Shining One Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 The quote below is from another thread. Her pursuing him....and him becoming lazy in the RL.I was actually going to argue this point, but then I thought about all of the lazy women I've dated. It made me think there may be a correlation and it's something worthy of discussion. The theory here is that by allowing someone to be passive during early dating, that person becomes lazy. Are these people just lazy? Or are we training them to be lazy by being the active partner during early dating? I've organized most of the early dates. Most of the women didn't initiate and just waited passively for me to do the work between dates. On the other hand, I've dated a few women who took the initiative frequently (about half the time). This meant I took the initiative less often. I wouldn't say this made me "lazy", but I'd like to hear other opinions. What does everyone think? Does allowing a partner to be passive during early dating make that partner "lazy" later on?
zenguy Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Girls just have to do their job showing how much they'd like future dates on the dates they go on. I don't think a guy needs to train her girlfriend to ask him out.
jen1447 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I think "lazy" is a bad way to put it, but complacent might be more like it. Specifically, I don't know that the effect is really consistent or quantifiable, but I could see a partner who feels no need to contribute to the groundwork of a R becoming complacent. Might then be a good question to ask if they were always that way. 3
SwordofFlame Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Hard to say, every woman that I dated that acted complacently in the beginning wasn't interested in me. 3
zenguy Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Girls just have to do their job showing how much they'd like future dates on the dates they go on. I don't think a guy needs to train her girlfriend to ask him out. Though I realize now after thinking about it for a bit that the girl is technically asking you out in this example. If one of you are actually complacent at the BEGINNING of a relationship... that isn't a good sign. It's not necessarily the end of the world later on, as people could just be having a bad week/month and you just need to talk it out at that point. In that case you definitely don't let complacency sit, you confront it head on.
thecrucible Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Or they could just be unassertive? It took me a while but there were times in the early stages of dating over the past few years where I let the man take the lead because that's the dynamic that had been established. I'd been with men in the past who had made me do all the work and it just hurt and made me jaded so I went pretty much the opposite direction with my expectations. I have a bit more of a balance now. Sometimes it can be a bit scary to take the initiative because it's a risk when you are worried about things not working out.
Emilia Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 I make the assumption that someone passive early on will be even more so later. Ideal situation for me is 50-50. 2
preraph Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 It is true that how things get started may be what you end up stuck with for some people, especially if there's one that has the advantage over the other to make the other afraid to ask for change. Dating is unique in that way because there are traditions like the man sort of doing most of it in the beginning that are kind of necessary. But once a couple forms a team, there usually has to be adjustments made on both sides to even that out if it's going long-term.
Author Shining One Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 I think "lazy" is a bad way to put it, but complacent might be more like it. Specifically, I don't know that the effect is really consistent or quantifiable, but I could see a partner who feels no need to contribute to the groundwork of a R becoming complacent. Might then be a good question to ask if they were always that way.Good thoughts as usual, Jen. I kind of wish I was still on speaking terms with some of those women so I could ask them about this.
Larryville Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 The theory here is that by allowing someone to be passive during early dating, that person becomes lazy. Are these people just lazy? Or are we training them to be lazy by being the active partner during early dating? I've organized most of the early dates. Most of the women didn't initiate and just waited passively for me to do the work between dates. On the other hand, I've dated a few women who took the initiative frequently (about half the time) Does allowing a partner to be passive during early dating make that partner "lazy" later on? For me this goes to what type of women do you pursue. If someone is a [stealing a term from another user here…] “prolific dater” or “serial dater” and you are just going out with people to entertain yourself or just not to be bored you are going to run into scenarios like this. Nobody is going to invest time, effort or attention to someone they are not really into. Me an example, been seeing someone for a couple of months, she recently purchased tickets to a couple of concerts one in a couple of weeks and another at the end of April. I have a conference I am attending and will be in Vegas for a full week in June. We both are already planning activities for that week. My point is we both like each other, we have invited each other out and just hung out. We are “investing” future time with each other, people who like each other will do this naturally. I can’t predict our future but someone who gives a damn will invest and plan for and with you. This goes to the type of women I pursue. If course I want to be attracted to her, but she has to have a life, have a “career” NOT a job, someone smart, intelligent, well rounded, financially stable. If you waste your time with a woman who has none of these traits absolutely she will become “Lazy” also goes for the ladies… date a broke, lazy, shallow dude he will become “passive.”
Gaeta Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I don't think it's laziness, I think it's all about being interested. If you are interested then you are motivated, someone motivated will take actions. Even a beta male when interested will take actions, even a very shy inexperienced woman will take actions if motivated. I think if 1 of the 2 is always doing the initiating than it's a clear indication the other is not motivated enough. 1
LoveRefreshed Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I think there is also a need to declare expectations and wishes. Some people are completely content with coming home and flipping on the tube and just chlling out with their partner. I for one think that's checked out relax mode and everyone needs it (mine is more video games or something) but there needs to be time where the other person is your focus. If someone is being lazy in the relationship, sometimes all it takes is a communication that you'd like them to do more. "I'm unhappy that all we do is x,y and z. I think it would be fun if you planned me a date every now and again, but this time I planned c." I dunno, laziness is sometimes complacency that results from growing comfortable with each other.
Gaeta Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I think there is also a need to declare expectations and wishes. Some people are completely content with coming home and flipping on the tube and just chlling out with their partner. I for one think that's checked out relax mode and everyone needs it (mine is more video games or something) but there needs to be time where the other person is your focus. If someone is being lazy in the relationship, sometimes all it takes is a communication that you'd like them to do more. "I'm unhappy that all we do is x,y and z. I think it would be fun if you planned me a date every now and again, but this time I planned c." I dunno, laziness is sometimes complacency that results from growing comfortable with each other. This is good to apply to couples who've been dating for a while and are official. OP is referring to early dating. Those first 3-4 dates before exclusivity. 1
Michelle ma Belle Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Hard to say, every woman that I dated that acted complacently in the beginning wasn't interested in me. Very good point SOF! I second this. When there is interest, there is action. 1
WaitingForBardot Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Hard to say, every woman that I dated that acted complacently in the beginning wasn't interested in me. This has been my experience as well. To a certain extent however it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, since I would move on as soon as the complacence seemed more than momentary. Maybe they actually loved me madly and I walked away from an opportunity of a lifetime...
LoveRefreshed Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 IMO, a woman who loves you madly doesn't let you walk away without you knowing that she loves you madly.
GenuineAttraction Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I have yet to meet a woman who had a fantastic first date turn down a second. It's not laziness, it's just she's not that into the guy. He usually talker her out of liking him on the first date. (or most likely the relentless texting) 1
Rejected Rosebud Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I agree with most everybody; a person who acts lazy or complacent about you is usually just not into you very much and just kind of going along with it for some reason. It's possible though to misread somebody - a shy person or a very non assertive person might seem like they're lazy to you if you're trying to date them. Such a person you are probably incompatible with. They will fit with a very assertive person who likes to take charge and make all the plans. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person is lazy.
Recommended Posts