An ERE dating site

[7Wannabe5]

i don't know, for me it's gotten easier with age to strike a casual chat with strangers over a used book or the quality of the arugula in the market or a piece of music or whatever.

Oh, this is true for me too. It’s not that I am terribly shy, it’s just that internet dating is soooo easy. The standard recommended practice for the female half of the “dance” is (1) make yourself attractive, (2) signal availability. If I smile at a man as we both reach for the arugula, that may or not be effective, but it certainly isn’t efficient compared to opening up an internet dating profile and thereby signaling availability to hundreds of single or semi-attached men in my demographic and zipcode. The only problem with internet dating for those who do find success is that it gives you the VERY strong impression that there is an almost endless supply of fish in the stream. If what I want is a pleasant evening out or a fun adventure with an interesting, attractive man, then internet dating allows me to pretty much dial that up like a pizza. However, IFF I am looking for a serious long-term relationship, I need to filter harder for a variety of factors. My problem is that I often go out shopping for a fun evening and then end up in a relationship with somebody who really only met my fun evening criteria. Part of the reason why this happens is that, for a variety of reasons, men in my demographic are mostly shopping for what I call “the forever girlfriend” which I think is the worst deal for me because just as much work/boredom as marriage without the benefits. I would rather live by myself and date a variety of men. I might prefer getting married again.

IOW, my current stance with the old dogs is that I’m good with sex and fun without benefit of marriage, but don’t count on me to drive you to your hernia surgery or tolerate your morning grouchy without benefit of marriage, because there is definitely some other old dog who is available for fun and sex. However, I have to be careful that I don’t state this stance to anybody I don’t actually want to marry. I hope this makes some kind of sense?

[Crusader]

Even if there are a lot of women in your day to day activities, it doesn't mean they would be suitable for you. Normally, I do a lot of social partner dance, and I meet lots of women. But, there are two problems with this:

1) More often than not, these women are the opposite of what I am looking for intellectually. They are into spirituality, crystals and chakras, and I am a devout atheist, and they are people who choose to spend their free time doing some kind of a dance instead of reading books or educating themselves or being workaholics. I would much rather be dating that scientist of lawyer or programmer, who, chances are, doesn't have time or the inclination to go dancing. I guess I do spend time dancing as well, so am I not in the same group? This brings me to my 2nd point.

2) Dancing is something I do as a single guy that brings me some kind of sense of community and quasi romantic interaction with women. If I had a proper partner, I would most certainly do it less, or not at all. Dancing is not something that defines me as a person, it's just something I happen to do in this life stage.

As a result, I feel completely out of place with my dancing crowd, so even if I did meet a woman from that community, we would fundamentally be different people that wouldn't get along in the long term (believe me, I've tried).

That's not to say that it would be impossible for me to meet a life partner on the dance-floor, it's just that it's not as likely as you would think, and I need all the help I can get, including online dating.

[ertyu]

@Crusader: Fair enough. If you're also a scientist or a programmer, attend local meetups for programmers. You can use the dance people for practice. Even if they aren't suitable life partners, they would likely be suitable light conversation partners. You can make sure your social skills stay well-oiled by practicing on them. Also, aren't there atheist meetups? What does r/atheist say when you ask them how they meet atheists in real life? You're in Canada, not in buttfuck nowhere eastern europe, people whose worlds aren't limited to whatever immediate dailiness they're absorbed in. In your shoes, I would make a list of the sorts of qualities you'd like in a life partner and then brainstorm where such people might gather.

[Crusader]

@ertyu
I appreciate the good intention. However, doing an activity just because I am hoping to meet a significant other just feels very cringe. I am a programmer and an atheist, and I guess a scientist (in the sense that I am philosophically deeply sold on the scientific method as a way of finding out what's true about reality), but if you look at how I spend my time outside work, you might as well think that I am the complete opposite. I kind of look at myself as being an RPG character who wants to be as balanced as possible, and that's why in my spare time, I like to go to dance, arts, music, storytelling events... I've been to atheist meetups and programming meetups and was bored out of my life.

Also, just because you are an atheist doesn't mean I'll like you. Or a scientist, it's much deeper than that. I have a friend who is a science researcher who moves furniture around because she believes in Feng Shui. Or, there can be no physical attraction (i.e. smell). Not to mention that she has to be the right age, at the right life stage AND into me as well. It just feels like looking for a needle in a haystack, and the older I am, the more it feels that way. And, any attempt to lower my standards has only led to more frustration. Anyway, I don't want to hijack the topic.

[Jin+Guice]

@7: What are the privileges of marriage, as you define it, that the "long-term/ forever girlfriend," also as you define it, doesn't receive?


@Crusader: A good woman is hard to find, but not like, that hard. You're getting dates right? It sounds to me like you have a filtering problem.

From what you've said, I think you're either looking for someone who doesn't exist (filtering people too hard) or too resistant to going to places to meet women you will connect with (filtering demographics too hard). It's possible to go places to meet hotties AND have fun, even if you don't meet any potential paramours. Even "meat markets" and/ or Tinder aren't useful if you don't have a good time going to/ using them (but did you try to have a good time using them?). If you're bored at an event where you're hoping to meet someone, leave. Why are the women you say you're attracted to not interested in any of your myriad hobbies? That doesn't sound attractive to me.

Also this thread was dead and the ERE dating site kind of sucks... if you're just cruising for hoes who live in New Orleans. It's probably useful if FIRE is very important to you and you are willing to travel to meet someone you connect with online (not many users at this point) or you live in New York, Toronto or maybe D.C.

May or may not have seen some of you goofy bastards on there though.

[7Wannabe5]

@Jin+Guice:

Well, at my age death benefits become an issue. Also issues of social standing relative to his exes etc. For instance, I don’t want to lose a garden I’ve worked in for 20 years because his snot-nosed kid from a previous marriage inherits, etc.

However, this is mostly moot because my current preference is live by myself and date who I like.

[Jin+Guice]

@7: Ah so it's mostly economic benefit? I'm asking because I am interested in longterm girlfriends but not interested in getting married. Is it extremely difficult for them to leave you part of their estate while not getting married to you and still leaving some of their estate to former wives/ lovers/ kids?

[Crusader]

@Jin+Guice
My interactions online usually are designed to filter for specific traits that I am looking for: atheist, able to read and communicate properly (i.e. reads my profile), attraction (as much as you can guess using the pictures). This alone disqualifies >95% of the women. Then, I read their profile and ask myself "do I *honestly* think I would enjoy spending time with them?", and usually the answer is "no". Since the onset of COVID (which is when my last relationship ended), I went on maybe 5 dates, none of which ignited any kind of spark, and in retrospect, had I vetted them better, it probably wouldn't even have come to that. I am not just on OKC. I am on: Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, Coffee Meets Bagel, Badoo, this FIRE Dating app, and still nothing. My photos are professionally made by a photographer, and I think I am decent looking, if a bit short (5'9'').

Earlier in the year, while travelling, I had a little fling with an old flame/girlfirend, and while I was insanely attracted to her, she fails the atheism criteria: she is a biology teacher (among other things) who has doubts about evolution and believes in "energy". And I always end up being attracted to these kinds, and there is the problem. At least now I know that I don't want to start a relationship with these "kinds", whereas before I would, and then get frustrated. Maybe that's progress. The reason why I am attracted to them is, no doubt, the fact that they exhibit the kind of traits that are complementary to my own (easygoing vs taking myself seriously, loving and accepting vs judgemental etc). Couple this with a bit of childhood trauma from moving, growing up in a household with parents who were not exactly too much into each other and voila, no wonder why I am messed up.

[Alphaville]

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the topic.

hijack away! real problem needs solving.

was originally gonna say if you wanna date a scientist or a programmer go look of them where they are but then read your meetup reports and laughed so hard. true that.

if religion is so important to you (atheism) then it is important. crystals are stupid to me but if the belief is not toxic i can tolerate some level of non-fundamentalist superstition. everyone has "beliefs" of some kind or another. hard atheism is a belief too: only agnosticism isn't.

which comes to the point that i agree with @j+g that you're maybe being too picky?

which goes back to my argument about the problem with "lists".

there is nobody out there who is going to match every last checkbox in your list.

i'd say pick your essential "factors" aka dealbreakers and work out the rest. but maybe also learn to work out and even enjoy the difference.

e.g. my wife i was lucky to meet in grad school where there was a selection for a certain type of intelligence , but she's a lot more intuitive and a lot less nerdy than the brainy neurotic girls i used to go for, which, among other things, helps me laugh more, and it saved our marriage from turning into a stupid debate society where every little thing becomes a competition

here a bit of classic fiction on the subject
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1974 ... e-of-mensa

otherwise maybe try to figure out why you're being so picky in the first place.

eta: looks like you already replied to some of this just above but i think some of this still applies.

[7Wannabe5]

@J+G:

All benefits are economic. However, it is not the case that all benefits are financial. It would not be my desire to be financially compensated for the loss of a garden in which I had invested my last 20 functional gardening years; I just want to keep the theoretical garden.IOW, more like who gets the dog. I should note that the loss of gardens is my only resentment held towards previous partners, so I am just trying to be forward thinking in avoiding this possibility.

Obviously, I might also consider something like insoluble life lease on the property with possession by snot-nosed offspring to follow only upon my death.

Or to put it more bluntly, at this point if my life, I would rather invest in a garden and dabble at relationships with men than invest in a relationship with a man and dabble at gardening.

[Crusader]

@Alphaville
That was a great short story, thanks! I love Woody Allen. And, I don't want to end up like the guy who hired the detective!

Over the years, I have been trying to answer the question of... how I would prune my "list" of criteria. I came to the conclusion that one litmus test would be whether or not I genuinely feel like spending time with this person. Maybe not all the time, but I remember that when my last relationship deteriorated, close to the end, the idea of spending time (in any capacity) with my girlfriend felt like a burden to me. So, if I had to narrow it down, this feeling has to be there from the start, and the two people have to grow deeper, or together over time, rather than apart.

[7Wannabe5]

@Crusader:

I agree with what Alphaville implied which is that you need to find somebody who respects your masculine energy rather than somebody who shares your masculine energy. For instance, I have often been quite compatible with men who are very “street smart” because my tendency towards intellectual debate does not intrude upon their masculine wheelhouse. Like I once dated a 6’5” guy who did 500 push-ups every day and he liked for me to do the math for him at the casino. Kind of like I ran girl-consigliere to his masculine but his masculine also ran bodyguard to my monkey princess feminine. I wonder what happened to him?

Or another example would be an aging “bad boy”I dated who recalled about our first date, “The words kept on coming, but I just focused on your lips.” We did have some fun together.

[Crusader]

@7Wannabe5
Whenever someone uses the terms "masculine" and "feminine" to describe some kind of yin-yang traits that are supposed to complement each other, my BS indicator goes off. I look at people as individuals and not through their gender (apart from the domain of physical attraction). I, for one, have many traditionally feminine traits (I like talking about feelings, being introspective, I couldn't care less about sports...). In fact, if you read
Intimate Relationships, by Rowland Miller (a science psychology university textbook), you'll find that this kind of thinking (i.e. "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus") is actually detrimental to relationship happiness.

I firmly believe that like attracts like, not the other way round.

[7Wannabe5]

@Crusader:

Trust me, I was quite philosophically opposed to modern sexual dichotomy theory when I was first introduced to it, but then I tried it and it worked.

Obviously, every human is an unique individual possessing a balance of traits that may or may not be culturally promoted or hormone accentuated towards feminine or masculine, and as intimacy develops in relationship these layers upon layers will be revealed and explored. However, the question is which bundle of traits do you prefer to bring forward within the context of sexual/romantic relationship.

As you noted yourself, you choose to engage in the hobby of partner dancing because it does allow you to experience aspects of dichotomy outside of a direct sexual interaction based on attraction limited to differences in body parts. Obviously, any individual human has the ability to learn to take the lead or follow in a dance or choose to only engage in forms of dance that do not require adoption of any role, or choreograph their own unique post-modern intermittent switch of roles, etc. etc. The main point of modern sexual dichotomy theory is that the dance of sexual/romantic relationship is likely to go better if you are clear about your primary preferences in this regard going in.

One thing that I find interesting or amusing is that it is often the case that a modern human who is being consciously insistent that their relationship is egalitarian is often unconsciously very strongly assuming the lead.

An overly simplistic exercise for determining your primary preference would be to consider your degree of hurt if your beloved said “You are stinky” vs.”You are useless.”

[Alphaville]

:

I agree with what Alphaville implied which is that you need to find somebody who respects your masculine energy rather than somebody who shares your masculine energy.

i said something else and didnt imply any of that

i wasn't talking about "respect" or "masculinity". im not luca brasi at the wedding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTpUWcpmAiI

[Crusader]

“You are stinky” vs.”You are useless.”

My first reaction would be "why are you with me, then?". And, then, I would evaluate the claim. I think that I would be fine with being useless, because I don't expect her to be useful to me, so why should she expect anything other from me? And, if I am indeed stinky, since I do have an expectation of her to not be stinky, I think it would be fair for her to bring it up.

Having said that, I distinctly remember the situation with one of my ex/possibly on-and-off lovers. I was spending the night at her place, and something broke in her bathroom, water everywhere. She was freaking out and looked so helpless. I "handled" the situation and genuinely thought that without me, she would be screwed, and I really felt like a "man", whatever that means. But, I really don't have this desire to "save" helpless women, like I know one of my friends does. He likes to pick out young inexperienced women and somehow manages to be their father figure or something, whereas I can't think of a bigger waste of my time. I don't want a daughter or a pet, I want a partner.

Anyway, I am not saying that there aren't preferences for the dynamic in a relationship, and even that there aren't trends that males and females follow *on average*. I just think that taking the trend and turning it into a prescription ("men should do X, women should do Y, for an optimal relationship"), is not useful.

Fun fact, the gender differences in traits are not nearly as big as you would think. Don't quote me on this, but I think in the biggest difference they could find, the means for the male and female distribution was only one standard deviation apart. Which is to say that there is a LOT of overlap. Something like 30% of the women exhibit the trait more than the average man. With these kind of numbers, I think it's much better to put gender aside when discussing psychology. A nice benefit of this approach is that it's unaffected by the current norms when it comes to gender (whether it is societal, biological, both, it doesn't matter because you don't care about it) or sexuality (heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality...).

[Crusader]

i wasn't talking about "respect" or "masculinity". im not luca brasi at the wedding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTpUWcpmAiI

OMG, time to watch that movie again, I haven't in years!

[Alphaville]

OMG, time to watch that movie again, I haven't in years!

yeah, great stuff, always something new to find in it, and this scene came to mind, ha ha.

anyway i also think gender essentialism is a bad tool, so i wanted to steer clear of that discourse.

what i meant to say way above about my wife being less... literary than other girls i was seeing at the time, was that i wouldn't have found her in any kind of "list" i could have made those days.

it was unexpected and a nice suprise once i made allowances for it.

this goes towards the value of serendipity, which @white belt mentioned upthread.

but also about the necessity of working on the relationship itself rather than wanting a person that checks boxes.

of course for that "not a sociopath" is an important box to check

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

Attempt at humor.

@Crusader:

Modern sexual dichotomy theory does not prescribe traits or roles, it just suggests that some degree of dichotomy is likely to increase romance and/or eroticism. I’ve actually learned some “moves” from homosexual men who are very relaxed in their feminine energy and I’ve squabbled with some men who self-describe as heterosexual submissive.If what you seek in your relationship is primarily successful business associate or chummy companionability then sexual dichotomy theory need not apply. However, you might want to consider if wanting to be with somebody who is different from you, but only when in bed between the hours of 9 and 11 pm every other Friday is likely to be long-term functional? Sex is meant to mix different good and bad stuff up, otherwise we would have evolved into a bunch of different species based on same strongly attracts same proclivities.

[Crusader]

Let me try again. Sexual "dichotomy" can certainly exist without you using terms like "feminine" and "masculine", it is just that this dichotomy can be different and unique for each couple. What, exactly, does the word "feminine", and "masculine" mean?