- This topic has 86 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I once heard a Ruv say 1. Kind-hearted 2. Good-natured!
I would add 3. Sense-of-humor.
What would you say?
It depends. For a potential choson or for a potential kallah?
Hmm… He should be a yarei shamayim, a mentch….
Allow me to sum up. Each person has their own preferences. So if I were you, I’d re-title the thread ‘What I want in a Shidduch’, and allow it to be what it was always going to be, a chance for seminary girls on winter break to wax lyrical about what they look for in a shidduch.
Someone who has Midos Tovos, someone who is holding at / wants to grow in Ruchniyus at at least the same place / rate that you do, and someone whom you do not find unattractive.
Money, money, and looks. Enough money can buy looks, and enough looks can buy money.
You forgot yichus.
Earlier today I was seriously considering posting the following line:
I’m just waiting for Popa to say “money, money, and money”.
I guess I had underestimated him.
Intelligence. Good Grammar.
Why are we so afraid to mention the whole topic of physical attraction that when it is mentioned, it’s twisted into a befuddled bemuddled “someone who you do not find unattractive” ??
Reminds me of that whole “beheima asher lo…”
Le’havdil.
picturesq, because looks need to be de-emphasized so as not to be the ikkur. The ikkur is middos, ben/bas Torah, etc. All the looks that are needed are “someone whom you do not find unattractive” as mobico correctly noted.
GrBo, the lady’s name is “Letakein” , Not “Latke”.
You gave me a good laugh, and I can see where the mistake came from when your brain is still reeling from the onslaught of all those Chanuka fried foods, but here in the CR we’re very careful not to offend.
And may I ask what stellar qualities led to the creative composition of your name?
Haifag, one could argue that good grammar is far more appealing when joined with a logical mathematical brain.
Having said that, perhaps you can explain why you only offered 2 qualities when the OP wanted 3?
Are you deliberately setting your sights low?
Kesef, gelt, and mamon. Looks don’t need to even be mentioned because that is the first thing you notice when you get the resume with a picture before you request the bank statements.
the gemara in taanis lays out the three qualities to look for in a woman
1) attractive
2) yichus
3) can she have kids (part of #2)
Let’s try this:
1. Intelligence.
2. Good grammar.
3. The ability to extrapolate from a list of two items that there is no third item important enough to warrant a mention.
Why are we so afraid to mention the whole topic of physical attraction that when it is mentioned, it’s twisted into a befuddled bemuddled “someone who you do not find unattractive” ??
Because the more a couple love each other, the more attractive they find the other person. If a man is married to a beautiful woman, even the most beautiful woman in the world, if he doesn’t like her for who she is, he will get bored of her looks. As for a woman, if her husband treats her improperly, even if he is gorgeous, she will start to hate his looks. But, if they have a marriage with love and she respects him, his looks will appeal more and more to her depending on how well their marriage is faring.
Singles who think they have to marry a 10, only think so because they don’t believe the above.
1. Species
2. Gender
3. Decency
There are 2 kinds of people:
1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets.
golfer:
“Greps” is Yiddish for “burp,” and the meaning of “boor”
is (I think) the same in Yiddish, Hebrew, and English.
So… I’m not sure he actually made any mistake.
I’m going to point this one out because it’s common:
Things that enhance or go well with each other are
complementary, or complement each other.
“Someone whom you do not find unattractive”
is not a euphemism for
“someone whom you find attractive,”
but for
“someone whom you do not find repulsive.”
(Reminds me of that whole “beheima asher lo…” – Exactly. 🙂 )
That’s all that’s considered to be necessary by Chazal.
If someone wants more than that, it’s their choice to make.
Also, I don’t think physical attraction is meant, but aesthetic appeal.
(Actually, can we get a discussion going about whether
the Torah and/or Chazal distinguish between the two?)
Interjection’s post hadn’t been approved when I started, and
it brings up a good point. Just think about how you feel
when seeing the face of a good friend or an enemy, and
how little that may have to do with the face itself.
Haifagirl, don’t you think midos should be somewhere on your list?
DY: I think proper attention to grammar inherently shows good Middos.
coffee addict: That’s not what the Gemara says. That’s what the girls would say to persuade potential suitors. The Gemara makes no mention of if/how right they were.
To answer the OP: 1) He/she needs to not be a moron; 2) He/she needs to not be Joseph; 3) He/she needs to not be Popa.
Haifagirl, don’t you think midos should be somewhere on your list?
Maybe you should ask:
Don’t you think being human should be somewhere on your list?
Don’t you think being male should be somewhere on your list?
Don’t you think being Jewish should be somewhere on your list?
Don’t you think being post-bar mitzvah age should be somewhere on your list?
DY, don’t you think some things are so obvious that they don’t need to be included?
Or maybe you know someone who’s looking for someone with bad middos?
Maybe you should ask:
Don’t you think being human should be somewhere on your list?
Only humans use proper grammar.
Don’t you think being male should be somewhere on your list?
and,
Don’t you think being Jewish should be somewhere on your list?
I don’t know why you needed to repeat that.
Don’t you think being post-bar mitzvah age should be somewhere on your list?
You don’t need to qualify that you’re not looking for someone who won’t go out with you anyhow.
DY, don’t you think some things are so obvious that they don’t need to be included?
Or maybe you know someone who’s looking for someone with bad middos?
They won’t say it, but apparently, some people aren’t genuinely focused on it.
I accept your point, though. My apologies.
Apology accepted.
Interjection is that called the Dorian Gray philosophy?
Thank you.
Looks are subjective, so I don’t think it’s a number 1,2, OR 3.
Some of the most UNATTRACTIVE people facially, are found to be attractive by someone else. And someone may still be attracted by someone, because of qualities other than looks.
Good character is #1. I don’t care if he’s the best learner in the world or makes the best parnassah. If he is a mean-spirited, disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish lout, then he is worth zero as a potential shidduch. If she is totally self-centered, highly materialistic (some materialism is necessary in life, and to deny that is impractical), narcissistic, only concerned with yichus and money and how to exploit both, and not interested in lovingly raising the next generation of productive, menschlech frum Yidden, then she is worth zero as a potential shidduch.
#2 is has a good sense of humor – life throws a lot of curve balls at us, and our sense of humor enables us to get through some difficult times. Just ask Sholom Aleichem.
#3 what type of relationship does he or she have with his/her respective family? What are the parents like, and how do they treat each other? That is often indicative of how they will treat future spouses, because children grow up all too often, to be exactly like their parents, whether for good OR bad.
These three aspects are important to me. They were important when I met my future husband 38 years ago, and they are just as crucial today.
Subjective things can’t be on the list?
Isn’t this a subjective list?
Good character is also subjective.
Hashkafa, Honesty, similar life goals (from a global perspective- like if one person wants to live in israel and the other does not it won’t work).
(I thought Haifagirl was joking, actually…)
No one would ever suggest a shidduch for a girl if they
knew him to be anything but a frum adult male Jew.
While one might be able say the same about middos, people are
usually aware when someone is not one of the aforementioned,
but they may not be aware of someone’s lack of good middos,
so you’ll want to look out for that yourself.
If you want to apologize, DaasYochid, let it be for calling
“male” and “Jewish” repetition. Or is that a CR reference? 🙂
(Presumably, it was originally “human” and “Jewish,”
but then the grammar bit took “human.”)
Thanks for providing context for that Gemara, Sam.
Actually, even if this were an objective list, a subjective
factor could certainly be said to be objectively necessary.
For example, one could say that looks are necessary,
and each person would go by their own idea of looks.
Probably the most famous thread in the CR.
Oomis, I liked everything you said except the first paragraph, in
which you downplayed looks because of their being subjective
(which I see no logical basis for), then related it to attraction,
but didn’t mention any reason for attraction (which is not subjective*)
not to be so important (I do agree with that, though).
*
“Person A is good-looking” is subjective, because
it may be true or false for different people.
Although it cannot be objectively determined,
“Person A is attracted to Person B” is either true or false.
I wouldn’t have been smiling if I didn’t know the
reference, but thanks for providing it for newcomers.
[W]hat stellar qualities led to the creative composition of [GrepsilBoorvis’] name?
Country Yossi Magazine readership.
So GrepsilBoorvis is Country Yossi in disguise participating in the Coffee Room and drumming up a tumult so that he could have a juicy CR thread to print in a future issue of CY Magazine.
Allow me to sum up, on behalf of the rest of the oilom. Nice, good looking, compatible. These three are on virtually everybody’s list, just use a thesaurus.
Any mention of middos, nature, kind-hearted, etc, all fall neatly into the category ‘nice’.
Attractiveness, commonly agreed to be in the eye of the beholder, fits nicely with ‘good-looking’, i.e. what the other is looking for in terms of looks, be that good looking enough or some more stringent qualification.
And ‘compatible’ is also, as is everything else, subjective, but it encompasses common list items such as ‘intelligent’, ‘funny’, ‘aims’, ‘ideals’. I know that may be a bit too non-specific, but consider this. When people write ‘funny’, for example, or ‘intelligent’, both of which are mentioned above, they mean somebody who shares their level of intelligence or sense of humour. I am sure that if the one who wrote ‘intelligence’ met somebody with far superior intelligence, they would not be happy with that, as the two of them would not be on the same page.
Which leads me on to my main point regarding ‘compatibility’. A large number of the items on lists are purely subjective, meaning there is very little measuring point. In the same way somebody who writes ‘funny’ wishes someone not necessarily with an amazing, but with a similar sense of humour, many values are really just ‘compatible’ in a different term. However, I don’t believe ‘nice’ or ‘good-looking’ necessarily fall into this camp, at least not completely, because virtually everybody agrees on standards of attractiveness, meaning it is not just an issue of compatibility but a separate issue of appeal, what they look for, as opposed to how they match up. And the wish for somebody who is good-natured, i.e. ‘nice’, is also universal, and does not fall into the ‘compatibility’ camp.
Just sayin’.
3 things to look for when you’re ready for a “shidduch”:
1) Make sure you know who you are, where you come from, what you aspire to- what you want your destination in life to be, and how you plan on getting there.
2) Find out the same about the other person.
3) If both your hoped for destinations are in close enough proximity that it makes sense for you to embark on your journeys together, then decide if this is someone whom you would like have next to you for the duration.
Golfer, do you work for M.A.P. Seminars? 🙂
Looks ARE subjective. What I find attractive, you may not deem so. Some people think anorexically thin size zero girls are more attractive. I do not, and find it disgraceful that it is such an issue in shidduchim today. Some people think a girl who wears a size 12 or 14 dress is overweight – Lucille Ball was that size, and she never looked overweight to me.
Some girls think guys who have facial hair are unattractive, others would find them less attractive without that facial hair. Some people like blue eyes and blonde hair, some think redheads are gorgeous, and others are turned off. It is ALL subjective. Why we are attracted to the look to which we are attracted, is a mystery that not even we can understand. We only know we are or are not attracted. And we cannot discount that mystery. It is why in my humble opinion NO MOTHER SHOULD SEE A PHOTO OF A GIRL before her son has met the girl. Her opinion of “attractive” should not be what determines whom he will meet. Neat, and presentable, trump someone else’s possibly flawed perception on looks, any day.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.