Rules in Shul

I had an uneventful weekend, though thought-provoking. Lots of stuff going down at work. Rules opportunities may be minimal for the time being, but as there seems to be some demand for "Rules application" stories in between book reviews, I will recount my Friday night, wherein I did attempt to be Rules-y, however irrelevant.

There are several types of Jewish young adult events - the secular, the practically secular except for capitalizing on some Jewish calendar event, and the religious. I'd say the vast majority of events are in the first two categories, where an application of the Rules is pretty straightforward. This past Friday evening I went to the third - a young adult Shabbat/holiday dinner and service. Here is a brief account of the absurdity.

I walk in the room before the service starts. The lighting is reminiscent of a Walgreen's. I realize my knee-length dress ("Wear a short skirt (but not too short) if you have the legs for it") is the shortest one in the room. Oops. For some reason I didn't get from the invite that this was one of those modern Orthodox groups that tries to include people from more liberal branches, possibly in hopes of getting them to be more observant. I immediately cease feeling like a "movie star" who "just flew in from Paris on the Concorde."

They start the service, for which everyone stands and they have a divider between men and women. I am wearing heels. There is separated male-female dancing and singing and clapping. During the first dance, I stand on the female sidelines. During the second, someone grabs my hand and pulls me in. I am taller than everyone. I guess many movie stars are too, but that did not occur to me as I was attempting the Horah with scandalously exposed knees and stilettos.

After the service is over, I go up to a girl I know (albeit barely) who walked in mid-service. Somehow she and I end up listening to her friend and a male friend of theirs talk about their respective spouses and marriage generally for 20 minutes. Nervous laughter.

That group doesn't have room at their table for me, so I end up sitting at a table that, well, let's just say there were no prospects for dating at this table, and few prospects for good conversation either. I accidentally break the Rules by cracking a joke when someone else suggests we introduce ourselves around the table. No one laughs. Uncomfortable silence. I realize that a big chunk of my hair has gotten caught in the button hole on the back of my dress and attempt to quietly yank it out.

Dinner does not disappoint in terms of awkwardness. At some point I break character for a moment and scan the room. There are a handful of guys I'd probably give my number to, but many are attached and none has indicated any interest in talking to me. Meanwhile, the rabbi's trying to get us to drink a bunch of wine and various types of liquor. I'm fading fast.

I make it through dinner and a sermon. After dinner someone finally approaches me - a middle aged slightly overweight dude! Not to ask for my number though, but to ask for legal advice. From the sounds of it, that guy did not have a case. After two more somewhat stilted conversations I make my way home to bed, exhausted.

Conclusion? Not much of one. Be patient, don't get discouraged is part of the Rules. I met a few girls, which will definitely be good if I continue to go to events. This event was relatively inconsequential and was unlikely to get me a date in the first place. That said, it was unclear to me whether I was not being approached because a) no one found me attractive; b) my knees were showing; c) people thought I was with the pale guy in thick glasses and a sweatshirt sitting to my right; d) I was exuding the discomfort I felt; or e) the fluorescent lighting. Also, the dressing sexy principle has to be modified for Orthodox Jewish situations.

Fein and Schneider have not spent much time online

The most recent of the Rules books is The Rules for Online Dating, published in 2002. 2002 is way out of date to begin with, as neither facebook nor texting was prevalent at that time (though both existed). However, AIM and e-mail were both in prevalent use in 2002, and the flaws of the book extend beyond antiquated-ness. The writing makes it obvious that its authors are really not much for computers.

The book is geared towards dating services such as Match, but its rules can be extended to general internet usage rules. The ones about e-mail purport to apply to men whether met online or offline. For example, Rule 1: Don't e-mail men first. Ok. Rule 5: Wait 24 hours to respond. Rule 6: Don't answer on weekends or holidays. Kind of implausible in the mobile technology era, but alright. Rule 7: Write light and breezy e-mails.

This week I received an e-mail from someone I shamelessly flirted with before this experiment. If I initiated this interaction, which it's unclear whether I did, the Rules says this "relationship" is already doomed so not much to lose here.

So, applying the above rules: Rule 5 + Rule 6 means that if a guy e-mails you Wednesday afternoon, you e-mail him back Thursday evening, and he e-mails you back later that evening, you can't e-mail him until Sunday after 5 PM. That seems a little extreme, when nowadays most young people have mobile technology and you can reasonably expect your e-mail will have been read within a few hours unless the person is unusually outdoorsy. Also, Rule 7 does not explain what "light and breezy" means other than to say only write two or three sentences (I agree unless his e-mail is significantly longer) avoid emoticons (I tend to overuse, so this tip is useful) and not to bare your soul (duh).

In my response to a short, unexpected e-mail, I resisted the urge to use emoticons or exclamation points even though he had used both. I wasn't effusive and I didn't say it was great to hear from him. I answered his innocuous question and asked him the same one. It felt so COLD. He wrote back a few hours later, didn't answer my question, asked me a follow-up question, and was almost apologetic about having e-mailed me in the first place. I guess I'll get back to him Sunday...

I'm finding this 2002 book and its 24-hour/no computing on weekends rules pretty inapplicable to the lives of most people my age, so these might require a bit of modification or flexibility. I haven't even attempted to interpret texting, IM, and facebook yet.

Happy half birthday to me

and the GROUND.

I'M AN ADULT!

Rule #2: STFU

Rule #2 is not to talk to a man first EVAR. They specifically mention not asking a man to dance in the chapter title, even though, as someone had to point out to me, this book was written in 1995. Either this book is aimed at high schoolers or they're really overdoing the 50s theme.

Why so absolute? Well, because of the "natural order of things," of course.

By talking to a man first, we interfere with whatever was supposed to happen or not happen, perhaps causing a conversation or a date to occur that was never meant to be and inevitably getting hurt in the process.

The remainder of the chapter makes clear that this rule means don't ask men out or hit on men or approach men in an environment where it would be clear that you would be indicating interest, e.g. at singles events. In other words, I think I can talk to guys on my dodgeball team before they talk to me since I've met them before, even though dodgeball is a great place to meet guys. But I don't know - I probably can't strike up a personal conversation with any of them.

So what's my track record on the natural order of things? +1 for he pursued me; -1 for I pursued him; 0 for unclear or ambiguous. Some of these are tough calls because most of my relationships have developed in a non-dating environment like school or work. Here are the most significant ones:

1. High school boyfriend. I think he asked me if he saw me in synagogue at High Holidays first but I definitely pursued the relationship from there, telling all my friends I liked him. I think he asked me to Homecoming. I think it was actually in a NOTE. Wow. Throwback. 0.
2. Waiter boyfriend (I was working at the same restaurant): unclear, but I'm pretty sure I made my interest known first. -1.
3. Musical theater boyfriend (we were both doing a play): pursued me aggressively. +1.
4. Semester abroad boyfriend: pursued me aggressively. +1.
5. Tech company boyfriend (we both worked there): I arranged a bunch of activities that I invited work people to as an excuse to hang out with him. By the time I made my interest absolutely clear he was already hooked, but I think I baited and hooked this one and did not defer to the natural order. -1.
6. College housemate boyfriend: I'm sure you can figure out how this one got started. Do I have to count this against myself? I probably should, I crushed on him before we hooked up drunk. -1.
7. Dude I ended up marrying for a short time: pursued me aggressively. +1.
8. Jdate guy: messaged me first, tried to weasel out of calling or e-mailing by telling me at the end of our dates to "e-mail me if you want to do something" but I did not - he always would. This is probably the Rulesiest I've been in the past, even though there were also plenty broken with him. +1.
9. Law school boyfriend: we were friends, I think I made my interest clear first, but I think he forced the feelings issue. 0.

So of my past significant relationships I have a net score of 1. And that's kind of pushing it, because I excluded all my ridiculous crushes and unofficial relationships that never materialized. I don't think I've ever had much of a concept of leaving things to the natural order.

At least a couple of the guys I "pursued," though, were guys that ended up being as into me as much or more than the guys who "pursued" me. (my actuary friend 3LP has his own theory about why this might be, but he's not allowed to share it) So really, do I do irreparable harm by making some ambiguous showing of possible interest?

Another one of my many concerns about this experiment is that I always think that the kind of guy I want probably isn't the type to aggressively pursue. Rule #2 makes a point to denounce the concept of a "shy guy."

Are men really shy? ... [W]e believe that most men are not shy, just not really, really interested if they don't approach you.

Hm. Well, ok then. Moving on.

So you're supposed to go to all these singles parties but are NOT ALLOWED to approach men. You're not even allowed to go stand near one. The Rules contemplate that you instead

go to the bathroom five times...reapply your lipstick, powder your nose, order more water from the bar, think happy thoughts; walk around the room in circles until someone notices you, make phone calls from the lobby to your married friends for encouragement...

I am going to have a ton of fun with this. Walking around the room in circles? Of course they mean briskly, femininely; not like Rain Man. They've invented cell phones since the mid-nineties so I assume I don't have to go to the "lobby" to call my married friends. Interestingly, this scene seems to contemplate me being at a singles party by myself. They don't tell me how to interact with the women there. Don't women go to these things together? What about guys I've met once or twice and should probably say hi to?

Luckily, no matter how insane I look pacing around, it is going to be relatively easy for me NOT to go up to men I don't know and talk to them.

Digression: I haven't really had much occasion to interact with new men yet because I'm working a lot right now, and wasting a lot of time on professional forums that have nothing to do with me. I do have some singles events coming up in the next few weeks though, where I will be lapping the dance floor like crazy before I'll talk to any guy.

Rule #1: Creature-ness

Finally, I'm getting to a real Rule! The rule is... "Be a 'Creature Unlike Any Other'." "Creature" isn't the word I would have chosen. Google image says:



Anyhow, they coin this creature term and then later on sometimes abbreviate it CUAO, which is a little Rachael Ray for my taste.

I'm not sure how they came up with the name, but it is the Rules's version of total and complete self-confidence, a central theme.

Being a creature unlike any other is a state of mind...[it] is really an attitude, a sense of confidence and radiance that permeates your being from head to toe. It's the way you smile (you light up the room), pause in between sentences (you don't babble on and on out of nervousness), listen (attentively), look (demurely, never stare), breathe (slowly), stand (straight), and walk (briskly, with your shoulders back).

I like it in concept. I also like how they give you actual things to practice to develop this sense, unlike many self-improvement "think positive" concepts thrown at you with little concrete to tie to it. Though, it is interesting how all these creatures unlike any other have to be exactly the same.


I skipped charm school, so I really will have to practice these. I made a concerted effort to walk briskly back from the bathroom to my office all day today, but that's about all the opportunity I had. In terms of lighting up a room, I generally do it with my bubbliness and excitement and intense positive energy, but I'm going to have to find another way under the Rules.

Creature-ness is about pretending to feel really, really good about yourself even when you don't, so that eventually, you do.

If you think you aren't pretty, if you think other girls are better dressed or thinner or cooler, you keep it to yourself. You tell yourself 'Any man would be lucky to have me,' until it sinks in and you start to believe it.

The second book has a chapter (30) devoted to how "The Rules Are a Healthy Way of Life."

By not pursuing men or allowing yourself to rationalize staying in a dependent or destructive relationship, you automatically become a healthier, more grounded and self-empowered person. You're not a nervous wreck, trying to get a man who isn't interested in you to love you or begging the man you are dating to make a commitment.

That rings very true to me. Hopefully this clarifies some of why I think these six months are as worthwhile, if not more, than an artificial forced dating hiatus. Creature-ness, Rule #1, is the essence of that, however weird it sounds.

Speaking of six months, apparently I magically conjured up the recommended amount of time. From Rule #31: Don't discuss The Rules with your therapist (phrased as a "strong suggestion" but not an outright forbiddal):

We suggest you try The Rules for six months before doing anything else.

The six months part amuses me, but I'm not sure what is meant by "anything else." Like a conflicting set of dating rules? I can't think of one, it's more like you follow the Rules, you follow relaxed Rules, or you don't follow Rules.

Nervous babbling and complaining out, optimism and brisk movement in. Off I go into creature-ness land.

Interpreting versus Picking-and-Choosing

As someone in the legal profession, and someone who aware if not totally observant of Jewish law, it is just natural to me that laws, including these "Rules," have to be interpreted. Some of the Rules are absolute. Like, if a guy calls me on a Thursday (Rule 7), I turn him down. Period. Others are squishy. Don't Open Up Too Fast (Rule 19) is obviously more difficult.

But I haven't even gotten to the Rules yet. The "you as a product" chapter I just posted about is not itself a "rule" precisely for the reason that putting the best "you" together is so extremely subjective that it could not possibly be expressed in rule form. Its point is (as one commenter pointed out), look and act your best. No one could apply every sentence from that chapter.

I interpreted that chapter to the best of my ability and am applying it as much as possible. I cleaned out my entire closet yesterday, enlisting the help of a Rules-y friend. I'm wearing makeup every day, but not wearing a lot of makeup because I don't think it makes me look my best. Most of the rest of them I even questioned was more about my capability of complying rather than my intent to comply. I'm not really that neat and clean, and I'm also really funny and outgoing. I do intend to comply - I might fall short from time to time, is all, because it doesn't come naturally to me. If it did, this blog would be boring!

OK, the one I arguably dismissed out of hand was the nose job one. Does anyone really believe that because I refuse to get a nose job, I am picking and choosing which rules I want to follow? :)

Pre-Rules face, body, habits, and personality makeover

Before even telling you what the Rules are, Chapter IV of The Rules Part I discusses "the product" in some terms that I find shocking and offensive. I'm doing this balls to the wall, so I will be a good sport, but honestly I recoil at some of this stuff. Choice excerpts:

Men like women who are neat and clean. They also make better mothers of their children--the kind who don't lose their kids at the beach.

Men like women who wear fashionable, sexy clothes in bright colors. Why not please them?

Do everything you possibly can to put your best face forward. If you have a bad nose, get a nose job...

What is a bad nose? I arguably have one. Um, I'm not getting a nose job. Neat and clean? Um, ok, I'll try to progress past the whole "organized clutter" approach that I've been slowly implementing since the fall. I actually had a friend go through my clothes today and we threw out about 1/5 of my stuff and made a shopping list. I already dress pretty Rules-y, but my style includes some curveballs and I'm not going to completely get rid of that.

The Rules approach basically insists that you look your best, and presumes that this includes always wearing makeup. I am not a consistent wearer of daily makeup. Let me explain what I mean by this. I am generally wary of the prospect of putting on and taking off one's face. My mother always wears what I believe to be an insane amount of makeup, and growing up I didn't like how she looked so different with and without it. I rebelled by basically never wearing any except on special occasions.

However, since college there have been spurts of weeks when I will put it on every morning, usually when I am enchanted by some brand that a girlfriend introduces me to or in a department store and splurge on a bunch; or when I start a new job with the delusion that I would be perceived as unprofessional if I came in without mascara. A few months ago, I owned an absolutely ridiculous amount of makeup for the frequency of its usage. That had started to change somewhat by December - I organized all my colors of eye makeup from bare minerals in this fun drawer organizer from the Container Store and that rekindled my interest in putting it on. In the new year, I had a soft resolution to wear makeup every day that I have by and large kept.

This means that every day, I wear eye makeup and lip gloss, and this is going to have to do. I'd break out the foundation (again, bare minerals) for dates or other important evening events. I'm probably never going to wear conventional "perfume," sorry, Rules. But I am basically proud of my aversion to makeup. My appeal is rather girl next door, and too much makeup would probably not be "looking my best."

The chapter insists that "men prefer long hair." Check. Finally, an easy one, though I'm not sure how I could have made this magically happen in six months if I didn't already have long hair. But this is a bold generalization that is not always true. My last boyfriend always wanted me to cut mine chin-length, and I was always mad he didn't appreciate my mid-back hair.

And then there's this:

Don't tell sarcastic jokes. Don't be a loud, knee-slapping, funny girl...when you're with a man you like, be quiet and mysterious, act ladylike, cross your legs and smile. Don't talk so much. Wear black sheer pantyhose and hike up your skirt to entice the opposite sex! You might feel offended by these suggestions and argue that this will suppress your intelligence or vivacious personality. You may feel that you won't be able to be yourself, but men will love it!

Page 22. Oy. I anticipate coming back to this paragraph often. As for the mysterious part, I don't think I've ever come off that way to anyone. I did make over my facebook privacy settings, creating a friends list for people I know well enough to actually see stuff and not letting anyone else see it. That way I can accept friend requests in my usual manner without exposing my life story for quite an extended period of time (I was an original fb user, when it was only in certain schools....) This process was incredibly cumbersome, because facebook would much rather I share information with everyone. But that is an entirely separate blog.

Why not just not date for 6 months?

This has been suggested to me more than once both by close friends and random people on the internet, based on the unfortunate fact that I've never had real single time. My relationship life was really confusing in college and the year after, so I'm not sure it's 100% true to say 3 months is the longest I've been single (though during that period I was always engaging with or crushing on certain men). But I actually did consider the option of a hiatus, and talked it over with a few people, but when I thought of this idea I just went with it. I didn't have a whole lot of time to think it over because the concept revolved around turning 30, but I also think that this is a good way to go for these reasons:

• I actually think that if I follow the Rules, no dating may be the result because my personality doesn't fit with them AT ALL and I'm not sure they work in modern society anyway. I've said this already, but it bears mentioning again.
• I'm not sure a hiatus would really work to change my mindset, or if it did, it would be pretty miserable in the process. I'm kind of obsessive about men and find it hard to concentrate on my own life when I'm not in a relationship. Because my work life is so grueling, I can't just suddenly let go of my compulsion to think about men when I don't have one. The Rules, in addition to being a "method to dating" (which channels my natural impulse to obsess about men), works to change this attitude, which is something I think could be helpful to me. This way I still get to think about it - something I don't think I'm quite strong enough to control since it's been with me my whole life - but I'm doing it in a different, hopefully healthier, way. This is probably the main reason, honestly.
  
• I enjoy writing and have been meaning to start a blog for a long time. It seemed like a cohesive enough concept to go with, so I took the opportunity. I decided I would try to post regularly to test the waters until the 28th, and then go for it if I still felt like it would be a positive thing.
  
• I am 29.5, and I want to have kids someday. My single male friends have made comments about avoiding girls as old as I am, because they want multiple kids. Reality.
• I mentioned my work life above, and that's a factor. Last year I worked 60-80 hours a week and pulled at least 5 all-nighters. If I turn dating off as a priority for 6 months, I could wind up in my current job 10 years from now with nothing else going on, and possibly insane. Ok, that's admittedly unlikely because of how much I care about things like music (I'm in a musical performing group) and volunteering and other activities. But work was driving me crazy before my breakup, and I don't want it to suck my personal life away now that I no longer have a relationship. The one other girl at my workplace that's not married is a scary workaholic.
• Putting myself "out there" allows me to make new friends too, and I've started making lots of new friends already thinking about this approach. This is particularly helpful for someone who lost a bunch of friends recently because they were all his - I moved to this city for a job, met this guy, and started hanging out with him and his friends for 2 years before I really made mine, so a big chunk of my social circle just got chopped off. Luckily, I do have plenty of really great friends here that are my own, but it's nice to make more.
  
• Finally, and this is a big one too, it adds significance to turning 30 that allows me to embrace that milestone rather than fear it.

I enabled anonymous commenting, so feel free to reject these reasons, tell me how insecure I am, ask me for pictures, or say anything else you'd like to. And why can't I be hot if I go to services? :) (fuck, rules says no emoticons. oops, rules says no cursing.)

No more excuses

Last night I delved back into the text of the Rules. I started with the Online Dating stuff because I hadn't read it yet. There is some serious bs in there, I am really looking forward to ripping it apart. Interestingly, e-mail has been crowned equal to phone, and IMing is basically banned.

Tonight I bailed on not one, but three social things that I was supposed to do because I was down about the breakupiversary. That is, it has been a month since my last relationship went up in flames and I was more sensitive about it than I thought I would be given that my mood has generally been good lately. This behavior (bailing) is extremely counter to both the Rules (which says to put yourself out there and be positive all the time) and my blog (which will be relatively uninteresting if I never get dates).

As of Monday, no more excuses. I am a "Creature Unlike Any Other" - their term; a silly one, but whatever - and I have a positive outlook on life and a good attitude about everything!

Note: to be fair, I was at event #1 for a long time, then bailed early to attend event #2, which was at a cougar bar that had a 30-minute wait to get into - extremely undesirable to a lonesome and schlubbily-dressed me (also not Rules-y, but it has been an extremely busy week). There was no way I was going to risk a line to attend event #3 so I came home. I should go to bed but feel sort of paralyzed from the string of bad decisions I just made.

Note #2: Although no guy is supposed to ever have any evidence that you use electronic devices other than your cell phone on a weekend, anonymous blog posting on a Saturday night is technically not breaking the Rules because no guy I am Rules-ing is supposed to know who I am.

Nights like tonight...

I came home thinking, I bet I'm going to miss having a boyfriend tonight, because I was wearing my super-tight black cocktail dress and I bet I'll have trouble unzipping it. But I didn't - for the first time (in this dress at least) no trouble at all. The Rules are here, so I best get to reading. In addition to the book featured in the first post, I'll be consulting:




and

And this doesn't really even make a dent. These ladies sure have made a ton of money off of this enterprise...

I might suck at this

So, I got confirmation that my package of Rules books arrived at my home. Game begins officially on Monday, until then I am just treating my social interactions as practice. And, I'm trying, really, I am.

Just now a guy friend who I suppose is a potential just because I don't know him that well called. We will call him B, in case he comes up later. (Note: I don't think I'm interested in this guy, but you have to follow the Rules regardless.) I picked up the phone and said "hey!" excitedly. He asked me if I was going to services tonight, and I said I would otherwise be, but that I had a group obligation. I then, unsolicited, volunteered where I was possibly planning on going afterward. He said he would probably be nearby my later plans, so he'd give me a call then.

RULES FAIL.

But last night on facebook chat, another similar, just-met potential guy, we'll call him G (my interest in him also improbable, but possible), IMed me and my chat responses were quite demure. There may be hope for me yet.

More about the goals

After further reflection and reading 14 pages of actuarial responses to my blog :), I think I should clarify what I hope to accomplish from this experiment. In some ways it is the opposite of the stated goal of the Rules (to find a husband). I've been there. I'm not looking to insta-marry.

I actually think that I'm doing this experiment because I think it's my best shot at *not* being in a relationship at the end of the six months. (Saying that might betray a bit that I don't know that I believe the Rules actually work, right? Because if they are so great, I'd have a husband at the end of the six months?)

The point is, I have not spent meaningful periods of my life outside of relationships. Because I've never been alone, I'm extremely uncomfortable being alone. I'm very secure in my insecurity in this regard, I think it's pretty justified based on my life experience.

I believe that the value added by the Rules is the philosophy that it is better to be alone than to be with the first generally ok guy you're attracted to, if he doesn't care deeply about you - or have serious interest in you - and act like it. This is something I believe, but have not lived. Not knocking my boyfriends, they're all great. Many of them I have no doubt loved me just as much as any Rules-gotten-guy. But I rushed into most of them because I didn't want to be alone.

But there are valid criticisms of this approach, too. I am not a Rules girl by nature and generally attract men because I am cute, smart, and down to earth. None of these relationships have worked and I don't really know why. In the end, the main goal is perspective, and that I'm sure I'll find one way or another.

Gchat

Eventually I plan to be more methodical in how I analyze and implement the Rules. However, I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive so I'm sort of riffing here. Plus, the real experiment doesn't begin till Monday but I'm trying to get in the habit of writing every day.

But one thing I've been considering is instant messaging - texting too, but I think that probably warrants its own entry at some point. The Rules never addressed gchat, and its authors are (I'm guessing) too old to actually do any chatting. I am someone who spends several hours a day on gchat most days when I'm strapped to my desk, and I find that a lot of people like me also are, so I am fairly curious as to how to apply the rules in this context.

Clearly, initiating the process of sending chat invites to people is contrary to the rules. But recently a potential interest requested that he be added to my chat list. I accepted, even though I didn't know him that well. OK, as long as I never IM him first? Wait three days and then accept? Reject? The rules about calling don't translate easily to deciding when it is appropriate to IM someone. It also doesn't work to ignore an IM like one would let a phone call go to voice mail.

Am I allowed to have funny status messages? Descriptive ones? News links? Messages that are flirtatious, suggestive, or intriguing? I'm not an avid user of status messages anyhow, but I imagine the Rules would disapprove.

Query whether the Rules would think that being "available" online is appropriate at all; my instinct on this is "no." This would mean that I have to get off of chat programs for 6 months. The last time I did this as a true abstention was to write my honors thesis in college.

"The Rules" versus "He's Just Not That Into You" (part 1)

So, I told my friend about my blog, and we had a little chat about the Rules versus the nouveau "He's Just Not That Into You," which I will likely have to expound upon once I have read that book, something I've avoided doing for reasons I talk about below. Note that the authors of "The Rules" have embraced the concept of "He's Just Not That Into You" to some extent, but I don't really think that's necessary to the Rules themselves.

Friend: I'll read [the book]

still not sure I understand the Rules

I mean, the fundamental idea is that the guy needs to pursue you, right?

but that doesn't mean you can't make your interest known, and reciprocate, right?

seriously, I am confused over this

to me, the idea behind the Rules is similar to "he's just not that into you" - that a guy will make it clear if he's interested, and if he's not making it clear, then the girl should chill

or am I equating the Rules with "he's just not that into you" in a way that is unwarranted?

Sent at 11:51 AM on Thursday

me: i think it's unwarranted

but i will discuss

in blog

i think it's an interesting topic

i have to read "he's just not that into you"

i've watched the movie which i understand is different from the book

but from what i know they are two entirely different concepts

that people conflate

Friend: yeah, that's probably right

the movie sucked

I also have not read the book

me: people swear by it

i will read it as part of this experiment i think

Friend: from what I understand of that concept, which is likely different than the Rules, I think it makes a lot of sense

me: but i'm trying to sort of just RE-VAMP my perception of this whole world

Friend: which I fully support

me: "he's just not into you" does not provide any action

Friend: did you tell FRIEND1 and FRIEND2 about this?

me: no

and don't plan to

only plan to tell possibly friends far away

i may tell them eventually

Friend: got it

me: anyway

"he's just not that into you" is a concept i sort of hate as compared to the rules

the rules is, it doesn't matter what the reason is - you just behave a certain way

that i can apply

he's just not that into you is trying to give you a reason that is just not always true

like, the rules says the reason doesn't matter, and i like that

Friend: so it's sort of like BEHAVIORAL THERAPY

me: INDEED

Friend:

me: whereas

i don't think "he's just not that into you" has much to offer

except telling you to let gi

go

which like,

DUH

i mean duh

we shouldn't obsess

Friend: right but everyone does

me: the rules "next!" is much more empowering to me than the he's just not that into you "next!"

Friend: fair enough

me: and the rules are meant to empower - like, for whatever reason, this guy isn't up to snuff

i am a creature unlike any other

i deserve to be treated better

therefore, next!

whereas

he's just not that into you is like

"he doesn't like you, don't beat yourself up about it"

which is small comfort at best

and actually i find would lead to more obsession

about WHY HE'S NOT THAT INTO ME

SATC fucked that up for me

Friend: so, in that way, maybe the Rules are just a stronger version of the message? and more focused on you being awesome and deserving better, than on the guy not liking you

me: but the rules takes it out of your hands and out of your brain

he's just not that into you ...

doesn't really do much for me

it's like,

it's still in your brain

and sort of depressing

i understand you're supposed to be confident enough to accept that truth about the universe

but i am action-oriented

even if the action is inaction

Friend: right

that all makes sense

me: can i post this anonymously to my blog?

Friend: SURE

The Rules: Basic Philosophy

It has been awhile since I've read the Rules, though I just ordered a brand new copy of three different volumes for the purpose of this voyage. The first read was on a friend's recommendation after the breakup before this last one - with the same guy, but that's a different story. The Rules state that the natural order of things is for men to pursue women, and when women pursue men, this balance gets thrown off, and the woman is not adored enough, and basically the relationship is doomed. I'm exaggerating, of course, but the language in the book is pretty strong that legitimately successful non-Rules marriages are the exception and not the rule (no pun intended). Which is pretty startling if you take them seriously about how few true Rules marriages there are.

I am not instinctively a Rules girl. My whole life I have crushed on guys, starting back in first grade when I chased a boy named Stephen around the playground and fluttered whenever he would insult me, which was often. I talk about guys to girlfriends. I let guys know I'm interested in ways that are obvious. I count phone calls but I probably do just as much of the calling. I accept last minute dates and suggest things myself that could be perceived as such. I make friends with guys and try to turn it into something else.

I am also quirky, funny, smart, and unmysterious, and believe I come off this way.

Before I read the Rules, I thought they were crap. I thought the Rules were just an excuse to play games, and I consider myself a straight-shooter, not a game-player.

After I read them, I still thought some of them were crap (or at least too extreme), but I started to think of them as a way of treating yourself well rather than a way of gaming men. That said, I tend to obsess over my "targets" (whether because I want to start something with them or because they are not fulfilling my needs in a relationship). The Rules, if you really believe them, takes this all out of your hands. Conceptually, I have internalized the Rules and recommend them to my friends, although I have utterly failed to implement them myself so far. Especially recently.

After getting facebook friended by a guy who was supposed to call me last week, I also think the Rules are frustratingly out of date. What is the rule when the guy who says he's going to call you two weeks ago facebook friends you instead with no message, and you typically facebook friend everyone you've met?

So here goes my experiment. It should be interesting, even if it winds up with me not dating for six months. That might even be the best result.

Premise

What is this blog, and why is it pink?

For the last six months of my twenties, I am going to follow "the Rules" of dating (or my best interpretation of them) and write about it. The action will officially begin on my 29.5th birthday and will tentatively end on my 30th birthday.

I just got out of a two-year relationship and have been a serial monogamist since I was fifteen, with single periods of less than 3 months in between relationships. I was even married once for less than a year. The ends of relationships sometimes trigger severe, debilitating depression in me. I may also discuss this from time to time, including the ways I try to cope with breakups. Since the Rules require me to do a fair amount of sitting and waiting, I may have to extend the scope of this blog if I get bored. We will have to see how it goes.

As for the pink, it seemed appropriate given the overt sappiness and facial absurdity of the Rules themselves. Just take a look:



I am not the girliest of girls, and I'm not sure "the Rules" is a universal truth, which is why this experiment is both outside my comfort zone and arguably worthwhile.