I had assumed it was a rated G thing. Of course I am not much of a hipster, should be more suspicious there’s more to it than simply bike rides along a beach board walk or baking muffins.
I always assumed the OKC “activity partners” was just that - people to hike with, go to a game with, work out, go to a movie, whatever.
But I base that on the fact that OKC has a looking for “casual sex” setting, which I have seen show up in multiple profiles, so why would they need a euphemistic version of the same thing?
What do you all interpret “average” to be? In my opinion, it’s someone who is weight-proportionate-to-height; close to their ideal weight in a height-weight chart. Maybe it would include those that could stand to lost 10 or 15 pounds or so.
“A few extra pounds” - in my experience, it usually means they’re visibly fat.
“Thick” - used mainly by black women, and some younger white women.
“Large” - obese.
I guess my thought was that “casual sex” was the Craigslist equivalent - like a one-night stand. “Activity partners” was more a FWB thing.
But clearly - my mind goes too quickly to the gutter. 
To me, activity partners means they are looking for someone to go to concerts with, go to the dog park, the museum etc. I say that because OKC also has a box for “Casual Sex”.
IMHO an activity partner is someone that you would plan to go an do ‘stuff’ (not sex) together. One notch below friend. You’re not going out for coffee and shooting the breeze, but maybe the jazz festival.
As an ex-Catholic, I’d suggest revisiting that. The Catholic faith is a strong, complex belief system. But there are a great number of people who identify as Catholic, but have an extremely tenuous connection to the actual faith. IME, Catholic men are more apt to be extremely casual regarding their religion, and probably put “Catholic” down because they could honestly go both ways.
When I still had “Catholic” listed under my faith, an atheist could date me and really have no idea I had checked it off. On the other hand, a run-of-the-mill cafeteria Catholic could date me and have no problem with my not going to mass on Sundays. Think of it as a “I don’t have a problem with the idea of being married in a church, or having my kids baptised” checkbox (but definitely ask them about it).
This was a great idea, melodyharmonius.
I have a question for you guys. A guy contacted me on okcupid. We exchanged several messages and hit it off pretty well, which was disappointing because he lived two hours away. Lo and behold, he invited me up to his area, and when I refused, he offered to drive down to see me. We’re meeting in a public place, of course. I live near DC, so he and I have plenty of options closer by. I’m excited about meeting him, but a friend of mine pointed out that he would be pissed if he drove two hours to see a girl and she wouldn’t put out for him. It seems to me that if all he wanted were sex he wouldn’t drive so far for it. Should I be worried?
No - if he gets disappointed that you won’t put out, then he’s just going to have to jerk off on the ride home. Also - your friend’s a shallow idiot.
Well, first off, let me tell you - congratulations!!
And here’s the good news - my boyfriend and I met on OKC, have been dating for 2 years, and guess what? We originally lived 2 hours away from each other. Now we live a mile away from each other - but y’know - that comes with time 
So anyway - I don’t think there is a mathematical equation that states that an increase in drive time = increase expectation of sex. Sure, if I drive 19 hours to see you, I expect that we might spend a little more time together than just a drink or a cup of coffee. But I’ve had someone drive from Tennessee to SC so we could get to know each other better, and neither one of us expected that sex was a foregone conclusion. We just thought it was worth it to get to know each other face-to-face. He stayed the weekend, and we never did more than hold hands.
That being said - just because a guy or girl doesn’t expect sex, doesn’t mean they won’t hope for it. But I think you should be okay. Just make sure your date is early enough in the day that he has plenty of time to drive home without getting too sleepy - and maybe point that out in your discussions. I’ve done several afternoon dates in the past just for that reason.
Also, consider meeting somewhere in the middle. An hour drive for each of you wouldn’t be so bad - and then neither one of you has a bed nearby for him to try to coerce you in to, if that’s a concern.
Gang - any other advice?
Agreed. Two hour drive does not equal automatic sex, and I doubt that very many guys would expect it on the first date. If he does expect it, he’s clearly not for you. (Unless you’re into that, which it doesn’t seem like you are.)
In my case, I was introduced to my SO and (because of logistics) wound up having a lot of e-mail exchanges with her before we could meet again. I live (about) 3 hours from her, so I organized a whole day’s worth of activities for both of us (picnic, followed by a bowling session then movie and dinner).
I wasn’t expecting sex; but I came prepared for it.
We’ve spent every weekend since then together.
It never even crossed my mind that it was anything other than G-rated. I interpret “short-term dating” as the FWB deal.
Well, I consider myself “average,” though someone upthread said I could get away with “fit” or “athletic.” I agree that it’s height-weight proportionate; although the reason I hate the “body type” descriptors is that I’m pretty sure I have a different idea of “average” than 95% of everyone else. I’d rather just see a photo.
I interpret neither Short Term Dating, nor Activity partners as anything akin to Friends With Benefits. I have them both checked. When I think of Activity Partners, I think of finding people who like to go on hikes, or trips to the museum, or even a movie or two. Doing stuff with no romantic intentions. Short Term Dating, on the other hand, I would consider going to dinner, movies or whatever. But, perhaps holding hands and making out. Going on dates. But, not necessarily going on dates with an eye for marriage. And, not just all about sex or even any sex at all.
Friends with Benefits I think fits best with casual sex option.
Yeah, I think the friend who thinks the guy who is driving 2 hours is going to expect sex is misguided. He probably really likes talking to you and is looking forward to meeting in person to see if the flame is there face to face, as well. Of course, he might hope to have sex. But, I hope to have sex when I go to the supermarket. That doesn’t mean it ever happens. (Only when the apples are especially ripe.) Don’t be worried at all. Just excited!
I’m totally unfamiliar with the jargon used by other dating sites…but I assume that there’s another option that doesn’t preclude all the others? I mean, what if you’re looking for someone you can go on an activity with, and fall in love with, and shag senseless, and maybe someday marry? Is there a checkbox for that?
Isn’t that called “dating”?
And I really don’t understand why someone would go on a dating site to find platonic friends.
I guess that was my thinking. If you are on a dating site, I assume “activity partners” to be dating-related, and my mind went to the gutter of that relation.
My friend, however, loves the OKC quizzes and had a profile page on there. Of course, she also liked to check out the guys I was dating as well, so there you go. She was married and not poly, however.
Kaio wrote:
Unfortunately the average person doesn’t do these things. You’re definitely in the fit/athletic category.
I think of “activity partners” as G-rated; the sort of thing you might use a social networking site like Meetup for, and specifically for the things you say you enjoy in your profile. If you talk about how you like to fish, or knit, or hike, “activity partners” means someone to go fishing with, trade stitching secrets with or go for a hike together.
“Short term dating” to me doesn’t imply casual sex (as noted, OKC has a specific box to check if that’s what you’re out for), but dating in the normal sense of the word. If I’m getting to know a girl and we go out for dinner sometimes, or check out a movie together, or she brings me to a party as her date, but it’s not necessarily turning into a long-term and/or exclusive deal, that’s “short term dating”. Seeing somebody socially. Not that I’ve been in this position before but I could be dating several women “short term” at the same time, whereas if things are getting serious (and to me, sex generally means it’s serious) then I want to be exclusive and that’d be “long term” dating.
I’m sure these things have different meanings to different folks and I have a feeling that some of it is age-related. I just turned 40, so maybe my thoughts are dramatically different from your average 23 year old.
Not necessarily. I drove two hours to visit a girl I met on OKCupid for the first time a couple weeks ago, and t was at a Dopefest (she’s a lurker), no less, so it would have been a little difficult to segue into sex.
Since we’re discussing OKCupid’s jargon, I assume tha t’s the dating site you’re referring to? If so, it’s not just a dating site. Personally, I’ve found one best friend there, another friend who I see turning into another best friend, and the other friend I mentioned in the reply to The wind of my soul.
I’m not specifically referring to any one dating site.
But did you go onto the site* looking* for just friends, or is that just how those relationships turned out?