dating – “da rules” (pacing, etc.)

First of all, one may want to peek at this:
Healthy new relationship pace? POST #14
for point of reference. Or, in overly brief summary, that’s mostly a “recommended” “rule set” on pacing of the rate of dates, followup contacts, etc. E.g. roughly starting out about one date a week, rate/spacing with followup call, email, or text, typically within a day but not more than 3 days later, etc., etc. (You probably get the general idea).

So, … anyway, my experiences with all that, etc. (in sufficiently anonymized form).

Anyway, “da rules” (as in that POST #14 above), I’d say in meeting folks (most notably women, for “date” or something that might potentially head that direction), I pretty much follow “da rules” with about 80% of the folks I meet. Rather similar applies for friends, but I’ll mostly address “dates” and meetings of at least potential Relationship (as in capital R Relationship) interest here.

Of the most significant Relationships that I’ve had and/or have, approximately 75% of them, I did not follow “da rules”, but notably, had much more intense, long, repeated, and frequent flows and/or exchanges of communication, and that was in the time frame leading to them becoming a Relationship, e.g. starting at first meeting, or lead up to and continuing through first meeting, or around time of and leading up to some established contact/interaction transforming into Relationship territory. Of the remaining 25% or so, I’d say at least 80% of those, were at the bottom pile of my Relationships – namely the worst of all the Relationships I had.

And, so, … about 80% of folks met for/towards “date”, etc., I more-or-less used “da rules”. Results? Relatively sucky. Other than the modest (about 20 to 25%) of the Relationships noted above, having made it to that status via something quite approximating “da rules”, of all the other folks I met, exceedingly few of them even got more-or-less in striking distance of Relationship, and the vast majority of them quite flopped (failed, unilaterally or bilaterally) before getting particularly close to there (and even those that got close to there, or maybe were right around there, failed almost entirely and universally rather to quite shortly thereafter – if they so much as even made it that far).

So … lies, damn lies, and statistics. ;-)
Correlation does not imply causation.

“Of course”, all that doesn’t necessarily mean “da rules” don’t work, or don’t generally work well. We’re both talking me, and (relatively) small number statistics. First of all, what “mostly” works for others, may – or may not – work, or particularly work for me. Also, it’s not like I’ve met/dated a bazillion folks, nor have I had a bazillion Relationships. The numbers are rather small – but I’m not going to specifically enumerate them here.

It could also mean things such as, I suck at “da rules”, and when using such, or I somehow manage to “blow it”.

It could also mean that for those that are, or potentially are, good to quite good “match” for me in the Relationship realm, that “da rules” are mostly much more so an impediment than an advantage, and that in fact at least typically, much more intense and regular and quite free-flowing communication, and from rather to quite early on, in fact generally works much better – at least for me and with what is or would be a good “match” for me.

Other bits – of those Relationships that had the heavy communication flows going on rather to quite early in that process, for the overwhelming majority of them, that heavy flow of communication started on-line. So there was lots of that heavy communication already quite flowing before meeting in person, and for most or all, the trend just grew, with even more communication – long, frequent, deep, etc. from first face-to-face meeting, onward.

Even within that about 80% I’ve met, where I essentially applied “da rules” – or close approximation thereof, I do vary it a fair bit accordingly. I.e try to be highly cognizant of “signals”, and react accordingly (speed up, slow down, back off, get closer, etc.). But nevertheless, those I’m calling that 80%, are those where the communication never got that intense, deep, and generally quite free-flowing and lots of it, rather to quite early on – e.g. sure as heck didn’t happen within the first 3 “dates”/meetings, or less. And very very very few of them ever made it beyond 3 “dates”/meetings.

Early on, major heavy, intense, deep, and quite free-flowing communication – even with that, I do vary it, depending how things go – but if all is going rather to quite well, the feedback also is, so things will sometimes slow down, allow for less intensity, opportunity to “surface for some air”, etc. … but even then, for the most part, tends to carry on much more intensely than per “da rules”.

And regardless, sometimes things get messed up. E.g. signals sent may be missed – they may be subtle, or in a different form than one might be used to, or they may be misinterpreted, etc. E.g. mostly silence on the recipient side, is that:

  1. I’m listening intensely, please tell me (lots) more!

  2. You’re burning me out / overloading me, please slow down / stop / shut up!

  3. or:
  4. It depends.

Well, it’s typically “it depends”. When in doubt, test, ask, etc. But asking can be highly flawed approach too – e.g. person may be “too polite”, and say something quite distinct from what they feel. Watch/check for indicators (e.g. body language, expression, reactions, etc.), but even those can be difficult to accurately interpret. E.g. is that a comfortable warm receptive smile, or a more nervous uncomfortable smile trying to be “polite” and/or cover up some uncomfortableness or nervousness. There are many many other ways the meta-communication (flow control) can be botched, and in turn mess up the communication, etc., but that’s at least one (hypothetical?) example.

Random bits on me (and such may be rather to highly different for others). Direct, straight, blunt, unequivocal, and to the point works quite well on me. Subtleties may or may not work – I may miss them, underemphasize their importance as I interpret them, misinterpret them, or I may just not have enough experience with the particular individual to be particularly attuned to their “signals” and proper interpretation thereof.

And, the quickest way to thoroughly screw things up with me? If someone tells me that they like something when they don’t, or vice versa, or otherwise quite explicitly tells me something quite untrue and contrary to how they’re feeling, what they’re thinking, etc. that’ll generally royally screw things up fast. Because I tend to be relatively a literalist, and tend to believe what they’re saying and telling me of, e.g. their feelings and such, and when they’re explicitly telling me, I’ll generally ignore or overlook most or all other “signals” and subtle indicators and such, that may be indicating to the contrary. I generally figure/presume, they are or ought to be sufficiently wise and mature and “grown up” enough to state what they do and don’t want, and how they feel about it, and to certainly not tell things quite contrary to fact in those regards. So, fortunately it’s been quite rare I’ve run into such a minefield. But I have, at least on rare occasion, had person that would tell me things highly contrary to what they actually felt. E.g. they’d act like and tell me they liked something, carry on in that regard for quite a while, and then later tell me they don’t and never did like such, and be all pissed at me for failing to read their mind or otherwise know how they actually felt, as opposed to what they told me. Well, that’s just f*cked up. And fortunately I’ve only very rarely encountered that. But beware, it does exist.

That, however, is not to be confused with case where person is ambivalent, confused, or conflicted about what they think or how they feel. E.g. they may well believe what they’re telling you is what they feel, but what they’re actually feeling may be different, or more complex (e.g. mix, including conflicting mix). Sometimes (maybe even often?) in such cases, they may be at least somewhat unaware, to sometimes even completely oblivious, as to the more accurate state, details, and often complexity, of what they’re truly feeling.


Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: