What do 'nerdy' guys like in girls?

[1t_w1ll_bl33d]

i'm a little bit of an older nerd, but what we honestly want:
1. Intelligence (of course, hard to hold a conversation with a flake)
2. Someone who is confident and comfortable with who they are (a woman who needs constant reassurance is very annoying and puts herself on the fast track to a breakup)
3. Someone who can hold a conversation (doesn't necessarily need to be high brow, but a good rhythm to the conversation and if she can point out things we didn't think of without sounding like a know-it-all or condescending, that is hot.)
4. She should have some energy to her (dating someone who's always down or depressed gets old because you feel like you always have to prop her up).
5. She should be excited about some of the things we are too. If your not kind of nerdy too, it will be a struggle and it sucks when you feel like you can't enjoy/share things with your significant other (trust me on this one).
6. A girl who might have to be a bit more aggressive initially. We were kind of shut out before and we don't want to offend, so we tend to be a little tepid. That being said, you shouldn't have to do EVERYTHING. If he can't learn to be a man after you guys are together for a little while, you might be stuck with a boy and that only goes so far.

There are probably others, but I think you get the point.

 

[M-quest]

think intelligence is the most important

 

[EMFsmith]

"If I met a girl that did, chances are that I would marry her".

Slightly off topic here, why do people think marriage secures their relationship?

I've been with my girlfriend for 6 years now and am not remotely bothered with marriage, if we want to go our separate ways that's going to happen with or without that ring isn't it?

 

[DaveC426913]

I've been with my girlfriend for 6 years now and am not remotely bothered with marriage, if we want to go our separate ways that's going to happen with or without that ring isn't it?

No.

A marriage is a promise to spend your life with her.

You have not made a promise to spend your life with her. She is aware of this.


The question to ask yourself is this: if you are able to make a promise in front of all your friends and family to spend your life with her through thick and thin, will you be more or less likely to bolt when things get tough? If you won't make that promise for all the world to see and hear, why not?

 

[EMFsmith]

You can make a promise and intend on spending your life with someone without having to get married is what i mean, you can have the best intentions going into a marriage but ultimately you can't say "Now were married were with each other forever". It just doesn't seem realistic to me.

 

[sponsoredwalk]

You have not made a promise to spend your life with her. She is aware of this.

A piece of paper isn't required to guarantee something like that, in fact I think divorce
rates are a confirmation of this fact. As you yourself freely admit this piece of paper is
required to convince other people of your choice. This indicates to me how much
other people matter in a personal relationship (from the point of view of society). There
is no justifiable reason why this needs to be the case, there is no justifiable reason why
a promise made between two people has to be officially registered in order for it to mean
something. The fact that it does matter gives an indication as to the origins of modern
marriage & it's heavy investment in property. Just like business contracts a marriage
contract ensured transfer of property etc... The modern version of marriage is similar with
some added stuff but again please justify why a piece of paper makes a promise any more
valid if it's about love, trust etc... and not just property related. What other area's of your
emotional life do you record trust & bonds between people on paper so as to give more
credence to the gesture? Hopefully you see my point. People may feel that it is a way to
officially commit but I mean it's completely illogical when you think about it considering
no other area of your emotional life is like that (indicating that property is the reason for
this practice & not love).

So to be clear, people now justify this practice as a way to tell other people of their choice
& to explain it away as some form of gesture (illogical as that may be) but the reality of
the situation is that it arose formally from property considerations (dowry's etc...) & bears
many of the hallmarks of that practice today. People's justifications don't make any sense
to me when viewed this way & I don't see any reason to think this view is wrong & I
certainly don't think viewing unmarried couples as being less committed is justifiable by
any (justifiable) standard whatsoever.

 

[DanP]

No.

A marriage is a promise to spend your life with her.

You have not made a promise to spend your life with her. She is aware of this.The question to ask yourself is this: if you are able to make a promise in front of all your friends and family to spend your life with her through thick and thin, will you be more or less likely to bolt when things get tough? If you won't make that promise for all the world to see and hear, why not?

This is bogus like hell. In many relationships things goes south, and marriage or not, you are better off without the other one. Forget the "promises", nobody should stay in a bad marriage for the sake of some abstract promise. Too many ppl stay in half-assed relationships, for some is fear to break the bonds, for some fear of tomorrow or ending up alone, for some are economical circumstances, but in the end it has just the effect of slowly eating away the happiness of both.

Let both of you be set free, find another mate, feel alive again.Staying in a bad marriage just for the sake of a "promise" is the worst thing you can do to you, and is equally abhorrent and unfair to you and to her as well.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is bogus like hell. In many relationships things goes south, and marriage or not, you are better off without the other one. Forget the "promises", nobody should stay in a bad marriage for the sake of some abstract promise. Too many ppl stay in half-assed relationships, for some is fear to break the bonds, for some fear of tomorrow or ending up alone, for some are economical circumstances, but in the end it has just the effect of slowly eating away the happiness of both.

Let both of you be set free, find another mate, feel alive again.Staying in a bad marriage just for the sake of a "promise" is the worst thing you can do to you, and is equally abhorrent and unfair to you and to her as well.

This is all a red herring. There is no implication anyone should stay in a bad relationship. Moving on.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can make a promise and intend on spending your life with someone without having to get married

And?

Have you?


No, you have not gone to your woman and said "I will commit to staying with you even through the rough times. Heck, I will even provide a token that, whenever one of us doubts our commitment, we can look down at it and remember that this tough time will pass - that it's a drop in the bucket. So that you know - because I've told you - I will not jump ship next time I can't watch my Sunday sports."

You have not done it in front of all your friends and family who, when things get tough (and they will), will step forward to support you, and remind you why you wanted this, and remind you that you wanted to be in it for the long haul, not jumping ship the next time the credit cards max out.

A marriage says, explicitly and publicly, "I want you to know that I want to make a life with you."

That's what a marriage is.

 

[DaveC426913]

Furthermore, since you don't want to make that promise, it's good that you don't (no one should be trapped in a life commitment they don't want to be in).

This sends a message to your grilfriend. Your take on this long-term relationship with her is... what was it? Ah...

...if we want to go our separate ways that's going to happen...

This is good for her to know. She can plan her life appropriately, without depending on you.

 

[DaveC426913]

A piece of paper isn't required to guarantee something like that, in fact I think divorce
rates are a confirmation of this fact.

There are no statistics to show the breakup of non-marriage relationships, so there is nothing to compare it to.

If (say) 50% of marriages end in divorce, but 95% of plain-ol-relationships end up split - then the actually speaks a lot about marriage.

I certainly don't think viewing unmarried couples as being less committed is justifiable by any (justifiable) standard whatsoever.

See post 699.

Easy to claim they might be just as committed. Are they? Did they voice their promise? Did they do so in front of many loved ones (thereby vastly increasing the community of support for the union?)

 

[DanP]

This is all a red herring. There is no implication anyone should stay in a bad relationship. Moving on.

Oh no Dave. You clearly imply that, with your so magisterial

"...will you be more or less likely to bolt when things get tough? If you won't make that promise for all the world to see and hear, why not?"

It speaks volumes. And it also betrays the fact that for some the motivation to stay with a woman seem not to to reside in the link they both share, but in a idiotic promise and not "loose face" towards the society or whatever else you understand through "for all to see and hear" . Laughable.

Moving on.

 

[DanP]

If (say) 50% of marriages end in divorce, but 95% of plain-ol-relationships end up split - then the actually speaks a lot about marriage.

Actually, it doesn't says anything too valuable. It may say a lot of things. For example it may say that for humans which like to "nest" marriage has 1/2 chance of being unsuccessful. This is pretty much the only thing which you can infer , lacking other data. If one sees more is just wishful thinking.

It doesn't say anything which you can use to compare married couples success with couples which prefer serial monogamy at all. For all I know, a serial monogamist may consider a success changing partners every X years. It may also mean other things. It may mean that a lot of humans cannot afford a divorce economically or socially.

 

[lisab]

If (say) 50% of marriages end in divorce, but 95% of plain-ol-relationships end up split - then the actually speaks a lot about marriage.

Of course that just means that marriages aren't representative of all relationships.

Keep this in mind: if 50% of marriages end in divorce, then the other 50% end in death. Either way, it ain't going to end well .

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh no Dave. You clearly imply that, with your so magisterial

"...will you be more or less likely to bolt when things get tough? If you won't make that promise for all the world to see and hear, why not?"

It speaks volumes. And it also betrays the fact that for some the motivation to stay with a woman seem not to to reside in the link they both share, but in a idiotic promise and not "loose face" towards the society or whatever else you understand through "for all to see and hear" . Laughable.

Moving on.

You might try joining the discussion seriously, without needing to resort to sarcastic, provocative words such as magisterial, idiotic and laughable. Really, If your argument is strong, there is no need for this.

Also, you made up a scenario ("speaks volumes ... for all to see and hear") then derided your own scenario. You're laughing at yourself for a bit of fiction you invented. Very strange tactic.



You're still stuck on the idea that a promise is a trap. The implication of a promise being a trap is that one spoke it in haste, not thinking of the consequences down the road.

You're looking at the wrong end of the promise.

The point of a promise is that, you anticipate now, what your future will likely hold (that is the point of thoughtfulness about a long-term relationship - you are mature enough to have thought it through) and you commit to getting through it rather than giving up. You choose that, then you tell your partner that you have made that choice, and that they can count on you down the road.

A loose analogy: when you borrow someone's car and promise not to damage it - the promise is not a trap that you got yourself into at the end, after having bashed it up, where you are on the hook. The promise is 'I am aware of this responsiblity, and assure you now, before I take it that I will treat it well or pay for repairs.'

 

[EMFsmith]

Ok I've been away and spoke to my girlfriend about this and this is HER response:
I know my boyfriend wants to be with me for the rest of his life because he has told me so and i have no reason to doubt that, i am in no way "Planning my life to reflect the possibility of seperating", on the contrary we are planning for a baby and emmigration and have long term plans with each other, Marriage just isn't one of those plans as it bears no significance to either of us.

They were her words not mine, now for some of mine.

How the hell can you come out with a comment like this dave:

And?

Have you?No, you have not gone to your woman and said "I will commit to staying with you even through the rough times. Heck, I will even provide a token that, whenever one of us doubts our commitment, we can look down at it and remember that this tough time will pass - that it's a drop in the bucket. So that you know - because I've told you - I will not jump ship next time I can't watch my Sunday sports."

You have not done it in front of all your friends and family who, when things get tough (and they will), will step forward to support you, and remind you why you wanted this, and remind you that you wanted to be in it for the long haul, not jumping ship the next time the credit cards max out.

THIS IS UTTER BULL, how on Earth can you tell me what i have and haven't done or said? This is a woman who i have stuck with through thick and thin, defended her, placed above family and friends and supported emotionally and financially for 6 years.

In my honest opinion this is the greatest thing i can do to convey my love to her, not buy her some jewelry.

 

[DaveC426913]

Please, for the sake of clarity, use the quote feature. It looks the the above are your words, rather than mine.

THIS IS UTTER BULL, how on Earth can you tell me what i have and haven't done or said? This is a woman who i have stuck with through thick and thin, defended her, placed above family and friends and supported emotionally and financially for 6 years.

In my honest opinion this is the greatest thing i can do to convey my love to her, not buy her some jewelry.

You missed a piece. Doing so in front of friends and family allows them to see the commitment and allows them to support it. Much harder to let a relationship wither when your whole village is helping you out.

In my honest opinion this is the greatest thing i can do to convey my love to her, not buy her some jewelry.

You've changed your story. First you were asking the importance of marriage. Now you are stating (rather than asking) that marriage is no more than a piece of jewellery, and are asking the importance of that.

If you had said up front that you thought marriage was no more than a piece of jewellery, I would have agreed with you that it is an empty gesture.

 

[DanP]

Also, you made up a scenario ("speaks volumes ... for all to see and hear") then derided your own scenario. You're laughing at yourself for a bit of fiction you invented. Very strange tactic.

Dave, I was laughing at your statement (or fiction, as you prefer to call it) :

If you won't make that promise for all the world to see and hear, why not?"

It is you who seem to have a need to make a promise "for all the world to see and hear" to be able to hold it, or at least to be "more likely" to hold it. IT IS your statement, after all. You said it with your own words, for all the world to see and hear. Now you want to take it back ? See Dave, a man has only one word. It has no need for whiteness to be "more likely" to hold his word. It is between you and her, not between you and all the world :P

You're still stuck on the idea that a promise is a trap.

Actually no. Why would you even bring this word into a discussion about relationships ? Do you feel trapped somewhere ?

The point of a promise is that, you anticipate now, what your future will likely hold (that is the point of thoughtfulness about a long-term relationship - you are mature enough to have thought it through) and you commit to getting through it rather than giving up. You choose that, then you tell your partner that you have made that choice, and that they can count on you down the road.

When thing go south, those are pretty much empty words Dave. Giving up is staying in a half-assed relationship, not splitting. Face the truth man, some couples are not going to last
no matter how much maturity and good will exists. The evidence is all around us. Anyone who exists his house by time in time can see it , IMO. And if you claim that a statistically significant percent of couples who fail are not having maturity or good will , well that just a psychological bias. "Holier than thou" reigns supreme.

A loose analogy: when you borrow someone's car and promise not to damage it - the promise is not a trap that you got yourself into at the end, after having bashed it up, where you are on the hook. The promise is 'I am aware of this responsiblity, and assure you now, before I take it that I will treat it well or pay for repairs.'

No matter how loose the analogy is, comparing a car with the relationship you have with a woman is something I can't relate to.

 

[EMFsmith]

Yeah sorry dave I am no blogger, as you can see i have about 2 posts here and another 2 posts on an astronomy forum, that is my entire history of "internet chat", and the reason I've just started is because i thought i may find some decent conversation and opinions, i may have been wrong. BUT that your opinion dave, what i don't appreciate is you telling me what has happened and what has been said in my relationship, you have no evidence to back up what your saying, and I am guessing your quite scientifically minded so shouldn't this go against everything you work towards? I am just a country boy engineer compared to 99% of the people on here but i don't presume to have any kind of insight to anyones relationships or have the audacity to make judgments on it.

I didnt state clearly enough my views, and i need to work on this (Thats why I am here, to better myself) so ill try to convey my views and opinions more clearly from now on.

 

[Char. Limit]

Yeah sorry dave I am no blogger, as you can see i have about 2 posts here and another 2 posts on an astronomy forum, that is my entire history of "internet chat", and the reason I've just started is because i thought i may find some decent conversation and opinions, i may have been wrong. BUT that your opinion dave, what i don't appreciate is you telling me what has happened and what has been said in my relationship, you have no evidence to back up what your saying, and I am guessing your quite scientifically minded so shouldn't this go against everything you work towards? I am just a country boy engineer compared to 99% of the people on here but i don't presume to have any kind of insight to anyones relationships or have the audacity to make judgments on it.

I didnt state clearly enough my views, and i need to work on this (Thats why I am here, to better myself) so ill try to convey my views and opinions more clearly from now on.

You'll find more decent conversation and opinions outside of one of the most contentious subjects in the world: relationships. I mean, I think only Politics is more contentious.

 

[EMFsmith]

Well my first comment on this thread was made at silly o'clock in the morning partway through a night shift at work where my degree in electrical engineering was put to good use by cleaning and inspecting a roller conveyor. Mind numbing to say the least, and so i probably did have my back up so to speak.
I am going to move on to more interesting subjects, namely particle acceleration which i cannot stop reading about!

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, I was laughing at your statement (or fiction, as you prefer to call it) :


It is you who seem to have a need to make a promise "for all the world to see and hear" to be able to hold it, or at least to be "more likely" to hold it. IT IS your statement, after all. You said it with your own words, for all the world to see and hear. Now you want to take it back ? See Dave, a man has only one word. It has no need for whiteness to be "more likely" to hold his word. It is between you and her, not between you and all the world :P

It is not me who makes this promise; it is the general idea behind marriage, which is what we're talking about.

I don't know what whiteness means.

It could be between just two peopel but the ponti behind declaring your love publicly is that it involves the rest of the world. You donl;t have to agree with that. The question was: why marriage? The answer is (partly): to share the commitment with the world.

Actually no. Why would you even bring this word into a discussion about relationships ? Do you feel trapped somewhere ?

You have mentioned many times in many ways about staying in a relationship after it's gone to pot just because of a promise. I am distilling that down to "a trap" - in the sense that you seem to see a promise as only a liability, not as an asset to a relationhip. Perhaps I should just stick with liability. It seems to me that you are regarding a promise only as a liability. I might be misunderstanding. I'm open to correction.

When thing go south, those are pretty much empty words Dave. Giving up is staying in a half-assed relationship, not splitting.

The question is: is it over? One wants to ensure one has given it every chance before dissolving it. Recognizing the commitment through tokens, explicit words and through loved ones tends to increase the odds that no stone will go unturned.

Again, this is not saying you should, it is saying this is why many people go into marriage - because they want the support and framework to ensure the best possible chances of their life relationship succeesding.

Why is marriage important to many? That is why.

Face the truth man, some couples are not going to last
no matter how much maturity and good will exists.

No one suggested otherwise. You state things that need not be stated.

And if you claim that a statistically significant percent of couples who fail are not having maturity or good will , well that just a psychological bias. "Holier than thou" reigns supreme.

I don't claim that, so not sure why you put words in my mouth than try to insult me.

No matter how loose the analogy is, comparing a car with the relationship you have with a woman is something I can't relate to.

You're copping out by pretending to minimize it. I was not comparing cars with relationships. I was comparing two promises - two commitments to do right by someone.

DanP: again, sarcasm and insults are not a substitute for a good argument. Show that you have valid arguements and leave the nastiness out of it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah sorry dave I am no blogger, as you can see i have about 2 posts here and another 2 posts on an astronomy forum, that is my entire history of "internet chat", and the reason I've just started is because i thought i may find some decent conversation and opinions, i may have been wrong.

Well, if you were only interested in conversation and opinions that agree with yours, that might not have been the best plan.

BUT that your opinion dave, what i don't appreciate is you telling me what has happened and what has been said in my relationship,

I was wrong to do so and I apologize. It is unwise and unfair to take a discussion and make it personal like that.

 

[DanP]

It is not me who makes this promise; it is the general idea behind marriage, which is what we're talking about.

Yes. And I underlined that you shouldn't count on someone being more or less likely to bail out just because they made a promise in front of others. And if you (generic you) become more likely to stay in a relationship because of a public promise, well than you are in for a sea of pain and you deserve what's coming to you IMO.

I don't know what whiteness means.

You are a smart guy, you can infer it from the context. I also don't know what "ponti" means in your post, but I made a wild guess .

It could be between just two people but the ponti behind declaring your love publicly is that it involves the rest of the world. You donl;t have to agree with that. The question was: why marriage? The answer is (partly): to share the commitment with the world.

As you said it yourself somewhere below, marriage is a form of social exchange. Marriage is not sacrosanct nowadays. Both married man and woman are getting it on with others, in many, but not all cases. Sharing the commitment to the world shouldn't be at all part of the motive to get married. The truth is, just about nobody cares in 99% of the cases that two unknowns got a piece of paper, save for their immediate families and friends.

You have mentioned many times in many ways about staying in a relationship after it's gone to pot just because of a promise. I am distilling that down to "a trap" - in the sense that you seem to see a promise as only a liability, not as an asset to a relationhip. Perhaps I should just stick with liability. It seems to me that you are regarding a promise only as a liability. I might be misunderstanding. I'm open to correction.

Yes, I said that you shouldn't stay in a relationship just because of a promise. It is stupid and masochistic. But you also should not see it as a trap. A significant other in your life
is an investment. And this doesn't really depends by the form of relationship, i,.e marriage for life or a form of serial monogamy. It may be a good investment, or a bad one. Either way, it is not a trap, neither a liability. Children absent, in many places law provides sufficient provisions though prenuptial to protect your interests in such a way that such a social exchange does not becomes a liability.

IMO the "till death do us part" works for only a certain type of humans. Besides that, I see this form of promise very anachronistic, dating from times when a women had to address her husband with "My lord and master". Life offers no guarantees, and in modern times the promise becomes rather something like "I love you and I want to be with you and do anything for you as long as the relationship lasts". This doesn't exclude the fact that it can last forever. Nor that it can last just several years.

The question is: is it over? One wants to ensure one has given it every chance before dissolving it. Recognizing the commitment through tokens, explicit words and through loved ones tends to increase the odds that no stone will go unturned.

You miss the point here Dave. The question "is it over" for couple X is not for you or me to discuss and give a sanction on it. It is strictly their business, and highly dependent of a lot of factors. You simply can't be the judge of "is it over" for others. Nor are your values in determining whatever it's over or not have any importance whatsoever for the vast majority of the humans who have to take the decision of splitting. Nor what you think about what a promises of marriage is, what it represents for you. Neither what I think for that matter.

Again, this is not saying you should, it is saying this is why many people go into marriage - because they want the support and framework to ensure the best possible chances of their life relationship succeesding.

Why is marriage important to many? That is why.

Ok, so ? One day you may figure out the the marriage is not offering you the support and framework to offer you the best possibility for success. This is why divorce is such important nowadays in the Western culture.

No one suggested otherwise. You state things that need not be stated.

When I speak, Ill be the judge of what needs to be stated or not.

I don't claim that, so not sure why you put words in my mouth than try to insult me.

I used a conditional form of expression. "And if you claim ..." was the choosen form.

You're copping out by pretending to minimize it. I was not comparing cars with relationships. I was comparing two promises - two commitments to do right by someone.

I've learned from the best, you :P

DanP: again, sarcasm and insults are not a substitute for a good argument. Show that you have valid arguements and leave the nastiness out of it.

Dave: neither is raiding high horses. You excel in that. You did it even in this thread with the comments you made which insinuate you know better what is going on with the EMF guy's relationship than he does. Besides that, your arguments are no better than mine. They are just your perceptions of the world. Which are fine to be shared, but make no mistake, they are just your perceptions of a phenomena.

You told me once that you enjoy educating ppl. It is a noble goal. But you will fail, or at least your results in what you try to achieve will be greatly diminished if you keep the high horse attitude.

 

[EMFsmith]

Man, this is getting too heavy for me, my basic intent wat to say that a piece of paper and ring has no bearing on future intents for ME AND MY GIRLFRIEND, basically this is a point of opinion discussion were tangled in here, i don't see the point in marriage, dave does, he's probably married and I am not, were both (Presumably) happy and that's all there is to it.

Im probably in my first steps towards becoming a "Scientific mind" (although uninspirational teachers and careers advisors get my blame in this, but that's another story entirely) and so i need to depict in more detail what I am trying to convey. For this I am happy to have been a part of this conversation, but for now I am going to carry on filling my brain full of physics book and continue with my mundane day to day job, oh and also partaking in a tipple of Thatchers finest cider Green Goblin, mmmm, this is a tasty beverage!

 

[EMFsmith]

And i love being labelled "The EMF guy" now that's a wicked title in my opinion!

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes. And I underlined that you shouldn't count on someone being more or less likely to bail out just because they made a promise in front of others.

Why not?

And if you (generic you) become more likely to stay in a relationship because of a public promise, well than you are in for a sea of pain and you deserve what's coming to you IMO.

Why? What are relationships if not agreements and commitments between people?

You are a smart guy, you can infer it from the context.

No, I really can't. I'm not being picky. Everyone makes typos, and I'd never stoop a cheap shot at a typo - but I did not know if that was a correct use of the word I was not familiar with. I have no idea what that word is supposed to be. witness? That doesn't fit.

As you said it yourself somewhere below, marriage is a form of social exchange. Marriage is not sacrosanct nowadays. Both married man and woman are getting it on with others, in many, but not all cases. Sharing the commitment to the world shouldn't be at all part of the motive to get married. The truth is, just about nobody cares in 99% of the cases that two unknowns got a piece of paper, save for their immediate families and friends.

I'm not stating 'shoulds' like that. I'm stating what I believe to be why people do get married. Because they want that public commitment. That's not the same as you judging whether their motives meet with your approval.

IMO the "till death do us part" works for only a certain type of humans. Besides that, I see this form of promise very anachronistic, dating from times when a women had to address her husband with "My lord and master". Life offers no guarantees, and in modern times the promise becomes rather something like "I love you and I want to be with you and do anything for you as long as the relationship lasts".

That's fine. Some people want to invest in a better commitment than that. They get married.

Again, I am not judging, I am simply stating what I understand to be the princioples behind the importance of marriage.

You miss the point here Dave. The question "is it over" for couple X is not for you or me to discuss and give a sanction on it. It is strictly their business, and highly dependent of a lot of factors. You simply can't be the judge of "is it over" for others. Nor are your values in determining whatever it's over or not have any importance whatsoever for the vast majority of the humans who have to take the decision of splitting. Nor what you think about what a promises of marriage is, what it represents for you. Neither what I think for that matter.

I never suggested it is up to me or you. It is up to the couple. However, no one is an island. We often have loved ones who support us. This tends to work.

When I speak, Ill be the judge of what needs to be stated or not.

Not when it starts with you telling me I need to "face the truth".

I used a conditional form of expression. "And if you claim ..." was the choosen form.

Why don't you argue what I say, rather than what you'd like me to say? (Imagine if I said something like 'If you call me a *!$#!, well, that makes you a jerk.' Would that be fair to you?)

Dave: neither is raiding high horses. You excel in that. You did it even in this thread with the comments you made which insinuate you know better what is going on with the EMF guy's relationship than he does.

I retracted that. It started with a comment on marriage. I made a mistake in applying it to a specific case.

I do not retract the assertion that EMFsmith did not make his promise publicly and explicitly in front of all their loved ones. He made it clear that he did not. EMF is/was welcome to correct me.

Besides that, your arguments are no better than mine. They are just your perceptions of the world. Which are fine to be shared, but make no mistake, they are just your perceptions of a phenomena.

I make no mistake about that. Nor claim any more.


I am however, pleased to see that you have given up on the combativeness.

 

[DanP]

Why not?

For the very simple reason that the same society who binds you in marriage, offers you very convenient tools to break this marriage. Furthermore, there is no social pressure to stay in a marriage nowadays in western world (save maybe for highly religious social groups). Divorce became widely accepted. Current statistics looking at the success of marriage after it goes south recognize the fact that very few of them have any chance whatsoever to improve , even in the case the couple gets professional help. That's it, its freaking over in most of the cases. Even if the person stays in such a relationship because he has all the wrong ideas what a promise means (remember, marriage can be dissolved) all he gets is prolonging the agony and pain.

Why? What are relationships if not agreements and commitments between people?

Close social relationships are much more than that. They are founded on a process of social exchange and neurobiological processes (love, sexual attractiveness). The commitment is just a minor part of it. To put it very bluntly, both as a man and woman you have to deliver high quality content. This is the bulk of a relationship, the content, not the promise. The ongoing process of social exchange is magnitudes more important for the relationship than the promise to enter such a social exchange process.

I'm not stating 'shoulds' like that. I'm stating what I believe to be why people do get married. Because they want that public commitment. That's not the same as you judging whether their motives meet with your approval.

That's fair enough. And I believe you are wrong. As I said the cornerstone is the ongoing social exchange. There are many ways in which a close social relationship can work. Now let me tell you some of the reasons I bleive ppl get married for, and the list if far from being exhaustive:

- life in two is easier from a socio-economic PoV for the most humans.
- it makes adaptive sense to pair-bond when it takes two to raise children. This relates very closely to the point above. If you look at the statistics of who are the initiators of divorce processes, you will see that as women become more economically independent, they are less likely to stay in a marriage then before.
- again, related to social exchange directly, the case in which the marriage allow both to climb higher in a hierarchy.
- some women feel more secure in a relationship where the power of the state forces the man to support them in the case of a divorce. Especially those with little access to resources.
- a tit for tat in which sex is exchanged for higher status and resources.
- sometimes is simply love, especially in relatively young ppl, but lacking a good social exchange those marriages are doomed in most cases. Love can't last on a empty stomach.

The idea of public commitment is not something really important IMO. Believe me Dave, with every gf I had, my immediate social surroundings knew she is mine and I am hers. It was obvious from our behavior. Besides, a public commitment never puts you "safe" from others wanting to take what is yours. Some married men and women are pretty much players a a public commitment won't stop them from anything.

Close social relationships are very firmly grounded in mundane things which social psychology and neurobiology of human behavior slowly start to unveil nowadays. They are far from being the idealized pictures humans here used to think about them. They are full of beauty and the same time full of ****.

To put it in the words of Spolsky of Stanford neurobiology:

biologically, a terribly confused primate—for example, by anatomical, physiological and genetic criteria, we're not a classic monogamous species, not a classic polygamous one, but somewhere in between, generating huge amounts of literature and Hollywood scandals as a result.

And when you know this and couple it with the social exchange theory, you understand why less and less humans get married. Why we have more divorces now than in past. Why women initiate so many divrces. It falls into place, or at least it does for me.

That's fine. Some people want to invest in a better commitment than that. They get married.

You miss the point here. You get married and then what ? If the social exchange doesn't work, you have to get the hell away, and fast. Life doesn't wait. A marriage is not intrinsically a better commitment than many other forms of social relationships between 2 humans.

Again, I am not judging, I am simply stating what I understand to be the princioples behind the importance of marriage.

And I am just offering another perspective.

I never suggested it is up to me or you. It is up to the couple. However, no one is an island. We often have loved ones who support us. This tends to work.

I am not quite sure I understand what you try to say here, but if you say that you can help others stay in a marriage and change their plans of divorce, I think you should reconsider.
First, there are professionals who fail in this task, I hear once a marital counselor who said that "More often than not we don't solve the couple's problems, we make them get used with the idea they will divorce". Second, more often than not you lack sufficient data on what is really going on there. Some things are far from being readily apparent. Even in the case when the couple in question is very close to you.

Not when it starts with you telling me I need to "face the truth".

With the exception of the case in which I voluntarily enter a specific chain of command, situation in which I accept any order given to me, no one gets to tell me what I can say or not. You can of course protest it as you did and scream "tautology". But you have to remember that we are on a public board and those posts can be read by many ppl, some for which the tautology may not be readily apparent yet.

(Imagine if I said something like 'If you call me a *!$#!, well, that makes you a jerk.' Would that be fair to you?)

Sure it would be fair. If I called you "***" I deserve what's coming to me. I'm not very sensitive and besides that, internet communication doesn't worth getting too upset on others.

I am however, pleased to see that you have given up on the combativeness.

Believe it or not, I am not hell bent on walking over others. As I believe you are not trying to ride high horses on purpose as you do sometimes in your posts. Perhaps both you and I should look in a mirror more often.

 

[scuba_girl]

Hi,

For some reason, 'nerdy' guy's tend to like me. There are several things I think is important if you try to attract a certain 'nerd'.

1. Be nice and approachable, take initiative for contact.
2. Be smart and witty - be yourself and pull jokes (pluss for smart jokes within his area of interest)
3. RELAX - and make him relax to. Many 'nerds' have limited experience with girls, you therefore need to find a balance between take initiative yourself and give them time to take the steering wheel.
4. Show him your areas of interest, the areas where you are knowledgeable. 'Nerdy' boys are in general knowledgeable creatures themselves, within their field(s) of interest. Showing him yours can fascinate/impress him, and also differentiate you from other girls.
5. Try to understand him and his areas of interest - if not comprehensible at first, show interest in learning - ask questions. I sometimes do research on the topic we discuss out of curiosity - and I think it's an excellent way to show that you care and that you are curious - and that you have the capacity to get into his fields of interest.
6. Make him feel special - by giving him attention you don't give anyone else.
7. Like for all guys: flirt, be sensual, encouraging etc - but don't go overboard.

Individuals we here label 'nerds' differ like all other human beings - and naturally prefer different things from a girl.

 

[rmac2011]

I am a nerdy guy, and I like it when girls just come out and say they like me, rather than making me get to a point where I hurt myself to figure out that they don't. I have gotten suggestive gifts, phone numbers, out there compliments and all kinds of stuff from girls that don't like me at all. Don't say maybe... ever... say yes, or no.