A 5, at least.

Some women may complain, but I know I've always left myself highly satisfied.


Color scale?
Uh...call me Roy G. Biv?

YES.


It's as good a reason as any.

IMO yes.

IMO what you are basically asking here is "is it too much to ask for a commitment to me topping from the bottom?"

Other than that, honest and loyal men are easy to find.
Basically reciprocate honesty and loyalty, plus willfully and happily fulfill all their needs that you can control after you've developed a level of communication together where needs have been identified and understood.

My 90 year old grandma's not doing anything.
She's worried about covid so doesn't really get out.
Want me to see if she'll email you?
She's got a lot of cool stories from when she was a kid.
She's also spent decades researching our family's genealogy.
She's a terrible cook and always hated doing it, so might not want to ask about any recipes.
But she's got ghost stories. wooooo.

I kinda understand a desire to avoid a mass shift to mail in voting.

For a few years I worked for a credit card company analyzing and investigating fraud and identity theft.
Hundreds of thousands of cases per year, every year, always growing, for the time I worked there.
At that time the (overwhelmingly) biggest contributor was family members (and caregivers) intercepting applications/bills (having stolen the card or numbers and used them for online/phone purchases and hiding/editing/misrepresenting the statement), intercepting new cards in the mail, or people filling out a credit card application with their family members info.
I can absolutely see "woke" teens or family members intercepting the mail to vote how they think their (grand)parents/family members "should."

I've had "convenience checks" intercepted (despite me telling the bank on multiple occasions to stop sending them) after I've moved out of a place (even having filled out a forwarding address slip in advance) and thousands of dollars charged.

I see on youtube a constant barrage of "porch pirates," or the delivery person themselves, stealing packages. I can absolutely see people feeling "justified" going around stealing mail in ballots from conservative, or poor, or left, or LGBTQ, or whatever undesirable to them, neighborhoods.
Or a delivery person taking "video confirmation" of delivery, but then just taking the envelop and throwing it away, or filling it out and sending it back.

Not to mention, I keep getting different neighbors mail. I've gotten one guys monthly supply of insulin 3 times this year. Some mail/package delivery drivers don't check the address. I think at best they just look at google maps and say "this must be the place, it's where the pin is."

I understand it's better to vote in by mail rather than not vote at all.
It's a "better than nothing" option.
But I also see that there is a huge potential for fraud if it's done on a mass scale. Just because fraud (not to mention misdelivery) via the mail is a huge (IMO/IME) problem already.

Other than the chance to bloviate a screed: " our voting rights are being stepped on by the GOP ... "
How exactly and specifically are voting rights actually being stepped on?
Are they actually being stepped on?
Or is it mostly headlines mongering fear about it?
All you've linked is a wikipedia article and the Voting Rights Act from 1965.



Simply for my own entertainment, I like the idea of a lottery system. Like jury duty. Where there are no elections or voting. People (that are eligible via constitution eligibility requirements, and tested for drugs, alcohol, and competency) are randomly selected for an office every 2-6 years.

I'm starting to wonder if Nostradamus started the social security numbering system. And the 9 digit social security number is actually the number of times someone will read on the internet some young guy trying to bang older women using the poorly thought out philosophical idea that "age is just a number!"

Devil is in the details.

I mean this can mean "I've been talking to someone online for 2 years and they live 5,000 miles away. We're trying to build a relationship.
I need to trust them that they aren't dating someone local, better communication is needed so they need to contact me immediately after I text/call them and let me know what they're doing, but they need to respect my personal space and not call me every 10 minutes to ask what I'm doing and be all clingy,"

IOW I don't know what those relationship goals are in service to. What are they trying to change or fix or specifically develop.

Other than that, "trust" is simply "realistic expectations based on observed and understood consistent historical behavior and outcomes."
Which makes it a component of "communication." Or "better communication" begets "trust," unless what is meant by "communication" is just "more talky talky."

And I am not sure I understand "freedom of personal space."
Because that could be a reaction to someone being too "clingy," or it can be an unrealistic demand of "I want what I want when and how I want it without any real cost or consequence," or basically "I want you to go away and not exist unless I need you. But when I need you I want you to instantly appear and give me what I want from you. I have my space, you have yours, I'll deign to share mine when I need something from you, otherwise go away."


So, I might agree with your relationship goals if they weren't just general buzzwords without context.

IMO not really.
"Relationships" are built over time via learning to communicate, direct effort, focus, empathy, and reciprocity.

If someone is chatting online/being in contact with dozens of other potential suitors, or even dating multiple people at a time, then at best they're retarding their ability to develop a relationship with one person, at worst they're actively working against building a "love" relationship with someone.

But that brings up the question of personality and type.

If you're the type of person who is only really fulfilled by constant attention from contact with dozens of candidates, you can't turn around and just switch it off and be all "ok, Imma be someone else now, and be satisfied with one person!"
If you turn dating into a numbers game, you are just turning yourself into a number, and you're ultimately playing the lottery. How's that Powerball ticket working for you? Did you know states make more from poor people playing the lottery than they collect in corporate taxes? But millions keep playing, because maybe, just maybe, they'll be the 1 person that "wins."

So really, if you encounter someone that is dating multiple people, or in regular contact with dozens of candidates...they aren't "really" looking for a meaningful "love" relationship.
Although many people give lip service to the idea they want to find "the one," their actions are showing you the truth.


This is one of the reasons why online dating/dating apps are absolutely terrible for actual dating and meaningful relationships.

You read profiles that say things like "I'm independent, I got my own job, my own money, I gots me a degree, I like friends and family, I like to laugh, and long walks on the beach, I'm nice and down to earth, I can dress up or down!"

None of that is relevant to anything. It doesn't matter at all.

You want to find someone actually looking for a "serious" or "real" relationship?
Look for ways that show they empathize and care about others.
Look for ways that show how they handle conflict.
Look for ways that show you their ability to appreciate what they have as opposed to always looking for more.
Look for ways that show they are capable of committing to something, as opposed to just sticking around for mutual benefit. e.g. Christian? Have they ever had premarital sex? Or do they pick and choose which beliefs they follow because it's convenient for how they feel at the moment.
And measure all of these things along with their compatibility in those areas with you.

Unfortunately, most of the things that actually will tell you whether or not
you could be in a "love" relationship with that person aren't going to be all that obvious until after you've started interacting with them in a face to face setting, where they're responding to situations and environments they can't control, where they're actually speaking their mind in a setting they can't go back and edit it before sending.


So, is it "possible" to find "love/friend" with someone chatting to dozens of other potentials?
Sure. It's "possible."
It's also "possible" to figure out how to swim after encasing your feet in concrete and jumping off a pier. But for the vast majority of people it's a bad idea and a bad perspective that led them to attempt to do so.

If you use the legal definition? Yes.

If you use the Hollywood or social media definition? I don't think so.

IMO this is a huge problem with online dating.


There are such people, and they're all over the place.
In fact, a lot to most men are truly like this in healthy relationships.
People fulfill the others needs.

But ultimately, if you can't find the person that you're ideally looking for?

Then it's because your expectations are contradictory/unrealistic, and/or you don't represent the type of person or qualities they're seeking.



I mean so far in this OP:
"she needs a man that can take care of her... a man that would take very good care of his queen...spoiling her...makes her to want to be with you..."

What's in it for him?
It's all about her. Her benefit. He gets to "spoil" her (who enjoys being around someone spoiled?). She's on a queen pedestal, he's just a "man." It's about her wanting to be with him, nothing to indicate why he would want to be around her.

Is the only benefit to him simply the pleasure of her existence while she gets spoiled from his efforts?
Why would he behave in the way desired in the OP? What's his motivation?



Maybe you aren't explaining it very well.

Men will generally give a woman what she wants.
But there's always a "cost," she has to "give" him something in return.
Some combination of sex, youth, beauty, commitment, loyalty, respect, reciprocity, fidelity, fertility, commitment, attention, time, attitude, attraction, desirability, etc.


If what you're "really" asking is "what happened to such men. A man that would commit to spoiling her with tenderness, attention, loving, efforts, show her how much you care... This little things comfort her and makes her to want to be with you. Without requiring or expecting anything in return, simply accepting whatever she deigned was worth his efforts, or naturally exuded, if anything at all?"
Those men never existed.

I would refer you to what I said earlier. Expectations are unrealistic/incompatible/contradictory, and/or she simply doesn't offer what he's looking for (despite thinking she does).

I have been, of multiple "types," at some point.


I don't believe most of these are "types of men."
Not to mention, all of these the pronouns can be switched, making them "types" of "people," which IMO kinda invalidates the article/opinion/blog.


"Type" doesn't really change....that's what makes someone a "type."

What's mostly listed in this article/blog/opinion aren't really "types" of "men" so much as phases, moods, attitudes, and tactics that people go through when using OLD.

OLD has two perspectives.
There is yours, and the perspective of the person behind the profile you're reading.
From your perspective, their profile is static, a moment in time when you read it.
You don't really see all the permutations or changes that profile has gone through, or all the different profiles on different sites, throughout their life.
You haven't interacted with that person continuously over the days, weeks, months, years, that they've participated in OLD.
And they haven't done that with yours.

The OP article/blog/opinion is only relevant, IMO, if you discount the idea that the person you're talking to, or whose profile you're reading, isn't really a person but an embodiment of the "type" listed, and is incapable of any kind of change whatsoever in any capacity. That their profile or minute interaction defines them.


IMO if anyone has participated in OLD sites for any amount of time they ultimately realize there is a learning and participation curve, a change in attitude, mood, perspective, and tactics.

IMO the article/opinion/blog in the OP is listing more parts of the learning/experience curve or stages that a lot of normal people go through when trying to use OLD to meet people.

I mean when you first started OLD did you trust the website or app? Or if you were using a website that started charging money did you search out other sites and immediately commit absolutely? Or did you fill in as little info as possible in order to hurry up and get to exploring and determining if it's "better" or legitimate?
Does that make you a "just looking" or "lies about age" now? From the perspective of someone reading your profile, if they read this article/opinion/blog, you are.

When you got frustrated when people weren't reading your profile, or you put in "no hook ups! no one night stands! I want something serious!," but now you've changed your profile to just communicate something simple and straightforward about yourself, does that still make you a "lost in fantasy" type?


IMO with OLD most of these "types" change over time, with experience.
So the article/opinion/blog isn't very good because it doesn't really offer any kind of advice or help on how to approach/interact/confront these "types."
I mean in the header there's: "Some men use the Internet to find relationships. Others use it to run from them."
All the article is ultimately doing is "here's what to look for so you can run away, from people running away."

Depends exactly on what they mean by "open."

There's a huge difference between "we have 12 kids that we can't afford. Let's make it polygamous, increase the spousal support, increase our family, build our own community."
vs.
"I just wanna go bang some other people, but, like, I don't wanna ruin our friendsh...err...marriage/relationship. I wanna dip my toes in the waters of promiscuity in order to masturbate myself and my emotions."


As part of a social group/hierarchy, people rationalize the crap out of their behavior in order to justify getting what they want. They don't want to do any real introspection or accept any kind of real truth about themselves.
They come up with moronic things like "I have a higher sex drive than my partner, we need to keep things fresh in the bed room, I need to explore in order to live my best life and be my best me."

It's easier to play mental gymnastics until they can exhibit bad behavior motivated by bad things, but continue to maintain mental health, being able to see themselves as good people doing good things.

If the "open relationship" is just "exploring sexual partners outside of the committed monogamous relationship" then some things should be realized and accepted.

All sex is ultimately motivated by basic human biology and the desire to procreate.
If someone wants to go bang strangers to scratch an itch, "open their relationship," they're ultimately saying "this relationship has served its purpose. I've gotten what I want out of it. I want to find a new breeding partner as I'm not really emotionally and mentally bonded to the one I have. But I want to keep the benefits of this relationship. Financial, social, mental, emotional. My partner as an individual and person doesn't really do anything for me, although I'll pay lip service to the idea to make myself look good. My partner is just a tool to provide something for me. I just get something from them that I don't want to lose. Now I want to find someone else that has better genes, higher social class, more resources, whatever, and go through at least the short term bonding process. I want the freedom to go out and collect more resources to stroke my physical, mental, emotional gratification, but I don't really want any risks, costs, or consequences to doing so. I want freedom without any real consequences or responsibility, and I'm going to get it by playing games and paying lip service to mitigate the judgment of others for increasing my benefit to others detriment."


Those are my thoughts on "open relationships."
The desire for an "open relationship" ultimately means you don't really "love" the other person, you aren't pair bonded. It's a sign of people that "settled" in finding a relationship.

In terms of dating, mating, romantic relationships?
What they "want" to fulfill the perception of "fully satisfaction?"
Things that aren't compatible.
e.g. strategic pluralism, ovulatory shift hypothesis.
Women will never be "fully satisfaction." They aren't meant to be.
It's one of the biggest differences between men and women.
...Unless you believe in religion. Then they'll be fully satisfied if they follow the dictated religious commandments, or if they reach their heaven.

Otherwise, at best they will find "good enough for awhile" and then rationalize to maintain the status quo; weigh dissatisfaction vs. costs/risks/consequences of change.
There are reasons why women generally initiate divorce, why 70% of men over 65 are married vs. 42% of (over 65) women, and as a woman gets older (85) it drops to like 12%, whereas it remains stable as a guy gets older.

You ever hear of MGTOW? Women have naturally been GTOW, individually searching for personal "fully satisfaction," as they get older, after their childbearing impulses (hormones) change and stop holding sway over them in a certain way, for a lot longer.

Just like human beings in general are not meant to be "happy."
What people "want" in order to achieve "happiness" in reality is not going to lead to a perpetual state or "full" happiness.

I know who is getting screwed in that death match.


Time's a funny thing.
My long term could be considered short term from someone else's view or vice versa.

...Was this just a bait post? Like you expect a bunch of hotties to come in and say "oh oh oh! Short term lust...definitely!" or "long term love!" and then you email them "me too, wazzup?"

Drawer?
I thought we were supposed to be keeping our junk in a trunk?
Labeled "Badonkadonk?"
And then for spring cleaning you do the hard "twerk" in cleaning it out.
Singing "Is it worth it? Let me twerk it
I put my thing down, flip it and reverse it"
Isn't that what tik tok is all about?
Cleaning tips for the junk trunk?

Sort of.
I always enjoyed like role play.
Especially when it's not all that planned.
I'd meet my partner, or someone I've been dating for a while so knew me and it wasn't that weird, for dinner or something and introduce myself as someone completely different, pretend it's like a first date with someone entirely new, or hit on them and pick them up while they're waiting for "me" who doesn't show up.

Some people I've dated or have been in relationships with would go along with it, and introduce themselves as someone new, use their imagination to create a backstory, we'd treat it as kind of a one night stand, like a little skit or play that lasted all night.
We'd create little adventures, talk about them the next day. Have fun with it.
Like one time the adventure was the millionaire patent holder for the sound of small car horns meeting the person who discovered how to communicate with basil.

Other women had absolutely no imagination whatsoever and it just wasn't much fun so it wasn't something we really did.

Sometimes it was like an affair, sometimes we'd end up creating imaginary partners we're cheating on. Other times it was tongue in cheek pretending the other person wasn't really the partner.

But that's mostly enjoying the power of imagination, excitement, and bonding. The only reason I see to enjoy the actual "secrecy of an affair" is if you're in a bad relationship.
Like a teenager that enjoys hiding from mommy and daddy that they got a tattoo.
They're trying to pretend like they're an adult, they want to do something they know their parents are going to have a negative emotional reaction to, and ultimately they just want to get out of there and be on their own, have authority over themselves without any consideration for others.
So to me "enjoying the secrecy of an affair" is simply a symptom of "it's time to move on, get out of there, and go out on your own."
I don't really enjoy that.

How are you defining "intimacy?"
I mean some people put on their profile (or used to) that they're seeking an "intimate encounter." Which was just "I want to have sex right now."

And there are different levels of "intimacy" if you aren't specifically referring to just sex.
Like a first date with a complete stranger, intimacy can be set by mood, environment, situational, external.

Or just sitting on the couch in the middle of the day with someone you've developed a relationship with. You can "feel" a sense of intimacy towards someone, or to each other.

So...I don't really know what you don't see any problem with.
Are you referring to, or do you mean, attempting to manipulate someone into feeling a sense of intimacy towards you for ulterior motives?

It's not that you feel "intimacy" so much that you want them to feel "intimacy" and therefore reward you with some behavior or feeling?
Like "I made you feel (x) way, therefore you should behave (y) way?"
Or "I did (x) in order to get them to feel (y), I see my motives as altruistic, so if they don't behave/feel the way I think they should, then they're the bad guy, I see no problem with my attempts to force feelings of intimacy?"


Or it can be based on desires and trust, without really adding to them.

It can also be based on a false desire and false sense of trust.


So do the slots in Vegas, occasionally.
But what do they pay...what if it pays you something other than what you expect?

Hmmm.
Not sure, never measured.

I know "what" it generally takes.
1. Attraction.
2. Interest (which is highly influenced by rule 1).

As to "how much" of each it would take for you specifically, or people in general, that would be completely subjective.

You can do an intertubes search for a couple of basic rules relevant to online dating.
1. Be attractive.
2. Don't be unattractive.

If those aren't possible then:
1. Be unattractive.
2. Don't reject those that are even more unattractive.

Or have I misunderstood the question?
Was it more like "How much can I pay a woman (receptive to the idea) to get them to meet me in person?"
Then it's back to being completely subjective, or at least based on current local market conditions.

To what?


Why not?
And how do you tell the difference between "confusion" and "real."
Especially if you withdraw and take the time to objectively measure, you will most likely lose both?


Okay.
How do you handle the problem with actions and/or words being misconstrued?

First date ever in the history of your/a persons dating life? How old are they?

Or first date with a new person but you've/they've dated other people before?

First date with a veritable stranger from the internet?
First date with someone from the internet you've spoken too for a long time online, they're from far away, and coming for the weekend?

First date with someone you've/someone's been "friends" with, or worked with, or have known for a long time?

IMO it would be far easier to comment in response to how you think you or someone should "handle your first date," giving as much info and details as possible.

Your question is far too broad, IMO.