Ha! 25% is plenty for a lot of us. In fact:

1. I cook for myself and, for the most part, take care of my own household needs. Besides, I don't like anyone getting into my stuff, even it it's just my boxers.

2. Well, to be fair, we're not all sex-crazed. Okay, we are, but some of us are less crazed than others. Personally, I've been celibate for a long time and I'm okay continuing as such for a long time to come — uh, no pun intended.

3. A god worthy of your worship would never require or accept it.

4. I despise football and most spectator sports; they bore me to tears. I enjoy only a few hours of television each week: The FOX Sunday night lineup, 'The Big Bang Theory,' 'South Park,' and an occasional episode of 'The Daily Show' and 'The Colbert Report.'

If you'd like to use rope instead, ArtGurl, we might be able to work something out.

This is actually a very good point, Cinderella75. There is an interesting phenomenon, which some people call "sperm competition" — that men are more attentive and, indeed, undergo a physical change when their partner flirts with others and especially when their partner has the _opportunity_ to have sex with another.

I don't recall who did the study, but I remember the heart of it: A men who went without sex for a significant period because their partner was ill did _not_ have a a significantly increased sex drive or increased semen production. The men who were away from their partner for other reasons (e.g., one of them went out of town for a few days for work) did, in fact, have increased sex drive and semen production. There is a correlation between the _potential_ of a man's partner to have sex with another man and his own sexual response. As fücked up as this may seem (though it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but I won't get into that now), men are much more likely to be attentive — sexually and otherwise — when they know, even subconsciously, that their partner had the opportunity to cheat on them.

Flirting might easily have a similar effect for many of the same reasons. Even if intellectually a man trusts his wife or girlfriend, there's that "jealous" response over which he has no control. He's more likely to be attentive, partly because he's aware on a conscious level that his partner could have another guy if she so chose, but also because there's that physical response to the subconscious fear that his partner might actually have sex with someone else.

Fascinating stuff.

Hey, just say "no" to duct tape! When it comes time to remove it — and, yes, you do need to remove it eventually — you'll rip out hair (if you're lucky) or rip off flesh (if you're unlucky). No! Bad ArtGurl!

If I were looking for a partner, I suppose this item would have some merit; in truth, I'm not much of a cook so it would be nice to have someone around who knows how to spice up a dish in ways that actually taste good. When it comes to housekeeping, someone a little more tidy than I am might be nice, but not to the point of being a neat-freak.


This item is highly subjective. Some men (and women) have very high sex drives, while others have moderate or low sex drives. Frequent sex for a lot of men just isn't appealing. I will say that I think a romantic relationship needs a fair amount of sex to help build/maintain intimacy. A sexless relationship can quickly become non-communicative, cold, and distant.


I suppose we all like to feel special, but the notion of worship seems excessive. People in a relationship should put forth the effort to make each other feel they are regarded as special, admired, appreciated, etc.


Depending on his personality, giving him his "alone time" to watch television or do something else that doesn't necessarily involve you or anyone else might be quite healthy and very appreciated. Of course, a woman is entitled to similar treatment. Perhaps she doesn't need any more alone time and instead needs some dedicated "togetherness" with her partner. He should be willing to spend time with her on a regular basis, or be fine with a weekly girls'-night-out, or whatever. Personality plays a role in what people need to feel energized and fulfilled, both within and outside the relationship.



I suspect it's the same for men as it is for women. There is a physical component, surely, but we all want some sort of emotional connection too. Even people who have casual sex with many partners are engaging in something intimate and exciting with someone who connects with them and can respond. Someone can dance alone, too, but when there's a connection with another person there is an added dimension of enjoyment and satisfaction.


Who says it's only the orgasm? Sex for most people isn't only about an orgasm. Sex with another person is exciting. Feeling your partner's body heat, hearing his/her breathing, feeling his/her touch down your back and his/her kiss behind your ear. Who doesn't want those things? There are elements of sex that you can't achieve on your own — sort of like trying to tickle yourself — and those things all play into the charged sexual energy when there's a partner.


If you mean that men want a long-term relationship, well, some do and some don't, much the same way that some women want a relationship while others don't. Human interaction, however, is an innate desire — a biological need, really — and without it, life can be very lonely. People who don't have satisfactory relationships (not necessarily sexual or romantic in nature) generally have lower life expectancy.


Can it be that all men want the same thing in the same way from a relationship or from sex? I don't think so, any more than I think all women are looking for the same things in these areas. We can make some general assumptions, but everything needs to be qualified with "some," "many," "few," etc. The only thing I can state with any certainty is what I want in regard to relationship and sex. For me, right now, I'm uninterested in a romantic relationship with anyone and I've chosen a path of celibacy for an indefinite period. Such isn't the norm, of course, but it goes to show that there's a wide variation of what men — people in general, really — need or want, and you'll likely find some men who want to jump from one bed to another, other men who are devoted and caring, some who are selfish lovers, and yet others who are extremely giving.

curiousbutshy20: Have you discussed the issue with your man? I don't agree that it's something you definitely shouldn't act upon, but it's certainly something to be approached with caution. You don't tell what was terrible about the threesome, so it's difficult to tell how you might avoid a repeat of a bad experience in the future. If it were jealousy alone that caused problems, then that's a good indication that you won't be capable of realizing your fantasy. If it was terrible because the sex was bad or your man was too nervous to perform, etc., then there's hope for you — and it starts with open, honest discussion with your partner. If the problem had to do with the encounter leading to emotional attachment between your partner and the guest, perhaps the key is to be careful that your guest be someone with whom you currently have no close ties (and be careful to maintain distance outside the bedroom after, or between, encounters).

Sometimes fantasies are best left to the deep recesses of your mind, and sometimes it's healthy to explore them. Even if you don't invite another woman into your bed, perhaps you and your partner can role play and discuss these fantasies during intimate moments. You might be able to fulfill your fantasy through some creative storytelling.

Good luck!

Perhaps "justifiable" was the wrong word to sum up my point, but I meant justifiable only by the individual. It wasn't my intention to give consent or approval. It doesn't matter to me if someone has preferences, or if those preferences are deal-breakers. I pointed out my own tendency to be shallow, too, and I tried to explain that physical attraction is important from a biological perspective. My message to the OP is that yes, it's a preference, yes, it's shallow, and no, she doesn't need to feel guilty for it (which seems to be an underlying issue, since being shallow is considered such a negative thing by most people). The only caveat I posed was that such preferences not lead one to unhealthy relationships, which is generally the opposite of what people are seeking or find rewarding in the long run. I apologize if any of that came across as absurd, scary, or control freaky.

I would say that the difference between a simple preference and a shallow preference isn't difficult to discern, generally speaking. For instance, I may prefer someone who went to college because I feel that I'm going to have more compatibility with that person intellectually. However, I may find a woman who is very intelligent but never stepped inside a college classroom. Am I willing to date her and get to know her better, or do I reject her out of hand? Which is the shallow response? If I like Asian women, that may be my preference. If I won't consider anyone except Asian women, isn't that shallow?

On the other hand, there are some instances where someone may have a preference that could seem shallow but really isn't. For instance, if a woman loves spending time outdoors running, hiking, etc. and she is looking for an athletic guy because she wants her lover to be an activity partner as well, that's less about a surface attraction than it is about the dynamics of the relationship.

So, I guess the general rule of thumb for me as to whether a preference is shallow comes down to motivation and flexibility. I'm shallow about a lot of things. I try to be more open, and in truth my appreciation for beauty has expanded greatly in recent years, but I know that I retain a lot of prejudice regarding appearance and a variety of other things that don't really matter. On other attributes, I have preferences (e.g., breast size) but they're not necessarily deal-breakers. I'm not sure I'm being especially coherent on this topic, but I hope I've clarified my point somewhat.

A lot of people are responding that it's not shallow, just a preference. Really? So, if I said that I couldn't get past the idea of dating a woman who has small tîts, that's not shallow? It's just a preference? Yes, of course it's shallow. This isn't about whether the guy has good hygiene, is healthy, treats you well, or is intellectually or emotionally compatible with you. It's every bit as shallow as someone who won't date heavy women or redheads or Asians or anyone with a physical condition that means nothing important to the relationship. So, yes, it's shallow. But here's the kicker: You have every right to be shallow when it comes to physical attraction, within reason (i.e., it doesn't lead you into unhealthy relationships based solely on physical attractiveness, etc.).

Just be clear with yourself on one important point, however: If a guy is shorter than you are and you reject him on that basis, that's your right; but your inability to accept him based on his height is a refection on you, not him. His height isn't his problem; it's yours. That's the same as if I won't date a heavyset woman, it is a reflection on me and my own shortcomings and my inability to get past some flaw in my own psyche — a personal prejudice or obsession with what others will think or whatever.

It's not my intention to be mean-spirited here, no more than it's your intention to hurt the feelings of a guy who's a bit shorter than you are, and I'm not suggesting you're a bad person for your preference. We all have personal preferences, and we're all at least a little shallow and have myriad other shortcomings. That's a simple matter of being human. We can't all like the same things, and we can't all have the same attributes. Physical attraction is unique from one person to the next, and it's the result of thousands of years of human development. For better or worse, it's a crucial part of the human condition. Accept your preference, accept that it's shallow, and accept that it's justifiable.

Yeah, but that's only because the elderly bugs have gone there to retire.

I think the problem is partly shyness, but also that you can see a profile pic in the forums but don't learn anything about the person without going to his/her profile.

So, when someone visits your profile, they see that you're 40 (which for someone 23 might seem ancient), they see that you're from PA (which is quite a distance from CA, for example), they see that you're looking for a man for friendship (and maybe they want to date or are looking for a relationship), they see that you're divorced with kids living at home (might be a deal-breaker for some), they see that you're an occasional smoker (I'm somewhat allergic to cigarette smoke, and others probably are too or just don't like to be with a smoker), etc.

Also, you say in your profile that the person viewing should understand the list of phrases related to "the business." But I imagine there are lots of people who have no idea what those things mean -- me being one of them, unfortunately (though I have a guess, but can't make sense of all the phrases). You tell people that if they aren't in the business, they're likely wasting their time and yours; that may be a reason for not contacting you as well.

So, while some people are just looking for online friends, a lot of people are probably looking for a date or a serious relationship and are looking for someone in their general area, someone close to their age, someone with similar habits, etc. I think that's probably all there is to it for most who view your profile but never make contact.

Moondark:

There are a lot of men near your age who look younger — suffering from similar good genetics as you have — so you should be able to find someone who is outwardly compatible. The other direction to go is to find a younger guy who has done a lot with his life and has a more mature outlook for his age.

Ultimately, you are looking for a person, not an age. Good luck in your search.

raise : raze

sanction : sanction

Thanks everyone. She removed her mail settings, so the immediate problem is solved now. I wasn't sure if anyone else was having this problem or not, but it looks like it's already documented and the fix is planned for a future update. Many thanks!

Mike, Van, et al:

I have someone in my friends list (jUdEoUs_mAxiMoUs) who is accepting mail only from people who live within 50 miles of her and, consequently, I am unable to send mail to her. However, I thought people who were listed as friends were not restricted by those settings. Is there a delay between the time when a friend is added and when the restriction no longer applies? I requested the friend add yesterday, and she added me today. Can you help?

Thanks!

I don't want to get into a flame war about marriage — though it's not for me — but I don't agree that marriage:

1. increases sexual pleasure (as with all relationships, after awhile sex becomes stagnant and couples actively seek ways to "spice up" their love lives; peak sexual excitement generally comes early in any relationship and necessarily cools over time),

2. protects against feelings of loneliness (a bad marriage can actually heighten feelings of loneliness and isolation, and adds the additional discomfort of feeling trapped in that despair),

3. protects women from domestic violence (there are lots of abusive husbands, and abusive wives for that matter; a man who would abuse a woman before marriage won't suddenly change just because he's married),

4. enhances a parent's ability to parent (that makes a lot of assumptions about the partnership that have nothing directly to do with marriage, though I will agree that two _good_ parents in the same household helps with division of parenting tasks, scheduling, etc.)

5. helps create better or more reliable employees (this can really go either way, and it can make an employee less reliable especially if the marriage ends in a messy divorce; also, people tend to "check out" of their jobs for a month or two before the wedding, making them less productive; a good marriage can enhance productivity and reliability somewhat, at least early on, but a bad marriage can destroy a worker's ability to function effectively), or

6. increase individual earnings and savings (while some people become more driven to make money and spend wisely when they get married — to pay for a bigger home, to start a family, etc — the reasons for making more money tend to eat up the extra funds; household income certainly increases in most cases, but individual earnings and savings rarely increase due to marriage).

There are good marriages — I'm not arguing against that, and I am very happy for those who are happily joined in matrimony — but I contend that those same people would have good relationships whether they were married or not. Half of all marriages end in divorce, and that figure has been rather constant over the last several decades (though it's dropping somewhat recently, as is the marriage rate). Of the half of marriages that survive, a lot are unhappy (I don't have any statistics, but observation of married couples would indicate that the percentage is relatively high) and stay married for familial or financial reasons.

I think it is better to build a relationship with the right person than it is to have the supposedly "right kind" of relationship (i.e., marriage).

I have other objections to marriage that are more philosophical than pragmatic, but I'm quite certain nobody wants me to continue rambling about this topic.

I understand everyone's frustration, but imagine how frustrating it would be if there were no verification and spam-bots (automated software that scours the internet looking for places to post annoying promotions and links, often obscene web sites) were allowed to post without any obstacles. Such spam-bots are very sophisticated, to the point of having graphic recognition algorithms (which is why the letters and numbers are often so difficult for people to read, since the goal is to obscure the details from spam-bots). Without captchas (the name of those verification code programs), most of the sites that require signup would be overwhelmed with fake accounts, and public submission sites would become completely useless. It's certainly unfortunate, but it's the reality.

The real problem presents itself in accessibility issues. Vision-impaired individuals often rely upon text-to-audio programs to interact with the web, and these captchas cannot be read — preventing the vision-impaired from effectively using many web sites. Section 508 of the Disabilities Act protects the vision-impaired when it comes to accessibility to U.S. governmental and not-for-profit web sites, but does not apply to commercial web sites. (Some countries have enacted similar legislation that extends to commercial sites.) So, web site owners are faced with the difficult task of making accessible web sites while preventing spam software from overrunning them. Most site owners opt for spam prevention and forego the issue of accessibility entirely. There are audio captchas (but not in widespread use) that might provide an acceptable alternative — a barrier to spam-bots, but accessible if given audio and graphical captcha options.

I'm not sure this is a bug so much as an oversight, but logging out of the site doesn't automatically toggle one's online status. I didn't notice this before because I had the chat feature disabled and my online status was hidden, but since the change was made to enable the online status regardless of whether chat is enabled I've noticed that I can log out but my profile says I'm still online. It is still bound by the inactivity timeout (which appears to be about 30 minutes), but it would be better if logging out would immediately toggle one's status to "offline."

Thanks for your consideration.

I taste what people write with my ears, and smell what they say with my sixth sense. Intuition gets _really_ tricky.

Going on a first date is like going to a job interview; your date, just as your potential employer, expects that you are doing your best to make a great first impression and that you are presenting yourself in a better light than you truly are. There is a subconscious adjustment that your date makes, knowing (or at least suspecting) that you put extra time into looking your best, that you probably have some canned topics for witty discussion, and that you will be more congenial on this date than you likely are at any other time in your daily life. If, however, you are entirely up-front about who you are (e.g., you show up looking like you would any other day after a hard day of work, you're a bit irritable, you swear impotently at the car that cut you off, etc.), your date is likely to figure that this is you at your best and that you will only get worse later (if that date were to actually develop into a relationship).

Basically, a first date shows us at our absolute best — whatever that might be — and that's what's being judged. It's sort of like going into an appliance store and seeing the oven display model that's never been used; it looks shiny and clean and would look great in our kitchen. If we had instead seen an oven that had been used for a year and had rarely been cleaned or maintained, we wouldn't consider that model for our kitchen.

My advice is for everyone to strive to be that display model; show your date that you clean up nicely, and that you can appear shiny and new. Your date knows that it's not going to be like that always and forever, but they want to know that it's possible.

That said, putting one's best foot forward isn't the same as lying. You don't want a relationship in which none of your perceived positive attributes exists. You're still yourself on that first date, only a better version of yourself.