Why Don't Guys My Age Approach Me?

[JaredJames]

Commitment for me means for how long as the relationship is OK. When it's not, Id rather split up and try something new.

It doesn't matter how in love you are or how much you care for someone, you will argue, you will disagree. If you give up, you'll never get anywhere.

Obviously there's a point where splitting is better than staying together, but giving up too early doesn't solve your problems, it just moves them onto the next person.

Jumping from person to person simply to keep the 'happy side' of things simply creates an illusion.

 

[DanP]

It doesn't matter how in love you are or how much you care for someone, you will argue, you will disagree. If you give up, you'll never get anywhere.

So what ? You don't seem to get a basic truth: ppl stay in half assed relationships way too long. Past the point of no return. When not even the best marital counselors money can buy can do nothing but accustom the couple with the idea that they will divorce.

Obviously there's a point where splitting is better than staying together, but giving up too early doesn't solve your problems, it just moves them onto the next person.

Simply absurd. Do you think that your problems will be magically solved when you give up at "the right time" ?.

Jumping from person to person simply to keep the 'happy side' of things simply creates an illusion.

Ppl don't keep an "happy side" by doing this. Some relations work, others do not. Some persons will bound forever others wont. Take it as it is, without "happy sides", "happy tablets" or other nonsense.

 

[JaredJames]

Simply absurd. Do you think that your problems will be magically solved when you give up at "the right time" ?.

People who truly love each other don't just give up, put some effort into it. If you really can't work through it, then you give up and move on.

Ppl don't keep an "happy side" by doing this. Some relations work, others do not. Some persons will bound forever others wont. Take it as it is, without "happy sides", "happy tablets" or other nonsense.

If you simply leave and don't deal with your problems, you are just trying to maintain the 'happy side' of relationships and hiding from any bad points.
Nobody is perfect, everybody argues. You don't just give up.

 

[DanP]

People who truly love each other don't just give up, put some effort into it. If you really can't work through it, then you give up and move on.

This is a tautology.

If you simply leave and don't deal with your problems, you are just trying to maintain the 'happy side' of relationships and hiding from any bad points.

You are probably projecting the perceptions based on your own relationships, but as I explicitly told you, its not about happy sides and other senseless folk psychology. It's about real, true differences in humans and in their behavior.

Nobody is perfect, everybody argues. You don't just give up.

You mean, you argue till hell freezes over ? Personal option, man.

 

[FlexGunship]

This is a tautology.

 

[ThomasT]

For the simple fact is not in their nature. They will only behave "morally" as long as it is in their interest. Shove that away, and they will quickly find the loopholes.

Suppose they deem it "in their interest" to preserve the relationship, over and above doing anything that might be construed as a breach of trust by their partner?

Intimate relationships are not based on trust as so many ppl seem to think, they are a combination of cooperation / competition (in a healthy balance if it works) as are all social relations which exist in this world.

I think that, ultimately, it comes down to trust -- and of course sharing some experiences and interests.

Out of curiosity, you vote with the conservative right ?

You might think that. I keep my house and yard clean. I'm a good neighbor. I 'look' conservative. But I'm actually a 62 year old hippie. A musician. I don't vote either Republican or Democrat. If Nader runs again, then I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I probably won't vote. Maybe Kucinich. I don't know. How about you?

We are not created equal. Some of us are highly monogamist animals, others are not. Some will find joy in a single partner for the rest of their life, others will not be satisfied nesting with a single person, and will opt for serial relationships.

Well, to be honest, I seem to be one of those serial relationship people, at least as far as women are concerned. But I still think that the basis for each and every relationship that I've had, as long as it lasted, was trust.

It's really not about being "thoughtful" or a moral person. It's about our neurobiology, genetic / epi-genetic and social constrains imposing on our behaviors.

You might be right. Anyway this is over my head.

Yes of course. You stay with a person for how long the social exchange works. If it doesn't last forever, you have to be masochistic to stay in a unhealthy relationship just for the sake of living up to some questionable moral ideal which says "respect the commitment, don't break away first".

Ok, I guess we agree on this.

Commitment for me means for how long as the relationship is OK. When it's not, Id rather split up and try something new.

Well, "how long the relationship is ok" depends on the attitudes and behaviors of the partners, doesn't it? As I've mentioned, I have a couple of 40-year friends. This doesn't happen by accident. It's a willful thing, and I think it's based on trust and cooperations (even though there might be minor competitions and tensions involved here and there).

 

[ThomasT]

It doesn't matter how in love you are or how much you care for someone, you will argue, you will disagree. If you give up, you'll never get anywhere.

Obviously there's a point where splitting is better than staying together, but giving up too early doesn't solve your problems, it just moves them onto the next person.

Jumping from person to person simply to keep the 'happy side' of things simply creates an illusion.

I agree with your statements here, even though I haven't always been able to live up to the wisdom that I think they express.

It just hit me. Have we gotten off topic? What is the topic, anyway?

Ah yes, a young girl who is being hit on by older men but not by men her age. I still haven't figured that out. Hopefully she will clarify.

 

[DanP]

You might think that. I keep my house and yard clean. I'm a good neighbor. I 'look' conservative. But I'm actually a 62 year old hippie. A musician. I don't vote either Republican or Democrat. If Nader runs again, then I'll vote for him. Otherwise, I probably won't vote. Maybe Kucinich. I don't know. How about you?

I believe in social liberalism, but I also support a free market economy as free of regulations as possible, death penalty, preemptive wars, the right of ppl to bear weapons is for me fundamental, I resent egalitarianism in anything but social rights, area where I resent anyone trying to rob another of human of the slightest right, I find social injustice natural and this affects my ideas on taxation, I don't believe too much in core values of today's society as nuclear family and religion. I don't vote very idealistically, Id vote anything as long as it suits my economic plans for the next years.

 

[DanP]

Well, "how long the relationship is ok" depends on the attitudes and behaviors of the partners, doesn't it? As I've mentioned, I have a couple of 40-year friends. This doesn't happen by accident. It's a willful thing, and I think it's based on trust and cooperations (even though there might be minor competitions and tensions involved here and there).

I also have a couple of friends and the relation lasts for almost 20 years, but heck , it was a bumpy ride. But indeed will to preserve the relation exists.

 

[ThomasT]

I believe in social liberalism, but I also support a free market economy as free of regulations as possible ...

Me too. As much as is possible while still retaining an essential equality and freedom of opportunity.

... death penalty ...

Yes, I wholeheartedly support the death penalty. I consider it quite humane and efficacious considering the alternative, life in prison.

... preemptive wars ...

No, no no. I don't support this at all. Not for any reason. I support a strong defense precluding the need for preemptive wars.

... the right of ppl to bear weapons is for me fundamental ...

Yes. For me too. I don't happen to have any guns right now, but I certainly don't want any laws prohibiting me from having them.

I resent egalitarianism in anything but social rights ...

As far as I know, egalitarianism is only meaningful in a social context. I'm first and foremost an egalitarian, and only secondarily a libertarian. Equality of justice and opportunity, and cooperation are, in my view, far more important to a healthy society, than competition and the protection of the rights of individuals to exploit others.

... area where I resent anyone trying to rob another of human of the slightest right ...

Then you're essentially an egalitarian.

I find social injustice natural and this affects my ideas on taxation ...

Or, maybe you're not essentially an egalitarian.

I don't believe too much in core values of today's society as nuclear family and religion.

I believe in the utility of these things even though I'm an atheist and my family is mostly gone.

I don't vote very idealistically, Id vote anything as long as it suits my economic plans for the next years.

I vote idealistically, or I don't vote. So, mostly I don't vote.

 

[ThomasT]

I also have a couple of friends and the relation lasts for almost 20 years, but heck , it was a bumpy ride. But indeed will to preserve the relation exists.

Well, people are people. A somewhat bumpy ride is guaranteed. But hopefully you will have these friends for life. You'll be happy that you did, I'm sure.

Ok, we are definitely off topic. What is it with women my age, anyway? Well, I'm 62 and, unless I'm just kidding myself, I seem to be getting some very good vibes from what I consider to be some very hot 40 to 50 year old women. Would I hit on our 20 year old OP? Probably not. But, has she figured out what it is with guys her age yet?

 

[DanP]

As far as I know, egalitarianism is only meaningful in a social context. I'm first and foremost an egalitarian, and only secondarily a libertarian. Equality of justice and opportunity, and cooperation are, in my view, far more important to a healthy society, than competition and the protection of the rights of individuals to exploit others.

Yes, in the social context. but for me this context starts and stops with equality before the laws of the realms and equality in the set of rights granted and protected by a constitution (or whatever else).

Id doesn't require anything else for me, such as equality of opportunity. We are not born equal neither genetically, neither as a social position. Social injustice is natural.

Then you're essentially an egalitarian.

Not quite, I don't have a problem with rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer. I don't see why the more capable members of our society should pay higher taxes, only because they have higher incomes. A flat percent should be employed, and even in this situation, rich would end up paying loads more than the rest of the population.

 

[ThomasT]

Social injustice is natural.

So is cruelty and the exploitation of the weak. But, supposedly, we have, as civilized human beings, evolved beyond justifying those things.

I don't have a problem with rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer.

Well, I suppose that's a good thing, because that seems to be the general trend. Of course it isn't a problem for the rich or near rich. Or even the upper middle class for the most part. The middle class begin to feel it when their dollars don't buy what they did five years past. It's mainly a problem for the working poor and the unemployed. And it's this, latter, segment of society that seems to be growing fastest.

I don't see why the more capable members of our society should pay higher taxes, only because they have higher incomes.

It's because egalitarianism is one of the tenets of American society. But, not to worry, if you make enough money to get into the higher tax brackets, and can afford really good accountants and lawyers, then it's also quite possible to actually pay a lower tax percentage than people whose incomes are, say, half yours.

A flat percent should be employed ...

I agree with this. Flat tax. Absolutely no tax credits or deductions. Period.

... and even in this situation, rich would end up paying loads more than the rest of the population.

Not "even in this situation", but only in this situation would the rich actually pay the percentage at which they're purportedly being taxed.

How much did, say, General Electric pay in US federal taxes last year? How much the year before? With a flat tax of, say, 15% and no deductions, loopholes, etc., then most large corporations, and very wealthy individuals, would be paying far more than they now pay in taxes.

My personal view is that if you're making a ton of money in this wonderful country, then you should be willing to give something back, gladly, with no reservations.

I was going to write something else, but I just realized that this is about as far off topic as I've ever seen a thread get. Probably mostly my fault. Anyway, I enjoy discussing with you Dan.

Maybe you could start another thread on some of what we're talking about, and convince me to accept your point of view? Not that I disagree entirely. Just wrt a few things. But I'm no expert on anything, and always willing to listen to and be persuaded by a wiser view.

 

[tauon]

Okay, so I now understand that girls were expecting ME to make the first step... hmm, I see now why I failed... and why I am DOOMED.

 

[JaredJames]

This thread will die one day...

_{(It takes off topic to another level.)}

 

[ajclarke]

You're almost surely being too subtle. You overestimate the cunning of the male of this species.

^^ This. Never ever assume men understand what you are thinking, hinting or saying :P

For all our intelligence (some of us that is, I am not saying everyone is intelligent) we have no idea what the mind of a woman is like! :P

 

[Char. Limit]

^^ This. Never ever assume men understand what you are thinking, hinting or saying :P

For all our intelligence (some of us that is, I am not saying everyone is intelligent) we have no idea what the mind of a woman is like! :P

Exactly. I tell my girlfriend this all the time.

 

[Galteeth]

^^ This. Never ever assume men understand what you are thinking, hinting or saying :P

For all our intelligence (some of us that is, I am not saying everyone is intelligent) we have no idea what the mind of a woman is like! :P

Or more generally, what's really going on inside someone else's mind, regardless of gender.