happy
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by happy on Jan 30, 2019 6:55:30 GMT
This is just an observation, but I feel like most of the women that subscribe to Old School Courting Rules happen to be AP.
I wanted to ask all AP women and people that have dated AP women looking back on those relationships/self beliefs if youve noticed this pattern. Now the responses I might get are probably going to be biased because I feel like mostly older people browse this site (I’m 18). I’m still interested though.
What I mean by old school courting rules is “a REAL MAN takes me out to dinner and tries to get me naked by the end of the night.”” Women are the prize.” “Women should be worshipped and are inherently more valuable just because of their different genatalia.” “A man needs to pay the first date” BLAH BLAH BLAH. You kinda get what I’m getting at?
What I’ve noticed is Secure and avoidant women are much more laid back and don’t have so many rules and just try to get a feel for you as a person.
The ironic thing is, even though I’ve noticed AP women tend to have these beliefs of women being above men and just their presence is more valuable than a man’s. They’re the ones who end up settling for something lower than what they want and secure/avoidants will leave.
I think if this pattern is a thing within AP women it might have to do with their unrealistic expectations of attention.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by epicgum on Jan 30, 2019 10:28:17 GMT
I'm really not attracted to women with that mindset (m29), so it probably follows that neither of the anxiously triggered women I've dated have been like that (triggered anxious, not necessarily AP). That's a sample size of 2 though!
|
|
happy
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by happy on Jan 30, 2019 13:54:34 GMT
I'm really not attracted to women with that mindset (m29), so it probably follows that neither of the anxiously triggered women I've dated have been like that (triggered anxious, not necessarily AP). That's a sample size of 2 though! Did you specifically know that because the AP women that I’ve dated never said that from the start and didn’t ask for me to pay and stuff like that but later on when we were talking about courtship rules they said they agree with old school. |
|
|
|
Post by unluckyinlove on Jan 30, 2019 14:59:26 GMT
I’m an AP 44 year old woman. I think it’s more of a generational thing than an attachment style thing. In fact, I have DA and secure friends who actually expect more from men in a dating scenario than I do. It is the AP tendency to bend on boundaries just to earn the love and affection so I think we have a higher tendency to NOT hold men to our value system. The ironic thing is, even though I’ve noticed AP women tend to have these beliefs of women being above men and just their presence is more valuable than a man’s. I don’t agree with this assessment at all. Having dating standards or “Old School Courting Rules” as you are referring to has nothing to do with women feeling as if they are “above men” and that their “presence is more valuable than a mans”. It has to do with the natural roles that men and women fall into as pursuer and pursued. I’m generalizing, but men usually fall into a pursuer role and they usually go for what they want. Women learn that it is best to allow themselves to be pursued because if we are the ones having to chase, the guy is not likely that into us OR if he is, he’ll lose interest quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by sissyk on Jan 30, 2019 15:12:23 GMT
Old person here  I had AP tendencies with my DA bigtime but have been secure and maybe even a bit DA in past relationships. When I was 18, no one "dated"--they kind of hung out together until realized they were a couple...me included! That is how I stumbled into a 6 year relationship with a secure and then a long term marriage (in hindsight with a FA type.) Sounds like things have changed. I would argue that these dating patterns you describe are not primarily attachment driven. Today there is a Dating Industrial Complex--lots of online advice and coaching that insists the only way for anyone to lasso a partner is to act in stereotypical ways. Hang back, ladies! Guys, be an Alpha male!
AP ladies are likely the A students of this stuff--they have read the books, watched the videos, and want to do everything "right." APSs may think the guy paying and chasing is reassuring as it is evidence he is interested and thus allays our insecurities. This is not coming from a belief that AP women are a prize to be won but from an insecurity they might not measure up if they do like you. But I think with online dating now, there is a lot of pressure on everyone to get it right, be perfect, show up with game on and decide quickly rather than getting to know someone slowly and naturally. Otherwise, everyone can just go on to the next swipe. |
|
lisa
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by lisa on Jan 30, 2019 15:15:29 GMT
Judgy much? I am earned secure in relationships, used to be AP. It is not at all as you described. Letting a man lead is good sense, and secures do it naturally. They would accept nothing less than a man showing up for real. What that means is not play hard to get or anything like that. It just means, let him know ON the date that you like him by being playful and responsive and flirty. Be warm and receptive. You should let men know you like them. But, it also means that you mirror their effort. He calls, you call him back... quickly. He asks you out, you say yes with an XO. You do not do the work for him. That way you are always on the same page.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocarina on Jan 30, 2019 17:01:48 GMT
Surely as a secure individual there are not courtship rules as such - why should either partner lead?? A healthy relationship is based on some kind of mutuality where both people show up for real and are not afraid to express their affection for their partner. Mirroring always seems to me like a kind of way to avoid being vulnerable ie by not giving too much of yourself and taking a risk. As a secure surely you take your share of vulnerability and expect your partner to do the same?
Not doing the work for someone doesn't imho mean you'll end up with a relationship where you're on the same page - not necessarily at least. Often mirroring and allowing a partner to do the work will actually make an avoidant feel comfortable in coming forward but that's surely not a great thing if it's being done as a "formula" and at the expense of your own authenticity?
|
|
lisa
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by lisa on Jan 30, 2019 17:53:08 GMT
No, because the vulnerability is about showing you like someone, but not owning the progression. I always make it very clear I am interested. What they do with that is up to them. I trust that the right ones will show up and demonstrate their interest.
What I am talking about is prior to commitment. It is about being secure enough to show interest, but trusting that men do what they want. If he wants to talk to you, he will, if he wants to commit he will. We do not need to step in and do that for him.
I like to be in feminine energy (being) when I date, but that is me. If you want to be in masculine energy (doing), then everyone should do what they want. I doubt highly that most heterosexual women who lead end up in very satisfying relationships regardless of attachment.
Everyone should do what they want. My best relationships have been where he leads, but I am sitting right next to him, and once committed doing even more....
|
|
|
|
Post by sissyk on Jan 30, 2019 19:42:14 GMT
No, because the vulnerability is about showing you like someone, but not owning the progression. I always make it very clear I am interested. What they do with that is up to them. I trust that the right ones will show up and demonstrate their interest. What I am talking about is prior to commitment. It is about being secure enough to show interest, but trusting that men do what they want. If he wants to talk to you, he will, if he wants to commit he will. We do not need to step in and do that for him. I like to be in feminine energy (being) when I date, but that is me. If you want to be in masculine energy (doing), then everyone should do what they want. I doubt highly that most heterosexual women who lead end up in very satisfying relationships regardless of attachment. Everyone should do what they want. My best relationships have been where he leads, but I am sitting right next to him, and once committed doing even more.... I agree everyone should do what they want. I did see this idea about feminine and masculine energy often touted by online dating coaches. I do agree that no one wants to feel like they are being overwhelmed or love-bombed. Men are probably more likely to chafe if women are taking more than their share of initiative. And in practical terms in my recent dating escapades, I never initiated more than the other person. You can't force these things. But the wisest dating advice I consumed was, after a meeting or two, if it is a promising connection it should start to feel easy. If you are into each other, no one is going to throw in the towel if someone double texts. It shouldn't be like two warring nations, hatching detailed strategies for domination. In my longest, sturdiest relationships, I can't even remember who initiated what or invited who when. It was organic. Also--I think there is something to the idea that you should start like you mean to finish. If you are an enthusiastic direct (woman) person and don't like hanging back, isn't it better for all sides to know early? "I doubt highly that most heterosexual women who lead end up in very satisfying relationships regardless of attachment." Ok--this seems like an extrapolation. It is a big old world. |
|
|
|
Post by gummydrop on Jan 30, 2019 19:54:33 GMT
I'm with Ocarina; playing games is stupid and counter-productive if you're looking for a meaningful connection. We have a generation afraid to love because people can't admit their true feelings before they are reciprocated. That's not how reality works. Someone is always first to sort out their feelings. Hiding who you are or what you really feel seems pointless and childish to me. Worst case you get rejected; big deal, life goes on. Best case, you find someone who likes the authentic you; that's what everyone should be after.
|
|
|
|
Post by ocarina on Jan 30, 2019 19:57:56 GMT
I think there's a real danger of stereotyping here - honestly - whatever floats your boat. Having rules around this kind of thing in my mind suggests some kind of avoidance or insecurity - the best relationships do flow naturally and as sissyk said, feel easy. Now what feels easy for one may be pain and poison for another so no formulas here but I have found that when I resort to subtle manipulations in the forms of dating rules or strategies, it's often as a result of feeling some kind of insecurity and as a result having to become self protective. With security has come some kind of innate trust and wisdom which really means I am more fully aware of my boundaries, my needs and desires and I really don't need a game plan. It's not really even something I think of any more in relationships - friendship and compatibility form the basis for all my recent liasons and if that's easy, then relationship may or may not follow. The relationship game as played out by the so called experts and the mars venus kind of philosophy just doesn't suit me as an individual (yes I'm a tending towards avoidant woman so maybe some bias here!). Friendship, trust, and intimacy come with time and consistency - mind you I'm not an online dater and never really go looking for relationships as such so perhaps I'm not really qualified to comment! |
|
|
|
Post by leavethelighton on Jan 31, 2019 0:56:48 GMT
I've tended towards AP when it comes to my romantic nature, and I believe the opposite of that, but I'm also bisexual, so I basically think most gender norms are ridiculous.
The whole wanting to "be treated like a queen" thing is sort of asking for narcissists or at least love bombers.
People do want respectful, non-stingy partners though, someone who will put out extra effort and not expect everthing to be tit-for-tat, who will be GIVING... so maybe some of the advice comes out of there, which is not altogether invalid, though again I'm not sure why it should be only gendered. And there's a difference between thinking a man should pay for the first date (if you're a woman who wants a respectful, non-stingy partner) and thinking he should pay for ALL of them.
Since I've never been attracted to nor dated an AP person I can't speak from the other side of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrob on Jan 31, 2019 1:35:18 GMT
I cracked out the popcorn when this provocative post came up.
My view is that if each gender wants to be regarded equally, this old fashioned rubbish needs to go out the window. This is 2019, not 1949. If a woman presented to me as delicate, or a princess, I would move right along, and I have in the past. Competency and power is extremely enticing to me. I need something to respect.
The vestiges of the past are still there in that I have to initiate. I have to follow up. I have to make plans. Otherwise, a woman will just go along to the next suitor. That’s the consistent reality.
If I could give my 18 year old self some advice, it would be to have a developed sense of self, to treat everyone with equal respect and if they don’t like you, rejection is God’s protection. I’m not a religious man, but I just couldn’t deal with the rejection so I put myself in situations that really didn’t suit me, and couldn’t get out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 2:57:01 GMT
I think there's a real danger of stereotyping here - honestly - whatever floats your boat. Having rules around this kind of thing in my mind suggests some kind of avoidance or insecurity - the best relationships do flow naturally and as sissyk said, feel easy. Now what feels easy for one may be pain and poison for another so no formulas here but I have found that when I resort to subtle manipulations in the forms of dating rules or strategies, it's often as a result of feeling some kind of insecurity and as a result having to become self protective. With security has come some kind of innate trust and wisdom which really means I am more fully aware of my boundaries, my needs and desires and I really don't need a game plan. It's not really even something I think of any more in relationships - friendship and compatibility form the basis for all my recent liasons and if that's easy, then relationship may or may not follow. The relationship game as played out by the so called experts and the mars venus kind of philosophy just doesn't suit me as an individual (yes I'm a tending towards avoidant woman so maybe some bias here!). Friendship, trust, and intimacy come with time and consistency - mind you I'm not an online dater and never really go looking for relationships as such so perhaps I'm not really qualified to comment! I think there’s something to be said for what lisa suggested. However, I see it from the perspective of an AP who always “fills in the blanks” and assumes or fantasizes about a non-existent relationship, and acts based on that. For example, we had a great date and he kissed me at the end of it and said see you soon. As an insecure person, X might start to think that there’s a great rship there and we are going to be dating again and this is going to end in such a wonderful life together... and off the story goes. Then X starts to over commit/invest based on that conscious/unconscious narrative that has started unfolding. On the other hand, Y as a secure sits back and say that’s a great connection, let’s see how this goes, and acting from that point of developing it further. Both X and Y might take the initiative to text first or double text, but they’re coming from a differnt place. The advice to “hold back and mirror” is the same behavioral outcome of an insecure trying to self protect (X) and a secure trying to judge interest and connection (Y). If the person doesn’t reciprocate, both x and y might fall back, but for different psychological reasons. To the OP, no to your statements. That’s just acts of insecure people acting on terrible social dating norms. Not insecurely attached people. |
|
|
|
Post by faithopelove on Jan 31, 2019 3:00:08 GMT
This is just an observation, but I feel like most of the women that subscribe to Old School Courting Rules happen to be AP. I wanted to ask all AP women and people that have dated AP women looking back on those relationships/self beliefs if youve noticed this pattern. Now the responses I might get are probably going to be biased because I feel like mostly older people browse this site (I’m 18). I’m still interested though. What I mean by old school courting rules is “a REAL MAN takes me out to dinner and tries to get me naked by the end of the night.”” Women are the prize.” “Women should be worshipped and are inherently more valuable just because of their different genatalia.” “A man needs to pay the first date” BLAH BLAH BLAH. You kinda get what I’m getting at? What I’ve noticed is Secure and avoidant women are much more laid back and don’t have so many rules and just try to get a feel for you as a person. The ironic thing is, even though I’ve noticed AP women tend to have these beliefs of women being above men and just their presence is more valuable than a man’s. They’re the ones who end up settling for something lower than what they want and secure/avoidants will leave. I think if this pattern is a thing within AP women it might have to do with their unrealistic expectations of attention. Thoughts? If there seems to be more rules, it probably stems from anxiety and insecurity. Although a secure may also have a lot of rules due to high standards |
|
I had AP tendencies with my DA bigtime but have been secure and maybe even a bit DA in past relationships.
