Argh!!!! I asked her to date others but now I feel funny about it

[Outcast]

Swamp, my boy, you were on your way but then you jumped the track. Hell, you derailed your own self.

 

Let's go over this:

 

I told her this as an interesting way of expressing that I don't want to possess her, and want to hang out with her because I am falling for her, and she is becoming a dear friend to me.

 

That wasn't 'an interesting way', that was plain out goofy.

 

I also wanted her to be near another guy so she could measure how I treat, love and respect her against the way I pretty much figure another average guy will. The whole "if you love something, set it free," psychology.

 

Yeah, well you are supposed to let that happen - maybe - if it happens naturally. You don't shove the person into others' arms and say 'here - now go compare this one against me'.

 

Are you kidding? People still think like you?

 

You actually do. I'll tell you why and how later.

 

If you tell her to go and look for someone else, you're in fact hurting her feelings. You're telling her indirectly that you don't care that much about her to let her go out with other guys. If she didn't ask for your permission to go out with other people, it's because she doesn't want to and urging her to do something that she doesn't want to and goes against her feelings will make her doubt your feelings towards her, because if she doesn't want to see anybody else because she likes you then she will wonder why you would want her to see someone else should you really have the same feelings for her

 

Now here's the smart answer. Most normal mortals expect that other mortals, if they care, will not tell them to go find other people to go out with. That says to most normal mortals (and I assume this gal is one) that you want her to go away and amuse herself elsewhere rather than with you.

 

Actually, that's the place where "guys that I will not date or sleep with" get exiled to. I think that's the case for most women

 

There have been several debates on this here. No, it's not the case for most women. A lot of women marry people who were friends first. There are two sorts of male friends; the 'I'd never want anything more with you' sort and the 'I like you so much I want you however I can have you- ideally in a relationship but let's be good friends at least' sort. Women do marry the latter type.

 

and she kind of said "I don't think I want to go out with people anymore." It was a slightly feeble way of hiding why she feels strange.

 

She's saying that you're it for her. But she won't say it out loud because you already told her to shove off.

 

It's probably very strange that I am aquiescent to her going on this date.

 

It's more than strange.

 

I wouldn't tell her to go on a date with some boy if we were already dating. I told her this when we weren't affectionate and warm to eachother yet.

 

Duh.

 

She is coming over tonight after her date. I am also going on a date tonight with someone, and told her about it

 

Why not rub more salt in the wound?

 

Love = friendship + respect + passion.

by D'Arthez

Love cannot be captured in mathematic equations. Especially simplistic formulas like these.

 

Well, actually I disagree here. That's pretty much what the relationship gurus say creates the most durable relationships.

 

Games create attraction.

 

Now here, Swampie boy, is where you share Alpha's pov. It's not the case. Gamesmanship shows disrespect for the other person because, essentially, you are manipulating her as though she's a lab rat to be rewarded or punished. Supposedly you respect her - in which case you should not be playing this bogus game.

 

And don't give me the 'oh you poor disillusioned/immature/whatever' bs you've been tossing at other respondants. Bottom line is that a manipulator toys with the target like a cat with a mouse. If you care about this woman as you claim to, you will not play games with her but rather be open and honest.

 

It's not that you played games with her that made her like you - you got closer to her after telling her to date others so she started to think you might be interested. Then you tell her you're going to date someone else. That's just mean.

[fundamental]

You put yourself in the friends zone???? Why?

 

You just played the game of deception and lost.

[johan]

All or nothing? Please. Say that to every woman you meet, and remain on this website pontificating broken hearts for the rest of your life.

 

I don't understand why you said this, Swamp. Can you explain?

[Swamp]

 

Welp. I got the expected text message of "I am with him, and can only think about you."

 

I replied with a nice "See you tonight."

 

Guys. You are only in her "friend zone" if you are outwardly aiming to be more than friends. I am outwardly aiming to be friends, so I am in her "more than friends zone."

 

Remember 1 thing gentlemen. People want what they can't have.

 

They want someone who is available less at the right time.

They want someone who is indifferent at the right time.

 

She knows I am caring. That isn't ever a factor. I am nothing but a cushion of warmth for her. I'm gonna squeeze my little sack of snuggle until the Sun peaks.

 

Until you show your cards, you are playing a game. The winner of the game is typically the last to show their cards.

 

Take care.

 

p.s. I would be a lot more open to what you singles/ struggling relationship goers were saying, IF what you were saying contained a single solitary increment of reality. It hurts me to see so many people still searching for the relationship where you can throw your heart out there and not expect it to have a cigarette put out on it.

[Outcast]

Remember 1 thing gentlemen. People want what they can't have.

 

This is a myth, Swampie m'boy. SOME people want the unattainable. Other people won't put up with the bs involved in game-playing and will drop you like a hot potato if you try that junk on them. However the ones who want the unattainable often have issues.

 

Really, you shouldn't live your relationship life by worn old bogus cliches like 'nice guys finish last', 'nobody marries a friend', and 'people want what they can't have'. These are the refrains of terminal losers who need to rationalize why they never get the gal. Surprise surprise - it's about attitude.

 

And don't bother wasting your pity on LSers. Many are happily married and/or in long-term relationships. Except the ones who believe in games, that is.

[fusangite]

Games are important in the beginning because the uncertainty someone has about how you feel about them, in turn stirs a subconcious bond to you.

Oh yeah -- bonds built on lies, misrepresentation and feigned indifference are soooo much better than those built on honesty.

They value you you. People value things that are not easy to obtain.

Why do you think you need to misrepresent your feelings in order to be valued?

You don't build a relationship on lies, or anything.

I don't but you clearly do. Otherwise you wouldn't be telling her to go sleep with another guy.

Making someone wait, and EARN you, is exactly why they will want to KEEP you.

And you think you need to be "earned"? Nice to know you're not just a coward but a megalomaniacal coward.

Afraid to have sex? Absolutely not.

So, when was the last time you had sex then?

Holding off on sex is precisely what makes relationships last in the end.

Do you have any evidence of this from your own life?

Waiting until it's an amazing experience, that you are sharing with a true friend, who you share jokes and feelings with. That's what making love is supposed to be.

Isn't this woman a "true friend" yet? If not, why not?

Do you understand that being indifferent to a woman takes a very large amount of fearlessness?

No. It doesn't. It is cowardice. Putting yourself out there emotionally challenges fear. Pretending your feelings are different than they really are is cowardly.

Knowing that you have enough dignity to disagree with someone, or not be moved by their wants or gripes. Being indifferent creates respect. They view you as being unafraid to disagree and stand up for yourself.

Nobody is saying you should be a doormat or not disagree with this woman. But what does that have to do with the idea of dishonestly misrepresenting your feelings to her?

[d'Arthez]

Welp. I got the expected text message of "I am with him, and can only think about you."

How can you be sure she is not game playing to create respect for you? Because it does not make sense? And please if you are so confident, how to explain the knot in your tummy?

 

I replied with a nice "See you tonight."

Was that a game, or your honest feeling? If the first, you were indifferent - which is contrary to the image you try to portray. And in the second, you are not creating respect, at least in your book...

 

Guys. You are only in her "friend zone" if you are outwardly aiming to be more than friends. I am outwardly aiming to be friends, so I am in her "more than friends zone."

No, you are pretending to be not wanting to be more than friends. And you are bad at it too. Even if a relationship were to ensue, I am very pessimistic about the odds that it will be a healthy and lasting relationship.

 

Remember 1 thing gentlemen. People want what they can't have.

That is only true of the gluttons and the greedy. Healthy people don't fall in that category. But why are you investing time in a woman you can have (according to you) then? Game playing? Or are you not one of the people?

 

They want someone who is available less at the right time.

They want someone who is indifferent at the right time.

Yes, they don't want anyone who goes postal, if the price of poststamps has risen by another cent. No, they don't want to spend all their time on anyone they need 4 months to figure out.

 

She knows I am caring. That isn't ever a factor. I am nothing but a cushion of warmth for her. I'm gonna squeeze my little sack of snuggle until the Sun peaks.

Or are you acting indifferent? Or playing a game? The statement in bold is also quite telling.

 

Until you show your cards, you are playing a game. The winner of the game is typically the last to show their cards.

Yes, but you allow her to draw all 47 cards - and you lose if she has a Royal Flush of hearts.

 

p.s. I would be a lot more open to what you singles/ struggling relationship goers were saying, IF what you were saying contained a single solitary increment of reality.

I am afraid that this is more or less transference of your own frustrations.

It hurts me to see so many people still searching for the relationship where you can throw your heart out there and not expect it to have a cigarette put out on it.

My SO would not smoke.

 

 

Love = friendship + respect + passion.

Love cannot be captured in mathematic equations. Especially simplistic formulas like these.

Well, actually I disagree here. That's pretty much what the relationship gurus say creates the most durable relationships.

Let me argue my point a bit further. Swamp is talking about romantic love here. And of course friendship is an important part of that. Respect too, but that should be part of a healthy friendship anyway. Passion is an important part too.

But all these have minimum levels that are required before (romantic) love can be. You can have a great friendship with a person of the same sex, respect him / her completely, and yet be lacking in the passion department because you are heterosexual. Something similar can be said for the other attributes. Without respect you are simply domineering / submissive towards the other, and love simply cannot exist.

Furthermore, we have to consider the synergetic effects, and describe adequately in the mathematical model what would happen if two people fall in lust. Any mathematicians here who can define love as approaching one (as the upper limit) in infinity, when the variables are maxed out? But yet, if one of the variables is 0, the love should be (close to) 0 too.

[Swamp]

This is a myth, Swampie m'boy. SOME people want the unattainable. Other people won't put up with the bs involved in game-playing and will drop you like a hot potato if you try that junk on them. However the ones who want the unattainable often have issues.

 

Really, you shouldn't live your relationship life by worn old bogus cliches like 'nice guys finish last', 'nobody marries a friend', and 'people want what they can't have'. These are the refrains of terminal losers who need to rationalize why they never get the gal. Surprise surprise - it's about attitude.

 

And don't bother wasting your pity on LSers. Many are happily married and/or in long-term relationships. Except the ones who believe in games, that is.

 

Please. People who want the unattainable have issues? Incorrect.

 

It's a predictable mental response. Playing games for an entire relationship is 1 thing, but in the initial stages it is absolutely necessary.

 

People who don't believe in games just don't know how to play them.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that nice guys finish last. It just takes them a long time to pick their dignity up and ruffle the girls' wings enough to make them realize their true feelings.

 

EVERYONE marries a friend.

 

You don't think people want what they can't have? What effing planet are you on right now? Since the 3rd grade the delicate weakness of every man and woman's mind has been exposed. People do want what they can't have. Sorry you are jaded, or had to put up with an overwhelming amount of mixed signals in the past. I am pretty understanding as to why you wouldn't put up with it either. Trust me, it's easy to overcome.

 

Pity on LS'ers. Heh. Buddy, a bunch of happily married people with 6,000 posts on a dating advice forum?

 

I imagine the way these marriages transpired.

 

"I hate games. I just want someone I can fall in love with and snuggle with and be honest with."

 

"Me too. I think I love you."

 

"Are you sure?"

 

"Yes"

 

"Are you really sure?"

 

"Yes"

 

"Ok, I have to go to sleep, but I will call you tomorrow."

 

"Ok bye."

 

"Bye."

 

::ring, ring::

 

"Why did you say 'bye' like that?"

 

"Like what?"

 

"Like BYE... instead of a sweet 'bye'"

 

etc.

 

I am going back to bed. With her. We both learned a lot from tonight.

 

Learn the games. It's worth it. Those 2 years you had of happy love 10 years ago do not mean games aren't what you need. You wouldn't be on this website if you were doing everything right. Games get them close enough to love. Not LIES. GAMES.

 

My downfall was making outlandish suggestions to prove my ability to care for her.

[lynnered]

Well, one night at dinner, I told her she should find a boyfriend or a guy to date. She asked, "why?" and I told her because it would help me understand her."

if a guy told me that 1st of all I would think he wasnt into me saying i should find a boyfriend & he would stay just a friend.

how can her finding a boyfriend make you understand her ?

you can date & get to know someone & have friendship involved,taking it slow & letting your partner know im not ready for sex ,lets get to know each other,we can both date other people .

why cant you go along those lines?

all this game playing on your part,thats not friendship you say your not lieing OK your being decietful.

"Do you understand that being indifferent to a woman takes a very large amount of fearlessness? "

being indiffernt (meaning that does not matter one way or the other) 1st of all is not a true friend & she should have enough self esteem to not want a friend or a boyfriend thats indiffernt .

And being in a relationship or friendship that you are not treated right& accept unattainable person YES they have issues ,something making that person feel they are not deserving or childhood issues ,my therapist told me this (yes i have issues so what )

"I would be a lot more open to what you singles/ struggling relationship goers were saying, IF what you were saying contained a single solitary increment of reality. It hurts me to see so many people still searching for the relationship where you can throw your heart out there and not expect it to have a cigarette put out on it."You wouldn't be on this website if you were doing everything right"

arent you on this website ?

"Please give feedback."

"Was this a dumb decision? Do you guys see my point in doing this? She is a very loyal and truthful person, but is she really doing this because I hinted she should?"

you asked &you recieved then insult because nobodys agreeing with you.

 

i think you read the wrong self help book & are taking it way too far .

[LucreziaBorgia]

1. I am going back to bed. With her.

2. We both learned a lot from tonight.

 

1. Hey, great. Hope it was good for both of you.

2. Hopefully you both learned not to play games with your heart and hers, and be open and honest with each other in your communications.

 

My downfall was making outlandish suggestions to prove my ability to care for her.

 

I'm not sure why you would need to 'prove' this. Why did you feel a need to show proof of your abilities to care about someone?

[NewLee40]

Honestly, I don't think your little "game playing" helped the situation one way or another. If a guy told me that he wanted me to date another guy, and I was interested in him, I would definitely be hurt. If we had not crossed over from friends to lovers, then I would buck up and try to be his friend while pursuing more viable leads for a relationship - which is exactly what she did. In fact, she kept qualifying herself by saying "this is what YOU think is best" as a way of letting you know that she wasn't really into it to begin with. So, you put on your happy face and suffer silently while she goes on her date. She's there thinking..."hey, if I really want something with this guy, I better speak now or forever hold my piece." It seems to me that she'd been willing to go deeper into a relationship with you all along, but you kept pushing her away with your ideas about how you must play a game to create this deep need and longing for you because she was sure she could not have you. Truth is, you already had her, but you persisted in the game playing to either 1. make absolutely sure before you showed your cards, or 2. because you have some narcissitic need to be pursued yourself.

 

As for people wanting what they cannot have, there may be some element of truth in that, but its not a rule by which to map out your plan to woo someone. There is something really off-putting about someone who comes on too strong at first, that's true. That is not because you showed your proverbial cards too soon, but rather because they don't trust strong feeligns that come on prematurely. If you'd announced to this girl you were going to marry her right off the bat, no doubt she would have run like hell the other way (if she had any sense at all). There are people we want that we cannot have, and we give up or become a stalker. There are people we do not want but we can have, and they are the ones going around saying "people only want what they can't have." There are people we want and can have, which works wonderfully if you don't screw it up with incessant game playing.

 

You started out the right way by building friendship and trust. Good going there. That's not game playing, that's just being smart. People rush too quickly and get heavily involved with people only to find out later, not only do they not love them, they don't even like them. You have a somewhat faulty, somewhat firm foundation. Fill in the cracks and make your repairs. It is salvagable.

 

Consider yourself on your 9th life with this girl. You almost blew it when you told her to date other people, and now she's back. Give her a break and make her feel loved and wanted if that's the way you truly feel. Your relationship will be better for it, and you guys just might make it. I don't know her at all, so it could be that she's playing her own game of "catch and release." If that's the case, you'll want to know now versus later.

 

How about a little honest relating and communication? Novel concept, I know.

[Outcast]

Playing games for an entire relationship is 1 thing, but in the initial stages it is absolutely necessary.

 

Riiiiiiiiight. Believe what you like. Clearly your mind is made up - you've decided you are utterly and completely in the right here. I have no idea why you even bothered to post since clearly you feel you are perfection personified.

 

People who don't believe in games just don't know how to play them.

 

Not at all. You have utterly failed to respond to my main point - that 'playing games' is treating someone with great disrespect; that it is manipulative and therefore distasteful. Of course people who eschew 'playing games' know how - they just find it beneath them to treat people with that amount of disrespect.

 

EVERYONE marries a friend.

 

Untrue. Some people never really befriend their partners.

 

You don't think people want what they can't have? What effing planet are you on right now?

 

One where some people are emotionally immature and persist in believing in 'playing games' and others who are more mature and refuse to stoop that low.

 

Since the 3rd grade the delicate weakness of every man and woman's mind has been exposed. People do want what they can't have.

 

Oh really? Well let's back that up with some facts, bub. Show me any study on relating which proves your point. You'll have a hard time proving it. It's kinda sad to mouth cliches as though they ar truisms.

 

Sorry you are jaded, or had to put up with an overwhelming amount of mixed signals in the past.

 

First of all, your responses to legitimate points are immature - insulting people and being ridiculous is not making a logical reply. Secondly, guess what 'mixed signals' are - yep, that's what 'playing games' is all about. So it's very odd that you think it would be a bad thing to have happen to someone.

It appears that even you may realize that 'mixed signals', i.e. games are harmful.

 

I am pretty understanding as to why you wouldn't put up with it either. Trust me, it's easy to overcome.

 

See, this arrogance and rudeness makes you rather unattractive. At this point I feel sorry for this gal. You seem to hold humanity in general in contempt and she'll also be the target of your scorn when she shows that she doesn't actually think you are the most intelligent man who ever existed.

[johan]

Mostly what Swamp calls "games" is just getting to know each other. Of course you can't run into a relationship all clingy and oozing love. So you have to hold back some of your excitement. There are lots of ways to do that. You can be deceptive and pretend it's a friendship. You can be deceptive and try to come off as a bad boy. You can be deceptive and simply keep your feelings to yourself.

 

It's not always clear where/when it's best to do that, because you don't know how the other person really feels and you don't really know him/her. Establishing your boundaries with someone new tends to be a lot like a game. The closer your tactics are to the real you, the better off you'll be when it's time to drop the act.

 

People who say they don't play games are defining "games" in a particular way. I don't play unhealthy games. Right now my girlfriend and I are playing what you could define as a game. We're having a standoff. I'd love to call her, and if I was just doing what my heart told me I'd be on the phone with her right now. My brain is telling me it's better not to. I've drawn a line, and I'm challenging her to cross it. That's kind of a game.

 

I'm guessing Swamp has spent enough time with this woman he felt comfortable telling her to date someone else and they both knew what it meant. It's not something I'd say, because I don't really say things I don't mean, but it worked for him. Telling a woman this could backfire unless you know what you're doing. It's entirely possible he's messing with her mind, which is pretty low.

 

Swamp comes off as arrogant and seems to have a pretty major ego (at least here on the forum where everyone is safely anonymous). In my experience guys like that are more prone to jerking people around. I've had people pretend they wanted a friendship with me when they really wanted something else. I find that to be disgusting no matter what it is they really want.

 

But everyone has to choose which games are acceptable to play. For some people all is fair. For me it's better to be as honest as possible, because I can't keep up the act for very long. When the effect of the Mr. Cool facade starts to wear off, switching over to Mr. Honest and Straightforward looks like just another trick. She'll wonder about the contradictions.

[SmallWonder]

I just have this to say:

I was seeing guy who I have, and still have feelings for about 3 months:

 

He told me after several weeks that I, too, should go on dates with other people. I will tell you what I felt when he said this, even while spending the night by my house and taking me place, hugging me and being my friend:

 

Hurt, confused, a little second class.

 

Of course, I did go on a date and thought of him the whole time. But my thoughts were, "What is he doing right now that's more important than being here with me instead of this other guy?"

 

I am not a fan of game playing in any form. It sounds like you have the game down to a science, and it sounds even a little matholical to me, what you're doing. Like you're the mastermind of some plot. It's a little creepy.

 

I won't say that this guy telling me to go out and date if I want while we were seeing each other changed my feelings for him.

 

What it's done is made me constantly question his feelings for me

[RecordProducer]

Was this a dumb decision? Do you guys see my point in doing this? She is a very loyal and truthful person, but is she really doing this because I hinted she should?

 

This is very interesting. When I started dating my BF of one year he said we were not exclusive yet and we can date other people. I was in shock as I had never heard about this exclusivity thing before. I thought it meant he wanted to date other women. So after a lot of conversations about it and me claiming that I don't feel like dating other people, he said "Well me neither and that IS the whole point - to be allowed to date others, but not do it." That's when I realized the beauty of it. You can, but you don't want to. And your desire was to get to know her better so this is one way to do it. If she sleeps with this guy, you will see what you didn't want to see, but it will tell you a lot about her.

 

She could have told you she didn't want to date others and she really liked you. She could have been offended and simply not date anyone. And most of all, she could have asked you if you wanted to date others. I asked my BF at the time when we were not exclusive and he said he didn't date anyone and had no desire to. I felt that if I dated or slept with other guys, it would have been cheating anyway, although I was allowed to by him.

 

Unfortunately it seems that she didn't respond well to your provocation. She went for it. It's possible that she misunderstood your point. You can still tell her that you wanted to give her "permission" to be with others in order to see whether she would go for it or stay with you. And she decided to go for it. Hopefully she will say "No, I only went on this date because you wanted me to, I don't want to date other guys." It's interesting that she never asked you if YOU want to date other girls too.

 

We want our partners to be faithful to us even when they are allowed to be with others. Not to practice fidelity as a moral value, but rather as a desire to be only with us and nobody else. It makes sense at the beginning of the relationship big time. I completely understand your logic, but you made one big mistake: you shouldn't have told her that she should date other people, but rather that she can if she if she wants to, you don't want to possess her against her will. Then she would have gotten the point of it all. This way, she might be merely vindictive as in 'you wanted me to date other guys so I will!'

 

It's funny that people here don't understand something as soon as you change the name of it. Had you mentioned "exclusivity" they would know what you're talking about. This way, they call it a mallicious game. Why is it okay for a man to date more than one woman before "the talk" and not okay when he tells her she can date others as well?

 

After all, I could hardly call an action where you end up being the screwed party - a game!

[d'Arthez]

Sadly, that theory is rejected RP, by the following admission in post #8.

I wouldn't tell her to go on a date with some boy if we were already dating. I told her this when we weren't affectionate and warm to eachother yet.

 

Of course it is okay if a man tells a woman that she can date others. The problem with Swamp's approach is that he is practically forcing her to do so, and in his own words she feels uncomfortable about it, and he complains that he suffers from a knot in his stomach, as a result of his own actions. A complaint he would not suffer from, if he was secure in his love for her, which Swamp claims to be - and a self-inflicted one at that.

 

Furthermore by being so strong in his desire for her to date others, he still does not know whether it is because she wanted to do that, or whether she felt compelled to do that, to please him in some twisted way. It sounds harsh, but it is more a test to discover masochistic tendencies in this woman than a test of "love."

 

Remember, for the following, as it explains quite a bit of the behaviors of the woman Swamp is pursuing:

I haven't told her any ounce of my feelings for her.

 

The problem is, if you are in a situation where someone takes a Swamp-like approach, how you have to deal with the experience of:

Well, one night at dinner, I told her she should find a boyfriend or a guy to date. She asked, "why?" and I told her because it would help me understand her.

If you are dating and getting involved you are not an object of explicit scientific study - at least not at the time you spend together. Which eventually led to:

The other night she told me she might call this guy who gave her his number. She also mentioned "because you say it will help you understand me."

So why is she complying? Out of love? Respect? Or perhaps because she felt forced to? Because Swamp had placed himself in the friend category, as he admitted later in the thread (which was not playing a game, because he had an agenda?!) Time will tell. I am not as optimistic as Swamp though.

I also asked if this was going to help me understand her, and she said "You seem to think so."

Is this the behavior of an independent woman, or of an uncomfortable research specimen? Time will tell.

I didn't know if she would actually go find another date, though. I have a huge knot in my stomach. This girl takes a long time to truly get to know someone, but I am still nervous as hell about her eloping with this guy tonight.

Truly, the hallmark of someone who is comfortable with his decisions, and how he has "perfectly" handled the whole thing - he practically ordered the woman to find a date, and when she complies with his wish (as she sees it, because it will make him "get to know her better"), he feels uncomfortable.

And part of me thinks she may actually be going on this date because it could prove something to me and her.

Yep, that with scientific manipulation / approach (choose the term you prefer), you can get someone do some stuff they really would not want to do in the first place. It may tell you something about the research specimen as an added bonus.

I think she really likes the idea of me being so determined to understand her.

I think she is a sucker for punishment.

I will marry this girl eventually, and I think over time she would agree

And he claims to be a friend, who is not playing a game, because he is playing a game?! Yet already he "knows" what the future holds, even though in his own words, they even have not started the relationship proper.

 

We just got off the phone and she said she feels strange about going on a date tonight. She hasn't really gone on a date with someone she didn't know for a long time, and she kind of said "I don't think I want to go out with people anymore." It was a slightly feeble way of hiding why she feels strange.

Eh ... but you forced her to go out, by laying it out so thick, and heavily implying that it is actually advantegeous to do so. So you have effectively proven to yourself that she has some masochistic, dependent tendencies - if it were otherwise she would have run for the hills or asked you to stop this nonsense.

It's probably very strange that I am aquiescent to her going on this date. Which probably makes her wish I wasn't aquiescent. Which probably makes her wish I would grab her and kiss her with all of my heart. Which I am going to do. Tonight. After her date.

That seems to have happened - but are you attributing this to love on her part, or some masochistic tendencies? If you love someone, you are by nature more acquiescent of things. And you don't actually have to force someone to do something they do not want to do - which is exactly what you are assuming, so where is the acquiescence in that?

 

I don't think she necessarily does want to go on the date with him. It wasn't a green light, per se. I suggested it.I'm pretty sure she is doing it because I told her it would help me understand her. Observing her interact with other guys of interest will help me know even more about her.

So what does this scientific experiment prove?

People turn hotter than ever for people they don't have under their thumbs. Making someone wait, and EARN you, is exactly why they will want to KEEP you.

Given, that she is already under your thumb as the dating experiment has proven, I can perfectly see how she is "earning" you. Sadly that is not in a positive light, as you are not under her thumb - but that is exactly the spot you aspire to. However, I do wonder what you do want with her, by the virtue of your logic, as she seems to be perfectly under your thumb.

 

People want what they can't have.

And that applies to Swamp to. What will happen, when he realizes he can have her? Does he lose the interest? Should he pretend to be honestly aloof? Questions, questions, questions for Swamp.

[lynnered]

"I took the girl whom I absolutely chose on our 3rd date last night. I decided I would date her. I have decided she would fall in love with me. Especially after we have so many things in common, and share the same kind of sarcastic sense of humor.

I chose her. I applied tactics to her to warm her up to me. I have coaxed her to come out of her shell. She has dropped her guard to me a little, and we have had some of the coolest conversations because of it. We are really on a good path to a great friendship. She will fall in love with me. I will fall in love with her.

 

I haven't changed a thing about ME as a person, however. I have only changed my approach to her. I read her, I gauged her level of independence (which is very high), I felt out her character a little bit, and I applied the appropriate tactics."

what happend with this lady,is this the bartender?

if not did you change your mind about her falling in love with you?

"Love is essentially: friendship, respect, trust, experience, acceptance and... attraction.

You grow a friendship. You earn respect. You gain trust. Experiences take time. Acceptance takes fully understanding. "

i agree with that but U dont have to play all these games,be your self ,love yourself .

"I didn't know if she would actually go find another date, though. I have a huge knot in my stomach. This girl takes a long time to truly get to know someone, but I am still nervous as hell about her eloping with this guy tonight"

then why tell her to date ?you are causing yourself stress?i dont get it.

what bothers me is you decieve you talk about having her date other people then say you plan on marrying her one day ,

isnt it a little early for marriage thoughts ?thats a little stalkerish.

And yet you post here & put down those who are here as well, why are U still posting ,why havent U made miss right fall in love with U who is so perfect in "this art ",i am not perfect in anyway made lots of mistakes but U really piss me off insulting people who post here.

dont sit there & judge those who are still single ,because U are single too.

o and i was going through posts & saw your july 2005 i was right it was a self help book gone wrong:laugh:

i wish U luck & hope the lady gets some sense & ends this "friendship.

[landho]

swamp is correct. he has aother approach and has substantially put your BS relationship ideas in their place. all you people can do, like D arthur, is to come up with some BS psychoanalysis definitions and try to parse every sentence he has written like a lawyer. he is doing his own courtship dance, which is just a variation on the same theme. you all talk about honesty and all that crap, but in reality you practice deception in the beginning of every relationship.

 

You know that you eat a lot of crap from the other person that you normally wouldnt put up with. you are extra nice, mannerly, etc. as time wears on and the mask slowly dissolves, the true person appears. thats why it takes time to really figure someone out. you people talk like 4 months is a long time, etc. typical for this generation where the term "long term" means until after lunch. you want everything solved in a 30 minute ****com or cell phone fast. 4 months or a year is nothig to a lifetime relationship, and only time will tell if someone is getting better or worse in your eyes as far as the relationship goes.

 

you go swampman...you really nailed them on your narrative of how their "honest " relationship goes. it shouldnt take them but a few days to decide if this person is their "soulmate" with that technique. disagreement with the "regulars" on here that have everything figured out is utmost disrespect to them. you just made a statement and defended it. its them that know it probably worked, and they are still grasping at straws and trying to figure something out. later dude.

[elijahBailey]

I get this funny feeling that Swamp is gonna get this girl after all. I'm wondering if all that he said here is just a smoke-screen to disguise or justify the fact that he's actually playin' the girl. I wouldn't surprised if she falls for that. If he isn't, then he's got an esoteric way of dealing with relationships.

[LucreziaBorgia]

Judging from the past posts I've read of his, there's really no telling how this is going to play out. The 'four month' thing seems to be the make it or break it time based on those old posts.

[Aimée]

This reminds me of the movies where the guy in the beginning is really sweet and tries to get the girl by being nice, affectionate and listening to her worries. When he gets her he starts to get more controlling, because, that's his problem, he's just a bundle of insecurities, he may know how to seduce someone, he may know how to act in order to make a girl feel safe and warm, but he is never able to overcome his fear of rejection that is gnawing at him deep inside. He's still the same insecure guy that he was before, even when he has the trophy girl that he wants. He can only soothe his insecurities by becoming more and more controlling till one day he completely freaks out.

 

I think when someone talks about marriage without even being in a relationship yet, he must have some serious problems with reality. It shows you're not looking at this girl as a breathing human being with an independent mind of her own, but you think you can achieve anything through your manipulations. In my opinion, people who think they are so smart that they can manipulate people to do anything for them are pretty dangerous and instable (or as someone already called him: megalomaniac).

 

You may get this girl, Swamp, but you're not going to be happy with her, because she is not perfect and won't fit the ideal image you have of her. Someone who puts so much effort in seducing another person is putting said person on a pedestal and sooner or later you will have to find out that she is just a normal person with all her positive and negative sides.

[New_Wife]

Well, one night at dinner, I told her she should find a boyfriend or a guy to date. She asked, "why?" and I told her because it would help me understand her."

 

Bwa ha ha ha ha!

 

Help you understand her?

 

Yeah. Okay.

 

That would've helped me understand any guy I thought I was dating, back when I was dating, a whole lot better.

 

I would've understood that he was gay.

 

Let's review:

 

You want to be her friend.

You sleep in the same bed w/o knocking boots.

You want her to date other guys...

So you can "understand" her better.

 

Huh.

 

Have you given her any hair or decorating tips yet?

 

Good Lord Child! All you need now are some matching end tables with chintz doilies & she'll start introducing you to her gay guy friends.

 

And before you start tooting your horn about unsuccessful romantic life -I'm a very happily married woman who pops on here now and again.

 

But YOU, claim to know what women want. Were you one at one time? Is that the source of your amazing knowledge base? Because I've got to tell you - your ideas are news to me. And last I checked, I've been female since birth.

 

As a woman, here's what I wanted (and got) in a man:

 

I want the beautiful simplistic honesty of men. I like that my husband very bluntly tells me "I'm mad because...." or "I want some sex now" without any of the guessing games we females often play.

 

I like that he's a little scruffy, yells at the TV when football is on, breaks a lot of things when he tries to fix them, would never try to be my closest girlfriend or "understand" me any more than a husband should. I adore that he is a MAN. I like that he scratches his butt w/o embarassment, sometimes forgets to shave and whisker burns my cheeks, and thinks he's really done something cool when he catches his clothes on his feet before bed.

 

He's a nice, funny, sarcastic, uncomplicated, intelligent, macho man.

 

If you think women want another girlfriend for a boyfriend - you'd really better think again.

[elijahBailey]

I like everything you've written here New_Wife. Awesome articulation, especially this here....

 

As a woman, here's what I wanted (and got) in a man:

 

I want the beautiful simplistic honesty of men. I like that my husband very bluntly tells me "I'm mad because...." or "I want some sex now" without any of the guessing games we females often play.

 

I like that he's a little scruffy, yells at the TV when football is on, breaks a lot of things when he tries to fix them, would never try to be my closest girlfriend or "understand" me any more than a husband should. I adore that he is a MAN. I like that he scratches his butt w/o embarassment, sometimes forgets to shave and whisker burns my cheeks, and thinks he's really done something cool when he catches his clothes on his feet before bed.

 

Ain't some men just awesome.

[Outcast]

would never try to be my closest girlfriend or "understand" me any more than a husband should

 

I just don't enjoy the idea that men are lovable big dumb beasts who are incapable of philosophic thought or true understanding. I suppose there are men like that and I suppose it's fortunate for them that there are women who enjoy thinking of men as 'uncomplicated' (read simple-minded) and want one of those dumb critters around the house.

 

But there are men and women who are much more than that and to denigrate men by insinuating that having a complex brain is the province of the female or gay human is unfair and distasteful to me. Worse yet is to imply that being 'female' is something negative rather than perhaps something that men should aspire to. I happen to think that both men and women are improved by taking on a few characteristics once thought of as exclusively the province of the opposite gender.

[New_Wife]

I just don't enjoy the idea that men are lovable big dumb beasts who are incapable of philosophic thought or true understanding. I suppose there are men like that and I suppose it's fortunate for them that there are women who enjoy thinking of men as 'uncomplicated' (read simple-minded) and want one of those dumb critters around the house.

 

Since when did I say he was a beast or incapable of anything? Uncomplicated is wonderful. He has the freedom of thought and expression, not to mention the security in his beliefs to share it with me. He is an incredibly intelligent man, he's funny as all get out, and he just lets it all hang out there. He is more than capable of philosophic thought, but he doesn't run around trying to play Dr. Phil with me all the time - he asks what he wants to know, and tells me what he wants me to know.

 

There is nothing simple-minded about it. I think it takes twice the man to cleanly and cleary state what he thinks and feels, as opposed to one who insists on tap-dancing around every last issue, in the guise of displaying his "feminine side," when in fact he is just practicing passive-agressive avoidance of issues.

 

But there are men and women who are much more than that and to denigrate men by insinuating that having a complex brain is the province of the female or gay human is unfair and distasteful to me. Worse yet is to imply that being 'female' is something negative rather than perhaps something that men should aspire to. I happen to think that both men and women are improved by taking on a few characteristics once thought of as exclusively the province of the opposite gender.

 

I insinuated no such thing. I appreciate the complex interplay of male and female roles, and I think that if one of the players has taken on too much of the other's role - there is necessary disharmony. My husband would tell you that I overcomplicate things with emotion, don't see the big picture, shop compulsivly if not checked, take too long to get ready, and get pissy on my special time each month. His "manliness" balances me. He can always pull me off the ceiling when I'm in a tissy by simply breaking any issue down to it's purist form. If I wanted someone to coddle me and play emotional tag, I'd call a girlfriend. If I want someone to hand me my ass on a platter when it needs handing, I can always count on my husband.

 

But I stand by my original contention that any boy who plays these sorts of ridiculous mind-games with a woman is not yet a man, but a boy engaged in typically feminine overcomplicated emotional guerilla warfare.