Advice

When you're single and in your twenties, it's fairly easy to find dates that have never had children or been married. As time goes on, however, the chances are raised that the available men and women have had children, and there's an even greater chance that they're divorced or widowed. In a society that uses “baggage” as a buzz word, something to be unquestioningly avoided, perhaps it's time we analyze what “baggage” can really mean – and whether it's really a bad thing.

I know a woman in her late 30's who was never interested in having children. Now that she's single again, she's somewhat relieved that she's getting past the age of “pressure” - when men might be looking to start a family. However, while she's not facing pressure to start a family of her own, many, if not most, of the eligible men already have children.

At first she balked at even considering those men. Then I began questioning her. What if the man had joint custody? Does the age of the child matter? What if the child is already in college and out of the house? That raised some eyebrows, and we did some quick math. Yes, it was more than possible. Eventually, the woman began to realize that she'd had a specific image in her mind, one that didn't really apply to where she was in life anymore.

Similarly, divorce is often frowned at, but let's consider that, depending on where you live, roughly one-third to one-half of marriages end in divorce. For many, the culprit is age – they claim they were too young to be married, that they developed into different people. If the average divorce is after 5-7 years of marriage, there's a large number of people in their mid-to-late twenties and beyond who are divorced, with all the knowledge of a failed marriage and reassessed priorities. Is that really a bad thing?

Divorce, children, are these really “baggage”? Isn't an amicable divorce better than an emotionally scarring breakup (and there's no box to check for those)? I propose that those with past relationships are just as deserving of a first date as anyone else, and, like all things emotional, “baggage” is a state best determined in person. Don't let a checked box scare you away.

Surprise, surprise, right? In an article that seems to be 100% obvious, AOL Personals staff writes about a study in which it was found that men find skinny women to be the most attractive.

The bullet points for the study done by Wake Forest University (NC):

• Men find thin women to be the most attractive.
• Men were also attracted to women who appeared confident.
• Men nearly universally found the same women to be attractive vs. unattractive.
• Women asked to rate men's attractiveness had much more varied results.

These "duh" studies really bother me. Any overweight woman could have told you that the majority of men prefer skinny women. Our society has a stigma against extra pounds. You can see it in our print media, TV, movies, and in the opinions of the "average" Joe on the street.

Fat isn't sexy, the world says. So women feel that they have to do everything they can to comply to society's standards or risk being unloved for the rest of their lives.

Guys, there are PLENTY of women who aren't sticks who are totally sexy. And they're not getting very many emails on their online dating site. You know why? Because there are guys who set their search preferences to only look for "Thin/Slender" or "Athletic" women.

But as the AOL Personals article points out, these Most Wanted Women are getting tons of emails every day - I know of women who get upwards of 20 emails a day from men who are interested in them. They have the ability to be extra picky about who they write back - which is why you never get replies.

Try this for an experiment. Make a separate search that has everything exactly the same as your original search except for one thing - select the next two body sizes up from your original search.

If you normally search for Thin/Slender and Athletic, make this search for About Average and Few Extra Pounds. If Average is your current highest, look at some Few Extra Pounds and Curvy women.

You'll discover two things:

1. There are women who describe themselves in words you'd consider "fat" who really aren't!
2. You will find women there who interest you. Women you ordinarily would have never seen. Thank me later.

Want a site that will challenge your idea of sexy? Take a look at plus-size model Erin Zerbe's photos at Zerbetron.

Look at any movie or romance novel and you'll see that most relationships fall into a few basic archetypes. Perhaps the most famous of them all is the “opposites attract” couple. It's been done so many times that it's easy to paint a picture even beyond their opposite lifestyles: one has a fiery temper, one could be seen as cold. They hate each other on sight, but they have smoldering chemistry. They're forced to work together, and eventually, something sparks between them. It even works for friendships – look at any buddy-cop movie.

Now, the question becomes: how common is that type of relationship, really? And does it matter that online dating is not designed to lead to that kind of match?

I've noticed a good number of people online whose profiles seem, well, antagonistic in their very nature. “If you think you can handle me...” “If you can take my sarcasm...” Most of the time, I'm turned off by the very bluntness of the profile. But now I'm wondering: are these people who simply have one of “those” kind of personalities, the ones that grow on a person? Are they better suited for a relationship wherein fighting and loving aren't mutually exclusive?

And even if an abrasive, explosive personality is best matched with someone cool and in control, would they ever find each other through profile alone? Unless they're actively looking for an opposite, most likely not.

So if these relationships are really as common and effective as movies would have us believe, maybe those best suited for an opposite will have a little more trouble with online dating. And that's the nature of life, I suppose; no one system works perfectly for everyone, and maybe some are meant to test their chemistry in person. Still, it makes me wonder: we're all about finding our match – matched preferences, matched lifestyles, coordinating interests. Maybe a little conflict is good for the intellect – and the relationship.

When you've got a profile on a online dating site, fewer things are more scary than sending out a first-contact email. Especially when it's absolutely cold – when there's no winks or anything else to indicate interest. But really, should this be a terrifying event?

Here's the thing: a first-contact email should be like saying hello to someone that catches your eye – nothing more, nothing less. Sure, you have a little extra information from their profile that indicates whether you might be compatible, but really there's no telling until you actually speak – so let's say it's more akin to meeting someone at an event you mutually enjoy, rather than the grocery store.

Ultimately, you won't know much until you actually begin communication, until you have that hello. Maybe it could turn into something more... but it might not. And that's okay, because your opening email was only three to four sentences, and you're not that emotionally invested. Right?

The problem arises when people treat the act of writing emails as sacred. They carefully read and reread profiles until they begin to feel like they know the author; they place all their hopes of a relationship on one or two people. And if those don't pan out, they feel they've failed.

Sending out a first-contact email should be no big deal. Think of it as applying to college: sure, you could pin all your hopes on your dream, Ivy League-school, but it would be silly to apply only to that college. A smaller school, or a state university, might be a better personal fit for you, and could put you on the path to greatness.

So too is it for sending emails: there might be some profiles you like more than others, but ultimately you won't really know if they're a good fit for you until you establish communication. So don't be afraid to hit 'send' to many, and don't pin all your hopes on one profile – you'll be less stressed in the long run, and you could even find the best match for you.

Usually, I like to talk about sending the wrong message in our online profiles. Today, however, I'd like to talk about sending the wrong message in person. I'm not talking about what you do on a date; I mean the literal equivalent of the online profile: the first impression.

The first impression is difficult to remember when you're out and about in everyday errands. Unlike the online profile, where you can toil away until it's word-perfect, or the weekend prowl, where you can ensure you look your best, finding a date is typically the last thing on your mind when you're going to the grocery store or the post office.

I'm not even talking about clothes and makeup. Despite what some makeover shows like to preach, no one really expects a catwalk-ready group of men and women at the grocery store. Heck, there are some days when I'm lucky I remember to check that my hair is combed before I set out to do the weekly shopping. No, what I'm talking about has more to do with how we carry ourselves, the expressions on our faces.

Imagine two women. Both are comparably attractive. One is very well put-together, sleek and sophisticated. The other... her hair is thrown into a sloppy ponytail and she clearly stuffed her feet into whatever shoes she had on-hand. However, the disheveled girl looks like she's actually enjoying her shopping, and when she becomes aware that she's being checked out, she glances over and gives a sunny smile. The sophisticated woman has her lips set in a permanent sour purse, and when she feels someone looking at her, she quickly snaps her head in the opposite direction and stalks off. Now, which woman would you be more interested in for a date? Or even as a potential friend?

It's quite possible that the sophisticated woman is not as cold as she seems. Maybe that's the look she gets when she's thinking about something else. Maybe she's had a rough day. But maybe it's just a bad habit that her face has settled into – one that can be broken.

So next time you're out doing mundane tasks, think about the nonverbal messages you're sending. Are you curt, or friendly? Do you cut off any attempts at conversation? Are you the master of answering a question in three words or less? Are you hunched over and brooding? These messages can be much more important than what clothes you're wearing – or, if you're lucky, even whether your hair is combed.

"I'd never date someone who ___________!"

What do you fill into that blank? Here are some examples of dealbreakers that I've encountered in my time as an online dating coach. My clients (and others I've read about in the many dating blogs I read daily) have said these are their dealbreakers:

• taller/shorter
• older/younger
• divorced
• separated
• had kids
• wanted kids / didn't want kids
• smoked
• drank more than once a month
• overweight
• didn't have a good relationship with their family
• didn't go to college
• didn't finish college
• was way more/less formally educated
• Republican / Democrat / Libertarian
• didn't share religious faith / had no religious faith / was too religious
• had poor grammar or spelling skills
• was bad on the phone
• was awkward on a first date

...and the list could go on and on and on.

Lists like these are fine when you're in your 20s and the pool of available singles is teeming with potential mates. But as you get to that age where all of your friends are getting married and popping out babies and buying houses (and I know it well because I just turned 30 this year and it's exactly where I am - my Facebook news feed is full of other people's wedding, new house, and baby pics!), well... when you get to be in that zone, your pickins start to get slimmer.

That's when you have to start thinking hard about which dealbreakers are actually really important to your core values. For example, when I was dating in my 20s, I would not date a guy who had previously been married. In my head, I thought I wanted to be "THE ONE" for the guy I married, not "The Second One." Nowadays, I realize that isn't a big deal and if I were single I'd be open to dating a guy who was divorced.

Education was also a big thing for me - I wanted to date a guy who was nerdy, geeky, book smart. Someone with at least a B.A./B.S. Then I met my current boyfriend, who is very smart, but due to some family crises, was unable to finish his B.A. until he was in his late 20s. Now I'm realizing that old dealbreaker was pretty stupid.

There are dealbreakers I do keep. For example, my religious views do not mesh with certain other religious views. Same for political (although I mostly keep out of politics, there are some political issues that rile me up). I'm also childfree and while I'd be open to dating someone who had a child, I'm more comfortable dating someone who share my lifestyle.

Take a long, hard look at your dealbreakers - especially if you're 30+, especially if you've been striking out with online dating. I'll write another post on how to slowly stretch your boundaries so you don't feel overwhelmed. Be open to new things and you'll never know who you might meet!