We got it all wrong that's why we're hurting

October 15, 2009

So I was reading the "Is love overrated?" thread and I started doing more research on the subject.

Did you know that for most of human history 80% of cultures used arranged marriages or parents picked partners for their kids? It actually works better than the model we currently have and married people were generally much happier because they didn't rely on initial fickle feelings to build the bond between two people.

Chemistry is actually an extremely inaccurate way of determining a good potential partner because our reality is clouded when we're pumped full of the hormones that drive attraction.

So the experts on relationships generally advise a middle ground between the extremes of arranged marriages and fickle "Romeo and Juliet" type of love.

The best model I found was to reverse what most people do. Most people do this:

Sex

Trust

Emotional attachment

Reliance

Getting to know someone

Despite what people say, these days most people have sex way too early and get emotionally attached before getting to know someone. Therefore once attached they start relying on the person and can't break away.

Once the other person shows their true colors, jerk/bitch etc then it's hard to break away because of the emotions invested.

The correct model is:

Get to know someone

Trust

Emotional attachment

Reliance

Sex

People these days don't have the patience to get to know someone first before having sex and that's why they keep finding the wrong partners. Also, I know most people think they've gotten to know someone properly, but sorry to say this, that's not true, it takes at least a month of two of frequent contact to get to know someone properly even if obsevant. Or 6 months or more for most people.

Most people get emotionally attached well before that and that's why the relationship scene is getting worse and worse. The romantic chick flick, love at first sight model just doesn't work.

Btw, I am not a conservative. I was just commenting on the right strategy.

Edited October 15, 2009 by BookerT

October 15, 2009

I agree and disgree with this thread.

I have, personally, never known anyone to be in an arranged marriage. But I can bet that the majority of them, while happy, would say that they've never known anything else. Hence, the reason why they feel as though they are happy.

As far as getting to know someone goes, in personal experience, i've known just about everyone that i've gotten into a relationship with. The only man that i've loved out of the whole group, I talked to non-stop for two months before getting into a relationship with.

I loved that man with everything that I had!

If you ask me, i'd prefer someone that I actually cared about, truly and deeply, as opposed to someone that I was 'set up' with. Any day!

October 15, 2009

IMHO, arranged marriage does two things. It takes away a girl's right, as well as a man's, to pick their own mate. And secondly it hinders evolution so to speak. Well, I guess just the evolution of physical appearance would be a better description.

One of the earliest places arranged marriages started to die off was in Europe, Germania in particular. There we see evidence of women starting to gain the right to choose her lover from a host of suitors- she could choose the best looking, or the most powerful, or the one that romanced her the best, whatever- but it was her choice. Many scientists believe that this is where the germanic people got the look they are so famous for (tall, blonde hair, blue eyes, ect), because females could select whom they wanted, and it would often be males with these traits- for whatever reason.

It also happened in other places throughout the world where society had a high respect for females. Germans refer to their home as the 'fatherland', but alot of their worship went to mother nature. Egypt was another example. Ironic that in almost all instances where you see women gaining the right to choose their mate, humans in that area seem to become more and more beautiful.

Anyway, I've never done that much research on this and I could be wrong on a few things, but that's just something I read one time. True or not, it's interesting. Sounds shallow too! But it would make sense, natural selection and all. Who knows.

There are good things that come from arranged marriages too I'm sure, but I can see why it died off...

October 15, 2009

While there has to be some sort of initial spark in the beginning for me to pursue something, I actually prefer not to go into a dating scenario with my head in the clouds. I don't trust that feeling, because I know it doesn't mean anything meaningful and it will eventually go away. I would rank your criteria as:

Sex

Getting to know someone

Trust

Emotional attachment

Reliance

Sorry, but the attraction has to be there in the beginning for anything to even start!

October 15, 2009

I agree and disgree with this thread.

I have, personally, never known anyone to be in an arranged marriage. But I can bet that the majority of them, while happy, would say that they've never known anything else. Hence, the reason why they feel as though they are happy.

As far as getting to know someone goes, in personal experience, i've known just about everyone that i've gotten into a relationship with. The only man that i've loved out of the whole group, I talked to non-stop for two months before getting into a relationship with.

I loved that man with everything that I had!

If you ask me, i'd prefer someone that I actually cared about, truly and deeply, as opposed to someone that I was 'set up' with. Any day!

I've discussed this point, as in your counter arguement with a friend, and the consensus was similar to the "once you go black you never go back" thing. Sorry, hard to find another analogy.

Let me explain.

In life when you experience something that might feel good in the short term but unhealthy in the long term it's often hard to drop that habit.

Examples:

Loving icecream, chocolate, unhealthy foods even when a person is on the verge of getting a heart attack.

Smoking

Snorting coke

Getting hooked on players that have a great personality at the beginning, but few real men have and thus getting bored with most normal men.

Getting hooked on a good looking but bitchy girl

Humans are naturally attracted to the short term, good feel factor, and once exposed it's hard to go back. But it's not reality, the reality is there's a downside to certain things in life.

That's why most people these days keep moving from one short term 2-3 year relationship to the next. They're addicted to the love, and find it hard to make things work when those feelings decrease.

October 15, 2009

IMHO, arranged marriage does two things. It takes away a girl's right, as well as a man's, to pick their own mate. And secondly it hinders evolution so to speak. Well, I guess just the evolution of physical appearance would be a better description.

One of the earliest places arranged marriages started to die off was in Europe, Germania in particular. There we see evidence of women starting to gain the right to choose her lover from a host of suitors- she could choose the best looking, or the most powerful, or the one that romanced her the best, whatever- but it was her choice. .

I hope you do realize that the evolutionary model supports polygamy, hence why polygamy was also the most frequent form of human mating practice.

The strong male has a lot of females and the weak males have zero. Very similar to other animals, just watch any nature program.

The problem is we live in a society that supports monogamy, and thus simulated polygamy would mean cheating, or swinging, which is unacceptable to most people.

Edited October 15, 2009 by BookerT

October 15, 2009

I've discussed this point, as in your counter arguement with a friend, and the consensus was similar to the "once you go black you never go back" thing. Sorry, hard to find another analogy.

Let me explain.

In life when you experience something that might feel good in the short term but unhealthy in the long term it's often hard to drop that habit.

Examples:

Loving icecream, chocolate, unhealthy foods even when a person is on the verge of getting a heart attack.

Smoking

Snorting coke

Getting hooked on players that have a great personality at the beginning, but few real men have and thus getting bored with most normal men.

Getting hooked on a good looking but bitchy girl

Humans are naturally attracted to the short term, good feel factor, and once exposed it's hard to go back. But it's not reality, the reality is there's a downside to certain things in life.

That's why most people these days keep moving from one short term 2-3 year relationship to the next. They're addicted to the love, and find it hard to make things work when those feelings decrease.

So basically what you are saying, is that ignorance is bliss.

You are very correct in saying that certain things are addicting and that certain people continue to go after those same things because of that fact. But, you are failing to mention the people with common sense. The people who know what is addicting, and why it is addicting.

I, personally, have a very addictive personality. Once I find something that makes me feel really good, I stick to it. But... only under the circumstance that I know is healthy for me. I love being in love. But I also realize what being in love entails. And I also know what being in love means.

Therefore, I am not fooled by infatuation or lust. Sure, it feels good to be in both of those, but I will not, for one second, be fooled.

Just as I love chocolate... but I won't over-indulge because I know the consequences to that.

Your arguement (while being a very good one) is too general.

Edited October 15, 2009 by EricaH329

October 15, 2009

So basically what you are saying, is that ignorance is bliss.

You are very correct in saying that certain things are addicting and that certain people continue to go after those same things because of that fact. But, you are failing to mention the people with common sense. The people who know what is addicting, and why it is addicting.

I, personally, have a very addictive personality. Once I find something that makes me feel really good, I stick to it. But... only under the circumstance that I know is healthy for me. I love being in love. But I also realize what being in love entails. And I also know what being in love means.

Therefore, I am not fooled by infatuation or lust. Sure, it feels good to be in both of those, but I will not, for one second, be fooled.

No, I'm saying balance is bliss. Right now the dating culture in most developed countries is clearly not working, and swung to an extreme that relies too much on love (or infatuation). Love in a stable commited relationship is good. Most people are dishing it out too soon. We've got the wrong strategies and expectations that are not working.

If things were working we wouldn't have so many people hurting and the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

Or we can use the current model and accept the reality. Which is that the current model works well for relationships that last between a few months to a few years. But forget life long partnerships. It's the minority in the current culture.

Edited October 15, 2009 by BookerT

October 15, 2009

No, I'm saying balance is bliss. Right now the dating culture in most developed countries is clearly not working, and swung to an extreme that relies too much on love (or infatuation). We've got the wrong strategies and expectations that are not working.

If things were working we wouldn't have so many people hurting and the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

Or we can use the current model and accept the reality. Which is that the current model works well for relationships that last between a few months to a few months. But forget life long partnerships. It's the minority in the current culture.

Just for kicks, you said in a previous thread, that love dies over time.

So, my question is, why get married? Aside from arranged marriages (which do not happen in the US), what is the point to getting married??

Finding someone that is suitable to have children with? That could support the child?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that's the reason why anyone should get married.

Maybe I am misunderstanding.

October 15, 2009

Just for kicks, you said in a previous thread, that love dies over time.

So, my question is, why get married? Aside from arranged marriages (which do not happen in the US), what is the point to getting married??

Finding someone that is suitable to have children with? That could support the child?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that's the reason why anyone should get married.

Maybe I am misunderstanding.

You're right, and this is why people shouldn't have such high expectations of love or marriage. Marriage doesn't work the same way it used to in developed countries anymore.

Marriage used to be important because women depended on men for income, and there was a division of labor. Men went out to work, and women stayed at home and looked after the home.

Also, marriage is a stable way to bring up kids.

These days however people get married because of love, without realizing that romantic love naturally disappears after a few years in the vast majority of cases (90%) of couples.

Thus I wouldn't get married with someone just because of love, but because of a shared goal to want a family, and a desire to work as a team. If people marry for only love then they will likely end up divorced one day.

I'm not saying love is a bad thing. There just has to be something more than love to hold two people together. Especially when a lot of people are using the wrong bonding model at the beginning, and not getting to know someone well enough to spot red flags.

Edited October 15, 2009 by BookerT

October 15, 2009

You're right, and this is why people shouldn't have such high expectations of love or marriage. Marriage doesn't work the same way it used to in developed countries anymore.

Marriage used to be important because women depended on men for income, and there was a division of labor. Men went out to work, and women stayed at home and looked after the home.

Also, marriage is a stable way to bring up kids.

These days however people get married because of love, without realizing that romantic love naturally disappears after a few years in the vast majority of cases (90%) of couples.

Thus I wouldn't get married with someone just because of love, but because of a shared goal to want a family, and a desire to work as a team. If people marry for only love then they will likely end up divorced one day.

I'm not saying love is a bad thing. There just has to be something more than love to hold two people together. Especially when a lot of people are using the wrong bonding model at the beginning, and not getting to know someone well enough to spot red flags.

Ok, I understand now. And I agree with you a million percent!!

In my experience, the problem isn't finding someone that wants a family and a lifelong commitment, it's finding someone that actually stays true to that promise.

My ex, for example, wanted to marry me and have children with me. I was fully on board. But, it turns out, that he wasn't a strong enough man to follow through with it.

I'm not saying, by any means, that it's the other persons fault... i'm simply stating that it's much harder to find someone (even if it's yourself) that's completely true to their word.

I guess that's something that's going to be an issue forever. In my opinion, though, it's worth the chance.

October 15, 2009

Ok, I understand now. And I agree with you a million percent!!

In my experience, the problem isn't finding someone that wants a family and a lifelong commitment, it's finding someone that actually stays true to that promise.

My ex, for example, wanted to marry me and have children with me. I was fully on board. But, it turns out, that he wasn't a strong enough man to follow through with it.

I'm not saying, by any means, that it's the other persons fault... i'm simply stating that it's much harder to find someone (even if it's yourself) that's completely true to their word.

I guess that's something that's going to be an issue forever. In my opinion, though, it's worth the chance.

Well I think a lot of people feel like getting married because it's what everyone else is doing. So they say they want to get married.

However for a lot of people getting married is like going skydiving or getting on a scary ride at a theme park. They say they want to try it out, then piss themselves whilst on the ride.

October 15, 2009

The best model I found was to reverse what most people do. Most people do this:

Sex
Trust
Emotional attachment
Reliance
Getting to know someone

Despite what people say, these days most people have sex way too early and get emotionally attached before getting to know someone. Therefore once attached they start relying on the person and can't break away.

Once the other person shows their true colors, jerk/bitch etc then it's hard to break away because of the emotions invested.

This makes no sense. First of all, I find it hard to believe that most people (especially women) are willing to have sex with somebody before they get to know that person at least somewhat....unless we're talking about pros or drunken college freshmen. As for your assertion that people have a hard time breaking away from relationships, I'm not seeing any evidence of that. In fact, the reverse is it true: the divorce rate is sky high and people nowadays are generally having many more partners over the course of their lives than their parents and grandparents ever had.

In the past, arranged marriages "worked" for a number of reasons. First and foremost, divorce either wasn't allowed or was highly frowned upon. So people lived their entire lives in unhappy relationships instead of looking for something better. Also, people didn't even know what 'better' was, as many had no romantic experiences prior to marriage.

Another problem is the fact that the values emphasized by the modern society have led people to become much more self-oriented, as opposed to family-oriented. Having a 'normal' family and raising kids were practically a universal priority for people of pre-Baby Boomer generations. And it was often kids that held families together. Nowadays, people see kids as obstacles to their careers and vacation plans and choose to have them much later in life, if at all.

October 15, 2009

This makes no sense. First of all, I find it hard to believe that most people (especially women) are willing to have sex with somebody before they get to know that person at least somewhat....unless we're talking about pros or drunken college freshmen.

Most people have sex these days after a few dates. It takes MUCH longer than that to get to know someone properly. I bet most people have sex before one month........no? That's not long enough to get to know anything beyond the superficial or an act.

As for your assertion that people have a hard time breaking away from relationships, I'm not seeing any evidence of that. In fact, the reverse is it true: the divorce rate is sky high and people nowadays are generally having many more partners over the course of their lives than their parents and grandparents ever had.

right........divorce after many years. That's much better than leaving someone with red flag behaviors in the first few months.......

In the past, arranged marriages "worked" for a number of reasons. First and foremost, divorce either wasn't allowed or was highly frowned upon. So people lived their entire lives in unhappy relationships instead of looking for something better. Also, people didn't even know what 'better' was, as many had no romantic experiences prior to marriage.

The first part is true. A lot of people were unhappy. Are people a lot happier now? No....... they just on roller coaster rides, and hurt all the time. Just look at this board.

People want the stability AND the love. It's one or the other in most cases unfortunately. I'm not going for one or the other, I was just stressing balance. Read the OP carefully, I wasn't advocating arranged marriages, but something in the middle, which requires more conscious mate selection rather than going with feelings alone.

Another problem is the fact that the values emphasized by the modern society have led people to become much more self-oriented, as opposed to family-oriented. Having a 'normal' family and raising kids were practically a universal priority for people of pre-Baby Boomer generations. And it was often kids that held families together. Nowadays, people see kids as obstacles to their careers and vacation plans and choose to have them much later in life, if at all.

This I agree with you absolutely. For the first time in human history having a family isn't the first priority but self-orientated lifestyle.

Edited October 15, 2009 by BookerT

October 15, 2009

The first part is true. A lot of people were unhappy. Are people a lot happier now? No....... they just on roller coaster rides, and hurt all the time. Just look at this board.

I don't want to get too philosophical, but unhappiness is part of the human condition. People who are truly happy are the exception, not the norm. That's how it always was. A peasant living a thousand years ago may not have been terribly stressed out about relationships but he had lots of other things to make him unhappy. Nowadays, we don't have many of the problems our medieval ancestors had, but we have other sources of stress, including dating.

The bottom line is that happiness is an internal state of mind. If you are a happy person, you will find positive things in the surrounding environment and use them to reinforce your happiness. Conversely, if you are an unhappy person, you will always find something to be unhappy about (i.e. look at all the rich and famous types who commit suicide or abuse drugs and alcohol).

Happy and unhappy people approach dating and relationships in totally different ways. Happy people generally don't get hurt much by rejection, failed relationships, betrayal, etc. They just shrug it off and move on. On the other hand, unhappy people dwell on the smallest of things and succumb to their insecurities.

All of this is a long way of saying that the current dating scene has little to do with why so many people are unhappy and hurt. They would have been unhappy in their lives in any event.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Johnny M

October 15, 2009

I don't want to get too philosophical, but unhappiness is part of the human condition. People who are truly happy are the exception, not the norm. That's how it always was. A peasant living a thousand years ago may not have been terribly stressed out about relationships but he had lots of other things to make him unhappy. Nowadays, we don't have many of the problems our medieval ancestors had, but we have other sources of stress, including dating.

The bottom line is that happiness is an internal state of mind. If you are a happy person, you will find positive things in the surrounding environment and use them to reinforce your happiness. Conversely, if you are an unhappy person, you will always find something to be unhappy about (i.e. look at all the rich and famous types who commit suicide or abuse drugs and alcohol).

Happy and unhappy people approach dating and relationships in totally different ways. Happy people generally don't get hurt much by rejection, failed relationships, betrayal, etc. They just shrug it off and move on. On the other hand, unhappy people dwell on the smallest of things and succumb to their insecurities.

All of this is a long way of saying that the current dating scene has little to do with why so many people are unhappy and hurt. They would have been unhappy in their lives in any event.

I agree with you that there will always be happy and unhappy people.

However, the overall population can experience different levels of happiness based on what life deals them, or what they deal themselves in life.

For example, don't tell me the AVERAGE person during WW2 was happier than the AVERAGE person during peacetime.

Also, and I know happiness is a subjective measure, but they find that people in certain countries, especially in tropica climates with no warfare are happier than people in developed countries with high stress levels.

There will be individual differences, but the range in which the entire population finds itself in will vary depending on the situation or environment.

Also, divorce is pretty much the best way to screw up the next generation. It's pretty well documented.

October 15, 2009

I agree with you that there will always be happy and unhappy people.

However, the overall population can experience different levels of happiness based on what life deals them, or what they deal themselves in life.

For example, don't tell me the AVERAGE person during WW2 was happier than the AVERAGE person during peacetime.

Obviously, extreme calamities like war, famine or something more personal, like the death of a beloved relative, would make even a very happy person temporarily unhappy. I wasn't trying to say that happy people never feel down. I was referring to one general attitude towards the world and towards oneself.

Also, and I know happiness is a subjective measure, but they find that people in certain countries, especially in tropica climates with no warfare are happier than people in developed countries with high stress levels.

There may indeed be some correlation between climate and depression and other mood disorders, but I somehow doubt that people living in places like Africa, India and South America are much happier than their North American and European counterparts. Nor is it likely that people in Southern California are on average happier than people in Alaska. People hailing from southern countries often have a more laid back, easy-going demeanor, but I wouldn't mistake it for happiness.

October 15, 2009

Actually, laid back is no1 for getting happiness. Stress creates lack of happiness, often even if income levels go up. Actually when I looked it up a lot of European countries have high scores along with countries with a tropical climate. Not surprised since a lot of Europeans have a more laid back and relaxed lifestyle than Americans, Japanese or more competitive cultures.

http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/20-most-happy-countries-in-the-world/

Just look it up, there's loads of studies on happiness.

Anyway, back to the original point. I think to say that there's zero variation in happiness when dating culture changes entirely is over simplification.

Edited October 15, 2009 by BookerT

October 15, 2009

Did you know that for most of human history 80% of cultures used arranged marriages or parents picked partners for their kids? It actually works better than the model we currently have and married people were generally much happier because they didn't rely on initial fickle feelings to build the bond between two people.

.

How are the proving that arranged marriages means people are happier? Do you really think taking choice out of the equation means happiness?

I would agree that the divorce rate in countries that have/had arranged a lower divorce rate (something like 1% to 45% in the US) but I doubt these marrirages are actually 'better' or they are happier.

Rather, it is more likely there are less divorce rates due to the fact there is so much pressure put on them from their families, and ramifications and shame if they do try to split.

Here is some of the criteria that has been common in India for finding an arranged marriage partner:

Values and personal expectations: should match
Age and height: girl should generally be younger and shorter
Looks: should be acceptable to the other
Religion: should be same, preferrably same sect
Mother tongue, caste: should be preferrably same
Diet (veg/non-veg/alcohol/smoking): may differ only if acceptable to the other
Education: comparable educational levels or the boy should be more educated than the girl
Profession: the profession should be acceptable to the other
Financial: The boy's current and future financial situation should be acceptable to the girl.
Astrological signs/attributes: should be compatible, if the two families believe in it.

October 15, 2009

How are the proving that arranged marriages means people are happier? Do you really think taking choice out of the equation means happiness?
I would agree that the divorce rate in countries that have/had arranged a lower divorce rate (something like 1% to 45% in the US) but I doubt these marrirages are actually 'better' or they are happier.
Rather, it is more likely there are less divorce rates due to the fact there is so much pressure put on them from their families, and ramifications and shame if they do try to split.

Here is some of the criteria that has been common in India for finding an arranged marriage partner:

Values and personal expectations: should match
Age and height: girl should generally be younger and shorter
Looks: should be acceptable to the other
Religion: should be same, preferrably same sect
Mother tongue, caste: should be preferrably same
Diet (veg/non-veg/alcohol/smoking): may differ only if acceptable to the other
Education: comparable educational levels or the boy should be more educated than the girl
Profession: the profession should be acceptable to the other
Financial: The boy's current and future financial situation should be acceptable to the girl.
Astrological signs/attributes: should be compatible, if the two families believe in it.

Dont' get me wrong, I wasn't advocating arranged marriages. I was just saying that when people pick for themselves and base it just on love they are terribly bad at doing it.

That's why many cultures by passed this completely and went to arranged marriages.

I'm not saying it's a better system, I'm saying a system in between where a person used more conscious control over selection and relied less on butterflies in the stomach is the smartest choice.

Clearly what we have now doesn't work. Well, at least not if you're aiming to find "the one" which so many people are. In reality most people will keep finding "the one" that lasts about 2-5 years.

October 15, 2009

I wasn't advocating arranged marriages. I was just saying that when people pick for themselves and base it just on love they are terribly bad at doing it.

That's why many cultures by passed this completely and went to arranged marriages.

I'm not saying it's a better system, I'm saying a system in between where a person used more conscious control over selection and relied less on butterflies in the stomach is the smartest choice.

Clearly what we have now doesn't work.

It's depressing, but it comes down to this

Humans covet things we dont' have.

Polygamy, as you have said, is not a natural state for most mammals, including humans. Monogamy came about for the benefit of civilization and society.

Divorce is high - people give up and want something else that comes along.

So you either have arranged marriages where someone is herded into a social contract based on a checklist, rather than because there are genuine developed feelings, or western based marriages which have an awful success rate.

Good times!

October 15, 2009

It's depressing, but it comes down to this

Humans covet things we dont' have.

Polygamy, as you have said, is not a natural state for most mammals, including humans. Monogamy came about for the benefit of civilization and society.
Divorce is high - people give up and want something else that comes along.

So you either have arranged marriages where someone is herded into a social contract based on a checklist, rather than because there are genuine developed feelings, or western based marriages which have an awful success rate.

Good times!

I think the key is to teach young kids to make sensible choices. I find it amazing considering relationships are such an important part of our lives we don't teach relationship education at school. I mean sex education yes, but no relationship education?

Instead of teaching kids to make sensible choices they're blasted with chick flicks and over romanticized notions of love that get both guys and girls screwed because they are chasing things that are not realisitc.

October 15, 2009

I think you are right. People greatly underestimate the power of sex to create emotional bonds between them and another person. The relationship that is casually entered into is only left in great pain. All the people in the breakup section of this site show that. People have sex quickly, then months or years later realize that they are with the wrong person. They break up and it leaves both of them with scars. That is baggage that they take to the next relationship. They keep going through a cycle of intense pain followed by intense pleasure and excitement, but don't think a lot about the connection between the two and whether one is really worth the other.

I think it would be great if everybody did what you suggest, and got to know each other over a long period of time before sex. More importantly, that they not have sex until they really make a conscious decision that they want to be with this person long term for sure, because that is what their emotions will tell them to do after sex.

Scott

October 15, 2009

So I was reading the "Is love overrated?" thread and I started doing more research on the subject.

Did you know that for most of human history 80% of cultures used arranged marriages or parents picked partners for their kids? It actually works better than the model we currently have and married people were generally much happier because they didn't rely on initial fickle feelings to build the bond between two people.

Chemistry is actually an extremely inaccurate way of determining a good potential partner because our reality is clouded when we're pumped full of the hormones that drive attraction.

So the experts on relationships generally advise a middle ground between the extremes of arranged marriages and fickle "Romeo and Juliet" type of love.

The best model I found was to reverse what most people do. Most people do this:

Sex
Trust
Emotional attachment
Reliance
Getting to know someone

Despite what people say, these days most people have sex way too early and get emotionally attached before getting to know someone. Therefore once attached they start relying on the person and can't break away.

Once the other person shows their true colors, jerk/bitch etc then it's hard to break away because of the emotions invested.

The correct model is:

Get to know someone
Trust
Emotional attachment
Reliance
Sex

People these days don't have the patience to get to know someone first before having sex and that's why they keep finding the wrong partners. Also, I know most people think they've gotten to know someone properly, but sorry to say this, that's not true, it takes at least a month of two of frequent contact to get to know someone properly even if obsevant. Or 6 months or more for most people.

Most people get emotionally attached well before that and that's why the relationship scene is getting worse and worse. The romantic chick flick, love at first sight model just doesn't work.

Btw, I am not a conservative. I was just commenting on the right strategy.

You read "How Not to Date a Jerk" didn't you? You pretty much just quoted the whole book.

October 15, 2009

IMO most girls genuinely want the 2nd (i.e. intimacy first, sex last) and dudes want the 1st (sex first). Often guys realize this predicament, and pretend they are into emotional intimacy so that they score....(i.e. sex first) then they are off! Sorry for the generalizations guys....I know you're not all like that but there are a lot of playas around that are!

Sign In

We got it all wrong that's why we're hurting

Recommended Posts

BookerT

EricaH329

TheLoneSock

pandagirl

BookerT

BookerT

EricaH329

BookerT

EricaH329

BookerT

EricaH329

BookerT

Johnny M

BookerT

Johnny M

BookerT

Johnny M

BookerT

northstar1

BookerT

northstar1

BookerT

Scottdmw

Ilovecake

torranceshipman

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...