Project Dating!

[Batya33]

Oh that's not what I meant at all. I disagreed with what you quoted. I am not criticizing his work -I am criticizing having any more focus on a so-called online dating "coach" than anyone else who has been on a date through an online site - I would weight both evenly and probably rely more on the person who dated and doesn't have a bias in favor of making $/attracting traffic to his website. I do disagree with what you wrote. I read it, I do not agree that that is a good overall strategy or why a person wouldn't get an official first date. In fact I've had dates where we went really in depth and extended the coffee date to three hours - totally clicked -and my sense was he didn't call me again because it was too much too soon.

 

That's fair enough. I'll qualify this by saying that I didn't take this advice because it was coming from a dating coach, I took the advice because it really resonated with me and what's been happening on the dates I've been going on. It would have been just the same had the advice come from somebody on here or from one of my friends.

 

I've had 3 dates since I took the advice and I can say without doubt that the conversations have been way better than they were before, in spite of the fact that none have led to a 2nd date. I feel like I'm really letting down my barriers down and showing the true me, the same way I would do with my best friends.

 

Yes- of course it's good to read lots of advice and input. I never wanted to let it all hang out with a stranger. I preferred to be like a many layered package and get to know someone at a reasonable pace over time. Like on my first sort of date with my husband (well the second time around) we talked at length about how annoying it was to get new year's cards with only a photo of the person's kids -no signature, no words, etc -so we were like -oh so should we scan in something we've written that we think is good and send a link or a pdf to show what we accomplished that year? And he shared his chocolate pudding with me. More than half the men wanted to see me again and I refrained from oversharing - I didn't want to be best buds with a stranger or be open/vulnerable - that kind of thing I wanted to show that I reserved for people who were actually close to me. I found that I was concerned about trust and discretion with someone who let it all hang out -like did he do that with everyone, would he be discreet with my personal information, etc. Other people like to let it all hang out. It takes all kinds!!

[Rose Mosse]

I was thinking about this, Ian, and the dating experience you've been writing about. Are you also selecting dates that are more or less similar in maturity to you? It may be the case that some individuals just don't understand or are on a completely different wavelength. Even if you have the same likes and dislikes those people might not understand your life experiences or vice versa.

 

It's good that you're so down to earth with your conversations with them. I think the majority of individuals aren't there to meet for long term relationships.

[Batya33]

I was thinking about this, Ian, and the dating experience you've been writing about. Are you also selecting dates that are more or less similar in maturity to you? It may be the case that some individuals just don't understand or are on a completely different wavelength. Even if you have the same likes and dislikes those people might not understand your life experiences or vice versa.

 

It's good that you're so down to earth with your conversations with them. I think the majority of individuals aren't there to meet for long term relationships.

 

Great point on maturity! I think I've seen a focus by the OP on looks and physical features so -maybe the maturity part of the package is not the focus??

[Ian4996]

I was thinking about this, Ian, and the dating experience you've been writing about. Are you also selecting dates that are more or less similar in maturity to you?

 

I would say the answer to this question is yes, I am selecting dates with similar maturity to me.

 

I don't tend to consciously ask myself 'how mature do I think this person is?' but I do tend to ask myself a few questions to judge whether someone is potentially a good match for me. So say if I see a profile on Tinder. My first question is 'could I be physically attracted to them?' If the answer to this question is yes, then I'll look into their profile a bit more. I'll look at:

 

What they're doing in their photos. Active photos, hiking, sports etc are all big plus points for me. Several photos all of them just pouting are not, even if they're physically attractive.

Have they written a decent bio? I think if someone's made an effort with their bio, they're more likely to be genuine about looking to meet someone.

What does their bio say about them? A positive bio that tells me a bit about them (hobbies, interests etc) is a plus point for me, especially if it looks like we have similar interests. A negative or angry sounding bio ("why are all men on here f***ing d***heads?") definitely isn't.

Do they have children and how many? My preference is none although I'm not against dating someone with 1 child (as I have done in the past). If they've got, say, 4 children though, that's not for me.

 

If I'm liking what I see with all the above things, I'll swipe right and drop them a message. I don't tend to consciously say "how mature do they sound?" but I do sometimes pick up on things which make me think that someone sounds too much like a child for me. If their bio says "add me to Snapchat, here is the link", that would definitely put me off (I think of Snapchat as a kiddie thing, not for someone in their 30's). Similarly, if we get chatting and I ask them about their weekend plans and get the answer "havin a laff wiv me mates lol", I automatically think to myself 'they sound like a child'.

 

So yes, I do think I carefully consider whether someone could be a good match for me. I think Batya's opinion that I have an overly heavy focus on physical features is a bit unfair. It is true that I am attracted to physically fit women and that is partly just because of my natural physical preferences and partly because I'd like to be with someone who lives a similar healthy active lifestyle that I live myself. But I do need a lot more than that too in terms of personality, lifestyle etc etc.

[Batya33]

I understand you disagree -I was noticing how much you focus on physical features. A healthful, fit lifestyle is a must for me, too. When I was on dating sites I never considered whether I could be physically attracted because I knew I would never know the answer to that without meeting the guy in person and taking in his energy/vibes/eye contact, posture, etc. If I found the guy repulsive it was a no go - or if he was dressed inappropriately, etc. I met one guy who was very cute in person. I liked him enough to see me again but he didn't ask me out. Months later I was looking particularly fine one day lol and randomly -I ran into him on the street! That day he contacted me and asked me out. I figured -sure why not. The next day he changed his photo to one of him staring down at his bare chest (yes he was very fit). I was repulsed that he would do that so I cancelled the date without telling him why.

[boltnrun]

I always find it interesting to see what traits men are attracted to. I used to work with a man who was always commenting on women with regard to their "hotness". So I asked him "Does 'hot' cancel out unintelligent?" And he said yes. I then asked "Does 'hot' cancel out 'witchy'?" And he said no.

 

Anyway...my brother always claims to want intellectual conversations with women but he always chooses women whose idea of quality programming is the Real Housewives.

[Batya33]

I always find it interesting to see what traits men are attracted to. I used to work with a man who was always commenting on women with regard to their "hotness". So I asked him "Does 'hot' cancel out unintelligent?" And he said yes. I then asked "Does 'hot' cancel out 'witchy'?" And he said no.

 

Anyway...my brother always claims to want intellectual conversations with women but he always chooses women whose idea of quality programming is the Real Housewives.

 

What??? Real Housewives is the ultimate in depth - you mean Bethany's not deep? Please. We had a friend who was doubtful about marrying his fiancee because he is very bright and she was a huge fan of the halftime show superbowl sunday. There were other reasons we didn't think they were a good match (and I think my husband -it was his friend -was silent on that) but he did marry her many years ago. She's intelligent. She's just not a well-meaning, well-intentioned person. "Just". She is very attractive.

[bluecastle]

I think Ian's doing just fine, and don't get the impression that he is prioritizing the exterior at the expense of the interior. No doubt it's important to him, but it doesn't seem to be blinding him.

 

That said, I do share some of the skepticism about dating coaches, and that's not because of the commercial quality. My concern there is that it turns dating and connecting into a game, where results get measured by applying the coaching strategies and carving out "wins" where previously there were "loses." Think part of the present frustration, in ways, is connected to doing what the coach suggested, seeing that win in sight, and then still coming up short. So what is, all in all, just a fact of dating becomes something to address through further coaching, a sharpening of one's game.

 

This works in sports. If I hired a coach to help me with surfing, I'd get out on the water eager to see what happens when I arch by back here, shift my line of vision there, and so on. When this results in a better ride—more speed, tighter turns—I'll be ecstatic. When I still stumble, I'll be more annoyed than I was prior to the coaching session, because I'll be more self-centric and self-absorbed than normal. So it goes. Part of the fun of surfing, for me, is that it's a little competition with myself, an activity in which part of the joy is connected to seeing what I can extract out of myself. There is space in it for losing myself in nature and "using" nature as a backdrop for some solipsism.

 

But people, connecting with them, dating? I just don't think it works that way, and the more you get into that mindset of optimization the more you set yourself back. You run the risk of making dates about you, your moves, your progress, with the other person a tacit judge or goal post. That's not to say some important insight can't be gleaned from the words of a dating coach, or the words of a random like me or you or you, but that it all just needs to be metabolized a bit so the wildest part—the utter organic mystery of it all, of other people—can be embraced and accepted, even when it leaves you thirstier than you'd hoped.

[Batya33]

I found that I had to follow certain rules because if I was "myself" I would be the irrational/oversharing/too high hopes "self" when I was really into someone too fast - to be grounded and centered and put my best foot forward I liked the structure of certain dating rules. I started following those rules in the early 80s well before the books came out. Worked very well for me in the beginning stages of dating and I found on the whole I was treated with respect and men felt comfortable taking the lead -because the men I dated felt more comfortable and were more into women who let them take the lead in the beginning -meaning doing most of the asking out on dates, most of the telephone calls ,etc. If I had let my excitement get the better of me I would have come across as overeager/needy/insecure. That wasn't "me" -that was me losing my head too fast.

 

 

My mom and sister also kept me grounded and reminded me what worked best -to help a man feel comfortable in his own skin. Certainly had I wanted a man who would follow my lead, enjoy being more passive, wanting the woman to plan and ask for dates, etc then those external rules would have been ridiculous. I didn't want that. At all. And I knew of many men who initially really liked a lady and got turned off when she was too available/overeager. Certainly there are judgments to be made about those men -what?? they're not comfortable with a woman taking the lead?? who wants a man like that??. I did. I related to that sense of "well I really liked her -and she is so bright and ambitious and I love that about her -but when she kept asking me out I just felt turned off." Yes, those men loved that I highly valued my career, that I was a go getter academically and professionally -especially my husband (much like RBG described her first date with her husband) - but in a romantic relationship they preferred the more um traditional role. It's perfectly consistent -two different contexts - go getter professionally, let the man take more of the lead romantically.

 

So is it game playing? No not to that extent. Do I like external rules and guidelines for early dating when people get ahead of themselves? Totally. And no I did not accept weekend dates if I was asked after Wednesday. Guess how many dates I missed out on because of that rule - very few and those were men who were used to women jumping into bed with them after partying/getting drunk.

 

I've been harshly judged many times for playing those so called games. It meant that my cynicsm about dating and men was really short lived -like a few hours after a bad date- and it meant I attracted men who wanted to get to know me as a person and romantically - and respected me. I respected them, too.

[Ian4996]

My concern there is that it turns dating and connecting into a game, where results get measured by applying the coaching strategies and carving out "wins" where previously there were "loses."

 

I get that, and that's a mindset that I'm being careful to avoid getting into. Having said that Bluecastle, there's quite a bit that this guy and you seem to agree on! There must've been 3 or 4 times when I've been reading his blog and I've read a piece of advice and suddenly thought 'yeah I remember Bluecastle saying something very similar to that on my Enotalone journal'.

 

Do I like external rules and guidelines for early dating when people get ahead of themselves? Totally.

 

Yeah I get that. I think you can use those little rules to filter out unsuitable people. Like in your case, you used your no date if asked after Wednesday rule to filter out men who weren't looking for the same thing as you. I guess one that I've started using recently is not to become anyone's text buddy - ie you spend evenings bantering over text but you haven't actually met yet. I've fallen into this trap in the past and I've found that these women generally just want exactly that - a text buddy for entertainment! So I filter them out now by replying to messages just before I start work or just before I go do something for a few hours where I won't be checking my phone. It's a 'strategy' but not a bad one.

 

I've more or less taken a week off Tinder and been focusing on other things (sports, work, my campervan conversion etc), which I felt like I needed. I did have a first meet on Thursday morning (dog walk in a nature reserve) with a girl Joan who I'd been messaging for a week or so but I quickly realised that she wasn't my type. This didn't make me feel bad or down at all - I can cope fine with someone just not being my type - it's when they are my type but they're not into me that I can feel deflated. Funnily enough, Joan did want to see me again. She messaged me this evening asking me but I was just honest with her. It was still nice to get a reminder that I can be attractive to women, as the constant 'no sparks' messages, being blocked and deleted etc do chip away at my confidence.

[Batya33]

I love your text buddy rule! I have to have similar rules when it comes to making new friends -I tend to go out of my way too much for people I don't yet know well - so I have trained myself to limit offering that kind of help (typically in the form of introducing the person to someone I know who might be a good resource/have the information they need etc) - unless it also benefits me and/or the person I am connecting them with. It's sort of going against my knee jerk reaction to "help" but I need those boundaries to feel better about the interaction and my self respect.

 

Your interaction with Joan sounds like a very positive experience as far as your self-awareness and the "learning" from it.

[Rose Mosse]

What do you mean she's not your 'type'? Do you mean the looks department or mannerisms or her character? This may be confusing but is it possible that your perceived 'type' isn't compatible with you (who you are, Ian, the man, the human being, the x (whatever you do for work), as a son, father if you have kids, brother, friend etc, all your interests, likes/dislikes, beliefs)?

 

I ask this because 'types' evolve over time too. I had somewhat of a groundbreaking discovery the other week realizing a few things about my dating patterns and the way I've perceived individuals who are or aren't my type of person. What I used to think is not what I think anymore. What was attractive to me back then is no longer attractive to me anymore. What I see or expect of others has changed into something else. What I see or expect of myself ​has changed.

[Ian4996]

Do you mean the looks department or mannerisms or her character?

 

Mannerisms, character, personality. She was nice looking and a nice person. But, let's be honest, we can tell when we aren't attracted to someone or when our personalities just aren't compatible.

 

I had somewhat of a groundbreaking discovery the other week realizing a few things about my dating patterns and the way I've perceived individuals who are or aren't my type of person

 

That's interesting. Care to elaborate?

 

Your interaction with Joan sounds like a very positive experience as far as your self-awareness and the "learning" from it

 

Absolutely, it was.

[Rose Mosse]

What I'm suggesting is what we may normally perceive as our type or attractive may not be the type of person we're compatible with in the long run. The very things you're looking for in a partner may not be working for you. I mentioned above how people evolve over time.

[Ian4996]

The very things you're looking for in a partner may not be working for you

 

Thanks, that's interesting. What specifically makes you think that?

[Rose Mosse]

I don't know you so just a thought. That's all... sorry for barging in! Just sharing some of my thoughts on dating or relationships and evolution in general.

[Batya33]

The very things you're looking for in a partner may not be working for you

 

Thanks, that's interesting. What specifically makes you think that?

 

I agree with Rose and I think certainly some people just know when there will never be potential from the word go, some people are clearly incompatible with us or we're repulsed by their looks -but there's a whole vast gray area where, given the chance, and given a cold hard look at ones own standards -without settling!!! - there may be awesome matches being overlooked because we're too much in a rush or we're too stuck in what we think we want/need.

 

But there also are people who rationalize settling - they get scared of being alone, get to a certain age, etc. They lower their standards rather than reevaluate and come to an authentic decision that certain standards no longer make sense or resonate. So for example I have a friend who got married for the third time about a year ago. I know for sure she settled. She told me as much despite sounding very happy. She went for unavailable bad boy types for years, one of her husbands was into being a swinger (she was, for a bit but really just to please him) and if they weren't bad boys they simply weren't nice people. She was promiscuous in between relationships.

She told me about her current husband that, basically, she's not ultra passionate about him but he is what she needs -he is stable, reliable, loves her, wants to be with her, has a lovely family. I know her for over 15 years and she can tell me how awesome he is for those qualities and knowing her, unless she is a totally different person, she settled for not much in the passion department but for someone who wanted to marry her and be by her side. I could have done so a number of times and knew that would never work for me. I believe she will stay faithful but I think she's made a deal with the devil because once she starts her business travel again she will be very tempted to stray.

 

So I would not suggest settling. I would suggest reevaluating what is truly important to you in a partner. If marriage/long term is your goal. Also be very sure it is - because if it's really not then to me at least it's not worth all the effort meeting all these people.

[bluecastle]

Interesting discussion.

 

My girlfriend and I have remarked, plenty, that we wouldn't have worked in past lives, past incarnations of ourselves. I'm wondering if this is a bit of what Rose is talking about, a bit of an internal shift or shedding of a husk that allows our "types" to change, or at least our compasses to point a little more true.

[Ian4996]

I don't know you so just a thought. That's all... sorry for barging in! Just sharing some of my thoughts on dating or relationships and evolution in general.

 

Ah I see. I misunderstood - I'd thought you'd picked up on something about me that made you have that opinion.

 

I would suggest reevaluating what is truly important to you in a partner. If marriage/long term is your goal.

 

That's exactly what Nick Notas advocates - really work out what are the qualities you're looking for in a partner. I did that and came up with the following list (which is in no particular order):

 

Easy to chat to and banter with (someone with whom the conversation flows naturally)

Kind, an all-round nice person

Mature when needed, but not too serious about life in general

Reliable (not always cancelling etc)

Loyal (would never cheat)

Open-minded, not too straight-laced

Active (lives an outdoors healthy lifestyle)

Dog Lover

Physically attractive (don't have to have model looks, but I do have to fancy them)

Passionate (about stuff, not just passionate physically)

Curious (wants to find out stuff)

[LaHermes]

Ian.

 

I can't find anything to quarrel with in that list lol.

 

"Easy to chat to and banter with (someone with whom the conversation flows naturally)

Kind, an all-round nice person

Mature when needed, but not too serious about life in general

Reliable (not always cancelling etc)

Loyal (would never cheat)

Open-minded, not too straight-laced

Active (lives an outdoors healthy lifestyle)

Dog Lover

Physically attractive (don't have to have model looks, but I do have to fancy them)

Passionate (about stuff, not just passionate physically)"

 

You are describing a well-adjusted person.

 

The difficulty is that a vast swathe of the population is not well-adjusted, and are unstable, psychologically unfit, "desperately seeking", and in general unfit for human consumption.

[Batya33]

I agree with LaHermes - I have to say I especially like the "mature when needed"! Kind of like "ok guess we have to put on our big boy/big girl pants and deal with the leak in the ceiling/dinner with family/filing taxes" and then we can check out the new fortnite youtuber" It's a good way to live!

[Rose Mosse]

Thanks, Batya. Settling has such a negative quality to it though, doesn't it. Only your friend knows what's good for her and if she's changed what's suitable to her it may very well be what's best for her in the long run and it might not be settling but evolving? Going from unreliable relationships to more trustworthy ones? From preferring good decisions over bad decisions. I evolved for example without my (ex)partner. I really didn't think it'd get to this point and neither did he but it did and we grew apart, to be very simple.

 

I'm wondering if this is a bit of what Rose is talking about, a bit of an internal shift or shedding of a husk that allows our "types" to change, or at least our compasses to point a little more true.

 

Yes, this. Thanks. I didn't think of reincarnations or the like although that seems interesting too. Just evolving as a person and accepting change. It's as simple as recognizing bad influences and bad habits and not finding it attractive in people anymore. It's about being a well-rounded person but a person has to do their part in leaving all the negativity aside, avoiding negative people or situations in general and be positive themselves or willing to look on the bright side. That means being positive and focusing on the positives about people I meet. Or choosing to side step a lot of negativity and choosing not to have it in my life. I think people who have been in negative situations or felt belittled or manipulated in previous relationships will also be more sensitive to negative traits in others and more cautious or wary that someone is too good to be true, so to speak, or someone who swings to extremes for example. I'm not a fan of extremes. Introducing more positivity into my life is new for me - I mean this consciously, as a conscious practice, and not just being bubbly or carefree. That sort of active role means all the above about avoiding the wrong influences and being open to better ones.

 

The list is a good start, Ian.

I started off with something similar also like that awhile back but have now seen the two extremes to all those points you've listed in an unhealthy relationship. A kind and all-round nice person also needs to have boundaries for example. Active is great within reason... I've been with a partner who's been obsessed about looks and physique due background and individual interests. This doesn't appeal to me either. I think some middle ground is always jackpot. I'm busy (like you) rethinking and fine-tuning things. I can only offer these ramblings as more fodder but can see how it might be completely irrelevant also. lol!

[Batya33]

So, Rose yes I would think she had evolved but I didn't buy her explanation about how he wasn't exciting or adventurous but how that was ok - I didn't buy it because of how she said it and the words she used. And because of what I know of her. I absolutely have concluded "evolving" rather than "settling" in other similar cases - and to be honest it's usually because the person doesn't need to explain themselves in quite that way - rather, it's more of an all encompassing "I found my person - I found what I wanted and needed even though it wasn't what I wanted and needed in the past". I can't really explain it better -I kind of know settling when I see it. Having said that I know of a few couples where one of them likely settled but as it turned out they are happily married.

[Rose Mosse]

Oh I see what you mean, Batya. Thanks for sharing that - the difference between those two things. Something for me to think about! Or be mindful of. That's very good.

[Batya33]

Oh I see what you mean, Batya. Thanks for sharing that - the difference between those two things. Something for me to think about! Or be mindful of. That's very good.

 

I married the guy I would have settled for had we married the first time around we dated. So I know the difference intimately. I remember the pain of trying to settle for him when we first dated - because he was a wonderful guy then as he is now -just not wonderful for me -I was letting a wonderful person slip through my fingers, it seemed, because I couldn't resolve the core-shaking doubts. And even worse right in the height of my fertile years (we were in our early 30s that first time).

 

But after almost 8 years apart we each grew, evolved, matured, and in ways that so complemented each other. I wasn't settling -not even a little bit. On the other hand was I over the moon crazy in love every second? Nope. Because you know what -had I been - to that feverish pitch - I bet that once it faded even a little -once I noticed even a tiny flaw -it would all have come crashing down. Instead, yes, I was in love, yes I was reasonably sure about "us" and excited to be with him -but from a perspective that included heart and head, not just infatuation and not just crazy emotions. I know of happy couples who are crazy in love all the time - that's great - for them - and I know of many couples who were crazy in love throughout the dating and engagement phase, at the wedding - with a nice dose of jealousy, insecurity, neediness..... until they weren't and typically a few years in, typically after a child/children. There are many ways this can work - mine is just one -but I think the "reasonably sure and excited" and the "no settling" needs to be a given with rare exception (exception being if both people are settling and want more of a marriage of convenience - if you sign up for that, and accept that, sure it can work just like an arranged marriage can "work".

 

What do I know though lol.