Attraction and processing time

[zengirl]

I'm a little worried that you're able to look at a profile and think, "I want to be in a relationship with this guy!" before you've ever met him and gotten to know him in real life.

 

I think if would benefit you to hold off on "processing time" until you actually meet a guy.

 

Yeah, that's not at all what I said.

 

Every guy I date, I go in with the expectation that they are potential BF material, of course (since I don't have any interest in short term dating or just sex, so what other point is there for a date?), and if I thought otherwise, I'd not go out with them. HOWEVER, I'm talking about simply developing butterfly/crush/lustful feelings, not trying to figure out what our kids might look like. Geez.

 

If a guy turns out to be in any way unsuitable in the first few dates, even if I had those feelings, I don't go out with him again. It's not as though butterflies are an actual attachment-type of feeling. They're just the za-za-zoom so to speak.

[Kamille]

I don't know if I understand, but I definitely need to be intrigued by someone in order to feel attracted to them. In my case, written communication doesn't necessarily play a part, but communication, a sense of humor and playfulness definitely do. And yes, that feeling of intrigue takes more than one meeting to build-up.

 

The difference could be that I can feel intrigued by someone after two, three dates, precisely because the conversation was lively and playful. Generally speaking though, it develops over the 2-3 first weeks of dating.

[Star Gazer]

Yeah, that's not at all what I said.

 

Every guy I date, I go in with the expectation that they are potential BF material, of course (since I don't have any interest in short term dating or just sex, so what other point is there for a date?), and if I thought otherwise, I'd not go out with them. HOWEVER, I'm talking about simply developing butterfly/crush/lustful feelings, not trying to figure out what our kids might look like. Geez.

 

Why are you so defensive? I used your own quote.

 

You said you felt, "I want to be in a relationship with this guy!" before you even had a date with him.

 

Thinking you actually want to be in a relationship with someone is very different from merely considering someone possible boyfriend material. I don't think it's healthy to want to be in a relationship with someone whom you've never met. That's all I was saying.

[zengirl]

Why are you so defensive? I used your own quote.

 

You said you felt, "I want to be in a relationship with this guy!" before you even had a date with him.

 

Thinking you actually want to be in a relationship with someone is very different from merely considering someone possible boyfriend material. I don't think it's healthy to want to be in a relationship with someone whom you've never met. That's all I was saying.

 

To me, the two things are not very different. I wouldn't go on a date with a guy I didn't think I wanted to be in a relationship with at that time. That doesn't mean my thoughts wouldn't change (of course, they're open to amendment that early, and I wouldn't BE in a relationship yet).

 

Also, that "I want to be in a relationship with this guy!" quote from my post was also clearly specific to my last BF who I spent months talking with online, due to being on another continent, emailing and Skyping and such, and not just what happens when I look at a random dating profile as you wrote in your statement. Yes, I wanted to be in a relationship with my BF before meeting him. THAT PART of our relationship worked out just fine --- best and healthiest beginning I've ever experienced --- so that wasn't really an issue. It didn't work out forever, but we had a good, long run. I disagree that you cannot know from talking with someone for months if you want a relationship with them. . . from experience. Not sure why you thought commenting on that had much to do with the post at hand.

 

Thanks for the concern, but I'm pretty sure I approach dating from a healthy place. I definitely don't have any problem with moving too fast.

[OliveOyl]

I have more trouble meeting someone and being fascinated by them if I've not seen their writing. But even text messages can do it. It's weird. . . I am pretty much 100% sure now that could never date a guy with bad punctuation and grammar. I capitalize my sentences/Is and such, using proper sentences, even in text. All my boyfriends have too (that I've ever texted with).

 

I guess, in general, the principle isn't that weird. My roommate looked all over her BF's FB profile and that made her like him lots more (his fun pictures, his interests, etc) during their early dates. But I guess I just focus more on the writing aspects than others. I remember guys even just using like a turn of a phrase (in writing), and me suddenly thinking I wanted to make out with him, when I hadn't had that feeling yet before.

 

But it's not like I won't go out with guys otherwise. Or I insist they write to me for months on end first. I just generally don't get too interested, or lustful, unless I'm given something in writing to attach to.

 

Zengirl, I can relate to what you're saying. I have gotten sucked up in emotional/online relationships in the past. And I have had a tendency to judge someone by their spelling, grammar, and their ability to express themselves through words. However, I'm beginning to think this is not as important to building attractiveness as I assumed.

 

This guy I met through online dating... at first I was feeling pretty neutral and his spelling wasn't so great when we chatted online. Despite this, to my surprise, something shifted positively for me during/after the 2nd date. And not because we were sharing a witty exchange either. There's just sometimes a "vibe" that can come across that has absolutely nothing to do with words or even physical attractiveness. Now I'm curious to see whether that vibe was simply my projection, or something actually about him. I hope to find out after the next date...

[Star Gazer]

I wouldn't go on a date with a guy I didn't think I wanted to be in a relationship with at that time.

 

It is THAT that I think is unhealthy. Wanting to actually be in a relationship with someone before you've ever had a date with them... I think that's the very definition of moving too fast.

 

Thanks for the concern, but I'm pretty sure I approach dating from a healthy place. I definitely don't have any problem with moving too fast.

 

Awesome condescension.

 

Well, as I said above, it seems you do move too fast - emotionally, anyway. And if you approach everything perfectly, what's this thread for? If you don't want to receive perspectives that differ from your own, LS probably isn't the right place to start threads about how you approach relationships.

[daphne]

The difference could be that I can feel intrigued by someone after two, three dates, precisely because the conversation was lively and playful. Generally speaking though, it develops over the 2-3 first weeks of dating.

 

I think I'm more in your camp with the playful interaction over time. I don't understand the penpal thing. I gotta see you and your reactions to see if there's possible chemistry.

[zengirl]

It is THAT that I think is unhealthy. Wanting to actually be in a relationship with someone before you've ever had a date with them... I think that's the very definition of moving too fast.

 

It's not like I think a date = a relationship. However, to me, the sole purpose of dating at this stage in my life is to find someone to be in a relationship with, ideally THE relationship. I make this very clear to everyone I know, including the people I date. I don't date "for fun" anymore. I don't date "to meet new people." I date to build towards a potential relationship. So. . . yes, I am thinking I want a relationship with them if I go on a date with them. It doesn't mean I know it would work yet. And, as I said, the case with my last BF was a different one, and that part of it worked out perfectly fine. Pretty silly to judge how relationships "should" begin in my opinion.

 

Awesome condescension.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Well, as I said above, it seems you do move too fast - emotionally, anyway.

 

Emotionally? I'm not in love with the guy or anything. Perhaps to you thinking, "I want to be in a relationship with this guy!" is some kind of huge emotional step. To me, it's just the natural attitude of me towards dating someone I'm interested in and excited about. It's not like I'm emotionally crushed if it doesn't work out at that stage.

 

And if you approach everything perfectly, what's this thread for? If you don't want to receive perspectives that differ from your own, LS probably isn't the right place to start threads about how you approach relationships.

 

I'm happy to receive other perspectives, but what's with the need (on your part) to criticize a strawman to the point of the thread. It's weird because your criticism is actually the opposite of the "problem" if there is one (I don't feel the 'normal' reaction in terms of dating, that I can be excited by just meeting a great, new guy, usually, which is something I see a lot of people feeling; for me, it usually involves some 'processing' as I say---if anything, this is overly cautious, though I don't think it's caused by fear; I think, as I suggested in my banter with Easy Heart who made a great point about introversion, I just approach dating from a more introverted POV than I do anything else). I simply find your perspective very off and making broad assumptions.

 

Your point also makes no sense from a practical standpoint based on the experience I pointed out in the OP. While the relationship with my exBF didn't 'work out,' it was happy for a long time, and it did begin with me (and him) thinking we wanted a relationship before meeting in person, after plenty of communication to support our reasoning on that. Plenty of other relationships have started WHILE two people weren't in the same place (not something I'd ever do) and then been successful, in this day and age. To judge all of those as "unhealthy" seems a bit strange to me. People start relationships in all different ways. Personally, that relationship had my favorite start yet, so I don't doubt the way it started at all. There were other issues, and other things to learn, but not that.

[Star Gazer]

I think I'm more in your camp with the playful interaction over time. I don't understand the penpal thing. I gotta see you and your reactions to see if there's possible chemistry.

 

I'm with you ladies. There's no way I'm going into a first date/meeting with someone I've never met in person already thinking I want him to be my boyfriend. You gotta get to know the person as an individual, in person, and see if you vibe with each other...and then go on a second date, third, etc., before a relationship is desired. I mean, how many times have we seen potential in an online date only to have it be a dud?

[daphne]

I mean, how many times have we seen potential in an online date only to have it be a dud?

 

Only about 11 times now.

 

It's like a part time damn job.

[OliveOyl]

I can see both sides. I've known people who have become very committed to each other without having met in person yet. However this is not the typical online dating, this is after hundreds of hours over several months of corresponding online (usually including voice and webcam too).

 

It's kind of a crap shoot, though and 99% of the time involves long distance, which often leads to the demise of the relationship.

[zengirl]

I can see both sides. I've known people who have become very committed to each other without having met in person yet. However this is not the typical online dating, this is after hundreds of hours over several months of corresponding online (usually including voice and webcam too).

 

It's kind of a crap shoot, though and 99% of the time involves long distance, which often leads to the demise of the relationship.

 

This thread wasn't even about LD online relationships (which I never really had --- just happened to meet my ex before I moved here and correspond with him TONS so that the first meeting was basically a formality, though we still went through all the normal first steps)! I don't think they're terribly bad, unless people have unreasonable expectations or one person is far ahead of the other. Long distance, in general, sucks, though, even if you were once together in person; I'd never do LD without a plan to get to the same place pretty darn quick, but I'm just not built for it.

 

It was more about how people process attraction. Which a lot of people seem to misunderstand as me only doing internet dating (untrue) or whatnot. I, personally, like online dating, but I meet people all over. Most of my bad first dates have not been from online, and most of my first dates from online --- because I'm quite picky at who I'll go out with and exchange at least a few messages first --- have been pretty good. A few exceptions, but none all that recent. I had a few bad dates first last month, but none were from OKC. I suppose everyone has higher success in different places.

 

For me, I guess it's difficult to do it when the other person is around; not like it's difficult to interact or anything, but I find the first time I have real lust or attraction for anyone, they are not present. This is totally weird. (And it's not like I never have it for them when they are present -- later, I will.) But I don't think it's "unhealthy." Just odd.

[welikeincrowds]

Only about 11 times now.

 

It's like a part time damn job.

 

Oh ****. Send me an invoice and I'll set you up with a stipend or something.

 

but I find the first time I have real lust or attraction for anyone, they are not present

 

That is because you are seduced by the art and then you conflate it with the artist. I use art and artist symbolically here but it probably still applies. It's one of the reasons we can fall in love with a musician by listening to their music.

 

By the way I'm 100% right about this so don't even try to doubt it.

[zengirl]

That is because you are seduced by the art and then you conflate it with the artist. I use art and artist symbolically here but it probably still applies. It's one of the reasons we can fall in love with a musician by listening to their music.

 

By the way I'm 100% right about this so don't even try to doubt it.

 

I don't think so. I've been more into a guy through autobiographical writing (whether it be a OKC profile or a published memoir or anything in between), sure, but not really through just art/music/etc. It's got nothing to do with the "art."

 

I think it has to do with me not processing when other people are around. It's not just with love either. When people are around, I just don't do well at thinking what I think of them for the first/early time. I develop a greater interest in them, even as people, when I think about our histories or read about them. In terms of the writing aspect, I'm also not visual (I think in words---I cannot "picture" anything, only describe it in my head with words) at all, so that's likely why I connect to their writing, rather than their pictures. Words, in general, are where I live.

 

But I understand the phenomenon you're referencing and disagree it applies to me. I'm not that girlish. I think I just need contemplation before I endeavor to connect with a person.

[welikeincrowds]

But I understand the phenomenon you're referencing and disagree it applies to me. I'm not that girlish. I think I just need contemplation before I endeavor to connect with a person.

 

Well, the thing is, we all do it. That's why we say things are beautiful; that's actually false. We create beauty in our minds when we imagine the thing we take in with our senses, and then we say that thing gave us the beauty when actually we gave it to ourselves, which is also why other people might not agree that something is beautiful, because what in fact happened is that they are unable to create the beauty in themselves, with that thing as the catalyst. After all, if the thing itself were actually beautiful, everyone would equally share beauty in it, right? Just like everyone gets burned from something hot? Hmmmmmm. But that's just a philosophy, kinda sorta not related to what you're talking about.

 

I don't think so. I've been more into a guy through autobiographical writing (whether it be a OKC profile or a published memoir or anything in between), sure, but not really through just art/music/etc. It's got nothing to do with the "art."

Autobiography is also a sort of fiction and certainly a creation.

 

I think it has to do with me not processing when other people are around.

That could be. It helps to have something physical there to do that too, because it's persistent, and you can keep referring back to it, rather than your memory, which might be especially unreliable or inaccessible for you. I N T E R E S T I N G Edited April 14, 2011 by welikeincrowds

[zengirl]

I'll skip the philosophy today.

 

Autobiography is also a sort of fiction and certainly a creation.

 

I think I find autobiography interesting, and -- in the case of a real person I'm met and dating -- sexy because I dig self-reflection. I disagree it's a type of "fiction" since it is, as a genre, nonfiction. That's. . . kind of part of the definition of autobiography and memoir. It falls under the umbrella of nonfiction.

 

If you mean people can lie about themselves, I suppose they can, but I find it rarer than most people suggest, at least in my experiences, that people have lied about themselves in essays about themselves on their blogs or OKC profiles or FBs or wherever you might find modern-day autobiography for the average person. Most people fumble, desperate to connect (at least in my generation) and are fairly eager to share their truths, rather than create something false. Sure, some people may lie, but I very rarely see that. Most people I know who write things down about themselves regularly endeavor to be seen as who they are.

 

Perhaps I believe writing is key to self-reflection. I wouldn't say that 100%, but I do lean towards it.

 

That could be. It helps to have something physical there to do that too, because it's persistent, and you can keep referring back to it, rather than your memory, which might be especially unreliable or inaccessible for you. I N T E R E S T I N G

 

Yes, I have a great memory, but I try not to sit in contemplation of my memories, so having something physical avoids that. Every time you conjure a memory, you re-write it in your brain (literally; you physically change the cells where it is kept), after all.