What does it mean when a woman spends less time with her friends after dating this one guy, and only spends time with his friends now?

What does it mean when a woman spends less time with her friends after dating this one guy, and only spends time with his friends now?

Honestly, I thought this was normal, because that's essentially what couples do at first. But it's been about a year, and she kind of avoids her previous friends now. Not only that, but the only friends she has are his friends, and the only time she meets other people is if he knows them as well (before then, meeting new people was one of her favourite things).

This is in stark contrast to her previous relationships, who were more encouraging of her sociability. But now, with this guy, it seems like they have to be tied to him first. Even other women aren't having as much luck meeting her as before. And speaking of her previous relationships, apparently her boyfriend has picked fights with her exes that, from what I understand, were largely unprovoked? I don't know what that's about.

A lot of this seems weird, and starting to catch everyone's attention. Maybe I'm reading too much into things?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    And why exactly do you care? You probably are the „old friend“ aka orbiter that now got left to hang outside to dry?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why are you obsessing after a year?

      >why do people care about their friends?!?!?
      men, everybody.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I am not a man and you should just move on and get new friends. You reek of insecurity and that‘s probably why she used her new relationship as a not so subtle way to cut contact.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >I am not a man
          And yet you have a sociopathic view of how friendships work, as indicated by:
          >just move on and get new friends

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        kek, this.

        I am not a man and you should just move on and get new friends. You reek of insecurity and that‘s probably why she used her new relationship as a not so subtle way to cut contact.

        >You reek of insecurity
        and you reek of inceldom for endorsing what sounds like an abusive relationship

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Or American. Americans have superficial views on friendships. See

        I am not a man and you should just move on and get new friends. You reek of insecurity and that‘s probably why she used her new relationship as a not so subtle way to cut contact.

        and

        She finds his friends more interesting

        .

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          70 % of nearly everybody's social circle is completely replaced every ~7 years.
          Moving on from people and finding new people to spend your time with isn't "superficial", it is inevitable.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >70 % of nearly everybody's social circle is completely replaced every ~7 years.
            if you're American or a child, maybe. most people's friendships stay consistent throughout their lives. and they don't end them unless it's something serious and they've exhausted all other options.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              This is from a study by a Dutch sociologist. A survey which included 1000+ people and followed up on them after 7 years.
              Much more valuable and representative of the average person than your anecdotal opinion.

              You just posted one of the most basic examples of superficiality.

              Elaborate

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >This is from a study by a Dutch sociologist.
                being misinterpreted by an American, who's relying on a singular or limited source of authority (i.e.: confirmation bias).
                >A survey which included 1000+ people and followed up on them after 7 years.
                those are two examples of insubstantial sample sizes.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                More substantial than your sole opinion.

                If you say that data from 1000 people isn't enough to substantiate an argument, then surely you will agree that your statement of "most people's friendships stay constant throughout their life" is severely lacking in evidence and should not be taken seriously in the slightest.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >1000 people is enough
                population studies typically use 6-figure scales, not 4.

                >That's not nearly enough for a study.
                so you never took statistics?

                you clearly haven't yourself.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Next time just admit you have no idea how statistics works.
                https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html
                this has nothing to do with what you or anyone itt is talking about.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The link
                >A tool to calculate the necessary minimum sample size for statistical analysis.
                Your retarded ass
                >"duuuurrrrr duuuuuh link has nothing to do with if duuuuuhhhhhh sample of 1,000 is big enough huuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrr"

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >A tool to calculate the necessary minimum sample size for statistical analysis.
                which had nothing to do with what you or anyone was talking about: a thread where op is inferring an abusive relationship, and cultural views on friendship.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                see

                >1k people
                >7 years
                That's not nearly enough for a study.

                [...]
                >If you say that data from 1000 people isn't enough
                It isn't. These studies are done on wider scales than that.

                >"most people's friendships stay constant throughout their life" is severely lacking in evidence
                That's a general/culturally relative statement they're making (the culturally relative part being a more important factor), so the same standards wouldn't need to apply.

                >1000 people is enough
                population studies typically use 6-figure scales, not 4.

                [...]
                you clearly haven't yourself.

                >This is from a study by a Dutch sociologist.
                being misinterpreted by an American, who's relying on a singular or limited source of authority (i.e.: confirmation bias).
                >A survey which included 1000+ people and followed up on them after 7 years.
                those are two examples of insubstantial sample sizes.

                More substantial than your sole opinion.

                If you say that data from 1000 people isn't enough to substantiate an argument, then surely you will agree that your statement of "most people's friendships stay constant throughout their life" is severely lacking in evidence and should not be taken seriously in the slightest.

                This is from a study by a Dutch sociologist. A survey which included 1000+ people and followed up on them after 7 years.
                Much more valuable and representative of the average person than your anecdotal opinion.

                [...]
                Elaborate

                minimum of 5 posts. that's 1/6th of the posts so far.

                Note that your reply is a direct response to the series of posts about statistics and minimum sample sizes.

                Try to keep up

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >1000 people isn't enough
                Depends on who/what/where you're studying. In some cases, 1000 is way too tiny.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >1k people
                >7 years
                That's not nearly enough for a study.

                More substantial than your sole opinion.

                If you say that data from 1000 people isn't enough to substantiate an argument, then surely you will agree that your statement of "most people's friendships stay constant throughout their life" is severely lacking in evidence and should not be taken seriously in the slightest.

                >If you say that data from 1000 people isn't enough
                It isn't. These studies are done on wider scales than that.

                >"most people's friendships stay constant throughout their life" is severely lacking in evidence
                That's a general/culturally relative statement they're making (the culturally relative part being a more important factor), so the same standards wouldn't need to apply.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >That's not nearly enough for a study.
                so you never took statistics?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >That's a general/culturally relative statenment they're making
                Appeal to common sense is a logical fallacy, anon..

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing about that post had anything to do with common sense (or common knowledge), and I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion...

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                He's a pseudo-intellectual

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe I misinterpreted.
                I thought that you meant that what anon said differs per culture, so it doesn't need evidence to back it up because he's part of his culture and therefore knows his culture.

                In my mind "most people's friendships stay constant" is a very specific statement that can be measured and proven/disproven. I have provided evidence that suggests the statement is more likely false (at least in the Netherlands).

                Why do you argue that there is no need for anon to provide evidence and that it should instead just be accepted as true?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >In my mind "most people's friendships stay constant" is a very specific statement
                That's a broad/general statement, not a specific one. And they said consistent, not constant.

                >Why do you argue that there is no need for anon to provide evidence
                Because neither of you are talking about science, math, or law.

                see
                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                [...]
                minimum of 5 posts. that's 1/6th of the posts so far.

                Note that your reply is a direct response to the series of posts about statistics and minimum sample sizes.

                Try to keep up

                These aren't valid samples because they're literally just anecdotes.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >These aren't valid samples because they're literally just anecdotes
                translation
                >duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Most (ie: more than half) people's friendships stay consistent (ie: the same) in their lifetime.

                This can be measured by asking people who they are friends with and asking them again later in time to see if anything has changed (is inconsistent).
                Which is exactly what was done in the study I mentioned.

                What the fuck are you talking about that it can't be studied

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Most (ie: more than half) people's friendships stay consistent (ie: the same) in their lifetime.
                That's not what either "most" or "consistent" means.

                >This can be measured by asking people who they are friends with and asking them again later in time to see if anything has changed (is inconsistent).
                Those are poor sources of information you're choosing from, and applying the wrong method.

                >Which is exactly what was done in the study I mentioned.
                You never cited this study. And you're talking about strictly numbers, not people.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Instead of just saying "you're wrong", how about you actually say how you think I'm wrong.
                Not a very constructive discussion otherwise.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                is it referring to the dutch specifically? because that's a key element you all are looking over. and even then, you're comparing them to the us, which is also white and western, so I don't know what you're trying to achieve

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You just posted one of the most basic examples of superficiality.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          and probably because the friend in question is a woman, and /adv/’s generally dismissive of opposite sex friendships (feeling they should be abandoned over the slightest thing). we would have different responses if the friend was a guy.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          and probably because the friend in question is a woman, and /adv/’s generally dismissive of opposite sex friendships (feeling they should be abandoned over the slightest thing). we would have different responses if the friend was a guy.

          Or probably because we've all had that guy friend who was jealous of your relationship, and took every opportunity to nitpick every "abusive" pattern he saw.

          With that said, there are some things to keep in mind. For starters, it's common to change your friend group to your partner's friends when entering into a relationship, but I don't know if you can say the same after a year of dating. Avoiding her previous friends is admittedly odd, as is only meeting people if her partner knows them. The isolation from other women makes less sense. And I'm surprised no one paid attention to this part, but him getting into fights with her exes is concerning.

          But there's very little information beyond that to judge the situation.

          This is from a study by a Dutch sociologist. A survey which included 1000+ people and followed up on them after 7 years.
          Much more valuable and representative of the average person than your anecdotal opinion.

          [...]
          Elaborate

          >Much more valuable and representative of the average person than your anecdotal opinion.
          The pot calling the kettle black.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you obsessing after a year?

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    She finds his friends more interesting

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Probably a possessive boyfriend. I've dated people like him before.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds sus but it's not necessarily an abusive situation. Leave the door open for her to come to you if she needs to but butt out.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >The girl I orbit found a great guy
    FTFY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *