I don't normally date one person whilst I'm talking to someone else for the propose of potentially dating them too.
I pretty much just date one person at a time. Especially if I'm meeting them in person.
I might talk with more than one woman at a time on the computer because we aren't actually 'dating' we're just getting to know each other and it's been my experience that 99% of the time those conversations will end without ever flourishing into a full-fledged date, especially if there are long distances involved.
If I had someone to actually date in the flesh I would either be getting serious with her, or recognize that it's just a platonic friendship. If it's just a platonic friendship then I wouldn't call it 'dating', I would just say I was out with a friend. I wouldn't hid the fact that she was female, but I would make it clear that it was purely platonic and not a 'date' in the normal romantic sense.
It if was a romantic date, then what's preventing it from blossoming into a full-fledged relationship?
Some women have suggested to me that I'm too open and that it takes away the 'mystery'
All I can say is that they must be used to dating some pretty shallow men because even though I'm an open book it's a never-ending story and there's a new mystery on ever page of the book.
I think it's human for anyone to snap in a moment of extreme frustration. Although, I can't honestly remember the last time I've done that.
But I think the important thing is that if you can realize what you've done the instant you've done it, and then take a deep breath to regain your composure and apologize, then you are doing very well.
Those who go off the deep end and allow their anger to escalate into an endless rant are the people who have some serious issues to contend with.
If a person's frustration and anger lasts for more than a full minute (which would already be an eternity) then they have serious self-control problems and should look into attending anger management classes.
Couples who argue at the top of their lungs for extended periods of time both have serious maturity issues to deal with. That kind of arguing is NOT healthy, nor is it 'natural'.
He might really enjoy talking with you on the phone but he might fear that if he meets with you in person he'll screw everything all up and then he'll lose you altogether.
Just a thought.
He also might be intimidated by what you've been suggesting to do. Especially if you've suggested doing things with other people that he doesn't know, or at a party where you know everyone and he doesn't. That can be extremely intimidating for a shy person.
Don't forget, shy means very sensitive. You might want to try suggesting something in a public place, but it's still just one-on-one with you and him.
Just my thoughts. Don't know whether they'll apply or not.
If I were going to have pets in an apartment I'd get birds.
At least two to keep each other company.
I'd also probably take a stab at seeing if I could breed them. Breeding animals is a really great feeling.
I used to keep fish, all egg layers. I had 25 aquariums set up in my fish room and I was breeding fish quite prolifically.
Ok, so the fish were breeding and I was watching. I'm a PeepingTomBoy.
Breeding fish was quite exciting too. I didn't do it for the money though.
Anyway if you keep birds you need to be sure that your apartment is very temperature stable. They will get sick if the temperature swings up and down a lot. So don't get birds if you live in a drafty apt, or one where you turn the heat up and down a lot.
Birds can be a lot of fun even if you don't bred them. If you get them young enough you can train them to sit on your shoulder a lot. Best to wear a towel over your shoulder if you do that.
Birds can also be trained to fetch things for you. Small things like a pencil that they can pick up and fly with. You might be surprised how smart birds can be if you can see them as intelligent creatures. You have to make the 'connection' with any animal before you can seriously communicate with it. And you can't really teach it much of anything if you aren't communicating with it.
There are aprox 300 million people in the USA alone. If 3 million of them are on dating sites that would only be 1% of the people.
Plus, dating sites lie. They're lucky if they have tens of thousands of members let alone millions. And lots of those members have created mulitple profiles, or have canceled and then come back which would still be counted twice or more.
Dating sites also have a nasty habit of leaving abandon profiles on their sites for years and years and years. It's not in their interest to erase them. The more profiles they can claim to have the happier they are.
Finally a LOT of people are on multiple dating sites. I am, and when I do searches on them I see a lot of the same women that I have seen on other sites too. So a lot of people are on more than one site as well.
It's been my impression that women tend to talk to more than one man at a time thinking that men are supposed to be "competing" for them. But if a man talks to more than one woman at a time he's considered to be a two-timing loser.
It's one of those double standard things.
The other thing too I think people assume 'monogamous' behavior long before it's been agreed to. I think if you want to be exclusive with someone you should make it clear that this is what you expect and get an acknowledgment from them. Without that communication a person really has no right to scream infidelity or whatever. How can there be infidelity when no commitment was ever made to begin with?
I don't believe that anyone has any obligation to be exclusive with anyone if there was never any agreement between them. Just because you are talking to someone doesn't automatically constitute a 'relationship'. Somewhere alone the way they need to establish that they have intention to be exclusive.
If you don't do this then one person may be exclusive and the other person won't, but only because they were never invited to be exclusive. I mean, you can hardly break a commitment if no commitment was ever made in the first place. How were they supposed to know what you were thinking?
Random_Stranger worte: "I Believe in the Bible and it mentions nothing of such a thing."
I disagree. It's in the bible. I don't remember the precise location, somewhere early in the old testement it says that men of today were the men of old.
Yep, it's in there. I'm certain of it. I can't remember the precise book & verse, but it's in there somewhere near the beginning of the old testement. Possibly in Genesis, or maybe a further in, I don't recall the location but it's in there, I know.
Although, not that it matters, you can find just about anything you want in the bible if you look hard enough. It's really a collection of books of quite a few conflicting philosophies.
The vast majority of women that I send an email to never respond at all.
It seems to be the standard thing that women do.
It's no wonder that some men use form letters and a shotgun approach. They figure if they send out about 100 emails they might get one or two responses.
You might look like a total jerk to 99 women, but if you hook up with one that's all you really wanted right?
The shotgun method might be the way to go. After all, it does seem like such a waste of time to write out a nice personal letter tailored to one woman whose profile you've read intently only to have her delete the damn think and ignore you.
How man woman are you going to do that for before you start to realize that they seriously don't appreciate the effort?
You are what you are, despite what you think your life has been over, before you can blink you can either accept it, or turn to a shrink or find a nice babe, and simply wink. :wink;
Technologically we are in the 21st century. But socially I believe the bulk of the masses are still in the dark ages.
Even well-educated people are still hung up on mythologies and superstitions (i.e. religions)
It totally eludes me how any intelligent modern person can support ancient religious doctrines of any kind. I mean, it's one thing to believe that there is a spiritual nature to life. I believe there can be sound philosophical and even scientific arguments for that. But to believe in ancient doctrines that were written by men in the dark ages is nothing short of absurd.
I'm satisfied that I have 'proof' of otherwise. At least it is for me.
I actually have proof in two entirely different ways.
One way is based solely on philosophy.
The other way is based on scientific reasoning.
I'd love to share these proves with you but there's no way I'm going to attempt to explain them in a post.
I will attempt a brief synopsis for anyone who's interested.
The philosophical proof is pretty easy although it does require a bit of intuition. You say that you are nothing more than the activity of your brain. If that's true then you must also believe that your computer is a living entity when its turned on and running software.
I deny that I'm nothing more than a biological computer. Why? Because if that is all I am then who's 'perceiving' the program? What is 'experiencing' the program? What would it be in your computer? The CPU? The memory chips? The actual algorithms of the software? What 'experiences' the program?
Well, you might say that in a computer nothing 'experiences' the program. But if you're looking at your own being as nothing more than a biological computer (a brain) then the question really doesn't change. What is 'experiencing' the program? Your brain? How can a brain experience a program anymore than a computer can? When you meditate and let go of all your thoughts so that they just flow by your mind like a river, who are you then? Or have you never done this?
On the scientific realm things get far more complex. It requires an understanding of the concepts of both relativity and of quantum field theory, both of these disciplines have evolved from observations of they way things appear to be.
Relativity ultimately tells us that both time and space are illusions of a single entity called 'spacetime'. Very few people genuinely understand this. Time and space are interchangeable just like matter and energy are. There is no fundamental difference between what we think of as time and what we think of as space. That's hard to wrap our minds around intuitively, but it's a proven scientific fact. This is indeed the nature of our universe.
Moreover, time slows done for things that travel fast. In fact, when things reach the speed of light time stops completely.
Well, if light travels at the speed of light, then for light there is no such thing as the passage of time. From light's point of view the entire universe is happening all at once. What we perceive to be billions and billions of years is but a nonexistent flash of no duration at all to the photons that brighten up our days. Time is but an illusion that we fictitiously perceive.
The bottom line to all of this is that there is no such thing as time as we perceive it. All there is, is the eternal now. A single point of time. If you exist now, then you will exist for all of eternity, because there is no difference between now and eternity. In other words, if you exist now you cannot cease to exist because there is no other time in which you can cease to exist.
I won't go into a discussion of the quantum field, but in that description lies the answer to how the illusion of physical reality is created. It explains the faces of matter and energy, and of time and space, and how they arise from a single entity that exists in the eternal now. Things are not as they appear to be. You are not the physical brain that you use to think. You can stop paying attention to your thoughts anytime you choose yet you continue to exist. You are not what you think.
Can I 'prove' that this is so? Absolutely not. I can only say that I'm convinced that we are more than the fleeting illusions of time and space and energy that we believe to perceive. We are, in fact, the very core of this illusion. We are immortal in the essence of our being. For there is nothing else that we can be.
Abracadabra Forum Posts (3,302)
RE: How much do you reveal?
I don't normally date one person whilst I'm talking to someone else for the propose of potentially dating them too.I pretty much just date one person at a time. Especially if I'm meeting them in person.
I might talk with more than one woman at a time on the computer because we aren't actually 'dating' we're just getting to know each other and it's been my experience that 99% of the time those conversations will end without ever flourishing into a full-fledged date, especially if there are long distances involved.
If I had someone to actually date in the flesh I would either be getting serious with her, or recognize that it's just a platonic friendship. If it's just a platonic friendship then I wouldn't call it 'dating', I would just say I was out with a friend. I wouldn't hid the fact that she was female, but I would make it clear that it was purely platonic and not a 'date' in the normal romantic sense.
It if was a romantic date, then what's preventing it from blossoming into a full-fledged relationship?