Some say women like one kind of men, some say another. I would like the women here to share their preferences in men. That is, if you are a woman (old enough to be married) and have never been married, please choose from the options given which man you would marry if all of them proposed and you wanted to be married. Please discuss your reasons. Thank you.
My ideal man is Eduardo Verastegui. That’s the best way to describe what I’m looking for. lol
I picked the intellectual, deep thinking option, but it doesn’t completely coverwhat I want.
Because of your post I just found out who he is. He sounds smart.
OK, first of all, I can’t say what kind of man I’m looking for because none of the options capture the full picture. I mean, I want a man who is intellectual and can discuss the history and teaching of the Church, after a morning of hiking in the mountains, and before an afternoon of gardening.
Also, I’m curious as to why you only wanted women who are single, old enough to be married, and have never been married to reply. I was civilly married, but in the eyes of the Church that marriage never existed and I am eligible for sacramental marriage, if there would be a man out there who could handle me I didn’t reply to your survey for the reason I stated above.
God bless you for this fun thread.
Ah, you have sought the truth of my reason for the thread. I was thinking of how men argue about what women really want in a potential husband and how we never know where they get the idea they have of it. I decided to try to find out what women who are in the current market for a husband actually are looking for. i left out once-married women because I want to know what we look for the first time around. Another poll on what more experience makes us look for would be good too IMO, but this is a study of first-time marriage decisions. I didn’t include girls too young to be married because they aren’t choosing a husband right now.
So, just choose the one you would marry if these were your only suitors and you wished to choose one of them.
Ah, the first timers… Reminds me of a joke I heard this morning:
Why don’t cannibals eat divorced women. They’re too bitter. :rotfl: I added to myself, “We’re also too tough”
I see your point, though. What I looked for the first time around might be different than now, if for no other reason than because I’m older. Being a mom, I’m also looking at the potential step-father qualities.
So I still won’t answer your survey because I don’t want to skew the results with my bitter, tough self
God bless you. And may God prepare your heart for the spouse He created for you.
I chose fun and energetic, but what I’d really like is a fun and energetic guy who’s home loving as well - the kind of guy who’s going to be giving the kids piggyback rides around the backyard, you know? Or playing lawn bowling with cans of beans and a soccer ball.
Mine is not on there - spiritual, with great integrity, funny and creative.
I remember hearing about a study a few years ago that tested women’s feelings on the type of men they wanted to marry and the type of men they’d want to father their child(ren). They showed these women a series of photgraphs of different types of men (i.e., strong and virlile to sensitive). The results were very interesting. The majority of the women chose strong, athletic looking men as idea biological fathers but more sensitive types as life-time mates and de-facto fathers. I think this is indicative of some deep-seeted feeling that strong men would produce a strong child in the physical sense, one more likely to survive but that spending their lives with these guys might prove challenging. Therefore, theyd prefer to live and raise their kids with a more sensitive, intellectual type. Please note this was not a religious type survey but more social studies oriented with an anthropological bent. Still, it was interesting.
Practical life. Stated preferences differ from what happens in real life. This will differ in turn in a Catholic community where people are more controlled, with a more directed life.
Noted duly. The allowance, even implicit or conditional, is saddening. There’s more to it than just with whom to have children or with whom to bring them up, but I’d be proving very bitter if I were to link to surveys. Suffice to say, most men will want someone who’d want them on both levels. And another reason why it’s better to stick with Catholics.
Most of the really nice, stable, sweet guys I have known were, sad to say, homosexual. It’s what I’ve seen. They were mobbed by women who wanted to convert them and make husbands of them.
Most of the men I have known who said that they had trouble finding someone because they were “too nice” were actually very mentally impaired.
Most of the men I have known who were tough, selfish and grimy said they had lots of girls all over them but they actually didn’t have any. None at all. It was a front.
But that’s one reason I started this; to find out how typical my own practical experience has been.
I don’t think I was very clear. What I really found interesting was the suggestion that women chose men based on a subconcious reference to pre-society days when survival was of the most physcally fit, though they inately realized that macho does not necessarily make a good husband.
I pretty much want everything EXCEPT "tough, ungroomed, aggressive, not very verbal ". I admit I’m unpleasable. And I don’t care about fashion-conscious.
I didn’t read directions very well…I was married. “Not very verbal” can lead to divorce, lemme tell ya! I guess I don’t like either extreme…big muscly guys, dirty guys, hunters, chaw-chewers, big egos, “metro” guys, guys really into their clothing or hair…all pretty unattractive IMO.
I have a couple of girlfriends who say they are attracted to bigger guys because they “feel safe” with them. I’ve never understood that. Wits and a concealed carry license can do that for anybody. There are no sabre-toothed tigers chasing us anymore. You need a man for companionship, not safety!
I would want the sensitive, emotional, peaceful, nature loving guy. I’m sensitive and emotional and I do well with someone who is of a similar disposition (one of my guy friends is like that, which proved to be a tremendous blessing in my life in many ways. He got me to be more expressive of my emotions and to admit a lot of my past. When I did admit my past, it was his arms I cried into). Peaceful, because we need more peaceful people (and we can try to fill the world with more peaceful people;) ) Nature-loving because I want a guy I can run around barefoot in the sun with, hike with, go stargazing with, and enjoy God’s beauty with. I’d also want him to be intellectual and have stimulating conversations with him.
I think it’s much the same today, actually. They realise their boyfriends are not the guys who will treat them the best of all and they realise their other friends would be better for them in terms of honesty, care and fair treatment. And yet they choose the guys who have some kind of I don’t know what - magnetism?
My theory would be that people with issues have more magnetism than people without. Troubled personalities can be quite compelling. People will find it easier to refuse those good men or women than the compelling baddies. This is true for both genders, except perhaps more noticeable with women for the reason that men, after all, are bigger and stronger, so they don’t face the most ostensible kind of abuse. But men have every tendency to fall for the women who will flirt with other guys, milk them out of their hard-earned money, lose their mind for inane pursuits… And don’t they actually also know who’s better for them, just like the women do?