October 2002

I perceive availability as having three distinct aspects: social, intimate and commitment.

Social availability evidences in the behavior of those who, for example, know how to "work" a party, strike up conversations with strangers easily, deliver presentations spontaneously, and deal constructively with social issues, including rejection.

Intimate availability evidences in the behavior of those who, for example, develop meaningful relationships with others, place more emphasis on people than things, think about consequences before acting, learn to confront issues rather than avoiding them, and are firmly grounded in their identities (sexual and otherwise).

Commitment availability evidences in the behavior of those who keep the commitments they make. Commitments may be of many different kinds. The important matchmaking component is that both parties to the relationship are able to make THE SAME KIND OF COMMITMENT. For the purposes of my program, "commitment" evidences in the behavior of those who seek, find and keep loving, stable, lifetime, monogamous companions.

Figure A shows social, intimate and commitment availability. Figure B shows intimate and commitment availability, but not social. Figure C shows commitment availability, but neither intimate nor social. Figure D shows unavailability over all aspects. Figure E shows social and intimate availability, but not commitment. Figure F shows social availability, but neither intimate nor commitment. Figure G shows intimate availability, but neither social nor commitment

As a matchmaker, I work with those individuals represented by Figures A and B only. While other individuals, represented by Figures C through G may make good friends and work associates, they are dead ends in terms of the mission my clients employ.

I see three common mistakes made by those seeking life-partners:

The first mistake is to select candidates whose availability aligns with Figure E. These candidates know how to present themselves well, and are adept at intimate behaviors, including friendship, romance and sex. They keep reliving the same two aspects of availability – social and intimate – over and over again. They become experts at the outer aspects. But there is no commitment, which absence makes them fundamentally poor matches for those whose availability aspects align with Figures A and B.

The second mistake is overlooking candidates whose availability aligns with Figure B. These candidates are very intimate and committed, but their exterior behavior may betray their inward abilities. Often these candidates have an innocence, shyness or rigidity about them that is mistaken for unavailability, when nothing could be further from the truth. So, to the extent that their partners can accept a lack of social graces, they are otherwise excellent matches for those whose availability aspects align with Figures A and B.

The third mistake is overlooking candidates whose availability aligns with Figure A. Sometimes, others presume that all attractive people are represented by Figure E. Gay people learn fairly early – to the extent that they experience "the scene" – that beauty is often only skin deep. However, generalizations don’t work well when it comes to matchmaking. Many extraordinary candidates get overlooked simply because they are beautiful. And sometimes beauty runs to the core.

My theory of availability is more complex in practice. Sometimes individuals are in transition from one Figure to the next. Sometimes those who begin as Figure As become Figure Es. And vice versa. Also, there may be extreme aspect shifts due to environment, especially during transitory crises. Nothing is set in stone. Free choice makes us each a self-creation.

<< Back To Advice Page