Dating lots of people past the first date

[PlumPrincess]

I've been hearing all the time that instead of getting fixated on one person and looking for the perfect match, you're supposed to date for the sake of dating and not just "your type", but all kinds of different people, so you get to know yourself better. My question is, would be having lots of first dates be enough or are you supposed to see these people various times until you can decide to break it off?

[Casablanca]

I've been hearing all the time that instead of getting fixated on one person and looking for the perfect match, you're supposed to date for the sake of dating and not just "your type", but all kinds of different people, so you get to know yourself better. My question is, would be having lots of first dates be enough or are you supposed to see these people various times until you can decide to break it off?

I think we for the most part know what our type is, but there are many sub types in a category. I have a type, but not all of them being equal. There are certain characteristics that I value more than others.

 

I think you should just date, if you had a good time and liked them enough after 1 date, try and see them again

[Star Gazer]

I have enough dating experience to know what I'm looking for, so I don't date just to date.

[PlumPrincess]

I don't want to date most people either. I might manage to force myself to a first date, but I'm very sure that a second date is not going to happen. Maybe this is a suggestion for people who haven't had contact with a lot of other people. I have the feeling, I have met people from all walks of life when I was younger and I do not have to force myself to date a guy who, for example, is a Christian just to tell myself, "Oh, Christian people can also be nice people, who would have thought that."

[sdraw108]

I think it's important to have been through at least a few relationships with different people ("a few" could be a very different number for any given person), on your path to finding "the right one", because there's no other way to gain the experience of what works, what goes wrong, and what it is about you which makes you compatible / incompatible with others.

 

I don't think that means you have to have tried lots of different "types" of people - it's the experience of relationships in general which is valuable.

 

Then again, if you're the kind of person who won't feel able to settle down unless you've "sown your wild oats", then yes, you should date lots of different "types" of people so that you can be true to the person you do eventually settle down with.

[RogerWallace111]

Try dating numerous people, but don't waste your time on individuals or "types" you don't see as relatively good candidates.

 

Basically, don't go with the extreme "I'm not even gonna bother if he's not my clearly my ideal guy". Nor "Everyone deserves a chance ! Even people who are nothing like me and I'd have to stretch to enjoy my time with".

[Emilia]

I've been hearing all the time that instead of getting fixated on one person and looking for the perfect match, you're supposed to date for the sake of dating and not just "your type", but all kinds of different people, so you get to know yourself better. My question is, would be having lots of first dates be enough or are you supposed to see these people various times until you can decide to break it off?

I can't imagine anything worse. I always only focus on one person, by nature I would feel uncomfortable and dishonest if it wasn't the case. Going on lots of coffee dates with strangers? Um, no thanks.

[Ninjainpajamas]

I think there has to be a balance upon being fixated on someone you are dating versus dating multiple people at the same time collectively for sport.

 

Personally I've always been pretty keen on who I would be interested in, so dating is about finding someone I know meets my standards/interest and is compatible first, rather than having to go on dates with people then figuring it out...and I don't have this random openness where everyone can be a potential match...I mean I know what I like, I don't necessarily have to date every "type" to find out what that is when I know from socializing/interacting in the world that they are typically not.

 

I notice women tend to be more open-minded from my experience on the type of men they date, where as men aren't necessarily open-minded about who they would date seriously but who they would sleep with or hang out with casually.

 

A typical scenario goes as follows...

 

A woman will date a different "type" of man she has not dated before, develop feelings and then become attached and progressively more interested where initially she may not have been. A man will date a different "type" of woman he knows isn't what he is looking for, sleep with her or have casual relationship with her then move on always knowing it could never work out, assuming he has the options to do so.

 

I think it's important to know what you're looking for to give yourself a direction and then actually hold to those standards/expectations If they are within reason and date those type of people you do have a connection with If you know they are your type. I think dating too much can be confusing and energy/time sink.

 

However at the same time, don't invest too much interest/emotion into someone you just met who is not reciprocating the interest and you are just chasing...don't put all your eggs in one basket, give yourself time to actually get to know someone...what I notice about most people is they fail to really connect and get to know the people they are interacting with, it's just this real superficial surface interaction...you have to be bold enough to confront people and ask them questions that aren't part of the typical dating process if you're actually looking for something serious.

 

Ultimately you have to know what works for you...are you someone who can date multiple people at a time and still feel you develop a meaningful connection with someone? or do you date or get to know one or two individuals only progressing when one gives you good reason to or the connection is there and being reciprocated....I think though honestly is some people just have a hard time choosing the right people to date in the first place.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I know what I want now. As soon as I know that things are not going to work long term, I end it. Sometimes that's the first date, other times it's tenth. Dating for the sake of dating seems like a waste of time

[Emilia]

However at the same time, don't invest too much interest/emotion into someone you just met who is not reciprocating the interest and you are just chasing...don't put all your eggs in one basket, give yourself time to actually get to know someone...what I notice about most people is they fail to really connect and get to know the people they are interacting with, it's just this real superficial surface interaction...you have to be bold enough to confront people and ask them questions that aren't part of the typical dating process if you're actually looking for something serious.

Yes. There is definitely a danger of getting hooked on someone and that's where a bit of self-discipline comes into it but at the same time connecting is key. If people knew how to, the break up section wouldn't be so full of 'I've never seen it coming' posts.

 

I think a lot of people 'force' relationships. Wanting to be in one and force the various stages without giving real compatibility enough thought.

Ultimately you have to know what works for you...are you someone who can date multiple people at a time and still feel you develop a meaningful connection with someone? or do you date or get to know one or two individuals only progressing when one gives you good reason to or the connection is there and being reciprocated....I think though honestly is some people just have a hard time choosing the right people to date in the first place.

Yes.

 

I just have no interest in dating anyone whom I don't think is amazing. That means being single for longer periods of time but I make that choice.

[salparadise]

I read a sociological research paper sometime ago that concluded that those who had the best chance for a long-lasting marriage had dated several people (relationships, not coffee dates) but not a large number of people. The optimal number in their survey turned out to be six. The authors theorized that having enough relationship experience and some basis for comparison was advantageous in choosing a person/relationship that works. A much larger number of relationships prior to marriage predicted unhappiness as those people were basically shopping for the best deal rather than being able to connect, commit and continue to invest in one relationship. They had idealistic notions about what relationship and marriage could/should be, and tended to interpret the inherent human fallibility in their partner as relationship issues.

 

So, a related question that I've been tossing around in my head is, is this a causal thing or just the nature of those people? What is the effect of having several successive relationships on a person's ability to be truly open and willing to invest all of themselves when a great match comes along? Does going through several increase one's cynicism, cause one to become more cerebral rather than feeling, perhaps erect barriers to avoid vulnerability and therefore be less likely to find love?

 

I don't know the answer to any of this, but have the feeling that I should choose my dating partners carefully, avoid having a series of low investment relationships, and do my best to remain open and vulnerable so I can love when the right person shows up.

Edited July 30, 2013 by salparadise

[EJ787]

So, I spent most of my 20's in one relationship... and now I'm in a new city and started casually dating for the first time...

 

It was a good exercise I said yes to lots and lots of dates, I think I went on something like 20 first dates in 35 days or something ridiculous...

 

I probably went on second dates with 4-5 of those people, one of those people I definitely decided we're just friends and we hang out all the time...

 

The other one sort of fell away neither of us was feeling it.

 

The last two: One was definitely my type and I got caught up on him (lets call him DR) immediately - he wasn't feeling it so now we're some weird combination of FWB

 

The final one, is not my type by any means (Lets call him OL) - however, he's not my type in a very good way, he's sweet, and kind, and handsome, and honest, he's goofy, and casual and fun... I was into him until I met DR... DR was so my type that he overshadowed all the things I liked about OL... I kept seeing them both casually, and now that DR and I are just FWB I'm only casually dating OL (haven't been on another first date in almost a month)

 

So here's what I have to say about casually dating just to date... it was fun, but I don't think it goes anywhere, I mean out of 20 first dates I only stay in touch with three of them, One I got caught up on who didn't return the favor, one who is just a friend, and One who is a great guy but i got distracted by my "type." I wish I hadn't been casually dating multiple people because I really think that dating outside of my "type" is good, OL is a great guy and I wish I was more caught up on him....

 

If I had it to do all over again, I would do what I've always done, and that is start with a friendship, meet people outside of dating, and get to know them, and then start dating...

 

If you really want to try casual dating I say do it, because it was fun... but don't expect to meet someone you're really going to invest in that way... If you're anything like me you won't be able to divide your attention very well and you'll end up migrating to your type anyway even if its not the best choice for you

[EJ787]

I read a sociological research paper sometime ago that concluded that those who had the best chance for a long-lasting marriage had dated several people (relationships, not coffee dates) but not a large number of people. The optimal number in their survey turned out to be six. The authors theorized that having enough relationship experience and some basis for comparison was advantageous in choosing a person/relationship that works. A much larger number of relationships prior to marriage predicted unhappiness as those people were basically shopping for the best deal rather than being able to connect, commit and continue to invest in one relationship. They had idealistic notions about what relationship and marriage could/should be, and tended to interpret the inherent human fallibility in their partner as relationship issues.

 

I would be very interested to read this paper, do you happen to remember where you saw it?

[hotpotato]

By now I know my type. I dont date for the sake of dating. Why would I? I dont have time to date someone im not into and never will be into just to go on a date.

 

Ive already tried this, and it was disastrous. Imagine dating someone even though they werent your type. They fall for you, but you never quite warm up to them. Its not a good feeling for either party.

[salparadise]

I would be very interested to read this paper, do you happen to remember where you saw it?

 

I can't remember. It may have been an interview with the author. I did some googling to try and find it but wasn't able to. However, I did find a few things that are related:

 

“by waiting and waiting and waiting to commit to someone, our capacity for love shrinks and withers.” - Danielle Crittenden (search NYTime for article)

 

There is an interesting study by Drs. Todd and Miller that uses decision modeling probability statistics to support their assertion that too many choices, trying too hard to optimize selection, etc. are counterproductive. They suggest that the best chance of success is a method known as the The Secretary Problem.

 

This involves interviewing a reasonable number of candidates and setting the standard based on the best of those interviewed. Then continue interviewing and hire the next person who exceeds that standard. The sample number they use is 12, but that seems to be arbitrarily chosen (in my earlier example the optimal number was the objective, and it was found to be 6 based on sociological research).

 

But the problem is not quite this simple. In mate selection, while you are assessing the candidates they are also assessing you. So a match will only occur if it's mutual––you are both above each other's standard based on the initial sampling. You also don't know if they're beyond the initial sampling phase, so you might just be part of that process. Another factor is that everyone has a perception of their own mating equity, often exaggerated, and only accept others who they perceive to be equal or above.

 

The more individuals included in the initial sample the higher the standard becomes, and the number of subsequent interviews necessary to exceed that standard is raised. So by this theory, a higher number of dating partners tends to decrease the odds of finding a mate. When you factor in the requirements of a mutual match and exceeding the individual's own perceived equity, the number of successful parings on a percentage basis is small.

 

This paper is theoretical and statistical, so I don't expect many people will be interested, but I like to apply the general trends where they seem to naturally fit. In this case, right or wrong, it does support the concept that dating larger numbers of people, beyond some reasonable threshold, make one less likely to find a match and live happily ever after.

 

"From Pride and Prejudice to Persuasion: Satisficing in mate search" by Peter Todd, PhD and Geoffrey Miller, PhD

[PlumPrincess]

I read a sociological research paper sometime ago that concluded that those who had the best chance for a long-lasting marriage had dated several people (relationships, not coffee dates) but not a large number of people. The optimal number in their survey turned out to be six. The authors theorized that having enough relationship experience and some basis for comparison was advantageous in choosing a person/relationship that works. A much larger number of relationships prior to marriage predicted unhappiness as those people were basically shopping for the best deal rather than being able to connect, commit and continue to invest in one relationship. They had idealistic notions about what relationship and marriage could/should be, and tended to interpret the inherent human fallibility in their partner as relationship issues.

 

So, a related question that I've been tossing around in my head is, is this a causal thing or just the nature of those people? What is the effect of having several successive relationships on a person's ability to be truly open and willing to invest all of themselves when a great match comes along? Does going through several increase one's cynicism, cause one to become more cerebral rather than feeling, perhaps erect barriers to avoid vulnerability and therefore be less likely to find love?

 

I don't know the answer to any of this, but have the feeling that I should choose my dating partners carefully, avoid having a series of low investment relationships, and do my best to remain open and vulnerable so I can love when the right person shows up.

This is something that I have also considered. I've been mostly single for my whole life and I think that it's making me quite cynical.

[PlumPrincess]

Thanks all for your input.

 

I think I'm not really the kind of multiple dater. It's just the guys I want to date are so few that I'm considereing the possibility that I'm overly picky.