What makes a guy want to commit to one woman and pursue relationship?

Walter H Price

Great connection , Great conversation and Great S€X ... thats the only holy trinity right there once you've found it you'll know

sozbox

Walter H Price wrote: »

Great connection , Great conversation and Great S€X ... thats the only holy trinity right there once you've found it you'll know

I've generally only found 2/3, hence I haven't settled down yet.

A few months before I broke up with my ex, I didn't know at the time we were headed for a break up though hindsight brings great clarity, during an argument about me dragging my heels about committing she said "I want a husband!!"

The significance of that didn't hit me until I read this thread, in my mind I was thinking "I want you", and that's where the chasm developed, she could only see herself with me if I became a husband.

OldNotWIse

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that can be something you see from both sexes in a lot of places - not just Ikea. Shopping centres - super markets - clothes shops - the lot. Quite often people are dragging screaming bored kids around such places and they look miserable and drained.

The issue tends to be that they fail to keep the children involved and engaged. They view the outing as a chore and bringing the children with them as an additional chore on top of it.

Whereas if you keep the children entertained and engaged and involved in it then not only is bringing them less of (if at all) a chore - it can make the basic chore of being there enjoyable and fun too.

I have worked on this a few times with friends in my role as Supernanny in their lives when they asked me for help. And up front they felt that they simply did not have the energy to do the basic chore _and_ remain upbeat and involved with the kids.

But after I worked through it with them they realised pretty quickly that the energy requirement to do it "right" is actually a lot less than the energy drain of the alternative they had been living through. Because shouting and fighting a losing battle with bored kids is many times more draining. Up front it _seems_ like being upbeat and engaged will take more energy. But when they get home after doing so - usually a lot quicker than before and with a lot less stress and shouting and battling than before - it quickly becomes apparent which is less draining and energy demanding.

And Ikea is the best example. Going there and exploring it can actually be quite fun for kids if done right. Exploring all the areas - chips and meat balls and drinks - games - involving them in opinions on things and more. It can actually be a fun family day out when done "right".

But as Speedwell said above - there are healthy ways to communicate when you need to have a break or do your own thing or split up and "divide and conquer" with chores and kids - rather than staying passively glum and silent and miserable simply following each other around uselessly.

I don't pretend to know a thing about childcare techniques, I was just pointing out that the majority of men I see in IKEA look miserable

Alf Veedersane

When I knew what I wanted from life and what I would want from a relationship and met someone who enhanced my life, that's when I committed.

Like a lot of things in life, if adding/doing/changing something doesn't improve your life, then it's not for you.

H3llR4iser

Speedwell wrote: »

Newsflash to men: It is possible, nay, even desirable, to say to your woman, "That's OK, honey, you go on and have fun shopping by yourself" or "I'm going to go over here and look at stuff I want to look at and I'll meet you back at the food court at 2:30"...

eviltwin wrote: »

So glad someone said it. I don't know if I'm weird or what but myself and my partner are one of the few couples I know who aren't joined at the hip. Our space is very important to us. I wouldn't expect him to come to something I know he's no interest in and vice versa...

Speedwell, Eviltwin...that's all right and clear if you are talking about a self-confident, smart and emotionally mature woman. She'll actually be the first one happy to, using a very Irish saying, "see the back of him" for a while

Unfortunately, there's a load of ladies out there who don't fit the description at all, and it's not just me saying; Let's put it straight - your partners are lucky guys.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

In the end I realised she lived solely for her relationship - or her idea of it. Me I've always felt that while of course you should do things together, it's vitally important to have your own life, interests and friends

And that's it. For one reason or another, every single one of my past girlfriends ultimately proved to be more or less like that.

It's very easy for an external observer to say "well, just avoid that type of person and you're done!", but it's not easy to do - the infuriating part was that they all put on the "confident, relaxed" mask up for quite a long while (one managed to keep it until over a year into the relationship) before showing their true, obsessive traits, much like a certain type of man does; At that point, I was emotionally involved and when you are, often take all the wrong decisions.

In the presented scenario, even the smallest of disagreements was seen as an expression of me "not caring"; Saying "no" to a shopping trip, or whatever utterly boring thing she wanted to do (e.g. spend Sunday at her mother's, systematically) resulted in endless sulking, conflict and the assurance that she'll use it as a "bludgeoning tool" in the next disagreement. Every time I wanted to do something I liked, there was a problem - and if there wasn't, without fail she would point out that "I let you do X" as soon as it was convenient to her.

And I have plenty of friends, here and in Italy, who have been or are in the exact same kind of relationships - but it's always so much easier to be critical while looking from the outside, than to realize you're in a toxic arrangement when you are inside.

Speedwell

I'm not trying to be critical so much as I'm trying to point out decent, healthy behavior. So many people don't even know what that is! I know I didn't always know, either. These days I think it's creepy for my husband to follow me around shopping; my parents thought they weren't allowed to spend money without each other's supervision, or something. I do make sure I get my husband's input before I go, to see whether he needs anything. He thinks it's a bit weird for me to ask for sign-off if I want to buy something that I think costs a lot, and he usually says, "if you think we need it, then buy it". Of course we are both frugal people and we trust each other with money, and maybe that's part of it, the trust thing.

eviltwin

I don't think it's being critical either. It's one thing to spend all your time together when it's what you both want although that's also unhealthy but if one person is miserable and doesn't need to be there why are you doing that to yourself? I understand doing things for a quiet life but doesn't there come a point when you have to assert yourself and say no. And as for 'letting' you're partner do something, that really boils my piss. Put it this way, if one of my kids was in a relationship like this I'd be having a serious conversation with them about standing up for themselves.

fits

I think I must live on a different planet at times. Most couples I know live good independent lives of each other. My husband and I even worked in different countries for most of our relationship so far.

Carlos Orange

sozbox wrote: »

The significance of that didn't hit me until I read this thread, in my mind I was thinking "I want you", and that's where the chasm developed, she could only see herself with me if I became a husband.

I remember reading a terrible first date thread somewhere where the guy asks the lady what she was looking for and she said security and he walked out.
I guess he wasn't looking for a job placement.

WoolyJumper

I think men have the luxury of time. Women need to be certain whether they want a family or not much earlier than men, and even if they don't want it now they might in the future and no longer have the option. I also feel women have much more pressure from all sides to be married and have kids. Even in todays society. As a result women tend to want to move much faster in relationships. Like others said, I think men go a long with things in relationships until suddenly his partner is asking for more commitment. At this point it might not have even entered his head. The guy has time to "consider his options" so its much easier for him to move on if a commitment/family isn't what he wants right now. Though I'm not a women, or a straight man so there is always the change I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Tell me how

WoolyJumper wrote:

Though I'm not a women, or a straight man so there is always the change I don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

Think that allows you to have a more objective view than some. Not that they're wrong as such.

I do agree the "window" considerations are a large factor which is inevitable.

Speedwell

Not all women, or all couples, want, need, or are even able to have children. Certainly any theories that apply to men and women in their 20s and 30s are probably going to need to be rethought for a couple like my husband and me, who met in our mid-40s. The possibility of having children is just not a thing for us.

Angel2016

Speedwell wrote: »

Not all women, or all couples, want, need, or are even able to have children. Certainly any theories that apply to men and women in their 20s and 30s are probably going to need to be rethought for a couple like my husband and me, who met in our mid-40s. The possibility of having children is just not a thing for us.

I met my husband when I was 32 and he was 34 we are both in our 40's now with no kids I told him within the first 6 months of us dating that I had no plans to have kids and never wanted them and that he needed to make his choice of whether or not he wanted to stay with me and if he decided he wanted to move on then I was okay with that as I would never stop any man from having a family but he made his choice, I never wanted to get married it just wasn't what I was interested in but when I met my husband and he asked me to marry him I said yes but I think you get both men and women not wanting to commit or be tied down and are out there playing the field I have seen it in both male and female friends now I will admit the blokes are a bit of a nightmare when it comes to women one of them has had two long term relationships one I thought would end in marriage as that is the way they were talking but that broke up, he constantly goes for younger girls and goes out and enjoys himself in every possible way if you get me, another bloke friend is addicted to dating anyone who is not Irish and is 20 years younger then him ! he is 42 mind you he looks about 28.

Both these lads were in long term relationships and got burned as they put it and now just want to get out there and dont see a time limit on themselves because men can settle down and have kids along longer then women.

Most of the women I know who dont want to commit are divorced or have had bad relationships some have met other men and are in new relationships but others just dont want to know so I think you see it from both sides.

Letree

Deleted User wrote: »

To answer the OP as to what made _me_ settle down to pursue my relationship - it was mostly a slow evolution of the relationship I was in to the point I could not see the rest of my life - or my path through life - without them in it.

When I pictured anything - building a home - forwarding my career - making a family - experiencing new things in life - travelling - growing old - or whatever - I could only envision those things with them by my side or behind me or somehow there on the journey with me. There was no one else I could imagine wanting to walk my life path with.

And when sex happens in my relationship it is when and because everyone involved wants to do it. Not because one person in the relationship has performed adequately and sex is being dangled over them like some kind of Doggie Treat when the animal does it's tricks. I would rather never have sex again than have it doled out to me - or by me - in such a fashion.

How many wives do you have

Speedwell

Letree wrote: »

How many wives do you have

Singular "they" is perfectly acceptable English. Nonsingular partnerships are also perfectly good.

Letree

Letree wrote: »

How many wives do you have

2 - but not married of course as that is not really a viable or workable option in Ireland. That said however I think the principles behind my relationship carry over to traditional couples too.

I think for many people commitment comes when you simply can not imagine walking your life path without that person or people. Or you can not bear the thought of them walking theirs without you.

Peist2007

Deleted User wrote: »

All relationships? Have you checked them all? Because you certainly are not describing the relationship I am in - nor any I am aware of in my circles.

Nor is sex used in my relationship as you describe. I am not held to ransom by it - nor does a desire for it drive what I do or what I consent to doing or not doing. And most certainly not to the degree that I am being "kept in line" somehow as if sex is some kind of tool or currency to be used to control me.

I can also not think of any "crap I am putting up with" in my relationship either - or where I am being coerced into "doing things I really do not want to do". The kind of relationship you describe does not sound very healthy to me at all.

Is it a possibility that you are merely looking at your own relationships and drives and extrapolating them to apply to everyone else purely because you want yours to be representative?

To answer the OP as to what made _me_ settle down to pursue my relationship - it was mostly a slow evolution of the relationship I was in to the point I could not see the rest of my life - or my path through life - without them in it.

When I pictured anything - building a home - forwarding my career - making a family - experiencing new things in life - travelling - growing old - or whatever - I could only envision those things with them by my side or behind me or somehow there on the journey with me. There was no one else I could imagine wanting to walk my life path with.

And in turn when I imagined their life path and future journey I could not do anything but imagine myself following them on it and being there with them or behind them all the way too. I am excited by and interested in and invested in their lives and achievements and experiences in and of themselves - because I am excited by them as people and not just sexual outlets or biological incubators.

If there are people who want sex so badly they are willing to enter into a relationship they do not want to be in - and do things with their short and long term lives that they do not want to be involved in - then so be it. There is little I can do except be glad within myself that I am not one of those people.

And when sex happens in my relationship it is when and because everyone involved wants to do it. Not because one person in the relationship has performed adequately and sex is being dangled over them like some kind of Doggie Treat when the animal does it's tricks. I would rather never have sex again than have it doled out to me - or by me - in such a fashion.

Happy to join a select group of 3,889 people who have prompted a monologue from TaxAHCruel about the merits of his lifestyle and his ultra-cool relationship(s). Yes, we have heard it all before from you on many occasions. I will preface any future relationship comments with "of course this does not apply to TaxAHcruel and his legendary set-up".

Peist2007

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I tried that in a previous relationship. She would complain about being bored and wanting to go wander around the shops and I would say exactly that - go have fun and I'll see you later.

What would happen then is sulking because I wasn't overly enamored by the notion of dragging around shops for the afternoon - especially as we often didn't have the cash for more than window shopping anyway (this was at a time when I was out of work for a year having been made redundant and was trying to make what we had go as far as possible)

Eventually I more often than not would give in which I suppose was my own fault but from looking around at others when I got there, I wasn't the only one.

The same woman would complain that she never got to see the girls anymore, so I'd suggest that she give them a call and head up/out with them for the night - but nope, and then she'd wonder why they rarely contacted her either.

In the end I realised she lived solely for her relationship - or her idea of it. Me I've always felt that while of course you should do things together, it's vitally important to have your own life, interests and friends as well when involved with someone, but she wanted everything to be a "family day trip" as I came to think of it.
Even when things started going south, she refused to accept it because she was so committed to being in a relationship.

I will say one thing for her though.. She certainly made me realise what I want, like, and won't put up with whereas I would have been very naive in some ways previously, so I have that much to thank her for anyway.

Yeah what's with women coming into the Gentlemen's Club and telling us that valid issues being discussed arent valid at all? There is another thread on here about what you would say to your wife/gf/mother/sister etc and that has been hijacked despite the Ladies Lounge containing the exact same thread. Pretty much totally adhering to the domineering stereotype.

ancapailldorcha

Peist2007, if you take issue with a post report it and let one of the mods deal with it. I'm going to ask you to try and be more civil to other users here as well.

Wibbs

OK let's dial back on the snark please. As for women adding to such threads, we have no objection, so long as they don't dominate. We're perfectly capable of "robust" defence of our various male opinions and have been forthright doing so before now.

Peist2007

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's dial back on the snark please. As for women adding to such threads, we have no objection, so long as they don't dominate. We're perfectly capable of "robust" defence of our various male opinions and have been forthright doing so before now.

Absolutely no issue with women responding to these threads, 100%. What i have issue with is that the topic is being discussed amongst gentlemen in the Gentleman's Lounge and, despite the consensus, in come "super-chilled" ladies to tell us that we are not communicating properly etc. I certainly do not appear in the Ladies Lounge telling people to get a grip and i know exactly how it would be received if i did.

Wibbs - i genuinely enjoy your insight etc and i respect your contributions on this site. The above is not me trolling.

WoolyJumper

The thing is whatever kind of relationship you are in, straight, gay, polyamorous they all require work, sacrifice and compromise. In a good relationship your partner will give as much as they take and they will be worth the compromises and sacrifices. These can range from the big to the mundane. I have been in a relationship where all the other person did was take. He refused to sacrifice and compromise and only did what he wanted to do. Now in his defence he never asked me to compromise anything but I knew if I didn't the relationship would never work. For a relationship to work either one person compromises or you both meet half way. Its not going to work any other way. If I brought that up with him I was nag or I was trying to change him. So I broke up with him. I have a lot of female friend who have felt like this. The gave a lot but got nothing in return. If they asked for anything it suddenly felt like a big deal and they felt like they were becoming "nags" Now I'm saying I know the ins and outs of their relationships and I am sure I am getting a very one sided version of the story but thats exactly the point. There are two sides to every story. While you might feel you are being pulled into things you don't want to do she might feel she is the one making all the sacrifices and you won't budge - Obviously this is a generalisation.

The point is if you are going to be in a relationship, be prepared to make sacrifices and compromise. If its a good relationship it will be worth it and you will get as much back. But if you are not prepared to do that, then don't go into relationships. It counts for everything. Even friendships require sacrifice and compromise, if they are going to last.

Peist2007

Peist2007 wrote: »

Happy to join a select group of 3,889 people who have prompted a monologue from TaxAHCruel about the merits of his lifestyle and his ultra-cool relationship(s).

Not a single thing I wrote is about "my life style" or anything I think is "ultra cool" about me personally. Rather what I wrote is about how your view of relationships appears to be unsupported. Let alone your declaration that "all relationships" fall into the pattern you describe.

You appear to have simply asserted this generalisation and little more. And I find the generalisation is not only unsupported - but does not map onto a single relationship I am aware of. Not just mine. I hasten to add that I am not saying such relationships as you describe do not exist. I have no doubt they do. I simply do not think it is as common as you appear to think. Let alone that "all" relationships fit this pattern.

Sex being doled out by one party in a relationship as a form of congratulatory doggie treat to another party who performs to some unspoken parameters - does not sound like a healthy relationship _at all_. And that has _nothing_ to do with me or the relationship I am in. It is a general opinion entirely independent of my situation.

The thread is about what makes a guy want to commit to a relationship and I think I gave some good answers to that. I have no idea why a guy would want to commit to _that_ kind of relationship however. As I said a relationship for me is about following each other down a life path together. It is not - for me - about being _led_ down that life path with doggie treats.

If you are in a relationship where you feel you have to "put up with crap" or are being forced to "do things you do not want to do" or you feel you are only getting sex in that relationship as some form of currency - then that simply does not sound healthy to me. It is certainly not a relationship dynamic I would stay in personally for longer than a week. I would be making all the necessary moves to end the relationship amicably and simply move on. YMMV.

LegacyUser

Op here. There are some very insightful answers here which made for interesting reading. I guess the idea that a guy has more to lose when things go belly up is very valid which I had never thought of before.
The pattern of events that has gone on with friends and work colleagues is normally as follows: meet a guy everything goes great for a month/6 weeks, then either the guy starts to pull back prompting the girl to ask what's going on? Or else the girl develops feelings for the guy over this time and asks him where he sees things going between them, is he looking for a relationship or is it just not serious? Most recently, in fact in 5 situations I know of the guys told them they were fantastic girls, everything a guy could want in a girl and had so much going for them but the guy just couldn't/wouldn't commit to a relationship with them.
One girl in particular was quite upset as they guy had suggested they go away for a weekend a few weeks later and then it's like bang he can't/won't commit.
It just got me wondering is it a case of the guy liking the girl but just not enough to want a relationship? Was there enough of a spark between them? Does he just want to go from girl to girl with no commitment and just let things fizzle out with one and move onto the next?
Is there a set thing when a guy is initially seeing a girl for a month or two that makes him say: I want a relationship with this girl and I am prepared to make things official and give it a go?

Or likewise, is there a set thing when a guy is seeing a girl initially that makes him think: she's a lovely girl, fancy her a bit but don't want a relationship? Is it a case of timing or does meeting someone that you think is brilliant and don't want to lose override the fact that the timing may not be perfect?

Speedwell

Baltico, I'm a woman who has always had primarily male friends and is sought out for advice about women by them. I will tell you something I know, which is that a man seems to only describe a woman in the precise terms you describe (fantastic girl, everything a guy could want in a girl, and has so much going for them) when they're confused about why they don't feel that special connection, that important bond, but they know that it isn't there. When a guy I know tells me, "I don't know what it is about her; she's not perfect at all, but I don't know what I'd do without her", then I know he feels that connection strongly, and he really wants to go the distance, or at least see if the distance is somewhere he might like to go.

Wibbs

baltico87 wrote: »

It just got me wondering is it a case of the guy liking the girl but just not enough to want a relationship? Was there enough of a spark between them? Does he just want to go from girl to girl with no commitment and just let things fizzle out with one and move onto the next?
Is there a set thing when a guy is initially seeing a girl for a month or two that makes him say: I want a relationship with this girl and I am prepared to make things official and give it a go?

Or likewise, is there a set thing when a guy is seeing a girl initially that makes him think: she's a lovely girl, fancy her a bit but don't want a relationship? Is it a case of timing or does meeting someone that you think is brilliant and don't want to lose override the fact that the timing may not be perfect?

Or "he's just not into you" option. The explanations given may be lies to soften the blow and avoid hassle for them. Add in why buy a book when the library is free option and for a subsection of men commitment is on the long finger. Depends on a few factors, age and attractiveness being two biggies. As a general rule an objectively attractive socially aware and active single guy of 35 requires a stick of poo to beat them away with and is less likely to commit than a objectively plain socially awkward single guy of 22. The latter has far fewer choices.

This brings up another angle. What sort of men are your friends and colleagues going for? If they're going for the guy who has choice and knows it and wants to wait before he migrates to suburbia, stepping on Lego bricks and dad bod, then they're on the back foot from the start. Like when some young women go for "bad boys" and then wonder why they get burned(though I have found the type gets off on that). Maybe they should be choosing more wisely?

Sleepy

baltico87 wrote: »

Is there a set thing when a guy is initially seeing a girl for a month or two that makes him say: I want a relationship with this girl and I am prepared to make things official and give it a go?

Very few men that I know move that fast. A month or two is still "seeing how we get on" territory. You hardly know someone in that time-frame. You've still no idea if she's the sort who'll get comfortable and break out the "I'm in a relationship fat pants" or if she's an unstable mess who can manage to present herself as a normal person in the short-term.

Hell, I know people that have been dating far longer than that before discovering the other person was significantly older than they'd claimed, were divorced or even that they had a child.

Tell me how

Sleepy wrote:

if she's the sort who'll get comfortable and break out the "I'm in a relationship fat pants" or if she's an unstable mess who can manage to present herself as a normal person in the short-term.

Or, you know, she decides she's looking for more than what that particular guy has to offer.

There isn't a rule. I know some who men who were very comfortable with idea of commitment quite quickly. Maybe they truly met "the one". Maybe they told themselves they had.

fits

baltico87 wrote: »

I guess the idea that a guy has more to lose when things go belly up is very valid which I had never thought of before.

Is it though? Its certainly a common belief these days, but not necessarily true at all. Eg single mothers are most likely of all to be living in poverty.

eviltwin

I think unless you are a couple where one or both of you has a degree of wealth, both parties suffer in the event of a relationship breakdown. There are no winners.

Maguined

baltico87 wrote: »

Op here. There are some very insightful answers here which made for interesting reading. I guess the idea that a guy has more to lose when things go belly up is very valid which I had never thought of before.
The pattern of events that has gone on with friends and work colleagues is normally as follows: meet a guy everything goes great for a month/6 weeks, then either the guy starts to pull back prompting the girl to ask what's going on? Or else the girl develops feelings for the guy over this time and asks him where he sees things going between them, is he looking for a relationship or is it just not serious? Most recently, in fact in 5 situations I know of the guys told them they were fantastic girls, everything a guy could want in a girl and had so much going for them but the guy just couldn't/wouldn't commit to a relationship with them.
One girl in particular was quite upset as they guy had suggested they go away for a weekend a few weeks later and then it's like bang he can't/won't commit.
It just got me wondering is it a case of the guy liking the girl but just not enough to want a relationship? Was there enough of a spark between them? Does he just want to go from girl to girl with no commitment and just let things fizzle out with one and move onto the next?
Is there a set thing when a guy is initially seeing a girl for a month or two that makes him say: I want a relationship with this girl and I am prepared to make things official and give it a go?

Or likewise, is there a set thing when a guy is seeing a girl initially that makes him think: she's a lovely girl, fancy her a bit but don't want a relationship? Is it a case of timing or does meeting someone that you think is brilliant and don't want to lose override the fact that the timing may not be perfect?

I have met some really nice women that on paper is everything I would want but there is not enough of a spark to want a long term relationship. In the early phases there is the honeymoon phase spark of excitement because it is new but that is not the same thing as a proper connection that can last long term. It is better to end it so you are not stringing along the woman when you don't feel it.

A month to 6 weeks is definitely still in that extremely early spark phase so I would be extremely wary of anyone expecting a proper commitment at that stage. I might get flak for this but I don't believe someone if they tell me they had developed real feelings for me after 6 weeks. You can certainly find someone very interesting and fun to be around with but that is not the same as proper deep feelings as you don't truly know someone in that short space of time. When I hear people say this it makes me wary as I think they are in love with the idea of being in love and in a relationship more than they are with me as a person.

I would feel like I am only filling a role for them rather than there being a proper connection and that would make me want to end things and move to find someone that wants to take the time to properly get to know me so I would feel they are committing to me as a person not just the fantasy of a boyfriend and a relationship.

Calahonda52

baltico87 wrote: »

Op here. There are some very insightful answers here which made for interesting reading.
I guess the idea that a guy has more to lose when things go belly up is very valid which I had never thought of before....

I have not read all this thread as I don't have the attention span, but I cannot agree with this more to lose idea.
Lose what exactly.

What happened to self (worth, esteem and dignity).

sozbox

Maguined wrote: »

I have met some really nice women that on paper is everything I would want but there is not enough of a spark to want a long term relationship. In the early phases there is the honeymoon phase spark of excitement because it is new but that is not the same thing as a proper connection that can last long term. It is better to end it so you are not stringing along the woman when you don't feel it.

A month to 6 weeks is definitely still in that extremely early spark phase so I would be extremely wary of anyone expecting a proper commitment at that stage. I might get flak for this but I don't believe someone if they tell me they had developed real feelings for me after 6 weeks. You can certainly find someone very interesting and fun to be around with but that is not the same as proper deep feelings as you don't truly know someone in that short space of time. When I hear people say this it makes me wary as I think they are in love with the idea of being in love and in a relationship more than they are with me as a person.

I would feel like I am only filling a role for them rather than there being a proper connection and that would make me want to end things and move to find someone that wants to take the time to properly get to know me so I would feel they are committing to me as a person not just the fantasy of a boyfriend and a relationship.

Good summary, and works both ways, having the connection with someone not 'good on paper' can also lead to disaster.

I find it's like everything in life, there has to be a logical AND emotional element to connecting with someone, the head and heart both need to say yes before committing. In every relationship I've had one of these has been missing.

LegacyUser

Some of you have said that a month or 6 weeks is too soon to decide if you want to be in a relationship with someone and I would tend to agree. It just happened that in these cases it was around the 6 or 7 week mark when the guy started to contact less and show less of an interest in meeting up and planning things. This then prompted the girl to ask what was going on, I guess they felt they didn't want to get hurt and when there was a change in his behaviour I.e going from planning to see each other more to not replying to texts for days they felt they had to bring up the whole "where are we going conversation".
I don't mean to sound like I'm being unfair on guys here and I'm sure this happens the other way around but in my experience in the last 6 months when I've been going to meet friends this pattern has emerged. Some of them met the guys on tinder, one or two just met on a night out so I don't know if where they initially met these guys comes into play as they have all ended the same way.
I didn't really know what advice to give as I am only out of a long relationship myself and have been out of the dating thing for the last while. It's just when so many situations ended up the same it really got me thinking what's at play. One friend in particular was really beating herself up about the whole thing thinking there was potential there. The guy had a psycho ex and my friend is anything but and when it got to the relationship chat stage, he didn't want a relationship saying she had it all but he didn't feel the spark/chemistry.
In fairness I think he was as honest and straight as he could have been in that situation but it just had me thinking what is "it" that makes the guy want to have a relationship and give things a go.

Wibbs

baltico87 wrote: »

I don't mean to sound like I'm being unfair on guys here and I'm sure this happens the other way around but in my experience in the last 6 months when I've been going to meet friends this pattern has emerged. Some of them met the guys on tinder, one or two just met on a night out so I don't know if where they initially met these guys comes into play as they have all ended the same way.

I've observed a few changes since social media and online dating and all that stuff got imported*. It's become more business like for want of a better word. Meeting someone is as much an interview or can be. The online stuff has meant that women get more attention as a general rule from tinder and the like, fewer men do, but those that do can make hay. It's become much more of a market and driven by those market forces enough men and women can be sidelined or hurt.

As for the 6 or 7th week? TBH that sounds like "right I've got the ride now and I'm not feeling anything else, so better start ghosting and on to the next one. I mean we're only dating right and we can see other people, so what's the problem".





*mostly from the US. Pre the noughties feck all Irish people "dated" in the American way and IMH it's a pity we imported that guff.

LegacyUser

So baltico87 - the 87, if it is your year of birth, would imply you are 29ish. I'd say age is a factor in your friends experiences - especially if they / the guys are around that age or a bit younger. That is around the age where guys tend to start imaging, rightly or wrongly, that the girls of that age want to settle down and have babies. And once a guy starts to imagine the girl is thinking that - if they are not in love and also want that they will bolt. All of which may or may not apply - unless the person actually tells you the reason they are leaving you don't know.

Random idea that may be good or bad - but have your girls actually asked any of these guys why they ended it ? Even later on in a matter of fact way as you have asked the question here? Might be a bad idea would depend on the individuals (watch High Fidelity first) - but might be revealing.

@Wibbs - good to see you are still doling out the wisdom here. I completely agree with you on the American style 'competitive dating' being awful by the way.

Potatoeman

Wibbs wrote: »

Or "he's just not into you" option. The explanations given may be lies to soften the blow and avoid hassle for them. Add in why buy a book when the library is free option and for a subsection of men commitment is on the long finger. Depends on a few factors, age and attractiveness being two biggies. As a general rule an objectively attractive socially aware and active single guy of 35 requires a stick of poo to beat them away with and is less likely to commit than a objectively plain socially awkward single guy of 22. The latter has far fewer choices.

This brings up another angle. What sort of men are your friends and colleagues going for? If they're going for the guy who has choice and knows it and wants to wait before he migrates to suburbia, stepping on Lego bricks and dad bod, then they're on the back foot from the start. Like when some young women go for "bad boys" and then wonder why they get burned(though I have found the type gets off on that). Maybe they should be choosing more wisely?

That's very true having been in both those situations. Struggled in my early twenties but hit the gym, got more self confident and have a far better career. I get more attention from women in their twenties now than I did then. Desperation is a huge turn off, for men and women. I think this is why guys in their twenties and women in their thirties struggle.

I avoid women that went for the badboy/player type as I don't think its so easy to change the type of person you are attracted to. Same reason I don't go for women that were not into me in my twenties.

OP, your friends comments made me think of self fulfilling prophecies. Where their own low expectations of men are directly impacting their choices. You should even out their advice with advice from women in successful, healthy relationships.

H3llR4iser

baltico87 wrote: »

Some of you have said that a month or 6 weeks is too soon to decide if you want to be in a relationship with someone and I would tend to agree [CUT]

...bring up the whole "where are we going conversation"...[CUT]

If 6/7 weeks is too short a time to figure things out, and it is, then it should be self-evident how bringing up the "where are we going?" conversation at this time has a basically 100% chance of ending the relationship on the spot. People do not like to be "pushed in a corner" and forced to make decisions and will seek a way out if forced so. Technically speaking, I am sorry to say, your friends most likely came across as desperate for a "meaningful" relationship, the suburban house, the 2.7 kids and whatnot.

That doesn't mean these "flings" weren't on the way out already, they were;, they simply accelerated the process. What you are not considering is that those guys have a history just like you and your friends have; Some of them might have experienced it all before and taken the wrong decision, so they just act differently now.

baltico87 wrote: »

I don't mean to sound like I'm being unfair on guys here

You aren't, actually your point of view is commendable - you go to the idea of "there's something going on and I'm not getting it", which is a refreshing attitude.

baltico87 wrote: »

One friend in particular was really beating herself up about the whole thing thinking there was potential there.

Perfect example of what is a GIGANTIC red flag for most men; I mean no offense nor disrespect to her, I'm sure she's a nice young woman, but I would not be interested in somebody who, by the sound of things, seems obsessed by the idea she HAS to have a relationship. I think you can see a pattern starting to emerge...

baltico87 wrote: »

In fairness I think he was as honest and straight as he could have been in that situation but it just had me thinking what is "it" that makes the guy want to have a relationship and give things a go.

And that is the central point, what I don't think anybody has even tried to answer yet - because let's be honest, it's one bloody hard question!

I can't speak for "men" in general, I can give you the one example I'm familiar with - me. Extract and elaborate from it as you wish and deem fit

I am one that, at nearly 36, do not seek any kind of commitment. Been there in the past, done that, cherished it at times but in the long run it wasn't something that was adding "value" to my life, while demanding quite a bit of sacrifice; Therefore, it's not something I'm looking to jump in blindly with both feet. My current life feels complete as I am - career, hobbies, activities, friends - and I don't have a "partner shaped hole" I want to desperately fill. For one reason or the other, while there certainly are women in the very same situation, it seems to be more common of a place for men to be.

However, if somebody truly extraordinary came around, I'd gladly reconsider my position; This attitude is not borne out of arrogance or an inflated sense of self-importance, not at all...it's just that I very seldom meet women whom I find interesting and the few that I know, are already attached.

Bear in mind that of course, there are infinite shades of "extraordinary" - what is for me, doesn't work for the next guy and vice-versa.

Wibbs wrote: »

I've observed a few changes since social media and online dating and all that stuff got imported*. It's become more business like for want of a better word. Meeting someone is as much an interview or can be. The online stuff has meant that women get more attention as a general rule from tinder and the like, fewer men do, but those that do can make hay. It's become much more of a market and driven by those market forces enough men and women can be sidelined or hurt.

Probably there's a cultural difference at play here, because to be entirely honest, in my "world" dating has always been an utterly and mercilessly competitive environment, since the days of "secondary school" in Italy.

Basically, the cool/good looking kids could do as they please, the others had to do with what was available to them, the nerdy / fat guys watched from the sidelines, got fed up and ultimately just went home to play Doom II (yep, I was part of the third group ).

This kept true during college years just the same - plenty of the typical American college sitcom scenarios with "girl has nice guy chasing after her but doesn't care as she chases the jock type" and relative role reversal versions. Couples were always under the threat of "something better coming over the horizon" - basically you had a girlfriend, a cooler/better looking guy than you gave her attention and she'd be gone in a heartbeat, leaving you to play Quake Arena in the night (I guess there's a pattern...).

Most likely, the bulk of the difference happens in adult age dating, and it would make sense with a sprinkling of status and wealth on top. The only issue is that a direct comparison might be a bit difficult to make, as in the days of yesteryear people had a tendency to meet young, get married and that was it - there wasn't a lot of adult age dating going on...

Olishi4

My husband and I are together since we were 19. Everything just happened naturally for us and we just got on straight away and had fun. Moved in together after 6 months, engaged three years later and married a few years after that. I was never pushing for any of those things. When my husband proposed, it was a complete shock to me. One thing that I think was positive for us was that we didn't have any major priorities at the beginning so we just enjoyed spending time together and then when career and other responsibilities came, we experienced them together. I guess if you are meeting someone later in life, you have more responsibilities and priorities that you are invested in and might be a bit more specific about what you want in a relationship from previous experience and quicker to recognise what you don't want.

We have a lot in common and come from the same backround. He was mainly raised by his father and my mother worked for a good number of years so I spent a lot of time at home with my dad. Our dad's are similar so we tend to have the same outlook and values. Don't get me wrong, we have our differences but we are still very happy and attracted to each other and we don't have too many unrealistic expectations from one another.

I have both male and female friends who say that they would like to be in a relationship but just don't seem to meet the right person. For others, it's just not their main focus right now.

I think if it is a case that it seems men dont want to commit and women do that sometimes the problem is that it is often expected that men should pursue the woman. So he might give over the top compliments in the moment and the woman might take more meaning. So she becomes invested more and then is shocked that he was saying all these great things but suddenly changed. I don't think it's necessarily that the man is being deceiving but just going on the moment whereas the woman might be taken with the complinents and pursuit and start seeing into the future.

Oh and it's not just men that get dragged to IKEA. Well not IKEA but feckin Woodies or even if we decide to do the food shopping together, he spends about 3 hours down one isle! When I go shopping alone, I pride myself on the fact that I fly through it

Widdershins

Peist2007 wrote: »

Have a look around Grafton Street or Henry Street at 1pm on a saturday. Lots of miserable male faces being dragged around the shops. I genuinely do not think i could ever sign up to that. You get one life folks. She better be worth it.

Why is that ? Why do those women need their boyfriend to accompany them , and why can't those men politely refuse ? I don't understand the expectation for someone to do something they aren't needed for and will find boring .

El Caffo

Sad to say I am cynical as well. After a few turbulent relationships in my 20s I have played the field over the last year since turning 30.

I have concentrated on my education and getting my life together and I could not be happier. Something I wish I could have done in my 20s.

I also can't recommend Tinder enough for anyone of similar mindset.

Elliott S

eeguy wrote: »

Most of my 30 something friends just say "So what, I'll find a 25 year old and settle down when it suits me".

You make it sound so easy.

Elliott S

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I don't pretend to know a thing about childcare techniques, I was just pointing out that the majority of men I see in IKEA look miserable

Yes, the one time I've dragged my fella shopping, it was IKEA and he was miserable. But so was I, I hate IKEA. Bringing him shopping is not something I'd ever willingly do. We had just moved in together and needed to get a shítload of stuff. I could have done it all myself in small trips but we both have limited free time and mine is as important as his so he just needed to suck it up, quite frankly! :pac: Got it all done in one short, painful blast instead of me having to traipse around the place over a few weeks to get everything we needed.

Gehad_JoyRider

For me it felt right, mentle sexual attraction .
Similar tastes, easy going nsture she feels as much like a friend who as well as some one im quite comfortable saying I want to spend my life with were booth in our mid 30s weve known each other for over a year and a half.

Yep she drives nuts at times . But thats a good thing.

smacl

Never particularly wanted to commit to a relationship or any of that jazz. That said have been with the same girlfriend for the last twenty seven years, walked a fair bit or Europe together with her, had two kids, set up two companies together, bought a couple of houses, sold one of the companies, and a couple of years ago even got quietly married at the behest of our solicitor. The only likelihood of me being committed is if they can hold me down long enough to get the straitjacket on.

Was never much into the idea of babies and still amn't, but luckily they grow up into kids which are actually great gas and later on teens who are fantastic company albeit bloody expensive. Great to be the heroic all powerful dad at certain ages too, not to mention getting to re-read all your favourite kids books to them, and have a reasonable excuse to play Mario and watch kids TV.

I don't know about true love, but having a co-conspirator going through life has been great. Someone you admire, who admires you, to share the adventure and fight your corner when you're on the ropes and likewise roll in arms a swinging thing when they're down.

Life's short, I for one enjoy the company.

Don't do Ikea or any retail therapy, church ceremonies, or watch big brother. I think anyone who thinks they can comment about all people or all couples is delusional.

Speedwell

smacl wrote: »

Never particularly wanted to commit to a relationship or any of that jazz. That said have been with the same girlfriend for the last twenty seven years, walked a fair bit or Europe together with her, had two kids, set up two companies together, bought a couple of houses, sold one of the companies, and a couple of years ago even got quietly married at the behest of our solicitor. The only likelihood of me being committed is if they can hold me down long enough to get the straitjacket on.

Was never much into the idea of babies and still amn't, but luckily they grow up into kids which are actually great gas and later on teens who are fantastic company albeit bloody expensive. Great to be the heroic all powerful dad at certain ages too, not to mention getting to re-read all your favourite kids books to them, and have a reasonable excuse to play Mario and watch kids TV.

I don't know about true love, but having a co-conspirator going through life has been great. Someone you admire, who admires you, to share the adventure and fight your corner when you're on the ropes and likewise roll in arms a swinging thing when they're down.

Life's short, I for one enjoy the company.

Don't do Ikea or any retail therapy, church ceremonies, or watch big brother. I think anyone who thinks they can comment about all people or all couples is delusional.

Different people are different, simple as.
Looking at my extended family loads got married early and the vast majority stayed together and look like staying the course. It's about finding someone compatible, simple as. It's not always about initial compatibility either which is where people seem to get confused, seeing mates messed around with for a couple of years because of a feeling they had ages ago.
For me personally, I don't have "ambition" which is apparently a turn-off for a lot of women. I don't have specific goals or a road map. I've taken a while to get set up but I'm now in a mediocre job with opportunities in the industry in several different paths or possible travel opportunities within the company if I'm good enough. I don't have a plan as such, I just try to make sure that I'll be alright whatever happens, losing my job/downturn/moving away etc. and that's all I want. Ironically I know people much more "ambitious" and "adventrous" than me in worse jobs with no prospects, still no qualifications and no sign of getting any and who have travelled less than I have. Because I don't "show" enthusiasm for little things and pipe dreams it apparently means I have no ambition. :pac:

Went off on a bit of a tangent there! I suppose there's no one thing that would make me settle. Not wanting kids would be a deal-breaker. Other than that I'm happy to travel, give things a go and go with the flow. I've learned to avoid (in most cases) a couple of types of people, those who have all these ideas and dreams but who'll likely never do them or put themselves in a hole or in long-term trouble to do so, and people who are never happy, for whom the next thing will be the one thing they've been missing. Right now I'm fine with my lot and in the next few years intend to get to a stage where I can be happy with my lot and hopefully there'll be someone to share bits of travelling and adventuring with in the not too distant future. Though probably not. :P

Charizard

Widdershins wrote: »

Why is that ? Why do those women need their boyfriend to accompany them , and why can't those men politely refuse ? I don't understand the expectation for someone to do something they aren't needed for and will find boring .

I dont understand it myself, I let my wife go into the shopping center while I head of walking around shop streets window browsing and playing pokemon go
She will call me or i her when I want to get something to eat, I dont believe in rushing her and I cant really give her advice on what to wear cause I dont have the eye for it

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

Because I don't "show" enthusiasm for little things and pipe dreams it apparently means I have no ambition.

Could just be nothing's enthused you yet. My brother in-law is a plasterer, musician, never did his leaving but was always into archaeology. He went to do a night course in UCD on it in his early 50s, came out 5 years later with a masters, and looks very much like doing the doctorate. Now he's a plasterer, musician, unemployed archaeologist and well chuffed.

Right now I'm fine with my lot and in the next few years intend to get to a stage where I can be happy with my lot and hopefully there'll be someone to share bits of travelling and adventuring with in the not too distant future. Though probably not. :P

If you want there to be someone it might be a matter of looking for them rather than just waiting for them to show up. Could be they have the slacker gene too and might not be putting enough effort into looking for you yet :pac:

Speedwell

Charizard wrote: »

I dont understand it myself, I let my wife go into the shopping center while I head of walking around shop streets window browsing and playing pokemon go
She will call me or i her when I want to get something to eat, I dont believe in rushing her and I cant really give her advice on what to wear cause I dont have the eye for it

You clearly don't have any ambition

No, of course I'm only kidding. I think most people don't actually know what they mean when they say someone "doesn't have any ambition". Hell, I don't have any ambition; my ambition, such as it is, is to live a peaceful life where when I want to go to the shop for a chicken to make for dinner, I don't have to buy the cheapest one just because it's cheapest, know what I mean. But if I understand Buttontfw, there, correctly, what people might mean is "you view life too negatively, too defensively, and you need to let go sometimes and act like life is good". Risk, leaving your comfort zone, listening to what you really like instead of what you "should" like, taking a chance on something that might be wonderful, is not ambition, but it is necessary if you want to be open to good things happening in your life. And I guess that when a man commits to one woman and wants to pursue a relationship with her, it is the kind of risk that he thinks will likely bring a proportionate reward.