>>819290A lot of dudes have high standards, I guess. I don't know, I can't relate because I've never considered myself to have outrageously high standards. In fact, I thought most dudes wanted to perpetually "play the field" and just have a variety of partners ad nauseam, which implies that they have virtually no standards. At least, that's what *I* wanted to do, and for personal reasons, I have not done that. If I were looking for a relationship, most importantly I would want someone with whom I jive, which is to say, we have to be compatible on an intellectual and emotional level. I want someone similar to myself, I guess. I'm a strong personality, I'm maybe a bit too egotistical for my own good, I've got that main character energy, I guess. I would want someone who could meet me at that level or otherwise be compatible with a person like that. I'm not saying you have to worship the ground I walk on, but I don't want some catty hoe who is going to denigrate me for no fucking reason, for example.
Anyway, not to wax poetic about myself, I'm just drawing from personal experience to make the point that my standards really aren't that high, at least I don't think so.
>ok but would you date a girl you find aesthetically unappealing if she met your rather vague criteriaYeah, maybe, but it's always going to be a question of
<how good of a match are we; how much do I have to compromise to gain that benefit??All this to say that I don't think a lot of people are doing this cost-benefit analysis, except for people who already see their own self worth and aren't willing to just 'find any port in a storm' if you catch my drift. Ergo, a lot of people have low standards, or haven't even really put any thought into it to begin with.
I like this girl, and it's not just because I find her to be very attractive. She seems down to earth and smart. Her husband is a lucky dude.