The line between chemistry and standards.

[Opti]

Jul 5, 2015 16:14:42 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I always dated you get. As in cougar not puma. I think it's smart. Old men have issues younger men don't.

I think you need to post the difference, at least for me.    I prefer younger generally, because anyone older than me is typically from the 1950s or older. Things were different then, and that's part of the reason I prefer the 1960 birthdates or younger.

[Opti]

Jul 4, 2015 22:00:06 GMT -5 tallguy said:

No, no, and very unlikely depending on age.  Too many other choices out there to compromise to that degree.

I am confused.

There are 4 questions in the OP, although supposedly Q2 is Q1(below).

So here's a question about dating, where do you draw the line between chemistry and standards?

No, seems like a weird answer.

[andi9899]

Jul 5, 2015 17:54:07 GMT -5 justme said:

Jul 5, 2015 16:43:40 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

And you did not use that opportunity to bestow upon him your wisdom? Such a disservice to the next woman he was with

Like I said, I am sure getting it up for seconds or third or fourth wouldn't have been an issue. For the sake of learning and all

Yea, but bad sex for women is probably far and away way worse than for men. Did you see the sex and the city episode where Carrie sprained her neck/back thanks to the guys jackhammering? Nope, not powering through pain to train a guy. And probably not powering through blah if Bob is better.

OMG! That's exactly what it was like!

Now I did date a guy that was 34 to my 32 at the time. That was some good sex! I'm chalking that up to the fact that he was crazy.

[andi9899]

I'm not looking for a serious relationship, so I'll take hot over well off any day. Since they won't be living with me or married to be, I don't really need to know what bills they have or how he pays them.

[tallguy]

Jul 6, 2015 2:54:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 4, 2015 22:00:06 GMT -5 tallguy said:

No, no, and very unlikely depending on age.  Too many other choices out there to compromise to that degree.

I am confused.

There are 4 questions in the OP, although supposedly Q2 is Q1(below).

So here's a question about dating, where do you draw the line between chemistry and standards?

No, seems like a weird answer.

Really?

The first (which you posted) is a general question meant to introduce the topic.  It was then restated as three specific yes/no questions following the phrase "In other words...."  One can choose to answer either the general question in whatever scope and level of detail one wishes, or the three specific questions instead.  I chose the latter.  So no, there are not four distinct questions in the OP.  There was one restated as three.    

[MJ2.0]

Jul 5, 2015 17:54:07 GMT -5 justme said:

Jul 5, 2015 16:43:40 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

And you did not use that opportunity to bestow upon him your wisdom? Such a disservice to the next woman he was with

Like I said, I am sure getting it up for seconds or third or fourth wouldn't have been an issue. For the sake of learning and all

Yea, but bad sex for women is probably far and away way worse than for men. Did you see the sex and the city episode where Carrie sprained her neck/back thanks to the guys jackhammering? Nope, not powering through pain to train a guy. And probably not powering through blah if Bob is better.

LMAO! If something is sprained, tender, or bruised it better be worth it!

[tallguy]

Always has been....   

[Peace Of Mind]

Jul 6, 2015 12:48:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Always has been....   

For you? 

[tallguy]

No.      

[happyhoix]

Jul 6, 2015 6:54:38 GMT -5 andi9899 said:

I'm not looking for a serious relationship, so I'll take hot over well off any day. Since they won't be living with me or married to be, I don't really need to know what bills they have or how he pays them.

I agree, if you don't want a serious relationship, at least up to a point.

I would want to be able to travel and do 'fun' things, and if the other person was so constantly broke that he couldn't afford to do anything 'fun' I don't know how comfortable I would be about footing the bill for both of us all the time.

I knew an officemate who was dating a divorced guy with a kid. He was living on a budget. She had a good salary plus family money, so she was always planning short cruises, trips to pro football games, destination weekends, etc. She didn't have a problem paying his way to all these things, but he didn't like it, and eventually they split up because he wouldn't allow her to buy him all these trips, and she didn't want to just stay home and watch TV all the time.

I admired him not wanting to be a 'kept' man. Then she started dating the guy who wanted her to quit her job, sell her house, cash in all her investments and savings and buy a sail boat so they could sail around the world before they got old.  She had to ditch that one!

[andi9899]

I don't take a bunch of trips or do extravagant outings, so it doesn't bother me. We'll see how I feel when the girls are gone and I have disposable income again.

[thyme4change]

I was talking to a friend who is a widow, and it got me thinking about if I was single.  I got a wave of anxiety because I have assets.  I think I would be so terrified about getting took, that I wouldn't be comfortable dating at all.  If it happens soon, I can blame it on my daughter - as the most dangerous person in a teen girl's life is her mother's boyfriend.  But she won't be a teenager forever.  I would eventually have to face my fear and learn to trust, or accept being alone forever.  

[yogiii]

In the event of divorce or death, I think I'd remain single.  I don't think I'd find another who is such a good match and can put up with my undesirable qualities.  I'm fairly picky too and I think I'd be fine on my own.