Cheaters
Replies
-
Calvert sounds a bit like the crazy guy who says: "Everyone is crazy! No no no no... it's not me, it's them! ALL OF THEM! THEY'RE ALL CRAZY!"
I'd question my own sanity if EVERY person I met was crazy. Maybe I'd be the one who needs to change.
It's again a case of striking the right balance. When you see the number of people who end up in "unsatisfying" and "unrewarding" relationships for too long, I guess you don't want to work only on someone else's happiness and also, you DESERVE happiness.Somewhere alomg the way someone said "you deserve"......that killed any chance of couples trying to work things out.
They also said do what makes you happy.....its funny nobody really talks about making their significant other happy or at least yrying to. They were told do what makes YOU happy. YOU YOU YOU. lol
Now someone has to make the first step and try to make the other person happy first, but there needs to be an amount of reciprocity too.
I'm not a believer of "making someone happy makes me happy", I'm a believer of "trading happiness with someone in a generous fashion" (i.e. be ready to give a lot more than you receive from time to time).
Which doesn't contradict you btw.0 -
Blah blah blah bitter jaded cynic. Look at me I'm a victim. Boohoo.
Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.
If every woman you've been with has cheated on you look at the common denominator. Not every woman is a cheater. What makes you pick women that do cheat? What is that personality type - the high maintenance ones that make you move and sacrifice your life and happiness to save them? Quit picking the damsels in the distress. Don't pick the women that get upset for you because you have to work late. The woman that is angry that you didn't remember what she said word for word last week is a woman that is going to cheat on you.
You said it yourself - the women that cheat are the ones that want all the attention. They call themselves princess and sulk if you don't compliment their unnoticeable haircut (or something comparable).
I'm not saying it's fine that they cheated, I'm saying it's NOT fine that you haven't learned your lesson and continually make the same mistake over and over again and simply justify it as "women are cheaters, I'm a VICTIM". You get what you ask for.0 -
I have an interesting story. I just went on an Israel trip with 40 people, none of who knew each other. About a quarter of the people were in relationship with people from back home. NONE of the guys cheated on their girlfriends while on the trip. Most of the girls cheated on their boyfriends while on the trip. It restored my faith in men!!!!!
Thank you for sharing this. There is an underlying theme of this group to categorize men as cheats and morons and women as brilliant and pure as the driven snow.
But I would have had to smash. Do you know how memorable that would be to get some in the holy land. Epic.0 -
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:Blah blah blah bitter jaded cynic. Look at me I'm a victim. Boohoo.
Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it.
High five sista' !0 -
If every woman you've been with has cheated on you look at the common denominator. Not every woman is a cheater. What makes you pick women that do cheat? What is that personality type - the high maintenance ones that make you move and sacrifice your life and happiness to save them? Quit picking the damsels in the distress. Don't pick the women that get upset for you because you have to work late. The woman that is angry that you didn't remember what she said word for word last week is a woman that is going to cheat on you.
You said it yourself - the women that cheat are the ones that want all the attention. They call themselves princess and sulk if you don't compliment their unnoticeable haircut (or something comparable).
I'm not saying it's fine that they cheated, I'm saying it's NOT fine that you haven't learned your lesson and continually make the same mistake over and over again and simply justify it as "women are cheaters, I'm a VICTIM". You get what you ask for.
Couldn't have said it better myself. That is why I told Calvert that he is not friends with the right kind of women if they all cheat on guys. Why would someone want friends like that?
Clearly it's the crowd you're with. I know those girls are the hot young ones who can get whoever they want, but go for the sweeter, shy girls - they're the ones that might not make a striking impression, but will be awesome girlfriends and low-maintenance!0 -
My computer's being difficult, so I probably won't be on much today, but just a point of information for the US-based folk re. this link:
The Daily Mail is a tabloid. You call them 'Red Tops' in the US, I think? Not the best source of credible info/statistics. I only mention it because I've seen the Daily Mail quoted so often by Americans in the forums and it always makes me giggle.
UK newspapers of the credible variety include The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, The Independent, The Guardian (listed in approximate order of most Right Wing to most Left Wing!). The Daily Mail & The Sun, when it still existed, are probably best avoided as a source of information!
Just for my info., can anyone tell me what the credible US papers are? I've always assumed the NY Times, Wall St Journal, International Herald Tribune ( which I love when I get it in hotels in Europe!) and one I think is called USA Today? (It always used to be the newspaper that was most available in hotel lobbies in the States...). Is that right?0 -
If every woman you've been with has cheated on you look at the common denominator. Not every woman is a cheater. What makes you pick women that do cheat? What is that personality type - the high maintenance ones that make you move and sacrifice your life and happiness to save them? Quit picking the damsels in the distress. Don't pick the women that get upset for you because you have to work late. The woman that is angry that you didn't remember what she said word for word last week is a woman that is going to cheat on you.
You said it yourself - the women that cheat are the ones that want all the attention. They call themselves princess and sulk if you don't compliment their unnoticeable haircut (or something comparable).
I'm not saying it's fine that they cheated, I'm saying it's NOT fine that you haven't learned your lesson and continually make the same mistake over and over again and simply justify it as "women are cheaters, I'm a VICTIM". You get what you ask for.
Couldn't have said it better myself. That is why I told Calvert that he is not friends with the right kind of women if they all cheat on guys. Why would someone want friends like that?
Clearly it's the crowd you're with. I know those girls are the hot young ones who can get whoever they want, but go for the sweeter, shy girls - they're the ones that might not make a striking impression, but will be awesome girlfriends and low-maintenance!
Agreeing with all of this. If you're picking girlfriends with the same set of criteria every time, is it surprising that they all tend to behave in the same way? I don't know what you typically go for, but maybe it'd be worth re-evaluating what you're looking for.0 -
I actually think it would be better if both men and women stopped the whole dating a few people at a time before going exclusive to one. I think dating one person at a time is a better model. There'd be a keener focus on quality if this were the way things worked. Too many people (both genders) have the mindset of focusing on quantity, and I think quality suffers.
I concur. Quantity and immediate sexual, rather than emotional/intellectual, connections seem to be prized now above investing time in getting to know someone and hopefully creating a meaningful relationship with that person, on whatever level. IMO, it doesn't help, though I'm not sure how we can reverse the trend - it's become too prevalent across too wide a sphere.0 -
I personally only date 1 girl at a time, because I try to go deep and see if the girl and I are good matches as quickly as I can, by dating the person a lot and seeing her a lot (which leaves me no time for another girl). I also meet most girls on nights out.
I concur. Quantity and immediate sexual, rather than emotional/intellectual, connections seem to be prized now above investing time in getting to know someone and hopefully creating a meaningful relationship with that person, on whatever level. IMO, it doesn't help, though I'm not sure how we can reverse the trend - it's become too prevalent across too wide a sphere.I actually think it would be better if both men and women stopped the whole dating a few people at a time before going exclusive to one. I think dating one person at a time is a better model. There'd be a keener focus on quality if this were the way things worked. Too many people (both genders) have the mindset of focusing on quantity, and I think quality suffers.
I move on (stop seeing the girl) quickly in the initial stages when I feel something is not right (before 2-3 dates often, I screen on my red flags and my expectations of a woman), but then on the other hand if you go past date 3 with me then that means we're compatible on several levels already... So that's a good sign.
At this stage, in my book, we become more "involved" (to give you an idea, it happens roughly once every 4-6 months). This is also the stage at which I will hope for sex, soon-ish (as I'm dating you exclusively, and I think we're compatible emotionally/intellectually).
I KNOW for a fact that an emotional/intellectual connection can be created quickly with someone. Emotional/intellectual connection is not a function of time...
There are people with who I've talked only 10 hours (equivalent of 3-4 dates) who I feel closer than people I've known for years.
Of course, then if you dig deeper, you will get an even deeper emotional/intellectual connection, but you feel from the get go that things are right, things click with that person. And don't get me wrong, things can still clash later down the line, but the point is: you feel at ease with the person quickly (similar views, similar humour, similar interests or similar curiosity...).
The physical/sexual act then becomes natural and genuine, regardless of the amount of time you spent together, because there are genuine intentions and respect from both sides and a connection.
And then you need trust, both ways for sex to happen. Trust which is often lacking on the women's side. So if you don't trust me enough for sex, then I move on (quickly). You want to build a relationship? It needs to be built on trust, and clearly you don't feel like you can trust me, so I will go invest my time and intellect somewhere else.0 -
I personally only date 1 girl at a time, because I try to go deep and see if the girl and I are good matches as quickly as I can, by dating the person a lot and seeing her a lot (which leaves me no time for another girl). I also meet most girls on nights out.
I concur. Quantity and immediate sexual, rather than emotional/intellectual, connections seem to be prized now above investing time in getting to know someone and hopefully creating a meaningful relationship with that person, on whatever level. IMO, it doesn't help, though I'm not sure how we can reverse the trend - it's become too prevalent across too wide a sphere.I actually think it would be better if both men and women stopped the whole dating a few people at a time before going exclusive to one. I think dating one person at a time is a better model. There'd be a keener focus on quality if this were the way things worked. Too many people (both genders) have the mindset of focusing on quantity, and I think quality suffers.
I move on (stop seeing the girl) quickly in the initial stages when I feel something is not right (before 2-3 dates often, I screen on my red flags and my expectations of a woman), but then on the other hand if you go past date 3 with me then that means we're compatible on several levels already... So that's a good sign.
At this stage, in my book, we become more "involved" (to give you an idea, it happens roughly once every 4-6 months). This is also the stage at which I will hope for sex, soon-ish (as I'm dating you exclusively, and I think we're compatible emotionally/intellectually).
I KNOW for a fact that an emotional/intellectual connection can be created quickly with someone. Emotional/intellectual connection is not a function of time...
There are people with who I've talked only 10 hours (equivalent of 3-4 dates) who I feel closer than people I've known for years.
Of course, then if you dig deeper, you will get an even deeper emotional/intellectual connection, but you feel from the get go that things are right, things click with that person. And don't get me wrong, things can still clash later down the line, but the point is: you feel at ease with the person quickly (similar views, similar humour, similar interests or similar curiosity...).
The physical/sexual act then becomes natural and genuine, regardless of the amount of time you spent together, because there are genuine intentions and respect from both sides and a connection.
And then you need trust, both ways for sex to happen. Trust which is often lacking on the women's side. So if you don't trust me enough for sex, then I move on (quickly). You want to build a relationship? It needs to be built on trust, and clearly you don't feel like you can trust me so I will invest my time and intellect somewhere else.
I phrased poorly in computer frustration. I should have said "investing time and/or energy in getting to know someone". I've also experienced the sort of immediate connection you're talking about, and it would accelerate things for me, too (within reason!), but that doesn't seem to be what most people in the dating pool in general prioritise. In short, a lot of people seem more interested in the immediate gratification aspect than the potential for something more 'complete', including physical, intellectual and emotional intimacy, which is essentially, as you say, built on trust and mutual respect. I think that's part of the trend for dating multiple people at once - making sure that the potential for gratification is reasonably constant, and spread across a wider pool.0 -
My computer's being difficult, so I probably won't be on much today, but just a point of information for the US-based folk re. this link:
The Daily Mail is a tabloid. You call them 'Red Tops' in the US, I think? Not the best source of credible info/statistics. I only mention it because I've seen the Daily Mail quoted so often by Americans in the forums and it always makes me giggle.
UK newspapers of the credible variety include The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, The Independent, The Guardian (listed in approximate order of most Right Wing to most Left Wing!). The Daily Mail & The Sun, when it still existed, are probably best avoided as a source of information!
Just for my info., can anyone tell me what the credible US papers are? I've always assumed the NY Times, Wall St Journal, International Herald Tribune ( which I love when I get it in hotels in Europe!) and one I think is called USA Today? (It always used to be the newspaper that was most available in hotel lobbies in the States...). Is that right?
I wasn't aware that the Daily Mail was a tabloid. I also linked from ABC News, which is considered a more legit news operation. Much of the Daily Mail vs. ABC News content was similar. Then again, being tabloid style isn't bad. In sports, there's a website called Deadspin. Deadspin is a blog oriented, tabloid style (but differing from a pure tabloid like National Enquirer in the US). Deadspin broke the Brett Favre penis pic texting scandal long before ESPN, the Worldwide Leader in Sports, started reported it.
The Financial Times is a very good global financial publication.
You listed publications from right wing to left wing. I would prefer if news outlets had no right vs. left spin to them. Right vs. left is a major problem in US media, and it appears that England has a similar issue.
The New York Times is a credible US paper, albeit with a left slant. The Wall Street Journal is supposed to have a financial niche, but it has general news stories and slants to the right. USA Today is a different model, though it's heyday is in the past now (true of most newspapers that have failed to find a good business model for the Internet era-Wall St. Journal is an exception). Most general big city papers in the US (Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, etc) are considered credible and mainstream.0 -
My computer's being difficult, so I probably won't be on much today, but just a point of information for the US-based folk re. this link:
The Daily Mail is a tabloid. You call them 'Red Tops' in the US, I think? Not the best source of credible info/statistics. I only mention it because I've seen the Daily Mail quoted so often by Americans in the forums and it always makes me giggle.
UK newspapers of the credible variety include The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, The Independent, The Guardian (listed in approximate order of most Right Wing to most Left Wing!). The Daily Mail & The Sun, when it still existed, are probably best avoided as a source of information!
Just for my info., can anyone tell me what the credible US papers are? I've always assumed the NY Times, Wall St Journal, International Herald Tribune ( which I love when I get it in hotels in Europe!) and one I think is called USA Today? (It always used to be the newspaper that was most available in hotel lobbies in the States...). Is that right?
I wasn't aware that the Daily Mail was a tabloid. I also linked from ABC News, which is considered a more legit news operation. Much of the Daily Mail vs. ABC News content was similar. Then again, being tabloid style isn't bad. In sports, there's a website called Deadspin. Deadspin is a blog oriented, tabloid style (but differing from a pure tabloid like National Enquirer in the US). Deadspin broke the Brett Favre penis pic texting scandal long before ESPN, the Worldwide Leader in Sports, started reported it.
The Financial Times is a very good global financial publication.
You listed publications from right wing to left wing. I would prefer if news outlets had no right vs. left spin to them. Right vs. left is a major problem in US media, and it appears that England has a similar issue.
The New York Times is a credible US paper, albeit with a left slant. The Wall Street Journal is supposed to have a financial niche, but it has general news stories and slants to the right. USA Today is a different model, though it's heyday is in the past now (true of most newspapers that have failed to find a good business model for the Internet era-Wall St. Journal is an exception). Most general big city papers in the US (Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, etc) are considered credible and mainstream.
Thank you for this - that clarifies a lot for me. Yes, we have the political bias issue too, though I think not quite as markedly as I perceive it to be in the US. I wonder if that's because you have more 'live' media outlets? We really don't have so many choices in terms of TV news and the opinions contained therein. The BBC, Channel 4 News and Sky/CNN generally have roughly the same take on things.
I only picked up on the Daily Mail quote because I've seen it quoted in all seriousness by Americans so often, clearly not knowing (and why would you?!) that it's of, shall we say, dubious journalistic integrity, which always amuses me a little. The Uncyclopedia has a fairly good (and moderately amusing) summary of its' general level, and it's often referred to as 'The Daily Fail' in the UK!
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Daily_Mail0 -
I personally only date 1 girl at a time, because I try to go deep and see if the girl and I are good matches as quickly as I can, by dating the person a lot and seeing her a lot (which leaves me no time for another girl). I also meet most girls on nights out.
I concur. Quantity and immediate sexual, rather than emotional/intellectual, connections seem to be prized now above investing time in getting to know someone and hopefully creating a meaningful relationship with that person, on whatever level. IMO, it doesn't help, though I'm not sure how we can reverse the trend - it's become too prevalent across too wide a sphere.I actually think it would be better if both men and women stopped the whole dating a few people at a time before going exclusive to one. I think dating one person at a time is a better model. There'd be a keener focus on quality if this were the way things worked. Too many people (both genders) have the mindset of focusing on quantity, and I think quality suffers.
I move on (stop seeing the girl) quickly in the initial stages when I feel something is not right (before 2-3 dates often, I screen on my red flags and my expectations of a woman), but then on the other hand if you go past date 3 with me then that means we're compatible on several levels already... So that's a good sign.
At this stage, in my book, we become more "involved" (to give you an idea, it happens roughly once every 4-6 months). This is also the stage at which I will hope for sex, soon-ish (as I'm dating you exclusively, and I think we're compatible emotionally/intellectually).
I KNOW for a fact that an emotional/intellectual connection can be created quickly with someone. Emotional/intellectual connection is not a function of time...
There are people with who I've talked only 10 hours (equivalent of 3-4 dates) who I feel closer than people I've known for years.
Of course, then if you dig deeper, you will get an even deeper emotional/intellectual connection, but you feel from the get go that things are right, things click with that person. And don't get me wrong, things can still clash later down the line, but the point is: you feel at ease with the person quickly (similar views, similar humour, similar interests or similar curiosity...).
The physical/sexual act then becomes natural and genuine, regardless of the amount of time you spent together, because there are genuine intentions and respect from both sides and a connection.
And then you need trust, both ways for sex to happen. Trust which is often lacking on the women's side. So if you don't trust me enough for sex, then I move on (quickly). You want to build a relationship? It needs to be built on trust, and clearly you don't feel like you can trust me, so I will go invest my time and intellect somewhere else.
I agree that an emotional/intellectual connection can be created quickly... and if it's not going to be there at all, I usually know that rather quickly as well.0 -
About cheaters: it takes two to tango. If there is a woman cheating on her man, there's a man who is willing to go along with it... or maybe he's cheating too. Vice Versa. Sure, every once in a while, you run into the complete liar who is not honest about their relationship status. But, most of the married men that contact me looking for extracurricular activities are rather honest and open about what they want. I decline, of course.
The fact is: there are men who cheat, and there are women who cheat.
Does that make everyone a cheater? NO.
If you are constantly being cheated on, then I suggest you ask yourself why. Is it because you are choosing to be with a certain type of person, or is it because you are contributing or NOT contributing to the relationship which is causing a void ...
Not everyone who cheats one time does so because he/she is a bad person. Could be the circumstances.
I don't condone cheating.
Just sayin0 -
I've never cheated anyone in my life. And I don't plan to.
I don't even date anymore than one person at a time. I meet a guy, I go a few dates with him, we are exclusive, I date him for usually 3-4 months, realize he's a douche, dump his *** and move on. LOL
Maybe this is why I'm still single? LOL0 -
Too many people view things as disposable these days.....problem solved.
"Oh...she made me mad that i couldnt do xyz...ill show her...theres plenty more fish in the sea...NEXT"
"He never shows me affection anymore i want what sally and joe have...he treats her so much better than my bf does. Theres someone out there that will treat me the way i deserve."
Somewhere alomg the way someone said "you deserve"......that killed any chance of couples trying to work things out.
They also said do what makes you happy.....its funny nobody really talks about making their significant other happy or at least yrying to. They were told do what makes YOU happy. YOU YOU YOU. lol
im way too old fashioned
Agree with this 100% Well said.0
This discussion has been closed.