I don't like multi-dating but I understand that it is something

>>17462224

until you are ready to say 'you're my girlfriend' you cant expect someone to throw everyone else away.

if you are still deciding whether or not they are worth being your girlfriend, then why shouldnt they be allowed to do the same?

thats the general cut off time. once oyu sit down and have a talk, however shorti t may be, about what you are.

Just bring it up like. "My friend is dating like five girls, that shit is to complicated for me. I guess I'm more of a traditional romantic." And gauge responses.

>>17462235
Cont. Also you can't really get them to change their dating habits in one date. Or expect them too. If it's that much of a turn off what you want basically is to get the information of "do they do X?" Earlier, so as not to waste time.

>>17462232

I'm not even talking about that stage of knowing if a relationship is at the level of defined girlfriend/boyfriend. I'm more talking about getting to know one another without the influence of other people. I feel like it taints the whole thing - to me. I would rather just have a one night stand and leave it at that than get to know the person more and find out that they were just hedging their chances. I don't abide by hedging in interpersonal relationships, it's not business to me.

I was thinking something along the lines of "I only go on second dates with people I am exclusive with" or something like that.

>>17462253

right, and you are being selfish. you are insisting that they dont leave their options only and devote themselves to you before you even decide if they are worth devoting to.

you are saying 'dont see anyone, but i might throw oyu away anyway'.

stop thinking of it as hedging and simply seeing hwo they actually like more. do you want to be their only fucking choice cuz tyou insisted as such, or do you want to be the guy wh owon out agianst the others.

You really have no right to put 'dibs' on someone, which is essentially what you're doing.

>>17462259

Because it's not always "you won out" I see this logic and it makes sense if you're the first person they ask to be in a relationship with. I've had the experience of being someone's back up choice and that really killed any feelings I had for that person once I found out. It also isn't something that most people will directly say to you. For example, "I asked X but he wasn't interested in commitment so I thought I would ask you instead". Usually that gets omitted. From experience when I was six months into the relationship and found that out it really devalued the whole thing.

I understand it is being selfish but really at any point in any relationship someone might make the decision to throw the other person away.

>>17462266

stop waiting for girls to ask you for a commitment.

>>17462263

I know it's not a right which is why I want to find a way to communicate that to them so they can make their own choice. I understand that after one date you really can't tell much about a person. You can probably tell if you'd like to see them again though. At which point I would like to make my position clear and give them the choice to think/feel however they want to about it and make their own choices.

>>17462270
So basically you want to say "this is a dealbreaker for me so if you think I'm worth being exclusive with after this one date, go ahead, otherwise I'm done with you"?

>>17462263
At every point they're free to say no, it requires mutual consent. You make it sound like he's demanding something from others, but he's just laying out some dealbreakers. If others arent cool with them, they're also free to dip out.

>>17462280

If that is your interpretation.

I think of it as "I'm happy to get to know you more but I'm not into seeing multiple people at the same time or seeing people who are doing that. So if you're ok with that then let's meet up, otherwise let's just leave it where it is"

That's what I'm trying to ask. Is there a way to communicate that without it sounding like I want their hand in marriage? I'm not phased if they're not cool with it and like to date multiple people. If anything, I'm respecting that. I just also just want to make my position clear to them without any feelings of guilt or pressure. It is a deal breaker for me and there is no point in continuing if that's how they want to date people.

I also understand that at such an early stage that everything is fragile. Hell, the second date might be shit and we might figure out we dislike each other and never speak again.

Like I said to the other poster. The whole "winning out" concept of dating multiple people at the same time doesn't appeal to me at all.

>>17462313

>is there any way to make it sound like im not asking for thier hadn in marriage

no. there isn't. cuz you are literally insisting that you wont see anyone unless they commit themselves to you after one date. and yes, thats what it is, a literal commitment, no different than actually dating. a girl just met you and she has to decide if this is 'serious'.

the other concept doesn't appeal to you, but this appeals to no one. even if they ARENT seeing other people all you've done is made it clear that they;re yours now

This is perfectly fine OP, you are not forcing anybody to do anything but being upfront and honest, which is expected.

I can't think of anything right now but disregard this mad bitch who hates what she (i assume) can't understand.

>>17462340

first im not a chick, im a dude. second, its not that i cant understand, i know hwy OP wants this, and hes entitled to have it. but he has to understand that no girl wants to say 'YES ILL DATE ONLY YOU' after one coffee waiting around for OP to decide how serious hei s.

hes welcome to want this ideal situation, but hes got to realize that no girl will go for it.

>>17462346
A girl can be perfectly fine with only dating one guy at a time and that's the kind of girl he is interessed in.
Literally nothing wrong with it and it doesn't warrant you sperging out over it.

>>17462356

a girl is fine when she knows she likes a guy. not
>HEY ITS BEEN ONE COFFEE AND IM ALL YOURS

not sperging out, just letting OP know what future hes in for. hes already apparently having horrible luck with women being hte leftovers. trying to force societal change is going to be hilarious.

>>17462359
You keep repeating things only you are seeing and taking them as gospel; you are sperging out.
Why come here just to create ghosts where there are none?

>>17462359

Why would I do the same thing by not making myself clear in the future and just hoping for the outcome I want? I don't think I can expect the world to work like that if I have preferences in my mind and don't communicate them. I'm asking for better ways to communicate my preferences.

Horrible luck with women and being the leftovers is true right now but when you're being lied to there really isn't anything you can do about it but try to date other people, adjust how I approach dating and see what happens.

>>17462259
>>17462224
don't listen to her OP

she just wants to able to fuck a million people without consideration of how someone might feel

if anyone is being selfish, it's her

there is nothing unreasonable about wanting someone you are interested in to give you a chance without having a million guys also in line

>>17462259
God damn I hate people like this

Women have this 'love it or leave it' attitude and then wonder why they end up alone

If you're fucking someone, no matter how committed or what the title is or how long it's been you have a right to know what else they're doing.

If there is nothing wrong with dating multiple people there shouldn't be any reason why you don't just say it flat out

>women confuse selfishness and independence

>>17462313
idunno man most of the time people only want to date one person at a time. I don't think you're unreasonable.

idk OP, I guess I would let it slide as long as it wasn't going on for more than a couple weeks.

how often are you encountering this? seems to me that unless someone is really going at the dating thing hammer and tongs, they're not going to be going on first-second-third dates with more than one, maaaybe 2 people at once. seems like with each individual that they're dating, they'd figure out after a couple dates whether they like that person or not. and then they'd make up their mind and drop them or enter a relationship with them. I'd think that would take maybe a couple weeks, so would there really be that much overlap between when they start seeing you and someone else?

idk, maybe I'm just that much of an uggo, I can only think of once I had 2 dating possibilities going at once, other than that it was 1 or more often 0.

they usually vaguely suggest you arent a couple and that means everything is "fair play"

then you can just stop talking to them

no point making it clear, they are full of themselfs and will try to belittle you

>>17462224
The idea of going exclusive before the first date is actually quite new: about 20 years old or so, if even that. It was an interesting experiment: the previous norm was to multi-date until you found someone to get serious with, and only "go steady" when you thought you might have found a keeper.

That said, the new multi-dating differs from the old multi-dating in an important way: the old multi-dating generally did not include sex, while that is more accepted in the new paradigm. In the old, not everyone waited for marriage, but it was at least generally accepted (except among the hippie crowd) that one at least waited until things got serious.