A Journey of Mindfulness--the Remaking of Life in Midstream.

[IlliniDave]

This has been the most lively and interesting discussion in my lil' journal in quite some time, so please feel free to carry on and don't mind me a bit.

I think there's definitely something to what jacob said above. One of the very last words I'd ever use to describe myself is a 'salesman'. I like to think I have a very good product to offer, but I don't want to even waste time trying to sell it to someone whose just looking for the sales pitch. I may be losing out on opportunities to be sure, but if I'm going to have another partner one day I insist it is someone who puts substance over style from the get-go.

7Wb5 has a good point too. It's a very different reality for men and women. There's a whole long thread on the forum about that. My thought is if the serial part of serial monogamy is important for a given woman, there is quite a large body of research to lay out a behavioral itinerary for her and plenty of men perfectly happy to play that game. The serial part has zero appeal to me. Sometimes it just works out that way, of course, but I've never been one to do what everyone else does while expecting it to turn out differently for me.

Regarding shoes. If anyone makes it through my defenses I would never show up in shoes like those above. I would almost certainly show up in a pair of Xero shoes. If not them it would be snow boots if required by weather. Most people would see the Xeros as far from stylish or attractive, but they are quite cool among a small slice of us (albeit an even smaller slice of females I'd hazard). I would do it only because I value the well being of my feet, but I suppose it would also send a message that I am not a conduit to pampered luxury and 5-star accommodations, nor an edgy bad boy's girl lifestyle.

[Henry]

I know a guy in his mid-70's who's essentially banging every surviving female member of his high school graduation class. A couple of Facebook exchanges of sorry your husband's cancer spread to his lymph nodes and I can't believe you didn't realize I had a crush on you back in the day leading to a meet a the Boston Chicken where he generously encourages her to get all the sides she wants and then a straight pile drive down memory lane. And not to be judgmental, he's no George Clooney let alone an IllinoisDave.

[7Wannabe5]

@IlliniDave:

I apologize for cut/pasting your post to make point in my "debate" with Jacob. In the world of Peanuts, you would likely be Linus on the cusp of Schroeder with maybe a bit of Charlie Brown, whereas I would be right on the cusp of Snoopy and Marcie, but in debate mode I can vibe a bit of a Lucy . Therefore, you are towards a Romantic Sexual Idealist, while I am towards a Sentimental Sexual Realist. Since "sentiment" is also towards lower functioning for me, I have learned through the process of therapy and experience that it is to my benefit to be more "realist" in my relationships. Due to our inherent temperaments/perspectives, neither of us prefers serial monogamy, but for reasons that differ to the extent that I prefer warmly-engaged although also somewhat intellectualized polyamory and you prefer committed monogamy. IOW, I'm okay and you're okay

I would also note for the record that because I have trained myself to become almost reflexively realistic in the realm of sexual/romantic relationships, beyond my tendency to see all my forum friends as pre-sexual intellectually precocious comic character juveniles, my realistic appraisal is that (whatever your shoe preference) you are actually "out of my league" in terms of age, current level of fitness, and symmetry of facial features and that is also highly likely that you are a "slim toned leg and arm man" in terms of your own preferences(Xero shoes only increasing this likelihood) automatically rendered you non-sexual or in alignment with the unfortunate phrase I sometimes employ in my own thoughts which is "gay for me." Therefore, my comments truly were more in the mode of a Snoopy dressed up and goofing a bit in her Dr. Ruth costume.

Truth be told, the only man I have inappropriately flirted with a bit on this forum is one of the youngsters who clearly revealed himself as an "ass man" with a preference for "thick", but that was just for fun, because "youngster." For better or worse, this forum does not overlap very much with the demographic(s) most likely to want to date me in meat space, and I think it also isn't a likely source of an ideal match for you, although the demographics would be somewhat more in your favor, if Jacob's statement that females make up 50% of the membership of this forum is accurate.

[ffj]

Oh Henry you make me laugh so much.

And women and shoes... I don't quite get what's so important about footwear on a man but maybe be happy the all-white kicks didn't have velcro too?

Sorry Dave for the comments but this stuff is hilarious.

[okumurahata]

You are invited to ERE orgy fest 2024, code of etiquette: nudity is expected, avoid white shoes with platforms. Preferably, don’t wear mended socks. Introverted men are allowed to cover the tip of their iceberg.

[7Wannabe5]

And women and shoes... I don't quite get what's so important about footwear on a man but maybe be happy the all-white kicks didn't have velcro too?

They were actually worse than the photo I found. More like old-fashioned nurse shoes. I have questioned myself about the women and "shoes" thing, especially since I am a female who only owns 6 pairs of fairly run-down shoes herself. I think it is due to the fact that even when casually dating women tend to shop for "lifestyle" more than men. When intellectual-romantic-motorcycle fantasy guy showed up in the horrible, horrible nurse shoes, it seemed like he had been deceptive, especially when I discovered that he drove a dirty little car that was littered with an odd assortment of trash. I actually let him make out with me a bit, because I didn't want to be superficial, and I thought maybe what he had written would be more revealed, but, uh yeah, did not work.

Another time when I was stupid enough to involve myself in long-distance flirtation without meeting in person, our conversations were great. We had this whole very fun thing going where I was Nancy Drew and I was helping him solve mysterious goings-on in his apartment complex. He bought me a ticket to come visit him, and, once again, rude awakening not very attracted disconnect upon meeting in person, only this time it was fairly mutual. He semi-ghosted me after I returned home, and I was mostly relieved.

[ffj]

Ha, the only blind date I ever went on was in college. I once received a wrong number phone call in my dorm and me and the girl that called hit it off and like you I had a vision in my mind of how her voice and looks intertwined.

I told her to meet me at a popular statue on campus and we would go see a movie afterward. I arrived precisely at the time we agreed upon and nobody was there. I waited a couple minutes and suddenly I spot a beautiful girl running in my direction and I was like "hell yeah" in my nerdy over-confident self wearing my cool jean jacket. I probably had some dorky shoes on too. But she kept running, right past me to some other friends across the street.

As I turned to leave with my tail between my legs a very large girl that appeared out of nowhere calls out my name. And it was her voice! Fuck. In those moments you have a split decision to either be the hero or a loser, but I did the right thing and was nice but instantly there was zero attraction. I might as well had my sister in front of me. Now we did go see a movie together, conversing in platitudes with both of us cursing in our minds the length of the movie. The first and last blind date I ever experienced.

I once worked with a guy that had a blind date and when he pulled his truck up next to her he looked at her and said "nope" and drove away. I don't know whether to admire or feel scorn for him in that situation.

[7Wannabe5]

@ffj:

Well, obviously, all online dating is semi-blind in the sense that you've seen some photos, but you don't know how accurately they convey the human in person. My experience with middle-aged men (because they suck at taking/choosing photos) is that around 1/3 resemble their photos, 1/3 are much better in person than their photos, and 1/3 are much worse in person than their photos, so it's pretty much a crap shoot. As far as your friend's behavior goes, I would judge it as being better than one of the possible alternatives which would be continuing on with the date while signaling that although she is far from his ideal, he'd be okay with knocking boots anyways. One of the reasons I endeavor to be towards "truth in advertising" in my dating photos is my desire to avoid this sort of outcome. I like it when I get that brief happy look of relief at first meet and greet. I've never walked out on a date myself, but I have canceled just a few hours prior due to growing feeling of unease with prospect, usually because he started communicating too much like we are already a couple before meeting, or a couple times because I agreed to the date against my gut-instincts and my instincts grew stronger. So, I would say that the best approach for any guy would be reasonably assertive yet casual. Although, I have read some dating memoirs written by other women that would indicate that some of them are okay with somebody they haven't met referring to them as "Angel Eyes" or texting "Sweet Dreams" which makes me feel like I ordered a cup of strong coffee and got a cup full of imitation maple pancake syrup instead. Do not text "Sweet Dreams" until/unless you gave her sufficient cause to collapse exhausted.

[Biscuits and Gravy]

The first time I visited Suo he picked me up in his beat-to-shit car and he admitted he had never cleaned the interior. Ever. Freaking love at first sight. I can’t say I noticed his shoes, but I did notice his smile and the flecks of brown in his green eyes (yeah, go ahead and puke). All that to say, best not to pursue if they care about your shoes?

[7Wannabe5]

All that to say, best not to pursue if they care about your shoes?

Ian Kerner, the author of "Be Honest-You're Not That Into Him Either" and "She Comes First: The Thinking Man's Guide to Pleasuring a Woman" would disagree with you. His eventual wife didn't like his shoes on their first date, but he kept dating her until he grew on her. His theory is along the lines that the longer courtship necessitated by female not being super attracted at first may lead to better long-term attachment. I think some of what he writes is on the money, but disagree with the gist of this theory. He also thinks that the reason why sex on a first or second date doesn't work for most women is because they have difficulty communicating what they need to achieve orgasm to a relative stranger who is not familiar with her body, whereas I'm thinking that Helen Keller could do that with sign language if she was significantly motivated. The real problem is that women frequently don't care enough about their own pleasure to communicate adequately. Still, it would be difficult to ask a man to take off his shoes in the middle of a coffee shop

Anyways, you made me consider whether I have noticed the shoes on the men I've almost instantly found hugely attractive, and my honest answer would be sometimes I have and sometimes I haven't, but they're not what I notice first which would roughly be more like: shoulders, smile, hands/wrists, voice, eyes. ankles/shoes. Actually, if he is extremely attractive, I will probably notice his ankles/shoes before being able to identify his eye color, because I will be too flustered to look him in the eyes. I think my first husband was probably wearing black Converse the first time I met him and my second husband was probably wearing black leather work boots.

[suomalainen]

Haha. All these dating books seem to miss the point that it's not about being a certain way to the breadth of the opposite (or same) sex. It's about being a certain way to a certain person and vice versa. You can't "game" it or any of that dumb shit. You can only roulette wheel it until you find the one that fits you and the one that you fit. I can't remember the article, but I read something once about game theory dating, and the gist was that you don't need to date 100 or even 30 people to find something close to the "best" fit. The optimal strategy was something like date 7 people and then marry the first one that is "better" (by whatever metrics you choose) than the best of those 7. IIRC, this strategy is very likely to result in finding one of the top parnters you will ever find, even if you dated 100, without too much risk that you are leaving too much on the table (either past or future).

Anecdotally, I met @gravy after 40-some-odd years on this planet. Even if I haven't had 7 serious-ish prior relationships, I've met a lot of women over the years, and none compare. As luck would have it, she felt the same. Also anecdotally, we both had "failed" prior relationships, so you know, it's not like we're special or anything, it's just that we happened to roulette-wheel into each other's lives. Kismet.

[7Wannabe5]

I agree that if your goal is to be happily married, it is better to not date to the extent that you become cognizant of pattern formation Actually, I read an Islamic marriage manual which pretty much convinced me that both partners entering into marriage as virgins would be best practice. Although, one could also theorize that with each level of development through adulthood one grows or becomes aware of a new form of hymen blocking access to one's core of feminine/masculine energy. I am imagining that my next partner will either be an illiterate woodsman in his 60s or a portly yogi in his 70s, but the Goddess may surprise me.

[suomalainen]

I am imagining that my next partner will either be an illiterate woodsman in his 60s

I mean, that's iDave, yeah?

[Henry]

or a portly yogi in his 70s

Do you like Boston Chicken? I could hook you up.

[IlliniDave]

Illiterate and rocking shuffleboard kicks. I think I need to work on my image around here!

[jacob]

I can't remember the article, but I read something once about game theory dating, and the gist was that you don't need to date 100 or even 30 people to find something close to the "best" fit. The optimal strategy was something like date 7 people and then marry the first one that is "better" (by whatever metrics you choose) than the best of those 7. IIRC, this strategy is very likely to result in finding one of the top parnters you will ever find, even if you dated 100, without too much risk that you are leaving too much on the table (either past or future).

That's the Secretary Problem which is a type of "optimal stopping" problem. It also applies to hiring secretaries or shopping for apartments and so on. There's nothing magic about the number 7. The algorithm is simple. First, estimate the number of candidates (e.g. if you can date one person every 6 months for 10 years, then n=20). You should then date the first n/e, where e=2.7178... but reject them all (think of it as the "calibration" part of strategy). Then keep dating picking the first one who is better than all the candidates previously seen up to that point. The "7" would imply that the total sample space is n~19(*) which may be a lot of dating/flings/relationships for some and not much for others. Those who have a different n should optimally stop sooner or later.

(*) I don't know where that number comes from. Perhaps it is the average of something or comes from another theory.

[7Wannabe5]

Do you like Boston Chicken? I could hook you up.

Would Boston Chicken Guy reply 'Of course." if I asked him if he could inhabit a masculine energy that best combined the qualities of Black Walnut and Gray Wolf? The illiterate woodsman would obviously be my pre (as opposed to trans) option, so even asking the question of him would be unnecessary. Kind of a Plotkin-esque or Jungian update on Jong's concept of the zipless fuck. Hmmm, Jung-Jong , I like it!

[Henry]

Would Boston Chicken Guy reply 'Of course." if I asked him if he could inhabit a masculine energy that best combined the qualities of Black Walnut and Gray Wolf?

Yes. But not because he has the slightest idea of what you are talking about but because this bald, bespectacled, suspendedered, tracheotomy voiced septuagenerian widower with a blind ass fucking dog is a stoned cold playa who's got 60 year high school reunion chicks eating cornbread out of his fucking hands. I've seen the receipts. PM me. I'll give you his contact info. You won't be sorry. And don't worry about paying me back. I'll get a discount on my taxes.

[Igotgoals]

This is all pretty entertaining.

Good job on your physique, Dave.

[IlliniDave]

This is all pretty entertaining.

Good job on your physique, Dave.

Hey Igotgoals! Thanks, and thanks for stopping by, been a while. Hope all is well(?)