What is it with guys my age?

[DanP]

What is your definition of "commitment"?

Loyalty to each other and the "will" to stay together. Do not understand "loyalty" as simply an obligation not to sleep with other ppl, for it is not true in some types of close social relationships.

Recall the case of parents who don't sleep together anymore, are barely friendly with each other, but they are deeply committed to their relationship for the sake of a common goal ? For example the purpose of bringing a child to an age where the separation is easier handled by the kid ?

This is still a form of close social relationship. I heard Peter Solavay of Yale in a speech on close social relationships calling this "empty love".

 

[Physics-Learner]

dan,

at least you have a good sense of humor. that will take you far in the next 15 years as you ponder some of life's other mysteries.

 

[DanP]

dan,

at least you have a good sense of humor.

that will take you far in the next 15 years as you ponder some of life's other mysteries.

I don't think that love is such a great mystery. Its has been downgraded from a mystery to a scientific problem in the last decade.

But yeah, I am really interested to hear what do you think is love. Its always nice to hear what others think about it.

 

[Physics-Learner]

the term "romantic love" is so general and has a different connotation for everyone, that it is hard to give you a definition of it. apparently, it needs to involve sex, for you.

i think sex is used way, WAY TOO EARLY in relationships. certainly way before love is ever involved.

there are many, many aspects of love. one would be holding your girlfriend in your arms and crying with her, because she feels real badly about something.

if we are talking about a person we love enough that she is our lifetime commitment, then an aspect of love is a strong desire to help her be the person that she wants to be.

to support her. to listen to her. to genuinely care about her welfare. etc. etc.

many married couples still love one another, yet sex is way less prevalent than when they were first married.

i think people get involved first in sexual relationships, hoping they may morph into loving relationships. where i think they would be better off involving themselves in loving relationships, where sex comes into play once they really have made commitments to one another.

"past sexual partners" is almost never helpful to a current relationship.

i think we as a society, need to rethink our ideas. instead of following hollyweird, perhaps we should don a new sweater that is more fitting to our happiness.

 

[DanP]

the term "romantic love" is so general and has a different connotation for everyone, that it is hard to give you a definition of it. apparently, it needs to involve sex, for you.

Sure it does. Else she is either : 1. My friend . I watch sometimes a movie with her, hang out , and go sometime to the swimming pool for laps and laughs 2. My mother 3. The sister I never had :P

i think sex is used way, WAY TOO EARLY in relationships. certainly way before love is ever involved.

It's normal. Many of those relationships develop from a strong attraction toward each other. "Love at first sight" is nothing but infatuation. True love, friendship+sexual intimacy+ commitment comes harder. There is a great deal at work involved into a long term relationship to make it work.

there are many, many aspects of love. one would be holding your girlfriend in your arms and crying with her, because she feels real badly about something.

And what, making love to her exclude being there for her when she needs ? Turning the world upside down at her whim ? It doesn't.

During my life I've hold I am my arms complete strangers in some situations to comfort them psychologically. Or other times to give them physical heat. Talked to them to keep their minds bussy and focused away from the things which scared them. I am able to this to just about anyone who genuinely needs it. I didnt need even a friendship link to them.

I would do much more for the very few friends I have. And I do even more for my kin (I usually include significant others with kin)

if we are talking about a person we love enough that she is our lifetime commitment, then an aspect of love is a strong desire to help her be the person that she wants to be.

to support her. to listen to her. to genuinely care about her welfare. etc. etc.

Lifetime commitment is so far an unknown for me. Serial monogamy seems to be the type of relations I am best suited to personally. However , sexual intimacy doesn't prevent anyone to help his girlfriend achieve her dreams or support her in any way possible.

Its a required component of a intimate relation, yeah, but having it doesn't kill psychologycal intimacy or commitment to be together for how long it lasts.

many married couples still love one another, yet sex is way less prevalent than when they were first married.

Never been married. I have no idea how it is after a very long time together.

... where i think they would be better off involving themselves in loving relationships, where sex comes into play once they really have made commitments to one another.

Easier said then done. I prefer to discover everything about her on the run, as the relationship unfolds. I believe it's better this way.

There are cases in which a friendship develops before romantic love gets involved, but they are rarer. In most of the cases, the relationship advances at a normal pace on all planes at the same time.

"past sexual partners" is almost never helpful to a current relationship.

Dont ask, don't tell ? Army got it right :P

i think we as a society, need to rethink our ideas. instead of following hollyweird, perhaps we should don a new sweater that is more fitting to our happiness.

There is a great deal of evolutionary and social constrains involved in close social relationships. I don't think that forcing the issue with some new imposed "morale" would do any good to anyone. We do alright.

 

[JaredJames]

Your posts (both of you) are getting a bit repetitive. I've actually read the same lines in multiple posts now.

Could things get back to the OP now, please?

 

[turbo]

@OP: what is wrong with gals your age? There is absolutely no reason that you can't approach a guy if you are interested. Given the M:F ratio in your classes, male students may be intimidated by the poor odds.

Ask for help with a problem (even if you don't really need it), and if you recognize a guy in the student union that shares classes with you, introduce yourself and maybe share a coffee.

 

[lisab]

@OP: what is wrong with gals your age? There is absolutely no reason that you can't approach a guy if you are interested. Given the M:F ratio in your classes, male students may be intimidated by the poor odds.

Ask for help with a problem (even if you don't really need it), and if you recognize a guy in the student union that shares classes with you, introduce yourself and maybe share a coffee.

No, I really have to disagree here (bolded). Don't play dumb.

 

[turbo]

No, I really have to disagree here (bolded). Don't play dumb.

Don't play dumb, but everybody needs clarification at times, especially when critical tests loom. No guy is going to freak out when an attractive female student asks what instructor A or B means about some concept in the text. You don't have to act dumb - all the guys that I knew in engineering (who were serious) would network with each other to try to get an edge on tests.

 

[lisab]

Don't play dumb, but everybody needs clarification at times, especially when critical tests loom. No guy is going to freak out when an attractive female student asks what instructor A or B means about some concept in the text. You don't have to act dumb - all the guys that I knew in engineering (who were serious) would network with each other to try to get an edge on tests.

But if you already understand it, asking for help as a way to get attention is playing dumb.

 

[turbo]

But if you already understand it, asking for help as a way to get attention is playing dumb.

Could be, but that's what study-groups do. I'm not a fan of playing dumb for social ends, but the OP seems to want to put all the onus on her fellow physics students when she could pull a few strings (subtly, gently).

 

[Physics-Learner]

Your posts (both of you) are getting a bit repetitive. I've actually read the same lines in multiple posts now.

Could things get back to the OP now, please?

i never thought they left.

 

[DanP]

But if you already understand it, asking for help as a way to get attention is playing dumb.

It's manipulation, not playing dumb. And it's one of the things women do best - manipulate men - should they choose to do so.

 

[Galteeth]

But if you already understand it, asking for help as a way to get attention is playing dumb.

"Hey, could you help me study for the physics test?"

"Sure."


Later...

"Hey, actually, I didn't need help with the physics test. What i really wanted to study was... biology."

Cue 70's jazz rock with heavy bass "Chick a bawawa chick abawawa"

 

[Physics-Learner]

for gosh sakes, let's get our heads on straight.

asking for help on a test when you know the answer is not manipulation.

neither is going to the drinking fountain at the gym when there is a cute boy/girl there, even though you just got a drink a minute ago.

 

[DanP]

for gosh sakes, let's get our heads on straight.

Approaching someone directly under false pretenses with the purpose to influence them towards a goal is "manipulation". I can wholeheartedly agree that in this case is innocent, but yeah , it fits the definition.

 

[Physics-Learner]

dan,

getting back to our previous conversation - yesterday i felt like getting real mad at you.

but i didnt. and i am glad.

what my whole point to the op was - to demonstrate what the typical "young male" attitude towards "romantic love" actually is.

i truly don't know if you are aware of your motivations, but they come over loud and clear, to me.

if any idea comes along that gets rid of sex in the relationship, you make rationalizations about it till the cows come home.

like your attitude about previous sexual history. it makes no difference to someone with the young male attitude, because he places no emotion to it. he just wants a hole he can thrust into.

or like the attitude of saying that "we do alright". when if you look around yourself, we find people almost always divorcing, and few kids today living with their biological moms and dads. if it got any worse, we would have to flush "romantic love" down the toilet.

the main goal of "romantic love" for someone with the young male attitude is to have a sex partner. take that away, and the male goes away.

women mostly look for love, companionship, etc. so they end up getting frustrated and bitter.

what i don't get is why women continue to stay stupid about it, and make the same mistakes over and over. it is as obvious as the nose on our faces.

your posts just helped to demonstrate that stereotype.

so again i say to the op, if she is still around, don't be looking for young guys. especially if they are good looking. because as dan says, they have options. they will stay with you until one of two things occur. 1) your demands or requirements or needs, whatever you prefer, are more than he wants to deal with. or 2) his sexual interest in you begins to fade, and he sees someone else that interests him more.

neither 1 nor 2 will take a lot of time. so be prepared to hop from one boy to the next, feeling a little more cheated and frustrated with each hop. your best bet is to find someone mature enough (which usually requires some amount of chronological aging), such that he has left the animal state of maledom, and is more interested in a loving relationship, but that he is still young enough that you can spend a lot of years together.

 

[DanP]

dan,

getting back to our previous conversation - yesterday i felt like getting real mad at you.

Yes, I am aware I have this power over others. I wish I did not have it. I am trying my best not to be too abrasive.

but i didnt. and i am glad.

Thanks man.

what my whole point to the op was - to demonstrate what the typical "young male" attitude towards "romantic love" actually is.

i truly don't know if you are aware of your motivations, but they come over loud and clear, to me.

What are my motivations then ? Would you be so kind to enlight me ?

if any idea comes along that gets rid of sex in the relationship, you make rationalizations about it till the cows come home.

Like I said, make up your mind what you want. Friend or boyfriend. Its a simple fact.

like your attitude about previous sexual history. it makes no difference to someone with the young male attitude, because he places no emotion to it. he just wants a hole he can thrust into.

You are deeply wrong. Being sexual does not mean you exclude other components of a intimate relationship. i was very explicit that a full intimate relationship include friendship, commitment and sexual intimacy. All components are equaly important.

And yes, really why should anyone care how many previous partners one had ? What, you can't love a women if she slept with over 30 man till 40 ? If she wants to share the number OK, maybe Ill share it too. But don't ask Dont tell works.

It really makes no difference whatsoever, because now I am with her, not with any of my ex.

or like the attitude of saying that "we do alright". when if you look around yourself, we find people almost always divorcing, and few kids today living with their biological moms and dads. if it got any worse, we would have to flush "romantic love" down the toilet.

Not really. You don't have to flush love down the toilet, but you have to be realistic that not every relationship is made to last forever. For some it does. More power to them. For others it doesn't.

the main goal of "romantic love" for someone with the young male attitude is to have a sex partner. take that away, and the male goes away.

It's not necessarily the main goal into a intimate relationship, but once you take sex away, again , you do not have a full intimate relationship anymore. It shifts into the realm of friendship, empty love, and other such types of close social relationships.

women mostly look for love, companionship, etc. so they end up getting frustrated and bitter.

Ok, what can I say. She can find another man to be her companion and live with him if he will have her with no sex. I am not going to stay with a women just because what she needs. A relation takes two. The needs of both partners are important. .

I may still remain her friend, but Ill find another women to share a relationship with her. But you know, really , women do love to have sex, make love, and adore to let their bodies in the hands of a man if he knows what he is doing and it feels alright to them :P

what i don't get is why women continue to stay stupid about it, and make the same mistakes over and over. it is as obvious as the nose on our faces.

Why ? Look into evolutionary psychology and social psychology. You will get all the answers.

so again i say to the op, if she is still around, don't be looking for young guys. especially if they are good looking. because as dan says, they have options. they will stay with you until one of two things occur. 1) your demands or requirements or needs, whatever you prefer, are more than he wants to deal with. or 2) his sexual interest in you begins to fade, and he sees someone else that interests him more.

Actually, the way a relationship can go is in toward much more scenarios than the ones you enumerate. And that can happen with guys of any age.

neither 1 nor 2 will take a lot of time. so be prepared to hop from one boy to the next, feeling a little more cheated and frustrated with each hop. your best bet is to find someone mature enough (which usually requires some amount of chronological aging), such that he has left the animal state of maledom, and is more interested in a loving relationship, but that he is still young enough that you can spend a lot of years together.

Women are not naive. Most of them can find their way in life just fine without jumping at the first men who wants to nest and have kids and a mortgage on a house in suburbs :P
Women have a lot of power, and they have usually a greater latitude in accepting partners for a relationship than men. They have a lot of options, and they learn fast to make the sensible choices.

 

[Physics-Learner]

dan,

thank you for demonstrating the young male attitude so thoroughly. if i ever make a sarcastic movie on dating, you got the male lead, hands down, no questions asked - LOL.

if the op don't get it by now, she aint ever gonna. peace out.

if you ever want to start a thread about physical fitness, i would participate - as that is something that we probably share an interest in, even though our routines and ideas will probably be different.

btw, i do not consider you to be abrasive. simply your attitude about dating and such is irritating, because i have seen it a gazillion times. i sure am glad i aint a woman having to deal with guys.

i know, women aint perfect, either. but an awful lot of the chips on their shoulders and their attitudes come from men with the young male attitude that they have dealt with in the past.

i have also had the pleasure of knowing men after they have passed the animal stage of maledom, and have become caring and considerate towards women.

good luck to you.

 

[DanP]

dan,


if i ever make a sarcastic movie on dating, you got the male lead, hands down, no questions asked - LOL.

Im really looking forward to it, I never been involved in movies, so I think it would be an awesome experience. And god knows, you may be as good as Woody Allen at directing and you will make both of us famous. I have only one small request: no Lindsey Lohan in the female lead pls.

 

[Qentanglement]

Yo raw, I am a physics major as well and I am a 20 year old male. My department is the same, there are only like 2 or 3 physics girls and they have bf outside of school. I personally like physics girls, its too bad you don't go to my school.

You know what would turn physics guys on? Dress up like an elf or some kind of video game character or better, a vulcan. Still maintain regular conversation about whatever topic whenever you approach guys though. It would totally confuse the guys and this kind of confusion would get them thinking about you. You just got to get them thinking and let their imaginations take over. It also has to be totally true as well that guys that are 20 years old, physics major or not, will always think about sex. You can talk about the topic, that won't make you slutty.

In conclusion, you just got to spark something in their 20 year old male physics majors. The buzz topics are sex, and video games, and quantum mechanics.

 

[DanP]

You know what would turn physics guys on? Dress up like an elf or some kind of video game character or better, a vulcan.

Mods, this forum still needs the facepalm emote.

 

[Dembadon]

Mods, this forum still needs the facepalm emote.

 

[DanP]

Great idea, man.

 

[jbs80106]

Well, depending on where you go to school, when I was in undergrad most guys weren't into having relationships that lasted more than a weekend. Perhaps that has changed in 2010, but a few other thoughts...

- younger guys can be socially immature and potentially intimidated if they think they're not your intellectual equal. This can go doubly if you're confident in yourself, look like more of an 'alpha' than an 'omega'. I found guys in college to be a lot more targeted on the weak ones in the herd, easier prey.
- older men, particularly some married men can be down right pervs with 20 year olds. Many of them could be your father or have kids of their own older than you. maybe it's a need to reaffirm their male-ness (I could get that if I wanted), maybe it's lack of fear of rejection? I'm not one of them can't really say.
- attraction can be both physical and/or emotional connection driven. Sometimes you'll see a guy and think 'damn he's hot...would like to go out with him' and other times you might bump into someone at Starbuck, exchange a look and casual greeting and feel a connection, call it spirtual or whatever.

Just a few initial thoughts/comments.

In my physics classes, esp 400-500 level classes there were on 2-3 girls as well, one of them quite smart AND pretty, but she wasn't out for a relationship either, we were just friends.

 

[FlexGunship]

[DISGUISE]...I hear Flex is single...[/DISGUISE]

EDIT: Only stipulation is that we are not going to save your best friend from anything on our date. I don't care if she's on fire and I'm holding a bucket of water.

 

[Pengwuino]

- younger guys can be socially immature and potentially intimidated if they think they're not your intellectual equal. This can go doubly if you're confident in yourself, look like more of an 'alpha' than an 'omega'. I found guys in college to be a lot more targeted on the weak ones in the herd, easier prey.

You mean beta...

 

[_Tully]

If you really want, I can hit on you.

I know how to make sacrifices for the greater good.

=D

 

[brainstorm]

My impression is that young males are so fixated on sex that it basically makes them easy to manipulate but the problem is that every little moment of consciousness-acquisition spooks them into running away from relationships. So it seems like many young women would like to build a relationship but they get confused at dealing with men because they can't fathom the level of ignorance for what goes on after sex. This leads (for many I think) to some emotional desperation which in turn leads to some cheap affairs just to prove that at least she is attractive. Once she has established self-confidence this way, she will move on to testing whether a guy she likes has a conscience about hurting women. If they do, any amount of physical intimacy is basically a step in the direction of a more committed relationship, not because the committing is voluntary but because the guy will have to do some soul-searching before breaking it off. A "real catch" is a guy who will work to avoid breaking your heart and avoid cheating because this will keep him coming to you for affection.

Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I don't think that an active belief in commitment is developed by people until later life. Early adulthood is basically spent trying to manipulate people into either sex, a (committed) relationship, or both. Ideally, people would become very good friends and when they reach a level of openness and honesty where they could discuss their relationship desires, they could negotiate the relationship they wanted PRIOR to engaging in physical intimacy. This way they could avoid getting in deeper than they are ready to reap the consequences for; but how many people do this instead of flying by the seat of their pants?

 

[DBTS]

I'm 20 and one of the guys that hit on me was 80. I consider creepy over 40.

I was hit on by an older guy when I was in the shower at life time fitness. It was weird and I felt a bit dirty that the guy was checking me out the whole time I was taking a shower. I know how you feel.

I am 21 and do not consider having a relationship because I want to experiment with different women and not invest too much time into one. Get into a relationship and break up whilst working on school work? Not good. School comes before relationships, so I mostly "date" different women and focus on school work, and workout most of the time. It is not about being emotionally immature as some people pointed out, rather, keeping my priorities straight.

 

[Galteeth]

An anecdote that happened to me last week. I'll try very hard to keep this SFW. I was outside my venue on a cold night. No one was around, and an woman in her sixties who appeared homeless asked if she could come inside for a moment to warn up. My spider sense told me this was probably a bad idea, but I let her come down.
It soon became clear that her purpose was to try and have sex. I told her several times that I had a girlfriend, (which actually wasn't true) but she was incredibly persistent, to the point of, um, undressing and making vulgar displays (which, trust me, did NOTHING to influence me towards her advances).

After many, many refusals, and having to literally run away from her, she eventually left. The incident made me reflect on my thoughts regarding age. She had the appearance of a homeless crack addict, although I had to admit, the age difference was probably a factor in my disgust. I thought about it, and realized that while I wouldn't write off someone in their sixties automatically, it would probably be a hurdle for my attraction (I am 26.)

At the risk of stating something politically incorrect, I think it generally seems that women "peak" earlier in physical attractiveness then men do. I know girls my age who consider older men to be within their age range (not sixty, but say, forties) and although I know guys who are willing to be with older women, it is more of a novelty then a serious consideration.

I suppose this has some biological basis, as it stands to reason that men would be less attracted to women who were post-menopausal, whereas men remain fertile, and from an evolutionary standpoint, a man who has survived longer is potentially more fit.

I must admit, the experience was a bit of an eye opener, as it has left me wondering whether it will be difficult to be attracted to women my own age as i get much older.

 

[Astronuc]

My impression is that young males are so fixated on sex that it basically makes them easy to manipulate but the problem is that every little moment of consciousness-acquisition spooks them into running away from relationships. So it seems like many young women would like to build a relationship but they get confused at dealing with men because they can't fathom the level of ignorance for what goes on after sex. This leads (for many I think) to some emotional desperation which in turn leads to some cheap affairs just to prove that at least she is attractive. Once she has established self-confidence this way, she will move on to testing whether a guy she likes has a conscience about hurting women. If they do, any amount of physical intimacy is basically a step in the direction of a more committed relationship, not because the committing is voluntary but because the guy will have to do some soul-searching before breaking it off. A "real catch" is a guy who will work to avoid breaking your heart and avoid cheating because this will keep him coming to you for affection.

Physical intimacy is not necessarily a step to a more committed relationship. The commitment depends on the individual. Some of my colleagues at university simply wanted to have a good time without any commitment whatsoever. In some cases, if there was a commitment, it was temporary - so in that case, I wouldn't call it a commitment. I also knew guys who were quite willing to be dishonest (misrepresentation) to get what they wanted, i.e., they put their selfish interest ahead of the interest of the woman invovled. I also met a few women who behave the same way.

Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I don't think that an active belief in commitment is developed by people until later life. Early adulthood is basically spent trying to manipulate people into either sex, a (committed) relationship, or both. Ideally, people would become very good friends and when they reach a level of openness and honesty where they could discuss their relationship desires, they could negotiate the relationship they wanted PRIOR to engaging in physical intimacy. This way they could avoid getting in deeper than they are ready to reap the consequences for; but how many people do this instead of flying by the seat of their pants?

Belief in commitment is learned, just as any ethical or moral principle/belief such has honesty, sincerity, diligence, . . . . I learned about relationships and commitment from my parents at a very early age, and they, and my grandparents, provided me with good examples.

 

[Lisa!]

You should move to MissSilvy's university and vice versa

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=408133

 

[DanP]

Physical intimacy is not necessarily a step to a more committed relationship.

It's IMO a kind of friendship. It all depends what you want. A friend or a girlfriend.

The commitment depends on the individual. Some of my colleagues at university simply wanted to have a good time without any commitment whatsoever. In some cases, if there was a commitment, it was temporary - so in that case, I wouldn't call it a commitment.

Yeah, but serial monogamy is the most widespread type of intimate relationship in the western world now. Commitment is usually understood "for while the relationship lasts".

I also knew guys who were quite willing to be dishonest (misrepresentation) to get what they wanted, i.e., they put their selfish interest ahead of the interest of the woman invovled. I also met a few women who behave the same way.

It's just biology. The male drive towards sex is amoral in itself. Genetic drives shapes the sexual behavior of both males and females in subtle ways. Dishonest signaling may be a winning strategy, for both sexes. But most ppl are properly equipped IMO with the necessary apparatus to detect dishonest signals.

Belief in commitment is learned, just as any ethical or moral principle/belief such has honesty, sincerity, diligence, . . . . I learned about relationships and commitment from my parents at a very early age, and they, and my grandparents, provided me with good examples.

Is commitment an issue of ethics ? Id rather say is a simple term agreed upon by the partners , part of the social exchange process. If a couple has fun together without commitment, or even more extreme, life long commitment, I don't see any problem.

 

[Astronuc]

Dishonest signaling may be a winning strategy, for both sexes. But most ppl are properly equipped IMO with the necessary apparatus to detect dishonest signals.

In my observations, it's more of a losing strategy for one of the participants. It seems that irrational thinking overcomes the apparatus for detecting dishonesty - based on the number of failed relationships I've seen.

Is commitment an issue of ethics?

Yes - and morality.

Id rather say is a simple term agreed upon by the partners , part of the social exchange process. If a couple has fun together without commitment, or even more extreme, life long commitment, I don't see any problem.

I never indicated a problem with such relationships as described. There is no problem unless one or both participants are honest with respect to the relationship. I do see a problem with dishonesty - which leads to betrayal.