Human beings can't help to "fall out of love."
Romantic love is a biological process related to procreation.
When successful, it only "lasts" about 7 years. Or long enough to get your offspring big enough to run away from lions and basic social survival skills, like being able to ask for food, endear themselves to the protectors, and hold a knife.

After puberty a main motivation and underlying driver of your personality and choices is mating, whether you realize it or not.
"Love" doesn't turn that off.
It simply focuses the motivation towards your chosen partner.
If you and your partner aren't at least attempting to procreate regularly, you are pushed to keep going forth and finding someone with whom to multiply.

There is a reason "why" people stop feeling attraction to their partner, stop feeling desire. Why there's a "7 year itch." Why marriages become "sexless."

Your body inherently knows that cutting off sex will ultimately motivate you to go forth and "find your happiness."

Related to this is your personality is an extension of your brain and body.
Your brain, organs, and body are not a space suit meant to protect your personality.

Other than that, there are a lot of social bonds that people simply lump into the "love" category or box because it's easier and has positive connotations.

So:

Not really. But it's a bad question.
Your behavior is a choice, but only to a point. That point is significant, though. To your personality.
That behavior can effect the development or continuation of "love."
There are so many different variables that are being interpreted and computed by your brain, your personality can only handle so much information and "choices."

Kind of like asking "is breathing a choice?" and people argue "Yes! I can hold my breath! Or choose not to breathe! Sure there's consequences for choosing not to breathe, but that's still a choice!" and others will argue "No! what about when you're asleep! Your body takes over!"
Meanwhile they're not considering or even understanding the idea of why they breathe, why the blood needs or how it uses oxygen, what it means to the body and brain, the purpose of oxygen in the body.

That movie cost me a lot of time and money.
I had to learn the hard way that women rarely want to hear "so, wanna go back to my place so one of us can be tied into a harness and suspended and do some spider man making out?"

Not to mention I now have 10 footed spiderman underoos and gimp masks that are going to waste.


Hopefully at the end of my arms. Maybe I am not kissing right...


Just depends on the girl, what kind of kiss I want, what's the setting.
Are we at dinner with her parents? Are we sitting on her latex couch next to her vibrator tree with her pet monkey watching while holding the whip and taser?


Sure. Tons.
Like no retching. No biting. No scratchy upper lips. To name a couple.

Other than that, it's more about what's motivating the kiss.

I mean there's huge differences in how someone kisses depending on their motivations.
Like:
- "OMG! I was so scared and insecure during the date but it's almost over and I want them to think I'm interested!"
- "I've had a few too many scotch and sodas."
- "I really want to kiss them."
- "This is the third date, I think I'm supposed to."
- "I'm horny. They're here. Let's see if we can get this going."


I would disagree. But I'm not the type that generally says something like "I demand sex before marriage, because what if they're really bad at it? You need a test drive!"

To me "the first kiss" is more just an extension of the rest of the date and level of communication.
An easy means to communicate the emotions, desires, thoughts, that the rest of the date engendered.

If the first kiss is so important and very impressionable, then why not just go around kissing random strangers. It would save so much time.

Any question that starts "why do (most/all) people..." can be answered by one or more (or combination) of the following:

1. Because of money.
2. Because of perceived alternative cost/risk.
3. Because of perceived value of alternative reward (e.g. attraction isn't high enough).

[quote}Would you agree with me that Past experiences can also lead to such level of insecurity whereby everyone gets scared of embarking on a journey that ones left a scar more than once?
Only to a point.

I mean there's a difference between "I escaped when I was 18, my parents kept me in a cage, fed me only dog food, and I was beaten and molested constantly. Now at 23, having achieved an education, a career, and independence while also working with a therapist, I find it difficult to date due to my past experiences. Being alone, vulnerable, around people I don't really know, I just can't handle it."

And, "why do I seem like a loser psycho magnet? All I seem to date are these narcissistic emotionally abusive people. All my partners keep cheating on me.
I was with this one person for 10 years and all they did was constantly cheat on me, or gaslight me, or mentally/physically/emotionally abuse me!"

Some "such level of insecurity" happens, but is actually rather rare, at the very least you won't really find them on dating sites.
IMO/IME most people that are "too insecure" due to past relationships and dating are right where they want to be, where they've put themselves due to their choices. They are getting what they want.

They aren't insecure, they're irresponsible.
Their "insecurity" is simply a tool they're using to avoid having to be responsible for their own choices.

You know how children learn to manipulate automatic responses from parents?
They cry, scream, whine, plead, throw tantrums, present "sad puppy dog eyes?" huff, and puff, and sigh as teenagers?
You ever take a kid to see puppies and their voice changes, gets higher, and they're all "I promise I'll clean my room and take care of them!"
You ever date a woman and find instances where they start speaking in baby talk? Or just how people start talking in baby talk when speaking to babies?

Everyone has nature given instincts on how to behave towards people. Men, women, children, authority, mom, dad.

In this thread you're referring to women specifically, even though it doesn't necessarily need to be gendered.

A lot of women get into a routine of victimizing themselves in order to be more successful at manipulating a protective response from others.

Forcing someone else to accept responsibility, while maintaining authority.

"I get what I want, you pay for it."
"Oh, sorry I can't give you what you want, you see I'm a victim, I'm sad, insecure, whatever. But you can go ahead and keep giving me what I want. Chase me, validate me, friends first, stay on the backburner, pay for stuff, pull me out of my shell, provide a relationship that benefits me.
Of course I will never say this or think too deep on it as it might trigger something scary, but as soon as you hint at reciprocity or more than what immediately benefits me? Demand anything from me? Consideration, respect, acceptance, sex, love, communication, whatever...well, it's the fault of my past experience, my insecurity, my victimhood, which keeps me from giving you what you want.
Not me! Not my fault! It's my past. Oh. And if you don't keep giving me what I want without reciprocity? If you hold my past against me as I am using it as a shield? Then you're the a-hole."


So "Why do..ladies find it hard to break down these proverbial walls they’ve got stopping them from anything she ought to reach out to?"
They don't need to until it stops getting them what they want.
The only time that they will is going to be when:
1. The cost is too high and it's causing them to lose what they (really) want/have.
2. There is a high enough perceived reward for an alternative strategy.

The internet.

I just hope they returned it safely to Big Ben.

https://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg

Online?
No.
If I am presented with a dozen profiles of women I find attractive, all have seemingly great personalities, and one profile says "I have an ongoing incurable illness and I am unsure of the prognosis?"

I am going to pursue the other 11 profiles.


Offline?
Maybe.
If there's someone I am consistently interacting with, I am extremely attracted to them, we are friendly and flirtatious, we are neither looking for something immediately committed or "serious," we date, we realize we want to keep dating, and they tell me they have an "ongoing incurable illness, but unsure of the prognosis?"
I might keep dating them.
Kinda depends on the illness.

Is there a difference between:

"Chatted online for months/years, never met, but fell in love, and they ghosted?!"
and
"We were dating/"in a relationship," for weeks/months/years, fell in love, but they ghosted?"

The former? Not since the 90's in my teens and early 20's, and I had to go through the learning curve figuring out that online relationships aren't real relationships.
It doesn't matter until you spend more time together face to face than interacting via phone/computer.

You ever see that video where this kid is in a seemingly raging river hanging by a rope just screaming his head off, holding on for dear life, barely holding his head above water, seemingly close to drowning or being swept away. And then his mom steps up to him and pushes his feet to the bottom of the river, he stands up, the water gently lapping at his legs. It turns out it's only like 1 foot deep, and the kid just has this bemused look on his face looking around, still recovering from the trauma he ultimately pushed himself into?
That's online relationships. Especially when people "fall in love!" without ever having spent time face to face with the other person.


The latter? Never been ghosted after spending enough time together to actually "fall in love." Ghosted after strong desire, infatuation, lust, caring about them? Sure.

Maybe off topic, not sure. But I always preferred being ghosted after dating/relationship, than the freeze out and receiving a huge email listing all sorts of problems and issues they've kept hidden for the last few weeks/months, and only allowing contact via email.
That happened to me a couple of times, but I learned how to spot warning signs/flags that indicate that kind of person.

I prefer ghosting to histrionic drama.

For me?
Never.
In person, or nothing.

But I would like to know if they already have a bunch of nude pics to share.
Because that would tell me what kind of person they are and to avoid them.

No.

Sorry.

For me, personally, to do that (stay with them), I'd have to be a complete moron, with absolutely no self esteem, pathetic and insecure.

And to know and not say anything? To me that would just make me complicit and supportive.

That's just me.

I have no desire to change into that type of person.

You know how people say "Don't try to change me!"

Not everyone consciously tries to change people.
Change naturally happens.

All relationships will change you. Every interaction with another person changes you.

I would not value a "relationship" (not willing to lose them) at the cost of changing into someone I don't want to be and couldn't respect.

So, sorry, I personally can't help you. I have no experience in that situation.

...90?
Really?
90?

Have you thought of hanging out at your local senior center?

Maybe introducing yourself like "Hi, I'm Bob. Bob Viagra. My interests are plumbing and gutters. You need anything like that? Pipe problems? Leaf clutter between the gutter lips causing backup? I've got the time. I can get in there all deep like. Really get things flowing."

Maybe bring cupcakes.

Not in and of itself.

It's like asking "is it wrong to want to constantly eat pizza?"

Nothing wrong with wanting to.

But there are going to be long term consequences for doing so.

Just because you rationalize or decide that something isn't "wrong," it doesn't mean there are no longer consequences to your choices.


In general, yes, "hedonism now and maybe I'll stumble into meaning" is a bad philosophy.

If you aren't capable of anything more than that, then no, it's not a bad philosophy.

The kind that show you're an interesting person, with an interesting life, that you can get them interested in and wanting to talk to you about it and possibly get together and share.

Other than that, it really depends on what you "really" want.
What is the true purpose of you contacting them.


If a woman sent that to me my first thought would be "wow. I feel like I'm 15 and at a dinner party with adults and the person forced to sit next to me is trying to engage me in polite conversation instead of staring into their wine glass hoping tonight is the night they don't empty all the bottles."

That's just me though.

A couple of emails.

But IMO it's not really about the "how long" so much as "how."
Like what to put in emails, what to ask for, how to invite them out.

Just depends on who you are, what you're capable of, how you handle rejection and what it takes to move on to the next.

In my experience "how long" is arbitrary.

Talking for a long time is no guarantee they will show up.
Talking for a short time is no guarantee they will say "no."

If there's no guarantee for the outcome (showing up or ghosting) then it doesn't matter all that much how long you talk before asking them out.

Talk is cheap, why spend so much of your life on it with no sure outcome.

And that doesn't even begin to cover the problems with chatting online and how easy it is to lie, self edit, and over longer timelines misinterpret, or develop a false idea of a person.

Depends on the woman.
Depends on what she looks like.
Depends on her life situation.
Depends on a lot of things.

IME a lot, to maybe most, women are down for "just sex," or "really" online for just sex...if the guy is hot (or sometimes rich) enough.

Women seeking sex online are on a huge spectrum.

There's the married looking because her husband wants to watch or threesome, the woman that wants revenge for her husband cheating, the woman visiting from out of town and wants to feel "free," there's the bi woman looking for another woman, there's the (older) woman that just wants to scratch an itch or is tired of loneliness, there's the woman that's looking to baby trap a guy and she's got a drawer full of pinholed condoms, there's the lesbian that just wants to get pregnant but doesn't want to deal with a guy, there's the just plain ugly woman that can only get attention by offering sex.

And so many more. Lots of different motivations for women to seek sex online.


lol.
Then he's either not that attractive, doesn't have a very high income, has a very insecure personality, is inexperienced with the internet, or is telling you what he thinks you want to hear in order to get you to talk about sex more.


Sure there is.
Why do you think the marriage rate keeps falling.

Women are mostly protected from it because of the internet.
They can find echo chambers where women gather around and tell each other how "strong and independent and empowered" they are for riding the carousel.

Thanks to the internet they can avoid all the statistics and reality.
Not to mention, men have found it benefits them in the short term for them not to. Are you more likely to "netflix and chill" with a guy that tells you how much he hates "sluts" or someone that spouts the "uhh..yeah..you go gyrl, you live your best life and go after what you want...hey! I just realized I got some d for you to empower yourself with, no labels or expectations, I don't want to limit you, I'm here for you, yeah that's it!"

There is the false virtue signal that the stigma/shaming has "lessened."
In practical actual reality, it's just quietly in the background.


It's a poor comparison.

This is like asking "are men subject to the same stigma when called a bad mother?"


"Acceptable" doesn't really apply so much as risks, costs, and consequences.

If she's hot and I want to bang her?
Sure. I don't care.

If I am looking for someone to marry?
And I find out she was out trolling the internet for just sex, one night stands, has a high body count?
I wouldn't take her seriously.

IMO a lot of the time when people are asking if it's "acceptable," what they're "really" asking is "am I absolutely guaranteed no cost, risk, or consequences to following selfish personal gratification?"

You say it yourself:
"I am...not working...If I were in school I would state I were a student. If I am on a job I would state the job...If i were retired I would state retired. "

You're unemployed.


IMO no.
But I wouldn't want to put a target on my back.
Personally, I would avoid giving (relative) strangers in a foreign country the idea that my family may have a lot of money.

Personally, if I were to date while unemployed, and they asked questions about my income or how I could afford to date them, I might tell them I had savings/investment income, but I would steer the conversation more towards what I'm doing to change my unemployed status and future goals in that regard.

Might be a cultural difference, but if my date(s) were asking me extremely specific questions regarding exactly where my money came from and how much?
I wouldn't date them.

Usually a greeting or a question.
Heavily influenced by attraction.


You're never "in one."
You know when you're "in one" if it's a room. You look at the walls, ceiling, and floor.

Every relationship starts as soon as you identify someone separate from the background group. The two of you are the walls, ceiling, and floor.
How you interact is like echolocation, in a sense, defining them.


That's a game women and control freaks play.
There is no "shifting."
If you have to have some kind of "the talk," it means communication in the relationship sucks and is based primarily on one person rather than a two way street.

You are the same people whether you're strangers or soul mates.
You are you from the first day to the last (barring any sudden severe brain trauma).
Your "relationship" starts from "hello."
What you make of it, how you interact from that first moment/impression is your choice, the boundaries you explore, define, and defend.

The labels "dating," vs. "relationship" are arbitrary outside of what's happening internally, biologically.


It's because people are insecure, unrealistic, incapable of meaningful self reflection (in general), or poor communicators that they need external "signs" to lead them like a child and tell them "what's going on," and, "where they stand."
e.g. "The talk," or, "they met my parents and friends, they must be serious!," or, "it's the third date, you know what that means!," or, "they don't just talk about sex and they ask questions, they must be interested," or, "they gave me a key to their place," or, "they put a ring on my finger! squee!"


IME when people ask this question that's not really what they're asking.

What they're "really" asking is more "how can I guarantee perpetuation, how can I guarantee their thought process, ideals, goals, desires?
How do I guarantee my mental and emotional security and safety?"

IMO/IME it comes down to trusting yourself.
Do you think you're smart and capable enough to trust your own instincts, feelings, and behavior?

So "how do you know?"
You realistically know and trust yourself.
Otherwise you just muddle through oblivious, learning better methods of rationalization and deluding yourself.

Like those naked lady mudflaps?


Is this part of the "Top Ten List of things we don't want a date to say the first time they see me naked?"

Laugh?
Cuz I live in the middle of a city, so most likely you're drunk and rolling around in a playground sand box yelling about drowning.
You're rolling around in the homeless litter box!


At best all you're setting up is gratifying an observer bias.


That's too vague and isn't really asking a question.

It's like when people put on their profile "I can dress up, or down...."
A person I like...or don't?


Am I dressed as the dread pirate roberts?

Depends on too much other information.

Kidnapped by whom?
One guy that drove up in a van, asked for directions, and chloroformed the girls while they were looking at the map? Like a deranged serial rapist killer?

Or 20 gang members that kidnapped them at gunpoint like a human trafficking ring?

So are there regular patrols and a jailer? Like someone comes by every 10 minutes and checks on the girls? Or just one creepy guy that threw the girls in there and disappeared for 4 hours? Has it been days without food and water?

Are there video cameras in the barn?

You mention a crowbar...are there other tools? Can the contraption be broken down?

Were the girls awake when they were put in the barn and know the entrance/exit, so with a crowbar can set an ambush for whomever comes in?

Did they look out the windows and know where they are?
It's a barn in the "middle of nowhere."
Is it winter and they're 50 miles from civilization? Or did they see different neighbors in the distance and it's summer?


Then it sounds like they're screwed. How would the 3rd person get back in to move the contraption for the other 2 if the contraption is keeping the escape hole from being used?

Why isn't one of the options "pass the crowbar through the contraption to the girl outside so she can go to the door and remove any locks?" Or even "use the crowbar to make a hole in the wall of the barn?"
Is it a barn, or a bunker?


If the grill lead to a little room with external access? Sure.
Or I might just use the crowbar on the front door or side of the "barn."
If the grill was just a covering to a sewer pipe, then no.


Only if I had a realistic chance of actually getting the other 2 free.

Otherwise I would focus on my surroundings better and formulate a plan.


Oh. That would be a huge handicap.


I'd ask him to trade the crowbar for the tazer telling him I'm going to take a pic for instagram.
And when he handed it over I'd taze him then hit him with the crowbar, then take a selfie for instagram.

Maybe.
Not necessarily.
And even if they do, "expectations" aren't necessarily a dirty word.
Just because they have expectations it doesn't make them bad.
And them having expectations doesn't mean I have to live up to them.

IMO/IME the "problem" comes with how people respond to having their expectations fulfilled or denied, and how people go about fulfilling or denying others expectations


Not really.
But it's a matter of perspective or semantics.

If I'm theoretically at a bar and want to "buy a girl a drink," I am spending my money on a drink from the establishment, and (ultimately, if it's just delivered by the bartender) giving it to that person to do with as they want.

For dating purposes anything I spend my money on is like "lending" money to family. It's a gift. There aren't direct expectations of reciprocity related to the gift.

It's more a means of me communicating something about me. How they respond is a communicated response about them.

"Spend your money on a person" has connotations of a transaction with a person, like prostitution.
If they wouldn't talk to me without me buying them a drink, or wouldn't go to the movie/dinner without me paying for it, then I did something wrong when I picked them to invite out on a date.

But related to the first question, there are expectations. e.g. Show up on time. Communicate that you want to be there (look nice/clean/attractive, stay off the phone, smile or at least don't complain). Civility, honesty, be appreciative or at least not antagonistic (like don't start calling me a murderer and show me blocked colons and animal mutilation pics on your phone because I ordered a steak and you're just telling me you're a vegan even after I told you where we're going). Participate.
And of course other basics like don't pull a gun randomly, don't be stabby, don't be a cannibal or try to molest children at the restaurant, expect them not to pee in the lobster tank, don't shoot up heroin in the bathroom and pass out (which happened to me recently), if it's a date (not a business meeting) then be single...there's tons more like that.

There are always expectations. There is no such thing as having "no expectations!"


Of course.
But it's mostly I appreciate and respect decisiveness.
I will never argue with them. I don't play the "let's gesture to our wallet/purse and be passive aggressive, I want to virtue signal that I will pay but I don't really want to," games.

If the words "I'll pay..." are uttered, I don't interfere, I don't drag it out with "are you sure? I'll get it, are you sure?" or, "I'll get the tip," or, "well, I'll get next time..." I just thank them.

If they say something like "I'll pay my share," I'll let them and never consider dating them again.

But, in this I am somewhat controlling. If I am paying then I am going to choose what we're doing. I plan the date.
If I'm asking them on a date, I am asking to share my life, invite them into it, share what I enjoy.
If they like it, then it's up to them to figure out how to share their life.
With both of us taking the other into consideration when planning.

If they plan a date, they pay. If they plan a date, and then expect me to pay (e.g. "we should go to the bahamas for the weekend, you just got your bonus check, right?" or, "Let's go to IKEA this weekend, you can get me a new dresser and I'll give you a drawer, tee hee"), I will either refuse or probably not date them anymore. I won't accept that.

IMO relevant is I've always avoided the "whadda you wanna eat? IDK...wadda you wanna eat? How about x? No, I don't feel like that. How about y? Naaaah.." or "I'd like to at some point think about the idea of contemplating a scenario where it's possible that I can go out with you some time maybe perhaps? Will you go out with me sometime?"
Where things are unclear, like pulling teeth, or where responsibility and authority games are bandied back and forth.

Not to mention since college I've absolutely avoided "let's get drinks!" or, "let's hang out and see what happens! Netflix and chill!" kind of dates.
Those aren't dates and generally waste my time.
They're fine if you're looking for a FB or FWB, but not date.

As far as paying/accepting for dates go I only really respond, accept, respect clear communication, decisiveness, and follow through. And of course adaptability is sometimes important.

Other than that, the mechanics of "date paying" IME is to treat it as the least significant part of the date. It's not supposed to be the part that causes the most analysis or reflection.

The "root cause?"
People are finite and fallible with flight/fight/procreate/homeostasis instincts?



These seem more like symptoms, not "root" problems/causes.

Like "lack of attention."
Why? Is this normal or did something change?
If normal, why was the relationship developed? If one expected the other to change and give more attention, then closer to the "root cause" is expectations, not the amount of attention. What lead to those expectations?

If changed, who changed? Did one person stop giving "enough" attention? Or did one person start needing more attention?
In either case, it means something else is going on. So "lack of attention" isn't really a "root" cause, it's whatever caused someone to notice, start, or react to that "lack of attention."

"No communication." What does that mean? An absolute? Like ghosting?
Someone withdrawing and when asked they respond "fine," and then start self isolating?
Were they always a stoic and the expectations were they'd change? Again, why are those expectations developed?

Communication is a two way street (unless it's in a sub/dom relationship).
People need to learn how each other communicates and change to adapt.
Is one person not learning how the other person communicates, and over time they're getting frustrated the other person isn't learning their way?
Again, not really a "root cause," as many variables influence communication in a relationship, and "no communication" itself can mean something different entirely.
"Communication" is ultimately a tool. It's used by something else. So not a "root cause." Since it is complex it becomes like wind, you can't measure it directly, but you can measure how it's affecting other things.

"Being friendly and flirting with others."
Again, is this something new? Or is it who they are?
Were they friendly and flirty with you when you met them and you expected them to stop?
Or have they just recently started being friendly and flirting? With everyone?
Or just potential new mates?
Again, doesn't seem like a "root" cause, but indicative of something else.


Even taken all together, if it's ending the relationship, if someone stops giving attention, stops communicating, and starts being friendly and flirting with others, that is indicative of some other "root problem" going on. Not those things in and of themselves.