Last night, I had a pleasant dinner, spontaneously arranged, with one of my closest friends in LA.  He and I had met about six years via an online dating service.  We didn’t feel much romantic chemistry, but did enjoy each other’s company and became friends.

as we occasionally do, we shared our stories about online dating, he kvetching about a man who didn’t call when he promised, but who subsequently kept pestering him with texts, I sharing stories about a number of decent dates I had with guys whose profiles presented a pretty accurate portrait of their personality, profession and passions.

And then we fell to talking about guys who misrepresented themselves on line, with both of us recalling dates with men who just didn’t look like their pictures.  I related a tale about a guy I met depicted as thin in his online pictures, but who in person, suffered from a severe shall we say, a severe absence of thin.  (After our coffee date, I went back home and checked his profile and ascertained that that was clearly the guy depicted online, but the pictures were at least ten years old.)

And we wondered last night, my friend and I, we wondered what these men thought when they posted these pictures, that their scintillating personalities would make up for the difference in appearance?  Didn’t it occur to them that men who responded to the ad would be attracted to that picture and expect to meet someone who looked like the guy in the picture? Or did they believe that the picture merely served to draw the potential date to the profile and that the qualities delineated therein constituted the real nature of said date’s interest?

Or did they believe their own propaganda, that they actually looked today like they did ten years ago, despite the fact that ten years ago, they exercised regularly whereas today they’re making plans to exercise next week? (more…)

The other day, I had this bizarre first (and last) date.  After becoming acquainted in an online dating forum, we agreed to meet at his place for a drink.  When I arrived, he asked me what I wanted; I requested a water.  As soon as he filled my glass, he pulled out a plate, a lighter, a spoon and some other drug paraphernalia.

“That’s an odd way to fix a drink,” I quipped.  He asked me if I wanted to join him.

Guess he interpreted my support for drug legalization to indicate that I was not averse to dating a man who did drugs — and that I used them myself.

Realizing then how uninterested I was dating that man, I debated how best to handle the situation.  Should I just tell him as much and leave or be a gentleman and stay?  I decided to split the difference, be gentleman, but make clear that I couldn’t date a guy who did drugs.  He insisted I stay, so I obliged him.  We chatted for maybe an hour and I took my leave, saying I needed to finish some things up before bed.

As I drove home, relieved that I was free, I recalled a similar date with a man I had met online.  Wisely, he and I got together at a coffee shop.  As the conversation began, I realized we had little in common and pondered how long I should stay before taking my leave.  All of a sudden, he said something like, “Look, Dan, I’m just not feeling it, so let’s not waste each other’s time.”  I smiled internally, shook his hand and returned home, relieved as I had been recently, but having lost far less time with an incompatible date.

Gentleman he may not have been, but honest he was.  The other night, I should have followed his lead.

I put this post in our “Random Thoughts” category because I put it out there, as kind an observation with a question mark, wondering if the “test” really works.

As many of our blog readers know, I am a huge fan of the English novelist George Eliot.  Along with J.R.R. Tolkien and Albert Camus, she ranks as my favorite prose author, with Homer, Wordluf (AKA the Beowulf-poet) and Wordsworth ranking as my favorite poets.

I have often believed that if you really want to date someone, you would show an interest in their passions.  For example, before I came out, a German woman was obsessed with me, yet entirely indifferent to the things I loved, refusing to understand why I would prefer to sit at home reading than to go to a crowded club with loud music playing.  It seemed she was attracted to the surface and remarkably uncurious about what lay beneath.

Over a decade ago, I met a nice intelligent, attractive, libertarian man in a relationship and we struck up a friendship.  When I met him at his office for lunch, I caught sight of a brand new volume of Wordsworth’s poetry.  He had bought it because of my love for the great English Romantic.  I was flattered.  I also recognized that all was not well with his (then-)relationship.  In retrospect, I wondered if I should have done something more, given this obvious interest.  He would later break up with the boyfriend, but foolishly perhaps, I never pursued the matter.

Only later, much later, did I appreciate how significant his act was, going out of his way to buy a book of poems because I loved the poet.

I doubt I had that experience in mind when I bought Silas Marner, Eliot’s shortest, sweetest and most accessible novel for a close friend (but it may have been lurking in my subconscious).  When we first met, we started dating, but realized there wasn’t a romantic spark, so enjoying each other’s company, remained friends.  As to the book, he couldn’t, he claimed, get past its first few pages. (more…)

Earlier this week, I was chatting with a friend of mine, a spirited and savvy lesbian north of 50.  She was a little giddy after having just met a fetching young woman who appeared to be very much her type.  Those in our group expressed optimism that things might work out between our single friend and the young lady whose acquaintance she had just made.  But, she worried about the age difference — greater than a quarter century.

Fumbling for words, I tried to recall that term for older woman who like younger women.  Knowing it was a wild and fierce cat, I said, “Maybe she likes cheetahs.”

“Cheetahs?”  She said.

“You know older women who like younger women.”

She corrected me and said the term I was looking for was “cougars” — older women who date younger men.

A cheetah ready to pounce

So, we decided to adopt a new term, a cheetah for an older lesbian who dates younger women. And a kitten is a young lesbian who likes cheetahs.

So, an acquaintance of mine, young guy who is attracted to older guys, attracts the (online) attention of a guy at the upper end of his desired demographic.  Said older man, born about the time of Dewey’s loss to Truman, uses the term “boy” to describe himself in his online moniker.  And no, it’s not some variant of “Boyhunter” or “Boylover.”

Even said acquaintance, born about the time of Reagan’s victory, doesn’t describe himself as “boy,” yet admits being attracted to “daddies.”

So, what does it say about a 60-year-old man interested in 20-something men who calls himself “boy”?  (I understand my acquaintance declined the invitation to get acquainted.)

A long time ago, when I was new to the incredible intolerance of the gay left, it used to bother me when gay lefties who, initially eager to go out with me, would find their attraction turn to aversion when they learned my political affiliation.   But, as time passed, I began to see the benefits to an early (political) coming out.  You see, it gives us gay Republicans a great way to measure the character of our potential partners.

If they reject us because we’re Republicans, then we know that when choosing a mate (or just a date), they prefer social conformism to individual merit.  Judge us by outside qualities they do.  If they believe partisan differences mean romantic incompatibility, what other qualities might cause them trouble in the relationship?  By learning of their intolerance early on, we’re spared trouble down the line.

Well, the good folks at HillBuzz are just now learning this about their left-wing peers, something long familiar to us gay righties.  By openly professing their admiration for the accomplished former Governor of Alaska, they’re finding out just how intolerant their more doctrinaire left-wing peers truly are.

This past weekend, Hillbuzz reports that a fetching Ozzie took an interest in one of their friends and fellow Palin supporter.  But, as soon as he made mention of that Alaska reformer, well that interest was off.  They quickly learned that,  ”If you talk smack about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, there’s not relationship potential between you and any of us here, sorry“: (more…)

Perhaps because I spend the better part of each week blogging about politics, for the past 36 hours or so, I’ve not been too keen on addressing political issues.  And given that a friend’s story of a bizarre e-mail exchange earlier in the week reminded me that I had wanted to blog on a similarly strange experience I had had now nearly three years ago, I thought I’d blog on that.

My friend (we’ll call him Dave though that’s not his real name) related how a man expressed interest in him in an online dating forum.  Before Dave had had a chance to reply, the man (who somehow became aware that he (Dave) had reviewed his (the man’s) profile),fired off a series of angry e-mails to Dave, saying, in effect, but with words a little more direct, that he wasn’t the man he claimed to be (in his profile).

Now, Dave had not sent the guy one single e-mail, had not said a word to this guy and yet was subject to a barrage of insults.  So, I quipped, “The guy does know how to make a good first impression.”

And I wondered if the guy was really interested in Dave, why he would so mouth off at him?  Did he think that would make him more likely to respond favorably to his romantic entreaties?  This reminded me of my own strange experience now nearly three years ago.  I had met a man through an on-line dating service.

After exchanging a few e-mails, we decided to meet for coffee.  That went well enough that he suggested dinner.  It was a wonderful dinner; we had a great conversation about movies and story-telling, with me waxing eloquent about a particular movie (which he hadn’t seen).  So, we decided to watch this flick (then, as now, available on DVD) for our third get-together.

We went to his house, ordered in and watched it.  We kissed good-night.  It seemed he was interested in, well, become more physically intimate, but I didn’t feel it was appropriate, didn’t want to lead him on.  A few days later he calls me up and basically asks, “So, are we boyfriends now?”  I said I didn’t know where it was headed, but did want to see him again.

At that point, he proceeded to accuse me of leading him on and launched into a full-on attack.  (This broadside continue for about 20 minutes.)  Well, that did help me make up my mind about where our relationship was headed. And what struck me more than anything was the same thing which struck Dave.  Why would a guy interested in one of us proceed to attack when he did not get the answer he wanted? (more…)

On every first date, I try to let the conversation flow naturally so each of us can get to know the other as he is, instead of matching ourselves us to some ideal image of the perfect mate, I do try to get two things across, the first about my politics because I know that’s a deal-breaker for some gay leftists and the second about monogamy because his eagerness for an open relationship would be a deal-breaker for me.

The question always arises that, once you start dating, when does the monogamy attach?  Obviously it hasn’t yet attached to the (first) date I had this weekend where I did broach the monogamy issue (but not the political one). So, I assume it attaches when we define ourselves as boyfriends, agreeing to be faithful to one another.

Some wait until they have had a ceremony, but the point is that there is a clear, definable moment when monogamy attaches. And that leads to the question, when does it “detach.” And that’s not always so clear.  If two parties plan on divorcing, need they wait until the divorce goes through?  Or can they start seeing other people once they make their intentions clear?  And  say a married couple separates, should each partner then remain celibate?

It would seem that in some such cases, celibacy would be unwarranted. And that makes Senator Ensign’s affair a bit less problematic, but it doesn’t excuse Mark Sanford. While the South Carolina Governor has been separated from his wife for “about two weeks,” all evidence indicates the affair had begun long before that separation. Ensign, by contrast, was separated from his wife while sleeping with a campaign aide and ended the affair when he reconciled with his wife. Even so, his lady friend was married at the time, so while his marital vows may been on hiatus, hers were not. It was definitely adultery.

Despite this wrong, there is no evidence the Nevada Senator abused hs position as a public official.  Sanford, however, appears to have used state resources to fund his tryst.  So, I’m with John Podhoretz on this one, he really has “no choice but to resign.”

But, this all leads me to wonder if the media would give the Nevada Republican a pass if he had had different partisan affiliation?

UPDATE:  Glenn links a great article this morning on Reason where Steve Chapman offers some thoughts on adultery which pretty much parallel my own.  He does not, however, address the separation “conundrum.”  Since Sanford was not separated at the time his affair began, he was clearly violating his marital vows.   Chapman pretty much echoes my views, holding “Sex without marriage is OK. Sex in violation of marriage is not“: (more…)

It seems that for the better part of my time in LA, I would only end up dating guys with whom I had absolutely nothing in common.  So bad did it get at one point that I even signed up for a dating service.  And that didn’t help at all.

Well, things started to change just over two years ago where, in the space of several months, I had the two best first dates I’d had since moving out here.  And in the subsequent months, I would continue to have a number of great dates, though not yet finding my match.  At least I’m no longer meeting guys who say they work out regularly, only to learn that they had resolved to work out regularly — at some undetermined point in time.  (This used to happen quite regularly.)

That’s not to say all my dating experiences have been pleasant ones.  Some have been truly bizarre, others disappointing and others illuminating.

Sometimes when I share these stories with friends, they suggest I should write about them.

I was sharing once such story, though not quite about dating, with a straight friend today, noting one of the many differences between gay and straight dating.  He suggested I blog about it.  So, a bit drained from writing about politics and the politicization of Hollywood, I decided to do just that.

While working out, I commented on this cute guy (very much my type) who usually works out the same time I do.  Last week, I had finally confirmed my hunch that this fair fellow was gay, only to learn that his workout partner was his boyfriend.  So, I summarized the situation to my gay friend saying something like this:

Just because my hopes were fulfilled when I learned he was gay doesn’t mean I’m satisfied.  I mean, sometimes for us, we gotta first figure out if a guy’s gay.  When you were single [my friend is married], all you had to do was figure out if she’s into you, then proceed from there.  We need to figure out if he’s gay before knowing how to proceed.

He agreed.

Please note that I write this with a smile. Sometime it seems it’s something of a fool’s errand to try to figure out if someone is gay or not. Just because he’s gay doesn’t mean he’s available. And just because he’s available doesn’t mean he’s interested.

Such is life.