I would have to agree with Joseph on this one. If players are really all you're meeting, then you need to stop finding guys under rocks and make it clear to the majority of good men that you are in fact interested in them.
Most women I've encountered who complained that they couldn't meet any decent guys, simply had to learn to stop ignoring the ones that surrounded them.
I would say that being single at this point in my life is due to statistical probability. Living in Kentucky as a proud atheist is pretty much repellant to most women in this state. Also, I'm not the most in shape guy, but I do have a good job and have my own place, but I work third shift which barely gives me any time to meet anyone. Also, being liberal doesn't help much in Kentucky either.
At this point in my life, I am warming myself to the fact that being single has its upsides. I don't have children (and I'm becoming increasingly opposed to having them year by year). I have no one to answer to and I have good friends. While it does get a little lonely once in a while, going on dates with different people the past two years has been lukewarm at best. I mean honestly, who wants to put in the effort to get to know a 26 year old, 3rd-shift, lab tech for a food company who lives alone? And who also likes board games and stand-up comedy...
I'm single because my dating deal breakers are unique. I'm looking for someone who is childfree, doesn't want kids, is an atheist, and doesn't want to get married.
I suppose I'm asking for a lot in a match.
I dunno. i wouldn't think you would have that many problems with that set of parameters. Lots of guys are immature and can't handle raising kids, I imagine. ^.^
I flip flop a lot on the kids issue, myself. Sometimes i really want kids, and other times, I'm not sure I have the energy or commitment. No problem with never getting married, either. I'd be worried about legal rights, but there are documents to take care of that.
Well, I fit Harridan20's description, and I'm available.
Wow, and you're actually only about 150 miles apart. Usually, any random two people are at least 1,000 miles apart.
It's good to know there are some men out there that fit ALL three. Another prob I've noticed when looking for all three is that there are a group of men who might fit the three however they are focused on all things sci-fi. They are socially inept and awkward. They are immersed in video games and the world of fantasy fiction. I've seen a big percentage in a certain site. There isn't anything wrong with being this way however to some women it may appear they haven't aged past their teenage years. What's your take on it?
Personally I have never been computer-oriented. Yes, I use computers for work, either with Microsoft Office or various engineering software. But most computer programming tasks I delegate to others. So I never developed an affinity for the sort of tinkering with computers that leads some people down the path of video games. My games of choice are chess, bridge and Sudoku, all of which are successfully automated on the computer, but which are really just board-games gone digital.
You're right about a certain class of young man who is awkward and athletically limited in "real life", but aggrandizes an alter-ego in the virtual world. This is fine as an occasional method of escape, but becomes problematic when the relative importance of the two realities reverses. Note the analogy between fantasy video-games and religion... a means of escaping the travails of a cruel and unjust world, by creating a myth where wrongs are righted and the weak can feel powerful. Computers are just tools to perform a certain job. When the tool becomes more important than the job, the result is a sort of obsession.
What does unfortunately happen in our "family oriented" culture is that men who by nature or by circumstance don't become "family men", end up as outcasts and recluses in one form or another. Given the prevalence of computer technology and the relative dearth of mechanical arts (how many men take pride in working on cars these days???), the natural outlet for the recluse becomes the digital world. And that is unfortunate, for both men and women.
Your writing rocks! You really should consider writing a book!
I completely agree that technology has had a double edged sword. It is a great medium to connect or keep people connected. The dark side is that some people who are in the virtual world lose their original identity.
What I've experienced with online dating is unrealistic expectations and oversexed idealized casual sexual encounters. I've seen a resurgence of casual sex especially among young to middle aged men. I don't see anything wrong with this however how are you to truly know are person? This question can lead down a dangerous road. I agree with you about the other end of the spectrum which is men and women searching for the perfect spouse. One thing I don't understand is how is the potential spouse supposed to reveal themselves if they know that this person ALREADY has marriage in mind and is rating them.
I haven't found a happy medium between the two spectrum yet. Do you think there is one? Are we headed for a future of casual sex? Is it possible to find someone in a sea of muck?
My view is that internet dating is neither more nor less risky than walking up to a stranger in a bar. Is it any worse to finally meet in a bar the man with whom you have been corresponding for a month, than to be accosted by a complete stranger in the same bar? The best form of introduction is through mutual friends. Everything else is fraught with uncertainty and the potential for great frustration. Women are more skeptical of internet dating, whereas otherwise timid men become emboldened by the anonymity and therefore become more aggressive online than they would in a bar. This may also explain why the online male/female ratio is so skewed. I do not however believe that internet dating is making a significant impact on Americans' sexual habits, as it is unlikely that many online sexual overtures enjoy a consummation in real life.
To truly know a person is essentially impossible. I thought that I knew my former wife (9 years married together) quite well, but I was utterly mistaken. All that I genuinely knew was a projection of my personal preferences and attitudes onto her person, while she remained reticent and grudgingly accommodating. Her real personality was inchoate and withdrawn, communicated to me in haphazard and quizzical fashion, such that I was unable to comprehend. It’s useless to argue whether her guardedness or my obtuseness was at fault. The point is that genuine knowledge of another person, even an intimate partner of many years' duration, is impossible and should not even be sought as a goal. Instead, I propose a sort of cost-benefit calculation: is intimacy with the person in question a sufficiently keen pleasure that partaking of it overrides the risk of some noxious or unseemly development? Of course, some knowledge of the person is essential. But it will necessarily be fragmented, shoddy and uncertain. We must be bold enough to tolerate this uncertainty!
But why be so concerned over finding a jewel or ideal soulmate? Breeders must worry about optimizing their potential mates’ genes, and religionists worry about making sure that their intended is “the one” explicitly chosen for them by god. For non-breeding atheists, both considerations are moot. Be your own jewel; just focus on finding some one who is merely good enough. The future mother may not afford to “settle”, but a woman who is energized by her career, her avocations and so forth, has no need of that magical male deliverance to “complete her”.
In sum, I can not blame women for their skepticism over online dating, but I enjoin them to make less distinction between this form of dating and "real life" analogues. Cads and rogues abound in any venue, and good judgment is always difficult. Just as we should avoid foolish risks, let us not shortchange ourselves from too critical an eye.