I asked my fwb if he wanted to like hang out/hook up this week and he replied, nah.

[elaine567]

I don't really understand why so many in the face of rejection do not say "OK" and go looking for someone who does actually want them.
What is the point in hankering after a guy who made it perfectly clear he was not interested..
What part of "Nah" means Yes...?

[Blind-Sided]

15 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

I don't really understand why so many in the face of rejection do not say "OK" and go looking for someone who does actually want them.
What is the point in hankering after a guy who made it perfectly clear he was not interested..
What part of "Nah" means Yes...?

I agree.

It reminds me of the old movie "Wayne's World."  There was a girl chasing Wane.  He tells her they were never in a relationship, and that she is psycho.  But she still keeps coming back... with gifts. 

I think the real issue here is... is the same issue I had with one of my FWB situations.  The girl I was with built a "Relationship" in her head that never existed.  Our OP has done the same thing.  In her head... she is this guy's GF, when in reality... she was just entertainment to the guy.  In my case... I had to get my cousin involved (they were friends) to get her to back off.  That was the last FWB situation I let myself be in (I was 24 at the time) because I just didn't need the drama.

[salparadise]

1 hour ago, elaine567 said:

I don't really understand why so many in the face of rejection do not say "OK" and go looking for someone who does actually want them. What is the point in hankering after a guy who made it perfectly clear he was not interested.. What part of "Nah" means Yes...?

Women [many] are used to thinking of themselves as "the prize," infinitely desirable for their sexual allure, and therefore always being in the catbird seat. In this paradigm all men want them sexually, so they always have the option to do the choosing. In OP's scenario she hooked up with a hot-looking, desirable man, of course, and presumed that the option to continue as long as it suited her was naturally her's... after all, she owns the vagina. But this guy is not operating from a scarcity mindset. She did not represent a unique opportunity because as a hot-looking man, most women find him attractive and many will offer sex... no strings attached, and without him having to jump through hoops. 

We don't really know why he said "Nah" in that moment. Maybe he'd had sex an hour ago, or maybe he was just ready for something different after having hooked up with her a few times. OP is used to being the one to say, "Nah," not being on the receiving end of such a casual dismissal. 

Not that I'm one of those guys, but I had a similar experience a year ago... had a meetup set with a woman from a dating site, and she cancelled. I asked why. She gave some thin excuse and I just let it go. Then a week or two later she contacts me again and wants to meetup, saying she feels she made a mistake. I said okay and we had the meeting. She contacted me the next day wanting to set up a date-date for the weekend. This time I made a thin excuse; she was fairly attractive, but there was something about her that I found unappealing. So she went on still trying overcome objections and arrange the date. Finally I just told her, gently, that I wasn't interested. She was genuinely taken aback––it was like aslap in the face. She said she had NEVER had a man turn her down! This was her paradigm too.

One of several things I found unappealing was that she talked about having had a FWB arrangement with a guy who lived near her, which I presumed to be ongoing. I knew she didn't rise to my relationship threshold, but for some reason I didn't even care for easy sex. She was so used to being in the catbird seat that she could not conceive of being turned down. That was something of an eye opener for me.

[CaliforniaGirl]

9 hours ago, salparadise said:

Women [many] are used to thinking of themselves as "the prize," infinitely desirable for their sexual allure, and therefore always being in the catbird seat. In this paradigm all men want them sexually, so they always have the option to do the choosing. In OP's scenario she hooked up with a hot-looking, desirable man, of course, and presumed that the option to continue as long as it suited her was naturally her's... after all, she owns the vagina. But this guy is not operating from a scarcity mindset. She did not represent a unique opportunity because as a hot-looking man, most women find him attractive and many will offer sex... no strings attached, and without him having to jump through hoops. 

We don't really know why he said "Nah" in that moment. Maybe he'd had sex an hour ago, or maybe he was just ready for something different after having hooked up with her a few times. OP is used to being the one to say, "Nah," not being on the receiving end of such a casual dismissal. 

Not that I'm one of those guys, but I had a similar experience a year ago... had a meetup set with a woman from a dating site, and she cancelled. I asked why. She gave some thin excuse and I just let it go. Then a week or two later she contacts me again and wants to meetup, saying she feels she made a mistake. I said okay and we had the meeting. She contacted me the next day wanting to set up a date-date for the weekend. This time I made a thin excuse; she was fairly attractive, but there was something about her that I found unappealing. So she went on still trying overcome objections and arrange the date. Finally I just told her, gently, that I wasn't interested. She was genuinely taken aback––it was like aslap in the face. She said she had NEVER had a man turn her down! This was her paradigm too.

One of several things I found unappealing was that she talked about having had a FWB arrangement with a guy who lived near her, which I presumed to be ongoing. I knew she didn't rise to my relationship threshold, but for some reason I didn't even care for easy sex. She was so used to being in the catbird seat that she could not conceive of being turned down. That was something of an eye opener for me.

My guess is she only said that to save face. If she's only fairly attractive as you describe, and she goes for it even with guys who don't really want it (like what happened with you), she's been turned down at some point. Unless she just picks super thirsty guys.

Edited June 30, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[Roswell91]

10 hours ago, salparadise said:

Women [many] are used to thinking of themselves as "the prize," infinitely desirable for their sexual allure, and therefore always being in the catbird seat. In this paradigm all men want them sexually, so they always have the option to do the choosing. In OP's scenario she hooked up with a hot-looking, desirable man, of course, and presumed that the option to continue as long as it suited her was naturally her's... after all, she owns the vagina. But this guy is not operating from a scarcity mindset. She did not represent a unique opportunity because as a hot-looking man, most women find him attractive and many will offer sex... no strings attached, and without him having to jump through hoops. 

We don't really know why he said "Nah" in that moment. Maybe he'd had sex an hour ago, or maybe he was just ready for something different after having hooked up with her a few times. OP is used to being the one to say, "Nah," not being on the receiving end of such a casual dismissal. 

Not that I'm one of those guys, but I had a similar experience a year ago... had a meetup set with a woman from a dating site, and she cancelled. I asked why. She gave some thin excuse and I just let it go. Then a week or two later she contacts me again and wants to meetup, saying she feels she made a mistake. I said okay and we had the meeting. She contacted me the next day wanting to set up a date-date for the weekend. This time I made a thin excuse; she was fairly attractive, but there was something about her that I found unappealing. So she went on still trying overcome objections and arrange the date. Finally I just told her, gently, that I wasn't interested. She was genuinely taken aback––it was like aslap in the face. She said she had NEVER had a man turn her down! This was her paradigm too.

One of several things I found unappealing was that she talked about having had a FWB arrangement with a guy who lived near her, which I presumed to be ongoing. I knew she didn't rise to my relationship threshold, but for some reason I didn't even care for easy sex. She was so used to being in the catbird seat that she could not conceive of being turned down. That was something of an eye opener for me.

She was not attractive enough in other words. Because according to some men, if the woman is really attractive, nothing else matters 😂

[salparadise]

6 hours ago, Roswell91 said:

She was not attractive enough in other words. Because according to some men, if the woman is really attractive, nothing else matters

With some, perhaps. For me it's a part of the equation. And, my definition of attractive is probably not conventional either. For me, mannerisms, speech, attitude, intelligence, social graces, etc. all influence attraction. Whether she was trying to save face as @CaliforniaGirl posits, or literally has never been turned down (which I also think is a stretch), the point is that she's used to being the one doing the accepting or rejecting. She felt she was doing me a big favor by giving me a second look after initially cancelling, and that I should feel privileged. This attitude of imperiousness is definitely not attractive, but it's fairly prevalent for conventionally attractive women (hotties). It's a power trip of sorts, not unlike a lot of men who have overblown egos and sense of entitlement. 

[Roswell91]

1 hour ago, salparadise said:

With some, perhaps. For me it's a part of the equation. And, my definition of attractive is probably not conventional either. For me, mannerisms, speech, attitude, intelligence, social graces, etc. all influence attraction. Whether she was trying to save face as @CaliforniaGirl posits, or literally has never been turned down (which I also think is a stretch), the point is that she's used to being the one doing the accepting or rejecting. She felt she was doing me a big favor by giving me a second look after initially cancelling, and that I should feel privileged. This attitude of imperiousness is definitely not attractive, but it's fairly prevalent for conventionally attractive women (hotties). It's a power trip of sorts, not unlike a lot of men who have overblown egos and sense of entitlement. 

So what did you not like about her. Or was it that you wanted to turn her down because of her sense of entitlement?

[salparadise]

25 minutes ago, Roswell91 said:

So what did you not like about her. Or was it that you wanted to turn her down because of her sense of entitlement?

No one thing, more a combination that diminished the attraction; I knew that she was mercurial, her speech was unrefined, too much disclosure for a first meeting... she told me about her fwb, what was that about? My previous girlfriend was highly educated and always knew what to say and not to say, which is attractive. And I guess the attitude that I was a sure thing, and the choice was all hers may have contributed. It was an overall feeling rather than a specific reason.

Edited June 30, 2020 by salparadise

[Roswell91]

19 minutes ago, salparadise said:

No one thing, more a combination that diminished the attraction; I knew that she was mercurial, her speech was unrefined, too much disclosure for a first meeting... she told me about her fwb, what was that about? My previous girlfriend was highly educated and always knew what to say and not to say, which is attractive. And I guess the attitude that I was a sure thing, and the choice was all hers may have contributed. It was an overall feeling rather than a specific reason.

Oh i see.

That is weird her telling you about her fwb while shes on a date with you lol 🤔. So she wanted two men? 

 

 

[salparadise]

1 hour ago, Roswell91 said:

Oh i see.

That is weird her telling you about her fwb while shes on a date with you lol 🤔. So she wanted two men? 

She didn’t say that, of course. I assume she was looking to upgrade to relationship and quit the fwb. But with someone as cavalier and entitled as she seemed to be I think I’d always be wondering. And he lived within walking distance, I was an hour away. Not my idea of normalcy. 

[salparadise]

@Roswell91

You seem intrigued  by this presumption- what are your thoughts as notion that women are so in control of the process that they’d be aghast if they were ever to be turned down? I guess in the traditional way they’d never initiate, so they’d never risk rejection. But they might fail to attract the pursuit of the one they wanted. It’s a transitional time between customs I guess. I wonder if most women would be devastated to be rejected. 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

I dont mind FwB until she starts showing up in Pajamas, then its like OK time to move on

[Cookiesandough]

17 minutes ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

I dont mind FwB until she starts showing up in Pajamas, then its like OK time to move on

Haha. I’m so bummed they took away the laugh reaction. 

[Roswell91]

1 hour ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

I dont mind FwB until she starts showing up in Pajamas, then its like OK time to move on

LOOL what 

[Roswell91]

1 hour ago, Cookiesandough said:

Haha. I’m so bummed they took away the laugh reaction. 

 

1 hour ago, Cookiesandough said:

Haha. I’m so bummed they took away the laugh reaction. 

 

2 hours ago, salparadise said:

@Roswell91

You seem intrigued  by this presumption- what are your thoughts as notion that women are so in control of the process that they’d be aghast if they were ever to be turned down? I guess in the traditional way they’d never initiate, so they’d never risk rejection. But they might fail to attract the pursuit of the one they wanted. It’s a transitional time between customs I guess. I wonder if most women would be devastated to be rejected. 

I've  seen women be devastated over rejection..in fact taking years and years to get over it.. it effecting  their mental health.

Men in contrast seem to get over it pretty quickly and its on to the next. But who knows whats going on behind closed doors. I find there to be more entitled men then women for sure. 

But this woman you speak of was silly to assume you would want to hear about a fwb. 

[salparadise]

She may have thought I was so liberal and nonjudgmental that it would okay, or maybe she really didn’t give a flip what I thought. But to me it was repulsive on many levels. 
 

Men are just expected to act like they’re over it in an instant. I’m not talking about just a hookup, but something you’re invested in. It’s tough. It took me 1 1/2 or 2 years to equilibrate after my last relationship. 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

1 hour ago, Roswell91 said:

LOOL what 

Standards are important; sure personality is important, but so are looks and putting effort into how you look says a lot... Putting no effort says a lot as well.

[Roswell91]

7 minutes ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

Standards are important; sure personality is important, but so are looks and putting effort into how you look says a lot... Putting no effort says a lot as well.

Effort in what way. 

Fwb shouldnt need to dress up for u 😂. Standards in a fwb lol

Edited June 30, 2020 by Roswell91

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

1 minute ago, Roswell91 said:

Effort in what way. 

Fwb shouldnt need to dress up for u 😂. Standards in a fwb lol

See, this is the problem with marriage, it allows the woman to get comfortable and when she gets comfortable, she stops representing herself the way she initially did and starts doing things of comfort like showing up in pajamas, etc... Men also do things of comfort, i'm sure y'all could produce a list of things in short order, but that comfort is not good... Should never be comfortable with your partner like that, marriage or fwb, you show that person respect because they have decided to share their time with you... This availability for you to just have zero standards with somebody you are intimate with is interesting.

[Weezy1973]

10 minutes ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

See, this is the problem with marriage, it allows the woman to get comfortable and when she gets comfortable, she stops representing herself the way she initially did and starts doing things of comfort like showing up in pajamas, etc... Men also do things of comfort, i'm sure y'all could produce a list of things in short order, but that comfort is not good... Should never be comfortable with your partner like that, marriage or fwb, you show that person respect because they have decided to share their time with you... This availability for you to just have zero standards with somebody you are intimate with is interesting.

I’d actually say this is the great thing about marriage. You have someone who loves and accepts you, even in your pajamas! And when you fart. Because people do that. So do dogs.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Weezy1973

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

13 minutes ago, Weezy1973 said:

. You have someone who loves and accepts you

That is the problem, love... Love can be great, until you are on the wrong side of love.. You don't get to choose when those times happen, yet you'll be punished for it all the same. 

Also, maybe you don't have somebody loves and accepts you, maybe you have somebody who wants to spend your money and change you?

Comfort allows you to stray outside of the idea of marriage and unfortunately, with assets being tied up the way they are in marriage, you cannot afford to have miscommunications, certainly as a man when the court is inherently out of your favor.

Marriage is no good, this whole idea of tying our assets together is ridiculous

[CaliforniaGirl]

6 hours ago, salparadise said:

She didn’t say that, of course. I assume she was looking to upgrade to relationship and quit the fwb. But with someone as cavalier and entitled as she seemed to be I think I’d always be wondering. And he lived within walking distance, I was an hour away. Not my idea of normalcy. 

I feel like if a woman wanted to have a real relationship she would not mention the FWB at all. Any woman knows that this automatically will "diminish" here girlfriendability in some men's eyes. She may have just wanted a backup.

[CaliforniaGirl]

26 minutes ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

That is the problem, love... Love can be great, until you are on the wrong side of love.. You don't get to choose when those times happen, yet you'll be punished for it all the same. 

Also, maybe you don't have somebody loves and accepts you, maybe you have somebody who wants to spend your money and change you?

Comfort allows you to stray outside of the idea of marriage and unfortunately, with assets being tied up the way they are in marriage, you cannot afford to have miscommunications, certainly as a man when the court is inherently out of your favor.

Marriage is no good, this whole idea of tying our assets together is ridiculous

IMO, this is why people are waiting longer and are more "choosy," which tends to irritate some people, but which is better? Just go for it if you basically get along and you have the butterflies for a few months, then end up like your description ^ here? Or try harder for a good union in the first place?

I think waiting is smarter. Not waiting until a specific time or age, but until you KNOW you're both ready, in every way. Financially, emotionally, intellectually.

But since divorce was made easier, about 50 years ago, there have been big growing pains, a grass is greener situation. Ergo, lots of divorce. People have been continuing to be pushed by society or by other people in general, telling them they'd better hurry up, time's waiting, "what about children" (whether the couple really wants them or not), and so on. So you get the worst of both worlds: a hurried union, and then mutual contempt and divorce.

But it will straighten out. It already is. Divorce is on the decline, actually - as a percentage, not total divorces. (The former means fewer people who get married get divorced; the latter could just be construed as, well, if there are fewer marriages, of course by the numbers, there have to be fewer divorces. But it's the former.) I feel like that's because we're getting over that hump and taking Step 1 (are you really ready? Or are you just both bowing to pressure?) a little more seriously. This is most true of Gen Y.

JMO.

Tying assets together is a necessity. One person can put half of what she or he makes into a house, for instance, but if not on the deed, he or she loses all of that. Even unmarrieds who live together often tie their assets together, if it's a long-term situation, and especially if something like a house is involved.

My father and mother divorced when I was little, and my father started dating my stepmother - or, I call her my stepmother. They actually didn't marry for 25 years. But yes, they had one another's name on everything, because what if one of them died and the kids contested or something? They trusted eachother, but legalities can be a huge problem when any assets are involved. He actually did marry her, after 25 years, because he was dying and he was afraid of what would happen to their place and so on. The issue wasn't from my side of the family, we never threatened anything like that, but apparently her sisters and mother were a potential problem.

He was smart. They had a courthouse wedding, I think. (I wasn't there, I lived halfway across the country at the time.) It was the smartest thing to do. He did die about three years later and we were all relieved that my stepmother was able to continue the lifestyle they'd had, though she was of course heartbroken.

[CaliforniaGirl]

1 hour ago, CAPSLOCK BANDIT said:

See, this is the problem with marriage, it allows the woman to get comfortable and when she gets comfortable, she stops representing herself the way she initially did and starts doing things of comfort like showing up in pajamas, etc... Men also do things of comfort, i'm sure y'all could produce a list of things in short order, but that comfort is not good... Should never be comfortable with your partner like that, marriage or fwb, you show that person respect because they have decided to share their time with you... This availability for you to just have zero standards with somebody you are intimate with is interesting.

Yes, men too. It's not a woman thing by far.

The romance can turn off like a shut faucet once the ring is on, sitting in underwear playing video games replaces dressed up and smelling awesome, foreplay is not always epic anymore, and just as many men as women get fat; slightly more men than women, actually, at least in the U.S.

But this can happen without marriage. Given human nature - we can't be "on" all the time, and yes, we are a fat nation - it WILL happen way more often than not, whether married or not.

But...of course you should be comfortable with your partner. You should know that when you aren't pulling out every single stop, she'll still love you, just because you're you, and becuase the two of you have had so many experiences together and shared so much. This isn't a romcom. It's real life. You're supposed to want to be together even when you aren't both sparkiling and having a great hair day.

Again...this isn't a marriage thing exclusively. And yes, we should try to stay attractive for our partner. And we should not take one another for granted - "he makes the money, I'll just not care about continuing to further my career;" "she 'likes' doing the laundry and dishes and cooking, that's a woman thing, let her do it. I won't say that, of course. That would be very uncool. I'll just sit here not doing it until she either gets angry, at which time I can accuse her of being a nag, or preferably, until she just does it herself. Again."

And yes, people should try to stay in shape. This, again, is a larger problem than marriage, way larger. And yes, we should try to look and smell nice for our partner. I love getting dressed to go out, even if it's just a walk through town. I'm not wearing a dress or anything but I put on a super-cute top, nice dark jeans, my cute shoes and I do my hair and makeup a little bit. Not opera-night hair and makeup but just...nice. But so do most people I know who are coupled - they aren't Instagram-ready every day (but who is?) - however, they can and do "clean up nicely" on occasion. People like to feel good about themselves and for many, being fresh and clean and "put together" can be part of that. For both men and women.

BUT a little relaxing, less makeup, the guy not bringing flowers or whatever every single week...that's just the maturation of a relationship, a normal progression from "I'd better be my absolute best or nobody will ever love me" to, "we love eachother when we're at our best, and we also are there for one another when real life happens."

Again...JMO.

Edited June 30, 2020 by CaliforniaGirl

[CaliforniaGirl]

1 hour ago, Roswell91 said:

Effort in what way. 

Fwb shouldnt need to dress up for u 😂. Standards in a fwb lol

Cosigned.

I mean...come on.

It's a dip in the pool and then off you go. You're both supposed to dress for the opera beforehand? Meh. Sweats are fine. They're coming off soon anyway.

I think when you agree to a FWB situation the other person isn't going to pull out the same stops as he or she would while dating, not by a long shot. At least from such situations I've known or heard about. In FWB, which is more often FB (a checkin when that itch is there, not friends who hang out all the time - just most of the time that I've seen), you aren't important enough to her for her to go crazy on making an amazing impression.