Texting guy seems to have gone poof. I'm ok with this. During our last date - a lunch date - he asked me to come to his stage performance that same night. He pushed pretty hard at this, right up until he walked me back to my office. I couldn't come up with a great excuse why I absolutely couldn't go. I didn't promise, but I left open the possibility. I couldn't actually go because of the Rules - it was the same night, plus "[i]f you meet a performer and he offers you a ticket to see his concert or show as a first date, politely decline. Attending his show is not a date. If he wants to see you the night of the show, he must pick you up afterward and take you out." --Rules II Chapter 14, Don't be a Groupie and Other Rules for Dating Celebrities and High-Profile Men. Plus I was tired and slammed. He probably took this as the final straw.
I find it fascinating how some think that texting guy was either not that into me or waaay too lazy; and others of you think I drove him off and he would have been better if I hadn't acted so disinterested. I think he was a decent guy who had the potential to be that into me but wasn't yet, and doesn't really have any interest in real courtship. I don't really blame either of us for this fizzling. I don't regret my actions, and his thoughts that I'm not responsive enough are well-founded.
Facebook guy went poof too. I'm slightly less okay with this even though I barely met the guy. I got myself all excited about him. Lesson learned, I guess.
I am very sloooowly interacting with exactly one dude on eharmony, which is a separate post I'll write pretty soon. Eharmony, meanwhile, has run out of Jewish guys within 60 miles of me and has started matching me with guys in San Antonio who can't spell, and guys in New York City who seem perfect for me but are in New York City.
I have an inkling that there are a few guys I've made friends with who might be into me. I'm not really into them that way though.
In other words, very few if any prospects on the horizon. I anticipate that this dry spell will continue, because I am
(i) buying a house
(ii) leaving town on a 2-week business trip; and
(iii) a little exhausted from thinking about dating, and am more or less ready to try not to.
I consider this to be "happy and busy" time per the Rules, and thus within the scope of my blog. I'd like to keep writing, but I may wander off topic for the next month or so (month #3 of 6).
And perhaps my favorite (embedding disabled).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete1) man pursues woman
ReplyDelete2) better to be alone than with guy who's not that into you
3) self-preservation
OK, I'm an idiot and I deleted Michael's comment when I meant to delete mine. can't figure out how to undelete, so reposting:
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should take the time to read from the very beginning of the blog again or somehow read a synopsis of the book, but could I ask about the general idea behind the Rules?
I mean, it seems as though the main point of the Rules, to roughly put it, is to control your own feelings and emotions about the dating scene until you, by following a pre-determined set of “Rules” to the T, have determined that you’ve hooked a guy that “is into you” and thus, you’re almost guaranteed to be less invested in the relationship than he is.
Is that about right, or is that too cynical of a view of the Rules?
That being said, I do think that there’s usually one person in a relationship that’s got more invested in it, and that’s the person that risks the most and the person that will hurt more when the relationship ends. So, I guess the idea is to not be that person? I’ve been in that situation and yeah, the separation part sucks. But at the same time, I don’t think I would’ve ever felt the happiness I did if I wasn’t invested quite like I was.
I guess I have two questions here – do you think that the more risk you take, the more you have to gain AND lose? And in regards to the Rules, do you think you can actually throw yourself into the relationship at a later date and immerse yourself in it like you say you like to if the relationship has started out on a framework external to your core beliefs?
Michael, I linked to some "philosophy"-related posts in the past right before where I reposted your comment. I don't agree with you that there is "usually" one person more invested in a relationship and that stands to get hurt more in the end. See my comments to this entry. Of course this happens sometimes. Sometimes both people are invested in qualitatively different ways. Sometimes this swings back and forth. I have friends who think this way, but I personally reject this premise as a generalization.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, the Rules is absolutely NOT intended to make you less into the guy you "hook" than he is to you. You are supposed to PRETEND you are less into him, especially if you are very into him. This will ensure that, if he doesn't poof, he is *as* into you. It doesn't protect you from being "the invested one" (although as I said, I reject that premise) - it protects you from him not being as invested as you are and treating you less than what you deserve as a result.
Will respond to your two last questions in a separate post.