don't be misogynistic. My standards for a guy is being attracted to him physically, be close in age, be attracted to his personality. Other than my ex it is hard finding a guy who is into them. Do I keep looking or is there a way to date without stuff in common.

I know this is a big ask but can people in loving relationships answer since there are some moids here (no hate to all moids) who are dating a woman just for sex and hate her.

I started just choosing men if they were good on paper, basically choosing the best candidate. ok job ok looks tolerable personality. I will always do the very most to make sure my spouse is happy and his needs are taken care of, ngl his victories are mine so I guess im happy. I wish I was lucky enough to find a 'best friend' in a husband, where you have everything in common from hobbies to sense of humour. I also think that kind of love is rare.But if you do find that you are blessed. Just make friends to fill that void and a man to fill another.

>>33356813 (OP)
>don't be misogynistic
Shut up bitch! LOL

>>33356851
aaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa gottem

>>33356813 (OP)
Just talk to cute guys around your age, if you like their personality pursue a relationship. Start off making a friend and see what happens from there. I met my wife on tinder, we were honest about what we wanted out of a partner, and that we both wanted long term. We took it very slow, went on weird dates and were very authentic with one another, and I wouldn't change a thing. We didn't start off as a perfect fit and had a lot of growing up to do. With patience, collaboration, love, and sex so good you forget why you were arguing we made it work.

Your list isn't unreasonable, everyone wants to spend their life with someone they like and like looking at. Just give yourself the respect of taking things slow with someone, and being authentically yourself. Act the way you do when you're home alone or with your best friends, there's no use in hiding your quirks or oddities if you're planning on laying your head down next to this person for the rest of your life.

Wait headache wil answer

>>33356813 (OP)
>
I know this is a big ask but can people in loving relationships answer since there are some moids here (no hate to all moids) who are dating a woman just for sex and hate her.

Alright, I'm a husband and father, I will answer. But I'll cut you a deal: I'll lend you my insight, but in return, I ask that you try to let go of bad faith. Saying "Don't be misogynistic" to start your request is bad faith. And these 'moids', they're people. Young men going through the growing pains of fitting into their own masculinity. Young men who more often than not, intend to love and be loved, but their own hardships knocked the wind out of 'em.

Anyway my advice is this, and you will have to put up with my generalizing and use of archetypes - I am a man and that is how I think.

You are a woman. You do not need to keep looking. Men are the ones who look. Men are the pursuers, the hunters, the man on a mission, the battle-worn knight looking for his princess to rescue, or to find rest in. You're the woman, the princess, the one who wishes very much to feel desirable, wanted, loved, honored and protected.

The man wants to feel like a king with a crown. And the woman wishes to be the most beautiful jewel that is embedded into his crown. One he is proud of, and will never part with.

So don't go looking. That's not your job. Your role is to make sure that men look for you, that you stand out, that you shine like a jewel.

I do not mean just physically. Mentally too, in your character and personality. In your speech. That will help you out loads.

>Is there a way to date without stuff in common
Yes. In fact, the only girl I wound up marrying was the one with the least stuff in common. All my exes had stuff in common. They all failed. The girl who had nothing in common? Our love flourished and she has made me happier than I can calculate.

Opposites attract, that's the saying of old wisdom. It wasn't lying.

>>33356979
>>33356813 (OP)
>Continued


Also, one last bonus insight: Growth. The best relationships grow into love. They do not fall into it. Falling in love is not love. It is infatuation.

Falling means someone eventually hits the ground crying and screaming. Growing in love is what works. Growing takes time. Growing also means accepting each other's faults, and choosing to love the other anyway. Love is foremost a choice.

Young people ignore it as a choice and only seek the feelings that comes from the choice. They want the warmth of the fire, but without chopping any of the wood. They want the outcome, but none of the process.

What I am trying to say is: Do not expect relationships to be pre-built and full of idealised love right out the gate. Relationships never work this way.

The ones that try to work in this way always fall, crumbling under the weight of their own fantasies that cannot be maintained emotionally for long periods of time.

With this in mind. Acknowledge you will not be a shiny perfect jewel of a woman at first. Acknowledge the man will not be a reliable king, he will have no crown. He won't be the prince charming you hope for. Both of you will be imperfect with nothing built together. That is OK. That's how it works at the start.

You become that jewel and the man becomes that solid man as you grow together. That takes time and allowing both of each other the security to be flawed together.

Once you've got yourself in a relationship that follows this line of romance, you can sleep easy and know you've got yourself a winning relationship ahead.

>>33356813 (OP)
>being attracted to him physically
Women don't really need to be physically attracted to a guy. So just find a guy you have stuff in common with.

>>33356979
> Yes. In fact, the only girl I wound up marrying was the one with the least stuff in common. All my exes had stuff in common. They all failed. The girl who had nothing in common? Our love flourished and she has made me happier than I can calculate.
How did she make you happy if you have nothing in common with her? How did you end up married if that was the case? What do you do as a couple to make it work?

>>33356844
True true , I mean still feel I need it in a partner
>>33356879
So I mean how I tried talking to a nice normies guy we didn't have much in common and it felt like a chore
>>33356979
>the only girl I wound up marrying was the one with the least stuff in common
So how like what did you talk about. I hear you about the rest

>>33357025
>How did she make you happy if you have nothing in common with her?
She just had to be herself. I know that's a dry and vague answer, a cliche, often unhelpfully applied, but I will elaborate:

She just had to enjoy what she enjoys. The things I don't find enjoyable. Like her fantasy books, or her catastrophic thriller movies, or her tastes in music. I don't enjoy what she enjoys. But it didn't matter. Because I just watched how she would get excited, happy, flooded with emotion at tragedies on movies, or the way she becomes enraptured by her favorite music. Seeing her happy made me happy. Watching her be emotionally moved by something emotionally moved me. To me, it was like looking at an angel. All she had to do was enjoy her own things. That was enough.

>What do you do as a couple to make it work?
We both decided to make it work, all we needed was both of us wanted it to work. And it worked. We did not worry about sweating small stuff like tastes in music, movies, or hobbies or activities or careers. All that we had to do was mutually choose to love each other, and the rest followed. It may sound simple, but it's because real love is simple. That's what makes it peaceful. Complicated love is not peaceful. Peace is what keeps us both satisfied, and what lead to making a an emotional home together. Somewhere where we both belong and can rest in.

That's how I ended up marrying her. It was the most easiest choice I ever made in my life too. Because I knew instantly I'd be an absolute fool to deny her and what we built.

>>33357043
Ok but what do you do with your shared time if you have nothing in common? That’s what interests me the most because I can’t understand why does it work.

>>33357031
>So how like what did you talk about. I hear you about the rest

Same as couples with stuff in common. Everything and anything. Shows, movies, world news, history, love, marriage, the future, kids, past experiences, memories, hopes, fears, the whole bundle.

Difference was we frequently always had different points of view, contrasting experiences, opposite backgrounds and we came from different walks of life. She was the smart polite quiet girl in school, I was the class clown, the rambunctious hooligan, a rogue deadbeat. I was the kind of guy who she probably disliked and avoided in high school. Yet as fate would have it, we're married and very much happy together lol.

>>33357057
>Ok but what do you do with your shared time if you have nothing in common? That’s what interests me the most because I can’t understand why does it work.

We cuddle in bed a lot, talking about what to do next, what to build next, what to buy for the home and kid next. We fawn after our dog together, playing with the dog on walks to the park. Debating and playfully bickering over movies, enjoying a good disagreement over what the movie meant or what not.

Most of the time we enjoy each other's quiet company, her reading a book, and me playing a videogame on the living room TV. She enjoys having that in the background as she reads lol

>>33356813 (OP)
I won't read bait threads.

Ok well

>>33356813 (OP)
That's a beautiful couple in that photo.

>>33356813 (OP)
Thjat's because you've been a victim to the greatest psyop.
Women are meant to be malleable so they can develop in interest in whatever their partner is into.

>>33356813 (OP)
>Other than my ex it is hard finding a guy who is into them
Into what? Proof read your posts before making a thread.

>>33359914
Actually, her hair is too short.

Yeah well you know

>>33360278
>a victim to the greatest psyop
trvke. we're dealing with a feminist-lite here who would likely deny it

>>33356813 (OP)
>moids
women really just rehash what men create

anyway, crystal cafe is down the hall and to the left. you'll fit in better there

>>33356813 (OP)
You’re going to have to compromise on something in your relationship, one person won’t have every quality you’d ever want in a man. I think a lot of young women fall into the trap of thinking they have unlimited time and unlimited options and can just sit back rejecting men for whatever reason. By all means have high standards. But if you’re rejecting men bc they’re not into your interests it seems kind of idk petty? Especially if it’s preventing you from getting to know somebody who you are attracted to, who has a good job, who you do get along with, etc. With my own gf, we do have a some things in common, like we both really like nerdy things, but we also have pretty different interests. And while there is overlap there’s also differences in the nerdy interests. But even that took months to become clear. We had similiar senses of humor too, which is massive but also took time to be apparent…

Anyway, I would just say high standards can be a double edged sword if they stop you from ever dating anybody and you wind up alone. I don’t know what your interest is in, but if it’s something 80 or 90% of men are not into you may really be handicapping yourself looking for something that frankly is not critical to having a happy relationship.

>>33356813 (OP)
You and your partner should become something new when you enter a relationship. It's silly to try to stay the same individuals that you already were but under the same roof. Single people will often naturally have hobbies and interests that are only designed for one person to enjoy. You both need to sacrifice some of those to create time slots for the new things you'll do together. You and your partner should try new things together and discover new hobbies and interests that you both enjoy. That way, you were both there at the inception of the interest and it's something special that ties you both together even stronger.

>>33356813 (OP)
Okay but what is stuff that you are into? Like interests and such?
Sounds like you think having stuff in common with a guy is just being attractive?

>>33356813 (OP)
>be attracted to him physically
Oh so you want the 5% of men like every other woman

>>33356813 (OP)
>be close in age
why? this close in age is a feminist american psyop to limit you to immature men

>>33362499
>woman came up with the word incel and then moids copied it, and they conveniently forget this
Nice try tranny/incel.

>>33356813 (OP)
>Starts conversation with "don't be misogynistic".
This is exactly why high value men avoid you. The top 10th percentile man you're looking for has dozens of women just like you clamoring at his heels and none of them bother him with big words like misogynistic.

>>33356813 (OP)
>Other than my ex it is hard finding a guy who is into them
>since there are some moids here (no hate to all moids) who are dating a woman just for sex and hate her.
Why didn't your ex boyfriend marry you?

>>33356813 (OP)
I'll date you if you've got red or blonde hair and are at least 5'8"

>>33364840
That's a good counter example, femoid. They're both simple portmanteaus from either side. So it's not 100%, but let's not pretend that men haven't created most of the internet culture and that women tend to show up late to male spaces and ruin them.

>tranny/incel
Pick one and stick with it, coward. It hits harder that way. You're wrong on both counts though.

>>33364917
You are lying with these standards. What if I told you she was 80 years old, 300 pounds, and black?