u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex chat & forums.

Show ALL Forums

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Author

Thread: u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 1030 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/18/2013 12:42:38 AM
Hamilton, And she was also not in a relationship, what you do when you are both single is irrelevant, silly but irrelevant. I highly disagree. Look at the thread title. It's whether it's platonic or not. The best litmus test, when single, to measure whether or not your situation is truly platonic is "If I had a GF/BF, and there was nothing hyper-sensitive or hyper-non-sensitive, would they be cool with this?" If No, then it's not a platonic situation. That's the question of the day. Not just whether you're cheating, but whether you're walking into a pond you wish to ignore is there. OP: He also said that if a local woman said she had a male friend coming over it would be the same as cheating as too is spooning/cuddling a friend. I think some ppl focus too much on sex and not friendship having views like this. That's not purely, 100% only-friendship (platonic), when two OS friends come over and spoon/cuddle (assuming both hetero). Anyone who believes that is lying to themselves. Now, if you're single, you're not hurting anyone but yourself if you've actually convinced yourself you're just as much just-friends as with a 1st cousin. Which is another litmus test: If you wouldn't roll that way with a 1st cousin (north of the Mason-Dixon line), then it's not platonic. It's as simple as that. If I saw my brother hanging 1-on-1 with our 1st cousin and going over to her place, sleeping in the same bed spooning/cuddling, do you Actually think I would ponder "Oh, I'm focusing too much on sex and not on friendship."? LOL. Amazed at how having opposite sex friends makes you first sleazy and slutty Nobody's saying that -- as someone who you could merely call a friend. It's how close, if it's an ex, etc. Really people, go back and read what you have written and think about it for just a little bit. Are you all f'ing nuts? Good gawd no has said that sleeping in the same bed, cuddling etc is appropriate behaviour with opposite sex friends, we have merely said that in 21st century Western Society, there is nothing wrong with having OS friends and spending time with them My quote of the OP up there says it all... plus another poster semi-recently, albeit with caution, basically said it's not inappropriate (but may risk things, so watch out). Where's your bashing there against that? Now, with that said -- there's still room of course for debate. If that extreme (which the OP defended) isn't kosher, there's still people who believe that they should have an ex be a Real BFF... or that a 1-on-1, close relationship with an OS friend, even an ex, shouldn't be an issue and if the sig-other does, they've got insecurity issues instead of the relationship itself or the potentiality of it blossoming losing its security.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 110 (view)

FWB and new BF Posted: 5/17/2013 11:15:53 AM
Her other thread claimed she wouldn't let her bf "play her", implying possessiveness. (?) So she's a hypocrite. Haven't read or don't remember that thread. If that's the case, same BF, and it's "playing" on the same level as this, yeah, I'd agree. Her" throwaway" comment sounded like she wasn't "throwing away the fwb"--as she wanted to see him, but now sees it could backfire, so she will hold off. Or does it mean she shouldn't have had fwbs? Yeah, she's not wanting to throw away the FWB -- who's something more emotionally important to her than a mere FWB -- but at least not to hang out with him, which is at least required for any basic common decency when one has a BF. I think it's more of a "oh sh!t, this could backfire or cause complications with the BF" as the main motivation to not hang out with her FWB for at least a while, as she put it. She is not saying she shouldn't have had FWBs... I think anything motivating her to POSSIBLY not having FWBs is that even without a BF, it can be emotionally tough when you have such strong feelings for them and get along so great, but not an LTR compatible mate (a different subject than "is this kosher to keep him around, with a BF?"). But is it freedom to do what she wants? Whos the one who wont let the FWB progress further? her or him? Cos its sounding like she has a boyfriend cos the FWB wont go no further. Good point, good question. In a nutshell, if one has a close friend who's a FWB who gets it on when single, you shouldn't hang with them or even be close to them when having a full-blown BF/GF. But it'd tell the tale more as to why the FWB didn't progress -- his doing or hers or both, and why, etc. "Hey honey, Steve and I are going hiking and crashing at his house tonight." "Oh.... okay, ummm... well I can't Stop you, but you make reference to Steve quite a bit. Do you like him or vice versa or something?" "Oh geez, it's cute, but don't be jealous. I love him as a friend. He's such a great guy. We're such great friends. I mean, I can't break friendships just because I'm dating someone." "Well, it's a pretty close friendship -- not saying you don't entirely break any friendship Merely because we're together... it's just the nature of it and a case-by-case thing... But again, I can't stop you. You guys are Just friends but doing that?" "We're very close friends, and yeah, we bang when we're both single. But I'm not single! You gotta learn about trust..." "Sooo wait, wait. You love him as a friend, and you two bang when both single... and you'll bang if/when we'd break up?" "Yeah, he'd shag me rotten like he's done before and after the last guy I dated... again, ONLY when I'm single! I wouldn't cheat on you. I can control my hormones and so can he. We are great FRIENDS. Okay, I gotta pack my stuff and head on out! Talk to you tomorrow!"

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 26 (view)

5 dates and zero signs of progress Posted: 5/17/2013 9:53:29 AM
Ive been wanting this relationship to progress, i see now that i need to put my big boy pants on and take matters into my own hands. There ya go! It hasn't progressed -- hence your thread here. The thing is i am in the mindset that, why does a relationship need physical intimacy so quickly? Doh! Now you're changing your mind? Dude, it hasn't progressed! You now just asked "Why does a relationship need to progress, so quickly?" It's been 5 dates already with no progression! A simple kiss on a date is NOT to be substituted with "physical intimacy in a relationship". Sometimes a guy & a girl can be going out on dates/outings, and unfortunately for the guy, she likes him only as a friend. That's why progression is important. If you haven't had a kiss, and it's been the umpteenth date, you haven't progressed. A kiss on a 3rd, 4th, or 5th DATE is not "quick" by any stretch, man. It's a simple PG-rated, possibly G-rated, expression of interest. like i previously stated, im more interested in a connection beyond that, and i believe im getting to see this more clearly without any physical intimacy clouding my judgement. If that's the case, don't go out on a Date (ie non-platonic). If you haven't kissed by the 5th date, you're not having a connection on a non-platonic level. It's that simple. I do like the suggestions to set up a date activity that encourages touching, seeing as due to my shy nature, i dont think i could very easily build her up to a first kiss without making it seem like it came out of nowhere. You're turning a game of checkers into a game of chess. You're psyching yourself out. You know full well that you're not opposed to a kiss. In fact, you want one. You're into her. You're just scared to and treating it like it's "so much" when it's not. It's not sex. A kiss on a date isn't even remotely close to foreplay either. And a simple kiss it isn't even foreplay for a big makeout session, either. 7th graders will have a simple kiss -- it's no big deal and you know it. Just with HER it is, because you're scared. Do some "kino" with her, touch her arms, hands, etc -- in a non-chalant way. It'd be the 6th date. Even if she's apprehensive about it, don't change your plans. Roll with things, and there is no "good time" at this point for you. At the end of the date, position yourself for the kiss and roll toward it. If she ducks/shys away, at this point, she's not interested in you -- whether she wasn't in the beginning or lost it because you never made a move on date #3 or 4. At least cut to the chase to see if there's any real Interest. Don't "build a connection" with someone past the 3rd date who doesn't want to kiss you, even if it's not the romantic-perfect-moment. If she doesn't want a kiss on the 6th DATE, even in not the most grand time & place, she's not into you -- plain and simple. Find out, for your own sake. Don't make chicken excuses. :) you are allowed to look like a cute girl but not allowed to act like a girl. Harsh on his hair, but well said on the latter!

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 105 (view)

So I did not kiss her on the the first date. Good or bad sign? Posted: 5/17/2013 8:43:53 AM
drinkthesunwithmyface, we're talking about the first date here. Date number one. Numero Uno. Very true. And all we're talking about is a simple kiss, too. A simple, basic expression of interest. For example, if having the kind of date that you're describing, and knowing that everything is clicking pretty well as we've discussed, you're telling me that if I didn't let you kiss me on that first date, you'd think that I have intimacy issues, am too reserved, or are an introvert - that's one of the many things I want to know about a woman as quickly as I can find them out...if she thinks this way. Assuming it's in an appropriate place -- I would say, yeah, the woman is rightfully in position to assume lack of interest on your part, or possibly way too reserved IF you had interest... unless you preemptively stated before the date that you don't kiss on a first date. Intimacy issues, or anything deeper? That would be jumping the gun possibly if she had any concrete assumption on that, for sure. But the gal isn't going to go off and do a psychoanalysis to you right there when you deny her. She's just rightfully going to think one thing -- he lacks interest (if it was at a reasonable place & time). Also, you don't want to play games like "I wonder how'd she feel if I denied her leaning in for a kiss at the end of the night? If she's turned off, she's not right for me because she was turned off and is making assumptions about me." I CAN see though, if she leaned in for one in what most people would consider at least a questionable place & time.... or if she was turned off it was a little lunch date at noon and you didn't go for one, or even an evening date and there was no timing/situation for you to even try. But in the former, you could easily say "I'd like to kiss you but this really isn't the time or place right here..." See, DrinksTheSun, I like a demonstrative man - If you are pulling back when I am leaning in for a kiss, we aren't compatible. And on a first date, that pretty much sums it up for most women and rightfully so, assuming it's not an inappropriate time & place when doing so. As a guy, I'm fine if the woman definitely expresses interest in many other ways throughout the date, and her body language at the end of the night leans away from a kiss and toward a hug. It'd put a "Hmmmm" in my mind, as chances would be higher she lacked interest, but not enough to make a determination about Her (since there was other indicators of interest during the night). Years ago I had a date 60 miles away just outside a college campus at Starbucks, mid-afternoon. She was an older woman who instructed at that college. There was that chemistry upon first meeting. The place was packed full of what seemed like students studying and drinking coffee. About 20 minutes into the date, chit-chatting and eye-gazing, she leaned over the table and said "Kiss me. I want you to kiss me. I dare you." I was apprehensive, but I did and it was a really great but odd semi-makeout session. NOW, if I declined that -- sure, that could be a compatibility test for HER... but she couldn't have rightfully blamed me for not kissing her there at 2:30PM, as if I was someone who doesn't kiss on a first date or was too reserved, blah blah. I wouldn't blame a guy's "game" for declining for a better time & place. So the timing & place should factor in. But refusing to kiss on a first date should send question marks, at least, of interest, if the timing & place is just fine. If a woman is turned off because you shy away from a simple kiss she leans toward at the end of a first date, she should be turned off -- it's a simple kiss. Shying away from a gal leaning in to kiss you at the right time should be taken the same way as always shying away from a gal doing "kino" like touching your shoulder, forearm or hand.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 1012 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/16/2013 11:59:22 PM
And that is YOUR definition of a BFF, not mine. BFF = BEST Friends Forever. Which means they are your Best friend, at least tied (in a healthy relationship) with your lover/boyfriend/husband, or at least tied or better/closer than your closest friend(s). Not, as you put it before: When my friend lives 2000 miles away in another state and the only contact is a phone call once every 4 or 6 weeks to catch up," Then, described differently... Someone who cheers on your victories and consoles you on your defeats. Someone in your corner when it seems no one else in the world is. You're describing it very differently. Point being, you point out how "distant" it is, yet the whole time you're talking BFF and defending not merely having an OS friend, but having a close 1-on-1 one who's a previous lover as okay. In the end, the point of this thread is the closeness of the friend. Your BFF this whole time up until now (but still fuzzy; see differences above) was a close, 1-on-1 friend -- not a distant person who lives 2000 miles away in another state and the only contact is once-in-a-great-while. HUGE difference in the message you've been conveying that's all. But hey, I am glad in your previous post you believing that having 1-on-1 late nights out with a close, opp-sex friend isn't good at all when you're seeing someone. Although as a side point, if you're still in Need to keep in contact with an ex as a frequent confidant for inner-most secrets, to cheer you on, etc (the latest quote) -- maybe you should let go? Seems distance is the reason why you're not together and you still want to hold on? I can see a BF being OK with the situation though if it's best described in the first way you came forth about that Ex. Hamilton, Very few think one can't have any kind of platonic friendship with the opp-sex, and very few think it's okay to be so close to sleep in the same bed with the opposite-sex and still be platonic (ie normally kosher with an SO). It's where do you drawn the line and what's too far behind the line where you play baby-games calling others jealous & insecure? :) the funny thing about your statement is that is not appropriate to call people jealous and insecure, but it is okay to call them slutty and sleazy. I really do have a problem with that. What part of my quote implied that it's okay to call someone slutty or sleazy?? What post on this thread or any other (see thread of FWB & BF where I point out she's NOT that) that I have even implied it? I haven't! It's about crossing lines with a SO, ie whether the situation between the two parties isn't entirely platonic, emotionally or boundary-wise. No, nobody should call someone slutty or sleazy even if they think it's okay to be a cuddle-buddy with an OS friend -- weird & aloof, sure -- slutty or sleazy? No -- unless there's other stuff that indicates they are. they are merely saying that they refuse to cut their friends out of their lives. There would be little debate, if any, if that was the case. You can't cut some friends out of your lives if you share a social group, too. You know that's not the line people are debating about. It's about how "far back" in particular situations, and a default line if there was no history/feelings, etc. The only reason I would see to cut an OS friend out of one's life as much as they can, would be if you or they had feelings while you were seeing someone (at least for a good while; longer if you do), or if they were an Ex where you or they had feelings while you were seeing someone.... or a very-recent Ex (for at least a long time; they're still on the rebound). Why should I believe you are capable of a healthy relationship and being true to the relationship if you can't even maintain a TRUE friendship and drop them the minute you get an SO?? Well, if it's an ex they're still clamoring about -- they should have dropped them long ago. :) I don't think anyone should drop an OS friendship because it's an OS friendship, especially the minute one gets an SO. But when the relationship develops with a SO, if that opp-sex friendship was 'too close', it should keep a safe distance. Where are those lines? That's the debate... not merely "Drop all OS friendships of ALL types to ALL degrees the minute you have a SO!" No, that's not being said. Many people have OS friendships when single that are at a distance that'd be comfortable if/when they DO starting dating someone. Others have to adjust that to appease most people's comfort zones... whether that be a little or a lot... naturally or begrudgingly.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 107 (view)

FWB and new BF Posted: 5/16/2013 9:46:03 PM
cw35, Never said there was anything wrong with people sleeping around ... It's not about sexual freedom, it's about a lack of self control as a mature human being. First, this topic isn't about, or even related to sleeping around. :) The OP is not sleeping around -- in a nutshell, she had a relationship of sorts with a guy she keeps close and emotionally wants to be close to -- while having a BF -- and thought it was more or less fine when she has confidence that she won't do anything physical (so therefore it must be okay). She now realizes that's not quite the most kosher thing (although in reality that's putting it very lightly). Anyway, her wanting to keep an ex-of-sorts close to her while she has feelings for him is not about sleeping around. I'd hope one wouldn't think it'd imply that! Merdave, OP, maybe HE has an FWB too and he just hasn't elected to share that with you. Might explain why he's not too bunged up about yours... Very good point. IMO, he's either being really too cool about it as a laid-back guy ("Okay, I can't stop you; I'll give you rope to hang yourself with"), or he's got a female friend around that's been on his mind and even though he doesn't like the situation he won't feel guilty keeping that fire on the back-burner. Halycon, Admit it---deep down, you really want permission to sleep with more than one man at a time, right? I wouldn't necessarily say that -- as to actually execute it. I think maybe the guy saying "I can't stop you" was a good psychological tactic to make her think about it as opposed to an emotionally hasty response that he's 'restricting' her, when deep down she knows it ain't good at all. But I think underneath she wants to keep that flame on the back-burner. The friendship itself is something real, sure, of course -- but her motivation and deepness about it is more than the friendship... not to be able to "do two guys at once" -- but freedom to do what she wants. BUT it's good she realizes at least it's not good to hang with that guy she has strong feelings for. It doesn't matter if it's different than a boyfriend -- it was an on-again/off-again thing -- and it's her emotions itself. Even if she didn't have a BF right now, and a relationship wasn't a feasible option with the guy, I would still say to back off if her emotions are so dear about him. But who knows -- maybe she Does want both if given the option. :) mysterious, Yes I still think her original post was wrong but I gotta have her back on this much. She seemed to see how she might be having superficial throwaway relationships- so why continue on as if she never said that? I agree. People shouldn't BASH her. They should be not be so mild to imply that she was barely tip-toeing over a line or something -- it's a much WTH situation if it's a boyfriend -- and awareness should be vocalized and all... but also, recognition she at least understands it's at LEAST not a kosher thing.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 178 (view)

FWB Posted: 5/16/2013 9:17:29 AM
I have a lady friend who would like to be FWB's with me. I don't feel comfortable with that and believe you should have more respect of one's body. Respect for one's body would be sleeping around with randoms or eating too many Big Macs. Having a lady friend in which you also fool around on the side is not respecting or disrespecting the body. I can easily turn down women asking for sex. ... Furthermore, she asked to do it in my house. ... But the environment itself is a turnoff. ... I get completely turned off. Am I just abnormally weird? Yes you are. First, if you really wouldn't sleep with her, the concept of where you do it shouldn't matter since you wouldn't want to do it. So obviously a part of you wanted to do it. You have a problem with non-Relationship sex, even if there is a friendship-relationship turned into something more (ie not random). The real issues shouldn't be your kid's toys on the ground on the way to the bedroom with a gal -- then, it has nothing to do with FWB -- it has to do with sex itself -- even a GF, since you say it's a turn-off. The real issue should be the complications it'd have between you two and what potential problems it'd cause within your social (or work) group, etc., due to her emotions & where she stands about you, and you about her. Nothing wrong with saying no in and of itself. To always be turned off in all situations with all women who you're friends with and want to be more than friends? Yeah, that's abnormal.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 240 (view)

Do men really screw anything? Looking for honest answers. Posted: 5/16/2013 9:08:31 AM
I don't think all men will screw anything but I do think a large percentage of men will screw a woman that he wouldn't be seen in public with. I'll agree with some stipulations, so not to be taken the wrong way: A large % of Single, outgoing, and socially active men will screw very willing women -- those who bleed into the range where he wouldn't want to be seen as a potential couple with at all (ie not good looking, but not ugly) -- but just a roll-in-the-hay-and-hey-gotta-go. I don't think a large % of guys are going to Chase such women who are in that range, though, under normal circumstances.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 23 (view)

Things men and women don’t know about each other? Posted: 5/16/2013 8:58:55 AM
No two of us are the same: We don't all love to shop, drink cosmos and watch romantic comedies. While some men think that "you know one woman, you know them all," each woman has her own unique history and habits If that's the case, doesn't that make the rest of the list hold little water? :) and how we like our eggs Fertilized? ;) 6 - When our favorite team loses, we just need some space and a little time to grieve. I think that is one that is often overlooked and should be better understood. :) All in all though, I say Men are from Earth and Women are from Earth much more than Mars & Venus.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 991 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/16/2013 8:40:21 AM
WHY is this thread still going and going and going? A couple people have already stated the obvious: Some people are capable of having platonic relationships with the opposite sex and some are not.. DUH! That's not really the issue of argument though. Most people believe that it IS okay, merely to have a friendship on SOME level with the opposite-sex. It's the level of relationship that's the issue. Very few think one can't have any kind of platonic friendship with the opp-sex, and very few think it's okay to be so close to sleep in the same bed with the opposite-sex and still be platonic (ie normally kosher with an SO). It's where do you drawn the line and what's too far behind the line where you play baby-games calling others jealous & insecure? :) What everyone's bickering about is how close & frequent can a 1-on-1 relationship (friendship) be without being considered platonic (ie normally kosher with an SO). When my friend lives 2000 miles away in another state and the only contact is a phone call once every 4 or 6 weeks to catch up and the potential partner has a problem with my friendship with that individual...... And (virtually) nobody would have a problem with that. They may be considered a friend forever, but that's not a BFF by any means which you clearly stated. What you describe there is not a close relationship -- just someone you keep in touch with who's considered a friend. I'm certainly not arguing against that. At 18 yrs old, I thought I was open-minded and that tradition was just stupid and outdated. Had my own apartment and one day an OS schoolmate from uni came over and we were watching a movie. Boyfriend walks in, I ask him to join us watching movie. After 5 minutes he walks out and doesn't answer the phone that night. So I tell an older neighbor how dumb and jealous my bf is acting. Neighbor tells me I was the dumb one. Yeah, and that's common sense that should be a problem. Unfortunately, not all people are against it. Some people think "That's cool as it doesn't matter what the gender is! It's about trust!" -- which could be used to go to the strip club 1-on-1 with a female friend vs a buddy, all treated the same, or regularly crashing at one's place, taking a trip, etc.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 168 (view)

Just looking for friends Posted: 5/16/2013 7:07:57 AM
Exactly. If you're here just tomeet friends, then shouldn't things like weight, height, age, marital status, whether he has messages someone else for intimate encounters etc be irrelevant? If you're a women on a dating site to meet friends, do you message other women for friendship? Exactly. You select either a Man or a Woman. If you select a Woman (being a woman) you're in an environment where it's saying you're looking for a lesbian/bi experience. Why? Because it's Not a platonic place. :) Second, I kinda find it hard to believe that a dating site is the best source to find platonic male friends for a woman. ... If you're not looking for a date or sex, why use a site where must of then are looking for the opposite thing? Exactly. Think about it. If the matchmaking section were Really were a viable place where a gal would ONLY want JUST friends ... then here's a great litmus test: If that's the case, then if a gal has a BF, it's 100% OKAY for her to go on Plenty of Fish to find a dude as a "friend". :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 11 (view)

5 dates and zero signs of progress Posted: 5/16/2013 6:50:30 AM
Also every date, i have picked her up, and paid for everything. Im also driving 40 mins to her place to pick her up everytime. ... I felt like before i try and kiss her i should see some signs she is interested in me. You should take pick-up dates as interest, when it goes beyond the 1st. If she's shy & quiet and her body language steers away from anything more than a hug, that's fine not to go for a kiss on a 2nd date -- notably day-time dates. But 5 dates, no kissing? No minor touching or any real flirting? You've got at LEAST one foot in the friend zone, and another not too far away. You have to make a move. Anything beyond 3 dates is NO excuse to at least make the move for a kiss. If she doesn't take it -- she's not interested. Why take a girl out over and over and over again when she's not into you? Don't set up some extravagant 6th date for a kiss. We're not talking getting naughty -- we're talking PG rated! You're intimidated probably because you're naturally shy on that side + she gives no indicators of it + you Fear Rejection. Going for a mere kiss at the end of a 3rd date being an evening one is Not moving too fast, so you should have no worries there. If you keep hanging out with her without being affectionate in any way -- More Than Friends -- then you've been building the foundation for Friend Zone. You'll regret it more if you don't make a move ASAP. If there hasn't been a "good time" after 5 dates, there won't be on the 6th date so don't "wait out" on one. Get to the bottom of it. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 301 (view)

About leagues. . . Posted: 5/16/2013 6:14:10 AM
Which is your opinion as a man. I would assume I know at least a little bit more about how a woman would feel than you do, and can cite myself as an example, and I only speak for myself. Again, where is your information coming from? You’ve provided some very specific criteria. Are you observing this behavior at bars or clubs, or are female friends telling you? I’m not being sarcastic, I mean it. It's not very specific, nor very controversial to say SOME women will do that (purposely feel more comfortable or aim for a guy who "they could do better"). A separate, actual argument would be about how often that happens. My point is that IF/WHEN one does -- it's obvious as to why, as that poster was saying -- it's a comfort-zone issue, a better sense of having things in control issue. It's a trade-off of that in return for comfort & control they fear not (quite) having. For those who self-proclaim "aren't that into looks" CAN be in that boat, knowingly or unknowingly. I'm not saying it happens often or regularly, but yes, observed -- IRL, forums, etc. Again, my point which you have issue with is the Why, if they do. Why else would someone usually gravitate toward someone who's at least a notch below their league? You make it sound like poor Average Joe or Jane should be eternally grateful to Mr. or Ms. Hotshit for condescending to get naked with them. That doesn’t sound like anyone “Average” to me…it sounds like someone extraordinarily needy and severely lacking in self esteem. I'm saying that someone who's MUCH better looking than the other person usually has less weight on them to perform awesomely for a great experience because their looks will already cover a lot of that for many. But no, it doesn't mean hot people suck in bed and ugly people are always amazing. I concede that more temptations will eventually overwhelm those without Good Character who pretend to themselves they have Good Character. That's not conceding - that's obvious. It doesn't mean every person will be hedonistic or that even most would, with good character. Nor hedonism is required. Regardless of one's character -- a higher level of temptations over a considerable length of time will result in more missteps. Whether you're talking about food, opp-sex, money, etc. It's the human condition. Yep. I wouldn’t marry a man I didn’t trust. I’d be right there with him. Is there some reason I wouldn’t be? No, but I think he meant he's a rockstar and on tour around the world and like most people, you can't travel with him all the time. In other words, you're with a guy who travels a lot and his job is where he's going to get a lot of women willing to do "anything" for him. You could take many many men who otherwise would never cheat, being an accountant at a small firm in Idaho -- and in the alternative universe with his same persona, upbringing, etc, in his 30s his little side-guitar-job turns into stardom and he travels around -- you're going to expect to see different results and Normally so -- whether it makes one say "Well I Never!" rightfully or not. :) IMO, many people are too lazy to do the necessary work to up their pecking order in a "league", educate yourself, improve yourself, make yourself an equal to the type of mate u desire. I totally agree. Hence, some of those folk don't like to hear or think about "league" -- their self-esteem can't take the hit. From my own POV, I don't look at leagues as being about physical attractiveness. It's a huge part. And all other things being (socially) equal, it's pretty much it. Status & looks I say... where status is financial and/or social (popularity amongst peers). I suppose if my SO was 35 years younger and super sexy, it would make me feel a little insecure about the future. Not quite like being out of my league, but not comfortable. You'd be LUCKY to have her (assuming she wasn't deranged beyond her looks & status). When you're truly LUCKY to have her -- because she's super-hot, super-young -- yes, that's what "out of your league" means. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 85 (view)

FWB and new BF Posted: 5/16/2013 5:23:18 AM
No...I'm definitely not worried about me and my BF splitting up. He's wonderfully dedicated, even at this early stage of our relationship. I just didn't want to keep ignoring my bud, and I'll probably tell him that I need to let my relationship grow before we can hang out again. You should be worried about splitting up with pretty much any guy as a BF if he read your messages on here -- ie not what you told him face to face. :) In other words, more toward the truth. But that is GOOD that you've At Least come to the realization that you can't hang out with your friend-lover who you have feelings for -- and definitely not to do so if/when you and your BF are on the rocks or it hits a plateau of blah/boredom/taken-for-granted. Hopefully you'll move away from your friend-lover and look back on this in the future if you and your BF move forward, and think "What the hell was I thinking? I could have Really screwed it up!" If you instead choose to continue to spend time with your friend-lover -- you will. Good that you're not wanting to choose to do that. I had a brief FWB relationship with one of my best friends. ... it went on from there for a few months. When I find a BF though, we stop but then we pick up where we left off when we're both single. Anyway, we love each other dearly as friends and we're able to successfully go back and forth as friends and lovers ... he is too young and not necesarily relationship material - even though he's awesome, brilliant, kind and has my back no matter what. I love him ... Here's the thing: He's not a mere FWB, and most certainly not a mere Friend by any means either. How do you label such things? Well, you are what you do -- labels are just optional or sometimes a tool to define it as something to up-play or down-play the situation to make one feel better. In a nutshell, you guys were in an uncommon, romantic/sexual relationship -- on-again-off-again in it's full execution. A friend-and-lover. Loving him as a person more than anything doesn't make it harmless at all (in relation to a BF or potential BF). You also love him as More Than a Friend. How often you hold back from crossing particular sexual lines with that ex-guy is pretty moot when it comes to "is-this-right?". Bottom line is that if you're into someone a lot, and also into them as More than a friend (lover) -- that's not just a problem in forming a relationship with someone else, it's a HUGE problem with a BF. Don't label him as a mere friend -- he's distinctly more than that, hence your predicament. mysterious_stranger, "That's cute that a girl who wants to spoon around in bed and cuddle on the couch with a guy -who she has sex with from time to time between relationships- while she has a boyfriend thinks that the monsters are outside of herself- a girl who's life motto is to seek pleasure above all else. Ah how morality and common sense have declined in America." I mostly agree -- it's insane that people think it's just some minor thing -- as if she just went out on a date with a guy she likes while having this friend-lover around. Maybe at that point, it's a what-to-do. It's a moral problem, yes, because you're crossing lines. Unless they both agree that you can hang out with friend-lovers, cuddle, spoon, hang-out-one-on-one, "but don't pork again!" (still being a 18yo 'rule') -- it is a moral/ethical issue. But I don't think it's "the system" that's brainwashed her (or others) TO do this though. I think "the system" just helps people ALLOW themselves (a minority of in society) to even think it's "ok" to juggle both a friend-lover & a BF, because they don't want to lose the bond where the friendship is an important part of it (as with any relationship one likes). It's good she's decided to at least not hang out with the friend-lover while she has the BF. Most people, even UNDER 25, wouldn't put up with it. And we're talking both types of people who go into clubs & libraries.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 95 (view)

Separated status - does it really matter? Why? Posted: 5/15/2013 12:18:32 PM
Hmmm, [emotional baggage] that has nothing to do with being separated, divorced or single. They can have baggage any which way. Statistically speaking -- there are highly more likely when Separated, especially when going to an online site which is a watering hole for folks on the rebound. My point that I have been trying to make is that baggage is an individual thing and you have to judge everyone on their own baggage. But they don't have an obligation to get to know you! You can make the same claim as if you still lived with your wife/soon-to-be-ex-wife. Higher probability, sure. But there's still "a chance" (albeit a Very slim slim one) that it's fine. But nobody is obligated to Really find out! Can you produce these statistics [Statistically speaking, simply being Separated has greater odds of something more than a fling/short-term not working]? Honestly, if I dug them up for you, would you really change your mind? You seem hung up on the idea that a separated person can't be in a relationship. A non-serious one, sure. A fling, absolutely. Oh, they CAN be in one. And they COULD be in one that works out great. Many situations vary -- but my claim is (the above quote points to it) that statistically speaking, the chances are low, compared to all others, everything else being equal on paper. And it's not that one could "pull it off" but are they ready for one? I know plenty of people who weren't ready for a relationship but they had one anyway -- that's quite common. Point is, what we disagree on, is that people who are Separated have less odds of getting into a new, successful/healthy relationship beyond a fling/short-term thing. People online or engaging with someone new doesn't have an obligation to get to know you. YOU could be 100% fine! But again, they don't know you. If you think that compared to non-Separated people, statistically, there's no real difference -- then we can agree to disagree, as I see it not being a controversial claim at all.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 165 (view)

Just looking for friends Posted: 5/15/2013 11:47:36 AM
Why get mad at someone who doesn't want you..i.e. looking for friends? That's not entirely it. First off, let me say if people are just on for the Forums, they're not in the matchmaking section Looking to meet people. The Forums is a separate-connected site in which very few people use -- this is all in reference to THE site -- the matchmaking/dating site. So no, being on here for the Forums and saying Friends -- nobody's griping about that. Now, the grip some people (including myself) have is two different things: (a) Someone wants JUST friends on a matchmaking, explicitly non-platonic site (sans the Forums side-site). There are other sites for JUST friends... it's razzing/rolling the eyes at people out to meet new just-friends site on a site not designated for that at all -- much the same as razzing/rolling the eyes at people on the site looking for a job or job networking. Yes, both can be, out of happenstance, a byproduct of using a matchmaking site for it's actual use. But to use a matchmaking/dating site for job interviews is going to get one razzed. Being on for the Forums is not using the matchmaking/dating section (THE site) to meet people. (b) The actual gripe: People DON'T mean just friends... but they say it anyway. This can waste someone's time. They can talk with them, meet them, but get the wrong idea due to the vagueness. It'd be like someone who posts a profile looking to find someone to marry, then they find out they don't want anyone at all -- they just want to hook up. They're explicitly saying they want one thing, but may or may not actually want that. If one wants either/or, describe either/or. There's already enough confusion in the singles/dating scene -- mean what ya say -- at least be (a) and be in the wrong place. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 964 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/15/2013 11:06:29 AM
No, I would not have a sleep-over, late night out, vacation away with a gal-pal any more than I would a guy-pal. Which is Zero, as you said before, right? What's wrong with a vacation getaway with a gal-pal when the guy you're newly seeing can't go? What's wrong with your gal-pal crashing at your place, or even in the same bed -- in reference to the SO? Or having periodic late nights out 'till last call with the gal-pal? That's the same "extreme" as doing that with an OS guy-friend 1-on-1, while you're seeing a guy? I would say no -- there is a clear difference in scenarios like that. Once again, the extremes are over-whelming the discussion. The extremes are a starting point at where one draws the line. It aims for an agreement point and to get a better sense of where to draw the line and why. To avoid vagueness and arguing for the sake of arguing -- the starting point to get right down to the line drawn of one vs the other. So even extremes everyone in general can differ (guy who believes it's okay to sleep in same bed with a OS friend; other thread where girl thinks it's okay to spoon-but-nothing-more with her FWB who she loves, while having a BF). I'm sure you don't agree with that! And this whole discussion is where one draws the line of kosher vs not-kosher. NOBODY's saying that one should not have an opposite-sex friend on any level. It's about the line drawn on the closeness, which is many times drawn from activities and frequency. simply because the individual was insecure and jealous and just simply could not deal with any friend being of the opposite sex! I don't think anyone really feels that way. It's the perception difference or even one seeing the obvious when the other cannot. It's not an exact science for all situations to determine "the line". But sometimes it can be obvious. Sometimes it's not. I think pretty much everyone, given the right situation, is just FINE with the person they're dating having a mere friend of the opposite-sex. Again, it's the closeness & bonding level that one can get upset about. As for cultivating new friends, I have no need. But let's say you did, or the BF did. Or maybe observing a gal-pal and her BF. Friends move away, get married w/ kids and become more those you keep in touch with but rarely hang out with when you did a ton before, etc. I'm not asking if you'd be in position of that, but the concept on what's cool and what's not. Is it cool for someone to cultivate new, close, 1-on-1, OS friends from scratch while seeing someone? There is very little in the entirety of the OT about exes, FwBs, OS housemates True. But I think the concept goes like this: If it's totally cool to have a particular OS friendship while you're dating someone, then yeah, that friendship is platonic. It'd be totally cool when it's 100% platonic -- no potential brewing interest of more-than-platonic feelings on either side, even when you're fighting with or in a breakup process with the GF/BF. It's a litmus test to see if it's really platonic or not. I think pretty much everyone in this thread posting somewhat recently agrees -- yes you CAN have a platonic friendship with the opposite sex. The issue is, what's the closeness/level of that relationship they have with that OS friend? That's the key. Measuring it against while having a SO is a good litmus test.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 87 (view)

I've forgotten... everything... Posted: 5/14/2013 9:45:05 PM
Dude, you've never gone on a drive to meet a random person? I've driven 6 hours to meet a random person with no plans to bang them. No, I've never driven even 6 minutes to meet a random girl who annoyed the hell out of me online and I didn't like at all. That's the key. It isn't about driving out to meet someone you are wishy-washy on. That's why I say it's BS that she was annoyed, etc. She had some lingering interest about him, it went sour, and she retro-actively has a different take on how she felt. If she really felt that guy annoyed the hell out of her online and wouldn't meet him even if he arrived at her doorstep, she wouldn't have driven 50 miles to spend 4 hours with him when he only suggested coffee.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 953 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/14/2013 8:56:52 PM
Most guys who "give it a shot" are the same guys that know full-well they don't like the idea but think I'll change for them. That's an assumption on your part. Just because all those guys end up not liking the level of relationship you have with your Ex doesn't mean every single one were trying to manipulate you with some pre-destined plan. They may not LIKE the idea, but later on -- realize "Oh hell no" or "Yeah, can't deal with this one...". I'm sure at least some initially took your word that everything is cool or one of those situations where it's more likely to be cool. Most people believe it CAN be -- and since you're upfront about it, they gave it a shot. It's not a manipulation game-plan by default. That's generalizing just as much as someone thinking someone who has a mere friend of the OS must be banging them. Or just as much generalizing that ALL those guys could not have played any games to push you away from him. As for the big-brother type.....why on earth would this be a bad thing unless you would ALSO have a problem with the two very REAL big brothers I have had since birth who would act the same way?? The "big brother vibe" from an OS friend (usually a close one) is someone who boxes out the new dude usually, and many times when he's not so new. Kind of like a classic newly-single gal-pal who's going to be highly critical of any new guy her BFF starts to date as she wants her to remain single. Not in a cordial or cool way. And the OS friend doesn't want the girl he's friends with to see it either. Again, that was just an example. Point is -- most of the guys you deal with run because of your close friendship with the man you've slept with, romanced with, etc. Your situation is the common denominator with a majority of the guys you deal with -- doesn't that make you at least question your situation in how it relates to guys you start to date? (ie. sleeping over, late nights out without the SO, vacations together). If those were things I wanted to do with my OS friend why would I even bother finding someone to date? Exactly! I think the whole debate is where you draw the line. What's that line in relation to? The level of closeness, bonding, activities of that relationship with the OS person. So you wouldn't have a late night out with a gal-pal without the SO or SO-to-be? I don't see a problem with that, and I'm sure you wouldn't either. But, as you point out, if you substitute the gal-pal with the ex BFF -- it changes things. If they're a BFF, you can have a late night out with them, even if you're dating someone. I agree though -- if you're having late nights out without the SO, but instead with a close OS 1-on-1 friend all the time, it does beg the question -- why are you dating other person and not them? And if you refuse to hang out 1-on-1 with a guy-friend late night without the SO, then I would say that dude is not a BFF -- and maybe the SO is (which is good). And what about forming a NEW, close OS-Friend? Would it be kosher to go to a SO and saying "I met up with my ex for dinner. We made up from being enemies. We're friends now. Good friends. It's so great not to have an enemy anymore. We text each other every day." Or even if it's not an ex, but some new guy she met at the bar who's really cool who she's forming a close relationship (friendship) with. I think it begs that same question -- what's motivating one to do that? I have plenty of OS friends and I also have a very healthy adult relationship with that one special guy who does not have a problem with my other friendships, just as I do not have a problem with his. I think most people agree that a mere friendship with someone of the OS can very well be okay and nothing to fear, by itself. It's about when it becomes a close, 1-on-1 friendship that draws suspicion. Many people, smart people, don't understand their close OS friend likes them (usually when it's not so obvious). Or they may but think "I do NOT want to sleep with them, so you shouldn't have a problem with that". To that though, I'd say "Even if you're 100% single, why would you want such a CLOSE friendship with a guy you know who likes you, even if it's not a crush?" Men do not want to meet your ex's, fwbs and guy friends. Guy friends who aren't that close -- I wouldn't say that. In fact, for me, I want to meet the guy friends ASAP, both to gain rapport from potential criticism, and also to judge as to whether it's kosher or not, etc. Most guys would obviously prefer the girl doesn't have close 1-on-1 guy friends, but many guys want to see it for themselves to see if it's one of the minorities in which it likely wouldn't be a problem. Group OS friends is just fine with zero sexual tension by either party. Guys don't like any type of guy-friend she has, group or close/1-on-1, who he can read likes her. Many times this takes a little time to see that. I had a brief FWB relationship with one of my best friends. ... When I find a BF though, we stop but then we pick up where we left off when we're both single. And the rest of that quote tells much more how she struggles with it. Thing is, that's not unheard of -- that a gal's hetero close 1-on-1 guy friend had a sexual/romantic past, if not merely one person liking each other where little or even nothing happened before. And they believe that as long as they're faithful to the guy they're dating while they're dating -- it's all good, no BF should have a problem with that. No, guys don't want that. That poster needs to move on from THAT OS-Friend. And not just as a back of the room acquaintance, but more because She needs to get over him. I'm not saying all close OS-Friends are like that to that extreme... but you can find non-idiots in those situations because they go by "their rules" and are just naive that most people would not be cool with that.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 13 (view)

Single Parent Definition ? Posted: 5/14/2013 9:05:31 AM
The ones with support from a spouse and shared custody etc are not true single parents. I disagree. A single parent is someone who's a parent, and they are single. So if the fact that they're single is out of the way, then you look to see if they're a parent. If the child can't say "No, that guy isn't my parent", then you are a parent, too. I think it's pretty simple. Now, if you always have had and have ZERO custody -- then you could say you're not really a single parent, because you're not really a parent in that case (just biologically). Having it shared -- you're still a parent. It's not about shared vs whole custody... I think a lot of it is about whether you have Zero custody or not... or how old the offspring is. If the offspring is 18+ and pretty much on their own, there's no "custody" anymore. You're parents but your role is different -- they left the nest. I see what you mean though -- translating "single parent" = "sole parent". I think most people would take that as a single parent w/ sole custody. A single parent by itself means they are a parent to the child, and are single.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

Gender equality and tradition Posted: 5/14/2013 8:44:05 AM
Further to the above, I'd like to know what exactly 'equality' means to those Dutch goers and 50-50ers. It's not trading BJs for every two times doing the dishes, no. :) Although I could see a couple having fun with chores, so in another sense, that could be something to spice things up -- but that's a whole other story. Basically, while going out on dates, nobody should whip out a calculator or look for "total equality". At the same time, it's silly to push for skewed one-sidedness. "No, that's alright, I'll get this one, and the next time we go out, you can buy some drinks." It's much the same when a guy and his buddies go out. Nobody's b!tching and whining if they sense or know they end up buying a few more than their peer, unless it's that one friend who keeps trying to mooch over and over again. Many guys who are against a particular gal's strict notion of having to pay for everything (but will do other things IF they end up seeing each other down the line) -- aren't wanting it being half-and-half, through and through. In fact, many still want to end up paying for More -- to err/round on the side of them picking up a bit more with little thought or effort put into it. It's just that they don't want it so lopsided, is all. They may go through a trial run of a laid out half-and-half to prevent lopsidedness, but that will cost them a potentially good match here and there, at least. Some gals are "Well I Never!", or lose interest if the guy isn't going to pay for all the initial dates and wholely deny their fake offers to contribute. Some guys are "Wtf?" or lose interest if the girl demands it being lopsided in those initial dates. All in all, I think it stems from an attitude. Yes, in the olden days a guy had to "win over" a woman, through monetary and non-monetary means. She was the panel of judges, and he was the contestant with a dog & pony show. Modernism steps away from that, among other things. But some want to Keep that woman-judge/man-contestant idea, from which things like expected & aimed lopsided bills paid stems from. Hence, you see a push-back by some guys unwisely (for 'game' sake) pushing to split-all-bills-on-all-dates. Kind of ruins the mood and can send a bad impression. Instead, he should just opt for the first one suggesting she can cover (at least a chunk of) the 2nd outing. If she implies there will be no 2nd outing or it's read that there highly likely won't be one, sure, split the bill since you've already lost her.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 228 (view)

Do men really screw anything? Looking for honest answers. Posted: 5/14/2013 8:25:24 AM
In the looks department shes a 10, just freaking a beautiful example of the female human. Most guys would love to hit that. ... Sex was offered up on the table and I wasn't biting . I had known her for decade through her marriage and divorce. ... After reading this thread, I am the exception... If you weren't really friends with the husband, and just her... yes, you are the exception. Having sex with her, by her offering, wouldn't have taken advantage of her. She's not 18 or barely old enough to drink. Women aren't pets or adult-children. Many times they need that, just like a woman on the rebound and still hurt needs to go out there and have a fling, etc -- it makes one feel better.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 9 (view)

Boyfriend has and is insecure about it Posted: 5/14/2013 8:20:18 AM
He should have insecurities about it, as it's going to make connections with women insecure. Now, if he's a fat guy then he shouldn't have too much problem with it -- maybe that's why you can't really notice it, compared to what to expect. Let him get the surgery, sure. If people have bad teeth, they should get oral surgery. Same goes for that. It helps people, and for good reason.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 28 (view)

Threesome Rules Posted: 5/14/2013 8:11:59 AM
Weve definantly agreed that this is a one time occurance. The other female is a great friend of ours and continuing friendship after the fact, It won't be so smoothly a 1-time occurance if all goes well & frisky. Of you three will want it again, that's for sure since she's a friend. Nothing wrong with that. It's good that it's just as much for your benefit as it is for him. Is it FMF or MFF or both? Maybe start it out as MFF, where your husband is doing you, but you're also with your gal-pal, and visuals for him is the extra pleasuring effect. If that was comfortable have a FMF and MFF combo so you both get the most out of it.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 48 (view)

Rejection Posted: 5/14/2013 7:55:25 AM
If he told you to stop writing him and that he wasn't interested in you, it's either (a) He wasn't interested but you couldn't get the hint, so it wasn't so sudden, or (b) It was so sudden w/ a "don't write me" which means you may have offended him. Read through the messages -- see if you said something that could offend others. If there's too many "but I was just joking" thoughts in your head, then maybe you did. If everything's kosher -- you didn't. Figure that possibility out for yourself, ya know? Most of the time though, people lose interest. They had half-hearted interest in writing back n forth. Not everyone needs to be a dream-date to write back n forth. They found someone else. The interest they had, went bye bye. Just deal with it. It doesn't require you doing something bad or to have egg on your face. Of course we'd all like the other person to take sodium pentothal and tell them exactly why. But most of the time, it'd be offensive to the other to hear or would get them upset anyway. And you're not going to get the real full truth and that can end up giving you the wrong impression. It sucks, and leave it at that! Move on. It's part of the game.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 12 (view)

stopped communication? what to make of it Posted: 5/14/2013 7:49:55 AM
It's nothing to have a broken heart about. It's disappointing, it sucks... and I can understand if it is like a broken heart for a day or two if you guys talked so much online. Would it have really made you feel better if he just out of the blue told you he was no longer interested? Then you'd want him to talk it out with you and to answer questions and for you to convince him about it. You'd be trading one hurt for another. You never met him -- don't invest emotions to someone you never met.... nothing more than excitement to Meet someone. It's very common, no, he was most likely a guy, much like how he described himself. He had a better option come along, and he was kind of rude. But in the long run, you'd still be just as hurt if you found out that he found a better woman and he said that straight up. At first you'd respect the honesty, then you'd be like "Wtf?! I did all that for nothing?" Again, don't put your emotions all in there. Chat a little bit -- then meet. Meet face to face. No pen-paling. :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 44 (view)

Ex stopped talking to me Posted: 5/14/2013 7:46:06 AM
He's not trying to lead you on. Most people don't try to lead someone on or know they're doing it. Just like your feelings & emotions encapsulate you and would make any date with a guy meaningless, his emotions get the better of him and isn't aware that he's leading you on. Your emotions are obviously stronger than his, but that doesn't mean his aren't strong enough to make things wacky. Many times people have a rebound-rebound effect. They break up but they can't go cold-turkey... or maybe they can for a bit but after a while they want to be in touch again. When they are and emotions are shared -- DONE. That's all they needed. I've been on both sides of the coin on that over the years, and have seen it 2nd hand multiple times, too. It's actually quite common. Don't hang on the emotions shared. Past two weeks he's "busy" and rarely responds. He's had feelings for you but has moved on. One of you is going to, and the other's hopes is going to be disappointed. Your dates couldn't go so well because you weren't over him... same with him, until yes, his dates started to go so well or he realized that he needed to actually Move On in order to do so. He wasn't lying when he said he misses you and wanted to be with you... but that doesn't mean he Should get back together with you or that you should get back together with him. Next time with an ex, don't string Yourselves out for 5 months with shared emotions, etc. Have a breakup process not too immediate, have closure -- but don't do that. You'll only get hurt and want to blame the other person. Don't. He's an EX. Can't blame him for wanting to actually keep it that way.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 62 (view)

Lowered Standards is really a lame excuse for being Human Posted: 5/14/2013 7:22:46 AM
People believe they have solid 'standards' for a person's character, and swear up and down they abide by them through thick and thin No, not everyone -- nor everyone who uses the words 'standards'. Many times the 'standards' are standards of taste. Being too picky, but it's flexible and not so rigid -- a feeler if you will, and they won't always go by it exactly nor claim to. They do need to lower them sometimes, and are glad they did years later. Sometimes their friends can apply pressure on them to have too high of standards/taste... or just by observing their friends & their SOs they have self-applied pressure. Then they lower their 'standards' when that too-high of 'standard' never pans out. Everyone's standards & tastes are going to slowly lower when they can't "get" the attractive girl or guy, over and over again. That's human. Everyone's standards & tastes are going to raise when they CAN "get" them. To some it goes very slowly over time, to others, it adjusts quickly -- possibly too hastily. Finding out what trait it is that makes you KEEP going after the same bad type of personalities will help you enormously. Writing it off as a bad 'people picker' or 'lowered standards' helps no one. If someone keeps going after the same types of bad personalities, they are a bad people picker. That's just a fact. Why does that term bother you? And in that case, they need to raise their standards, not lower them, right? If they only end up with attractive, successful people who aren't that into them, they very well may need to lower their standards -- and they will begin to, to some degree without thinking about it if they keep hitting a brick wall. If they're unemployed or barely-employed w/ a rusty truck living with maw & paw, and they expect hot girls who are successful career women, they need to lower their standards. If they're always out with a-holes who can barely hold a job, they need to raise their standards.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 929 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/14/2013 7:01:53 AM
To call those of us that can maintain relationships with opposite gender people AND a romantic partner simultaneously "players", "sluts", and "diagnosing" us with ridiculous psychiatric issues because of it, is complete nonsense It is nonsense to call them players or sluts just because they have a friendship on some level with someone of the opposite sex. Or even too close of a friendship which draws concern from most of the population, it's nonapplicable to call them a slut or player. But being a slut or a player isn't at all required for there to be a problem when it comes to an SO or potential-SO's relationship with someone else. It can be fine, it may not be, or could be a wth-are-you-kidding-me? Either way, you'd need something else to apply the player/slut label. I have always been open from the beginning that my best friend is a male and an ex. If they have a problem with that, they need to bow out from the get go. Seldom do they, thinking instead they can manipulate me into getting rid of my OS friend for the "sake of the relationship". It never works. But doesn't that sound an alarm to you, about your situation? If most guys roll with the fact that your BFF is an Ex, and are to give it a shot, and complications arise because of your close relationship with your Ex, and end because of it -- don't you ever think it's your situation and not them, over time? I don't think it always unfold exactly how you'd like it to be... I think you telling them upfront gives a level of trust (which is Good!). Some may not like the concept so much but oh-well let me see this through, and some may think it must be one of those uncommon ones where it'll be fine. They then see either sexual tension directly or indirectly like you two being on a totally different heightened wavelength... or maybe the Ex sending out that vibe of big-brother or being a bit of a passive-aggressive d!ck, etc. Those are just examples. Point is, it doesn't work out for you with guy-after-guy, due to your situation. We all know some of those BFF w/ Ex situations are Not wise -- sure yours is? Or do you not care and that comes first regardless of how any potential SO will take it? So because you can't be friends with an ex without wanting to bed them, everyone must want to bed their ex??? From my standpoint, No. "Wanting to bed them" = chasing them. That's definitely a possibility, sure, especially when that close 1-on-1 friend is an Ex in which they've done everything from ball-bang to make love countless times, as well as shared romance, etc. People can move on from that, of course, but when it's close 1-on-1 & BFF with that person, it raises some questions. Not that she'll jump into bed with him while you two are going out, no. It'd be foolish to say that's the only way to 'cross the line', just as much as it'd be foolish to say that nobody should ever have an ex of any type in any situation be one of their countless Facebook friends. You do get judged by the company you keep, and it will affect your dating life no matter how enlightened you think you are. Very very true. The company you Keep will affect dating life at least to some degree, for better or worse, as well as with other friends you have, too. I also would not tell her my reason for moving on... I see no sense in trying to get her to change to suit my wants if something like that means that much to her... I think you should, though... just the same as the other poster lets a guy know off the bat that her BFF is her Ex. If you end up finding out, let her know. It's not necessarily going to 'change' her -- but that shouldn't be the goal. She may be in that situation because so many other guys never told her. I understand though -- she could easily throw out the jealous card and a big argument could ensue. But you just walk once she's being irrational about it. If you're seeing someone, you give them the reason for moving on, you hear them out, and you both learn from it -- closure, right? But I agree to your point "something like that means that much to her". To me, it's not about merely having a friend on some level of the opp-sex. That by itself is a "so what?". But one so intent on keeping them so close in their lives, especially if an Ex, is where the Red Flags come rolling.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 166 (view)

Is Texting Cheating? Posted: 5/13/2013 9:32:23 PM
it might not be cheating but the bigger question is it truly being faithful? Cheating = not being faithful. It doesn't require getting to the final point of executing physical sexual relations to be unfaithful.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 205 (view)

First date: when the picture in the profile look nothing like the person in person. Posted: 5/13/2013 9:30:17 PM
the question shouldn't be "when the picture in the profile look nothing like the person in person" it should be "when the person turns out to be uglier than their pics" I would say "when the person turns out to be Different AND Uglier than their pics". If they look the basically the same, but just a noticeably a less-attractive version -- that doesn't mean they were deceiving. That's just a critique that they shouldn't post their Very Best pictures that by happenstance make them look better than they are. One way to go by things is to just judge on their WORST picture and ignore the rest. But I would say deceiving is if they were Myspace/angled photos for body weight.... or closed-mouth pictures with rotten or missing teeth. I wouldn't say without makeup if they always wear makeup. Basically, how would they be prepared upon going out on a meetup/date? No Myspace angles, no -- I agree on that.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 58 (view)

Lowered Standards is really a lame excuse for being Human Posted: 5/13/2013 9:20:18 PM
The 'Lowering Standards' bit is always an AFTER-thought --- an excuse WHY a date didn't work out. I have to disagree with you there. It CAN be an excuse I guess. But some guys may lower their standards for the increased chances of hooking up and/or lower chances of rejection. Some women may lower their standards to get some guy-attention, or again, he looks good on paper, he deserves a chance. They may not SEE it as "lowering their standards" -- they see it in a different light. Maybe their expectations & tastes are too high so they see it as "being realistic" -- which very well may be true (it's Lowering it down to reality). But after the date goes well, because, lo and behold she wasn't that interested so anything would throw her off -- she'll then say she needs to not lower her standards. The common part with a lot of your failed dates is YOU, and it's the FIRST place you should look to figure out why Many times it's who you choose. And many times people don't look at a mere meetup/date as a Failure on THEIR part. Many times they know there's a % chance they're going to be wack. If you always run into wack people, then sure, there's something wrong with your process of Choice Selection. I think in those cases they just need better judgement calls on people from reading profiles to messaging, etc. In some cases, they need to UP their 'standards', yes. Can be due to low-self esteem. And it's not a "failure" of a date. The date could have gone well -- they're just not into that person. Now, when they go out on the date with a guy who they weren't that into and/or attracted to -- I think the too-common thing is to look for something BAD about THEM, to avoid superficiality. "Oh, she has a crazy personality...." when not attracted VS "She's really unique, really cool..." when attracted.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 913 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/13/2013 8:57:55 PM
Those of us who chose to, have not "bullied" our SOs into accepting this, we have built relationships where we are comfortable and trusting of each other's actions. It is called RESPECT It's not an argument to "bully" -- in fact, the folks who don't find it acceptable for a serious relationship for the SO to have a close 1-on-1 sex of the other gender is against the bullying and for the respect. Just as much one could bully their SO to dim down their friendship with a new or existing 1-on-1 opp-sex friend, one could bully their SO to just accept it and accuse them of being a jealous nanny. Many times it's going to vary. It depends on your SO, and more importantly, their close 1-on-1 opp-sex friend. In some instances, one may be cool with it, but with another SO they aren't cool with that friendship. The people involved and the closeness of it vary. But one can at least rule out some straight-up No-Nos, and also bring up particular situations where it's "not usually okay and needs to be discussed & earned". People's comfort zones vary. You respect the SO. No, you don't let them tell you that you can't have a friend on ANY level to ANY degree with the opposite sex... but you also don't play the too-jealous card if you're taking trips with your ex-gf to Aruba, who's now just a friend. Certain actions done break trust or call it into question. It begs the question -- why would someone be so intent on keeping such a close relationship with an ex? Or to form new close relationships with the opposite sex? Or, unlike a common flow of things, intent on keeping a 1-on-1 opp-sex friend that way instead of turning into a group-friend and also a good friend to the new SO? One's friendships contract & expand over time as far as frequency of hanging out, closeness, etc.... especially when one just gets out of a relationship, moves to another part of town, gets into an established Relationship, etc. It happens naturally to some degree. And also, without too much conscious thought, most people have their relatively close opp-sex friends where there's always been sexual tension (or maybe hooked up once also long ago) to the back of the room. Sometimes you spend a lot of time with the opp-sex friend and there is no sexual tension you've ever noticed, but you couldn't blame mall-watchers for suspecting that ... but when you start Dating a gal you really like, naturally out of UNDERSTANDING, you'll shift things over into them being a group-friend. It's the same thing as creating a New, close, 1-on-1 friendship with someone of the opposite-sex. What compels you to do approach them and befriend them and bond with them so much? "She's just a friend, Sally! She and I had a conversation at the bar, and she knows someone who knows someone I know... she's really cool. I can make new friends, can't I?" "Bobby, what compels you so much to create this new, close 1-on-1 friendship? It's not like she's a group friend of yours and you chit-chat with her a good amount and I'd be just as much or more of a friend with her. This is totally different..." "Don't you Trust me, Sally? Don't you trust me in my actions? Why do you have to be friends with all my friends? Why are you so controlling and jealous I'll do something wrong?" "Bobby, part of my trust is that you're not going to get #s from girls at the bar to create close 1-on-1 relationships with, even on a 'friendship' level. That's what I trusted of you. That is doing something wrong. If you believe I'm too 'jealous', then that means a big majority of girls would be totally cool with that, otherwise your claim can't hold water. If you actually believe that, you're either naive as hell or insulting my intelligence."

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 901 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/13/2013 3:40:08 PM
You can either confront the person but from experience I can tell you that discussion rarely goes anywhere constructive, or you can show them what it feels like to be on the receiving end. And what I was saying is it's best to confront them about it civily... if they play the too-jealous card and make wild claims that you're saying you want to control their friendships with puppet strings (which immature people who claim they're "mature" would do), then re-emphasize it's the level of boundaries -- not someone merely a friend. If they still don't get it -- do the thought experiment ("Since I shouldn't have a problem with that, then I'll do this then..."). If they still don't get it, as a last-ditch effort either (a) Say that it's too uncomfortable of a situation and you want to break up, or (b) Go out with some friends, come home late at night, and say that yeah, it was that cute younger guy at work who you went out to dinner with -- nothing wrong with making new friends, right? Let that digest with them for a bit then tell them that wasn't the case, but how did it make you feel? (It's lying on the same level of telling a joke; but instead of humor it's to put them in your shoes which they refused to do before). sure, sleeping with someone of the opposite sex doesn't always mean sex is in the cards...many married couples do that practically every day. Yeah, exactly! I mean, be mature -- have trust! Let your SO sleep with a friend of the opposite sex. It doesn't mean they'll have sex. What's up with this immature, paranoid generation, right? ;) I can understand single opposite sex friends doing something like sleeping together Or to take trips together. Even if it's an ex, but you're now friends. Who's your new GF to say that what you can and can't do? OMG! The nerve of a GF, right? You're going to let HER control your friendships? Red flag of jealousy, man! ;) I don't know to be honest, but it perplexes me that they have time to devote to career, spending time with family and their best friends of the OS. And some may say "why do you have to devote everything to your SO and dump your friends?" That's not the point, that's not what's even being implied. Neither is the trust all about having actual sexual relations. And it's not about uncontrollable-hormones-raging, either. Doing what you do with a good friend of the same sex isn't necessarily even at all cool with one of the opposite-sex. If I took a trip to say, Houston, with a buddy of mine for a small vacation and shared a room with him, the GF shouldn't mind... But I'd be an idiot to think the GF would be cool with me taking a female friend. As far as normalcy is concerned, no, that's not cool -- the GF would not be a jealous nanny by any means. Ever see guy & girl pals who claim they are "just friends", who hang out all the time like BFFs, and their peers can't explain what's up with that if both are hetero? Yeah, it's not very common. And just the same, you can't expect for a new GF/BF to accept it while you're forming or in a Relationship. Situations vary, but the bottom line is that it's not jealous of a GF to not think it's cool to frequently go out 1-on-1 with other girls. I wouldn't go out on the town 1-on-1 with my sister-in-law once a week. I wouldn't make a "new female friends" to bond with 1-on-1 while having a GF. If I were to accuse a GF of being jealous if she didn't like that, and that she needs to grow up, etc -- then I'd be the pompous a-hole who's falsely playing the "better man" card, but making a jacka$$ out of myself.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 21 (view)

Not sure what to do..Help Posted: 5/13/2013 11:55:12 AM
It's wrong as in unwise & being completely foolish to allow yourself to still not be over your ex post-divorce after 1.5 years. You haven't moved on At All -- that's really bad. Dude, she's been porked every which way from Sunday by another guy. She's gobbled down a guy's manhood thinking better of the endeavor. She's happier waking up next to another guy. No, being on POF is not bad. You're not cheating AT ALL. About the furthest thing from it. Any feeling like that should have dissipated a few weeks at most after the divorce was signed, as you've been separated for so long before that. You're not getting your ex back. You're not getting your ex back. She likes other men and WILL always be into another guy more than she's into you. Now, the problem with being on POF while you aren't over your ex is simple: Don't go for Relationship. Make it casual. Don't go on and on about your ex. Pretend you're over it when out on a date... in fact, pretend you're over it when you're out with others, too. But don't go for a Relationship -- look to Enjoy the single life. You're Supposed to, so POF is a good idea. Go for things casual and that's it.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 85 (view)

I've forgotten... everything... Posted: 5/13/2013 11:34:11 AM
you've got all this tough talk and ostensible fighting skills and dogs and soldiers lined up to enforce your boundaries, but that doesn't do much good if you can't take the first step, which is to set some. Well put. But IMO, I think her whole story is at least partially BS. You're going to drive 50 miles to spend 4 hours with the guy who only suggested coffee, was annoying you online, lives far far away, and you wouldn't otherwise go out with him if he showed up at your doorstep? Total BS there. You had at least some interest in him to go through with all that -- you're just doing revisionist history on your initial emotions due to what frustrated you afterwards. I agree with Christ though -- your passive aggressive ways are silly... and being PA is a weakness, not being nice, not being kind -- but having real issues. OP, you shouldn't do THAT again... that's not any classical "meeting someone online". If you have real interest in the guy but due to geographic problems you wouldn't meet him, but he is coming near your general area for work, sure, drive out to meet him for coffee and that's it. If you like him, spend some more time with him... if you don't, leave after coffee. And set the expectations initially that his main thing is for work, not to meet you -- so there's no "wtf" if you wanted to leave after an hour of coffee. OR you can play it safe and just meet locals that take less time out of your day. But either way, you brought that situation on yourself. And don't turn became-not-interested into wasn't-interested-at-all-initially. That's just BS.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 200 (view)

First date: when the picture in the profile look nothing like the person in person. Posted: 5/13/2013 11:16:14 AM
It goes both ways too - several times I was pleasantly surprised by a guy who was much better looking in person than in the pics. As soon as I saw my now-bf at the restaurant, I walked up to him and gave him a happy hug. He was like 200% better looking in person. Wait -- why didn't you scoot out of there? It's not about looks but about having the audacity to post inaccurate photos, right? :) If a guy looked pretty out of shape but had tons of similar interests and seemed like one of the "normal" ones and then some, and you agree to a date and he's athletic & toned, without being told, you're going to be happier than if you knew in the first place (surprise factor). You're not going to go "I hate it when guys lie!" And yes, some clever guys will do it on purpose -- to avoid the opposite -- looking worse in an eye of the beholder. They're not going to run from you if you look significantly better -- even if you told them you swayed that way on purpose. We love it when they're better looking than their pics... we hate it when they're not. That's basically it.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 54 (view)

Something that started so casually.... Posted: 5/13/2013 8:55:51 AM
My reason for posting was to merely share my experience. I will take my profile down when I feel it is getting serious. I don't put all my eggs in one basket. I also have not dated any one else since I met him. He knows I am on pof. It's weird though I have no desire to start anything else. Who knows what the future holds? Well, twice a week isn't anything serious -- but going on for 5 months, yeah, you're dating him. Casually -- which is easier to do when there's a huge age gap or huge geographical distance gap. But if you're not dating anyone else, and you have no desire to, you ARE putting your eggs in one basket. :) Yes, it's lasted long due to no expectations & taking the casual route. A very wise choice with someone in which there's a large age-gap or distance-gap. But you have to ask yourself -- how feasible is it for the long run? Your eggs are in one basket -- you're just keeping your profile up for potential options, which really doesn't, but it just acts as a sense of security/freedom. But again, in the end, for all Practical purposes, you are restricting yourself to him and only him. Which may be a good thing or a bad thing -- that depends on the relationship and him, etc. At some point though you will want to either get serious with him (since your emotions are), or if that's not so feasible with him, actually explore other options, go out on other dates with guys you find attractive, etc.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 55 (view)

Lowered Standards is really a lame excuse for being Human Posted: 5/13/2013 8:46:08 AM
"Well, this guy/gal certainly doesn't meet up with my standards, but I'm bored and lonely - so THIS time I'll make an exception." ? I'm guessing few to none. Most people go into a date experience with a least a smidge of optimism; right? I don't call BS on this... I believe that happens a decent amount of the time. Yes, most people do have SOME interest, comparatively speaking toward other feasible options... but sometimes they're not THAT into them from the get-go. Usually not out of pure, raw boredom & loneliness -- but that being a catalyst. The person can be a good catch on-paper, so it logistically makes sense to go out on a date when they need to get out there more, or they know they need to find someone who's a better person even though they're not so-attracted to them -- but hey, give them a chance. There's a variety of reasons they'll go out on a date with someone they're "ehh" about -- where going out on a date in and of itself is the attraction -- not the person. But a date isn't seeing someone. People have varying levels of "standards" when it comes to willing to go out on a date vs seeing them vs getting into a serious Relationship. You'll find people will be willing to "bend" their standards when going out on a mere date if they're spending too much time at home with the kids and need to get out ... or they're always with jerks and logically know they can't be doing the same routine, etc. I wish people in online dating would recognize that your 'dream date' is a unicorn, a myth, a fabled being that doesn't really exist. I don't think that's an issue with many people who end up going out on dates where they weren't really into that person from the get-go. ANY time you agree to meet up with a REAL human, you ARE 'lowering your standards', because you are 'settling' for something less than your imaginary Best Date. If someone has WAY too high of standards -- which some do -- apart from that rare WOW date they'll have that matches their way-high standards -- yes, they are lowering their standards, yes. If the date didn't go well, there are a litany of reasons brought forth - but my hope is, instead of using the 'lowering your standards' generic excuse, you admit the truth - that you decided to give real life a try, and YOU still couldn't get past the flaws YOU found out they had. It's not so much that. People can "find out" red flags -- if they "found out" after the fact, no, they didn't lower their standards to go out on a date. If they knew of it beforehand -- and knew that it was very possibly a deal breaker -- yes, they lowered their standards to go out on a date. but saying you 'lowered your standards' is just a backhanded way of saying, "I don't need to change because I'm better than that." -- No, you're not. You're human like the rest of us. I think if someone lowered their standards -- they're changing things up. Sometimes they lower their 'standards' and realize their 'standard' was kind of silly, the date went well, and that 'thing' wasn't a big deal and was just paranoia from a past experience, etc. If someone has an attitude of "I don't need to change because I'm better than that", they wouldn't even be going out on dates with someone who's "lower" in their eyes. I think people will say "I'm NOT going to lower my standards" when they Refuse to go out on a date with someone who's fine on-paper but they're not attracted ... OR while being on the date they find out something that throws off their interest and refuse to see them again. That happens a lot -- whether they have too high of 'standards' as they should, or whether their 'standards' are where they should be.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 106 (view)

So he/she USED to be Gay/Lesbian! Would you still date them? Posted: 5/13/2013 8:08:09 AM
And he says, because I used to be GAY until 2 years ago. ... Now my question is: Did he have to tell her off the bat that he used to be gay? USED to be gay, up until 2 years ago? Yeah, you're still gay. I guess one could make an argument that it's not a big deal if "When I was a small child, I was gay, but when developing as an older kid I was a bit confused but hitting adolescence I lost all attraction to the same sex..." But up until 2 years ago? Yeah. There's something up there. Did she over-react? I guess it depends on their relationship... if he's that guy who's like Big Gay Al (in South Park) but always thought "Oh, just because he's feminine doesn't mean he's gay", and then he told her that -- no, no over-reaction. If there's no way anyone would believe it -- she shouldn't run right then and there. All in all, he's bi. Many bi people, from my observational experience, side one way moreso than the other. He probably considered himself gay because he wasn't into women much at all, but finally with her, he's thinking "Wow, I'm like really into her sexually! Kind of like Bob from 2 years ago! I guess I'm not gay..." If she can't date a bi guy, she should break up. If she can, but obviously skeptical, because she can't read his mind as to see if he's really gay but stepping back in the closet -- she should at least extend things. Her situation would be one where it's Good not to get married so quick, but to go out for 2 years+ before getting married. I think that guy needs to discover himself better... and also he should treat it the same way as if he's bi. Yeah, a guy should let a girl know within the first few dates that he's bi, if he has a relationship/sexual history... if it's attraction never followed through on, then I would say he could hold off on that until they start to get serious -- but not after you buy a ring though! :)

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 889 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/13/2013 7:42:23 AM
I never had to spend the day with the friend, it was mostly a bluff and the friends were clued in and ready to help. Okay, that makes more sense. I would see a "You seem to hang out with some cute female friends... Since I shouldn't have a problem with that, there is this real cute younger guy at work who's in administration and I always thought to agree with him on going out to dinner... you know, to talk business of course..." would be an interesting thing to put into perspective. Not as a "trick" but a "If that's okay for you, then it should be okay for me, right?" From my experience if I were you I would avoid the types who can't differenciate btwn the sexes. Yeah, that is a red flag if they can't, but that's sometimes to be determined after you've just started seeing them. Again, not that I've ran into the problem much before -- usually many many years ago, as younger girls tend to have a decent crowd of guy-friends compared to when they hit their late 20s and higher. I just wanted to say I don't think "passive aggressive" is the right way to label what peaceful garden did. Putting things in perspective to the person you're newly dating or your SO isn't passive-aggressive when that's the approach & goal. Whether it's passive-aggressive or not depends on how you approach it. Pretending it's fine when it's not and using it as a trick is. PA behavior is when you always put on a fake front that everything's cool, but you're doing something explicitly non-confrontational to get to them or get "back" at them. I think if she just bluffs about a potential opportunity for the sake of putting things in perspective for him ("So, if that's okay, think about if I did this...") -- that's not PA behavior, since she's putting a thought experiment in his mind before she'd actually be doing anything. I've tried both being direct and "turning the tables" and the later is significantly more effective and constructive. Some things just can't be intellectualized, they must be experienced. True... if the thought experiment worked, great. If not, I would say express disapproval of his belief that can't come to its senses, and then go out with the guy... don't aim for any curfew etc -- make him think about it. If he doesn't get concerned/jealous that you're out with a cute young guy from work hitting the town 1-on-1, then you pretty much need to part ways! Of course, you have to put in perspective not to lead the cuter, younger guy on, either! I guess one way, if he didn't buy the thought experiment, would to be out with gal-pals or a group of work friends instead... and tell him you were out with that fictional "cuter, younger guy", coming in late with a big smile. Then see his reaction -- let it sink in some... if he's playing fine with it, the next day letting him know that "No, I wasn't out with the guy 1-on-1. I wanted you to see how you felt about it." All in all, just as long as you don't string along a friend-from-work or use them for something... and at the same time, if you're going to say things that aren't true about the characters in your outing, that you tell them pretty soon what was really up, as the mere thought experiment didn't work for them but maybe the feeling of it happening did. Yeah, that is more or less passive-aggressive -- and it IS lying -- but when it's done for a short period of time and right after a "No, I'm kidding -- but didn't you feel upset thinking that I did?" isn't about fvcking with your SO or to get jab back at them -- it's to put them in those shoes where a thought experiment failed to do so (which should have been a red flag by itself).

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 42 (view)

Taking away the free features that brought us all here Posted: 5/12/2013 6:25:59 PM
if its NOT FREE then dont adverstise that ITS FREE SIMPLE AS THAT But the site is free. If won a free car from Chrysler, but in order to get kick-a$$ tires or surreal surround sound or to get a V8 instead of it's standard V6, you had to pay something for it -- it'd still be a free car. For a site to be considered FREE is to; - Make an account for free, with many pictures and a full profile - To view profiles for free - To have a reasonable search filter for free - To read & write messages back and forth to people for free This site is free for its use of what it's intended. Just because there's extra bells & whistles that can optionally be purchased at a nominal fee, doesn't mean it's a pay site at all.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 27 (view)

Just Friends...no 'Sprinkles' Posted: 5/12/2013 6:15:25 PM
I'm not familiar with Facebook. Is being unblocked something that sends you a notification, or were you cyber stalking him and realized you weren't blocked? When you block someone, no, they don't know. Kind of like POF, it's as if their account was deleted. The two of you should have no contact. Stop going to the bar he works at. Find a new spot. Stop talking about him with mutual friends. And I would also say distance yourself from mutual friends where they're more his friends and you're just also their friend. Basically, disappear. You'd know how to do it if you were NOT at all into the guy and he was into you and was creepy. :) If she pretends that, then she'll make the right maneuvers.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 880 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/12/2013 6:12:14 PM
A day or two later I would inform him I am going away for the day with a guy friend, usually younger, cuter and more successful. Don't know what time we will be back. That plan never failed and no one needed to argue about insecurity or jealousy. Yes, that plan can work to put things in perspective. However, many times one person has more or more importantly has the ability to have more opposite-sex friends than the other. So it'd take a while to whip up a younger, cuter, and more successful opp-sex friend than the SO vs the other person doing it. Could lead to frustration... but yeah, if there's an opportunity there, sure. Let them know what's up about that. In my experience doing it though, going out with a female friend to show them what's up, it was just retorted with hanging out with their guy friends more or perhaps making guy friends. Haven't had much experience in that dept, but I'm sure it would be very much that way since I'm not a fan of having 1-on-1 hang-out female friends -- just group friends.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 294 (view)

About leagues. . . Posted: 5/12/2013 1:04:17 PM
Where are you getting these ideas from? You don’t know much about women. I would never date or have a relationship with a man because I “feel secure” that his percentage probability of cheating on me is lower because he’s two inches taller than me, instead of twelve. I'm not talking about height or anything like that. Nor am I talking about you. You do not represent all women. I said SOME women -- not all, not a majority, nor implying it's even common! Some women -- not a lot -- but some -- say that real hot guys are highly likely to cheat. I think that's too sweeping of a generalization, so I don't agree, even though statistically they have a point, but it's not big enough to avoid hot guys in general. Also, it is true that if a girl is out of a guy's league, he is less likely to cheat on her, all other things considered equal. Is that a reason to date someone below your league? No, it's dumb. Some will do that though -- it's silly, but it's done. They're trading one thing for another, and I argue it's not necessary. Wanna bet? You mean YOU don’t. CR, that’s a claim you can’t back up…you’re presenting your opinion like it’s fact. I'd be glad to bet on that. People in general do not find it fun or a source of temptation to randomly kill or maim people. They don't need "good character" to 'hold themselves back' from doing it. I don't mean ME, I mean people in general, as the normalized human condition. Wow. HOT Sebastian sounds like a man-whore. He may be, and Hot Veronica may be a female-whore. But that's not the point. Point is that yes, all other things like sexual friskiness/naughtiness being equal, the super-hot ones when hooking up with an average Joe or Jane don't have to do much to give a satisfying experience to Joe or Jane, in comparison to another Joe or Jane instead. There were PLENTY of “delicious opportunities,” for me to cheat, hell, I could have moved guys into my house or had a different guy every night. My CHARACTER kept me from behaving like an amoral cheater. Delicious opportunities coming your way, though (ie not having to leave your daily routine to engage with them)? It'd be much easier not to if you had to fetch those opportunities, but still it's there to some degree. If they are coming your way and no need to fetch them, great. I'm not saying all people cheat with a lot of opportunities coming their way. I'm talking statistically. It's true. You wouldn't bet on it in Vegas if they set up a reality show/lab experiment -- even with people of otherwise Good Character, when compared to people of good character who are living in a suburb of Boise, Idaho. Infidelity isn’t all about “attractive opportunities.” But it's necessary to have them at least to some degree. Some people CARE about who might get hurt as a result of selfish, stupid decisions; some people care about promises they made, and have self control and self respect, and aren’t controlled by an itchy crotch. Again, I'm not talking absolutes. I'm talking statistically -- people in general are more apt to cheat when flooded with attractive opportunities coming their way. It's that simple. Even people of good character, where chances are lower, will increase relatively speaking. I'm not implying people with many attractive options WILL cheat. It would have to be something ridiculous like they grease down porn-models for a living on the road for it to be pretty much they Will cheat. What you’re saying is people are more likely to cheat if they have cheating options v. NO options?? If YOU read an article or two stating that character determines fidelity more than options would that change YOUR mind? I'm saying that people, even ones of 'good character', are more likely to cheat if they have a Lot of attractive cheating options coming their way regularly, VS ones who don't anymore than someone who doesn't go out much, raises kids, has a job, and lives in suburbia somewhere. Yeah. It's common sense. I think character does determine fidelity moreso than options in many regular cases. If I read an article or two where they took people of generally 'good character' and over the Years there many attractive options rolling in their direction that was highly different than regular lifestyles.... and then they had people others who fit the baseline average of what 'character' determination is -- and they had normal-common-as-most-others options rolling around being relatively sparse -- if they found that the people with generally 'good character' had lower levels of cheating -- and there wasn't a multitude of analysts/psychologists refuting that -- I would begin to change my mind, yes. Character definitely plays a role -- of course! But you constantly have options flowing around them, people will be more likely to cheat. It will be something, at least at some point, being a battle of temptation. More battles of temptation, the more likely to cheat, statistically. The less character, the less tempting a situation would have to be.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 162 (view)

Is Texting Cheating? Posted: 5/12/2013 12:05:43 PM
So many people want to stamp that 'exclusivity' mark on their partner from the word 'go' I agree there's too many people, off a first date, expect Exclusivity. That's too quick. That's not what this thread is about. It's about a guy who has a GF of 2 years hitting up chicks on an online matchmaking site & texting every day. Several people in here are 'guilty' of having multiple online correspondences - but if they are not dating anyone specific, it's not cheating! No, it's not. But again, that's not the OP's situation. It's not like she's chatting with a guy who had a date or two with a gal on POF. He has a GF of 2 years and decides to cheat on her by going online scouting girls. That IS a reason of distrust. And actually, it's CHEATING. No need to analyze every-day messages & texts to see what level of flirting ther is -- the circumstances, being an online matchmaking site and chatting every day-- tell it all. Here's why I believe that knowingly & willfully going down the route of picking up girls at a bar, online, etc -- even prior to doing anything physical with them -- is cheating: Say you have a GF of 2 years. Things are okay, etc. There's a guy she befriends and then hangs out with 1-on-1 at happy hour... they chit-chat all the time, and occasionally go out, she may come home late, etc. Nobody reports them kissing or holding hands. You and she go out to the bar one evening and that guy's there... she's mingling with him, and turns to you and says "We're broken up. Sorry." Then they start making out and run to the dance floor, all over each other and go home together. Did she cheat on you? Yes. But she broke up with you, THEN got physical! Doesn't matter. One would be a moron to think that a "life boat" wasn't being created that whole time. Building a "life boat" (reference to Mad Men) is cheating. Leaving someone for someone else IS cheating. Try telling a gal you're on a few dates with, when talking about what you like in relationships or girl-guy talk, "If we get to the point being in an established relationship, sure, if we fight too much or if I'm bored with things... I'll build rapport with girls I'm attracted to while we're going out, and I'll leave you for that girl if she's a better option..." You're basically treating it As If you were only on a couple dates -- not an established relationship. When you're in a committed relationship, you don't keep or form opposite-sex friends or potentially more-than-friends so that you can "break glass in case of things going rocky or boring with SO". That's not being faithful. Being faithful means that when you break up, you're starting from Square Zero, as far as options are concerned. You don't go scouting and build draft picks while you're still going out. To say that's minor or a ticky-tack foul is inaccurate.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 25 (view)

Just Friends...no 'Sprinkles' Posted: 5/12/2013 11:47:54 AM
I love the guy to death and we have so much fun together, but I don't think I want to be with him again, because I know he's never going to be what I want, but is it possible to be friends...with no 'sprinkles'? Not in that situation, no. You're not over him, and he still has some feelings for you. While it's possible to be friends with an ex, to some degree, if you're hanging out 1-on-1 and cuddling, etc -- it's a WTF situation if you're convincing yourself you two are just friends. If you had a BF, could you do all those things with him and get away with it? No. Get over him, move on. It's not easy, but you're preventing yourself from doing so. In this case, you gotta cut him off as a FB friend. You should have a talk with him that you have to move on and indefinitely, no communication. At all. You tried all this, hasn't worked out and it's been frustrating to you. It's ruining your chances meeting another guy where you can have any sound emotion & feasibility... and apart from that, you're in a messed up situation. Don't downplay it... either get together with him instantly of being peas & carrots -- or entirely move on 100% apart from him on all levels. You've tried the in-between on different levels. Hasn't worked.

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 28 (view)

Can't Believe this Happened Posted: 5/12/2013 11:29:31 AM
asked if we can go out for drinks this weekend, I said sure. We exchanged numbers. The next day at work he apologized for it, asked him what for and said he was a little drunk. He may think you're not that interested. He could be very very rusty at the dating-game, especially within the work place, which by itself can make people hesitant. You should confront him about it. Seriously. Tell him you want to chit-chat with him and say "So, when you were breaking up with your GF, you sorta asked me out, but I didn't think you were serious. You flirt, eye me, etc -- which is great, if you really like me. You hit me up on FB and ask to go out for some drinks and we exchange numbers. Then you back off and oddly apologize for it, as if it was offensive to me... or you're not interested at all. I'm confused about this, so let's just clear the air... Are you interested in me? If you are, great... let's go out. I like you in that way. If you're not, great... I won't like you in that way rather quick and we don't have to eye, flirt, etc. Either way, the air is cleared."

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 64 (view)

moving in after 3 days...can it really succeed? Posted: 5/12/2013 11:20:26 AM
First date with my ex-husband lasted a week. Then I moved in with him. We married a year later. But divorced 23 yrs later so I guess that was stupid and a failure. No, that was a statistical anomaly (of success). :) When judging moving in with someone within a week of knowing them, like anything else, you want to look at the outcomes in society and see if it's heavily tilted one way or the other in terms of success or failure -- just not one's own. You could have a 40 year old women who had a date with a married 18 year old guy, they dated behind the scenes for a year, then he separated, then divorced, and after that, they got married and stayed married for 25 years. He or she would be a fool to say "Oh yeah, that works! You can be a 40 year old woman and have a great long-lasting, successful relationship with an 18 year old guy who's married!" Thing is -- how probable is it? Very very very very very small. There's no 100%, and there's no 0%. Oh goody! No 100% chance of failure -- that means any situation can work, and mine's always going to be the rare exception because my gut tells me so! ;) I can see it where there's a 70/30 chance, so hey, go for it if everything else has great signs (that your gut doesn't have to tell you). But if it's a 95/5 chance, wtf? Just because you heard a camp fire story of it working that means it's suddenly 50/50?

Confident-Realist

Joined: 2/8/2004

Msg: 92 (view)

Separated status - does it really matter? Why? Posted: 5/12/2013 10:53:52 AM
The separation period at one time was probably meant to keep a reconciliation door open - but that's it. And you're forced to keep that reconciliation door open by many states, countries, etc. It doesn't mean you can't go out on dates with others, but it's an interim period -- to Make Sure, yeah. It's the WHOLE time you're Separated you're in that interim period. Some of you seem to be hooked on an emotional component when there is none - just a legal one. Emotional on some level -- baggage, if you will. Yes. Statistically speaking, that is accurate. It doesn't mean or require them to run back to their soon-to-be-official-ex, in order to make it difficult to form a Relationship with someone else. What do you think: that when the divorce papers are finally signed, that it is a clear, non breakable sign that the divorced will never attempt to reconcile with their ex? Generally speaking, I think that if they do finally sign the divorce papers, they're further along than if it's not been enough time where they could, or there was enough time but they refuse to. That's pretty common sense. People tend to look at the institution as a whole, rather than the individual. If you're Separated and Not Divorced, yes. As well they should. They shouldn't be obliged to have to get to know that individual to see the what's-what about them, whether they're better or worse off than the statistical average. And it's certainly not going to take 1 date to truly know it's all good & great, either. It's all about weighing odds & probabilities. Statistically speaking, simply being Separated has greater odds of something more than a fling/short-term not working out than one who had the balls and/or ability to actually be Divorced. Someone who writes in their profile that they just got out of a LTR, the same, versus someone who's not on the rebound. It's a lot like living at home w/ the parents. One may be in an interim period of living at their parents' house, when maybe moving back to the city doing a bunch of job interviews after leaving a job from the other city. There may be a good reason for that interim period. But he can't reasonably expect girls he doesn't know to give him a chance at dating when he is. I've been in a similar boat 10 years ago -- I'd be an idiot to think that it shouldn't affect my DMV (dating market value). I would have been self-centered to think that MY situation should define THE default situation, and girls I liked should have spent lots of time with me to get to know me well to see that it's all good. It's not until I moved out where my DMV beyond a fling was back to where it should have been. So to those folks who stay at their parents', I say Move Out! No, they're not obliged to "find out". To others, get an actual Divorce if you want the DMV you feel you deserve... and if you can't right now -- just deal with it and understand.

Show ALL Forums