Calling Men

[capbit]

Following some of these so called "relationship experts" will only lead to more problems down the road. However, I feel the problem lies within the consumers of these products rather than the authors, as they seem to be unable to make independent decisions for themselves.

[lavenderdove]

These kinds of books really cycle... about every 10 years, someone comes out with one of these books and acts like it's some new big revelation that will fix everything. A while back it was 'The Rules' that spouted this kind of stuff about how to land a man and get him to marry you, with basically a bunch of awful games and manipulations rather than just being yourself.

 

And the interesting thing is that both women who wrote that book eventually got divorced! So yes, they manipulated someone into marrying them, but not good marriages!

 

You need to treat a partner (or potential partner) like a HUMAN BEING not some fish on a hook or game to be played. Treat them how you want to be treated, and be yourself, and you'll eventually meet someone who is happy with you just the way you are that you haven't 'gamed' into being with you, then lost when they realized you were gaming them.

[Cognitive_Canine]

If you play games of smoke and mirrors and them pursuing you, you really aren't showing them who you really are. They could be unpleasantly surprised when they actually have you. Plus, you can only run for so long. Eventually you get into a serious, committed relationship. What do you do when you no longer have games that you can play? Seems like there would be a major relationship shift after the games start and you start acting like partners. I doubt anyone could survive that sort of change.

[BriarRose]

It is not games. When you date for a long time and you learn that certain behaviors (such as calling, initiating dates, etc) don't work or turn people off, you stop doing them. That doesn't mean it's game playing.

[Cognitive_Canine]

It is not games. When you date for a long time and you learn that certain behaviors (such as calling, initiating dates, etc) don't work or turn people off, you stop doing them. That doesn't mean it's game playing.

 

What the purpose of never calling your partner other than to play a game?

[BriarRose]

What the purpose of never calling your partner other than to play a game?

As I said in my post, you reach a point where a behavior (calling, initiating dates, etc) starts to have negative consequences (such as getting dumped, etc), you stop the behavior.

[Speranza]

These kinds of books really cycle... about every 10 years, someone comes out with one of these books and acts like it's some new big revelation that will fix everything. A while back it was 'The Rules' that spouted this kind of stuff about how to land a man and get him to marry you, with basically a bunch of awful games and manipulations rather than just being yourself.

 

And the interesting thing is that both women who wrote that book eventually got divorced! So yes, they manipulated someone into marrying them, but not good marriages!

 

 

Yes, I was just thinking about that!

 

And these books sort of imply that you can work on ANYone (indeed, I think there's one called 'How to make anyone love you ' - why would I want to do that?!) in order to make them into the perfect partner.

 

Whilst I admire the stand against this idea that it's settling to go for someone less than 'perfect', I think it's a bit silly to think ANYone wil do! And very patronising to suggest that men are too stupid to realise that women are manipulating them into marriage.

[Rangafro]

Most of these sort of books are written purely for profit.

 

Maybe I'm cynical but I think a lot of these people genuinely believe much of what they say, and that scares me more than anything.

[lavenderdove]

The problem i have with these kinds of books is they are 'one size fits all' and people are individuals and it just doesn't work that way.

 

So you play the timid mouse and never call the guy. A guy who wants an equal partner thinks, what's wrong with this women, she never calls me, can' she dial a phone now and again? And a shy guy thinks, 'this woman doesn't like me so i guess she's not the one for me'. And a cheating guy thinks, 'this is just the tender flower i need because she'll never check up on me by calling or texting.' And a sexist guy thinks, 'this is the perfect woman for me, she lets me be in charge,' but then he tries to control all aspects of your life because he thinks men should be in charge.

 

So it really is a strategy that not only is counter productive in most cases, it can cause harm or help you end up with the WRONG guy for you if he thinks you're the fragile flower type who wants to be controlled and not an equal.

 

There may be a grain of truth in the 'don't call' from the perspective if you are always calling and texting and blowing up his phone you're being insecure or controlling, but then men shouldn't do that to women's phones either. And to say you should never call is a ridiculous overgeneralization and game playing.

[Batya33]

Weellll, what if he says he'll call you "soon" to get a cup of coffee and you haven't heard after a week and a half . . . ?

 

Ugh, as you can see, I am struggling to know when/if to call. I guess I am trying to be patient, but I also want him to know I am interested still . . . and I just don't know.

 

But if I listened to Ms. Tanner's advice in her book, I would never call and let him know I'm still interested because THAT would turn him off.

 

Can I just say that I hate these stupid games, ugh!

 

In early dating I found the best way was to let the man do most of the calling and asking out (I returned calls promptly, unless we didn't have another date planned and he kept calling just to say "hi" - then I would return the call a day or so later because I didn't want to encourage him to treat me like a phone or chat buddy if he wasnt' going to ask me out again). If a man didn't set a time and place date, then he hadn't asked me out, and if he didn't call to follow up on the "we'll get dinner sometime" I assumed he wasn't interested in dating me.

 

If I wanted a man to know I was still interested I made sure to show up/look nice/be nice on the date (a generalization but a shorthand for being on time, showing that I cared about my appearance, and showing enthusiasm and appreciation that he planned a date for us), and I always said and meant a sincere thank you at the end and told him what a nice time I had. From what I found, a man didn't need to be clubbed over the head with my interest level and dragged back to my cave.

 

On the contrary, a little intrigue/mystery/leaving them wanting more didn't hurt - a little - sort of like unwrapping a multi-layered package - but I didn't play games or hard to get.

 

Once we'd gone out several times, were an "item" and we both assumed we'd be spending at least one night a week together, I initiated more calls, asked him out more often, equalized that part of the relationship. My interest level and how I showed it was basically equal from the beginning, although as I wrote I let him do more/most of the asking and calling.

 

I also found that more men than women weren't phone people so often I let the man call me when he was in the mood to talk so that we didn't have that awkward polite conversation if I caught him at a not so great time.

[DN]

The only 'dating' rule worth following is ignore the dating rules and do what seems best for you at the time. People who talk about "men do/want this" and "women do/want that" have immediately demonstrated that they don't know what they are talking about and to follow their generalised advice is not wise.

[Batya33]

The only 'dating' rule worth following is ignore the dating rules and do what seems best for you at the time. People who talk about "men do/want this" and "women do/want that" have immediately demonstrated that they don't know what they are talking about and to follow their generalised advice is not wise.

 

Oh, there are exceptions - I just know what worked for me - and didn't - and many many other men and women I know and have known in the late 20s -40s age group. And it's echoed time and time again on these boards - nothing to do with what's written in a book, just real lie and reality (however unfair, and however much it should change - and it should and hopefully it is!).

[Joshb]

yeah if a woman never called or texted or barely i take that as a sign shes not interested or about me....no good. I like a girl who calls and texts me a lot...i want a mutual relationship not a power struggle, lopsided one. no thanks

[DN]

Oh, there are exceptions - I just know what worked for me - and didn't - and many many other men and women I know and have known in the late 20s -40s age group. And it's echoed time and time again on these boards - nothing to do with what's written in a book, just real lie and reality (however unfair, and however much it should change - and it should and hopefully it is!).

Also echoed time and time again on these boards and always ignored are the hundreds of posts from men like the one above this one. These aren't just exceptions - it is a huge number of men who simply contradict what you say from their own preference and experience.

[Batya33]

Also echoed time and time again on these boards and always ignored are the hundreds of posts from men like the one above this one. These aren't just exceptions - it is a huge number of men who simply contradict what you say from their own preference and experience.

 

Rspectfully I discount the men who are "flattered" by being asked out - sure, if a man posts about being in a long term happy relationship where the woman did most of the asking out and calling in the beginning then that is an exception (well, unless he was really into being very passive in a relationship, then I'm not so sure).

 

Most men are flattered by being asked out by women - and most of those men don't choose that woman for an LTR. Who asks who for a first date - usually doesn't matter much (although I wouldn't advise someone to take the chance, all else being equal) but letting men do more or most of the asking in the beginning while the woman shows interest in other ways - that seems to work far better than the woman showing interest by doing more or most of the asking out in the beginning. Unless she wants a passive man and gets turned on by being in control in her relationships.

[DN]

I am not talking about men who say they would be flattered but the countless men who say that they expect an equal effort from women and would either assume disinterest or that that any relationship would be unbalanced if the woman were so inactive.

 

Books like this really do people a disservice - that sort of advice can kill off the chances of a good relationship developing before it even gets a chance to flourish because of the stereotypical and mistaken generalisation that it perpetuates in the face of direct contradiction from large numbers of men.

[Batya33]

I am not talking about men who say they would be flattered but the countless men who say that they expect an equal effort from women and would either assume disinterest or that that any relationship would be unbalanced if the woman were so inactive.

 

Books like this really do people a disservice - that sort of advice can kill off the chances of a good relationship developing before it even gets a chance to flourish because of the stereotypical and mistaken generalisation that it perpetuates in the face of direct contradiction from large numbers of men.

 

Oh I agree that the books do a disservice - they're silly. Women should show active interest - but let the man do more or most of the asking and calling in the very beginning, until they have more of an understanding that they're going to be dating regularly (and then the "who asks" is more of a non-issue).

 

I know very few men and of very few men in happy long term relationships where the woman did more of the asking out and calling in the beginning - in fact, in a major newspaper there was a story about an "exception" - they were newlyweds and she did most of the asking, proposed, the whole thing - but it was seen as such an unusual situation that it was considered a news story.

 

I do know of many good potential relationships that women have sabotaged because they played games or played hard to get, following those books or advice to play games.

 

And many more where the women were dishonest with themselves - telling themselves that they felt comfortable calling and asking out a man they just met who wasn't asking them out for a second or third date after a week or so because "I go for what I want, it's the 21st century, this is how I developed a successful career so why is it different with dating". Most often it's an excuse because they don't want to let the man call them if he's interested, and has nothing to do with feeling empowered or wanting to be "equal" (or the equally silly "well, I'll call him and tell him it's ok to ask me out because I'm interested - maybe he was intimidated by me" - talk about mixed messages to the other person and too oneself).

 

Most often those relationships last a few dates, very often they involve sex because the woman continues to tell herself that she should act on impulse and do what "feels right" at the time, ignoring that what feels most comfortable for both of them is to get to know him over a period of time and to let him act more traditionally (I know, traditionally is a bad word). And so often it's selfish - she's calling him and asking him out because she wants attention now, she wants a date now and to heck with what the man wants or needs or what his comfort level is in getting to know her, in integrating her into his life.

 

And selfish when she sleeps with him out of this "empowered" feeling but then expects him to all of a sudden want a serious relationship with her just because she slept with him, just because she asked him out on a few dates, and now he's supposed to be her knight in shining armor and be the "traditional" man again.

 

and then all of a sudden he is "using" her because he accepted her date invitation and had sex with her. That only paves the way for a woman who is cynical and jaded - a turn off to most men I would think.

Someday - or maybe now with younger guys - people will feel more comfortable with the asking out on dates being equal on both ends, from the beginning, women will feel more comfortable either having casual sex with no expectations or being honest with themselves that casual sex isn't for them (and not blaming the men for their own decision to have casual sex), and I think it should be that way.

 

But a woman especially in her 30s who wants kids someday - and who is looking for a potential spouse - I'm not going to feel right telling her to try to be the exception and ask out a man she likes more than once if he's not reciprocating because she doesn't have that kind of time to waste. Unless she likes very passive, timid men of course.

 

That's just my humble opinion, I think I have a great deal to back it up, and I have no problem with people telling me it's bad advice -- but, a disservice - I don't think so because I agree there are exceptions and I agree it should change.

[Speranza]

I simply believe we're both humans, each with a phone (and phone bills, come to that).

 

Why disempower myself or pressurise him by making him responsible for whether or not things move ahead?

[DN]

Batya, you simply do not know enough people to make the sort of generalisations about dating that you make. No one does. Not even Joy Browne.

[Batya33]

Batya, you simply do not know enough people to make the sort of generalisations about dating that you make. No one does. Not even Joy Browne.

 

Now those are fighting words (about Joy) ;-). I agree and that is why I have the caveats I do, that it's based on my experience and those of the hundreds of people I know (and then I hear confirmation from even more people). I am not saying I am "right," believe me.

[Batya33]

I simply believe we're both humans, each with a phone (and phone bills, come to that).

 

Why disempower myself or pressurise him by making him responsible for whether or not things move ahead?

 

Because I personally didn't feel disempowered for letting the man do what traditionally he felt comfortable doing - I felt actually like a giving person because rather than behave as I did in the business world, I was willing to sacrifice a little of my own comfort level so that he could be comfortable, knowing that that is part of the give and take of a relationship. I wouldn't have done it if I felt really bad about myself but I didn't.

 

I let him be responsible for asking me out on a date in the beginning, yes, but I shared the responsibility in getting to know him and in showing interest.

 

Oh and my desire to get married and try to have a child before it was too late made it worth it to make that kind of "sacrifice" for the first month or so of dating. Being single long term didn't feel very empowering to me (although I am sure it works that way for other people).

[DN]

Because I personally didn't feel disempowered for letting the man do what traditionally he felt comfortable doing

This is a belief that you have about men that is continually being challenged and contradicted by men and yet for some reason you choose not to believe them.

[BriarRose]

I'm with Batya on this one....

 

In my experience, whenever I have started to call (or text, email, whatever) a man I am seeing, he starts to back off. And I don't mean calling 10 X a day. Just picking up the phone now and then.

 

I realize others may have different experiences, but that is mine. It just seems to be a real turn off to them.

[DN]

I'm with Batya on this one....

 

In my experience, whenever I have started to call (or text, email, whatever) a man I am seeing, he starts to back off. And I don't mean calling 10 X a day. Just picking up the phone now and then.

 

I realize others may have different experiences, but that is mine. It just seems to be a real turn off to them.

How is the alternative method working for you?

[BriarRose]

How is the alternative method working for you?

 

About the same, I guess.