what do you look for in a partner?

Post Reply New Topic

I honestly have no idea what the f*k I want.

I am looking for a quirky personality, someone secure, music and cinema lover is a must!, sense of humour, adventurous nature, somebody who is curious about everything in this life. My ideal partner would be equally happy to go to metal concert, a taxi dermia class, hike, a TED talk, stand up comedy or just staying out in a park until dark and talk about some deep philosophical problems. Oh and he needs to understand my introversion and my quirks.
It helps if he is sporty, blond with blue eyes.

The G spot, I have yet to find it.

^ I can definitely understand that, and I too have limits. I was more commenting on the whole predetermined set of characteristics approach, where you automatically dismiss or seek out people based on this or that.
If the person was abusive, then I wouldn't advocate staying with them, or getting involved with an abusive partner. In that case it would just be inexcusable personal behaviour toward a partner, rather than based a set of criteria someone must fill.
That make any sense?
Even if someone did have a drinking / drug problem however, I'd still have to rely on judgement in the individual circumstance and that person. One person intoxicated might be a nasty abusive piece of work, another might just kock themselves out. One person might be just going through a hard time and really wanting to stop, whereas another might be a lifestyle drug abuser who sees nothing destructive in their behaviour.
Actually the last person I was interested in was a woman who had a habitual drug problem. I was really attracted to her brutal honesty and openness, but judged it a bad idea to get involved with someone who attended N.A. on the weeknights (which was where I met her, so was only newly dry myself) then consistently went out and partied, taking every drug she could find, every weekend. The drug problem alone wasn't enough for me to reject her, but her attitude about it was. Like the person who goes to a confession on a sunday, does whatever they please all week knowing full well It's wrong, because they'll just go back to confession next week.
Know what I mean? So I wouldn't state categorically that I would never date someone who had a drug problem, blanket judgement. But I would have a limit with someone like this girl, because she was being hypocritical about it attending a group where people really are putting in effort and want to stop, then doing drugs anyway every week. So depends on individuals and circumstances.

When I made a list for a potential mate, before getting married, it looked something like the list below. People rarely get 100% of the items on their list, that is to be expected, and should be acceptable.

[1] Someone I would find attractive
[*] Female
[*] Identifiable as female
[*] Similar age
[*] Various physical traits within a standard deviation
[*] This would likely be about ~2/3 of the age appropriate dating population
= ~66.67% of the age appropriate dating population

[2] Someone who was intellectually stimulating
[*] Intelligent
[*] Possibly ~107 IQ+
[*] This would likely be about ~1/3 of the age appropriate dating population
= ~22.22% of the age appropriate dating population

[3] Someone who was interested in learning
[*] Likely someone who was enrolled in college
[*] This would likely be about ~2/3 of the age appropriate dating population
= ~14.81% of the age appropriate dating population

[4] Simone with a similar or neutral philosophy
[*] Religion
[*] Politics
[*] This would likely be about ~2/3 of the age appropriate dating population
= ~9.88% of the age appropriate dating population

[5] Someone whom was not financially incompetent (I love managing money)
[*] Not always the below
[*] Savings (~2/3 of the population)
[*] No credit card debt (~2/3 of the population)
= ~6.58% of the age appropriate dating population.

Dropping “[2] intellectually stimulating” down to 100 IQ would move this up to 9.88%

~1/10 to ~1/20 sounds about right to me. Especially since such a percentage is in the population at large, and not within ones environment.

I lucked out and found someone that met most of my criteria. She does get annoyed at me buying and selling stuff (but liked the money). I am glad that she puts up with my Asperger's Syndrome.

That would depend on the type of partnership we intend to have. The criteria start with inspiring both of us to contact each other, and both of us responding to invitations from each other.

If we move toward integrating our lives in some significant way, we'd need lots of conversations. I care more about the way we work together to solve problems than I care about the nature of the problems. Obviously, nazis need not apply. There are limits to my rational flexibility.

[1] I found (find her) to be attractive.
[2] I found (find her) to be intelligent. She has never taken an IQ test, but I would imagine her IQ would be ~117.
[3] She was much more studious than I. I basically was on auto-pilot at age 13+. She now has a masters degree, and those folks seem to have an average IQ of ~117.
[4] We grew up in the same church, however we are much more liberal than the church we grew up in (the pastor wanted her to agree to obey me, for example . . . we went to another church).
[5] She is frugal, but is not really interested in investing. I enjoy investing in Mutual Funds (sector index funds, or S&P 500 . . . I somehow lucked out in investing in war stuff after Trump was elected . . . up about ~25% so far . . . that is some luck). I enjoy trading, buying, and selling things. Board Games with Kickstarter exclusives is my current investing hobby.

I suppose that i am extremely lucky that she ended up being a special education teacher, and has the patience to deal with my Asperger Syndrome.

Using darkrose's method, I think it would be easier to find a leprechaun...

1: Must find her attractive = my rough estimate would be 20% of the population.

2: Must have an IQ above 140 = roughly 0.4% of the population, half of which are men. So 20% of 0.2% and we're down to 0.04%

3: Must be honest and loyal = let's divide by 2, and we have 0.02%

4: Not a must, but it would be cool if she was an aspie = that's about 1% of the global population, so we divide by 100, and now we have 0.002%

5: Must not be materialistic = let's divide by 4, and we have 0.0005%....

And so on....

I'm reminded of the simple, mathematical argument for bisexuality. Why halve your pool?

Darkrose's filtering system can make sewage potable.

Low libido

female aspie (Chubby)
same sex drive