Yeah, I hear you there. I should still be in good shape in my 40's ... by which time you'll be in your 50's. Heh. Funny how the gap doesn't get any smaller, over time. The only drug I abuse is caffeine, and I'm a vegetarian, so hopefully I'll keep tolerably well. Just off by a decade, in our particular case.
Doing something long distance is a bugger, though, unless someone is planning on moving in the near future. I dunno, the whole moving-2,000-miles-for-your-first-date thing has got to be a bit iffy. The pressure to make things work, even if you've been talking to someone online for 6 months ... and then what happens if you get together with someone in person, and there's just nothing?
I've had people locally that I've met online. We'll look good on paper, enjoy talking on the phone ... then we get together in person, and just nada. Zero chemistry.
Eh, online dating can work out beautifully, though. You just have to be ready for that sort of thing. You're playing the numbers in either situation. With meeting people live, you could find someone with which you have fantastic chemistry, only to find out that your life goals are completely incompatible, after talking for a few hours.
It's just a matter of which side you want to begin your sorting at. I prefer to start at the values compatibility end, since I'm more likely to run into problems down there, between religion, smoking, pets, etc. That means online dating is a better bet for me, looking up people locally, whether on a social site, dating site, or meetup.com group.
My point was that given the good chance of something like that happening, moving across country for someone you've never me in person is dicey. If all you're losing is a 15 minute drive across town and the cost of dinner, then go for it.
I propose a solution to this dilemna: attend freethought conventions. Everyone there is already self-selected based on lack of religion, so you can feel safe meeting people live with whom you have good chemistry. Atheist Alliance International has one coming up in just 2 weeks!
Alas, Montreal is a wee bit too much commute for me. Thanks for posting though!
I'm in a college town in one of the relatively blue safe havens here in red-state AZ (Flagstaff). There's gotta be a freethinkers group or something here. I'd start one but me and trying to start social events tends to end in disaster. I'm better off latching onto something already in existence!
I'm Mark Plaid. I live in Cleveland. I'm a single atheist. My profile photo is pretty recent. I just turned 40, but I'm very immature. I have no children. I was married once, to a Catholic, but that fell apart. Our religious differences weren't the exact cause of our split, but it didn't help. Actually when we met I was a Buddhist, but that was fading away for me and the closer I came to atheism, the further we grew apart. Although I seem to be able to hold an agree to disagree relationship with believer friends, I think with a lover it is too close for comfort. My life is complicated at this point and I'm going through a lot of self improvement right now, but I'd rather not discuss the details openly. So, I have no strong desire to get into a serious relationship. However, having said that, the reason why I joined this group is I'm really just "sticking my toe in the water." Otherwise, "Hello!"
It would seem (and granted, I'm not educated on the subject) that all bisexuals have a preference for one side or the other. That's where that question comes from. It's feasible, even logical, that the preference for either side would be equal. But history shows this is not the case, so that's one question you might not be justified in getting indignant about, though the other points are understandable. I don't want to seem biased in any way, but my suggestion would be to leave Texas. Or at least, South Texas. That area seems to be way too conservative and religious for atheists and/or LGBTs.
I've known a couple of people who don't really have a preference. Their only real consideration is that you catch less flack if you're dating someone of the opposite sex ... but then there's probably an accompanying thrill in annoying the uptight people.
Well, do what I do. Stay the hell out of small towns.
I can see how being bisexual could be a problem with a lesbian who's looking for a long-term relationship. She might feel that you'll be wandering back to guys, when your biological clock starts ticking or something. I've heard lesbians express that concern, whether unfounded or not. I have no opinion on their concerns, since I have no experience being a lesbian, and it doesn't affect me, either way.
Heh, and asking which you like more? Good lord. It's got to be completely different, not really something you can stick a simple greater-than/less-than label on ... and in other ways, it's got to be similar enough that it doesn't matter, since sex should be all about being close to someone. The equipment involved is a lesser matter. I've got no use for the male equipment, but if you find both workable, I can see how it would be satisfying either way, whichever the person you've become attached to happens to have.
I've never heard of guys having a problem with a girl being bisexual, though ... I mean fundies, sure, but I assume you've already disqualified anyone who's a religious nut who would object to homosexuality on religious grounds.