Online dating

Not possible. The smarter you are, the EASIER it is to manipulate us men. At the core, we are rather simple creatures.
Provided you don't bruise any egos with it, intelligence is an asset, not a liability.

 

She did clarify tonight that this growth spurt I'm going through might just open the door to a different population of men. I can only assume she means the less-easy-to-manipulate ones.

 

I am quite happily married... the third time.

And even then the relationship isn't perfect, because humans are not perfect.


You may think you are asking a serious question, but, really what you are doing is asking if fairy tales come true.


There are no perfect people... there never has been... and marriage isn't made for perfect people... it's a series of compromises to get what you need with someone that doesn't hate you and/or is willing to give you a hand to get what you want because you have been there to help them get what they want... and then the kids come in and make all hell break loose just because they can, not because of any real intent... the in-laws however... they can have an agenda... often, it's not in your benefit.


I have said many times, I am married to the woman I wish I had met first... she has been heard saying she is married to the last man she will ever agree to marry... it's not the same thing Hun...

 

Now Tom, you DO realize that you two have a pretty special relationship? Especially when you consider the stats on relationships

I very much understand your hurt. I have sent you a PM

 

Actually, I think that you are moving up into the higher class of men. These are the ones that treat us as equals - with respect, and who aren't looking for someone to take advantage of, but instead are seeking partners in life. While they have needs, preferences, and desires, they also recognize that we do too, and acknowledge and support our own personal and professional fulfillment.

One of the major differences in my marriage with DH, is that this time, we both have acknowledged and agreed that we are not married "forever, no matter what"... we have boundaries, both personal and in our marriage, and should our relationship become destructive, we will dissolve it. Beyond our love (feelings fluctuate anyway), we have respect, and that's more important in the long haul of life.

 

:thumb:

 

Or a....

Sorry, couldn't help but make the Randy Travis connection. lol

 

I wasn't going to post in this thread but...

While I have no love for the tuxedo-wearing cocktail-and-caviar crowd, I think the redneck crowd that Randy Travis seems to prefer is probably as snobbish as the former, and much less likely to value intelligence and education in a woman. Or in a man, for that matter.

(I tasted caviar once. It was just like eating a spoonful of salt.)

 

Thanks Rae, and I agree. I do notice however ( and this board is proof.. take the compliment as it is meant guys) that the type of man you describe often has already found, fallen in love, and made a sound commitment to a fabulous woman by the time he is my age. Not always, but often.

 

I disagree. I think, often, the preferred class of men have gotten through a semi- to totally disastrous first "starter" marriage, raised some kids (or not), gotten a few bruises and had his ego trashed. Now, he's a bit older, a whole lot wiser, and has learned to stop letting the "little head" do all* his thinking for him. He's discovered that women aren't toys.

My DH was 40 when I married him.

*NOTE: Men will always let the little guy do some of the thinking. And that's okay. Great men just know when it's appropriate, and when it isn't.

 

Do you know the expression, "the exception that proves the rule" ?

(I've never thoroughly understood it, but I'll trot it out anyway, in response to you, Octav' ....)

All the good ones are taken?
Maybe not! :eyebrows:

 

At one time "prove" meant "to test." Thus, the exception tests the rule. The meaning of the word changed, rendering the saying meaningless, but of course people still say it, hundreds of years later.

The exception does not prove the rule. It tests it, and most often disproves it. But ignorance of the history of language leads to silliness, since clearly, an exception to a rule does not demonstrate the truth of the rule.

Another word that has changed, to similar effect, is the word "starve." Today it means to die from lack of food, or by extension to go without food or to be extremely hungry for lack of food. But in Chaucer's time it meant to die, period. It had nothing to do with food or eating or hunger.

Thus the expression "Stuff a cold, starve of a fever," meant that if you eat a lot when you have a cold it will turn into a fever and you will die. But with the change in the meaning of the word "starve" the grammar of the original saying made no sense, so the word "of" was dropped, and the saying became our modern "Stuff a cold, starve a fever," meaning that you should eat a lot of food if you have a cold and eat little or no food if you have a fever. Exactly the opposite of what it originally meant!!! And people repeat it thinking they are reciting the wisdom of an age more in tune with nature.

 

P.S. And as for the good ones all being taken, I'm still available, and while I may not be god's gift to women, I think I'd be an okay catch.

 

True enough Rae. I stand corrected.

I wasn't implying that all the good ones were taken. Just lots of them.

Agreed!
*bites tongue* I'm feeling argumentative today. I think we know from past experience that I should hold my comments until I am less likely to need to apologize for what I type!

Agreed!

 

Online dating vs fantasy

The problem is there's folks that think you can find em as easy as knowing where they are at a given time...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It's usually not as easy as some may envision...
.
.
.
.
.
.
Some envision quite easy places to spot a prospective date...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For some it's even easier than that.

 

We aren't all taken Daniel, just thinner on the ground and not recognised for the great guys we are because we might not be as pretty as the next guy.
Then again, we are hypocrites, we expect, well not expect because it never happens does it, but would like women to overlook our flaws, like I'm an ugly bugger, but I wont settle for a woman I find physically unattractive even if she is near perfect for me in every other way. That isn't to say a woman needs to be a raving beauty but if she isn't somewhat attractive then it's over before it starts. I doubt I'm going to win too many female friends by saying this but it is true.

I'm the guy attractive women (even ugly ones) want to be friends with, nothing more.
"Pat, you're a really nice guy and that, and a really good friend ..." How many times do you think I have heard that speech?

 

The one I hear is "You'd make some woman a really good husband." The tone makes it clear she's saying "You'd make some other woman a good husband, but not me."