Glue In The Dark
Last week, I went out with a guy I met on a dating site. He was very attentive and affectionate, and he even texted me the next day. Well, I think I screwed up, messaging him at the same frequency and intensity as before our first date, which was quite a lot, and mentioning seeing him again before he suggested it. His responses were infrequent and short. I haven't heard from him for five days, and he hasn't made plans for a second date. Is there any way to remedy this? Should I message him with some witty banter?
--Faux Pas?
Sadly, our genes have not been introduced to Gloria Steinem.
As I frequently explain, there's a problem with a woman overtly pursuing a man, and it goes back millions of years. It comes out of how sex leaves a man with about a teaspoon less sperm but can leave a woman "with child" (an adorable term that makes pregnancy sound like a quick trip to the drugstore with someone under 10). From these rather vastly differing costs, explain evolutionary psychologists David Buss and David Schmitt, come differing sexual strategies. Women evolved to be the choosier sex -- looking for men to show signs they're willing and able to commit themselves and their resources -- and men coevolved to expect to work to persuade them. So, when women turn the tables and act like the, well, chase-ier sex, it sends a message -- of the "FREE!!! Please take me" variety you'd see taped to a toaster somebody's put out on the curb.
In other words, no, do not contact him. Not even with "witty banter." Seeming amusingly desperate is not any more of a selling point. The way you "remedy" this is by turning it into a learning experience. In the future, sure, go ahead and be flirtatious -- just not with the, um, eagerness of that guy in the hockey mask chasing people through the woods with a machete.
I like how she know how she screwed this up, but wants to continue with the same behavior to try to fix it.
Ahw at June 15, 2016 7:52 AM
"... messaging him at the same frequency and intensity as before our first date, ..."
"His responses were infrequent and short. I haven't heard from him for five days, and he hasn't made plans for a second date."
LW, I don't think there's a learning curve problem here.
You continued communicating as you both did BEFORE the first date.
His lack of communication AFTER the first date says it's his decision to not have a second date.
That's it in a nutshell. His loss.
Take Amy's advice and in the future simply slow down. Texting is for later and "Do we need bread?" stuff in this old man's opinion.
(At least that's what was telegraphed to me.)
Bob in Texas at June 15, 2016 2:57 PM
We used to beat up kids over at Answerology about this simple concept: If you can text, you can TALK.
jefe at June 15, 2016 3:59 PM
That's right jefe.
But that requires effort and real involvement.
Too much for this age group.
Bob in texas at June 16, 2016 6:31 AM
Faux Pas: Well, I think I screwed up, messaging him at the same frequency and intensity as before our first date, which was quite a lot, and mentioning seeing him again before he suggested it.
Amy & I disagree on this and will disagree on it forever. I think she may acknowledge it as a possibility that some men -- like one out of every hundred thousand -- won't blow a woman off simply because she takes some initiative with them, but she typically presents it as an iron-clad rule: women should not take any initiative with men (except for flirting.)
In turn, I acknowledge that quite a few men may blow a woman off simply because she takes some initiative with them. These are traditional-type men, men who haven't evolved beyond the Me-Tarzan-Me-Must-Hunt-Woman phase. So I completely agree with Amy that there are men like that. We just disagree on what percentage of men are like that.
I think quite a few men have evolved beyond the Me-Must-Hunt-Woman mentality. They're not going to get their loincloths in a bunch just because a woman asks them out, or calls or texts them first after a date. Are these guys going to be interested in every woman who asks them out, or calls or texts them first after a date? Of course not. Just as women aren't interested in every guy who asks them out, or asks them out on a follow-on date. If a more-evolved guy is not attracted to a woman who asks him out, he's not going to want to go out with her. But it's because he's not attracted to her, not because she asked him out.
You don't which type of guy this guy is. He may be the Me-Must-Hunt-Women type so he blew you off because you mentioned seeing him again before he suggested it. Or he may be the more-evolved type that just wasn't that enamored with you on the first date so he didn't care to see you again and you mentioning seeing him again before he suggested it had nothing to do with it.
JD at June 16, 2016 7:32 PM
@JD. Gene pools evolve, individuals don't. At the individual level evolution looks like dying childless, or surrounded by grandchildren, respectively.
You're trying to hijack the earned authority of Science! when you use "evolved" of an individual to mean "behaves as I prefer".
Such jiggery-pokery disrespects your audience. In addition you would quickly come to despise a man who tolerated reality-redefining levels of semantic sleaze.
ByzantineGeneral at June 17, 2016 1:02 AM
ByzantineGeneral, since "evolved" has caused you so much pain, let's change it to "more-developed" or "more-advanced."
Am I making a value judgement? Yes. I believe that a man who is capable of forming a loving relationship with a woman who asks him out as well as with one that he asks out is more advanced than one who is only capable of forming a loving relationship with one that he asks out.
JD at June 17, 2016 7:52 PM
I like how Amy isn't afraid to tell people they blew it and there is no way to remedy it.
Like one of the earliest columns I read, from a woman who was dating a guy who suddenly stopped returning calls after she called him up drunk one night.
"What the guy's trying to tell you, if-the-phone-don't-ring-it's-me style, is that he saw future staggering toward him, and chose to get out of the way."
Or the woman who cruelly insulted her boyfriend, "No wonder your ex-wife divorced you, and your children won't have anything to do with you," then deluged him with flowers and cards when he dumped her. And she begged Amy to tell her how to fix it, but there is no way to fix it.
Patrick at June 17, 2016 10:22 PM
I was the one who wrote this letter. Initially I thought, perhaps as Amy said, there might be another woman. Then, I figured maybe because I told him I was going to be travelling for more than a month and he wanted to take it up after I returned. But I just returned and looked him up and found that he has changed his location. He now lives in a different state! I guess that explains it! It is a darn shame, because from the date I was pretty sure he was really into me, because he gave every indication of it not wanting to end. I hate it when circumstances like a relocation come in when I finally find a guy I really like and who seemed to like me too :-(
Jazz at June 18, 2016 8:20 AM
he saw future staggering toward him, and chose to get out of the way.
Great line.
JD at June 18, 2016 11:06 AM
Lol....I expected some smarmy comment like that. No, I'm no stalker or desperado. It was a job relocation. I messaged him and he told me. That's that for this situation. I'm already moving on.
Jazz at June 18, 2016 12:09 PM
Glad you found out what's what Jazz. Good luck in the future.
(And maybe "what's up w/your immediate future?" is a first date question. That give him the opportunity to tell you about his upcoming divorce (joke)).
Bob in Texas at June 22, 2016 6:23 AM
Thanks Bob! I already like you :-). Will you be my voice of reason as I navigate the dating jungle? Lol!
Jazz at June 23, 2016 6:14 AM
LOL Jazz!
I suggest you treat dating like a job interview:
1. What are my long term goals.
2. What am I willing to forgo to meet these goals.
3. Does this (guy) job put me on the path to meet these goals. If not don't waste time, move along to the next interview.
As a guy I eventually learned that I could not afford the money or time to waste on nice but non-productive dating.
Ex. I could not give a woman babies but had my own kids and did not mind their having kids.
That eliminated a LOT of financially stable, good-looking single women right off the bat.
I learned to get that question out of the way as quickly as possible in a quick-meet situation not via a valuable (to me) evening date.
Likewise smart women evaluated my divorced w/kid situation realistically (financial, ability to travel, relocation).
It was actually enjoyable to discuss things (adult goals) with the 'professionals' as opposed to the 'amateurs' (those w/no clue as to what/where they were going).
Good luck Starship Trooper!
Bob in Texas at June 23, 2016 11:09 AM
Leave a comment