Dating: How's your luck? - Page 80

On January 10 2013 04:09 Sakray wrote:
Question for musicians here : does playing an instrument really help dating girls ?

On January 10 2013 05:48 Courthead wrote:


I'm going to have to disagree with the post you quoted. I believe very strongly that the best way to navigate the tempestuous waters of life is to know (and accept) the truth about as many things as possible, even when the truth is more painful than fiction. Especially when the truth is more painful than fiction. So here's the truth:

• Love is 100% real. It is a real, physical, chemical phenomenon. It is not some fictional concept invented by Disney.
  
• Love can often cause desperation, but it is not the same thing as desperation. Similarly, desperation can exist without love.
  
• Love can often cause obsession, but it is not the same thing as obsession. Similarly, obsession can exist without love.
  
• It is perfectly possible, and also quite common, to be in love with someone who you aren't dating.
  
• It is perfectly possible, and also quite common, to be in love with someone who doesn't love you back. In fact, this can happen even if you're dating or married to the one you love.

All of the above are facts. Don't even let anyone tell you otherwise. Don't ever let anyone tell you that what you feel is not love just because it's unrequited.

As for the more practical issues, here's my advice for dealing with love-gone-wrong:

• Love is risky. Most of the time it will not end well, and this may lead to the lowest of the lows: utter heartbreak, unceasing paranoia, all-consuming obsession. Understand these risks in advance, so they will not take you by surprise.
  
• There are literally hundreds of millions of women on Earth cute+cool enough for you to love. But when you're experiencing heartbreak, your body will only care about one of them. This is not your fault. Love is a real, physical, chemical thing, and a powerful evolutionary strategy. Ignore people who tell you to "just forget about her." That's like telling someone who's been shot, "just don't think about it," as if the pain is entirely within their control. It's not.
  
• That said, fight for control. Whenever you think about her, tell yourself you don't care about her. Don't talk to her. Delete her from your phone and your Facebook. Force yourself to talk to other girls. Your body won't instantly get over her, but you will speed the process up.
  
• Don't let heartbreak ruin you forever. Many people will harden their hearts to love for fear of being hurt. If you do that, fuck you. The day you do that is the day you die. Always, always, always give it your all. Never let a previous girl dampen your commitment to a new one.

You're welcome.

On January 10 2013 07:54 killa_robot wrote:


You're thinking more of lust than love. Love is simply wanting the best for someone whose not yourself. If you're obsessing over someone or anything along those lines, then that's lust. Unless you're obsessing because you're worried about them, in that case it probably would be love.

On January 10 2013 07:27 Metalreflux wrote:


Dating, not so much

hooking up? Only if you're in a band; but this isn't about hooking up.

On January 10 2013 09:03 Courthead wrote:


???

I'm not sure how anything I said can lead you to think I'm talking about lust. Lust is purely sexual. Love is not. Almost nothing I said above was directly related to sex.

I'm also not sure how you can define love as "simply wanting the best for someone whose not yourself." That's a fairy tale definition of love that's completely at odds with reality. Wanting the best for someone is called kindness, care, or friendship, not love.

There are women I've lusted after, without loving or caring for them. There are women I've cared for, without loving or lusting for them. And then there are the women I've loved, although I lusted for cared for all of them. Three distinct feelings.

On January 09 2013 15:25 iamahydralisk wrote:

sorry dude, but as a guy who used to constantly get friendzoned due to shyness and submissiveness, I have to disagree with you completely. while it's completely true that great romantic relationships can start from friendships, it doesn't mean that the friendzone doesn't exist. practically everyone (women and men) have proof of the friendzone being a real thing, and that proof is the fact that you're probably friends with at least one person of the opposite gender that you hold absolutely no sexual attraction towards. for example, I have some really good female friends that I have no desire to ever date, and if they asked me out, I'd say no. that's the friendzone.

also, as to your "it's just an excuse for a girl not wanting a relationship" comment, I'm calling BS because I think a lot of guys have had the experience of asking someone out, they say no and then they're dating someone the week after.

edit: to put it another way (perhaps more clear), you say "if you are friends with somebody and there's a mutual attraction it can happen." the friendzone is exactly what happens when the attraction is one-sided.

On January 10 2013 04:09 Sakray wrote:
Question for musicians here : does playing an instrument really help dating girls ?

On January 10 2013 09:46 killa_robot wrote:
Because the overarching goal of dating is sex, hence lust?

I'm sorry, but if you want your definition of love to actually count, you need to give a real definition, not just say mine is wrong. And no, wanting the best for someone goes beyond simple kindness or caring.

On January 10 2013 09:46 killa_robot wrote:
Love without lust is friendship/family love, love with lust is romantic love.

On January 10 2013 09:46 killa_robot wrote:You can certainly love someone who you're dating, but that'd take time, and if you're dealing with most of the issues you've presented, you haven't reached love yet.

On January 10 2013 11:30 Courthead wrote:

Dictionary.com:

lust: intense sexual desire or appetite; uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness
love: a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person


False. Lust is an intense sexual desire, not a normal sexual desire. I myself have loved someone without lusting for them. I've also love someone who I didn't lust for. The love was the same, but the level of sexual desire was different. I don't know why you're trying to conflate love and lust.


Millions of people -- including myself -- have fallen head over heels in love with someone in the span of a few days. Just because you haven't doesn't mean nobody else does. Again, whatever definition of love you're using seems to have no basis in reality or actual experience.

On January 10 2013 08:08 Nyarly wrote:

I might be very naive but i didn't think for one second that what was going to happen would happen.
She started with something like "I got a secret", then she "tried" to kiss me. I had never kissed anyone before, my lips only moved to say "I like boys", she answered she didn't care and then she learned me how to kiss. I still didn't know how to say no.

On January 10 2013 11:53 Visas wrote:


waitwaitwait..., The gay card actually works?

On January 10 2013 11:50 Alryk wrote:
Well fwiw, lust on merriam is "an intense longing" (dating)

On January 10 2013 11:50 Alryk wrote:
although also an intense, unbridled sexual desire. It also is "a sexual urge" and that should certainly happen if you're dating somebody. It's also synonyms with Eros, which is often equated to Romantic love.

On January 10 2013 11:50 Alryk wrote:
Urban dictionary says lust is often confused with love; merely being physical attraction and often with no lasting effect. The post that started all of this was saying that people (often they're young or don't have much dating experience) are mixing lust with love. I would definitely agree with that. Just look at how many high school girls get their first relationship, and know they're 100% in love after a month, and then 3 months later break up and wonder what went wrong.

Although few people here are HS girls, the principle is the same. Lust is often a catalyst for relationships, and Lust develops in tandem/simultaneously with love in a relationship.

On January 04 2013 03:38 Grimmyman123 wrote:
Women are like vintage cars.

Some are built for comfort, some for speed. Some for looks, some for practicality.

So, the really pretty one, thats really fast, is going to be really expensive, and the comfy one that is practical is less expensive.

What is the expense? Mostly your money (because nearly that is all that women REALLY want) but also your time, effort, and emotions.

So, my advice is find the women that meets your budget (time and money) and don't let them walk all over you, because, each and every one of them, given the chance, will rip out your heart, and empty your bank account, both at the same time. Not one of them is exempt from that statement.

On January 10 2013 04:09 Sakray wrote:
Question for musicians here : does playing an instrument really help dating girls ?

On January 10 2013 12:12 Courthead wrote:

When lust is defined simply as "an intense longing", it's almost certainly talking about a different version of the word... the version that would be used in the following sentence, for example: "Bill Gates lusted for success." That's a very different version of the word that we're talking about here, I think.


Sexual desires vary in intensity from culture to culture, person to person, hour to hour. Sexual lust is rarely an ongoing, never-ending state of being. It generally something that attacks you in fits and bursts. If I fuck my girlfriend and my lust subsides for the night, I don't think it would be fair to say that I no longer love her. If my girlfriend is disfigured by a horrible car accident and I no longer lust for her, I don't think it would be fair to say that I no longer love her. Etc.

The only point I'm trying to make -- and I think you would agree with me here -- is that love is not the same thing as lust. Although they tend to co-occur, they are in fact two distinct things capable of existing without each other.


Middle schoolers and high schoolers are at an age where romantic love first becomes physically possible. There are also biological arguments (as well as an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence) that one's first love is strongest. Combine the strength of a first love with the fact that high schoolers are generally less stable, mature, and responsible than older people, and it makes sense that high school relationships tend to fail.

However, I will re-iterate the same point I've made again and again. Love is love. Love is not synonymous with lust, it is not synonymous with caring, and it is not synonymous with having a lasting relationship. It is its own distinct entity. Just because high schoolers are notoriously bad at making their relationships last does not mean that what they feel is or is not love. On a side note, we are one of the first generations in the history of the world who attempt to delay love and marriage until ~30. For most of human history, the norm has been almost a decade earlier than that. This includes our parents, cavemen, and almost everyone in between. So don't underestimate the authenticity of the emotions felt by the young :-)

I will comment that my last relationship started purely with lust. I was attracted to this girl physically, and we had a lot of sex. Then we started hanging out more outside of sex, and I eventually began to love her. But I've also had a "love-at-first" sight relationship where I was undoubtedly in love in less than a week, and with no sex at all.

On January 10 2013 13:39 Xenocryst wrote:


Pretty cynical way to look at it... It kinda bugs me how everybody talks about women as these money hungry machines, kind of sad. You all should open your minds a little bit.

I disagree with what you say about high schoolers (having been one myself a year ago). I think high schoolers tend to overrate their relationships precisely because they are so emotionally unstable. I've seen friends go through relationships a month at a time. I've also seen other friends have legitimately stable relationships (myself included currently).

On January 10 2013 20:19 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
Fuck, you nerds discussing dictionary terms. Yes, what courthead is saying is true. You can love a person as a person without being romantically (and I use the word loosely, to mean what we all know as being in a monogamous relationship with, and having sex with) involved with that person. Of course that's possible.

The guy obsessing over whether that girl is fucking her husband that night? He's not in love. That's crazy, first of all; secondly, it quite implicitly expresses his sexual desires for her. I have female friends, some of whom I would say I loved, and I couldn't give two shits who they were having sex with, as long as it A) wasn't rape, and B) they were happy with that guy... and any rational person would think that. What that guy was describing was not love. [EDIT: INFATUATION! The whole time I was writing this post, I knew there was a word for what I get out of these posts... I wanted to call it puppy-love, but that's not good enough. Anyway, there it is. adj: possessed by a foolish or extravagant passion, esp for another person. They're not in love, they're infatuated.]

I thought that everyone above the age of twelve understood there was a difference in the feelings you have for someone you're actually involved with romantically (remember the definition above), and the feelings you'd have for someone you are not involved with romantically.

What these guys are is exactly what I said they are: desperate. They've fooled themselves into believing their in love with a girl in order to create a convenient excuse to not approach other women. Because they're so "in love" with this girl, approaching another girl might ruin their chances of getting with her. It's just a good defense mechanism against their approach anxiety; it's also complete horse shit, and they need to stop it. I think almost all guys have been there at some point (there are, of course, those guys that "get" women from middle school on). I've seen it in almost every male friend I've ever had, and I see it everywhere I go on the internet (so, literally, thousands of examples).



There's the key, to me. These guys are not stable emotionally, because they have not developed the maturity to be there, and imo, you need to have the experience before you can develop the maturity to understand it. Ergo, they are confused about what they're feeling.. They sound like typical high school kids. Maybe I'm wrong about their age, but that's irrelevant. What I get out of those posts is that these guys want to swoop in and take them away from their awful boyfriends/husbands that mistreat them, and treat them like the queen they deserve to be treated like. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I take away from them, and that's why I said what I said.

I understand that love can make you emotionally unstable... go ahead and read my blogs after my gf left me a few months ago, it destroyed me, and all I could think about was being with her: I was obsessed, because I was in love with her (I still am, I don't love her any less today than I did then, but I've accepted my position).

My main point was that you can't really love a person without knowing them. You may really enjoy things about them, about their personality, but (as someone else put it in this thread) all you're seeing is their highlight reel. In most cases, everything you know about that person is guarded information. Most people aren't willing to pull back the curtains into their world. Even when they're complaining about their shitty boyfriends, it's most often not said with complete sincerity.

People like to bitch, all the time, about everything, it's just how we are; I know that I used to complain about some of the more annoying parts of my relationship to my friends, but I didn't really want them to have the real scoop on what I thought (I'm very closed off to other people, though), and how I felt about that girl. I'd complain that she would get upset about me missing texts to seem cool to my friends, but secretly I loved that she always wanted to talk to me, and that she stayed up until 3 am every day, missing sleep, so she could be closer to my schedule, just so we could talk to each other. I loved that shit, and I miss it so much... but I'd never tell my friends that: that shit is weak, unmanly... can't share that with guy friends (not mine, anyway).

I don't think you can really love someone without knowing them, and these guys don't know these girls.