grkBoy Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 That hits a nerve with me. I also seem to be the kind of woman men find friendly on a first date but nothing more than that. So no second date follows. But what can I do? It's not that I am shy or very introverted, it's just that if I have never met someone there is simply no context to lay it all out in my opinion. That would be like trying to run before you can even crawl. I think I am someone that people learn to appreciate over time. Unfortunately in online dating noone seems to want to make that time. I feel your pain. I was there too. I know it's not just women dismissing people if there isn't "instant sparks". Personally, I think the biggest problem is that too many men and women want everything to happen "instantly". Seen many men and women who honestly wish they could somehow fast-forward into 3 months into the RL when the guards are down and it's all "honeymoon". They loathe the approaching, meeting, first dates, awkwardness, etc...and just wish they could skip it over. Had one woman in my past kept running back to exes because she wanted things to be more instant.
zengirl Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 Exactly, I know of a couple of guys, one that is now engaged...said EVERY woman he's dated exclusively, he's kissed on a first date. For some reason, I found that hard to believe. And he was usually expecting sex a few dates thereafter. I wonder why people think this is so important to them. I've not kissed many guys on the 1st date, but the date was still a date. I've never hung out as friends a bunch either with someone I thought I might want to date. Hubby and I kissed on date 2, but we waited a month to go any further and became exclusive in that time. That timeline follows my usual pattern (first kiss usually on dates 2, 3, or 4) throughout most of my adult life. HS and college were different, as they are for many people, as you knew people "from around" more commonly. I also had one relationship that evolved from someone I knew from work (we met when neither of us was single and hung out many, many times as SINCERE friends before we dated) that followed a different pattern. I think relationships that organically come from real friendships are lovely. I think when people pretend friendship but really seek sex or romance, that's pretty gross. YMMV, of course, but to me that's different from the "speed" of dating. One could not even kiss for weeks and still go on proper dates where it is acknowledged what the goal is -- the difference between dating and friendship are the goals and future hopes for the evolution of the relationship, IMO, more than simply the physicality of the moment (though that is often different too). Romance that come from friendship should happen by accident only. If you are interested in a person romantically, but try to achieve that goal via friendship, that's called bait and switch, and many women dislike that very much. This! Though I don't think "friends first" dating is usually anything like friendship, fwiw.
fishtaco Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 This! Though I don't think "friends first" dating is usually anything like friendship, fwiw. Actually I disagree with this personally, I believe it's too similar, just my personal opinion. But even without considering that, and for those that agree with zengirl 100%, it is still a very important point that people don't read these threads about women wanting "friend first", and interpret that as an invitation to do the "bait and switch" that I mentioned. So here's my disagreement, again, just my personal opinion. So everyone is in agreement that romance from friendship should be by accident only. As in, you are already friends, then suddenly one day, something changed. That has issues too, but we won't go into that. But if the feeling is mutual, it is arguably the easiest way to get into a relationship, and probably has the highest success percentage, since you already know each other quite well. So for the purpose this discussion, let's remove this case. So now we are only talking about when two people first meet, where there is no friendship to speak of, and there's a romantic interest. So what is "friend first" dating exactly? If you don't announce you are romantically interested, and just continue to be friends, isn't that "bait and switch"? If you do announce you are romantically interested, how can you continue to be platonic friends? Why not just go on dates then? It is known already that there is romantic interest. Even if this "friend first" dating methodology works, it works for women only. I can see some women are on guard, because there are a variety of really crappy guys out there, and they want to take it slow to be sure, for their emotional, and maybe even physical safety. But imagine a guy try to pull the same stunt... It shows weakness, lack of confidence, or even disinterest. I think you're cute, but let's be friends first... yeah... nope, not going to do that.
GoodOnPaper Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 Seen many men and women who honestly wish they could somehow fast-forward into 3 months into the RL when the guards are down and it's all "honeymoon". They loathe the approaching, meeting, first dates, awkwardness, etc...and just wish they could skip it over. This describes me perfectly! But does this really have anything to do with "instant sparks"? I think of that being more about the onset of physical infatuation -- like "being swept off your feet" right away when meeting someone. It's all about that initial physical appeal -- for those of us who are weak in that area, why shouldn't we want to move ahead as fast as possible? I think wanting to dive into "relationship mode" early is simply a dating style -- if a guy who prefers this style starts dating a woman who prefers this style, shouldn't everything be good?
Recommended Posts