad karma.

The only good I can see coming out of this is that maybe some initial aloofness will help you draw people to you, such as if you have been so desperate for a relationship that you are unconsciously pushing them away by being to available and accommodating. While you would be doing the same thing because you will certainly make yourself available and accommodating in the attempt to get the relationship with a lack of genuine emotion behind it, the guy could really be drawn in in an attempt to constantly win you over.  I've seen that for sure.

This is a beyond simple solution: expand your friend group if all your friends are paired up.  Get some single girl friends and guy friends. There is something to be said for living the life you have while you have it.  Your long standing friends with married and coupled lives have room in your life but not as much since your lives match up less right now.  They are doing it to you effectively.  Why wouldn't you advocate for yourself and "do it to them" by filling your life with additional friends that represent your needs right now?

Lastly, to whoever said, they didn't believe finding this guy would be so easy.  I completely agree.

It's a unique experiment. Let's see how it goes.

 

What's the difference between being sexless for years, and being sexless for years while in a relationship? As I mentioned, the only difference is I will have companionship and a partner to build a life with. I am willing to sacrifice sexual attraction for that. 

2 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

I think @Hopeful30 you’re likely experiencing aspirational dating. Which basically means the men you’re most attracted to, have more attractive options than you. 
 

Put another way, you have unrealistic expectations. If you truly want a meaningful relationship, that would mean setting your sights lower on some of the superficial stuff (like height for example), but keeping it high for meaningful stuff (like honesty, kindness etc.).

Exactly! Hence why I am putting sexual attraction lower on the list, and putting long term potential and husband material higher on the list! 

[Happy Lemming]

For what its worth, my girlfriend has repeatedly told me she was too "picky" (in her youth) when it came to dating and trying to find a husband.  She was trying to find the perfect man and the years got away from her.  She never had children and that has been her biggest regret in life and causes sadness to this day.

She had a brief short marriage in her youth and after the divorce, made up her mind that she wasn't going to settle for any man that wasn't perfect.  My girlfriend did tell me she turned down 3 marriage proposals from various guys that didn't fit her "perfect" mold, again something she now regrets.

 

 

[Foxhall]

12 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

Taking all of this into consideration, I have decided to put aside my desires and just go with the flow. The next man I end up dating, I shall settle for him. I shall love him, spoil him, treat him well, birth his children, and hope that they aren't ugly (lol).

I think this is quite heartening actually from a guy's perspective,

blokes around my own age (40) who have not found their long term love or who are looking again for new love, 

if they felt there were more women out there with your attitude, it would be an incentive to keep looking rather than giving up the ghost.

[miranda561]

Just now, Foxhall said:

I think this is quite heartening actually from a guy's perspective,

blokes around my own age (40) who have not found their long term love or who are looking again for new love, 

if they felt there were more women out there with your attitude, it would be an incentive to keep looking rather than giving up the ghost.

There are but it's a minority. 

[d0nnivain]

9 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

I have tried this with a previous relationship. Gave a guy a chance even thought there was zero attraction and I did not find him handsome or even good looking. He ended up being a great guy. It was the best relationship I ever had. I ended things because of zero chemistry and sexual attraction, but I still remember being happy because I loved him despite that. We had a good and healthy relationship, and we learned a lot from it. 

If I encounter that again, I would be more than happy to settle with it. So far, I haven't met a man like him who was also sexually attractive to me. 

 

14 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

Isn't it more unreasonable to keep rejecting good men just because one element, of many, is missing? 

* * * 

Exactly! Hence why I am putting sexual attraction lower on the list, and putting long term potential and husband material higher on the list! 

 

I don't think any of the above is "settling."  I think it is you finally maturing & getting your priorities right.  Your picker has been off for sooooo long.  It's time you recognize that the criteria you use to select a mate is warped & that programming error is what has always been undermining your ability to find companionship. 

You are rightfully not willing to compromise morals.  You are not saying you are your friend who puts up with a cheating husband 

What you are saying is that the best, healthiest relationship you ever had was with a fundamentally good man who treated you well but who you didn't have sexual chemistry with.  You sound like the Charlotte character on Sex In the City.  First she married the handsome doctor & "had it all" only he was a dud in the sack.  Then she started getting busy with her divorce attorney who she thought looked like a troll.  The ugly divorce attorney turned out to be amazing.  After a while she learned to see him through her heart not just her eyes. 

So yes, given the criteria you set forth I absolutely agree with and support your decision to settle,  Go back to dating the kind of wonderful guy you had who ticks all the boxes except sexual chemistry.  Wanting that temporary fleeting characteristic has steered you wrong your whole life so it's time to jettison it.  

[Hopeful30]

12 minutes ago, d0nnivain said:

 

 

I don't think any of the above is "settling."  I think it is you finally maturing & getting your priorities right.  Your picker has been off for sooooo long.  It's time you recognize that the criteria you use to select a mate is warped & that programming error is what has always been undermining your ability to find companionship. 

You are rightfully not willing to compromise morals.  You are not saying you are your friend who puts up with a cheating husband 

What you are saying is that the best, healthiest relationship you ever had was with a fundamentally good man who treated you well but who you didn't have sexual chemistry with.  You sound like the Charlotte character on Sex In the City.  First she married the handsome doctor & "had it all" only he was a dud in the sack.  Then she started getting busy with her divorce attorney who she thought looked like a troll.  The ugly divorce attorney turned out to be amazing.  After a while she learned to see him through her heart not just her eyes. 

So yes, given the criteria you set forth I absolutely agree with and support your decision to settle,  Go back to dating the kind of wonderful guy you had who ticks all the boxes except sexual chemistry.  Wanting that temporary fleeting characteristic has steered you wrong your whole life so it's time to jettison it.  

Thank you so much for this 🙏

[kendahke]

Is it a man you want or a relationship you want? Those are two completely different things.

It's not fair to the guy to settle for him.  Would you want some guy to just settle for you and not be on fire for you?

Just embrace being single--being desperate for a relationship can be a repellent.

[Hopeful30]

6 minutes ago, kendahke said:

Is it a man you want or a relationship you want? Those are two completely different things.

It's not fair to the guy to settle for him.  Would you want some guy to just settle for you and not be on fire for you?

Just embrace being single--being desperate for a relationship can be a repellent.

You can't have a relationship without a man 😛

If men have settled for me in the past, then I had no idea and had no complaints. So no, I guess I wouldn't care. If he is with me, it's because he wants to be, settling or not. 

I have embraced being single for the last 6 years. There is nothing wrong with it, but I am a relationship person and thrive most when I have a man to love and care for. Nothing wrong with reconsidering my priorities to make that happen. 

[kendahke]

1 minute ago, Hopeful30 said:

You can't have a relationship without a man

exactly... so instead of being so focused on a relationship, family, children, etc., focus on finding someone you can get along with through thick and thin--because that is going to be what makes your relationship strong enough to withstand the storms that will come along through life.

If all you're after is satisfying what you can display to the world to show you have worth (relationship/marriage), you're going to keep on finding guys who are only good for the task you have at hand--finding any relationship with any guy and realizing what abysmal luck you keep having doing things that way.

[Weezy1973]

2 hours ago, miranda561 said:

So basically you're  saying she's not  as great looking as she thinks she is in comparison to the men she fancies. 😯 and that they go for women better looking than her

Not necessarily looks based although that could be part of it. As an example of something not looks based, think of career success. Career success is something a lot of women find attractive in a man, but it doesn’t really move the needle for most men when it comes to their attraction towards women. 

[Hopeful30]

10 minutes ago, kendahke said:

exactly... so instead of being so focused on a relationship, family, children, etc., focus on finding someone you can get along with through thick and thin--because that is going to be what makes your relationship strong enough to withstand the storms that will come along through life.

That's the goal. Luckily, it does not require sexual attraction, therefore I am removing it from my priorities. 

[poppyfields]

1 hour ago, d0nnivain said:

I don't think any of the above is "settling."  I think it is you finally maturing & getting your priorities right.  Your picker has been off for sooooo long.  It's time you recognize that the criteria you use to select a mate is warped & that programming error is what has always been undermining your ability to find companionship. 

You are rightfully not willing to compromise morals.  You are not saying you are your friend who puts up with a cheating husband 

What you are saying is that the best, healthiest relationship you ever had was with a fundamentally good man who treated you well but who you didn't have sexual chemistry with.  You sound like the Charlotte character on Sex In the City.  First she married the handsome doctor & "had it all" only he was a dud in the sack.  Then she started getting busy with her divorce attorney who she thought looked like a troll.  The ugly divorce attorney turned out to be amazing.  After a while she learned to see him through her heart not just her eyes. 

So yes, given the criteria you set forth I absolutely agree with and support your decision to settle,  Go back to dating the kind of wonderful guy you had who ticks all the boxes except sexual chemistry.  Wanting that temporary fleeting characteristic has steered you wrong your whole life so it's time to jettison it.  

Agree^ and was just about to post same, and Charlottte from Sex in the City is a great example.

Not even sure why you're calling it settling, just because your priorities have changed and sexual attraction/chemistry isn't high on the list anymore?

There are many women like you, who get to a point where family, financial (and emotional) security, peace and serenity become more important than fall-to-your-knees sexual intoxication is.

And they're very happy!  They're attracted to those things, which are no less valid than sexual attraction used to be.

And they don't feel like they've settled either, it was their choice.

The one thing I don't understand is why you said you will settle for the "next man who comes along" (who wants you). 

He may be an unemployed homeless man with mental illness  (thinking cookies last thread), so I'm hoping you didn't mean that literally.

But changing priorities - placing less value on sexual attraction and more on long term compatibility, a man who wants kids and has qualities to be a great dad and good provider - nothing wrong with that imho.

I grew up with a mum who always told me "marry a man who loves you more than you will love him.  A good family man who will provide well for you and your family."

Personally, I rejected that because sexual attraction IS important to me and I need to feel in love and have my partner be in love with me.  Which I have now.

But the difference between you and me Hopeful is that I don't have a need to be married or have a family.  

And if my bf had not come into my life  I'm perfectly happy on my own too; I don't need a partner necessarily.

But I do need my bf because I love him, if that makes sense.

So like D0nnivain, I support your shift in priorities, as long as you're happy!

 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by poppyfields

[Hopeful30]

7 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

Agree^ and was just about to post same, and Charlottte from Sex in the City is a great example.

Not even sure why you're calling it settling, just because your priorities have changed and sexual attraction/chemistry isn't high on the list anymore?

There are many women like you, who get to a point where family, financial (and emotional) security, peace and serenity become more important than fall-to-your-knees sexual intoxication is.

And they're very happy!  They're attracted to those things, which are no less valid than sexual attraction used to be.

And they don't feel like they've settled either, it was their choice.

The one thing I don't understand is why you said you will settle for the "next man who comes along" (who wants you). 

He may be an unemployed homeless man with mental illness  (thinking cookies last thread), so I'm hoping you didn't mean that literally.

But changing priorities - placing less value on sexual attraction and more on long term compatibility, a man who wants kids and has qualities to be a great dad and good provider - nothing wrong with that imho.

I grew up with a mum who always told me "marry a man who loves you more than you will love him.  A good family man who will provide well for you and your family."

Personally, I rejected that because sexual attraction IS important to me and I need to feel in love and have my partner be in love with me.  Which I have now.

But the difference between you and me Hopeful is that I don't have a need to be married or have a family.  

And if my bf had not come into my life  I'm perfectly happy on my own too; I don't need a partner necessarily.

But I do need my bf because I love him, if that makes sense.

So like D0nnivain, I support your shift in priorities, as long as you're happy!

 

 

Thank you 🙏 the next guy I date won't be a homeless man, that's for sure lol the way I see it if we are dating, then he is already a decent guy. I have a healthy awareness of red flags. 

I absolutely agree with your mom, stability security, and mutual respect /love weighs more than sexual attraction and chemistry, and is a more solid foundation for a relationship. Ideally it's nice to have it all, but as other posters have mentioned, it's not realistic.

[miranda561]

48 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Not necessarily looks based although that could be part of it. As an example of something not looks based, think of career success. Career success is something a lot of women find attractive in a man, but it doesn’t really move the needle for most men when it comes to their attraction towards women. 

Really?

The guys i speak to are all obsessed with work/career and what im doing.. i recently  left my job due to the virus and the ones i speak to keep asking what im going to be doing in the next few months and couldnt believe i quit !

[poppyfields]

9 minutes ago, miranda561 said:

Really?

The guys i speak to are all obsessed with work/career and what im doing.. i recently  left my job due to the virus and the ones i speak to keep asking what im going to be doing in the next few months and couldnt believe i quit !

Lol, maybe they want to be sure you can afford to go 50/50 when they meet you versus paying the entire tab.  😛

I'm half joking but given how soooo many men (at least on this and other forums) are so averse to paying, perhaps it's not that far off.