And we’re talking at cross purposes here. Date men who dance, by all means, if it’s so important to you. I think the more realistic situation, which comes up all the time, is that women prefer a man who dances, and men prefer not to have to dance. Most men won’t utterly refuse to do it, ever, but would prefer not to do it too often and not to be nagged about it; women would love to do it more often than just at weddings and are sad that their partner won’t. It becomes a point of contention, and it depends on your perspective who’s right. I suspect it’s just an irreconcilable difference with no one being right or wrong.
So generous to you only means doing what you want, eh? It can’t mean, “By all means, dear, go out with your friends and dance the night away, or take a dance class with one of your guy friends.” I guess if you’re really into partnered dancing, then I can understand that atttitude not being sufficient. But it certainly isn’t lacking in generosity. As for the bait and switch, I think we ALL do things when dating that we become less inclined to do when we’re in LTRs. Men and women both do this. Dating is one big bait and switch.
I agree, but I think men DO disclose this fact, and women want to change them. You can’t deny that this happens.
You shouldn’t be trying to change people, either. Accept him for who he is and let it go.
First of all, I think it’s inappropriate to drag Priceguy’s name into this thread when you’re upset with something he said in the Pit. Keep it in the Pit; that thread is still going on. I also think you are misrepresenting his attitude unfairly, but people will have to read that thread to judge for themselves. His attitude his more of horror/bemusement that something he really believes he can’t do is going to eliminate him from the dating pool of so many. He’s not offended or affronted; he feels kind of ripped off by his own inability and wishes it weren’t so important to so many women. A natural feeling, IMO.
Women who start dating men they know don’t want to dance have the EXACT SAME ATTITUDE. You yourself expressed it, saying you hoped the non-dancing man would change. So it goes both ways, on both sides of the issue. I am just glad that as a woman who doesn’t dance, it’s easy to find men who agree with me. I’d feel like Priceguy if I were a man, no doubt. I had no idea it was so important to people.
Yes, someone has been called an asshole for not dancing. Please read post #38 of this thread. You also have said that not dancing would be a dealbreaker for you.
Then just don’t date a person if their inability to participate in your preferred activity will make you miserable. That, my friend, would make it… a dealbreaker for you. However, that is NOT the usual situation. It’s usually just a low-level power struggle, with the man not wanting to dance, and she knows that, but the woman wanting to get him to do it on occasion, and each feeling like the other is not being respectful of their wishes. I’m not sure how people would resolve that in their relationships. I have several activities in my life that my husband is not interested in; he just does something else while I do them. That is that.
So what? My point is that bowing out of some activity you don’t like and your SO does, doesn’t make you an asshole. And I wouldn’t have any problem with saying, “She doesn’t like parties, so she’s not here.” How is that bad?
It’s because she prefaced it by showing how her husband makes an effort to accommodate her occasionally. Not on every single activity, just sometimes.
So if the husband makes an effort to go along with her on something she loves, and she were to refuse to do something which was important for him, once a year, then I would say that’s selfish.
It seems to me that you’re saying that no effort needs to be made at all. Maybe that works for you, but I go along sometimes with my wife on things she loves because she loves them. She likes romantic comedies, which isn’t my favorite, but spending a couple of hours with her to add to her joy really doesn’t seem like wasted time, and I can hardly see how doing this every few months means that we’re joined at the hip, especially since we do plenty of things separately.
I wouldn’t want to be with the kind of person who never compromises for my sake. And I’d never want to be the kind of person who doesn’t compromise for someone I love.
And its certainly not “joined at the hip” - he goes off on weekends with his friends, I go off on weekends with mine. He leaves and spends evenings with friends, I do that with mine. I don’t like concerts so very seldom go to them, he goes to them without me and with friends. He’s much less fond of showing up even the twice a year at church than I do, I go without him.
That is not what I said. Again, for me, it’s a moot point as I personally wouldn’t be dating, or in a relationship with a non-dancer in the first place.
As for other couples, I specifically stated that it would be on a case by case basis, and dependent upon what each couple had decided at the outset while still only dating If the man agreed to dance with her and then backtracks later on, that is what I consider ungenerous. You don’t make an agreement that benefits you (you get to win the girl) and then later re-neg on your part of the deal. That is ungenerous. Particularly if it happens at an event that is important to you, as I suspect happened with the young poster on about page 1 (IIRC).
By generous, I mean that he (or she if the subject is not dancing, but something like Dangerosa’s SO’s BD party) is not backing out of something that was formerly agreed upon by both parties.
I agree, and if the person re-negs, that’s when the other decides not to get into a relationship with them, if it’s something of enough importance that they don’t want to live without it for the rest of their lives. Dating sucks, but if you aren’t playing fair, you don’t get to hang your issues on the other person. And this is true of anything that you “used” to get to that person, not just dancing or lack thereof. You don’t go back on your word. Maybe while you’re only dating, after all that’s what it’s for, to learn if the other person is indeed relationship material, but not when it’s something upon which the agreement to be together was made in the first place. (again, doesn’t have to be dancing, can be anything from where to live, to how many if any kids to have).
I never did say that women don’t do that. But the question was why is dancing so important to many women. Part of my posts were in attempts to answer that question. And in my case, I’ve had several men act all “oh yeah, I love to dance” and then come to find out, no, no they actually didn’t. And no, I didn’t get into a relationship with them, and then nag them silly to dance, the dating phase just ended right there.
[/quote]
I didn’t say I was going to try to change someone or that any one should, what I actually said was:
“And again, like I said in my last post, this goes for anything, not just dancing. If a person has something about them that you don’t like, know you can’t live with or change, DON’T date them.”
So obviously, if you see an obvious dealbreaker (again, doesn’t have to be dancing, can be smoking, snapping fingers at a waitress, what have you), you’re certainly not going to be trying to change them, as you’re not going to be dating them in the first place, (dating meaning going out and getting to know someone, not being in a relationship).
As to the should one change someone or not that’s a whole 'nother thread. But there are things that can be said to be fair game on the “change someone” circuit. After all, just going from dating to exclusive is “changing someone”.
Anyway, further on in my post I say exactly this, (paraphrased) let it alone or let him go.
He was just one example. You’d said in your post that no one does this. I can’t of course show you concrete life examples, unless I’d video-taped my personal experiences, but that thread inspired this one, so it is related.
I did not say a non-dancing man should change. I have repeatedly said that I wouldn’t be dating a non-dancer in the first place. So there wouldn’t be anything to change, he’d already be a dancer.
I am not saying that everyone has to dance, no dancers here have said that. Obviously you are a perfect example of a woman who does not. Ergo, there are plenty of women out there who won’t want to dance, and who would be perfect matches for these men who have such a hissy fit about those of us who do. **That **is the point I’ve been trying to make. If it’s such a huge deal, and they hate it so much that they have to gripe and whine, for heaven’s sake date non-dancers! This was not a command, it was an “If/then” statement.
Aha. Yes, she did. Sorry, I was thinking in general, as in non-dancers are assholes, not as in a singular incident.
As to the second part. I said that for me personally it is a dealbreaker, that does not then equal that I think it should be a dealbreaker for everyone overall. That was a rather illogical leap to make.
But dancers aren’t going around whining, such as in this thread and the other one “why don’t men I want to date dance? how unfair of them, why should we dancers have to be single forever whinewhinewhine”. See the difference?
We’re saying “yes, we dance, yes we prefer men who do likewise, stop griping at our preferences as if we are treating you badly if we don’t date you as well.”
I agree in part. But normally in a relationship there are at least a few mutual activities that are important to the couple as a couple. And there are also some activities that one SO does for another (dangerosa’s aforementioned BD party) because that is part of what being a couple is all about. Not all of it is fun, but if it’s for the other person and not often enough to drive you to kill, you do it. Are you trying to say that you and your husband never do anything for the other one unless it is a complete and utter joy and something you’d love to be doing anyway? I didn’t think so.
At any rate, back to the one or two things that a couple loves to do together, for me, and a lot of dancers, that happens to be dancing. For others (Alaskan outdoors addicts I’m lookin’ at YOU) it might be snowmachining trips 19,000 times each winter.
Again, non-dancers whining about how dancers eschew them and prefer dancing men, would be like me whining about how Alaskan men prefer to date snowmobiling women. It’s illogical. Why on earth would I want to date a guy who is flat-out addicted to snowmachining and for whom it is crucially important that his mate share in this icy endeavor? I don’t, and I don’t begrudge these guys in their pursuit of snowsuited outdoors loving girls instead of me either.
So by the same token, why these questions about “why is it so important to you, why do many women like men who dance (and how DARE they, don’t they know they’re lowering our dating pool?)”. Rarely is any other activity so looked down upon, scrutinized and griped about by others as a detriment to men’s dating “rights” as is dancing.
That is all I’m saying here. Some of these guys need to stop acting as if we’re odd and against them personally for choosing the men who dance over the non-dancing ones.
Exactly. The same as I wouldn’t want to be forced to do everything as a set, but doing somethings every now and then for your partner is part of love.
I couldn’t be with someone who refused to compromise even once a year, because she didn’t enjoy that activity. That would be a deal breaker, if someone accused me of demanding to be joined at the hip because every few months or so it would be nice to spend a reasonable amount of time doing something which the other wanted to do, and that the give and take is recipical.
That reaction would seem over the top to me, and I couldn’t see a long future for the relationship.
My point is simply: if dancing is that important, find a guy that loves to dance as much as you, otherwise, your relationship is doomed to failure and you’re better off ending it; the sooner, the better.
I don’t care if someone loves to dance or not. If it’s that big of a deal to them, then cool. Do something about it. Everyone has their “big deal” and dealbreakers. If they’re that important, then treat them with such importance.
Then we’re saying the exact same thing, only from opposite sides of the coin.
Mine being if NOT dancing or being bugged to dance is that important to you (talking about the men who have said this both here, the Pit thread and IRL, not you personally), date non-dancers.
What you say above, is the same thing I’ve been saying in every post I’ve submitted. That of if something (in my case dancing) is that important to you, choose someone who shares that interest! I have not made a single post advocating forcing non-dancers to dance.
What I have been saying is that those who don’t dance need to do the same. Again, it’s the “if/then” statement. If the need to NOT dance is that important, then those who don’t need to date those who have the same feelings about it.
More importantly, they need to not call those of us who are dancers “absurd” because we choose to date other dancers over non-dancers (exact word used in the pit thread to describe dancers preference for other dancers).
The whole mouth agape attitude (as demonstrated here and in the Pit thread) of “but this is so bizarre, why is dance so important to this group? They’re so absurd for wanting to dance, especially since it knocks me out of the running to date them (since they have the audacity to refuse to not dance, but instead prefer male dancers to date), and I’m going to be single forever because I don’t dance…waaaah, waaaah!”.
That is what I’m disagreeing with, NOT that some don’t like to dance. That I understand and support, but acting as if it’s some alien act specifically designed to make single men single forever is just grating on the nerves and ridiculous.