Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Independence VS Interdependance      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Oldmanhome
Joined: 5/21/2015
Msg: 351
Independence VS InterdependancePage 15 of 20    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)

at any given time and less on inherent supposed psychological/biological babble.


Pity that the impact of sex on a person, man and women, is well documented in the psychological and scientific literature. You can of course call it biological babble if you choose. But you don't get it.
 norwegianguy123
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 352
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/1/2015 3:38:33 PM

I thought he was, now I think you are as well.

No. It's understanding the difference between two Different concepts.

1. Mere sex does not equal/result in a relationship, and one thinking such thing shows emotional instability
2. equating sex as part of a relationship with emotional instability

#1 does not mean #2. Sex IS part of a relationship. A healthy part of a relationship. So is kissing! But that doesn't mean mere kissing = being boyfriend girlfriend. Mere sex does not equal being boyfriend/girlfriend either. When college students are on Spring Break and they go across country to party on the beaches in the south, when they have sex does that mean they're hooked into a LD Relationship? NO. Sex does not = relationship. Or outside of all that, on a 1st date? No -- it doesn't mean you're bf/gf if the two have a bit too much to drink and bang away. Only an idiot would think that they are, by default, "Exclusive" just because they had sex.

However, if she was ga-ga and he was also ga-ga (not lukewarm), how would that work?

They would have already had sex by that point if he was ga-ga in the first place. :) The reason they didn't was because he was lukewarm. If say he woke up one day in holding sex off, and was ga-ga about her instead of lukewarm -- yes, at That Point, it would "up the ante" of the relationship between to wisely assume they're an item -- but NOT merely because of sex. Sex in THAT case would have just pushed it / validated it, at that point in their situation. Everything else, like a good amount of time together for over a month truly Dating -- that's a requirement that was already taken care of. That's why he wanted to hold SOMETHING back to prevent any more attachment or assumptions about exclusivity, etc.

If all you have is A date or two or three, and you had sex -- there's still a missing piece of the puzzle before ya assume you're an item/exclusive without having a Talk. If you want to go by assumption that you're more or less an item, to have a good argument, you'll have to solidify that missing "piece" -- which is bigger than sex itself and is pretty much the whole pie -- part of the definition OF seeing each other. You need to have been seeing each other! You are what you DO. If you haven't followed thru and demonstrated, which takes time, of what couples do, you're not a couple. If ya want to override that -- OK. Have a talk. But only a fool would assume sex and sex alone between two people who otherwise would Not At All be assumed "together", would imply that they're magically then exclusive. Hogwash! :)
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 353
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/1/2015 3:40:44 PM
Re message 417: There have been all kinds of things "well documented" in scientific literature and psychology. I prefer to draw various conclusions or be open to other possibilities by personal observation as well as researching and reading various forms of literature, rather than being closed minded and believing absolutely everything I read in a one-sided manner.

It reminds me of the "scientific" literature espousing the need to stay away from egg yolks only to be now told that two egg yolks per day are encouraged for various reasons, that butter was to be avoided in favour of margarine and now margarine is to be avoided at all costs, that Pluto was a planet, wasn't a planet and now is again. All had supposed "well documented" scientific literature to back it up, just as psychological beliefs have changed throughout history. That some is basic and unchanging is a given, but much is also speculation. Yes, I get it...you believe you know much about everything when, in fact, it's readily apparent you know a little about a lot and the rest you make up as you go along, depending on who you feel you can impress or chastise. Carry on, though, it seems to be filling the attention you're craving.
 Oldmanhome
Joined: 5/21/2015
Msg: 354
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/1/2015 3:55:25 PM
I will ignore your insults given I have learned that is what many women on this board tend to do . . .over and over and over. If it was only me, I would figure I deserved it given the way I play with you darlings. But its not . . . you who insult tend to do it over and over to all kinds of guys, including the genuine guys looking for relationships. Kind of sad what I see some of them put up with to get to the decent women who are here but not as vocal as the she-devils.

That being said. Whether Pluto is classified a planet does not change the scientific facts known about it, just the definition of planets. And yes, as science advances, old theories are discarded and replaced with new theories.

But Scientific theory, analysis and study beats by a thousand fold the conclusions drawn by your "personal observation", especially when it comes to the dynamics of something as fundamental and intimate as sex between a man and a woman. Of course, I get you have no idea what the studies show. That would take curiosity about knowledge that many of you do not seem to have. Talking out of your rear ends seems to be par for the course.
 Oldmanhome
Joined: 5/21/2015
Msg: 355
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/2/2015 7:34:10 AM
Normal, healthy people, men and women, tend to bond with those they have repeated, intimate contact with. That is normal and based on biology. There are people who don't bond. Who feel no affection for those with whom they have repeated sex. These are dysfunctional people, narcissists, those without the capacity to love or care about anybody but themselves. Definitely not relationship material. They are out there of course, but far from normal, healthily functioning people. Those suffering from some form of mental illness will always be the exceptions to the rules.
 norwegianguy123
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 356
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/2/2015 10:55:13 AM

Is that the same as
sex = relationship = I am married to my husband and its all about sex we have no other connection = emotional instablity
sex does not eqaul a relationship - sex + love + liking + mutual interest = may eventually lead to a relationship = emotionally stable

It's not saying any of that. It's common sense. Sex does not mean "let there be light!" as in Exclusivity / Relationship is had. Also, just because you DIDN'T have sex, does not mean you're NOT Exclusive or in a Relationship.

In the example of my friend, it was Not someone he merely went out on a few dates with -- or would see once every 2 weeks. This was a gal he was seeing 2-3 times a week for about a month. He held off sex Early since he was "so-so" about her and she was ga-ga about him right off the dock. But I warned him that NO, just because you DON'T have sex, that doesn't mean you're not walking into Exclusivity range either, given enough time & frequency of seeing each other. Fish or cut bait man! You're wading in this "gray area". HAVING sex at THIS point will cut thru that gray area, so don't do that unless you DO want to be Exclusive with her.

Point being, sex, by itself, is NOT a magic bullet to create exclusivity. Given the right situation, it can push things over the edge IF sex was previously held off and you're in that gray area of seeing each other of not-exclusive vs exclusive, yes. That's about the only time.

But if you've been on just a few dates with someone -- NO, you haven't established yourself as DATING yet and have a good ways to go, as if you want to go by Universal rules, it's about the amount of time spent together and the FREQUENCY you do see each other. NOT having sex will "stretch out" a gray zone of an item vs not an item, sure. Holding off on sex but Then having sex when in that said gray zone will make it more obvious that you are an item. But that's about the only role sex is going to play.

Point being: Just sex itself -- when, say, you've only been out on a few dates -- NO, does not make you an item. You'd need to otherwise be on the cusp of being an item / being exclusive, and Then to Newly Bring Sex Into it, for sex to play any role in tipping the scales on some "Universal" level where no talk would be needed.
 rennips1949
Joined: 3/6/2015
Msg: 357
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/2/2015 11:07:18 AM

have learned that is what many women on this board tend to do . . .over and over and over. If it was only me, I would figure I deserved it given the way I play with you darlings. But its not . . . you who insult tend to do it over and over to all kinds of guys, including the genuine guys looking for relationships. Kind of sad what I see some of them put up with to get to the decent women who are here but not as vocal as the she-devils.

What a load of bull.
Dude, I gather that you are currently married/your wife is in the picture. Yes, I know that married people are not barred from joining PoF or participating in the forums. From what I've seen over my long tenure as an unregisted lurker, some married/partnered forum participants provide a good balance and a good example.
You don't happen to be one of them.
But, I certainly am learning a lot about why so many unpartnered over-55 ladies have no interest in dating or finding another romantic SO relationship. Incidentally, I also am seeing-IRL-lots of perfectly good over-55 men who are also unpartnered. I know they are good men because they are in my community, my social circles,etc.
I guess my big-picture question is, why are so many unpartnered retirement age adults not dating/seeking to form a(nother) life partnership? Healthy, active people, people who've already had a life partnership,not talking about the single-by-choice crowd,or the badly damaged.
What gives? It sure seems to me that there is a marked downturn in the number of widowed/divorced older people who are entering new relationships, compared with what there used to be.
 Oldmanhome
Joined: 5/21/2015
Msg: 358
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/2/2015 11:44:12 AM

But, I certainly am learning a lot about why so many unpartnered over-55 ladies have no interest in dating or finding another romantic SO relationship. . . . . . .Incidentally, I also am seeing-IRL-lots of perfectly good over-55 men who are also unpartnered. . . . What gives? It sure seems to me that there is a marked downturn in the number of widowed/divorced older people who are entering new relationships, compared with what there used to be.


I guess, based on what you posted, that its all my fault . . . . and the few married guys who are just like me :-)

The truth, whether you like it or not, is you are an old man. And old men have little appeal, even to old women. Nobody is going to look at you, unless you are in terrific shape instead of the typical guy in our society whose diet consisted of fast food and french fries, and think that they want to jump your bones. So what you need to do is make yourself somebody who would be a good companion. That's really what most women your age are looking for. And if they are happy being by themselves, what the heck does an old man have to offer them these days? And vice versa, what does an old woman have to offer an old man? None of this is a secret. Romantic Love is based on attraction foremost. When you have lost that attraction, forget about romantic love. Its really that simple.

As for me, I am not here to give "balance". I am here to zero in through all of the BS you read about on these boards and bore down to the truth. But like you said, I am not trying to win any favors from anybody here. . . so I don't need to play any games. I call them like I see them. That enough is to get people all riled up.

And by the way, I am old too. So not picking on you. Just telling you like it is.
 newoldgirl
Joined: 4/16/2015
Msg: 359
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/2/2015 3:26:36 PM
Just as there are folks on the site who claim they are single, there are people here who say they are married, when they are not. It's a bizarre dynamic, but certain Trolls seem to think that they can hurt single people by pointing out their singleness. Why they think so is beyond me as unhappy marriages are a dime a dozen. Lots of us are divorced by choice, and in no rush to end the single life style unless someone truly exceptional were to come along. Doesn't matter. For whatever irrational reason, the Trolls can't make fun of single people if they are also single, so they claim they are happily married. It's very sad that they can't be honest about who they are. Their profiles are admittedly works of fiction, as are their many posts., which are simply pitiful cries for the attention they so desperately crave.
 norwegianguy123
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 360
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/2/2015 4:14:05 PM

I guess my big-picture question is, why are so many unpartnered retirement age adults not dating/seeking to form a(nother) life partnership?

You could ask the same to anyone that once they've grown out of peer pressure, notably when they're past the point of wanting kids or anything. Why should they be on the Hunt for a "life partner"? Having a "life partner" in and of itself isn't going to bring happiness to the emotionally stable. It isn't "missing" anything. In fact, I'd turn the tables right around. Why is having a "life partner", in and of itself, such a necessity or remotely close to it? You act as if if one's not in a close-knit LTR that it's the same as if they're living in the woods with no friends or social life. LOL. Having a "life partner" can be good, bad, or neither. It, in and of itself, doesn't being joy & happiness. It can to some to those who are emotionally dependent in that way. Not everyone needs such a crutch. In fact, many LTRs & marriages are not happy ones, and many others are not blatantly bad, but not ideal for the long-run (not 'bad enough' to push them out; not 'good enough' where it's ideal).

Neither being more or less single or in an LTR/marriage is good, in and of itself.

Trolls seem to think that they can hurt single people by pointing out their singleness. Why they think so is beyond me as unhappy marriages are a dime a dozen.

Many folks are brought up to believe that you're Supposed to. That if you're not truly WITH someone in a serious relationship, you either have on in-the-making, are on the rebound, or are an outcast (like some outsider wandering the streets at night - lol). It's cultural conditioning. I can understand questioning someone who may be AVOIDING ever getting involved in a Relationship, sure. Or avoiding dating altogether as not just a phase but as an indefinite lifestyle that purposely limits their options. Sure. But being being involved in an LTR, in and of itself, is neither superior or inferior to anything else.

But some people find the joy of being in a Relationship, in and of itself (like some folks are in love with being in love, like a teenager). The "who" is just an accessory that's part of the package, as that's secondary. Like arranged marriages -- the important part is that you're WITH someone (as if that's hard, in and of itself).
 clooneystutor
Joined: 3/8/2015
Msg: 361
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/3/2015 2:56:47 PM
Flower of Scotland

A fine example of bagpipe music fer ya!
 norwegianguy123
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 362
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/3/2015 11:24:39 PM

Ahhhh I see. You see, I dont do the grey area. No point, plenty more fish in the sea.

Yeah, that was his problem. I mean, some people do -- on purpose. To hold off sex on purpose and save it until after they're going steady to make it a "special moment", as they see sex as something special, not often, etc. He was holding off on sex because he wasn't That into her and he's a nice guy at heart -- but at that point where they were on the cusp of being an item, he would have inadvertently done that by merely giving into temptation.

My WTF by some crazies is they go the Opposite route: They have sex Early, to MAKE themselves an item -- as opposed to sex once you become an item. Sex can happen at any time. To truly be a couple... well, that takes time invested, etc. You can't make a good, homemade holiday dinner in no time flat. That's what actual couplehood is. Sex is like the ice cream dessert. You just take it out of the freezer and serve.

So in some people's warped imaginations, they think if they have sex off the bat (dessert) -- that "should" make them a couple/item too, as if the turkey's automatically marinated and done cooking out of the oven, the salad's been made, the stuffing's been put together, etc. They think -- Dinner's served since we just had dessert, right?! lol NO! It's not going to make the turkey instantly cooked!

Really? So its not about the intensity, the wanting the person, the giddy feeling you get when he comes close to you, the longing that hes going to kiss you, reaching out to touch him, just because, well because its really hard not to.

That requires a sufficient time spent together and frequent amount of time spent together. If you don't have that, you don't truly have what you described. A crush doesn't count.

Ok, so what frequency and amount of time spent together do I need to be able to judge that?

To be on the cusp of being an item/exclusive? That's a bigger topic in many threads on this forum. It's not a simple equation, as there's many exceptions, factors, etc. Being ga-ga about someone on the first few dates isn't going to Make you an item without talking about it -- no. If you want to know the point of being on the cusp of being an item/exclusive where having sex, going on a weekend trip, or going to a wedding would be a "tipping point" TO being an item/exclusive without even having to say anything, I can say this: It wouldn't be SOON. You more talk about it if exclusivity/couplehood is happening rather quickly. Obviously factors play a role into it. I could give drawn out examples of "Johnny and Sally" and how their dating realms unfolded where it would or wouldn't (and make my posts even more agonizingly lengthy).

But in a nutshell, you're not going to bypass Talking about it unless it's been harvested over time. A mutual insta-crush, hitting it off great -- that's not going to cut it, in terms of being some "automatic" exclusivity/couplehood because you had sex (or went to a wedding together). It's going to help push it along, sure. It will require less time -- but it's not going to make the turkey ready out of the oven in 5 minutes, no.

You can replace "having sex" with going to one's friend's wedding together. It doesn't mean you're now a couple, by itself. If you're on the cusp of becoming a couple, sure, that could sort of solidify it. But being on the cusp of being a couple requires time invested & spent together to some degree, with quality of time being a factor too of course. Just going to a someone's friend's wedding or porking in the bedroom after some drinks isn't going to make one a couple. One would only be fooling themselves to think that act merely in and of itself, along with hitting it off on a date or two means they should be a couple (hence, they're a fool).
 Eternitygracesme
Joined: 5/18/2015
Msg: 363
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:34:12 AM


First, it's not a teeny-bopper thing to go out on dates with multiple people within the same general time-frame. If you're limited to only every other Saturday, you can't expect every other guy to conform and be "Well I NEVER!" if he does have multiple options at one time (much like being in fruitful contact with more than one person at a time) he's going out on initial dates with


What I find most disconcerting about this-- and it's NOT about the right for somebody to make their own choices in dating -- is when a person declares on their profile that if somebody dates multiple people, they won't entertain dating that person. Granted, this is one of the many complexities of personal preferences... and the person should have that right to prefer it; but to expect somebody to put their lives on hold for a stranger in this circumstance, while the complainer gets to avail himself to all of the choices of dating singularly or plurally is most unfair (and unequal).
 norwegianguy123
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 364
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/4/2015 1:57:11 PM

What I find most disconcerting about this .... is when a person declares on their profile that if somebody dates multiple people, they won't entertain dating that person.

I agree. I believe I once read a thread in these here forums about some personal 'rule' that if they have a 1st date and it goes well, they cut off all date ties & opportunities. Another one was if you're talking to someone online, you can't talk to any others.

the person should have that right to prefer it; but to expect somebody to put their lives on hold for a stranger in this circumstance, while the complainer gets to avail himself to all of the choices of dating singularly or plurally is most unfair (and unequal).

I agree. My wtf in reference to Vicki is Not Even Announcing It (or only announcing it the midst of grabbing for the condom). Going by assumption, as if someone pulled the wool over the other's eyes -- as if it's a "given" that you can't be juggling more than 1 person at 1 time if you hit it off with someone. It's Not a universal rule at all. So the first step to dating-world sanity, I say, is to understand that it's a minority Personal rule among some people, Not Even Close to a universal rule. Second is, announcing it if that is one's personal rule! A lot of people Don't because in the back of their minds they know it'll ruin potential opportunities, the moment, etc.

Ah, yes, now I understand. The woman who is ga ga, realises he isnt so tempts him into sex and then goes batty cos hes not feeling it. Got it.

Not necessarily realizing he isn't so ga-ga. In fact, it can be going well both ways. She wants to put an insurance policy down on it, but doesn't realize that's just in her own head that it'd apply. She (or he, for some guys) will think if they have sex, it will ensure that they're an item of sorts -- that it, in and of itself, can more or less Replace spending a lot of time together that is the required ingredient to be a an item By Default.

So, if you are on a dating website stating your looking for a long term relationship. You talk to a man who is also looking for a long term relationship. You meet. She is ga ga and he is ga ga what time frame before the sex do you estimate?

Sounds like a fun story problem! ;) Depends on who they are, how the dates are, etc -- but typically speaking, not very long. A higher chance one of them (the girl) is going to slow the "base running" speed and let things marinate. But just because your ideal choice is LTR doesn't Mean you take things slow physically if you hit it off. There are many people who want an LTR, meet someone, hit it off, have some drinks, and pork away. One of the people (usually the better looking one) sometimes ends up having a lack of interest and doesn't use "sex" as a reason to have to stick around where he/she would otherwise walk -- so they do walk, be busy, etc. -- and the other person (usually the lesser looking one) cries foul that they were screwed over. Just because you have sex early and both had LTR as your optimal ideal choice in the future on your profile, doesn't mean you're committed to them for a while just because you had sex and that they have to drop all other dating options merely because of it.

If you don't want them to see or juggle any other dating options when you have sex -- don't have sex until you're an item. If you think having sex makes you an item, announce it Well before entering anyone's bedroom (otherwise you're just playing games if it's already leading to that).

Its only a crush if only one of you's feeling it. If its both of you feeling it I consider it a special moment lol

Well, crushes can be special as some people (like myself) don't get them very often. But there is such thing as Mutual crushes. A crush on someone means you really dig them. It doesn't have to be 1-way. And 2-way crushes, call it what you will, no, still doesn't count. It doesn't make you a defacto "item" when on a 1st date or something.

Lets pretend he was ga ga about her as much as she was about him after the 1st date, they havent had sex. Does he continue to date others and keep hes options open?

He didn't have any other options open at that time - lol. He wasn't a ladies man. But yeah, you keep your profile open, and if a good prospect comes in your search, sure, hit her up. If a good prospect comes in her mailbox, sure, reply to him. Yep. If nothing is said/agreed upon when it's merely right after a 1st date -- No, you're Not Exclusive. Even if it's an Awesome 1st date. Naturally, we're Less Inclined to hit others up in that state of mind, but you're not Exclusive. There is nothing even Remotely close to assume people are after even a great 1st date and both people who were strangers before hit it off awesome.

I would think its a big step to be invited to a wedding, yes he probably would get sex lol

Regardless, it's a concept replacement. It by itself doesn't mean you're a couple, but it can tip the scales out from the gray-area into something more solidified. Weddings do have different weights. If a close family member was getting married, yeah -- a lot. If their friend's friend that they knew some from college invited them and they needed a date then it carries less weight, letting the date know what it is and isn't.
 norwegianguy123
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 365
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/5/2015 12:32:04 PM

Well see, my reason for thinking this as I have explained is that if it doesnt work its easy enough to get someone else.

Yeah, that's nice & fitting if one didn't have any other options they were in contact with leading up to the 1st or 2nd date hitting it off... PLUS not that socially available in going out so there's little to no chance any more good options may come their way. A classic example is a working single parent who, by their own schedule, can only feasibly go out once every two weeks with maybe a short lunch outing embedded in there. It'd be an extremely Biased view to think the whole world should revolve around their limited way of (social) life. If I'm in that position, Yeah, I would totally Prefer that if I hit it off on one of the initial dates with a gal that she shut down all other options and push away any that come her way, while only being able to see her 1.333 times every 2 weeks (saying a lunch outing roughly equaling 1/3rd of a full fledged weekend 'date').

Again, blowing off all other options (this is why people complain online -- why did he/she just disappear?!) should happen only when things have truly solidified with someone. Someone asking the other to do that just because they hit it off on a mere initial date is asking too much, if said person has at least a somewhat active social life.

Now, there is still a chance that it wont work but if it doesnt, its easy enough to get another?

There's a decent chance things won't work because an initial date went well. Is it "easy" to get another? Maybe maybe not. But the key point is, you're asking someone flush away all other dating options for You so early. I can understand not "mining" for new options... although new options may come one's way. And when it isn't so "easy" for everyone, that's something to not just ignore. It bears more weight. Just as you want to look out for Yourself and wish that guys would not be juggling to any degree any other gals if you merely had a great date with the guy -- the guys are, and should, be looking out for Themselves and not ditch all existing potential suitors because they had a great date with one. Why? History. History tells us that we can hit it off with a gal early on, but when we drop all other options, it many times comes to bite us in the a$$.

Also, how has anyone got enough time to date multiple people?

That's the key point to this mismatch of ideals. Yes, some people do. Especially when one gal's a single mom, does fitness classes, tends to her parents house, etc -- and you could only see her once every 10 days when you're not any BF/GF, even tho you seem to be hitting it off quite well. Same goes with another gal who may be an option of his. He can have time to date many who aren't so available, while he doesn't have kids, little custody time, or kids grown up enough -- all while he doesn't work a ton or have structured hobbies/activities soaking up his clock. Some people don't even have enough time to date at all! Some have a lot! Asking someone to conform to theirs to "make it fair" isn't fair if it was just a great date.

Can I ask, if you had a girl you was ga ga about and she you. Then you kept your options open and she ended it because of that. Wouldnt that bother you?

If she asked right from the get-go? To be honest, I'd lie. Not a bald-faced lie... but knowing that my focal point would be on her anyway (me being ga-ga about her and seeing it the same way from her) -- I would think that's kind of unfair and too much to ask. It would also dampen my ga-ga-ness about her in some way for at least a little bit. I would tell her that history goes both ways -- dropping all potential options that exist or may happen to come one's way can work out for you if the other person does it, but not work out for you if you do it, etc. I would tell her I'll put everything else on hold though because I really like her. Where the "lie" comes in -- I would hold off on the dating site I found her on, or the place(s) she goes to where I found her from in terms of approaching girls -- but I would make sure keep the "funnel" churning as protection. I'll explain in a second...

Ah, you friend is sounding like a nice guy, Im liking him a lot.

Yeah, he's a classic Mr Nice Guy. But with him and I talking about dating, I've had to remind him and he's got burned by "dropping all options". How many times do you see in the forums someone talk about hitting it off with someone then Poof -- they disappear, are always busy, or lose interest with no real reason to peg it on? That happens. He's been burned the same way, and had to "start from scratch" because he ditched his potentials leading up to it, avoided a 2nd or 3rd date with a gal here or there -- and I would remind him, which accepted: "PLAY ZONE, *not* MAN TO MAN!" It's a sports reference in defense. You don't defend just one guy -- you cover a zone. You don't just stick to one girl because a date went well. It's going to suck More if she blows ya off after you hit it off when you Don't have at least Any Potential options in the mix somewhere. Plus, you also regret losing out on the ones you had brewing before but ended.

Ok, well I dont think Im saying it [sex] ensures a relationship.

Well, you can be an item/exclusive and not be in a BF/GF relationship. One will mistakenly think they'll be an item (ie exclusive) just because they had sex. A small few will think they'll automatically be BF/GF, but that's rare.

What Im saying is, if I have sex and he wants to continue dating others then I would end it, definately. I would expect him to know that, its a respect thing.

I understand that when you're on the cusp of Dating. But if on the 2nd date that was a week and a half after the 1st date -- whether you stop it at kissing in the parking lot, or get naked and you two pork away -- it's still too early to drop all other options altogether and go 1-on-1. That's WHY some people advocate "don't have sex too early". Too early? Too early generally means Before you've established yourselves enough where it's reasonable/understandable you wouldn't be seeing other people. Substituting what you establish between you two, over time & things marinating between you two -- with sex -- is the mistake.

Really? [Crushes being uncommon for me] is that because you are always aiming for the most attractive, the best option, the perfect relationship?

No. I think it's because I'm more of a realist. Not a pessimist! But it takes a lot for a childhood crush feeling to set in after lots of dating experience. When you experience many of those either turning bad or just not working out so fantasy-land -- yeah. The least experienced one is in dating, the more True crush feelings they'll get. I'm not calling really Liking someone a crush. That's different. A Crush is different & more intense.

I also get the impression you may go for insecure girls?

No, not attracted to those. If she's hot, it'd be good for a roll in the hay, but no -- Definitely not for continual dating, let alone a Relationship!

What I have seen is a small group of girls, usually four, of around about similar attractiveness (this indicates confidence). Now one will be predominately better looking and will bring in the men, she will get her pick but often its her looks she relies on not her personality.

If we're going by people-watching -- there'll many times be a "DUFF" in the mix of a group of gals. The "Designated Ugly Fat Friend". A recent movie called DUFF came out. Check it out. The DUFF doesn't have to truly be Fat. It just fits the acronym well. It's that she's comparatively not nearly as attractive as the others. She can talk to the other guys for them, or guys can talk to her as the go-between. The DUFF can also c0ck-block guys getting her hot friends. Also can be known as "Mama Bear". :)

But many gals who are hot don't lack personality. They can, but social myth (to make lesser looking people feel better) that exaggerates it. Plenty of Good looking gals who aren't lacking in anything that average to homely looking gals have.

But bottom line: Especially when you hit it off pretty well with someone on a 1st or 2nd date -- play "ZONE", not "Man to Man" (1-on-1), to avoid being too invested on too little. Many times one WON'T have any other real options, though. But don't Expect being 1-on-1 with someone just because you had an awesome date and/or had sex. The necessary ingredient for an Assumed By Default 1-on-1 situation with someone is having Established yourselves thru many fruitful dates & communication in-between, etc. Sex isn't a substitute for that, in an ill attempt at making one an item/exclusive super-quick.
 xlr8ingme
Joined: 3/16/2015
Msg: 366
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/5/2015 4:28:30 PM
This entire thread screams independence. This is not gender specific either; its a statement about how our culture has evolved. Cant most people make simple commitments anymore? In our culture it appears difficult to even become interdependent enough to date one person at a time.
 norwegianguy123
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 367
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/6/2015 2:49:13 PM

I would consider my options of getting out, dating and meeting people to be on quite a low scale, but it would still only take me two weeks

ONLY 2 weeks? Being able to go out ONLY every 2 weeks makes it sounds like you're treating it as going to an amusement park! :) Going out every 2 weeks is extremely bare bones! I would be a fool to go exclusive with a gal when I could only really experience a good amount of time with her every two weeks. I understand that as you become bf/gf, you'd be seeing each other more on non-'date' affairs, but until I would be able to see them in QT more than once a week normally -- why would I go exclusive if I could hardly see them?

Its not so much Im expecting the world to revolve around me its more about being aware of my limits and trying to make the best of the situation.

It think a good amount is expecting guys to go that route though. You see merely having sex off the bat as exclusivity By Default, no questions needed. You scratch your head and raise an eyebrow at those who wouldn't. Even if you can't see them very often, or aren't in position to see them that often.

I think the marker for going exclusive is when you don't need any 'dates' to see them, and you don't make any Plans to see them -- and you can see them a lot.

Yes I know, its not appealling. I get frustrated with it too.

So why would you expect a guy to go exclusive if you can't see him much? Because sex was had? I can understand a "Hey, we had sex. I don't like people having SEX with more than one person at a time." OK. Only 1 bedroom visitor within the same time frame, generally speaking. That's something one can understand, even though when it's early And you can't see them much, there could be some technical exceptions people may bring up etc etc -- but in a nutshell -- yeah, I can understand that being something Reasonable. But that's far and away different than "Yeah I know it's only one of our first few dates and we can't see each other often -- but because we had sex -- you have to drop all your options. Not that I'm asking something unique out of you.. this is how it SHOULD be, otherwise YOU are the weird one." :)

Firstly, I dont ask as I dont discuss it I just expect it so he would not be aware of it.

You should! That's the point. Otherwise, you're expecting the world to revolve around your ideals. You have to recognize Your Way is out in left field. Thus, you need to bring it up to him. You're not because you're SCARED to (it ruining the mood or hearing something you don't want to hear, etc).

Your friend with the ga ga girlfriend can, Im confident that you would as well?

She wasn't his GF. They were nearing that point, which is why I told him NOT to *start* having sex if he wasn't into her, since he held that off. Second, can do what? "Detect" whether someone can manage casual sex and those who can't? His issue wasn't about juggling people. He never had enough luck in dating to deal with that anyway. In that story, his was about Starting sex with someone who he was seeing but wasn't that into.

If someone has an active social life the 2 week wait to establish the relationship should be easier.

But their prospects aren't just throw-away toys. I mean, it could be at that point. But also -- why throw away all options because you hit it off on a date initially and/or had sex real early? Nothing concrete's been established! It's EASIER for those who don't have any other options readily available at the time. Nothing to sacrifice.

I get Im not an appealing option for dating

And I think that's what pushes your staunch belief that if you do have sex with a guy "early" -- that he should be exclusive, no questions asked. Your schedule & restrictions makes you a not so appealing dating option -- so you not just want, but EXPECT and DEMAND that a guy drops all other options and such because of that. Never mind the availability to see each other and where you're at in the real dating timeline -- it's all about if you did the deed in the bedroom? No. Again, I can understand not wanting one to be consistently swapping 2+ people in and out of the sheets in a given timeline. But dropping all options and becoming Exclusive? Too little to gamble on.

Yes I agree. But then how many times do you see in forums 'I thought we were an item but he still has a profile' and everyone saying 'hes a player, dump him'.

Exactly. Many times they're fools thinking they were an item just because they had sex! OR they never even made it past 1st base hardly, but went on G-rated "dates". OR of course, they Were bf/gf and he's a cheater - lol. Many different reasons for that.

Bummer, damn thats hard. So exactly how long did it take to pick up again? I need a time frame, months? years?

Again, the lesson learned is that he shouldn't have done it in the first place -- even IF they worked out for an LTR, it would be unnecessary at that point. If one has a potentially good prospect, they don't ditch them because another POTENTIALLY good prospect and he did more than making out in the parking lot and foolishly thinking they're going to be BF/GF riding off into the sunset. Only a fool who has good potential prospects would light them all on fire MERELY because they had a good date and action had early.

Ok, but you know a gf isnt a ball to be passed around the team, that may only apply to sport.

That's not how the analogy goes. Not a ball. A person. It's WHO you're "covering" when man-to-man. Zone is covering an area where people are. For instance, when 100% single and online, newly single -- 99.9% of men & women play or expect others will be playing ZONE. Meaning, they'll be writing to multiple people at one time who they never met. MOST people also let that extend when it comes to Initial dates! And when you and someone else have started to Truly Establish something (no, JUST a roll in the hay doesn't count) -- THEN you go man-to-man (exclusive).

The rest arent really options because you really want that one, anything else your just settling for the 'lesser option' IMO.

SOMETIMES. But many times, there's more than 1 good prospect you're juggling. The one I'm on a date with -- wow, she seems great. There's another one I had a date with before who seemed great too. Not a rarity.

How would this work? [be an item/exclusive and not be in a BF/GF relationship]

What YOU have been proclaiming! Just because you have sex and hardly been on any dates -- you want to go Exclusive! No, you're not BF/GF that early on, but sure, you can set up RULES at any point, even before meeting.

your calling it a childhood crush, Im calling it two adults who want to each other.

Just because I really like a girl, doesn't mean it's a crush. A crush is something that strikes a chord. It doesn't at all require us to have gone out on a date with them or even really knowing them. Just a "Wow." A different chord strikes. It's strong, but it just by itself doesn't have a lot of substance underneath it all. However, if you are going out on dates with them the amount of substance will build of course... and it becomes less a crush over time, too.

I dont understand what you are saying here. Are you saying you have experienced a lot of dating and a lot of dating has turned out bad?

No, not at all. It's going off topic about how a crush is technically different than (merely) genuinely liking someone.

Yeah Ive heard this a lot, Ive never really seen it. Usually groups of both women and men are of similar attraction levels.

Not every group has a DUFF. But it's somewhat common. Certainly not rare. Bigger the group, the more apt to be a DUFF. Most of the group is on the same level of attraction, but one isn't. She's chubby while the others are thin/slender. Others are real cute, but she has a big schnoze of a nose (not so pretty face). Kind of like 1 sticking out as the Attractive one, you'll many times see 1 sticking out as the Lesser attractive one. They don't have to be ugly! They can still be kinda cute. It's just compared to the others.

A classic case is the "Mamma Bear". She plays "momma" looking out for her girls. She drinks less keeping her security-guard wits up, but man, you can tell she eats more! :)

But, if your really into her, drop your options else she's likely to dump you and be another one of those you wished you hadnt let get away ;)

Having other options is Rarely going to make a girl "get away". I guess if you live in a small town where everybody knows everybody else, OK. Of course rumor mills run rampant in those parts, so you'd also have to watch out for that, but I digress. I certainly wouldn't want to drop good options for a gal who I hit it off with. That's where HISTORY comes into play. You can't help it that sometimes you have more than 1 good option at once. Or while maintaining 1, another newbie comes along. Shoo'ing away newbies and sticking to just that 1 because of a great date and/or roll in the hay so early on -- I've shot myself in the foot doing that. Because she's going to have a lot of options, too. Better ones than me. :)
 Ouija2025
Joined: 6/11/2014
Msg: 368
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/6/2015 5:51:24 PM
BLOGS
embrace them.. honest I have to scroll because there are freakin blogs here. EB White
Read EB White
Vicki - why do you think only not prettiest people provide best loving hmm
I have found mean goes to the bone
 xlr8ingme
Joined: 3/16/2015
Msg: 369
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/6/2015 8:30:22 PM
^ I certainly have to agree with you on this one.
 rennips1949
Joined: 3/6/2015
Msg: 370
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/7/2015 7:38:11 AM

Why should they be on the Hunt for a "life partner"? Having a "life partner" in and of itself isn't going to bring happiness to the emotionally stable. It isn't "missing" anything. In fact, I'd turn the tables right around. Why is having a "life partner", in and of itself, such a necessity or remotely close to it?

Not saying that partnered is a "necessity". Just that in MY social environment and demographic, it seems to be the norm, and the presumption. And I don't mean to imply that it is some sort of "crutch"...it's just what people do/how they live in my social environment.
I recall a commentary by a RL female friend of mine...she said if she even stood next to a male about her age in a group at a public event, people presumed that he was her spouse or SO.

Also, while I have not had to endure the abrasion of heart and soul that divorce must surely cause, I do have to point out that the companionship and mutual support of a "life partner" type of relationship can be a great comfort. Anyway that had been my personal experience.
IDK, maybe I just missed some social "window of opportunity?
I have noticed that widowed male friends & acquaintances often seem to remarry or at least develop a SO relationship quite quickly(relatively speaking/IMO) after their spouses' passing.
 CarefreeBeauty
Joined: 5/30/2014
Msg: 371
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/7/2015 8:11:54 AM

Also, while I have not had to endure the abrasion of heart and soul that divorce must surely cause, I do have to point out that the companionship and mutual support of a "life partner" type of relationship can be a great comfort. Anyway that had been my personal experience.


Very true ^^^ until the 'life partner' is no longer there.

I distinctly remember
shortly after my husband died
sitting in my back porch
in the sunshine
feeling lost and miserable
so very angry at me
for ever letting myself
depend on another
for what I thought to be
my well-being and happiness

I remember shaking my head
and vowing to myself
to never depend on another again

my mistake, my own ache
I really thought I was smarter than that
 Maleman999
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 372
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/7/2015 8:56:45 AM

I have noticed that widowed male friends & acquaintances often seem to remarry or at least develop a SO relationship quite quickly(relatively speaking/IMO) after their spouses' passing.


I thought of something-off topic a bit-with regards to having a spouse #2, or higher number, and more along the line of divorce and remarrying.

For religious, or somewhat religious, people, who had a church wedding the first time around: did the vows include any mention of when you are both deceased, you will spend eternity with each other in heaven? I have never heard of anyone having an un-marrying ceremony in church, where people who decide to divorce, would have new vows that go along the line of : "Hey God, old buddy. Do you remember my wedding and the part about spending an eternity in heaven with my soon-yo-be-ex when we die? That would be hell if I have to spend another second with that SOB/biatch. Can we retract that part and pretend it was never said? I actually found someone new who I wouldn't mind spending an eternity with, so maybe we can just swap names on the forever -in -eternity contract."

What are the rules on heaven occupancy when a widow(er) remarries? Does he/she spend an eternity in heaven with all spouses? Wouldn't that cause a lot of jealousy?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 373
view profile
History
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/7/2015 9:00:07 AM
My goodness, you people are going to jibber jabber all summer long on this one, aren't you? Might be indicative of something. It's interesting that not much has really been said though, relative to the amount of text-space...but on the other hand, I do like how I'm not seeing a lot intentional meanness and abusiveness. I may be impressed. We'll treasure this moment while it lasts.
 rennips1949
Joined: 3/6/2015
Msg: 374
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/7/2015 9:42:56 AM

What are the rules on heaven occupancy when a widow(er) remarries? Does he/she spend an eternity in heaven with all spouses? Wouldn't that cause a lot of jealousy?


It's my understanding that in Heaven, manmade social constructs are not in play, nor are negative human emotions like jealousy, envy,sadness, anger...

It would seem to me that if there was some big issue in the afterlife, that ministers and priests would refuse to support the remarriage of wiowed persons.

I have never heard of a clergyperson refusing to perform a marriage for a couple where one or both were widowed,for that specific reason.(creating strife/drama in Heaven).

I don't recall ever hearing any unpartnered widowed person cite afterlife conflict as a reason for disinterest in forming a new relationship.

The only things I can recall ever being mentioned by unpartnered older women were concerns that a new romantic interest would expect family, friendships and other interests/activities to be pushed down the priority list.
Another was the limited supply of available men in their real-life environment,and a distrust of online dating or even real-life singles activities as being a hunting ground for parasites and headcases.

Don't get me wrong...these ladies are not "letting themselves go", they aren't withdrawing from life, they are not throwing rocks at men to chase them away.
They simply are not sending out any signals of being receptive to being approached with romantic intent. I'm not the only guy in my social environment that is noticing this.
Another "don't get me wrong"-not saying that women are in any way obligated to have an interest in dating, or that they were put on earth to serve mens' purposes.
And as far as being able to read a woman being receptive-if guys in todays' dating environment, regardless of their age are approaching women WITHOUT getting "receptive" signals,maybe that's part of the reason that women are working so hard to develop independence?
 newoldgirl
Joined: 4/16/2015
Msg: 375
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/7/2015 9:43:50 AM

I have noticed that widowed male friends & acquaintances often seem to remarry or at least develop a SO relationship quite quickly(relatively speaking/IMO) after their spouses' passing.


I have noticed this as well. I have taken it to mean that they really loved being married.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Independence VS Interdependance