If I were gay, then I would really hope that never happens.
Because it would pretty much invalidate every bit of "progress" and equality the LGBTQ community has worked for.

Because if a "straight" man could fall in love with a gay guy, then it would stand to reason that a gay guy "could" fall in love with a straight woman.

It's just a matter of maybe some rehabilitation, some therapy, maybe some pills, just the "right" person/training/combination, and voila, "gay" is "cured" and they can just start being like "normal" people, the 90+% of the rest of humanity, and no need to grant any special rights/favors/status.


Other than that, it depends on how you're defining "love."
If you're referring to pair bonding, based on procreation, that really only lasts for a while, but is extremely deep and changes your mental processes, then no.

If you're referring to the crap that people load into the word where they have a shallow specious understanding of their own emotions and impulses, mostly ego driven, primarily working at securing an ongoing source of personal pleasure/selfish gratification (mental, physical, social, emotional) while paying lip service to a social facade that facilitates their solipsistic goals, then yes, there's a slight chance.

If single consenting adults have sex is it right or wrong?

Neither?

It's just a choice of normal behavior?


Or was the question more like "Hey, I don't want to read profiles or try, or risk rejection of being judged, I just want to put up a billboard to generate traffic to me. So if anyone wants to have sex please email me...oh wait, these are forums..crap...I should ask a question so it's not like I'm billboarding...uh...is it right or wrong?"

Then it's wrong.

It happens to far more people than anyone realizes.

You can download tor and go exploring the "dark web."
When silk road was active you could find sellers offering thousands and thousands of credit card numbers (dumps) for cheap. Like 10 cents per number.

Just because they steal a number, it doesn't mean they actually use it.
They could have skimmed your number, but just aggregated it with a bunch of others, then sold them all on the dark web to someone who just never got around to cloning a card with your number, or they were caught before they could, or they cloned what they needed then resold the list to someone else.


Common enough to be a problem.
There's a reason why there are chips in most credit cards now, why ATMS stop working when a little sensor is covered, why they put tamper seals on pay at the pump terminals at gas stations, there's a reason why the terminals, at most retailers anymore, are where you can do it yourself rather than having to hand your card to the cashier and they swipe it behind the counter.

That used to be one way people skimmed. They were employees at gas station and retail stores. You'd hand them your card, and they'd swipe it out of view of you below the counter, sometimes where they had a laptop or computer hooked up.

Another major contributor to stolen card numbers is restaurant servers. You know when they bring you your bill and you just give them your card and they disappear into the back of the restaurant? They can just swipe that card through something attached to their phone or a memory device, take down your cvv code.
There are quite a few people who specifically take jobs as servers for the purpose of stealing credit card and cvv numbers.



Walmart isn't all that concerned about people stealing your card numbers.
Walmart cares about people stealing from walmart.
A couple of years ago there was a big story about a group of guys from detroit using cloned credit cards to buy gift cards, stealing millions from walmart.

Skimmer devices can be small and attached in a couple of seconds using what appears to be normal movement, where your body is shielding the terminal.
Think of how many people go through walmart, how many movements at any given time, and then think that walmart has some of the cheapest security money can buy. They let a lot of theft go just because it's too expensive to pursue.
There's a reason why some walmarts have a perpetual police presence. Let the taxpayer fund it!


It's kind of a new cold war.
Scammers figure out how to do things like steal credit card information via skimming or hacking, companies come up with new security to stop it, criminals figure new ways to get around the new security, and on and on.
They have ways of "skimming" the info from the chip in your card now.
Not even things like Apple pay are safe from fraud.


What gets me is seeing people still using checks. Which have almost no protection from fraud.
Even with all the skimmers and such out there? Checks have less fraud protection than credit cards. They have your name, address, bank account, and routing number on them. It's crazy that people still use checks.

Oh yeah, and old school?
Before skimmers people would steal credit card numbers by simply looking at them.
Say you go to the store and you're standing in line waiting impatiently. You've got your stuff on the conveyor belt, you've got your CC out, holding it on top of your wallet with your thumb, ready for a quick checkout, the person behind you is staring at your credit card memorizing the number.

Also, you have a leather wallet? Scammers would find people with fat wallets, or fat people, because pressure on the wallet would leave an imprint of the credit card number. So they'd get behind those people in line and look for the number imprint on leather wallets, memorize the number.

There's a reason why the CVV number came about.

And there was the whole carbon copy imprint era, where people basically took a an exact copy of your credit card.

Mostly when it's externally defined by people outside of the relationship.

Mostly if you're doing something like "well the law says a marriage is this, that, the other, and the law says I can do this, that, or the other! My parents marriage is like this, that, the other...So you have to behave how the law and tradition says you should!"

Otherwise, "marriage" is a function of biology.
Pair bonding.
The "wedding" is ultimately a message to society that a biological process has been fulfilled between two people of that society.

The biological purpose of pair bonding, which "marriage" is the social ritual/symbol of, is for the sake of children.


Marriage is ultimately meaningless if there is no plan or purpose to produce and/or support children. Passing on DNA, your only true means of immortality.
Then any value or meaning comes from whatever benefits/protections can be obtained externally (from government/greater society).

People have the same emotions and feelings as a thousand years ago. They still go through the same things biologically when mating.

So if you're approaching the idea as "marriage was created by society to define how people in a relationship interact," or, "marriage is just changing the relationship between other people and the government or how those entities see the individual," then "marriage" becomes a relic as norms, mores, values, and laws change or become antiquated.

If you're approaching the idea of "marriage is defined by the people in the marriage and it's ultimately based on the feelings and process of pair bonding between individuals, which occurs in the attempt at mating and procreating leading to building a family for the sake of greater security in perpetuating DNA, the rest (like the wedding, the legal papers) don't really matter too much as it doesn't define us," then marriage will never be a relic.


Depending on where you live, some governments consider cohabiting the same as being "married."

Also, depending on where you live, a legally defined marriage (marrying for the sake of changing how the government views and treats you) may offer better legal protection than cohabiting, especially in the dissolution of the relationship.
It may be similar to asking "why form an LLC, get a business license, and deal with OSHA and insurance, rather than just pay little kids cash to work out of my basement?"

Doesn't really matter.

Everything in the OP and responses is just a sign of immaturity at best, serious mental problems at worst (that should be addressed by someone trusted and generally paid for their time, knowledge, and expertise).

Most people go through this phase as a child to manipulate something from their parents.
"Woe is me! Poor me! They have all the good stuff but not me, I gots nothing and I'm a victim, but I try so hard so I'm not responsible, if I get that (popsicle, bicycle, gi joe, relationship, girlfriend) all my problems will be solved and I'll never be sad again, I promise I'll never cry again, do chores, whatever, just tell me what to do and I'll do it."

I remember in the 90's, using AOL and AOL/yahoo chat rooms, this was pretty much a "go to" tactic for people starting college.
"Oh, I'm in a new state, new school, I gots no friends! My old friends have moved on! I've never had a girlfriend/boyfriend! I have absolutely no one! No one understands me or likes me but I's a good person, I'm a nice girl/guy! Imma so sad n lonely! I'm lookin fer summin serious! I'm not like the other guys! I'm not like the other girls! Oh pwease pwease a/s/l if you're hawt!"

You know cats and dogs train people? They learn what facial expressions and body language triggers responses in people.
They'll adopt "baby" sad faces and postures to get you to give them things. Attention, treats, play.

You can look up on youtube where parents show their baby that they're sad, exaggerated distress gestures, and the baby will either cry along with them, or try to make them feel better.

Cats, dogs, college students, men, women, babies, they may not actually feel what their expressions are showing, they just use them in order to get a desired response. Over time, it becomes natural, and they don't realize they're doing it. Pavlovian. Feel hunger (or whatever desire), baby face/poor me attitude (and actual feelings in order to sell it) is triggered, someone comes running "oh what's wrong baby?! Here's some food (or whatever)."

The thing is, people grow out of responding to this. The response lessens as the triggering becomes less effective. They've heard it before, tired of it, they get used to it, so a shallow showing isn't as effective.

And many times what happens is the person that adopts the "false" baby face or woe is me attitude doesn't learn any other way to get what they want (they've been coddled or catered to by others. Parent, "simps," internet "enablers" saying "it's okay! there's someone for everyone! Here's some attention and validation for you to just be you!"), so they just push themselves deeper into the malaise, depression, trauma, self pity, in order to generate a greater "woe is me" indirect communication response, to compensate or overcompensate for when others stop replying to the sad sack tactic, all in an attempt to get back to when it was actually effective.

Especially for older (as opposed to babies) exhibiting this tactic there is long term gain.
Sad sack gets someone to feel sorry for them and give them what they want.
How are they rewarded? A healthy relationship? Nope. They get a "thanks, I've never felt this way before! I'm so happy! It's all thanks to you, you're so great and perfect!" Lip service.
So how about some learning to communicate, reciprocity, or focus on the other person? No. It's "This is all new to me! I've never had a relationship before, I don't know what I'm doing, so you have to lead me through it. Take my input but don't hold me accountable. And without you I would be back to sad and lonely!" So, the person that "saves" the "poor me" person is trapped as a caregiver in a one sided relationship.
Which benefits the needy sad person.



So back to : "I dunno what i need to change."
Attitude, perspective, and behavior.
All of which are going to change naturally and organically over time.
The more you force yourself back into old patterns of thought and behavior, though, the less you can face new experience and change, the more problems are going to be created when the old interacts or contradicts the old.

Other than that, the way the OP and responses are worded shows a lack of desire for change. Not so much "this is my problem, this is how I plan to fix it, these are the hurdles, this is how I will measure and value success, can you see anything I'm missing," so much as, "I want to learn what's going to be more effective at manipulation to get what I want. I don't really want to change, I just want better results."

So it doesn't really matter.

"Today."

Kind of a weird thing to say on a dating site where people go to meet strangers...

So, uh...date within the family then?

Well...okay...I do live kinda near Kentucky, I guess.

Fast food, amazon, government debt, and social media.
What else do people really have to offer each other that can't be immediately fulfilled by those things?
And if there's something those things can't fulfill...aren't you supposed to love yourself and be independent and rely on yourself to make yourself happy?

Yes.
...And please wear a go pro cam for the next year or so and post as much as you can on youtube.

I would kinda agree if this was worded more like:
"Use social sites for fun and entertainment, don't take them too seriously. If you're looking for a life partner, don't limit yourself to only using online; dating sites/apps/social media, and not just one site/app."


Yes and no.
I mean there's a difference between stopping a 2 year old, drunk, or mentally handicapped person from jumping in a "tranch," and stopping a spelunking trench engineer with 30 years trench jumping experience.

Online, you never really know who the person is that's about to "jump in the trench."
And when you're interacting with people online the 2 year old, a drunk person, the mentally handicapped, and the spelunking trench engineer, can all respond, to you trying to stop them, in the same way.

I wouldn't date someone long enough to consider them my "partner" if they had close friends of the opposite sex.

Sociologically speaking, it's possible for men and women to be "just friends."
There are social institutions and norms and boundaries in place where groups enforce rules of individual behavior and set expectations.

Psychologically and biologically speaking men and women can't really be friends.
For heterosexuals cross sex relationships develop naturally using specific chemicals that are different than those for same sex relationships.

There's a difference between sociologically determined relationships.
e.g. you're in school and your teacher says "you and you, you're lab partners for the next assignment," or you assigned seat sit next to each other in class all semester, or you're both the new hire and your cubicles are next to each other. Then you're civil/friendly towards each other, and maybe you don't have any other friends in school/work, so you start hanging out together, and you "bond" as a reaction for support/protection against the larger group you find yourselves having to participate in.
It's a forced relationship that turns into mutual social benefit, boundaries, expectations, rules, set by the larger group that you adhere to in order to get along and survive.

If you're finding your own "friends," like you dated but it just wasn't right, or there were not enough "tingles" to perpetuate it so you stop dating and remain "just friends." Even if it was for "just friends" from the start, or at the end of dating. It's doesn't really matter.
You approached/accepted an approach based on physiological factors.

You read the recent articles regarding judges handing out different sentences based on levels of attractiveness?
Or seen the studies regarding hiring practices for people that are more attractive than others?
People do it without realizing it.
People have implicit bias based on attraction. Thank puberty for completely changing your perceptions of people. All relationships pursued are based on an attraction bias.
Attraction engages different natural biological reactions that affect behavior and bonding.

"Love" is a biological process.
If the other person has already partially bonded with someone else, and they are orbiting as a "just friend," you are never really in a one on one relationship with them.
Your relationship is partially based on their relationship with their other partner. What affects their relationship, will ultimately affect yours.
You will not completely pair bond with them, as their partial pair bonding attempts with the other person will interfere.

You have become the second husband or the second wife. Or they have, if they make the "just friends!" after you started dating them.

It's kinda like asking "does your boss get jealous if you find a second full time job with their competitor?"
Sure, it's "possible" for someone to be completely ethical and not use tools from one for another, and they may favor one over the other, keep them completely separate.

But for the vast majority of people, they can't.
At best they delude themselves and rationalize it mostly because they enjoy the income and benefits.
And you won't really be able to find this out until you've been with them for a long time, and only if you really know how to pay attention.
And that's a big problem with attraction and part of the process. It gives you a warped sense of reality. You overlook things you shouldn't, and focus on things that validate your bias.

I would prefer to avoid the rationalizing and delusion and moronic pitfalls that almost always arise.
So, if I see/find out they're "just friends" with someone of the opposite sex?
I move on to someone else.

Acceptable to me?
Yes.
Unless I want to date her.
Then no.

Other than that, you're going to have to check your local laws, maybe consult an attorney, maybe ask your parents, her parents, and people whose opinion you "should" actually care about.



...Or is this one of those sneaky billboarding posts where you're "really" hoping for like an 18 year old to read this and contact you saying "Hey! I'm 18 an' I find all the guys my age yucky, insecure, abusive and controlling. I saw your post and it really made me think! I like older guys because they seem to have it together, are nicer, and more generous. It's totally acceptable for an age disparate relationship...at least to me! I am so glad you started that post so I can finally discuss this!"

And you come back with something like "I wish I had a cutie hottie like you. You seem so nice and mature and wise. I just have all this money and time to travel and hang out and love and cuddle with someone. But I just don't get along as well with people my age. I have the energy and vibrations and sex drive of someone younger."

And you hope she responds with something like "oh, you travel? Do you ever get to (my neck of the woods)? You seem like such an awesome and genuine and sexy nice guy and I really just need a friend I connect with, that gets me."

And you say "well well well, what a coincidence! I am going to be (in your neck of the woods) this weekend! What say we get together at my hotel, I think we'd really connect and get along! I'm not looking for a one time thing...I swear!
I just want to cuddle and talk all night! I'm really good at massages and foot rubs too!"
Or maybe "Or we can just sit online and talk about it. So do you have any pics from when you went to the pool? I swear I don't want half naked bikini pics! It's just when people go on vacation or to the pool they're happy and smiling. I like to see people smile! Does lingerie shopping make you happy?"

Is it...is it really one of those types of threads?
Naaaaw...no one ever does that. I shouldn't have even said anything.

Biologically speaking, women use the "heart," emotions and feelings, to ultimately secure resources. Safety/security/social position (for personal and procreational reasons).

Men use resources (safety, security, social position) to ultimately secure emotional and procreational stability/surety.

What "wins" a woman's "heart" is ultimately feedback that her use of the tools, she's most proficient in manipulating for securing the resources she needs/wants, is successful.

This is ultimately why you can only "win" a woman's heart for a limited amount of time (how much time is dependent on a huge number of variables/vectors).

Emotions are based on chemistry. Like any chemical dependence you always need more, different, or greater highs. Are you still as scared of thunder as the first time you heard it? Do seasoned sky divers get the same thrill doing their 3,000th jump as the first time? Are you still as excited and nervous going to work after 5 years on the job as you were on your first day?
Do you still respond to/treat your mother the same way as you did when you were 2 years old?

The more "being real" and "truthful" you consistently are, over time, it becomes the norm, used to, boring. It won't create the same "tingles" that women are looking for and don't want to analyze for what they are.

But the more "wild" you are (emotionally churning to offset getting used to), the less you are going to offer reliable feedback, it hurts communication development for the proper/necessary feedback of success. Not to mention, having to become more and more "wild," as previous levels are acclimated to, affects trust and perceptions of danger/instability/reliability.

And that doesn't even address romantic love/pair bonding.
Which is a tool to keep people together long enough for the sake of any offspring survival. Romantic "love" is ultimately about and for kids.
Not to make people "happy."
"Love" doesn't care if you're bad parents, or bad people, or if you beat each other. It's there to create a degree of emotional attachment so you both orbit each other for the sake of being available to the child for resources that allow it at least the basic minimums for survival.

People like to call all sorts of things "love" but it would be more accurate to call it a "spectrum of socio-emotional entanglement," actually separate from "love."
There's a reason why "forever and ever" and "true love" is mostly shown in fairy tales and fiction rather than documentaries.


So, "What wins a woman heart"
You can't win a woman's heart. It's not a static trophy that you can just "win" and put it on a shelf and expect it to never change.
At best you can get her to focus it on you for a while.
You do that by giving her "the tingles" which at any time could be triggered by things that are contradictory and/or incompatible in nature and go away at any time.

Good luck with that!

Is this the online dating site equivalent of a windowless van with "free candy for kids" on the side?

It's not, to everyone.
Depends a lot on a situation.

I mean there are huge differences between:
- I don't tell people I'm dating that I am still married and/or have kids for at least 6 months. If they find out and whine how I lied, it's their problem. I am not a liar, they never asked, and I only bring it up when I'm comfortable with it.

- I put on my profile I'm looking for a long term relationship. I met a hot chick online whose profile also said they're looking for a long term. I've been banging her and treating her like a FWB. She keeps asking where it's going, and how I feel. I ignore those texts and conversations. I don't say anything. I don't want a long term relationship with her, I don't even really like her. But the sex is great. I'm not lying or leading her on though. Since I'm not saying anything at all about it, I'm not really lying to her.

- When a random stranger on the bus asks me how I'm doin', I just nod and don't say anything. Just because I'm not ejaculating how I'm really feeling or doing then I'm not lying. They shouldn't think I'm lying to them about how I'm doing because I don't want to have a conversation with a stranger.



It can be.
Speaking a lie is manipulating/creating a false perception.
Silence can be used to perpetuate/create/manipulate a false perception.
Just as has been said countless times regarding online dating "no response is a response."
Even silence communicates something.

Communication is not just what comes out of your mouth.
You can lie without ever saying a word.
You ever see women on instagram?


By that logic you could put someone else's picture up on your profile and when people meet you in person and are like "who are you?" you can feel justified in telling them "hey! I never actually said that picture was of me so it's not a lie!"
And maybe it can go so far as "well, you typed in your email that was your picture," and respond "typing isn't actually speaking! It didn't come out of my mouth! I never lied!"


No. We should absolutely be drawn to contexts.
If we weren't, the human race would probably be dead within moments.
Do you not understand what "context" actually is?

If you really can't tell, then maybe invite them both out to dinner, and ask them to help you figure it out.

Solves multiple problems at once, and potentially a lot of insight into who they are.
You get to learn their problem solving skills, how they really feel about you, how they think, maybe a greater understanding of their perspective in general, how they deal with competition and possible conflict, if they can help in serving your interests.

All sorts of things that would actually help you in any type of relationship with someone that asking random strangers on the internet can't.


Based on the little information provided on these women...Neither.

You say " the other one is so cute and kind, and she likes me a lot, even more than i do"
And it very well could be that she seems or acts that way because she is trying to passive aggressively communicate she wants you to "make a move." She could be responding to your having another girl to pick. She knows you aren't invested so she is in a sense overcompensating in her "like you" behavior in order for you to "get the hint."

But she doesn't seem to be clearly saying "I want to date you romantically. I want a romantic relationship with you."

And the other one seems to possibly be so intimidating to you that you can't adequately communicate what you want, and she doesn't seem to be clearly saying what she wants from you. Which just shows there are going to be problems with communication in any future relationship. But you don't really say much about her except she's "great" and you like her more than the other one.

So for me (if I was you and didn't have your personality, was just me in this hypothetical) I would choose neither.
I don't have enough information, and what information there is shows a potential heavy bias towards negative traits and compatibility.



I mean if I was sitting around with my friends and said to them "hey man, heard you were dating someone. What are they like?"
And the best description they gave to me to describe this wonderful person was either:
"I like one of them more than the other one"

Or she is "so cute and kind, and she likes me a lot, even more than i do"

Then I would listen and in my head say "yikes. That's not going to last very long."

It's usually better (IMO at least) if you read the article, form an opinion, then share that opinion using whatever facts from the article you think support it.

When you just post an op of a link and say "read it!" what it seems you're doing is "I wanna talk about this! But I don't want to commit to any kind of opinion or anything. I want someone else to form an OP on something I want to talk about. I want authority, but not responsibility. You do it for me, but I tell you the it."

Passive aggressive OP'ing.

Unless of course the link is full of cookies and spam that are going to infect peoples computers and you want them to go off site? Maybe you get like .0005 cents per click or something? Who knows.

Other than that:

For people that don't want to click on strange links in random forums:
TLDR:
Authorities in Florida have arrested a 61-year-old man (Odum), alleging he murdered his 59-year-old girlfriend (Vickie Edge) inside his Milton home.

Edge's brother, Derrick Edge, told the News Journal Vickie had met Odum through a dating website

That's pretty much all the relevant info in the "article."


So what are you trying to say with this thread or posting this article?
That there are sick people out there that do sick things like murder?
Be careful when meeting people online?
A perennial classic that women are victims and need to be extra careful regarding men online?

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/watch-live-sentencing-for-woman-found-guilty-of-killing-garfield-heights-man-she-met-on-dating-site

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/02/louise-porton-jailed-for-life-for-murdering-young-daughters

To me this seems quite horrible.
Is this guy trying to sell books to people who feel more than think but have convinced themselves they think more than feel?
Or just taken out of a larger context?
Or are they a pick up artist trying to justify solipsism and short term relationships?


Any work on yourself will change the relationship and the other person as they adapt to any changes you make.
If you only focus on working on yourself, it could very easily mean you aren't paying that much attention (or possibly caring) how it affects your partner.
Any work on yourself (without considering how it affects the relationship/other person, consideration which would be called "work on a relationship") is going to change how you perceive your partner.
Depending on the "work" and what it affects, you can become a completely different person, and see the other person in a completely different way, or their perceptions of you.
Without "working on the relationship" you've just left that person behind.

Or IOW "F you, you were never really that important. It's all about me and my mission. You are either an extension of my ego and here to help that, or you are hurting that. For me, or against me. You had your use and chance to change yourself to my mission, now you don't. Any changes or work I do are for myself, my mission."

There is a huge difference between "I can only really control myself. But I should consider, be cognizant and mindful of, and measure, how my choices, decisions, and behavior affects others, as well as provide honest feedback on how their choices, decisions, and behavior affect me," and, "I don't work on a relationship. I work on me."


This seems to assume you can keep from bringing your worst. Or that no one has baggage or that it can just be ignored.
Not to mention it seems to presume that what one considers their "best" is universal and unchanging.
That there is no "getting to know" or learning curve in relationships.
Also, if you've brought your best, why would you work on yourself (from "I don't work on a relationship. I work on me.").

If you bring your best and you're celebrating, (realistically speaking) how is the other person going to react if you "take a step back" (stop celebrating), and start "working on me?" Does that mean your best is a lie?
What happens if you work on finding new bests but the new bests are incompatible?


Again, shouldn't there be collaboration?
And what are you stepping back from? What exactly does that look like in practical reality?
A relationship is just how people interact. Taking a step back is taking a step back from the relationship, a step back from interaction.
As worded it seems to be saying "I withdraw from the relationship and focus on myself based on my own analysis of me. I don't really get any input from you. You don't matter. You don't really affect me."


To me this is like someone saying "As long as you feel fine, can live your life normally, enjoy the things you enjoy, you're still happy, then there's no reason to start eating healthy or to ever visit a doctor. And if anything changes, well, deal with it yourself. You work on you."


Based solely on what is in the OP, possibly out of context or part of a larger work, what's quoted makes it seem like the person doesn't know the difference between something needing to be "fixed" and something that needs basic maintenance, upkeep, attention, feedback, and focus to keep it going.

And of course there's the obvious "What happens when the mission driven person that's in a relationship comes across someone else that seems to be a better match towards fulfilling that mission?"

To me the OP about "mission driven" people is, at best, seeing relationships like two people playing a video game.
Where the game is the "mission" and each person has a controller.
Not fulfilling the mission of the game the "mission driven" player stops playing and looks at their own skills and how to improve them in order to overcome any of the other players weaknesses (with possibly expecting the other person to do the same, but to focus on their own weaknesses to help the other person fulfill their mission, subordinating themselves to the other), or to get rid of the other player.
As opposed to both players talking to each other, working with each other, helping each other to learn to play the game together, or trying to figure out if they should play a different game altogether, if the game is actually interfering, or do something other than play games at all.

So to me, the OP isn't something "quite beautiful and something to ponder" as much as something possibly horrible and should be avoided.

But again, devil is in the details. There are a lot of words that would need more clear definition. Like what is the actual "mission."
What exactly do they consider "work."
What exactly does "vibrational," or, "flows," or, "connect," look like and mean to them.

Without any details this can range anywhere from a guy telling you what he thinks you want to hear without any intention of backing it up (or backing it up to the bare minimum in order to get what he wants from you), all the way to the guy changed his mind based on new information (but possibly didn't tell you about it).

And somewhere in the middle it can include you heard one thing, he meant another, and when he acted on what he meant, rather than what you think he meant, there's a disconnect where you think he should have done something else.

Doesn't really matter if none of them are sexually attracted to you.

Other than that, how much older are we talking about?
A month? A decade? Are we talking nursing home biddies with the bright yellow "come do me" tennis balls on their walkers, shambling around with the tops of their knee high stockings showing?