How much distance is too much distance for a relationship?

Post Reply New Topic

I m asking the moderator. Not tim tex.

You probably right in some cases since men outnumber women on most dating sites but we are talking about quality not quantity, online dating should be considered as the last resort for women because of its risks (psychos/rapists/desperates...etc), or at least as a second option with the real life. The OP sounds that she uses the online dating as the only option, which is a bad idea.

And yes, you'll find more desperate/loser/sicko men online than in real life.

I work with two single female coworkers who are fairly attractive , one of them is abnormally shy and totally unsocial yet both of them get offers from guys at least on weekly basis. In fact, the shy girl (which is more attractive than the other one) gets even more offers than her colleague.

What I was trying to say is that merely having boobs and a vagina doesn't necessarily make it easier for people. Some women struggle to find people as much as men are portrayed on here.

Finding a compatible person is not easy for anyone.

I can see both sides of the proverbial coin because I've had experiences in both. I get offers IRL and have taken men up on it sometimes and have had good/bad experiences. Only one crazy dude who freaked me out.

I've also met guys online have done long distance and then eventually met in person and had an incredible relationship happen that way. We were together for a year and he was awesome. In the end, the breakup was mutual as we figured out we wanted different things but our chemistry online transferred to IRL seamlessly.

I tend to prefer online dating right now. I want to take my time and talk to them for a long time before I meet because that's what makes me feel most comfortable.

However, should a potentially great guy ask me out IRL, I wouldn't turn away the opportunity. Maybe it's easier for me to more open minded about it because I'm not feeling the need to look. I figure it will happen when it's supposed to and right now I'm just going with the flow.

Blueroses - I think you need to do what makes you feel most comfortable. There are some really great guys out there and if you meet someone long distance and it feels right, then everything else you'll figure out as you go. I wish you the best of luck.

As LPP has edited his post and was not quoted, the original content is not available; however...



...does have a sexist basis. If it comes across as arrogant, then I am sorry as that is not my intent; I merely responded in kind to LPP's... request that a "deal" be made, nothing more - and I do not apologize for that.


M.

Only typos were edited in my post.

Sexism is when you are discriminating against one gender, not giving them equal opportunities/rights or stating hatred against a specific gender.

What I am saying here , is a matter of fact.

And what sexist in what I said? In most cultures (and yes including yours) , it's the guy who initiates and usually asks the girl out, this is slowly changing but that's usually the case almost everywhere. So the girl's challenge is usually to be asked out by a nice guy while the guy's main challenge is keep trying till to find the right girl. This is a form sexism, but it's the society's sexism , not mine.

Tim said that women have a better chance online in finding a mate (but less chance of finding a good one), that mostly true because , on online dating , women usually complain that they receive hundreds of pms (most of them are crap) while men usually complain for not receiving replies. Is Tim sexist then?

Is making comments based on the society's gender roles considered sexist now?

And this is why I'm not comfortable in posting topics here. Not that there's not a good number of male and female members willing to support or give realistic feedback.

It's just that it seem if you're a female who has trouble with dating and relationships, then you're either a freak of the small minority or a dog.

I've had some similar comments and it gets old after a while.

Anyway, to the OP, I think many members made some excellent points here. I think Tim's quote really summed it up and that is:

"It depends on how much effort one or both people are willing to put into the relationship."

Mind you I don't think that's an easy step for either party especially if you're like me and don't have the kind of money to travel back and forth or even too far. Not many people can afford that luxury.

Last edited by MissConstrue on 28 Sep 2009, 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

To tell someone they do not need something, in this case a method of dating, based on the gender -is- sexist. Nothing in what you said there was fact, LPP - it was purely your own opinion. Are you telling me that society excuses your behavior, at least to your own perspective?


M.

I agree with LPP - long-distance is a hopeless idea, and can't even be called a "relationship" unless you have the funds to see each other on a regular basis and go through all the tests that real life couples go through.

and just wanted to add that not all posters share makuranososhi's obsession with finding hidden insults in opinions posted here. trying to avoid such situations IRL is exhausting enough, this place should be a refuge for people who struggle with ToM and not always realise that their bluntness might be misread.

To you , Mr. makuranososhi. Giving a non-sexist advice to a user here is giving an advice without taking the OP's gender into consideration and without taking into consideration the different dynamics that each gender faces in the dating world.

While such non-gender based advice is the ideal, it's not feasible for every case and it's unrealistic in many cases. Even famous love gurus/ feminists / social talk shows (such as Oprah's show) take the gender roles into consideration when discussing relationship-related matters , they are not being sexist against any sex, they are just being realistic.

I think getting to know eachother online can be a good way to learn about someone's personality without any kind of coloration/bias from physical characteristics (assuming each party is honest with the portrayal of their personality, but the same can be said about face-to-face dating). Therefore, it needn't be assumed that online dating is only for ugly people as some here have seemed to indicate.

Personally, I do not find it insane to move for a serious relationship. I am generally willing to do anything for a relationship. I do things completely or not at all. If I'm going to be in a relationship, I'm all in.

Call that mentally unstable if you'd like *shrug*

There was a user (who was having trouble to get a date) posted a thread ages ago asking if there are more females have her same problem since she noticed that it's usually the aspie males who have such trouble ,while females usually have trouble in maintaining the relationship.

No one called her freak or a dog, minority? probably ..but that's not an insult , we are all minorities here.

Recognition of gender roles, yes - blanket assumptions, no. Your comment, that as an a female she should not need e-dating, would fall under that category... and I can understand MissC's frustration with the situation. If you had said 'many women in that situation find online dating unrewarding, unsatisfying and unproductive,' I would not have found fault in it, as there are commonalities - or if you had qualified the comment, even - but the absolutism found in your statement falls into another category altogether. You've identified a key difference between us here, LPP - you seem to presume immediately that gender has an overwhelming effect on their situation, whereas I look at it as a person first, gender second. Why settle for striving for less-than-ideal?

Anna, I wasn't aware that I had an "obsession with finding hidden insults" - interesting comment. I would welcome your observations, if you care to share - in this instance, I am responding to an inaccurate generalization made by another member, and one which goes against the site's rules. We're all welcome to our opinions, and in this case you and I disagree. I can speak from my own experience that long distance relationships pose their own set of problems and difficulties that are different than those IRL, and I do not contend that when such a relationship moves from being at-a-distance to being in immediate proximity that there -are- challenges that arise due to the differences and close interaction. That said, I do not question the validity or integrity of online or LD relationships, as I have witnessed too many successes to believe that such things are hopeless.


M.

you can't really be sure if the generalisation he made was "inaccurate"- unless you could quote some studies that prove your point, i.e. that women don't have it easier to find dates than men. since LPP didn't post any statistics either, we can't assume that he is correct either - it's only your personal observations against his, and LPP wrote that he based his generalisation on observation of his female co-workers.

as to the rule stigmatising generalisations - it's not very specific is it? how can one avoid generalisations alltogether? it's absurd. everyone here makes them, yet you (the mods) only play the generalisations card in certain cases. and I guess unless you add a list of all unacceptable generalisations to the forums rules it will stay that way, and you (the mods) will keep making it personal.

every time someone (especially on this subforum) makes a generalisation about one of the sexes there's always immediate response from other members who want to correct it - I know because I used to respond quite ferociously to such posts. there's a lot of support here and people posting their views always get the other genders viewpoint - this is how (at least I believe so) a lot of people here learn social behaviours and how their views might have been flawed so they can correct them.

but you (the WP police) keep bombarding people with the generalisation rule. even though you must realise that people here are bound to make generalisations based on social pattern recognition, plus a lot of people here struggle *a lot* with empathy and ToM and might not always realise that their generalisations might be misread.

anyway, sorry for going offtopic but I just have the impression that this particular rule is not precise and therefore misused and making the mods seem like the agents of the opressive NT society.

...oppressive NT society? Goodness, I had no idea they were so organized as to have special agents and an societal agenda. *shakes head* There are no WP police, Anna - only a number of individuals who were asked to fulfill a necessary role here. No one was penalized, banned, given a formal warning, or anything of that nature - a comment was made regarding the nature of one member's comments in a public forum.

The rules are not specific, which does force the moderators to respond according to the reactions of the membership and their best judgment in regards to such behaviors. As I have said elsewhere, there are many opportunities for anyone online to expound upon their beliefs... but this is a support site, not a soap box. I can respond to the accuracy of his statements, which were initially presented at broad generalizations, given the practical evidence of my own experience. Neither of us are absolutely correct - however, only one has framed their comments as such. If you will reread my post, you will note that I gave an example of using a generalization without being either absolute or inherently biased in the form of the comment. And again, no punitive measure was taken - a comment was made, and that was all. You keep bringing up the struggles that many of us have in varying forms with ToM and social understanding; in this instance, an issue has been brought to light in the effort to educate and prevent further instances from occurring.

If the environment here is not to your liking, I can only offer suggestions: adjust your expectations of what this site offers, accept the site for what it is, work to make changes within the boundaries of the site rules (attacking others does not fall into that category), or find another setting that best suits your needs.


M.