A key prompt for my leaving my last relationship was because I felt it was near impossible to be myself AND maintain ties with someone who wanted to mould me into their ideals.
Communication, not just where career choice is concerned but also in the relationship arena, is essential for longevity of any kind.
Drunken fragmented nights out tend to held against a backdrop of maximum decibels. Meaning if one wants to hold down a proper thorough conversation, to see if a potential suitor is worth your eleven digits, one needs an appropriate environment to do so.
Tinder makes a compelling case for talking to whoever, whenever from wherever.
Here’s the thing though…
Of 12 candidates I matched with, that seemed to brim with potential only 3 intiated conversation with me first.
Yes, it certainly does take 2 to Tango. However if there is a 75% chance that the guy in the scenario would turn down the opportunity to Flamenco when propositioned by the woman, this only illuminates the obvious. That the males in the room are probably not the right match for the vivacious woman in the first instance.
A big assumption? Maybe. I would ask the males in question myself but I probably wouldn’t receive a response.
It’s difficult to stifle my high pitched squeals of laughter on the profiles that indicate on the bio, “I’m not on here much”. Why are you on here [Tinder] at all? To the left, to the left.
The other possible conceivable options could be that these guys are not serious. My money is on this one. How can you be on Tinder, a dating app, and match with someone and not want to get to know the person or persons in question?
Perhaps you don’t want to. That makes you a no-returning message ass. None should rant and rave about this accolade being on their mantle piece when synonymously claiming to be ‘looking’ for a partner in crime.
A short response, out of manners or even an ‘unmatch’ for no reason seem more feasible.