On Training, Dating and the Rules of Attraction

First, the training. I ran 74 miles in the past seven days, a bit of an increase from the 28 and 16 in previous weeks. One doesn't make that jump without some adjustments. I slowed down to a glacial pace, especially during runs after meals (I still haven't figured out how ultrarunners manage to run and eat) and I had to start stretching to keep from having my right hip, my hamstrings and both achilles tendons ache. The plan is to get used to the two-a-day short runs and then try to shift the mileage into longer runs. Only 53 weeks until the 2011 Superior 100! I'm planning, if the car allows, to be between Sugarloaf and Temperance on Saturday morning, if you want to find me out on that course.
...................
After Jenny and I went our separate ways, I've found what I miss most is having someone else filter all the weird ideas that float through my head. I've been writing and then deleting posts all week. This one actually looks promising. I started thinking about dating again and, at this point, I'm doing a lot more thinking about dating than actual dating. I recently met a woman and the thought went through my mind: does she pass the "friend's acceptability test?" Then I thought that it's probable that no one else on the planet's ever thought about this quite the same way.

Well, maybe Jimmy Soul did.


Men don't really want to end up with beautiful women - they're just too much work! Ideally, you want someone that makes your friends say something like, "Yeah, she's okay... not my type, but she's all right." That's exactly what went through my mind when I met the women my friends Scott and Chuck ended up marrying. My own choices haven't usually been met with that response.

My first girlfriend, Stacy, I didn't bother introducing to friends or family. I was just getting used to people in the street staring at her; at 5'4" and at most 85 lbs., people stared like the circus had come to town. There was no chance she was going to be considered acceptable by any of my friends (and I didn't care... much).

On the opposite end of the spectrum was Dannie. A mutual friend of ours, on finding out we were dating, pulled me aside and said, "Steve, she's gorgeous, but you know she's crazy, don't you?" She'd turned her apartment into an altar and watched a TV not tuned to any station, so, yeah, I knew she was crazy. But, as one gets older, the pickings get slim (God help the woman who thinks I'm a catch at this point) and I do okay with some craziness.

There are different types of attractiveness. There's the "cute," which means either young, small or babyfaced; the babyfaced do not age well. There's "pretty," which generally suggests health and is usually more a matter of coloring than anything else - often leading to the "without makeup shock." And there's the "beautiful," which is all about symmetry and proportion and tends toward the bland and uninteresting. Lastly, there's the "exotic," which don't manage to fit into the other categories, but include those who catch one's attention just by being different.

Here's two minor celebrities I've met. One was trying to promote an Italian horror film she'd been in by being seen in the hot clubs and restaurants. The other I met after she gave a talk at the Center for Holocaust Studies. Guess which one I thought was "dateable." Hint: ladies don't sit like that.

Now, when it comes to what women claim they're looking for, "funny," "smart," "kind" and "reasonably fit" are the buzzwords. Hey! Over here! Stop staring at the paunchy dullard with the black credit card - he's married and under investigation for fraud.

So, back to where I started. I met this woman and she was cute, pretty, beautiful and exotic. She was also bright, charming and funny. So, a keeper, right? Nope - high class hooker.