*** The OFFICIAL Weekend Singles Thread *** September 21-23, 2007 - National Singles' Week

September 21, 2007 | WFTR

[WFTR]

Greetings, and Welcome to another Weekend Singles' Thread.

This week is National Unmarried and Single Americans Week or National USA Week as the sponsors like to say. The official website for this week is at

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/usaweek/intro.htm .

This "celebration" started on Monday and will run through the weekend. The celebration is being promoted by a group called "Unmarried America" that calls itself "an information source for the new unmarried majority." This group is trying to capture and represent the interests of all unmarried people and wants to reach out to those beyond traditional "singles" to include widows and widowers, homosexuals, couples living together without marrying, single parents, and about anyone else who isn't married. If you follow the link posted above, you can read a little more about this group.

My first question to our group is, "Do you like the idea of a day or a week set aside to celebrate the contributions of unmarried people to society?" Beyond this question, a few others come to mind. Here they are.

Do you like the idea of setting aside days, weeks, or months to celebrate certain demographic groups or are these celebrations generally a bad idea?

Do you think being unmarried is a good thing to celebrate in this way?

Do you think that this group can effectively represent your views? As part of this question, do you think that all unmarried people have more in common with one another than they do with married people? For instance, does the unmarried couple raising children together have more in common with a traditional family or with a single person living alone?

Speaking of being single

While we're thinking about being single and maybe finding a way not to be single, I wanted to focus on a couple of points from an article that appeared earlier in the month. I’m sure that some of us saw this article and may have discussed it on other threads. I never had a chance to catch the threads, but I want to ask a couple of specific questions.

The article is sarcastically called "Earth-Shattering Study: Men Like Good-Looking Women" and can be found at

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295649,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/humanbody .

My own short explanation of the study is that they used a speed-dating event to study men's and women's choices. They found that in spite of what people claimed to want in the opposite sex, each sex made certain choices. Men chose the best-looking women. Women were aware of how their appearance compared with that of other women and chose the best men that they thought they could attract. The article didn't say how the researchers measured the "most attractive" women or the "best" men.

A crude but maybe accurate interpretation of what they are saying is that we all fall into a kind of relationship caste system. In sports terminology that Americans use more often to describe relationships, we're each in a "league," and we have little chance of dating or marrying someone "outside our league." If we just don't have the right stuff to marry someone in the major league, then we have to learn to accept someone in the minor league.

Do you believe that this idea accurately reflects the way relationships work? In general, are we in a kind of relationship caste system where the best and most beautiful date and marry one another while the rest of us are relegated to finding a lesser partner of our own lesser ranks or is it just as likely for someone who isn't one of the best or most beautiful to build a great relationship with someone is one of the best or most beautiful? I know that we can often find one exception to any rule, but I'm looking for people's opinions of whether the rule is real or just a dating urban legend.

The second issue that came to mind as I read this study is how valid the whole speed-dating scenario is. Some people claim that everything in life is about making a first impression. Recently, I saw an article that claimed that the first impression determines whether someone interviewing for a job will get the job. Of course, many of the people making these claims are people who are trying to sell a system for making a first impression, so they have a vested interest in making us believe that first impressions are most important.

When it comes to dating, how much do you rely on first impressions? If you meet someone in a setting where you are likely to see that person again, do you make an evaluation that is likely to be permanent or do you wait to see how this person's character and traits will unfold over time? Does your impression of someone's attractiveness tend to change over time or are your first impressions usually accurate? Do you think this says more about you or about the people you've met?

Speaking of looks

A final question came from something that Dances with Cats asked a month or so ago. I may get the details of the question wrong, but I think I've captured the basics. The question for each of us is "Do you have a vision of for the physical appearance of the person who is right for you." This vision may not be the appearance that you find most attractive as an ideal but is a physical description of how you think Mr. or Mrs. Right will look when you find that person. If so, how do you describe this person? Is he/she tall, short, medium? What color hair does he/she have? What general body build does this person have? What other details can you give?

[WFTR]

Friday Night Singles
Please freepmail DaveLoneRanger to be added / removed

---

Bonus Questions

1. A Democrat legislator sued God recently for allowing natural disasters to affect the planet. He says that he is bringing the suit only to highlight the absurdity of many lawsuits and to advocate reform. Will he be kicked out of the Democrat party for asking the court system to admit that God exists?

2. When you go on a trip, do you tend to pack heavy or pack light?

3. A few weeks ago, a woman found a couple of dead animals that seem to fit the description of the "chupacabra." Has anyone heard whether her findings have been exposed as a hoax? If not, do you think they will eventually be exposed as a hoax? If you had evidence of a chupacabra, a bigfoot, or some similar critter, would you come forward with it or just keep it quiet?

[A knight without armor]

I’d pack very light. I would assume my destination would have a place to buy what I need. I would factor all that into the price. For instance if I went on a trip to visit India I would take only my purse with my passport and tickets, etc., in addition to my regular purse stuff. Then once I got to my nice big hotel I'd shop for any needed toiletries and clothing. Then when it was time to come home I'd discard or otherwise leave everything behind.

Those creatures look like mite or flea bitten mangy coyotes to me. If I had a mysterious animal I would seek to identify it if it were still alive. If it were dead I would try to keep the body and not tell anyone about it because I would want to wait and see what I could learn about it myself.

[WFTR]

That's an interesting philosophy on travel. I've always gone on vacations where there wasn't much shopping, so I tend to pack very heavily.

It will be interesting to see whether we hear anything more about those animals. If they turn out to be coyotes, you will have nailed it first.

Bill

[A knight without armor]

Thing is I could go on vacation and stay at the nice hotel and venture out a little during the day and to close by places at night. I could spend the whole time like that and return home happy as a clam. My thrill would be talking to people and sitting on a bench and people watching. Breathing the air. Getting caught in the rain or snow. But luxury room just moments away with my steak and hot fudge sundae just a phone call away 24/7. The trekking, hiking, Rick Steves Everything Cheap travel is not my style. I’m not rich ergo I don’t travel much. Must have comfort or else it is not a vacation, it is a job.

[WFTR]

It’s interesting how people define comfort. In many ways, I define comfort by getting away from people even if I’m colder than I otherwise would be or am sleeping on something less than a level, soft, firm bed. I hope you get to take more trips like the one you describe.

[peek-a-beau]

I find the idea of a “singles day/week/whatever” ludicrous, absurd, the height of navel gazing.

As for packing, I usually pack light, however, on my 1st trip to Scotland, I went a little overboard, in part, due to my buying birthday and Christmas gifts for family and friends.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the man bringing the lawsuit against God gets taken to the smoky back-room for a serious talking to/slap on the wrist, if not booted outright from being affiliated with that party.

No opinion on the chupacabra thing...same as Bigfoot, Nessie, and everything else talked about on “Coast To Coast”.

[Hot Tabasco]

If you had evidence of a chupacabra, a bigfoot, or some similar critter, would you come forward with it or just keep it quiet?

I've got photos, signatures, etc. but I'm not saying a thing. Nobody would believe me except my cat and she's not saying anything to nobody either.......

[GOP_Raider]

"Do you have a vision of for the physical appearance of the person who is right for you."

I have to say I do, but most of the time it's a superficial one--at least superficial in the sense that she's incredibly attractive, enjoys watching football and Shakespeare, but also can crush an empty beer can on her head and struggles being a nymphomaniac.

(Maybe I've been watching too many movies lately?)

[GOP_Raider]

I find the idea of a “singles day/week/whatever” ludicrous, absurd, the height of navel gazing.

Oh, you think that's bad, get a load of these guys, the "asexual". Those who don't experience sexual attraction. I know there's a certain decorum with some of you, so I'll keep my gutter humor at a minimum here.

[GOP_Raider]

If you had evidence of a chupacabra, a bigfoot, or some similar critter, would you come forward with it or just keep it quiet?

I might take it to a taxidermist, just to see the look on his face---and to see if he could mount Bigfoot while s/he's on two legs.

[snugs]

Thanks for a ping. The unmarried thing is a bit strange I can see singles but unmarried especially as it also includes couples living together but not married seems a wrong mix.

In many ways couples living together but not married will not have anything more in common with singles than traditional married couples.

[generally]

In response to your question regarding what “league” people are in. It’s been my general observation that people are judged in terms of power.

For women, good looks = power. That’s pretty much the beginning, middle, and end of the story.

With men, looks count, but not nearly as much as other types of power. Money, social status, intelligence, etc. In terms of looks, being tall helps and being short definitely hurts. Being bald hurts.

I’m fairly average looking, mostly unremarkable, but look pretty good if I dress up. In situations where I’ve met guys who don’t see me dressed up, they usually have known me for a long time before asking for a date. So they do get past the looks eventually. One thing that I have found particularly annoying is having a male friend say “I wish my girlfriend were like you.” What he is saying is that he’s not willing to give up the beauty for the personality and brains, because if he were, he would be dating me.

For all you bald and/or short guys out there, I’ve dated both. I’ve dated guys who were shorter than I am. The worst thing about bald or short is that the guy is usually fixated on it. Sometimes even tall guys are hung up on their height. I dated a guy who was movie star handsome and 5’ 11-1/2” and he was obsessed about that 1/2 inch that would have put him at 6 feet tall. Not too many people would have considered him short, but it bothered him.

If I were to describe the “ideal” appearance of Mr. Right, I don’t think it would be very close to any of the men I’ve dated. For me, and I think for most women, looks are just not that important. I dated one guy who was so not good looking that when we walked down the street, children would point at him and make fun of his looks.

I’ve met men who I thought were good looking, but who soon became “ugly” in my eyes because of their obnoxious personalities. I’ve met men who were not much in the looks department, but who became handsome in my mind’s eye because they were such gentlemen.

So......my number one turn on - brains. After that, a guy needs to have a solid foundation of “nice” to hold my interest. Nice to me, nice to waitresses, nice to the bag boy in the grocery store, nice to my friends, nice to my family, nice to animals, etc. I look for a man who is nice to everyone, not just to people who are useful to him.

Hope this helps you guys out there. Bald is lovable. Short is lovable. Be confident, but not arrogant. That’s really attractive.

Best to you all!

[WFTR]

I find the idea of a “singles day/week/whatever” ludicrous, absurd, the height of navel gazing.

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but the idea does seem off to me. I don't care for any of these days/weeks/whatever that try to "celebrate" the accomplishments of various demographic groups. Most accomplishments are individual accomplishments or the accomplishments of teams. I prefer that they be honored in that way.

I hadn't thought of the phrase "Coast to Coast" in years. I occasionally listened to Art Bell when I was up late at night, but I had forgotten that phrase.

Bill

[WFTR]

I've got photos, signatures, etc. but I'm not saying a thing. Nobody would believe me except my cat and she's not saying anything to nobody either.......

LOL

[WFTR]

I have to say I do, but most of the time it's a superficial one--at least superficial in the sense that she's incredibly attractive, enjoys watching football and Shakespeare, but also can crush an empty beer can on her head and struggles being a nymphomaniac.

Maybe you have been watching too many movies. When I first read the question a while back, it struck a nerve with me. In terms of physical attraction, I believe that it's either there or it's not. I don't think we can write a formula that tells us how much of this or that physical trait we can find attractive and how much will cause us not to have feelings for someone. However, as I think about the women who I tend to find most attractive these days, I tend to think of women with very dark hair. On the other hand, when I think of a physical description of "the one for me," I think of someone with very light brown or darker blond hair. That doesn't mean that I'll be any less attracted to her. I just have this feeling that if she exists, she doesn't have dark hair. Of course, if there is someone out there for me, she could be nothing like this image that has come to me a few times.

Bill

[WFTR]

Oh, you think that's bad, get a load of these guys, the "asexual". Those who don't experience sexual attraction. I know there's a certain decorum with some of you, so I'll keep my gutter humor at a minimum here.

I think this "Unmarried America" group is likely trying to include groups like asexuals. It would be interesting to know how advertising affects these people because so much of advertising is aimed at selling things by appealing to our sexual attractions.

Bill

[GOP_Raider]

Honestly, I hadn’t heard of this asexuality phenomenon until about 6 months ago. Maybe I’m not looking at this in the proper perspective, but if nothing else, we’re looking at passing on our genetic code, our “seed”. Why would someone voluntarily select themselves out of the “pool” like this?

[GOP_Raider]

The worst thing about bald or short is that the guy is usually fixated on it.

I think "Seinfeld"'s character George Costanza is a prime example here. :)

[GOP_Raider]

I think I’d seen stats somewhere that couples that simply cohabitate rather than get married have relationships that are more likely to end in divorce. Love to find that somewhere...