Which part or parts of my list would you accept in a man as your partner?

Because 87% 97% of all women are falling under this list with one or more points.

Exactly.

I satisfy (exceed) all the criteria on the list, but I am wrong for requiring the same of a female partner...

Same here.

I would never ask for something I can't provide too.

You’re deflecting.  This isn’t about me.  I’m happily married.  And more to the point, so is my husband.

Nope, I'm asking you a question.

You are saying I hide behind these principles, in other words, I should accept one or more of these parts in a woman?


That is making me curious what you would accept or would have accepted when you met your husband.


You would not accept any of these things (without the ink point), because you aren't an idiot.  

No, you are deflecting.  This isn’t about me or my husband or our marriage.

This is about you and your inability to find a what you consider a satisfactory mate from among the billions of female human beings on the planet.  Think about that for a bit.

Todays women are in a bad state. I think I'm really asking for too much.

Eh, today’s women are about on par with today’s men. You have a list of demands, an inability to find what you consider acceptable, a Hartsfield-Jackson carousel of baggage, and an inability to answer some pretty basic questions about yourself. Add to that the laundry list of advice you’ve received that you seem to ignore while continually bemoaning the same problems, and all signs point to troll.

I'm curious if your parents are still married.  If they aren't, how old were you when they separated?

nice personal attack, bru.

First, you’re not “asking”, you’re “demanding”. That notwithstanding, you have a right to such requirements as you believe appropriate.  And the world’s female population has an equal right to tell you to pound sand up your ass. Or not, as each of them sees fit.  

Good luck.  I’ll be interested to see how this shakes out for you. I’m confident we’ll be hearing from you again on this topic.

Do no confuse your requirements with principles. They may stem from principles you hold, but are not themselves principles.

Now, let's see my own take on your list...


I actually like tattoos, though I do not have any myself. Either having or not having them does not factor into my decision-making, unless it is something extreme like full facial tattoos.


I am mostly with you here. I could tolerate vaping or smoking if it was occasional, and restricted to only designated areas.


Again, mostly with you, in that somebody who truly deserves that label is a no-go. But just because somebody holds a single view that you may consider to fall under that umbrella doesn't mean they automatically do. So while a few certain things are automatic no-gos for me, others are merely flags that indicate a need to check on those things that really matter.


Depends on what you consider a record. IIRC, a basic DUI charge now bars you from entering Canada, so that's "having a record" to some people. I know people who got DUIs, but cleaned up their act, so I don't automatically hold it against somebody. People make mistakes. There are also stupid decisions that can get somebody a misdemeanor charge as a young adult that I wouldn't care about either, if the person again learned from the mistake.


Not a problem for me, if the debt is reasonable. Smart people use credit to their advantage.


I am with you on this one, at least for now. As time goes on, I may reevaluate it. Also, note that I use the simple definition when saying "single mom" - a mother who is currently not married or in a serious relationship. I know others on the board do not consider divorcees or widows to be "single moms", as they only apply the label to those who had children out of wedlock and remained unmarried since.


Again, it depends. I could stand to lose a few pounds, so I'm not going to hold that type of excess weight against somebody. I'll even go so far as to allow the equivalent over-weightness that I was at my own worst (which is 50~60 lb over where I am right now). But the people who are 100+ lb overweight? Yeah, no. I don't understand how you even let yourself go to that level.


Such types generally would fundamentally clash with my own principles, so I generally do agree on this point. It's not the actual act itself, per se, but rather the reasoning behind it that is the issue.

Also, the word is "promiscuous".


Guess what? It depends.

As mentioned by others, things like HPV are incredibly common now, and if both they and their then-partner had no symptoms, neither may have known or had any reason to assume. So it depends on the specifics. There are also those that can be contracted by other means, such as getting HIV upon birth from their mother. It seems wrong to automatically exclude such people who acquired such from no action of their own, especially when some of these can be very effectively managed these days.

Attached File

This was a good relationship thread, and now it's almost been ruined by the 'girls are icky' squad of faggots who don't want girl juice on them. They should start their own 'girls are icky' thread and stay out of this one.

IMO, "the list" is a bit rigid. In a sane world, it would be somewhat reasonable. But that's not the world we live in today. Way too many people (gender neutral!) are repulsed by someone that even hints that they might have some expectations of others.

I'd absolutely automatically exclude someone who had HIV no matter how they got it and even if it wasn't their fault. We do it all the time for everything else we don't like that can be as trivial as bald, short, wrong body type, glasses, so something like HIV or another sexually transmitted disease is 100% on the table as a ''hell no'' also. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be your friend but past that, NOPE. You can't catch bad eyes, baldness, or short from a sexual partner.

I'd absolutely 100% do it for someone with terrible finances also. Finances [people in a relationship on 2 different pages when it comes to saving, spending, and funding retirement] are a huge reason for arguments, fights, and divorce. And one of those people is likely to get absolutely screwed financially, usually the one that has a bit of financial acumen.

And if you are older and still financially supporting your still at home kids in their late 20's on, that is a killer also.

I think all of the above are pretty reasonable for both sexes.

They are still married.

The list isn’t the issue. The fact that the list (which isn’t onerous and is certainly inclusive of many women) is being used as an excuse is the issue. If he has presented his narrative accurately (and there is certainly room for doubt there), dude has more issues than Time Magazine, and those issues are much more likely to be contributing to the fact that he can’t find a woman who meets his criteria than the list itself. They exist, but they do their best to avoid him, quite successfully it seems. He has his criteria, and he’s certainly allowed to have them, but those women aren’t obligated to consider him a viable match. They get to have their own criteria, and it would seem their criteria exclude him. So his options are to improve upon himself until he meets their criteria (he’s repeatedly stated he is unwilling to do this) or be happy with how things are (he’s demonstrated he’s unwilling to do this) or sit there and moan and groan about how life just isn’t FAIR!!!!! (which is a 4 year old’s most likely course of action, but is unbecoming in an adult and yet seems to be the chosen path).

Or else he could quit making up stories. That’s definitely a solution that hasn’t been removed from the table.

No kidding!

I've heard that syphilis isn't all that bad. And HIV can be completely controlled now. Those two alone should dramatically expand the available dating pool.

Attached File

If you were courting a woman and she had opportunity to interact with your parents and observe their interaction with one another, what conclusions might she draw?

But where?



I have to find them in order to fuck everything up.

That's the first problem I have to work on.

I should "stop fishing in the sewage", but where to fish then? And I really mean a location.

The how to comes later.



I don't want to play-act for the rest of my life. A relationship that starts with play-acting will never last long.





I'm not making anything up.

brah, you should be at a 4th of july party right now seeking your next conquest instead of kickin' it on the arfcoms with obese gun nuts.

They are meant to be together.

I'm at work and waiting for the next alarm.



ETA: Why you are here and not on a party?

The problem is, that typically requires being invited to a party to begin with.

do you not have friends and/or coworkers to invite you over?

you're single and a fireman, yes?

how are you not currently being passed around on the hot crazy nurse circuit?

@RTX to the white courtesy phone, please.

All of them are inked.

How old we talking here?
Saggy hooters...no.
Saggy puss...no way.

So true.

If being a better, improved version of yourself is play acting, be happy with the fat cat rancher who is content not improving anything about herself either.

Sir, you have some catching up to do.

I don't even know what I should improve.

hot crazy nurses with ink?

They don't invite me to much. I usually only find out about stuff long after the fact when somebody just happens to refer back in conversation to something that happened.

get more/different friends?

Sorry, but he's hopeless and I'm not wasting any more of my time on him. You and Naamah can keep on trying, but I don't how both of you aren't pulling your hair out over that one.

Notice how he makes it seem like he's turning nurses down because of ink? That's bullshit - nobody turns down hot slutty nurses because of ink. They're rejecting him for some reason, and if nurses reject a guy, he's got to be pretty fucking damaged.

Hot crazy nurses with ink are just begging to be done in pairs. But this guy turns them down because they've got ink. Tell me that ain't 87 kinds of gay.

Attached File

Attached File

It's always been the same for me, even as I've added friends. I do get invited to some stuff, but it's just not much. Maybe 2 or 3 events a year.

(Then again, according to some on these forums, I don't actually have any real friends. Nor have I ever, by their definition.)

The first thing I'd recommend for you is to move. Not because it will make it easier to find a woman. But because I have faith in you working hard enough to finally make this happen, and there's no point in doing all that work and wind up with a yankee woman from Ohio. Move before you put any more effort into it. You can do this!

I chose to move here, and I have chosen to remain here. If I wanted to relocate, I would have done so years ago when switching jobs. While I haven't been everywhere in the US, I have been around a bit (I just got back from a motorcycle trip that took me through six states), and find that where I am now seems most suitable to me.

But just to humor you - where would you suggest? I sure as hell ain't coming down south - not because I don't like the people down there (quite the opposite, they always seem nice), but rather that I absolutely hate the climate.

I actually considered Cali for a moment a number of years ago because of their nice climate, but immediately dismissed the thought when I realized that not only are nearly all my guns illegal there, but so are all of my vehicles.