Question to the men/woman... What’s this big ‘MYSTERY’ thing about

[clia]

You're already of the belief that it is a fight just because you are voicing your opinions/feelings!

 

Not necessarily. It depends what it is. I do believe fights start at times because the subject matter of the fights is ridiculous. I think women sometimes freak out over stupid things and start fights over them, though. Like, I know someone who started a huge fight with her live in boyfriend because he didn't have dinner waiting for her at 10 p.m. She ended up waking him up at four in the morning in tears, they had a huge fight, etc. Over dinner? When he didn't know she expected him to have dinner waiting at that late hour? Another friend actually did get pissy with her boyfriend when he brought her grocery store flowers instead of florist flowiers. I could go on...I feel like I've seen it all. (Which is why I don't trouble myself with these kinds of spats--it's not worth it to me.) I guess it's all in the delivery, but this kind of stuff is too similar to nagging and criticizing, and less voicing an opinion to me.

 

If someone is the sort that blows up over many trivial things....well that doesn't make said person much of a mature adult now does it?

 

I've seen too many women who do, is my problem. They get all twisted and angry over what to me is minutia. I think you avoid that when you aren't basing your happiness on what a guy does or does not do.

 

Challenge, as I see it, is a game that serious individuals do not play.

 

I really think you are in the minority of guys. In my experience, the vast amount of guys like the girl who is a little more hard to get than the girl who is always at their beck and call. It's interesting to me because one of my friends dates completely opposite to the way I do, so we often discuss this kind of thing. She meets a guy and next thing you know she's staying the night with him, seeing him every night, talking to him daily. And the guy inevitably poofs after a month or two. Is it because she was "too easy to get"? I don't know. I think that could have contributed to it, and if she would've played it a little more cool in the beginning and not just dived in that things might've lasted longer. I've had more luck with taking things slower and being a bit more challenging. (This doesn't mean I don't tell a guy how I feel--believe me, I do. And I share things. But, having a life of my own and other things going on makes me more of a challenge because he does have to ask me out in advance or I might have plans already, and he might not be able to talk to me every single day because I'm not sitting at home by the phone.)

 

If you are using the terms interchangeably...then I think we're at a point of concurrence (although I'd be a bit perplexed as to that choice of definition).

 

I'm not necessarily using them interchangeably, but I think they overlap in some respects. I'm having trouble trying to verbalize what I mean with respect to all this.

 

I think it's a good discussion, too!

[Ryan]

I think women sometimes freak out over stupid things and start fights over them, though....

...I guess it's all in the delivery, but this kind of stuff is too similar to nagging and criticizing, and less voicing an opinion to me....

...They get all twisted and angry over what to me is minutia. I think you avoid that when you aren't basing your happiness on what a guy does or does not do....

 

I agree with the above...I don't find it appealing when a woman acts consistently as you stated. BUT, I believe this is a matter of maturity, not mystery.

 

In my experience, the vast amount of guys like the girl who is a little more hard to get than the girl who is always at their beck and call.

 

I'm not interested in having a servant....QUITE the opposite. I don't think a woman with a sense of self is necessarily hard to get. Whether or not I can "get" her depends on what she wants in a man compared to what I have to offer. The spectrum of responses between "clingy" to "standoffish" (with real in the dead center) seems to be manifest after the getting is done. I consider anything headed towards "standoffish" to be a challenge...and I'm not interested in such pretending.

 

I've had more luck with taking things slower and being a bit more challenging. (This doesn't mean I don't tell a guy how I feel--believe me, I do. And I share things. But, having a life of my own and other things going on makes me more of a challenge because he does have to ask me out in advance or I might have plans already, and he might not be able to talk to me every single day because I'm not sitting at home by the phone.)

 

I don't see how that makes you a challenge. I say that makes you real.

Perhaps this is a matter of where we are centering our scale. I build mine on POSSIBLE human behavior...with real in the center. You might be building it on FREQUENCY of human behavior....with goofy-ass-clingy in the center. Thus, your position of "challenge" is actually my idea of being real....yours is just relatively more self-secure and independent compared to the median.

 

 

I think it's a good discussion, too!

 

I love it when a woman argues with me well. Careful...you might start turning me on. :c)

[clia]

BUT, I believe this is a matter of maturity, not mystery.

 

If you are referring to maturity in dealing with relationships, then yes, I agree with you. Maturity doesn't equal age or number of relationships at all in my mind. I've seen forty or fifty year old women who have been in a number of relationships pull some stunts that make my head spin. But, again, I think a lot of women don't ever reach this level of maturity in dealing with relationships. They just don't get that men are wired differently than women. I think you absolutely must understand that in order to deal with a relationship effectively.

 

I'm not interested in having a servant....QUITE the opposite.

 

"Beck and call" doesn't mean a servant. It means the girl who will cancel plans with her friends, or simply invite the guy along out with her friends if he chooses to call her. The girl who has no boundaries, and in essence, no desire to maintain a life of her own.

 

I don't think a woman with a sense of self is necessarily hard to get.

 

Maybe you just gravitate to gals like this, so you are used to it? A lot of guys aren't. A lot of guys get irritated when you can't get together on Tuesday night when they call Tuesday at 5 p.m. Like, hello? I have a life outside of you!

 

Whether or not I can "get" her depends on what she wants in a man compared to what I have to offer. The spectrum of responses between "clingy" to "standoffish" (with real in the dead center) seems to be manifest after the getting is done. I consider anything headed towards "standoffish" to be a challenge...and I'm not interested in such pretending.

 

Not true. John Gray preaches "warm words, cool actions." That's actually worked for me quite effectively with some guys. Stand offish is showing barely any, maybe lukewarm interest. Clingy is the hot end of the spectrum. I believe in the initial "getting" stage, the best place to be is somewhere in the middle, which you call "real." Standoffish isn't the only way to be a challenge. You can be very nice, open, and warm, but still be a challenge. The trick is to be very, very nice about it, and to keep the door open. (Oh god, I'm giving away all the secrets!) You aren't being standoffish because you are letting the guy know you are very interested, yet "Oh, I"m so sorry, but I already have plans tonight." Not "Oh, no, I can't." But, "Oh, I would, if I didn't already have other plans." (without specifically saying so, of course...the guy is supposed ot be smart enough to connect the dots.) Then, the guy leads and counteroffers, and dates ensue. And whether or not you can "get" her to begin with depends on dates 1 and 2. Has little to nothing to do with the mystery or the challenge or the hard to getness. This kind of thing doesn't necessarily even start until after the girl decides you are definitely in the game.

 

I don't see how that makes you a challenge. I say that makes you real.

 

I go by what I see. I believe I am in the minority with taking it slow. All of my friends move forward at in insane speed when they meet a guy. My "internet" friends on other message boards do the same. A lot of the gals who post here do so as well. I say my difference makes me a challenge compared to these gals. I don't do "hang out" dates until I'm exclusive with a guy or have been seeing him for awhile. Why should I? If he wants to win me over, he's got to take me out properly. I'm not going to make it easy for him. I'm not going to be a good for now girl, where he doesn't have to do any work. (But I realize my expectations for how I want to be treated vary from a lot of other women's.) I want a guy to appreciate me, not take me for granted, and I've found that by doing this, I find guys who DO appreciate me and don't take me for granted. Some guys don't want to do the legwork--they want me to plan the date. For me, and how I like to date, that doesn't work for me. Now, don't get me wrong, if a guy says "Do you want Italian or Japanese?" I'll give him my preference, but I like that feeling a lot when a guy does some homework and figures out things we can do on our date. It makes me feel like it means a lot to him that I have a good time. Much moreso than the guy who, on a second or third date, says "hey, why don't we just rent a movie at my place." That makes me feel like (a) he wants me in close proximity to a bedroom, (b), he is too lazy to take me out to see a movie or take me out somewhere, or © he just doesn't care to impress me. And you may argue this, and things are different in a longer term relationship, I realize, but the guys who do some legwork up front are usually the guys where better, long lasting relationships occur, at least with respect to what I want in a guy.

 

Perhaps this is a matter of where we are centering our scale.

 

Entirely likely. I'm coming from the female perspective, where the scale is warped. I've just seen too many girls on the clingy end of the scale and not enough on the other end of the scale.

 

Careful...you might start turning me on. :c)

 

Yes, my MySTeriOuSNeSS does that to some guys!

[Ryan]

But, again, I think a lot of women don't ever reach this level of maturity in dealing with relationships. They just don't get that men are wired differently than women. I think you absolutely must understand that in order to deal with a relationship effectively.

 

Word THAT....and it ain't just women.

 

"Beck and call" doesn't mean a servant. It means the girl who will cancel plans with her friends, or simply invite the guy along out with her friends if he chooses to call her. The girl who has no boundaries, and in essence, no desire to maintain a life of her own.

 

Sounds about as bad as a servant. I'll vote none of the above.

 

Maybe you just gravitate to gals like this, so you are used to it? A lot of guys aren't. A lot of guys get irritated when you can't get together on Tuesday night when they call Tuesday at 5 p.m.

 

I'm not that kind of guy. That seems pretty irrational and self-absorbed. I definitely prefer women that are individuals first, girlfriends second.

 

You aren't being standoffish because you are letting the guy know you are very interested, yet "Oh, I"m so sorry, but I already have plans tonight." Not "Oh, no, I can't." But, "Oh, I would, if I didn't already have other plans."

 

I concur. "Standoffish" is not having plans, but saying you do just to be......mysterious. What you're saying is real...and I don't see that as a challenge.

 

And whether or not you can "get" her to begin with depends on dates 1 and 2. Has little to nothing to do with the mystery or the challenge or the hard to getness. This kind of thing doesn't necessarily even start until after the girl decides you are definitely in the game.

 

Perhaps my perception on dating is a little different; I don't really do the "cold date." Chances are...if I'm with a woman on something that would be considered a date, then she's been around me enough to know some of my personality. I've already "gotten" her a fair amount (and vice-versa). It's never, "Hi, my name is Ryan. I think you are very pretty. I'd like to call you sometime and get together." I'm not that smooth.

 

I don't do "hang out" dates until I'm exclusive with a guy or have been seeing him for awhile. Why should I? If he wants to win me over, he's got to take me out properly. I'm not going to make it easy for him. I'm not going to be a good for now girl, where he doesn't have to do any work.

 

I hope I'm misinterpreting this, because it could be construed as you being rather snobby. Then again, it could be our difference in dating habits. You may be describing those "dates 1 and 2." Please elaborate on what "properly" means.

 

I would say that a woman wins me over by who she is, not what she does for me. I neither make it easy nor hard - my standards for a person just are. People meet them or they don't. I expect the same.

 

Much moreso than the guy who, on a second or third date, says "hey, why don't we just rent a movie at my place." That makes me feel like (a) he wants me in close proximity to a bedroom, (b), he is too lazy to take me out to see a movie or take me out somewhere, or © he just doesn't care to impress me.

 

I can see how this would make sense when you have little or no knowledge of a person prior to these dates. A is certainly a legitimate concern....B might be as well....C I could contest. I do my best to avoid contemplating what I can *DO* to impress a woman. If who I am isn't impressive, then nothing I can do would be. That's not to say I overlook her personality and interests....I just think of "impressing" along the lines of fast cars, platinum cards, and how much I can bench.

 

Yes, my MySTeriOuSNeSS does that to some guys!

 

You know...for someone so busy being "mysterious," you sure seem to spend a lot of time divulging...........at least I can play it off like I HAVE to be here as a moderator.

 

Wait that wouldn't be real.

 

Son of a.......

[Curt]

Folks, I gotta shell out my two cents also.

 

I've pretty much read this whole discussion (and I'm sorry in advance if I'm out in left field on this) but it sounds as if:

 

1. Clia thinks game playing with a man's affections is the most effective way to get a good partner. I think Ryan would agree with me that such a thing is wrong, and I mean ALWAYS.

 

2. She would also consistently want to be the dominant individual, while he is left wondering what the heck is up with her, or if she gives two hoots about him anyway. "Cripes...where do I stand with this woman"

 

3. She is being nothing if not evasive with the guys. That's not being mysterious, Clia. That's being manipulative. Not nice.

 

Have I made myself public enemy #1 here now?

 

Oh well, my shoulders are broad...I can take it

[beaker]

It seems to me that this whole "mystery" issue is a terrible choice of words rather than terrible advice. Usually that term pops up on this forum in advice to men and women who are being clingy and desperate, and unintentionally driving away their partners though they may not realise it. In such circumstances they are often advised to "be more mysterious" or "be more challenging"... terms that seem to get used interchangeably. I think it's a question of vague phrasing more than anything else.

 

I think therein lies the problem, because both terms conjure up images of people playing hard to get and being emotionally manipulative. In reality the advice is usually meant to avoid the opposite: pathetic, desperate, puppy-dog obedient behaviour that's intended to make someone like you but in reality breeds contempt. It's the sort of behaviour that makes some men ask "why don't women like nice guys?" when they're deluding themselves and missing the nature of the problem entirely (women like nice guys, just not desperate clingy ones). In this context, advice to "be mysterious" or "be challenging" is only meant to give people a backbone and tell them it's perfectly okay to live their life for their own ends, and not at the beck and call of someone they're trying hard to impress. They need to do things because they want to do them, not just because they think it will score them points. Not only is it sensible advice in its own right; it greatly improves their chances to impress the target of their affection, oddly enough. It's not advice that's normally aimed at people who are already behaving normally... in that context it could easily be confusing. I never use the "mystery" phrasing myself because I think it's far too vague.

 

So in summary, I think advice to be "mysterious" is usually quite sensible in the context in which it is intended (and in which I usually see it), but I've sometimes seen that context get very garbled, and this thread appears to be proof!

[clia]

What you're saying is real...and I don't see that as a challenge.

 

But would you agree that it makes me more challenging than many other girls?

 

I hope I'm misinterpreting this, because it could be construed as you being rather snobby. Then again, it could be our difference in dating habits. You may be describing those "dates 1 and 2." Please elaborate on what "properly" means.

 

Properly means he calls me a day or two in advance (or more if he's so inclined) and asks me out. He gives me a time and a general idea of what we are going to do so I know what to wear. It doesn't mean he has to take me out and wine me and dine me. There are loads of free or cheap things to do in my city, i.e. watching a movie in the park, bands in the park, going for a walk and getting ice cream along the way. It just means more to me when a guy has a plan that doesn't involve "hey, lets sit on the couch and watch a movie." Just my preference when I first meet someone. And this is primarily for early dates.

 

I just think of "impressing" along the lines of fast cars, platinum cards, and how much I can bench.

 

I find sweet actions much more impressive than "things."

 

You know...for someone so busy being "mysterious," you sure seem to spend a lot of time divulging

 

I'm just sharing the wealth! No, I have been spending much more time than usual on these boards. Don't worry, I'll go away soon, once school gets going again.

[clia]

1. Clia thinks game playing with a man's affections is the most effective way to get a good partner.

 

Where did I say it was okay to play games? Direct me to the post. I don't consider this game playing. Game playing is what Ryan said--lying and saying you have plans when you don't, ignoring a guy when you really like him, purposely forcing yourself not to call a guy when you really, really want to. That's not what I'm doing, nor what I'm preaching. I found out along the way that the way I am (you know, having a life and all) made a lot of guys think I was mysterious. Good or bad, that's what I put off, and it's worked for me. I don't intentionally do it, though. It's the byproduct of me having a great life.

 

2. She would also consistently want to be the dominant individual, while he is left wondering what the heck is up with her, or if she gives two hoots about him anyway. "Cripes...where do I stand with this woman"

 

Dominant? Huh? I don't believe I said any of this either. I do find it more effective to not lay out my entire life and all of my thoughts and feelings on a guy on the first two dates. Call me crazy, but that kind of behavior tends to scare guys off. As I've said before in this thread (somewhere), things change as you get further on in a relationship. Of course you share things. What, do you think I've never told a guy I love you? I mean, come on. Actually, both of my longterm exes told me afterward that I was the best girlfriend they ever had. We broke up because we were going on different paths in life, but still keep in touch. One of them is getting married this summer and I'm going to his wedding. So tell me, could I be *that* terrible to guys? When I'm with them, they know how I feel.

 

3. She is being nothing if not evasive with the guys. That's not being mysterious, Clia. That's being manipulative. Not nice.

 

I don't see how I'm being evasive. If a guy asks me if I like him and I do, you better believe I'll say yes. That's different than just coming out with it voluntarily. And as stated above, it's not being manipulative or game playing not to spill my guts before I feel the time is right. Maybe you like girls who tell you they are falling in love with you on date one. More power to you if you do. But I know when a guy says that to me on a first date, I get freaked out as all hell. When a guy starts talking marriage on a first date, I get freaked out as all hell. I mean, how can you possibly feel that way if you just met someone? But believe me, I've thought to myself in the thrill of the moment "God, I could see myself marrying this guy! He's great." So you are saying I should say that? Um...no, I don't think so. Not on date one, date two, or date ten. It's too early. But I will and do tell guys I think they are funny, great, that I had a great time, that I'd love to do it again. That's not evasive. That's not manipulative. That's not game playing. Believe me, when I am interested in a guy, he knows it unless he is dense. I don't play games with him. But I also do not feel dating is effective when God and everything pours out on early dates. I mean, how much do you share on a first date? Should I share that (and these are hypothetical examples) my dad is dead and I still cry about it, or that I am manic depressive, or that my uncle raped me when I was twelve, or that I am anorexic or that I had an abortion when I was sixteen or that I sleep with stuffed animals, or that I dream of a big white wedding, or that I want three kids and I already have their names picked out? When does it stop? At what point is it okay to keep some things hidden until you get to know someone better, and at what point is it okay to divulge? I just want to know, you know, so you don't think I'm being manipulative or anything.

 

Have I made myself public enemy #1 here now?

 

Yes, because everyone here loves me so much.

 

I value the feedback, but I think you've misinterpreted much of what I've written. I've never advocated gameplaying. I do, however, advocate women getting full lives of their own so they aren't twisting their brain needlessly over ever single thing a guy does or does not do.

[clia]

It's the sort of behaviour that makes some men ask "why don't women like nice guys?" when they're deluding themselves and missing the nature of the problem entirely (women like nice guys, just not desperate clingy ones). In this context, advice to "be mysterious" or "be challenging" is only meant to give people a backbone and tell them it's perfectly okay to live their life for their own ends, and not at the beck and call of someone they're trying hard to impress.

 

Amen!

 

Things have become rather garbled, haven't they? But I believe Ryan and I are almost at the point of convergence...

[Ryan]

But would you agree that it makes me more challenging than many other girls?

 

No, it makes you more appealing and interesting. It distances you from the useless fluff that I wade through at the mall while trying to pick up some boxer shorts. If anything, it's a relief to be with someone that is real.

 

Challenge....no. Prize.....mmmm...perhaps.

 

Properly means he calls me a day or two in advance (or more if he's so inclined) and asks me out. He gives me a time and a general idea of what we are going to do so I know what to wear. It doesn't mean he has to take me out and wine me and dine me. There are loads of free or cheap things to do in my city, i.e. watching a movie in the park, bands in the park, going for a walk and getting ice cream along the way. It just means more to me when a guy has a plan that doesn't involve "hey, lets sit on the couch and watch a movie." Just my preference when I first meet someone. And this is primarily for early dates.

 

Ahhhhhhhh yes yes understood. That sounds pretty kosher to me. I would consider much of that simple courtesy. I couldn't imagine pushing an itinerary on someone for a first/early date. Is it really so difficult to find men that are capable of such meager feats?

 

I find sweet actions much more impressive than "things."

 

I would hope so. I tend to lump general acts of consideration into the realm of who a person is....since any Don Juan can pull off a couple of pseudo-sensitive moments by happenstance. It takes certain character traits to consistently deliver thoughts of care specific to one woman. The smiles are worth it, though.

 

No, I have been spending much more time than usual on these boards. Don't worry, I'll go away soon, once school gets going again.

 

It's safe to say that your presence is appreciated by at least one member of da Shack.

 

 

Now to defend milady's honor....

 

Clia thinks game playing with a man's affections is the most effective way to get a good partner. I think Ryan would agree with me that such a thing is wrong, and I mean ALWAYS.

 

I agree that is wrong...ALWAYS. I don't get that sentiment from her. I did at first, but much of that appears to be semantic dancing.

 

She would also consistently want to be the dominant individual

 

I don't feel dominated. If I play my cards right...maybe on the third date?

 

She is being nothing if not evasive with the guys. That's not being mysterious, Clia. That's being manipulative. Not nice.

 

I sorta got that impression at first....but I don't see that in her words now.

 

 

And some semi-related comments....

 

Actually, both of my longterm exes told me afterward that I was the best girlfriend they ever had. We broke up because we were going on different paths in life, but still keep in touch.

 

Well damn...someone else who understands that good relationships can end WELL.

 

But I believe Ryan and I are almost at the point of convergence

 

Ooooooh convergence....I better warm-up first.

[clia]

Challenge....no. Prize.....mmmm...perhaps.

 

Yep. I like that word..."prize."

 

Is it really so difficult to find men that are capable of such meager feats?

 

Oh yeah. You'd be surprised. I'm not sure if it's the "rise" of feminism that's caused this or what, but many guys out there do not understand the concept of "courting" a girl. And I realize women have caused a lot of this sorrow...I like it when a guy opens a door for me or compliments me or pays for dinner when he asked me out. It seems like a lot of women these days get offended by that behavior and the guys are clueless on how to respond. It's more like "Is this girl going to be offended if I pay and say she can pay for herself?" or "Will this girl be offended if I open the door for her?" I've discussed this with some of my guy friends, and they are all confused about what to do. I feel that some of these low level hangout dates early on are the result. Guys just don't know what to do--it doesn't mean they are bad people (well, sometimes they are just lazy and it means they don't like me that much!), but I feel that there are a lot of women out there who are willing to accept what I consider "crumbs" due to the "I am woman hear me roar" sentiment, that it's just become the norm. I mean, I look at it like this--if a guy wants to do a "hang out" date when he first meets me, what's our relationship going to be later on down the road? Will we ever go out on "dates?" Call me crazy, but I like "dates." I like a guy who has a plan. I like going out, and like I said, it doesn't have to be a lot of money. It's just going out, getting out, etc. (But I do like stay at home movie nights with long term boyfriends...I just don't like the suggestion early on...makes me feel like he's trying to figure out how little he can get away with, not to mention that I just don't feel comfortable doing that with someone I barely know.)

 

Thanks for defending my honor! I do appreciate it.

 

If I play my cards right...maybe on the third date?

 

Maybe the fifth or sixth. We'll see how it goes...

 

Well damn...someone else who understands that good relationships can end WELL.

 

They can. Actually, nearly all of my relationships have ended well. They've nearly all been of the "well, we love each other, but we want different things out of life" type. I can only think of one off the top of my head that didn't end well wasn't my fault at all. He was a commitment phobe, and didn't clue me in on this until about eight months in (talk about manipulative!), and I ended things because I saw it going no further (and because I needed the time away to heal), but I did still enjoy his company a lot, so a few months down the road when I'd met someone else and had moved on from him, dropped him a line and told him I was willing to be friends if he wanted, and I never heard from him. So, I tried! His loss. (Totally! )

 

I better warm-up first.

 

Get ready!

[Ryan]

I'm not sure if it's the "rise" of feminism that's caused this or what, but many guys out there do not understand the concept of "courting" a girl. And I realize women have caused a lot of this sorrow...

 

I wouldn't blame it largely on women....perhaps partly. It's also the fault of poor male role models. So many lads grow up under the shadow of a father that, at BEST, generally ignores his wife......and it gets exponentially worse as you progress (regress?) down the scale. It's no surprise that these same guys imitate what they've seen all their lives. I might be a bit wary of a paid dinner if 75% of the time I was expected to put out.

 

It seems like a lot of women these days get offended by that behavior and the guys are clueless on how to respond. It's more like "Is this girl going to be offended if I pay and say she can pay for herself?" or "Will this girl be offended if I open the door for her?" I've discussed this with some of my guy friends, and they are all confused about what to do.

 

Ok this part is the fault of the women...but it need not be confusing. If I extend my hospitality and generosity without expectation other than some basic respect....and I have it thrown back at me....it's over. I won't waste any more of my time with such a woman. I wouldn't generalize it to women as a whole though. I know too many that appreciate the gestures, especially when nothing is expected in return. We (men) need not change how we act or respond....we just need to change our targets. A zero tolerance policy acted upon en masse will deliver the point.

 

Thanks for defending my honor! I do appreciate it.

 

Something tells me you weren't exactly helpless.....

 

Maybe the fifth or sixth. We'll see how it goes...

 

I should warn you that I consider third base to be your hand grazing my leg.

 

They can. Actually, nearly all of my relationships have ended well.

 

I try to explain this to people and they think I'm nuts. Granted, you're never going to have all of them end on a pretty little note. It just seems so foreign to the world that a good relationship can cease because the people in it have progressed...it's time to move on. Then again....a good relationship is pretty damn foreign too.

[Curt]

I've read the responses to the points that both I, as well as other members have made. Some things I can agree on, but there still seem to be some thoughts that don't quite fit together. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, as I believe Ryan suggested. Nonetheless,

 

1. The idea of a woman's independence being a great "attraction mechanism" for men of great calibre.

Clia: Like, hello? I have a life outside of you!

Clia: The girl who has no boundaries, and in essence, no desire to maintain a life of her own.

Clia: I do, however, advocate women getting full lives of their own so they aren't twisting their brain needlessly over ever single thing a guy does or does not do.

 

My Take: Insofar as the whole idea revolves around a woman having a well balanced life, a broad scope of activities she is interested in, many friends, and several "interests" in the world, I completely agree. It would be no less true of a man.

 

However, once again, if two people care for each other, it would not be abnormal for some sacrifice to be made on behalf of the other in extenuating circumstances. In other words, if a woman knows that the guy she has interest in has been extremely busy at a particular time (real world work issues, etc.), and then, as a result of this calls a bit later than even he would hope, would the tag along idea be acceptable then Clia?

 

Sacrifice does occur in a loving relationship too, on both ends.

 

2. The spectre of John Gray has come up.

John Gray preaches "warm words, cool actions."

My Take: This idea I like, as long as one recognizes that Mr. Gray did not have the most successful love relationship himself. Think divorce, etc. As well, I hope we don't let the chiller go too low, as cool can sometimes become cold very quickly.

 

3. The intelligence of men with the dating game.

Clia:...the guy is supposed ot be smart enough to connect the dots.

My Take: Sometimes it's possible, yes, but sometimes women are too interested in some pre-determined "plan" which exists only within the sphere of their own individual life experiences as women, and their own ideology as to what dating "should go like."

 

4. The question of whether Clia actually advocates a "game playing" structure or not.

Clia: And whether or not you can "get" her to begin with depends on dates 1 and 2.

Clia: This kind of thing doesn't necessarily even start until after the girl decides you are definitely in the GAME..

Clia: I'm not going to make it easy for him. I'm not going to be a good for now girl, where he doesn't have to do any work.

Clia: I like a guy who has a plan..

 

AND A SUBSEQUENT POSTING:

 

Clia: I think you've misinterpreted much of what I've written. I've never advocated gameplaying..

 

My Take: Hmmm. Very interesting. Dates #1 and 2 are the times when things are won or lost. Question as to whether a guy is in the game or not. Apparently things aren't gonna be MADE easy. Sounds like an almost fabricated situation to me. Hmmm...almost like a game... Shouldn't a person just be him/herself. No making something one way or the other required.

 

5. The scale of human relations.

Clia: I'm coming from the female perspective, where the scale is warped.

My Take: Not going to touch this one with a ten foot regulation game pole.

Clia: If a guy asks me if I like him and I do, you better believe I'll say yes. That's different than just coming out with it voluntarily.

My Take: I'm sorry Clia, but I don't understand why it shouldn't be voluntary sometimes. You already said that you've told guys you love them before...did it occur spontaneously or did they start the ball rolling...just curious.

Clia: When a guy starts talking marriage on a first date, I get freaked out as all hell. I mean, how can you possibly feel that way if you just met someone?

My Take: This is true. Too much too fast is no good. No disagreement there.

 

Clia My dad is dead and I still cry about it, or that I am manic depressive, or that my uncle raped me when I was twelve, or that I am anorexic or that I had an abortion when I was sixteen or that I sleep with stuffed animals, or that I dream of a big white wedding, or that I want three kids and I already have their names picked out? When does it stop? At what point is it okay to keep some things hidden until you get to know someone better, and at what point is it okay to divulge? I just want to know, you know, so you don't think I'm being manipulative or anything.

My Take: Again, there is a matter of good reciprocation in any discussion. This is true in business as well as in general "life." Clearly, that would be far over the top, and I think you know that I understand that. Again, I would echo that these are EXTREME examples, and not really useful in the context of the discussion at hand.

 

6. Cold dating versus hot dating versus "Hang out" dating versus...

Ryan: I don't really do the "cold date." Chances are...if I'm with a woman on something that would be considered a date, then she's been around me enough to know some of my personality. I've already "gotten" her a fair amount (and vice-versa). It's never, "Hi, my name is Ryan. I think you are very pretty. I'd like to call you sometime and get together." I'm not that smooth.

My Take: Thanks Ryan. I am hip to your kitchen, cuz I know what you're cookin.

Ryan: I would say that a woman wins me over by who she is, not what she does for me. I neither make it easy nor hard - my standards for a person just are. People meet them or they don't. I expect the same.

My Take: Exactly man. I feel the same way. Just keep it real.

Clia: Properly means he calls me a day or two in advance (or more if he's so inclined) and asks me out. He gives me a time and a general idea of what we are going to do so I know what to wear. It doesn't mean he has to take me out and wine me and dine me.

My Take: OK. Now that is a matter of common courtesy. No problem at all with what you're saying there. I concur 100%.

Clia: I find sweet actions much more impressive than "things."

My Take: Sounds fantastic to me. Some common ground afterall.

 

7. Miscellaneous reasons for the confusion.

Ryan: I wouldn't blame it largely on women....perhaps partly. It's also the fault of poor male role models. So many lads grow up under the shadow of a father that, at BEST, generally ignores his wife......and it gets exponentially worse as you progress (regress?) down the scale. It's no surprise that these same guys imitate what they've seen all their lives. I might be a bit wary of a paid dinner if 75% of the time I was expected to put out.

My Take: So many? Well, some perhaps. I don't know if it's the lionshare or not. But whlie we're on that topic, I don't know many really positive role models that males or females have to guide them through relationships. I'm not sure that we will ever have a surefire ideal way, or even if we want to have that in the first place. Everything is individualized. Maybe that is the lesson here...we can't take too much of any of the ideas on any forum such as this and generalize to the whole society. There may be general ideas, but everything is so unique from person to person...hard to pin all this down.

Ryan: If I extend my hospitality and generosity without expectation other than some basic respect....and I have it thrown back at me....it's over. I won't waste any more of my time with such a woman. I wouldn't generalize it to women as a whole though. I know too many that appreciate the gestures, especially when nothing is expected in return. We (men) need not change how we act or respond....we just need to change our targets. A zero tolerance policy acted upon en masse will deliver the point..

My Take: OK then. Draw up the document, and I'll sign the flamer! As long as I'm not made a doormat in the end, then I can see the value of such a policy. When does the first committee meet?

 

8. Flirtation reaching dating site proportions.

Now to defend milady's honor.... (Ryan)

Thanks for defending my honor! I do appreciate it. (Clia)

Something tells me you weren't exactly helpless..... (Ryan)

 

I don't feel dominated. If I play my cards right...maybe on the third date? (Ryan)

Maybe the fifth or sixth. We'll see how it goes... (Clia)

I should warn you that I consider third base to be your hand grazing my leg. (Ryan)

Ooooooh convergence....I better warm-up first. (Ryan)

Get ready! (Clia)

Challenge....no. Prize.....mmmm...perhaps. (Ryan)

Yep. I like that word..."prize." (Clia)

My Take: Folks, I think it's cute and all but...can we tone the flirtation engines down to a dull roar?

[clia]

then, as a result of this calls a bit later than even he would hope, would the tag along idea be acceptable then Clia?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "tag along"? I've dated some extremely busy, career oriented guys in my day, and they've always found time to call me and take me out.

 

as long as one recognizes that Mr. Gray did not have the most successful love relationship himself.

 

I think what he says makes a lot of sense, divorce or not.

 

sometimes women are too interested in some pre-determined "plan" which exists only within the sphere of their own individual life experiences as women, and their own ideology as to what dating "should go like."

 

Sure, I think it's safe to say that I have certain expectations of a guy when we are dating. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, either. Surely you also have expectations of those who you are dating?

 

Dates #1 and 2 are the times when things are won or lost. Question as to whether a guy is in the game or not. Apparently things aren't gonna be MADE easy. Sounds like an almost fabricated situation to me. Hmmm...almost like a game... Shouldn't a person just be him/herself. No making something one way or the other required.

 

Absolutely Dates 1 and 2 are important. Dates 1 and 2 are supposed to be the "best" behavior. If a guy is rude, lazy, or whatever on those dates, where can I expect it to go from there? You seem to think it's "game playing" to have high expectations of other people. I don't. It helps me to find the right guys for me so that I can have the kinds of relationships I want to have. Other people have different expectations--that's fine, and that's what makes the world go around. I don't think it's game playing to want certain things out of my future life partner. I'm not asking the guy not to be himself--I like dating guys who plan things, I like dating guys who expect me to do all the work to keep a relationship going. Those guys exist. Just my preference. When I said "you are in the game," I was being facetious.

 

I'm sorry Clia, but I don't understand why it shouldn't be voluntary sometimes. You already said that you've told guys you love them before...did it occur spontaneously or did they start the ball rolling...just curious.

 

I always let the guy say it first. I'm old fashioned like that. I would also never propose to a guy either.

 

Again, I would echo that these are EXTREME examples, and not really useful in the context of the discussion at hand.

 

You keep saying people should just be themselves. What if that's how I am? Shouldn't I share that information? Aren't I "not being myself" by hiding it?

 

Folks, I think it's cute and all but...can we tone the flirtation engines down to a dull roar?

 

There is scrolling capability...

[Ryan]

Hmmm...some interesting things here.

 

However, once again, if two people care for each other, it would not be abnormal for some sacrifice to be made on behalf of the other in extenuating circumstances.

 

I think this is valid...and should be understood that BOTH sides must participate in this manner.

 

Sometimes it's possible, yes, but sometimes women are too interested in some pre-determined "plan" which exists only within the sphere of their own individual life experiences as women, and their own ideology as to what dating "should go like."

 

I would also add that part of understanding the difference between the sexes is that men, even good ones, are usually not as subtle as women. It is often a dangerous practice for a woman to leave matters "to be deduced" by the male. This goes back to the principle of speaking your mind.

 

I'm sorry Clia, but I don't understand why it shouldn't be voluntary sometimes. You already said that you've told guys you love them before...did it occur spontaneously or did they start the ball rolling...just curious.

 

I'm going to agree here. Men need not be all action; women need not be all reaction. I would probably be a bit troubled if I had to initiate most situations of mutual involvement.

 

So many? Well, some perhaps. I don't know if it's the lionshare or not. But whlie we're on that topic, I don't know many really positive role models that males or females have to guide them through relationships. I'm not sure that we will ever have a surefire ideal way, or even if we want to have that in the first place.

 

I'd say it's the majority. I don't expect ideal....such a concept has no purpose in discussion of human interaction. It is certainly possible to grow up around parents that have a fairly healthy relationship. You have NO CHOICE but to assimilate much of that into your own "template" of relationship activity. Good or not, all children will passively learn relationship habits from that which they see most often.

 

Folks, I think it's cute and all but...can we tone the flirtation engines down to a dull roar?

 

I can't help it if I have mad Internet pimpin skillz.

 

Dates 1 and 2 are supposed to be the "best" behavior. If a guy is rude, lazy, or whatever on those dates, where can I expect it to go from there? You seem to think it's "game playing" to have high expectations of other people. I don't.

 

My only quibble here is in any expectation/behavior variance. What I want in a woman does not change from the first day to the first year. Who I am doesn't change either. I wouldn't expect extraordinary behavior from someone initially and then taper off in my requirements as things become more...comfortable. I agree that it should be there from the start. One of my expectations just happens to be that I don't expect behavior to change significantly.

 

You keep saying people should just be themselves. What if that's how I am?

 

Then I ain't dating you! That's one messed up woman.

[Curt]

A few Salient Points...

 

...they've always found time to call me and take me out.

 

Well, good for them. Nonetheless in real life things happen. It can happen in the way I

 

suggested. Oh, and the Tag along concept is merely getting to the "guy tagging along idea

 

after calling late" idea you mentioned earlier. Not a major point of contention in any

 

event.

 

Also,

 

I think what he {John Gray} says makes a lot of sense, divorce or not.

 

I guess for me, I like to affix credibility and real-world knowledge with s/he who can

 

synthesize action from her/his theories. I am not standing in judgement of John Gray. He's

 

human like us all.

 

In addition;

 

Sure, I think it's safe to say that I have certain expectations of a guy when we are

 

dating. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, either. Surely you also have

 

expectations of those who you are dating?

 

Of course Clia, there are general expectations that we all have. Nonetheless, I

 

would hate to think that she "puts on airs" with me. Yes, I also want her to be herself,

 

real, and relaxed.

 

Fact is, I am currently trying to "woo" a lady named Karen, but, I would definitely not want

 

her to act anything other than the woman she is. I guess for me it gets back to Ryan's idea

 

of false faces in Post #8. Whom I fell for to start with was the open, sweet, intelligent

 

woman I met...neither she nor I had any "romantic vision" for one another.

 

I think that our difference of opinion lies mainly in the degree to which we expect a

 

"pre-defined" picture of how things should unfold. I don't know if I will know her best

 

behaviour after date 1 or, should it go on, date 100. I think the value of a person cannot

 

be assessed and evaluated within the framework of a "set structure" of dating. I like

 

PurpleAngel's idea of "flow" as mentioned in Post #11.

 

You keep saying people should just be themselves. What if that's how I am? Shouldn't

 

I share that information? Aren't I "not being myself" by hiding it?

 

Clia, that's fancy semantics, but look back at what I was referring to. It is the extreme

 

example citing that lends to stalemates within the discussion's framework. Of course we

 

would not expect that you share that type of information on the first date, but it is not a

 

question of game-playing, it is a matter of general rules of conversational discourse in any

 

social paradigm. It is not "hiding oneself" it is "merely good social skills."

 

Bored now by the matter, Curt takes his leave to the local coffee house...

 

Curt

[clia]

I think the sacrificing point is valid as well. Never said it wasn't.

 

It is often a dangerous practice for a woman to leave matters "to be deduced" by the male. This goes back to the principle of speaking your mind.

 

I've found most guys to be pretty adept at figuring things out.

 

Men need not be all action; women need not be all reaction.

 

Totally agree.

 

My only quibble here is in any expectation/behavior variance.

 

There is no variance. I still expect the same behavior, but I think once you know someone well, they get more leeway. Everyone has bad days, gets in cranky moods, or does stupid things. That's real and that's life. But I don't need to see that side of a person ad nauseum on a first or second date. I suppose you wouldn't think it "real" for me to put on a happy face for a first or second date when in reality I had a crap day at work and would rather be sitting home on my couch with a tub of Ben and Jerry's on that particular night. But to me, bad moods such as that are few and far between and I'm not going to cancel on a guy when I know I can make it through dinner and be fine, and I'm certainly not going to pour my heart out about how much I hate my boss. I would feel comfortable doing that with someone I had been dating for a year, because he likely knows me well by then, and knows I'm not a freak. That's all I'm trying to say. Of course, if the first or second date guy asked me about work, I wouldn't avoid it--I just wouldn't tell him every detail about what I hate about my job. I'd probably do the "Let's not talk about that!" with a smile.

 

Then I ain't dating you! That's one messed up woman.

 

Hee! I can't imagine a poor soul having all those problems in one package.

 

Oh, and the Tag along concept is merely getting to the "guy tagging along idea after calling late" idea you mentioned earlier.

 

I mentioned something about "tagging along"? Are you sure you have the right poster? I don't think that was me.

 

Nonetheless, I would hate to think that she "puts on airs" with me. Yes, I also want her to be herself, real, and relaxed.

 

Who is talking about putting on airs? I said nothing of the sort.

 

I think the value of a person cannot be assessed and evaluated within the framework of a "set structure" of dating. I like PurpleAngel's idea of "flow" as mentioned in Post #11.

 

I totally agree with going with the flow. What do you mean by "set structure" of dating? To me, dating is going out on dates and spending time together to get to know someone better. Is that what you mean by a "set structure"? What other way is there to go about it? I'm all ears.

 

It is not "hiding oneself" it is "merely good social skills."

 

Totally agree. I'm just not understanding where you draw the line between "real" and "manipulation," "putting on airs," or "game playing." I don't think all of my examples are that extreme. (Some yes, definitely. Others are things women have said to guy friends of mine on early dates.) If you are hiding things and being evasive, then you aren't in fact being "real" and you are "putting on airs" and being something you aren't.

[Ryan]

I guess for me, I like to affix credibility and real-world knowledge with s/he who can synthesize action from her/his theories.

 

While this may seem logical, it is more rational to evaluate theory outside of the source. A single source can only serve as one instance of anecdotal evidence, which is useless for determining truth/validity. Criticizing the theory via faults of the individual is a fallacy known as ad hominem. It's usually difficult to get people to think this way, but it is imperative for sound evaluation.

 

I've found most guys to be pretty adept at figuring things out.

 

My experience has been otherwise. I'm often the one telling my guy friends things about THEIR girlfriends that they haven't noticed. Then again, I'm pretty badass.

 

But to me, bad moods such as that are few and far between and I'm not going to cancel on a guy when I know I can make it through dinner and be fine, and I'm certainly not going to pour my heart out about how much I hate my boss.....Of course, if the first or second date guy asked me about work, I wouldn't avoid it--I just wouldn't tell him every detail about what I hate about my job. I'd probably do the "Let's not talk about that!" with a smile.

 

I guess I'm going to be radical and say....I want to hear all of that truth. I'd rather get that out so the woman in question can actually feel some degree of relief rather than feign it. I find great satisfaction in making people comfortable enough to open up. I recently did this with a young lady I had only known for a few hours while I was on a business trip in Hawaii. Twas one of the best evenings I've had in some time.

 

What happened to the copious flirtation? I was just getting my second wind.

[PurpleAngel]

What happened to the copious flirtation?

 

AMEN to that Ryan... I must say, I wish there where more Ryan’s in this world. Men are too complicated these days, I have read ALL the posts and am glad to have started this thread and I have to say Ryan, I like your mentality, I understand it, its logical and I THINK very healthy!

[Ryan]

AMEN to that Ryan... I must say, I wish there where more Ryan’s in this world. Men are too complicated these days, I have read ALL the posts and am glad to have started this thread and I have to say Ryan, I like your mentality, I understand it, its logical and I THINK very healthy!

 

Holy CRAP.

 

That's two women this week that haven't pepper sprayed me after I started talking.

 

I appreciate your kind words...I don't really know what else to say. Flattery tends to shut me up. Thank you.

[Curt]

Thanks everyone. This has been a very interesting discussion. Don't know if we're any wiser, but...we're definitely older.

 

LMAO

 

Now, if I could get some advice on my problem in the forums...I'd be fine

 

Anyone wanna tear me to shreds? (I was confounded before I registered on here)

 

Actually, it might show another face of my personality. I'm a walking enigma.

 

Comeon Clia, Ryan, Tony, PurpleAngel, etc. I value your opinions.

 

 

Peace everyone.

 

My post is at:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t22761/

[clia]

That's two women this week that haven't pepper sprayed me after I started talking.

 

Wondering if Ryan can handle two women at once...

[Ryan]

Wondering if Ryan can handle two women at once...

 

Probably not.

But hey....can't win unless I play!

 

Do I get a head start?