General online and other dating discussion

[normal person]

my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

I've said all this before, you still don't get it. Lots of things aren't unreasonable without context. To the government, raising taxes 1% doesn't sound unreasonable. But if the person paying the taxes is already taxed at 40%, you can sure as hell bet they're not going to be happy with it. The point being, if you don't like the premise to begin with (be it taxes, or a person in particular) you have no incentive to subject yourself to more of it, because there's no benefit to you, only the other person.

 

When you go out with someone the first time, you're going because you think you might like them. But once you go out and realize you don't like them, there's no longer anything to gain by seeing them again, in fact the experience would leave you worse off -- it would waste your time and money. That's what you can't seem to understand, you only look at things from one person's perspective without considering the other one's. For the most part, people know what they like and what they don't like. Thinking you know better than they do is misguided, arrogant, and ridiculous.

 

Let's say you didn't know anything about Harry Potter but your friend was a big fan and convinced you to go the first movie. They loved it and you hated it. You didn't understand any of it, you couldn't relate to any of it, for whatever reason, you just couldn't sit through it. Fine. You went with the expectation that you might enjoy yourself, but you really didn't. So what? It happens. Now let's say when the second Harry Potter movie comes out, your friend asks you to go again. Why on Earth would you agree to when you know this movie has absolutely no appeal to you? Your friend says "it's not unreasonable to give it a second chance."

You're friend is right -- it isn't, objectively, unreasonable.

 

But that argument is still not compelling enough to make you want to do it. You have nothing to gain by sitting there on the grounds that it isn't unreasonable, but you still probably don't enjoy yourself, you still lose 2 hours of your time, and you still lose $15. So why do it? Because "being unreasonable" or not generous enough with your time and money is some crime? Why does your friend get to decide what you have to do with your time and money? It doesn't make any sense from your perspective.

 

It's not objectively unreasonable. But it is subjectively unreasonable if the person doesn't want to do it to begin with, there's no point.

 

 

I don't think the article is right at all. It's common for women in their 30s to start dating down in terms of looks if they want to get married. Might not be a thing for casuals but for LTRs in 30+ adults mixed looks is very common. I see this in people more that use OLD because they don't have the social circle and the opportunities - if they don't want to date someone new every week.

 

I just skimmed the article again but I didn't see anything about age ranges. My guess is that more people are married by their 30s so the prevalence of those people in the data pool is significantly smaller.

 

I'm actually surprised you are such an advocate for OLD, I get the impression you are social enough not to need it. It's hard to find quality online.

 

I don't see why everyone doesn't use OLD. It's as efficient as any other method of meeting people and it's totally supplementary and working for you 24/7. It's an additional source, there's no reason not to use it. I am pretty social, but I work from home and most of my friends are getting married, moving out of the city, and/or not interested in going out much anymore. I'm not really ready to slow down -- I hate the thought of spending a weekend watching TV rather doing something fun or interesting myself.

 

Also, I'm very picky. I know myself. Going back to the point of this whole thread, I'm not going to happy with just anyone, in fact, I'd probably be miserable with the wrong person. For me, it's worth holding out for someone great rather than someone to just fill a void. In my experience it isn't too hard to find quality on OLD, at least in New York, you just have to filter a lot. Everyone uses it. Doctors, lawyers, successful actors, etc. A lot of successful, attractive people without much time.

[MidwestUSA]

 

OP, Some people are just good dates no matter who they’re with. They’re nice, happy, friendly and inquisitive with everyone. They make other people feel good. Read Emily Post, Miss Manners or Dale Carnegie.

 

In eight years of OLD, I went on plenty of 'decent' dates. On many of them, I was dying for it to end so I could go home to my dogs. I remained polite and chatty, right up till 'good bye'. Never once did I bolt, cut it short, or sneak out a bathroom window, altho it was done to me.

 

It doesn't take but fifteen minutes to know when something is 'off'.

[Rejected Rosebud]

This goes back to my main point: a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

Well at last I agree with you on something! A second date after a decent first date is NOT unreasonable!

 

It's also not unreasonable for one or both of the people to decide that it's not worthwhile, no matter how decent it was.

 

I am still curious about what happened with your "Girl A" from this thread:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/575862-time-change-things-up-tinder-girl

 

She was decent enough to have sex with, but not decent enough to "give a fair trial" to? Or was she the one to decide not to see you anymore after having sex with you?

 

I'm honestly interested in learning how your paradigm here relates to your situation with that girl. Please elucidate.

[Imajerk17]

A few thoughts on this oberkeat:

 

1. oberkeat, how do you know the woman truly "had fun" on your "decent" first dates? This is probably the biggest part of what you are missing. You take what people say too literally. Maybe she didn't truly "enjoy herself" enough to see you again and was just saying that to let you down easy. If you've ever gone on a first date where YOU weren't feeling it--but wanted to be a good sport about it anyway--you'd get this point.

 

2. Women don't want a hot guy so much as they want a guy whom they feel chemistry with.

 

3. The whiney strident tone of your posts is quite off-putting. As much as you may not agree w someone else's dating style it's not your place to try to fix it. Move on to the next girl instead.

 

4. TooLegit (cool username btw!) gave a good suggestion to add something to your profile about how you believe in giving people a chance instead of going by instant chemistry. Have you tried putting that suggestion? You may attract more likeminded women.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Imajerk17

[Emilia]

I don't see why everyone doesn't use OLD. It's as efficient as any other method of meeting people and it's totally supplementary and working for you 24/7. It's an additional source, there's no reason not to use it. I am pretty social, but I work from home and most of my friends are getting married, moving out of the city, and/or not interested in going out much anymore. I'm not really ready to slow down -- I hate the thought of spending a weekend watching TV rather doing something fun or interesting myself.

 

Also, I'm very picky. I know myself. Going back to the point of this whole thread, I'm not going to happy with just anyone, in fact, I'd probably be miserable with the wrong person. For me, it's worth holding out for someone great rather than someone to just fill a void. In my experience it isn't too hard to find quality on OLD, at least in New York, you just have to filter a lot. Everyone uses it. Doctors, lawyers, successful actors, etc. A lot of successful, attractive people without much time.

Successful doesn't mean they aren't complete shlts, you don't know them.

 

I like people that make the effort to go out and socialise. To build/enlarge a social circle. Who have real hobbies and interests and able to make connections through those. Who walk up to someone for a chat to get to know the person.

 

I think it's far more rewarding to get to know a person in their natural environment. I occasionally dabble in OLD but I see it as people trying to make shortcuts rather than build a proper well rounded life.

 

I'd love to see a study how long OLD relationships last vs those where people met on the offchance and got to know each other bit by bit.

[oberkeat]

A few thoughts on this oberkeat:

 

1. oberkeat, how do you know the woman truly "had fun" on your "decent" first dates? This is probably the biggest part of what you are missing. You take what people say too literally. Maybe she didn't truly "enjoy herself" enough to see you again and was just saying that to let you down easy. If you've ever gone on a first date where YOU weren't feeling it--but wanted to be a good sport about it anyway--you'd get this point.

 

Her behavior suggested that this was more than being a good sport. There were several points during that date where she could have ended things, but she kept suggesting more things to do. This was an activity date. We had a lot more fun on that date than we would have had sitting awkwardly across a table having drinks, and there's plenty of reasons to believe she enjoyed herself. To me that's grounds for giving things another go.

 

I don't think the next guy she dates will take her to the museum for the first date. He'll probably just try to meet for drinks and spend the whole night grilling her with interview questions. Then she'll remember what a good time she had with oberkeat and wish she hadn't nexted him so fast.

 

2. Women don't want a hot guy so much as they want a guy whom they feel chemistry with.

 

I agree which is a good argument for allowing things to develop instead of nexting guys after only the first date. You seem to believe that if you don't feel amazing chemistry on the first date you never will. But I think that if your next guys after the first date because you didn't feel amazing chemistry, you are missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships.

 

3. The whiney strident tone of your posts is quite off-putting. As much as you may not agree w someone else's dating style it's not your place to try to fix it. Move on to the next girl instead.

 

What makes you think that the next girl will not be just as superficial as the last? The instant spark requirement has become an epidemic among young women these days.

4. TooLegit (cool username btw!) gave a good suggestion to add something to your profile about how you believe in giving people a chance instead of going by instant chemistry. Have you tried putting that suggestion? You may attract more likeminded women.

 

The whole online dating pool is poisoned with GIGS and the instant spark requirement so many young women have. I hated online dating. I would never go back to it.

Edited April 10, 2016 by oberkeat

[oberkeat]

Well at last I agree with you on something! A second date after a decent first date is NOT unreasonable!

 

It's also not unreasonable for one or both of the people to decide that it's not worthwhile, no matter how decent it was.

 

I am still curious about what happened with your "Girl A" from this thread:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/dating/575862-time-change-things-up-tinder-girl

 

She was decent enough to have sex with, but not decent enough to "give a fair trial" to? Or was she the one to decide not to see you anymore after having sex with you?

 

I'm honestly interested in learning how your paradigm here relates to your situation with that girl. Please elucidate.

 

I'll answer that. Girl A was more than a one night stand. We dated for a while after that till she decided to get with some other guy. The point is, we got together more than once. She didn't call it quits after a two hour first date, which is a helluva lot more than we can say for a lot of women in the dating game.

[oberkeat]

I've said all this before, you still don't get it. Lots of things aren't unreasonable without context. To the government, raising taxes 1% doesn't sound unreasonable. But if the person paying the taxes is already taxed at 40%, you can sure as hell bet they're not going to be happy with it. The point being, if you don't like the premise to begin with (be it taxes, or a person in particular) you have no incentive to subject yourself to more of it, because there's no benefit to you, only the other person.

 

When you go out with someone the first time, you're going because you think you might like them. But once you go out and realize you don't like them, there's no longer anything to gain by seeing them again, in fact the experience would leave you worse off -- it would waste your time and money. That's what you can't seem to understand, you only look at things from one person's perspective without considering the other one's. For the most part, people know what they like and what they don't like. Thinking you know better than they do is misguided, arrogant, and ridiculous.

 

Let's say you didn't know anything about Harry Potter but your friend was a big fan and convinced you to go the first movie. They loved it and you hated it. You didn't understand any of it, you couldn't relate to any of it, for whatever reason, you just couldn't sit through it. Fine. You went with the expectation that you might enjoy yourself, but you really didn't. So what? It happens. Now let's say when the second Harry Potter movie comes out, your friend asks you to go again. Why on Earth would you agree to when you know this movie has absolutely no appeal to you? Your friend says "it's not unreasonable to give it a second chance."

You're friend is right -- it isn't, objectively, unreasonable.

 

But that argument is still not compelling enough to make you want to do it. You have nothing to gain by sitting there on the grounds that it isn't unreasonable, but you still probably don't enjoy yourself, you still lose 2 hours of your time, and you still lose $15. So why do it? Because "being unreasonable" or not generous enough with your time and money is some crime? Why does your friend get to decide what you have to do with your time and money? It doesn't make any sense from your perspective.

 

It's not objectively unreasonable. But it is subjectively unreasonable if the person doesn't want to do it to begin with, there's no point.

 

 

Your worldview is way too black-and-white. You seem to think that if you don't feel amazing chemistry on the first date then you never will, so on to the next one. You don't seem to believe that chemistry can develop. You're way too picky, or you're looking for instant gratification. With that standard, I think you and a lot of folks will be on that dating site for a very long time. As I said, if you are nexting everyone after the first date because you didn't feel amazing chemistry, you are missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships. Unless folks were miserable, a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

Edited April 10, 2016 by oberkeat

[Haydn]

You are overthinking this massively.

 

You are not entitled to a 2nd date whatever you may think.

 

You just didn`t do it for her.

 

Sure you will meet someone you do, do it for and `wallop` 2nd date.

 

That is, if she does it for you......

 

Good luck.

[oberkeat]

You are overthinking this massively.

 

You are not entitled to a 2nd date whatever you may think.

 

You just didn`t do it for her.

 

Sure you will meet someone you do, do it for and `wallop` 2nd date.

 

That is, if she does it for you......

 

Good luck.

 

Why do people keep saying this is about being "owed" or "entitled"??? Where did I ever say being owed anything? that's not what this is about. This is about rational versus irrational dating behavior. If you're nexting people just because you didn't feel amazing chemistry after one date, you're being unrealistic and you're missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships. No one seems to be conceding that point at all.

[normal person]

Your worldview is way too black-and-white. You seem to think that if you don't feel amazing chemistry on the first date then you never will, so on to the next one. You don't seem to believe that chemistry can develop.

 

It's very far from black and white. If I'm interested enough in a person to see them again, I do. That includes instances where I wasn't completely sold on someone but I could tell there was more to be seen. But it definitely excludes instances where I knew I had seen enough. Assuming everyone deserves to be seen again is much more black and white than that.

 

You're way too picky, or you're looking for instant gratification. With that standard, I think you and a lot of folks will be on that dating site for a very long time.

 

I'd much rather be picky and single than pick the wrong person.

 

As I said, if you are nexting everyone after the first date because you didn't feel amazing chemistry, you are missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships. Unless folks were miserable, a second date after a decent first date is not unreasonable.

 

Everyone's definition of "great" is different. What's "great" for you isn't necessarily so for me.

 

I'll decide what's best for myself and I imagine others will continue to do so too, thanks.

[BlueIris]

Why do people keep saying this is about being "owed" or "entitled"??? Where did I ever say being owed anything? that's not what this is about. This is about rational versus irrational dating behavior. If you're nexting people just because you didn't feel amazing chemistry after one date, you're being unrealistic and you're missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships. No one seems to be conceding that point at all.

 

Ah, the the rational/irrational argument- an indicator that you're dealing with someone who is being very emotional.

 

You can call it rational all you want, but your opinions of what women ought to do aren't logical or rational. That may be why people say it sounds as though you feel entitled- because that appears to be the only justification for your illogical emotional blindspots and arguments.

[elaine567]

Sociable people can have enjoyable times with many different types of folk, it doesn't mean they want to date them.

In order to be considered dating material, there has to be some sense that if they kissed you, you would like that and if that led on to more, you would not be averse to that either.

Otherwise there is no point.

If women do not want a second date, it is impossible to force attraction.

Most, if attracted cannot wait to go on second dates, so am not sure what the advantage is of wanting women to be dragged kicking and screaming to a repeat of what they had already experienced and what they weren't that impressed with anyway.

[Haydn]

Why do people keep saying this is about being "owed" or "entitled"??? Where did I ever say being owed anything? that's not what this is about. This is about rational versus irrational dating behavior. If you're nexting people just because you didn't feel amazing chemistry after one date, you're being unrealistic and you're missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships. No one seems to be conceding that point at all.

 

She didn`t fancy you. It`s pretty simple. not much to concede.

 

I have never online dated but i have dated in the pub etc... I knew within 20 seconds, she was not for me, etc.. (Vice Versa)

 

Yes, we may have had a great laugh and had a load in common but there was one tiny thing missing.....

 

The, `I fancy you moment`

[jay1983]

She didn`t fancy you. It`s pretty simple. not much to concede.

 

I have never online dated but i have dated in the pub etc... I knew within 20 seconds, she was not for me, etc.. (Vice Versa)

 

Yes, we may have had a great laugh and had a load in common but there was one tiny thing missing.....

 

The, `I fancy you moment`

 

My experience as well.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Why do people keep saying this is about being "owed" or "entitled"???

 

You evidently don't get it, but: It's really unusual and, yes, ENTITLED, for a person to be so positive that they know more about what another person (a virtual stranger) should do in regards to them, that that person themselves.

 

You express an entitled point of view every time you talk about how a person is wrong, wrong, wrong for choosing not to go out with you.

 

A "regular" guy would just be, like, "oh well, I guess she wasn't feeling me."

 

An entitled guy will go on and on trashing her personality, character and values because she dared to have an opinion that did not lead her to seeing him anymore.

 

A super-entitled guy not only trashes that girl, but extrapolates his blaming onto the entire population of women - and in an extreme case, carries it even further to encompass our entire society.

 

Nobody on Earth "deserves" a "fair hearing" or anything else from another human being. Attention and time are freely given - or not.

[Shanex]

Okay I didn't notice this thread before and I have a broad question since I'm always hesitant to start threads... does no news always means good news? My experience is that when someone become a bit distant you should usually expect something along the lines '' I met someone'' if the person actually dignify you with a response, or the person is just taking things slow and time for herself?

[Rejected Rosebud]

Okay I didn't notice this thread before and I have a broad question since I'm always hesitant to start threads... does no news always means good news? My experience is that when someone become a bit distant you should usually expect something along the lines '' I met someone'' if the person actually dignify you with a response, or the person is just taking things slow and time for herself?

 

If you're in the beginning stages of dating, I don't think that "no news means good news." A person interested in another person shows it, unless they are really shy.

 

There was a thread here recently though where a guy got "turned off" because a woman he'd had a fun date with "overstepped" and phoned him the next day.

 

We women in general are socialized to NOT call, and to let the guy make all the moves. Lots of guys here on LS write that they don't think that's fair and they'd like the women to take more initiative, which seems fair to me ... BUT, sometimes we feel like a guy might not like it and evidently, some don't.

 

So what I'm getting around to saying is: If a woman you are dating is not initiating, it doesn't necessarily mean that she doesn't like you. She might be leaving it up to you. But you can certainly tell by how she responds if you ask her out.

[Shanex]

Thanks RR. I know there's so far not much to worry about because when I do initiate contact I get a quick reply along with "how you doing'' and the whole stuff. Sometimes I initiate contact in the morning and move on with my day to recieve in the afternoon ''what are you doing''... so yes I guess women like the guys to say hi once in a while. If she misses me, tomorrow is a different day and I might get a greeting text.

[Haydn]

If you're in the beginning stages of dating, I don't think that "no news means good news." A person interested in another person shows it, unless they are really shy.

 

There was a thread here recently though where a guy got "turned off" because a woman he'd had a fun date with "overstepped" and phoned him the next day.

 

We women in general are socialized to NOT call, and to let the guy make all the moves. Lots of guys here on LS write that they don't think that's fair and they'd like the women to take more initiative, which seems fair to me ... BUT, sometimes we feel like a guy might not like it and evidently, some don't.

 

So what I'm getting around to saying is: If a woman you are dating is not initiating, it doesn't necessarily mean that she doesn't like you. She might be leaving it up to you. But you can certainly tell by how she responds if you ask her out.

 

Yes, you just kind of know. I`ll call because i have a feeling she`ll respond in a good way. Or she`ll beat me to it and call. Happened to me. She beat me to it, just as i was calling.

 

Turned out we both were thinking the same.

[Shanex]

Yes, you just kind of know. I`ll call because i have a feeling she`ll respond in a good way. Or she`ll beat me to it and call. Happened to me. She beat me to it, just as i was calling.

 

Turned out we both were thinking the same.

 

Yep. The other day I text her hello and she replied within seconds ''I was thinking about you and was going to text you''. I appreciate a text from a lady I like just like vice versa.

 

It's not that big a deal and wasn't worthy of a thread, good idea from the mods.

[oberkeat]

You evidently don't get it, but: It's really unusual and, yes, ENTITLED, for a person to be so positive that they know more about what another person (a virtual stranger) should do in regards to them, that that person themselves.

 

You express an entitled point of view every time you talk about how a person is wrong, wrong, wrong for choosing not to go out with you.

 

A "regular" guy would just be, like, "oh well, I guess she wasn't feeling me."

 

An entitled guy will go on and on trashing her personality, character and values because she dared to have an opinion that did not lead her to seeing him anymore.

 

A super-entitled guy not only trashes that girl, but extrapolates his blaming onto the entire population of women - and in an extreme case, carries it even further to encompass our entire society.

 

Nobody on Earth "deserves" a "fair hearing" or anything else from another human being. Attention and time are freely given - or not.

 

Just because I'm one of the few folks willing to talk openly about the absurdities in the dating scene today doesn't mean I'm wrong about them. I'm calling out the kind of ridiculous behavior I've seen time and again with female online daters: A lot of people are simply going about dating in ways that are self-defeating and are making the dating game worse than it needs to be. Are you saying the way dating is done today is perfect and without flaws? That dating today is just fine? And that women can do no wrong in the dating game? I sure as heck don't think so. On the contrary, I'm seeing behavior I find disturbing, frustrating, and unreasonable.

 

If Romeo and Juliet were set in the modern dating scene, Juliet would have nexted Romeo after the first date. The play would have been a 1/5th it's current length, and no one would bother reading it.

I'm only applying the same standards to this gal that I would apply to myself and any other sensible person in the dating game. If I had been nexting all the girls I met after one date, I would have no business complaining about being single, because in that case I would be keeping myself single. I don't remember feeling amazing butterflies with this gal. That doesn't mean I was planning on nexting her after one date. I enjoyed her company even if a spark wasn't there, and if she had proposed a second date, I would have agreed. I gave her much more of a fair hearing than she gave me, and probably a lot of other guys she meets on that dating site. If a woman is nexting tons of guys because she doesn't feel a spark after one date, she really needs to turn the mirror on her own behavior. She needs to be asking herself why she's not giving anyone she meets a chance, for the sake of her own dating success and that of the men she meets. She needs to be asking herself if she's being too hasty and not giving things enough time to develop.

 

Certainly, you won't like everyone you meet no matter how much time you spend with them. But what females are doing in the dating game, particularly in online dating, is at the other extreme end of the spectrum. They're going into all their dates thinking, "If I don't feel an instant and amazing spark on this 1st date with a person I've never met, then NEXT!" They're expecting some kind of love at first sight scernario, which I really think has more to do with trashy romance novels, Hollywood films, etc. More to do with fantasy than reality. I think that's just silly, and totally the wrong way to go about dating.

 

If you're nexting people just because you didn't feel amazing chemistry after one date, you're missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships. You could be passin' up a guy who would have been great for you because you didn't give yourself time to warm up to him. Him being decent for you wasn't enough. You wanted amazing spark on the first date. I think that's a spoiled mentality to have. It's the kind of mentality that lacks humility and patience. Still no response from you on that point.

 

Maybe that's the nature of online dating. It gives everyone GIGS. So many options, you can't resist to keep going until you find one you think is perfect in every way and gives you butterflies within 2 seconds of meeting him. If that's the case, online will never be successful for the vast majority of who folks who use it.

Edited April 11, 2016 by oberkeat

[Haydn]

You need a `spark`

 

Even just a little one.

 

A head turner.

 

You are missing the point a bit...

 

You seem to be blaming girls for not `fancying you`

 

She or even you should know, instinctively if there is something there. You will or should feel it.

 

If a person does not feel it, it just does not work.

 

A fair hearing? Really??

 

One will feel it with you. Don`t give up. just stop over thinking it all.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Just because I'm one of the few folks willing to talk openly about the absurdities in the dating scene today doesn't mean I'm wrong about them.

 

Here's the issue: Dozens of folks, EVERYONE right here on this thread, even - are talking about this subject. You just don't realize it because you are so wrapped up in being RIGHT.

 

I'm calling out the kind of ridiculous behavior I've seen time and again with female online daters:

 

The "ridiculous behavior" of being 100% positive that they don't like you after meeting you for the first time. Right. :rolleyes:

 

Are you saying the way dating is done today is perfect and without flaws? That dating today is just fine? And that women can do no wrong in the dating game? I sure as heck don't think so. On the contrary, I'm seeing behavior I find disturbing, frustrating, and unreasonable.

 

Dating has NEVER been "perfect and without flaws." There have always been, and always will be, those of us who are not going to find romantic, sexual longterm partnerships in this life. Meanwhile, a whole bunch of us are doing fine.

 

If Romeo and Juliet were set in the modern dating scene, Juliet would have nexted Romeo after the first date. The play would have been a 1/5th it's current length, and no one would bother reading it.

 

 

Ah, yes. The good old days when your family was completely in charge of who you would date and marry. The young couple was willing to GIVE THEIR LIVES up for their "amazing spark" which they felt at first sight! If they weren't "ridiculous" they would have ignored one another and been happy with the perfectly "decent" partners their parents had in mind for them. Juliette died at 13 years of age and Romeo was about 15.

 

That was a really poor example, brah.

 

 

 

If you're nexting people just because you didn't feel amazing chemistry after one date, you're missing out on a lot of great people and potentially great relationships.

 

Most people are "nexting" other people because THEY DID NOT LIKE THEM AND WOULD PREFER TO DO ALMOST ANYTHING OTHER THAN SPEND MORE TIME WITH THEM. This "amazing spark" you keep ranting on and on about is not really a thing for most people. We do, however, need to feel an attraction.

 

Yes, I know, I know, I know that you feel it's a ridiculous travesty for us women to want to feel attracted to men in order to have a sexual and romantic relationship with one of them.

 

Meanwhile, many of us happen to BE in sexual romantic relationships with men we're attracted to!! It's awesome!! And, like I said before, what a wreckage my life would have been if I'd wasted my time with guys I DID NOT LIKE rather than being available for the man I fell in love with and will marry!! :love:

 

Maybe that's the nature of online dating. It gives everyone GIGS. So many options, you can't resist to keep going until you find one you think is perfect in every way and gives you butterflies within 2 seconds of meeting him. If that's the case, online will never be successful for the vast majority of who folks who use it.

 

OK, you just keep on telling yourself this. The rest of us are going to keep dating people we feel attracted to, and not dating people we DO NOT LIKE!!

[Imajerk17]

 

FYI, Romeo and Juliet were *all about* Instant Chemistry. They didn't go on two (or more) dates before they sparked, it was as soon as they laid eyes upon each other. Then when they discovered they couldn't be together they committed suicide.

 

ETA: I just saw that Rejected Rosebud already said this. Great minds think alike!

Edited April 11, 2016 by Imajerk17