How do you guys do the "no contact" thing?

Post Reply New Topic

No sane person is going to want to endure a tumultuous first month (or first several months) with the hope that it will get better. Most often things get WORSE. Why would someone want to stick around through that in the first place?

Work on being easier to get along with.

Even if most other people are in relationships, it doesn’t excuse entitled behavior.

Well, looking back at the long term relationships I had, it wasn't "first several months". It was more like "first one or two months".

Nope, most women aren’t going to go for that. I certainly wouldn’t. Lol

Can you work on becoming easier to get along with so you don’t continue to sabotage potential relationships?

So what is the logic behind it? I mean, why aren't they willing to sacrifice a month or two for the sake of YEARS to come?

And, besides, I didn't warn them it would be a month or two. For all they know it was however long it took me to ask those questions (like maybe few minutes if that). So they make lifelong decisions based on me having a bad day, or even a bad moment.



a) If the woman is willing to give me a chance then yes. In fact thats the exact thing I keep saying when I beg for second chance

b) If nobody gives me a chance, then I don't see how. How can I work on something if I am not given an opportunity to interact with that "something"? So its catch 22.

Here are the reasons why I didn't take it as that sign.

1. The first thing she mentioned she had reservations about -- before she brought up anything else -- was that she was an Adventist and I wasn't. But she didn't say that this was why she wouldn't date me. Quite the opposite. She said she didn't date non-adventist "up until that point" but now she considered dating non-adventists because she had hard time finding an adventist guy. Now, I realize that what we are talking about is my personality as opposted to my faith. But the reason I brought it up was to show you what "having a reservations" might mean: namely, that the term "has reservations" did NOT mean that she made a decision not to date me. Now, she used that term TWO times: she said she "has reservations" because of my faith AND she said she "has reservations" because of my personality. So if in case of faith the term "has reservation" didn't imply that she didn't want to date me, why would it imply in case of personality?

2. When she was saying she didn't like the way I was asking those questions, what she told me was that she doesn't want to be pressured to give an answer when she hasn't yet figured out for herself whether certain things are deal breakers or not. That, plus also she was saying she didn't want to "rush things", which again goes in this direction. So thats why I took it at the face value to mean that she wasn't sure it won't work yet. And thats why it was so surprising when it turned out otherwise.

3. During the Day of Attonement she made a phone call to the synagoge to ask if she can attend so that she can learn more about it. Now, its true that I kept asking her to visit MESSIANIC synagoge (I am Messianic) which she said was too far away. But here she made a phone call to the REGULAR synagoge -- and I know I didn't ask her to do that (from my perspective going to regular synagoge is pointless since they told believe in Jesus, and thats exactly what I told her). So why would she make that effort to learn about my faith if she knew she wouldn't date me? Also note that the time when I asked her about Messianic synagoge was probably a week before then; and when she said it was too far away, I gave up. But then a week later she tells me about her own making that phone call without my prompting. Also, this happened AFTER she mentioned her having reservations about my personality.

But then again, the day of attonement was BEFORE her dentist visit. So if she was turned off by my comments about the dentist visit -- AS OPPOSED TO my insecurities I expressed before then -- then this would fit well with her day of attonement thing she wanted to do. I am not saying that is what turned her off. Maybe it WAS those earlier things. I am just saying that IF it was those earlier things, then it would look quite puzzling (although its possible since I was puzzled by the examples of other girls too). Basically the time sequence was the following:

a) She said she has reservation about my faith
b) Only a while later (probably a week or two later), she says she also has reservations about my personality
c) After another week or so, she makes that phone call to the synagogue to see if she can attend
d) A week after that, she didn't like the way I reacted to her dentist visit (namely, that I asked as to whether or not its a sin to put a crown on the tooth -- which she found surprising since nobody besides me ever suggested it -- and also the fact that I didn't properly express the sympathy with regards to the physical pain she was going through) so she didn't answer my texts until I sent three texts in a row or something
e) I explained myself regarding my reaction to her dentists visit (in particular, I explained that I did feel sympathy I just didn't express it) and then asked her if she understood why was she still not talking to me
f) She sent me three texts -- with two days interval between each -- and I only responded after the third one
g) We had text back and forth after I responded to the third text. I decided to start the no-contact thing after that back and forth was over
h) We didn't write each other for a week.
i) She texted me a week later and I decided to ignore that text because I was doing the no-contact thing
j) A month later I got enough points in that class for B, so I ended the no-contact and confronted her over why she ignored me. She kept telling me that I was the one who ignored her (pointing at f and g) while I was telling her that she was (pointing at b and d) But we ended the conversation "seemingly" on good terms: she said she was sorry for the apparent miscommunication and I said it was fine I am glad we resolved it
k) We didn't write each other for two weeks.
l) Three days ago I sent her a message asking her that if "f" and "g" was the reason as to why she didn't write me before, why is it she wasn't writing me now? So it feels like it was something else besides this. She didn't answer it.
m) Yesterday I sent her a text asking if it was because she was annoyed that I didn't believe her that f and g was the reason and if I were to believe her from now on whether she would talk. She still didn't answer.
n) Today I sent her the text explaining how the reason for "g" is that I probably opened the text real fast, so the phone thought it was "read" and thats why I didn't look at it again since I only look at "unread" texts, but I forgot I looked at it. So I was sorry I accused her instead of double checking read texts. She still didn't answer.

Why would I waste my time on someone who’s most likely toxic (been there, done that!) than be with someone who is pleasant from the start?

It’s a no brainer.

Because when you say "most likely toxic" you are referring to their life as a whole as opposed to first month or two. So the assumption being is that its not just the way I will be for a while but rather its the way I will be my whole life. As if, there is no way I can ever change. And, if so, what am I supposed to do? They can walk away from me, but I can't walk away from myself. Well, "what am I supposed to do" -- "change". But you see, THEY don't think I can change, in fact they are so sure that I can't change that it doesn't even worth five minutes of extra-check. But if they are so totally sure I can't change, why should *I* ever try to change then? But you see, I totally DO want to change. Thats why its so frustrating when people are assuming I can't.

If you want to change, do so, but you can’t really expect a woman to stay with you in the hope that you’ll change. Abusive relationships often start out this way: with the hope that he’ll change, but change often doesn’t happen and things get much worse. Knowing this, most women are not going to stay in a relationship with someone who starts fights, yells, name calls, put downs, temper tantrums, rages, etc. It’s very smart and sensible of them.

Yet again, why would someone stay with you (especially given the problem noted above) when she can be with someone who is pleasant from the start?

Changes need to happen BEFORE you get into a relationship. It’s not fair to burden a woman with this stuff.

I didn't yell or throw temper tantrum when it comes to this specific girl. I did this with other girls, yes, but not with her.

What she had issues with is my asking questions whether or not she decided not to date me. Now, the question, in itself, isn't a fight, is it. But she said she didn't like those questions themselves.

The other thing she had issues with is that I asked her to explain to me the behavior of other people. But once again -- in contrast to what I did with others -- I weren't yelling at her when I was mad at others, no. I would just describe various situations and ask her to explain the behavior of those other people -- and she told me she didn't like this (she said I should do it with a counselor, not with her).

Well, the other thing I done was that I was presenting to her arguments as to why I will change. So that might be a bit too persistent; but still, I did so without yelling or name calling.

People don’t have to answer you if they don’t want to. Just forget about this woman and move on. This thread has gone on for far too long. LOL

You don’t have to like the answers you’re getting but that doesn’t make them incorrect. You have to face the music and learn appropriate dating etiquette if you want to get a relationship. Getting upset about what you can’t change is not helping you.

You’re a smart guy. I’m sure if you make the effort you can figure this stuff out. Do some reading.

Don’t yell or rage at women in the future. That’s abusive behavior. Any sane woman would ditch a guy who exhibited such behavior in the beginning of a relationship.

I thought I just told you I didn't yell/raged at this particular woman (just reread my response you just quoted).

Yeah, but you’ve admitted to doing it to past women. It’s just a reminder so you understand how big of a deal it is.

Here are three principles I think you'd benefit from understanding.

1. The best predictor of future behaviour is relevant past behaviour

If you're conducting yourself in such a way that the other person finds unpleasant, they're going to assume that you're likely to behave that way in the future also.

2. It takes 10 positives to make up for a negative

If you're conducting yourself in a way that the other person doesn't like, it generally takes 10 other instances of you conducting yourself in a more appropriate way to make up for the 1 instance that you didn't. When you meet new prospective partners, there is minimal investment there to start with, so if the first sign of trouble comes soon enough, the other person will probably leave without waiting for those 10 good instances to make up for it.

If I'm going to a diner for the first time and the food tastes bad, I probably won't bother going back. But if I'm going to a diner I frequent and the food tastes bad there, I'm more likely to be forgiving since I've had other positive experiences there.

3. You teach people how to treat you.

I think some people know on a subconscious level that if you allow people to treat you a certain way, that it can become normalised. If you treat someone poorly, you set up a precedent of treating them poorly, and for them to teach you not to treat them that way, they've got to be assertive and sometimes cut you off all together.

So in essence, you really don't want to leave any kind of a bad impression with someone you're hoping to date. Slip-ups are much more easily forgiven when you're already in a relationship and have formed a bond, assuming of course that you make it clear that it's a one-off or something you're working on.

Actually that is one of the exact things I find unfair. If that is true, it means nobody can ever change and everyone is condemned to do for the rest of their life the mess that they are doing right now. Don't you see how frustrating that would be.



That is actually quite interesting. When I think of it, on the one hand, I instinctively perceive myself as 50/50 yet, on the other hand, I am surprised and shocked when I am called out on a negative. At first it looks contradictory. But then when I think harder, I realize how its not a contradiction after all. Basically, my self perception is that both my positives "and" my negatives are tiny (for the most part I am just enjoying her presence, without contributing much, as long as I am assured that yes relationship is a possibility and no she isn't upset with me) -- which is how it balances out to 50/50 in my mind -- but then when I am told that my negatives aren't tiny after all, then it shocks me.

But IF my self perception was correct, it would be a pretty weird situation. In this case, something like this could happen. What if everyone who is in a relationship does one positive a day and one negative a month. But in my case I do one positive a week and one negative a month. To make things simpler, lets say both me and others do the negative at the end of the month. So, before the month comes to an end, both me and others are at 100%: in my case I done 4 positives 0 negatives, so 4/4=100%, in their case they done 30 positives and 0 negatives, so 30/30=100%. But then that fateful day at the end of the month arrives, and both me and others do one negative. So now I done 5 things out of which only 4 are positive, so 4/5=80%, so I am below 90% and I strike out. But others have done 31 things, out of which 30 are positive, so they have 30/31=97%, so they are above 90% and are perfectly fine. But then I will get totally mislead over the reason why I strike out I think I striked out because of that one negative -- hence I dwell on it, want to undo it, etc. etc. etc. But in actuality I striked out because I didn't do enough positives: others did that one negative too, but they didn't strike out since they did more positives. Yet, the womans behavior would never show it: the woman didn't leave me during this month when I was under-performing with positives, she only left me when I did that one negative -- which is why I end up dwelling on that negative without realizing its not even the main issue.

But in any case, the above is hypothetical. I know I do more negatives than most people. I was just trying to bring it up as an illustration of the concept that I feel like might be applicable. Although again, am I *sure* I do more negatives than most people? I mean I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't do drugs, etc. Yet there are people who do all those things and are able to find a girlfriend, and I can't. So maybe they are all balancing it out with positives? Well I guess its hard to believe, particularly if we are talking about people who do drugs. But what are your thoughts on this?



But nobody is perfect. So suppose someone, say, does 1 negative per 20 positives. But that person is unlucky: they did their negative before they had time to complete their 10 positives. Don't you think its unfair to dump them "only" due to timing?

It seems like an underlying assumption is that "good-ies are good and bad-ies are bad": some people are 100% positive and others are far below 90% mark; but the situation where someone is, say, 95% positive is deemed impossible. But why is that? I would think the opposite. I would think someone 95% positive is far more likely than someone 100% positive, since we are all humans and humans make mistakes.



So are you saying that the caffeteria where the food is "always" bad are more likely than caffeteria where its bad only once in a while?



In this respect others are right: I have a habbit of testing peoples limits, so the more patient with me someone is the more I do negative things. But actually this is precisely the reason why I think they should give me more chances. Once they show me -- through their reaction -- that what I do isn't tolerated, I know I will change my behavior. So why don't they stay around to see how it changes?

Now you can ask me "if you think you can change, why have you been repeating the same mistake with different women over and over again". Well, the answer is, again, in this exact concept I just cited: that I only change in reaction to people that are more strict. So if one woman dumped me, that is "not" going to teach me to change with another woman: for all I know, the other woman won't have dumped me in this situation (in fact, I oftentimes complain to new women about the old ones, and they are typically on my side, so I think "okay since they are on my side, they wouldn't dump me the way old women dumped me" but then I am wrong). On the other hand, if I can get back one of the old women then yes I can change: I already know what triggers them, so I can avoid doing whatever it is they don't like me doing. And no I am not saying that I will have this super detailed list of things, such as "its not okay to leave onion skin on the table but its okay to leave potatoe skin on the table". No, its more like "this girl has problems when I leave a mess, so I won't leave a mess". But I have to know that she is the type of person that has issues with this, see what I mean?

^ Yes, it’s frustrating, but that’s how it is. Learn how to deal with it. Coming up with reasons why it’s not fair and shouldn’t be like that won’t change the end result. I tend to think that things are right as they are but that’s beside the point...

Stop pushing people’s limits. Why would you do that?

I’ve already explained why no one should stick with someone who is difficult to get along with from the beginning. It’s a huge red flag because it often indicates that someone will be abusive later on or that you guys are simply incompatible. Stop being difficult to get along with.

It’s also true that when a couple first starts dating they try to be themselves but the best version of themselves. They want to leave a good impression as they get a feel for the other person. Given this, if you are difficult to get along with from the start, your date will assume that you’ll be even worse later on. It’s another clear reason why you need to change your approach. That’s just how it is. Accept it and use this knowledge moving forward (even if you don’t like it).

You are under the misunderstanding that you need to be difficult to get along with in order to learn what not to do. That’s problematic. It’s like saying that you need to jump off a cliff in order to know that it’ll hurt. Stop thinking that way.

Sure, small blunders happen, but we can learn from past experiences, advice on this forum, and self help books about what not to do. You don’t need to be sabotaging a current relationship to learn. There’s a learning curve in every relationship, but no one is going to want to be with someone who seems uncaring, negative, pushy, or is disrespectful of differing opinions from the start. That’s not going to be considered workable by most people.

Some rules going afford:

Be positive. Don’t complain about your family, career, love life, friendships, etc. If a person complains a lot about multiple things, your date is going to figure that you are the problem. It’s great to talk about life goals (not marriage or children) because that shows you have ambition and motivation.

During conversation on a date with a new interest, don’t talk solely about yourself. Act interested in what your date has to say and ask questions (but not too personal). Keep the conversation light and positive and yet express concern if your date mentions something she’s upset about.

Avoid drama and don’t be insecure. That’s not fun or interesting. In the beginning, it’s natural to agonize over every word of a text or email, but keep the drama to yourself and don’t discuss your relationship before you have one. Be light and positive.

Trying to rush someone into a relationship could be construed as an attempt to quickly get into the woman’s pants, so don’t do that.

Learn how to disagree respectfully but avoid arguments (especially centered around religion or politics). Saying something like: “Yeah, I see what you’re saying but I was thinking that [or wondering if]...” Acknowledge what someone says without just dismissing it. (Very good skill that politicians need to work on!) If you can’t be polite, keep your opinion to yourself. Don’t be “It’s my way or the highway.”

Don’t be a know-it-all.

Use good manners. (Obviously)

Don’t be distant but avoid sending multiple texts or emails to someone without a response in the beginning of a relationship. If she doesn’t respond, move on. Don’t be creepy.

(These tips are a good start. Of course, there are many more that you could learn by taking some time to do so, but these particular ones cause the most trouble in my experience.)

If you can memorize equations, you can learn dating etiquette. It’s hard and everyone makes mistakes, especially in tricky scenarios, but there are certainly things you can learn and work on before getting involved with someone and immediately blowing it.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 08 Dec 2019, 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

“It’s not fair” in the context of the OP means only “She’s not acting the way I want her to act.”

Give it up QFT, or one day you may find yourself at the receiving end of a restraining order, her boyfriend’s fists, or something even worse.