I have to jump in here with my admitedly very limited dating experience. I have dated women who won't go beyond a good night kiss unless they have an exclusive relationship. Others are very happy to kiss and neck knowing full well that both of us may be with somebody else next weekend. They find pleasure in holding hands, kissing, caressing and so on, and don't require an exclusive relationship.

Almost all women, do want an exclusive relationship before becoming intimate. But, up to the point the standards vary quite a bit.

Maybe it is all just a matter of semantics. To me, a "player" is someone who dates because s/he enjoys "playing" the field, rather than becasue they are looking for a relationship. Or, as I called it earlier, it is dating for the sake of dating rather than dating as a means to an end.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their approaches, and I do not fault Big Guy for choosing his. To each their own.

But he asked if #Dates > # Days would bother people, and I gave my opinion. I have been there done that, and I found it to be quite unpleasant. I want more out of dating than "if it's Monday it must be Candy, if it's Tuesday it must be Bambi, if it's Wednesday it must be Trampy", etc. To each their own <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Anyway, Big Guy asked for opinions, and he got them. When you ask for opinions, you have to be prepared for some that you like as well as some that you don't, right? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

AGG

TBG, To begin, you are mistakenly assuming that I am judging you harshly. I am not, but rather trying to get you to look at this in another way.

"I suppose if I thought that women were hapless creatures incapable of providing informed consent and constantly needing to be protected from their own decisions I would agree with you, but I don't, so I don't."

This is a dodge. I wasn't talking about the women; I was talking about you. Your statement does not address my point that if you are out there dating several women a day to satisfy your chosen desire to, as you call it, "freeload", you are by definition using these women for you own purposes. Here's the dictionary definition of freeload:

"to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved"

See my concern? You say that you are using this approach because your working on your taker. Consider this: if you know your taker and giver are out of balance, and this has resulted in difficulties in your interpersonal relationships in the past, whould it not be better to first determine the reasons for the imbalance and take corrective action before involving innocent women?

Now, consider this. A lot of women will tell you that they aren't looking for anything more than you are - some light, casual dating with no strings attached. Some actually mean it. Some think they mean it, but find that they really don't. Some are just telling you what you want to hear. Most really mean that they aren't interested in more unless they hit upon Mr. Right and will become emotionally involved if they are really attracted to you. I can hear your protest before you utter it: that is their problem, not yours. Well, it actually IS your problem, since you are putting yourself out there in the dating game and you will have to deal with these problems when they arise. Saying I don't care, it's their problem because I'm just freeloading right now won't cut it. If it does, then you are playing.

Another point..... You are allowing your taker to have free reign and dating multiple women. Ostensibly, you are dating women who are similarly not looking for any emotional entanglements. Many of these are also giving free reign to their takers. Answer this: how can two people who's takers are in control possibly have anything other than a somewhat toxic interaction? The two of you are immedately at crossed purposes. This addresses my earlier point. If two people are going to have a healthy relationship (regardless of how emotionally deep they want it to be), both must have their taker and giver in balance. It's kind of like playing tennis without a ball.

I'm not faulting you on your approach either,TBG, but only challenging your thinking. I see nothing wrong with dating multiple people if that's your thing. What concerns me is the seemingly frantic way you are doing it. Reading over your posts, you seem to be putting an awful lot of effort into making sure your weekends are filled with as many dates as you can get or squeeze in. I cannot see why anyone would ever want to do such a thing, since it can only be stressful. Having multiple dates in one day as a one-off result of schedules is one thing, but deliberately seeking them begs the question: why?

Finally, this..... We've only danced around the issue of sex. You have stated that you aren't looking for sex and I take you at your word. But I am male and I know aaaaallllllll about the male libido. I know that we may not conciously be looking for sex, but subconciously, we almost always are. To paraphrase Freud, everything thing we do is for the purpose of getting sex. So, unless you've taken a vow of celibacy (and maybe not even then), if the opportunity for sex arises, you will probably take it. Every multiple-dating man I have ever known has/does/will. This isn't bad or evil; it's just the way we are wired. The dificulty is that it really complicates your life.

Notice, TBG, that it is the men here who are advising you to slow down and reconsider your approach. Can you think of why that might be?

This is an interesting discussion. I don't think he needs it, but I'd like to say something in defense of TBG:

Virtually every book I've read about getting back into dating tells the single person to date as many different people as they are comfortable dating for a significant amount of time before starting to narrow the field. Some of the reasoning is to experience as many different personalities as you can. And to avoid getting too serious about one person too quickly so that you don't hurt or get hurt.

Now, I don't have it in me to do that, and have been reading with interest all of the responses of those of you who also do not date multiple people. For a long time, I have thought I am odd because I really do not care to date for the sake of it - because I would rather approach dating with the intent to form a committed relationship - preferably long term. But that's what I want. It's the meeting enough people to find the right person with whom to form this committed relationship that is the hard part <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

A player, in my book (I'm going to define from the standpoint of a female - i.e., player being of the male persuasion), is someone who is a USER - a guy has no intention of even seeing a woman twice unless she performs well enough that he might want to keep her on the "string" for sex. He will not think twice about taking one woman to a club, disappearing for a little while to get a bj from some drunk chick he just met, then taking the first woman home, have sex with her and leave. And he won't call either of the two women he used ever again, unless they were A) good AND B) not going to get clingy on him.

That's my definition of a player. Unfortunately, back when I was a naive young woman in my early 20's (to distinguish from the more mature but still often naive woman I am now), I was involved with a SERIOUS player once... I was going to "change" him. Once he realized that I was hung up on him, he was CRUEL and EVIL about getting rid of me. The sad part of it was that I was dumb enought to fall for him -I knew his reputation and had a great deal of disdain for all the dumb women that fell for him and a great deal of disdain for HIM until he turned the charm on ME.

Can women be players? I guess if you consider a woman who does not think there is anything wrong with dating multiple men who meet her SF needs or her FS needs and discarding them when or if they do not ... sure, that woman is just as much a player as any male player might be.

Is TBG in danger of becoming a player? I don't think so... is he in danger of being LABELLED a player? That's a possibility, but really only if he is not completely HONEST with his dates about his intentions.

CS

I don't think TBG needs defense either, because he hasn't done anything wrong. I'm not just trying to challenge TBG's thinking, but everyone's. You see, the "dating game" as we know it, is a distinctly American phenomenon. People in other parts of the world "date" as a part of their courtship rituals, but their approach and attitudes about these things are very different from ours. Not only that, our current ideas about dating and courtship are really very recent. And guess what? We don't seem to do a very good job at selecting mates. While mate selection is not the only factor, it is one of the primary factors contributing to our very high divorce rate (which is the highest in the world). Not only that, the average romantic relationship lasts only six months. We spin our wheels a lot. What this tells me is that we jump into these relationships too quickly, with the wrong person and for the wrong reasons. Our dating game doesn't have a terribly impressive track record. So perhaps we all need to reconsider our approach and look for better alternatives.

CrystalSinger, take those books on dating with a grain of salt. They are written for a much younger audience -- 16 to 25 year olds. This is a group that has no experience in adult romantic interation. Moreover, it is a group who are still discovering who they are and what they want from life. So it is a great idea for them to "play the field" and get some experience before they start settling down on someone who meets their needs. I do not think that such an approach should be necessary for older people. By the time people get to be my age, they should know precisely what they want from a relationship and playing the field has no real advantage. Rather, we meet people who are attractive to us for reasons we can easily describe; we don't use that vague term "chemistry" in an attempt to put a name to some ethereal quality we don't quite understand. This is predicated on the condition that the individual is emotionally healthy and mature, which, as we all know, is not always the case.

A player goes far beyond just persuasion. He also lies and manipulates. So, I don't see a player in TBG either, though I have suggested to him that his approach can easily be construed as player behavior.

Can a woman be a player? Oh, you better believe it! They have different objectives, however. Female players practice something of a subtle form of dishonest prostitution and they are just as toxic as male players.

The Harley's recommend dating about 30 people before making a decision. As far as an "intended audience", each person is different, and experience is different for everyone. Although I'm 35, I didn't date much before I married my xH. Therefore, I think I need some dating experience before "settling down". Also, after a marriage that lasted several years, being betrayed, and being out of "dating practice", I would think that "dating recommendations" would still apply, regardless of age or experience. Yes, as you get older, and date more people, you begin to realize what you want, and you begin to recognize it better.

I just tend to agree that dating multiple people (2-3, for me) keeps you from becoming attached to one person too soon and gives you time to get to know them. It also releives the pressure and "sting" that comes from rejection in either direction.

Last Saturday, I started seeing Guy #2. We had a successful date #2 on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Guy #1 (from last Thursday) called me back for date #2. I discussed this with Guy #2, and he said he's OK with it. Really. So, this weekend, I have Date #3 with one, and Date #2 with the other. Guy #2 is cool with it, because he understands that I'm not ready to "settle down" yet, and neither is he, although we really like each other. And yes, we shared some very nice kissing... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> but we are on the same page about continuing to see others, for now.

Faith1

LOL! Were I to folllow Harley's advice, I would never have married! I've only "dated" about 15-20 people in my whole life and I'm 47.

Really, though, I know within just a few minutes to an hour of meeting someone new whether I have any interest and what level/kind of interest I have. So I don't need a "date" with someone to see if there's any interest. The "getting to know all about you" part of it for me is something I do with people by participating in activities both find enjoyable; the learning happens in normal conversation on a wide range of topics. The sitting across from one anotehr in a restaurant palying 600 questions just won't work for me. I approach new friends and possible romantic interests in the exact same way. My approach works for me, because I have never been rejected.

Well, then, that explains a lot in this discussion. hehe. We're not all like you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm definitely not like that. I can tell right away if I can "click" with someone, but I have to spend more time with them in order to see if we are romantically compatible - both in conversation, and in experiencing things together. And... rejection DOES come my way, because I can tend to be infatuated with someone right off the bat, and they are not. Again... a difference in these "initial impressions".

Ah, but we aren't so different as you think. You see, I do not approach a woman from the start asking "is this a romantic possibility?" Rather, I just get to know her and have some fun and let that part come as it will. This makes love natural and I don't have to worry about whether or not I'm subconciously trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. All but three times, a romantic relationship just didn't happen, but it never was a matter of someone needing to be rejected, but more of a matter of it just isn't there, and both parties know this. But because we didn't start out with this being the all-or-nothing goal, no one gets hurt. It's a win-win situation, since you will always come away as friends.

Check,
You said

How do you do this without "dating" someone?

Well, I don't date in the sense that other people date. I meet someone, whether that person is male or female, and if we seem to hit it off will participate in activities together. In doing so we geete to know one another, but not necessarily with that big question mark hanging over our heads. Others would call this a date if I'm dong somethng with a woman and "doing something with a friend" if it is a man. I don't make that distiction. Now, with a woman, if there is an attraction, sexual and/or emotional, there is a possiboility for romantic involvement if other compatibility factors are there.

See, I have said in this forum before that the concept of dating that we have adopted over the last 50 or so years is contrived, artificial and, to my thinking, somewhat silly. As someone else pointed out in this thread, dating is something of a game. That's correct, but it should NOT be this way. I have stated today that the way we are doing things today doesn't appear to be working well. So it is doesn't work, why not try something different?

Here is a very interesting article that is somewhat relevant to the discussion:

Female Players

What I find interesting is that none of the female players in the article are in any way dishonest with their men - to them, this is all a chase, and they dangle the carrot that the "last man standing" (or, the one who impresses them the most) just might get the prize. So the guys pursue them, and the women eat it up.

So, there is no dishonesty here, even though they are being labeled "players". And I think we all agree that these women are players. Why? Because of that darned carrot. Because of that implied promise that if the guy spends enough money and impresses her enough, that he may end up with her.

And I think that is exactly what people who say that they are "just dating" without "wanting a relationship" are sometimes doing too - they are out there getting what they want (be it flowers or free dinners from the men, or the affection or intimacy from the women). Sure, everyone is honest about it (sometimes), but the reality is that most people going on dates are hoping to eventually "land" someone, so that implied carrot is always there.

If I go on a date, it is because I want to learn about the woman I am going to see, not to get a hug or a kiss. And hopefully that will be her intent as well. But if I tell that same woman that I have another date later on that day, and two more the next, etc, then I am sending her the message that I am quite the catch, and maybe, just maybe, if she works hard enough at it, she might end up with me. I know I am generalizing, but I think that this is what the article is all about - players do not commit to anyone but promise the potential to everyone.

L.A. is full of women like the ones in the article, to the point that I hardly date anymore. I only date women who are looking for a relationship, because I think I will barf if I see another woman who has five dates a week with different men.

I am curious, those who advocate multiple dating (BTW, I am making a big distinction between dating many different people before becoming exclusive with someone and dating many different people simultaneously without any intent of finding an exlusive partner), how do you see yourselves differently from the people described in the article? I don't mean this question as an attack, I am just curious about the answers.

AGG

Oh, yes, AGG, these women most certainly are being dishonest. They have no interest in these men, but use their libidos to manipulate them. They want them to pick up the tab for their fun. Nothing more. Sarah was on the phone to Brad planning a weekend within hours of setting up the invitation for a trip to NY. It isn't just LA overrun with women like this. Atlanta is too. Here it's know as "Atlantatude."

The kind of female player I was referring to can best be described by a conversation that my wife and I overheard at the table next to us at an upscale Midtown eatery one evening a few years back. There were two women, obvioulsy friends, talking. Here's a summary of the conversation:

Woman1: So how are things going with you and Scott?

Woman2: Oh, I'm just about finished with Scott.

W1: Oh? I thought the two of you were hitting it off?

W2: He thinks so. We've been dating now for two months and that's about all I need.

W1: So what's not right? He seems nice to me. Is he awful in bed or something?

W2: Awful, good, who cares. No he's nice enough. It's just time for me to move on. I'm going to wait for a few more weeks though.

W1: Why?

W2: You remember that necklace I showed you a few weeks ago? Well, I manuevered Scott to that restaurant next door to the jewelry store and got him to take me in there. I went crazy over that necklace and asked him to put it on me. Valentines day is coming up and i know he's going to go back and buy it for me. After than I'll do him a couple of more time and then break it off.

W1: Anybody else you're interested in?

W2: Yeah, you remember that guy who was flirting with me the other night? I gave him my number and he called me last night. We're having lunch Saturday. He drives a Bentley, so who knows what I'll be able to get out of him!

Laughter.....

Sick, but I swear it's true.

How do I see myself differently?

I don't want "things" from anyone. I am a pay-my-own-way kinda girl. I don't date so that someone will take me somewhere fancy. I am very uncomfortable with having a date pay for dinner, unless we agree that I pay the next time.

Admittedly I love the attention I'm getting. However, if I am getting that attention from someone I am not interested in, I am upfront about that. In fact I met someone a couple weeks ago that is very interested in dating me, and I had to tell him that I'd be very happy being his friend but I don't want a romantic relationship with him.

After being tied down for twenty years, I am in no rush to get back into an exclusive relationship. Dating is actually a low priority for me behind my kids, my job, and my racing. What's the rush? I spent all of my twenties and thirties being tied down. I like the idea of spending my forties and fifties free as I want to be.

Wow, Lexxxy, do you know how unique you are? I am truly impressed with your approach, I wish I were able to meet women who have a similar outlook (I did happen to meet some in the past, but they seem to be nowhere to be found these days <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly willing to be the gentleman and pay for my dates, but I feel that the "guy always pays" rule becomes a bit odd when a) this becomes the norm, b) the woman makes as much money as the man, and c) the woman is seeing many other men. I know I got chewed out for saying this before, but I am a somewhat "equal rights" kind of guy, and I find it odd when "equality" based women still expect the guy to always pay.

I have a hilarious story in that regard - I was dating a woman for a few months. One day, we went to lunch, and when the check came, I reached for it, as always. But she said "I'll get it". I said "are you sure?", she said "Of course, I was the one who invited you to lunch!". I said "OK, thank you!". Later I found out that she was furious about how "easily" I let her pay - she told a mutual friend that a man should know that a woman asks to pay only "to be nice". Needless to say, we are not dating anymore <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.


That is my present outlook on life as well. So obviously I have no problems with your approach <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

I'm not sure that I qualify, because I do ultimately have the intent of finding an exclusive partner. Reading Dr. Harley's article again reminded me that exclusivity doesn't really begin until marriage, at least by his definition. Having the courage to allow your fiance to have a fling still blows my mind.

I also date with the intention of getting to know the woman without the expectation of affection. So, AGG and I are quite a bit alike. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> THAT, is how I see myself differently than the women in the article.

Players are users. You don't have to date multiple people to use them. You can be a player and just use one person at a time. It's just a he**ofalot slower.

Just for the record...

The last two weekends I've only had one date for the weekend. [gasp] Yeah, I know, my reputation is in danger. But hey, it just worked out that way. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

For the 5 dates I've had over the last three weekends, I've spent a total of $83. The largest part of that was $50 for the golf game. (but she picked up the tab for dinner, so Lexxxy you aren't THAT unique) Again, I'm not normally that chincy, that's just the way it worked out. I'll probably pay twice that this weekend.

Having 2 kids involved with extracurricular activities (and an XW who doesn't assist with said activities) makes for busy weekends on a fairly regular basis. Scheduling multiple dates on alternative weekends isn't frantic, just judicious time management.

Oh, and Faith is right, rejection is sooo much easier when all I have to do is remind myself that X number of women are very happy to spend time with me. I mean, it still hurts, but not nearly like it did before. It keeps me from ripping myself a new one over analyzing what is wrong with me because the truth is, there's nothing "wrong" with me. It just wasn't meant to be.

Heck, if my dates averaged out to under $20, I'd be dating more too :-D. I kinda lost interest when I had three dates in one weekend that set me back $400... I'm not talking anything fun either, just "nice" (read - expensive) dinners, and some drinks. I started feeling guilty, thinking that I could put this kind of money to better use by saving it for the kids' college tuition... I know, silly, but that is how I'm wired. So, I don't date <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

Personally I think if I pay more than $20 for a first date, I've paid too much. First dates are about getting to know the person. Besides, she's going to have to prove to me that she's worth spending more money on her. Lunch or coffee or some event at the park, nothing more. (my last "first date" cost me $6 for two lemon shake-ups and a corn dog, but watching the hot air balloons light up the night sky was priceless)

Good inexpensive dates are there to be had, it just takes a little more creativity. Besides, if it takes money to impress the woman, then I'm not particularly interested in her.

Not all women are looking for sugar daddy dates and it's a shame that you're depriving all of them of you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

BG - I pay if I've invited the guy to something. I offer to pay half if it is a big ticket item or like your date of multiple big ticket items. I always offer to pay on the first date or to split because I want to be sure the guy doesn't end up feeling entitled to anything. I also suggest small coffee or tea or a walk cheapie first dates.

It's not fair to expect a guy to have to cough up the dough every time. Of course it is easier for me since I make a decent salary. I'm sure some women stick to old fashioned dating schemes out of necessity because of a tight budget. (just as some guys may quit dating because they can't afford to wine and dine every weekend - or I've gone out with a few who will take you out a couple of times then move the relationship to a "let's hang out and watch tv")

I think that the gist of the "He's just not that into you" craze is that rather than obsess over a guy that doesn't act the way you NEED him to act (meaning maybe he isn't going to fulfill your emotional needs), then you write him off if he fails to call etc. Making excuses for shyness, lack of motivation, laziness, social gaffes, whatever, just helps you to wind up with someone that is forever going to push your buttons.

A guy that is willing to ensure that you stay happy is by far the better catch. This is the guy willing to go the extra mile to correct his course if he goofs. I know my BF made some big errors and left me feeling like he didn't care. Any time I've gone to him with a complaint he has immediately corrected future actions. This is in line with Harley's stand on correcting love busters for annoying habits and independent behaviors.

I'm not saying that if a guy doesn't call for a week that if he calls and has some reasonable excuse you should tell him to go pound sand. I'm saying that obsessing over a guy that doesn't call is a waste of time. If his not calling becomes a pattern that bugs you - then tell him so and if he doesn't correct the behavior - se la vie - bye bye... He's just not that into you.

V.

Yeah, well, lucky for you that you're in IL... When I lived back in Philly, it seemed the same.

I don't know if times have changed, or if it's the L.A. scene, or the influence of Sex and The City, but around here, it seems that money (especially money spent by the man on the dates) is the primary determinant if the woman will keep seeing the man. I have a good female friend who always tells me that she liked a man she met because he took her to front row Lakers game, or hard to get Fleetwood mac tickets, or the most exclusive restaurant in town... I rarely hear her tell me that she actually liked the guy, it's always the "generosity".


Hehehe, well, call it a temporary hiatus. "Aaaahhhh'll be baaaack", as our famous governor once said...

AGG