Is it, as in golf, a matter of "different strokes"?
Or
According to Homo Erectus Maccho Man "Wham bang, size that counts", who cares?
Or
All for the woman?
Or
All in the mind?
Or
According to Uber Feminist lore, best performed by and for a woman?
Or
Too stressful, and better as a solo or mutual act, in team spirit, when four people really need to pull themslves together?
Or
Best performed with efficient Teutonic Political Correctness according to verbal topicality and cultural fashion?
Or
Nicest when nauti-cal on the quarter or fore-deck with someone you mate-a-lot?
Or
Poetically, the quintesential importance of those myriad small things, gestures, words, responses that two people developing exponential love experience gratuitously every minute of every hour of every day of every month of every year?
Perhaps among the reasons why an adolescent minded male might reject a single parent female is a notion she would put her child's needs foremost.
But I’d not gender label this human flaw.
I was a single parent male for 13 years. It was the hardest of times and the best of times, to paraphrase Dickens. And I learned the hard way that shallow women can be as juvenile as shallow males in their response to single parent men.
It matters not what hyperbole is published in the fashionable "politically correct" texts and supermarket magazines, there are many emotionally superficial women out there as well for whom appearances, looks, lust, glamour, matter more than responsible mutuality,
I even experienced the slur of two women with whom I'd become consecutively close asking me to "choose" between my child and them.
There was no contest.
It was then I opted to remain celibate. I chose to be singularly devoted to my child until he'd reached adulthood and no longer needed parenting.
I then resumed my life, but this time on my terms. Now, wiser and a lot more cautious, I'm alert to the depths of a relationship and know that focusing first on mutual respect is far more important than anything else, especially fashionable expectations, the “approval” of friends and family, and especially the most base reason of all for a hoped-for lasting relationship - lust.
And that, perhaps, is an answer to your own question. Not the definitive answer of course. Then again, your question is part rhetoric. You already know your own answer.
Try a new way of approaching a relationship. Don’t repeat the old patterns of so-called “chemistry” and conventional “attraction”. Be adventurous. Open yourself to intuitive responses. Allow less flawed men into your life – even if they’re not your “type”, and see what happens.
Good luck in your quest, and may you have a very Happy St Valentine's Day.
After all, St Val didn't have an easy time of love either ;-)
I wonder whether sites like 'Connecting Singles' are part of the cure, as much palliative as they are a practical resource for the dateless?
I mean, there's claimed evidence that free sites such as this carry nowhere near the weight of accountability members of pay sites feel.
On sites that charge fees, especially those that don't give free sessions to females, there's more motivation for real and genuine effort and contact.
After all, people on those sites are paying up front and expecting a result. They are prepared to put effort in.
Connecting Singles must, of course, have a fruitful component, and yet the evidence here, seemingly more among women who statically fall more easily in love than men, but are swifter to abandon it. Men, it’s claimed, are the reverse of this.
Some CS members make it clear in their profiles that they don’t intend to treat CS as a dating site, but a ‘chat room’. These members seem all to be women. Similarly those who stop a fraction short of cynicism in their profiles when they declare ahead of dipping in that they don’t really “expect” to meet their match, their “soulmate”, their future partner here.
So CS serves as a sort of staging post, a transitional playroom for people who for whatever reason don’t have a demanding social life or who prefer the relative safety or anonymity of internet ‘chatting’.
Connecting Singles then is as much casual and a bit of fun as it purports to be serious. Yet there are evidently no serious expectations among those who treat the site primarily as a chat room
No so those who pay for a dating site.
They are either not interested in "chat rooms" or they go elsewhere to "chat".
Nothing wrong with that.
So, perhaps while working through the recovery process of a breakup, it's valuable to be able to ease gently back into single life through the near virtual reality of a site like Connecting Singles. There's less chance of engaging with someone in real life, and therefore less premature stress, risk of further hurt or damaged expectations.
In that sense, is 'Connecting Singles' performing a transitional function?
Is it also a ‘Safe House’ for the emotionally injured?
Don't despair. Keep trying. Think and act positively. Be conscious that it reflects poorly on those to whom you send courteous messages. but fail to reply.
A simple and honest "Thanks" isn't difficult.
After all, you had the courtesy and courage to "ask them to dance". They could at least have responded with a smile to say they wanted to "sit this one out".
Perhaps, too, it's important not to take this site too seriously...?
There are many such observed and recorded examples of spiritual healing, both physical and emotional.
It's too easy in a jaded, cynical, society to react destructive and dismissive toward spiritual and metaphysical topics like the 'power of prayer' and demonstrable belief.
Not much seems ever to come of imposing limited physical terms on a discussion and examination of genuine magic, spirituality, godheads.
What purpose does it serve to restrict and bind with physical sciences, logic, prejudice, the metaphysical abstractions and demonstrable beliefs such as the power of prayer, shaman practice, genuine magic...?
Attempting to reduce and anthropomorphise an abstraction must surely be counterproductive?
Science must set out to prove by attempting to disprove. Attempting to prove an Omega point is essential in all theology and quantum physics.
There's a lot more interdependence, though, between physics and metaphysical theory.
For example, when the Hadron Collider near Geneva finally gets its act together, scientists in Chile and Italy could be closer in collaboration with philosophers in France and Spain - and Melbourne and Stanford among others, toward fourth dimension, mathematically creative definition and understanding of things metaphysical. Including the power of prayer.
Mi estimada y mi estimado: ¿Ahora porqué tanto el morder y la lucha?
¿Dos perros?
Esto no es bueno. En lugar, es el mejor usted las bolas del juego junto. Con uno a. Significo el balls del pied.
¿Quizás ahora usted juega al balompié con la costa del ocio en Goulburn? O venido a Penárol Montevideo y al balompié verdadero del juego con Penarol…! ¿
Pero en lugar usted tiene gusto de la liga del rugbi…? Entonces ensamble conmigo mañana en el balompié de Wagga Wagga para la taza de Pascoe y el Brothers' juego. Quiza en lugar de otro y de vuelta a su morder atractivo….¿?
Fair enough, 'DC' To your other remark, I like most women. Sometimes, though, I too need an interpreter when it comes to other cultures. Some Californian examples have had me puzzled. A bit. But they're in the American minority. I really don't spend much time thinking about it.
'wikipedia' - the curse of the tertiary ed examiner. It's inherently unaccountable, potentially flawed - but it's a refuge of some who take easire 'cut and paste' routes to support their argument.
Nicely put, 'E'. I like your 'Napoleon' reference. But was his own timidity, his Naval neglect at the very least, or 'fear' of water, a factor in his downfall, his 'Waterloo'? Although if you're referring to his earlier romantic life, then you're absolutely correct ...!
I also 'have a life'. I can't do more than dip in to a site like this on a weekend when I can make the time.
It's certainly not a haven or a refuge or a 'hobby'. There's a lot more going on in my life. And, of course, I am open to dating, a relationship in 'the real world' if that happens. But I'm relaxed about it.
You raise an issue, though. I've noted only one person here who has defined her terms, qualified her status, and said she's with a partner, she's not looking, and she's here only for the social 'chat' on the forums.
I wonder why she doesn't prefer real, tactile, people - or at least a more relevant Internet chat site?
Surely most of us have joined this site because we are single and open to a new relationship?
Are you suggesting that some people are in fact using this an Internet site as a haven from their insecurities? That they are possibly too timid to confront the real world and ask, or be asked, or take a proper chance on a relationship?
You're probably correct.
I've also experienced combative response from two women here who seem too ready to attack a man, then applaud each other for having 'scored' a 'wikipedia' hit.
Of course, this might reflect more on PC American women. I don't know.
I was speaking personally. If you have stats, know of a consensus, fine. But time is precious. Generally, males are pragmatic, if stubborn as you pont out. We also admit to preferring not to read "simple" instruction manuals, locked as we are in memories of our infancy when we could do anything including 'programme the DVD or VCR'...!
Sadly, "high maintenance" can continue with divorce settlements whether they are by default, gratis, or through even higher maintenance litigation.
You're right in one way. But I'm a foolish optimist.
Besides, I'm master of my own destiny. No point whingeing about my ex-partner. And it would be oxymoronic, impossible, to be crying "high maintenance" about a potential or present partner.
Wylde Forum Posts (56)
To your other remark, I like most women. 
.! 
...!
Foreplay....?
Is it, as in golf, a matter of "different strokes"?Or
According to Homo Erectus Maccho Man "Wham bang, size that counts", who cares?
Or
All for the woman?
Or
All in the mind?
Or
According to Uber Feminist lore, best performed by and for a woman?
Or
Too stressful, and better as a solo or mutual act, in team spirit, when four people really need to pull themslves together?
Or
Best performed with efficient Teutonic Political Correctness according to verbal topicality and cultural fashion?
Or
Nicest when nauti-cal on the quarter or fore-deck with someone you mate-a-lot?
Or
Poetically, the quintesential importance of those myriad
small things, gestures, words, responses that two people
developing exponential love experience gratuitously every minute
of every hour of every day of every month of every year?
Or
With music, and graded according to scale?
- Theodore Wylde
.