Am I thinking about dating the wrong way?

>is everyone else just naturally in a "meh, I do what I want and if your presence in my life is fun and easy, cool. Otherwise, not devoting any energy to you"

pretty much, yea. it's only after months of being together that you should actually give a shit or feel invested in them at all.

>>18010159
So then how is anyone supposed to ever get a relationship off the ground if no one is going to put any effort into it in the beginning?

>>18010170

because while you're cumming on her she experiences oxycontin release which stimulates pair bonding

>>18010170
be appealing enough to warrant investment or patient enough for anyone to feel you're special.

>>18010143
>it eventually became clear that what I took as "just treating people with basic common courtesy" was taken by them as "lol this guy is a doormat."

What EXACTLY does that mean?

Because I have always tried to treat people with courtesy.
And I have never had a girl treat me like a doormat--except when I was younger and acting like one.

Secret to dating:
Have your own life.

They do them, you do you, if you get along, awesome. If you don't, that's 95% of all dates you will go on. So go ahead and be courteous, but let your efforts reflect that.

I am polite to 95% of people I meet, but that doesn't mean I give them more preference or priority over me and mine own (and if you do, that means you've got reliability and prioritization issues)

>>18010193
>be appealing enough to warrant investment or patient enough for anyone to feel you're special.

You just said you shouldn't be investing in anyone at all prior to spending a decent amount of time (months with them).

Which is it? Be initially appealing so that people will want to invest time into developing a relationship with you, or spend enough time with people to determine if they're appealing enough to invest in?

>>18010223

getting others to invest in you more than you do in them is what seduction is. once you're in that position you can decide how to proceed.

>>18010206
>What EXACTLY does that mean?

To me it's just stuff like to responding to people in a timely manner and being forthcoming. Like, I try to get back to someone within a few hours if they text me, I let them know ahead of time if I'm running late, if it's clear she's into me but I'm not into her I won't waste her time, etc.

Versus the phone games, flaking out on dates, etc, that seems to be commonplace out there.

Like, I have my own life, but I'm in my early 30s and at this stage everyone's lives are so busy that you really can't just sit back and hope to just let a relationship happen or whatever. It won't. You have to actively schedule regular time to see people and shit or it will not go anywhere.

>>18010143
>Things is, for years I just went with the flow with no worries to such things, and it eventually became clear that what I took as "just treating people with basic common courtesy" was taken by them as "lol this guy is a doormat."

That and this

>Am I overthinking it, or is everyone else just naturally in a "meh, I do what I want and if your presence in my life is fun and easy, cool. Otherwise, not devoting any energy to you" mode that for me just takes a concerted effort?

Are two different points.

The first one is a stupid generalization that's pretty false. The second one is just weird. How much energy do you expect to put on someone else? Maybe you just over-invest in people. I'd repeat what Anon said here >>18010206

>Secret to dating:
>Have your own life.

>>18010276
See >>18010269

>>18010370

You didn't answer me the energy part.

> Like, I try to get back to someone within a few hours if they text me, I let them know ahead of time if I'm running late,

This is common courtesy. Most people do it.

>if it's clear she's into me but I'm not into her I won't waste her time, etc.

This is you projecting something that happened to you.

>Versus the phone games, flaking out on dates, etc, that seems to be commonplace out there.

What's phone games? Not answering fast enough for you?

>You have to actively schedule regular time to see people and shit or it will not go anywhere.

There's such a thing as being controlling and clingy. Maybe you come off too strong. I would have a better idea if you answered the energy question.

>>18010269
>To me it's just stuff like to responding to people in a timely manner and being forthcoming. Like, I try to get back to someone within a few hours if they text me, I let them know ahead of time if I'm running late, if it's clear she's into me but I'm not into her I won't waste her time, etc.

None of that is what gets you treated like a doormat, that's basic human courtesy.

Your issues lies elsewhere.


>Versus the phone games, flaking out on dates, etc, that seems to be commonplace out there.
As fellow older anon, dating at 16 and dating at 26+ are pretty different scenes. If the above is a common problem for you in your 30's, you may want to reassess yourself and what people you're trying to interact with.

Don't deal with shit people, don't be a shit person. Have your own life. Own it. Be proud of it.

>>18010386
>You didn't answer me the energy part.

Not sure how exactly you want me to quantify energy. I mean, I'm talking with a girl I'm interested in right now and I reach reach out to her once or twice a week to chat and have looked to try to get together twice in the last month if that helps.

>This is common courtesy. Most people do it.

In my experience, it's not as common as you'd hope.

>This is you projecting something that happened to you.

Not really sure what the point you're trying to make here is.

>What's phone games? Not answering fast enough for you?

I'll give you an example. Was talking with a woman a while back that would text me stuff like "hey handsome. how u doin? :):)" and if I got the text when I wasn't in the middle of anything I'd respond back in a minute or two with a simple "Hey! Doin well. hows youre day going" only to get no response. This wasn't an isolated thing. She just regularly would initiate contact with no intention of actually conversing at all. At some point, I just stopped wasting my time because it just seemed like she simply liked knowing that she had my attention

>>18010565
>"hey handsome. how u doin? :):)" and if I got the text when I wasn't in the middle of anything I'd respond back in a minute or two with a simple "Hey! Doin well. hows youre day going" only to get no response.

My question is:

1.) Did you know this person in real life?
2.) Are you aware that:
---a) the vast majority of people are shit at conversations in general
---b) this is doubly true for text conversations
---c) It is general sentiment is that males should take the lead and drive the conversation

>>18010565
Maybe give a spicy original reply instead of a boring ass general reply

>>18010582
>>18010582
Didn't know her well. Had hung out a few times. And yes, I'm aware of all that. What does that have to do with this particular incident?

How quickly you become invested in someone should not take a concrete "few months of being together". That's ridiculous. It just depends.

>>18010269
>You have to actively schedule regular time to see people and shit or it will not go anywhere.

if two people genuinely want to see each other, it's not a problem.

sounds like you're forcing yourself into relationships with people who don't want to be with you.

>>18010614

The point is you shouldn't be fucking obsessed with someone that you barely know , which is a common thread among inexperienced 4chan dorks.

Normal, well-adjusted people don't go out of their way and bend over backwards to make relationships work, because they have self worth, they aren't just taking anything they can get and holding on to it for dear life. They are actively evaluating the other person to see if they even like them. This is abundance vs. scarcity/neediness.

>>18010642

>Normal, well-adjusted people don't go out of their way and bend over backwards to make relationships work
with people they barely know*

>>18010598
>Didn't know her well. Had hung out a few times. And yes, I'm aware of all that. What does that have to do with this particular incident?

You basically responded with an equally non-committal, open ended statement.

You can do that, but if you do, you CANNOT complain/bring it up as an example of "phone games" or shitty attitude, while also claiming to be aware of the status quo around conversational gender roles etiquette (I personally think it's stupid, but w/e.).

If you were aware of that, then you should have responded in a way that reflects that (I.e. with something more than a non committal sentence) or else you should have just not ever given a fuck and tried to use it as an example.

>>18010642
>The point is you shouldn't be fucking obsessed with someone that you barely know

True, but seems irrelevant given that that is not at all what seems to be going on in this thread.

>>18010656
>>18010656
I don't think there's anything "non-committal" or "open ended" about answering someone's question and responding with a question in kind. Generally when someone asks a question it's because they expect a response.

I used that particular exchange as a single example of similar exchanges with that particular woman, some where my responses were more personalized/playful. The result was always the same.

Even barring a more charismatic response, what else would you call it other than someone playing games when they repeatedly contact you and never respond when you address them?

It's like you're defending the right of people to be disingenuous if you fail to entertain them.

>>18010658
it's literally exactly what OP is about. how much effort should you put into a new relationship. the answer is: not much unless you want to look like a virgin pussy.

>>18010714
>>18010714
I don't see anything here about being "fucking obsessed" with people he barely knows or falling for every girl who shows him the time of day or telling people he loves them after one date or anything like that, so again, doesn't seem relevant. Sounds more like he's just had shit luck in dating and is kind of wondering "wtf? is it them or me?"

>>18010734

you are mincing words and deliberately misunderstanding my point.
don't be too enthusiastic about people you barely know, it signals that you have no standards. that's it.

>>18010749
I understand your point perfectly well. What I'm telling you is that it doesn't apply here because I don't think that's what's going on in this case.

I mean, the OP is literally saying that he goes out of his way not to appear too enthusiastic.