Sapiosexual beyond all reason
February 28, 2021 9:56 AM   Subscribe

Trying to understand why I am attracted to very unsuitable people and what to do about it. Please don't roast me, I'm looking for real advice while also seeing the humor in the situation.

I am a heterosexual white woman in my 30s and my friends all think I have terrible taste in men. They say I am funny, smart, hot, too nice, and have my shit together in my career and they don't understand what the hell I'm thinking with my love interests.

I'm trying to see what the pattern is and where I'm going wrong. I'm going to describe the people I've been with and none of this is meant to offend anyone, but these people are not ready for serious relationships. I'm not really open to the idea that I'm "discriminating against men," that i have "internalized misogyny," or any other number of dubious internet hot takes

As far as I can see, the purpose of a relationship once you get to your mid 30s is to find someone you are compatible to live with. And for that reason, that person needs to be able to contribute to the household in ways that are both monetary and related to house work. I make a good living and take care of myself, and I need to find someone who already does the same. If not, what's the point? I already have a good stable lifestyle going.

In the past year, I have had several romantic attractions, and all of them have been with unsuitable characters. I'm not sure why I keep doing this, but I sure would like to understand. Therapy is hella expensive, and I'm going, but my insurance only covers 2 visits per year so I turn to the hivemind with my query. I do have a sneaking suspicion that there are just less relationship-ready men in existence than there are women, and I'm ready to accept that idea. But I would like to understand why I have attractions to such unsuitable partners. I'm also open to the idea that the idea of "unsuitable partners" is really just a stereotypical construct and that these are actually people I could work with, if I let go of conventional rules for relationships.

I've also tried dating rationally, ie: filtering out people based on "how good they look on paper." The problem is, if I'm not remotely attracted to those people, it's unlikely a relationship will develop.

The people I have been romantically involved with in the past 10 years:

- guy in his mid 30s that lived with his parents and his mom does his laundry for him. He had a great sense of humour and amazing vibe though.

- a socialist guy that had like 3 degrees but was working a minimum wage job by choice. When I got my first full time salaried job after university, instead of saying congrats, said I was betraying socialism

- guy that believed in far right conspiracy theories such as that Obama is a lizard person, and asked to borrow money from me. but had an amazing smile, amazing body and great taste in music

- guy that was super proud of his philosophy MA but emotionally shut down when I asked a simple question about his personal politics. I thought that because he told me everything about his sexual exploits without me even asking or remotely wanting to know, that any topic was on the table, but apparently I was very wrong. I still think he is a great person but maybe he's going through something personal right now.

- another socialist guy, went back to grad school with no intention of ever getting a job. But has an amazingly fascinating mind and a wit like I've never seen. The most disturbing thing is I find him physically repulsive (he has a very unkempt appearance and clearly doesn't shower, brush hair or care one wit what he looks like) but I'm completely in love with his mind.

My questions are:

- Why is it possible to be infatuated with someone's mind while not remotely attracted to them physically and while also knowing that they are an unsuitable mate? How do so-called sapiosexual people cope with knowing someone has a beautiful mind, and is amazing at conversation, a great vibe, or a great body, but is unsuitable as a partner?

- Why are my attractions seemingly becoming more and more unreasonable?

Please don't roast me. Even if this post reads as a stand-up comedy sketch, I'm suffering and looking for real advice lol.
posted by anonymous to Human Relations (33 answers total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
The attraction isn't causing you a problem. Anyone can be attracted to someone who has either physical or mental appeal. The attraction part of your brain isn't thinking about shared housework down the road. So the only issue is how and when you bring your rational mind, the part that wants a specific kind of future, into the decision making process. This is literally what dating is for. Accept your attraction to, or even go out once or twice, with someone who seems attractive but get out ASAP once you know it's going to be inconsistent with what you really want. Rinse and repeat. Sorry it's tedious but that is all there is to it!!
posted by nantucket at 10:13 AM on February 28, 2021 [24 favorites]


My initial thought is that flawed outcomes are a result of flawed processes. Where are you meeting these guys? Maybe try meeting people elsewhere. That sounds glib, but it seems like that should be a first step.
posted by kevinbelt at 10:16 AM on February 28, 2021 [15 favorites]


Thank you for your post, and you are not alone!!

I think a lot of people, including myself, get hung up on the parts of people that we love without being as discerning as we should be about the rest of them. So my advice would be to keep an open mind and keep looking, until you find someone that you click with on all these dimensions- they're out there! I personally lucked out by quite randomly finding someone who I love mind, body, and soul. A friend of mine started a checklist that consisted of Must Haves, Wants, and Would be Nice Buts, and if someone did not meet one of her Must Haves she did not pursue that relationship EVEN IF she really liked something else about the person. Ditto if they were incompatible on too many of the wants.

It seems like your pattern is to want people who are not only intelligent, but perhaps intelligent in an "outside the box" sort of way? I feel like there are many intelligent people with fascinating minds who also totally have their shit together, whether their intelligence is funneled into a more "conventional" life path or not. So if I were you I might make that a Must Have for any longer term relationship. Pursue friendships (if you want) with fascinating people who don't have their shit together, and hold out for romantic partners who do.
posted by DTMFA at 10:16 AM on February 28, 2021 [14 favorites]


I look forward to the answers!
But the thing that strikes me is that while you talk about "sapiosexual" all of these guys strike me as underdeveloped on the brain side, in the way that would matter to me. As in, they lack maturity and the ability to communicate about sensitive subjects. That, to me, is intelligence. I find the lack of it viscerally offputting.

What you are attracted to is another sort of intelligence: the ability to talk the talk, a rarified way of stringing thoughts together and building enormous thought structures about the way things are and should be, a very philosophical, theoretical, rather than practical way of thinking.

I think I can see how that might appeal. It's like the brain taking flight and whole vistas opening up for you. Your world becomes suddenly so large and beautiful and exciting, doesn't it?

I think that actually says something wonderful about your own ability to think deeply about things and let your mind take flight. I wonder if there are other ways to nurture this passion that don't involve romance.

Unfortunately, a passion for abstract thinking in men is often paired with a sort of self satisfaction that precludes practical, mundane coping strategies (like taking a job or doing your laundry). It's seen as lesser thinking - and perhaps you share the disdain.

At any rate, what's the Obama lizard guy doing on your list? I think it's perfectly natural to be aroused by a hot guy, but surely nobody's gonna see that guy as a sapiosexual trap?
posted by Omnomnom at 10:17 AM on February 28, 2021 [62 favorites]


I don't see why I'd roast you or why you'd expect me to, which leads me to think you're being too hard on yourself?

It's perfectly natural to have chemistry and lust and attraction for people who are ... not Mr. Right. That's part of being a sexual human. The real question is what you do about it, as a cerebral human.

I feel like the thing that threads your gentlemen together is that you perceive and appreciate aspects of each of them, and that leads you to a bit of rose-colored glasses in regards to other aspects that don't meet your needs. There's a great mefi-ism that I think applies: when someone tells you who they are, believe them.

If someone lives with parents in their 30s, that's who they are, not a temporary thing that will fade away. If someone chooses a minimal existence for political reasons -- that's who they are.

It also seems like you've done a good job of identifying that and moving on. I'm sorry you're suffering, but aside from being a bit more discriminating than wide-eyed, I don't see a huge problem with what you're telling us - just keep swimming and being true to yourself.
posted by Dashy at 10:21 AM on February 28, 2021 [11 favorites]


Do you maybe perceive your own life, with the ‘great career’ and all, as a bit... boring? It seems like you’re looking for guys to be fascinated by, in a kind of escapist way.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:22 AM on February 28, 2021 [33 favorites]


I feel like I don't understand what *you* want in a long term committed relationship with men? You don't have to answer these questions here but you should think about them Do you *want* to cohabitate with a single person for the rest of your life? Do you *want* to have children and have an equal parenting partner? It's OK if the answer is no, you don't have to find the perfect "mate" if that's not what you see in your life. It's OK to have casual relationships in your 30s, 40s, 50s, and so on. There's no age you have to settle down if you don't want to.

Second thought, you don't have to fuck or date men that you aren't physically attracted to; if you like their brains, just try being their friend. Two of my best friends are guys with amazing brains that make me laugh and we have great conversations, but like, I'm not physically or emotionally attracted to them (and vice versa). It feels to me like you unconsciously think the only kind of relationship between men and women is a romantic one. But conversely yes if you're looking for a romantic relationship, it's OK to exclude people that you are only interested in as friends or just as fuck buddies. *Most* people in this world won't be a good mate/life partner for you, that's to be expected. It's a numbers game.
posted by muddgirl at 10:32 AM on February 28, 2021 [16 favorites]


They're living like this because _they_ find it attractive. Don't beat yourself up for finding that whole [vague gestures] thing compelling.

Your statements about looking for a mate who is a good household companion, and the kind of heady person whom you find compelling, makes me think you could stand to do some deep systematic thinking about a) love and attraction, and b) your real personal philosophy about uniting human passion drives with fairness and philosophical drives. Really - you care about this stuff and are attracted to it, so where do you really, deep down, stand? What is really important to you?

The things that you find mesmerizing need to be in harmony with your self-conception.
posted by amtho at 10:37 AM on February 28, 2021 [2 favorites]


Following because I have a similar pattern.

I think for me underlying it is that I am independent, I have my life together and can take care of myself, so I don't look for someone with the stability necessary to take care of me and focus instead on how I feel around them.

But you run into issues with this for many reasons, one being if they can't take care of you they can't take care of themselves either. One of my future requirements will be, if I have some kind of crisis and can't function for some period of time, does this person have the skills to function for both of us on a temporary basis.

And honestly I probably have a self-esteem thing underlying this too. I want intellectual stimulation but maybe I think I don't deserve that plus stability plus rapturous love. Maybe you have that issue also.
posted by crunchy potato at 10:38 AM on February 28, 2021 [15 favorites]


All of those guys (except for lizard-dude) sound like they'd be fun to hang out with over coffee or drinks. But all of them (lizard-dude first and foremost) were waving huge red flags in terms of relationship material. The question seems to be to be less "why are you attracted to them?" (because the answer is that each has good features that you are attracted to), and more "why are you not letting huge, obvious red flags kill your attraction?"

Also, I agree with the comment above that maybe you are too hard on yourself. Why would anyone laugh at you or roast you? I am willing to bet that basically all of us have not only been attracted to unsuitable people, but have probably gotten into actual relationships with them. That's part of how you learn to choose better partners and isn't anything to laugh at (except when sharing funny stories about terrible first dates and so on).

As far as I can see, the purpose of a relationship once you get to your mid 30s is to find someone you are compatible to live with.

For many people (and maybe for you) that is correct. But there are lots of other reasons people seek out relationships, including not ever wanting to live with someone. If this isn't a relationship model that is actually working for you, that is maybe something to look at.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:41 AM on February 28, 2021 [21 favorites]


Do you really want a conventional long-term relationship? One possible (but not the only) explanation for why this is happening is that you don't actually want someone to live with and build a life together with and that's why you don't allow kinda obvious red flags to put you off. There is nothing wrong with having your own life as a single person, and having flings or short-term relationships, and have that be your lifestyle choice either for the time being or indefinitely.

Otherwise I would suggest that if you are in your mid-30s, most of the people your own age who were ever planning to get their shit together have already made considerable headway on that by now. So anyone who is still floating around being a manic pixie dream boy, is probably not a candidate for the kind of commitment you describe. Try dating from a wider pool, that probably includes people with more conventional lives? Try dropping the clearly not going to work people sooner so you're wasting less time on them? Try getting the specific intellectual-ish fix you are currently prioritising from outside your primary relationship?
posted by plonkee at 11:01 AM on February 28, 2021 [6 favorites]


that paradox -- that what is sexually compelling is often not at all compatible with the kind of stable long term partnership that makes life comfortable -- is, as far as I can tell, far more widespread than not.

That said, I agree with what someone said above about "where you're meeting these people." Men who meet your basic requirement of being around your age and having their shit together are working real jobs. You're probably going to meet them either at work, through working friends, or online dating where you screen for that kind of occupation as a requirement. As you've seen, advanced degrees are not at all reliable as an indicator of character. The kind of entertainment people consume, ditto. Focus more on what they do with their time and how they behave.

Also, you wanted to look at the humor in the situation, so one of these days read up on Rasputin and his relationship with the aristocratic ladies of St Petersburg, including most famously the Tsarina. Every so often a filthy smelly man manages to be so fascinating he sparks the overthrow of an empire. You're not alone!
posted by fingersandtoes at 11:31 AM on February 28, 2021 [12 favorites]


The question seems to be to be less "why are you attracted to them?" (because the answer is that each has good features that you are attracted to), and more "why are you not letting huge, obvious red flags kill your attraction?"

Strongly agree. I mean, I think everyone has found themselves attracted to some people who, in time, prove to be horrible matches once some part of their character is revealed. That's why lot of people hate dating - the cycle of getting your hopes up only to get them crushed is exhausting.

Side note: Therapy is hella expensive, and I'm going, but my insurance only covers 2 visits per year

You might want to shop around for insurance or talk to your employer (or union, if you have one). I by no means have fancy insurance, but this strikes me as pretty bad.
posted by coffeecat at 11:32 AM on February 28, 2021 [10 favorites]


As far as I can see, the purpose of a relationship once you get to your mid 30s is to find someone you are compatible to live with.

that's not true for all people. i could go on and on about all the reasons to be in a relationship that have nothing to do with living together, but i'd probably get deleted.

it seems like you're just not finding people who are compatible with you for whatever reason, not that they aren't ready for a serious relationship with anyone. the guys you describe seem to have different values than you and different life goals and so thus aren't who you should be in a "live in" relationship with.

where are you meeting these guys? try somewhere else. or broaden your search parameters for lack of a better word. don't eliminate someone because they don't have a great body or a great face. that's what brings people in, but isn't what usually keeps them there. physical attraction can grow over time if you have chemistry in other ways.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 11:51 AM on February 28, 2021 [4 favorites]


How do so-called sapiosexual people cope with knowing someone has a beautiful mind, and is amazing at conversation, a great vibe, or a great body, but is unsuitable as a partner?

One thing is that prioritizing a sparring partner dynamic is sometimes at odds with what you need from a romantic partner. That's not at all saying that I don't care about having intellectual stimulation in a relationship. It's just that quite often, the person with a "beautiful mind" who puts it on display in a way you find alluring is looking for an audience, rather than connection or an opportunity to understand perspectives other than theirs.

There's a difference between that kind of self-involved "dorm room philosopher" cerebral and well-adjusted 30-something cerebral. The guys you've described are examples of the former. It's one thing to date these people when you're in your 20s, because everyone involved is in the process of getting their lives together and things like living with one's parents or eschewing full-time work don't necessarily say much about where these people want to land long-term. Once you get older, though, it's bad news because what you're getting is what their long-term equilibrium is.

The other piece is knowing that you can get your intellectual stimulation needs met outside of a romantic relationship. In my case, I've been lucky to have a stable of guy friends who fit the sparring partner role but who, for one reason or another, wouldn't make a good partner for me (or vice versa). To muddgurl's point above, there are ways to enjoy the intellectual connection you have with these guys that don't involve dating them or even sleeping with them. Having platonic relationships with intellectual chemistry might keep you from getting pantsfeelings for the wrong brainiacs.

Even if you're not looking for an "escalator" relationship that leads to cohabitation, a lot of the qualities that one might want to select for when looking for one of those relationships are still important. Things like agreeableness and ability to compromise still matter even when you have the option of retreating to your own abodes. You may want to be with someone you can trust to show up for you if necessary. Wanting casual relationships can't always protect you from the fall-out of looking for the wrong things.
posted by blerghamot at 12:05 PM on February 28, 2021 [17 favorites]


Having your shit together can be exhausting and often demands certain compromises, sacrifices, trade-offs. There can be a kind of glorious self-indulgence in just being a mess and trying to get away with the bare minimum in certain respects.

I admit, I can have a bit of weakness for a guy who's a self-aware mess, as long as he doesn't expect me to be too impressed with him regardless, which they however usually do, which conveniently kills the attraction quickly enough in my case.

But I do sometimes wish I myself cared a bit less about impressing others, so I might be a bit susceptible to impractical amibitons, doomed causes and a certain disregard for markers of conventional success. The susceptibility has gone markedly down however, since I had my own episodes of somewhat less than perfect functionality, and honestely, maybe they were worth it just for that alone. I probably needed some years in the wilderness (more my parent's backyard, metaphorically), of not having my shit together at all. It's not fun, but it does tend to give you some time to think.

Maybe that's the appeal? Using fuck-up-love interests to enjoy vicariously what you've been so far denying yourself? Could it be that you feel you don't have the leisure to have the life of the mind that you want?

I mean, obviously I'm not recommindg that you should spend some time as a bit of a fuck-up too (it's really not fun, and one probably shouldn't force it). But maybe there's a ball you could afford to drop on occasion? An area in your life where you could try out what's the minimum you could get away with? Use the time and energy you gain by pursuing your own impractical ambitions and doomed causes! Or just idly muse about stuff and feel intellectual!

Because my other theory is that these guys provide some form of intellectual validation you feel might be otherwise lacking in your life. Poster above made a good observation about the type of intellectual who's in it for the audience. But you know what, maybe that's a stage some people just have to go through. I don*t actually think it's terribly wrong to want the attention. Maybe _you_ should look for an audience?. Maybe you don't need a lover to scratch that itch - maybe students, readers, followers on twitter might do? Get it out your system, see how that makes you feel!

And yes, seconding everyone who pointed out that you can of course have ample intellectual stimulation in purely platonic friendships.

More generally speaking, I don't see a huge problem with occasionally being attracted to people you wouldn't want a longterm relationship with. Nobody can force you to act on all your attractions. It only becomes a problem when unsuitable infatuations distract you from more promising prospects. But I'm not at all sure that's the case with you; I think it's quite likely to assume that the more promising prospects just are a bit rare, and that that's the main reason you haven't identified one yet. I think it's quite probable that once the more promising prospect appears, you'll forget about these guys quickly enough.
posted by sohalt at 1:08 PM on February 28, 2021 [8 favorites]


Seconding the above- I too, questioned the lizard person.


First thought had been you're seeking dreamy, idealistic qualities you should seek to build within yourself (instead), then seek a beau who has a dash of that, but is grounded by some area of practicality. These pisces(dreamy) types are super fun, if there's no strike of capricorn (deeply grounded), it can still be really nice- but it may never take root or go anywhere. Sounds a little like you boarded a light rail a few years, and the ride was fun so you didn't get off. Maybe something very grounding (but still stimulating) would add some balance. (Also, please don't take astrology literally, unless you really want to)
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:13 PM on February 28, 2021


Addendum: I might try suspending the 'sapio' label awhile. Most people are intelligent, the quality is not necessarily limited to specific social circles- but it does express itself in many different ways, not always immediately apparent or lauded by conventional society.
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:23 PM on February 28, 2021 [12 favorites]


I could have asked this question. I am a bit older than you, but have epically terrible taste in partners and identified the issue (for me, may not be for you). When someone is interested/attracted to me and it's 100% clear, I drop any standards and respond (to the point of marrying unfortunately).

Every dubious man I have dated in my life has had at least 10 huge red flags. After the breakup, my mind is clear and I see it, but in the lust/love haze, I'm a complete idiot.

I don't know if there is an easy fix, and I will say that being a sexy strong single lady that can take care of herself and does not need anything is great. Having no man is 100x better than being with the wrong man.

But if you want a partner, maybe find a trusted friend and take their advice when they meet your new person?
posted by elvissa at 1:59 PM on February 28, 2021 [6 favorites]


There are brilliant people who are also great household-companion material (HCM). I'm married to one and in the time since I married him, I've met others. One problem is that during a relationship with an Unsuitable, you're not considering whatever HCMs that may cross your path, seriously limiting the odds of finding your mate. if you really want to find the right guy, you need to follow this rule: You must immediately stop seeing anyone as soon as you discover that he's not HCM, no matter how fascinating and/or sexy he may be. I know that's a lot easier said than done; when I was single I put off breaking up with 3 different Unsuitables.

Also, is it possible you're ruling out potential mates by rejecting ones who aren't conventionally attractive? And if so,
do you think you could broaden your standards?
posted by wryly at 2:00 PM on February 28, 2021 [6 favorites]


Part of what makes observational humor funny is that it's true, and I think you've pretty succinctly articulated the eternal challenge of finding a partner that ticks a diverse number of boxes: it makes for a very, very mixed bag in the results.

Lots of people who can't or won't "conform" - sometimes because their brains and/or bodies just don't work in ways that fit the system - are very interesting, either because the interestingness came first or the non-conformity gave them the time/experiences to get that way. But only a small percentage can turn that into capitalist-grade self-sufficiency, which leaves some of the rest terribly vulnerable, and then there's the ones who are looking to find someone to take care of them and maybe not doing so completely guilelessly.

There are also lots of self-sufficient adults who are very interesting, except that part of them has to live in a modest cage with infrequent furloughs. You have to work harder to see that part, and to be fair they also have to have the emotional intelligence to connect on that level, which men have not been historically encouraged to do in any way. So, getting a rounded individual is also somewhat difficult from a numbers standpoint there too.

But in any case, "attraction" is just a feeling. It's just brain chemicals. You still have choices from there. A judge isn't sentencing you to continue to engage with these men after the first red flag or two, and with a little bit of practice in that department you might very well find that the attraction does in fact fade very quickly once you remove the dopamine hit of their attention, which is often intense and chaotic so you're experiencing variable reward to keep you coming back.

You'd be better off walking away early enough that these guys aren't "dating" or "romantic" history, they're just guys you talked to briefly, slept with a few times (if you can do that without getting too attached) or knew around your social circle. You are the only person who can answer most of your questions here, because you're the one making the choices.

To me it sounds like it must have been fun, but was also time you could have spent looking for someone who better rises to the goals you have for yourself. It may be worth trying to answer for yourself why you did what you did. There may very well be times that you had other things going on and did not want to be distracted by a viable relationship, but it seems like you are dissatisfied with that at this point, and I think you have to know for sure what the past choices were about before you can do anything in a deliberately different way.

It is worth digging into the "sapiosexual" term and why you use it as well, because when men use it they mean "extremely hot first of all, but also smart enough to take care of my life so I can just be brilliant, while taking care to never outshine me in any way", and it kinda feels like you might have been exposed to that idea as a good workable dynamic? It's pretty fraught, if you're the life-runner. It's a tough gig. I would be wary of men who use it, if that's something you're hearing.
posted by Lyn Never at 2:03 PM on February 28, 2021 [16 favorites]


Kindly break things off with people you don't want to have a long-term relationship with, as soon as you know. Nobody's going to change just because you want them to, and trying to make someone change for you is a recipe for both of you to be extra-miserable for a while (I have some experience in this vein on both sides. Not fun.). Don't stay in relationships with people who have some redeeming qualities if they don't have all the qualities you value in a household partner, even if they're fun/sexy/smart/have qualities you are attracted to short-term. It's better to be single than unhappy.
posted by Alterscape at 2:32 PM on February 28, 2021 [4 favorites]


I would like to understand why I have attractions to such unsuitable partners.

It's essentially a numbers game. Attractive men who don't come bundled with dealbreaking personality flaws are a minority to begin with, and as the pool of candidates you find yourself attracted to ages along with you, the good 'uns progressively get removed from it by partnering up with other people.

The other half of it is that attraction is to a large extent habitual. People tend to respond immediately positively to those who share qualities we've responded to immediately positively in the past, regardless of the extent to which that response is based on anything even remotely sustainable.

The way to counter this is to make a deliberate shift in the candidate pool. Make a list of the qualities you currently find attractive in other people. Now make another list of the qualities you appreciate in other people. I'm tipping you'll find that there are quite a lot of qualities in the first list that are all about sales and marketing: things people do to get your attention. If that's the case, you can retrain your habit of allowing your attention to be got by wielding it, consciously and deliberately, yourself.

The problem is, if I'm not remotely attracted to those people, it's unlikely a relationship will develop.

This is the nub of the difficulty. But the thing to understand is how that works. The reason a relationship is unlikely to develop with people we're not attracted to is pretty much purely because they don't capture our attention for long enough that appreciation gets a chance to kick in.

Being susceptible to sparks is not the only way to get a roaring fire going. Deliberately blowing on embers works too.
posted by flabdablet at 2:32 PM on February 28, 2021 [13 favorites]


(if it helps, sapiens sapiens, the nomenclature of awareness literally applies to all of us. All inclusive free pass!)
posted by firstdaffodils at 3:20 PM on February 28, 2021


There is a theory that, in childhood, we form an idealized model of a caregiver, someone we look to for love and nurturing. Unfortunately, in real life the caregiver, usually a parent, has some negative qualities and these qualities become bound up in the model of the caregiver. As adults, we subconsciously seek this idealized caregiver and it's the negative qualities of the people we meet that make them attractive. So the children of abusers are drawn to abusive partners, etc. Something to reflect on.
posted by SPrintF at 3:41 PM on February 28, 2021


One of my future requirements will be, if I have some kind of crisis and can't function for some period of time, does this person have the skills to function for both of us on a temporary basis.

Oh yeah, this. My last ex was a good person, but he's also ah, kind of a scrub (was still living with parents, couldn't hold down a job for very long, hated all his jobs, hated schooling). I eventually figured out that I was going to have to be Money Nanny and take care of literally everything and support us both if this relationship lasted. Which, well, I know some guys who have that relationship with their wives where the wife does all the money work, but at least they could hold down jobs. I strongly suspected that if I was in a coma, my ex would blow all of our money within 12 hours. Also I am just a lameass clerical worker, I can't support two on that money and I could never count on his income. If I'm in a coma, I hope to god any future guy I'm with could at least take care of himself.

The question seems to be to be less "why are you attracted to them?" (because the answer is that each has good features that you are attracted to), and more "why are you not letting huge, obvious red flags kill your attraction?"

Well, you can certainly be attracted to their good points--they just aren't able to maintain a long term partnership. Optimally, you demote these guys to Just Friends status.

I am pretty sure there have to be intellectually interesting dudes out there who can also maintain jobs for the long term. Weird and interesting does not always have to equate to brokeass and needing a money nanny at the same time.

Attractive men who don't come bundled with dealbreaking personality flaws are a minority to begin with, and as the pool of candidates you find yourself attracted to ages along with you, the good 'uns progressively get removed from it by partnering up with other people.

Right. Guys who can commit aren't in the pool for very long, whereas guys like this are always going back into the pool. If you actually find a good one, GRAB HIM FAST, basically. But seriously, asking on the first date about their job history is probably a good idea. (It took me awhile with my last ex because we were both starting new jobs at the same time, I didn't know what his history was.) If a dude has an iffy working life, you can rule him out fast before you get attached.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:46 PM on February 28, 2021 [1 favorite]


I'm not saying this is for sure true, but read it and see how it resonates:

"I am attracted to men who don't meet my needs as a partner due to my deep-seated fear of true intimacy because I don't feel worthy of love / lack self confidence / have anxiety about being fully seen with all my flaws included."
posted by ananci at 8:29 PM on February 28, 2021 [3 favorites]


In some ways, I think I am perhaps quite similar to you and feel as if I am just coming out of this tendency (except for the lizard guy, who would have made me run a mile!) after what seems like far too many years of analysis, therapy and painful self-reflection. In my case, although I wanted to share a life with my romantic partner, I think some of the trouble and confusion came from assuming, or feeling pressured to believe, that in my 30s I had to pursue relationships that fit the normative traditional hetero model of cohabitation, shared households, shared finances and goals of equity/equality in household and economic contributions. Later, I discovered that other things were as, if not more important to me, than this framework and the factors (and selection of people) who would support it. I'm not suggesting that it is any way wrong or unreasonable *to* want some, many or even all of these things, just that once I let go of the pressure to conform to and thus receive acceptance and validation for pursuing and gaining these aspects of a relationship, it was much easier for me to discover what I did and do need and want from a relationship.

These, in my case include: shared values that are embodied and expressed through action and choices, including high standards of personal integrity, a relationship where there is playfulness, joy and silliness, even whimsy, a partner with whom I can engage with in powerful, meaningful, energizing, authentic and open-minded/open-hearted conversation, a partner who themselves has a strong investment in a personal and political worldview and the tensions and implications of challenges to that in real, lived experience, and who actually tries to live by these beliefs, a joint passion for intellectual, political and interpersonal curiosity, learning and creative expression, where each person can contribute and feed into and respond to the views and activities of the other, deep and wide-ranging intimacy, particularly the ability to be emotionally present and engaged with one another and sensitive and attuned to one another's emotions, the capacity to comfortably and genuinely have difficult conversations about emotions and the relationship itself in which each person feels cared for and heard, a person who is reliable, trustworthy and forthcoming and who wants a relationship that is fundamentally a partnership and a respite or refuge from the harder parts of life, in which I feel my needs and my own identity are valued, cared about, recognised and held in mind by my partner and that this is reciprocated.

One reason I outlined my idea of a relationship in such detail above, is that I think some people really underestimate how rare it is to find a person who can engage you in the kind of intellectual exchange that you are seeking (which as omnomnom expresses above is not just about an intelligent person but someone who is drawn to conceptual thinking, extensive talking about and interest in complex ideas and in figuring things out, or at least wanting to, at a fairly abstract, systematic and philosophical or moral level), I think that while many people are clever and creative, you may well be drawn (as I am) to a particular style of deep, expressive and even literary/philosophical conversation that is much more rare. So I think it can be find to find someone who shares this desire and quality, let alone someone who can both do that and also offer stability, kindness, competence at daily life and the like. In my case, the over-privileging of this particular part of who I was attracted to, the over-valuing it in the sense that I accidentally treated it as if it were enough on its own, led to dating versions of the socialist -type you mentioned above and confusion about either why things weren't working when that spark was clearly present, or a total and abject neglect and ignoring of any of the other factors that were just as important for me (but which I did not really understand, partly because I hadn't identified them clearly to myself, but also because I had limited experience of them in romantic relationships with men and so had trouble seeing signs of their presence or absence, even though I myself and many of my women, and to a lesser extent, male friends possessed these qualities and capacities).

I wonder if trying to explore and investigate what you really value in a relationship in a less abstract, cerebral way that looks at the bread and butter of how you enjoy spending time with someone and what makes you feel both safe/nourished and expanded/open could help?

Even though you may want to, I don't think this sort of issue is one you can think yourself out of (although you'll surely be tempted and try, I was/did!) I think the answer is to pay closer attention to how you feel when you are exploring the relationship with a new person and to use that to track if it's a good matching heading in a decent direction. That is probably the biggest gift that therapy gave me--the ability, inclination and tools to pay much greater attention to my own feelings and to use them as a guide and not immediately subsume them into intellectual, supposedly or at least wishfully 'rational', 'fair' analysis through thought.

This may or may not resonate with you, but one barrier or misunderstanding that held me back was to focus way too much on what someone said over what they did. This meant I often believed I was dating someone with similar values because they could articulate their political beliefs in the abstract, and these aligned with mine, but with any close examination of how this actually was carried out (or not) in practise, in daily life, in choices, in ways of treating others at the individual as well as the collective level, would have shown me either that the man involved was not adhering to deeply held values (but just espousing a fairly shallow or entirely abstract/intellectual set of political beliefs or principles) or that his and my values were quite different and that the way we tried to be accountable to our politics and intellectual interests and what they meant for how they translated into action meant were were incompatible at a really fundamental level.

The more I paid attention to what was actually happening, what he and I were doing, and how I was feeling, the easier and easier it was to discern whether there was real compatibility and whether there was genuine possibility for a relationship built on shared values.

I got nowhere trying to shift or rid myself of the love of an intellectual spark/dynamic/shared conversation, and I don't think you should feel this is something you need to give up or bargain away if it really matters to you, either. But when I started to ask myself, what else I wanted and needed, I found it much easier to make better selections of partner. In my case, this came along with recognizing that I was repeating patterns from childhood of seeking out men who were unavailable emotionally, avoidant, closed down or shut off, rigid, selfish or frightened by shared intimacy at the same time they wanted all the kindnesses of intimacy, such as compassion, validation, empathy and warmth, directed their way. The hard thing for me, and I'm not sure if it is true in your case, was not so much recognising this dynamic but learning to act in ways that showed I believed I deserved and could have the intimacy and connection I truly wanted as on some level I was afraid of asking for and needing and truly seeking this.

So perhaps you could consider the possibility that you might be mistaking intellect for depth and political affiliations for values and even over-valuing intellectual connection to the exclusion of all other things both in your partners and in yourself? Therapy helped me see that I had over-relied on my mind and thinking, and even ethics themselves, to help me cope and that I needed to make space and room for the other parts of myself to be voiced and heard and to lead me. What is special and powerful in you, aside from intellect and politics and conversation, that you bring to a relationship? Can the person you date meet you there or at least want to try to?

On the more practical side of things, I found that once I was more present with my own feelings and confident in feeling okay having and expressing my own needs, especially emotional and practical ones, that sorted the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly but also took some of the agony out of trying to gauge if the person I was seeing would be a good long-term partner in a committed, serious, planning for the future way. Not because I necessarily chose people who were terribly financially stable or organized or great at cooking/cleaning or whatever, but because I chose people who were committed to me and to a set of shared values, including fairness, kindness and authenticity, and so they were invested in working things out practically with me, as best they could, for as long as they could and they were also showing me, again in the everyday, here and now, that they would have enough integrity not to be deceptive or obstructive or dishonest if it turned out we reached a point where our shared commitment and values just wasn't enough to make conflicting and mutually exclusive long term goals between us actually work.

Obviously, you should feel free to rule out anyone whose lifestyle obviously precludes them from suiting your goals or who is a million miles from you in what they want in future, but my journey has been that the best judge, for me, about whether someone can offer what I need in the long-term future is to assess how willing and active they are in talking through any problems in the relationship, how flexible and fair they are in negotiating differences and making compromises, how much investment and care they put into hearing about, and nourishing/cherishing my own feelings, needs and preferences, and how capable they've shown themselves of making a strong intimate connection in the here and now and living up to their own passions and values in their own life as best they could (being only human, of course!)

I've gone on for much too long here so I'll just offer up a few final thoughts. One is that it took me an embarrassingly long time to realise that one aspect of intellectual exchange's importance to me is how it offers up new ways of thinking and being to me, and so flexibility and willingness to change are actually hugely important to me. Identifying this definitely helped me screen out some of the more rigid or proscriptive people in left wing politics to whom I'd otherwise likely be intensely drawn. Therapy also helped me realize that authenticity and openness, along with a genuine capacity and desire for intimacy, were also really crucial to my being happy. Once I could see this, the intellectual component of my attraction became less stand-alone and more rooted in a range of in-depth ways of relating that mattered to me.

It was a shock (to me!) to finally learn/accept that there are a large number of highly intellectual and super cerebral men, even with apparently far left politics, for whom that investment or orientation remains largely theoretical, abstract and disconnected from a kind of ordinary kindness, or any embodied decent habits in daily life, especially in terms of how they treat women. So I don't think it's necessarily your fault at all that you've encountered so many of them. (You could have been describing many of my ex-boyfriends, with a few tweaks). Such men can be absolutely socialized into and often rewarded for, privileging their intellect and intellectual or political work over everything else, which frankly often leads to a real solipsistic, self-centredness and a lack of care for the needs of others, especially female others. That's not the way such interests or qualities have played out in myself, at all, instead they led to an almost anxious preoccupation with ethics and our duties to others/the collective, so it took me ages to see what was probably very obvious and right in front of my face the whole time. In addition to this, if you are fairly unconventional yourself, or non-conformist, or critically-minded, some men seem prone to mistake this for a libertarian permissiveness in all areas, which can lead to projection or misunderstanding. There's not much you can do about this, except correct it if it emerges, but I mention it only so you aren't dismayed or think you are 'doing it wrong' if you do find men who seem compatible but then make inaccurate assumptions about your values or lifestyle (e.g. that you don't want commitment or marriage or kids, or you will want a super unconventional sex life or multiple partners or what have you, I guess there are any number of possible examples). Some of this is on the men you meet and not you.

I fell in love with my current partner because he is the most physically expressive person I have ever met, he's totally unselfconscious about feeling and sharing his emotions, laughter and tears in a natural and spontaneous way with me, he talks about and shows how much he values intimacy, tenderness and connection, he takes care of me in hundreds of little ways without being asked, like feeding my pets, running errands for me, reminding me to do things I forget, making absurd jokes and telling me silly little stories to keep me amused, and the first time I was upset about something, he carefully asked if he'd said something hurtful and encouraged me to speak up so there was no wall opening up between us, which he could feel happening. Sure, we do spend hours and hours and hours talking about culture and music and words and ideas and ethics, but it's not all there is.

Sorry for the novel --I do hope this helps and that you know, at the very least, you're not alone with this struggle.
posted by The Rehearsal at 10:54 PM on February 28, 2021 [17 favorites]


I'm in a position in my 30s where I have no desire or plan to cohabitate with anyone. This makes a lot of 'unsuitable' people far more suitable for my needs. I also am attracted to what could probably be termed intelligence but I firmly reject the whole idea of sapiosexual. My current crushes/paramours are a call centre bisexual man with a Master's in Classic lit, an unemployed bisexual man living with his mother with an engineering degree, an underemployed academic poet lady with a service dog who is likely going to have to move back in with her mother, and an underemployed career change bisexual man. What all of them have in common is extreme competency in their specific areas (often nerdy or creative areas), significant experience with mental illness in some way, and being non-neurotypical. All of which make a long term 'normal' relationship a problem (beyond some of them being polyam in relationships).

But who I am right now, and what I want? They are all superb. I adore them. They like me. None of them have met my kid, although one might do so soonish, because I know what I want from a relationship is non-normative even without the polyam element.

Buy one thing I have had to confront and it's mostly from peers not internally, is the idea that I am more intelligent or capable. Afterall I have the qualifications to prove it and so on. It can make a relationship unbalanced, that idea of the female counterpart in a hetero pairing being "more down to earth" or having more common sense. And it's exacerbated when the intellectual quality of the man is hyperspecific. Sure it feels good to be more obviously and usefully competent than the intellectual who can't do laundry, but it's unbalanced in an unhealthy way. And all of those relationships seem to have an element of that at play.

Having deeply emotional bonds with a man that aren't sexual is also normal. I love my best friend dearly, he is a wonderful human with a wonderful brain. Neither of us would try force a romantic relationship just because we are into each other's brains, even if society pushes that.
posted by geek anachronism at 9:04 PM on March 1, 2021


Are you rebelling against a perceived stereotype of what you should be attracted to? It doesnt make you unproductive to look for more intellectual compatibility but maybe you've lost the whole picture. If you look for education and breeding first and relationship goals in common last just try to start with the goals first.
posted by The_imp_inimpossible at 2:00 AM on March 2, 2021


Y'know, in a way, I could see this as a stand-up comedy routine (IANA stand up comedian by any means), but you would have to write it. If anyone else tried to do it, they'd be making fun of you, and I think that's what you're afraid of. There's a joke routine in there somewhere about how you want (??? I'll get to this in a minute) a partner who contributes to the household monetarily and does housework. And here you're attracted to these physically hot men who have brilliant (except for lizard guy) minds whose mothers do their laundry (boy is that a trope - for men), or don't believe in getting jobs, who don't shower and who aren't emotionally available. Maybe try writing a stand-up comedy routine about your dating experiences and see where that takes you.

I'm going to describe the people I've been with and none of this is meant to offend anyone, but these people are not ready for serious relationships. I'm not really open to the idea that I'm "discriminating against men," that i have "internalized misogyny," or any other number of dubious internet hot takes

I'm wondering why you think this would offend anyone, and specifically who. I can absolutely see some types of men taking offense to this (nice guys/MRAs/red pill types), but we're not going to go down those rabbit holes. Anyway, my internet hot take is that this "the purpose of a relationship once you get to your mid 30s is to find someone you are compatible to live with" feels to me like compulsory heterosexuality or some other flavour of compulsory-something, like you must have a partner and you must live with him. It's fine if you want that, but you don't actually say that. So I'm wondering if it's something you feel you must do?

I'm also open to the idea that the idea of "unsuitable partners" is really just a stereotypical construct and that these are actually people I could work with, if I let go of conventional rules for relationships.

It sounds like you're asking us for permission to keep working with these types of guys. What does "working with" look like to you? What conventional rules of relationships are you talking about?

Basically it comes down to what do you want and why, and having good boundaries. Figure out what you want. Make a list about what you want in a partner, and put everything you want on it, no matter how silly/unreasonable you think it is. Identify the must haves and nice to haves. Is inability to do laundry, being a conspiracy theorist, having philosophies that prevent getting employment ok with you if he has a nice smile, hot body, and fascinating mind? Also think about what type of relationship you want. You don't have to have a domestic partnership to be happy or to prove your self-worth to anyone or society.

If all you want is to have sex with hot men with brilliant minds but who can't take care of themselves, why not do that? Just never live with them, mix finances or have kids with them.
posted by foxjacket at 7:20 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]


I want to amend my comment from a few days ago to add, whatever your relationship with someone - friend, fuck buddy, casually dating, committed relationship, cohabitating, etc - if they are not kind to you, they do not deserve your time. People can be kind with words and they can be kind with actions, both are important. I wonder if your girl friends are responding to the lack of kindness from the men in your life, more than any other trait?
posted by muddgirl at 9:58 AM on March 2, 2021 [3 favorites]


Having standards for your partner is not a boundary violation. I may not expect my partner to be neurotypical for example - I have a great fondness for folk with ADHD for example - but I am aware of the gendered ways that often plays out. I am not here to be a mommy figure, even if I am an organised type A kind of woman. So what I expect from a partner is still support, still a nurturing and positive presence in my life. Someone who does take care of themselves, and can let me take care of them and will take care of me, without that becoming deeply unfair and exploitative.

I don't need a man to live with me or buy me things or whatever. I know I can do all of that myself. I want a man similarly secure in himself, who can do that, and chooses to be with me without the pressure of "if I'm not here he will devolve into filth".

Compulsory heterosexuality and the relationship escalator are societal ideals that pressure you into accepting boundary violations while not being able to have expectations of men or being derided for them. Showering is not an unfair expectation to have. Being able to run a household is not an unfair expectation* to have. Being single rather than accepting unwashed and unhelpful partners is not unfair.

*I say this with the long history of ADHD partners - their standards and processes are different to mine but as partners we can work together to not live in a hovel. And part of that is engagement from the ADHD person in working out their coping strategies.
posted by geek anachronism at 8:23 PM on March 3, 2021 [3 favorites]


« Older Internet Losing Connection   |   Webcomic that isn't Order of the Stick. Is it? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.