-Left is seemingly more emotionally attractive / marriage material

>>18162975

It all depends on what kind of person you are. Personally, I'd be bored with "emotionally attractive," or arbitrarily saying someone is "marriage material" because they check a bunch of boxes. More often than not, I feel like we call people marriage material that are boring, like there's some expectation that being boring and safe is ideal as we get older, as opposed to having someone who can share our outlook on life and keep things interesting.

I'm not a "safe" person, so I wouldn't want to marry someone that wanted to spend our days and nights in the house watching TV.

>one girl is literally described as 'marriage material'
>which one is better for a relationship???
Are you an actual retard?

>>18162994

what can I say, I'm a nurturing soul and right looks like she could use a hand

>>18162993

thanks this helps a lot

go the katniss route and go with who you feel "needs" you.

right, OP

>>18162975

Real people don't fit in neat little boxes like the ones you created for these 'archetypes'. Basing your expectations of compatability on them is pointless and will only be lead do disappointment.

Would you really ever choose based on logic? I'm physically attracted to women with sexual energy. The kind of girl that will seduce you and flirt with you to tease you. Emotionally I'm more attracted to stable less exciting girls. How do you think I choose? The optimal woman for me would not be sweet. I prefer sassy over sweet. Sweet is uneventful and safe. Even boring. I need emotion and drama. And sexual energy. The kind of girl who knows how to get me excited and who gets a kick out of doing so. If you are considering both types, you have some reason to like both. The question is not who is the safe choice. The question is, who will you not get bored with. I know what I'd answer.