Ideal Romantic partner?

by **The Serbian Empire** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:12 am

Imperium Sidhicum wrote:
Kar-Esseria wrote:
If you're going to stick with tough, no-nonsense, nationalistic, military brats, you might have a harder time finding a woman than me. And that's saying quite a bit.

Maybe. But why give up on finding a single diamond and contend yourself with a bag of pebbles?

Or worse, with talconite pellets best used for steel making than for anything else.

by **Risottia** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:14 am

Kar-Esseria wrote:
Risottia wrote:Wait, are you still at school?

No, I was making a joke about imaginary girlfriends on the Internet.

Sorry, I'm not into that "imaginary girlfriend on the Internet" thing with which you seem to be so much acquainted.

by **Parhe** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:15 am

I want someone rich that will spoil me. I don't care about sex or gender. .-.

by **Kawaii Republic** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:18 am

Everyone. I don't understand. Money? Attractiveness? You know I stay with my current partner because hes compassionate, funny, creative, caring, and loving. His attractiveness is all that spectacular, but dammit I love him. He writes me things and texts me in the dead of night to tell me he loves me.

by **Fortitudinem** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:18 am

*Lists off the qualities of my current Girlfriend* :3

You thought I was actually going to make a list? Nah.

by **Parhe** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:21 am

How did perverted, furry, brony, or scalie, or even sexy and goth, get on the poll but not intelligent, successful, compassionate, or ambitious?

by **Shangri llama** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:23 am

Perhaps it goes without saying?

by **Dyakovo** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:23 am

Parhe wrote:How did perverted, furry, brony, or scalie, or even sexy and goth, get on the poll but not intelligent, successful, compassionate, or ambitious?

The OP has weird priorities...

by **Esternial** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:25 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Parhe wrote:How did perverted, furry, brony, or scalie, or even sexy and goth, get on the poll but not intelligent, successful, compassionate, or ambitious?

The OP has weird priorities...

Might have to do with him being 15 years old.

by **Risottia** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:27 am

The Serbian Empire wrote:
Risottia wrote:Well, working in the nude would lessen the risk of you being caught into dangerous machinery, but it would increase the risk of everybody becoming a bit too distracted.

True, but I'm fairly self conscious about my body in the first place. As a result, I sort of have two wardrobes at this point. One for working which is effectively male due to my body frame. ...

I don't want to be creepy, but now you're making ME fairly conscious about your body, and managing to get me interested into androgynous shapes is quite the feat.

by **Imperium Sidhicum** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:29 am

The Serbian Empire wrote:
Imperium Sidhicum wrote:
Maybe. But why give up on finding a single diamond and contend yourself with a bag of pebbles?

Or worse, with talconite pellets best used for steel making than for anything else.

Taconite pellets actually sound more useful than pebbles. They may be rough and unsightly, but with proper refining, they become beautiful shining industrial steel, whereas pebbles will always stay just that.

My OKC · by **Replevion** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:29 am

Esternial wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:The OP has weird priorities...

Might have to do with him being 15 years old.

Yup

by **Parhe** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:30 am

Dyakovo wrote:
Parhe wrote:How did perverted, furry, brony, or scalie, or even sexy and goth, get on the poll but not intelligent, successful, compassionate, or ambitious?

The OP has weird priorities...

Interesting. I tried justifying to myself that he (I assume from the OP and poll, which usually is from the POV of the creator if a bias is there) assumed all females were those things. But then I realized that was also sexist and didn't help his case (speaking as an Asian American, "positive" stereotypes are bad too).

Esternial wrote:
Dyakovo wrote:The OP has weird priorities...

Might have to do with him being 15 years old.

True; I always thought it was just a stereotype, didn't think teenagers with the priorities in that way actually existed outside of movies and televisions.

I was always just a gold digger I assume...

by **Chessmistress** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:34 am

My ideal partner is a person who, when s/he live with me, improves the quality of my life (comparing the quality of my life with her/him to my life when I'm alone).
That's enough.

Then I can say a tall, curvy, redhair, green eyes, almost rich female hairdresser who is really great at oral sex

But it wouldn't be the truth: she's not a truly "ideal partner", due she works too much, and aso due a pair of minor issues.

Parhe wrote:I want someone rich that will spoil me. I don't care about sex or gender. .-.

That's a good priority

by **New Carloso** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:38 am

Well... you guys are being a bit harsh.

In any case, my own preference is a girl who is slightly shorter then me but not too much, brown or blonde hair and goods looks, naturally.

by **Jaxukuk** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:42 am

Romance is an illusion that weakens the heart. We don't need it anymore. It leads you open to blackmail, jealousy and conflict. Don't fall in love, guys. For the good of everything rational.

by **The Archregimancy** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:46 am

Reader, I married her.

by **Ensydia** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:47 am

A white girl with brunette or blonde hair and blue eyes that's at least the same age or a little younger than me. Who doesn't mind my radical ideals and loves to game on computer.

by **Drury Lane** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:48 am

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:
Kawaii Republic wrote:I'm a hopeless romantic that wants to sit in the back of a pickup truck at night with my SO and cuddle and watch the stars, but people now days be like "Sex...Sex...Sex" and i'm like "I'm okay thanks".

Actually, compared to baby boomers (who had an average of 11 partners) and Generation X (10 partners), Generation Y/Millenials are estimated to have an average of 8 partners over the course of their lifetime. So we're having less sex.

I wish I could find the article, it was something I read in passing a few years ago, probably in dentists office or the like.
A psychologist, picking up on a rising number of allegedly asexual patients, did conduct a study that concluded that the more a culture overtly promotes sexual openess and promiscuity, the less sex its median members will seek to engage in. I think there might be something to that.

by **Parhe** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:50 am

Chessmistress wrote:
Parhe wrote:I want someone rich that will spoil me. I don't care about sex or gender. .-.

That's a good priority

Well, I read once that in choosing a mate a priority should be to make sure the spouse can provide for the offspring, although I am not exactly pushy about that topic yet and have decided on yes unless the partner disagrees (would require adopting or a surrogate if the partner is male or female that cannot give birth to offspring, or does not want to). In today's world I feel like, besides love and compassion which I believe the great majority of people can feel (though I have no data for this so I might be wrong), money is one of the most important resources a child needs.

Also, from what I have seen in arranged marriages people over time [often] change to love each other so I figure I can love someone with money over time, not to say I agree with arranged marriage. As for sex and gender, well, I never really cared for it growing up and was surprised how important sex and/or gender were for a lot of my peers in high school and even elementary school.

I, like my parents, always care more about how well off the other families were.

Jaxukuk wrote:Romance is an illusion that weakens the heart. We don't need it anymore. It leads you open to blackmail, jealousy and conflict. Don't fall in love, guys. For the good of everything rational.

Don't say that. How do you think I entertain myself >-> I promise, I'm not as horrible as this makes me sound.

My OKC · by **Replevion** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:50 am

Jaxukuk wrote:Romance is an illusion that weakens the heart. We don't need it anymore. It leads you open to blackmail, jealousy and conflict. Don't fall in love, guys. For the good of everything rational.

Oh, great, one of those.

Everybody goes through heartbreak, kid. This modern response of pretending you don't have need for a heart is multilaterally dehumanizing.

by **The Blaatschapen** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:51 am

The Archregimancy wrote:Reader, I married her.

She is watching your screen, isn't she?

by **Shangri llama** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:52 am

"Modern" nothing. Teenagers have been writing bad poetry about the void where their heart once was for CENTURIES

by **Shangri llama** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:52 am

Ok now I'm confused why do 2 people here have red names? Site administration?

by **New Carloso** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:52 am

Jaxukuk wrote:Romance is an illusion that weakens the heart. We don't need it anymore. It leads you open to blackmail, jealousy and conflict. Don't fall in love, guys. For the good of everything rational.

Uh, please. Your reminding me of a film where this guy travels from the far future, where love has become non-existant, to the past.