|
 Office Hours With Dr. Jim
by James
Houran, Ph.D
In this column, "Dr.
Jim"
honestly and candidly answers your questions about
dating, love and sexuality. He doesn’t tell
you what you want to hear – he tells you what
you need to hear. Dr. Jim is committed to offering
you guidance based on responsible clinical practice
and hard data from the latest scientific studies.
Send
Dr. Jim your questions today for consideration
in an upcoming issue.
This
Week:
Compatibility
Good Lovers - Born or Made?
I’m not
taking any of those crazy online compatibility tests,
so how else can I tell if someone is compatible with
me?
If I was new to online dating and knew nothing about
compatibility tests, I wouldn’t trust taking
them either. The industry has done an exceptionally
poor job at educating online dating consumers about
the science and research behind these sorts of tests.
More to the point – it’s likely that many
services offering these tests have no valid science
or research behind them. But, first and foremost, you
should know that there’s a wealth of research
spanning decades on love, attachment and compatibility.
Science does know much about what variables are involved
in lasting and satisfying relationships. There’s
truly a long-standing science of compatibility.
Turning those research findings into a sound psychological
assessment is another story, but some companies have
done a pretty good job at it. To learn more, I urge
you to carefully read my recent article, “The
Truth About Compatibility Testing”.
It might change your mind about trying one of these
tests. But assuming it doesn’t, then let me offer
some alternatives.
Psychologist Andrea Baker examined the question of
what factors differentiate successful and unsuccessful
couples who first met online(1). She identified four
general variables that signaled a couple’s capacity
for long-term “compatibility.” You can
use these four variables to help you estimate how compatible
you’re with a specific person. Here’s what
you can look for in another person without a lengthy
questionnaire or intimidating statistical mumbo jumbo:
» Where you met online: the overlap of specific
interests as represented by the type of site they
enter for a first encounter online signals long-term
compatibility.
» What you’ll do to be together:
obstacles of distance, jobs and finances, and other
relationships
are negotiated
so that past attachments are diminished and at least
one partner will relocate.
» Quality of interaction:
taking a lengthy period of time to get to know each
other online before meeting
face-to-face and postponing sexual involvement promotes
longevity of relationships.
» Quality of communication:
learning to handle each others’ styles
of communication even when conflicts occur online
enhances satisfaction and cooperation first online
and then
offline.
Use these variables as guidelines, and use them cautiously.
These types of variables, like formal compatibility
testing, won’t tell you if you have physical
chemistry with another person. I mean, who needs a
test or guidelines for that?! Generally speaking, our
personal preferences for certain height, weight, hair
color, and degree of gregariousness guide our physical
attraction to someone. No, what these variables from
Dr. Baker speak to is more along the lines of “mental
chemistry” – an element even more important
than physical attraction when it comes to nurturing
and growing a relationship over time.
And be aware – gaining a sense of your compatibility
with another person takes time, communication, and
sincerity. So, don’t expect this approach to
work after one marathon video chat or during a speed
dating event.
Reference
1 Baker, A. (2002). What makes an online relationship
successful? clues from couples who met in cyberspace.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5, 363-375.
Are good lovers born
or made?
What we’re like in bed is a natural extension
of our personalities. Personality itself is a product
of both genetics and environment – the old “nature
and nurture” issue. Therefore, it would seem
that some sexual preferences and style are innate,
or hard wired in us. Personal experience subsequently
helps us hone those attitudes and behaviors.
Of course,
I can easily imagine in a survey of sexually active
adults that the majority would agree that it
takes the right personality to be a good lover. Something
like being a “Casanova” – either
you have it or you don’t. But, pressed to define
that “right personality” would likely prove
problematic. I feel what people mean by personality
is better described as a positive or negative attitude.
In this sense, good lovers are people that have positive
attitudes towards themselves and their partners and
they naturally express that enthusiasm and passion
in the bedroom.
Yet, perhaps the original question
should be rephrased as, “Is our definition of
a good lover innate or learned?” That gets at
the issue a bit better, don’t you agree? In that
case, good lovers are made. What we like in bed from
our lover is also an
extension of our personalities and experience – it’s
a preference developed over time. Of course, some people
are born with great athletic abilities, but losing
out on those genes doesn’t have to stop you from
learning and mastering certain technical skills for
the bedroom.
If you really want to increase your knowledge
and talent in that area, I strongly suggest sexologist
Yvonne
Fulbright’s book “The Hot Guide to Safer
Sex” (get it here).
It’s an easy and fun to read guide that will
help you learn the technical side of sexual practices,
as well as help raise your self-esteem and body image
which might be holding you back from being the best
lover you can be. Hmmm… I guess in this case
good lovers are also made.
> Perfectmatch.com - The best approach to find the one.
<
All
Online Dating Magazine content, including the content on this page,
is ©
copyright by Online Dating Magazine and may
not be
republished or reused in any form. You do have
full permission to link to this article.
Do you agree or disagree with this
article? Have
more to add? Submit a Letter
to the Editor today or post a comment below.
|
