RSS
 

Successful Online Dating Part 1: Why Online Dating Rocks

17 Apr

I have become even more of a proponent of online dating.  It’s not just that some of the happiest couples I know met online, it’s that it presents a fantastic side-step to the aggravation of trying to date in “real life”.  For a geek like me, I appreciate immensely the practicality of being able to scan through someone’s profile ahead of time to get to the common ground rather than having to go through sometimes painful exchanges across a table in a dimly-lit pub.

I often say that online dating is for two groups of people – those who lack social skills and those who lack social opportunity.  (There’s a third group that lacks both, but that’s a topic for the Friday Guy.)  Me, I (mostly) fall in to the latter category, and I generally try to select for people who also fit there was well.  (I will overlook social graces for the sake of … well, a few things… but that’s another story.)

The “lacks social skills” people are the ones who are generally personable – once you get to know them.  The problem is that in social settings, they freeze up, clam up, or start shouting, completely obliterating the chance to know anything about them.  They are the ones that need a built-in ice-breaker, and this is where the internet is a fantastic thing.  When you connect with someone via an online dating site, the questions and formats are designed to help facilitate the whole “getting to know you” thing.  The ice breaker happens before you ever meet face to face, and if you’re lucky, you’ll arrive at your lunch or dinner date ready to carry on the conversation that you started in IMs or emails.

The “lacks social opportunity” people are folks who just don’t get out much.  That’s not to say that they’re all introverted shut-ins.  Sometimes we they have such incredibly busy schedules that finding a social situation in which to meet people is well-nigh impossible.  Their time is so valuable that the prospect of having to take two or three dates just to figure out if someone is compatible is daunting and unpleasant, and this will keep them off the streets and out of the market, sometimes indefinitely.

There are, of course, plenty of people who overlap these two areas, and that makes online dating even better for them.

The wonder of the internet is that we can easily scan through profiles and find out if someone is worth the effort of getting out of our comfort zones.  On many sites, you can search for keywords or set up filters to show us the folks that are most likely to make it to first base.  And it’s not like we’re just talking about life-long soul mates and wanna-get-married couples.  Those who are in it just for a little fun and games can find what they want, too, without having to worry about the doe-eyed professions of undying love after the first romp in the hay.

Perhaps the most basic description of why online dating is really the best method for meeting people in today’s culture is that it cuts through the torturous crap and limitations of seeking out partnership in a localized environment and opens up whole new ranges of opportunity in places you wouldn’t normally have thought to look.  When we have existing social settings – work, church, school, specific clubs or pubs we like – we’re limited in the kinds of people we’re going to meet, and that means that our potential for growth and being introduced to new things is greatly diminished.  When we meet someone online who likes some of the same things we do, they can introduce us to whole new genres of music or movies we’ve never heard of, and that just makes our experiences as humans richer.

It’s a more efficient and effective way of doing things.  I’m not saying that everyone and their dog needs to get online to date, but I am saying that the pros definitely outweigh the cons.

Over the next few days, stay tuned in because I am going to go over the classic Dos and Don’ts of online dating and how make your profile the kind that gets the best kind of attention – no matter what kind of connection you’re looking for.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Dating

 

The Friday Guy: Don’t pet the dogma

13 Apr

I'm not normally this mean out loud, but WOW I've thought about it... Copyright 2012 Dan Piraro.

Welcome to the first of an installment of weekly posts about my crazy adventures in the wonderful world of dating.  I asked you, the readers, if this is something you’d like to read, and the response was a resounding HELZYA!  I’d also thought about trying to out-do my previous record of consecutive first dates (with no second dates), but I figured, that’s kinda been done, and the really interesting part of dating again is that I’ve been talking to a few folks that I really enjoy hanging out with virtually, verbally, and literally.

Just to put this whole thing into context, I don’t have to go OUT with someone (meet them in person) to get a feel for them, or for them to show up here – conversations may be on the phone, in chat, or in person.  All names are changed, of course, and unless it’s a glowing review and I have their express permission, you’ll never get any pictures or links to their stuff.

Just so you know.

Also, if you think it’s you… you might want to keep it to yourself.  It’s a small world, and no one would be the wiser if you never said a thing about it.

Anyway, our first specimen could go by many names.  The Fundamental Atheist is a good one, or a Dogmatic Free-Thinker is another.  When talking to him the first time, I kept getting kind of an Indigo Montoya moment whenever the topic of opinions or free will came up.  He kept saying that he had a naturally scientific mind, that he was enthralled with the wonder of the universe – and then proceeded to tell me how quantum physics was just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and that Einstein figured out the universe in one blow with relativistic theory.

“This word, ‘scientific’, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

In all fairness, I walked into this one.  I recognized off the bat that he was going to adhere a little much to the anti-God stance, but I thought, hey, maybe I’m being a little overly sensitive… and this is what I get for my optimism.

I figured that geeky movies would be a good safe topic.  ”Serenity” is a fantastic thing that everyone can agree on, right, especially since he has “Firefly” listed in his likes.  Guess what?  That’s unreasonable because “Firefly” and “Serenity” are not the same thing.  He loved “Firefly”, but “Serenity” was (and I quote), “a steaming pile of shit.”

After I scraped my jaw off the ground both at his wording and his extreme perspective, I asked why.

“The ending was the shittiest thing ever.  It ruined the movie for me entirely.”

You mean, because Wash died?  That was a critical and crucial part of the story, it created the last piece of emotional compromise to make the real ending what it needed to be – something bigger than any or all of the characters, something with impact and significance.

“That’s horseshit.  It was unnecessary, sudden, and manipulative.  It would’ve been a better movie if he lived.”

I wasn’t really sure what to say about that… and then he laid it on thicker.

“Star Wars” is not just the best movie ever created but it’s also the best written.

I’m sorry, but, what?!?

His stance was that George Lucas kept it simple and told the bones of the story.  He agreed that the first three chronological movies were less-than – but he said they provided back-story that was critical.  His least favorite of all of them?

(Are you sitting down?)

Empire Strikes Back.

I’m not kidding.  His least favorite.

Mr. Scientific also refused to acknowledge that only marginally significant statistical differences of result in clinical drug trials were indicative of limitation of effect for any given drug, and that the placebo effect was “horseshit”.

Any form of prayer or energy healing required the recipient to be “in on it”, so it was automatically “horseshit”.

Also, anything outside of strict Darwinism or Scientific American or (I’m guessing) Dr. Weil was not worthy of discussing, only of declaring “the best thing EVAR” or “a steaming pile of shit”.  There was no in-between.

And what did he think of our little talks?  He was having a fantastic time.

Mystery of why the Fundamental Atheist is single:  SOLVED.

The Assessment:

Here’s what I think is really going on in the F.A.’s head.  I think he really was having a great time debating with someone who had a clue on the topics, but he was so galvanized is his interpretation of what he thought the facts were that there wasn’t actually a debate going on at all.  His need to overwhelm his opponent, to be right, is based in the same fear that makes some fundamentalist Christians cling to their own un-scientific attitudes.  In the end, F.A.’s prospects are going to be limited until he can open his mind to other possibilities in life.

Which, in this case, will have to include not telling someone that their personal, non-traditional experiences are horseshit.  That’s just tacky.

The exciting conclusion:

At the end of the second multi-hour conversation, I informed F.A. that his dogmatic adherence to borderline principles was grating on my last nerve.  The invitation to “do this again real soon” was not accepted.

 
No Comments

Posted in Dating

 

You can have the milk, but you can’t buy the cow

06 Apr

This particular post is about my commitment issues, but something funny happened while I was looking for a graphic to go with it that I’d like to address before I get to the meat of the matter.  I kept running across the two main stereotypes of commitment-phobes.  I can’t really speak for the male commitment issues since I do not have the equipment to qualify as such, but I can speak for the women.

It’s not that we “made” a commitment to you, General Male Population, and had some kind of intention to bail on it or kept some reservation about it (though, admittedly, some of us did – we have that whole “trying to please” thing going on).  It’s that we tried to enter into the relationship honestly, and then when we got there and you realized that you had us, you stopped trying.  We didn’t get bored with you:  you became boring.*

See, part of the excellence of being a human is that you continue to grow and change as time goes on – and the personal evolutionary process is not meant as the means to the end of finding a romantic, life-long commitment.  You’re supposed to keep changing after that, not becoming stagnant or crawling under a rock or resigning yourself from humanity because you believe that the presence of a “little lady” at home validates all you have been or ever will be.

Now, on to the other thing I was going to talk about…

I was chit-chatting with a new friend the other day, and he said, “So, let me get this straight: you can work on cars, you do your own household repairs, you’re a fantastic cook, you’re smart, you’re funny, you’re cute as hell, you aren’t shy about your sexuality… and you’re still single?!?  How the hell does that make sense?”

I said, “I have commitment issues.”

Admittedly, I was really just trying to be a little funny, but I realized as soon as I said it that it was true.  It’s all true.  Oh, gods, I’ve turned into one of those people…

Really, though?  I realized in that moment – flash-fast brain and all that – that while I technically do have commitment issues, I’ve earned every last one of them.

My history speaks for itself in this regard.  My first marriage was an eight-year relationship of alcoholism (even the dry kind), abuse, manic-depressive cycles, emotional manipulation, emotional hostaging, and a wide variety of other offenses.  In a perfect world, I never would have fallen for the bait, but I was young and needed the gold pieces.  My second marriage was an ongoing “dog problem” where we kept using the same words and thinking we were talking about the same thing, but in the end, it turns out that “forever” and “love” and “honor” and “respect” just didn’t mean the same things to each of us.  (At least, that’s my current assessment of it.)

In both cases, I think I’ve more than earned my right to be a little cautious of any kind of long-term commitment, but that’s not why I’m poly.  (Wait, what?)  Seriously.  I’m not polyamorous because I’m afraid of commitment, I’m polyamorous because I don’t want to limit myself to a single commitment, and I want to have the leeway and freedom to explore different possibilities before committing to any person or persons out there.

But, the process of recognizing a problem is to analyze it and find the core of fear, and then to resolve said core of fear.

When it comes to commitments (and relationships in general), what am I afraid of?

I’m afraid of being lied to again, or to take it from a more “personal responsibility” stance, I’m afraid of believing in something that turns out to be false.

I’m afraid of wasting more time, committing myself to a situation that is presented as long-term and stable but winds up being terminally incompatible.

I’m afraid of being neglected and left wanting in one or more areas, even after repeated attempts to communicate my needs and wants in a variety of different ways.

I’m afraid of the fallout of shame and guilt that comes from loving someone so much that I want to share them with my kids/family, and then ending up having to explain the exit of said person due to whatever circumstances.

I’m afraid that my work to get past my abused past and communication quirks has been insufficient, and that I’ll continue experiencing the same problem again and again, as though there’s some kind of key to understanding that I just can’t seem to grasp.

More than anything, I’m afraid of trusting enough that I rely on another human being again, and then being so hideously disappointed – and also financially or economically or emotionally screwed – that it takes a few more years to regain my footing.

I suppose to a certain degree, embracing my poly-ness more completely than I have in the past is something of a symptom of these fears because by declaring only secondary relationships and never primaries, I have plenty of room to explore the other people and compare and contrast their pros and cons before considering anyone for the Exalted Role.  I have found, though, that I’m trending more towards people who are also not terribly interested in primary relationships, people who would have the luxury of throwing themselves into the enjoyment of each other without having to worry about the pesky “next week issues”, and maybe that is a symptom of the fear.

Or maybe it’s just a way for me to seek out having my needs met without having the fear overriding my emotions, causing me to second-guess every level.  I love playing with certain types of people whom I would never introduce to my kids, and I love being able to explore those connections without feeling like that introduction has to be part of the relationship.  It leaves me open to indulge myself in deeper arenas, if that makes sense.

I’d meant for this to be funnier, I think, but really… outside of the stereotypical jokes and jabs, there’s not a lot about it that is funny.  It’s a terrible place to be, to have to tell someone who thinks you’re wonderful (so far) that, no, you’re not going to escalate.  You can have the milk, but you can’t buy the cow.

______________________________________________________

* Yes, I know it’s not like that all the time, but it’s like that often enough that it warrants a conditionally generalized statement.

 
No Comments

Posted in Dating, Healing, Personal Life

 

A return to the fray

23 Mar

Copyright 2012 Randy Glasbergen - http://www.glasbergen.com/

There are many weird twists and turns in my life, even on a daily basis, and recent experience of the romantic variety has led me again to the realm of needing to date.

Given what you might already know about me, you’re probably look at the word “need” and saying to yourself, “WTF!?!?”

That’s okay. I did, too.

What I came to realize is that for single parents, having a life outside of the kids is not a luxury.  In many cases, it’s a necessity that allows us to keep our overall lives in perspective and thereby be better parents.  For me, it’s maybe a little more important than that because I also have a special-needs kid, and that alone can be enormously overwhelming.  ”Special needs” is hard enough, but when you don’t feel that you’re getting solid answers or that maybe they/we could be doing something more to handle it, you start looking for answers on your own, and then it gets even more intense… but that’s the topic of another post.

This post is about my return to online dating sites.

In the past, I’ve tried a few of them.  There was Plenty of Fish, which I determined was really good if you liked the low-brow approach and were more open to casual hookups than serious relationships.  Then there was PunkMatch, which was … well, let’s just say it was a total sausage-fest, which might sound like a great resource for women, but the majority of the time, it was pretty clear why these fellows were still single.  And then there was HerWay, and that was pretty neat.  On HerWay, the men cannot contact the women – the women have to initiate contact, and then they can talk.  It’s a typical pay-to-talk-more site, but it’s a nice concept.

Recently, I decided instead to go with a tried-and-true and give OKCupid a shot.  After all, the ex met his love there, I know a great number of people who have used it with fantastic results, and I’m always up for an adventure.

I don’t mean to make this a review for all dating sites, or any really, but I do appreciate the metrics that OKCupid use to match people up.  On other sites, the factors were highly limited, but with this one, the questions can go on indefinitely.  I’m given to understand that there are thousands of questions you can answer and tons of tests you can take, but the basic rules still apply:  be honest on your profile or you’re going to end up attracting the wrong end of the dating spectrum.

I’d like to take a minute to explore this concept more completely, because (as per usual), there was a huge response off the bat of people who clearly did not match my profile metrics at all but insisted on trying to get my attention anyway.  I do my best to be very polite and clear when speaking with these folks – “I’m sorry, but I don’t see that we’ll be able to get on well.” – so it’s not something that I find immediately offensive, but it is potentially enormously offensive in the long run.

The apparent logic behind this tactic of contacting every single woman on a site like this is the same as a guy who goes into a bar and propositions every single woman there, figuring that “it only takes one ‘yes’ to make up for ten ‘no’s.”  While it may make sense from an economic point of view wherein all products are essentially equal, it does not make sense in a human setting.

Here’s what the dating world does not seem to realize, at least on the “dishonest profile” level:

  • You are not an interchangeable cog.
  • You cannot be replaced by something of equal or lesser value.
  • You will only be truly satisfied in a relationship when you are regarded and respected for who and what you are, so if you are duplicitous, you will never achieve that.
  • Likewise, the person you are trying to attract also wants to be regarded and respected for who and what they are, and if you’re just going down the list like a sugar fiend looking under every rock possible for the next piece of Easter candy, the chances that you’re going to be cognizant enough to recognize the value of the object of your desire is minimal.

.

So, again, please.  If you’re going to try out the online dating sites, do so with a hefty dose of honesty and clarity.  You have to honor yourself before anyone else can honor you.

To illustrate this, a fellow I spoke with recently wondered that girls in high school some ten or more years ago seemed to have no interest in sports or politics, but if you go to online dating sites, especially, you see dozens or even hundreds of women who talk about their sports fanaticism, their strong political stance, and often their deep love for camping and fishing.  These are all traditionally “guy things”, and I know that doesn’t mean that girls “shouldn’t” do it, but the impression is that many women got into the sports and outdoorsy stuff, at least, because they wanted to have something in common with the guys they liked.  And the guys were thrilled at this at first because they suddenly had to work less at finding commonality with girls!  And then, they started going to sporting events together and the guys realized… that often, sporting events were supposed to be “time away from the romance”, that “personal space” that is critical when you’re in a relationship so that you can maintain your sense of self.

It was a brilliant plan to bring people together, this “common ground of masculine pastimes”, but before you ladies decide that this is what you need to be “into” to attract a man, try to think it through a little more.  If you like it for the sports’ sake, then more power to you, but maybe pick someone who roots for a rival team.  (The grudge sex could be amazing.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Stay tuned as I share my adventures and maybe try to break my previous record of consecutive “first dates”.  Yes, I’m still poly, and very picky, but human contact is necessary. (Or not.)

 
1 Comment

Posted in Dating

 

My theory about Doctor Who’s personality cycle

19 Mar

Ignore the 8th Doctor. I'm pretty darn sure that's Tom Baker and not Paul McGann.

Warning: Serious geekdom ahead!

FINALLY, I got all caught up with the last season of Doctor Who!  I have to say, the stories are keeping me even despite the way that Matt Smith inexplicably grates on my very last nerve.

Wait… why would he grate on my nerves?  What is it about this guy that I just don’t like?  It’s not an attractiveness issue because, while he’s not “my type”, he’s also not ugly, and that’s never really bothered me with actors anyway.  It’s the story they tell with their interpretation of the character that’s important to me.  I also suspected it might have been just because he’s not David Tennant or Tom Baker, but I don’t have a problem with Patrick Troughton or Christopher Eccleston.

And then it struck me.  Matt Smith is such a frikkin’ Gemini.

I don’t get on with Geminis hardly ever.  Their ping-ping-ping demeanor, their on-again-off-again temperament, their very self-centric perspectives, their exhausting bursts of energy, that wait-til-the-last-minute routine… it makes me bloody crazy.

Wait just another minute… I’ve observed before that part of what I appreciate about the entire Doctor Who series is that each of the Doctors represent different types of personalities.  My original theory had been that they were each exploring a dominant personality type - arrogant or inquisitive or fretting or romantic.  As I contemplated Matt Smith’s Gemini-ness, I started to suspect that there was a larger pattern.

That’s when I started realizing the very real possibility that maybe – just maybe - some strange force of writer-magic was fashioning the Doctors according to the western Zodiac signs.  So, purely for SCIENCE, I tested my theory by trying a sampling of the Doctor’s adventures through his various incarnations, and this is what I discovered:

At least for the ones I managed to find and watch (which wasn’t as much as I’d hoped since I’m limited to what’s available on Netflix at the moment), I might very well be on to something.  If we go in order, it makes almost too much sense:

The Doctors according to Zodiacal cycles:

1. William Hartnell – Leo.

2. Patrick Troughton – Virgo.

3. Jon Pertwee – Libra.

4. Tom Baker – Scorpio.

5. Peter Davison – Sagittarius.

6. Colin Baker – Capricorn.

7. Sylvester McCoy – Aquarius.

8. Paul McGann – Pisces.

9. Christopher Eccleson – Aries.

10. David Tennant – Taurus.

11. Matt Smith – Gemini.

12. ??? – Cancer.

Now, my research is still mostly preliminary since I still have to get my hands on the majority of the Doctors’ adventures (3rd, 5th, 6th, and 8th still not found and/or viewed), but the initial findings are promising.

Think of William Hartnell and that crazy mane of hair, that arrogant, sometimes brutish attitude.  No one can tell him anything!  Ah, but he’s still a genius, still clever beyond reason, and certainly leonine in many, many ways.  Total Leo.  And how about Patrick Troughton’s fretting Virgo manner?  His frustration at things not going the way they’re supposed to (mainly when people do the opposite of what he’s told them) is palpable, but he goes along and cleans up the mess anyway, usually finding some kind of insanely amazing treasure along the way.  Tom Baker is a complete Scorpio in the best sense of the word – intense and curious and crazy-passionate when faced with amazing mysteries.  Sylvester McCoy’s question-mark vest and umbrella are the epitome of the Aquarius inquisitiveness.  Christopher Eccleston is a very typical Aries, David Tennant is the best kind of Taurus that ever lived, and… well, you know how I feel about Matt Smith.

So, periodically over the next several days and/or weeks (depending on what kind of time I can carve out of my schedule), I’ll post much longer and in-depth discussions on how each of the Doctors may just be the “new Zodiac”.

Which would be awesome, because that makes me a Tom Baker, and I totally want to justify making that scarf.

Footnote: According to this, David Tennant hates astrology, which is a very ironic and sometimes Taurean thing to say.

 
No Comments

Posted in Geek Flags

 
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »