Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP's situation is very typical and deserves empathy, not snide barbs on how she's insufficiently aggressive or needs to "practice". Why, pray tell, should it be incumbent upon us to "practice"? Is the building of rapport with strangers a skill, like playing violin or weaving a basket?
Whether from the viewpoint of a man or a woman, this situation is decidedly NOT a "no brainer". On what grounds are people conflating the OP's situation with some perverse reversion to junior-high? There is a natural barrier between people. Overcoming that barrier is no easy task. Such barriers exist for a reason: it's called privacy, dignity and autonomy. Let's not trivialize this – whether the instigator is male or female.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillabean
that might be a product of my age (I am over 35 and most men my age are married) and where I live (again... mostly married couples. So it's hard to randomly run into a single man about my age).
This is broadly true. Over a certain age – be it 35, 40, 45, whatever – most people are either married, in a steady relationship of some other form, or irascibly predisposed against dating. In more conservative/rural areas, that age threshold will be lower. In major cities, it's perhaps higher. But everywhere and anywhere, there will be such threshold. Persons who are "datable" become a small minority. This is a strong argument against cold-approach, and in favor of such supposedly desperate recourse as online dating.
There used to be a fairly simple litmus test: "being in a relationship" meant marriage, and married people wore rings. If you see a ring, don't approach. Period. Further - and crucially! - it was assumed that unmarried adults are "looking", because quite simply, it was unseemly to be an unmarried able-bodied adult. If one didn't have a ring, one's life-mission was to acquire one. So if you saw some one without a ring, that meant "all clear to approach". In modern times, many people in serious relationships have no reason to wear a ring. And many who are not in such relationships aren't looking. Thus the confusion, and the fear in approaching - whether the instigator is male or female.
The OP's situation is very typical and deserves empathy, not snide barbs on how she's insufficiently aggressive or needs to "practice". Why, pray tell, should it be incumbent upon us to "practice"? Is the building of rapport with strangers a skill, like playing violin or weaving a basket?
This is broadly true. Over a certain age – be it 35, 40, 45, whatever – most people are either married, in a steady relationship of some other form, or irascibly predisposed against dating. In more conservative/rural areas, that age threshold will be lower. In major cities, it's perhaps higher. But everywhere and anywhere, there will be such threshold. Persons who are "datable" become a small minority. This is a strong argument against cold-approach, and in favor of such supposedly desperate recourse as online dating.
Practice to get some general routine talking to people. It will build up confidence when a dating prospect comes along. If she doesn't practice and is too shy to talk to a guy who likes her, he might think she is not interested and walk away.
yes, I do realize, the dating pool gets super small after a certain age. And i wonder because apparently, more than half of all marriages are ending in divorce. Doesn't that mean there should be tons of people to choose from?
i never ask guys out but i was somewhere and saw this guy who i used to know and he was smoking hot. he said we should get together sometime.. so i contacted him first and asked him out.. great.. seems fine
but at the end of the date he totally tried to sleep with me.. so going forward i dont think it is a good idea to ask a guy out.. it gives him the wrong idea
Yeah because guys who ask women out never try to sleep with them.(sarcasm)
there is SO MANY opportunities to practice. OP, go into a bar with friends on a weekend night.
Squeeze onto the bar right next to a guy and apologize for invading his personal space. If he is not reacting, forget it. If he is friendly and smiles, go ahead. You'll be standing there for a few minutes to wait for your drink.
Make a comment about what is showing on the tv that is hanging there. Or ask him if he tried the ... drink and if it is good. Or ask him if it is always that packed/empty on a Friday/Saturday night. Then ask him if he comes here often. ... Then ask him for his name ... VOILA!! That's what I did back in the day when I still went out to bars and it usually worked. I left with several phone numbers at the end of the night and made a wise (sober) decision the next day whom I am going to call and whom not.
If you can't do that, drink a beer/glass of wine before you go.
Why, pray tell, should it be incumbent upon us to "practice"? Is the building of rapport with strangers a skill, like playing violin or weaving a basket?
Why not? For some people it is indeed a skill, like playing the violin, that requires practice. You've been posting here long enough to have seem the threads form the shy members who have no idea how to talk to strangers at all, let alone a member of the opposite sex their age. You've seen all the recommendations to "practice" being friendly and neighborly with the people in the check-out line. A rare few members have actually benefited from that advice. Why knock it?
The OP's situation is very typical and deserves empathy, not snide barbs on how she's insufficiently aggressive or needs to "practice". Why, pray tell, should it be incumbent upon us to "practice"? Is the building of rapport with strangers a skill, like playing violin or weaving a basket?
Whether from the viewpoint of a man or a woman, this situation is decidedly NOT a "no brainer". On what grounds are people conflating the OP's situation with some perverse reversion to junior-high? There is a natural barrier between people. Overcoming that barrier is no easy task. Such barriers exist for a reason: it's called privacy, dignity and autonomy. Let's not trivialize this – whether the instigator is male or female.
This is broadly true. Over a certain age – be it 35, 40, 45, whatever – most people are either married, in a steady relationship of some other form, or irascibly predisposed against dating. In more conservative/rural areas, that age threshold will be lower. In major cities, it's perhaps higher. But everywhere and anywhere, there will be such threshold. Persons who are "datable" become a small minority. This is a strong argument against cold-approach, and in favor of such supposedly desperate recourse as online dating.
There used to be a fairly simple litmus test: "being in a relationship" meant marriage, and married people wore rings. If you see a ring, don't approach. Period. Further - and crucially! - it was assumed that unmarried adults are "looking", because quite simply, it was unseemly to be an unmarried able-bodied adult. If one didn't have a ring, one's life-mission was to acquire one. So if you saw some one without a ring, that meant "all clear to approach". In modern times, many people in serious relationships have no reason to wear a ring. And many who are not in such relationships aren't looking. Thus the confusion, and the fear in approaching - whether the instigator is male or female.
I didn't find any of the responses to be offensive, though.
...I do realize, the dating pool gets super small after a certain age. And i wonder because apparently, more than half of all marriages are ending in divorce. Doesn't that mean there should be tons of people to choose from?
I struggle with this seeming contradiction as well. There are several possibilities...
- the 50% divorce statistic is grossly overstated.
- many divorced people have a "plan B" before divorcing, so they're not truly "on the market" post-divorce.
- many other divorced people aren't on the market because they've foresworn dating entirely.
- many people don't marry at all, but find committed relationships regardless. They too are off of the market.
This leaves only those divorced people who are (a) looking, and (b) haven't already secured a partner.
Circumstantially, I find that divorce percentage correlates negatively with income and social class. Amongst so-called professionals (a laden term, but grant me leave to trot it out), divorce is fairly rare, so those few persons who do divorce, find themselves awash in an unending sea of couples, especially later in life. To give an example, I work with lots of military people. Lieutenants who divorce might bounce back, finding a new relationship. Colonels who divorce are basically done.
I struggle with this seeming contradiction as well. There are several possibilities...
- the 50% divorce statistic is grossly overstated.
- many divorced people have a "plan B" before divorcing, so they're not truly "on the market" post-divorce.
- many other divorced people aren't on the market because they've foresworn dating entirely.
- many people don't marry at all, but find committed relationships regardless. They too are off of the market.
This leaves only those divorced people who are (a) looking, and (b) haven't already secured a partner.
Circumstantially, I find that divorce percentage correlates negatively with income and social class. Amongst so-called professionals (a laden term, but grant me leave to trot it out), divorce is fairly rare, so those few persons who do divorce, find themselves awash in an unending sea of couples, especially later in life. To give an example, I work with lots of military people. Lieutenants who divorce might bounce back, finding a new relationship. Colonels who divorce are basically done.
- You're right, the 50% divorce rate is overstated... it's an urban legend. In reality, it's closer to 40% (still high, but not as high) and even if 40% of marriages end in divorce, a lot of people remarry... so it's not like all those divorced people are single.
- I think you are right on plan B. In my divorce support group almost all the men and women there were left by their exes and their exes had a plan B in most cases.
- Which ties into this bullet you pointed out. People hurt by their spouses leaving, often take themselves off the market to heal or forever. I took two years before I wanted anything to do with dating. There are men in women in my group who STILL pine for their ex spouses too and won't consider others.
- and yep to your last bullet too.
And of those of us who are looking and haven't secured a partner, we are weeding though a combination of good people but also a lot of very angry, damaged, and "divorced for a reason" people too.
And yes, I am a so called professional. Of all my friends (not ones I met in my divorce support group but of long term friends that I've had since high school, college and kept in touch with) 13 are still couples and just me and two other friends were ever divorced. And one of those friends remarried. So of the 28 of us total, 7% of us are single and we are both women. Slim pickings indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Slim pickings indeed.
