Internet dating has spawned a whole new set of rules for dating behavior. One subset is “When do you hide or take down your dating profile?” and “When do you drop your dating site memberships?” See the letter below about one such conundrum, and see the rational, common-sense adult-like response about radical commitment.
Radical commitment means closing all escape hatches
Posted by Steven Kalas
I am in a nine-month relationship. He said he would like an exclusive relationship. I agreed. Is checking an online dating site appropriate? I met this person from an online dating site. When he asked if I would be his girlfriend, I agreed but made it clear that I felt that, and he agreed, that online profiles should be removed and not used. I have done this and have no desire to go fishing, looking, checking, whatever. However, recently he told me that he still gets messages weekly from the site to “check his matches.” He even asked me if I would like to see them. He insists he doesn’t communicate and isn’t active. Yet it is OK to check the site. This happened in a relationship prior to this. In both cases, the man felt it was OK to have a “curiosity” for women and “just check the profiles” sent to them from the site. I understand that men are visual, but I explained to both of them, that there is a difference between a woman walking by while shopping and noticing her and making a conscious decision to push a button that opens up pictures of women who are looking for matches. What are the “rules” of the online dating game? What are men thinking? Or, am I overreacting, which I have been accused of on this issue. Maybe I am just too trusting.
—K.U., Las Vegas
Exclusivity and fidelity are not one decision; rather, a series of decisions. Commitment is not one moment in time; it is a developmental journey.
The easy part is the mechanical/social practice of exclusivity. We don’t date anyone else. We don’t have sex with anyone else. Voila! Looks like we’re in a committed relationship.
Well, yes, it is committed. Yet, to our surprise, there remain deeper and more radical commitments to be made.
When alone, we decide never to talk or behave anytime, anywhere, with anyone in a way we would not behave if our mate was standing right there. That’s the rule. That’s radical commitment.
We are transparent in all our relationships. We might have a more or less separate communion with someone, but never an undisclosed communion. All our friends, whatever their gender, are known to our mate and know about our mate. That’s the rule. That’s radical commitment.
We don’t seek, nurture, or avail ourselves to relationships trading “bumps” of sexual attraction and ego-boost. See, this, too, leaks energy that is rightly owed to the mate. A committed partner seeks the mate’s desire. Oh, sure, it’s enjoyable when the stranger or co-worker lets us know we are desired. And of course we will regularly enjoy noticing people we find attractive and desirable. But we don’t linger in those moments. We don’t “grow” them and depend on them. We “bump” with our mate. That’s the rule. That’s radical commitment.
We don’t nurture The Potential Relationship In The Hole. You’ve seen it: that friend or co-worker with whom you never officially have an affair; but, still, you grow a private and intimate relationship of “what if.” Oh, had we met years ago. Oh, if my mate died, etc. It’s an escape hatch from the work of radical commitment. So we close all escape hatches. That’s the rule. That’s radical commitment.
We don’t amen ourselves to friendships openly disparaging our mate or our commitment. Yes, we have friends who let us vent during difficult moments in the journey of love; but, after listening, those friends challenge us to do the work of great love. Further, we swiftly and decisively jettison anyone who, despite our clearly communicated status as a committed partner, continues to come on to us, tempt us or entice us. In the end, there is no room in great love for even the distraction of having to say “no.” That’s the rule. That’s radical commitment.
K.U., your man isn’t cheating. At least not officially. But his behavior “cheats” the potential of his relationship with you because he’s leaking psychic energy he could be using for the next step of commitment.
All of your questions will answer themselves, K.U., if you will but answer this question: What, for you, constitutes self-respect? Answer that, and you will know whether you are overreacting. You will know how deep of a commitment you deserve from a mate. You will either relax and lower your expectations. Or, you will confront him and demand more.
Or you will leave.
I’ve always been a fan of long-distance love. My Sweetie Drew was 482 miles away when I found him, and we made it work. Here are other folks who didn’t let miles, oceans, or country borders get in the way. Inspiration for us all.
Daters without borders New Yorkers find international love online
By CARRIE SEIM
There are more than 8 million people in the city of New York. Most are either too young, too old, too married or too incarcerated to date. The remaining 17 have weird hobbies, creepy hygiene and bad manners.
Plus you’ve already slept with them.
Time to look beyond the boroughs. And no, we’re not talking New Jersey. More and more New Yorkers are searching for love on European dating sites, living out fairy-tale fantasies of international romance.
“French men really treat you like a lady,” says Lillian, a 42-year-old Manhattan copy editor who signed up for Meetic.com, Europe’s largest dating site. “They wine you, they dine you, they make you feel like you’re the only one on the planet.”
Lillian describes the men she’s met on US-based dating sites as “sleazy,” and the real-life dating scene in New York as “nonexistent.”
“I go out here — and nothin’,” she says.
But on Meetic, she Skypes with a Parisian man from the site for an hour each day. This month they missed connections — she flew to France for vacation the same day he flew to NYC for business — yet Lillian managed to line up two dates with another Frenchman Meetic member while in Paris.
“I was talking to guys in Italy, France and Sweden all at once,” she brags.
Susan, a 22-year-old grad student, also struggled with dating locally, so she widened her eHarmony parameters.
“What are the odds that that perfect person is within a 25-mile radius of your home?” she asks.
Turns out her future husband was living 3,400 miles away in a tiny village with the population of 60. eHarmony matched her with Peter, a 30-year-old Slovakian living in England. After months of Webcam chats, Susan hopped the pond for a face-to-face.
“I was really, really nervous on the plane,” she remembers. “I don’t do this sort of thing! But he was that special.”
Peter proposed a few months later in a romantic English garden. They married last June near a lake in Aurora, NY, and he’s since moved here.
Even “Real Housewives of New York City” reality star Alex McCord and Simon van Kempen met through Matchmaker.com while living on different continents.
“I had already dated most of the guys I knew and wanted to date in New York,” says Alex.
Simon, meanwhile, was based in Sydney and posted a profile on the Australian section of the site. On a lark, he changed his location to New York during a work trip to the city.
“I wasn’t looking to find a New York woman and move here,” he insists.
Still, international love prevailed and they tied the knot in 2000.
“Expect it when you least expect it,” they say. In unison.
Mark Brooks, editor of OnlinePersonalsWatch.com, says international romance is a growing trend, due to singles’ increasing pickiness about potential life partners.
“The longer the shopping list, the further afield you should cast your net,” he advises.
A single New Yorker four years ago, he flew to Prague for a European online dating conference where he met — and fell for — a Czech woman. They married last April and now live in Malta with two daughters.
It’s not just New Yorkers who are searching overseas for love. Sarah Shaw, 45, describes the dating scene in LA as “a nightmare,” so a French friend made her register with Meetic, where she stumbled upon Pierre Dubois, a handsome French painter. They fell into a whirlwind “fantasy” romance and were married soon after. Pierre moved to California and they now have identical twin girls.
Sarah credits European men with being more open and less threatened by female success than American men. Plus there’s that foreign accent.
“You have to be willing to look under every rock,” she says. “In every country.”
Here are some of the most popular dating sites from around the world:
* Europeans: Meetic.com
* Brits and Canadians: PlentyOfFish.com
* Asians: AsiaFriendFinder.com
* Australians: RSVP.com.au
* Indians: Shaadi.com
* Russians: Member.ru
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/lifestyle/dating/daters_without_borders_lE0aVEOO6fidW6lXlntY2H#ixzz0YYvNa9GM
Here’s some recent research, article reprinted below—what do you think? “Couples in which the woman was more than five years older than the man were three times as likely to split up as those where both partners were the same age. And those in which the woman was more than five years older, neither partner was well-educated and one had a previous divorce, stood the least chance of surviving.” I took the fluff out (where the hearts  are) of the following long article and kept the parts that I thought interesting, what the research says about a couple’s potential for staying together.
What’s the formula for the perfect marriage?
By Dani Garavelli
IF YOU thought the secret to choosing a lover who will last a lifetime was down to chemistry, then think again. According to new research, the best way to tell if a marriage will go the distance or fall at the first hurdle is by trusting another science altogether – mathematics.
Keen to rid society of the blight of divorce, mathematicians assessed the staying power of 1,074 Swiss couples and came up with a formula for a long-lasting union. Ditching such airy-fairy notions as love, romance and sexual compatibility, they used the “linear assignment model” – a methodology used by businesses to match workers to appropriate tasks – to “optimise spousal allocation”. Yes, that means helping people end up with the best possible partner.
The results were dramatic. Having assessed the age difference, cultural and educational background and divorce history of all the couples, the academics found the marriages most likely to succeed were those in which the woman was five or more years younger than her partner, and also better educated.
Couples in which the woman was more than five years older than the man were three times as likely to split up as those where both partners were the same age. And those in which the woman was more than five years older, neither partner was well-educated and one had a previous divorce, stood the least chance of surviving.
“Being able to choose our partners in the way we do is a bit of a luxury,” says Emmanuel Fragnière, a lecturer in management science at Bath University and co-author of the report. “As recently as a few decades ago, marriages were a matter for the community. We know divorce has an economic, social and psychological cost, so why not try to improve the odds of a marriage succeeding?”
But is a mathematical approach to dating really more likely to improve the odds of a successful marriage than a sociological or psychological one? And can immutable facts such as age difference or educational background really do more to keep a relationship afloat than empathy, tolerance, compromise and a healthy sex life?
Fragnière makes no apology for looking beyond the factors usually credited with keeping love alive. “It appears that men and women ‘choose’ their mates on the basis of feelings of love, physical attraction, similarity of tastes, beliefs, attitudes, and shared values,” he says. “All of these determinants are supposed to help them be happy together. However, research has shown that the longevity of marriages or partnerships also depends on objective attributes such as differences in age, family history, and educational levels.
“We imagined what it would be like if you had a regime like in North Korea, say, and marriages could be coordinated by a central agency. After looking at the impact of age difference, and cultural and educational background, we reallocated around 68 per cent of individuals to a new couple that we posited had a higher likelihood of survival.”
It all sounds a bit Brave New World. But could it perhaps throw light on some of the great love affairs of history? If only Cathy had been just a couple of years younger, might she and Heathcliff have escaped from the gloomy Yorkshire moors and settled down to a life of domestic bliss in a town house in Kensington? If only Anne Boleyn had stuck in at school, could she have kept her head?
The notion that husbands should be older than their wives goes back centuries and spans several continents, although most cultures believe there should be a limit to the age gap. (In the West, one theory has it that the women should be no less than half her partner’s age plus seven).
The tradition probably stemmed from the expectation that a man would be able to provide for his wife and future family. “It is received wisdom that men choose younger women for evolutionary reasons, because they look like better breeders,” says Barbara Bloomfield, a counsellor with Relate and an author of books on love and dating. “But then, of course, they may trade off looks for kindness and intelligence.” Equally, received wisdom says men look for women of lower social or educational status so as not to feel threatened.
A study carried out by Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Bristol universities in 2005 found that the likelihood of marriage increased by 35 per cent for men for each 16 point increase in IQ, whereas for women, there was a 40 per cent drop for each 16 point rise, suggesting either that men aren’t interested in clever women, or that clever women have no interest in getting married.
So why do relationships where the woman is better-educated stand the best chance of survival? “As a counsellor for 14 years, I have found that women do tend to set the emotional bar,” says Bloomfield. “They are far more likely to divorce men than the other way around, so you could hypothesis that maybe better educated women make better choices.”
Fragnière – who, it has to be said, has his tongue firmly in his cheek – accepts his research is unlikely to revolutionise dating, but wonders if it could have an application in the world of internet dating. Sites such as Match.com promise you will find someone special within six months or they will give you your money back.
At Edinburgh-based Datetheuk, for example, members have myriad options for checking out their compatibility with a potential partner. They can draw up their own profiles, look at other members’ profiles, rely on recommendations from the agency or suss out other people’s personalities by reading messages posted on public forums.
Checking the age or educational backgrounds of potential matches is no doubt part of the process – but it probably comes second to that first glance at the potential suitor’s photo.
A more obvious problem with the report is that it fails to take couples’ happiness into account. Not all long-term married couples are happy with their lot, after all. “It was not one of the criteria we included, but it might be possible to develop the model further and include some psychological criteria, and then, I suppose, happiness could be included,” says Fragnière.
Here we go again: Yet another article about how online dating is now mainstream and THE place to find love. Not that I am complaining about the positive coverage. Far from it. After all, it’s good for my business, right? And more importantly, good news for singles looking for love. This article also throws in a couple of cybercouples just for fun.
Finding your love at online dating site
We have become a society of high-tech people. The internet has changed the way we do business, how we learn and how we find love. Alicia Hansen, a 36-year-old mother of three, has been dating online, on and off, for a couple years. She does not care who knows. “People who don’t understand that it is part of our new world are like, ‘oh, you’re doing that?’” Today millions of people are “doing that,” trying to find their match online. In fact, online dating has become so main stream it’s even part of a class taught at the University of Minnesota.
“We don’t have the same connections that we used to have through church or family or neighborhood,” James Caron, U of M Social Science Professor said. There are plenty of sites on the internet that cater to those looking for love. Each one works a little differently. Most sites charge a fee, make you fill out a profile about yourself and then help you find people with whom you are most likely to be compatible. The rest is up to you. Dr. Elizabeth and Eileen parks met two years ago on MillionaireCupid.com.
“I did it for about four or five months before I winked at Ryan,” Elizabeth said. “I went on a lot of first dates, but I guess Ryan was my only second date.” Two weeks ago, they tied the knot. Certainly not every match ends up in marriage, but for a budding industry, the number of success stories might surprise you. It’s estimated that anywhere from 8 - 10 percent of all marriages are the result of people meeting online. There is a downside to dating online. It’s hard to tell someone’s tone in an email. Also, you have to trust that the people you meet are being truthful about themselves.
Not a problem, says Vince Turk. He met his wife Karen on eHarmony.com. “As somebody who is looking at profiles, you know the people who have invested time in it and put some money into it are pretty serious about wanting to meet somebody.” Karen couldn’t have been more honest. “I lived in a small town. I was approaching 40 and I had six kids,” Karen said. “There were just not a lot of options for me.” Vince lived in Minnesota. Karen lived in Iowa. But after a push from their combined eight children, the two decided to move from the cyber world to the real world. “We have two 15-year-olds, two 13-year-olds, a 12-year-old, 10-year-old, nine-year-old and a five-year-old.” This month, the Turks are celebrating their one-year anniversary.
KOLR in the Ozarks is doing an investigation of online adultery and the AshleyMadison.com dating site. AshleyMadison.com, for those who don’t know, bills itself as the site for folks “When monogamy becomes Monotony.” The site helps married men and women connect to have affairs.
KOLR had a man and a woman list themselves on the site. Within two days, the woman got 40 messages from interested men. The KOLR man got none. I’ve heard that the men far outnumber the women on these sites, and the KOLR findings support that.
I’ve written about ol’ Ashley before. While I cringe at the whole premise, let’s get those married cruisers off the mainline sites like Match.com and Yahoo! Personals.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
If you are single and out of your teens, you are probably either building up some net worth or some net debt. And if you are single and looking for a mate, you’d better put checking out your potential partner’s net worth and debt too.
In an article in the Miami Herald, Jodi Mailander Farrell reports that 1/3 of 1,022 people sampled by Fair Isaac Corp said that a “lack of financial responsibility” damaged their relationships more than even infidelity. And here’s another juicy tidbit: Respondents said more that twice as often that financial compatibility was more important than good sex.
It’s a good idea to get your finances straight and understandable before you need to explain them to someone else. Chapter 12 “Traveler’s Checks” of my book “Find a Sweetheart Soon! Your Love Trip Planner for Women” takes you through taking control of your finances, if you need it. Click here to find out more about my book and how to order.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Internet dating sites like Match.com and eHarmony are venturing into new territory: Relationship building, marriage strengthening, and divorce prevention. While it is hard to know what is really going on, the first wave of divorces in couples who met on the Net has begun.
According to an article by Ellen Gamerman in the Wall Street Journal. US Census data says the median length of first marriages that end in divorce is eight years. Online dating got started with Match.com in 1995.
Since all marriages have a divorce rate of about 50%, cyber couples divorcing should be no surprise. And actually, I would venture to guess that the marriage survival rate for couples meeting on dating sites might turn out to be better, since the singles get more information up front about a potential partner than in ordinary dating.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Drew works as a research biologist for the Army Corps of Engineers, and through him, I hear more military shorthand that I need to. There’s ERDC, SWWRP, and CHL, just to name a few. Can’t they call a program by it’s real name? I mean, really! Who’s supposed to remember all that alphabet stuff anyway?
But here are some initials that make more sense: “F. A. C. E. S.” (family background, attitudes, compatibility, experiences in previous relationships, and skills that the individual brings to the relationship) and R. A. M. chart (Relationship Attachment Model). Army chaplains are being trained to use these tools to teach military men and women how to pick a good partner. The program is called, appropriately enough, “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.”
“F. A. C. E. S.” teaches individuals to study a potential partner’s family background, their attitudes towards life and marriage, the compatibility of the couple, the experiences they have had in previous relationships, and what skills they bring to the union. Makes perfect sense to me. Just like your mother would tell you to do, and then some.
The R. A. M. chart goes further: It suggests “Don’t let your sexual involvement exceed your level of commitment or level of knowledge of the other person.” Is that sane advice or what?
Finally, something that is useful to us all, and from the Pentagon, no less. Well, actually not: The program comes from Dr. John Van Epp. His website is nojerks.com. Hey, if the idea is a good one, use it, huh? Yea, Army!
From Your Romance Coach, Katharine Lord
You’ve heard the saying: It’s as easy to fall in love with a rich woman as a poor one? Well, it’s all over the media this week: According to Ohio State researchers, a person who marries and stays married accumulates almost twice the wealth as someone who stays single or divorces. One reason for the greater net worth of marrieds is simple: It’s cheaper to maintain one household than two. Another is that married folks feel responsibility towards each other and are therefore more careful about their spending.
It would also seem reasonable that it helps to be married AND happy, since folks divorcing start losing worth 4 years before the actual divorce. And getting divorced takes an average of 77% of a person’s worth. Most divorcing folks can testify to that.
I sat in on a lecture by Dr. Chris Peterson today. Dr. Peterson is a leading scholar in the study of happiness and is co-author with Martin Seligman of “CHARACTER STRENGTHS AND VIRTUES: A HANDBOOK AND CLASSIFICATION.” Peterson listed the five traits associated with happiness and life satisfaction across the life span: Love, hope, zest, gratitude, and curiosity. So if you want to increase your chances of happiness and wealth, find someone to love.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
|
