Help sought on the "nuts and bolts" of dating

[NoHiddenMsg]

Hi, I'm new to the site and hoping people here can help me with some questions that are very elementary.

 

To get the context right I need to give some background. You need to understand first of all that I have functionally *no* intuition. None. I will also be the first to admit that on dating, I know little. Anything I say below could be entirely or completely wrong. (Please don't be reticent in saying so where this is the case!) With that in mind, my social development has had its distinct quirks.

 

From as young an age as I can remember, it has seemed to me that social, and especially romantic, relationships seem to depend upon or assume that there is a form of limited telepathy between people, that lets them at least infer someone's basic level of interest and their superficial thoughts, without anything explicit having been said. I don't possess anything like this. But then again it also seems to me that the very existence of a site like this comprehensively explodes the idea of any such imagined telepathic sense. Presumably then there are certain clear external indications of someone's interest or lack thereof.

 

The key point about dating from my point of view is that if we take it as an evolution from total strangers to married couple, there are certain critical transitions along the way that have to happen, that require action on someone's part.

 

If we go through the complete set of transitions it seems to me that there are the following:

 

1) You encounter someone and decide to approach them and start a conversation.

2) The conversation is going well and you decide to ask them out.

3) You've had one or more dates and decide to kiss, or hug intimately, or in other ways show affection physically.

4) Physical affection moves to sleeping together.

5) You establish a clear long-term relationship.

6) You propose.

 

(I realise that this sounds impossibly dry and detached, rest assured I don't approach a relationship in anything like such a detached, clinically rational manner, and in fact that would be something like a living Hell to me, but I want to be sure that I'm stating things as clearly and unmistakeably as possible here)

 

From what I know now it seems that almost universally it is the man who is expected to initiate these actions. This is a state of affairs that quite simply didn't even occur to me until my early 20's, and it came to me as one of those worldview-destroying shocks. And even then I only found out because I was told it explicitly and in no uncertain terms. Up until that point it would have seemed inconceivable to me that there could be any sort of social convention that would expect unilaterally for one sex to initiate all phases of a relationship. And indeed I'd have thought, if anything, women, who on the one hand as a group tend to have a greater investment in social relationships and on the other in general far better skills in being able to understand or infer the thoughts and feelings of others, would be the ones more often than not making the move. If I'm to be honest, although I accept intellectually that men are expected in most cases to be the initiators, it's something I haven't really fully been able to absorb. I would love, in fact, to see someone come up with some sort of coherent explanation for why this is the case almost universally. (Such an explanation though is somewhat off-topic for this post so if you feel like answering let's have a new thread for that discussion)

 

From my point of view the problem is this: it seems to me that each of these stages is governed by a set of unwritten social rules which say what sort of action is considered appropriate in what situations, and equally well when *any* action indicating greater interest will be thought of as highly inappropriate. I have no idea what these rules might be. Worse, it seems to me that whatever rules may exist appear to depend upon you being able to gauge reasonably accurately when an advance would be well-received. A particular minefield seems to be present around whether or not someone's interest is purely in being friends or whether they have romantic interest as well (certainly *I* can't tell, not in the least). So that's my question: for each of the stages above (and particularly the earlier ones when things are less defined), what are the social rules (if any) that govern what you can say and when? And, in the understanding that there are no guarantees, how can you tell without them saying so explicitly that someone is open to any sort of initiatory action on your part?

 

Maybe all of this is based on entirely faulty premises, I don't know. So please don't hesitate to tell my if my thinking is completely wrong or missing something fundamental. Also I ask you to be brutally frank in talking about things the way they actually *are* as opposed to how they *should be*. Even if the truth should be that my situation is hopeless then it's better to know that than to labour forth in ignorance. Thanks for any enlightenment you may be able to provide.

[Xylitol]

Yeah you are absolutely clueless, although your analysis of the complete set of transitions seems to be correct, you have left out emotions completely out of the equation.

 

Everything that you do or say namely seems to be a rational deduction of the situation. You seem to be completely socially inept and don't understand your own role, nor that of others in a social interactive environment. So let's try to help you and fill in 'the missing link'

 

The best way for you to understand social behavior in humans is to look at one of our closest relative species namely Chimpanzees.

 

A Chimpanzee group would consist out of a hierarchy and a social structure. With males being the leading dominant "bosses" , and the females having the nurturing tasks. The hierarchy of males is determined by forming more or less political bonds through grooming or simply fights for dominance, the females demand that the 'boss" chimpanzees protect them and their children.

 

A lot of a humans social traits can be traced back to Chimpanzee behavior. The reason why you see most politicians being male, is because males assume a natural leading role. That's why more often then not, it would be the male to take the lead and in humans it would be the male to ask out the girl.This is also the reason why more then 99% of the girls like to have a guy that is taller then them and as a minimum needs to be at least as tall, because they need to have a feeling that you can protect them.

 

You need to learn to rationalize that these social and hierarchy structures are 'survival' structures. And during times of survival, specialization takes place, whereas only certain area's become dominant, and other area's become redundant. That's why your general rationalization of the subject of social intereaction doesn't work.

 

If you study Chimpanzees a bit you'll understand more about human social interaction. It's not completely 1 on 1 as humans are more complex, but it's good to dive into the roots to see where all this behavior is coming from.

 

After that you can start focusing on how you should properly date a woman yourself. I advice you to read the entire don juan bible to do so.

 

 

[NoHiddenMsg]

>Yeah you are absolutely clueless, although your analysis of the complete set of transitions seems to be correct, you >have left out emotions completely out of the equation.

 

Don't mistake style for substance. I'm an intellectual. I write in an intellectual style. To try to hide that would be pointless - it's part of who I am.

 

But the last thing I would do would be to approach a relationship from any viewpoint that didn't consider the other person's feelings as the most important thing - as if a relationship were some sort of Gradgrind-esque anthropological experiment in utility maximisation. Such an approach would destroy the entire purpose of a relationship; it would be *inhuman*.

 

Indeed I think that the other person's feelings are truly the only thing that really matters in a relationship.

 

It's a bit like baking a cake. I may know the principles of food science very well, even while actually baking cakes with the love and passion that are what really count if I want a good cake. It can be useful in some situations, though, to use the language of food science to describe what you're doing, even if were you to follow those directives mechanically you'd end up with a cake every bit as generic and mechanical.

 

But now, let's say you don't have any actual cake recipes. You may be a world expert on food science, and have an overflowing heart ready to pour out all your love into the baking of a cake to delight the one you care for, but without the concrete starting point of a recipe it would probably take you a very long time indeed to come up with a cake that was even edible - and by that point the one you wished to delight will probably long since have given up hope.

 

That's sort of like the position I'm in. By this point I'm attuned quite thoroughly to the concepts (I think); it's the concrete mechanics of what you need to do to advance a relationship that I don't know. As I say in the title: it's the 'nuts and bolts'. I can't make sense of social conventions that seem to pass unspoken - to extend the cake analogy, it's as if there were no published recipes, and everyone assumed that you had a grandma who lovingly passed down family recipes by word of mouth. I need help in understanding what are the unspoken conventions.

 

But if this isn't the sense in which you mean 'left out emotions', I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you saying that anyone who considered emotions couldn't help but know automatically what to do?

 

Or something completely different?

 

>The best way for you to understand social behavior in humans is to look at one of our closest relative species namely >Chimpanzees.

 

>...

>You need to learn to rationalize that these social and hierarchy structures are 'survival' structures. And during times of survival, specialization takes place, whereas only certain area's become dominant, and other area's become redundant. That's why your general rationalization of the subject of social intereaction doesn't work.

 

I'd like to think that in our divergent evolution humans and chimpanzees have drifted far enough apart that we're not bound by the exact same (social) considerations as apply to chimpanzees.

 

I'd like to think that in our long development of civilisation we have developed systems for relationships between men and women that retain all the passion and power of feeling that makes relationships real whilst allowing us to behave in ways that are...civilised.

 

Because if not, then even though we pay lip service to ideas like 'love', 'companionship', 'intimacy', and 'affection', these ideas would not actually be real, there would only be the brute necessity of survival and reproduction, and that would be not a little sad.

 

As it is though, it's very dangerous to reason by analogy concerning social arrangement between societies so radically different as humans and chimpanzees; any tentative conclusions you might make would have to be highly qualified at best.

 

But in any case, why would we even want to, when there is no need, when we have the best possible example before our eyes: we can interact in actual *human* society?

 

Be that as it may, worrying about chimpanzee behaviour doesn't really address the question I'm asking because I'm asking about those things that are specific to human society and relationships.

 

So, with apologies to all who have endured this excursus, I ask again: Is anyone willing to help me sort out the real social conventions that are part of navigating relationships?

[Sportster2005]

1. Make your own rules.

2. When someone wants to be with you, you'll know.

3. When someone doesn't want to be with you, you'll know. Don't fight it.

4. Treat mixed signals as non-interest. The results will be the same.

5. People have every right/prerogative to dump you at any time. Don't beg, don't question. You'll probably never know the real reason.

6. If you think too much, you're never going to be successful.

7. You will only get good at it after much awkwardness and rejection.

8. There is no such thing as the one, or soul mate. Don't create the myth of rarity.

9. Don't listen to dating coaches on the Internet. They suck and just want your money.

10. Learn basic body language. Watch other people date for clues on body language.

11. Online and bars are the worse place to find women. Go places where there are less men and more women.

12. "From what I know now it seems that almost universally it is the man who is expected to initiate these actions." It's 2016, not 1915.

13. Play safe.

14. Pay attention to what people do, not what they say. The exception is when they tell you they aren't interested. Pay attention when they say that.

15. You won't be successful if you don't love women.

16. You must have a good attitude.

17. Women more or less like masculinity. Don't confuse that with machismo.

18. Lighten up.

[NoHiddenMsg]

>1. Make your own rules.

 

My first rule would be: 'A relationship must not involve dominance or submission on either person's part'.

Comments?

 

>2. When someone wants to be with you, you'll know.

 

The thing is, no, I won't. Not if past experience in any case is any guide. I've been told after the fact numerous times that someone else was, in fact, interested, and all the time I was trying desperately to work that out without success.

 

>3. When someone doesn't want to be with you, you'll know. Don't fight it.

 

Again, the problem is, no I won't, at least not without something very explicit. And I would much rather move on than cause someone else discomfort and myself time wastage by hanging around waiting for something that's not going to happen.

 

>4. Treat mixed signals as non-interest. The results will be the same.

 

Back to the same comment - or one might say to me it seems everyone gives mixed signals, all the time. I just don't get any sort of 'little voice' suggesting someone is interested, or not interested, or anything else.

 

>5. People have every right/prerogative to dump you at any time. Don't beg, don't question. You'll probably never know the real reason.

 

Agreed. The faster everyone moves on the better.

 

>6. If you think too much, you're never going to be successful.

 

Mea culpa.

 

>7. You will only get good at it after much awkwardness and rejection.

 

Rejection I can handle. Awkwardness, not something I'm worried about. But what if the wrong thing said inadvertently or the wrong person approached unknowingly leads to complete social ostracism? The Internet especially makes it frighteningly easy for you to be made into a pariah. (However see the response to #6)

 

>8. There is no such thing as the one, or soul mate. Don't create the myth of rarity.

 

Completely agreed. As Sting has it: 'So many riches, so many souls...'

 

>9. Don't listen to dating coaches on the Internet. They suck and just want your money.

 

Not likely to be tempted there...

 

>10. Learn basic body language. Watch other people date for clues on body language.

 

Trouble there is, the body language related to dating and relationships is frustratingly subtle and ambiguous in real situations. Non-relationship body language is usually fairly blatant, the sort of thing they might talk about in books on 'body language'. I get non-relationship body language without having to read any books. But whenever I've asked friends on relationship body language, they give distorted, exaggerated examples. Would that it were so obvious! Then everything would be a breeze.

 

>11. Online and bars are the worse place to find women. Go places where there are less men and more women.

 

Would love to know where those places really are. My experience, meanwhile, is that the place you're by far most likely to find (potentially) interesting women is on the bus. Not exactly an atmosphere conducive to conversation...

 

>12. "From what I know now it seems that almost universally it is the man who is expected to initiate these actions." It's 2016, not 1915.

 

I'd wish that were as true as you say! But that doesn't seem to be how it actually is. But then again (see #'s 2, 3, 4), maybe many women have been trying and I've never noticed.

 

>13. Play safe.

>14. Pay attention to what people do, not what they say. The exception is when they tell you they aren't interested. Pay attention when they say that.

 

I have one issue with this. Paying attention to what people do sort of assumes you can infer motivation from action. I don't think it's NEARLY as simple as that. One action can have a thousand different motivations. And it would be unfair to presume a motivation of someone else without some sort of definite knowledge. What's the solution to this problem? As you imply, people can say a lot of things they don't mean too.

 

>15. You won't be successful if you don't love women.

 

Definitely not an issue.

 

>16. You must have a good attitude.

 

Even more definitely not an issue.

 

>17. Women more or less like masculinity. Don't confuse that with machismo.

>18. Lighten up.

 

Thoughts on any or all of the above?

[musicman777]

I read your whole post. It's long. I have certain nit bits to pick at. But ultimately, I think you are severely over-analyzing dating and relationships. There is no magic formula for how a people become a couple and how events play out. You are correct about certain social protocols. But ultimately, if you find the right person, none of this should matter. If you don't like "unwritten social rules", then find someone that doesn't enforce you to live by them. There should be no social rules telling you how to live your life and spend your time with this person. Things should happen naturally.

[Sportster2005]

>1. Make your own rules.

 

My first rule would be: 'A relationship must not involve dominance or submission on either person's part'.

Comments?

Sounds good.

>2. When someone wants to be with you, you'll know.

 

The thing is, no, I won't. Not if past experience in any case is any guide. I've been told after the fact numerous times that someone else was, in fact, interested, and all the time I was trying desperately to work that out without success.

My experience is, when I'm dating someone and they are truly interested there is not guessing at all. It's as plain as day. That's not say it is simple. People are vulnerable early and trying to navigate uncharted waters. There may be miscues and unforced errors. I tend to believe if those people were into you they would have made more effort. There's a difference between being a bit interested and being 'into' you. You also won't have to work desperately. Both people will figure it out.

>3. When someone doesn't want to be with you, you'll know. Don't fight it.

Again, the problem is, no I won't, at least not without something very explicit. And I would much rather move on than cause someone else discomfort and myself time wastage by hanging around waiting for something that's not going to happen.

Yes you will. Women struggle to find good men. It's more difficult for them to find a good partner. I think men are a little more flexible. That's my observation and experience. Humor me and accept it as fact or at least probable. When a woman finds a man she likes she'll make it real easy for you. And if you're not what she's looking for she's not going to invest anytime in you.

>4. Treat mixed signals as non-interest. The results will be the same.

 

Back to the same comment - or one might say to me it seems everyone gives mixed signals, all the time. I just don't get any sort of 'little voice' suggesting someone is interested, or not interested, or anything else.

I'm starting to think you just aren't meeting women that are interested in you. Mixed signals are the results of mixed emotions. Women and men? won't proceed unless they are entirely sure, so ultimately when they are feeling mixed they will throw you in the no column.

 

>5. People have every right/prerogative to dump you at any time. Don't beg, don't question. You'll probably never know the real reason.

 

Agreed. The faster everyone moves on the better.

 

>6. If you think too much, you're never going to be successful.

 

Mea culpa.

 

>7. You will only get good at it after much awkwardness and rejection.

 

Rejection I can handle. Awkwardness, not something I'm worried about. But what if the wrong thing said inadvertently or the wrong person approached unknowingly leads to complete social ostracism? The Internet especially makes it frighteningly easy for you to be made into a pariah. (However see the response to #6)

 

That's very unlikely unless you're a celebrity. If you're in a social circle that behaves this way, leave it.

 

>8. There is no such thing as the one, or soul mate. Don't create the myth of rarity.

 

Completely agreed. As Sting has it: 'So many riches, so many souls...'

 

>9. Don't listen to dating coaches on the Internet. They suck and just want your money.

 

Not likely to be tempted there...

>10. Learn basic body language. Watch other people date for clues on body language.

 

Trouble there is, the body language related to dating and relationships is frustratingly subtle and ambiguous in real situations. Non-relationship body language is usually fairly blatant, the sort of thing they might talk about in books on 'body language'. I get non-relationship body language without having to read any books. But whenever I've asked friends on relationship body language, they give distorted, exaggerated examples. Would that it were so obvious! Then everything would be a breeze.

Didn't say it was easy. But you do get better at it. I sometimes still am unsure if they are interested. But I'm almost %100 correct when they aren't. Women will make it pretty clear when they are not. They won't stand facing you, very little eye contact, polite short answers, will recoil if you touch them...

>11. Online and bars are the worse place to find women. Go places where there are less men and more women.

 

Would love to know where those places really are. My experience, meanwhile, is that the place you're by far most likely to find (potentially) interesting women is on the bus. Not exactly an atmosphere conducive to conversation...

Yoga, running clubs, craft clubs, malls, music stores, continuing ed classes, exhibitions, concerts, Don't join to hit on women. Join/attend because you want to learn and enrich your life.

 

 

>12. "From what I know now it seems that almost universally it is the man who is expected to initiate these actions." It's 2016, not 1915.

 

I'd wish that were as true as you say! But that doesn't seem to be how it actually is. But then again (see #'s 2, 3, 4), maybe many women have been trying and I've never noticed.

Maybe it's more prevalent in my age group. Especially with established confident women. They know what they want and they go after it. Hopefully they are setting an example for future generations.

>13. Play safe.

>14. Pay attention to what people do, not what they say. The exception is when they tell you they aren't interested. Pay attention when they say that.

 

I have one issue with this. Paying attention to what people do sort of assumes you can infer motivation from action. I don't think it's NEARLY as simple as that. One action can have a thousand different motivations. And it would be unfair to presume a motivation of someone else without some sort of definite knowledge. What's the solution to this problem? As you imply, people can say a lot of things they don't mean too.

That's the point. You don't have to infer anything. What people do is very explicit. If they say they are interested but never return your calls or make any effort to contact you, you don't have to infer anything. Their behavior is saying "I'm not interested". This is one point I feel strong about and won't concede. Pay attention to what people do, not what they say.

>15. You won't be successful if you don't love women.

 

Definitely not an issue.

 

>16. You must have a good attitude.

 

Even more definitely not an issue.

 

>17. Women more or less like masculinity. Don't confuse that with machismo.

>18. Lighten up.

 

Thoughts on any or all of the above?

[NoHiddenMsg]

musicman777, I agree: there's no doubt I'm overthinking things. Unfortunately though this knowledge isn't useful because it doesn't translate into a positive action. You can only tell yourself (effectively) to do something, you can't tell yourself not to do something: the result will be like trying to tell yourself not to think of a pink elephant. And so knowing you're overthinking isn't something you can act upon concretely because it's a 'don't do this' rather than a 'do that' thing.

 

Sportster2005, comments below on selected points:

 

>I'm starting to think you just aren't meeting women that are interested in you.

 

I concede that this is possible, but given the number of women I've met in some context in my life, if true, it would seem to me to suggest strongly that there were something universally and fundamentally unattractive about me. And I've had no indications to suggest this or reason to suspect it. People don't immediately try to get away from me, women seem happy to converse and genuinely glad to see me, friends confirm that there isn't anything about me that would make me more unattractive than anyone else. That sort of universal unattractiveness in my experience is usually only the result of serious body deformities or severe mental problems, neither of which I have. So it's possible I suppose, but would seem very unlikely. In view of the fact that I've had people tell me explicitly that there *were* people in the past who were definitely attracted to me and I didn't notice, it really seems unlikely unless a lot of people are trying to avoid hurting my feelings - and those who know me well know that my feelings can't really be hurt by knowing the truth.

 

There is one other possibility, and that's that the kinds of people I am attracted to have a personality type that intrinsically won't be interested in my personality type. However again most of the time attraction follows personality types that are in some sense mutually compatible, so that doesn't seem likely. I believe in fact that at least a certain amount of your attraction to someone is based on their attraction to you (and vice versa).

 

>>But what if the wrong thing said inadvertently or the wrong person approached unknowingly leads to complete social ostracism?...

>That's very unlikely unless you're a celebrity. If you're in a social circle that behaves this way, leave it.

 

That's not my experience at any rate. I have seen at least 2 situations where this did in fact happen, and in social contexts that were not at all toxic.

 

The problem, it seems to me, that there is a certain component in most societies, that tends to categorise people as 'Us' and 'Them'. If you are 'Us' then you're accepted. You are treated with kindness and consideration. You are given access to favourable social resources. You can expect a level of trust and loyalty from the group. 'Them' by contrast are despised. The group is indifferent to the fate of 'Them' - such people are merely objects to be exploited or used if opportune or necessary and otherwise ignored. There is only one thing a member of 'Us' must not do - and that is to betray the group by reaching out to someone classified as 'Them' with genuine caring. That indicates disloyalty to the 'Us' group and is a cause for immediate excommunication.

 

I've exaggerated the distinctions here to make what I'm thinking clear but it does seem to me that society is typically strongly patterned along these lines. Most people mean well but even when on a personal level they might like to interact with a 'Them' - an outsider - they are bound by social chains stronger than any steel to shun or even mistreat these people. The need for social acceptance drives people to act in ways that exclude some.

 

The trouble is, these distinctions between 'Us' and 'Them' seem to be largely based on whether the person in question understands the unspoken social conventions governing the group. It almost seems to me that there is a necessity that they remain unspoken so that the distinction between 'Us' and 'Them' can be maintained: if 'They' caught on it would dilute group identity. Meanwhile I'd be happy to go along with social conventions (or at least to decide if those were social conventions I was was prepared to adopt) - if only I knew what they were.

 

Now this is only how it *seems* to me; maybe everything I've said is wrong. If it is, I'd like to get some description of how things are (that doesn't require me to accept it in blind faith).

 

>Yoga, running clubs,...

 

Thanks for the ideas here. My initial explorations have suggested that maybe art openings/galleries etc. are among the best bets, although it must be said still at much lower apparent density than random situations like on the bus.

 

>That's the point. You don't have to infer anything. What people do is very explicit...

 

To me that is very definitely inferring motivation from action. It seems to me that there are many, many different possible motivations for almost any conceivable action and unless you have some sort of private insight into a person's inner thoughts it's very much leaping to conclusions to assume someone's motivations. In most cases the only thing you could do would be to try to infer someone's motivations from what *your* motivations for doing such-and-such in so-and-so a situation would be, and manifestly they're not you. They're a different person and what might be the reasonable choices for you could be very different from what the reasonable choices for them would be.

 

Now, if you're saying that in fact for the vast majority of people there is an incredibly narrow range of possible motivations - common to everyone - such that most actions almost invariably mean some particular motivation I'd be a bit surprised, but let's discuss.