Bern Mendez on Dating for Professional Women

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/23

Bern Mendez, a relationship coach with over 14 years of experience, is known for empowering professional women to build meaningful romantic partnerships. Certified in Strategic Intervention and influenced by neuroscience and emotional attunement, Mendez shares insights on dating abroad, demographic imbalances, cultural dynamics, and emotional self-awareness. He emphasizes authenticity, values clarity, and realistic expectations in navigating today’s dating landscape. With a large global following and proven results, he advises women—especially high-achieving professionals—on how to expand their dating pool without compromising core values. His approach combines practical strategy with profound emotional insight for lasting relational success.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, I am pleased to be speaking with Bern Mendez. He is a dating and relationship coach with over fourteen years of experience. Mentored by Tony Robbins and certified in Strategic Intervention, Bern blends neuroscience-based emotional attunement with practical, real-world strategies to help professional women overcome emotional blocks and build committed, fulfilling partnerships.

His work empowers women to cultivate self-worth, emotional safety, and genuine connection. His YouTube channel, with over 226,000 subscribers and more than 30 million views, ranks among the top 12 most-subscribed dating advice platforms for women globally. He has guided women—including Fortune 100 executives, physicians, lawyers, therapists, and entrepreneurs—in over 24 countries. His insights have appeared in Redbook, CNN Money, Univision TV, HuffPost Live, MindBodyGreen, and other major outlets. Thank you very much for joining me today.

Bern Mendez: I appreciate the invitation—thank you for having me.

Jacobsen: What inspired your focus on helping professional women navigate dating abroad?

Mendez: That’s a great question. People often assume that going international dramatically expands the dating pool, which can be true. However, I distinguish between someone who is simply travelling and looking for a casual or enriching dating experience versus someone who is relocating to another country.

In the first case, yes—there can be fun, discovery, and sometimes meaningful connection. But if someone is moving abroad—especially with the hope of building a life there—they’re often seeking something more aligned, more lasting. They’re usually looking for the kind of relationship they may not have found in their previous location. So, I approach those scenarios differently because the intentions, environments, and cultural frameworks are not the same.

Jacobsen: And for you—why did you choose to focus on this particular demographic?

Mendez: It evolved organically. When I started coaching, I wasn’t specifically targeting professional women or even focusing exclusively on dating. I was helping people navigate significant life changes. Through that process, I noticed that a large portion of those who resonated with my work were high-achieving women—intelligent, successful, emotionally aware—but still struggling to create the kind of romantic relationship that matched the rest of their lives.

As I continued to listen and learn, it became clear that there was a gap—and that I could help fill it. My background encompasses a thorough examination of relationships, neuroscience, and communication. I’ve worked in many contexts—from assisting juvenile offenders to life-transition programs to coaching global professionals—and all of these experiences have contributed to my understanding of what helps relationships thrive.

Over time, I observed clear patterns and challenges that women in this demographic face, not because there’s something inherently wrong with them but because the dating landscape often fails to align with their level of growth and intentionality. So, I leaned into that work, and it has been gratifying.

So to get what you want—if you’re, as I said, a successful, intelligent woman looking for a compatible partner—it’s not as simple as “it’s just going to happen naturally.” There’s more nuance to the approach. That’s where the intersection of need and my work comes into play.

Jacobsen: What are these women looking for, and what is realistically available in the market for them? You mentioned earlier that there’s often a mismatch between expectations and reality.

Mendez: For sure, yes. I’ll start with this: based on the women I’ve had the privilege of working with and the research I’ve reviewed, there’s a general desire to find someone who is a peer—an actual match.

This often includes a similar level of education, emotional intelligence, financial stability, and ambition. That isn’t about judgment—it’s simply an observation. Statistically, this becomes a structural issue. For example, in the United States, among college-educated midlife women—let’s say between the ages of 40 and 65—there are roughly ten women for every six men in that same category. If you examine comparable countries globally, such as Canada, the UK, Germany, South Korea, or Japan, you observe a similar trend. In Japan, the ratio is closer to ten women for every five men.

So, from a purely statistical perspective, that’s the first challenge. There are more educated, successful women than there are similarly positioned men. That’s before we even get into compatibility, emotional maturity, or life-stage alignment.

The second part of the equation is emotional availability and awareness. Many women I work with are seeking emotionally attuned partners—those who understand nuance and compassion and can communicate on a deep level.

But we live in a world where many people exist in silos—digitally, culturally, and socially. A large number of men may not fully understand or be aware of the specific kinds of emotional pain or relational challenges that women face, particularly in today’s world. That lack of mutual understanding creates another layer of difficulty.

So yes, it’s a complex situation. There are no solutions—this isn’t a hopeless scenario. However, it’s not simple, and it’s not something that can be resolved with a quick fix or by “wishing yourself” into a match that doesn’t exist demographically or emotionally.

Jacobsen: That’s a beneficial breakdown—especially with the data around those ratios. Palette is another issue—in terms of what is wanted. You mentioned this 10-to-6 ratio in the U.S. or even 10-to-5 in Japan. Yet, reality is not going to provide that ideal match on average—not necessarily per individual, but demographically speaking.

Do you guide your clients to consider that broader palette? So, as you said, they can still get what they want—despite, at least on paper, the demographic reality we’re seeing in the population dynamics, particularly in advanced industrial economies?

Mendez: Yes, that’s part of what I do—though it’s not the only thing. One of the core ideas I work with is that if you want to create more of what you want, you need to show up more authentically.

If someone presents a kind of “beige version” of themselves—holding back the truth of who they are—it becomes harder for those genuinely aligned with them to recognize and connect with them. The first thing I help clients do is become more visible, expressive, and genuinely themselves.

Once that’s in place, we can work on expanding the pool. For example, many women are looking for partners with a college degree. However, many men may not yet hold that credential but are highly competent, purpose-driven, and thriving in their fields. Suppose you remove “college degree” as a non-negotiable and instead evaluate based on values, intelligence, and life direction. In that case, you open the door to more meaningful possibilities.

Another factor is height. I’ve worked with many women who say, “He needs to be at least six feet tall.” Statistically, in the U.S., only about 14.5% of men are six feet or taller. Suppose the preference is for someone 6’2″ and above. In that case, that number drops significantly—eliminating over 90% of potential partners based on one variable that does not correlate with long-term relationship success.

So yes, flexibility is key—but it needs to be intentional. I am never asking clients to abandon their values or settle for someone incompatible. Instead, I invite them to reassess the metrics that truly matter versus those that are preferences shaped by cultural norms or surface-level traits.

Age is another area. Some women have had great success expanding their age preferences. I’ve seen clients marry partners with a ten-year age gap—more than they initially thought they could accept—and go on to build deeply fulfilling, secure relationships.

In short, the more flexible you are on things that don’t impact long-term happiness—while remaining anchored in your core values—the more likely you are to find someone who truly meets you.

Jacobsen: But those wants—people might conflate them as if they were needs. So, they end up with a less realistic image of what is available. Is that a general pattern you see?

Mendez: Yes, that’s part of it. Many people haven’t taken the time to consciously distinguish between what is a true non-negotiable, what’s a nice-to-have, and what’s not important at all.

We live in a society that heavily glorifies relationships, often the highlight reel versions. Whether it’s a Hollywood wedding that gets significant media attention and then dissolves eight months later or a curated Instagram post of strangers at picture-perfect weddings, we’re constantly absorbing unrealistic standards.

That kind of saturation can make people idolize specific preferences—mistaking them for essentials. And often, when we dig a little deeper, we find that some of these so-called “needs” were never thoughtfully questioned to begin with.

Another layer is emotional regulation. When someone is overwhelmed, anxious, or in fight-or-flight mode, they are more likely to cling rigidly to specific expectations. However, you can slow down, regulate your nervous system, and engage in some value clarification. In that case, you create space to reassess. People may not change everything, but they often become far more flexible.

Let me give you an example. I had a client who insisted that a non-negotiable was: “The man I date must not have a dog.”I thought, okay, maybe there’s a trauma or allergy? But no—it was simply a preference that had calcified over time.

We gently opened up that belief, not by forcing a change, but by questioning whether it was truly essential. Eventually, she met and married a fantastic man—who owns a dog. And now, she proudly calls herself a dog mom and adores the animal.

That’s a more playful example, but there are other criteria—like age, income, education, and even geography—that can be revisited. Doing so doesn’t mean lowering standards; it means expanding possibilities while remaining anchored in core values.

Jacobsen: That’s a great story. And then there’s the other side—some people don’t want long-term relationships. They’re looking for a brief, passionate connection—akin to a summer romance. That’s also valid. But the people in between—those looking for something “medium-term”—are rarer. So, if someone came to you wanting just a short-term experience, what would you recommend they focus on versus someone who’s looking for long-term intimacy and emotional sustainability?

Mendez: Based on the kind of work I do, I don’t get people coming to me for a short-term fling. That’s usually easier to find and doesn’t require the kind of deep coaching I offer.

What I do get are people who have experienced short-term flings—and realized that it didn’t fulfill them or bring lasting satisfaction. So they come to me wanting something more meaningful, more emotionally grounded.

That said, if someone hypothetically came to me looking for a short-term romance, I’d still encourage them to clarify their values and emotional boundaries. Just because something is short-term doesn’t mean it should lack intentionality, consent, or emotional awareness. The experience should still feel safe, enriching, and aligned with your goals.

However, for the majority of my clients who are seeking long-term, emotionally intimate relationships, my recommendations always begin with internal alignment: clarifying what truly matters to them, fostering emotional self-awareness, and learning to communicate their needs effectively. From there, we examine the environment, compatibility metrics, and where such connections are most likely to occur.

I think a lot of what I wrote had to do with focusing first on the pool or concentration of human beings you want to connect with—before you start relying on dating apps. That’s advice I’d give to both groups: those looking for short-term experiences and those looking for long-term relationships.

But honestly, I don’t get many people in the first group—those looking for casual flings—seeking out coaching from me. It’s not the kind of support they typically pursue. The second group—those seeking meaningful, long-term relationships—that’s the one I’m most familiar with.

For them, I’d say a few key things:

First, be willing to do what most people aren’t willing to do. The vast majority of people still use dating apps, and they can be effective—but only to a certain extent. The challenge is when apps become your only method of connection.

Multiple studies—including those looking at the effects of intermittent reinforcement—show that dating apps can diminish your sense of self-worth. You’re exposed to high-volume, low-quality engagement. It’s like playing a slot machine: you never know when something might “hit,” and that unpredictability can create emotional wear and tear.

And the odds? Realistically, 1% of matches on apps will be compatible if that. If that’s your only channel, it’s easy to start believing the system is rigged or that something is wrong with you when that’s not the case.

But if you’re willing to make connections in real life, the pool of meaningful possibilities expands dramatically. For example, if you’re a humanist, you might attend a humanist event or a weekly meetup. Or, if you love dogs, go to dog-friendly social groups or causes.

These spaces are filled with people who already share your values. Repeated exposure—being in the same room week after week—builds familiarity and reduces the social anxiety associated with rejection. It creates fertile ground for authentic conversation and connection.

In a hyper-online world, this kind of in-person approach might sound contrarian—but it can help you thrive.

Jacobsen: That’s a strong point. It feels very grounded.

Mendez: Thank you. Another thing I guide my clients on is managing the balance between safety and vulnerability.

Here’s what I mean: if you meet someone and you overshare your life story without vetting them for emotional or physical safety, you’re taking a significant risk. On the other hand, if you stay guarded—if your default way of engaging is closed-off—then even if you move to a new city or country, your chances of forming a deep connection remain low.

So, I teach something I call the “1% Rule.” Be 1% more open. 1% more radiant. 1% more curious.

That way, it’s not overwhelming. It’s just the next step forward from where you already are. And those small increments compound into deeper connection and relational progress over time.

In the context of in-person, real-life interactions—especially within more curated groups—that opens up more than just the world of potential romantic partners. It opens up access to new communities, fosters deeper friendships, and boosts your confidence even further. It’s a more organic approach.

Of course, I’m not saying not to use the apps—but I would say don’t rely on the apps as your sole source of information.

That’s exactly how I would frame it—use the apps but don’t let them be your lifeline.

Jacobsen: What is the neuroscience behind emotional attunement?

Mendez: To paraphrase, think of it in terms of emotional regulation and nervous system attunement. Our internal regulation profoundly influences human connection. When you’re connected to your prefrontal cortex—that is, your executive functioning—you make more intentional, less reactive decisions.

In that state, your ability to attune to another person increases significantly. You can pick up on their verbal and nonverbal cues, respond appropriately, and reflect on what you’re hearing and sensing. That makes the other person feel seen, felt and understood.

And when someone feels truly heard—if they are emotionally capable themselves—they will often reciprocate. That forms a loop. Human beings have thrived through co-regulation. We weren’t designed to operate in isolation. The problem is that many people are dysregulated. When two dysregulated people connect, it’s often a recipe for chaos. Clinically speaking, a full-blown mess.

Jacobsen: Exactly—a classic case out of the DSM or ICD playbook. We’re discussing relationship dynamics that quickly spiral into dysfunction. This isn’t even a gendered problem. It’s across the board. Anyone functioning at a high level professionally has to balance everything else—especially their time and attention. And for many of these individuals they’re so focused on their careers that they neglect the personal side of life. How do you help these high-achieving clients recalibrate so they can make time for connection?

Mendez: That’s a powerful question. The first step is always to help them distinguish between the symptoms and the underlying cause.

When someone comes to me, they’re usually well aware of the symptoms. They’ll say things like, “Every guy I connect with finds me intimidating,” or “I don’t know why relationships never get past the third date.” However, they’re often unaware of the core issue driving those patterns.

So, we begin by unpacking that. What belief systems are shaping how they show up? What emotional habits are at play? Have they internalized that they must be exceptional at everything—including dating—or have they deprioritized connection altogether?

From there, we look at their life architecture. Where’s the margin? How can we intentionally carve out time—not just for dating—but for presence and emotional openness?

Because you’re right—these are intelligent, capable people. However, intelligence doesn’t always equate to self-awareness or emotional availability. We begin by making the invisible visible.

Or they might say something like, “I’m only attracted to emotionally unavailable men,” or similar things—which, in themselves, are not core problems. They’re often symptoms of something more profound.

So, when I connect with someone, the conversation isn’t exclusively intellectual. It’s not just about analyzing patterns logically. It’s about guiding the person to reconnect with their heart, with their desires, with the dreams they may have put away because they’ve convinced themselves they can’t have them.

When someone reconnects with that deeper force of desire—genuine desire—I don’t have to convince them of anything. I reflect their truth to them. For instance, I’ll ask: If this is what you’re feeling in your heart, how does that line up with your current lifestyle?

You’re working 80 hours a week. How do you see yourself finding the kind of love you say you want within that structure?

It’s about helping them uncover the blind spot. Often, they realize there’s a hole in my plan.

Now, that doesn’t mean we make drastic changes overnight. I don’t say, “Go from 80 hours to 40.” That’s not realistic. However, what is realistic is carving out one hour a week for something that breaks the pattern—something nourishing and unexpected.

Maybe it’s as simple as taking off your shoes and walking barefoot in nature—without your phone. Just being. That kind of experience can reignite the internal compass toward what they’re truly missing—not through pressure, but through intrinsic motivation.

There’s a quote by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, the author of The Little Prince, that says something like, “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and assign them tasks, but teach them to long for the vast and endless sea.” That’s the approach.

These clients are already deeply intellectual. What they need isn’t more logic—it’s presence. So, through breathwork, mindful questions, and my own grounded nervous system, I help them shift from analysis to awareness.

Once they feel that shift—even just once—it’s game over, they’ll be internally driven to keep seeking alignment without needing external motivation to keep going.

Jacobsen: On a more practical front—this is a bit of a pivot—but what safety practices do you prioritize when guiding women who are dating in unfamiliar cities? Because even for someone like me, I’ve only felt unsafe in very extreme circumstances—like in war zones or walking through certain areas at night in New York. But for many women, the sense of risk is an everyday reality, except maybe rare circumstances like Ronda Rousey. So this is a common and serious concern.

Mendez: Absolutely. First, I want to emphasize this for anyone listening or reading: there’s a significant gap between the safety experiences of men and women in dating contexts—especially abroad.

That gap is shaped by many factors—social, structural, and historical. Therefore, while this safety advice can apply to anyone, it is particularly crucial for women, as they are statistically more likely to encounter risks in unfamiliar environments.

The first and most crucial step is situational awareness. Be aware of your surroundings, including who is around you, and note the nearby exits or options. Don’t override your gut. If something feels off, it probably is.

I mean, some of what I’m about to say sounds incredibly basic—but it matters. For example, if you’re going on a date and having a great time, be very aware of how much you’re drinking.

I know it sounds like stereotypical grandpa advice, but it makes a real difference. If you have three drinks instead of one, your ability to gauge someone’s intentions—your attunement—decreases significantly. And we’re talking about attunement as a core principle here, right? Being able to read the energy, nuance, and underlying cues in a social interaction.

Let a friend know where you’re going and when you plan to return. Even if they’re not in the same city or country, you can share your live location via a tracking app just for that evening. That kind of check-in isn’t about surveillance—it’s about accountability and layered safety.

Also, trust your gut. If something feels off—even slightly—it’s far better to risk missing a good opportunity than to ignore that inner nudge and find yourself in a dangerous or compromising situation.

If you’re meeting someone for the first time, meet in a public space—especially during the day. Please don’t go jogging in a secluded forest at night with someone you’ve just met. I know that sounds extreme, but I’ve heard enough stories to know it’s not far-fetched.

Before meeting, have a video call. Not a phone call—a video call. You’ll learn a great deal more about someone by observing their face, body language, tone, and expression. This isn’t about figuring out if they’re your soulmate—it’s about quickly filtering out the “absolutely not.” If someone gives off a strange vibe, you’ve saved yourself two hours—or more—of unnecessary discomfort.

These are basic guidelines, but they hold whether you’re dating abroad or at home.

Jacobsen: That’s such practical and often-overlooked advice. Let’s shift gears slightly. Let’s run a fundamental matrix analysis. Imagine a two-axis system, with one axis representing individualistic versus collectivistic societies and another representing traditional versus progressive cultures. That gives us four quadrants. Given that you’ve worked with clients across 24 countries, how do you recommend people navigate these different cultural quadrants when dating?

Mendez: Great question. The first thing I recommend—regardless of location—is that people get clear on what their values are.

Before attempting to decode another culture’s dating norms, it is essential to understand your own emotional and relational non-negotiables. What do you want in terms of connection, autonomy, commitment, expression, or gender dynamics?

Once you have that foundation, then you can start understanding what quadrant you’re operating in—and what it means for connection and compatibility. And that’s why a significant part of my work is values clarification—helping someone recognize what is genuinely important to them.

On the axis of traditional vs. progressive, it’s never a black-and-white conversation. It’s highly nuanced. Let me give you an example.

A foundational cross-cultural study by David Buss in 1989, conducted across 37 cultures, examined what women prioritize in potential partners. One of the highest-ranking traits—across cultures, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups—was whether the man could act as a protector or provider. That study was replicated as recently as 2022 in over 45 countries, with nearly identical findings.

Now, some may interpret that as a traditional preference. But there’s nuance: protection does not mean a domineering “alpha male” who operates from a rigid, hierarchical mindset. Instead, it can mean someone responsive to challenges, dependable in stressful situations, and emotionally attuned.

So yes, many women still seek that protective quality. Still, they also want a partner who is emotionally present, communicative, and self-aware. That’s where traditional and progressive values start to intersect.

Take, for example, women who claim to be attracted to tall, successful, and high-achieving men. On paper, it sounds ideal. But if that man works 100 hours a week, avoids vulnerability, and shuts down emotionally, he might check the “traditional protector” box yet leave the woman feeling isolated and unseen.

As part of my work, I help clients ask: Is this what you want? Or what you were taught to want?

Jacobsen: That’s such a clear breakdown—especially of how overlapping values can create tension in relationships.

Mendez: Now, regarding individualistic vs. collectivist cultures—I think there’s a powerful myth embedded in individualistic societies, particularly in places like the U.S. You hear it in archetypes like the cowboy or the lone entrepreneur who pulls himself up by his bootstraps.

Frankly, I think that’s bullshit.

We are socially interdependent beings. We thrive through co-regulation. From a neuroscience perspective, our nervous systems stabilize through connection with others. So, while personal agency matters, we need to shift the conversation toward relational interdependence, not hyper-independence.

That’s not to say you need a romantic partner to be happy. Many people live fulfilling single lives. But when you do meetsomeone compatible, the right dynamic elevates everything. One plus one becomes five. On the other hand, the wrong partnership can drain your energy and resources—one plus one becomes minus ten.

I lean more collectivist in my personal and professional lens. Still, I respect that different people have different needs for space, autonomy, and interconnection.

Jacobsen: In terms of your clients, what are some self-defeating behaviours you commonly see?

Mendez: Great question. One widespread self-defeating behaviour is seeking approval from someone who is not a good match. The person knows intellectually that this individual is unavailable, unkind, or misaligned—but they still pursue validation from them.

Another is framing situations in the most disempowering way possible. Take rejection, for example. If someone says, “I’m not interested,” one client might internalize that as, “No one wants me,” instead of seeing it for what it often is: “This person wasn’t a match—and that’s okay.”

A lot of the work involves reframing—not in some vague, new-age way, but in a grounded, realistic way. We explore: What else could be going on? Why might this person not be a good fit for you? Why is this not a reflection of your worth?

Those shifts are subtle—but they’re powerful. And they create space for better decisions and healthier emotional outcomes.

So through much kinder and more self-compassionate self-talk, we can begin to undo years—or even decades—of internalized criticism. Sometimes, we become our own worst enemies.

We might never allow others to speak to us disrespectfully. Still, we often talk to ourselves in harsh, dismissive ways. That, too, is a self-defeating pattern.

Another self-defeating behaviour is not understanding your actual needs. People often confuse what feels familiar—what their comfort zone tells them is “normal”—with what helps them grow.

There’s a concept called a Class Two Experience—something that may not feel great in the moment but is ultimately good for you. For example:

• Waking up early to exercise.
• Doing breathwork instead of letting anxiety spin out of control.
• Writing what Brené Brown calls a “shitty first draft”—getting raw, unfiltered thoughts onto the page so they stop looping in your head.

These are rarely the first responses we default to. But if we train ourselves to reach for these options—even when it feels uncomfortable—we create new evidence for ourselves. We realize: “When I feel this way, and I do this thing, I start to feel better. I see more clearly. I ask better questions.”

That’s the beginning of healing and forward movement.

One of my first mentors told me something that changed my life:

“Show me your state, and I’ll show you your future.”

He wasn’t talking about geography—he meant emotional state. Your state—not your raw intelligence or past achievements—will ultimately shape the quality of your relationships and the trajectory of your life.

Much of this work involves learning to create a state that serves you best rather than letting maladaptive emotional patterns run the show.

Jacobsen: Mentors are human beings, too. Since Tony Robbins mentored you—what do you think he gets most right? And what do you think he gets most wrong?

Mendez: Great question. What Tony gets right is the immense power of self-talk. The language we use with ourselves and others profoundly shapes the meaning we give to life—and that, in turn, shapes how we experience the world. I credit him with helping me grasp the transformative power of that early on.

Where I think he gets it wrong—at least in some contexts—is in his understanding of trauma. There’s often a tendency to bypass or override deep pain with strategies that may work for some but are totally ineffective—or even harmful—for others.

It’s one thing to reframe. It’s another thing to disregard real emotional wounds in favour of a quick motivational fix.

I learned a great deal from him, but it’s been years since I participated in his comprehensive seminar ecosystem. These days, I gravitate more toward modalities that take trauma seriously and aren’t framed around large-scale hype.

And I’ll be honest: the “20,000 people clapping in sync” thing? That used to excite me when I was 24. But now, I much prefer sitting in a room with five thoughtful people, having a deep, honest conversation.

Jacobsen: What are some of your top quotes—the ones that come to mind most often in the context of dating and relationships?

Mendez: I’ll start with Maya Angelou:

“Do the best you can until you know better. When you know better, do better.”

That’s a life guideline for me.

My favourite poet is David Whyte. I’ll paraphrase slightly since it’s more of an extended passage than a quote. He addresses two concepts that have profoundly impacted me.

One is this idea of “half a shade more courage.” It’s not even a full leap—just half a shade more. That incremental movement has felt deeply meaningful in my life.

The second is from one of his prose pieces—possibly not even a poem—where he writes that when you can accurately express the dimensionality of your exile—how far you are from where you want to be—you’re already on your way home. That has stayed with me.

And, of course, there’s the classic:

“Be the change you want to see in the world.”

Simple, yes—but foundational.

Those are three that are top of mind right now.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Sir, it was very nice to meet you. Thank you for your time, your expertise, and time.and your candour. 

Mendez: I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.