# Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?



## DvlsAdvc8

Gathering feedback per disagreement on another thread. So, assuming you are open to dating multiple women concurrently, how often did you do so? If you are not open to having multiple dates concurrently scheduled with multiple women, please answer "never".

To be clear: I define dating as something of the order of being interested in a woman and asking her out for "dinner and a movie" in pursuit of her for a potential coupling and LTR. Dating multiple women, is here defined as asking one woman out for a first date say... Friday night, and before that date asking another woman out for Saturday... perhaps even alternating dates with each. Concurrently scheduling and going on dates with multiple women. So that weekend, you have two dates with different women coming up.

Per my definition, it is not scheduling/dating one, being done with her, and scheduling/dating another... as that would be dating one at a time.


----------



## Weathered

Never. I can't see such a concept working out for the other parties involved unless you include speed dating where there are no emotional strings attached on the first meeting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Married but Happy

Frequently. If it extended beyond a couple of dates (the screening and elimination process), I'd disclose it. Only rarely did anyone have a problem with that, and if they did they could (and usuall did) choose not to continue seeing me. Often I'd find just one special person to date for an extended period, but occasionally there were two or even three that continued for two or three years.


----------



## Jellybeans

Hehe nice to see our thread chatter over there got started up here. I am glad you made this thread, Dvls and am looking forward to reading the responses.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> am looking forward to reading the responses.


Me too. From what I gather from friends IRL... they don't have all that many dates such that they need to schedule them concurrently. Its more like: date one, it continues or it does not - the end. Find other women who seem interested, ask a few more out... relatively low acceptance rate. Stop seeking additional dates when someone accepts. Date her till it ends before seeking new dates.

I'm curious to see if the forum reflects what I've gathered.


----------



## samyeagar

When my ex wife and I seperated and it was obviously headed for divorce, me not wanting to continue in the marriage, waiting to file, I dated several women at the same time, multiple dates with multiple women per week. Once I began talking with my STBW, that came to a stop in a hurry as I realized she was something special right away.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There would be much more participation in the discussion if this was a dating forum, versus a marriage forum.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Sam, so you were asking out 2+ women a week and landing dates with them? Where were you meeting these women? How long did this 2+ women a week average last before you met STBW?

I consider myself quite the pickup artist, but you must be a stud!


----------



## Jellybeans

samyeagar said:


> Once I began talking with my STBW, that came to a stop in a hurry as I realized she was something special right away.


What was it about her that made you realize/feel that she was "special?"



Faithful Wife said:


> There would be much more participation in the discussion if this was a dating forum, versus a marriage forum.


True. Lol. But we gotta work with what we have here at TAM.


----------



## WyshIknew

I didn't date terribly often but when I did it was with one woman at a time except for once when it was two.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> There would be much more participation in the discussion if this was a dating forum, versus a marriage forum.


Why? Married people had dating experiences.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

One wonders why so many single people complain endlessly about wanting a date when multi-dating is so "prevalent".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Many people here haven't dated on the open market for a long, long time.

My friends and I and the men we dated (when I was single), always multi-dated and always assumed the men were multi-dating, too. Sometimes it was not just an assumption, we actually discussed it with them most of the time.

The standard dating advice is to assume people are dating others.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Interesting Dvls that on this thread you called Sam a "stud" but in the other thread you said this about men who multi-date:

"They can get their multi-date worship from *somebody with less self-respect who'll tolerate being just one of several men vying for a turn at having her attention and the "opportunity" to buy her dinner*."


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sam, so you were asking out 2+ women a week and landing dates with them? Where were you meeting these women? How long did this 2+ women a week average last before you met STBW?
> 
> I consider myself quite the pickup artist, but you must be a stud!


Over a three month period, I had several single date women. Just didn't hit it off. There were five women over that time that I went out three to eight times with. The most I ever did in one week was four with four different women.

It was really quite a mix of where I met them. Most of the one and dones were met online. The eight date woman was met online. I met a couple in checkout lines, and a few were single moms I knew through one of my kids schools. The best way I asked one of them out was in the grocery store. Chick was getting something off a shelf and was standing on one of the lower shelves. She came down as I was walking by and planed one of her heels in the top of my foot and it hurt like hell. She apologized, I told her she could make it up to me by taking me out to dinner, and she said ok, so we did.

I was more than happy to continue this arrangement, and then I met my STBW online. Once we got past the first few emails, and began talking on the phone and texting, my interest in the other women went away.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Interesting Dvls that on this thread you called Sam a "stud" but in the other thread you said this about men who multi-date:
> 
> "They can get their multi-date worship from *somebody with less self-respect who'll tolerate being just one of several men vying for a turn at having her attention and the "opportunity" to buy her dinner*."


Its called sarcasm.

Amazingly, none of my single guy friends had a date this weekend. I can't wait to tell them what losers they are that they're not getting all this multi-date action. ;P


----------



## Faithful Wife

Was the "stud" comment also sarcasm?

Because you obviously believe the "somebody with less self-respect" statement.


----------



## samyeagar

Jellybeans said:


> What was it about her that made you realize/feel that she was "special?"


You know, it was something I just KNEW. I suppose it was how easily the conversation flowed about anything and everything, how just the sound of her voice brought about actual physical changes in me when I heard it. It's really hard to put into words...it just felt different in a good way, and once we met in person, the physical chemistry was off the charts.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Was the "stud" comment also sarcasm?


The stud comment WAS the sarcasm. I don't think having multiple women makes one a stud regardless. I was being facetious.

I don't know whether the women he was seeing were seeing other people as well or not, so I have no information to judge. I personally wouldn't stoop to dating a woman who was dating another man out of a sense of self-respect.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Poor Sam...Dvls thinks he has "no self-respect". I'm sure Sam will be crushed. :rofl:


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The stud comment WAS the sarcasm. I don't think having multiple women makes one a stud regardless. I was being facetious.
> 
> I don't know whether the women he was seeing were seeing other people as well or not, so I have no information to judge. *I personally wouldn't stoop to dating a woman who was dating another man out of a sense of self-respect*.


Though you have no problem being with multiple women at the same time, including your wife


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Btw, FW, I see you've voted for every week. The poll was specifically asking * guys*. That's why I made who voted for what visible.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes...I did date several women a week, too though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes please do FF!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

samyeagar said:


> Though you have no problem being with multiple women at the same time, including your wife


And I still don't have a problem with being with multiple women I don't have any romantic interest in.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes...I did date several women a week, too though.


Unless you had a sex change, I don't really care.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just consider it my vote for MY husband then.


----------



## WyshIknew

Ding ding, round two. It's a rematch of the Thrilla from Manila

And DVLS comes out swinging, he ducks, he dives but FW catches him with an uppercut, he counters with a jab which rocks FW on her heels.

This must be the tenth fight they've had in recent months and it promises some real fireworks.

Stay tuned for the third round.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls can't help but try to "prove me wrong".

Even though there is no right or wrong here, he just wants to pretend like he is "right".


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls can't help but try to "prove me wrong".
> 
> Even though there is no right or wrong here, he just wants to pretend like he is "right".


Are you sure about that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not sure I understand the question.


----------



## Faithful Wife

At different times in our lives (prior to meeting), my husband and both multi-dated, sometimes just a couple people at once, sometimes several.

We were both multi-dating when we met.

After about 3 months of dating, we became exclusive because we both "knew" something special was going on here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls can't help but try to "prove me wrong".
> 
> Even though there is no right or wrong here, he just wants to pretend like he is "right".


Oh there's certainly a "right" here. Everyone is completely free to do as they wish, but you keep pretending that most men are multi-dating when they're not, if only because they haven't been able to swing it.

It makes sense that women would have plenty of experience with men multi-dating, because these same men are making the rounds.

A huge swath of men would never multi-date simply based on how they were raised to treat women. A huge number of additional men have basic problems even approaching women for a date. The majority of men couldn't multi-date even if they wanted to, and I'd bet the upper third is just happy to pursue their one date at a time. Very few men are even capable of landing multiple dates a week, period; much less engaging in it as a sustained long term behavior.


----------



## ntamph

I've never had enough women interested in me at the same time to multi-date.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> At different times in our lives (prior to meeting), my husband and both multi-dated, sometimes just a couple people at once, sometimes several.
> 
> We were both multi-dating when we met.
> 
> After about 3 months of dating, we became exclusive because we both "knew" something special was going on here.


So special it took *three months * just to decide to stop seeing other people? :scratchhead:

That completely baffles me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"...but you keep pretending that most men are multi-dating when they're not."

You aren't going to disprove this by one poll on a marriage forum, where people are not actively dating.

You think this: "Very few men are even capable of landing multiple dates a week, period; much less engaging in it as a sustained long term behavior." is some kind of statement of fact? It is merely your opinion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I actually would have waited longer than three months...but he really wanted to take me off the market by that point.

Before that? We had no claim on each other and both happily dated others.

Sorry that it baffles you. Can't help you there.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Asked my husband he said he didn't multi-date because he 'couldn't be bothered to', didn't poll for obvious reasons.


----------



## samyeagar

FrenchFry said:


> See, I don't think it's a loser vs winner thing or even a stud vs not stud thing.
> 
> To go back to the other thread, my husband was dating 5 women including One he'd asked out a couple weeks before he met me, one he had introduced by a friend, one had asked him out after seeing him around for awhile, one he had previously worked with and she had quit and they started dating and he had approached me in a bar.
> 
> He didn't really stack dates on top of each other though and I, needing a lot of "me" time at that point didn't really make a whole lot of demands on his time. So, his dating schedule was more like 2 dates a week tops with two different women, like a lunch date on Wednesday and then a dinner on Saturday.
> 
> He says when he was single his cycle was "date a whole bunch of women, eventually one would click more than the others, boom, girlfriend." He also says when he wasn't dating a whole bunch, he wasn't dating at all, feast or famine style.


This has kind of how I've always been. Date a bunch and see what happens. I never really stopped to think that it might be wrong. I've never lied to a woman about it when I had been doing it. Though I never volunteered the information either. 

When I am out with someone, she has my complete attention. That is probably why when I have felt things getting serious from my side, I have naturally lost interest in the other women, and go exclusive on my own.


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A huge swath of men would never multi-date simply based on how they were raised to treat women.


And another huge swathe of men have no compunction in humping then dumping, even though they probably weren't raised to treat women that way... This, however, would probably be excused on the basis of "we're wired that way." 

Multi-dating is simply a way of sorting the wheat (the keepers) from the chaff (the humpers and dumpers). Women are just "wired that way."

Regarding the poll, it's bound to be skewed, IMO, because women tend to find it easier to get dates than men do...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "...but you keep pretending that most men are multi-dating when they're not."
> 
> You aren't going to disprove this by one poll on a marriage forum, where people are not actively dating.
> 
> You think this: "Very few men are even capable of landing multiple dates a week, period; much less engaging in it as a sustained long term behavior." is some kind of statement of fact? It is merely your opinion.


You don't have to be actively dating to relay your dating experience.

I am not relating my opinion. I am relating FACT according to combined experience... and I AM a person who maintains a large social network. I AM one of the guys everyone knows around town because I deliberately make it my business to be known and to know as many people as possible. It benefits my social life, it benefits my dating life, and it benefits my business. Men do not have all these dates you're referring to. Hell, I'd wager a huge percentage of women don't either... but I have less data to speak on. The prototype women perhaps... but the average woman? I doubt it. Neither the average man nor the average woman has members of the opposite sex beating down their door such that they have to schedule this excess of dates they're getting... and if the dates were plentiful, why bother to schedule at all? There's always another suitor showing up just as you get rid of the previous?

If the average man HAS to get a date today or he'll die, that's going to be one fugly woman. The average man's only immediate capability to increase quantity is by reducing quality.

It takes a very long time build large social networks. It takes even longer to become socially adept. And in spite of years of effort developing both, I'd still find it difficult to land dates with 2 new women every week without lowering my standards or being out seeking all the time.

The only scenario where multi-dating even makes sense to me is if you're a single mom and only have every other weekend to date. You have two weeks to collect offers and a weekend to execute. I can see an attractive woman pulling that off without a problem... but there is one limiting factor: Most single mom's I know barely get out of the house other than their jobs. There's not a lot of opportunity to meet someone.

Whether someone thinks its okay or not is irrelevant to the fact that most people aren't actually doing it, if only because they can't.


----------



## samyeagar

I guess I'm weird then. I've never had any problems getting dates, and never had to lower my standards. I have rarely been rejected, so maybe thats part of why...I never learned to be afraid of a woman saying no.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I guess my H and I (and a few others on this thread) are simply not "average".

But I can say for certain if my H had to get a date today, that woman would be a bombshell.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> And another huge swathe of men have no compunction in humping then dumping, even though they probably weren't raised to treat women that way... This, however, would probably be excused on the basis of "we're wired that way."
> 
> Multi-dating is simply a way of sorting the wheat (the keepers) from the chaff (the humpers and dumpers). Women are just "wired that way."


Yep, there are plenty of such men. If the way to find a keeper is to be dismissive of them by taking on all the offers you can... I imagine you go through an awful lot of people.



Cosmos said:


> Regarding the poll, it's bound to be skewed, IMO, because women tend to find it easier to get dates than men do...


That wouldn't be skewed. The poll only asks men's experience. That would be exactly the result I expect. Far from it being rampant multi-dating among men, its rather uncommon if only because most men can't pull it off even if they wanted to.

Dates are harder to come by for men than they are women. There is a minority of men who do most of the approaching, a smaller minority who do most of the getting, and a percentage of these men ARE the multi-daters. Many women accept their approaches granting additional confidence to ask at will, they don't have upbringing that would make them perceive multi-dating as mistreatment of women, and so they do.

This is not the experience of most men, nor is the humping and dumping. If the average guy did such dumping... he knows he's shooting himself in the foot and its probably going to be a little while before he's doing the humping again with someone else. He might still look for easy sex, but few actually find it... and not being able to find easy sex, most guys don't carry the hit it and quit it mentality.

Even those who do hit and run tend to get bored of it eventually.


----------



## DesertRat1978

During my last time on the market (which was 13 months), I rarely had more than one woman in my life (date or more involved). On the few occasions that I did, I quickly resolved that and pared it down to one. 

When I met the wife, I was dating two others. After the second date with the wife, I was sold on her and dropped the others that night.


----------



## RandomDude

In my early years I never asked for exclusivity nor did I expect it, and to prevent lovey doveys I "dated" at least two women at a time over the course of months. But I was a NSA guy so meh


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep, there are plenty of such men. If the way to find a keeper is to be dismissive of them by taking on all the offers you can... I imagine you go through an awful lot of people.
> 
> Not all offers. I was very selective in my dating years.
> 
> That wouldn't be skewed. The poll only asks men's experience. That would be exactly the result I expect. Far from it being rampant multi-dating among men, its rather uncommon if only because most men can't pull it off even if they wanted to.
> 
> OK, that makes sense.
> 
> Dates are harder to come by for men than they are women. There is a minority of men who do most of the approaching, a smaller minority who do most of the getting, and a percentage of these men ARE the multi-daters. Many women accept their approaches granting additional confidence to ask at will, they don't have upbringing that would make them perceive multi-dating as mistreatment of women, and so they do.
> 
> This is not the experience of most men, nor is the humping and dumping. If the average guy did such dumping... he knows he's shooting himself in the foot and its probably going to be a little while before he's doing the humping again with someone else. He might still look for easy sex, but few actually find it... and not being able to find easy sex, most guys don't carry the hit it and quit it mentality.
> 
> I'm glad to hear that, because it isn't my experience of men, either. I'm basing my views mainly on what I hear goes on these days.
> 
> Even those who do hit and run tend to get bored of it eventually.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

samyeagar said:


> I guess I'm weird then. I've never had any problems getting dates, and never had to lower my standards. I have rarely been rejected, so maybe thats part of why...I never learned to be afraid of a woman saying no.


Yep, you'd be weird. You're just a hot guy.  :smnotworthy:

So 3 months... that's like 12 weeks. 2+ women a week... 24+ women? No... you gave a smaller number didn't you? Dated some of them for longer spans while others came and went. How many women did you say? Sex involved? If so, these women kept coming back knowing you were sexing up others or they just didn't know? Or were the long termers the sexual relationships and you just co-mingled a couple other women in here or there?

I don't think most guys fear rejection from experiences of being rejected. When I was a teenager, I had never been rejected and I still feared rejection. Today, rejection is all but meaningless... or maybe even fun (silly?). Most of the rejections in my life were pretty much a given as I was being obnoxious trying out different pickup approaches. I was more experimenting with responses than I was seriously interested in getting a date. I wanted methods and social fearlessness, not dates, back then.

Today its a foregone conclusion so success rate is uninformative. If I bother asking, its because I already know she'll say yes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> You don't really have to be a huge dater to experience the phenomenon of "the dude who will be charming until you put out and then drop off a cliff" unfortunately. Multi-dating also spaces out dates between people so the less patient h&ds get out pretty quickly.
> 
> But it's not just sorting them out either. It's taking the pressure off of "fall into a relationship NOW!!!" for me by being able to experience great qualities in lots of different people instead of focusing on one while not being able to see why we wouldn't be compatible due to limerence.


So... in effect, it allows you to be standoffish? And this is desirable?

What do you mean about spacing out dates? The particular notion that invokes an emotional response in me... almost disgust... is this notion that I'm buying her dinner tonight, and the .... woman... is already planning to go out with some other dude the next night. That's not spacing. That feels to me like utter indifference. It feels down right dismissive and rude to me.

That approach is so very different from what goes on in my head. I'm looking for reasons to like someone when I date them. I can't imagine using other people/options as reasons to not like someone too much.


----------



## DesertRat1978

During my last time on the market, I dated (and more sometimes) seven women. Five of them I made little to no effort in pursuing. I was rejected once. In my younger years, I would have had never pursued any of them due to having zero confidence and fear of rejection. I really had no interest in juggling multiple dates and so on. That is why I kept it one most of the time.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess my H and I (and a few others on this thread) are simply not "average".
> 
> But I can say for certain if my H had to get a date today, that woman would be a bombshell.


When do we get the pics?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sounds like we need to see Sam's picture, not mine. For you only want to know about MEN who do this, not Princess Sl*tina.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You don't have to be actively dating to relay your dating experience.
> 
> I am not relating my opinion. I am relating FACT according to combined experience... and I AM a person who maintains a large social network. I AM one of the guys everyone knows around town because I deliberately make it my business to be known and to know as many people as possible. It benefits my social life, it benefits my dating life, and it benefits my business. Men do not have all these dates you're referring to. Hell, I'd wager a huge percentage of women don't either... but I have less data to speak on. The prototype women perhaps... but the average woman? I doubt it. Neither the average man nor the average woman has members of the opposite sex beating down their door such that they have to schedule this excess of dates they're getting... and if the dates were plentiful, why bother to schedule at all? There's always another suitor showing up just as you get rid of the previous?


I really don't meant to be argumentative but I have to pose the question: if you make it your business to be known by as many people as you can, why would others not do the same? I live near quite the hub of people, what with one major city within thirty miles, and seven or eight slightly smaller cities within the same radius. If one wanted to make themselves known to thousands of people, they could do it. It wouldn't be easy, but they could do it. 

To say that people aren't as successful at making themselves known to everyone around them, while simultaneously saying that you accomplish this, is rather...arrogant. I've seen _many_ people do this in my life. You aren't the only one. So it's really not as unbelievable as you think. 



> If the average man HAS to get a date today or he'll die, that's going to be one fugly woman. The average man's only immediate capability to increase quantity is by reducing quality.


I thought the discussion was about how many dates people can get, not the quality? I didn't read the other discussion(headed there soon to get context now that I'm interested), though, so I could be totally off.



> It takes a very long time build large social networks. It takes even longer to become socially adept. And in spite of years of effort developing both, I'd still find it difficult to land dates with 2 new women every week without lowering my standards or being out seeking all the time.


I disagree. There are plenty of people who are born with a natural way with people and meeting strangers. I've never had an issue striking up conversations with people I didn't know. I've always had tons of friends. Dating is more difficult since the type of interest is more serious, but it's not as hard as you're painting to be.



> The only scenario where multi-dating even makes sense to me is if you're a single mom and only have every other weekend to date. You have two weeks to collect offers and a weekend to execute. I can see an attractive woman pulling that off without a problem... but there is one limiting factor: Most single mom's I know barely get out of the house other than their jobs. There's not a lot of opportunity to meet someone.
> 
> Whether someone thinks its okay or not is irrelevant to the fact that most people aren't actually doing it, if only because they can't.


While I don't have an opinion one way or the other with regard to multi-dating, I don't think you're qualified to actually make this assessment.


----------



## Racer

Just an observation of my own life.
There is a difference between going on a date and finding a girlfriend. Looking back, I multi-dated... Like a girl I liked to take clubbing, another that liked the same sort of music that could be counted on to go with to a certain concert, another that liked the outdoor activity stuff. These girls I’d call depending on what I wanted to do.... So I always had a lot of women around.

Then I blurred the lines. I started seeking a ‘girlfriend’... the whole package sort of thing; All or nothing. These girls I’d been going out with weren’t ‘it’. So stupidly and arrogantly, I stopped calling them for not being able to be the full package girlfriend material and treated them rather poorly by ignoring our friendship. And like your single friends, found myself alone on the weekend or out with my guy friends searching for a girlfriend instead of just fun people to be around. Funny now... I can see how clearly desperate I must have looked trying to find a girlfriend and how judgmental I was of them. If only I had not tried to jump right to girlfriend and gone back to how I had been, I would have met a ton more women and had a lot more ‘fun weekends’. But I didn’t.... I isolated myself more and more from any female who wasn’t girlfriend material. 

It’s better from about any angle to multi-date. I’m not sure I’d want to be with someone who doesn’t think they have options and yet still chooses me. I want to be the prize, not the ‘settled for’ because they didn't think they'd find someone else.... Once you find that right person, it evolves to exclusive simply because you don’t want to be with anyone else. Don’t try to force that right out of the gate.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, to answer the OP though: my husband never multi-dated, and nor did I. It's not my personality. But I don't think that those who do it are necessarily using the people they're going out with. Some do, I've known those who multi-dated just to make others jealous, but not everyone does.


----------



## RandomDude

I stuck to STR or "friends with benefits" so meh, I think the necessity of multi-dating is a given, but that's just me.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep, you'd be weird. You're just a hot guy.  :smnotworthy:
> 
> So 3 months... that's like 12 weeks. 2+ women a week... 24+ women? No... you gave a smaller number didn't you? Dated some of them for longer spans while others came and went. How many women did you say? Sex involved? If so, these women kept coming back knowing you were sexing up others or they just didn't know? Or were the long termers the sexual relationships and you just co-mingled a couple other women in here or there?
> 
> I don't think most guys fear rejection from experiences of being rejected. When I was a teenager, I had never been rejected and I still feared rejection. Today, rejection is all but meaningless... or maybe even fun (silly?). Most of the rejections in my life were pretty much a given as I was being obnoxious trying out different pickup approaches. I was more experimenting with responses than I was seriously interested in getting a date. I wanted methods and social fearlessness, not dates, back then.
> 
> Today its a foregone conclusion so success rate is uninformative. If I bother asking, its because I already know she'll say yes.


It was a dozen or so over that time. Sex as in PIV? Nope. I've only slept with three women in my life, though I've had opportunity. I'm pretty discriminating when it comes to that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I really don't meant to be argumentative but I have to pose the question: if you make it your business to be known by as many people as you can, why would others not do the same? I live near quite the hub of people, what with one major city within thirty miles, and seven or eight slightly smaller cities within the same radius. If one wanted to make themselves known to thousands of people, they could do it. It wouldn't be easy, but they could do it.
> 
> To say that people aren't as successful at making themselves known to everyone around them, while simultaneously saying that you accomplish this, is rather...arrogant. I've seen _many_ people do this in my life. You aren't the only one. So it's really not as unbelievable as you think.


No, you're assuming I say I'm doing something other people can't do. Anyone can do so with effort, but most people do not keep large social networks. In a manner of speaking it can be a lot of work... I don't really look at it that way, but maintaining relationships does take your time. It all depends on whether you want that or not, and I don't think most people do... or at least not enough to make it happen.



Created2Write said:


> I thought the discussion was about how many dates people can get, not the quality? I didn't read the other discussion(headed there soon to get context now that I'm interested), though, so I could be totally off.


Yeah, off a bit. I'm arguing quality over quantity here. Ive said anyone can go land a ton of dates by lowering their standards. For example, I could land more just by not caring if she dates other people. That's a standard of mine, and I'm glad I don't have to lower my standards for an acceptable number of dates. Different people have different standards, but its always going to increase your pool to lower your standards... if that's really what you want.



Created2Write said:


> I disagree. There are plenty of people who are born with a natural way with people and meeting strangers. I've never had an issue striking up conversations with people I didn't know. I've always had tons of friends. Dating is more difficult since the type of interest is more serious, but it's not as hard as you're painting to be.


That "plenty" doesn't have trouble landing dates. That "plenty" is also not the majority of men either. Most men maintain rather small social networks.



Created2Write said:


> While I don't have an opinion one way or the other with regard to multi-dating, I don't think you're qualified to actually make this assessment.


I'm not qualified to speak to what I've heard repeatedly from my rather large network of friends? What, pray tell, would qualify someone to speak on men's experience if not a large number of men's experience? Most guys sit back and marvel at my ability to just randomly approach a table of women and come away with a positive outcome... often getting them to join us.

I hear, "You've got balls. What do you even say? How do you do that? I'd be standing there like an idiot even if I convinced myself to go for it." That's the experience of most men. They need introductions, coincidence or circumstance to make a play. Even Sam's example of the woman stepping on his foot is a circumstantial play. IT gives him the opening. To his credit he played on it with quick wit. If a guy doesn't have that wit, or thinks of it a few seconds too late... the opportunity is lost and they just let it go.

This is an area I know a LOT about because it has been a big area of deliberate personal growth for me to achieve. Literally years of jumping out, not giving a crap and building/growing friendships. Most men do not have IT naturally, and even fewer push themselves the way I did. Most continue to sit back and take what comes along, maybe taking an occasional highly mitigated risk... or relying heavily on her to signal interest rather than getting noticed and driving interest... and unsurprisingly, not much comes along by introduction and circumstance, especially if you don't get out much.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Sounds like we need to see Sam's picture, not mine. For you only want to know about MEN who do this, not Princess Sl*tina.


I thought you were talking about sex god... sorry.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Racer said:


> Just an observation of my own life.
> There is a difference between going on a date and finding a girlfriend. Looking back, I multi-dated... Like a girl I liked to take clubbing, another that liked the same sort of music that could be counted on to go with to a certain concert, another that liked the outdoor activity stuff. These girls I’d call depending on what I wanted to do.... So I always had a lot of women around.


What you describe sounds more like my average female friendship. A couple I like to come clubbing... another I like to bring to the racetrack. These aren't dates. At least as I understand them. These are friends, little different from how I enjoy certain male friends in certain other activities. I'm not looking to date either, but by what you describe, I would qualify as a multi-dater and I don't think that's the case.

My not dating multiple women at once is a FAR cry from my not having options. Its a choice I make based on the sort of woman I'm interested in pursuing romantically.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Why does it feel rude and dismissive?


Why does anything feel rude or dismissive? Difficult question to answer, but that's how I feel about it. The signal of accepting a date with someone else while ours is pending feels entirely dismissive of the date with me. Its... insulting even. Completely unappreciative of a guy giving to you - taking you out.



FrenchFry said:


> The whole "I'm paying for her dinner, she owes me x" is why I definitely paid my own way or at least tried real hard because I'm not trying have someone feel like I owe them anything for trying to figure out if I even like them.


This confuses me. While you'd disarm the feeling of lack of appreciation by paying your own way, I don't understand "figure out if I even like them". If you don't like them, why accept the date? I don't go around asking out girls I'm not sure if I like. I like them, that's why I'm asking them out. The dates determine whether I continue to like them or if grows or wanes... but imo that should be between me and that one girl... not pending how I get along with some other girl or her some other guy.




FrenchFry said:


> It's not that I want to find reasons to not like someone too much. It's that I want to avoid liking someone so much that I ignore all of the things that are wrong beyond that initial chemistry. If I am dating more people who have that "ooh, I like them" feeling towards them, I can more easily see the things that would be dealbreakers if I didn't like them...because there is another person that I also like who doesn't have them. Without that buffer, for me, I have a tendency to overlook them until it's too late.
> 
> And it might be a little standoffish, but I'd be a bad match for anyone who needs a person to be all over them all the time. It's a compatibility thing.


I can't relate to this buffer need in the first paragraph.

And what I describe is far from wanting to be all over someone or they all over me all the time. I like space, but I want a woman who is considering me on my own merits and the merit of our interactions alone -as I am her... not simultaneously fielding balls from multiple men and comparing and contrasting the texture. ie "Oh, Johnny is soooo hot, but Mike is good looking, nice and has a good job. I can't decide! So I'm just gonna keep seeing them both till somebody tires of it." That screams "woman I don't want".

Picking men like cuts of meet should be reserved for meaningless casual encounters... not the founding of romantic relationships. That's my opinion.


----------



## hambone

I did it all the time when I was between marriages...

BUT, I kept most of it very casual...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

lol that's an interesting perspective and analogy FF. What do you do when you end up liking two guys equally? This would seem to be a major potential pitfall of multi dating imo.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You make them have a dance battle.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

samyeagar said:


> I guess I'm weird then. I've never had any problems getting dates, and never had to lower my standards. I have rarely been rejected, so maybe thats part of why...I never learned to be afraid of a woman saying no.


Yeah, but you're a well known stud


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

I'll go back to the same thing I said on the other thread. You guys HAVE to be complete studs because I have no idea how I could manage getting multiple people to date me all at the same time, lol. 

Maybe it's because I'm older having recently turned 46. I do know that the younger me could have multi-dated but given my current responsibilities, career, lifestyle, opportunities to meet new women, etc. I don't know how it is possible. I know from what people have told me that people already assume I'm a married dad when they meet me ... it is built into my personality and I'm not even aware of it. I am also the quiet guy. I can dominate a conversation with people I am familiar with or work with ... but in a social setting with people I am unfamiliar with, I am likely to be one of the quieter guys at the table or I will keep my conversation down to one or two people. Obviously I have a lot of good points too ... everybody does ... but they don't scream, this guy is a ton of fun who would be awesome to date ... they scream, this guy is someone to settle down with.

When I'm available to date, I'm going to have to get one of you studs to give me the finer tips of finding a date because I have no clue ... I'll need a dating makeover, lol.

It does strike me though that the question posed here cannot be legitimately answered on this forum. This is a group of people, many of whom have been through the wringer, who have a special interest in these topics ... enough to login nearly daily to voice their opinions and debate these topics. These are real people with real world problems but it is still skewed. It's like one poster is fond of pointing out (jokingly, I think), every happily married woman here seems to have a sex god for a husband who is endowed like a horse. I think they must be all married to samyeagar


----------



## Wiltshireman

The very idea of dating multiple people simultaneously strikes me as wrong.

I know that we are all different but for me I am strictly a one women man. If (before I was married) I thought a relationship had the potential to develop into something meaningful then I felt it should be exclusive / taken seriously. I have never had any interest in short term relationships / one night stands / casual sex.

My younger brother was the boy in our family who changed his girlfriends as frequently as his underpants and that may explain why he is three times married / twice divorced.

Christ I sound like my Dad.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Wiltshireman said*: The very idea of dating multiple people simultaneously strikes me as wrong.
> 
> I know that we are all different but for me I am strictly a one women man. If (before I was married) I thought a relationship had the potential to develop into something meaningful then I felt it should be exclusive / taken seriously. I have never had any interest in short term relationships / one night stands / casual sex.


This is because you assume all this dating (in this day & age) = SEX...and it does for many... this is where I would see it as wrong also (because of how I view the act.) 



samyeagar said:


> This has kind of how I've always been. *Date a bunch and see what happens. * I never really stopped to think that it might be wrong. I've never lied to a woman about it when I had been doing it. Though I never volunteered the information either.
> 
> When I am out with someone, she has my complete attention. That is probably why when I have felt things getting serious from my side, I have naturally lost interest in the other women, and go exclusive on my own.


Ok I am a woman so this question is not for me specifically but I see nothing wrong with the way Samyeagar handled himself at all.. because He wasn't screwing all these women.. His partner count is very low... 3 or 4 ?? 

Now me.. If I found myself single.. I'd be lining them up left and right because frankly, I think I'd have a hell of time finding the type of man I wanted...(I'd offer to pay for my own meal every single time too, cause I don't believe in using men)... I'd probably have to meet a good 50 plus to find one that I felt pleasantly compatible with...this would be a very difficult thing , I believe.. 

I just wouldn't be having sex with them.. so I would not feel it was wrong....just spreading myself out so I could find someone that "worked" for me - as quickly as possible...time is of the essence...

Sex would be my boundary - till it was something "special"..then the pursuit to keep looking would be over.. and I'd be honest the whole time... it would be like "shopping" for my future to me.


----------



## heartsbeating

Faithful Wife said:


> You make them have a dance battle.


Classic.


----------



## Wiltshireman

SimplyAmorous said:


> Now me.. If I found myself single.. I'd be lining them up left and right because frankly, I think I'd have a hell of time finding the type of man I wanted...(I'd offer to pay for my own meal every single time too, cause I don't believe in using men)... I'd probably have to meet a good 50 plus to find one that I felt pleasantly compatible with...this would be a very difficult thing , I believe..
> 
> I just wouldn't be having sex with them.. so I would not feel it was wrong....just spreading myself out so I could find someone that "worked" for me - as quickly as possible...time is of the essence...
> 
> Sex would be my boundary - till it was something "special"..then the pursuit to keep looking would be over.. and I'd be honest the whole time... it would be like "shopping" for my future to me.


Other than for companionship why would you need to date (even platonically) 50 men to find one who was right for you.

I have only ever dated women that I thought would be compatible for a long term relationships. If I just wanted someone to share a meal or outing with I would ask an existing friend / family member.

I would set my "date filter" (if there is such an expression) for like minded people and not waste time (mine or theirs) dating people who did not "fit" with what I was looking for. That said I have only ever "dated" women that I already knew as friends so if I was single and in a new area I might have to rethink.


----------



## hambone

Wiltshireman said:


> Other than for companionship why would you need to date (even platonically) 50 men to find one who was right for you.
> 
> I have only ever dated women that I thought would be compatible for a long term relationships. If I just wanted someone to share a meal or outing with I would ask an existing friend / family member.
> 
> I would set my "date filter" (if there is such an expression) for like minded people and not waste time (mine or theirs) dating people who did not "fit" with what I was looking for. That said I have only ever "dated" women that I already knew as friends so if I was single and in a new area I might have to rethink.


because she doesn't want to settle,

She want's someone special.


----------



## Wiltshireman

Do not get me wrong no one should have to settle for second best, it just seems to me that if you are more discerning in whom you date your selection process will be less complicated.

It’s a crude analogy but I do not need to buy 50 tester pots to select the right colour paint for the bedroom wall I already have an idea of the sort of shades I am looking for.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

To answer the op,my DH never multi dated bc he felt it would be rude.

I multi dated bc it was fun for a while..then it became exhausting when they started getting attached.


----------



## committed4ever

It seem like a few of the poster on these thread are making assumption based on their limited experience. In the African American region that I grew up and live in it simply not true that women get more dates than men. For one thing there are far fewer eligible males in the pool. I'm not even going to get into why because this not the proper forum. 

In my family my former work place my neighborhood there are many many men that date more than one woman. I know many women who deal with it as a fact of life. I know a few women who date multiple men but not many. At my work place there was CONSTANTLY drama of women problem with their men and men on the job casually involve with more than one woman. this was across race barrier too. If you wanted to find the source of most of the drama at work it came down to male female relationship. And the men were not even always attractive. 

I know from observing the men around my life that dating multiple women was no big deal and not even an accomplishments. That was one of the reason I never was in the dating pool. I didn't want to be the notch on somebody bedpost. 

I have observe that eventually most men grow out of it though somewhere in their late 20's early 30's. (at least my brothers and H did and extended family also)


----------



## Cosmos

Wiltshireman said:


> Do not get me wrong no one should have to settle for second best, it just seems to me that if you are more discerning in whom you date your selection process will be less complicated.
> 
> It’s a crude analogy but I do not need to buy 50 tester pots to select the right colour paint for the bedroom wall I already have an idea of the sort of shades I am looking for.


But if you knew that the colour you painted your wall was possibly for life, might you not put a lot more effort into making your choice?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also, dating habits change and flow throughout the seasons in your life. There were times when I would not have mutli-dated because I was just too busy for it, but I would have dated one person. There were other times when I didn't want to date at all and I specifically avoided dating altogther. Then there were times when I multi-dated and really had a blast. Any time I have multi-dated, the assumption was that the guys were multi-dating, too.

It all depended on where I was in my life.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Also, dating habits change and flow throughout the seasons in your life. There were times when I would not have mutli-dated because I was just too busy for it, but I would have dated one person. There were other times when I didn't want to date at all and I specifically avoided dating altogther. Then there were times when I multi-dated and really had a blast. Any time I have multi-dated, the assumption was that the guys were multi-dating, too.
> 
> It all depended on where I was in my life.


lol I have been constantly thinking how the hell do people find the time to multi date while reading this thread.


----------



## Starstarfish

> Other than for companionship why would you need to date (even platonically) 50 men to find one who was right for you.


Maybe if people (probably myself included) had dated more before they got married, they wouldn't be on TAM. Just saying. 



> It’s a crude analogy but I do not need to buy 50 tester pots to select the right colour paint for the bedroom wall I already have an idea of the sort of shades I am looking for.


Sure, but if you only bring home the lavender and the lilac, how do you know what you really wanted wasn't the wisteria? Even within the same "sort of idea" there are subtle variances. And those subtle variances in a life partner may one day make all the difference.


----------



## DesertRat1978

On the rare occasion that I had multiple dates, it was more a function of timing than wanting greater selection. I pretty much knew what I wanted and so when the wife came along, I jumped on it.


----------



## Racer

FrenchFry said:


> Which absolutely can be determined by a dance battle. Step it UP.


Oh yea... I got this!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Given that its terribly common for women having affairs to feel in love with both men, I have to imagine that "falling for" two different men while multi-dating is a realistic concern. Dance off is cute, but not a very satisfying answer.

I think its a mistake to seek romantic connections from multiple people simultaneously. This is where I view dating is different from how the multi-dater views dating. It sounds like the multi-daters are saying they have no romantic interest in their dates. They give their dates nothing. Its a bunch of new hangout buddies. I have a ton of such "buddies", and I wouldn't call any of them dates and certainly wouldn't call myself a multi-dater. Yet what is described sounds identical to me calling up a girl I know who loves going to the race track every time I go race. No. She's just a friend who is fun to hang with at the track. I have no romantic interest. I know another girl who is a [email protected] at pool. On several occasions I've called her up to go play pool. That's not a date either, but sounds like what the multi-daters are describing.

An actual "date" to me is in pursuit of romantic interest. I want to see if there's something there and pursue it with them until I know there's not. If I'm also "dating" other people, I'm less likely to see that something with any of them. If we're all just hanging out and splitting our already mild affections 20 ways, I think its less likely that something will ever be there.

I strongly disagree with the notion that its about trying everything out too. There's always something better... that's a nasty rabbit hole. Why ever stop looking? On someone getting lavender and lilac and never discovering wisteria: So what if you liked lilac and never learned you'd like wisteria more? That logic is faulty because there's always something else out there... there's always something you don't know that you might like better... especially when it comes to things as complex and varied as people. It's a faulty approach imo. The legitimate question is whether you like what's in front of you enough to keep it on its own merit. How people expect to build closeness in this musical chairs of dating is beyond me.

It sounds more like a low priority social outlet than reaching out for emotional connection.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yep, we get that this is your opinion, Dvls.


----------



## Laila8

Obviously not a guy, but I dated multiple men at the same time (NO sex though, just kissing at most). There was virtually always one guy I liked more than the others, but until he specifically asked me for exclusivity, I wasn't going to drop my other options. I don't think it's smart to put all your eggs in one basket and take yourself off the market until a guy has made it clear that he wants to be committed.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Given that its terribly common for women having affairs to feel in love with both men, I have to imagine that "falling for" two different men while multi-dating is a realistic concern. Dance off is cute, but not a very satisfying answer.
> 
> I think its a mistake to seek romantic connections from multiple people simultaneously. This is where I view dating is different from how the multi-dater views dating. It sounds like the multi-daters are saying they have no romantic interest in their dates. They give their dates nothing. Its a bunch of new hangout buddies. I have a ton of such "buddies", and I wouldn't call any of them dates and certainly wouldn't call myself a multi-dater. Yet what is described sounds identical to me calling up a girl I know who loves going to the race track every time I go race. No. She's just a friend who is fun to hang with at the track. I have no romantic interest. I know another girl who is a [email protected] at pool. On several occasions I've called her up to go play pool. That's not a date either, but sounds like what the multi-daters are describing.
> 
> An actual "date" to me is in pursuit of romantic interest. I want to see if there's something there and pursue it with them until I know there's not. If I'm also "dating" other people, I'm less likely to see that something with any of them. If we're all just hanging out and splitting our already mild affections 20 ways, I think its less likely that something will ever be there.
> 
> I strongly disagree with the notion that its about trying everything out too. There's always something better... that's a nasty rabbit hole. Why ever stop looking? On someone getting lavender and lilac and never discovering wisteria: So what if you liked lilac and never learned you'd like wisteria more? That logic is faulty because there's always something else out there... there's always something you don't know that you might like better... especially when it comes to things as complex and varied as people. It's a faulty approach imo. The legitimate question is whether you like what's in front of you enough to keep it on its own merit. How people expect to build closeness in this musical chairs of dating is beyond me.
> 
> It sounds more like a low priority social outlet than reaching out for emotional connection.


When I've been around those who perpetially do that musical chairs of dating, multiples, etc. It's hard to feel any connectivity at all. I know they must not form attachments easy to keep themself from being hurt. It's all about the sex, huh?


----------



## Racer

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is where I view dating is different from how the multi-dater views dating. It sounds like the multi-daters are saying they have no romantic interest in their dates. They give their dates nothing. Its a bunch of new hangout buddies. I have a ton of such "buddies", and I wouldn't call any of them dates and certainly wouldn't call myself a multi-dater. Yet what is described sounds identical to me calling up a girl I know who loves going to the race track every time I go race. No. She's just a friend who is fun to hang with at the track. I have no romantic interest. I know another girl who is a [email protected] at pool. On several occasions I've called her up to go play pool. That's not a date either, but sounds like what the multi-daters are describing..


Might be where my earlier post was confusing for you. I am ‘one of those’ admittedly shallower types. My female ‘one on one’ buddies were selected based on attraction (in a romantic sense) with the hope that they might be girlfriend material. I have other ‘acquaintances’ that are friends of friends and we went out in packs where there was no sexual attraction. I never called them specifically to ask them to go out. 

For whatever reason, I decided they would not be someone I’d want as a girlfriend. The younger me though would continue to call them up when I wanted to do something. There was just sort of an understanding. 

An example is “Star”, my clubbing girl. She would touch me sexually and tease throughout the night and visa versa like rubbing her hands up and down me and grinding... but we’d also have fun making up totally false identities like her name being “Star” and backgrounds. It was all fun and games. Sometimes she had other girls (those acquaintances) with her. They also would be all over me in the same way and act as wingmen. As odd as it sounds, having a group of girls acting sexual toward you tends to attract both men and women to ‘figure you out’; you become approachable. Sometimes she’d get numbers and so would I. Non-possessive relationship. Neither me, nor her, cared one bit if we saw other people. We’d even talk about it and the horrible dates we'd have. I ruled her out as girlfriend material because she was too wild for me. None of her friends were ‘my type’ either.

And again. No PIV sex. For some reason, I’ve always held that as a “when a man loves a woman” sort of ideal. I didn’t love these girls, so I never asked or pushed for that. I did like the ego stroking though. I have also wondered if maybe because I wasn't an "easy lay" if that was part of the allure for these women since most guys simply would; Sort of a safe guy to explore sexuality without the pressure of sex itself. My guy friends thought I was crazy not to since they were basically throwing themselves at me (I'm still not sure if that's true or not)

I've also ended up with two girls at a movie basically escalating like a 'truth or dare' competing to see which one might end up with me (neither...lol). Also impromptu strip poker, skinny dipping, streaking, lap dances, etc. with some of these friends. I saw most of these girls naked at some point, and also saw them dating other men or 'rescued' them from a bad date. (poor guys thought I just walked up and used a cheezy line to get her to leave with me). Just because I asked them out for the night, it didn’t mean at all we’d end it together if one of us met someone while out. The difference is really the non-possessive nature of these relationships. So there is sexual sorts of interactions without the sex or ‘possessive nature’ of a exclusive relationship. Just having fun and enjoying ourselves instead of making it some sort of ‘test’ or trying to make it into something more like it has to follow a plan.

Put it this way; Star invited me to her wedding and married a good friend of my best friend. I was happy for her, he was a good guy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> It's all about the sex, huh?


I don't think so... at least, I don't think that's what they're saying. If so, I could understand that. Its not sex and its not closeness, so I don't really know what its all about.

Just sounds like making new friends to me.


----------



## alexm

My 2 cents - if (and back when) I was single, I would never had knowingly dated a woman who had other guys on the go. Therefore I wouldn't have done the same thing in return. It wouldn't have even occurred to me to ask them if there was anybody else they were seeing, I didn't realize it was this prevalent!

I would have had no interest in competing at that level - not that I wouldn't have "won" (lol), but that wouldn't have been my MO. And it's not a question of demanding exclusivity from the get-go, either, it's just all based on my view that dating -should- be exclusive, even if it's just a casual thing that doesn't turn into anything at all.

And besides that, how would I know that the woman I was dating wasn't sleeping with someone else during this period, if she were dating somebody else? Sex, to me, is intimate, EVEN if it's casual. Even a ONS is an intimate thing, because the reason for a ONS is fulfilling a lack of intimacy, not a simply sexual thing.

My BIL, for example, was recently single, and got a few dates online. He had gone out with each woman several times, and one of them gave him a BJ one night (which he was all too happy to share...). Then he went out with the other woman the next night, saw the other girl a few more times, and "chose" the second one, and they're still together. I'm not sure she'd be thrilled to hear that after they'd already gone out on a few dates, he had gotten a BJ from another girl he was dating... amiright? So that's where I'm coming from. Any one of these dates could turn into a LTR or more, and when you think back to how you met all those years ago, you could have THAT hanging over it all like a black cloud. I would be less then impressed to hear that my wife was getting some from some other guy after we'd already gone out on a few dates. It's not cheating, per se, but it's not that cool, either.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think so... at least, I don't think that's what they're saying. If so, I could understand that. Its not sex and its not closeness, so I don't really know what its all about.
> 
> Just sounds like making new friends to me.


Everybody ain't your friend.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

alexm said:


> My 2 cents - if (and back when) I was single, I would never had knowingly dated a woman who had other guys on the go. Therefore I wouldn't have done the same thing in return. It wouldn't have even occurred to me to ask them if there was anybody else they were seeing, I didn't realize it was this prevalent!
> 
> I would have had no interest in competing at that level - not that I wouldn't have "won" (lol), but that wouldn't have been my MO. And it's not a question of demanding exclusivity from the get-go, either, it's just all based on my view that dating -should- be exclusive, even if it's just a casual thing that doesn't turn into anything at all.
> 
> And besides that, how would I know that the woman I was dating wasn't sleeping with someone else during this period, if she were dating somebody else? Sex, to me, is intimate, EVEN if it's casual. Even a ONS is an intimate thing, because the reason for a ONS is fulfilling a lack of intimacy, not a simply sexual thing.
> 
> My BIL, for example, was recently single, and got a few dates online. He had gone out with each woman several times, and one of them gave him a BJ one night (which he was all too happy to share...). Then he went out with the other woman the next night, saw the other girl a few more times, and "chose" the second one, and they're still together. I'm not sure she'd be thrilled to hear that after they'd already gone out on a few dates, he had gotten a BJ from another girl he was dating... amiright? So that's where I'm coming from. Any one of these dates could turn into a LTR or more, and when you think back to how you met all those years ago, you could have THAT hanging over it all like a black cloud. I would be less then impressed to hear that my wife was getting some from some other guy after we'd already gone out on a few dates. It's not cheating, per se, but it's not that cool, either.


No, it's not cool. I only found out this January that my wife had a completely different perception of our level of exclusivity while we were dating ... in our 21st year of marriage. She was having sex with the Texas A&M backup qb up to 3 months after the ILoveU's were exchanged while I was sitting there thinking she only had eyes for me and also having sex with her. Now, she was xclusive for the two years following that before marriage but it was still difficult to hear. Come to think of it, if I had found out, I wouldn't have had to endure years of a sexless marriage ... cause I would have dumped her butt then. I still anticipate another year or so before I am in a position to find out about this dating scene and have sex again given my situation ... damn.

_Posted via *Topify* using Android_


----------



## hambone

I don't understand all this possessiveness. 

The need to be exclusive from the 1st date on..

When I was dating between wives... I went out with a different girl all the time. I was not interested in getting re-married so, my rule was to never date the same girl more than twice in a row.

I generally kept it casual. I always paid for everything on the date. The exception being when they asked me out. I would pay for the meal but if they asked me to escort them to a function.. they bought the tickets to the function.

If I felt a girl was getting too clingy.. I'd give them the speech about having no interest in marrying anybody. 

If they were dating other people... didn't bother me... Hell, I was dating other people. If they were having sex with other people.... well, I'm a little leary. I mean, it wouldn't bother me but I don't want to get myself killed.

And, I had some girls that wanted to be FWB. 

I was just having fun... going dancing (I LOVE to dance) and having fun...With absolutely no intention of ever marrying again. 

Then, you see, I ran into this girl who twitterpated me! 

Thumper gets a girlfriend! - YouTube


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Racer said:


> Might be where my earlier post was confusing for you. I am ‘one of those’ admittedly shallower types. My female ‘one on one’ buddies were selected based on attraction (in a romantic sense) with the hope that they might be girlfriend material. I have other ‘acquaintances’ that are friends of friends and we went out in packs where there was no sexual attraction. I never called them specifically to ask them to go out.


I don't know... what you describe isn't far from what I do with a few women that I'm not romantically interested in... and most of the women I know I got to know because they were attractive (with a couple exceptions).

I'm not claiming to be any less shallow than anyone else. I'm plenty shallow.  lol I just can't understand pursuing romance without investing anything at all. When I ask someone out, I have a feeling of "hey, I chose to go out with YOU... I'm gonna make you a priority because you seem pretty great and I'm hopeful we can develop something." I'm just not interested in trying to pursue that with everyone at once. Pending a first date with someone, or even while I'm dating someone, I'll still go play pool with Jessica, my platonic non-romantic girlfriend, but I am not open to any other romantic interests other than the girl I asked out. 

Other women I'd be out with are just women I know who share an interest or two. I don't care they're female... and yeah there's some attraction there that could be dangerous if I allowed it. I care more about the person I'm dating. Most of the these friends though, I dated at some point and it just didn't go anywhere... but they're fun.

The idea of multi-dating being widely accepted strikes me as bizzare, as most of the girls I've dated show some jealousy... or at least, discomfort, with my hanging out with any other women pretty early on in dating. It takes quite a bit of effort to convince them that "Hey, this is just someone cool to play pool with." More than one has asked me to not hang out with other women if they're not around... and I'm usually good with that depending on how they approach it. I have an open invite policy with anyone I date - she's always welcome to come... and one of the things I'm judging when dating is whether someone has a mind to smother me. I've had a few come play pool with us, and any notion that my friend is a threat is quickly dispelled. Jess usually gets a kick out of "warning them" about me.

My current gf is now friends with her... they went out together this past weekend while I had my kiddos. She drunk texted me and said she was running away with Jess and they were going to have hot ****** sex. I said "hello threesome!" and got a response of "Ugh. Men are pigs." Followed a few minutes later by "Okay big boy... our rules though." Then her and Jess started both texting me pics of women wearing strap-ons and dominating men. So I said I've had a change of heart; but I have dibs on the video.

When I first met my gf, I met another girl I would consider dating at my boxing gym. She was new, I helped her get comfortable and figure out what was going on and what she needed to do; taped her up and held the bag for her. We got along great and she said something about her getting a smoothie. I said I'd kill for one, but I'm on the motorcycle and couldn't carry it. So she offered to drive and we got smoothies. Was this a date? No. We've since gotten a lot of smoothies. If I wasn't with my gf, I'd have asked her out... but since I am, she's just another cool girl I know. 

That's not multi-dating as far as I know. I'm not about to ask her out to dinner. She's just a boxing friend.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> Everybody ain't your friend.


I've been on this forum long enough to know that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wiltshireman said:


> *Other than for companionship why would you need to date (even platonically) 50 men to find one who was right for you.*


 well with the internet, they can be weeded out pretty nicely I suppose before meeting...and this helps...

For those that sound reasonable... it's good to meet... Can I just be honest and say... I consider myself very choosy in men... I feel most of the types I would be searching for are probably already married/ taken.... so I think it would be very difficult to find what I am looking for...hence the high # I mentioned...

I enjoy meeting people..and I wouldn't want to just meet 1... but a # to see how I may "FIT" with them... I would think this is wise. 



> *I have only ever dated women that I thought would be compatible for a long term relationships.*


 I would establish this BEFORE we met...(just like you said below :smthumbup... and I feel the same, where I am likely more pessimistic than yourself is >>

Just because we both aspire for a LTR....this doesn't mean we'd have *that chemistry* , *love languages* could be off, his idea of *transparency* may not be mine (this is absolutely huge for me)... *sense of humor* not meshing (also huge).... so many areas of compatibility... Those things are *all* very important to me...I just feel it would take a # of people to find that... 



> *I would set my "date filter" (if there is such an expression) for like minded people and not waste time (mine or theirs) dating people who did not "fit" with what I was looking for*.


 Yeah, for instance... If I learned the guy was into casual sex ...scratch!.... Which I've learned here on good ol' TAM...keyword on dating profiles = *FUN*.... Interesting, so I'd have to advertise myself as more boring to attract the right type of men... crazy world we live in.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think so... at least, I don't think that's what they're saying. If so, I could understand that. Its not sex and its not closeness, so I don't really know what its all about.
> 
> Just sounds like making new friends to me.


Partying? lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> I don't have male friends unless they are gay, and if a person I was dating ended up having a friend vibe I'd nicely part ways.


The women I'm friends with are definitely a different sort of friend in that they're all associated with particular activities we share and the friendship generally doesn't extend much beyond those activities. If they did, I'd probably have more upset girlfriends.

All of my inner circle... multi-purpose friends if you will... are still guys. Those trips to the race track for example are convoys of guys I ride with locally and pit with at the track. I usually invite a this I know along because she likes to be around the bikes and hang out in the pits... kinda tease the guys... and a long time ago she asked to be invited. Its all fun. She's an amateur photographer and has an awesome camera. I joke that she's my umbrella girl. She's dating a buddy of mine now - I introduced them, and I joke that I'm still holding her to her umbrella girl contract.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> Partying? lol


Don't follow... you mean my examples? Is playing pool partying? Trackdays and race days?

I know a couple girls that I'll invite to the club once and awhile, but I invite some of my guys too... they're group outings and if I have a gf at the time, she's almost always there.

I've never gone out clubbing/partying with another girl when I'm dating.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No, you're assuming I say I'm doing something other people can't do. Anyone can do so with effort, but most people do not keep large social networks. In a manner of speaking it can be a lot of work... I don't really look at it that way, but maintaining relationships does take your time. It all depends on whether you want that or not, and I don't think most people do... or at least not enough to make it happen.


Fair enough. I would never say that "most" people would or wouldn't do something as I certainly don't know most people. But then, most everyone I know have very large social networks, both men and women, so it's difficult for me to imagine things being so different elsewhere. 



> Yeah, off a bit. I'm arguing quality over quantity here. Ive said anyone can go land a ton of dates by lowering their standards. For example, I could land more just by not caring if she dates other people. That's a standard of mine, and I'm glad I don't have to lower my standards for an acceptable number of dates. Different people have different standards, but its always going to increase your pool to lower your standards... if that's really what you want.


Okay. I understand better, I think. However, I don't think this is relevant to the quality of dates the people here have had. I think one can stick to their standards and multi-date. I also think people can have really low standards and multi-date. It just depends on who they know, and how many new people they meet on a day-to-day basis.



> That "plenty" doesn't have trouble landing dates. That "plenty" is also not the majority of men either. Most men maintain rather small social networks.


Again, this is just wording that bothering me, but "most" men are likely not even in your social network. Perhaps most men you know keep smaller social networks, but the majority of men I know have big social networks. So, perspective. 



> I'm not qualified to speak to what I've heard repeatedly from my rather large network of friends? What, pray tell, would qualify someone to speak on men's experience if not a large number of men's experience?


Your experience doesn't define every other man on the planet is my point. Most guys you know don't have large social networks, but that doesn't mean that most men as a whole gender have small social networks. 



> Most guys sit back and marvel at my ability to just randomly approach a table of women and come away with a positive outcome... often getting them to join us.
> 
> I hear, "You've got balls. What do you even say? How do you do that? I'd be standing there like an idiot even if I convinced myself to go for it." That's the experience of most men.


Most men _you know_. 



> They need introductions, coincidence or circumstance to make a play. Even Sam's example of the woman stepping on his foot is a circumstantial play. IT gives him the opening. To his credit he played on it with quick wit. If a guy doesn't have that wit, or thinks of it a few seconds too late... the opportunity is lost and they just let it go.


I'm sure this happens. I just have never seen it happen anywhere near to as common as you have. 



> This is an area I know a LOT about because it has been a big area of deliberate personal growth for me to achieve. Literally years of jumping out, not giving a crap and building/growing friendships. Most men do not have IT naturally, and even fewer push themselves the way I did. Most continue to sit back and take what comes along, maybe taking an occasional highly mitigated risk... or relying heavily on her to signal interest rather than getting noticed and driving interest... and unsurprisingly, not much comes along by introduction and circumstance, especially if you don't get out much.


Perhaps this has been such a wide experience for you because it was something you struggled with yourself, and it's great you were able to overcome it. But the men I know have all had "it" naturally, regardless of their looks, their talents, their personalities. I just don't know men who are so shy they can't even approach a woman they don't already know. I can't think of one guy I've known in my life who struggled with this. So it rubs me the wrong way when you say that most men struggled like you. Maybe they do, maybe I'm totally wrong, but by my experience it's just not so.


----------



## Created2Write

Personally, I can see some of the merit in multi-dating. Not everyone we meet is going to pan out to be an LTR, and for those who want to find an LTR quickly, I can see how multi-dating would be attractive. 

That said, I'm inclined to agree with some of what Devils said. DH and I went on three dates before we decided to be bf and gf, and while I don't think either of us would have been wrong to go on a date with someone else, I know that we both would have been...well, bothered by it. I don't think DH would have gone out with me anymore. 

If we had gone on a date, talked for a few weeks, gone on another date, just talked for a few weeks, and then gone on another date I don't think it would have been a big deal. But we went on one date each week, each one lasting for hours, so we both knew we liked the other person a lot. If I'd known he was setting up dates with other chicks, I'd have been hurt. 

So, for me, it would depend on how seriously the dates were going.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Created2Write said:


> Fair enough. I would never say that "most" people would or wouldn't do something as I certainly don't know most people. But then, most everyone I know have very large social networks, both men and women, so it's difficult for me to imagine things being so different elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. I understand better, I think. However, I don't think this is relevant to the quality of dates the people here have had. I think one can stick to their standards and multi-date. I also think people can have really low standards and multi-date. It just depends on who they know, and how many new people they meet on a day-to-day basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is just wording that bothering me, but "most" men are likely not even in your social network. Perhaps most men you know keep smaller social networks, but the majority of men I know have big social networks. So, perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> Your experience doesn't define every other man on the planet is my point. Most guys you know don't have large social networks, but that doesn't mean that most men as a whole gender have small social networks.
> 
> 
> 
> Most men _you know_.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure this happens. I just have never seen it happen anywhere near to as common as you have.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this has been such a wide experience for you because it was something you struggled with yourself, and it's great you were able to overcome it. But the men I know have all had "it" naturally, regardless of their looks, their talents, their personalities. I just don't know men who are so shy they can't even approach a woman they don't already know. I can't think of one guy I've known in my life who struggled with this. So it rubs me the wrong way when you say that most men struggled like you. Maybe they do, maybe I'm totally wrong, but by my experience it's just not so.


Ha! Well this is one guy that struggled with it his entire life and when I'm dating it will be a huge challenge to overcome. I know a few gregarious guys who have large social networks but I think about all the guys I work with and I would say that is not the case for most of them. I'm in IT and we spend a huge amount of time talking with each other or with people around the company ... but meeting new people is not part of our job.

For a long time I joked that my wife was my social coordinator because she is an extrovert and most of my friends are through her. That is not terribly unusual among the men that I know ... probably more common than not.

When I was younger and available I most certainly was shy enough not to approach a woman. I am not as shy now but honestly if I were in a position to approach a woman now with the intent of getting her interest, I would have to do a jedi-mind trick and pretend that I had some other motive. If I was sitting at a bar and a woman was making eyes at me ... I'd either need a little time to work up the nerve or have a few beers in me. I don't know why ... it isn't logical and it doesn't reflect the confidence I have in myself in any other area in my life ... but it is the way I'm programmed. I'm a nerd, lol. Once I'm past that introduction stage, I'm fine.

People hang out in different groups. You would probably see me as a shy, quiet, nice guy ... maybe even too serious ... and you probably wouldn't invite me into your social circle of people who are not at all like me. Your friends will have a lot of opportunity to multi-date and I will not. My social group is small but filled with people who are a lot like me ... that is my reality.

I have no idea what "it" is, lol.


----------



## Created2Write

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> Ha! Well this is one guy that struggled with it his entire life and when I'm dating it will be a huge challenge to overcome. I know a few gregarious guys who have large social networks but I think about all the guys I work with and I would say that is not the case for most of them. I'm in IT and we spend a huge amount of time talking with each other or with people around the company ... but meeting new people is not part of our job.
> 
> For a long time I joked that my wife was my social coordinator because she is an extrovert and most of my friends are through her. That is not terribly unusual among the men that I know ... probably more common than not.
> 
> When I was younger and available I most certainly was shy enough not to approach a woman. I am not as shy now but honestly if I were in a position to approach a woman now with the intent of getting her interest, I would have to do a jedi-mind trick and pretend that I had some other motive. If I was sitting at a bar and a woman was making eyes at me ... I'd either need a little time to work up the nerve or have a few beers in me. I don't know why ... it isn't logical and it doesn't reflect the confidence I have in myself in any other area in my life ... but it is the way I'm programmed. I'm a nerd, lol. Once I'm past that introduction stage, I'm fine.
> 
> People hang out in different groups. You would probably see me as a shy, quiet, nice guy ... maybe even too serious ... and you probably wouldn't invite me into your social circle of people who are not at all like me. Your friends will have a lot of opportunity to multi-date and I will not. My social group is small but filled with people who are a lot like me ... that is my reality.


I wasn't saying that this doesn't happen or that it's unusual, just that I haven't seen it nearly as often as others have. And, just fyi, I invite all kinds of people into my social circle. As long as I'm not creeped out by you, I'm always looking for new friends.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> As long as I'm not creeped out by you, I'm always looking for new friends.



:lol:
That would make a brilliant signature.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Created2Write said:


> I wasn't saying that this doesn't happen or that it's unusual, just that I haven't seen it nearly as often as others have. And, just fyi, I invite all kinds of people into my social circle. As long as I'm not creeped out by you, I'm always looking for new friends.


Ha! Well ... I don't think anyone has accused me of being creepy, lol. 

No, I guess what motivated me to write that is that you stated you have never met someone who has struggled with that. Well, hello ... nice to meet you 

It isn't pleasant, I will tell you. I usually feel like the proverbial wall flower when I am among people I don't know in a social setting. Business setting? Entirely different. I will most definitely struggle to date and it has nothing to do with my looks or personality. I will be fine with the person I'm dating ... once I've found that person. Based on past experience, I do not have "it" .. whatever "it" is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

hambone said:


> I don't understand all this possessiveness.
> 
> The need to be exclusive from the 1st date on..
> 
> When I was dating between wives... I went out with a different girl all the time. I was not interested in getting re-married so, my rule was to never date the same girl more than twice in a row.
> 
> I generally kept it casual. I always paid for everything on the date. The exception being when they asked me out. I would pay for the meal but if they asked me to escort them to a function.. they bought the tickets to the function.
> 
> If I felt a girl was getting too clingy.. I'd give them the speech about having no interest in marrying anybody.
> 
> If they were dating other people... didn't bother me... Hell, I was dating other people. If they were having sex with other people.... well, I'm a little leary. I mean, it wouldn't bother me but I don't want to get myself killed.
> 
> And, I had some girls that wanted to be FWB.
> 
> I was just having fun... going dancing (I LOVE to dance) and having fun...With absolutely no intention of ever marrying again.
> 
> Then, you see, I ran into this girl who twitterpated me!
> 
> Thumper gets a girlfriend! - YouTube


This was my experience, too...pretty much exactly.

And then, you see, I ran into this guy who pulled me off the market! Living happily ever after with him now.

There was no possessiveness before exclusivity.

Afterwards...well we make a whole game of it just for fun! We won't share with anyone - - not even a little bit.


----------



## Created2Write

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> Ha! Well ... I don't think anyone has accused me of being creepy, lol.
> 
> No, I guess what motivated me to write that is that you stated you have never met someone who has struggled with that. Well, hello ... nice to meet you


Nice to meet you too!



> It isn't pleasant, I will tell you. I usually feel like the proverbial wall flower when I am among people I don't know in a social setting. Business setting? Entirely different. I will most definitely struggle to date and it has nothing to do with my looks or personality. I will be fine with the person I'm dating ... once I've found that person. Based on past experience, I do not have "it" .. whatever "it" is.


I can imagine that it's difficult. I've never been shy, but as a young person I struggled with being myself. I learned in middle-school that people will always judge and criticize, regardless of who you are and what you're like. I tried being myself with this one girl I wanted to be friends with, and she was horrible to me. I tried being more like her, and she treated me worse. Some people just can't be pleased, and I decided early that I didn't want to live my life pretending to be someone I'm not just to be accepted. So I surrounded myself with people who accepted me and loved me, even if I do talk a lot. 

As far as "it" goes, for me, "it's" an ability to have a conversation with anyone. Trying to make a stranger laugh, or get in a conversation with me, helps take away the fear of being judged or coming off as weird. Finding common ground to get the ball rolling, I guess.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think its a mistake to seek romantic connections from multiple people simultaneously. This is where I view dating is different from how the multi-dater views dating. It sounds like the multi-daters are saying they have no romantic interest in their dates. They give their dates nothing. Its a bunch of new hangout buddies. I have a ton of such "buddies", and I wouldn't call any of them dates and certainly wouldn't call myself a multi-dater. Yet what is described sounds identical to me calling up a girl I know who loves going to the race track every time I go race. No. She's just a friend who is fun to hang with at the track. I have no romantic interest. I know another girl who is a [email protected] at pool. On several occasions I've called her up to go play pool. That's not a date either, but sounds like what the multi-daters are describing.
> 
> An actual "date" to me is in pursuit of romantic interest. I want to see if there's something there and pursue it with them until I know there's not. If I'm also "dating" other people, I'm less likely to see that something with any of them. If we're all just hanging out and splitting our already mild affections 20 ways, I think its less likely that something will ever be there.


Relax, man. It's a date. What do you expect? 

Ya gotta go with the flow. Maybe she just isn't ready to settle down, or wants to know you a bit before committing to you exclusively. How much can you care about someone after a meal or two, or a night at the movies? LOL. Takes time to get sufficient interest in someone to want to pursue an LTR!

Besides, what are you worried about? That she might graze knuckles with another man in another tub of popcorn? 

And as for the bills: don't blame her because you are paying. After all, you're the one whipping out your credit card. If you resent it, just stop doing it. Give only what you want to, and what you're comfortable with. And if she doesn't reciprocate or doesn't feel the same way, oh well. She isn't ready to date you exclusively. No big deal.

Just let it go.


----------



## alexm

Faithful Wife said:


> There was no possessiveness before exclusivity.


I don't think it's possessiveness, I really don't. To each their own, but I think with most people, we'd rather be the only one right from the start.

As I said earlier, I would have a huge problem if the girl I was dating was also dating, and sleeping with, another guy.

Now going on a few dates here and there, I could live with that. You're getting to know somebody. No big deal. But the minute it turns intimate, no thank you. You've made your choice at that point. Or worse, if you intend on being intimate with both parties to see who's a better fit, again, no thank you.

Furthermore, even using protection is not 100% certainty that you can't pass on an std. What if date #1 passes on herpes to the person you're dating, and she, in turn, passes it on to you before she even knows she's got it?

I, like others, would prefer (prefer, not demand) that the people we are dating at any given time are exclusive for many reasons. In my case, it's not a possessive thing. Maybe for some it would be. But I can't see myself being possessive over somebody I don't know (yet). In one of the examples above, in which multi-dating went on for several months AND after "I love you's"... yeah... wouldn't have happened. That's cheating. You don't say I love you to one person, and sleep with another.


----------



## Cosmos

alexm said:


> I don't think it's possessiveness, I really don't. To each their own, but I think with most people, we'd rather be the only one right from the start.
> 
> As I said earlier, I would have a huge problem if the girl I was dating was also dating, and sleeping with, another guy.
> 
> Absolutely, but from what I can gather This isn't what we're talking about here. I would never date another man if I was already intimate with somebody else. I'd consider it cheating.
> 
> Now going on a few dates here and there, I could live with that. You're getting to know somebody. No big deal. But the minute it turns intimate, no thank you. You've made your choice at that point. Or worse, if you intend on being intimate with both parties to see who's a better fit, again, no thank you.
> 
> Again, absolutely. The minute that dating turns in any way intimate, neither party should be dating, let alone being intimate, with anyone else.
> 
> Furthermore, even using protection is not 100% certainty that you can't pass on an std. What if date #1 passes on herpes to the person you're dating, and she, in turn, passes it on to you before she even knows she's got it?
> 
> I, like others, would prefer (prefer, not demand) that the people we are dating at any given time are exclusive for many reasons. In my case, it's not a possessive thing. Maybe for some it would be. But I can't see myself being possessive over somebody I don't know (yet). In one of the examples above, in which multi-dating went on for several months AND after "I love you's"... yeah... wouldn't have happened. That's cheating. You don't say I love you to one person, and sleep with another.
> 
> I agree. Also, I think most of us who used to, or do, multi-date would also agree with you. Once things move beyond casual dating (eg the couple are seeing one another more than once a week), the multi-dating should cease.


----------



## COGypsy

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> No, it's not cool. I only found out this January that my wife had a completely different perception of our level of exclusivity while we were dating ... in our 21st year of marriage. She was having sex with the Texas A&M backup qb up to 3 months after the ILoveU's were exchanged while I was sitting there thinking she only had eyes for me and also having sex with her. Now, she was xclusive for the two years following that before marriage but it was still difficult to hear.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using Android_


Dude. She banged an Aggie. That's universal grounds for dumping or divorce!


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

COGypsy said:


> JustSomeGuyWho said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not cool. I only found out this January that my wife had a completely different perception of our level of exclusivity while we were dating ... in our 21st year of marriage. She was having sex with the Texas A&M backup qb up to 3 months after the ILoveU's were exchanged while I was sitting there thinking she only had eyes for me and also having sex with her. Now, she was xclusive for the two years following that before marriage but it was still difficult to hear.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using Android_
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. She banged an Aggie. That's universal grounds for dumping or divorce!
Click to expand...

Lol

Well when you put it that way










Guy was a complete stud too. Ripped, smart, funny, extremely outgoing ... yes, I knew him ... thought he was a great guy ... puke ...
_Posted via *Topify* using Android_


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Created2Write said:


> JustSomeGuyWho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! Well ... I don't think anyone has accused me of being creepy, lol.
> 
> No, I guess what motivated me to write that is that you stated you have never met someone who has struggled with that. Well, hello ... nice to meet you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to meet you too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't pleasant, I will tell you. I usually feel like the proverbial wall flower when I am among people I don't know in a social setting. Business setting? Entirely different. I will most definitely struggle to date and it has nothing to do with my looks or personality. I will be fine with the person I'm dating ... once I've found that person. Based on past experience, I do not have "it" .. whatever "it" is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can imagine that it's difficult. I've never been shy, but as a young person I struggled with being myself. I learned in middle-school that people will always judge and criticize, regardless of who you are and what you're like. I tried being myself with this one girl I wanted to be friends with, and she was horrible to me. I tried being more like her, and she treated me worse. Some people just can't be pleased, and I decided early that I didn't want to live my life pretending to be someone I'm not just to be accepted. So I surrounded myself with people who accepted me and loved me, even if I do talk a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "it" goes, for me, "it's" an ability to have a conversation with anyone. Trying to make a stranger laugh, or get in a conversation with me, helps take away the fear of being judged or coming off as weird. Finding common ground to get the ball rolling, I guess.
Click to expand...

I was always shy even as a young child. Now, I have one of those mothers who made it clear I was never good enough. Took me a long time to get over that. Now I'm in a sexless marriage (that I will be ending soon) and all those feelings of inadequacy have reappeared. Even so ... I look back at my life and all the things I've done ... and wonder why it has such a grip on me. I can give technical presentations to a room filled with a 100 people, no sweat. I can run project meetings of 40 people representing all areas of the business in my sleep ... and yet the thought of soon having to approach women for a date makes me very nervous and brings back a lot of humiliating memories.

_Posted via *Topify* using Android_


----------



## alexm

Yep, I agree in that the original topic was not about sex. My earlier 2 cents was that once sex or "I love you's" were brought into the equation, it should stop. We even had a RL example of dating multiple people where there was sex and ILU's involved.

I guess I'm not clear on why anybody would call going out with a woman just for fun with no intentions of ltr, marriage, or even just sex a "date". I don't go out with my guy friends and call it a date. I can go hang out with my female friends and it's not a date. It's friends hanging out with friends, even if it's just the two of you. Just because it's one guy and one girl does not make it a "date".

And in that case, if the two parties are "dating" several people at the same time, and there's no activity other than hanging out, then it's not an issue. But... to me, even doing things that dating partners do, like hold hands, that would be the dividing line for me. Yes, it's "just" holding hands, but it's intimate, shared behaviour, that implies a connection and a closeness. 

Once that type of thing begins, the choice has been made, imo, and you shouldn't be doing even that with multiple partners, unless they know about it, and are okay with it.

Furthermore, I'm not entirely sure why somebody wouldn't focus on one person at a time, anyway. You can usually tell pretty quickly (after one, maybe two dates) that there's something there or there isn't. If you had a good first date with someone, then why accept another, with someone else, in the meantime? I think the types of people who do this (and I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do, it's just not for me) are afraid they might miss out, or they're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. I'd much rather my hypothetical future partner not have put $2 on every horse in the race, if you know what I mean.


----------



## heartsbeating

Faithful Wife said:


> You make them have a dance battle.


Or a cook-off....!


----------



## heartsbeating

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yeah, for instance... If I learned the guy was into casual sex ...scratch!.... Which I've learned here on good ol' TAM...keyword on dating profiles = *FUN*.... Interesting, so I'd have to advertise myself as more boring to attract the right type of men... crazy world we live in.


I feel so far removed from the realities of this thread but this made me chuckle. I guess I'd be a geek! If my mind was filled with someone and the dates were going well, I wouldn't feel the need to accept other dates. If I happened to be asked on separate dates around the same time, then why not? Couldn't do more than one Indian meal in a weekend though. Too much naan bread and red wine; bloating does not maketh the sexy. I kid.

When hubs and I started dating, and granted we were young, we both said let's be cool, keep it loose, see where it goes, nothing serious... and next thing I know, I'm absolutely smitten. He trapped me! Neither of us were actually keeping it loose and we weren't dating others.

Before hubs, a guy I briefly dated, we just didn't connect but for some reason, we lined up to see Pearl Jam together. Shortly after Batman and I started dating, Pearl Jam were in town. It was just a concert, wasn't a date, but I felt a bit awkward going with this other guy. Concert was great, he suggested we run down to the mosh pit. Hello 90s! I decided to stay in my seat and encouraged him to do his thing. I remember watching Pearl Jam on stage and wishing hubs was there with me. 

But who knew there were dance battles going on, Electric Boogaloo style?


----------



## NextTimeAround

Since I used to think that logic should trump all, I thought that multidating was ok. Of course, if you do not promise exclusivity to someone else, then you're off the hook.

But I did notice over the years when I multi dated - on at least 2 occasions- when one or both guys found out, at least one dropped me. I do regret that.

My brother multi dated both his first and second wife. It was the makings of a soap opera in both go rounds. Maybe it is as Commited4ever says among black Americans or black American men in any case. 

My brother is a medical doctor and successful black women were attracted to him like moths to a flame. In his second go round, he dated a local TV news anchor and someone at the top of her game in pharma sales. Why these women never widened their applicant pool and date outside of the race, I will never know. (I'm not that close to my SIL>)

But I always did have problems otherwise in pacing a relationship so that it didn't go too fast, and then crash and burn.

So finally in life, I found myself on the other side of multi dating, that is being multi dated.

Perhaps if there were some rules to multi dating and they were being followed, maybe it's ok. But in my situation, I felt AND confirmed that the other woman knew more about me and sooner than I knew about her. And that she got better treatment ie, he paid for 100% for the dates; he closed her friend's bar tabs; he paid her taxi fare.......

so in this case, I would say, if you are going to multi date, you need to be careful about treating each one equally. If you're going to hassle one about going dutch and not the other..... well, let's just hope you men end up with the one that you preferred treating better in the first place...... Or at least hope that Ms. No. 2 never figures it out or finds out through other means.

I can now understand it from a man's POV. If a guy is dating 2 or more women, paying for the date or at least most of the dates and then learning he's not better than No.2 on either woman's dance card. Add to that whether or not these women are having sex with him and / or elsewhere........

Now I can see why most men try to keep dating simple and try to not to multi date and try to ensure that he is not being multi dated.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

heartsbeating said:


> *I feel so far removed from the realities of this thread but this made me chuckle. I guess I'd be a geek*!


 I don't know how long I would be chuckling in the dating world... I worry sometimes something may happen to my husband, just cause life can throw us some nasty curve balls ....I had an terrifying dream many yrs ago that my good friend told me he died...I felt the panic in that dream... waking up from that nightmare..oh the thankfulness... 

...I know I wouldn't enjoy being single .. I love being attached ...and hanging with the Girls ....I know me well enough...I would get bored real fast with that!!... I love having a MAN... 

I have never really dated ...beings we met before I even learned to drive ...and I've always enjoyed meeting new people, ...so that aspect I think would be enjoyable...something to look forward to...the more I meet, the less chance I would JUMP into falling too fast, which would be helpful for someone like myself.. in case they were not into me as much....as many kids as I have, it would be an immediate scratch for many.

Though it'd probably get old real fast (Dating)...as I've listened to the experiences of so many singles and much complaining about the opposite sex & what's been out there for them... 



> *If my mind was filled with someone and the dates were going well, I wouldn't feel the need to accept other dates. *If I happened to be asked on separate dates around the same time, then why not?


 This is how I would feel also...

And if he showed , too , how he felt...wanting exclusivity as well...I'd need that... Ya know..if no takers, I'd just keep going... and going...

I almost think it was a miracle I met someone I am so darn compatible with without dating at all... I've been very spoiled...the chances of that happening again.. .it just never would.. If I found a man half a good as what I've known, I'd have to consider. 



> When hubs and I started dating, and granted we were young, we both said let's be cool, *keep it loose*, see where it goes, nothing serious... and next thing I know, I'm absolutely smitten. He trapped me!


 LIke that song "Hold on Loosely" by 38 Special.... Always loved that one. 

It's OK to talk about *WHAT If's* ... though I Hope I never live to see the day, the grieving for me if he was taken.... I'd need meds to cope... and I'd be searching the world over (after some intense knock down grieving) to find another as close to what he was - as I could...

I told my husband out to eat last night - what I said on here..I'd probably need to meet a good 50 to meet someone with a decent measure of what I want in a man.... he said he wouldn't even try to date.. he doesn't feel it's possible to find what he wanted...

He would handle being alone better than me though... He'd throw himself into the kids (so he has always said).. I'd get bored with that.....they have their own lives to live. I gotta have some Romance !


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Relax, man. It's a date. What do you expect?
> 
> Just let it go.


I think you've mistaken this for something other than it is. Discussion.

Why would someone else multi-dating bother me? I don't do it and I don't date those who are. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in the discussion.

Edit - neglected to address the bills.

I don't resent paying bills. I enjoy paying the bills. I feel a sense of worth from treating a woman, so I don't even have the slightest objection there. What I do resent, is the notion that my doing so means next to nothing to her as would be demonstrated by someone who is multi-dating. And I do take action on that... by not dating women who are dating other people. See how that works?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Fair enough. I would never say that "most" people would or wouldn't do something as I certainly don't know most people. But then, most everyone I know have very large social networks, both men and women, so it's difficult for me to imagine things being so different elsewhere.


Most everyone? Where? On facebook? lol

I'm talking about live people that you engage in real-life activities and make an effort to maintain not just some people you know but rarely if ever see or interact with.



Created2Write said:


> Again, this is just wording that bothering me, but "most" men are likely not even in your social network. Perhaps most men you know keep smaller social networks, but the majority of men I know have big social networks. So, perspective.


Yes, its an extrapolation. I don't know "most" women either, but I can reasonably extrapolate the "most" women have longer hair than "most" men. It does not take a sampling of 160 million of the 300 million people in the US to draw substantive conclusions. What the rest of the world is like I have no idea, but I don't think I gave anyone the impression I was referring to dating practices in China or arranged marriages in India.

There are US sub-populations who aren't represented in my experience. People above 50 and Spanish-speakers to name a few. But from 21-50 the feedback I've always

This is one of the areas where I actually like facebook. Like this forum, its a place to pose questions and gather opinion... on an even larger scale than this forum or personal interaction allows. That's one place where I've asked people's opinions of multi-dating. As a result, the sub-population I now most associate with multi-dating is African Americans. It's near universally accepted and practiced among my black friends. In contrast, those who found it the least acceptable were my more conservative religious friends... which was really interesting, since we rarely agree on anything.



Created2Write said:


> Your experience doesn't define every other man on the planet is my point. Most guys you know don't have large social networks, but that doesn't mean that most men as a whole gender have small social networks.


I stand by my observation and the experiences so many men have shared.



Created2Write said:


> I'm sure this happens. I just have never seen it happen anywhere near to as common as you have.


If we polled "how did you meet your significant other", you doubt that introduction, circumstances and/or coincidence would play by far the largest role? This is why the degree that one gets out and socializes correlates so strongly to getting dates. It baffles me that you'd object to this observation. Landing a date with someone you just met is comparatively rare in most people's experience. The cold pickup - landing a date with someone you just introduced yourself to who hadn't previously noticed you, is the most rare. Every guy who approaches a lot of women knows this... even the really good looking ones.

I'm sorry, but most relationships don't begin as a result of a guy's pickup skills... because most guys don't have much of any. Landing a date IS difficult for most guys. You can go readily observe this in any town at any singles location on any given weekend.



Created2Write said:


> But the men I know have all had "it" naturally, regardless of their looks, their talents, their personalities. I just don't know men who are so shy they can't even approach a woman they don't already know. I can't think of one guy I've known in my life who struggled with this. So it rubs me the wrong way when you say that most men struggled like you. Maybe they do, maybe I'm totally wrong, but by my experience it's just not so.


This tells me you don't go out much... and that's not a put down. Seriously, ANY singles location, or better yet, go out with a small group of single guys. On any given night I'd put money down that none of them lands a date provided they keep up their standards. If I put up $4 if any of them successfully landed a date with someone they just met, and you put up $1 only if none of them did, I'm going to make money.

The adage that 20% or fewer of the men are getting 80% of the women is absolutely true.

I KNOW this. I've deliberately gone out with many friends just to psyche them up for making an approach. Its not just shyness or fear either... most guys have NO IDEA what to say to the woman they don't know.

I think most of these guys are actually the better relationship material if you went by what women claim to want in a guy (beyond looks... we're not talking hot guys here, just normal Joe Average - though plenty are good looking too - as far as I can tell). Ironically, the guys who find it easy to get dates, including myself, generally aren't... and most of us readily admit it. Its one of those things about women that kinda makes me twitch.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

NextTimeAround said:


> Since I used to think that logic should trump all, I thought that multidating was ok. Of course, if you do not promise exclusivity to someone else, then you're off the hook.
> 
> But I did notice over the years when I multi dated - on at least 2 occasions- when one or both guys found out, at least one dropped me. I do regret that.
> 
> My brother multi dated both his first and second wife. It was the makings of a soap opera in both go rounds. Maybe it is as Commited4ever says among black Americans or black American men in any case.
> 
> My brother is a medical doctor and successful black women were attracted to him like moths to a flame. In his second go round, he dated a local TV news anchor and someone at the top of her game in pharma sales. Why these women never widened their applicant pool and date outside of the race, I will never know. (I'm not that close to my SIL>)
> 
> But I always did have problems otherwise in pacing a relationship so that it didn't go too fast, and then crash and burn.
> 
> So finally in life, I found myself on the other side of multi dating, that is being multi dated.
> 
> Perhaps if there were some rules to multi dating and they were being followed, maybe it's ok. But in my situation, I felt AND confirmed that the other woman knew more about me and sooner than I knew about her. And that she got better treatment ie, he paid for 100% for the dates; he closed her friend's bar tabs; he paid her taxi fare.......
> 
> so in this case, I would say, if you are going to multi date, you need to be careful about treating each one equally. If you're going to hassle one about going dutch and not the other..... well, let's just hope you men end up with the one that you preferred treating better in the first place...... Or at least hope that Ms. No. 2 never figures it out or finds out through other means.
> 
> I can now understand it from a man's POV. If a guy is dating 2 or more women, paying for the date or at least most of the dates and then learning he's not better than No.2 on either woman's dance card. Add to that whether or not these women are having sex with him and / or elsewhere........
> 
> Now I can see why most men try to keep dating simple and try to not to multi date and try to ensure that he is not being multi dated.


I think one thing that gives me pause about multi-dating is the deception.

"On at least two occasions when one or both guys found out, at least one dropped me'

No, a date is not a promise of exclusivity but no matter how well intentioned one is about being open and honest, I would think it difficult to go any reasonable period of time dating multiple people without being deceptive. I think the majority of people could not pull it off with complete honesty.

_Posted via *Topify* using Android_


----------



## hambone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think you've mistaken this for what it is. Discussion.
> 
> Why would multi-dating bother me? I don't do it and I don't date those who are. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in the discussion.


So, you go from one LTR to another LTR to another LTR????


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So, for me, it would depend on how seriously the dates were going.


This makes more sense... but I want that explosive first date. I wanted that instant chemistry such that when its over you go "woah." I want amazing; logic defying. Oh look... I have another overly romantic sentiment. I'm on a roll! Sh*t. 

There's various degrees of it, but if I don't have that, I'm less interested in even a second date. That magic thing I'm looking for... we just don't have.

If I'm going to date someone, I want to be able to say that there was magic. Dating a bunch of people at once feels like the total opposite... even deliberately trying to mitigate limerance so one can do some logical number crunching. To me, dating the person addresses limerance on its own over time - its a continued evaluation of whether this can last. I don't want to avoid it and make a nice rational decision. I want to keep it.

God... shoot me... I'm arguing a romantic position. :slap:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

hambone said:


> So, you go from one LTR to another LTR to another LTR????


Actually the total opposite, my relationships have usually been really short. I can love a million different qualities in a woman... its not hard for me to find qualities I like. Its not hard to find women I share views or interests with... or even who share my enjoyment of debating our different views (although a little harder to find those who don't get mad and petty).

What I want isn't something easily defined, yet I know whether its there pretty quickly. Chemistry. Passion. Magic. If I have these, why would I want a date with another person? If we don't have these, why would I want a second date with her?

I have a lot of first dates, most of which go very well, but the chemistry I sensed was short lived... by date 3 or 4... I usually know she's not it. As long as the magic is there, I'm still there. When the magic is gone... I'm gone.

What's really hard is finding someone dynamic... someone who always creates new magic, just like I do. Something that lasts.


----------



## NextTimeAround

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> I think one thing that gives me pause about multi-dating is the deception.
> 
> "On at least two occasions when one or both guys found out, at least one dropped me'
> 
> No, a date is not a promise of exclusivity but no matter how well intentioned one is about being open and honest, I would think it difficult to go any reasonable period of time dating multiple people without being deceptive. I think the majority of people could not pull it off with complete honesty.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using Android_


The two occasions were in my early 20s. As I say, better to make your mistakes sooner rather than later. As I said before, I was looking at it initially from that striclty logical POV, that is, if you didn't promise "it", then what's the problem? Given my experience now of being on both sides of the equation at some point, yes, I am not a supporter of multi dating because it would take a lot to keep things balanced, such as:

1. *The equal sharing of information to each of your suitors. *OTOneH, the fact that you don't agree to exclusivity should be enough. OK, but if you are talking about one date to another and discussing that relationship with the other person that you are dating, oh dear. The main complaint that I made to my fiance is that, while you insist that she is "just a friend," you have no proof that she would never have taken that information that you gave her about me and shove it back at me. That was unfair to me.

2. *The other problem is of course keeping what you give to a relationship in line and relative to what you give others.* I asked my (future) fiance, how can you insist that you preferred me over her when I can see that you put more resources towards her (ie paying for dates, taxi fare, etc. ....... at least when she asked him for some legal advice, he did what most lawyers do, ie "sorry, can't help you, that's not my area." since I asked him some HR questions and got the same response )

3. *It's difficult trying to figure out what is important to a guy since men can compartmentalise easier than women can.* I can see that at the same time that my (future) fiance was asking me to meet his parents, he was still secretly in touch with his EA contemplating whether to meet with her at a music festival on the same weekend that his parents would be visiting. so sometimes trying to use one's values to assess a situation may not be helpful.

4. I have tried to see it from a guy's POV. Would a guy be upset if he found out that someone that he was dating but not exclusive with was having sex with another guy during the same time frame, week, month......


----------



## Cosmos

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> I think one thing that gives me pause about multi-dating is the deception.
> 
> "On at least two occasions when one or both guys found out, at least one dropped me'
> 
> No, a date is not a promise of exclusivity but no matter how well intentioned one is about being open and honest, I would think it difficult to go any reasonable period of time dating multiple people without being deceptive. I think the majority of people could not pull it off with complete honesty.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using Android_


There was never any deception in my multi-dating days. If a date asked me out on another date and I was seeing somebody else that night, I would tell them so. I'm not a deceptive person, and I most certainly wouldn't have felt the need to deceive someone I hardly knew.


----------



## Deejo

I just realized that I think I misunderstood the question.

Actually, I just realized that I think I misunderstand most questions.

Don't classify myself as a serial, multi-dater. I have ADD. I keep forgetting names and details. Can be awkward ...

I have been that at times over the last few years, but the multi-dating is always geared towards ending up with one person.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I hadn't read committed's post when I posted my commented about multi-dating among African Americans. I totally agree that it comes with drama drama drama. I don't get as much sense of that from others... but I will say that I don't think the black women are too thrilled about it. In fact, I'd almost characterize that multi-dating as adversarial. I haven't asked, but my intuition is that these women have a primary guy they're hot for... who is making the rounds, and so they date around with other guys almost like a tit-for-tat. These women don't seem to actually want to be seeing all these other guys... they just want that primary guy to "grow up".

I could be totally off base... that's just my intuition speaking. Except the "grow up" part. "Grow up", "I want a serious man, not a boy playing games" etc etc all a common refrain. They don't seem too happy with their multi-dating circumstances.


----------



## NextTimeAround

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *I hadn't read committed's post when I posted my commented about multi-dating among African Americans. *I totally agree that it comes with drama drama drama. I don't get as much sense of that from others... but I will say that I don't think the black women are too thrilled about it. In fact, I'd almost characterize that multi-dating as adversarial. I haven't asked, but my intuition is that these women have a primary guy they're hot for... who is making the rounds, and so they date around with other guys almost like a tit-for-tat. These women don't seem to actually want to be seeing all these other guys... they just want that primary guy to "grow up".
> 
> I could be totally off base... that's just my intuition speaking. Except the "grow up" part. "Grow up", "I want a serious man, not a boy playing games" etc etc all a common refrain. They don't seem too happy with their multi-dating circumstances.


My experience was that my parents were concerned about their daughters finding a man but they also felt that white men do not seriously date and marry black women. So any white guy I dated was kind of invisible to my parents. But they got very involved whenever I dated a black guy. And I also noticed that the black guy I was dating and my parents and nosy older sister would create an unholy alliance.

When I was married to a white man, my mother would take everything I confided in her and turn it into a racial issue. oh, so you think your BIL is passive aggressive, well maybe it's because you're black and so on..... No mother, my H and his mother talk about his PA moments that occurred long before we were married..........


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Cosmos said:


> JustSomeGuyWho said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think one thing that gives me pause about multi-dating is the deception.
> 
> "On at least two occasions when one or both guys found out, at least one dropped me'
> 
> No, a date is not a promise of exclusivity but no matter how well intentioned one is about being open and honest, I would think it difficult to go any reasonable period of time dating multiple people without being deceptive. I think the majority of people could not pull it off with complete honesty.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using Android_
> 
> 
> 
> There was never any deception in my multi-dating days. If a date asked me out on another date and I was seeing somebody else that night, I would tell them so. I'm not a deceptive person, and I most certainly wouldn't have felt the need to deceive someone I hardly knew.
Click to expand...

Right and I think it depends on what a person considers multi-dating. Some people have different definitions. For example, if I have a fwb ... mentioned by someone here ... and I am on a date and she asks me if I'm seeing anybody. I'm not likely to say 'yeah, I have an f buddy but she doesn't mean anything.' I might say 'not really' or 'nothing serious'. Half truth or flat out lying ... both are deceptive. Obviously that us an extreme example but I could see how easy it would be for a lot of people to be deceptive.

_Posted via *Topify* using Android_


----------



## Cosmos

Deejo said:


> I have been that at times over the last few years, but the multi-dating is always geared towards ending up with one person.


:iagree:

IMO, it's simply a selection process. Without selection how can one make an informed choice?


----------



## NextTimeAround

For me,the main reason why I am concerned about multi dating, is because my fiance always tried to frame this woman as just a friend. 

So of course, I wonder, how would things have been if he had been more honest? I think I would have been different. I probably would have been more open to dating other men. I probably would have waited until he initiated the date. 

In fact, in hindsight, I asked him out, on two occasions, in which he took several days to get back to me, was he in fact waiting to hear from the other woman. He says no, but it does make you wonder. This is why you are taught not to accept last minute dates and to ensure that the date is planned. 

IOW, "do you want to get together Friday night (no time, no place)" can only lead to one or both people not feeling that a date has been planned and therefore no obligation has been created.


----------



## NextTimeAround

For me,the main reason why I am concerned about multi dating, is because my fiance always tried to frame this woman as just a friend. 

So of course, I wonder, how would things have been if he had been more honest? I think I would have been different. I probably would have been more open to dating other men. I probably would have waited until he initiated the date. 

In fact, in hindsight, I asked him out, on two occasions, in which he took several days to get back to me, was he in fact waiting to hear from the other woman. He says no, but it does make you wonder. This is why you are taught not to accept last minute dates and to ensure that the date is planned. 

IOW, "do you want to get together Friday night (no time, no place)" can only lead to one or both people feeling that a date has NOT been planned and therefore no obligation has been created.


----------



## hambone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Actually the total opposite, my relationships have usually been really short. I can love a million different qualities in a woman... its not hard for me to find qualities I like. Its not hard to find women I share views or interests with... or even who share my enjoyment of debating our different views (although a little harder to find those who don't get mad and petty).
> 
> What I want isn't something easily defined, yet I know whether its there pretty quickly. Chemistry. Passion. Magic. If I have these, why would I want a date with another person? If we don't have these, why would I want a second date with her?
> 
> I have a lot of first dates, most of which go very well, but the chemistry I sensed was short lived... by date 3 or 4... I usually know she's not it. As long as the magic is there, I'm still there. When the magic is gone... I'm gone.
> 
> What's really hard is finding someone dynamic... someone who always creates new magic, just like I do. Something that lasts.


I see dating as an entity unto itself. 

I don't consider every date an audition for marriage.

I dated people I liked and enjoyed being around...

I was not going to settle. 

I liked to get out and go places and do things and I preferred doing it with female companionship. 

I didn't consider myself to be committed to an exclusive relationship until we talked about it and were both clear that we were in a committed relationship... At the point I entered into a committed relationship (not officially engaged yet) did I consider us to be on a preliminary pathway to marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't feel "magic" with someone I don't know, and I certainly don't know someone after one date.

If I feel "wow, that was a really GREAT date, I am attracted to them, and I want to get to know them better"...then that simply means I want some more dates, and nothing more.

Magic happens for me after exclusivity, when the sex is great, and I start falling in love. For me this can take months. 

But...it wasn't always like this.

I used to confuse those first date feelings with love. I used to think that chemistry and attraction "mean something". I have since found that they don't really....you can have chemistry and attraction with someone you don't even like or respect. That's why there's no reason to attribute any "meaning" to it.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't feel "magic" with someone I don't know, and I certainly don't know someone after one date.
> 
> If I feel "wow, that was a really GREAT date, I am attracted to them, and I want to get to know them better"...then that simply means I want some more dates, and nothing more.
> 
> Magic happens for me after exclusivity, when the sex is great, and I start falling in love. For me this can take months.
> 
> But...it wasn't always like this.
> 
> I used to confuse those first date feelings with love. I used to think that chemistry and attraction "mean something". I have since found that they don't really....you can have chemistry and attraction with someone you don't even like or respect. That's why there's no reason to get excited about just one good date.


Chemistry and attraction are just that. It may eminate from a person who will make your life a living hell, and in allowing it to be done you won't have any more attraction to them.

It was something wierd that just twanged you a certain way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right. That's why there's no reason to place any expectation upon one good date with someone.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

hambone said:


> I see dating as an entity unto itself.
> 
> I don't consider every date an audition for marriage.
> 
> I dated people I liked and enjoyed being around...
> 
> I was not going to settle.
> 
> I liked to get out and go places and do things and I preferred doing it with female companionship.
> 
> I didn't consider myself to be committed to an exclusive relationship until we talked about it and were both clear that we were in a committed relationship... At the point I entered into a committed relationship (not officially engaged yet) did I consider us to be on a preliminary pathway to marriage.


I agree and practice mostly everything you've mentioned but the last paragraph.

I'm not auditioning for marriage... I probably won't get re-married. Its more a social norm than a necessity imo... and being married or not being married to someone I love is rather irrelevant to me. I also date women I like being around. I'm also out and about most of the time I'm not at work.... but with all kinds of people, not just women. Even when it is with a woman, I don't see 99% of these as dates. I certainly don't settle for less than I want... I just move on. I'm not sure how multi-dating would address this, or why you'd date someone who was less than you want at all... much less date them while also seeking others. Seems kind of a crappy deal for them. Is this like a fallback plan?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> *There was never any deception in my multi-dating days. If a date asked me out on another date and I was seeing somebody else that night, I would tell them so. I'm not a deceptive person, and I most certainly wouldn't have felt the need to deceive someone I hardly knew*.


My position is....Multi-dating while having  with these people is morally wrong... but explaining one's position as being new on the dating scene, seeking to see what is out there, meeting new people...(without strings initially to see if something is there to build upon)....

IF this is done with upfront honesty (my intentions in what I was seeking, to find another compatible FOR ME)....I just can't see this as dishonorable...in any way. 

Not that it would be easy to have revolving dates....I just wouldn't want to lie or Do "exclusive" early in any meeting...unless it started out as AMAZING & was blown away.....Wonderful if this happened early on ...but how often does this happen... Ya know.......

If /when that does happen...the near thought of meeting others would fall off of me like lightning and I'd be focused on this 1 love interest... 

I love this..  is all for *Casual sex* ... while I think that's morally wrong.... but he thinks *Causal dating* IS...his only "romantic" notion it seems..... Interesting....


----------



## Jellybeans

FrenchFry said:


> Chemistry is deceptive in my experience and "it" is so ephemeral that it literally means nothing. I cannot tell if someone if good for me in my life based on two dates.
> 
> Like I had a phenomenal first date with my husband but I also had a phenomenal first date with my abuser.


Great point.



FrenchFry said:


> Yeah, I look the same thing but have totally different conclusions. Relationships that take off in that whirlwind of chemistry and passion are a lit match and not worth investing into because they don't add anything to my life. *I wasn't looking for a husband while dating, but I was looking for someone that I didn't have to squish into my life and likewise, neither was my husband*. The magic in my life is how we fill in each others gaps (mostly) naturally..


Please expand on this. What do you mean by you didn't have to squish him into your life I am intrigued as this sounds like something I should try doing while dating.



FrenchFry said:


> Nope, *I was amused as hell* that my husband was dating multiple women.* I wasn't chasing after him,* so I really felt no animosity that he was trying to get his ducks together at the same time I was.


:rofl: Oh gosh I love this so much! and the fact that you were not chasing him probably just made him want you mor enad realize you were not one to be passed up!  :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't feel "magic" with someone I don't know, and I certainly don't know someone after one date.
> 
> If I feel "wow, that was a really GREAT date, I am attracted to them, and I want to get to know them better"...then that simply means I want some more dates, and nothing more.
> 
> Magic happens for me after exclusivity, when the sex is great, and I start falling in love. For me this can take months.
> 
> But...it wasn't always like this.
> 
> I used to confuse those first date feelings with love. I used to think that chemistry and attraction "mean something". I have since found that they don't really....you can have chemistry and attraction with someone you don't even like or respect. That's why there's no reason to attribute any "meaning" to it.


That's interesting. I get the magic comments from women after most first dates. I've had several say "that was the best first date I've ever been on" and such. Sometimes just that alone has called someone to question if I'm just a player.

I want the magic feeling, but I don't even remotely confuse it with love. I'm unlikely to fall in love for months and months even while I'm buzzing on the magic. But I know love, without that magic feeling, isn't what I want. I want to fall in love with someone with who sustains the magic with me.

I don't now if chemistry and attraction "mean something"... but they are must haves... and I date in order to gauge their sustainability with someone.

I'm not sure how I could gauge the sustainability of that magic if I have such a low level interest that I'm dating others at the same time. Chemistry and attraction aside, I certainly wouldn't feel any of the magic knowing that they were seeing others. That's my world of hookups - flare ups of hot chemistry and attraction that flame out just as quickly... and I don't want dating to be anything like that. So dating, for me, is about determining sustainability. I wouldn't feel any sustainability in a person with whom I can't even hold interest well enough that they don't feel the desire to date others.... regardless of how much chemistry and attraction is there. There would be no magic.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Chemistry is deceptive in my experience and "it" is so ephemeral that it literally means nothing. I cannot tell if someone if good for me in my life based on two dates.


I can't tell either. That's why you continue dating. I don't think that's any different whether one is multi-dating or seeing one at a time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well...here I am, sustainably in love and full of magic with my Sex God husband...even though we both were mutli-dating when we met. Guess what works for some won't work for others.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's interesting. I get the magic comments from women after most first dates. I've had several say "that was the best first date I've ever been on" and such. Sometimes just that alone has called someone to question if I'm just a player.
> 
> I want the magic feeling, but I don't even remotely confuse it with love. I'm unlikely to fall in love for months and months even while I'm buzzing on the magic. But I know love, without that magic feeling, isn't what I want. I want to fall in love with someone with who sustains the magic with me.


"The magic" is that magnetic feeling that raises your emotions and make your heart pump harder and your erection stiffer than normal? Isn't that just having every thing lined up just right. Just the right tone of voice, presense and vibe, mannerisms, dress, etc? 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't now if chemistry and attraction "mean something"... but they are must haves... and I date in order to gauge their sustainability with someone.
> 
> I'm not sure how I could gauge the sustainability of that magic if I have such a low level interest that I'm dating others at the same time. Chemistry and attraction aside, I certainly wouldn't feel any of the magic knowing that they were seeing others. That's my world of hookups - flare ups of hot chemistry and attraction that flame out just as quickly... and I don't want dating to be anything like that. So dating, for me, is about determining sustainability. I wouldn't feel any sustainability in a person with whom I can't even hold interest well enough that they don't feel the desire to date others.... regardless of how much chemistry and attraction is there. There would be no magic.


Interest. Hmm. You made a post a while back that I snagged alot for my notes "Valuation in relationships"...


----------



## Jellybeans

hambone said:


> I was just having fun... going dancing (I LOVE to dance) and having fun...With absolutely no intention of ever marrying again.
> 
> Then, you see, I ran into this girl who twitterpated me!
> 
> Thumper gets a girlfriend! - YouTube



Love it! :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I love this..  is all for *Casual sex* ... while I think that's morally wrong.... but he thinks *Causal dating* IS...his only "romantic" notion it seems..... Interesting....


Yep... since when have any of my views been popular? 

I absolutely see where you might think this counter-intuitive, or even contradictory... but think about it. In pursuing EMOTIONAL engagement (is this not why people date as opposed to just hang out with friends?), I think it wise to not be willy nilly about it. I think this has a great potential for emotional hurt, conflict, drama... on and on. In pursuing physical gratification - sex, one is not fluffing their feathers so to speak. One does not need to open up emotionally for physical gratification. I want her body; she wants my body. It doesn't matter how short lived this passion is... and most are short lived. If you attach a moral value to sex, or think sex is exclusively an emotional act, then I imagine this is inconceivable to you.

In dating, I'm looking for that which can be sustained. I'm looking to open up and be opened up to. Not just a buddy to hang out with - I have more than enough of them. For me, multi-dating would just delay this process of opening up. You're multi-dating, I'm multi-dating... I'm gonna be much more cautious about opening up to you knowing you're seeing other men and probably vice versa.

So I put little weight/care in physical gratification... and greater weight/care in my efforts to make emotional connections. Multi-dating sounds exactly like the casual sex relationships I've had, with perhaps a little more formality of having "dates". The only difference was that I was having sex. In some of those I ended up wanting serious relationships, but most... no. No emotional attachment grew. There's so little investment involved when many people are in the picture. Hearing: "One never called me back... oh well!" Yeah... that shows how much you cared about that. I don't want a date with someone who doesn't care if I called them afterwards or not.

I think of dating one at a time as seeding what I want to grow in fertile soil.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> "The magic" is that magnetic feeling that raises your emotions and make your heart pump harder and your erection stiffer than normal? Isn't that just having every thing lined up just right. Just the right tone of voice, presense and vibe, mannerisms, dress, etc?


No... if I could nail it down, I wouldn't call it magic. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Well...here I am, sustainably in love and full of magic with my Sex God husband...even though we both were mutli-dating when we met. Guess what works for some won't work for others.


Is my take on things an affront to you? Your take on dating isn't an affront to me, regardless of the reasons I reject it for myself.

I never said your way couldn't turn out just fine. You could also have dated one-on-one and clicked so well that nobody else even managed to blip your radar. THAT is what I want. I want to be able to one day say, "I met this girl, and no girl has turned my head since." (and her feel the same way) Not commitment or control... leave at your own will... but rather, demonstrated interest and VALUE. I'm into you enough that I have no desire for other dates... not a lukewarm... "okay, well, let me fit you in on Thursday. I have a regular booked for Friday and my primary boo booked for Saturday... but you're cute enough... let's see where this goes?"

Ugh. Its just not for me. But I'm glad it worked for you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sure your way will work for you, too (IOW, whatever you are looking for, I'm sure you'll find it).

Is your take on things an affront to me?

No, its just that the way you like to words things as if people who don't do it your way are "wrong", and that is annoying.


----------



## Faithful Wife

heh...tomacco.


----------



## Cosmos

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> Right and I think it depends on what a person considers multi-dating. Some people have different definitions. For example, if I have a fwb ... mentioned by someone here ... and I am on a date and she asks me if I'm seeing anybody. I'm not likely to say 'yeah, I have an f buddy but she doesn't mean anything.' I might say 'not really' or 'nothing serious'. Half truth or flat out lying ... both are deceptive. Obviously that us an extreme example but I could see how easy it would be for a lot of people to be deceptive.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using Android_


I never dated others when I was being in _any_ way intimate with somebody else.

I don't get the FWB scenario at all, but to each their own.


----------



## Jellybeans

FrenchFry said:


> Like beyond setting traditional dates, I'd call him while doing my late morning routine and say something like "I'm having a transcendent croissant right now. Would you like a bite?" and him having a similar schedule and attitude towards croissants, he'd pop by and we'd spend the morning together.
> 
> He did the same, he worked late nights and would call me after he got off and say "I hope it's not too late, I'm hungry and there is an all-night sushi bar I love. Can I pick you up?" I'm a night owl who loves sushi. I just kind of took and made dates as they came, with the person who I thought would enjoy it and be available at the same time.
> 
> My husband ended up being available and with a great attitude most of the time, so I saw him more and more.
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah he really liked how low key I was. :smthumbup: I'm just not a good chaser in reality and I figured if he wasn't feeling it I just wouldn't hear from him. I kept hearing from him though.


Haha. I like this.  I'm not much of a chaser either and I think that some men aren't into that. :/


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> No, its just that the way you like to words things as if people who don't do it your way are "wrong", and that is annoying.


I'll argue right and wrong on points of evidence. A point of evidence would be the prevalence of multi-dating for example. Or that being very social is conducive to dating opportunity... or that most men don't maintain large social networks. There is a right and a wrong there imo. 

I don't argue right and wrong on the conclusions drawn from evidence or one's preferences. I explain my reasoning behind thinking X is better than Y, or what I prefer about X, and I explain pitfalls of Y to support my case my case for X. That's just making a case and explaining how I come to my position. I don't think that has to do with anyone else.

I don't have an opinion of what is right or wrong for you. I have an opinion that a woman doing these this is wrong for me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You clearly have a negative opinion about women who multi-date and the men who date them, based on things like this you continue saying:

"They can get their multi-date worship from somebody with less self-respect who'll tolerate being just one of several men vying for a turn at having her attention and the "opportunity" to buy her dinner." 

I mean c'mon now, Dvls. Do you really think we think you are just stating your opinion but you hold no opinion on whether it is right or wrong for anyone else? If you did, you wouldn't say things like the quoted statement.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> You clearly have a negative opinion about women who multi-date and the men who date them, based on things like this you continue saying:
> 
> "They can get their multi-date worship from somebody with less self-respect who'll tolerate being just one of several men vying for a turn at having her attention and the "opportunity" to buy her dinner."
> 
> I mean c'mon now, Dvls. Do you really think we think you are just stating your opinion but you hold no opinion on whether it is right or wrong for anyone else? If you did, you wouldn't say things like the quoted statement.


I know exactly what he is trying to describe.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes trey...so do I.

It makes him very uncomfortable and he doesn't even know why. But it comes through loud and clear.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Singular dating is like planting a single seed (in me har har) from the nightshade family. Could be a beautiful heirloom tomato, could be belladonna. Waiting till it blooms is a crapshoot and if I end up with belladonna, guess I'm making atropine even if I don't really need it. I have it now though, yay?!
> 
> Multidating is like planting a whole bunch of nightshade seeds and ooh, one is belladonna, one is a tomato, one is tobacco and one is a pepper! They all end up blooming around the same time, and while I like smoking, spicy food and not dying from organophosphates, I just really wanted to make some spaghetti...so I'm happy the tomato turned up in the bunch.
> 
> I have so many food and dating analogies, it's unreal.


ha... yep, I get it.  

Sucks if you really start liking tomatos and peppers and now you have to choose. Sucks if tomato gets jealous of pepper and you're not ready to choose tomato... even if you would have in time. If I'm the pepper and I know you're crazy about tomato too... I'm inclined to say "forget you, go be with tomato". To alter your analogy to my perspective... you plant all that nightshade and get some variety, but in poor soil to produce pepper. You get no pepper.

If I'm the farmer, and I like both the tomato and the pepper, then I have no favorite. They're totally different... objective comparison is nearly impossible... and emotions not so precise when faced with multiple desires. Pepper wants to commit, but I really like tomato too... given equal likes, I'm not ready to commit, so I lose pepper. Now I just have tomato anyway and unnecessary drama for my trouble.

What a headache! Variety isn't what romantic dating is about for me. I totally get why it might appeal to others.


----------



## Jellybeans

treyvion said:


> I know exactly what he is trying to describe.



Me, too.

I think it's just a difference of opinions on the subject. Dvls clearly isn't into it and that is fine, while others are.

I we were all the same and thought the same, life would sure as hell be boring.

Great thread, btw!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said on this thread: *"I totally get why it might appeal to others."*

But on the other thread he said this: *"To me its just spoiled princess bs.

Its the ego affirmation of having a bunch of guys bending over backwards to impress them and being able to just sit back and soak it all up while feeling like this wildly desired thing men would love to have.

Yeah, no wonder some women love multi-dating."*

So...which is it Dvls?

You hold no opinion about others doing it, or you think they are spoiled princesses?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> You clearly have a negative opinion about women who multi-date and the men who date them, based on things like this you continue saying:
> 
> "They can get their multi-date worship from somebody with less self-respect who'll tolerate being just one of several men vying for a turn at having her attention and the "opportunity" to buy her dinner."
> 
> I mean c'mon now, Dvls. Do you really think we think you are just stating your opinion but you hold no opinion on whether it is right or wrong for anyone else? If you did, you wouldn't say things like the quoted statement.


I can't answer to what you think, and I don't know what "we" you are speaking for. I am really stating my opinion and don't care whether its right or wrong for anyone else. What you derive self-respect from may be entirely different from how I derive it. Many people think women who have casual sex lack self-respect. There are going to be a ton of disagreements on how one shows respect or lack thereof for themselves... or otherwise accounts their value.

Yes, I think a man who dates a woman who is dating other men is selling himself short. He's content with her lukewarm interest and asking nothing of her. In a world where multi-dating is significantly easier for the average woman than the average man for a variety of reasons, this is something that I don't think the self-respecting man should put up with of women he wishes to invest emotional interest in. *I* think its devaluing... and thus I think those who accept it of others are being devalued and those doing it are devaluing.

That is an opinion, neither right nor wrong and many others have a similar attitude about casual sex. That you, or HE, does not find it dismissive or demeaning wouldn't make me wrong because the determination is one of my unassailable opinion of the meaning *I* ascribe to an action.

I completely stand by the quoted statement as it conveys precisely the degree of bile I have for the practice. I won't even consider dating someone who is doing so.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said on this thread: *"I totally get why it might appeal to others."*
> 
> But on the other thread he said this: *"To me its just spoiled princess bs.
> 
> Its the ego affirmation of having a bunch of guys bending over backwards to impress them and being able to just sit back and soak it all up while feeling like this wildly desired thing men would love to have.
> 
> Yeah, no wonder some women love multi-dating."*
> 
> So...which is it Dvls?
> 
> You hold no opinion about others doing it, or you think they are spoiled princesses?


The ones who do this ARE "spoiled princesses". A friend or someone who respects you will not allow you to pay ALL of the time, even if it's a female on a date. She's going to be responsible enough and care enough about you to want to see and do things for you too, using her time and money.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok, thanks for your opinion trey. Nice to know where you stand!

Spoiled princess here, bowing out of all this. Gosh it all just makes me love my husband more and more each day!


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, thanks for your opinion trey. Nice to know where you stand!
> 
> Spoiled princess here, bowing out of all this. Gosh it all just makes me love my husband more and more each day!


Thats your husband, that's different.

If you had 5 or 6 guys doing this for you, and your just blowing up your ego and you have no intent at all in doing anything in return, and even a couple of the guys you kinda don't like and wouldn't go anywhere with them unless they were paying... That's what it is.

I'm not against a housewife situation.

I'm against a situation, where one thinks because it is a man that he has to pay all the time, especially if they have their own income sources.

And the barter could always be time. Your husband treats you this way, and you invite him over for some well prepared meals.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trey...my husband and I were BOTH mutli-dating when we met, yet neither of us consider the other to be either a princess or a player. We are just both experienced daters, and multi-dating is a normal part of the dating experience for many people.

That is what I meant...and that is why I love him so much. Who we were both seeing or what we were doing during the non-exclusive part of our relationship does not make either of us jealous or insecure...it is none of our business what the other was doing.

All we know is that our dates with each other kept leading to more and more good dates with each other and we started falling for each other...we became exclusive within 3 months and never looked back.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said on this thread: *"I totally get why it might appeal to others."*
> 
> But on the other thread he said this: *"To me its just spoiled princess bs.
> 
> Its the ego affirmation of having a bunch of guys bending over backwards to impress them and being able to just sit back and soak it all up while feeling like this wildly desired thing men would love to have.
> 
> Yeah, no wonder some women love multi-dating."*
> 
> So...which is it Dvls?
> 
> You hold no opinion about others doing it, or you think they are spoiled princesses?


I think they're spoiled princesses. I hold no opinion of as to their being right or wrong for doing so. I don't care about what is right or wrong for them. What? I'm to think being spoiled isn't appealing? Having all the variety you crave from suitors vying for your attention with their affections and their wallets isn't appealing to the women that multi-date? I'm sure.  Should we define the qualities of a spoiled princess and match attributes with mult-dating?

I could do so, but it wouldn't matter. They of course, don't think they're spoiled princesses. The meaning they ascribe to their behavior might be entirely different than the meaning I ascribe to it. Who is right? No one, because its a matter of opinion.

Does my thinking them a spoiled princess say they are wrong for being so? You can be whatever you want to be. You can accept for reject my opinion of your actions at your own discretion. So do I have an opinion on whether they are right or wrong? I don't care. I know they are wrong for me and won't date them.

And yes, I totally grasp that I use a lot of hyperbole. I enjoy communicating the feelings I have about something forcefully and unambiguously. Some here characterize it differently as a fair weighing of options, going dutch... whatever... but my hyperbole reflects pretty damn well how much *I* don't like the practice... not their right to do so.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Trey...my husband and I were BOTH mutli-dating when we met, yet neither of us consider the other to be either a princess or a player. We are just both experienced daters, and multi-dating is a normal part of the dating experience for many people.
> 
> That is what I meant...and that is why I love him so much. Who we were both seeing or what we were doing during the non-exclusive part of our relationship does not make either of us jealous or insecure...it is none of our business what the other was doing.
> 
> All we know is that our dates with each other kept leading to more and more good dates with each other and we started falling for each other...we became exclusive within 3 months and never looked back.


Beautiful story. There's nothing to feel bad about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know there isn't, trey. That's why calling me a spoiled princess is just insulting and serves no purpose.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> I know there isn't, trey. That's why calling me a spoiled princess is just insulting and serves no purpose.


I didn't call you one. I called the ladies who are running their own reality program and taking advantage of a lot of the guys kindness. Thats what it is.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Most everyone? Where? On facebook? lol
> 
> I'm talking about live people that you engage in real-life activities and make an effort to maintain not just some people you know but rarely if ever see or interact with.


Nice assumption. But you're wrong. Most everyone I know have large social networks they engage with face-to-face. A large handful of my friends met at a homeschool group in highschool(and that includes me), and expanded their(and my) list of friends by visiting local churches, attending the community college and other Universities within driving distance, going to classes at the local ballrooms and other dance schools, attending writing and reading clubs, and many other local events. It astonishes me how often they meet new people and keep in frequent contact with them. And that's not including the friends I made in the Marine Corps.



> Yes, its an extrapolation. I don't know "most" women either, but I can reasonably extrapolate the "most" women have longer hair than "most" men. It does not take a sampling of 160 million of the 300 million people in the US to draw substantive conclusions. What the rest of the world is like I have no idea, but I don't think I gave anyone the impression I was referring to dating practices in China or arranged marriages in India.


When it comes to social behaviors, I disagree. I don't believe that there are social norms for entire genders. There are social norms for groups of people based on where one lives, what class they belong to, ones lifestyle, and ones life experiences, but people are individuals and I believe they act and react as such.



> There are US sub-populations who aren't represented in my experience. People above 50 and Spanish-speakers to name a few. But from 21-50 the feedback I've always
> 
> This is one of the areas where I actually like facebook. Like this forum, its a place to pose questions and gather opinion... on an even larger scale than this forum or personal interaction allows. That's one place where I've asked people's opinions of multi-dating. As a result, the sub-population I now most associate with multi-dating is African Americans. It's near universally accepted and practiced among my black friends. In contrast, those who found it the least acceptable were my more conservative religious friends... which was really interesting, since we rarely agree on anything.


Okay...Yes, there are a lot of people in the world who share opinions about certain subjects. 



> I stand by my observation and the experiences so many men have shared.


And I stand by my observation and experience as well. My experience is that it's uncommon for the men who live in my area to have small, close-knit social networks. No guy I know has a small social network of friends. 



> If we polled "how did you meet your significant other", you doubt that introduction, circumstances and/or coincidence would play by far the largest role?


"Meeting" someone requires being introduced to them at some point so, no, I don't doubt that that plays a role. 



> This is why the degree that one gets out and socializes correlates so strongly to getting dates. It baffles me that you'd object to this observation.


I don't object to the idea that you need to meet people to go on dates. It's kind of obvious. What I doubt is the idea that most men have small, close-knit groups of friends and have trouble asking women out. My experience has been to the contrary. 



> Landing a date with someone you just met is comparatively rare in most people's experience. The cold pickup - landing a date with someone you just introduced yourself to who hadn't previously noticed you, is the most rare. Every guy who approaches a lot of women knows this... even the really good looking ones.


Aha, the caveat. Yes, landing a date with someone you just met is probably rare, despite what Hollywood says. But not everyone is out looking to land a date with strangers, which is probably where our disconnect is located. 

We come from very different lifestyles. Yours is much more sex based, whereas mine is much more love based. We don't view sex the same, we don't view relationships the same, we don't share the same views about men and women because we each have lived very different lives. 

The majority of my friends are Christians like me. They don't pickup strangers, they don't date strangers, they're not looking for sex or a quick lay. The vast majority of the men I know haven't dated strangers, they've dated women who started as friends. For them finding a relationship has not been difficult because they 1) have a large social network of friends and 2) they know the women they're pursuing, usually very, very well. 

The men I know who aren't Christians are already in relationships. I've only known one guy who wanted casual sex, and he had no game at all. 



> I'm sorry, but most relationships don't begin as a result of a guy's pickup skills... because most guys don't have much of any. Landing a date IS difficult for most guys. You can go readily observe this in any town at any singles location on any given weekend.


Like I said above, I think lifestyle choice plays a part here. If guys are only looking to land dates with women they haven't known for very long, they're likely going to face more difficulties. I would never go on a date with a guy I just met, and I don't know any woman who would. But, different lifestyle than yours. I also don't know any guys who have difficulty meeting new women, but the vast majority of the men I know are surrounded my female friends. 



> This tells me you don't go out much... and that's not a put down. Seriously, ANY singles location, or better yet, go out with a small group of single guys. On any given night I'd put money down that none of them lands a date provided they keep up their standards. If I put up $4 if any of them successfully landed a date with someone they just met, and you put up $1 only if none of them did, I'm going to make money.


I don't go into the singles scene and never have. You know this. If your point is that trying to meet new singles rarely lands a guy a date, then I could see that making sense. 



> The adage that 20% or fewer of the men are getting 80% of the women is absolutely true.
> 
> I KNOW this. I've deliberately gone out with many friends just to psyche them up for making an approach. Its not just shyness or fear either... most guys have NO IDEA what to say *to the woman they don't know.*


Key is in the bold. While I've never seen this personally, I can imagine that in the pickup scene it might be true. 

Interestingly enough, all of the guys I know have had a large circle of female friends, and have never struggled making new female friends. There's no pressure to perform, no anxiety about rejection...just two people being themselves and enjoying meeting each other. Many of those friendships turned to relationships. The men you know and the men I've known(well, most of the men I've known) wanted different things from women though, which likely also plays a part. Very few of them wanted casual sex.

So, given the context of the pickup scene, I imagine you could be right.



> I think most of these guys are actually the better relationship material if you went by what women claim to want in a guy (beyond looks... we're not talking hot guys here, just normal Joe Average - though plenty are good looking too - as far as I can tell). Ironically, the guys who find it easy to get dates, including myself, generally aren't... and most of us readily admit it. Its one of those things about women that kinda makes me twitch.


It depends on the woman, I think, and what she's looking for.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This makes more sense... but I want that explosive first date. I wanted that instant chemistry such that when its over you go "woah." I want amazing; logic defying. Oh look... I have another overly romantic sentiment. I'm on a roll! Sh*t.
> 
> There's various degrees of it, but if I don't have that, I'm less interested in even a second date. That magic thing I'm looking for... we just don't have.


Out of curiosity, what makes you have that amazing, logic defying first date?



> If I'm going to date someone, I want to be able to say that there was magic. Dating a bunch of people at once feels like the total opposite... even deliberately trying to mitigate limerance so one can do some logical number crunching. To me, dating the person addresses limerance on its own over time - its a continued evaluation of whether this can last. I don't want to avoid it and make a nice rational decision. I want to keep it.


I can see that. Personally, I wouldn't want the guy to multi-date because it'd make me feel like he knew our date wouldn't go well, so he was setting up a backup to makeup for it. Not special. And I like to feel special. 



> God... shoot me... I'm arguing a romantic position. :slap:


There's nothing wrong with feeling/wanting romance, dude. A lot of women respond really well to it, ya know.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I can't answer to what you think, and I don't know what "we" you are speaking for. I am really stating my opinion and don't care whether its right or wrong for anyone else. What you derive self-respect from may be entirely different from how I derive it. Many people think women who have casual sex lack self-respect. There are going to be a ton of disagreements on how one shows respect or lack thereof for themselves... or otherwise accounts their value.


your right



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yes, I think a man who dates a woman who is dating other men is selling himself short. He's content with her lukewarm interest and asking nothing of her. In a world where multi-dating is significantly easier for the average woman than the average man for a variety of reasons, this is something that I don't think the self-respecting man should put up with of women he wishes to invest emotional interest in. *I* think its devaluing... and thus I think those who accept it of others are being devalued and those doing it are devaluing.


Yes, a man may have enough confidence to date a female who is multi-dating at first. But unless he is also multi-dating, dating the multidater will drag him down, because of her emotional investment compared to his.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That is an opinion, neither right nor wrong and many others have a similar attitude about casual sex. That you, or HE, does not find it dismissive or demeaning wouldn't make me wrong because the determination is one of my unassailable opinion of the meaning *I* ascribe to an action.


We all have our opinions. Not sure I would try to get serious with someone who is with alot of people. Just seems to be a recipe for dissappointment.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I completely stand by the quoted statement as it conveys precisely the degree of bile I have for the practice. I won't even consider dating someone who is doing so.


The fun and games of the dating world!


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Actually the total opposite, my relationships have usually been really short. I can love a million different qualities in a woman... its not hard for me to find qualities I like. Its not hard to find women I share views or interests with... or even who share my enjoyment of debating our different views (although a little harder to find those who don't get mad and petty).
> 
> What I want isn't something easily defined, yet I know whether its there pretty quickly. Chemistry. Passion. Magic. If I have these, why would I want a date with another person? If we don't have these, why would I want a second date with her?
> 
> I have a lot of first dates, most of which go very well, but the chemistry I sensed was short lived... by date 3 or 4... I usually know she's not it. As long as the magic is there, I'm still there. When the magic is gone... I'm gone.
> 
> What's really hard is finding someone dynamic... someone who always creates new magic, just like I do. Something that lasts.


I'm probably getting too deep here, and if I am let me know. While these desires are fine, I don't think they're realistic. You want the magic and newness of a relationship with a new woman, but inevitably that newness wears off. Maintaining "the magic" you're talking about takes work. It's not easy. There are times when it feels stronger than others. Wanting a woman who "always creates new magic" is kind of setting them up for failure. And not feeling the magic as early as the first date doesn't mean the magic won't grow.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> I'm probably getting too deep here, and if I am let me know. While these desires are fine, I don't think they're realistic. You want the magic and newness of a relationship with a new woman, but inevitably that newness wears off. Maintaining "the magic" you're talking about takes work. It's not easy. There are times when it feels stronger than others. Wanting a woman who "always creates new magic" is kind of setting them up for failure. And not feeling the magic as early as the first date doesn't mean the magic won't grow.


I think it was just "attraction", a harpee could conjure up intoxicating amounts of attraction.

Just the head at the right angle, the right guestures ,tone of voice, gleen in their eye, etc.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't feel "magic" with someone I don't know, and I certainly don't know someone after one date.
> 
> If I feel "wow, that was a really GREAT date, I am attracted to them, and I want to get to know them better"...then that simply means I want some more dates, and nothing more.
> 
> Magic happens for me after exclusivity, when the sex is great, and I start falling in love. For me this can take months.
> 
> But...it wasn't always like this.
> 
> I used to confuse those first date feelings with love. I used to think that chemistry and attraction "mean something". I have since found that they don't really....you can have chemistry and attraction with someone you don't even like or respect. That's why there's no reason to attribute any "meaning" to it.


Yup. You said it better than I did. 

I liken it to the difference between my relationship with DH during the first few months, and our relationship when he proposed. The first few months: I got butterflies when he would call or send me a text, I would get nervous around him(in a good way,) my heart would race when he touched me, I would spend _hours_ getting ready for our dates, I'd blush when people would make jokes about us being together, I laughed at all of his jokes even if they weren't that funny, etc. By the time he proposed I wasn't nervous around him any longer, my heart didn't race as much, I didn't get butterflies when he'd call or text me, I didn't spend hours getting ready for our dates, I didn't laugh at all of his jokes, my heart didn't race when he'd hold my hand...but, I was comfortable around him...I could tease him about his stupid jokes...I could go on a date with him to Denny's at 4 am in my sweats and still find it romantic...and even though my heart wouldn't race when he held my hand or kissed me, that excitement traveled south to my nether regions and his kisses and affectionate touche would cause my loins to ache. 

Relationships inevitably evolve. So the magic evolves as well.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> Yup. You said it better than I did.
> 
> I liken it to the difference between my relationship with DH during the first few months, and our relationship when he proposed. The first few months: I got butterflies when he would call or send me a text, I would get nervous around him(in a good way,) my heart would race when he touched me, I would spend _hours_ getting ready for our dates, I'd blush when people would make jokes about us being together, I laughed at all of his jokes even if they weren't that funny, etc. By the time he proposed I wasn't nervous around him any longer, my heart didn't race as much, I didn't get butterflies when he'd call or text me, I didn't spend hours getting ready for our dates, I didn't laugh at all of his jokes, my heart didn't race when he'd hold my hand...but, I was comfortable around him...I could tease him about his stupid jokes...I could go on a date with him to Denny's at 4 am in my sweats and still find it romantic...and even though my heart wouldn't race when he held my hand or kissed me, that excitement traveled south to my nether regions and his kisses and affectionate touche would cause my loins to ache.
> 
> Relationships inevitably evolve. So the magic evolves as well.


Boy! I hope that loins aching feeling has grown even stronger.


----------



## tacoma

In my single years long long ago I dated multiple women at the same time.

Your definition doesn't quite work for me as I was never "looking" for an LTR.
I was just having fun.

I've never gone looking for a "girlfriend" or a relationship.
I've always just went where the fun was and I'd eventually find a woman who made me forget the other women.

That's when I would end up in a relationship.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> They do have some similarities: both tomatoes and peppers have alkaloids. Different ones, but yes.
> 
> They taste totally different though, for sure and if I figure out I have pasta, olive oil, garlic and some herbs on me, pepper could be an okay dish but ıʇʇəɥƃɐds-_capellini pomodoro_ makes much more sense. As a farmer, if all that came up was peppers, I'd be okay with it if I could find it in me to come up with some shrimp and white wine.


Never mind dating. Can I come over for dinner?


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> I think it was just "attraction", a harpee could conjure up intoxicating amounts of attraction.
> 
> Just the head at the right angle, the right guestures ,tone of voice, gleen in their eye, etc.


Maybe I misinterpreted, but I think "attraction" only brushes the surface of what he means by "magic". But even so, attraction evolves over time as well. I find my husband deeply attractive physically. He has a great body, a great smile, intoxicating eyes. Sexually, seeing him naked gets me going all of the time. But the more I get to know him, the more I see him in different life scenarios, the more attracted I am to who he is, not just his body. He's the sexiest guy I've ever known, in almost every way. Romance doesn't come naturally to him, and sometimes I wish it did. But he tries so dang hard to do his best, and he's come miles from when we dated. 

It takes more than a few dates to find the deep "magic" that exists between people.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Boy! I hope that loins aching feeling has grown even stronger.



Oh you have no idea!  I never imagined as a teenager that I could desire a guy as much as I desire my husband.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> Maybe I misinterpreted, but I think "attraction" only brushes the surface of what he means by "magic". But even so, attraction evolves over time as well. I find my husband deeply attractive physically. He has a great body, a great smile, intoxicating eyes. Sexually, seeing him naked gets me going all of the time. But the more I get to know him, the more I see him in different life scenarios, the more attracted I am to who he is, not just his body. He's the sexiest guy I've ever known, in almost every way. Romance doesn't come naturally to him, and sometimes I wish it did. But he tries so dang hard to do his best, and he's come miles from when we dated.
> 
> It takes more than a few dates to find the deep "magic" that exists between people.


I like that. There were some women who grew more and more beautiful right before my very eyes by sharing her thoughts and her mind was so sexy.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> I like that. There were some women who grew more and more beautiful right before my very eyes by sharing her thoughts and her mind was so sexy.


Right, exactly. "Magic" between people can be manifested in so many different ways.


----------



## Jellybeans

Created2Write said:


> I can see that. Personally, I wouldn't want the guy to multi-date because it'd make me feel like he knew our date wouldn't go well, so he was setting up a backup to makeup for it. Not special. And I like to feel special.


Totally. After a few dates out if someone was still seeing other people and I wasn't, it would not make me feel great. 

If they were sleeping with other people, no hell no.



treyvion said:


> y
> Yes, a man may have enough confidence to date a female who is multi-dating at first. But unless he is also multi-dating, dating the multidater will drag him down, because of her emotional investment compared to his.
> 
> We all have our opinions. Not sure I would try to get serious with someone who is with alot of people.


I feel this way, too.



treyvion said:


> I like that. There were some women who grew more and more beautiful right before my very eyes by sharing her thoughts and her mind was so sexy.


Awww.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Nice assumption. But you're wrong. Most everyone I know have large social networks they engage with face-to-face. A large handful of my friends met at a homeschool group in highschool(and that includes me), and expanded their(and my) list of friends by visiting local churches, attending the community college and other Universities within driving distance, going to classes at the local ballrooms and other dance schools, attending writing and reading clubs, and many other local events. It astonishes me how often they meet new people and keep in frequent contact with them. And that's not including the friends I made in the Marine Corps.


How many of these friends do you interact with in any given month. THAT is your social circle. Not so big anymore is it?

It is not everyone you know. It is everyone you actually interact with. Not a bunch of people you never see and rarely talk to.



Created2Write said:


> When it comes to social behaviors, I disagree. I don't believe that there are social norms for entire genders. There are social norms for groups of people based on where one lives, what class they belong to, ones lifestyle, and ones life experiences, but people are individuals and I believe they act and react as such.


Wait what? You can determine something normal for one of your non-gender categories, but you can't determine something normal for a category on gender? Why can your categories not be similarly subdivided and utterly dismissed as you are doing the category of gender?



Created2Write said:


> And I stand by my observation and experience as well. My experience is that it's uncommon for the men who live in my area to have small, close-knit social networks. No guy I know has a small social network of friends.


You live in an amazing place. I happen to have several friends in Portland, which I'm guessing isn't all that far from you. I'm in Portland about once a year for a two week span. Amazing how I can visit once a year and know several men in your state with small social circles, while you live there and have never met one. Is it that you just go to a reeeally reeeally big church?



Created2Write said:


> "Meeting" someone requires being introduced to them at some point so, no, I don't doubt that that plays a role.


No, actually, it doesn't. Meeting someone is something one chooses to do not something one waits for. Meeting someone is just as easily introducing yourself with no circumstance or coincidence... simply because you want to introduce yourself. Most men are loathe to introduce themselves to random women. Most men have no idea what they would say IF they found the nerve to introduce themselves. That is one of the primary differences between the few men who get a lot of dates, and the masses who don't. That is the difference between someone who grows a large social network, and someone who doesn't.



Created2Write said:


> I don't object to the idea that you need to meet people to go on dates. It's kind of obvious. What I doubt is the idea that most men have small, close-knit groups of friends and have trouble asking women out. My experience has been to the contrary.


What I'm saying is that the two are linked. The people with large social networks built that network because they aren't afraid to jump out and meet new people. These are the people who land a lot of dates.

Everyone you know has a large circle and doesn't have any trouble asking random women out. While the correlation is there, I kinda doubt the fact unless you know very few people. I'd wager your perception of them is not their reality... as our perceptions of others are not prone to be.



Created2Write said:


> Aha, the caveat. Yes, landing a date with someone you just met is probably rare, despite what Hollywood says. But not everyone is out looking to land a date with strangers, which is probably where our disconnect is located.


You're telling me that we've been typing all this and THAT is the disconnect? *shoots self*

We do come from very different lifestyles, but I'd hardly say mine is sex based. Sex is just sex... nothing about my life is *based* on sex. It really has no bearing on my lifestyle other than to say I have sex. I also find love. I think we view intimate relationships much the same, but that we put different value in sex.

I live in the bible belt. Trust me, I know the Christians. Although our variety is largely the f*ck on Saturday and repent on Sunday variety. 



Created2Write said:


> I've only known one guy who wanted casual sex, and he had no game at all.


My knowledge is that most guys (even a certain variety of churchly ones) are down with casual sex... only they know women mostly aren't. Then there's a nice chunk who consider their sex something other than casual... but amazingly they always seem to be hooking up pretty quickly in a lot of short term relationships.



Created2Write said:


> I don't go into the singles scene and never have. You know this. If your point is that trying to meet new singles rarely lands a guy a date, then I could see that making sense.


Would you agree that this church environment the quite wholesome world you describe isn't the predominant condition for most Americans - thereby representing the *most men/women* that I describe? Can you then accept that I'm speaking for that big fat chunk of people who are seeking to meet members of the opposite sex when I describe the norm?

I know the very conservative religious types often date within their church and its quite traditional and leave-it-to-beaver like. I hope you'll at least agree with me that THEY (read: you).... are not the norm. That in fact, your experience is boxed somewhat within this framing. The reason the singles scene is called such is that this is where the singles deliberately go; most of whom have the desire to meet other singles.



Created2Write said:


> Interestingly enough, all of the guys I know have had a large circle of female friends, and have never struggled making new female friends.


That is interesting... and pretty weird. That isn't most guy's experience... platonic or otherwise.



Created2Write said:


> There's no pressure to perform, no anxiety about rejection...just two people being themselves and enjoying meeting each other. Many of those friendships turned to relationships. The men you know and the men I've known(well, most of the men I've known) wanted different things from women though, which likely also plays a part. Very few of them wanted casual sex.


This sounds like the movie "Pleasantville".

Most of the guys I've met are not hell bent on casual sex. Most would still jump on it if the opportunity presented itself, but most are in fact were just seeking girlfriends.

Do you realize that you could be in a bubble of "wholesome-ness"? Another factoid, a significant number of men if not a majority are actually loathe to admit their carnal thoughts and intentions and in fact... any intention that is non-PC and may upset a woman. They tip-toe around women, careful not to do something that might upset one, and say and do women want to hear and see... to the degree that some of them delude themselves into believing it. Its not that they actually believe it, its that they're automatically conforming to a perception of social norm and acceptance. Shhhh... keep this quiet, I don't want to give AlwaysAlone any more reason to be paranoid of men.



Created2Write said:


> It depends on the woman, I think, and what she's looking for.


Well, yeah... but the context there is that she's looking for a relationship and all those sweet nice guy attributes that these men have. At least, that's what women usually say they want. But that's another can of worms isn't it?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How many of these friends do you interact with in any given month. THAT is your social circle. Not so big anymore is it?
> 
> It is not everyone you know. It is everyone you actually interact with. Not a bunch of people you never see and rarely talk to.


Yeah. And the majority of them hang out very often. Not as often as when we were all in high school, but it's not as rare as you keep insisting it is.



> Wait what? You can determine something normal for one of your non-gender categories, but you can't determine something normal for a category on gender? Why can your categories not be similarly subdivided and utterly dismissed as you are doing the category of gender?


It's simple: I don't believe that there are wide-spread social norms according to gender. I just don't buy it. 



> You live in an amazing place. I happen to have several friends in Portland, which I'm guessing isn't all that far from you. I'm in Portland about once a year for a two week span. Amazing how I can visit once a year and know several men in your state with small social circles, while you live there and have never met one. Is it that you just go to a reeeally reeeally big church?


1) It's not just Portland; it's like, five separate counties and numerous cities so it's really not surprising that you've met these people when I haven't. 2) I've gone to six different churches while I've lived in Oregon, actually, two of which have been on the bigger side, but the others have been small. A handful of my friends attend more than church, including a few of the ones I've been to, so there's a very large group of us who meet through being mutual friends, and mutual friends of mutual friends, etc. 

Church isn't the only place we've met, either. My friends are all very active in their jobs, their hobbies, their interests, their educations, etc. 



> No, actually, it doesn't. Meeting someone is something one chooses to do not something one waits for. Meeting someone is just as easily introducing yourself with no circumstance or coincidence... simply because you want to introduce yourself.


By "being introduced" I meant either someone introducing you, or introducing yourself.



> Most men are loathe to introduce themselves to random women. Most men have no idea what they would say IF they found the nerve to introduce themselves. That is one of the primary differences between the few men who get a lot of dates, and the masses who don't. That is the difference between someone who grows a large social network, and someone who doesn't.


I can see men struggling to introduce themselves to women they don't know. I can also see men having a very natural way with women. My husband has always had a natural way with women, whether he knew them or not.



> What I'm saying is that the two are linked. The people with large social networks built that network because they aren't afraid to jump out and meet new people. These are the people who land a lot of dates.


Okay.



> Everyone you know has a large circle and doesn't have any trouble asking random women out. While the correlation is there, I kinda doubt the fact unless you know very few people. I'd wager your perception of them is not their reality... as our perceptions of others are not prone to be.


No, my perception is fine actually. The men I know who ask out random women just haven't struggled to do so. 



> You're telling me that we've been typing all this and THAT is the disconnect? *shoots self*


Wow. I'm attempting to have a respectful conversation with you. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.



> We do come from very different lifestyles, but I'd hardly say mine is sex based. Sex is just sex... nothing about my life is *based* on sex. It really has no bearing on my lifestyle other than to say I have sex. I also find love. I think we view intimate relationships much the same, but that we put different value in sex.


Okay.



> I live in the bible belt. Trust me, I know the Christians. Although our variety is largely the f*ck on Saturday and repent on Sunday variety.
> 
> My knowledge is that most guys (even a certain variety of churchly ones) are down with casual sex... only they know women mostly aren't. Then there's a nice chunk who consider their sex something other than casual... but amazingly they always seem to be hooking up pretty quickly in a lot of short term relationships.


Okay. The Christian men I know are definitely NOT the same as the ones you know. 



> Would you agree that this church environment the quite wholesome world you describe isn't the predominant condition for most Americans - thereby representing the *most men/women* that I describe?


I would not agree with that, actually. I would agree that, predominantly, men and women both want sex, but beyond that I don't think a "most" can be applied to people.



> Can you then accept that I'm speaking for that big fat chunk of people who are seeking to meet members of the opposite sex when I describe the norm?


"Seeking members of the opposite sex" is ambiguous. I sought members of the opposite sex for years, but with absolutely no desire for casual sex. I've known people who sought members of the opposite sex, but with no desire whatsoever for an LTR. 

And, I really don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but one man on a forum "speaking for" a chunk of people doesn't mean anything to me. Just like I'm sure me, one woman on a forum rejecting what you're saying, means nothing to you. We've lived in opposing lifestyles. Knowing Christians is not the same as actually being one. There are Christians who are Christians just because they don't want to be anything else; there are Christians who believe in God but reject a lot of what the Bible says; there are Christians who accept the Bible as a whole and try to practice what it says, etc. Being a Christian and knowing hundreds of them myself doesn't make me qualified to speak for everyone who identifies themselves as one. 



> I know the very conservative religious types often date within their church and its quite traditional and leave-it-to-beaver like. I hope you'll at least agree with me that THEY (read: you).... are not the norm.


Sorry, I can't agree with that either. It's not that I think you're wrong per se, just that there are millions of Christians in the world and knowing a tiny fraction of those people is not enough to define whether or not one type is the norm. You could totally be right. You could also be wrong. 



> That in fact, your experience is boxed somewhat within this framing.


This I readily agree with. 



> The reason the singles scene is called such is that this is where the singles deliberately go; most of whom have the desire to meet other singles.


*gasp* No! I would have never thought that a singles scene would be designed for singles meeting other singles!  I know you're trying to help me understand something I don't have a lot of experience with, but please don't patronize me. 



> That is interesting... and pretty weird. That isn't most guy's experience... platonic or otherwise.


It's weird for a guy to be confident enough to meet new women and have many female friends? 



> This sounds like the movie "Pleasantville".
> 
> Most of the guys I've met are not hell bent on casual sex. Most would still jump on it if the opportunity presented itself, but most are in fact were just seeking girlfriends.
> 
> Do you realize that you could be in a bubble of "wholesome-ness"? Another factoid, a significant number of men if not a majority are actually loathe to admit their carnal thoughts and intentions and in fact... any intention that is non-PC and may upset a woman. They tip-toe around women, careful not to do something that might upset one, and say and do women want to hear and see... to the degree that some of them delude themselves into believing it. Its not that they actually believe it, its that they're automatically conforming to a perception of social norm and acceptance. Shhhh... keep this quiet, I don't want to give AlwaysAlone any more reason to be paranoid of men.


Yet more of the idea that men only pretend to have the values they do because women expect it. I don't buy it.



> Well, yeah... but the context there is that she's looking for a relationship and all those sweet nice guy attributes that these men have. At least, that's what women usually say they want. But that's another can of worms isn't it?


Ha. Let's avoid that can by any means possible.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I absolutely see where you might think this counter-intuitive, or even contradictory... but think about it. *In pursuing EMOTIONAL engagement (is this not why people date as opposed to just hang out with friends?), I think it wise to not be willy nilly about it. I think this has a great potential for emotional hurt, conflict, drama... on and on.*


 Hey, had a talk with my husband about this on the way home from a drive in the car ....wanted his thoughts.... HE THINKS LIKE YOU ON THIS aspect in dating......that if you ask someone out for a date ...there is an *automatic assumption of "exclusivity"* if the date survived & another is planned (not that it would even be discussed)..... had he found out otherwise, he would be upset, and if I came at him with my thoughts (in the last 2 posts), he'd let me know he didn't like that, and didn't want to share...

Now here is the funny thing... I would PREFER MEN THAT THINK LIKE THIS.... (Yeah those 1 woman types , honorable in all their ways - I love them!)... so in the event of that, I'd either have to conform to "*just us*" to satisfy him (give him a chance and only him) or he'd dump me ...which would be his right ! 

And honestly I wouldn't like the idea of a guy dating a # of women -if I was 1 at the same time, I'd feel the pressure of competition in this...like a contestant on







...though again, if he was NOT having sex with them... I would still welcome it... to me this is very HONORABLE ...because of how I personally view the act...and would spell he still took relationships very very seriously....more so than most, as none of us want to live a life without  ...or leading to full encompassing romantic gratification ..this is pure heaven on earth. 

Though such a man as this ... would be a very rare find, so the multi-dating men are more likely to be bonking every date too. 

Just as some women lie about past sex partners....had I found myself in this situation, I might be tempted to LIE about going out on dates .... lest I sound like my mind was divided or something...not serious...which just wouldn't be the case ...at all. 

I would just want to maximize my pool of "potentials" in a shorter time frame.. this would be my aim, why I feel as I do..... When we're younger, we have more time to spare.. not past our 40's plus. 



> In pursuing physical gratification - sex, one is not fluffing their feathers so to speak.* One does not need to open up emotionally for physical gratification. I want her body; she wants my body. It doesn't matter how short lived this passion is...and most are short lived*.


 It's been eye opening reading your well explained views on just how Casual & Compartmentalized sex is to some men. . 



> *If you attach a moral value to sex, or think sex is exclusively an emotional act, then I imagine this is inconceivable to you.*


 Yes....this is how we feel... looking through the eyes of the Romantic souls who has no desire to compartmenalitze or separate our emotions in exchange for a night of fleeting passion... I would not feel good about this in the morning at all... Husband's view.. his words tonight.. "too easy on a date = not trustworthy".. some men still believe *the emotional needs built first*...this just doesn't happen till some *Time* has past, we share experiences -outside of the bedroom... 



> In dating, I'm looking for that which can be sustained. I'm looking to open up and be opened up to. Not just a buddy to hang out with - I have more than enough of them. *For me, multi-dating would just delay this process of opening up.* You're multi-dating, I'm multi-dating..*. I'm gonna be much more cautious about opening up to you knowing you're seeing other men and probably vice versa.*....
> 
> So I put little weight/care in physical gratification... and greater weight/care in my efforts to make emotional connections.


I have always found opening up emotionally very easy...probably not the norm.. 

I once had a Swinger pm me wanting to argue my sexual views... he went on to explain how he can be sexual with ANYONE.. it's easy --calling it basically "nothing"...and the harder for him was *the emotional*...adding *>>* "ONLY HIS WIFE GETS THIS PART OF HIM".... this he places as the most important... it was a fascinating conversation...he listened and haggled with me for a time... which I appreciated... neither of us judged, we just heard each other out...

I believe he set out to change my views/ enlighten me... but realized along the way just how strongly I felt & the why's behind that.....towards the end... he told me ... he wouldn't change me.. he could see this works for me... I appreciated this coming from a Swinger. 



> *I think of dating one at a time as seeding what I want to grow in fertile soil*.


 I like this comment ... a good way to look at it... If you could withhold the bonking...just for a time... and concentrate more so on getting to know these women...what makes them tick, their dreams, aspirations... push through the lust.....fertilize with some vulnerability... have you ever took this approach ..is it so outrageous to some?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I'm probably getting too deep here, and if I am let me know. While these desires are fine, I don't think they're realistic. You want the magic and newness of a relationship with a new woman, but inevitably that newness wears off. Maintaining "the magic" you're talking about takes work. It's not easy. There are times when it feels stronger than others. Wanting a woman who "always creates new magic" is kind of setting them up for failure. And not feeling the magic as early as the first date doesn't mean the magic won't grow.


I'm usually the one going too deep. Har har har. ;P

You're actually right on target and that point totally accounted for. I don't need the newness... the magic often comes with newness... but it can also last when the newness has long since worn off.

And you're so right, maintaining the magic isn't easy. If it were easy, it probably wouldn't be so special. That it rises and falls like the tide is accepted.

I would agree that wanting a woman who always creates this magic would be setting her up to fail if I weren't also always creating this magic. I've come to learn that this is an active choice. Action taken deliberately. I create magic with virtually everyone I've ever dated. I created magic for years with my wife... and all she had to do was come along. That was enough for me. Of course, as she stopped coming along... as we diverged from one another... my ability to make those magical moments happen, my will to make them happen, got weaker and weaker. She never created any of them - the moments, the magic, the expression that kept us together. The little bit of fuel from her I needed was no longer there.

This magic doesn't grow - at least not in my experience. It's there waiting... its latent in most people until someone comes along to unlock it. Its manifested in actions and effort, but still has a quality of energy that certain people have and others seemingly don't (or maybe just with that person). I've since decided that I won't be with a woman incapable of driving this in the same manner as I do. I require someone passionate, enthusiastic and expressive and adventurous of her own doing not my persuasion who creates moments and powers magic of her own. No more piggybacking on my energy and creativity. I think my ex lacked this quality at her core; this ability and awareness to create magic when I couldn't... which were the times I most needed it.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm usually the one going too deep. Har har har. ;P
> 
> You're actually right on target and that point totally accounted for. I don't need the newness... the magic often comes with newness... but it can also last when the newness has long since worn off.


Agreed.



> And you're so right, maintaining the magic isn't easy. If it were easy, it probably wouldn't be so special. That it rises and falls like the tide is accepted.


Also agreed.



> I would agree that wanting a woman who always creates this magic would be setting her up to fail if I weren't also always creating this magic. I've come to learn that this is an active choice. Action taken deliberately. I create magic with virtually everyone I've ever dated. I created magic for years with my wife... and all she had to do was come along. That was enough for me. Of course, as she stopped coming along... as we diverged from one another... my ability to make those magical moments happen, my will to make them happen, got weaker and weaker. She never created any of them - the moments, the magic, the expression that kept us together. The little bit of fuel from her I needed was no longer there.


The word "always" is throwing me. It implies that one never messes up the "magic", never misses an opportunity to create the magic, and never wavers in the consistency of how often they create the magic. I'm probably just getting hung up on it.



> This magic doesn't grow - at least not in my experience. It's there waiting... its latent in most people until someone comes along to unlock it. Its manifested in actions and effort, but still has a quality of energy that certain people have and others seemingly don't (or maybe just with that person). I've since decided that I won't be with a woman incapable of driving this in the same manner as I do. I require someone passionate, enthusiastic and expressive and adventurous of her own doing not my persuasion who creates moments and powers magic of her own. No more piggybacking on my energy and creativity. I think my ex lacked this quality at her core; this ability and awareness to create magic when I couldn't... which were the times I most needed it.


So, essentially, you want someone to work _with_ you to maintain the relationship?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Out of curiosity, what makes you have that amazing, logic defying first date?




Man... that's a hard question to answer! I'm not really sure. If a woman gives me anything... literally anything... to work with I somehow turn it into magical things. So many magical things you'd even think "damn... that's a script."

I can't describe it without just telling cheesy stories... and I'm not really sure what turns these things into magic. All the things just fit and there's this energy about them... and you keep dating and they becomes your things, magic and unique things about you and them that you shouldn't have already. You create them with certain people. You're probably seeing magic in every stupid little coincidence. It might even be a willing fog... but what is the difference between belief and reality if both believe in and preserve the fog? You want to see it... so you see it. I want someone who wants to see.

It sounds so cliché and gay, or delusional, but the word destiny or meant to be starts getting thrown around after a month of this stuff. Yet it doesn't have even the slightest scent of "clingy". Rather, it feels like the stars are just aligning and nature itself seems to be giving an endorsement.

Its a place where words fail and reason is suspended. Magic. A sappy sentimentality that honestly, I'm even a little embarrassed of. But its real... and I'm good at creating it I think... somehow. My cynical self wants to convince me its just some retarded feeling I have and not something real. But she feels it too... I play far too cool to ever bring up something so gay first. lol

If I were religious, I'm certain I would be claiming the guiding hand of God or some such. Rather, I think its some extension of connecting in a certain way that disarms and opens people up to the side of themselves that wants to believe in magic. That wants to believe everything happens for a reason and there are no coincidences.

I know its not true. I know its in our heads and it must all be coincidental crap that we're playing on and just seeing what we want to see... but that doesn't make it any less powerful. Its real and its powerful and it can last if you're inspired to create it. I want someone who shares that inspiration, and I can tell right from the first date whether they have any of it or not.

... and no, I have not been possessed by an emotional woman who belives in astrology. ;P

Like I said, its pretty gay. I'll tell a couple first date stories tomorrow if I'm still feeling gay.



Created2Write said:


> I can see that. Personally, I wouldn't want the guy to multi-date because it'd make me feel like he knew our date wouldn't go well, so he was setting up a backup to makeup for it. Not special. And I like to feel special.


I agree.



Created2Write said:


> There's nothing wrong with feeling/wanting romance, dude. A lot of women respond really well to it, ya know.


I have a reputation to keep. ;P


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Holy crap ... I can't keep up with the dialogue and long back and forth posts

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> The word "always" is throwing me. It implies that one never messes up


That would be exactly why I need her not to just feel it from me, but be able to create it. To make magic of her own... and this has been the hardest thing for me to find of any quality. To make me see it when I can't see it. I think my current gf has it. She's the only one to last this long. She creates. I don't feel like I'm making everything happen... and that all of it that she and I feel are just the illusions I'm creating.

This really sucks to try to explain.



Created2Write said:


> So, essentially, you want someone to work _with_ you to maintain the relationship?


Sort of... but the work is more of a contribution of energy and creativity. Seeing what you want to see. Making reality.

Its not like I want to sit down and "work on us" in some verbal conversation. If what I describe is there, there is no need. There is no reasoning the things that I'm talking about. Hence my problem trying to describe it... and why I sound so vague, fluffy and nonsensical I'm sure.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> I mean...
> What a sap!
> 
> (jk jk)


I know. Don't rub it in. 

People I know call me variations on "dating bi-polar". Feeling nothing one moment and feeling "magic" the next. Ugh.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> If you could without the bonking...just for a time... and concentrate more so on getting to know these women...what makes them tick, their dreams, aspirations... push through the lust.....fertilize with some vulnerability... have you ever took this approach ..is it so outrageous to some?


Yep. Took that approach with my ex wife.

The bonking doesn't alter any of the above for me with someone I'm dating. Lust is distinctly recognizable and... different.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Man... that's a hard question to answer! I'm not really sure. If a woman gives me anything... literally anything... to work with I somehow turn it into magical things. So many magical things you'd even think "damn... that's a script."
> 
> I can't describe it without just telling cheesy stories... and I'm not really sure what turns these things into magic. All the things just fit and there's this energy about them... and you keep dating and they becomes your things, magic and unique things about you and them that you shouldn't have already. You create them with certain people. You're probably seeing magic in every stupid little coincidence. It might even be a willing fog... but what is the difference between belief and reality if both believe in and preserve the fog? You want to see it... so you see it. I want someone who wants to see.


Cheesy stories: on one of our first five dates(I think the fourth) I wore a little black dress I liked. We were going out for a nice dinner, and I wanted to dress up. It's one of my absolutely most favorite dresses. On the way home, DH was running the iPod and he played Taylor Swift's "Tim McGraw", in which she says "If you think happiness I hope you think that little black dress", and it made my heart flutter, gave my butterflies butterflies, made me smile so big my face hurt. I can't listen to that song without smiling a little bit. 

On our fifth date he played "Mary's Song" by Taylor Swift which is about a guy and a girl who meet as kids and end up getting married. He and I met as kids, and that ended up being the song I walked down the aisle to. The song still means a lot to me. It endeared me to him. 

We have a whole list of "our songs" just because he's used so many different songs at different times in our relationship which seemed to fit perfectly in what was going on at the time. It's part of the magic he and I have had. He's a musician, I'm a singer, so music has been one of the biggest ways he's communicated his feelings. 

This is part of my interpretation of "the magic".



> It sounds so cliché and gay, or delusional, but the word destiny or meant to be starts getting thrown around after a month of this stuff.


Cliche, yes. Gay or delusional, hell no. 



> Yet it doesn't have even the slightest scent of "clingy". Rather, it feels like the stars are just aligning and nature itself seems to be giving an endorsement.
> 
> Its a place where words fail and reason is suspended. Magic. A sappy sentimentality that honestly, I'm even a little embarrassed of. But its real... and I'm good at creating it I think... somehow. My cynical self wants to convince me its just some retarded feeling I have and not something real. But she feels it too... I play far too cool to ever bring up something so gay first. lol
> 
> If I were religious, I'm certain I would be claiming the guiding hand of God or some such. Rather, I think its some extension of connecting in a certain way that disarms and opens people up to the side of themselves that wants to believe in magic. That wants to believe everything happens for a reason and there are no coincidences.


Personally, I believe that everything happens for a reason, and that there are no coincidences. And it may sound dumb to others, but I believe that my husband is the only man in the world for me. I believe we were intentionally brought together; that we were meant to play tag in the second grade and be in the same class for fourth grade; I believe we were meant to go to the same church, and he was meant to scare me to death by pulling on my foot in the dark while playing sardines... I don't think I could ever love any other guy like I love my husband. 



> I know its not true. I know its in our heads and it must all be coincidental crap that we're playing on and just seeing what we want to see... but that doesn't make it any less powerful. Its real and its powerful and it can last if you're inspired to create it. I want someone who shares that inspiration, and I can tell right from the first date whether they have any of it or not.
> 
> ... and no, I have not been possessed by an emotional woman who belives in astrology. ;P
> 
> Like I said, its pretty gay. I'll tell a couple first date stories tomorrow if I'm still feeling gay.


There's nothing gay about having feelings, and wanting a strong emotional connection with someone. It's sad to me that you even see something so awesome as being something to be ashamed of.



> I agree.
> 
> I have a reputation to keep. ;P


Too bad.


----------



## always_alone

How's this for multi-dating: When my now SO called me for a first date, I invited him to join me on another date I'd already planned.

True story, although it wasn't a real date, it was prior plans to hang with a male friend of mine that I've known for years.

My SO was not at all phased by this. He came along, had a few drinks, and then left me and my friend to get staggeringly drunk together. And called me the next week to take me out (on what turned out to be another rather surreal experience)

I don't know if he was multi-dating at the time or not, and don't really care. It was clear he was into me, and it turned out that we clicked really well.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That would be exactly why I need her not to just feel it from me, but be able to create it. To make magic of her own... and this has been the hardest thing for me to find of any quality. To make me see it when I can't see it. I think my current gf has it. She's the only one to last this long. She creates. I don't feel like I'm making everything happen... and that all of it that she and I feel are just the illusions I'm creating.
> 
> This really sucks to try to explain.


Okay, so you want a girl who doesn't need you to be ontop of the magic to create her own? So that, at any given time, you're both doing something to stoke the fire, so to speak? So that if one isn't keeping up on the magic it doesn't just die?



> Sort of... but the work is more of a contribution of energy and creativity. Seeing what you want to see. Making reality.
> 
> Its not like I want to sit down and "work on us" in some verbal conversation. If what I describe is there, there is no need. There is no reasoning the things that I'm talking about. Hence my problem trying to describe it... and why I sound so vague, fluffy and nonsensical I'm sure.


You don't think communication is required to create magic? If so, that's a...far-fetched idea. It's not that DH and I sit and talk about the kind of magic we want to create or maintain, but things that are magical for him aren't necessarily magical for me. Communication helps us understand where the other is coming from. 

You sound like you don't like having talks with the women your with about your relationship with them. Maybe I'm wrong...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> How's this for multi-dating: When my now SO called me for a first date, I invited him to join me on another date I'd already planned.


Alpha as fk! Go on girl run that game! Haha That's classic. :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I would just like to announce, in order to retain my manly self-esteem after saying all this sappy ish, that I am now in the emergency room waiting for an x ray. I may have broken something in my hand at krav maga tonight. lol


----------



## Created2Write

I think your desire for emotional connection is a good thing, Dvls. Not every guy makes it a priority like you do, and I think it's great that you do. Don't feel stupid or dumb about it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Okay, so you want a girl who doesn't need you to be ontop of the magic to create her own? So that, at any given time, you're both doing something to stoke the fire, so to speak? So that if one isn't keeping up on the magic it doesn't just die?


Right. Without it, I grow distant and become increasingly unable or unwilling to keep up my level of creativity. I need a woman who brings her own creativity and energy and can pull those moments out of her butt like I do.



Created2Write said:


> You don't think communication is required to create magic? If so, that's a...far-fetched idea. It's not that DH and I sit and talk about the kind of magic we want to create or maintain, but things that are magical for him aren't necessarily magical for me. Communication helps us understand where the other is coming from.
> 
> You sound like you don't like having talks with the women your with about your relationship with them. Maybe I'm wrong...


I think a lot of magic is created verbally yes. On my first date with my gf was seemingly a date that never ended because of a conversation. I was dropping her off at her place and walked her to her door. It was maybe 2am... we ended up on her stoop talking until the sun came up - neither of us even slightly tired. It was like that could have gone on forever if we didn't get disturbed by the sun rise... and it was a gorgeous sunrise. There was magic. She laughed that we should have just gone inside and in we went. We munched some pop tarts and ended up passing out together on her couch. When we woke that afternoon we lounged around, watched a move and order pizza. I teased her about letting me sleep with her on the first date. There was a lot of magic in "the date that never ended"... because of that big conversation.

The more analytical lets work on this sort of conversation doesn't hold any magic for me. This is that love language thing again and if its an early relationship. Id just rather find someone with a compatible languages. I do understand the need for those conversations down the road but they don't tend to be magical at least they weret in my marriage.

I not a fan of meta relationships. Talking about our relationship. I'd rather be talking and having the relationship. So those are more of rare unfortunate necessities on occasion. Dunno didn't do much for my marriage. Just repeat talks about what's missing and far too little creating.

Please excuse if this is typo hell, posting from my phone is a bish and its a pita to scroll up and make changes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I think your desire for emotional connection is a good thing, Dvls. Not every guy makes it a priority like you do, and I think it's great that you do. Don't feel stupid or dumb about it.


Don't you dare start being nice to me again. ;P

Jk thanks. But even I acknowledge its a little gay and sappy. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

No, but it would be impossible for me multi-dating.


----------



## heartsbeating

Turns out my husband would be Hank, David Duchovony style, in the dating world. His view was that being up-front is the way to go, and sure, date a few people at once, why not? So long as expectations are clear from both sides.

According to hubs, "What the hell do I know, we're married!" but the contrast helps one decipher if someone is a good fit. So I asked him, but you and I weren't dating others when we met, so how does that work for contrast? Apparently that wasn't needed with ME because it's me and he knew how lucky he was; he meant everyone else out there. Right. I told him that I didn't need contrasts when dating him... and he raised a good point and said that maybe I could have done better. To which I nodded, and said, most likely. And so began a silly conversation. I don't know if I could do casual sex. Apparently my husband could. Why have a policy about it? Just go with what feels right. Then again, turns out my husband's alter ego for dating in an alternate universe is Hank Moody. And I probably wouldn't date him. I know, it gets confusing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> Cheesy stories: on one of our first five dates(I think the fourth) I wore a little black dress I liked. We were going out for a nice dinner, and I wanted to dress up. It's one of my absolutely most favorite dresses. On the way home, DH was running the iPod and he played Taylor Swift's "Tim McGraw", in which she says "If you think happiness I hope you think that little black dress", and it made my heart flutter, gave my butterflies butterflies, made me smile so big my face hurt. I can't listen to that song without smiling a little bit.


 Oh how we associate the greatest times in our lives with music... I was reading about MUSIC & it's effect on our psyche a couple months back...should have saved that article....it spoke what part of our brain was affected by music... it's the same center as Love, Romance... ..I guess that's a no brainer, isn't it [email protected]#$ ...as music has the power to move us ....deeply inspiring / impressionable.....lifts us on high... 

One article said this *>>*


> We often find ourselves relieved of anxiety by listening to music, or remembering the best of times because of one song. We can also find ourselves saddened by the lyrics of some songs and empowered by others. Personally, music is a very prominent part of my everyday life. Sometimes, I really can't imagine going through the whole day without listening to music. It can take you out of this world, out of your own thoughts, out of your troubles, sadness or anything, and land you somewhere you never knew you could go.





> *Created2Write said*: On our fifth date he played "Mary's Song" by Taylor Swift which is about a guy and a girl who meet as kids and end up getting married. He and I met as kids, and that ended up being the song I walked down the aisle to. *The song still means a lot to me. It endeared me to him. *
> 
> *We have a whole list of "our songs" just because he's used so many different songs at different times in our relationship which seemed to fit perfectly in what was going on at the time. It's part of the magic he and I have had. He's a musician, I'm a singer, so music has been one of the biggest ways he's communicated his feelings. *
> 
> *This is part of my interpretation of "the magic"*.


 So true...Every love song ushers me back in time....so many...One of my favorites is "Aint even done with the night" by Mellencamp......they carry our memories with every word.... I'll feel us riding down the country roads, windows down, music cranked... snuggled up to him in the middle . singing my heart out ...His forever song to me is "I love you" by the Climax Blues Band... anytime this comes on the radio.... I pause... gets me teary eyed....this is my husband's heart to me... 



> *Personally, I believe that everything happens for a reason, and that there are no coincidences*. And it may sound dumb to others, but I believe that my husband is the only man in the world for me. I believe we were intentionally brought together; that we were meant to play tag in the second grade and be in the same class for fourth grade; I believe we were meant to go to the same church, and he was meant to scare me to death by pulling on my foot in the dark while playing sardines... I don't think I could ever love any other guy like I love my husband.


 Because I literally got down on my knees at age 15 and said a prayer to meet a GOOD Guy who loved me *FOR ME*... and met him 3 months later at a new school - at the lunch table... his friends sick that day (fate?)... while a friend of mine called him over to our table... just how our story played out....

Coincidence... I don't know.. but I do fancy the idea their was a divine hand in our meeting... Looking over my young life, the hardships I faced...I believe I was more receptive to *his type*.. .where if my life had been easier/ carefree, I might not have been and overlooked him, "friend zoned" one of the good ones.. 



> *There's nothing gay about having feelings, and wanting a strong emotional connection with someone. It's sad to me that you even see something so awesome as being something to be ashamed of.*


 Flow with it, I say..


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Understood. Do you get that it isn't about vanity or ego for many people?


Provided men aren't paying their way for dates. Otherwise I feel there is a sense of privilege to it. If they insisted to pay their own way, I believe women wouldn't be doing so much multi-dating. Certainly not the 20-somethings that I date. Most of them are fairly broke. Having many men pay the way while trying to outcompete each other for her attention has an acrid taste imo.

That's not to say that these women aren't completely within their right to do whatever they want, and some guy completely within his right to be one of her dates paying tribute to vie for her attention. That's totally up to them regardless of what I think about it.

Oh and my hand is broken. 4 and 5th metacarpals.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Right. Without it, I grow distant and become increasingly unable or unwilling to keep up my level of creativity. I need a woman who brings her own creativity and energy and can pull those moments out of her butt like I do.
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of magic is created verbally yes. On my first date with my gf was seemingly a date that never ended because of a conversation. I was dropping her off at her place and walked her to her door. It was maybe 2am... we ended up on her stoop talking until the sun came up - neither of us even slightly tired. It was like that could have gone on forever if we didn't get disturbed by the sun rise... and it was a gorgeous sunrise. There was magic. She laughed that we should have just gone inside and in we went. We munched some pop tarts and ended up passing out together on her couch. When we woke that afternoon we lounged around, watched a move and order pizza. I teased her about letting me sleep with her on the first date. There was a lot of magic in "the date that never ended"... because of that big conversation.
> 
> The more analytical lets work on this sort of conversation doesn't hold any magic for me. This is that love language thing again and if its an early relationship. Id just rather find someone with a compatible languages. I do understand the need for those conversations down the road but they don't tend to be magical at least they weret in my marriage.
> 
> I not a fan of meta relationships. Talking about our relationship. I'd rather be talking and having the relationship. So those are more of rare unfortunate necessities on occasion. Dunno didn't do much for my marriage. Just repeat talks about what's missing and far too little creating.
> 
> Please excuse if this is typo hell, posting from my phone is a bish and its a pita to scroll up and make changes.


I understand. DH and I don't have entirely compatible love languages, and while the conversations aren't magical themselves, they help us to maintain the magic. Knowing what speaks to my husband is very important to me. I can't expect him to feel loved by the language that speaks love to me. I have to show him love in the way he speaks it. Over the course of our relationship his emotional needs have changed. The primary emotional need he had when we first married isn't even really a need for him any longer, and without the conversations, I wouldn't know about those changes. 

You had a negative experience in your marriage with a woman who was preoccupied with things that distracted her from her relationship with you. Don't let that experience define the relationships you have in the future. Sure, the love language conversations aren't fun or exciting, but they're necessary in maintaining deep emotional connection. For example: DH has struggled our entire marriage to voice his negative feelings. He doesn't communicate with me when he's dissatisfied with my efforts. He'll vent about his work, but when it comes to us, he holds his negative feelings inside because he thinks that being honest about he feels will hurt me. I've spent the last four years trying to help him understand that that isn't the case. He avoids those negative conversations, thinking that it'll help things stay more positive, but it actually sabotages our relationship because it makes me feel like he doesn't trust me enough to share his true feelings with me. If he can't share with me his true negative feelings, then they will sit and fester; how is he going to be able to share his positive feelings with resentment in the way? 

I'm not saying you're withholding feelings, just to be clear. But it does seem like you want to avoid any negative or uncomfortable experiences with your gf; you want to just enjoy the good. But as I've tried telling my husband, part of enjoying the good is learning to face the bad and push through it, which makes the good so much greater, the magic so much stronger. It strengthens trust. You likely won't need to have these discussions for a while, but when they do come up, I encourage you to embrace them. You might be surprised at the good they do.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh how we associate the greatest times in our lives with music... I was reading about MUSIC & it's effect on our psyche a couple months back...should have saved that article....it spoke what part of our brain was affected by music... it's the same center as Love, Romance... ..I guess that's a no brainer, isn't it [email protected]#$ ...as music has the power to move us ....deeply inspiring / impressionable.....lifts us on high...
> 
> One article said this *>>*
> 
> So true...Every love song ushers me back in time....so many...One of my favorites is "Aint even done with the night" by Mellencamp......they carry our memories with every word.... I'll feel us riding down the country roads, windows down, music cranked... snuggled up to him in the middle . singing my heart out ...His forever song to me is "I love you" by the Climax Blues Band... anytime this comes on the radio.... I pause... gets me teary eyed....this is my husband's heart to me...
> 
> Because I literally got down on my knees at age 15 and said a prayer to meet a GOOD Guy who loved me *FOR ME*... and met him 3 months later at a new school - at the lunch table... his friends sick that day (fate?)... while a friend of mine called him over to our table... just how our story played out....
> 
> Coincidence... I don't know.. but I do fancy the idea their was a divine hand in our meeting... Looking over my young life, the hardships I faced...I believe I was more receptive to *his type*.. .where if my life had been easier/ carefree, I might not have been and overlooked him, "friend zoned" one of the good ones..
> 
> Flow with it, I say..


Oh gosh, music has been such a big part of our relationship. We used to go on long drives every week, singing together and listening to our favorites. We're thinking about driving to the beach for a day after Thanksgiving, and if we do I'm looking forward to listening to those songs again.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> * If they insisted to pay their own way, I believe women wouldn't be doing so much multi-dating. *


 I look at this completely different (what else is new).. I would offer to pay my own way for a 1st meeting BECAUSE of wanting to meet a variety and I wouldn't feel it "right" to get all those free meals... I would consider that "using men" , taking advantage..... 

Even though I am more old fashioned in almost every way (& my husband is the type that would insist on paying -even)... I am a bit feminist on this one... until a relationship is established...feeling we were "an item"....

...at that point... I'd happily allow him to pick up the tab...and hopefully I didn't spoil him and he wouldn't! 



> *Oh and my hand is broken. 4 and 5th metacarpals.*


I had no idea what Krav Maga was , so I looked it up...











> *Created2write said*:* I understand. DH and I don't have entirely compatible love languages, and while the conversations aren't magical themselves, they help us to maintain the magic. Knowing what speaks to my husband is very important to me. I can't expect him to feel loved by the language that speaks love to me. I have to show him love in the way he speaks it.* Over the course of our relationship his emotional needs have changed. The primary emotional need he had when we first married isn't even really a need for him any longer, and without the conversations, I wouldn't know about those changes.


I didn't know anything about these *Love Languages *way back when..... yet we both felt a sense of fulfillment being together... our self confidence grew just because we were in each others life....I felt very loved by his touch (something I never got at home at all... not even hugs, or anything..me & my GF used to scratch each others backs- that was my fill)...

...And I knew HE felt LOVED by my wanting to spend so much *time* with him....without either of us understanding these things...it was just in the air...come to learn later ...after getting the "5 Love languages" book.... ours were all in the same order.... 

He is a little more Touch over me.. but Touch, Time, Words of Affirmation are our top 3... he is a few digits higher on "Acts of service" .. we both have 0 for gifts.. 

Yesterday was my B-day.. No card, no present.... just his arms around me, whispering he wants me in my B-day suit... that's all I need... and I'm flying high... 

I feel His Needs, Her Needs: Building an Affair-Proof Marriage  is a better book though with those 10 core emotional needs listed & explained so perfectly - in each chapter..... I have this in my car ...so when I need to kill time picking kids up at events, I read a page here & there.... 

I think it's the best Marriage book on the market ....if we fall down  in any of these...a couple is asking for some marital issues.... we may feel more strongly about this one over that one.. but really, they are all important..




> 10 Emotional needs:
> 
> 
> 1. *Admiration*
> 2. *Affection*
> 3. *Conversation*
> 4. *Domestic support*
> 5. *Family commitment*
> 6.* Financial support*
> 7. *Honesty and openness*
> 8. *Physical attractiveness*
> 9. *Recreational companionship*
> 10. *Sexual fulfillment*


----------



## Jellybeans

SimplyAmorous said:


> Now here is the funny thing... I would PREFER MEN THAT THINK LIKE THIS.... (Yeah those 1 woman types , honorable in all their ways - I love them!)...
> 
> And honestly I wouldn't like the idea of a guy dating a # of women -if I was 1 at the same


I feel similarly. :iagree:



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It sounds so cliché and gay, or delusional, but the word destiny or meant to be starts getting thrown around after a month of this stuff. Yet it doesn't have even the slightest scent of "clingy". Rather, it feels like the stars are just aligning and nature itself seems to be giving an endorsement.


I know what you are describing. I have felt that connectivity before. It has not happened often to me, since falling in love is a once-in-a-blue-moon kind of thing for me (thank God) but when it happens, it's obvious. It snaps, crackles and pops and there is just an moment where it is recognizable. No words even have to be exchanged. It is something I have felt in me. And I knew that it was going to be a Big Deal. The first time it ever happened, it was with my first love. I was sixteen. There was just a recognizing weird cosmic force. I am 32 now and he and I are still friends and he will always always have a special place in my heart. Our lives have gone in different directions but when I see him, every blue moon, that cosmic connectivity is still there.

Crazy.

Weird how that happens. It's bizarre! 




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I would just like to announce, in order to retain my manly self-esteem after saying all this sappy ish, that I am now in the emergency room waiting for an x ray. I may have broken something in my hand at krav maga tonight. lol


Hehehe. :rofl: Sorry to hear of your broken bones. Hope you mend quickly.

Nothing wrong with feeling emotional.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Having many men pay the way while trying to outcompete each other for her attention has an acrid taste imo.


No one likes to be used. *That's* what I've been trying to say for those 100s of pages of arguments we've had.


----------



## always_alone

Jellybeans said:


> It has not happened often to me, since falling in love is a once-in-a-blue-moon kind of thing for me (thank God) but when it happens, it's obvious. It snaps, crackles and pops and there is just an moment where it is recognizable. No words even have to be exchanged.


My experience is much more akin to FrenchFry's. Snap, crackle and pop are more likely to lead to disaster than anything else, and so I keep him at arm's length until I know he is good for me. 

I don't believe in magic. Really, it's just simple distraction techniques where the hand is quicker than the eye.

I do believe in love, though.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> No one likes to be used. *That's* what I've been trying to say for those 100s of pages of arguments we've had.


I understand exactly what you're arguing and I agree nobody likes being used. Where I think I've been speaking past you is that in that its the person with the concern's responsibility to act in a manner that mitigates the risk. I don't expect a woman to voluntarily jump out with "Oh, I'm seeing other people" simply because I've asked her out. Rather it is my responsibility to say "are you seeing anyone?" It's direct and point blank. The answer determines whether I ask her out or not. 

Well, almost. In addition to discovering multi-dating is more widely accepted than I had presumed (read: lower risk than I thought for ending up in a situation I don't want), I've also discovered a tendency to deceive as to whether they ARE in fact dating someone - or give a vague answer like: "no, nothing serious". Translation: "I'm not in a committed relationship, but I am currently going on dates with another guy." The proper answer to the question is "Yes, I'm seeing someone." Clever follow on conversation and questions get me a fuller picture of how she dates without making me look possessive... which, really, I'm not. I just don't want to try to invest any of my energy in a woman who's investing hers in other men if I'm hoping to find an emotional connection with her. That's me taking responsibility for my outcomes such that the woman would have to be a real piece of work to get past.

People confuse this as "requiring up front commitment". Commitment means something entirely different to my thinking. To me, lack of commitment is saying that this ends at the drop of a hat, not that we're dating other people. Dating other people says to me you're still single. To me, if you're dating someone you're off the market not accepting dates as a single person would or at the least not dating back and forth. If I can't get her excited about a date with me enough that she's willing to forgo other dates... then she's not for me. First date, second date... 10th date... doesn't matter to me. I don't desire to get married and think back about how my wife was so into me and excited about me that she kept dating others for another couple months. That says to me that she wasn't very into me, and it was really just about what was available to her. I wasn't special. I was just the best of the lot she had to choose from. With no commitment, either of us may not seek a second date at will for any reason and have no expectation otherwise. We may accept a date with someone else, at the cost of any future dates together. If I have made so little an impression that one is still actively seeking dates... then she should go date them. We're not committed and we're not going to try to work anything out. 

Commitment, to me, is continued dating with an acceptance that problems may creep up but we're not going anywhere. I want to work through them with you because I feel something for you and I've determined that we're worth putting that effort into. Someone may ask you out but you absolutely will not accept. A committed relationship ends as a result of issues that have been worked on, and cannot be resolved despite significant efforts. The only distinguishing characteristics differentiating a committed relationship from a marriage, are social and legal.

Despite my efforts someone could still dupe me into pursuing what I don't want, but I've done my due diligence to mitigate to my satisfaction. I apply the exact same logic to casual sex. But in your arguments, it is the woman you're saying is being "used" by the man having casual sex with her without first clarifying that its "just sex". Personal responsibility dictates that a woman who doesn't want this bears the responsibility of mitigating this risk. Just as I ask "are you seeing anyone" and then some because of the risks I perceive in winding up with an outcome I don't want, the woman should question his commitment.

Women have an even more effective tool here in their efforts to mitigate the risk of a man with intentions to use her for sex. She can make him wait longer to get sex and he'll very likely leave for greener pastures.

However, just as my choice costs me women with whom I may have been plenty compatible otherwise, this choice to make men wait may come at the cost of losing a legitimately good guy's interest... because sex is just as important to us as affection and commitment. Without sex, I think most if not all men WILL lose romantic interest... just as they would without affection or commitment.

A man's ability is more limited. Don't buy her dinner? This is widely considered a dating faux pas. A signal of disinterest or that he's simply cheap... or broke. Women can go feminazi about their independence and clear willingness to pay their own way, but at the end of the day the vast majority still prefers the traditional, chivalrous, gentlemanly gesture of his taking care of the bill. A token symbol of his affection, interest, ability to provide for her and desire to share what he has with her.

But regardless, it is no one's responsibility to mitigate your risks but your own. Cheating, lying, and using is not the exclusive domain of men or women... so there's no point to rail about the "usings" of men. Its not some special case exempt from criticism while women should be shamed either. Lying is always wrong, but if you do nothing to protect yourself you're part of your own problem. The man who is burglarized repeatedly will eventually learn to lock the door... and it does him no good to rail about the despicable thief. He's a thief... what does he care? Neither should the man who is robbed expect that everyone in the world is out to rob him.

That's what I mean by "own it." I wish we could agree on this.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wow... that was a book. One of these days I'll learn how to be concise and the world will rejoice.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wow... that was a book. One of these days I'll learn how to be concise and the world will rejoice.


Dude, I may have to schedule an appointment just to read that. 

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's what I mean by "own it." I wish we could agree on this.


Oh fer gawd's sake. I never said anything about upfront commitment. Ever. Nor did I say it was all on the man. What I said was communication and honesty, which apparently you look for too, despite your protestations to the contrary.

The rest is just doublespeak and doublethink to rationalize your double standard.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Oh fer gawd's sake. I never said anything about upfront commitment. Ever. Nor did I say it was all on the man. What I said was communication and honesty, which apparently you look for too, despite your protestations to the contrary.
> 
> The rest is just doublespeak and doublethink to rationalize your double standard.


I don't know what you're talking about. I have no double standard. Whoever has a concern needs to bring it up.

You seem to expect other people to bring up your concerns for you. If they don't and you turn out to be wrong, you think they've misled you. Frankly, that's wrong headed imo.

Your case is of a man who has sex with a woman and bolts. I'm not at all fazed by that either in casual sex or dating. If someone goes on a date and subsequently bolts nobody bats an eye... that's not using. But omg if there was sex and someone bolts then someone got used? My concern is that someone I'm dating is not dating other people, so I ask - else I have no reason to expect to get what I want. If your concern is that a guy only wants sex, then guess who the task of finding out falls on? Else you have no right to claim you got used.

Where's the inconsistency?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You seem to expect other people to bring up your concerns for you. If they don't and you turn out to be wrong, you think they've misled you. Frankly, that's wrong headed imo.


Repeat:. I never said that other people need to bring up my concerns for me. Ever. I said they should communicate honestly.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your case is of a man who has sex with a woman and bolts. I'm not at all fazed by that either in casual sex or dating. If someone goes on a date and subsequently bolts nobody bats an eye... that's not using. But omg if there was sex and someone bolts then someone got used? My concern is that someone I'm dating is not dating other people, so I ask - else I have no reason to expect to get what I want. If your concern is that a guy only wants sex, then guess who the task of finding out falls on? Else you have no right to claim you got used.
> 
> Where's the inconsistency?


Repeat:. My case is *not* of a man who bolts, but of a person who views another as a simple object put there for their amusement, rather than an actual human being deserving of respect and consideration. Put another way, someone who views the score as more important than the human they are scoring with.

You do not see men who do this as "using" a woman. I get that. A lot of men can't see it. My guess is that this is largely due to prevailing cultural attitudes that women mostly are just objects for male gratification. Certainly I can see how this attitude would easily lend itself to exhortations that there is no need to exercise any form of care or consideration and that communication is a pointless waste of time, etc., and so on.

Where is the inconsistency? I'd say it lies in a few different places:
1) Your easy recognition that a man is being used when a woman is playing him for free dinners, but your refusal to see any resemblance of this to a man playing a woman for sex.
2) Your insistence that women take personal responsibility for their choices to have sex, etc, but your complaints that men don't have these same choices or responsibility. No, the poor boys *have* to pay.
3) Your pages and pages of how men shouldn't be asked to communicate, it's all in the actions, and words are pointless cuz the women should be smart enough to *know* the man doesn't give a rat's a$$ about her (no matter what he says or does) and your easy recognition that women deliberately use ambiguity to hedge and hide how they feel to lead men on. Not to mention that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
4) Your assertions that women should just freely give what they feel and want to, and not worry about whether it's reciprocated, but that men are made to look like fools by "spoiled princesses" should they do the same thing. 

I could probably go on, but that will do for now. No doubt this will spark plenty more rationalizations as to why I'm full of it and why you're justified in continuing your double standards.

That's okay, though. I've finally figured out what's going on here. And FWIW, it has at least been timely and helpful to me to hash out my thoughts and feelings on some of these matters.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I understand exactly what you're arguing and I agree nobody likes being used. Where I think I've been speaking past you is that in that its the person with the concern's responsibility to act in a manner that mitigates the risk. I don't expect a woman to voluntarily jump out with "Oh, I'm seeing other people" simply because I've asked her out. Rather it is my responsibility to say "are you seeing anyone?" It's direct and point blank. The answer determines whether I ask her out or not.


I don't disagree with this at all. If I have a specific concern regarding someone I'm interested in, it definitely is my responsibility to clarify with them whether or not my concern is valid. However, if I'm in a lifestyle that I know could effect someone else's choice to date me, I think that I _also_ have a responsibility to let the guy know, whether he asks or not. You feel very strongly about multi-dating, so you're very proactive about it. That's very mature. But not every guy is as proactive as you, which is why I think it's important for the person in the potentially controversial lifestyle to be upfront about their dating other people. 

Neither one is entirely responsible, but I do think they're both equally responsible.



> Well, almost. In addition to discovering multi-dating is more widely accepted than I had presumed (read: lower risk than I thought for ending up in a situation I don't want), I've also discovered a tendency to deceive as to whether they ARE in fact dating someone - or give a vague answer like: "no, nothing serious". Translation: "I'm not in a committed relationship, but I am currently going on dates with another guy." The proper answer to the question is "Yes, I'm seeing someone." Clever follow on conversation and questions get me a fuller picture of how she dates without making me look possessive... which, really, I'm not. I just don't want to try to invest any of my energy in a woman who's investing hers in other men if I'm hoping to find an emotional connection with her. That's me taking responsibility for my outcomes such that the woman would have to be a real piece of work to get past.


Which is very responsible. Dating/relationships is already incredibly complicated and ambiguous. Starting with honesty at the forefront, at least, ensures that both are starting on the same page.



> People confuse this as "requiring up front commitment". Commitment means something entirely different to my thinking.


Being honesty doesn't mean commitment at all. I do think it helps to pave the road to commitment, but it isn't commitment itself. Not at all. 



> To me, lack of commitment is saying that this ends at the drop of a hat, not that we're dating other people. Dating other people says to me you're still single. To me, if you're dating someone you're off the market not accepting dates as a single person would or at the least not dating back and forth. If I can't get her excited about a date with me enough that she's willing to forgo other dates... then she's not for me. First date, second date... 10th date... doesn't matter to me. I don't desire to get married and think back about how my wife was so into me and excited about me that she kept dating others for another couple months. That says to me that she wasn't very into me, and it was really just about what was available to her. I wasn't special. I was just the best of the lot she had to choose from. With no commitment, either of us may not seek a second date at will for any reason and have no expectation otherwise. We may accept a date with someone else, at the cost of any future dates together. If I have made so little an impression that one is still actively seeking dates... then she should go date them. We're not committed and we're not going to try to work anything out.


I agree and would feel the same way.



> Commitment, to me, is continued dating with an acceptance that problems may creep up but we're not going anywhere. I want to work through them with you because I feel something for you and I've determined that we're worth putting that effort into. Someone may ask you out but you absolutely will not accept. A committed relationship ends as a result of issues that have been worked on, and cannot be resolved despite significant efforts. The only distinguishing characteristics differentiating a committed relationship from a marriage, are social and legal.


For myself, I agree with this too. My mom multi-dated, even after she met my dad. I don't really know her reasons, but I do know that there was a significant moment when she realized that she couldn't stop thinking about my dad. None of the other guys even made a dent in her emotions like my dad did. And it was then that she was all about him and no one else. 

Personally, I don't understand how/why it took so long for him to stand out like that, or if it was just her not wanting to date a nerd like him, or what it was. But, I'm not my mom. I didn't go through what she did. The important thing, for me, is that she _did_ find the man who made her happy.



> Despite my efforts someone could still dupe me into pursuing what I don't want, but I've done my due diligence to mitigate to my satisfaction. I apply the exact same logic to casual sex. But in your arguments, it is the woman you're saying is being "used" by the man having casual sex with her without first clarifying that its "just sex". Personal responsibility dictates that a woman who doesn't want this bears the responsibility of mitigating this risk. Just as I ask "are you seeing anyone" and then some because of the risks I perceive in winding up with an outcome I don't want, the woman should question his commitment.


I don't think a woman is being used just because a man wants casual sex, and I don't see that AA has said that either. For me, a woman is used if the man lies about his intentions to get casual sex. Now, I agree that she should clarify if she's that concerned. But I don't agree that the man bears no responsibility. Being responsible is on both individuals, regardless of their relation to each other, imo. Neither is entirely responsible, but both bear responsibility.



> Women have an even more effective tool here in their efforts to mitigate the risk of a man with intentions to use her for sex. She can make him wait longer to get sex and he'll very likely leave for greener pastures.


Also true. I've done this in my own life, as I talked about before. And it definitely worked. 



> However, just as my choice costs me women with whom I may have been plenty compatible otherwise, this choice to make men wait may come at the cost of losing a legitimately good guy's interest... because sex is just as important to us as affection and commitment. Without sex, I think most if not all men WILL lose romantic interest... just as they would without affection or commitment.


If a guy isn't willing to wait until the woman is comfortable having sex with him, then he isn't the guy for me. Personally, I would never call such a guy a "good guy". Yeah, sex is a majorly important sign of affection to men and women. But trust is just as important, and it takes trust to give something so intimate to a man. 



> A man's ability is more limited. Don't buy her dinner? This is widely considered a dating faux pas. A signal of disinterest or that he's simply cheap... or broke. Women can go feminazi about their independence and clear willingness to pay their own way, but at the end of the day the vast majority still prefers the traditional, chivalrous, gentlemanly gesture of his taking care of the bill. A token symbol of his affection, interest, ability to provide for her and desire to share what he has with her.
> 
> But regardless, it is no one's responsibility to mitigate your risks but your own. Cheating, lying, and using is not the exclusive domain of men or women... so there's no point to rail about the "usings" of men. Its not some special case exempt from criticism while women should be shamed either. Lying is always wrong, but if you do nothing to protect yourself you're part of your own problem. The man who is burglarized repeatedly will eventually learn to lock the door... and it does him no good to rail about the despicable thief. He's a thief... what does he care? Neither should the man who is robbed expect that everyone in the world is out to rob him.


But that doesn't mean that the thief bears no responsibility to stop stealing. 

There's no such thing as one person bearing all of the responsibility when it comes to human interaction and relationships. We all bear the responsibility to be honest about our expectations. 



> That's what I mean by "own it." I wish we could agree on this.


The thief needs to own his responsibility too, though, which is where the disagreement lies.


----------



## Created2Write

To clarify, Dvls: a man wanting casual sex isn't what makes a man a user. Women want casual sex to. The "using" comes in the idea that the mean bears so responsibility in his actions, and I don't mean commitment. A man who wants casual sex and no commitment isn't necessarily a user, either. You've said that lying is always wrong, so I don't think you support a man being dishonest about his expectations. But, when it comes to casual sex, you place all of the responsibility on the woman to voice her concerns and expectations, and place absolutely none on the man. _That_ is what I disagree with.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Repeat:. I never said that other people need to bring up my concerns for me. Ever. I said they should communicate honestly.


Which is code for "bring up my concerns for me". They are communicating honestly! They haven't made an expression of anything other than "You're not. Let's have sex."

You've repeatedly expressed that they should somehow say "Hey, you know this is just sex right?" This is demanding they bring your concern up for you. No kidding its just sex, you just met! If you jump in the sack with someone with so little invested, there is simply no other reasonable conclusion. They've given you nothing but sex.

Since I've been single, every time I have had casual sex its been done honestly and I've never stopped to make sure they were okay with casual sex. They were there doing what I was doing, pursuing it exactly as I was. I didn't whisper sweet nothings in their ear or cite poetry, pay for a bunch of dates, or mislead them into thinking any sort of relationship existed (ok, there was that one time I mislead someone).



always_alone said:


> Repeat:. My case is *not* of a man who bolts, but of a person who views another as a simple object put there for their amusement, rather than an actual human being deserving of respect and consideration. Put another way, someone who views the score as more important than the human they are scoring with.


Just as some people multi-date, there are people who have no issues with hooking up... women too. So all of these people only view each other as objects and scores? I don't think I've ever treated a hookup as just a notch on my bedpost.



always_alone said:


> You do not see men who do this as "using" a woman. I get that. A lot of men can't see it. My guess is that this is largely due to prevailing cultural attitudes that women mostly are just objects for male gratification. Certainly I can see how this attitude would easily lend itself to exhortations that there is no need to exercise any form of care or consideration and that communication is a pointless waste of time, etc., and so on.


The proof of just what complete cr*ap this paragraph is, is that women do this too!! I'm not hooking up with women who didn't do exactly as I was doing, wanting exactly what I wanted. Did they use me? lol

Go on AA, explain how the terrible man is at fault here for using the poor whittle woman who walked out of the bar with him, pushed him in the alley way, undid his pants and went to town.

Clearly I *suckered* her into it. I can only imagine you think its a lot easier to dupe women than I do... because of course they couldn't be willingly doing these things of their own free will. 



always_alone said:


> Where is the inconsistency? I'd say it lies in a few different places:
> 1) Your easy recognition that a man is being used when a woman is playing him for free dinners, but your refusal to see any resemblance of this to a man playing a woman for sex.


For the billionth time, her having sex does NOT mean she was played if he doesn't stick around. This is EXACTLY the same as my buying dinner on date 1 not guaranteeing that she sticks around for date 2.

Neither does my buying dinner guarantee me that she's not seeing other people. To be USED, you have to end up with something you didn't want. If you didn't take appropriate care to express your wants, then you can't complain when they are NOT met.



always_alone said:


> 2) Your insistence that women take personal responsibility for their choices to have sex, etc, but your complaints that men don't have these same choices or responsibility. No, the poor boys *have* to pay.


That is not even remotely close to what I said. How many times have I said its my responsibility to ask if a woman is seeing other men? Probably a dozen by now. Why do you refuse to see this? I keep saying over and over that it is the person with the concern who bears the responsibility of making sure what they're getting is what they want. That's a pretty damn clear statement. How on earth you could see that as having any sort of gender hypocrisy is beyond me.



always_alone said:


> 3) Your pages and pages of how men shouldn't be asked to communicate, it's all in the actions, and words are pointless cuz the women should be smart enough to *know* the man doesn't give a rat's a$$ about her (no matter what he says or does) and your easy recognition that women deliberately use ambiguity to hedge and hide how they feel to lead men on. Not to mention that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.


It is not necessary to communicate that which DOESNT exist. "Hey, that over there... that's not my house." Its sheer nonsense! As an Atheist, this is a point I have to make in religious discussion all the time. I'm regularly asked what proof I have that there's no God. The burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative. Similarly, the burden is not on the person who doesn't have the issue to bring the issue up. This is YOUR responsibility.

I don't believe women use ambiguity to hedge and hide how they feel. I have no expectation that they feel anything at all... we just met! I believe women do so to increase their dating opportunities. Many try to omit their multi-dating when asked... I assume just because they might not get the date I'm about to ask her out on (and she's right). If a woman wants to know that there's something more to a hookup than just sex, then its her responsibility to find out if he hasn't expressed it. If he omits or lies about it, he's the same as the omitting multi-daters. This is inconsistency??

My whole point was that while all I can do is ask in order to vet these women. Women can ask AND withhold sex to vet these men. Giving women a greater ability to sniff out those who seek to give them that which they don't want.

There's nothing inconsistent about that. Its truth.



always_alone said:


> 4) Your assertions that women should just freely give what they feel and want to, and not worry about whether it's reciprocated, but that men are made to look like fools by "spoiled princesses" should they do the same thing.


Here, you've clearly misunderstood. Do you really think I'm not giving freely to a woman I've chosen to pursue a romantic interest in? I believe everyone should give freely and judge based on what they receive back whether they should stay or not. That doesn't mean that you give those affections to just anyone. I don't ask out ugly women. I don't ask out women who are dating other men. I don't ask out women with poor attitudes. But when I have chosen someone who meets my dating conditions, I absolutely give freely. If I'm feeling it, I show it progressively... regardless of what she's doing. If I don't get those things back, then its time for me to go. A person has no reason to believe something exists if its not being shown. The default is "no, its not there." 

You're comparing apples and oranges here a bit. The "spoiled princess" is the woman eagerly accepting the affections and gifts of MULTIPLE men, putting no real value in their efforts except to satisfy her own desire to be entertained... because "its fun". If her men are knowingly and willingly engaging in this with her, great! She's still a spoiled princess imo, just as those who despise casual sex might call me a player or a male sl*t. I have no objection to how I'm categorized according to their values. What I refuse to be categorized as is a USER as if I'm deceiving a women by not telling her that this isn't something I've given her no reason to believe it is - and she hasn't expressed any concern of it not being. The princess similarly isn't a USER unless she's lied to these men, and they don't know she's dating all these other men at once in spite of their desire to date one on one. But like I'd still be called a male sl*t, I still call them spoiled princesses.

This is inconsistent?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> To clarify, Dvls: a man wanting casual sex isn't what makes a man a user. Women want casual sex to. The "using" comes in the idea that the mean bears so responsibility in his actions, and I don't mean commitment. A man who wants casual sex and no commitment isn't necessarily a user, either. You've said that lying is always wrong, so I don't think you support a man being dishonest about his expectations. But, when it comes to casual sex, you place all of the responsibility on the woman to voice her concerns and expectations, and place absolutely none on the man. _That_ is what I disagree with.


This is exactly my position for both casual sex and dating. I place no responsibility for the woman's concerns on the man. The woman's concerns and expectations are her responsibility. I place no responsibility for the man's concerns on the woman. The man's concerns and expectations are his responsibility.

If you doubt something, its up to you to seek clarification if you really need it. Your doubt indicates it hasn't been shown to you. In effect, you have no reason to believe the thing you expect exists. Thus, you should assume it does not. You should have no expectation of them to clarify that this is what you want for you. If I go on a date with someone without asking if they're seeing multiple people or I accept the risk that they may be, then I don't care much. Until fairly recently, I never did... it was rare that I encountered someone who was dating multiple people and I assumed the practice was less accepted than it turns out to be. As such, I've adjusted. As for casual sex, if a woman gets sexual with me without even getting to know me well... hey, she's just told me what she expects.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Examples of the absurdity of the "honest" communication I feel is being suggested here.

Man has first date with brunette. Out of nowhere, tells brunette, "I like blondes better, just so we're clear where you stand."

Woman and man just met and end up throwing around sexual innuendos and playfully grabbing each other. He teases her and eventually she can't take it anymore, grabs him my the wrist and says "let's go". He stops her and says, "Hang on babe, I need to tell you that I don't care about you."

smdh.

That chick at the pantsless beer pong party I went to must have been asking me to clarify my interest in her as a person when she walked up to me, stuck her @ss in my crotch and started grinding on me in her panties. I'm such a jerk for taking her to the bedroom later that night.... I've clearly used her. 

This is so frustrating to me.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is exactly my position for both casual sex and dating. I place no responsibility for the woman's concerns on the man. The woman's concerns and expectations are her responsibility. I place no responsibility for the man's concerns on the woman. The man's concerns and expectations are his responsibility.


Like I said in my longer post, I don't believe there is every a time when one person bears all of the responsibility in a human interaction. Or, at least, it's very rare. A man wanting casual sex without commitment isn't a jerk or a user or a player. Honestly, I don't see sex as the issue here. The issue is whether or not the man bears responsibility for voicing his intentions. You say he doesn't. You also say that a woman doesn't bear responsibility for letting the guy know she's multi-dating. I don't agree. Knowing that the person I'm with could object to my choices, to me, means that I need to be honest. 

A different example; I grew up in church. DH and I went to the same church. We started dating and I felt it was obvious that sex was off the table, and that included oral sex and manual stimulation. To me, this was obvious. I was in church every Sunday, we'd gone to the same church for over eight years. Yet, I still told him upfront about my boundaries. I did this for both myself and him. Just because he's in church didn't mean he shared my boundaries. 



> If you doubt something, its up to you to seek clarification if you really need it. Your doubt indicates it hasn't been shown to you. In effect, you have no reason to believe the thing you expect exists. Thus, you should assume it does not. You should have no expectation of them to clarify that this is what you want for you. If I go on a date with someone without asking if they're seeing multiple people or I accept the risk that they may be, then I don't care much. Until fairly recently, I never did... it was rare that I encountered someone who was dating multiple people and I assumed the practice was less accepted than it turns out to be. As such, I've adjusted. As for casual sex, if a woman gets sexual with me without even getting to know me well... hey, she's just told me what she expects.


I still can't agree. I don't think this is necessary a wrong way to do things, but I don't think it's considerate. I would rather be completely honest, even about things that seem obvious, than cause harm to someone else.


----------



## Created2Write

That was hyperbole, and not even close to an accurate representation of what's being said.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Just because he's in church didn't mean he shared my boundaries.


You point this out to counter my view, but to my thinking, you've done exactly as I've explained.

Key words: YOUR BOUNDARY. Your responsibility. That's why you felt a need to express it to him.

It was not his responsibility to say, "We're not going to do anything sexual because you have x boundaries." He doesn't even know your boundaries. If you're acting the opposite, he can reasonably assume you don't have them. Its not his responsibility to enforce your boundaries.

This is all the same thing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> That was hyperbole, and not even close to an accurate representation of what's being said.


Its not? If I've read you and AA correctly, you're both saying I should have told crotch grinding chick "Hey, you know you don't mean anything to me right?"

If not... then I'm not sure what you believe a man should do. Casual sex is pretty damn cut and dry in my experience.

Give me a scenario where a guy hasn't lied and should be considered to be using a woman.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not? If I've read you and AA correctly, you're both saying I should have told crotch grinding chick "Hey, you know you don't mean anything to me right?"
> 
> If not... then I'm not sure what you believe a man should do. Casual sex is pretty damn cut and dry in my experience.
> 
> Give me a scenario where a guy hasn't lied and should be considered to be using a woman.


The last sentence proves you're not understanding what we're saying. Neither AA and I have said that having sex with a woman means a man is using her. A woman having sex with a man doesn't mean she's using him. 

The only point being made is that we believe being upfront about ones expectations and intentions is a respectful thing to do. And no, I don't think anyone should say "You don't mean anything to me". That's an awful thing to say. Even if the only "meaning" a man has toward a woman is physical gratification, there's still meaning there. Even if temporary. 

For me, all that I think a man should say is one clarifying statement, even if it seems absurdly obvious already: "I'm only interested in sex". If he doesn't say this, I don't think he's using her. Because I'm inclined to agree that having sex with someone the day you meet them is rather obvious. But I still think it's the respectful thing to do. Likewise, if she's looking for a relationship, she should be respectful enough to let him know. 

Not every casual sex scenario involves strangers either, but regardless, I believe both should respect the other to voice their intentions. If they don't I don't think it means they're using them, but I do think it opens the door for unnecessary drama. 

I am all about mutuality. If something applies to one person in a given situation, it should apply to the other as well. I don't believe one only one person bearing all of the responsibility.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're comparing apples and oranges here a bit. The "spoiled princess" is the woman eagerly accepting the affections and gifts of MULTIPLE men, putting no real value in their efforts except to satisfy her own desire to be entertained... because "its fun". If her men are knowingly and willingly engaging in this with her, great! She's still a spoiled princess imo, just as those who despise casual sex might call me a player or a male sl*t. I have no objection to how I'm categorized according to their values. What I refuse to be categorized as is a USER as if I'm deceiving a women by not telling her that this isn't something I've given her no reason to believe it is - and she hasn't expressed any concern of it not being. The princess similarly isn't a USER unless she's lied to these men, and they don't know she's dating all these other men at once in spite of their desire to date one on one. But like I'd still be called a male sl*t, I still call them spoiled princesses.
> 
> This is inconsistent?


The same thing could be said about a man who accepts blowjobs on a date from a woman he isn't really thinking of seeing again or is multi dating. No he isn't a user (they offered) but he is a 'spoiled prince' and doesn't have really a great character imo same as a woman who will accept a offer free dinner when she really is seeing other's casually to or not thinking of seeing again.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

TiggyBlue said:


> DvlsAdvc8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing apples and oranges here a bit. The "spoiled princess" is the woman eagerly accepting the affections and gifts of MULTIPLE men, putting no real value in their efforts except to satisfy her own desire to be entertained... because "its fun". If her men are knowingly and willingly engaging in this with her, great! She's still a spoiled princess imo, just as those who despise casual sex might call me a player or a male sl*t. I have no objection to how I'm categorized according to their values. What I refuse to be categorized as is a USER as if I'm deceiving a women by not telling her that this isn't something I've given her no reason to believe it is - and she hasn't expressed any concern of it not being. The princess similarly isn't a USER unless she's lied to these men, and they don't know she's dating all these other men at once in spite of their desire to date one on one. But like I'd still be called a male sl*t, I still call them spoiled princesses.
> 
> This is inconsistent?
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing could be said about a man who accepts blowjobs on a date from a woman he isn't really thinking of seeing again or is multi dating. No he isn't a user (they offered) but he is a 'spoiled prince' and doesn't have really a great character imo same as a woman who will accept a offer free dinner when she really is seeing other's casually to or not thinking of seeing again.
Click to expand...

I would say that man either intentionally selects women who would give random blow jobs or there is something wrong with his 'women picker'. If he intentionally does that then he is a user. I don't think much of that man. Picking up hookers is not much different. Lot of men like that ... prostitution is big business.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> The same thing could be said about a man who accepts blowjobs on a date from a woman he isn't really thinking of seeing again or is multi dating. No he isn't a user (they offered) but he is a 'spoiled prince' and doesn't have really a great character imo same as a woman who will accept a offer free dinner when she really is seeing other's casually to or not thinking of seeing again.


Yep, provided the guy is expecting bjs from multiple casual partners. Getting one from one woman, then another from another woman, then going back to the first for more etc... and thinking less of them for not offering said bjs.

Such a man would absolutely be a "spoiled prince"... not that I can say I've known one. Don't you think most women would consider it beneath themselves, even demeaning, to offer bjs to that guy? Exactly as I find it beneath me to buy dinner for the "spoiled princess"?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> I would say that man either intentionally selects women who would give random blow jobs or there is something wrong with his 'women picker'. If he intentionally does that then he is a user. I don't think much of that man. Picking up hookers is not much different. Lot of men like that ... prostitution is big business.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If I'm grinding with a girl I just met at the club and sexual chemistry is there and we're both DTF, I see no problem regardless of the selection process. Everyone acts of their own uncoerced free will. TBH, I'm not sure how I would convince a random new woman to give me a bj if I wanted to... even if she was into me. What happens just happens... and most of the time oral is just a prelude to sex.

I'd argue prostitution is an entirely different proposition. In the casual hookup the exchange is my sex for her sex - apples valued for apples. Not that I oppose prostitution either... its not my business what someone else decides to do. I personally would never pay for sex and would find it insulting to both myself and the woman.

Also regarding selection, I can say that women don't come with "gives head" stamped on their foreheads - much less this aggressive upfront behavior. I can't predict these outcomes. Some of the ones you might guess do, don't, and some of those you'd think never would do. I've never found a correlation.

If I did, I'd be rich. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> The last sentence proves you're not understanding what we're saying. Neither AA and I have said that having sex with a woman means a man is using her. A woman having sex with a man doesn't mean she's using him.
> 
> The only point being made is that we believe being upfront about ones expectations and intentions is a respectful thing to do. And no, I don't think anyone should say "You don't mean anything to me". That's an awful thing to say. Even if the only "meaning" a man has toward a woman is physical gratification, there's still meaning there. Even if temporary.
> 
> For me, all that I think a man should say is one clarifying statement, even if it seems absurdly obvious already: "I'm only interested in sex". If he doesn't say this, I don't think he's using her. Because I'm inclined to agree that having sex with someone the day you meet them is rather obvious. But I still think it's the respectful thing to do. Likewise, if she's looking for a relationship, she should be respectful enough to let him know.
> 
> Not every casual sex scenario involves strangers either, but regardless, I believe both should respect the other to voice their intentions. If they don't I don't think it means they're using them, but I do think it opens the door for unnecessary drama.
> 
> I am all about mutuality. If something applies to one person in a given situation, it should apply to the other as well. I don't believe one only one person bearing all of the responsibility.


Ah, I understand. At least I'm not using. 

I am not respectful though, by your standards. I expect that she knows what she's getting into when she casually jumps in the sack with no qualifications. I expect an adult to be aware of what they are doing.

And though you and AA may find this bizarre, I consider that respect. My qualifying it would be indicating that I don't think she's capable of understanding what she's doing - a sign of disrespect.

It think its clear as day what my intentions are when I'm undoing your pants without our even exchanging last names. I'm not sure you can get much more upfront than that. She's certainly being upfront we me without saying a word.

Re: non-stranger casual sex scenarios - I've had three kinds. The first, you've had sex with a friend before big head even realizes it (for me, this has always just been circumstance/timing... drinking, horny... not really intentional on anyone's part). Its rare and there was post-sex discussion of wtf happened last night. Another kind I've covered before... the intentional change in the nature of a relationship - ie friendship that becomes friends with benefits. These are even more rare. I've previously acknowledge it necessary to discuss before hand, and these aren't acts of passion but rather physical attraction and... practicality(?)... except that someone usually starts feeling something anyway. I've always thought they were a little weird. The third kind is what I've found more often... a stranger hookup that turns into occasional booty calls. There was never any discussion of anything and it would be hard to make the case that I disrespected them or used them. They called me, and if I wasn't seeing anyone, I'd occasionally go... even if we hadn't talked in a month. Pretty sure they didn't have any confusion as to the nature of the relationship. I did get asked once, and I said I didn't want to date anyone (true at the time)... she was cool with that and still wanted to hookup - texting me on occasion, but I don't think we ever did again.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah, I understand. At least I'm not using.
> 
> I am not respectful though, by your standards. I expect that she knows what she's getting into when she casually jumps in the sack with no qualifications. I expect an adult to be aware of what they are doing.


I totally agree. But I also expect the same of grown men. If they don't want the responsibility of making their intentions clear, then she shouldn't complain about the consequences.



> And though you and AA may find this bizarre, I consider that respect. My qualifying it would be indicating that I don't think she's capable of understanding what she's doing - a sign of disrespect.


I do find it bizarre. Backwards. Kind of a lame excuse, to be honest. A woman's capability and understanding of what she's doing doesn't negate the mans responsibility. They're independent.



> It think its clear as day what my intentions are when I'm undoing your pants without our even exchanging last names. I'm not sure you can get much more upfront than that. She's certainly being upfront we me without saying a word.


In this one situation, I don't disagree. And if we were only taking about casual sex/ONS with a stranger, I wouldn't be arguing this. But casual sex is not limited to having a ONS with strangers. It involves many different situations, many different outcomes, many different expectations and intentions, and many different kinds of people. There are so many factors involved, I absolutely don't believe one person bears all responsibility. Mutuality: what applies to one, applies to the other as well.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> JustSomeGuyWho said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that man either intentionally selects women who would give random blow jobs or there is something wrong with his 'women picker'. If he intentionally does that then he is a user. I don't think much of that man. Picking up hookers is not much different. Lot of men like that ... prostitution is big business.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If I'm grinding with a girl I just met at the club and sexual chemistry is there and we're both DTF, I see no problem regardless of the selection process. Everyone acts of their own uncoerced free will. TBH, I'm not sure how I would convince a woman to give me a bj if I wanted to. What happens just happens... and most of the time oral is just a prelude to sex.
> 
> I'd argue prostitution is an entirely different proposition. In the casual hookup the exchange is my sex for her sex. Not that I oppose prostitution either... its not my business what someone else decides to do. I personally would never pay for sex and would find it insulting to both myself and the woman.
> 
> Also regarding selection, I can say that women don't come with "gives head" stamped on their foreheads - much less this aggressive upfront behavior. Some of the ones you might guess do, don't, and some of those you'd think never would do. I've never found a correlation.
Click to expand...

My point with prostitution is that it is an exchange with absolutely no expectation or desire for it to be anything more by either party.

My point with the selection process is that you certainly can make an educated guess as to the probability about how quickly she is going to give it up ... bj or intercourse. Certainly that girl at the club grinding on you is more likely to give it up quickly than the conservative woman you just met at the church picnic. A woman advertising on a hookup site is far more likely to give it up than someone on a traditional dating site. If all you are doing is looking to get laid then you are going to place yourself in the best position possible.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I do find it bizarre. Backwards. Kind of a lame excuse, to be honest. A woman's capability and understanding of what she's doing doesn't negate the mans responsibility. They're independent.


There's no talking our way around that fundamental disagreement. 




Created2Write said:


> I absolutely don't believe one person bears all responsibility. Mutuality: what applies to one, applies to the other as well.


Neither do I. Each has a responsibility for their own boundaries and concerns... not the other person's unexpressed boundaries and concerns.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> My point with prostitution is that it is an exchange with absolutely no expectation or desire for it to be anything more by either party.


Yeah I got you... that's why moralistic types object to both prostitution and casual sex. They place a moral value on expectations they assume should be there.



JustSomeGuyWho said:


> My point with the selection process is that you certainly can make an educated guess as to the probability about how quickly she is going to give it up ... bj or intercourse. Certainly that girl at the club grinding on you is more likely to give it up quickly than the conservative woman you just met at the church picnic. A woman advertising on a hookup site is far more likely to give it up than someone on a traditional dating site. If all you are doing is looking to get laid then you are going to place yourself in the best position possible.


I wish I could agree with you on this, its just not my experience. Perhaps at the very extremes maybe... ie woman lacking self-worth vs woman strongly wanting to save herself for marriage (I say strongly, because a lot of the one who say they're saving for marriage still end up having sex). Church picnic? Nope, I've hooked up with plenty of very godly chicks who are active in their churches and go every week. Church is probably the most hypocritical place I know of. Everyone claiming these beliefs and virtues, and then f*cking in the backseats of cars. I live in the bible belt after all... this is the most common of all here. The correlation of active in church to not having sex on a first date or even not having casual sex is very weak. Yeah, shocked the hell out of me too. I'm a Yankee. The women up north were harder to hookup with and far less religious. So I dunno.

Conversely, that tattooed and pieced up chick wearing next to nothing and acting like a badass at the club might be the most sexually uptight chick you've ever met. Things are not as they seem.

Weirdly, the chick grinding all over you, doesn't necessarily want to have sex with you. There's a lot more signals to pick up to make that determination. I literally cannot predict who is going to be "easy" and who won't.

I've dated a lot of different types and went pretty wild there after my divorce... and no matter the type, I still end up with sex on the first date most of the time and I rarely ever make that first overt "we're going to have sex" move whether its dating or casual. I'd like to say I was all alpha and always went and got it, but that's actually the rarer case. Rather, you just go with the flow and things happen.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah I got you... that's why moralistic types object to both prostitution and casual sex. They place a moral value on expectations they assume should be there.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could agree with you on this, its just not my experience. Perhaps at the very extremes maybe. Church picnic? Nope, I've hooked up with plenty of very godly chicks who are active in their churches and go every week. I live in the bible belt after all. The correlation of active in church to having sex on a first date or even entirely casually is very weak. Yeah, shocked the hell out of me too.
> 
> Conversely, that tattooed and pieced up chick wearing next to nothing and acting like a badass at the club might be the most sexually uptight chick you've ever met. Things are not as they seem.
> 
> Weirdly, the chick grinding all over you, doesn't necessarily want to have sex with you. There's a lot more signals to pick up to make that determination. I literally cannot predict who is going to be "easy" and who won't.
> 
> I've dated a lot of different types and went pretty wild there after my divorce... and no matter the type, I still end up with sex on the first date most of the time and I rarely ever make that first overt "we're going to have sex" move whether its dating or casual. I'd like to say I was all alpha and always went and got it, but that's actually the rarer case. Rather, you just go with the flow and things happen.


Like your pull at the waist band test...


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There's no talking our way around that fundamental disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do I. Each has a responsibility for their own boundaries and concerns... not the other person's unexpressed boundaries and concerns.


That's just not how I see it, and never will be. If one person is expected to voice their boundaries, then the other should be held to the same standard.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah I got you... that's why moralistic types object to both prostitution and casual sex. They place a moral value on expectations they assume should be there.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could agree with you on this, its just not my experience. Perhaps at the very extremes maybe... ie woman lacking self-worth vs woman strongly wanting to save herself for marriage (I say strongly, because a lot of the one who say they're saving for marriage still end up having sex). Church picnic? Nope, I've hooked up with plenty of very godly chicks who are active in their churches and go every week. Church is probably the most hypocritical place I know of. Everyone claiming these beliefs and virtues, and then f*cking in the backseats of cars. I live in the bible belt after all... this is the most common of all here. The correlation of active in church to not having sex on a first date or even not having casual sex is very weak. Yeah, shocked the hell out of me too. I'm a Yankee. The women up north were harder to hookup with and far less religious. So I dunno.
> 
> Conversely, that tattooed and pieced up chick wearing next to nothing and acting like a badass at the club might be the most sexually uptight chick you've ever met. Things are not as they seem.
> 
> Weirdly, the chick grinding all over you, doesn't necessarily want to have sex with you. There's a lot more signals to pick up to make that determination. I literally cannot predict who is going to be "easy" and who won't.
> 
> I've dated a lot of different types and went pretty wild there after my divorce... and no matter the type, I still end up with sex on the first date most of the time and I rarely ever make that first overt "we're going to have sex" move whether its dating or casual. I'd like to say I was all alpha and always went and got it, but that's actually the rarer case. Rather, you just go with the flow and things happen.


Ha! Well, what the hell do I know. I'm not in a position to date and I don't have sex  The idea of a woman giving me a bj on a first date is VERY foreign to me. It's just speculation on my part.


----------



## Jellybeans

always_alone said:


> My experience is much more akin to FrenchFry's. Snap, crackle and pop are more likely to lead to disaster than anything else, and so I keep him at arm's length until I know he is good for me.
> 
> I don't believe in magic. Really, it's just simple distraction techniques where the hand is quicker than the eye.
> 
> I do believe in love, though.


Different strokes. 

Question, how long do you keep a guy at "arm's length" until you know he's good for you? I am curious because we all have different approaches and there is nothing at all wrong with practicality in my book.

Frenchyfry, feel free to jump in too since you and always share the same opinion on the matter. 

School me!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> That's just not how I see it, and never will be. If one person is expected to voice their boundaries, then the other should be held to the same standard.


You're repeating what I just said and saying you disagree with me. Each is expected to voice their own concerns. If I don't have a concern that we might only be having casual sex, I have nothing to voice. If she is concerned that this is just casual, she must voice that concern. It is not my duty to voice it for her.

The standard IS the same. If I have a concern, its my responsibility to address it... not hers.


----------



## always_alone

Jellybeans said:


> School me!


The best dating advice I can give you is to not take any dating advice from me. Seriously!


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> ...it's supremely unromantic but I want to see the good bad and ugly of a person in all of their glory. If I can handle the ugly early, I'll figure I'll be better off than being blindsided later.


:iagree: 

And then the flip side is the expectations the other person has of you. Some people are so busy projecting their fantasies onto you, they don't even really see you at all. And if that pigeon hole doesn't fit, life gets pretty uncomfortable.

When my SO first called me to ask me out, my first response was "you don't want to go out with me." He asked me why not, and I told him I was caustic and difficult to get along with. He asked me out anyway, and that's when I invited him to join my friend and I.

I wasn't always so insistent on leading with my worst, but by that time I was super jaded and had zero interest in hassling with the usual niceties. Besides, if he was going to hang out with me, he was going to find out anyway. Might as well not waste time, right?

No doubt it's a wonder that the relationship ever go off the ground, let alone lasted >15 years -- and counting. It's a funny, funny world.


----------



## NextTimeAround

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know what you're talking about. I have no double standard. Whoever has a concern needs to bring it up.
> 
> You seem to expect other people to bring up your concerns for you. If they don't and you turn out to be wrong, you think they've misled you. Frankly, that's wrong headed imo.
> 
> Your case is of a man who has sex with a woman and bolts. I'm not at all fazed by that either in casual sex or dating.* If someone goes on a date and subsequently bolts nobody bats an eye... that's not using. But omg if there was sex and someone bolts then someone got used? *My concern is that someone I'm dating is not dating other people, so I ask - else I have no reason to expect to get what I want. If your concern is that a guy only wants sex, then guess who the task of finding out falls on? Else you have no right to claim you got used.
> 
> Where's the inconsistency?


I can understand the irony here. If a woman manages to get 3 free meals out of a guy and then decides she's not interested, well, that's ok. If a guy by the third date has sex with the woman and then decides that the two are not compatible, oh dear, he must of _(sic)_ been out with her only for the sex.


----------



## heartsbeating

Multi-dating has now become a term of reference in our home.

We viewed a few houses for sale. Within a few minutes of being in the first place, it just felt like home. I could imagine living there. It felt right.

I expressed this to my husband afterwards. "Done! Let's go for that one!" He chuckled and said we needed to check the other options first. He said to think of it like multi-dating. heheh. I told him but I just know, the place feels like home. We viewed another few houses, none of which held appeal... until we got to the last one. 

It was unexpected. I told him that I still loved the first one but this place..well...and maybe I should have multi-dated then lol. He said that's why he snapped me up so quickly. Back to the houses though, we loved both places. The first hits that feeling more but the last has that along with being a wiser decision in terms of resale and such. We might not be ready to buy at this stage (although I'd be ready to go for it, sell up and move on, whereas hubs offers more a grounded and long-term approach), but I do think it's important to follow the heart without losing your head. 


I was thinking about the concept of 'magic' too... is that perhaps just another way of being completely in the moment? Magic seems to occur easier for children. And I'm wondering if that's because they are open, and present; they are in the moment.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *DvlsAdvc8 said*:
> Women have an even more effective tool here in their efforts to mitigate the risk of a man with intentions to use her for sex. She can make him wait longer to get sex and he'll very likely leave for greener pastures.





> However, just as my choice costs me women with whom I may have been plenty compatible otherwise, this choice to make men wait may come at the cost of losing a legitimately good guy's interest... because sex is just as important to us as affection and commitment. Without sex, I think most if not all men WILL lose romantic interest... just as they would without affection or commitment.


 not if you keep them happy in other pleasurable ways...I'd be talking plenty to how important that is to me.. my favorite subject.. such a date would get a good earful to what he is passing up by dumping too fast ...I'd leave him questioning just how Green those other pastures may be....but yeah... some of us want the strings.. We need to give it time... see if we "fit" emotionally *1st*. 



> A man's ability is more limited. Don't buy her dinner? This is widely considered a dating faux pas.* A signal of disinterest or that he's simply cheap.*.. or broke.


 Broke, no good... cheap is Ok with me, well I mean FRUGAL really... in fact It'd be a huge deal breaker for me if the guy wasted his money left & right, fancy new car(s), yet in BIG debt to show for it... I wouldn't like that at all....couldn't be with someone like that. .... Use coupons.. wouldn't bother me... Maybe a little tacky on the 1st date (even my husband thinks so).. but I would see it as a "conversation piece"...I can think of worse things. 



> but at the end of the day the vast majority still prefers the traditional, chivalrous, gentlemanly gesture of his taking care of the bill. A token symbol of his affection, interest, ability to provide for her and desire to share what he has with her.


 I do love this.. and always will, but my desire to show I am not a gold digger would over ride my expectations here, so I would always offer... and not expect. 



> That's what I mean by "own it." I wish we could agree on this.


I believe in "owing it" too.. 



> *NextTimeAround said*: I can understand the irony here. If a woman manages to get 3 free meals out of a guy and then decides she's not interested, well, that's ok. If a guy by the third date has sex with the woman and then decides that the two are not compatible, oh dear, he must of (sic) been out with her only for the sex.


I don't think it's OK ... you just explained one of the reasons why again, I'd offer to pay for my own ...until a relationship was established....also this may not have him having an expectation of sex so readily either- in exchange for treating a woman out.. . 



> *DvlsAdvc8 said:* Each is expected to voice their own concerns. If I don't have a concern that we might only be having casual sex, I have nothing to voice. If she is concerned that this is just casual, she must voice that concern. It is not my duty to voice it for her.
> 
> *The standard IS the same. If I have a concern, its my responsibility to address it... not hers*.


I have no issues with this way of thinking at all, in this day & age, since FUN = sharing bodily fluids early in dating with no cares....it is better to have a pessimistic view that every guy you meet expects sex by the 3rd date anyhow.... so it's best to be looking out for yourself and not have any notions in your head about this person in front of you.


----------



## Cosmos

NextTimeAround said:


> I can understand the irony here. If a woman manages to get 3 free meals out of a guy and then decides she's not interested, well, that's ok. If a guy by the third date has sex with the woman and then decides that the two are not compatible, oh dear, he must of _(sic)_ been out with her only for the sex.


So the main objective of a woman dating a man is for a free meal? Fortunately, I've never been that hungry! Besides, if I were into exchanging sex for money, the price would be a lot higher than most could afford, and certainly _much _more than the cost of 3 meals

On the other hand, the very fact that this 3 Date Rule exists would indicate that _some_ men are prepared to barter money for sex, which says a lot about _them_...

If you don't want to pay, don't. Split the darned bill and stop kvetching!


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Ok, well I guess the general concensus is that multi-dating is not only ok, it is preferred. It also appears that multi sleeping around is not as acceptable. The problem I see is that while many individuals will insist that they don't do this and that very well may be the case, casual sex is very prevalent and accepted. If you are dating someone who is dating other people then how do you know if they aren't also having sex with them? After all, they aren't likely to tell you.

DvlsAdvc8's experience is that most women will have sex with him on the first date. Now, he may be someone who women just love to have sex with, who knows, but if they have sex with him on the first date and they are seeing other people then what are the odds they aren't also having sex with these other people?


_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## Cosmos

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> Ok, well I guess the general concensus is that multi-dating is not only ok, it is preferred. It also appears that multi sleeping around is not as acceptable. The problem I see is that while many individuals will insist that they don't do this and that very well may be the case, casual sex is very prevalent and accepted. If you are dating someone who is dating other people then how do you know if they aren't also having sex with them? After all, they aren't likely to tell you.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* on Android_


It's a preference, JSGW, and everyone has the right to their own preferences. There's no right or wrong, IMO.

Casual sex is another thing altogether, though, and it's a risk people run when they get involved too quickly with people they haven't taken the time to get to know.

I can see where the concern is coming from, because in my day casual sex was the exception rather than the norm. If I had even reached the stage of passionate kissing with someone, the multi-dating ended.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> I can see where the concern is coming from, because in my day casual sex was the exception rather than the norm. * If I had even reached the stage of passionate kissing with someone, the multi-dating ended.*


This is very honorable.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Cosmos said:


> JustSomeGuyWho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, well I guess the general concensus is that multi-dating is not only ok, it is preferred. It also appears that multi sleeping around is not as acceptable. The problem I see is that while many individuals will insist that they don't do this and that very well may be the case, casual sex is very prevalent and accepted. If you are dating someone who is dating other people then how do you know if they aren't also having sex with them? After all, they aren't likely to tell you.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* on Android_
> 
> 
> 
> It's a preference, JSGW, and everyone has the right to their own preferences. There's no right or wrong, IMO.
> 
> Casual sex is another thing altogether, though, and it's a risk people run when they get involved too quickly with people they haven't taken the time to get to know.
> 
> I can see where the concern is coming from, because in my day casual sex was the exception rather than the norm.
Click to expand...

I'm not judging that preference. Just because it appears to be the general concensus does not make it right or wrong for an individual. However, if you are dating someone who is dating other people then you might need to be prepared for the possibility that they are sleeping with them too, whether they tell you or not ... simply because casual sex is so prevalent. If that risk is not acceptable then perhaps multi-dating is not for you ... or at least not date multi-daters.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## Cosmos

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> I'm not judging that preference. Just because it appears to be the general concensus does not make it right or wrong for an individual. However, if you are dating someone who is dating other people then you might need to be prepared for the possibility that they are sleeping with them too, whether they tell you or not ... simply because casual sex is so prevalent. If that risk is not acceptable then perhaps multi-dating is not for you ... or at least not date multi-daters.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* on Android_


:iagree: If I was dating now, I'd probably have the same reservations.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> I'm not judging that preference. Just because it appears to be the general concensus does not make it right or wrong for an individual. However, if you are dating someone who is dating other people then you might need to be prepared for the possibility that they are sleeping with them too, whether they tell you or not ... simply because casual sex is so prevalent. If that risk is not acceptable then perhaps multi-dating is not for you ... or at least not date multi-daters.


See this to me is where a personality of "openness" comes in....being free to share each others views on a variety of issues while having those dinners out...what each finds morally acceptable..just through casual conversation...a picture will surely emerge...through our hobbies, our lifestyle, where we've been.. our values, our beliefs, our goals..what we love, what irritates us, what we hate...isn't this what dating is all about.... getting to *really* know someone. 

I can not even fathom the idea of sleeping with someone without getting to know so much more about them as a human being, what makes them tick.. 

The Mysterious type may hold some allure for many women... This I would not care for at all... a good communicator -holding nothing back.. would be more my cup of tea.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Cosmos said:


> So the main objective of a woman dating a man is for a free meal? Fortunately, I've never been that hungry!  Besides, if I were into exchanging sex for money, the price would be a lot higher than most could afford, and certainly _much _more than the cost of 3 meals
> 
> On the other hand, the very fact that this 3 Date Rule exists would indicate that _some_ men are prepared to barter money for sex, which says a lot about _them_...
> 
> If you don't want to pay, don't. Split the darned bill and stop kvetching!


One problem many men are finding these days are women who friendzone them while the guy is treating with all the seriousness and trimmings of a real date.

Of course, no woman is going to come onto a coed message board and talk about how they get free meals for dating. But I know of one online community of women who joke about being dinner wh0res when they are online dating.

So it does happen.


----------



## Cosmos

NextTimeAround said:


> One problem many men are finding these days are women who friendzone them while the guy is treating with all the seriousness and trimmings of a real date.
> 
> Of course, no woman is going to come onto a coed message board and talk about how they get free meals for dating. But I know of one online community of women who joke about being dinner wh0res when they are online dating.
> 
> So it does happen.


I'm sure it does happen, NTA. Almost as often as PUA hump then dump gullible women who thought they were wining and dining them because they were really interested in _them_. Frankly, I'd rather lose / waste some hard earned cash than my self-respect and reputation... One can earn more money, but one can never 'unshare' one's body.

The only way around this, IMO, is to proceed with caution and be selective in who you date. I'd hate to be in my 20s / 30s today


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're repeating what I just said and saying you disagree with me. Each is expected to voice their own concerns. If I don't have a concern that we might only be having casual sex, I have nothing to voice. If she is concerned that this is just casual, she must voice that concern. It is not my duty to voice it for her.
> 
> The standard IS the same. If I have a concern, its my responsibility to address it... not hers.


I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the idea that, as long as there's no concern, there's nothing to voice. Concerns are not the only thing that should be voiced, imo.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Who Has The Power In Dating? | Paging Dr. NerdLove


----------



## Jellybeans

FrenchFry said:


> Oh good question!
> 
> There are a couple of factors that influenced my dating pattern:
> 
> *Level of Butterflies* If I had a huge case of *omigodomigod* I hugely spaced dates out because I can't evaluate a person when all I want to do is glomp on them for awhile. If I was just kind of feeling the guy, I'd try to meet up with him more to get a better read on him.
> 
> I was seriously fangirling out over my husband, so I saw him once a week for a month, then around twice a week the next month, then at the end of the third month I got all in my feelings for him and hung out with him every other day.


This makes absolute sense!  Thanks for sharing.



always_alone said:


> The best dating advice I can give you is to not take any dating advice from me. Seriously!


:rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I like this guy... he does what I tend to do with hyperbole. But I think it gets him in just as much trouble.

"Too bad that it's bullsh*t"

I agree with 90% of what the article says, but I disagree on just a couple points:

I think a man at any given level of attractiveness is more likely to lower his standards than a female of the same level of attractiveness. I think this reflects a different prioritization of sex. So much so that advertising sexual availability is one form of "girl game" to climb her sex rank ladder (even if it can only be pulled off short-term... which many aren't aware enough to realize). In contrast, a man who advertises the ease of his sexual availability to women with higher sex rank will get nowhere. The author is on point as to the reason - differences in what each gender is seeking - but this lowered willingness to reduce standards does translate into a buyers market for women.

Other niggling issue: that men have to do all the work in courtship. The author purports to explain that this is bullsh*t, but goes on to confirm it himself. Far from arguing that it is bullsh*t, he only claims that those who complain about it don't like to do it. To which I say bullsh*t. It's more a form of shaming than legitimate analysis. I'm much more accustomed to/comfortable with approaching women than responding to one approaching me (and lets face it, if I didn't already notice her and engage, then I'm probably not interested in her anyway) - yet I'm still capable of recognizing the phenomenon that men tend to be the aggressors. I enjoy the pursuit, but I'm still capable of recognizing it as an area of gender disparity. Risk of active rejection (being turned down) vs risk of passive rejection (no one asking). One reason I prefer it this way, is that I don't have to wade through the masses of women who might be hitting on me that I'm not interested in. I consider myself above average... so I'd rather be a pursuer than being pursued by what I don't want. Rather, I'm about pursuing conversations with the ones I want, making an impression, getting them to pursue me back and evaluating the field from there. Otherwise one could potentially spend a whole night pursuing one woman in what turns out to be wasted effort regardless of whether she had everything you're looking for or not. So no, you pick several - make great impressions, and turn the game around. I wouldn't want to have the initial passive role because all the women I don't want would get in the way of the one's I do want. Its still a legitimate disparity even though I've long since overcome being an introvert reluctant to jump out there. That I'm now pretty good at it doesn't change my view that this is a disparity, nor my empathy for what many men still face just to get the attention of women who are seemingly their equals.

A lot of this is covered in your average book on game. The mental game aspects mentioned address neediness, but aren't enough to "move up".

Whether you have the power or not is determined by whether the other person thinks they can do better imo. If you're always chasing those you find more attractive than they find you, which I think most people are prone to do - then you're starting from a position of having to prove value - a low power position. If you're choosing down, then you don't have jack to prove and they're trying to appeal to you.

I've always thought of "game" as being the art of making someone think they're looking up at you rather than down. The art of conveying greater value. In effect, taking power. I choose to always work uphill, the payoff is better. At your own rank and below all you really have to do is talk and not be weird. I think when guys complain about the status quo, they more saying "I wish getting more female attention was as easy as wearing a low-cut shirt." I don't think most guys want to give up the position of pursuer regardless.

The article is mis-titled. For me, perception of power only pertains to the "pick-up". I always feel like I have the power in dating. That I landed the date is evidence of my establishing interest and a degree of control - as most date acceptance implies a guy's lead in planning the date.

The article gets bonus points for quoting Game of Thrones.


----------



## Jellybeans

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I always feel like I have the power in dating.


Way to keep ego in check.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> Way to keep ego in check.


Wasn't really being egotistical, if it came off that way. By power I mean that sense of who is trying to impress who, who is texting who more often etc.

I always feel like the greatest effort is making that first impression during the pick-up... because you're having to bust through tests and defenses, drive interest and create conversation. Once I have the date in hand I'm golden. She's more open to me; building connections comes more natural to me than the more extroverted pick-up... which was learned. I guess it helps to have a wide array of interests and be able to connect with a lot of different kinds of people. I like to talk... and women seem to love to talk.

When I was a teen I was the guy who struggled to get a date; I only dated the girls who showed me obvious interest and every relationship was accidental. But everyone who ever dated me loved me. The only reason I struggled then was probably just that I didn't ask/talk to those I was interested in.

One of those stupid, "I like you, so I can't talk to you" things... and so you never get noticed. Its a completely retarded way of being. I'm much happier not caring.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Well, no wonder you don't dig multi-dating then. Could have save a lot of trouble there.


I thought of that when I first gathered opinions on this... and trying to figure out what my problem with multi-dating was.

It's not that. I could date several people and still feel empowered. Its more that by dating several people, I don't think I'd feel as valuable to any of them, nor would they be to me.

I really like triggering those "omigodomigod" feelings and a woman feeling nervous on those early dates... or trying to impress me. I'm of course trying to impress her - but the degree to which she is impressed and returning it makes me feel valued. I like feeling that excited about someone and have them feeling the same about me. I think I'm just a little better at playing more coy or maybe there's a male/female dominant/submissive thing going on... or hey... it could be totally imagined.

My favorite things about dating would be lost if I multi-dated. I don't want to hedge or disarm those feelings.

I'm very much in line with C2W when she says she wants to feel special... a catch for them, not just one of their 5 concurrent dates. I don't think that's a power thing. If I'm just vanilla to them such that I'm not worth putting 100% effort into rather than 20%, then I'd just as much they kept looking elsewhere. That's not what I want. I want to have made an impression.


----------



## ntamph

I think I understand Dr. Nerdlove but then I don't.

The statement "Women control all access to sex" is of course, absurd but they DO have more power than men.

He writes the same fallacy that I've heard before: "Yeah, it's easier for women to get sex BUT it might not be with an ideal partner."

That's not the argument. The argument is that it is easier for women to get sex than men. Not if they really want who hits on them or not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

He addressed that right there in the beginning of the article, ntamph:

Why It’s Bull****

To start with, there are plenty of women out there who aren’t rolling into a bar and rolling out with a bedmate. There are many women who struggle to find dates, whether it’s because they’re too tall, too big, too whatever.

Let’s be honest. *This complaint really translates as “the hot woman I want to **** but won’t give me the time of day can get sex any time she wants.”*

Beyond that, the ability to get a sexual partner within a pre-set amount of time or with whatever suitable definition of “ease” might be isn’t exclusive to women. Men have equal ability to find sexual partners as women do… it just involves being willing to lower your standards to being willing to sleep with anyone who offers or shows an interest. Women who aren’t conventionally attractive, whose body types differ from the culturally accepted ideal or otherwise don’t meet one’s personal levels of sexiness are out there, hoping to get laid just as much as everybody else.

The same applies to women. A woman’s supposed ability to get laid easily or quickly doesn’t correspond with the desirability of the available sex partners. A woman could go into a bar and pick up a man for sex, yes, but it doesn’t mean that she’s going to necessarily find someone she’s attracted to.

And to be perfectly frank, if all a woman wants is to get off, vibrators are safer, easier and aren’t going to use the last of the milk in their coffee the morning after.

The problem with asking this question is that it assumes that women and men have the same goals when it comes to sex. Guys frequently get hung up on numbers; how many people have you slept with, how quickly can you get a woman to sleep with you. They have a tendency to fall for the old axiom that sex is like pizza; even when it’s bad, it’s still pretty good.


----------



## ntamph

FrenchFry said:


> Wouldn't the power differential be equalized by the potentially greater consequences that women can incur by having sex with any dude that asked them? This runs the line from being called names, to women being more susceptible to STDs to pregnancy.
> 
> Dude in the comments put it pretty well:


Are you implying that women DON"T want sex as much as men do? Or at least saying that they won't take certain risks that men take? 

It's like saying "I LOVE FOOD...............if it's caviar."

I don't understand why sending out 10 college applications and getting 2 admissions is a better or equal situation to not doing anything and just getting hundreds of acceptance offers spontaneously.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ntamph....the hundreds of "acceptance offers" will be from men the average woman is NOT attracted to.

You and other men would get hundreds of "acceptance offers" too if you were willing to lower your standards.

That's the point.


----------



## ntamph

Faithful Wife said:


> ntamph....the hundreds of "acceptance offers" will be from men the average woman is NOT attracted to.
> 
> You and other men would get hundreds of "acceptance offers" too if you were willing to lower your standards.
> 
> That's the point.


Some might not be attractive. Maybe most. But they get to pick and choose from so many choices.

I can't remember a woman directly hitting on me (as in: "you wanna go out some time?"). They have been subtle even when aggressive. My current girlfriend is the first to be direct but only after a lot of flirting to make sure 100% that I wanted her.


----------



## Cosmos

ntamph said:


> Are you implying that women DON"T want sex as much as men do? Or at least saying that they won't take certain risks that men take?
> 
> It's like saying "I LOVE FOOD...............if it's caviar."
> 
> I don't understand why sending out 10 college applications and getting 2 admissions is a better or equal situation to not doing anything and just getting hundreds of acceptance offers spontaneously.


No matter how much I might have been attracted to a guy, I NEVER _knowingly_ took risks. For me, risky sex would = bad sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"But they get to pick and choose from so many choices."

ntamph...this is not true. You and many men THINK it is true, but it isn't.


----------



## ntamph

FrenchFry said:


> risks of accepting every offer that comes our way


Never said you must say yes to every guy. It's strictly about interest.

Most guys would kill for the chance to sort through so many interested women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Most guys would kill for the chance to sort through so many interested women."

No, they wouldn't...because you would have to make the "scale" of "offers" the same...and that means, the men would be like "ew, no way, not ever" at 99.5% of the "offers".


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> He addressed that right there in the beginning of the article, ntamph:
> 
> Why It’s Bull****
> 
> To start with, there are plenty of women out there who aren’t rolling into a bar and rolling out with a bedmate. There are many women who struggle to find dates, whether it’s because they’re too tall, too big, too whatever.
> 
> Let’s be honest. *This complaint really translates as “the hot woman I want to **** but won’t give me the time of day can get sex any time she wants.”*
> 
> Beyond that, the ability to get a sexual partner within a pre-set amount of time or with whatever suitable definition of “ease” might be isn’t exclusive to women. Men have equal ability to find sexual partners as women do… it just involves being willing to lower your standards to being willing to sleep with anyone who offers or shows an interest. Women who aren’t conventionally attractive, whose body types differ from the culturally accepted ideal or otherwise don’t meet one’s personal levels of sexiness are out there, hoping to get laid just as much as everybody else.
> 
> The same applies to women. A woman’s supposed ability to get laid easily or quickly doesn’t correspond with the desirability of the available sex partners. A woman could go into a bar and pick up a man for sex, yes, but it doesn’t mean that she’s going to necessarily find someone she’s attracted to.
> .


:iagree:

(hate the ranking thing) but it's kind a woman who's a 8 on the whole isn't going to be interested in guy's who are a 5, just like guys who are a 5 on the whole will be aren't going to put much effort in a woman who's a 2.
It seems mostly there's a lot of guys who say a men throw themselves at women it's so much easier for women (which is a woman is a 8 get's hit on guys that's a 5) but it's a lot harder for us men (which a lot of the time is a guy who's a 5 wanting women who are 8's).


----------



## WyshIknew

I don't know if this is a 'power differential' or just the fact that I matured, or became less studious, more fun but I went from not being able to get a date in my teens to actually having women asking me out.

So did the 'power differential' shift to me?

I certainly didn't feel any great power.


----------



## ntamph

Faithful Wife said:


> "Most guys would kill for the chance to sort through so many interested women."
> 
> No, they wouldn't...because you would have to make the "scale" of "offers" the same...and that means, the men would be like "ew, no way, not ever" at 99.5% of the "offers".


But I thought that the men who are confident enough to ask many women out are the hot ones? The confident ones by definition?


----------



## Faithful Wife

The ones who offer casual sex are complete creepers, ntamph.

So when you say "a woman can get sex anytime", the CREEPERS are the men you are suggesting she can get sex from.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Try this article, too:

The Unbelievable Secret To Getting More Sex | Paging Dr. NerdLove


----------



## ntamph

Faithful Wife said:


> Try this article, too:
> 
> The Unbelievable Secret To Getting More Sex | Paging Dr. NerdLove


I agree with this 100%.

But I had a very, very, very good weekend with my new girlfriend and really don't care about this stuff anymore.


----------



## Cosmos

ntamph said:


> Most guys would kill for the chance to sort through so many interested women.


It's like frog kissing, Ntamph. It can be fun, but you can also end up with a lot of warts before finding that elusive prince/ess


----------



## WyshIknew

To be honest I thought as Ntamph did for some time.

But discussing this with FW on another thread I now have my doubts and can see the alternative point of view.


----------



## Lon

In the times I've been on the dating market, they were too few and far between to ever be considered multi-dates. But then I'm in a different crowd of people than those who multi-date since all my friends (male and female) generally are always sequential daters. Once in awhile some of the girls/women have fluked out and happened to have a little dating overlap. I think it's one of those things where only the popular people are busy multi-dating.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Of course we women get what you mean FF...I'm not sure the men here will though (except Wysh maybe).

When a man talks about how he wishes he could "get more sex", it is assumed and understood that he means "with a woman I am attracted to".

Then when men say "it isn't fair that women could get sex anytime" they take away the attraction factor. Somehow it is assumed that women get hit on, asked out by and offered casual sex to by THEIR top shelf choice of men.

Nope.

They don't.

Women get hit on MOSTLY by men they are not attracted to.

So then back to "women can get sex with...." you have to fill in the rest "...men they are NOT attracted to".

Men really do seem to think that there are Tom Brady's waiting around asking women on dates all day long.

Sorry, no. It is usually Uncle Fester.


----------



## ntamph

FrenchFry said:


> Bringing in a little intersectionality here:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I think this is true a lot of the time:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like some men have a picture of the "average" woman who can walk into a bar and walk out with a guy she wants to have sex with. I hate to be like check your picture, but for chunks of women, whether it be drop-dead gorgeous black women who constantly hear from all spectra of dudes "I would never date a black woman," to the lady who is below average in looks who gets passed over, to the ageism, there are so many filters that men use as well that just never seem to be taken into account that affects women's dating choices as well.
> 
> KWIM?


I agree. It's not a simple thing for anyone.

If I remember correctly, intersectionality is where different factors like race, sex and orientation or class meet, right? 

Yeah, you made a great point. I would have never thought that I'd be dating a single mom. But you just meet people that sweep you off your feet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"I would have never thought that I'd be dating a single mom."

And you actually had suspicions about her before even going out with her..."why does she like me?"..."does she just see me as a meal ticket?", etc.

I know you changed your mind about this but, you just had a bias against it, that's all.

And you would have considered dating her to be "lowering your standards" just a short while ago.

See how all this plays out?


----------



## ntamph

Faithful Wife said:


> And you would have considered dating her to be "lowering your standards" just a short while ago.
> 
> See how all this plays out?


I'm actually really ashamed of that. I hope she never finds out. I was being a class A **** when I thought like that.

It's been a short while but she's been good to me like no one else. I can feel it's from a genuine place. I want to be the best that I can for her. We just need to listen to each. I don't want her to be closed to me but open.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ntamph...No matter WHAT happens with this particular girl, I HOPE very much that you have learned that you are a desirable guy, and that all women do NOT want the jerk-off. You came here thinking exactly that. I hope that has changed permanently.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course we women get what you mean FF...I'm not sure the men here will though (except Wysh maybe).
> 
> When a man talks about how he wishes he could "get more sex", it is assumed and understood that he means "with a woman I am attracted to".
> 
> Then when men say "it isn't fair that women could get sex anytime" they take away the attraction factor. Somehow it is assumed that women get hit on, asked out by and offered casual sex to by THEIR top shelf choice of men.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> They don't.
> 
> Women get hit on MOSTLY by men they are not attracted to.
> 
> So then back to "women can get sex with...." you have to fill in the rest "...men they are NOT attracted to".
> 
> Men really do seem to think that there are Tom Brady's waiting around asking women on dates all day long.
> 
> Sorry, no. It is usually Uncle Fester.




I hope this isn't sexist of me but I would be a bit dubious about a woman who porks the first guy that asks week in week out.

Probably poor self esteem.

The same also applies to a man to be fair.

Not saying there is anything wrong with promiscuity, just indiscriminate promiscuity.


----------



## Cosmos

ntamph said:


> I'm actually really ashamed of that. I hope she never finds out. I was being a class A **** when I thought like that.
> 
> It's been a short while but she's been good to me like no one else. I can feel it's from a genuine place. I want to be the best that I can for her. We just need to listen to each. I don't want her to be closed to me but open.


Being cautious doesn't make you an A**** It makes you cautious.

I'm glad that things are going well for you


----------



## ntamph

FrenchFry said:


> Yeah, you pretty much got intersectionality, more broadly "is the study of intersections between different disenfranchised groups or groups of minorities" I only brought it up because while (some) men feel discriminated against in the world of dating, they seem to overlook how the non-majority woman, however defined, is also discriminated against and just don't take that into account when they think about the sex statement.


I could have recalled the definition perfectly but using Wikipedia would have been cheating, Professor FrenchFry.


----------



## ntamph

Faithful Wife said:


> ntamph...No matter WHAT happens with this particular girl, I HOPE very much that you have learned that you are a desirable guy, and that all women do NOT want the jerk-off. You came here thinking exactly that. I hope that has changed permanently.


I think I'm over that too.

It's just a stingy feeling when someone had treated you so well and you were so suspicious. We all have baggage. Probably me more than her.


----------



## ntamph

FrenchFry said:


> hee hee. I have to get a little technical about social terminology since it tends to be more descriptive than analytical. I'm glad you are having some good times too ntamph.


I took a course on feminism in college, seems eons ago, I wish I had remembered more than I did. The professor was a very classy lady. Made us think but always wanted my opinion too.


----------



## WyshIknew

ntamph said:


> I'm actually really ashamed of that. I hope she never finds out. I was being a class A **** when I thought like that.
> 
> It's been a short while but she's been good to me like no one else. I can feel it's from a genuine place. I want to be the best that I can for her. We just need to listen to each. I don't want her to be closed to me but open.


Ntamph, I really hope your story ends up like mine. I married a single mum. Adopted our son, had three more children, five grandchildren and one more due in a month.

And we are now planning our 25th Anniversary.

And still bonking like rabbits. Older slower rabbits but nevertheless....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I agree to a point on the unacceptability of guys who hit on some women as giving an illusion of easy access to sex somewhat on par with what a man would get by lowering his standards, but there are a couple phenomenon I'm aware of that still go unexplained.

There are a few women I'll go out with platonically, and we often point out the opposite sex and talk male/female issues. These woman are pretty much my looks or a tick above. Wherever we go, I'm usually able to point out a woman id talk to in pursuit. None of them do this. A guy they're attracted to is seemingly rare. If we're about the same level of looks, and we find each other attractive, why is it so difficult for them to identify an attractive man? Its a running thing I see again and again. Men easily noting attractive options and women seeing few attractive options. I don't understand it. Does it mean women have higher standards than men? If so, wouldn't mate selection be more difficult for men? I'm open to opinions on this.

Next issue, many of the women Ive seen were not initially attracted to me, according to their own words. They didn't find me unattractive either. I started in some kind of no mans land, and a common thing Ive heard is "it took me awhile before I decided if I was attracted to you or not. I didn't know at first, I don't usually date guys like you, but the more we talked the more attractive I thought you were."

From a male perspective, neither of these cases makes much sense. How can you not know if you're attracted or not??? Why find so few guys attractive? While men and women begin with standards above themselves, at every level of attractiveness, I feel that women are most reluctant to accept anything less... in fact dramatically more willing to go without entirely.

This would seem to argue for greater difficulty for men in dating. How do you answer to these?


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There are a few women I'll go out with platonically, and we often point out the opposite sex and talk male/female issues. These woman are pretty much my looks or a tick above. Wherever we go, I'm usually able to point out a woman id talk to in pursuit. None of them do this. A guy they're attracted to is seemingly rare. If we're about the same level of looks, and we find each other attractive, why is it so difficult for them to identify an attractive man? Its a running thing I see again and again. Men easily noting attractive options and women seeing few attractive options. I don't understand it. Does it mean women have higher standards than men? If so, wouldn't mate selection be more difficult for men? I'm open to opinions on this.


I can totally relate to that, there are really fit foreign guys around where I live, but when I go out and on the whole there's not many men I find physically attractive. I wonder if women are more selective physically because we carry children, biologically speaking if there is a chance your body is going to invest in a child for 9 months it's going to be with someone with highest attractiveness (whatever you deem attractive) for the best chance of a healthy baby. Plus I have noticed what men find see as attractive men are quite often not what women see as attractive (playgirl is a good example of that).



> From a male perspective, neither of these cases makes much sense. How can you not know if you're attracted or not??? Why find so few guys attractive? While men and women begin with standards above themselves, at every level of attractiveness*, I feel that women are most reluctant to accept anything less... in fact dramatically more willing to go without entirely.*


Personally the thought of sleeping with someone I'm not totally attracted to makes my stomach churn.
IMO because of the risk of pregnancy, we are hardwired to go for looks and security (not necessarily from the same man). Accepting less is a bigger risk considering what your body could possibly go through. 



> This would seem to argue for greater difficulty for men in dating. How do you answer to these?


Not necessarily, it makes it difficult for both genders.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

_"That being said, one common issue I talk about is the overdeveloped-and-undeserved sense of entitlement that a lot of men2 have. They tend to believe that they deserve a smoking hottie, a perfect 10 regardless of their own looks, wealth, lifestyle or personality. It’s not a real surprise to find out that a Nice Guy who doesn’t take care of his appearance and believes that he’s owed a girlfriend is having a hard time getting that 10 to give him her number. Meanwhile he sees Studly GoodNight go up, slap her on the ass, tell her obscene jokes and takes her home that night to **** her until her eyes bleed."_

I have to quibble with this. I think he is speaking about a particularly small group of misogynistic men. I know very few men who think like this. 

I have a friend from my childhood who is like this. It is hard to be friends with him but our families are very close. He is an average guy with a pessimistic, sometimes nasty judgmental attitude. He is looking for the 10 and will settle for nothing less. He finds fault with everything and everyone. He did have one serious relationship for several years and she was a 10 ... smoking hot. It ended badly. He is in his mid-40s now and if he doesn't change his outlook, he will live the rest of his days alone.

It feels as if the author is lumping everybody who is not Studly Goodnight into this category and that isn't true. I think it would be more accurate if you replaced "smoking hottie" with "someone they find attractive". There is nothing wrong with that. 

It's as if he's saying after the average guy approaches and gets shot down by the pretty girl ... "what the heck were you thinking? You think you deserve that? Damn dude. It's your own fault you got shot down. Lame. Go for somebody your own speed."


----------



## Faithful Wife

JustSomeGuy....Dr. Nerdlove is talking specifically about men in the MRM and how they blabber on and on about how it is "so easy for Mr. Ass-slap". Trust me, there are THOUSANDS of men out there blabbering about it. I would link you to it, but it is so offensive and yucko that I can't even go there.

So yes...MRM'ers are for the most part completely misogynistic and fear and hate women and resent them for the fact that the hots ones don't want to have sex with them.

The whole "movement" seems to be filled with men who are pissed that some particular woman didn't want to f*ck them. Whether it was their wife or some girl who is out of their league or whatever...they are always dripping with contempt for that woman and then eventually, for women in general.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Think I'm going to have to stop reading this thread. It's driving me crazy, lol. With the possibility of dating and having sex again being measured in years, I'm just pretty much torturing myself listening to you guys  Maybe I should just lop it off and become a castrato singer at the local opera ... save me a ****load of time and aggravation :O


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aw...that sucks! 

I don't know your whole story but...don't lop it off, man. I'm pretty sure no one EVER is happy with that choice.


----------



## WyshIknew

FW, what is an MRM?


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Faithful Wife said:


> Aw...that sucks!
> 
> I don't know your whole story but...don't lop it off, man. I'm pretty sure no one EVER is happy with that choice.


Which decision ... joining the opera? 

Ha! No worries, I was just kidding ... but then again, nobody would be happy knowing they won't have sex for the next couple of years ... and I might make a heck of an opera singer, who knows?


----------



## Goldmember357

A few times it was awesome


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh...the Mens Rights Movement.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Speaking of...the other day I asked my S25 if he knew that there is a men's rights movement.

He said "yeah I heard something about that once, but then I just stopped listening, because like, how many more 'rights' does a man _need_?"

Gotta love that kid.

I was super glad to hear that he has nothing to do with that sub-section of the internet. I didn't think he would be but I hadn't ever asked him about it. But again, this kid has women throwing themselves at him so...that seems to be the difference in the MRM. They are mad at women who don't want to have sex with them. Since my son doesn't experience the world that way, he doesn't hate women. I know MOST men do NOT hate women, even men who haven't had good luck with them. But I'm just pointing out that it seems the weirdos at MRM are the ones who are just plain bitter at the women who weren't into them. That seems to be how they find their way over there. Gross.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh...the Mens Rights Movement.


There's a Mens Rights Movement?

Really?

I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad. I feel so alpha right now. :rofl:


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Faithful Wife said:


> JustSomeGuy....Dr. Nerdlove is talking specifically about men in the MRM and how they blabber on and on about how it is "so easy for Mr. Ass-slap". Trust me, there are THOUSANDS of men out there blabbering about it. I would link you to it, but it is so offensive and yucko that I can't even go there.
> 
> So yes...MRM'ers are for the most part completely misogynistic and fear and hate women and resent them for the fact that the hots ones don't want to have sex with them.
> 
> The whole "movement" seems to be filled with men who are pissed that some particular woman didn't want to f*ck them. Whether it was their wife or some girl who is out of their league or whatever...they are always dripping with contempt for that woman and then eventually, for women in general.


Men's Rights Movement?

There are thousands of guys posting crazy stuff on 9/11 conspiracy sites too ... but I still think most guys are sane.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Speaking of...the other day I asked my S25 if he knew that there is a men's rights movement.
> 
> He said "yeah I heard something about that once, but then I just stopped listening, because like, how many more 'rights' does a man _need_?"
> 
> Gotta love that kid.
> 
> I was super glad to hear that he has nothing to do with that sub-section of the internet. I didn't think he would be but I hadn't ever asked him about it. But again, this kid has women throwing themselves at him so...that seems to be the difference in the MRM. They are mad at women who don't want to have sex with them. Since my son doesn't experience the world that way, he doesn't hate women. I know MOST men do NOT hate women, even men who haven't had good luck with them. But I'm just pointing out that it seems the weirdos at MRM are the ones who are just plain bitter at the women who weren't into them. That seems to be how they find their way over there. Gross.


Yep, son 2 is like that.

Funny thing is he doesn't have any 'game' or stuff like that, they just seem to like him.

Definitely not a chip off the old block.


I never hated women either, I love 'em. Just never understood them I suppose.


----------



## Wiltshireman

WyshIknew said:


> There's a Mens Rights Movement?
> 
> Really?
> 
> I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad. I feel so alpha right now. :rofl:



IMHO western society does need to look at true equality.

Let me explain what I mean, We have lots of laws that say that the genders must be treated equally but at the same there are lots of “women only” groups and support networks but few for “men only”.

We have all heard of “women’s refuges” but there is little or no support for men who are the victims of spousal abuse.

A 30 something male teacher who has sex with a 15 year old girl will quite rightly be locked up and put on the sex offenders register (or equivalent) however a 30 something female teacher who has sex with a 15 year old boy will be treated more leniently.

Even the language we use has been affected, it used to be fireMAN but that was changed to firefighter so as to include women but it is still midWIFE even though a man with the correct training could do the job just as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Even if I agreed with all those you listed...do they really require a "movement"? And if you think they do, do you actually read websites that are dedicated to the MRM? Because if you don't, you might be shocked at what they say over there.

IOW, I am happy to agree that both genders need positive changes...the WORLD needs positive changes...but do we need a mens rights movement to accomplish this? And if we do, does it have to be manned by misogynists?


----------



## Cosmos

The very real injustices that women suffered happened over hundreds and hundreds of years. The women's movement sought to change all that, but things are still balancing themselves out and society has a _long _way to go in adapting and creating equality for both _genders_...

Mysogyny begat misandry and more mysogyny isn't going to benefit anyone.


----------



## ntamph

The MRM never really jived with me either.

Yeah, some men get taken to the cleaners in court but what does that have to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of politicians and corporate execs are men (the real power strongholds of society)?

Also, I've noticed that men who are single dads or have joint/most custody of the kids from a divorced ex are treated as superhuman. But single moms are just supposed to do this because they're women after all. 

I've still been able to do well in my career without ever seriously considering the fact that something did or did not happen to me because of my gender. Actually, my height probably helps me get jobs (there are studies that support this).

The attack on women's reproductive rights is pretty disgusting too. It is a form of **** shaming and also hurts men. Modern contraception provides a way for BOTH genders' lives to not be dominated by biology. Why is this a bad thing?

Finally, I'm glad that people are beginning to see men as nurturing too. This is one aspect of patriarchy that I definitely loathe (women are naturally caregivers, men interested in their children are weird). I can raise a kid just as good as any woman.

This ignores, of course, the horrific situations that women and girls find themselves overseas. The MRM movement seems to me to be a way of silencing women like in the Mideast just in a milder way. That's what's so distasteful about it.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> I can totally relate to that, there are really fit foreign guys around where I live, but when I go out and on the whole there's not many men I find physically attractive. I wonder if women are more selective physically because we carry children, biologically speaking if there is a chance your body is going to invest in a child for 9 months it's going to be with someone with highest attractiveness (whatever you deem attractive) for the best chance of a healthy baby.


I wonder if it isn't simpler than all of this. Beautiful bodies, after all, are a dime a dozen. But beautiful isn't necessarily the same as attractive. 

Women, I'm guessing, are more likely to make this distinction than men. For example, Devil's idea that every first date can be like "magic" is unimaginable to me --there is just zero chance that I would connect so readily. 

Indeed, I've encountered many a man who was "objectively" good looking, but off-putting and definitely unattractive. Beautiful just isn't enough, and you can't conjure someone else's inner being, no matter how hard you try.

But my guess is that a lot of men can't relate to this because they equate beauty with attractiveness.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> It seems like some men have a picture of the "average" woman who can walk into a bar and walk out with a guy she wants to have sex with. I hate to be like check your picture, but for chunks of women, whether it be drop-dead gorgeous black women who constantly hear from all spectra of dudes "I would never date a black woman," to the lady who is below average in looks who gets passed over, to the ageism, there are so many filters that men use as well that just never seem to be taken into account that affects women's dating choices as well.


QFT!

Indeed, even super gorgeous perfect celebrity 10s who fit every beauty ideal known to humankind and receive zillions of date offers from their fans every day sometimes get rejected or passed over by the ones they want.

Maybe it's hard to feel sorry for them, as they do have so many options. But it's still real rejection, and not the power to have "any guy she wants."


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> I wonder if it isn't simpler than all of this. Beautiful bodies, after all, are a dime a dozen. But beautiful isn't necessarily the same as attractive.


I meant more if you're walking around seeing who is attractive, It does seem there's a lot less men women see they define is attractive than vice versa (and without knowing anything about the guy in the store/street/club there's not much else to go on).




> But my guess is that a lot of men can't relate to this because they equate beauty with attractiveness.


It does with physical attractiveness IMO, but then again there are some guys who I can see are beautiful that do absolutely nothing for me. Also if a guy is physically attractive but a utter a**hole I would lose all attractiveness, yes he would still be physically good looking but it wouldn't make up for his lack of character.


----------



## always_alone

Good links, FW! Thanks for posting them.

Urge to rant lifting... It's all already been said. Phew!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always....I recommend you read EVERY article by Dr. Nerdlove and predict you will love them all. He gets it.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> I meant more if you're walking around seeing who is attractive, It does seem there's a lot less men women see they define is attractive than vice versa (and without knowing anything about the guy in the store/street/club there's not much else to go on).


True, there isn't always a lot to go on, but I think "vibe" (for lack of a better word) conveys a lot of information --assuming you're paying attention.

For example, there's the hot guy who thinks he's god's gift to women or the world, and has this look of supercillious condescension. That's an utter turn off to me. Wouldn't touch it with a 10ft pole.

Flip genders, and there's this hot girl who thinks men and the world owe her something, and has this same narcissistic attitude. Yet guys are lining up to be used by her in the hopes of getting laid. 

Thinking more about this, I can see the gender disparity here may not actually be that great. After all, guys also complain a lot about how women line up for jackasses. But I'm still inclined to think that men (generally speaking) aren't as attuned to this, if only because so many of them on these threads seem to think women are mostly interchangeable, and keep repeating that they don't care anything about what she says or does, only how she looks on the surface.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> I can totally relate to that, there are really fit foreign guys around where I live, but when I go out and on the whole there's not many men I find physically attractive. I wonder if women are more selective physically because we carry children, biologically speaking if there is a chance your body is going to invest in a child for 9 months it's going to be with someone with highest attractiveness (whatever you deem attractive) for the best chance of a healthy baby.





TiggyBlue said:


> Personally the thought of sleeping with someone I'm not totally attracted to makes my stomach churn.





TiggyBlue said:


> Not necessarily, it makes it difficult for both genders.


I don't understand how you reconcile the first two with the third. If women have higher standards and are less willing to settle for anything less (makes your stomach turn)... making them more willing to go without entirely, how can you say this is equal difficulty? Its voluntary on their part. The result would be more women who are alone by choice, while their equivalent physical match in a man takes a woman below his own level or becomes a little resentful.

What I'm trying to point out is that the entitlement thinking is not exclusive to men as the article might have you think. In fact, I'd argue men are less entitled. I disagree that the men presented in the article are all just hankering for some hottie who won't give them the time of day. Rather, I'd say that it is being ignored by women who are their equals that drive the resentment. I think most guys will happily go for their physical match in a woman. But if women have higher standards and are less likely to lower them... she's effectively cut these men off... at least for awhile.

I don't know really. The biggest pickup/dating revelation I ever had was just to jump in and talk to everyone. To go get attention instead of waiting for attention.



TiggyBlue said:


> Plus I have noticed what men find see as attractive men are quite often not what women see as attractive (playgirl is a good example of that).


This sure is the truth and I'm going to ramble about it for a second because there's a lot here I don't get. I don't think half the guys my female friends point out are anything special. Its rare that they find anyone attractive at all, but when they do, there's not even much consistency to what qualities they find attractive... one girl will pick totally different attributes from guy to guy that she finds attractive. w t f.

I don't even think I'm as attractive as my female friends say - I think women have a nasty tendency to say what you want to hear. I might be good at landing dates, but it still takes quite a bit of effort. I couldn't even get a number much less a date on looks alone - looks seemingly do little for me. To get a number or a date, I need time to engage a woman in conversation and get her to laugh or something... to spark some interest in me. Why is that necessary? If I'm attractive to them and we meet in passing why reject giving me a way of making contact again? Why does the "stranger" creepy factor overrides all else? I always have to work to get past this, often as quickly as possible (the starbucks line is slow... but not that slow). The very concept of being freaked out by cute stranger asking for your number is foreign to me. If he's cute, don't you WANT to talk to him?? Why must it be any more complex than "Hey, I think you're cute and I want to talk to you but we're just passing each other here, can I have your number and give you a call?"

If I'm attractive, as my romantic girlfriend's and platonic girlfriend's suggest, why the h*ll doesn't that work? The success rate on it is abysmally low on any woman, even those I think are slightly lower than me in looks.

The disarming conversation seemingly HAS to happen first. Looks aren't enough to get immediate interest, or you have a look a lot better than I do. But honestly, I'm not sure I see many guys that look a lot better than I do. When I judge myself by my judgment of the women who show me unsolicited attention today, I come way thinking I'm a little above average. When I compare myself to men I see in day to day life, I come away thinking I'm way above average in looks. 

Every experience tells me that women evaluate looks in some way that I can't figure out - a way that feels almost dismissive of looks, but at the same time picky. I've never been able to nail it down. I understand the psychology a h*ll of a lot better than I understand what a woman finds physically attractive. I started working out again while I was still married, wanting to get back to the level of fitness I once had, but also thinking my wife would appreciate my efforts at giving her some better eye candy. Total opposite. She preferred me without the muscle and criticized my gym/eating habits. wtf is that?

Women are confusing.


----------



## Jellybeans

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Next issue, many of the women Ive seen were not initially attracted to me, according to their own words. They didn't find me unattractive either. I started in some kind of no mans land, and a common thing Ive heard is "it took me awhile before I decided if I was attracted to you or not. I didn't know at first, I don't usually date guys like you, but the more we talked the more attractive I thought you were."
> 
> From a male perspective, neither of these cases makes much sense. How can you not know if you're attracted or not???


I don't get this either. I know pretty immediately whether I am attracted to a man or not, at least in the physical sense. As far as emotionally, that attraction can grow but yeah, almost always from the onset I know if I would be into someone or not.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't understand how you reconcile the first two with the third. If women have higher standards and are less willing to settle for anything less (makes your stomach turn)... making them more willing to go without entirely, how can you say this is equal difficulty? Its voluntary on their part. The result would be more women who are alone by choice, while their equivalent physical match in a man takes a woman below his own level or becomes a little resentful.


It's equally as difficult to get with someone people perceive as attractive or more attractive.
Again this is all subjective, because one see another as equally as attractive doesn't mean the other person will see them as equally attractive. 



> What I'm trying to point out is that the entitlement thinking is not exclusive to men as the article might have you think.


I agree with that.



> In fact, I'd argue men are less entitled. I disagree that the men presented in the article are all just hankering for some hottie who won't give them the time of day. Rather, I'd say that it is being ignored by women who are their equals that drive the resentment.


Disagree with that, again for the reason because one may see themselves as equally attractive doesn't men the other will agree.



> I don't know really. The biggest pickup/dating revelation I ever had was just to jump in and talk to everyone. To go get attention instead of waiting for attention.


Yep doing that increases everyone chance of getting what they want.




> This sure is the truth and I'm going to ramble about it for a second because there's a lot here I don't get. I don't think half the guys my female friends point out are anything special. Its rare that they find anyone attractive at all, but when they do, there's not even much consistency to what qualities they find attractive... one girl will pick totally different attributes from guy to guy that she finds attractive. w t f.


Because we don't all have the same genetic make up, that's what looks show (plus pheromones ect) is our genetic strengths/weaknesses/antibodies ect. Human's are designed to find the people who compliment are genetics and will make them stronger for the next generation and that is different for everyone. That's why beauty/attractiveness really is subjective imo.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Why does the "stranger" creepy factor overrides all else?


Because women have the additional concern for physical safety. It's that simple.

Now before anyone gets hot under the collar and starts accusing me of calling all men rapists, let me explain:

I know, and other women know, that not all men are rapists. But some are. And more will use their physical presence to bully women into giving it up. I've been grabbed, groped, pushed up against a wall, held down, physically restrained, had my room broken into, flashed, had drivers slow down to match my pace, cat called, and on and on and on. Not all of these scenarios lead to physical harm --in fact most don't. But they create, and necessarily so, a climate of wariness.

And since these creeps do not wear convenient signs on their foreheads, and indeed since the creepiest of them are often "just regular guys" or even quite charming, it's important for pure health and safety reasons to be alert.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Indeed, I've encountered many a man who was "objectively" good looking, but off-putting and definitely unattractive. Beautiful just isn't enough, and you can't conjure someone else's inner being, no matter how hard you try.
> 
> But my guess is that a lot of men can't relate to this because they equate beauty with attractiveness.


Aren't you expressing exactly what I expressed on all those "importance of physical attraction in women" threads? Where I was basically skewered for minimizing the importance of physical attraction for women? Saying that a man just has to pass the bar, and then everything else is non-physical. Where as for men, looks play greater part?

I'm pretty sure you ladies held me over the coals for saying women put less priority, less weight on good looks than men did. Something I thought was a no brainer. Look at the greater desire that men have to view women's bodies as evidenced by who watches most pornography. Hell, you can even sell men anything by putting a hot woman next to it.

Its not that I equate beauty with attractiveness. Its that beauty makes up a greater share of the attractiveness picture for men than it does for women.

To determine how you weight priorities, assume you couldn't get everything you wanted and had to make trade offs... take 100 points and distribute them among the following categories:

Physical appearance:
Intelligence:
Personality/kindness/fun/etc:
Status/success/income:
Mutual interests:

I think most men will put very few points in status/success/income. We don't care what you make. I believe women will be inclined to place few points in status/success/income when viewed this abstractly, but if we say something like a 20 in any category is average, making a 20 in status/success/income the equivalent of being a factory worker making $40k or so, that becomes a little more concrete and women back off from lowering how they weight income just to avoid seeming shallow. In the real world, a man's job does seem to matter to women. So right off the bat, we can see men having greater points available to put in something or another. Women's numbers tend to be more equally distributed, or even slightly biased toward personality and mutual interests - the connection building qualities.

My personal weights would be 30/25/25/0/20.

I think everyone has such weighting system behind the scenes even if they're not aware of it. People are different and comparing them is hard, such thinking is built in to comparing apples to oranges. What you choose depends on your priorities.


----------



## Cosmos

TiggyBlue said:


> Because we don't all have the same genetic make up, that's what looks show (plus pheromones ect) is our genetic strengths/weaknesses/antibodies ect. Human's are designed to find the people who compliment are genetics and will make them stronger for the next generation and that is different for everyone. That's why beauty/attractiveness really is subjective imo.


:iagree:

Also, initial physical attraction is just that. It might prompt us to accept / initiate a first date, but then a host of other important factors come into play.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> Because women have the additional concern for physical safety. It's that simple.
> 
> Now before anyone gets hot under the collar and start accusing me of calling all men rapists, let me explain:
> 
> I know, and other women know, that not all men are rapists. But some are. And more will use their physical presence to bully women into giving it up. I've been grabbed, groped, pushed up against a wall, held down, physically restrained, had my room broken into, flashed, had drivers slow down to match my pace, cat called, and on and on and on. Not all of these scenarios lead to physical harm --in fact most don't. But they create, and necessarily so, a climate of wariness.
> 
> And since these creeps do not wear convenient signs on their foreheads, and indeed since the creepiest of them are often "just regular guys" or even quite charming, it's important for pure health and safety reasons to be alert.


 :iagree: 
on a pure primal level, a woman's body could pay for this for 9 months or worse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think men want an absolute formula that will never be deviated from, so they will then know where they stand.

But the problem is that there is no such thing as "universal appeal", so there can be no formula.

Men think there is "universal appeal" in women's attractiveness, but there isn't. Because even if a woman hits the perfect hour glass shape, age, and the other things men claim are "universal", then her skin color (no matter what it is) will still ALWAYS be a deal breaker for SOMEONE. There is NO universal appeal on either side guys....just deal with it. You can't make attraction follow a formula. You have to just accept the attraction as it comes, and who it comes from, and *that* is your real market.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> think women are mostly interchangeable, and keep repeating that they don't care anything about what she says or does, only how she looks on the surface.


In terms of deciding who to pursue, women ARE interchangeable... so are men. We don't know anything about them, so we pick the best looking and go for it. In deciding whether to keep pursuing, stay with someone or break up with them and go for this other woman who has been flirting with me... then other factors come into play... but its still a matter of weighted priorities. And I do think men put greater weight in beauty - that doesn't mean its everything. You're continuing to twist my words on initial attraction - that men typically see a woman and decide to pursue her based on her looks alone. That the guy who wasn't induced to pursuing her by her looks alone, and instead grew a desire to pursue her after learning all her other qualities, is less common. We are CONSTANTLY looking at women. Women catch our eye or they don't, and if they don't, its highly likely nothing ever happens.

I don't know any guys who have pursued a woman far less attractive than himself for her glowing personality or remarkable intelligence. But I know several women who have done so with men. In fact, I'm one of them... I've dated several women who didn't notice me and even admitted to not knowing if they were attracted to me at first. That's my experience and thus my thinking.

The male brain is pretty darn simple when it comes to attraction. The female brain is seemingly really complex... I still don't understand what "I hadn't decided if I was attracted to you or not yet" means. I know right off the bat, and my attraction to her is now hers to lose only if she turns out to be retarded. No one I don't feel attracted to right off the bat ever gets in... but from what I gather, I do this with women regularly. I didn't catch their eye and stand out on good looks. I stand out elsewhere and they sort of ... develop... more interest in me. They like who I am and THEN say "well, he's pretty good looking."

The way this works in the female mind I don't understand, but I guy seems better looking or worse looking depending on judgment of his personality and the way he carries himself - even though you really don't know his personality. You're just judging him on visual cues to personality... and poof, he's more or less attractive. You yourself do it. Men do it too... but to a much lesser degree and in a different way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> I don't get this either. I know pretty immediately whether I am attracted to a man or not, at least in the physical sense. As far as emotionally, that attraction can grow but yeah, almost always from the onset I know if I would be into someone or not.


I heard this or similar from 4 different women in the months before I met my current gf. One girl said she'd never dated a bald guy. It was new and she wasn't sure if she thought I was hot or not. She liked my arms and shoulders, face, but my big ol' head was confusing her. lol


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Aren't you expressing exactly what I expressed on all those "importance of physical attraction in women" threads? Where I was basically skewered for minimizing the importance of physical attraction for women? Saying that a man just has to pass the bar, and then everything else is non-physical. Where as for men, looks play greater part?


Well, not exactly, as the point I was trying to make was still on the level of looks, longbefore you get to know anything else about intelligence, income, or personality. I called it vibe, but it could also be stance. 

For example, both the woman and man I was talking about above (based on true stories) are both "objectively" beautiful, and both have the narcissistic, self-entitled stance. Yet she had the line-up, and he did not.

My speculation is that many women get a whiff of that stance even before the person said a single word, and are turned off by it, whereas many men don't even see it, or if they do, don't care about it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I do know that my SO, along with every other male within a 10-mile radius, was attracted to said woman, and for my SO, it took watching her rob one friend and destroy another to understand what she was really about. And on the other hand, women seemed much quicker to dismiss said guy because he clearly "thought he was god's gift to women."

Maybe not, though, as there seems to be no shortage of either women or men falling for people who will treat them badly.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always said: "Maybe not, though, as there seems to be no shortage of either women or men falling for people who will treat them badly."

When you look at these examples closely though, you will see it is actually about dysfunction, not attraction.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Disagree with that, again for the reason because one may see themselves as equally attractive doesn't men the other will agree.


That's true... but then someone is wrong. If you play passive in the dating game, what means of judging your own attractiveness do you have other than by how you rate those who approach you?

I know a couple women who are single now, never married, well into their 30s, but aren't bad looking or sh*tty people. The guys she likes are totally out of her league - not gonna happen. She's not interested in any guy that shows her interest, while myself and others are like "what's wrong with him?" and think they're decent matches. I'm thinking its guys that fail with these women that form the bulk of men who are bitter about rejection. Maybe the frustration of pursuing someone who has their head in the clouds.



TiggyBlue said:


> That's why beauty/attractiveness really is subjective imo.


I think it is only subjective to a degree... within a certain variance. There are certain physical elements that are objectively more attractive. 8" inches taller remember? Preference may have some variance, but the overwhelming evidence is that a woman wants a man taller than her.

Don't mistake me, I'm not saying there is an exacting cookie cutter. But there are definitely qualities that can be objectively said to be more attractive or less attractive in degree.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> In terms of deciding who to pursue, women ARE interchangeable... so are men. We don't know anything about them, so we pick the best looking and go for it.


But that's just it. I don't see men as interchangeable at all. I know from the get go that there is only a very small handful that I will ever have any sort of real connection with. And I don't pick the one that is most "objectively" attractive and go for it; I pick the ones that I think have promise for that real connection.

Frankly I don't give a rat's a$$ if he will impress my friends or is likely to be scouted for a modeling gig. I care if we can actually have a meaningful connection.

And yes, I think some of this *is* judged on looks, broadly defined. It's not a perfect measure, of course (see above convo on managing butterflies), but you can pick up a whole lot of information by reading someone's stance.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> You can't make attraction follow a formula.


Best thing said yet :smthumbup:


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't understand how you reconcile the first two with the third. If women have higher standards and are less willing to settle for anything less (makes your stomach turn)... making them more willing to go without entirely, how can you say this is equal difficulty? Its voluntary on their part. The result would be more women who are alone by choice, while their equivalent physical match in a man takes a woman below his own level or becomes a little resentful.
> 
> What I'm trying to point out is that the entitlement thinking is not exclusive to men as the article might have you think. In fact, I'd argue men are less entitled. I disagree that the men presented in the article are all just hankering for some hottie who won't give them the time of day. Rather, I'd say that it is being ignored by women who are their equals that drive the resentment. I think most guys will happily go for their physical match in a woman. But if women have higher standards and are less likely to lower them... she's effectively cut these men off... at least for awhile.
> 
> I don't know really. The biggest pickup/dating revelation I ever had was just to jump in and talk to everyone. To go get attention instead of waiting for attention.
> 
> 
> 
> This sure is the truth and I'm going to ramble about it for a second because there's a lot here I don't get. I don't think half the guys my female friends point out are anything special. Its rare that they find anyone attractive at all, but when they do, there's not even much consistency to what qualities they find attractive... one girl will pick totally different attributes from guy to guy that she finds attractive. w t f.
> 
> I don't even think I'm as attractive as my female friends say - I think women have a nasty tendency to say what you want to hear. I might be good at landing dates, but it still takes quite a bit of effort. I couldn't even get a number much less a date on looks alone - looks seemingly do little for me. To get a number or a date, I need time to engage a woman in conversation and get her to laugh or something... to spark some interest in me. Why is that necessary? If I'm attractive to them and we meet in passing why reject giving me a way of making contact again? Why does the "stranger" creepy factor overrides all else? I always have to work to get past this, often as quickly as possible (the starbucks line is slow... but not that slow). The very concept of being freaked out by cute stranger asking for your number is foreign to me. If he's cute, don't you WANT to talk to him?? Why must it be any more complex than "Hey, I think you're cute and I want to talk to you but we're just passing each other here, can I have your number and give you a call?"
> 
> If I'm attractive, as my romantic girlfriend's and platonic girlfriend's suggest, why the h*ll doesn't that work? The success rate on it is abysmally low on any woman, even those I think are slightly lower than me in looks.
> 
> The disarming conversation seemingly HAS to happen first. Looks aren't enough to get immediate interest, or you have a look a lot better than I do. But honestly, I'm not sure I see many guys that look a lot better than I do. When I judge myself by my judgment of the women who show me unsolicited attention today, I come way thinking I'm a little above average. When I compare myself to men I see in day to day life, I come away thinking I'm way above average in looks.
> 
> Every experience tells me that women evaluate looks in some way that I can't figure out - a way that feels almost dismissive of looks, but at the same time picky. I've never been able to nail it down. I understand the psychology a h*ll of a lot better than I understand what a woman finds physically attractive. I started working out again while I was still married, wanting to get back to the level of fitness I once had, but also thinking my wife would appreciate my efforts at giving her some better eye candy. Total opposite. She preferred me without the muscle and criticized my gym/eating habits. wtf is that?
> 
> Women are confusing.


Alot of attractive, handsome men are "taken down a peg" by females. But you can't let them. I think other than the attraction is who and what you are. They tend to be heavily into social validation and who your friends are. Use these to your advantage, you may need to make some new friends.

Another thing to use to your advantage is if you can get outside in eyesight with some of your attractive female friends. You will gain acceptance and attraction through this.

They will see you in a positive light from observing your positive and mutually enjoyable interactions with other lovely ladies ( your friends ).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I think men want an absolute formula that will never be deviated from, so they will then know where they stand.
> 
> But the problem is that there is no such thing as "universal appeal", so there can be no formula.
> 
> Men think there is "universal appeal" in women's attractiveness, but there isn't. Because even if a woman hits the perfect hour glass shape, age, and the other things men claim are "universal", then her skin color (no matter what it is) will still ALWAYS be a deal breaker for SOMEONE. There is NO universal appeal on either side guys....just deal with it. You can't make attraction follow a formula. You have to just accept the attraction as it comes, and who it comes from, and *that* is your real market.


I don't think anything is universal. I rather prefer a range... an accepted degree of variance and corresponding limits on predictability. I accept this, but it doesn't mean everything is entirely random. I even enjoy the game the unpredictability creates.

What I don't accept is this notion of your "real market". I've found my market to grow tremendously above those who showed me interest and much of that is the result of, not learning a universal formula, but a collection of small truths behind building attraction and becoming a more socially adept person. Today, I don't wait for who shows me interest. I get myself noticed and generate interest.

Dating is hell for the under confident or shy male introvert, but I'm sure they still find someone. That said, there's clearly a better way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Without honest, original, organic physical attraction, long term sexual attraction won't last. So the "other things" that make you attractive will not mean anything in the long run.

So if you want to just keep cycling through women, then no problem. But if you want sustainable sexual attraction, there has to be authentic physical attraction. Or...there are a few men and women who are simply so sexual that they can be sexually attracted without physical attraction. That is the other alternative.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think anything is universal. I rather prefer a range... an accepted degree of variance and corresponding limits on predictability. I accept this, but it doesn't mean everything is entirely random. I even enjoy the game the unpredictability creates.
> 
> What I don't accept is this notion of your "real market". I've found my market to grow tremendously above those who showed me interest and much of that is the result of, not learning a universal formula, but a collection of small truths behind building attraction and becoming a more socially adept person. Today, I don't wait for who shows me interest. I get myself noticed and generate interest.
> 
> Dating is hell for the under confident or shy male introvert, but I'm sure they still find someone. That said, there's clearly a better way.


If your a shy introvert or under confident, you can help yourself along and get yourself going, by dating someone maybe a little less than you want to end up with. You know how they have the guys rule at the end of the night at the bar, "when in doubt, ...".

That confidence makes so much of a difference.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But that's just it. I don't see men as interchangeable at all. I know from the get go that there is only a very small handful that I will ever have any sort of real connection with. And I don't pick the one that is most "objectively" attractive and go for it; I pick the ones that I think have promise for that real connection.


That's very sweet, but did you miss the part where I said you don't know a thing about them? How do you gauge "promise" of real connection with someone you don't know? What sparks desire to find out? Physical attraction. Its all we've got up front. Thus, at that point, yes... everyone is interchangeable.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Without honest, original, organic physical attraction, long term sexual attraction won't last. So the "other things" that make you attractive will not mean anything in the long run.
> 
> So if you want to just keep cycling through women, then no problem. But if you want sustainable sexual attraction, there has to be authentic physical attraction. Or...there are a few men and women who are simply so sexual that they can be sexually attracted without physical attraction. That is the other alternative.


I agree. There are some women who like that charm in you, so that "King of Queens" main character is such a sexy bear to them for example and they want to pound him and love him.

I know many of us want that animalistic instant hit where "they have to have you", they can feel it in their loins, they get turned on, warmed up, excited by the sight and movement of you...

So my current situation forced me to step up my game several levels, aiming above Chippendales level for raw physical image, and I will get it. 

I want a physique that would almost universally gain a huge positive sexual signal from strangers, even that if they wouldn't like me they couldn't deny the raw physical attraction.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Without honest, original, organic physical attraction, long term sexual attraction won't last. So the "other things" that make you attractive will not mean anything in the long run.
> 
> So if you want to just keep cycling through women, then no problem. But if you want sustainable sexual attraction, there has to be authentic physical attraction. Or...there are a few men and women who are simply so sexual that they can be sexually attracted without physical attraction. That is the other alternative.


You've said this before and I still don't buy it. I know marriage after marriage where physical attraction is derived not from his physical form, but her emotional connection to him and the pleasure of his personality.

The proof against you, is that we all lose our physical features yet remain attracted to our spouses. I'd argue my thinking to be more sustainable than yours. Physical gifts wane. Charm and charisma don't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There still has to be physical attraction, and if you don't believe this, you are fooling yourself, or you just don't want to "date down".


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> Without honest, original, organic physical attraction, long term sexual attraction won't last. So the "other things" that make you attractive will not mean anything in the long run.
> 
> So if you want to just keep cycling through women, then no problem. But if you want sustainable sexual attraction, there has to be authentic physical attraction. Or...there are a few men and women who are simply so sexual that they can be sexually attracted without physical attraction. That is the other alternative.





Faithful Wife said:


> There still has to be physical attraction, and if you don't believe this, you are fooling yourself, or you just don't want to "date down".


Oh I so agree with this. If there is no physical attraction, there is not much of a sexually healthy marriage.

If I am not attracted to man physically, I am not going to want to sleep with him. Plain and simple.

Sigh. 

It sucks when I meet a guy who is great but my lady parts don't get excited. Sadness.

I was with my ex for eight years and even when he annoyed the ever living ish out of me, sometimes I'd glance at him and be like, "HAWT DAMN. That man is fine." Everyone needs this.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> If your a shy introvert or under confident, you can help yourself along and get yourself going, by dating someone maybe a little less than you want to end up with. You know how they have the guys rule at the end of the night at the bar, "when in doubt, ...".
> 
> That confidence makes so much of a difference.


I'm not. I was a looong time ago. I was more shy than truly introverted - I do get energized by other people - in fact, I'm kind of a vampire. I have certain circles, independent groups of friends, that feed certain aspects of me.... and those circles don't talk to each other.

I got over it by forcing myself into social situations and jumping out. I joined the Marines and ignored the part of you that cares about perceptions and stepping on toes. I went out A LOT... and just sought craziness... everything from acting a fool to seeing what buttons I could push. I pissed off a LOT of people along the way, got in a lot of fights, did a lot of drugs... made some lifetime friendships, but by the time I leveled out and met my ex I didn't care about much.

Weirdly, that careless (carefree?) attitude I had was like cocaine to my ex at the time.

Much of my behavior at the end of my marriage was a return to being completely careless. That's how shy introvert becomes outgoing extrovert. You stop caring about what other people might think of you.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> There still has to be physical attraction, and if you don't believe this, you are fooling yourself, or you just don't want to "date down".


The only time's I've seen the opposite of this is when I someone get's with someone for money, the way I've heard women who have talked about their spouse it sounds more like a business deal than anything else, not really attracted to anything about their spouse except money.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> There still has to be physical attraction, and if you don't believe this, you are fooling yourself, or you just don't want to "date down".


So all the women I know whose husbands got fat in the years since they dated were really find fat attractive right?

One in particular raves about how sexy he is... its kinda funny really. Does she just have the hots for fat men?

No. She loves the man, he treats her great, and it colors everything else. Whatever the physical attraction was once upon a time, that man is nothing like that anymore. How does that fit your theory?


----------



## Faithful Wife

You can tell yourself whatever you want and find examples of your own confirmation bias all day long. You get to believe what you want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And besides...you have told us repeatedly that you "don't care" what the specific tastes of ONE woman is. So why throw up your ONE woman example?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> You can tell yourself whatever you want and find examples of your own confirmation bias all day long. You get to believe what you want.


Don't dodge the question. How does it fit your theory?

If physical attraction is the must you say it is, why do people stay together after the physical assets they pursued no longer exist?

Is that woman I mentioned turned on by fat men? Or does connection and love do wondrous things for the eyes?


----------



## WyshIknew

Is there a standard or set of standards for what makes an attractive man?

I know that there are a lot of variables and personal preferences involved but there are surely some universally accepted sexeh standards?

There are film stars, sports stars and rock stars that a lot of women agree are sexeh.

From another thread it seems that 6' plus is better.

Muscly? Physically fit? Average Joe? Fuller figure?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Q. Why do people stay together after the physical assets they pursued no longer exist?

Many DON'T. That is why in the Marriage Builders program, the need for an attractive spouse is considered a valid emotional need, and if you don't meet this need for your spouse you can conclude that attraction will fade and LOVE may fade soon after.

From their website:

Physical Attractiveness

For many, physical attractiveness can be one of the greatest sources of love units. If you have this need, an attractive person will not only get your attention, but may distract you from whatever it was you were doing. In fact, that's what may have first drawn you to your spouse -- his or her physical attractiveness.

There are some who consider this need to be temporary and important only in the beginning of a relationship. Some feel that after a couple get to know each other better, physical attractiveness should take a back seat to deeper and more intimate needs. And I've even heard some suggest that those with a need for physical attractiveness are immature or spiritually weak -- even subhuman! 
But I don't judge important emotional needs, and I don't think you should either. The question you should ask is, what need when met deposits the most love units? If it's physical attractiveness, it should not be ignored. For many, the need for physical attractiveness not only helps create a relationship, but it continues on throughout marriage, and love units are deposited whenever the spouse is seen -- if he or she is physically attractive. 

Learn how to be an attractive spouse 

Among the various aspects of physical attractiveness, weight generally gets the most attention. Almost all of the complaints I hear regarding a spouse's loss of physical attractiveness are about being overweight. And when diet and exercise bring the spouse back to a healthy size, physical attractiveness almost always returns. However, choice of clothing, hair style, makeup, and personal hygiene also come together to make a person attractive. Since attractiveness is usually in the eyes of the beholder, you are the ultimate judge of what is attractive to you. 

If the attractiveness of your spouse makes you feel great, and loss of that attractiveness would make you feel very frustrated, you should probably include this category on your list of important emotional needs. 

(end quote)

Q. Is that woman I mentioned turned on by fat men?

YOU are the one who keeps insisting that ONE sample means nothing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> And besides...you have told us repeatedly that you "don't care" what the specific tastes of ONE woman is. So why throw up your ONE woman example?


Because its not one woman... its all over the place. We all physically degrade as we age. If physical attraction is vital, and those physical elements are impermanent, then how is your view sustainable.

I'll never lose my charisma. In fact, as we age I'd argue that as we age the variance in beauty also declines. Most will put on weight. Most will wrinkle. etc etc.

The idea of physical attraction as long term glue holds no water imo.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's very sweet, but did you miss the part where I said you don't know a thing about them? How do you gauge "promise" of real connection with someone you don't know? What sparks desire to find out? Physical attraction. Its all we've got up front. Thus, at that point, yes... everyone is interchangeable.


Did you miss the part where I pointed out that you can get a whole lot of information by reading someone's stance?

No, not everyone is interchangeable. I can sift out boatloads of physically attractive people just by the way they look and move about in the world.

It's even easy, if you can be bothered. Which clearly you aren't as you'd rather create 'magic' with every girl you go on a date with. Fine and dandy, if that's what you want from life. Me, I'd rather not waste my time playing the numbers game, as again, I know there's only a handful of people that would be suited to me.

I've made mistakes, no doubt. Many of them. But I've often been able to read people quite accurately with virtually no information beyond looks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"We all physically degrade as we age."

So who are you to decide that an aged person cannot also be attractive? I never said that, you did.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Q. Is that woman I mentioned turned on by fat men?
> 
> YOU are the one who keeps insisting that ONE sample means nothing.


Do I really need to throw out a hundred thousand cases to demonstrate a very common fact?

Most people, if not all, decline in looks with age. Why aren't all these people falling out of love if physical attraction is the glue you say.

Many of them are... what about all of those who aren't?


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Most people, if not all, decline in looks with age."

Merely your opinion.


----------



## ntamph

You can always take care of yourself.

I think I've found someone who is really physically into me. It's a great feeling. She has an amazing body for someone who has given birth. But she takes care of herself. Physically, financially, emotionally. I'm glad that I get to experience all of that now.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> So who are you to decide that an aged person cannot also be attractive? I never said that, you did.


I'm setting you up for a point I'll make if you go for it.

Can an old person be attractive? Relatively speaking, sure. Absolutely speaking, not really.

The harsh truth is that when I'm 70... when you're 70... or anyone else... they are objectively less physically attractive than their younger selves.

The physical things you wanted in that man at 20, are no longer there at advanced age. So I just want to know how that fits your theory of being this critical relationship glue if most of what you went for physically, fades. But hey, he's almost as tall and still has those blue eyes.


----------



## Jellybeans

TiggyBlue said:


> The only time's I've seen the opposite of this is when I someone get's with someone for money, the way I've heard women who have talked about their spouse it sounds more like a business deal than anything else, not really attracted to anything about their spouse except money.


Right. And it takes a certain kind of woman to do that. 

Even if a man had all the money in the world, if I wasn't attracted to him, I could not sleep with him.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You've said this before and I still don't buy it. I know marriage after marriage where physical attraction is derived not from his physical form, but her emotional connection to him and the pleasure of his personality.
> 
> The proof against you, is that we all lose our physical features yet remain attracted to our spouses. I'd argue my thinking to be more sustainable than yours. Physical gifts wane. Charm and charisma don't.


My ex wife, I still wanted to pound her good with the weight gain after child birth. When you think sex, you think of your wife and you know that sex is good!

However a buddy of mine and I were talking and we both agreed. Even if you love them. Even if you like sleeping with them. It's just going to be HOTTER and a stronger draw if they are more physically attractive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh, you're right Dvls...attraction makes no difference. Well it does for men, but not for women. Sure.

But since YOU can't see YOURSELF being attracted to anyone at 70 apparently, what is the point in talking about it to you at all? Since you cannot fathom it, you will just disregard it like always.

You seem to think your (and everyone's) tastes will stay the same at 70 as they are at 20. 

That's not what I said at all so you get to own that one, not me.

I know my husband is going to be a hunk of a silverback at 70 and I will be the equivalent aging beauty. I have no worries about loss of attraction. Because I know now my tastes at 46 are much different than they were at 26 and 36, so I can conclude they will also be different at 56, 66, 76....

But even if you ARE right...how do you propose that YOU will stay attracted to some old lady? Clearly you assume there is no way in hell you ever will be. Guess you'll just have to give up on women at a certain age when they stop being attractive to you.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> Muscly? Physically fit? Average Joe? Fuller figure?


All of these are purely physical characteristics, but I suspect that what draws women to agree that a given guy is "hot" has more to do with his vibe or stance than with just the size of his biceps or the cut of his jaw.

Some guys just ooze sex appeal even though they aren't ideal physical specimens. Some guys are just clearly way to full of themselves, so even though they should be "ideal", they aren't really attractive at all.

That's my take on it anyway.


----------



## ntamph

Obviously, I'm 29 and I don't see 15 year old girls the same way I used to.

They are annoying GIRLS. My tastes have changed over time and they will continue to change.


----------



## WyshIknew

I think it's all relative.

With the best will in the world there is no way, on an absolute scale, that I could 'compete' (for want of a better word) or compare to some young pretty boy actor or sports star.

However I feel that I have more than kept pace with many other men my age, I'm fit, physically strong, very healthy. I like to dress well without being too showy. I don't have movie star looks but I'm not grossly fugly either.

So for my age, relatively speaking, if I were not happily married I think I would be fairly in demand and would be 'ranked' quite highly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Why do I get the feeling that finding a man attractive is like a binary proposition to women? Its on or off.

I'm not saying that physical attraction is irrelevant to women's selection of men. Rather that it doesn't play the same part as it does for men. All of the women I've dated have *some* physical attraction to me. Few of them were so attracted that they'd pick me out of the crowd and think "omigodheshot". This is the point I'm making. I am not saying women don't care at all about looks, but that a man merely has to pass the bar on looks - and the better we connect, amazingly the better I seem to look. I see it over and over again... and I'm hardly some ugly dude just making this up to make himself feel better. This is what I see regularly.

I'm not getting these women on looks. I'm get them with personality and interest... on looks, I suspect I'm barely making the cut. I can't count how many women turned me down or gave me the cold shoulder initially (when looks matter most), only to still end up dating me.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Why do I get the feeling that finding a man attractive is like a binary proposition to women? Its on or off.
> 
> I'm not saying that physical attraction is irrelevant to women's selection of men. Rather that it doesn't play the same part as it does for men. All of the women I've dated have *some* physical attraction to me. Few of them were so attracted that they'd pick me out of the crowd and think "omigodheshot". This is the point I'm making. I am not saying women don't care at all about looks, but that a man merely has to pass the bar on looks - and the better we connect, amazingly the better I seem to look. I see it over and over again... and I'm hardly some ugly dude just making this up to make himself feel better. This is what I see regularly.
> 
> I'm not getting these women on looks. I'm get them with personality and interest... on looks, I suspect I'm barely making the cut. I can't count how many women turned me down or gave me the cold shoulder initially (when looks matter most), only to still end up dating me.


They must've heard or got the feeling that you have some good D!


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Did you miss the part where I pointed out that you can get a whole lot of information by reading someone's stance?
> 
> No, not everyone is interchangeable. I can sift out boatloads of physically attractive people just by the way they look and move about in the world.
> 
> It's even easy, if you can be bothered. Which clearly you aren't as you'd rather create 'magic' with every girl you go on a date with. Fine and dandy, if that's what you want from life. Me, I'd rather not waste my time playing the numbers game, as again, I know there's only a handful of people that would be suited to me.
> 
> I've made mistakes, no doubt. Many of them. But I've often been able to read people quite accurately with virtually no information beyond looks.


:iagree:

Stance and body language can tell us a lot more about a person than they often tell us, and I use it a lot. Tone of voice is also a revealing factor for me...

_"According to experts, a substantial portion of our communication is nonverbal. Every day, we respond to thousands on nonverbal cues and behaviors including postures, facial expression, eye gaze, gestures, and tone of voice. From our handshakes to our hairstyles, nonverbal details reveal who we are and impact how we relate to other people." _Types of Nonverbal Communication


----------



## DesertRat1978

I can't speak for anyone else but a lasting, healthy, sexual relationship with someone, I would have to find them physically attractive. I have had opportunities in the past to get with women that were great people but were not attractive, as per my standards. I just could not will myself into wanting them that way.


----------



## Jellybeans

I would never date a man who I was not physically attracted to. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Jellybeans

tyler1978 said:


> I can't speak for anyone else but a lasting, healthy, sexual relationship with someone, I would have to find them physically attractive. I have had opportunities in the past to get with women that were great people but were not attractive, as per my standards. I just could not will myself into wanting them that way.


Yep! There has to be an attraction physically, IMO, for it to take off (and stay on).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "I'm not getting these women on looks. I'm get them with personality and interest... on looks, I suspect I'm barely making the cut. I can't count how many women turned me down or gave me the cold shoulder initially (when looks matter most), only to still end up dating me."


"Ended up dating me" in no way predicts sustained long term sexual attraction. But if you aren't worried about the long term, it doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Jellybeans said:


> Yep! There has to be an attraction physically, IMO, for it to take off (and stay on).


If my wife did not have the curves that she does and that face, I would not be as attracted. She is a great person but when it comes to sex, I still see that curvy body and it just does it for me.


----------



## WyshIknew

Mrs Wysh has said that if I wasn't as 'fit' as I am she would still love me but would probably not be so sexually attracted to me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> You seem to think your (and everyone's) tastes will stay the same at 70 as they are at 20.


Finally!!! I was trying to lead you to saying this.

So physical attraction as a "lasting factor" is kinda nonsensical isn't it? You don't know what you'll like as you age. You don't know what your partner will look like as they age. You're in fact, taking a crapshoot. So judge me for devaluing the basis of your crapshoot? ha... ok. 



Faithful Wife said:


> That's not what I said at all so you get to own that one, not me.


dunno what you're referring to here.



Faithful Wife said:


> I know my husband is going to be a hunk of a silverback at 70 and I will be the equivalent aging beauty. I have no worries about loss of attraction. Because I know now my tastes at 46 are much different than they were at 26 and 36, so I can conclude they will also be different at 56, 66, 76....


Yep, your tastes are going to be different, but who's to say they will be for what your hubby has then? Hence why physical attraction as long term glue is nonsense.



Faithful Wife said:


> But even if you ARE right...how do you propose that YOU will stay attracted to some old lady? Clearly you assume there is no way in hell you ever will be. Guess you'll just have to give up on women at a certain age when they stop being attractive to you.


Clearly *I'm* assuming? I'm the one advocating that the non-physical here. You're the one saying that the physical is so important for lasting relationships. I say I can't predict the future. I don't know what I'll like, nor what she'll look like. What I can reasonably expect is that she retains her original charm and personality. That I will retain mine, and I'd argue that a relationship based on these non-physical elements is certainly durable in the long term. Because they help you see past physical flaws. No where have I said that looks don't matter at all... you still have to meet the min. I do or these women wouldn't date me. But that's a world of difference from their selecting me for my dashing good looks. I'm certain they could find another me with better hair... and probably taller. But they won't find my personality and unique wit anywhere but here.

Physical attraction over the long term is nothing but chance imo. Good to have beauty right now, but don't bet on it lasting. The non-physical things... they're less subject to change. And love... well it has this weird way of seeming to make someone look better too. I was still very attracted to my ex after pregnancy... but I wouldn't hit on a girl with as much weight today. Love will make you see what you want to see.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "Ended up dating me" in no way predicts sustained long term sexual attraction. But if you aren't worried about the long term, it doesn't matter anyway.


Even looks don't predict long term sexual attraction. There are a ton of women who find their husbands perfectly fine physically who lose attraction to him for non-physical reasons.

As I've said, a guy just has to pass the bar. Women don't seem be as hell bent on getting the best looker they can find as men are prone too. That's the point.

Either way, if you're basing your long term marital hopes on the promise of sustained physical attraction... well... that's just rolling the dice imo. Because you don't really know how they nor your taste, will turn out down the road.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ntamph said:


> Obviously, I'm 29 and I don't see 15 year old girls the same way I used to.
> 
> They are annoying GIRLS. My tastes have changed over time and they will continue to change.


Exactly the point I was trying to lead her to. Your taste changes. If your taste changes, who's to say your spouse is going to change properly with your taste?

Doesn't sound like a great basis for sustaining something long term to me. Sounds a lot like gambling. Some win, some lose.


----------



## Faithful Wife

In fact, I *have* correctly predicted my own tastes so....where is the problem again? If you are saying I'm going to find my H unattractive because of a few wrinkles, you are wrong, sorry. I know YOU think that, you keep saying that as we age we ALSO get less attractive. I never said that or thought that so that's on you, not me.

Will I find him less attractive if he gains 25 pounds? Yes. And yes I would consider leaving him for it if it didn't change back.

But wrinkles? Gray hair?

*You* may never be able to be attracted to those things but that's a personal preference and individual preferences don't matter.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But anyway Dvls...just keep dating women who aren't attracted to you, I'm sure one of them will find the "magic" necessary to create attraction out of thin air. Sure! Happens all the time.


----------



## ntamph

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly the point I was trying to lead her to. Your taste changes. If your taste changes, who's to say your spouse is going to change properly with your taste?
> 
> Doesn't sound like a great basis for sustaining something long term to me. Sounds a lot like gambling. Some win, some lose.


I meant that we become more mature as we get older. 

If I end up with my current girlfriend forever I'll always want to remember this time in our lives when we met and will always see the 28 year old babe looking back at me no matter how old she gets.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> "Ended up dating me" in no way predicts sustained long term sexual attraction. But if you aren't worried about the long term, it doesn't matter anyway.


There is a big difference between the one and the one who will do for now, I don't think that's really gender specific.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> In fact, I *have* correctly predicted my own tastes so....where is the problem again? If you are saying I'm going to find my H unattractive because of a few wrinkles, you are wrong, sorry. I know YOU think that, you keep saying that as we age we ALSO get less attractive. I never said that or thought that so that's on you, not me.
> 
> Will I find him less attractive if he gains 25 pounds? Yes. And yes I would consider leaving him for it if it didn't change back.
> 
> But wrinkles? Gray hair?
> 
> *You* may never be able to be attracted to those things but that's a personal preference and individual preferences don't matter.





Faithful Wife said:


> If you are saying I'm going to find my H unattractive because of a few wrinkles, you are wrong, sorry. I know YOU think that, you keep saying that as we age we ALSO get less attractive. I never said that or thought that so that's on you, not me.


Oh I'm happy having that on me. I'll repeat it, objectively speaking, we get less attractive with age. Its one thing to take ntamph saying he's no longer attracted to 15 year olds, and another thing entirely to think that a 50 year old man really thinks a 50 year old woman's body is hotter than her 25 year old body. No. She might still be attractive to him by his RELATIVE 50 year old standards, but he objectively knows she's not as hot as she used to be... period. There is in fact a peak to everyone's attractiveness. I don't see any reason to back off this.

But that's not the door I was closing on you. I wanted you to point out that what people are attracted to changes with time, just as people's bodies also change with age. So are you saying you can see the future? You knew that your husband would change in such a way, so aligned with your changes in preference that you knew you'd stay attracted? No. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're psychic. You predicted it... except for that divorce right? That guy wasn't so attractive after you stopped liking him thought was he? Or maybe that was something else. This time you've predicted it for sure. I'm trying to get you to see, this is not prediction, this is chance. What if hubby's ears and nose just kept on growing to infinity and beyond... can you predict attraction? Can he help it? No. Did you know you'd have a thing for big noses and ears? If he puts on 25 pounds but he's doing everything possible to lose that weight but it doesn't want to come off... you just divorce him? What if he's in a disfiguring accident? I hope your love goggles came with a warranty. Long term shouldn't be so subject to chance.

I know my standards of attraction will change too. I know the beautiful woman I choose today, may not be as objectively beautiful tomorrow. I don't know what either of those changes will actually be, so it can hardly be the basis for believing any relationship has long term potential. The non-physical things are far better predictors if you ask me, as they're far less subject to change.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ntamph said:


> If I end up with my current girlfriend forever I'll always want to remember this time in our lives when we met and will always see the 28 year old babe looking back at me no matter how old she gets.


Love goggles. Like I said, when you're in love, you see whatever you want to see.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But anyway Dvls...just keep dating women who aren't attracted to you, I'm sure one of them will find the "magic" necessary to create attraction out of thin air. Sure! Happens all the time.


I always see the F.T.S. meme when you post like this. Cracks me up every time.

They're clearly attracted to me... they're dating me. The primary basis for that attraction isn't my looks. Dunno why I have to keep repeating that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But Dvls what you are missing is that even if a man thought his wife's body was hotter at 25 than at 50, this doesn't mean that she is NOT hot to him at 50. Somehow, you think that being hotter when younger trumps out *ALL* beauty when older? That just isn't so. 

A man can STILL be totally attracted to his wife's body at 50. Hotter at 25? Sure? Still hot at 50? YES. Hot enough for sustained physical attraction? Of course. Do you not bother to read all these men talking about their gorgeous 50 and older wives around here?

But it won't be that way for you, that much is obvious. You clearly will not be attracted to a 50 y/o woman...so are you going to just keep dating which ever 20 y/o's are still impressed with your "other skills" when you are 50?

Since being physically attractive to your partners doesn't matter to you either way, I assume it won't matter to you by then either.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But Dvls what you are missing is that even if a man thought his wife's body was hotter at 25 than at 50, this doesn't mean that she is NOT hot to him at 50. Somehow, you think that being hotter when younger trumps out *ALL* beauty when older? That just isn't so.


No, I'm not. I only need to prove that what we find attractive changes, and that we can't perfectly predict these changes or the changes in our partners bodies. THAT's why I wanted this "change" to come out of your mouth, not mine. Accepting that this all changes and being unable to see the future, its a crapshoot... not a good basis for the long term.

I say that the non-physical elements play the larger role in keeping attraction alive... love goggles if you will... and this likely happens regardless of their physical changes. It would take really dramatic changes to undo imo. That's a suitable base for the long term, not one's predicted attraction to one's prediction of their partner's body years down the road.

I have to think that if you'll leave someone for gaining 25 pounds, that you don't really love them. I know that may sound offensive, but no offense is intended. That's just how I see it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> But Dvls what you are missing is that even if a man thought his wife's body was hotter at 25 than at 50, this doesn't mean that she is NOT hot to him at 50. Somehow, you think that being hotter when younger trumps out *ALL* beauty when older? That just isn't so.


Yep 25 years someone will age, but they're not going to morph into looking like a totally different person (unless they gain a massive amount of weight, then they may be unrecognizable).


----------



## Faithful Wife

My husband would NEVER be with a woman who didn't actually have a strong physical attraction to him. Why would he be? He deserves to be physically desired and he has always been with women who are physically attracted to him. He knows that anything less than this will eventually result in a lackluster sexual attraction.

Did you bother to read what I copied from Marriage Builders? I'm not the one saying lack of physical attraction will lead to falling out of love, the best selling author and marriage counselor of that program is the one who is saying it. You can take it up with him.

If I gained 25 pounds and showed no signs of taking it off, thereby thumbing my nose at my husband's perference, he'd eventually leave me, too.

Does that make me think he doesn't love me?

Nope.

It means he knows that for love to last, sexual attraction must also last. And this is well documented, by the way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Yep 25 years someone will age, but they're not going to morph into looking like a totally different person (unless they gain a massive amount of weight, then they may be unrecognizable).


Nose, ear proportion changes. Skin quality dramatically changes. Hair changes. Teeth sometimes change. Body weight and posture may change.

That's a lot of variability.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nose, ear proportion changes. Skin quality dramatically changes. Hair changes. Teeth sometimes change. Body weight and posture may change.
> 
> That's a lot of variability.


So Tom Hardy is going to turn into looking like prince Charles?


----------



## ntamph

I'm partially responsible for derailing this thread.

I think everyone should how date how they want to date. I've never dated multiple people simultaneously and that's great just like dating multiple people simultaneously is also great.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No worries ntamph! Dvls created this whole thread just to bait me so there really is no way to threadjack it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband would NEVER be with a woman who didn't actually have a strong physical attraction to him. Why would he be? He deserves to be physically desired and he has always been with women who are physically attracted to him. He knows that anything less than this will eventually result in a lackluster sexual attraction.
> 
> Did you bother to read what I copied from Marriage Builders? I'm not the one saying lack of physical attraction will lead to falling out of love, the best selling author and marriage counselor of that program is the one who is saying it. You can take it up with him.
> 
> If I gained 25 pounds and showed no signs of taking it off, thereby thumbing my nose at my husband's perference, he'd eventually leave me, too.
> 
> Does that make me think he doesn't love me?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> It means he knows that for love to last, sexual attraction must also last. And this is well documented, by the way.


Man, it would suck if either of you got into an accident that left you disfigured.

You know what people in those situations report? They don't see the disfigurement of their spouses. They somehow see past them to the person they love.

Its all good. I don't know anything anyway, I just bone hot chicks and dgaf what they're attracted to in me. God, if I would just settle for a less attractive woman who thought I was a hot sh*t catch I'd have a great relationship. What am I doing seducing minds? Better yet, maybe I'm hotter than I think... and all the chemistry building is irrelevant. That's good too.

Amazingly enough, my gf, who said she wasn't really attracted to me at first and later said I'm addicting... said those three little words for the first time this weekend. I'll have to let her know that its over... marriage builders and FW said that it can't last because she wasn't really into me up front. Sad story.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> No worries ntamph! Dvls created this whole thread just to bait me so there really is no way to threadjack it.


Ha! You flatter yourself. I created this thread for my satisfaction. You don't have to participate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

As a matter of fact I do have a physical disfigurement, Dvls. Imagine that! And yet there is still solid two-way physical attraction between us.

You are the one who has made assumptions about what is attractive and what isn't, not me. I am just saying attraction needs to be there.


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nose, ear proportion changes. Skin quality dramatically changes. Hair changes. Teeth sometimes change. Body weight and posture may change.
> 
> That's a lot of variability.


Not always. I look almost as great as I did 35 plus years ago. In fact people often mistake me for a 20 year old. Coupled with my intelligence, breathtaking sex appeal and devastating wit - I'm still a great catch for any man. I know for a fact that every night (after beating off hoards of teenagers trying to hit on me) my SO drops to his knees and thanks God for his good fortune in being graced by my favours.:rofl:

***Grabs tape measure and runs to mirror to check for ear and nose droopage***


----------



## MagnificentEddy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nose, ear proportion changes. Skin quality dramatically changes. Hair changes. Teeth sometimes change. Body weight and posture may change.
> 
> That's a lot of variability.


I weigh the same as I did when I was 17, but the Earth's rate of spin has changed making me seem heavier.

:rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> You are the one who has made assumptions about what is attractive and what isn't, not me. I am just saying attraction needs to be there.


No actually, I'm only saying that physical traits and taste change, so I'm not sure how anyone can say attraction based on appearance will remain long term.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> So Tom Hardy is going to turn into looking like prince Charles?


I don't know who Tom Hardy is, but physically, he'll be a lesser Tom Hardy. Maybe one's taste moves along with those changes, maybe it doesn't.

Weight gain for example, is very often a product of a metabolism slowing with age, and even decreased testosterone in men. Natural occurrences. When I'm 55, I just might weigh 25 lbs more. Seems like a poor reason to lose interest in someone you love. Its not like they gluttoned themselves into it. Most people do put on weight... maybe adjusting tastes just dont keep up.


----------



## Jellybeans

Tom Hardy is dreamy :drools:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Been reading that dr nerdlove blog you posted FW. He's pretty accurate. How he explains developing ones social skills is spot on with my experience. A lot of comedy up front, figuring out how to talk, observe better, overcoming anxiety, talking to everyone everywhere and a sh*t ton of repetition. I even documented my progress and had clear goals of increasing difficulty.

The only area I really differed is that I dont really have a type. I like a lot of different people for very different reasons.

I agree with most of what I've read so far.

"You can either wallow in envy or you can do something.

The issue isn’t that you aren’t rich or suitably hyper-masculine, it’s that you’re not maximizing what you bring to the table."

This is EXACTLY what I tell guys who say they can't pull off what I pull off. Half the blog looks like I could've written it.

That all said, I still don't like multi dating. I like feeling special and making someone else feel special. Nice blog though, thanks for posting.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't want anyone to think I'm insulting everyone older than me btw. I was better looking 15 years ago. I had hair. ;P


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't want anyone to think I'm insulting everyone older than me btw. I was better looking 15 years ago. I had hair. ;P


Sure ... I was starting to choke up but then I realized ... hey, I still have all my hair 

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't want anyone to think I'm insulting everyone older than me btw. I was better looking 15 years ago. I had hair. ;P


No offense taken here. I was just trying to inject some much needed humour


----------



## WyshIknew

Cosmos said:


> Not always. I look almost as great as I did 35 plus years ago. In fact people often mistake me for a 20 year old. Coupled with my intelligence, breathtaking sex appeal and devastating wit - I'm still a great catch for any man. I know for a fact that every night (after beating off hoards of teenagers trying to hit on me) my SO drops to his knees and thanks God for his good fortune in being graced by my favours.:rofl:
> 
> ***Grabs tape measure and runs to mirror to check for ear and nose droopage***


:lol:

You hawt!


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> :lol:
> 
> You hawt!


I know. I'm so hawt my pants have been known to burst into flames!


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> My husband would NEVER be with a woman who didn't actually have a strong physical attraction to him. Why would he be? He deserves to be physically desired and he has always been with women who are physically attracted to him. He knows that anything less than this will eventually result in a lackluster sexual attraction.
> 
> Did you bother to read what I copied from Marriage Builders? I'm not the one saying lack of physical attraction will lead to falling out of love, the best selling author and marriage counselor of that program is the one who is saying it. You can take it up with him.
> 
> If I gained 25 pounds and showed no signs of taking it off, thereby thumbing my nose at my husband's perference, he'd eventually leave me, too.
> 
> Does that make me think he doesn't love me?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> It means he knows that for love to last, sexual attraction must also last. And this is well documented, by the way.


I'm not entirely sure this is correct for everyone.

My wife has definitely gained weight from the 23 year old woman I met all those years ago.

She often complains about her tummy now being rounded and not the flat tummy she had 26/27 years ago.

But to me that sexy flat tummy has changed into a sexy rounded tummy.

Every time we go to bed together we spoon cuddle and I love to just caress her tummy, it's so lovely and smooth.

Also that tummy has given me four wonderful children.

We have gone through so much together.

Joy, grief, happiness, sadness, fun, raising the children, being grandparents, grumpiness, anger, humour, laughing, crying, sickness, health, hope, despair, buying our first house and worrying about the mortgage, birthdays, anniversaries, standing together against the world, nearly divorcing, enduring and enjoying everything that life throws at us.

What 20 year old bimbo could ever, ever compete with that?

Perhaps it's just pure luck that even after all these years one of the things I enjoy most is making love to my wife?


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> I'm not entirely sure this is correct for everyone.
> 
> My wife has definitely gained weight from the 23 year old woman I met all those years ago.
> 
> She often complains about her tummy now being rounded and not the flat tummy she had 26/27 years ago.
> 
> But to me that sexy flat tummy has changed into a sexy rounded tummy.
> 
> Every time we go to bed together we spoon cuddle and I love to just caress her tummy, it's so lovely and smooth.
> 
> Also that tummy has given me four wonderful children.
> 
> We have gone through so much together.
> 
> Joy, grief, happiness, sadness, fun, raising the children, being grandparents, grumpiness, anger, humour, laughing, crying, sickness, health, hope, despair, buying our first house and worrying about the mortgage, birthdays, anniversaries, standing together against the world, nearly divorcing, enduring and enjoying everything that life throws at us.
> 
> What 20 year old bimbo could ever, ever compete with that?
> 
> Perhaps it's just pure luck that even after all these years one of the things I enjoy most is making love to my wife?


Wysh, I think rather than our tastes _changing_, they mature along with us.

I can certainly tell if a young man is attractive, but I'm far more attracted to a man in my own age range - both physically and mentally.


----------



## WyshIknew

Cosmos said:


> Wysh, I think rather than our tastes _changing_, they mature along with us.
> 
> I can certainly tell if a young man is attractive, but I'm far more attracted to a man in my own age range - both physically and mentally.


Yes I agree.

I can look at a pretty girl of 20 and enjoy the view but it's just eye candy.

If for whatever reason I has to start all over again at my age I would be looking for someone within my age range, which I would say is probably going to be a woman of 45 to 65 ish.

Mrs Wysh is 7 years younger than me and it's never been a problem, in fact I'm physically in better condition than her.
And all joking aside I am frequently told that I could pass for 20 years younger than my age (If you disregard the greying hair)


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> Yes I agree.
> 
> I can look at a pretty girl of 20 and enjoy the view but it's just eye candy.
> 
> If for whatever reason I has to start all over again at my age I would be looking for someone within my age range, which I would say is probably going to be a woman of 45 to 65 ish.
> 
> Mrs Wysh is 7 years younger than me and it's never been a problem, in fact I'm physically in better condition than her.
> And all joking aside I am frequently told that I could pass for 20 years younger than my age (If you disregard the greying hair)


I'm 15 years older than Mr C, but I'm told that we look around the same age. It could be Mr C's greying beard, or it could be my 'cosmetically blended' blonde hair and/or skin that's still pretty good _for my age_.


----------



## Jellybeans

Recently had something happen that is relevant to this thread. 
Guy I've known for awhile has had a crush on me for awhile and it seemed to be escalating. I told him that I was so glad we were friends and would never do anything to mess that up.

He is a great person and sweet. BUT, there is simply NO physical attraction on my end, no spark, not in the many years we'eve known eachother. It's simply not there. I could not imagine being physical with him because despite the fact that he is a great person, I don't feel my lady parts getting excited or that other spark/chemistry connection you need.


----------



## IndyTMI

I can't think in the sense of multitasking women. 
I am very monogamous thinking and it just wouldn't feel right doing the "dating around" thing.


----------



## WyshIknew

Jellybeans said:


> Recently had something happen that is relevant to this thread.
> Guy I've known for awhile has had a crush on me for awhile and it seemed to be escalating. I told him that I was so glad we were friends and would never do anything to mess that up.
> 
> He is a great person and sweet. BUT, there is simply NO physical attraction on my end, no spark, not in the many years we'eve known eachother. It's simply not there. I could not imagine being physical with him because despite the fact that he is a great person, I don't feel my lady parts or that other connection you need.


And I suppose it must be quite hurtful for you as well, knowing that he obviously thinks the world of you and yet you have to dash his hopes.
Such is life.
Much better than leading him on because you don't want to let him down.

Ever happened the reverse way, you wanting someone but he doesn't want you?


----------



## Lon

Problem is, I'm no 10, nor a 9 or an 8. Only women that make me go rawr are 8's and 9's. so by dating a 7 I'm not really "dating down" however I feel like I would be settling. I would find her attractive for a time, but that raw sexual lust wouldn't be there, and I doubt that I would be sexually attracted enough for a satisfying LTR. Sure there would be other endearing qualities, but it wouldn't be based on sex and from what I've learned about the way I am it would quickly slide into a sexless relationship.

In my current relationaship I see my gf as equal sex rank as me, some would rank her low because of a couple physical traits (weight and an injury) however I chose to pursue her because she has some traits that for me really drive up the attraction (personality, sense of humor, attitude, fashion sense, financial independence, maturity, personal appeaeance) she knows what works for her and what doesn't. I knew her from before her injury and weight gain, and am still just as twitterpated by her as ever.

However what I really struggle with is my own self esteem, it is hard not to judge myself negatively, I often just feel like a dud and everything I notice about myself seems to reinforce it. And it goes so far as coloring my perception of what she finds attractive about me, and so I think I'm beginning to notice and dwell on her imperfections too much. 

It's not that I'm unhappy, especially with her, she gets me like no other, I just really feel like my sex drive is shut off and that really affects who I am. I blame my low self-esteem which I've always struggled with and despite a lot of focus on counselling and therapy the last couple years is apparent to me is not going away. And maybe that is for the better so I no longer have to feel like I'm supposed to be someone better just to attract someone hot enough that I need to bang them constantly.


----------



## Jellybeans

WyshIknew said:


> And I suppose it must be quite hurtful for you as well, knowing that he obviously thinks the world of you and yet you have to dash his hopes.
> Such is life.
> Much better than leading him on because you don't want to let him down.


Well, yes it does suck for me to have to dash someone's hopes, but I can't help the way I feel. I have never done anything to lead him on, would always talk about other guys I dated and repeatedly call him my "friend." Not once have I ever flirted with him nor done anything un-friendly. But I had to say something because it was getting quite obvious. I feel bad but there is no spark/connection for me romantically.



WyshIknew said:


> Ever happened the reverse way, you wanting someone but he doesn't want you?


Oh, absolutely! It sucks.


----------



## Jellybeans

Lon said:


> Problem is, I'm no 10, nor a 9 or an 8. Only women that make me go rawr are 8's and 9's. so by dating a 7 I'm not really "dating down"


I can honestly say I have never "ranked" people I have dated by #s.


----------



## DesertRat1978

If there genuinely exists no physical attraction to someone, you really do them no service by letting them know otherwise. Even if you were to progress to the point of being physical, your lack of interest would show itself and lead to even greater disappointment.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



Jellybeans said:


> I can honestly say I have never "ranked" people I have dated by #s.


Well then the idea of "dating down" is foreign to you, you merely go by the binary state of attraction. For those of us that have never landed a date with someone that makes us literally drool, we have thought about rank.


----------



## Jellybeans

tyler1978 said:


> If there genuinely exists no physical attraction to someone, you really do them no service by letting them know otherwise. .


But what if they are hitting on you? I prefer honesty.


----------



## DesertRat1978

Jellybeans said:


> But what if they are hitting on you? I prefer honesty.


If they are hitting on you, then you really need to make it known that you are not physically attracted to them. You can't blame them for trying but why not stem the flow before anything unnecessary or unsatisfying happens?

If this persists, it is up to you how you deal with it. You could politely tell them this again or be firm. Either way, the other person needs to know that the sparks will never fly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

All these posts about a total lack of physical attraction make me wonder if my posts have led some to believe that I think physical attraction is irrelevant. I don't.

The point I was making, is that I repeatedly notice a dramatic shift in interest from a woman I am pursuing the more I'm able to build a connection, make her laugh, and appeal on personality/wit/charm/charisma. I doubt that I've ever changed a woman's mind from "no sexual interest" to "high sexual interest". Rather, I don't believe that I've been assigned a sexual value by the more attractive women I've pursued. I'm not a "no", but I'm not a "yes" either. They don't notice me from across the room and go "wow, he's hot". In fact, I don't think I'm noticed until I make myself get noticed.

I've found that if I can get past a cold shoulder and get her to engage - that's when the boom happens... and I go from being just any other guy to a guy she's interested in.

Her physical attraction seems heavily influenced by her perception of me. I doubt any of these women would seek me out just because they thought I'm physically hot. I'm attractive enough... and it is my non-physical traits that turn up the heat. The way I carry myself, the way we interact, the chemistry we have, the fun... etc. By far my best assets are my breadth of interests, wit and my ability to talk/disarm/connect.

There's always this moment when a woman is surprised or impressed by wit or cleverness and starts to engage in this really fun banter. From there forward, I feel like I'm getting more attractive to her by the minute. Her body position changes, she syncs up to my behaviors, she injects more life into the conversation, her gestures become more animated, other distractions get ignored, and often they revert to the sort of tease/hit behavior I associate with little girls on the playground.

At the beginning, her "energy" is intentionally withheld from me. By the end, she's pouring "energy" my way. They go from having neutral interest in me (in other words, no interest, as opposed to negative interest) to having highly positive interest in me. There's a palpable transition from an unspoken "Yeah, that's nice... leave me alone" to "I can't wait to talk to him again." What explanation for this can there be if not that they don't have the hots for my body alone? But no attraction at all? Surely women don't go having sex with men they find repulsive. My conclusion is that the non-physical is the real difference maker and I'm physically attractive enough... even if they weren't lusting for me from the get go. They certainly lust for me after.

I didn't get better looking in that time but I definitely became more appealing. I can't think of any better way to evaluate this than to say women place less weight on looks. Its very different for most guys I think, because we're typically doing the approach and most go after the most attractive approachable woman they think they have a good chance with.

The thing I most strongly correlate with success from all my bar-living days was the ability to make an impression and establish a personal connection. Being more attractive is a huge head start, but it still doesn't seem to beat the guy who makes the better connection with her. I've held her interest against more attractive men, and I've lost a woman's interest against less attractive men. Looks are little more than a foot in the door in my experience. If a man lacks substance or the ability to keep her engaged from there forward, he's toast. I've seen it over and over.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> But what if they are hitting on you? I prefer honesty.


"I'm sorry, you're a lot of fun, but I'm just not feeling it in a romantic sense."

Buttery smooth rejection that says nothing negative about them.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> I can certainly tell if a young man is attractive, but I'm far more attracted to a man in my own age range - both physically and mentally.


:iagree:

20-something year olds look like children to me these days, and I have zero interest in them sexually.

And, tbh, I find the old guy lusting after the hot young thing kinda gross. I have a friend who's 55, and his tongue is always lolling after young girl meat. I have to say, I find it completely unsurprising that he is single and chronically under-sexed. 

'cuz, well, blech!


----------



## always_alone

Jellybeans said:


> I can honestly say I have never "ranked" people I have dated by #s.


I find the whole idea that you can objectively rank people with a simple 1-10 scale rather ridiculous and self-defeating.

I mean, what's the point? To make yourself feel bad? To make others feel bad?

I don't get it.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> I find the whole idea that you can objectively rank people with a simple 1-10 scale rather ridiculous and self-defeating.
> 
> I mean, what's the point? To make yourself feel bad? To make others feel bad?
> 
> I don't get it.


Just the way some of us are wired to model, understand and quantify the world around us. It is not about making anyone feel bad even if that is the outcome.


----------



## DesertRat1978

always_alone said:


> :iagree:
> 
> 20-something year olds look like children to me these days, and I have zero interest in them sexually.
> 
> And, tbh, I find the old guy lusting after the hot young thing kinda gross. I have a friend who's 55, and his tongue is always lolling after young girl meat. I have to say, I find it completely unsurprising that he is single and chronically under-sexed.
> 
> 'cuz, well, blech!


I am another that does not find the younger generation sexually attractive. I want a grown woman, not a child. 

Just about a minute ago, a woman walked in to the office. She is mid-30's and simply stunning, IMO. I knew from the first look that she was very sexually attractive to me. I am married and so that will end this chapter.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> Well then the idea of "dating down" is foreign to you, you merely go by the binary state of attraction. For those of us that have never landed a date with someone that makes us literally drool, we have thought about rank.


This makes me sad, both for you and your gfs. Maybe especially your gfs, since clearly you don't really hold them in the high regard they probably deserve.

I can't imagine continuing to date someone that I thought "below" me or what I "deserved". Not because I'm so uber fantastic, but because if I wasn't really attracted, I'd spare both myself and that person the misery of a relationship where my eye and my thoughts were always on someone else.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh said: "I'm not entirely sure this is correct for everyone."

I'm not sure what part you are specifically responding to, but it is well documented that couples who have a good sex life have longer lasting and happier marriages.

And it is well documented that maintaining attraction for each other is imperitive in keeping a good sex life alive.

True that it is still not true for everyone that they need to be attracted to their spouse in order to have a good sex life...but I'd say that it is true for MOST people.

But, you and your wife are openly and obviously attracted to each other so...I'm not sure I got your point? My one point was that we don't necessarily lose attraction for each other just because we get older, and my other point was that there needs to be honest attraction for each other to begin with. Since you and your W were attracted then and you are attracted now, I'm not sure why you said this doesn't apply to "everyone". It apparently applies to you two.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> Just the way some of us are wired to model, understand and quantify the world around us. It is not about making anyone feel bad even if that is the outcome.


Don't you find that this simplistic quantification also flattens everything, sucking the lifeblood out of the beautiful and rich variation?

I mean, call me a 1 or a 10, and I will still cry, "I'm not a number, I'm a human being!"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I find the whole idea that you can objectively rank people with a simple 1-10 scale rather ridiculous and self-defeating.
> 
> I mean, what's the point? To make yourself feel bad? To make others feel bad?
> 
> I don't get it.


Its just to communicate. Its no different than saying "I saw this one girl who is smoking hot, and this other girl who is really cute."

Given people tend to end up with partners who are roughly equal in looks, it also informs a little as to what range you should be looking.

I don't know why anyone would feel bad about it. We all actually do such estimation naturally but through experience rather than numbers. Most of us form this relative view of self in our late teens, early twenties by the number of date offers we get, the quality of those offers, or how often we are accepted or rejected.

Even when you don't use ranks, you still have a very good idea of where you stand based on your experience... and this plays quite a role in who we find really desirable and who we find less desirable. I might think Suzan is a catch for me, while a more attractive guy might not even consider Suzan. I don't really see anything wrong with that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> True that it is still not true for everyone that they need to be attracted to their spouse in order to have a good sex life...but I'd say that it is true for MOST people.


Do you really think all that sex-inducing attraction is driven primarily by looks?

I know quite a few men who have become down right fat (guys I played football with in hs) and yet they have great sex lives with their not-fat wives. I sort of doubt that these women find these guy's body changes to be attractive. They're still attracted to their men because of WHO they are.

I also know a few women who became fat and their husbands still complain about not getting laid.

I think there's a lot more to it than looks... that in fact, most of it - long term - isn't looks. My own ex wife was annoyed by my gym routine and effort to get cut again. She liked that I seemed comfortable enough early in our marriage that I stopped going to the gym and just let be. Yet I know from previous conversation that she finds lean muscle hot. She preferred the comfortable emotional connection of my relaxing over my pursuit of sexy muscle. In a manner of speaking, she was happy with me becoming less physically attractive. I've heard similar from other men when they started hitting the gym again to regain their former selves. The wives are like "why you tryin' to be hot again?" There's WAY more going on here than looks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It isn't about "looks" it is about attraction.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> This makes me sad, both for you and your gfs. Maybe especially your gfs, since clearly you don't really hold them in the high regard they probably deserve.
> 
> I can't imagine continuing to date someone that I thought "below" me or what I "deserved". Not because I'm so uber fantastic, but because if I wasn't really attracted, I'd spare both myself and that person the misery of a relationship where my eye and my thoughts were always on someone else.


Oh I have held every woman I've been with in high regard, higher than I hold myself because I am a pathological nice guy. Maybe that is why I haven't dated many at all, because few fit into that category I an attracted enough to while at the same time not wanting to inflict disappointment onto them. I don't let my mind wander to other pastures because I am guilt driven and am constantly analyzing and guarding my thoughts and feelings.

I guess I shouldn't be dating at all since I know I have the wrong approach about attraction towards potential mates, but I still have some needs, and I still have lots to offer.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its just to communicate. Its no different than saying "I saw this one girl who is smoking hot, and this other girl who is really cute."


Piss-poor communication for shallow people, if you ask me.

For example, I was friends with this woman, who would undoubtedly score 10 in these ranking systems. Everyone thought she was beautiful! Her complaint? No one ever even saw her as a person. Guys would either be too intimidated to talk to her or just interested in showing her off to their friends. She hated it.

Needless to say, she didn't go after the hottest guys ever. And the one she married was not necessarily of equal rank. It was the one that actually appreciated her for the wonderful human being that she was (and probably still is, although I haven't seen her in a decade or more).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Don't you find that this simplistic quantification also flattens everything, sucking the lifeblood out of the beautiful and rich variation?
> 
> I mean, call me a 1 or a 10, and I will still cry, "I'm not a number, I'm a human being!"


That's like saying quantifying the physics of the universe takes away its beauty and majestic wonder.

I don't think quantification takes away richness or variation. It just describes it.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> Piss-poor communication for shallow people, if you ask me.
> 
> For example, I was friends with this woman, who would undoubtedly score 10 in these ranking systems. Everyone thought she was beautiful! Her complaint? No one ever even saw her as a person. Guys would either be too intimidated to talk to her or just interested in showing her off to their friends. She hated it.
> 
> Needless to say, she didn't go after the hottest guys ever. And the one she married was not necessarily of equal rank. It was the one that actually appreciated her for the wonderful human being that she was (and probably still is, although I haven't seen her in a decade or more).


She was a 10? So you do use the ranking system after all. See, we all do.

I have never looked at anyone as just a number, but I have no problems assigning a number to a person based on my own preferences.

If I only saw them as a number, that would be shallow.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I have yet to look at a woman who is a 1 on this scale and say to myself, "Hmmm... she does nothing for me visually but lets get to know her and see if her character wins me over." All the while knowing that I simply can not look at this person and have the same visceral attraction that I could to someone else. Why not just look for that person that attracts you in both ways; physically and emotionally? 

Last time that I was on the market, I had multiple opportunities with women who simply did not meet my attractiveness criteria. Too short, too skinny, etc. They were serious and wanted more than just chatting. I spared them the disappointment and just came out with it. 

I have came to the conclusion that a woman has to have curves for me to be attracted. 5'0,100 lbs. and AA cup size does nothing for me. I work with three women who are of that build. I have yet to ever have one thought about them as a potential sexual partner.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> I guess I shouldn't be dating at all since I know I have the wrong approach about attraction towards potential mates, but I still have some needs, and I still have lots to offer.


Don't get me wrong. I would never suggest that you don't deserve to love and be loved, or to desire and be desired.

But flattening people into a one-dimensional ranking system and then feeling permanently deprived because of where these people fall on that system seems a sure-fire way to achieve misery for you both.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Piss-poor communication for shallow people, if you ask me.
> 
> For example, I was friends with this woman, who would undoubtedly score 10 in these ranking systems. Everyone thought she was beautiful! Her complaint? No one ever even saw her as a person. Guys would either be too intimidated to talk to her or just interested in showing her off to their friends. She hated it.
> 
> Needless to say, she didn't go after the hottest guys ever. And the one she married was not necessarily of equal rank. It was the one that actually appreciated her for the wonderful human being that she was (and probably still is, although I haven't seen her in a decade or more).


See how we all get what kind of woman you're talking about just by you saying 10? Saying you're a 10 is really no different than saying you're really pretty. That someone doesn't see her as a person isn't an attack on the numbering, but an attack on that person's inability to see her as a person.

In fact, the numbers aren't all about looks, looks are just the most common context. Having "game", could be easily considered having non-physical qualities that make you more appealing than your looks would otherwise dictate. A feisty opinionated personality notches a woman up for me. Being clueless drags a woman down.

Similarly, a guy with a lot of passion and interests tends to appeal more to women than the guy who doesn't do anything interesting.

Its not all about looks, they just play the most obvious and probably most heavily weighted part (particularly for men imo, but I know FW and others disagree).


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> She was a 10? So you do use the ranking system after all.


No. I don't. I was just trying to present my example in your language, so you wouldn't respond by assuming she wasn't attractive enough to be noticed


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't about "looks" it is about attraction.


Awesome. I'll agree. :smthumbup:


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh said: "I'm not entirely sure this is correct for everyone."
> 
> I'm not sure what part you are specifically responding to, but it is well documented that couples who have a good sex life have longer lasting and happier marriages.
> 
> And it is well documented that maintaining attraction for each other is imperitive in keeping a good sex life alive.
> 
> True that it is still not true for everyone that they need to be attracted to their spouse in order to have a good sex life...but I'd say that it is true for MOST people.
> 
> But, you and your wife are openly and obviously attracted to each other so...I'm not sure I got your point? My one point was that we don't necessarily lose attraction for each other just because we get older, and my other point was that there needs to be honest attraction for each other to begin with. Since you and your W were attracted then and you are attracted now, I'm not sure why you said this doesn't apply to "everyone". It apparently applies to you two.



I possibly misread your post or at least part of your post??

It seemed you were saying that if you got older, heavier etc you wouldn't blame your hubby for saying "Sayonara baby I'm off to find someone 'more attractive' because you've let yourself go."

My bad if that's not what you were saying.


----------



## always_alone

tyler1978 said:


> Why not just look for that person that attracts you in both ways; physically and emotionally?


Yes! But I think that's my point. What value does the rank have?

I have no idea where my SO falls on a scale of 1-10, but I do know that I am physically and emotionally attracted to him.

Similarly, I have no idea where I sit on the scale either, but knowing how others might judge me isn't going to affect my SO's attraction to me.


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't about "looks" it is about attraction.


I like this. Because it's true. I have been "attracted" to people physically who are not conventionally hawt. They just have IT.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> No. I don't. I was just trying to present my example in your language, so you wouldn't respond by assuming she wasn't attractive enough to be noticed


My "language", that of numbers, is really quite universal. Is it everything? No not at all, but is it accurate? I think it tends to be, and yes it is depressing because it reveals to me that my expectations (of myself and others) are unrealistic. I don't know how to get it more realistic... Stopping my natural process of assigning rank would be a start, maybe I just need a lobotamy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> I like this. Because it's true. I have been "attracted" to people physically who are not conventionally hawt. They just have IT.


This is what I've been saying!  lol

I should be a dentist. I swear this is like pulling teeth sometimes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yes! But I think that's my point. What value does the rank have?
> 
> I have no idea where my SO falls on a scale of 1-10, but I do know that I am physically and emotionally attracted to him.
> 
> Similarly, I have no idea where I sit on the scale either, but knowing how others might judge me isn't going to affect my SO's attraction to me.


You find some men more attractive than others right? You have a sense of which ones you really have a shot at and which ones you feel you'd be settling for and which ones are probably unattainable right? That's the numbers. We all have it whether we use numbers or not - we generally know who our dating pool is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh...you don't quite have it right. But sort of!

The point is that my H and I both have "attractive spouse" very high on our list of emotional needs. We chose each other in part due to how hot we are for each other, how good the sex is, and how attracted we are to each other.

I know what he likes about me, he knows what I like about him...this includes a dedication to staying fit for both of us.

If either of us stopped taking care of ourselves in this way, the other would definitely start to lose attraction. We both understand this - - it isn't "mean" it is just reality. I'm already about 10 - 15 pounds above my ideal weight. If I gained another 25, he would not be attracted to me and eventually if I didn't take the weight off, he would feel that I wasn't upholding my desire to stay attractive to him. I would feel the same if he gained (another) 25 pounds and didn't take it off. I wouldn't be attracted to that.

SOME people would be. That's why it is about attraction, not looks. That's why I said there is no such thing as "universal appeal".

For my H and I it is agreed and understood that we stay attractive for each other (and ourselves). For me, I do it because I always want to pass the "Would You Do You?" test first and foremost...but this is part of why my H picked me. 

Attraction is an individual thing. What I am saying is that if any person feels that physical attraction is not necessary for long term sustained attraction and a good sex life, they are going to be in for a surprise. You can't make up for lack of physical attraction. You can maybe "be ok" with it for a while and maybe enjoy other things about a person...but if the physical attraction is missing, eventually the sexual attraction will dry up.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not all about looks, they just play the most obvious and probably most heavily weighted part


The more variables you squish into this single 10-pt scale, the more meaningless and subjective it becomes.

Yet these numbers are continually thrown around as though they are objective measurements. You, especially, seemed concerned about measuring everyone, including yourself, and pretending it's all objective truth that will forever and always determine your attraction to others and their attraction to you.

But little is objective about attraction.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> The more variables you squish into this single 10-pt scale, the more meaningless and subjective it becomes.
> 
> Yet these numbers are continually thrown around as though they are objective measurements. You, especially, seemed concerned about measuring everyone, including yourself, and pretending it's all objective truth that will forever and always determine your attraction to others and their attraction to you.
> 
> But little is objective about attraction.



:iagree:
Universal 'ranking' is pretty impossible because attraction is such a individual thing. Plus even though there may be certain trait's that are attractive to the majority, in a world of billions, the minority is still a large amount of people.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh...you don't quite have it right. But sort of!
> 
> The point is that my H and I both have "attractive spouse" very high on our list of emotional needs. We chose each other in part due to how hot we are for each other, how good the sex is, and how attracted we are to each other.
> 
> I know what he likes about me, he knows what I like about him...this includes a dedication to staying fit for both of us.
> 
> If either of us stopped taking care of ourselves in this way, the other would definitely start to lose attraction. We both understand this - - it isn't "mean" it is just reality. I'm already about 10 - 15 pounds above my ideal weight. If I gained another 25, he would not be attracted to me and eventually if I didn't take the weight off, he would feel that I wasn't upholding my desire to stay attractive to him. I would feel the same if he gained (another) 25 pounds and didn't take it off. I wouldn't be attracted to that.
> 
> SOME people would be. That's why it is about attraction, not looks. That's why I said there is no such thing as "universal appeal".
> 
> For my H and I it is agreed and understood that we stay attractive for each other (and ourselves). For me, I do it because I always want to pass the "Would You Do You?" test first and foremost...but this is part of why my H picked me.
> 
> Attraction is an individual thing. What I am saying is that if any person feels that physical attraction is not necessary for long term sustained attraction and a good sex life, they are going to be in for a surprise. You can't make up for lack of physical attraction. You can maybe "be ok" with it for a while and maybe enjoy other things about a person...but if the physical attraction is missing, eventually the sexual attraction will dry up.


I fail the would you do you test. A lot of people do. maybe there are just a whole lot of people that just aren't very sexually attractive... Are they not worthy of love?

I guess I tend to believe that attraction is a lot more universal than some like to admit. Yes there sometimes exceptions, but I hate the cliche of two bumbling unattractive people happening to fall completely in love and remain smitten with each other forever. Maybe there is chemistry, but I think often it is two horny unfulfilled people that have met their match and been able to let down their guard with each other, they trust in each others distrust. But that is not the same as sexual attraction. If it were than you, FW, and your H would be happy to let each other become unfit so long as you lost the pace together.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> My "language", that of numbers, is really quite universal. Is it everything? No not at all, but is it accurate? I think it tends to be, and yes it is depressing because it reveals to me that my expectations (of myself and others) are unrealistic. I don't know how to get it more realistic... Stopping my natural process of assigning rank would be a start, maybe I just need a lobotamy.


Numbers are universal, and they can even be beautiful. But,much like logic, they are empty abstractions that have been stripped of all content. Surely not the right language for love and desire!

After all, once you start adding the content and meaning back in, you quickly learn that people are attracted to quite different things: different body types, different personality characteristics, different everything.

Realism is grand, but just make sure it's realistic realism, and not self defeating negativity dressed up as a fundamental truth.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I guess that I am in the minority. I would take my wife over Kate Hudson, Miley Cyrus, or Kiera Knightley any day. According to most men that report their interest, these women are a 10 or very close to it. My version of a 10 looks nothing like them. If I am ever back on the market (which I may be next year), I will not even give someone who looks like them the first thought. What makes someone physically/sexually attractive is not universal.


----------



## WyshIknew

Lon said:


> I fail the would you do you test. A lot of people do. maybe there are just a whole lot of people that just aren't very sexually attractive... Are they not worthy of love?
> 
> I guess I tend to believe that attraction is a lot more universal than some like to admit. Yes there sometimes exceptions, but I hate the cliche of two bumbling unattractive people happening to fall completely in love and remain smitten with each other forever. Maybe there is chemistry, but I think often it is two horny unfulfilled people that have met their match and been able to let down their guard with each other, they trust in each others distrust. But that is not the same as sexual attraction. If it were than you, FW, and your H would be happy to let each other become unfit so long as you lost the pace together.


I pass the 'would you do you' test.

I think for my age I'm pretty hot.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh...you don't quite have it right. But sort of!
> 
> The point is that my H and I both have "attractive spouse" very high on our list of emotional needs. We chose each other in part due to how hot we are for each other, how good the sex is, and how attracted we are to each other.
> 
> I know what he likes about me, he knows what I like about him...this includes a dedication to staying fit for both of us.
> 
> If either of us stopped taking care of ourselves in this way, the other would definitely start to lose attraction. We both understand this - - it isn't "mean" it is just reality. I'm already about 10 - 15 pounds above my ideal weight. If I gained another 25, he would not be attracted to me and eventually if I didn't take the weight off, he would feel that I wasn't upholding my desire to stay attractive to him. I would feel the same if he gained (another) 25 pounds and didn't take it off. I wouldn't be attracted to that.
> 
> SOME people would be. That's why it is about attraction, not looks. That's why I said there is no such thing as "universal appeal".
> 
> For my H and I it is agreed and understood that we stay attractive for each other (and ourselves). For me, I do it because I always want to pass the "Would You Do You?" test first and foremost...but this is part of why my H picked me.
> 
> Attraction is an individual thing. What I am saying is that if any person feels that physical attraction is not necessary for long term sustained attraction and a good sex life, they are going to be in for a surprise. You can't make up for lack of physical attraction. You can maybe "be ok" with it for a while and maybe enjoy other things about a person...but if the physical attraction is missing, eventually the sexual attraction will dry up.


Ahh.

With you.

I think personally, if Mrs Wysh turned into a blimp I'd still love her I just wouldn't be so sexually attracted to her.

Would that kill my love?

I don't know, but I suspect not, I hope it never becomes reality for me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But little is objective about attraction.


Uh... where did anyone claim objectivity in sex ranks? Mine is going to differ from Lon's somewhat according to what we value most highly. Any objectivity is only in aggregate - and in practice we're talking weak statistics - ie... most guys I know think x is attractive. Most women I've known think y is attractive. Its just interesting to know, see patterns and make predictions. You're sensitive to it as a measure of your personal worth, which its not.

Its not uncommon to say something like "she's a solid 7 on looks, but her [whatever] pushes her into 8 territory." Nobody likes to think so, but a lot of attraction is driven by consensus... and this is consensus building - endorsement. We're socially wired that way... and it doesn't only apply to attraction, but desire for just about anything.

On another note, I'm a software developer. I've long considered building a dating website that allows users to upload pics and rate them, and subsequently return users of the chosen sex with an on par aggregate rating. Doing programmatically what people tend to do naturally anyway in who they approach and most often successfully settle down with. There's a lot of potential for various algorithms here toward match making. The idea that most interests me is to require some standardization of the pictures uploaded, such that I can build in some facial pattern recognition so as to predict the faces that you'll find attractive based on how closely other faces match patterns in the faces you've rated highly. So better than, here's a bunch of people in your area... its here's a bunch of people in your area you're likely physically attracted to and are in your same range of attractiveness. There's a lot of tweaking, weighting and additional data I could compile to build an even better picture to predict who you'd most likely want a date with.

I think there's some potential attraction research merit here too. A lot of promise on an interesting subject.

I wonder if women will just not use my site though... given how abhorrent women find the notion that their attraction can in anyway be understood or predicted.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> Numbers are universal, and they can even be beautiful. But,much like logic, they are empty abstractions that have been stripped of all content. Surely not the right language for love and desire!
> 
> After all, once you start adding the content and meaning back in, you quickly learn that people are attracted to quite different things: different body types, different personality characteristics, different everything.
> 
> Realism is grand, but just make sure it's realistic realism, and not self defeating negativity dressed up as a fundamental truth.


I understand realism...

Who finds muffin tops attractive? Who is drawn to people with posture problems? Who likes blemishes, acne, large noses, mullets,.sweat stains, thinning hair, dirty clothes, broken teeth? etc. there are universal things amongst the human population that hold as physically and sexually attractive in a mate. No amount of pretending will make someone who does not possess physically appealing traits more sexually attractive.

I might look at someone and think "they are a 8" and you might think "7". But you are not going to think "2" and neither is 95% of the rest of the population. There is wiggle room for individual preferences, and perhaps there may be cultural differences that skew things statistically, but for our western culture we realistically measure similar qualities.

It is ignorant to think that people who lack certain "culturally desirable" traits are truly and sexually attracted to those who also lack a similar number of those traits, but it is just how it works out if they want to have a mate. The only way to overcome the lack of attraction is with self delusion on a vast scale (which so happens to also fit into my model of the world)


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> There still has to be physical attraction, and if you don't believe this, you are fooling yourself, or you just don't want to "date down".


I've known guys who were very sweet, and crazy about me, but they did not elicit any kind of physical attraction in me at all, and frankly, the idea of dating them made me panic. 

I've also known guys who were very attractive, but were absolute a-holes and the single most unattractive guys I've known. 

Attitude, imo, is just as important and physical appearance and vice versa.


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> Ahh.
> 
> With you.
> 
> I think personally, if Mrs Wysh turned into a blimp I'd still love her I just wouldn't be so sexually attracted to her.
> 
> Would that kill my love?
> 
> I don't know, but I suspect not, I hope it never becomes reality for me.


If we love and are loved by someone, we owe it to that person, IMO, to keep ourselves attractive for them. It's part of respecting ourselves and not taking the attraction the other person has for us for granted, as well as keeping the romance and magic alive

I wouldn't stop loving my SO if he stopped taking care of himself, but I'd probably lose my attraction for him.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Numbers are universal, and they can even be beautiful. But,much like logic, they are empty abstractions that have been stripped of all content. Surely not the right language for love and desire!


I'll give you that.



always_alone said:


> After all, once you start adding the content and meaning back in, you quickly learn that people are attracted to quite different things: different body types, different personality characteristics, different everything.


Yes and no. Some things I can point to a very common preference, others are more individualistic.

I've yet to find any preference for "broke @ss" among anyone.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Do I really need to throw out a hundred thousand cases to demonstrate a very common fact?
> 
> Most people, if not all, decline in looks with age. Why aren't all these people falling out of love if physical attraction is the glue you say.
> 
> Many of them are... what about all of those who aren't?


There's a difference between natural aging, but still maintaining ones health, and someone who just stops caring about how healthy they are and how they look. 

For me, there is no amount of sweetness, goodness, honesty, selflessnes etc. that will ever make up for a man abusing his body. If a guy doesn't care enough about himself to be healthy, then he _can't_ be the man I need, no matter how much he might love me. I have to respect the person I'm with, and I can't respect people who let themselves go. 

As my husband and I age, I know that our bodies will change. But maintaining good nutrition and good exercise throughout the rest of our lives absolutely will keep us attractive, even into the sixties and seventies. Will we look like we do now? Definitely not. I can't control the elasticity of my skin as I get older. But I can be healthy so that I am the sexiest seventy-year old I can be, and that attitude by itself, imo, is super attractive.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm setting you up for a point I'll make if you go for it.
> 
> Can an old person be attractive? Relatively speaking, sure. Absolutely speaking, not really.
> 
> The harsh truth is that when I'm 70... when you're 70... or anyone else... they are objectively less physically attractive than their younger selves.
> 
> The physical things you wanted in that man at 20, are no longer there at advanced age. So I just want to know how that fits your theory of being this critical relationship glue if most of what you went for physically, fades. But hey, he's almost as tall and still has those blue eyes.


But you can't rate yourself at 70 to the self you were at 20. They aren't the same. At 70 I'm not going to be comparing my husband to who he was at 20, I'm going to compare him to other 70 year old men. 

There's this couple at my gym, they must be in their sixties, and they are both incredibly attractive and in great health. She is toned and fit, and he is buff and hot, complete with the salt and pepper look. My role models, and even I stare at them both when they're in the gym.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> If we love and are loved by someone, we owe it to that person, IMO, to keep ourselves attractive for them. It's part of respecting ourselves and not taking the attraction the other person has for us for granted, as well as keeping the romance and magic alive
> 
> I wouldn't stop loving my SO if he stopped taking care of himself, but I'd probably lose my attraction for him.


This makes me wonder, if two people are married and subscribe to your thinking here and both put on a little weight... but ONE decides or is inspired to get fit, and having gotten fit no longer finds the other attractive... is it the responsibility of the unfit party to become fit to meet the changed standard of the other?

They were totally cool with each other when they were fat together. But now that one is fit, that one is dissatisfied with their fat partner. Is the fat person responsible for making themselves attractive to their formerly fat spouse?

Just curious... thinking out loud. I'm aware of a couple of such disruptions in marriages right now.


----------



## WyshIknew

FrenchFry said:


> hotornot.com has already beat you dvls.
> 
> and for whatever variable of "ew, that's not attractive" there is likely a culture which prizes it. There are cultures that value heavy people, crooked teeth, bumpy skin,huge noses and change their appearance to signify their beauty in line with these ideals that are nowhere near ours.




After reading some of those sex rank posts I posted a couple of pics on Rankmyphotos.

My best position is on a rank of 1-10, 6.26 which apparently is higher than 83% of the men.

Not freaking bad for a dude who is in his late 50's. The younger guys should be ashamed of themselves.


1-10 Vote Rating: 6.26 (19 votes) View 1-10 Votes
Hot or Not Vote Rating: 2.59 (17 votes) View Hot or Not Votes 
Shootout Vote Rating: nothing recorded 


1-10 Ranking: 1013th - Ranked higher than (83.5%) of the men
Hot or Not Ranking: 3162nd - Ranked higher than (43.7%) of the men 
Shootout Ranking: Image must be active and have at least 10 votes to be listed


ETA Just like to add that this is against men of all ages, 20, 30 and 40 year olds. Hah! Hot or what!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> But you can't rate yourself at 70 to the self you were at 20. They aren't the same. At 70 I'm not going to be comparing my husband to who he was at 20, I'm going to compare him to other 70 year old men.
> 
> There's this couple at my gym, they must be in their sixties, and they are both incredibly attractive and in great health. She is toned and fit, and he is buff and hot, complete with the salt and pepper look. My role models, and even I stare at them both when they're in the gym.


I gotta think that at 70, I'm still going to think 40 year old women are way hotter than 70 year old women... even if I'm perfectly happy with and attracted to my 60 year old wife.

But anyway, skip the discussion. Fast forward... We all made up and agreed: attraction, by whatever means, must be retained.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



FrenchFry said:


> hotornot.com has already beat you dvls.
> 
> and for whatever variable of "ew, that's not attractive" there is likely a culture which prizes it. There are cultures that value heavy people, crooked teeth, bumpy skin,huge noses and change their appearance to signify their beauty in line with these ideals that are nowhere near ours.


But in my culture, and according to my own preferences, those aren't even close to ideal, and generally people that are sexually attracted to those are considered to be into a fetish.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> hotornot.com has already beat you dvls.


They wish! Hot or not's system is horrible. It doesn't present you algorithmically chosen matches. The best it does is calculate your rating and compensate for a raters tendency to rate higher or lower across the board (which is necessary).

Still. They suck and they're owned by Newscorp. Oh wait, that's redundant.  I think they got bought out. I'll do them one better and maybe somebody like facebook will buy me out. 

$$$$$$$


----------



## WyshIknew

Lon, I've seen your pics, and I've interacted with you on TAM.

Believe me, on a dude to dude level you are a pretty hot guy. You just need to realise that more.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uh... where did anyone claim objectivity in sex ranks?


Please don't make me go through this thread and find exact quotes where you do this very thing. Let me paraphrase:

1)people who are older are objectively less attractive (without exception!)
2) "girls aren't attracted to me because of my looks, it has to be my charm"
3) people get together only with people of the same rank, a much higher rank is definitely "beyond reach".

And on and on.

It's not that women are bothered by someone predicting their attraction. It's just annoying when these predictions are so far off base, and then insisted on. For example, you've said more than once that a man, including you, is more attractive when "cut". Well, maybe cut guys score higher in your mind, but honestly I don't think a lot of women really care very much about that. And some of us are even turned off by a guy who's obsessed with his muscles, especially when he goes over the top.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



Created2Write said:


> There's a difference between natural aging, but still maintaining ones health, and someone who just stops caring about how healthy they are and how they look.
> 
> For me, there is no amount of sweetness, goodness, honesty, selflessnes etc. that will ever make up for a man abusing his body. If a guy doesn't care enough about himself to be healthy, then he _can't_ be the man I need, no matter how much he might love me. I have to respect the person I'm with, and I can't respect people who let themselves go.
> 
> As my husband and I age, I know that our bodies will change. But maintaining good nutrition and good exercise throughout the rest of our lives absolutely will keep us attractive, even into the sixties and seventies. Will we look like we do now? Definitely not. I can't control the elasticity of my skin as I get older. But I can be healthy so that I am the sexiest seventy-year old I can be, and that attitude by itself, imo, is super attractive.


Not everyone has the means or resources to maintain optimal health, nor has the genetic disposition to appear healthy even if they may in fact be. Myself, I've let myself go to a certain extent, never have I had nutricious meals served for me, I have to cook those on my own, and I don't often have time to, even if I plan it ahead of time. My job requires me sitting at a desk all day and I have neck and back pains as a result, this poor posture etc... I'm not complaining I'm just saying that being a provider for yourself and others sometimes requires trade-offs and often those trade offs are in appearance and health. Like many unattractive people, we are just trying to do the best we can, and circumstances have us as excluded from the dating pool we wish we could be in.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



WyshIknew said:


> Lon, I've seen your pics, and I've interacted with you on TAM.
> 
> Believe me, on a dude to dude level you are a pretty hot guy. You just need to realise that more.


I know I appeal to certain men, lol, just got offered a ride by some dude this morning when I was walking to work... Though it was -30C so maybe he was just being friendly (never get offered rides from women though  )

Now that I think about it, I've been flirted with by more men than women over my lifetime, by atleast a factor of 2.

Anyways, this isn't about my looks, its about the gender differences in selecting a potential date.


----------



## WyshIknew

Lon said:


> Not everyone has the means or resources to maintain optimal health, nor has the genetic disposition to appear healthy even if they may in fact be. Myself, I've let myself go to a certain extent, never have I had nutricious meals served for me, I have to cook those on my own, and I don't often have time to, even if I plan it ahead of time. My job requires me sitting at a desk all day and I have neck and back pains as a result, this poor posture etc... I'm not complaining I'm just saying that being a provider for yourself and others sometimes requires trade-offs and often those trade offs are in appearance and health. Like many unattractive people, we are just trying to do the best we can, and circumstances have us as excluded from the dating pool we wish we could be in.



Perhaps I'm missing something but I really do not feel you are unattractive Lon.

I don't get it?

Granted you aren't Channing Tatum or Ryan Gosling or whatever film star is the latest heart throb.
Very few people are, most people are just varying degrees of ordinary.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



WyshIknew said:


> Perhaps I'm missing something but I really do not feel you are unattractive Lon.
> 
> I don't get it?
> 
> Granted you aren't Channing Tatum or Ryan Gosling or whatever film star is the latest heart throb.
> Very few people are, most people are just varying degrees of ordinary.


I know, I never have said I'm physically unattractive. But it ties back into what devil was saying about looks not really playing into women's attraction to men all that much.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> Lon, I've seen your pics, and I've interacted with you on TAM.
> 
> Believe me, on a dude to dude level you are a pretty hot guy. You just need to realise that more.


I agree with this. From the pics I've seen he's a good looking guy. A little reserved. Lon, join my boxing gym... learning to do a little trash talk and beat your chest will do wonders. 

That made me think of something I read recently... somewhat related I guess. Did you know that standing with your arms above your head in a Y-shape (victory stance) for 60 seconds has been proven to increase feelings of power, bravery and confidence? Better living through yoga. haha


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree with this. From the pics I've seen he's a good looking guy. A little reserved. Lon, join my boxing gym... learning to do a little trash talk and beat your chest will do wonders.
> 
> That made me think of something I read recently... somewhat related I guess. Did you know that standing with your arms above your head in a Y-shape (victory stance) for 60 seconds has been proven to increase feelings of power, bravery and confidence? Better living through yoga. haha


Assume the Y position to get more T


----------



## DesertRat1978

I had serious self esteem issues until my late 20's. When I came out of my shell, I noticed that getting a date was not that hard. However, none of my dates/flings ever said to me, "You are kind of ugly but I can't get enough of your intellect and dry humor". They all said that I was physically attractive and had passed the initial test, so to speak. I needed to pass further tests, of course, in order for anything to happen.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree with this. From the pics I've seen he's a good looking guy. A little reserved. Lon, join my boxing gym... learning to do a little trash talk and beat your chest will do wonders.


Ewww. Well if that's the dating pool y'all want into, have at it.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> Ewww. Well if that's the dating pool y'all want into, have at it.


you are right, instead I'll just go cower at home in the fetal position while listening to backstreet boys music some more


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This makes me wonder, if two people are married and subscribe to your thinking here and both put on a little weight... but ONE decides or is inspired to get fit, and having gotten fit no longer finds the other attractive... is it the responsibility of the unfit party to become fit to meet the changed standard of the other?
> 
> They were totally cool with each other when they were fat together. But now that one is fit, that one is dissatisfied with their fat partner. Is the fat person responsible for making themselves attractive to their formerly fat spouse?
> 
> Just curious... thinking out loud. I'm aware of a couple of such disruptions in marriages right now.


I can only speak for my SO and I. We encourage one another to exercise. If his beard is looking straggly, I get out the clippers and shape it, and when I make an extra effort with my appearance, he compliments me.

I like to think that if we got unfit and stopped taking care of ourselves, we'd encourage one another to get our acts together.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I gotta think that at 70, I'm still going to think 40 year old women are way hotter than 70 year old women... even if I'm perfectly happy with and attracted to my 60 year old wife.
> 
> But anyway, skip the discussion. Fast forward... We all made up and agreed: attraction, by whatever means, must be retained.


I'm 46 and I generally would normally say that young women (late teens to mid twenties) don't do anything for me. They look far too young to me. No matter how objectively attractive to me they are, I just couldn't do it ... I have friends from high school with kids that age.

I'm wrong. Last week I was out at Butler University at the business school for some research with a number of other people. We were taking a break and I was out in the lobby just watching the students ... and my memories of college started flooding back. Sounds a little creepy but there was one girl there .. I'm assuming she's somewhere between 18 and 21 ... and she was giving me the up and down, smiling, kept looking at me, tried to get eye contact. Had to look to see if there was anybody behind me, lol. Maybe she just took me for a professor, who knows, but I almost forgot my age and marital status and went up to talk to her. I realized ... I could have gone there. 

I left feeling ... 1) a little like a dirty old man, and 2) a bit like I wish I could go back to those days after taking in all the energy and 'the world is my oyster' vibe from the people on campus.


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> After reading some of those sex rank posts I posted a couple of pics on Rankmyphotos.
> 
> My best position is on a rank of 1-10, 6.26 which apparently is higher than 83% of the men.
> 
> Not freaking bad for a dude who is in his late 50's. The younger guys should be ashamed of themselves.
> 
> 
> 1-10 Vote Rating: 6.26 (19 votes) View 1-10 Votes
> Hot or Not Vote Rating: 2.59 (17 votes) View Hot or Not Votes
> Shootout Vote Rating: nothing recorded
> 
> 
> 1-10 Ranking: 1013th - Ranked higher than (83.5%) of the men
> Hot or Not Ranking: 3162nd - Ranked higher than (43.7%) of the men
> Shootout Ranking: Image must be active and have at least 10 votes to be listed
> 
> 
> ETA Just like to add that this is against men of all ages, 20, 30 and 40 year olds. Hah! Hot or what!


Wysh, watch those pants of yours. I told you what happened to mine


----------



## WyshIknew

Cosmos said:


> Wysh, watch those pants of yours. I told you what happened to mine


I honestly can't remember.

Must be the age. 

Remind me please.


----------



## Cosmos

WyshIknew said:


> I honestly can't remember.
> 
> Must be the age.
> 
> Remind me please.


This:-


----------



## WyshIknew

Cosmos said:


> This:-


They got burnt?

I am really sorry, sometimes I'm slow on the uptake.

I don't understand.


----------



## WyshIknew

Too hot for them? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> I'm not complaining I'm just saying that being a provider for yourself and others sometimes requires trade-offs and often those trade offs are in appearance and health. Like many unattractive people, we are just trying to do the best we can, and circumstances have us as excluded from the dating pool we wish we could be in.


Uh huh. So correct me if I'm wrong, but what you want is someone who does take care of their looks and health, even though you can't find the time? And someone who does fit every cultural ideal of what a man is supposed to want, even though you don't want to make the necessary trade-offs to do so?

Seems like a problem you could actually resolve if you had half a mind to. Or is it that you also don't actually want to be those things that she would probably expect you to be?


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> you are right, instead I'll just go cower at home in the fetal position while listening to backstreet boys music some more


Errr, I think you were missing my point. Which was that trash talking women and breast beating are most likely only going to impress women who don't mind being trash talked. Aka none that I've ever known.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Please don't make me go through this thread and find exact quotes where you do this very thing. Let me paraphrase:
> 
> 1)people who are older are objectively less attractive (without exception!)


They are, in aggregate. That's what I just said, the only objectivity found in sex rank is when viewed in aggregate.

The VAST majority of people are going to think youthful vibrant hair is more attractive than old silver hair. They think youthful, clear skin is more attractive than wrinkled spotted skin. Even among people who ARE older, the clearer, less wrinkled skin is most attractive. The preference is clearly there for clear, unwrinkled skin.

In aggregate, these are objective preferences for clear unwrinkled skin in the population. Individually, I might have an entirely subjective fetish for moles and my saying so doesn't make it attractive. Only in aggregate is there any objectivity and predictive value: "the vast majority finds moles unattractive" is an objective conclusion. See the difference? 



always_alone said:


> 2) "girls aren't attracted to me because of my looks, it has to be my charm"


What does that have to do with the subjectivity of sex rank? I know what these women liked in me, in part because many have told me.



always_alone said:


> 3) people get together only with people of the same rank, a much higher rank is definitely "beyond reach".


I didn't say only. I said "tend to". Most commonly, people of like attractiveness couple up. Exceptions aren't very common. And again, based on widely held standards of attraction: iow, aggregate sex rank. You understand this. You know exactly what a woman society considers a 10 looks like don't you. 

A statement that a majority of a population shares an opinion on looks is objective. Any individuals opinion on looks is subjective. One is a statement of individual opinion about the physical quality. The other is a statement about the population's opinion for that quality. You're INTP, I know you get the difference here. We're masters of the nuance of categorization.




always_alone said:


> It's not that women are bothered by someone predicting their attraction. It's just annoying when these predictions are so far off base, and then insisted on. For example, you've said more than once that a man, including you, is more attractive when "cut". Well, maybe cut guys score higher in your mind, but honestly I don't think a lot of women really care very much about that. And some of us are even turned off by a guy who's obsessed with his muscles, especially when he goes over the top.


I'll give you the cut one somewhat, and agree on muscle obsession. Chalk it up to sampling bias. The 20-somethings drool at "cut" like nobody's business... but I've been noticing less care for cut with age (maybe because less men are cut lol). I don't think I've over rated being cut though... I still think its a preference, but never thought it as a make or break preference. I've always felt the number one preference among women was that a man has an attractive face.

Though the tide is turning on the feedback I've heard on muscle, the intuitive side of me still whispers in my ear that if I took any given man and got him lean and well muscled (not bulky), any woman would find his more muscled self more attractive than his regular dumpy self... all other things being equal. We're not talking bulky muscle here... we're talking lean and defined: cut. A good face is nice, a good face and a cut body better; but face has much greater weight.

I have to admit I've heard plenty otherwise, but that intuition speaks really loudly to me. I'd be interested in seeing such an experiment.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

JustSomeGuyWho said:


> No matter how objectively attractive to me they are, I just couldn't do it .


Right! But that's social conditioning... you do recognize that they are approaching their peak though do you not?

It doesn't mean we actually go after it or find those our own age unattractive, but "teen" porn isn't the overwhelmingly most popular porn genre on the net by accident, nor are teenage males an overwhelming share of porn watchers.

It is what it is.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> Uh huh. So correct me if I'm wrong, but what you want is someone who does take care of their looks and health, even though you can't find the time? And someone who does fit every cultural ideal of what a man is supposed to want, even though you don't want to make the necessary trade-offs to do so?
> 
> Seems like a problem you could actually resolve if you had half a mind to. Or is it that you also don't actually want to be those things that she would probably expect you to be?


I think you got me all wrong. I just want a nice, attractive lady whom I can be myself with. I happen to have one at the moment, but for me it took the stars to align in a rare event to happen, without that alignment it would be years and decades of in between, and then I also dont want to come across as desperate or easy because I dont want to lose her interest or let her second guess her way out of the relationship.

As for my health and well-being, it is a constant work in progress and will likely never be close to perfect.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> Errr, I think you were missing my point. Which was that trash talking women and breast beating are most likely only going to impress women who don't mind being trash talked. Aka none that I've ever known.


Who said anything about trash-talking women?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Ewww. Well if that's the dating pool y'all want into, have at it.


Yep, its about machismo, risk, confidence and camaraderie AA. Having the nerve to say whatever you want and the courage to back it up. Having BALLS and being resilient.

You don't have to like it or understand it, but I think men should act like men. No better place than the boxing ring to cater to that ancient primal man... and I think it creates a healthier man.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep, its about machismo, risk, confidence and camaraderie AA. Having the nerve to say whatever you want and the courage to back it up. Having BALLS and being resilient.
> 
> You don't have to like it or understand it, but I think men should act like men.


lol there's plenty of women who act the same (they're not acting like men though, just being themselves).
No matter what kind of personality someone has, it will be a turn off to some.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> JustSomeGuyWho said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how objectively attractive to me they are, I just couldn't do it .
> 
> 
> 
> Right! But that's social conditioning... you do recognize that they are approaching their peak though do you not?
> 
> It doesn't mean we actually go after it or find those our own age unattractive, but "teen" porn isn't the overwhelmingly most popular porn genre on the net by accident, nor are teenage males an overwhelming share of porn watchers.
> 
> It is what it is.
Click to expand...

Absolutely they are reaching their peak. As I walked through campus I couldn't believe how many hotties there were. I'm sure in 10-15 years time most of them will fall out of the 'hottie' category.

They are reaching their peak in physical attractiveness. I would argue that they haven't reached their peak in sexual attractiveness and that there is a difference.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> lol there's plenty of women who act the same (they're not acting like men though, just being themselves).


If women are acting the way me and my boys act at the boxing gym... yeah, they're acting like men. It's all good though, because a number of the women I know at gym have bigger balls that a lot of men.

I'm not being discriminatory. I just think there is a lot of societal pressure to "soften" men... and honestly, I think its wrong.


----------



## Lon

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If women are acting the way me and my boys act at the boxing gym... yeah, they're acting like men. It's all good though, because a number of the women I know at gym have bigger balls that a lot of men.
> 
> I'm not being discriminatory. I just think there is a lot of societal pressure to "soften" men... and honestly, I think its wrong.


I think a lot of guys like me aren't even that soft, just that we have withdrawn from ritualistic sexist customs like chest thumping. It all just seems like posturing and we don't really want to play that game. but then we get bitter because people don't want to play with us.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> I think a lot of guys like me aren't even that soft, just that we have withdrawn from ritualistic sexist customs like chest thumping. It all just seems like posturing and we don't really want to play that game. but then we get bitter because people don't want to play with us.


I despise posturing chest thumping almost as much as I despise trash talking women (which was part of Devil's invitation btw).

I'm most certainly not alone in this. Indeed I don't know any women who are impressed by it and wish they could but find a real man.

Aggregate, schmaggregate.


----------



## always_alone

I should add, Lon, that I do hear what you're saying. Very much so. But so much of the frustration can be avoided just by dropping the self-recriminations and expectations of failure.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A statement that a majority of a population shares an opinion on looks is objective.


Make up your mind! One minute you're telling me that no one is saying that attraction is objective, and the next minute you're arguing that attraction is objective. Geez.

Aggregates are way fun for statisticians, but you don't sleep with or date them. So what really matters in love and desire is what the individuals think. And as you've already agreed, individual opinions are subjective.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know exactly what a woman society considers a 10 looks like don't you.


Actually, I'm not so certain I do. I've seen gorgeous women touted by the media as being the sexist women alive, and then watched guys criticize the way they look. I've seen a roomful of gorgeous models picking themselves and each other apart for looking too manly or having too big a nose, or whatever. I've seen guys dissect models celebrities, each with their own set of perfect 10 criteria. 

If a person is ranked a 10 by one other, does this make them a 10? Or do we have to average all ranks across all voters? Do we really want to hold up hotornot sites as the arbiter of who is worthy of attraction? Never mind that all that women need to do to get votes is wear a skimpy outfit and strike a porny stance? And never mind much of the gorgeous fed to us by the media is carefully lit and photo-shopped idealism designed to make people feel bad about themselves so that they will buy more products?

I do think the friend I was talking about earlier would probably rank quite highly, and I can see that some people are more gorgeous than others. But I can also see that there are many different ways of judging gorgeousness that result in quite different assessments, and that even these don't necessarily tell us much about an individual's overall attractiveness because people are package deals.


----------



## Lon

There is the "maxim" 10 and there is the hotornot 10, one is much more interesting to a man and I guarantee it is not the photochopped version of miley cyrus.

often my eyes fall for the tricks, at first glance the photoshop, the makeup, the pushup bras, the fancy/skimpy clothes and "porno stance" , catches my eye every time (in real life or in print/web). I don't know if you can quantify objectively what a person's rank is, but I know I can quantify my physiological reaction to the appearance of a woman and very quickly rate my reaction. In my mind atleast, I know which ones I decide are a real 10 or a fake, I see through the tricks though with a 10 I dont have to, for the rest I sometimes choose to ignore that I am noticing the trick. Real 10s (to me) are rare but out there, and they make me lose my chain of concentration and literally say wow under my breath (whether they are using the tricks or not)

With that said, I'm not interested in a 10, I just stop and look and thank my stars I'm a man who can experience such joy.

And yes I realize that irl, people are package deals, I'd rather trade in a few points on appearances for personality points.


----------



## Created2Write

Lon said:


> Not everyone has the means or resources to maintain optimal health, nor has the genetic disposition to appear healthy even if they may in fact be. Myself, I've let myself go to a certain extent, never have I had nutricious meals served for me, I have to cook those on my own, and I don't often have time to, even if I plan it ahead of time. My job requires me sitting at a desk all day and I have neck and back pains as a result, this poor posture etc... I'm not complaining I'm just saying that being a provider for yourself and others sometimes requires trade-offs and often those trade offs are in appearance and health. Like many unattractive people, we are just trying to do the best we can, and circumstances have us as excluded from the dating pool we wish we could be in.


While I understand the issue of not having the means of being in optimal health, I, personally, feel that most people can find the time to workout at home if they want to badly enough. I'm learning that there are massive amounts of things I can do at home without any weights or treadmills; nothing but my body, making it free. I just have to be willing to put in the time, sacrifice something like getting on my computer. Even twenty minutes a day is better than nothing. 

Food is something I also understand. Whole foods are more expensive than processed foods in general, and they can take longer to make. I, personally, hate cooking. I hate being in the kitchen. But, there are small things we all can do to promote our health. Baby steps are better than no steps at all. 

I don't want a gym rat(bleh!), nor do I expect perfection. I still want to be with a human who likes to pig out on Chinese once a month. But, I can't be with a man who doesn't even attempt to take care of himself. If he doesn't care enough about his body to stay healthy, I refuse to be with him. I want a man I can grow old with, a man who'll be strong and healthy so that we can do all of the things we want to do. A man who'll be a good role model to our kids.

And if I were to let myself go, I wouldn't expect any man to ignore my weight, either.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> I can only speak for my SO and I. We encourage one another to exercise and eat healthily, and we encourage one another to exercise. If his beard is looking straggly, I get out the clippers and shape it, and when I make an extra effort with my appearance, he compliments me.
> 
> I like to think that if we got unfit and stopped taking care of ourselves, we'd encourage one another to get our acts together.


Yup. I wouldn't love my husband any less if he let himself go, but I absolutely would not support such self-inflicted abuse. I love him, I want him to be healthy; to live a long life; to see great grandchildren; to avoid cancer and high blood pressure, both of which run in his family. I want us to have a hot and steamy sex life as long as we can.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It isn't that you'd fall out of love overnight. But what would potentially happen is:

*lack of physical attraction

*lack of sexual attraction

*less sex (avoiding it because spouse isn't attractive to you)

*less connection and intimacy starts eating away at your love for each other

In the Marriage Builders program they explain all of this very well, and having an attractive spouse is only one of the 10 top emotional needs. Not everyone will rank this need the same. Some people will rank it very low. And some people can still enjoy sex without physical attraction.

But "most" people can't.

So if you are going into a relationship knowing up front that a baseline physical attraction isn't present...you are asking for future problems.

I think Tracyishere has said that she isn't necessarily physically attracted to her spouse on appearance alone (I hope I have this right, Tracy!) Yet she is highly sexual and very much SEXUALLY attracted to him...so in that case the lack of physical attraction isn't a problem. But that is a specific case and not very common. Most people won't enjoy sex as much if they are not physically attracted.

For long term relationships, it is one of those things I don't think anyone should try to compromise on or "accept less than because other things make him/her attractive to me". When the hard times come along, being sexual and intimate with each other will be what helps you through those hard times. If physical attraction isn't present to begin with, then during conflict and hard times, it is much easier to start to avoid having sex with that person. Those "other things" that make you attractive aren't there when there is a big relationship issue usually (ie: "charm" goes out the window when you're fighting and/or having serious problems).

People are attracted to all types, shapes, sizes and ages...something I couldn't have imagined when I was 20! I used to wonder how I'd ever still want to have sex when I was "old" because no way would I want to do a wrinkly old man! And yet...here I am married to a wrinkly old man (compared to my 20 y/o tastes) and he's a freaking Sex God. When you're too young to think that far in the future, it is easy to believe that NO ONE is attracted to old people. Huh! Chicks be trying to get with my hubby everywhere we go. Old schmold. People find each other in their own markets. Trying to believe that the 20 y/o mindset stays there forever is normal for a 20 y/o to believe. By the time you are 40, you know better!


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> With that said, I'm not interested in a 10, I just stop and look and thank my stars I'm a man who can experience such joy.
> 
> And yes I realize that irl, people are package deals, I'd rather trade in a few points on appearances for personality points.


Oh, my mistake then. I thought you were lamenting the poor quality of the gfs you found yourself settling for...

Just out of curiosity, though, since you can *guarantee* me that men aren't more interested in "maxim 10" and Miley Cyrus, can you tell me why so many men are so vocal about wishing their women looked more like porn stars and models? Do you suppose all these irl women are just ugly, and these men unhappy they've settled? Or is it possible that these "tricks" that you can supposedly see through, but catch your eye *every* time are helping to create unreasonable expectations of what women are and should be?


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> I used to wonder how I'd ever still want to have sex when I was "old" because no way would I want to do a wrinkly old man! *And yet...here I am married to a wrinkly old man *(compared to my 20 y/o tastes) and *he's a freaking Sex God. *


Haha. I love this, FaithfulWife. :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Make up your mind! One minute you're telling me that no one is saying that attraction is objective, and the next minute you're arguing that attraction is objective. Geez.


I was as clear as day in my last post. One is an individual opinion - subjective. The other is a statement on the preferences of the population at large - objective. These are different things, not inconsistency.

I can prove a statement on physical preference of a given population correct or incorrect. There is no proving an individual's preference correct or incorrect.



always_alone said:


> Aggregates are way fun for statisticians, but you don't sleep with or date them. So what really matters in love and desire is what the individuals think. And as you've already agreed, individual opinions are subjective.


What the individual thinks only matters once you've found the individual... something that is going to be a little bit more difficult if you slouch all the time while the population overwhelmingly prefers standing up straight. Can you see the practicality of that? It applies to many other things as well... even non-physical characteristics.

Its only a tiny example, but you can go about your business slouching and hope to find one person in the minority that likes slouchers, or you can stand up straight and be found more attractive by the vast majority.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



always_alone said:


> Oh, my mistake then. I thought you were lamenting the poor quality of the gfs you found yourself settling for...
> 
> Just out of curiosity, though, since you can *guarantee* me that men aren't more interested in "maxim 10" and Miley Cyrus, can you tell me why so many men are so vocal about wishing their women looked more like porn stars and models? Do you suppose all these irl women are just ugly, and these men unhappy they've settled? Or is it possible that these "tricks" that you can supposedly see through, but catch your eye *every* time are helping to create unreasonable expectations of what women are and should be?


if men go crazy for porn stars, it's because those women are actually going through with the sexual act. No matter how beautiful a woman is, no man wants a tease, if there is no potential for some kind of physical sexual activity, even just seeing it from a distance, her sex rank drops considerably. Men may like a challenge, but they don't like dead ends, and miley cyrus or many models are just dead ends.

it could be that the tricks are affecting my expectations, they certainly affect my response, but then I see woman all around, in real life, using most of the same tricks, so maybe it is normal for expectations to be higher.

I honestly think though, that our modern culture has seriously skewed not only what we see as normal but has harmed the active healthy lifestyle for most of the population. I tend to think society on the whole is physically and emotionally unhealthy, and I think it is a fairly recent phenomenon, like the past two generations.


----------



## minimalME

Lon said:


> I honestly think though, that our modern culture has seriously skewed not only what we see as normal but has harmed the active healthy lifestyle for most of the population. I tend to think society on the whole is physically and emotionally unhealthy, and I think it is a fairly recent phenomenon, like the past two generations.


:iagree:

Came across this article today and thought of this thread:

Men With Attractive Wives Report Higher Levels Of Marital Satisfaction, New Study Finds


----------



## Jellybeans

Lon said:


> . I tend to think society on the whole is physically and emotionally unhealthy, and I think it is a fairly recent phenomenon, like the past two generations.


Why do you think that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lon said:


> I think a lot of guys like me aren't even that soft, just that we have withdrawn from ritualistic sexist customs like chest thumping. It all just seems like posturing and we don't really want to play that game. but then we get bitter because people don't want to play with us.


Why do you consider chest thumping sexist?

I'm not saying you're soft. I'm saying you seem to be unsure. I read a lot of self-doubt. My gym is almost all group work to military-style cadence and tough motivation. I can think of no better place for a man with self-doubts.

We regularly get new people in... many of them timid, unsure, unwilling to really shine and think highly of themselves - to exude confidence. Because its all group work, and we MAKE them participate in all of our chest thumping confidence rituals, I think we change people... we tear each other down and build each other up... creating a defiant confidence even in failure. Think of what a football player feels coming out of the pre-game huddle. We drive these timid folks to talk. We're shouting at each other to keep up intensity doing bag work; we're insulting each other and encouraging bravado.

The timid folks who come in start off like "holy sh*t, these people are crazy!" ... but they end up having crazy fun and everyone talks about how liberating and empowering it is. I think this is a great thing for many people. Its a culture that promotes believing in yourself with enthusiasm and without fail. No excuses, second guessing, doubt or reservation allowed.

While I don't condone acting as we do in the gym in public, it is my belief that what goes on in the gym is carried out of the gym as a sense of sureness and presence. Self-doubt gets erased. Its the same fundamental psychology behind a mantra without being so emo. "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me." 

One of my favorite quotes sums this up better than I ever could:



Marianne Williamson said:


> Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us.
> 
> We ask ourselves, "Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous"? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
> 
> Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people will not feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give others permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.


There are so many people who really need to learn how to roar, and that its okay to do so.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I despise posturing chest thumping almost as much as I despise trash talking women (which was part of Devil's invitation btw).


Trash talking women as in women who trash talk, or trash talking women as in a man trashing a woman?

Firstly, I don't trash talk women at all unless you consider certain teasing trash talk. Trash talk is all about a time and a place. You don't run around trash talking everyone, but an unwillingness to show any bravado is a person who shrinks imo.

There are too many shrinking people. I think people should believe in themselves with gusto not with reservations. It should shine and in my experience people are drawn to it much more so than the quiet confidence that doesn't want to shine.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The problem with that article, Minimal, is that it only surveyed 450 newlywed couple for 4 years. That 4 year mark is when the newness chemicals wear off. If the study had been done on couples who've been married over 10 years, there would be different results (and there are studies like that). It is the long term sustained sexual attraction that is necessary to keep a good sex life alive. Honeymoon sex life has been shown not to last.


----------



## minimalME

Faithful Wife said:


> The problem with that article, Minimal, is that it only surveyed 450 newlywed couple for 4 years. That 4 year mark is when the newness chemicals wear off. If the study had been done on couples who've been married over 10 years, there would be different results (and there are studies like that). It is the long term sustained sexual attraction that is necessary to keep a good sex life alive. Honeymoon sex life has been shown not to last.


Yup - I agree.


----------



## Created2Write

Personally, I think there are a few different types of attraction: physical which, to me, means attraction to the persons body; their level of fitness, their face, their height, perhaps their level of physical ability(though I think that also belongs in the sexual attraction group,) even small things like the color of their eyes. DH has green eyes, and I have _always_ loved green eyes. When I realized he had green eyes, I nearly wet myself. 

Then there's overall attraction to the person which, to me, includes their physical looks: personality, sense of humor, personal habits, political beliefs, religious beliefs, their moral standards, charm, employment, confidence, outlook on life, attitude, etc. A guy can be physically attractive, but overall can be unattractive based on the things listed here. 

Then there's sexual attraction which, to me, includes everything that has already been listed, but can include other things based on the individual. My husband's voice is part of what makes me sexually attracted to him, for instance. It's deep and manly. I also love watching him tumble. That he can do what most other guys can't is downright sexy. 

Some people, as FW said, put less emphasis on the physical aspect and more on the personality, attitude, etc. I put equal emphasis on all three. For me, the physical aspects effects the other two. I can not be attracted to a fat man. 

That said, I do find it insulting that someone would think that, just because the physical aspect is important to a woman, that she would somehow be so shallow as to blame him if he were in an accident and became disfigured. Just, no. There is a massive difference between a man choosing to abuse his body and letting himself go(because, let's be honest, it is a choice), and something happening to him that he can't control. They are not the same at all.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> , but an unwillingness to show any bravado is a person who shrinks imo.


Totally disagree with you there, bravado seems like a attempt to cover insecurity imo.


----------



## Created2Write

Masculinity can be shown in many different ways. It does not require trash talking each other, banging on their chests, breaking them down and then building them back up, nor does it require working out/boxing to military cadence. Those are definitely one kind of masculinity, but there are others, imo. 

My husband doesn't do any of those things(thank the Lord!!), but he does many other things that make him masculine in my eyes. A guy doesn't have to be Tarzan to be confident.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Totally disagree with you there, bravado seems like a attempt to cover insecurity imo.


Have you ever played a competitive sport? Bravado is not insecurity. Its exactly like a mantra.

The people with the most bravado that I've ever met have been football players. They're attempting to cover up their insecurity? Really?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created said: "That said, I do find it insulting that someone would think that, just because the physical aspect is important to a woman, that she would somehow be so shallow as to blame him if he were in an accident and became disfigured. Just, no. There is a massive difference between a man choosing to abuse his body and letting himself go(because, let's be honest, it is a choice), and something happening to him that he can't control. They are not the same at all."

And also...I don't really hear people going around talking about how being disabled or disfigured makes a person unattractive. So I've never understood that argument anyway. I have known many people who are disabled, disfigured, etc. who had plenty of options in the dating world. I have one friend who had her heart broken by a man who only has one arm. She said he was the best lover and MOST attractive guy to HER she ever had.


----------



## Jellybeans

In high school, one of my best friend's aunts was married to the FINEST man who was wheelchair-bound. I would get giggly around him, in that 16-year old way.

He was soo hot. He reminded me of a Clark Kent, always made me say something stupid around him.

Sigh. Memories...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Masculinity can be shown in many different ways. It does not require trash talking each other, banging on their chests, breaking them down and then building them back up, nor does it require working out/boxing to military cadence. Those are definitely one kind of masculinity, but there are others, imo.
> 
> My husband doesn't do any of those things(thank the Lord!!), but he does many other things that make him masculine in my eyes. A guy doesn't have to be Tarzan to be confident.


Quiet confidence exists no doubt - though I think such people are ineffectual. They tend to roll along be avoidant of conflict. They're sure of their own capability, but have little interest/ability to project this confidence to others... they tend to defer. That's just my take on those people... and really beside the point. 

I wasn't giving a treatise on the nature of masculinity, I was pointing out that those with self-doubt would be greatly served by an environment like my boxing gym.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I can not be attracted to a fat man.
> 
> There is a massive difference between a man choosing to abuse his body and letting himself go(because, let's be honest, it is a choice), and something happening to him that he can't control. They are not the same at all.


Then its not the loss of physical trait that has ruined the attraction, but their intent / neglect. An attitude.

Else, involuntary loss of attractive physical traits would mean you lose attraction to him just as well. Maybe he develops a nasty skin condition. Maybe he develops a hormonal issue that causes massive weight gain that in spite of massive effort, he can't overcome.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Have you ever played a competitive sport? Bravado is not insecurity. Its exactly like a mantra.


Not personally, though do know a few professional Boxers and have been in a highly competitive workplace.


----------



## Cosmos

TiggyBlue said:


> Totally disagree with you there, bravado seems like a attempt to cover insecurity imo.


:iagree:
_
bra·va·do (br-väd)

n. pl. bra·va·dos or bra·va·does

1. a. Defiant or swaggering behavior: strove to prevent our courage from turning into bravado.
b. A pretense of courage; a false show of bravery.

2. A disposition toward showy defiance or false expressions of courage._


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> _
> bra·va·do (br-väd)
> 
> n. pl. bra·va·dos or bra·va·does
> 
> 1. a. Defiant or swaggering behavior: strove to prevent our courage from turning into bravado.
> b. A pretense of courage; a false show of bravery.
> 
> 2. A disposition toward showy defiance or false expressions of courage._


Having bravado is not an indication as to whether one has courage or not. It can be false - the punks that hang out at the park down the street from my place who talk big but scatter like roaches... but all bravado is not false.

Even the punks, if they were actually going to throw down, would be best served by having some bravado and intensity.

I played wide receiver. The best defensive backs I faced were loaded with bravado. They know they're good, they make sure you know, and in competition there is a psychological advantage that very often translates to greater success. Yeah, you say a few things when you're making plays... you're reinforcing your own confidence while seeding their doubts.

Do this often and you end up very sure of yourself and resilient to failure. I think every guy should have a healthy dose of it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> you're reinforcing your own confidence *while seeding their doubts.
> *


I think this may be where I see it as a lack of confidence, if you're full of confidence in what you do there's no need to seed doubts in your opponent.


----------



## Cosmos

What really attracts me to a man is _charisma_. Nothing more attractive to me than a man who exudes warmth and confidence:- The 3 Elements of Charisma: Warmth | The Art of Manliness

Sometimes we do have to fake it before we make it, but we need to be careful of what we're actually faking:-
_
“Human beings are by nature actors, who cannot become something until first they have pretended to be it. They are therefore not to be divided into the hypocritical and the sincere, but into the sane, who know they are acting, and the mad who do not.”_


----------



## TiggyBlue

I do think how Bravado/ Chest beating is received could possibly also come down to cultural differences.
Confidence is attractive, someone with a lower confidence is not necessarily unattractive. Bravado and arrogance has always come across as a big attempt to cover up insecurity imo.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Quiet confidence exists no doubt - though I think such people are ineffectual. They tend to roll along be avoidant of conflict. They're sure of their own capability, but have little interest/ability to project this confidence to others... they tend to defer. That's just my take on those people... and really beside the point.
> 
> *I wasn't giving a treatise on the nature of masculinity, I was pointing out that those with self-doubt would be greatly served by an environment like my boxing gym.*


Ehhh, I agree and disagree with that. Not everyone responds the same way to specific environments. 

For example, there are numerous different styles to personal training. There are trainers who are really motivating and positive with their clients; there are trainers who take more of a drill instructor approach with yelling and shouting; there are trainers who like to trigger the competitive side of their clients by telling them they can't do xyz; there are trainers who just talk to their clients throughout the workout; there are trainers who don't say much at all, and force the clients to be self-motivated; there are trainers who take more than one of these approaches, etc. The reason this is such a good thing, is that people are all motivated differently. 

My husband is very self-motivated. He has a strong competitive nature, and enjoys competing against himself. He is strong mentally and likes to see how tired he can make himself by the end of a workout. I am not like that. I prefer to be motivated by my trainer, throughout the workout. I haven't been as active as him throughout my life, and I don't have the mental strength that he does, so I prefer to be told "You're almost there! You can do it!" 

While some guys who lack confidence could benefit from your gym, I don't agree that every guy with self-doubt would.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I am definitely not the type that goes to the gym and boxes. Self doubt and I were married for 15 years. I clung to it with a death grip. I freed myself of it by way of being motivated and finally achieving my goals in life. As for physical activity, I get on the bike and ride for 80-120 miles to the middle of nowhere. One of the benefits to this is that I prove to myself that I can do it. It makes me feel pretty manly to tell myself that I just rode 120 miles in one day through the mountains and deserts of NV and CA. I do not need the reassurance or approval of others to value this.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Then its not the loss of physical trait that has ruined the attraction, but their intent / neglect. An attitude.


It's both, actually. His attitude about himself, the lack of caring about his health...yeah, definitely unattractive. That he chose that for himself, also unattractive. But physically, he's also still going to be unattractive.



> Else, involuntary loss of attractive physical traits would mean you lose attraction to him just as well. Maybe he develops a nasty skin condition. Maybe he develops a hormonal issue that causes massive weight gain that in spite of massive effort, he can't overcome.


I don't agree with this at all. I don't believe the two can even be compared because the circumstances are just too different. 

I dated a guy with a disfigured face. I met him when I was enlisting. He and I hit it off. I was having a majorly hard time with my running, and he would always stay with me until I finished. He had a fantastic sense of humor. I don't think any guy had ever made me laugh so much. 

The disfigurement wasn't subtle; it was really obvious. Yet, even surrounded by other USMC recruits who were more buff than he was, taller than he was, and more handsome than he was, I was most attracted to him. He was one of the greatest guys I dated. He was the one I thought about giving my virginity to, because of how respectful he was. I thought then, and still think now, that he was incredibly hot. In fact, the disfigurement on his face made him unique, even if he wasn't traditionally handsome. My mom even said she was surprised I actually dated him because of his face, and I was really confused about that because I thought he was hot. 

But, he was an alcoholic, and the drinking split us up. Point being: disfigurement doesn't necessarily mean a person is less attractive.


----------



## Created2Write

tyler1978 said:


> I am definitely not the type that goes to the gym and boxes. Self doubt and I were married for 15 years. I clung to it with a death grip. I freed myself of it by way of being motivated and finally achieving my goals in life. As for physical activity, I get on the bike and ride for 80-120 miles to the middle of nowhere. One of the benefits to this is that I prove to myself that I can do it. It makes me feel pretty manly to tell myself that I just rode 120 miles in one day through the mountains and deserts of NV and CA. I do not need the reassurance or approval of others to value this.


Exactly. This is what real confidence is, imo.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Guys, how often did/do you date multiple women?*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Quiet confidence exists no doubt - though I think such people are ineffectual. They tend to roll along be avoidant of conflict. They're sure of their own capability, but have little interest/ability to project this confidence to others... they tend to defer. That's just my take on those people... and really beside the point.
> 
> I wasn't giving a treatise on the nature of masculinity, I was pointing out that those with self-doubt would be greatly served by an environment like my boxing gym.


You describe me quite well, though I don't see this description as being someone necessarily with self-doubt or unmasculine.

As to the sports analogy, I tend to find that competitors who try to psyche me out with bravado are quite ridiculous and their efforts to are not only wasted but actually go in my favor. The opponents who trash talk a lot either aid me in performing better, or more likely end up psyching themselves out by not really being able to have the effect on me they want. So I tend to avoid playing them because it doesn't help me improve my game.

As for avoiding conflict, that is not the same as fearing conflict. Creating or escalating conflict doesn't actually solve any problems, but resolving it can. So I tend to enter into conflict when I think I can help resolve it. I suppose some would see that as lazy or unambitious, I just see it as being efficient.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was as clear as day in my last post. One is an individual opinion - subjective. The other is a statement on the preferences of the population at large - objective. These are different things, not inconsistency.
> 
> I can prove a statement on physical preference of a given population correct or incorrect. There is no proving an individual's preference correct or incorrect.


My only real point was that there is indeed someone who is arguing that attraction is objective -- and that someone is you. And here you are arguing that same point again.

Yet, this "objectivity" that you speak of is just a group of preferences, rather than a single one. It is a very basic fallacy in logic to conclude that a bunch of people thinking it to be true makes it true. Everyone believed for the longest time that world was flat. This did not make it true.

Then consider where these stated preferences come from. The bulk of such research typically only involves the favorite guinea pigs of the academic class: undergraduate students. So these aggregates that you want to call objective are largely a product of a socially, culturally, and economically uniform demographic.

Add to that the easy manipulation of statistics, and what do you get?

Not so objective, IMHO.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> I think this may be where I see it as a lack of confidence, if you're full of confidence in what you do there's no need to seed doubts in your opponent.


Is this just arguing to argue because you don't like people who act ****y? I'm not advocating acting ****y everywhere a guy goes. Humble has a place, and ****y has a place. Many guys lack anything even resembling ****y... many guys are timid and unsure or so worried about being polite that they literally can't roar. They feel all self-conscious and embarrassed. Its not that you leave the gym a ****[email protected] its that I believe the excess in the gym translates to greater assertiveness, confidence and sure-ness out of the gym. We kill self-doubt.

I'm not making this stuff up, such displays are proven to increase self-confidence and positively affect performance. As I mentioned earlier, even just standing in the victory pose is proven to boost feelings of confidence and courage. There are physical elements to a lot of bravado that triggers release of adrenaline, opens airway, increases blood flow etc... but there are also performance gains as a result of entirely psychological effects. Like a mantra... or talking oneself up to doing something. One performs better because it reinforces one's belief that one WILL perform better.

That others shrink in the face of exuberant confidence is just a by nice product. In fact, its something that occurs in all aspects of life. Demonstrations of confidence are often deferred to. Such as the forceful speaker with the sure, powerful, commanding voice that drips certainty. Its proven that people are psychologically wired to defer to these things, and are often intimidated by them. One of the things I love about my boxing gym is that we're showing new people they don't have to defer. We show them they are more powerful than they think; we pull it out of them and these people universally feel empowered by it. Its most of the reason I stay at this run down nasty gym. The place is a pos, but the effect on people is awesome.

So many of the quiet types feel awkward and think of quiting early on, but they all end up raving about how liberating and empowering it is. I'm actually totally bummed that I broke my hand and can't participate right now, but I still went the other night just because of the environment and to motivate others.


----------



## DesertRat1978

The most masculine man (and my primary male role model) is my Grandpa. He would be described as the quiet but confident type. Him and my Grandma live in one of the most remote and unforgiving places in the lower 48 states. He has to be supremely confident in his abilities as well as resourceful and independent. No matter the situation, he takes it on with a calm but focused approach. 

Physically, he is amazing. He is now 96 but until his mid 80's was able to maintain a ranch and do strenuous tasks that men in their 30's would be exhausted to do. 

As for deferring, he still possesses a remarkable skill in knowing when to speak up and when not to. When he does speak up, he makes his point rather clear. 

In short, he carries himself with confidence and competence. When someone makes the long journey down to his neck of the woods, he could not care less what they think of him and his ways. He has lived there for 43 years now and no average man could have lasted this long. The point in this is showing that to be a confident man, you do not have to be outspoken or omnipresent.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I don't agree with this at all. I don't believe the two can even be compared because the circumstances are just too different.


Wha? We're talking about the exact same physical element and only changing responsibility for the cause.

When the person got fat of their own doing, you think they're unattractive, but the person who got fat as a result of some health condition, they're not.

That says its not the physical condition that is the issue does not?


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wha? We're talking about the exact same physical element and only changing responsibility for the cause.
> 
> When the person got fat of their own doing, you think they're unattractive, but the person who got fat as a result of some health condition, they're not.
> 
> That says its not the physical condition that is the issue does not?


You ignored the rest of my post where I explained why it's the physical condition in one situation, and not the physical condition in the other. Please go back and read it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tyler1978 said:


> The point in this is showing that to be a confident man, you do not have to be outspoken or omnipresent.


You don't have to be outspoken, but you do have to speak up. That's exactly what I see happen to people at my gym. Timid people are no longer timid.

It is the extreme of the gym that encouraged that to happen. They get comfortable with being loud... forceful... demanding... and ****y. Its okay to be bold. Self-doubt fades away and these people bloom. They don't leave the gym as braggalicious @ssholes. But they are a hell of a lot more confident and willing to speak up.

The whole reason I brought this up was suggesting it to Lon because I think sells himself short too often on this forum.


----------



## always_alone

tyler1978 said:


> In short, he carries himself with confidence and competence. When someone makes the long journey down to his neck of the woods, he could not care less what they think of him and his ways. He has lived there for 43 years now and no average man could have lasted this long. The point in this is showing that to be a confident man, you do not have to be outspoken or omnipresent.


This to me is vastly more appealing than any chest thumping or trash talking.

Indeed, seems to me whole point of the competitive / military style in-your-face approach is actually to break men (or women for that matter) down, make them more likely to follow orders and less likely to think for themselves.


----------



## Created2Write

There are a lot of ways for one to develop confidence. Going to a boxing gym isn't the only way.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> This to me is vastly more appealing than any chest thumping or trash talking.
> 
> Indeed, seems to me whole point of the competitive / military style in-your-face approach is actually to break men (or women for that matter) down, make them more likely to follow orders and less likely to think for themselves.


Yes and no. Break them down, but to show them that they control how they respond to the breakdown. It actually helps them think for themselves because it builds self-reliance. It shows the individual that they really can survive a hell of a lot, when they might be too scared to push themselves that far. 

Not everyone responds well to it, though. So not everyone should search out such an environment.


----------



## DesertRat1978

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You don't have to be outspoken, but you do have to speak up. That's exactly what I see happen to people at my gym. Timid people are no longer timid.
> 
> It is the extreme of the gym that encouraged that to happen. They get comfortable with being loud... forceful... demanding... and ****y. Its okay to be bold. Self-doubt fades away and these people bloom. They don't leave the gym as braggalicious @ssholes. But they are a hell of a lot more confident and willing to speak up.
> 
> The whole reason I brought this up was suggesting it to Lon because I think sells himself short too often on this forum.


I get what You say. I have greater respect for those who choose their battles wisely versus those who always speak up and feel that they always have to have strong opinions. I am a leader in some situations and a follower in some. I do not always have to be the outspoken, decisive, chieftain. 

Confidence can be elusive as I discovered. However, it can be achieved in so many ways with the gym being one of them.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> We kill self-doubt.


Seems to me that some people would benefit from a little more self doubt.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Created2Write

tyler1978 said:


> I get what You say. I have greater respect for those who choose their battles wisely versus those who always speak up and feel that they always have to have strong opinions. I am a leader in some situations and a follower in some. I do not always have to the outspoken, decisively, chieftain.
> 
> Confidence can be elusive as I discovered. However, it can be achieved in so many ways with the gym being one of them.


This is SO true! Confidence isn't always speaking up, it's being comfortable speaking ones mind when necessary, but it's also shutting the heck up when necessary and being confident about that decision.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Seems to me that some people would benefit from a little more self doubt.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Yup. Self-doubt is what leaves room for improvement, helps us realize when we make major mistakes in life and how to learn from them. 

There's confidence, and then there's arrogance. I think a lot of people mistake the latter for the former.


----------



## Created2Write

IMO, a lot of the things that are meant to intimidate other people are just tactics to hide someone elses own intimidation. Like when people post partially naked/fully naked pics of themselves online to show off their physical shape/body parts. That's not confidence, that's desperation. And really lame.


----------



## DesertRat1978

I have developed a saying, "The more someone brags, the less they can do". Bragging is usually just a cover for their insecurities and incompetence. 

Being a whopping 5'4", I can sniff out Little Man Syndrome a mile away.


----------



## Created2Write

tyler1978 said:


> I have developed a saying, "The more someone brags, the less they can do". Bragging is usually just a cover for their insecurities and incompetence.
> 
> Being a whopping 5'4", I can sniff out Little Man Syndrome a mile away.


This has been my experience too. The guys who talk about themselves the most tend to be the ones who need the most attention. It's why I've been so attracted to DH. He never talks about the things he can do, he just lets his abilities prove themselves. So [email protected]


----------



## DesertRat1978

I will leave it at this for now. Confidence should be part of someone's life and not because it gets you laid. That is a nice byproduct but it affects everything that you do. To connect it with the thread, confidence is sexy. I think that a lot of men think that the confident, brazen, outspoken attitude is a surefire way to get the ladies. There is some truth to that but obviously there is more to the story than just that. If there was not more then every man who is not getting laid would just need to put on the right clothes and put on the right facade.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You ignored the rest of my post where I explained why it's the physical condition in one situation, and not the physical condition in the other. Please go back and read it.


I read your post. You go off on a tangent about liking a disfigured guy that isn't to the point I was making. Its no different than my example of someone thinking a mole is attractive. You find attractive what you find attractive... that's not what I was asking about.

The case was put forward was how critical physical attraction is, but now I see its also being dismissed. Its like you want it both ways. You love a man, but you'd lose attraction for the man who gluttons himself into being fat, while you would still be attracted to the man who gets fat as the result of a health issue? They're both fat, you're not physically attracted to fat, and physical attraction is really important. Something has to give.

If its really important, why is the reason he became fat relevant? The case I was arguing was that non-physical qualities carry greater weight with women. The glutton becomes unattractive not because of the fat, but because of the neglect. The other guy is still a great guy... now fat. Loving who they are, you tend to see past flaws they can't help.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> There are a lot of ways for one to develop confidence. Going to a boxing gym isn't the only way.


I never said it was. Why is it you assume that whenever I suggest something it is the only possible solution to a problem? It IS however, A solution to that problem.

Do you just really enjoy arguing with me?


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I never said it was. Why is it you assume that whenever I suggest something it is the only possible solution to a problem? It IS however, A solution to that problem.
> 
> Do you just really enjoy arguing with me?


DvlAdvc8, I think it's more a case of you, apparently, enjoying arguing with everyone else in this thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Indeed, seems to me whole point of the competitive / military style in-your-face approach is actually to break men (or women for that matter) down, make them more likely to follow orders and less likely to think for themselves.


Just the opposite really. That would be the case if you only break someone down. The building up creates someone willing to stand up for what they think while recognizing and respecting proper authority.

The dumb military follower derp derp argument is a very poor one, even insulting of our service members imo.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Is this just arguing to argue because you don't like people who act ****y? I'm not advocating acting ****y everywhere a guy goes. Humble has a place, and ****y has a place. Many guys lack anything even resembling ****y... many guys are timid and unsure or so worried about being polite that they literally can't roar. They feel all self-conscious and embarrassed. Its not that you leave the gym a ****[email protected] its that I believe the excess in the gym translates to greater assertiveness, confidence and sure-ness out of the gym. We kill self-doubt.


Not arguing at all and I'm sure boxing (amongst many other things) does help self confidence (self improvement usually does), but chest beating with other men/ trash talk is still relying on external sources to validate the internal.
It's a temporary solution because without a constant source of that type of environment people slowly go back to low self confidence imo and that's why to me chest beating/ trash talk/ bravado creates a facade of confidence rather than actual confidence.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> DvlAdvc8, I think it's more a case of you, apparently, enjoying arguing with everyone else in this thread.


Well, its a given that I like to argue. 

I just don't understand what she's arguing with me about.

That said, why the f the sudden argument about confidence and masculinity when I was just suggesting something that hardens you, builds confidence and removes self-doubt? I didn't start that argument. I'm just an argument magnet.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I read your post. You go off on a tangent about liking a disfigured guy that isn't to the point I was making. Its no different than my example of someone thinking a mole is attractive. You find attractive what you find attractive... that's not what I was asking about.
> 
> The case was put forward was how critical physical attraction is, but now I see its also being dismissed. Its like you want it both ways. You love a man, but you'd lose attraction for the man who gluttons himself into being fat, while you would still be attracted to the man who gets fat as the result of a health issue? They're both fat, you're not physically attracted to fat, and physical attraction is really important. Something has to give.
> 
> If its really important, why is the reason he became fat relevant?


That's like saying that a woman being raped is the same as a woman having an affair because, in both situations, she had sex with someone other than her spouse. The reason absolutely is relevant and shows why each situation is different and can not be seen as the same.

You keep wanting to separate the reasons from the obesity, but it doesn't work that way. Physical health _is_ important to me. If my husband became obese by his own lack of discipline and refused to change, I would not stay with him. And by obese I mean obese, not just gain weight. 

If he were to develop a health issue that caused him to become obese, I wouldn't leave him. I also don't think I would be less attracted to him, but I haven't been in that situation so I can't say for sure. What I do know for sure is that the two are not the same, even though you keep trying to make them so. Sure, weight was gained in both situations, but the reasons absolutely are relevant. 

Why? Because in one he chose to stop caring about himself, willfully disregarding his own health and, potentially, robbing the family of years with him. But in the other he has no choice; it would be a condition forced on him. I wouldn't view him any differently. Would his physically be just as attractive? I do not have an answer to that.

Now, another difference here is context. I would never date a fat guy. I don't have to get to know his personality, I know I would never date him. Even if he had a physical condition that made him retain weight. But, being with my husband who is amazing and who I love, there are already multiple levels of attraction between us. As long as he didn't choose to be fat, I really don't think my attraction for him would lessen.



> The case I was arguing was that non-physical qualities carry greater weight with women. The glutton becomes unattractive not because of the fat, but because of the neglect. The other guy is still a great guy... now fat. Loving who they are, you tend to see past flaws they can't help.


I don't agree. I believe that non-physical qualities _can_ carry greater weight with some, both men and women, but not everyone. I've known fat guys who were very sweet, and would probably have given me whatever I wanted, but I was not physically attracted to them whatsoever. And I said no when they asked me out. 

Again, it's different when the person you love is sick and they can't help their condition.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I never said it was. Why is it you assume that whenever I suggest something it is the only possible solution to a problem?


Perhaps it's because you continuously have a know-it-all tone in your posts? I'm starting to think you do it to provoke arguments.



> It IS however, A solution to that problem.


If this had been how you said it in the first place, my response would have been that I agree completely.



> Do you just really enjoy arguing with me?


No, I don't enjoy arguing with you. At all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Not arguing at all and I'm sure boxing (amongst many other things) does help self confidence (self improvement usually does), but chest beating with other men/ trash talk is still relying on external sources to validate the internal.
> It's a temporary solution because without a constant source of that type of environment people slowly go back to low self confidence imo and that's why to me chest beating/ bravado ect is just a facade of confidence rather than actual confidence itself.


So football players lose their confidence after they leave the game? No.

I'm not sure how you can view trash talk or chest thumping as an external validation. Its *trash* talk. In doing it, you're not validating anyone other than yourself. You're in fact putting them down, challenging them, and talking up yourself. People become less sensitive and more defiant; the believe more in themselves in the process and become resilient in defeat. At the end of the day, you have someone who doesn't defer just because they're the quiet timid type. When they defer, its an active decision.

Having roared, one is more comfortable roaring. It doesn't go away. Its like dancing... some people can't will themselves to do it. Go do it though, and dancing is forever available.

Some people really need to learn that it IS okay to think highly of themselves. I personally would have loved to have found something like this in my reserved teenage days.


----------



## Created2Write

I didn't think it was an argument about confidence, just more of a discussion on what we, as individuals, find to be real confidence and what we find to be fake.


----------



## Created2Write

> Some people really need to learn that it IS okay to think highly of themselves. I personally would have loved to have found something like this in my reserved teenage days.


I agree entirely. But not everyone learns this the same way. And even those who think they've learned, really have only learned how to pretend.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Perhaps it's because you continuously have a know-it-all tone in your posts? I'm starting to think you do it to provoke arguments.


Should I qualify everything I think with doubts and alternatives that have failed to convince me?

Notice we're arguing about the nature of confidence, even though all I did was explain how great I think a lot of the bravado at my boxing gym is at bringing out confidence in people.



Created2Write said:


> If this had been how you said it in the first place, my response would have been that I agree completely.






Created2Write said:


> No, I don't enjoy arguing with you. At all.


You could just start agreeing. haha


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So football players lose their confidence after they leave the game? No.


Don't know any to ask and a assumption either way isn't relevant.



> I'm not sure how you can view trash talk or chest thumping as an external validation. Its *trash* talk. In doing it, you're not validating anyone other than yourself. *You're in fact putting them down, challenging them,* and talking up yourself.


That's where the external comes in, part of the confidence comes from relying trash talk will have a affect on the opponent, two people need to be in the room for the confidence to rise. b*tching (while a very different thing) works on the same principles. 



> Some people really need to learn that it IS okay to think highly of themselves. I personally would have loved to have found something like this in my reserved teenage days.


Thinking highly of oneself and talking highly about oneself are two very different things imo.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Should I qualify everything I think with doubts and alternatives that have failed to convince me?


Wording is everything. You don't have to lie about your opinions to word things in a non-provoking way. But, for someone who likes to argue, I think that would defeat the purpose. 



> Notice we're arguing about the nature of confidence, even though all I did was explain how great I think a lot of the bravado at my boxing gym is at bringing out confidence in people.


Again, I think you word things the way you do because you know that it will provoke people to disagree.



> You could just start agreeing. haha


Your ego is big enough.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I didn't think it was an argument about confidence, just more of a discussion on what we, as individuals, find to be real confidence and what we find to be fake.


That's insulting. I suggest something to help someone who shows a lot of self-doubt and you go into how fake you think it is; how fake I must be since I'm doing it no?

That's how arguments start.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The dumb military follower derp derp argument is a very poor one, even insulting of our service members imo.


Well the whole point of military training is to transform people into soldiers. That is people who will follow orders and rush into certain death because they trust that military intelligence knows what it's doing. This is not meant to insult to soldiers; it just is what it is. 

An ex-marine friend of mine put it this way: Second guessing command puts the entire operation *and* everyone's lives at risk. It's the soldier's duty to take the bullet instead.

Or a more poetic rendering:
"Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do or die"

The ultimate goal may be to stand up for something you believe in, but the emphasis is on submitting to the proper authority, even when that authority is turning you into cannon fodder.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's insulting. I suggest something to help someone who shows a lot of self-doubt and you go into how fake you think it is; how fake I must be since I'm doing it no?
> 
> That's how arguments start.


The boxing isn't why I think it's fake.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Don't know any to ask and a assumption either way isn't relevant.


Well, you can take my word for it. The bravado in football does build confidence and it doesn't go away.



TiggyBlue said:


> That's where the external comes in, part of the confidence comes from relying trash talk will have a affect on the opponent, two people need to be in the room for the confidence to rise. b*tching (while a very different thing) works on the same principles.


That's incorrect on both counts. None of the confidence is derived from the fact that your opponent gets frustrated or psyched out. Even if they keep their mental game, talking trash still ups your game. Saying what you're going to do is proven to have a positive effect on performance.

What you SAY aloud matters. No one else even needs to be there. You could just as well be telling yourself you're awesome in the mirror... the concept behind mantras.



TiggyBlue said:


> Thinking highly of oneself and talking highly about oneself are two very different things imo.


Actually, the science here indicates that talking highly about oneself results in thinking more highly of oneself.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> The boxing isn't why I think it's fake.


I know. I'm talking about the chest thumping. I've been to a couple different boxing gyms. Boxing isn't the biggest factor... its the roaring.


----------



## DesertRat1978

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I never said it was. Why is it you assume that whenever I suggest something it is the only possible solution to a problem? It IS however, A solution to that problem.
> 
> Do you just really enjoy arguing with me?


Simmer down there Sparky. I am just having a discussion with you amongst many others.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Well the whole point of military training is to transform people into soldiers. That is people who will follow orders and rush into certain death because they trust that military intelligence knows what it's doing. This is not meant to insult to soldiers; it just is what it is.


That doesn't mean its an uninformed decision.



always_alone said:


> An ex-marine friend of mine put it this way: Second guessing command puts the entire operation *and* everyone's lives at risk. It's the soldier's duty to take the bullet instead.


Which is far different from not thinking for yourself. That is thinking about more than yourself.



always_alone said:


> emphasis is on submitting to the proper authority, even when that authority is turning you into cannon fodder.


It can. And such discipline is also the most likely to WIN. The submission is not one of thought, but rather what is necessary to win. I'm sure many a man knew that this charge was suicidal, but he doesn't know how it plays into the effort to win the war.

Don't mistake courage for lack of thought.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I know. I'm talking about the chest thumping. I've been to a couple different boxing gyms. Boxing isn't the biggest factor... its the roaring.


It's not even the chest thing. Or the roaring.

I made a post a couple pages ago about what it is.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's incorrect on both counts. None of the confidence is derived from the fact that your opponent gets frustrated or psyched out. Even if they keep their mental game, talking trash still ups your game. Saying what you're going to do is proven to have a positive effect on performance.
> 
> What you SAY aloud matters. No one else even needs to be there. You could just as well be telling yourself you're awesome in the mirror... the concept behind mantras.


So why not say it aloud in privacy and get on with the game. It's funny because after the Hayes vs Klitschko match everyone was saying how annoying Hayes trash talk was aggravating and how boxing use to be a gentleman's sport (last bit was obviously the older generations). In England trash talk/ chest thumping is viewed more as annoying panto than anything else in my experience (my grandad would have been spitting blood if he saw that).



> Actually, the science here indicates that talking highly about oneself results in thinking more highly of oneself.


Someone talking highly of them self may or may not think highly of them self and someone who thinks highly of them self may or may not talk highly of them self (not meaning their self deprecating). Yes they can entwine but don't necessarily go hand in hand.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That doesn't mean its an uninformed decision.


Military command is *not* in the habit of explaining why. And asking will not get you answers, it will get you yelled at.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm sure many a man knew that this charge was suicidal, but he doesn't know how it plays into the effort to win the war.
> 
> Don't mistake courage for lack of thought.


Indeed, it turned out to be a big fat mistake based on miscommunication. Which, sadly, is often the case.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Military command is *not* in the habit of explaining why. And asking will not get you answers, it will get you yelled at.


Not necessarily. I know this is what movies make the military out to be, and in certain situations, it can sort of be the case, but it more depends on the certain officer than anything. My brother is in the U.S.M.C. He's had great experiences with some of his officers, and he's had not so great experiences with others. But I can say, one thing they don't like is keeping their soldiers uninformed. 

When my brother was in Afghanistan, he knew "why" things were done the way they were, why they were important; and, when not followed the right way, yeah, he got yelled at. But that was because they wanted to prevent as many casualties as possible, both civilian and military.



> Indeed, it turned out to be a big fat mistake based on poor information. Which, sadly, is often the case.


It can be the case, yes. But please don't assume that the military toys with the lives of the service men and women. Mistakes are made regardless of the field because humans make mistakes. These situations often can not be helped.


----------



## DesertRat1978

When I used to play a lot of pickup basketball, I found that most of the trash talk was counter-productive. All the trash talk just meant that their game could not measure up to their mouth. All the energy that they spent jawing could be better spent playing a better game. When I worked in the manual labor world, there were plenty of blowhards who took it upon themselves to tell you how big, bad, strong, etc. they are. Usually, they were simply covering up for their lack of productivity. 

Insecurity is not exclusive to being male. It is simply channeled and expressed in different ways with men than with women.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> It can be the case, yes. But please don't assume that the military toys with the lives of the service men and women. Mistakes are made regardless of the field because humans make mistakes. These situations often can not be helped.


Fair enough. FWIW, I'm not trying to disparage all military action or discount the heroics involved in fighting for a just cause.

I get the risks and the importance. And I get what you're saying about building self-reliance --and resilience to the horrors of war.

But I do disagree with the mindset behind some of the tactics.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tyler1978 said:


> Simmer down there Sparky. I am just having a discussion with you amongst many others.


That wasn't in reply to you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> So why not say it aloud in privacy and get on with the game. It's funny because after the Hayes vs Klitschko match everyone was saying how annoying Hayes trash talk was aggravating and how boxing use to be a gentleman's sport (last bit was obviously the older generations). In England trash talk/ chest thumping is viewed more as annoying panto than anything else in my experience (my grandad would have been spitting blood if he saw that).


And many people are annoyed by trash talking in football or even end zone celebrations. Typically the old school uptight crowd. Doesn't really have any bearing on whether trash talk, chest thumping and similar bravado amp one up to play better. Individuals do it on the field, teams rally in a huddle over how they are unstoppable. These words and actions do have influence. Its not my opinion and it doesn't have to be alone in front of a mirror because you don't like it. That's part of the attitude. If someone wants to shut me up, they can make me eat my words, but I don't care in the least whether my talking bothers them. Honestly, I hope it really does bother them. I'm good with that. It plays to my advantage.



TiggyBlue said:


> Someone talking highly of them self may or may not think highly of them self and someone who thinks highly of them self may or may not talk highly of them self (not meaning their self deprecating). Yes they can entwine but don't necessarily go hand in hand.


That's true, but again, its been proven that the affirmation of talking smack, and saying you're great, do have positive effects on performance. Talk highly of yourself and you will begin to think highly of yourself.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Military command is *not* in the habit of explaining why. And asking will not get you answers, it will get you yelled at.


I am a Marine. You've watched too many movies. Explanations and reasons are damn near universal, and no, questions don't get you yelled at... neither does putting forward alternatives. In fact, good ideas and initiative are valued by most COs.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tyler1978 said:


> When I used to play a lot of pickup basketball, I found that most of the trash talk was counter-productive. All the trash talk just meant that their game could not measure up to their mouth. All the energy that they spent jawing could be better spent playing a better game. When I worked in the manual labor world, there were plenty of blowhards who took it upon themselves to tell you how big, bad, strong, etc. they are. Usually, they were simply covering up for their lack of productivity.
> 
> Insecurity is not exclusive to being male. It is simply channeled and expressed in different ways with men than with women.


Jawing takes no energy. In fact, it energizes. If you really think jawing means game that can't match mouth, then you think most of the NBA and NFL have no game. C'mon now. :/


----------



## DesertRat1978

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Jawing takes no energy. In fact, it energizes. If you really think jawing means game that can't match mouth, then you think most of the NBA and NFL have no game. C'mon now. :/


Those that I played with could have better used their mind and energy on their game instead of commenting on how I was 5'4". I would make jokes about myself but it got redundant. Let your game speak for itself, I would think.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I am a Marine. You've watched too many movies. Explanations and reasons are damn near universal, and no, questions don't get you yelled at... neither does putting forward alternatives. In fact, good ideas and initiative are valued by most COs.


Actually, where I'm getting this is not movies, but a friend who is ex-marine.

Admittedly, though, he's not the most unbiased source in the world: he was kicked out for his "initiative"


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Fair enough. FWIW, I'm not trying to disparage all military action or discount the heroics involved in fighting for a just cause.
> 
> I get the risks and the importance. And I get what you're saying about building self-reliance --and resilience to the horrors of war.
> 
> But I do disagree with the mindset behind some of the tactics.


I felt the same way...until I actually went to boot camp and heard from the drill instructors who had been in combat, why they use the tactics they do. Some of the things that seem pointless(like trying to get the recruits to shout the information they've memorized at the top of their lungs), are often the very things that are most essential in the field. In boot camp, I never understood why we had to shout everything all the time. I was hoarse 50% of my time in training. And then one day, one of the recruits decided she didn't want to yell anymore, and she just mouthed everything we were saying. She was yelled at because, in a battle situation with rifles being fired all around you, if one of your fellow Marines gets shot, you're going to have to project your voice loudly and strongly to get a corpsman to your position. Slacking off in boot camp, could potentially mean the death of the Marine next to you. 

Other more severe things, like being yelled at when you make a mistake, or being taken through drills and drills of utterly exhausting "punishments", or being forced to exercise until you feel like you can't move another muscle, all have a purpose. _Nothing_ you do in training is empty. Everything they teach you, and every tactic they use to teach you, are done for a specific reason. I remember, my platoon had been struggling a lot at one point, and when we got back to our squad bay one of our drill instructors took us through a drill that, at the time, just made me angry. We had these things called foot-lockers; in them we kept our clothes, underwear, stationary, toothbrush and toothpaste, medication if we had it, etc. These things are heavy. We had to pick them up and put them on our racks(bed) and get back in line in sixty seconds. Seems simple. 

But, a drill instructor doesn't count at a normal sixty second pace. Their sixty seconds is more akin to about twenty seconds. And if anyone slacks off, guess what? Gotta do it again; take the foot-lockers off of the rack and put them back on the floor, all timed. And usually if we didn't get it the first time, it was almost guaranteed that we wouldn't get it the second. Then she'd make it harder. And harder. And harder. And harder. And at the time all I could feel was angry, because each and every time _I_ was done before she finished counting down. I was doing my part, why weren't the other recruits doing theirs? 

And it hit me: teamwork. It's all about teamwork. As soon as we realized we needed to work together, we were able to finish well under time. And something that looked to me like a pointless punishment at first, quickly became a learning experience that changed the way I viewed training from then on. 

Until you've been there and heard their stories, and experienced those tactics for yourself, it's really impossible to understand. And I don't mean that disrespectfully, I promise. But looking from the outside in, it's not going to make sense.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Actually, where I'm getting this is not movies, but a friend who is ex-marine.
> 
> Admittedly, though, he's not the most unbiased source in the world: he was kicked out for his "initiative"


Not to hijack the thread, but I've known people who were discharged for their initiative and, no offense to your friend, but it's best that he was discharged. There are a lot of people who enlist that shouldn't be in the military. The lifestyle is not for everyone. It can be very negative at times. And, while it's nothing like Gomer Pile who shot his drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket, it does endanger the lives of other Marines and military personnel when individuals lose their motivation. You have to be all in, or you won't be in at all. And sometimes the Marine Corps has to make that decision for others. 

Now, the Marine Corps and other military branches certainly aren't perfect. They can't be, they're run by humans. But they aren't what movies often make them out to be. There is a reason for everything that they do.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The thread is all kinds of hijacked anyway. Its cool, it ran its course. 

The Marines are a very different culture, even more so than the rest of the armed forces imo. It is a bit homogenous and doing your own thing doesn't really fly. I joined because I needed discipline and a major mental reset. As a rebellious teen, I needed to learn to accept authority, but it also erased the self-doubt I had. You come away with a indomitably positive go get it attitude that sticks.



tyler1978 said:


> Those that I played with could have better used their mind and energy on their game instead of commenting on how I was 5'4". I would make jokes about myself but it got redundant. Let your game speak for itself, I would think.


I grew up in Baltimore, played a lot of basketball young and at the park in early hs... usually the lone white kid playing with a bunch of taller black kids. When I first started playing I hated the jawing everyone did... its not how I was raised. You were supposed to be reserved, respectful and show sportsmanship. But these guy's dripped confidence and I think that talk was a major part of the attitude. I came along. I still remember the first time I really busted someone. Being the quiet white kid it drew a lot of "oooohhs" and laughs and I had greater acceptance - today its the camaraderie I see in the gym. 

I think making jokes about yourself is self-deprecating. You're reinforcing a negative perception. Okay once in awhile done a certain way, but such jokes actually have a net psychological impact... think the abusive husband/wife that always criticizes their spouse; the spouse becomes more and more inclined to believe it. I see that all over the place and I think its the opposite of confidence. People who dismiss themselves so its not big deal when they come up short. Its like a disclaimer. Where I would have gone with this is slamming them over how 5'4" just took them to the hole. If you're going to be humorous, be humorous at their expense. When I beat someone on a pump fake or off the dribble after they reached I was like "you reach, I teach." Or verbalizing what you want to happen as if it IS, believing it IS, and I think this does drive confidence: "You can't check me kid!" Some of it doesn't even make sense to people who never played... like "cookies". A sort of mock on a steal.

On the flip side, its hard to play when someone really cracks you up. I don't remember 99% of the things I heard, but damn they were funny. Stuff like "I must be a bus driver, 'cause I'm taking these kids to school". "You building me a house with all them bricks?" Those dudes were masters - get beat a few times and yeah, it can start getting to you, frustrate you and affect your play just as much as it bolsters their confidence. It's fun though and it keeps you loose, and loose ball is better most of the time.


----------



## Davelli0331

Interesting thoughts here. Six years grunt USMC Reserve, OIF 2004-2005, combat veteran. E-5 when I got out.

The primary purpose of boot camp, IMO, is indoctrination. That word has an undeserved negative connotation but it serves an important purpose. It is also a multi-dimensional indoctrination: Physical, mental, even verbal (Marines use Navy terms for many things). 

That is why, I think, USMC boot camp focuses as much (some might say more) on close order drill than on even the most basic of infantry tactics. Google for "the five purposes of close order drill" to see what I mean.

What boot camp doesn't do is turn you into a fearless, stone cold killer. For one thing, the basic levels of hand to hand combat you learn these days (called MCMAP) are primarily non-lethal. Moreover, fear is a basic human emotion that three months of deprogramming/reprogramming cannot remove.

While many things in boot camp have a purpose that dovetails into combat situations, I think boot camp itself is a poor facsimile of those combat situations. Success in one does not guarantee success in the other.

The image that all Marines (or soldiers, too) are dumb grunts who follow orders without question lacks both nuance and context. There are combat situations where instant and willing obedience to orders (one of the purposes of close order drill, btw) is important. However, there are other combat situations where the command needs to be informed of changing situations. No plan ever survives first contact.

As far as staff and command that listen to and even invite alternatives from junior Marines, that is dependent on the individual Marine in charge. As a machine gunner, I was the presumed expert on the deployment of my weapon system. When out on a mission or in training, it was a 50/50 shot whether a senior Marine would listen to my suggestions as to how to deploy the gun.

Anyway, don't mean to contribute to the threadjack. I enjoy chewing the fat re: the USMC.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Davelli0331 said:


> As far as staff and command that listen to and even invite alternatives from junior Marines, that is dependent on the individual Marine in charge.


I didn't find civilian work life any different. There are bosses who always seem to want it their way, and others who encourage input.

H2H training was called "LINE" - Linear Infighting Neural-overriding Engagement - back when I was in. MCMAP showed up too late for me. And outside of the like 2 days you spent on it in basic, you pretty much had to seek it out on your own if you wanted more.


----------



## heartsbeating

Hello Ladies - Dating Tip "Wine and Dine Her" (HBO) - YouTube


----------



## heartsbeating

Dating Tip "Don't Get Possessive" (HBO) - YouTube


----------



## heartsbeating

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The thread is all kinds of hijacked anyway. Its cool, it ran its course.


Great, the Hello Ladies clips are appropriate at this point then.


----------



## Lyris

I love that post Mr 0331. But there's only a like button.


----------



## Deejo

heartsbeating said:


> Great, the Hello Ladies clips are appropriate at this point then.


He does have a way with the ladies and amply demonstrates 'mad game'.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> He does have a way with the ladies and amply demonstrates 'mad game'.


Mad game and he's tall. 

He's sorted.


----------



## RandomDude

:rofl: 

That's so painful to watch >.<
(I'm jealous  )

This one is good too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xETLdYC-zU4


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I am just wondering what is so enlightening about *this thread* that it was made a "*STICKY*" in the Men's Clubhouse.....not getting it ?


----------



## RandomDude

Me too =/

Since this thread made it into a sticky, 

I was vouching for this thread to (finally) make it a sticky too:
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping...e-tam-cwi-newbies-please-read.html#post430739

But for some reason it's not =/


----------



## Stonewall

Before my wife went on HRT after a total hysto; I dated many women. They just all looked exactly like her with different personalities each day.

I could wake up every morning look at her and say; good morning stranger! LOL


----------



## Hope1964

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am just wondering what is so enlightening about *this thread* that it was made a "*STICKY*" in the Men's Clubhouse.....not getting it ?


I would like to know too. We can't get the Newbies thread stickied in CWI despite repeated requests for YEARS, yet a thread about DATING gets stickied? On a MARRIAGE board??


----------



## Deejo

Wad'nt me ...


----------



## missthelove2013

When I was young and single...no relationship, I would date as many as I could find that were willing, I was attracted to, and could afford

I rememebr having 3-4 dates in one week many times...unfortunately I had to save the $$ for the one I liked most, making the least go dutch, or I took her to taco hell LOL

Not always full fledged dates, many times it was still in getting to know you phase so a quick after work drink/dinner, or lunch...

Friday and Saturday nights were of course DATE nights...and again when I was single many a time I went out with a different girl on these nights...


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

missthelove2013 said:


> When I was young and single...no relationship, I would date as many as I could find that were willing, I was attracted to, and could afford
> 
> I rememebr having 3-4 dates in one week many times...unfortunately I had to save the $$ for the one I liked most, making the least go dutch, or I took her to taco hell LOL
> 
> Not always full fledged dates, many times it was still in getting to know you phase so a quick after work drink/dinner, or lunch...
> 
> Friday and Saturday nights were of course DATE nights...and again when I was single many a time I went out with a different girl on these nights...


Good lord dude, I'll just have to give you the nickname "Mr. Awesome". Never had that many opportunities and couldn't imagine it now.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

:iagree:

I don't think I even meet 4 women I'd want a date with in a given week. Maybe 4 in a month.


----------



## heartsbeating

It might not be a sticky anymore but we're still referencing this term in our home while looking to move / houses for sale.

'The one' got snapped up by someone else while we were multi-dating... with one that felt creepy, another few that had deceptive photos and weren't the right fit, and one that was absolutely charming and provided freshly baked cookies but location wasn't ideal... and I kept going back to 'the one' in my mind, to then discover it was too late. 

Granted, we still needed to do certain inspections to ensure it would have been a wise decision. Seems I was ready to jump in while hubs takes a more measured approach. He's keeping an open mind. Mr Hank Moody? I'm growing more cynical with the photos used. The search continues.


----------



## Deejo

Make sure if there is one you like, that it gets tested for STD's.
Never know what a house is up to.


----------



## heartsbeating

...And can it provide a roof over our head?


Be still my beating heart. There's another. Granted, this one may well be out of our league and would be more high maintenance. And yet, I'm enough of a dreamer to consider how it could work.


----------



## Wynfield

I did this once when I wasn't committed to either girl, though I ended up becoming exclusive with one and just friends with the other. I think the period was about a month or two.


----------



## SoWhat

After a certain age, when I was single I didn't really do "dates." I'd date women by telling them to come over and bring beer and a movie. Or go to house parties with them. Etc. At that time, I usually had a cast of 3-4 women that I'd go out with/stay in with every week. 


Traditional dinner dates seemed like a sucker's game to me after I turned about 23. 

Then I met my wife and we did a lot of traditional dates and I didn't go out with any other girls.


----------



## vellocet

I've never dated multiple women. I always felt like it would be a slap in their face if they were giving me their considerations.

But now, after having enough of the crap/drama of relationships, especially after my x-wife, even though I still don't/haven't dated multiple women, I would. But that's only because I'm not looking for a relationship and anyone I date is told that up front. And likewise its no sweat if they do to.


----------



## heartsbeating

oh I remember this thread... yes, multi-dating became a fun reference when we were house-hunting. Turns out it was about 6 months later that we found 'the one'. The proper one. We went back to view 'one' about 3 times but there was a hesitation, a couple of question marks despite realizing it was a good thing. And then, we went with the wild-card in the final hour. This house wasn't even ready for viewing yet but my husband's 'boldness' got us a time. The next morning we made the offer; slightly over our budget and slightly irrational in terms of needs. Now we're living in this old beauty. She's been somewhat neglected over the years but we overlooked that to the potential we could bring. She's already beginning to shine. Anyone that steps through the front door comments on her beautiful vibe and feels her magic.

Our home... we're both smitten. 

I don't think there's any dating lessons in this outcome. Otherwise it may be that sometimes you gotta go with the wild-card, expect to go with the unexpected, be bold, and be prepared to blow your budget in the process.


----------



## ConanHub

Never dated before meeting Mrs. Conan.
_Posted via Mobile Device_

Unless hooking up was considered dating.


----------



## Wolf1974

ConanHub said:


> Never dated before meeting Mrs. Conan.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> 
> Unless hooking up was considered dating.


It is in today's dating scene. Must be what dating was like in the 70's. Just more technology involved


----------

