Would it bother you to discover a partner likes to cross-dress?

• Yes.
• No.

This is one of those one-sided questions isn't it? Let's just say I think oversized men's button-down shirts make some of the sexiest lingerie. I mean, yeah, sure, untying ribbons and lace is ok but the thing about a button down is the way they can slowly unbutton down! Very nice!

And, duh, women in pants is technical cross-dressing (in the sense that wearing men's clothes was the actual crime for which Joan of Arc was burned at the stake!) Yet it's unlikely today that many men (or at least OkCupid-subscribing men) are going to take offense with partners who wear them. I certainly won't.

I probably won't be doing very much cross-dressing myself but while I can't think of an item at the moment I could accomodate a partner who liked some item of traditionally women's wear on her partner as much as I appreciate women in my shirts.

Did you join this site just so you could find people to have sex with?

• Yes
• No

Oh this is silly! While I really wouldn't have problems having "just sex" with people it would be pretty silly to join a site like this and fill out all these forms and answer all these questions if that's all I was interested in.

Besides, sex isn't even the most interesting thing about the people I usually like to have "just sex" with. And certainly not the most interesting thing about the people I'm seeing who are 85+ percent matches, 89+ percent friends, and 5- percent enemies here.

figleaf

Do you enjoy meaningless sex?

• Yes
• No

Alright, how do you even answer this question? By "meaningless sex" does one mean a brief sexual encounter with an interesting person one meets under circumstances that can't possibly lead to a long-term relationship? Or by "meaningless" does one mean one more right-after-Leno resetting of the hormonal/horniness clock with one's married partner of many years?

That's a trick answer, of course, in the sense that both of the examples I gave are particularly heightened counterexamples of the familiar definitions of "meaningless sex." But to the extent I'm a prudish libertine that I would have more problems with the latter than I would with the former. And it's not so much approve of all sex inside or outside of marriage (although I tend to) as much as I just question the assumption that *if* one insists on assigning meaning to sex in the first place then the mere fact of marriage grants meaning to all sex within it.

Would you ever consider having sex in a church?

• Yes.
• No.

I had to answer "yes" because I've had sex in a church. Ok, ok, I was young. Also it was a Unitarian church, and not in the sanctuary. Odds are slim that I'd have, or take, another opportunity to have sex in a church and therefore an Ideal Match may answer any way she pleases.

Always click the photo on the left.

Although to be honest for some reason about 3/4 of the people on the left looked like virgins... Oh wait! :-) At any rate the score was coincidental. (If the test randomizes the photos each time, as perhaps it should, then my score was *really* coincidental and your results might vary.)

Do you believe that gender is easily defined?

• Yeah, male and female
• Nope, the grey area is huge
• I'm not sure

Gender's kind of a tough call. I actually happen to think there really are two primary genders but that the overlap is vast -- not so much the classic yin/yang symbol which, despite relative sophistication is still 50% this and 50% that, but like some kind of weird double-crescent moon with thumbnail slivers of distinctiveness on either side and lots, and lots, and lots of similarities everywhere else.

I mean, there's physical gender (which chromosomes have you got) and there's body gender (which ridges or valleys do you have.) Then there's gender identity, and gender orientation. And the last category, the one that I get pretty firm about, is whether everything about people is divided like Yin and Yang or the pants vs. skirt symbols on bathroom doors.

I say no, that saying things like "he's expressing his feminine side" just tries to deny the parts of "manliness" that most people try to deny, suppress, or stick a photo of John Wayne in front of and hope nobody notices.

So anyway, for me I might knit (I knit very well) while watching some kind of ballgame, or stay home with the kids (I'm great with kids) and listen to NPR, but that seems every bit as manly to me as when, while we're kissing, sometime between when me unbuttoning your top and you loosening my belt I scoop you up and swoop the stairs with you in my arms. And same for you when you say "I swear I must be part man inside because I..." nope, that's just the parts the pants/skirt crowd claims you can't have because men got it first. Why let their lack of imagination (not to mention common sense) limit what *you* really are?

I dunno, I'm just sayin'

Anyway, there are other ways to say the same thing, and while I' say "the grey area is huge" I'd never ask an Ideal Match to pick a specific answer without a nice clarifying conversation.

If someone very close to you changed their gender, would you accept it?

• Yes, of course I would.
• Maybe in time.
• No. Never.

I ought to clarify that while I've answered "yes of course I would," I confess it would be difficult if that person was a partner, but if you love people you gotta support them being who they want to be.

Not as in whips and chains, but do you perfer your partner to be...

• Dominant
• Submissive
• Balanced

The "are you a born dominant" says I'm 55% dominant. I interpret that to mean I can be accommodating but I am not submissive. That would mean I'd switch with a partner who found it exciting but I wouldn't volunteer.

An Ideal Match would be balanced but my next choice would definitely be submissive. And consequently an Ideal Match would prefer that I be either balanced or dominant.

Do you live with your parent(s)?

• Yes
• No

This is a more interesting question than meets the eye. It's highly relevant when one is young -- if you're 29 and living with your parents you're probably in a very different position potential-relationship-wise than if you're living on your own.

However if you're a few decades older, depending on their needs it may be your parents (or parent) living with you!

So... whereas I don't live with my parents nor do they live with me, an Ideal Match in her 40's, 50's or even 30's might. And that would be fine.

Are you an adventurous eater? Do you like to try new foods and ethnic cuisines?

• Yes, all the time.
• Yes, if it's not too strange.
• On rare occasions/I don't know.
• No, yuck.

I don't know if simply trying new foods or cuisines counts as adventurous. For me "adventurous" means something like eating sauteed crickets or something, and while I've actually tried a few really adventurous dishes I prefer normal, non-adventurous but highly diverse food. Ethiopian beef tibs or Atkilt Wot? Indian eggplant bartha? Fish tacos? Minneapolis cream of mushroom tuna rice casserole? Biddeford, Maine lobstah rolls? Mamma Stanburg's cranberry relish on oven-roasted turkey? I don't just like eating all that, I enjoy cooking it too.

Since I'm happy eating just about anything (that isn't bugs anyway) I'm happy to eat (and maybe prepare) whatever an otherwise Ideal Match enjoys eating.