RELAX AND BE POSITVE
Easy for some to say...
Thanks so much for the honesty, thoughts, and questions.
got beer?
Ok, I calmly accept the fact and I am positively sure it was Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. I think I will move to Australia
Very good if you are a Catholic. There is a decent sized userbase and you can see the answers to the important 'Catholic' questions in the profile (to tell you just how much of a Catholic they really are.) The profile and photo features are the nicest of any internet site I've seen, too, and it has one BIG plus in my book that no other site has: body weight. This is a big advantage over Match.com where a lot of people who maybe go walking once a week or have done Yoga, you know, a few years ago list themselves as 'Athletic and Toned' when they really belong in the 'a few extra pounds' or 'I have buy my clothes at a special store' catagory. They also have a really decent personality profiler tool.
Not as good as Catholic Match but a much larger user base. Nice general features and unlike Catholic Match, there is no 'five paragraph minimum' in the open comment area. It also give you the chance to put up a nice summary tag-line (which is good if you are clever and witty - not so much if you aren't). It's probably the least expensive of the sites out there.
They have a good personality profiling system and you don't have to do the 'searching' yourself - they send you people they think will match with you. And unlike every other site, they would rather just tell you if you are the type of person they can't match rather than lie that they can and take your money. Now, my personal experience with this site was dismal. First, I have no idea what made them think the women they sent me matched with me. Second, you CANNOT set a filter based on body type. So if you like 'big' women, this is the place for you because that is pretty much all you are going to get. It's also the most expensive site among these three, and as a result, a lot of girls go through the questionnaire on impulse and then decide not to pay, so they can't reply to your messages (and possibly can't read them either).
---
In conclusion, you ought to at least give this a try. Personally, I think I only have a 5% chance of meeting THE girl through this method and a 95% chance of meeting her in real life. However, I don't want to throw that 5% chance away. So far it's led to a few flings, a few friends that might become more, and a lot of dead ends. But you know how America song goes:
This is for all the single people
Thinking that love has left them dry
Dont give up until you drink from the silver cup
You never know until you try
I'm not always successful, but I try pretty hard not to think in terms of whose "fault" has made me single. I took a very passive approach to dating back when I was in the best place in life to find a spouse and get married. I think part of that approach had to do with who I was as a person. I didn't like the thought of trying to be more active. Maybe part of that approach has to do with how my parents raised me. A large part of that approach has to do with the church teachings that I received at that time in my life. There was a heavy emphasis on "waiting on the Lord" and not doing anything unless I had a "peace about it." Maybe God takes an active role in helping others, but He never took an active role in helping me. I was never going to "have a peace about" any part of dating. "A peace about it" is for people who have better natural social skills than I do.
Few things have come easy for me. I've had the advantage of growing up in a stable home, but I've never been a natural talent at anything. I'm a good engineer, and I'm fairly smart. To develop into a good engineer, I had to be the guy who sat in class and asked the questions that everyone else thought were stupid questions even if they didn't immediately know the answer. I was the guy who had to go to office hours and ask the professor for help. I had some awkward times, but I worked hard and learned. I built for myself a solid understanding of the subject matter, and that understanding has made me a good engineer.
If I'd taken the same approach to relationships, I think I would have found similar success. I would have been awkward at times. I wouldn't have come across like a handsome actor playing the role perfectly, but I think I could have developed a good relationship that would have greatly enriched my life. Is it God's fault that I didn't take an active approach? I did what I did because I thought that "waiting on the Lord" would bring glory to Him. Is it the church's fault that they gave teachings that led me to believe that the passive approach would be right for me? Is it my fault for listening to the "leaders" in church and Christian fellowships?
To me, "fault" is irrelevant at this point. On an emotional level, I'll always hate the people who said things that led me not to take an active approach to relationships, but they are long since out of my life. Whether I hate them or not is irrelevant to them. I'm the one who has to live with my decisions whether I fault myself or not for having arrived at those decisions. To some extent, I have to fault myself, but I also realize that I was misled as many others have been.
In terms of the future, I'm not sure what I should do. I have a hard time believing that I could be right for someone who could be right for me. If I stumble across this person, I'll be thankful for her. However, I'm not going to spend large amounts of time going out of my way to search for her. You've heard the expression, "Sending good money after bad." I don't want to spend "good" time in places that are uncomfortable for me in the hopes that I'm finally going to meet someone.
I think I've mostly covered the first two questions. In terms of standards, I don't know whether my standards are unrealistic or not. I want someone who I can trust. That standard shouldn't be unrealistic. I want someone whose basic personality is kind and gentle. That standard shouldn't be unrealistic. I want someone for whom I feel an honest attraction. I've been attracted to plenty of women who are not "Sports Illustrated swimsuit models," but none of these women seem interested in me. I want someone who's in a position in life to be my wife first, but most women my age (or even ten to fifteen years younger) have kids from other relationships. "Unrealistic" is a function of what I have to bring to a relationship, and I'm not sure whether I have enough to be a good find for someone who I would like. I see no point in changing my standards. I've always believed that if I lower my standards at every rejection, I'll end up marrying the least desirable woman that I ever date. A relationship will either be right or it won't. I'm not going to pursue a relationship that isn't right.
Self-image is a tough concept for me to understand sometimes. I think women are drawn to self-confidence more than any other quality. Just as appearance is what makes a man's heart go pitter-pat for a woman, self-confidence seems to be what makes a woman's heart go pitter-pat for a man. Other qualities may make a relationship strong and healthy over the long haul, but much of the initial chemistry seems to be built on these things. If self-image and self-confidence are the same thing, I think that strong self-image plays a huge part in success with the opposite sex, particularly mens' success with women.
Bill
1-3) meh. (translation: relationship stuff is somewhere near the bottom of my priority list right now - just below ‘get an xbox 360’ and above ‘try the new peanut butter chocolate smoothie at the snack bar’)
4) I definitely think that bad self-image can cause relationship problems with anyone. I’m happy enough with myself that the remaining little stuff would take minimal effort to change and even then it’s simple like trimming my bangs or something. However, I have friends with massive self-image problems, and it honestly is annoying to be around a girl who’s 5’1 and about 100 lbs and always stressing about how her cookie will make her ‘so fat’ and she shouldn’t be eating it and OMG her microwaveable dinner contains 500 WHOLE calories! It’s really emotionally stressful to be around someone who’s that thin yet borderline anorexic and wind up worrying about her (cause she’s your friend and so you can’t not worry).
I think this focus on “loving yourself first” may be post-modern, narcissistic, psychobabble. Sorry, that is really blunt, but I think we may have been sold a bill of goods on many of life’s big questions.
I think you go out and have a great life and love others. Only then will you be able to love yourself. For many of us, only when we have children do we truly begin to understand love through our love for our children.
However, if we are talking about practicing normal, healthy, life-behaviors, and that is what is considered “loving one’s-self”, I can agree with that.
