|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 12, 2016 11:15:41 GMT -5
In this thread, I propose that the question of "did I go out on a date?" and "are we dating?" are two very different things. My views, summarized: a) If you met at a prearranged time, sure, call it a date. b) But that doesn't mean you are "dating". THAT happens when you mutually agree you are "exclusive". I'm not really saying "this is the way dating works now"... I'm really saying I wish this was the way folks looked at dating now. (I guess I'm anticipating leaving my SM and dating again if I'm bothering to think of such things...) There is a term for this concept that you sometimes see on blogs and whatnot: "parallel dating". I think this is eminently sensible. One article defines it succintly as: "Prior to making a commitment to date exclusively, dating more than one person and being intimate with zero, one or more people during this period."Here are a few more posts on the subject. Again, this is not necessarily a widespread term or concept. The Pros and Cons of Parallel DatingParallel Dating: A Phenominon!From serial to parallel datingI'm interested to hear your thoughts about this, especially those "post-SM" and dating again. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Oct 12, 2016 13:11:47 GMT -5
I can identify most with article 1. I guess I am parallel dating sort of but I would call it more sport dating. Sort of a catch and release until I find the right fish which may be tomorrow, it may be 3 years from now and it may be never. At this point I feel like I need to just be free, not in a relationship, and meet for coffee or dinner with whoever intrigues me enough to shave my legs, work that mascara, start the car, and take the time to meet (notice I didn't say go on a date).
So I encounter different men that message me on the dating App.
Most I don't respond to. I have a few that I have ongoing dialogue with. Some I met in March when I first downloaded the app. Mostly just small talk and a little flirting. Some just want the challenge of getting into my pants and I understand that but for that to happen I have to be very attracted to them (and not necessarily physically so much because personality and intelligence go a loooooong way with me).
Article 3 sounded exhausting to me. I would never have the time to date 3 men. I'm a one man at a time kind of woman. When you get my attention you get just about all of it and by all of it that boils down to 12/30 nights of the month because the nights that my kids are with me I'm not going to leave them alone for more than 30 minutes. My children are my first priority.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Oct 12, 2016 13:34:32 GMT -5
Only 9 weeks into the divorce process, hardly qualifies me to be answering this!
One interesting approach I found was at my Divorce Recovery Meetings. They strive that we don't date each other. That we are there to share openly, honestly, hurtful events and feelings. It is a recovery process.
Instead they suggest we " socialize " with each other! I am guessing everyone can have different interpretations of that?
After reading the first article, one of my thoughts was," the last thing I want to be seen as is someone who does not want, desire, crave, need, or understand INTIMACY! . " Someone who comes across that way is going to make me run the other direction! Doesn't sound worth the risk because your dating three people at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Oct 13, 2016 2:01:44 GMT -5
When I read the title, my eyes read "Parallel Dating" but my brain read "Horizontal Dating". Well, truthfully, I pictured two parallel but horizontal lines and it rapidly deteriorated from there. Some days...
But on the heels of the "Was it a date?" thread, it does seem like dating has really changed from what we used to know. Jointly hanging out with a group seems to be the predominant "dating" activity, followed by a few simple private activities, with sex coming into the picture before or after that but not too seriously. Somewhere in there, exclusivity creeps in, then cohabitation, but not necessarily on a path to marriage. More like, "We both need roommates, so why not each other?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 14:17:20 GMT -5
Sometimes I think we should teach kids to save monogamy for marriage.
If/when you do get married, you (theoretically) have the rest of your life to be monogamous. Why give the monogamy without the legal status of being married?
Of course, I say that in middle age, after being married and divorced and having a lot of dates and boyfriends (and my non-legally-married relationship of 14 years with my refuser.)
If I'm really in love, I can be monogamous. For almost all of my time with my now-ex, I was not interested in other men.
If I can have somebody I really want, somebody I would choose if it was totally up to me, I could be monogamous.
But for lite dating? Meeting a guy via OKStupid, then meeting for coffee, then going for some local activity together, etc.?
No. I'm not going to invest heavily in a guy until I'm sure I really want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 13, 2016 14:18:55 GMT -5
When I read the title, my eyes read "Parallel Dating" but my brain read "Horizontal Dating". Well, truthfully, I pictured two parallel but horizontal lines and it rapidly deteriorated from there. Some days... I occasionally use the euphemism "adult horizontal time"... I think we are using "horizontal" to connote the same thing! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 17:53:41 GMT -5
Sometimes I think we should teach kids to save monogamy for marriage. If/when you do get married, you (theoretically) have the rest of your life to be monogamous. Why give the monogamy without the legal status of being married? Of course, I say that in middle age, after being married and divorced and having a lot of dates and boyfriends (and my non-legally-married relationship of 14 years with my refuser.) If I'm really in love, I can be monogamous. For almost all of my time with my now-ex, I was not interested in other men. If I can have somebody I really want, somebody I would choose if it was totally up to me, I could be monogamous. But for lite dating? Meeting a guy via OKStupid, then meeting for coffee, then going for some local activity together, etc.? No. I'm not going to invest heavily in a guy until I'm sure I really want to. I'm in a good deal but that doesn't shut off my evolutionary instinct to mate with as many females as possible. But mating with multiple partners can cause hurt feelings and damage your good deal. So while monogamy may go against our nature, it is a choice, and for some, a real choice, not one fobbed onto them by the expectations of others. I just remind myself that bodacious babes are a dime a dozen but a good hearted woman is worth more than anything in this world. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Oct 14, 2016 10:22:58 GMT -5
I can identify most with article 1. I guess I am parallel dating sort of but I would call it more sport dating. Sort of a catch and release until I find the right fish which may be tomorrow, it may be 3 years from now and it may be never. At this point I feel like I need to just be free, not in a relationship... Article 3 sounded exhausting to me. I would never have the time to date 3 men. I'm a one man at a time kind of woman.... I think I get what you are saying; I think that is what I would want/plan to do if/when I was single and dating again. (Although I would, personally, not self-describe that a "sport dating". While I get your point, to my ears it sounds SERIOUSLY SKIVVY if a man were to use that term... anywho...) Sure, if/when I met someone great, I would want to "converge to exclusive" as fast as we were mutually comfortable. But what I'm guess I'm really getting at is one narrow point (largely inspired by @smartkat's question "should I break up with this guy" in this thread): if you go on a date with someone who seems "kind of OK on the first date or two", I would kind of like it to be OK to have other dates with other people before I go on "date three or maybe four" with said person, which may be a few weeks out. This seems to give things the benefit of time to see if you are really "meh" about this person, or the early glimmer becomes a glow which could become more. Does it work that way? Can it work that way? Alas: I'm pretty sure the answer is: it really depends on the temperament of the people involved. If the other party would interpret me "dating others" in between our casual dates as a sign that I'm a "player" or "not interested in her" and therefore a turn off which makes her not date me again, then the question answers itself. But if she doesn't mind, maybe hasn't made up her mind about me, and interested in "parallel dating" herself, then it could work. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Oct 14, 2016 10:50:30 GMT -5
I can identify most with article 1. I guess I am parallel dating sort of but I would call it more sport dating. Sort of a catch and release until I find the right fish which may be tomorrow, it may be 3 years from now and it may be never. At this point I feel like I need to just be free, not in a relationship... Article 3 sounded exhausting to me. I would never have the time to date 3 men. I'm a one man at a time kind of woman.... I think I get what you are saying; I think that is what I would want/plan to do if/when I was single and dating again. (Although I would, personally, not self-describe that a "sport dating". While I get your point, to my ears it sounds SERIOUSLY SKIVVY if a man were to use that term... anywho...) Sure, if/when I met someone great, I would want to "converge to exclusive" as fast as we were mutually comfortable. But what I'm guess I'm really getting at is one narrow point (largely inspired by @smartkat's question "should I break up with this guy" in this thread): if you go on a date with someone who seems "kind of OK on the first date or two", I would kind of like it to be OK to have other dates with other people before I go on "date three or maybe four" with said person, which may be a few weeks out. This seems to give things the benefit of time to see if you are really "meh" about this person, or the early glimmer becomes a glow which could become more. Does it work that way? Can it work that way? Alas: I'm pretty sure the answer is: it really depends on the temperament of the people involved. If the other party would interpret me "dating others" in between our casual dates as a sign that I'm a "player" or "not interested in her" and therefore a turn off which makes her not date me again, then the question answers itself. But if she doesn't mind, maybe hasn't made up her mind about me, and interested in "parallel dating" herself, then it could work. I see your point about the term "sport dating" - inspired by sport fishing- because at this point the men that were serious about me I released back into the water. I went out on a couple of dates, it got intimate but ultimately I saw the incompatibility and lack of attraction on my part. As well at this point it's still too soon for me to be in a serious relationship, I'm just not emotionally ready for that. Some days I think that I am ready and some days I would like to be. I think if the right man came along then I would be ready but really one doesn't know that the other person is the right one until you have dated that person awhile. I don't think there is anything wrong with dating more than one person at a time whether you disclose that information or not. Personally I would want to know and I wouldn't even mind swapping funny dating stories or checking back in "so how did your date go?" If the comfort level and openness was there. |
|
