Meeting the Right One - It Really Begins With the Dating Pool

[jone]

How many people do you actually meet in your life?

Someone asked me that recently.  It is a valid question.  The answer is that an average person actually meets, not incidentally, but actually meets to evaluate, some 20,000 people in a lifetime.  I grew up in a small town.  The number of people in my graduating class in high school was 86.  Of those, probably 25 wound up married to someone else from our town by the time four years had expired.  Of 86 members of my class, already 30% of them had made the choice of their spouse from approximately the 1500 eligible classmates who fit their age criteria.  That means that for that group of people, they chose from one of sixty.

My father told me, when I was coming of age, that people come in and out of your life.  If you look back only five years before, you may not even spend time with half of the people you did then.   But we choose a mate, supposedly, for life. 

The answer to the question of how to meet the right one is a bigger question than most of us realize.  For those looking overseas, thinking that they will expand their pool of eligible spouses, the numbers still hold true.  It is impossible to meet a substantial number of women.  After seeing the websites and contemplating agencies, I would be surprised if the average man that marries an FSUW considers more than 200.  Most of them would consider a much smaller number.

So what criteria make up the attributes of a woman or man you might marry?  Who do you initially consider and who do you discard?   The answer lies somewhere in the middle of the group of people you consider - a subset, if you will.  We have talked around and about FSUW/WM relationships for a long time now.  But I consider that the subset of those we consider to be our actual dating pool. 

I am not going to bias this post with my own conclusions of what makes a dating pool, but maybe some of you readers, both men and women, would care to share the subset of people that make up who you considered (if you are already married) or would consider (if you are still looking). 

I think that this would be a valuable tool to consider:   Education - values - lifestyle - habits - work requirements - children - family - resources - wealth - geographical placement.

I have heard many stories of relationships that didn't work out because of any of the above listed impacted the relationship and, or, ultimately, the marriage.  As I am now at the next level in a relationship, I am already casting backward - out of amazement - that I am where I am in a relationship, and the confluence of factors that brought me here.

Some people believe in fate.  I'm one of those dumb luck type believers.  But I also strongly believe that we put ourselves in position to have such luck.  That's why life is such a wonderful challenge.  I would love to hear other people's take on this line of thinking.

[lonedrake]

I think that this would be a valuable tool to consider:   Education - values - lifestyle - habits - work requirements - children - family - resources - wealth - geographical placement.

I have heard many stories of relationships that didn't work out because of any of the above listed impacted the relationship and, or, ultimately, the marriage.

 I just want to point out that you listed 90% of the things that impact all relationships.....so of course you will hear these stories.


 My line of thinking on this.......to much thinking!!!!

[ML]

Jone, I am still jet lagged from the one hour change in time; so not thinking so high minded as you about this.   

But on my simpler level when going about this last search, I  did screening on the variables of age, height, weight, education, no smoking, moderate to no drinking, children (2 or less), and location.

Of the women who were in this group that I met with . . . then it just comes down to compatibility.

And lately I have been giving more thought to this compatibility idea.

For instance, there was (and we still correspond) one gal who was super,  super intelligent with IQ off the chart.  And she was highly sexual; even pestering me for sex frequently.  She was a very interesting talker about many subjects, she was very humorous telling me excellent jokes often, she liked to dance for me, she waited on me hand and foot, she liked to make elaborate meals for me . . . and the list goes on and on.

So what's the problem you (and I) ask?  She was volatile. 

Another gal (that I also still correspond with).  Very smart, teacher of English, relatively tall and super slender, looks 10-15 years younger than her age of 47, exudes sexuality and became more aggressively sexual as our time together progressed, liked to cook  for me, loved to dress up in anything I suggested, at times had an almost girl like playful nature when we were out and about (e.g. liked to grab my equipment when we were in museums, etc., when no one looking [not that actual girls would do this particular thing]) . . . and the list goes on and on.

So what's the problem you (and I).  She frequently was depressed or at least looked depressed.  Sudden mood swings.  I could fairly quickly revive her from her looks of depression . . . but it wore on me.

Now back to the compatibility idea:  I am comparing those two gals to  my current gal . . . and I realize what a much better match she is for me in an overall sense.

She has most all of the good qualities the two other gals have (although maybe not to the degree); but more importantly . . . she has none of the bad features.

She is happy and cheerful 24/7.  In fact she is one of those who could irritate some non-morning people with her early morning perkiness.  I actually am not a morning person; but I still am not annoyed when she comes to my bedroom and wakes me with kisses all over my face, neck, etc., sometimes grabbing my equipment, etc.

And she has zero volatility.  Calm and collected at all times.  This lack of extreme emotion could bother some people;  but I much prefer it to the  opposite.  Oh she can show excitement; but it is more in the form of a huge smile and squeeze of the hand than the jumping up and down form.

Anyway, when I think about it carefully; I realize I really avoided a bullet by not choosing the volatile or moody gals described above.  I shudder to think about my mental state now if I had committed to one of them.

Now this finding of compatibility comes after the partner has already met the basic screening variables I noted at the beginning.

Just picking a gal up at a bar, wedding, friend arranged date, etc., and thinking you have compatibility without viewing the basic screening variables might not lead to the appropriate gal in the longer run.

So my advice:  Screen on your desired variables and don't give in.
Then further screen out the volatile and moody gals and the drama queens . . . no matter how much fun they are to be with during the up or calm periods.

Man, I need to go back to bed for awhile.

[pitbull]

When I was looking:
1. Share a common language so that the communication is not impaired in any way. No fluent communication - no relationship.
2. Up tp 40 y.o.
Of the things you'v ementioned:
   Education MA, preferrably PhD. IQ 150 or higher 
 - values - non-religious, broad views, socially liberal
 - lifestyle - large city life preferred, but flexible on that
 - habits - no bad habits, no drugs.
- work requirements  - ??? Has a nice job?
- children -no children from previous relationship
- family - flexible, views marriage as partnership!!!!
- resources -good amount
- wealth - reasonably successful
 - geographical placement - English or Russian-speaking country

 

[Slumba]

When I was looking:
1. Share a common language so that the communication is not impaired in any way. No fluent communication - no relationship.
2. Up tp 40 y.o.
Of the things you'v ementioned:
   Education MA, preferrably PhD. IQ 150 or higher 
 - values - non-religious, broad views, socially liberal
 - lifestyle - large city life preferred, but flexible on that
 - habits - no bad habits, no drugs.
- work requirements  - ??? Has a nice job?
- children -no children from previous relationship
- family - flexible, views marriage as partnership!!!!
- resources -good amount
- wealth - reasonably successful
 - geographical placement - English or Russian-speaking country

Who told you he had IQ 150 or higher?  Do you know how very few men that is?  About 0.1 percent of the population.  2.2% has IQ 130 + (I am in this range)

Anyways, glad you are happy.

[pitbull]

Who told you he had IQ 150 or higher?  Do you know how very few men that is?  About 0.1 percent of the population.  2.2% has IQ 130 + (I am in this range)

Anyways, glad you are happy.

Yeah, very-very few do. I see quite some of them every day though. It only takes one, correct?

[BillyB]

So what criteria make up the attributes of a woman or man you might marry? 

I prefer a woman with:

1) High education with an IQ of 150 or higher.
2) Big boobs
3) Long legs
4) Great in bed
5) Big boobs
6) Good cook
7) Treats me like a king
8 )Big boobs
9) Can navigate between the bedroom and kitchen  every few hours.


Just kidding! My ideal woman doesn't need to be educated.

[ML]

I would rather the woman have higher education and B boobs.

IQ of 150 is too much to ask for and probably cause more trouble than good.  Many of these people cannot relate to others and everyday living.

IQ of 120 is plenty high enough for both man and woman, and to hope to pass on to children; although there is always the 'regression to mean' that can pop up to ruin things for one or more children.

Good in bed can be taught; provided the woman (or man) has at least an average level of sex drive.  Low sex drive . . .  forget it.

[BillyB]

Most people want an intelligent and good looking partner with similar character traits and religious and political beliefs and will enter into marriage with that person. The usual stuff. That's not enough for me. A woman needs to greatly value marriage and exhibit loyal behavior. Whether you're in a marriage or in an army, without loyalty and strong belief in the institution, things can easily fall apart.