Leigh 87 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Sigh. Is asking for butterflies really too much? Is wanting your heart to skip a beat when they text or call, really too much to ask? Is having a huge urge to kiss them from date one or two ,really too much to ask? ...................................... Finding the spark IS NOT HARD. These are THREE DUDES I have felt butterflies about. WITHIN a 3 MONTH PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Guy one: Met him in Berlin. Great, he loves to travel. He loves dogs. He builds houses and has a blue collar job that pays well enough to allow his overseas travels to be quiet extensive. He is pro at driving cars and motor bikes.Very adventerous and loves to laugh. He is short, my height ish, normal body and normal looking. Would be with him in a heatbeat, he got me VERY hot and bothered, except things got complicated due to him travelling for 4 months after we met, and me having to fly home the night after we met. Guy two: Met him here in Australia. Chubby, bad skin but ADORABLY cute and sexy to me. Still cute looking and tall. Doing a commerce degree. Younger than me. Dated a week. I could NOT STOP kissing him. Walking each other back to our cars to say goodbye, turned into us havin to stand there and kiss for hours. Yes, HOURS. Guy 3: SERIOUS chemistry here guys. I am shaking just writing about it. 6 feet 2, thinning/balding hair so he had a had on at all times, average looing bu TO ME omg. Was a web designer. Had worked for himself since age 18. Older than me. Has his own mechandising brand now. No college degree. From England:love: ( those accents...... ) This guy literally made me wan to drop my panties the first date. The second we talked on the phone and then MET: omg. I had a huge, immense desire to kiss him RIGHT AWAY upon meeting him. This chemisry was of the charts and I have yet to feel it in my life since, or before. He seemed just as taken aback as I was. All these guys had small/average penis size too. I couldn't have cared less. They got my blood running by just kissing them. ............................................................ There you go people, 3 guys within about 3 or 4 months who had me all hot and bothered. NONE Of them were " hot" by societies standards. None of them were rich. Yet, I managed to find erfectly desirable guys who thought they were lucky to have me, since they were very attracted. Perhaps SOME women simply have a TOO HIGH LIST of criteria? See, my list is NOT sky high, and in turn, I have met 3 guys already I had the hots for. All I wanted was: them to be open to travel, me to feel chemistry and sparks, and for them to be NICE GUYSs to me. Humour is a bonus. An their lives cannot be too much of a train wreck.. Jobs are preferable, OR if they got laid off that is also fine, as long as they get a job PRONTO and are not the "bum" type. Are you ladies asking for too much?
Leigh 87 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Everyone has to settle. Everyone. You can call it "compromise", and it is a more comfortable form...but it's still agreed to accept less than you expected. It's a simple matter of what you want versus what you get. Having realistic expectations and being able and willing to compromise and work towards getting *more* of what you want helps. As far as relationships go, it's important to separate your wants from your needs. NEVER settle on your needs. However, if you're not willing to settle on your wants...then you're going to end up chasing a fantasy. My most recent ex had some traits that grated on me, and wasn't 100% what I "wanted". But I loved her completely and absolutely. I loved her for her flaws because they made me appreciate her positive values so much more. I settled in this regard, and I couldn't have been happier to do so. Since this thread ended up getting derailed a bit by the spark/chemistry/passion/lust conversation, I will contribute the following: A "spark" is nice. Sometimes it's just there, and sometimes it develops. However, that's infatuation. It's attraction. Those things do not last. Those "lovey-dovey" moments, those butterflies in the tummy, that excitement...fades. It's actually a wonderful thing for it to fade too - it allows the rose colored glasses to come off completely so that you can evaluate the relationship without "those feelings" getting in the way. That is how you ensure that you're not settling. Despite the adament objection on this thread, it is well known that "people want what they can't have". If someone wants you too much, it's unattractive. Kills the "chemistry". The less available someone is, the more likely you are to feel those "sparks". There's a reason why dating advice for both genders tells people not be too available. Unfortunately, stability/availabity and passion are mutually exclusive. This is why so many people are attractive to elusive, emotionally unavailable, noncommittal people. This is why people who really want to work at a relationship are usually left behind. This is actually why many people end up really settling. They accept not having their really needs met because they WANT that passion. They want their heart to flutter every time they see someone, and are willing to compromise the important things. Meanwhile, people can have the important things met, find someone attractive...yet still walk away because they don't feel "in love" all the time. When I hear people refering to "settling", they're most often talking about those romantic feelings...they want someone who inspires those feelings 100% of the time with no work. The initial "spark" will lead to the passionate fire of the honeymoon period, but this typically fades within the first 6 months to 2 years (most often around the yearish mark). The fire is HOT - this is "falling in love". It's exciting, blinding and so so so fun. This fades into the embers of a long term relationship...if you let it get that far. The embers aren't HOT, but they're warm. They're consistant. They're the embers of compassion, sincerity, trust, and appreciation. "In love" fades to just "love" after awhile. However, these embers can flare up and bring that HOT fire back again with a little bit of kindling. A little air, a good poke, and some fuel...and it all comes back. But who wants to WORK for that? I've actually been told that I'm foolish for thinking I should work to maintain my feelings. I've been told that I'm unromantic and stupid. That feelings come naturally and I should always feel "in love". I should always be lusting after my partner. I should always be excited to see them and giddy. That's exhausting. That's also an immature view on love. That kind of love is based on anxiety - on the mystery of not knowing your partner intimately or knowing 100% if they'll stick around. It's based on the unstable pillar of passion. Constantly feeling "in love" is an immature desire because it's selfish. It has no regard for the other person, and is rather entirely focused on how that person makes YOU feel. Truly successful couples fall in love countless times throughout their relationship...but you can't "fall in love" again unless you let that state subside for awhile. No. You can find passion, the spark and hot chemstry with a partner who is good long term. It doesnt HAVE to be mtually exclusive. Sorry, but having genuine passion and chemisry IS important. OTHERWISE you are NEVER " in love". You merely grow to love. Why is it not possible to fall IN love and have butterflies, with a good person to settle down with? I don't ask for good looks or good money, so why should it be hard for me to simpy find he initialy passion AND a stable long term partner? I am not attracted to what I cannot have? am attracted to nice guys.
Leigh 87 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 The vast majority of men Ive dated I think eventually felt they settled for me. Usually because Im not way out of their league looks wise and I expect equality in a relationship and respect, not me bearing the brunt. I ONLY get with guys who think they are lucky to have me. I can sense these things. If a guy is not all excited about you and wanting to show you to his friends, pesonally, I'd bail.
Author Eternal Sunshine Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 It's been years since you met a man who was kind hearted, ethical, honest, reliable, intelligent, and attractive? I find that difficult to believe. Maybe your attractive bar is higher than you think, or (more likely) there is something X factor that triggers attraction for you that is incompatible with the first 2 criteria. xxoo, you don't understand. I don't meet ANYONE. I average meeting 1-2 single men in my age group per year. And no, those 1-2 men don't posses the basic qualities I seek. Through work (including christmas paties and other social functions) there is nobody that's male and at least not leaving with someone. While we have at least 5 single women 30-40 having the same problems I do. Apart from work, I am a homebody and prefer solitary activities. I would actually have to become someone I am not to meet men. I can't put in that much effort. I don't count OLD because it's truly bottom of the barrel When I was in my 20s, I was meeting a new single guy every week. They were everywhere. As I get older there are less and less single men. And those that remain single are of much lower quality.
Author Eternal Sunshine Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 BTW I never said I want to constantly feel in love. WTF. I am not delusional. I know what a relationship is like. What I refer to settling is NEVER having that spark, never having that honeymoon period, never feeling "in love". Simply getting attached over time spent together where relationship evolves into warm companionship. Simply choosing a partner that you think is logically a good match for you and ignoring that you don't feel passion for them. 2
Ruby Slippers Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 What I refer to settling is NEVER having that spark, never having that honeymoon period, never feeling "in love". Simply getting attached over time spent together where relationship evolves into warm companionship. Exactly. Infatuation fades. But you need the initial flames to sustain the glowing embers for decades. 5
xxoo Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) xxoo, you don't understand. I don't meet ANYONE. I average meeting 1-2 single men in my age group per year. And no, those 1-2 men don't posses the basic qualities I seek. Through work (including christmas paties and other social functions) there is nobody that's male and at least not leaving with someone. While we have at least 5 single women 30-40 having the same problems I do. Apart from work, I am a homebody and prefer solitary activities. I would actually have to become someone I am not to meet men. I can't put in that much effort. I don't count OLD because it's truly bottom of the barrel When I was in my 20s, I was meeting a new single guy every week. They were everywhere. As I get older there are less and less single men. And those that remain single are of much lower quality. The bolded seems to be a common problem for single people. Would you rather settle than break out of your comfort zone and do some activities that would help you meet men? I think it would take a whole lot more effort to live with someone you aren't in love with. Edited November 13, 2013 by xxoo 1
Ruby Slippers Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 The bolded seems to be a common problem for single people. Would you rather settle than break out of your comfort zone and do some activities that would help you meet men? I have the same problem, and you ask a good question. I scheduled a new social outing on Monday night... but it was snowing, and I was cozy at home, so could not motivate myself to go. ES and I could both stay in our comfort zone forever and settle - or bust out of it and take some chances. I think we'll both end up busting out. But it's so much easier to stay safe and cozy where you are. You have to fight inertia and build up new momentum. 1
crederer Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Personally, all I'd like is someone that matches up to me in looks (I'm a short, cute guy with a good job). Unfortunately, these girls are all chasing the tall, muscular models. So I date less attractive girls because those are the ones that will have me. I will most likely settle for one of them when I start getting interested in having a family. So you are saying you settle in the looks department, not personality department? IMO there is nothing wrong with that. If it was the other way around, I think that'd be a bad thing. 1
Never Again Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 No. You can find passion, the spark and hot chemstry with a partner who is good long term. It doesnt HAVE to be mtually exclusive. Sorry, but having genuine passion and chemisry IS important. OTHERWISE you are NEVER " in love". You merely grow to love. Why is it not possible to fall IN love and have butterflies, with a good person to settle down with? I don't ask for good looks or good money, so why should it be hard for me to simpy find he initialy passion AND a stable long term partner? I am not attracted to what I cannot have? am attracted to nice guys. I understand that you're passionate about making your points, but you're fighting for ground that no one is defending. When I say that a spark "develops", I meant to suggest that it's not always "at first sight". I never said there's shouldn't or wouldn't be initial chemistry. I never said that you should be with someone that you didn't "fall in love with". Nearly my entire post dealt with the fact that this initial spark/chemistry fades with time. That it is immature to expect butterflies all the time. I agree that they should be there from date one to date two - I'll even go as far as to say that they should be there for the first 6 months minimum. However, as you get to know someone intimately...as you begin to know all is there to know about them, you do "grow to love", and that "in love" passion/spark begins to fade away if the relationship is stable. It's not gone forever, mind you. That was another point I made in my post that you conveniently didn't address. Those feelings ebb and flow, come and go. Sometimes you will be left with just "love" - but romance and excitement can reignite them. The initial spark/chemistry only stays "without work" in unstable relationships. These are relationships where one partner is always chasing the other. People who are attracted to noncommittal/elusive/emotionally unavailable partners end up in relationships like this. Why? Because "the chase" is exciting. It causes anxiety - you never really "have" your partner and need to keep working for them. This maintains the initial spark, that "falling in love high" for longer. But it's disingenuous. It's chasing a mystery. It's based on trying to "win" someone who you fear could leave at any time. There's been some interesting looks into this. First off, see any dating advice...they ABUSE this heavily, especially dating advice for men. The availability/stability and passion/spark ARE mutually exclusive - but this applies once inside a long term relationship (once the relationship has passed the 6-12 month mark...the "honeymoon period" if you will). Also, here's a great article from the Huffington Post: Sheryl Paul: The Truth About Love As for wanting what you cannot have - it applies. Even in your anecdotal evidence, I'm sure it applies. If a man is over-eager or needy, if he falls all over himself to get to you, if he's not comfortable in his own skin around you or is constantly seeking your approval, it's unattractive. Being too available kills chemistry. If you're going to disagree so strongly with my posts, I'd appreciate if you actually read them. It feels like you skimmed and made some pretty heavy assumptions about what I said.
Imported Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Get out more. Expand your horizons. You are bound to meet more dudes. Or let your mom and dad or friends choose for you and you must at least try whom they choose. I'm sure it'll be fun Or play.....next guy that walks through that door.... Or same game, but you can make some stipulations, like between x and y weight/height or whatever. Hope this helps!
crederer Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Well, there is a lot of infidelity. But I believe that most guys just date the first girl that likes them. I can't say either way though. I'm ugly and girls don't like me. So I get nothing. Well most guys will likely date a girl that likes them just to give them a chance. It doesn't mean they'll "settle" if she ends up being a psycho or just generally a bad partner.
Never Again Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 BTW I never said I want to constantly feel in love. WTF. I am not delusional. I know what a relationship is like. What I refer to settling is NEVER having that spark, never having that honeymoon period, never feeling "in love". Simply getting attached over time spent together where relationship evolves into warm companionship. Simply choosing a partner that you think is logically a good match for you and ignoring that you don't feel passion for them. I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that you did - it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, but rather at the direction of the discussion. If I had meant it for you, I probably would've called attention to it. I see your point - and I don't think I could settle for someone whom I'd NEVER had a honeymoon period with. I mean, I'd need to know those feelings were there SOMEWHERE. That they COULD exist or be reignited...even if they faded completely for awhile. But I do like to assess once those feelings have faded...make sure that someone really is a good mate.
Leigh 87 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 It wasn't chemistry at first site with my ex. It took me a few moths to get to that stage with my long term ex, which I reached straight AWAY with my last guy. I guess someone like me who is very self focused and not exactly in a good state to be in a relationship, is going to need stars and butterflies right away! I would like to save up and do voluneer aid work in Africa in a couple of years, and to generally travel a lot. Perhaps later on when having a partner is something I want, I will find another guy like my long term ex, where the chemistry is not there to begin with, but is rather forms over time. I was definately in love wih my ex. Very much so. For now? It will take strong chemistry to get me to want to even date.
Sanman Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 The irony for Ruby and ES is that they don't want to go out and yet consider OLD terrible. Yet, where do you think you are going to find a man that wants to stay home as well...OLD. That is why I went online. No time to party with a demanding career and good friends. It worked out fine for me. 1
Author Eternal Sunshine Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 Today I decided that "settling" just means deciding to pair up without being in love. It has NOTHING to do with the other person's looks, money, job, etc. You can flex on any of those things even if you thought they were "dealbreakers," if you feel like it, and it won't be "settling." IF you know you feel love. Ding ding ding we have a winner That's exactly what I meant and not many seem to get. They list traits, they say that everyone is settling. In fact, listing traits and comparing to me is settling. It's about having that instictive draw to a person even if they were homeless and had nothing going for them. On the other hand, if I were dating president of US; I would be settling if I wasn't in love with him. Ruby gets it and I think xxoo too
Ruby Slippers Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 The irony for Ruby and ES is thatched don't want to go out and yet consider OLD terrible. Yet, where do you think you are going to find a man that wants to stay home as well...OLD. That is why I went online. No time to party with a demanding career and good friends. It worked out fine for me. I don't consider OLD terrible. But I have minimal experience with it. I did it last year for the first time, went on dates with two guys, and had a year-long relationship with the second guy. We were talking about marriage, but he turned out not to be a real match for me. But he's a stand-up guy, attractive in many ways, and will make the right woman very happy someday. And yes, like me, he's quite the introvert and is even less the bar/club type than I've ever been. I might go back to OLD. But ideally, I'll get a little more socially active and meet new people that way. This is something I want to do anyway because I want to make some new friends and come out of my shell more, too. I have nothing against OLD. I know quite a few people who met that way and are very happy.
Ruby Slippers Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I just broke up with my ex 3 weeks ago. I'm doing nothing to meet someone new right now on purpose, because I don't believe in leaping from one relationship to another.
Sanman Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I don't consider OLD terrible. But I have minimal experience with it. I did it last year for the first time, went on dates with two guys, and had a year-long relationship with the second guy. We were talking about marriage, but he turned out not to be a real match for me. But he's a stand-up guy, attractive in many ways, and will make the right woman very happy someday. And yes, like me, he's quite the introvert and is even less the bar/club type than I've ever been. I might go back to OLD. But ideally, I'll get a little more socially active and meet new people that way. This is something I want to do anyway because I want to make some new friends and come out of my shell more, too. I have nothing against OLD. I know quite a few people who met that way and are very happy. Good to know. I'm sorry to hear about the recent break up, but I do think that your previous relationship is a great reason why OLD is worth trying a bit more. Sure, it can be tough sorting through the junk, but it sounds like you had a compatible mate in that area. If you want to be more social, more power to you. I hope it works out. 1
CantonBound Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 These thread are frustrating because 99% of the dating complaints I see from women on this site come down to these Option A)You are incredibly lazy/complacent and don't want to do anything to improve your situation, not even post a lazy profile online (which inevitably will result in plenty of hits) Option B)You are far too picky based on your level of attractiveness. I don't even know how this is possible - from what I've seen, girls can very easily date men much more attractive than themselves in OLD anyways Option C)You're finding men who you like but you scare them off by having some scary personality traits or you bore them to death by having no personality at all (which you can get away with most men, but I'm sure you're only interested in men who have tons of options anyways) It's frustrating to read from a male perspective because there are guys out there like myself who do give a lot of effort in our day to day life and who are looking for somebody about equivalent to ourselves (give or take some) and we can't even get a date. If you actually gave effort and you did whatever you could to find somebody (within reason of course) and you have realistic standards, yet you still can't find somebody then I have 100% total sympathy for you and your situation. That seems to be rarely the case though Well, you are correct in what you wrote. This woman has endless options and is making it difficult for herself for no reason. But she's still entitled to make threads if she wishes on whatever issue she'd like to discuss. No reason to get frustrated over it.
Phoe Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Perhaps SOME women simply have a TOO HIGH LIST of criteria? See, my list is NOT sky high, and in turn, I have met 3 guys already I had the hots for. Are you ladies asking for too much? Not at all. I would venture so far to say that my criteria are even less than yours. I want a nice guy with good hygiene who is generally healthy physically and mentally. Just a normal guy. That's all. F*** any other unnecessary details. If things end up being incompatible after dating then we will part ways, but no guy needs to jump through ridiculous hoops to get to that point!
Phoe Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Phoe, what else could it BE other than mere intimidation, entirely self-perceived by the minds of the men who are nearby to you? I don't think I'm all that intimidating. I'm extremely friendly! and a massive dork. I'm as intimidating as a kitten.
USMCHokie Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I think it's only settling if you have no doubts that it can be better. If you don't think it can get any better than what you have, then it will feel like you've hit the jackpot.
Phoe Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Phoe you must live in an area where every girl looks like a playmate. I am still baffled by your posts I think many of the girls around here are very pretty. I don't quite measure up, if I'm honest. Add the derp personality and I'm a lost cause lol.
Phoe Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Are you extremely socially awkward? Slightly. I'm not shy, but I'm a goober. I am a nerd, and a bit of a weirdo. I don't typically care what others think and am not embarrassed easily. I dance randomly in public, sing out loud, have random outburts and fits of giggles. I don't care if people think it's strange. Me and my friends have too much fun 1
Recommended Posts