Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dating - Any Objective Guidelines?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I think you're making much too big a deal about dating.

I think dating is a big deal. Keep in mind that dating is the last step--not the first--in the process of choosing a partner. After dating comes sex and a mature relationship.

I know a few people who treat dating as the first step--and they suffer for it. They waste a lot of precious time, money, and energy on the wrong people, because they didn't bother to sit down and think about what kind of person is worth dating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

manavmehta is right. You should not approach a stranger simply because she is physically attractive -- especially when you are only doing so with the ultimate goal of romantic involvement. To do so is to treat a woman like a piece of meat, even if she doesn't realize it (or wants you to!)

A man who is looking for romance puts himself in the position of having exposure to meet and get to know women. That means joining groups, clubs, and generally putting oneself in social situations. Through those acquaintences, one gets to know the women one comes in contact with, and can observe qualities in them which may make them attractive, and thus give the man a reason beyond physical appearance to have some romantic thoughts. A good tip here is to put oneself in social situations likely to yield the right kind of women -- like this forum, my IRC channel, or OCON.

People are both physical bodies and mental contents. Both must be considered as an integrated whole. I'm not saying that someone with good premises but who is physically unattractive should be your target, but that both body & mind should be considered in the question "should I ask her out?"

To answer the question: can you look at someone and gauge their premises -- yes, to a certain extent, as has already been discussed on the thread where the women were trading makeup secrets and such. A well-dressed and groomed presentation says something about how the person thinks of themself, and their body language can tell you if they mean it or not. But there's no way to know from physical appearance if its someone you should date or not -- you need to also evaluate their premises and sense of life, which can only come through conversation and observation.

Note that it doesn't have to be direct conversation -- you can always evaluate people on what they say to others, especially in public.

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say - if you find a woman physically attractive, then that is a cue that you need to get out there and talk to her.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. You don't need to talk to her. But if you want to find a romantic partner, I suggest that you begin first by talking to the girls who you find physically attractive. After all, you're looking for a lover, someone to have sex with. You're not looking for a debate partner.

But is it possible to feel physical attraction for someone even before you know anything about them personally?

What I mean, more specifically, is that you should be at least mildly physically aroused by the woman. You have a positive sensual experience when you look at her body. You should be able to envision yourself having sex with her.

Keep in mind, though, that she is both body and soul. You should be attracted in some way to both aspects before asking her out on a date. I'm certainly not advocating that you choose a woman based solely on her looks. What I am saying is that using looks as the initial criteria is the easiest (and I think most logical) way to begin the process of finding a romantic partner. After all, you're looking for someone to have sex with.

And, also, I'm not saying that, before asking a girl out, you need to be drooling over her body or her intelligence. You simply need to find her specially appealing. She needs to be the woman you are currently most interested in. If she's right for you, her increasing value will have a profound, positive impact on your emotions.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do not be afraid to talk to an attractive woman that you feel something positive for, while on the bus, subway, in the park, at the coffee shop, at the bookstore, etc.

Have the attitude that it is a beautiful day, that life is wonderful, that you found something specific in the culture or in the media very interesting, for good or bad, and relate it to her. Most people are opinionated. It will be easy to go from there.

Also remember, that people have bad days, and bad moods, don't take it personally. However, there are misanthropes. But it's simple with a few questions to figure out the misanthropes.

Remember that Donald Trump fired Bren last week for claiming that his weakness is that he is afraid to take risks. The worst thing that could happen is that you'll get slapped in the face. (-:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

After all, you're looking for a lover, someone to have sex with. You're not looking for a debate partner.

...

This statement suggests to me that you think there is a soul/body dichotomy involved in romantic love. Maybe that is not how you intended it. If you didn't, I apologize. I don't believe in such a dichotomy. Which is why I don't distinguish between a lover and a debate partner. The ideal lover would also be the ideal debate partner (or soulmate or whatever else you want to call it). They are one and the same thing, not conflicting goals in the course of finding romantic love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement suggests to me that you think there is a soul/body dichotomy involved in romantic love.

I don't think that. I reject the soul/body dichotomy.

My statement was intended to help convey the idea that there is a particular, defining aspect of a romantic relationship which must be recognized: SEX. A romantic relationship is a sex-based relationship. If you are looking for a romantic partner, then of course you'll also want an intelligent woman to talk to. But the defining element of this relationship, the part that separates it from other similar kinds of relationships, is that you have sex with this person. You share a romantic love with her.

I urge you to recognize this defining element. Doing so will save you a lot of time, money, energy, and heartache in your pursuit of a lover.

I don't distinguish between a lover and a debate partner. The ideal lover would also be the ideal debate partner (or soulmate or whatever else you want to call it). They are one and the same thing, not conflicting goals in the course of finding romantic love.

Do you believe that there is a woman out there who is meant for you?

I ask because you seem to have a sense of romantic destiny--as if it's only a matter of time before you find "the one." You use terms like "ideal lover" and "soulmate." I'm not sure what you mean by these.

I hope that by "ideal" you mean a moral ideal. You want to find a woman who is of the highest moral character. Then comes any other essential traits--physical or intellectual--that you require.

When I was searching for a lover, I was not looking for the ideal love-maker or the ideal conversationalist. I was looking for a pretty woman who was honest and took thinking seriously. She had to like Ayn Rand and be willing to listen to my philosophical ramblings. And she had to be comfortable with having sex on a regular basis. This was my ideal.

Other qualities that I find incredibly sexy (such as red hair and Objectivist) were considered optional, due to their rarity and nonessential nature. I was interested in finding a good lover, not an embodiment of my personal fantasy. Besides, I found that at least one of those aspects could be compensated for with hair dye.

What I'm saying is that you should sit down and determine what are the essential qualities that you need in a woman. Then decide whether you can realistically expect to find such a woman. And once you have a realistic goal, go out and hunt for her.

And remember: you only have so much time in this life to find a woman. Your goal should keep in context the amount of time you have to achieve it. If you expect to find a Dagny Taggart in this lifetime, you may die while still in the dating mode. But if you expect to find a woman of similar moral character as Dagny, then you have just improved your chances enormously.

Good luck. I hope you find a good woman.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you fall in love with a talking dog? Not me...

What about someone in a coma? Don't think so...

Therefore there is no reason to reject a soul/body dichotomy.

Your rejection of the body is not any better than a rejection of the soul. Your girlfriend/boyfriend would not be happy if you thought she was ugly, but you remained with her because she was smart or you had alot in common. Your partner would figure this out pretty quickly I would think. I can pretty much guarantee this.

If you want to read about this. There is a good book called The Unbearable Lightness of Being. It is about relationships. It is a good book. You should read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you fall in love with a talking dog? Not me...

What about someone in a coma? Don't think so...

Therefore there is no reason to reject a soul/body dichotomy.

You have no idea what "dichotomy" means. A dichotomy is a false alternative; that something is either one thing or another. The mind/body dichotomy is the idea that a person is either defined by their physical body, OR by their consciousness.

To reject a dichotomy, one poses a third alternative. In this case, we reject it by defining a person as being the integrated whole of BOTH body and mind (consciousness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you believe that there is a woman out there who is meant for you?

I ask because you seem to have a sense of romantic destiny--as if it's only a matter of time before you find "the one." You use terms like "ideal lover" and "soulmate." I'm not sure what you mean by these.

I don't believe in a pre-destined lover being out there for me. I used the terms "ideal lover" or "soulmate" to mean the person who embodies my highest values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that there is an ideal lover for all of us out there. I don't believe that someone put him/her there for me. But I do believe that somewhere on this earth, even in my large city, there is someone that is the most like me. The reason is because I exist--why can't this imaginary person? At this point it is arbitrary but so is the idea that there isn't. It's like Dagny and Galt; there is someone who is on the same road as me, and driving the same "car", with the same power of "engine" out there for me ... I just got to make sure I don't die before I get to the destination where we will inevitably meet.

This doesn't mean that I can't fall in love in the meantime. Yes, of course, once I'm in love, I must treat the relationship as if I've found this "Formula One" driver already.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry for lowering the collective iq...

"The ideal lover would also be the ideal debate partner (or soulmate or whatever else you want to call it)."

I interpreted that as saying that he thought he was looking for someone that was not physically attractive, only smart.

The book by Kundera is still about this regardless of the fact that I misunderstood the meaning of dichotemy... I need to read the whole thread(context) before I deduce the meaning of a word from the context of a post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that there is an ideal lover for all of us out there.  I don't believe that someone put him/her there for me.  But I do believe that somewhere on this earth, even in my large city, there is someone that is the most like me.

Why do you want to spend your life searching for this one imaginary person? Why focus your romantic life around the pursuit of a single fantasy girl?

And what makes you so certain you'll find this one person? How do you even know that you'll recognize her if you cross paths? And how do you know she'll be available when you finally catch up with her?

Can you even fathom the incredible unlikelihood of you finding the one woman in the world who is "most like you?" What does that even mean?

Americo, ideal does not mean "one." In her fictional stories Ayn Rand created many different men whom she considered to be ideal. I hope you will consider that fact and re-evaluate your notion of ideal.

Is your goal to find one imaginary person? Or is it to build, from the ground up, a romantic relationship with a good, desirable woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a woman is very young, she's able to introspect, examine her own nature for about five seconds, and immediately the entire issue of romantic love becomes abundantly clear to her.

You've got to be kidding. Are these space women you're talking about? Most women (or men for that matter) don't even know how to introspect, and it takes a lot more than five seconds to understand romantic love. It took me years of introspection, and I have yet to meet another woman who understands it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a woman is very young, she's able to introspect, examine her own nature for about five seconds, and immediately the entire issue of romantic love becomes abundantly clear to her.

You've got to be kidding. Are these space women you're talking about? Most women (or men for that matter) don't even know how to introspect, and it takes a lot more than five seconds to understand romantic love. It took me years of introspection, and I have yet to meet another woman who understands it.

My statement is somewhat of a humorous exaggeration, but I don't think the basic message is at all controversial: Women tend to understand the dynamics of romance much more easily and naturally than men do.

One does not need to undergo any lengthy self-examination in order to know what one likes and responds to. A person can spend years discovering the meaning and implications of certain emotions, but emotions as such don't require any special knowledge for their possessor to be aware of them. Feelings are simply felt — experienced as axioms within a person's consciousness, so to speak.

Of course, emotions can be repressed (for any number of reasons), or a person may be so out of touch with himself that his emotions are experienced as an incoherent mess. Such a person may well have to take several years to introspect and rediscover himself in this way. But this is a psychological problem; it doesn't affect the nature of emotions or the way they're experienced in a healthy, unblocked consciousness.

Romance is all about hero-worship, which is part of a woman's nature and psychology, not a man's. If one wants to understand romantic love, one begins here: with an inquiry into the nature of woman and her unique emotional needs — a task astronomically more easily accomplished by a woman than a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you want to spend your life searching for this one imaginary person? Why focus your romantic life around the pursuit of a single fantasy girl?

And what makes you so certain you'll find this one person? How do you even know that you'll recognize her if you cross paths? And how do you know she'll be available when you finally catch up with her?

Can you even fathom the incredible unlikelihood of you finding the one woman in the world who is "most like you?" What does that even mean?

Americo, ideal does not mean "one." In her fictional stories Ayn Rand created many different men whom she considered to be ideal. I hope you will consider that fact and re-evaluate your notion of ideal.

Is your goal to find one imaginary person? Or is it to build, from the ground up, a romantic relationship with a good, desirable woman?

Yes, just as their is a career that fits me the most, so there is person in this world, given every person that exists, like me. The idea of most like me is an absolute because there are a finite number of people and as a human I can judge them. Now, even if I meet this MAN and he is not available, I still have met this man. Maybe we will only have a few hours of conversation. But to find him is immensly rewarding and reinforcing. So he has to go back to his lover ... but I found him!

Maybe I will have to settle in the future. But the idea of the most compatible to me is always valid ... even in a communist dicatorship. I am not dropping context.

I know what ideal means. Have you read Binswanger's essay "The Possible Dream" ?

It's not a matter of finding this person, it's the principle that this person must exist, i.e., the human being living on this earth that is most like me.

I will spend my life searching for this person. And even if I meet someone who I fall in love with, and never meet this "ideal" that you think I'm dreaming of, that person will be the best.

Even when Dagny was with Francisco, and later Rearden, she still felt that there was something better waiting for her ... it did not diminish the love that she earned with the previous two men.

There is a difference about Galt: 100% certainty.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, emotions can be repressed (for any number of reasons), or a person may be so out of touch with himself that his emotions are experienced as an incoherent mess. Such a person may well have to take several years to introspect and rediscover himself in this way. But this is a psychological problem; it doesn't affect the nature of emotions or the way they're experienced in a healthy, unblocked consciousness.

Romance is all about hero-worship, which is part of a woman's nature and psychology, not a man's. If one wants to understand romantic love, one begins here: with an inquiry into the nature of woman and her unique emotional needs — a task astronomically more easily accomplished by a woman than a man.

I agree that hero worship is part of a woman's nature, and that it is easier for her to understand. But seriously, how many people have healthy, coherent emotions or understand where emotions come from? Even Objectivists are often missing this, or we wouldn't have so much discussion about it.

To use the example from your web page. I think I know the young man to whom you refer. He's a wonderful person. He's introspective, honest, and intelligent. He has a very good understanding of Objectivism - one of the most integrated people I've met. I was very excited to meet his fiancee. When I met her I asked her what she loved about him, and I expected her to say something about his morality and intelligence. Instead she giggled and said "I don't know." I was horrified. I hoped that she was just saying that because she thought it too intimate a question. I asked her about how she met him. She said she had heard about him and wasn't interested, but when she saw him, she immediately introduced herself. So she married him because he was "cute"? She also married him right after finishing college and getting her first job. At a time when she was growing and changing a lot personally, she had the added stress of a lifestyle change in her personal life (marriage). With all this change, she was overwhelmed. No wonder she suddenly found herself having strong emotions of confusion and resentment. She said she had no idea why she felt that way, and I believe her. Both of them were understandably traumatized by the whole ordeal.

I could come up with many other examples of course, but the fact of the matter is I don't think women by their nature understand femininity. I think most people in general don't understand their emotions and they don't believe that their emotions can be understood. Assuming that women inherently understand themselves can lead to devastating disappointment for both parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the most crucial thing you should look for in a potential romantic partner is romantic interest in you.

Because you say this in regards to the "initial first conversation", I'm in complete disagreance with you here Kevin. To me, this suggests that when you first meet a woman, that if she doesn't have initial intersted in you right from the start...that she never will. This also suggests that you should be interested in dating only those who are interested in you....a bit too passive for me, and having played by those rules, I got burned every time. The thing is, you CAN create romantic interest in yourself by your words and actions. At least you said your statement wasn't a garuantee...

Introduce yourself. Ask her some basic questions first: name, occupation, interests. DO NOT ask whether she has a boyfriend. At this point you don't care if she has one. That's her problem right now. Not yours.
I wouldn't suggest doing any of these things, unless of course you intend to hire her for a job. You can have a ten minute conversation with a girl who you are attracted to and never ask her her name once.

Now you may need to have multiple conversations with her before you know whether you want to date her. Arrange future meetings where you can talk further. Get her phone number and call her. Ask her more difficult questions. Is she religious? Does she have political beliefs? Has she read Ayn Rand? Ask her exactly what you want to know about her. If you disagree about something very important to you, then settle the matter before asking her out.

ask her difficult questions? When you first start dating a girl, she's interested in having fun and hopefully you'll be building up her comfort level with you. This is NOT done by asking her difficult questions....

I think dating is a big deal. Keep in mind that dating is the last step--not the first--in the process of choosing a partner. After dating comes sex and a mature relationship.
Disagree. I think it's the first important step in choosing a partner. Are you suggesting that any person you date has a high probability that you'll end up marrying them? I think that's a real backwards way of going about it. Dating, to me, is where you get to find out about the other person, and make judgements about whether or not you want to continue going out on dates and finding more about them in the interest of possibly having a more substantive relationship. You can't possibly know all things about a person that you want to gauge in relation to whether or not they'd make a great partner before you go out with them on a date.

I know a few people who treat dating as the first step--and they suffer for it. They waste a lot of precious time, money, and energy on the wrong people, because they didn't bother to sit down and think about what kind of person is worth dating.

Again, it's the first important step, but the important part is to not bring any emotion into it at the start. That's where people get burned badly...it is these people who never question or find out about the other persons' values until that person finally does something that contradicts what they believe in, which is often after an emotional bond is created.

Sitting down and THINKING about what kind of person is worth dating does NOT help you get to know the other person. That's completely backwards, friend. How do you know a person is worth dating BEFORE you've dated them? Dating, as a natural process of forming romantic relationships, also brings in the aspect of time, money, and energy. However, there's no way to get around these things...except maaaaybe using online dating services like E-Harmony.

What I am saying is that using looks as the initial criteria is the easiest (and I think most logical) way to begin the process of finding a romantic partner.
YES! Thank-you. How else do you start, if not at looks? A hideous woman with the right values is just as unappealing to me (romantically) as a gorgeous woman with the wrong ones. Looks and appearance are very important when it comes to picking who might be worthy of dating you.

And remember: you only have so much time in this life to find a woman. Your goal should keep in context the amount of time you have to achieve it. If you expect to find a Dagny Taggart in this lifetime, you may die while still in the dating mode. But if you expect to find a woman of similar moral character as Dagny, then you have just improved your chances enormously.

This is a really important bit that I like. But I dont' think it says enough. I think that you should add that one also needs to realize that they might never find someone compatible with themselves, and that's ok...the thing is to never sacrifice your convictions and values for lesser ones. I've come to terms that I might never marry, and I'm perfectly comfortable with it. But I'm also not sitting and thinking about women; instead i'm out there meeting them. I'm just getting over my whole "paralysis of analysis" stage.

So much thinking about this topic and so little doing.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dating, to me, is where you get to find out about the other person, and make judgements about whether or not you want to continue

No, that's called "acquaintenceship" and "friendship". Dating is after.

You can't possibly know all things about a person that you want to gauge in relation to whether or not they'd make a great partner before you go out with them on a date.

No one said all. We said you should have a really good idea that there is a good chance it'll work out between you before you start dating.

Again, it's the first important step, but the important part is to not bring any emotion into it at the start.
Then it isn't "dating". Dating involves romance, and thus by definition, emotion. There is no such thing as emotionless romance.

How do you know a person is worth dating BEFORE you've dated them?

The same way you do every other person you DON'T date. Do you date everybody you meet just to find out if they're worth being your friend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's called "acquaintenceship" and "friendship".  Dating is after.
Right, but when you go out on a date, it's with someone you've made an acqaintanceship with.....through an intial interaction with that person. It's not common you can ask a person you've never met or talked with out on a date. They may be your friend already which changes things quite a bit, because there is no need to find out about this person. If they are your friend, you are already fairly compatible. However, I honestly can't think of anyone I've ever met, been friends with, or been acqauintances with, who told me that they were friends with a woman for along time, and then they mutually decided to pursue a romantic relationship. I won't deny that it can't happen, but when you tell a girl that "yes, we've been friends for a long time, but I want to pursue something romantic with you" would appear to her that you've had these intentions all along, a bit devious from her point of view. It appears that you are married, but to whoever else has tried this and succeded, do let me know how it worked out. I'd be interested in hearing about it and the process you took. (or maybe this happened with you Tom?)

No one said all.  We said you should have a really good idea that there is a good chance it'll work out between you before you start dating.

Again, I keep getting this idea that you think the only people one can date are those who are already friends. But how would you decide whether or not a strong friendship you've built with another woman is worth sacrificing for the 'chance' that she may accept your advances towards a romantic relationship versus the same close friend rejecting your desire to become romantically involved with them and thus ruining your friendship? Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on Blind Dates. I"ve been on a few myself. I've never ended up becoming romantically involved with any of them, but I have become really close friends with one. But I guess you'll completely reject the idea of blind dates, for one reason or another.

Then it isn't "dating".  Dating involves romance, and thus by definition, emotion.  There is no such thing as emotionless romance.
My definition of dating is quite different from yours, or so it appears. When I first start dating a girl, it is an open, non-exclusive date....I can and do go out on dates with a few different girls at the same time. I'm emotionlessly dating two girls right now. And all I'm doing is finding out what these girls are about....thier values, thier passions in life, if they're even passionate about life itself, if they believe in god, thier values on honesty....et al....

The same way you do every other person you DON'T date.  Do you date everybody you meet just to find out if they're worth being your friend?

dating is for people i could potentially have a romantic interest in....hanging out is for people I wouldn't. The first, and most logical starting point for dating is appearance and looks. Am I attracted to her? If so, then that's a good start. If not...then I either do not ask, or I've already found that they're interesting enough to hang out. Why should one even think about having a romantic relationship with someone they're not even attracted to? That happened to me twice before I even got into Objectivism...and thier appearance grew on me as I become more used to seeing them....but there was no initial attraction... Physical beauty is important to me and it's a bit selfish, no? However, going back to how I begin social relatinships, I start with the idea that nothing is garuanteed....friendships, acqaintanceships, girlfriend, wife....but I only find out how I value a person through social interaction. I know the values I look for in a romantic partner, and they're the things I look for, try to pick out in conversations, when I'm out on a date with another woman.

I don't date everyone I meet. More often becuase they're unintresting or they say things that I particularly disagree with. For example "I'm gonig to Bible camp this weekend, what are you doing?". But how could you date everyone you meet? Not enough time. What I do, however, is I ask girls that I'm attracted to out to lunch or to late night cups of tea, and simply find out about them and deciding whether they would warrant me seeing them again. About half the time I never see them again because of, as mentioned before, things they say that sound of alarm bells (though I do tell them that it was nice to hang with them, but that we're not right for each other, but maybe I'll see you around)....most of the other time they turn into either acquaintances who I will either invite out in larger groups (because they have a great sense of humour, a jovial disposition....) OR really close friends over a period of time. And a dozen or so times over the last year have I met someone that just blows my mind and we end up dating openly for a little while to gain a stronger understanding of who they are, and sometimes that leads to a closed, exclusive, and very romantic relationship. Case in point, these two girls I'm openly dating right now: One girl really loves Ayn Rands works, but knows very little about Objectivism (but has an interest in learning more about it)....the other is passionate about her work and studies, focused on creating a future for herself, doesn't believe in mysticism, and is a fairly rational person....though has never read any of Rands works, but has heard OF Atlas Shrugged...and of Rand herself. I've got no emotional interest invested in them at this time. How do I choose which one I will pursue a romantic and exclusive relationship with? Well....that's why I'm dating them....to find out if they even merit being in that type of relationship with me. Based on a certain relocation I will be going through in the next three months...I may decide that I want to leave things open during this time and get through my transition first with work and my own life before I decide I'm ready to return to dating (with them, or anyone else for that matter).

I was talking about this with my roomate and he made an interesting point: If you value tasty foods and will only eat tasty foods, how do you know a particular food is tasty or not without having tried it? How do you know all about a person before you even meet them? I just keep going back to this thought that some of you are suggesting that you must KNOW a person before you can actually find out anything substantive about them through dating. Now, what I've told you is my perspective, a bit hierarchical, on dating and the basis of dating and the process I choose. You may completely disagree with what I've said. But so far, I've formed a really wide network of acquaintances, forged some VERY strong friendships, and have dated some of the most amazing women in the area. I've had great fun in this process, and yes....it does take energy, money, and time.....but what things of true value do not cost such commodities in life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manav, I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd like to just share my experience about how I found my love.

You are apprehensive about following up on a woman based solely on physical traits, thats understandable, but consider what it is that you look for when you are judging a person physically. It's not just a fair face or a beautiful body, it's the way the woman carries herself, the way she holds her face, the way she smiles, the way she laughs! That is at least for me the first step in judging a woman. And that's precisely the way I met my love!

I saw her on the very first day of the beginning of my course in C-DAC, Bangalore and I was simply transfixed!! I couldn't take my eyes off her, she carried herself and laughed in a way that just mesmerized me! I've never been the ogling kind but involuntarily for the next 2 weeks before we first talked, I kept staring at her, observing her every move and realizing that this is the girl I always wanted! I had nothing else to follow on other than what I saw - just the way she looked, the way she held her face, the way she carried herself and the way she laughed!! It was an awesome visual experience :D We first talked only 2 odd weeks later but every time we talked, she just affirmed the image I had created of her in my mind!! Not only did she meet my expectations, but she just went way beyond them!! It's been 8 months now and every day our love and respect for each other is just growing!!

So I'd like to say, don't be afraid to talk to a woman who you find attractive, finding someone attractive physically goes beyond just a face, you make your own value-judgments about a person when you see them, whether you are aware of them or not.

Since the human mind is not capable of telepathy, so the only thing you are left with at least initially is your visual senses and what you find attractive! So the first step is knowing what you find attractive and then keeping a look-out for such woman!!! Trust your judgments and pursue them, even if you get burned a few times!!

Best of luck for your search and I'd like to say, as I feel every single day with her, it's absolutely worth the effort!! :D

Dinesh.

Edited by Prometheus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the most crucial thing you should look for in a potential romantic partner is romantic interest in you.

Because you say this in regards to the "initial first conversation", I'm in complete disagreance with you here Kevin. To me, this suggests that when you first meet a woman, that if she doesn't have initial intersted in you right from the start...that she never will.

I wouldn't say "never," but the odds are very much against it.

To repeat what I said earlier: Initial interest does not mean full-blown love. It means initial interest. It means that she likes you — that she's "into" you — at least well enough to know (assuming she's single and actively looking for love) that she'd like to get to know you better.

The thing is, you CAN create romantic interest in yourself by your words and actions.

You can certainly raise a woman's initial interest (or you can lower it, which unfortunately is what happens most of the time). But as I said earlier, genuine romantic love cannot grow out of a zero.

This also suggests that you should be interested in dating only those who are interested in you . . .

Most certainly, yes! I would hate to imagine the alternative.

[that's] a bit too passive for me, and having played by those rules, I got burned every time.

How did you "get burned"? Men generally get hurt when they don't follow this policy.

[D]ating is the last step--not the first--in the process of choosing a partner. After dating comes sex and a mature relationship.

Disagree. I think it's the first important step in choosing a partner. . . . Dating, to me, is where you get to find out about the other person, and make judgements about whether or not you want to continue going out on dates and finding more about them in the interest of possibly having a more substantive relationship.

There may be some confusion over the word "dating."

I tend to use the term literally: I mean a man and a woman going out on dates. By my definition, a "date" can be any kind of arranged get-together — meeting for coffee, going to the symphony, the zoo, the most expensive restaurant in town, or a gourmet dinner at Taco Bell. For a man to request a date, and for a woman to accept it, generally indicates that the partners have some romantic interest in each other — at least enough to consider the other to be a potential romantic candidate.

There's also the somewhat euphemistic term used to describe two people who are romantically involved, but not yet married or engaged: "They're dating." This meaning may contribute, at least in part, to what I consider to be the overly serious and heavy view of dating which so many men hold, and which I wrote about earlier; they link the concept to that of romantic involvement, instead of merely seeing a date as a chance to have a fun time, and to get to know someone better.

Guys, when you meet an attractive woman in the grocery store, what alternative do you have other than to try to arrange a future meeting with her? Are you going to part ways, and hope that one day your paths will cross again? (If you think you're that lucky, I suggest you buy some Powerball lotto tickets before you leave!)

I'm very much an advocate of men taking control of their romantic lives. I don't think a man should ever leave anything up to chance — at least not that which is within his power to control. This means that when a man meets a woman he likes, he has to accept that it's up to him to procure the means of further contact; that he is responsible for arranging future meetings with her. The romantic man doesn't live by anybody else's schedule, or by random luck: once a woman gives him the all-important phone number, he hopes he never "runs into" her again. He wants to date her; i.e., he wants to get to know her on his time, in a context that he has chosen. And you know what? To the extent that a woman likes him, she wants this too!

Time and again, women have told me that they can't stand AMBIGUITY in men; that they very much admire a man with the confidence to ask them for their phone number, and then call and ask them out on a date — meaning a specific day, time and activity, selected and planned in advance by the man. Women DO NOT like men who seem at all apologetic or wishy-washy about asking them out; they see it as weak when, in lieu of asking for a date, a man opts to rely on unchosen, external circumstances in order to "weasel" the opportunity to talk — such as dropping by a woman's place of employment while she's working, and trying to strike up a conversation. Ditto for such loser-ish activities as sending e-mails and Instant Messages, and calling her up for no reason other than to chat. Above all, women DO NOT like men who seem at all confused about whether or not they're attracted to her — not how much they like her (which takes time to know), but who project the aura of being unable to figure out whether they're pursuing her romantically, or trying to be her platonic friend.

Guys, if you meet a girl you like, ask her out. Ask her to meet you at Starbucks for coffee. If she likes you, she'll appreciate the gesture, and — assuming she's single and sane — will accept and show up. If she's not into you, if she's involved with someone else or just doesn't have the requisite initial attraction to you, you've handed her an easy opportunity to reject you right out of the chute. You don't want to spend a ton of time trying to ascertain if a woman is the embodiment of all your deepest values, only to learn that she already has a boyfriend, or otherwise doesn't dig you when you finally get around to making your epic first move.

One last thought: I don't consider dating to be a "stage" or a step, but an ongoing process. I think one of the biggest problems with couples today is that they no longer date once they become seriously involved — especially once they become married. Guys, if things with your wife or girlfriend have really cooled off lately, you might want to check when was the last time you took her out to the roller rink, or miniature golfing, or for a carriage ride through Central Park. You may despise these activities and think they're stupid, but odds are she'll think the world of you if you just put forth an effort to bring a little more fun and romance into her life.

Edited by Kevin Delaney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not sure where this topic belongs, so I put it here. I have been off the dating circuit for a long time - actually, to be more accurate, I never got on! I was in a serious relationship for nearly two years (the only relationship in my life), and since it ended, I think I have become very cautious and reserved about the women I allow into my mind and my life. I have been ready to move on for a long time, but there is a basic dilemma which stops me every time from asking someone out. How do I go about choosing a person to ask out on a date? This is very difficult for someone like me who doesn't want it be based on good looks alone (although that is important). I personally cannot tell a person's sense of life just by looking at their face. And if I randomly ask the first beautiful woman out, there is no gaurantee that I will not hate her during the first date, and I don't want to set myself up for such repeated dissapointments. So my question to this forum is - how do you decide who is a worthy candidate for making that all important first move? Is there an objective criterion for it?

As Sun Tsu (or was it Genghis Khan?) probably said, "Always approach obliquely

walking backwards while admiring the lovely green color of the leaves in the trees

in the immediate vicinity. This will quarantee that your 'adversary' will come to

your rescue and feel kindly toward you when you stumble over the fallen treelimb

that you didn't see because you weren't looking where you were walking while in reverie of nature's loveliness."

I interpret this to mean that that which finds YOU in the course of your seeking

beauty in the world is more likely to be that which you find beauty in.

-Iakeo :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin, I think I know what you're talking about when you say men take dating too seriously, but you're phrasing it wrong. The fact is that men worry about dating too much -- about what women want, and not enough on actually being the hero that a woman wants.

If a man simply focuses on being the best man he can, then his heroicism will be genuine. If he focuses on it only in respect to dating, any heroicism the woman sees in him is likely to be faked for her benefit, and doesn't carry over into his actual character.

For a man to request a date, and for a woman to accept it, generally indicates that the partners have some romantic interest in each other...

...they link the concept to that of romantic involvement, instead of merely seeing a date as a chance to have a fun time, and to get to know someone better.

You see no contradiction in those two statements? Fascinating.

Tell me, what is the difference between romantic interest and romantic involvement, in the context of a date? A date is romantic involvement -- it is the progression from "interest" into involvement.

Guys, when you meet an attractive woman in the grocery store, what alternative do you have other than to try to arrange a future meeting with her? Are you going to part ways, and hope that one day your paths will cross again? (If you think you're that lucky, I suggest you buy some Powerball lotto tickets before you leave!)

Asking a woman out on a date only on the basis of her looks is the same as treating her as a piece of meat. You yourself have said that she should have some romantic interest in the man before dating him -- and "romance" is a concept that requires knowledge of a person's character. Period.

I am almost totally in agreement with you though on the "dating after marriage" tangent. Values are things to be gained and kept -- which means they require maintenance in order to preserve them. However, that doesn't mean that the man should do things he despises. If the couple is truly right for each other, there ought to be enough common interests that they can do something together that they both enjoy. At the very least, do two things together: one that he enjoys and she doesn't, and vice versa. That is a completely valid form of trade. But to say it should be all for her and nothing for him will only cause resentment. Why not have it all?

Edited by TomL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a man to request a date, and for a woman to accept it, generally indicates that the partners have some romantic interest in each other — at least enough to consider the other to be a potential romantic candidate ...

I don't consider dating to be a "stage" or a step, but an ongoing process. I think one of the biggest problems with couples today is that they no longer date once they become seriously involved — especially once they become married.

This presents a contradictory view of dating. In the first example, a date only "indicates" romantic interest. In the second example, however, a date is for a "serious couple"--where the romantic relationship is already established.

It is conceptually confusing to label both stages with one concept.

We need separate concepts to distinguish between these two very clear stages of a relationship. The first stage is where there is a potential romantic relationship. The second stage is where there is an actual romantic relationship.

Traditionally, we have what's known as a dating period and an engagement period. But personally I like to think of the process in terms of a potential and an actual romantic relationship.

Dating is the process of developing a potential romantic relationship. And sex (or sexual contact) marks the beginning of the actual romantic relationship.

A third stage is formalizing your union with some kind of (verbal or written) agreement or contract (traditionally called "marriage"), which is a sign of a mature romantic relationship.

Each stage has a purpose. The purpose of dating is to find a person with whom you want to have a romantic relationship. The purpose of sex is to concretize your romantic interest and satisfy sexual desires. The purpose of a contract is to clarify your relationship and to satisfy intellectual desires. (Often the sex stage goes hand in hand with the contract stage--especially when two already bright and mature people get together. In this case, there may be several levels of the contract stage, in which the lovers make increasing commitments to each other.)

With each purpose comes specific actions intended to achieve this purpose. While dating you need to ask a lot of questions to get to know your potential lover. You need to make sure that you inform your date of your own core beliefs and desires. You need to talk things over and determine for yourself whether you should attempt to move to the sex stage.

Sex should also involve thought. You need to make sure that your partner is capable of pleasing you sexually. And you need to make sure that you can please her as well.

Once you have established both an intellectual and physical basis for this relationship, you then move to the contract stage. You need to discuss what sort of romantic relationship you both can agree upon. Perhaps you don't want to have kids. Perhaps she wants to get married. Perhaps you can only commit to being monogamous for right now. (Some of this could be taken care of before having sex, of course. But it definitely should be re-affirmed after having sex.)

If you keep these three stages in mind (and also the pre-dating stage I mentioned in a previous post) I think you'll have a clearer idea of what you're doing while trying to find a mate. I think you'll have a better sense of where you are in the process of building a romantic relationship. And I think you'll increase your chances of finding and keeping a romantic partner--and being happy with them.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point I forgot to mention in my previous post is that what's commonly known as "going out" is an aspect of all three stages. People who are dating go out. People who are having sex also go out. And people who are married go out, too. They go to dinner. They go to the movies. They go spelunking. If you stop going out, that usually means the relationship is going down.

It should be understood that by "dating" I don't mean "going out." These are two different concepts. Going out is of course a part of dating. But dating is a much broader idea than simply going out to miniature golf or the movies. It involves the whole pursuit and development of a potential romantic relationship, as I described earlier.

The word "date" itself is very impersonal and unromantic. It merely signifies a prearranged meeting at a specific day and time--usually between two people with romantic interest in one another. It is not intended to suggest a serious relationship. Thus, it is not the kind of idea you want to have while asking your lover of three years to a movie. It would be silly, for example, to ask your wife for a "date." She would probably laugh and think you were making a joke.

People in serious relationships go out. But they have advanced beyond the dating scene. For them, going out is not primarily a means of getting to know each other. It has become an expression and affirmation of their romantic union.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...