OK, so I am killing time with my 3 month free trial at Eharmony, and I noticed an interesting trend.

About 90% of my matches are women 42-48, NMNK. I still think I'd prefer to date a parent, and someone who has been married, but I guess I am game to try NMNK.

But here is the puzzling part, hence the subject line. In answering what they can't live without, or the one thing they are most passionate about, almost all of them say.. ... "My dog". WTF? I mean I am a pet owner, but I would never say that I cannot live without them <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />.

So I ask you - is it the chicken or the egg? Do women who somehow never settle down and get married and have kids do so because they are too in love with their dog (usually male, hmm), or do they end up falling in love with their dog because they do not settle down?

BTW, this is not meant to be a fun-poking post, I am genuinely curious about this phenomenon I am observing. And no, I am not trying to be sexist, I am certain that if I got men's profiles (yuck), I'd probably notice some weird trend like "can't live without my TV" or something.

In practical terms, I am concerned that women who elevate their dogs to "can't live without" status may not be all that understanding of what having kids is all about - it is certainly different than owning a dog.

Thoughts?

AGG

Hmm. Fascinating, but I wouldn't read too much into it. Probably the eHarmony computer just inferred something from your test results which led it to conclude that you would be perfect for women who are in love with their dogs.

Of course, we could have fun speculating about a sublimated drive to nurture, and the desire to be loved and needed; but perhaps nothing is really indicated beyond a compassionate heart.

that is interesting.
well, i never had a dog and i have been married for....forever.
but, as a little girl and before I was married, i always had a cat.
and i loved my cats. my cat was in my wedding photos....so, i guess i can see how any unattached women can say they wouldn't want to live w/o their pet.
atleast a pet is a living/loving thing...that's a good sign, right?

I think that spending the first 40-plus years of your life without kids or a spouse will tend to lead to some very ingrained habits that are self-serving, whether you're a male or a female. If you are looking at never married women with kids, then they will at least be likely to have learned essential human adult lessons about how to delay gratification, how to compromise, and how to put others' needs equal to or ahead of their own. I would worry about getting together with someone who has never had to learn these lessons, because by the time they are in their 40s it's likely that their habits are fairly deep-rooted.

If someone has raised children and/or been married, that would seem to be a better match. Or, if she has spent her life working in a service career such as nursing, that might bode better.

With Eharmony you can adjust your preferences to temporarily screen out all but the best of the best. If you try that, you might find it easier to decide who might be right for you. No point looking at everybody - might as well go for the best match you can find.

Could they possibly mean loyalty? As these women are seeing the statisics on the divorce rate or their relationships with some men they dated?

Oh great, that makes me feel better <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />.


That is probably true - but it is the huge emphasis on the love toward the dog that concerns me.

AGG

Right. Hey, I have pets, and I do think it's a good sign that someone can devote care and love to a living thing. Like I said to Gnome, it's only when I see a dog elevated to near-human importance that I get a little concerned. And these Eharmony chicks say their dogs are the most important things in their lives - weird.

AGG

Well, this is the perfect summary of my real concern. It's not that the person loves a dog, it is that this person may never have experienced having to share, compromise, or sacrifice. Increasingly, my experiences with NMNK women (dog or no dog) seem to support this conclusion.


Well, you can choose if you want to date people with kids under 18 - but I didn't see a box for dating women with dogs <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

So they opt for dogs instead of men? If so, I should definitely avoid them like the plague. I do recall one lady telling me that all she wants is a man who would look at her with the same adoring eyes as her dog did. I thought that was quite a tall order - a dog would look adoringly at anyone who gave them food, while I like to think that I am little more complex than that <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />. How can I compete with a dog?

AGG

I would take it the same way that it should be taken when people say that they can't live without their kids.

Can't (won't) live without kids....if your job transfers you to another state, expect that the parent will not relocate with you.

Can't (won't) live without pet....if you don't want to live with the pet, expect to live separately.

Imho, it would be a much different thing if she said that she couldn't live without a piece of furniture. We're talking about living things---children and pets. Not the same, to be sure, but both have needs and require loving responsibility.

I actually went back and rechecked my profile. I do say that one of the things I am most thankful for are my two wonderful kids, but I do not include them in the "can't live without" category.


True. My concern though is that in my experience non-parents sometimes think that the similarity is much greater than just the fact that both kids and pets are living things. I think that anyone who has had both will tell you that the similarity ends right there; unfortunately, non-parents often do not understand that. I don't believe you'll often see a parent put down a "dog" as a thing they are most thankful for.

Again, my concern is not in the absolute sense - I think two non-parents who love their dogs can be perfect for each other. My concern is only in the sense of how these women would work out with me - and I do worry that some of these women will assume that raising kids is similar to caring for dogs.

AGG

Glad I could help!

I think you may be reading a bit too much into this. What are they supposed to say is the most important thing in their lives? You've got to fill something in when you're creating your profile, and some people may take the question more seriously than others. Some people are also prone to exaggeration. Yeah, I would hope that intimate human relationships would be more important, but some people are isolated enough that they just don't have those kinds of relationships. And while, yes, I would consider that to be something of a tentative warning flag, how would you have reacted if a woman had named her stock portfolio instead?

Just out of curiosity, what did you include in the "can't live without" category?

Come on now, AGG! Use your imagination! There are all sorts of competitions in which a dog would be at a disadvantage! Just pick one of those instead of the kind where the edge belongs to the dog.

And anyway, when you adore a woman, the adoring look comes naturally. If all a woman wanted was an adoring look, I would think she had a serious problem with self-worth. Give me a bigger challenge, please. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Uh, I said "my cats, chocolate, air, water, food", of course. I'm no dope.

Actually, I think I sort of misunderstood the intent of the question when I gave them my answers - I assumed they meant what I can't live without in a relationship, so I said "honesty, fidelity, dependability, emotional stability, affection".

If they meant the broader view of life, then I guess my joking answer above would be more appropriate, at least the last three items. But I think that would apply to any living thing, so it's kinda stupid.

AGG

It's only fair; I'm helping you so much on your thread!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.


You have a point. And I do try to take the occasional goofy "can't live without" answer in stride - some are actually quite amusing. For some reason, though, the dog-women seem to be serious about the importance of the dog, and that scares me.

AGG

Precisely why that concerned me!


I dunno, dogs are good at that "I'll adore you as long as the food bowl is full" look. Like I said, I like to think that it takes more than a full belly to have me adore someone.

AGG

That might be part of the problem of who the e-harmony computer is matching you with while seemingly excluding other parents.

To be honest, even if e-harmony matched you with other parents, I think that many of them would pass you by simply because of the misrepresentation. The way it comes across to me is that if you met a person with those "can't live withouts" that you'd ditch your kids to be with that person. That, in itself, would give many parents a certain view of you as a parent and most would probably not want to invite that into their lives. And of those who would, would you want to invite them into your live and your kids' lives?

It might not be you who is attracting NMNK, it might simply be your profile attracting them. Feel better or worse? LOL

AGG, you have to appreciate that NMNK will have the same "understanding" of what it means to have kids as your "understanding" what it means (at that age and after so many years of living without them) not to have kids... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have to admit that I'd rather have a man who'd name his stock portfolio... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

(And, to clarify, this has nothing to do with money itself.....)