| Blogs > iwanthonesty > Nothing personal |
|
What do you look for I am reading a self-help book called "How to succeed with men". In it, the authors say that it is important that we realise what are the key qualities we look for in a partner. In order to find out what we truly look for, they suggest us to picture ourselves sitting in front of a fire in a winter night when we are 60 or 70 of age, and our partner whom we have been with for 10s of years is next to us. Picture yourself looking at him and what qualities will you see as his / her best points that have kept this relationship lasting. List down all the points and then when you are done with the list, circle those words that seem to jump out at you as being important, and those are the key qualities you look for in a partner. I have done this and find out that the key qualities I look for are: 1) understanding: he has to understand me 2) stability and supportive: he has stayed by my side through thick and thin 3) faithfulness: he has never made jealous by so much as flirting with other girls What are the key qualities you look for then? 
|
||||
|
Love, trust, and wild passionate sex on that couch in front of the fire, I mean um, compassion, lol! Pup
| |||
|
sweet and romantic, with sense of humour and sense of responsibility... 
| |||
|
Sounds like a dog or a 'kitty-cat' would make the best partner (tehee) - but in reality, number one needs to be addressed. Many women I've know make it imposible to fully understand them. They change their wants and needs and even their personality constantly. Just trying to keep up is exhausting. So this one can be turned around - from the guys point of view, how about being easy to understand? A long-term relationship will be based on true friendship - just 'being there' for each other at all times. There may be many other factors, but that one has to be there and has to be strong or the rest will fade. And I still believe that going on a 'man/womanhunt' will not find the best partner. Great partners just 'happen' as part of everyday life and meetings - not from shopping lists. Some are even found amongst friends. TG
| |||
7/6/2006 1:30 am |
Self help books are a lot of fun, aren’t they? I read the reviews of How to Succeed with Men at amazon and the ideas sound, well, rather sound. If leaning slightly towards frat boy and chauvinistic. But I’m learning that men are just different from women. Two abiding and sobering true life rules are: No matter how enlightened or progressive, the best of men need to feel like their your hero. (It never ceases to amaze me as a simplistic example, how men fall over and exceed themselves to help me with, say, techno stuff.) And never to underestimate your ability to hurt a man. A good companion book would be The Real Rules: How to Find the Right Man for the Real You, by Barbara De Angelis. To be distinguished from that nasty piece of work The Rules (Ellen Fein).
| |||
7/6/2006 5:41 am |
Thank you for all the comments, all very interesting to read.
| |||
7/6/2006 10:36 pm |
How to Succeed with Men may still help you understand the psychology of some men better and even manipulate them, but would you like to catch the type of man who’d only respond to how well he was treated by a woman without being too concerned about the woman herself? Actually, your book is beginning to sound depressing, tyrannical in fact. Like The Rules, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was written by a woman, this time it's written and confirmed by men to tell women what they want and expect. You sound like an intelligent woman, I’m sure you won’t get lost though. Try these hilarious, self-affirming reads: Why Men Love Bitches and Why Men Marry Bitches (Sherry Argov). *“Bitches” being reclaimed from its abusive meaning used by men, to meaning a strong, independent, big-hearted woman with her own identity who is unafraid to show it, that the equally strong partner she finds would adore. I’m not a self-help junkie myself, but a recovering over-giver and nurturer (sometimes also called a doormat) who likes dipping into the section at lunch time to relax and save my money for other things. I read fast, lol.
| |||
7/9/2006 4:20 am |
I will defo have a look into those 2 books then, but I have a certain psychological hurdle regarding the b word. :S English is politically skewed. Consider this: What labels have we got for a strong, independent woman without any negative connotations? Diva. Prima donna. Iron Lady. Bitch. A sexually active woman is a slag, slut, bitch, whore. While a man gets off with Casanova, Don Juan, playboy. An impressive man in the sexual, business, sportive arenas, is called “Da Man!”, but to call him “such a woman” would be an insult. I've just had an interesting younger man write to me who describes himself as “a submissive” looking for a "dominant woman". This is what is actually written in his profile and it isn’t just a cynical ploy. After some intensive grilling I realised he just uses those words because this is the only available vernacular. What makes this case refreshing is that he is Chinese Singaporean, educated, articulate, confidently holds his own against me, still not as quick off the cuff as me (but can’t have everything), without feeling threatened once. He is a good listener, yet has his own definite opinions. When the overwhelming majority of men my age and older can be very insecure that the only way they can impress is by putting a woman down in the form of obvious jokes and playing up feminine stereotypes that only they find funny.
| |||
7/9/2006 7:06 am |
Oh, I forgot another two absolutely classic words (ok, the other's technically a phrase) for a strong woman, how could I, because all of the above have been liberally applied to me on one occasion or another: lesbian and Lady, man [sic], you've got balls! And I mean that as a compliment! (The man who said this sounded shocked at himself that he spontaneously blurted such a thing out.) *ROTFLMBAO*
|
