Compatibility.

[basil67]

On 12/14/2022 at 2:33 AM, ZA Dater said:

 In some instance it would seem it's really a case of having a bit of communication, compatibility and attraction.

Of course.  I would say that this is the case for the far majority of people.   In my case, communication + compatibility = attraction.   Of course, someone may be objectively attractive, but if they aren't the kind of person I'd be able to sustain a relationship with, I won't be interested in them.  

On 12/14/2022 at 2:33 AM, ZA Dater said:

 do you ever feel you degree of compatibility does not generally match the people you find attractive?

I find attractiveness in compatibility.    So attractiveness and compatibility always go hand in hand.

[ZA Dater]

11 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

You are talking about something different than the rest of the people here are.

Of course compatibility has to be in place for a successful relationship.   Most people select each other based on compatibility.  They might initially be attracted to looks or other superficial qualities but true compatibility - you know it when you experience it.   

I think that you have "compatibility"  conflated with  "compromise."    Throughout your myriad posts here, we've all been acquainted with your insistence that you are only attracted to "10's" and you aren't interested in dating people to whom you're not attracted.  But the "10's" aren't attracted to you.

So you're thinking about compromise as in:  maybe you'll need to compromise and accept a mere "8" or even (gross) a "7."   That is more like "settling."  

That's not what is generally being discussed here.  Most of us are talking about already being with a person and how compromise plays a role in the long term relationship.   

I've said it dozens of times and I will say it again - just because a woman is not pin-up material physically or the most bubbly personality in the room at a party does not mean that you'd be downgrading to get to know her.   You'd have to be interested enough.  For some reason, though I thing you were hanging around with your ex for a few months before it happened, in that case you managed to explore a person who didn't resemble a supermodel and ended up really liking her.   

That was NOT "compromising."  It was simply being more open / less rigid than usual for you.  The compromising probably came along in different ways, like you agreeing to go somewhere with her and her friends when you didn't feel like doing it.  That would be considered a compromise for the good of the relationship and as a loving gesture to your partner.

 

Do they really though? Walk into a book shop/bar/gym and when you look around its not really compatibility that most people think about, my own thought process being the more attractive the person is the less chance she would be remotely interested in me.

Yes I do concede that it probably takes spending time with a person to determine compatibility. Then again compatibility is no assurance that one can actually  date the person, there may be other deal breakers.

Settling and compromise I think are different sides of the same coin in some respects. My view on compromise is in respect of the when you initially meet the person but as you say it might be more akin to settling. 

I'd contend that being interested applies that there is a want to spend time with that person. 

Maybe it would be fair to say that compromise comes when one is in a relationship and settling is when one is looking to get into a relationship.

I think its about a  myriad of boxes a person needs to tick to interest the other in any meaningful way. Of course there are also instances where people just over compromise and settle for reasons to do with the fear of being alone which I understand and respect. 

As for the 10's I could never attract them and it should be said my ex is attractive, far more so than anyone else I met on OLD over a 20 year time span. Maybe one just needs to have some sort of stand out quality to draw in people, who knows my only point of reference are people who have incredible charm, confidence, good looks and the ability to flirt on a high level. These people do not seem to look at compatibility because there is a greater degree of choice.

 

[ZA Dater]

10 hours ago, basil67 said:

Of course.  I would say that this is the case for the far majority of people.   In my case, communication + compatibility = attraction.   Of course, someone may be objectively attractive, but if they aren't the kind of person I'd be able to sustain a relationship with, I won't be interested in them.  

I find attractiveness in compatibility.    So attractiveness and compatibility always go hand in hand.

I think about this often and when I do it pretty much rules out 99% of people for one reason or another.

[BaileyB]

4 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

Walk into a book shop/bar/gym and when you look around its not really compatibility that most people think about, my own thought process being the more attractive the person is the less chance she would be remotely interested in me.

That’s not compatibility. That’s attractions, whatever draws one to another. 

People don’t select their life partner’s based on the initial attraction they felt when they first saw their partner at the gym. That attraction is what prompts one to ask another on a date - compatibility is what prompts one to ask for the second date, to date, to marry.

One can date someone who is attractive but with whom they are not compatible. That’s the pick-up at the gym, the sex is hot and we have some good times but it burns out quickly because sex/attraction is one of the only things they have in common. Very few people would chose to date another person long term or marry unless they have both attraction and compatibility. Those who do are unusually the one’s complaining on this site about the problems in their relationship… we just don’t get along or we are living separate lives - because once the initial attraction and infatuation passes, there is nothing to sustain the relationship. 

4 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

These people do not seem to look at compatibility because there is a greater degree of choice.

These people do not seem to lack dates because there is a greater degree of choice. They are very marketable for many reasons - good looking, charming, confident, socially engaging, etc… Whether or not they find someone with whom they are truly compatible with and with whom they would chose to build a relationship/life is a completely different thing. Anybody can get in the door with their looks, their charm, etc… but compatibility is what sustains and grows a relationship. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by BaileyB

[Weezy1973]

6 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

Maybe it would be fair to say that compromise comes when one is in a relationship and settling is when one is looking to get into a relationship.

Attraction = I would go on a date with you.

Attraction + compatibility = I would get into a relationship with you. 
 

Compromise = We’re in a relationship but still two different people so sometimes we’re going to want different things. Let’s meet in the middle.

 

Settling = Accepting less than you can get. Example: I want a relationship but this person is only offering casual sex. Settling would be accepting casual sex. 
 

If people are only attracted to others that they don’t have a chance with, say an unemployed, obese 50 year old who lives in his moms basement but is only attracted to Victoria’s Secret models. He’s just delusional. Not in touch with reality. But it’s not settling for him to date a woman that’s not a Victoria’s Secret model. Settling = taking less than you can get. It is not taking less than what you want.

[BaileyB]

Let me say this, I met my partner at a party. When he first walked into the room, he said that he saw me across the room and knew that he wanted to talk to me. That’s attraction - something drew him to want to meet me.

When we spoke, we realized that we grew up in the same area, we live in the same part of the city, we are both educated, we have similar interests, we both like to travel, etc… There are a lot of commonalities there, it was a hint of compatibility and we both felt it that night. 

And then, we dated and realized - we are very compatible. We are both home bodies who like to go out sometimes to have fun but nothing too crazy! We communicate and think differently but there is little conflict in our relationship because neither of us worries about the little things… We laugh about similar things, we have found a way to support each other during times of stress, to listen to each other when we are upset about something. We have similar goals and a similar dream for life. That’s a level of compatibility that supports a long term relationship… in addition to the fact that we both still like to kiss each other  (because that’s what makes this a romantic relationship and not a friendship).

Had he met me that very first night and realized that I was a total bore, or not a nice person, or we had absolutely nothing in common and we struggled to find anything to talk about… he would have said “Nice to meet you. I hope you have a wonderful evening.” Despite the initial attraction - we would be incompatible and he could get a sense of that during that very first conversation…

Edited December 15, 2022 by BaileyB

[BaileyB]

Wheezy hit the nail right on the head! Brilliant!! 

[BaileyB]

accidental duplicate post 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by BaileyB

[ZA Dater]

3 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

Attraction = I would go on a date with you.

Attraction + compatibility = I would get into a relationship with you. 
 

Compromise = We’re in a relationship but still two different people so sometimes we’re going to want different things. Let’s meet in the middle.

 

Settling = Accepting less than you can get. Example: I want a relationship but this person is only offering casual sex. Settling would be accepting casual sex. 
 

If people are only attracted to others that they don’t have a chance with, say an unemployed, obese 50 year old who lives in his moms basement but is only attracted to Victoria’s Secret models. He’s just delusional. Not in touch with reality. But it’s not settling for him to date a woman that’s not a Victoria’s Secret model. Settling = taking less than you can get. It is not taking less than what you want.

I suppose the other equation is determining what exactly a person can get, the lottery numbers might be easier to predict! 

In all seriousness this is a good post, I'd agree that its almost a phase to phase. If you do not get past the first step you cannot get the second and so on. 

[ZA Dater]

3 hours ago, BaileyB said:

Let me say this, I met my partner at a party. When he first walked into the room, he said that he saw me across the room and knew that he wanted to talk to me. That’s attraction - something drew him to want to meet me.

When we spoke, we realized that we grew up in the same area, we live in the same part of the city, we are both educated, we have similar interests, we both like to travel, etc… There are a lot of commonalities there, it was a hint of compatibility and we both felt it that night. 

And then, we dated and realized - we are very compatible. We are both home bodies who like to go out sometimes to have fun but nothing too crazy! We communicate and think differently but there is little conflict in our relationship because neither of us worries about the little things… We laugh about similar things, we have found a way to support each other during times of stress, to listen to each other when we are upset about something. We have similar goals and a similar dream for life. That’s a level of compatibility that supports a long term relationship… in addition to the fact that we both still like to kiss each other  (because that’s what makes this a romantic relationship and not a friendship).

Had he met me that very first night and realized that I was a total bore, or not a nice person, or we had absolutely nothing in common and we struggled to find anything to talk about… he would have said “Nice to meet you. I hope you have a wonderful evening.” Despite the initial attraction - we would be incompatible and he could get a sense of that during that very first conversation…

Really nice post, some of which I can relate to (surprising I know). Attraction first and compatibility second seems to be the way things go, as you say its pointless if there is no common ground and and thus compatibility. Maybe I am wrong but when I read the above I am struck by how rare it would seem to get everything lined up like that, a certain person who might well be me actually had all of that but unintentionally destroyed it all.

Nevertheless I am always happy to read good outcomes. 

Just seems to me its never quite as simple as it seems, hence my being interested from a theoretical point of view about compatibility, compromise and settling. 

[basil67]

13 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

I think about this often ( aren't the kind of person I'd be able to sustain a relationship with) and when I do it pretty much rules out 99% of people for one reason or another.

That's an extraordinarily high number.   I too, would be chronically single if I ruled out this many.   

You like to complain that nobody is interested in you, but it seems to me that your own choices play no small part in there being few matches.   Why do you rule out so many potential women? 

[NuevoYorko]

13 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

Do they really though? Walk into a book shop/bar/gym and when you look around its not really compatibility that most people think about, 

Of course it isn't.  Physical attraction is often the first step.  I know you can't relate to this because you are low on experience, but most people who have dated a bit have had dated very good looking people and quickly lost interest in them because there was nothing beyond their looks to stick them together.  Compatibility was not present.  

13 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

my only point of reference are people who have incredible charm, confidence, good looks and the ability to flirt on a high level. These people do not seem to look at compatibility because there is a greater degree of choice.

 

Of course they look at compatibility.  Of course there are degrees of superficiality.  Some people are probably so superficial  (or oblivious) that physical beauty and perhaps "charm" will be all they need to decide they want to spend their life with someone.  Maybe money counts as well.  This usually ends badly because beauty doesn't last forever and surface personality traits (like charm or what you called a "high level of flirting" don't really hold any water when you're talking about sharing a whole life with someone.  And money can disappear.  

A person with the biggest range of choices is probably still going for the most compatible option among the wide number of candidates.  Again, unless they are extraordinarily superficial, which is not unusual.   

[NuevoYorko]

7 hours ago, Weezy1973 said:

an unemployed, obese 50 year old who lives in his moms basement but is only attracted to Victoria’s Secret models. He’s just delusional. Not in touch with reality. But it’s not settling for him to date a woman that’s not a Victoria’s Secret model. Settling = taking less than you can get. It is not taking less than what you want.

I must take exception to this ... because I generally chafe at putting people on a linear scale.   I would not like to reverse the Victoria's Secret analogy because that would place a Victoria's Secret model at a "higher" level than a normal person.   Ergo, if the person could actually "get" a Victoria's Secret model but fell in love and married a cute barista who was in nursing school, would that be "settling"?  I hope not.  And I'm sure this is not what you mean.  But the OP seems to think this is really how things work, and the lucky few are all dating gorgeous supermodels while the rest of us are "settling" because we cannot "get" supermodels.   

[basil67]

14 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

 Walk into a book shop/bar/gym and when you look around its not really compatibility that most people think about, my own thought process being the more attractive the person is the less chance she would be remotely interested in me.

You'd be surprised.  If I were single, a person's behaviour in these places would be what catches my eye.   In the bar, I'd be looking for the guy who's not the life of his group, but who is still engaged and having fun...and who isn't messy drunk.   In the gym, I'd be looking for a regular looking dude...not the one who's all pumped up muscles because a gym junkie isn't going to be compatible with me.   A bookstore wouldn't work at all because I'm there to quietly look at books. It's a place for contemplation rather than conversation  

[ZA Dater]

8 hours ago, basil67 said:

That's an extraordinarily high number.   I too, would be chronically single if I ruled out this many.   

You like to complain that nobody is interested in you, but it seems to me that your own choices play no small part in there being few matches.   Why do you rule out so many potential women? 

Well it's because I am simply not compatible with them. Party goers will not work. People who have hectic social lives, will not work, people who go to church will not work, people who lack ambition, will not work, people not gainfully employed will not work, people who want kids will not work, people with kids, will not work. People who age very physically attractive, will not work as they have better options than me.

The list goes on and on. So yes compatibility is pretty poor in all honesty.

Hence why I am finding all the opinions and experiences very interesting on this thread.

[basil67]

Oh dear.  All these years you've been complaining that nobody gives you a chance.  When in reality, it's you who doesn't give them a chance.  

Of course, this is absolutely your prerogative...and you shouldn't date someone who you think won't work for you.  But I think it's past time that you stopped complaining that a lack of girlfriends is all about them rejecting you.  

[ZA Dater]

3 hours ago, basil67 said:

Oh dear.  All these years you've been complaining that nobody gives you a chance.  When in reality, it's you who doesn't give them a chance.  

Of course, this is absolutely your prerogative...and you shouldn't date someone who you think won't work for you.  But I think it's past time that you stopped complaining that a lack of girlfriends is all about them rejecting you.  

Fundamentally it has been because I look at compatibility from the off and if there is none its pointless but having said that its like I have people falling over me either. That is why I have found your, Bailey and the other experiences shared here interesting. There have been the 1% where I felt like there was compatibility but again they simply do not want me. For all the superficial claims made about me wanting so called 10's, I dismiss them immediately because I know I am not compatible.

I think its amazing frankly that people can go into a room, be drawn to the other, chat and actually find common ground and no I am not being sarcastic. 

[BaileyB]

5 hours ago, ZA Dater said:

For all the superficial claims made about me wanting so called 10's, I dismiss them immediately because I know I am not compatible.

Physical appearance does not determine compatibility. Neither, truthfully, does consumption of alcohol, extroversion, or religion.

There are plenty of people who have strong relationships when one person drinks alcohol and the other does not, or one person is an extrovert and the other is more introverted, or one person attends church and the other choses to stay home and sleep in. Sure, one could argue that opposites don’t always attract but two people do not need to be exactly the same in every way to be in a relationship. My best friend has a glass of wine with dinner and her husband does not drink. My other friend goes to church every week and her husband goes to the Christmas service (that is their compromise). My partner is introverted and I am more extroverted. While it may be beneficial to be aligned in some of these things, no two people are going to be the same which is why we simply respect that our partner is different and do our own thing sometimes. As long as those two people are not so extreme that they can not tolerate the other’s preferences, it is possible to coexist harmoniously. There is room to compromise and if two people are not so completely opposite that they need to compromise on every little thing, they can still have a happy relationship. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by BaileyB

[Weezy1973]

19 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

I must take exception to this ... because I generally chafe at putting people on a linear scale. 

Some people have more options than others. That’s just a fact. Look at any data from dating sites and you’ll see some people get inundated with messages, while some people get none. And most are somewhere in the middle. Same goes for in real life. Some people are more attractive than others. The ubiquitous 10 point scale is not nearly nuanced enough to reflect reality though, but I think a lot of folks realize that and just use it for illustrative purposes. And then add on top of that the matching phenomenon- that most partners in long term marriages / relationships match generally in terms of attractiveness, and you’ll see a hierarchy definitely exists. Not that more attractive people are better human beings or anything. But they will have a larger pool of people to select from when it comes to dating. The simple fact that we humans, a sexually reproducing species, care about the way we look at all is ample evidence that some people are more attractive than others and that confers certain advantages. 
 

19 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

 Ergo, if the person could actually "get" a Victoria's Secret model but fell in love and married a cute barista who was in nursing school, would that be "settling"?

Of course not - that’s exactly the point. While there are very few, if any women, that would put obese, video game obsessed, unemployed man living with his mom, as desirable, that man dating anything less than a model is not settling. He’s just not being realistic. The man who has dated supermodels but ends up with the cute barista is also not settling. That man has lots of options and can choose whichever one he falls for. Many men would not have either of those women as options. Hence the hierarchy of attractiveness.

[ZA Dater]

57 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

Some people have more options than others. That’s just a fact. Look at any data from dating sites and you’ll see some people get inundated with messages, while some people get none. And most are somewhere in the middle. Same goes for in real life. Some people are more attractive than others. The ubiquitous 10 point scale is not nearly nuanced enough to reflect reality though, but I think a lot of folks realize that and just use it for illustrative purposes. And then add on top of that the matching phenomenon- that most partners in long term marriages / relationships match generally in terms of attractiveness, and you’ll see a hierarchy definitely exists. Not that more attractive people are better human beings or anything. But they will have a larger pool of people to select from when it comes to dating. The simple fact that we humans, a sexually reproducing species, care about the way we look at all is ample evidence that some people are more attractive than others and that confers certain advantages. 
 

Of course not - that’s exactly the point. While there are very few, if any women, that would put obese, video game obsessed, unemployed man living with his mom, as desirable, that man dating anything less than a model is not settling. He’s just not being realistic. The man who has dated supermodels but ends up with the cute barista is also not settling. That man has lots of options and can choose whichever one he falls for. Many men would not have either of those women as options. Hence the hierarchy of attractiveness.

Would it be fair to say in this matching concept there is a certain degree of compatibility if one can call it that? For what its worth I tend to agree with 80% of the above, its largely played out every day around the world to lesser or greater degrees. I spent many years believing everyone started off the same but quickly learnt that is not the case, certain people have advantages in dating. 

I do think being more compatible with the general wants of people does give people more options, its tough being on the receiving end of the ugly scale and its equally tough being on the non compatible scale. 

I keep harking back to the "he saw me in a room and came over to chat" that is a level of confidence and sometimes I wonder if confidence on its one does not raise the general level of attractive compatibility. Its always amazed me guys who can get this right. 

When I think about compatibility and the many OLD dates I hate, the problem was lack of attraction which meant total lack of compatibility so the guy in his basement is never really going to find anyone else attractive unless there is some other fantastic quality but again he lacks attraction so his choices will be very limited.

I have sat on the sidelines at many house parties and seen variations of virtually everything.

 

[ZA Dater]

3 hours ago, BaileyB said:

Physical appearance does not determine compatibility. Neither, truthfully, does consumption of alcohol, extroversion, or religion.

There are plenty of people who have strong relationships when one person drinks alcohol and the other does not, or one person is an extrovert and the other is more introverted, or one person attends church and the other choses to stay home and sleep in. Sure, one could argue that opposites don’t always attract but two people do not need to be exactly the same in every way to be in a relationship. My best friend has a glass of wine with dinner and her husband does not drink. My other friend goes to church every week and her husband goes to the Christmas service (that is their compromise). My partner is introverted and I am more extroverted. While it may be beneficial to be aligned in some of these things, no two people are going to be the same which is why we simply respect that our partner is different and do our own thing sometimes. As long as those two people are not so extreme that they can not tolerate the other’s preferences, it is possible to coexist harmoniously. There is room to compromise and if two people are not so completely opposite that they need to compromise on every little thing, they can still have a happy relationship. 

I do not disagree with you at all. However the issue can be when the balance of any one thing is too extreme, I once met someone I really got along well with, she would not date me because I do not go to church. I do think intro and extro does work very well in theory and reality, I am drawn to more extroverted people, like I am drawn to more warm caring people whereas I could not be described as a warm person. 

What I do sense is that the very attractive lady wont be interested in me because when compared to what she can get I simply do not match up, this has happened to me often.

[ZA Dater]

20 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

Of course it isn't.  Physical attraction is often the first step.  I know you can't relate to this because you are low on experience, but most people who have dated a bit have had dated very good looking people and quickly lost interest in them because there was nothing beyond their looks to stick them together.  Compatibility was not present.  

Of course they look at compatibility.  Of course there are degrees of superficiality.  Some people are probably so superficial  (or oblivious) that physical beauty and perhaps "charm" will be all they need to decide they want to spend their life with someone.  Maybe money counts as well.  This usually ends badly because beauty doesn't last forever and surface personality traits (like charm or what you called a "high level of flirting" don't really hold any water when you're talking about sharing a whole life with someone.  And money can disappear.  

A person with the biggest range of choices is probably still going for the most compatible option among the wide number of candidates.  Again, unless they are extraordinarily superficial, which is not unusual.   

The emphasis being a wide range of candidates.....one of the few friends I do have is the complete opposite of me, he does not want for attention, often from very attractive ladies much younger than him. I look at this and I see a lack of compatibility from the off but I also see someone who is getting attention and I think in some respects that attention can blind someone to a lack of compatibility as you say. 

Maybe it really depends on the qualities one has to bring to the table and the subjective worth placed on them by a wide range of people. I have next to zero confidence at dating because nothing I bring to the table has any value at all. Put me in a board meeting and I have plenty confidence, put me in a tough negotiation and I have plenty confidence but the things I am good at are not valued by an audience at large. Said friend drips charm and that is valued, it works superbly, he radiates confidence and flirty ability. I once stupidly tried to compete with this and the mauling I got was one I wont forget everything that I had was of no value whatsoever.

In Bailey's example, things would not have worked if the conversation was not good and to that there was probably some degree of charm, take the charm away and it just a conversation with no real purpose much like one would have with a banker or a store clerk. I mean you can have someone who is a really great person but they cant flirt, that is a problem from the off, likewise if they have a lack of charm or a lack of initial attraction, in my opinion these lacks mean a lack of compatibility from the outset and lets face it, who wants to waste time if there is nothing to draw us in from the outset.

Maybe the type of experience one is looking for also matters, settling down for life or having a partner to having a fling or ONS. The level of compatibility I think would differ greatly.

Someone said to me this week "you must go out and try" my view is this is just a waste of time because I know my own level of compatibility, I am going to be able to go across a room and make conversation and even if I did it would be like a board meeting rather than a fun social gathering. Perhaps people, I know I do, can take some degree of comfort from recognising what they cannot do, rather than trying to the impossible over and over again.

I wont lie I do wonder what it would be like to be like my friend, have those options, be desired by people I find attractive, maybe lots of people wonder this but when reality kicks in and I look at who I am, what I can offer I realise that its just much harder for me, probably nearly impossible. I sometimes think its a knife with two sides, I get hurt because its not possible and I get equally hurt when I ignore the lack of compatibility and try anyway from some deluded notion I have the same opportunities as someone who has the desirable qualities I do not have.

[NuevoYorko]

28 minutes ago, ZA Dater said:

 What I do sense is that the very attractive lady wont be interested in me because when compared to what she can get I simply do not match up, this has happened to me often.

You'll be helping yourself if you stop projecting so much.  Not everyone is "comparison shopping" as you like to do.  I never in my life - and I'm old - approached dating with a thought of  "I can GET better than this person."  If I'm interested, I'm interested.  That's all there is to it.  There are a great many people who approach relationships the same way I do.  

41 minutes ago, ZA Dater said:

When I think about compatibility and the many OLD dates I hate, the problem was lack of attraction which meant total lack of compatibility

You never got to a point where you'd find out if you were compatible with any of those women.   You actually need to spend time with people to discover compatibility.

[BaileyB]

1 hour ago, ZA Dater said:

What I do sense is that the very attractive lady wont be interested in me because when compared to what she can get I simply do not match up, this has happened to me often.

That’s not “incompatibility.”

Thats her prerogative - for whatever reason, she doesn’t want to date you. We all interact on a daily basis with people that we don’t want to date - for whatever reason. 

You could in fact be very compatible, and she may still decide that she doesn’t want to date you. 
 

[BaileyB]

1 hour ago, ZA Dater said:

In Bailey's example, things would not have worked if the conversation was not good and to that there was probably some degree of charm, take the charm away and it just a conversation with no real purpose much like one would have with a banker or a store clerk. I mean you can have someone who is a really great person but they cant flirt, that is a problem from the off, likewise if they have a lack of charm or a lack of initial attraction, in my opinion these lacks mean a lack of compatibility from the outset and lets face it, who wants to waste time if there is nothing to draw us in from the outset.

That’s not compatibility. You have to spend time with someone and get to know them to really understand if you are compatible with that person or not. That is the entire purpose and process of dating - you get to know the other person, and you determine over time and experience of you are compatible or not. 

One does not meet a charming man and determine that they are compatible. The fact that he is charming, and funny, and a good conversationalist creates attraction. These things make me want to see the man again. Spending time together, getting to know each other, experiencing life together >>> that’s how you determine compatibility. 

If I meet a man and he is a total bore, or a total jerk, or he can’t flirt and hold a conversation… I’m not attracted to him, and I don’t want to see him again - that’s for sure. It’s very likely that we are not going to be compatible because I am a friendly, outgoing, kind, and fun-loving girl… but I don’t know that for sure. Maybe we would be compatible in some ways, maybe he’s a hard worker and we work in a similar field and he also likes travel… does not matter, I am not attracted to him. I don’t want to go on a date or kiss the man. 

I don’t buy the idea that a man who can’t flirt isn’t going to be able to find or have a successful relationship. Not everyone can flirt - there are many people in this world who have difficulties in social situations who manage to build relationships with others - even romantic relationships. I had a father on my work caseload once who wouldn’t make eye contact with me or talk with me when I visited his home - he was married and they had NINE children. How that happened, I don’t know - but it did! 

Is it easier if one has better social skills and emotional intelligence - no doubt. But, these are learned skills. While one may have a natural affinity, for most people these are learned skills. You too could learn if you stopped getting out of your own way…

Ans finally, I agree with NuevoYorko - you seem to view relationships in a very transitional way - what can she bring to my life. And, you tend to comparison shop in a way that most others do not. When I met my partner, I was just so appreciative of the fact that he had come into my life that I wasn’t worried about the 20% of things that were not perfect/incompatible or the fact that there were more attractive, funnier, more charming men in the world…

Edited December 16, 2022 by BaileyB