Hey guys. I'm actually supposed to be posting a #tripreport about Florida, but I've been exceptionally lazy since my return (read: I have refused to do anything but poetry) and can't motivate myself to do it. However, lil and I were talking and the concept of “relationship/dating rules” came up. I'm very firm on the “one shot” rule. You know, like Eminem in that song.
Of course, with dating, every individual's rules are based off their mileage. As a result I'm sure we'll have all sorts of rules and some users may directly contradict! For example, I have a rule to only date people “in my generation” - they must be in their twenties. I'm pretty sure humanodon would find this rule completely silly. It's all cool.
Everyone's different. Some people aren't looking to get married, like b_b. Wait. Uh. Whoops. Sometimes you ARE looking to get married and you're looking for someone who also wants that. Neither desire or motive is wrong.
That being said I think this will be a more interesting discussion if we get into philosophical requirements over, say, aesthetics.
Lil mentioned some of hers:
1. Don't phone men during the shopping/dating phase.
2. No sex on the first date. (_refugee_ says, I would love to hear other people's comments on this because I don't think it's an inherently bad thing but I feel that often, sex on the first date leads to non-relationships.)
I want to hear all your crazy rules and I want everyone to feel okay sharing them. Some of mine are really dumb. So I'm going to put it all out there and go first.
1. Must be within my decade (20s)
2. Must be physically fit.
3. Must be pro-choice. Not negotiable.
4. No vegans or vegetarians. Doesn't fit my lifestyle.
5. Cannot allows fears to define or rule them.
6. Cannot truly believe in ghosts, mediums, “energy,” magic/k, God, astrological signs, Freud, etc.
7. Lil proposed this for me: must be a motivated self-starter.
More general stuff:
1. TEXTING. I moderate my texting to reflect the texts I receive. If I have to text you to hear from you then you are going to stop hearing from me. Hopeful phone hovering “in case” of texts makes me feel pathetic. I therefore refuse to do it.
2. Be brutally honest about yourself, especially on the first date.
3. If a guy asks you back to his house after an evening, he's going to try to sleep with you. If you're not interested in at least exploring that territory, say no and cut out. I had to drive home at 2 AM on unplowed roads w/6 inches of snow and front wheel drive this year because shit got that uncomfortable despite what a guy said. I chose to potentially spin out over stay in that house. Please learn from me.
4. If you're not really interested, just say no. Only fuck people you really want to fuck.
5. If no one tries to establish monogamy, that's because no one wants monogamy. Assume non-monogamy until monogamy is discussed.
6. THE FIRST ITERATION AND AFTER: The first will always be the best. Don't allow a second. Fool me once, shame on you. Don't give them the chance to fool you again.
7. Don't listen to words. How someone treats you is how they care about you. See #1 and 8.
8. “I've just been really busy” means “I'm not that interested in you.”
9. You're not the exception, you're the rule.
10. You can always find someone else, and probably someone better. You will not be alone for the rest of your life.
11. Accept them for who they are. If you don't like who they are, cut your losses and go. You are running a federal catch-and-release program and the ponds are fully stocked, dear god.
*Yes. Of course there's a longer story to it, this post is fucking long enough.
kleinbl00 lil said I had to post this so that when you posted a killer comment it would be me who got told about all of my wrong rules. to be fair she's married and i'm not so it'd probably be of more use to me.
I never had any guidelines for dating. I suppose people I dated were probably not that different from the people I've befriended in life. No apathetic people, that's just not allowed. The people I surround myself with need to be passionate about something in their lives. Apathy sucks
To me it sounds like you're saying that you're interested in dating people who are in the same phase of life that you are, rather than solely a similarity in age but correct me if I'm wrong. For me age is less of an issue than being on the same page as far as life stuff goes. I've ended some pretty great relationships with some great girls because of that difference and when that difference is something like wanting to fulfill personal and professional ambitions vs. the desire to start a family, well then that's a big divide that needs to be addressed. In an ideal world, I'd subscribe to this wholeheartedly, but my problem with this is that people are often unaware of the forces that drive or shape their lives, simply because they haven't ever stopped to think about what shapes the choices they make. It's tough to notice patterns from behavior from the inside and it can be embarrassing to ask someone to help do so. Hell, sometimes people are in a place in their lives where they haven't cultivated enough quality relationships such that they could ask a friend or a family member to help them figure out what's up. As for my own stuff, I used to have a rule that I wouldn't date any girls who were proportionally hairier than me. I don't have alopecia or anything, but I am pretty damn free of body hair. Anyway, no matter what, I look for good grooming in a person. If someone cares about how they present themselves to the world at-large, I'd guess that they care how they present and represent themselves to people they're close to. I like girls that can handle themselves and are independent, but choose to make time for another person in their life so that both their lives are better. However, it seems like a lot of American girls I've encountered take this to mean that they should show that having another person in their lives is not necessary. I don't like tough-guy attitudes and I don't like tough-girl attitudes either. That said, I need to be with someone who has their own life and does their own thing and is content to let me have my own life and do my own thing. Choosing to have those lives meet and collaborate is, y'know . . . a relationship. Co-dependency is not cool. Neither is mutual boredom with intermittent sex. Basically, what I look for is someone who is willing to give things an honest try in all areas of their life. A friend of mine once dated this girl who would openly laugh that since she was in a relationship with my friend, she no longer had to try and that's why she'd put on so much weight. I could see that it shocked my friend that his girlfriend would admit something like that in front of me, but what shocked me was the blatant disrespect she had for the relationship, my friend and herself. She was gross on multiple levels, but that kind of laziness was and is absolutely disgusting to me. I like this. I feel like people in the US in particular are pretty terrible at communicating with each other and that part of it is because they're unused to the intimacy of human to human interactions in general. Some days I just want to walk around slapping people. Of course, that wouldn't help anything, but the urge is there. Trying to connect to others with short messages and emoticons is a dumb use of "smart" technology. What's your stance on phone calls?I have a rule to only date people “in my generation” - they must be in their twenties. I'm pretty sure humanodon would find this rule completely silly.
5. Cannot allows fears to define or rule them.
TEXTING. I moderate my texting to reflect the texts I receive. If I have to text you to hear from you then you are going to stop hearing from me. Hopeful phone hovering “in case” of texts makes me feel pathetic. I therefore refuse to do it.
My "in my generation" rule really means, "in my decade" (til I near the upper end). It's essentially a 10-year window that should fall around my age. I dated older guys for a long time, and I kept going older and older, and when I left that relationship I decided I wanted to give guys my age a real try. If you aren't aware of fears that are running your life, then you aren't really allowing them (consciously) to run it, are you? And of course some fears, like say car accidents, are actually kind of reasonable. So, in general I'm not a big phone call person. Although I pass my required hearing tests I don't have great situational hearing. Often on phones it would be even worse. I basically stopped calling boys after high school until I met and swooned over a guy who would call me just to talk whenever he had a spare moment. I guess he liked phone calls. Even then I never took up the habit for myself. I'm not a big caller even among family. So I guess my stance on phone calls is I don't make them - unless I need something immediately, like directions or someone isn't answering their texts. I'll take them, sure, if it's convenient, and I'll talk for as long as the conversation goes on, but I could take 'em or leave 'em on the whole. With the texts, I really hate feeling like I am hanging around always checking my phone JUST IN CASE specialpersonx has decided to hit me up. I'm going to go out and have fun. I don't want to get hung up on "Oh I texted him an hour ago and I didn't hear back." My solution to that is I text once, maybe twice, and don't text again until I hear from the person. And like I said, if I'm the one always texting first I cut that shit out. kleinbl00 is spot on about dating/power, except I've always thought that the person who cared less had more power. Not caring about texts/contact was in my mind an outcrop of that. Though recently it's come to my attention that some guys I are perhaps a bit thrown that I don't initiate texting them. It's like they expect the girl to open up the lines of communication - but once they're opened, communication goes freely in each way. For some reason I guess the girl is supposed to start it? I guess girls text more. I don't know.
I don't speak for all men, but i doubt your perception of our texting expectations is totally accurate, for most of us at least. In fact, I've always understood men to traditionally be the initiators for any relationship stuff. But for me and just about every guy I know, texting is mostly a situational thing. If I feel like talking to a girl, I'll text her. Likewise I assume that if she feels like talking to me, she will text me. Everyone's happy, problem solved. It has nothing to do with always awarding the responsibility to one gender or the other. Having an attitude like that makes texting so much more stressful than it has to be. I am a bit thrown when you say you don't initiate texting, but not because I expect you to do so all the time, I'm thrown because you say it with such finality. Your original post made it sound like you expect the man to always open up the lines of communication, but if you're right about men expecting the same, then you would never send or receive any texts(to/from men). I may just be attributing my own relationship issues to your words. I'm sorry if that's the case. My girlfriend has a mentality similar to yours in that she wants to talk but feels uncomfortable initiating the conversation, and I just don't think that's fair. Although I guess casual dating works differently than a committed relationship. And if you're being ignored by the person that's a completely different story. I guess, to tie this into the thread prompt, I love it when a girl isn't afraid to express interest in me. I hate the "chase" or whatever that is expected in the initial courting phase. I'm also pretty shy and the beta-ist of beta males so a girl who is willing to join me outside of our comfort zones, in the form of an occasional text out of the blue or just plainly saying "T-Dog, I am interested in you romantically" is infinitely more desirable to me than one who doesn't make any attempt to meet me halfway.
The finality was a bit of a miscommunication. I will initiate texting. I will not repeatedly initiate texting. i.e., if I don't hear from you unless I text you first, in all circumstances, then I'm going to text you less. I don't want to be the one who is reaching out 100% of the time. I am willing to initate texting first even like let's say 70% of the time but I need the guy to reach out to me of his own volition at times. Otherwise it doesn't feel like he is interested. So I moderate my texting in response to how other people text me, but I don't unilaterally not text. I observe whether I am extending myself way more than the other person, and if I am, I scale back. I totally believe in the middle zone. When I stop initiating text conversation with a given person I am giving that person the opportunity to meet me in the middle and seeing how long it takes. Same with multiple texts - I won't text a person if they don't respond after, generally, two texts. Either they are busy or they are ignoring me and in either case it's reasonable not to text until I get a response.
ah, thank you for clarifying. that does make me think that we're more on the same page. The most reasonable arrangement is a 50/50 sharing of responsibilities, but as i said before it's always situational. Personally, i'm often willing to put myself out there and make up for the missing effort of the other person, with the assumption that their lack of effort does not reflect a lack of care, it just means that something has come up which demands more of their attention - people go through shit independently of my relationship with them and there's nothing wrong with that. I just hope that they one day return the favor when i go through my own phases. Like you said, it's once it becomes a trend that i scale back to see where the relationship stands. Although, admittedly, this is kind of a counter intuitive strategy, isn't it? It's meant as a means of self defense but man, it was a very sad day for me when i realized all my friends were only my friends because i forced them to be.
I wouldn't say it's counter-intuitive. If people actively want to talk to you they'll pick up the slack, to a certain extent. Sometimes all it takes is initiating a conversation to get things back on track, others times it doesn't. It's interesting being on co-op away from friends and seeing which people are more active in talking to you be it through texting, phone calls, skype, etc.Like you said, it's once it becomes a trend that i scale back to see where the relationship stands. Although, admittedly, this is kind of a counter intuitive strategy, isn't it? It's meant as a means of self defense but man, it was a very sad day for me when i realized all my friends were only my friends because i forced them to be.
Ideally, yes. You'd think that in a healthy friendship, their response would be to pick up the slack when you gave them the opportunity. The reason I say it's counter-intuitive is because historically it hasn't worked out like that for me. Usually, my choice to pull back is indicative of a disconnect between me and the other person that has already been growing and has only then come to my attention. At that point, more often than not, me no longer initiating only results in us not talking at all. So In some ways I end up more hurt than I would have been if I just continued to do all the work myself.
Rules are personal and usually arise from learning more about oneself and what one needs. kleinbl00 says this below: "My experience has been that those who refuse to so much as pay lip service to the power struggle at the heart of the dance tend to end up with fellow socially-maladroit individuals." What is the power struggle at the heart of the dance? kb will have his own definition, but when _refugee_ decides not to initiate texting -- she perceives herself to have less "power" in the relationship dance than the other person. In other words, she has more to lose. If she initiates a text, wants a response, but doesn't get one, she feels crappy. She can protect herself by creating the rule not to initiate a text. Does that not make sense? I think we are talking her about the pre-relationship phase. Once a relationship of relative equality is established, the dialogue changes. You, T-Dog, make an excellent point. With shy people, there is much less of a power dynamic. The shy person probably perceives him or herself as having no power in the situation. Someone has to take the risky first step and INITIATE something. Sometimes the hints and social cues are totally missed and the girl has to say, "Lie on my back and rub against me." Did you ever see my love story for shy people? I should write a verson where the shy person is the boy. Last point: The question what are your rules/guidelines for the dating stages of relationships could be reframed as: How do you protect your heart?
I hate that we have to consider there to be a "power struggle" in the first place. I mean, yeah, there's a system of giving and taking and gestures that are offered and then reciprocated. But perceiving not only power, but a struggle for that power just seems to create arbitrary competition over something that no one can win anyway.
If refugee ceased to think of herself as having more or less power and just thought of conversation as pleasant and natural interaction between two human beings, the hard and fast rules about who should do what wouldn't be necessary. Yeah, it makes sense to not want to feel vulnerable, but the existence of the rule is in itself the source of so much disappointment that i don't think it's worth having (in my personal experiences as least). I would rather accept vulnerability as a necessary element to a successful relationship than something i should try to protect myself from. For me, that is the core of all intimacy... my choice to become vulnerable is the best way i know to express my interest in someone. So, to answer the question of how i protect my heart: poorly! But the fact that i'm in a happy, stable relationship makes me think that i've done something right. I concede that you and kb undoubtedly know more about all this than i do. It's entirely likely that i sound totally naive, but oh well. I noticed that kb said people who acknowledge the power struggle are more equipped to cope with it, but i wholeheartedly believe that the struggle only exists if you want it to. Speaking as a paralegal for a divorce attorney (if that even counts for anything), i've observed that it's entirely possible to have an equitable, fulfilling relationship without keeping score. Doing so doesn't make the relationship function any better, it just makes the value of the intimacy worse. Although which option is more healthy in the long run i can't say for sure. kb and plenty other people would probably consider my romantic endeavors clumsy. And they're probably all right. But i would much rather be clumsy and happy than careful and upset.
Well . . . we don't have to consider a situation to be a "power struggle" if we throw out the notion that power is something that is won. Power is dynamic and fluid. Negotiating power dynamics is something we do all the time on the small scale. Many languages deal with abstract concepts kind of sloppily (no surprise). For example, in English many of these concepts are expressed in a way that implies permanence or a static state. Furthermore, this lends itself to the idea of "winning" and "losing". If we consider power to be something that is dynamic and that must be continually negotiated for, then we can get out of this mindset that when we don't have power that we have somehow "lost" instead of found an opportunity to renegotiate our position. By imposing rules, we then resort to the mindset of, "what rights do I have?" vs. "what rights do you have?" In a rights-based frame, we are again confronted with the "win/lose" dynamic, which of course means that if one side wins, then the other loses. That's a pretty shitty way to relate to someone, in my opinion. Another frame we might resort to is a relational frame, wherein the people involved try to collaborate in order to foster the relationship. In this sense, I'm using "relationship" in a greater context than "a romantic relationship". For example, you might be familiar with this frame in the context of friendships. Let's say that you and your buddy agree that you are hungry. Your buddy wants to go to his favorite place and you want to go to your favorite place. It might turn out that your buddy really just wants a burger and you want a slice. Therefore, you might decide to go to a place that has good (or good enough) burgers and slices. Or, through conversation, you might find that you both want to try that new place, or could go for nachos instead. Note that this is not a compromise, but a renegotiation. A compromise implies that at least one party must lose something, which often does not have to be the case. The thing is, the relational frame only works if all the people involved are willing to play. That said, this is something that people only use when they're interested in maintaining or continuing the relationship. If that's not the case, then an interest-based frame might be the way to go.I hate that we have to consider there to be a "power struggle" in the first place. I mean, yeah, there's a system of giving and taking and gestures that are offered and then reciprocated. But perceiving not only power, but a struggle for that power just seems to create arbitrary competition over something that no one can win anyway.
It's more complicated than that. When Refugee decides not to initiate texting she's starting the bid at "I matter more to you than you matter to me." Obviously, if the other person bids an equal amount, the relationship is deadlocked. What follows is ornate and complicated. Just google "3 day rule" to see how complicated. The short version is that it is assumed that women are going to play the "I matter more to you than you matter to me" card because tradition. Men, therefore, must play the "you matter to me but not so much that I'm going to demonstrate it to you" card. Note that this is just second contact. The whole tawdry affair rockets through an untold number of iterations until the couple is truly a couple... and sometimes, well past that point. It's a power dynamic. Both people want to be together but it's important to establish the shape and bounds of that dynamic. It basically gives you a starting point from which to explore each other, and it's anything but solvable by inspection. Thus my statement: the people who know how to do this end up with people who know how to do this. The people who don't end up with each other. And the people who understand the game, are willing to put in the time, and recognize that it is a game but that the score does matter tend to be better at resolving relationship issues because they accepted more of them at the get-go. Disagree. Wit shy people the power dynamic is a lot more passive-aggressive. Both people are still telegraphing the same subtext, they're just doing it in a clumsy fashion.but when _refugee_ decides not to initiate texting -- she perceives herself to have less "power" in the relationship dance than the other person.
With shy people, there is much less of a power dynamic.
kb - I truly believe you have that wrong. You see her decision as showing power, when it is actually showing fear. She is deciding not to text out of fear that she will APPEAR to like the other person more that the other person likes her. She's afraid she will be disappointed. However, if the other person texts first, she knows that she is desired and there is less to risk. You don't know this yet, because you are not a girl (yet). We'll have to let _refugee_ have the final word. I could be wrong.It's a power dynamic. Both people want to be together but it's important to establish the shape and bounds of that dynamic.
This has not been established. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. If she knew for sure that the other person desired her, texting would not be an issue. How do you know that for sure? Wait until they text first.
As is your prerogative. Long have I been pissing off the Internet with my dating advice. You can disagree all day without hurting my feelings one iota. Doesn't matter which is which. Fact of the matter is, her decision is showing a lack of interest. If you can pretend that's by choice, you win. If you telegraph that it's by inhibition, you lose. And a confident person, as opposed to a shy person, would know that she will appear however she chooses to appear. So? Everyone is afraid of disappointment. The point being: sexual dynamics hold that the man is the one who must test his disappointment more often than not. See previous statement about 3-day rule. How many girls have you dated? How many girls have you slept with? How many girls have you entered relationships with? How many girls have you had relationship-ending fights with? It's patently irresponsible and hostile to wall off knowledge about sexual dynamics behind a wall of vaginas. I don't know you. That much is for sure. I don't know anybody specific to this discussion. But if we're talking hypotheticals, I'll betcha I've dated a lot more girls than you have. Not sure why you'd assume I wasn't paying attention to any of them. If they don't it doesn't matter. Now we aren't talking about a relationship, we're talking about a false start.
You couldn't be more wrong. If she knows for sure that the other person desired her, and texted him immediately, the power dynamic would change. These games continue well past the point where the two people in question have slept together. I used to fuck on the first date all. the time and boy howdy - the games get no simpler until you've settled into a relationship. That, more than anything, is the point of a relationship - so you don't have to go through courtship bullshit unless you want to. I think it's funny that the crux of your argument is that the woman shouldn't be required to act first because it's a "fear" issue instead of a "power" issue without recognizing that the person who actually has to do something is the one without power, regardless of the motivation.kb - I truly believe you have that wrong.
You see her decision as showing power, when it is actually showing fear.
She is deciding not to text out of fear that she will APPEAR to like the other person more that the other person likes her.
She's afraid she will be disappointed.
However, if the other person texts first, she knows that she is desired and there is less to risk.
You don't know this yet, because you are not a girl (yet).
This has not been established. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
If she knew for sure that the other person desired her, texting would not be an issue.
How do you know that for sure? Wait until they text first.
Right now, though, I'm only trying to explain what ref meant and I believe she is not saying You are unimportant to me although I agree that by not txting, she is sending that message. Anyway, she can explain herself by herself. We will wait for her response (or not). There's some lovely points above that I don't entirely disagree with...and will write more later. thxI think it's funny that the crux of your argument is that the woman shouldn't be required to act first because it's a "fear" issue instead of a "power" issue without recognizing that the person who actually has to do something is the one without power, regardless of the motivation.
I'm not arguing that the woman shouldn't be required to act first. Whoever is willing to throw caution to the wind SHOULD and WILL act first. After a while, one is willing to take risks and handle rejection. How to make that possible is another topic.
kleinbl00 I choose not to text because I would rather appear not to care than appear to care too much. I would rather feel I have control over myself and my emotions than feel like I am putting out wasted effort. If a guy is not interested in me enough to initiate any conversation, and/or text me back (or attempt to contact me in any format) after reasonable periods of time, then I am not interested in him, regardless of how interesting he may be. The stopping texting rule is a rule to establish that I am not the one making all the effort. That I am not the one having to do things and that, therefore, I am not the one without all power as following kb's Hypothesis Of Power (the person who has to do something is the one without power). So yes. It is about power and establishing that I don't lack it in the relationship. That i have some "pull" on this other person at least enough that they are willing to use a phone, send off a relatively effortless missive, and thereby contact me. I realize not texting does not make me look like I am afraid and that is why I do it. If I wanted to look afraid, I would do what I have observed my female friends do, a behavior that makes them look desperate, clingy, and insane: they text, text, text. They don't get a response? They text about not getting responses. They have a crush on someone they think doesn't like them? Two beers becomes an excuse to text this person. It is desperate, it is unattractive, and it will only drive people away from you. Silence is a message and it is a loud one. If a guy goes silent on me I will hear that message. I won't bombard him with texts until he finally actually tells me stuff. I'm smart. I can infer things. If a guy never thinks to initiate a conversation with me he's not thinking about me. He's not interested in me. I don't need to be told twice. I would rather cut my losses and move on. I will not fixate on someone and beat any possible positive feeling they have towards me out of them until they hate it when their phone dings and my name pops up. I initiate text conversation at first. But I also see if the guy does. If the guy also does so, or texts back enough and appears interested, I'll keep initiating. But if it becomes clear I'm the only one putting my foot forward I will take my fucking foot back. lil yes it's about fear. sure it's about protecting my emotions. I tend to be very intense at first. Then I stop being interested. (I'm trying to change that.) I used to text way, way, way too much. This helped me moderate it. But it is also about power, and knowing about whether it's worth it to continue trying with someone. You could call it a "test" of sorts. Though admittedly I hate to be a girl who 'tests' guys. If a guy doesn't like me enough to give up a little power by way of contacting me, then you can stop at the seventh word in that sentence. He doesn't like me enough. He's not worth my time. To be clear I give guys time before I do this. I'm not demanding someone be super totally into me right from the beginning. I notice trends and I respond to them and modulate my behavior accordingly.
I think that a lot of people feel like this and personally, I'm not a fan. Phone calls are more human than texting because the participants get to hear each other's voices and the nuances of their speech. Plus, when it's over, it's gone (unless you've recorded it). The way things are now, a phone call means that someone needs something and if people are only calling each other when they need something, why answer the phone at all? I've heard some make the argument that phone calls are slow, but to me it makes sense to take some time to communicate. The other thing I don't like about texting is that it lends itself to attribution errors and it's there to be read and re-read until it's become something much more than it might have ever been intended to be. I guess it's what we've got for the foreseeable future, but I don't think I'll ever be satisfied with it. Again, I feel like a lot of people subscribe to this and I don't like it. Not caring about things doesn't lend anyone power, but it does help people be jerks to each other. Power is dynamic, not static. Withholding things to gain control greatly limits interactions and possible outcomes. As part of a social toolkit, I think it's fine, but if it's the only thing in the box, then I think that's a problem. I'm not at all saying that I think that's the case for you, but it does seem like I've met a whole lot of people with that one hammer who wonder why things fall apart so often. In my experience in other cultures, a universal thing seems to be that males are expected to initiate interaction, but females are expected to be the ones that communicate. Everyone walks around with biases and expectations, even if they're unaware of what they entail. I suppose those guys you're talking about had certain expectations that you didn't fulfill. Personally, I'd think that that would be a good entry point for a conversation about expectations. People's expectations can tell us a whole lot about them, after all.So I guess my stance on phone calls is I don't make them - unless I need something immediately, like directions or someone isn't answering their texts. I'll take them, sure, if it's convenient, and I'll talk for as long as the conversation goes on, but I could take 'em or leave 'em on the whole.
I've always thought that the person who cared less had more power. Not caring about texts/contact was in my mind an outcrop of that.
Though recently it's come to my attention that some guys I are perhaps a bit thrown that I don't initiate texting them.
I think the argument that phone calls are slow is silly. It's much easier to provide detailed, longer blocks of information over the phone. There were times that I resented the implication of a phone call (this related to the boy that broke me in to phone calls). A phone call expects you to be immediately available, willing to drop what you're doing, and talk to whoever's calling for an unknown period of time. In a way when you make a phone call you're assuming the other person is free enough to do those things and likes you enough that they'll do them. That might sound like a weird assessment. I don't know. On the other hand, I'm having a bit of a communication issue with someone, and I'm trying to blame it on the fact that it's been over text message. Otherwise this person may end up being annoying in person as well, a recent development. I'll report back when I can. We can see if it's all the text messages' fault. I try to be cautious but genuine in my dating habits. I hate feeling like an idiot. Always being the one to reach out, or texting often without getting responses, make me feel like maybe the guy's not that into me. It's more about protecting myself from becoming overly invested and/or just feeling dumb because the guy's ignoring me than about actual withholding/power struggles with me. If a guy I like texts me, I text him back. If I have something to text him about, I'll text him. But I'll certainly stop texting him long before I have my third rum-and-diet and think that sending four texts in a row is a great idea. Because tomorrow morning it won't feel that way to me. I guess I more accurately meant "more power to walk away." "More power to avoid getting hurt" or "more power over one's choices" as opposed to "more power over the other person." It sucks to be toyed with and played. As for those guys, they are both former interests on my side but apparently - not so former - on theirs. They both burned through their chances so I'd cut contact. I guess I was supposed to get drunk and tell them I missed them or something. One texted me drunk and I responded in the hopes of mending bridges and that opened a floodgate of hit-ups. Like as soon as he heard from me the doors were open. So it's not really an opportunity to talk about expectations with either as there aren't any, but I was surprised by how one response seemed to easily spur both on. I don't know.
I can only go on what you're saying, but this: ¦it's not really an opportunity to talk about expectations with either as there aren't any, but I was surprised by how one response seemed to easily spur both on.¦ and this: ¦As for those guys, they are both former interests on my side but apparently - not so former - on theirs. They both burned through their chances so I'd cut contact. I guess I was supposed to get drunk and tell them I missed them or something. One texted me drunk and I responded in the hopes of mending bridges and that opened a floodgate of hit-ups. Like as soon as he heard from me the doors were open.¦ don't seem to agree with each other. Clearly, there are still expectations, if only of opportunity and availability on their side. That "flood of hit-ups" seemed counter to your expectations as well. Edit: I guess I don't have the ability to quote on my phone. You get the idea . . .
I know I'm really bad with this one. Current object of my affections will have me over late at night to talk about anything/everything (Lately her fears/excitement about her study abroad in 6 days, before that her issues with her boyfriend who she is in the process of breaking up with) but she won't go out anywhere with me. If I look at this objectively I'm an emotional booty-call and being somewhat taken advantage of. But I'm a good kicked puppy, I'll keep coming back /end sobstory Edit!*
Forgot to include my own rules 1. Must read for pleasure. And not just pulp-romance either. I won't begrudge someone their erotica, but it can't be your only reading material, just as porn shouldn't be my only internet use. 2. Must enjoy being outside/the water. Last year I discovered I love kayaking with a passion, and whomever I end up with, for whatever length of time should enjoy it too. 3. Must love dogs. I raise Leader Dog puppies to be trained as seeing eye/therapy dogs. The back seat and trunk of my car are full of dog hair, as is any article of clothing not protected by a garment bag. 4. Cannot be anti-intellectual. There's this weird thing I've been noticing lately where it's suddenly 'cool' to be dumb, or to be actively trying to learn less about the world around you. 5. Music. Doesn't matter if it's an instrument (Although that's a plus) voice, electronic production, or even just an active and curious attitude towards it, must love music. I played violin from ages 3-16, Trombone from 12-18, and guitar from 18-present, as well as musicals in high school and two different choirs in college. 6. Must be socially flexible. I'm equally comfortable discussing stocks over cocktails or raging at an EDM concert, or just sitting for an afternoon in a nice library/bookstore. I don't expect a person to be comfortable with EVERYTHING, but I do appreciate flexibility.7. Don't listen to words. How someone treats you is how they care about you.
I have so many friends that do this. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you want, but if you want something more with the person then that's not going to help. Eventually either something happens, which usually doesn't end well, or both people move on from the situation. Maybe her going on a study abroad will be good for both of you. I have one friend that does stuff kind of like this, the whole talking about everything thing. Now that I'm single we're very open about our sex lives and what we're looking for to each other and all that. The difference is that once she's out here in June we've got some concert tickets and other plans to hang out.If I look at this objectively I'm an emotional booty-call and being somewhat taken advantage of. But I'm a good kicked puppy, I'll keep coming back /end sobstory
Best of luck to you BE, sounds like a pretty awesome summer. It's definitely NOT what I want, but because I feel so strongly about her I'll take what I can get as far as time to be with her. (Massive schedule incompatibility all semester, she's going to be out of the country for a study abroad all summer, with one visit home for 2 days) I guess it's one of those mixed-expectations things, women can be emotionally intimate with their friends and not physically, men can't, and thus equate emotional intimacy with impeding physical intimacy. Or she's actually just really needy and I'm being strung along because she likes to have someone validate her and is afraid I'd go away if I didn't have that thread of maybe. /shrug
Potentially. I'm going to be living in three places over the course of 6 weeks which is going to be crazy. This isn't necessarily true, I know people of both genders that fulfill either role you've outlined above. While this seems to hold true with your friend, I wouldn't live by this rule. People will surprise you if you let them. As for the last part, if all you're doing is agreeing with her and playing the "you can do better" (or similar sayings) card, then that probably works to justify what she's doing from her end. Those situations are so tricky.I guess it's one of those mixed-expectations things, women can be emotionally intimate with their friends and not physically, men can't, and thus equate emotional intimacy with impeding physical intimacy.
Nah, it's been more along the lines of 'What happened? And why? What does it mean for your next relationship?' The past few times we've had essentially the same conversation, just worded a bit differently. I don't know if she's just lonely (Never a social person to begin with, only really leaves her apartment for school/work/her horse, Since things got rocky with soon-to-be-ex bf, that has become even more solid) or what.As for the last part, if all you're doing is agreeing with her and playing the "you can do better" (or similar sayings) card
Lil said that most every rule a person has has a story behind it. You gotta learn your own lessons. Dating's like a hot stove; mom and dad can warn you about it all they want but you're not going to realize just what "hot" is til you reach out and touch it. AKA all the warnings in the world are nothing against the pain of real experience.
I guess I can't blame you for picking the devil you know, but you know. It's kind of fun to go for the devil you don't. Besides, don't let people treat you like crap. That includes you. See, isn't this fun? My original post was twice as long but I edited all the stories out.
Still working on that bit. My therapist and I have diverged a bit from our original discussions, because we came up with some good coping skills for bigger problems. (Existential risk, total political immorality, Neo-Luddism) But he's directed me to some interesting reading that indicates that a person can't have a healthy relationship without first loving themselves, and I don't think I ever had that to begin with. When I started working out I used self-loathing as my motivation (Still do somewhat, work in progress) but that doesn't work well, or for long.That includes you.
Amusingly enough, my only dating guidelines were "no bisexuals, no wiccans, no ex-strippers, no vegetarians" and I dated two bisexual wiccan ex-strippers at once. So guidelines only get you so far. The last time I was dating there were no text messages, so take what I say with a grain of salt: 1) The mating dance of Homo Sapiens is confusing and largely literary. You can choose to opt out but know that it's exactly what you're doing. My experience has been that those who refuse to so much as pay lip service to the power struggle at the heart of the dance tend to end up with fellow socially-maladroit individuals. Which, okay, fine. But the people who can do the dance? they're the ones who resolve problems more efficiently, communicate more easily and conduct their relationships more openly. The whole point of the dance is to establish the social skillz of your counterpart. Opting out is the same as saying "I have no skillz." 2) FUCK THAT. Sell yourself like you're a stolen El Camino. Get that shit off the lot! Don't lie but if you don't punch yourself up now, you'll end up on a downward spiral of less-and-less optimal partnerships. ALWAYS ensure that your reach exceeds your grasp. ALWAYS. 3) If a guy asks you back to his house after an evening, he's going to try to sleep with you. DOESN'T MEAN HE WILL. It comes down to this: do you think the person opposite you is a rapist? Then you probably shouldn't date him. You're an adult. So's he. If you opt out of those truly awesome talk-til-dawn adventures where you're just hanging out shooting the shit and listening to music while talking about stuff you'd never get to over dinner, you are missing out on something I truly consider to be the highlight of humanity. The first "date" (my wife contests this: she doesn't consider it a date) I had with my wife was four days after she kicked out her first husband. I brought over ready-to-cook pasta, a movie and a bottle of wine. We never even got to the movie, we never even kissed, and I left at 7am. 4) Sure. 5) Monogamy makes everything easier. Dating two people at once means doubling down on your efforts 'cuz you can't go halfway. 6) I don't know what you're talking about. 7) Listen to words, but don't take them as gospel writ. 8) Sometimes. Not always. My wife was busy planning a wedding when we got together. She didn't so much as return my emails for several days. That was 12 years ago. We're having dinner with the couple she married tonight. 9) That would have precluded my awesome bisexual wiccan ex stripper stories. 10) Not always true, but at an early age, more true than not. 11) Accept them for who they want to be. Two people united in a goal can accomplish so much more than one and a person's idea of who they want to be is just as important as a person's reality of who they are now. I dated a girl for four and a half years who didn't know what she wanted to be. She ended up in a career she hated. And I dated a girl who wanted to walk away from a management-track position at a Fortune 500 company and deliver babies. She's got the best smile I've ever seen and I've been seeing it for 20 years now.
For some reason 4:30am and slight intoxication is the perfect setting to have amazing conversations with people. I love those kind of connecting moments.3) If you opt out of those truly awesome talk-til-dawn adventures where you're just hanging out shooting the shit and listening to music while talking about stuff you'd never get to over dinner, you are missing out on something I truly consider to be the highlight of humanity. We never even got to the movie, we never even kissed, and I left at 7am.
Lookit kb, schoolin' me on the mating dance (humanodon agrees; apparently it's the girl's responsibility to carry on conversations! that makes me feel annoying and needy). If I am confident in the attraction I won't be shy. I cut back on texts when I'm sending multiples with no reply or when it seems I'm being ignored on multiple occasions...or, yeah, when I feel like I'm hitting them up first all the time. Can't I expect some effort from a guy? 3) OK, so sometimes I hang out with really shady dudes who try to convince me to crash in their bed overnight after repeatedly trying to keep making out with me after I've said I'm not interested. I guess I could have gone for the couch? But by then I just wanted to get the hell out. 5) Monogamy makes everything easier if everyone's on board for a monogamous relationship. Is it also the girl's job to bring up monogamy? Did I fuck up that too? None of the guys I spent time with last summer wanted a relationship. I won't be monogamous to someone unless there's an agreement we're both monogamous; it often would take a conversation or two with various people for me actually become monogamous (or I guess I could have just ignored them completely) and I figured I didn't want to have those conversations until I knew I needed to. Never needed to. I guess my advice is don't jump the gun on monogamy. Eggs, one basket, missed opportunities. 6) I often observe that after an given interaction is over, at some point, parties will attempt to reignite it for various reasons. "I was an idiot", "I want you," "I miss you," "I shouldn't have slept with your best friend," whatever. Then you get back together, realize/remember all those things you hated and still hate about the other person, and tear everything down again. So I'm saying: Don't. Skip the getting back together. When you break up, fucking break up and move on and if you don't move on at least leave the other person alone. This could partially be a personal tweak: when I am done with something, I am done. Also, this dude seems to think I'm going to sleep with him again after he slept with my friend, and that's like "You kidding me, man? After what you did the first time, I'm not giving you another chance." I'd probably walk in on him with my sister mother or something, and it would be partially my fault, because I'd be an idiot to get back with someone like that. If you had good reasons to break up, they won't go away just because you realized you miss the other person. 8) But KB, whine that was like, the 9000sssss. Email was hardly a thing. (I joke.) And clearly, your wife is a goddess among women. 9) Ah, but maybe they were the exception and you were still the rule? I could also be talking out my ass here. You didn't marry either of them; they weren't the exception. (Maybe?) I meant, "don't hope to be the magic exception to someone else's pattern, i.e., the girl who waits patiently while the guy goes through woman after woman until he looks up, sees her, and realizes he's been in love with her all along." I guess perhaps your crazy wiccan bisexual strippers were exceptions to a pattern, but there being two of them and at the same time...Well, I guess you took your rules and said fuck 'em. 10) Yes. Someday I'll realize I've dated all the way out of the good pool and am stuck. That's okay. For now I'm young enough that I shouldn't get too hung up on anyone; they're not the love of my life or end of my world. The end of one relationship is not the end of my hope for all love in life. And yes, for now, it's still relatively easy to meet guys (though I need to start aiming for higher grades, methinks, which will push me out of my comfort zone of bars). 11) That's fair. But also, observe whether they're actually trying to be what they want, or whether they're just talking about it. Someone in my life has been talking about getting a new job for a month now and not done a whit to achieve it. You can want something but you can't just want it into existence. I have attempted to help this person achieve his goal, offering multiple extremely viable options on multiple occasions. Has this person taken me up on a single one? No. Am I going to hound this person until he actually does something? Fuck no. I am not his mom. You believed that your wife could do it. You saw that she was serious about her goal and you probably had a couple of conversations (maybe?) and you backed her. That's what you need. I believe in support. I don't believe in force-feeding.
Not the question. The question is whether you acknowledge the effort they're making. Goes both ways. It's a power struggle. It's not enough to be the one not calling; you have to be the one to make them cool with it. You should seriously cut that out. We call that "emotionally erosive behavior." Fuck-buddies seriously aren't worth this much overhead. That shit gets swept under the rug. Fuck everything about that. The second-to-last bisexual wiccan ex-stripper got kicked to the curb after she got all sloppy with some of her fishing boat friends at someone else's wedding. I jammed, and then remembered I had her purse in my trunk. So I swung my her place and grabbed all my shit, then dropped her purse off with a friend. ...and then spent two weeks in purgatory while we did the "is this really over" dance. And yeah, shoulda just cut it clean right there.Can't I expect some effort from a guy?
OK, so sometimes I hang out with really shady dudes who try to convince me to crash in their bed overnight after repeatedly trying to keep making out with me after I've said I'm not interested.
Monogamy makes everything easier if everyone's on board for a monogamous relationship.
I often observe that after an given interaction is over, at some point, parties will attempt to reignite it for various reasons.
Yeah, I don't continue hanging out with guys after incidents like that. Of course, it would be better if I could develop some kind of radar that would help me avoid them before stuff like that happens. Nice.So I swung my her place and grabbed all my shit, then dropped her purse off with a friend.
I avoided all that wondering by just having the policy not to phone guys - phone being the equivalent to texting back in the earlier technology. Sure phoning is different from texting, but who needs the wondering. I just said, early on, I don't phone men, meaning guys that I was seeing casually or had just met or something might have sparked at some point. It totally worked for me. I almost wish I was dating again. -- oh god no. I suspect people get married so they don't have to date any more. just kidding. really.I cut back on texts when I'm sending multiples with no reply or when it seems I'm being ignored on multiple occasions...or, yeah, when I feel like I'm hitting them up first all the time. Can't I expect some effort from a guy?
Yes, and you will get the effort from a guy when you say to them, "oh, by the way, I don't randomly text. I'll text to confirm a meetup, that's all. You want effort? Stop doing all the work in the relationship.
Ouch. Speaking from experience, this is true only until it isn't. Then it's far from true. If there's a feeling in you that says that you can probably do better, then the person you're with isn't for you. Edit: To answer the question, there are no rules. Do what feels right. People are assholes sometimes, and that sucks. Sometimes it's even you who's the asshole. We all play every part at one time or another.You can always find someone else, and probably someone better.
...or, y'know, I've actually been busy with things I've committed to before a girl comes along. I often fill my days in with stuff to do, so I have things to go to (extracurricular activities, sports, social gatherings I really need to go to to keep other relationships alive) or to do most of the time. Not that I wouldn't free time up but the rule sorta sounds like "push everything away for me". I've lost friends before to time-consuming girlfriends. Lots of good rules already posted here. I particularly like thenewgreen's one, didn't remember I had such an aversion to apathy until he pointed it out. One rule of mine not already mentioned is that Life's Just A Ride, and won't you just look at the blueprint! Amazing. I look for someone who gets it, y'know, not just about life but about everything. Not someone who does as told, but the same craving for the why of things as I have. edit: Also, I gave this post the Self-Reflect-Sunday tag. #srs8. “I've just been really busy” means “I'm not that interested in you.”
1)
- that comment is basically the crux behind my maxim. I understand booking things ahead of time. But if a guy is too busy to hang out for, say, an entire month, either he is constantly scheduled to the gills and probably doesn't have time for a relationship, or he is using busy as an excuse. When genuinely interested, even with a tight schedule, people can find ways to make a little time here or there. You can bring dates to social gatherings, you know. 2) But what my maxim isn't supposed to encourage is "make ALL the time for me." Of course you have a life and events and you shouldn't cancel on those to hang out with a chick. No chick should act like she has the right to all your time. The law actually works even if someone is just legitimately that busy; if one person doesn't like that level of busyness, and the other wants to keep the schedule up, it's an indicator that maybe some basic elements (time together/apart) don't line up. If someone is so busy it makes you feel neglected or question their attachment, maybe you need someone who is more available than that person is going to be. "Not that I wouldn't free time up"
I really don't like dating, but when I do I have a few requirements. The mot important is that she (myself being a straight male) be outgoing and generally talkative. I'm very quiet, so being with someone who is the same just isn't appealing to me, nor would it really work on any level to begin with. Other important considerations would be: 1. Intelligence. I need to be able to converse with someone on a similar level to myself.
2. Music taste. I despise country music and musicals. If that's your thing and you're really into it, that's not going to work. Same music taste is a plus.
3. Looks. I have a type, but I'm willing to expand my horizons. I don't consider myself terrible picky.
re no sex on first date -- how do I say this impolitely - I meant no full contact sex. Rather than Platonic love, I'd say it was Platectonic love: "rigid lithospheric plates that move slowly over the underlying mantle." I had another rule _ref_. It was this:
Don't date guys in the same city as me. I lived in a good-sized urban centre (pop. 350,000) and 60 km (40 miles) from a very large urban centre. There is less chance of them hanging around all the time when they live in another city. (But note, as I said before, I didn't smarten up until I was 38.)
All rules need an exception. My spouse and I did the deed, the night we met. Our 26 year anniversary is coming up next month.
Ha. I fucked an executive chef for a while and after it ended my rule became "No fucking anyone else who works in this restaurant/bar." One mess was enough and the gossip from the first time was enough. Restaurants love drama. I didn't need any more.
In the last few months I've successfully broken every single rule I've ever set for myself. Literally. Every. Single. One. Decades? Pshhhhh...fuck your decades. :P Thank god I'm in a no-dating phase so it doesn't matter. Apparently, I like to live my life complicatedly. It does and doesn't. My last relationship began as just sex and developed into being inseparable and loving each other's company (sex and non-sex wise.) We were both on the same page about what we were through the entirety of the sexing / dating / being in a relationship. The reason it often doesn't work out is because one person just wants sex and one wants love. I think that is a good rule to play by if you are looking for a relationship. I'm also guessing one of the reasons my last relationship didn't work out is because I really wasn't ready to be in a relationship. I wanted to work some of my personal shit out but I didn't have a chance to because we just fell into a relationship. I've been pulling this line so much lately. To be fair, I have been really, really busy. But when there is a guy I am into, I suddenly have time. When I'm looking to date again I know I'm going to include a few new rules this time around. 1. He can't smoke cigarettes. I've been back on them lately and I hate it. I don't need someone else making me worse. 2. Must be as busy / career-oriented / ambitious as I am. I don't care what he does or how much money he makes but he better dedicate himself to work or a hobby or something. Have passion for something. Watching TV and smoking weed is not a passion. 3. Must not have weird issues with gender roles, especially related to money. I make a very decent amount of money for my age. My family has a buttload of money (which is NOT mine - I am not given any money from my family) but these two things created HELL in my last relationship. If you are still stuck in the mindset that you are going to be the breadwinner and I'm going to be barefoot and pregnant, it isn't going to work out. 4. If it's going to be serious, he must want kids. But he must not want marriage / children until I'm at least 30. I have no problem if he's older, but obviously a lot of older guys are looking to settle down and have kids in the next few years. I'm not. I've got shit to do. 5. Must enjoy traveling and want to see the world. 6. Drug use & getting shitfaced are limited to rare, special occasions. 7. No babysitting necessary. Being responsible - when drunk and otherwise. I don't want to have to make sure one of your friends steals your car keys away once you are shitfaced. I don't want to worry about whether or not you're going to come home puking drunk & angry. 8. No liars. No cheaters. No bullshitters. Be straight with me. Respect me. Respect yourself. Then everything will be fine. This last one I'm still torn on: their relationship / time spent on the internet. Obviously, I spend all day on the computer. I program shit. I edit shit. I know about security. I read all day. I've dated one guy who was just as into reddit and internet shit as I was. It was nice because we had a lot to talk about and were similar. But it also led to a lot of lazy nights of us laying in bed each on our own laptops. My most recent relationship, he did nothing online. He checked his email and maybe 30 minutes of youtube surfing. That's it. It led to doing a lot more outside, traveling, etc. But he also never understood how I got so much joy and entertainment sitting in front of the computer for a few hours. He also didn't get Hubski. That was a big issue. So I don't know. Maybe a mixture. It was nice for him to force me outdoors once in a while though.I feel that often, sex on the first date leads to non-relationships
8. “I've just been really busy” means “I'm not that interested in you.”
I like this a lot. I like people who are as innately curious as I am. Always looking to figure out how things work, why things work, try new things, etc. I find that engineers typically have these characteristics but I have yet to meet a dateable engineer - or an engineer who likes to travel.
Can I ask you to expand on that situation a bit? The quitting the job thing and why you think engineers are boring, because as you can see here this is something that I'm struggling with.
Hi, this is me. Still trying to figure out where I want to road trip to in July. But yeah, you're right with what you said about engineers. I'm finding that right now I'm much more interested in non-engineers in terms of dating....or an engineer who likes to travel.
What is this outside world you speak of. Freshman year of college was when I realized that the nagging, black hole that was slowly expanding in the pit of my chest was anxiousness from sitting in my dorm all day. Turns out Mr. Brain found this to be really shitty. Who'd have thought? I actually don't really like the university I go to when it comes to the fact that I don't really have anything in common with the general majority of the people who go there. That being said, I made the mistake of believing that "going outside" had to involve those people. Getting fresh air is its own reward, regardless if it's with other people or not. I've made an effort to go out for an hour a day since then. Some days, if I'm feeling particularly depressed, or my fucked-up sinuses decide that it isn't having that shit, then I won't be able to find it in me. But I've become considerably more happy since. It can be surprising how easy it is to want to shut yourself in all day. The internet has literally everything in existence on one screen. I can be whatever the fuck I want playing a videogame. It's harder to remember the outside world isn't as scary as you might make it out to be, and in the end, beats a videogame or reddit link any day.
If I'm not careful, I fall into this as well. And then I'm irritated and my muscles are icky and my brains not as sharp and I wonder why. You need stimulation thats not a glowing screen. Sunshine also helps.It can be surprising how easy it is to want to shut yourself in all day. The internet has literally everything in existence on one screen.
These are good, insom. #2 is something I'm realizing I need. Or at least, person must be driven, must actually attempt to achieve things. I am thinking it would be fun if I could try and date a (good) poet. But if he were as driven as I am, it could become a competitive disaster. On the other hand I'd be able to go on and on about poetry with someone who really got it. 8's all great. I try to convert people to Hubski all the time and it never takes. But I'd rather keep those I'm dating off of it so I can talk about them when I want!
Amen. I still hold back a bit about what I say because I think my ex still comes on occasionally. Probably to see what I'm up to. I just found out the guy I met a few days ago doesn't have a facebook. Never has. I told him that was unacceptable. When he asked why, I said "because I have no idea who you are and what you do and what you've done and what your ex looks like and who your friends with or anything! You could be a serial killer or married or who knows what." He laughed at me and told me he'd tell me anything I wanted to know. I told him that that provided less insight because everything would be skewed through his perspective - it wouldn't be nearly as objective. He found this to be the most hilarious thing ever and told me my honesty was refreshing. I told him to go back 8 years and make a facebook so I can stalk him. I wonder how people ever dated before the internet. I guess that's how people were able to keep two wives and shit. Still mind-boggling. I must've found the one guy under 30 who has never had a facebook.But I'd rather keep those I'm dating off of it so I can talk about them when I want!
I have so many questions!! Okay. So. How did you never create a facebook? I completely understand people who have deleted their facebook or rarely post anything. I don't understand how you could never have made a facebook when it was all the rage. Do you ever find yourself missing out on things? Did you ever find yourself missing parties / events when Facebook was the defacto mode of event invitations? Have you dated someone with a facebook and did she find it weird that you didn't have one? How do you get access to photos of yourself taken at parties or by friends?!
I'm obstinate, and most of the people I was hanging around with back then were too. None of us had Facebook accounts when it was all the rage because it was all the rage. Or at least, anyone who didn't wouldn't have admitted it to the rest of us. People I'd known in high school had Facebook accounts, but the ones I wanted to keep in touch with I kept in touch with via im/email. By the time anyone I might have listened to was pressuring me to make one it wasn't just for university students anymore and there were already stories about employers Facebook-stalking employees, so I was more firmly opposed. Probably, but nothing comes to mind so probably not anything I really regretted missing. I have dated people with Facebook accounts. I've never owned a cellphone either, so by the time Facebook comes up anyone who'll think I'm weird for not having one already thinks I'm weird. I don't like having my picture taken. There are probably a few pictures of me out there, but I'm not interested in seeing them.How did you never create a facebook? I completely understand people who have deleted their facebook or rarely post anything. I don't understand how you could never have made a facebook when it was all the rage.
Do you ever find yourself missing out on things? Did you ever find yourself missing parties / events when Facebook was the defacto mode of event invitations?
Have you dated someone with a facebook and did she find it weird that you didn't have one?
How do you get access to photos of yourself taken at parties or by friends?!
Hey, just because he doesn't have a facebook doesn't mean he's not on the internet. I suggest some wine and an evening of Googling. Best case scenario, you might find fun stuff like news articles, or even better articles from college papers and stuff. I was trying to locate an example because I was quoted in a local newspaper around the age of 16 oh so many years ago, but I guess they've taken it down.
Already done that. I know his middle name and that he has two brothers and the location of the house he grew up in. That's it though. He has zero online presence. One good piece of news is he's never been arrested and no mugshots online. +1
Womp womp. I think everyone has lapses. If you're still into e-cigs, have you considered messing around with RBAs and mechs? I'm just learning to coil, but it's fun so far.1. He can't smoke cigarettes. I've been back on them lately and I hate it. I don't need someone else making me worse.
I'm still on the ecig 90% of the time. I'm just back on a pack of cigarettes or two a week. I have my morning cigarette... and my post-work cigarette.... and my lunch break cigarette.... and my post-class cigarette and... my "fuck you work, it's 2am" cigarette. If I drink, game over. I blew through 2 packs in a night last weekend (although there were 3 of us sharing the packs.) I'm not sure what caused the hop back to real cigs. I've been much more stressed lately (work, 2 huge freelance projects, finals, & moving). There are also two new guys at work that smoke reals so I often join them for one. I also cut my juice from 18mg to 12mg. Ideally, I'd like to wean myself of the ecig at some point as well which is why I stepped from 24mg to 18mg to 12mg. Maybe 12 is taking it too far, too soon. I don't know. Come June 1st, I'm getting off them 100% again. Mark my word.
That does sound like a lot of stress and a lot of change. Maybe you feel like a cigarette is something concrete to hold on to? Personally, I'm learning to coil because I don't think I'll be weaning myself off of e-cigs anytime soon and I feel like the novelty of the whole RBA and mech thing will help me stay off of analogs. I'm considering stepping my juice down as well, but mostly because when I blow 36mg vapor through my nose I sometimes get a headache. I'm gonna sample some 18mg when my mech stuff comes in. I'll take you at your word. I hope all your stuff goes off smoothly!
Holy hell, please do not lie to anybody like this. Tell them you are not interested. If you can't make your words match your actions, you are not worth a damn.“I've just been really busy” means “I'm not that interested in you.”
Don't listen to words. How someone treats you is how they care about you.
Eh. Sometimes there is an intellectual divide. Six months ago I jumped into a relationship and didn't realize how totally not ready or interested in it I was until I realized that I went out and massively flirted with practically every guy that weekend. I often have to observe my own behavior to know how I'm feeling. Maybe I'm not very in touch emotionally? It can go the other way too: I realize I'm interested in someone when I observe myself texting them, stopping by to say "hi," stuff that could be written off as casual but isn't. I may say something is fine in theory but in practice I realize it's not. I'm not perfectly self aware. I wouldn't expect most people to be.If you can't make your words match your actions, you are not worth a damn.
I don't really have a rule-set because this sort of thing always seemed to me like something that comes naturally. Maybe it's because I'm not very picky and need more experience before I can start having enough self-validation to create a defined, 1. 2. 3. set of standards. Or because I feel that doing so may limit myself to new experiences, which is something I'm trying to avoid nowadays, ever since that party thing. That being said, I have the blessed gift of inter-culture perspective, ohohohoho. So maybe I can be a seer for you all in that aspect. So, the Arab/Sudan/Egypt/Muslim Male in the West whatever rule-book on dating: 1. It actually doesn't matter to anyone until they turn 20. This isn't to say that they aren't thinking about girls all the time, because haha biology would say otherwise. But dating isn't really looked at seriously until around college. That being said: 2. They don't really like American Girls I don't enjoy saying that, but I can surmise that it's true for most people in the demographic I'm describing. It's because they've been around foreign girls their entire life, while American girls live very different lifestyles than they're used to, for the most part. So, in regards to number 1, dating still doesn't really happen in college, because if you're going to college looking for racial diversity, I'm going to smack you with my bloodcurdling beefcake emperor boxing gloves and drink a protein shake. Which leads to number 3: 3. THE GREAT FAMILY-DATING SHOW So where does an Arab/Sudan/Egypt/Muslim Male who doesn't really like American Girls find a girl to date? Well, dear reader, you can count on two things always being true for this demographic: everybody's family knows everybody else's family, and if you're dating, you're dating the family too. So, match-ups occur through family. My mom is really trying to get me to talk to a Moroccan girl who's family she met a few weeks ago at this wedding in May, for example. Stuff like that happens all the time, and usually leads to successful, loving, long-lasting marriages, much to the surprise of my American friends, who mistake something like that as being arranged. While arranged marriages do happen, they're really the exception rather than the rule, which is compounded by how many generations you've been living in America. 1st Gens are more likely to do it than 3rd Gens, for example, for obvious reasons. 4. About that dating the family thing If she doesn't like your family, it's not gonna fly. That might sound obvious, but living in America, I've always noticed that spouses can really not like their in-laws, but continue to put up with it for their significant other. I'm not claiming one way is better than the other, but stating that this is much less likely to happen in this demographic. Family is 100% more important in this culture, similar to Asian cultures. In fact, if you do "leave your family" for a woman, you're looked down upon by the rest of the community. So if they don't like your family, they're not getting in. That's all I can think of at the moment, but if I can remember more, I'll post it. I'll ask my parents too.
Yeah, I've got one. Don't fuck with any of it. "If finding love is just a dance/Proximity and chance/You will excuse me if I skip the masquerade" Sorry for the shitty post. I'm gonna listen to Lose Yourself now. EDIT: I swear I had not read kb's post until just now.
I'm drinking one of my three remaining Fin du Mondes. My first act was to say this toast: "To Flagamuffin, for encouraging me to drink the tripel that is this beer, deftly poured into a Stella mug." When's the next hubski drinkabout or whatever it is called?
I think this is only half true. I think it's difficult if someone is too closed off to the point they don't communicate. As you say, a lot more can be said by actions than words in many cases, but it's also nice to say what's on your mind, so long as you're not saying empty nothings.7. Don't listen to words. How someone treats you is how they care about you.
Eh, I disagree with the no sex on the first date thing. I think it's entirely a "your mileage may vary" situation. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. As for rules/guidelines: 1. Be sanitary. If you are an unsanitary person I won't be interested. Mess to an extent is fine, but I hate seeing dirty dishes and lots of clothes lying around, etc. 2. Be able to accept differences and spending time apart with friends / other people. I'm good at accepting people for who they are, you should be too. 3. I've started looking for shared interests. I've met up with a few girls recently and it's a whole lot easier to strike up a conversation when you mutual interests. Having a strong interest in music and going to concerts is a big plus. 4. Not be outwardly political / religious. 5. If I'm on a date with you or out in public I'm probably going to pay attention to how you treat waiters/waitresses/other employees. 6. This is just one where I want to state a couple of things I agree with you on. Physically fit and a non-believer in "energy", ghosts and all that nonsense is a must. 7. Be interested in meeting my friends if you're not already in that group of people, and have friends that don't suck. That was a problem in my last relationship. I'm sure there's others, but there's some off the top of my head for you. Please note that these are all coming from someone who isn't in a relationship and is in a bit of an extended fling situation.