LoveShack.org Community Forums

Reload this Page LoveShack.org Community Forums > Romantic > Dating

General online and other dating discussion


Dating Dating, courting, or going steady? Things not working out the way you had hoped? Stand up on your soap box and let us know what's going on!

Like Tree216Likes
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 7th April 2016, 4:58 PM   #61
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,422
[QUOTE=HillValley;6859611]


Quote:
I never said anything like that. I'm just using a type of situation where spark can lead you astray.

I'm merely pointing out how spark is nice but that shouldn't substitute for actually having someone who isn't toxic for you.
That is not down to a woman wanting to feel attracted to a man. It's down to being a poor chooser of men. I certainly feel a big spark for my man, and he's a wonderful human being. I don't feel attracted to losers. Women with good self esteem don't. We can have a great guy to whom we are also attracted.

Same goes for the good men as well, of course.

Quote:
My point was that if you are one of these people/companies complaining about your situation then do something about it. I'm not advocating someone should make a 180 in their dating types. I'm saying we all have bias so nudge yourself to try something new or take a chance on a employee that doesn't come the way you want.
If someone wants to be in a relationship so badly that they'd prefer to be with someone they're not attracted to than to be alone, then that's what they'll do. Some people need to feel attracted to be in a relationship that is supposed to include sex. Most people, I bet.



Quote:
How is that any different than what people say about finding a new hobby. You don't have to just start doing something you don't enjoy. If means pushing your boundaries( on your own terms). If you like running, then hike a trail you've never been to before instead of you doing the same 5 trails over and over.
Doing a hobby doesn't equate to having a romantic and sexual relationship.

Nobody on this thread is talking about doing the same thing over and over. Well, except for that one guy (who can't get any girls interested in him). The rest of us participating here seem to be just fine with needing a person we're attracted to if we're going to be in a romantic / sexual relationship with them - even if it takes a long time to find that.

Quote:
If I only made friends with people who are similar or familiar to me, I'd miss out on meeting really great people. Doesn't mean it's a failure if they don't become my BFFF.
Well, clearly you don't care whether you're attracted to a person or not. That makes the world of dating and finding a partner very easy for you. I think the majority of us need to have the attraction part in order to go to that level. It's not the same as having a variety of types of friends.
Rejected Rosebud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 5:06 PM   #62
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 37
I dunno oberkeat if "the way women date today" bothers you this much, then put it in your profile. Perfectly serious here. Say you really want to give things a fair chance to develop and you feel you need more than one date to do so, and you are looking for a woman who feels likewise.

You might get messaged by women who share your viewpoint on this. I do wonder if you will actually put your money w your mouth is and go out w women who contact you even if their looks aren't doing it for you. After all, if you really can't tell whether someone is right for you going by only one date then you surely can't tell whether someone is right for you going by looks, right?

Last edited by TooLegitToQuit; 7th April 2016 at 5:14 PM..
TooLegitToQuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 5:17 PM   #63
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 37
Your attitude though is quite disconcerting. If my 16-year-old nephew were going on like this I'd tell him to stop whining, nevermind a 29-year-old male.
TooLegitToQuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 5:33 PM   #64
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 37
I am a guy. I went on a first date last week. I wasn't feeling it. I knew by now that if I am not feeling something by one date in that it won't work. Still I made it a point to ask the woman about herself and be interested in the conversation all the way through the end of our time together. I mean who knows something may spark during the date.

Was I supposed to sulk instead through the first date to make sure I didn't lead her on? Or am I supposed to waste HER time as well as mine--and lead her on--by going on a second date with her? Seems to me that the kind thing to do is let her find a guy where the attraction is present and mutual.

I don't think you really thought your expectations through oberkeat.

Last edited by TooLegitToQuit; 7th April 2016 at 5:39 PM..
TooLegitToQuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 6:07 PM   #65
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 124
[QUOTE=Rejected Rosebud;6859784]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillValley View Post
That is not down to a woman wanting to feel attracted to a man. It's down to being a poor chooser of men. I certainly feel a big spark for my man, and he's a wonderful human being. I don't feel attracted to losers. Women with good self esteem don't. We can have a great guy to whom we are also attracted.

Same goes for the good men as well, of course.
No not always. Anyone can fall into going on a first date with a loser. It's not like they were signs on their foreheads. Whether or not you choose to keep continuing on despite seeing that it isn't right just because some you like that spark/feeling. You aren't being honest with yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejected Rosebud View Post
If someone wants to be in a relationship so badly that they'd prefer to be with someone they're not attracted to than to be alone, then that's what they'll do. Some people need to feel attracted to be in a relationship that is supposed to include sex. Most people, I bet. .
It feels like you are acting like there's no other option. There can be a spark and it still be a wrong relationship. That's what I'm trying to tell you. People who are married for 20 years can have had the spark and still be a terrible marriage.

A spark isn't a cure all for a bad relationship.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejected Rosebud View Post
Doing a hobby doesn't equate to having a romantic and sexual relationship.

Nobody on this thread is talking about doing the same thing over and over. Well, except for that one guy (who can't get any girls interested in him). The rest of us participating here seem to be just fine with needing a person we're attracted to if we're going to be in a romantic / sexual relationship with them - even if it takes a long time to find that.
That isn't the point of the hobby analogy. The point is doing something for yourself, for your own self-esteem. For your own enjoyment.



I NEVER SAID ATTRACTION ISN'T WHAT A PERSON SHOULD BE GOING AFTER.

Again, Attraction comes in many forms so why people not open themselves up to more options if they aren't seeing the results they want?

There's a huge difference between making a choice for your own happiness to open up to different kinds of attractions vs. being guilted into it cause a "nice guy" thinks you should go out. You don't owe anyone a date.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejected Rosebud View Post
Well, clearly you don't care whether you're attracted to a person or not. That makes the world of dating and finding a partner very easy for you. I think the majority of us need to have the attraction part in order to go to that level. It's not the same as having a variety of types of friends.
I guess I'm not being clear cause that's 100% not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's a multitude of ways to get that spark. It might not appear on first sight, it might not appear until after the third date, or it might not appear until later on.

Sometimes it's there at the start.

I'm saying that depending solely on it like it's some magic fairy dust could be a problem for some people cause it won't appear immediately or it may lead you into a toxic relationship.

Last edited by HillValley; 7th April 2016 at 6:09 PM..
HillValley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2016, 11:26 PM   #66
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,422
[QUOTE=HillValley;6859895]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejected Rosebud View Post

No not always. Anyone can fall into going on a first date with a loser. It's not like they were signs on their foreheads. Whether or not you choose to keep continuing on despite seeing that it isn't right just because some you like that spark/feeling. You aren't being honest with yourself.
I don't know what you're even talking about here, but please hold yourself back from telling me I'm not being honest with myself.



Quote:
It feels like you are acting like there's no other option. There can be a spark and it still be a wrong relationship. That's what I'm trying to tell you. People who are married for 20 years can have had the spark and still be a terrible marriage.

A spark isn't a cure all for a bad relationship.
I feel like you and I aren't even participating in the same conversation. I certainly never said that a "spark" equals a good potential relationship.

What I KEEP saying is that most people (every single person I know) is NOT INTERESTED in pursuing a romantic / sexual relationship with a person they feel NO ATTRACTION for.

Do you understand?


Quote:
I guess I'm not being clear cause that's 100% not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's a multitude of ways to get that spark. It might not appear on first sight, it might not appear until after the third date, or it might not appear until later on.

Sometimes it's there at the start.
Do you understand how insulting it is to women to read on this thread that we are somehow incapable of knowing whether we are interested in a guy or not? If we think there is potential many of us WILL go ahead and spend no time. When we KNOW 100% it's a NO - regardless of the guy's credentials or his own high opinion of himself - we are going to walk, and that's the right thing for everybody.
Rejected Rosebud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2016, 2:28 PM   #67
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,829
Hey Oberkeat, this article came out today and it's very relevant to this whole thing, definitely worth a read: http://priceonomics.com/online-datin...-of-the-mixed/

Some excerpts:

Quote:
Study after study supports the idea of “assortative mating”: the hypothesis that people generally date and marry partners who are like them in terms of social class, educational background, race, personality, and, of course, attractiveness.

To use fratboy vernacular: 7s date other 7s, and a 3 has no chance with a 10.
Which illustrates my point that everyone thinks there's no point in seeing someone again if you have no interest in them. You can do better, you'll have no interest in dating down, and likely not able to date up. The natural order of things will leave you someone who's roughly equivalent to you.

Quote:
At the start of the semester, they asked students in small classes to rate the desirability of their classmates. (Desirability could incorporate non-physical attributes as well as good looks.) When the researchers looked at the ratings, they found that most students agreed on who was hot and who was not.

Three months later, though, the researchers asked the same students to rate their classmates again. Lo and behold, many of the ratings had changed: the students’ opinions of who was datable had been informed by time together in class. Over time, personality had more of an impact on how desirable someone was.

More importantly, the students no longer agreed. Their rankings reflected their personal preferences about the non-physical attributes of the other people in the class. Where one classmate might find a student’s earnestness in class endearing, another might dislike it.
While this may be tempting to say "the more you get to know someone, the better chance you have of liking them," that's not necessarily true because you have just as good of a chance as disliking them more as well. No net change. Inconclusive.

Quote:
In this case, the data is clear that men’s preferences are much more homogenous than women’s. “There are women who 95% of men say yes to, and there’s nothing like that for men,” says McLeod. “A man is really attractive if 40% of women say yes.”
Interesting to note.

Quote:
Americans increasingly marry someone they met on a first date rather than a high school sweetheart. And that can make the dating market a more brutal and competitive process.
Note this in spite of all that posts you made saying that women weren't finding anyone at all and that the current dating culture was ruining everything. The graph included shows that more than 20% of straight couples met online, almost as many as at a bar or restaurant, and almost twice as many as through co-woerks, in college, through family, neighbors or church.

http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/bl...t2.38.46PM.png


So what're your thoughts now?
normal person is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2016, 7:17 PM   #68
Established Member
 
joseb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,103
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.
joseb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2016, 9:56 PM   #69
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by normal person View Post
Hey Oberkeat, this article came out today and it's very relevant to this whole thing, definitely worth a read: http://priceonomics.com/online-datin...-of-the-mixed/

Which illustrates my point that everyone thinks there's no point in seeing someone again if you have no interest in them. You can do better, you'll have no interest in dating down, and likely not able to date up. The natural order of things will leave you someone who's roughly equivalent to you.
Certainly we don't need a study to prove that people generally date people who are similar to themselves. There's that old joke that if couples are together long enough they start to look like each other. I fail to see though how this relates in anyway to your argument that modern relationship formation/dating has everything to do with Darwinian style theories on natural selection applied to human social behavior. Again, you seem to be making a completely different point here, which is that like attracts like. In any case, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by normal person View Post
"At the start of the semester, they asked students in small classes to rate the desirability of their classmates. (Desirability could incorporate non-physical attributes as well as good looks.) When the researchers looked at the ratings, they found that most students agreed on who was hot and who was not.

Three months later, though, the researchers asked the same students to rate their classmates again. Lo and behold, many of the ratings had changed: the students’ opinions of who was datable had been informed by time together in class. Over time, personality had more of an impact on how desirable someone was.

More importantly, the students no longer agreed. Their rankings reflected their personal preferences about the non-physical attributes of the other people in the class. Where one classmate might find a student’s earnestness in class endearing, another might dislike it."


While this may be tempting to say "the more you get to know someone, the better chance you have of liking them," that's not necessarily true because you have just as good of a chance as disliking them more as well. No net change. Inconclusive.
The problem with the study you chose to cite is that going on a second date with someone after an OK first date and being trapped in a classroom with someone for three months, which is the method the researchers were using, are two completely different things! Surely there's a point at which too much exposure to the same person becomes detrimental, but there's nothing in the study that suggests that a simple two or three hour second date meets that threshold. I go back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by normal person View Post
Note this in spite of all that posts you made saying that women weren't finding anyone at all and that the current dating culture was ruining everything. The graph included shows that more than 20% of straight couples met online, almost as many as at a bar or restaurant, and almost twice as many as through co-woerks, in college, through family, neighbors or church.

http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/bl...t2.38.46PM.png


So what're your thoughts now?
My thoughts are that 1) The 20% number is exaggerated and 2) even if it isn't, statistics are completely meaningless without context. There's nothing in the graph that proves that the declines in the other methods people use to meet their partners are a result of online dating being a better method. There are undoubtedly other factors at play here. Take work for example: the fact that fewer people are meeting at work then they were 40 years ago probably has a lot to do with the declines in male participation in the workforce, and that dating in the workplace has become less socially accepted because of sexual-harassment lawsuits, bands on workplace relationships, etc. Fewer people are meeting at church, because obviously in our increasingly secular society, fewer people are attending church in the first place. I see no evidence in this graph that online dating is making dating any better or easier.

Since you're recommending studies, Let me recommend one I find really enlightening: New Study Says Couples Who Meet Online May Be More Likely To Break Up

The study compared couples who met either offline or on dating sites, and found evidence suggesting that 1) couples that met online were more likely to break up 2) couples that met online were less likely to marry and most importantly 3) The buffet of options these dating sites offer actually inhibits relationship formation through grass is greener syndrome. A quote from the woman writer where she admits:

Quote:
Through my experience online, I was accepting a lot of invitations from different people, but I was not locking myself in with anyone. I knew that more and more people were joining the website, so maybe I’d find someone more befitting for me tomorrow.
Quote:
Nothing can replace the old-tested principles of time and intimacy and letting things develop.
I couldn't agree more. This goes back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.
Emilia likes this.

Last edited by oberkeat; 8th April 2016 at 10:24 PM..
oberkeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 1:52 AM   #70
Established Member
 
MidwestUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberkeat View Post

I go back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

This goes back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.
Point taken. I'll repeat what others have said by modifying your own statement: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable IF BOTH PARTIES ARE WILLING.

No one owes you anything. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It's simple.

Two to three hours is quite generous for a first date.
MidwestUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 9:35 AM   #71
Established Member
 
WaitingForBardot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberkeat View Post
...my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

...my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

...my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.
Perhaps not unreasonable, but it requires that she agrees it was a decent date. Your perspective alone is insufficient to establish this as the case.

And although maybe not unreasonable, a decent first date would not do it for everyone. It takes much more than decent to interest me in a second date.
__________________
"It ain't what you don't know that's so harmful, it's what you know that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
WaitingForBardot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 9:43 AM   #72
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordofFlame View Post
I think the problem here is most women don't seem to advocate wanting a really hot, physically attractive guy and instead are emphasizing that the non-superficial aspects are a lot more important. Sure some women do make it plain obvious that they want a really hot guy...but not all do. So then you're typical "nice guy" gets upset when he gets rejected because he thinks he has all these important non-superficial characteristics. It might be easier if women that really want a hot guy, make that clearly known in their online dating profiles That way I can avoid sending them a message....
That wouldn't screen out the weirdos with zero self-awareness. Only the good quality modest men most of us want. So self-defeating strategy.
Emilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 9:55 AM   #73
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by normal person View Post
Hey Oberkeat, this article came out today and it's very relevant to this whole thing, definitely worth a read: Online Dating and the Death of the 'Mixed-Attractiveness' Couple

Some excerpts:

Which illustrates my point that everyone thinks there's no point in seeing someone again if you have no interest in them. You can do better, you'll have no interest in dating down, and likely not able to date up. The natural order of things will leave you someone who's roughly equivalent to you.

While this may be tempting to say "the more you get to know someone, the better chance you have of liking them," that's not necessarily true because you have just as good of a chance as disliking them more as well. No net change. Inconclusive.

Interesting to note.

Note this in spite of all that posts you made saying that women weren't finding anyone at all and that the current dating culture was ruining everything. The graph included shows that more than 20% of straight couples met online, almost as many as at a bar or restaurant, and almost twice as many as through co-woerks, in college, through family, neighbors or church.

http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/bl...t2.38.46PM.png

So what're your thoughts now?
I don't think the article is right at all. It's common for women in their 30s to start dating down in terms of looks if they want to get married. Might not be a thing for casuals but for LTRs in 30+ adults mixed looks is very common. I see this in people more that use OLD because they don't have the social circle and the opportunities - if they don't want to date someone new every week.

I'm actually surprised you are such an advocate for OLD, I get the impression you are social enough not to need it. It's hard to find quality online.
Emilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 10:59 AM   #74
Established Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestUSA View Post
Point taken. I'll repeat what others have said by modifying your own statement: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable IF BOTH PARTIES ARE WILLING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingForBardot View Post
Perhaps not unreasonable, but it requires that she agrees it was a decent date. Your perspective alone is insufficient to establish this as the case.
Lol, here you two are just being argumentative. By "decent first date", obviously we mean the date wasn't miserable for either person, and that both parties had fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingForBardot View Post
although maybe not unreasonable, a decent first date would not do it for everyone. It takes much more than decent to interest me in a second date.
My argument is that your standard here is really unrealistic and ultimately self destructive. As someone else said, if you next all the guys you date because you didn't feel earth shattering chemistry with them on the first date, you are missing out on a lot of great people and great relationships, primarily because that type of spark is extremely rare, and is no indication of the potential or suitability for a great relationship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejected Rosebud View Post
You're just going to have to accept that many women (and men but that's not pertinent to you) are not looking for merely "decent" and they'll keep looking, thank you very much!

I know you're done with dating, but if you start again, you'll need to focus on women with very low standards, if you expect them to hang around for "decent."
See my comment above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestUSA View Post
No one owes you anything. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? It's simple.
When did I say anything about being "owed" anything? This isn't about being owed this or that. This is about what makes sense. And nexting all the guys you date after decent first dates makes no sense and is self destructive. If you cut out on a guy just because you didn't feel earth shattering chemistry on the first date, you are missing out on a lot of great people and great relationships because you called it quits prematurely. A lot of gals need to slow down, take their time and be patient. Something (Hollywood, trashy romance novels, shorter attention spans, who knows) has convinced them to expect the moon and the stars on the first date.

Last edited by oberkeat; 9th April 2016 at 11:38 AM..
oberkeat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2016, 11:53 AM   #75
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: US
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitingForBardot View Post
Perhaps not unreasonable, but it requires that she agrees it was a decent date. Your perspective alone is insufficient to establish this as the case.
Yes x10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oberkeat View Post
Lol, here you two are just being argumentative. By "decent first date", obviously we mean the date wasn't miserable for either person, and that both parties had fun.
rolleyes ?!?!
OP, Some people are just good dates no matter who they’re with. They’re nice, happy, friendly and inquisitive with everyone. They make other people feel good. Read Emily Post, Miss Manners or Dale Carnegie.
BlueIris is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

 

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Consolidated discussion - Online dating spiderowl Dating 1994 29th April 2016 6:42 PM
Damaged Goods: General Discussion SycamoreCircle General Relationship Discussion 33 6th January 2015 3:27 PM
online dating general question bigheartkindsoul Dating 0 9th November 2007 12:30 PM
A matter of thought..general discussion abt fwbs emotionsmessmeup Friends and Lovers 7 14th October 2005 10:46 PM

 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 8:53 AM.

Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.


Copyright © 1997-2013 LoveShack.org. All Rights Reserved.