YOU ARE at THIS web-ring: GordonWatts.com/love.html / GordonWayneWatts.com/love.html
 ** Click on "Refresh/Reload" to see most updated page. ** Then hit PRINT !!
Matters of Romance News Flash: FLORIDA LAW now requires a THREE DAY waiting period for marriage licenses! (Like there is with guns!) The law goes into effect Jan 01, 1999! (See text for details at bottom!) Also: we cover Unjustifiable Homicide known as "abortion." See for details.

UPDATE: Friday, 22 July 2011: As you can see from the dated 'News Flash' above, this research page was originally published 'way back' when I was in college; however, new developments have occurred through the wonders of science.
WE TOLD YOU SO: In short, The Register's 'crazy' theory about 'things on common' was proved to be correct, but (more importantly), there are now a SLEW of dating services available to help you find your 'perfect match.' Click *here* to get down to the updates --or, if you prefer, you may read the research below --but I (editor, Gordon Wayne Watts) must warn you, that my 'writing style' back in the day was quite unprofessional (not the 'colourful' style!), and somewhat incoherent --changing subjects & going off on 'wild tangents' (and there are even some outdated & bad links below as well). I'm leaving it as is to preserve the original feel for the research -- so, the original research is directly below -- but the updates (the good stuff) is/are at the bottom, *here*.

** As a graduate with Honors (Golden Key National Honor Society) from FSU (The Florida State University) -- and the resultant holder of a B.S. degree (Double Major: Biological Science / Chemical Science), I've indeed studied which ingredients comprise the best recipe for romance ... and marriage. (And, I've, of course, been curious as a human being having taken on human form ...) MARRIAGE: Second in importance to Nothing! except the Almighty Creator GOD!!!

OK, let's kick it off with a short quiz: one question (and, no peeking!)

Which is best (over all other methods) for romantic success? Lovebirds
a) Things in common between man and woman
b) Opposites attract
c) neither a. nor b. is a factor

(I know some people will say "The LORD's will" or "fate," but, the Lord would want us also to use wisdom, and we cite our reference for those who trust & believe the Bible: The Book of Matthew, Chapter 10, Verse 16 says: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." So, put on your thinking cap: we need an answer, and here it is ...)

ANSWER: a) Things in common.

Yeah, I know, some of you will say "I'd get bored with someone like myself." Well, here's what I say to that: You do the studies and see which works best. The more similar, the better they get along; the less similar, the worse, the research indicates. I cite an expert for The Register's reference here. (Warren, N.C., Finding the Love of Your Life: Ten Principles for Choosing the Right Marriage Partner, Pocket Books, pp. 48-49, ISBN 0-671-89201-0)

Now, I directly quote Dr. Neil Clark Warren, PhD. and Christian Psychologist/Author: "Principle #3: Make sure the person you marry is very similar to you." (Ibid., p. 162)

*_MY_* PRINCIPAL POINTS (not Dr. Warren's here) to be made:
((( #1 ))) Similar Personalities build stronger relationships -- romantic and otherwise.
((( #2 ))) Similar Appearances are "more attractive."
((( #3 ))) Similar Blood Types avoid Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn -- the Rh-incompatibility disease.

Dr. Warren was a dean of Fuller Theological Seminary's Graduate School of Psychology, author of books, one of which is available from Focus on the Family Publishing, and a featured guest on radio and TV, including Geraldo and The Oprah Winfrey Show.

He is a trained expert to be sure; yet, he researched other studies to check the facts. Check out what he uncovered: (Please, don't consider this a copyright infringement, Pocket Books; these are only selected for review and academic purposes, according to law.)
"J. Phillippe [see note about spelling below] Rushton, a professor at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, summarizes a considerable body of research:

Several studies have shown that not only the occurrence of relationships but also their degree of happiness and stability can be predicted by matching of personal attributes.

Finally, after a careful review of the literature, researchers White and Hatcher conclude:

Clinical studies available indicate that similarity is associated with marital success and is less associated with marital instability and divorce. Evidence suggests that dissimilarity per se is associated with instability and divorce." (Ibid., p. 49)

Note about spelling for above: I, editor Gordon Watts, found many web pages spelling Mr. Rushton's first name two ways: "Phillippee," and, more commonly with only one "p" as "Phillipe." Thus, even thought Dr. Warren uses the less common spelling, it seems ok to me: it stays as is.

Dr. Warren lists as important or "absolutely essential" the following similarities (pp.53-54):
Intelligence (not Education); Values; Intimacy; Interests; and, Expectations about roles. (It is noteworthy to note that he didn't list ethnic background or race as essential to compatibility. Marriages are usually within the same ethni-racial and religious background, but I and other researchers are not prejudiced nor inflexible.)

Some "Differences that spell trouble" include:
Energy level; personal habits; use of money; and, "verbal skills and interests." (There is "interests" again!) He also cites flexibility as a quality or trait that can compensate for a multitude of differences.

Finally, Dr. Warren lists among his other principles that one must not be too young, too impatient, must not marry someone with a behavioral problem, must learn to be intimate, to resolve differences, be comfortable with your decision, wait for a deeper love, consider advice from friends, relatives, and so on. This list I am citing IS NOT comprehensive for his book. (The Register only does a book review to support the claims being made here; We will leave the rest to his book since we do not hold copyright.)

His claims, however, are supported, by a U.S. News & World Report quote I found: "More than 90 percent of all people marry and, they typically chose mates who closely resemble themselves, from weight and height, to intelligence and values, to nose breadth and even earlobe length." (p. 59 of the July 19, 1993 issue)

The implication above is that the natural tendency for persons is to gravitate towards those similar to them is beneficial. The implication is supported by the evidence.

OK, how about some support from the Bible? (Don't cringe, atheists: we must consider all the facts.) * Genesis 2:22: "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
TRANSLATION: Woman is from man -but *not* the same gender: She must be female. (I don't mean this in any way to disrespect or insult homosexuals -I love homosexuals and gays, yes, I do, but I am straight, not gay. LOL)

Amos 3:3 says: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" This is a rhetorical (obvious) question: the answer is a resounding "No."

--> From the New Testament, I just now realized: IT AGREES:
1st John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

This is significant, since we are the 'bride of Christ,' and the bride and groom are SIMILAR: Look at that again: We shall BE LIKE Him [Jesus].

This accords with 2nd Corinthians 6:14, which says: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:..."

Yes, the 'significant other' has to be saved ALSO (read: Spiritually 'SIMILAR'), but it is much more that that -THAT is why Dr. Warren and I do our respective research!

Also, I, editor Gordon Watts, cite my own informal but scientific personal study. It seems to confirm the other studies. But before you take my word too far, let me point out that since it is "good," therefore it ** IS ** from God! My scripture reference:
The Book of James, Chapter 1, Verse 17 "Every **GOOD** gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." ~ WHICH AGREES WITH: Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are *TRUE*...think on **THESE** things." (I ask you: Is Dr. Warren's research not true and good? ~ But of course: Think on THESE things - I rest my case.)

How imprinting affects young birds' later sexual preferences: SOME CONFLICTING DATA POINTS!Birds!
Here, we see the effect of imprinting on apparent sexual selection of birds. (It is only apparent because the birds may only want to spend time with similar birds for non-sexual reasons.) It is a well-known fact among biologists that experiences of animals when they're young will influence the thing that they consider "mother" or "mate." In fact, ethological biologist Konrad Lorenz, one of the first scientists to do imprinting experiments, is famous for convincing young gosling birds the he was their mother as shown by their following him. He also convinced a male jackdaw bird (similar to a crow) that he was its mate as evidenced by the bird's attempts to shove chewed-up worms in Lorenz' mouth to feed its "mate." (How the bird was raised trains the bird to look for mates similar to its parents, which, of course, would lead it to other birds similar to itself. Aren't humans kind of like that? We tend to look for someone like our parents when we marry, don't we?)

The picture to the right shows the result of imprinting. The genetic code of the birds, then looks for "similar" mates. This supports my theories. But, look! -- There's a fly in the ointment (conflicting data!). The birds' preference for other birds seems to decrease/decline as the prospective mate is *very* similar. This rather opposes or conflicts with my theories here. Oh well, as an honest scientist, I must present ** all ** the data, even if it disagrees with my hypotheses. Yet, these birds may be an anomalous (unusual) case. OK, I say that given more studies, most (but not all) animals will show more attraction as they are more similar. Perhaps, we humans should learn a lesson and take a cue from our less advanced winged neighbors here and see the value in common interests.

(Source for the picture, Figure 8.15, along the right-hand margin of the screen, the bird attraction graph: Goodenough, J., et al., Perspectives in Animal Behavior, Publishers: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-53623-7, p. 268. Other data: ibid, pp. 261-269.)

And, also, don't the intuitions and gut feelings also bear witness to these claims? But, there are some popular misconceptions that must be addressed first:
some say that people start looking and acting like one another after they get married. The Holy Books tell us that two become one, and they Do, but, we are only so flexible as humans. Stop and consider: when is the last time you saw an old high school friend start looking (or acting) like his or her spouse? Maybe, they were older, heavier, and/or grayer haired, but really, anything else? Didn't think so! So, the moral of the story is this: Don't assume something without careful study, consideration, and input from others as well! Especially something as important as Romance. (Please pardon my sentence fragment or non-standard capitalization of "Romance" etc.)

And, intuition tells us that couples will never get bored because of being "too similar" due to sexual attraction! Both emotional attachment and physical attraction will always be positive factors. When added to our efforts AND a similar core of values & personalities, the end result is ... compatibility. Now, did y'all get all that?

This just in:
WJZT-FM Stereo 100.7 MHz (Smooth Jazz 100.7), a Tallahassee radio station, has what is called "Romance Connections" or something like that. The reason I mention it? Because, according to the advertisement, their compatibility software matches people by making sure only persons who AGREE on at least 95% (that's ninety-five percent!) of 'things' are 'connected.' What those "things" are is currently unknown, but it probably consists of personality traits and 'likes-and-dislikes.' As a matter of fact, many dating services match people based on similar interests. Thing that make you go "Hmmm..." (E.g., maybe I'm right about my theories, here.)

Good luck on your 'Romance Connections,' Smooth Jazz.

The bottom line: 'Things in common' and Honesty are good in relationships.

It is the simple things of romance that work: Effort and consideration for all parties' feelings. Just remember: if we try to get "perfect matches" in organ transplants (ugh! yuk! the tissues themselves sure aren't perfect!), then should we not also try for the same "similarities" in romance too?

One last point: just as in a heart transplant, the heart needs a body, NOT another heart; thus, the male needing a female & vice verca is only logical. This supports the heterosexual (straight) method, but I am not prejudicial nor against the love of our homosexual fellow citizens. They are beautiful people too. Indeed, in some cases, their homosexuality protects them from "straight" heartbreak until the right moment. We straight people, I must confess, probably have more fatal lovers' quarrels than our gay neighbors. I don't say for certain on this point, but I sure don't like our approximately 50 to 55 percent divorce rate here in the United States now-a-days.

PS: Please see my 'Debate' page for further info about AIDS/HIV/.and./AZT. Apparently, some people may have missed this section of my website, but you just scroll on down to the bottom, and click on it there. PS: A recent email to me from a doctor I'll keep anonymous, suggested that the influence of genetics was stronger, and that the influence of environment was weaker, in causing homosexuality, than I have estimated. (I estimate a 50/50 split, based on recent research that I have read.) I will research this claim as I have time -- and it may be true, as many other personality traits are VERY strongly influenced by genetic makeup, as shown by the STRONG similarities in the personalities, preferences, and behavior of identical twins that are raised in separate environments -- and by separate families for most of their lives. But, here is *this* section's info about Homosexual-related topics:

A little bit more needs to be said about homosexuality to do justice to the topic & people wanting info on the subject:

CAUSES: To the best of my memory, I recall that some of the causes of homosexuality are bad childhoods, particularly abusive or absent relationships with the father -- true for both male and female children. This makes sense in light of the findings that homosexuality is about 50% influenced by environment. But, remember that with hormones and other bodily chemicals influenced by genetic composition of each person, it's not surprising that identical twins who are separated at birth and grow up apart are later found by scientists to be VERY SIMILAR in many personality characteristics.

(Most other personality traits were found to be virtually identical in identical twins separated at birth and raised apart. Thus, most other personality traits may be considered to be nearly 100% controlled by inherited genes. On another note, the average intelligence for persons of one race is not measurably different from those of another race, when considering the different opportunities and oppression experienced by different races. It could be, but, as it turns out, it is not. Yet, two brothers raised together usually have DIFFERENT personalities, but not as different as non-relatives.)

Other Causes of Homosexuality: It then seems reasonable that bad adulthoods could push one to homosexuality. In fact, I've read several magazines that indicated well-known homosexual Ellen DeGeneres had some heartbreak with some guy. It is unclear who was at fault, or if they were just "incompatible."

The conclusion of these findings, however, is that people can get burned and become sensitive, pushing them to look for a "cooler" or "slower" relationship. (I personally don't favor a homosexual love life, and I think it's another form of impatience in addition to the fact guys are not attractive -and women are. Yet, "straight" heartbreak can be bad!)

Abuse can make one sensitive -- too sensitive -- to the hard bumps and fast twists (no sexual puns, thank you) of the fast drive down love lane.

So, the CONCLUSION of the matter is this: for people of any sexual orientation, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As they say, prevention is the best medicine. "Marriage classes," which I hear the State of Florida now mandates for people seeking a marriage license, are good for looking for a cure for "differences" in opinion, whether it be money matters or sex, but what about prevention? Thus, I advise you check out The Register's web page, which apparently you already did -- but, this time with the theme in mind to NOT BE IMPATIENT. You might research the scientific studies to see what has worked for other people. Yes, science can help you by letting you learn from ** other ** peoples' mistakes -- or successes, and not your own, ouch! You can also check my references for accuracy and completeness.

Speaking of sexuality, here below are two links to Gemma's Twilight Zone. Gemma is a hermaphrodite, born with both male and female attributes, that is, transsexual or with LACK of sexual orientation. Also known as the Transexual Zone, her story is found at...

http://freespace.virgin.net/gemma.brunswick

and

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Cafe/2899

Remember points two (2) and three (3) above? Well, on point #2, the claim that similar appearances are more attractive, I will only offer scant evidence: see the quote below that says: "Scientists have long known that people typically chose mates who closely resemble themselves in build..." This supports the intuition that "birds of a feather flock together." Yes, people sometimes find that "opposites" are exciting, but this fascination with the different is usually short-lived. That covers all I say about point 2, but what about point 3?

Knowing your blood types can prevent Kell or Rh Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn (and other blood mis-matches will do this, too!) should you ever become pregnant. What is a "hemolytic disease?" Well, when the mother is Rh-Negative, this means that she has NO genes for Rh-Positive, thus hinting that the father should NOT either. And...? Sure enough, if the father does, then the baby might be Rh-Positive, and he/she would provoke an immune response from the mother's immune system, which is unfamiliar with the Rh antigens. The baby would probably survive due to the slow response time of the immune system -- this due in part to the fact that the woman would not have "broken blood" until late in the pregnancy. However, the second child, if Rh-Positive, will usually get attacked by the mother's immune system. Thus, in those cases, which comprise about one out of seven pregnancies here in USA, the mother is typically given antibodies that are strong enough to destroy the any antigens leaking out of the baby but not strong enough to actually kill the baby. This way here, the mother's immune system remains unaware of the problem.

You might ask, "What happens if both the parents each have one gene for Rh-Positive and one for Rh-Negative?" This would make it appear that the matching of two similar partner (both "Rr" for the Rh-gene) -- and both Rh-Positive as this is a "dominant" trait -- well, this possibility makes it look as if they could have an "rr" or Rh-Negative child whose immune system would attack his/her mother's Rh-blood antigens. But, you see, this is just not so. Why? ... Well, it's like this: First, the child's immune system is not yet strong enough to detect the mother's blood antigens. Second, the child's immune system, even if it could detect something, is not yet strong enough to go on the offensive. Third, the child's immune system, even IF provoked, will probably NOT come in contact with that scenario again as would the Rh-Negative mother above. To illustrate, recall that type-O blood CAN be infused into a type-A individual even though it possesses antibodies. This is usually NOT a problem because the amount of antibodies in the transfused blood is small as it is usually just a liter or so. But, if the type-A blood is given to a type-O person, then the full defenses of all of the body's blood come into action and there is a major problem. So, where does that leave us? ...?

MORAL of the STORY: Marry someone who is a LOT like you if you want to be successful here.

Now, about that breaking news about the three day "waiting period" for licenses:
Here's the deal: because of our monstrously high divorce rate (Florida, about #1 in crime in the US, surprisingly has only about a 50% divorce rate like the rest of the nation)... well, ... because of that high divorce rate, legislators have passed this bill. Couples can bypass the 3-day wait and, possibly get a small discount on fees by taking a pre-marital preparation course. The law suggests (but does not require) it cover such areas as financial issues, conflict management, communication skills, and parenting.

It's about time we apply science to relationships and marriage. Furthermore, the idea of divorce is not only immoral from a religious point of view, it is also not usually a good idea, unless someone is getting beaten by their partner! Think of a person experiencing serious withdrawal symptoms from drugs as an analogy. Well, SURPRISE! It's not just an analogy; it really happens. Here is how:
----- The body's brain and various glands produce chemicals (drugs, yes!) such as adrenaline, androgen, estrogen, FSH (follicle stimulating hormone), and testosterone, just to name a few. These drugs are dependent on experiences, such as relationships in the romantic sense. Well, when the relationships are broken off, the drugs (and reality) are altered. Hence, the withdrawal symptoms are the logical result!

We know that improper relationships of people who got IMPATIENT cause resultant babies in the mothers bodies to be unwanted and increase desire for killing the kids in uterus via ** abortion **. We know, also, that it is against the law to kill another person unless it is to save the life of someone. Abortion usually is not legally justifiable homicide. Sorry to touch on such a "hot" topic, but it is important. Even those few babies who are a product of rape and incest (like, if a brother rapes his sister) -- even those kids usually turn out normal. Ask any biologist who knows: many animals are bred brother-sister and produce NORMAL offspring; and, many persons are the product of cousin marriages (a full 25% as close as brother-sister incest!) -- yet, almost all those kids turn out normal. (See bottom of article for explanation as to why this is so!)

I know many products of cousin marriages, and they are normal. ** Also: --> For more info on abortion, you can visit the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform web site at http://www.CBRinfo.org . (Be sure to click on the BACK "<--" key to get back to The Register.)

In closing, I wish you the best of luck in not becoming impatient in romantic matters of the heart: they can lead to hurtful shortcuts like abortion -- or heartbreak, too. We should strive to take our time to do the job right, not the job fast. Correct? In the day of trials and testing, the weak faint. (Proverbs 24:10: If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small.) Are you weak? Or, instead, will you do the job right?

The Register's corporate sponsors include FSU and God. Here are their advertisements about useful services THEY provide:

FSU Offers free web sites. Click on http://www.acns.fsu.edu/Docs/WWW.shtml for details.

Click on the new section explaining things about God's role in our lives at this clickable.

I know I mentioned how increasing honesty will increase the stability of the male/female relationship, but it bears emphasis/repeating! It does. You can get more details on that subject by clicking on "this" above to learn about God, goodness, and stability, and the relationship between them.

About me:
I may not have 20 million old girlfriends and a scrillion sexual experiences, but I don't need them to know what's important. As my grandmother used to tell my mother when she was a child, you don't have to jump off a building to know that it's bad news. Now, do you really have to "test drive" the girlfriend or boyfriend in whom you're interested? Do you really have to touch the wall plug to see if it has 110 volts AC? (Zzzapppp!) No, goofy: pull out the voltmeter! Do you REALLY have to jump off that building to measure it's height? No, goofy: use the tape measure, or calculate its height using triangle trigonometry and angles! Now, listen up Romeo and Juliet, do you really have to.... well, you know, eh? No way! Just do your homework on this matter, and keep your shirt on!

SOME THOUGHT STIMULATORS:

Although I don't promote it, there were brothers marrying sisters or the like in the Bible:

"12 And yet, she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." Genesis 20:12, referring to Abraham speaking to King Abimelech about Sarah, his wife. YET, ISAAC WAS normal... not DEFORMED as some would say that brother sister inbreeding would cause! In fact, (single first) cousins share a full 25% the amount of similar genetics as brothers & sisters. Remember when I said I'd explain it? Well, here it is:
Children get 1/2 of their genes from each parent. So, brothers & sisters could get identical (100%) or all different (0%) genes. On the average, however, they get are 50% alike. The Uncles & Aunts are sibling to the parent, and so share 50% with them, or 50% of 50% with the kids. They have about 25% of the same genes of those that do vary. The Aunts' & Uncles' kids are cousins with their siblings' kids. Another halving of similarities means that cousins share ~12.5% similarities in genetic inheritance, a full quarter (25%) as do brother sister marriages. Thus, we would expect cousin marriages to produce 25% as many deformed or retarded children. Put another way, you multiply the very small incidence of observed problems with cousin marriages by the number four (4), and you still get a very small number of problems that would be expected with kids of brothers & sisters who married and got away with it. Now, The Register does not endorse this type of marriage because it is against current norms. But, when it does happen, in either animals or humans, usually no problem results. Surprise!

"Scientists have long known that people typically chose mates who closely resemble themselves in build and intelligence. But a survey of more than 10,000 people in 37 cultures on six continents, conducted by University of Michigan psychologist David Buss, reveals that men value physical attractiveness and youth in a mate more than women do; women are more concerned with a prospective mate's ambition, status, and wealth." (Reader's Digest. November 1993 Issue. Their Source: Condensed from U.S. News & World Report: (July 19, 1993) by William F. Allman. Reader's Digest page number: pp.81-82.) Talk about brother/sister stuff, check out what they do to animals:

"Experimentation is somewhat easier in organisms such as the fruit fly, Drosphila, which has a generation time of about two weeks and can be inbred by brother-sister mating for many generations to yield almost identical genetic constitutions. In such pure lines, a new type having, say, white eyes instead may appear with a frequency of about one in a hundred thousand." (Ruth Sager and Francis J. Ryan, Cell Heredity Copyright © 1961 by John Wiley & Sons Inc. Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 61-11498. Page 35.)

** Also, it is common knowledge that geneticists breed inbred strains of mice where the sibling kids mate and have mouse pups; then those siblings inbreed, etc. The mice, which are known to be genetically similar to humans (that's why they're studied so much!), do NOT have bad health or genetic defects very often at all. Hmmmm.

Oh, and here is a gem: are our scientists on top of it? In don't think so. Check out this:

"How do you go about creating the 49 combinations of progeny from the seven men and seven women featured in the Time picture chart shown below? Doing so by the scientific rules of genetic engineering -- themselves extremely complex and not yet fully understood -- would be impossible. Instead, Time chose a software package called Morph 2.0, produced by Gryphon, to run on a Macintosh Quadra 900." (Time (Special Issue), Fall 1993, Vol. 142 No. 21, (Copyright © 1993 Time, Inc.) ISBN Number: 0040-781X. Page 66.)

** Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

UPDATES: -- Friday, 22 July 2011
** Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

OK, this original research paper (posted online at the follow 3 mirrors --'spares' in case one website is slow to load or 'has a flat' on the 'Internet Highway') shown above was based on much research --some done by Dr. Neil Clark Warren:

  • GordonWatts.com/love.html (GoDaddy professional service)
  • GordonWayneWatts.com/love.html (Yahoo!/GeoCities professional service)
  • Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/love.html ('Free' website provided by Lycos/Tripod)

    • Dr. Warren is, of course, the founder of e-Harmony.com, a Christian dating service.
    * The rest of their websites are as follows: Facebook.com/eHarmony -- Twitter.com/eHarmony -- YouTube.com/eHarmony.
    While this is a very reputable dating service, and also said to be responsible for 5% of all marriages in America, nonetheless, the screening process is a lot of long paperwork.

    Quicker service is offered by Soul2Match.com, which uses advanced computer analysis of faces to find similarities, which are byproducts of one's genetic code --and which confer personality traits that would find a similar mate more attractive --and backed by research to this effect. You basically upload your photo, and then match it with a gallery of other photos for a match.
    * Their other websites are as follows: Blog.Soul2Match.com -- Facebook.com/Soul2Match -- Youtube.com/FaceMates -- Twitter.com/Soul2Match -- Youtube.com/Soul2Match -- Youtube.com/Soul2Match2011 This service is free, and allows you to upload an extra, optional photo for display.

    Easier yet is FindYourFaceMate.com, which allows you to not only upload five (5) photos for display in your profile, but (and most importantly) this service (also free) not only scans all five uploaded photos for potential matches, but it does so automatically: In other words, you don't have to go to a 'gallery' and manually do comparisons.
    * Their other websites are as follows: Facebook.com/FindYourFaceMate -- FaceMatcher.Wordpress.com -- Twitter.com/FaceMates -- Youtube.com/FindYourFacemate

    CAVEAT: Careful here -- One of Soul2Match.com's official Youtube channels is Youtube.com/FaceMates, but the http://Twitter.com/FaceMates channel is the official Twitter channel of FindYourFaceMate.com, a completely different company by all appearances --and apparently their competition --so, don't get confused here, OK? These last 2 websites ask you basic questions (like interests, hobbies, politics, and religion), so as to help you refine your match, but the questionnaires are nowhere near as cumbersome and lengthy as those of e-Harmony, and thus the computer makes the matching much easier and much quicker --and for free!

    Two other research projects that might be of interest to you are the following:

    http://morph.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Transformer (University of St. Andrews 'Face Transformer') cf: (Google look-up of this)

    AS WELL AS:

    FaceResearch.org and its transform page: FaceResearch.org/demos/transform cf: (Google look-up of this)

    Both research projects offer online programs to change the gender of a face --which is what you would want to do, if you are heterosexual (straight) -- the 2nd one is a bit trickier: They way I've gotten it to work is set the equation up as a ratio between the average male and average female, and input the one person, and solve for the unknown. -- But, why do all that when free online dating services are offering to do that for you?

    PS: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305 is a link to 'Weird Science,' a 1980's movie, starring Anthony Michael Hall, Ilan Mitchell-Smith, and Kelly LeBrock --and about 2 boys who use a computer to create the 'perfect match' -- sound familiar?

    (-:/

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weird_Science_(film) or *this* Google look-up of: Weird Science Movie.

    UPDATE: -- Monday, 01 August 2011: 6-Part Video Series
    ** Click *_here_* to jump back to the top of the page.

    With greater than a 50% divorce rate in America, it's time to crack down and use 'Prevention' as the best medicine here -- let the 6-Part series begin...


    Part 1 of a 6-part series on the SCIENCE of dating: e-Harmony is featured company


    Principle websites:


    This video is a commercial from e-Harmony ("Our Promise" Uploaded by eHarmony on Jun 2, 2011)


    * e-Harmony is the first service within the online dating industry to use a scientific approach to matching highly compatible singles. It is well-known as the "#1 Trusted Online Dating Site for Singles," and is responsible for nearly 5% of U.S. marriages, according to a 2009 survey conducted for eHarmony by Harris Interactive.


    The Register contacted e-Harmony seeking permission to use their commercial as part of our 6-part news story. While they have not returned our messages,