xxoo Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 You think Hillary Clinton married Bill because she had butterflies? Two passionate people like them? I'd be shocked if she didn't feel butterflies for him at the time. Of course that isn't the only reason she married him. Slick Willy has never had trouble inspiring butterflies in women.
maybealone Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 It's getting to know someone first while minding your boundaries I think that is a good description of friendship before dating.
Revolver Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 2 people who have a mutual attraction and are just getting to know each other better is different from one person having feelings for another and getting friendzoned.
jobaba Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Two passionate people like them? I'd be shocked if she didn't feel butterflies for him at the time. Of course that isn't the only reason she married him. Slick Willy has never had trouble inspiring butterflies in women. Because he's tall and handsome? I'm sure she was attracted, but Hillary Clinton also dated a man who was 4'9" and a former Secretary of Labor. There's a difference wanting a person who inspires pure emotion like sexual tension versus a person who inspires emotion because you have the same direction in life.
xxoo Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Because he's tall and handsome? I'm sure she was attracted, but Hillary Clinton also dated a man who was 4'9" and a former Secretary of Labor. There's a difference wanting a person who inspires pure emotion like sexual tension versus a person who inspires emotion because you have the same direction in life. Because he makes me weak in the knees when he speaks. And with their shared political passion, I can't imagine he failed to do the same for her. Sexual tension can come from many sources--not just physical attraction. But butterflies are butterflies, just the same! Do you doubt that a person can inspire both? Edited August 2, 2012 by xxoo
ThaWholigan Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Because he makes me weak in the knees when he speaks. And with their shared political passion, I can't imagine he failed to do the same for her. Sexual tension can come from many sources--not just physical attraction. But butterflies are butterflies, just the same! Do you doubt that a person can inspire both? Astrologically speaking, Bill Clinton has both Mars & Venus conjunct in Libra in the 1st house - meaning he's irresistible without trying to be. He can and DOES inspire butterflies in people. Also, there has to be something said about the ability to create sexual tension - it is a learnable skill, and one that emphasizes the ability to be comfortable during uncomfortable times.
jobaba Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Because he makes me weak in the knees when he speaks. And with their shared political passion, I can't imagine he failed to do the same for her. Sexual tension can come from many sources--not just physical attraction. But butterflies are butterflies, just the same! Do you doubt that a person can inspire both? There's a huge difference to me. It's the difference between lust and love. As far as Hillary, I have heard that she hates sex and is a cold ambitious b@tch. I don't mean that in a bad way. I love Hillary and actually voted for her over Obama. I got a lot of flak for that. I don't really mean that relationships should be emotionless, but I think a lot of women follow blind emotion created by good looks and masculinity, and I'd venture guess Hillary is not one of those women.
carhill Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 My .02... Historically, many, many women have talked about being friends first before becoming lovers. With a sample size of more than 50 and under 100 (I can't remember precise details), so far reality has batted 0%. I guess the ILY's along the way were a consolation prize of sorts. My takeaway from this process has been that a woman would indeed not mind being friendly with a man she's attracted to before becoming lovers, as well as some women do indeed use the 'friend's first' words of enticement to solicit attention and interest to gratify their ego. The hard part is separating those as of yet unseen authentic ladies from the others. Most guys these days do it with sex. That seems to work some of the time. By 'friends', I'm describing growth of rapport over mutually shared interests and philosophies and viewpoints that evolves in a platonic way, without sexual overtones or interest. So, when I quote 0%, I mean that 0% of platonic female friends ever became romantically interested over time, nor responded to any changes in my platonic, to romantic, interest over time.
Emilia Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 By 'friends', I'm describing growth of rapport over mutually shared interests and philosophies and viewpoints that evolves in a platonic way, without sexual overtones or interest. So, when I quote 0%, I mean that 0% of platonic female friends ever became romantically interested over time, nor responded to any changes in my platonic, to romantic, interest over time. When I'm getting to know the potential date I always keep the sexual overtones and interest obvious - albeit as subtly as I can. 1
xxoo Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 There's a huge difference to me. It's the difference between lust and love. As far as Hillary, I have heard that she hates sex and is a cold ambitious b@tch. I don't mean that in a bad way. I love Hillary and actually voted for her over Obama. I got a lot of flak for that. I don't really mean that relationships should be emotionless, but I think a lot of women follow blind emotion created by good looks and masculinity, and I'd venture guess Hillary is not one of those women. Love and lust can coexist. That is what dating is for--to see if there is compatibility beyond attraction. I very much doubt Hillary was immune to Bill's charms, even if that was not her first criteria. 1
carhill Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 OP, what's your take on that? How do you describe 'friends' for purposes of this discussion? I'm describing it as romance growing out of a long-term platonic friendship. You??
Author monkey00 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Posted August 2, 2012 When I'm getting to know the potential date I always keep the sexual overtones and interest obvious - albeit as subtly as I can. I think that might be one of he challenges I have (and maybe other men) when it comes to dating or meeting women. A lot of times it's hard to read between the lines - are they genuinely interested (romantically) or are they just beig friendly. A girl noticed that a female friend of mind is very flirtatious when talking to guys. My response is that she's a naturally friendly person, which is true IMO. Most of the women ive met as an adult and through OLD seem to be the types that take it slow. Maybe it's my own doing because I attract these types. But it makes me rethink my approach if that's the case and should take things at a slower pace instead of the consistent argument that you should kiss a Girl on the first or second date.
Emilia Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I think that might be one of he challenges I have (and maybe other men) when it comes to dating or meeting women. A lot of times it's hard to read between the lines - are they genuinely interested (romantically) or are they just beig friendly. A girl noticed that a female friend of mind is very flirtatious when talking to guys. My response is that she's a naturally friendly person, which is true IMO. I think the other person feels it though. I touch him subtly, get close to him when I'm talking to him, etc. I don't do that to other men and I know he watches how I am with other men. Most of the women ive met as an adult and through OLD seem to be the types that take it slow. Maybe it's my own doing because I attract these types. But it makes me rethink my approach if that's the case and should take hings at a slower pace instead of the consistent argument that you should kiss a URL on the first or second date. Ah but this is done before dating. I don't go on a date with men I'm not ready to kiss or sleep with. I don't date as a sport.
jobaba Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Love and lust can coexist. That is what dating is for--to see if there is compatibility beyond attraction. I very much doubt Hillary was immune to Bill's charms, even if that was not her first criteria. Ok, ok. Perhaps using Bill Clinton was not the most prudent example to prove my point, but I still believe that some women don't need a man to be tall and handsome or have their loins overrunning with artificial emotion to find a man perfect. I'm looking for a best friend and I'm sure there are women who are looking for the same...
Author monkey00 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Posted August 2, 2012 OP, what's your take on that? How do you describe 'friends' for purposes of this discussion? I'm describing it as romance growing out of a long-term platonic friendship. You?? I really have nothing against being platonic first before the romance. But sometimes I find it hard to believe that a girl genuinely wants to take things slow or take the fiends first approach. It seems like a bad set up for investment of time if things don't pan out. And as someone else said if the girl is leaving her options open and can give her the freedom to bail when she feels like it. A part of me wants to have faith in this type of girl ad he other half tells me not to be naive about it. Perhaps this approach works best for conservative people and not liberal ones? Idk
jobaba Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I really have nothing against being platonic first before the romance. But sometimes I find it hard to believe that a girl genuinely wants to take things slow or take the fiends first approach. It seems like a bad set up for investment of time if things don't pan out. Exactly. The friends first approach is ideal for an optimal relationship. But for most average looking men, it is a bad investment of time. The chances are higher that she will not be attracted to you than that she will. For me... Every time I went for a female friend, where the friendship lasted over a year, and my attraction to her grew, it was rejection and terrible heartbreak. The three women who would eventually become my relationships, I was never out one on one with them more than 2 times before we hooked up.
Emilia Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 For me... Every time I went for a female friend, where the friendship lasted over a year, and my attraction to her grew, it was rejection and terrible heartbreak. I wouldn't describe what you had with them as friendship though. To me friendship is something that is and will always be platonic without sexual connotations. It isn't about hoping that he will change his mind and date me.
carhill Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I really have nothing against being platonic first before the romance. But sometimes I find it hard to believe that a girl genuinely wants to take things slow or take the fiends first approach. It seems like a bad set up for investment of time if things don't pan out. And as someone else said if the girl is leaving her options open and can give her the freedom to bail when she feels like it. A part of me wants to have faith in this type of girl ad he other half tells me not to be naive about it. Perhaps this approach works best for conservative people and not liberal ones? Idk So, for purposes of this discussion, 'friendship' describes a less sexually charged environment than full-on romance and sex during the get to know process, but still romantic intent. If so, thanks for that clarification. I was speaking to a completely different topic, where one has no romantic designs or attraction at first but the process evolves out of the friendship. Carry on. To me, what you're describing is an aspect of normal dating. I wouldn't attach the word 'friend' to any of it.
jobaba Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I wouldn't describe what you had with them as friendship though. To me friendship is something that is and will always be platonic without sexual connotations. It isn't about hoping that he will change his mind and date me. I never did that. Each time, we were purely friends and when I got to know them well enough, I developed feelings for them. I had no strong attraction to any of the women in question in the beginning. It's just where you and I are different and my main point. I am looking for a best friend... You cannot say that there is a right way to do things in dating. Everybody is looking for something different.
Emilia Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 So, for purposes of this discussion, 'friendship' describes a less sexually charged environment than full-on romance and sex during the get to know process, but still romantic intent. If so, thanks for that clarification. I was speaking to a completely different topic, where one has no romantic designs or attraction at first but the process evolves out of the friendship. Carry on. To me, what you're describing is an aspect of normal dating. I wouldn't attach the word 'friend' to any of it. Agree with bolded Yes the OP spoke of friendship first with the view of turning it into a relationship later.
jobaba Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Yes the OP spoke of friendship first with the view of turning it into a relationship later. Yea, I just saw that now. Becoming true friends with a woman and falling for her is stupid. But that is REALLY stupid.
Emilia Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I never did that. Each time, we were purely friends and when I got to know them well enough, I developed feelings for them. I had no strong attraction to any of the women in question in the beginning. It's just where you and I are different and my main point. I am looking for a best friend... You cannot say that there is a right way to do things in dating. Everybody is looking for something different. When you are causing yourself a heartache you are doing yourself a disservice If I'm getting attracted to the wrong person (ie someone I can't date, doesn't reciprocate, married, etc) I cut them out of my life as soon as I can rather than carry on and allow it building up. I think frienship comes later. Love is much harder to build, that should come first and once you have that, friendship will follow with the right person. The 'best friend' isn't really the best friend you have in a platonic relationship. It's not so much right or wrong but more about how to avoid heart ache
Author monkey00 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Posted August 2, 2012 I think the other person feels it though. I touch him subtly, get close to him when I'm talking to him, etc. I don't do that to other men and I know he watches how I am with other men. well it's funny you say that because I had those signs with someone I met last week from OLD that I went out with two times. And I did make a move on a second date too. Now all I'm getting from her is the busy line when I try to make plans this week. Oh well who knows its OLD after all.
Emilia Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 well it's funny you say that because I had those signs with someone I met last week from OLD that I went out with two times. And I did make a move on a second date too. Now all I'm getting from her is the busy line when I try to make plans this week. Oh well who knows its OLD after all. Oh sure. Just because someone is attracted it doens't mean you will have a relationship with them. Many many hoops to jump through for both
Recommended Posts