FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The newest internet dating...thing (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: The newest internet dating...thing
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I must say, I definitely had a "wow" reaction the first time I saw Porter. Though he wasn't this "type" I speak of. Count me among the pleasantly surprised that CT mentioned. [Smile]

But I have been in several relationships where the "wow" was not at all a part of the first impression. It had little bearing on the later development of my feelings.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Bev, seriously, maybe that's the difference here. Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor.

(Porter? [Confused] -- not a critical point, but I must be misreading something (?))
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner. That's why telling someone what they should be attracted to is wrong: no one could possibly know better than themselves.

Everything else follows from that assumption. If that assumption isn't shared, then the rest of conversation may as well be in Klingon.

CT: Nothing in the world could persuade me to pass judgment on Hatracker's present relationships. I was going off of bev's stories of the "wow" factor getting into unpleasant situations.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is there any reason to believe that you are less likely to find the things that are meaningful to your happiness and enjoyment with the people you get the "wow" feeling from than those whom you don't?
Less likely because it would be a much smaller pool of people. All the wonderful people I'd be missing out on! Could I find "everything" all in one package? Sure. But I think that is an unrealistic expectation, taking far more time effort than it is worth. I don't think it is worth holding out for, and I think to hold out for it, I would be shallow.

I actually am rather picky, just in different ways. For example, for some reason, when I lived in Texas, I never met a single guy in my entire high school that I would want to date. That particular pool for whatever reason was barren of appealing choices for me.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Here's an analogy that might help. Or it might not.

I am a meat and potato kind of girl. Give me a good hamburger and I am so happy. I tend, on my own, to gravitate towards that kind of restaurant. I do try to broaden my horizons and eat at other kinds of place and try new things. I often find things I really like. Sticky rice came as a delightful surprise.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Right, but joining the site does not exclude you from meeting those other people. It can be done in addition to the other things you would already be doing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
I found everything in one package. [Wink] [Smile] [Razz]

I also have the philosophy that I should never get into a relationship unless each of us feels like the other is a little out of our league.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But I think that is an unrealistic expectation, taking far more time effort than it is worth.
I think it's worth it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
(I was just reading the post I quoted from you on the prior page as in response to beverly's post just before it -- which it looks like got double-posted, but nonetheless was there just before yours. But maybe your post was not in response to hers, but to something else.)

-----------------
beverly
Member # 6246
- posted March 26, 2007 01:20 PM

I must say, I definitely had a "wow" reaction the first time I saw Porter. Though he wasn't this "type" I speak of. Count me among the pleasantly surprised that CT mentioned. [Smile]

---

katharina
Member # 827
- posted March 26, 2007 01:20 PM

Bev, seriously, maybe that's the difference here. Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor. My worst experiences have ALL come from when I DIDN'T follow the wow factor. Of course you don't trust it, and of course I think it is utterly essential.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Your bad experiences came from following the "wow" factor.
I dunno that I would call them bad experiences. Twice I let go guys that my heart was shouting for because my head said they would not be wise choices in the long run. (Both had this specific "wow" factor for me, as well as other things that meant far, far more to my heart.) They were hard choices, to be sure. But I believe I made the right choice in each case. Not bad experiences, bittersweet ones. [Smile]
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
The Claw, I thought kat posted before she saw bev's post.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
The Claw, I thought kat posted before she saw bev's post.

-pH

Ah. I knew I must be missing something. I'd missed the prior "wow" post of beverly's. *nods
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
The "wow" is important to me. My problem with this site is that, I think, it assumes and forwards the notion that the "wow" is both based on looks and on certain cultural stereotypes of what those looks should be. We are conditioned to expect the "wow" from people who look a certain way.

In my experience, those are often wrong expectations.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It can be done in addition to the other things you would already be doing.
For me, the "muddling of the better judgement factor" isn't worth it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There seems, to me, to be a subtle current of thinking that a person's qualities are a zero-sum game
I thing reading CT's post with this perception is what has led to your confusion about her point. To her, it's not a zero sum game and, more importantly, it's not dependent on binary determinations such as shallow/not shallow. It's a complex system where each variable is infinitely adjustable and where each variable (such as focus on appearance) can effect each of the others to differing degrees.

CT therefore recognizes - and seems (to me) to have adequately caveated her statements - that any discussion of a single factor's effect on another's will by nature be imprecise with many exceptions to whatever general trends are identified. She has used phrases such as "to the extent" and "in general" "with many exceptions" to indicate this.

Any attempt to move from the very general things CT has said to any specific prediction about a particular person is an unintended application of what she has been saying, I think.

Since it seems that you are mostly interested in discussing such general implications as applied to specific situations (other than the hind-brain issue and a few other things), the conversation is an almost complete disconnect. You're literally discussing different things.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
boots,
And I date all types of people, as, in fact, the things that really are important and make people special are more or less equally distributed regardless of attractiveness. To me, a response to that analogy would be that we're not talking about eating different types of food, but rather the same types of food in restaruants that are more or less aesthetically interesting.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe not everyone's better judgement gets muddled.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
MrSquicky, I was referring in that post only to the point that broadening one's experience can be "better" than narrowing it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
And I responded with a point why I don't consider this particular case as fitting that example.

You can always state some vague general principle and make it sound good. I agree that broadening your experience can be good. I don't think anyone is going to disagree.

The points up for discussion are, as I see it, whether this particular case is one where broadening your experience (possibly forcibly) is good, bad, or indifferent and also whether this could actually be considered to be broadening one's experience.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag,
I find it difficult to see how a statement such as :
quote:
I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you
(ephasis added) is not meant to apply to the specific person she was replying to.

Also, I don't think you've understood what I was (edit: trying to) get at very well.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
You've never heard of "the general you," Squick? That's what I thought she was using.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
And I responded with a point why I don't consider this particular case as fitting that example.

You can always state some vague general principle and make it sound good. I agree that broadening your experience can be good. I don't think anyone is going to disagree.

Ah, I thought you were disagreeing. My mistake.

quote:


The points up for discussion are, as I see it, whether this particular case is one where broadening your experience (possibly forcibly) is good, bad, or indifferent and also whether this could actually be considered to be broadening one's experience.

I think it was a question of whether this particular site was about choosing only what you already know you find attractive. As that wasn't really what interested me about the discussion, though, I'm happy to let it drop.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Dag,
I find it difficult to see how a statement such as :
quote:
I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you
(ephasis added) is not meant to apply to the specific person she was replying to.

Also, I don't think you've understood what I was (edit: trying to) get at very well.

After you steered the conversation away from the general to the specific. She stated a general trend. You converted that general trend into a statement about you:

quote:
One thing did seem pretty clear to me though. That is, you seem pretty sure that the people on this site are shallow. As I said, I would consider joining this site in different circumstances. To my reading, I think you're pretty strongly implying that I am shallow.
In doing so, you oversimplified and misapplied her point in two ways. First, you converted her carefully caveatted explanation that her statements were general indications of degree along a vast continuum (as opposed to shallow/not shallow). Second, you converted her carefully caveatted explanation that her statements had many exceptions and did not apply to everyone on the site into a statement that applied to a specific individual.

quote:
Also, I don't think you've understood what I was (edit: trying to) get at very well.
Very possible. I'm almost positive that you haven't understood what CT was trying to get at very well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
ElJay,
Considering I was addressed by name immediately prior to that statement:
quote:
I certainly wouldn't say you were a worthless human being, or terrible, or a horrid person for joining that site, MrSquicky. I do think it would be a choice that is on a trend that makes less of you rather than more of you, but -- of course -- I make many such decisions myself, all the time. So it goes.
I didn't see it as a case of a general you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You converted that general trend into a statement about you:
And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?

edit: That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm. I guess I was just reading all of her posts as general, since it seemed to me she had tried hard to make that clear. My mistake.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?
CT has postulated some effect of infinite degree concerning that site and its participants. And she has explicitly stated that the effect would be widely variable. And, when she applied it to you, she applied it in that very general sense ("on a trend").

quote:
edit: That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point.
Considering your original accusation was that she was "pretty strongly implying that I am shallow," your point was wrong. She did not imply that you were shallow.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:
And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?
CT has postulated some effect of infinite degree concerning that site and its participants. And she has explicitly stated that the effect would be widely variable. And, when she applied it to you, she applied it in that very general sense ("on a trend").
What Dagonee said. (And bless him.)

I made a general claim about why I would think of engaging in such a site to be shallow. You responded (somewhere along the way) to some interpretation of what I said in the particular.

I said no, this is not what I meant, and I tried to clarify it as well as restate it (in the general). You attributed a claim in the particular to me, and [you] responded to that.

Repeat several times.

And again.

And finally, when I was giving it my last shot at getting you to understand why what I was saying was not a blanket judgement about you in the particular, I restated my general claim, with an explanation (because you were pushing the interpretation of my words, insistantly, in the particular,and with reference to you specifically) of how I what I had said would not apply to you in the particular, but could possibly be stretched to you in the general -- as Dagonee noted, "And, when she applied it to you, she applied it in that very general sense ("on a trend")."

That was not something I had been implying all along. It was an attempt to show you how I had not been implying it all along -- that is, in the particular.

---

Edited to add: I can see that you may not be interested in discussions in the general. I think they often inform discussions in the particular, though they do not replace them. (And, too, the reverse, with the same caveat.) Perhaps this is a matter of individual preference and style.

[ March 26, 2007, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Hmmm. I guess I was just reading all of her posts as general, since it seemed to me she had tried hard to make that clear. My mistake.

I appreciate the charitable interpretation. *smile

I was striving for the general throughout (and aggressively, fervently), but felt obligated to clarify at the end the limits of what I was saying with respect to the particular specifically. This was because I felt an obligation to address having harmed MrSquicky through his misinterpretation [as he brought it up with respect to himself, specifically, in the particular, and attibuted a claim about it to me, directly] -- and so I did address him directly.

This seems to have been a further mistake. I make many of them. (Notably, though, I do not mean by this that I am a mistake, or that I only make mistakes, or even that I primarily make mistakes. Just in case that was not clear.)

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
CT,
I owe you an apology. I reviewed what you posted in light of this different interpretation and it brought into relief a point that didn't jump out at me previously. That is, your use of "to the extent". I was reading that as more of an emphasis than a limiting condition. I could see how this misinterpretation must have been frustrating for you and I'd like to say I am sorry.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
You converted that general trend into a statement about you:
And, forgive me if I am wrong, but she did then specifically apply what she was saying to me, correct?

edit: That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point.

Exactly.

If I may say so, it felt like you were jumping up and down screaming, "Particulars! Particulars! Particulars!" Which I might have ignored, had you not also attributed a direct claim about you to me.

I can't have addressed that (and maybe I shouldn't, looking back, but that's hindsight) without talking about you directly. Even though I hadn't been all along. As you stated, "That it was strongly implied that she would do so was a significant part of my point."

[deleted for crank, snippiness, and snark]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, MrSquicky. I am sorry I was [so] hard to understand, but I am very sorry that I devolved into deliberate hurtfulness. I've deleted it from my former post (unless, of course, I should leave it up for the record and take my rightful blows).

[ March 26, 2007, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
CT,
I don't know that you were that hard to understand. I just screwed up. I think I got on the wrong track from the first post and then it got frustrating that it seemed that you were not addressing anything I had to say and retreating into vague generalities. I see now that you were likely dealing with the same sort of thing (which I started) and that my interpretation of your responses were incorrect.

The best I can offer is that I am very much not at my best these last few days.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
The best I can offer is that I am very much not at my best these last few days.

Ah, me too. We're getting old. Or maybe it's just the swing of the pendulum. *smile

Difficulties in my personal life have also made me crabbier than I can ever remember.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
erosomniac
Member
Member # 6834

 - posted      Profile for erosomniac           Edit/Delete Post 
Post outright apologies, I don't think anyone's going to insist either of you leave any unnecessarily scathing remarks to take your "rightful blows." [Smile]
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
MrSquicky, I hope things get better for you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, it's no big deal. I've just been pretty sick and not sleeping.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Me, too [with reference to kmboots' post]. I am quite impressed with you today (in the good way! [Smile] ), and I'll keep you in my thoughts.

Take care.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Maybe not everyone's better judgement gets muddled.
That is fine. Note the "for me" in my statement.

Twitterpation is a blissfully happy state for me, but it makes me enough of a fruitcake that I am grateful for the clarity of mind that I have out of its sway. (See my landmark for details) I am aware that this is probably not true for the vast majority of the population.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.

I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka: Easy enough solution, eliminate all legal possibility of divorce, let parents arrange marriages for their children, and make sure the society frowns on divorce as a rule.

Divorce rates should plummet.

:singing:
Match maker match maker make me a match!
:/singing:

[Wink]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
camus
Member
Member # 8052

 - posted      Profile for camus   Email camus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.

I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
I think other people can sometimes see more clearly what makes someone a bad partner. I do not think other people can ever be better than the particular individual at determining if someone is a good partner.

Added: For example, I rarely disagree with my parents' opinions of people that would be bad partners for me. I almost always disagree with their opinions of who would be a good partner for me.

Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Another little anecdote: I dated a guy who was nearly completely the opposite of my "ideal" in looks. I remember before we started dating describing my ideal to him, and him looking crestfallen. I remember how unremarkable my first impression of him was.

Then I remember how over the summer home from college, I plastered my entire wall with photos of him, mooning over just how gorgeous he was!

Again, I am still rather picky. But when I fall in love, I fall in love with the person first and they become beautiful to me.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
CT,
I owe you an apology. I reviewed what you posted in light of this different interpretation and it brought into relief a point that didn't jump out at me previously. That is, your use of "to the extent". I was reading that as more of an emphasis than a limiting condition. I could see how this misinterpretation must have been frustrating for you and I'd like to say I am sorry.

Very impressive, MrSquicky.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Megan
Member
Member # 5290

 - posted      Profile for Megan           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by beverly:
But when I fall in love, I fall in love with the person first and they become beautiful to me.

This describes me, too. Before my husband and I met in person, he sent me a picture, and I remember thinking, "Eh, alright, I guess."

Once I met him and started to get to know him, everything about him was attractive to me.

Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by camus:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.

I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
I think other people can sometimes see more clearly what makes someone a bad partner. I do not think other people can ever be better than the particular individual at determining if someone is a good partner.

Added: For example, I rarely disagree with my parents' opinions of people that would be bad partners for me. I almost always disagree with their opinions of who would be a good partner for me.

I wasn't the one who suggested parental opinions. That was BlackBlade. [Razz]

I think that overall, parents are among the least likely to make good judgements in these situations, as their own egos/issues/etc. are so likely to cloud judgement. (Not true in every case, obviously. My parents are very good in that regard. But in many cases, I think going by the parents' recommendations would be even worse than those of the person themselves.)

You need someone who is an interested bystander -- close enough to know you well, but able to keep your needs separate from their own preferences. A good friend, a mentor, a spiritual advisor. Preferably, one of each.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's like democracy: the worst system of government except for all the others.

People are worst choosers except for all the others.

Specifically, I am a better judge of who I should date than anyone else. By a million times, my worst experiences have been when I did what I didn't want but other wanted for me. My best has been when I finally was completely honest and waited for someone that fits both my head and my heart.

Besides, I'd a million times rather suffer for my own choices should there be any suffering rather than suffer for someone else's choices that were thrust upon me.

---

MPH: I'm home now, and I have to tell you, I'm having the hardest time writing it. I think it's because it is somewhat anarchic - the only binding laws are literally the commandments and the actual laws. But our society and things run on a million expectations that do not carry the weight of laws of either God or man. I feel fine about ignoring them at my own discretion, but it feels weird about explaining it. I don't want to be a missionary for anarchy.

I mean, I came up with it after feeling abandoned by everything. I think I was, except for the church. My mother was dead, my dad was angry with me (for not marrying someone he thought I should, incidentally), my friends had all left me, I had tossed aside my dreams because they were deamed inappropriate and yet the bargain wasn't worth it. Lamentations 1:2

It's the result of the one "I have lost everything - what do I do now." I am no longer in the same position - I have things to lose now, and I know that others do as well. In my happiness as being someone who has a stake in society and something to lose, I have this...I can survive if I lose everything. It's happened before. If it happens again, I know what to do, and I'll be okay.

There's this lyric from Wicked: Too long I've been afraid of / Losing love I guess I've lost / Well, if that's love / It comes at much too high a cost.

I think following the shoulds at the expense of my own judgement and feeling is much, much too high a cost. THAT's what isn't worth it to me.

But...I can't evangelize it. It works for me because I found it on the shore of the river, like in Watership Down. I don't want to evangelize it becauase I don't want it to be another Should - a nice philosophy that anyone follows but the peace doesn't come with it. I can't promise that the philosophy gives to anyone what it gives to me, so I don't want to say it and make myself responsible for the consequences. Does that make sense?

Not that this is personal at all, but I'm thinking of Hatrack in general. I don't know who will read it, and I'm this odd combination of anarchic and conservative at the same time. I'm all for iconoclasm (and in love with an iconoclast), but I don't want to encourage it. It's one of things that has to come from inside.

Forgive me for the combination of coyness and arrogance I am fully aware was in that post. And please accept my apologies - I don't think I can write it out. I hope this is okay.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
. . . rather than suffer for someone else's choices that were thrust upon me.
Absolutely. I think it is safe to assume that any opinion that is thrust upon you is not from an uninvolved party. Outside opinions should be sought, not shoved down your throat.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by camus:
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Basically, I trust people to be the best judge for themselves of who would be a good partner.

I think this is patently untrue, and the current divorce rate (as well as my own experiences and those of many friends (yeah, yeah, anecdotes =! data)) bears it out.
I think other people can sometimes see more clearly what makes someone a bad partner. I do not think other people can ever be better than the particular individual at determining if someone is a good partner.

Added: For example, I rarely disagree with my parents' opinions of people that would be bad partners for me. I almost always disagree with their opinions of who would be a good partner for me.

I wasn't the one who suggested parental opinions. That was BlackBlade. [Razz]

I think that overall, parents are among the least likely to make good judgements in these situations, as their own egos/issues/etc. are so likely to cloud judgement. (Not true in every case, obviously. My parents are very good in that regard. But in many cases, I think going by the parents' recommendations would be even worse than those of the person themselves.)

You need someone who is an interested bystander -- close enough to know you well, but able to keep your needs separate from their own preferences. A good friend, a mentor, a spiritual advisor. Preferably, one of each.

Any suggestions as to who that someone might be? If you are a girl looking for advice about a future husband I think your girlfriends are possibly the WORST source of advice. They could so easily want the same guy and thus discourage you from dating them. There is the terrible problem of dating one of your girlfriends former flames, its rare to find a girl who does not let that cloud her judgement.

I've always said, "Your girlfriend's girlfriends as your worst enemies." I've seen that truth confirmed time and time again.

But then again who is altruistic across the board? If another guy friend acts as your adviser they could get big brother syndrome where nobody is good enough for their little sister.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
I recommend (based on recommendations made to me) a friend who has been married for at least a year or two and appears to be happy in their marriage.

I agree that fellow singles are not generally a good source of that kind of advice -- although I have some who I would listen to about certain issues.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2