Do we pick a partner or does the partner pick us?

Submitted by freedom on
Printer-friendly version

I’ve been pondering this for a variety of reasons. The common notion is that partners got lucky. Some, including the pickup community, say that is nonsense and that with enough active work, one can gain more personal selectivity. I agree more with the PUA folks in the sense that by broadcasting more true self, one will attract different partners. Does that really lead to more control/selectivity as opposed to just a more suitable sample? Maybe I’m too biased in my thinking in the sense that while I’ve never had a true partner, humans are plentiful and I’m not all that concerned that I couldn’t get a relationship if I made it an absolute priority. BS perhaps and of course that could be a low quality relationship, but that seems to be what happens for those that try. I’m targeting higher quality relationship where the considerations could be quite different.

I’ve noticed that repeat dates/activities from online interactions, most (I can only think of one exception) in-person interest, etc. have always been with women who made the initial contact and demonstrated interest first. Some of those people I’ve become friendly with for other limited purposes. This woman selects dynamic creates a one-sided scenario where I’m not that interested. I’m not able to make myself feign interest due to relational/sexual/any other desperation. I’ve waited and I’ll wait. Interest is either there or it isn’t and it is rarely there. I’m open to it growing slowly, but many are not. Still, there is this annoying pattern of dead end prospects. I do benefit from the interactions, but it is rather slow to keep starting over without getting further into particular interactions. I’m almost ready to give up on actively pursuing anyone beyond random real life encounters that seem promising. My main concern with that is eliminating the random woman that might pop up in the online ether and I’d always have to go out to have any chance of bumping into anyone.

It seems we pick partners by:
1) Broadcasting oneself as accurately as possible to attract those compatible and test if that is really who one is;
2) Going after what that the self wants when it finds it by honoring senses and actively not sabotaging with limiting notions; and
3) Resisting the more available options if that isn’t what that self really want.
Am I missing more? One and three are probably easier than two, but it might depend on the person. Any model is made more complicated by the influence of potential partners on each other. It seems wise to worry about as much as one can control as possible and ignore the rest.

Making lemonade out of lemons is only possible if there are lemons in the market. What if there are only non-lemons, whatever that might mean? Seems there is something not gelling. I’m not sure how to express is better so perhaps someone can read between the lines or can get me to see what I’m missing. Some women (and men) meet me and feel strong connection and commonality within them. There’s a group of both sexes that are not finding significant options in the mainstream dating pool. This group isn’t all in one place. It seems tough to identify better ways to find them.

Comments

Ya, I'm not opposed

Ya, I'm not opposed entirely. Never really tried. Some well-meaning people have tried to match me based upon the most random of irrelevant factors. These people don’t really know me. I’ve never had a friend seriously try to match me to the point that it ever got to interaction. In a world where the matchmakers know little about the humans they match and don't invest their own money in the process but stand to gain from the matches (custom at least), it's a losing proposition. I know people who have been on hundreds of matchmaker dates. Them or the system? Hard to say. Alternative models have been proposed such as one where the matchmaker invests in the dates. Few have signed on to that approach. Perhaps a monkey or that World Cup octopus, though it only had to pick between two, not match two from many. One would think in all these years, humans would have found a better way.