why are people here against dating gurus (datasage, mystery)

Post Reply New Topic

One doesn't need a dating guru to learn communication skills.
The women aren't being naive, and it isn't just the women who are saying be yourself - count me among the men who stand by that adage.
Many of these so-called 'experts' have offered no justification or basis for their advice, much of which is based on manipulation instead of development.


M.

"From my heart and from my hand, why don't people understand my intentions...?"

Wee-ee-ee-eeeeird! \m/

My opinion on dating gurus has turned from a cynical one to one of reserved praise. Good dating guides have neat little tidbits of advice, relating to practical matters such as how to open a conversation in such a way as to make a quick and lasting impression on someone. They can be used for whatever means one likes, it's not just one approach for one end. I judge dating guides and the like based on how many of these tips there are. Other stuff like justification (usually based on grounds of questionable validity, such as human evolutionary psychology) I tend to ignore.

I find most dating guru advice not to be about changing yourself, but just learning how to convey yourself better. It's generally just a few tidbits about what to do & not to do. Rather non-invasive. Thier advice hardly turns anyone into manipulative con men. Mostly it just gets guys out there trying stuff; which is great and ultimately, what helped me the most.

However, they assume that these minor tidbits are all the person needs. Taking dating guru advice is like upgrading a computer operating system, assuming everything in the hard drive is just fine. A lot of systems have corrupted registry files & could use a reformatting first though.

To an extent. Maybe you're referring to physical dependance rather than emotional dependance? I don't think 'independance' should be taken too far.... A totally independent person would make a bad choice for a partner as you could add nothing to their life. Realistically, we are all dependant on others and there's nothing wrong with that. AFAIK Most psycholigist acknowledge that dependence on others for some (but not all) needs is perfectly healthy. I think Brian Gilmartin has a valid point when he writes:

"happy people tend to be at least partially emotionally dependent upon certain ego supports (e.g., lovers, spouses, parents, best friends, etc.) throughout their lives."

The problem with many Aspies is not that we are any more fundamentally dependant or insecure than anyobody else, but we are unhappy becasue we struggle to build satisfactory "ego supports(e.g. lovers, best friends etc) " to depend on. From my own observations, many NT's in relationships have no shortage of insecurities and anxieties. And it never prevents them getting into relationships. They use their support systems of family, friends, lovers, to paper over the cracks.

Nobody would bother with getting into relationships (with all the vulnerability and potential hurt involved) if we didn't feel *something* missing from ourselves that needed to be supplied by another.



I agree, you make some very good points here! I would also challenge the assumption that the reason we struggle in relationships is solely through some "social skills problem" that can be fixed merely by "improving social skills". The underlying issues of rejection, being teased, abused, made to feel different, outcast etc from an early age are far, far deeper and cause the social anxiety in the first place.

Even then, without these problems, there still isn't a guarantee...

For example, I don't consider myself to have a problem with making friends. I seem to get along well with most, if not all of the people I meet. Granted, I don't go out of my way to meet new people all the time, but the people I do meet tend to end up friends (while very few if none at all distance themselves from me)...

The problem is that while I'm really good at making friends, I'm really good at making *just* friends... I seem to get friendzoned really fast when it comes to women...

For starters, I question anyone who proclaims themself to be a "guru"... especially in such a complex matter as human relationships.

Secondly, most "love gurus" seem to advocate pretentious and unscrupulous methods with the intention of getting with as many women as possible. I don't need that... people are difficult enough to deal with on a non-romantic basis as it is... so the more concise the approach, the better. I have no interest in being the "ladies' man" who has hundreds of brief, superficial flings with women. Remember, QUALITY is what counts, not quantity.

Seconded. I wouldn't care if I only had one girlfriend ever in my life, so long as it was a serious relationship and not a brief surface fling...

On the other hand, something that many people that *don't* proclaim themselves gurus, yet claim to have experience, is that the idea of having many relationships is to help you determine what you really like in a relationship... I wouldn't mind having to go through a few of those "practice" relationships, so long as something substantial was still the goal... that's where I take issue with "love gurus", who are usually solely concerned with getting as much ass as possible...

I find even the idea of "practice relationships" to be unfathomable... going into them knowing they're going to fail, using them solely for your own benefit, and to hell with the other person that you're pretending to love. Who has the "right" to play around with another person's life like that?

No one. But if two people go into a relationship - whatever it may be - with honesty and full disclosure, then the likelihood of either or both getting hurt is minimized. I'm extremely blunt about what I want and need; you'd think this'd be a good thing, but -in the NT world at least- it's usually quite the opposite.

^ Truth.

They are only practice in retrospect. At the time, they are The Real Thing Forever. I certainly didn't regard my highschool boyfriend as merely a means to the end of figuring out how relationships in general work. We were both smitten. It was The Real Thing. Love. It wasn't meant to be practice. But from my adult perspective (and probably his too, wherever he is), it was a learning experience on how to interact in a romantic relationship. Same with a couple of college boyfriends. Again, we were In Love. And it didn't work out, ultimately. But I learned what works for and with me and what doesn't. Now I have been married for 20 years and call those previous relationships "practice" in retrospect (and my husband practiced too, elsewhere in the country) but at the time they certainly did not seem to be that way.


I do agree, it's pretty user-ish to have a girlfriend/boyfriend that loves you but that love is not reciprocated because you are just polishing your relationship skills. (If neither of you loves each other, it is actually a friends-with-benefits setup). But you don't go into it with that intention. You go into it In Love. And if it doesn't work out, you learn from that and learn why. For some people it doesn't work out so catastrophically that what they learn is that they never, ever want another relationship again. But if it blows up less horrifically and just fails in a more ordinary manner, you can learn. But you don't go into it thinking, "I'm just here to get relationship practice". You go into it heart first and give it your all. You may get hurt. That's the gamble.

OMG, hell may have finally frozen over - I'm actually in agreement with an NT.

I'm not sure intentional "practice relationships" are possible. You don't really gain anything by staying within your comfort zone, so it would defeat the whole purpose. If you begin something as a short-term fling, you're just gaining short-term fling experience. It's ok not to want to have a full-fledged relationship with someone & only want something less. As long as you're truthful about it of course.

For someone on the autism spectrum to go into a relationship knowing it probably wont last forever is only sensible. All relationships are practice how else do you make things better next time? I don't necassarily mean next relationship. Things change even if you dont want them to its a fact of life.

Agreed, if you eliminate all the underlying issues, there's no guarantee of getting into a relationship. Nothing can guarantee that, however.

I too get "friendzoned" by most people, but not all. To me getting friendzoned isn't necessarily an indication that you and I are doing anything wrong. It does mean that you are considered a likable person, but not exactly what the other person is looking for in a romantic relationship, and that's fine. Rejection doesn't have to be seen as a one-way street: if the other person doesn't see you as romantic material, then there is typically going to be something about that person you yourself will find lacking as well. Maybe the person is too closed-minded or naive, or too impatient, etc. for your romantic tastes, but still ok to have as a friend. That's fine too.

The sticking point is if you are relegated to "friend" status 100% of the time, in which case it's probably best to evaluate whether you're really on friendship terms with these people. If you aren't, then even calling it a "friendzone" is a stretch and your whole situation would merit some careful introspection. Alternatively, you could be on friendship terms with people, but unable to get beyond that. Barring simple communication issues (e.g. the other person got the impression you weren't looking for anybody), it could mean that it's time to start hanging out with new demographics who may be more interested in what you have to offer, and who will potentially have more to offer you. For me, I get beyond the friendship level most easily with other AS folks; I tend to get "just friends" with most other NTs, but that's ok to me since I'd rather have romantic relationships with AS folks anyway. I would never have known that, had I not hung out with AS folks more.


I think no comprehensive dating/long-term relationship guide would be complete or even remotely authoritative without input from an NT who can understand the AS side of things, and from an AS who can understand the NT side, without AS and NT vilifying each other. Personally I think Janissy consistently provides excellent insight not only into the minds of NTs, but the minds of people in general.