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.
Actually... I picked up the tab not long ago for one of my friends. She'll get it next time.
Just last week another buddy picked up our dinner. I'll get it next time.
And other friends we just split the bill. That has nothing to do with dating, though.
BTW: Who told you life was fair? If life was fair (say it with me, kids) men would have babies.
As long as you view dating as some kind of commerce or quid pro quo transaction, you'll never find someone. No one of any heart and soul capable of giving freely of themselves, man or woman, wants to be with a social accountant who tracks every meal, every favor, every kind thing, every gift, every bit of support, every orgasm. It's petty and childish, and not how relationships between two healthy adults go.
Idealize much, do you?
Yes, that's the way it happens in the movies (and country music) but not in real life.
The admission of unfairness is refreshing, however.
He may not have had the opportunity to juggle 3-4 women at the same time; I rarely (if ever) do, even when using the online format.
I've only had one woman (that I recall) proudly announce (unprovoked) that she was seeing other guys (I never ask). It was a huge turnoff. I wasn't born yesterday so I wasn't surprised (in the least) but found that announcing it was kind of unnecessary/insulting. It certainly didn't make her much more attractive to me.
If a woman tells me she's seeing other guys, whether she comes out and says it or I ask and she tells me, it tells me where I rank in her life. I've just never been into the whole dating multiple women at the same time. Sleeping with is one thing, but actually dating and planning activities was totally different. Plus, I just know me. If I'm actively dating and I'm waiting in the pecking order of other guys, I'm more than likely not going to be the woman's first option.
We need to either both only be looking to date each other from the start, or we're just looking to have some fun and see what happens. It's far too tiring for me to juggle multiple women from the dating aspect, because it requires more physical and emotional energy from me. I don't get to know a woman by dating 3 others. I get to know a woman by dating her, and her only. This whole juggling thing, dating wise, just sounds like a way to make people feel more comfortable about them not being your first choice. No thank you, I'll exit through this door on the left.
Yes, that's the way it happens in the movies (and country music) but not in real life.
The admission of unfairness is refreshing, however.
People who keep score over every gift, favor, etc., have issues ranging from materialism to a need to control to a fear of being taken advantage of to plain old obsessive-compulsive disorder, none of which have any place in a healthy relationship.
Furthermore, in healthy relationships, both parties not only give what they can, they accept that sometimes what the other person gives is all they have ("it may not be much, but it's what he/she has") and that there will be times in life when one person gives a little more than the other. Love doesn't keep score. Anyone who feels that it should has never truly loved someone else.
If a millionaire gives $100 to a homeless person, but a homeless person gives a fellow homeless person half of his/her sandwich, who has given more? In my book, it's the homeless person.
You made some excellent points, but you are NOT going to convince women in general that dating for men is anything more difficult than falling off a log. "Just the cost of doing business". Good God Almighty.
Yup, it was me that brought up the cost of doing business.
I have no illusions that "dating is easy" for anyone, regardless of gender or any other distinguishing factor. We all have our crosses to schlep, as it were.
Thing is though-- the "cost of doing business" is what happens when you put yourself out there. Because it's generally not easy and finding a compatible partner usually requires kissing a few toads in the process...there's going to be things like emotional cost or financial cost in the process. It just IS.
Gosh, you think she's the one, then she just ghosts on you.
You know he's not the one, but he's just so nice, and you are wondering how to let him down gently.
In addition to the million other stories about how "things didn't work out"
No one is entitled to anything when it comes to dating. Because of this, it is, quite simply, a gamble. If one cannot accept the losses that come with it, should they really be involved in it in the first place?
Without a doubt. In which case I just pat them on the head and tell them to go back to the sandbox.
You're a better person than I am. I would just ignore them until their calls or messages became sufficiently annoying that I blocked them entirely.
Can't say I've run into such boorishness, or would anticipate running into such boorishness, in any man in his 40s, though. It really is the game-playing of an inexperienced 20-something, but I'd also like to think I send out an "asshats need not apply" kind of vibe that would prevent someone like that from thinking he would have any success in asking me for a date in the first place.
There's a little dance to this that socially deft multi-daters navigate pretty easily:
A: Are you free Saturday? Someone at my job has two tickets to the game they can't use. If you're free, I'll nab them.
B: Ooh, sorry, I can't make it Saturday [and here's where one's manners become evident] but what's your schedule like next week? Let's go do something then.
A: Sounds good! Wednesday or Thursday are good for me.
B: Cool. New Indian place opened not too far from your office. How about Thursday?
A: Great! Thursday it is.
Because when you turn someone down, for whatever reason, it's on you to express continued interest (if you have continued interest), not the other person to chase you, a simple fact some in this thread are missing.
And if not interested?
B: Ooh, sorry, I can't make it Saturday. [And that's all.]
A [taking the hint and respecting the boundary]: Okay, another time then.
End of discussion, and A goes their merry way with no further requests or questions for B.
No one is entitled to anything when it comes to dating. Because of this, it is, quite simply, a gamble. If one cannot accept the losses that come with it, should they really be involved in it in the first place?
Can't imagine anyone that risk-averse having any success in life in general, truth be told, never mind love. Love requires two things: Showing who you really are and taking the chance that someone might not love the real you, and giving someone your heart and therefore the power to break it.
No one is entitled to anything when it comes to dating.
I'll concede that. But consider the consequences. Person A is romantically interested in person B, while B doesn't reciprocate. A is not entitled to B's affections. But non-entitlement goes both ways! B is not entitled to dump A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishigas73
Because of this, it is, quite simply, a gamble. If one cannot accept the losses that come with it, should they really be involved in it in the first place?
Yes, dating is a gamble. But precisely for this reason, ought there not to be other routes to relationships and marriage, than dating? There are other ways of earning a living, than gambling. There are other ways of getting a prize, than gambling. Which brings me to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zennia
Can't imagine anyone that risk-averse having any success in life in general, truth be told, never mind love.
Risk is necessary to attain substantial success, but one can endure reasonably well without untoward risk. Consider for example the world of investment. Certificates of deposit and treasury-bills won't make one wealthy (unless already wealthy) but they can and do preserve capital, enabling eventually a decent retirement. Being risk-averse is OK, if we compensate for our intolerance for risk by assiduous hard work and patience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zennia
Love requires two things: Showing who you really are and taking the chance that someone might not love the real you, and giving someone your heart and therefore the power to break it.
Yes. But love is neither necessary nor sufficient for a relationship or a marriage. Presumably a great many people have stable marriages and fulfilling lives in partnerships, without necessarily being in love. What is required is a modicum of patience and respect. Love is entirely optional, as are the risks requisite for love.
By the tenor of this thread, one would have thought that anyone who ventures into a relationship is a de facto entrepreneur. But most people are not entrepreneurs. Most people are content to be lifelong employees of one employer, recruited in college and given a golden-watch at age 65.
Yes. But love is neither necessary nor sufficient for a relationship or a marriage.
Different strokes, but I could never in a million years be married to someone I didn't love. If I want a roommate, I'll put an ad on Craigslist.
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.
