the trust struggle is real...(okc)

[Commander Werther]

I met a guy...maybe a few...on OKC and theres one that I really like (or that I used to like atleast.....hopefully deep down inside I still do....slightly lithromantic....) And Im not exactly sure how to go about things? how does one progress to off of chatting via the app or website, and hes told me he likes me, but I mean, how can we tell if thats really true, I mean he still has his account on there and maybe I just dont trust people, because I feel like saying "how many girls have you said that to?" or "how many girls are you still talking to on the site?" Im just struggling. how can someone trust someone else in this way? I can understand trusting someone you met initially face to face because theyre more substantial (in ur mind atleast, difficult to explain) and youve probably known them for a while personally before getting into anything. But then youre on a dating site and there are these people on there that have probably been on there for a while longer than you and who knows why they joined or what theyve done,etc. and I could just be over thinking things....anyone have any advice or similar situations or anything? because I do like this guy and if he gave me a chance I think Id date him, and hes not too far away from me location wise, but theres the whole being easier to talk to u online and on skype (weve skyped face to face a few times) than to meet and talk to you in person >___________< *flails*

[Autumn Season]

how can someone trust someone else in this way?

I don't. The person has to prove himself by acting the same way he's talking. But this is exactly why meeting up is important: You will never know until you seem him and go on several dates with him.

BTW don't forget to be safe, meet in a public place, tell a friend where you are, take your mobile phone, etc. Also, trust your gut.

[Tarfeather]

But this is exactly why meeting up is important: You will never know until you seem him and go on several dates with him.

Why do you think so?

[Autumn Season]

But this is exactly why meeting up is important: You will never know until you seem him and go on several dates with him.

Why do you think so?

Most importantly "like" is a very stretched word. When somebody "likes" another it can mean anything. But after meeting up at least twice one will understand better, what kinds of feelings are involved and if the other is willing to date seriously.

[Tarfeather]

Oh, you're referring to her feelings. But in the sentence before that you talked about trust. It confused me how you connected those sentences. Are you implying a connection between trust and "crush" kind of feelings?

[Rising Sun]

It's impossible to trust him until you know him really well, so only time will tell. Until that, you can try to get to know him not only as a potential partner, but also as a friend too.

It's exactly how I made a "selection" on a dating site several years ago : I asked the man if he was OK to be "just friends" first and to be open to the fact that things might change on long term, but not on short term. Some just stopped talking to me, one tried to force a relationship or even marriage (!) immediately. A man you can trust will usually be OK with being simple friends first. Of course it doesn't mean that you really can trust him, but it's better than nothing especially on a dating site.

And this.

BTW don't forget to be safe, meet in a public place, tell a friend where you are, take your mobile phone, etc.

A cafe or a restaurant is often the safest place to meet for the first time.

[Autumn Season]

Oh, you're referring to her feelings. But in the sentence before that you talked about trust. It confused me how you connected those sentences. Are you implying a connection between trust and "crush" kind of feelings?

Uhm, I was referring to his feelings actually. The OP asks: How can she trust in that he honestly "likes" her? I'm saying that his actions will show his feelings. Afterwards she can put trust in him.

[Squirrel Combat]

Yeah, you don't want to trust someone if they haven't really showed it yet. I've done that...no bueno. <_<

[Tarfeather]

It's impossible to trust him until you know him really well, so only time will tell. Until that, you can try to get to know him not only as a potential partner, but also as a friend too.

It's exactly how I made a "selection" on a dating site several years ago : I asked the man if he was OK to be "just friends" first and to be open to the fact that things might change on long term, but not on short term. Some just stopped talking to me, one tried to force a relationship or even marriage (!) immediately. A man you can trust will usually be OK with being simple friends first. Of course it doesn't mean that you really can trust him, but it's better than nothing especially on a dating site.

That would be very good advice, I was considering suggesting that myself. But my guess is that the OP herself isn't actually after anything so "serious", and herself has rather short-term goals in mind. I think she is more confused about herself than about the other person.

Uhm, I was referring to his feelings actually. The OP asks: How can she trust in that he honestly "likes" her? I'm saying that his actions will show his feelings. Afterwards she can put trust in him.

Hm.. Maybe. But I tend to prefer Rising Sun's evaluation. That is, I don't believe it to be very relevant what he currently feels or how he currently acts. I think it matters more what he will feel and act like in a few months or years. You don't necessarily have to meet for that.

[Otohime]

You know a person likes you - is invested in you - if they keep talking to you. If online, if the messages and Skype keep coming. Eventually you'll want to meet in person and see how it goes. (You don't have to, of course. I love online pen pals, but sounds like you want more than that.)

As far as trusting him... neither trust him nor not trust him. Trust is earned. Also, if you aren't in a committed relationship with him, then it can be assumed he is talking to other people. And he isn't breaking any trust by doing so (unless he told you he wasn't talking to anyone else). At this point in your relationship, I wouldn't ask him who is talking to because it came come across as desperate or controlling. You can suggest meeting in person (or even just put the bug in his ear that you would be open for the idea and see where he stands with the idea). It sounds like you want to meet in person and then you can get a better feel for him and how he feels towards you.

It's exactly how I made a "selection" on a dating site several years ago : I asked the man if he was OK to be "just friends" first and to be open to the fact that things might change on long term, but not on short term. Some just stopped talking to me, one tried to force a relationship or even marriage (!) immediately. A man you can trust will usually be OK with being simple friends first. Of course it doesn't mean that you really can trust him, but it's better than nothing especially on a dating site.

It depends on the guy. For some guys, saying that you want to be friends and it only MIGHT change, isn't what he is wanting. If he's wanting a relationship in the near-future, he isn't going to want to invest when it could sound like there's only a possibility of being more than friends, and even if that happens it will only be in the long-term. Just because a guy wants a relationship sooner over later, it doesn't make him untrustworthy. Now if he suggest marriage before you meet... run. Even wanting to be boyfriends/girlfriends before you meet is too soon. But many people see the intermediate phrase as "dating" not "friendship."

However, if what YOU are looking for is a friendship to start, then by all means you should make that clear, so both of you have the same expectations.

[Tarfeather]

It depends on the guy. For some guys, saying that you want to be friends and it only MIGHT change, isn't what he is wanting. If he's wanting a relationship in the near-future, he isn't going to want to invest when it could sound like there's only a possibility of being more than friends, and even if that happens it will only be in the long-term. Just because a guy wants a relationship sooner over later, it doesn't make him untrustworthy.

In itself, it doesn't necessarily make him untrustworthy, no. But when someone wants a relationship, but not a friendship, that's a bit.. odd. If the prospect of a relationship is the only reason they talk to you, how much exactly do they care about you? It's a very questionable situation, although possible.

Even wanting to be boyfriends/girlfriends before you meet is too soon.

What makes you think so?

[Otohime]

It depends on the guy. For some guys, saying that you want to be friends and it only MIGHT change, isn't what he is wanting. If he's wanting a relationship in the near-future, he isn't going to want to invest when it could sound like there's only a possibility of being more than friends, and even if that happens it will only be in the long-term. Just because a guy wants a relationship sooner over later, it doesn't make him untrustworthy.

In itself, it doesn't necessarily make him untrustworthy, no. But when someone wants a relationship, but not a friendship, that's a bit.. odd. If the prospect of a relationship is the only reason they talk to you, how much exactly do they care about you? It's a very questionable situation, although possible.

I tend to agree, but that's because friendship is important to me. I'm not a huge romantic, and I'm definitely not after a sexual relationship. Friendship is the foundation of everything to me, but not everyone feels that way.

Some people *are* just after a romantic relationship (or just sexual one but let's stick with romantic for the moment). If they are wanting a romantic relationship that means they are also wanting a friendship, but that doesn't mean they want a friendship without the romantic relationship. Basically, for many people who "date," they do so without having to be friends with the people they date if the people don't work out. They might go on a date with someone and not hit it off and that's the end of that. Some people date several people at once and see who they hit if off with best; some people date one at a time, but quickly move on if it doesn't work out. "Dating" is very common approach for most people, especially on a dating site.

Yeah, it IS kind of like they are just after the relationship and not really caring about the person, but to people who date all the time, I don't think they see it that way. Some people view dating like speed dating (less speedy than 5 minute dates but still speedy). Basically, they view that EVERYONE who is dating is looking to find "the one." If dating is a test to see who you match with, and that's what you are looking for and that's what the other person is looking for, you don't have to deeply care about every person you date. You just have to find "the one" and then invest exclusively on them.

Also, to be friends first and only MAYBE date, implies a lot more work and it implies keeping in touch even if you never date. It's time consuming, particularly if a person is dating a lot of people. A person could wrack up a lot of friends that way and they'd never have time for them all. Also, in my experience new girlfriends don't want their boyfriends being friends with someone he might consider dating (unless you are suggesting that he can't date anyone else while being friends with you).

Personally, I could never date like this. Friendship IS important to me, and I'd be great with only being friends forever. But I also recognize that a lot of people do not think like that in regards to dating. Sometimes I can be a bit judgmental on how quickly people can dump someone completely out of their lives when they are through dating, but if that's what both people want, then... I don't know. I guess that's what they want and it's okay.

Even wanting to be boyfriends/girlfriends before you meet is too soon.

What makes you think so?

So you want a friendship before a relationship but you don't think it's too soon to call one another boyfriends/girlfriends before you meet?

I should have clarified that I meant being boyfriends/girlfriends, not just desiring it for the future. And if someone does want to be consider themselves boyfriends/girlfriends before they meet, I don't have a problem exactly... I just wouldn't advise accepting without meeting them first.

Barring special circumstances (such as long distance) asking to be boyfriends/girlfriends before meeting sounds desperate. Makes me think the other person is so desperate for a significant other that they are just jumping in headfirst without completely knowing the person. Also, it's like they are asking for commitment before you have anything to commit to.

[Tarfeather]

Also, to be friends first and only MAYBE date, implies a lot more work and it implies keeping in touch even if you never date. It's time consuming, particularly if a person is dating a lot of people. A person could wrack up a lot of friends that way and they'd never have time for them all. Also, in my experience new girlfriends don't want their boyfriends being friends with someone he might consider dating (unless you are suggesting that he can't date anyone else while being friends with you).

I see. That sounds very frightening to me, to be honest. When I think of "dating", I think of something that in itself should be special and rewarding. What you describe sounds like turning dating into factory mass production. :/

Barring special circumstances (such as long distance) asking to be boyfriends/girlfriends before meeting sounds desperate. Makes me think the other person is so desperate for a significant other that they are just jumping in headfirst without completely knowing the person. Also, it's like they are asking for commitment before you have anything to commit to.

A lot of people around here have had long distance relationships with people they met on communities such as this one. Some even would prefer to never meet, even if they lived close. I would suggest to place some importance on relationships like that. I don't know what you mean by "not having anything to commit to", but if you're implying that an online relationship is not something you can heavily commit to, then you are wrong and I can name at least one real example to contradict your statement.

As for desperation, is it so bad to be desperate? I know how it feels to be desperate. It merely meant that I was very lonely and hurt and disappointed. Doesn't change the fact that the person I was sure I wanted to marry after a month (which is a bit soon, yes), I've now been together with for almost a full year and I haven't changed my mind about wanting to marry her a single bit (although it was a struggle along the way).

[Prairie]

Something that just came to me to illustrate trust: it's not a simple binary, when you trust someone you know just how they'll respond. Coming to trust someone is learning how they will respond, out of the countless possible ways. It's not enough to know that they will merely not betray you, you have to know just how they'll support you so you know where to step. You could have a friend that you highly trust and know who introduces you to someone else whom they say that you can highly trust as well, but you'll still be uneasy opening up to them until you get to know how they respond and what you can rely on when you open up. Heck, you could have two great friends whom you trust, but be uneasy when you accidentally send a personal email about something difficult to the other one than you thought you were.

[marki]

I met a girl on OKC. We talked for a few days, met at a restaurant, and now we are hanging out on a regular basis. The worst thing that can happen if you meet up at a restaurant would be that the dude sucks, but if that is the case you can have a funny story for your friends. The best case is he is awesome and you make a friend.

And the way those sites work as a guy we have to message a lot of girls in order to find a match, it all is a numbers game for us, since many of the girls we may want to talk to will just blow us off entirely.

[Otohime]

A lot of people around here have had long distance relationships with people they met on communities such as this one. Some even would prefer to never meet, even if they lived close. I would suggest to place some importance on relationships like that. I don't know what you mean by "not having anything to commit to", but if you're implying that an online relationship is not something you can heavily commit to, then you are wrong and I can name at least one real example to contradict your statement.

As for desperation, is it so bad to be desperate? I know how it feels to be desperate. It merely meant that I was very lonely and hurt and disappointed. Doesn't change the fact that the person I was sure I wanted to marry after a month (which is a bit soon, yes), I've now been together with for almost a full year and I haven't changed my mind about wanting to marry her a single bit (although it was a struggle along the way).

Well, that's why I said except special circumstances like long distance. A relationship where you never intend to meet would also be a special case. Basically, if you have a non-traditional relationship, then everything about your relationship will be unique. Like the terms themselves take on different meaning. I'm not devaluing these relationships, just acknowledging that they are non-traditional. The OP doesn't seem to be referring to those situations, so I'm not delving too deeply into those cases.

Maybe commit isn't exactly the word I was looking for. Co-commit? I don't know. If two people have an online relationship, they can absolutely commit (maybe it's committing to write, to be their emotionally for each other, etc). I would just caution to make sure their online pal is wanting what they are wanting. Basically, if they are committing to a relationship when they are wanting XXX and aren't getting XXX, then don't commit. Things have gotten lost in this conversation, but I was originally referencing the OP scenario. It sounds like Werther wants to meet this online guy in person and may not even be able to trust him completely until she does. If that's true, and yet this guy asks her to be his girlfriend while they are just talking online, I'd ask... what is Werther committing to exactly?

This is the same situation of the common scenario where a boy and girl are having casual sex, and the girl asked him to be boyfriend/girlfriend. He says okay, and the girl takes that to mean they will go out on official dates because she assumes that's what people in "real" relationships do. From the guy's perspective, why would he change the relationship if he is already getting exactly what he wants? So I'd say -- don't commit unless what you have is exactly what you want (not to say you can't compromise, but don't assume something will change with a label). If you are wanting to meet someone in person, because you are wanting an in-person relationship, commit to that relationship AFTER you have an in-person relationship. Because then you are committing to the relationship you actually want.

One more thing. I guess it is possible for someone to commit to a relationship after they agree that it will change in the future. So if two people are talking online, maybe they commit and agree that they will meet in person someday. I personally would not trust this arrangement. Actions speak louder than words. If meeting in person is important to an individual, the commitment can wait until after that. Unless someone was really desperate, they would have no trouble waiting.

Regarding desparation....

Other people may think differently, but for me, desperation is a sign to run the other way. BTW, desperation isn't the same thing as eager. People who are eager for a relationship might rush, but they are still be coming from a secure place. If both partners are coming into the relationship with eagerness, then their relationship might develop quickly. However, they are self-confident and only want this because it's with the right person.

If someone is desperate, they will seize any relationship and cling to it like a lifeline. Desperate people are coming from an emotionally unhealthy place. If someone is truly desperate, they are willing to be with just about anyone. It's not about wanting to be with a specific person. Desperate people will act like they NEED the relationship, because they are lonely or insecure. They might need reassurance, affection, praise. They are relying on that other person to fulfill something that is missing from their life. If two people are both desperate to be in a relationship, they can be co-dependent (which can develop into a toxic relationship).

Not to judge anyone who is desperate. However, if someone who was desperate came to me, I would advice them to find the root of their insecurity before entering a relationship. Then they can enter a relationship and bring a better confidence and security. Also, if someone does enter a relationship out of desperation, that doesn't mean the relationship is doomed. All relationships can be worked on. But again, I was referencing the OP situation. If she has a choice, I don't advise walking into a relationship with someone who is desperate (also, never expect someone to change. Just because they can doesn't mean they will).

If someone wants to be boyfriends/girlfriends before meeting (when the plan is to meet), I'm not saying that is necessarily desperate, I'm saying it looks desperate. Because why wouldn't they wait to see how well you got along in person? I for one have a very different personality in person that I do online. It takes a very special person to handle being in a relationship with me in person. I wouldn't let anyone commit to me if they hadn't met me. So likewise, if someone else WANTED me to commit to them before meeting them, that raises red flags for me. Are they in that much of a rush? Are they looking for validation that the relationship is real? Are they wanting reassurance that I won't cheat? Are they viewing me as some kind of prize?

Labels like boyfriends/girlfriends should happen only when both people are ready for that. And unless a girl has made serious hints online that she wanted a label like that before meeting, I'd very much question a guy who would ask for something like that (the reverse is true as well. I'd question if a girl asked for that). Again, special circumstances aside.

[givememyname]

, because I feel like saying "how many girls have you said that to?" or "how many girls are you still talking to on the site?"

Why don't you simply ask him?

In my opinion, it's very difficult to trust someone you've just met, online or in real life. This person told you he liked you, and you're talking a lot, and you've even talked on skype, it looks like he's into you :) Maybe ask him on a date?

[Commander Werther]

A lot of people around here have had long distance relationships with people they met on communities such as this one. Some even would prefer to never meet, even if they lived close. I would suggest to place some importance on relationships like that. I don't know what you mean by "not having anything to commit to", but if you're implying that an online relationship is not something you can heavily commit to, then you are wrong and I can name at least one real example to contradict your statement.

As for desperation, is it so bad to be desperate? I know how it feels to be desperate. It merely meant that I was very lonely and hurt and disappointed. Doesn't change the fact that the person I was sure I wanted to marry after a month (which is a bit soon, yes), I've now been together with for almost a full year and I haven't changed my mind about wanting to marry her a single bit (although it was a struggle along the way).

Well, that's why I said except special circumstances like long distance. A relationship where you never intend to meet would also be a special case. Basically, if you have a non-traditional relationship, then everything about your relationship will be unique. Like the terms themselves take on different meaning. I'm not devaluing these relationships, just acknowledging that they are non-traditional. The OP doesn't seem to be referring to those situations, so I'm not delving too deeply into those cases.

Maybe commit isn't exactly the word I was looking for. Co-commit? I don't know. If two people have an online relationship, they can absolutely commit (maybe it's committing to write, to be their emotionally for each other, etc). I would just caution to make sure their online pal is wanting what they are wanting. Basically, if they are committing to a relationship when they are wanting XXX and aren't getting XXX, then don't commit. Things have gotten lost in this conversation, but I was originally referencing the OP scenario. It sounds like Werther wants to meet this online guy in person and may not even be able to trust him completely until she does. If that's true, and yet this guy asks her to be his girlfriend while they are just talking online, I'd ask... what is Werther committing to exactly?

This is the same situation of the common scenario where a boy and girl are having casual sex, and the girl asked him to be boyfriend/girlfriend. He says okay, and the girl takes that to mean they will go out on official dates because she assumes that's what people in "real" relationships do. From the guy's perspective, why would he change the relationship if he is already getting exactly what he wants? So I'd say -- don't commit unless what you have is exactly what you want (not to say you can't compromise, but don't assume something will change with a label). If you are wanting to meet someone in person, because you are wanting an in-person relationship, commit to that relationship AFTER you have an in-person relationship. Because then you are committing to the relationship you actually want.

One more thing. I guess it is possible for someone to commit to a relationship after they agree that it will change in the future. So if two people are talking online, maybe they commit and agree that they will meet in person someday. I personally would not trust this arrangement. Actions speak louder than words. If meeting in person is important to an individual, the commitment can wait until after that. Unless someone was really desperate, they would have no trouble waiting.

this was extremely helpful thank you :)

[Commander Werther]

, because I feel like saying "how many girls have you said that to?" or "how many girls are you still talking to on the site?"

Why don't you simply ask him?

In my opinion, it's very difficult to trust someone you've just met, online or in real life. This person told you he liked you, and you're talking a lot, and you've even talked on skype, it looks like he's into you :) Maybe ask him on a date?

I think those questions are just me being slightly jealous, but then again, Im still talking to a bunch of other guys so I have no right haha XD IF we were in a relationship I think then if he still had the account I would ask :) If I get any indication that hed be willing to meet, I would. I might not even like him tomorrow, sometimes when I get to like someone, the more they start to like me the more I start to not like them that way. Im weird ^_^'''''

[Forever Dreaming]

A lot of people around here have had long distance relationships with people they met on communities such as this one. Some even would prefer to never meet, even if they lived close. I would suggest to place some importance on relationships like that. I don't know what you mean by "not having anything to commit to", but if you're implying that an online relationship is not something you can heavily commit to, then you are wrong and I can name at least one real example to contradict your statement.

Yes, long distance / never meet can be just as real and committed. Online chatting for hours at a time, several days a week, for years (if it works)... it takes a lot of emotional investment. All secrets revealed, all dreams discovered. It can get pretty intense.