If you're paying them by the minute, sure.

Other than that, yes and no.

Depends on what your goals are.

If that's all you really want, then yes.
It lets people know so they have the option to block you or participate.
It saves a lot of time and frustration later on.

If you really want something more, then no.

It means they're uncomfortable.


Assuming you aren't completely oblivious, that you can accurately determine nervousness, evasiveness, and shifty, they do not want your attention.

Some of the main components of loyalty are consistency and reliability.
So I would say, in general, no.

But you don't really differentiate between things like "blind loyalty" and a conscious choice.

Nor are you referencing to what they'd be loyal to.

It's a general, subjective, term relatively meaningless without context.

Might as well ask "are women more gooder than men?"


Not much, as a hypothetical.


I would say it has more relevance to "expectations" than "boundaries."

I'm in my 40's.

I've established and enjoy my "career" and have worked a significant portion of my life to get to this point and I know where I want to be in a few years, where it leads, how it grows. I know what that has to offer me.

I would not give that up, cause harm to, or jeopardize that for (or to meet) some random stranger from an online dating site.

If you're asking "would you make sacrifices to your career in the pursuit of love?" Like "since you're on a dating website, you're looking for a relationship, how serious are you about it, what kind of person are you?"

I'd choose career.



If you're asking if I was in a "love" relationship, whether or not I'd choose my career over my partner, then it's an oversimplified childish question.

I'd discuss it with my partner and hopefully figure out what's best for all of us in that decision.

I can't ever see a relationship full of "love" lasting long enough to where one day either:
1. My "love" walks in and randomly asks me "love or your career?! Choose!"
2. I'm doing my career thing, in "love," and randomly think "I need to make this decision right now! Love or my career!"

There would be other factors involved such as what was motivating me to contemplate and recognize I had to make that choice.

I mean is my "love" stricken with some affliction where I'd have to quit my career in order to take care of her?

Are we growing apart as people, and she/I/we/the therapist thinks we are at the point the only possible way to "save" the relationship and "love" is to give up careers and focus on each other?

Is the career a delusion? Where I am working towards a career goal that isn't possible or realistic, she's telling me this truth, and I refuse to listen?

Or is it a situation where it's a "love" relationship but there are problems that I don't want to face and maybe I'm putting myself more into my career in order to not face them?

What is actually going on?

Depending on the circumstances and situation I may be making one choice or the other without consciously realizing I am making a choice.


So, tldr, if you're asking if I'd risk or tank my career for the sake of potential "love," then no, I wouldn't.
If you're asking if I'd sacrifice my career for the sake of a "love" relationship I already have and appreciate, then it's a maybe, depends on the circumstances and situation.

It's easy to blame "religion," but it still falls on people.
Whether it's Christianity, Shintoism, Paganism, or "follow the science! Listen to the scientists and doctors!"

It's not really religion, imo, it seems to be more of a human trait to look for external authority that allows people to stop thinking and grants permission to simply react emotionally, allowing for immediate gratification or immediate alleviation of whatever "stress" is felt.


Well, back to Genghis Khan, aren't the Mongols believed to be responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people?

Napoleon responsible for millions more in his wars?

And we all know the death tolls for WWI and WWII, at least with a quick bible, err...google search.

After world war two the U.S. and allies decided economic interdependence was the way to go to prevent the massive death tolls from all those wars and invasions and manifest destiny and such. "Spread democracy and capita...err...freedom!"

Can't really nuke the country that provides the materials for your nukes, and you can't nuke the country that grows the food for the country that provides the materials for your nukes, and you can't nuke the country that provides the clothes and the luxuries and the debt and the financing and the protection and the whatever of the country that provides for the country that provides for the country and so on.

Another response was mutually assured destruction. You nuke me, I nuke you, no one wins.

Wars are expensive. They kill a lot of people. Destroy a lot of wealth. And there's no guarantee of winning or surviving.

Or probably more personal, what happens if you and the people you work with just went and murdered your boss and stole all of the boss and company's money on hand, sold all of the assets? Let's say there are no laws and you would receive no legal penalty for doing so.

How do you think company's would respond and protect themselves from that happening to them and how do you think they would then treat you?

How long until other people saw what you had and said to themselves "hey! They did it, why can't we?" and then came after you because it's easier than going after a now protected company? Which could be the case if you decided to just take over the company and run it yourselves.

Is that preferable to cooperating and collaborating with your boss/employer to keep producing something that other people want? Do you want to go to war with your suppliers or customers?

Think of each individual person as their own country.
Is it better to "unify" (i.e. group up and, say, form a stable business), or individually compete and prey upon each other?
Why? There's an answer.


The point is not in making them "happy."
It's keeping them from world war III.
It's keeping people distracted with social media and coca cola, fast food, vacations, consumption and working/producing to keep the status quo.

Were you under the impression people go into politics, or people form governments, or empires were founded and flourished for the sake of tripping peoples "happy" button, that being what is in peoples minds: "how can I make everyone else happy?"

People aren't going to be "happy" at change. But are they going to be upset enough to re-dig the trenches, throw nuclear bombs, send out the mustard gas, tanks, and corona viruses?

If that's how she dresses, then that's how she dresses.

It would be different if all of our dates and all of our time spent together she was in hoodies and sweatpants, but when we go to a party or whatever and it's all of a sudden "look at mah bewbs! Give me attention!" then I'd have a problem.


IMO you kind of invalidate the question here.
If it's a woman I "love to bits here," and she's my "partner," then I would think it would be safe to assume that I'd already worked through whatever issue you're asking about.

Kinda like asking "if the woman you've been married to for 20 years is continuing to do the things she's always done for the past 20 years, would you have a problem with it now?"


If she's my "partner," and I "love her to bits here," then I probably wouldn't even really notice it or care that much.

If it indicates a change in dress or behavior, then I'd probably notice and care.

If we pretend that I don't love her to bits and she's not my partner and we're just dating then it depends on other factors too.
It would depend if I knew she was just dressing how she normally dresses for such things wearing the things she enjoys wearing and is comfortable wearing vs. choosing to wear something for some other reason (e.g. attention, competition, insecurity, manipulating others, fear of growing old, internet points, whatever)

Women don't respond and/or block for all sorts of reasons.
It might have nothing to do with "naughty."


Nothing. But you aren't with a partner.

So the approach to procure one may need work.
You say it here "in relationship and your partner want to be naughty..."

The relationship came first, not the "naughty."

If you don't approach it correctly people are going to assume you want the "naughty," and then the option of the relationship, which is not guaranteed for them.

IOW, you receive your benefit before you pay for it, so to speak.

There's a huge difference between "I want someone naughty, to be my girlfriend," and, "I like it when my girlfriend is naughty."

If you want someone to explore naughtiness with you where you can then choose whether or not you want to make them a "life partner," (and assuming they want a life partner, and not just naughtiness is a whole other thread) it's going to be a different pool of women than those who want to explore being a life partner whom will then explore naughtiness in the security of that relationship.

If you are exploring "naughtiness" first, or coming across as such, you are going to drive away those seeking "life partner" first.
The girls willing to explore "naughtiness" first are going to have different criteria by which they are judging you.

"Allow?"
That's not really my responsibility.

Whether or not I will tolerate drug use on the date, extricate myself from the situation, or escalate with the police/ambulance depends on my own biases.

Need to take your lipitor with dinner? No problem.
Need your caffeine fix or some sugar? Okay.
Want to have some wine with dinner or a couple of drinks at whatever we're doing? Hope it doesn't lead to inebriation.
Stress, fear, and insecurities getting to you so you need to step out for a cigarette? I can understand the ritual of control and reward.

Have to shoot up heroin in the bathroom after ordering entrees?
Or you need to borrow 100 bucks and can we stop at a friends house real quick for...ummm...something?
Want to smoke pot and watch netflix?
Need to constantly get drunk, chain smoke? Always vaping?
Am I interested in an MLM vitamin opportunity?
No. I don't really tolerate that.

It's not.

But I wish we could kind of fool it.

I think it'd be hilarious if everyone went out in public wearing a ski mask.

You go to a nice restaurant, see a girl in a ballgown wearing a ski mask, some guy in a three piece suit and a ski mask down on one knee asking her to marry him.

Maybe on their honeymoon she comes out of the bathroom naked, wearing a white ski mask with little garter straps on it.

He's on the bed wearing nothing but black socks and a ski mask.

Go to the beach and everyone's in swim suits and ski masks.

You turn on the news and the anchor and the guest are wearing ski masks.

Switch to Jerry Springer and it's a bunch of people on stage slapping each other, in ski masks. "I didn't know she was your sister momma, she had the same mask as you!"

Bring back the eradicator from kids in the hall.

People could rob convenience stores with no mask, and the clerk would be all freaking out "I have no idea who it was! They weren't wearing a mask!"

Fun times.

You immediately put it back in its cage and move operations to a new street corner, before the cops get there.


Ohhhhh! Sorry, kinda misunderstood the title.

Scenario is a little confusing as to who is wanting what, when, or why.


Depends? Neither? Both?

If I don't know them, I don't really take them at their word. I don't assume they're lying. I just assume I don't really have enough information.

I mean there's a huge difference between me reading some random stranger's profile on a dating site where they've chosen from the drop down options "doesn't want kids," and someone I've been dating or committed to for years telling me they don't want kids.

Sure.
But there's usually more to it than just "cheating."
I mean there's lying, manipulation, gaslighting, hiding, expending needed resources like money on other people, changes in behavior, attitudes, and communication.

It's not like everything's just normal and then a "oh, today was weird, they're doing construction at my office, the 'I' fell off the building, I moved to avoid it, and my penis slipped into another person for a second. I hope they finish work soon, I'm tired of parking in the far lot."


It wasn't really "cheating."
Kings and queens (the 1%'ers who lived lives by different social and legal rules) didn't really marry for Disney fairy tale love.


Women are possessive of their ego.
When someone, directly or implied, promises fidelity, monogamy, trust, love, etc., and then acts contrary to that, it causes extreme stress and insecurity.

People as a whole want consistency and security. Think about what makes people laugh, cry, and fear. Jump scares, contradictory messages, sarcasm or different opinions. They come to believe one thing, yet something else happens.

Women are more dependent upon social rules and structure, for society to be consistent. For what they believe will happen will continue to happen.

They aren't "possessive" of relationships, they are more affected when a relationship starts acting inconsistently to what it is believed to be.


Why didn't queens from hundreds to thousands of years ago not follow modern approaches to relationships?
Does this really need to be explained?


To some extent.
The richer/more powerful you are as a guy and disparately provide towards a stable, desired (by the woman) lifestyle, the more a woman will "keep quiet and overcome possessiveness," as the tangible benefits providing a stable environment outweigh the emotional turbulence.
But if it's possible for the woman to separate the two (e.g. divorce and take assets) and get rid of the stressor, the more likely she will do it.

Hmmm..."One" thing?
Then I'd change the numbers on a lottery ticket I bought to the winning numbers.


Ohhhhh...that constitutes "one thing?" That's how we're going to play this?

Okay.

Then I'd change it so the "one thing" is humans always make absolutely "good" decisions.

Unless they're really stupid, they don't.
That's just a game some people play.
Especially if they aren't that attracted to you.

People come up with win win scenarios for themselves.
If they can label you "like their ex," they can reject you as a part of that compartmentalization rather than as a person, so no guilt.
If they can get you to chase them and prove you "aren't like the others," that's validating attention.
If they get you to commit to that personality, they've secured whatever benefit they're seeking.

Among many others, men have the "nice guy" personality, women have the "I'm a victim" personality.

If a woman brings up her victimhood past to a complete stranger, she's trying to manipulate you into jumping through hoops that are validating to her.


If they're bringing up their ex, they are simply playing a game with you.

Their ex was their choice. Their mental/emotional health is their choice.

If they're trying to make you responsible for it?
They're playing a game.

And really, ultimately, that means they aren't that attracted to you.
Only to some perceived benefit they see you can provide, not are.


You have no worth outside of what value they wish to perceive you bring to their table.


"Now?"
It's been the way of saying "I am not interested" since the 90's.

Yes.
At least since ebay started back in the 90's.

It can be.
It's not always good.

Depends on too many things.

I mean one person may think flirting is good and has all of these benefits, but the uncomfortable person on the receiving end that doesn't want to participate can be of another mind.

It can get you in trouble. e.g. you're the boss and believe graphic sexual act descriptions to your 16 year old employee is just "flirting."

It can be unclear. You can be "flirting," whereas the other person is just responding trying to suffer through it until you move on and they can go about their day.

You can be on a date, and you're engaged in flirting, and it leads to a better rapport and convivial atmosphere.

Flirting can be good. You're safer doing it with people you know and have a more personal, romantic type of relationship with already, though, as opposed to random strangers.

It would help if you provided an example of an exchange you believe would constitute as "flirting."

Maybe. It's an overly simplistic question.
And it's a question that is probably best addressed to professionals.

Other than that, to what degree are they a narcissist?

Did a professional diagnose them as a "narcissist," or having narcissistic personality disorder?

Or is that just a label one person is calling another, or they're calling themselves, based on subjective criteria?


Not to mention...so what if they can't?
No matter what you have. A handicap, a personality disorder, an emotional disorder, race, eye color, height, weight, whatever, all that really effects is your dating pool, your league, the potential number of compatible candidates with whom you can form a stable, healthy, long term relationship.


Also, what is "love?"
How do you define it? How do you understand it? How do you express it? How do you communicate it? How does it influence you?
How do you recognize it in others? How do you understand their expressions/communication of it?
How do you think it affects a relationship beyond your rational decisions? What is its purpose? Or do you think it is the sole purpose of a relationship?
Point being, if a narcissist can't love, do you believe that everyone else is capable of it, as long as they aren't a narcissist? Or that any relationship you have will be "easier" as long as it's not with a "narcissist?"


"Can a narcissist love" is too simplistic of a question.

Oh I'm totally insecure. My self esteem and value is based entirely on the viewed me section of a dating website and I struggle to sleep at night worried about what other people might think about me based on my assumed clicking motivations.

When that accident occurs to me I immediately set up several other profiles.

I then use them to set up compatible personalities to facilitate formation of relationships with that person I accidentally viewed to get to the point where I can ask them what they think about that profile viewing them.

The relationships are especially important for when I bring up the possibility that they were viewed by accident.

I want to give them a safe space and support in case the idea of an accidental viewing triggers some deep seated feelings.

Of course I no longer have a 401k due to needing to purchase so many new wigs, dresses, heels, and body waxing appointments before getting into those relationships.

Who knew sensitive touch screens and mouse problems could affect my life to this degree.

thing for mentally and emotionally lazy people.
For those that want to put in as little effort as possible and then pat themselves on the back (and sometimes expecting accolades) for working so hard.


I think this is like saying:
"Hey! I spent 3 hours in the bathtub today, I think it's a good sign I've figured out how to swim."

"Hey! I went to McDonald's today, took apart my cheeseburger and identified all of the ingredients. I think I can figure out how to be a gourmet chef now."

"Hey! I just graduated from 4th grade, college won't be that hard."

"Hey! I just watched a marathon of star trek and star wars. Imma go ahead and apply to NASA."

"Hey! Why not turn my mom into my girlfriend?"


If they interested in each other, they shouldn't have set boundaries, routines, and limited communication beforehand.

If you want to eat cake, don't make a pie first to see if you'll enjoy the ingredients, and then think you can turn that pie into a cake.

Or if you make your bed, sleep in it, peeing all over it won't turn it into a pool.

This seems to be like asking "what's the difference between a delicious meal and a nutritious meal?"

They aren't mutually exclusive nor inherently linked. Someone can be beautiful and sexy, someone can be beautiful but not that sexy, someone can be sexy but not that beautiful.

Sexy and beautiful are two separate words for two separate things.

If you need to know a "difference," there are things called "dictionaries," not to mention a "thesaurus."


Huh?
So if I see a beautiful girl and get turned on, then it means she's not really beautiful?


Generally, people want instant gratification. It's not gender specific.


So are you saying if a girl is sexy, then it inherently means that she's perceived as "easy" to get, fulfilling that instant gratification?

So a woman that is perceived as not leading to immediate gratification could never be considered "sexy?"
And of course, because she's considered "sexy" then she's not beautiful?


Based on your earlier statement (" a beautiful girl looks beautiful but doesn't turn you on") this is just going to lead to some circuitous mental problems.

It's just going to lead to confusion, miscommunication, that's ultimately going to drive people away, as it's going to lead away from thoughts of instant gratification towards trying to resolve if they're beautiful or sexy because a beautiful woman is turning them on which means they aren't beautiful.

Good luck with that.

7


Cuz I answer online polls flippantly and incorrectly.
Don't tell anyone!