I am the biggest dork you will ever (not) meet

[docellis]

Maybe. Maybe not. For some it's just about physical attraction. This is complex stuff that we really don't know much about how it works. You could go to a psychiatrist and he/she could tell you a lot of bull about what caused your attractions (I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode when a psychiatrist helps Marge discover the cause of her fear of flying ). What if someone is exclusively attracted to blondes? Or blacks? Or chubby people? Or hairless? Orrrrrrr .... people who are exactly the same age, race, body type, and ethnicity as themselves?

I don't know...being attracted to physical characteristics (blond, race, chubby) seems to reveal less than being attracted to younger/older.

I have one friend who has consistently dated men 20 years older than her since she was 18. She never had a dad.
If it makes her happy, great. But I bet she'd be happier resolving her issues regarding not have a father.

EDIT: I've never brought this up to her

[Popeye_Card]

I once had a good guy friend from college who lived in Denver with me swear that for longevity purposes, you needed to find someone of similar socio-economic background. I thought he was superficially nuts at the time, but similar values/upbringing does seem to smooth out the highs and lows of a long term relationship. Really, I think it's a matter of valuing or placing a high priority on things that are a high priority for the other person.

I guess I will put this theory to the test. I never thought this was that big of deal, but then I dated someone who normally I got along great with, however near the end she would make a big deal over seemingly trivial differences in our upbringing. Like she would think it was weird that I used to go mushroom hunting as a kid. Of course I did--I grew up in the sticks!

Anyway, as a test of this theory, I've been dating a girl for a few months now that's like a mirror image of my upbringing. I grew up in the sticks outside a small town, and she grew up in the sticks outside a small town just on the other side of the river. Can't be much more similar than that.

On a slightly different topic, I think birth order is somewhat relevant as well. Two oldest childs or two youngest childs paired together are usually doomed to failure, because of the personality traits inherent to their birth order. (Oldest children are usually type A's to the extreme, and youngest are usually the clowns of the family.)

[Cronos]

On a slightly different topic, I think birth order is somewhat relevant as well. Two oldest childs or two youngest childs paired together are usually doomed to failure, because of the personality traits inherent to their birth order. (Oldest children are usually type A's to the extreme, and youngest are usually the clowns of the family.)

There is something to that, Popeye; one of my professors who is also a practicing psychologist said something along those lines. I can't remember exactly which order of birth goes best with which, but he did mention that birth order can matter in compatibility.

[JL21]

On a slightly different topic, I think birth order is somewhat relevant as well. Two oldest childs or two youngest childs paired together are usually doomed to failure, because of the personality traits inherent to their birth order. (Oldest children are usually type A's to the extreme, and youngest are usually the clowns of the family.)

I've thought this for some time. So sayeth the clown.

[TimeForGuinness]

On a slightly different topic, I think birth order is somewhat relevant as well. Two oldest childs or two youngest childs paired together are usually doomed to failure, because of the personality traits inherent to their birth order. (Oldest children are usually type A's to the extreme, and youngest are usually the clowns of the family.)

I've thought this for some time. So sayeth the clown.

I'm the oldest in my family...not type A, more of a goof.
My wife is the youngest...really really type A.

[KyCardinalFan]

On a slightly different topic, I think birth order is somewhat relevant as well. Two oldest childs or two youngest childs paired together are usually doomed to failure, because of the personality traits inherent to their birth order. (Oldest children are usually type A's to the extreme, and youngest are usually the clowns of the family.)

I've thought this for some time. So sayeth the clown.

Gernerally, this is true. There are dozens of books on the matter; the subject is very interesting to me.

My brother and sister-in-law are both oldests, and they are extremely competitive. They bicker a lot, but they have a lot of common interests so it works for them. They're about 4 years apart in age, but she's the same age as my middle brother, so pop culture references aren't lost on either of them.

My in-laws are also both oldests and they used to argue a lot when my husband and I dated. The last few years or so, my father-in-law just concedes or walks away for a spell. He's evolved into the compromising middle child.

I also enjoy observing the characteristics among my girls since, having three, the characteristics or traits are easily defined. I also discuss it sometimes with my sister-in-law who is also one of three girls. The dynamics are very interesting to me.