Is this ' too picky'

[brentonstripeandredlipstick]

My friend has told me I'm too picky. I've been single for a very long time and she blames me, too picky apparently.

I have also dated a lot, when I started dating I didn't really have a list of things I'd like or that are important but it's grown over time.

so, he needs to : not live with his parents or in a house share.
drive
have a job
be a functioning adult
not spend all his time and money in the pub
no drugs
be able to cook
has lived a life, ie not just stayed in his own county all his life
not be a fan of reality TV crsp or the sun newspaper
be kind
be funny
be interesting
not to spend all his time on xbox etc

that's basically it. Obviously there are things like not being a criminal and spending time / providing for his children if he has any etc...

I don't think it's a long or stupid list but my friend seems to think I'm asking too much.

If a man can't cook or drive by the age of 36 it's highly unlikely he will ever get off his arse to learn.

All men are 'real' men, but some are competent than others.

^more competent

Hmm Business's posts are a good example of what not to look for in a man – someone who sees dating and women as being all about how well he can do for himself and whether he's displaying a trophy appropriate to his self-perceived status. That's no basis for a lasting relationship. You want a man who you click with, who clicks with you and who you can basically respect (because, for example, he's able to look after himself, not on drugs or constantly on x-box/looking at porn, which are reasonable expectations).

It doesn't matter what age you are or how many children you have - the right man will like you and you will like him.

While a 36 year old or older man with a decent job and good looking (although the OP said "job" not over a certain wage braket) might be able to get together with a 20 year old, what makes you so sure a man wants to date a woman in a completely different life stage than him?

By late 30s/early 40s, most men know if they want DCs or not. If they want them, then they don't want to be dating a 20 year old who's still building her career and won't want to think about DCs for another 10 years, at which point the man would be late 40s to start a family and looking at having dependent teenagers when his friends will be winding down towards retirement. Or he doesn't want DCs, in which case dating an early 20s woman is a risk, many don't want DCs right now, but will change their minds in 5-10 years. Better a woman who's already done that, or got to the stage where she knows one way or another if she wants them.

Most of the well paid single 40somethings I know date woman in their 30s.

Sorry by "real" man I mean a grown-up man with an adult attitude, in contrast to a man-child. I realise all men are actually men, but some are not grown-up IYSWIM. (And some women't aren't either, but that seems less common)

I agree the cooking could be a bit of a worry but what I would want to see is that the man can look after himself and take responsibility for himself. If he chooses to live on ready meals and sandwiches because he doesn't like cooking or never learned, I'd be OK with that as long as he wasn't being babyish and dependent (e.g. having his mum bring his meals round). I would encourage him to learn though and if I was in a relationship with a man like that I wouldn't start doing it for him all the time.

I disagree with all the comments about learning to cook. Brenton says she's a foodie. People who care about food and have reached their mid-late thirties either cook high-standard fare or expect someone else to provide it.

It's miserable being a foodie in a relationship where you have to shut yourself in the kitchen to get meals you enjoy.

I'm sorry I don't have any patience with someone who lives on sandwiches and ready meals. I accept this may be a personal thing but cooking is very easy and a basic requirement of adult life. I'm not talking about being Jamie Oliver, I don't think the OP is either.

All the guys I know who left home not knowing how to cook - learnt in their 20s.

I suppose what I'm saying is it might not be wise to make things like that into central "requirements". Yes, I'd prefer a man who could cook. But if I met someone and there was major chemistry and it was going really well, I wouldn't call it all off for a reason like that. It's possible that a non-cooker could meet a foodie and it would open up a whole new world for the non-cooker. Sometimes it isn't best to only look for someone with exactly the same interests as you. As PPs have said there might be boxes you don't even know about. Mr non-cooker might spark a passion for something new in you too.

Of course not being able to cook might indicate a man-child but my point is you need to be on guard for man-child qualities anyway. It should be more about the basic attitude, than the specifics.

Harking back a bit, to when AuntieDee said yesterday that several ex-smokers started smoking again while dating her: my first thought was that some of them may not have given up at all, they just realise that non-smokers get far more interest than smokers, but can't keep up appearances past a few dates.

I may however be overly suspicious because XH swore for years that he had given it up, even when he came in reeking of smoke, the still-hot butt at his feet was old, the packet of cigars in the car had been there "donkey's years", and even on one memorable occasion when he was holding a still-lit one behind his back. There's lying and there's complete fantasy bollocks. If only I'd had a list when I was 23, along with the confidence to stick to it! My aunt told me not to have a list because you may miss out on Mr Right by being... yes, you've guessed it.

Meant to say, when he came in reeking I must have imagined it. "Paranoid" was one of his favourite words.

I couldn't live with someone who lived off ready meals and sandwiches either, I would hate to be the only one to ever cook. Some woman seem happy to do all the cooking (and cleaning, and laundry...) in their relationship, so probably would think the op was being over picky and not see this as a "basic", but I'd rather be alone. I can honestly say I don't respect men who can't fend for themselves, and relationships where one party doesn't respect the other are doomed to failure.

Men and women have very different priorities... ... My wife lived with her parents and had a shit PT job making $200/mo. Did I care? Nope. These things are far less important or even irrelevant to the average man.

But women have to approve things from a far more sensible standpoint - even in this day and age 90% of women are expected to give up their career for the children even if that is only working part time. When I was living in a 2 bed flat earning a lowish income dating someone on minimum wage wouldn't have been too much of an issue. Now I am living in a 4 bed farm I need someone who can pick up the slack if I can't provide financially, and that isn't someone on minimum wage still living with his parents.

Men can afford to be less picky - they get to walk away if it all goes pear shaped leaving the mother to raise the children. Purely from a security standpoint I would want a partner who could provide for his children if he left me in a situation where I couldn't

^approch things not approve things - damn iPhone!

I needed someone who could cook too. Not because I need them to cook, but because it gives and interest and appreciation in food. What's the point it going to all the effort to cook a fantastic meal if someone turns round and says 'I'd have preferred pizza'. I've been in that relationship and it was dull. Whenever we are out he insisted on Wetherspoons or somewhere equally microwaveable... He also never left his home county so ended up eating in the same dull places time and time again - he didn't 'get' the whole travelling a bit further afield to try something nee

My dh met all those criteria, and is not particularly unique, so ignore your friend and keep looking.

If I were in your position, i could get over current living arrangements if, for instance, he had spent years in education or adventuring as you have, and that means he is not currently in a position to rent or own on his own. a lot would depend on the exact situation, and how he/they were coping with it.

And I know plenty of people, including my dh, who can fit sports and/or online game playing into their life without it taking over and defining their life. So that one wouldnt be hard and fast. For me.

businesshoursareover An average income, 36 yo man with decent looks (and many times not depending on personality, income etc) can do much better than a 36 yo woman with a kid. He could easily find a childless woman in her mid-late 20's. In fact 30 is now the average age UK women now marry and have their first baby. And since men are on average 3 years older than their wives the setup is pretty close to the norm.

That depends on how good looking you are and how good a personality you have. If you have both, you can always take your pick, as a woman, no matter what age you are. Perhaps you have just never operated in that demographic. Most people are not on dating sites, with which you seem remarkably familiar, despite claiming to be happily married for the past 12 years.

simply go to any dating site (whether it's physical, financial or personality related ). My wife lived with her parents and had a shit PT job making $200/mo. Did I care? Nope. These things are far less important or even irrelevant to the average man. 12 years on and no regrets.

Indeed.

I think maybe rather than having a list, it might be better to just feel your way through the process in a more holistic manner?

Screening dates is a more organic, ongoing process than trying to work out from the go if they tick box A or box B.

This goes for men and women: It makes you look socially unskilled yourself if the first thing you ask when you meet someone is trying to work out if they are Mr or Mrs Right.

It makes defensive and like you're so paranoid about past wrongs you now feel you have to interrogate everyone who comes into your life?

But first dates are about getting to know someone, if they're an arsehole they'll show their true colours in a short period of time, then just socially screen them out? No bother. I mean three cups of coffee/drinks aren't a commitment to spend your life with someone.

In fact, if you tell every man/woman you meet "you must be X or Y" you're hinting you're not very socially adept and have had bad experiences and potentially opening yourself up to manipulation.

Hmmm, I'm a woman and I don't drive (I have photosensitive epilepsy so it's not my fault - I'd love to be able to drive).

Also I rarely cook BUT I can cook, I just currently have no reason to.

I'm single & have been accused of being picky too.

Personally this is my list:

1. Must have mutual attraction, the 'butterflies in the stomach' feeling. Without chemistry I may as well date my best mate!

2. No addictions! (Been there, dated men with addictions, never again!)

3. Must want babies.

4. Must not be racist, sexist, or homophobic.

5. Must like to try new things (new foods, adventures, new places).

It's not a long list, is it? Yet I've been told by some friends that even having chemistry is too much to ask!

I don't think you're being too picky, just trying to find someone with similar values, priorities and interests as you. It's important. Hopefully you'll meet an exact or "close enough" match soon.

A valid medical reason why you can't drive is fine, very different from not having bothered to learn...

Im back and Im being 'direct' again.

I think the OP's list has evolved from bad dates she's had rather than something she started out with.

The OP is 36 and has a child. She lives in the sticks. Maybe just 'not London' or a big city/town.

A 36 yp single mum, living in a small town, will have very limited dating choice. Sorry that's life.

I know very few eligible single men in the 35-45 age group. A lot are single for very good reasons.

I know a few -and I mean few - eligible around 40 (+/- 5 years) who have spent the last 20 years working very hard, are very solvent (some swimming in it), well travelled, extremely good socially (sorry, this is sound like a dating dream), drive (some can fly + sail). All the non-gay ones are looking to settle down with a woman.

(This is where Im in agreement with some of the recent posters - DinosaurRoar (Dinosaur squeak!) + businesshoursareover)

I have asked, pretty directly (see, OP, its not just you!) what they are looking at in a partner (not for the OP, I do have a useless sister to palm off). They all want kids/family. They all were honest and said they would think twice about a single parent. 50% said it was a total no-no. Other peoples kids are baggage; other peoples ex-H can be a pain in the arse.

They are all looking around the 30 age group too - they want kids; 35+ is pushing it on the fertility stake; men are just as aware as women about when fertility drops off. They are not chasing teenagers; they would consider 25 to be about the lowest OKage. They are also looking for for similar-ish women. They expect a woman to have started a career/held down a challenging job, acheived something - getting knocked up in your 20s by a local hill-billy is not an achievement.

Maybe the OP has, unknowingly, met someone who meets her requirements. Maybe she just did not meet theirs. Again, away from large cities, the pool of suitable men tends to be very small - FFS - every one I know moved to a bigger place before moving back to my smallish home town- leave the hill-billies to the sheep!

So hereandtherex, based on what you've put above, do you think the OP should lower her standards/expectations and have a relationship with someone she doesn't entirely click with/doesn't have anything in common with etc?

hereandtherex when you agree with a troll it's time to rethink.

It's irrelevant what a few blokes you asked said. There are divorced men around 40 who are looking for a new partner who already have kids, and there are plenty of men who take on children from previous relationships.

Furthermore what 40+ men want and what they're going to get are two completely different things.

The implication of your post is that the OP should ditch her list and date an X-Factor watching Sun-reader who lives with his mum and can't cook or drive. You can't sure have meant that?

^surely

No. I think the OP should realistic about her situation and where she lives.

Avoid the over-mothered hill-billies by all mean but expecting to find to a well-rounded (personality-wise!), solvent, available man 35+ outside if a major city is pretty hard work. The OP will have to compromise.

I'm not unsympathetic to the OP. I grew up in a rural village. The male choices there for a 35 yo single mum boils down to 'How many teeth is too few'. No, thats not a joke! Most are OK blokes - they are just not that cosmopolitan - the only veg they eat are peas. Some even admit to liking Strictly - but would never admit it to another man.