Am I bisexual? Or an anomaly? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Am I bisexual? Or an anomaly?

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 34 (view)

Am I bisexual? Or an anomaly? Posted: 11/22/2009 8:43:09 PM
central ^^^^^^^^^^^^ The "sex" in bisexual refers to well, sex, not mere emotional attachment or attraction. I wholeheartedly disagree. Being heterosexual and/or homosexual is about attraction, not action. By that rationale, when you were young and liked girls, you were not heterosexual because you didn't do the deed yet. I think we'd both disagree on that; you were. You could say you were asexual in the actions you took, but you would not say "I am an asexual person". Hence, she can say she's only engaged in heterosexual activites, but is bisexual if she's attracted to women and men.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 32 (view)

Am I bisexual? Or an anomaly? Posted: 11/22/2009 8:23:28 PM
BowlofOats, I did propose having a 3some (ffm) with a guy I had been doing for a number of years, but he ruined it by acting, well, like a guy. Looking back, it was probably for the best. I think I was forcing the issue (me being sexual with a woman) rather than letting what may be, be. If it happens, it happens. Okay, your original question is whether you're bisexual or not. Yes, you are. If you're "emotionally attracted" to women, and proposed having a 3some with another girl with a guy you know, you're sexually attracted as well. I think what you're saying is that you have a lot of issues with guys. But so do straight-up heterosexual women, so that has nothing to do with sexual preference. Totally moot point. :) You're bisexual yes. I think what you described is that you're more into guys on a sexual nature, and more into girls in an emotional way.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 160 (view)

Accepting a man that's unemployed Posted: 11/22/2009 8:15:56 PM
jus01, If we live in places like England or America then its easy to think like that because we're spoilt with what we have and we're lucky we can have all the nice things we want and work for and can choose what we want in another person and people can can go 'I only want someone earning (add money amount here) much money and have (add any nice things like cars and houses here)' I wasn't at -all- implying that you have to be more than barely supporting yourself in order to PAY for a chick (or dude). My point was that if you're scraping by to barely make it, ie thru tough times, you're in no position to be open in the real (non-hookup) dating market. Same goes for people struggling after a break-up. But what you should expect in terms of happiness and realistic dating situations is relative to the culture you're in, yes. Does a guy/girl NEED a job to make soemone happy and start dating someone, no I disagree, with the exception of a woman raising kids, because that is a job. I say women not because I think "that's how it's supposed to be" (I'm no uber traditionalist by any means), but you also have to factor in culture. You can complain about it, but you can't dictate or change it... and if you're a guy in a situation raising kids, living with your parents with a meager wage, you can't expect to be any commodity on the market at all. In other words, you can't expect for someone to be happy to date you in that situation. As for women raising kids and her just getting by doing so, it's not the part of just getting by, but having kids which is already a deterrent, so it's not like there's any dating freebies there either. barbyanne2, I'd add that love doesn't always "wait" for the best moments. Love, or better put, even just initial feelings won't even occur with many people if the guy is financially struggling. It doesn't take a gold-digger to expect a guy to be comfortably on his own two feet. Comfortably not meaning he buys whatever he wants... comfortably meaning that he doesn't have to barely slide by pay check to pay check when being self-supporting (ie dodging bullets). But it's this kind of stuff that makes me hesitant to get too involved...tho really I am ready to date & I can support myself, I really don't want money to be an issue. As a woman, I think you have it easier, though. I think the fact that you have kids and your focus being on that is the issue. When it comes to guys, it's the fear of laziness or just inability for success if he's struggling to make it. And someone can say they're a great person, and the other can believe it -- but bringing what many see as baggage to the table is not what they would need, hence it turns them off when relationship comes to mind. I think a guy would understand your situation and wouldn't expect you to be in position to increase your expenses when you're dating vs not dating. I think that's when tradition more suitably kicks in when the guy pays for a majority of dating expenses... although once couplehood sets in, two people don't have to "spend more" than they would not being together to have a good time. HD-Rugby, I lost my dog, car, woman and house and YES. I am living country song. Now at 44, I am living with my parents. IT'S YOUR LOSS!!! Cause I plan on being in the 200-300K range..... It theoretically may be -their- loss, but you are still dealing with your losses, and you're going thru tough times. Point is, you're not in position to date right now, regardless as to whether in the end you're a good catch or not. If you just broke up with someone and going thru tough times about that, you're not in position to date either, even if you won boyfriend of the year award last year. I don't believe in gold-digging by any means... and I don't defend it at all. And I don't think a gal should want you only when you're wealthy. But at the same time, -while- you're struggling, you ain't in position to be lining up the ladies off the street. They don't know you! You can't expect them to take your word for it. You have the burden of proof, not them -- and you can't expect every woman -you- like to stop in their tracks and spend time with you to find out. You can't expect to take a woman's word for saying that she's totally over her "ex" when she's living with her separated spouse, either. You have to just get in the huddle and re-group to be a dating commodity. Heck, a woman finds out you lost everything and got it back making $200k/yr a year or two later? WHEN that happens, she'd be more impressed -- more than just money, but by something you proved.... only until AFTER that begins to happen.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 95 (view)

Too small for a condom !?! Then What??? Posted: 11/22/2009 1:14:09 PM
LOL -- too small for a condom?! What? Is he only shopping for Magnums? If that were the case, many people in asian countries could be SOL, which is not the case. You can buy all sorts of condoms from ridiculously large, colorful, small, wide, thin, ribbed, lubed, non-lubed, flavorful, etc. He was pulling a (small) fast one on you :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 13 (view)

Selfish or natural? Posted: 11/22/2009 1:11:10 PM
Mel, Is this high school? WTF? lol Yes, people are going to find someone they're close to, and their social lifestyle will change some. But instantly? Shouldn't change TOO much. I mean, you and your gal pal and him and a friend or two of his can still go out. It's not like every bar or party is a SINGLES bar or party. That'd be great if it were, because us guys would have a higher batting average when approaching women. ;) Why are you envious that a friend finds someone great? I understand they'll be more busy, yes. But say you and she go out every Friday night to a particular bar... she can still go out to dinner with her new boy and go out to the bar with you. Of course, not all people are like that. They'll use the bars as a pick-up tool only and steer clear away when with someone. Don't go relationship-hunting. Enjoy being single, and if all you meet are bad apples, you're picking from the wrong basket.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 15 (view)

asking an older women out Posted: 11/22/2009 1:04:33 PM
A 30 year old guy asking a 40 year old woman out isn't crazy. If you were 20, I could see a potential problem. But if you're 30, it just comes down to a preference, much like your style that she may or may not like. It's the same with any woman. If she already knows you and hangs well with you, you should already know if she sees you as a peer or a young-in. She probably sees you as a peer, so the age thing shouldn't be an issue. I wouldn't necessarily go for the formal date scenario. I would go for the day trip, and during that day trip, you can spontaneously go out to eat, etc, but also bring up the dinner date thing too. And you HAVE to show some initiative. You can't let the ball come to you. That's the lazy man's way, and almost always fails to bring in results. In your next convo, at the right time, bring up the day trip possibility. Give an impression thru the way you carry yourself, tone of voice, words, etc., that it's a little more than friends -- the same impression flirting does. (blah blah blah) "You know that day trip we bantered about? We should honestly do that sometime, or maybe I could take you out to dinner on [evening-within-5-days-you-have-free-and-she-probably-does-too]. (smile)". Sound too bold? Well you'll find out immediately if she likes you or not. Being too vague for too long will only be agonizing for you. Pretend she's 34, not 40! It will go much smoother for you.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 2 (view)

Single Bashing Posted: 11/22/2009 9:53:01 AM
It's because they see life as incomplete if you aren't in their situation of being in a serious relationship on the way toward a chapel... they equate being single w/ being unemployed, and think you're kooky if you think otherwise. They have no clue any more of what it's like to be single and the benefits of that; they just focus on the experience one would be missing out on if they were in a GOOD serious relationship. I'd just tell them, "Hey gals, I'm not husband-hunting or scrambling every night to look for 'the one'. My life isn't incomplete or "lacking" because I'm not hitched yet; I'm not desperate for that experience. I would like to end up finding someone special, and I certainly wouldn't like dealing with guys who don't work out for me... just please don't push me to be in the same boat you're in right now!"

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 13 (view)

Met on date site now does one withdraw or ask the question? Posted: 11/22/2009 9:40:09 AM
I think if you've been seeing someone for 9 months, a conversation about it is in order, not just a straight-up withdrawl. Games and playing hard to get are silly, why would one bother. Why don't people, and this goes for both sexes, just say honestly ..... this is what I want, this is where I am at and this is how I would like it to be. Rarely are they actually games. And being LD, you don't have to play hard to get, so you're not in that boat at all. What you think are 'games', are not. It's just not being up front. Why? Maybe because they don't know for sure, to be honest. Second, fear of the other person feeling rejected, when you don't really want to fully reject them either. Usually 'games' are just one of the people losing (or not initially having enough) interest, plain and simple. Do men like a woman to ask what their intentions are or to define those intentions within the relationship? Depends how you come across about it. In your scenario, I don't think he'd mind that talk -- but he (and girls in his situation too), wouldn't like a big emotional discussion about it. I think it'd be best to just say that you two should talk about where things should be going, in a cool-spirited, not-at-all-depressed fashion. It'd flow better that way, and more blunt, honest info would roll off his tongue. But you have to understand some people don't necessarily have a full grasp on their "intentions"... it could just be "to see you when it's comfortable (for me & us) to see each other".

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 11 (view)

I ask a guy out.. I'm nervous! Posted: 11/22/2009 9:31:24 AM
LOL - that's not asking him out, that's asking him to be your boyfriend. First, it's naive to think that long-distance relationships just have a bump in the road. More like a mountain, and they rarely ever work in the end... and usually when they do (which is R-A-R-E), it's with big problems and a breakup (to re-convene after it's no longer LD). With that said, no, it's unrealistic to START a relationship when you're already Long Distance! You like him? Great -- tell him, yes. But don't ask to "be mine". That's a temporary itch to scratch, but as time goes on, unless you're isolated from the opposite sex where you're at, another itch will form, and it won't be about him. My advice, since you already sent what you wrote, would be to tell him for the record you're not expecting to be officially boyfriend/girlfriend, even though ideally you would love that, but it'd be too hard to be official the way things are... but you want him to know you really like him a lot, and that you want to definitely spend time together when he comes back.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 155 (view)

separated but still living together... to believe or not Posted: 11/22/2009 8:51:46 AM
Mrpbody ^^^^^^^^^, If you're in that situation, no, you shouldn't make your life harder to kick her out jobless. But by the same token, you can't have your cake and eat it too, expecting to date women in the area or even expecting any women to be cool with dating you while you do live in the same house as you someday-to-be ex. I think if you're traveling a lot to another location for work and are gone half the time, that makes things easier for girls out there. But at the same time, you can't expect girls to want something serious while you are living with a WIFE back in the country. I think that's the problem people have. Heck, you can still get a divorce and still have your ACTUAL ex still live with you for a while as she finishes off grad school. If you two are friends, and it's been over a year, there's no reason why you have to still be legally "separated". You can't expect anyone to believe 100% that say, a girlfriend you broke up with yesterday carries no emotional weight with you, even though that would be possible, and you said so to them. You can't expect anyone to believe that there is ZERO NSA sexual relations once in a while between you and your wife, when you two refuse to get an official divorce and live in the same house... or even DO have separate bedrooms. But I think all that applies to folks looking for a tride and true relationship. For casual on-goings or even flings? I don't think it'd be an issue at all for you when you're in the outside area.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 28 (view)

Suggestion : Must Not Be Separated Filter Posted: 11/22/2009 8:36:01 AM
It would seem obvious that one should be able to filter out Separated, Divorced, Widowed, Living Together, or even Single, since they can filter out Married (same field entry). Theoretically, one could say they should have an ability to filter out ANYTHING... hair color, body type, car/no-car, kids/no-kids, height, or education selection. But I think Marcus the owner probably is applying a strategy. One wouldn't want to give the user the ability to filter out TOO much, even if the user wants to. The filter is a BLOCK. Many folks select their PREFERENCES, not tride-and-true deal-breakers. And many times their preferences or even deal breakers is for "almost all people, almost all circumstances". If they lock down their profile to BLOCK most people if they had a million filter options, communication would stagnate and it'd hurt the users, even ones in super-filter mode. Personally, I think there should be Preferences & Deal-Breakers (what filters are on here). Preferences are broad-based on ANY option, and if someone doesn't meet your criteria, they can't write you but they can send a request to send you a letter (a yes or no selection to allow them to write you when they request). Then the Deal-Breakers would be the total block as it is now, but actually whittled down to extremes (Intimiate Encounter, Smokes Often, Drinks Often, Distance 150mi+, Married, Drugs). IMO, that would be the ideal scenario. Only block extremes, but be able to have a "gatekeeper" for anything else you prefer (preferences covering everything).

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

Am I bisexual? Or an anomaly? Posted: 11/22/2009 8:09:51 AM
I'm sexually attracted to men, but Stop right there. Just to make sure (which you probably do know), as a woman, you're not a lesbian... and you're at least bi, if not just hetero. One's sexual orientation is not due to the actions one has taken, but who they are -sexually- attracted to. You're sexually attracted to men; that means you have heterosexual desires. Has nothing to do with emotional connections, wants, and needs -- that's moot. , but I'm emotionally attracted to women. I can't seem to be both sexually AND emotionally attracted to either sex. Okay, so you don't see yourself as sexually attracted to women. Whether you're hetero, gay, or bi, has nothing to do with emotional attraction. Guys can be apart from being emotionally attracted to women after bad breakups -- that doesn't mean they're lacking in their heterosexuality... and vice versa with girls on how they're emotionally attracted to guys. Emotional attraction is a fuzzy term, though. Sexual attraction doesn't necessarily require the desire to "do it" off the bat, btw. When I was in elementary school, I wanted the other 2nd grade teacher. Man, she was hot, and I wanted to be with her, but my "man tools" weren't developed at age 7, so it wasn't like I had thoughts of "porking" her or anything -- just being with her. So it begs the question -- what do you mean by emotionally attracted to other women? If you want to be with them intimately but not to partake in any sexual acts, you may still be sexually attracted but just not on a deep level in the sexual-act dept. I assume you mean at least cuddling with another woman. Okay. Say you're with a woman you've grown close to, and you cuddle with, watching a movie. How does kissing a little make you feel? Making out? Petting? It goes on, but where is that line drawn for you? You may just have conflicting feelings about the thought of doing anything -really- sexual, but want to be romantically intimate (which is sexual btw) with a woman. If you mean emotionally attracted as in "being with and connecting with romantically", then I would say that's just a different flavor of sexual attraction. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 155 (view)

Accepting a man that's unemployed Posted: 11/22/2009 7:42:20 AM
jus01, If the woman likes the guy but doesn't want to end up 'supporting' him then that needs to be addressed before the first meet up, say to him your happy to have a date and go for drinks but if something does come of it all you both start 'seeing' eachother your not prepaired to be his cash machine and he will need to work hard to find work, lay the law down so he understands. I disagree with that; I think it's the other way around... if a guy or girl wants the other person to end up supporting them, -they- need to bring it up. There is no assumption that it's the norm or 'okay' to support someone else that you're going to be potentially dating, and the person who doesn't want to is the oddball (again, it's the person wanting to BE supported who is the oddball). If you're a guy and you can't support yourself or can just barely support yourself through tough times, there's NO reason you should be dating or actively out in the market. Same goes for someone who's going through other tough times like child custody debacles or the intense part of final divorce paperwork. Everyone seems to think that it's some basic "deserved" right to go out on dates at all times. They forget there is such a thing as "many don't want to date you -because- you aren't in position to really date," and no, it's not a right -- others are not and should not be obligated to date "you". As far as unemployed is concerned... someone between high-level jobs is not the issue. Or better put, someone who is convincingly financially stable but happens to be switching jobs and 'unemployed' isn't the issue. I think having had a good paying job would carry more weight for a guy when unemployed, because that says that you're likely in a financially stable position. When jobless, YOU have the burden of proof that you're in a just-fine spot to date... they do NOT have the burden of proof to show that you're not in a just-fine spot.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 186 (view)

bend over. Posted: 11/21/2009 11:00:30 AM
You know when you see a woman cop? Either they're really ugly or really hot. Really hot because if they're within cute range, the whole in-charge thing is much like the whole teacher-student thing. I've always been intrigued by a woman giving it to me in the ass with a strap-on. ... have you ever had a girl stick a carrot or rubber dolphin****in your ass? Okay, a sexy athletic lady cop who has that take-charge mentality? Sexy, yes. Does it give me thoughts about her plowing my ass with a carrot or rubber dolphin? Uhhh, no. It gives me thoughts about her taking charge -in the things I find sexually appealing-. Not of the things that turn me off. I don't see how that's connected in any way. I wouldn't want "pain sex" -- don't find that appealing by any stretch, either. Whatever floats your bare bottomed boat, dude!

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 37 (view)

Hopeless virgins Posted: 11/21/2009 10:52:53 AM
coveredinpaint, I can't even get myself to workout. How am I going to get someone else to? Yep -- then you (or shall I say they) are SOL. :) If a guy's achilles heel is smoking when it comes to having chances with women in the places he hangs out at, you can't light one up and tell him he needs to stop the smoking so much. I want to believe that the world isn't such a cold and lonely place that a man can't ever find a woman. It isn't that cold. The kind of guys you speak of aren't necessarily depressed and lonely... I think it's that over time they've come to accept who they are, and that's their reality, and many can be content in life. They don't -really- know what they're missing out on. Think of it as if they fast-forwarded to being a widower senior citizen or something. You wouldn't feel that bad if he liked going out, but wasn't positioning himself well enough to pick up any ladies at bingo night, right? Our society is pushed with the "be yourself" mentality, the horrible nugget of advice that people cling to when they are not of the best quality. It only reinforces someone to stick to their comfort zone... and those guys see "changing themselves" as having less pros than cons, and doing so would just be an agonizing endeavor for them, as they can't picture themselves being competitively attractive & mingling effectively with women.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 32 (view)

Hopeless virgins Posted: 11/20/2009 11:23:22 AM
coveredinpaint So I'd have to be their personal trainer and life coach and take full responsibility of them since they are unable to. And I'm not willing to do that. Well, it wouldn't have to be like THAT exactly. IF they really want to get in shape/open themselves up, then you could be LIKE their personal trainer. You could put yourself on your own new exercise routine -- can't hurt, right? You have them work out with you, and you just being a motivating factor. You wouldn't be "responsible" for them, but you wouldn't want to waste their time unless they were truly geared to go along for the ride with sincerity. IF you could get to the point where they did feel open like that, then I don't think it'd be too much trouble. You wouldn't have to baby sit them or anything -- just keep nudging them along and doing things by example -with- them. In essence, if they wouldn't be willing to join an official "boot-camp" program for such matters if it was free to the public & not missing work, then yeah, it wouldn't be worth your time trying. You'd just be an unofficial version of it... like a friend helping another friend stop smoking or drinking too much. But they have to want to change, otherwise it's futile.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 22 (view)

Hopeless virgins Posted: 11/19/2009 7:34:29 PM
I think the problem is, is that they don't see it as THAT huge of a problem, which it is. After time goes on, it defines who they are to themselves... and they accept it and see themselves as being that way. A change? Totally unrealistic, they'll think. Getting in reasonably decent shape and/or being reasonably successful in the dating market is about as realistic to them as someone telling them "You can make $5,000 a week with my work at home program!" Oh, they've tried, doesn't work out for them, so they don't even bother considering it a possibility, much like the cheesy work-at-home claims. :) Convincing them is a futile approach. They have to be GENUINELY open to the possibility that it's feasible for them to change.... not in the moment when you get them mildly excited, but day-to-day convinced that it IS a possibility. That's the first step. 2nd step is executing. Them being convinced of the possibility will wilter if it's not executed. Best way to execute? Be their personal trainer and jog & work out with them. I think that's about the only way to do it. Once they get in better shape (even if they weren't hopelessly fat), after a couple months, their confidence will rise, and that's when you can take them out and show them how to talk to girls, etc. They can't do it on their own after they've gone into "I am who I am" acceptance.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 22 (view)

rape/molestation victims and dating..... Posted: 11/19/2009 7:26:54 PM
sbee91, i gotcha on not blurting it out...but after monthes of dating....when ur talking about both of ur pasts.... ... you blurt it out. :) i feel that it's something i should eventually share-after they have seen i'm not a basket case or repressed.... i occassionally still have a day or two of depression every so often(monthes in between) so i think they shoudl have a small clue about it.... Well, basket case is a relative term. Some people use it too loosely, yes. But if you get depressed every once in a great while, it is an issue. Now, I agree, if otherwise you are not a typical gal at all who gets depressed/upset by everything else in life, that's good in terms of weighing the pros and cons, from a potential partner's point of view. I'm not knocking you, but most people (guys and gals) will downplay and/or not realize how much they are affected by something that does affect them -- so you may not know how it REALLY does affect you besides the once-in-a-while times that you get depressed. But when it comes to this topic, I think if a guy gets the impression that a gal is weirded out or has issues when it comes to the topic of sex, he will run or his patience will be very short lived. So even if you don't get depressed, if it affects how you see sex and are weirded out by it -- many guys will classify that as a "basket case" in general loose terminology.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 4 (view)

rape/molestation victims and dating..... Posted: 11/19/2009 8:44:58 AM
From my experience, every woman who mentioned she was a victim was either: (a) Very sexually open and have less issues than most ("sex is dirty if you don't love them") women when it comes to fooling around. or (b) A basket case, but just think they have a few issues when it comes to things about sex. (b) more often than (a) in my experience. Never ran into an in-between of any gal who's let it be known. Personally, if I'm starting to a date a gal, and she says she was a sexual victim and pours over that, showing that it really affects her -- I'm out. If a gal makes note of the fact that she was, within conversation, and not some "announcement", that isn't a problem. The reason I say that is because if there IS an "announcement", she's saying that because she's fore-warning about the difficulties she has about sexually-related issues... she's directly telling you that she's putting up a road sign of "Baggage Ahead, Please Understand". It's not her fault -- don't get me wrong, but nobody wants to date someone with emotional issues that get in the way of sex, dating, and the like.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 18 (view)

Is collecting Naked pictures of Women considered disease Posted: 11/19/2009 8:28:10 AM
LOL - so you were being told you have a sick mind because you're like 95% of guys with internet access -- you look at nudie pics and (gasp) have saved some. It's not that "men are visual, women are mental". That's a myth. Many women don't like porn out of cultural habits of avoiding things labeled 'dirty', and jealousy issues underneath; women are just as visual as guys are.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 130 (view)

Religion and sex in dating Posted: 11/17/2009 5:51:34 PM
I've been messaged by many men whose profiles claim to be Catholic or Christian and say that they want a woman of God, etc., yet they also expect to have a sexual relationship while dating. When I question them about their seeming conflicting values (isn't fornication a sin in the bible?), I usually hear some variation of well, I'm not perfect but am working on that. You'll get a few variants of reasoning behind it: a) I'm not perfect, I'm (yeah right) working on that. b) "Jesus died for my sins, so it's not great, but it's okay, I'm human" -- basically saying they can be immoral about anything b) Christianity doesn't say it's wrong, just sexual immorality is the message, and I don't believe it's sexually immoral When it's all said and done, people follow the rules of their religion, not The Bible. They pick and choose, downplay and upplay different rules & guidelines that suits them the best in which other followers agree with, too. If one were to take The Bible officially literally true as a rule book in every chapter -- you'd go psycho, and everyone underneath knows that. So to keep it sounding more valid and true, folks try and rationalize why this is okay or that's not too bad, etc. Usually borrowed lines from a pastor and such.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 301 (view)

The Game and its effectiveness Posted: 11/16/2009 9:57:22 PM
WIP, Whether it's the fact that you don't like it or what you do about it, it's still not the fault of the peanut butter ice cream Oh I know, absolutely. Same goes for someone I would reject on the principal of attraction -- it's not their fault, either. Don't you think it would be silly that it would feel inferior to you based on your taste and claim that it's your loss? Yes, definitely would. But the "it's your loss" is the self-esteem-booster-advice people give after they pout about being rejected. "Tell them it's their loss!" Well, not necessarily... lol. It wouldn't be my loss if I rejected a woman I clearly wasn't attracted to, and vice versa. So if you want to call it a choice, it's a no fault one - you could accept it, and then stick it in the freezer and never eat it, but what's the point? Better analogy... I walk into a store where the owner just made homemade peanut butter ice cream, and I say no -- I am rejecting it, and she gets offended and flips out. Yes, I rejected it. No, it doesn't mean it's bad ice cream. However, since underneath it all, she's not fully convinced whether it's generally bad ice cream or not (she doesn't have people fawning over it non-stop) is the reason why she flips out. But again, doesn't mean it's bad. However, it doesn't mean I didn't reject it, either. But SHE feels rejected like she makes bad ice cream, right? It seems to get projected onto the person, like they have a (realistic) choice. Yes, it's sometimes projected onto the person, which is silly. If someone's blatantly unattracted to the other, yeah, it's raw desire and attraction isn't a choice, and I totally agree. The choice is being upfront to someone about it, which is a whole other ball of wax when someone's "on the fence", but that's not the issue here too much, actually. People like CW get upset because he knows when he's not attracted to a gal, he sees her as less of a person, thus, he takes it personally when it happens vice versa (unless maybe they give him a convincing, polite reason when turning down his offer for attention). Many many people are like this to at least SOME degree if they're not doing so hot in the single scene. And no, one shouldn't take the rejection meaning that they're less of a person. Here's a better way to put it: You're not rejecting them as a PERSON, you're rejecting their offer for romantic/sexual attention. I think that's clear as a bell. We say "they rejected you/me", and true, that choice of words with the "you" or "me" makes it sting more. However, we're just short-cutting it, as what we really mean is, "they rejected my offer for romantic/sexual attention" = "they don't find me attractive". But I don't think that makes it sound any better. :) Some people want to be an elitist in attractiveness, and can't stand knowing that they aren't... hence it mine as well be rejection as a person to them (which they need to get over).

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 49 (view)

The other side of WTF was he thinking? Posted: 11/16/2009 7:33:48 PM
Well, from how you described your story, I think she was mad that you weren't interested, not -necessarily- that it was because you didn't make a move. If you really dug her, she would have been less upset or not upset at all. Obviously making a move shows interest, but that's not the ONLY way. But of course, if she said "okay, well I guess I'd better be going" -- then I think what she referred to is that you weren't trying to progress the night, talk about meeting again, etc. Obviously asking her to go back to your place would suffice, but again, I don't think it'd necessarily REQUIRE that. As you described, you weren't that game about her, but she was "attractive enough" to go out. She read your vibe that you were "ehh" about her, but were just fine hanging out, and that vibe does not bode well if you don't make a move -- it's obvious you weren't into her. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 16 (view)

Is there a age,where I am expected to not dress sexy,or cut my hair? Posted: 11/16/2009 5:52:50 PM
Well, you have no picture, so what you say is very very hazy. Hair length or "dressing sexy" can mean a multitude of things. However, I will say that many people will purposely dress differently when they are older to fit in. When you grow older, you realize that life of adults is the same as life of high-school. :) When growing older, you have to dress in that demographic to be accepted amongst different clans of people who are around the same age. But regardless of age, you can't go wrong with keeping a somewhat modern look, and as a lady, no, wear heels -- that's never been an issue because I've seen women in their 60s wear heels just as much. You shouldn't wear hockey-mom-with-bangs hair from the 80's (a female version of a mullet), with similar clothes to match.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 299 (view)

The Game and its effectiveness Posted: 11/16/2009 5:38:48 PM
WIP, Instead of thinking people who aren't interested think they are better than you, or instead of being offended when someone isn't mutually attracted, realize they maybe even feel bad about it but can't change it - and to say yes and date you despite not having interest in you would be no good for you anyway. Very true.... folks with his mindset take not interested = i'm better than you. Why? Because HE feels better than the gals who he's not interested in. So obviously when it happens the opposite way, he gets pissed. To reject is to choose not to want someone, so I don't think the word is accurate. People who aren't attracted to us aren't rejecting us, they don't choose who they're into I have to disagree. To reject means they are choosing not to ACCEPT you romantically, -because- of their tastes. Yes, they can't help their tastes, nor should they be asked to. However, I will still reject peanut butter ice cream, despite it being a taste issue. "Reject" is a strong word, but in essence, that's what it is, technically. They are choosing to reject you based on how they feel. Some people feel bad about that, and accept people to "give them a chance" and end up stringing them along, despite their feelings being one for rejection.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 292 (view)

The Game and its effectiveness Posted: 11/16/2009 1:35:32 PM
gycraig, He DID say he can't handle rejection, that's his point... he can't, and that's why he plays it safe to avoid it as much as possible. Others like myself here are pointing out that the key to actually mildly enjoying the singles scene, and to have optimal success while one's at it, is to be able to be cool about being rejected. CW, I will have to point out that if you take a girl blowing you off/rejecting you upon approach as arrogant on her part, actually you may see yourself in an arrogant way. Someone not biting on your approach being seen as arrogant means that you're calling out anyone as arrogant if they aren't romantically interested in you. That's a bit too far, isn't it? Are you arrogant when a not-my-style type of lady strikes up conversation with you and you end up blowing her off? Now, for extremes, obviously nobody likes a gal to laugh in your face, right? Well, if one has any game, that's rarely going to happen, as that's not a byproduct of looks, but approach.... but occasionally, chicks can be wacky regardless. So what? That's part of life, and they lose their credibility if you know your approach was harmless. If it infuriates you, then that means it influenced on how you look at yourself. Let's say I'm put up to a stunt. A guy's going to pay me $50 to try to get a really ugly fat woman's phone #. So I agree to go for it. So I go up to the large semi-hairy beast, and I start to create a conversation... very shortly into it, she rolls her eyes and says "Honey, I ain't interested, sorry" with a cocky smile. Am I going to be PISSED at her? No. Why? Doesn't make me second-guess my worthiness at all. Point being, I don't think it's a gal having a bit too much "mustard" on her response, honestly. I think it's when it makes you feel like you're not "good enough", whether she has some tang on her response or not, is when it gets you (and many others) upset... hence, avoid approaching altogether. My advice of course is to build up a "sewing thumb" to that, because in the end, you'll have more fun and a lot less stress. Upon observing others, and being an objective judge of yourself, you can end up improving yourself and the vibe where it has slipped off or has needed improvement in the first place. That ends up getting better 'results'... and additionally, many women will outwardly reject a guy depending on their mood, location, and lots of meaningless little things... it doesn't mean you're less of a catch. But I will agree from earlier: If you get rejected by women upon approaching, one after another after another, you're doing something wrong, and/or are going for women clearly out of your league/type.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 85 (view)

Coupons and Dating Posted: 11/16/2009 10:57:33 AM
Helen, How does it have anything to do with caring about the other person? They see it as making more of a financial sacrifice (even though the coupons have financial value at said location). They want to see it right before their eyes. Not only do they want you to pay the whole thing, they want you to pay it in cash or CC only! Said girls do not accept coupons! :) Personally, I think it'd be a good idea to bring a significant gift certificate out on a first date if a guy suspects she's a uptight b!tch or gold-digger (and he's not looking to get laid). It's a great test. Said women will show their true colors in that situation, and react the same way a normal gal would react as if the guy had to run home 15 mins away to get a $1 off coupon .

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 288 (view)

The Game and its effectiveness Posted: 11/16/2009 10:42:59 AM
CW, My point is that I don't go chasing people that will treat me like crap or aren't interested. Well, for a majority of the time, you don't know if they will treat you like crap or aren't interested if you already weed out the ones with a ring or hanging out with a guy. I don't "play it safe" to protect my emotions, I play it safe to protect the other person because I don't take being embarrassed, or stepped on well and to be honest I don't want to find out what I might do if that happens to me. Whoah! So you'll go ape-sh!t on them? I think OutMind's advice is that everyone has to sack-up and let rejection roll off your back. Otherwise, you'll just be a bitter, bitter person! Playing it "safe" in my book would be to aim for gals who don't have guys with them, would in the ballpark range of your league, and aren't in a deep girl-talk discussion in the corner table away from everyone. Like I said, my reaction may go in a dangerous direction, so I like to know what I'm getting into and if it's actually going to work before investing in it emotionally. The problem is that when I'm stepped on I tend to step back twice as hard. "Going to work" meaning going up to a gal and striking conversation? I think you put too much pressure on the situation of approaching a gal or group of gals, which only fuels the fire. But the main problem is that you take rejection as a huge slap in the face and take it wayyy too hard. That's something to grow out of, because that's a massively huge handicap. I mean, we're all going to be at points in our lives where if we're single and in a "rut", sure, rejection is going to sting more. But taking it personally is taking it the wrong way, and -means- you have little confidence about yourself. There are always going to be guys smarter than you, much better looking than you, nicer than you, and more charming than you... and there will always be guys dumber than you, worse looking than you, meaner than you, and less charming. You have to be cool with that. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 11 (view)

Any Meaning Behind This -? Posted: 11/15/2009 7:57:29 PM
\|3lueseas (OP), I try to be cool about it, yet don't want them to think that by me being cool with just friends = they have a chance to hope for more. ..... Maybe its better to go by the "all or nothing" principle here? LOL - At the risk of sounding rude .... wake up! :) They Don't at all want to be just friends with you, even the ones seemingly cool about it! And many of whom will get the most out of a hug and so forth totally respect you not wanting to date them, it's just that they can't help it -- they really dig you. Same guys for guys who are cool about it on the outside. Bottom line is that they WANT you, whether they have 'given up' on you or not. If a guy's going to hang out with you 99.9% of the time it means: a) He wants to have sex with you. Doesn't mean he'll be rude or uncool about it or that he has a crush. He just wants to have sex with you. b) Hanging out with you brings in hot girls to the table, whether it be your friends, or he's smart in hanging out with a decently attractive gal that makes him look like an item to other ladies. You can't have your way and be just friends with straight single guys when you're single too, sorry. It's a silly idea in the first place!

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 36 (view)

How to end a FWB relationship that is soooo good Posted: 11/15/2009 5:56:42 PM
5 months IS a long time. A very long time when it comes to establishing something or not. So you have pseudo-exclusivity... You aren't FWB with him. You just have a semi-open, somewhat casual relationship because he doesn't want a future with you. No, it's not healthy if you WANT to be with him in a serious relationship w/ possibility of marriage and he does not. Holding hands, PDA, etc. is not what FWB do. You're a middle aged woman, you know it's not healthy -- you should end it comfortably. I would say agree to spend little time together, and no date situations. Get used to not seeing each other hardly at all, and agree not to communicate that much either (that's key). I think it'd be tough at first, but it would ebb away slowly in a comfortable way after a little while.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 2 (view)

Any Meaning Behind This -? Posted: 11/15/2009 5:49:59 PM
You told them "we can only be friends" because you knew they were really attracted to you, but you weren't attracted to them. Hence, they'll make the best use out of a hug if & when they get the chance. You can't be "just friends" with someone in a healthy way that really wants you, sorry. If you have to change things to being 'just friends' or set the stage for 'just friends', it's best not to hang out with them... otherwise you'll have to deal with stuff like that.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 16 (view)

The L Word Posted: 11/15/2009 5:46:23 PM
No, he wasn't caught up in the moment. He'd possibly just be caught up in the moment if he SAID he loved you, but he wasn't just caught up in the moment ASKING if you loved him persistently. And you were dodging the question, so that's why he kept asking. Why would you ask someone that? You ask them that if you feel like you may love them and you feel like they may love you... OR you're convinced you're madly in love with them and just need to set the record straight on feelings. A relationship isn't going to be defined by the label the two people put on it. I repeat, a relationship is NOT going to be defined by the label the two people put on it. It is defined by how things UNFOLD and the feelings involved, REGARDLESS of some "label" you may put it on. You can't prevent someone falling for you or doing something hurtful just because of a label you two previously agreed upon. Agreeing on an NSA relationship sets the tone and the starting point, but what you two DO in actuality will dictate what it really is after some time goes by. You can't make something with "no strings attached" by labeling it that way. lol That's like saying "we agreed on a 'no drama' relationship" -- okay, great. But you can't expect zero drama as time goes on just because you gave it a label.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 133 (view)

Have you ever fantasized about having sex with a transexual. Posted: 11/15/2009 4:40:24 PM
Generally, a tranny (when advertised for entertainment viewing purposes) is a guy on estrogen, fake boobs, maybe some cosmetic surgery to enhance the looks, but with a dong (pre-op). So if a guy -fantasizes- about a pre-op tranny, yeah, for all practical purposes, he's got homosexual desires. Yes, it is different than another generic dude, as a tranny gives a half-female, half-male impression... but if a guy wants a dong, he's got homosexual desires; it's pretty simple. And as far as tastes are concerned, a heterosexual male will not want someone with a penis, and will most likely be wierded out if it was a post-op tranny (dong chopped/split to make a surgical vajayjay), too. I mean, most heterosexual guys don't sexually desire someone who couldn't naturally grow real breasts (big, small, or fake replacement) or naturally have a vagina (without a c0ck). Heck, even "man hands" can turn off a lot of guys.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 16 (view)

ok guys , how often after 3 months Posted: 11/15/2009 1:21:05 PM
Okay, you've been dating someone for 3 months... and it's not a barely-more-than-FWB (ie a REAL girlfriend)... How often to call or see her? Depends on the environment. If it's a REAL girlfriend, you'd communicate just about every day, I imagine, if that's suitable. With IM/text/calling/chatting/emailing as communication options, it's pretty easy to communicate at least a little bit on every common day within a generally common lifestyle. Yes, he'll be open to hold hands. Guys won't necessarily do it that much, but if they like you, he at least be open to do so here and there. Go to dinner with a friend but not take his girlfriend? Yes, that's perfectly acceptable! How clingly/crazy are you?? :) With a girlfriend there, there's no real "guy talk", no one-on-one convo, so yes, guys will go out with guys here and there. Finding offense to that means one's too clingy/psycho. If he NEVER takes his girlfriend out with him when going out to dinner with a friend, or not very often when hanging out with friends, then yeah, he's not interested in ya, and he doesn't genuinely consider you his GIRLFRIEND.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 12 (view)

Is this a real possibility? Posted: 11/15/2009 1:15:34 PM
Someone doing a "vanishing" act isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world. It really depends on the situation. In all situations, the person who wants to be with the other is going to be hurt a lot, vanishing or no vanishing. Vanishing is obviously worse if everything seemed turn turn 180 degrees in an instant. If you're in a relationship, or have been genuinely dating -- vanishing act is horrible. If you're feeling things out with someone and getting to know them, a vanishing act usually is NOT the best route obviously, but sometimes it's actually not the worst. If you think about it, saying "We shouldn't be dating, sorry", then vanishing -- there's STILL a vanishing act. :) Almost everyone is going to be JUST as upset if someone says "I'm not interested" and vanish, versus just vanishing. Why? They were left. Second, there's STILL always going to be questions & head scratching regardless. I think if you get to the point where you've been genuinely dating someone OR made clear promises about your desires & plans about them, that's when you do owe them as honest-as-can-be explanations about things. But if you're not, you don't owe them much, because not that much was invested and should have been assumed. Much the same could be said about not replying to emails you get. If you're interested, don't reply -- they can see "Read/Deleted", or after some days just a "Read" indicates the same thing. Same thing for calling -- if you call them and they don't call back, and say you text/im/email after not getting a response and they still don't respond, they're not interested, game over, move on. Obviously when you've hung out or gone on a date or two, there can be a little more to it than being people behind a computer or phone, but again, nothing was established at that point though. Those who vanish could be players -- usually if they told you things to make you feel special and wanted to warm you up to be a little "more adventurous than usual" on that 1st or 2nd date. But they could also just have another girl or option in the background which they opted for -- and in some cases, you wouldn't WANT to know. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 285 (view)

The Game and its effectiveness Posted: 11/15/2009 11:29:16 AM
CW, Actually being told "no" by a lot of people most likely does mean you're not attractive to the majority. I basically agree -- although to avoid technicalities and to make it more clear, I would say people who are rejected almost every single time, as their common theme and they do approach others frequently, then yes, are most likely not attractive. Some guys will rarely approach a woman, and in that uncommon situation that they do, they get rejected -- well, it could easily be their 'game' (not often used), among other things. Also, rejection will happen a lot to a lot of people who are not unattractive. Environmental factors play a role that can easily determine between a gal warming up to a guy or not. Obviously, if he's hot to her, those factors matter less. But in a bar or online, where there are a lot of guys going after them, a guy could be in their league, but he's nothing special in her eyes with all of her options she's already juggling, despite him being decently attractive to her. People who don't see that they are unattractive and continue to believe everybody else has a problem aren't full of "self esteem", they're delusional and arrogant. Very good point -- many people are told "you're beautiful!" when they're not, to be nice and positive, etc. Problem is, that has a HUGE HUGE drawback that said people ignore -- if that person thinks they're hot when they're clearly not, it will make frustration & confusion for them worse in the long run, unless their effectively delusional about it. I am with you on that one. I can't stand it when people think they're looking great, when they're not. I'm fine with someone believing that looks don't matter as much as they may, but to think one is hot when they're 50lbs overweight and wearing unattractive clothes, etc. is totally silly and ends up causing harm. In my mind "eating dirt" means someone put you to the ground and had the final say. Well, it was what OutMind was saying in response to Dru, who b!tches about having to deal with potentially rejection situations. OutMind made this more clear in his next post here, but basically everyone "eats dirt" when that term refers to being rejected, sharply disappointed, and things not going your way.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 273 (view)

The Game and its effectiveness Posted: 11/14/2009 12:08:53 AM
Once you know the players game they are really transparent and easy to outplay. Actually, what you mean to say is that once you see the fakeness in ANYONE ('player' or not), they're easy to outplay. What everyone seems to TOTALLY ignore is that The Game is not about being fake, and in fact, the OPPOSITE of being fake -- ie not being the typical 'player' douche -- but actually changing yourself where it's genuine.... because in the end, things ain't going to work out for you if you're trying to pose as someone that you're not. YES, that is a core principal by said 'player' handbooks and such. How can you argue against that? You do because you don't want to see guys PREMEDITATE -any- actions, genuine or not, with thoughts of sex on their mind and be effective at it (by the way, guys and girls have sex on their mind). And technically, everyone's a "player". Everyone. Trying to purposely charm? Player. Trying to make sure you don't come across as to purposely charm? Player. Trying not to offend/turn-off a gal? PLAYER. "Playing" means you purposely try to do something that affects your interests in -any- way, share or form, which we all do in life... if someone's grandmother gives them advice about charming a girl -- same thing, just different approaches. cw35, Not all of us will "eat dirt" at some point. I know I don't. Totally disagree. Totally. Everyone does, even you, even I, even famous people have. What Outmind meant was about being brushed off/rejected/no-I-have-a-boyfriend/not-interested, etc., and that's eating dirt and getting tackled. The reason Drusurfer and others don't like being initiators (or calling self-help books of the sort as bogus games of 'tricks'), is because they don't like being told "no". "No" to the low-self-esteem person means "You're not attractive to many people", thus, they can't take it. Those who do not "eat dirt" in that sense, have every woman on every occasion accept them fully and want to be with them. No man exists as such, although there are men who get better results than others. Regardless, everyone deals with that kind of 'dirt', and the moral of the story is.... If you can't deal with someone not taking a liking to you, and take it as you being lesser of a person -purely- because of that, then you are lesser of a person, and need to see things differently.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 151 (view)

separated but still living together... to believe or not Posted: 11/12/2009 12:24:25 AM
forumrum, Here's a better way to put what people are opposing you on... and I think this is the way they see things and it being more than just a technicality that you're still married... It's not the same as "normally" being married. I think everyone will agree. You totally have that point -- it's far and away from being classified as a generic married couple by any stretch. BUT, so is a married couple who have been living in separate rooms for 10 years and have never had any intimacy, either. There's REALLY not much difference between the "we won't divorce; we have no intimacy" people who go online looking to date than someone who's separated and living with someone thru the foreseeable future -- in practicality terms, if we're talking about that! Separately... it's not so much that you're truly married -- it's that you still are technically, meaning that there's BAGGAGE. BAGGAGE. It's not about the legal ramifications, as making-out/sleeping-with someone who's separated brings no legal ill-will.... it's the drama that ensues. Nobody should believe someone else that their separated husband/wife will be okay sitting in the living room while their still-spouse-by-technicality yells "Fvck me harder! Come on me!" with the bed creaking. Come on, let's be serious. And last but not least, let's forget marriage, and go with this analogy. You meet someone and they say they're single and they JUST broke up. But you find out thru others they broke up last week. Yeah, technically, it's a breakup, and technically they're not going out, but sorry -- looking for real dating? Don't go there. Could it ever work out with you and he/she? Yes, but chances are, even if it does, there will be porking going on between those two behind the scenes if they live near each other and stay in touch, etc., before things are truly established between you and he/she. One can say "But MY situation is like -this-, and everyone assumes -that-....", yeah, but most of the time when people think that, THEY don't know how datable of a situation they're in, and also -- most people in a situation of living with/close-to an ex/semi-ex, still sleep with them NSA and/or baggage. Doesn't necessarily mean YOU are, just as it doesn't necessarily mean someone who's pregnant and out on the dating scene doesn't carry any outside baggage themselves. It's just not worth someone else's time to find out the ifs.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 262 (view)

The Game and its effectiveness Posted: 11/12/2009 12:07:16 AM
Drusurfer, Since us guys have to initiate everything or just about everything with girls, it makes it seem that girls are just along for the ride in the relationship, and all you other people out there say it's good because it gives us guys control, that we are in the drivers seat, well, for me, I don't like being in control, I don't like being the Boss. Dru, There's a plus side and a minus side, and all you see is the minus side. The minus side about initiating things and setting the stage is that you can put forth that effort and feel embarrassed about being shot down about it. That's why you don't like it -- fear of not controlling it right. And I should point out, being in control doesn't mean master-slave -- being in control is no different than having a friend who "doesn't care" about certain things but you point out what bar/place/event to go out to. With girls, it's different, but the bottom line is that the minus about initiating things is that it makes you feel like you're in the spotlight if you're new to it all. The plus side is that you get to the bottom of it. You being the person who makes the first move finds out if she's interested in or not, and also, girls like men who aren't afraid to do so at the same time (ie guys not worried about being shot down). If she's apprehensive, "ehhh", "I dont know", balking at the pitch, etc., you know she's not interested. Great, as long as you don't have one-itis, that's even a positive, because you got to realize where things stand. (most) Girls have to sit there and are the ones waiting -- you are not. Huge plus. Bottom line: You don't want to be "the boss", ie. the initiator, because you fear what walking up and initiating things can bring -- the word "no".

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 149 (view)

separated but still living together... to believe or not Posted: 11/11/2009 12:13:45 AM
Okay, NotElvis, in my belated response, I will grant you that one's situation of being separated & living with someone doesn't always have to be the WORST situation as others are pointing out, however, my original point is that those in the situations of being separated & living-with-soon-to-be-officially-ex-spouse see "not as bad as others" = "just fine for real dating" (which is laughable). Bottom line is you don't want to be judged. Okay, fine. Some people will, and technically, yeah, that is going too far. But not everyone is going to judge YOU and your situation specifically -- but still be wise to walk away. You're a SOMEONE, and they're judging the PROBABILITY of the someones, which you fall into, and that's all they really know about -- and that probability is very very very very high. Here's the thing that you don't agree with: YOU have the burden of proof (of convincing), not the other person. Your position is that the other person would have to prove that you're NOT in a real datable situation, but sorry to say, that's untrue. You act as if living+separated situations have a decent shot at not being a problem when it comes to dating (for you or for the 'new' person), and that it's a low-blow to assume a high probability that it's messed up with you (as if the world revolves around ya?). You would have to prove to them that it's NOT a problem any more than if you were divorced and living on opposite ends of town for 5 years. Guess what? You really can't. It'd take too much time for someone to invest with you to be convinced, if it were even true. And you have to understand this -- it is RARE for it being situational for real dating, and too many people in that situation don't think it is a problem but come to find out that it is, too. You have the burden of proof because of the lopsided, massive % chance of it being clearly defunct for a real relationship, given that situation. But why would someone be obligated to have to sit thru a jury trial of getting to know someone who's living & separated with someone to figure out that it TRULY is one of those rare, rare, rare cases where it's not? And why would it be their obligation to have to be okay with you living with someone you've porked for so long but are on a (knock on wood) hiatus away from each other intimately? You do realize MANY MANY people separated/divorced have NSA hookups while single afterwards, especially if things aren't that "bad" between them, right? Nobody looking for a real dating situation should waste their time with someone living with an unofficial-ex/soon-to-be-official-ex. That's insane to call them jumping to conclusions if they don't want to deal with that. Hypothetical Example A: I hit it off with a gal, we go out for several months with tons of hot sex. BUT she loses her job, and has to move in with someone and it's me... but we agree not to date anymore because we both don't believe in living together before engagement or marriage, and wouldn't want to ruin things for a potential future thing if one were to ever happen. So we both become relatively comfortable after a little while of being just roomates and NOT going out... and I go out on the dating scene and say "Yeah, I'm living with my ex. Oh, don't worry, we're just friends. I can't live with someone I've only porked for months, and not years... so we decided to be just friends. It's cool.... why won't you date me?!" In this case, I'm a moron for not just thinking but "knowing" that there's nothing potentially there anymore, and that nobody should think otherwise. Example of others knowing better than me, even though they're not in my position. Hypothetical Example B: I travel to another state very frequently for work, and am thinking of moving there. I meet a girl, and tell her that I'm travelling and don't live there... but thinking of moving there, and I have work connections there, and all that. She shys away from me. Why doesn't she give me a chance?? Duh -- she owes no chances to strangers at all. Chances are given to someone you're ALREADY dating or have gotten to know. Now, I could prove to her that I'm there 4 days every 2 weeks, and that a co-worker who lives there has viewed apartments with me... and everyone at work knows I'm aiming to live there, too. But guess what? I can't be pissed that a gal isn't going to consider me as a mate and invest emotions in that -- many get emotionally disappointed... and I certainly can't get pissed if a gal says "email me when you move out here, you seem cool, but until then, I can't date you, sorry." Hypothetical Example C: A gal who's pregnant and wanting to date. She claims she has no baggage of ex's, it isn't nearly as bad as the stereotype assumptions people will dish out... she believes that she "deserves" to date and all guys she has interest in "deserves" to give her a chance (never mind the ones she doesn't like).... and she feeds off of over-extreme bashing to make herself believe that everyone has it wrong, thus she's in a just-fine position to date. Sure, for pregnant gals, she could be in an optimal situation.... of gals who are pregnant in the dating scene, though.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 23 (view)

Bridging the gap to actually dating Posted: 11/10/2009 10:55:11 PM
OutMind, Yes, we did "hang out", although it wasn't as friends, nor was there any implication about that. It was additionally made very clear because many times, especially to kick things off, we were isolated. That part was a given, as I could provide other details (whether it was good 'game' that I applied or not), that would make it clear there was no gray area that she and I both knew as us having any friend-zone implications. And we actually never spent time in crowded bars or anything -- usually during the week in a corner table -- so it had one-on-one implications when we were isolated. As far as hanging out is concerned, honestly, some girls (girls), want to just hang out, whether they're on any part of the spectrum of really digging the guy or ehh-not-that-interested. I don't think hanging out one-on-one was the problem, vs more-formal dinner dates for example. But here's the big problem, she seems to be giving you the I don't have time line. Reminder -- look at the date of the original post and my following posts in this thread. This was years ago. ;) you need to start initiating private intimacy .... How do you do this. I am quite sure that you know how, but here's an example. By now you know many things about her and she about you. You could have mentioned a wine collection of yours, or paintings, or whatever, it just happens to be at your place, or her place. If you are a good cook, offer to cook for her. Start by describing in detail how to prepare the dish, how do you serve it. I understand your main point -- to initiate private intimacy. It would have been very hard to apply that to her with that approach you mentioned, even in the ballpark range of things. The girl lived at her parents, was NOT looking for a boyfriend/commitment, and had no private intimate interests to feed off of. Put it this way... she'd be compared to the lazy college kid sitting on his couch smoking pot and just not caring about anything. She wasn't dressed that way or came off that way from a distance, but that was clearly how she was shortly after getting to know her. I agree with your advice to a more mature or even mature-but-immature type of woman, but some women don't respond to that approach, and she was definitely one of them. Now, I will say looking back, first impressions really set the tone, and doing better & better-timed kino & conversation/word placement could have maybe established things a differently. However, I will say that I was not empty of that altogether, nor did I do anything to shoot myself in the foot by any means... thus, I doubt that for anything more than a short period of time, would it (which would even be a stretch) been unweird w/ clear interested on her part. In the end, moral of the story is that if a girl doesn't roll with innocent intimacy readily with you, ie that twist-her-arm vibe to do so, she's not interested. Could one, given the right time, tactics, and a bit of luck get her to be? Yeah, that's possible. But if you're already at the point of the reasonable time for even innocent intimacy and you have that vibe from her, chances are, you're at the point of virtually no return.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 20 (view)

With that said, a woman in her 30s or 40s -- you'll still find that too. Posted: 11/6/2009 12:13:24 PM
That part wasn't a generalization -- I was pointing out that you can STILL FIND folks who are older being the same as youngins, when it comes to not understanding things. Not all 21 year olds are like that, not all 40-somethings hot off a divorce are like that... but you will find that in both realms (and other realms too), the point being -- it's not just an age thing.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 91 (view)

separated but still living together... to believe or not Posted: 11/5/2009 11:41:01 AM
Everyone's situation is different and unless you are in that situation, you have NO idea how you would react or handle it. Yes, everyone's situation is different... and yours may be better than a lot of others, but that's not the point. The situation itself is not good for dating, nor would someone in that situation be in position to dating someone they just met. Nobody has an obligation to get knee-deep into situations with you while you're living with your Later-than-sooner-to-be-ex-husband to find out if things are "okay" enough.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 90 (view)

separated but still living together... to believe or not Posted: 11/5/2009 11:38:13 AM
NotElvis, But no different than anyone else anywhere, anytime, whether they're separated or not. Well, yes, separated, recently broken up, still "hang out" with an ex of recent memory, etc. But the topic that these are about are more important (hence more apt to exaggerate) than say "how often do you work out?". You can't judge emotional preparedness based on living situation. So you're just calling it "a living situation", huh? OMG. She's definitely considered still your WIFE if you're living with her, separated or not. Why? Because there's no separation! Just because due to financial reasons you can't separate doesn't mean "in spirit we are; trust me, even though I'm a stranger on the internet". Come on. You can say "no but we don't do anything together"... yes, and regular married couples can say the same thing, too. You have to lie in the bed you make -- even if it's allegedly in another room in the house. :) That is not too far off from that someone else being someone you've known for years but who's also married with content but wants a side relationship. This quote I made -- no, they are different situations, but let me make myself clear... it's the chances of it being a stupid idea that are the same. And there IS similarity, but I in no way said they were clone situations. Again, point is, they're equally stupid to walk into. Do each have "a chance"? Well, yeah, depends on what you mean... actually, what the married guy means by a "healthy relationship". To HIM it's different. In both situations, he's been married and living with a woman, romantically or not, and ANYTHING is healthy to him, because he wants to be in the dating circle. So if you take "healthy relationship" in a relative way, sure, anything could be "healthy". But if you're LIVING WITH your wife who's a soon-to-be-official-ex, you can't expect ANYONE to assume there are no romantic ties. COME. ON.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 39 (view)

so annoying..why do people do this? Posted: 11/4/2009 5:25:53 AM
Britt, You're really into him, that's why it's bothering you so much. I mean, if you liked him as a friend or even just a bit more than just a friend, it'd bug you a little maybe, but you wouldn't be thinking about blowing guys off at all nor getting pissed about it for so long. And him not wanting you completely has made you want him more... and him wanting you when you are actually entertaining notions of other guys -- same thing for him. Problem with being guarded and being scared of relationships & losing someone is that the dumbest thing one can do is be in a "pseudo" relationship. Kinda defeats the purpose, because the point of being scared of a relationship is pain -- and if you end up truly liking them (which ya can't help), there will be just a different kind of pain. Don't think about you and him together again... hook up with a guy or two, shake off the cobwebs, and don't include him in your life (ie with family members and 'being friends' and hanging out). That's just faking it if you do, as I think you've learned. Don't think about "what ifs", either. ;)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 37 (view)

What is it with men & sexually liberated women Posted: 11/4/2009 5:10:20 AM
bwana217, I have found that for every sexually liberated women there are at least a score who simply pretend to be because they think it's impressive to say it, but deep down they are quite conservative sexually. I totally agree -- and vice versa, too. Many women will say they're very conservative sexually, complain about guys wanting one thing, then shortly after them mentioning what their favorite color is, they're ripping your clothes off. I think in both cases, it exposes a common human element that can go a bit too awry -- when people believe they ARE who they WANT to be. Huge difference. That extends into what women (and guys I'm sure) SAY they want vs what they DO want in the opposite sex. So much so, they believe it 100%, but it's not the case. Rarely do people tend to solely refer to their history of behaviors and desires when single at bars, online, or other social environments and judge their tastes on what they've always gravitated toward... it might be a glance at best, but mostly little thought put into it, because they think it's 100% obvious, when many times, their beliefs on what they actually do want can be off-road. But that's a whole other argument. :) You, for example, refuse even to talk with anyone who wants an intimate encounters which, by the way, is the only category here that mentions intimacy. You haven't the slightest inclination to be sexually liberated. I think you just want to fake it so that you can blast men. Well, I do have to defend her on that point, though. You can find some women who have a profile craving random sex but put a "Must Not" for intimate encounters, solely to root out crazies (it being their opinion). But I will say that to complain that most men are that jealous like that... That is over the top, and I think she knows they're not all like that. I think maybe she does things that should get a guy pissed (rightfully jealous), or she just likes guys who tend to be the jealous type (a package deal that goes with her "type"?).

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 80 (view)

separated but still living together... to believe or not Posted: 11/4/2009 4:47:47 AM
NotEvlis, It must be gratifying to be able to see everything as black and white like that - life must be so simple to know all the answers and to be able to pigeonhole everyone. Look who said "ALL THE ANSWERS". :) So for someone making an absolute statement, you retort by making an even greater one, then say.... and you are the one that was using the words ALWAYS, ANY, and so forth. Tsk tsk. Yes, I made an absolute statement, and my 2nd post points out that TECHNICALLY pretty much any situation COULD have some crazy exception that makes the history books... so let's rules those out. For it being ALWAYS the case that people will exaggerate, you fail to point out that that was not my main point of judgement on the topic, as I point out that even if their situation isn't that bad (see, I wasn't blanketingly demonizing situations folks like yourself are/have been in.). So on the point of exaggeration -- hell yes. But let me make myself more clear. When they come across that their situation is just fine and pretty normal and "oh yes" they're ready for a relationship, etc. -- that is where I place the absolutism of SOME form of exaggeration, conscious or otherwise. And that's saying it lightly. :) As far as one ABSOLUTELY NOT chase some new stranger who's separated & living with their wife/husband with a near-future relationship in mind? Are you kidding me? That is not too far off from that someone else being someone you've known for years but who's also married with content but wants a side relationship. The reason I verablize it at such absolutes (and rid of the slight oddball %) is because if you tell someone who WANTS something to be true/okay/its-worth-it/etc, and there's a 99% chance it's NOT... to them, it will seem like a 50-50 shot when it comes down to it. It's "a chance", and they'll waste their time. Hence, "ABSOLUTELY NOT".

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 78 (view)

separated but still living together... to believe or not Posted: 11/3/2009 9:00:31 PM
It must be gratifying to be able to see everything as black and white like that - life must be so simple to know all the answers and to be able to pigeonhole everyone Oh, no no no no. I'm not a "pigeonholer" any more than 99.999% of the population, and most likely yourself included, actually. By your rationale, breaking something down in black & white for one thing means you do it to everyone about everything. Yah, right. Example: Saying no to someone trying to pursue a -relationship- with someone who is happily married but wants a serious side relationship "pigeonholing"? If so, then I think we're all pigeonholers. We're seeing it black and white! Life must be so simple for all of us to know all the answers to be able to pigeonhole everyone (since it's just one case, right?). How rude and stereotypical we are for that flaky assumption that they shouldn't pursue a relationship with a happily married person! And in all honesty, technically, it COULD work out with not too much drama. ULTRA ULTRA low % chance in this example, but COULD.... so that means you give every option a shot, right? ;) In the example of someone separated & still living together -- technically, yes, a very low % that something healthy could develop upon genuinely dating them with no huge obstacles. But which side would win in a 7 game series with the "it'll be just fine!" given a 2 game lead to start off? Not the "it'll just be fine!". One guy said it best at the top of this page. Have them meet the person you're living with -- if they can't do that, there's too much drama. There can be a babysitter, so the kids don't have to be there... the guy could come over not "as the boyfriend" in front of the kids. It's not like all adults are banned from a household. If they could do that, MAYBE. Is it worth signing up for? Uhh, no. People who aren't in datable situations shouldn't cry out to strangers online to give them a shot for genuine dating.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 33 (view)

What is it with men & sexually liberated women Posted: 11/3/2009 8:43:37 PM
I think if you deal with jealous guys, they would rather you be a "closet slut" that's wholesome. Actually I think a woman could cure their jealous boyfriends if they basically scoffed at any guy who talked to them and ONLY looked at him 100% of the time... and the only time she'd talk to guys would be with his friends, and any conversation remotely close to sex & dating would be about hooking them up with friends she's got. But in the real world, jealous guys will like to meet and date a sexually liberated woman. But her margin of error on being social with others narrows BIGTIME, I imagine, and then he wouldn't like it so much.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 18 (view)

Bridging the gap to actually dating Posted: 11/3/2009 8:35:04 PM
Correction/Clarification on my previous post to Good Good Girl: "Progression" meaning awkwardness disappears, and when you are out together, you're not like friends... and physical openness increases, regardless of one's pace. If a gal's NOT progressing, and you would have to "work" to kiss, almost as if it's your 2nd cousin or something, she doesn't have any interest in you -- regardless of her reasons (reasons are just explanations as to why they're not interested, even if they don't see it that way). Girls who are traditional -- they WON'T have to twist their own arm for progression... traditional girls will have to twist their own arm to "hold back", and you'll see that and know that there IS interest, as opposed to those who are obviously out with obligation on their mind, not desire. Stfuandkissme, Yeah, I agree -- the ambivalence past the 1st date... that's a lack of maturity. And as you pointed out, there are 40-somethings with a lack of maturity in the dating department, and some will note that they are due to being new on the dating circuit since god-knows-how-long-ago, and feel obligated to "go out". As an fyi -- I'm not ranting whatsoever -- just noting observations!

Show ALL Forums