I had a revelation the other day while driving.
I believe with about 90% confidence that if I somehow ended up in a relationship with texting guy, he would cheat on me.
I'm not sure why I'm so sure of this proposition. I have been cheated on before, but not by a "cheater," if that makes sense. The guy who cheated on me was basically a good guy who got confused. I doubt that guy is going to cheat on his wife.
But texting guy, I feel strongly that he is a cheater despite never having any personal experience with that kind of guy.
The Rules do not address cheating directly. But they imply that if someone makes it all the way to marriage with you, he is smitten with you enough not to cheat. And if a guy is deep down a cheater, well, he just won't make it there.
No Bill Clintons for me, thank you very much.
Am I being totally unfair to texting guy?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
I am not doing this to find a boyfriend
I have to remind self of this constantly when I am not returning calls and texts from someone I believe is a good guy, who I like, and who I think likes me.
I did not start this blog to find a boyfriend. I am doing these Rules to find myself.
That means meeting my insecurities, which cause me to try to control people and situations, head on.
Returning a phone call is hardly trying to control someone. I get this.
But down the road, I might freak out that he doesn't have a picture of me as his wallpaper, or hasn't asked to be in a relationship on facebook (despite my disdain for this practice). Down the road, I may throw a tantrum because his friends keep inviting him to weddings without his serious girlfriend and he doesn't seem to care. Down the road, I could well threaten to break up with him if he doesn't want to move in together.
I will scrutinize his actions and inactions, worried that they are all referenda on our relationship. I will listen to every nice thing my friends' significant others do for them and wonder why mine isn't doing the same for me. I will drive myself crazy, and once I have done so, I will drive him crazy.
Until I can trust myself not to be this worst version of me, I have to let go a little. Even of a guy I like. Even before any of these things are on the horizon.
"You will not lose something that you were meant to keep."
I did not start this blog to find a boyfriend. I am doing these Rules to find myself.
That means meeting my insecurities, which cause me to try to control people and situations, head on.
Returning a phone call is hardly trying to control someone. I get this.
But down the road, I might freak out that he doesn't have a picture of me as his wallpaper, or hasn't asked to be in a relationship on facebook (despite my disdain for this practice). Down the road, I may throw a tantrum because his friends keep inviting him to weddings without his serious girlfriend and he doesn't seem to care. Down the road, I could well threaten to break up with him if he doesn't want to move in together.
I will scrutinize his actions and inactions, worried that they are all referenda on our relationship. I will listen to every nice thing my friends' significant others do for them and wonder why mine isn't doing the same for me. I will drive myself crazy, and once I have done so, I will drive him crazy.
Until I can trust myself not to be this worst version of me, I have to let go a little. Even of a guy I like. Even before any of these things are on the horizon.
"You will not lose something that you were meant to keep."
Monday, March 29, 2010
Wherein texting guy does not poof completely, AGAIN
Texting guy canceled our tentatively planned date last week -- via text -- even after this conversation took place. Ironically, I also canceled it via e-mail 15 minutes later before having seen the text. We did not speak for five days, and I thought this was poof for sure.
This evening I get, guess what? Another text, asking me if I'm going to this seder that he knew I was going to go to, and had previously said he was thinking of going to. I did not respond.
Of course, he was there. Problem: my brain has basically already nexted the guy, my instinct is to want to flirt and have fun, and I did so waaay too much tonight. Like, engaging in innuendo-y banter with him and tolerating him feeling my leg under the table. This is all bizarre to me because I think it would be a stretch to even say I've even reached first base with this guy. My eighth grade boyfriend and I had made out more by time we'd "dated" this long.
Texting guy was not the only one I flirted with at seder - I flirted with a couple of my friends pretty shamelessly too. A Practicing Rules Girl has warned me about this issue - she enjoys flirting, as do I. So when we've written a guy off (for whatever reason), we seem to mentally exclude him from the Rules and therefore allow ourselves this guilty pleasure. But if I read Rule #1 correctly, Rules girls really don't flirt at all. If you're interested in the man or may be interested, you may not flirt; if you're not interested in the man, there is not a whole lot of point to flirtation, and you could be jerking him around. I told PRG that she needs to rein in her flirting instinct to be within the spirit of the Rules, and clearly I do too.
Other than the whole under leg-under-the-table/what-do-I-get-if-I-find-the-afikomen thing, I did a good job of not clinging to texting guy. He initiated conversations, he insisted I sit next to him. At the end I sort of made a bit of an effort to leave with him (bad), but took off without lingering when I got to my car (good). On the way to the car, he joked that he counted this as our 5th date.
Texting guy is a player, I'm fairly certain. I've somehow avoided players up to this point in my life, and consider myself lucky that the Rules crossed my path before this one did.
Meanwhile, I went out on a ridiculously awkward date with eharmony guy and a wonderful date with facebook guy. I am leaving town for an extended business trip, not a moment too soon.
This evening I get, guess what? Another text, asking me if I'm going to this seder that he knew I was going to go to, and had previously said he was thinking of going to. I did not respond.
Of course, he was there. Problem: my brain has basically already nexted the guy, my instinct is to want to flirt and have fun, and I did so waaay too much tonight. Like, engaging in innuendo-y banter with him and tolerating him feeling my leg under the table. This is all bizarre to me because I think it would be a stretch to even say I've even reached first base with this guy. My eighth grade boyfriend and I had made out more by time we'd "dated" this long.
Texting guy was not the only one I flirted with at seder - I flirted with a couple of my friends pretty shamelessly too. A Practicing Rules Girl has warned me about this issue - she enjoys flirting, as do I. So when we've written a guy off (for whatever reason), we seem to mentally exclude him from the Rules and therefore allow ourselves this guilty pleasure. But if I read Rule #1 correctly, Rules girls really don't flirt at all. If you're interested in the man or may be interested, you may not flirt; if you're not interested in the man, there is not a whole lot of point to flirtation, and you could be jerking him around. I told PRG that she needs to rein in her flirting instinct to be within the spirit of the Rules, and clearly I do too.
Other than the whole under leg-under-the-table/what-do-I-get-if-I-find-the-afikomen thing, I did a good job of not clinging to texting guy. He initiated conversations, he insisted I sit next to him. At the end I sort of made a bit of an effort to leave with him (bad), but took off without lingering when I got to my car (good). On the way to the car, he joked that he counted this as our 5th date.
Texting guy is a player, I'm fairly certain. I've somehow avoided players up to this point in my life, and consider myself lucky that the Rules crossed my path before this one did.
Meanwhile, I went out on a ridiculously awkward date with eharmony guy and a wonderful date with facebook guy. I am leaving town for an extended business trip, not a moment too soon.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
When do the Rules Require "Next"
In response to Lipman, who has been gunning for me to next texting guy since date #1's recap: I think you're absolutely right that he deserves to be nexted (and has since date #1). But let's analyze whether the Rules require me to next him.
With one main exception (which I'll get to below), the Rules are not clear about what behaviors require me to affirmatively next. The book throws the word around with exclamation points as a battle cry, not as a Rule. It's generally spoken of as a philosophy that Rules Girls use to get over someone who has dumped them or poofed, rather than a command to stop seeing someone, a la Rule #30: "Next! and Other Rules for Dealing with Rejection."
The book contains no practical advice whatsoever for how to effect "next" when the guy is still pursuing in any form. Presumably a Rules Girl would try to do so passively if possible, i.e. by "poofing" herself and not responding to him at all; if this is not possible because she's too far into the relationship, I imagine that she'd probably have to communicate as little as possible about the reasons for the breakup. In an established relationship, I don't think this is really fair. It is surprising that the Rules don't tell you how to do this, because the only instances in which the Rules actually mandate a next appear to involve a long-term relationship.
The only actual Rule about I could find nexting is that if he doesn't give me a romantic gift for my birthday or Valentine's Day, next.
I guess I'm not actually bound to deal with this Rule EVER, because my birthday is the date this experiment ends. Therefore, I haven't really had any reason to analyze the Rule in detail. But on a plenary level, it's one of my least favorites.
What is a "romantic gift"? The Rules suggest jewelry is the classic example. In attempting to appear less than completely superficial, they also allow for something like a love poem. Personally, I think thoughtful gifts are not necessary "romantic" in the conventional sense, and are better. I would rather have something that indicates knowledge of what I would like, knowledge of me as a person, some element of surprise/unexpectedness, and a desire to make me (not just some girl) happy.
Note that I don't think I have ever received a gift that meets these criteria from a guy, although I routinely do from my law school bff.
So, the spirit behind the Rule is sound, but actually affirmatively breaking up with a guy because he gave you a shitty birthday gift seems like a totally biotchy thing to do, and one that could actually harm your reputation.
Rachel managed to do it pull it off after Tag gave her a scooter in this scene (with Spanish subtitles):
Later that day...
So it seems like you can smoothly next someone if the reason he got you a bad gift is because he's just a kid.
You're also supposed to walk away if he doesn't marry you within a certain time period. That makes sense, and actually contains some guidance about how to effect the next. Although the book is somewhat odd in that it seems to presume that a girl who has been dating a guy for over a year can just suddenly start seeing other people seemingly without even having a conversation about it.
Ok, back to my life, and texting guy. There's an argument that his anti-Rule 4 behavior in planning date #2 does require nexting under the Rules. (for those of us who don't have the Rule numbers memorized, Rule 4 is "Don't Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date"). I was a little forgiving on this one just because the way he planned it out was a little bit my fault. I still haven't written that date up, oy, falling behind. He somewhat redeemed himself on the Rule #4 issue by picking me up at my office's reception desk for date #3, which was a lunch date. But that was still a "when are you free?" situation, with no suggestion of Saturday night.
Even so, Rule #4 doesn't say you have to break up with him for this, it just says he is "invariably" a "turd." Basically it explains through anecdotes that these "turds" are eventually going to drop you, not that you should drop them. One of these anecdotes involves a guy who suggested that "Jane," a lawyer, split the check with him, and she agreed. He then "didn't treat her well, lost interest, and eventually stopped calling" because "Jane made everything so easy for him."
OK, I'm on board with not offering to pay (I have to suppress my instincts hard on this one) but I'm sorry, Rules, wtf is Jane supposed to do in this situation? Say, "No, I don't think so" when dude asks her to split the check? Lipman would say next her, but the Rules don't exactly. They just say what the end result will be.
And this I think is the magic of the Rules. In the dating phase, you do what you do, go with the flow, and then things happen as they're naturally supposed to. If he is the one forcing you to break the Rules because he is a turd, then things will run their course. You don't have to go to the trouble of breaking up with him because he will stop calling. If he doesn't, you can choose to continue going out with him and applying the Rules to him, knowing that he will eventually fade away. Or you can choose not to. But that's your choice, and as long as you're following the Rules you will really be no worse for wear either way.
In the relationship phase, the concern of wasting time comes into play, because you actually are sacrificing dating other men. This is when the question of Rules Girl-initiated nexting really arises.
I'm waiting until I'm safely out of town to describe what I believe is REALLY the demise of anything between me and texting guy - but I don't regret not blowing him off earlier. I didn't break the Rules by continuing to accept invitations to be sure.
With one main exception (which I'll get to below), the Rules are not clear about what behaviors require me to affirmatively next. The book throws the word around with exclamation points as a battle cry, not as a Rule. It's generally spoken of as a philosophy that Rules Girls use to get over someone who has dumped them or poofed, rather than a command to stop seeing someone, a la Rule #30: "Next! and Other Rules for Dealing with Rejection."
The book contains no practical advice whatsoever for how to effect "next" when the guy is still pursuing in any form. Presumably a Rules Girl would try to do so passively if possible, i.e. by "poofing" herself and not responding to him at all; if this is not possible because she's too far into the relationship, I imagine that she'd probably have to communicate as little as possible about the reasons for the breakup. In an established relationship, I don't think this is really fair. It is surprising that the Rules don't tell you how to do this, because the only instances in which the Rules actually mandate a next appear to involve a long-term relationship.
The only actual Rule about I could find nexting is that if he doesn't give me a romantic gift for my birthday or Valentine's Day, next.
The Rule is that if you don't get jewelry or some other romantic gift on your birthday or other significant occasion, you might as well call it quits because he's not in love with you and chances are you won't get the most important gift of all: an engagement ring. --Rule #12: Stop Dating Him if He Doesn't Buy You a Romantic Gift for Your Birthday or Valentine's Day.
I guess I'm not actually bound to deal with this Rule EVER, because my birthday is the date this experiment ends. Therefore, I haven't really had any reason to analyze the Rule in detail. But on a plenary level, it's one of my least favorites.
What is a "romantic gift"? The Rules suggest jewelry is the classic example. In attempting to appear less than completely superficial, they also allow for something like a love poem. Personally, I think thoughtful gifts are not necessary "romantic" in the conventional sense, and are better. I would rather have something that indicates knowledge of what I would like, knowledge of me as a person, some element of surprise/unexpectedness, and a desire to make me (not just some girl) happy.
Note that I don't think I have ever received a gift that meets these criteria from a guy, although I routinely do from my law school bff.
So, the spirit behind the Rule is sound, but actually affirmatively breaking up with a guy because he gave you a shitty birthday gift seems like a totally biotchy thing to do, and one that could actually harm your reputation.
Rachel managed to do it pull it off after Tag gave her a scooter in this scene (with Spanish subtitles):
Later that day...
Rachel: (to Tag) Hi.
Tag: Hey.
Rachel: Hey.
Tag: How are you doing? Are you feeling any better?
Rachel: Yeah, I’m doing okay. I’m um…let’s talk.
Tag: Okay. (They sit on the step.)
Rachel: Umm…
Tag: What’s up?
Rachel: Ohh Tag, umm…you’re such a great guy and we have sooo much fun together but I don’t-I don’t…
Tag: Wait! I think I see where you’re going, but before you say anything else, can I just say one more thing? (Kisses her.)
Rachel: Well said. And a uh good example of the fun I was referring to uhh, but I just think I’m past the point where I think I can y’know, just have fun.
Tag: Rachel, don’t do this. This is just because you’re turning thirty.
Rachel: Yeah, it is! But you’re just a kid! I mean you’re 25!
Tag: Twenty-four actually.
Rachel: Oh God! Y’know what I wish? I wish you were six years older. Well actually, if I’m wishin’ for stuff, I actually wish I was six years younger.
Tag: Me too.
Rachel: Yeah, I’m sorry. (They hug.)
So it seems like you can smoothly next someone if the reason he got you a bad gift is because he's just a kid.
You're also supposed to walk away if he doesn't marry you within a certain time period. That makes sense, and actually contains some guidance about how to effect the next. Although the book is somewhat odd in that it seems to presume that a girl who has been dating a guy for over a year can just suddenly start seeing other people seemingly without even having a conversation about it.
Ok, back to my life, and texting guy. There's an argument that his anti-Rule 4 behavior in planning date #2 does require nexting under the Rules. (for those of us who don't have the Rule numbers memorized, Rule 4 is "Don't Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date"). I was a little forgiving on this one just because the way he planned it out was a little bit my fault. I still haven't written that date up, oy, falling behind. He somewhat redeemed himself on the Rule #4 issue by picking me up at my office's reception desk for date #3, which was a lunch date. But that was still a "when are you free?" situation, with no suggestion of Saturday night.
Even so, Rule #4 doesn't say you have to break up with him for this, it just says he is "invariably" a "turd." Basically it explains through anecdotes that these "turds" are eventually going to drop you, not that you should drop them. One of these anecdotes involves a guy who suggested that "Jane," a lawyer, split the check with him, and she agreed. He then "didn't treat her well, lost interest, and eventually stopped calling" because "Jane made everything so easy for him."
OK, I'm on board with not offering to pay (I have to suppress my instincts hard on this one) but I'm sorry, Rules, wtf is Jane supposed to do in this situation? Say, "No, I don't think so" when dude asks her to split the check? Lipman would say next her, but the Rules don't exactly. They just say what the end result will be.
And this I think is the magic of the Rules. In the dating phase, you do what you do, go with the flow, and then things happen as they're naturally supposed to. If he is the one forcing you to break the Rules because he is a turd, then things will run their course. You don't have to go to the trouble of breaking up with him because he will stop calling. If he doesn't, you can choose to continue going out with him and applying the Rules to him, knowing that he will eventually fade away. Or you can choose not to. But that's your choice, and as long as you're following the Rules you will really be no worse for wear either way.
In the relationship phase, the concern of wasting time comes into play, because you actually are sacrificing dating other men. This is when the question of Rules Girl-initiated nexting really arises.
I'm waiting until I'm safely out of town to describe what I believe is REALLY the demise of anything between me and texting guy - but I don't regret not blowing him off earlier. I didn't break the Rules by continuing to accept invitations to be sure.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
When are you free?
All three guys who have asked me out so far (we'll refer to them as texting guy, facebook guy, and eharmony guy) have done so by asking "when are you free?"
In one sense, this epitomizes Rule #4, which is that the guy should want to do things at your convenience. In another sense, it's lazy and shifts the burden to you to secure the prestigious and elusive Saturday night date.
Question 1: How does a Rules Girl handle?
With texting guy, the first time I just told him - it was easy enough because I only had one day free that week. The second and third time I shifted the burden right back to him to propose a date. Which he sort of failed at, and never once suggested Saturday.
Having practiced this burden-shifting maneuver, I used it on facebook guy when he asked me when I was free to get "drinks." I said this week was really busy, when did he think he wanted to go. He threw out Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. I responded that Thursday I had plans, and told him what they were (d'oh, I have got to stop doing this), so the weekend was better. He said, ok, you want to do Saturday?
And lo, my first Saturday night date was scheduled. At first I felt a little bad about it, like I had tricked him into asking me for Saturday night. That said, he did suggest it, and it was before Wednesday when he did so, and it does say something that he's willing to go for the premium slot for a first date. Also, he didn't have a real plan on the phone, but e-mailed me one the next day, and it was more than "drinks." So, I'm not complaining.
When eharmony guy asked when I was free, I again turned the question back on him. He told me when he couldn't go. I responded by babbling truthfully about my busy schedule, my two-week impending business trip, and how I only had one possible time free before I left (SO bad at this part). We left it at tentatively for then, but for him to call again.
Question 2: Is this acceptable behavior for a guy?
My tentative answer is yeah, for a first date. Asking "will you go out with me Saturday night" or even "will you go out with me Thursday night" seems a little formal. "Want to get a drink tomorrow night" is less so, but it's also pretty spontaneous and less respectful of your schedule.
I think it changes for subsequent dates, but I haven't totally made up my mind. If the guy is still doing this on the third or fourth date, as texting guy did, it's probably not a good sign.
PS, After reflection and a little more development of texting guy's storyline, I think Lipman/Brody is totally right in his last comment. I am working on a long post explaining why. I appreciate criticism, so please don't hold back :)
PPS, happy 3-month-single-versary to me. I am now officially single longer than I have been since I was 15.
In one sense, this epitomizes Rule #4, which is that the guy should want to do things at your convenience. In another sense, it's lazy and shifts the burden to you to secure the prestigious and elusive Saturday night date.
Question 1: How does a Rules Girl handle?
With texting guy, the first time I just told him - it was easy enough because I only had one day free that week. The second and third time I shifted the burden right back to him to propose a date. Which he sort of failed at, and never once suggested Saturday.
Having practiced this burden-shifting maneuver, I used it on facebook guy when he asked me when I was free to get "drinks." I said this week was really busy, when did he think he wanted to go. He threw out Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. I responded that Thursday I had plans, and told him what they were (d'oh, I have got to stop doing this), so the weekend was better. He said, ok, you want to do Saturday?
And lo, my first Saturday night date was scheduled. At first I felt a little bad about it, like I had tricked him into asking me for Saturday night. That said, he did suggest it, and it was before Wednesday when he did so, and it does say something that he's willing to go for the premium slot for a first date. Also, he didn't have a real plan on the phone, but e-mailed me one the next day, and it was more than "drinks." So, I'm not complaining.
When eharmony guy asked when I was free, I again turned the question back on him. He told me when he couldn't go. I responded by babbling truthfully about my busy schedule, my two-week impending business trip, and how I only had one possible time free before I left (SO bad at this part). We left it at tentatively for then, but for him to call again.
Question 2: Is this acceptable behavior for a guy?
My tentative answer is yeah, for a first date. Asking "will you go out with me Saturday night" or even "will you go out with me Thursday night" seems a little formal. "Want to get a drink tomorrow night" is less so, but it's also pretty spontaneous and less respectful of your schedule.
I think it changes for subsequent dates, but I haven't totally made up my mind. If the guy is still doing this on the third or fourth date, as texting guy did, it's probably not a good sign.
PS, After reflection and a little more development of texting guy's storyline, I think Lipman/Brody is totally right in his last comment. I am working on a long post explaining why. I appreciate criticism, so please don't hold back :)
PPS, happy 3-month-single-versary to me. I am now officially single longer than I have been since I was 15.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The jig is up
I had a non-rulesy phone conversation with texting guy. Here's how it went down (approximation):
I was not sure what to do with this. I could have just ignored it like I did everything else, but it seemed like the jig was up.
So... I broke Rule 5 and called him. One could argue that I didn't break Rule 5, since I was calling him after he had texted me a dozen times. I still think the Rules probably wouldn't have approved.
A couple of points:
1) No Saturday night invite for fourth date.
2) No plan for this date, which I suppose I can forgive somewhat since he thought I was blowing him off.
3) I don't really approve of how he handled thinking I was blowing him off.
4) Awkwardness and rulebreaking during this conversation.
5) I don't really think he's that into me, honestly. He only wants to do stuff when it's convenient for him, has never suggested a weekend night, and doesn't really try to contact me that often - even when you count his unreciprocated texts.
6) All of the above has pretty much made me not that into him either.
7) I am actually not sure what I am going to do about Thursday. I have two-three potential date invitations on the table from other guys (two not yet set but requested via various electronic media; one phone call to return). I only have a few nights left before leaving town for 2 weeks, and this dude has pretty much exposed himself as, as Brody put it, a classic next.
But I still sort of want to see what happens, if nothing else for purposes of this blog. My friend described him as "Rules-resistant," and as such, he remains excellent practice.
Him (via text message): I'm sorry if I did anything to offend you. Do you just wanna be friends?
I was not sure what to do with this. I could have just ignored it like I did everything else, but it seemed like the jig was up.
So... I broke Rule 5 and called him. One could argue that I didn't break Rule 5, since I was calling him after he had texted me a dozen times. I still think the Rules probably wouldn't have approved.
Me: Hey, how are you?
Him: Good, you?
Me: Alright!
Me: So... what was up with that text message?
Him: Oh... well, I texted you over the weekend, and then I saw you at the thing last night and it was weird.
Me: I didn't think it was weird, what was weird about it?
[I will discuss this event later. It was a very interesting Rules experience. I think he's referring to the fact that I left without stopping to chat with him, though I did smile and wave bye.]
Him: I don't know, I just thought... With the text and everything, I didn't know if you were blowing me off.
Me: Oh, sorry, I just am not much of a texter. I figure if people want to talk, they'll call.
Him: Ok, I guess I was just reading it wrong. Sorry! So what have you been up to?
Me: Been busy, about to go on another business trip... [etc. on this line of conversation, including discovering that we might both be going to the same seder, at the home of a girl he used to date]
Him: Well do you want to get together before you leave town?
Me: Ok, when did you have in mind?
Him: Tomorrow night? Well, I have an event but I'm sure it will end eventually. [rambles]
Me: [reminds him about regular Tuesday night commitment]
Him: Ok. Thursday night? I have something early in the evening but it should be over by 7 or 7:30.
Me: That might work.
Him: Ok, I don't have anything planned, but it will probably involve a place and food or drinks or something.
Me: *laughs* Um, ok.
[next stopping point in the conversation]
Me: Well, I'm sorry you thought I was offended!
Me: You know, when you call a girl over and over and she never calls back it generally means she's blowing you off. I don't want to be a stalker...
Me: I totally thought we were cool! When have I ever not called you back?
Him: I know... it was just the texts...
Me: [DRUMROLL FOR THE BIG RULEBREAKING EVENT] Well, like I said, I don't really text much, but even if I did, I'm not sure I would really want to get to know someone that way.
Him: I know, but I wasn't trying to do that, I was just saying hi. But it's cool, I won't text anymore, I'll just call.
Me: You can text, I'm just kind of not good with the texts.
Him: You're fine - I'm just crazy!
Me: Well as long as you're the crazy one.
[some stupid and kind of awkward banter about him not being a stalker]
Me [at 10 minutes, 45 seconds]: OK, well have a good night!
Him: OK, I hope you can make it Thursday, let me know.
A couple of points:
1) No Saturday night invite for fourth date.
2) No plan for this date, which I suppose I can forgive somewhat since he thought I was blowing him off.
3) I don't really approve of how he handled thinking I was blowing him off.
4) Awkwardness and rulebreaking during this conversation.
5) I don't really think he's that into me, honestly. He only wants to do stuff when it's convenient for him, has never suggested a weekend night, and doesn't really try to contact me that often - even when you count his unreciprocated texts.
6) All of the above has pretty much made me not that into him either.
7) I am actually not sure what I am going to do about Thursday. I have two-three potential date invitations on the table from other guys (two not yet set but requested via various electronic media; one phone call to return). I only have a few nights left before leaving town for 2 weeks, and this dude has pretty much exposed himself as, as Brody put it, a classic next.
But I still sort of want to see what happens, if nothing else for purposes of this blog. My friend described him as "Rules-resistant," and as such, he remains excellent practice.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Risk and Reward in Rules Relationships
Michael's comment to the previous entry:
We all take risks in relationships. I think the answer to your question would depend on the type of risk you're talking about. For example:
If I'm interpreting it correctly, Michael's question hits on the choice of risk between #1 and #4. (Some would not acknowledge this as a choice between risks, but would frame #1 as risk aversion and #4 as risk taking. The Rules supports this view somewhat.) Specifically, Michael wants to know if #4 might result in a higher reward than #1, and may therefore be worthwhile on that basis.
The scenario is as follows: there is a guy a woman feels strongly about, but who has not noticed her and will not pursue her. The logic goes (and I think this is Michael's point), the woman has a lot to gain from letting the guy know her feelings, in case he might like her too. By following the Rules she might end up with a guy she likes less.
So does this "high-risk" approach result in a higher reward than if the woman just forgot about that guy? The Rules answer to this is, for women, absolutely not. If you are a woman and you pursue a man or make your interest obvious, you are guaranteed a lower reward.
Do I believe this? Sort of. I don't believe that a woman pursuing a man is guaranteed a lower reward. I also see "showing interest" as containing many gray areas. If I smile at a guy and linger in conversation with him, but never call or suggest we go out, I don't buy the Rules's view that I'm dooming that relationship.
See, the Rules, when followed as a philosophy and not just as a set of behaviors, does not permit a woman to feel strongly about anyone who does not notice her. Rather, it trains her to focus on the guys who do notice her. This may seem artificial at first glance, but it is in fact very natural. Many women including myself have this messed-up instinct to fall for guys who will not treat us well. I consider this to be nothing more than a chemical imbalance. The Rules trains your brain to realign itself.
If you take an egalitarian view of the world, you of course disagree with this approach and in may in fact be offended by it. But the Rules and my life experience makes a pretty good case for a non-egalitarian view of heterosexual relationships.
For these reasons, I have come to feel strongly that (i) when a woman assumes the role of the pursuer in the relationship, there is less for her to gain and more for her to lose; and (ii) when a woman refuses to assume that role, there is more for her to gain and less for her to lose. I don't view the word "pursuer" as strictly as the Rules does, however.
Michael's second comment:
I'll start by going off on a tangent. I would never have described the Rules as "external to my core beliefs," although implementing the Rules is something that it would never have occured to me to do. The fact is that I have never really had a philosophy about finding love or finding the right guy because until now, there has always been a serious relationship existing or imminent. I would try to cobble some sort of moral together after, of course, but the resulting worldview amounted to nothing more than sour grapes. I had none of my own core beliefs about how relationships start out, simply because I had never experienced my adult self with no male counterpart.
Put differently, I had no boundaries. This prevented me from ever really evaluating a relationship on its merits, in the context of my own wants and needs. I leapt into something and then engaged in post-hoc analysis by critically scrutinizing the relationship and the person - I don't want this quality that you have. I want this quality that you don't have. I want us to be like this together. Needless to say, this is destructive; its tendency to make both parties miserable readily apparent.
The Rules provide a starting point in developing my own boundaries. One of my primary goals is in fact not to "immerse" myself in a relationship too soon (like I like to do). Here I am, two months into the six. I am failing at the Rules in some ways, but I am cognizant of falling short and I'm trying. But when I am done, I hope to have come up with boundaries for me, that I can implement without doing things I find silly.
So, Michael, I will not end up "immersed" in six months. But that doesn't mean I can't ever be immersed. The Rules is about going slowly, not about hiding yourself forever. "Men must be conditioned to feel that if they want to see you seven days a week they have to marry you." --Rule #13, Don't See Him More than Once or Twice a Week. "We are all looking for someone to share our lives, thoughts, and feelings with, but ... wait until he says he loves you to share your innermost secrets ... Always remember that in time you will be able to tell him just about anything!" --Rule #20, Be Honest but Mysterious.
Yes, the Rules would prefer that I was more of a lady. But I'm not and I'm ok with that. I don't fear ending up in a relationship where I can't be myself. Myself just comes through regardless of how hard I try to push it down in a fit of demureness. I will not end up in a relationship where I cannot be myself, quirks and clumsiness and expressive hand gestures and sporadic makeup application and all.
do you think that the more risk you take, the more you have to gain AND lose?
We all take risks in relationships. I think the answer to your question would depend on the type of risk you're talking about. For example:
- If you do the Rules, you "risk" letting the guy you really want go without ever knowing your feelings, and you "risk" that you will drive away a great guy because he's gotten the wrong idea from your behavior.
- If you give a chance to a guy who is great and into you but who you don't feel chemistry with, you "risk" wasting time, and/or ultimately ending it in a way that reflects so poorly on you that your father calls the guy and thanks him for treating you better than you deserved. (Yep.)
- If you let yourself get your hopes up about someone, whether through putting up with their shit hoping they'll change or just trying to interpret their actions in a way that means they like you, you risk having them crushed.
- If you pursue someone or show too much interest, you risk rejection.
If I'm interpreting it correctly, Michael's question hits on the choice of risk between #1 and #4. (Some would not acknowledge this as a choice between risks, but would frame #1 as risk aversion and #4 as risk taking. The Rules supports this view somewhat.) Specifically, Michael wants to know if #4 might result in a higher reward than #1, and may therefore be worthwhile on that basis.
The scenario is as follows: there is a guy a woman feels strongly about, but who has not noticed her and will not pursue her. The logic goes (and I think this is Michael's point), the woman has a lot to gain from letting the guy know her feelings, in case he might like her too. By following the Rules she might end up with a guy she likes less.
So does this "high-risk" approach result in a higher reward than if the woman just forgot about that guy? The Rules answer to this is, for women, absolutely not. If you are a woman and you pursue a man or make your interest obvious, you are guaranteed a lower reward.
Do I believe this? Sort of. I don't believe that a woman pursuing a man is guaranteed a lower reward. I also see "showing interest" as containing many gray areas. If I smile at a guy and linger in conversation with him, but never call or suggest we go out, I don't buy the Rules's view that I'm dooming that relationship.
See, the Rules, when followed as a philosophy and not just as a set of behaviors, does not permit a woman to feel strongly about anyone who does not notice her. Rather, it trains her to focus on the guys who do notice her. This may seem artificial at first glance, but it is in fact very natural. Many women including myself have this messed-up instinct to fall for guys who will not treat us well. I consider this to be nothing more than a chemical imbalance. The Rules trains your brain to realign itself.
If you take an egalitarian view of the world, you of course disagree with this approach and in may in fact be offended by it. But the Rules and my life experience makes a pretty good case for a non-egalitarian view of heterosexual relationships.
For these reasons, I have come to feel strongly that (i) when a woman assumes the role of the pursuer in the relationship, there is less for her to gain and more for her to lose; and (ii) when a woman refuses to assume that role, there is more for her to gain and less for her to lose. I don't view the word "pursuer" as strictly as the Rules does, however.
Michael's second comment:
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?
I'll start by going off on a tangent. I would never have described the Rules as "external to my core beliefs," although implementing the Rules is something that it would never have occured to me to do. The fact is that I have never really had a philosophy about finding love or finding the right guy because until now, there has always been a serious relationship existing or imminent. I would try to cobble some sort of moral together after, of course, but the resulting worldview amounted to nothing more than sour grapes. I had none of my own core beliefs about how relationships start out, simply because I had never experienced my adult self with no male counterpart.
Put differently, I had no boundaries. This prevented me from ever really evaluating a relationship on its merits, in the context of my own wants and needs. I leapt into something and then engaged in post-hoc analysis by critically scrutinizing the relationship and the person - I don't want this quality that you have. I want this quality that you don't have. I want us to be like this together. Needless to say, this is destructive; its tendency to make both parties miserable readily apparent.
The Rules provide a starting point in developing my own boundaries. One of my primary goals is in fact not to "immerse" myself in a relationship too soon (like I like to do). Here I am, two months into the six. I am failing at the Rules in some ways, but I am cognizant of falling short and I'm trying. But when I am done, I hope to have come up with boundaries for me, that I can implement without doing things I find silly.
So, Michael, I will not end up "immersed" in six months. But that doesn't mean I can't ever be immersed. The Rules is about going slowly, not about hiding yourself forever. "Men must be conditioned to feel that if they want to see you seven days a week they have to marry you." --Rule #13, Don't See Him More than Once or Twice a Week. "We are all looking for someone to share our lives, thoughts, and feelings with, but ... wait until he says he loves you to share your innermost secrets ... Always remember that in time you will be able to tell him just about anything!" --Rule #20, Be Honest but Mysterious.
Yes, the Rules would prefer that I was more of a lady. But I'm not and I'm ok with that. I don't fear ending up in a relationship where I can't be myself. Myself just comes through regardless of how hard I try to push it down in a fit of demureness. I will not end up in a relationship where I cannot be myself, quirks and clumsiness and expressive hand gestures and sporadic makeup application and all.
Friday, March 19, 2010
annnnnnd... poof!
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).
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).
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Texting guy called again
And he wasn't passive-aggressive this time. I stayed on the phone for a whole 15 minutes, 5 minutes over the limit, because I felt a little bad for all the unresponsiveness. Good conversation. Hm.
Other weekend activities: original facebook guy was kind of spazzy and disappointing, and I met one other guy who facebook messaged me.
Other weekend activities: original facebook guy was kind of spazzy and disappointing, and I met one other guy who facebook messaged me.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Disdain for post-mortem sound bytes
Welcome back, Practicing Rules Girl, I've missed you! I'm going to use a comment from my favorite Rules Girl as a platform to rail on "He's Just Not That Into You," a book I have heard much about from friends but have not read yet:
OK, no - it's just not as simple as "he didn't really want me the way I wanted him to want me." He absolutely *did* want me in that way before we started not getting along. If I had acted like a Rules Girl from early on I have no doubt he would continue wanting me. Rather, he didn't want the relationship because I was difficult and we fought a lot. For my part, I didn't act like a Rules Girl because I was insecure and because I'm pretty sure I wanted him to be someone else. At the end, he did not have the requisite feelings for me, true - that was more or less mutual - but his feelings turned south because the relationship was messy. I have absolutely no doubt of this and I doubt he would dispute it either. He had issues and I had issues, our issues were incompatible and yes, we may have been as well.
Even though "he's just not that into you" is maybe not what PRG meant when she made this comment, her sentiment provides a good illustration for why I really can't stand that trendy phrase. (Ironically, I think my view on this comes through in the movie 'He's Just Not That Into You.')
Oversimplifying or circularly defining the reason why something didn't work out is no more useful than clinging to false excuses that avoid any kind of harsh truth. Both are equally cop-outs, and both absolve women of any introspection or responsibility for their own actions that may have contributed to problems in the relationship. It is simply not the case that the only reason that things don't work out is because the man is not "that into" the woman, and that there is no such thing as commitment-phobia, emotional unavailability, too much drama, or bad timing.
I'm not sure why the same women who treat politics and music and sports and business and house-buying at a nuanced level of discourse must use sound bytes to post-mortem about men. "He's just not that into you" accuses these often-bandied-about "excuses" of overcomplicating a simple reality to salvage our egos, but I think both extremes are in fact oversimplifying. I find frankly insulting the notion that any discussion of factors contributing to romance's demise is either (i) a result of the man's base lack of desire; or (ii) made-up bullshit. Slightly less offensive to my sensibilities but still an oversimplified sound byte is "you just weren't right for each other." Such simplistic views of the world are untenable in the context of a living relationship, so why do we as women suddenly find it empowering to embrace them to wave off a dead one?
In my particular case (maybe it's my ego that's making me say this) I do not think my sadness post-breakup or my wistful reaction to seeing the ex again had anything to do with ego. By the time I saw him again, my ego was just fine. And, as PRG pointed out, I'm even better now that I've seen him. I'm not nervous about running into him. I actually don't think about him much at all.
No, I personally get upset post-relationship, as always, because I have been a codependent relationship addict my entire life. I had a terrible pattern of wanting back and sometimes pursuing exes whenever I don't happen to be receiving male adulation from elsewhere.
If I were to ignore this truth, and simply chalk the relationship failures up to "he's just not that into me" (or in the case of relationships I ended, "I'm just not that into him,") I would never have had the wherewithal to fix a problem that has undermined my confidence, and likely diseased all of my relationships.
I maintain my position that Rules Girls don't need "he's just not that into you." That concept, as far as it goes, is present in an appropriately understated way in the Rules, e.g., "He'll either love you or he won't"; relationships are doomed if women initiate them, and so on. That's all well and good, and I am really on board with the whole, let's weed out guys who aren't that into me by making them put in effort up front However, attributing greater significance to it than that unnecessarily ties a specific reason to something that might simply lack a reason; additionally/alternatively, it causes us to ignore real reasons that might benefit us to explore.
To be clear, I have no problem with the notion that some guys aren't that into me - that is of course true, and the weeder function of the Rules is one of my absolute favorites.
Before my blog-experiment is over, I will have to actually read this book just so I can support my point of view with my own firsthand interpretation as opposed to my many friends' interpretations. And hey, girls, if this helps you, great. Just don't be surprised if I continue to roll my eyes when you trot it out.
in fact, it sounds like what you are grieving (even in your dream) is not the loss of the relationship even, but the hurt from the fact that he really didn't want you the way you wanted him to want you. It's ego-crushing. But truly, it's not about you. It's about him.
OK, no - it's just not as simple as "he didn't really want me the way I wanted him to want me." He absolutely *did* want me in that way before we started not getting along. If I had acted like a Rules Girl from early on I have no doubt he would continue wanting me. Rather, he didn't want the relationship because I was difficult and we fought a lot. For my part, I didn't act like a Rules Girl because I was insecure and because I'm pretty sure I wanted him to be someone else. At the end, he did not have the requisite feelings for me, true - that was more or less mutual - but his feelings turned south because the relationship was messy. I have absolutely no doubt of this and I doubt he would dispute it either. He had issues and I had issues, our issues were incompatible and yes, we may have been as well.
Even though "he's just not that into you" is maybe not what PRG meant when she made this comment, her sentiment provides a good illustration for why I really can't stand that trendy phrase. (Ironically, I think my view on this comes through in the movie 'He's Just Not That Into You.')
Oversimplifying or circularly defining the reason why something didn't work out is no more useful than clinging to false excuses that avoid any kind of harsh truth. Both are equally cop-outs, and both absolve women of any introspection or responsibility for their own actions that may have contributed to problems in the relationship. It is simply not the case that the only reason that things don't work out is because the man is not "that into" the woman, and that there is no such thing as commitment-phobia, emotional unavailability, too much drama, or bad timing.
I'm not sure why the same women who treat politics and music and sports and business and house-buying at a nuanced level of discourse must use sound bytes to post-mortem about men. "He's just not that into you" accuses these often-bandied-about "excuses" of overcomplicating a simple reality to salvage our egos, but I think both extremes are in fact oversimplifying. I find frankly insulting the notion that any discussion of factors contributing to romance's demise is either (i) a result of the man's base lack of desire; or (ii) made-up bullshit. Slightly less offensive to my sensibilities but still an oversimplified sound byte is "you just weren't right for each other." Such simplistic views of the world are untenable in the context of a living relationship, so why do we as women suddenly find it empowering to embrace them to wave off a dead one?
In my particular case (maybe it's my ego that's making me say this) I do not think my sadness post-breakup or my wistful reaction to seeing the ex again had anything to do with ego. By the time I saw him again, my ego was just fine. And, as PRG pointed out, I'm even better now that I've seen him. I'm not nervous about running into him. I actually don't think about him much at all.
No, I personally get upset post-relationship, as always, because I have been a codependent relationship addict my entire life. I had a terrible pattern of wanting back and sometimes pursuing exes whenever I don't happen to be receiving male adulation from elsewhere.
If I were to ignore this truth, and simply chalk the relationship failures up to "he's just not that into me" (or in the case of relationships I ended, "I'm just not that into him,") I would never have had the wherewithal to fix a problem that has undermined my confidence, and likely diseased all of my relationships.
I maintain my position that Rules Girls don't need "he's just not that into you." That concept, as far as it goes, is present in an appropriately understated way in the Rules, e.g., "He'll either love you or he won't"; relationships are doomed if women initiate them, and so on. That's all well and good, and I am really on board with the whole, let's weed out guys who aren't that into me by making them put in effort up front However, attributing greater significance to it than that unnecessarily ties a specific reason to something that might simply lack a reason; additionally/alternatively, it causes us to ignore real reasons that might benefit us to explore.
To be clear, I have no problem with the notion that some guys aren't that into me - that is of course true, and the weeder function of the Rules is one of my absolute favorites.
Before my blog-experiment is over, I will have to actually read this book just so I can support my point of view with my own firsthand interpretation as opposed to my many friends' interpretations. And hey, girls, if this helps you, great. Just don't be surprised if I continue to roll my eyes when you trot it out.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
OMG quit txting me
This text message thing is getting ridiculous.
The most recent ones--all from the same guy, of course--have contained direct questions of the sort that are at least quasi-reasonable to ask via text message. That is, "are you back in town" and not "hey, why don't we go out on [weekday]" Each time a new one comes in (this is all the same guy we're talking about here), this is what goes through my head, in approximate order.
Conclusion: unequivocally worth it, even if I have to blow him off.
He already started getting passive aggressive about it during the last conversation, so I'm gearing up for a poof or some kind of confrontation about it. As far as I'm concerned, if he's going to get pissed instead of trying a more thoughtful approach, next.
The response I have prepared for in case he does say something about my never responding:
Thoughts? Are there any boys still reading this? Am I horrible? Am I behaving contrary to universally accepted 2010 social norms? Do you think Sherrie & Ellen would relax their Rule from a couple of years ago?
The most recent ones--all from the same guy, of course--have contained direct questions of the sort that are at least quasi-reasonable to ask via text message. That is, "are you back in town" and not "hey, why don't we go out on [weekday]" Each time a new one comes in (this is all the same guy we're talking about here), this is what goes through my head, in approximate order.
Oh, look, it's a direct question. And a reasonable one at that. I've got to answer this time.
It would be totally rude of me not to answer. How can I not answer?
I think Sherrie and Ellen would let me respond to this one as long as I wait awhile. OK, I'll wait awhile.
But I'm supposed to be doing this STRICTLY. I am trying to figure out how well the Rules work, even if it drives him away.
Awwww... but I feel so BAD! And he's going to lose interest! He even hinted he would last time on the phone!
OK, hold up. This guy has still not asked me on a proper date. He keeps asking me to block off time, offers to come up with something in the interim, and then comes up with something lame and that requires him to make minimal effort.
Notably, he has carefully avoided suggesting a weekend evening for dates 1, 2, or 3. Instead, he suggests questionable time blocks, at least at first, indicating that he doesn't really care to sacrifice any premium slot.
Once he asks me on a Saturday night date, I can text him. So really, it's at least partly his fault that I can't respond to his text messages.
Yeah, he doesn't know the Rules, so one could argue that it's not fair of me to apply them without telling him.
However, the Rules are designed to protect me from ending up in a frustrating situation with a lazy, selfish man whose own convenience is his clear priority. Been there, done that. This way is guaranteed to avoid ME ending up disappointed, insecure, and anxious.
Conclusion: unequivocally worth it, even if I have to blow him off.
He already started getting passive aggressive about it during the last conversation, so I'm gearing up for a poof or some kind of confrontation about it. As far as I'm concerned, if he's going to get pissed instead of trying a more thoughtful approach, next.
The response I have prepared for in case he does say something about my never responding:
Oh, I'm just not much of a texter. I figured if you want to talk you'll call.
Thoughts? Are there any boys still reading this? Am I horrible? Am I behaving contrary to universally accepted 2010 social norms? Do you think Sherrie & Ellen would relax their Rule from a couple of years ago?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Partial topple off the Rules wagon
I think the Rules are starting to piss off this guy, who has neither poofed nor asked me on a proper Saturday night date. I sort of believe he came into my life as blog fodder.
I am by and large rising to his repeated Rules challenges. Most recently, he texted twice after our second date (I did not respond), then called (I was busy and did not pick up). When I called back the next evening, I kicked ASS. He made a couple of jabs at my non-responsiveness ("Oh, I thought we were breaking up"; "Wasn't gonna contact/text you again, thought I might be pestering ya"). I resisted the urge to justify myself beyond "oh, I was out late last night." In fact, after a particularly out-there comment I was just silent! This is big for me. Anyway, he tried to ask me out with his usual hey, book some time for me in your next opening and we can figure out what to do later, and I pushed back, made him try to pick the day, and was less forthcoming about why I couldn't make it on certain days. He suggested a bunch of different times within 4 days of the call including "[weeknight] after 9:30" ("um, that's kind of late for [weeknight]"); and"Saturday during the day if I don't go to [big drunken St. Patrick's day event at local pub]" ("I can't this week" - resisted urge to say "No, I will have to decline your conditional invitation to hang out with me tomorrow and ditch me by nightfall"). He did not suggest this or next Saturday night. Eventually we settled on Tuesday lunch. I ended the call at just over the 10 minute limit.
I was extremely proud of that conversation, although I have to admit it's getting easier to Rules this one because he's exposing himself as a "turd," to use Sherrie and Ellen's word.
So how did I celebrate? I threw the Rules out the window for the rest of the night. Kind of like an ice cream binge after a good weigh-in, I guess.
I hit on the cantor at services; well, by Rules definition I hit on him. I looked at him frequently. I beamed at him whenever he looked at me. During oneg I tried to walk around, but ended up planting myself in a conversation circle Right Next to him. I acted like a little schoolgirl when he talked to me. Hey, I managed not to be the one starting the conversation at least. I expressed interest in attending a class he's teaching. To be fair, it's a class he's teaching at an event I'm already going to. But still. Not my finest Rules hour.
Next, I went to a male friend's house after services with another male friend and a male acquaintance. I was exceedingly flirtatious and affectionate with all of them. I made myself the center of attention, was a sarcastic funny girl, and fished successfully for compliments from them. I even slept on one's shoulder as he drove me home.
In some way, I think my behavior this particular evening demonstrates the internal tug of war I have with the Rules. To my own amazement, I am embracing their spirit more and more each day. But on some level I simply must reject them at the extreme, and as applied to every guy in my life. Hence I rebel. Sometimes silly and boisterous me simply must break through when I am around XY chromosomes.
I am by and large rising to his repeated Rules challenges. Most recently, he texted twice after our second date (I did not respond), then called (I was busy and did not pick up). When I called back the next evening, I kicked ASS. He made a couple of jabs at my non-responsiveness ("Oh, I thought we were breaking up"; "Wasn't gonna contact/text you again, thought I might be pestering ya"). I resisted the urge to justify myself beyond "oh, I was out late last night." In fact, after a particularly out-there comment I was just silent! This is big for me. Anyway, he tried to ask me out with his usual hey, book some time for me in your next opening and we can figure out what to do later, and I pushed back, made him try to pick the day, and was less forthcoming about why I couldn't make it on certain days. He suggested a bunch of different times within 4 days of the call including "[weeknight] after 9:30" ("um, that's kind of late for [weeknight]"); and"Saturday during the day if I don't go to [big drunken St. Patrick's day event at local pub]" ("I can't this week" - resisted urge to say "No, I will have to decline your conditional invitation to hang out with me tomorrow and ditch me by nightfall"). He did not suggest this or next Saturday night. Eventually we settled on Tuesday lunch. I ended the call at just over the 10 minute limit.
I was extremely proud of that conversation, although I have to admit it's getting easier to Rules this one because he's exposing himself as a "turd," to use Sherrie and Ellen's word.
So how did I celebrate? I threw the Rules out the window for the rest of the night. Kind of like an ice cream binge after a good weigh-in, I guess.
I hit on the cantor at services; well, by Rules definition I hit on him. I looked at him frequently. I beamed at him whenever he looked at me. During oneg I tried to walk around, but ended up planting myself in a conversation circle Right Next to him. I acted like a little schoolgirl when he talked to me. Hey, I managed not to be the one starting the conversation at least. I expressed interest in attending a class he's teaching. To be fair, it's a class he's teaching at an event I'm already going to. But still. Not my finest Rules hour.
Next, I went to a male friend's house after services with another male friend and a male acquaintance. I was exceedingly flirtatious and affectionate with all of them. I made myself the center of attention, was a sarcastic funny girl, and fished successfully for compliments from them. I even slept on one's shoulder as he drove me home.
In some way, I think my behavior this particular evening demonstrates the internal tug of war I have with the Rules. To my own amazement, I am embracing their spirit more and more each day. But on some level I simply must reject them at the extreme, and as applied to every guy in my life. Hence I rebel. Sometimes silly and boisterous me simply must break through when I am around XY chromosomes.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Cute or not?
OK, can I just say that I think it's kind of adorable that some guy I've never met saw me on facebook RSVPs, saw that we had mutual friends, added me, messaged me, and asked me out within the requisite time frame? I know that facebook can in theory be used for this purpose, I just have not seen it. I sort of can't wait to go out with him.
Meanwhile, I can't shake the feeling that blogging about these guys has got to jinx it in some way. Second date this past weekend with the guy you all told me I should "next" was strange. I am going to wait to write about it until I'm pretty sure he's not going to call again (I'd say if he doesn't call before this weekend, it's done).
Meanwhile, I can't shake the feeling that blogging about these guys has got to jinx it in some way. Second date this past weekend with the guy you all told me I should "next" was strange. I am going to wait to write about it until I'm pretty sure he's not going to call again (I'd say if he doesn't call before this weekend, it's done).
Sunday, March 7, 2010
First date scorecard: B
I am pretty unimpressed with myself after my first "date." But honestly, the reason I'm giving myself a higher grade than I probably deserve is because I'm even less impressed with him - he presented quite the Rules challenge. Which may mean that he's inept at dating, or it may mean he's just not interested enough to put in any real effort. However, this is what you all (all four of you) have been waiting for; I finally get the opportunity to attempt a bunch of Rules.
Pre-first date:
Rule #5: Don't Call Him and Rarely Return His Calls: A
He took a while to call, but called 3 times in 24 hours before I returned his call. He's also texted multiple times, and I have held my ground on never texting back, even when he's asking questions. His texts have mostly been logistical regarding our dates, and this is not acceptable under the Rules. I am proud of myself on this one.
Rule #6: Always End Phone Calls First: B+
There have only been a few phone calls, and none of them were "just to chat." Given this, it was pretty natural for them to be under the 10 minute mark. I gracefully ended the 1st phone call, but the rest of the calls have sort of ended themselves.
Rule #8: Fill Up Your Time Before the Date: A-
Well, I did do this, but it made me 20 minutes late. I had already planned on being 10 minutes late because he suggested we meet somewhere instead of picking me up, and he was coming from somewhere else. Meeting him somewhere is an overt violation of Rule #4, which I'll get to. But I was later than I planned because I was so busy with work and looking for my skinny jeans (which I did not find).
The Date
Rule #4: Don't Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date: D
Clearly I broke this rule by meeting him at the bar. I hadn't really read through the Rules before I accepted the date. But there are some nuances here that were difficult to navigate.
OK, I did this. I didn't suggest anything. I didn't offer anything. But what happens if the "plan" he comes up with breaks Rule #4, that is, meeting at a bar for drinks?? And when the place he suggests is somewhere you know is more convenient for him than you?
Fair enough. The use of the word "turds" seems unnatural and nondemure, and I prefer "tools." But if you don't suggest anything and then he proposes this, are you supposed to then be like "um, no"? "Oh, now that I think of it, I actually have plans"?
One friend suggested that she would say "Call me back when you want to take me to dinner." This method seems non-Rulesy, though! What was I supposed to do in this situation? The Rules imply that perhaps I should have nexted him, but they are totally silent as to how to next someone. If I've already agreed to go out with someone, how can I then back out of it? I have egregiously broken this Rule with this guy, actually TWICE (as I will discuss below). I need to grow a spine.
Um, he did pay though. Which is pretty much the only reason I'm not giving myself a full-on F here.
Rule #9: How to Act on Dates 1, 2, and 3: B
I wasn't thinking of him a daydreaming sense, I was thinking of him in a pissed-off sense, that I was put in this awkward position where I had to break Rule #4 and possibly get to the meeting place first. But I was thinking of him, and talking on the phone to my friends about the conundrum.
Other than the buzzing from downstairs, I was very busy the hour before the date. Perhaps overly so.
I didn't. When he asked questions like this, I answered breezily and vaguely.
Haha, I didn't. And I definitely wouldn't have.
Largely, I didn't. However, this feeling of no pressure caused me to act too much like my unfiltered self.
Ugh. I did "let him do all the work," but he arguably failed at it. Bar was not a great choice, he didn't pick me up, etc.
I don't think I did particularly well at this. But he and his irreverence created a lot of really really awkward moments, which I think the best response was what I did - to laugh nervously and give him a slight OMG look.
Uhhhh, yeah, ok. But I can't actually control this. I am at least communicating with a couple of other guys.
Rule #3: Don't Stare at Men or Talk too Much: B-
I did look at him sometimes, especially at the end, but I also looked around. I think I did alright at this. Sometimes I tend not to look enough at a guy and I end up looking anxious. So I think there's a balance here, and I thought I struck it.
I followed his lead for the most part, but he led me into several traps - some of which I fell into and some of which I deftly avoided.
The flow was both extremely funny/banter-y, and sort of extremely serious (politics, law, job goals). I went with it. I may have talked too much. To the extent there was "heavy," he started it.
I didn't fill the silences at the beginning of the date, and I didn't really feel like there were many silences toward the end. But in general I think I have room to improve here.
FAIL. Nuff said. I am not "quiet and reserved." See also"But First the Product - You!" which warns you not to be a "knee-slapping funny girl." I made him laugh a ton. I am just like that.
Rule #11: Always End the Date First: A-
Although I missed my 2-hour cutoff by 10 minutes, I did end the date first, and just said "it's getting late."
He called me 5 minutes after he uh, walked me to my car. So, it seems like I succeeded on Rule 11, at least.
Rule #7: Don't Accept a Saturday Night Date after Wednesday: B-
OK, I'm thinking I probably should not have picked up the phone when he called as I was driving home. But I did, so let's see how I handled it.
He asked me out for three days later, which was not Saturday. Again an amorphous "do you want to go out" with specific plan to come later. As I searched my brain for the correct Rules response, I babbled as to whether I was free or not (idiot). I ultimately concluded that that day was ok, thinking that it was analogous to Wednesday/Saturday.
I was probably wrong about this. Some of what I spewed during this conversation likely led him to come up with the non-Rulesiest date plan EVAR, and probably makes him think I am too available.
My friends all pretty much said I should try to back out, but I have tentatively decided not to. I am sort of guessing "Date" #2 is not going to go well, and seriously, if this guy doesn't step up by Date #3, next!
Pre-first date:
Rule #5: Don't Call Him and Rarely Return His Calls: A
He took a while to call, but called 3 times in 24 hours before I returned his call. He's also texted multiple times, and I have held my ground on never texting back, even when he's asking questions. His texts have mostly been logistical regarding our dates, and this is not acceptable under the Rules. I am proud of myself on this one.
Rule #6: Always End Phone Calls First: B+
There have only been a few phone calls, and none of them were "just to chat." Given this, it was pretty natural for them to be under the 10 minute mark. I gracefully ended the 1st phone call, but the rest of the calls have sort of ended themselves.
Rule #8: Fill Up Your Time Before the Date: A-
Well, I did do this, but it made me 20 minutes late. I had already planned on being 10 minutes late because he suggested we meet somewhere instead of picking me up, and he was coming from somewhere else. Meeting him somewhere is an overt violation of Rule #4, which I'll get to. But I was later than I planned because I was so busy with work and looking for my skinny jeans (which I did not find).
The Date
Rule #4: Don't Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date: D
Clearly I broke this rule by meeting him at the bar. I hadn't really read through the Rules before I accepted the date. But there are some nuances here that were difficult to navigate.
When a man is trying to set up a date to meet you, don't say, "Actually, I'm going to be in your area anyway"; don't offer the names of restaurants between your place and his, unless he asks. Don't say much at all. Let him do all the thinking,k the talking, let him flip through the Yellow Pages or magazine listings and call a couple of friends for suggestions to come up with a place convenient for you.
OK, I did this. I didn't suggest anything. I didn't offer anything. But what happens if the "plan" he comes up with breaks Rule #4, that is, meeting at a bar for drinks?? And when the place he suggests is somewhere you know is more convenient for him than you?
Invariably, we find that men who insist that their dates meet them halfway or (worse) on their own turf, turn out to be turds--inconsiderate, uncompromising, and even miserly.
Fair enough. The use of the word "turds" seems unnatural and nondemure, and I prefer "tools." But if you don't suggest anything and then he proposes this, are you supposed to then be like "um, no"? "Oh, now that I think of it, I actually have plans"?
One friend suggested that she would say "Call me back when you want to take me to dinner." This method seems non-Rulesy, though! What was I supposed to do in this situation? The Rules imply that perhaps I should have nexted him, but they are totally silent as to how to next someone. If I've already agreed to go out with someone, how can I then back out of it? I have egregiously broken this Rule with this guy, actually TWICE (as I will discuss below). I need to grow a spine.
Um, he did pay though. Which is pretty much the only reason I'm not giving myself a full-on F here.
Rule #9: How to Act on Dates 1, 2, and 3: B
If at all possible, don't think of him before he arrives.
I wasn't thinking of him a daydreaming sense, I was thinking of him in a pissed-off sense, that I was put in this awkward position where I had to break Rule #4 and possibly get to the meeting place first. But I was thinking of him, and talking on the phone to my friends about the conundrum.
Be busy right up until the minute he buzzes you from downstairs.
Other than the buzzing from downstairs, I was very busy the hour before the date. Perhaps overly so.
Don't tell him all about your day as if you've known each other for years...
I didn't. When he asked questions like this, I answered breezily and vaguely.
Don't mention the M word, not even to mention that your brother recently got married.
Haha, I didn't. And I definitely wouldn't have.
You should feel no pressure whatsoever.
Largely, I didn't. However, this feeling of no pressure caused me to act too much like my unfiltered self.
In general, let him do all the work--pick you up, pick the restaurant, open the door, and pull out your chair.
Ugh. I did "let him do all the work," but he arguably failed at it. Bar was not a great choice, he didn't pick me up, etc.
Act nonchalantly at all times, as if you're always on dates and it's nothing out of the ordinary (even if you haven't had a date in years).
I don't think I did particularly well at this. But he and his irreverence created a lot of really really awkward moments, which I think the best response was what I did - to laugh nervously and give him a slight OMG look.
You should always try to date other people so that you never get hung up on one man at any one time.
Uhhhh, yeah, ok. But I can't actually control this. I am at least communicating with a couple of other guys.
Rule #3: Don't Stare at Men or Talk too Much: B-
On the first date, avoid staring romantically into his eyes...Instead, look down at the table or your food, or simply survey the crowd at the restaurant.
I did look at him sometimes, especially at the end, but I also looked around. I think I did alright at this. Sometimes I tend not to look enough at a guy and I end up looking anxious. So I think there's a balance here, and I thought I struck it.
[S]tay cool and just listen to what he says. Follow his lead...When appropriate, show him that you keep up with current events and have interests.
I followed his lead for the most part, but he led me into several traps - some of which I fell into and some of which I deftly avoided.
In general, don't be too heavy. But don't be funny if he's serious. Just go with the flow.
The flow was both extremely funny/banter-y, and sort of extremely serious (politics, law, job goals). I went with it. I may have talked too much. To the extent there was "heavy," he started it.
Needless to say, there will be moments on a date when neither of you has anything to say. Don't feel the need to fill in these silences. You'll end up saying something stupid and forced...Don't feel you have to be entertaining or have interesting conversation all the time. He will think you are trying too hard.
I didn't fill the silences at the beginning of the date, and I didn't really feel like there were many silences toward the end. But in general I think I have room to improve here.
On the date itself, be quiet and reserved.
FAIL. Nuff said. I am not "quiet and reserved." See also"But First the Product - You!" which warns you not to be a "knee-slapping funny girl." I made him laugh a ton. I am just like that.
Rule #11: Always End the Date First: A-
(From Rule #9): Glance at your watch after two hours (for a drink date)... simply sigh, and say "Gee, this was really great, but I've got a really big day tomorrow." Don't say what it is you're doing tomorrow."
Although I missed my 2-hour cutoff by 10 minutes, I did end the date first, and just said "it's getting late."
If he wants to know more about you as the date is ending, he can always call you the next day or ask you out again when he drops you off.
He called me 5 minutes after he uh, walked me to my car. So, it seems like I succeeded on Rule 11, at least.
Rule #7: Don't Accept a Saturday Night Date after Wednesday: B-
OK, I'm thinking I probably should not have picked up the phone when he called as I was driving home. But I did, so let's see how I handled it.
He asked me out for three days later, which was not Saturday. Again an amorphous "do you want to go out" with specific plan to come later. As I searched my brain for the correct Rules response, I babbled as to whether I was free or not (idiot). I ultimately concluded that that day was ok, thinking that it was analogous to Wednesday/Saturday.
I was probably wrong about this. Some of what I spewed during this conversation likely led him to come up with the non-Rulesiest date plan EVAR, and probably makes him think I am too available.
My friends all pretty much said I should try to back out, but I have tentatively decided not to. I am sort of guessing "Date" #2 is not going to go well, and seriously, if this guy doesn't step up by Date #3, next!
Friday, March 5, 2010
How to be a Facebook CUAO (and pretend your date is one)
(Note: I spammed my own comment section because someone requested that I translate this into pirate, and I did it)
This is a long entry, but possibly the most important I will write over the course of my six-month expedition. It's also the most universally relevant, as I believe that everyone should be well-informed on internet privacy issues.
Remember when I said Rules Girls don't have time to facebook/google stalk? (There is no need to click, that's really all it says.) These days I would venture to guess with some certainty that before a first date, both parties google each other, and plug each other's names into facebook. If the person in question is a young-ish professional who uses the internet on a regular basis, you may have access to following information:
If the person in question has no privacy concerns or is not savvy enough to know that information they are sharing is publicly available, you may be able to find
The upshot is that on the first date, you've compounded the usual awkwardness with both parties pretending not to know things that they do know. (On my recent date, we both ultimately revealed that we had googled each other, which was actually kind of cute. But I'm certain there were also things we discussed that we pretended not to know about each other already.)
Further, the ability to access lots of information about a prospective's life gives you a narrow and skewed picture of him that necessarily excludes most of the things I believe are truly important to a relationship - worldview, chemistry, real-life communication. With so much out there, you are bound to find something less than ideal, whether it be pictures of him with scantily-clad women, pictures of his face from unflattering angles, grammatically incorrect twitter posts, or (ahem) a very TMI blog.
This is why I am applying the Rules principle of trying hard not to look, even online. When I lapse, I try even harder not to judge.
What you can find out about him is of course important, but more pertinent to the Rules is what he can find out about you. How can Rules girls achieve that critical mystery on the information superhighway? My dating experiment so far has yielded inconclusive results. On one hand, two men who seemed interested facebook friended me, and then poofed even though I waited 24 hours to respond to their friend requests! Now I'm "friends" with two people whose only real role in my life is to spurn me. On the other hand, three other men sent me messages (purportedly) because of my facebook activity - usually because I had RSVPed for events they were invited to. Two of them asked me out via facebook message, at least sort of.
The one indisputable conclusion is that what you put out in cyberspace does have an impact. Literally every single prospective I've had so far has interacted with me in some online capacity, the vast majority with facebook as their icebreaking medium of choice.
In its typical antiquated way, the Rules for Online Dating discusses privacy only in terms of safety.
I looked myself up on both of these sites and found my address with a handy map showing my exact location, alongside two butchered versions of my father's name as "relatives." And you know what? I may not be "putting safety first," but my home address ranks pretty low on the list of things I am nervous about people knowing. If people are truly inclined to stalk me, they can easily find out where I work and follow me home. There is nothing I can do about this because I became googlable the second I decided to work at a law firm.
The Rules for Online Dating provides some limited analogies. "Be an Online CUAO," they say in Chapter 4.
Phew! I thought they were going to say I actually had to put on my makeup before I sat down at the computer. I am currently in a fluffy bathrobe over a T-shirt and gym shorts. ("Nice outfit," said the next-door neighbor when I stepped out for a moment this morning, also wearing a fluffy bathrobe and toasting me with his coffee mug.)
Anyhow, Online Dating Rule #3, "Less is More When Writing Your Ad," seems relevant as well. I have already concluded that this is no less applicable to facebook. One problem is that facebook is evil and is engaged in a big-brother-esque campaign to make it more cumbersome to keep things private, and, in my view, to dupe you into not knowing what is private and what is not. Those of you who know me know it was only a matter of time before I got up on my soapbox and railed on facebook here. Although what I am about to say will be controversial to facebook lovers/junkies, I would recommend that a Rules Girl do the following at a minimum to sanitize her facebook profile, which is a ginormous but well-worth-it undertaking:
Another dangerous website is Linkedin. Linkedin concerns me far less than facebook, because it's kept its promise to be a professional rather than a social networking site. But keep close tabs on your linkedin profile, and remember that it's probably your 2nd or 3rd result on google if you've got a legit career.
As you may have guessed, I'm on a bit of a crusade to educate people about facebook privacy issues. I spent a really long time figuring everything out for this entry, because I believe it is so important. Please feel free to comment below if you have questions or can't figure something out and I will try to figure it out for you and comment back.
This is a long entry, but possibly the most important I will write over the course of my six-month expedition. It's also the most universally relevant, as I believe that everyone should be well-informed on internet privacy issues.
Remember when I said Rules Girls don't have time to facebook/google stalk? (There is no need to click, that's really all it says.) These days I would venture to guess with some certainty that before a first date, both parties google each other, and plug each other's names into facebook. If the person in question is a young-ish professional who uses the internet on a regular basis, you may have access to following information:
- age
- education
- publications
- current employer and possibly some employment history
- political affiliation, if any
- other organizational/group affiliations and activities
- a list of several hundred of their closest friends with your common friends conveniently separated
- genealogy
If the person in question has no privacy concerns or is not savvy enough to know that information they are sharing is publicly available, you may be able to find
- a multitude photographs of them at varying levels of sobriety
- a bunch of messages from 500 of their closest friends and their responses
- timestamps evidencing precise instants when they were using the internet
- excruciating detail about their "status" at a given moment
The upshot is that on the first date, you've compounded the usual awkwardness with both parties pretending not to know things that they do know. (On my recent date, we both ultimately revealed that we had googled each other, which was actually kind of cute. But I'm certain there were also things we discussed that we pretended not to know about each other already.)
Further, the ability to access lots of information about a prospective's life gives you a narrow and skewed picture of him that necessarily excludes most of the things I believe are truly important to a relationship - worldview, chemistry, real-life communication. With so much out there, you are bound to find something less than ideal, whether it be pictures of him with scantily-clad women, pictures of his face from unflattering angles, grammatically incorrect twitter posts, or (ahem) a very TMI blog.
This is why I am applying the Rules principle of trying hard not to look, even online. When I lapse, I try even harder not to judge.
What you can find out about him is of course important, but more pertinent to the Rules is what he can find out about you. How can Rules girls achieve that critical mystery on the information superhighway? My dating experiment so far has yielded inconclusive results. On one hand, two men who seemed interested facebook friended me, and then poofed even though I waited 24 hours to respond to their friend requests! Now I'm "friends" with two people whose only real role in my life is to spurn me. On the other hand, three other men sent me messages (purportedly) because of my facebook activity - usually because I had RSVPed for events they were invited to. Two of them asked me out via facebook message, at least sort of.
The one indisputable conclusion is that what you put out in cyberspace does have an impact. Literally every single prospective I've had so far has interacted with me in some online capacity, the vast majority with facebook as their icebreaking medium of choice.
In its typical antiquated way, the Rules for Online Dating discusses privacy only in terms of safety.
Make sure you have an unlisted number. Otherwise, someone can find out your home address on the Internet...Also do a quick check that your address isn't on the Internet already. You can go to the following sites and look yourself up: http://people.yahoo.com; http://anywho.com. --Rule #15, Rules for Online Dating: Put Safety First
I looked myself up on both of these sites and found my address with a handy map showing my exact location, alongside two butchered versions of my father's name as "relatives." And you know what? I may not be "putting safety first," but my home address ranks pretty low on the list of things I am nervous about people knowing. If people are truly inclined to stalk me, they can easily find out where I work and follow me home. There is nothing I can do about this because I became googlable the second I decided to work at a law firm.
The Rules for Online Dating provides some limited analogies. "Be an Online CUAO," they say in Chapter 4.
Although you may be sitting at your computer in sweatpants responding to e-mails, you are still a CUAO. If you imagine yourself in high heels and a sleek outfit, your makeup on perfectly, and your hair blown out like a magazine model's, your writing will reflect this...Answer the dating service questionnaire as if a limousine is outside waiting to take you somewhere and you really don't have a lot of time.
Phew! I thought they were going to say I actually had to put on my makeup before I sat down at the computer. I am currently in a fluffy bathrobe over a T-shirt and gym shorts. ("Nice outfit," said the next-door neighbor when I stepped out for a moment this morning, also wearing a fluffy bathrobe and toasting me with his coffee mug.)
Anyhow, Online Dating Rule #3, "Less is More When Writing Your Ad," seems relevant as well. I have already concluded that this is no less applicable to facebook. One problem is that facebook is evil and is engaged in a big-brother-esque campaign to make it more cumbersome to keep things private, and, in my view, to dupe you into not knowing what is private and what is not. Those of you who know me know it was only a matter of time before I got up on my soapbox and railed on facebook here. Although what I am about to say will be controversial to facebook lovers/junkies, I would recommend that a Rules Girl do the following at a minimum to sanitize her facebook profile, which is a ginormous but well-worth-it undertaking:
- Educate yourself on what information you can no longer make private. This includes, most importantly, a) your profile picture; b) your primary e-mail address; c) the groups you have joined; and d) the politicians, musicians, groups, video games, or products that you are a "fan" of. Look through this information and imagine Prince Charming reading it before he knows you or anything about you. Remember that facebook can take anything you're a fan of and put it in a facebook ad on any of your confirmed friends' pages (e.g. "Celebs on Facebook: Rulebreaker and 2 other friends are fans.") Remove yourself from groups and fan pages accordingly.
- Change your profile picture if necessary to an innocuous but pretty smiling headshot.
- If you used your secret junk e-mail address for facebook as I used to (I was HORRIFIED when this was made public), change your primary e-mail address to your school address or something else. Do this by going to Account --> Account settings, and then clicking on "change" next to e-mail address. Select the radio button next to the e-mail address you want to use. If you only have one e-mail listed, you will need to add another before you change your "contact e-mail."
- Remove unnecessary information from your profile. Note: alternatively, you can just limit this information to a special list you will create for your trusted friends, but I recommend you take a good look at your profile regardless, and think about the information you want to be sharing with anyone. From your profile, click the "Info" tab (right under your name, top center of the page). Click "edit information" in top right corner - the little pencil icon. Unclick all the boxes next to "interested in" and "looking for." It's ok to have "single" listed, I think, just so people know you're available. Delete "political views." Click "save settings" (underneath "Religious views"). Repeat this process for "Personal Information," "Contact Information," and "Education and work."
- Create a special friends list. Account --> edit friends --> create new list. Name your list and put only your trusted friends in it. I cheesily call mine the "Circle of Trust" and it contains only girls. Exclude anyone you think may log on and show your profile to a guy you're dating, even if she's fixing you up with him.
- Delete all but the most benign "applications" you have used as a non-Rules girl. You should delete Farmville, Mafia Wars, Questions, Pillow Fight, What's your personality type, etc. You can keep your reading lists, and your scrabble, I guess. To do this, go to Account --> Application Settings. On the page that pops up, click the gray "x" all the way to the right next to all of the applications that have an "x" next to them. Each time you click on an "x," a box pops up, and you click "Remove." Note that facebook has purposefully discouraged you from doing this by (a) making the core tools of facebooks (such as "events") equivalent to applications (such as "Farmville"); and (b) making the application names nondescript so that you don't know what you're deleting and are scared to delete it. Rules girls do not fall for this crap.
- Go to Account --> Privacy Settings --> Profile information. You will see a list of categories of information, each corresponding to a gray box with the people who can see that information. Change everything to friends only by clicking on the little arrow on the gray box, and selecting "Only friends" from the drop-down menu. Additionally, unclick all of the checkboxes next to "And these networks."
- Still within Account --> Privacy Settings --> Profile information, go through the same list again and change the more personal items to your trusted friends list. I would strongly suggest that you limit your Photos and Videos, Personal Info, and Birthday to your trusted friends. Here is how you do this, and it is an arbitrary and capricious pain: for each category you'd like to change, click on the little arrow on the gray box, then click on "Custom - edit" from the drop-down menu. A box pops up. Select "specific people" from the top drop-down menu. Type the name of your trusted friends list in the blank that appears (it will automatically fill in after the first few letters, and you click to select it. make sure it actually appears in the blank before you leave the page). Click "Save settings."
- Still within Account --> Privacy Settings --> Profile information, click on the gray box next to "Photo Albums," which says "Edit Settings." On the drop-down menu corresponding to each album, select "Custom." From the box that pops up, make sure the "Everyone on facebook" checkbox is unclicked. Then select the "Some friends" radio button. Type the name of your trusted friends list in the blank that appears. Click "Okay." Note: I would suggest you make all of your photo albums available only to your trusted friends, but if you absolutely must make some albums available to more than that, make sure you are sober and not all up on some guy in each album; and still make it friends only. When you are done changing the settings on all of your albums, scroll to the bottom of the page and click "Save settings."
- Go to Account --> Privacy Settings --> Contact Information and repeat #5 and 6. I'm less concerned about contact info, frankly, because you can't really be judged on it. But "safety first!
- Go to Account --> Privacy Settings --> Applications and Websites. Click on the "Edit settings" box next to "What your friends can share about you." On the page that shows up, unclick all the boxes, then click "Save settings." Honestly, Rules girls, there is no real reason that you need to allow your friends control over publishing your information. You should be concerned that facebook even allows this!
- Still in Account --> Privacy Settings --> Applications and Websites, click the gray box next to "Activity on Applications and Games dashboards." Click "Customize" and select "specific people" from the box that pops up, type your trusted friends list, and unclick all the networks. Then click "Save setting."
- Go to Account --> Privacy Settings --> Search. Unclick the box next to "Public search results." Again, Rules girls, if someone wants to look you up in facebook, they can. No need to make it easy for them when they google you. I have mixed feelings about allowing your search result to show up to "everyone" in facebook - this is up to you. I currently allow "everyone" to search for me, but I think the more Rules-y approach is not to. You are still visible when you RSVP to events or have friends in common, and potential guys can click on you then.
- Go to Account --> Account Settings. Click on the tab that says "Facebook ads." From the drop-down menu next to "Allow ads on platform pages to show my information to," select "No one."
- From your profile page, find the "Notes" box. Click on "See all." For each damn note you have ever written, click on "Edit Note." Scroll down to the bottom of the page. Under "Note privacy," click on the "Who can see this?" drop down menu. Select "Custom." Unclick "everyone on facebook" check box. Under "friends," click on the radio button "Some friends." Type your trusted friends list name in the blank that shows up. Under "networks," select "None of my networks" from the drop-down menu. Click "okay." Click "save."
- From your profile page, find the "Friends" box. Click on the little pencil in the upper right hand corner of it. From the little box that pops up, unclick the box that says "show friends to everyone."
- From your profile page, click the little magnifying glass on the right, under the gray box where you can post a status update. A little menu will pop up. Click the blue button that says "Just [your name]" (note, if you have followed instructions thus far, only friends can see anything your friends have posted anyway). You cannot change the privacy settings for your individual past posts or actions. So just click the "remove" button on everything remotely controversial or non-Rules-y (including things that evince that you spend way too much time on the internet, such as you posting on people's walls excessively), back to the beginning of your facebook existence. Of course, facebook makes this a two-step process, where a box pops up and you have to click "delete" before it will actually remove the post.
- To test your privacy settings, go to Account --> Privacy Settings --> Profile information, and click the box near the top on the right that says "Preview my profile." In the blank above your preview, type in someone's name who is outside your trusted friends list, ideally a prospective guy if there are any on the list. If you missed anything, go change it.
- Every time you post a new photo album or note, make sure the correct privacy setting (trusted friends, unless there is some unusual circumstance) is selected from the drop-down menu.
- Every time you post a status update (which should be infrequently anyway), click the little padlock icon right under the typing area, on the right. Select the correct setting - usually "trusted friends." It is far easier to change your default setting to trusted friends on Account --> Privacy settings --> Profile information --> Posts by me. Then if for some reason you want to post a status to all your friends, it's much easier to select it from the little lock.
- Every time you take any other action on facebook, such as changing your profile information, commenting on a photo, accepting a friend request, or posting on someone's wall, immediately click on your profile when you are done with it. Click "remove" next to the action. You're already being light and breezy, but seriously, why does everyone need to know when you are posting on people's walls or friending people? Do this when you sign on, too, incase someone has accepted your friend request recently.
- Before you take any action on someone else's photo or wall, imagine prospective dates finding it and reading it.
- Keep in mind that no matter how much you lock down your information, facebook can and likely will change their policies about it. Every time you see anything about facebook changing its privacy settings, either on facebook or elsewhere, try to figure out what horrible thing they've done now to trick you into sharing your information, and opt out of it if possible. If not possible to opt out, delete information.
- NOW are you scared of facebook? When the apocalypse comes, make sure you know how to "deactivate account" - currently Account --> Account Settings --> Deactivate Account. Although honestly, I would not be surprised if facebook eventually refused to let you do that, too.
- Congratulations, you have become a Facebook CUAO. Give yourself a cookie or a manicure or something.
Another dangerous website is Linkedin. Linkedin concerns me far less than facebook, because it's kept its promise to be a professional rather than a social networking site. But keep close tabs on your linkedin profile, and remember that it's probably your 2nd or 3rd result on google if you've got a legit career.
As you may have guessed, I'm on a bit of a crusade to educate people about facebook privacy issues. I spent a really long time figuring everything out for this entry, because I believe it is so important. Please feel free to comment below if you have questions or can't figure something out and I will try to figure it out for you and comment back.
Another way I could be discovered...
If the guy in question is "obsessed" (his word) with blogging and the internets.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Facebook invitations
I recently had to publicize an event on facebook. I was selecting all of my friends in my city, and was faced with an interesting conundrum: do I invite the people on my friends list who I might potentially be interested in? Note that currently there are only two such people, maybe three.
One could consider this tantamount to "e-mailing him first," which is against Rule #1 of The Rules for Online Dating.
But is it really? If I do not include a personal message, it is really more like simply publicizing my event in general, is it not? I wouldn't think these guys would assume I had singled them out among my friends.
However, if we want to analogize facebook to a "dance," the Rule is pretty clear:
At best, by sending the invitation to guys I might be interested, it seems I fell into the trap of "many women" by "standing next" to these men in a virtual sense. I put myself in their inbox. Even though I was also standing equally close to all of my other facebook friends. Here the dance analogy falls short. If I am including all of a certain category of people in something, how can I artificially exclude people within that category just because I like them more? This does not make sense. The Rules do not contain a chapter on throwing parties or publicizing events - do Rules girls never do this?
In the end, I decided to include everyone, mostly because of the rudeness factor. I did not think it was breaking the Rules so flagrantly at the time, but now I sort of see that it was. In the future, I guess I will go ahead and exclude the people I'm interested in, even if it might create awkwardness. If they ask me about it I can then say "oh, I'm so sorry, I meant to put you on the list." Note to self: make future post on "white lies," which appear to be completely unavoidable under the Rules.
One could consider this tantamount to "e-mailing him first," which is against Rule #1 of The Rules for Online Dating.
But is it really? If I do not include a personal message, it is really more like simply publicizing my event in general, is it not? I wouldn't think these guys would assume I had singled them out among my friends.
However, if we want to analogize facebook to a "dance," the Rule is pretty clear:
Don't even stand next to someone you like, hoping he'll ask you, as many women do. You have to wait for someone to notice you. --Rule #2: Don't Talk to a Man First (and Don't Ask Him to Dance)
At best, by sending the invitation to guys I might be interested, it seems I fell into the trap of "many women" by "standing next" to these men in a virtual sense. I put myself in their inbox. Even though I was also standing equally close to all of my other facebook friends. Here the dance analogy falls short. If I am including all of a certain category of people in something, how can I artificially exclude people within that category just because I like them more? This does not make sense. The Rules do not contain a chapter on throwing parties or publicizing events - do Rules girls never do this?
In the end, I decided to include everyone, mostly because of the rudeness factor. I did not think it was breaking the Rules so flagrantly at the time, but now I sort of see that it was. In the future, I guess I will go ahead and exclude the people I'm interested in, even if it might create awkwardness. If they ask me about it I can then say "oh, I'm so sorry, I meant to put you on the list." Note to self: make future post on "white lies," which appear to be completely unavoidable under the Rules.
Calculated risk
Friend1, who has been extremely supportive of my blog, recently told me she was nervous to comment because she didn't want to accidentally say something that would reveal my identity. Since I scheduled my first "date" (which may fall through, and which I'm not going to talk about until it's over, and maybe not even then for a bit) I've been thinking about the anonymity thing a little more.
If anybody I actually dated did find my blog, there is little question that they would recognize themselves, and by extension, me. By contrast, people I have not blogged about would probably not recognize me from the blog even if they did find it. Or, they'd have to know me well enough that they're most likely someone I trust not to use my secret blog to tarnish my reputation.
Of course, the people that I am most concerned about finding my blog are the people most likely to recognize me by reading it. I'm sort of willing to take a calculated risk here because what you have to google to get to my blog involves "the Rules" plus some word related to specific dating issues (like texting, etc.) or the names of the authors of the Rules. I am #1 on google for "Fein & Schneider blog" and for "Rules Girl blog." I am #7 on google for just "Fein & Schneider"! However, the Rules and/or their authors are topics that guys generally don't know or care about, as was explained to me repeatedly when I was trolling the actuarial forum.
The only way I can my identity being compromised at all is if I cause it myself indirectly. My envisioned scenario would go something like this:
1) It becomes obvious to guy that I am "playing games" in some sense, perhaps from my consistent 24-27 hour response time to messages, or my consistent abrupt termination of phone conversations after 8.5-11 minutes.
2) Guy likes me enough to give a shit.
3) Guy asks his female friends what my deal is.
4) Female friends have read "the Rules," or have some significant familiarity with it.
5) Female friends tell him it sounds like I am a "Rules girl."
6) Guy googles this to find the book, then googles the authors. I doubt he'd specifically include "blog" in his search, which is one of the key words that could lead you to me.
Short of someone literally ratting me out, steps 1-6 or similar would have to occur in succession before any guy I'm dating could find this. I consider this highly improbable.
So, Friend1 and others who know me in IRL, barring the use of names or locations, comment away. I love comments, and if your comment concerns me I'll delete it.
Something that is slightly more probable, though still improbable in my view, is that I could find someone during the next six months, blog about him, and then end up in a relationship with him. Then what happens? Do I keep this a secret? Do I tell him "I blogged about you when we first got together and half a dozen people read it, most of whom I probably would have told that stuff to anyway"?
PS: on the one in a million chance somebody does recognize himself in this blog, hi. I don't mean any harm by blogging about you, and if I'm blogging about you, that means I am at least somewhat interested in you. Also, if you found me, I'd kind of prefer that you told me so that I can immediately lock the thing down and learn my lesson, but I imagine you probably won't - hell, I wouldn't.
If anybody I actually dated did find my blog, there is little question that they would recognize themselves, and by extension, me. By contrast, people I have not blogged about would probably not recognize me from the blog even if they did find it. Or, they'd have to know me well enough that they're most likely someone I trust not to use my secret blog to tarnish my reputation.
Of course, the people that I am most concerned about finding my blog are the people most likely to recognize me by reading it. I'm sort of willing to take a calculated risk here because what you have to google to get to my blog involves "the Rules" plus some word related to specific dating issues (like texting, etc.) or the names of the authors of the Rules. I am #1 on google for "Fein & Schneider blog" and for "Rules Girl blog." I am #7 on google for just "Fein & Schneider"! However, the Rules and/or their authors are topics that guys generally don't know or care about, as was explained to me repeatedly when I was trolling the actuarial forum.
The only way I can my identity being compromised at all is if I cause it myself indirectly. My envisioned scenario would go something like this:
1) It becomes obvious to guy that I am "playing games" in some sense, perhaps from my consistent 24-27 hour response time to messages, or my consistent abrupt termination of phone conversations after 8.5-11 minutes.
2) Guy likes me enough to give a shit.
3) Guy asks his female friends what my deal is.
4) Female friends have read "the Rules," or have some significant familiarity with it.
5) Female friends tell him it sounds like I am a "Rules girl."
6) Guy googles this to find the book, then googles the authors. I doubt he'd specifically include "blog" in his search, which is one of the key words that could lead you to me.
Short of someone literally ratting me out, steps 1-6 or similar would have to occur in succession before any guy I'm dating could find this. I consider this highly improbable.
So, Friend1 and others who know me in IRL, barring the use of names or locations, comment away. I love comments, and if your comment concerns me I'll delete it.
Something that is slightly more probable, though still improbable in my view, is that I could find someone during the next six months, blog about him, and then end up in a relationship with him. Then what happens? Do I keep this a secret? Do I tell him "I blogged about you when we first got together and half a dozen people read it, most of whom I probably would have told that stuff to anyway"?
PS: on the one in a million chance somebody does recognize himself in this blog, hi. I don't mean any harm by blogging about you, and if I'm blogging about you, that means I am at least somewhat interested in you. Also, if you found me, I'd kind of prefer that you told me so that I can immediately lock the thing down and learn my lesson, but I imagine you probably won't - hell, I wouldn't.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
As if reprise
A commenter on my previous entry noted that "as if" is a rather dishonest defense mechanism. She recommended that I avoid my former boyfriend at all costs because it is too painful right now, and causes unnecessary negative emotional reactions. She has a good point, and my friends definitely had that instinct when I talked about the issue with them.
The problem is that I don't think I *can* avoid him totally. I have come to believe the fear of him is a) worse than the reality of him, and b) allowing him too much control over my decisions. I end up feeling worse seeing his name on an RSVP to an event I'd like to go to than I think I would if he were just there and I didn't know about it beforehand. I realized this a couple of weeks ago and decided not to look at facebook RSVPs anymore, a strategy that has been largely effective in ridding myself of him-related unpleasantness. Unfortunately, there are always events I will strongly suspect he will attend because I know him; and for the Purim party in question, when I clicked to RSVP, he was one of the 8 or so people listed at the bottom of the page. I can accept these things, because I know I cannot control them.
Now that I have broken the ice on some level, I think I can ignore him at future events and leave it to him if he wants to talk to me. Which he will not, because in truth, he is a pansy, something I say not as a bitter woman, but someone who tried very hard to put up with his pansy-ness for a very long time.
The "as if" attitude is a defense mechanism, as became clear to me when I spilled my guts to my friend that afternoon. However, this particular defense mechanism or versions of it are recommended by such authoritative sources as Hasidic masters, Charlie Chaplin, and my mother (who thinks that wearing makeup and making your bed is the best way to feel better).
For the first month after the breakup, I was not at all ready to act "as if." I dumped on my sister and my friends all the damn time. I am ready now, and I think "as if" is probably the best approach for me. I shut him out of my mind and have stopped talking about him entirely; part of why Friend1 was surprised at my entry the other day after I did not mention it during our last outing.
I am suppressing and I know it. But I try to allow myself to indulge the feelings in safe spaces and on kickass playlists, when I need to. I just don't really need to anymore. I am ready to MOVE ON, although I wasn't for a while. Next!
The problem is that I don't think I *can* avoid him totally. I have come to believe the fear of him is a) worse than the reality of him, and b) allowing him too much control over my decisions. I end up feeling worse seeing his name on an RSVP to an event I'd like to go to than I think I would if he were just there and I didn't know about it beforehand. I realized this a couple of weeks ago and decided not to look at facebook RSVPs anymore, a strategy that has been largely effective in ridding myself of him-related unpleasantness. Unfortunately, there are always events I will strongly suspect he will attend because I know him; and for the Purim party in question, when I clicked to RSVP, he was one of the 8 or so people listed at the bottom of the page. I can accept these things, because I know I cannot control them.
Now that I have broken the ice on some level, I think I can ignore him at future events and leave it to him if he wants to talk to me. Which he will not, because in truth, he is a pansy, something I say not as a bitter woman, but someone who tried very hard to put up with his pansy-ness for a very long time.
The "as if" attitude is a defense mechanism, as became clear to me when I spilled my guts to my friend that afternoon. However, this particular defense mechanism or versions of it are recommended by such authoritative sources as Hasidic masters, Charlie Chaplin, and my mother (who thinks that wearing makeup and making your bed is the best way to feel better).
For the first month after the breakup, I was not at all ready to act "as if." I dumped on my sister and my friends all the damn time. I am ready now, and I think "as if" is probably the best approach for me. I shut him out of my mind and have stopped talking about him entirely; part of why Friend1 was surprised at my entry the other day after I did not mention it during our last outing.
I am suppressing and I know it. But I try to allow myself to indulge the feelings in safe spaces and on kickass playlists, when I need to. I just don't really need to anymore. I am ready to MOVE ON, although I wasn't for a while. Next!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)