Exactly, Firmus!

Around here we make jokes - "The dancing girls finally had enough of you?" - when someone's late getting home. "The boyfriend ran out of peacock tongues." You know the kind of thing.

It always ends up with a big bear hug and a "Glad you're home."

I've been thinking about the "too clingy" designation.

Obivously each of us will have our own definition of what precisely is "too clingy" but I'm reminded of certain men I have met and NOT enjoyed and why not.

Because they were seeking something I wasn't prepared to give them.

Which seems to me to be a good working definition of "too clingy".

Using Ducy's friend as an example: she called him at 7:01 because he had not called her at 7:00 as he had said he would. First impression is that, yes, she's being unreasonable, but I wonder - how many times before this, had he NOT called when he said he would? Speculation, I know, but if he had a history of not doing what he said he would that would put an entirely different 'spin' on the issue, would it not?

LOL!

Firmus you make me proud!

EEK seems to be rubbing off of me too here of late LOL.

@ Firmus: You're better than me. I probably would've kept that comment to myself ha ha :D

LMAO!
Makes you look at the world in a whole new light, doesn't it, fellas?

Good man, Firmus!!

too funny Firmus

Yeah good on you,funny how the men seem to blame the women for everything that goes wrong.As if they are the innocent victim in the relationship.

Come now, men do not admit making mistakes when speaking in the company of other men.

[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;273988]Come now, men do not admit making mistakes when speaking in the company of other men.[/QUOTE]

Real men do

The funny thing is that MOST men tend to blame themselves for failed relationships, and MOST women blame the men on failed relationship. I will try to find the aticle but they did a study. Even when the woman would cheat, men tended to blame themselves for the failed relationship, while the cheaters would blame the men as well.

Case and point. My buddy dumped his gf last night, he blames himself for rushing into things, and not taking it slower (she is very very VERY clingy...the call at 7:01 and complain that you didn't call (because you promised to call at 7))

Of course, I wake up this morning to her putting him on blast via facebook talking about how he's this and that and all these mean names and how she needs to find guys who aren't a holes etc. Of course she doesn't bother to take the fact that he told her she was too clingy as a sign to maybe change. She is going to "find a real man who wants a real woman".

Yes, please find the study. I'd love to see it.

I also wonder if there's a difference between public and private behavior.
I'd venture to say that there is.

I can't go by personal experience here because men talking to me is not how these same men would talk to other men who are not their buddies. But when I ask the men if they would admit error to other men, they say no, they wouldn't.

I do know that while women may publicly lambast the men, they still privately believe that they didn't 'handle it' right, second guess themselves and over-think it.

Ah, yes, divorce ... from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet.
Robin Williams.

It's funny, I was on another forum yesterday and I got into an argument with two women about the guidelines about cheating explaining to them that unless it's official and that there's a legally binding contract then its not cheating. The two women called me immature, with one of them saying that a boyfriend can be a life partner who someone can marry later (instead of will marry lol). Some people just don't get it.

Well, personally I had never heard of making a difference between married or unmarried when it comes to cheating, until I came to this forum. I still don't know someone in real life that does. So much for "guidelines about cheating" (funny choice of words, btw: not rules, just guidelines ;))

Though I can understand it to some point, I tend to see things less rigid. People determine together what is agreeable and not within their relationship. And if one crosses those lines -I don't care if you call it cheating or not- the other has every right to be angry.

I do think one of the things that goes wrong, is that people too often simply assume and expect the other to play by the same rules as they see fit, without communicating, let alone agreeing upon it. And even more sad; deliberately won't tell, because they suspect the other won't be too happy about it. That's like putting effort in keeping a secret, but when the truth comes out, claim it wasn't at all important to hide it.

[QUOTE=RedRoses;277571]

Though I can understand it to some point, I tend to see things less rigid. People determine together what is agreeable and not within their relationship. And if one crosses those lines -I don't care if you call it cheating or not- the other has every right to be angry.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps. You can make rules but it doesn't change the fact that unless you're "official" there is no cheating. Remember what DD2 and EEK said, dating by design is not suppose to be exclusive.

Most certainly :) Communication not need to be about words. A blink of an eye can be enough. Bodylanguage and facial expression are a major part of any conversation.

Yet; I think without words the message "I want to date/have sex/etc with you" comes through more clearly, than "I also want to date/have sex/etc with other (wo)men". I can imagine some situations in which that could be clear immediately, but many in which it isn't :rolleyes:

Everyone can handle communication in the way that suits best. But I'd think that when one is too ashamed or fearful to even mention it or puts effort in avoiding the subject, consider it a red warning sign that's worth scrutinizing before proceeding.

Personally; I tend to ask straightforward but open questions, inviting to a conversation without shame, games and role-playing. Doesn't work on everyone. Some temporarily or permanently walk around with their chest in chains and either run or get angry when even pointing at the locks. And I'll admit some days my heart is just not as open as it is on others. Yet it's amazing once a heart-to-heart-connection is established, how people can relax and blossom when we're just allowed to be ourselves :)

The LAST thing a person needs is the POSSESSIVE & CONTROLLING mindset that goes along with being exclusive when dating no matter which side of that equation you're on.

Guys tending to want to her to prove her loyalty to him is one example.
Girls wanting him to prove that he loves her and only her is another example.

Dating that way is analogous to two drowning swimmers trying to get the other one to save him/her. Both crying out "save me!" It doesn't work out well.

It isn't immature to require those you date to stand on their own two feet (have their $%# together) without you.

[QUOTE=g-dubz;277572]Perhaps. You can make rules but it doesn't change the fact that unless you're "official" there is no cheating. Remember what DD2 and EEK said, dating by design is not suppose to be exclusive.[/QUOTE]
I don't consider that statement a universal truth or fact. It's an opinion.
And despite that I highly respect both members, I don't see them as guru's either ;)

As long as there are people who consider themselves exclusive the moment they call eachother bf/gf and as long as there are those that don't, there needs to be some sort of communication to establish you're on the same page.

Personally, I'd say it's what makes social interaction and building relationships such a great thing to do. You're constantly leveling, learning from and about the other, exploring eachother. Social interaction is a piece of cake while ordering a cheese sandwich; I could go on auto-pilot and be half asleep and still get it done without any fuss. A bit more challenging when I'm at my job and the relationship is a professional one, particularly when it's a long-term customer. But it becomes really interesting when connecting personally. So many layers, so many levels, so many possible connections, completing or rejecting differences, surprises at hand. And so many future options; perhaps none, perhaps acquaintance, friend, best friend, lover, partner, business-partner, ex-husband, options combined or anything in between that society has failed to give a name to. I would never want to reduce that to the simplicity of a cheese sandwich. It's what makes people so fascinating and the world would be desperately dull without it.

[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;277576]The LAST thing a person needs is the POSSESSIVE & CONTROLLING mindset that goes along with being exclusive when dating no matter which side of that equation you're on.

Guys tending to want to her to prove her loyalty to him is one example.
Girls wanting him to prove that he loves her and only her is another example.

Dating that way is analogous to two drowning swimmers trying to get the other one to save him/her. Both crying out "save me!" It doesn't work out well.

It isn't immature to require those you date to stand on their own two feet (have their $%# together) without you.[/QUOTE]

Well then a little chat would immediately make that clear :)

When I say communicate, it does not need to be big. It could be as easy as one question and one answer, then draw conclusions. Particularly when opinions are strong, solid and completely contradictory, that could be it. You could also communicate by exchanging points of view, explaining, thinking, more questions, narrowing things down, even negotiating. Which is the kind I like best, because you can actually learn from it. What do you know? The girl that had only one goal in mind "marry as fast as you can and have lots of babies" could have a change of mind and heart, once her bf explains what he thinks dating and relationships should be about. Again; humans are so damn capable and such beautiful creatures :)

Ah, but there's a kind of 'communication' that isn't verbal. I shall give you an example from my past.

Two young guys in uniform and of a greater enlisted rank were chatting up and flirting in an overtly sexual way with two young women in uniform of lesser enlisted rank while I, also in uniform, was watching. The other women moved off and I asked the guys "Why didn't you flirt with me like that?" The braver of the two said "Because you'd deck me." I nodded and told him he was correct before I too walked away.

Apparently I was dangerous even before I became a dominatrix.

And there is the core of the matter - being who you are without pretense or defense. Few have the courage hence these issues w dating.