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  
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 376
Independence VS InterdependancePage 16 of 20    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)

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.

Does that mean they were willing to forgo the months or years of testing, game playing, score card keeping and jumping through hoops? There's a word for that-settling. That's considered a nasty, horrible word here. The general consensus here is every person must demand total perfection and seek a flawless person, and the only way to achieve that is through extensive, time consuming testing, before being branded and getting a stamp of approval as Grade A meat.

I wonder what the divorce rate is among widowed people who got remarried. If it's not any worse that the general population, then maybe all of the testing and game playing is not totally necessary to have a good relationship.
Joined: 6/2/2015
Msg: 377
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/7/2015 12:43:51 PM
Maybe those people that are widowed don't automatically look at the opposite sex as the enemy. That might have something to do with why they tend to marry again.
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 378
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/8/2015 9:58:04 AM

Read EB White

That's such a short name! I need more words, man! ;) Okay, I see the blogosphere that this turned into is making some eyes roll, so I'll try to cut mine down and narrow the scope to the core of it... (But no, it doesn't mean this is going to be a Small post lol)

why would I go exclusive if I could hardly see them?
Because you click, because you want her and not a lifestyle

So why would you expect a guy to go exclusive if you can't see him much?
I dont, nor do I expect a guy to want to date me

Two conflicting answers to the same question, generally. Which is one of the important parts of this whole thing. After all, if both people had tons o free time and no rugrats, hit it off right off the bat and saw each other just a day or so later and then shortly after that, etc -- and were like peas & carrots while having no other worthy options on the table -- sure, I could see an exclusive Agreement had quite quickly. But if one's not that available to see each other, the other shouldn't Be Expected to roll with it no questions asked!

You don't want to bring it up, because you're scared of it rocking the boat, so to speak.

Hmm? Now is it Im scared or is it you want to get away with more?

No. See, if I have a date that rolls well with a new gal, and one thing leads to another and we do more than just kiss at the end of it, and she cries foul or gets pissed in the not so distant future that I'm not as interested as she wanted (or 'demanded') me to be because we had sexual relations of some sort... or upset that no, I don't consider us Exclusive so quickly and she does Because we fooled around to whatever degree -- that's all on Her. Her "silent rule".

A guy will run into that type of crazy woman if he has a lot of dating experience. Her problem is that she Expects, no questions asked, that if you physically entangle with the other, you're an item or something. Heck no! Her head's in the clouds! A guy can be that way too (notably when she's out of his league). Why didn't she say something earlier? Well, BOTH people many times really wouldn't LIKE to talk about it, as it could be a bit of a mood ruiner -- but the ball's in HER court. SHE is the one to declare something -- not me. Only a crazy person would assume that just because one-thing-led-to-another and you went well past kissing that you're "poof" -- magically Exclusive.

But also -- why not talk about it? For the same reason there is NO such 'rule' by default -- it's Too Early.

Because if you have had sex, this is really the main option or should be. Why jeapodise it for options that you have no idea if they would be good or not because they are just options

But they're not really that much more of "just an option" than the one you let one-thing-led-to-another with.

Whos history?

Those with enough dating experience. Or even 2nd-hand living vicariously thru active dating friends. :)

Ok, my rule is, I enjoy sex, Im happy to engage in sex and see where things go, but it needs to be exclusive. If you want options then have them, dont have sex with me.

No, what you need to do is Declare that. There is no assumed, silent 'rule'. The ball's in Your Court to announce it -- not the other way around.

Then I would question whether or not you are actually into these girls if your easily swayed away?

I'm not "all in" (analogy of playing poker with chips) so Early on usually, no. OR I actually may be TOO into a gal, but for preventative protection of my emotion, I will still keep my options open as she is doing too by default. Fooling around early on, by default, does not make you exclusive. If you want exclusivity really early on (sex or no sex had), the ball's in Your court to announce it and make a deal.

That's really what this boils down to. You hold a belief that it's Such a Given, that if you fool around really early on, you Are Exclusive -- no talking about it required. And I have the position of common sense: No, you're not Automatically Exclusive. Whether you went well past 2nd base or only kept things to a goodnight kiss for the mere few dates -- it's of no difference -- there's no assumed exclusivity by the sane. Wanting exclusivity may be asking too much, but if one wants it so early on, they have to step forward and declare that if they want any level of exclusivity.
Joined: 3/12/2010
Msg: 379
view profile
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/8/2015 11:46:26 AM

Maybe those people that are widowed don't automatically look at the opposite sex as the enemy. That might have something to do with why they tend to marry again.

I have only anecdotal data to go on, just my own experiences. But, based only on my own observations, those women who are more “sexual” are much more likely to get remarried.

Why do I say that? I have been online dating for about 6 years. I have probably been on more than 150 initial meetings, and dated about a dozen (longest time span, 6 months). The women who were the most sexual, the most open about their sexuality, every one of them is now remarried or living with someone. Every single one. Most of the others are still on this and other dating sites.

As I said, strictly anecdotal. But it has happened enough to indicate a clear pattern to me. Women who like men, and enjoy sex, who do not hide from sex, those women attract men. Those are the women that men are willing to go “all the way” with, not the nice girls, the born again virgins.

And yes, there are a couple of women in that list that I regret letting slip through my fingers.

Blast away, I’m wearing my flame retardant suit. (smile)
Joined: 3/16/2015
Msg: 380
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/8/2015 12:13:25 PM
I don't think being widowed has anything to do with it. The passing of both the men I have loved has actually made me more gun shy about living with someone. I prefer long term dating, and if that evolves into something else that's awesome. Marriage has never been my preference, nor will be.

Ohenryx has a very valid point, although I do believe this is neutral among what ever anyone's preferences are. It is why sexual compatibility is one of my three relationship requirements. That in itself is a very difficult thing to achieve at this life juncture. I too have been on many dates off this site, and others. Several have become great friends I remain in regular contact with. Dating isn't difficult; finding a soul mate should be.
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 381
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/8/2015 11:14:31 PM
In terms of expecting a guy to go exclusive with you if you can hardly see them often, you said:

I dont, nor do I expect a guy to want to date me

And also when I asked why would I be expected to go exclusive of I (a guy) could hardly see them, and you said because you click, etc. So you either expect it or you don't -- which is it? I'm guessing you do expect it, as long as he likes ya (as that's what everything else has pretty much said).

If he wants to see others then hes not really into me. He doesnt care for me and he isnt considering me. Do you really think that is a good option for me?

I disagree. If all he did was go out on a few dates, just because he doesn't want to go Exclusive doesn't mean he doesn't care about you or that he isn't considering you. It's just too early to go Exclusive, as lessons have been learned, and it's good to keep one's dating options at least open until things have established themselves somewhat between the two people and gotten to know them well. Again, merely fooling around doesn't automatically make two people getting to know each other really well. It can help move the process along a little quicker, but that's about it.

No. I dont want to bring it up because he should already know that.

It's not a RULE! In your bubble you believe it is -- it's not! Wake up -- just fooling around does not mean you're exclusive.

But being scared, yes, I do get scared. I get scared that I wont ever be the option. I cant compete and I cant do much about my lifestyle.

Yeah -- which is a main reason Why you don't bring it up. Most people Know that just fooling around real early on does Not make people exclusive. It's an outsider's little rule that's on them to announce if need be. You Know that many many people of many different varieties do not assume having fooled around real early = exclusivity. But you being scared as you describe is one of the reasons why you're not declaring your OUTSIDER point of view that fooling around early on = exclusivity.

Whats with the hightlighting? What are you trying to say? I dare you to say that you didnt know about the silent rule ever ever again!

I'm saying this "rule" that "fooling around within the first few dates = exclusivity" -- is a SILENT rule. You don't talk about it or announce it to a guy, hence, it's a Silent Rule to you, that you Completely Misunderstand as some universal rule - lol. It's not universal at all! It's just your Silent rule.

Exactly. Its has nothing to do being scared, options, being exclusive. The TALK is a passion KILLER!!!!

It doesn't have to be a big talk. In the early dates you can talk about a lot of things in relation to compatibility. But yeah, everyone's avoids certain things out of fear of ruining the mood. BUT if you have this silent rule, you have to at least announce it. "Hey, when I have sex with someone, even if within the first few dates and it happens really early on, I expect us to be 100% exclusive. He drops his dating options, his online profile -- I drop mine, too." You fear that ruining the mood there. *IF* that was some near-universal rule, it WOULDN'T be a mood killer; it'd be like a lot of things the two would say that would be pretty much common sense. But the thing is: It's NOT a common rule. THAT is why you avoid even mentioning it. But, OK if you don't -- but you can't hold them to it as if they broke some rule when it's NOT a universal rule by any means!

Only a crazy person would assume that just because one-thing-led-to-another and you went well past kissing that you're "poof" -- magically Exclusive.

And only a crazy man will think he can pull that off without her going CRAZY at him when he dates the options HE failed to mention.

"Pull that off"? No, it's just not being exclusive so soon just because they let one-thing-lead-to-another so soon. A crazy man (or woman) would assume that they're "poof", magically Exclusive, just because they hooked up before getting to know each other well enough that Exclusivity wisely by default would more or less require.

But your not making any distinction between whos special and who isnt.

I'm saying that if one-thing-led-to-another off the bat, it doesn't mean that person is their #1 dating prospect, but sure, can be a good one and maybe WILL be their #1 prospect down the line. It varies. And apart from anything bad happening in that process, even though they're not going to go exclusive by default, sure, said person is more up in the ranks than they were previously... but it's still Too Early to be Exclusive AND drop all other dating prospects that mean something too. Especially if he/she can only see you once every 2 weeks!

If you want to avoid that, SAY something *IF* you're going to fool around before people would, by default, be exclusive -- OR don't fool around with them Until you've established exclusivity the Normal way.

I know, and thats cool. If thats what works for you thats fine. Its actualy quite sweet in some ways. But do you eventually become all in?

What I mean by going "all in", is emotionally or exclusively. Whether there was fooling around to some degree or not at all. I don't see how you see that sweet in some ways, based on what you wrote before. It's more being realistically-minded when it comes to the dating scene. Do I eventually go all in? Yes. When things of substance have established themselves between us. Which takes time getting to know each other. Fooling around can bump it up slightly as opposed to keeping it PG-rated, but it's Not a substitute for substance in getting to know each other in terms of exclusivity-worthy.

What? I dont understand this? How do you know she is keeping her options open? and whats with the protection of emotion?

By default, when meeting a social gal at a bar or a gal from online -- and they're pretty -- she's going to have a lot of options. Just because the setting was right and one-thing-led-to-another real early on does Not mean I'm suddenly her #1 dating pick and she wants to be exclusive. Only a complete fool would think she had no dating options before, or she'd drop all her dating options just because we fooled around so early on. In fact, to some people, guy or girl, they get turned off by the concept and have a little socially-based regret in fooling around so soon and it distances them (not me though lol). But anyway, the Protection is to prevent going "all in" just because you fooled around with a gal ya Really like (who is most likely a high prospect who has lots of guy-options), and ditching all your other options. In fact, you make sure to "protect" yourself in a sense to not be overly ga-ga about said gal so early on, and not to ignore communication with your other options, as said gal, who knows, could lose interest soon or over a little time, and leave ya with your pants down having to start from scratch.

So whats the longest you have ever dated anyone without the fooling around?

5.8 hours. ;) Fooling around meaning more than making out -- some sexual relations? Around a month was about the longest on more than one occasion. But in those situations we weren't "datING", but in the pre-dating phase and not able to see each other very frequently kicking things off.

yes of course you have :) Now which one of us was the stubborn one? Was that me or you?? Cant remember now.

What I'm explaining to you, in a nutshell is a simple concept: NO, there is no general/universal "rule" that because you fool around, you're Exclusive. Many times it could symbolize the tipping point of being exclusive, sure. But when you have sexual relations real early -- no, it doesn't substitute for being established. I know for you, you're not sacrificing much of anything when your options are limited and can only see a guy once every 2 weeks or something early on. But not everyone's that way.

I'm not being stubborn about it -- I'm just informing you that that's NOT a universal rule at all, but your own silent rule. And I say silent because you don't want to bring it up as that's how you roll to a guy, because it could only prevent one-thing-leading-to-another on a Great date -- and due to your lack of availability, you want to make the most of it. I'm just saying that By Default -- NO, there is no assumed/universal rule that hooking up = exclusivity so early on. Just reporting what is. :)
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 382
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 9:29:35 AM
'Women who like men, and enjoy sex, who do not hide from sex, those women attract men"

>>>Speaking generally, a human being who has a healthy attitude towards sex...tends to have a healthy attitude towards their own self. They are comfortable with the choices they make, b/c they are comfortable with themselves an their needs in life.

A person who is, "the whole package" tends to be attractive. They may also tend to be social animals. If so, then they probably prefer to be coupled.
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 383
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 12:24:33 PM

If we have had sexual relations I expect exclusivity. I dont demand it, I dont do the talk.

The point is, you have nothing to complain about if you have sex earlier compared to when you'd be exclusive by default. It's a fact that no, it's NOT a given that you're Exclusive just because you had sex and sex alone. BUT it *can* be if you say "this is how I roll". No big "talk" required. In convo about likes/dislikes about guys & girls, etc. It's easy for you to say it. Just like saying that you don't like guys who or wear this-or-that, and like guys who do or wear this-or-that (which is common convo on early date) -- you just mention that if you get sexual in the bedroom with a guy even when real early, you expect 100% exclusivity. If that IS a "given" or anywhere close to it -- just like not liking guys who wear dirty shirts with holes in them -- then saying it isn't a mood buster! :) Problem is, it's not a given.

No, I dont bring it up because when I was dating prior to my ex most men knew if you had sex with a woman that most women had sex because they had feelings for you

When having sex off-the-bat, no, all women do not do so just because they're ga-ga about the guy and expect to be exclusive. Women will be more picky than guys comparatively to have sex, yes. But with enough drinks, and one-thing-leads-to-another -- no, it's not because she's super hot for him. You'll see that more when he's solidly better looking than she is. BUT ALSO, the other way around. You get an average Joe who gets a porking out of a Hot Babe really early on -- sure, he's going to have a lot of feelings for her, too. Because she's a catch that he can't catch so easily in life but seemed to. He wants that fish to stay in His boat! :) It's an "I can do better" thing that will tip the scales. And it's an emotional backlash for not being wanted enough that one will cry foul.

Well I dont think it is just my rule. I think a fair few people think along the same lines.

Well, here's my point: It's Not a Universal rule. It more becomes a rule when you Don't have sex early on, ie you started establishing yourselves otherwise. Too early, no -- it doesn't make you Exclusive. That's why you need to express early on that's where you stand in general (not with him so much, but with dating overall; along with many other things when feeling each other out).

Well again, are you confusing being exclusive to being in a fall on relationship?

I'm not saying it's a Relationship -- but one's treating it like one. I mean, people go Exclusive before they're officially boyfriend/girlfriend, sure. But they're DatING. By default, if you want exclusivity before you've demonstrated that you've been datING -- having gone out on many dates and it's a Given that you're going out on another date soon etc -- then the ball's in your court to announce it. Silent rules & regulations only makes things messed up.

I may have the appearance of options, I may have other men interested but if Im going to have sex Ive already chosen him as my no 1

And the gal could be my #1 too. BUT through history & experience, if I'm having sex with her quickly & off the bat, I also know that it's by no means a given that we'll be seeing each other doing sing-a-longs together. Too Early to tell. I'm not going to without any words spoken, ditch all other prospects Because we porked so early. Especially if I could only see her once every 2 weeks. I'd be an idiot to do that.

I dont know these types of girls. Thats not what I was like, Im still not, neither were my friends and they would not approve if I started doing that with men.

They're not doing anything Mean. It's just that just because one-thing-lead-to-another, doesn't mean she's going to go steady with you. Yeah, us guys would Love that if she was Hot and a rare catch. Hell yeah. You'll even find some guys crying foul over it when it is those situations ("WTF? I thought girls Wanted to go steady/exclusive if we fooled around." "No dude, she's real Hot. Just be glad you got to pork her. She has more options out there. You even know that just because you rolled in the hay, doesn't make you steady.").

I respect men, I expect them to respect me back. Its how it worked when I was younger, Id say some still do.

So not dropping all one's options and going steady with someone they don't know too well, right after they had sexual relations -- is Disrespect? No.

Many years ago I was at a bar I'd frequent and this one not-so-great looking gal who I've seen there before, was talking with me. I was on the rebound at the time, it was a slow night and I was there solo and so was she, and well, one thing led to another -- and we ended up hooking up. We never exchanged #s, although within just a matter of weeks we both knew we'd run into each other again there at some point. There were nothing expressed at all that it was some "big deal" entering the realm of dating because we fooled around. Well, fast forward a couple weeks and I saw her there, among a couple of her friends. I said hello and all that to she and others, nothing big. She was real shy at that point, no biggie -- wasn't that much talking. Same thing happened another time, said hellos, acknowledgements, etc. She wasn't pursuing me nor I her. Great. Well, about a month later, some of her friends cornered me in the bar and one went OFF on me.

I was like "WTF?" She said "You hooked up with my friend, you HAVE to take her out to dinner. But you never asked her out, you didn't even chase her at all. You have to go out on dates with her. You're a pig because you didn't even want to!"

I was like "Ummm, we didn't even exchange #s. It was one of those things. We were never friends at the bar and hardly ever talked ever before. If she was Hot, and me sensing her shyness and not hanging around her, you wouldn't be cornering me like this. She 'used' me for sexual relations just as much as I. She's an adult, she should greet and try and talk too. WTF?"

Friend said "Yeah, but you're a Man. You have to go out there and Get her. She's shy. She doesn't do that a lot. You have to be a gentleman, and take her out on some dates. Have some balls!"

I laughed and said "Again, if she was Hot and has tons of guy attention, you wouldn't even THINK about this. In fact, kind of the opposite route of 'Back off, you hooked up, it doesn't mean you own her you creep!'. I have not ran away one iota from her -- just not pushed convo on her. Or chased her as you say. So you want me to Chase someone I'm not interested in dating -- to TRULY lead on? WTF? No. I'd be happy to buy her a drink and chit-chat -- she's no stranger to me after that, but communication goes both ways, so if she's shy and we never exchanged #s -- she needs to communicate too."

OKAY, point being -- it's a silly emotional rule that actually is BAD to one's emotions. To have to go out on dates which is Really going to lead them on. And just because the gal wasn't that great looking and shy, does NOT mean she wanted me. Could be shying away from me because she wanted to keep a distance after a one-night hookup and not let friends know. Women are not children.

I went to the gal and said "Wow, why didn't you talk with me, etc? Here, let me buy you a drink, but..." and she interrupted me and apologized about her friends. She said they want her to find a guy and yeah, she likes me, but also is just shy and knows nothing's my fault, I did no wrong, and no she wasn't trying/aiming to date me, etc. She even said that she doesn't like her better looking friends assuming that just because she herself isn't all that great looking automatically equals her not having a sex drive and just wanting relationships. I did a cheers to that, we laughed, had good convo, etc.
Joined: 6/2/2015
Msg: 384
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 2:01:11 PM
I agree with what the GTO guy said. The rest is a boring blog of too much information and other boring crap posted by two bores.
Joined: 6/4/2015
Msg: 385
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 2:03:21 PM
There should be a limit on the number of words any poster can use in one post.
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 386
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 2:33:37 PM
^^^Whenever somebody posts a novel, where the intent is to over-analyze every sentence, word, punctuation mark, etc. the mouse cursor almost goes by itself to the scroll bar and scrolls down to a post that doesn't rival the length of War and Peace.
Joined: 10/27/2014
Msg: 387
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 2:35:38 PM

Yes I do, I am a woman, complaining is what I do

That's basically conceding that point, but ok... :)

Ok, so Im out with the man chatting about our funniest on line date we've had and I just throw in that if we have sex I will expect it to be exclusive.

No... you talk about your likes/dislikes about dating, and you throw out there "If/when I have sex, even really early on, which can happen -- I expect it not to be BF/GF, but to be exclusive right at that point." If that's SO universal, and so "basic" as you claim, there's no fear in rocking any boat by saying that, any more than saying "I don't like dating guys who are married." :)

No no no no no. That is not what it is all about. You are too caught up with the looks thing. Just good looking isnt going to get sex. Its more than that.

I didn't say that. If a gal is way better looking than a guy, and they hook up right off the bat, and things don't pan out between the two -- who do you think is going to be the one crying foul and the baby-game of being 'used'? The guy, more likely. Statistically, the guy's more apt to hurry-up-and-hook-up with an uglier girl than vice versa.

If a womans goes out, gets so drunk she has sex, then no she can not expect anything from that at all.

Great! And if she doesn't get drunk, but has sex with him -- she shouldn't expect Exclusivity then either! :)

1) my universal rule does appear to be universal, its just that you do not want to accept it.

No, it's not universal. Otherwise you wouldn't have a problem mentioning it to a guy when out on a date. You're insane if you think that's "Universal", just because you hook up so soon on the first few dates, by That Alone -- you're "poof", Exclusive. Not just "we will see each other again" -- but Exclusive, drop all other options or dates you had in the works, shut down your online profiles -- although not some official BF/GF -- we're exclusive, we're an item.

There's a reason why you have it as a silent rule.

2) you should not be using a girl for sex because you felt bad, was drunk particularly as you didnt not think she was hot.

I wasn't using her for sex any more than using her for conversation. Or that she used me for sex or used me for conversation. Heck, for all I know, she wasn't that into me anyway (she outweighed me a bit). I didn't have sex because I felt bad. She wasn't Ugly. Just one thing led to another. Both parties are equally "responsible".

4) her friends are awful. This situation would just not arise in my own friendship groups. My friends would of stopped me before the event not moaned about it after.

Her friends were not there. She was a grown woman, too. Doesn't need nannies following her. :) And she apologized for her friends being that way, and we had good conversation about that and I bought her a couple drinks. Oh, and no, I didn't have sex with her. Nor was She crying foul about the situation. She was a grown woman and knew what was up (unlike her friends).

You missed the bits where I said it needed to be recipricated, I can tell the difference between a man whos just wanting sex and a man thats interested in me.

Well, there's those situations where one-thing-leads-to-another and there's interest in the time being, but one's not going to know about the other's interest or even their own sometimes. Not everyone puts sexual relations on some huge pedestal, therefore lots of forethought, etc.

In a nutshell: No, just having sexual relations off the bat with someone is not some universal rule to be Exclusive and to drop all dating options in their life for that person who they're just getting to know. If for some odd reason it is in your area within your age group -- then it would Not be awkward to mention it and it wouldn't have to be a silent rule.
Joined: 3/13/2015
Msg: 388
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 2:44:14 PM
And you cant tell the difference between the different types of women?
The answer is either, no, or I only seem to meet women who have sex and expect a relationship, regardless of what they might say to the contrary beforehand, because when I haven't been interested in a relationship, I've tried to meet women who would not expect anything more, but never have. For that reason, if I ever have the need to date again, I'll seriously consider meeting married women until I become interested in a relationship. At least they have no standing to expect anything.
Joined: 6/2/2015
Msg: 389
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 3:13:36 PM
A boring house Frau lamenting her lost life and a youngish boy playing with a dead worm on the sidewalk. It's like watching paint dry while pondering "I know why both are alone, they are so damn boring".
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 390
view profile
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/9/2015 4:35:34 PM
Well, I have to jump in and at least comment on these -

There should be a limit on the number of words any poster can use in one post.

No. I disagree. Rather strongly. This is a forum. Not a chat room. It may be used to chat, and often is, but shouldn't be only used as chat. The potential of discussions being worth anything can be stifled by a number of things...and in this case, word limitation doesn't seem appropriate or conducive to me. You can't predict where a discussion needs to go in order to achieve whatever it's trying to achieve, so you need to allow some leeway. Even with our on-topic dilemma...I think that's a good rule, which we're breaking a lot lately without moderators, but it's often been necessary to seem to stray off topic in order to really have certain kinds of discussions.

To be overly technical...if someone were to really post War and Peace, then I'd be screaming for a limitation - I think a limitation isn't out of the question, but I'd put it pretty high, and I don't think that I've seen anything in 3 or 4 years that I'm bothered by.

For you people who use small mobile devices to come in here...the two don't go together. Stick to a chat room, or your texting while running into traffic. Unless you don't ever complain about the inconvenience of using places like this with devices like that.

Whenever somebody posts a novel, where the intent is to over-analyze every sentence, word, punctuation mark, etc. the mouse cursor almost goes by itself to the scroll bar and scrolls down to a post that doesn't rival the length of War and Peace.

This, to me, seems more appropriate - there shouldn't be a rule or limitation on this kind of thing, but you are free to skip or scroll past a post. That allows free choice for both parties, and doesn't introduce some form of quasi-censorship for either. I've read very little of these particular long posts in this thread. But I haven't moaned to myself about them a single time, and have exercised my ability to just scroll past. My hands and fingers are able to do that.
Joined: 3/13/2015
Msg: 391
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 6:17:41 AM
SOMETIMES!!!! for some people no, for others yes. Learn to tell the difference. You would expect a woman to be able to spot the difference between a player, a keeper and a man on the defense.
I would expect a smart woman to have no need to know that. If a woman is smart, she would base her decisions on what to do and not do on what she wanted to do at the time instead of doing or not doing things based on how well she could read someone and foresee the future. At the risk of stating the obvious, you don't need to know if a person is telling you the truth if you make your decisions only on the facts you have at your disposal.

think it only fair for a man to acknowledge that he can tell the difference between a vulnerable girl, a confident girl and a girl who just dont give a hoot and which one can manage the sexual outlet your looking for and which ones cant or wont.
I hardly thinks there is anything fair about it and women ought to be incensed by that thinking. What you are saying is that women aren't psychologically equipped to make decisions about sex, without depending on a man to read between the lines and figure out for them, what they really want. Independence means making decisions and accepting the outcome for the bad ones as well as taking credit for the good ones. I would be absolutely furious if someone thought it necessary to assess my mental state and then decide for me what is best for me. I'm a big boy. If I make a "mistake" it's at worst, a learning experience, not the end of the world. What you are advocating is a victim mentality for women.
Joined: 3/6/2015
Msg: 392
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 6:30:47 AM
I don't get why expectation of exclusivity is such a big deal requiring all kinds of "ifs,ands, or buts". What I 've noticed around here, is if a man and a woman happen to be standing beside one another someplace, the presumption is that they are a couple! Even if they actually don't know one another from Adams' housecat!

I guess if you just want to date around for something to do, it would be different.
But in my social environment dating someone indicates an interest in a longterm serious committment-even if the 2 people choose NOT to cohabit or marry. Yes, I know of a number of older folks that have been "a couple" for YEARS,without cohabitation or marriage. I will concede that in some cases these folks share a common avocation.

Noting the comment about women who are more sexual. Could be something to that. However I can't help but wonder how many ladies have simply set sex on the back burner because dating seems so damn complex and full of technicalities these days? I mean, look at this thread!
What a woman is "entitled" to 'expect"-so, only women with no familial or employment obligations are free to expect exclusivity? If a woman has young children at home, if she is raising a grandchild or other relative, if she has a job, or she is caring for a parent or other relative, and is not available 24/7, she just has to settle for whatever d*ck deigns to stick itself in her, she has no right to expect exclusivity?
I'm VERY MUCH beginning to understand why so many over-50 unpartnered ladies are not bothering with dating and relationships.
And I'm speaking of ladies who seem to be lively and vital, they like men-they like PEOPLE! They take care of themselves, are well groomed.
I can't completely accept that so many ladies just don't like sex and don't like men.
I've overheard some conversations that seem to indicate that the current dating and relationship atmosphere is just too damn complicated for many older women.
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 393
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 6:48:10 AM
I figure the expectation of exclusivity requires such requirements b/c...we have invested something so personal in another person, we want rules to protect ourselves from getting hurt. We want to feel good that we've found a partner, so we want to do what we can to avoid sticking a proverbial knife in that.

I suspect the proper middle ground to be in, is where you aren't invested, you just "are". you're in a state of "be". you haven't invested anything you can't afford to lose. you have the strength to handle whatever life throws at you, so you aren't so worried about what could happen, b/c you are so sure you could handle it. you might not like that you have to handle it, you just know that you could if it comes about.

I could understand middle aged ladies not dating b/c they just don't want to go thru the nonsense mentioned in the post above. I think, tho, some men are in a similar boat. we all want to have fun, to feel good, but...if its a lot of work, then one might just go for the next best way to feel good--putter in the flower garden, tinker in the garage, etc. the difference may be that, a man can grumble about wanting a sexual relationship to be easier to obtain, but if a woman makes the same complaint...I think of all the comedy movies where an older woman blurts out she hasn't gotten laid in a while, and its meant to be an uncomfortable laugh. For example, that scene in the movie "Hitch",what if it had been a man saying that at the speed dating--would it have had the same impact?
Joined: 12/25/2014
Msg: 394
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 7:40:09 AM

Maybe those people that are widowed don't automatically look at the opposite sex as the enemy. That might have something to do with why they tend to marry again.

I had noticed the opposite.

All the women I know over 60 who were widowed never remarried and were content to stay single. At least 7 women, they all had happy marriages but weren't interested in dating.

If you aren't interested in dating, then most single men wouldn't even know you exist because a woman not interested in dating isn't going to be on a dating site nor hanging out at single's venues. I only knew these women because they are all friends of my mother.

I do agree, if a woman desires sex, then she is likely to date, find a man and maybe remarry. It's sort of obvious that the desire is going to bring her into more contact with single eligible men a few of which might want to get married.

But overall, I would bet widowed men and women don't get married as often as younger people. Many are content to live out their lives with friends, grandchildren and family.
Joined: 1/30/2012
Msg: 395
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 7:57:39 AM
To rennips1949

I'm VERY MUCH beginning to understand why so many over-50 unpartnered ladies are not bothering with dating and relationships.

LOL, When I was "un-partnered", at times meeting/dating, was exhausting, and frustrating. LOL, I would like to find, "The Rules" police, and give them a piece of my mind!

And I'm speaking of ladies who seem to be lively and vital, they like men-they like PEOPLE! They take care of themselves, are well groomed.

LOL, Yes, WE DO exist

I've overheard some conversations that seem to indicate that the current dating and relationship atmosphere is just too damn complicated for many older women.


The man in my life is not "normal" by today's standards. He waited 9 years after his divorce, to seek a new relationship.
Using those 9 years to heal, making personal and financial adjustments. He never learned, "the rules", unwritten or other wise. He was the first man I met in over 5 years who read me like a book, we meshed seamlessly and there is nothing anywhere near "complicated" to our relationship.

I can't completely accept that so many ladies just don't like sex and don't like men.

Good for you! Please do not blindly accept this concept.
Joined: 3/8/2015
Msg: 396
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 9:35:06 AM

Using those 9 years to heal, making personal and financial adjustments.

I'm dubious when I hear a tale of a healthy, attractive male that chose celibacy for any lengthy amount of time.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what is meant by healing?

Meh, maybe I'm the one that's no so virtuous...
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 397
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 9:48:56 AM
personally, I find some put "sex" high on the list of importance to determine, "am I in love", and others don't. doesn't make one right and the other wrong. As for us "older singles", I think too that we've gotten this far in life being on our own, and if we are "successful" (by our definition), we might ask, "why complicate things?" As my bestie says, she hasn't found a guy worth having to wash the bedsheets over. she happens to have made bad choices, but I get her sentiment. she has a job, a house, her dogs...does she really need a man? She's dated a bunch of guys in the past, so there's nothing "new" out there for her to discover. she doesn't have to make up for lost time.
Joined: 7/14/2014
Msg: 398
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 9:59:00 AM

she doesn't have to make up for lost time.

I don't believe it's a matter of making up for lost time as it is the window of opportunity is slowly closing as we grow older to attract or be attractive to the type of person whom may interest us and we them. Aging in and of itself isn't terrible, it's the collateral ramifications that at least for me, are at times difficult to accept. ymmv
Joined: 1/30/2012
Msg: 399
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 10:07:53 AM
Well Clooney, LOL, MR Dubious,

It took ME 8 years, after my divorce, to regain my footing. Eight years before I was ready to meet/date/ enjoy a sexual partner.

Whether it's a spouse who no longer chooses to have sex with you or a spouse who cheats on you, either way it positively, hurts like hell!

To some, we prefer to "get over it", heal, adjust, heal, gain a new perspective, heal, lose "the baggage", heal, LEAVE THE PAST BEHIND!

HEAL= To be happy with the person we are presently, and go forward with confidence.

The most important reasons I found my BF, to be a keeper, was due to his lack of bitterness, his positive nature, his ability to laugh at himself, he came with no "baggage" in sight, and last but not least..................LMAO , I'll just leave this to your imagination!
Joined: 3/8/2015
Msg: 400
Independence VS Interdependance
Posted: 6/10/2015 10:17:34 AM

It took ME 8 years

While you are undoubtedly attractive, you are absolutely NOT a male :)


Precisely! Yet, it's been my experience that most dates enjoy visiting the past early in the dating game, rather then seeing if my behavior reflects any baggage from my past first.

Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Independence VS Interdependance