An ERE dating site

[7Wannabe5]

You really know how to pick 'em!

Yeah, I should probably just go pick out a pitbull/rottweiler mix with abandonment and bowl protection issues from the humane society and be done with it. A certain amount of ill-founded hubris about my man-whisperer abilities might also be in play here. Also likely that I give up too much in other more important qualities because I like them big and good-looking.

OTOH, I don't even know why I am chatting like I am in search of my next oh so serious relationship or marriage. I am so very old and bored/jaded with circling around same old block, but the other day I was wishing that I could just be like the character of Kandi on "Two and a Half Men." Dopey and sexy and not at all concerned about heavy theory and work.

However, if you ever find a Scandinavian going cold and calmer on you when arguing, you're in trouble.

I must be part Scandinavian. I call that my Snowy Owl anger quadrant. It might look like I am still in the room or relationship with you, but I am really mapping out my plan for exit because I am done. It's kind of like there's a blackboard out of Borges on which I am subconsciously keeping track of how many times you needlessly made me cry and at a certain number which even I can't predict, the tears and any last speck of respect for you is gone and only cold, cold, calculation remains.

[Alphaville]

cultures

yeah, deborah tannen wrote a bunch of very interesting books on the subject, although she dealt with linguistics, interruption patterns, etc. highly engrossing, i'd recommend as a meta-manual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Tannen

i think also the social setting works with this because it lets you get the feel for the culture. but yeah culture is a big hurdle. nevertheless, bridges can be built. i'm in an intercultural marriage and it's taken some work but it's fun too. awareness is key.

as for degrees of anger:

there is a funny saying in spanish, "a dog that barks doesn't bite". it's a pretty good heuristic. if a person is talking, they will keep talking, one can engage. if they fall silent ... beware.

you can also spot this in a person's face: if their angry face is red, they're venting/displaying, you're safe. if the face goes white, it means the blood is going to the organs... take cover.

so in my story, when she forced me to stop barking... i'm not gonna get violent, i just went to bark elsewhere

(we were from the same culture but different families btw)

[suomalainen]

Yes, superficial assholes exist, but that's definitely NOT what I saw in play during the years I spent in thoughtful marriage/divorce therapy groups full of intelligent people who worked VERY hard on their relationships for a long time. Does this seem like an accurate description of Biscuits'n'Gravy, Suo, IlliniDave, reepicheep, or me (off the top of my head list)...

Yeah, I'm not a superficial asshole. I'm an asshole to the core.

... or other divorced individuals you know in other contexts in which you might find intelligent, mature individuals?

Oh wait. You were trying to make a different point...

[Alphaville]

wow, that was some thread you quoted...

please know that i know nothing about you, have no opinion, and never meant to get you pulled into this discussion.

i'd like to insert an "it's a trap" meme at this point, but it goes against forum rules to post memes. but it's still a trap?

anyway, i'm sorry we haven't formally met, and i haven't read your journal or anything, so i don't know your history, or anything really, but i wish you all the best.

[suomalainen]

oh no worries, i'm not offended or anything by 7w5's reference to me in the list of "intelligent, mature divorced individuals". I just found it funny since I'm likely the least intelligent and mature individual in that list of distinguished names. Anyway. Carry on.

[Biscuits and Gravy]

I dunno, I’m kinda an asshole, too. Thanks for the nice descriptors, though, 7w5. You’re still my hero. <3

[Alphaville]

I dunno, I’m kinda an asshole, too.

lmao, ive read a bit of your journal and you're a really nice writer and i dont think you're an asshole, but i don't know much about your divorce and would not offer opinions about it. i offered songs for your breakup song request without knowing the details. best wishes with everything though.

==

for the rest of the people mentioned who may show up on this thread:

i understand if @7w5 wanted to refute my point about commodification by traits being a source of couples failure, but i think there was no need to invite third parties to be offended by a comment that was not directed at them. i've had my share of failed relationships and i try to speak about things i know and experience.

the only person i called an idiot was the guy i used to know who didn't appreciate his lovely girlfriend as a person. i found his comment very dehumanizing, like she was made out of doll parts or something. stuff like that makes me shudder, and maybe lose track of my logic in an expression of feeling.

but that was just an extreme example to make a point.

my original goal was to develop the idea that i do not trust "matching by traits," as it promotes the commodification/commercialization of intimacy, which generates all manner of problems, disappointments, frustrations. [ eta: long before the internet erich fromm criticized the market approach to relationships but i don' have his book at hand to quote him. it's this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Loving ]

it was never intended as a comment on the divorces of people i know nothing about, and does not belong in such a context, and no, i was not talking about any of you.

but if you feel that the mention of your name associated with something i said in a different context that had nothing to do with you gives offense, please accept my apology.

i don't think any of you is an asshole and never actually said that.

thanks/take care.

[7Wannabe5]

Egads, I apologize. I was just attempting to offer examples of divorced people we might both “know.” I should have just noted that since 50% of marriages end in divorce, hopefully not every one required the participation of a superficial asshole. Since “relationships succeed when people are compatible” is rather self-referential, I was really just trying to bring home the point that for better or worse marriages are complex adaptive systems and it’s highly unlikely we can come up with anything resembling an easy or even readily communicable procedure for avoiding the possibility of divorce.

[Alphaville]

Egads, I apologize. I was just attempting to offer examples of divorced people we might both “know.”

ah, damn, ok. triangulations sometimes happen accidentally.

i learned about triangulation in therapy actually, as one of the things most damaging to relationships.

anyway, thanks for explaining. we're still friends afaic.

I should have just noted that since 50% of marriages end in divorce, hopefully not every one required the participation of a superficial asshole.

no, of course not. i never meant to say that.

but love under a market/capitalist paradigm does not require superficial assholes necessarily.

the asshole, as explained above, was just an extreme case to illustrate commodification-- but the idea i'm trying to advance is that the market system itself is commodifying, and will even harm people with the best intentions.

im just trying to argue for love as something one does rather than something one finds or trades for.

Since “relationships succeed when people are compatible” is rather self-referential, I was really just trying to bring home the point that for better or worse marriages are complex adaptive systems and it’s highly unlikely we can come up with anything resembling an easy or even readily communicable procedure for avoiding the possibility of divorce.

yeah, there are many factors in divorces, and i can't begin to presume to explain them all. and i'd even be willing to hypothesize that one could divorce someone out of love for them--so i'm not out to condemn divorce here. divorce can be a healthy thing.

what i want to do is identify and analyze failures of love. and so i wish to circumscribe my criticism specifically to transactional modalities of love--which are not love. but we've set up the profiles and matches as a commodified transactional system. oopsie!

[Toska2]

Edit.

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

Yeah, I grok how it might have seemed like I was resorting to “jury of peers” which I also witnessed as dead end move in therapy. I was actually thinking that maybe you were just too young to have intimate acquaintance with many people who had divorced after many years of marriage, as opposed to the less than 3 years and out type failures.

Anyways, I am not picking on you in particular because I think it’s almost a helpless innate feature of the male wiring, but I would like to note that it is every bit as superficial to offer comment that a woman is “pretty” as to reply “ yeah, but her boobs are droopy.” The difference is that the first comment is generous and mannerly and the second is crude and mean-spirited.

Because I have been on many internet “blind” coffee dates, I have noted certain patterns. One of these patterns is that if a man is romantically interested in me, he is likely to comment on my hair or my eyes, in addition to likely taking note of my more overt secondary sexual characteristics. IOW, men are quite visually hard-wired to both the sexual and emotional/romantic centers of their brain. When I was younger and less experienced, I might have valued the sort of attention I was likely to receive from somebody who thought I was pretty over somebody who “just” thought I had a nice ass, but that is no longer my perspective.

OTOH, over the longer run, “pretty is as pretty does” and similar masculine analogue does apply. I’ve grown accustomed to her face. The way he wears his hat. The groove you wear together in the wooden hallway in the home you share. The bowl of soup you make because she is sick even though you are angry as f*ck. The celebratory sex after you finish another successful project together. Etc. etc. IOW, I agree with you that love is a verb applied over time.

Circling back to the topic at hand, nobody with half a brain takes algorithms on the dating site/apps seriously. They are just like a nerdy party game or the annoying ads you have to scroll past when you do any other sort of search on the internet. Also, anybody with maybe 3 internet dates experience knows better than to get very involved/attached/hopeful before meeting in person. Before I even started internet dating, a friend warned me about what she called “literary infatuation.” That said, there are elements of internet dating which do make it game changing. These would be ease of access and depth of selection. It’s akin to the difference in earlier times between having your dating pool limited to the other inhabitants of your village vs. going to the big city. One thing I really liked about it initially was that many men contacted me because they were amused by my essay even if they weren’t knocked out by my photos. So, for instance, I had a very enjoyable dinner with a playwright who lived in Chicago, and I never would have met him in the normal course of my social ramblings. In fact, it’s very rare for me to meet eligible attractive men in the course of my social ramblings at all, probably because I’m not much of a social rambler, and the social groups I do join tend to be female heavy. Like maybe a Foster Grandpa at some kindergarten where I am subbing will hit on me or somebody will start talking to me on the bus, but that’s about it.

[jacob]

what i want to do is identify and analyze failures of love. and so i wish to circumscribe my criticism specifically to transactional modalities of love--which are not love. but we've set up the profiles and matches as a commodified transactional system. oopsie!

I agree that transactional relationships (Kegan2) are somewhat shallow and arms-length. Yet how is the meat market aka bars where initial contact is based on physical attractiveness, smells(?!), or clever pick up lines in semi-intoxicated circumstances any better as a starting point than say an algorithmic match based on self-reported data? How is dating much different than persons-of-potential-mutual-interest writing back and forth for a while?

I think these are just different means to the same end. IOW, I'll separate the "starting point" from the "relationship building" part. The question then becomes whether some starting points are more successful than others. Statistics would likely be required to see if one method has an edge and individual variation likely exceeds this... meaning methods are probably equally good but some do much better/worse with particular means than others.

Thus, live and let live and let people find each other using whatever method is most optimal for them. I think the only counter argument is that the method itself filters certain people, but maybe that's a good idea because it makes people with the same traits/preferences more likely to find each other. E.g. people who date online find other people who date online and people who like to screw around in bars find other people who like to screw around in bars. And so on...

[Alphaville]

I agree that transactional relationships (Kegan2) are somewhat shallow and arms-length.

everyone is shallow to a point, that's just aesthetic preferences at work. the challenge of course is in moving from "shallow" to "deep" relationships, which is perhaps more about issues of character than appearances.

but i'd contend that transactional relationships aren't merely insufficient; i think they're toxic, dangerous, potentially explosive, damaging, etc. best to be alone than trapped in one of those.

Yet how is the meat market aka bars where initial contact is based on physical attractiveness, smells(?!), or clever pick up lines in semi-intoxicated circumstances any better as a starting point than say an algorithmic match based on self-reported data? How is dating much different than persons-of-potential-mutual-interest writing back and forth for a while?

bars vs. online is a false dichotomy.

i've been arguing from inception that meeting people in their natural environment should lead to more successful outcomes in search of a long term relationship.

eg, if you hang out in a bar, you'll meet other barflies. if you hang out at church, you'll meet other church people. if you hang out at the library, a theatre, art galleries... etc.

meeting people at work used to be a big thing (my parents met at work, the obamas met at work, i met several girlfriends at work, a lot of people used to meet at work ). these days such attempts are fraught with dangers and require hr department vetting. but it's easy to see how and why people could make a go match at work: you get to see people on a regular basis rather than in a one-off situation, you get to have multiple encounters from the casual to the highly engaged, you see their character at work as they're tested with different situations. someone who might have been unattractive on paper displays amazing qualities, the golden boy proves to be a racist/sexist coward, and so forth. you see real people in real situations. and yes, haha, you also find out what they smell like (yes, smell is serious business, because attraction isn't just "looks", but i'll leave that for a separate post).

anyway, while dating at work is nowadays fraught with legal dangers, the same "natural setting" mode can apply to schools, churches, sports clubs, volunteer groups, summer vacations, music/arts scenes, etc etc.

yes, this might be difficult to do for a hikikomori, but the challenge is to meet more people, not to find someone while avoiding people.

so maybe rather than trying to online-date ere people, one could try to... actually meet them? you know, just meet them, in person? like it's a bowling club or something, without the high stakes of swipe right or left?

i don't know how serious this publication is, but it seems that old fashion has staying power and online remains niche at best, at 8%?
https://www.bustle.com/p/where-people-a ... oday-45616

that leaves out 92% of chances of meeting someone. 91 if you remove the 1% horror of speed dating.

which, ok, 8% is not nothing, but... it doesn't deserve so much attention.

[enigmaT120]

7WB5 wrote: "This made me reflect on the fact that part of my problem has been that I tend to attract men who are so depressive/grouchy/misanthropic that even though I am their favorite person in the world, that's still not good enough because it just means that they REALLY can't stand everybody else."

I actually had gotten the impression that you were attracted to men like that, not the other way around. I didn't and still don't understand it.

[enigmaT120]

Seven wrote: "IOW, men are quite visually hard-wired to both the sexual and emotional/romantic centers of their brain."

Overly generalized. Yes I like to look at attractive people. But when I close my eyes I can't visualize them at all. If they hug me, I can remember their smell, the feel of their body next to mine like how muscular or slender or plush they are.... If they have female bodies I can remember what their breasts felt like pressed against my body. But I can't remember what they look like. Sometimes that really frustrates me.

[IlliniDave]

... Also, anybody with maybe 3 internet dates experience knows better than to get very involved/attached/hopeful before meeting in person ...

I can't remember if I ever mentioned this here but I am a veteran of three internet dates.

The first made really stupid jokes and hee-hawed like a donkey at them. We were at a small Italian restaurant and it was obviously disrupting the ambiance the other patrons were expecting, and I thought we'd be asked to leave. Dinner ended when she lost control of her beverage which sailed across the table and landed in my lap. Made a note to self not to wear tan pants next time.

Second was a fitness buff who had entered some sort of group weight loss challenge with her coworkers. Weigh in was the next morning and apparently she'd downed a bottle or two of magnesium citrate before coming out. I waked her to her car after a pleasant chat over a drink. As soon as she sat down there was a long extra wet fart sound and the unmistakable perfume of shat within britches.

The last was a meet for coffee that she changed at the last minute to the bar/grill next door to the coffee shop (ostensibly she was hungry). Not only was she at least 20 years older than she claimed to be on her "profile", but she put down 6 or 7 beers in the 30 min or so it took to eat a sandwich. Ex had some alcohol issues so alcoholism was a hard limit for me.

So I definitely learned that lesson, and stopped mucking with online dating!

[chenda]

So I definitely learned that lesson, and stopped mucking with online dating!

One thing I like about tinder premium and similar is you can set you location to anywhere in the world, so if you want to meet say an Italian or Scandi guy or girl just put your location in Rome or Stockholm or wherever and its game on...

[Toska2]

Number two gets a second date. I like a competitive spirit.

[IlliniDave]

Number two gets a second date. I like a competitive spirit.

Haha, I do too, but sound judgement is important as well.

[Alphaville]

have had the smell thing happen. date was perfect on paper but then just... smelled wrong .

I can remember their smell

a long extra wet fart sound and the unmistakable perfume of shat within britches.

the nose knows, my friends, the nose knows

see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odou ... attraction

but this is a much more enthralling read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume_(novel)
and as true to life as literature gets.

really read the actual novel because the movie looks ridiculous. it's an amazing read.