# Are FA/FFAs and potential SOs too selective?



## Observer (May 23, 2009)

*Moderator’s note:* This thread is an FA/FFA companion to the “are we (BBWs) too demanding” thread, here, in the BBW Forum. 

This thread is designed to attract responses from both FAs/FFAs and potential SOs &#8211; which essentially includes everyone. 

The question being presented here is whether fat women or fat men sometimes have unrealistic expectations when it comes to fat admirers And how much the FA/FFAs have trouble dealing with this.

When bbws/bhms talk about the kind of person they want, they say things like "I want a man/woman who wants me for me - a guy/gal who wants me despite my fat, or at least more than my fat." And as a result they trust no one and reject every overture.

The FAs and FFAs, tiring of this, possibly “settle” for going out not with who they would really like, but with people who are more friendly and less selective. 

So, this is the question of this thread &#8211; what are typical expectations of everyone involved, and are they realistic or overly selective?


----------



## bigmac (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm going to have to agree and say yes some women have very unrealistic expectations. Ironically its been my experience that these unrealistic expectations are most often manifest by women who don't bring much to the table themselves. Its also been experience that this is not a fat thing -- thin women can be even more deluded.

The classic example is the _Officer and Gentleman_ premise. The world is full of wannabees waiting to be saved from their life of drudgery. Unfortunately in the real word factory workers and store clerks seldom land that doctor/CEO/or fighter pilot. An example which I have personal knowledge of involved my mother-in-law -- as a young store clerk she had an affair with the married CEO of a rather large company and was upset when (surprise) he didn't leave his wife (FYI said MIL was about 105lbs at the time).

Another example is women who write off guys who don't fit a very narrow physical type. They use justifications like _"I like what I like"_ or "_I'm entitled to my preference_." True -- but its also true that these women are draining much of the water out of the dating pool. I always find it ironic that women who don't want to be judged with regards to their physical appearance are often so quick to write off potential suitors based on physical characteristics.


----------



## bigmac (Aug 18, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> And I'd promptly show my partner the door if I ever caught a whiff that he felt he was settling.




This a classic logical fallacy. *We all either settle or remain alone*. Settling for good enough or as good as its going to get is what adults do. We all have a certain amount of romantic capital (i.e. looks, money, education, personality traits). We use this romantic capital to bargain for a romantic situation. Those gifted with money brains and looks have a multitude of ways to spend their romantic capital and may not have to compromise much. The rest of us will never be able to get everything we want. Accepting this fact is part of the maturation process.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 18, 2009)

bigmac said:


> This a classic logical fallacy. *We all either settle or remain alone*. Settling for good enough or as good as its going to get is what adults do. We all have a certain amount of romantic capital (i.e. looks, money, education, personality traits). We use this romantic capital to bargain for a romantic situation. Those gifted with money brains and looks have a multitude of ways to spend their romantic capital and may not have to compromise much. The rest of us will never be able to get everything we want. Accepting this fact is part of the maturation process.




Wow. I bet your wife, of whom you've assured us has gone real far with her associates degree, finds this sentiment to be very romantic


----------



## bigmac (Aug 18, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Clearly, you're impressed by credentials.
> 
> Meh. I'm an overly educated woman who is underwhelmed by many of my equally well-educated peers (and truth be told, I ain't exactly Einstein). I've learned that education doesn't equal intelligence. I see lots of people with "licensed" and "certified" and "MD" and "practitioner" gracing their impressive titles and it doesn't enure them from bigotry, general idiocy, and ridiculously obvious character flaws.
> 
> I'd take a hygenically challenged fish-monger over some PhD who thinks he's all that coz he can speak real purty.




I'm impressed by intelligence and achievement. Educational credentials are only a proxy. Actual intelligence takes a while to assess. However, if you're sorting through potential mates you have to use proxy measures to weed people out -- sorry Mr. fish-monger.


----------



## bigmac (Aug 18, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Wow. I bet your wife, of whom you've assured us has gone real far with her associates degree, finds this sentiment to be very romantic



If she wanted romantic she should have married someone else.


----------



## Observer (Aug 20, 2009)

bigmac said:


> If she wanted romantic she should have married someone else.



Now THAT is cold! Hopefully its just a joke.

In any event, this thread (FA/FFA version) is now officially launched.


----------



## Observer (Aug 20, 2009)

One point we need to realize is that selectivity as posed here relates simply to dating and friendship. However, a lot of FAs/FFA (not to mention SO’s) see dating as a prelude to courtship with an eventual possible goal of marriage. Such persons ratchet screening up a notch when it comes to dating. 

Are some SO’s too demanding in their expectations before they'll date a person? The answer is yes - and so are some FA’s and FFA’s. Conversely some are so lacking in self esteem or caught up in PC issues they feel they have to date anyone with two legs that will cooperate. Both to me are extreme.

The core issue here is "how selective or broadminded should singles be in their willingness to date others?"

Thirty plus years ago I was involved with a large church singles group where this same selectivity (which is hardly restricted to size questions) was an issue. Our guideline: unless you have a good specific reason (i.e. you know he is a lecher) for not dating someone who wants to date you, accept at least one invitation. If in doubt make it a double date.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Aug 20, 2009)

I've been reading this thread both here, and in the BBW forum, and find this topic fascinating.

For my part, I think that generally, there should be some fundamental guidelines for what is acceptable and unacceptable for you in a relationship. Without those, you could be going down a road that may end up becoming a heap of emotional trouble in the future.

With that said, I also think that most men & women in general set unrealistic parameters for what they're looking for. I've seen personal ads that look like a laundry list, basically saying to a prospective date "don't even bother, unless.....", and wonder how may people actually respond with their resume that fits the bill. Perhaps those folks are happy to be on their own, and don't care, or events in their life have brought them to the point where they feel a need to be so selective. Either way, it eliminates a lot of people.

I always wanted a house on the beach in the Carribean. I own a house in New Jersey. Do I dislike my house because it's not in the Bahamas? Absolutely not. That's my point. Sometimes we don't really know what can make us happy, simply because we just haven't been there yet. My suggestion is, try it, you may just love it.

I've always held the thought that dating & relationships are like going through the bargain bin at your local department store. You won't know what's in it until you look, and often have to go through all the crap to get to the stuff that's just right for you. You can at least enjoy looking.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 20, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> I've always held the thought that dating & relationships are like going through the bargain bin at your local department store. You won't know what's in it until you look, and often have to go through all the crap to get to the stuff that's just right for you. You can at least enjoy looking.



I agree with this. But then, I think we all have different criteria in terms of who we'd date vs. who we'd marry. To me, dating is all about getting to know someone, and if I were single, the only first date "qualifications" I'd be concerned with would be ... am I at least a little bit physically attracted to him, is he presentable, and am I reasonably certain that he's not a nutbar? I've met so many people of whom I had a very unfavorable first impression, and they are now dear friends. It's amazing, what I've learned when I've taken the time to get to know someone. I'm sure that the same applies to people who are dating in the hope of finding a longer-term companion. Like you, I think that there's a lot to be said for having fun while sorting through that bargain bin and trying on the different apparel


----------



## Tad (Aug 20, 2009)

This is not big person specific, but just a note from personal experience (my apologies to the people who have read this many times before). For most of my potential dating life I was looking for the one. Im not sure that I was quite expecting an angelic chorus to appear and play a fanfare when I met her , but I was looking for someone that I would no doubt be happy to eventually marry. Needless to say, I basically didnt date at all. :doh:

In my last year at university I concluded that the one was not currently nearby, so I should relax and actually just date for fun and dating experience. Just in case, when I did meet the one the angelic chorus did not make it clear to her that we were meant to be together, and I had to have enough dating skills to make a good impression. 

I made a point of meeting more women, one of whom seemed interested in me. There were at least three major reasons why I would not have dated her before then (i.e. things that clearly indicated to me that she was not the one), but this was just casual dating, for fun, so I ignored those. I havent needed to do any dating since then, and that was nearly nineteen years agoturns out that the one did come packaged the way that I expected. 

So yah, I think most of us an image or package in mind, one that includes most or all of what we really want. But I think that we often overlook that that those same key qualities can come together in a different form.


----------



## stan_der_man (Aug 20, 2009)

I think people are as selective as they need to be, even if it comes across as being overly selective by others. Like any decision, finding a S.O. and living with a S.O. is a compromise in terms of getting the benefit of companionship as opposed to the freedom of living alone. A person decides whether it's better to associate with, co-exist with, or live with said potential S.O. or if it's better just to live alone. I think it's good to have high standards even if those standards may be unattainable in the long run, it makes sense to seek the best S.O. that can be found. If a person does eventually lower their standards that's all part of the give and take process of deciding whether it's better to live with a S.O. that has some characteristics which are considered undesirable or continue to live alone. I think people generally tend do what's right for them in the long run when it comes to this type of selectivity.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 20, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> I've been reading this thread both here, and in the BBW forum, and find this topic fascinating.
> 
> For my part, I think that generally, there should be some fundamental guidelines for what is acceptable and unacceptable for you in a relationship. Without those, you could be going down a road that may end up becoming a heap of emotional trouble in the future.
> 
> ...



*True Phil: sometimes it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack*



fa_man_stan said:


> I think people are as selective as they need to be, even if it comes across as being overly selective by others. Like any decision, finding a S.O. and living with a S.O. is a compromise in terms of getting the benefit of companionship as opposed to the freedom of living alone. A person decides whether it's better to associate with, co-exist with, or live with said potential S.O. or if it's better just to live alone. I think it's good to have high standards even if those standards may be unattainable in the long run, it makes sense to seek the best S.O. that can be found. If a person does eventually lower their standards that's all part of the give and take process of deciding whether it's better to live with a S.O. that has some characteristics which are considered undesirable or continue to live alone. I think people generally tend do what's right for them in the long run when it comes to this type of selectivity.



*
Yep-Yep
Even after the preferences for the S.O. has been met- it still boil down to compromise... Trouble with life is that nothing is ever set in stone 

*


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Aug 20, 2009)

I think some women are too demanding. I have read a lot of personal ads over the last 8 years. It's amazing how many women refuse to date a man who is not 6 feet tall or rich (or both). It's also amazing how many women use a laundry list of preferences to determine whom they will date.

I often shake my head because I know that many of them will be eternal bachelorettes because they refused to be flexible.

I have my own preferences. The ones I will not be flexible on are that the woman be single, heterosexual, emotionally stable, a nonsmoker and accepting of people of different races and religions. Everything else is negotiable.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Aug 20, 2009)

I wonder if some of those people who set unrealistic parameters aren't trying to _avoid_ a relationship. I've had a couple of friends whose requirements for a S.O. struck me as unlikely combiantions, if not downright contradictory: one was a lady who declared she wanted a man who was "macho but sensitive," and the other was a man who wanted to find a woman who was content to spend her life barefoot and pregnant -- but who had a Ph.D. He's still single, by the way.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 20, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> For my part, I think that generally, there should be some fundamental guidelines for what is acceptable and unacceptable for you in a relationship. Without those, you could be going down a road that may end up becoming a heap of emotional trouble in the future.



I totally agree....standards/requirements are a must for everyone. A SO is someone you allow into the most personal aspects of your life. Not just anyone can fit into that special place. 



Dr. Feelgood said:


> I wonder if some of those people who set unrealistic parameters aren't trying to _avoid_ a relationship. I've had a couple of friends whose requirements for a S.O. struck me as unlikely combiantions, if not downright contradictory: one was a lady who declared she wanted a man who was "macho but sensitive," and the other was a man who wanted to find a woman who was content to spend her life barefoot and pregnant -- but who had a Ph.D. He's still single, by the way.



I tend to think that sometimes myself. It's convenient to say that we cannot find XYZ rather than admitting that XYZ petrifies us.


----------



## bigmac (Aug 20, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> I've been reading this thread both here, and in the BBW forum, and find this topic fascinating.
> 
> For my part, I think that generally, there should be some fundamental guidelines for what is acceptable and unacceptable for you in a relationship. Without those, you could be going down a road that may end up becoming a heap of emotional trouble in the future.
> 
> ...



Good points. I never understood the laundry list people.

Regarding beach houses If you're a millionaire you can buy a beach house almost anywhere you like. You may not be able to buy a specific house but there will be something available for you in almost any market. If you're of more modest means the Jersey Shore may be all you can afford. If you have even lesser means a box in an alley in Paterson have to suffice as your castle. Likewise if you're a tall, rich, good looking guy you'll likely be able to date any _type _of girl you fancy. If you're just average some types will be out of your league, and, if you're the box dweller your romantic options will be very limited. My basic point is just that people would be much happier if they face reality and not be unreasonable. 

If you only make 30K a year you wouldn't shop for a million dollar beach house. Likewise, if you're not good looking and/or rich and/or otherwise superlative its foolish to think that you'll be able to land an exceptional mate.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 20, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Good points. I never understood the laundry list people.
> 
> Regarding beach houses If you're a millionaire you can buy a beach house almost anywhere you like. You may not be able to buy a specific house but there will be something available for you in almost any market. If you're of more modest means the Jersey Shore may be all you can afford. If you have even lesser means a box in an alley in Paterson have to suffice as your castle. Likewise if you're a tall, rich, good looking guy you'll likely be able to date any _type _of girl you fancy. If you're just average some types will be out of your league, and, if you're the box dweller your romantic options will be very limited. My basic point is just that people would be much happier if they face reality and not be unreasonable.
> 
> If you only make 30K a year you wouldn't shop for a million dollar beach house. Likewise, if you're not good looking and/or rich and/or otherwise superlative its foolish to think that you'll be able to land an exceptional mate.



From a pragmatic point of view, much of what you say may be true, at least on the surface. It still doesn't address the issue that "settling" for someone is hardly flattering, to either party. It's a pretty shitty thing to do, I think, as it's self-serving and disrespectful. I may not be Julia Roberts, nor do I make piles of money, but I don't think that means I should consider spending my life with someone whom I didn't respect, didn't love, and wasn't physically attracted to (if I were single). And I think that the term "exceptional mate" doesn't apply to the rich or the good-looking anyway, at least not as a primary quality. It doesn't speak to who that person is; it is merely a descriptive term of *what* he/she is. 

I guess that's what bothers me about what you've written in this thread. It assumes that wealth or physical attributes are the most desirable traits that one could have. You may think that, but it doesn't make it everyone's reality.


----------



## frankman (Aug 21, 2009)

bigmac said:


> [...]If you're just average some types will be out of your league, and, if you're the box dweller your romantic options will be very limited. My basic point is just that people would be much happier if they face reality and not be unreasonable.
> 
> If you only make 30K a year you wouldn't shop for a million dollar beach house. Likewise, if you're not good looking and/or rich and/or otherwise superlative its foolish to think that you'll be able to land an exceptional mate.



I'm not quite sure about the "if you're a seven, you'll end up with a seven etc." theory, because there is a self esteem factor involved. A nine may not be aware she is a nine, or not care she's a nine and give a six a chance, find out that six is everything she ever looked for in a numeric guy and more and end up happily sixty-nine-ing.

The problem with your theory is categorizing yourself in a certain slot. Am I an almost 30k guy with roguish good looks or a high 20k-er with a scar on my cheek? Who's going to decide? What are you missing out on by pidgeonholing yourself? 
You may not understand laundry list people, but to fully realize your theory, an even bigger list has to be made, just not a romantic one, but a pragmatic one. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer a little romance.

On an unrelated note: I think shopping for an SO (instead of enjoying a good date) is wrong on all levels.

So back to the OP: are BBW/BHM too picky? No. There's a huge market for them out there, and being picky shows self esteem. That being said, people will always surprise you; the person that sweeps you of your feet may very well be someone you'd never expect, so it's important to give other people at least a chance.


----------



## wrench13 (Aug 21, 2009)

When the ex and I were talking with the marriage councilor, he made it clear that women are attracted to power, success and wealth. My ex-wife agreed 100%. My own opinion was that personal deveopement, growth and personality were what makes for attraction.
I was ridiculed by both, that I had no idea what makes the world go round, that i was ignoring what statstics and research showed. Now this was a psycologist who has written several books on this topic. Needless to say, we were divorced soon after. 
I have seen very little though to disuade me that they were wrong, in the years after. IMHO, it s the rare jewel of a woman who agrees with my perspective. 

As a male FA, I look not only for the big soft body, but an agile mind, eager to learn for learnings sake, empathy for people, and a sense of wonder at all that life can offer. 
Am I being picky or expecting too much? Apparently so.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 21, 2009)

I think there are just so many variables here, including what type of relationship you're seeking, what your particular values are, what you bring to the table, and what may or may not be negotiable contingent on your particular situation.

If you are seeking a partner with whom to co-parent, it's not negotiable that your SO like children, have similar child rearing values, and have similar attitudes towards either adoption or assisted reproduction if infertility or age of the female is an issue. If religion plays a big part in your life, having an SO of the same religion may be non negotiable as far as your desire to raise children in your faith. Conversely, somebody looking for a casual sex partner might not care about religion.

Some people have high sex drives and some don't. Not everyone places the same level of importance of either sex or the importance of sexual attraction. So a hard core FA/FFA who is unhappy unless totally sexually fulfilled may flat out need a 400 pound pear shaped female or actively gaining BHM. An FA/FFA without a very high sex drive, or who is more interested in finding financial security and marriage may be willing to forgo the 400 pound mate if s/he has a trust fund or very high paying job.

If you are poor, or grew up poor, money may be a huge issue to you. You may be seeking a mate to provide financial security and that need may trump sexual attraction or having a "best friend" or common interests. I personally know a couple where the woman chose this man based on his finances and interest in child rearing. They did not have strong sexual chemistry and in fact did not have sex very often, however she prioritized what she needed and found it. She was not particularly attractive but she was a committed and excellent parent, so both were satisfied without an active sex life. It just was not a priority for either.


----------



## Tad (Aug 21, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Regarding beach houses If you're a millionaire you can buy a beach house almost anywhere you like. You may not be able to buy a specific house but there will be something available for you in almost any market. If you're of more modest means the Jersey Shore may be all you can afford. If you have even lesser means a box in an alley in Paterson have to suffice as your castle. Likewise if you're a tall, rich, good looking guy you'll likely be able to date any _type _of girl you fancy. If you're just average some types will be out of your league, and, if you're the box dweller your romantic options will be very limited. My basic point is just that people would be much happier if they face reality and not be unreasonable.
> 
> If you only make 30K a year you wouldn't shop for a million dollar beach house. Likewise, if you're not good looking and/or rich and/or otherwise superlative its foolish to think that you'll be able to land an exceptional mate.



I don't totally disagree with you--just mostly 

My fundamental disagreement is that what you are describing suggests that there is a fairly clear ranking of desirability, which I think is generally not the case. Or to use your metaphor, not everyone wants a beach house, some would rather have a cabin in the woods or a ski chalet, and there are a few who can think of nothing more perfect than a tent small enough they can carry it in their hiking pack.

I mean, just looking at my closest friends, for the most part nobody's wife overly appeals to any of the other guys. There are two of my friends who have overlapping tastes, and that made some friction in younger years, but the rest...all went our own ways. 

Now, I do agree that it doesn't hurt a guys choices if he happens to be tall, handsome, successful in his field, and wealthy. But I think that more than anything it changes the women who think they would match up with him well more than the number of women he really has to choose from. Which, depending on what he likes, may or may not be a good thing. To put it another way, if what he really wants is a luxurious beach house, he can pick and choose more--but if what he really wants is a rustic hunting cabin he might have a hard time convincing people that he is serious.

Of course, a lot of people do like beach houses. I'm just glad that I don't.


----------



## ESPN Cutie (Aug 21, 2009)

*For me it's all about what I can't live without and compromising on the rest. I believe people should know what they MUST have from their partner and relationship in order to keep them happy and satisified, and then being willing to compromise on the rest.

Thus, while looks do matter to me, I am always willing to "compromise" and date someone who may not be the best looking dude as long as I find him attractive. Yet when it comes to a man's physical size/weight, I am not really willing to compromise on this anymore because I'm not sexually satisified or happy unless my partner has some chub on him. Am I being picky here and leaving out alot of great, hot, wealthy, sweet, compasionate guys? Yes. But, I have learned from like expierence that fat is not something I can live without and still be happy and satisfied in my relationship - so no compromises there.

Also, in regards to people bringing equal things to the table: I have often noticed that in many relationships, women tend to bring more to the table then men in regards to looks, education, job/financial security - they are more likely to have the "total package" than their man. As a Black female with my Master's degree at the age of24; I can tell you that most of my Master-degree-having, good looking friends with well-paying jobs are either single or dating men that do not bring an equal level of the aforementioned attributes to the table. While many of these women do have a list of what they want ideally in a man - and that list mostly consists of a man who brings as much to the relationship as she does - few can find it and they often have to compromise (or settle in some cases), especially if they want to get married. These women often have to place more importance on a man's personality and other similar attributes while "ignoring/overlooking" the other things he lacks - things that are on their wish list. But, I think alot of this has to do with the FACT (as in statistics can back me up here) that overall, Black men just don't have their sh!t together as well as Black women do in regards to having college degrees, gainful/secure employment and so forth. Because of this, Black men can have their pick of women and be HIGHLY demanding whereas Black women cannot. *


----------



## frankman (Aug 21, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> [...]But, I think alot of this has to do with the FACT (as in statistics can back me up here) that overall, Black men just don't have their sh!t together as well as Black women do in regards to having college degrees, gainful/secure employment and so forth. Because of this, Black men can have their pick of women and be HIGHLY demanding whereas Black women cannot.



Sidestepping the whole color thing (because I'm too white to make sweeping statements about black dudes and their sh!t being together or not), and generalising to just men and women:

Any woman who thinks she's worth more than a guy whose sh!t is not together can say no when they get asked on dates or whatever. It's dating, not "the wealth of nations". The fact that women have a lot to offer doesn't make men buyers who can therefore demand stuff. If free market economy is the reason these women are selling themselves short, they're not worth a degree, because they're not thinking.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Aug 21, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> * Master-degree-having *


*

I kan haz master-degree two?





Because of this, Black men can have their pick of women and be HIGHLY demanding whereas Black women cannot.

Click to expand...


I don't understand this, at all. No man can have his pick of women, if the women are choosy and demanding themselves. Education is important to me as well, although I don't consider it the be-all-to-end-all that I once did. I know one too many well-educated idiots. 

But I will say that as an educated, reasonably successful woman, I probably wouldn't haved considered seriously dating someone who wasn't equally intelligent and articulate, and I wouldn't have given any consideration at all to someone who couldn't hold a job. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems that you are saying that women just can't afford to be as choosy. I disagree. I wouldn't care if there was 1 eligible man for every 1000 women. I'd rather spend the rest of my life alone than support someone else, far less be with someone who didn't meet even a minimum criteria by any reasonable standard.

ETA: Like Frankman, I won't even touch on the other elements of your post. I disagree with many of your underlying assumptions, but ... well. I'm not going there.*


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 21, 2009)

wrench13 said:


> When the ex and I were talking with the marriage councilor, he made it clear that women are attracted to power, success and wealth. My ex-wife agreed 100%. My own opinion was that personal deveopement, growth and personality were what makes for attraction.
> I was ridiculed by both, that I had no idea what makes the world go round, that i was ignoring what statstics and research showed. Now this was a psycologist who has written several books on this topic. Needless to say, we were divorced soon after.
> I have seen very little though to disuade me that they were wrong, in the years after. IMHO, it s the rare jewel of a woman who agrees with my perspective.
> 
> ...



That man(see I didn't call him a psychologist) and your ex-wife are full of shit....Sorry but not every woman in this world is a gold digger looking for the best prize and that is the type of woman your ex-wife described..

Some women want a genuine man that will be faithful and loving,that will treat his woman like she is the best thing in his life,that will help provide for their family and not expect her to be his personal slave,cook,babysitter or housekeeper..Someone that will still want her when she has passed her "prime" and wants to grow old with her..There are a lot of simple women out in this world,who do not want nor need the mansion,the jewelry,the house on the beach,the yearly vacations to Paris or where ever..Who want and need love,not superficial love but deep long lasting love..You just have to pick through the bargain bin like wrestling guy said to find that special jewel..


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 21, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> I've been reading this thread both here, and in the BBW forum, and find this topic fascinating.
> 
> For my part, I think that generally, there should be some fundamental guidelines for what is acceptable and unacceptable for you in a relationship. Without those, you could be going down a road that may end up becoming a heap of emotional trouble in the future.
> 
> ...



You are right..


----------



## musicman (Aug 21, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Likewise if you're a tall, rich, good looking guy you'll likely be able to date any _type _of girl you fancy. If you're just average some types will be out of your league, and, if you're the box dweller your romantic options will be very limited. My basic point is just that people would be much happier if they face reality and not be unreasonable.
> 
> If you only make 30K a year you wouldn't shop for a million dollar beach house. Likewise, if you're not good looking and/or rich and/or otherwise superlative its foolish to think that you'll be able to land an exceptional mate.



I'm generally the cynic, but this is just WRONG on so many levels! I don't where to begin. Any man who truly believes this either has a very low opinion of himself, or an even lower opinion of women, to assume that money and "good looks" are all that women care about. Isn't this the attitude of the Hollywood/media machine? It's what people say when they want to sell you something. Does BigMac work in PR for a plastic surgeon, or what? I'm sorry, but this societal worship of superficiality is exactly what has caused the problems that afflict many of us here. It's the attitude we fight on a daily basis. It's the last thing I expect to read on Dimensions. I think that's why people here have reacted so negatively to it.

Furthermore, it is most definitely NOT reality, at least for people that I know who are in successful relationships, whether they are thin or fat. Everyone has their preferences, but once you go beyond that, a relationship only works if you have some basis of shared goals and values, neither of which you can judge from appearance or from a bank account. These things have very little correlation with appearance or wealth. If someone rejects you solely because of your looks or money, then that person is NOT the right one for you. You wouldn't be happy with them anyway, regardless of any "superlative" superficial attributes.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 21, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Likewise if you're a tall, rich, good looking guy you'll likely be able to date any _type _of girl you fancy. If you're just average some types will be out of your league, and, if you're the box dweller your romantic options will be very limited. My basic point is just that people would be much happier if they face reality and not be unreasonable.
> 
> If you only make 30K a year you wouldn't shop for a million dollar beach house. Likewise, if you're not good looking and/or rich and/or otherwise superlative its foolish to think that you'll be able to land an exceptional mate.



I really do not understand your reasoning..I have read this over and over,even left it alone for a while trying to understand why you have this mind set..

It is a fallacy that the tall,rich,good looking man always gets the best women..Just because a man might find a certain woman attractive does not mean she feels the same way..Looks,money and height does not say what type of person they are,personality does..I have known a couple of these wealthy men that could not sustain a relationship because they were assholes..They had no compassion or empathy for anyone but themselves so they were left alone..

Richest,best looking girl in junior college dated the geekiest looking guy in the world..He was good to her,he would hold the door open for her,pull out her chair and made sure she always had what she needed at any given time..She was asked out by the rich and jocks but would turn them down to stay with the geek..Why? Because the geek understood her needs and she knew that he was a great guy..


----------



## bigmac (Aug 21, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> I really do not understand your reasoning..I have read this over and over,even left it alone for a while trying to understand why you have this mind set..
> 
> It is a fallacy that the tall,rich,good looking man always gets the best women..Just because a man might find a certain woman attractive does not mean she feels the same way..Looks,money and height does not say what type of person they are,personality does..I have known a couple of these wealthy men that could not sustain a relationship because they were assholes..They had no compassion or empathy for anyone but themselves so they were left alone..
> 
> Richest,best looking girl in junior college dated the geekiest looking guy in the world..He was good to her,he would hold the door open for her,pull out her chair and made sure she always had what she needed at any given time..She was asked out by the rich and jocks but would turn them down to stay with the geek..Why? Because the geek understood her needs and she knew that he was a great guy..



Its quite simple. Not everyone has access to the same number of potential mates. If you have lots of what most people perceive as positive traits (including *but not limited to* looks and money) you will have more potential mates from which to choose -- your dating pool will be larger if you will. Educated people with interesting careers will have more mating options than unemployed high school drop outs.

Your example of the pretty college girl who was propositioned by rich boys and jocks but chose the geek is totally consistent with my hypothesis. Because she was pretty and rich she *could* choose between the rich boys, the jocks, and the geeks. A less appealing or wealthy girl would not have had nearly as many choices.

I'm all for people finding soul mates and being happy (I'm married with four kids and a dog) all I'm saying is that people who want to be successful in the mating game would profit from a realistic assessment of their own desirability and then use this assessment to design and implement a search plan. Sorry if I sound clinical but as I said earlier I'm not the romantic type.

I'm not above taking my own advise. When I found myself a fat middle aged single father I didn't go Miami Beach or Malibu to look for a mate. Rather I found someone of roughly equal social standing with whom I clicked (a rather rare thing in its own right as I've been known to piss people off).


----------



## wrestlingguy (Aug 21, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Your example of the pretty college girl who was propositioned by rich boys and jocks but chose the geek is totally consistent with my hypothesis. Because she was pretty and rich she *could* choose between the rich boys, the jocks, and the geeks. *A less appealing or wealthy girl would not have had nearly as many choices.*



I'm just a dumb old not appealing not wealthy dude who is wondering who decides who is appealing. Would fat girls fall into the "not appealing" category?

The reason I ask this is that in my world, the fat girls are considered first choice, and they seem to be able to make all the choices they want.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 21, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> I'm just a dumb old not appealing not wealthy dude who is wondering who decides who is appealing. Would fat girls fall into the "not appealing" category?
> 
> The reason I ask this is that in my world, the fat girls are considered first choice, and they seem to be able to make all the choices they want.



Good point 



Oh, and gawd how I wish I knew how to twist, turn and select men the way that some men claim women do.....what's the big secret? Someone let me in on it please?


----------



## mergirl (Aug 21, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> * I think alot of this has to do with the FACT (as in statistics can back me up here) that overall, Black men just don't have their sh!t together as well as Black women do in regards to having college degrees, gainful/secure employment and so forth. Because of this, Black men can have their pick of women and be HIGHLY demanding whereas Black women cannot. *


I think it is irresponsible as well as naive to spout 'facts' about groups of people based on statistics that you couldn't be bothered finding, which in themselves would be utterly useless without the background knowledge of social, geographical and historical factors anyway. Statistics alone are utterly meaningless. (99% of me ponders suspiciously about American degrees now and thier co-relation between producing intelligent and rational people.)


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 21, 2009)

wrench13 said:


> When the ex and I were talking with the marriage councilor, he made it clear that *women are attracted to power, success and wealth.* My ex-wife agreed 100%. My own opinion was that personal deveopement, growth and personality were what makes for attraction.
> I was ridiculed by both, that I had no idea what makes the world go round, that i was ignoring what statstics and research showed. Now this was a psycologist who has written several books on this topic. Needless to say, we were divorced soon after.



That fully explains why I like men that play chess and have high rankings, eh? 

I disagree.....I always wanted a partner....an equal....a friend. I don't care what the world says I want or should want. 

Marriage counseling didn't save my marriage either....my own individual counseling helped to give me the self esteem to leave my ex-husband. Funny....counseling helped me make the right decision to save myself......

That's just how the cookie crumbles sometimes.....

P.S. Good counselors don't take sides and ridicule, IMO.


----------



## petunia805 (Aug 21, 2009)

frankman said:


> I'm not quite sure about the "if you're a seven, you'll end up with a seven etc." theory, because there is a self esteem factor involved. A nine may not be aware she is a nine, or not care she's a nine and give a six a chance.




See this is what happened to Bigmac. He was a seven that ended up with a 10 who didn't realize she was a 10. 

Also, and for the record, I would like to add the following:

My dearest love claims that I "should have married someone else if I was looking for romance". And he is right, _*if*_romance to me means cards, flowers, candlelight dinners, blah blah blah. But it doesn't. Don't get me wrong, that's all well and good if its what you want, and if it is, go find someone to give it to you. 

But it isn't what I wanted. Romance to me is something else entirely. I think my husband is being romantic, when he wakes up early on Saturday and takes the baby out for the morning so that I can sleep in. When he washes and vacuums my car and then fills up the tank before bringing it home every weekend...well, that sets my heart all aflutter. 

As to the OP, I think that high expectations are a must. But how high depends on the reasons for dating. Are you looking for a "good time" or a life partner? If its just a good time, then I guess it's not necessary to delve into a man's resume, education, family background, character, integrity, etc. If you are dating for the purpose of finding a potential mate, then you do need to consider these things, and "weed out" the ones that don't measure up. Everyone has a set of nonnegotiable expectations. Anyone who says otherwise is full it.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 21, 2009)

bigmac said:


> Your example of the pretty college girl who was propositioned by rich boys and jocks but chose the geek is totally consistent with my hypothesis. Because she was pretty and rich she *could* choose between the rich boys, the jocks, and the geeks. A less appealing or wealthy girl would not have had nearly as many choices..




What does not appeal to 1 person might be very appealing to someone else so there are not set rules of what is appealing..Sorry but that argument does not wash..As the saying goes,"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...

You kind of remind me of older southern rich people with some of what you have said..You know the ones that did not want their children marrying below them in social standings..Every time I see a comment like this I think of the Long Hot Summer or Gone With the Wind..50 years ago that might have mattered but really in this day and age a bank account means nothing..A lot of the old rich families are not so rich any more..


----------



## Cors (Aug 22, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> What does not appeal to 1 person might be very appealing to someone else so there are not set rules of what is appealing..Sorry but that argument does not wash..As the saying goes,"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...
> 
> You kind of remind me of older southern rich people with some of what you have said..You know the ones that did not want their children marrying below them in social standings..Every time I see a comment like this I think of the Long Hot Summer or Gone With the Wind..50 years ago that might have mattered but really in this day and age a bank account means nothing..A lot of the old rich families are not so rich any more..



Some people just have majority appeal. Sad but true. Classic example: Extroverted tall tanned slim sporty bubbly busty blonde with great skin, high cheekbones and perfect teeth. Why else would they put such girls on the cover of men's magazines and why are these girls top earners in commercial porn? Obviously FAs (or men who are into say, tiny goth girls or bottom-heavy Latinas) won't give her a second look but let's not forget that we are still the minority. Also, judging from the complaints I have seen around here, how many men who do find fat women attractive have the balls to actually date one and introduce her to his friends and family? Many people also think it is important to have a mate that people around them can accept or even better, envy and I would even say that most people feel this pressure to some extent. If your partner is a chronically unemployed drug-addicted dropout with a criminal record and an obvious physical deformity, how would you honestly feel about introducing him to your friends? Most FAs already get quite a bit of flak from others about our choice of partners - of course we want her to be worth it (to us). 

Also, I hate to say this but don't you think there is some sort of hierachy even in the BBW community? Some paysite girls get twenty replies per picture post, others get none and there is probably a reason for this. The latter may well be the ideal for a select group of FAs, but these guys are clearly not the majority. 

And yes, of course BBWs can pick and choose among drooling FAs, but we are not that common and not the easiest to identify outside of a bash.


----------



## frankman (Aug 22, 2009)

petunia805 said:


> See this is what happened to Bigmac. He was a seven that ended up with a 10 who didn't realize she was a 10.



So what exactly makes you 3 points better than your husband?
Just for future reference... (the inherent pitfalls in answering this might just make it the nastiest question ever)


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 22, 2009)

frankman said:


> So what exactly makes you 3 points better than your husband?
> Just for future reference... (the inherent pitfalls in answering this might just make it the nastiest question ever)



Or........you could have asked her hubby why he said she should have married someone else. Sounded to me like she was just being playful back to him. *shrugs*


----------



## petunia805 (Aug 22, 2009)

frankman said:


> So what exactly makes you 3 points better than your husband?
> Just for future reference... (the inherent pitfalls in answering this might just make it the nastiest question ever)



Is this a serious question?? Have you SEEN me?  (I'm kidding here of course.)




Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Or........you could have asked her hubby why he said she should have married someone else. Sounded to me like she was just being playful back to him. *shrugs*



Yes. Thank you. *I was just being playful with him.* But if it must be said so that no one else misunderstands me...I don't think I am any better or any less than he is. He is the perfect man for me, and I am constantly assured by him that I am the perfect girl for him. He may not be the best match for some of the other ladies on this board (!) but I understand him quite well.


----------



## bigmac (Aug 22, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> What does not appeal to 1 person might be very appealing to someone else so there are not set rules of what is appealing..Sorry but that argument does not wash..As the saying goes,"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...
> 
> You kind of remind me of older southern rich people with some of what you have said..You know the ones that did not want their children marrying below them in social standings..Every time I see a comment like this I think of the Long Hot Summer or Gone With the Wind..50 years ago that might have mattered but really in this day and age a bank account means nothing..A lot of the old rich families are not so rich any more..



First I never said the good looking people with good jobs and lots of money can get anyone they want. Rather I said they had many more options.

As for your second point -- if my daughter brings home a a meth addicted tow truck driver -- hell yeh I'll be upset. Scarlet remained an aristocrat even when reduced to eating turnips. Anyone who says that social standing doesn't matter is deluding themselves. FYI my son's a senior at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.


----------



## frankman (Aug 23, 2009)

petunia805 said:


> Is this a serious question?? Have you SEEN me?  (I'm kidding here of course.)
> 
> Yes. Thank you. *I was just being playful with him.* But if it must be said so that no one else misunderstands me...I don't think I am any better or any less than he is. He is the perfect man for me, and I am constantly assured by him that I am the perfect girl for him. He may not be the best match for some of the other ladies on this board (!) but I understand him quite well.



I was kidding too. It's a question that's impossible to answer. Asking it is kind of mean, and I thought it was funny.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 23, 2009)

frankman said:


> I was kidding too. It's a question that's impossible to answer. Asking it is kind of mean, and I thought it was funny.



You're really just asking for it Mister......





Yeah we both know you love dominant women :batting:


----------



## stan_der_man (Aug 23, 2009)

bigmac said:


> ...
> I'm all for people finding soul mates and being happy (I'm married with four kids and a dog) all I'm saying is that people who want to be successful in the mating game would profit from a realistic assessment of their own desirability and then use this assessment to design and implement a search plan. Sorry if I sound clinical but as I said earlier I'm not the romantic type.
> 
> ...



What you're saying overall isn't completely off base Bigmac, but I think you are not accounting for a person's potential... or the ability of the "less desirable" to make themselves more desirable in other ways such as how they dress, their personalities or the variables of what a potential suitor seeks. Some people are attracted to the "geeks", they may be people in a "higher class" of potential mates... there are infinite combinations of how people of varying "quality" might interact. Saying that someone must settle for someone at some level of desirability is almost asserting that there is some sort of caste system that exists as to the level of a person's desirability. I think the variables are too great to make such a blanket assessment as to how "realistic" a person can be in finding a potential S.O. I still think it comes down to one's desire to find someone up to their standards... to make themselves more desirable if they have the inclination to do so... and as I said earlier, there will need to be some compromise because I don't think there is such a thing as "the perfect mate".


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 23, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> I really do not understand your reasoning..I have read this over and over,even left it alone for a while trying to understand why you have this mind set..
> 
> *It is a fallacy that the tall,rich,good looking man always gets the best women.*











*So true- sometimes they are "On the Lam" *


----------



## TallFatSue (Aug 23, 2009)

Observer said:


> When bbws/bhms talk about the kind of person they want, they say things like "I want a man/woman who wants me for me - a guy/gal who wants me despite my fat, or at least more than my fat." And as a result they trust no one and reject every overture.


Wellll, I didn't distrust everyone, and I was perfectly receptive to certain overtures, but in retrospect my expectations were probably beyond unrealistic. Yes I wanted someone who wanted me for me, who wanted me despite my fat -- but who wanted my fat too. Geez, could I have been any more contradictory? That explains some of my goofier dates back in the goofy 1970s. Oh, the stories I could tell... They weren't funny then, but they sure are funny now... 

I did have a list of attributes I wanted in a man. However, apart from certain key expectations which were non-negotiable, my saving grace was to be flexible and receptive to compromise, in the best sense of the word. In no way was that "settling" or lowering my expectations. Instead, it was "adjusting" my expections for someone who met or exceeded certain alternate criteria I hadn't considered. 

What blew apart some of my expectations? The man I married turned out to be the best friend I ever had, that's what!  I never thought to include that on my list of requirements, but now it just seems soooo obvious. :doh: But before I felt too stupid, Art said he never thought he's marry his best friend either, and he never expected to find her inside the biggest female package he ever met. Magic moment: During our first "kiss and grope" session, I expected Art to fondle my breasts at any minute, but he began to fondle my belly instead. Me: "What are you doing?" He: "I want to get to know all of you." Good answer! :smitten:

So despite my contradictory expectations in my confused youth, somehow I really did meet and marry someone who wanted me for me, despite my fat -- and yet who found my fat so intriguing he couldn't resist it. Sometimes in the middle of the night I wake up, look over and can't believe how lucky I am. Unless he's hogging the blankets on a cold night, and then it's war!


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 24, 2009)

Cors said:


> Some people just have majority appeal. Sad but true. Classic example: Extroverted tall tanned slim sporty bubbly busty blonde with great skin, high cheekbones and perfect teeth. Why else would they put such girls on the cover of men's magazines and why are these girls top earners in commercial porn? Obviously FAs (or men who are into say, tiny goth girls or bottom-heavy Latinas) won't give her a second look but let's not forget that we are still the minority. Also, judging from the complaints I have seen around here, how many men who do find fat women attractive have the balls to actually date one and introduce her to his friends and family? Many people also think it is important to have a mate that people around them can accept or even better, envy and I would even say that most people feel this pressure to some extent. If your partner is a chronically unemployed drug-addicted dropout with a criminal record and an obvious physical deformity, how would you honestly feel about introducing him to your friends? Most FAs already get quite a bit of flak from others about our choice of partners - of course we want her to be worth it (to us).
> 
> Also, I hate to say this but don't you think there is some sort of hierachy even in the BBW community? Some paysite girls get twenty replies per picture post, others get none and there is probably a reason for this. The latter may well be the ideal for a select group of FAs, but these guys are clearly not the majority.
> 
> And yes, of course BBWs can pick and choose among drooling FAs, but we are not that common and not the easiest to identify outside of a bash.



What is so interesting about the type of blond you describe is that they were not the "main stream" attractive women until the mid 70's to late 70's..A lot of the pin-up girls before then were brunettes,etc,as long as they were attractive and curvy they were adored..The best marketing scheme a beer company ever did was introduce the blond cheerleader to a national audience..That is when the idea woman began to change..Then in all of the men's magazine from that time on showed the blond bombshell as the one always selling what ever product..


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 24, 2009)

bigmac said:


> First I never said the good looking people with good jobs and lots of money can get anyone they want. Rather I said they had many more options.
> 
> As for your second point -- if my daughter brings home a a meth addicted tow truck driver -- hell yeh I'll be upset. Scarlet remained an aristocrat even when reduced to eating turnips. Anyone who says that social standing doesn't matter is deluding themselves. FYI my son's a senior at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.




I hope you would be more upset over the fact he was a meth addict then him being a tow truck driver..People have to start some where and lots of time that is at the bottom of the ladder and work their way up..

Sorry but you using a fictional character says a lot to me..So I am done with this..Thanks!


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 24, 2009)




----------



## StarWitness (Aug 25, 2009)

So.... are (F)FAs overly selective when it comes to looking for a BBW/BHM?


----------



## Jon Blaze (Aug 25, 2009)

StarWitness said:


> So.... are (F)FAs overly selective when it comes to looking for a BBW/BHM?



MAEK THE COUNTER THREAD!


----------



## StarWitness (Aug 25, 2009)

Jon Blaze said:


> MAEK THE COUNTER THREAD!



Dude, I thought this _was _the counter thread.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Aug 25, 2009)

StarWitness said:


> Dude, I thought this _was _the counter thread.



NO! It has both groups involved! MAEK A SEPARATE THREAD! IT'S A WAR! Not really.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Aug 25, 2009)

ESPN Cutie said:


> *For me it's all about what I can't live without and compromising on the rest. I believe people should know what they MUST have from their partner and relationship in order to keep them happy and satisified, and then being willing to compromise on the rest.
> 
> Thus, while looks do matter to me, I am always willing to "compromise" and date someone who may not be the best looking dude as long as I find him attractive. Yet when it comes to a man's physical size/weight, I am not really willing to compromise on this anymore because I'm not sexually satisified or happy unless my partner has some chub on him. Am I being picky here and leaving out alot of great, hot, wealthy, sweet, compasionate guys? Yes. But, I have learned from like expierence that fat is not something I can live without and still be happy and satisfied in my relationship - so no compromises there.
> 
> Also, in regards to people bringing equal things to the table: I have often noticed that in many relationships, women tend to bring more to the table then men in regards to looks, education, job/financial security - they are more likely to have the "total package" than their man. As a Black female with my Master's degree at the age of24; I can tell you that most of my Master-degree-having, good looking friends with well-paying jobs are either single or dating men that do not bring an equal level of the aforementioned attributes to the table. While many of these women do have a list of what they want ideally in a man - and that list mostly consists of a man who brings as much to the relationship as she does - few can find it and they often have to compromise (or settle in some cases), especially if they want to get married. These women often have to place more importance on a man's personality and other similar attributes while "ignoring/overlooking" the other things he lacks - things that are on their wish list. But, I think alot of this has to do with the FACT (as in statistics can back me up here) that overall, Black men just don't have their sh!t together as well as Black women do in regards to having college degrees, gainful/secure employment and so forth. Because of this, Black men can have their pick of women and be HIGHLY demanding whereas Black women cannot. *



As a black man with a M.S., I can say a whole lot about this. Reading this post reminded me of a conversation I had with another black man a month ago while we were waiting for the bus. I don't know what it is about women in the Baltimore-DC area. So many women in this region are overly fixated on finding a rich man. Since I was a teenager, I have heard African American women griping about how they can't find a decent black man for a litany of reasons. In a capitalist society like America's, there are only so many doctors, lawyers and wealthy corporate executives to go around. These are elite professions. By definition, they are only a small minority of men. And when you look at the number of African American men in elite professions, the numbers shrink even more.

I don't think being a "good" man depends on how much money you have, whether you are white collar or blue collar, whether you drive a Lexus, a BMW, or an Escalade; whether you take annual trips to Europe, or whether you make $10,000 donations to your megachurch. 

It's hard enough to find a rich man (or a 6' tall rich man). How about a responsible man with good character and a lot of love to give?

To the materialistic women out there whose primary interest is finding Mr. Moneybags, I say good luck. Once I start making six figures, I will pass you by because all you cared about was one thing and it was not love.

I'm getting off my soapbox now and yielding the floor to the other FAs and FFAs.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 25, 2009)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> You just have to pick through the bargain bin like wrestling guy said to find that special jewel..



Hell, at this point, I would settle for simply finding a bargain in the garbage....errrrr I mean bargain bin


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 25, 2009)




----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Aug 26, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Hell, at this point, I would settle for simply finding a bargain in the garbage....errrrr I mean bargain bin




LOL Need a new pair of coveralls?


----------



## frankman (Aug 26, 2009)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> [...] Reading this post reminded me of a conversation I had with another black man a month ago while we were waiting for the bus.[...]



That's at least two black men not driving their own car.That could be construed as a clear sign you guys don't have your sh!t together.

It's guys like you that can choose from all those degree-toting black chicks, duping them out of their chances of finding a decent black doctor/lawyer. 

For shame, scamming those unsuspecting, naive women with university degrees. FOR SHAME!


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Aug 26, 2009)

frankman said:


> That's at least two black men not driving their own car.That could be construed as a clear sign you guys don't have your sh!t together.
> 
> It's guys like you that can choose from all those degree-toting black chicks, duping them out of their chances of finding a decent black doctor/lawyer.
> 
> For shame, scamming those unsuspecting, naive women with university degrees. FOR SHAME!




 You are too funny!


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 31, 2009)

i'd laugh at anyone complaining someone is too picky - desperate's far more common than delusional


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 31, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> i'd laugh at anyone complaining someone is too picky - desperate's far more common than delusional



Amen......my agreement is probably why I cringe whenever I see these thread titles pop up on my User CP..........

I have spent too much of my life taking crap off of other people- and I'm far from the only person with this problem. 

Picky and alone seems mighty shiny to me right now......


----------



## Observer (Aug 31, 2009)

> Originally Posted by frankman
> That's at least two black men not driving their own car.That could be construed as a clear sign you guys don't have your sh!t together.



It could also be construed as evidence that they are smart enough to refuse to pay outrageous parking fee charges and fortunate live in a city with reasonably reliable public transportation. 

Back in my grandfather's day monied business executives and professional men with perfectly good Packards and Buicks in the garage still rode the good old Pacific Electric red cars to work in downtown Los Angeles berfore WW2. 

Why? 

It was convenient. In 1919 trolley companies comprised America's fourth largest industry, behind Agriculture, Railroads an Steelmaking. There was no shame in using public transportation - a car was a luxury for most. But after the flash depression of 1922 things changed rapidly and trolleys began a long period of decline. The busses that replaced them were not nearly as accomodating and those who could afford a car with which to commute tended to use them. By the end of the Korean conflict the transition was complete except for cities like New York, Chicago and London. 

I've only been to NYC once in my nearly seven decades of life in America. After seeing the wall to wall taxis four deep at the intersections and the costs for garaging a private car there I can readily understand why workers there don't commute like we do here in California.

In recent years public transportation has seen a revival - and using it should not be a stigma. I know at least a half dozen people who rely on them. Last fall my own car was out of commission, so on a lark I decided to try the Metro-Link and connecting buses rather than renting a car. I was surprised how easy it was to make a sixty mile trip with two connections.

All that said, I don't think it would be classy to use public transit for a first date.


----------



## frankman (Aug 31, 2009)

Observer said:


> It could also be construed as evidence that they are smart enough to refuse to pay outrageous parking fee charges and fortunate live in a city with reasonably reliable public transportation.
> 
> [...]
> 
> All that said, I don't think it would be classy to use public transit for a first date.



I thought I put a  there... 

Wait a minute, I _did_ put a  there!


----------



## bigmac (Aug 31, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> What you're saying overall isn't completely off base Bigmac, but I think you are not accounting for a person's potential... or the ability of the "less desirable" to make themselves more desirable in other ways such as how they dress, their personalities or the variables of what a potential suitor seeks. Some people are attracted to the "geeks", they may be people in a "higher class" of potential mates... there are infinite combinations of how people of varying "quality" might interact. Saying that someone must settle for someone at some level of desirability is almost asserting that there is some sort of caste system that exists as to the level of a person's desirability. I think the variables are too great to make such a blanket assessment as to how "realistic" a person can be in finding a potential S.O. I still think it comes down to one's desire to find someone up to their standards... to make themselves more desirable if they have the inclination to do so... and as I said earlier, there will need to be some compromise because I don't think there is such a thing as "the perfect mate".




Good post. I'll concede that I didn't address the personal potential issue. Yes, its true that people cab improve themselves. Indeed the desire to learn and achieve (and I'm not talking just money) is one of the attributes that make a person desirable in the first place. However, in the calculus of mate selection I still think that potential needs to be reduced to its present value (i.e. discounted for the not insubstantial possibility that a person will not fulfill his or her potential, and for the time, effort, and money that will need to be invested to fulfill said potential). In this respect a medical school graduate is worth more in the romantic market place than a biology grad with a good GPA and MACT score. Of course potential will mean more to those younger than I who have time to invest in their mates success. Unfortunately, for those of us over 40 -- as a former GF told me before she dumped me for an investment banker -- a some point potential is just not enough.


----------



## Mini (Sep 1, 2009)

I don't think I'm asking for too much when I say I want a reasonably tall girl who isn't fucking crazy or stupid. However, I know that most of my difficulty in dating stems from my own flaws - shy, shit job, off-putting personality, etc. - than from my expectations. I know it's going to be a fairly rare person who can put up with me in the long run.


----------



## Angel (Oct 24, 2009)

Mini said:


> I don't think I'm asking for too much when I say I want a reasonably tall girl who isn't fucking crazy or stupid. However, I know that most of my difficulty in dating stems from my own flaws - shy, shit job, off-putting personality, etc. - than from my expectations. I know it's going to be a fairly rare person who can put up with me in the long run.



5'8 3/4" tall
not crazy
genius level IQ

shy in person until I feel comfortable with someone. online, not so much.

able to over look anothers personal flaws

I'm very rare. One of a kind. Unique. 

I think we have a match!!! (Did I mention I'm playful and funny sometimes?)


Now, do you sleep with your sunglasses on?

Do you talk in your sleep? Specifically, would I be startled awake by comments such as are posted at Dimensions? (LOL)

Ummm... you didn't mention age. Could a fat bellied SSBBMILF do it for ya? 


No. This is NOT a personal ad. Mini knows I'm kidding. I hope!


Seriously. I consider myself to be very selective. I think that it is wise to be so, especially when desiring a long term relationship. My "list" isn't based upon appearances, finances, or the number of initals that follow a man's name, but moreso based upon his character and integrity and upon his acceptance of my being a SSBBW and upon my health needs. (I may decide to explain further at a later time.)


----------



## Victim (Oct 28, 2009)

I don't think I chose who I married, I think Fate made the choice for me. Theresa is a perfect match and we just had our 20th anniversary. She is God's gift to one man, and I'm still wondering what I did in another life to possibly deserve such a prize.

If the day comes that I lose her, I'll look out into the world including the women of DIMS and see absolutely nobody that can even come close to a match. 

I don't mean this to be negative to the women of DIMS or anyone else, but it is true.


----------

