Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The 80/20 Rule

The way I write about guys I'm dating, you'd think that they were the only ones I talked to. But the contrary is true. I'm not saying I've got dudes lined up around the block, but I do have a few options. It's just that I don't return their advances. It's not that I'm picky. I'm just selective. I may not know what I want, but I know what I don't want. So, when guys like me but I don't like them, I take being single over settling. That may mean that I'm responsible for my own loneliness, but I can live with that. I've been approached by plenty of guys who were fine--I'm talking, my type from head to toe. But their personalities either sucked, or they were boring as hell. I'm not so desperate for male companionship that I'd hook up with someone I felt absolutely zero chemistry with.

I can't help but wonder if I'm missing out though. When I reject guys because of the lack of chemistry, maybe I'm throwing away the chance of a great catch. Maybe sometimes we have to settle for less than we want. If we write guys off because they lack one quality, then it's possible that we're missing out on all of the other ones that we'd love.

Those of you who have seen Why Did I Get Married will remember this scene...Only 28 seconds. Watch it.

So my questio is, if you meet a guy that you don't click with, do you keep trekking in the hopes of finding the one who possesses all the qualities you want, or do you still give him a chance just in case he's got everything else you desire in a man?


karrie b. said...

naw. you have to find your "twin self". your twin self is the person that you've known for eons...

like in hancock. if u havent seen it, please rent it. the message behind it is crazy.

but yeah, your twin self is the person you knew in lifetimes before, and you're drawn to that person to reasons unknown to you.


i know i just opened up the illest can of worms.

star signs by linda goodman. read it.

Jaded said...

I don't know...because well...chemistry is...well EVERYTHING. It's what keeps you in bad relationships "but the chemistry was just so GREAT!" and what makes you run from the "total package -1".

Physical attractiveness is NOT synonymous with chemistry (altho they can correlate sometime)and you said yourself that sometimes these guys are fine. If I were passing them up solely because of how they look I'd rethink my position.

I'd keep on schleping up the dating mountain.

Charles said...

If you don't have chemistry with them, that means that they're lacking in more than one thing...thats a couple of things. I think that you can't find that 'perfect person', but you can find that perfect person for you that complements you and everything you are. I think once you stop looking for that perfect guy, all of those imperfections that you see will turn out to be minimal and you'll end up finding a great guy that you might've passed over if you hadn't.

Bloggal said...

@ kb: i loved hancock. it took the concept of 'soulmate' to a whole other level.

i looked up star signs at my library and they actually have it. so i'm gonna check it out.

@ jade:i agree, chemistry IS everything. without it, there's nothing. that's why i don't think i could ever settle with a guy i didn't spark with. it just wouldn't--COULDN'T--work.

@ charles: so spot on...can i quote you on that? nevermind, i'm not gonna wait for a response. you've made me quote of the week lol.

Anonymous said...

I tell you what I'm willing to settle for any old time:




Bombchell said...

mmhmm I remember that part of the movie.

I dont know why i left thinking it was the 70-30 rule though

Que.P said...

Depends on what he brings to the table. He may deserve the opportunity to prove me wrong (but only a VERY select few deserve that opportunity).

Don said...

If you and dude don't click, I can't see that being construed as throwing away anything. I think it means you refuse to settle for anything but the one who makes your heart skip a beat.


Related Posts with Thumbnails