Dating Range

[7Wannabe5]

Riggerjack said: Ok, so what happened that you feel smaller, less significant? You were married 19 years, and left it feeling comparatively diminished. It sounds to me like you haven't grown, in your self image, as fast as you feel potential mates have. Sounds like work on your self is the way to go.

Good question. What I meant was that I felt RELATIVELY smaller, less significant in relationship to the men I've dated since my marriage ended compared to how I felt in relationship to my ex-husband because my ex-husband was (and remains) a very depressive, passive individual and most of the men I have dated or formed relationships since have been some flavor of the opposite, my most recent ex's personality type being "benevolent dictator" (typical rebound behavior on my part-sigh.) However, my feeling of having shrunk is also likely somewhat due to the fact that I ended my marriage fairly simultaneously with becoming empty nest and bringing an end to the major task of raising two children with an unhelpful spouse (who had a complete nervous break-down, temporarily disappeared and abandoned all remaining parental and financial responsibility after we split up but I don't bear a grudge and gave him a hug and reminisced pleasantly at the recent funeral of his father etc.) So, although I was left with the running of my micro-book business, I sort of felt like I suddenly went back to the lifestyle of a young girl and entered that of a little old lady. "Rescuing" rare books and the treasure hunt involved is quite fulfilling and fun for me but it isn't the same flavor of "important" as being an active parent of young children. Just recently I started substitute teaching in a district full of inner city/recent immigrant children and I am finding it a maddening challenge but also quite fulfilling of that feeling of "importance" I've been missing. So, I am on my way to resolving part of this, I think. Completing some other major creative projects on my revolving life-list would also likely prove helpful.

If you consider him paying for coffee as "starting to de facto sign on dotted-line." you need to work on defining your boundaries. Sometimes, coffee is just coffee. Who pays for it is relevant at $9k/yr. It's not at $90k/yr. Making an issue of an irrelevancy should send up alarms for both of you.

I wouldn't even assume it was all that relevant as a practical matter at $9/k a year. However, it has been my EXPERIENCE in recent relationships that it is or does prove relevant. Like it's a symbol of the desire to be validated (unhealthy) or valued (healthy) as a "provider" or "success" or something like that. That's why it would be rude if I did make a fuss about it which is why I didn't even though I thought I might (and, yes, it is likely that I am waaaay over-thinking this.)

I guess what it comes down to in simplest terms is that I don't want to be with a man who is seriously passive like my ex-husband and I also don't want to be with a man who is seriously domineering like my recent-ex and I am tending towards worry and speculation about whether my next bowl of porridge will be too hot or too cold and I have tied the characteristics of "passive" vs. "domineering" to behaviors related to financial functioning. For instance, I can't in a million years imagine my ex-husband initiating a law-suit against somebody and my recent ex was involved in one major and two minor ones just in the 3 years we were together (one of my Girl-Friday wifely tasks being to assist him with these matters.) The first man I met for coffee this week is a wealthy real estate investor. First he insists on buying my coffee. Then he calmly and persistently asks me question after question about myself and exhibits a take-charge manner in other ways. I mean, I grok that part of this is just that he clearly found me sexually attractive and was trying to "herd me into his corner" (quite literally at one point in the evening) but it's not just that..it never is JUST that. know that if I were to enter into serious relationship with this man, he would eventually, for lack of a better phrase "swamp me out." The second man I met for coffee was more well-off careerist than wealthy entrepreneur but he is a first-born son and he really wanted to be a cop when he was young (went into computers instead) so same difference, similar behavior. However, I do give him credit for stating that he thought it would be okay for me to walk home by myself even though I still have doubts about my neighborhood. Otherwise, I might have pegged him as somebody who would try to "keep me safe." Also, I wasn't positive that he found me attractive, because some men will offer their jacket to any woman, until he asked me for a second date. So, he is the current leading candidate for my affection for reasons not entirely having to do with the fact that he appeared to be in possession of a decent set of guns.

Anyways, I am pretty much doomed because, like most women, I do find dominant (as opposed to submissive. my ex-husband was passive NOT submissive) behavior attractive in a man. I just find it difficult to live with 24/7 when it crosses over the line from confident to arrogant or dominant to controlling.

You are probably wise in noting that I maybe should spend some more time on my own. It's just that my first marriage was a 19 years of me putting on a happy face in the interest of the children and even though I have crash-burned my way through a number of relationships in the last 8 years, I have been so much happier on average than I was before. Divorce sucks but it was one of the best decisions I have made in my adult life. Besides, I'm a pretty successful and/or motivated serial monogamist so the longest I've gone without a boyfriend/lover/husband since I was 15 years old was 3 months and I'm pretty much there now. It's just not in my nature (ENTP) for that to happen. OTOH, it was my purpose in joining this forum to improve my functioning in the direction of INTJ (conservation of resources) and thereby experience growth in my adult masculine functioning and I guess it would be the stoic thing to do. However, I would note that there is a reason why the Oneida Community is not still in existence today etc. etc.

[suomalainen]

Jumping in here late in the game, but I get the sense from your responses that you don't really know what you want. You've written much about various men and how they weren't right, etc., but have you stepped further back and asked what it is that you're getting (or trying to get) from these relationships? In my experience, we often seek from others that which we most need from ourselves.

Maybe that's just another way to phrase "second rigger's advice to spend some quality time alone". I dunno. Good luck!

[7Wannabe5]

suomalainen said: In my experience, we often seek from others that which we most need from ourselves.

True and/or we tend towards finding the relationship that will push our previously installed hot buttons. OTOH, it's just not as much fun or as likely to increase skill if you play tennis against a wall. I know that what I want is a partner who can maintain good frame while I spin all the way across the floor and back and I know that I need to self-aware bring my own core muscles into play during the deep dip or risk injury. I guess it's just more an issue of how much I am willing to compromise on the choreography at this point in my life and/or whether I can find somebody with whom compromise won't be so necessary. I also don't want to have to write up the whole program for the recital that will be the rest of my life before finding my next partner. That seems like a recipe for slow death by boredom for an ENTP like me. Like most people, I would like to find a partner for life but maybe my needs and desires will change and that will necessitate another change of partner. So be it.

[slimicy]

Re: Who buys the first drink...

As a single guy, I always buy the first drink/coffee/meal. I think it's standard protocol these days, and shows that you're serious. The only way I wouldn't plan on buying first would be if the woman stated up-front she wanted to go dutch. That would certainly be abnormal these days, but wouldn't cause me to abort the plans. So you could always kind of opt out of the standard by telling the guy ahead of time you'll be buying your own coffee. This would definitely be a turn-off for some guys, but probably not the type you're looking to meet anyway?

The other thing I've noticed a lot lately is that I'll buy the first round, and the woman will say "Thanks, I've got the next one." And if the date goes well and we move onto a 2nd drink/coffee/bar they almost always do, and it's basically even. So you could also do something like that, if he buys you coffee and the date goes well you could buy him a scone and call it even?

[7Wannabe5]

sllimicy said: The other thing I've noticed a lot lately is that I'll buy the first round, and the woman will say "Thanks, I've got the next one." And if the date goes well and we move onto a 2nd drink/coffee/bar they almost always do, and it's basically even. So you could also do something like that, if he buys you coffee and the date goes well you could buy him a scone and call it even?

I have done this before. If it's just a matter of a scone for a coffee or dessert after dinner, it's not a big deal, although I have dated some men who absolutely insisted on paying for everything all the time. The problem is that what I am more inclined to do because I am frugal is something like offer to cook a dinner after being taken out to eat or variations on this theme and then things start to get too domestic too quickly.

Here's another example. I was telling one of my recent dates that I wanted to bike camp from my front door up the far eastern coast of Michigan and right away he was like "I would buy a new camper if I had somebody who wanted to camp with me." There is no way I would chip in 50/50 for that camper but I can't make most 59 year old men with plenty of money sleep on the ground in order to make me feel like I'm not being "kept."

[7Wannabe5]

I guess there are different conflicts frugal people in relationship could have regarding spending money.

1) You share finances and you SO spends money that is half yours on stuff you wouldn't buy yourself and you have a problem with that.

2) You don't share finances and your SO wants you to chip in on stuff that you wouldn't buy yourself and your SO doesn't like it if you won't.

3) You don't share finances and your SO wants to spend money on stuff that you wouldn't spend money on yourself and your SO doesn't care whether you chip in and is perfectly willing (or even insistent) to carry the entire expense and share use of the resource with you.

My "problem" (yeah, I know, poor me) in my last 3 relationships has been #3.

[7Wannabe5]

Yesterday, while donating plasma, I started reading "Walking" by Thoreau (I was thinking this is a very ERE combination of things to be doing.) Thoreau's daily walking radius was up to 10 miles through woods and countryside.

We should go forth on the shortest walk, perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return-prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. If you are ready to leave father and mother, and brother and sister, and wife and child, and friends, and never see them again-if you have paid your debts, and made your will, and settled all your affairs, and are a free man-then you are ready for a walk.

These men who live in the suburbs keep inquiring about whether I would be willing to meet them halfway for a date. My answer is "No. I will not." even though I currently live in the heart of the "mean" city, not westward through the great North American woods in which a man can sleep at night without fear of being eaten.

Anyways, I am going to bid on a vacant lot today. If I get it, I will start my new big garden planted with the resilient varieties recently bred by Carol Deppe in the spring and then maybe I will build a tiny house and set up a free book store for the neighborhood children. Then the male companion who will live with me will be a fat orange cat I will name "Hank" (short for Henry.) and I will be retired from the world of dating for good.

[7Wannabe5]

I am sooooo happy! I just bought 3 vacant lots at auction for a total of $800 and, unbelievable but true story, this really tall, sexy, silver-haired Bosnian immigrant who is the founder of a community action group was also bidding on properties and lives on the street where I won a property gave me his card. I am 89.5% certain he was trying to hit on me but he might have just been trying to build community. Either way...

[GandK]

Win-win, @7w5! Woohoo!

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: Win-win, @7w5! Woohoo!

Thanks : ) Now that I own (NO MORTGAGE!!) property in the city I can go to meetings and complain about the backyard chicken ordinance and better participate in the spring anti-litter campaign etc. The emergency manager told us that our responsibilities as vacant lot owners are pay taxes, remove snow from sidewalks, remove leaves and keep weeds/grass under 5 inches. One of the lots I bought has some trash on it and a vacant broken-window house next door but on the other side somebody has already planted a very nice urban garden. The other two lots are adjoining and just a few houses down from one of the schools where I substitute teach. All three are quite sunny and covered with grass on decent soil.

I need to chill out on my instant crush on new neighbor (but I do think he was hitting on me because when the decrepit houses came up for auction, he leaned over to me and whispered "You bid on house, I will fix it for you." except it was "feex" due to his accent.) I have 2 or 3 dates with other guys lined up for this weekend. My post-divorce support group will absolutely disown me if I don't multi-date for a decent period before getting a new BF. However, you guys don't need to disown me because so far I have only spent $7.50 (one new cute little dress on clearance rack) on dating.

[Devil's Advocate]

So I’m saying, perhaps the distance thing, measured in driving time or flight duration, ought not to matter overly much, because (a) distance is just a number, just a detail, if you’re able to connect with the “right” person ; and (b) in many ways a long-distance relationship is ideal in the initial stages.

I just realized this huge glaring black mark against the whole long-distance dating/relationship deal that somehow I hadn’t noticed when I posted that comment above : it’s totally un-EREish! I mean that’s the first thing I should have realized, commenting on these ERE forums, yet somehow I never thought of this!

I haven’t worked out the exact math, but I expect my current expense level (for a family of 4 ; and ignoring the opportunity cost of the capital tied down in my house) would probably be a third of what I spent back then—despite the fact that I was younger, not really earning all that much, and living alone—during that long-distance dating period. Very degenerate of me, that crazy spending was, from an ERE perspective : but then I hadn’t even begun thinking along the lines of EREing, or even of really saving at all, back then.

That opens up a complex decision tree, then, at least as I see it : On the one hand, ERE is a wonderful tool, a great paradigm, but I see it as no more than a tool, and some things must necessarily take precedence over ERE goals : such as finding the right “DW” or “DH” or simply “DP” (for “partner”, *grin*). On the other hand, that is so only if she (or he) is indeed the right “partner”, and that is something you won’t know beforehand. So to keep on going scooting off across the country (or continent) in search of fool’s gold seems quixotic. So, to distance-date or not to distance-date, for the ERE-minded?

In sum, not, I guess (purely from a cost-benefit perspective). Decidedly not, if weekly or fortnightly flight tickets are involved. Although I suppose you can make an exception if you really fancy her (or in your case, him)! And in any case, it need not always (or even mostly) be you who does the traveling : your prospective date can travel to you as well.

I guess there are different conflicts frugal people in relationship could have regarding spending money.

1) You share finances and you SO spends money that is half yours on stuff you wouldn't buy yourself and you have a problem with that.

2) You don't share finances and your SO wants you to chip in on stuff that you wouldn't buy yourself and your SO doesn't like it if you won't.

3) You don't share finances and your SO wants to spend money on stuff that you wouldn't spend money on yourself and your SO doesn't care whether you chip in and is perfectly willing (or even insistent) to carry the entire expense and share use of the resource with you.

Best would be option 4 : You pool finances together (or don’t, it doesn’t really matter which), but what you do is spend only on stuff that the both of you are happy about. That is, when both of you think EREishly. (Or alternately, I suppose, when both are consumption-addicts, a common enough situation.)

If only one could choose a priori the person to fall in love with, rather than have the realization sneak up on you unawares that you love them, how much simpler life would be!

[7Wannabe5]

Devil's Advocate said: That opens up a complex decision tree, then, at least as I see it : On the one hand, ERE is a wonderful tool, a great paradigm, but I see it as no more than a tool, and some things must necessarily take precedence over ERE goals : such as finding the right “DW” or “DH” or simply “DP” (for “partner”, *grin*). On the other hand, that is so only if she (or he) is indeed the right “partner”, and that is something you won’t know beforehand. So to keep on going scooting off across the country (or continent) in search of fool’s gold seems quixotic. So, to distance-date or not to distance-date, for the ERE-minded?

In sum, not, I guess (purely from a cost-benefit perspective). Decidedly not, if weekly or fortnightly flight tickets are involved. Although I suppose you can make an exception if you really fancy her (or in your case, him)! And in any case, it need not always (or even mostly) be you who does the traveling : your prospective date can travel to you as well.

Well, I think I would have to be suffering from a case of limerence at the level of crack cocaine addiction to throw down for multiple airline tickets to visit a man. Since I recognize the symptoms (most nefarious being chemically induced belief that love object is the most unique of all special human snowflakes) and understand the causes of infatuation, it is highly unlikely I will ever fall that hard and silly again unless/until I am consciously choosing to increase my likelihood of experiencing transcendent sex. OTOH, the slow rise/slow decline chemicals of proximity bonding are more difficult to shake. I mean, it is true that it is more likely that your love will be "true" if your love has been "true." However, the terrible thing about long-term proximity-based-love relationships is that they are the very worst trap for the human tendency towards sunk-cost fallacy. Very subtle but important difference between "happily married for 20 years" and "happy while married for 20 years" and all the multiple and varied possible versions of "making do" or "unhappy."

Anyways, identical-twins-separated-at-birth studies indicate that mate selection is pretty much completely random beyond the obvious fact that people usually marry people they encounter in their social circle. Obviously, this makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection, human beings are not at all strictly monogamous and they are out-breeders. IOW, there is a mixed motivation to "marry the girl/boy next door" vs. "have sex with the exotic stranger in the elevator" because we love/like and wish to protect/pass-on that which is familiar or like-us but there is also the underlying drive towards hybrid strength informing our desires, either at the level of simple incest barrier or further afield, likely depending upon temperament. This is one of the primary reasons why many long-term, heterosexual marital relationships eventually suffer from "lesbian bed death" syndrome ( the other issues clearly being lack of strong gender dichotomy and/or even strong power-exchange and/or lack of self-aware address of these issues) and also the reason why there is little reason for me to waste money on airline tickets when I live in a neighborhood full of immigrants.

Or another way to look at it is that the realm of human mating behavior is one in which there is no intersection in the Venn diagram exhibiting Sensible vs. Rational behavior. IOW, it is rational to believe that you will not be sensible in choosing a mate. Of course, your experience and/or reading list may vary ; )

[Devil's Advocate]

the terrible thing about long-term proximity-based-love relationships is that they are the very worst trap for the human tendency towards sunk-cost fallacy

True, that.

Equally true : It's easy to get to thinking "She's the best there can be" or "He's the One", especially when you've been happy with them over a longish period : but who is to say there may not be someone more right if only you did look? You can't possibly know that unless you've tried out every option. It takes a few hard shakes of the head to acknowledge what the cold fact, the rather unflattering truth, is : that good enough is often good enough.

[7Wannabe5]

Devil's Advocate said: It takes a few hard shakes of the head to acknowledge what the cold fact, the rather unflattering truth, is : that good enough is often good enough.

I absolutely agree. I'm by no means advocating casual risk-taking or behavior in accordance with "grass will be greener" fantasies or constant pursuit of state of infatuation in this realm. I'm just saying that exit strategy or strategies may be more relevant than entrance strategy since entrance strategy is rarely very successful. For instance, studies reveal that most people who answer "yes" to the question "Would you end this relationship if a higher power gave you permission (relieved you of guilt)?" are a good deal happier after ending their relationship.

Anyways, maybe more than in any other market, best case scenario is both parties believing that they aren't just getting good value but actually "got lucky."

[7Wannabe5]

Coffee date yesterday with a man who is living by himself post-divorce, empty-nest in a 3000 sq. ft. house with a heated inground pool and he hates to swim. Doesn't seem to enjoy his job/career too much either. I asked him if he was considering early retirement and he seemed rather ambivalent.

Hard to know whether this is a general trend or just limited to the men who tend to ask me out or belong to my social circle, but it seems to be the new status quo that in the case of mid-life divorce the husband buys the wife out of her half of the marital home and keeps it himself. In the 8 years since my divorce, I've probably met around 30 middle-aged divorced men for coffee and another 20 or so through my internet-based post-divorce-support group and I am actually hard-pressed to come up with even a few exceptions to this rule. I remember one guy told me that he was being "forced" to buy a new house on the same block as his Ex in order to have joint custody and one man I dated for about a year had to give the marital home to his Ex because she sued for divorce shortly after he inherited a lot of money so he was living in some rental housing he owned.

Anyways, since I am frugal, when I got to the point post-divorce where I was thinking that maybe I would be open to getting married again (took me about 4 years), it seemed rational to me that since virtually every man I dated owned a too-big house which he was loathe to give up, I would probably end up moving in with my SO. But now that I tried that for 2.5 years with my last relationship, I never want to do it again. Waaaay too much baggage and stuff-that-is-not-yours to deal with and dust when you move in with a man who is all encrusted in his domain. So, even though I do like to swim very much, I think I will take a pass.

[GandK]

But now that I tried that for 2.5 years with my last relationship, I never want to do it again. Waaaay too much baggage and stuff-that-is-not-yours to deal with and dust when you move in with a man who is all encrusted in his domain.

Amen! I've done this too and I'd never do it again either. Not only is it his domain, it was probably bought to suit his ex. When that's the case, as it was with me, you're not only living with his encrustation, you're living with/in her wishes and dreams. The emotional baggage was intense.

If, God forbid, I was ever in a situation where I was going to remarry, I'd insist on choosing a home together that was new to both of us. Not him moving into my existing space, or me into his.

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: Amen! I've done this too and I'd never do it again either. Not only is it his domain, it was probably bought to suit his ex. When that's the case, as it was with me, you're not only living with his encrustation, you're living with/in her wishes and dreams. The emotional baggage was intense.

Right, and in my case, my adverse reaction got worse and worse like an allergy rather than improving. It definitely did not help that my recent-ex could not be cured of the practice of instructing me in the proper way to do things around the house in an overbearing manner similar to the way he addressed his teenage daughters. I am still debating whether this was worse than my more passive ex-husbands habit of doing stuff like leaving Post-It notes that said "Clean Me" on the coffee machine. I really do not know why I am even considering the possibility of living with a man again.

If, God forbid, I was ever in a situation where I was going to remarry, I'd insist on choosing a home together that was new to both of us. Not him moving into my existing space, or me into his.

Agreed. In fact, I'm thinking that since I am now the happy owner of 3 vacant lots, maybe hers, his and ours tiny homes would be best. Or, maybe I can just find a nice BF who lives over the bridge in Windsor like my own divorced Grandmother did.