Texting after first date

[DrNo1962]

There are two rules I follow with this age-old question:

1) Trust your instincts and act from a place of being your genuine self.

 

2) There are no rules other than striking a balance between being too attainable [he/she thinks you're needy] and too unattainable [he/she resents you for being too aloof].

 

All of this 3-day rule, text her once a week crap is pseudoscience and stems from a lack of self-worth. You're just trying to finesse the other person because you don't feel your genuine self is attractive enough.

[Morello]

The problem with following a dating coach like CW to the letter is that there is no formula in dating. People are different.

 

Obviously, there are some things you should or should never do and he gets a lot of those right. However, taking a week to contact a girl after a date can work for some but can backfire for others. To me, it's one of his advice that doesn't work, because it screams game playing. Women know that I'm not this kind of guy and if I do that they see clearly that I'm playing with them. Also, some women might actually like that space and others will feel neglected.

 

It might spark attraction in those highly insecure women but it will certainly backfire for those with options and more on the confident side.

 

Some posters here seem to almost copy and paste his stuff on here on a daily basis, without ever trying to think about what's being done and adapt somethings due to context. If there was indeed a 100% correct formula for dating, things would be much easier (and more boring). He talks about all the other coaches the came before him like "I don't agree with everything he says but he's almost there". Why should people judge his work differently?

[DrNo1962]

The problem with following a dating coach like CW to the letter is that there is no formula in dating. People are different.

 

Obviously, there are some things you should or should never do and he gets a lot of those right. However, taking a week to contact a girl after a date can work for some but can backfire for others. To me, it's one of his advice that doesn't work, because it screams game playing. Women know that I'm not this kind of guy and if I do that they see clearly that I'm playing with them. Also, some women might actually like that space and others will feel neglected.

 

It might spark attraction in those highly insecure women but it will certainly backfire for those with options and more on the confident side.

 

Some posters here seem to almost copy and paste his stuff on here on a daily basis, without ever trying to think about what's being done and adapt somethings due to context. If there was indeed a 100% correct formula for dating, things would be much easier (and more boring). He talks about all the other coaches the came before him like "I don't agree with everything he says but he's almost there". Why should people judge his work differently?

 

CW's How to be a 3% man was one of the first books on dating I read and it made a big impression on me.

 

The trouble is if you do not read widely on the subject of dating, you can become a CW fundamentalist and believe his word is gospel.

 

Having tested his methods in the field, I can safely say that some of his teachings in the book are sound and true, while others are not [at least for me].

[Insoc]

CW's How to be a 3% man was one of the first books on dating I read and it made a big impression on me.

 

The trouble is if you do not read widely on the subject of dating, you can become a CW fundamentalist and believe his word is gospel.

 

Having tested his methods in the field, I can safely say that some of his teachings in the book are sound and true, while others are not [at least for me].

 

I agree, I don't believe in 100% of what 3% Man states, it's to be taken as reference and try at your own risk. He also doesn't seem to have too many LTR so take that as you may.

[basil67]

400benchdream, please don't pay too much attention to all these rules. Women and men have been getting together as partners since the dawn of our species all without internet, books and rules.

 

I view rules by self appointed experts as suggestions only and I've done so since I was dating since the 1980's. I believe that more strict the rules are, the more likely they are likely to be wrong. All women think and act differently. Just as all men think and act differently. It's simply about finding the person who fits well with you, while you're just being true to yourself.

 

And none of this ^ is a rule. It's just what I live by. You work out what fits you best.

[400benchdream]

400benchdream, please don't pay too much attention to all these rules. Women and men have been getting together as partners since the dawn of our species all without internet, books and rules.

 

I view rules by self appointed experts as suggestions only and I've done so since I was dating since the 1980's. I believe that more strict the rules are, the more likely they are likely to be wrong. All women think and act differently. Just as all men think and act differently. It's simply about finding the person who fits well with you, while you're just being true to yourself.

 

And none of this ^ is a rule. It's just what I live by. You work out what fits you best.

Thanks, if I have to act a certain way for someone to like it's not worth it. I'm going to stop following 'rules' and just do whatever i'm feeling and see how that goes.(I'll try that for a few months and see)

[basil67]

Thanks, if I have to act a certain way for someone to like it's not worth it. I'm going to stop following 'rules' and just do whatever i'm feeling and see how that goes.(I'll try that for a few months and see)

 

Yeah, it makes no sense to act in a way you normally wouldn't to catch someone who then discovers that you were a being a fake and loses faith in you.

 

Of course, there are no guarantees in anything. All we can do is our best and cross our fingers for a good result. And remember to view poor outcomes not as 'fails' but as learning experiences.

[DrNo1962]

Thanks, if I have to act a certain way for someone to like it's not worth it. I'm going to stop following 'rules' and just do whatever i'm feeling and see how that goes.(I'll try that for a few months and see)

 

Sounds like you're on the path to becoming a more integrated male (being integrated means being able to accept all aspects of one's self as Dr. Robert Glover would say.)

 

You will reach a point where you no longer need advice on forums such as this as you will arrive to a place of accepting your true self and nothing can get in the way of that.

Edited January 22, 2019 by DrNo1962

[PRW]

He followed the 48 Hour Rule PERFECTLY

I try to keep up with the ideas that are out there and I think I do pretty good,...but I've never heard of a 48 hour rule. I may often go 4 days (date on Fri nite,...the next contact on Tues). I haven't had any problems. In spite of what some may think of me, I don't like "hard" rules. I do present things that way to some, but it is because they are so bad off that they need some kind of boundaries until they get their act together.

 

Men are not men anymore, they don't take initiatives.

That part is true. But it is not all their fault. The blame lies with several sources such as the parents/bad upbringing, the school system from Kindergarten all the way up "beating the masculinity" out them till they are in their 20's, to society demonizing masculinity from that point onward.

[PRW]

He also doesn't seem to have too many LTR so take that as you may.

He is not in an LTR because he doesn't want to be, and he very much does not want to be married. But he has more dating opportunities then he can keep up with and dates women any guy here would be drooling over. I know that because I take the time to understand the guy, what makes him tick, where he is coming from.

 

Besides that,...NFL coaches personally score very few touchdowns,...does that mean they suck as coaches? Teachers in college/Univ could make way more money if they actually worked in the field they teach, yet they don't and may even fail if they try,...does that mean they aren't qualified to teach the subject? It is kind of a strawman argument to say someone isn't qualified to teach something based on their own personal lives. Otherwise most of you here I would have expected you all to have written books and appeared mulitple times on CNN as an "expert", been married for 30 years without a single fight, have 4 kids and a white picket fence,...or I'm not going to believe anything you say.

[DrNo1962]

He is not in an LTR because he doesn't want to be, and he very much does not want to be married. But he has more dating opportunities then he can keep up with and dates women any guy here would be drooling over. I know that because I take the time to understand the guy, what makes him tick, where he is coming from.

 

Besides that,...NFL coaches personally score very few touchdowns,...does that mean they suck as coaches? Teachers in college/Univ could make way more money if they actually worked in the field they teach, yet they don't and may even fail if they try,...does that mean they aren't qualified to teach the subject? It is kind of a strawman argument to say someone isn't qualified to teach something based on their own personal lives. Otherwise most of you here I would have expected you all to have written books and appeared mulitple times on CNN as an "expert", been married for 30 years without a single fight, have 4 kids and a white picket fence,...or I'm not going to believe anything you say.

 

I agree with you here, that you don't have to be an expert in the practice of a particular thing in order to be a good teacher of it.

 

Plenty of famous sports stars have gone on to become terrible coaches.

 

The thing I'd say with CW is to take his advice with a healthy dose of scepticism.

 

I personally bought into every fundamental he laid out in his book for a while (because he's so convincing in his book and videos) and it wasn't until I had tested his methods extensively in the field as well as read many more books on dating/relationships that I realised what he preaches isn't entirely correct.

 

Objectivity in the dating advice arena is paper-thin due to the complex nature of human beings. Everything else is subjective and bordering on pseudoscience or at least anecdotal evidence [what works for me and many others may not work for you].

[PRW]

I personally bought into every fundamental he laid out in his book for a while (because he's so convincing in his book and videos) and it wasn't until I had tested his methods extensively in the field as well as read many more books on dating/relationships that I realised what he preaches isn't entirely correct.

 

Objectivity in the dating advice arena is paper-thin due to the complex nature of human beings. Everything else is subjective and bordering on pseudoscience or at least anecdotal evidence [what works for me and many others may not work for you].

I don't buy the "numbers", like for example the Attraction Level 1-10 stuff. the principle is accurate, the problem is the "hard" numbers. It has no objective way to measure it. I'm still waiting for some chick with a number that lights up on her forehead when I meet her, but with my luck it would be "666". I don't buy that you have to "go for the kiss" at the end of the date or you have failed (first date in particular). I also don't buy that every date is supposed to have the goal of getting laid. I think some of his stories he tells in the book are a little bit "frat boyish".

 

But all that said, his principles that are based in human nature and the differences in how the genders act and react with each other is spot on. His teachings are invaluable to the needy, clingy, beta types guys, so I always recommend his stuff to them. I think his strongest area is the early dating period before exclusivity and maybe the first few months after that. The longer term relationship stuff he is probably a little weaker in,...but that isn't where most people run into trouble anyway. The understanding human nature/behavor and how it all interacts is where my fascination comes in and it ties into my first round of formal education in my younger days. In a way, he just reminded me of what I already knew but had forgotten, and he helped fill in some knowledge gaps.

[DrNo1962]

I don't buy the "numbers", like for example the Attraction Level 1-10 stuff. the principle is accurate, the problem is the "hard" numbers. It has no objective way to measure it. I'm still waiting for some chick with a number that lights up on her forehead when I meet her, but with my luck it would be "666". I don't buy that you have to "go for the kiss" at the end of the date or you have failed (first date in particular). I also don't buy that every date is supposed to have the goal of getting laid. I think some of his stories he tells in the book are a little bit "frat boyish".

 

But all that said, his principles that are based in human nature and the differences in how the genders act and react with each other is spot on. His teachings are invaluable to the needy, clingy, beta types guys, so I always recommend his stuff to them. I think his strongest area is the early dating period before exclusivity and maybe the first few months after that. The longer term relationship stuff he is probably a little weaker in,...but that isn't where most people run into trouble anyway. The understanding human nature/behavor and how it all interacts is where my fascination comes in and it ties into my first round of formal education in my younger days. In a way, he just reminded me of what I already knew but had forgotten, and he helped fill in some knowledge gaps.

 

He's not bad in the analysis of human nature and gender differences, but there are many better authors that can give you a far deeper and more scientific understanding of it such as Robert Glover (No More Mr. Nice Guy) or John Gottman (A Man's Guide to Woman).

 

One of my biggest bug-bears with CW is some of his "rules" such as only messaging the girl once a week to set-up the date. In his book, he writes that if you date a girl on a Tuesday, you should text her the following Monday to set-up the next date. This does not work with about 99% of the women I've dated.

 

Personally, I prefer the concept of "escalation windows", which states that you have a finite amount of time to escalate a particular interaction before the window closes.

 

In respect to messaging a girl after a great first date, my experience suggests this window stays open for roughly 24-36hrs max. If you're hitting her up with the 3-day rule or once a week, she will in most cases reject you.

 

However, his framework around "the phone is only for setting dates" definitely changed my behaviour on that god damn device and has yielded far better results and piece of mind for myself

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

I did a lot of online dating after my divorce several years ago. I don't recall ever saying, "Gosh, I really did like that guy, but he texted me the NEXT DAY! Total turnoff....next!"

 

This is laughable. If someone is needy/clingy, they are going to show it eventually. The "tell" is NOT in how soon they text you.

 

If she's interested, she will want to hear from you. Sadly, I don't think she's interested based on the fact she did not respond . But, it had nothing to do with you texting too soon. Her mind was likely already made up when you said goodnight last night. After that, you can't manipulate or control the rest.

[DrNo1962]

I did a lot of online dating after my divorce several years ago. I don't recall ever saying, "Gosh, I really did like that guy, but he texted me the NEXT DAY! Total turnoff....next!"

 

This is laughable. If someone is needy/clingy, they are going to show it eventually. The "tell" is NOT in how soon they text you.

 

If she's interested, she will want to hear from you. Sadly, I don't think she's interested based on the fact she did not respond . But, it had nothing to do with you texting too soon. Her mind was likely already made up when you said goodnight last night. After that, you can't manipulate or control the rest.

 

Agreed.

 

Many of my married friends texted their now wives on the way home. Didn't seem to backfire on them.

 

People make this out to be hard science, but It really isn't.

 

The most important thing is IF she likes you, she is most likely wanting to know if you care that she lives or dies tomorrow.

 

If she's not into you, then no amount of finessing will change that.

[PRW]

One of my biggest bug-bears with CW is some of his "rules" such as only messaging the girl once a week to set-up the date. In his book, he writes that if you date a girl on a Tuesday, you should text her the following Monday to set-up the next date. This does not work with about 99% of the women I've dated.

Couple things on that...

 

It is not as "hardend" of a rule as you might be making it. But keep in mind his focus is on guys who act like a dog that just broken off it's lease after it has been on a least it's whole life. They just go nuts. He is giving them boundaries to keep them on the rails.

 

The other thing is that he means that for only the first 2,3, maybe 4 dates until the woman starts to reach out to the guy between the dates. After that things have a more natural flow.

 

Lastly it is to weed out the needy/insecure women. The women that this "doesn't work with" are probably some you should consider avoiding.

 

However, his framework around "the phone is only for setting dates" definitely changed my behaviour on that god damn device and has yielded far better results and piece of mind for myself

Definately. I started to ask myself, "what would I do if this was 1980 and there were no cell phones?" Now I don't get too literal about it, I'm not stupid,...but I think the point it made.

[DrNo1962]

Couple things on that...

 

It is not as "hardend" of a rule as you might be making it. But keep in mind his focus is on guys who act like a dog that just broken off it's lease after it has been on a least it's whole life. They just go nuts. He is giving them boundaries to keep them on the rails.

 

The other thing is that he means that for only the first 2,3, maybe 4 dates until the woman starts to reach out to the guy between the dates. After that things have a more natural flow.

 

Lastly it is to weed out the needy/insecure women. The women that this "doesn't work with" are probably some you should consider avoiding.

 

Definately. I started to ask myself, "what would I do if this was 1980 and there were no cell phones?" Now I don't get too literal about it, I'm not stupid,...but I think the point it made.

 

I've heard him say that many times before and I don't think you can be so dogmatic like that.

 

There is actually no scientific evidence that a girl who wants to be contacted sooner rather than later after a great first date is needy/insecure. Many of the things CW says is conjecture/pseudoscience/anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt. This is one of them.

 

Sure, if a girl or guy for that matter gets butthurt about not being contacted within 10hrs that's one thing. However, taking up to a week to show your interest after a date just shows a lack of care. It's counterintuitive if you're looking for a serious LTR.

 

But in all things dating advice....you do you

[Morello]

CW's experience comes from trial and error so we might as well do something similar with our own experiences. I agree with those who say his evidence comes from his personal experiences, which can be heavily biased because of the girl he usually approaches/likes, etc. He's a Trump fan and a bit of a 'macho' guy but I've also seen guys slightly more on the feminine getting great results too. There are numerous factors in play, girls are not all the same.

 

I'm dating a girl now that is challenging my beliefs. She NEVER initiated contact since we reconnected (she did once or twice before we kissed and then we were apart for 6 months). However, every time I texted her I ended up with asking her out and she always said yes and has been flexible with making it work. The dates have been quite good too.

 

There is nothing wrong with her except for not initiating contact. But everything else works. Initially, I felt bad because I thought she wasn't interested. But she has been very consistent in the last 2 months. She follows through my initiatives and even 'initiated' holding hands and gave me a weird talk about her letting me use her car while her was away (which I declined).

 

I started to put less emphasis on the lack of her initiating contact and started to enjoy that. Nothing is textbook. I don't know where this is going but so far I'm getting intimacy, sex, good dates, etc., with a pretty girl. Why should I be bothered about her lack of initiating contact?

 

But, again, because this is on topic, I'd like PRW's opinion on that. She hasn't yet started to chase (not on initiating text anyway) but has initiated other things, as long as I 'start the engine' every time. She's not acting like CW says on his book but again, she is escalating on other aspects of the relationship in a girly way. Should I just keep going? (Hopefully not hijacking the OP's thread but opening a discussion).

[Grey40]

I went on a date with a girl and it went well. The next morning I sent her a text saying I enjoyed seeing her last night and wanted to know if she would go ice skating Friday or Saturday. I sent it at 10am and she replied at 7pm saying she enjoyed the date, but doesn't like bowling. So I replied back giving her three options, first was to go to a movie, second an escape room, and third was for her to teach me a video game she was talking about and watch netflix. I sent that text ~25 hours ago and no response. Did asking to watch netflix scare her off? I am 22 and she is 18.

 

Probably too soon to ask her out again immediately after. Regardless, never give the girls options to choose from. Most Women hate making decisions and will just ignore it. Don’t worry about whether she likes it or not, just pick something and ask her, if she has a problem she’ll say so and then you can change it. It’s tough when she’s that young too, women are so different at 18 than at even 24. I’d just wait an entire week and then ask her out again.

[PRW]

I've heard him say that many times before and I don't think you can be so dogmatic like that.

There is nothing dogmatic in anything I said above. Just the opposite in fact.

 

There is actually no scientific evidence....

Unless you are a scientist who is "all knowing" about all scientific evidence everywhere at any time, then you can not be dogmatic and say that there is "no scientific evidence" about any topic that you want to plug into that statement. You have no idea about what some group somewhere might be researching.

 

However, taking up to a week to show your interest after a date just shows a lack of care. It's counterintuitive if you're looking for a serious LTR.

1. No one is saying take a week to show interest. It is only a couple days. For example a date on Saturday night,...after the date make another date on Tues for the next weekend. This "show interest" crap has become just another label and buzzword for people who can neither allow people to behave naturally or even behave natural themselves. They think everyone they date is supposed to be some robot that "shows interest" in the perfectly prescribed amount (determined by them) and does it on the perfectly prescribed schedule (determined by them),...and if they miss the schedule (that they probably don't even know exists),....DUMP 'EM!!.

2. Some people have jobs where you are gone for weeks at a time on the road. In the 1990's I was gone 3-4 weeks at a time,...and we didn't have cell phones,...and people still managed to have babies.

3. If you go into a 1st date with the mentality of "I'm want an LTR" then you end up being the guy the the women want to run from.

4. Many times what is counter intuitive is right,...and what is intuitive is wrong. That is why everything is so screwed up and why dating coaches have a busy job. Intuition does not determine truth,...and too often misses the truth.

 

But in all things dating advice....you do you

In other words, "be yourself". Worst advice you can give someone. "What they are" is the problem,...they need to work on themselves to become what they need to be. If "be yourself" fixed anything we would all be living in the Garden of Eden.

[PRW]

But, again, because this is on topic, I'd like PRW's opinion on that. She hasn't yet started to chase (not on initiating text anyway) but has initiated other things, as long as I 'start the engine' every time. She's not acting like CW says on his book but again, she is escalating on other aspects of the relationship in a girly way. Should I just keep going?

She is in fact acting like CW says in his book. She is acting like a woman that really is interested in the guy but is not initiating because the guy is still a little "too" available so she doesn't need to. She likes him (you) enough that you haven't gotten into trouble with being over available. Attraction from her can and will overcome a certain amount of flaws on the guy's side. One problem you can run into now is that if you try to adjust your availability to get her to reach out more at this point, she will think something is wrong and that can cause problems. So you kind of get stuck with whatever pattern you create and establish at the beginning.

 

So the bottom line is that your situation is a little "off" but it is working because her attraction for you is high enough to overcome it. But if her attraction ever drops you can get into trouble,...as her attraction drops the flaws in any of your behavor will become more visible. I don't mean by that the behavor is changing, I mean it would be more visible.

 

Another consideration is that she isn't perfect either, nor is she a programed robot. She would also have been conditioned by her past experiences with other guys. So a certain amount of "abnormal" can seem "normal" to her.

 

So in the end you just have to keep paying attention to what is going on around you.