EPTDating: How's your luck? - Page 1045
| Forum Index > General Forum |
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on. Posts of the following nature are banned: 1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post. 2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no. 3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture. 4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments. Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2688 Posts
The man is a genuine, honest human looking for an actual intimate relationship. Any advice for what he shouldbe doing? He's been trawling Plenty of Fish for a bit and a good half the people that actually talk to him are genuine hookers. Basically, if there are sites or methods to attracting genuine, actual people (as opposed to superficial people), advice on that front would be welcome! + Show Spoiler + he's also in therapy, so I get that things like serial monogamy and having been left by his wife are red flags but not what I'm asking about. He's no worse a human than you or I, and deserves to share it with caring humans  | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On March 21 2019 04:36 IgnE wrote: You think they raised kids badly? Why is that? the fuck are you asking someone else to flesh out the crap you were infering in the first place, only to pose meaningless questions afterwards that have exactly zero in common with the topic you're posting in? also read the mod note On March 21 2019 04:55 Fleetfeet wrote: So. Idgaf dating (am polyamorous, happily single when single and happily in a romantic relationship atm) but a friend of mine is a serial monogamist that recently had his wife leave him (more or less, a 7 year relationship that had run its course) and is having a nightmarish time attempting online dating. The man is a genuine, honest human looking for an actual intimate relationship. Any advice for what he shouldbe doing? He's been trawling Plenty of Fish for a bit and a good half the people that actually talk to him are genuine hookers. Basically, if there are sites or methods to attracting genuine, actual people (as opposed to superficial people), advice on that front would be welcome! + Show Spoiler + he's also in therapy, so I get that things like serial monogamy and having been left by his wife are red flags but not what I'm asking about. He's no worse a human than you or I, and deserves to share it with caring humans being in therapy can be a step in the right direction, no shame in seeking help if it feels necessary. on the contrary, it's a sign of strengh to admit one needs help and even more so to seek it. Especially with the toxic masculinity shit stirring up trouble. For the oher part I can't contribute as I've always avoided online dating like the plague and haven't needed to get to know potential partners for almost a decade. So I'm pretty much out of touch. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11800 Posts
On March 21 2019 04:55 Fleetfeet wrote: So. Idgaf dating (am polyamorous, happily single when single and happily in a romantic relationship atm) but a friend of mine is a serial monogamist that recently had his wife leave him (more or less, a 7 year relationship that had run its course) and is having a nightmarish time attempting online dating. The man is a genuine, honest human looking for an actual intimate relationship. Any advice for what he shouldbe doing? He's been trawling Plenty of Fish for a bit and a good half the people that actually talk to him are genuine hookers. Basically, if there are sites or methods to attracting genuine, actual people (as opposed to superficial people), advice on that front would be welcome! + Show Spoiler + he's also in therapy, so I get that things like serial monogamy and having been left by his wife are red flags but not what I'm asking about. He's no worse a human than you or I, and deserves to share it with caring humans My advice would probably be to try to be alone for a while. I don't think that any new relationship can actually feel like something new directly after a 7 year relationship. And constantly comparing your current partner and relationship to the previous one can not end well. I think the classic idea is that you need about 10% of the time that the relationship lasted to be ready for a new one. Utterly overgeneralized obviously, but the general idea is pretty solid. Learn to be happy with yourself, instead of trying to substitute the previous relationship with a new person. I don't have any experience with online dating though. My advice, in line with what i wrote above, would be to pursue (social) hobbies instead. Edit: Also, as the guy above already mentioned, nothing wrong with therapy. The stigma on that is fucking ridiculous. No one would think twice about visiting a doctor about a fever, but when you have the mental equivalent of that, suddenly half the population thinks that it is a major shame to see a therapist. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On March 21 2019 04:55 Fleetfeet wrote: So. Idgaf dating (am polyamorous, happily single when single and happily in a romantic relationship atm) but a friend of mine is a serial monogamist that recently had his wife leave him (more or less, a 7 year relationship that had run its course) and is having a nightmarish time attempting online dating. The man is a genuine, honest human looking for an actual intimate relationship. Any advice for what he shouldbe doing? He's been trawling Plenty of Fish for a bit and a good half the people that actually talk to him are genuine hookers. Basically, if there are sites or methods to attracting genuine, actual people (as opposed to superficial people), advice on that front would be welcome! + Show Spoiler + he's also in therapy, so I get that things like serial monogamy and having been left by his wife are red flags but not what I'm asking about. He's no worse a human than you or I, and deserves to share it with caring humans Why did his wife leave him? Did he pick a "bad" woman for marriage? Was he bad material relationship? I'd start there. Can't move foward if you don't know where you failed and why. | ||
|
MysteryMeat1
United States3292 Posts
@Farva "Have you lived with her in similar circumstances already, or is this the largest living together commitment you'll have entered into? Do you feel any self-pressure to look elsewhere for someone who more closely aligns with your desires? How much do you like her? " We live together currently in Alexandria and moving to Tyson's to have a better commute (even though Alexandria is a better neighborhood). I'm trying to be respectful of her timeline and what she wants. As in, I don't think she would be fine with getting Married at 30+. I think our personalities are a pretty good fit, and If the Coldplay hasn't driven me away yet then I don't know what will  @ SK.Testie "Is there a lot of pressure from her on to you to have kids? She clearly wants children as you stated but is she pressuring you about it?" I wouldn't say there is a lot of pressure? Her grandparents have not had a good week so indirectly there is probably pressure on her, but I'm not going to get married/have kids for someone else. She has a pretty clear picture of what she wants, and until recently (i.e last night) I didn't think she was as flexible as what she said was. Waiting a bit longer having one kid and seeing how I feel about it before having more etc. @Bloodwhore I'm fine with her being a stay at home mom temporarily, I think the older I get and more financially secure I am the more I would support it and not really care since it would make her fullfilled. Having three kids though Idk, probably not. Im not currently super fullfilled with what I do, but it pays well, work life balance is good, people are nice, they have cold brew on tap and a secret ping pong room so I can't complain. as for the hunter/gather conversation i'll pass, I'd like to keep my streak of not being temp banned going a little longer  If there's any questions I didn't answer please repost them lol | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2688 Posts
Yeah, therapy is all but necessary imo. People should be more comfortable both admitting they hurt, and seeking healthy ways of dealing with hurt. I feel you on avoiding online dating - I've never been that... desperate, I guess? Sounds bad, but is what it is. @simberto Thanks, mate! I'm also pushing the social-interests thing, and it feels good to have that idea reinforced. He's naturally decided that he was approaching dating from a substitution / obsession angle, so he's taken a step back and reassessing his motives, which is good. @GoTuNk! I reject the notion that a relationship ending means someone failed. Nobody is perfect, but a relationship ending isn't a case of -fault-. It will always be true that either party could do something "better" to save the relationship, but the relationship itself isn't and shouldn't be sacred; In my opinion, that's one of the fundamental failings of marriage / monogamy as it is presented to the general public. Monogamy itself as a concept is fine, but the idea that is aligned divinely and the only "true" choice is kind of toxic/awful. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 21 2019 04:55 Fleetfeet wrote: So. Idgaf dating (am polyamorous, happily single when single and happily in a romantic relationship atm) but a friend of mine is a serial monogamist that recently had his wife leave him (more or less, a 7 year relationship that had run its course) and is having a nightmarish time attempting online dating. The man is a genuine, honest human looking for an actual intimate relationship. Any advice for what he shouldbe doing? He's been trawling Plenty of Fish for a bit and a good half the people that actually talk to him are genuine hookers. Basically, if there are sites or methods to attracting genuine, actual people (as opposed to superficial people), advice on that front would be welcome! + Show Spoiler + he's also in therapy, so I get that things like serial monogamy and having been left by his wife are red flags but not what I'm asking about. He's no worse a human than you or I, and deserves to share it with caring humans Well. First off is the issue that he isn't finding anyone good, or that he isn't getting any responses? If it's a response issue, then objective #1 is the dude needs to get pictures that aren't shit. Either that, or he is not especially attractive to begin with and out of shape as well. If he is decent looking and in okay shape the answer is easy: better pictures. Get some good professional shots that make him look presentable AND attractive. Pictures are 90% of the game of online dating, and if you aren't a VERY good looking guy you will look bad in most pictures, and most guys are bad at telling how they look in pictures. If he isn't that good looking and/or is somewhat out of shape, if he wants to do online he needs to fix that. At a minimum he shouldn't be carrying any spare tire and get some of the facial fat off, ideally, some sort of athletic build (don't need a six pack, but should lift and look active). Then from there, good quality pics. Boom. If he can't, or won't do this. He needs to drop the online. It's a MUCH more looks based game. Top 50% doesn't cut it. You need to be above average to get reasonable matches because of the number of options and the fact that 95% of guys will message a woman who is average. If the problem is finding decent women, that's a different issue. Definitely get off POF, it was decent 5-10 years ago but it's shit today. A good 1/3 of the profiles are just bots that are hooker bots, wanting to get you from cams or to sign up for other sites. It's a huge time waste to wade through them, also, it tends to be the lowest quality of options out of all the dating sites. If he looks very good, Tinder isn't bad. Other options that vary by city will include Coffee Meets Bagel, Bumble, Hinge (in particular, seems to have more relationship/career oriented gals). I haven't used other dating sites, but options like Match are probably decent too. Cannot confirm though. CAN confirm that POF is garbage at this point. Borderline waste of time. Genuine people is going to be how you present yourself. A more serious profile, combined with more relationship/connection building talk will do the trick. This actually works to your advantage if your less than super attractive. Girls will often assume, perhaps indirectly, that the good looking guys only want hookups, or that's all they could get from them. For guys closer to average, they are more likely to see them as a good date. On March 19 2019 02:18 Artisreal wrote: Marrying in the US is about as committal as a rental agreement so why not. Maybe if you have a rock solid prenup, with a parenting planned, witnessed by a judge and signed well in advance of marriage. Even then you can never be sure... On March 21 2019 03:42 IgnE wrote: i wonder how hunter-gatherers raised their children Does it matter? There is, as far as I know, no evidence to suggest that there kids were better off or more successful than today's kids are. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 21 2019 03:14 GoTuNk! wrote: Yeah every public service here sucks (except emergency health, I would say), people from the first world have no idea how government works outside their very functional government bubble. Even private daycares are bad. That said, for a kid that young, being separated from their mom for a few hours at a young age is terrible trauma and should be avoided. Couple that with being thrown in a place where they compete with 10+ other kids for the attention of a few if not one adult, and where if they receive any kind of abuse they can't comunicate it and it's def something I will not expose my kids to. They will not be out of my or my wives sight until they can at least talk and we have bonded enough that they feel safe without us. They can perfectly socialize under supervision until then. What ages are we talking about? I would think kids around age 5 can start to handle it, and kids age 7+ should absolutely be able to handle the separation. Ages 1,2,3...probably not as great. Having worked at one, my initial thoughts on the care is that it is VERY mixed. Your child might have very good care, he might also have very poor care. Kids that misbehave, are less attractive, less social, etc. are likely to receive worse care (in my experience working at several). Misbehave is obvious. Usually going to get attention, but of a negative kind. Some of it may be warranted, but unlike parents there isn't a loving bond there. It's pretty easy for employees to label someone "that problem kid" and then not want to interact with him, or have that PITA mentality carry over to neglect or harsher/biased treatment. Less social, probably same thing with it being obvious. If the kid wants to be alone, or is shy, most staff members aren't going to try and change that or work with the kid. Attempts at inclusion are made sometimes, but not always, and especially not if resistance is offered. Looks are the last big factor. Less obvious. Most people are very reluctant to acknowledge how much bias there is towards how people look. Good looking kids get moderate to MASSIVE preferential treatment. A shy kid that looks awkward or just isn't handsome is significantly more likely to get ignored if shy, or punished more harshly if misbehaving. Opposite for a very handsome (or cute for babies) kid, they will have to work VERY hard to not be generally loved by most of the staff. As much as I hate to say it, looking back I can say this was true for me as well. When I think of my favorite kids, they were all towards the upper quarter of the spectrum just about, and the ones that gave me the most trouble/liked the least...tended to be the ones that looked awkward or goofy. I don't want to derail this into a massive looks bias discussion, but this plays a really big role in child development (unfortunately). Main point is that daycare is a massive grab bag of treatment from my experience working at a variety. Sometimes they are pretty great and very positive experiences for the kids, oftentimes they are mediocre or outright bad. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
Here is a good, though perhaps a little on the older side (2010?) showing examples on both sides and research supporting both positions if curious: DayCare Discussion/MetaAnalysis From a gut perspective, I can't see it as anything but a bad thing for developing children where nurturing and love is considered to be the critical value/development stage in the first year or two of life. No way is a daycare ever going to come close to caring for a baby the way a mother/father will, nor will the physical bonding be the same. For older kids, I'm thinking 5+, depending on the kid I could see it being negative, slightly negative, neutral, or positive (good looking, engaging, positive kid likely will have a positive experience at daycare; opposite for a kid who is not behaving so well, shy, and not good looking). Again, studies go both ways. You can find data against it, you can find data for it. Attempting to look at meta reviews seemed to find the same patterns. At the end of the day you're going to have to make something of a "gut" choice here based on your personal values and feelings about the idea. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 21 2019 08:12 GoTuNk! wrote: Why did his wife leave him? Did he pick a "bad" woman for marriage? Was he bad material relationship? I'd start there. Can't move foward if you don't know where you failed and why. I can also agree with this somewhat. Most people aren't super careful about getting into relationships. They tend to just fall in them with the first person they meet or the one that is most "fun" in the short term. You've got to know what YOU want out of a relationship, and what qualities and behaviors you like and dislike. If you don't like drama, and you get some, or certainly lots of drama, in the first 6 months to a year....you should NOT consider that person for a LTR. If you dislike someone who is career driven and values earning more and crushing their work performance to leisure time and is say, a law student, you probably shouldn't date that person with LTR expectations....even if they are really fun. If she is dead set on having kids....and you don't want kids....well....probably shouldn't go for an LTR. If you have a very high sex drive and she only wants sex once a week....you probably shouldn't date that person (unless you guys decide on an open relationship). Obviously, every quality won't automatically exclude, but imo some important ones are:
Probably more I can add to that list, but those are all definitely things you have to think about and decide, AHEAD OF TIME, what you can and cannot tolerate. Moreover, you should definitely talk to her and understand how she feels about you and what she wants out of a relationship. In general, you should always be talking about your needs and how the two of you feel about what the other is doing in the relationship. One final thing I would add, you should go into the relationship with the expectation that if it lasts a long time she will cheat. You should also expect yourself to as well. Because, statistically, you will. Cheating rates are estimated to be 50% at an an absolute minimum for long term relationships, but many estimates put that as high as 80% of more. Knowing that will happen allows you to be at peace with that, and have a plan in place for how you will react if (realistically, when) that happens. If she doesn't, congratulations on selecting a faithful partner suited for long term partnership. Of course there are obvious red flags to suggest probable infidelity in the future (promiscuous, attractiveness, number of partners especially if greater than 10, impulsiveness, lower discipline/moral strength, etc.) but even people that seem pretty unlikely to cheat may do so. I've seen/heard of many people I would have thought very unlikely or outright "will never cheat" do so. Far to many to think that anybody can see it coming or pick someone that "they know won't cheat". | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2688 Posts
On March 21 2019 15:29 L_Master wrote: Well. First off is the issue that he isn't finding anyone good, or that he isn't getting any responses? If it's a response issue, then objective #1 is the dude needs to get pictures that aren't shit. Either that, or he is not especially attractive to begin with and out of shape as well. If he is decent looking and in okay shape the answer is easy: better pictures. Get some good professional shots that make him look presentable AND attractive. Pictures are 90% of the game of online dating, and if you aren't a VERY good looking guy you will look bad in most pictures, and most guys are bad at telling how they look in pictures. If he isn't that good looking and/or is somewhat out of shape, if he wants to do online he needs to fix that. At a minimum he shouldn't be carrying any spare tire and get some of the facial fat off, ideally, some sort of athletic build (don't need a six pack, but should lift and look active). Then from there, good quality pics. Boom. If he can't, or won't do this. He needs to drop the online. It's a MUCH more looks based game. Top 50% doesn't cut it. You need to be above average to get reasonable matches because of the number of options and the fact that 95% of guys will message a woman who is average. If the problem is finding decent women, that's a different issue. Definitely get off POF, it was decent 5-10 years ago but it's shit today. A good 1/3 of the profiles are just bots that are hooker bots, wanting to get you from cams or to sign up for other sites. It's a huge time waste to wade through them, also, it tends to be the lowest quality of options out of all the dating sites. If he looks very good, Tinder isn't bad. Other options that vary by city will include Coffee Meets Bagel, Bumble, Hinge (in particular, seems to have more relationship/career oriented gals). I haven't used other dating sites, but options like Match are probably decent too. Cannot confirm though. CAN confirm that POF is garbage at this point. Borderline waste of time. Genuine people is going to be how you present yourself. A more serious profile, combined with more relationship/connection building talk will do the trick. This actually works to your advantage if your less than super attractive. Girls will often assume, perhaps indirectly, that the good looking guys only want hookups, or that's all they could get from them. For guys closer to average, they are more likely to see them as a good date. Thanks, friend! There's a bunch of useful stuff in here. I appreciate the insight! | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On March 21 2019 15:42 L_Master wrote: What ages are we talking about? I would think kids around age 5 can start to handle it, and kids age 7+ should absolutely be able to handle the separation. Ages 1,2,3...probably not as great. Having worked at one, my initial thoughts on the care is that it is VERY mixed. Your child might have very good care, he might also have very poor care. Kids that misbehave, are less attractive, less social, etc. are likely to receive worse care (in my experience working at several). Misbehave is obvious. Usually going to get attention, but of a negative kind. Some of it may be warranted, but unlike parents there isn't a loving bond there. It's pretty easy for employees to label someone "that problem kid" and then not want to interact with him, or have that PITA mentality carry over to neglect or harsher/biased treatment. Less social, probably same thing with it being obvious. If the kid wants to be alone, or is shy, most staff members aren't going to try and change that or work with the kid. Attempts at inclusion are made sometimes, but not always, and especially not if resistance is offered. Looks are the last big factor. Less obvious. Most people are very reluctant to acknowledge how much bias there is towards how people look. Good looking kids get moderate to MASSIVE preferential treatment. A shy kid that looks awkward or just isn't handsome is significantly more likely to get ignored if shy, or punished more harshly if misbehaving. Opposite for a very handsome (or cute for babies) kid, they will have to work VERY hard to not be generally loved by most of the staff. As much as I hate to say it, looking back I can say this was true for me as well. When I think of my favorite kids, they were all towards the upper quarter of the spectrum just about, and the ones that gave me the most trouble/liked the least...tended to be the ones that looked awkward or goofy. I don't want to derail this into a massive looks bias discussion, but this plays a really big role in child development (unfortunately). Main point is that daycare is a massive grab bag of treatment from my experience working at a variety. Sometimes they are pretty great and very positive experiences for the kids, oftentimes they are mediocre or outright bad. Thanks that's a very insightful post. I want to add "Excludos" was advocating for dropping 1 year old kids on daycare as an optimal thing and is prolly very traumatic for the kid. That's not 5+ as you describe so properly here. Do you have any experience or insight with younger kids? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
It's ridiculous to automatically assume its a traumatic experience for the child. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8247 Posts
On March 21 2019 20:05 GoTuNk! wrote: Thanks that's a very insightful post. I want to add "Excludos" was advocating for dropping 1 year old kids on daycare as an optimal thing and is prolly very traumatic for the kid. That's not 5+ as you describe so properly here. Do you have any experience or insight with younger kids? Yes, everyone in Norway is traumatised from age 1  It's not like you bring them in and comfortably introduce them to the nannies so they'll be comfortable or even happy there. Nope, you just throw them in for some immediate traumatisation. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States547 Posts
1) Humans are adaptable and kids especially will adjust to almost any circumstance over time. 2) The first separation from parents is traumatic for all individuals whenever it happens, and the older the kid the more likely the behaviors/emotions involved will be severe. The idea that your child will forget how to form emotional attachments because you put them in daycare too early is completely ludicrous. As long as you are still with the kid for a majority (over 50%) of it’s waking hours and give the kid a majority of its meals, you should be fine. The only good reasons to not get your kid in daycare super early are to avoid getting sick (this is much less of an issue after 1 year), or shitty care (always an issue). | ||
|
bloodwhore~
1010 Posts
Probably depends on the country though, for a third world country like USA it might be true, definitely not for Sweden though. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On March 22 2019 02:03 bloodwhore~ wrote: I feel like this kid discussion is derailing. But that kids would get "traumatised" from being put in a daycare when they're like 1-2 is crazy. Probably depends on the country though, for a third world country like USA it might be true, definitely not for Sweden though. Yea it probably is moving close to off topic for this thread. I would agree traumatized is too strong of a word. There is no doubt the initial separation is a stressful event however. I definitely can't see any way that daycare would be "good" (better than parental care) for a kid that is younger than 2, especially younger than 18mos....but the real question, which sadly has little data....is just how "bad" is it? It goes without saying that it will depend MASSIVELY on quality of care received at the given daycare. If the care isn't of very high quality I think it goes without saying it's not going to be great for the kid. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45524 Posts
On March 22 2019 02:55 L_Master wrote: Yea it probably is moving close to off topic for this thread. I would agree traumatized is too strong of a word. There is no doubt the initial separation is a stressful event however. I definitely can't see any way that daycare would be "good" (better than parental care) for a kid that is younger than 2, especially younger than 18mos....but the real question, which sadly has little data....is just how "bad" is it? It goes without saying that it will depend MASSIVELY on quality of care received at the given daycare. If the care isn't of very high quality I think it goes without saying it's not going to be great for the kid. Daycare at an early age can often guarantee adult attention and peer socialization that might not be available at home (depending on the parents' work schedule, whether or not there are siblings, etc.). It 100% is a case-by-case basis, depending on the family and the daycare/ pre-school, etc. The only generalization I'd be comfortable making about this topic is that at least offering a daycare option for super-busy parents is generally better than not offering such an option. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
Of course, like DarkPlasmaBall stated, there will be cases where daycare would be superior. Sending a kid to daycare is obviously better than keeping him at home with a crack addict or workaholic parents you can find numerous articles on the matter on ncbi, like this one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2262285/ or you can just ask your local pediatrician | ||
| ||
