Don't discount the younger men. I thought no way in heck I would date a younger man but I gave it a try. He ended up being very smart and mature. Sometimes too mature. I ended up married to a 70 year old man trapped in a very hot 28 year old's body. I am 36.
I also vote for comfortable, but neat looking, and something that makes you feel confident. I wore skinny jeans, tall boots (it was winter) and a long but tailored sweater, a necklace and a cute beret hat. Seemed to work
"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.
In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."
- Ray Peat
To the OP
I like a woman that shows confidence without desperation. Usually this means something that shows SHAPE, but not SKIN. Strippers show skin.
Also for me, on a FIRST date, I wouldn't go with jeans. They are often pretty masculine looking on all but the most shapely women. If one is trying to impress, I cannot imagine jeans doing it better than a dress or dress pants.
Lastly, no cleavage. That reeks of trashiness to me as a first impression. Wear something skin tight over something with the top half of your mountain range flying around Good luck.
"The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."
Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )
Is it a sitting down or a standing/moving date? Comfy, but stylish, shoes will ensure that you're not tottering or hobbling around. I'm a skirt/dress girl and therefore that's what I would wear on a date. Echo what others have said - don't wear something out of your usual style range, aim for comfort rather than discomfort - tugging at your clothes is not attractive. Style rather than sexiness. Understated rather than underdressed.
Good luck and let us know how it goes!
My journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60211.html Into RPG table top games? Check out FateStorm and (in development) Vanguard! 3D printed miniatures for sci-fi RPGs.
HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).
My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links
Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes
" The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel
Figured I should update-- I ended up wearing a sleeveless purple dress with sandals and my hair down. No idea what he thought of my outfit, but the date went great! Definite non-douche! Thank goodness.
I think I should clarify that it's not that I'm attracted to dbags, it's that a) I seem to attract/encourage them, and b) people I know set me up with them a lot. They go, "oh, I know this guy at my office who works out! You work out! It's a great match!"
I've been going on pretty much exclusively first dates all year. Because I know within ten seconds if the guy is going to be able to converse at the level I need, or if he's going to have opinions that are going to make me want to punch him. (I once had a date who said he was a really big Civil War buff--which, cool, I'm into history as well--and then went on to "teach" me very condescendingly about how the whole thing could have been avoided if Lincoln had just bought all the slaves from the South and set them free. And this was one of the smarter first dates I've had.)
And then I saw this:
Lol, re the Civil War guy. Maybe that's why I have such a hard time dating normal people. Usually, within the first three dates, I would bring up the fact that the Civil War could have been avoided if the North had just allowed the South to secede. And I would then give a long-winded explanation of how slavery would not have been economically feasible in the absence of the Fugitive Slave Clause (in the Constitution, yeah) and the Fugitive Slave Act, which was passed later on. Thus, had the North allowed the South to secede, the Northern states would not longer be required to return escaped slaves to the South, and slavery would not have been sustainable for long in the South. By the time I'm done, their eyes would have glazed over, or they would argue that Lincoln needed to preserve the Union. I'm sure a lot of them secretly wanted to punch me too.
Edited to add: For further information on the above topic (regarding the economic sustainability of slavery), I recommend the following book by Jeff Hummel: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...52931?v=glance
Last edited by diene; 09-11-2013 at 06:34 AM.