This is a test of my iPhone’s mobile updatability. I’m at a bar and no one is here. Having a handheld device gives me a barrier against social interaction and an excuse to be alone while not seeming overtly anti social.
A lot of guys hide behind their phones. There is nothing more annoying than competing for eye contact with a screen.
I don’t think most people realize how self defeating it is. On the other hand if you want to be left alone the phone is a great isolator. Ah technology 
At one point in this blog I’d considered the possibility of becoming a dating coach. The money seemed good and the topic interesting. There’s certainly no shortage of guys who think that they can learn techniques to improve their chances. And I think I’ve learned enough to do the job… However, I can’t follow my own advice.
You see I’m risk-averse.
When it comes to approaching or talking to strangers I am nearly powerless. Even making eye contact is difficult for me. Some psychologists would call that shyness but that model never really fit me. Shyness I think of as a persistent avoidance of the spotlight in group social situations. Me, I love attention. And as tight lipped as I am around strangers – it takes only a simple introduction or “hello” from them before I’m chatting up a storm effortlessly.
If a guy I liked showed clear signs of interest I’d have no problem going up and talking to him. None whatsoever.
The problem is that guys rarely show obvious direct signs of interest. And more often, we may fail to notice or correctly interpret them. My personal research has shown that most guys think they give off clear signals but admit to being baffled as to who’s showing interest in them.
Which is getting back to my point: Talking to strangers is risky. Perhaps it’s not as physically risky as operating a vehicle after leaving the bar empty handed at 3AM but it is a big unknown. A cold introduction has every chance of being awkward and introducing rejection. There’s a good reason, psychologically and biologically, most people avoid it; especially risk-averse guys.
Throughout this blog I have emphasized that people who wait for the other guy to make the first move will end up waiting a long time. It’s not because the other guy isn’t potentially interested but he’s probably either got his eye on someone totally out of his league or is waiting for someone else to show interest.
Approaching strangers is tough, and in all honesty not worth the anxiety most of the time. There have been several times I walked up to a hot guy and changed course when I got within earshot of his shrill cackling voice. Still if you want to improve your chances, without having to do a cold approach, I advocate going for mid-risk behavior.
Saying hello to a guy as he’s walking by is pretty safe. If he’s interested he can stop; otherwise he’ll keep going and who knows—maybe come back later. By showing interest and possible availability you’ve made yourself more attractive. Avoid doing the drive-by flirt (e.g. where you wink as you walk past) since it’s ambiguous and he won’t have time to react.
There are degrees of risk. Push yourself and be just a little more obvious till you find something comfortable.
Have a good mid-risk way to signal guys? LMK in the comments.
A friend of mine recently got engaged and is quite giddy about the whole affair. He even bought engagement rings though in true gay fashion didn't realize that men don't (traditionally) wear them. Still I find it hard to share in everyone's enthusiasm for matrimony. (And fortunately for this blog I don't have to).
My parents divorced and that event led me to form some inevitably skeptical opinions about marriage: If it can be dissolved, easily, then what's the point of it? People grow and change over time as well. Repeatedly scientists have proved that humans are terrible at predicting future happiness, so the whole "lifetime commitment" aspect seems implicitly tentative to me.
In fact… some research indicates that the natural human tendency may be toward serial monogamy, while current trends in American demographics show that most people may simply prefer to be alone.
Even if I found the perfect guy I doubt I would ever be so brash to assume he'll be perfect forever. One can hope of course that as you grow older together you grow closer but that's not something we can predict.
Another blatantly selfish gripe over my friend's marriage announcement is that he will now be getting a great deal of attention and even an "engagement party" out of it. As single people we rarely get any recognition of our milestones.
It's not something people celebrate… which is somewhat of a shame I think. Being single isn't about failing to find a relationship. It's about refusing to settle for any relationship.
Planet Out has a rather fun writeup on common gay dating myths. My favorite is here:
2. If you pay for dinner, you should get sex. Unless you are dating an escort, sex does not come with the meal. A date is an opportunity to get to know each other and see if there is chemistry. Paying for dinner doesn’t even guarantee you a second date.
I would also add that unless the dinner is over $100 at least, you’re selling yourself for less than street value.
The article also has some good advice about a lot of other common misconceptions such as making the first move and the three day calling rule. (When will it die??)
Link. (thanks BT!)
eHarmony Labs » Do nice guys really finish last?.
The results showed that in the casual dating context, physical attractiveness was a significant predictor of relationship success but was equivalent in magnitude to niceness/agreeableness. Further, neither physical attractiveness nor agreeableness predicted success in committed relationship contexts. Interestingly, the authors also tested the nice guy/low attractive group against the less agreeable/high attractive group. They found that the attractive, less agreeable guys did in fact report significantly more success in casual dating contexts but there was no difference in the committed relationship context. Thus, while it appears there may be no clear advantage of being a nice guy, they may not always finish last, particularly with regards to committed relationships.
Interesting study, even if it was focused on heterosexuals. In gay men I’d wager attractiveness more significantly improves casual dating success. And by “casual” I mean “disposable”. But as far as dating in any ongoing official sense (casual or committed) I think attractiveness is typically overrated by men.
Partly it’s because we become inured to beauty. It’s like hearing a great song for the first time and then hearing it again after it’s been on the radio for that last seven months.
Eventually substance matters, even to shallow people.
Several years ago I went on a date with a guy and nothing happened. It was one of those situations where there was a long lead up of clever emails and then a depressing brush off. I wasn't too upset about it but it always left me mystified. I mean, it's not like I felt it was because I was unattractive or said something wrong.
As I've often stated, attraction is the most random and least predictable factor in relationships.
Well fast forward a couple years and we by a chain of circumstances find ourselves in the same circle of friends, getting atrociously trashed in a bar. He asked me what went wrong on our date. "you never looked at me," he said. He mentioned that on the date years ago and I explained that I'm an introvert and generally do avoid eye contact with everyone.
But it was a turn off for him. And as studies have shown people find faces more attractive when the gaze is directed at them.
Of course now I'm a bit more confident and don't have as much problem with that. This is probably why we ended up later making out in the bar and then the pool outside my complex. But my point here is not to brag or espouse vague platitudes about how self esteem is attractive to guys.
The important take-away is that what matters most in those first few interactions is how you make the other person feel. By not making eye contact with the guy I made him feel less attractive thus ruining our future chances.
http://www.out.com/detail.asp?page=1&id=24005
The above article takes an interesting look at why the most successful gay dating site is, well not really about "dating".
I've been skeptical about online dating sites since I started this blog. I don't know that they're particularly effective or that the offer something you can't find through a social network like facebook. I realize the industry stance is that many people don't look for dates on these services but I see no reason why someone wouldn't want to be approached on facebook if they were also using mypartner.
One dating site, however, seems to be very effective. I've never used Manhunt to meet anyone so all of my information comes secondhand and from their site activity metrics. I've glossed over it since this is a dating blog and Manhunt is more about hooking up. But it appears to be very effective– to the point that it changed gay culture. Love it or hate it.
Online matching appears to work very well when short term decisions are involved. Though Manhunt boasts millions of members, most guys are only interacting with those who are logged in. This limits the sample of available men to a manageable number and the requirements to arrange a meeting are lowered to match the short term nature of the relationship. Men have shown that they're willing to overlook personality and intelligence if they percieve a person as a one night opportunity.Also men are quick to rush into sex but hesitant when it comes to relationships.
One might say this is no different than the decision making process that goes into cruising in general– however the internet has added a level of convenience (and 24 hr availability) that previously did not exist.
In this respect the internet is superior to tea room and truckstop cruising by a mile. Most guys at bars are not looking for sex explicitly, which is a shift from previous eras when the bar filled ALL social functions in the gay community. But if it wasn't Manhunt that did it, there would be another similar service.
It's interesting that popular dating sites like TRUE encourage their members to be over-selective by presenting a overwhelming number of potential matches and an endless list of criteria to filter with. Conversely manhunt encourages lower selectivity by offering immediate gratification with little percieved consequences.
While I wouldn't recommend it as a strategy, it is possible to find a boyfriend from a casual encounter. It's also possible to quickly become disillusioned with men if you use sex as an interim surrogate for a long term relationship (if that's what you really want).
What does Madonna have in common with yours truly? Well a couple of things. We’re both in Traverse City during the film festival and both our parents have retired to the shores of Lake Michigan. And eventually I’ll probably have some Botox done. That’s really about it.
Last night I went out with my friend Russell to the local gay bar, Side Traxx (it’s beside actual railroad tracks). I was expecting a tragedy but I guess I’m lucky that my imagination is usually worse than reality. However the dynamics of a small Midwestern bar are very different from what you find in Atlanta. Most of the people know each other or know of each other.
Although with the film festival it was impossible to know who was local and who wasn’t.
In a lot of ways the anonymity of the big city makes life simpler. You can be promiscuous with little consequences aside from embarrassment when you run into that guy several weeks later. Reputation is meaningless outside of isolated social circles. In smaller bars, however, word travels fast about everyone.
I’ve found some differences in the incidence of singleness in rural vs. urban areas but it’s never been as significant as I felt it would be when I packed my bags for the big city. You can find love anywhere… and you can NOT find love anywhere.
Hope everyone is having a good summer
Here’s an exclusive press release from a new a social network [Quoted form the email sent to me]:
It has occurred to me that there are limited networking options for gay men who have outgrown going out and getting wasted every weekend. Most networking sites seem to cater for those with a ‘party lifestyle’. Not that I have anything against either drugs or partying, but I feel the offering is somewhat one-sided. Which is why I have set up a new social networking site:
http://www.overthescene.com/
If you feel this describes you, why not check it out? The site is new but pretty well designed and registration is a breeze.
If you prefer the scene then maybe Radar lounge is more your speed. It’s social networking for the nightlife crowd.
First up is a study done on the impact of choice on dating. As we’ve well covered here– more options are not better when you search. Link
The basic premise is that humans used to have 30 or so eligible mates (less if you’re gay) within a human community of 150… Now we’re faced with thousands of options and our brains have not yet adapted to deal with it. The result is that more choices yield fewer satisfactory options.
In all of this there’s a case to be made for being the pursuee in a relationship. Being the proactive party means having to make a decision based on all available options whereas letting them come to you limits the field to a choice of interested suitors.
Also from OPW an article about older people finding love after 40. The key takeaway is that there are more singles not than ever in American history because people are holding off. For what? Well are we more single because we’re more independent and cautious or are we more single because there’s too much choice?
