Which is Worse?
I was having a debate yesterday with someone about whether it's worse to have a lot of bad dates, or to have no dates. On one hand, it's hard going through a bunch of bad dates, because it makes you think that no one is right and you start doubting whether anyone will ever like you/whether you will like them. It can get quite discouraging to continue going out with the wrong people, especially if they are really wrong. And getting your hopes up, or at least hoping at all, and having those hopes dashed, isn't easy.
On the other hand, when you go through a period of no dates, it gets very lonely and you start wondering if there is anyone out there at all who will ever be interested in you. To not have options at all, to not have the opportunity for hope, can seem very despairing.
We never figured out which is worse - what do you think?
posted by Shoshana @ 9:52 AM
12 Comments:
Ironically, an article in the Jewish Press weighed in on just this very question this week and they concluded that there was no difference. Funnily enough, I'm inclined to agree with them. Even though most people would say that having no dates is pathetic and therefore worse, in the end not married = not married, no matter what route you take to get there.
Though to slightly contradict myself: My question is: what constitutes a "bad date"? If it's a date with someone who is truly not appropriate for you, then I'd say being set up by people who don't know you, your values, or what you're looking for, is a heck of a lot worse than no dates because you're just wasting everyone's time. If, however, they're appropriate dates, just not for you for whatever reason, then no dates is worse.
Bad dates are way more emotionally draining for me, rather than dry spells. But I have had this discussion with friends too, and everyone has a different opinion. To answer Debbie's question, to me, a date that is appropriate but just not for you (you don't click or you disagree on a major value/issue) is not a "bad date". Those are fine. In fact, I don't mind a decent date with a guy who is just not for me. OK, there is some emotional investment, but there's more possibility that you may know someone for him or he may know someone for you, and you can remain friendly and civil to each other. A bad date (in my opinion) is when you go out with someone who is totally inappropriate and you come home near tears. Those are the worst for me. I'd rather not have dates at all.
Debbie and Sara -
Interesting that the Jewish Press tackled this recently. I agree with Sara - I don't consider a date with someone who is pretty appropriate for me but just not right for whatever reason to be a "bad date." I consider a bad date to be someone who I have little in common with, and I feel is a waste of both of our time. To have a streak of these, I think can often be a lot worse than no dates, because of the emotional investment and disappointment. But on the other hand, no dates can make one feel despair and loneliness even more strongly, I think. It's difficult either way.
Def more bad dates, because even though you feel shit at the time: you also learn stuff about relationships from each experience.
Can I weigh in? I'd add the factors that people did in the comments: No dates are usually worse, but if you keep getting set up with people that are not even close, it makes you think that people really don't know you. At least with no dates it's because they know you, but haven't found someone that fits. But there's always something to learn from a bad date, and nothing to learn from no dates.
Sarah -
That's an excellent point. I do learn a lot from almost every date, good or bad.
Ezzie -
It's a tough call - I know I always hate getting the line that my friends don't know anyone who is good enough for me. It makes me feel good that they think so highly of me, but it doesn't really help a whole lot!
I would say bad dates are worse; only because they sour your perspective on dating and make it less likely for you to be excited when a good date opportunity comes around.
Unless you have a fantastic sense of humor and can laugh heartily at your foibles; in which case it's definitely better to have bad dates, shrug them off, learn from the experience, and move on.
My perspective - a 61-year-old widow and once-upon-a-time math teacher, who is now also searching for Mr. Right.
The way I figure it, he's out there, and I will have to date a certain number of men before he turns up. Let's say that number is "X". X could be 5 or 500, it doesn't matter. So, after the first bad date, I have X-1 to go. After the second, I have X-2 to go. After the third ... and so on. Hey! That's progress!!!
(Giggle....)
Without a doubt, a string of bad dates is better. Because, first of all, you are circulating, you never know who knows who. My absolutely worst dates, in my perception recomended my best dates down the rd.
Also, you get so lonely and depressed during the dry spells, that you can get desperate and do all sorts of inappropriate things.
I davern for you all the time, Shani..
Lab Rab -
That's true, I know many who have dated for too long who are now not so open to the possibility of finding a good person - they get jaded by too many bad dates and it makes it much harder to be positive and put their best selves forward.
Silk -
I've heard that one, and I wish it came with a formula to figure out what your initial number is - would make things a heck of a lot easier.
sg -
I agree that it's important to get out there and circulate, and that dry spells can make you lonely. And thanks for the davening.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean the old "not good enough for you" line. I just mean simply "not for you". We have a number of good friends who we'd love to set up - we just don't know anyone who is up their alley.
Ezzie -
I hear ya, I think it's nice that you do put so much thought into it, rather than "nice guy, nice girl" approach.
Post a Comment
<< Home