Money can buy entertainment (including sexual), purchased "loyalty" (or purchased "love"), and perhaps give one a sense of self-worth (when that is lacking otherwise). If that is what a person values, then money is highest priority.

Some of us see things differently.

I am turned-off by excess body fat and accompanying excuses. The women in my life have always been trim and athletic. I see no reason to change my preference (even if I could) now (when two-thirds of the population is overweight and the "��average" is bordering on obese). I know what it takes to maintain proper body composition and physical condition, and do both myself.

During my enlistment in the Army decades ago an exceptional commanding officer recognized that I had more potential than just being a non-conforming troublemaker. He ordered me to work in his office then soon "suggested"�� that I take the GED test. We were both quite pleased (and somewhat surprised) by the results. After discharge I enrolled in college and eventually became a tenured professor.

Perhaps fun and entertainment ARE the most important aspects of a relationship to many people and they regard me as being out of step by placing emphasis elsewhere. So be it. I seldom go with the crowd.

"��Unhappy with what you have"�� is not synonymous with "not enough (insufficient)"��



How does one want more of what the already have in sufficient quality and quantity? If they have all the beach time or beer they want, how could they want more? If they see a certain person as much as they want, how can they want more?



The donut allusion was in reference to "I want a serious, committed relationship"�� but placing greatest emphasis on "fun" with only incidental mention of substantive qualities. Sorry I didn't expand on that.

If they want more they must not be satisfied with the donuts they have (feel a lack / insufficiency).



I prefer to risk "over thinking" rather than "under thinking."

It seems a bit incongruent, however, if one who says "I want to eat healthy"�� also says "I want more donuts."

Edited to correct quotation marks

I have no opinion regarding what people "should" do, but simply question why "FUN" is given high (or first) priority in many profiles.




As stated, I observe that people tend to seek what THEY feel is "lacking in sufficient quantity or quality" in their life. I know nothing of anyone's life beyond what they communicate. If they demonstrate a need for more donuts (for example), I accept that they desire more donuts and/or feel that they have insufficient donuts.

People tend to seek what they feel lacking in sufficient quantity or quality in life.

Is "fun-seeking"�� an indication that is inadequate or unsatisfactory in one's life?

Is a need to be entertained a major driving force?

Is everyday life boring or drudgery, necessitating escape or relief?

I agree 100% with addition of "within existing circumstances" (one may not choose to lose a job when their employer went bankrupt, but they do choose how to carry on from there).



Excuses are attempts to blame others or circumstances to cover poor choices / decisions / actions -- such as "I am overweight because ___________ (fill in the blank) rather than the truth, "I consistently eat more than my body needs."

People of any gender may lie to conceal inadequacies (real or imagined) or to gain benefits.

I should add that the couple who asked seemed to lose interest in swimming.

Small alligators are not uncommon in Florida lakes -- up to four feet long or so. I don't know about their effect on snakes or turtles, but do observe that their presence encourages many to swim in pools rather than lakes.

A friend tired of people asking his height so he would respond with "five foot nineteen." I adopted that and now claim to be four foot twenty-three. It takes some people a while to ponder that one.

There are psychological and social advantages accruing to tall males: http://www.beingtall.com/advantages/

In employment:

Gladwell polled about half of the Fortune 500 companies and found that the majority of their CEOs were tall, white men, and:
The average CEO was just under 6 feet (the average American man is 5’9″)
Among the CEOs, 58 percent were 6 feet or over
In the United States, 14.5 percent of men are 6 feet or over
Some 30 percent of the CEOs were 6’2″ or taller
Only 3.9 percent of U.S. men are 6’2″ or taller
“Height matters for career success,” said Timothy Judge, a University of Florida management professor who co-conducted a study on the topic.
After analyzing the results of four large-scale studies, Judge and co-author Daniel Cable, a business professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel-Hill, found that extra inches could add up to thousands of dollars.
For each inch in height, a person earned about $789 more in pay. So a 6-foot person would earn $5,525 more each year than someone who is 5’5.”
“If you take this over the course of a 30-year career and compound it, we’re talking about literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of earnings advantage that a tall person enjoys,” Judge said.

In the social scene:

Robin I. M. Dunbar of the University of Liverpool and colleagues studied 3,200 men in their 20s to 50s, whose average height was 5’6.” They found:
Taller men are more likely to be married and have children than shorter men. Childless bachelors are significantly shorter than married men. Those with children were, on average, 1.2 inches taller than childless men. Married men were an average of 1 inch taller than bachelor

When asked if there were any snakes or turtles in a Florida lake I replied, "No, the alligators keep them pretty well in check."

"Stupid" is defined as: 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless:

That term is often confused with "ignorant", which is defined as: 1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man. 2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:

Thus, one can be quick to learn (not stupid) but be ignorant (not informed) about a given topic (such as a bright person who is uninformed about celebrities or sports events).

In either case, when using the term one has made an evaluation ("judgment") of an individual or group based upon their own perceptions and values.

Perhaps one should distinguish between:

Acquaintances
Friendly acquaintances
Friends
Close friends
Best of friends

"First, fly the airplane"

No matter what happens, give highest priority and attention to that which is critical. Don't allow distractions or circumstances to divert your attention from essential matters (or allow catastrophic mistakes).

Although the statement came from my flight instructor long ago, it applies to many situations in life.

Not everyone wants to be richer. Those who are content with what they have are "wealthier" than those who long for more.

Not everyone wants to be honored. Some would prefer to be respected.

Perhaps nearly everyone wants to be loved (in some way or another).

It is my experience that the world treats us like we tell it to treat us. Our self-image, attitude, posture, communication, etc send signals to everyone with whom we interact and most respond accordingly.

If we don't like what comes back, perhaps we should examine what we send out.

A friend asked her mother who was in her late seventies, "When do the sexual urges go away?" The mother replied, "I don't know, you'll have to ask someone older than me."

All of us have probably experienced having someone we didn't care for being overly interested in us. The new term is "stalking" and the old term was "Pain in the A__").

Since I am not a fearful person, the threat of being stalked doesn't concern me.

If someone traced a cell phone number for me it would lead to a prepaid phone and an email address to a GMX account that is also a dead end. Neither produce useful information.

Edited to add: Of course, it one is na�ve enough to give out a home phone number their address might be found with reverse-lookup, and if the email address they share is primary for them or contains their name, they might be identifiable.