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

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?

Oliver is taking care of Corky, Cali & Boo.. til you & I get there !

I think it would be nice to see a tribute of sorts. I still have a lot of cats here of varying degrees of friendliness & affection. But none come close to what Cali & I shared. I think the past years I was just to busy with life, an invalid mom & 2 dogs & Cali to have much time/energy to develop more with the others. A few are getting closer over the past few months.

Hubs and I were robbed at a Comfort Inn, the one by Six Flags in Arlington, TX. The cops said it was an ‘inside job’ and happened frequently. It’s a bad feeling knowing someone was in your room while you slept and could’ve shot you dead.

I generally prefer hotels to motels for that reason. They just feel safer.

The article was interesting, but their process is very different from the process at American speed-dating events. In their process, five men and five women sat at a table together. Personally, I can't imagine many things in the dating world more awkward than sitting at a table with nine strangers knowing that we were all supposed to be evaluating one another as potential romantic partners and knowing that we had only five minutes to accomplish this goal. I would certainly never agree to this kind of situation. Furthermore, they must then exchange contact information in front of the others at the table.

In American speed dating, each couple sits at a table alone for five minutes. They are able to converse without an audience. When someone asks a question, he or she doesn't have to worry about the other person being embarrassed to answer the question in front of a group. Furthermore, no contacts are made at the table. Each person takes notes and then submits a match sheet to the organizers. The organizers then inform everyone of mutual matches.

The weakness of speed dating is that everything is based on first impressions. Anyone who can put on an act for five minutes can do very well. Those whose qualities don't show except with time do poorly. However, there's sense of competition while trying to hold a conversation, and one guy can't dominate every conversation at every table as he could with the system used at this event.

Bill

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.