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.
If Texting Guy has to squeeze you into his life when he has time, then he's not going to change to make you a priority. While I think it's sweet to cut Texting Guy a few breaks, I guess it's demonstrative of the rules that he's not trying hard enough, based on what you've written. He's lazy in his communication with you with all the texting, not giving you Saturday night, etc. I say make room in your life for someone who will not be lazy and will want a Saturday night date with you. It's no secret that that's a prime date night, no matter how secretive you're feeling about practicing that rule.
ReplyDeleteI agree about all of that - I think people are missing the point about texting guy. The point is not what his motivations are or whether he will change. The point is that I don't have to do anything to make it over. I can just float. I like this about the Rules.
ReplyDeleteIf someone thinks there is something I should affirmatively do to make it over, please feel free to tell me :) But I don't really think so. He's definitely not calling anymore, and I feel fine about that. I think this is how the Rules are supposed to work. The girl does not need to do anything, including breaking it off.
Part II - Yeah, my comment was to get my thoughts out of my system. And, I agree that the rules are great in this instance -- keep floating, as that sounds light and breezy anyway.
ReplyDelete:) This is all rather moot as to texting guy himself, as I think he's really gone this time. I still haven't posted that story.
ReplyDeleteI agree w Rulebreaker, if he keeps asking and you are free and you don't have another more interesting prospect looming for that night and you want to (a lot of pre-requisites), then just go. Why not? He will automatically get filtered when he asks and you are busy with a real relationship prospect. light and breezy doesn't raise hell with the guy. She just either goes or doesn't. And when she's bored with it, she won't go anymore.
ReplyDelete