Find better matches with our advanced matching system
31 / M / Straight / Single
New York, New York
His journal posts
Jul 9, 2012
I meet a large number of queer and bi people who seem very skeptical of the idea that sexual orientation is not in fact a choice for most people. I'm sufficiently both amused and bothered by this trend to attempt to write about it.
I like to explain it this way: most people are born with an exceptionally strong fetish for the physical characteristics of one particular biological sex. In most of us, that fetish is for the opposite sex; in fewer people, it is for their own. This fetish is so strong that, were it not so common, it would undoubtedly be considered pathological - these physical features play a role in virtually all of our fantasies, and we have a hard time getting turned on at all when these features are absent.
As a straight guy, I've met men who I recognized, abstractly, were attractive. I've even fantasized about them at times. But as things get more intimate, I lose interest. The way guys taste and smell (at least, of the guys I've ever been close enough to judge) just doesn't appeal to me, on a very basic level. This isn't insecurity or homophobia - it's a basic physical response (or lack thereof). I am open to being attracted to a guy, but it just doesn't seem to happen - my body has other plans.
Once, last year, I enjoyed making out with another guy. I found out afterwards he was transgendered. I wasn't consciously aware of it at the time, but clearly some part of my brain noticed that he smelled, tasted, and felt "right" to me.
In short: If you're bi, and someone you're attracted to turns you down because they're just not into your gender, please don't get upset with them for being "closed-minded." Yes, I know there are some people out there who just act straight to fit in. Yes, I know there are people who are just straight because I've never considered the alternatives before. But the vast majority of us are wired this way, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Jun 27, 2012
(My previous post felt far too dry, so now I feel compelled to follow it up with something lighter.)
A while ago, someone messaged me, expressed interest in dating, and then, just before concrete plans were made, I signed on to find their profile had inexplicably vanished. The last message I had received, mind you, was something along the lines of "You seem great and I look forward to meeting you!"
I figured it was just a fluke.
The second time that happened, it was a coincidence.
The third time, it was a pattern.
Last week was, by my count, the fourth time, and now I'm starting to worry. Because really, what options are left by this point? Is someone gaslighting me? Is OKCupid a sinking ship, and I just haven't noticed yet? Have I been cursed with chronically bad luck? Or worse: is one virtual conversation with me enough to turn women off dating forever?
So please, fellow daters: take note of this simple piece of online dating etiquette: If one day you feel compelled to delete your account, send a brief note to the people you're actively communicating with to say goodbye. I mean, sure, they'll figure it out soon enough anyway, but it doesn't hurt to be polite. It may be good for their sanity.
Jun 22, 2012
Recently, I was trying to explain to someone my parents' age what non-monogamy/polyamory was. After I explained, she responded, "Oh. Back in my day we just called that 'dating!'"
I laughed as I tried to explain the difference, and realized it was tougher than I expected. After considering it a bit more, I have a few thoughts.
There has always been this idea, and it still persists, that the sole purpose of dating is to find "the one," and then stop dating other people. But it has also been widely accepted, at least since the 60's, that it's ok to actually enjoy dating, to see multiple people for an extended period of time, to not be actively looking to settle down.
As it became acceptable to have multiple intimate relationships (i.e. "dating"), psychologists and philosophers (and ordinary people) finally began to think and write more seriously about the social and ethical implications of such relationships. They needed words to describe what they were talking about. Words like "non-monogamy," "polyamory," and "open relationship."
As we developed a vocabulary for discussing these relationships, and a framework for thinking about them, it became natural to communicate more about them and within them. And that, I think, is the main difference: communication. In the 70's, if you were dating multiple people, being "honest" about it meant dropping subtle hints and forming a tacit understanding of non-exclusivity, and you hoped that would work. If a partner didn't pick up on your hints, or was in denial about the nature of the relationship, then you weren't "dating multiple people," you were just cheating. You didn't talk to your partners about your other partners. Today, being open and communicative about multiple relationships has become much more common.
Of course, there are many different kinds of non-monogamous relationships, with varying degrees of commitment or exclusivity, and varying expectations. But it's communication about the terms of the relationship that allows all these different types to flourish and succeed, and it's this communication that I consider to be the defining characteristic.
I once went to a party with a partner, and before we went she said to me, "There's going to be this guy there I have a huge crush on - would it bother you if I ended up going home with him?" As it turned out, I was fine with that. It felt great to trust each other enough to have that conversation comfortably. It would also have been ok if I wasn't fine with that - honest communication about open relationships means you can establish and maintain boundaries that suit your relationship's needs.
30 years ago, if we were "dating," it would have been very hard for us to have that conversation, and one of us would likely have ended up resenting the other by the end of the evening, over topics we didn't know how to communicate openly about.
What do you think?
Jan 23, 2010
As simplistic and flawed as they might be, and as misleading as they might be when taken out of context, the okcupid questions are for better or worse central to the experience of using this site. At the very least, they have the potential to be good conversation starters. So, I've begun the humbling process of making every single one of my answers public. (One at a time, to make sure they're still accurate.) I've got nothing to hide. If one of my answers bewilders or annoys you, ask me about it!
Sep 8, 2009
Ok, so when I took the dating persona test and came up as The Backrubber I thought it was kinda cute and funny, as most of the persona descriptions are. And parts of the detailed description are actually fairly accurate. But as I'm becoming increasingly skilled at and interested in actual massage, I feel like it's kinda limiting... now, if I ever actually offer a back rub to a date I meet on this site, it's like, "oh, look, 'The Backrubber' is offering me a back rub, he must be trying to get me to sleep with him!"
The purpose of massage (to me) is for emotional and spiritual as well as physical healing, so there's hopefully an emotional/spiritual connection augmenting the physical contact. As such, a massage should be intimate, which is different from being sexual; even if it's only the sort of superficial intimacy that can be established between near strangers. I never turn down the opportunity to give a massage, whether a quick shoulder rub or a full back/arm/hand massage; it's a gift I can give for free. In fact, it's a gift that benefits me in the giving.
I guess my point is, I'm just as likely to give a back rub to a friend of any gender whom (yeah, that's right, I said whom) I have absolutely no interest in sleeping with.
It's not that I care what a tongue-in-cheek personality test says about me, but somehow I feel compelled to explain myself, lest others think they've got me pegged as that slimy, sketchy guy who tries to seduce every woman he meets by being really nice to her and hoping she'll sleep with him for it. I don't know anybody who's ever met me and seen me that way (or admitted to it), so maybe I'm worried over nothing. What do you think? Am I being paranoid? I just don't want to be associated with a stereotype that's so far off from reality.
Apr 10, 2009
I couldn't disagree more. I'm really in it for the journey, not any destination. The process of getting to know someone, of becoming emotionally and physically intimate with somebody, is wonderful in and of itself. If, as often happens, I find a friendship that endures beyond the romantic/sexual relationship, that's more than I ever could have hoped for. And if I learn something new about myself through the relationship, then it becomes practically a spiritual experience.
I want to meet you. Whoever you are, reading this. I want to get to know you, I want to go on an adventure with you, share all sorts of experiences with you. Without worrying self-consciously about saying or doing the "wrong thing" because it's not about the destination, it's about the process, the experience, and whatever happens, happens, until our paths take us in different directions. As for promises and commitment, I ask only for honesty and openness, that you treat me with respect and hold me to these same high standards.
What do you think? Does this make sense? Or am I smoking something?
Jan 11, 2009
If you've been, let me know where you recommend I go. I've got just a couple of weeks to decide whether I'll visit the north (Delhi and Rajasthan) or the south. The tropical south appeals to me more than the deserts of the north, but Rajasthan does seem pretty exciting.
Should I plan every detail, every train trip and hotel in advance? Or should I just buy the plane tickets and wing it from there?
UPDATE: My friend who I would have been traveling with lost her job, so the trip is postponed indefinitely. So it goes.