<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is there anybody&#8230; OUT THERE?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesinglerider.com/2009/06/is-there-anybody-out-there/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesinglerider.com/2009/06/is-there-anybody-out-there/</link>
	<description>Treading the fine line between "alone" and "free"...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:53:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: gpc</title>
		<link>http://thesinglerider.com/2009/06/is-there-anybody-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>gpc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesinglerider.com/?p=204#comment-33</guid>
		<description>Crap, mari mari, I did it all wrong -- I used the peers/partner years for school, and used the career and relationship years for god and community -- egad, I&#039;m screwed (or perhaps this explains why I was not).

I&#039;ve always loved that song, but it didn&#039;t happen for me either.    Some psychoababblist or other whose books I&#039;ve read claims that EVERY person we are attracted to is the same basic person, which is what he says the &#039;forever&#039; of it is.   We might as well stay with the first one we find and work it all out.   Too late for me on that, too. 

My sister, though, who is a happily active dater promises me that there are wonderful men and wonderful relationships out there just waiting.  If that is true, I have never been able to pick up - or send - the appropriate signals.   Yesterday I netflixed &quot;He&#039;s just not into you&quot; and came away wondering, is it really as simple as the 3 second stare?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Crap, mari mari, I did it all wrong &#8212; I used the peers/partner years for school, and used the career and relationship years for god and community &#8212; egad, I&#8217;m screwed (or perhaps this explains why I was not).</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve always loved that song, but it didn&#8217;t happen for me either.    Some psychoababblist or other whose books I&#8217;ve read claims that EVERY person we are attracted to is the same basic person, which is what he says the &#8216;forever&#8217; of it is.   We might as well stay with the first one we find and work it all out.   Too late for me on that, too. </p>
<p>My sister, though, who is a happily active dater promises me that there are wonderful men and wonderful relationships out there just waiting.  If that is true, I have never been able to pick up &#8211; or send &#8211; the appropriate signals.   Yesterday I netflixed &#8220;He&#8217;s just not into you&#8221; and came away wondering, is it really as simple as the 3 second stare?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mari mari quite contrary</title>
		<link>http://thesinglerider.com/2009/06/is-there-anybody-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>mari mari quite contrary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesinglerider.com/?p=204#comment-10</guid>
		<description>This brings to mind something I read once about the 7 year cycle of people and what the focus of their life is on. Let&#039;s see if I can remember it.

Age 0  -  7 : Parents
Age 7  -  14: School
Age 14 -  21: Peers  
Age 21 -  28: Partner
Age 28 -  35: Children
Age 35 -  42: Career
Age 42 -  49: Relationship
Age 49 -  56: Self
Age 56 -  63: Community
Age 63 -  70: God</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This brings to mind something I read once about the 7 year cycle of people and what the focus of their life is on. Let&#8217;s see if I can remember it.</p>
<p>Age 0  &#8211;  7 : Parents<br />
Age 7  &#8211;  14: School<br />
Age 14 &#8211;  21: Peers<br />
Age 21 &#8211;  28: Partner<br />
Age 28 &#8211;  35: Children<br />
Age 35 &#8211;  42: Career<br />
Age 42 &#8211;  49: Relationship<br />
Age 49 &#8211;  56: Self<br />
Age 56 &#8211;  63: Community<br />
Age 63 &#8211;  70: God</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erin</title>
		<link>http://thesinglerider.com/2009/06/is-there-anybody-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>Erin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesinglerider.com/?p=204#comment-9</guid>
		<description>hmm, or else might progress to companionship about ten years too soon - sooner than the available male pool.  Interesting food for thought!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hmm, or else might progress to companionship about ten years too soon &#8211; sooner than the available male pool.  Interesting food for thought!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mari mari quite contrary</title>
		<link>http://thesinglerider.com/2009/06/is-there-anybody-out-there/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>mari mari quite contrary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesinglerider.com/?p=204#comment-8</guid>
		<description>I can hear Paul singing the words in my head as I read that, you know. :D

Physically and biologically I believe that we are indeed, &#039;programmed&#039; to procreate between the ages of approximately 15-45.  Therefore, most women, on some level, are open to finding a romantic relationship in that age span.  And even if they eventually make the decision not to have children (or if the decision is made by fate for them) buried deep in the recesses of their minds is a biological urge to pair up.

But beyond the age of about 45, at least with women, that changes.  There is more focus on the self.  If in a relationship, most will now (if they don&#039;t already have it) want a relationship with a solid foundation of companionship.  Or, if not in a relationship, most women are content to live on their own and will only willing change that status for a mature love which has companionship as a centerpiece. 

And perhaps, if someone had this process interrupted at 33, they might stay in the &quot;romantic&quot; relationship phase and not progress to the &quot;companionship&quot; relationship phase?

I recognize that there&#039;s some real generalizations in what I just wrote (YMMV) - but overall, that&#039;s what I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can hear Paul singing the words in my head as I read that, you know. <img src='http://thesinglerider.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Physically and biologically I believe that we are indeed, &#8216;programmed&#8217; to procreate between the ages of approximately 15-45.  Therefore, most women, on some level, are open to finding a romantic relationship in that age span.  And even if they eventually make the decision not to have children (or if the decision is made by fate for them) buried deep in the recesses of their minds is a biological urge to pair up.</p>
<p>But beyond the age of about 45, at least with women, that changes.  There is more focus on the self.  If in a relationship, most will now (if they don&#8217;t already have it) want a relationship with a solid foundation of companionship.  Or, if not in a relationship, most women are content to live on their own and will only willing change that status for a mature love which has companionship as a centerpiece. </p>
<p>And perhaps, if someone had this process interrupted at 33, they might stay in the &#8220;romantic&#8221; relationship phase and not progress to the &#8220;companionship&#8221; relationship phase?</p>
<p>I recognize that there&#8217;s some real generalizations in what I just wrote (YMMV) &#8211; but overall, that&#8217;s what I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
