Indeed, looks only get you so far. But you wouldn’t have asked out a dowdy girl to whom you weren’t attracted. I’m not saying you’d need to ask out a Barbie doll (actually, I don’t care for that type myself – I find it cheap, tawdry, shallow and vain) but you will go for someone who is “kinda cute” or “looks sweet”.
Depends really. There would need to be a sufficient distinctive cause to ask out that person at all (in the first place) and then to ask out that person and perhaps not any other (in the second place). The distinctive factors could be different from looks if I were able to observe them, while the other ones (e.g. intelligence, good character, particular kindness or good manners) take longer to observe than looks. Bottom line being that one needs to stand out to be noticed. But this is pretty reasonable as the alternative would be to ask out people who don’t attract our attention in any particular way, which would also mean thousands of people.
For the record, I tend to get stuck on dating websites because it’s like, well, a somewhat pretty girl, with a somewhat nice personality, somewhat interesting hobbies, why again do I write to that one and not to the 500 comparable others (of whom I might even recognise the faces and other details by that point)? The lack of a sufficient cause to act, sufficient distinctive factor to make a person stand out, kills the thing.
If I were to relax on the above, I would necessarily need to meet a lot of people, talk to all of them, compare them, inevitably disappoint a good many of them, not to mention financial expenditure and lost time for them and for me. Which is not a problem in individual situations but would be a problem with more volume. (Imagine seeing people across the country 10 times a month.) A good solution, I guess, is to start as acquaintances, then maybe friends, just talk, allow people’s individual qualities to unfold. Then the bigger picture may prompt you to action.
Oi, but here we are again with the physical stuff!
Of course. And I’ll never drop the subject! It is a very important contention to me that physical stuff should not be happening between strangers who are each mentally processing like 5 other strangers at the time.
Sure, if you become girlfriend and boyfriend, I’m sure you’ll get into those things, but going on a date isn’t “we will kiss and/or cuddle”.
I tend to think the word “date” does imply that. Point is, it does not say so directly, of course, but it does have the implication. It’s basically so open-ended and the typical progression is no known to everybody, that it’s pretty obvious and a reasonable persons knows what this is about. It would take an amount of pretending to work around this, I believe. However, I might be wrong especially when it comes to specific contexts from places where I don’t live or visit.
To me, a date is something that, in the beginning stages at least, is about finding out about one another, determining whether you’d make a good couple, whether you like the person more than their looks and some superficial conversations, etc. Then again, maybe I’m wrong in my use of the term.
You’re stating the purpose while I’m focusing on the distracting externals. Problem being that those externals are quite pleasurable and so we people are tempted to pursue them for their own sake.
Haha! As have I. I now know that I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with a girl who allows herself to be chatted-up by strangers on public transport.
You’d be surprised. But I’ve actually caught you admitting a certain hands-off sentiment when it comes to strangers! In my book there is nothing wrong with a girl who allows herself to engage in a conversation started by an attractive (supposedly) stranger of the opposite sex on public transport. BUT a girl accepting an overt dating (i.e. strolling down the park in the moonlight holding hands and kissing if things go right or whatever the equivalent thereof is in a dim-lit cinema) invitation strikes me as something that shouldn’t be taking place. Because, very openly speaking, the thought of her and him engaging in a degree of romantic interaction, especially physical, should be a taboo subject between two strangers, the way I see it, which is obviously influenced by my upbringing, and I realise other people see it differently.
But it still sounds here as if you’re describing a “less intense, less expectational” form of dating.
I realise that. It all comes down to the fact that “dating” has a million definitions. If this helps any, I would suggest avoiding the word itself (“date”, “dating” etc.), focusing instead on getting to know each other, without unwarranted implications of seriousness/commitment/whatever but at the same time without “reaping the fruit”.
After all, the meeting up and talking is being done to ascertain whether you want to pursue them for eventual marriage. You wouldn’t bother “getting to know them” in this manner if they were married or if they never wanted to marry.
The manner being key there. But it wouldn’t be much different from indeed making friends with a married person. Because at that stage a friendly outcome has much more probability than a friendship+romance outcome. Romance outcome without a friendship outcome not being a possibility (as that kinda feels like a fling, which doesn’t really hint marriage).
But is this not just a side-effect of bad culture and not the true meaning of the word?
Nope. I believe dating as a concept is an effect of the culture you speak about.
Maybe the word I’m looking for is “courting”?
Not sure but probably not. “Courting” is when you’ve made your mind as to the choice of the woman. You are still discerning in the sense things can change yet and you’re having your last time to think before lawfully do you wed. But that’s a different thing altogether from how you proceed early on when you simply meet an interesting or potentially interesting stranger.
Indeed. Looking back, there are a few girls I wish I’d pursued who were like this. They were certainly attractive, but they weren’t as attractive as I’d foolishly thought they should be in the physical sense. Now I see they were more attractive than I deserved, in both the physical and personal sense. If I ever have the chance in the future, I’d be willing to marry them in a heartbeat.
That does sound familiar, but if this is any consolation, if they really were so subjectively marriageable to you in particular, something would probably have arisen anyway. Right now chances are you don’t even know what kind of people they’ve grown to be.
This actually sounds like a pretty good idea. I’m not too sure about my using “madam” though!
Sounds a bit too forced.
The absence of it sounds forced to me but to each his own.
I’m influenced by my first language, which uses more elaborate forms of address with strangers you respect, it doesn’t come down to the title you use at the end of the sentence. But the words aren’t important, a generally more formal language and sticking within some degree of formal politeness is the key here.
Comes down to wording a more formal, old-fashioned, socially acceptable invitation to conversation rather than producing a “hi, sup” and except her to react positively.
Which, I guess, comes down to showing the stranger respect and showing yourself as a cultured person, thus one that one could wish to converse with. (Especially as an alternative to a long, silent journey.) Well, the other point is not to be too formal, avoid being stiff or boring, make it brief and digestible. But this is more about execution than concept, I suppose.
Who knows? But once you’ve asked for forgiveness, don’t continue to beat yourself up about your past. Your future husband will be accepting of your past.
EPATHA!