any women here who have never dated, never had a boyfriend?

Post Reply New Topic

Don't you just love how when women get emotional it completely invalidates the content of what they say? It's so handy for discarding their opinions about things, because they're always so emotional. All those lady-hormones make the lady-brain no worky rite.

Stay in your vault, it's already a radioactive wasteland out there.

Well, I went to sleep and woke up thus morning and boom, thread explosion.

Wow, Hopper, that's how some of my friends feel. Nicely written.

I'm intrigued that my response to Spiderpig got totally ignored by everyone

I think because he didn't respond himself it got lost in the shuffle. It's like 5 pages back, now.

Which is ironic because he asked for clarification because he thought I was incoherent. [note to self using caps doesn't highlight the point it makes the rest of your text invisible] Actually Orieliom did highlight it. I forgot. But then there was mention of standards and i feel like my point was ignored.

I was pointing out that "standards" aren't what I mean when I talk about compatibility.

If two people meet and they like each other, but find out quickly that one wants kids and the other doesn't or there are compatibility issues with religion as in Boos case, or they live too far away from each other. that's not about having too high standards, it's not like saying the man must [insert trope about high standards]. It's about the practicalities of how you're both going to live your lives together or rather the lack of practicality.

Depends on just how flexible or rigid you are.

It wouldn't work because X isn't always the case and very well may work sometimes with enough compromise, and some may very well nitpick and grasp at straws for weak examples of 'irreconcilable incompatibilities' as an excuse to reject the person and dislike them.

For instance, a man wants 2 children maximum, a woman 5. Two very flexible people may very well both compromise and still date anyway, having 3 kids in the end.

I ignored it because I found it irrelevant, sorry.

Saying these women just don't want to use online dating is like saying they don't want to meet men in a bar or club or some other major social setting.

I'm not sure about the women, but as for the unsuccessful men in this forum, their lives changed when they started online dating and started getting good at it. Why exclude it as an option? That's honestly sounding unnecessarily picky to me.

That and, lots of people do everything online now. At one point when I had a group of friends who would go out and do stuff, all of their events were on Facebook which I hated. I still went with their methods though, because it would have been almost snooty not to, and kicking myself in the foot.

My example, and lots of dating examples on this forum are no exceptions. Online dating and networking are highly valuable tools.

Thank you. Even if you disagree Smudge you're adding to the conversation.

I just don't think online dating is comfortable for everyone.

Oh, is that what you said way back?

Sorry, I didn't see it and only went off what you said on this page about the previous post.

Well I know exactly how that feels then.

I detest, loathe and hate using the internet for socialization beyond acquaintances.

I have no friends that I met purely online, and prefer it this way.

I only use the internet to maintain contact with current friends that I had met in person first.

This makes me forming any sort of connection online exceptionally difficult.

For example I do hear of some people on dating sites getting rejected who decide to be only friends with the person who did so, and eventually they could possibly meet with this new friend, and this new friend can introduce them to mutual friends. I'm incapable of this.

It takes A LOT of mental effort to build ANY sort of motivation whatsoever for me to be engaged in online conversations with a stranger on the internet.

I almost can't feel emotions purely from text on a screen. I prefer real, human emotions. Seeing someone's smile, hearing their laugh, etc.

Forums like this are a little different. For me it's the online equivalent to conversing with a group of friendly strangers or at a real-life discussion based meetup group.

^ that's interesting. for me it's almost completely opposite. all my "real-life" friendships throughout the years have been disappointing or very hard to maintain in the long term. life changed dramatically for me after my best friend of more than ten years decided i wasn't good enough for him and his new friends. and among any groups of friends i happened to be part of, i felt like i was the outsider among the outsiders, so any connection was gone as soon as the original context (high school, for example) was gone. i had a very troubled relationship with my family, and now there was no anchor in friendship for me anymore either

i'm a pretty "intense" guy. not opening up means i feel like i'm just a hologram of myself, which makes me wish i was alone instead. but opening up irl means it gets emotional and it gets awkward. it doesn't leave much room for "just hanging out". meatspace is just not good for opening up. and i couldn't "produce" another friend who would know me as well as my former friend did, because my teenage years were over. now real-life was supposed to be all about the rat race (americans seem to associate "college" with parties and sex and overall "being young and irresponsible", but in my country, or at least in the university i went to, people are concerned with their career first and foremost)

the solution... text-based communication and forums and stuff, where it's normal to talk about "deep" things. it normalizes my intensity and alienation and eliminates most of the awkwardness from it, because it's the common denominator to begin with. i have two stable friends right now. i met both of them that way

one has been my friend for four years now. she might stop emailing me for a while at some point (which has happened more than once before), but i would just see it as a "hiatus". she has been been through some pretty huge changes in her life, and so have i, but we're still talking. it makes me happy that someone is witnessing my life for so long. it helps me feel like a person. we share some important values that most people don't, and i think we both gain confidence from staying in touch, and it gives me more faith in a future i could build for myself. sometimes we talk more often, sometimes not so much, but we keep each other up to date on what's going on

the other one, i had interacted with her briefly a few years ago, and we both liked each other's posts. then i started talking to her regularly some two years ago because i was going through some difficult things and didn't know who to talk to, and i was alone in a foreign country and there was a chance i could visit her soon. she was very welcoming and friendly and helpful, and i did get to visit her a few months later, which was awesome. meeting in person was awkward for maybe five minutes, if that, and then it felt perfectly natural. we had very long conversations that felt pretty much like an "augmented" extension of our previous text-based chats. she's still part of what makes me feel like i'm "home" most days, and i have no reason to believe that this friendship has an expiration date

what i wonder is: is this a difference of personality/temperament? or is it more of a difference of age? after all, your teenage years aren't over yet. when i was your age, the internet was already part of my everyday, and i did talk to strangers online sometimes, but "friends" were necessarily and exclusively people i knew from real-life

edit: or... come to think of it, actually not (i was just confused with my math). but that's because i always had this distinction between "hometown space" and "foreign space". the thought of meeting someone local through the internet is still very odd to me. but then again, by now, the very thought of meeting someone local, period, is very odd to me

The problem with evolutionary psychology is not that it's particularly evil or misogynist, but that it's stupid. It's reductionist, teleological and relies on circular reasoning. Even professed Darwinians don't seem to appreciate how radically unteleological Darwinism is. I think it's why Intelligent Designers get a) confused and b) traction.

The obvious biological difference is that women can get pregnant. No need to invoke some hereditary instinct, honed through Natural Selection on the Savannah, to understand why a woman would be concerned about an unwanted pregnancy, and so perhaps a little more cautious when jumping into bed with a fella. What's remarkable is how many women, post the contraceptive pill (and before, come to that, when even the possibility of dying in childbirth and the threat of the full force of social opprobrium for being an unwed mother couldn't keep them from jumping bones), are not actually as cautious as they are supposed (as in, as is supposed of them) to be.

That's because lots of them go gaga over children.

For me, Online dating was good for casual sex and fwb.

For serious relationships? Hmm....people there rarely turn out to be sane, they're usually crazy.

Just in order to not be accused of being judgmental:
hurtloam can tell you of the freaky weirdos I am coming across there lol. The amount of craziness there is unbelievable.

Meant to post this a few days ago - I nearly fall into this category, have had one on-off relationship and that is it aside from two dates which make me laugh thinking about them now (they were disasters looking back!) Some people find this hard to understand - how could you get into your 30s and be in this situation? My take on it is this - growing up I never actually wanted a boyfriend. This might seem odd as I get on better with men than women and have many male friends. In my late teens and 20s well meaning and not so well meaning people would make comments such as ‘it could still happen, I didn’t meet my husband until x age’ and ‘you need a man in your life’ even though I had not said that I was looking for one. By the time I’d reached my 30s though everybody, (even my mother!) gave up. The issue with me was that I enjoy independence, freedom and am pretty solitary by nature - if somebody came along that I fell in love with then I would be happy to let these things go but only in that situation. The argument that ‘you need a man’ is obviously not true in my eyes as if I actually needed one how have I managed to cope for so long? There is disapproval from society but that is like a lot of hot air in my opinion, besides how does society know what is best for you anyway?

Also I am a pretty unusual woman - I am not girly in the slightest and have hobbies that men tend to like rather than women. Many (but by no means all) men are more interested in more feminine women, a quirky tomboy in her 30s who hardly ever dresses up, doesn’t wear make up and is perfectly content being on her own is not what many are looking for. My parents have been together for over 35 years and love each other to bits so I can’t blame this on past conditioning either.

I agree it must be difficult if you really want somebody in your life and no matter what you try it doesn’t work out, especially if all your friends seem to be able to easily make it work. I don’t think that getting annoyed with women who are not interested is the answer though as unless both people are interested the relationship is just not going to work. I think there is some research on couples that suggests women on average seem to cope better being on their own - married men live approx 5 years longer than ‘single’ men whereas there is a much smaller difference between ‘single’ and married women.

I do believe real-life friendships tend to be a lot more superficial and interest-based.

But I assume that primarily applies only to weak/moderate friendships.

With genuine good friends we're capable of having deep and meaningful conversation in person.

I believe it has more to do with what kind of person you both are, and also what sort of mood/mindset you're in at the time.

I'm the kind of guy who could probably talk about deep, philosophical subjects with relative ease, but I've observed a lot of other people may only be capable of doing so while under the influence of alcohol or substances, or very late on a particular night sitting under the stars/you get the picture.

A friend of mine said I'm her 'go-to' guy for deep and meaningful conversation. I told her I'm very open, honest and tolerant and can talk about anything and everything. This is true and she agrees that I have proved this to her.



Hm. I am 'intense' myself, but sometimes I allow others to open up far more than I do myself, but make sure they're aware I'll open up to them back at my own pace when I feel comfortable and develop more trust for them.

It appears it doesn't take too long before I develop people's loyalty/trust because I can be both of these things.

I've had plenty of people confide in me dark secrets even if I barely knew them.

A lot of sociopaths have approached me and revealed to me their hidden selves, and to everyone else they put up a superficial charm act.

I'm saying these people admit to me, even if I'm just a classmate and not even a good friend/acquaintance, that they feel no emotions aside from anger and hatefulness, and constantly have intrusive thoughts of harming others.

When I ask them why they ever tell me these things, they do say I look like a non-judgementel, tolerant type that can handle the things they tell me. This is true.

I can deal with them so long as they NEVER mess with me or anyone I care about, otherwise they'll be in deep trouble. I show no fear when coming across these types.

Wow, this got a little too edgy, too fast.\

Only the most trusted in my life, such as my best friend, I open up my deeper self up to. And even then he only knows part of the story.



You're not American? Hm, I assumed you were.

I can 'just hang out' with others. I enjoy it.

What do you mean meatspace isn't good for opening up? I know what meatspace means, just don't understand how you feel you can't open up to others in real-life?

I've always felt 'deep' and 'meaningful' conversation is not something that happens early in friendships/relationships, and it is being able to get through all the superficial 'hanging-out' and dating ettiquette before one gets to that stage.

Unless you come across a particularly rare and special kind of person, or easily come across as very tolerant, easy to speak to and non-judgemental like me, most people just don't open-up so quick to people they barely know.

My advice if anything is to enjoy the ride. Learn to enjoy the superficial hanging out and interactions.

If they begin to open up their deepest selves to you, then you know you've earned their trust.



Eh. I leave the internet for that.

In real-life I come across as so much more simple-minded, laidback and easily impressed.

It feels so confusing/cognitive dissonance at times.

I am a strange mix of laidback, carefree, chill relaxed person, but at the same time an intellectual. I try to let my intellectual side show.

I think it's amusing how I come across to others. Calm and laidback yet articulate and eloquent.



This more or less sums up what I have with my best friend now. And yet I met him in real-life.



What do you mean?

My generation is the opposite to me regarding socializing and technology.

It seems most millenials are satisfied with, or actually somehow ENJOY online dating, or even just meeting strangers online.

Hell, half my facebook is family or friends of friends I've never actually met. They're really just there as filler, I guess.