Kathryn's Blog: Books, Movies, and TV

Millionaire Dating and the Yick Factor

I watched the first episode of Millionaire Matchmaker and I have to say that even though I have set the Tivo to tape the whole series, I dunno if I am going to be able to stomach watching.  The Yick Factor was VERY high.

I sorta liked last year’s Confessions of a Matchmaker.  Patti Novak in Buffalo worked with average folks and did what she could to pair them up.  I even sat next to Patti this last fall at a conference.  She’s “just plain folks” herself.  Doesn’t look like A&E has continued the show for another season.  Maybe later.

But Millionaire Matchmaker—oooeee!  These are not just plain folks at all.

Patti Stanger started The Millionaire’s Club in 2000. From the website:  Patti realized that busy, upscale men simply didn’t have the time to go looking for a relationship, weren’t meeting the kind of women that they dreamed about, or were looking for a certain “type” that they couldn’t currently find. These men needed a service where they could be introduced to exceptionally beautiful women in a relaxing, discreet and confidential manner.

The Millionaire Club is based in Los Angeles, and it shows.  Money money money— in exchange for looks looks looks.  The guys?  Puhleeze!  On the first show, one of them made his money selling sex toys online, and the other was in his mid 40’s and wanted to date women in their 20’s.  Even Patti thought the cradle robber was seriously deluded and told him so.  Mr. Sex Toy had to be told to hide the sex toys in his office, but couldn’t be convinced to move the stripping pole there too.

Now, the Millionaire Club staff got together a bevy of gorgeous women for these two to look over—and amazingly enough, none of the ladies left when they found out about the source of Mr. Sex Toy’s money.  They were all coiffed and made up to the 9’s, in teensy dresses that they hung out over on all edges, and were teetering around in high heels.

Both guys pick one for a date, both guys wanted to see the ladies again, and both ladies dropped out.  Glad to see that the girls at lease had some taste.  Mr. Sex Toy and date (Harvard educated, can you believe?) had a nice dinner in a restaurant, then HE TAKES HER BACK TO HIS PLACE AND DOES A DANCE ON THE POLE FOR HER.  At least he kept his clothes on.  Minus for her that it took her a couple of more dates to say “No thanks.”

Mr. Cradle Robber took his date out on what looked like a huge yacht with its own crew.  Even though she said she’s see him again, she didn’t return his calls to set up the date.  Bully for her.

I’d like to know what y’all think of these millionaire matching sites.  Do they creep you out like they do me?


A Wal-Mart Wedding?  Maybe next year…

You are probably too late to win this year, but you might get an invitation ...

Wanna Win a Wal-Mart Wedding?

Wal-Mart is giving seven lucky couples wedding packages worth more than $5,000, including rings, wedding cakes invitations and flowers and other related items.

The nuptials will take place in the lawn and garden sections of the couple’s local Wal-Mart Supercenters. The couples are to tie the knot in ceremonies all on July Seventh.


Book Review - “Self-Made Man”

I just finished THE most interesting book I have read in a long time: “Self-Made Man” by Norah Vincent.  The subtitle says it all: “One Woman’s Journey into Manhood and Back.” 

Vincent mastered male disguise and surreptitiously made her way into one traditional males-only bastion after another, all the way from a men’s bowling league and strip joints to a Catholic monastery and a Rober Bly-style men’s group.  And not once for each of these venues, but over and over and over again. 

Both female and lesbian, Vincent was a double outsider in these all-male and mostly heterosexual groups.  Her struggles to master male dress and behavior (and subsequent constant fear of discovery of her female-ness) and her constant surprises as her experiences of these men belied her expectations made for fascinating reading.

Interestingly, Vincent used Internet dating for her forays into heterosexual love (if you can call a lesbian masquerading as a man, trying to date women, as heterosexual love).  The Internet part is rater incidental to Vincent’s main point that dating and love, which she thought would be the easiest for her as a man, were the hardest.  You’ll have to read the book to find out why.

As a Romance Coach working with heterosexuals who are trying to meaningfully connect with each other, I found “Self-Made Man” a page-turner, and am almost ready to say it is a “must-read” for all my clients, female and male.  Vincent’s attempts to span the gender gap, her struggles to fit in, and the realization that she never would, plus her guilt and discomfort with being in disguise and essentially fooling these often endearing men, made for riveting reading.  I think this book can definitely help women understand men better, and interestingly, men have more understanding for women.  Plus help both to gain an increased appreciation for the “unbridgeable gap” between the two.  Five chocolate dipped strawberries!

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


“Biggest Loser,” “Ugly Betty,” and Downright Mean

I’ve found myself in a nasty quagmire a few times lately over
meanness.  When I heard about the shows “Ugly Betty” and “The
Biggest Loser,” I couldn’t believe the shows’ titles.  Whatever
the actual shows were about, those titles are MEAN.  I decided
not to watch either just on principle.  Not even to see what they
were about.

Around the same time, “Borat” hit the theaters around here.  What
did “Borat” mean?  No negative connotations that I could
determine, but the reviews both piqued my interest and turned me
off at the same time.  I did have what I called a perverse
interest in seeing it, even though I was worried that I would
laugh and then be embarrassed that I had found something funny.

I couldn’t talk anyone into going with me.  Drew doesn’t like
comedies.  Meg wasn’t interested.  But then we were all at a
party where several people raved about how much they had liked
it.  Meg went without me, and then reported back that she hated
it and found it had “no redeeming social value at all.”  Since
Meg has a finely tuned ethical barometer, I believed her.  She
did say that the guy she went with laughed and that made her mad
—at him.  Since the premise of “Borat” seems to be tricking
real people into acting like their real selves on film, no matter
how caddish they are, I am glad I did not go.  Tricking people
and laughing at them is not something I find funny.  No matter how
boorish they are.

Then, I slid into some very disturbing conversations with “The
Biggest Loser” fans who tried to convince me how great the show
was, how it was really educational (fat people would learn how to
eat and exercise by watching it), and how the
biggest loser was really a winner.  Somehow, I couldn’t be
convinced.  How could a show that played on the commonly
understood phrase “the biggest loser” (as in “He is the biggest
loser”) possibly be construed as a positive experience for people
struggling with weight?  Which more and more people in this
country are doing every day.

Rather than break my pledge to myself not to add to the Nielson
ratings of “The Biggest Loser,” I Googled the show and found this
Entertainment Weekly review which put my
worst fears into words.  Here are a few of them:

But there’s a loathsome, mock-the-fatty undertow to Biggest
Loser. Part of the ugliness comes courtesy of the editing. ....

Loser’s challenges are even more manipulative: Many of the stunts
have no goal but to ridicule - or punish - the contestants. One
can argue that forcing out-of-shape folks to climb to the top of
that L.A. building was a lesson in perseverance. But what’s the
point of making them squeeze in and out of car windows too small
for them? Or forcing them to build a tower of pastries using only
their mouths? Or compete for a bag of lard? (Thereby forcing a
nation to make an immediate, collective ‘‘tub of’’ reference.)

More Googling, this time on “Ugly Betty”, brought up the ABC
“Ugly Betty” website.  The banner across the top reads: “Ugly is
in!  Go to the ABC store to buy this T-shirt and get an Ugly
Betty ring free!  ABC’s net proceeds to benefit Girls Inc.,
inspiring all girls to be strong, smart and bold.”

Then I go to girlsinc.com where I find the following:

Girls Inc. is teaming up with ABC on the “BE UGLY ‘07” campaign.
The campaign encourages people to be real in a superficial world,
just like the title character of ABC’s hit show, Ugly Betty.
Girls Inc. kicked off the partnership at a luncheon event hosted
by ABC Entertainment and CosmoGIRL! magazine, where Girls Inc.
girls met the show’s star, America Ferrera. Congratulations to
America Ferrera and the Ugly Betty team on their recent Golden
Globe wins!

First off, the girls in the accompanying photo with “Ugly Betty”
start America Ferrera (what a name) did not particularly happy or
in on the joke.  And Ferrera was by far the prettiest girl in the
picture.  And co-host COSMOGIRL???  Go on over to that site.
No ugly girls there.

ABC has made a half-hearted attempt to defend the show name “Ugly
Betty” by starting a “movement” to reclaim ugly and make the term
a positive one.  Like black folks reclaiming n****r and gay folks
reclaiming queer, faggot, and dyke.  The difference that self-
serving ABC does not see is that n****r, queer, faggot and dyke
are only okay when used by the minority group with each other,
usually affectionately.  Those terms have a far different
connotation when used by the non-minority group members.  Ugly
has a long ways to go.  Who would ever want to be called “ugly,”
whether or not the namer was ugly, too?

Even more ridiculous is that the “Ugly Betty” character is not
ugly!  The actress who plays her is beautiful, and the “ugliness”
seems to be glasses, braces, and a bad fashion sense.  She looks
like a gawky 13 year old girl who could easily become a real
beauty in just a few years.  What about someone truly ugly?  A
disfigured actress who looked it?  Would that be so funny?

What about a reality series about people who were messy and
needed help getting organized?  We could call it “The Dirtiest
****”!  You name the minority.  Lots would fit.  They could get a
free house makeover.  Why stop there?  How about a free new house
to the dirtiest?

Segue to a story from the Netherlands:

Dutch shock at proposed dating show for ‘visibly disfigured’

The Netherlands, the country that has pioneered reality shows
like “Big Brother”, is planning a new first - a dating programme
for the visibly disfigured.

The broadcaster SBS 6 is seeking candidates for its “Love at
Second Sight” show due to be launched in February.

“Do you have a visible serious handicap and are you looking for a
partner?” says an appeal on its Web site.

“The programme is a platform for people with such problems to
share experiences and feelings in a positive way with the rest of
the Netherlands and to show that they are absolutely not
pitiful,” the broadcaster said.

“The main aim of the programme is to remove prejudice about these
people, to create more acceptance and respect and, of course, to
find the love of their lives.”

But the majority of Dutch viewers are turned off by the show that
was initially set to be called “Monster Love”.

A poll by the mass circulation De Telegraaf daily showed 85
percent do not like the idea, with only 9 percent in favour.

MosterMonster Love”?  Need I say more???


Kathryn’s Best Gift Picks

What to Buy for Your Single Friends Who Wish they Weren’t
Single (And Maybe for Yourself)

Holidays can be tough times for singles. You included. How
about thinking of your single friends (and you!) for some special
treatment this year? P. S. New Year’s is coming too, and what a
perfect time to resolve never to go through this time of year
alone again! Here are my best suggestions to help singles change
their status to coupled:


When I was doing online dating back in 1998, I couldn’t find ANY
books that helped. I was on my own. Now, thank goodness, lots
of writing has come out. My “Top Ten” list is posted on my

Here are three more books that I discovered this year and than I
have been recommending over and over:

“A Fine Romance” by Judith Sills. This is a fine, fine book.
The full title is ” A Fine Romance: The Passage from Meeting to
Marriage,” and Sills beautifully describes just that, the step-
by-step process from singlehood to being paired. Best of all,
Sills identifies “stuck points” along the way, common and
expected hitches in the process that can derail the best of couples.

And she tells you how to manage and move through the morass. A
“must read” for anyone contemplating looking for love.

“The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout. Now, here’s a book
for the other, less optimistic side of love. We’ve all heard the
scary stories about cyberlove gone wrong. I’m skeptical about
the real frequency of fraud and deception, but the stories do
sell papers, so we get them. And I also believe it is just as
easy (if not easier) to meet a fraud, rapist or murderer in
church as it is on the Internet. If we read all the news, we
know that. But some folks are out to get us (Stout says 1 in 25
Americans feel no guilt), and it is in our own best interest to
be able to spot them before they do us in. Martha Stout
describes with chilling clarity the sociopathic personality and
how to recognize it. Be prepared to recognize folks that you
know, particularly politicians. Maybe even family members.

“Did You Spot the Gorilla?” By Richard Wiseman. I’ve been
enjoying Richard Wiseman’s books for a few years now. Wiseman
is a British psychologist and former magician who researches all
kinds of interesting phenomenon like ghosts, the paranormal and
luck. He’s got a new book out that’s a short, easy read, and
that should be mandatory for online daters: “Did You Spot the
Gorilla? How to Recognize Hidden Opportunities.” It’s
essentially a training manual for learning to see what’s under
your nose—and often missed. Unfortunately, “Gorilla” doesn’t
seem to be available in the U. S. A. yet, but you can buy it
through the U. K. division of Amazon.
I didn’t know that it was possible to order books from Britain,
but Wiseman told me how to do so, and it works.

Dating Sites

If you have done any nosing around online, you know that there
are jillions of dating sites, and most come and go. Really,
unless you are part of a small minority and want to go where
others like you go too, then stick with the big sites that
everyone knows and lists on.

I ALWAYS suggest either Match.com or or both. I
met my Sweetie Drew on Match.com, so I hold a special fondness
for Match. But I have come to appreciate Yahoo! Personals
equally. And Yahoo! Personals appreciates me, too: I write for
Yahoo! Personals online magazine.

Yahoo! Personals offers a gift certificate. Go to
and scroll down to the bottom of the
page, third line from the bottom, second hyperlink from the right
will take you to the page to set up the gift. It’s $24.95 for a

Now, if this is a GOOD friend—or yourself—I’d suggest the
real deal of 6 months on Yahoo! Personals for $74.95—that’s a
dirt cheap $12.49 per month. Or what I consider the First Class
Option, Yahoo! Personals Premier at $124.95 for six months (which
works out to $20.85 a month). If you would like to know why I
particularly recommend Yahoo! Premier, check out my blog entry

I’m not sure if you can give those longer subs to another person,
but you could offer to pay for your chum!

Match.com is slightly more expensive than Yahoo!—$24.99 for
one month, $14.99 if you sign up for six months. But I
discovered a deal that Match.com has running: If you sign up
for six months and follow their guidelines (very important that
you understand the rules and follow them), and have not met
someone special in that amount of time, Match.com will GIVE you
another six months. Who can pass on a deal like that? If you
find you need the next six months, then your costs are a measly
$7.49 per month. Find more info here.

Profile Resources

If you have looked around on dating sites, you know what a
profile is: Just about all the sites base their listings around a
personal essay of sorts, photos, and list of likes and dislikes.
Virtually every one of my clients has needed work to shape up
their online presentation. After all, it’s you 24 hour a day
billboard, and you hope that it finds you the very best partner
for life. It should be the best you can make.

I do profile reviews (looking over and critiquing what you
already have posted), rewrites (new essays), and complete work-
ups (starting from scratch). It’s a deal at $99 total. An even
better deal? Sign up for a basic coaching package (Four 1/2 hour
sessions) and get the $99 Profile Work up for free! Email me to
set up a profile review gift: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

The most important part by far? A great photo. Just about
everyone needs a better one, and I ALWAYS suggest using
LookBetterOnline.com My clients have had very good results and
just those new photos would get them much more attention. The
cost is a very reasonable $129 for twelve Internet ready colored
photos. A deal. If you use LookBetterOnline.com, let them know
I sent you. They know me and treat my folks well.

Here’s what a Romance Client wrote me recently about her
LookBetterOnline.com photos:

“Here are my new photos taken last Friday. I look spectacular!!.
The photographer took 96 shots and I had to only pick 12 OH MY
The difference between the photo this woman had been
using and the new ones was astounding.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


Dating Shows Get Canceled - Thank Goodness!

While last summer’s “Hooking Up,” was not perfect, beside this summer’s offering of “How to Get the Guy” (and it also seems, Australia’s “Yasmin’s Getting Married”), “Hooking Up” could get an Oscar.  I hadn’t even seen “How to Get the Guy” when I wrote about it here on June 13th but I was already sure it would be pretty awful, and it was.  Very stagey, and the “coaches”???  From that show’s point of view, if you were married, attractive, and good on TV, you could be a dating coach.  Forget about knowledge and experience.  Yuck.  Well, I was not the only one who thought this series was a very bad idea . ABC canceled the series before anybody got anyone.  (By the way, if you were a fan, you can see the canceled shows on ABC’s website.  Isn’t that a TREAT??!!)

I read a couple of weeks ago that in Australia, they were getting ready to air what sounded like an equally cheesy show called “Yasmin’s Getting Married,” where a single woman would pick a guy while planning her wedding and marry the poor sap.  Well, now it seems that Australians have as much good sense as the American audience.  After just one week (the showed aired every night), it was canceled.  Still eight weeks before the supposed wedding.  Well?  Will Yasmin get married, really?  Who knows?

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord

PS Wikipedia writes about everything.  Even Yasmin.  Well, almost everything.  They don’t do “How to Get the Guy.”  No big loss.


Go For It, Uma!!!

From a brand new posting on ContactMusic.com:

Newly single UMA THURMAN is so desperate to get back on the dating scene she’s considering joining a showbiz dating service. The statuesque KILL BILL beauty, who is twice-divorced and recently ended a two-year relationship with ANDRE BALAZS, insists it’s hard for celebrities to find love because potential suitors are put off by their fame. But Thurman is convinced she’s found the perfect remedy for showbiz singletons. She says, “Wouldn’t it be funny if there were a celebrity online dating service for all the lost and lonely, socially inept, dysfunctional celebrities… who don’t know how to meet anybody?”

My reaction:
Ugh!  Desperate???  Uma’s just being smart!  Online dating is now second only to friends and family as a preferred way for singles to find a sweetheart.  And if Uma gets online, you can be sure that there will be many smartees that will follow her.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


Newsweek Finally Eats Its Words

Do you remember where you were around the first of June 20 years
ago? While not etched in my memory as firmly as when JFK was
shot (I was in ninth grade gym class) or when the Twin Towers got
hit (I was watching “Good Morning America” and husband Drew was
in a plane heading for Washington, D. C.), I know that I was
single, trying yet again to figure out the dating scene, and
living on an island in Maine where the pickings were pretty slim.

Twenty years ago from this past June 5, Newsweek published it’s
famous/infamous cover story called “The Marriage Crunch: If
You’re a Single Woman, Here Are Your Chances of Getting Married,”
illustrated in a glaring red, white, and blue graph that look
like the ski jump the unfortunate guy crashed off in the old
“Wide World of Sports” intro. The story’s most memorable line,
branded into every woman’s memory to this day, was that a 40 year
old single woman was “more likely to get killed by a terrorist”
than to ever marry.

I had been reading Newsweek faithfully since high school, and
figured “If Newsweek says so, it must be true.” But GHADS! What
a horribly depressing message. While I wasn’t quite 40 yet and
had already been married once, this news felt like the marital
kiss of death.

Well, it has taken 20 years, but Newsweek has finally eaten it’s
words. The June 5, 2006 issue’s cover story re-looks at the
original article, and admits “Why we were wrong.” Seems like in
general, Newsweek was reporting on a study that used past models
to predict the future, and they were wrong. Read the whole

Here are three pieces of info I found most interesting:

1. At least 90% of Baby Boomers have married or will marry.

2. Fourteen single women were profiled in the first article 20
years ago. Newsweek went back and found 11 of the 14. Eight of
those 11 women had subsequently married, AND (drum roll please)
have had no divorces.

3. The infamous line about a 40 year old single woman “more
likely to get killed by a terrorist” than to marry was a throw-
away line that the editors thought was so clearly over the top
that everyone would get it was a joke. Well, we didn’t.

So if you are over 40 and still single, rejoice! Newsweek was
wrong, your odds of getting married if you want to are getting
better all the time, and the chances are you won’t get killed by
anyone, let alone a terrorist.

From Your Romance Coach , Kathryn Lord



I can’t believe a commercial I just saw on TV.  It was one of those mushy ones of women looking for wedding dresses, then a shot of the bride and groom in front of their guests, when come to find out, it was the older woman getting married, rather than the young ones who were her daughters.  “How nice, what a terrific twist on the wedding theme,” I thought, until the product being plugged came up:  Depends.  Adult diapers.  Can you imagine?  Using a wedding of an older couple to advertise diapers.  Really.  That’s a stretch.  I wonder if she told him before the ceremony?

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


Lovespring International

Well, you know when online dating and matchmaking has hit the mainstream when tv shows come out using them as themes.  Last year, ABC did “Hooking Up” which was great fun (and painful) to watch and quite an education.  I wrote about it many times on my blog when it was on—you’ll find the entries here.

This summer brings two offerings: “Lovespring International” on Lifetime and “How to Get the Guy” on ABC.  We had such bad weather here last night (Alberto) that “How to” did not record, but I saw “Lovespring International” last week and this, and my goodness, it is a hoot.

“Lovespring International” is a comedy and meant to be so, in the same vein as HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”  It is so tongue-in-cheek and sharp, I love it already.  It’s hard to say who I like best, but when Tiffany the receptionist is on the screen, I am straining for her every whispered word.  The psychologist character is too much.  If you are in the mood to laugh at dating and matchmaking foibles, you’ve got to check this out.

I’ve already got a negative edge about “how to Get the Guy.”  This purports to be a reality show, but the two folks that they call love coaches J D Roberto and Theresa Strasser seem to have much more media experience than coaching know-how. 

Here’s what my reader Ben wrote me this morning:

I saw How to Get the Guy last night, and I thought
that it was pretty funny.  As a reality show, it
seemed more fake and contrived than others (for
example, the cheesy voiceovers that the women give).
Also, I have my doubts about the “love coaches”.
However, the women and their situations appeared to be

Anybody else want to chime in on these two offerings?

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


“Secrets of the Sexes” is a Must-See

I was so lucky when I got the satellite dish TV system installed here in our new Tallahassee house.  The special deal at the time included a DVD recorder, and I am hooked.  I know, most of you probably have had this technology (like Tivo) for years, but it was all new to me.

I’ve got it set to record all kinds of things so that I always have something interesting to watch when I am in the mood.  My big find this past week has been PBS’s ““Secrets of the Sexes.  I watched the first two parts the other night.  Wow!  Fascinating.

So I did some Googling around about the series (one more left, which will be on next week), and found out that it is a British series that first aired last week.  I went to the BBC site and Bull’s Eye!  Lots of free info, AND tests that you can take that were the type of tests used by the sex researches who took part in the series.

If “Secrets of the Sexes” shows in your area, set your Tivo to record, or if you are behind even me in getting current with DVD recording, try to catch the shows when they air.  If you are at all interested in the scientific reasoning on why people (men. women, and attraction) do what they do, you will get some great info.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


Manhattan Matchmaker on TV

If you get the cable channel “W Network” (cable channel 34?), you
might want to check out a series they are playing called
“Manhattan Matchmaker.”  I don’t get the channel, but the show
looks interesting.  Click here for the program schedule.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


Match.com has Helen Fisher

eHarmony has Neil Clark Warren. I don’t know if he designed eHarmony’s testing himself, but the site sure uses his Dr. status up front. Pepper Schwartz designed the matching tests for PerfectMatch.com. I’ve followed Pepper Schwartz’s work for years, ever since her landmark book “American Couples” in the late &0’s. And now Match.com has Helen Fisher.

Who’s Helen Fisher? She’s an anthropologist and researcher at Rutgers who wrote the terrific book “Why We Love” that I reviewed in my enewsletter *eMAIL to eMATE* some months ago. I’ll copy the review below for your enjoyment.

What’s Helen Fisher doing for Match.com? Looks like she has designed the matching test for Match’s new site Chemistry.com. Fisher takes the angle in the test that she took in “Why We Love,” using questions to ferret out your brain chemistry to help in the matches. You can read more about it in Love that title.

And here’s another reason to read the article: At the very end is a test on how to determine how much testosterone you were exposed to before birth. You’ll be carrying around a measuring tape, and not to find out the length of what you are thinking….

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord

Here’s my review:

“Why We Love” by Helen Fisher

I’m always interested in what’s new on the romance and love front, and get my best leads from my eMAIL to eMATE readers and my romance coaching clients. Sure enough, “Why We Love” joins my “Recommended Reading for Romantics” list. Thanks for suggesting it, Doreen! This book is a goodie.

The author Helen Fisher does a terrific job of presenting the latest information on the biochemistry of emotions and love in a fascinating and readable style. Her own theorizing on falling in love, the facts that support and lead her ideas, and poetry, literature, and contemporary examples are woven seamlessly into a readable whole. Understandably, with my psychotherapy and now romance coaching clients, I’ve done a lot of thinking and talking about love and romance myself. And I’m pleased to see that Fisher’s thoughts and the research support and parallel my own theorizing.

Fisher thinks (and the research she quotes agrees) that romantic love has played a vital and important in human survival and development. “Normal” romantic passion lasts between one and two years, which, when you think about it, is just enough time for a new couple to get pregnant, set up housekeeping, and start raising a new infant - not necessarily in that order. Then a new kind of attachment develops, hopefully, that keeps the family together to raise the child. As we well know, that is not a foolproof arrangement.

Fisher’s booked is crammed with riveting detail about the physiology and biochemistry of love and attraction. Fisher also extrapolates from her data and gives advice on how to use the findings in real life. She writes about how to make romance last, how to negotiate the end of a relationship quicker and easier, and even how to encourage someone to fall in love with you as well as make yourself more receptive to the in-love state.

Some of what she says sounds terribly familiar - men like to do things together, women like to talk about it, for instance - but Fisher goes ahead and explains why. She also adds some brand-new, contemporary details, like the role of serotonin in the falling-in-love process, and how elevated levels of serotonin inhibit your ability to fall in love. For those of us (and there are millions!) who take anti-depressants that are SSRI’s (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, prozac is the best known), take heed. Your medications that are helping your feel better may be getting in the way romantically.

If you’ve wondered about romance and why men and women do what they do - and who hasn’t? - Fisher has a lot of the answers. And if you want to be “in love,” this book will explain the whole process. This is a “must read”!


Kathryn Says Her Piece On “Hooking Up” Episode #2

Okay, y’all, what did you think of “Hooking Up” episode #2?  I am already worrying about what I am going to do on Thursday nights when this series is over in three weeks.

Here are my thoughts on the July 21 show:

Cynthia was less caustic on her sexy dancing date with new date Nathan.  The date did not disintegrate into the bickering we had seen before, thank goodness, and I didn’t notice her labeling it “another bad date.”  She did focus a bit too much, I thought, about his being younger than her.  But then she hops in the taxi at the end of the date and proceeds to set up a “booty call” (ie go off to have sex with someone else).  Does that seem odd to anyone but me?

Lesson:  Dancing lessons are a great date idea!  So sexy, and any guy willing to put himself in that position disserves lots of points.  And a more positive attitude in Cynthia pays off.  But what’s this “booty call” business, and what does that have to say about looking for a mate?

Maryam—now here’s a sad story.  The episode shows her with two first dates.  In the first, she complains that the guy does not look like his picture.  The show puts his profile picture up next to his current look, and while he looks as if he put on a few pounds (his cheeks are not as chiseled as in the photo), he does appear to be the same guy.  Maryam is a professional photographer, and the guy has to go on and explain to her about lighting.  His photo was clearly professional, and Maryam should have known that reality might not match the digital.  Then in an aside, the guy complains about her photo and reality, saying something about her looking sexier or more sensual in the photo.

In date #1 with guy #2, Maryam asks him if people think he is gay.  Then says “I feel like the man in this relationship.”  And more on this line.  These are very strange statements on a first date.  Then she takes him home and they SLEEP together, though it is unclear if they have sex.  This is very strange date behavior.

And did anyone besides me think that Maryam might have been drunk on both dates?  While the camera did not trace her drinking at all, her behavior looked definitely impaired by some kind of substance.

Lessons:  1.  Reality and the photo often do not match.  Be prepared for that possibility.  And don’t post a photo that would make you out to be a liar on the first date.  2.  Watch alcohol and drug consumption carefully.  All your senses need to be fully engaged so that you can do your part in helping the date go well and absorb the details of what you date is presenting you with.

Amy—oh Amy!  Hot to trot with gambler Chris—and she has sex with him the first time at her sister’s house???  Then Sis doesn’t like him,  Chris starts to get on Amy’s nerves (though it is unclear how), and she dumps him.  Then on to next date David.  By the third date with Dave, she says he’s not going to “get lucky” that night, but after the date, she complains that she doesn’t know him and “Maybe if I sleep with him I’ll get to know the real him.”

Lesson: Stay with what you know. Amy seems way out of her league.  Her small town origins are showing, both in her push to get married soon (she says she is old by her home town standards to still be single) and her ability to protect herself.  She seems like a sitting duck.

Kelly’s dates with guy #2 Chris go pretty swimmingly, it appears.  She does worry that she has heard he is older than his stated age (not clear what that was, but under 40), and indeed he does come clean, saying he is 40.  She lets it go, but Chris has lots on his side, including a very big boat that they go out on the first date and a Hummer that Kelly gets sort of tricked by Chris into washing.  In a bikini.

Lesson:  Don’t lie, not ever, unless your boat and car will get you forgiven, and think twice about it even then.  And watch that caddish behavior, no matter how many toys you have.  Kelly, don’t let the glitz distract you from his character, which is showing.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


“Hooking Up” Episode Summaries

If you are hooked on ABC’s “Hooking Up” or missed the first of five episodes that aired last Thursday, you’ll love the resource I just found: Jill Jones on RealityNewsOnline has written a character summary that will help you keep track of who is who, and then practically a frame by frame report of the first episode. Jill, like I did, gets frustrated with all the fast editing back and forth, so her show summary is all the more helpful for us all. And when you read the comments that my posting about the first show has generated, you’ll be glad that you have a reliable place to go to check what happened.

Jill makes a great point early in her first episode summary:

I had lunch recently at an Indian restaurant with a group of friends. While we were standing in line for the buffet, a woman who was eating Indian food for apparently the first time surveyed the buffet and then said to another diner, “I think I better look at the menu to see what else they serve.” Later on, I told my boyfriend that the same rules should apply to experiencing a new type of food and dating; don’t take one look at something (or someone) and dismiss it without trying it first. Immediately after making this comment, I thought of ABC’s new summer television program, Hooking Up. .... Just from their bios on the show’s web site, I get the feeling that many of these women have stood before the buffet, but left with an empty plate simply because of first impressions.

That reflects what I felt after the first show, too: These folks need to take a little TIME to get to know these perfectly nice other people. And unfortunately, Internet dating in its abundance encourages going on to the next person after the slightest error or insult. After all, Mr. or Ms. Next might be perfect, right? Wrong. No one is perfect. You included. Give your date a break and hope he/she gives you one, too. Unless you feel a clear-cut NO, try a second or third date before you say “Thanks, but no thanks.”

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


“Must Love Dogs” Opening July 29

In another signal about how Internet dating has entered the mainstream, “Must Love Dogs” is a movie centered around cyberlove. Here’s the description from the movie’s webiste below:

Dating is never easy. Early in the search for love, people find the golden formula for meeting a soul mate is one part humiliation, two parts aggravation, and a little blind luck thrown in for the fortunate.

Today’s dating game is a blur of websites, speed lunches and hordes of friends and relatives who know just the wrong person for you.

Thirty-something pre-school teacher Sarah Nolan (DIANE LANE) has been divorced for eight months, which is much too long for her co-workers and family to bear. With the best of intentions and only her happiness in mind, Sarah’s sisters, Carol (ELIZABETH PERKINS) and Christine (ALI HILLIS), begin lining up less-than-savory potential suitors. Meanwhile, their widowed father, Bill (CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER), is way ahead of the curve, having already cornered the market on internet dates, including his new web squeeze, the free-spirited Dolly (STOCKARD CHANNING).

Eager to launch her sister’s cyber-dating debut, Carol pretends to be Sarah, goes online and puts her profile on perfectmatch.com, with the last line being “Must love dogs.”

Sarah soon endures a torrent of eager wannabes and one very possible maybe, the handsome and accomplished but surprisingly awkward web date Jake (JOHN CUSACK) as well as Bob (DERMOT MULRONEY), the newly-divorced dad of one of her students, a hot prospect who may prove too good to be true.

As she braves a series of hilariously disastrous mismatches and first dates, Sarah begins to trust her own instincts again and learns that, no matter what, it’s never a good idea to give up on love.

ABC has a reality series about Internet dating called “Hooking Up” starting July 14. We are everywhere. I do not think that I will wait for it to come out on CD. You’ll get a review.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


Richard Roe - The Movie - and SeniorBachelor.com

I wrote about Richard Roe (www.SeniorBachelor.com) earlier here (4/24, 4/29, and 4/29) and told that I discovered he and his son had made a movie about an earlier round-the-world trip they had taken together. (Roe was on “Oprah” on April 24, talking about looking for a woman for an around-the-world trip that he would finance.) The movie is called “Pop and Me” and I found it listed on Netflix and ordered it. Drew and I watched it last night, and here’s my promised report:

“Pop and Me” is quite a coup. Roe’s son Chris had not made a movie before, and when his Dad invited him to go on a six month trip around the world, Chris decided to film the experience. Dad Richard funded the venture and suggested adding the theme of interviewing father and son combinations. Chris thought the idea cheesy, but went along with it. That’s a good thing, because the interviews are so good that they save the movie.

If you like watching men share real and intense loving emotion, then this is the movie for you. Just about every one of the interviewed father/son combos are sweet and touching, some men using the film time to say words and feelings they might never otherwise. Almost every conversation brings participants and observers to genuine tears.

Beside these extraordinary interviews, Richard and Chris Roe seem rather shallow and self-absorbed. Chris is whiney and angry, Dad Richard alternately controlling and forlorn. The one scene with Richard that feels as rich and emotionally believable as the interviews is when Chris and Richard visit Richard’s father’s grave. Richard’s father was an alcoholic and institutionalized from age 44 until he died. Richard clearly dreaded the visit and just exploded with conflicting and overwhelming emotions at the grave site. Chris seemed embarrassed and hardly knew how to react, shuffling off to the side, and then awkwardly half-hugging his dad.

Both, especially Dad, love the camera and the attention, and the camera loves them both. Richard is a handsome man in his mid-fifties, clearly at a turning point in his life. Recently divorced after what he describes as a happy marriage (no telling what happened to bring about the divorce), Richard clings to his memories and connection to his three sons. He’s floundering, and using his life savings for this trip is an attempt to recapture a similar trip that the family made together when the children were young. Richard and Chris even visit some of the people they had spent time with on the previous trip years earlier.

As a movie about fathers and sons, “Pop and Me” works well and is a “should see” for men and women. Both will get a rare glimpse at the emotion possible in such relationships.

If you are at all interested in taking Richard Roe up on his offer of yet another world trip, this movie is not only a “should see,” it’s a “must see.” The film provides a close-up view of Richard that would be impossible to get otherwise, especially before even meeting him. But also, you’ll get a background of his trip-taking as well. It’s hard not to speculate that this next venture he proposes, of round-the-world with a willing female sweetheart this time, is yet another attempt to recapture what is long past. Frankly, it feels rather pathetic.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


More on “The Tipping Point” and Playing Your Part

Here’s more of the relevancy of Malcolm Gladwell’s writing in"The Tipping Point”:

Gladwell writes about the Power of Context, how everyday signs of disorder like graffiti and subway fare-beating can help fuel crime, or how most people will lie, given the opportunity and context. That got me thinking about the Internet and online dating—of course! What else do I think about, right?

One of the biggest concerns online and what daters worry about most is lying. And the Internet provides just the conditions that make lying easy: You can be anonymous, create any persona that suits your fancy, and chances are good you’ll never be caught. Unless you form a relationship that leads to a meeting in real time and space.

A good part of the “fun” online is based on fantasy. Sometimes that’s clear, and sometimes it’s not. Role playing games on the net are very popular (that’s the total extent of my knowledge, right there). Most game-playing folks know when they are playing a role and have an awareness that everyone else is playing too.

On the XXX rated sites, it may be less clear that some of the “actors” involved are “playing a role.” The anonymity of the computer screen allows all kinds of fantasies to be projected and played out.

Years ago, I worked with a woman in therapy who earned her living talking hour after hour on the phone with men who fantasized and masturbated while she talked dirty. She had a wonderfully throaty and sexy voice and a terrific imagination that kept these guys going for hours, but I don’t think she could have been anything like the guys thought they were paying for. She weighed at least 500 pounds. That’s why she earned her money doing phone sex—she couldn’t do anything else that would earn her as much without having to go out of her house and be seen. Believe me, if she could have figured out anything else to do, she would have. That work took an enormous toll, and played a big part in her self-hate and self-destruction.

The point I am making is this: We all contribute to the whole that the Internet is. We can spray paint graffiti or jump the turnstiles or be deceptive about who we are or be rude, crude, or a cheat. Or we can contribute to “the greater whole” of the web by acting responsibly, by being kind and polite, by telling the truth and being willing to prove that we are who we say we are.

Keep the gaming on the sites where the fantasy is clear, but when you are looking for a life mate, act like you deserve a good one. Leave the pretending where it belongs, where everyone knows the rules and understands the fantasy.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


“The Tipping Point” for Internet Dating: 9/11/2001

I finished yesterday. I love Gladwell’s writing—I wrote about his newest “Blink” earlier. “Blink” is now #3 on the New York Times Bestsellers list, bumped out of first place by Jane Fonda. I’ve even scouted down Gladwell’s website and downloaded (for free) a bunch of his articles that were published in the New Yorker.

“The Tipping Point” does not have so much to say to singles looking for partners as “Blink” did, but it does have a few nuggets that apply. In “The Tipping Point,” Gladwell describes the process of how “ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do.” He writes about contagiousness, little things having big effects, and that change happens in a big dramatic moment.

“The Tipping Point” was published in 2000, but if Gladwell had been writing it in 2002, he might well have picked Internet dating as an example of an idea reaching the “tipping point,” when suddenly looking for love online moved into the mainstream.

After September 11, 2001, everyone seemed to want to be connected intimately. Friends, and more importantly family, became highly desirable. And Internet dating, which had been quietly growing in the corners of the web, became The Place to look for a life partner.

The ease of connecting with eligible singles online was an extremely contagious method of meeting whose time in history had come. And while the necessary “little thing” was a very big thing—the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon—the happenings did provide the “dramatic moment” the upcoming online dating epidemic needed.

Suddenly advertising for love no longer seems rather sleazy. Instead, putting your picture and profile on the Internet is a very smart thing to do.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


First Date Disasters and Other Misfortunes

I burn up lots of paper and black ink jet cartridges printing off the articles that come to me over the web, all in an effort to keep me and you up to date on the dating world.  When I read, I underline and highlight points I find interesting.  The article on the top of my pile is a review of a book about first date disasters.  What did I underline?  “...excessive farting is not good, even if you really, really have to.”  Ain’t that the truth?

First date horror stories provide plenty of fodder to scare the bravest single into a lifetime of unwedded bliss.  And of course they make great reading. Breanna Hubbard writes about two first dates in an article dated April 14, 2005, one of which went well.  The second did not.  Hubbard shows her youth and lack of experience with Internet dating: She didn’t screen the candidates well at all, and couldn’t figure out how to end quickly what clearly was going to be a terrible experience.  (Romance Coach to Internet daters:  Make the first meeting brief, and have an exit plan!)

If you really want to indulge your first date voyeurism, read .  Cox sets up a marathon of first encounters all over the world, zipping through guys at a dizzying pace.  I’m halfway through the book, and enjoying it.  Cox writes pretty well, and seems to be learning how to do the dates better as she goes along.  She does dismiss seemingly good candidates for very superficial reasons.  But we know from the start that she meets a True Love along the way, and that makes the mistakes and agony worth slogging through.  For her and for the reader.

We humans (some of us, anyway) have an odd liking for being scared to death or repulsed to the point of nausea.  And there’s no harm in wallowing in others’ misery from the distance of your living room.  But just keep in mind that no one gets a second date without going through the first one.  And a date’s bad behavior is about THEM, not you.  So detach a bit, don’t take it personally, and dare!

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord


Malcom Gladwell’s “Blink”

Even though Drew and I had no shared history when we met via Match.com in 1998, we had lots of parallel experiences.  One is that both of us had watched “Sunday Morning” on CBS for years.  We still try to catch it every week.  If you aren’t a watcher,“Sunday Morning” is a hour and a half show that gives a mixture of topics extended coverage.  The tone is slow and leisurely, perfect for Sunday mornings.  Like having coffee and reading the New York Times.

This morning, we had a special treat: one of the segments was on Malcolm Gladwell’s new book “Blink” which I wrote extensively about in an earlier blog posting.  It seems that “Blink” is now #1 on the New York Times Bestseller’s List, and ought to be #1 on your reading list, if you haven’t read it already.  Singles, whether they are Internet dating, speed dating, or old-fashioned dating, need to know and understand the quick decision-making processes they use, and how this tendency can work tremendously or disastrously.


“Blink,” Malcolm Gladwell, and Speed Dating

My latest favorite book came right from my Sweetie Drew. Drew is an NPR and PBS fan and is forever ordering books he hears about on radio and TV. Recently he heard about by Malcolm Galdwell. He loved the book, and while he was reading it, Drew kept telling me how much he thought I would like it. Well, I did.

“Blink” is all about that instantaneous flash of insight we can have that does not seem to be connected to rational thought. The coaching world calls this flash “intuition,” and we are taught to pay attention to such flashes and use them in our work with clients. Gladwell never uses the word “intuition,” but he tells story after story of instances where people “just knew” something that defied logic. Gladwell attributes these flashes of insight to the unconscious mind, a huge repository of information which we all have and of which we are largely unaware. Unaware however does not mean unused.

I think that much of what Gladwell describes is the process daters call “chemistry.” Internet daters are particularly concerned about chemistry, because meeting online, even with pictures and phone calls, leaves out all the subtle physical cues that come full force when people meet face to face. And as we all know, that chemistry can be Wow! Or Yick. And it’s important.

Gladwell even writes about speed dating! Hooray! Speed dating seems MADE for the thin slicing of decision making, and in some ways, that is so. I’ll talk more about speed dating in future postings. Speed dating relies on instant decision-making about interest and attraction. Gladwell writes much about how these flashes of insight proved correct. But also, he gives plenty of examples of when the insight does not work well, and is sometimes dead wrong. We all know of couples who hated each other on first meeting, but later felt strongly attracted. He says that good decision making rests on a balance between deliberate and instinctual thinking. And secondly, that too many choices reduces the effectiveness of the process. Speed dating involves many choices, and what might actually be a good match could get lost in the frenzy.

If you are interested in broadening your knowledge of the mysteries of attraction, then “Blink” needs to be on your reading list.


Books for Computer Illiterates

I’ve been writing about how great computers and the Internet are for older folks.  I’d just love to get everyone wired up!  Unfortunately, getting wired does not mean that the individual can actually USE the contraption.  Often, my over-50 clients know enough about cyberspace to check me out online and fire off an email, but not much else.  Once they start Internet dating, the wires can get humming pretty fast, and a lack of skills can make an anxiety-provoking (and exciting) process enough to make you want to tear your hair out.

So I’ve been looking for books that might help.  Here’s the three I currently have come up with:

“The Senior’s Guide to Easy Computing” by Rebecca Sharp Colmer
“Absolute Beginner’s Guide to Computer Basics” by Michael Miller
“The Senior’s Guide to PC Basics” published by Gateway

“The Senior’s Guide to Easy Computing” is basic, very basic.  It’s all in a question and answer format, one to a page.  You can look up terms in the index and find related answers.  The answers are simple and crystal-clear.  But they are not comprehensive—for instance, last night I opened the book while on the phone with a client who did not know how to send an attachment.  I looked up “Attachments” in the index, got one reference, and turned to the page.  The “answer” tells you how to open an attachment, but then goes on for three paragraphs on why you should not open attachments, and then, nothing on how to send one.  Nothing.  And the book has no pictures, which astounds me in a computer book. How can you give good computer lessons—such a visual medium—with no pictures?

“Absolute Beginner’s Guide to Computer Basics” is, from the looks of it, quite complete.  For instance, I looked up “Attachments” here too, and the book gave a short, clear description of how to send a file as an attachment.  The directions do assume the reader knows how to browse and find the wanted file.  So I looked up “browsing” and “finding files” with no luck.  Since the directions for sending attachments were on page 225, I’ll have to trust that the reader would have learned about browsing and file-finding already.  I do prefer a book that you do not have to read from beginning to end to understand one small part.  “Absolute Beginner’s” does have pictures and illustrations of what the author is explaining.  The index is pages and pages long, the longest of these three books.  However, the writing is extensive, detailed, and perhaps too verbose for technophobes.

When I got “The Senior’s Guide to PC Basics,” I was so pleased! Lots and lots of pictures, very colorful, large easy-to-read type, and not too wordy.  It’s published by Gateway, the computer maker, and the first part of the book, about the computer hardware, may or may not be helpful for non-Gateway owners.  The rest however may be just what we are looking for.  Unfortunately,this book does not pass the “Attachments” test—I can’t even find attachments listed in the index. But I do think that this book could teach the adult computer-unschooled user the essentials of getting around the desk top and the Internet.  This book does the job without going on and on.  It’s my current top pick.

I’d like to hear if you have suggestions for the technology naive—any resources online or off that you would recommend?


Good Morning America, Samantha Daniels, and Suddenly Single

Good Morning America has been doing a series called “Suddenly Single,” and today the topic was starting dating again.  The expert of the day was Samantha Daniels, matchmaker and author of “Matchbook” that I reviewed in an earlier blog posting.  Don’t you just love how they tell you for two hours that what you want to see is coming up next?  Then you watch and watch what you don’t want to see before it finally comes up in the last half hour.

I’ve learned that you can’t depend on morning TV for in-depth coverage of subjects, but Daniels with three mid-life divorced women just didn’t shed much light on the topic.  As I said in my review of “Matchbook,” while the book was a fun read, a weakness was that Daniels had not been married.  Therefore, she certainly has not been divorced, and I don’t recall that her single clients were divorced, either.  So how could she speak with expertise about divorced women starting dating again?  Daniels kept repeating that the women needed to accept and feel okay about their divorced state, and be wary about talking too much about their kids.  Wow.  That really is a big help.

I can think of lots of folks who would have been better choices for this “Suddenly Single” series.  Like me, for instance.  ButI’m really not interested in being a Network TV “expert,” or I would have hired a publicist who got me that kind of gigue, whether it was appropriate or not.  Well, maybe if Charlie Gibson called me personally and begged.  Maybe.

By the way, the last segment was baby animals from the zoo, and the cloud panther kittens made my watching the rest worthwhile. They were so CUTE!


Samantha Daniels’ “Matchbook” and the Search for Perfection

Last Tuesday, we got six packages in the mail, all books. Two packages were for Drew, the rest for me. Clearly, we like—and buy—books. Most of mine were how-to dating and relationship books that are flooding the market. Who knew that so many people knew so much about how to find and keep a Sweetheart?

If you read these books like I do, you’ll find that not too many people do know much at all. A good proportion of the books are pretty bad. I’ve taken on sifting through the piles to find the best to recommend to my readers so that they don’t have to waste their time and money. (See my Top Ten list) They’ll need all the time and money they can squirrel away for their mate search.

One of the books I knew was “just for fun”: “Matchbook—The Diary of a Modern-Day Matchmaker” by Samantha Daniels. It’s a quick and fun read, with a titillating peek into the high priced world of professional matchmaking—Daniels’ fees START at $10,000.

Don’t read this book to find pointers on finding your Ms. or Mr. Right. I usually underline and use Post Its liberally. “Matchbook” only got four markers. But I had a good time, and thoroughly enjoyed my few hours with Daniels.

I did find Daniels (also single) and her clients depressing and irritating. She and the singles she worked with had one common characteristic: turning down candidate after candidate for the most trivial and superficial reasons. These potentials were doctors, lawyers, financiers, business owners, male and female, most at least high salaried, many down right wealthy. All sounded good-looking at least, often model material or even real live models.

Actually, this commonality became the one good learning that I took from the work: The search for perfection is doomed to failure, because no one is perfect.

So here’s my advice: Either read this book for fun, or to see if you see yourself in Daniels or her clients. If you are as picky as the people in these stories, you may need some of Daniels’ advice. Here’s what she writes on page 221: “I also tend to go out with guys who would be good for me but somehow I fixate on the one bad thing about them and fixate and fixate and give them a hard time about it until I ruin things. And then after the fact, I look back and say to myself that maybe that one bad thing wasn’t so bad. I need to work on not sabotaging…”

Sound familiar?

P. S. Here’s another of Daniels’ quotes I bookmarked: “‘So if you don’t hire me, how do you plan on doing things differently so that you have different luck?


Dating Sites and Books for Seniors

A good, solid percentage of my Romance clients are over 60. Surprised? I’m not. On “Sunday Morning” February 20, they ran a whole segment on 70 being the new 50—in other words, people are active, engaged, and fully involved in life well into their 70’s , 80’s and beyond. Regular readers of my enewsletter *eMAIL to eMATE* know that I have living evidence of this in my own family: my mother will be 81 on her wedding day of April 2 this year, and the groom is 86! Read more here and subscribe to my newsletter if you haven’t already to follow their story.

So I am always on the look-out for resources for singles who are not teenagers. I got a book yesterday “ by Rebecca Sharp Colmer and Todd M. Thomas which does a pretty good job on the topic. is designed for seniors, for sure: Large type, short, simple descriptions in a question and answer format. Though maybe daters of all ages should read it, because lots of the advice is applicable for all ages. Like “Are there times when it is better not to date?” (When you are clinically depressed, when your spouse or partner has recently left or died, when you have lost your place to live and don’t know what you are going to do next, or when you don’t feel like dating.) Or “How do I make a good first date impression?” (Just a few of the ways: Clean breath and teeth, clip stray nose and ear hairs.)

Interestingly, the authors kept plugging a dating site I hadn’t heard of: SeniorSparks.com. So I checked it out. What came up was a simple, clear dating site format, large type again, but rather amateurish looking. Not slick at all. The site has a search box on the home page, and the age range STARTS at 65, going up to 99. So I did a search, and Surprise!!! The results took me right to Match.com! I did the search three times to check it out, I was so surprised. Evidently, SeniorSparks.com is another spur of the big guy Match.com. My searches showed lots of eligible men and women, but I could not do a search based on location. I suspect that Match.com does not have enough listings to make area searches worthwhile. But if you are looking in the 65 and over age groups and don’t mind looking all over the country, SeniorSparks.com is a good resource.



Contact Kathryn by phone at , by email at

home | kathryn's romance newsletter | test yourself | new, fun, free | facts
about kathryn and coaching | who is kathryn lord? | kathryn's own cyberromance story | what is romance coaching? | are you ready for romance coaching? | what kathryn's clients say | want to try romance coaching?
kathryn's blog | contact kathryn


Copyright 2003-2011 Kathryn B. Lord