Heh, before writing a response to the question, I was going to ask you the same thing. What IS the difference between the two? Depending on your answer, I could go either way.

Romance is more important because passion is ephemeral while lasting affection and emotional intimacy should survive "until death do us part."

OR

Passion is more important because a good relationship doesn't need the gushy, insincere, emotional pap that often accompanies the beginning of a relationship. Genuine respect and intimacy don't have to be sappy. Being excited about one's partner, on the other hand, is crucial.

Does anybody really need to say, "I don't want a partner who will hurt me," though? I don't think that anybody imagines that people who don't say "I'm tired of playing of games" want to play games. The argument, I believe, is not that such a statement is untrue but that it is unnecessary. As others have noticed, it lacks substance. I would much rather learn that somebody likes knitting, owns a Boston terrier, and enjoys coffee with a shot of Irish cream. "I am looking for a man who can keep it real" doesn't help anybody determine whether they'd be a good match.

p.s. Your profile contains paraphrased lyrics from "Rosemary's Granddaughter." Was that intentional or subconscious?

Rather than contribute to the irony of this thread, I'll contribute a comment instead. I sometimes read threads without commenting because I lack expertise or insight into the matter being discussed, even though it is a topic that I'd like to read. I won't point fingers, but I would rather not comment at all than add a "That is so true!" to a thread where I have nothing more to add.

I've heard a similar joke with the same punchline, but it makes me sad to see it here. There really are out-of-work people who'd like to have a job. One of my gripes with capitalism (even the regulated capitalism like we have here in the US) is that you have these rich blokes up top who are obligated to make more money for the shareholders so they cut jobs down below in the name of efficiency. I'm not saying we should go for full-blown, Russian-style, communist inefficiency. I would, however, tolerate just a little inefficiency if it meant 1) everybody who wanted a job could have one and 2) we were comparable to the rest of the world in hours worked per week and weeks worked per year. Americans work ourselves to death.

Woohoo! Giant Robo arrived in the mail today. That's one I might just sit down and watch by myself. I don't especially like watching the boob tube alone, but I may make an exception for Giant Robo.

I also get the vibe that "nice" refers to a woman who has chosen not to have sex -- or at least one who is very selective about with whom she'll have sex.

I sympathize with you when you say that "I just feel sometimes, like I've waited long enough, something needs to happen soon." I went though a similar dilemma very recently and posted about it here. (Link: http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/53112) I've reaffirmed my commitment, though, to waiting for the right woman.

As far as why you've been single for 3.5 years, I really couldn't say. I've been in a few relationships in my life, but except for one woman, who I met on eHarmony, I couldn't really tell you HOW I got into any of them. Have you been on any dates in that time? Were the men you met just not compatible with you? I've recently adopted the principle that every relationship begins with a single date and I've been posting ads at Craigslist that really just as simple as "I want a date on Saturday." I'd need more information about your circumstances, though because otherwise, all I can offer is speculation.

One possibility about which I would speculate is that if you HAVE had dates but the men you've gone out with haven't been compatible with you, then perhaps you need to review what you've been looking for in the men you're dating. Maybe you're looking for one thing that you like that's closely tied to another thing that you don't like. (The typical example of this is the confidence/A-hole coupling.)

Hikerchick and Newwaters, I am flattered by your praise. Maybe I'll write a short essay elaborating upon those ideas. I think that a lot of people would be happier with the dating site experience if they used it just to make contact with people who they then try to meet in real life. I used to use online social networking as a substitute for making friends in meatspace and I am glad that I've made progress away from that bad habit.

You note that you believe that they may just be pleas against abnormal behaviour and I think that's partially the case. I have also come to the conclusion lately that they may also be an attempt at asserting one's own normalcy. The fact that such disclaimers are so commonplace only reinforces the notion, whether it is correct or incorrect, that saying those things is a good, "normal" thing to do.

I've had a breakthrough recently. I've stopped looking for Ms. Right on dating web sites. The fact of the matter is, neither she nor I will know whether we're right for one another until we've seen each other a few times. I mention a few of my preferences for long-term relationships, but all I've been asking for recently is one date. My ad at Craigslist begins with "Every relationship begins with a single date. That's what I'm looking for."

That was a bit tangential, but the point I was trying to make was that these people asserting their normalcy or pleading for their partner to be normal are looking to get way more out of a dating web site than it's really good for.

Word play is like foreplay for lexophiles.

Mmm... Egg McMuffin. With sausage and a hash brown on the side. It's funny, 'cause now I want one.

Yowser. As a leg, ankle, and foot man, I find this incredibly hot.

Evangelion is a very influential anime, so there isn't any surprise that other shows are reminiscent of it. I've never seen Eureka 7, but we watched Dual in the anime club when I was in college. The similarities there bordered on parody. I used to shout during the opening credits, "You'd have to be insane to see any resemblance whatsoever between the show you are about to see and Neon Genesis Evangelion."

As a celibate myself, I would obviously date another celibate. I've heard mention a variety of relatively weak arguments in favour of premarital sex and/or against premarital abstinence that I'd like to address.
"Celibates just want to be friends. Celibates have weak libidos."
This is absolutely untrue. I have chosen to be celibate until I am married, but it is a decision I have made based on morality and faith. I can say with relative confidence that my libido is as strong as any other 26-year-old man's.

"Sex is good for you. It releases endorphins and relieves tension. Anyway, you need to confirm that you're sexually compatible with your partner before committing, right?
These are excellent arguments from a purely pragmatic view, but they ignore the moral arguments that those of us who have chosen celibacy employ. I am not here to push a moral agenda on anybody else, but it bears repeating that I've chosen to obey a stricter moral code. If I may make an exaggerated analogy, nobody would condone murder if it were found to be a good way of relieving tension. I do not debate the pragmatic value of frequent and vigorous sex among consenting adults. I believe, however, that there are additional factors that require me to abstain until I am married, nonetheless.

Hooray! Fushigi Yugi arrived in the mail today. Now, I just have to find a local girl with whom to watch it. Any Minneapolis ladies interested in free food and anime?

I'm pretty sure that it's cos(t). It might be -cos(t), though. I could never remember whether dsin(t)/dt or dcos(t)/dt inverts the sign. Either way, give or take a factor of -1, sin(t) and cos(t) are each other's derivative.

You may argue that love is seldom/never a pragmatic endeavour, but I also only search for women who are geographically close to me. As Penny G. noted, a long distance relationship must either culminate in a breakup or in somebody moving to be with the other person. It is my opinion that the commitment necessary to make that kind of a move a sensible idea almost can't be generated over that kind of distance. I'm a "whole package" kind of guy, so the physical side of the relationship has to be there too. (I don't mean sexual intimacy. To me, the hugs and the holding hands are VERY important parts of a developing relationship.) Without the whole package, I couldn't make the kind of commitment that a long-distance relationship would require to evolve.

Hey, if the lazy bastard can't even be bothered to cash a cheque, he can do without.

A stitch in time saves nine [stitches]. It just doesn't rhyme, though. Okay, I realize that this was supposed to be a joke thread, but I really did used to wonder about that saying.

I've heard this one before. Change 'plagued' to 'vexed' and it sounds even better.

Sure, why not? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If I've learned something from reading PUA articles and I'm more confident in my approach as a result, what's the problem? I recognize that there are valid criticisms against some of the advice given and also against some of the practitioners of pickup artistry. If I'm only acting upon sound, ethical advice, though, and it's working, there's hardly room for criticism.