How To Fall In Love With Mr. Good Enough
The Mr. Right you want to date might not be the one you need long-term. Lori Gottlieb explains.
And that was the problem. How did I know if I was being too picky or if the guy just wasn't right for me? When I asked a dating coach this question, he told me that instead of focusing on my "wants" (my wish list), I should focus on my "needs" (my bottom line) and then see if some of the wants were there. When "He's Not My Type" Ends Up Being "The One"
I told the dating coach about two guys I'd just met online. One was a very attractive divorced dad with two little kids, who was kind and family-oriented, but the more time we spent together, the more we struggled to keep the conversation going. I'm an intellectual who's into books and witty banter, and he was a laid-back non-reader with a penchant for the Grateful Dead. Then I met a lawyer with the clever humor of Jon Stewart, but he turned out to be emotionally questionable. Discover The Psychology Of Attraction
"I don't think it's unreasonable to want intellectual stimulation and a devoted dad," I told the dating coach. "I have friends who have husbands like that. It's not impossible to find."
"It's not," he agreed. "And if those two things are absolute needs, then you should look for that. But then you can't go around nixing guys who are devoted dads and intellectually stimulating because they wear pink bow ties. You can't have everything."
He was talking about a third guy I'd seen online. This guy seemed smart and interesting, and he was an involved parent, but he wore a pink bow tie in his photo, he was short, and he was nearly bald. Not my type. So the dating coach told me to make a list of "needs"—as opposed to my "wants"—and I came up with fourteen things. But here's the catch: I was allowed to have only three.
I was surprised. Only three?
"The difference between 'needs' and 'wants' is crucial," he explained. "If you have fourteen 'needs,' it means that if a guy has thirteen of the fourteen qualities, he's gone! And even if he's most of these things, you have to remember that a lot of good qualities flip over and become bad qualities. Someone highly intelligent and analytical can also be opinionated and a know-it-all. Someone easy-going may have no opinions or be lazy."
He told me about a client of his who'd had her heart broken by a charming, but commitment-phobic man. When she was ready to date again, she went online and sifted through her responses. She was excited about one guy who reminded her of her ex. They went out on a date, he said he'd call, and he didn't. The Six Archetypes of Love
But another guy did. "In her view, he wasn't the most compelling candidate in the bunch," he said, "but he just kept asking her out. Every time my client would go on a date with him, she would have fun. And then she'd complain to me that he wasn't what she was looking for."
With apologies to the author, I meant "Lori" not "Lisa". It must be getting late. :)
Chrissy - You have valid points about attraction. However, I'm certain the author isn't saying to go for someone who makes you cringe. The point is don't write a guy off because his picture doesn't make your heart go pitter-patter.
This article is about finding -that- guy. That guy who's kinda got some imperfections, but he's so darn nice. And somehow, once you got to talking with him, you lost track of time. Wait, what was that? He actually listened close enough to what you said that he remembered you like black licorice. And brought you some. And yanno, even though maybe he's not a model, but you can't stop smiling when you think of his face.
Long winded, but the point is - love is a connection. A connection that won't develop unless you give it a chance - and don't write off that nice guy because of something that realistically doesn't matter. (The nice guy with a bald spot, the nice guy with a quirky enjoyment of collecting plants. Not the 'nice guy' who insists your place is barefoot cooking for him, or insert other red flag here.)
I'm a little biased, I'll admit. I credit Lisa with my marriage, as silly as that sounds. I was dating a wonderful man, but for some reason I just wasn't -in love- with him. It wasn't anything specific about him. I read an excerpt from her book, and it was exactly what I needed to hear. Whatever it was, it knocked down that l wall in my own head and let my heart start leading a little more. I'm madly in love with him now and it's just getting deeper everyday. Perfection has this way of being exactly what you never thought it would be.
I have some issues with this. I understand that we should differentiate from our wants and needs, but if I find a Mr. Bowtie but I am not attracted to him then even if he has my wants, our relationship will never work . There is something to be said about physical attraction too. I will have to limit my wants, but he still has to make me want to see him naked and not wince or cringe when he kisses me.
I'd agree, the title is a touch off-putting, but I do agree with the idea of re-evaluating what you really need in a relationship. It may not look like what you initially thought of as your ideal mate, but we all gotta grow up sometime. I kinda look at it like this: As a kid, I couldn't wait to grow up because then I could go and buy a tub of whip cream and eat it all up with a spoon while watching my 'toons. The idea is still enticing, but as an adult I know there will be the stomache ache, the bloated feeling, and the immediate need to brush my teeth after I've eaten it so my teeth don't completely rot away...all of the baggage takes away from the selfish joy of the act.
Same thing in dating. Either you learn to recognize where there is going to be baggage that you don't really want to deal with because you want to indulge in your wants, or you redefine what you really want that fulfills your needs.
I still kinda want that bowl of whipped cream though...
Despite the good points in the post, the title still bothers me. If my husband said that he'd "settled" for me or that I was "Ms. Good Enough," I'd probably cry for days. It's a pretty dismal way to look at love and I wonder how Gottlieb's boyfriend feels about it all. I even wonder what her friends think about her comment that they are in happy marriages with men who wouldn't knock your socks off. Most people feel that their honey knocks their socks off.
I have to agree with Lyz. I had originally been put off by the titles of both this post and Lori's book, but I now see that she was being purposefully provocative. This post had a lot of wisdom to offer.
Still, on the flip side, I once reviewed a book that was all about drawing up lists in order to find mr. right, and the points made throughout were equally valid. Because, oftentimes, people will repeatedly pursue someone who's bad for them just because they're experiencing that butterflies-in-the-stomach feeling. Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that this person lacks the qualities they require in a long-term partner.
I love this piece because there are so many smart points that you don't normally hear. My three favorite:
1. Lists are also confusing because they're about qualities a man has independently—they don't account for the qualities he'll have inside a relationship.
2. A lot of good qualities flip over and become bad qualities.
3. What you want isn't necessarily good for you, and in going after the person you think you want, you ignore what you really need.
BookMama, I agree that attraction is important. I wonder if that would count as one of the three, or if it's a baseline quality that _everyone_ needs? Wonder what Lori would say...
One of the points I liked in the piece we did on sexless marriage was that some couples function fine with little or no sex, and it's not necessarily unhealthy. But I do think that most people need sex in their lives. Here's the sexless marriage piece I'm talking about: http://yourtango.com/200929024/how-diagnose-and-fix-sexless-marriage
Awesome question, Sarah, about attraction. I think it has to exist outside of the three. Especially for dudes. Can't start a fire without a spark.
And it's not just visual attraction either. If you don't like someone's voice or smell or taste or texture, it's a little tough to make it to the getting to know you bit, getting to love you bit.
Guys are just lucky that we can be ugly and sexy.
I love the mixture of pragmatism and hope in this article. "Settling" has become such a loaded word and concept in our culture that "good enough" seems like a slap in the face. Collectively, we need to burst a few fantasy bubbles and stop letting perfection be the enemy of the really good and nice.
My question is, is wanting children and/ or getting married one of the things that's just assumed and doesn't count as part of the three?
I really don't think its a matter of "settling" or "good enough"--I think those words are just used to be provocative. Instead, I think its a matter of giving other people a chance. Of being realistic about who you are and what your hangups are.
People who get into self destructive dating styles (e.g. dating dudes who are bad to them) aren't being self aware about their needs v. wants and their motivations for dating that person. I think you have to be self aware and know when you are being shallow and when you are honestly responding to some trait in someones character.
I used to think I wanted to marry someone who loved books just as much as I do. When I met my DH, he barely read any books much less novels. And now I appreciate that we have different interests. But that was on my "list" and when I really thought about it, it was just a selfish desire. But I don't think marrying him was settling or that he is mr. good enough. I just gave him a chance and learned that my needs could be met in ways that my pathetic list couldn't imagine.
Gottlieb's list includes valuing family as one of her three needs. So I guess you can't just assume it.
My list is getting longer - intelligence, shared values, integrity, wanted marriage and kids someday, loyalty, attraction, and being interesting. It's really hard to limit your needs to just 3.
My list of three: intelligence, interestingness, and integrity. Now I think I would add loyalty.
I guess along with integrity, there have to be shared values. A guy who sticks to his values but has completely different values from you would be a problem.
I also think you can never leave out attraction. You can't just go by the first photo, but at some point, if you're not attracted to them, I don't think it can work.
