Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /nfs/c01/h09/mnt/6135/domains/blog.findhotpeople.com/html/wpmu-settings.php on line 45
Find Hot People Blogs
Looking for sex without commitment?

Find Hot People Blogs

November 15, 2017

Online Dating At Midlife

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — admin @ 11:15 am

By Diane Cole / The Wall Street Journal

For many men and women looking for new love at midlife and beyond, the place to go is obvious: the Internet. But how best to navigate cyberspace in pursuit of romance?

Eli J. Finkel, a professor of social psychology at Northwestern University, recently co-wrote a study about the benefits and limitations of online dating. We spoke to Dr. Finkel from his office in Evanston, Ill. Here are edited excerpts of that conversation:

WSJ: People at midlife and beyond are the fastest-growing segment using Internet dating sites. Why is that?

DR. FINKEL: The stigma associated with Internet dating has subsided substantially, people are more Internet-savvy, and the sites are more user-friendly.

I also think it’s worth noting that in 1900 the life expectancy was 47. Our life spans today are longer, and there has been a cultural shift toward people valuing fulfillment later in life. You see a larger percentage of people divorcing after their children leave the household. They say, “I’m 50 or 60, and I don’t want to live the years left to me in an unfulfilling marriage.” Others may find themselves widowed. Relationships may end. But they aren’t sentenced to being alone; they can date, meeting in various ways, including the Internet.

Where to Look?

WSJ: Is there a “best” dating site for older adults?

DR. FINKEL: There are over 1,000 sites. To give you an idea of the range, there are places like Match.com, which is very mainstream and appeals to a broad audience, and there are all sorts of niche sites. There are sites that target people over 50. There are sites for people wanting to find others of the same religion or ethnicity. There are sites that are quirky, like Stachepassions.com for women who like men with mustaches, or Cupidtino.com, for people who like Apple products [and whose headquarters is in Cupertino, Calif.].

Because there are so many sites, one of the dangers of online dating is that you can get sucked into just browsing the sites and the profiles rather than actually going out and meeting people.

WSJ: What about the pros and cons of using a generalized site such as Match.com, as opposed to one that targets a particular age group?

DR. FINKEL: I wish we knew whether people over 50 tended to be happier with general sites like Match or eHarmony, as opposed to niche sites like SeniorPeopleMeet. One of the main things that leads people to choose one site rather than another is that they know someone who successfully used that site.

WSJ: What expectations should a person bring to Internet dating?

DR. FINKEL: My view of Internet dating is very positive. It is a marvelous tool to meet people you might not have otherwise met.

But you should be aware of its limitations, as well. Don’t expect magic; that is, don’t assume these sites have “the” way to match you using various dimensions of compatibility. The best algorithm you’re going to find is the one located between your ears.

The other point to keep in mind is that browsing profiles hour after hour is less helpful than you think.

Think of a Cake

WSJ: Why is that?

DR. FINKEL: People aren’t reducible to a list of characteristics, just as cake isn’t reducible to a list of ingredients. Even if you don’t like eggs, it’s pretty likely that you’ll like a cake that has eggs in it more than a cake that doesn’t. Similarly, human qualities don’t exist in a vacuum.

In one of my favorite examples from our Northwestern speed-dating events [which Dr. Finkel hosted and used in a study], one woman had reported before the event that she cared a great deal about a man’s earnings prospects—that his earnings prospects would be important in determining how much the men she met would appeal to her. On one of her speed-dates, she met a trombone major whose postgraduation plan was to play on a cruise ship. The video of their speed-date shows her effusing about how exciting this plan was.

The conclusion is this: You might dismiss somebody on a profile because he doesn’t make much money, even though you would have been crazy about the guy face to face if you had taken the time to learn that he doesn’t make much money because he’s doing something cool and different rather than racing off to Wall Street.

WSJ: Are the do’s and don’ts for presenting yourself the same whether you’re over or under age 50?

DR. FINKEL: At whatever age, posting a photograph of yourself boosts by 15 times the likelihood that you will get contacted.

WSJ: What if you’re self-conscious about using an online dating service and what other people might think?

DR. FINKEL: Ask yourself: What’s wrong with being 57 or 75 and wanting a romantic partner? In my view, there’s absolutely no shame in that.

WSJ: Any tips on how to write a profile?

DR. FINKEL: Don’t talk in platitudes and generalities. Be straightforward. I don’t know if someone has studied if shorter or longer profiles attract more people.

WSJ: Do people approach dating differently when they’re older?

DR. FINKEL: Everyone has been around the block once or twice, and can be more realistic. There is less tolerance for nonsense. There is a firmer sense that I don’t have the time or patience to play games. They also know themselves better, have a better sense of their interests, how they want to spend their time, and with whom they would be compatible and want to spend their time with.

Closing the Deal

WSJ: How do you write to someone you would like to meet, or respond to someone who contacts you?

DR. FINKEL: The advice used to be that you should be hard to get or standoffish. But that isn’t the case. If someone contacts you, don’t wait a couple of weeks. Respond sooner rather than later and say something specific about the person’s profile. Something on the order of: “I’m glad you contacted me; it looks like we have some mutual interests; tell me more about yourself.” Or initiate contact using a similar message.

WSJ: How cautious should people be about meeting others online and face-to-face meetings?

DR. FINKEL: I encourage people to follow standard safety rules: Meet in a public rather than a private place. If you’re particularly cautious, you can bring a friend and have him/her set up shop nearby and keep watch. And never ever lend money right away to someone you meet online—or off.

There’s No Evidence Online Dating Is Threatening Commitment or Marriage

By Alexis C. Madrigal

The question at hand in Dan Slater’s piece in the latest Atlantic print edition, “A Million First Dates: How Online Dating is Threatening Monogamy,” is whether online dating can change some basic settings in American heterosexual relationships such that monogamy and commitment are less important.

Narratively, the story focuses on Jacob, an overgrown manchild jackass who can’t figure out what it takes to have a real relationship. The problem, however, is not him, and his desire for a “low-maintenance” woman who is hot, young, interested in him, and doesn’t mind that he is callow and doesn’t care very much about her. No, the problem is online dating, which has shown Jacob that he can have a steady stream of mediocre dates, some of whom will have sex with him.

“I’m 95 percent certain,” Jacob says of a long-term relationship ending, “that if I’d met Rachel of?ine, and I’d never done online dating, I would’ve married her.. Did online dating change my perception of permanence? No doubt.”

This story forms the spineless spine of a larger argument about how online dating is changing the world, by which we mean yuppie romance. The argument is that online dating expands the romantic choices that people have available, somewhat like moving to a city. And more choices mean less satisfaction. For example, if you give people more chocolate bars to choose from, the story tells us, they think the one they choose tastes worse than a control group who had a smaller selection. Therefore, online dating makes people less likely to commit and less likely to be satisfied with the people to whom they do commit.

But what if online dating makes it too easy to meet someone new? What if it raises the bar for a good relationship too high? What if the prospect of ?nding an ever-more-compatible mate with the click of a mouse means a future of relationship instability, in which we keep chasing the elusive rabbit around the dating track?

Unfortunately, neither Jacob’s story nor any of the evidence offered compellingly answers the questions raised. Now, let’s stipulate that there is no dataset that perfectly settles the core question: Does online dating increase or decrease commitment or its related states, like marriage?

But I’ll tell you one group that I would not trust to give me a straight answer: People who run online dating sites. While these sites may try to attract some users with the idea that they’ll ?nd everlasting love, how great is it for their marketing to suggest that they are so easy and fun that people can’t even stay in committed relationships anymore? As Slater notes, “the pro?t models of many online-dating sites are at cross-purposes with clients who are trying to develop long-term commitments.” Which is exactly why they are happy to be quoted talking about how well their sites work for getting laid and moving on.

It should also be noted: There isn’t a single woman’s perspective in this story. Or a gay person’s. Or someone who was into polyamory before online dating. Or some kind of historical look at how commitment rates have changed in the past and what factors drove those increases or decreases. Instead we get eight men from the industry that, as we put it on our cover, “works too well.”

But hey, maybe these guys are right. Maybe online dating and social networking is tearing apart the fabric of society. How well does the proposition actually hold up?

First off, the heaviest users of technology–educated, wealthier people–have been using online dating and networking sites to ?nd each other for years. And yet, divorce rates among this exact group have been declining for 30 years. Take a look at these statistics. If technology were the problem, you’d expect that people who can afford to use the technology, and who have been using the technology, would be seeing the impacts of this new lack of commitment. But that’s just not the case.

Does it follow that within this wealthy, educated group, online daters are less likely to commit or stay married? No, it does not.

Like I said, there’s no data to prove that question one way or the other. But we have something close. A 2012 paper in the American Sociological Review asked, are people who have the Internet at home more or less likely to be in relationships? Here was the answer they found:

One result of the increasing importance of the Internet in meeting partners is that adults with Internet access at home are substantially more likely to have partners, even after controlling for other factors. Partnership rate has increased during the Internet era (consistent with Internet ef?ciency of search) for same sex couples, but the heterosexual partnership rate has been ?at.

So, we have, at worst, that controlling for other factors, the Internet doesn’t hurt and sometimes helps. That seems to strike right at the heart of Slater’s proposition.

A 2008 paper looked at the Internet’s ability to help people ?nd partners and postulated who might bene?t the most. “The Internet’s potential to change matching is perhaps greatest for those facing thin markets or dif?culty in meeting potential mates.” This could increase marriage rates as people with smaller pools can more easily ?nd each other. The paper also proposes that perhaps people would be *better* matched through online dating and therefore have higher-quality marriages. The available evidence, though, suggests that there was no difference between couples who met online and couples who met of?ine. (Surprise!)

So, here’s the way it looks to me: Either online dating’s (and the Internet’s) effect on commitment is nonexistent, the effect has the opposite polarity (i.e. online dating creates more marriages), or whatever small effect either way is overwhelmed by other changes in the structure of commitment and marriage in America.

The possibility that the relationship “market” is changing in a bunch of ways, rather than just by the introduction of date-matching technology, is the most compelling to me. That same 2008 paper found that the biggest change in marriage could be increasingly “co-ed” workplaces. Many, many more people work in places where they might ?nd relationship partners more easily. That’s a big confounding variable in any analysis of online dating as the key causal factor in any change in marital or commitment rates.

But there’s certainly more complexity than that lurking within what was left out of Jacob’s story: how about changing gender norms a la Hanna Rosin’s End of Men? How about changes that arose in the recent dif?cult economic circumstances? How about changes in where marriage-age people live (say, living in a walkable core versus the exurbs)? How about the spikiness of American religious observance, as declining church attendance rates combine with evangelical fervor? How about changing cultural norms about childrearing and marriage? How about the increasing acceptance of homosexuality across the country, particularly in younger demographics?

All of these things could bring about changes in the likelihood of people to meet and stay in relationships. And none of them have much to do with online dating. Yet our story places all of the emphasis for Jacob’s drift on his desire to browse online dating pro?les.

Is online dating a trend that’s worth us looking into? Certainly. And there are even things that online dating sites may be able to do within their technical systems to negate the effects of thinking about possible partners as pro?les rather than people. Slater cited Northwestern’s Eli Finkel, who appears to have legitimate concerns about the structure of search and discovery on dating sites.

But the jumps and leaps from that observation–and Finkel’s academic assessment in a recent paper–to blaming online dating for “threatening monogamy”? There’s just so little support there.

And if you are going to make a hard deterministic argument, you better have some good evidence that it is the technology itself that is the actor, and not someone or something else. At any time in this big old world, there are lots of changes happening slowly. So many trend lines, so much data. In that world, there appears some undeniably shiny new thing: a technology! People–TED speakers, teenage skateboarders, venture capitalists, a grandfather, advertisers, deli counter clerks, accountants–standing amidst the swirl of the white swirl of the onrushing future look out and say, “This technology is changing everything!”

Flush with this knowledge of the one true cause of good/bad in the _____ Age, the magic technology key seems to unlock every room in the house, and all the doors on every neighbor’s house, and the vault at Fort Knox, and the highest of?ce at 30 Rock.

Of course, technology does have impacts. Certain types of technology, say, nuclear reactors, have politics in that they “are man-made systems that appear to require or to be strongly compatible with particular kinds of political relationships,” as the political scientist Langdon Winner has shown. Some technological systems, the electric grid or cell phone networks, prove dif?cult to change, and make some kinds of behavior really easy, and others more difficult. A technology can tilt a set of interactions towards certain outcomes, which is precisely why some people want to ban specific types of guns.

So, you can say, in some sense, that a technology “wants” certain outcomes. Jacob from the story might say that online dating wants him to keep browsing and not commit. The electrical grid wants you to plug in. Or, the owners of Facebook want you to post more photographs, so they design tools–technical and statistical–to make you more likely to do so.

And it’s not wrong to say that Facebook wants us to do things. But if you stop talking to your cousins because it’s easier to update Facebook than give them a call, it’s not right to say that Facebook made you do that. If you stop reading novels because you find Twitter more compelling, it’s not correct to say that Twitter made you do that. Maybe you like real-time news more than the Bronte sisters, no matter what your better conception of yourself might say.

Maybe Jacob doesn’t want to get married. Maybe he wants to get drunk, have sex, watch basketball, and never deal with the depths of a real relationship. OK, Jacob, good luck! But that doesn’t make online dating an ineluctable force crushing the romantic landscape. It’s just the means to Jacob’s ends and his convenient scapegoat for behavior that might otherwise lead to self-loathing.

November 10, 2017

Dating Site Asks Women What’s Your Price, Is It Really Prostitution?

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 12:18 pm

When I first heard the commercial for the dating site WhatsYourPrice.com I thought it was a joke. As I listened to the description of the site–which allows users to set prices they’d either pay or charge for dates–I couldn’t help thinking it sounded a little like prostitution.

I made a note to myself to go to the website to check it out (for curiosity’s sake) and, yeah, I’m still convinced that it’s verrrrrry close to prostitution.

WhatsYourPrice.com breaks users into two categories: The attractive (women) and The generous (men). It allows women to create profiles and name their own price for a date. So, if you think you’re worth $100, you can charge that amount for a first date. The man would then pay you $100, and you’d make money simply by going out on the date. On the flip side, a “generous” user can say he’d pay $100 for a date, and interested women can vie for his interest and snag a date that would pay them (the woman) $100.

Although the site insists the money is to illustrate interest and not sex, it sounds a little creepy to me. But according to the site’s testimonials seems to work.

One user wrote: “I had a wonderful date with a wonderful guy on Sat Oct.1st.He was a gentleman.He flew in from NYC,w had a great time.And the way he gave me the money was very creatve.So thank you for your site.”

While another (a Black woman), said: “It was nerve racking at first, wasnt really sure what to talk about but as the date progressed (and the drinks kept rolling in) It turned out to be a wonderful date and I left with cash in hand!!!”

Yet another user wrote: “I had a wonderful evening with a true gentleman!

He gave me 300. for our date and I enjoyed the evening so much we have a second date planned next week! I can hardly wait to see him again!”

And the most interesting review so far, included a morning after: “Within the first 10 days I have been on four dates through the site, and what’s interesting is that the money aspect means something different each time. I had one date give me back my money… the next morning. In bed.”

One thing I noticed as I scrolled through the site was that most of the testimonials included descriptions of cash exchanges, shopping sprees, and 5-star restaurants. But what I didn’t notice very much of (besides people of color), however, were love connections. Most of the women raved about the “polite” and “sweet” men they met, but very few talked about meeting “the one.”

I know dating can be tough, but by making men pay for not only the date (going dutch isn’t an option), but also the mere OPPORTUNITY to go out on the date, seems a little weird.

But what do you think? Does paying for a chance to date weed out the lames or is this site just another place to advertise the oldest job in the world?

November 6, 2017

The Two Biggest Dating Mistakes People Make

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — admin @ 7:15 am

By Elizabeth Denham

I have said this many times, and I address it in my book (Sweeten the Deal) ad nauseum, I was a one date wonder, and I was okay with it. Many of my friends told me I was too hard on people. That I didn’t give them a chance. That everyone has issues and you just have to deal with it. These friends were expecting me to lower my standards to “give him a chance.” Hmm. And even weirder, when I came across a deal breaker, many of these friends advocated it again. “Well, maybe it was a fluke. Just wait and see.”

There is a fundamental problem with this line of thinking. The problem is this: when you settle, you value yourself, who you are and what you want less than you value the idea of a relationship. You begin to fall into the category of “I just want a relationship and you will do” thought pattern. This is bad. I mean, really, really bad. And I will tell you why.

1. This is bad for you. You should never make a conscious decision to lower your standards. You are already setting yourself up for resentment and anger. What you think you can let go of or overlook eventually becomes a glaring reminder of what you actually wanted.

2. This is bad for the other person. Imagine it. Would you want to be the one someone settled for rather than THE ONE? Of course not. And neither would anyone else. I firmly ascribe to the idea that the minute you know this one is not for you, you tell him.

3. This is bad for your friends and family because they will really want to ask, “What the heck are you thinking?” and if they do, you will stop talking to them because you really don’t want to hear what you secretly already know.

4. This is bad for your kids (if you have them) because you are modeling behavior that can be learned. Do you really want to be the one who teaches them to settle and to accept things they know they don’t want? Families tend to follow the same patterns, so let’s set a good one!

Here’s the thing. Everyone does have issues. But we get to decide which ones are still within healthy limits and which ones are not. You are obligated to give yourself permission to have standards and not feel bad about it. After all, and everyone needs to write this one down: it is better to be alone for the rest of your life than to be with the wrong person.

Once again: It is better to be alone for the rest of your life than to be with the wrong person.

Say it. Believe it. Mean it.

And as for deal breakers. Well these are the big things that should end a dating relationship immediately. These are individual. For me they were things like, treating my kids poorly, addiction, etc. And when these happen, they have to break your deal. No question.

Once again: Your deal breakers must actually break your deal.

Say it. Believe it. Mean it.

November 5, 2017

Dating in Marriage

Filed under: dates, life, love, marriage — Tags: , , , — admin @ 4:15 am

The wedding should not kill the joy of coffee dates, dinners out, evening walks or the holiday.

Going out should remain part of your love plan for life for it helps shift attention from the normal hassles of life so you can have some fun in a different environment.

Changing the environment helps to open your mind to new possibilities in your love and injects freshness into it. Getting away from the house, the children and the hassles of work has a calming effect and can spice up your romance tremendously.

Ever wondered why corporate organizations and government commissions go down to the Coast, Naivasha or even in the Mara when making critical decisions? The secret lies in changing the environment. New environment inspires new thinking.

I have found coffee dates very refreshing. It is out there that we have been able to talk about issues that were otherwise difficult to address.

It is possible to get married, get kids and get used to a crowded life and easily forget to have special moments with your spouse. However the exclusiveness that comes with a coffee date, a weekend away or a holiday is a good ingredient for sustaining the passion for each other.

Having grown in a patriarchal society, there is a tendency to believe that men should always initiate such things. “He must always take me out, decide where we should go and even pay the bills.’ However, in this one I suggest we break the rule and allow women to also initiate.

A while ago in a marriage accountability group, one of the ladies shared how she had planned a surprise dinner for her husband, just to say thank you for being a good man. One couldn’t help notice the grin on her husband’s face as she shared. Although men have the responsibility of treating their wives, they too love being treated.

The joy in marriage is not playing by the rules but in being creative in spicing up your love, even when it means breaking conventional rules. Take him out for dinner, initiate sex and surprise him. It might seem stupid to your friends but when done in a context of a shared commitment to success of the marriage, it works wonders.

Don’t shy off from saying what makes you happy. Don’t let him keep taking you to a joint that puts you off. If you don’t like it, say it, albeit wisely.

One can only pretend for some time; soon the truth will come out and if you had been pretending to be enjoying, you can be sure it will kill his morale when he finds out.

There is no crime in suggesting your favorite joint or activity. It could be in form of a hint or an explicit suggestion. Whatever the case, drive the point home.

In this endeavor refresh it by making it diverse. Don’t get to the point where the waiter at your favorite joint doesn’t need to take your orders because he knows your ‘usual.’ Visit different locations such as the National Park, drive upcountry or do any other activity that spices up the relationship.

Couples interested in a successful marriage are keen on making love spontaneous and enjoyable and getting out of the house is one sure way.

Older Posts »

The wildest live webcams
Real sex just a click away
Hook up with the hottest men!
Languages: English | Español | Français | Deutsch | Italiano