[QUOTE=Chimera]
No, not at all. Sorry for any miscommunication. Rather, I was expressing that it was a new idea to me, one I had never considered. But I could certainly imagine plenty of people telling themselves that to “soften the blow”.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. For my part, I kind of assumed they would be male-heavy. Maybe it’s my bias but I thought women would want more of a Harlequin romance setup than a computer would provide.
BTW it sounds like you had much better luck than I did with e Harmony et al. I ascribe my lack of success to my inherent nerdiness. I’ve always been book smart but struggled with social stuff. I’ve heard that writing a good profile can make a huge difference and mine was probably off, since I don’t really understand what women are looking for. I bet they can smell a nerd a mile away :smack:
:rolleyes: :mad: :o 
While I think I have a lot to offer, I don’t think it markets well on such sites. That may be true of a lot of people. E.g. if you were selling a line of guitars, a TV ad allows you to see and hear them; the radio allows you to hear them. A print ad would allow you see them. Which one’s best? That depends on its strengths and weaknesses.
[QUOTE=Chimera]
We don’t know what we want, or we want what we cannot have. Or we want that which will not be good for us.
After all, how many women want the “bad boy”? Almost all of them? Will the bad boy be good for them? Hell no. The bad boy is a self-centered jerk who will treat them like shit, cheat on them, use them, and never really love them.
How many guys want the “hot chick”? Almost all of them? Will the hot chick be good for them? Hell no. She’s a self-centered jerk who will treat them like shit, cheat on them, use them, never put out and never really love them.
[/QUOTE]
A long time ago I had a human sexuality course. The teacher said something to the effect that people have different criteria for marriage throughout the life span. When we’re really young, it’s all about looks. Then, after divorce, we want someone whose personality captivates us. By the time we’re seniors, we’re just looking for companionship.
My aunt is a good example. She married, had a family. Her husband died when she was 55 or something. She didn’t go through ALL the stages, but she did later remarry. I never saw her and husband number two kiss or act with affection toward one another but they didn’t seem unhappy at all. I think they just wanted a companion. When he died, he was buried alone. Years later she died and was buried with her first husband.
As for me, I’m not ready to settle for mere companionship yet. My watchwords these days are “involved” and “evolved.”
“involved”—if she’s too busy (e.g. a workaholic or devoting huge amounts of time to her kids or a playa) then no thanks. Relationships take time to build and if some haven’t prioritized for a relationship. It’s like having a Ferrari but no gas to power it, and I’ll keep looking.
“evolved”—we aren’t kids any more. There’s a lot of give and take and we aren’t the Cleavers here, with socially-defined norms to guide us. We can’t follow a map—we have to draw one as we go.
St.-Exupéry said something to the effect that love isn’t about gazing into each other’s eyes: it’s about looking outward in the same direction. I think that’s highly evolved.