One other thing:
It looks as though Mr Long Replyer is now following my blog and tweets. How do I know this? Let me explain...
I use analytics that tell me who's visited my blog(s) and I'm quite obsessed with the stats for my 'real' blog - I love knowing who's reading, where they're from and how they found me.
On Saturday night I spotted someone who'd googled me (it also tells me, if they used google, what search terms were used), using an iPhone located in London. They'd got to the blog and spent a little time browsing. The same ISP returned a couple of days later, this time via a link I'd posted on Twitter the week before. Tonight, the same visitor has returned.
You could say I'm paranoid, or that I have scary stalker tendencies - to be honest both could be true. The thing is, I wrote two long(ish) posts on days when I could have been replying to his e-mail. Days I've told him were quite full, hence my non-replying. But there's a big difference between knocking off a quick post and carefully crafting a considered e-mail. So now I feel mean, and that he thinks I've been lying.
Plus, I'm now slightly freaked out that he's googled me. (But yes, if I actually knew what his surname was I totally would have googled him too, all my own fault for giving away my highly unusual surname and the fact that I write a blog - curses!)
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Love via personality quiz
I finally replied to Mr Long Replyer last night offering many (lame) apologies and a tentative 'yes' to a second meeting - we'll see whether he picks up any of my not sure vibes and responds. As a bit of a cop-out I threw in the fact that I'm away for the next two weekends - totally true - but sounds like a cop-out.
Generally I'm feeling disillusioned with the Christian site. Not enough men who seem interesting, or rather, not enough who will actually reply to my tentative introductory e-mails! One of the things I've realised is that while I want a good Christian man, I also want someone with 'edge' - an interesting dimension, something that I connect with. It's hard define but easy to spot its absence! In fact, as if to emphasise Friday's lack of edge, on Saturday I ran into a previous dalliance who has edge aplenty but is a definite no (on so, so many levels) but it seemed as though the timing and manner of our encounter were judged perfectly so that I'd be even less inclined towards Mr Long Replyer.
So, I've cancelled my continuous membership and am looking elsewhere...
First stop is eHarmony, of smiling couples on tube adverts fame. I'd be sceptical about its claims (over 200 American marriages every minute) if it weren't for the fact that a dear friend (incredibly attractive and lovely friend) in DC met her current boyfriend through it and is blissfully happy. True, Girl Glory hasn't been having such a fun time, but a chance conversation with new church friend on Sunday was also encouraging. She'd recently broken up with someone from the site - hang on, writing it down that doesn't sound quite so encouraging! But she said it was much better than other sites she'd tried.
True, the endless questions that form your profile are a trial, but in some ways a little revealing. The tiny opportunities it gives you to show your true colours need to be maximised. In my case, this means including pilates, cupcakes & living in London on my list of 5 things I'm thankful for. (If you're wondering about the other two, that would be my faith and friends & family - see totally normal things too!)
I like the fact that you don't have to hunt through profiles, simply being sent several matches a day. My first batch of five were pretty good and a further two guys have been in touch already (since lunch time). I've just got to decide whether to take the plunge and hand over cash. My Christian site membership expires in just over a week, so then I decide whether to pay for eHarmony or Soulmates...choices, choices.
Generally I'm feeling disillusioned with the Christian site. Not enough men who seem interesting, or rather, not enough who will actually reply to my tentative introductory e-mails! One of the things I've realised is that while I want a good Christian man, I also want someone with 'edge' - an interesting dimension, something that I connect with. It's hard define but easy to spot its absence! In fact, as if to emphasise Friday's lack of edge, on Saturday I ran into a previous dalliance who has edge aplenty but is a definite no (on so, so many levels) but it seemed as though the timing and manner of our encounter were judged perfectly so that I'd be even less inclined towards Mr Long Replyer.
So, I've cancelled my continuous membership and am looking elsewhere...
First stop is eHarmony, of smiling couples on tube adverts fame. I'd be sceptical about its claims (over 200 American marriages every minute) if it weren't for the fact that a dear friend (incredibly attractive and lovely friend) in DC met her current boyfriend through it and is blissfully happy. True, Girl Glory hasn't been having such a fun time, but a chance conversation with new church friend on Sunday was also encouraging. She'd recently broken up with someone from the site - hang on, writing it down that doesn't sound quite so encouraging! But she said it was much better than other sites she'd tried.
True, the endless questions that form your profile are a trial, but in some ways a little revealing. The tiny opportunities it gives you to show your true colours need to be maximised. In my case, this means including pilates, cupcakes & living in London on my list of 5 things I'm thankful for. (If you're wondering about the other two, that would be my faith and friends & family - see totally normal things too!)
I like the fact that you don't have to hunt through profiles, simply being sent several matches a day. My first batch of five were pretty good and a further two guys have been in touch already (since lunch time). I've just got to decide whether to take the plunge and hand over cash. My Christian site membership expires in just over a week, so then I decide whether to pay for eHarmony or Soulmates...choices, choices.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Post date-night
How I wish there was an hilarious story to tell about Friday - there really isn't.
It was fine. We met at 7pm, said goodbye shortly after 11.30pm and there were no awkward silences. On paper that sounds like a resounding success.
However...I didn't fancy him. He was a bit old for my liking and he seemed to lack 'edge'. He was very nice, we talked about theology, politics, church, university etc, but there was little comedy. Unsurprisingly, within half an hour we'd identified some mutual friends/acquaintances.
As we parted company he asked if I'd be interested in seeing him again. This caught me slightly by surprise so I failed to come up with a coherent reply, but generally indicating the affirmative. At the time my attitude was that I ought to give him a second chance.
That attitude diminished an hour later when I had not one, but two e-mails from him on the dating site. I didn't read them (I like to wait a while between notification and reading because the sneaky site will tell the sender when you read it!) but I wondered about their contents. E-mailing straight away would make him pretty keen.
After a busy weekend, I finally read them yesterday morning - turns out the second was a duplicate of the first, so less scary. I meant to reply last night, but forgot because I was caught up with watching Glee. Oops. This morning, another e-mail - I've not read it yet, but as it's also from him, I'm guessing it's a 'why haven't you replied yet' kind of e-mail. Oh dear. Now I really don't know how to respond. Second chance or no second chance?
It was fine. We met at 7pm, said goodbye shortly after 11.30pm and there were no awkward silences. On paper that sounds like a resounding success.
However...I didn't fancy him. He was a bit old for my liking and he seemed to lack 'edge'. He was very nice, we talked about theology, politics, church, university etc, but there was little comedy. Unsurprisingly, within half an hour we'd identified some mutual friends/acquaintances.
As we parted company he asked if I'd be interested in seeing him again. This caught me slightly by surprise so I failed to come up with a coherent reply, but generally indicating the affirmative. At the time my attitude was that I ought to give him a second chance.
That attitude diminished an hour later when I had not one, but two e-mails from him on the dating site. I didn't read them (I like to wait a while between notification and reading because the sneaky site will tell the sender when you read it!) but I wondered about their contents. E-mailing straight away would make him pretty keen.
After a busy weekend, I finally read them yesterday morning - turns out the second was a duplicate of the first, so less scary. I meant to reply last night, but forgot because I was caught up with watching Glee. Oops. This morning, another e-mail - I've not read it yet, but as it's also from him, I'm guessing it's a 'why haven't you replied yet' kind of e-mail. Oh dear. Now I really don't know how to respond. Second chance or no second chance?
Friday, 21 May 2010
Friday night is...
...date night.
Weird.
I have a date.
I have an actual date.
Not even 'just drinks', but dinner. At a nice location. Not just nice, one of my favourite London locations.
Scary.
I take that back. I'm not scared - apprehensive and a little excited, yes - but not scared. Me and Mr Long Replyer have been getting on famously via e-mail, so I'm optimistic that conversation shouldn't flag.
Should I be worried that I find jokes about grammar endearing? Mr L-R cracked a joke about a semi-colon the other day and I literally laughed out loud. Got to love a guy who knows how to use a semi-colon correctly!
The bigger question is what to wear. It's going to be hot, but shouldn't I be careful not to inadvertently expose too much skin and scare him off? Are my feet ready for a public viewing from someone who I want to impress? Hmmmm. Important dilemmas...
Weird.
I have a date.
I have an actual date.
Not even 'just drinks', but dinner. At a nice location. Not just nice, one of my favourite London locations.
Scary.
I take that back. I'm not scared - apprehensive and a little excited, yes - but not scared. Me and Mr Long Replyer have been getting on famously via e-mail, so I'm optimistic that conversation shouldn't flag.
Should I be worried that I find jokes about grammar endearing? Mr L-R cracked a joke about a semi-colon the other day and I literally laughed out loud. Got to love a guy who knows how to use a semi-colon correctly!
The bigger question is what to wear. It's going to be hot, but shouldn't I be careful not to inadvertently expose too much skin and scare him off? Are my feet ready for a public viewing from someone who I want to impress? Hmmmm. Important dilemmas...
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Things you don't need to read
I am fascinated by the approach some men take to their profile composition.
Recently I came across a guy who's profile was hilarious - literally one comedy remark after another - nothing was taken seriously. Yes, his comments about tea amused me. Particularly:
"Why do we add extra letters onto the end of the word "tea" when just the first letter would create exactly the same sound? Is this the only instance of a silent "ea" in the English language?"
Recently I came across a guy who's profile was hilarious - literally one comedy remark after another - nothing was taken seriously. Yes, his comments about tea amused me. Particularly:
"Why do we add extra letters onto the end of the word "tea" when just the first letter would create exactly the same sound? Is this the only instance of a silent "ea" in the English language?"
However, not being serious about anything at all in fact had me wondering whether he was a deranged psychopath to be avoided at all costs.
Or what about the guys who manage to alternate between saying things that you love: "I'm looking for a girl who likes to be a bit girly and enjoys hugs, I like hugging"; and things that make you run to the hills: "I think women should fulfil their traditional role in the home"?
And then there's the "I've decided it's time I found a wife" men. I'm very glad that they've made such an important decision in their life and are being intentional about it, but really, on a dating site a woman's going to want a little more info on a potential husband other than that he reckons he's ready to settle down. After all, if my profile simply contained the phrase: "I've decided it's time I got married and I believe God has promised me a good husband" then I believe most men wouldn't give me a second look!
Oh, and my personal favourite gem from a profile: "I'd like to live in a yurt in the country at some point" I'm still trying to compose an e-mail to that guy at the moment, maybe I should open with "I've always wanted to live in a yurt..."
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Judgy Judgerson
There is nothing like online dating to reveal to yourself just how judging you are of others - and how, deep down, you're actually phenomenally shallow.
I'll only look at men who've bothered posting pictures. Within those, I'll only actually read the profiles of guys I find moderately attractive. Is this bad?
Actually, to make myself sound less bad, years ago when I dabbled in a free dating site, I went on a date with a guy whose photo I'd never seen. It was fine - he was perfectly nice, gentlemanly (took me to the opera) and not unattractive - but I didn't fancy him.
Oh, and I have the audacity to judge people on their names, despite the fact that no one can really do anything about what their parents name them! 'Glen'? Oh dear... [Although it's even worse when an anorak is included in the profile photo.]
And as for my photo? Oh, soooooo much thought had to go into that one! Thank goodness it gives you the opportunity to include three - allows you space for something showing your hair colour as well as a moody black and white shot.
You do need to think carefully about what your photo says about you:
Smiles - always good, as long as you don't look possessed.
Children - not good, tends to give the wrong impression. [As does that pic of you being a bridesmaid for the umpteenth time.]
Hair - choose photos that reflect your hairstyle of choice. If you flit between curly and straight include both so that potential suitors are aware of what you might look like should you meet.
Comedy - not good for your main photo, but excellent as an alternative. A friend joined the Christian site at the same time as me and included a picture of her rope swinging, which has already proved to be an excellent opener in e-mails from interested guys.
It's making me wonder if perhaps the Christian site is a little limited for my clearly judging nature. Can I really afford to be so picky?
I'll only look at men who've bothered posting pictures. Within those, I'll only actually read the profiles of guys I find moderately attractive. Is this bad?
Actually, to make myself sound less bad, years ago when I dabbled in a free dating site, I went on a date with a guy whose photo I'd never seen. It was fine - he was perfectly nice, gentlemanly (took me to the opera) and not unattractive - but I didn't fancy him.
Oh, and I have the audacity to judge people on their names, despite the fact that no one can really do anything about what their parents name them! 'Glen'? Oh dear... [Although it's even worse when an anorak is included in the profile photo.]
And as for my photo? Oh, soooooo much thought had to go into that one! Thank goodness it gives you the opportunity to include three - allows you space for something showing your hair colour as well as a moody black and white shot.
You do need to think carefully about what your photo says about you:
Smiles - always good, as long as you don't look possessed.
Children - not good, tends to give the wrong impression. [As does that pic of you being a bridesmaid for the umpteenth time.]
Hair - choose photos that reflect your hairstyle of choice. If you flit between curly and straight include both so that potential suitors are aware of what you might look like should you meet.
Comedy - not good for your main photo, but excellent as an alternative. A friend joined the Christian site at the same time as me and included a picture of her rope swinging, which has already proved to be an excellent opener in e-mails from interested guys.
It's making me wonder if perhaps the Christian site is a little limited for my clearly judging nature. Can I really afford to be so picky?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Writer's block and Verbal Diarrhoea
Why is it that the first e-mail is always the hardest?
You scan profiles, trying not to sound too lame, trying to come up with a more ingenius subject than 'Hello'.
You angst for minutes over how to end it and whether to sign off with a kiss.
Then you wait - interminably - for a reply.
So far, I've sent three e-mails and yet only one guy's responded. And they're Christians! Hmph.
When a reply does arrive, the temptation is to reply immediately - especially if you're someone like me who tends to forget to reply if you leave it too long.
With Mr Long Replyer, I spent a couple of hours composing an eloquent reply (well, I was distracted by things like Facebook chat, blog stats, a skype call and a change of government...) and within hours had another very long response - followed by a one sentence follow up the next morning! Impressive.
But, I'm a writer. I find answering questions about myself very easy - it's why I'm committed to blog writing, surely the most narcissistic past-time there is! I know I can write well, amusingly, interestingly - it doesn't take a lot of effort. [And that's not me being big-headed, honest!] My fear is that I won't live up to it in the flesh.
Plus, I know from past experience that I can build up really good relationships via the written word that don't quite match in practice - like the friend who I couldn't stand in person, yet via blogging and e-mailing we became close friends. Weird.
Oh well, there is now one actual date on the cards. Well, it's been suggested and I've agreed that it sounds like a good idea - an actual date in the diary is yet to be established.
In the mean time, I'll get back to the e-mail I started writing 2 hours ago. Unsurprisingly, it's another of the 'firsts', very tricky.
You scan profiles, trying not to sound too lame, trying to come up with a more ingenius subject than 'Hello'.
You angst for minutes over how to end it and whether to sign off with a kiss.
Then you wait - interminably - for a reply.
So far, I've sent three e-mails and yet only one guy's responded. And they're Christians! Hmph.
When a reply does arrive, the temptation is to reply immediately - especially if you're someone like me who tends to forget to reply if you leave it too long.
With Mr Long Replyer, I spent a couple of hours composing an eloquent reply (well, I was distracted by things like Facebook chat, blog stats, a skype call and a change of government...) and within hours had another very long response - followed by a one sentence follow up the next morning! Impressive.
But, I'm a writer. I find answering questions about myself very easy - it's why I'm committed to blog writing, surely the most narcissistic past-time there is! I know I can write well, amusingly, interestingly - it doesn't take a lot of effort. [And that's not me being big-headed, honest!] My fear is that I won't live up to it in the flesh.
Plus, I know from past experience that I can build up really good relationships via the written word that don't quite match in practice - like the friend who I couldn't stand in person, yet via blogging and e-mailing we became close friends. Weird.
Oh well, there is now one actual date on the cards. Well, it's been suggested and I've agreed that it sounds like a good idea - an actual date in the diary is yet to be established.
In the mean time, I'll get back to the e-mail I started writing 2 hours ago. Unsurprisingly, it's another of the 'firsts', very tricky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)