The Definition of a High Quality Man

[GoodOnPaper]

Most of us women who have been in relationships with men who are really "quality" people probably agree on one thing - we were also attracted to them.

 

This is a confusing twist. While I understand that not all attractive men are high-quality, I assumed that for those of us who have struggled to attract women, becoming "high quality" (somehow) would result in attracting more women. I can't see how "quality" and attraction would be unrelated.

[AD1980]

This is a confusing twist. While I understand that not all attractive men are high-quality, I assumed that for those of us who have struggled to attract women, becoming "high quality" (somehow) would result in attracting more women. I can't see how "quality" and attraction would be unrelated.

 

Because you could have all those traits that a women deems "quality" but if she isnt physically attracted to you it doesn't matter

[GoodOnPaper]

Because you could have all those traits that a women deems "quality" but if she isnt physically attracted to you it doesn't matter

 

But that doesn't make sense as physical attractiveness is always included in the lists of these traits.

[Mme. Chaucer]

But that doesn't make sense as physical attractiveness is always included in the lists of these traits.

 

Chemistry, dude. It's pretty mysterious, what makes two people connect.

 

I think that women and men probably differ (speaking generally, here) in this regard, but for me, I REQUIRE that special chemical spark, and it does not necessarily correlate with the facial structure, height, resume, "game" or whatever a guy has. If that indefinable something is not there, nothing is happening. And nothing was happening without it when I was in my 20's either, though I seem to have started "sparking" for different types of guys as I became older.

 

Those of you who think that it's all about looking like Brad Pitt and having an impressive list of "quality" attributes are off base. Life is not a bar.

[Oxy Moronovich]

Yes, preach it, sister!

 

Mme. Chaucer and Janesays, you seem like intelligent women, yet you two are BS-ing me. Women adapt their relationship preferences according to their options. Women only have the option of meeting men who approach them. And when old age kicks in, they have less options. A woman sees fewer guys approach after she passes 30. Heck, some women don't need to wait til they're 30. Some women have few options even when they are 20 and see their looks start to fade at 25. They don't become shriveled old hags, but, in some cases, their looks noticeably deteriorate. So they become desperate and pick up whatever dude will stick around.

 

By contrast, a man has the option of meeting as many women as he approaches. I've met guys in their 40s and 50s whose sex lives are better than guys in their 20s. Why? Because older men are more successful.

 

Mme. Chaucer and Janesays, I'm not trying to cast your post aside because I feel they are insightful in many ways. But you gotta know men are aware women don't want "high quality man" who is a volunteer or tips big for pregnant waitresses or mows lawns for old ladies. If a woman has the option of jerks or "high quality men", they'll choose jerks because those are the ones that get them off.

 

How is this different from female posters like verzhn who constantly slag guys for being clueless because they can't see what a great woman she is?

 

*Scratches head* Do I?

 

You do. Here's one of hundreds of examples:

 

Well, this weekend I've been at a big nerd event, a sci-fi con. My friends and I are even throwing a huge steampunk themed room party. Due to the theme and the party, I've spent most of the evening in what I consider a pretty attractive costume: leggings, knee high boots corset, great make-up.

 

My friends all said I looked fine/great, and I felt super confident because I love wearing this kind of stuff. Yet as the night wore on.... nothing. Not a single guy flirted with me. The only two people who complimented me were an older lady who told me I had great boobs, and a transvestite who told me I was pretty.

 

So, how do I tell if he likes me? And what am I doing wrong to not have ANYONE flirt with me? I'm confident, I'm friendly and outgoing and I think I look pretty good. So what's the problem??

 

Here's the thread link: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t285526/

 

verzhn, it's funny how you pretend like you don't know you do this. All anyone knows you for is the chick who constantly complains about men not noticing her. You give every excuse in the world why it is all the man's fault for overlooking you. You put on this sweet but ignored girl act that's starting to annoy people. Now that people started saying the pic of you in your avi is actually attractive, you took it down. You didn't want people to realize you're just whoring for attention.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Mme. Chaucer and Janesays, you seem like intelligent women, yet you two are BS-ing me.

 

No we aren't.

 

Women adapt their relationship preferences according to their options.

 

EVERYONE adapts their relationship "preferences" according to their options.

 

Women only have the option of meeting men who approach them.

 

Really? I promise you that women do approach men, and lots of men even like it. Also, many women know how to signal their interest in a man and are able to use their "feminine wiles" to get the targeted guy to approach.

 

Please don't tell me you aren't aware of this!

 

And when old age kicks in, they have less options. A woman sees fewer guys approach after she passes 30.

 

I promise you I am not lying - I had many more men after me when I was in my early 30's than when in my 20's. That's the truth.

 

I've met guys in their 40s and 50s whose sex lives are better than guys in their 20s. Why? Because older men are more successful.

 

Maybe their sex lives are better because … they are married?

 

Honestly, when I was in my 20's and 30's, I would never, ever consider going out with an "older man." Yuck. I didn't want successful older men. I wanted exciting peers.

 

Heck, some women don't need to wait til they're 30. Some women have few options even when they are 20 and see their looks start to fade at 25. They don't become shriveled old hags, but, in some cases, their looks noticeably deteriorate. So they become desperate and pick up whatever dude will stick around.

 

I think you are talking about a particularly miserable subset of men and women. You sound as if you think all of life takes place inside of some kind of a pick-up joint.

 

 

If a woman has the option of jerks or "high quality men", they'll choose jerks because those are the ones that get them off.

 

Since I am old, but was formerly hot, I speak from real life experience. There is no truth that a jerk can "get me off" any better than a man. I mean, a real, quality man.

 

Most of the young women who waste much time with a "jerk" soon learn that it was … a big waste of time, and not something to be repeated.

[Eve]

I do agree with Eve about the strangeness of the term "quality" as applied to human beings. There's something pretty archaic about it. I picture a quality man having stary eyes, a handlebar moustache and standing next to a starched, terrified looking family.

 

I tried googling images of "quality man" and an array of things came up. A pair of trainers, lots of shoes, a woman with a big cleavage, a man wearing a pair of briefs with what seems to be a bat attached to them Michael Jackson and that mask Hannibal Lecter wore.

 

I suppose that in many ways Hannibal Lecter was a man of quality. He was highly educated, had an excellent appreciation of fine wines, a well tuned nose for women's perfume and was a good conversationalist.

 

Glad it wasn't just me thinking as such! Maybe it's my age but even in younger days it was about who the person is at their core.. probably the notion of not being able to quanitify this essence stood to make them attractive. Is this really an age where people really think they can 'get' this essence via what they own or how they look?

 

I am not convinced of this. Makes for a lot of misery if you ask me.

 

.. Most of us are simply glad to be able to contribute to a nice evening. I'll stick with that sort and honestly don't think I am missing out on anything.

 

Quality equals knowing when to make the tea in my simple world.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Oxy Moronovich]

EVERYONE adapts their relationship "preferences" according to their options.

Wrong, sister!

 

A man's options pretty much stays the same. Like I said before, a man has the option of meeting as many women he approaches. If I approach 50 women in 2000, and I approach 50 women in 2010, my options stay the same.

 

By contrast, a woman only has options of the men who approach her. If a woman is 25 yrs old in 2000, it is likely she's not going to have the same number of men approaching her in 2010, when she's 35.

Really? I promise you that women do approach men, and lots of men even like it. Also, many women know how to signal their interest in a man and are able to use their "feminine wiles" to get the targeted guy to approach.

 

Please don't tell me you aren't aware of this!

What's your definition of approach? A guy's definition of approach is if a woman walks up to a guy and directly asks him for a date. Few women do that. You also said, "many women know how to signal their interest in a man", but that's not true. Many times a man cannot tell a woman's signals at all. Sometimes it is difficult to discern if she's genuinely interested or merely being nice.

 

 

I promise you I am not lying - I had many more men after me when I was in my early 30's than when in my 20's. That's the truth.

Fine. You're not lying. This is the problem with talking with women though. Whenever a man makes a general statement about female behavior, there is never a shortage of women who will say, "I'm different."

 

A guy could say, "Women don't approach men." And here will be many women to say, "I approach men all the time." A guy could say, "Women mainly care about a man's status," and there are women who will say, "I don't care about status at all. In fact, my man is poor and I love him." A guy could say, "Women love to go shopping," and there will be women to say, "I hate shopping."

 

Somehow women think pointing out they're different means the statement isn't credible.

 

In any case, Mme. Chaucer. I used the age 30 as an example, basically. Even if you are different, I highly doubt the average woman gets more men in her 30s than in her 20s.

 

 

Maybe their sex lives are better because … they are married?

None were married.

Honestly, when I was in my 20's and 30's, I would never, ever consider going out with an "older man." Yuck. I didn't want successful older men. I wanted exciting peers.

Women say that all the time. But there are a crapload of young women with significantly older men. I'm sure all these women dating these older men said the same thing once.

 

Women will say one thing but do another. How many women say they don't go for jerks but end up dating them anyway? How many women say they would never be in an abusive relationship but end up in one? How many women say they would never let their marriage fall apart but end up divorcees? How many women say they'd never settle for an unambitious guy but end up doing just that?

 

 

I think you are talking about a particularly miserable subset of men and women. You sound as if you think all of life takes place inside of some kind of a pick-up joint.

What?

 

 

 

Since I am old, but was formerly hot, I speak from real life experience. There is no truth that a jerk can "get me off" any better than a man. I mean, a real, quality man.

 

Most of the young women who waste much time with a "jerk" soon learn that it was … a big waste of time, and not something to be repeated.

The last sentence is exactly what I've been talking about the whole time. Many women get ignored or abused by the jerk, they find it was a bad idea, they don't want to repeat it, and settle for a "high quality man". My whole point was women don't go for the high quality man from the beginning, they only go for them after they have little to no options. And you've just proven that. Thanks.

[Janesays]

But that doesn't make sense as physical attractiveness is always included in the lists of these traits.

 

Physical attraction is so so subjective.

 

For example, when I was around 22 or so, I dated an ugly guy. I was attracted to him, of course. But I remember when I first introduced him to friends, I remember them pulling me aside and saying, "Jane! What are you DOING! Are you making fun of him!?!?!"

 

Once they got to know him, though, their tunes changed to, "Oh! Now we see why you like him. He's a pretty cool guy...."

 

So while according to traditional societal standards of beauty, this guy would have been waaay down on the list, TO ME, he was dead sexy. Something about he and I just clicked.

 

I promise you I am not lying - I had many more men after me when I was in my early 30's than when in my 20's. That's the truth.

 

Me too! In fact, when I was in the process of my divorce, I lurked on this exact dating forum for awhile. Reading some of these threads, I thought I had a pretty bleak road ahead of me. The men here actually almost had me convinced that because I'm over 30, no man would ever want me.

 

However, when I actually entered the dating world, it was an entirely different story. In my experience of being a 30-something single girl in the dating world, it was akin to being a bleeding fish in the middle of a shark tank. Dead serious.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Janesays

[Mme. Chaucer]

A man's options pretty much stays the same. Like I said before, a man has the option of meeting as many women he approaches. If I approach 50 women in 2000, and I approach 50 women in 2010, my options stay the same.

 

Well, if I approached 50 men when I was 25 and I approach 50 men this year, are my options the same, too?

 

You certainly attribute a lot of special powers to your particular allotment of organs.

 

There are dozens of guys posting here who say they have NO options, and even more who say that women have had all the power and control over dating and sex for decades and now they are demanding a change.

 

Which is it?

 

 

The last sentence is exactly what I've been talking about the whole time. Many women get ignored or abused by the jerk, they find it was a bad idea, they don't want to repeat it, and settle for a "high quality man". My whole point was women don't go for the high quality man from the beginning, they only go for them after they have little to no options. And you've just proven that. Thanks.

 

But … I didn't say that the woman stopped liking jerks because she had little to no options. I said that she evolved into liking something else. It was an evolutionary upgrade, not a downgrade. Not "settling" for something less, but requiring something more.

 

You know what? You might even evolve to a different point of view with regards to what "success" with the opposite sex means.

[Taramere]

Glad it wasn't just me thinking as such! Maybe it's my age but even in younger days it was about who the person is at their core.. probably the notion of not being able to quanitify this essence stood to make them attractive. Is this really an age where people really think they can 'get' this essence via what they own or how they look?

 

 

I think it's been heading that way for a long time. Look how the advertising industry has changed. More and more, the consumer has been encouraged to view themselves and their life as products to be enhanced by other products.

 

You really hit on something for me with your raised eyebrow comment about the word "quality" being used...because that's exactly why it's so sad. Quality is something you would generally associate with an inanimate thing rather than a living creature - especially not a human being.

[Eve]

I think it's been heading that way for a long time. Look how the advertising industry has changed. More and more, the consumer has been encouraged to view themselves and their life as products to be enhanced by other products.

 

You really hit on something for me with your raised eyebrow comment about the word "quality" being used...because that's exactly why it's so sad. Quality is something you would generally associate with an inanimate thing rather than a living creature - especially not a human being.

 

Well, I don't know.

 

Historically, spacial time is at it's most close due to the media and advertising and this should really be a positive thing. I hope we get to seeing it as such rather than all suddenly marking ourselves up to be something we aren't.

 

It doesn't work.

 

I think most know this but are currently probably sounding it out, all the time.

 

The ones who carry on with very innocent aims, win the race. 'Quality' remains an aspect of what can be shared only when in a state of understanding. Hence I don't think humans can really become products, just lost.

 

Take care,

Eve x

Edited December 22, 2011 by Eve

[GoodOnPaper]

Me too! In fact, when I was in the process of my divorce, I lurked on this exact dating forum for awhile. Reading some of these threads, I thought I had a pretty bleak road ahead of me. The men here actually almost had me convinced that because I'm over 30, no man would ever want me.

 

Any of the negative stuff said about over-30 women needs to be taken with a grain of salt. At the core are some frustrated hopes that for guys who don't naturally attract a lot of women, the dating playing field will level out at some later time in life.

 

For a guy who is not in that top echelon of popularity/looks/charisma, entering the dating field as a teen can really be an ordeal by fire. For girls at that age, the world is their oyster in large part because they have much larger dating pools that include guys with several more years of life experience and maturity. The "regular" guys stumble through these early years with varying degrees of success -- some emerge relatively unscathed while others of us collect wounds so deep that even getting married and having a family can't heal them.

 

Stereotypically, the idea is that as guys get older, their dating pool increases to "catch up" so to speak while for women either their pool shrink or they have more competition for their existing pool. I don't know -- in this day and age, I don't think that the guys can truly "catch up". As your experience shows, there will always be a lot of competition for guys to deal with.

[Oxy Moronovich]

Well, if I approached 50 men when I was 25 and I approach 50 men this year, are my options the same, too?

 

You certainly attribute a lot of special powers to your particular allotment of organs.

 

What's your definition of approach? I'm talking about the male definition of approach: directly asking someone for a date. Few women do that. This cannot be argued. Since women don't approach men, they only have the options of the men who approach them.

 

There are dozens of guys posting here who say they have NO options, and even more who say that women have had all the power and control over dating and sex for decades and now they are demanding a change.

 

Which is it?

Those dozens of guys are letting negativity cloud their judgment. I've even read a story of a man scarred by acid cheating on his wife. There are guys on death row who have women falling in love with them. If guys like that can get women, the guys on LS whining can get women.

 

But … I didn't say that the woman stopped liking jerks because she had little to no options. I said that she evolved into liking something else. It was an evolutionary upgrade, not a downgrade. Not "settling" for something less, but requiring something more.

 

You know what? You might even evolve to a different point of view with regards to what "success" with the opposite sex means.

 

Mme. Chaucer, your post arouses skeptism. For one thing, you made this quote:

 

Since I am old, but was formerly hot, I speak from real life experience. There is no truth that a jerk can "get me off" any better than a man. I mean, a real, quality man.

 

But in another thread, you stated you have gotten with jerks:

 

I am pretty old, and have a few relationships and one long marriage behind me. Over 30 years ago, I was involved with a chronic "player" who cheated all the time. He was my "first love" and the only man I'd had sex with. In my immaturity, confusion, and anger, I decided to cheat on HIM. Revenge cheating. Well, it was stupid, weak and didn't help me any, but the episode didn't lead to a lifetime of cheating for me.

 

Here's the thread: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t213846/

 

You also stated:

 

Honestly, when I was in my 20's and 30's, I would never, ever consider going out with an "older man." Yuck. I didn't want successful older men. I wanted exciting peers.

Why does dating an older, successful man make you say yuck at 20 or 30, but is now appealing when you're closer to 60?

 

Now, what I am about to say may come off like I'm a bastard, but I'm not trying to be. I wanna keep things civil.

 

*ahem*

 

In your younger years, you dated a jerk and let him cheat on you like you were crap. From your posts, it seems like you had a lot of options with men when you in your younger years. Now, as you approach 60, things have changed, as you have indicated in this thread:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t268552/

 

You're dating a divorced dude you say never initiates sex and even expresses little interest in having sex with you, which makes you feel rejected and unattractive. Would you be dating a dude like that back when you were hot? Of course not. But you don't want to admit your options have decreased and you're settling. You want to call it evolving into "dating a high quality man".

 

That's why dudes in this thread say women are spitting BS. We know damn well if a woman has better options, she wouldn't date these lame definitions of "high quality men".

[Janesays]

The "regular" guys stumble through these early years with varying degrees of success -- some emerge relatively unscathed while others of us collect wounds so deep that even getting married and having a family can't heal them.

 

Stereotypically, the idea is that as guys get older, their dating pool increases to "catch up" so to speak while for women either their pool shrink or they have more competition for their existing pool. I don't know -- in this day and age, I don't think that the guys can truly "catch up". As your experience shows, there will always be a lot of competition for guys to deal with.

 

 

See, I think this is where people (men and women both) need to serious readjust their perception on 'successful' dating. It's not having millions of 'options.' From my perspective, I don't need millions of men to want me. I just need ONE. One amazing man who loves me. That's all. If I get that one, I'm a success. Plain and simple.

[Oxy Moronovich]

See, I think this is where people (men and women both) need to serious readjust their perception on 'successful' dating. It's not having millions of 'options.' From my perspective, I don't need millions of men to want me. I just need ONE. One amazing man who loves me. That's all. If I get that one, I'm a success. Plain and simple.

And here's something else I dont believe. Women do need attention from men. It's physiologically part of them. All women desire attention, including women who are happy in their relationships. No woman only wants to be attractive to one man, no matter how much she loves him. A woman needs attention like a flower needs sunlight.

[Feelsgoodman]

I never listen to what women say when they are talking about qualities in a man and what they want,because they say they want something in a guy and then they respond totally different.

You, sir, are a smart man. Listening to a woman tell you what she wants in a man is like listing to a presidential candidate tell you what he's going to do if he gets elected. In both cases, you get a list of recycled cliches that the speaker believes he/she is supposed to say (but have little to do with the speaker's actual beliefs)

 

Here's something for you all to ponder...Where is one more likely to find a man dating (or married to) a stunning beauty? Some super chic "celebrity chef" restaurant in Beverly Hills or your local soup kitchen?

[Janesays]

And here's something else I dont believe. Women do need attention from men. It's physiologically part of them. All women desire attention, including women who are happy in their relationships. No woman only wants to be attractive to one man, no matter how much she loves him. A woman needs attention like a flower needs sunlight.[/QUOTe]

 

You don't know me. That's not what i'm about at all. I have NEVER been that girl.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Mr. Oxy, you are not going to convince me that I am lying no matter how many of my old posts you dredge up.

 

I wanted different things and I was attracted by different things in men when I was younger than I do now. I assure you that today, if I could trade ANY of the men from my past ( and they would be completely infatuated and faithful to me even though I am a gnarled crone) for my husband, I would not - Despite his flaws, my flaws and the rough patches in our relationship.

 

I'm not "settling" for an old, divorced fellow. I actually prefer my old, divorced, not so libidinous fellow. Yes, I wish he were more sexual. So what. I love him. We suit each other, we are very complimentary.

 

I was completely fine with being single when we met, too. I did not feel like I "needed" to be with any man at all. My criteria was so unusual that I never thought I would meet any man who would fit with me and the life I lead, whom I felt that spark with. I did. I feel like it was an actual blessing.

 

For the record, you are right - of course I don't have as many options as I did when I was young. When I was young, I hung around with masses of other people who were also young, attractive and looking to connect (on various levels) with the opposite sex. Or the same sex, depending. It was a central focus of life. I enjoyed an active night life. I'm not trying to convince you that I have as many options in middle age, after years of being married and raising a child, as I did as a young urban single person. I don't think it's because I am a woman, though.

 

Believe it or not (I predict you will not), I feel fine about not relying on "hotness" and the other lovely attributes of youth any longer. I had my time with them. We all do, as long as we live long enough. I am fully engaged with my life as it is at the age I am now.

[Feelsgoodman]

Mr. Oxy, you are not going to convince me that I am lying no matter how many of my old posts you dredge up.

Well, he convinced me. You are lying...to yourself first and foremost. Clearly, you were a jerk/bad boy chaser in your prime...And now that you are much older, you have to settle for someone who would not have been your first choice when you were young. Had you met your husband at 25, I bet you would not have given him a second look.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Well, he convinced me. You are lying...to yourself first and foremost. Clearly, you were a jerk/bad boy chaser in your prime...And now that you are much older, you have to settle for someone who would not have been your first choice when you were young. Had you met your husband at 25, I bet you would not have given him a second look.

 

It really is no fun having a discussion with people who are constantly trying to tell you that you're lying or out of touch with reality.

 

I already said that when I was young, I had ZERO interest in going out with old farts. No matter how much money they had. So, you're right. If I met this old fellow when I was 25 - well, he probably would have been the dad of one of my friends.

 

My husband was a "bad boy" himself (not a jerk, though) in his youth. He was also really, really cute. I certainly would have liked him back in those days. His first wife was (and still is, for an old lady) an amazing barbie-esque knock-out.

 

You guys. Honestly. There are masses of people of both sexes who are not looking at others like a line-up of potential purchases with "qualities" to be compared and contrasted. You evidently are not among them, but I am.

 

Peace out, dudes.

[Oxy Moronovich]

Mme. Chaucer, I like talking to you because you're quite intelligent. I didn't mean to make you feel bad. It's just that some skepticism is nagging me. I said before that it seems women only seem to go after the nice guy after they've been burned or neglected by the jerk. Both you and Janesays were crushed emotionally by jerks, yet you both insist this had nothing to do with your decision to date nice guys. Right.

[Janesays]

. Both you and Janesays were crushed emotionally by jerks, yet you both insist this had nothing to do with your decision to date nice guys. Right.

 

Again, not me. I've dated strictly nice guys from the get go.

[Els]

Yawn. I'm 25 and every guy I've been with has been a nice guy. I have turned down taller or richer men.

 

Oh, wait, I must be lying about my age, right?

[counterman]

Are you visual or auditory? I tend to remember things people have said (even when I don't always want to) because the sound of them saying it makes an impact on me. People who are more visual might remember what you were wearing the other day, but not remember what you spoke about.

 

I got told off by a friend about that one time, when she'd missed a social event and wanted to know what people were wearing. I'm the last person anybody should ask "what was X wearing?" because I don't notice...but I will remember what people say.

 

If you tend to remember what people said to you without having to even try, maybe you're also auditory. Do you play a musical instrument?

 

I would say I'm more auditory. Similar to you, I remember what people if there's emotions attached to it, how they say it and how it impacts me. One that I always remember is what someone has said which has made me jealous because I'm rarely jealous. And when people talk to me, I tend to give them my time of day and really listen to what they have to say. It was effort at first but now it just happens. However, it's not always a good thing... I use to bring up the mistakes my ex-girlfriend made when I was with her, the things she would say that she never lived up to, what she has said in the past that contradicted what she said later on. It drove her mad. I don't think that made me a 'quality' person. On top of that, I remember what my friends say and realise how they're inconsistent with their opinions. I don't play an instrument...(been meaning to learn the guitar and piano).

 

I tend to have vivid visual memory when emotions are attached as well and when I take note of, for example, what someone wears.

 

 

You can see that throughout the board. Somebody will respond really vehemently or angrily to a fairly innocuous "can somebody advise me?" post....suggesting that what they (the adviser) are really posting to do is sound off about an experience they had that the post triggered off a memory about.

 

There are all kinds of advice...and often the blunt, dry advice is very good. Probably the least helpful kind is when people are projecting their own issues onto the poster (or associated party) under the guise of advice-giving....but as it's such a tempting thing to do, it happens a lot.

 

It definitely happens heaps, and often posts triggers a response and people would flood their post with their own issues. There's been so many times when I have spoken to a few of my friends about myself and it triggers something within them and they just unleash. It happens to me too and I find myself having to stop and let the other person talk, so that's it's two-way communication and I'm not trying to have the other person absorb my issues. So, what I've been doing is allowing my friends and family to speak and I'll listen and respond, without pushing my own issues on them. People respond positively when you give them your time of day, most people I find anyways.

 

I know that feeling. It's similar to the "I feel too blue to listen to uplifting music..." one. If you download the CD onto your Ipod, you can just listen to it last thing at night when you're dropping off to sleep...rather than setting aside a time to listen to it.

 

That's a good idea I am usually the type to schedule things and set time apart for certain activities but what ends up happening with some new activities is that I put it off and keep putting it off and it never gets done! Something else I'm working on