how do you know if someone used you as a mere rebound for some former relationship or they had a real relationship with you? what are you red flags at detecting it?
>>32555932I like Horsemeet's rule of thumb on the matter, if a girl is less than five months out of a serious relationship you're a reboundWomen hate to be alone for long periods of time, they can't do solitude for years like men can, but if a chick hasn't taken like five or six months of not dating and being single to sort her shit out then it's a red flagThat said, one of my friends has parents that started dating pretty much the day after his mom finalized her divorce with her first husband, and they've been together at least 30 years now, so YMMV
talking about her exeither in a negative or positive way
>>32555932you can't. that variable isn't known at relationship initialization. it's decided right before she breaks up with you as a retro active rationalization. if you were Chad you could get a woman to commit the month after her husband died
>>32555932some rebounds end up being serious relationships after a while so if it was too long ago and you're still in it I wouldn't go back looking for answers, it will only ruin itt. one of my best and most chill relationships I had was a rebound at the start but she was so much better than the last girl it quickly because the reason I woke up evenshe never asked too much about that period of my life because I think she found out a bit (girls always snoop around) and didn't want to revive old shit not worth reviving
bump
>>32556209What a bitch
>>32556000>Women hate to be alone for long periods of time, they can't do solitude for years like menmy girlfriendmy last girlfriend was single for 3 years. no bf, no sex, just focusing on her career.
Are you >>32559589 ?
>>32559924sure thing buddy
>>32559924Would be the exception that proves the rule then, though I'd be inclined to agree with >>32561375 She might have gotten into some shit but it "didn't count" in her head.
>>32561381The only way for that to be true is that the girl was ridicously ugly; if she's at least below-average looking, she'll have had sex, You just gotta trust me on this one
>>32559924sorry friend but unless she is extremely physically unattractive or geniunely autistic she just lied to you
>>32556000>>32556070these two, basically. I was a rebound for a girl and we started mere hours after she dumped her then bf. also wouldnt shut up about this guy being a dick for the first couple of weeks. dumped me after 2 months and went back with the bf.
>>32561511Oh no I agree with you, three years is way too long for a girlI'm saying she might have used female logic like, "oh well there was that one guy I blew in the bathroom at work after the Christmas party, but we didn't have sex and it didn't go anywhere so it doesn't count!"Femcels don't exist, the only way women don't get sex is if they actively decide not to. I don't care how fat/ugly/autistic they are, there are always desperate thirsty dudes with no standards.
>>32562153>>32561519NTABut how many guys would a "single" woman fuck in three years?
>>32556000>Women hate to be alone for long periods of time, they can't do solitude for years like men canI've been alone almost all my life outside of a very brief relationship when I was 20. But I'm probably asexual so that makes it easy.
>>32556000>one of my friends has parents that started dating pretty much the day after his mom finalized her divorceThis is different from a rebound, she was almost certainly cheating on her first husband with her second one.
>>32563224Yes yes we get it you're a special snowflake. There's a reason why we say "the exception that PROVES" the rule.You also probably look like the femcel from Millennia Thinker's videos. And even then you had to qualify it with "oh one brief relationship." Let's not lie, if you could actually get the guys your unreasonably high standards attract you too (probably Kpop twinks), you wouldn't like being single as much.
