This is Not the Boogle Memorial Dating Advice/Tips Thread, No

Most of my more successful relationships were ones that I wasn't looking for; they just sort of happened. I'm a quiet and shy guy, to be honest, but I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't try to force myself to be more assertive with people. Forcing myself to be more out there to people always sort of made me feel like I wasn't being myself. On the flip side, if someone piqued my interest enough that I didn't feel like I was forcing myself to be more open, then it usually went well. I think that's a big mistake that a lot of people commit; trying to be something they're not. Just accept who you are. That should give you plenty of confidence to approach things as they come. Of course, if you're more the type to go out and get it, all the better for you. For the shy people... well... take things at your own pace. No need to rush, despite what everything around you is saying otherwise.

I think that, approached correctly, dating is a wonderfully Zen activity. You want to talk about finding the middle way? You've got to be assertive and make your interests known... but you must not be desperate. You've got to be confident enough in yourself by yourself to be attractive and to not fear rejection, but you must also want a partner badly enough to seek one out. You've got to be affectionate without being clingy. You've got to be mindful of the sort of first impression you make, but you've got to be relaxed and un-self-conscious and be yourself. And ultimately, if you wind up in a really serious relationship, you've got to become one with another person without sacrificing your own individuality and identity.

I think that the ability to successfully reconcile those seeming contradictions is a sign of a flexible and well-ordered mind. (Which is not a knock at anyone who's having trouble on the dating scene, you understand: life's a journey and not a destination and all that.)

Wait.

If this is the Boogle Memorial thread....

did Boogle die?

peacensunshine wrote:

Different subject, but something else that bugs me about a lot of women's attitudes about dating is that the kiss of death for a man is him wanting to be in a relationship. Women want men that aren't looking for women as a guy that is looking for a woman appears desperate. Honestly, though, the guys that actually WANT a girlfriend are the ones that will appreciate the relationship the most and be willing to give to make things work, and therefore make the better partners.

This sounds like something someone my age might run into, or someone younger, but it seems to me as biological clocks start ticking and maturity sets in this sort of attitude would change. That women would want men that are serious, smart, etc. I know my brother was doing work for a temp agency at one point after College, he was around 22 or 23 and a woman around 30 or older started to have a major interest in him. She confided that she used to go for the handsome young man that was the stereotypical teenage girl wet dream, but after that led to disaster she's found herself more interested in men that have something to offer mentally, that actually want to engage her mind and personality.

I've known other friends and read other sources to suggest similar things, but maybe that's not a whole truth (after all, the very existence of Sex and the City suggests otherwise. That paints the picture of a bunch of teenage girls that don't really mature, just make their low wisdom scores look artificially sophisticated).

peacensunshine wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Those are things to think about when/if it's time to decide whether to ask her out for a second date. They're not reasons not to ask her for a first. Go for it!

Good point. I agree. One of my best friends is married to a former "attention whore" and once she was in a committed relationship, she felt more secure and they have been happily married for 5 years now.

She doesn't seem to be an attention whore, I've known and can mark plenty of those. However, you do bring up a good point. Assuming she is roughly 18 or 19 (or any of the other cute girls there, for that matter) then it is possible being in a relationship with someone that has that small amount of extra life experience will help them when going through it themselves, so on and so forth. It's an angle I never looked at it before.

My older brother had a friend who was...a couple years older than me when he went to Grad school, and he wound up dating an 18 year old girl. However, after a while he decided to end it because, in his mind, she still had so many years where she was going to grow and change, and she shouldn't be hooked onto him for that point. I guess I've viewed that as a wise decision, but as a counter-point, if either person in the relationship changes enough that it shouldn't be, then at least one person in the relationship will know it.

God I love this/these thread(s).

peacensunshine wrote:
Mimble wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Regarding what Mimble says. I have to say, it's happened a few times and having a girl come after me is seriously awesome. *thinks back* Well, most of the time.

Getting chased only sucks when the chaser won't take the hint that you're really, truly not interested. A guy friend of mine in university was being pursued by a girl like this - and she cried her eyes out when he was finally kind of blunt with her about not wanting to date her. He felt so guilty about making her cry, he went out with her anyway, for almost two years.

It didn't work out.

Yikes. Two years he will never get back.

This is more a personal philosophy thing that I tie to all aspects of my life, but I try not to look at anything as wasted years (and now I have an Iron Maiden song stuck in my head). I devoted a year (technically more) of my emotions to my ex even though our relationships didn't even last a month (but the confused post-relationship flirtations that drove me insane lasted four!). On one hand, part of me looks back and thinks I shouldn't have dated her to begin with. And yet, at the same time, through that entire experience I've learned a lot about myself. In particular, I learned about a lot of my flaws that I now know to look out for when I'm with a girl I should be dating.

At the same time, if I manage to date one of these younger girls and they have never been in a serious relationship before, just as I hadn't, I can now recognize where they are learning as well and have the patience to help them through that learning period.

It was a mistake that created two years (and possibly more residual) of emotional turmoil, but I wouldn't look at it as two years that guy will never get back. I'd rather view it as two years that he can apply to someone worthwhile. He leveled up, so to speak (and in the end, she may have as well).

unntrlaffinity wrote:

And I agree with peacesunshine, there's a lot to be said about not needing a partner. When those individuals who do need a partner end up with someone that shares that need, that's all fine and dandy. But there's a huge difference between needing something, and enjoying, appreciating, or even preferring it. I mean, I could live with only one lung or kidney. But all things being equal, I'd rather keep those suckers close by.

In this perspective, maybe I am the sort of person that needs a relationship, though I prefer to look at it as I want it. I don't need Dead Rising 2, Fable 3, Donkey Kong Country Returns or Kirby's Epic Yarn, but God damn do I want them. Hell, I don't need Dead Space 2, but if I can't afford it when it releases I'll be very, very unhappy.

I look at my want of a relationship to be similar, and once more it was a lesson born from the debacle with my ex. Throughout high school and early College I would frequently find myself going to bed with the desire to wrap my arms around someone, caught in a state of perpetual loneliness, lacking in self-confidence, etc. After her, and after I finally got over her, it was different. Even now I don't really go to sleep thinking of embracing someone in my arms (partly because when I was dating her I could never find a comfortable spooning position. Brodie's metaphor for his whole relationship in Mallrats makes a LOT of sense to me now).

I think now I'm confident that I can live a solitary life, though I much prefer roommates even if I can't have a woman. However, because I feel my life would be enriched by a relationship, and later by a family, I figure if I reach a point where I'm like 35 and not married, then I'll just adopt a kid. Considering how much my niece has enriched my entire family's life, I know this is a decision that will bring me greater happiness than living life alone.

If that translates to a need, so be it. I don't think it is, though. Maybe that's just a separate interpretation.

Also, just so things are clear that I'm not attacking peacensunshine, I give you and your boyfriend mad props for being happy with your relationship and being able to work it together. It isn't something I could do, and I don't think many others really could either. I've enjoyed this discussion and have learned from it, I think.

peacensunshine wrote:

My favorite bit of dating advice is to do what you love and eventually you will find someone else who loves doing the same thing and you will always have that in common. I hear women all the time say that they can't meet quality men. You ask them their hobbies and they really don't have any. Who wants to be with someone that has no interests of their own? That would be a major turn of to me in a man....I wouldn't want him just glomming on to my interests. Be the type of person you would want to date.

I think this is something that has led my brother, and sometimes even myself, to misogynistic mind sets. I've since gotten away from that, but I've observed a lot of women that are really just boring.

At the risk of starting a very, very negative debate, I have a theory on this based on female behavior. The natural male inclination is to be an Alpha, a leader of the pack. In other words, they have to be more interesting than their fellows, and even be someone to look up to. Sometimes this means breaking off and starting your own pack (or being a lone wolf).

Women are a very different sort of animal, however, in that they don't necessarily have an Alpha and have very different ways of trying to attract a mate. Now, it should be noted this theory came about when trying to figure out why I had such trouble finding a girl into video games or anime that couldn't do any more than recite Internet memes and 4chan jokes in a conversation or profess undying love for this franchise/character. Even the lamest of males I spoke with would try and discuss deeper values of their hobby, even if it turned out they never really thought about it. Doing some reading online, this sort of thing evidently is as old as women getting into punk rock. In fact, it seems there's a whole misogynistic attitude that whenever women get into something that's more underground, as metal and grunge and other such things were back in the day, they become ruined.

I wonder, then, if a lot of the women that can be found in these sub-groups fall into them in order to obtain an identity separate from your average female, or to enter a culture where they don't need to compete very hard for the attraction of a male. Note that I'm NOT saying this is how all women are, or that it's something I believe to be truth. I realize I'm pretty much walking on hot coals right now, but I figured this could be a group I could share such a theory with.

It's honestly the best explanation I can think of when I meet girls that, superficially, may seem interesting (be they into games, anime, metal, books, whatever) but when you try to really discuss with them anything in-depth, their eyes glaze over and they try to change the topic to something "more entertaining".

Fortunately, girl that may be 18 wasn't like this when she and I discussed one-on-one, otherwise I'd have written her off.

I will leave that out there for theories and counter-points and other such talky-talky. Hopefully it doesn't derail the thread or cause it to close.

whenever women get into something that's more underground, as metal and grunge and other such things were back in the day, they become ruined.

So you're saying all women are Yoko Ono?

.
.
.

:p

It's an interesting idea, and I think not without merit. I've always said all people are crazy, men are obsessive, women are neurotic.

Yes yes, generalisations ho, and I'm not totally serious.

But that ties into what you say. When guys get into something they have a tendency to want to go deep. Women are more into people and relationships rather than things and hobbies so their knowledge on a topic has a tendency to be shallower, because their real passions lie elsewhere. And yes, there are many, many exceptions I'm sure.

Interesting idea that women 'wreck a scene.' I don't think it's really that, but I think that when women get interested in something the scene does change, because they attract other men who may not be as into the scene and are just following the pheromone trail. So you get a continuum of scenesters>scenester girls>douchebags.

I think that if a theory like that has any truth, it's because the inclusion of women in any scene other than those dictated as acceptable by social norms and media is fetishized to such an extreme degree that they're not just punk rockers, or gamers, or anything like that. They're girl punk rockers, girl gamers, and girl everything else.

I don't know if the alternative, punk, crustpunk, or hipster scenes in New Orleans are any model for the rest of the country, but women are woven deeply enough into the fabric of those groups now that it doesn't seem unusual. Sure, there are elements of identifying so heavily with a single group I find aggravating, but it never strikes me as odd that a number of females are at an event, show, or gathering.

And each scene has its share of posers and hangers-on of both genders, if you examine them closely enough. That's just another aspect of yearning for inclusion.

Maybe when those scenes were originally male dominated those guys can sit around complaining about how a scene is ruined, but if a group can't survive or adapt to change, chances are they're remembering things through the lens of nostalgia.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Interesting idea that women 'wreck a scene.' I don't think it's really that, but I think that when women get interested in something the scene does change, because they attract other men who may not be as into the scene and are just following the pheromone trail. So you get a continuum of scenesters>scenester girls>douchebags.

Not really, at least for punk rock. Women were there from the beginning--if anything they were actually pushed out of the scene as time went on. Slits/Raincoats/X-Ray Spex/Siouxsie Sioux/Patti Smith/Chrissy Hinde teaching Johnny Rotten how to play the guitar I remember reading.

Remember Catwoman?

IMAGE(http://i1036.photobucket.com/albums/a447/cheezepavilion/GWJ%20iCandi/SCA_Catwoman.jpg)

Heck, even my current icon are the two girls who were Strawberry Switchblade who were out of the Glasgow punk scene.

Hurray! It garnered genuine discussion!

unntrlaffinity wrote:

I think that if a theory like that has any truth, it's because the inclusion of women in any scene other than those dictated as acceptable by social norms and media is fetishized to such an extreme degree that they're not just punk rockers, or gamers, or anything like that. They're girl punk rockers, girl gamers, and girl everything else.

I don't know if the alternative, punk, crustpunk, or hipster scenes in New Orleans are any model for the rest of the country, but women are woven deeply enough into the fabric of those groups now that it doesn't seem unusual. Sure, there are elements of identifying so heavily with a single group I find aggravating, but it never strikes me as odd that a number of females are at an event, show, or gathering.

And each scene has its share of posers and hangers-on of both genders, if you examine them closely enough. That's just another aspect of yearning for inclusion.

Maybe when those scenes were originally male dominated those guys can sit around complaining about how a scene is ruined, but if a group can't survive or adapt to change, chances are they're remembering things through the lens of nostalgia.

In a lot of ways I find this can be applied to the modern transformation of gaming. Pretty much everything you say, in fact. When I mentioned past theories of women 'wrecking a scene' and then brought up gaming and anime, well, I can't think of a time when there weren't women into anime, though the scene has exploded. In terms of gamers, while girl gamers seem like they were fewer in my childhood, that doesn't mean they haven't been there all along. As to modern girl gamers, they really are no different than male gamers that have been introduced to the medium in later eras. In which case, I can look back and feel nostalgic about old days where people actually appreciated variety instead of this competitive scene.

I think the biggest truth you note is the fetishist portrayal of girls being in that scene to begin with. Some girl posts a picture of herself licking a PSP and suddenly she is an Internet phenomenon. I've heard Jessica Chobot's name for a while, but when I finally saw her hosting a couple videos I couldn't fathom why people made a big deal out of her.

In some ways, the same thing happens when guys see women that hold a guitar. Hell, it actually bothers me that there aren't that many female rockers out there in the modern age, especially when music is allegedly one of those creative industries that women should lean toward.

And now my mind is just rolling with other curious topics and concepts that go well beyond the purposes of this thread.

I think in the end MrDevil may have hit things a bit better than my own theory:

MrDeVil909 wrote:

But that ties into what you say. When guys get into something they have a tendency to want to go deep. Women are more into people and relationships rather than things and hobbies so their knowledge on a topic has a tendency to be shallower, because their real passions lie elsewhere. And yes, there are many, many exceptions I'm sure.

Note that when "depth" is even said it doesn't mean their thought pattern itself is well thought out or deep. It could just be that they want to absorb whatever information it is that they can. For example, someone that views themselves as a "gamer" may know a lot about Halo and Call of Duty, but that's it. Even so, their knowledge (tied to INT score) of those two franchises could well surpass mine. So if I wanted to discuss those two games, maybe I could have a satisfying conversation (though doubtful).

Part of my experience is founded on girls known at my gaming club, who were traditionally more into JRPG's and Zelda-esque games. However, through GameKrib I've found myself trying to go into the chat room and engage in discussion on games and stuff, and it was the girls that I noticed just stopped talking when any real discussion like that came up. Yet when people came around doing the jokey-flirty thing they were suddenly all involved again. These are girls that are more into the competitive scene, so they are a slightly different kind of gamer than what I knew at College. My theory was partially built off of what I found there.

However, the discussions I DO tend to have with the guys are no more different than if I were to talk to an every day Conservative or Liberal and I'd hear the same shallow arguments I'd hear every day. I think it might more have something to do with...

unntrlaffinity wrote:

Sure, there are elements of identifying so heavily with a single group I find aggravating...

It could be that these people only refer to themselves as gamers to have a label. They want to identify with a clique for fear that they don't know their own identity. Or they just happen to like playing games a lot and want other people to play with that also like to play a lot.

In other words, my reasoning for joining Gamers With Jobs is because I seek in-depth intellectual discussion on video games, and I found it here. They go to GameKrib so they can find people to fill their friends list so whenever they go online, they have someone to play with. It more marks the diversity of the term "gamer", though simultaneously only shows how ridiculous labels are at trying to identify a type of person.

Don't mind me, I'm mostly thinking out loud.

bnpederson wrote:

Wait, like would cease to exist? Are you... are you the God of Underage Relationships? Are all those twenty-something people dating high school aged people worshiping you?

I get it now. That's the reason you're so in favor of it. You live only because creepy older people date younger people. It's how you gain power, and the more people who do it the more power you have.

It all makes sense now.

I MUST FEED

Malor wrote:

did Boogle die? :shock:

Only his love life. Though every time he fails, he does die a little inside.

ccesarano wrote:

I think in the end MrDevil may have hit things a bit better than my own theory:

MrDeVil909 wrote:

But that ties into what you say. When guys get into something they have a tendency to want to go deep. Women are more into people and relationships rather than things and hobbies so their knowledge on a topic has a tendency to be shallower, because their real passions lie elsewhere. And yes, there are many, many exceptions I'm sure.

Note that when "depth" is even said it doesn't mean their thought pattern itself is well thought out or deep. It could just be that they want to absorb whatever information it is that they can. For example, someone that views themselves as a "gamer" may know a lot about Halo and Call of Duty, but that's it. Even so, their knowledge (tied to INT score) of those two franchises could well surpass mine. So if I wanted to discuss those two games, maybe I could have a satisfying conversation (though doubtful).

Part of my experience is founded on girls known at my gaming club, who were traditionally more into JRPG's and Zelda-esque games. However, through GameKrib I've found myself trying to go into the chat room and engage in discussion on games and stuff, and it was the girls that I noticed just stopped talking when any real discussion like that came up. Yet when people came around doing the jokey-flirty thing they were suddenly all involved again. These are girls that are more into the competitive scene, so they are a slightly different kind of gamer than what I knew at College. My theory was partially built off of what I found there.

I think that has less to do with women being incapable of providing a satisfying conversation and more to do with women being aware that they're at greater risk of dealing with a sexist jerk acting out in a 'real discussion' than in jokey-flirty time, so they just don't participate.

I just wanted to mark this thread and say:
IMAGE(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7898/threadmadeofgold.png)

My thoughts on dating are quite all over the place, perhaps I can formulate them into some kind of rambling run-on sentence I can post in here, but for now, it's too confusing even in my own mind. <3 You guys.

ccesarano wrote:

She doesn't seem to be an attention whore, I've known and can mark plenty of those. However, you do bring up a good point. Assuming she is roughly 18 or 19 (or any of the other cute girls there, for that matter) then it is possible being in a relationship with someone that has that small amount of extra life experience will help them when going through it themselves, so on and so forth. It's an angle I never looked at it before.

There's also just the fact that sometimes people act differently in a group situation (you said you met her at a Bible study group, yes?), especially one where they might not know everyone, than they would in a one-on-one situation. Someone who needs to feel like the life of the party in, well, a party might calm down and allow for a little more give-and-take when they were with just one other person and know that they have that person's full attention already. It's worth the trouble to find out, anyway.

Something my friend brought up tonight in discussion that I think is a good point:

If the weather is fitting, instead of asking a girl out for coffee (especially if you want to be spontaneous and continue the meeting at that moment), ask her out for ice cream. It's not really something you can plan for a later date, but if you ask a girl out to get ice cream she likely won't react the same way as she might have with coffee, which is an obvious date.

Plus, who doesn't like ice cream?

Lactose intolerant people?

ccesarano wrote:

Something my friend brought up tonight in discussion that I think is a good point:

If the weather is fitting, instead of asking a girl out for coffee (especially if you want to be spontaneous and continue the meeting at that moment), ask her out for ice cream. It's not really something you can plan for a later date, but if you ask a girl out to get ice cream she likely won't react the same way as she might have with coffee, which is an obvious date.

Plus, who doesn't like ice cream?

Protip: If she asks you to swear on a banana split that you do not smoke weed, and you do, in fact, smoke weed on a regular basis, you're setting yourself up for a world of trouble involving ninjas and nunchucks and bolas and Indian burns if you lie.

I think ice cream is over-rated. I know a lot of people who would throw a fit over the possibility of ice cream, but I don't think ice cream is worth the effort of announcing to all within earshot, "I F*CKING LOVE ICE CREAM!!! I WOULD KILL FOR ICE CREAM!!! MY FAVORITE FLAVOR IS GREEN TEA!!! WHO CARES IF IT GOES TO MY HIPS!!!"

Nah, that ain't me. I save my commotion for a worthy dessert.

Like pie.

Moral: Ask a girl out for pie sometime. If she says no, you just saved yourself a joyless marriage. If she says yes, you've found your soul mate.

I don't see why ice cream is any less date-like than coffee. Any time two people who share an attraction (or tragically, if only one does) are engaged in a 1-on-1 activity, it's possibly date-like.

More than any one type of activity, drinks, coffee, ice cream, I think what's important is to have something specific in mind. A specific place, a specific time. If the girl is at all interested, meeting for coffee at the university Starbucks on Thursday at 7 p.m. is going to be a lot more likely to yield positive results than something vague like, "do you want to grab a drink sometime", which just by its very construction requires at least one more follow-up conversation, whereas in a specific example all the information you need is right there.

I've asked girls out to a bible themed amusement park, on a bike ride, to the zoo, drinks, coffee (even though I don't drink coffee), beignets, ice cream/gelatto, whatever. And when they were into me, it really didn't matter what it was. But a specific request also allows them to present a specific counter-offer, if for some reason one of those activities doesn't appeal to them (like, let's say, she's lactose intolerant, which a majority of non-white adults seem to be.) Like "I can't do Thursday, how about Saturday?" or "I don't really like Thai food, can we do Italian?"

Grubber788 wrote:

I think ice cream is over-rated. I know a lot of people who would throw a fit over the possibility of ice cream, but I don't think ice cream is worth the effort of announcing to all within earshot, "I F*CKING LOVE ICE CREAM!!! I WOULD KILL FOR ICE CREAM!!! MY FAVORITE FLAVOR IS GREEN TEA!!! WHO CARES IF IT GOES TO MY HIPS!!!"

Nah, that ain't me. I save my commotion for a worthy dessert.

Like pie.

Moral: Ask a girl out for pie sometime. If she says no, you just saved yourself a joyless marriage. If she says yes, you've found your soul mate.

I think the actual moral here is find something you want in a person, and try to find someone that enjoys that. For me, dessert is not really a deal breaker. But if they don't like pizza....

Grubber788 wrote:

Moral: Ask a girl out for pie sometime. If she says no, you just saved yourself a joyless marriage. If she says yes, you've found your soul mate.

The only qualm I have with this advice is that pie is also a euphemism for *ahem* something else.

After going through this thread, I realize there a lot of "I hate to generalize but..." kinds of paragraphs. While men and women are different in a lot of ways, when it comes to relationships and the attitudes people have toward them, it can really go either way. People are always different. If you generalize, you can do it on the whole, not just by sex. Just because you have knowledge of the way one sex "works" doesn't mean it's really limited to them alone.

Asz wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

Moral: Ask a girl out for pie sometime. If she says no, you just saved yourself a joyless marriage. If she says yes, you've found your soul mate.

The only qualm I have with this advice is that pie is also a euphemism for *ahem* something else.

What about ice cream pie?

....wait, nevermind.

I think the idea was more that EVERYONE asks a girl out for a cup of coffee, so asking her to something like ice cream is less common and thus seems at least a little different. Which, while it's not a requirement if a girl is interested in you in the first place, it's still a bonus to making yourself look awesome.

Psych wrote:

I think the actual moral here is find something you want in a person, and try to find someone that enjoys that. For me, dessert is not really a deal breaker. But if they don't like pizza....

I cannot comprehend people that dislike pizza. It isn't human.

hbi2k wrote:

Protip: If she asks you to swear on a banana split that you do not smoke weed, and you do, in fact, smoke weed on a regular basis, you're setting yourself up for a world of trouble involving ninjas and nunchucks and bolas and Indian burns if you lie.

...wut?

I would have to say yes if asked out for pie. Coffee...sounds so been there, done that. I've NEVER gone out for pie.

Or, know of a cool bakery/restaurant that sells some other fancy, unusual or particularly tasty dessert. Who could refuse?? I like it. Sounds light, non-committal and fun....a good way to get to know her, without her feeling pressured or that you are creepy.

The two girls I was meeting for dinner tonight were ill yesterday, and didn't feel up for the previously planned BBQ dinner, hence the lack of a callback. I proposed hitting up a play later, so that's the new plan.

I had lunch with a girl I met via online dating, and it was fun, but she's a more full-figured lady than I'm usually attracted to. Which I know is a touchy subject, but I do find it bizarre that people accept dating discrimination/preferences on the basis of religion, height, income, fashion, eye/hair color, and even ethnicity, but weight tends to bring in accusations of being shallow. I'm a fairly skinny dude, so I don't think it's a shocking preference (it's not like there have never been exceptions, and I don't reject any girl that isn't an emaciated heroin junkie), but there it is. I'd like to see her again because she's great company, but will probably move things in a more friends direction.

I'm also in a weird position in my life where I make enough money to go out occasionally, but most the girls I date make way more money than I do. Yet the expectations still tend to skew towards the guy paying. So when a girl offers to go dutch, I rarely refuse. And when the girl pays, I'll admit, I swoon a little (the last time it happened she actually took my credit card off the plate while I was in the bathroom and paid before I got back.) Generally, though, I always pay on the first date, and then if I'm strapped later I'm just honest about it.

When I think eating pie I think waffle house...and that is not classy.

hbi2k wrote:

Protip: If she asks you to swear on a banana split that you do not smoke weed, and you do, in fact, smoke weed on a regular basis, you're setting yourself up for a world of trouble involving ninjas and nunchucks and bolas and Indian burns if you lie.

... and Killer will be killed. It will be super sad. Everyone will get stoned, plan a stupid heist, and end up getting caught by the police. Even if you do get the girl in the end, your friends are all unemployed. Then you will ask yourself:

Was it really worth it?

It all seriousness I will likely be posting stuff in the future. I'm likely to have hilarious mishaps as I explore the new city I live in.

unntrlaffinity wrote:

Generally, though, I always pay on the first date, and then if I'm strapped later I'm just honest about it.

I'm actually into the method of splitting it, or we switch on and off at least until things get serious. Being responsible to pay the tab because of what's between your legs never made sense to me. Surprisingly the girls I date are open to that too. I find it works out well as long as you're not a Nazi about it. With dating being such a shot in the wind it makes no sense to burn all your money getting to know someone, especially if you're strapped for cash. But think about it. If a girl is expecting to be pampered with my money instead of being interested in who I am, then I'm not interested in her.

boogle wrote:

When I think eating pie I think waffle house...and that is not classy.

I think that says more about you than it does the pie.

Asz wrote:

After going through this thread, I realize there a lot of "I hate to generalize but..." kinds of paragraphs. While men and women are different in a lot of ways, when it comes to relationships and the attitudes people have toward them, it can really go either way. People are always different. If you generalize, you can do it on the whole, not just by sex. Just because you have knowledge of the way one sex "works" doesn't mean it's really limited to them alone.

In my experience statements that start with "I hate to generalize but..." are a lot like statements that start "Now, I'm not racist/sexist/biased, but...." If you're not racist / sexist / biased, that fact will speak for itself, and if you are, then qualifying your statement won't stop people from calling you out. Likewise, if you hate to generalize, then don't do it. And if you're going to generalize anyway, then don't apologize for it.

...Yes, I am well aware of the irony that the above statement was itself a generalization.

boogle wrote:

When I think eating pie I think waffle house...and that is not classy.

My first date with my current girlfriend was at an IHOP. And we've been together for seven years now. Make of that what you will. (To be fair, she chose the venue.)

Also, we went Dutch and have done so just about every date we've ever been on, with the occasional exception when one of us lucked into some extra money at the same time the other one happened to be especially strapped for cash. Anyone who's comfortable being old-fashioned about paying is entitled to their preference, but personally, a girl who refuses to go Dutch is a girl that I'm a lot less interested in.

boogle wrote:

When I think eating pie I think waffle house...and that is not classy.

Unless you're in Texas. For some reason there is a level of devotion to Waffle House here that I can't wrap my brain around.

I was taught that a lot of the time when people say "but", you can safely throw everything immediately before the "but" out the window.

(Note: Does not work with "butt", as in the example "finger -> butt".)

unntrlaffinity wrote:

I had lunch with a girl I met via online dating, and it was fun, but she's a more full-figured lady than I'm usually attracted to. Which I know is a touchy subject, but I do find it bizarre that people accept dating discrimination/preferences on the basis of religion, height, income, fashion, eye/hair color, and even ethnicity, but weight tends to bring in accusations of being shallow. I'm a fairly skinny dude, so I don't think it's a shocking preference

I've never understood that--why would like necessarily be attracted to like? Especially among, you know, heterosexuals. I have penis; I enjoy touching that penis very much--but I really don't want to touch any *other* penis. I think the best explanation is simply...not to try to explain attraction in the first place, or explain it in terms of purely personal, biographical factors.