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.
I mean that I've gone out with guys who I found somewhat attractive and I enjoyed spending time with them (dateable) but I didn't really have a desire to get naked with them, but I thought maybe I would eventually feel that way.
In other words, she was dating them to determine if they were doable. You know, kind of like I said several posts ago before going through this pointless back-and-forth with you.
Well that's different, they were potential doable so not ruled out. That is different from not doable.
It's not "different," it's what everyone but you has been saying all along. Some of the people she views as datable end up being doable for her, and others don't. This is pretty standard. It made complete sense to me from the very beginning.
In other words, she was dating them to determine if they were doable. You know, kind of like I said several posts ago before going through this pointless back-and-forth with you.
Yes, I don't go out with guys who I feel zero physical attraction for. It's more like I'll consider people who I'm "lukewarm" about and see what happens, but that's different than immediately laying eyes on someone and thinking "Wowza!" which is how I define doable. Not just, "Eh, I guess he's good enough to have sex with."
She's saying she will date everyone she will do, but she will not do everyone she will date. This is not that unusual, particularly for women. Why the confusion?
Then again, some of us are at a place in our lives where we wouldn't date someone we didn't find doable, and we wouldn't do someone we didn't find dateable.
I've always been the kind who wouldn't date someone I didn't find doable. I have to have that physical attraction, and if it's not there, dating just isn't going to happen.
There were times I'd gone for it with doable-not-dateable guys and had some fun, but now, I don't know if I would. It might be because I'm still dealing with fallout from a break-up, or it might be a product of age, I don't know. Or it might even be the environment I'm in, suburban where everything requires driving and therefore has a certain amount of intention to it, as opposed to urban, where one can go out with friends, whoop it up, get into some trouble, then hail a cab and abscond into the night without so much as a note on the pillow.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,981,862 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearnorth
It's not "different," it's what everyone but you has been saying all along. Some of the people she views as datable end up being doable for her, and others don't. This is pretty standard. It made complete sense to me from the very beginning.
Then they weren't "not ... doable".
Good god, it's clear she miswrote what she meant. If someone is "not doable" then you're not open to sleeping with them. The end.
If they have potential for a sexual partner, they're not labeled "not doable". They're potentially doable, or you're unsure if they're doable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Like Sugar
Yes, I don't go out with guys who I feel zero physical attraction for. It's more like I'll consider people who I'm "lukewarm" about and see what happens, but that's different than immediately laying eyes on someone and thinking "Wowza!" which is how I define doable. Not just, "Eh, I guess he's good enough to have sex with."
Doable to most people is someone you'd be open to having sex with them. Not that you want to have sex with them. Will have sex with them. Or anything like that. It is that it is within the realm of possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearnorth
It's not "different," it's what everyone but you has been saying all along. Some of the people she views as datable end up being doable for her, and others don't. This is pretty standard. It made complete sense to me from the very beginning.
Got it. So in Nearnorth's book potentially doable and non doable are the exact same.
No wonder it is so hard to communicate here. People don't realize that the definitions of words really matter. Semantics are critical for communication.
Doable guys are guys I would get physical with but not emotional with. Dateable guys are guys I would get physical and emotional with. Doable guys were usually good looking physically but didn't have a personality I was attracted to. Datable guys got me hot and bothered physically and emotionally - even if they weren't that good looking at first glance.
Correct. I've dated men who I didn't find sexually appealing, but I would never not be willing to date someone who I do find sexually appealing (unless there was like a serious problem with them).
What makes the difference? Is it appearance? General attitude? Chemistry? Or something else that is undefinable but you know it in your gut?
Appearance/attraction - attractive to me. Compatibility - interests, goals, ideologies, political leanings, personal values, love language, and personality type. I am an introvert -- INFP and click very well with other introverts. The intellectual connection/intimacy is paramount. We have to be on the same page. I'm very affectionate (physical touch is my primary "love language") and will only date or get involved with someone who is also very affectionate. Chemistry - there is no chemistry unless I am compatible, on the above levels, with the person.
I have dated casually in the past, and what mattered then was attraction and some shared interests, but not much else. Hence why they didn't move beyond "casual." I'm very selective when it comes to getting involved with someone.
Quote:
However--and correct me if I am wrong, because I know this sounds sexist and I apologize beforehand--I have a sneaking suspicion that for most guys, it comes down to looks and they don't even think about the personality part of things.
Yes? No? Maybe so?
Not at all. At least the type of men I am into. The men I have been involved with care about honest compatibility and chemistry. They weren't just in it for looks. They wanted more. They were looking for the whole package. Heck, my husband had a list of what he was looking for.
Quote:
What I'm looking for:
*Thought it might be useful for me to explain what I am actually looking for by explaining what I'm actually looking at on this site. If you are actually interested in getting my attention, I'm going to explain what I am looking for right now! You are welcome! *
1. Pictures
Okay, I admit it. This is the first thing that is going to catch my interested. I read somewhere that relationships that work tend to have people that are near equals in each part of their lives including physical appearance. I know I'm no 10, but I don't think I'm a 2 either. A good way to figure out if we're a match here is to rate me on a 10 point scale for attractiveness, then yourself. If we fall within a +/- 2 point range then I would consider us a match in this department. If you think you are more than 2 points more attractive than me then it probably wouldn't work because I would never feel I could live up to being good enough for you. If you rate yourself more than 2 points lower, then, as shallow as it might seem, I'm probably not interested. Think about it, though... If you were to rate attractiveness of couples you know, how many with good relationships have more than a 2 point difference?
2. Match %
I actually am very interested in this. This shows similarities in world view. I look at both match percentage and friendship percentage. The higher both numbers, the more likely we look at things in life similarly. I prefer to correspond with girls with 80% or more on match. I also feel more confident about our match percent when I see that you have answered a large number of questions in common with me. If you are new to the site and want to see if we're a match answer questions I've answered too! I like higher percentage matches with lots of questions we answered in common.
3. I read your profile
I like girls that are physically active, and are passionate about something in their life. If your profile reflects those two things I find that very positive. Secondary, but also positive, is a love of things I am also passionate about. Similar music and movie interests are a plus. If you play an instrument and/or sing, that is super awesome too! I also like the artistic type. I try to get a sense of your personality from your profile. I have a soft spot in my heart for the shy, quiet, and introverted, because that's what I'm like, but I also see the advantage of having the bubbly extrovert girlfriend to help counteract my introversion... it's all good, I just like to see.
4. I look at your details
-I couldn't care less about ethnicity.
-I really like the idea of tall girls, but that is certainly no deal breaker, I've dated someone who wasn't even 5' tall, so anyway...
-Body Type I'm looking for is Athletic, thin, or average/normal (I forget what the option is) in that order. If I got to the point of looking at this, though, I already find you attractive, so I doubt you have to worry about this.
-Diet is somewhat important, because I believe that an omnivore diet is the most healthy considering humans are omnivores, but I certainly would date a vegetarian or vegan if they don't judge me for eating meat.
-I highly, highly prefer a non-smoker. I think if all the rest has lined up to this point it is very unlikely that you smoke. Marijuana is okay, but not my thing, personally. I don't mind others smoking it, though.
-I don't drink, but as long as when you drink you do so in moderation, and not all the time, I don't really care if you do. Drinking when going out for social activities I perfectly understand! I don't judge drinkers, I do judge drunks.
-As far as drugs, Marijuana only. I don't, but if you do it's cool.
-I don't mind tolerant, moderately religious, people. I personally think all religion is non-sense. I therefore prefer in this order: Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhist/Taoists, other, Christianity (moderate).
-Signs are a bunch of BS, so who cares.
-Education matters very little to me. Intelligence is much more important to me. I've met many educated morons, and many uneducated, yet intellectually stimulating, people. I like the former best.
-I don't care what you do for a living, as long as it doesn't make you completely miserable. Unbelievable how many people live a miserable life because they hate what they do for a living.
-Income is totally unimportant to me as long as you can support yourself, and don't expect me to support you.
-I like the idea of having kids, but if you don't want them that certainly is not a deal breaker for me.
-Pets... I personally don't have any pets or want any of my own, but if you have pets that's perfectly fine as long as you support and take care of your pets. I like animals, I also like the freedom of not having any of my own to care for. If you have pets it is very likely I will love them... I can't help it. I just like my freedom.
-I speak English, so it's probably best that you do too. Communication is important to me! If you speak another language and are patient, that would be awesome. I'm willing to learn, though I am terrible at language learning.
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.
