This is purely for fun!!
This question is mainly for the gents, but I'd love to hear ladies' opinions as well! If you are a guy who is not interested in any non-physical aspects of a provider, then this thread is not for you.
I was just having a conversation with a lover about a certain site's new rating system, and its theoretical pros and cons. I asked him what makes him choose to see a lady. He pointed out that it's not something tangible, rather, it is personality-based. Of course he finds ladies who are physically attractive to him, but as he prefers dinner engagements, he says he looks for much more than that. He's not on TER, but we discussed search processes, and he mainly likes to read what women say about themselves- he says he gets a lot of information about someone just by reading her website. Mainly, he can tell if she expresses herself well, how confident she seems, etc. He couldn't really put it all into a formula, but he said that there are things about her online persona that tip him in one direction or another.
That got me thinking about the search function here at TER. It is purely physically based, and at first thought, one would think that might clearly be the only logical set of data by which to "categorize" someone. But f you think about the ways other types of experiences are reviewed and rated, it destroys the notion that it must be physically-based characteristics. Even thoughts and opinions on physical characteristics are subjective.
I've had so many guys tell me that the qualities they look for in a companion go way beyond the physical aspects of her appearance and even beyond the proverbial "menu". My lover said that any search function based on those criteria would barely get him half-way there, and as such he doesn't find such things useful or helpful. And while the attitude and performance parts of reviews let you get a glimpse of the intangible aspects of a tryst, they are not searchable.
We brainstormed for a few minutes about this, and came up with some choices that might be helpful for him and perhaps others. Things like being good with extended engagements (I.e., good for dinner? Good for overnight? Good for weekend? Etc.), is engaging and interesting (and interested) in conversation, likes to snuggle or prefers not to, is chatty or is not, takes the lead or lets you take the lead, is playful, serious, sensual, silly, affectionate, distant, mechanical, passionate, etc. Like maybe having a field where you could choose from a set of adjectives to describe the companion.
If you could create some new search fields for non-physical qualities of a potential new friend, what would they be?
-- Modified on 1/11/2015 1:14:52 AM