All over the greater diaspora, Aunties bemoan that desi children are picky. How will they ever be satisfied? How will they ever settle down and start popping out the requisite grandkids?
Aunties can sleep better at night now that SCIENCE is on the job. Examining peoples’ behavior in online dating settings (which is equivalent to looking at biodata), they’ve noticed a few clear patterns:
Men are easy – they are generally interested in hotness above all. 
Women are choosier, but it turns out their preferences are fungible. This is good news for aunties because it gives them a metric with which to translate different suitor’s attributes to a common scale, allowing them to rank apples and oranges. They can tell, for example, whether an average woman (in this study) is likely to prefer the not quite as handsome, shorter i-banker or the more gorgeous, slightly taller, high school English teacher.
What is this common scale? Money. According to these researchers, women will forgive men’s flaws if (gasp) they earn more.
Consider looks. A guy can compensate for ordinary looks with more moola, which tells us what he has to reveal in his biodata if he wants to be a playa:
Suppose you’re an ordinary-looking guy whose online picture is ranked around the median in attractiveness… And suppose you’d like to be as successful with women as a guy whose picture is ranked in the top tenth. Then you’d need to make $143,000 more than him. If your picture is ranked in the bottom tenth, you’d need to make $186,000 more than him. [Link]
Cash also acts like elevator shoes for our shorter brothers:
… a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market. [Link]
Race matters too. Generally speaking, men were more willing to date somebody of a different race than women, with the exception of Asian women who preferred White men over others. (3/4ths of Asian-white marriages have Asian women and white men [Link] )
For equal success with an Asian woman, an African-American needs no additional income; a white man needs $24,000 less than average; a Hispanic man needs $28,000 more than average. [Link]
It’s not clear whether brown women act like their other Asian counterparts – any thoughts?
Lastly, if you want to get around these sorts of hurdles, skip the biodata and move straight to cha:
… people who are terribly picky in choosing partners online will relax their standards if they spend just three or minutes talking to someone at a speed dating session. [Link]
There you go. Now that science has helped Aunties, maybe it will come up for a way for the rest of us to be able to evade them. Oh yeah, it’s called caller ID 
In case you’re interested, here is the academic paper in question
.
Related posts: Speed kills (part 1), Speed kills (part 2)
Sorry I was unclear. I don’t think most of the dialogue here is intended to just apply to the posters. Rather, people are making generalizations about what the average person does. And my point is that those are not reliable in many individual cases.
Regarding the study and its implications regarding the superficiality of the sexes in mate selection, note that the nature of study focuses largely on the superficial aspects of mate selection. It’s hard to be non-superficial when simply browsing personal ads on-line. Also, note that there is a certain amount of self-selection involved in this study. Perhaps people who are very non-superficial simply wouldn’t participate in an on-line match-making services because of the perception of such services being ‘too shallow’. Over half of the people in study are less than twenty-five years of age, an age group that is generally considered to be relatively heavily superficial.
As such, my interpretation of the results of the study is that people are making mate selections based on biodata, they tend to make choices that are anticipated–men opt for physical beauty, and women opt for income potential. However, none of this implies that either sex is necessarily superficial when actually selecting a mate in real life experiences. Yes, there are people who actually do have narrow and arbitrary criteria, but most people eventually tend to make mate selections based on a more complex, less superficial basis.
Point taken.
Oh definitely, this I don’t have a problem with.
Yeah, not so much. I didn’t marry outside the desi fold because of patriarchy, because I know enough desi men/families where that wouldn’t have been much of an issue, and I definitely got some of the baggage with my non-desi in laws anyway.
So true! My parents love my husband but he didn’t really have to do much to impress them.
Ennis said…
I can relate (~ 15 inch height diff) And what I find ridiculous is that she doesnt even wish I was any shorter!
yeah i guess. more useful info
OJ said…
ok, OJ you crack me up. I dont eat samosas very often, but I’m confident that I can easily incorporate 4 of them into my diet without any noticeable problem. peace π
Even if they judge the people who they date using more complex criteria, they’ve still thrown out a large part of the pool based on very arbitrary criteria. So if they use personality to choose amongst 6′ tall lawyers making $300,000/yr, their decisions still heavily shaped by factors of height and income.
Starting 8 years ago, up till maybe a year or two ago, most of the people I knew did mainly online dating. A different friend used an online service to meet a guy who lived in her neighborhood in Park Slope! Furthermore, when you add in matrimonials, friendster, myspace, facebook, and other forms of biodata, I’d say it’s still the dominant way most desis I know meet each other.
If I remember correctly, there were 20,000 people in this survey. If everybody had an idiosyncratic approach, they never would have found these patterns in the data (although I wish I knew the certainty associated with these inferences). I know we all want to think of ourselves as individuals, but marketing studies do a decent job of predicting certain aspects of our behavior. Furthermore, I haven’t seen a huge amount of disagreement in the 200+ comments thus far, leading me to think these criteria are more common that you think.
HMF, You’re completely going on a tangent here, I am not talking about the survival of the fittest, I am not talking about a soceity run by drug lords and gun slingers who walk the streets duking it out, I am not talking about JUST macho brute power Do women want to mate with tall athletic men well hung like horses- The answer is yes. Do women want to mate with rich succesful men who are not that genetically gifted- The answer again is yes So does that mean if you don’t belong to or have traits of either parties your chances of spreading the seed is less? The general answer would be yes BUT there are ways to work around it which is what the author of the book has tried to prove. So on a GENERAL large scale evolutionary sense I still say the above 2 parties have a higher chance of replication than a nerdy computer guy who spends time on his soduku puzzles on friday nights. So does that mean that the lovable geek is doomed forever in isolation, the answer is No which is where the theory you read in the book comes in.
20000???
Not many disagreements on this thread is one of my complaints, but it is possible people on the thread are not speaking for themselves. Rather until people own up, I will go against my comment and believe Neal(with no e) that they may be saying things they believe to be true for the average. More faith in humanity that way :).
Post 242 is fair and square, Joat.
Hmm, oddly enough, I am reading through this thread listening to Count Basie/My Baby Just cares for Me
“My baby don’t care for diamond rings, or all those things……” Isn’t that how it goes?
Well, I don’t have any answers. I think all these consumer choices we have, for our potential mates and otherwise, are quite dizzying. So many choices of shoes, soaps, cars, shoes, purses, computers, all that biodata online, all those people! It seems I never felt so strongly for things as I did when I lived in a small town, as a girl, and had only a few people on my horizon. Would I have cared as deeply if I had met those people, only a few laters, in the city? I don’t know.
As for mother-in-law ‘bashing’: well, everyone has tensions with their mother-in-law. It’s natural. It can be bit extreme in some corners of desi culture, though, from personal observation and more importantly, bitter observations of older family members. No reason to be defensive about it; some things just are. If desi culture has much warmth and closeness and family connection to recommend it, it’s only to be expected that tensions will come with all that ‘connecting’.
Adequately taller is someone that is still taller than me in my highest of high heels π I think mad skillz is what this one would bend for, money I don’t think she could care for though yeah she’s not going out with a pauper anytime soon. π
5’2. I think that’s pretty short in the grand scheme of things but I can tack on 3-4″ on a good day with no problems, add the inch fluff of the hair and I’m as tall as the average desi guy π ducking
No, I am not going off on a tangent, in fact I am staying precisely on topic. What I am telling you is, the PUA community (DeAngelo, Mystery, Style, and even SS to some degree) makes no claim to LTRs, infact they’re downright unapologetic about it. The two modes of thinking are exactly divergent. Tall, athletic men hung like horses no longer trigger the species propogation sensors, as a long term evolutionary fitness level. Will women find them attractive in the short term, sure, but that’s not the topic brought up in the post here.
I believe you are completely wrong when you say, the PUA community attempts to teach nerds ways to “get around” their low status. It teaches that monetary status is important to a degree, physical DHV is important to a degree, but otherwise its a matter of subtextual communication and qualification. IN other words, rich guys & good looking guys would benefit from those concepts as well.
Since people are looking for variations in viewpoints, I should admit that I’m intimidated by rich or aspiring-to-be-rich guys. I’m not against wanting to make money, but I could never be with someone who made that his life’s primary focus. But who knows, maybe I’m not grown-up enough as yet?
Would having a good deal more money compensate for perceived deficiencies in other areas?
Now you’re talking. Actually my reasons for liking tall men are very personal and specific to me. It has nothing to do with “looking better” – like the man is supposed to be taller or something. I think if a man was shorter than me he’d be legally a midget.
bytewords: It’s all good. Misquote away. π
I could never be with someone who made that his life’s primary focus
What if it was someone who was just very good at whatever he did, and that just led to more money incidentally? I mean, it can be hard to separate ambition from ambition to make oodles of money.
Would having a good deal more money compensate for perceived deficiencies in other areas?
Depends on the deficiencies. No amount of money makes up for a complete lack of compassion, sincerity, etc. On the other hand, money might be sufficient to make a woman overlook a gimply leg, legally blind without glasses, etc.
No, certainly not.
(But I would avoid anyone who can’t maintain at least a middle-class lifestyle without going into debt. That’s about it…)
TMF, Why you to trying to impress me with your thorough knowledge of PUA geeky acroynms, concepts or theories on an off-topic thread is beyond me π
Hey midgets need loving too. And just remember, “when you’re horizontal, you can be eye to eye with anybody, no matter what their height.”
I’m just saying π
ok, wtf is pua, ltr, dhv?
Specifically, on the height-issue: I’m a tall girl, and I have a height preference. I prefer dating guys who are between my height and 6’1. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t date someone shorter than me, or someone above 6’1 – those are just preferences. And that’s just it – I think anyone can express preferences, but for the most part – a lot of the things mentioned in the comments seem like preferences, not dealbreakers.
Re: shorter men, I’m not sure who has more of a problem with it: the shorter men, or the taller women.
Of course. But for one thing, that kind of wealth generally takes time — the person in question will probably be past the courting age. For another, I’m not sure a person like that would advertise his/her wealth to potential partners. I may be wrong.
It’s not money that turns me off as much the drive to make it at the cost of other things. So I’d have nothing against a perfect someone with incidental wealth. However, between two people who are equal in every other way, I would pick the wealthier one only if his counterpart required me to substantially lower my present standard of living. Otherwise, I’d toss a coin.
I’ll just impress you with the ability to transcribe three letters.
speaking of three letter transcriptions, wtf is wtf?
I think, like anything, certain things need to be quantified. First of all, being very good at whatever one does, does not lead to more $$ as matter of consequence. Perhaps ambition, in a strict American, Capitalist, Republican, F*** you I’m out for me and me only, context, will lead to oodles and oodles of money.
someone can be an ambitious playright, teacher, non profit volunteer, mentor, and hundred other things, and the oodles of money will be capped at maybe just “oo”
no i really mean it. what do those mean? you used wtf, so you know what it is. π
I believe PUA = Pickup Artist, LTR = Long Term Relationships and DHV = Demo(?) of higher value..
I’m with Dan on this issue. In the real world, people (especially people, generally over twenty-five, who understand what matters in a relationship) choose their partners using complex criteria. The choice is not a scientifically detached one, that lies in wait for people who fulfill certain basic conditions, and then allows the heart to beat a little faster. Please – we are not robots. You meet someone, they seem like anyone else, you start talking, and then you notice your heart is beating a little faster than normal. And guess what? You take a look at the person who is making your heart beat fast and, most of the time, they won’t be particularly hot or wealthy. At this point you can choose to be a normal human being or you can choose to be a worm. A worm dumps the not-hot/not-wealthy individual promptly. A normal human being trusts his/her instincts.
Hence the plethora of ‘what the hell is he/she doing with her/him?’ stories we’ve all heard. Hence the friends who tell you excitedly about the guy/girl they hardly noticed for a year and then fell in love with at the library/watercooler/bar. Hence (and thank God for this hence) the old couples who are together for forty years and still make eyes at eachother. Hotness/wealth do not make you want to hold hands when you’re eighty. Mature individuals figure this out.
As for the 200 odd comments on here – apart from a few that make sense, quite a lot seem to be coming from befuddled and inexperienced individuals, some of whom seem unfortunately depressed by this study. Don’t worry about it. In the real world, it’s a crock.
What if most of the people you meet are your coworkers or friends of friends that you’re not as interested in, and most of the people you date you meet online. Then the fact that you screen out people based on other criteria long before you meet them becomes relevant. I said clearly in the post that the dynamics change when you meet somebody face to face, the problem is that most potential dyads never get to that point.
Ennis, I agree your post was clearly limited to the online scenario. However many of the commenters are taking the generalizations in the study and applying them to all relationships, which is foolish and sad. How many people only do the online thing anyway? My problem with studies like this is that they invariably lead to untrue and demeaning generalizations about human behaviour outside the limits imposed within these studies. If someone wants to say that men and women who engage in online dating are superficial while they’re doing so – fine. But instead many leap to the conclusion that men and women are superficial when choosing their mates, period.
PUA = Pickup Artist, LTR = Long Term Relationships and DHV = Demo(?) of higher value
anyone who knows what these means, much less incorporates them into their speech is a complete LOSER. i read about that guy’s book in the times, and like everything else in the times, it was hyped as something new and stunning. about a year later i stumbled on the actual book at the bookstore and the cover was nice so i sat there and read it. about 1/5th of the way through i got this feeling as though i was about to vomit, but it just wouldn’t come out. if there is one thing i learned from this book it is that there are lots and lots and lots of people out there who do not deserve any respect whatsoever. and to give them any would by extension be a desrespect to oneself, should that oneself be anything close to a functioning human being. something a little more tacit i took from this jerry springer type book was how important it is to treat these types of people and most others (save maybe 10%) like the crap they are. they are more comfortable that way, bowing before a real man………………………..
all this talk of tall and short……..people need to be specific. short for a man is less than 5’7″. till 5’10” u are everage, till 6’1″ u are slightly above average. and after that tall begins. and another important thing. since all desis lie (the real national sport) about their actual height, u can add 2 inches to ur measured-at-the -dr’s-office height. i am 5’10” (actually, not desi terms, in which case i would be 6′) and know i am average height at best……as far as girls obsessing over height, i have no clue why they do it. unless the are under 5’3″ they are fine. all that matters is a pretty face, thin waist, big t—— and a matching a–.
Here is an old joke that could be flipped around for the other gender as well.
Yes, it’s true that if your only method of meeting people is on-line matchmaking sites, the screening becomes an issue. However, is that really a problem? If your objective is to meet a potential long-term relationship partner, wouldn’t you want to find someone who is mature and looks for depth in a relationship? If someone is willing to reject because you’re not n inches tall, attractive enough, or earn d dollars a year, isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t that a lot time you avoided wasting in following dead-end leads? There do exist some sites that cater to a more in-depth approach.
Of course, if you’re looking for a more casual relationship, then I can certainly understand how being subject to arbitrary criteria is problematic. As such, if you are a person who would have problems matching up on an on-line site, the only real advice is to go off-line. Get involved in an activity that you enjoy and where you can meet other people. It may take more time and effort than browsing on-line listings from home, but it may be more productive.
Adam, you said:
So your argument is – don’t say that East Asian or South Asian men are more likely to be patriarchal and don’t attribute it to their cultural background because it’s not true? That’s kind of funny, what makes you decide it’s not true? I agree that patriarchal and unpleasant men in all sorts of cultural backgrounds (I know a couple of American men who have the doted-on-son complex too), but there’s a reason why desi women notice it more in their own, because it’s more likely to be present among desis, and because cultural norms make it acceptable for in-laws and husbands and parents to treat women and girls in certain ways. No-one is saying all desi men are patriarchal, just that the probability that you’ll have to deal with that stuff is higher when you marry a desi man. It’s pretty subtle and many men grow up as the adored sons in such families with absolutely no idea that their sisters were being pressured to eat less and do housework from an early age and pick up after the men and be more self-sacrificing and all that. Believe me, when you live with its downsides everyday, you notice.
And Neale, I don’t believe that it’s primarily the MILs who are responsible for transmitting patriarchy. Men (in all cultures) do it passive-aggressively, by sitting by quietly while the mom/MIL plays the “enforcer,” by not doing a thing around the house in the expectation that the woman will pick up the slack, not saying “oh honey don’t bother cooking, we’ll just have ramen,” that sort of thing. I’m not saying all desi men or all men are guilty of this, I’m just saying there’s another way to see “agency” in this regard, and the MIL is the easiest target because she’s expected to keep the DIL and daughters/sons in line, but she’s part of a wider set of behaviours and expectations.
I agree with Dan on the point that such studies focus on superficialities, there’s the “first cut” and then there’s the stage of getting to know someone. I wonder how many people end up marrying the person they found wildly attractive at a bar one night.
here’s one
obviously an extreme case.
the reality is that most people marry within their class, caste, race, religion, etc., and this goes for everywhere. marrying “across lines” is the exception rather than the rule.
Glad to see you have an open mind. Personally , I see no problem at all in studying relationships as a science, incorporating biology, evolutionary concepts, and mating observables from the animal kingdom, which I believe most apply in human beings anyway. In fact with your quotidian remark of “I want one without a gut” You generally prove every principle the PUAs have come up with.
#280 Oldjoke
Interestingly, that joke resembles a Panchatantra story.
The math doesn’t scale! “a 5-foot-0 guy would need to make $325,000 more than a 6-foot-0 man to be as successful in the online dating market.” They should have used a multiplicative factor, not a constant shift. Someone making $23,325,000 a year does not have a significant advantage over someone making $23,000,000 a year, and definitely not enough to compensate for being a foot shorter. They probably are pegging it to median income, which is (guessing) around $45,000 (in places like NYC he mean, not median, is around $86,000). So you would need 7x the income to compensate. That makes more sense, someone making $161,000,000/yr will have an advantage over someone making $23,000,000/yr.
How so? How is it any different than IM speak like internet short hand?
Oh the irony of it…
Jane, I think he means anyone who subscribes to the principles. At least that’s what I hopes he means.
You’ve proven over and over again, you do like to judge books by their covers.
Question for all the women who are so against ‘patriarchy’…are you against only its extreme manifestations or are you against any (even very mild) manifestation of it? Since it permeates our culture, traditions, rituals, attitudes, etc. on every level, obviously you all come to some sort of compromise with it, which probably varies from woman to woman. Furthermore, since you all grew up in patriarchal societies to one extent or another, would you really want to do away with it completely and be left with a society that you don’t recognize or find familiar anymore? Surely there must be some comfort derived from the culture and environment you grew up in, regardless of the fact that there are patriarchal elements to it. Lastly, as a guy, I just have to say this…although I am opposed to the extremes that patriarchy can take (honor killings, purdah, female foeticide, etc), I enjoy many aspects of it as filtered through modern Indian culture and as experienced in our homes…simply put, it works well for guys, and I’m not sure on what basis I should ‘fight’ against it. On the other hand, when I imagine what having a daughter would be like, I would never want her to be the victim of patriarchal attitudes…so this is sort of a complicated topic (for me).
JOAT you asked about ‘Sex In the City’ girls in post #49……To my mind they are the girls who use “The Rules” as their love life bibles and keep at least 3 copies in the house. And if you are a desi male pulling 6 figures+ you will see them at the desi conferences sliding up to you on some bright eyed ‘so what do you do???’ (notice the ‘what do you do’ question instead of say…hobbies and such)….and if like shallowthinker’s brother you were treated different by said ladies once you started to get coin…the heart starts to get a bit colder. That’s the thing about guys with money…they know that women desire them for that…and perhaps are only giving them the time of day because of their bank accounts.
As well for me. There is a lot of comfort for me in knowing that the desi boys in my life tend to somehow automatically “take care” of me when in need. Simple things like during the winter whenever I’d visit my friends their husbands would go out and heat up my car for me so I wouldn’t have to sit out there in the cold. My friend Aman for example runs and helps me anytime I reach out to him or am in distress, for no other reason I swear than the fact that he was raised a ‘nice Indian boy’ who helps girls.
I’m unclear whether this is considered patriarchy but a lot of it stems from ‘take care of the girls’ attitude the boys are taught in Indian household. I’d like to believe that men do it out of chivalry and because they are being nice but I can’t discount the ‘Indian’ upbringing whenever I encounter this.
By the same token any cultural aspect that doesn’t respect my POV, that disregards me as less important or immediately assumes I’m less capable because I’m a woman is negative. I think I’d prefer someone to tell me their definition of what “patriarchy” means in order to agree or disagree with it because the definition varies for a lot of women. I come from a very strong women dominated family, all girls, most of them overachievers, my boyfriend comes from an all boys male dominated family and the differences are mindblowing.
You know there are plenty of the so called “Rules” that are important like how to drop a guy if he’s “unavailable and uninterested” or so many other mistakes women seem to make when they enter relationships or are dating. However sadly being a gold digger comes naturally to some women, they don’t need a book of rules to tell them how to work it. Lumping assertive women who know what they want and go after it into the “Sex and the City” girls category is disrespectful.
S&TC was a phenomenon for a lot of women of my generation as trite as it sounds. Just as Seinfeld tickled our funny bones because there was finally a show about your daily life so did S&TC for so many wmen that live it everyday. It taught women to be assertive, accept their flaws, realize life isn’t perfect and gave them hope. If you haven’t really seen it but think it’s fashionable to get on the S&TC sucks bandwagon I would suggest you see an episode or two.
However women as well as men are a lot more complex than that and frankly like my mother said “it’s just as easy to love a rich guy” I’ve also learnt wealth isn’t about your actual paycheck but your potential in life.
Amitabh, just out of curiosity, what counts as mild manifestations of patriarchy in your book?
Lumping assertive women who know what they want and go after it into the “Sex and the City” girls category is disrespectful. “
I like SATC..quite a bit…more than I care to admit (not enough to watch over South Park but still π
That being said I have 3 specific friends who have followed ‘The Rules’ and found the (rich) men of their dreams. Nothing wrong with that. I’m happy for them. But as a guy who has gone full spectrum from poor to slightly wealthy it is a turnoff…no biggie I date painters and musicians…so I don’t have to buy Balenciagas, then again the day is young.
JoAt said:
Here’s the question – do they do this for all their guests, male or female, or is it special treatment you get for being a girl?
If they warm up your car for being a girl, then they’re assuming that you’re less hardy than boys are, and weaker. If Chivalry is extended to some and not others, it presumes inequality, that you’re helping somebody out because they can’t do it on their own.
I think the patriarchy you are comfortable with (mild, chivalrous gestures) and the patriarchy you don’t like (overt disregard or telling you that you can’t do something because as a woman you’re weaker) might run together somewhat.
Just to add a few notes regarding ‘the patriarchy’, though it can permeate a culture, it certainly does vary from family to family, as Janeofalltrades points out. I come from a Latin culture which has its own sexist legacy; nonetheless, I think that my parents generally set a good example of mutual respect and esteem. I don’t think I can necessarily say the same about some of my extended family.
My fiancΓΖΓβΓβΓΒ©e’s family, which is Indian, is dominated by her mother. In this case, I think it is largely a function of the mother’s personality, which tends to be a bit tyrannical.
If only that was all my future mother-in-law expected from me… In any case, I do hope that whatever bit of the ‘patriarchy’ remains will work in my favour–allowing us to live our lives as we see fit (though I’m not holding my breath). On the other, hand I hate to see what the wives of my future brothers-in-law will have to go through.
I know my name aint Amitabh, but I thought I’d offer an answer:
Say, opening a door for a girl repeatedly, when it’s clear she is physically able, has the relevant motor skills, mentally aware of what a door’s purpose is, and familiar with concepts of torque and angular momentum. (so as to exert an external force on the door when it’s reached a sufficient opening distance, to comfortably allow the passage of human beings through.)
um.. my guy friends do this for girls.. although i know how to change a flat tire, it’s nice when a boy offers.. or when they help jump start my car when my batteries are out..but i think that this ‘chivalrous’ nature goes beyond just the brown species..because other males from other races have been just as great with helping me out..you know, opening up a door for a female is so considerate.. i make sure i say thank you.. even when a male lets me enter the elevator before him.. it just shows.. manners.. or maybe that is in the south..
i think it becomes too patriarchial, when they think you can’t do it on your own… that is when i get peeved..when in fact you can..and have at times when you haven’t had someone to ‘sweep in and save the day’..whats even better is when you work on the problem (whether it be car trouble, painting a room, etc) together.. equal opportunity.. yes, there are things i can’t do, but i’ll call that out on my own..and my own will.. no need for others assuming my weaknesses without even asking but just presuming it on their own.
as for woman who are strong.. my mom is a firecracker…. but my dad holds his own ground as well.. i think after 38 years of marriage, their strengths and weaknesses balance each other out in such harmony.. it’s very zen like, and very inspiring.. he let’s her do her thing…and he does his.. but the integration of both their unique and different characteristics and flaws is amazing to watch.. to observe how they let it flow, is heartening…
as for woman who are strong.. my mom is a firecracker…. but my dad holds his own ground as well.. Wow sounds like life’s gonna be/is a nightmare for your future significant other.
PG: nope, you have it all wrong.
π it’s going to be a dream. great family. firecracker means–spirited.. there are many connotations.. she is a free spirit.. my dad is more grounded.. it’s a good combo.