Are Common Interests Necessary In Dating?

[edgygirl]

Maybe I am not getting the English but attraction for me means something physical. At least it does in my language. This other stuff you're talking about is probably called chemistry.

 

My question was not short term vs. long term. Forget about long term that's not what I asked. My question was "what does short term" relationship means in English. I don't understand the concept, as for me it sounds like it means simply to have a f-buddy. Is that right? Is short term relationship a fancier term for f-buddy?

 

First of all, attraction is more than just physical/sexual. You can be attracted to the fact that they're nice. You can be attracted to their smarts. For example, you may be dating a science teacher. His brains impress you but you actually aren't into science and have no interest in learning any new scientific stuff. You're just attracted to the fact he has brains. Attraction cannot be explained by simple things like the physical and the sexual. Attraction is that thing you can't explain that tells your gut "this person is right for me".

 

As for the f-buddy vs long term thing, that's just how life is right now. The more you go on, the more liberal and progressive society becomes. 40 years ago you were married at 20, stayed at home and were raising kids at 22. That's not reality anymore. People are having sex at younger ages, and getting married later. Most young people are not looking for "the one", not in this day and age. It's just how things are.

[MrCastle]

Maybe I am not getting the English but attraction for me means something physical. At least it does in my language. This other stuff you're talking about is probably called chemistry.

 

My question was not short term vs. long term. Forget about long term that's not what I asked. My question was "what does short term" relationship means in English. I don't understand the concept, as for me it sounds like it means simply to have a f-buddy. Is that right? Is short term relationship a fancier term for f-buddy?

 

Not really. I think short term is just something you enter when you like someone enough to be exclusive with them, but not someone you'd immediately look at as marriage material. You just say "hmm, this person seems awesome, I wanna see where this goes". That's where most young people are at. Not "Ahh I gotta find a husband!". No one is thinking husband right now.

 

F-buddies are not exclusive, relationships, both short term and long, are.

Edited December 24, 2012 by MrCastle

[edgygirl]

I see... Okay, FYI I didn't think about getting a husband at all until I was 34, same as people your age, and you I guess. In fact I kind of ran away from guys who started going in that direction with me.

 

But this concept of:

 

1. let's see where it goes with this person +

2. date exclusively +

3. and mainly: being sure in my mind that this person is for short term only and doesn't have any not long term potential.

 

These 3 put together don't make much sense to me.

 

If I want to see a person more than once and repeatedly and it is not a f-buddy situation, it has always meant for me that I saw at least potential to become long term one day.

 

I am not sure this is something everyone your age does (the 3 above, combined) or if it's specific to you or people in your situation. Is this what "short term dating" means in the okcupid form i.e.?

 

Not really. I think short term is just something you enter when you like someoen enough to be exclusive with them, but not someone you'd immediately look at as marriage material. You just say "hmm, this person seems awesome, I wanna see where this goes". That's where most young people are at. Not "Ahh I gotta find a husband!". No one is thinking husband right now.

 

F-buddies are not exclusive, relationships, both short and long, are.

Edited December 24, 2012 by edgygirl

[KungFuJoe]

It's pretty simple really:

 

- Sexual chemistry/attraction but with NO common interests - FWB

- No sexual chemistry/attraction but with common interests - Friendzone or short term

- Sexual chemistry/attraction WITH common interests - LTR

[edgygirl]

No but here's the thing - MrCastle is saying that:

 

- (yes) Sexual Chemistry + with or without (was his question) common interests - short term.

 

That's where I'm confused. Isn't the above - FWB?

 

It's pretty simple really:

 

- Sexual chemistry/attraction but with NO common interests - FWB

- No sexual chemistry/attraction but with common interests - Friendzone or short term

- Sexual chemistry/attraction WITH common interests - LTR

[KungFuJoe]

No but here's the thing - MrCastle is saying that:

 

- (yes) Sexual Chemistry + with or without (was his question) common interests - short term.

 

That's where I'm confused. Isn't the above - FWB?

 

I'm not sure that's what he was saying. I mean SOMETHING'S got to lead to long term, right?

[edgygirl]

I'm not sure that's what he was saying. I mean SOMETHING'S got to lead to long term, right?

 

Not in his concept. That's why I'm asking all this. He's saying in his view, short-term dating is when you know for sure it won't lead to long-term.

[Pyro]

Not really. I think short term is just something you enter when you like someone enough to be exclusive with them, but not someone you'd immediately look at as marriage material. You just say "hmm, this person seems awesome, I wanna see where this goes". That's where most young people are at. Not "Ahh I gotta find a husband!". No one is thinking husband right now.

 

F-buddies are not exclusive, relationships, both short term and long, are.

 

Unless the person is crazy you can't look at someone whom you just met as marriage material. You can't determine that until you get to know the person, which takes time.

 

Perhaps the question should be: 'Are Common Interests Necessary When Starting An Exclusive Relationship'

 

I don't see a difference between short term and long term here.

 

It's pretty simple really:

 

- Sexual chemistry/attraction but with NO common interests - FWB

- No sexual chemistry/attraction but with common interests - Friendzone or short term

- Sexual chemistry/attraction WITH common interests - LTR

 

Why would anyone want to be with someone where there is no sexual chemistry/attraction (short term)?

 

Isn't that what a platonic friendship is?

[edgygirl]

I have the impression Carrie also didn't understand this point as per this post:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCastle

Just because we're both liberals doesn't mean we're meant to be. I think attraction is much bigger than that. I think we're attracted to each other first, and then any interests we find out we have in common along the way is a plus.

 

 

You are basing relationships solely on "attraction" but there must be more than that. And if there are no common interests, then why even bother if there is only "attraction?" Then it is just sexual chemistry and what is the purpose of it if only for sex? That goes back to the f*ck-buddy clause...

[KungFuJoe]

Why would anyone want to be with someone where there is no sexual chemistry/attraction (short term)?

 

Isn't that what a platonic friendship is?

 

I'm just stating the POSSIBLE scenarios, even though I agree that it would be unlikely. But I guarantee you plenty of people have dated people whom they weren't initially physically attracted to and it might have lasted some time before they just figured, "we're just better off as friends".

[Pyro]

I'm just stating the POSSIBLE scenarios, even though I agree that it would be unlikely. But I guarantee you plenty of people have dated people whom they weren't initially physically attracted to and it might have lasted some time before they just figured, "we're just better off as friends".

 

That concept is foreign to me. Here is my concept:

 

No attraction= no date

Attraction=date

 

In the past yes there have been females whom I wasn't attracted to at first but once I got to know them and found their personalities to be cool then the attraction developed.

[edgygirl]

I don't see a difference between short term and long term here.

 

I also don't get this. You know what I think? I think this "short term dating" thing, with no intention whatsoever of turning it eventually into "long term dating" is simply what the 20s people are doing to say: I don't want a FWB situation as it's too risky, (sexually, with multiple partners) too complicated (too look for a ONS every night I want sex), but at the same time they mean "don't even start to think I want to have a long-term, more serious relationship with you in the future". Ugh. I would find that a bit disturbing. And I am not talking about marriage or anything like that. I think this thing is "very convenient", but mainly for guys. I doubt that even girls in their 20s and not looking for marriage think this is such a good deal for them. Maybe they do, I'll do some research on okcupid to see how many girls put that option in their profile box.

Edited December 24, 2012 by edgygirl

[Andy_K]

But what is the purpose of short-term dating anyway? Most people don't go into dating with the idea it is "short term" except high school or college kids who know they are moving away in a year or two. But even then, people get vested ideas about longevity.

 

I think you are off-base and unless you are looking for merely a f*ck-buddy, the concept of shared values, hobbies, and ideas is pretty critical to dating - short or long term...

 

Agree with this. The issue is that most people - women certainly - don't very often tend to go for short term that 100% definitely won't ever become anything more, unless they just want FWB. There is the occasional exception perhaps - someone who knows they are moving abroad in a year or so - but by and large short term dating is something people go to when they can't do LTR right now, but know they are likely to in future. In which case it seems stupid to date someone you know definitely won't work out.

 

So, common interests are necessary

[Pyro]

I also don't get this. You know what I think? I think this "short term dating" thing, with no intention whatsoever of turning it eventually into "long term dating" is simply what the 20s people are doing to say: I don't want a FWB situation as it's too risky, (sexually) too complicated (too look for a ONS every night I want sex), but at the same time they mean "don't even start to think I want to have a long-term, more serious relationship with you in the future". Ugh. I would find that a bit disturbing. And I am not talking about marriage or anything like that. I think this thing is "very convenient", but mainly for guys. I doubt that even girls in their 20s and not looking for marriage think this is such a good deal for them. Maybe they do, I'll do some research on okcupid to see how many girls put that option in their profile box.

 

Perhaps it can be seen as a 'trial relationship' By labeling it 'long-term' means that things are very serious and that could scare some people.

 

But if we are talking an exclusive relationship here then it is not FWB but it isn't considered long-term then what can we call it? We can call it 'lets be exclusive and see how things go. One day at a time'

 

If I had to define 'short-term' then I would call it a relationship with a definite expiration date. That certainly can't be counted for as exclusive IMO.

[KungFuJoe]

That concept is foreign to me. Here is my concept:

 

No attraction= no date

Attraction=date

 

In the past yes there have been females whom I wasn't attracted to at first but once I got to know them and found their personalities to be cool then the attraction developed.

 

I learned that physical attraction is JUST as important as all the other stuff. People say you should care more about what's inside, but I say BS...you should care about the whole package.

[edgygirl]

Perhaps it can be seen as a 'trial relationship' By labeling it 'long-term' means that things are very serious and that could scare some people.

 

But if we are talking an exclusive relationship here then it is not FWB but it isn't considered long-term then what can we call it?

 

If I had to define 'short-term' then I would call it a relationship with a definite expiration date. That certainly can't be counted for as exclusive IMO.

 

Exactly. Those are the things I was questioning. perhaps MrCastle can explain.

[Pyro]

I learned that physical attraction is JUST as important as all the other stuff. People say you should care more about what's inside, but I say BS...you should care about the whole package.

 

You should care about the whole package. If you don't find them attractive then you will grow to resent them if you get married. The common interests alone can't hold a marriage together, IMO.

[Els]

If you find it doesn't matter to you then it doesn't matter. Personally, even with my first short-term relationship (it lasted about 6 months, so that's considered short term to me), common interests was a huge selling point in the attractiveness scale for me. If it doesn't affect how attracted you are to the person, then I'll say it shouldn't matter for you.

[EasyHeart]

My interests change all the time, so I don't even think about those things when I'm looking for someone to date. Most of us don't have the same hobbies or like the same music or engage in the same activities that we did five years ago. Once you're dating someone, your lives move in parallel, so you'll be exposed to the same things and you will naturally find things you both like to do.

 

I think in terms of "internalities" and "externalities". Externalities are superficial things like hobbies and interests that change over time. It's sort of your personal fashion. Internalities are things that don't change much over time, like values, morals, attitudes towards money, career, the way you treat other people, etc. The latter, to me, are more important in a partner simply because they are things that don't change very much.

 

Some people look for "playmates" in their partners --- people who like to do the same things as them so they always have someone to "do stuff" with. I think those things make it easy to get to know someone, but they aren't a formula for lasting happiness. So I'll disagree with the OP in this regard: I think common interests are good for short term relationships, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the success of long-term relationships.

 

Physical attraction (I'm more blunt and call it "lust") is what keeps you around when she's acting like a royal ****. That's why so many pretty women can get away with being self-centered shrews -- they can usually find men who let them get away with it.

[Els]

Physical attraction (I'm more blunt and call it "lust") is what keeps you around when she's acting like a royal ****. That's why so many pretty women can get away with being self-centered shrews -- they can usually find men who let them get away with it.

 

The men who are willing to continuously put up with their partners acting like self-centred shrews just because they are attractive, deserve to be with self-centred shrews.

 

I know this isn't the topic of the OP's post, but I find that common interests has helped my LTR (4.5 years and counting) along a lot. It certainly cannot make a relationship all in itself, and there are more important components to a R - lack of being a self-centered shrew, for one thing . But it was as instrumental as physical attraction is for us, if not more so, in holding things together when times got tough and the honeymoon phase faded. As Pyro and KungFuJoe mentioned, you really do need it all if you're planning on treading the murky waters from casual short-term dating to a LTR.

[GoodOnPaper]

You should care about the whole package. If you don't find them attractive then you will grow to resent them if you get married. The common interests alone can't hold a marriage together, IMO.

 

I've found that almost all the hobbies and interests I now have I developed since I've been married -- some together with my wife, some on my own. I took the OP's warning about not putting too much stock into common interests as a message to those who struggle that opposites-attract pairings often carry more chemistry and magnetism early on than likes-attract pairings.

 

When I was in graduate school, my female classmates -- as introverted and science-nerdy as they were -- were all about trying to find outgoing life-of-the-party types. It completely confounded me.

 

The comments that people make about attraction make it seem that one is either completely turned on or completely turned off by their prospective partner -- and if you marry someone, you must be completely turned on. My experience is that there is a big gray area or gap between these two states where you may not think of your partner as "hot" but you are not un-attracted to them either. In this situation, what's on the inside does actually have to count for something.

[irc333]

I admit it, I've done this myself, getting my hopes up, esp. if it's a rather OBSCURE interest that no one gives a crap about.

 

I.e. - Monty Python references, other pop culture knowledge not know to many people in the main stream.

 

It helps though as an icebreaker, but if the person is simply turned off by your height, or whatever they've seen physically, then it's moving on.

 

 

Though, I've seen some dating profiles from women that the man she dates MUST be into sports, otherwise she requests not to waste her time by emailing her.

 

Also, some other interests "must enjoy Harley riding" or lives the lifestyle of a cowboy/cowgirl.

 

These are specific hobbies that it's a serious dealbreaker if you have not a HARDCORE interest either.

 

You could tell them, "Sure, I love horseback riding" and you've done it on occasion, but if you don't OWN a horse, stables, and get up at 4 am to maintain them...then see ya later.

 

They get the feeling that "you wouldn't understand" Some even had difficulties in relationships if they didn't share the same passion for a certain hobby in a way they don't eat, breathe, and LIVE it.

 

 

In short term dating. Long term I assume the more you have in common, the better, but in short term I find it doesn't really make a difference. Some people get their hopes up online because they stumble onto someone's profile and see that they have similar interests, so they just assume they're a lock, and it often doesn't turn out that way. Or even in real life, people think "I like x, she likes x, so naturally, we're gonna hook up at some point", not realizing you can share common interests but be relegated to just friends.

 

Basically I just think people should stop getting their hopes up because they have some things in common with the person they're interested in.

 

It's a plus, but I don't think it makes or breaks casual dating. What do you think?

[irc333]

I recall a man, early 30's, good looking guy actually, pretty good career, had on his shoulders.

 

He was big on biking the roads, went out on biking groups and rides with people, both male and female.

 

But for the life of them, couldn't get a SINGLE one to date him. Or even join him alone with a one-on-one ride/date.

 

There was this one woman that he spent time with, but was dating some pot smoking looser she went home to, and of course, he had no interest in riding bikes...so she always stuck it out herself leaving the boyfriend behind at home.

 

This frustrated the guy who had a serious interest in her, because he would spend time with her biking....and when he showed his interest in her romantically, he never heard from her again...went back to the pot-smoking loser.

 

Even his friends could see them dating, and suggested he should push for it.

 

Yeah, doesn't make sense at all, right? Of course, this is not uncommon "Not making sense".

 

I've kind of dealt with this myself, but haven't pursued it, there'd always be these women that'd come out on these hikes with us, and some men would assume she's single, because she's always coming solo.

 

So guys would make passes at her, and flirt...however the infamous, mentioning of the boyfriend in casual conversation would come up...and thus the *sighs* of disappointment from the eligible bachelors.

 

This one woman had to make herself scarce, because were always pursuing her, regardless of the homebody boyfriend that was a couch potatoe, they figured they'd win her over, considering that since the the boyfriend had no interest in such things, she would be tempted to "seek options" among the men in the group.

 

However, they assumed wrong...she did stop showing up.

 

 

I recall another woman, that showed up as a new face to the group to do some kayaking...she came with a female friend, and guys noticed her, and her female friend was always on the "defense" with the lady.

 

They came together, and would alienate themselves from the group DURING the activity, some were saying, "Why are you ladies standing way over there for??"

 

I guess they thought "screw this, we need to get away from this group, because men are constantly assuming that I'm single, when I'm not".

[Mrlonelyone]

I'd say this all goes back to the "triangular theory of love". Ever since it was mentioned on here and I read about it...it makes so much sense of these things.

 

Common interest can be the basis for real emotional initmacy. With such intimacy and nothing else people can become really good friends.

 

Add a little sexual passion and chemistry to that interest and you have a romantic relationship.

 

Sexual passion and chemistry can sustain a short infatuation, a FWB or very casual dating. Without common interest that's all it should ever be. Many people have tried to force their FWB to be a real love, and it usuaully dosen't work out on a truly long term scale. Relationships without common interest are the reason some marriages only last two or three years.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

Dating doesn't work like that. That's why the bulk of people here are unsuccessful and mad, because they're trying to look at it from a logical perspective. "I don't get it, they like xyz, I do too!, They do xyz, I do too!"

 

They are lacking attraction. Attraction is much more important.

 

Good luck maintaining a relationship because you happen to both share the same hobbies.

 

BUT … you are not looking to maintain a relationship at all. You are actively engaged in making sure you do not. So what you probably encounter is a percentage of girls who don't understand that it makes no difference to you how much you have in common, and they are expecting something more than you are offering because of what you have in common.

 

Of course attraction is necessary to get just about anything off the ground, including a short term FB kind of arrangement.

 

Most of us who have been in LTR's will tell you that either common interests, or complementary ones (even though they might be very diverse) are usually important in MAINTAINING a relationship.