Find better matches with our advanced matching system
33 / M / Straight / Single
- Last Online
- Today – 2:29am
- 5′ 5″ (1.65m).
- Body Type
- Strictly anything
- Not at all
- Graduated from college/university
- Education / Academia
- Doesn’t want kids
- Likes dogs and likes cats
- English (Fluently)
angstmachine Anchorage, Alaska kinkier
nc_couple Anchorage, Alaska more desiring of sex
LaughsMore Anchorage, Alaska more desiring of sex
Lockeout Anchorage, Alaska more adventurous
mystery4747 Anchorage, Alaska more desiring of sex
rodrion Anchorage, Alaska more adventurous
CapnMidnight Anchorage, Alaska more artsy
Opcnup Anchorage, Alaska more attentive
I am good at everything I have ever done more than once. Since good is a relative term, it is relatively easy to say that. But what I mean to say is that the average person generally sells themselves short when they consider what it is possible to achieve. We are all capable of so much more than what we believe we are capable of.
I like to explain this by illustrating the fallacy of expertise. In this world, there are people who have a vested interest in enabling ignorance of both your potential ability and your current ability. They are generally known as experts. Choose a field of interest, any field you like.
I suggest automotive repair for ease of illustration. Feel free to make up your own hypothetical as you read, however.
The barrier to entry to expert status as an auto mechanic is merely as high as the most outwardly qualified person you can easily locate. In one room, Jim is an expert auto mechanic. In another, he is a novice. In another, matter does not obey what he perceives as physical law and he disintegrates. However, all that matters is that Jim maintains the perception of expertise in your eyes- the humble and ignorant person in need of a repair. It is likely that 75% of the maintenance and repairs performed on your car in its lifetime could be done at home with a modest set of tools, possibly even a communal set of tools owned by everyone on your block. For example, with a small investment of time, you could learn how ridiculously simple and fast repairing your brakes can be. You could marvel at the difference between an $80 home repair and a $500 shop repair. You could take joy in the experience of learning, the gaining of knowledge that will aid you for years to come. Or Jim himself could take the time to show you how simple it is, so that he might devote his time to more fulfilling pursuits, having conquered the art of brake repair, his mind growing stagnant from repetition. But he chooses not to do this for many complex reasons- need of money, need of family, need of usefulness. Without his expert status he is simply another man among a sea of men and women who know how to repair their own automobiles at home. So it is in his best interest to make things seem complicated, difficult, and disgusting so that you may not know that you could do his job yourself if you desired. And so his interests are served. And yours are preserved, remaining unmuddled by the possibility of diversity.
Though it is true that there exist some activities and occupations that require years of intensive training and preparation, these compose an infinitely small percentage of all activities and occupations. And to focus on these examples is to miss the larger point- I do not claim that all people can be the best at all things. I claim that we are each capable of much more than we allow ourselves to achieve. So do something new. Until you do it well.
The perceived importance of which manufactured goods we enjoy seems like it must be hitting an apex with the advent of social networking sites. What were potentially titillating clues to how in tune a person was with their culture 50 years ago became conversation starters 30 years ago. Ice breakers became subtle divisions 20 years ago, which became concrete signals of which group you could be categorized into 10 years ago. Vague labels like "screamo" and "bromance" were invented to make things simple and easy to understand for the elderly and uninitiated. And more recently, with the advent of websites like this one, the things that we enjoy became banners for some and outright definitions of self for others. Lists of bands longer than the tax code became normal, and competitions arose to see who could simultaneously be both more exhaustive and obscure. To define yourself primarily by the work of others- whether works of art or works of profit- has become the standard as the concept of self dissolves into a solution of increasingly fluid waste.
Here is a story to illustrate one of the many peculiarities of the things we enjoy:
My first long term relationship began as many relationships do at the age of 16- with a message from a friend explaining that a girl was interested in me. The added intrigue of the middle-man who is in the know seems to be essential to the level of excitement produced by courtship at this age. I wonder how many messages never get delivered?
This message was delivered, and happily the interest was reciprocal. I knew nothing about this person other than what she looked like and the vague details one tends to pick up about other people's lives in high school. We went on our first date and I was shocked to discover how much we had in common. We both liked a certain band very much, as well as innumerable other instances of media that tend to be consumed by young people. She even had copies of somewhat obscure albums by the band that we both liked very much in her bedroom. Lucky coincidences to be sure, because I was passionately attracted to her physically, the type of attraction that leaves you unable to think about much else between opportunities for close contact. What I am trying to say is that she made my penis very hard. And it turned out that I made her penis very hard too, except that she didn't have a penis per se, but homologous complementary anatomy common to women. I believe it is called a pussy. And it didn't really get hard, at least not all of it. It was generally very soft and inviting, except for the clitoris, which did get hard. As you can see, it really would have been difficult to allow these mutual attractions to run their course if it had not been for all of the things that we both liked.
So we started seeing each other more and more frequently until we were officially declared a couple by the local magistrate a few months later. Around this point I noticed that the albums by the band that we both liked had disappeared from her bedroom. I asked her where they had gone and she explained that she had given them back to her uncle because they did not actually belong to her. I found this curious but filed it away in memory. As time went on, more instances like this crept up. She hadn't gone to that concert she had claimed she attended. She had never read that book that she said that she loved- she started it, but had only read the first third. And it turned out that quite a few things she had originally told me about her past relationships were not true either. Important things, like whether or not she used condoms during sex with that one guy she did not know. Gradually the architecture of our relationship began to fall apart until there was nothing left but us. And it turned out that despite the physical attraction, we didn't really like each other.
End of story.
These things that we collect and enjoy are relative to many variables- time, place, convenience, group dynamics, etc. They are lists written in the sky, more likely to blow away than to become stars, permanently affixed and burning until we expire. The list in the story above was not important, it was a distraction from the truth. What was important were the traits that created the list- an intense desire to be accepted, a willingness to be dishonest and deceptive, and passionate sexual attraction. It turns out that those traits became clear eventually despite the distraction, and it was those traits that determined the outcome of our relationship. Judging a person's character by the things that they enjoy is a difficult task- biases are rampant and difficult to overcome in these situations. Some would say impossible.
What I can say with as much certainty as is possible is that the longer a person knows me, the more likely I am to introduce them to experiences, art, and objects that they enjoy. These things did happen in the relationship described above, despite the rest of the details. She introduced me to things that are still valuable to me today, and though I cannot say this for sure, I believe that I did the same for her. It turned out that the friend who delivered that message to me had also had a little more involvement in our relationship. She had cased me before she met me, with his help. She asked him what I liked, and with that information made up stories and a plan to procure the appropriate objects, manufacturing a version of herself that she thought would be most likely to attract me.
I wonder how much of these lists of things on websites are a subconscious (or conscious) version of that behavior. And I wonder what the substitute behavior was for manufacturing personality 150 years ago.
1. Nobody owes you anything.
2. People are inherently disappointing creatures.
3. Everyone is replaceable.
4. Sympathy is a dead currency, backed by the chronically unhappy.
5. Your existence is composed of only one fundamental hypothesis, to be continually tested and retested: I can be happy.
The correlation, among available members of the dating pool, between increased age and the increased likelihood of alcoholism and other forms of chemical dependence on the various available recreational drugs, and/or food, and/or sex. Why do those of us who wish to find someone seem to be increasingly more likely to be dependent and desperate as the years advance?
You first begin to see this pattern develop around the age of sixteen, as certain people begin to pair off in apparent teenage bliss while others begin to face the sober but sometimes less than lucid reality of romantic loneliness and erotic longing for the first time. And as we age, and many of the subsequent pairings become functionally permanent, even if that permanence proves illusory, the pool is skimmed, the oily layer on top gradually yet exponentially thinning, leaving an increasingly acidic underbelly, a delirious and delicious vinegar for the rest of us to drown in, digesting us as we attempt to tread water or depart, depending on our preference.
Is monogamy just another form of dependence? A solid phase substitute for smoky ghosts and liquid laughter? Or is there something fundamentally different about those left behind against their will that causes them to be incapable of achieving that bond that they usually desire so intensely? Is there a marker there, unseen but somehow detected, like a tumor uncovered by a cancer sniffing dog, that tells the potential partners who are looking to become entwined that these are fibrous vines designed to choke a sturdy tree? How do so many become unwillingly left behind? Does the circumstance of unintended solitude lead to chemical dependence? Or do these chemicals themselves engender existential loneliness despite the picture of camaraderie and togetherness often associated with their use?
Not to imply that The Entwined are not also capable of dependence outside of their relationships; they clearly are- but I generally don't go on dates with them.
And it is true that I, or others, may want to make out with you. But don't take it personally. We all want to make out with a lot of people. In a micro sense, that facet of your desirability can be easily replaced. In a macro sense, however, your company is one of the most valuable commodities in the economic model of happiness. Not because you're special, exquisite, or in any way unique as a stranger or acquaintance. The unknown is a powerful equalizer- and most of what catches our eye at first glance is illusory, projections from our subconscious neatly folding the tattered fabric of reality into something that is certain to be less pristine than we had hoped.
Focus instead on the opportunity to mix in a way that creates something new- an idea, or emotion, or even just a fleeting friendly or unfriendly look. That is what makes us all worthwhile- we are each immense, unwieldy, undefined. Variables waiting to be tested for potential reactions.
Consider yes as a response to random friend requests, open invitations, and non-specific interest in your physical existence- and let's see what happens next.
If you are inert, either permanently or momentarily, feel free to ignore me. I will not take it personally. But if you receive an invitation to climb a mountain, or to go to an incredible restaurant, or to discuss a great novel, or to see a concert or comedian- consider saying yes. Even if the concept makes you uncomfortable. Just consider it. And if not with me, then maybe with someone else. If it sounds like a good idea, but you just have no interest in me personally, become the catalyst. Do the inviting rather than waiting for inertia to diffuse and surround you, picking at your bones, making them brittle, a spiritual osteoporosis.
We are not, individually, the keys to each others' survival or happiness. But we can improve things for each other; over minutes, days, years. This entire spectrum of outcomes contains value, from the smallest compassionate moment to a comfortable lifelong bond. I am no more invested in one specific outcome than any other. I will accept every second.
- Girls who like guys
- Ages 18–99
- Located anywhere
- Who are single
- For new friends, long-term dating, short-term dating
Or if there is something that is absent from this list that you feel when you see me as I choose to portray myself.
Are you repulsed by bald guys, or short guys? Let me know, I empathize. Do you have intense hatred for people who have ridden bikes? That seems unreasonable, but inform me of your feelings on the matter. Do you like the way I write? Tell me so I may make an entry in my mind, a check or x in the appropriate box. Does a twisty mustache turn you on? That is information I consider to be of great value for future development considerations in my facial architecture. Do you prefer a svelte man with little or no visible musculature, so that you may overpower him if necessary? I completely understand- and it will do no harm to let me know. Would you prefer photos of me flexing with my shirt off or better yet- holding a gun with my shirt off- in order to prove how absolutely manly I can be? Well that's just too bad. But I would like to know of your desires nonetheless.
I ask only that you be honest and tell me both what you see and what you feel. I promise you that I want to know, no matter what those things may be.
Communicate with me.