Post-Hibernation

[ProtestTheHero]

It would be the reason why I wouldn't get married to someone who made less money than me, but that concern wouldn't stop me from entering into a relationship with someone. I just wouldn't marry someone where the setup was me making more than 4x of what she does because I wouldn't want to pay alimony.

 

Fidelity is not the main (or even an incredibly important) consideration for me when I'm thinking about relationships. Why? Because someone stepping out on me just tells me that the expiration date has arrived. We've outlived our shelf life as a couple and it's over. Does that scare me? No. It's easy to walk away from a relationship.

 

I meant to only say that it scares me that a woman who is married or committed in some way can approach my friend and I at the bar and still genuinely believe that she loves her boyfriend or husband. The cognitive dissonance...the lack of shame -- that scares me.

[Silverbirch]

Yes, I definitely find that sad as well. I do wonder how much a part alcohol plays.

[tiredofvampires]

I'm giving this a bit of a bump to return to your post #72, which was significant enough to need more time to return to.

 

Sometimes late -- but never never!

 

I wanted to read up just a bit on the "Red Pill" phenomenon, since I'd never heard of the term in the context of "men's movement" issues and I was intrigued by the concept as well as the use of the moniker. I had a suspicion that the term was something of reach, and presumptuous to be adopting in this context, and I think the investigation I did -- though it was far from in-depth -- sort of bore that out. I've only skimmed the surface of the material I'm sure you've followed more extensively, and I may return to it to get a more full-dimensional picture of it (if there is one to be had), but I'm sure it comes as no surprise to you that I can scarcely conjure up enough vehemence here to convey how repelling I find it all. Vomit! lol

 

I don't mean to clutter this post with the many tangents and rebuttals I could go on and make to one of those reddit links I popped into, but I do need to sound off a little here, just a tinesy bit, for the greater good, haha. Hope you don't mind the critique/rant, which is not the main focus of this post, it's just a long tangent.

 

I think what I find most offensive about it is the numerous ways it seeks to justify itself using dishonest tactics -- self and other-deceiving tactics designed to somehow reframe or rhetorically and semantically gloss over what is very simply full-stop misogyny. Lots of elaborate and pseudo-intellectual reasoning going on, and in some cases even compelling arguments are made to cloak premises which really are just different tweaks on anger and hatred, all bread crumbs eventually leading to those demons. Even the verbiage itself is used in insidious ways to appear as something it is not (for instance, the use of pejorative names for women being used unapologetically with the defense that this is part of the positive attempt to free men to vocalize their oppression without PC filters that women have forced on them -- as a rejoinder to the way women have been free to express their disdain about men.) BEEEE-ESSS!!! I'm calling it out. If you are angry at a certain group of people and use words that are inflammatory and considered insulting by consensus, pointing that word at or about them as part of your weaponry is not "liberation" ("lib"). It's vitriol. I don't see much of a difference between a "feminist" categorizing men as "pigs" and "men's movement" proponents calling women "s***s". "Just calling a spade a spade, is all!" Righteo. Get over your self-righteous, frothing-at-the-mouth pigeonholing, and you might have a fraction of a shot at the objectivity you believe you're espousing. This is but one example of what I found in that literature to be grossly hypocritical and deceptive to the point of self-indicting mud-slinging. This is a group of men who are crying "victim" by accusing women of having played the victim card too long. LOL

 

Of course, by the time you (you in the abstract) find your way there, for the most part you are already primed -- primed to believe the rhetoric, as it's already just a reflection of your own psyche. So you're not going to see the double standards, the self-defeating messages, the atrocious false sense of "self-improvement" in that paradigm. What you'll get is validation for all the mental toxicity you've been toiling over, and now here is your just vehicle for it to be given a voice through sheer numbers and the badge of "a movement." I'd definitely call the Red Pill credo a "movement" alright, but not the kind of movement they mean.

 

I actually find a parallel in this Red Pill movement to the current racial issues that are roiling, and the whole "black lives matter" theme. Not to get too far afield with that, but when I think about the rise of sentiments expressed by whites that they are being oppressed by "reverse racism" (which I believe exists, but that's a separate issue) and the insistence/persistence of blacks who are claiming their continued persecution...I find myself coming up short of a bleeding heart for these "oppressed" white folk. If I were going to start a war with the Red Pill'ers, the first thing I'd say is, you are still too favored -- however many objections you may have -- to claim disadvantaged status. Sorry. This is your legacy and it's still got a pretty tight reign, so stop your bellyaching. You have a ways to go before you can claim things have flipped and now you're the victim. Sorry your life is sucking for you, but that doesn't mean the rival "gang" is anything more than a handy scapegoat.

 

And isn't it sad that we would all be clamoring for the "victimhood" head of the table. Just as a general commentary on anyone who is embracing rather than fighting to overcome the sense of victimization. That fight being a deeply internal job having nothing to do with blame, everything to do with laying down arms (because as long as you're at war, you're still at the mercy of what *they're* doing to you and suffering that feeling of powerlessness) and REQUIRING the letting go of hatred to become realized. (This is a struggle which I know very personally and believe is a great and serious life calling for any human being who has ever been victimized.) There IS a difference between recognition of victimhood and embracing it, and this is where the Red Pill'ers have fallen into a trap of their own making. And one they are less and less likely to see, the more they immerse themselves in the story they keep telling one another, clapping eachother on the back as they are for being so "real" and so "honest".

 

I just want to be clear that I do think there's a place for a "men's movement" -- one I could have sympathy for (disproving their assumption that, according to that one site, "The fact is, women cannot stand the idea of men getting together like this and discussing what we do." Pfft. As one sample of their bigotry.) For instance, the issue of men not being able to express pain or vulnerability in just about every aspect of life is a cause I feel for deeply. I don't think women should have a monopoly on "sensitivity" or being able to cry, and I think it's a travesty that men find themselves in the position of keeping a shamed silence about things such as being abused, physically or emotionally by anyone, including the women in their lives. I also think that in some cases, where society's gender roles are changing, it's important to examine equality for men in such areas as child custody and alimony. And I take to heart the anguished cries of men who have disadvantages in dating for the judgments women make (even though the scales are balanced on this score, for the most part.) No doubt, men suffer from the pressures of society, as it has been for eons and continues to manifest. In many ways, men have carried burdens that deserve to be aired and championed through solidarity and awareness campaigns. And I certainly would fly flags and play bugles for men getting together to have honest heart-to-hearts over coffee about anything and everything that affects them -- just as we women have proactively done. No one needs social licensure to do that, and certainly I won't be handing out disapproval/approval slips for such (though let's be honest -- how many guys would WANT to do stuff like that? It's a bit of a circular question, isn't it? Would groups of men really like to get together to have deep interpersonal sharing events where everyone brings a goodie to eat and a quote to share, to work on communication skills and the dynamics in their social circles? Or is that really the stuff that evolved over cave campfires and wailing infants? Sometimes I think men wage wars they might not even want to win.)

 

But I know of no effective campaigns built on hatred and a shattered line between emotional and logical reasoning. I don't know if I'm at liberty to link the specific page I was reading, PTH, but here is what I mean, clearly illustrated in part of the article I read (emphasis and bracketed part is mine):

 

And that's a quick one feminism has been trying to pull on society for a while. That women are exactly the same as men. [um, no, actually that's a pretty simplistic take on feminism, as well as dated.] They go so far as to adopt the same words. "I'm a strong, independent woman!" Is she, though? Is she truly strong? Doubtful. The fact is, women are not as strong as men.

 

And there you have it. BLATANT. This after a few disclaimers that momentarily led me to believe that it was not about bashing, but truth-telling and speaking from the heart about tough subjects. Ah, what a sucker I was there for a second. But I'll give anyone with a good cause a chance. And on and on, how "women" this, "women" that. WOMEN becoming this homogenous MONOLITHIC entity that needs to be dealt with. Interesting how the language of men who want "equality" (I'm sorry, that just feels weird rolling off the tongue, you'll excuse me) is not just that they want equality, but that they need to control women somehow, keep them from getting out of control. The feeling of these men being THREATENED just bleeds off the pages. Which is sort of the same ol' same ol' with patriarchal clamp-downs, just now diverted in a different sensibility of self-entitlement.

 

Here's the good part though -- I know that you're critically examining this and see it for what it is. I know that you see the holes. That you're an observer at this point, not a participant. (Correct me if I'm wrong though, and jumping the gun.) I know that you have become (as I am), not any "-ist" other than perhaps a humanist (okay, well, haha, maybe I went too far there? I don't identify as a "feminist" [though I am when juxtaposed to the alternative] or the male counterpart; I am a PEOPLE-IST.) I know that you see these are men unable to really look in the mirror long enough, and I mean REALLY LOOK because they are so preoccupied pointing fingers -- and that when they do, they are looking in the wrong ways. When they do look, they come up with "strategies" reinforcing their own weaknesses, paradoxically, by going down this road, thinking they're beefing up their manhood.

 

I know that you haven't swallowed this load of crap, and you know, that's not just impressive because I'm willing to congratulate any man who would reject this course (and I wish there were more here to congratulate, but I feel we have a strong and vibrant contingent of Red Pill'ers here on ENA -- in fact, in some ways, I think they almost shape a dominant dialogue here.) But PTH...for you, it's a different order of impressive. Because a few years ago, you would have been (and WERE) one of the troops. Much of what I read there, it was your own battle cry. Women were a monolith to you, you could not see individuals. Women are not to be trusted; women are manipulative; women use their vulnerable status, alongside their charms and claims of innocence to rouse sympathy for their pain and no way on Earth will *this* clear-sighted, unmoved pillar of laser insight be duped by those appeals for one half-second. This would have spoken to the 20-year-old PTH's heart as nothing else could.

 

You had a strong Red Pill addiction at one point in time, my friend. Regularly OD'ing.

 

And now? I would not even say you're a sober RPA (Red Pill Anonymous) member...I would say that you are an ex-Red Pill'er.

 

Somehow...you separated yourself from the battle din and bloodbath moshpit, staggered away when no one was looking. And found yourself looking on from a hilltop, rethinking what all that clanging was about.

 

That's why, when you say (bolded is mine):

 

I think paying $5000 a month to a cheater probably makes you a lot more bitter than I ever was and so the red pill approach seems more appealing, so I didn't judge the guy.

 

to that I say, that's letting the guy off quite easy. Empathy is good, it's very good. Not wanting to judge -- another solid aspiration, or accomplishment.

 

But make no mistake. It is not possible for a man to have been more bitter than you. I have not known anyone more rageful, back in the day. There is nothing more bitter than "a fire of volcanic bile rising to my throat" that was spoken of, written of, and not just in a mood, but as a 24/7 unblinking state of mind. Lest ye forget, in a comparison with this other guy or any other.

 

I'm not just saying this to appreciate you and remind you how far you've come, but to address what you've said about this bloke you hung out with. And draw some distinctions, as you have also done with him, saying you could not respect things about his MO, even if you could understand them.

 

Whether we are talking about being beaten into unconsciousness as an adolescent or having to pay a wad of cash to a cheating ex-spouse, in the end we have to make the choice to take full responsibility for how we view and frame these events. The Red Pill battle cry is stamped all over with the words "responsibility" -- and yet I see consummate abdication. Any person who says, "They made me feel this way, so now I'm going to become the ogre/tyrant/corrupt soul they MADE ME INTO (sound familiar?)" is abdicating. And as loathe as I am to use comparative words like "strong" and "weak" about human nature, this would be MY definition of weakness. Abdication. Allowing someone else, or even a bunch of someone elses, to determine the way you conduct yourself. As if you'd be honest, good-natured, loyal, kind, and possessing integrity -- except that someone STOLE those qualities from you. Or asked that you relinquish them.

 

No. You see the error here, don't you? People don't steal your sense of justice, fairness, even-handedness, objectivity, regard, empathy, integrity. YOU HAND THEM OVER YOURSELF. If your reasons are misplaced vengeance and spite, or inability to forgive, or self-loathing, or a sense of cosmic or karmic "reckoning", or simple lack of will to move forward in your thinking...then you have your work cut out for you, and no one can do it but you. As a matter of fact, no one pays the price for not doing it either, except you.

 

That's the REAL RED PILL, baby. Do you think these men's movement players want any part of that?

 

I'm sure you recognize that your friend did nothing to assuage his bitterness that night, going home with a married or engaged women. He just fed it more Tender Vittals (well, that was cat food when I was about 7, do they still make that? lol) He just reinforced the story, with the shoe on the other foot. He just hammered one more nail into his coffin of a brain. Forget for a moment what he was doing, you might say "karmically" to another faceless man. What did this do for him? Of value? And if nothing of value came from it and it only has recirculated his miserable tale and the man it's "made him into", is that ultimately empowering? Of course not, it's horribly disempowering, but the Red Pill dudes will all crowd around him yelling, "See, our man is on the ground, bleeding! He's been shot down!" and he will be whisked off to a rehabilitation center where they pound the message into him again and again that he ought to be feeling like this and it's only natural that he act out his anger this way. That would be okay -- if there was some transitional point where he was directed to transmute this into something else. But no, he's just enabled in his anger until...well as long as he can hold onto it. In fact, the longer the outrage can be held, the loyaler and sturdier a convert he is to his "empowerment" and induction into "STRENGTH".

 

Though I don't see what's "strong" about having a shag with someone else's wife.

 

But it's more than just the way he's handled his misfortune -- and what kind of person would I be to blame him for someone cheating on him. And yet. And YET. I'm going to bump the accountability/responsibility onus up even one more notch to say, you have no idea what was going on with him and his wife when she cheated. I'm not condoning cheating, but at the same time it's also true that cheating does not arise in a healthy relationship, and a relationship is a two-way street. We also have to ask this, which is the same question you have to ask about the women having flings at that casino: when people decide to get married, how often would you say they REALLY know eachother? How well do you think people have taken the time to share their deepest secrets, vulnerabilities, their mistakes, their true nature with one another?

 

From my observation, typically, it's boy meets girl. Attraction consumes them. They consummate it physically after putting eachother on a pedestal for a number of days, weeks or months. And then as they get more familiar with eachother, they encounter a few bumps in the road. A few quibbles. Maybe even a few big arguments. But they smooth things over well enough to get back to status quo. So they know a few of eachother's triggers better, and quirks. But they are still largely on autopilot and there isn't a lot of exchanged soul-searching, or searching of any kind. In fact, there is a lot of avoidance of conflict and conflicts in general are put to rest with somewhat pat agreements. They will get engaged when it's clear that the good times and fun outweigh the bad, and the passion is still very much there. At this point, they have not yet been put through trials of separation, of sickness, of heavy life changes. They're still coasting on the glow of a projected idea of who the other person is. We can live whole lives projecting what we think someone else is.

 

It continues to amaze me how many couples with even decades behind them seem to feel mystified by their partner, or somehow they're just "there", going along without a lot of questioning. I think sometimes people get married much the same way they go to church. It's what's we do.

 

So I think that people often really don't know the person they profess to love. Of course, I'm not saying that something like cheating or other great betrayals are the "fault" of the "cheatee". But I've yet to see a case where there wasn't SOME kind of writing on the wall that was not given proper attention. Some turning the other way, for whatever reason people avert their eyes in order to preserve a certain image of their partner.

 

What that means is that when you talk about this casino scenario where these women are entertaining flings behind their partners' backs, I'm wondering what red flags a man has overlooked, what kinds of behaviors and attitudes, that this fiance who bought the ring in good faith and got down on bent knee, was looking past to be able to have his beautiful, sexy, hot lady say, "I do" and feel grand about being the proud husband of this "catch." I mean, I can't even imagine any of the guys I've been with (except for one, who was an ungrounded loose cannon and I kind of felt as much) being so duplicitous, even though they all had their major faults. We are talking about basic trust and honesty breeches here, with those women you were observing. So they had not even succeeded in establishing those most BASIC core elements of a relationship. But that had to be co-created -- you can't establish a relationship of bilateral trust and honesty if one half is not on board, and if the other half is reading such security into a situation where it hasn't evidenced itself again and again, in many ways over time, proving itself, something is wrong with both halves of that whole. In fact it never was intact or "whole" because its cracks were there from the beginning to be tapped with a finger. I hold both parties equally accountable for that, that waiting tracery of cracks on the structure.

 

Ha, and...it's funny, but your post kind of made me think of this really dumb soft porn movie I saw on a cable station (I didn't even know I had a tv channel that was so graphic, haha). The intricate and sophisticated plot, where I tuned in, involved a woman who had a very steamy relationship with her husband. Her character was an artist with a studio (lots of laughs over that scenery for me), where she was having a grand old time with her husband, and all seemed well...until she got this hot stud of a nude model. And then of course, the inevitable happened with him. Meanwhile, a very enticing, raven-haired femme fatale lured the husband to her place under the pretext of a work assignment -- only to greet him in a negligee and with the confession that there was no work assignment. She had just been lusting after him all this time. So the invitation was very much there, complete with body language and touches that even stone statuary might have caved from. But no, he was the paragon of virtue -- he told her if he were single, he'd go for it in a heartbeat, but now that he's very much taken, he ought to see himself out. As soon as he's gone, a lover that she's had filming this in the wings comes out and asks if she's lost her "touch", and she says coyly, "He'll be back."

 

So by this time, it's clear to me that this movie is made by men FOR men -- appealing to a visceral Red Pill common denominator. There is only one thing the audience wants at this point -- and it is for his wife's infidelity to be exposed, so he can bang the bejeezus out of dark, pouty Siren Girl with impunity (and if you're reading REALLY closely in between the lines there, how about that slightly nefarious undertone).

 

And that's what happens. Only he gets his information from an informant, and that sends him into his "revenge" lay. Afterwards, he confronts his wife about what he heard about her tryst with the model in her studio and she dons a look of shock and indignation, saying that that was just a fantasy she told her girlfriend in confidence. That he was the only one for her, and she would never jeopardize that. You can see, as bad as the acting is, the ashen expression on his face with this plea of "innocence," knowing what he's now done to violate their marriage.

 

Then things get ugly with Pouty Petutti, the husband's fling with her is revealed, and the wife then tears him to pieces for betraying her. He's the cheater now, and deserving of all the stones being hurled at him. But the audience (knocking back their Red Pills 6 per gulp) knows better. He's still the victim, and always was the victim. So in the end when she has revenge sex with the same husky model as the first time, making sure it's when her husband will walk in on them for her final coup de grace, when she says, "Now we're even" and he has to capitulate to that, it's clear who the poor protagonist of this movie is, and who the villain is.

 

As much as I was sort of smirking and eye-rolling my way through that (in my defense, there really was nothing else on to see and the action was surprisingly well-shot), I had to think. This scares ME. That this stuff actually happens (and that's why it appeals), it's not just "in the movies." Minus the glitzy props and actors, this could be something that would happen in real life. Either one side of it, or both. And while that flick was only intended to get a few guys to bust a load, the psychology of it played into it heavily, I think. It was about some primal outrage and hostility being expressed through sexuality, finding an outlet through sex. Testosterone testosterone testOSTERONESVILLE!!!

 

Really though -- to me, it said something notable about the male psyche. And weirdly, just after seeing that, you posted this about the Red Pill and there was a "click."

 

So look -- I'm not saying that the guy who worked hard for that engagement ring and got down on bent knee deserves to be cuckolded, and of course, I'm as dismayed by that as you are. Buuuut...my point is....do you really think that this is a union where they knew eachother through and through, had a good foundation and basis for trust built over time and demonstration (not just "I love you" standing in for trust), and then this woman could go out with that level of love and commitment to a casino and throw that all to the winds? Does that sound like a realistic "character" to you?

 

And while we're at it...what does it say about a woman if her fun consists of hanging out getting drunk at casinos with her girlfriends, in this kind of atmosphere? I'm sorry, that does sound like judgment, but I'm saying something that isn't new to you: certain venues attract certain types of people. You will not find anyone that I am close to, for example, going out to casinos and having drunken fun with or without such selfish intentions. I just don't hang with people like that. That doesn't mean people I hang out with don't have cheating in their histories, or that all people who hang out at clubs, bars, and casinos are lying, cheating scumbags (both men and women). But we are talking about the odds in certain places with certain types of people. I know that you will say that character -- good and bad -- can be found anywhere, and I'd agree. I'm just saying that what you were witnessing there I don't think is representative of what happens in "relationships".

 

So yes, it's scary that stuff like that happens. But it's also scary that the Mafia still exists. It's scary that if you go to certain chat rooms, there are hundreds of men oggling child porn. ISIS is scary.

 

You're getting my point, right?

 

In the end, as much "right" as this guy has to be bitter and you can understand why, I'd have to say (with that movie floating around tangentially somewhere in my mind) that even though he was cheated on, what regard does he actually have for the sanctity of marriage himself? As you yourself pointed out. He had freewill -- just like you. And built into him was the choice to walk through a door that would trash the sanctity of someone else's marriage because his was trashed. So I have to ask, what kind of "catch" was HE? Maybe for all you know, his wife just beat him to it. Maybe he was a ticking time bomb. And maybe, just maybe, you don't even know the whole story and to know it, you'd have to watch the movie I watched.

 

And while these wives or fiancees are cheating on their innocent, sweet boyfriends...what are these boyfriends doing?

 

I caution you not to take anything from these models, based on what you would need and want for your own relationship. Because you could start and structure one in a completely different way. It's not just a threadbare possibility, either. Good relationships DO sustain themselves in this world on a regular basis. Remember where you're getting this information, what pool. It's like the whole thing about lack of exposure to women you can trust and who are good models. You're just seeing the ugly underbelly of things in your haunts, in your corner of the world.

 

I'm not trying to paint the entire world as shady and ugly -- quite the opposite. I'm saying that people get together I think based on some sort of draw, some harmony of personality that transcends just interests and attraction. Generally, you are the company you keep and that goes for the company you marry as well.

 

There's a lot more to it, then, than being a hapless victim and The End.

 

There's the kind of person you strive to be and the will to surround yourself with that kind of person. To keep the kind of company you want to be.

 

There's vetting your partner out not just in the beginning, but over a long course of courtship.

 

There's getting to a level of intimacy where you can see someone's weaknesses and you know what you're dealing with, and vice versa. So there is transparency, and that transparency is part of the love bond.

 

There is regular expression and demonstration of love, appreciation, and affection, so that the home fires are always burning.

 

And above all, there is an abiding respect. As long as you have trust, intimacy, communication, and respect, the raw materials for cheating simply do not have the right soil to arise. Take out any one of those, and you have an increasingly bigger risk. So there are causes and conditions. Cheating doesn't just happen because people are inherently depraved. They are bereft of tools and ability. They do not know each other. And most of all, they do not know themselves.

 

My experience is that when you develop that kind of deep intimacy and rapport, when you seek to know and be known, while there are no guarantees with life, it is something like an immunization. You will need booster shots all along the way through, but I think there are degrees and depths of love. A lot of people have barely scratched the surface and they call it that, get married, and expect things to just work out.

 

I think it's safe to say that love is misunderstood and only fleetingly experienced by many people. So it's hard to judge the fabric of the relationships you're witnessing. As I said, I would not hold these up as typifying anything.

 

What's important is the values you hold for your own life. And that you value treating someone how you'd want to be treated, which your consternation rightly signals here.

 

As for this:

 

I've never wanted to trust a woman, even though I could, because I've never met one in person that was worth trusting. You guys know more about me than anyone else in the world just because you read this journal. You know more about me than my parents, brother, any woman, and any friend. That might seem sad to some people but it's the truth.

 

I don't think it's sad -- it's just true that if you'd met someone you found worth trusting in person, you would have. But you haven't. Yet. It's only sad in the sense that that opportunity seems elusive, but it's nothing wrong with you. I think it's just a sign of having a sense of people and knowing what isn't right for you. I'm just sorry there is so little that's really right for you there, so you're scrounging in these low-nutrient places. They are emotionally non-nutritious, and give you some skewed pictures of what happens with relationships and women and people.

 

I do think you'll find someone some day who you'll find worth trusting. What happens here in this journal could happen in person. I feel this very strongly, that your ability to open up here shows your capability and your willingness to do so -- you just have to be with the right person. That really is all, PTH, that's the "big" secret. The right person. But in the meantime, it's good to cultivate a sense of what you'd be and what you'd like to build, within yourself. I think that incident was a step in that direction, identifying where you depart. That guy would choose Door A, you would not.

 

And even though you'd both take Red Pills over the Blue Pills, you'd have to make sure that the "truth" it's delivering to you holds up to scrutiny and that it's not carrying a reductionist absurdity to your veins and in particular, the capillaries of the optic nerve.

 

No generic knock-offs. No counterfeits.

 

That's not all, but I guess that should do it for now.

[ProtestTheHero]

I don't like being labeled as anything, but being called a humanist is probably the most innocuous label I can think of so I don't have any objection to it, lol. You are right to call me a passive observer of RP. I'm pretty much a passive observer of any and every "movement" or issue in the sense that I don't strongly identify with any group at all.

 

I'm not the person to defend RP and I know I'm supposed to take most of this as a comment rather than a question. I will say that the most annoying part of any theory is the expansive attempt its followers make to apply it to each and every banal scenario. At the end of the day, people like that can reconcile every event with their delusion. It's not falsifiable.

 

I don't respect anyone that participates in a competition to be the greatest victim. That's always been a pretty boring conversation to have with people, and it's a conversation that's becoming more and more and common.

 

I don't rank women by their choice of hobbies. I don't think I'm any more likely to find someone that won't make me projectile vomit at a book club than a casino.

 

Yes, a lot of things are scary, but some things are more immediate in my life than ISIS or perverts.

 

Per my conversation with these women, their boyfriends were working and probably subsidizing that very casino trip. That's a gross thought.

 

I don't really internalize these nights out because this is old news. The expectation of fidelity has always seemed a little naïve to me. I can't say that I'm surprised that people are unashamedly self-interested and self-motivated. I can't feign to be shocked that women would find their hardworking partners banal in comparison to my flashier acquaintance.

 

The ugliness is only partially redeemed by its entertainment value. People-watching in these environments is great, even if my passivity has people questioning my sexual orientation, lol. I never see women worthy of the effort. I don't think I've encountered one of those since I was 18. At this rate, I really should feel lucky that I've evolved into the type of person that is completely comfortable operating alone. I'm the guy that will unapologetically go to movies, bars, restaurants, etc. by myself. People will actually tell me how cool they think that is as if it's an achievement or something difficult. That's a revealing statement. It shows me how different I am from Craig, the casino girls, or the "good ones" that people would endorse for me. I am vibrating to a tune that simply doesn't attract other people, and I am unimpressed by the other tuning forks around me.

 

It is what it is...a recipe for boredom and for the occasional random night out with someone I barely know in an attempt to stave it off for a couple of hours. I'm not disheartened by the train wrecks that I see because I know in the best possible environment I probably wouldn't meet anyone that would register in my mind as someone worth exploring.

 

I'm just very different, and I don't mean "different" as in exceptional. I'm not using that word to say that I'm superior to the people around me. I'm just incredibly eccentric.

[tiredofvampires]

I agree with your critique about what goes wrong with people who are militant on their issues -- in that they somehow manage to make everything about those issues, however innocuous. The world becomes one big soapbox op, in these cases. That describes pretty well my peeve about it as well. I mean, I do think there are causes that deserve passion, and in some cases, living and breathing for these causes is the only way to get stuff done -- but one still ought to remain discerning (and diversified) and that's what sometimes is lost along the way, imo.

 

You've said a couple of things I do have to very strongly disagree with...or maybe, challenge is the better word. Not that you'll be surprised.

 

I don't rank women by their choice of hobbies. I don't think I'm any more likely to find someone that won't make me projectile vomit at a book club than a casino.

 

I tried to head this off, but I guess it didn't work, lol.

 

So let me try again, broadening this out a bit. First of all, by taking gender off the table, and just talking about people, not women specifically.

 

And next taking particular kinds of "hobbies" (such a drinking until you're slobbering all over some guy...or, uh, reading) off the table, because I feel as though the casinos vs. book clubs brings up too many knee-jerk associations for you. Knowing that you're particularly averse to exceptionlism of any kind and elitist attitudes, I think it's a trap to talk about book clubs, which for you -- given your own background -- conjure up snooty and stuffy hyperintellectual subcultures. It's probably equally damning to talk about what would seem the polar opposite, given that you're actually more interested in the dynamics of these environments, however sordid (and maybe even because they're fascinating in their sordidness).

 

To make my point, I'm trying to think of some set of examples that would not be so charged with ready associations for you, but nothing comes to mind that you won't level to the ground, lol. I think just trying to make an example of some/any particular interest group will produce a few choice vomitous stereotypes, and the point of the question will be missed.

 

What I'm talking about generally is "type of person." I know that's a vague and slippery term. "Type of person." So don't fixate on it. Just take it as a common word for a basic idea.

 

Do you really not believe that environments and subcultures breed "types of people"? In a very, very general way? And that then those various environments might produce varying degrees of edifying or denigrating atmospheres?

 

Do you really think that a place (any place) dedicated to nothing but getting wasted, trash talking, debauched sexual behaviors that hurt people (either overtly or covertly), selfish entertainment and distraction from life's miseries will attract a comparable population (in terms of type of person you could respect and trust) as a place dedicated to hard work, concern for something other than oneself, fixing a problem or engaging in provocative ideas, and cooperation?

 

Do you REALLY think those two types of environments and thus the people that tend to be drawn to them say nothing about the kind of person you might find? Do the activities that take place in those different places say nothing about the kinds of people you might expect to find in them? Do they really offer you the same odds of meeting people who you could respect and not be grossed out by? I mean, if you're talking per capita in these populations, as opposed to theoretical insufferable individual members of any of these communities/subcultures.

 

To me, this feels like a no-brainer, but you seem to be making an argument disagreeing.

 

I've taken all the specific reference points out of this, so the question is as exactly straightforward as it sounds. We've established that you find certain behaviors to be gross and not worthy of respect, in both men and women. That those are scary, in a sociological sense. Do you really believe that this is something you'd run into equally in any venue or environment you'd find yourself in?

 

As for the point about perverts and ISIS, what I meant by bringing those up was to point out that you will find pockets of scary things in this world that don't represent a vast majority. So while ISIS is more remote to you than a bunch of women at the casino where you live, the principle still holds that some of the scariest stuff is still not representative of a majority.

 

This is a bit deja vu, though. It was much the same story when you were speaking of what goes on at college parties, and how women behaved there. That also being an environment hostile to healthy and wholesome human interrelating. You would say then that you can only go by the experiences you're having, and my point then was the same as it is now: if you hang around a vocal minority (or any subgroup, however pervasive) long enough that stands for icky and gross codes of conduct and life philosophies, pretty soon you'll be convinced that this is all that exists. At very least, it will dominate your personal landscape when you open the doors each day.

 

Isn't that the life of anyone living in the trailer park? How is the casino version any less myopic?

 

Is it possible that the attitudes you find so abhorrent correlate to the environment and what it magnetizes, or is that totally incidental?

[tiredofvampires]

Actually, I shouldn't say "anyone" living in a trailer park. I know for a fact that somewhat depending on where you go, decent people live in trailer parks.

[ProtestTheHero]

A casino is not a place dedicated to crazed sexual behavior or drinking. People bring their vices to it. That's the way I feel about most places and environments. I made tons of money playing cards in casinos and I was nothing but controlled and sober for most of the time I was in the building. Casinos are also not "haunts." They don't have regular patrons (outside of gamblers there for the explicit purpose to gamble) that come to drink and find women/men. That isn't the purpose. It's too expensive. It's a place for bachelorette parties or whatever else. People with regular jobs living somewhat regular lives show up and let loose for a while. That makes the casino a better environment than most because the odds of me bumping into people without jobs or girls who are looking to be subsidized quite low.

 

I wouldn't say that environment is irrelevant. Certain environments attract certain kinds of people, but they don't breed them.

 

There are two kinds of people for me -- interesting and boring. I feel that I'm probably more likely to be bored by the people I'd meet at a book club than a casino. A woman's appreciation for Vonnegut isn't going to signal any sort of compatibility with me. There are plenty of women who might be fans of bands that I like, but I often find myself embarrassed by the company I keep when I look around and see who else is applauding a talent that I appreciate. I suppose that's why I have very little confidence that something like an appreciation for literature would produce different results.

 

I'm largely unimpressed with people in any and every environment. Therefore, I might as well be at a place that presents the opportunity to do a little drinking (to make others more interesting) and to do a little gambling when the people get boring.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I just can't say that the quality of person I've met in high brow events is any better than a trip to the casino.

[ProtestTheHero]

I love the Chapelle show. Yeah, things can definitely get as sloppy as that at times, but I'm usually observing that rather than participating in it. I'm much more of a controlled drinker and really I'm a pretty controlled drunk. I have to really consciously choose to be dumb to reach that point -- it never happens on accident or unintentionally.

 

I was actually out and about last night. I usually begin at the same bar and then I progress from there based on my mood. A girl that I met and have talked to (in the context of friendship) off and on texted me to see what I was up to and decided to come out with me. We went from place to place. I got home at around 3 AM but it was just fun...not sloppy, not drunk, just buzzed and fun. She's one of the few people that I've met here who makes time go faster rather than slower. I had never hung out with her one-on-one before so that was cool.

 

Sometimes I can sense that women are disqualifying themselves to me because they don't know whether I'm one of those guys who is going to immediately assume that this excursion is the prologue to something romantic. She made a few comments about enjoying being single and not wanting to date for a while and every time she said this it felt like a complete non sequitur. I wasn't being flirtatious and I certainly wasn't pushing any limit or trying to assess how she'd feel about me as "next in line," but she was saying this anyway. Maybe that's a disclaimer that young women use when they're tired of having awkward, role-defining conversations with guys. I really don't know.

 

At one point we were talking to a friend of hers that we bumped into and she made the joke that she couldn't imagine who her ex-bf would ever date after her, and I jokingly said "We're dating now," as in me and her ex-boyfriend -- not me and my friend (the girl I was out with). I guess she misunderstood and said "No we're not" pretty quickly and pretty adamantly, and I told her to chill out and explained what I said, and she felt a little embarrassed after that. I told her I was starting to worry that she felt as if I was a drink away from clubbing her accross the head and dragging her back to my dungeon, lol.

 

Things like that really bother me. I think I know why -- it makes me question my viability. I'm not out here wandering around under the assumption that I am cute or handsome. I present myself well, I dress fairly well, and I think that my strength is in conversation. It makes me slightly nervous that an attractive 24 year old woman with a solid job would flee from that association with me. It might be a knee-jerk reaction of hers to guys who jump the gun, and maybe that was just a quick and unpleasant reaction as she thought, "Here we go again, another guy who's thinking of something more after a couple of hours." I'm hoping that her response was to that and not to me, but you never really know.

 

Maybe my market value is just a lot lower than I anticipated. Sometimes I feel as if that must be the case.

[ProtestTheHero]

I've thought about it some more and I think I was right. Being alone is fine. I can be alone and I wouldn't call that challenging. I'm a pretty independent person.

 

The objectionable thought, the one that can corrupt and corrode if you let it creep in, is that no one wants you.

[itsallgrand]

Through out these years that I have been single, there have been a few male 'friends' who popped up asking me to do something casually. Both of us single. But they framed it like this would be two friends hanging out. And maybe it would be. But yes, there have been a lot of people over the years who framed it as friends and then the next thing you know....they are moving in for something else.

 

It's why I can't stand the blurring of friendship and interest. I'm pretty strict on keeping them distinct. Don't have to call it dating, but 'seeing each other' works fine. I just want the vocal recognition that there is interest there even potential interest in seeing beyond friendship.

 

She texted you, and she agreed to go out bar hopping with you one on one. Yeah, it's a disclaimer, but she's tripping over herself to push the friendly zone and then put the brakes on before anything can happen.

 

What I really think is that is a bid for attention. And I don't think it's a cool way to go about it.

 

I don't think it speaks to anything about your desirability.

[ProtestTheHero]

I think you're right, but it just feels a little patronizing, if not a little insulting. I'm not a guy ignorant of nuance and I'm not the type to misrepresent my intentions or miss social cues. I really didn't need her to explicitly frame things in that way to know that I didn't have a green light to approach her in that way.

 

It's kind of like when you're having a conversation with someone about current events or something akin to it and they're explaining things as if you live under a rock and know nothing.

 

That instance in a vacuum wouldn't challenge my idea of my own viability. Unfortunately, I combine this event with a stretch of time in which my sexuality seems to be completely irrelevant to every woman within 250 miles of me. Smaller things become more significant to me when I sense (correctly or incorrectly) that they're a part of something that's snowballing out of control.

 

I lose weight, I consciously improve my image, and get a good job and I'm essentially more or less in the same position as I was before those improvements. Sometimes that makes me feel as if I'm polishing something that is just inherently unappealing.

 

And that makes me feel as if my life has a very low ceiling, and that my realization of my potential would still result in a life that is really only marginally worth living...a depressing thought. I'm running uphill, I think, or maybe just in place.

[tiredofvampires]

Alright, so I'm going to play her for a little bit.

 

I'd call this the Devil's Advocate, except that I don't think I'm representing His Excellency. I'll let you decide how plausible it sounds, not needing to be His advocate.

 

This scene is pretty lame most of the time, with a lot of sharks, and for some reason, this guy stands apart in some way. He's really cool. I'd probably say that he's one of the only people I've met around here who makes the time seem to go faster rather than slower. I'm never bored talking to him, and he cracks me up. He has this, I dunno, kind of self-demeaning humor, but it's not in a pathetic way, he holds his own. This is probably bad to be thinking, but I almost feel safer getting buzzed with him than with Jen and Ashley -- God, after what happened that one time, I just don't know. At some point in the night, I feel like I'm on my own with them, even if it's us girls, they're just so out of control at a certain point. And then it's just not so much fun after that. Maybe that's why I feel let down when I'm home. This guy seems to always be in control, even when he's had way more than me. I hate to say it, but he's just more...FUN. He's just on it, and I feel kind of like I can joke about stuff with him and thank god, he doesn't take that as an instant cue to start flirting, as if all of a sudden, us having fun is a prologue to his getting out of this what he's cruising these bars for. I think this guy actually just goes out to...just go out, it seems. Cool. I can't deal with any of the usual crap, and he's more of a blast than Jen. I love Jen...really, I do, but I'm looking at her text and looking at his, and thinking "who am I going to have more fun with tonight?" and he's winning out. Jen and I are going to that crafts festival thingy next Saturday anyway, so it's not like I'm totally blowing her off. I'm gonna just tell her I'm tired and not sure how long I'd want to stay out. Yeah, screw it with them.

 

Cool, he's down for it!

 

Yeah, this is just fun...he's just a fun guy to hang with, but this is kinda...it's one-on-one, and it feels kind of weird that he'd be like, totally fine with this, without making a single move, even a subtle one. Who does that? I mean, he seems like the type to not just assume things. Or if he did make a move, it would be subtle, just to test the waters. But I don't want to get to that point, then it might be embarrassing, and he'd feel rejected. So I'm just gonna slip it in there, before the subject even comes up. Just here and there, the hint thing. Too bad I'm so sick of the dating thing, he's kind of cute, but I don't want him to get the wrong idea. I mean, what if he DOES get the wrong idea? We're a guy and a girl going out together, just like anyone does before hooking up. Yeah, I'm just going to put it out there randomly about being single, just in case, so we don't end up with this fun evening getting all awkward. This guy's different, though, maybe I don't need the disclaimer? Hmm. But I just should put it out there anyway, you never know, this is just kind of odd, I've never done this before without some hitch, so...just to be sure.

 

So far so good...he's totally nonchallant about what I said...right on...

 

Wait, whoa whoa! "We're dating now?" Oh DAMN, here come the jokes, and then it gets to the real proposition. YIKES! I didn't see this coming. You, too? [et tu, Brutus?] No, no, just making it clear to you, this is not going in this direction (god, this WOULD happen right in front of Katie, I'll never hear the end of it -- I just told her I'm not going to date ANYONE for at least 6 months when I was whining about guys to her, now all of a sudden I look like I totally have no self control and was full of sht when I said that. I just don't want her to think I'm totally out of control and being sltty. I'm going to have a lot of explaining to...)

 

Wait -- what? Ohhhh, snap! Pssht, that totally went over my head! This guy WOULD make a joke like that, LOL. Why didn't I pick up on that? Dang. Now I look presumptuous about his being presumptuous. Shoots. I'm a retard now. I look like a retard. Kinda want to drop into the ground right now, but oh well -- SWITCH SUBJECT!!!

 

Hopefully he didn't take that the wrong way. Hope he didn't take that personally....I hope he still wants to hang out again, and doesn't think I'm full of myself now...maybe he thought I was cool before and now he thinks I think I'm all that...I wish it was more clear that he was talking about my ex before I opened my big trap.....

 

 

 

Sometimes, second-guessing what's going on in another person's head, for all your knowledge of social cues, is no more telepathically brilliant than the limits of your own cranium. So it's a dangerous business, especially when you're being run by a long-standing selectively biased internal monologue that's always back there whispering to you at different decibel levels.

 

You've made a valiant effort at some objectivity, and I think that's good. But it's not there yet.

 

There's been a thread raging about how women and men might "date" as friends -- with no agenda, without a definition, without expectations. If you've seen it, you'll see I contributed heavily. It surprises me a little -- but maybe it shouldn't so much -- that I seem to be the only woman on the thread making the case that what women really appreciate is a guy who they don't have to "worry" about impressing, but someone they can just enjoy being with, and being themselves with. And without having to cram that into a "platonic" box or a "dating interest" (or sexual conquest) box, that gets a chance to just evolve. A completely label-less state seems so refreshing, when usually, your friends are trying to either see your relationship break up or see you get with someone, because that's what it's ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ABOUT. I know I'm not the only woman on the planet who feels this way, even though it would seem so from that thread. I didn't expect that thread to make me feel a little alone and a bit sad, but it did, which was only softened by the OP (a man), now reformed per the thread, taking my position. I still find it a bit sad that "friend" came out looking like almost a a bad word, one you'd want to steer clear of, both conceptually and verbally, when you're seeking a partner.

 

I must say, I find it a little odd that so many people feel the need to know out the front gate what a given budding relationship (using that term to mean any type of relating) is about, and where it's headed. If I'm just getting to know someone where there is very obvious magnetic sexual energy being exchanged, and I like them in other ways, there's no backing up that stream. You can't really peddle back from that kind of dynamic to something less charged. But you can certainly start off relating to someone of the opposite sex with no pre-conceived idea of what it might be, it's a tabula rasa, or close to it -- and from there, dial it up to something on fire. I've experienced it both ways, and both ways can work, but I've found that having to define it early on correlates with too-high expectations not only of the other person, but of myself. As a rule, I hide more of myself from prospective partners than anyone else I know personally, especially in the beginning. And I dislike that part intensely. So I much prefer building up to something, with as little of a mask as is possible. It also helps quell the ego mind that is constantly wrapped up in how attractive I am, in all senses of the word.

 

I love the feeling of butterflies just like the next girl...but I equally like to feel that I'm a person, a PURE PERSON to this man, not just a series of intelligent thoughts and responses issued out of an orifice worthy of sticking something erect into if all turns out well.

 

So what's a girl to do, without ending up being branded? If she likes your company, it's a compliment to you -- until she puts out the disclaimer, for the sake of discreetly taking the male-female elephant out of the room. Which may be an entirely impersonal "policy" she's come up with, so that nothing spoils an otherwise-fun connection. It could have been so innocuously pre-emptive, it was really more about her being impressed by your vibe and wanting not to see anything ruin the fun with a sharp left, per every attractive 24-year-old single woman's history with hoards of predators, that it continued to be more of a compliment than anything else. I mean, it would be pretty socially inept to say, "I don't think you'd make a pass, but just so you know for sure, I'm not into dating or making out or anything."

 

I mean, for god's sake -- we're at bars together, getting drunk. You're a guy. And this is usually the place for stuff to happen I don't want to happen, but here we are. I know you're a cool guy, but I still don't know you well enough to be sure. I'm just getting to know you, and it's not even on completely sober ground.

 

And meanwhile, you know yourself: you know that you know how to read social cues and clues, that you're not inappropriate or presumptuous or over-stepping, so how can anyone read that into you? Isn't it so COMPLETELY CLEAR that you don't mean to touch a hair on her arm?

No -- no, it's not obvious. You're projecting onto her something she ought to know, which she can't, and feeling slighted by that. You may know your intentions and exactly who you are, but she is not privy to the thought processes you have, and your intentions. How could she be? She hasn't been living in your head the last 26 years, and even you admit it's an eccentric one (of course, you know I only say that with affection and commiseration.)

 

It's absolutely, perfectly reasonable for her to be tentatively trusting you enough to assume you won't pull anything -- but at the same time, keeping aware of the fact that she in fact doesn't know you all that well, and to make any hard assumptions would either be incredibly naive or incredibly cynical.

 

Needless to say, I don't think there's anything wrong with what she did. She wanted your company. Why? Because your company is good. And maybe...well, maybe it's good to have attention from someone who is chill to hang out with. Don't you want attention, too, on some level? Don't we all? Isn't the feeling, "I fear I'm not viable" coming very much from wanting to feel attended to? There's a difference between wanting attention in a pathological way, and wanting people we notice to notice us back because it makes our lives just a bit more engaged, and makes us feel appreciated. You guys were mutually enjoying being recognized and appreciated, and why does it then have to become some indicator of flaws in either of you?

 

What's most striking, though -- apart from the attempts at mind-reading (which I know you've tried to temper, but it's clear that you have not taken the position-neutral stand in the end) -- is your self talk, arising from this. And how that clashes with a string of posts, and a string of experiences, that would, if you were being dispassionate and fair-minded, argue strongly against the conclusion that this might show up your undesirability/unviability. Wasn't it just a weekend ago or two that several "attached" women at the casino tried to rope you into sleeping with them? (I'm not sure what the age ranges were in all cases, but it sounded like it was wide open, as I'd imagine bachelorettes are youngish in your area.)

 

You've been approached and propositioned by married women, engaged women, single women who you've described as attractive (with you "punching above your weight"), whose numbers you're satisfied to get, but all too happy to crumple up and throw away, because the "mission" has been accomplished. It's happened with REGULARITY. So much so that it's become a theme: you can get women, you're perfectly viable, you just have no interest in acting upon that.

 

And now -- one women, for whatever reason, given vast unknown variables of her history, life, and your acquaintance -- is a reversed referendum on your viability in toto? Or maybe, you've had it up until last night, and now you've lost your "edge"?

 

Or...are you only viable if you're turning a woman down? And even if that's proven itself 1000 times, all it takes is one instance of the inverse for you to re-question your viability?

 

What is your take on your own mind and what is going on, looking at the various pieces of evidence and the road you're going down, the conclusions you're throwing your weight into right now?

 

This would be almost hilarious if a cartoon was made of it with thought bubbles above people's heads, as a comedy of errors...except that it's serious for you, and not in the least a hilarious script you have running.

[tiredofvampires]

I just want the vocal recognition that there is interest there even potential interest in seeing beyond friendship.

 

Hope it's okay if I just ask you this point blank here, IAG, because this ties in --

 

But what would be wrong, if you were single, with making friends with a man who comes into your life, you're not really feeling a massive pull towards eachother romantically, and then......even though you only thought of it fleetingly, you begin to find more and more mutual chemistry growing, until you're quite taken with one another. And then it becomes clearly romantic.

 

What is wrong with that scenario? Why is that verboten?

 

Why doesn't the end result speak for itself?

[tiredofvampires]

Administrator says my time's up to edit that last long post, but I should have quoted this:

 

Unfortunately, I combine this event with a stretch of time in which my sexuality seems to be completely irrelevant to every woman within 250 miles of me.

 

That belongs in the last bit about how contrary to the trend with you, as of quite some time now, this statement is.

 

I mean...what are you talking about??

[ProtestTheHero]

If a guy told me he was fairly good with women and that he felt he was rather handsome and defended himself by saying that drunk women at bachelorette parties proposition him, I'd roll my eyes. That's a product of proximity. You happened to be the closest guy available. It's not an indication of the status of the guy as much as it's an indictment of the decision making of women who want a last fling with any available option before getting hitched. Someone that knows you and wants you or rejects you has done something far more substantive. That's why I don't treat those experiences equally. I don't take much from them at all.

[ProtestTheHero]

And I don't mean to imply that she rejected me. She didn't. She just didn't give me credit for being able to discern the context of what we were doing even though I treated her like any other friend. It's the knee jerk "ugh, ew no" reaction that surprised me.

[tiredofvampires]

So what you're saying now is that all those times you felt satisfied to have gotten a girl's number -- a girl who was coherent enough to be talking to you, and attractive enough to be viable in YOUR eyes -- and promptly discarded it, are all now invalid? It seems as though you've just skipped right over that part of this mental equation. And even entering that into the conversation (on my part) has been somewhat dismissed by omission.

 

(I also don't really buy the proximity argument. As drunk as some of those women might be at a party, unless they're unable to tell left from right anymore and would sleep with a horse if it were nearby, most women still have it together enough to choose men who aren't sexually repugnant to them if there are a number of choices around them.) But you do make a good point in terms of how this kind of environment destroys most discrimination in choosing one's bedfellows (in every sense of the word), and therefore, sucks as a primary socializing conduit.

 

I was addressing myself to your going from "I thought I had some market value" (and didn't that come from confidence built over a lot of experiences? surely you're not going to say you've just assumed your desirability in a vacuum, when that would not apply to any aspect of your historic thought process) to "no one wants you (me)", which means you've discarded all the confidence capital you built.

 

I thought that the disquiet you were expressing in your weekend posts was about whether or not women find you sexually appealing and viable. That's what I was addressing. I can see where you'd be annoyed that she didn't give you credit for being a well-behaved dude with enough social graces to not push yourself on her in an unwelcome way. (Though I tried to provide an alternative interpretation, one of many that could exist, to this one. Evidently, alternatives don't seem to impress you.)

 

But that's not the part that eats away at you, is it? You're not lying awake at night rehashing her assumption of your temerity, are you?

 

And did she say, or even give off the vibe, "Ugh, ew"? Or is that your own overlay/dramatization?

[ProtestTheHero]

My concern is that people who know me better can peer through the façade. My fear is that what's charming and funny for an hour falls apart and that they can sense I'm not really one of "those guys;" and that the ones who know me see me for what I am...16 and unappealing.

 

It feels grosser to be assessed by people that you know. That's why it's almost better to try and hook up with strangers. They can't reject me -- they can only reject a snapshot of me, just as they can only embrace the fast food version of PTH if they were cool with the pitch. The people that have had conversations with me in group settings or over several months and then drop that bomb on me are hitting me with something that's tougher to shake.

 

I know I can shake it and I'm starting to shake it, but it's like being hit with a 90 mph fastball instead of the typical 45'er.

 

I don't know. I think I should be very careful with any woman that I find interesting because I need to be on guard for the possibility that I might start to feel the ache that comes from genuinely appreciating a person.

[itsallgrand]

Hope it's okay if I just ask you this point blank here, IAG, because this ties in --

 

But what would be wrong, if you were single, with making friends with a man who comes into your life, you're not really feeling a massive pull towards eachother romantically, and then......even though you only thought of it fleetingly, you begin to find more and more mutual chemistry growing, until you're quite taken with one another. And then it becomes clearly romantic.

 

What is wrong with that scenario? Why is that verboten?

 

Why doesn't the end result speak for itself?

 

I suppose for me it comes down to wanting to be able to know my friends are my friends, male or female, and that I do not have to contend with possible mixed messages coming into the scene.

 

If I spend some time with a male friend, I do truly expect that he will treat me as a friend. And nothing else.

 

The 'sneak attacks' are what I want to avoid. And not everyone who is friends with a person, and then wants something more, is doign this. But some people are. They take that grey area and use it opportunistically. That's really yucky to me.

 

Friendships do sometimes evolve or even suddenly turn and one or both people start developing different feelings. That's ok, that's life, I'm ok with that, and I even think it can be really great. I had a relationship develop that way once. And it was wonderful; also lucky, that in that instance, it was reciprocal. It isn't always.

 

I suppose my issue is with once that friendship line has been crossed, even if it's just in a persons feelings and mind, say something. Tell me. I'll tell you. I won't ever 'hang out' with you as your friend, secretly wanting in your pants. That's a crude version of it. It doesn't have to be that crude. It can be that, but it can also be, having all kinds of soft sweet feelings and wanting more.

 

It's at that point that I draw the line. I want to trust the people I am with. I want to know how they feel about me. Just enjoy my company? That's cool; that's an acquaintaince. That's the true grey zone and that's fine. Just don't call it friend.

 

I know it sounds like semantics and maybe it is. But when I get with someone, date them or into a relationship with them, I want to know they are the kind of person I can trust that when he says "This is Jen. She's my friend", I know she actually is a friend. Does this make sense?

 

I know some folks who call every person regardless of their relationship with them as 'friend'. Person you just met at a party once, this is my friend so and so. Person you dated briefly and it didn't work out, this is my friend so and so. Person who you share intimate times with and know you can rely on in good and bad, this is my friend so and so.

 

I just want the clarity of the word friend to mean something I guess.

[itsallgrand]

I really do think it's a circumstantial thing. One on one, going to the bars, don't know each other well enough to know you have a really solid friendship under the belt. So people get signals crossed or can jump to conclusions more easily.

 

If you think she is a cool person, maybe you could see her in a situation taht would be 'safer' in terms of building up the friendship. If you became better friends, I can see this being the kind of thing you laugh about down the line. Just an awkward couple of moments your first time having been out together one on one.

[ProtestTheHero]

The setting does play into it...I doubt something happening at 2 PM or at a tamer place carries the same connotations as a bar, casino, etc. My issue is that it was her idea. I didn't plan on seeing her that night. I was texted "Hey, what are you up to, I wanna drink tonight" and all I did was say okay. It's not like I sent her a text or asked her to come out with me. If anyone is going to be playing the "Uh, what are you insinuating here?" card it should have been me, but somehow I wound up on the other side of that one. It was an odd moment.

 

It just felt like, okay, I am obviously supposed to just know for a fact that a woman like her sending me that message is completely innocuous but I make a joke that she misunderstood and her first conclusion is that I must be ready to pounce.

 

Maybe I'm wrong to think that is a little arrogant of her.

 

TOV, I'm not saying that your alternative description of events is not possible. It's just that your description would be far more flattering to me, and nothing about that exchange was flattering, lol.

[tiredofvampires]

I know it sounds like semantics and maybe it is. But when I get with someone, date them or into a relationship with them, I want to know they are the kind of person I can trust that when he says "This is Jen. She's my friend", I know she actually is a friend. Does this make sense?

 

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Though if I can trust my partner, this is a non-issue. The thing is, if you can't trust someone, nothing he says can be taken at face value, so this particular issue is not special in some way. And it has nothing to do with how we started our relationship, or how they did, if they were dating at one point, and then it morphed into just friendship. You either trust the person or you don't.

 

I get what you mean by wanting the word "friend" to mean something.

 

But I also feel that the most important thing is what I know of the relationship, not so much the naming of it. So for instance, if I'm standing next to one acquaintance and another comes along to say hi, I don't have any problem introducing her or him as "my friend." Same for old exes who were once more than friends. And all the other possible scenarios. Because it just makes things glide more smoothly socially sometimes. Other people don't need to know that I don't consider them "a friend who has my back in thick and thin", as opposed to "someone who is well-disposed towards me, but it goes no further." I don't think I've ever introduced someone to another as "this is my acquaintance, Jodie." It just feels...off. Even if it's true. That certainly would go even more for relationships with increasingly complex qualifiers. So on a daily social basis, it's not important to me that we all make these distinctions.

 

The only place the word "friend" really matters to me, as a word, is when I feel I've cemented something very strong with someone, where we've shared a great deal and let down that guard, and then that's violated in some way. Or it's not being reciprocated at some point, with give and take, respect, etc. At that point, I call up what is meant by "friendship" to you and to me, and how I feel that's not jibing.

 

I also know what you mean about the icky "sneak attacks," with the guys you find out are not on the same page as you, but have been pretending (more or less) to be so. Biding their time. Which is sort of along the lines of what this girl with PTH was probably trying to head off (even though I think it was more like an impersonal "company policy" than a statement about PTH), and that's obviously something we can sympathize with him for feeling some indignation about, given he doesn't want to be lumped in with guys who do that.

 

Even then, though, usually I have some sense of when that's brewing. If I'm hanging around a guy long enough, and I can see the way things are taking shape, I can tell if I'm dealing with someone who is genuinely letting himself enjoy my company without ulterior motives, or not. In the end, things come out in the wash. I'd rather err on the side of giving someone the benefit of the doubt, until and unless that time comes that it's no longer tenable.

 

And there are cases where it's just a gamble -- two people are equally open to forming a bond, it's on the same footing, and then one will develop some feelings that weren't anticipated.

 

I wouldn't hold it against someone, though, who kept that to themselves -- if they thought it would only lead to a dead-end, because it's clearly not mutual. I would handle it that way, myself. I don't see that as secretly wanting into someone's pants, as if there's some dirty thing going on...it's that we feel differently, and then what do you do with that. If I'm starting to romantically like a guy I've been befriending, and I can see that he's not into me that way, that there are no signals of that, I have no reason to tell him how I feel. It's not just to save my pride, it's also (and mostly) because then that dynamic is front and center and might taint whatever else we had going for our friendship. It puts a certain burden on them, and sets a tone of apology, if they really care about my feelings (and they should if we're friends). An element of inequality is then set. I don't want to set that tone just for the sake of honesty. I'm all for transparency, but not useless information that just ruins things. I don't feel I'm lying, even by omission. I'm simply not sharing something that is of no use to share, and only detrimental and awkward. I don't feel I have to sacrifice our friendship's openness at that altar. What would he do about it if he knew? What would I do about it if I knew, with the roles reversed? Nothing, except feel uncomfortable.

 

So that's why I'm okay if there is some ambiguity in the beginning/lead-in, the middle, or at any part of the process of setting down roots with someone. I'll know when I know -- and it will become apparent when it's apparent. Of course, once I'm with someone in a relationship, the definition of that is quite straightforward. I'm a vanilla wafer of a one-man woman once I'm in with someone. But all that leads up to that, and the way we got there, could be wide open and circuitous. The proof is in the pudding.

 

And I actually think that expands the opportunities and possibilities. At least for me, it allows for me to go at a pace that feels "safe" with someone, where I'm peeling layers of the onion off in a non-threatening context (which having to impress someone with your sexual allure contradicts)...and I actually think, PTH, that model could work well for you because the risk of fascades the conventional route is very, very high. Which would lead you to thinking that you need them to get by.

 

For someone who is in any way not comfortable with their sexuality, befriending at first is a very healing thing.

[tiredofvampires]

Well, I obviously don't know her, so she could be using you in some way, or arrogant. And you know, to be honest, I'm sorry, but I just don't hold out a lot of hope for someone in that setting who is clearly there for the setting, to turn out to be a magnificent person, lol. That would be more the happy surprise. "Hey, what are you up to, I wanna drink tonight", if she said it like that, sounds almost like you could just substitute the "drink" with "eff", and it would amount to the same kind of thing: we're buddies who just _____. And we do it to distract ourselves, but is there a whole lot of care and consideration, a lot of sensitivity and concern, nope. So there's a kind of "me me me" emphasis to that quote, like "I want to be entertained, where are you?" but of course that's a leap, because there isn't much context for me to assert that. Assuming those were her very words.

 

So I guess now you have me wondering -- what is it about her that you find interesting? What do you like about her? I'm interested in what makes her special in some way to you. What's going on within those conversations while you're hanging out and drinking?

 

In her defense though, if your joke could be misinterpreted -- and I think a lot of people would have misinterpreted it as she did -- that WOULD come off as your being either too easily ready to put me in an awkward position with a friend with your jest, or it would alarm me that indeed, you were leading into something like pouncing. That particular joke taken wrong WOULD throw me off, if I were her, so her reaction to that was justified. The problem is that probably took her as much by surprise as her response took you, but given that at that moment, you were coming off the way you didn't want to be coming off, she took from that something that was not unreasonable.

 

So it's not like she was expressing some vote about your sexual appeal, it was just that wasn't the kind of attention she was wanting from you and was taken aback that that's the direction she thought you were going in. And as I presented in my fictional scenario, it might very well be that for some reason, she felt embarrassed or distressed to be seen as "dating" by this friend or any friend for whatever reason -- these being backstory things you're not privy to. So your reading "what? no way, ew!" into it, or her reaction as some commentary about you, is really going out on a limb of imagination. It's self-purposing the situation.

 

The fact is, you're NOT 16 anymore. And 16-year-old PTH is not the naked you that people can see through some veil if they're looking hard enough. That person is gone, he is someone different now. A lot has happened in a decade. It's almost like you're a butterfly, and because you see yourself still as a caterpillar, you think that's what everyone else sees. And if she didn't want to be seen with you, or was embarrassed in some way by you, would she have asked you to go out with her?

 

Other than that though, taking the Devil's Advocate (and this time I am)...because for some reason I'm not too impressed by this little bit about her so far, haha...how SHOULD a woman "like her" (and what do you mean by "a woman like her"?) approach you if she just enjoys your company and wants a drinking partner that she knows is not going to mess with her, is safe, and brings the fun? I know this is not the case, but the way you've said it, it almost sounds as if you're saying a woman who takes the initiative to ask a guy out for a friendship night of drinking ought to be aware she's creating a mixed message, so anything weird that results at any point is on her.

 

I guess in some way though, it's not hard for anyone in these circumstances to become part of a mixed message. Like IAG said, the themes and tacit messages that are so prevalent in this environment are likely to create confusion. It's a testy environment by nature. It's like, the norm is that at some point, either one or both of you would test the envelope, having had one too much. Just in the abstract. It's hard to ignore what's par for the course when a loaded comment, joke or not, comes along in that situation. Like you yourself said...the die is almost somewhat cast when she makes the offer to go out. That wouldn't be the same if you were in a chess club and she asked you if you'd like to play out in the park on Sunday at 2 pm because you were the best player in the group. We wouldn't be having this same conversation, because the same prompts would not have come up. And the same tacit messages/ambiguities would not be on the radar, ready at the helm to broadcast themselves at the least provocation, at least not for a while.

 

 

 

So maybe...this connects up with why you're frequenting places where you don't stand a very good chance of being known. Maybe the bar scene minimizes the chance of running into some woman who is actually interesting to you, and interested in you. For being YOU, not just a body nearby. Bash book clubs all you like, but the biggest problem with them is that they don't offer you the distancing buffers a bar offers in the form of alcohol and people that are more easily ignored. It's not that people in bars are more interesting, it's that because you don't run the risk of having a ton in common with them besides the "hobby" of drinking, you're safe.

 

Once you found more common ground with a woman...that would be a lot scarier.

 

Quite a bit scarier than the social scenes playing out in front of you where people are screwing each other over left and right.

[ProtestTheHero]

What I have discovered is that matches that seem nice on paper rarely live up to that reality. You could find a woman at a book club that you think would be a good fit for me and there's just as much of a chance that she'd bore me to tears as someone at a casino.

 

I don't evaluate people beyond a few basic elements...job? kids? interesting? That's pretty much it. If you're funny and assertive and you are an active participant in conversation instead of a mere recipient then I will find you fun. That is what she is and that is what Ms. Nabokov is not guaranteed to be should I find myself surrounded by erudite, stone sober readers.

 

Being intelligent or an avid reader doesn't make you inherently interesting. I was both of those things at a time when few that saw me daily would have known my name.

 

Finding common ground is so elusive. I can play chess and I enjoy it but I'm not a chess player. I read books for the love of literature but I'm not a book club guy. I work at an auditing firm but "auditor" isn't a word I'd use to describe me.

 

People so badly want to define and pigeonhole themselves. They want to crawl into the comfort of a niche and never leave. I don't want to be that way and so I always feel like an outsider because I can't drink the koolaid of whatever pastime I'm engaged in fast enough.

 

If I find a sarcastic misanthrope who hits me with an Oscar Wilde line and is devastatingly attractive then I'll come back and eat my crow.

[tiredofvampires]

But you're missing my point. And you keep missing it. rrr lol

 

I agree with every single word you've said here, and hold the same beliefs.

 

You don't have to pigeonhole yourself as a "book club guy" or a "reader" or a "lover of literature" or an ANYTHING to put yourself in a situation where that's going on. That's where you're going wrong here. Going to a book club meeting doesn't make you a "book club guy" because once you step out of that book club and into the bar scene, you're now a "bar-hopping guy". And when you step out of that and sit home playing video games, you're a "video games nerd." They're all true, they're all you, and they're all not you. You get to be an amalgam of whatever it is you do, and none of them have to be tattooed on your identity, or even define it. You're a COMPLETELY FREE AGENT.

 

A free agent can go to a book club discussion on Saturday afternoon, hit the bars that night, chill out playing video games Sunday at high noon, go out and play chess with a friend at the mall later in the afternoon, and dabble at song lyrics before he goes to sleep that night. Then the next day go to his job, where his title is "auditor."

 

People have called me all kinds of things. Out of respect for my abilities, out of a certain view of what I am, out of whatever need there was to identify me to another person, and I just always knew that those were sides to me being seen by different people. I'm not drinking any koolaid though. Your framing it like that is very telling about how much disdain you have about certain things, but it's missing the forest through the trees.

 

The bigger picture is that you don't have to favor the bar nightlife OR the book club, and doing these things are not mutually exclusive. It doesn't make you a "this" or "that", and it doesn't determine, according to your own theory, what you might find where. Of course there's no guarantee that you'll find someone interesting at a book club. Of course interesting people can appear anywhere. If you look at the line-up of guys in my past, they are such a motley crew, you'd almost wonder if the same girl had dated them all. In fact, because you could loosely label them "jocks" or "artists" or "intellectuals", etc., etc., in quite a number of cases, I was the poster girl for nothing dating the poster boys for xyz. And I'm good with that, about myself. So that means I'd have been open to whatever rings the bell, rather than a paper-perfect match made in a prefabricated environment. With you there.

 

But it seems you're all for not having preconceived ideas, so long as those ideas are not the kinds of preconceived ideas you already have.

 

You could find a sarcastic misanthrope who hits you with an Oscar Wilde line and bats her gorgeous eyes at you at a bar. Then again, it could just happen at some crazy place like a book club, too. Just think!

 

I'm not trying to push book clubs or chess circles on you. But I do think you're severely limiting your exposure to different kinds of people, or maybe I should just say PEOPLE and environments. If one environment is as good as another, as you seem to be asserting, why aren't you treating them equally?

 

You will never hear me say that you can't find the right fit in the most unlikely of places, or places you don't expect. But let's get real -- it would be disingenuous of me if I told you I thought all places are created equal, and I think even though you are resisting relenting on this, you'd agree with me. You said that places attract people, but they don't "breed" them. I only partly agree with that. I think places and environments don't create human vices, they attract those with them -- but because the human brain becomes more and more of what it's exposed to, as a fact of biology, these places also breed more of the same. It's a two-way circuit. I wanted to address that point earlier, and then IAG nailed it with the Chapelle video. People come with their vices, and that breeds violence, and that then further concretizes the monster.

 

The odds of meeting a "quality person" drop in a bar, in terms of probabilities, and the reason is plain: it's the purpose of the place. Purpose is everything. The name of the game there is hooking up, using substances to escape life, partying, and creating drama. Perhaps you'll be bristling at the words, "quality person" so let me define it, so that you don't think I mean "a person who tests out at a high IQ and can recite sonnets off the top of their head": all I mean by that is someone who is going to treat you well, who is a reliable, trustworthy person, and someone who holds values that will edify your relationship.

 

A self-aware person, a person who is interested in being the best version of themselves with you is hard to find anywhere, but your probabilities go down in a bar. You can find intelligence + fun in a lot of people in many places -- that doesn't make them good relationship material.

 

It's kind of like, do you think those guys paying for their fiancees to go to the casino, who slaved at their jobs to find that perfect engagement ring, did well by themselves? Or do you think their woman picker was broken? They found fun, entertaining, lively, sexy women with jobs -- all the major criteria. Really? REALLY? Not saying you'd get with a woman like that. But they clearly missed something along the way, didn't they. They missed the whole character piece. I was thinking about it, and you know, the fact of the matter is that I can't for the life of me imagine the guy who I marry being the kind of guy to go to a bachelor party (which the bachelorette party is derived from -- this is your last night to pretend the world is your oyster with women, at a bachelor party...so, hardly a matrimonial state of mind.) I don't think it's impossible, just improbable, and if it did happen, we'd both know it's for some friend who is "that type", and we'd be collectively rolling our eyes. I can't imagine my guy having a best friend who would have such a party thrown for him. Most of all, I can't imagine marrying a guy who would want one. That's not because I love literature, though. That's not because I have or have not stepped foot in a book club (I have, but not in years, as it's not particularly my thing either, mostly because I read too slowly and I do very few things at the same time every month or week, my schedule is erratic. And believe it or not, I would be very surprised to meet a man for dating purposes there; if I went, it would just be to go.) That's because I know that a man who is wanting a bachelor party or welcoming one is going to have a lot of other traits that don't mesh with me, and our values would be different. Most of all, our ideas of "fun" would be different. But if I did gravitate towards someone like that, I'd be of the same mindset as them, and in that case, you reap what you sow. That's the cruel truth of it. Certain problems run rife in certain settings, and those problems are attached to people. I don't know why anyone would go out of their way to deny this. It's the obvious.

 

You can find a fun, interesting girl in a casino or bar, and you can find one in any other setting as well. You're trying to make the point that you've opened more doors by not pigeonholing. Like I said, all you've done is pigeonholed certain people and not others. Heck, who needs to pigeonhole themselves when you're more than happy to do it for them?

 

You've closed more doors than you've opened.

 

That's your choice, but I just wanted to point out I think it's limiting. I also think it's driven by emotional factors that go beyond simply not wanting to encounter stuffy bourgeoisie people. That's the ostensible reason.

 

Pardon me if I sound a little irked, lol, but it irks me that you'd pigeonhole people you haven't even met, write things off sight unseen, things you haven't even tried because they're automatically "koolaid", and then say it's because you're keeping an open mind.

 

I don't see how you can afford that thinking where you live.

 

Or....anywhere, because how is that serving you?