online dating and the paradox of choice

[torn_curtain]

I know online dating helps a lot of people, but I also find it sort of creepy because it reminds me of catalogue shopping. I think as a culture we have become burdened by an abundance of choices, and it makes us view people as more replaceable/disposable.

 

This is an interesting read:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/04/110704fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less

 

Reading this thread got me thinking about the topic, and I found the OP pretty disturbing.

 

I have a few friends who have been getting all of their relationships through OKCupid over the last few years, and they never miss a beat. They'll find a SO through the site, date a few months, breakup, put their profile back up within a couple weeks, try out a few women and then pick out another girlfriend a couple of months later...repeat.

 

There's just something mechanical about it to me.

Edited August 15, 2011 by torn_curtain

[zengirl]

Even before I did online dating, I never needed a long time to recover from relationships (the exception being the HS sweetheart who died, but. . . he died 3 weeks before our wedding; big exception).

 

For just a breakup. . . A couple months? Sure. Dating in between? Sometimes. Usually not for at least a month. I think it depends on your emotional resilience more than where you date. And, really, my Mom was re-married within a year of her divorce. And it's an awesome marriage.

 

You're ready to date again when you know why your old relationship went on and are accepting of it and over it. If you're the dumper, that's probably something you should figure out before you dump the person anyway. If you're the dumpee, it probably takes a little longer, but in most healthy relationship endings, it actually isn't that difficult to see why things are wrong.

 

But if you're talking just a few months . . . that's kind of the beginning of a relationship. I mean, it's normal to cycle through those if you're really looking for someone compatible. How else are you going to find that person unless you look at a lot of people?

 

I think the way some people do online dating is gross (when they have some litany of requirements or compare people or date many at once), but it's just a tool/venue, like any other. All it does is open up more possibilities. If people cannot cull possibilities, that's something the individual needs to work on.

[torn_curtain]

Even before I did online dating, I never needed a long time to recover from relationships (the exception being the HS sweetheart who died, but. . . he died 3 weeks before our wedding; big exception).

 

For just a breakup. . . A couple months? Sure. Dating in between? Sometimes. Usually not for at least a month. I think it depends on your emotional resilience more than where you date. And, really, my Mom was re-married within a year of her divorce. And it's an awesome marriage.

 

You're ready to date again when you know why your old relationship went on and are accepting of it and over it. If you're the dumper, that's probably something you should figure out before you dump the person anyway. If you're the dumpee, it probably takes a little longer, but in most healthy relationship endings, it actually isn't that difficult to see why things are wrong.

 

But if you're talking just a few months . . . that's kind of the beginning of a relationship. I mean, it's normal to cycle through those if you're really looking for someone compatible. How else are you going to find that person unless you look at a lot of people?

 

I think the way some people do online dating is gross (when they have some litany of requirements or compare people or date many at once), but it's just a tool/venue, like any other. All it does is open up more possibilities. If people cannot cull possibilities, that's something the individual needs to work on.

 

Well I'm not saying online dating is necessarily bad -- it can be used for good things. But a lot of people don't go about it the right way.

[Star Gazer]

There are also women who, at the first sign of trouble in their relationship, start perusing OKC for potential dates.

 

OLD serves multiple purposes (some good, some bad), but the legitimate purpose hopefully won't get permanently overshadowed by the catalog shoppers and/or the insta-rebounders. Really, at the end of the day, it's no different than any other method for finding a guy...it's just a much bigger initial net.

[ptp]

I have never done online dating so my opinions maybe way off base but, it seems like women have all the power because they get inundated with messages.

 

It makes sense though, 20 years ago these same women had a fewer choices restricted to their work or social circles.

 

Through online dating women have an abundance of choice and someone new is right around the corner so if everything isn't perfect, cut and run because a better guy will be coming along.

[torn_curtain]

 

For just a breakup. . . A couple months? Sure. Dating in between? Sometimes. Usually not for at least a month. I think it depends on your emotional resilience more than where you date. And, really, my Mom was re-married within a year of her divorce. And it's an awesome marriage.

 

You're ready to date again when you know why your old relationship went on and are accepting of it and over it. If you're the dumper, that's probably something you should figure out before you dump the person anyway. If you're the dumpee, it probably takes a little longer, but in most healthy relationship endings, it actually isn't that difficult to see why things are wrong.

 

I wouldn't trust that someone was truly in love in their last relationship if they are dating again within a couple of weeks and hopping into a new relationship two months after the breakup. I believe the loss of love takes longer than that to get over, and either they weren't in love or they're on the rebound.

[sm1tten]

I think that online dating is a venue and a tool, but I think that it is also highly abused. I have never had the issue that the guy in the MeFi thread had, though, but I think it's the mindset that I take. I think the "catalog shopping," massive over-thinking, and extremely heigthened expectations are things you find in "real world" dating, although they are exacerbated online. If you have an unhealthy mindset, it really doesn't matter what avenue you use to find a partner.

[zengirl]

I wouldn't trust that someone was truly in love in their last relationship if they are dating again within a couple of weeks and hopping into a new relationship two months after the breakup. I believe the loss of love takes longer than that to get over, and either they weren't in love or they're on the rebound.

 

Hmm. I think there's more variety than that, and different levels of resilience. Certainly, these short relationships you're mentioning (you say a few months, which to me means less than 6 for sure. . .and closer to 3), I'd say probably they weren't in love, yes, and that may have been a huge factor in the breakup. Nothing wrong with that.

 

As to love, I was in love with my exBF, but we had a period of "Ugh, are we really breaking up?" where I was technically still with him but already starting to "work through" the break up. That was probably a good 3-4 weeks. I started dating about a month after that, and I was definitely over the ex by then, though it was a couple more months till I met the new BF. Just takes time to FIND someone awesome. The thing is, love often begins to fade while you're still in the relationship. People don't usually break up when they're still in love. Sometimes they do, or the one person is still in love and the other isn't (I've actually never been the "still in love" person on that version of the equation), but I think that's rarer.

 

So, it totally depends how things went down. I do agree you can't be totally in love with someone one minute and totally in love with someone else the next (or if you are, you're a total weirdo and I'm not dating you! ). BUT the person could've fallen out of love before ever breaking up with the other. . . that's not uncommon, or both people could be mutually detaching; that's not uncommon either.

[Imajerk17]

Even before I did online dating, I never needed a long time to recover from relationships (the exception being the HS sweetheart who died, but. . . he died 3 weeks before our wedding; big exception).

 

For just a breakup. . . A couple months? Sure. Dating in between? Sometimes. Usually not for at least a month. I think it depends on your emotional resilience more than where you date. And, really, my Mom was re-married within a year of her divorce. And it's an awesome marriage.

 

You're ready to date again when you know why your old relationship went on and are accepting of it and over it. If you're the dumper, that's probably something you should figure out before you dump the person anyway. If you're the dumpee, it probably takes a little longer, but in most healthy relationship endings, it actually isn't that difficult to see why things are wrong.

 

But if you're talking just a few months . . . that's kind of the beginning of a relationship. I mean, it's normal to cycle through those if you're really looking for someone compatible. How else are you going to find that person unless you look at a lot of people?

 

I think the way some people do online dating is gross (when they have some litany of requirements or compare people or date many at once), but it's just a tool/venue, like any other. All it does is open up more possibilities. If people cannot cull possibilities, that's something the individual needs to work on.

Yeah but you're someone who is ALWAYS in relationships. I'm skeptical of girls like that because you very well might not know how to be alone. Anyway, girls like that get over breakups easier because they are so shallow--they just need to be in a relationship, they don't care who it is really, they just need to be in one.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Imajerk17

[Imajerk17]

I would say that it depends on which gender you're talking to here. The choice is really an illusion in that there might be many options, but only a few of those options look all that good.

 

Women get bombarded by emails from lots of guys, but whom do they write back? Most of the guys who write them don't look too appealing going by their online profile.

 

Many men see so many women online. They have many options, and so they end up writing a lot of women. But how good is an option if she doesn't write you back?

[Imajerk17]

torn_curtain, the guy who wrote that thread is writing from New York City, which is an unusually good place to be male and single. There are a lot more single young women than single young men so someone like him is a valued and scarce commodity online. It isn't like that in Denver, San Antonio, or in most small towns in the United States.

 

I think this guy's experience is typical of that of an attractive *woman's* in most other areas of the country. With all of the offers coming in, this guy can't go on a second date even with every guy she had a "good" first date with. That is how it is for a lot of attractive women who date online.

 

That said, one woman's response in this guy's thread stood out for me. She said she would not have gone for the man who is now her husband if she met him online. She didn't feel "chemistry" in her first interactions with him. This is my main objection with online dating--you're selecting people going by first impressions and chemistry. On the one hand, you have to when there is so many people (all those choices and so you have to weed each one out fast), but on the other hand, I don't think it works. First-date "chemistry" doesn't have much to do with long-term compatibility.

[somedude81]

Online dating really is nothing more than a man catalog for women.

 

The only men that get anywhere online are the most desired one. Regular dudes shouldn't even bother.

[torn_curtain]

Online dating really is nothing more than a man catalog for women.

 

The only men that get anywhere online are the most desired one. Regular dudes shouldn't even bother.

 

that's not true where I live (NY). Basically any average guy and up has an abundant number of options.

[Sanman]

I would say that it depends on which gender you're talking to here. The choice is really an illusion in that there might be many options, but only a few of those options look all that good.

 

Women get bombarded by emails from lots of guys, but whom do they write back? Most of the guys who write them don't look too appealing going by their online profile.

 

Many men see so many women online. They have many options, and so they end up writing a lot of women. But how good is an option if she doesn't write you back?

 

To add to this, how many of the people you meet are interested in the same thing as you are? A girl (or guy) may meet someone that they think is marriage material, but the other person does not seriously consider them relationship material, but someone to just have fun with. It is the illusion of choice that draws people into 'grass is greener' syndrome. I have spoken of my 'ladder theory' of dating, but what I believe most are tempted by are others who may speak to, date, or have fun with them, but would not consider them as a serious partner because they themselves are looking for something better.

[Sanman]

that's not true where I live (NY). Basically any average guy and up has an abundant number of options.

 

Assuming you are in the right zip code (usually manhattan/brooklyn/queens), there certainly does seem to be an abundance of options in NY for the average guy. An abundance of quality options? That is a different question.

[torn_curtain]

One problem I have with online dating is you often end up selecting for the wrong traits and possibly skipping over people who might be better matches. You end up being really picky, but maybe about the wrong things. I've gone on a few dates with guys from OKCupid and even though our profiles were highly matched (like 95 %+) we had no chemistry in person. Their algorithms are totally out of whack or something. Bear in mind I answered a lot of questions on the site and tried to be completely honest in all of them. If we had met randomly at a bar we would have probably taken one look at each other and passed.

 

I also think there's something to be said for the selection bias mentioned in the New Yorker article, but I believe it's more true for men than women who sign up for dating sites.

 

Men who do online dating regularly may not be the type of guys I'd want to date. I met the guy I'm seeing now online randomly--not on a dating site-- but he's exactly the kind of person who would never put up a dating profile. This fact is probably related to other things I find attractive in him -- that he has plenty of options in real life and isn't shy about asking women out, that he is wary of endless options and variety, that he is more relationship minded and has a more specific idea of the type of woman he wants--rather than seeing the sea of fishes as vast.

 

I think a larger range of women date online. I'm not really sure why. It's just been my experience.

Edited August 15, 2011 by torn_curtain

[torn_curtain]

AskMeFi always has good, intelligent responses but this one sticks out to me:

 

Now, confession time. As a woman, I used online dating to “ping the void” so to speak. It’s like ordering a fix of knowledge that you’re desirable. Put up the photo, get the messages, feel good for a short time. Not to get too armchair on you, but I suspect it would be quite easy as a man to use it the same way, only slightly differently-send the messages, get a response, feel desirable. Online dating really encourages this mindset and makes it numerical. It’s all about pegging everything down and knowing where you stand, knowing your place, based on a large numerical sample of other people giving you feedback. I read this mindset in your question- you went five years without dating, and that may have made you long to “ping the void” like me. You count everything, break it down into percentages, you want to know what you’re good at and what you’re not good at. You want to know the future almost like it’s an equation- will this take one year or ten if I continue in this pattern? The problem is, there is never a large enough set. There’s never a definitive placement in the entire world for you. That's why basing your self-esteem on this type of information is doomed to failure.

 

Another thing about online dating- some people photograph well, others don’t. Some people who look great in photos have completely off-putting ways of walking, moving, laughing, terrible voices, personal tics or the wrong pheromones, all of which only come across in video or in person. And EVEN THEN, it’s very difficult to get to know a person until a significant amount of time has passed. I’ve lived with people who I thought I knew well on a superficial level, and then three months in, I find out something that completely changes them to me- their mom is living in poverty and they’re sending checks home and that’s why they are so anal and work such long hours, or they were sexually assaulted and that’s why they turn down every guy that approaches them. You find out what really motivates people’s actions, and that context can change everything. It can also work in reverse. You talk to their sister and find out that sob story was fabricated or at least the truth was stretched a lot. You find out the reason they stay friends with all their exes is not because they’re a great, caring gal, but because they’re a user. On and on. The longest this process has taken has typically been about three months to six months, but that’s just my personal experience. For all I know, it could easily take longer sometimes.

 

The longer I’ve lived, the more I have come to realize that I’m probably wrong about everything. I have learned more and more, to operate on that assumption. I’m probably wrong about everything, especially my deepest, most cherished convictions, and I try to give a little more leeway, a little more generosity, a little more doubt. This works in all areas of life. I used to mourn the loss of that feeling that you have in childhood, that safe feeling combined with constant wonder and excitement at the world. You know what causes people to lose that feeling? Comparing themselves to others, and becoming certain that they’re right. The more you think of yourself as “good enough” and yet keep in mind that “I’m probably wrong” the closer you get to that great feeling that life can still surprise you, that everything is wondrous.

[Sanman]

One problem I have with online dating is you often end up selecting for the wrong traits and possibly skipping over people who might be better matches. You end up being really picky, but maybe about the wrong things. I've gone on a few dates with guys from OKCupid and even though our profiles were highly matched (like 95 %+) we had no chemistry in person. Their algorithms are totally out of whack or something. Bear in mind I answered a lot of questions on the site and tried to be completely honest in all of them. If we had met randomly at a bar we would have probably taken one look at each other and passed.

 

I also think there's something to be said for the selection bias mentioned in the New Yorker article, but I believe it's more true for men than women who sign up for dating sites.

 

Men who do online dating regularly may not be the type of guys I'd want to date. I met the guy I'm seeing now online randomly--not on a dating site-- but he's exactly the kind of person who would never put up a dating profile. This fact is probably related to other things I find attractive in him -- that he has plenty of options in real life and isn't shy about asking women out, that he is wary of endless options and variety, that he is more relationship minded and has a more specific idea of the type of woman he wants--rather than seeing the sea of fishes as vast.

 

I think a larger range of women date online. I'm not really sure why. It's just been my experience.

 

The one (large) issue with matching questionnaires is the people who answer them. Many people are not honest and even those that are are often more concerned about the image they project of themselves to others then answering 100% honestly. Covert matching can help, but is not perfect. It works well for music and movies, but you are not limited to one song or movie for life. Sure, there is selection bias and other issues at work as well. Also, all the matching in the world does not replace physical chemistry. That said, when the goal is simply finding eligible single people, it works as well as any other. There are no shortcuts in life and realizations over the value of a partner are an individual thing.

[Emilia]

Hmm. I think there's more variety than that, and different levels of resilience. Certainly, these short relationships you're mentioning (you say a few months, which to me means less than 6 for sure. . .and closer to 3), I'd say probably they weren't in love, yes, and that may have been a huge factor in the breakup. Nothing wrong with that.

 

As to love, I was in love with my exBF, but we had a period of "Ugh, are we really breaking up?" where I was technically still with him but already starting to "work through" the break up. That was probably a good 3-4 weeks. I started dating about a month after that, and I was definitely over the ex by then, though it was a couple more months till I met the new BF. Just takes time to FIND someone awesome. The thing is, love often begins to fade while you're still in the relationship. People don't usually break up when they're still in love. Sometimes they do, or the one person is still in love and the other isn't (I've actually never been the "still in love" person on that version of the equation), but I think that's rarer.

 

So, it totally depends how things went down. I do agree you can't be totally in love with someone one minute and totally in love with someone else the next (or if you are, you're a total weirdo and I'm not dating you! ). BUT the person could've fallen out of love before ever breaking up with the other. . . that's not uncommon, or both people could be mutually detaching; that's not uncommon either.

 

Wow you are a really cold-hearted person.

[zengirl]

Yeah but you're someone who is ALWAYS in relationships. I'm skeptical of girls like that because you very well might not know how to be alone. Anyway, girls like that get over breakups easier because they are so shallow--they just need to be in a relationship, they don't care who it is really, they just need to be in one.

 

I definitely care who I'm in relationships with, and I certainly wouldn't date just anyone. That's silly. I just don't see putting some self-imposed restriction on myself to not date when I feel like it. And I don't get all emo about having lost love. Does it hurt? Yes. Is it something to deal with? Yes. But it's a part of life. And I've been through far worse at this point, so a relationship becoming dysfunctional and ending is not going to crush me, is all.

 

Besides, you're incorrect in that I have been alone for reasonably long spans before when I had stuff to work through. I just don't think every relationship, even ones in which you loved the person, takes a long time to work through. I really question any adult who was alone for years or never had a relationship or something but says they wanted a relationship (if you're moving or whatnot, or if you weren't into it back then, I'd get it) because how long can it possibly take you to meet someone you connect with who also digs you? It's not that hard.

 

One problem I have with online dating is you often end up selecting for the wrong traits and possibly skipping over people who might be better matches. You end up being really picky, but maybe about the wrong things. I've gone on a few dates with guys from OKCupid and even though our profiles were highly matched (like 95 %+) we had no chemistry in person. Their algorithms are totally out of whack or something.

 

Granted, the algorithm can't determine chemistry, but to me chemistry --- while essential --- would not be what I'd consider the "important" stuff. In fact, I'd consider it a distraction from assessing the "important" stuff. I see people all the time entering into clearly wrong relationships because "the chemistry is so strong." That's why I'm more likely to go out on a date with a guy from RL who turns out to be a conversation dud than one from OL where I know what he likes to talk about. But I date from a variety of sources, and I think it's not good to rely on any one source.

 

There's a question on OKC that says, "What's worse on a first date? 1. No physical attraction. 2. Bad conversation." And I'll go with #2. Either way, the date isn't going to work out as a good date, but with good conversation and no chemistry, you could at least make a new friend.

 

Men who do online dating regularly may not be the type of guys I'd want to date.

 

This could be very true as well. And geography matters, as do many things.

 

This fact is probably related to other things I find attractive in him -- that he has plenty of options in real life and isn't shy about asking women out, that he is wary of endless options and variety, that he is more relationship minded and has a more specific idea of the type of woman he wants--rather than seeing the sea of fishes as vast.

 

Eh, most of the guys I know who've done well online also have real life options. A lot of them do work in male dominated fields (all the guys I know do, basically), but they have female friends and active social circles. They are less likely --- the guys I know in general --- to try to randomly cold call girls, either online or in a bar, and will generally only go after a girl if they have some idea she's truly interesting. There are plenty of guys who cold call online, but also lots of other guys. The other guys . . . they often aren't super-active on the site (logging in constantly, etc), and you may have to write them, but they throw a profile up. Some are still active, but you can tell they aren't writing everyone or responding to everyone. They're looking for something that meshes with them. (These people, male or female, tend to have detailed profiles, tend to seem like they know who they are and what they want, etc. WAY easier for me to tell in writing, personally.) Most of my male friends have had OKC profiles at some point; some have met people there, some haven't. None of them used it as their ONLY dating source.

 

And there are, of course, definitely things you can only assess in person. How are you even sure you'll really have real life chemistry with the guy you met on a message board?

 

I think wanting endless variety is good, but so is getting sucked into some idea of absolute specialness. Sure, whoever you end up with should be really special to you, but I prefer people who have the idea that there are a lot of great people out there. Because that's how I see it, and abundance is sexier than scarcity.

 

Wow you are a really cold-hearted person.

 

Because I've fallen out of love before? Not all relationships work out. I don't see the point in being crushed by it. I accept what happens in my life, lovely or difficult, and attempt to move on and make the present wonderful. That's how I live my life. Dwelling on pain isn't valiant; it's stupid. Deal with it, sure, but moving on is natural.

Edited August 15, 2011 by zengirl

[FitChick]

There is nothing wrong with having choices. The problem with dating online is that too many think it IS a catalog and just by contacting you they will get you. Then when they get rejected or ignored, they become angry.

 

You need to have a clear picture of what you want and focus on a person similar. You also need to recognize when you've found a good thing and hang onto it, not bail at the first disagreement, assuming you will quickly find someone just as good. You may wind up alone for a longer time than expected.

[sm1tten]

The problem with dating online is that too many think it IS a catalog and just by contacting you they will get you. Then when they get rejected or ignored, they become angry.

I completely agree with this. And I sometimes think that relationships develop unevenly when you meet online too. People who hit it off in the email/chat/phone whatever meet up and if they don't feel that instant spark, they feel disappointed. I think it does go back to the "too many options" thing, actually - they just go back to the drawing board. Whereas when you meet people in real life first, you don't know as much about them (usually) and I think people are more willing to feel a situation out and get to know them. Online dating sometimes gives me that instant-pudding feeling.

[torn_curtain]

Eh, most of the guys I know who've done well online also have real life options. A lot of them do work in male dominated fields (all the guys I know do, basically), but they have female friends and active social circles. They are less likely --- the guys I know in general --- to try to randomly cold call girls, either online or in a bar, and will generally only go after a girl if they have some idea she's truly interesting. There are plenty of guys who cold call online, but also lots of other guys. The other guys . . . they often aren't super-active on the site (logging in constantly, etc), and you may have to write them, but they throw a profile up. Some are still active, but you can tell they aren't writing everyone or responding to everyone. They're looking for something that meshes with them. (These people, male or female, tend to have detailed profiles, tend to seem like they know who they are and what they want, etc. WAY easier for me to tell in writing, personally.) Most of my male friends have had OKC profiles at some point; some have met people there, some haven't. None of them used it as their ONLY dating source.

 

 

I've known a number of guys who have OKCupid profiles and they all had at least one of these unattractive traits: not a lot of options in real life, unassertive and trouble with approaching women in real life, commitment phobic, needy and uncomfortable being single for any period, more sex driven than relationship driven, addicted to variety, not having a clear idea of what they want (even if they think they do), serial monogamist. All of which would be deal-breakers for me.

 

I'm sure if you did a statistical analysis of men who signed up for OKCupid vs. men who never put up a dating profile you'd find some marked differences. It's naive to think there wouldn't be a strong selection bias.

 

As for variety vs. special, both ends of the spectrum are dangerous and the healthiest perspective lies somewhere in between. I don't want to be with a guy who believes in something hokey like "soul mates," but I'd rather be with someone who believes that there are a number of compatible matches for each person, but not many and it takes a lot of searching. I certainly wouldn't want to date a guy who think it's reasonable to find someone you "love" on a site, break up, dip in the pool again and find another person you "love" within a couple of months, rinse repeat. I guess somebody could get lucky once or twice and have that happen, but if there's a pattern of this he either sees people as easily replaceable/disposable and never gets that deeply attached, is needy and would rather be in a relationship with anyone than single, or is addicted to upgrading and grass is always greener mentality. Having dated people like this, I run for the hills whenever I detect any of that mentality at this point. I'd be very suspicious of any desirable, successful guy who has a dating profile up. There's usually some catch.

 

Wasn't your ex-boyfriend who you met on OKC a serial monogamist? I wouldn't consider it very deep love if you were able to move on and fall in love again that fast. It wasn't from his end at least, and I think those feelings are usually mutual -- it's rare that someone is truly blindsided.

 

 

 

And there are, of course, definitely things you can only assess in person. How are you even sure you'll really have real life chemistry with the guy you met on a message board?

 

 

Skype/video chat isn't that different in my experience from chatting in real life. I've met people (non romantically) who I skyped with previously and it was always a very close approximation to the real thing. I'm confident we'll have chemistry in real life. That doesn't mean it'll work out. I'm more concerned about other things that might emerge in real life after a date or two, which I can't assess at this point.

Edited August 15, 2011 by torn_curtain

[ptp]

I think a larger range of women date online. I'm not really sure why. It's just been my experience.

 

I think the answer to that is simple, online dating is just more fruitful for women.

 

I have 2 friends who have done online dating. One started on POF then switched to OKC and the other used both.

 

Both of them said that for guys unless you are very good looking it is really tough to meet a normal gal. They have gotten frustrated with sending out emails and not receiving responses.

 

I doubt many women have trouble getting interest from guys.

[torn_curtain]

Besides, you're incorrect in that I have been alone for reasonably long spans before when I had stuff to work through. I just don't think every relationship, even ones in which you loved the person, takes a long time to work through. I really question any adult who was alone for years or never had a relationship or something but says they wanted a relationship (if you're moving or whatnot, or if you weren't into it back then, I'd get it) because how long can it possibly take you to meet someone you connect with who also digs you? It's not that hard.

 

I disagree with this. It may be easy to find somebody who you dig, but it's hard to find somebody who is compatible, no matter who you are. It sounds like you're a bit of a serial monogamist or you're just not picky for the right things. A lot of people think they're picky but they look for the wrong qualities and don't really know what they want/need.

 

I think it's always good to take a hard look at what you think you know about yourself, or you may end up boxing yourself into a corner.

Edited August 15, 2011 by torn_curtain