The Relationship Thread: Because Superhero Forums are Full of Sexperts! - Part 30

[Anita18]

We all know compatibability is the most important thing. You've helped a lot of people out here by preaching that (including me). My point is, we need to stop sugar coating the fact that life is a gene war. We are all trying to secure the best possible mate so that our children can be successful. At least that is the woman's mentality more often than not. They desire traits in men that go hand in hand with acquiring resources. This means highly ambitious men that are dedicated to their craft and dominant in their niche. Confidence is a euphemism for the ability to kick the next guy's butt and take his lunch money away for mommy and the kids. You have to be ready to compete at all times. That's the mentality that men simply have to get into if they want success in life. I wish I was told that when I was younger.

Men are irrational in this regard in that they react purely to sexual incentives sometimes almost exclusively. But eventually rationale wins out and you need to go back to finding a reliable mother that can secure your child's welfare.

Average women have the ability to line up average men simply because all those men are responding initially to sexual desires. The woman seeks something beyond that. She can easily lure men in based on those sexual incentives, and quickly weed them out once she gets more information from them. It has nothing to do with whether every woman operates that way. Somewhere there is a mean of your average women incentivizing sex in order to extract information those 'beta followers' divulge at a later date.

You can think of it as a competition, sure. I was attracted to my husband's confidence, competence, and mindfulness, and my husband was attracted to my ambition, steady nature, and intelligence. All good things to have in our future children.

But the part where compatibility comes in is that you don't know what a specific individual's "competitive standards" are. A lot of men wouldn't have liked my kind of ambition in a partner, because that means I spend less attention on them. Whereas I find uber-ambition a turn-off, because it's exhausting for me to be around. And my husband doesn't find a lot of feminine grooming-type things to be attractive, because to him, it's far more important that I'm relaxed about myself and not spend hundreds of dollars getting my hair done.

Also, where you and I differ on our approaches is the mindset about competition/adaptability. For me, sheer competitiveness is a turn-off because it implies having a non-adaptable nature and probably a bit of stupidity. That one must win no matter what the context, even if the context has changed (hence the stupidity).

I'm Asian, we were all practically brainwashed from birth that we had to be the best. (Except I'm lucky that my parents were pretty lax about "the best" part...) And you know what I learned? The HS/college valedictorians (or the cheerleaders/jocks, whatever your jam is) are no more successful or happy than anyone else. In fact, a lot of my Asian friends are UNhappy despite their academic credentials. I even have one friend who was pushed so hard going to an Ivy League, she burned out completely and now can't work at all because of chronic pain.

So to me, competitiveness isn't the answer, or even something to strive for. Adaptability is. Being adaptable to one's circumstances, making things work even in a subpar situation, takes an extremely high amount of intelligence. Sheer competitiveness doesn't take any intelligence, only a stubborn nature. Why steal someone else's lunch money and unnecessarily make enemies, if you can find a pot of gold in a place nobody else has looked in?

 

[Anita18]

Once more: the attitude is utterly irrelevant in an online dating context. It did matter more on the personality-dependent OkCupid which you might have used back in the day but very few people use that now. I remember the brilliant profiles people wrote, but that's mostly gone now. The most important things that matters is the photo, ok photos plural. Also your age and your location. That's well documented and widely known.

But it is relevant in an online dating context, because Nell told me himself that that's the context that's been working for him. I'm not sure exactly what he did that changed, whether he was messaging women differently or whether he wrote his profile differently or put up different pics, but things shifted once he got over the "it's this woman or bust!" attitude. He certainly doesn't seem to have radically changed his appearance much, besides growing a beard. He's a BIG guy, so that could have easily been the excuse why women didn't go for him at first, but things have definitely changed.

Or maybe the beard just works for him, even at his size.

Yes, you found one guy after years of trying, and you have previously said that you were not attracted to him at first but you kept dating him because you had no other options. You've been seeking to encourage others to think about this as the great matchmaking method for a while now.

Finding one guy as you did, btw, is statistically consistent to finding zero guys or even finding two. I know that you love your story and you love to promote it as the shining template par excellence for others to follow, but it's not a super up-lifting template for anybody else to hear. I'm really happy for you, honestly, you deserve happiness and you come off as very smart and very cordial on these boards, but I find you misguided in seeking to universalize your exceptional experience.

I know you're a scientist like my former self, and you like statistics, but people's lives aren't statistics.

All I'm saying is to give yourself a chance. That's all. You don't know your future. Nobody knows your future. Statistics don't tell you what's going to happen in your own life, even if everything in your past says one thing. Even Nell didn't believe me until it finally happened to him.

And even that guy you did finally meet, might have not given you a second look, and never "liked you for you" if you were 50 lbs heavier or you had very yellow, very crooked teeth. He would have never "FOUND" you then, and you him. And you yourself have acknowledged that you were very reluctant in those early dates, you thought he wasn't your type ... so if he were 50 lbs heavier or he had very yellow, very crooked teeth, you would not have found him nor "liked him for him"

I can't comment on breast implants or other plastic surgery as I don't know you. But if you had looked better, more guys would have been willing to meet you. Similarly, if you add "successful internship at Google" on your resume, more companies will be willing to interview you, to "hire you for you."

Look, if I were 50 lbs heavier and he wasn't into that, then he WOULDN'T be liking me for me. I wouldn't be with him then, I'd have to go with someone else who found that attractive. No harm, no foul.

The point isn't to get a specific person/college/job to take you. The point is to find a person/college/job that works FOR YOU, not a hypothetical "more perfect" you. Yes, it would be vastly easier if I looked like Megan Fox or if I'd gotten perfect SAT scores or gone to Harvard. But I don't, and I didn't on the latter two, so I have to find something else that works.

 

[Tilapia]

So what do you do to meet women?

I've realized that women gravitate toward you as you work on your personal self. Honestly, if I'm at a Meetup and I'm able to talk about what I do for a living in a positive manner, and be happy with my accomplishments, I get invited to private parties and possibly phone number exchanges. Right now I'm considering going back to school because I'm not happy with my corporate job and my industry as of now, and that shows when I discuss that stuff, no matter how hard I try to mask it. It's hard to pretend you have an advanced degree or a very large salary. I just try not to fret it too much. The hot women have crazy expectations but there is a medium there. It's probably moreso me not wanting to settle with a woman below my socio-economic status as to not hurt their feelings later as I don't expect to commit to these women. So I can't blame anyone but myself.

If you're happy with everything or even the majority of everything career wise and self worth wise, then finding and committing to a woman should be a non-issue. You know exactly what you can offer and your expectations are immediately kept in check. My problem is knowing, or at least believing I'm capable of much more. I might not be though. If I'm 38 years old and still am where I'm at or not much higher, then obviously I can't expect anything more than I expect today relationship wise. Probably less so as time will be further against me.

 

[Tilapia]

You can think of it as a competition, sure. I was attracted to my husband's confidence, competence, and mindfulness, and my husband was attracted to my ambition, steady nature, and intelligence. All good things to have in our future children.

But the part where compatibility comes in is that you don't know what a specific individual's "competitive standards" are. A lot of men wouldn't have liked my kind of ambition in a partner, because that means I spend less attention on them. Whereas I find uber-ambition a turn-off, because it's exhausting for me to be around. And my husband doesn't find a lot of feminine grooming-type things to be attractive, because to him, it's far more important that I'm relaxed about myself and not spend hundreds of dollars getting my hair done.

Also, where you and I differ on our approaches is the mindset about competition/adaptability. For me, sheer competitiveness is a turn-off because it implies having a non-adaptable nature and probably a bit of stupidity. That one must win no matter what the context, even if the context has changed (hence the stupidity).

I'm Asian, we were all practically brainwashed from birth that we had to be the best. (Except I'm lucky that my parents were pretty lax about "the best" part...) And you know what I learned? The HS/college valedictorians (or the cheerleaders/jocks, whatever your jam is) are no more successful or happy than anyone else. In fact, a lot of my Asian friends are UNhappy despite their academic credentials. I even have one friend who was pushed so hard going to an Ivy League, she burned out completely and now can't work at all because of chronic pain.

So to me, competitiveness isn't the answer, or even something to strive for. Adaptability is. Being adaptable to one's circumstances, making things work even in a subpar situation, takes an extremely high amount of intelligence. Sheer competitiveness doesn't take any intelligence, only a stubborn nature. Why steal someone else's lunch money and unnecessarily make enemies, if you can find a pot of gold in a place nobody else has looked in?

I think we are just adding adjectives now. But yeah, a large part of competitiveness in the marketplace is to be adaptable, otherwise you are rather non-competitive. A lot of those Ivy League people are too stubborn to adapt. They get management jobs but they can't get their team working because not everyone can do things or see things on their level. They lack emotional intelligence. These people end up failing in these highly demanding jobs.

So interchanging competitiveness with intractability is not fair. I equate competitiveness to elevating the ability level of the people around you. A highly successful guy wants to compete with people on his level. It's the competition that brings out the very best in everyone otherwise there are no stakes and no worthy challenge. The people that fail to compete whither away and die off. It's those individuals that are too stubborn or naive in their thinking, blaming humanity on their own problems, or making excuses for themselves when it's clearly a result of inadequate preparation, lack of proper fundamentals, and poor technique in the applied field.

You need healthy competition. And by that I mean picking a challenge that is worthy for you so you aren't approaching it with a defeatist attitude. Set measurable goals, and even if they are abstract in nature, it should be quantifiable and manifest some sort of tangible result.

 

[DA_Champion]

he point isn't to get a specific person/college/job to take you. The point is to find a person/college/job that works FOR YOU, not a hypothetical "more perfect" you. Yes, it would be vastly easier if I looked like Megan Fox or if I'd gotten perfect SAT scores or gone to Harvard. But I don't, and I didn't on the latter two, so I have to find something else that works.

Life is on easy mode if you have perfect SAT scores and you look like Megan Fox.

For the rest of us, we have to work. Drop the ******** immediately please: we have to work. It's not just about finding a job that works for us, as if jobs grow on trees in this post-industrial economy. It's about realizing that jobs are scarce and good jobs scarcer, and that if you don't work your ass off making yourself as desirable as possible to prospective employers, you are in a severe risk of coming up empty-handed.

You need to become that more perfect you. It's simple things like dressing appropriately and being clean, in my case as an academic, I need to publish large numbers of papers, good papers, apply for grants, win grants, and go to conferences. You have to be better than you were yesterday -- or you end up with nothing. Whatever great research I did yesterday isn't good enough: I need new great research.

To argue otherwise is to be a troublemaker, to engage in deceipt and to give false expectations. I'm glad I never had such illusions: I knew that I had two choices, I could work my ass off or starve to death on welfare.

As for college, high school kids all over the United States are working 20 hours a week of homework and doing multiple extracurricular activities. They want to be accepted to college, and those are the standards these days. They need to become a better version of themselves.

Your analogies there were really bad.

But it is relevant in an online dating context, because Nell told me himself that that's the context that's been working for him. I'm not sure exactly what he did that changed, whether he was messaging women differently or whether he wrote his profile differently or put up different pics, but things shifted once he got over the "it's this woman or bust!" attitude. He certainly doesn't seem to have radically changed his appearance much, besides growing a beard. He's a BIG guy, so that could have easily been the excuse why women didn't go for him at first, but things have definitely changed.

Or maybe the beard just works for him, even at his size.

There's no such thing as confidence on tinder and eharmony.

It could be that the beard works for him, it could be that he put up better pictures, it could be that he is being less picky.

I know you're a scientist like my former self, and you like statistics, but people's lives aren't statistics.

I don't believe in God, sorry, and even if I did, I wouldn't believe that he looks out for me above others.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I see a lot of budding Randian's are looking to breed.

Anita is actually trying to help here folks. She understands that as important as hard facts are, they are not the actual totality of human existence in the "being" part of human beings. We are indeed "bigger on the inside" despite how that goes against a purely black and white, binary viewpoint.

Seriously... If this is how ya'll are treating a woman that is trying to help you understand something that is missing in your approach to finding a romantic/life partner I shudder to think how you are coming across in real life guys, and I mean that as a way to wake you the hell up, not to rag on you. If everything in life is just a zero sum game then frankly, find the appropriate type of gold digger for your "socioeconomic" status, one whose beauty feeds your ego and whom agrees to sexual conduct as part of an arrangement and forget about actually being in a relationship with a human being.

How about this... You honestly have to be friends with the person before you can get to the next level and that takes time and effort but not the kind I am seeing talked about here. Truly, I am seeing the very flower of the stereotype of the "nerd" here. It's disheartening in the extreme. But as per usual, nuance and seeking wisdom is gonna lose out to purity and "facts".

Carry on. But don't be surprised when Anita or others aren't around online or in real life to hear how you can't possibly understand why your world view and the extended attitude that springs from it isn't attracting women in the long or short term all that much.

If you are in relatively good health, are blessed with a working sex organ, show some empathy, sympathy, a deft touch with other people's needs and emotions, show some kind of morality that isn't SOLELY dependent on the "data", show a flexible strength and good humor, and above all a self awareness of limitations, your own as well as that which applies to a host of other things, you are gonna be alright more or less out there as long as you keep yourself open to other people, even when you aren't actively looking.

But then, what do I know?




Oh, I know that calling someone a ********ter that is trying to help you with a good sense of optimism and wisdom gained from personal experience says something about the person saying it.

 

[DA_Champion]

budding Randian's ....

I shudder to think how you are coming across in real life guys ...

find the appropriate type of gold digger ...

I have frequently found you to be somebody who initiates aggression against people.

Oh, I know that calling someone a ********ter that is trying to help you with a good sense of optimism and wisdom gained from personal experience says something about the person saying it.

Anita's an adult, she doesn't need you or anybody else to try and defend her. What you're doing is actually condescending to her, though you don't realize it.

I have been discussing the issue with Anita on and off for a while now, a few months I think. I don't post here consistently and I don't know if she does. Anita is very enthusiastic about her experience as somebody who had little experience, was feeling bad about her situation, then met one guy and everything worked out and now everything's fabulous. My response has always been that this is a great story but there's no reason to believe it can be applied as a general suggestion.

I'm sure it has, is, and will continue to happen to some people. Lots of people. My position has been and continues to be that it's not as widely prescriptive as her posting suggests. Her situation worked out for her, it won't work out that well for everybody in the same situation.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Life is on easy mode if you have perfect SAT scores and you look like Megan Fox.

For the rest of us, we have to work. Drop the ******** immediately please: we have to work. It's not just about finding a job that works for us, as if jobs grow on trees in this post-industrial economy. It's about realizing that jobs are scarce and good jobs scarcer, and that if you don't work your ass off making yourself as desirable as possible to prospective employers, you are in a severe risk of coming up empty-handed.

You need to become that more perfect you. It's simple things like dressing appropriately and being clean, in my case as an academic, I need to publish large numbers of papers, good papers, apply for grants, win grants, and go to conferences. You have to be better than you were yesterday -- or you end up with nothing. Whatever great research I did yesterday isn't good enough: I need new great research.

To argue otherwise is to be a troublemaker, to engage in deceipt and to give false expectations. I'm glad I never had such illusions: I knew that I had two choices, I could work my ass off or starve to death on welfare.

As for college, high school kids all over the United States are working 20 hours a week of homework and doing multiple extracurricular activities. They want to be accepted to college, and those are the standards these days. They need to become a better version of themselves.
.

It so doesn't work like that with relationships though.

Women aren't looking for a 'more perfect you'. Most of us are actually looking for a less perfect you.

Personally, I have never gone for really attractive guys with fit bodies or guys with really good jobs or who seem too clean cut.

My falling in love with my boyfriend didn't happen because he's some perfect version of himself. It's because he's the imperfect version of himself.

My boyfriend is overweight, has holes in his clothes & smokes weed. He laughs like a maniac at his own jokes, he clips his nails in the living room, insists on telling me every single time he's going to take a dump - and he took a year and a half to finally say I love you back to me.

I'm pretty sure a lot of women might be bothered by those things. I sort of find them adorable

Because he's perfect FOR ME. He's soft and kind and generous, he makes me laugh and he's playful and cuddly. He's never bought me flowers - but he often picks them out of bushes for me on his way home He is surprisingly domestic and really handy around the house too (which is great, because i'm useless!). We both equally love movies & tv and so can spend entire days binge watching shows together. He scrubs up well when we go to parties or weddings, but he's always got that little spark of mischief in his eyes

And the first 2 times he met me I was so drunk that we'd make out a bit and then i'd just fall asleep on him. I was a bit of a mess, very chaotic life... still am if i'm honest! And I fluctuate in weight, often don't bother to brush my hair before bunging it up, fail to put on make up most days (and I don't get away with it. I'm not someone with a naturally stunning face) and i'm messy and slightly neurotic.

But none of that matters because i'm perfect FOR HIM.

Take the job analogy. You said 'good jobs are scarce'.

But it's not about trying to be some idealized version of a good 'job' (AKA partner). Because that's so completely subjective.

 

[DA_Champion]

Every dating website is different, and based on the rules will have slightly different dynamics in play, and thus slightly different dependence on looks, personality, game, et cetera. There may be some communication failure with people who have been on dating sites in a while who don't understand what I mean.

I tried eHarmony a year ago or so as several of my friends who are women said I should have better luck on a paid dating site, since women there are more likely to be serious and looking for a credible relationship rather than bumming around and having fun with the quizzes. That meant either eHarmony or match, they are the largest ones, though I had no idea which one is better. I went with eHarmony on a whim, I might try match later, I probably should.

Prior to speaking to somebody in real conversation, you first have to go through "steps", each step is different. The profile, the part with words in it, is on a different page where the pictures, age, location, and profession are.

One of the steps is "make or break", where you pick 10 makes from a long list of makes, and you pick 10 breaks from a long list of breaks, here is what one women sent to me:

MAKES ..........or.......... BREAKS
Communicator/Lying
Sense of Humour/Cheating
Patience/Rude
Tolerant/Lazy
Affectionate/Drugs
Loyal/Racist
Shared Interests/Poor Hygiene
Responsible/Foul Mouthed
Ambition/Sexually Obsessed
Relaxed/Infidelity

That's one woman's list of makes and breaks. It's perfectly reasonable, but the truth is most of these are pretty generic. She neither has great game nor awful game with that list. I don't think more or less of her. Here's what another woman sent me:

MAKES ..........or.......... BREAKS
Communicator/Lying
Sense of Humour/Cheating
Strong Character/Anger
Kindness/Rude
Organised/Mean Spirited
Conflict Resolver/Drugs
Affectionate/Poor Hygiene
Intellect/Addictions
Loyal/Sloppy
Shared Interests/Pessimism

They're mostly similar. The woman listed above had "rude" as a break, and the second one didn't, though she did have "addictions" which the first one didn't. Are they different women with different values? I don't know. I'm not going to distinguish between them based on those lists, lol. In truth I bet both of them would rather avoid obnoxious alcoholics

To circle back to my original points, I think these original steps are about adding hurdles. There are four or five steps prior to conversation, each of them is an opportunity to look at the person's photo and say "nah! not my type!" in case you were tired or in a different mood the first time. It reduces the number of conversations a person eventually has, making the process more selective than traditional sites like PoF and OkC where the process *starts* with conversation. There were plenty of articles back in the day saying that if you could make a girl laugh in the first comment you were off to a great start ... I agree, but that's not universally applicable. There are now very few people on OkC, and PoF has very, very profiles with profiles substantially longer than "Hi I'm sherry I enjoy having fun and I love laughing" from which I could construct a good joke. Maybe if my IQ was 185 I could make those girls laugh, but really I think they're probably getting and choosing first dates based on pictures alone.

All of which to say, eHarmony on its own is probably not sufficient and I agree with those saying I need to establish a broader social network.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Wow. I've never been on paid dating sites, but if that's what they are like then i'm glad!

I can't even imagine how hard it would be to find someone if there were that many things off the bat that would mean you aren't a 'match'.

The truth is, people don't really know what their makes or breaks are until faced with it with each new person. They might think they do, but often in relationships you find you ARE able to get over things you thought were breaks before, because of how you feel about the person as a whole.

 

[DA_Champion]

Nm.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Blimey, it's a hive of activity in here... And to think the other day I could see the tumbleweeds flying by!

 

[Erzengel]

I've never used a paid dating site, but I'm curious how it is overseas as opposed to here in the States. Also, adding the caveat that people who live closer to metropolitan areas may have a larger selection to choose from.

 

[Dark Raven]

Well, some paid dating sites in the UK have actual social mixers and events for people on the sites to meet (ie a set number of men and a set number of women attending the event).

 

[KevanG]

Well a lot of paid dating sites are complete scams in North America.

 

[Anita18]

Life is on easy mode if you have perfect SAT scores and you look like Megan Fox.

For the rest of us, we have to work. Drop the ******** immediately please: we have to work. It's not just about finding a job that works for us, as if jobs grow on trees in this post-industrial economy. It's about realizing that jobs are scarce and good jobs scarcer, and that if you don't work your ass off making yourself as desirable as possible to prospective employers, you are in a severe risk of coming up empty-handed.

You need to become that more perfect you. It's simple things like dressing appropriately and being clean, in my case as an academic, I need to publish large numbers of papers, good papers, apply for grants, win grants, and go to conferences. You have to be better than you were yesterday -- or you end up with nothing. Whatever great research I did yesterday isn't good enough: I need new great research.

To argue otherwise is to be a troublemaker, to engage in deceipt and to give false expectations. I'm glad I never had such illusions: I knew that I had two choices, I could work my ass off or starve to death on welfare.

As for college, high school kids all over the United States are working 20 hours a week of homework and doing multiple extracurricular activities. They want to be accepted to college, and those are the standards these days. They need to become a better version of themselves.

Your analogies there were really bad.

But if they are working SO HARD to "perfect themselves" that they become downright untrue to themselves, is it really worth it to go to a "top 10 college?" (In fact, I don't think it is anymore.) It's only a piece of paper at the end of the day. You still have to work with what you have and live your own life. So many college students and grads these days have chronic depression because they were always told that graduating from a great college would solve all their problems, and they mentally break when they realize it doesn't. It only gives you tools, it doesn't give you the answers.

Look, I come from a peer group of overachievers. The number of people I know who are academically perfect and went to "top 10" unis and are now financially sound is sickening. Every one of my relatives went to US News Top 5 uni. (My alma mater eventually made it up there too.) And you know what? Such "successful people" aren't any happier than other people I know who went to state schools. We all have similar struggles with relationships and figuring out our place in life. Going to Harvard (and I DO know people who did!) doesn't solve those problems for you. It's as you said - you have to put in the work.

You want me to stop bulls****ing? Fine. I will tell you this - I see this pattern of using statistics and evolutionary biology and other miscellaneous "explanations" in people who don't want to put in work when results are uncertain. They use these explanations to give them certainty. "I'm not getting men/women/jobs because of X, Y, and Z. If only I were "better" at X, Y, and Z, that would have solved everything."

It's an excuse to avoid putting in the slog of really looking into yourself and taking stock of your life. And I get it, it's HARD to admit you tried your best and still failed. It's easier to use excuses. But it doesn't help you move on productively. And that's what I'm doing in this thread. I've never said that my approach was a guarantee, but at least my message is aiming to help people and get them off their butts, instead of bring people down. How is that going to help exactly?

You mentioned jobs being competitive and approaching it as zero sum. That's perhaps your reality as an academic researcher (IIRC), but I also come from a family of technologists, and we are the first to acknowledge that 30 years ago, trillions of dollars of current industries didn't even exist. Someone had to make them, they didn't come out of thin air. You might as well adapt instead of make excuses.

My uncle got his PhD in chemical engineering and even back in the 80s/90s, there weren't many jobs in that field. He switched to software engineering, made his own company, now he's filthy rich and spends months on cruises. He found himself in a difficult place and he adapted his way out. If he'd spent years bemoaning his useless PhD and how he should have done something else with those 5-7 years of his life, that wouldn't have helped him at all.

You gotta get up and take a look at what's going to help you, not spend that time and effort coming up with excuses why things aren't happening for you. You keep doing that, you're guaranteed to stay at the same place you started. The other option is still only a chance, but it's still better than 0%.

 

[Erzengel]

I'm not accusing anyone on here of being lazy, but dating is work. Finding someone is work. Some people will have to put in a lot just to get the attention of a handful while others don't have to put in anything and get the attention of many. It's not fair but it falls on how important is it for you and how much time and effort are you willing to put in.

 

[spiderman2]

As much as I think it helps meeting someone with similar interests, it's more important to have compatible personalities. It's rare for guys to find a woman who click everything in looks and personality, oh and btw is a huge comic book fan. It's more likely to find someone who tolerates it.

While I do think interest can be a deal breaker because if you don't have enough interest what are you going to do just stare at each other lol. Like for me I love sports I am a sports nut. like all I do is watch sports, play sports and talk sports. I think to most women my love of sports would drive them nuts and if a women doesn't love sports we are going to have nothing to do together and nothing to talk about.

 

[Erzengel]

If you're dating someone, you try to include them. And if take a liking to it, that's great. If not, that's your thing and she can have other things.

But the key is to compromise. Try and talk about their interests or don't spend all your time watching and playing sports.

 

[Anita18]

I'm not accusing anyone on here of being lazy, but dating is work. Finding someone is work. Some people will have to put in a lot just to get the attention of a handful while others don't have to put in anything and get the attention of many. It's not fair but it falls on how important is it for you and how much time and effort are you willing to put in.

Right, I don't think anyone here is lazy. "What if-ing" takes A TON of energy. I feel much better if I don't do it and it's easy for me to snap myself out of it, but people with depression and anxiety don't have it easy, for sure. They can even acknowledge that what they're thinking is irrational but can't stop that train of thought easily.

I just wanted to point out that you write the reality for your own life. I may have been single for a long time before I met my husband, but there's a HUGE difference in approach between "I just haven't met that guy yet" and "Every day I don't get a date is proof that no guy likes me."

I've seen attractive, smart, hardworking people paint themselves into a "I'll never be good enough" corner and it never ends. If you define yourself as unsuccessful according to someone else's definition, you'll NEVER be successful, because there will always be someone else with more. You can have everything on paper and it's never enough.

But for them, it feels safer to categorize themselves according to someone else's definition than to go through the uncertainty of figuring out what they want and need as individuals. Nobody can define success or happiness for you, and that uncertainty can be scary. I have friends who have gone decades avoiding that question. The resulting depression can be crushing, but nobody can do it for them until they're ready.

 

[the last son]

I had a 4 month relationship end last summer when she moved out of state. We text every 4 months or so, just exchanging pleasantries. She said she missed me I told her I would catch a plane to see her next month and stay the weekend. I'm just going to visit her and reconnect. Towards the end if we have a great time should I try to talk her into coming back to our state? I really like her and if she didn't move truly wanted a future with her. I want family, marriage with her. I guess we'll see how it goes next month.

 

[Erzengel]

I'll skip over the whole, maybe one shouldn't uproot their entire lives based on 4 months of dating and one weekend visit but why can't you move?

 

[the last son]

I just felt a connection I've never felt with anyone else with her. I haven't visited her yet. That's next month. I have a house and a decent job back here. I'm not moving. I guess this is a friendly visit next month. She said she's excited to see me and wants meet to meet her best friend who she moved in with. So, I shouldn't expect this as an attempt to rekindle our intimate relationship?

 

[Erzengel]

Honestly, from your MO, I think if you go and see her, I'd be surprised if there isn't any intimacy.

Everyone is different. Some people make life decisions after knowing someone for months and others years.

But, this is when you have to make the grown up decisions. She moved to wherever she is for a reason. What was that reason? Is it unfair or even selfish of you to ask her to move? You are asking her to give up her life where she is to move back to your state. Which means she has to find a new job, a new place, give 2 weeks notice, not leave her new best friend in a lurch and have her find a roommate. It's a lot for her to do for you while you really don't have to upset your life at all.

I trust that you feel you have a real connection with her. But how deep is that connection if moving to where she is such a foreign concept. If she was really all that why wouldn't you consider it?

Again, temper all this with the fact that you've dated only a few months and this is your first visit to see her.

Honestly, I'd see how this visit went and go from there. Maybe it should take a few visits and LOTS of discussion before you even broach the subject of one of you moving.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Is it possible to genuinely like two people at the same time, equally?