Find better matches with our advanced matching system
39 / M / Straight / Available
- Last Online
- Today – 1:43pm
- 5′ 10″ (1.78m).
- Body Type
- Scorpio but it doesn’t matter
- Graduated from law school
mrfuninthesun Denver, Colorado less ambitious
Bluemizzen Littleton, Colorado less into sports
john262 Golden, Colorado more artsy
foothillsfun1 Evergreen, Colorado more attentive
AllThatEverIs Littleton, Colorado more adventurous
LyleCrumbstorm Evergreen, Colorado more relaxed
Twopennyflea Morrison, Colorado kinkier
ddtraveller Littleton, Colorado kinkier
I'm also pretty skilled in the kitchen. I love to cook, feed other people, and of course, eat.
Want to see some young kids "cover the shit out of Tool's 46&2"? Check this out:
2. The gym/exercise
3. Access to a kitchen/cooking/eating
4. The mountains where I live
5. Internet/my laptop (we're on here, right?)
6. The NFL
Took one of the personality tests on this site (INTP), and although it is consistent and accurate with other sources, I find that the site listed below is a much better site for personality analysis:
(For the purposes of what's written below, I don't define monogamy to strictly mean sex. I equate it more with the exclusivity of romantic chemistry, interaction, or sexual tension without it necessarily leading to sex)
I question monogamy, or more specifically, the artificiality of it as it relates to the primitive human (animalistic) desires/interests/motivations, and also as it relates to the evolved human rationality and modern thinking/lifestyle. The problem is that the mindset of most of society is caught somewhere in between those two evolutionary stages because they still hang onto the "societal construct" for religious, family, or peer perception reasons (but then often go and fuck around on each other behind their spouse's back). I think that in most cases there is the probable (but not necessarily inevitable) erosion of marriage. And I think the two topics are intrinsically related, with the former (monogamy) directly affecting/causing the latter (erosion). And I don't limit monogamy's erosive effects to just marriage. I think that the mundane monotony that monogamy may create in the marriage also may (and usually does) branch out into every other aspect of our lives. One simple example is weight gain. If the relationship gets stale, and a couple slowly stops trying to (for lack of a better word) "impress" their spouse, they may let them selves go over time and gradually gain weight over the years. That affects who you are and what you do in every way. If you used to dance, you probably don't do that any more, or you do you it less. And even if you do still do it, you probably enjoy it less because you don't do it as well with the added weight, or you're uncomfortable with how you look doing it because of the added weight, or you don't have the same energy level to do it as you used to do it because of the added weight. The same is true if you're a former athlete, etc. In every case, no matter what you used to be into when you were younger, there is an erosion of the foundation of the attachment to that activity that can be attributed to the monotony/lack of excitement of one's life. If you always do what you used to do when you were young, you stay younger longer. But when you stop doing those things, there is an erosion of youth…... and you get old.
Conversely, when is someone at their best? It's usually when they are single and either looking to meet someone, or right after they've met someone, and in either case, for lack of a better word, they are trying to "impress" them. And that carries over into every aspect of their life: they eat better, they work out more, they generally do more of whatever it is that keeps them at their best. Basically, it's the subconscious expectation that there is still a lot of life ahead of them, that there is still something to look forward to, whatever that may be (excitement/change/adventure/ challenge/newness/love/ conquest/personal evolution), rather than the thought process of settling into a predictable, auto pilot-like, pre-prescribed societal role as a "normal", "responsible", "mature" married person, with nothing to look forward to except grand kids, retirement, and some abstract concept of "golden years".
I'm not sure that any relationship could conceivably exist without something missing. Can any one person entirely fulfill every instance of "need" or match every interest? As I've thought about this lately, I compare it to how I relate to my various groups of friends. I've been very lucky to have had a very large and very diverse group of circles of friends over the years. That is due in large part to my own complexities, and to my ability to use my complexities to relate in some small way to just about anyone I meet. Being able to relate generally entails being able to break that person down, get inside of and grasp who they are, understand them, and then find that part of myself where we are on common ground to finally relate to them. And by being able to do so, I've become extremely close with a very wide range of people who although are very close to me, have nothing in common with, and may not be able to relate to each other. They just don't get each other, and may not even like each other.
Now in this diverse, wide-ranging group of friends, there isn't one single guy who gets me on every level, who enjoys everything I enjoy, who is interested in everything I'm interested in, who can keep up on every intellectual level, who is into politics, sports, music, movies, and current events to the same degree that I am. For me to feel as fulfilled and as well-rounded and as engaged as I like to feel, I have to seek out different guys for different activities/interests. If it's football, I plug into one group of guys. If it's music, I plug into other guys. If it's politics, it’s another group, etc. There isn't one male friend who sees the world the exact same way, feels the same way about everything, or is into all the same things as I am.
Let’s say I have a buddy (we can even call him my “best friend”) who's a big Tool fan but who doesn't like football. Why would I deprive myself of enjoying the sport I love (and played for 11 years through college)? Why would I deprive myself of having a friend who I enjoy hanging out and watching football with, just because my "best friend" who is into Tool doesn’t like the sport? Isn't it possible that that same philosophy is relevant, or that that phenomenon could exist, when it comes to how you plug into/engage people on a romantic/intimate level? So, similar to the above situation, my wife loves to dance. I don't. If my wife found a cool, respectful dude that loved to dance, and they went out every once in a while to go dancing, and they got relatively intimate on the dance floor or after the date…...then so be it. She's plugging into and engaging that sexual/sensual part of herself, through this other dude, that she would otherwise have to require to remain dormant, simply because I don't like to dance. Why? Because religious, family, peer, and/or societal norms disapprove? It’s the repression and forced dormancy of whatever aspect of oneself that is not allowed to flourish or be stimulated that often leads to resentment, and either a dysfunctional relationship or the end of the relationship.
And so, with that in mind, here I find myself….
- Girls who like guys
- Ages 25–47
- Near me
- Who are single
- For new friends, long-term dating, short-term dating
For the record, I am not a "swinger", and I don't and never have slept around. I've never been a fan of one night stands or foundation-less intimacy because more times than not there's an element of awkwardness involved either before or after the encounter. It's just not my style. That seems to be a false perception (at least in my case) of the "open" relationship. I think like most prohibitions, which is what the expectation of monogamy is or creates, the psychological effect that is created by the inability or requirement to NOT do something, often is what (to an extent) creates the desire to do that which you are prohibited from doing. It's the psychology behind taboo behavior. So, in many ways, having the freedom and trust to do what you want can actually have a disarming or diffusing effect on the desire to act. In my case, I've had quite a few online interactions with women with most of those interactions having nothing to do with anything that ever even approached planning an actual "date", let alone actually going on one. But I've found the give and take interesting, and often times stimulating, as we've exchanged probing questions about each other, our situations/history/experiences, and our general perspectives on dating/monogamy/etc. Now I concede that I may be a little bit of a rare breed, and that you can't necessary take my experiences/perspectives/behavior and extrapolate that out over the general male population. But that's been my experience and take on it all.
I'm often told that women have no interest in taking "second place" or sharing someone that they date. But I guess I disagree with the premise behind that sentiment, or at least the inconsistency with what would appear to be the approach in how they view someone in my position as opposed to "single" men they interact with online and/or agree to meet in person. The "sharing/second place" premise presupposes or at least holds me to a long term, committed relationship standard. Whereas a single guy may only be held to a lesser standard where they're only judged by whether or not they're suitable to "go out with" in the short term. Basically, the "short term dating" box that most people check on their profile. Obviously, some (or perhaps many or most) women may take the longer view approach to anyone they decide to go out with, even if it's just to get out of the house on a saturday night. But I would imagine that a fair amount of women are just looking for someone who would provide a fun and/or stimulating night out, regardless of whether the guy is "marriage material". Granted, the obvious difference is that if you hit it off with the single guy, there's far fewer complications/obstacles, provided he's not hiding anything and is upfront about his dating/relationship situation. But, by summarily dismissing the idea of engaging someone in my situation, you pass up a what may be a very interesting/stimulating interaction. That doesn't necessarily mean that it'll take on a romantic/sexual context, because as I as I alluded to above, we play different roles in different people's lives, and mine may be of the platonic variety.
First and foremost I just really enjoy meeting, interacting, and learning about interesting, intelligent people. I’m not a big “pat myself on the back” type of guy, but I’ll be a little out of character:
as mentioned above, I’ve had minimal “in-person” contact with women since we've decided to open things up. But I’ve had interaction with a fair amount of women through email exchanges. And without exception, they would probably all say that they’ve found our exchanges to be unique, insightful, and thought provoking. So, don’t be afraid to respond to my email, or to reach out yourself. Maybe there’s chemistry, maybe not. Maybe that’s not my role in your search. But I’m pretty confident that it’ll be interesting.