Good point. Many women make blanket statements about "what all men want" or "all men want is . . . " as though all were alike.

Religionists have been chanting that for at least 2000 years, since a preacher is claimed to have said, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

He was wrong then and the promoters have been wrong ever since.

Sure enough, people recover from injuries, accidents, diseases -- often with medical assistance.



What, exactly, do you propose that I "lose" by not idolizing or worshiping one of the "gods"?

Thank you for illustrating the thinking behind a religious viewpoint.



It is not surprising that those who want to see "miracles" -- see "miracles" even when rational alternatives are apparent to others -- then credit their prayers to a favorite supernatural entity when desirable outcomes occur (but remain silent about the "power of prayer" when results are undesirable).

If good things happen "goddidit", if not, blame the devil, or "sins", or homosexuality, or something.

Agreed. Those who prioritize such things in profile eliminate themselves from my consideration and save time.

It is NOT that I don't want kids, pets or religion in a relationship, but rather that I refuse to be REQUIRED to "love" such things in advance in order to "qualify" for friendship. Note the emphasis on "friendship" rather than coupledom.

Some children are pleasant, some pets are well-behaved, and religion can be unobtrusive BUT when a person is fanatical about any or all of those I have no interest.

For the record, I like (reserve "love" for humans) SOME dogs and have had two exceptional obedience-trained dogs over the years. Recently I told a friend "Your dog is welcome in my house any time", reflecting that he does whatever she says, displays more "sense" than most animals, and doesn't seek attention, jump or climb on people, bark needlessly, etc.

However, the vast majority of dogs I observe or encounter are untrained and poorly behaved -- often allowed to do whatever they wish -- including annoy owners and others.

A lot of children are not much better behaved than nuisance dogs. I am not gaga over infants / children and prefer adult interaction (personal preference -- taught college rather than kindergarten).

I do NOT accept a demand that I "love" dogs or children BEFORE I meet them.

Regarding "gods": Everyone is entitled to their opinions and preferences regarding supernaturalism. Any of the thousands of "gods" proposed, worshiped, feared, loved by humans MAY be real -- but I have encountered no verifiable information to that effect. Therefore, I do not worship or idolize any of them.

If religion is a (or the) major focus of a woman's life we can be friends but not likely very close.

Good point.

An intelligent woman may require that a man be intelligent -- certainly enough so to realize that the quote is irrational.

The males that "scholarly" women reject are looking for excuses.



Probably true, but misogynists exist in every society -- insecure males who attempt to bolster themselves by demeaning women.

Your fiance's recovery from a back problem MUST be due to intervention by a supernatural entity answering your prayer?

There can be no other explanation -- including the human body's ability to heal?

Perhaps, "When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail" (i.e., when one only knows or accepts one explanation they tend to overlook or dismiss alternatives).

I agree -- it is dead wrong for either gender.

That quote from Friedrich Nietzsche serves the interests of misogynists who seek "justification" for their bigotry.

When a person says "accept me as I am", red flags wave brightly for me. Saying that suggests they have experienced not being accepted for what they are -- perhaps for darn good reason. Yes, we should accept (or reject) a person as they are (not who we idealize or wish they were or imagine them to be). However, when someone LEADS with that request they may be indicating more about themselves than they realize.

Regarding the past: We are all, to some extent, the product of our past -- good, bad or indifferent. When one's past leaves a lot to be desired they seem to want that concealed or down-played. When their past is desirable and accomplished they often want that recognized (sometimes to excess).

Sybariticguy wisely points out that "Prince" and "Princess" are FANTASIES.

Does that "wisdom" apply to males as well?

I have no comment about anyone "loving" kids and dogs -- provided that they do not REQUIRE that I participate. However, when those are identified as priorities, it suggests to me that a woman may have limited her interests and conversations (though she might have once been interesting).



When a person refuses to be friends with those who do not share their religious opinions and preferences (or belief in their favorite "god"), it suggests to me that they are disrespectful of the opinions or beliefs of others, that they are insecure in their own beliefs and do not want them questioned, and/or they feel that their opinions and beliefs are superior to those of others. None of which are appealing to me.

Santa, Satan, Gods (thousands of them) -- same thing -- can't be shown to be anything more than human imagination, fantasy, wishful thinking.

"Liars" might apply to those who claim to be "priests" or "prophets" or to have special knowledge of invisible, undetectable supernatural entities.

One interpretation of the meaning of specifying "must love dogs, children and god" is that the person is not willing to develop friendship with anyone unless they qualify as a potential mate.

The silliest I recall is a woman who listed "pen pal" as one of her "looking for" (don't remember what else) and specified "must not smoke." What does she do -- sniff the email for tobacco odor?

Could it be that "Santa Knows" that most have just avoided getting caught in minor (or major) transgressions?

As the dollar becomes worth less and less as years go by is "In god we trust" decreased proportionately?

The OP (that would be me) was motivated to post the topic after receiving five "matches" from a site, four of which had one or more of the "must" items in profile -- while listing "friendship" as at least one of the objectives identified.

It seems rather silly to require that friends "love dogs, children and god" -- though that may be understandable if the objective is to find a mate (which could be the true agenda, rather than friendship).

Inappropriate terms of endearment are not gender specific. Some women are a bit loose with "honey", "dear", etc. I don't take offense but do notice the inappropriateness (and wonder if it applies elsewhere).

Perhaps it depends on how "maturity" (an conversely immaturity) is defined:

"In psychology, maturity is the ability to respond to the environment in an appropriate manner. This response is generally learned rather than instinctive. Maturity also encompasses being aware of the correct time and place to behave and knowing when to act, according to the circumstances and the culture of the society one lives in. Adult development and maturity theories include the purpose in life concept, in which maturity emphasizes a clear comprehension of life's purpose, directedness, and intentionality, which contributes to the feeling that life is meaningful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturity_%28psychological%29

The above indicates that a mature person knows how to act under given circumstances. Thus, one who is mature can decide when to act "playful" without being immature or childish.

There seems to be a fine line (or general confusion) in the minds of some women between "immature" and "too serious."

Perhaps not in that order? However, it might suggest that #4 on the priority list may be the highest available position.