'the rules' - book by fein & schneider...

[babybear]

So I've just read this book the rules and wondered what people's opinions of it are. I have very poor dating history (single for 3 years but in that time have had millions of dates, met millions of guys but never managed to get a guy to become emotionally attached to me). I can't help but wonder if my bad luck could be attributed to the fact that I break practically every rule in this book. I am currently sort of seeing a guy - met him in the last week of term at my uni. Now i'm graduating though we are both moving back to our hometowns (1-2hrs apart) so i wont see him again unless i try some sort of long-distance thing. I broke several rules with him - I met him then spent basically the entire week with him none-stop, had sex with him straight away, I spoke to him first, I revealed too much personal information about myself, I exhibited low self-esteem (without meaning to!), I talked too much, he never paid for anything for me, I text him first, I accepted dates within very short-notice - a few hours before!, I didn't end our dates first...... the list could go on. However, despite all this, he appears to be really interested in me and keeps asking me to visit him in his hometown. By doing this, this once again breaks another 'rule' as it states "Better that you never see him again than you visit him first or even meet him halfway". It also says "If you travel to see him before he's made at least three trips to see you he won't think you're special."

 

Basically according to this book my behaviour will leave me completely hurt if I do try and pursue him because he will never be interested in me. I can't help but rationalise - the fact that he asks me to visit, that he was so lovely when we were together and I felt so happy when we were together. But this rationalisation further goes against the rules. So I don't know what to do about him, visiting him, and my dating life in general.

[DN]

IMO 'The Rules' were nonsense - basically telling women to be someone other than who they really are.

 

It is worth noting that both the authors married and then divorced.

[lavenderdove]

The 'rules' are not only nonsense, the two women who wrote that book eventually ended up divorced, so they're no experts.

 

Basically it teaches you to NOT be yourself, and to trick someone into being with you by manipulation. A relationship that will last should be about open communication and honesty, not game playing and manipulation. Case in point, neither of their marriages lasted.

[Moontiger]

I agree with the others. "The Rules" is complete nonsense. If you are looking for a good book on relationships I would recommend "He's Just Not That Into You" I found it extremely helpful.

[Keyman]

I wouldn't prescribe to any book that tells you what is right or wrong in dating. Why, because everyone is different. Dating is not a game of strategy, it is a constant flowing thing and the easiest method is just to work with it as it goes than trying to force it into a strict framework.

 

Follow your heart and love. If your heart is broken. Give yourself some time to heal and then follow your heart again.

[shes2smart]

Complete nonsense? Eh, I don't think anything is "complete" anything.

 

I read it...back when it was still new, I was still single and the authors were still married.

 

My gut feeling then was that a lot of it was contrived and basically a great way for those two gals to be controversial and make money.

 

But -- and here's where I can't say it was "complete" nonsense -- I did pick up one valuable thing out of it....and that was the concept of "NEXT!" One of my particular problems back then was making a lot of excuses for a man I was interested in, and going to a lot of effort for him --- even when the effort/interest was not reciprocated.

 

Even the most full-of-(crap), clearly written for profit missive can contain an occasional useful tidbit. Not all of them do...but they have the potential to offer up some piece you may find useful.

 

So, what I'd suggest to you is to take the following approach when reading ANY self-help/advice book:

 

Weigh it against your own good sense. If there's something in it that resonates with you, try it out as an experiment first before becoming a True Believer or an even Somewhat Agree-r

 

They say this at 12 step meetings and it can apply here, too:

 

Take what you need and leave the rest.

 

That being said, I hope you got the book from the library.

[oldenoughtoknow]

The Rules is a bunch of crap. They are written by two bitter women who are guiding other women towards what would resemble a wallet-carrying chimpanzee. Not a real man.

 

That being said, let's look at what you said about your current relationship, with your new "rules" eyes. "I met him then spent basically the entire week with him non-stop," not necessarily a bad thing. Lots of relationships start out pretty intense and if well managed, can calm down into something strong and lasting. "Had sex with him straight away," ditto. "I spoke to him first," also isn't a bad thing. This is 2010, isn't it? "I revealed too much personal information about myself," also isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless you're talking about TMI. "I exhibited low self-esteem (without meaning to!), okay, now that's a keeper. Investigate it thoroughly and try to work on your issues surrounding this. "I talked too much," women simply talk more than men do, there are studies that prove it, really not a bad thing. "He never paid for anything for me," may be a bad thing. Did you ever pay for anything for him? There should be a clear and reasonable balance on this issue. "I text him first," if you always texted him first, that's not a good thing. Coupled with your low self esteem comment, it can come accross as clingy. "I accepted dates within very short-notice - a few hours before!," I've always felt the guy should diligently pursue for the first date or so. After that, and you're both still clearly interested, who really cares? "I didn't end our dates first," is absolute drivel.

 

The only things I see here are to work on your low self esteem, and that will help you balance the other issues I mentioned. The only other thing I could recommend is that you forget you ever read this book.

[bulletproof]

Everyone's dating experience is different. I wouldn't follow any set rules per se, but I think what that book really wants women to do is have a life. That's all. Don't just ignore his calls to make him want you- be out and busy legitimately and take the call when you get a second. Basically, no one, male or female, wants anybody to be constantly available. It's smothering. But you shouldn't pretend to be unavailable. You should have a full life that you're proud of and you'll find lots of guys attracted to that.

[capilot]

"The Rules" : women "Speed Seduction" : men

 

Dishonest, manipulative, destructive.

 

If I saw a copy of that book in a date's apartment, I'd think long and hard about there being another date. If you're with a woman who reads The Rules, the only thing you can count on is that you can't count on anything she says.

[Puddincup]

The basic concept of most dating/relationship books is that things that are difficult to get are more highly valued. The rules takes this concept to a ridiculously detailed level that may work for some and may sabotage others. I would not beat yourself up for what you've done with this guy already. It does not seem to have deterred him at all. As others have suggested, work on your self esteem, realize how LUCKY this guy is to be with you, make sure that things don't get TOO unbalanced (he should put in some time, effort and $ sometimes too), and try to trust your gut more than any book. Not that books don't have things to teach us, but as others have said, take that info and evaluate it against your own judgement. I think we all kind of know when we do things in dating that we shouldn't. Try to do less of those. A way to figure out if it is something that you probably shouldn't be doing is to imagine telling your friend about it and what she would think. If you feel like you would cringe to tell someone, then it's probably not the way to go. But again, you need to answer to yourself so always judge against your own values and judgement.

[Go Habs Go]

Total garbage. Like DN said, both authors married and divorced. In addition, one of the authors is an alcoholic comedian.

[jonny15]

If you are looking for a good book on relationships I would recommend "He's Just Not That Into You" I found it extremely helpful.

 

That's also nonsense.

 

All of those types of books are.

[Brigadoon]

That's also nonsense.

 

All of those types of books are.

 

I found "he's just not that into you" to be an absolute godsend. The author may not be 100% right in every case but when you're faced with someone for whom you have feelings developing doing the kind of things he details: ie only calling when drunk or never really committing to being with you and randomly disappearing/reappearing then it really is liberating to just be able to say "he's just not that into me" and start moving on.

I am in a situation whereby I am very attracted to an acquaintance of mine; he seems to be attracted to me but is running hot and cold from one day to the next and it's driving me mental.

Previous to reading this book I would have spent ages tying my head up in knots and trying to get his attention. Now I'm saying "Forget it; it's nothing personal. He most likely is somewhat attracted to me but not enough for him to want it to go somewhere"

My feelings are less hurt because it's not me fundamentally he doesn't care for, it's just a lack of chemistry/attraction/whatever.

I get to move on and find someone else who does enjoy my company and he doesn't have to put up with some psycho girl clamoring for attention and then acting all resentful because she didn't get what she wanted.

How can a book that tells women to have enough self respect to walk away from situations where they are being treated disrespectfully be nonsense?

[jonny15]

I found "he's just not that into you" to be an absolute godsend. The author may not be 100% right in every case but when you're faced with someone for whom you have feelings developing doing the kind of things he details: ie only calling when drunk or never really committing to being with you and randomly disappearing/reappearing then it really is liberating to just be able to say "he's just not that into me" and start moving on.

 

No offence. But did you need a book to realize that?

 

I think that is kinda obvious.

 

 

Previous to reading this book I would have spent ages tying my head up in knots and trying to get his attention. Now I'm saying "Forget it; it's nothing personal. He most likely is somewhat attracted to me but not enough for him to want it to go somewhere"

 

I think you should directly ask the guy if he likes you.

 

Does the book tell you that?

 

Or does it tell you that the guys must do all the work?

[Batya33]

I agree with this. The rules I followed wayyy before the book was written were:

 

When we were first dating, I never accepted a weekend date asked for after Wednesday night unless there was a true "emergency" type reason.

I let him initiate most of the initial dates and initial phone calls.

I never had casual sex (this wasn't a rule as much as it was a value of mine and I did not desire casual sex).

I expected him to at least offer to pay for the first few dates (if he asked).

 

Most of the men I dated were educated professionals with reasonable self confidence although I tended to date more shy/reserved men than outgoing people.

[Brigadoon]

No offence. But did you need a book to realize that?

 

I think that is kinda obvious.

 

See this is where you're not getting it. It should be obvious but I know that when I was younger and less streetwise, and friends of mine would have been the same, I used to put up with all kinds of crap because I didn't have the experience to know any different.

I know a woman whose "boyfriend" only allowed her to visit once a week when he felt like sex. He was actually married with a family back in another country and he felt that if he didn't tell her that and point out that it was a FWB setup then that would make it alright.

And although the woman in question was in her forties and should have known better it actually took her a year to realise that this wasn't just moving ridiculously slowly; he just wasn't bothered.

When we really like a guy we can make the stupidest excuses to avoid the obvious and reading this book really makes you cop onto yourself.

 

 

I think you should directly ask the guy if he likes you.

 

Does the book tell you that?

 

Or does it tell you that the guys must do all the work?

 

I don't see why I need to go to the trouble of asking him if he likes me.

Because if he did like me he'd be showing/telling/miming it at me in case someone else got in there first. Well, he would if I were genuinely a priority for him. Which I'm not. So he 'aint.

The book tells you not to sit around waiting for someone and to go out and get a life.

Thereby meeting someone else who does find me attractive and wants to go to the trouble of informing me of that or else prompting original guy to think "Okay, she doesn't seem to be hanging around for my scraps anymore; if I want her I'll have to do something about it"

And I don't see how his asking me out can be viewed as "work" He knows me pretty well by now so he knows I'm not going to laugh in his face if I'm not interested, I've shown him that I find him attractive and I've pretty much done everything that I can to help him give me any concrete sign that he's feeling anything for me.

If anyone's been doing all the work it's me.

I didn't mind doing it because he's a lovely guy who I would like to spend more time with but enough is enough and I'm not going to further trample my self esteem into the floor by walking up to someone and saying "Just to be clear; you don't like me right? That's why you never took me up on any of the openings I gave you? And why you've never actually followed through on that half suggestion you made that we should do something? So we're absolutely certain that you've never been more than a bit flirty and I got the wrong end of the stick?... Ya?... Thanks for clearing that up"

Thanks to aforementioned book it's kind of... obvious.

[dragon lady]

I have never read the book, but from what I know of the rules, I've never followed any of them. I've never had any trouble getting my dates to stick around either, so I'll put it in the nonsense category with everyone else.

[DN]

Any 'rules' of dating are nonsense if one stops for a moment to think about the consequences of following them blindly. The guy that a woman turns down for a date because he asked 'too late' could have been the best guy ever as could the guy who thought that equality actually means something, as could the guy who a woman fails to ask out. I sometimes think these sort of books are written by and for thirteen year olds not mature men and women. Real grown-ups act like it.

[Batya33]

I knew I did not want to be an afterthought and wanted a man who thought I was special enough to make plans with in advance - if he called last minute because he just found out he got awesome concert tickets and wanted to take me, or if he couldn't make a plan earlier because of a family emergency or similar, then, sure. But the "I'm spontaneous" as an excuse for "I'll call you last minute" didn't cut it with me - that was just an excuse to be disrespectful of my time and conveyed an arrogance I didn't want in my life.

 

I also knew that the kind of guys I was most attracted to - reasonably confident, intelligent, educated men who, while traditional as far as family values also wanted someone equal in intelligence and with ambitious career goals - were most comfortable with a woman who let them do more of the calling, asking and planning in the beginning of dating.

[Go Habs Go]

Rule #1 in dating- there are no rules. If you're going to follow "rules", don't complain when you can't find someone. Some things are just common sense and shouldn't take a book to figure out.

[Brigadoon]

Any 'rules' of dating are nonsense if one stops for a moment to think about the consequences of following them blindly. The guy that a woman turns down for a date because he asked 'too late' could have been the best guy ever as could the guy who thought that equality actually means something, as could the guy who a woman fails to ask out. I sometimes think these sort of books are written by and for thirteen year olds not mature men and women. Real grown-ups act like it.

 

You're quite right DN, 'rules' of dating are nonsense when you follow them blindly with no thought to the individual situation.

But say, if you know for a fact that a guy isn't working at the moment and therefore has plenty of free time on his hands should we not be asking ourselves why, assuming that he likes us, that he couldn't find the time to ask us out without it being some last minute rush job?

I might take that from a full time college student who's working weekends and studying the rest of the time but shouldn't I be slightly further up his list of priorities (especially at the start when it's all nerves and butterflies and "I can't wait to see him/her again"?) than watching daytime TV and doing some laundry?

As to the guy who thinks equality means something I haven't actually met one as all of the guys I know like the fact that a woman is out earning but still deep down think it's "girly" to put the dinner on before I get home. May well just be the ones I've come in contact with though as there's a definite "Irish mammy" culture here that says men are men and you're not being a man when you're cleaning floors or talking about your feelings.

As to the guy a woman fails to ask out; well I think I'm perhaps a tad close to my own current situation to be objective here but I know that I haven't behaved passively and although my guy seems to be lapping up the attention he isn't giving me any more encouragement than is needed to stop me getting bored and wandering off.

Which I don't really blame him for; we all like to feel that we are attractive to at least SOMEONE but that doesn't mean I'm going to willingly sacrifice my last shred of dignity by making him actually state that "Yes; it's been enjoyable but no; I just don't see you that way" as I was not put on this planet to be used as an aid to ego massage.

And that's what these books are at least ATTEMPTING to teach us even if they get parts of it spectacularly wrong at times; to have dignity.

To not hang desperately onto one person or situation and to actually say "Hang on a minute; as a human being am I maybe not deserving of... *fill in the blank*?"

A friend of mine says "YOU teach people how to treat YOU" so by following those 'rules' that apply to my situation am I not simply saying "this is what is or is not acceptable to me?"

No I will not tolerate my ex ringing me at three in the morning because he's horny but I should accept some guy not bothering to text me all week after he's said he'll get onto me and organise something and him then ringing me up at seven in the evening to know will I be out that night? Sounds kinda the same difference to me.

I think that 'rules' are another way of saying 'standards' and who knows, maybe by having higher standards I might actually attract someone into my life who has higher standards about how they think I should be treated.

[DN]

There is a difference between obeying some arbitrary rules written by a hack or hacks trying to make a fast buck in order to essentially trap someone into marrying you who otherwise would not if he knew who you really are and setting boundaries or standards for yourself. The first is dishonest and manipulative the second is honest and straightforward.

 

And those books, IMO, are all about the first because they teach women to be manipulative. And that is really childish and is no basis for a real relationship.

 

There are similar books for men that are just as bad.

[Go Habs Go]

There is a difference between obeying some arbitrary rules written by a hack or hacks trying to make a fast buck in order to essentially trap someone into marrying you who otherwise would not if he knew who you really are and setting boundaries or standards for yourself. The first is dishonest and manipulative the second is honest and straightforward.

 

And those books, IMO, are all about the first because they teach women to be manipulative. And that is really childish and is no basis for a real relationship.

 

There are similar books for men that are just as bad.

 

 

And many women here on ENA are quick to refer to those books. Sounds like many people here are easily influenced and gullible.

[DN]

And many women here on ENA are quick to refer to those books. Sounds like many people here are easily influenced and gullible.

Not just women. Men fall for them too.

[Go Habs Go]

Not just women. Men fall for them too.

 

 

No doubt. But for me personally, I'm immediately turned off when a woman points to "The Rules" or "He's Just Not That Into You". Seriously, can't people think for themselves these days?