"You like them. They don't like you. They like you. You don't like them."

[Chris2016]

You've probably heard this:

"When you like them. They don't like you. When they like you. You don't like them."

 

With that in mind,

Is doable to like the people who like you?

To reframe you're thinking perhaps?

 

To not see it as settling or lowering your expectations, but see it as normal, your standard/league.

[GoodOnPaper]

Nope - didn't work for me. It's probably an occupational hazard for anyone who isn't able to hook up on a regular basis. And if you really struggle in that aspect like me - well, maybe some degree of mutual love and compatibility is within reach but I think finding a mutual want-to-rip-your-clothes-off infatuation is pretty much impossible. Even my wife who calls me her soulmate . . . there's just something missing with the physical intimacy.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Nope - didn't work for me. It's probably an occupational hazard for anyone who isn't able to hook up on a regular basis. And if you really struggle in that aspect like me - well, maybe some degree of mutual love and compatibility is within reach but I think finding a mutual want-to-rip-your-clothes-off infatuation is pretty much impossible. Even my wife who calls me her soulmate . . . there's just something missing with the physical intimacy.

 

There used to be a time where, and not gender bashing, where women would like a guy back if he liked her and demonstrated as such. Apparently, in the World War II days, a guy could bring roses to a woman, fix her car, etc. or some such romantic act and this, for some reason, would actually CAUSE her to like him...and it was a cause and effect kind of thing.

 

I think there is a term for it called "recipricol romance/love". I mean, it could happen the other way around, but since men do the pursuing...

 

Just saying, there was a time when men did such things, like the flowers, fixing things around the house, doing stuff for her, that made her swoon with high interest and thus date and marry him.

[Erik30]

Yeah that's also what George Constanza said, and it's true. That's one thing I like about Tinder, it's not perfect but you know there's at least attraction on both sides.

 

I've tried dating girls who didn't really do it for me, but it never worked out. Usually I couldn't help but think wishing they were more like other girls who I've dated in the past. I shouldn't be having those thoughts. If I'm with her, all my focus should be on her, that's usually what it's like with the girls I'm into.

 

I've just accepted that the majority of the girls I like will reject me, (that's just how it is for most guys) but I would rather be alone than "settle."

[stillafool]

There used to be a time where, and not gender bashing, where women would like a guy back if he liked her and demonstrated as such. Apparently, in the World War II days, a guy could bring roses to a woman, fix her car, etc. or some such romantic act and this, for some reason, would actually CAUSE her to like him...and it was a cause and effect kind of thing.

 

I think there is a term for it called "recipricol romance/love". I mean, it could happen the other way around, but since men do the pursuing...

 

Just saying, there was a time when men did such things, like the flowers, fixing things around the house, doing stuff for her, that made her swoon with high interest and thus date and marry him.

 

Back then women had to marry men who could provide because they didn't have the opportunities they have today. They had to settle for men who were good husband material. Now they have career options so attraction to the man is pretty much at the top of the list. They are choosing the way men chose now. Just like men don't want to date women who really doesn't do it for them; women feel the same way about men. They want their heart to flutter when they see him.

[WaitingForBardot]

Put a bit more eloquently by George Bernard Shaw: "The fickleness of the women whom I love is only equaled by the infernal constancy of the women who love me."

 

I consider myself pretty fortunate in love and after a bit of analysis think I can attribute it up to one simple fact: I find many attractive options amongst the girls/women that find/have found me attractive, many more than what would appear to be the norm. Adding to my luck is that I became pretty adept at reading when a girl/woman liked me that way. It's not that I'm less choosy or willing to settle, neither of which is true, it's simply that I've had the good fortune to like those that have like/d me back.

 

When I read about the chronic problems some posters have finding love, I'm starting to be a bit more sympathetic, thinking that they just haven't had my luck in this regard. At least those that have recognized that it is in fact a numbers game and you have to meet enough people to give yourself these choices.

[GoodOnPaper]

Back then women had to marry men who could provide because they didn't have the opportunities they have today. They had to settle for men who were good husband material. Now they have career options so attraction to the man is pretty much at the top of the list. They are choosing the way men chose now. Just like men don't want to date women who really doesn't do it for them; women feel the same way about men. They want their heart to flutter when they see him.

 

I highly doubt all women in our mothers', grandmothers', and great-grandmothers' generations viewed themselves as settling. Attraction wiring syncs with the prevailing culture.

[carhill]

When I read about the chronic problems some posters have finding love, I'm starting to be a bit more sympathetic, thinking that they just haven't had my luck in this regard. At least those that have recognized that it is in fact a numbers game and you have to meet enough people to give yourself these choices.

 

Yeah, I noticed that too, comparing demographics. What was excruciating in one demographic was easy and enjoyable, regardless of results, in another. Men who are widely attractive may not face such challenges but IME other men definitely can benefit from 'meet enough people to give yourself these choices'

 

Looking at the title, I chuckled a bit since 'like' is IME so transitory and situational. Many years of dating, relationships and marriage underscored that. After doing all that stuff, and the girlfriend and wife stuff, sometimes the winning move is not to play. Leave it be. Like it. Life that is.

[WaitingForBardot]

Yeah, I noticed that too, comparing demographics. What was excruciating in one demographic was easy and enjoyable, regardless of results, in another. Men who are widely attractive may not face such challenges but IME other men definitely can benefit from 'meet enough people to give yourself these choices'

Well, I am certainly not widely attractive at least in the visual aesthetic sense, but as I said, I've been pretty fortunate.

 

I once made the (ego-crushing) mistake of posting my photo, a good photo mind you, on this site that allowed you to be judged by the population at large. I did not fare well, ouch!! Serves me right for violating my own credo of never asking questions to which you did not want to know the answer! ..lol..

[Cookiesandough]

There used to be a time where, and not gender bashing, where women would like a guy back if he liked her and demonstrated as such. Apparently, in the World War II days, a guy could bring roses to a woman, fix her car, etc. or some such romantic act and this, for some reason, would actually CAUSE her to like him...and it was a cause and effect kind of thing.

 

I think there is a term for it called "recipricol romance/love". I mean, it could happen the other way around, but since men do the pursuing...

 

Just saying, there was a time when men did such things, like the flowers, fixing things around the house, doing stuff for her, that made her swoon with high interest and thus date and marry him.

 

Do you have any evidence that "back in the day" women liked men purely for them liking them? I understand these gestures of chivalry were much more common back then, but that doesn't mean that women still didn't have the same vetting process for suitors who were giving them roses and writing them love letters asking for their betrothal. They probably liked them for the same reasons women like men now. Their attractiveness( whatever that means to them..looks, sense of humor, confidence, kindness, money etc)

 

You don't like someone just because they like you. That's not really how it works. it's more common, as OP quote says, to like people who do not like you. Its in our nature to seek partners equal or better than us. We value something that's harder to have. Often times, when someone you like isn't as interested in you, you see them as better than you, otherwise they would like you back. Having their validation makes you feel good.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[preraph]

There used to be a time where, and not gender bashing, where women would like a guy back if he liked her and demonstrated as such. Apparently, in the World War II days, a guy could bring roses to a woman, fix her car, etc. or some such romantic act and this, for some reason, would actually CAUSE her to like him...and it was a cause and effect kind of thing.

 

I think there is a term for it called "recipricol romance/love". I mean, it could happen the other way around, but since men do the pursuing...

 

Just saying, there was a time when men did such things, like the flowers, fixing things around the house, doing stuff for her, that made her swoon with high interest and thus date and marry him.

 

No, she wouldn't like him back just for that. She just had no financial alternative to marrying someone. There wasn't much hot sex back then, I can assure you. But some people did get lucky and marry someone they were excited about. I mean, I do remember a few couples who seemed symbiotic and playful. But women either married or were destined to stay at home forever. Hardly any of them worked back then except some during the war.

 

Women were miserable and had little choice, for the most part, and some found comfort in their children, while others felt simply trapped.

 

Your best chance of finding someone you click with and it's mutual is still having enough interests that you can find someone who wants to share them with you.

[carhill]

Well, I am certainly not widely attractive at least in the visual aesthetic sense, but as I said, I've been pretty fortunate.

 

I once made the (ego-crushing) mistake of posting my photo, a good photo mind you, on this site that allowed you to be judged by the population at large. I did not fare well, ouch!! Serves me right for violating my own credo of never asking questions to which you did not want to know the answer! ..lol..

Widely attractive in my definition isn't a beauty contest rather an evaluation of real life interactions with a wide variety of members of one's sexual preference over time. If one finds a wide variety, and predominance, of women to consider one attractive, then one is widely attractive. I have a couple of friends like this where, as soon as they enter a room, women, both married and single, gravitate to them, smiling and engaging. Women, regardless of other factors, like them. They're not necessarily beautiful, rather attractive sexually, a more complex milieu.

 

If one has, immediately, more women liking one, one has more opportunities for reciprocal like. I ran into a minor example during my world travel years, traveling to countries where Americans were relatively rare. Rarity appeared to generate more attention and attraction where the same mix of looks and behaviors were relatively invisible in the home demographic due to saturation of similar or more attractive examples, hence fewer opportunities for reciprocal like occurred.

 

Also, for a man anyway, IME casting a wide net/finding a wide variety of women attractive is essential if one isn't widely sexually attractive. Being too selective can be deadly to success in the reproduction game. Sure, it's healthy to feel honest 'like' but that can be trained and molded and is probably best done at a young age.

 

Ha, ha, timely that I'm watching the old MASH movie with the married (to others) folks going at each other sexually in the tent Like!

[Cookiesandough]

Yes, and how far back and where are we talking? There used to be a time women barely had any choice in the matter at all. If a man liked her and could support her or had some type of connections, her father would sell her like chattel to the man

[LookAtThisPOst]

I highly doubt all women in our mothers', grandmothers', and great-grandmothers' generations viewed themselves as settling. Attraction wiring syncs with the prevailing culture.

 

This reminds me of an author that was on the TODAY show who was promoting her book "Marry Him: The Case of Settling For Mr. Good Enough".

 

They even cited "The Husband Store" as an analogy for comparison which constantly addresses of "He's great, but...I wonder if I'll find someone BETTER". Of course, they they don't keep climbing that ladder, they'll insist they are just "settling".

 

Forget Mr. Right ? settle for Mr. Good Enough - TODAY.com

 

This issue addresses 30 and 40+something women who haven't married anyone just yet due to their lack of priorities when it comes to finding a suitable husband. They do not focus on what actually matters.

 

Another article that gives specifics and an excerpt from her writings...

 

My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters.

 

Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.

 

(It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)

 

It seems that this disillusionment with each passing year just perpetuates itself and the single 40-something woman remains perpetually unhappy about the selection and no one will ever been good enough for her.

 

Full article here...

 

Why it?s OK to settle for Mr. Good Enough - TODAY.com

[Eternal Sunshine]

For me personally, it's a huge turn on when a man clearly demonstrates his attraction. Either by telling me or by romantic gestures. If I am on the fence about someone, this would push him over the fence into me liking him. Conversely, if he is inconsistent or lukewarm, I quickly lose attraction.

 

There is only one caveat: I need to find that man at least little bit attractive for this to work. If I don't, then nothing he does will change my feelings.

[curiouslysearching]

For me personally, it's a huge turn on when a man clearly demonstrates his attraction. Either by telling me or by romantic gestures. If I am on the fence about someone, this would push him over the fence into me liking him. Conversely, if he is inconsistent or lukewarm, I quickly lose attraction.

 

There is only one caveat: I need to find that man at least little bit attractive for this to work. If I don't, then nothing he does will change my feelings.

 

In the end, attraction does and always will MATTER. On a side note, never let the essence of romance die

[Newcitygirl]

When I was single, you'd hear "once you know, you know." Yes I had guys I dated where I thought I loved them. Going back over the relationships I found something a bit off. While I was crushed back then...I met this new guy when I moved to this city I am now. My boyfriend and I have so much chemistry it is ridiculous. I would try dating guys because I thought it would benefit me (but truly didn't love them love them, even if I was physically attracted) never worked out. I was single for four years before this boyfriend. Hang in there. Dating is tough!

[basil67]

Regarding the 'good old days' and marriage, I'm currently reading The Victorian Life (Judith Flanders). It's a non-fiction book about middle class life in Victorian England.

 

(In my own words and with much abbreviation) A woman would choose a man based on his present finances and earning potential. A woman would be chosen by social compatibility. Of course, they must have been from the same class and with parental approval. Love did not come into it. The man was rewarded in marriage by having a wife who could take care of him and she was rewarded with children and a man who could provide a house and lifestyle.

 

Ann Richelieu Lamb wrote in 1844 "Women not being permitted by our present social arrangements and conventional rules, to procure a livelihood through her own exertions, is compelled to unite herself with some one who can provide for her; therefore in contracting matrimony she thinks principally of this necessary requisite... Man, on the other hand....seeks to find in his wife, a sort of upper servant, or female valet, who is to wait upon him, attend to his wants, instinctively anticipate his wishes, and study his comfort, and who is to live for the sole purpose of seeing him well-fed, well-lodged and well-pleased!"

 

I happen to own an antique handbook on running a Victorian household. It recommends much the same behaviours from man and woman in marriage - so it would appear that Lamb was pretty close to the mark with her social commentary of the time.

[basil67]

There used to be a time where, and not gender bashing, where women would like a guy back if he liked her and demonstrated as such. Apparently, in the World War II days, a guy could bring roses to a woman, fix her car, etc. or some such romantic act and this, for some reason, would actually CAUSE her to like him...and it was a cause and effect kind of thing.

 

I think there is a term for it called "recipricol romance/love". I mean, it could happen the other way around, but since men do the pursuing...

 

Just saying, there was a time when men did such things, like the flowers, fixing things around the house, doing stuff for her, that made her swoon with high interest and thus date and marry him.

 

I notice you've not mentioned how important his earning potential was. It would have been very important to her. Those romantic acts would have gone towards proving his good character. The 'falling for him' you mention would have been no different to a modern day crush - except that they would marry based on nothing more than a crush, general good behaviour, her domestic skills, his earning capability and crossed fingers.

Edited March 14, 2017 by basil67

[basil67]

I highly doubt all women in our mothers', grandmothers', and great-grandmothers' generations viewed themselves as settling. Attraction wiring syncs with the prevailing culture.

 

Good point. In modern days, we might be seen as 'settling' because we don't love enough. Or they aren't attractive enough. Or they don't share a common interest in discussing current events. But in days past, those things weren't nearly as important.

 

The desire to marry a person would have been based on far more tangible things. The bar seems to have been both lower and higher in different areas than it is now.

[LookAtThisPOst]

I notice you've not mentioned how important his earning potential was. It would have been very important to her. Those romantic acts would have gone towards proving his good character. The 'falling for him' you mention would have been no different to a modern day crush - except that they would marry based on nothing more than a crush, general good behaviour, her domestic skills, his earning capability and crossed fingers.

 

Well considering you could get a bottle a milk for 5 cents, earning potential wasn't much of an issue back then

[stillafool]

Well considering you could get a bottle a milk for 5 cents, earning potential wasn't much of an issue back then

 

Money has always been important and women married men for their earning potential. 5 cents was a lot for milk back then.

[stillafool]

 

Just saying, there was a time when men did such things, like the flowers, fixing things around the house, doing stuff for her, that made her swoon with high interest and thus date and marry him.

 

My husband does all of these things but I don't swoon.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Money has always been important and women married men for their earning potential. 5 cents was a lot for milk back then.

 

No, you're wrong. I guess you don't know that many people that are at least baby boomer aged?

 

I've spoken to plenty of people from that time that you could buy 4 loaves of bread for 1 dollar. Gas was 25 cents per gallon in the 60s. A neighbor lady of mine came from a family of 8 and her father could support his wife kids on his salary alone.

 

Pretty much any job, carpenter, teacher, postal worker, accountant, insurance salesman, etc. could afford to support a woman and kids. Basic income was pretty good at covering a family.

 

1.70/hr in the last 60s as teletype machine person...communications. Clerical work basically.

 

It was later the cost of living went up and went out of sync with peoples' wages.

[ZA Dater]

The title made me smile a bit.

 

I think its always like this, for many people the very attraction is hoping to attain the difficult to attain and when things are easy they suddenly become less desirable, depending of course on ones own morals.

 

On the whole its probably about balance, likes versus compromises, what you really like and what isn't so important.

 

I think you do know when you meet someone special, I really believe there is that intangible feeling and its special, for that alone its worth sometimes putting up with the she doesn't like me I like her and even if she doesn't like you can still enjoy that feeling.

 

Probably the key to this is finding out what you like and what those sort of people like and somehow without loosing identity become that, then perhaps you can get the mutual attraction. Realistically I don't think too many people ever land up with that person they like totally but its always a compromise somewhere along the line.

 

I don't think compromise can be deemed settling if she still gives you that feeling. Lots of people settle, make no mistake about that, you need look around, lots of people I know have landed up with people who, with respect I cannot fathom as to what could possibly have attracted them to the person to begin with.