Hot and cold.

9 Nov

Can some of the men here please explain this phenomenon?  Typical scenario:

Man and woman meet at a social gathering (church, house party, bar/club, online).

Man and woman hit it off.

Man starts to call woman every day and sends dozens of flirtatious texts.  This goes on for weeks.  Woman raves to friends about “chemistry.”

Man and woman finally go on a real date (or just have an official one-on-one “hanging out.”)

It goes well.  There may be kissing.

Woman does not hear from man for days or even weeks afterward.

When woman finally screws up the courage to ask the man what’s going on, he says that he’s been “busy” or “has a lot of personal stuff going on.”  (Or HAS CANCER.  This actually happened to a friend of mine, who had dated a guy for a few months.  She thought things were going well.  Then he went completely AWOL.  When he finally resurfaced, he told her that he had been dealing with CANCER.  That was the end of their relationship.)

Woman wonders what went wrong/puts man on lifelong hate list.

How can a man go from hot to cold so fast?  Women interpret pursuit, especially consistent pursuit, as a sign of romantic interest.  For most women, feelings don’t turn off and on light a light switch, so when men flip-flop instantaneously, it throws women for a very confusing, and sometimes heartbreaking, loop.  Note that the younger and more inexperienced the woman, the harder this kind of flip-flop is to take.  It’s still hard for older women to take, but they usually have enough life experience to know that they have to harden their hearts and move on.

Advertisements

81 Responses to “Hot and cold.”

  1. Joseph Dantes November 10, 2010 at 2:23 am #

    The hint is contained in the pattern you describe – low intensity flirtatious contact for a period, building the girl’s anticipation, then a date, then nothing.

    This is a classic failure of girl game.

    For a guy, this constant low grade flirtation doesn’t deepen his feelings of involvement. Men’s hearts are secured by putting forth effort, making sacrifices, and being honorably rewarded for it. Low grade flirtation doesn’t count as effort or reward, really, but it’s ego boosting and cheap, so they’re happy to continue it.

    Then comes the date, she’s far too over the moon, he has nothing to work for, and he loses interest. There’s no mystery, it’s too easy, therefore it must not be valuable. And he’s not comfortable with the level of rapport she’s attempting to project, so he backs off.

    The woman on the other hand gets steadily more excited by the effort-reward loop of an indifferently flirtatious man.

    The solution for a woman is to be dismissive of male zero-investment flirtation, and give him a mystery to worship and a gauntlet to run. Do be clear on the invitation to run the gauntlet, and do be fair in the rewards. No ambiguous female subtextual signaling or capricious dispersal of rewards upon whim.

    Look at what men like: sports and video games. Think about the investment-reward structure. Adjust accordingly.

  2. Badger Nation November 10, 2010 at 4:24 am #

    There’s a short answer and a long answer to this, which I have split into two posts.

    Short answer: he’s just not that into you.

  3. Toz November 10, 2010 at 4:31 am #

    > It goes well. There may be kissing.

    I agree with Joseph, it probably went well for the girl, but not the guy. The old maxim holds… The purpose of a first date is to get a second. If you don’t get an offer for a second date, the first date didn’t go well. Now what could have killed attraction for the guy? A million things, most of which he won’t be able to articulate. Some things for me:

    – girl complains about almost anything
    – girl gossips about things I don’t know or care about
    – girl smells bad
    – girl too aggressive/masculine
    – girl talks too much
    – girl talks too little
    – girl is unbelievably shallow
    – girl reeks of desperation

    Note all of the above can be overcome with sufficient beauty (except the bad smell). Sadly, for many girls they need to be a straight 10 to make up for all their personality/character deficiencies.

    The fact of the matter is, most girls tend to rate themselves very high on the personality/character scale whether they deserve it or not. And believe me, a 10 in personality or a 10 in character are as rare as 10’s in beauty. As hard as guys try to be shallow and go only for looks, these things end up mattering more as you spend time with the girl.

  4. Badger Nation November 10, 2010 at 4:59 am #

    Long answer:

    “Can some of the men here please explain this phenomenon?”

    Dating is a trial run for a potential relationship, like buying something at a store with a liberal return policy. If you don’t like the product for whatever reason, you can return it to the dating store without trouble. (Or at least you should be able to, unless the product is pyscho, or a real crybaby or something.)

    You could think of dating as a series of concentric circles; every time you go into a deeped circle, the cost to exit in a socially appropriate manner goes up a bit – starting with “you don’t even have to call” and ending in “you must file a formal divorce.”

    Unless you’re dating a friend of a friend you’ve vaguely known for a time, simply disappearing after the first date is frustrating but totally acceptable. After three or four dates, a more formal “thanks but no thanks” is appropriate.

    My first question was, “couple goes on date, never goes on second date…what IS the problem here? He obviously doesn’t want to go on a second date and that’s just fine.”

    But then I remembered Haley’s all about guys “manning up,” “women like to be pursued,” “men don’t understand women’s signals” and recalled the lengths to which women will go to assert a natural right to be the chooser and not the chosen. She seems to think the problem here is that by sending flirty texts and going on a date, these women are OWED more investment by the man.

    Look, rejection is not comfortable – any dude knows that. But rejection is the price we pay for having a system where we get to choose our mates. Interestingly, only women will assert a natural right to be the one in position to reject and not to be rejected. As HJNTIY showed, the hamster will go to absurd lengths to rationalize a man disappearing – anything, as long as it’s not “he rejected her.” In fact the old “he’s too dumb to read my signals” is a form of this displacement, to rationalize away the possibility she’s been rejected into a case where he just didn’t understand she was interested.

    For most women, feelings don’t turn off and on light a light switch, so when men flip-flop instantaneously, it throws women for a very confusing, and sometimes heartbreaking, loop. Note that the younger and more inexperienced the woman, the harder this kind of flip-flop is to take. It’s still hard for older women to take, but they usually have enough life experience to know that they have to harden their hearts and move on.

    My respectful but firm answer is, so what? Change all the nouns to men in that paragraph and it’s still 100% true. Men are expected to accept the capriciousness of the opposite sex at age 15 and go on with their lives. Young women would do well to learn how to deal with life’s little bumps instead of responding to rejection with rationalization, rage, revenge fantasies, rebound dating and other counter-productive activities.

    I think Joseph is onto something in that only beta orbiters will see light texting and flirting as a heavy investment.

    “The solution for a woman is to be dismissive of male zero-investment flirtation, and give him a mystery to worship and a gauntlet to run.”

    “Don’t fall for a few cute texts” is a good item to follow, but I think this is extremely dangerous advice. Almost nobody I know can pull off hard to get without coming off as “difficult,” capricious or stuck-up. And unless you’re REALLY hot, no one is going to put up with that crap. Men don’t have the dopamine addiction women do (it’s why chicks dig bad boys); when a man is truly in the relationship market, he’s going for comfort. Playing high-maintenance artificial-scarcity head games with him is not going to play into his comfort needs. The risk of backfiring is immense.

  5. The Man Who Was . . . November 10, 2010 at 6:07 am #

    He may have been flirting with other girls too and you were his backup plan of sorts. He may have ended up getting a girl higher up on his preference list, and leaving you SOL.

    Even if he doesn’t have other girls you may have been someone just to fill time until he found someone he really liked. He liked the attention. When he would have actually had a to get somewhat serious with you, he decided he didn’t actually want to get involved.

    This often happens to girls who aren’t hideous, but aren’t all that pretty either.

  6. The Man Who Was . . . November 10, 2010 at 6:09 am #

    There was no failure of girl game. It was most likely based on looks.

  7. Wayfinder November 10, 2010 at 7:01 am #

    As hard as guys try to be shallow and go only for looks, these things end up mattering more as you spend time with the girl.

    There was no failure of girl game. It was most likely based on looks.

    …when a man is truly in the relationship market, he’s going for comfort.

    I don’t have much evidence for it yet, but my current working theory is that just like for women with alpha/beta men, men have attraction and comfort traits in women that they’re emotionally drawn to.

    This would obviously be almost completely ignored by the PUA scene, who aren’t really as interested in breaking down what men are attracted to.

  8. grerp November 10, 2010 at 7:16 am #

    This happened to me in with I guy I knew in college. I was really, really interested in him. We flirted all spring, and I made plans to stay in town (rather than go home) over the summer so I could spend more time with him. He went to my graduation. Then he stopped calling, stopped all communication. I was really upset about it and tried calling him, tried talking to him. Didn’t work. So I “gave up” and wrote long, boring entries in my diary & eventually stopped stalking the answering machine. Some time later he called again as if only a day or two had passed. We had a few dates, but then, a few weeks later, I moved (I had solidified plans to live and work out of the country while he was doing his thing). We wrote passionate letters back and forth. I developed high hopes that were dashed when eventually I saw him again and discovered he was back with an ex-girlfriend.

    Bottom line: he messed with my head, and I let him. Scratch that – I aided and abetted, I encouraged his messing with my head. It was stupid. If I could advise my 22-year-old self, I’d say, “Moveon.org already. Find someone else. Whatever it is that you are getting out of this emotional drama is not worth what it costs.”

  9. Joseph Dantes November 10, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    Badger, I’m tempted to say you didn’t read my comment. Obviously you did, so I’ll settle for saying you misread it.

    I’m not talking about hard to get, and I’m certainly not talking about capriciousness. I explicitly ruled that out.

    I AM talking about a defined effort/reward structure. Much like what exists in video games. Traditional courtship followed this type of structure, investment rewarded by capturing the girls heart, tokens, physical intimacy, all culminating in a defined path to marriage. Very enticing.

    If the girl is already in love with you on the first date, the whole thing feels retarded. A cad will take advantage by scoring a quick bang, and may keep her around afterwards, but a good man is more likely to eject.

  10. ASDF November 10, 2010 at 7:40 am #

    Some of the other commenters above have got it. The girl in question was either a backup plan (though it is a little odd for a guy to call his backup plan every day) or something she did on the date killed things. BO or bad breath can often be dealbreakers, or even an offhand remark that rubs him the wrong way.

  11. Julie November 10, 2010 at 7:42 am #

    “If the girl is already in love with you on the first date, the whole thing feels retarded. A cad will take advantage by scoring a quick bang, and may keep her around afterwards, but a good man is more likely to eject.”

    Another reason why women should give more men chances. By only saying yes to men you really have strong feelings for, you decrease the chances things will move forward. Say yes to more of the men on your “maybe” list and see what happens.

  12. Joseph Dantes November 10, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    What some of the other commentators are missing is, a girl can convert a place on the backup bench to frontrunner, IF she runs proper game.

    But behaving as she’s naturally inclined, like an overexcited schoolgirl, just signals to the man that he was right not to hold her in excessive esteem.

    This is a universal principle of human psychology, and can hardly be called game at all.

  13. Joseph Dantes November 10, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Very true Julie, and having a few maybies in your life who are courting you right will provide incentive for the relative alphas you’re orbiting to treat you right or lose out.

    Fear of lose plus time pressure = sales. Oldest trick in the book.

  14. jack November 10, 2010 at 8:13 am #

    Dantes said:
    “The solution for a woman is to be dismissive of male zero-investment flirtation, and give him a mystery to worship and a gauntlet to run. Do be clear on the invitation to run the gauntlet, and do be fair in the rewards. No ambiguous female subtextual signaling or capricious dispersal of rewards upon whim.”

    Winner.

    Especially about being clear on the invitation being open. Men will not play a game that can be won in 30 seconds. Nor will they play a game that is obviously designed to never let them succeed.

    For each higher level of effort, the girl can assume a higher level of interest and act accordingly. If he just keeps texting, you can drop a hint or two to goose his courage, but otherwise move on.

    ———————————————————

    Analysis on the original question:

    If the girl became that interested right away, then he was high-status enough to have lots of options. She was just not plan A. This is possibly confirmed by the fact that she allowed such low-effort/low-investment contact get her all wound up. If he does not attempt to escalate to dating right away, he is not that interested.

    Here’s a little example of that:

    Scenario #1 – Girl sees her favorite movie star/musician in public and he smiles at her. Result: Girl gets all melty inside.

    Scenario #2 – Girl sees average decent she know casually from work and he smiles at her. Result: Not much thrill, naturally.

    This is why famous men really don’t need much game. The aura of fame and power they possess serves as a sufficient intoxicant that women fall at their feet.

    Girls seldom develop rapid attraction for men that are actually in their league.

    It is the guy that is probably beyond their reach that ignites their inner competitive spirit and produces all those feelings of fear, attraction, and potential loss.

    This feeling is often interpreted as “love”. Sadly, even the church does very little to fight the notion that sexual attraction=love.

  15. Joseph Dantes November 10, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    Agreed Jack on the moving on bit.

    While frequently “protect your heart” is retarded anti-love Christianese designed to delay and quench the fiery passions of youth that might otherwise fuel lifelong marriages, here it is pragmatic wisdom.

    In my youth there were church women whom I admired and was happy to encourage with flirtatious banter and appreciation. But even those who met my high standards of attractiveness and character, except in two cases, lacked that mystery and awe that could inspire me to love. I knew this and kept it to banter. I always respected it when at times such women would withdraw, with the subtextual motivation of protecting their hearts.

    At times for the sake of practice, ego boost during a low or simply to entertain a maybe, I might have dated one of them. Had they understood girl game principles, they could have possibly parlayed my initial half-hearted investment into a game of increasing investment, until I saw their qualities in the proper light for love.

    Even in the most alpha of courtships, typically for an exclusive LTR to be sealed the partners must move together in intensity of investment.

  16. The Man Who Was . . . November 10, 2010 at 9:18 am #

    a girl can convert a place on the backup bench to frontrunner, IF she runs proper game.

    No, most likely she can’t. The girl was most likely someone with a nice personality and decent looks, who was noticably lower in the looks department than the girls he used to date. If the guy was in a dry spell (happens to all men) then he would be keeping her around for the ego affirmation. The minute he sees a better opportunity or really thinks about having to commit to a girl noticably less good looking than what he is used to, she is toast, no matter what game she runs on him.

  17. Old Guy November 10, 2010 at 9:28 am #

    Weeks of daily calls and dozens of flirtatious texts suggest the guy in Haley’s hypothetical is inconsiderate, even for a retard. Nonetheless, another guy might abruptly drop an apparently promising relationship because he’s Hippocrates: First of all, do no harm. If she’s clearly getting invested and he realizes he’s not likely to reciprocate in the way she’d like, he may end things out of principle.

    And he can’t very well try to explain all that, without sounding very strange.

  18. y81 November 10, 2010 at 9:47 am #

    I’m mostly with Badger Nation above. Obviously, the guy decided after the first date that this wasn’t a relationship he wanted to pursue. Maybe he has more attractive options (including activities other than romantic relationships), maybe he overrates the alternatives, who knows. The girl in question will have to get on with her life.

    My question would be, is the girl in question encountering this pattern regularly? In that case, she must be doing something wrong on the first date. But we can’t draw that conclusion from a single episode. And we would definitely have to know more that we do to hazard a guess about what she is doing wrong; the analyses in these comments are just recitations of pet peeves which tell you more about the analyst than the girl in question.

  19. Lily November 10, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    What joseph said in his first post made a lot sense to me (woooh never thought I’d say that ;-))

    @Thursday
    Most likely true. Though saddening of course. For all the talk in the manosphere that men are only manwhores because women reward that behavior and female sluts should be ‘punished’, the girl with the nice personality, decent looks & presumably chaste doesn’t seem to be getting rewarded!

  20. Wayfinder November 10, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    @Lily
    It depends on what kind of reward they’re looking for, doesn’t it?

    @y81
    After thinking about it, I’m leaning to your conclusion. A lot of it is going to depend on the individual guy and girl and what standing they see themselves having.

  21. nothingbutthetruth November 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    I don’t have time for a lengthy explanation.

    He had lost interest. He may not have had interest in the first place (and went along “to see what happens”) or he may have had genuine interest and lost it because of something the woman did in the first date. No big deal.

    What do you mean when you say that women don’t do that? Do women always accept a second date? I think not and I am curious to know why this is different when it is the man who is doing the rejection.

  22. nothingbutthetruth November 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Lily you forgot to write the last part of your sentence, os I would do it for you (in CAPITALS)

    “the girl with the nice personality, decent looks & presumably chaste doesn’t seem to be getting rewarded” BY A MAN WHO IS OUT OF HER LEAGUE

    This was the meaning of Thursday, who clearly stated that the guy had a SMV higher than the girl.

    Solution: the girl with the nice personality, decent looks & presumably chaste has to look for a boy with the same SMV than her.

  23. Lily November 10, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    ..or perhaps man who thinks he’s out of her league..then complains about entitled behaviour from the women he thinks are in his league… lol
    Haley, what are your thoughts on this?

  24. Joseph Dantes November 10, 2010 at 3:11 pm #

    ” The girl was most likely someone with a nice personality and decent looks, who was noticably lower in the looks department than the girls he used to date. ”

    Looks aren’t the only cause of this phenomenon. And yes, good girl game can work wonders, especially when it’s so rare today.

    Lily, your lament for the underappreciated woman summarizes her boringness. Nice personality, decent looks, presumed chastity? Way to sell it. Talk about a commodity.

    Yet when you tell an American girl to spice it up, you get some awkward retarded version of a female romantic fantasy that leaves a man thinking she’s socially damaged.

    I’ve heard a lot of guys say that the best wives in the world are the Philipinas. They’re gregarious, warm, inviting, flattering, humble and feminine. And frankly, they’re slutty.

    Whatever happened to simple entrapment? If you get an honorable Christian guy to bang you, you can lock him in. Old Testament women didn’t have any finicky aversion to securing a provider and children by any means necessary.

    Anyway, what eventually worked on me was a combo of the super-Philipina strategy (including both virginity and sluttiness) plus a perfectly timed big step back that gave me space to chase after I was already committed. It was done for the most feminine, non manipulative reasons – she was afraid of being hurt.

    I couldn’t have asked for a better opening combo. It was just great girl game.

    American women today are still calculating accountants in love, matching everyone to their “league.” But they’ve forgotten that they also need to make the man fall in love, and lost the art of doing it.

  25. nothingbutthetruth November 10, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    You could be right Lily but I don’t think so. The league is defined for men as the level of women they can bed. The league is defined for women as the level of men they can realistically get a commitment from.

    This is the difference between men and women. Women assess the potencial early in the relationship (they usually don’t get laid if they don’t think the guy has potential). Men assess this potential late in the relationship (after having had their share of sex, they start considering whether to commit).

    This is why, in the Thursday scenario, the man is out of her league. He hasn’t even committed to a second date (so she is out of her league). He can date (bed) women with a SMV higher than her (so he is the same league than these other women).

    No offense meant, though. Everybody can find someone who is out of his/her league.

  26. jack November 10, 2010 at 3:20 pm #

    “..or perhaps man who thinks he’s out of her league..”

    Probably not. If a guy has a girl “on the line”, but no other options, he would probably go beyond the first date.

    Generally men are more realistic about what their league is and is not.

    Reason: Men do not have a chorus line of enablers telling them how wonderful they are.

    Example #1: Girl expresses her interest in Hot Guy, her girlfriends tell her “Go get him, he’d be lucky to have you.”

    Example #2: Guy expresses his interest in Hot Girl. His buddies tell him to “get real”, she’s way too hot for him.

    And to ward off the wearying “not everyone is like that” crap: YES, YES, not “EVERYONE” is like that. But the generalization holds.

    I also find it to be generally true that women would like to have all the power of rejection to themselves. They are tremendously offended and hurt when some guy rejects them, even while they go around rejecting others in the same manner.

    Guys don’t like rejection, but we’re usually cool with getting rejected by women that are out of our league.

  27. nothingbutthetruth November 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    “Generally men are more realistic about what their league is and is not.

    Reason: Men do not have a chorus line of enablers telling them how wonderful they are.”

    There are more reasons. Men have better feedback. If a men only gets laid with women whose SMV is lesser or equal than 7, he can be sure that he is a 7. Simple.

    A woman who only gets laid with men whos SMV is lesser or equal than 7 can be a 5 (and the guys who are a 7 only have her for pump’n’dump). Karen Owen was not of the same league of the guys she bedded.

    So a woman cannot deduce her league from the guys he is getting laid with, because men will fuck anybody but won’t commit to anybody.

    It is harder for women to assess their league. They have to pay attention not to the SMV of the men they bed but to the DURATION (length) of the relationship.

    Woman having LTR with several men that are a 7 -> She is a 7.
    Woman having two-month relationships with many men that are a 7 -> She is probably a 5 or a 6
    Woman having one-night stands with many men that are a 7 -> She is probably a 3 or a 4.
    Guys who are a 7 not committing to a second date with her -> COME ON! THEY ARE WAY OUT OF HER LEAGUE.

  28. Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life November 10, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    About half of all first kisses are the “kiss of death” for relationships. You exchange a small amount of genetic information with each other via kissing and your interest tends to either increase or decrease based on that exchange.

    I had one girl I chased for a while and got to first kiss and it was just kinda “oh… this is awkward” for both of us. Wonderful girl.. just… nada.

  29. AM November 10, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    decent Christian guys are acutely aware of 2 things:

    1) they get 1 shot at marriage.
    2) it is “unchristian” to date without the explicit intention and expectation of marriage

    so when you don’t know a girl that well, she may seem great wife material – but the moment something scares you about her, you are left with having to break things off, looking like a “player” (a horrifying offense in the church) or the equally unattractive option of leading her on (which from my possibly-biased view/experience is something men are actually more loathe to do than women).

    also, as someone has mentioned, flip all the pronouns in the original post from guy –> girl and girl –> guy, and it all sounds quite reasonable too.

    I blame society’s portrayal of men as the fickle, commitment-phobic gender and females as the faithful, innocent sex. This view is perpetuated in church as well, sadly.

  30. AM November 10, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    also I think Badger Nation has it quite right

  31. y81 November 10, 2010 at 6:04 pm #

    Thinking about this a little further, I believe that Haley (and her girlfriends) may be suffering from a simple failure to see things from the man’s point of view.

    First of all, the first date to second date transition is a big one, especially if you got to first base on the first date. If you have a second date after that, you will definitely be going out, so it’s a moment where a guy has to stop and think (free from the passion of the moment), is this what I want?

    Second of all, most men have no burning desire to discuss their feelings or reasons for what they do. So whereas a woman might want to have a long conversation where she explains why this relationship just isn’t right for her, most guys just want out. And here, at the first date/second date cusp, is an opportunity where you can end the relationship without having to explain or discuss anything, or even really do anything at all: just don’t call her again.

  32. nothingbutthetruth November 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    “most men have no burning desire to discuss their feelings or reasons for what they do.”

    Most women have no burning desire to know men’s feelings with the exception of men’s feelings being “I love you”.

  33. Aunt Haley November 10, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    Toz–
    Now what could have killed attraction for the guy?

    Pretty much everything you mentioned, other than bad smell, can fall under the “no chemistry” umbrella.

    Badger–
    She seems to think the problem here is that by sending flirty texts and going on a date, these women are OWED more investment by the man.

    It’s not that she is OWED more investment; it’s more that the man misled her by indicating more interest than he actually had. As I’ve said before, women respond to pursuit. How is a steady, flirtatious stream of attention NOT pursuit?

    grerp–
    This happened to me in with I guy I knew in college.

    I think almost every girl has a similar story.

    ASDF–
    BO or bad breath can often be dealbreakers, or even an offhand remark that rubs him the wrong way.

    And guys complain about girls being picky! Sheesh.

    Thursday–
    The minute he sees a better opportunity or really thinks about having to commit to a girl noticably less good looking than what he is used to, she is toast, no matter what game she runs on him.

    THIS JUST IN: People are romantically opportunistic!

    AM–
    I blame society’s portrayal of men as the fickle, commitment-phobic gender and females as the faithful, innocent sex. This view is perpetuated in church as well, sadly.

    This is because the church doesn’t recognize beta males, unless all the women are complaining that they don’t get asked for dates because the men won’t “man up.”

    y81–
    And here, at the first date/second date cusp, is an opportunity where you can end the relationship without having to explain or discuss anything, or even really do anything at all: just don’t call her again.

    This seems like a cheap cop-out for a man who has been devoting a lot of attention to a woman in the preceding weeks. If it were one date preceded by not much chatting, sure, he doesn’t owe an explanation, but dropping off the face of the planet after weeks of phone calls and texts is DOUCHEY.

  34. Joseph Dantes November 10, 2010 at 11:09 pm #

    And showing up starry-eyed in your own little world to a date with a guy who’s just been keeping his seat warm is DESPERATE, PATHETIC, SCARY, and yes CREEPY.

    Dropping off the face of the earth is the only rational self-protecting response to the potential drama bomb.

    No it does not make sense that this kind of contact implies pursuit, because males value things by objective effort, not emotional rapport.

  35. Cane Caldo November 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm #

    As has been stated, there are several (at least) reasons why he broke off contact. But that’s not the right question to ask. It’s “Why did he send all those texts and phone calls?”

    There’s two possible reasons I can think of.

    1) It’s game. His communiques are basically scripted to ensure interest.

    2) He’s immature, and has been furiously trying to woo the imaginary woman in his mind that he’s confused with the real person actually receiving his calls. He’s falling in love with the girl in his mind, and therefore putting lots of effort into the distance relationship.

  36. dhurka November 11, 2010 at 2:28 am #

    “ASDF–
    BO or bad breath can often be dealbreakers, or even an offhand remark that rubs him the wrong way.

    And guys complain about girls being picky! Sheesh.”

    Yes how picky of us men to expect basic hygiene from women.

  37. y81 November 11, 2010 at 6:09 am #

    “dropping off the face of the planet after weeks of phone calls and texts is DOUCHEY.”

    I agree, although I would substitute “immature and inconsiderate” for “douchey,” but the original post asked for an explanation of the male mind, not a moral assessment.

    You wouldn’t have to date such difficult creatures, if you hadn’t listened to that serpent!

  38. Badger Nation November 11, 2010 at 6:10 am #

    Joseph,

    “Whatever happened to simple entrapment?”

    One word: birth control.

    “Lily, your lament for the underappreciated woman summarizes her boringness. Nice personality, decent looks, presumed chastity? Way to sell it. Talk about a commodity.”

    Unfortunately, you’ll find the same boringness among women with bad personalities, middling looks and confirmed sluttiness. Most people I meet are boring. Most women I meet today are incredibly boring.

    “Yet when you tell an American girl to spice it up, you get some awkward retarded version of a female romantic fantasy that leaves a man thinking she’s socially damaged.”

    I noted this above. You tell a woman a few simple, active steps she can take to show a man she’s interested – including, you can ask HIM out if you are interested, that alone will activate whatever interest he might have in you – and you can plan on a negative and downright panicked response.

    The advice is universally panned. I get a lot of “I don’t want to be that kind of girl!/People will think I’m slutty” responses, along with “well if he’s interested in me he should be so overcome with passion he can’t HELP himself but ask me out!”

    I think the “reputation” line is a sham – I really think it’s just that they don’t want to run the risk of rejection. Even if a few proactives would get them an answer about the guy, THEY DON’T WANT TO KNOW. Like someone who won’t go to the doctor, They are more comfortable in their fantasy, basking in the dopamine glow, than in moving forward for the long term.

    (*This is the point where Haley comes in and tells me “you don’t understand, women want to be PURSUED – why don’t men UNDERSTAND why we should be able to just sit around and have the men come to us?”*)

    “I also find it to be generally true that women would like to have all the power of rejection to themselves. They are tremendously offended and hurt when some guy rejects them, even while they go around rejecting others in the same manner.

    Guys don’t like rejection, but we’re usually cool with getting rejected by women that are out of our league.”

    Bingo. Even – especially – in today’s 21st century, women and their hamsters go to unbelievable lengths to reserve the right to do all the rejecting. Sadly, most young women I know are incredibly socially fragile and can’t handle even the thought. Guess what? Men don’t like it either. But we take that risk in the quest of pursuing what we want. We’ve been taught that life entails risk and failure and the best we can do is be tough about it and be smart to mitigate it.

  39. Badger Nation November 11, 2010 at 6:36 am #

    “It’s not that she is OWED more investment; it’s more that the man misled her by indicating more interest than he actually had. As I’ve said before, women respond to pursuit. How is a steady, flirtatious stream of attention NOT pursuit?”

    I don’t consider his actions “leading her on.” If he did the flirty texting KNOWING he didn’t want an LTR, that would be leading her on. But it sounds like he took the next step, didn’t like it, and has ejected.

    Again, this is where nothingbutthetruth (I expect) and I will question your perspective and sensitivity to men. Your whole shtick seems to boil down to “men should cop to women’s ways of doing things.” There has to be a balance fo accommodating the other’s ways.

    You also have a factual error – women don’t “respond to pursuit”; they respond to pursuit from men they are already attracted to. Captain Beta calling and texting is “creepy and scary.”

    “This seems like a cheap cop-out for a man who has been devoting a lot of attention to a woman in the preceding weeks. If it were one date preceded by not much chatting, sure, he doesn’t owe an explanation, but dropping off the face of the planet after weeks of phone calls and texts is DOUCHEY.”

    Again, I don’t understand what’s so difficult about this situation. He was interested, but he no longer is. He’s just not that into you. Period. End of story. The discussion is over. It’s like going up a staircase…the calls and texts are a step or two up the bannister. The first date is another one. Obviously he didn’t like that step and wants to go back downstairs. That doesn’t mean he took the first couple steps in bad faith.

    The parasitical need for “explanation” and “closure” is probably just going to lead to over-analysis heartache, or if you press him for it he’ll give you an answer that trust me you don’t want to hear. The guy may not really understand himself what went wrong. Guys have nebulous chemistry requirements just like girls.

    The guy didn’t do anything wrong, except possibly the minor etiquette breach of not calling to say there wouldn’t be a second date or at least planting a story with a girlfriend to get back to you (which, since men don’t get the kick out of rejecting people some women seem to, is not something men enjoy doing). Dating is messy. Grow up and get over it, or you are going to engage in some rebound- or revenge-dating that will screw your life up.

    Finally, it was inappropriate of the woman to allow herself to get so emotionally invested before they’d even gone on a date, in the same way it’s inappropriate to get falling-down drunk at the company Christmas party even though the booze is free. (This extends my going up the staircase metaphor.) It’s OK to be disappointed, but don’t blame the guy for your own emotional spiral you set up for yourself.

  40. Aunt Haley November 11, 2010 at 7:07 am #

    Badger–
    So a man, through his sustained and constant attention to a woman, can give her reason to believe that he is attracted to her, then stop all communication cold because she said the wrong thing at dinner, and it’s the woman’s fault that she feels hurt. I see.

  41. Badger Nation November 11, 2010 at 7:17 am #

    Haley,

    “So a man, through his sustained and constant attention to a woman, can give her reason to believe that he is attracted to her, then stop all communication cold because she said the wrong thing at dinner, and it’s the woman’s fault that she feels hurt. I see.”

    In a word, yes. What point are you trying to prove? You’re too smart to be this daft. How about this – the guy goes on a second date because he feels he “owes it to her” after all the build-up to the first date. Then he IS leading her on. You’ve put him in a no-win situation…after flirty texts, he can never leave the situation without drawing your ire.

    All you’re saying is that women can’t be expected to be responsible for setting reasonable emotional boundaries for themselves.

  42. Badger Nation November 11, 2010 at 7:23 am #

    Again, we have no idea what happened on the first date that caused him to lose attraction. Could have been bad breath. Could have been she talked about an ex. Could have been they discussed their life plans and they are not compatible.

    However, it’s usually a good idea to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they have a mental flip-flop like that. Do you ever question when a woman says “there just wasn’t a *spark*”? Judging from this and from your earlier post where a guy made out with his orbiter’s roommate, you seem to think men are running intentional behaviors to hurt women and reject them for petty reasons. That makes you no different from the most extreme MGTOW manosphere posters who feel the same way about women.

  43. Aunt Haley November 11, 2010 at 7:47 am #

    Badger–
    You are a good reminder of why women shouldn’t trust much of anything that a man says to her early on. Why invest any feelings when I might accidentally scratch my nose wrong and the guy will disappear forever?

    What YOU do not seem to be accepting is that if a woman is continuing with the communication – answering calls or calling back right away, texting back right away – she is attracted and is growing in attraction for the man. So by continuing in his attentions to her, he is increasing her attraction to him. It seems that you, as a man, are projecting that a woman will feel (or at least ought to feel) the same way about texts and calls that a man does, and therefore believe that a man has no culpability in the woman’s hurt feelings when he stops calling with no explanation.

  44. Wayfinder November 11, 2010 at 7:59 am #

    @Haley
    Your core issue here appears to be the apparent abruptness of the switch, rather than that the switch occurred. Do I have that right?

  45. Badger Nation November 11, 2010 at 8:12 am #

    Let me add to Wayfinder’s question, Haley – given that he didn’t want to go on a second date, what WOULD have been appropriate behavior that was reasonably sensitive to her runaway feelings?

  46. y81 November 11, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    I’m with Badger Nation. It seems that Haley insists that the guy must handle things the girl way, i.e., he must have a long, pointless conversation with her about why the chemistry isn’t there. I’m willing to concede that he would have been more courteous to give the girl a brief explanation–I liked Badger Nation’s suggestion that he route it through a girlfriend, so as to avoid direct unpleasantness–but more than that is not demanded by either morality or etiquette.

    He isn’t that interested. He didn’t promise marriage, or get the girl pregnant, or induce her to quit her job and move to California, or do any of the things that might create ongoing obligations: he decided, quite reasonably, after the first date that he didn’t want a second date.

  47. cleared in hot November 11, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    Haley, back down off the ledge…you could hurt yourself.

    This all sounds like the typical adventures in dating to me. And as others have said, the personal pronouns can be switched pretty much at will and everything will still apply 100 percent.

    a man has no culpability in the woman’s hurt feelings when he stops calling with no explanation

    Can’t tell how many times I’ve heard something like “I don’t know what I want right now” or “I just don’t want to date anyone right now” (about a week before she started dating someone else). When is the “explanation” ever good enough?

    Our emotional reactions always come from our own thinking, and part of being mature is realizing that people can do things to us that activate our emotions, but in the long run WE choose how to respond.

    Here’s some wisdom I read somewhere recently…

    “Alas, there is no foolproof way to avoid bumps and bruises on the road to love.”

  48. cleared in hot November 11, 2010 at 8:36 am #

    BTW, are you suggesting that dealing with cancer is not something that requires major shifts in emotional energy, time, and priorities, or are you suggesting that his explanation was a total lie?

  49. The Man Who Was . . . November 11, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    “I just don’t want to date anyone right now” (about a week before she started dating someone else)

    This one is brutal. Especially if you plead with her, “Just tell me you’re not interested.” “I can’t say that.”

  50. The Man Who Was . . . November 11, 2010 at 9:25 am #

    He isn’t that interested. He didn’t promise marriage, or get the girl pregnant, or induce her to quit her job and move to California, or do any of the things that might create ongoing obligations: he decided, quite reasonably, after the first date that he didn’t want a second date.

    I’d have to say that I agree with the commenters that the guy didn’t lead the girl on all that much. He probably could have handled things a bit better, but this isn’t a reason for too much handwringing.

  51. CAB November 11, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    It sounds to me like the real problem with this sort of situation is taking way too long to meet again in person. The people involved did not see each other again for weeks between first meeting and first date, correct? If so, things fizzling out should not be that surprising.

    Hitting it off in a group setting (and sending silly flirty texts back and forth) vs. having a real spark one-on-one are two very different things. And it’s pretty dumb to spend weeks just calling and texting like that, because it’s going to raise expectations far too high for both of them. Cane Caldo nails it, I think — it’s #2, and they’re both guilty of being immature and falling for a semi-imaginary person, not just him.

  52. ASDF November 11, 2010 at 9:40 am #

    Haley:
    Re: offhand remarks: It’s not “scratching your nose wrong” that is the dealbreaker. It’s something a girl says without thinking that just summarizes her personality or worldview in one sentence. It is very hard to explain this to a girl when you decide not to see her anymore.

    I remember I was in the early stages of dating this girl once. I don’t remember the particulars, but she did or said something extremely low class. I called her on it, and she told me to “get over it”. That one sentence told me that she was unapologetically low class and had no respect for my feelings or authority.

    Just a few weeks ago I was on a date. She was quite attractive and we had great chemistry. But she kept mentioning how much she liked gay people, the ones she worked with and hung out with. I think she was even in a parade. It only accounted for maybe 1% of our conversation, but I could tell that it would become an issue when I got tired of holding my tongue. I’m sure she’s still wondering why I never called back.

  53. Badger Nation November 11, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    I’m not totally dismissive of the woman’s emotional pain. Expectations were built up too high by taking so long to get onto the date. Men feel that “why did you just disappear” pain too. And we feel pained when we don’t want to continue dating an otherwise good but mismatched person. It’s just a part of dating, there are going to be mismatches and disappointments.

    Sometimes a “thanks but no thanks” is nice, but talking out the reasons you feel mismatched is a fool’s errand. Not to mention you might say something incriminating, like saying you don’t want an LTR (which may be true at that instant), then next week meeting the love of your life and that goes out the window. Not to mention many girls’ emotionally explosive reactions to being rejected have led many men to do the Houdini routine. If women want men to be honest about things (and vice versa), they have to cut the cost of honesty. Ideally honesty would cost nothing and be priceless.

  54. Thag Jones November 11, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    This all sounds like making a mountain out of a mole hill – one date? Some phone calls and texts? I don’t care how many calls and texts, we’re still talking ONE DATE. It’s not like she’s invested large amounts of time and/or money in this. At least dropping off the face of the earth is actually less awkward than some drawn out conversation about exactly why things didn’t seem right for the guy. Who cares? Forget it and go on with your life. I asked someone out once – I really fancied him, obviously – but got rejected because he’d just broken up with his fiancée (it wasn’t just a line, it was true). It’s not the end of the world.

    Badger Nation has it about right here. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t let yourself get carried away, otherwise deal with the fact that you’re going to get hurt. That’s not to say it’s always easy to do that, but who said life was supposed to be easy and to make complete sense all the time? It might help to realize that the “feelings” she had weren’t real anyway – it’s infatuation – and that what she’s experiencing is just her ego getting bruised. This is a good thing, because ego just gets in the way of learning.

  55. Joseph Dantes November 11, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    An honorable man who has game will not do this to a woman. You guys are missing that.

    It’s the lack of comprehension by the male of the female’s perspective, or else his apathy about her pain, that causes this.

    The fact that most women constantly and shamelessly behave the same way doesn’t change this.

    Haley is still wrong to call it DOUCHEY if it’s unintentional. If it’s intentional, the girl probably deserves it, which makes it funny but cruel.

  56. y81 November 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    I think it’s highly unlikely that the guy’s conduct is intentional. One would have to be a total psychopath to invest a lot of time in calls and texts and flirting, have a first date, get to first base, etc., all for the purpose of not calling the girl again. The fact is, I recall this from the days when I was young and single as a chronic female complaint: you have a first date with a guy, it seems to go well, he even says, “I’ll call you,” and then you never hear from him again. I can only say, that’s the way boys are.

    If you turn it around, most guys wouldn’t be that upset if you called a girl a couple times and she never called you back or acknowledged you. You would get the message that she wasn’t intereted. It would actually be better that she ignore you than that she should call you back and attempt to explain in detail why she didn’t want to see you, which most guys would find purely horrible.

  57. jack November 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    What I get from reading all of Haley’s responses is that once the guy sent a lot of flirty texts, and once the girl has become somewhat emotionally invested, the only acceptable outcome is:

    The outcome that the girl wants to have happen!

    (Whatever that may be).

    Most girls really DO want to reserve all rights of rejection, and they certainly talk and act often as though no man is good enough to reject them.

  58. namae nanka November 11, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    Men might feel entitled to sex, but women feel entitled to relationships a thousand times more.

  59. nothingbutthetruth November 11, 2010 at 6:30 pm #

    Badger Nation is right. I am in bed with a massive backpain and slightly sedated so I don’t think if I would be able to express myself correctly in English – not my native tongue.

    Women’s psychology reminds me the psychology of a baby. For a baby, he is the center of the universe. The universe – specifically, the Mother – is there to cater to his wishes, to give him good feelings. The universe owes the baby everything he wants. Babies’ worldview is radically narcissistic.

    Women think the world owes them to protect their feelings and any failure of the world – specifically, men – to fulfill this duty is perceived as a cosmic injustice and can produce tantrums, revenge’s fantasies, lifelong hate or real revenge. All of these, of course, are evident signs of maturity.

    This is why if a woman wants a man and a man does not feel the same (or stops feeling the same), there is NOTHING the man can do to get it right.

    If the man doesn’t ask her out: he is a dumbass because he does not appreciates that she is worthy of his attention.

    If the man asks her out, it is worse. The man CANNOT avoid being labelled a cad:

    – If he stops the contact, he is a douche, in Haley’s words.
    – If he has a conversation with her, he is a douche. How dare he say these things to her and break her heart? I have been in these situations several times and it is not pretty. There is no fury in hell like a woman scorned. And no resentment too.
    – If he does not do anything, he is leading her on.

    The fact is that her rage and hurt does not depend on the decision taken by the man. The thing that makes this man a cad is that HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE WOMAN.

    Or, rather, that HE IS NOT FOLLOWING THE WOMAN’S SCRIPT. If the guy was a beta, there wouldn’t be a big deal. But the woman has been harboring fantasies about this guy (fantasies that are the only responsibility of the woman) and now this guy REFUSES to live up to these expectations.

    That is, the Universe is different than the woman’s wishes. This is a cosmic catastrophe and there must be somebody to blame. The logical candidate is the guy. Or as Jack says:

    What I get from reading all of Haley’s responses is that once the guy sent a lot of flirty texts, and once the girl has become somewhat emotionally invested, the only acceptable outcome is:

    The outcome that the girl wants to have happen! (Whatever that may be).

    Solipsism and narcissism, in two words. Women are enraged by men don’t living up to their wishes but they know they can’t bitch about that because nobody can decide to have love for other person. So they bitch about the way of breaking up. This is their way of rationalizing the hurt.

    You are a good reminder of why women shouldn’t trust much of anything that a man says to her early on.

    I have read the story and the man does not say anything to the woman.

    What YOU do not seem to be accepting is that if a woman is continuing with the communication she is attracted and is growing in attraction for the man. So by continuing in his attentions to her, he is increasing her attraction to him. It seems that you, as a man,therefore believe that a man has no culpability in the woman’s hurt feelings when he stops calling with no explanation.

    There we go. The man as a responsible of the feelings of the woman, feelings produced by fantasies created unilaterally by the woman. When women reject men, they don’t feel responsible of the feelings of the men: they usually do it without a hint of a remorse.

    In this case, the man is culpable or guilty of the feelings of the woman, as if the woman was not a grown up and responsible of her own feelings.

    Our emotional reactions always come from our own thinking, and part of being mature is realizing that people can do things to us that activate our emotions, but in the long run WE choose how to respond.

    He has to make assumptions about her inner feelings, interpret them correctly and respond accordingly. Any failure in doing any of these three things is culpability on his part.

    He has to care of her as if she was an indefense being, like a child, even if he is not his father, his boyfriend or anything at all. The Universe owes her that her feelings are not hurt.

    If women are not interested in behaving as grown-ups, they should be considered legal minors, as in Roman times, to be legally cared for by a man. What is unacceptable is the present situation when women are legally independent and equal but the moment something goes against their wishes, somebody is guilty and should pay fot this.

  60. y81 November 11, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    It’s silly and unchristian to approach this situation as if there were something wrong with one sex or the other. Both the guy and girl in Haley’s situation are plenty self-centered, like all humans, just in different ways. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that Haley and her girlfriends change, because then they wouldn’t be girls. And what a strange world it would be, to date (or in my case, be married to) a boy, even one with breasts. But Haley might be happier if she understood the male mind a little better, even though she will never think like that.

    On a similar issue, Screwtape wrote:

    A woman means by Unselfishness chiefly taking trouble for others; a man means not giving trouble to others. As a result, a woman who is quite far gone in the Enemy’s
    service will make a nuisance of herself on a larger scale than any man except those whom Our Father has dominated completely; and, conversely, a man will live
    long in the Enemy’s camp before he undertakes as much spontaneous work to please others as a quite ordinary woman may do every day. Thus while the woman thinks
    of doing good offices and the man of respecting other people’s rights, each sex, without any obvious unreason, can and does regard the other as radically selfish.

    Lewis (unlike several commenters here) most emphatically did not suggest that one sex was defective, or that one should change. It’s just the way God made us, and we should accept His will, since we assuredly cannot change it.

  61. Badger Nation November 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    I do agree with Joseph’s last comment…it IS a mark of social skill and dominance to be able to let someone down easy instead of disappearing. A guy who fancies himself good with women will rarely allow himself to get caught in a situation where he can be badmouthed.

    A graceful exit can yield rewards down the pike too. Eventually, most mature women are going to get over the rejection, and if you’ve been proper about it it’s one less thing she can be mad about when the topic of you comes up with her pals, one of which you might wind up dating.

  62. Rebekah November 11, 2010 at 10:38 pm #

    Crucial errors:
    1) Answering his calls every day: you need to have a life to invite someone into.

    2) Flirtatious texts: okay, so this depends on how you met but how do you know he’s not your Dad’s weirdo friend creeping on you? No flirting before meeting. Conveys desperation and poor personal standards/boundaries.

    3) This goes on for weeks. [what?!] IF IT TOOK THE GUY WEEKS TO ASK YOU OUT…[unless he is poor which is understandable, then he should be saving some money to take you out] he’s not that interested AND he’s obviously got you hooked which poses zero challenge.

  63. rae November 11, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    wow. this is much ado about nothing. so much reading into signals and sub-signals and “game”…makes my head hurt. what about focusing on God and what He wants you to be and trusting that “all these things will be added unto you” in due time. we really do lack faith. we don’t trust God to tell us so we try to figure it out ourselves…see how easily distracted we are from what God wants us to do here on earth.

  64. Old Guy November 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    There’s an expression used in law schools, “fighting the hypothetical”. A professor will describe a case, which may or may not be a real case, expecting the students to tease out its implications. Some will insist on sharing their views on situations other than the one described, either ignoring some aspect of the situation or adding something to it, invariably making it simpler and avoiding the issue under discussion.

    It is not a compliment, to be said to be fighting a hypothetical.

    Haley told a story (its her story, so she gets to tell it however she wants) and asked a question. A guy behaves in a way that indicates not-insubstantial interest in a woman, goes on a date with her that goes well (“there may be kissing”) and then disappears. The question is “WTF?”

    The guy’s douchery consists in indicating interest that issn’t there. The point isn’t that an excuse can’t be manufactured for a change of heart (He noticed, seeing her in date-wear for the first time, a tiny swastika tattoo in her cleavage!, or, She smells funny!, or, She tastes funny!), and Haley’s story doesn’t suggest that a man is always and everywhere responsible for whatever a woman happens to feel. (Don’t ignore that the guy actually did something to inspire her belief in his interest: “Man starts to call woman every day and sends dozens of flirtatious texts. This goes on for weeks.”)

    Now, it may be that there’s no good way for an inconsiderate retard (aka a douche) to repair the situation once he’s given a woman good reason to believe he’s more interested than he is, but that’s a different issue. And, the fact that there is no good way to repair the situation doesn’t mean he isn’t responsible for creating it.

  65. Rebekah November 11, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Ahem. True. Agreed 100%, however:

    1) God would probably want us to have a life to invite someone into. If she’s busy calling with this guy EVERY day how does that leave room for serving God?

    2) Flirtatious texts: What would Jesus do?

    3) This goes on for weeks. A Godly guy is going to man up and want to meet a girl instead of wasting her time. A Godly girl is busy serving God and does not have time for men who waste her time for weeks on end – or who are also apparently so unbusy serving God they can talk every day and text etc.

  66. Rebekah November 11, 2010 at 10:52 pm #

    ooh. and he would also probably give her a considerate call or email or text to let her know what is going on rather than assuming she can take a hint…

  67. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 3:23 am #

    Rebekah you’re obviously a Rules girl. It’s bad game. There are plenty of girls on the girl tree. An alpha will move on unless he’s *already* in love with you. THEN rules-type manipulation can heighten his love.

  68. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 3:24 am #

    rae you’re willfully ignoring an entire world of evidence right in front of your nose. your strategy is the reason Haley started this blog.

  69. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 3:29 am #

    Wow Rebekah your second comments demonstrates you Rules+Churchian girls really know how to kill a vibe.

    You just said a real man wouldn’t let flirtatious attraction simmer for a period, directly after a post by Haley which implicitly argues that this is the way one captures a girl’s heart.

    So basically you’re anti-love and you want to conduct affairs on a mature transactional basis.

    No wonder guys find little worth hanging around for at church.

    Seriously? WWJD if he got a flirtatious text? Buzzkiller.

    I love your “Christianity means having no life or free time ethos”:

    ” A Godly guy is going to man up and want to meet a girl instead of wasting her time. A Godly girl is busy serving God and does not have time for men who waste her time for weeks on end – or who are also apparently so unbusy serving God they can talk every day and text etc.”

    Odds are very good that all that typically female business isn’t accomplishing much. Try sitting down and measuring your objective results sometime.

  70. nothingbutthetruth November 12, 2010 at 5:26 am #

    “The guy’s douchery consists in indicating interest that issn’t there.”

    We don’t know that. Maybe he was interested in the beginning but then he lost interest. I have seen lots of women lose interest for the tiniest reasons. You are making unfounded assumptions.

    So, Old Guy, in your opinion, if a man is interested in a woman and he stops being interested, what should he do? He will be labelled as a douche, no matter what he does. The woman will be hurt no matter what he does. The only way to avoid it is a man doesn’t send flirtatious texts if he has not decided to marry the woman.

    It is easy to criticize others, but you don’t propose an alternative. “He shouldn’t have texted her” is not an alternative because he could have been really interested in her in the beginning.

    By the way, I have seen women do the same without a hint of remorse. Not that they should have it. The downsize of having the ability of choose your own partner is that sometimes you are not chosen. Yes, it hurts, but it is life and looking for guilt is not productive nor mature.

  71. Learner November 12, 2010 at 8:19 am #

    Y81, the quote from CS Lewis is brilliant and quite appropriate to this situation I think.

    Perhaps it is not about wanting the opposite sex to think as we do, but rather that they have an appreciation and understanding that there is a difference, and that we keep these differences in mind when we interact with the opposite sex.

  72. Rebekah November 12, 2010 at 10:11 am #

    DANTES … Sorry to officially kill the vibe, but I’m not a rules girl. I’m pointing out that being continually available to a man whom you have never met is probably a buzz killer [to use your words]. It’s unattractive, whether you are male or female: having no life is a major DLV. One of those things that reeks of desperation.

    I’m not suggesting any game playing or that Christians should have ‘no life’ in any way. Quite the opposite… that they should have an awesome real life and that would be attractive to any man worth his salt.

    I didn’t say ” a real man wouldn’t let flirtatious attraction simmer for a period”: I said he wouldn’t let it string out for weeks on end without taking action. Some simmering is key, I agree with you: [after all, if the guy has openings on M,T,W,Th,F,Sa, and Su the above applies to him as well… but women probably need much less simmer time than one might expect. Men think weeks; women? a few days. Simmer too long and she’ll take the pot off the stove, or someone else will steal your soup. :)

    The WWJD is designed to make people laugh and ponder the merits of continuous flirtatious texting with someone you have perhaps not met, perhaps know only limitedly. It’s not the actual texting but the continuous nature of it.

    P.S. I am aware of the book but I don’t know what the ‘rules’ are!

    Your anti-love accusation leaves my heart cold. How’s that for an objective result?
    :)

  73. Rebekah November 12, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    P.S. The guy said “he’s been “busy” or “has a lot of personal stuff going on.””… that was probably a) true and b)? an excuse for not saying “so…it turns out I wasn’t interested after all”

    Not worth putting him on a lifelong hate list, just the has no manners and no balls to man up and say “I’m just not that into you”. But then, generally men’s actions tell you things their words never do. Unfortunately, there is no consistency from man to man: [gasp. imagine that. we are individuals and ‘rules’ don’t apply in every situation] Leaving you hanging for weeks for some guys would be “simmering” and to others? letting you down ‘easy’.

    Easy for them that is. I feel for you: but move it on down the line, there are plenty of men on the man tree, too.

  74. Joseph Dantes November 12, 2010 at 11:44 am #

    Rebekah, your reply made me laugh. I should’ve asked before hurling the Rules accusation. Mea culpa.

    Continual availability is exactly how you snag a diffident man who has options. That’s what you’re missing.

    A bounding beta may fall for the manipulative unavailability game, but frankly he’s an idiot. Most people are idiots, which is why the Rules have a degree of efficacy. They’re simple prescriptions that solve some of women’s self destructive behavior.

    You implied they should be too busy serving God to flirt daily with strangers. I define that as having no life.

    Again, I think you’re just wrong that there’s something wrong with a man letting attraction simmer for weeks, and yes that is a buzzkill, just like your opposition to continuous flirting. Obviously they were into each other.

    Here’s our fundamental disagreement: You’re saying one or both parties did something wrong leading up to the date. I’m saying the girl was too far ahead of herself AT THE DATE.

  75. Rebekah November 13, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    Dantes: i don’t disagree with the ‘too far ahead of herself’ bit… I agree with you, but note that the reason behind this prematurity on her part [or his, for that matter – with his imaginary woman on a pedestal, perhaps?] is precisely what I argued:

    She got in over her head by not guarding her heart/actions. Sensical? Can we form an alliance and be all the more correct? [sword at side].

  76. Joseph Dantes November 14, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    Haha, sure :)

  77. Racer X November 14, 2010 at 9:11 am #

    Interesting blog. I also like to write about the tension between Christianity and sexuality, even though my blog is geared more towards eroticism and sexuality.

  78. WP December 16, 2010 at 5:50 pm #

    If the guy is the one to “risk” approach then he should be able to call it quits whenever he feels like.

    …but then again women have the right to do that as well.

    Moving on.

  79. sestamibi December 17, 2010 at 9:27 am #

    “For most women, feelings don’t turn off and on light a light switch”

    Are you for real??!! I don’t know how you could possibly say this with a straight face, because I’ve encountered enough female light switches in my life to handle the entire Las Vegas Strip.

  80. Cpt. Capitalism December 18, 2010 at 12:16 am #

    It’s basically the male version of “She got hit by a truck.”

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2010/12/she-did-not-get-hit-by-truck.html

  81. Salvador December 30, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    What i don’t understood is actually how you’re no longer actually much more
    well-appreciated than you may be right now. You’re so intelligent. You realize thus significantly in terms of this subject, produced me in my view consider it from so many varied angles. Its like women and men are not fascinated except it’s something to accomplish with Lady gaga!
    Your individual stuffs excellent. Always maintain it up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s