Early promise in a romantic connection is no guarantee that fucking will ensue
You know what's a big let down? When a guy is really fantastic via email -- responds to my ad intelligently and coherently, strikes up an interesting and engaging conversation, proposes a convenient time and place to meet after a reasonable number of emails back and forth -- and then turns out to be a total dud in person.
I suspect that the issue is that online, lots of the people who are shy or less experienced can let go of their inhibitions and be relaxed and interesting (that can certainly be the case for me; I'm not nearly so interesting in person as I seem here!) and then they freeze up in person.
On the one hand, I'm really sympathetic. On the other hand, if you spend our whole first meeting avoiding eye contact and blurting out strange bits of trivia while looking like you'd like nothing more than to escape, it's going to be hard for me to get excited about meeting up with you again.
Try to relax. After all, I'm just a woman. I only bite when asked nicely to do so.
Comments
blurting out strange bits of trivia while looking like you'd like nothing more than to escape
Speaking as an extrovert who occasionally is witty, quick-thinking, and able to think of tons of topics to talk about, and occasionally is incapable of anything beyond, "I dunno. Where do you think we should go?", I wonder if this is the sort of thing that would go away as two people create more of a comfort zone after talking for awhile.
'course, I think this is a problem of introversion, as introverts tend not to enjoy meeting random new people, and meeting a random new girl is WAY out of their comfort zone.
So, just to begin making more sense, aren't these the very sort of men you should spend a second or third date with, in the hopes that they'd open up in person a bit more?
On the other hand, the unrelenting pain of having a conversation with a person who quite obviously is not interested in the conversation...
Okay, I see your point. I mostly just dislike that there's a lot of skill behind first encounters, and it's difficult to see if there's an interesting person behind the complete lack of skill.
Posted by: Clay | June 28, 2006 2:41 AM
What about just dispensing with the introductory verbositude, and proceeding directly to the shagging? Why bother with meaningless, inane conversation when a CE is, by definition, really only about one thing. If creating a comfort zone is the key to good conversation, what faster way is there to intimacy than, well, being intimate? Finally, if the guy/girl turns out to be a crappy lay, you didn't waste a bunch of time/effort in trying to "get to know them." Contrariwise, if the sex is great, who cares if he/she can say something intelligent about French politics, or Shakespeare, or the local indie film scene? Of course, this does assume that one can determine whether or not one's prospective partner is a raging psycho prior to meeting in person. After all, no-one wants to discover that the person they are involved with is an axe murderer WHILE THEY ARE IN BED WITH THEM.
It doesn't HAVE to be like a job interview - it could just be a fuck. If I want conversation with my occasional sexual encounters, I'll stick with my FWB's (F'sWB?).
Posted by: Mark | June 30, 2006 11:49 AM
It's true, Mark, it could be just a fuck. But that's not what I'm looking for. Something can be casual without being a one-off, and I'm most likely to get wildly turned on by someone who has certain qualities that are best assessed outside of bed. I think you'll find that, in general, more women are looking for what I'm looking for than are looking for what you're looking for (though not exclusively), thus, I maintain that my advice holds, here. Sure, you can try to hold out for the women who was quick and easy hookups, and good luck to you! In the meantime, if you guys want to hook up with a woman like me, my advice and comments may continue to be useful.
Posted by: Cluechick | July 9, 2006 11:38 AM