Mikau Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 You could be stating fact or what you perceive to be fact. As long as you realise which is worse is up for debate then that's all good.
JewelD Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 You could be stating fact or what you perceive to be fact. As long as you realise which is worse is up for debate then that's all good. Shall we all write "fact" or "opinion" in the title of our posts to stop this wide spread confusion?
Mikau Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 Shall we all write "fact" or "opinion" in the title of our posts to stop this wide spread confusion? We're going off topic here, but there's a massive difference between saying 'this is worse than that' and 'I think this is worse than that'. One looks like you're stating an objective fact and the other looks like you're giving your opinion. But I'll stop being pedantic now and will only comment further if I have something on topic to add.
Author Shining One Posted August 29, 2016 Author Posted August 29, 2016 Shining, I think you're incorrect in saying the OP in the other thread knew she had no physical interest in the guy ahead of time. My read of it is that she determined she had no physical interest during the course of their dates. That makes a lot of difference as applies to the concept of using and characterizes that OP as not using IMO. Yes, she knew he wasn't her physical type generally but she did say she was "trying" to make herself find him attractive and expressed remorse that she couldn't. Figuring this stuff out is the essence of dating - getting to know someone to determine compatibility.This is a valid point and I had not thought of it that way. I read it as she knew from date one that she wanted nothing physical with him. In any case, I didn't necessarily want to bring that thread into this one and as Mikau said, I just used it as an example.Answer to the first imo is simply that using is determined by the existence of the intent to use (exploit for personal gains by deception).Would you say that there is any reasonable limit on "giving someone a chance"? For example, let's say a woman goes on ten+ dates with a man at his expense to try to determine if physical attraction will appear. On the other end, a man sleeps with a woman ten+ times to see if emotional attraction will appear. Or would you say the amount is not a factor?.Someone gets exploited either way, specifically by the deception of the user.When does it shift from "giving someone a chance" to "deception"? My thought is that when the internal "not going to happen" decision is made, it becomes deception. The other person, not knowing when that decision is made, can end up feeling used as a result.
jen1447 Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 Would you say that there is any reasonable limit on "giving someone a chance"? For example, let's say a woman goes on ten+ dates with a man at his expense to try to determine if physical attraction will appear. On the other end, a man sleeps with a woman ten+ times to see if emotional attraction will appear. Or would you say the amount is not a factor?. Reasonable in what way and to whom? If a woman's going on 10 dates w a guy all at his expense, I'd suspect she's got some ulterior motives to use him bc otherwise she should be picking up some of the expenses. In a more 'pure' scenario, there'd be no meaningful financial imbalance and then they could go on 500 dates to figure it out if they wanted to and it still wouldn't be using bc no one would be getting deceived and exploited. Likewise if a guy tells a woman he needs to sleep w her 10 times to see if he can find an emotional connection, I'd suspect he's playing her, particularly if it's sth she doesn't want to do. But if they're both down w that fine - bang it out 500 times to see if it works out if you want, no one's getting used or exploited. Bottom line is there needs to be an appreciable profit/deficit imbalance and an intent to deceive and exploit for a 'crime' to have been committed. When does it shift from "giving someone a chance" to "deception"? My thought is that when the internal "not going to happen" decision is made, it becomes deception. The other person, not knowing when that decision is made, can end up feeling used as a result. Deception is an overt act so it entirely depends on intent. If and when an actor intends to deceive, it is or becomes deception. If there's no intent to deceive, then any bemoaned inequity is actually just butthurt on the part of the one on the losing end, not any harmful act of intent from the other. 1
Author Shining One Posted August 29, 2016 Author Posted August 29, 2016 This thread has been enlightening. It seems that there is a significant gap between objectively using someone and someone feeling used. Looking back, I've probably been objectively used less than half the time I've felt used. I'm sure more women have felt used by me than have been objectively used by me.
Els Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 I believe it's about intent. If she thought she might be attracted to him given more time, that's fine. If she was just hungry and absolutely knew she would never be with him, then she's using him. It's definitely not about 'resources' consumed, because relationships and human lives are much more complicated than that. For instance, if a man absolutely knows he doesn't want a relationship with a woman and she has explicitly said she needs a R in order to have sex, and he just says what she wants to hear to get her in bed with him - he's using her. No 'resources' are consumed but it doesn't change the fact that he is 'using' a fellow human being to satisfy his desires with zero concern for ethics, honesty, or their well-being. On the other hand, if she hasn't explicitly said that she needs a R in order to have sex, and both of them are fine having sex and seeing where it will lead, he isn't using her.
Weezy1973 Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 People can feel used even if they weren't. I think from the view of the "victim" the feeling of being used has to do with their own expectations. I expect to pay for every first few dates I go on with a woman. Every time. So if a woman isn't feeling it after a few dates, I don't feel used at all - and if I kept asking her out after the first date, chances are I was having a good time. That being said, that scenario has never happened. If it gets to three dates either it's gotten exclusive shortly after or I lost interest and ended it. It's possible I'd feel differently if I'd had a woman lose interest after a few dates...
Author Shining One Posted September 3, 2016 Author Posted September 3, 2016 This came up in another thread, so I'd like to gather opinions on it. A man goes on a first date with a woman. He honestly answers he's looking for a relationship. He goes on a few more dates with the woman. At some point during those dates, they have sex. After the end of the last date or the last time they have sex, he determines she is not relationship material. Did he use her for sex? I believe the answer is no, but I would like other opinions.
Els Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 This came up in another thread, so I'd like to gather opinions on it. A man goes on a first date with a woman. He honestly answers he's looking for a relationship. He goes on a few more dates with the woman. At some point during those dates, they have sex. After the end of the last date or the last time they have sex, he determines she is not relationship material. Did he use her for sex? I believe the answer is no, but I would like other opinions. I think the timing is pretty bad, so it would be normal for the other person to feel 'used' in that scenario. Same as dumping someone immediately after they just took you on an expensive trip, even if you were dumping them for other reasons. But technically I guess the answer is 'no', since there was no intent to use them.
jen1447 Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 Intent-intent-intent. Whether or not a person "feels" used is immaterial w/out intent. What they're really crying about is that circumstances didn't work out in their favor. There's a lot of gray area here tho ....ppl rarely think in absolutes when it comes to dating and r-ships so if you're running around thinking "eh this is prob going nowhere but why not bang it out?", while that's not intent to use it's still not exactly a great code of conduct.
road Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 Honestly, people tell me to do this to get some experience in dating but I'd feel guilty & like I'm wasting my & her time due to knowing nothing would ever come out of it if I had no attraction to her at all. Yes people need to get out there or they will never learn. Though to ask someone out just because they are female and have a pulse is wrong for you get their hopes up for a relationship and you have no intent.
road Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 This came up in another thread, so I'd like to gather opinions on it. A man goes on a first date with a woman. He honestly answers he's looking for a relationship. He goes on a few more dates with the woman. At some point during those dates, they have sex. After the end of the last date or the last time they have sex, he determines she is not relationship material. Did he use her for sex? I believe the answer is no, but I would like other opinions. Intent is important. Most men at first sight find a woman attractive and want to date them or not attractive and never date them. Many women have said initially they were not initially attracted to a man but the attraction grew after they gave him a shot. So when the intent is I am in between relationships and bored this Saturday night, broken and want diner bought, get someone to buy me drinks and see this new movie, been a while since I got laid points to using. Truly thinking a person has relationship potential and giving them an honest try out is not using. Remember dating is the job interview for marriage. However where I live a couple can easily spend $100 on a diner for two. Or they can go to a nice diner and have burger platters with tip for $25. When a woman is not sure about the man she should not go for the $100 meal. To do so would leave a bad taste in a man's mouth if she declined to see him again. There was the intent to give him a shot, but took care to not be perceived as just using him for an expensive meal. I close with many people have used "my intentions were" as a cover up to lie about their true intentions.
road Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 Intent-intent-intent. Whether or not a person "feels" used is immaterial w/out intent. What they're really crying about is that circumstances didn't work out in their favor. There's a lot of gray area here tho ....ppl rarely think in absolutes when it comes to dating and r-ships so if you're running around thinking "eh this is prob going nowhere but why not bang it out?", while that's not intent to use it's still not exactly a great code of conduct. Intent? Many women have experienced a man that would say and do anything till they were made to feel safe to put out. Then once they did they got dumped. Intent in those cases was for the man to find a woman to use then dump. It had nothing to do with not working out.
jen1447 Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 I don't understand what you're saying or asking (in relation to my quote).
NJ123 Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 Yes people need to get out there or they will never learn. Though to ask someone out just because they are female and have a pulse is wrong for you get their hopes up for a relationship and you have no intent. Well, that's what I mean. Some have suggested to me to just date women I have no attraction to at all just to get experience. But it just feels so wrong to me since I'd know right even before our date nothing would ever happen due to there being no attraction. I get some say personality can build attraction, but if there's absolutely no physical attraction at all or very little than their personality unfortunately won't be able to fix that.
AMJ Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 This came up in another thread, so I'd like to gather opinions on it. A man goes on a first date with a woman. He honestly answers he's looking for a relationship. He goes on a few more dates with the woman. At some point during those dates, they have sex. After the end of the last date or the last time they have sex, he determines she is not relationship material. Did he use her for sex? I believe the answer is no, but I would like other opinions. I say no. It's really pretty easy to spot people who just want to have sex. If the guy decides it's not working out after sex, and this all happened quickly in the dating stages, women usually feel hurt and it's less of a blow to think he just wanted sex than, he didn't want a relationship with you. Casual sex for most people is not at all difficult to find, so unless you're dealing with a truly twisted manipulative a-hole who gets off on messing with someone's head, people who are dating are not trying to use each other. 1
SwordofFlame Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 If after a first date and the woman determines that he has no interest in dating the man, but still thinks he should pay for the entire cost of the date. Is this using?
jen1447 Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 If after a first date and the woman determines that he has no interest in dating the man, but still thinks he should pay for the entire cost of the date. Is this using? Did she intend to date him so she could get him to pay for her dinner?
NJ123 Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 Did she intend to date him so she could get him to pay for her dinner? I'd still think it's kind of using since she knows during the course of the date that she's never going to see him again but still would make him pay for the entire meal. She should pay her half in that case.
AMJ Posted September 4, 2016 Posted September 4, 2016 If after a first date and the woman determines that he has no interest in dating the man, but still thinks he should pay for the entire cost of the date. Is this using? Why do people always use sex as currency? I can buy myself dinner. I don't need you to buy me dinner. I do need you to have sex with. I can't have sex with myself. I mean, sure I can, but it's not as much fun obviously.
jen1447 Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 I'd still think it's kind of using since she knows during the course of the date that she's never going to see him again but still would make him pay for the entire meal. She should pay her half in that case. SwordofFlame said she determined it after the date. Also she has no obligation to him at that point as long as she was 'bargaining' in good faith. (Whether or not that whole "men pay" thing is valid is an entirely diff question - she could be wrong in terms of those values but still not have intended to exploit the guy.)
NJ123 Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 SwordofFlame said she determined it after the date. Also she has no obligation to him at that point as long as she was 'bargaining' in good faith. (Whether or not that whole "men pay" thing is valid is an entirely diff question - she could be wrong in terms of those values but still not have intended to exploit the guy.) Well isn't when the check comes for the meal at the very end of the date unless they went somewhere else afterwards that I don't know about. To me personally if a woman knew she didn't want to see me again & still made me pay for her expensive meal, I'd take that as her using me.
road Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 Why do people always use sex as currency? I can buy myself dinner. I don't need you to buy me dinner. I do need you to have sex with. I can't have sex with myself. I mean, sure I can, but it's not as much fun obviously. It is rooted in evolution. Ug left the cave with his club and came back with dino steaks to impress the bee-itches hanging back at the cave that he was husband material. Modern man leaves his man cave, where ever that is today, and willingly buys a woman/date a meal. Providing is the way a man shows that he is willing and able to provide for and hence have a relationship with a woman. Chivalry, may it live forever. However chivalry is doing something nice for a woman that sex is not required as reciprocation. The point of chivalry to is to start a relationship and explore if that person is marriage material.
jen1447 Posted September 5, 2016 Posted September 5, 2016 Well isn't when the check comes for the meal at the very end of the date unless they went somewhere else afterwards that I don't know about. To me personally if a woman knew she didn't want to see me again & still made me pay for her expensive meal, I'd take that as her using me. The end of the dinner doesn't mean the end of the date unless you bolt from the restaurant but this road we're going down here is kinda inane anyway ....bottom line is using = exploitation, elements of exploitation require intent as an operator. So if she was thinking "free meal" at any point, she used him, if not - even if he paid anyway - she didn't.
Recommended Posts