Taking A Shrine To Him
I've been seeing a guy for six months. It's frustrating because I initiate our get-togethers, and he returns my calls but rarely calls me, and we've only been intimate a few times. He went away for five weeks, and because I missed him, I asked if he'd e-mail a photo, which he did. Well, absence makes the heart grow fonder, and I printed the photo, framed it, and placed it on my nightstand. Two weeks after he got back, he came over and noticed the photo, which I left out to see his reaction. He seemed really taken aback. The fact that he didn't leave, and we ended up having sex, gives me some comfort. But, I'm still worried about his response. Although we don't see each other regularly like most couples, I've got no reason to believe he's seeing someone else. But, we also haven't had "The Talk." Perhaps the photo was a good way to initiate it.
--Restless
If absence makes the heart grow fonder, what would you say a restraining order will do?
Seeing the framed photo had to make this guy wonder...no, not what the children will look like, but where's this whack job hiding the rest of her obsession kit: the butt of that cigarette he smoked, the fork that once touched his lips, the steel door handle he pushed entering the hardware store? This is a guy you know about three shades better than the guy who makes your latte at Starbucks. Turning your nightstand into Shrine Of The Guy You're Kinda Sorta Seeing isn't clever or flattering, it's creepsville. Don't kid yourself that it's a good sign he stuck around to knock boots. For a guy, sex is like a bag of chips. If it's in arm's reach, he'll help himself to some.
There's an old line, "Chase a man until he catches you," meaning it's a woman's job to flirt, to let a guy know she's open to him asking her out. And while some guys will tell you they love when women chase them, men tend to devalue women they don't have to work to get. They might date you, and even get serious with you, but not necessarily because they're really into you, but because hey, you asked, and why not? To weed these guys out, never do the asking. The most forward sort of thing you should do is maybe tease a guy by leaning in and whispering that he's hot, then continuing on your way. That's his cue to chase you -- if he's interested enough -- as opposed to lying down to make it easier for you to drag him back to your lair.
This advice shouldn't be news to you because you e-mailed me about this guy six months ago, and I told you he didn't show enough initiative, and you should drop him. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. That was "drop him," not "drop him off at the photo processing desk at CVS." You need to pull together a sense of self-worth. If you had it, you'd be looking for evidence a guy has feelings for you, not planting it in your bedroom. Consider this thing blown. Just as it's easy to creep somebody out but nearly impossible to uncreep them out, you probably can't make a guy want you after throwing yourself at him. In the future, if you love something, set it free. If it forgets about you until you call to ask it to dinner, have the self-respect to quick-quick put on a foreign accent and blurt out, "Hello, Mahatma? Your goat has been repaired and is ready for pickup."
I dont know why it is guys devaule women. From a fishing perspective the fish that jumps in your boat is as good a meal as the one you had catch.
But I have seen it fisrt hand, as for myself I dont really care one way or the other if I am the pursuer or the pursuee.
But Im not exactly a normal reperesntation of humanity either
lujlp at January 5, 2010 10:31 PM
Tough medecine, Amy, administered expertly. This is very funny yet Restless would do well to heed your advice.
Best,
Barry I
Barry at January 5, 2010 10:36 PM
Please, LW, don't have "The Talk." Deep down, you know that if he's honest, you're not going to like what you'll hear. Ms. Alkon's right -- if he's not acting like a real boyfriend, it's probably because he doesn't really want to be your boyfriend.
One other question that might be worth asking: Are you hanging on this guy because he's something special, or because you think you really have to have a boyfriend? I think a lot of people get themselves in trouble becuase they think they must have a boyfriend or girlfriend, and wind up looking desparate, which isn't at all attractive.
old rpm daddy at January 6, 2010 4:30 AM
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that at the start of a relationship, i.e. after the initial dating stages and once intimacy starts, you shouldn't be able to keep your hands off each other. You should be late to dinner parties because a glimpse of underwear while getting ready resulted in tearing each others' clothes off. Casseroles should boil dry on the stove. Movies should have to be rented again because you missed the end. The cashier at the drugstore should greet you by first name and fetch your favourite condoms for you. I can't imagine "seeing someone" for six months on this sort of occasional basis - it would drive me absolutely nuts. If he's not chasing you now, what's going to happen in ten years time - you going to ring him and say "you really should come round to see the kids - email me a photo to show them so they recognise you"?
He's Just. Not. That. Into. You.
Ltw at January 6, 2010 5:15 AM
Oh, and the guy is either a spineless wimp (if he's really creeped out and trying to escape) or an asshole (if he's stringing along someone who is obviously serious about him for occasional sex).
I'm voting for the latter.
Ltw at January 6, 2010 5:23 AM
Ooooooo, LW has isssues, doesn't she? Her self-esteem tank is on 'E'. I was at the gym the other day, and I overheard one of the women talking to her trainer about a guy, and it was pretty much the same thing - she hardly sees him except for sex, he doesn't call her but he will text her if she texts him first; she bought him a shirt for Christmas, but he didn't come to her place to get it yet, and when he told her he was meeting someone for "coffee" she told him he should wear the new shirt she bought him, to "impress [his] date", and, of course, the guy said it wasn't a "date". Wha? Then he was suuposed to hook up with her on New Year's Day, but he blew her off. The trainer was saying things like, "oh you don't need someone like that in your life" and "don't call him anymore" but "if he calls you, go meet him but tell him it's the last time", etc. I finished my workout, went into the locker room, and she was in there, sitting on the bench, looking upset. I smiled at her and said "Be the butterfly." She looked at me like, huh? I told her, "The secret is to act like you don't care, and pretty soon, you really won't. Then you'll be the elusive butterfly, that is so attractive but yet, unavailable. Maybe you won't get this guy, but the next one will be eating out of your hand." I don't know if she got it or not.
Flynne at January 6, 2010 6:00 AM
Flynne, you're evil. The butterfly approach drives me wild - I suspect it's being used on me at the moment (just enough encouragement to keep me in the game combined with detachment sufficient to keep me keen) and I'm happily falling for it. Which is just proof that it works I suppose.
Ltw at January 6, 2010 6:31 AM
Maybe I'm broken, but this would never work on me. If I get put off once, I walk away.
brian at January 6, 2010 6:52 AM
Flynne, as you told your story of the girl @ the gym, I couldn't help but remember that scene from Sex and the City where Miranda is offering her newfound insight (i.e. "He's just not that into you") to the girls sitting on the steps analyzing why *he* hadn't called back yet....
And do you remember their reaction? Hilarious.
Hopefully your gym gal will take your words to heart.
other Beth at January 6, 2010 6:57 AM
"Hello, Mahatma? Your goat has been repaired and is ready for pickup."
OMFG. I heard this in my head in Kal Penn's voice, and I still can't stop laughing. It was so funny I threw sense to the wind and used "OMFG." Thanks, Amy.
Maybe I'm broken, but this would never work on me. If I get put off once, I walk away.
I think the butterfly approach works best when a woman doesn't come across like she doesn't care, but more like she cares, but not so much she's going to pin your photo to her underwear. Both desperation and indifference can be off-putting.
MonicaP at January 6, 2010 7:07 AM
@MonicaP: "I think the butterfly approach works best when a woman doesn't come across like she doesn't care, but more like she cares, but not so much she's going to pin your photo to her underwear."
I would imagine there's a certain art to it. I guess whether I continued the pursuit or not would depend on how elusive she was versus how much I really wanted to catch her.
Pin your photo to her underwear? Where the heck did that come from?
old rpm daddy at January 6, 2010 7:13 AM
Pin your photo to her underwear? Where the heck did that come from?
It was the craziest nonviolent thing I could thing of at the moment.
MonicaP at January 6, 2010 7:15 AM
Maybe I'm broken, but this would never work on me. If I get put off once, I walk away.
Brian, I used to be like that, but I finally worked out women like to be chased a bit - if only to prove you're not going to disappear the next day. Of course, an outright "no" means go away, as does a nervous, eyes-look-away "maybe" (shy girl not wanting to reject you outright), but until you get told no it's fair to respectfully and nicely pursue the matter. Of course, telling the difference between those who are interested but projecting unavailability and those who are not into you at all but are not saying so is hard. Hint - it can't be done, so try anyway and take your lumps when they're due, or walk away if they string you along too long. Or wait till someone virtually throws themselves at you. I don't mean that judgementally btw, I've done that a lot too, it's a valid option if you're patient.
It's not so much a question of it "working on you", it's more about you showing that you value her. If all goes well she'll have 20 years of you sitting on the couch in your underwear with a beer, wanting you to show a bit of willingness to make a fool of yourself over her at the start is not a big ask. The approach Flynne is advocating (I think) is not so much for a woman to put you off, but to give you a bit of encouragement while looking like she can live without you, either way is fine sort of thing. That means no desperation calling, etc. Then it's your job to convince her why you're special...
Ltw at January 6, 2010 7:24 AM
"Then you'll be the elusive butterfly, that is so attractive but yet, unavailable."
Gals, my advice: don't play these games. I am open to any empirical evidence to support this view. Really, I am. My own anecdotal experience, though, is to the contrary.
I have half a dozen close male friends I have known since kindergarten. I have had maybe another 100 relatively friendly fellows who discussed things with me as though I was a close friend. We don't discuss how we met or courted women much, but when we do, the stories do not comport with this construct you present of the drivers of males bonding to gals.
The romantic notion of women imagining how they will meet their guy is that he will ardently chase them. (See romance novels.) All women have to do is drop cues like fishing lures, be tempestuous, and eventually the appropriate guy will take the bait, bond hopelessly and then chase lustfully and without fail.
Yet when I think about my happily married male friends (or ones in healthy long term relationships) who plenty of women found attractive, in each case it was actually the gal who targeted and pursued the guy. And I am talking open pursuit, not coy pursuit. And the women did not do it with any neediness, rather it was a steely, "I am going to marry you. And you *will* marry me, otherwise this is over. I am not just another woman."
I remember one gal met for the first time my high-income, smart, Italian-American buddy who was movie star handsome . He was out of almost any gal's league. As my buddy left, she turned to her friend with cold, hard eyes and literally whispered to her friend, "That is the man I will marry." She then went ahead and brought him down like a deer, though he could have had pretty much anyone. It was her formidable nature that got him, I think, not some coy act. He got plenty of coy every night in every bar he went into. He didn't want that in his spouse. Most guys do not.
I cannot think of too many of those guys I know who would actually find "butterflies" attractive after the first five minutes. Most would shrug, view the gal as kind of flaky, and then get back to their careers, hobbies, another woman, what have you. Most busy, interesting guys really are not into spending a bunch of time and money on chasing a particular woman. They are focused on other things. And since women are available to them, why bother putting a bunch of effort into any one playing coy?
But when a woman has strength, determination, and (well-placed) confidence in her worth, and she makes it clear that she will not be like other women in your life, well, that gal tends to highlight herself as different. If a guy goes for that, it signals that he too is considering it a long term thing.
I understand, though, that mileages vary, as they say.
Spartee at January 6, 2010 7:26 AM
The approach Flynne is advocating (I think) is not so much for a woman to put you off, but to give you a bit of encouragement while looking like she can live without you, either way is fine sort of thing,
Exactamundo, Ltw! This is exactly what I'm getting at, because, you know, the elusive butterfly lands every so often, and if it likes a particular flower, even stays a while.
Flynne at January 6, 2010 7:32 AM
Spartee, there are a lot of men out there who see very confident women as a threat.
But when a woman has strength, determination, and (well-placed) confidence in her worth, and she makes it clear that she will not be like other women in your life, well, that gal tends to highlight herself as different.
Women like this have also used the butterfly tactic because it works. "I am just fine the way I am, I am self-supporting, I have everything I need, but... I just might want you in my life." And they act accordingly, which is to sometimes be available, and sometimes not.
She then went ahead and brought him down like a deer, though he could have had pretty much anyone. It was her formidable nature that got him, I think, not some coy act.
I'm sure a bit a coyness was in her repertoire, because constant aggresiveness can be a turn-off. It depends on the pursuer and the pursuee.
Flynne at January 6, 2010 7:44 AM
Thank you Flynne! I'm glad I'm on the right track because I think I'm being led through exactly that dance now (but...we'll see). It's been said by many men at many different times "If only I had known what I know now when I was 20..."
I think the butterfly approach works best when a woman doesn't come across like she doesn't care, but more like she cares, but not so much she's going to pin your photo to her underwear. Both desperation and indifference can be off-putting.
Thank you MonicaP for summing up in 2 sentences what took me two paragraphs. And I like the photo pinning image - can I pinch the idea or is there a royalty?
The romantic notion of women imagining how they will meet their guy is that he will ardently chase them.
Spartee, you've missed the point - we're talking about how women should react to a man who is already interested and has made the first approach, not how to find a man in the first place. Should she say "Oh, thank god, I thought I was going to die a spinster" or "hmmm, maybe, what have you got to offer?"
And the women did not do it with any neediness, rather it was a steely, "I am going to marry you. And you *will* marry me, otherwise this is over. I am not just another woman."
Any woman who said this to me would get her answer in the sound of squealing tires taking off down the street. The steely voice alone would start me running.
Ltw at January 6, 2010 7:53 AM
Same old mistake. I have had to explain this to a few girls that I am friends with.
As Dr. Laura says "Men are always available for sex."
Guys due to evolution are hard-wired to be able to have sex without being in love or having super strong emotions toward his partner.
Women are falsely educated in our Universities that sex between women and men are equal.
Because a lot of women have sex and strong emotions toward these men they assume it is reciprocated by their partner. Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Women assign these feelings to a man simply because the woman herself has them.
This guy is around because you are giving him sex. Stop the sex and he will disappear.
David M. at January 6, 2010 7:54 AM
When I met my sweety I didn't try to hide the fact that I found him attractive. I was also friendly, open, approachable, and easy to get to know. I think I was down-to-earth and not butterfly-ish. However, I gave him my number but didn't ask for his. I figured I'd let him do the calling, and he did - almost every day! (So yes, after a couple of weeks I thought it was finally safe to call him occasionally.) It was a couple of months before we slept together. The chemistry was sizzling, but we kind of enjoyed letting it build for a while.
You don't have to chase a guy if he is interested - in fact, you will hardly be able to get rid of him. That's the kind you want, otherwise he just isn't interested enough to treat you the way you deserve. The LW should not have to be the one to initiate their get-togethers. She should find out what it's like to be with a guy who's into her enough to man up and do it himself. I'm completely with Ltw on this - if he's making her do all the work this early on, things are never going to get better.
Pirate Jo at January 6, 2010 9:04 AM
Guys like recreational sex; women like recreational shopping.
That explains 90 percent of the species and their behavior.
Get used to it.
Mr. Big Weenie at January 6, 2010 9:47 AM
Rules - ugh! Some things work for some people, so for another. Mostly extremes of desperation/lassoing a guy don't.
Some like the chase more than others. All want indications that you're interested. These indications will not always be properly read! Obviously - this guy sees the LR as a cute blow-up sex doll.
People tend to do better at what comes naturally. Someone who enjoy the chase will have a whale of a time coupling with those who also enjoy the chase. Others might find the 'exhilarating chase' more of a 'stop the annoying gameplaying already'. Someone who likes a person of strong mind and opinion will gel with similar ... etc..
With the right person, it just won't be that confusing.
AntoniaB at January 6, 2010 10:15 AM
When a guy broke up with me I told him that I adored him but we didnt need to be together. Soon afterwards one night he called me at midnight and I explained to him that I really liked him and I dont talk to guys that I want to have a romatic relationship with who dont want one with me. So asked him never to call me again. Well dude found a way around that and starting contacting me via the written word. Dude wouldnt leave me alone so I put dude on ignore. I'd moved on by then.
Ppen at January 6, 2010 12:36 PM
The fewer games you allow yourself to play with people, the less of a taste you'll have for them—as an instigator or a participant.
Razor at January 6, 2010 12:51 PM
There's a difference between mind games and the fun sort of courting games people play. When I was single, I liked to flirt. Most men played the "game," even when neither of us was interested in doing more than flirting. It was fun. Games SHOULD be fun. There will be plenty of time later for the serious, deep stuff.
MonicaP at January 6, 2010 1:19 PM
Great advice, Amy! These are the kinds of things I'm afraid to tell my female friends. And the things I wish someone had told me in the past.
And ltw, I couldn't agree with your first post more! I am finally in the kind of relationship you described (even after a year together), and I am astounded at the sh*t I used to put up with from others before I knew how a relationship should feel.
And, as Pirate Jo said, if someone is as into you as you are into him/her, it will be obvious. I think the LW should stop calling and texting him and see if he calls or texts her. If he doesn't, that will send a stronger message than his half-assed attempts to convey his disinterest (laziness?) have. I don't mean this to be harsh--I was in this situation years ago and realized (humiliatingly) that I was initiating all contact (and, when he canceled on me, I was the one to call him a few days later to reschedule). Luckily it only took me a couple weeks to see the pattern. And so I stopped calling. And he continued NOT calling. It hurt, but at least I wasted relatively little time.
sofar at January 6, 2010 1:30 PM
There is some gender bias in pursuer/pursuee role effectiveness. Both my observations and the research (I believe) bear this out.
However, the success of any individual romantic
effort is NOT solely due to this bias, but rather that of MANY factors. The most important factor by far, much larger than gender role bias, is simply raw skill...and each role requires a very different skillset.
If a girl complains that she chased a guy and it didn't work...well MAYBE its due just to role bias.
Most likely its for the same reason a guy chases a girl and doesn't catch her...their skill was insufficient for the circumstances.
Its notably worse for girls of course, because girls chase infrequently, so their pursuer game sucks balls, while guys are chase specialists so their game tends to be tighter.
Peter at January 6, 2010 2:31 PM
Jeez, just set her up with the guy from the other letter, but hope they don't breed.
Pricklypear at January 6, 2010 3:48 PM
Pricklypear, you win the internet for today! Now to mop up the water I just spilled while laughing...
Their respective partners sound perfect for each other too - maybe a double date?
Ltw at January 6, 2010 4:16 PM
The only "rules" I know of for living a great life, finding a great relationship, great job, great etc., are (1) have high self-esteem, and (2) find the world and your fellow humans interesting. The rest totally takes care of itself.
Melissa G at January 7, 2010 8:03 AM
The only "rules" I know of for living a great life, finding a great relationship, great job, great etc., are (1) have high self-esteem, and (2) find the world and your fellow humans interesting. The rest totally takes care of itself.
High self-esteem is overrated. Some of the most interesting people I know think shit of themselves. Better them than some of the high self-esteem jerks wandering around.
MonicaP at January 7, 2010 8:28 AM
"Maybe I'm broken, but this would never work on me. If I get put off once, I walk away."
Yeah, I really can't be bothered with people who play silly games; may be a guy thing but I just want people to be straight with me.
Lobster at January 7, 2010 1:19 PM
"This guy is around because you are giving him sex."
Yeah, sounds to me like he sees LW as a 'friend with benefits'; he might not even really realise she doesn't see it the same way (too many details missing to tell), or might prefer not to because, well, it's sex. He's definitely not 'into her'. Amy's right on the money with the 'bag of chips' analogy.
Lobster at January 7, 2010 1:23 PM
Having justly deserved high self esteem is overkill. Learning how to project high self esteem (ie fake it) is all you really need for people to treat you like a winner.
Granted learning how to convincingly project high self esteem in your every word and deed is rather difficult.
In principle judging others based upon the self esteem they project is an effective evolved cognitive shortcut; in practice I know people who have tons to offer but inexplicably have crushingly low self esteem.
And of course, its entirely possible to "game the system" with really not that much effort considering the rewards.
Peter at January 7, 2010 2:02 PM
Butterfly or not to butterfly? That is not the question.
When two people want to be together, they will know.
techie at January 7, 2010 2:24 PM
'The only "rules" I know of for living a great life, finding a great relationship, great job, great etc., are (1) have high self-esteem, and (2) find the world and your fellow humans interesting. The rest totally takes care of itself.'
Good thought - I would substitute 'high self esteem' with 'be comfortable in your own skin'.
AntoniaB at January 7, 2010 2:58 PM
This letter sort of demonstrates the folly of casual dating AND casual sex at the same time.
If people (note: not just women) aren't looking for a booty call, and would like something more meaningful, then why would they have sex with their partners, giving them the opposite impression?
If I were interested in someone, and she approached me first, I'd be flattered and thrilled, not turned off. I don't hunt or fish, and I get nauseated by analogies suggesting I should be chasing a woman so I can drag her by her hair back to the cave to enjoy my "feast."
Oh, and, contrary to the nonsense that "guys only want sex" -- I'm a guy, and I've never wanted sex.
bmmg39 at January 7, 2010 5:23 PM
Re: faking high self-esteem, I had an interview for a job yesterday. I almost completely threw it away when, having been asked by one interviewer why I thought I should get the job rather than someone else, I said:
"'Cause I'm AMAZING!!"
:D
Fortunately, it was tongue-in-cheek and I think they picked up on that. It's a stock phrase from my social group. Fingers crossed the interviewers saw the humour...!
donald at January 8, 2010 2:52 AM
Bayonne, NJ March 1975: there were no such things as restraining orders or harassment laws. If you were a girl, the police would not intervene unless the man actually pistol-whipped you.
The first time my wife met me she thought I was highly obnoxious and wanted nothing to do with me (anyone who has read my blog knows I am a self-centered, conceited, opinionated, and highly obnoxious person). I, on the other hand, put it into my head that we belonged with each other.
I would find out what restaurants she was at with a date and miraculously show up. I did this for a number of different men she was dating. She asked me to stop showing up at her dates. I said I would if she went out on a date with me. She turned me down at least a half-dozen times.
Finally, two months after we first met, she did go out on a dinner date with me. 30 days after that, we were married and have stayed together for the past 34 years, six months and 25 days.
The Rocky Mountains were once twice as high as they are now. Persistence has worn them down. So to those who say that one turn-down is enough to discourage them, I say if you really want someone, persist. Of course, today, with harassment laws being what they are, it's difficult to show you really care.
bernie at January 8, 2010 12:04 PM
"So to those who say that one turn-down is enough to discourage them, I say if you really want someone, persist."
I'm afraid the culture has changed rapidly and dramatically. In the old days that was called 'courting' and was considered innocent, nowadays it's called 'stalking' and today women would respond hysterically, knee-jerk style, freak out, call the police, publicly have you ostracized from the community, and brag to all her friends about the 'stalker' she had.
Lobster at January 8, 2010 2:58 PM
Words mean things. If a man or woman asks you out, and you fancy him/her, just say "yes." If you're not interested, politely decline. Don't say "no" because you sadistically want to see how many times you can make this poor person come back. You're not being "mysterious" or "complicated" when you say the opposite of what you mean; you're being mendacious.
bmmg39 at January 8, 2010 3:36 PM
Yup - I tend to find giving credence to what I say an attractive quality. I don't enjoy it when people think the know better then me and put the pressure on.
AntoniaB at January 8, 2010 4:20 PM
Life is a game. If you think your not playing the game....ur just playing it badly.
Taking peoples words completely literally and responding likewise can get you through life, and even successfully, but ranks about a 2.5 on the 1-10 scale for excellence in communication.
Peter at January 8, 2010 4:38 PM
Bernie, your touching story brought tears to my eyes and hope to the hearts of stalkers everywhere...
Little bit too persistent (and somewhat creepy) for mine - but it worked out for you I suppose. Congrats on your long and I hope happy marriage.
Ltw at January 8, 2010 4:56 PM
"Taking peoples words completely literally and responding likewise can get you through life, and even successfully, but ranks about a 2.5 on the 1-10 scale for excellence in communication."
No, it's actually closer to a 10. If you were in line at Wendy's, and you wanted a large order of French fries, would you tell the clerk you'd like a Frosty and a double cheeseburger, hold the fries, and then mutter on your way out the door that the clerk should have known what you REALLY meant because you were twirling your hair at the time?
bmmg39 at January 9, 2010 3:06 PM
Listening only to words and not to body language and tone and context is a perfectly valid way of communicating: You shouldn't have to work that hard for basic forms of communication. Just understand that if you're not factoring in other things, you're missing more than half of what's "said." And if you don't care, no problem there.
If you're looking for the same level of meaning in a friendship or romantic relationship as you are from the clerk at Wendy's, I'm sure paying attention only to words will do just fine for you.
MonicaP at January 10, 2010 10:49 AM
You seem to be arguing that our signals should be more confusing and self-contradictory...the more important the relationship is. I can only think of the two people who could have found love for the first time in their lives, but drifted apart because one or both of them have misinterpreted the other's body language or implied meaning, because some book, magazine article, or online source told them to.
bmmg39 at January 10, 2010 11:39 AM
I'm arguing that the more important a relationship is (or we want it to be), the more words can fail us. Most people have no trouble telling someone that we would like cheese on our hamburger. More omplicated emotions can elude words.
MonicaP at January 10, 2010 6:08 PM
Damn, I swore I wan't going to comment any further on this thread...but I can't let this go.
bmmg39, scroll back up and quote for me any woman recommending that anyone should say the opposite of what they mean. What Peter and MonicaP are trying to tell you is that sometimes people don't know what to say, maybe they don't want to scare you off by saying too much, maybe they're not sure, whatever - and that being able to understand non-verbal communication is important. There's a reason people use emoticons in text. It's because transmitting those nuances is just as important as the words you use.
If a man or woman asks you out, and you fancy him/her, just say "yes." If you're not interested, politely decline.
How would you interpret a maybe? People aren't always 100% certain. Maybe they want to go out with you but don't want to promise too much till they know you better. What it sounds like is you don't want to bother with really understanding someone, you want them to be able to be definite about their feelings in ten seconds.
You seem to be arguing that our signals should be more confusing and self-contradictory...the more important the relationship is
No one said they should be. But the more important the relationship is, the more likely that it will be hard for people to express themselves clearly, through tension, fear of screwing it up, etc.
If you were in line at Wendy's, and you wanted a large order of French fries, would you tell the clerk you'd like a Frosty and a double cheeseburger, hold the fries, and then mutter on your way out the door that the clerk should have known what you REALLY meant because you were twirling your hair at the time?
Nice strawman argument. Again, no one said to say no when you mean yes. I did see people saying don't race into subservience, be interested but not desperate. What's wrong with that?
You may feel that you rank a 10 for being straightforward, but expecting everyone else to be able to do it too is a bit unfair. Spare a thought for those of us who aren't being uncertain out of malice but instead are conflicted or reserved. You can ignore non-verbal signals if you like, but they are there, and it's worth your while to learn to interpret them.
Ltw at January 11, 2010 7:19 AM
Most people have no trouble telling someone that we would like cheese on our hamburger
A little off-topic comment Monica - that's exactly the sort of decision I have trouble with. Restaurant menus are particularly troublesome. By contrast, the "do I want to ask this person out" decisions are easy...
Ltw at January 11, 2010 7:24 AM
Someone above said "he is only with you because you give him occasional sex"...I was laughing because if the sex was really really good (and easy)I would come around more often!!!
mike at January 11, 2010 9:45 AM
adding to the difficulty of communication in this context is the fact that there are DIRECT communicators and INDIRECT communicators, and they literally can't understand each other. an indirect person will talk around something instead of stating it outright, but they know what they really mean, so they BELIEVE themselves to be quite direct and expect to be understood in their vagueness and subtleness. but if the audience is a direct communicator, said direct communicator will come away wondering WHAT the speaker was actually trying to say, and feeling like there were a whole lot of words there but none of them really achieved anything.
conversely, an indirect person is so put off by directness that they "can't hear" what a direct person says because they're offended, bristling, upset by straight talk. they think it's rude.
bmmg39, i'm guessing you are a direct communicator.
trixie at January 12, 2010 9:08 AM
Of course men devalue women they don't have to work for. Why do you think so many men abuse/rape/murder prostitutes and strippers, and call women who give it away on the first date sluts? A lot of women today don't require a man to work for them.
On a separate note, this is my first visit to Amy's site and I'm curious to know why the authors of the letters here are referred to as 'LW'. If anyone can shed some light, please do!
scooch at January 15, 2010 3:06 PM
I personally have a time requirement for sex. I don't give my body away to a man until I hear a commitment come out of his mouth. And if he tells me he loves me before four months time, that's a red flag. It takes a minimum of six weeks to decide if you even really like someone. Four months is about the right time for people to start relaxing and showing who they truly are.
gawjess at January 15, 2010 3:14 PM
Scooch - LW = Letter Writer
Ltw at January 15, 2010 3:36 PM
David M. - I am really tired of the "hard-wired" argument. That's like saying 'anatomy is destiny' - just because the guy has a boner doesn't excuse him from being a fully-cooked human being who can make a decision to be a jerk and go ahead and screw just for the three minutes and 21 seconds of physical pleasure OR be a REAL man and excuse himself from exploiting the feelings of a woman who is obviously needy and in emotional pain. I respect a man who is thoughtful enough to put a woman's feelings ahead of his hard-on. It's called empathy, and if more men indulged in it, imagine what a better world we would have.
Me at January 15, 2010 3:42 PM
"How would you interpret a maybe? People aren't always 100% certain. Maybe they want to go out with you but don't want to promise too much till they know you better. What it sounds like is you don't want to bother with really understanding someone, you want them to be able to be definite about their feelings in ten seconds."
Of course not. "Maybe" is a perfectly fine answer. You just took a situation and put the reason for someone's "maybe" into words quite well, albeit in the third person.
But directness would be a good idea as far as what a person is looking for, whether that be romantic love, sex, both, or neither. Putting that into words (or emoticons, or semaphore, or pantomime...) is better than having a woman figure the man's not interested in her romantically simply because he hasn't made a sexual pass at her, or having the man assume that she's not interested in him simply because she didn't respond to his e-mail or voice-mail in the first 48 hours, and some book/website/movie said that this is what that means.
bmmg39 at January 15, 2010 5:14 PM
I like the pantomine idea for communication bmmg39, perhaps I'll try it out one day!
I don't really disagree that directness is better, and I'm not a big fan of the "48 hour" type rules either - but it's worth recognising that sometimes people aren't very good at it. It's to your advantage to learn to spot subtext, not because they are playing games with you, but because you might miss out on something good. If you're clear and direct that's good, but expecting everyone else to be the same is just imposing a different set of rules.
Of course, if you're willing to wait for someone who's also direct, that's a valid choice too. But I enjoy the uncertain flirting stage, it should be fun.
Ltw at January 15, 2010 11:07 PM
"But, we also haven't had "The Talk." Perhaps the photo was a good way to initiate it.?"
This was a complete fail on so many levels, but perhaps that this did not, in fact initiate 'the talk' is the most telling? I mean, the time to have 'the talk' would be after he saw this 'shrine' and before you made the beast with two backs, right? Or possibly during, or right after, but if he leaves your house without mentioning it, it's not gonna happen, right?
I've been this stupid in the past, when I was younger and more insecure, but I never thought to make my humiliation public on this level. Actually, I'd be burning with shame at that point, and burying the whole mess is my pshyche by now, not writing letters to an advice blog.
sroz at January 23, 2010 11:17 AM
Leave a comment