online dating and the paradox of choice

[zengirl]

This reminds me of a conversation I've had in the past with men I've thought about dating...

 

I think willingness to commit has to be present before dating... not something someone 'falls' into. It is like when I started grad school... I didn't walk onto the campus of my (later) chosen school and say

 

OMG!! Just seeing this campus makes me want to get a PhD!!!

 

I knew I was ready for the effort and time it took to get a PhD... then I went about finding the right school for me.

 

For those folks who don't want a commitment, then later say they are willing to commit because of an INDIVIDUAL, I'd say their commitment is tenuous at most. The minute anything changes about that individual, their commitment is over... because they have committed to a concept about a person... not the concept of commitment.

 

My parents have been married for over 46 years... and what got them through the toughest times is the understanding that there will always be problems in relationships... and they prefer not to start from scratch with someone new... knowing that eventually problems will surface there too.

 

Oh, I agree. But that's not the kind of guy that guy was, if you read that and other threads about him. That's just how I perceived a comment, and not to the degree you mention FTR.

 

I learned, from that thread, and elsewhere, that it's a balancing act and plenty is semantics. The guy in question wanted marriage and kids. He also was able and willing to commit to me, because he thought I was the "right" girl. (I wasn't. And when we started to realize that, cracks emerged.) I think both are necessary, personally, but I understand that sometimes a person is just expressing they wouldn't commit to "just anyone" but it comes across differently. In our case, it seemed at one point like the problems were his fears and doubts, which emerged from fighting/stress between us, but really, his fears and doubts were well-founded: we were ill-matched. He just realized it emotionally first and his logic was delayed. That led to some drama. The reason he realized our incompatibilities first was, I think, because he is the one so determined to get married. I'd just gotten back to the States and was much more "roll with the punches." ETA: I probably didn't get serious about thinking who I'd want to marry until after that relationship, very recently. I knew I wanted to be 'married. . . someday' but I never felt like I was fully 'done' as a person yet, and I think marrying too young or deciding what you want too young, before you know who you are, is a huge mistake.

 

So, anyway, the man in question does understand no one's perfect and does want marriage and kids. He perhaps puts too much pressure on himself in relationships, though. Or at least too much to be with someone like me who processes very differently.

Edited August 18, 2011 by zengirl

[Star Gazer]

This reminds me of a conversation I've had in the past with men I've thought about dating...

 

I think willingness to commit has to be present before dating... not something someone 'falls' into. It is like when I started grad school... I didn't walk onto the campus of my (later) chosen school and say

 

OMG!! Just seeing this campus makes me want to get a PhD!!!

 

I knew I was ready for the effort and time it took to get a PhD... then I went about finding the right school for me.

 

For those folks who don't want a commitment, then later say they are willing to commit because of an INDIVIDUAL, I'd say their commitment is tenuous at most. The minute anything changes about that individual, their commitment is over... because they have committed to a concept about a person... not the concept of commitment.

 

I absolutely agree with this. You (general you, to be clear! ) have to be in the right mindset before even starting. If you've never been interested in a serious relationship, you're not going to just encounter someone and say, "This is what I've been waiting for for forever! I am NOW ready to be in a relationship!" That mindset doesn't change just because you met someone awesome.

 

And if you demonstrate to the other person that you've never wanted to be committed until they came along, they're gonna hold on pretty desperately to the notion that they're so special they changed a non-committal person when that's really not possible.

[zengirl]

I absolutely agree with this. You (general you, to be clear! ) have to be in the right mindset before even starting. If you've never been interested in a serious relationship, you're not going to just encounter someone and say, "This is what I've been waiting for for forever! I am NOW ready to be in a relationship!" That mindset doesn't change just because you met someone awesome.

 

And if you demonstrate to the other person that you've never wanted to be committed until they came along, they're gonna hold on pretty desperately to the notion that they're so special they changed a non-committal person when that's really not possible.

 

Totally, but as I said, I don't think that describes my ex at all. In the end, in our case, the cause for his doubts were: We didn't fit. He tried to make it about something he needed to change, and I tried to do the same, but really, our dissonance arrived genuinely out of an incompatibility we found as the relationship progressed. And the drama ensuing came from reconciling "incompatible" but "in love" --- which happens, and sucks, but you deal with it, and you move on. However, when you first find those incompatibilities, if you love the person, I think it's natural to want to believe it's some issue you have that you could just fix. Because who wants to lose someone they love?

[Star Gazer]

Totally, but as I said, I don't think that describes my ex at all.

 

I wasn't talking about your ex. Read the OP's other threads and you'll understand what I'm getting at.

[zengirl]

I wasn't talking about your ex. Read the OP's other threads and you'll understand what I'm getting at.

 

Oh, I know. I just wanted it as a FTR. You know me and my insistence on making sure the facts are clear. What you describe is exactly what I would totally avoid.

 

I think ThisAmericanLife had a good point, but she initially said it in response to my post, which is ironic because I totally agree with her, and I think maybe she'd gotten the wrong idea of the situation I was describing.

[torn_curtain]

Yes, I had a discussion on that, but came up with the conclusion that it had nothing to do with commitment (if you read the whole thread). And as I said in most of those posts, he was committed to me, and that was not the issue. It was hypotheticals and styles.

 

Actually, I think, it had to do with me not wanting to be "special." You and I likely differ in that way. I finally figured out that all ALL men, when they commit, think it's about the girl. They think she's special. (I do want to be special, of course and am; everybody is; but I'd rather not have my specialness drive the relationship.) That's just how they're wired. I never wanted the commitment to be about me---I wanted it to be about what they wanted, but they all thought they were COMPLIMENTING me (all my exes have said something similar) by saying I make them want to commit, rather than it being their natural state. It's the precise opposite of the "Just need a relationship" thing you suggested online dating people do (not that I met all my exes online).

 

 

I think the healthy balance lies somewhere in between. Have you changed what you look for at all in that you're more open to guys who are a bit more wary of commitment unless it's for the right girl?

 

My boyfriend is kind of like this. Before meeting me he never found a girl he committed to but not because he didn't want commitment in general. In fact, he's a one woman guy and really was looking for commitment, but he says he thought it would be unlikely he'd ever meet anybody like me. It's not like he had some ideal in mind either that he was comparing all girls he met to (he says only women do that ), but he just never found anyone before me that he totally clicked with.

 

This makes sense if you get to know him, because he's an intensely private introvert with a rich inner life that probably wouldn't make sense to a lot of people, especially where he lives being a culturally vacuous place.

 

At first when I got to know him this was a red flag to me because I thought it meant he was addicted to variety. But when we talked about it further, I realized that this wasn't the case.

 

While his lack of openness to others is still a yellow flag to me, the more I get to know him, the more it kind of makes sense with who he is and how he was raised (his parents were constantly invading his privacy).

 

Last fall I was dating another guy who had an OKC profile up. On his profile he wrote something like, I'm not looking for a relationship but maybe if you're cool enough you'll make me change my mind. The difference to me is that in his case being single was the state he was most comfortable with and wanted, but he was open to the idea that a girl who was cool enough to hold his attention might make him re-prioritize. I see that as different from a guy who wants commitment but just hasn't found a girl whom he totally clicks with yet.

 

My ex-boyfriend of a year ago -- different guy --was the dreaded "just looking for a relationship type," and he also put up an OKC profile after we broke up.

 

He went from girl to girl pretty fast, falling in love with each one, but the girls he fell for had nothing in common with each other. It was like as long as a girl was reasonably attractive, not a total idiot and interested in him, he would fall in love with her. I remember being disturbed by this when we were in the honeymoon stage. He kept telling me how awesome and special I was, but he could never point to anything that specific about me aside from pretty and smart. I also didn't feel like our connection was that deep or unusual so his extreme infatuation and readiness to talk about marriage and kids seemed a bit strange and needy.

 

I always suspected that despite his romantic declarations, I was easily replaceable to him...and I was right. He went from telling me on the heels of dumping me that he'd always be in love with me and that he was going to take a lot of single time to get his head straight, to meeting the first girl he messaged on OKC and telling her he loved her after 2-3 weeks. In retrospect, I can't believe I ever took him seriously.

 

I guess in my current relationship, I do believe the special stuff because everything he describes that he likes about me is very specific and accurate, and because they're mostly qualities that he shares...so it makes sense that he would value them so much in another person. And they're not idealized qualities that seem out of touch with the reality. The connection is also rich and mutual, whereas with my ex I felt like he was in his own little love bubble disconnected from me.

 

So in short I do value being special to a guy, but it has to be special in a way that springs from reality rather than some immature idea of love or a tendency to put any halfway decent girl on a pedestal.

Edited August 18, 2011 by torn_curtain

[torn_curtain]

I absolutely agree with this. You (general you, to be clear! ) have to be in the right mindset before even starting. If you've never been interested in a serious relationship, you're not going to just encounter someone and say, "This is what I've been waiting for for forever! I am NOW ready to be in a relationship!" That mindset doesn't change just because you met someone awesome.

 

And if you demonstrate to the other person that you've never wanted to be committed until they came along, they're gonna hold on pretty desperately to the notion that they're so special they changed a non-committal person when that's really not possible.

 

I don't really agree with this. I think it's possible for someone to have always wanted commitment but to have not found somebody they wanted to commit to.

[zengirl]

I think the healthy balance lies somewhere in between. Have you changed what you look for at all in that you're more open to guys who are a bit more wary of commitment unless it's for the right girl?

 

I would not date a guy who was wary of commitment. Wary implies fear.

 

Pretty much all of the men I've dated, whether I self-selected this consciously or not, were fairly selective. To be honest, that just seems likely with what I want in a guy, and it's not something I look for specifically or think about. Nobody wants to date someone who'd date just anyone, and I think I'm a pretty rare, high quality girl. I've never worried that someone just wanted to be with me because they wanted someone, and I couldn't imagine having that worry.

 

I do actively choose men who want to get married and (generally) have children, because that's what I want. I wouldn't see the point in dating someone who was undecided or didn't want that.

 

My opinions on this particular subject haven't changed in years. Certainly not since I've been on LS. They've been fixed here, and it's probably where I'd stay. I never really was the "change him" type, but I've been on basically the same page once I realized I wanted to get married (probably in about 2008, I realized, "Yeah, someday, I want to be married." I was never sure before, after my ex died. But even long before 2008, I knew committed-types were where it was at. The college BF taught me that, and we broke up right before 2006 hit.)

 

My boyfriend is kind of like this. Before meeting me he never found a girl he committed to but not because he didn't want commitment in general. In fact, he's a one woman guy and really was looking for commitment, but he says he thought it would be unlikely he'd ever meet anybody like me.

 

Well, lots of guys say, "I never thought I'd meet a girl like you!" That's just a nice thing to say when you're excited you meet someone. However, if I met a guy who'd never had a relationship and had been pessimistic about meeting anyone who would work with him, I'd definitely be wary of that. And I typically don't date men who've never had relationships, generally speaking. (No one knows how to be a good partner in their first relationship, so it's difficult.) But everyone is not the same, as we've said. Those would be incompatible with my life view --- which is optimistic. And I connect to people---not romantically necessarily but in general---with ease, and I don't like any even mildly antisocial tendencies.

 

And it also depends on age. Not having a relationship yet when you're in your very early 20s is not a bad sign to me.

 

At first when I got to know him this was a red flag to me because I thought it meant he was addicted to variety. But when we talked about it further, I realized that this wasn't the case.

 

I guess what it comes down to is I'm not worried about a guy being addicted to variety. My natural filters would filter this out. I tend to seek stability in people---I seek people who have long and lasting relationships with their friends, who have stable work history, who work towards goals---which is not to say that no one who has those things likes variety in dating. But to a degree players generally stay away from me (I've said this on the board, before, and it's true). They know the score. I also take the beginnings of relationships slow---not just physically but also emotionally. That's just my natural speed. Guys who like the beginnings of things like that emotional high, and I'm not a great person for that (not that there isn't still a honeymoon stage; there is, but it kicks in later and is more steady and sweet).

 

Though I don't really worry about much, except (a) How to improve myself, and (b) How to better refine the idea of what I want my life and my partnership in life to be. I figure if I get those two right, the right partner will follow. And that's why most of my relationships have brought me great lessons.

 

Last fall I was dating another guy who had an OKC profile up. On his profile he wrote something like, I'm not looking for a relationship but maybe if you're cool enough you'll make me change my mind.

 

Well, that's lame. I'd never date those guys.

 

But I find it silly when anyone hedges their bets that way, even women who want relationships. "I love being single, but I'm open to a relationship." Well, the universe is going to give you what you throw the most attention at and if you're throwing it at LOVING being single, you'll stay single. If that's what you want, (general you obviously) I say go for it, but in most cases, it's just trying to hedge your bets. Many people are too afraid to ever say, or even know, what they want, and it's a big reason they don't get it.

 

So in short I do value being special to a guy, but it has to be special in a way that springs from reality rather than some immature idea of love or a tendency to put any halfway decent girl on a pedestal.

 

Interesting. I'm not interested in being put on a pedestal at all. I'm interested in being seen whole, for who I am, and loved for it. Don't get me wrong, when you love someone, they're special. But you recognize that person is special TO YOU (general you) because of the partnership you've built together and it has nothing to do with other people being lesser in any way, shape, or form.

 

At any rate, as I said, I'm never worried that with any guy I've dated that "any girl" or even "any pretty girl" would do. I've not experienced that phenomenon. And, even now, most of my exes -- who I stay in contact with -- would say I was important to them. I take relationships slow and only commit to them when I really forge a connection with someone.

 

(The only exception was my College BF and that was basically one big rebound from HS Sweetheart Dying, and he WAS a commitmentphobe, but that was years and years ago. And he still does try to look me up sometimes, but our connection was always shallow---physical and intellectual, no deep emotional connection.)

Edited August 18, 2011 by zengirl

[torn_curtain]

Well, lots of guys say, "I never thought I'd meet a girl like you!" That's just a nice thing to say when you're excited you meet someone. However, if I met a guy who'd never had a relationship and had been pessimistic about meeting anyone who would work with him, I'd definitely be wary of that. And I typically don't date men who've never had relationships, generally speaking. (No one knows how to be a good partner in their first relationship, so it's difficult.) But everyone is not the same, as we've said. Those would be incompatible with my life view --- which is optimistic.

 

My guy is pretty young at 25, so I don't think it's that out of the ordinary that he hasn't had a serious relationship. And of course I'd rather be with someone who had more relationship experience, but I'm willing to give him a chance since he seems to have a pretty specific idea of what he's looking for that aligns with my own values.

 

Well, I think we go for different types of men. I get the sense you like guys who are open books and who are friends with everybody (kind of the Paul Rudd type). I go for men who are more private and guarded with people they don't know super well, but are very giving with people they care about. That's not to say I like loners. My dad is a loner and I'd never want to marry a guy like that. I like men who have friends but are pretty selective about who they let in. The kind of guy who would seem kind of guarded to strangers at a party, even if he was socializing a fair amount, but whose eyes would light up when he was around somebody he felt close to. And there's nothing wrong with the Paul Rudd type. It's just pretty different from my own personality, so I don't think I'd relate well to a guy like that.

 

Interesting. I'm not interested in being put on a pedestal at all. I'm interested in being seen whole, for who I am, and loved for it. Don't get me wrong, when you love someone, they're special. But you recognize that person is special TO YOU (general you) because of the partnership you've built together and it has nothing to do with other people being lesser in any way, shape, or form.

 

No, you're misunderstanding. I'm NOT interested in being put on a pedestal and at this point I'd run for the hills if I thought a guy was doing that to me. That's what I was saying. I'm looking for the same thing you are -- someone who really SEES me and loves me for who I am, warts and all. My point is I want a guy who sees me as special for who I am, not for some idealized image. I think that is actually what everyone looks for -- nobody wants to live on a pedestal.

Edited August 18, 2011 by torn_curtain

[Star Gazer]

Last fall I was dating another guy who had an OKC profile up. On his profile he wrote something like, I'm not looking for a relationship but maybe if you're cool enough you'll make me change my mind. The difference to me is that in his case being single was the state he was most comfortable with and wanted, but he was open to the idea that a girl who was cool enough to hold his attention might make him re-prioritize. I see that as different from a guy who wants commitment but just hasn't found a girl whom he totally clicks with yet.

 

My ex-boyfriend of a year ago -- different guy --was the dreaded "just looking for a relationship type," and he also put up an OKC profile after we broke up.

 

He went from girl to girl pretty fast, falling in love with each one, but the girls he fell for had nothing in common with each other. It was like as long as a girl was reasonably attractive, not a total idiot and interested in him, he would fall in love with her. I remember being disturbed by this when we were in the honeymoon stage. He kept telling me how awesome and special I was, but he could never point to anything that specific about me aside from pretty and smart. I also didn't feel like our connection was that deep or unusual so his extreme infatuation and readiness to talk about marriage and kids seemed a bit strange and needy.

 

I always suspected that despite his romantic declarations, I was easily replaceable to him...and I was right. He went from telling me on the heels of dumping me that he'd always be in love with me and that he was going to take a lot of single time to get his head straight, to meeting the first girl he messaged on OKC and telling her he loved her after 2-3 weeks. In retrospect, I can't believe I ever took him seriously.

 

Tsk, tsk. With these details, you really, absolutely, beyond a shadow (no pun intended) of a doubt, confirmed your previous identity.

 

Hi, again. Welcome back.

[zengirl]

My guy is pretty young at 25, so I don't think it's that out of the ordinary that he hasn't had a serious relationship.

 

Seems old for that to me, unless the guy was a player or had lots of STRs (and then I'd actually consider it less odd but it'd come with its own set of variables and such). But I don't mean to say it's a definite red flag. And in his case, his healthy problems might play into it.

 

Well, I think we go for different types of men. I get the sense you like guys who are open books and who are friends with everybody (kind of the Paul Rudd type). I go for men who are more private and guarded with people they don't know super well, but are very giving with people they care about.

 

No, I've said before -- in fact, in the thread you linked -- that I don't really date extroverted guys generally. Most extroverted guys I meet are jerks (not all, but most) and those that aren't were taken fairly young. My HS sweetheart was probably an extrovert (never really thought about it then, but that's how I remember him), but I typically go for introverts with a fairly rich inner life. They also have strong social bonds, but they are not like me. I don't date people like me, generally, nor do I think (personal belief) a relationship in which the people are too similar, personality wise, works out well. I prefer someone who complements me. That's just my view.

 

It's not that I wouldn't go out with an extrovert (I don't have a "rule" about it perse) but I rarely do. I do often go out with people who have long-lasting social connections, but that doesn't make them extroverted.

 

That's not to say I like loners. My dad is a loner and I'd never want to marry a guy like that. I like men who have friends but are pretty selective about who they let in. The kind of guy who would seem kind of guarded to strangers at a party, even if he was socializing a fair amount, but whose eyes would light up when he was around somebody he felt close to.

 

I think all the people I'm close with are selective about who they "let in" honestly, and probably most people are on average anyway. But it depends what you mean by selective and what you mean by let in. To me, being selective is good; having an attitude about the masses is bad. Of course, I don't go on about all my inner thoughts to everyone, and we all have inner circles. Also "seem" is an interesting word. I probably AM guarded to strangers, but I imagine I rarely seem it. SEEMING guarded would be a red flag to me; it reeks of games. But most people naturally have boundaries and hidden layers, and that's all a manner of guarding and selecting. ETA: Having to "worry" about keeping your guard up is a different thing. Letting everyone in all the time would be weird -- no one I know does that -- but worrying about people getting in is just as weird. You (general you) either have boundaries or you don't, and they shouldn't be cumbersome or things you worry about; if they are, they've become baggage or problems.

 

If I had to type the men I dated, on these matters, I'd say they had an overall positive and kind worldview to varying degrees (with my BF being one of the kindest to strangers), but that they would be considered stoic. Never stoic with me, obviously, but few people are. I am easy to talk to (rarely a day goes by that I don't hear that). There are two people in every dynamic, and that's what I generally bring to it.

 

And there's nothing wrong with the Paul Rudd type. It's just pretty different from my own personality, so I don't think I'd relate well to a guy like that.

 

The only thing I can think of Paul Rudd from is "I Love You Man" and that's definitely not the type I date. The guys I date tend to have more male friends than female friends, though they often have some of both, and would have loads of people to call if they proposed. But it sounds to me like you're describing a very extroverted, gregarious guy, and while I date kind, positive men who can make friends and KEEP them (keeping them being key), I don't tend to date guys who are particularly Beta or extroverted or open books to the whole world. Though people who look like open books can, as I said, be deceptive anyway.

 

My point is I want a guy who sees me as special for who I am, not for some idealized image. I think that is actually what everyone looks for -- nobody wants to live on a pedestal.

 

Sure, and I guess it depends on what we mean by special. When I say I don't want to be too special, it means I don't want to be idealized, etc. Here's my view: I am special, but it's not a big deal. It's awesome, but everyone's special. I don't want to get into being "comparatively special."

Edited August 19, 2011 by zengirl

[torn_curtain]

Seems old for that to me, unless the guy was a player or had lots of STRs (and then I'd actually consider it less odd but it'd come with its own set of variables and such). But I don't mean to say it's a definite red flag.

 

He wasn't a player by any means. He has a lot of integrity (which I love about him) and he hates users. He's always been upfront with women when he's not looking for something serious.

 

He's only had a series of short term, non-exclusive relationships with girls. He'd date a girl for a few months, telling her upfront he wasn't looking for a serious relationship, and then end things as it became increasingly obvious that she was more into him than he was into her because it felt wrong to string her along. Even though this seems ethically OK to me, he has a lot of guilt about having done it. He is very compassionate and hates the idea of possibly hurting anybody.

 

Of course I'd prefer it if his past were somewhat different, but I don't see his past as being so bad that I wouldn't give him a chance.

 

Given that his personality type IS really rare (INFJ's only make up 1% of the population and he fits the description really closely), and it's a personality type that tends to be intensely private, it's definitely conceivable to me that he hadn't met anybody he clicked with.

 

This is very much him:

 

The INFJ is as genuinely warm as they are complex. INFJs hold a special place in the heart of people who they are close to, who are able to see their special gifts and depth of caring. INFJs are concerned for people's feelings, and try to be gentle to avoid hurting anyone.

 

This is the sort of thing that other types may scorn and scoff at, and the INFJ themself does not really understand their intuition at a level which can be verbalized. Consequently, most INFJs are protective of their inner selves, sharing only what they choose to share when they choose to share it. They are deep, complex individuals, who are quite private and typically difficult to understand. INFJs hold back part of themselves, and can be secretive.

 

There is a poster on here named Cee who is also an INFJ and she reminds me a lot of my guy in the way she approaches/views people and relationships. I remember she had a lot of difficulty finding somebody she clicked with before she met her current boyfriend, and that doesn't surprise me.

 

No, I've said before -- in fact, in the thread you linked -- that I don't really date extroverted guys generally. Most extroverted guys I meet are jerks (not all, but most) and those that aren't were taken fairly young. My HS sweetheart was probably an extrovert (never really thought about it then, but that's how I remember him), but I typically go for introverts with a fairly rich inner life. They also have strong social bonds, but they are not like me. I don't date people like me, generally, nor do I think (personal belief) a relationship in which the people are too similar, personality wise, works out well. I prefer someone who complements me. That's just my view.

 

No, I didn't mean to imply I thought you'd go for an extrovert. But I saw you going for the kind of easy to get along with introvert who still has a lot of friends and everyone sort of likes. That's how I thought you described your ex. I didn't mean the life of the party type.

 

I think all the people I'm close with are selective about who they "let in" honestly, and probably most people are on average anyway. But it depends what you mean by selective and what you mean by let in. To me, being selective is good; having an attitude about the masses is bad.

 

I disagree with this. A lot of people aren't especially selective or they're selective for the wrong traits. I wouldn't say most people are like this, but there's definitely a range.

 

Of course, I don't go on about all my inner thoughts to everyone, and we all have inner circles. Also "seem" is an interesting word. I probably AM guarded to strangers, but I imagine I rarely seem it. SEEMING guarded would be a red flag to me; it reeks of games. But most people naturally have boundaries and hidden layers, and that's all a manner of guarding and selecting. ETA: Having to "worry" about keeping your guard up is a different thing. Letting everyone in all the time would be weird -- no one I know does that -- but worrying about people getting in is just as weird. You (general you) either have boundaries or you don't, and they shouldn't be cumbersome or things you worry about; if they are, they've become baggage or problems.

 

I actually think seeming open but being guarded reeks of manipulation more. I'd rather somebody not put on an open face if they're feeling guarded.

 

If I had to type the men I dated, on these matters, I'd say they had an overall positive and kind worldview to varying degrees (with my BF being one of the kindest to strangers), but that they would be considered stoic. Never stoic with me, obviously, but few people are. I am easy to talk to (rarely a day goes by that I don't hear that). There are two people in every dynamic, and that's what I generally bring to it.

 

I go for stoic, strong types too, but I think the men I'm drawn to at this point in my life are closer to the more private and "selective" end of the spectrum because it complements my own personality better. You seem to prefer more easy-going people pleasers. I'm not saying your choices are bad; I'm sure they work for you because we have different personalities. I used to think I also wanted a people pleaser, super optimistic type. I remember being thrilled when I first started dating my ex because he was like this, but later I realized this was a bad match for me. I never felt like I could fully trust him since I didn't get how he was wired, and his reactions to me, the world and our relationship seemed irrational and counterintuitive to me...they were coming from a place I couldn't understand. By contrast the communication is excellent in this long distance relationship because we're wired much more alike. If there's ever a conflict, we usually anticipate each other's reactions so things are resolved quickly and effortlessly.

 

I like optimism in a mate too, but I also want somebody who is discriminating and sees the world in a balanced way that accords with my own view. I wouldn't want to be with somebody who sees the world as mostly good or mostly bad. Somebody who saw the world through rose-colored glasses would strike me as out of touch with reality, and I wouldn't really trust his judgment on anything or trust that he'd even make good decisions for us.

Edited August 19, 2011 by torn_curtain

[zengirl]

Of course I'd prefer it if his past were somewhat different, but I don't see his past as being so bad that I wouldn't give him a chance.

 

I look a lot at guys' past relationships to see if they ever truly connected with someone, but I also look at their lives for this. To me, people who have difficulty connecting with people across the board (whether it be their friends, their family, or their lovers), usually have some type of issue. What the issue is depends.

 

Someone having issues is not enough for me to dismiss them as reasonable dating material. Someone having issues they don't know about and aren't actively trying to work through is. That's just me. As to your guy, without knowing him, and without seeing any actual actions from him (even you haven't met him in person, so there's so much data that's missing), I cannot analyze. You also don't say if he has been able to keep close friendships going over time or connect to other people, besides romantically, which would be a key data point.

 

I don't buy much into Meyers-Briggs, personally, as I've said, but either way, as I understand it in that test, there is no "good" or "bad" personality type. I'm sure there are versions of each type that twist behaviors into toxicity. I can say, honestly, while I analyze patterns in retrospect and can examine something when asked, I am not one who would ever attempt to figure out someone's personality in this way. So I can't have much to say on that. The data points I look for are more specific to things I know I need, rather than trying to figure out why someone is the way they are (there's obvious causation sometimes, but I think people are extremely unique in general in their motivations and patterns).

 

No, I didn't mean to imply I thought you'd go for an extrovert. But I saw you going for the kind of easy to get along with introvert who still has a lot of friends and everyone sort of likes. That's how I thought you described your ex. I didn't mean the life of the party type.

 

And in that, you're dealing with degrees. I don't understand the difference between an introvert with few friends who few people like and a loner, so yes, where I rarely go for loners but do date introverts, I date introverts with friends. What constitutes "a lot"? The guys I date tend to have enough friends, but not super-active social calendars, and their friendships are often deep and long-lasting. I would never say my BF has "a lot of friends" since I have more friends, but it would depend on your relative view. But, yes, he's kind to people, so most people generally like him; whether they'd want to hang around him all the time is another story (compatibility) but anyone who's kind is generally likable enough.

 

My ex had social anxiety, so he actually likely had trouble making friends. He still had friends, and several he'd had for a decade. And I saw him be both a good, supportive friend and a good brother at times, and his ability to connect and be there for people on those instances made me like him more. He is less kind to strangers than the current BF, but part of it is the social anxiety. I didn't mind the social anxiety, because he'd actively worked on it over the years, and I admire that. Because of that he lacked a filter (in many cases, his social anxiety would stop him from saying anything at all, so he had trouble filtering sometimes but not completely), though, so there are certainly people who find that off-putting.

 

I disagree with this. A lot of people aren't especially selective or they're selective for the wrong traits. I wouldn't say most people are like this, but there's definitely a range.

 

I don't know about the "wrong" traits. I was talking about people's selectivity in general, FTR, not for relationships. The problem with looking for traits in a relationship is, I find people often have to take a life journey to figure out exactly what works for them. There are certain traits we should all be selective for, like "kind" but in most cases, there is no right/wrong. It's all about what complements you. And I find people who think they know what they want very strongly are often incorrect, but people who are open to discovering what works best get great solutions. So, I choose the latter view. That's just me.

 

I actually think seeming open but being guarded reeks of manipulation more. I'd rather somebody not put on an open face if they're feeling guarded.

 

Depends on the level of guarded, but I wasn't speaking to "putting on an open face" as some sort of thing. I just mean, people who others see as "open" are generally those who are comfortable with themselves, comfortable with people, put people at ease, and talk to people easily; they're also often people who like people, want to get to know people, etc. (These are all great traits in a psychotherapist, or frankly, teacher, as well.) People see them as open because they are people they feel comfortable opening up to; it's not that the person is throwing their whole life out there like emotional vomit (which I find unhealthy) to show their openness. They are simply flowing. That's how I'd describe myself, but to say that because I'm that way people actually KNOW everything about me would be odd. I don't particularly hide things, but if there is a story I don't want to tell, I won't tell it. However, it's rare that someone bounces up against that wall, so they often forget it's there.

 

My point is mostly: Generally, we see people as "open" when they make us feel open. It has nothing to do with how they really are individually but how the interaction goes. As I said, each interaction has two people involved, and openness is an extremely relative trait.

 

I go for stoic, strong types too, but I think the men I'm drawn to at this point in my life are closer to the more private and "selective" end of the spectrum because it complements my own personality better. You seem to prefer more easy-going people pleasers.

 

That does not really describe any of the guys I've dated. I don't know why you keep attempting to describe my type incorrectly. I'm not a huge fan of people-pleasers. I am a fan of people who are kind, for the sake of being kind, and not because of any effect, and people who can build long-lasting bonds with other people. As far as easy-going? I actually have a mini litany (it's kind of a joke, but kind of true) on that word, and it ends with a metaphor of the people-mover (those flat surfaces that move like escalators at airports and such). I prefer people who walk on the people mover: they go with the flow, sure, as walking against the people mover is stupid; it's going one way; just go there. However, people who STAND on the people mover drive me nuts; that, to me, is the essence of easy going, and there's something essentially stagnant in it. The men I date, like me, are mostly very ambitious and have a ton of goals that seem impossible to achieve to other people.

 

I used to think I also wanted a people pleaser, super optimistic type.

 

Optimism has nothing to do with being a people pleaser. People pleasers cannot handle other people's displeasure and thus seek to please them to compensate for their own lack of assertiveness. Optimists just believe that their lives will work out for the best.

 

I am an optimist (quite a big one), but I cannot believe you would ever imagine me to be a people pleaser, would you?

 

I like optimism in a mate too, but I also want somebody who is discriminating and sees the world in a balanced way that accords with my own view.

 

I suspect we'd disagree on what balanced is. Beliefs cost nothing, so I like people who have beliefs that work the best---generally if you want to accomplish a lot (and I do and like people that do), you have to believe not only that you can but that it's relatively easy. (Which does not mean that you can be lazy about it, but that it's well within your power.) To me, that's the key focus of optimism.

 

I wouldn't want to be with somebody who sees the world as mostly good or mostly bad.

 

Ah, hedging your bets. The truth is, everyone has mixed views, but everyone a default setting. Assume good or assume bad. Of course, when data comes in, it's important to be open to that, but unless I have a data point to suggest otherwise, I prefer to assume people are good. Why? Well, it's partially simple psychology. If I assume someone is good and treat them like they're good, they are more likely to be good. I have seen this a million times with adults, children, dogs. . . it's pretty universal. (That doesn't mean it ALWAYS works.) Whereas if I treat someone like they are bad, they are way more likely to act badly.

 

I also don't have to fret or worry about whether something will happen because I have boundaries that protect me well enough and I don't allow people to cross them. I do sometimes worry for my physical safety when it's likely not in danger, but that's a different phenomenon. (And I would always caution people to be a little bit extra careful with their physical safety.) With my psychological safety, it's not really an issue; I feel secure.

 

The idea that one worries about protecting themselves psychologically, their feelings, is odd to me. Of course, I protect mine naturally, but it's not something to worry about; it's very simple; when someone does something that hurts you, you address it, and then the hurt can be fixed. Instead of fretting about what others might do, I build up my own psychological strength and thus can approach people as mostly good (except in the cases where there are obvious data points). Though, as I said, I do on occasion get a fear about my physical safety and act on that.

Edited August 19, 2011 by zengirl

[Star Gazer]

I'm in awe of the length of your posts - both of you. I wonder what your average characters-per-post is?

[torn_curtain]

Zengirl: You explicitly described your ex as a people pleaser several times on this board. So of course I'd assume that's your type! You've also described yourself as a people pleaser at various points, and like tends to attract like. Now you're ripping into people pleasers, which strikes me as odd considering...

 

I read your whole thread that I linked to earlier and he's what I'd call commitment phobic based on his behavior, not your interpretation of it. His behavior is avoiding commitment by sabotaging/doubting relationships when they reach a certain level of seriousness. It doesn't matter much to me what motivations somebody gives for their behavior -- people are often full of crap in analyzing why they do what they do. It's the behavior itself that's most telling.

 

It's hard to make sense of your dating history because I am realizing it's so full of later revisions, at least based on what your'e telling me inow. My only sense of your type is based on how you've described it on this board, and for the most part I was just recycling words you used at one point or another to describe you ex. I can't keep up with all the revisions.

 

My guy is not a loner. He has friends but he's sort of drifted apart from them because they've all either moved or he's outgrown them. He used to hang out with a rather superficial pack (in his teens and very early twenties), and he's matured while they've gotten worse. He's had the same best friend since he was a kid, but his friend has changed into somebody to whom he can no longer relate.

 

I'm sure all of your boyfriends have close friendships with "amazing" people whom they never outgrew, they all call their mothers once a day and they help little old ladies cross the street in their spare time. I kid..

 

Anyway, I'm not really sure what the point in this discussion is or what we're even arguing about, so I think I'll call it a day.

Edited August 19, 2011 by torn_curtain

[zengirl]

I'm in awe of the length of your posts - both of you. I wonder what your average characters-per-post is?

 

Nuance takes a lot of characters.

 

Zengirl: You explicitly described your ex as a people pleaser several times on this board. So of course I'd assume that's your type! You've also described yourself as a people pleaser at various points, and like tends to attract like. Now you're ripping into people pleasers, which strikes me as odd considering...

 

Did I? That was perhaps before I realized what people meant when they'd said "people pleasers" ---it's a term I've only heard recently. If I described myself or my ex as that, I simply meant we were kind. You have to remember, to a degree, I've been living in non-English speaking countries for years and years (now I've been back for a year) and am tri-lingual. So while I'm more than fluent in English, I've certainly made mistakes in recent years with meanings. I do like people who like people and are kind to others, but the people-pleaser mentality (I've observed recently) is usually described in ways that are not asserting yourself, and I am totally assertive. I talk about being assertive all the time.

 

I read your whole thread that I linked to earlier and he's what I'd call commitment phobic based on his behavior, not your interpretation of it. His behavior is avoiding commitment by sabotaging/doubting relationships when they reach a certain level of seriousness. It doesn't matter much to me what motivations somebody gives for their behavior -- people are often full of crap in analyzing why they do what they do. It's the behavior itself that's most telling.

 

I don't see where you get off telling me what someone in my life is like more than I know them to be. He's not commitmentphobic by anyone's standards, really. We had an issue, it was complex, it was resolved with a breakup, and things move on. The doubts he had in our relationship were well-founded.

 

It's hard to make sense of your dating history because I am realizing it's so full of later revisions, at least based on what your'e telling me inow.

 

It's very full of lessons.

 

I try hard not to revise. But it's nuanced. You cannot take what is said DURING a breakup --- and in that thread, I think I made it clear I didn't fully understand what was going on with either one of us; I was working it out --- as absolute fact. I'm not sure I know the absolute facts of my exBF, but I'm quite certain you don't.

 

What is important to me about my past relationships is what I LEARN. I don't play the blame game. What did I learn? It was not anything to do with men and their commitment styles, as that was not the issue. I learned some aspects of compatibility, I learned something about how I coped with stress and how I want my partner to cope with stress, and I learned a lot about myself.

 

My only sense of your type is based on how you've described it on this board, and for the most part I was just recycling words you used at one point or another to describe you ex. I can't keep up with all the revisions.

 

And I have no idea why you're so fixated on my ex anyway. What about all the words I've used to describe the current BF.

 

At any rate, I can assess patterns in my dating life, but I hope that it's not so super set as to be a "type."

 

I'm sure all of your boyfriends have close friendships with "amazing" people whom they never outgrew, they all call their mothers once a day and they help little old ladies cross the street in their spare time. I kid..

 

Everybody outgrows people. Myself included. What I find suspect are people who outgrow people and never find new connections. And I don't think I could date a guy who called his mother every day!

Edited August 19, 2011 by zengirl

[FitChick]

I'm in awe of the length of your posts - both of you.

 

Unfortunately, this has become a private conversation probably better continued as PMs. Perhaps other people feel like they would be intruding if they contributed their own experiences and opinions regarding this topic, which is disappointing as I'd like to hear them.

 

Plenty of other threads to read on this board!

[zengirl]

Unfortunately, this has become a private conversation probably better continued as PMs. Perhaps other people feel like they would be intruding if they contributed their own experiences and opinions regarding this topic, which is disappointing as I'd like to hear them.

 

Plenty of other threads to read on this board!

 

I wouldn't have any problems reading them either, but if someone is trying to bring up and (mis)characterize my relationships, I do feel the need to respond. And if they do so publicly, I feel the need to respond publicly. Being misunderstood is my biggest pet peeve. (Ironic with all the language barriers I've faced. )

[threebyfate]

To summarize this thread:

 

torn_curtain: Here is my perception.

zengirl: Here is my perception.

 

Net result, you're different people with different attitudes and perspectives, where different partners with different traits appeal or don't appeal to each person.

 

There shouldn't be a win/lose, right/wrong factor to this. You're different.

[zengirl]

To summarize this thread:

 

torn_curtain: Here is my perception.

zengirl: Here is my perception.

 

Net result, you're different people with different attitudes and perspectives, where different partners with different traits appeal or don't appeal to each person.

 

There shouldn't be a win/lose, right/wrong factor to this. You're different.

 

That's totally fine. I never expect anyone to be like me.

 

The only thing I found problematic was her bringing up experiences from my life (ETA: especially one that's not even current!) and then acting as though she has a better perception (from the limited views of specific issues I brought up here) of the people in my life than I do and trying to tell me what "type" of guy I date to try to invalidate my POV on my own life. That seems. . . silly. And I don't see why it was related, except I had good experiences online and that goes against her point.

Edited August 19, 2011 by zengirl

[threebyfate]

That's totally fine. I never expect anyone to be like me.

 

The only thing I found problematic was her bringing up experiences from my life (ETA: especially one that's not even current!) and then acting as though she has a better perception (from the limited views of specific issues I brought up here) of the people in my life than I do and trying to tell me what "type" of guy I date.

While I understand where you're coming from, you're also guilty of doing the same so fair is fair.

[zengirl]

While I understand where you're coming from, you're also guilty of doing the same so fair is fair.

 

So far as I know, I've never brought anyone's experiences up before they brought up the issue. Whose exes do I go around bringing up? I haven't referred to any of the shadows from torn_curtain's past (until now ) for instance.

 

If you start a thread asking about your problem, and you have a persistent issue, I'll point it out, sure. I didn't start a thread asking about my ex.

 

ETA: I don't mind if someone brings up my habits or such, either, if I'm having an issue. That's fine. It could be a good point. But I wasn't having an issue. I was just expressing: yes, I've had success with this. So, it's not an attempt to "help" me. It's an attempt to mischaracterize my life to prove a point, and, yeah, I resent that. Had I started a thread ASKING about it, I wouldn't have any issue whatsoever.

Edited August 19, 2011 by zengirl

[threebyfate]

So far as I know, I've never brought anyone's experiences up before they brought up the issue. Whose exes do I go around bringing up? I haven't referred to any of the shadows from torn_curtain's past (until now for instance.

 

If you start a thread asking about your problem, and you have a persistent issue, I'll point it out, sure. I didn't start a thread asking about my ex. I haven't thought about him much lately at all, except for this thread.

Notice how I summarized the thread, suggesting difference and you immediately attempted to justify yourself, that you did what you did because you were "right"? I'm not getting into duke it out scenario with you. Just understand that you and torn are different, as you and ES are different. And guaranteed, you and I are like night and day personalities. So what works for you, won't necessarily work for others.

 

As far as myself as it relates to online dating, I've never engaged in it although I did set up a fake account when already with my husband, with his knowledge and consent, just to find out what all the ruckus was about on LS. It's a pretty strange environment and appears to draw some very strange individuals.

 

There are some decent individuals who lucked out like AC and his wife but on average, online dating is in my opinion, like a big, cold, superficial catalogue of meat cuts. Here's a chunk of prime rib. Oh, look, we have the curvy porterhouse steak over there. How about good ol' chuck steak?

[torn_curtain]

TBF makes a good point. I think we've gotten into a silly contest of trying to invalidate the other's experience/perception. I agree that it was unfair for me to bring your ex into this.

 

By the same token you also have a habit of acting as if your somewhat rigid assessments of people and life equal the objective truth. Even when you pay lip service to the fact that something else might make another person happy, it's often with the implied aside that they're ascribing to a less ideal version of happiness that you would consider beneath you. Example: "Well I'd never date a guy who ____, but I know a lot of girls would..."

 

You never really say any of this outright, but it's the strong subtext I read in your posts, and it gets under my skin. I don't think it's even a conscious thing, but I want to point it out since you often seem bemused by my reactions to your posts.

 

Anyway, that doesn't excuse me doing the same thing by harping on your ex, so I apologize for that.

[Hyperion]

Well choice is a very dangerous ability that the human being possesses...and in this case choice is almost exclusive for women... you can write to as many women you want...question is...are you gonna get a reply? Average dudes will not succeed with online dating..."only the real men will prevail"

 

Real men to women= $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+looks+height+.......................................................good( but not too good)