Am I wrong for not wanting an overly confident girl?

[sebastian11]

I find over confidence/****iness/b!tchy attitutde to be totally unattractive. Those kinds of girls are great for a one night stand or an ego boost but as far as a long term relationship I prefer girls that arent so in love with themselves. I'd rather have a nice cute girl than some girl who truly believes that she is a princess. Does anyone else agree with me?

 

[Alle_Gory]

I like some balance. A confident girl is great and a chick on an ego trip is fun for a little while. Amusing, but you're right. Definitely not relationship material. It get annoying after awhile.

 

[(JJ)]

agreed. that sh!t gets really old, really quick.

not to mention the fact that within an ltr, the person that ends it is usually ending it because they've convinced themselves that they can get someone better. with a girl that's got that annoying over confidence bs complex, she'll probably be thinking she can get something better from day one.

it's funny the different things that attract the opposite sexes. these overly confident girls are merely doing exactly what we tell each other to do over and over and yet here we are, discussing how much we don't like that in a girl.

 

[The Karate Kid]

As long as they are confident sexually, im all set!

 

[ThatMysteriousGuy]

I find over confidence/****iness/b!tchy attitutde to be totally unattractive. Those kinds of girls are great for a one night stand or an ego boost but as far as a long term relationship I prefer girls that arent so in love with themselves. I'd rather have a nice cute girl than some girl who truly believes that she is a princess. Does anyone else agree with me?

Translation: I'm looking for a woman who requires no planning or effort or challenge and isn't looking for a confident, strong male.

Not being strong or confident will cause women to run you over because they look down on you as weak. But, as you noted, you can avoid it by getting some woman who's more insecure than you for a long term relationship.

Those kinds of girls are great for a one night stand or an ego boost but as far as a long term relationship I prefer girls that arent so in love with themselves.

Translation....I hand them my balls and make myself feel better by blaming them for not liking me for very long.

 

[(JJ)]

Translation: I'm looking for a woman who requires no planning or effort or challenge and isn't looking for a confident, strong male.

Not being strong or confident will cause women to run you over because they look down on you as weak. But, as you noted, you can avoid it by getting some woman who's more insecure than you for a long term relationship.


Translation....I hand them my balls and make myself feel better by blaming them for not liking me for very long.

your translator is off.

it's more about what we want out of our ltr-type women. and it just comes down to personal preference. when i am in a committed relationship with a girl, i want her to be all about making me happy. i know that's selfish, but i am selfish. i dont want to constantly have her trying to challenge me. what's the point? there's no reason for a girl to challenge a guy when they're already committed to each other. look at any successful marriage. the wife doesnt go around being standoffish, all about herself, and immature about it. there's just plain no reason, and that environment isnt conducive for creating a caring, loving situation... which i would presume is why most get involved in relationships in the first place.

 

[Alle_Gory]

it's funny the different things that attract the opposite sexes. these overly confident girls are merely doing exactly what we tell each other to do over and over and yet here we are, discussing how much we don't like that in a girl.

Because that's not a female trait. You said it yourself, opposite sexes.

 

[ThatMysteriousGuy]

your translator is off. it's more about what we want out of our ltr-type women. and it just comes down to personal preference. when i am in a committed relationship with a girl, i want her to be all about making me happy. i know that's selfish, but i am selfish. i dont want to constantly have her trying to challenge me. what's the point? there's no reason for a girl to challenge a guy when they're already committed to each other. look at any successful marriage. the wife doesnt go around being standoffish, all about herself, and immature about it. there's just plain no reason, and that environment isnt conducive for creating a caring, loving situation... which i would presume is why most get involved in relationships in the first place.

There is a reason and there is a point, showing yourself to be weak. That's why high quality women will do that to you over and over and over. When you fail tests endlessly they get repeated endlessly. This is something that cannot be avoided unless you go for lower quality women who are just happy to have a guy, any guy. Those women don't have many options so they'll just settle with what they get.

An in-demand woman won't keep challenging you once she runs her tests and realizes she's with a confident guy who has lots of options and won't hesitate to dump her if she doesn't cut her crap out. Men not standing up to them is the issue. Men need to stop blaming their weaknesses and failures on others or they won't become better men. It's not that they're princesses/biatches who won't stop, it's that they have proved to themselves quite clearly that the man is far too weak for her. They've got a man who is a ***** and treat him like one.

Stand up to women. Stand up for yourself. Be a Man. Women will treat you like a king instead of walking all over you.

 

[(JJ)]

There is a reason and there is a point, showing yourself to be weak. That's why high quality women will do that to you over and over and over. When you fail tests endlessly they get repeated endlessly. This is something that cannot be avoided unless you go for lower quality women who are just happy to have a guy, any guy. Those women don't have many options so they'll just settle with what they get.

I think there's a fine line that the girl has to walk on. obviously she has to do her regular line of testing to make sure the guy she's with is confident and everything she wants and blah blah blah, but all that sh!t needs to be DONE by the time I'm getting into a serious relationship with her... and I think that was the original point of the thread.

An in-demand woman won't keep challenging you once she runs her tests and realizes she's with a confident guy who has lots of options and won't hesitate to dump her if she doesn't cut her crap out. Men not standing up to them is the issue. Men need to stop blaming their weaknesses and failures on others or they won't become better men. It's not that they're princesses/biatches who won't stop, it's that they have proved to themselves quite clearly that the man is far too weak for her. They've got a man who is a ***** and treat him like one.

either we're having a miscommunication here or merely differing opinions. that overconfidence/arrogance that I'm referring to here that you're justifying as necessary is not up for discussion. she's either not gonna do it, or she's gonna get dropped from my list of datable prospects. her testing me and making sure i can back my game up with real substance is totally fine. i welcome it. but if she takes too long figuring out that i back it up, then she's gonna get cut.

 

[ThatMysteriousGuy]

that overconfidence/arrogance that I'm referring to here that you're justifying as necessary is not up for discussion.

You didn't refer to arrogance and neither did I so It's impossible that I tried to justify it.

either we're having a miscommunication

You just added "arrogance" so it seems that's what you were thinking of earlier but didn't type it.

Overconfidence is just being (or appearing) too confident about {whatever}. That's what OP referred to OR he doesn't know what overconfidence means. Women will drop that stuff when they find a confident man. It's just a shield they use to get rid of AFCs/protect themselves. They're not really that confident, it's a front. Those are the ones who are good to get because they're loyal and want to make their men happy as long as he doesn't start slipping, taking her for granted, or otherwise weaken.

OTOH, arrogance is overwhelming pride/superiority which is completely different. In that, I would agree. I don't even bother dating those types, they're bad news and always stirring up trouble. They aren't looking for a good man, they're looking to wield destructive power.

 

[r0cky]

True. Divas are not exactly my cup of tea no matter how hot they are.

 

[Captain]

Don't forget there is a difference between confident + b!tchy, and confident + nice.

 

[SchoolBoy]

Everyone has different requirements for a LTR girlfriend, so there can't be any right or wrong answers.. These are mine:

I personally prefer to be in a LTR with a woman who is not a doormat, but isn't a brick wall as well. There has to be a balance.

Women who constantly give sh1t tests over and over aren't long-term material. I'm not saying initial sh1t tests aren't good, I think it's great for screening purposes, but it gets old when you're still getting them a year into the relationship.

Being in a LTR means you will eventually open up your feelings to share an emotional bond with one another. You can't do that with some "brick wall" women as they will see it as a weakness in you.

 

[BigJimbo]

I prefer very confident and aggressive females. I am confident in my manhood. I have no problem sharing in the household chores. No problem with helping the wife with the kids (changing diapers, feeding, etc.). My preference would be a professional woman around 35. At that age they know what they want.

 

[englishman]

Im with you, when a women is all so confident and ****y it seems like she's playing the mans part.
A lot of guys seem to want that in a women,and to be honest I think I used to be like that too until I got my sh1t figured out.
Im not into really low self eseemers either but, I'd say a little bit unsure of themselves and looking to me to validate them and give them a lift makes for a good and favourable dynamic.

On a bit of a tangent, I meet quite a few women lately who seem to have an opinion of themselves that is way off the mark. One particularly fat and foul mouthed Aussie chick I was chatting to a while back comes to mind. I cant see how if you were a guy doing the same thing that it would do you much good.
To be a bit more confident of your abilities than you actually are is probably a good thing, but to be wildly over the top makes you a bit of a fool who's detached from reality... like the fat Aussie chick?

 

[Trader]

I find over confidence/****iness/b!tchy attitutde to be totally unattractive. Those kinds of girls are great for a one night stand or an ego boost but as far as a long term relationship I prefer girls that arent so in love with themselves. I'd rather have a nice cute girl than some girl who truly believes that she is a princess. Does anyone else agree with me?

Modesty is a feminine trait - very sexy

Loud boorish behavior is not feminine at all. That is probably what you are referring to when you describe a '*****y' attitude.

Like the type of girls YOU like. Don't give a damn what I or anyone thinks you should want in a girl.

 

[SchoolBoy]

I prefer very confident and aggressive females. I am confident in my manhood.

Why would you want a woman who possesses a masculine trait like aggression?

You're obviously not talking from experience.. Aggressive women are only good for a pump n dump. Not relationship material.

Try seriously dating an aggressive female one day..

The fact that you even had to say you're confident with your manhood shows otherwise.

 

[zekko]

Modesty is a feminine trait - very sexy
Loud boorish behavior is not feminine at all.

Got to agree with that.
You see a lot of these overly confident brash type girls on reality shows. They think they're the greatest catch ever, like their snatch is made of gold or something. That attitude might work on a man , but for women they just come off as skanky.