Sweet Tiffany,

Were you affected by the recent typhoon?

"Love" and "Better Half" can be variously defined, and perhaps Long Distance Relationships can occasionally work. However, distance and age ARE major factors to be considered -- and may be beyond overcoming.

For instance, wouldn't it be difficult to bridge 8500 miles and 55 years age difference?

One or more of our idiosyncrasies may be deal-killers with some people no matter when or how they are presented. If, for instance, a person wants to be dominated (or to be a strong dominant) in a relationship, they are likely to be unappealing to those who dislike that dynamic. Another example might be when one person tends toward polyamory and the other other favors monogamy.

At best, we can initiate discussion before the matter becomes pertinent. If a strong difference exists perhaps it is in the best interest of both parties to not pursue a close relationship.

Even if one party is willing to make a large a compromise or accommodation for their partner, resentments may build over time and destroy the relationship.

Beyond survival level, it isn't the amount of money a person has that determines their happiness or unhappiness but the amount they think they need.

"Champagne tastes and beer income" summarizes the attitude of many people. Our consumer / entertainment / advertising society contributes to the disparity.

Those with "Beer tastes and beer income" can be just as happy as the champagne crowd.

Most people fail to distinguish between needs and wants. Needs are simple while wants are unlimited.

Could it be possible that the prevalence of "not seen for over a month" indicates that profiles never "go away" even after months or years of inactivity?

In practical terms, a search that brings up many results may look impressive, but responding to someone who has not been seen for over a month seems like a waste of time.

I learned a long time ago that whether the great anonymous "THEY" approve or disapprove doesn't make any difference at all in my life.

Here is one male who does NOT want a woman to cook great meals (food is not a focal point for me), or to have big boobs (firm appeals more than size), or to be subservient (equal partner works best for me).

I DO want her to be physically appealing (not heavyset) and physically active, intelligent and informed (good communication), pleasant personality (without emotional disorders, negative attitudes or excess baggage from unpleasant past experience).

It would be a plus if she enjoyed fitness activities (workouts, canoeing, bicycling), if she favored actually doing things rather than living vicariously by watching others perform, if she was inclined to volunteer to help the less fortunate.

Beauty (or appeal) on the outside and beauty (or appeal) on the inside are NOT "joined at the hip", so there are several possible combinations:

1. High outside & High inside
2. High outside & Moderate inside
3. High outside & Low inside
4. Low outside & High inside
5. Low outside & Moderate inside
6. Low outside & Low outside
7. Moderate outside & High inside
8. Moderate outside & Moderate inside
9. Moderate outside & Low inside

Which do you find acceptable in a long-term partner?


To get things started, I personally prefer 1 or 7, with some possibilities (depending on specifics) for 2 and 8

Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc

Education: imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment

Schooling: instruction, education, or training, especially when received in a school

The three terms are only somewhat related but are often taken to be nearly synonymous. Many are intelligent without being schooled (degreed) or educated (informed). Many are schooled with below average intelligence and without general knowledge, reasoning, judgment. Some are educated (informed) without schooling and with "average��" intelligence (as measured by IQ tests).

Asking education level or IQ has little meaning because 1) education is NOT synonymous with schooling or degrees, 2) IQ indicates ability to learn or adapt quickly -- and says nothing about how those abilities are applied in the real world, 3) people can misrepresent just as they do with body style description and with outdated photos

Those who value intelligence and education can learn about such things based upon what a person writes in profile or in personal communication.

Do people here actually find it acceptable for a person to be deceptive in profile (by word or photo) about their appearance?

Looks change over time. "Fade" may not be totally accurate. There are people of any gender who maintain a presentable appearance and reasonable body configuration to "advanced age" (even without cosmetic surgery).



Agreed -- or she could gain weight. She doesn't seem to be in control of the situation. What is more important is that she was deceptive about her weight and appearance. Is that a sign of "inner beauty?"



Agreed -- However, is there any reason to assume that a person who is appealing outwardly is "ugly on the inside?" Are there people who are appealing inside and out? Is it somehow "wrong" to want both?



"Perfectly sized" is your wording -- not my position. None of us are perfect, but some put forth the necessary effort to maintain a reasonable physical condition and appearance regardless of chronology.



You certainly have a right to your opinion -- as I have a right to mine -- including the observation that "To me, that makes you ugly on the inside" does not display an "inner beauty", but indicates something like, "If you do not agree with my opinion you are ugly on the inside" rather than respecting the preferences of others and understanding that variation in personal opinions and preferences is to be expected rather than condemned.

I probably shouldn't tell this, but then I often do things I "shouldn't."

Some years ago I was with a group of acquaintances when a very appealing woman sitting next to me asked if she could touch my beard. Since I had no objection, she fondled it a bit then asked why I wore a beard. I replied, "To tickle your thighs." She looked totally shocked, as though she didn't believe what she heard, and said, "WHAT did you say?" I looked her right in the eye and repeated it slowly. That was the beginning of a hot two year relationship.

Scenario (drawn from the real world): You are meeting someone in person for the first time after communicating on-line and talking on the phone. The two of you have discussed values, ideas, beliefs, interests, etc and seem to be quite compatible.

However, when you meet them in person they are very different in appearance than you had been led to believe (considerably older, younger, shorter, taller, heavier, thinner, hairless, hirsute, bad teeth, disheveled appearance, or whatever). Perhaps their self-description was "optimistic" to say the least and their photos years out of date. You are not at all physically attracted to the person who you actually meet (and possibly even a bit repelled).

Question: Since all the "inner qualities" are still there, do you pursue a relationship in spite of the lack of physical attraction? Or, do you go away feeling as though you have been deceived?

If you are in the "personality is all that matters" camp -- and are true to that position, their appearance is immaterial. Right?

I have actually been in that situation. We seemed compatible enough to warrant meeting but I did not recognize the woman because she was years older than her profile photo and at least thirty pounds heavier (and maybe more like fifty -- and certainly not "average" by any stretch of the imagination). I was courteous and pleasant, but there was no way that I would have pursued a relationship with someone 1) whose "inner beauty" included false advertising (and who I knew from the onset that I could not trust to be truthful) and 2) who was totally unappealing physically.

Since I had driven a couple hours to meet, was I justified in feeling defrauded?

You are correct in understanding that physical characteristics are important to me (for self and a Significant Other) since that realm is a major life emphasis. That some people consider that "shallow" (while defending their own preferences) seems a bit "shallow" of them.

What I and others take issue with is misrepresentation. A decision to make contact is based upon what a person presents in profile. Less than accurate portrayal (and perhaps outdated photo) misleads the viewer – similar to false advertising.



Might it be accurate to say that some people regard BOTH physical appearance and personality characteristics important; that some give somewhat greater emphasis to one or the other; and some that consider one far above the other?

By that reasoning height, age, physical condition, facial or head hair, etc "should not be an issue" because "grownups" value only "��the person inside."�� Right?

Would anyone care to say that appearance is NOT a consideration in dating / mating? If that was true, photos would be irrelevant (rather than all-but-necessary).


Edited to correct quotation marks

I grew a beard in 1968 and have never shaved it off. It is trimmed regularly and has now changed color. Significant Others over the past forty-five years have never objected or complained about being scratched (though tickled has been mentioned occasionally).


Edited to add:

Calculation of time saved by not scraping face daily:

45 years = 16,425 days x 5 minutes per day = 82,125 minutes divided by 1440 minutes in a day = 57 days (almost two full time months I would have spent shaving).

Exactly.

If "the person inside" is willing to deceive others by claiming to be what they are not, that speaks volumes about their lack of integrity.

How would lying about body type differ from lying about age, height, education or occupation?

Body Fat Percentage conveys far more information than any of the other measures, particularly for someone who is athletic or muscular.

However, few people know what the percentages mean and very few know their own BFP (or perhaps want to know). Testing requires someone skilled with skin fold caliper measurement (at a fitness center or clinic) or with hydrostatic weighing.

Of course, none of this matters to those who don't care about "extra pounds" -- and often demean those who do care.

The term "average" as used here is defined as: "a level that is typical of a group, class, or series : a middle point between extremes." Thus, it has a specific meaning.

"According studies made by National Center for Health Statistics, our average weight has increased considerably since the 1960. We are roughly 1 inch (2.5 cm) taller, but on an average we are nearly 25 pounds (11.3 kg) heavier!

"��The average weight for women aged 20-74 increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

"The average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002."

http://www.foodpyramid.com/healthy-eating/our-weight-has-increased-since-1960-1637/


Since the "��average woman"�� is 5'4"�� and the "��average man" is 5'9"��, converting those figures to BMI (an admittedly poor index, but the most common in use), the result is approximately 28.5 for both --�� well over 25 (considered overweight) and close to 30.0 which is considered obese. AND, those figures are from ten years ago (unlikely to have improved since).

So, an "��average body type"�� now evidently means overweight bordering on obesity and "a few extra pounds"�� must translate to obese.

I tell scammers "Funds are disbursed on the second Tuesday of each week -- after receipt of 501(c) authorization"