Women Initiating When Really Into A Guy

[figureitout23]

Well a princess was a commodity that you exchanged their procreation rights for some form of monetary gain. Essentially a more long term and higher class prostitute.

 

Not the most flattering thing to want to idealize.

 

Which is why the word has been used as a negative. A woman who lets a man open the door for her doesn't = a princess. It's been used as an extreme example of behavior I've personally only seen on rare occasions.

 

 

I think that the issues of "gender roles" is a moot point until you start expecting people to behave a certain way. If you are content in that role and so is your spouse then it doesn't matter.

 

Agree, how two people choose to interact with one another is their business. Outside of abuse of course.

 

But many people think that if you maintain one stereotype then others are also to be held.

 

Well humans don't operate in black and white so it doesn't surprise me.

 

 

So, if as a woman you expect a guy to pay for all the meals because that is what she thinks his gender role is then how is it any different for that guy to assume she needs do most the menial labor because that is his opinion of her role.

 

Please google 'second shift'. It's a very common occurance actually. But there are also couples who enjoy following gender roles. I have tons of friends who are stay at home moms who cook, clean and take care of their kids and they are beyond happy. Who the hell am I to say they're living their life wrong? I don't live like that, the life of a SAHM was never something I wanted, I am happy with my choice and I know my friends are happy with theirs. Not everyone is against gender roles. So pushing this idea that it's this evil thing that must be stopped... Not everyone thinks like that...

 

I think that going into a relationship with a guy with predetermined expectations like that is dangerous in many aspects.

 

Dangerous? That's a bit of a leap. At worst the man doesn't pay for my taco, I'll survive.

 

I think many guys are just complaining about the double standard of chivalry. Chivalry is about protecting the "weaker gender", that is why it disgusts me so. That is its origins regardless of how it has evolved.

 

Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, no harm no foul. My definition of chivalry is completely different that yours and again that's ok, agree to disagree.

 

 

So if you want to reap certain benefits of being perceived as weak it is interesting that you want to pick and choose which aspects you like or don't.

 

That is totally fine in relationships, to pick and choose. But it isn't a shock either that many of these woman go into terrible relationships or none at all.

 

By the way this is all comments about "princesses" not woman in general.

 

Again, I have plenty of friends who are stay at home moms or wives and their marriages are going strong, so I have to disagree.

[Batya33]

"Again, I have plenty of friends who are stay at home moms or wives and their marriages are going strong, so I have to disagree."

 

Since when is a mom who is home full time a "princess" or in that category Alchemist is referring to? That's a full time job with children who cannot be left alone (and of course if the family has to pay for daycare/sitters that shows why it is a job). Or a couple with older children but who still live at home and a husband who travels for work constantly and no family around.

 

A woman who chooses not to work or do any kind of real volunteer work and doesn't have children or family members (i.e. elderly parents) to care for - sure that can work too as long as both people accept the upsides and downsides including the woman choosing not to have financial independence etc. But, we don't know what goes on behind closed doors -the woman might seem like "just a housewife" but in reality she is doing a lot of work to make sure her husband keeps his job, for example. Or she might have a disability that prevents her from working that she doesn't choose to talk about. Or she has a trust fund and doesn't have to work but also doesn't financially depend on her husband. So many unknowns.

 

I do think it's unrealistic for a woman to expect not to work at all, completely depend on her husband financially, with no savings of her own, and expect to have an equal say in matters that involve money/spending/saving.

[TheRawTruth]

So dias, when you start dating a chick and she doesn't initiate, texts or dates, what do you think?

 

Do you presume she's not all that into you?

 

And if she DOES initiate (texting), or even asking you out, do you presume she IS into you?

 

I know you weren't asking me, but YES. Same for women I'm NOT dating but just "talking to."

[thealchemist]

I did look up the book you referred to. My household is an egalitarian and I wouldn't accept it any other way, just my preferance.

 

I would never presume to tell a person what their role in a relationship is and I am a big proponent of a stay at home parent. I am also not knocking tradition roles, only people's assumptions about they should be perpetuated by everyone, which in my community is a fairly common social opinion.

 

 

Preconceived notions about expectations in a relationship can be very dangerious. When sex is ever an expectation there is a potential for danger. Rapes can happen because a guy had a lot of expectation pertaining to sex and their weren't realized, and he wasn't able to accept that.

 

Chivalry's origins are very sexist, not much of a debate there. What it has evolved into is debatable though. No one has to earn my respect, I inherently respect all people until they give me a reason not to. So I treat all people respectfully so I take exception that people are treated differently because of gender. I see treating people differently because they are female as a double edged sword. It can go positive or negative with greater ease.

 

I also never mentioned a thing about a stay at home mom being a princess. I was a stay at home dad for a bit, I am quite aware of the work done by a stay at home parent. If one of us had to be a stay at home parent it would without a doubt be me, not my wife.

[Batya33]

'I also never mentioned a thing about a stay at home mom being a princess. I was a stay at home dad for a bit, I am quite aware of the work done by a stay at home parent. If one of us had to be a stay at home parent it would without a doubt be me, not my wife."

 

No -you did not -figureitout implied it. I agree with you. My husband would never be the one to be the full time "at home" parent because it's just not a good fit for him -even though he is more "traditional" on that point it's simply because it's not for him (and it was a great fit for me, for years -and not because of my gender either). I know of families where that works beautifully and I feel badly that there are few Facebook groups, for example, for SAHD. My group doesn't allow men to join because of the nursing type photos, etc that might make women uncomfortable. I wish there was no stigma because in any household it's really an individual thing which parent would be a better fit to be the main caregiver.

[figureitout23]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, before I even sit down and respond don't put words in my mouth. It was an example of gender roles. Alchemist stated women who follow these 'horrible' preconceived notions of gender roles are destined to fail at relationships and I pointed out I'm aware of plenty of relationships who follow traditional gender roles I.e. Wife stays at home and cooks cleans rears the children and the man goes out and works and they're perfectly happy.

 

See how quick y'all were to be like no, no, no that's ok. First off it's picking and choosing because woman staying home and man working are very much traditional gender roles. Just because it's not the extreme example of a princess, makes no difference. Following gender roles, appreciating gender roles and accepting gender roles is so much bigger than a woman paying for her bean burrito and it's far from dangerous. Don't like paying for a woman's meal, don't do it, but gender roles aren't all bad. Everyone cherry picks.

[thealchemist]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, before I even sit down and respond don't put words in my mouth. It was an example of gender roles. Alchemist stated women who follow these 'horrible' preconceived notions of gender roles are destined to fail at relationships and I pointed out I'm aware of plenty of relationships who follow traditional gender roles I.e. Wife stays at home and cooks cleans rears the children and the man goes out and works and they're perfectly happy.

 

See how quick y'all were to be like no, no, no that's ok. First off it's picking and choosing because woman staying home and man working are very much traditional gender roles. Just because it's not the extreme example of a princess, makes no difference. Following gender roles, appreciating gender roles and accepting gender roles is so much bigger than a woman paying for her bean burrito and it's far from dangerous. Don't like paying for a woman's meal, don't do it, but gender roles aren't all bad. Everyone cherry picks.

I didn't say that gender roles are bad. They are that way because over time it has been common for that distribution of labor to occur than not.

 

I was getting to two issues so I understand how they seemed linked in the way I presented them.

 

My issue with gender roles was only that they are bad when pressured up on those who don't want them.

 

Personal examples being people critizing my family for me staying at home while my wife worked because that "just ain't right".

 

When I critize the princess title it was based on the idea that because they are a woman they should get everything and do nothing.

 

That is in no way related to a stay at home mother, who is actually doing the very difficult job of raising children and holding a household together, I know personally how much work it is. It was more to show the extreme of gender roles not an incrimination upon them as a whole.

 

A princess does not watch her children, servants did that. They do not clean or cook, once again servants. My reference to a princess is just that, the historic reference to a person that sits on their butt doing nothing but having sex with their husband when demanded.

 

It is just a historic reference to a spoiled brats who expects everything to be done for them, by no means a stay at home mom.

 

Example of a princess I know of...

I work with a man who makes less than me but his wife is a "stay at home" mom. They have 2 younger children in daycare 50+ hours a week. They also have a maid that cleans their house DAILY. He is going into bad debt to keep his wife's standard of living up. His wife doesn't seem to care and thinks she is entitled to that standard of living and will not get a job or drop the daycare or the maid. That is the type of princess I am referring too. I have met a few in my life so far...

[ThatwasThen]

Example of a princess I know of...

I work with a man who makes less than me but his wife is a "stay at home" mom. They have 2 younger children in daycare 50+ hours a week. They also have a maid that cleans their house DAILY. He is going into bad debt to keep his wife's standard of living up. His wife doesn't seem to care and thinks she is entitled to that standard of living and will not get a job or drop the daycare or the maid. That is the type of princess I am referring too. I have met a few in my life so far...

I know of a couple very similar to that. He works two jobs so that she can be treated royally.

 

I blame him for enabling her entitlement.

[figureitout23]

I did look up the book you referred to. My household is an egalitarian and I wouldn't accept it any other way, just my preferance.

 

I would never presume to tell a person what their role in a relationship is and I am a big proponent of a stay at home parent. I am also not knocking tradition roles, only people's assumptions about they should be perpetuated by everyone, which in my community is a fairly common social opinion.

 

 

Preconceived notions about expectations in a relationship can be very dangerious. When sex is ever an expectation there is a potential for danger. Rapes can happen because a guy had a lot of expectation pertaining to sex and their weren't realized, and he wasn't able to accept that.

 

Alchemist. Come on, you're a smart guy, you know full well a rapist, is a rapist, is a rapist.

 

You really think a rapist is going to sit there and think.

 

' Well I was going to rape her but she paid for her wings so now I don't know...'

 

There's nothing wrong with expecting sex when dating. If I'm attracted enough I'm probably mentally undressing you on date one to be honest. Theres expecting it and believing you have a right to it.

 

 

This is typical excusing of a mans behavior and victim blaming in my eyes, as if men are mindless brutes who don't know right from wrong. A woman expecting/allowing a man to pay for her food is legal. Expecting sex and then taking it forcefully, illegal. Equating the two or somehow making it the woman's fault cause 'well she didn't pay for her food!' That's sexist in my eyes.

 

I was still in college when my ex and I married and he'd beat the sh*t out of me and then say 'where are you gonna go? You can't afford to make it on your own'

 

That situation can and does happen to SAHM/SAHW every day in America but you have no problem with that dynamic. So where's your line exactly?

 

My point is its a slippery slope for women every day and it's not as simple as who covers dinner. Women are raped for walking down the street, women who make 6 figures are beat daily. Men are responsible for their actions and if they choose to take advantage of a woman's vulnerability they're the pieces of sh*t, not her.

[thealchemist]

Alchemist. Come on, you're a smart guy, you know full well a rapist, is a rapist, is a rapist.

 

You really think a rapist is going to sit there and think.

 

' Well I was going to rape her but she paid for her wings so now I don't know...'

 

There's nothing wrong with expecting sex when dating. If I'm attracted enough I'm probably mentally undressing you on date one to be honest. Theres expecting it and believing you have a right to it.

 

 

This is typical excusing of a mans behavior and victim blaming in my eyes, as if men are mindless brutes who don't know right from wrong. A woman expecting/allowing a man to pay for her food is legal. Expecting sex and then taking it forcefully, illegal. Equating the two or somehow making it the woman's fault cause 'well she didn't pay for her food!' That's sexist in my eyes.

 

I was still in college when my ex and I married and he'd beat the sh*t out of me and then say 'where are you gonna go? You can't afford to make it on your own'

 

That situation can and does happen to SAHM/SAHW every day in America but you have no problem with that dynamic. So where's your line exactly?

 

My point is its a slippery slope for women every day and it's not as simple as who covers dinner. Men are responsible for their actions and if they choose to take advantage of a woman's vulnerability they're the pieces of sh*t, not her.

 

I very much disagree. Wanting sex is fine in a relationship, expecting it from a person you are in a relationship with is a very different thing. Just by the words' definitions.

 

"Want" doesn't imply that is is deserved. "Expect" implies a certain right to whatever it is. That is the dangerious area.

 

When did I ever say that it somehow mitigates the males responcibility because the girl didn't pay for dinner?

There is no excuse for the act but there is causality. Looking into causality is how you attempt to fix the situation.

 

If you think every rapist is born a rapist and that is what they are predetermined to be then my argument means nothing.

 

It is my belief that many boys (I can avow firsthandedly this was true in my adolescence) are socially conditioned by other males to have these notions of what they "deserve". Those take root in some males with the potential to be rapists and then bad things happen when they "get what they deserve".

 

Some rapists might just be rapists. But many are reared in ways that promote it.

 

Your example of a rapist rethinking potential assault because a woman paid for dinner is not even remotely approaching the argument I am making. It is an irrelevant conclusion argumentatively.

 

I am not doing a reverse logic saying that woman paying for food are less likely to be raped.

 

I am saying that men expecting sex from a woman and it being socially implied by their patriarchal class from a young age leads to a lot more rapes than it would if men taught their sons that sex should never be an expectation from an individual.

 

Nothing wrong with the expectation of sex in a relationship. Just end the relationship if those expectations are not being met. You are entitled to expect sex in a relationship and keep looking for one until you get what you want.

 

When that expectation is brought to the individual it becomes an issue.

 

Wanting a wife that has a high libido and wants to have sex frequently is totally fine. If that expectation is met great, if not then it is time for a new relationship.

 

But getting home and expecting sex from your wife is a different thing. Especially if she isn't want too.

[Batya33]

"When I critize the princess title it was based on the idea that because they are a woman they should get everything and do nothing.

 

That is in no way related to a stay at home mother, who is actually doing the very difficult job of raising children and holding a household together, I know personally how much work it is. It was more to show the extreme of gender roles not an incrimination upon them as a whole.

 

A princess does not watch her children, servants did that. They do not clean or cook, once again servants. My reference to a princess is just that, the historic reference to a person that sits on their butt doing nothing but having sex with their husband when demanded.

 

It is just a historic reference to a spoiled brats who expects everything to be done for them, by no means a stay at home mom."

 

yes and that is why I took issue with figureitout's reference to stay at home mom as part of a "princess" category" -certainly it's more of a typical gender role for the woman to be the full time caregiver.

 

Someone with full time daycare is not doing the job of a stay at home mom.

[figureitout23]

I very much disagree. Wanting sex is fine in a relationship, expecting it from a person you are in a relationship with is a very different thing. Just by the words' definitions.

 

"Want" doesn't imply that is is deserved. "Expect" implies a certain right to whatever it is. That is the dangerious area.

 

When did I ever say that it somehow mitigates the males responcibility because the girl didn't pay for dinner?

There is no excuse for the act but there is causality. Looking into causality is how you attempt to fix the situation.

 

If you think every rapist is born a rapist and that is what they are predetermined to be then my argument means nothing.

 

It is my belief that many boys (I can avow firsthandedly this was true in my adolescence) are socially conditioned by other males to have these notions of what they "deserve". Those take root in some males with the potential to be rapists and then bad things happen when they "get what they deserve".

 

Some rapists might just be rapists. But many are reared in ways that promote it.

 

Your example of a rapist rethinking potential assault because a woman paid for dinner is not even remotely approaching the argument I am making. It is an irrelevant conclusion argumentatively.

 

I am not doing a reverse logic saying that woman paying for food are less likely to be raped.

 

I am saying that men expecting sex from a woman and it being socially implied by their patriarchal class from a young age leads to a lot more rapes than it would if men taught their sons that sex should never be an expectation from an individual.

 

Nothing wrong with the expectation of sex in a relationship. Just end the relationship if those expectations are not being met. You are entitled to expect sex in a relationship and keep looking for one until you get what you want.

 

When that expectation is brought to the individual it becomes an issue.

 

Wanting a wife that has a high libido and wants to have sex frequently is totally fine. If that expectation is met great, if not then it is time for a new relationship.

 

But getting home and expecting sex from your wife is a different thing. Especially if she isn't want too.

 

Well if you didn't intend to equate a woman getting her dinner paid for to the slippery slope of rape I beg to ask where you were going? Because paying for a meal may give a guy the wrong impression that he is now entitled to my body, again that's his issue, not mine and if he chooses to try to rape me cause he pulled a 20$ out of his wallet, again his issues, it has absolutely nothing to do with me or any woman on this planet and truthfully any man with that mindset is a pig period.

 

I don't follow that 'boys will be boys mentality' and youre right it's learned from other men so I think a lot of focus should be put on retraining heir minds. On this we agree. A man can take me on a 3 month excursion to Italy, he's not entitled to jack. Just like many women are told on this board sex does not entitle you to a relationship. Neither males nor females are entitled to anything no matter what they 'do for' the other.

 

At the end of the day I'm very straight forward, I'm gonna go ahead and call a spade a spade. Your issue is with as you call them 'spoiled brats' or 'princesses' which account for like .02 of the population, that's your issue, not who pays for a hamburger. Let's be real.

 

That seems to be quite a few people issue on this board, their almost hatred of these types of women. I personally don't get the mindset. Sugar babies wouldn't exist if men didn't want that type of relationship and if two consenting adults want to enter into that type of agreement, who am I to say anything? That's their prerogative. Just like its your prerogative to conduct your marriage how you and your wife see fit. Again, at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with who covers a 12$ meal on the first date.

 

 

We are all adults with mouths to speak. Say what you like say what you don't like, pay don't pay, spoil a princess, have a 50/50 relationship. Spank a dude and make him call you mommy while he drinks milk from a bowl, again we're all adults and again changing who pays for what will not end rape and abuse. So at the end of the day let people live and worry about you.

[Batya33]

Sugar baby/daddy relationships are fine if they work for the couple. I think the point was that then the sugar baby can't expect to be treated equally in the relationship because she's chosen not to be. Expect to be raped or abused -of course not!

[thealchemist]

Well if you didn't intend to equate a woman getting her dinner paid for to the slippery slope of rape I beg to ask where you were going? Because paying for a meal may give a guy the wrong impression that he is now entitled to my body, again that's his issue, not mine and if he chooses to try to rape me cause he pulled a 20$ out of his wallet, again his issues, it has absolutely nothing to do with me or any woman on this planet and truthfully any man with that mindset is a pig period.

 

I don't follow that 'boys will be boys mentality' and youre right it's learned from other men so I think a lot of focus should be put on retraining heir minds. On this we agree. A man can take me on a 3 month excursion to Italy, he's not entitled to jack. Just like many women are told on this board sex does not entitle you to a relationship. Neither males nor females are entitled to anything no matter what they 'do for' the other.

 

At the end of the day I'm very straight forward, I'm gonna go ahead and call a spade a spade. Your issue is with as you call them 'spoiled brats' or 'princesses' which account for like .02 of the population, that's your issue, not who pays for a hamburger. Let's be real.

 

That seems to be quite a few people issue on this board, their almost hatred of these types of women. I personally don't get the mindset. Sugar babies wouldn't exist if men didn't want that type of relationship and if two consenting adults want to enter into that type of agreement, who am I to say anything? That's their prerogative. Just like its your prerogative to conduct your marriage how you and your wife see fit. Again, at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with who covers a 12$ meal on the first date.

 

 

We are all adults with mouths to speak. Say what you like say what you don't like, pay don't pay, spoil a princess, have a 50/50 relationship. Spank a dude and make him call you mommy while he drinks milk from a bowl, again we're all adults and again changing who pays for what will not end rape and abuse. So at the end of the day let people live and worry about you.

 

I really don't even understand what you are trying to counter that I have stated. The only points you have countered thus far are ones I didn't make and you inferred.

 

The ENTIRE point of EVERYTHING I have been trying to get across is that people are entitled to do what they want in a relationship and only those in that relationship have a right to reassess the distribution of labor or equality.

 

There is nothing wrong with doing what you want in a relationship, when both parties are in agreeance. But when people take their opinions and expectations and present them as "the way" you get into issues.

 

That is how ALL the things we are discussing are linked. Many many rapes occur because of a #ucked up sense of expectation. Many relationships get screwed up because of this same issue with expectation.

 

I was insulting "princesses" because they have a messed up sense of expectation that pretty much trades sex for complete dependence on someone. If someone wants that in their relationship that is fine, but I have my opinions about people who are like that, I am just sharing them with others.

 

I am not equating any of these things so I don't know why that keeps coming up. I am trying to just say their is a causational link between them. That doesn't mean I am trying to compare their values in a quantitative way, which is what equating means.

 

The same presumptuous mentality present in these scenarios is what I am criticising. That is the core issue behind all bigotry, whether racial or sexual, whether positive assumptions or negative.

[figureitout23]

Alchemist you were the first person to bring rape into the conversation and this whole thing about gender roles. Not me, you.

 

Look. We're not going to agree on this. We can bust out a white board and spend 12 hours writing up hypothetical equations to figure out whether or not a woman paying for her meal is harmful to her and or society in the long run. I do not think it is so we won't agree. I truly believe your beef is with 'princesses' and at the end of the day one does not equal the other in my mind so again agree to disagree.

 

To go back to the original point of the post, boy we went off topic didn't we? I truly believe if the connection is there, none of these things are thought about.

[mylolita]

Hi Katrina!

 

This is SUCH an interesting thread!

 

I have to say, I agree with the points J.Man, Figureitout and Batya have made!

 

Call me old fashioned, but I think men should do most of the pursuing.

 

It's in our evolution that men pursue in this way. It's hard to change 100,000 years of subconscious programming just because we have had mobile phones for 20 years and people text and online date now. I think the rules are nearly exactly the same. We're just animals at the end of the day. Look to nature, the males in most species also pursue the females. It's like a little dance, they have to chase half the time! They have to impress, display, etc.

 

I'm not saying men don't appreciate women initiating - it must be great for them, a relief in some cases I imagine since they take all the risk most of the time. It takes away all the effort on their part and takes away some work.

 

It's funny this thread has come up because I was talking to my husband about this very subject a few months ago. I asked him one day over dinner if when he was single he got nervous going up to women asking them out or talking to them in a club. (Before he met me, he came out of a 7 year relationship and had a whoooooole bunch of one night stands, had a few women he slept with regularly. I don't mean to big him up but he seems to have a bit of a confident nack around women), and he said yes, definitely if you really like them, and not really if you just want a s**g. He said, "Put it this way, which would you be more nervous doing, a million pound deal, or a ten pound deal?" And that's how he summed it up.

 

He also said, if a guy really, really likes a woman, like, my God, look at her, she is THE ONE - then he says something seems to take over and you just HAVE TO HAVE HER! He said games go out the window and you just desperately want to lock her down, make sure no one else has chance to have her, because she's going to be taken probably very soon, and as a man, you've gotta win her, and he said that drive overrides the nerves.

 

I mean, not to get into the whole "alpha" and "beta" male thing but I think, going back to the fact we are animals, the type of man who is going to go after a woman hook line and sinker and pursue her probably even slightly aggressively is the alpha type. And those types go after things in their life with the same pizazz regardless of whether it's a woman, a promotion, a business deal, a car, etc. I find most "beta" types enjoy being initiated by the women. They are weaker and have less confidence to pursue and therefore are more perceptive to the type of woman who is more dominant and likely to initiate. The alpha men don't seem to appreciate it much. Well, my husband said he enjoys the chase and liked working for it and feels robbed when it's taken away from him. Also as a naturally dominant type, he has always gone for a bit more of a submissive woman. I admit it myself, I am extremely submissive to him, and submissive women don't tend to initiate.

 

I find the beta types play silly games as well. I know other people have touched on game playing in dating. They go around with these apparent rules of attraction in their heads, do's and don'ts, can't text a girl straight after a date, it's too keen. Can't seem too keen. Don't ask her for another date until a week has past. Don't give her too many compliments, ect. It all stems from a nervousness and what I think is a show of no confidence in their own natural ability to court a woman and have her where they want her.

 

To be honest, if you're dealing with a grown man, if he is really, seriously interested, like, this could be my future wife; he'll text you as he's coming home from the taxi after that date, and he'll want to pin you down for next time, and he probably won't stop until he's getting signs you're really not interested, and then in my experience, he won't waste his time, he'll move on. If you come across the alpha type, I must add.

 

I don't want to sound sexist here, again, as J.Man mentioned, I get accused of this quite a lot because I am on the traditional side of the dating game, but even though I have now lived with my husband 10 years and been married 4 (I'm 27, he's 37), in my short time dating (between fifteen to eighteen) I can tell you, I have dealt with men who were serous about me (constant, obvious pursing and two marriage proposals) and men who weren't (silly games, silly texting rituals, playing coy and doing this whole negging put her down thing) and it is blatantly obvious when a man is interested. And as a woman, I think you know deep down when they are or when they're not.

 

Obviously, the beginning of dating and getting to know anyone is always a time on tender hooks, you're constantly trying to guess their feelings, it's only natural to be curious, but I think people make it so much more complicated than it actually is, and they're normally people who mess people around!

 

Sometimes I read these dating problems and I presume the OP's are 17, 18, 19 - but they're people in their late 20's and 30's! And I'm sorry to sound harsh, but I think, this is play ground stuff, you're a woman, he's a man, grow up! Just say what you mean and do what you say!

 

My frustrations aside, I can see your position - it must be very nerve wracking to initiate when you really like someone, but isn't this an obvious fact of life? Men feel this all the time, so do women. A lot is at stake, but I guess that's what makes life fun and you just have to go with your instinct and ride the wave.

 

My advice would be, if you really like someone, simply let them know, straight forward. Whether the guy initiated it or you did. It's so appreciated by most these days because so often we never say what we mean and hope others somehow guess or will read between the lines. Unless of course you enjoy the back and forth and not really knowing where you stand and it's exciting, which in that case I would say, carry on!

 

Best of luck!

 

Lo x

[mylolita]

 

At the end of the day if it's a mutual attraction, none of this crap is thought about. No ones stressing things just flow. That's the lesson I'm taking from this convo.

 

Couldn't agree more with this statement from figureitout - sums it all up for me.

 

If you have something genuine and you both feel the same way, you don't have to ask these types of questions. Everything's natural and happens naturally.

[thealchemist]

Alchemist you were the first person to bring rape into the conversation and this whole thing about gender roles. Not me, you.

 

Look. We're not going to agree on this. We can bust out a white board and spend 12 hours writing up hypothetical equations to figure out whether or not a woman paying for her meal is harmful to her and or society in the long run. I do not think it is so we won't agree. I truly believe your beef is with 'princesses' and at the end of the day one does not equal the other in my mind so again agree to disagree.

 

To go back to the original point of the post, boy we went off topic didn't we? I truly believe if the connection is there, none of these things are thought about.

I brought gender roles up to criticise them. Because a "role" is a perceived thing you should be doing, and I think relationships should be more fluid and determined by the individuals in them, not by preconceived roles.

 

I am still very curious what we won't agree on. I don't see how it is harmful for a woman to pay for a meal. Do whatever you want.

 

I also agree that each couple should do what they want in a relationship.

 

I asked last post what we were on different sides of because the only things you have condemned my opinion on are things I haven't said and you have inferred in error.

[Batya33]

Couldn't agree more with this statement from figureitout - sums it all up for me.

 

If you have something genuine and you both feel the same way, you don't have to ask these types of questions. Everything's natural and happens naturally.

 

I don't agree if the people want to be in a long term relationship and especially if they want children. Then the difficult stuff -the preconceived notions about gender roles -or maybe even post-conceived, who knows -has to be talked about to figure out each other's expectations, assumptions,etc. And during early dating, it might not just "flow" because of baggage and again assumptions -so a person might feel a certain way but choose to act in accordance with what he/she thinks is expected.

 

I think expecting everything to flow naturally/go naturally like a car wash just because two people have mutual attraction and genuine intentions and really like each other - is unrealistic. It might, it might not, but expecting that is partly a cop out - it takes some awkward or uncomfortable conversations especially after the initial rush to figure out what's going on or what's not going on - and if two people like each other that goes a long way to decreasing the discomfort of course but the "everything should flow naturally' can set a person up for a quick burn out when there are bumps in the road.

 

Certainly it's a matter of degree- I've written here that it shouldn't take overanalyzing to figure out why someone isn't calling for a first, second, third or fourth date for example, or to have to twist yourself in a pretzel to figure out "well he said he didn't want a relationship but he cuddles with me and holds my hand-so that is mixed messages right??" or he texts me twice a day for the last week after our first date but hasn't asked me out again -does he like me? " etc.

[thealchemist]

I don't agree if the people want to be in a long term relationship and especially if they want children. Then the difficult stuff -the preconceived notions about gender roles -or maybe even post-conceived, who knows -has to be talked about to figure out each other's expectations, assumptions,etc.

 

This is very important in relationships that are going to attempt to have children.

 

I read that currently(I think 2016)with the 18 to 35 age group that in the majority of divorse involving children, the most common reason given was discrepancies in gender roles in regards to childcare.

 

Apparently many woman would like the help of the fathers while raising their children(?!?!). And many men thought that wasn't their responcibilty. But commonly it isn't even brought up before they were pregnant.

 

That is also why most marriage officiants require premarital counseling. Because even though it seems like common sense to discuss your future when getting married many people do not.

 

I guess it is an weird conversation most people would rather avoid. But it is a big deal if a guy thinks that house/child labor is the "woman's job" and not in his realm of expectation, and the woman wants a more fair system of labor division.

 

I think ideally that going with the flow is the best option. But it doesn't seem to work out that way when marriage or children are introduced.

[figureitout23]

Discussions about children, lifestyle choices, goals, careers happen naturally when dating and if it's a good match it's not awkward. You're comparing apples to oranges. What's awkward about discussing your outlook on life? Stuff like financial styles, spending habits, parenting styles etc. aren't nessesarily early on questions, they can be but they're typically spoken about when both parties are more comfortable. It's complicated if you make it complicated and bring your luggage with you. Which Batya you yourself said you never do and advise people not to do. I'm sorry but it's true all these twists and turns and road blocks don't have to happen, we make them happen. The more secure we are with the connection we have with someone the more naturally we act.

[Batya33]

Discussions about children, lifestyle choices, goals, careers happen naturally when dating and if it's a good match it's not awkward. You're comparing apples to oranges. What's awkward about discussing your outlook on life? Stuff like financial styles, spending habits, parenting styles etc. aren't nessesarily early on questions, they can be but they're typically spoken about when both parties are more comfortable. It's complicated if you make it complicated and bring your luggage with you. Which Batya you yourself said you never do and advise people not to do. I'm sorry but it's true all these twists and turns and road blocks don't have to happen, we make them happen. The more secure we are with the connection we have with someone the more naturally we act.

 

 

I was referring to how the other poster used the term "natural" as if it is supposed to be effortless. I think that's unrealistic.

[katrina1980]

I was referring to how the other poster used the term "natural" as if it is supposed to be effortless. I think that's unrealistic.

 

I agree Batya, nothing is "effortless" no matter how attracted or connected we feel. Gawd, if only things were that easy.

 

And while things can and do flow quite "naturally" for some couples, this is certainly not true for all.

 

Believing otherwise is right up there with the notion that "love conquers all." Or meeting one's "soulmate" and riding off into sunset together.

 

I alluded to this earlier but people have "issues" that sometimes cause them to act and react in certain ways, no matter how intoxicating the chemistry or how "connected" they feel.

[Batya33]

I agree Batya, nothing is "effortless" no matter how attracted or connected we feel. Gawd, if only things were that easy.

 

And while things can and do flow quite "naturally" for some couples, this is certainly not true for all.

 

Believing otherwise is right up there with the notion that "love conquers all." Or meeting one's "soulmate" and riding off into sunset together.

 

I alluded to this earlier but people have "issues" that sometimes cause them to act and react in certain ways, no matter how intoxicating the chemistry or how "connected" they feel.

 

It's interesting -I don't feel defensive when I wrote that because after all was said and done, getting back together with my future husband seemed so natural and effortless (1.5 minutes of crying/angst on my part when he asked to get back together as I was scared of us getting hurt again, etc) and our wedding day -same thing! We also had no issues as far as how often we communicated or saw each other despite being long distance for much of the 3 years before we married. However, it hasn't all been that way and I never, ever expected it to be.

[figureitout23]

I agree Batya, nothing is "effortless" no matter how attracted or connected we feel. Gawd, if only things were that easy.

 

And while things can and do flow quite "naturally" for some couples, this is certainly not true for all.

 

Believing otherwise is right up there with the notion that "love conquers all." Or meeting one's "soulmate" and riding off into sunset together.

 

I alluded to this earlier but people have "issues" that sometimes cause them to act and react in certain ways, no matter how intoxicating the chemistry or how "connected" they feel.

 

I disagree with you both. I had a long drawn out response but I edited it because my original response was very straightforward and clear and I stick by it . We complicate things. I'm not being extreme with my statements I'm not saying every relationship just happens like magic I'm saying when the connection is there, all these issues we create in our own minds and propetuate with advice sites like these where the advice is different depending on the day, let's be real, don't happen.

 

I'm not on a first date with a guy I'm vibing with stressing in my mind, 'OMG WHAT IF I WANT TO RAISE MY KIDS JEWISH AND HE WANTS TO RAISE THEM MUSLIM?!?!' I enjoy the date and the vibe.