We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I am a fan of online dating, especially for those who are out of school. There is just no other way to interview so many available candidates efficiently, with the advantage of screening them in advance.
When people get divorced, I usually recommend that a person have a coffee with at least 25-30 candidates, at minimum, before deciding to get involved with anyone. That's because the recently-divorced are usually lonely, unhappy, sex-starved; often hurt or angry or worried about the future, and generally prone to poor judgement and poor choices. However, those things may apply to many single people.
I'm 51. I've never been married, and yes , I'm straight. Being online during my lifetime has introduced me to some remarkable women who in "ordinary" circumstances, I would never have come in contact with. Several developed into very satisfying long term relationships.
Since I've never been married it follows that I've never been divorced, but 25-30 "candidates" at "a minimum" seems a wee bit of an overkill to me. It really depends on the individuals involved. Interesting post Doc.
I assume everyone in an online dating service lies, why would that be a good place to find a date? I think "interview" is too clinical, I mean either you like the other person or you do not. Either you are attracted to them or you are not. If the feeling is mutual then you have something, maybe. Time will tell but an "interview", not so much.
I think too many people believe in 'chemistry.' I am a believer in compatibility and asking the right questions. Compatibility is about having the right things in common - religion, economic upbringing, how you spend money, how you save money, child rearing, etc.
Too many people go for chemistry first, get romantically entangled with someone, and then force it to work by compromising their values to keep the relationship going.
If you eliminate candidates by strictly sticking to your list of values, you would be surprised how you will end up with the right chemistry, too.
This is why online dating works so well for people who approach it in the right way. It is not about sex and physical attraction. It's about finding the right personality for you and THEN seeing if there is a physical attraction. You can avoid a lot of relationship disasters this way.
It certainly makes sense to do what is right for you. However to me that sounds too clinical almost as if with the right questions your mother or a good friend could pick your mate for you. Love is what allows you to get through tough times and rough spots. I cannot imagine choosing someone as a mate/spouse without love. I cannot think of a single question that could indicate "love" in the answer. My simple observation is of the people I know who are and have for a long time been without a soulmate without exception they all have a list of requirements.
There is no guarantee in relationships. It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.