All these sites basically aim to match people with versions of themselves - Romantic narcissism, is what it is.
For me, I like difference and mutual adaptation. Become more that way. But in these grossly self-centred times, it's difficult to find someone like that.
Sometimes, the more i look at relationships these days, methinks, there might be some virtue to arranged marriages as when two strangers get together, there is an understanding that it would require mutual learning and adaptation for it to work.....provided it is not undertaken within a patriarchal scheme of things.
But when it comes to many 'love marriages', 'romantically narcissistic marriages', there is an expectation for it to work WITHOUT much mutual learning or adaptation. Such a stance is reserved only for work or 'careers'. Hence, such relationships wane in passion with the passage of time, or where significant differences persist, the relationship ends, or is reduced to two people living separate lives together.
Anna Louise :
the problem with that is ideology, if you're not ideologically similar to someone from my experience it's just not gonna work, but surface deep stuff it's good to have differences. i think there are things people can't adapt to like deeply held moral positions etc.
Anna Louise Kathleen Jane, in all my relationships, both romantic and otherwise, I've always stipulated that it should not be myself or the other who ought to rule, but reason. The perfect woman, to me, is not one who is a good match to myself, but one who attempts to realise it. The same goes for my matching her too.
Even in matching, I identify 3 types. Matching down/neutral/up. For instance, picking up alcoholism just because the other is one would be matching down. Picking up some of the others gastronomic tastes, provided it is not injurious to health, would be matching neutral. And picking up exercise because the other is into it, would be matching up. The latter 2 is good. I expect and deliver both.