problem with dating

Post Reply New Topic

Ok. I am not a hardcore christian right wing, however I do believe the bible as good basic for relationship.
That a man and women should love and respect each other.
The problem with dating is that people are looking for the wrong things and not seeing whole person.
Example: alot of women will only date men who they think are ''confidence'' or has ''good dating skills''.
That fine but the problem is that women are not seeing the ''whole man'' Yes a man might be ''confidence'' but after 3 dates,
you realize the man a complete jerk
Now for men they find a women who they think is attractive and ''cool'' but after while the women turn out to be a cold heart b*tch who just kicks
him the balls

or the women who keeps going after same ''loser'' over and over again because he has ''game'' but refuse to date a much nicer man who has less ''game''
Or the man who keeps going after same ''b^tch'' over and over again because she's hot and popular but yet ignore the more average looking nice girl.

Any relationship based on rules, money, manipulation, and power (e.g., "Religion") is fated for conflict as the two play a cut-throat game of "Holier than Thou".

Been there. Done that. Got crucified for it.

Yes, Money is another one. Alot of women thinks that if a man has alot of money then he is going to be most wonderful man.

That's all fine for me because I don't want to go out with the type of guy you describe. I think the system works pretty well in that regard. Let like-minded people have each other.

Okay - YOU had a bad experience with it. That doesn't mean all religious people will be the same... wouldn't you be offended if I spouted some BS, like, "All athiests just want to screw anything that moves and can't commit to save their lives."
It's BS with very little credence.

...just like anything else, a relationship works best when two people are "equally yoked" and one isn't immensely "better" than the other in whatever regard.

No, not at all. I'm not an Atheist.


Correction: It's religion that has very little credence, in spite of the millions of "religious" people, because religion is the political expression of faith that is based on collections of largely apocryphal stories handed down from stone-age superstition; and religion is all about rules and power ... with money making all of the difference.


There is no such thing as "equally yoked", unless they both think exactly alike -- possible only under a system that indoctrinates its members from cradle to grave (e.g., "Religion"). And by "possible", I do not mean "always".

Unless the couple places their relationship above all religious considerations (and secular politics), and agrees to overlook their religious differences, the marriage is doomed to failure from various forms of "Holier Than Thou" mind games.

Yeah I think the OP is on to something, probably why the PUA is such a big business

Yeeeah...problem with that line of "logic" is that religions usually have actual TEXTS we can refer to for...I dunno...rules about selling your daughter into sexual slavery, slaughtering goats to read their entrails, infanticide, etc.

Atheism's only mantra is "I don't believe that".

For clarification, OP, is the woman in question someone you admire that turned you down or already has a boyfriend or keeps dating guys in a position you're envious of?

Is this really about religion or about principles? What are your principles?

Wrong.

Their mantra is more like "Never propose an unknown supernatural cause when a known natural cause can be observed". This is similar to Occam's Razor, which says that the simplest answer is most often correct. Positing an un-observable, un-measureable, and un-knowable supernatural sky-daddy as the cause of natural events is not only more complex than natural causality, but it is the realm of those who would rather live in ignorance of observable, measurable, and knowable reality.

However, the reason that thinking people don't believe religious doctrine is because it's all about rules, politics, and money.

Actually, that is called skepticism. Atheism really is nothing more than not believing in deities.

Anyway, going back to the topic (and running away from the stupid discussion that will probably ensue after this, so do not bother expecting another reply from me): I agree with what yellowtamarin said. It sucks that there are people who choose irrelevant traits as if they were essential when dating, but those people are only going to meet the ones they deserve.

In short: somebody who is not looking at the "whole person" is doomed to get an "incomplete person". Unless they are lucky.

Last edited by Magnus_Rex on 14 Oct 2012, 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm sorry OP, but I don't really get what the actual problem is... Dating is about getting to know a person better and to see if the two can work together as romantic partners. One can't see "the whole person" just after a first glance; there is a reason a guy doesn't go to a girl and directly ask "will you spend the rest of your life with me?!". There are bound to be some disappointments along the way, especially if a person isn't sure what he/she wants. There are people who have a regular habit of going for the "wrong" type of people, but many learn with trial, error and experience. There isn't wisdom in the subject without the experience, however.

I agree that a man and a woman (hopefully not "women") should love and respect each other, but I see that being far more universal than Christian ideology.

Agreed. Some folks might called it "Immoral Cynicism" or some such nonsense, but Skepticism is the word.


Agreed. If she has a nice rack, but not the sense to keep herself clean, then she's just another dirty girl with a nice rack.