Author Isolde Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 Isolde, you are a young, intelligent, sensitive, introspective lady. I don't know you very well, but I feel like you remind me of myself sometimes (seven years ago!). You just want something meaningful, and not something that's empty. I just got out of a situation that I *wanted* to be meaningful, even though deep down inside, I knew it had no potential to be. But, if you don't care, what's the point in dating? Some people can casually date with no problem, but it feels empty and sad to me. It's very rare that we meet someone who we can love and loves us back. I've yet to find it. You just haven't found a guy who is awesome as you are! I've had my share of guys that were somewhat interested but not interested enough to pursue, and I just kept on giving the green light, over and over. LOL. Definitely learned from that experience! At the same time, though, I'm in far too good a state of mind, to date people just because they're good people. It takes more than that to make a good R. So, it's a fine balance. You're a wonderful lady too pandagirl. You sound like you bring to the table the kindness and consideration you want, so I wouldn't worry, though it IS easy to say not to worry, as I know from my own experience!
pandagirl Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 At the same time, though, I'm in far too good a state of mind, to date people just because they're good people. It takes more than that to make a good R. So, it's a fine balance. Ah, old grasshopper PG should take advice from young grasshopper Isolde! I definitely make people out to be MUCH better in my head than they actually are.
Sam Spade Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I totally support your stand. There's no point dating someone just to be dating someone, anyway. It's unfair to both you and the other party. Unfair to the other party because you're shortchanging them; nobody likes to be in a relationship in which their partner loves the relationship but not them. And unfair to you because frankly it'd end up in misery, even if you feel better at the beginning. You may realize you cannot live a lie anymore and bail after a lot of pain and heartache. Or worse yet, you may marry, start a family... and after 20 years, that rare person whom you really DO want to date and who also wants to date you may pop into your life, and you can't do a damned thing because you've 3 kids and 20 years of marriage holding you back. That is generally true, but makes the assumption that waiting single for 20 years (compounded by uncertainty) always beats having a good and happy family life. It may be so for some people, and that's fine, but I'm sincerely suprised how *much* people (especially women ), expect from relationships. It's a partnership, it won't be all daisies and unicorns, but it's a bond that's worth creating and nurturing. So, finding a way to work around minor incompatibilities is not necessarily an inherently inferior choice to waiting in the wings for something "just right". More imporantly - the "just right" part is really only in our heads. I've had a relationship that felt "just right", and suffered a lot when it ended, but in retrospect I can see that the girl in question was just a regular girl, with regular issues.
spookie Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'm actually with you on everything. Is that depressing? Almost every relationship I could see myself in strikes me as completely contrived. Even when there's nothing wrong with a guy, and I'm enjoying his company, all I can think about is how I wish he would leave, so I could go back to doing my thing.
Sam Spade Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I'm actually with you on everything. Is that depressing? Almost every relationship I could see myself in strikes me as completely contrived. Even when there's nothing wrong with a guy, and I'm enjoying his company, all I can think about is how I wish he would leave, so I could go back to doing my thing. Haha, that would be me too . But it's okay. The whole "magic love thing" is not for me. I've been there (twice) and I'm pretty sure it is overrated. Love is a socially, culturally, and biologically mediated concept, so to give it such a power in defining who we are is not much different than letting any other such concept or emotion determine our experience here (e.g. religious experiences, democratic policymaking, fear/heroism etc. or any other way to find/test our boundaries ). So my new thing is if you're 1) physically attracted to each other; 2) have fun together, and 3) generally agree on the big stuff in life you should get married and have squishy babies . I'm checking out rings online . Let's hold hands and collectivelly get over ourselves :) .
Author Isolde Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 Even when there's nothing wrong with a guy, and I'm enjoying his company, all I can think about is how I wish he would leave, so I could go back to doing my thing. I feel this way sometimes when on dates, but not all the time. So, this isn't my particular problem. My problem is that while I've met a few guys I could see myself with (not a ton, but several), I seem to have a hard time finding a strong mutual interest, that manifests itself in an active and decisive, vs. a passive, way. Also, those few guys I all met in college, and now that I'm out of college, it's becoming more difficult to find single people. I'm open to dating somewhat older guys, as my intuition tells me this may be a good idea, but most of them aren't exactly single.
spookie Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 I feel this way sometimes when on dates, but not all the time. So, this isn't my particular problem. My problem is that while I've met a few guys I could see myself with (not a ton, but several), I seem to have a hard time finding a strong mutual interest, that manifests itself in an active and decisive, vs. a passive, way. Also, those few guys I all met in college, and now that I'm out of college, it's becoming more difficult to find single people. I'm open to dating somewhat older guys, as my intuition tells me this may be a good idea, but most of them aren't exactly single. I have the above problem with the only guy I've been interested in for a year. I still don't know if we're supposed to keep hoping to one day find someone with whom the interest is mutual and the timing is right, or to pick someone random but decent, and learn to love him... It seems like the latter is what dating is all about. Maybe when I'm older and more desperate, I'll be ok with this fact.
Author Isolde Posted July 27, 2009 Author Posted July 27, 2009 I'm worried about the same thing, spookie.
pandagirl Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 Both of you lovely young ladies will find someone great, don't you worry. I'm 31 and not at all desperate. And trust me, it's not like guys magically get more mature as they get older.
Els Posted July 27, 2009 Posted July 27, 2009 That is generally true, but makes the assumption that waiting single for 20 years (compounded by uncertainty) always beats having a good and happy family life. Probably true. Unfortunately, the family life is not very likely to be happy if you never loved the man to begin with. It'll be even worse if you do find someone whom you love after you're married. At any rate Isolde is far too young to be settling just because she wants a family. It may be so for some people, and that's fine, but I'm sincerely suprised how *much* people (especially women ), expect from relationships. It's a partnership, it won't be all daisies and unicorns, but it's a bond that's worth creating and nurturing. Expectations of what we should get out of a partner have nothing to do with how well you relate to a person or the initial chemistry. So, finding a way to work around minor incompatibilities is not necessarily an inherently inferior choice to waiting in the wings for something "just right". If the person isn't someone she 'can relate to', it's a MAJOR incompatibility in my opinion. If the guy supports Man U and she supports Liverpool then it's a minor incompatibility (although hardcore football fans would probably beg to differ) More imporantly - the "just right" part is really only in our heads. I've had a relationship that felt "just right", and suffered a lot when it ended, but in retrospect I can see that the girl in question was just a regular girl, with regular issues. Just because we can relate to our partner, does not necessarily mean that the relationship is guaranteed to succeed. Too many factors influence that. On the other hand, getting in a relationship when you don't even relate to your partner is literally inviting failure.
Author Isolde Posted July 28, 2009 Author Posted July 28, 2009 Sam, while I enjoy many of your posts, I think Elswyth has brought up an issue in your reasoning. Just because what felt right didn't work out a few times, doesn't mean one should search for something that doesn't feel right. I know you're happy with your GF, but, I'm speaking in general terms here. Argh, guys, sometimes I don't know what I want. Sometimes I think I just want some cozy bf to go shopping at the mall with, someone sweet and sensitive. Other times I want to meet someone who truly challenges me intellectually, someone who feels right on a very deep level. Of course, the ideal would be both in one person, haha.
BobSacamento Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 So you can see yourself dating someone, you just can't decide what your type is. I'd go the "intellectual" route and attempt trick him into going to the mall with you.
monkey00 Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Argh, guys, sometimes I don't know what I want. Sometimes I think I just want some cozy bf to go shopping at the mall with, someone sweet and sensitive. Other times I want to meet someone who truly challenges me intellectually, someone who feels right on a very deep level. Of course, the ideal would be both in one person, haha. That type of guy does exist, you just haven't met him yet.
tblucky Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I guess I would have to ask, if you can't see yourself in an R, what exactly are you looking for in an R? Do you even really want one?
Sam Spade Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Probably true. Unfortunately, the family life is not very likely to be happy if you never loved the man to begin with. It'll be even worse if you do find someone whom you love after you're married. At any rate Isolde is far too young to be settling just because she wants a family. Expectations of what we should get out of a partner have nothing to do with how well you relate to a person or the initial chemistry. If the person isn't someone she 'can relate to', it's a MAJOR incompatibility in my opinion. If the guy supports Man U and she supports Liverpool then it's a minor incompatibility (although hardcore football fans would probably beg to differ) Just because we can relate to our partner, does not necessarily mean that the relationship is guaranteed to succeed. Too many factors influence that. On the other hand, getting in a relationship when you don't even relate to your partner is literally inviting failure. Well I agree with all of the above in principle; the problem is that the fundamentamental assumption on which your (and mine) points depend - what does it really mean to "relate to" - cannot really be argued either way. I understand it along the lines of traits and skills that are actually conducive to sustaining a relationship over time. So, for example, while intellectual stimulation can be excilrating, it is 1) pretty hard to find and 2) even when found, it does not necessarily correlate to the ability to function in and develop a relationship; In fact, it can even be detrimental (2 restless minds are bound to create tension; while it looks good in the (french ) movies, realistically speaking it probably isn't the greatest or the most important characteristic of a happy/stable marriage. So, while I agree with the "relate to" point, the "relating" is mostly a huge grey area where some things simly don't matter that much. Things are slightly more complicated when emotional needs are concerned, but once again, i'd argue that emotional intelligence and ability to reconcile differences in 'languages of love' may be more important than finding someone who actually functions on the same wavelenght. Not to mention that this is not necessarily a good thing - it can lead to resonance, and resonance has been known to destroy bridges .
CD111 Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I am pretty much in your boat as well..why even try. However, I have dated the guys that were super sweet but intellectually boring. It was alright in the beginning and then I realized we didn't have that mental connection. You are completely right it is very hard to find a guy that is intelligent and a great guy with some mutual interests all in one package. I see it as a big case of disillusionment. Which is fine that it happened, but it definitely squashes the optimism.
Author Isolde Posted July 29, 2009 Author Posted July 29, 2009 Things are slightly more complicated when emotional needs are concerned, but once again, i'd argue that emotional intelligence and ability to reconcile differences in 'languages of love' may be more important than finding someone who actually functions on the same wavelength. Not to mention that this is not necessarily a good thing - it can lead to resonance, and resonance has been known to destroy bridges . I agree with this. From anecdotal knowledge, I don't believe that thinking very similarly is important, as long as the above holds true. Values need to be similar but the actual thought processes don't need to be.
Author Isolde Posted July 29, 2009 Author Posted July 29, 2009 I guess I would have to ask, if you can't see yourself in an R, what exactly are you looking for in an R? Do you even really want one? I do. It's just like it seems impossible. Quite simply.
Citizen Drawn Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Do you need to "see it" for it to happen? I personally think you enjoy getting yourself in a tizzy about this. Nothing wrong with that.
Author Isolde Posted July 29, 2009 Author Posted July 29, 2009 Do you need to "see it" for it to happen? I personally think you enjoy getting yourself in a tizzy about this. Nothing wrong with that. Ok, I admit that I possibly get kicks out of being hopelessly confused, , but there is real background to this, I promise.
Citizen Drawn Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Ok, I admit that I possibly get kicks out of being hopelessly confused, , but there is real background to this, I promise. Is there? If you flip a coin 4 times and it's heads, does that mean the next time you flip it, it will be heads?
Author Isolde Posted July 29, 2009 Author Posted July 29, 2009 Is there? If you flip a coin 4 times and it's heads, does that mean the next time you flip it, it will be heads? But conversely, just because it's been heads every time doesn't mean it's not still quite likely it'll be heads the next time... and the next. If you want to get into the heavy statistical-existential talk, find Sam Spade.
Citizen Drawn Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 But conversely, just because it's been heads every time doesn't mean it's not still quite likely it'll be heads the next time... and the next. Problem is you're assigning a high probability of the next x flips being a head. Since you're a mere mortal, you're not actually capable of making this assessment
crosswordfiend Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Problem is you're assigning a high probability of the next x flips being a head. Since you're a mere mortal, you're not actually capable of making this assessment I love this! Even so, as long as the probability is non-zero (of tails I presume), you'll eventually have a success by recourse to the law of large numbers.
BobSacamento Posted July 29, 2009 Posted July 29, 2009 Problem is you're assigning a high probability of the next x flips being a head. Since you're a mere mortal, you're not actually capable of making this assessment I think it's very possible actually. The negative outlook can pretty much guarantee it. Cynicism is very unattractive.
Recommended Posts