Just trying to start a dialog about the whole "just not into you" thing.

Really... my example:

There is a guy that I know that seems to like me. I know I like him a lot... Both of us are divorced from spouses that cheated on us and never looked back. We have lots of things in common, and whenever we get the opportunity to talk in person or on the phone(a couple of times a week), we generally chat for an hour or two. Granted, not as long as some people's marathon talks, but we are also regularly in contact via e-mail, and in gatherings of friends.

Rejection is not something I'm ready to experience again - just thinking about it feels a lot like someone has actually cut me with a dull blade ... so, it won't be me making any moves toward changing the level of our relationship, at least not for the time being.

I'd be willing to bet money that he has the same issues - his experience with infidelity was far worse than mine (XW cheated with his brother after cheating with someone else - and then married his brother - the family works together, so he must have to see her all the time).

Under these circumstances, I'm not yet willing to write him off as "just not that into me" since I haven't exactly been shouting from the rooftops that I'm into him, either.

Isn't it possible that the guy that doesn't ask for your phone number is just as afraid of rejection as you are, and could be a wonderful companion if you gave him some time (not forever, of course). Or should you follow the book's advice and jettison him as "just not that into you" because he's not beating down your door for your phone number?

I'm not looking for any psychoanalysis here - we all know how devastating infidelity can be to a marriage, both to the former BS whose WS never tries to save the marriage or to the former WS whose spouse refuses to try to recover...

CS

I'm in agreement with you. In fact, I'm disappointed with all the doom and gloom around here.

The guy I'm dating is VERY into me. And it took him quite a while to ask me out, not because he wasn't into me, but because he is very shy, and was afraid of rejection and not sure how to enter the dating game again, so on and so forth. Infact, after I had met him, and been around him a few times, I said THOSE EXACT words to myself; "oh, he's just not that into me, no big deal". If I had let it go at that, we probably would not have gone out ever. It took me letting him know that if he DID ask me out, I would say yes, before he could get up the courage to ask.

The message I get from here, frequently, is that we must be completely "healed" from our divorces before we can be part of a healthy relationship. I disagree. I am in a very healthy relationship. We both have fears, strong ones, about falling too hard and getting hurt. Are we rebounding? Yes. Is it doomed? Not necessarily, and not for the support of many here who insist that if we haven't been alone for at least 1 year for each 5 of marriage then we are not "healed" and any relationship we enter will fail.

I think you should continue to be this man's friend. Being his supportive friend now will show yourselves to each other, and it sounds like you ARE being yourselves and getting to know each other on a more intimate (not sexual) level.

cm

This is a very good topic and one that each of us will face at one time or another. Also, I do not feel it is gender specific.


I agree with this, but only to a point. Most "rebound" relationships do not last, for the very same reason(s) that most affair relationships do not last. However, there are exceptions to both.

I feel that each person is on a different timeline as to when they are "ready" for another committed, monogamous relationship. It is for this reason that I feel the "He/she's not into me..." generality is flawed. I for one am not ready to enter into a serious relationship with anyone. However, I occasionally date, which is healthy on many levels. At this time, my "dates" are more like "social outings", because I have no desire to enter into a committed relationship right now. However, any of the women that I go out with could consider that I "am simply not that into her". Which would be untrue and also unfair. I "am just not into a committed relationship" right now, regardless of who is involved.

On the other hand <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />, I wholeheartedly do not agree that each of us should wait the 4-7 years , 27 dates...blah,blah until we allow ourselves to enter another committed relationship. Do we need to be cognizant of our emotions? Certainly. And should we jump from person to person for a month or so at a time until one seems to fit? No, that's highly unhealthy.

I feel that we should take the necessary amount of time to recognize what happened (truly happened!) in our individual situations! Once we've been honest with ourselves, about our role and our ex's role; only then can the healing/rebuilding process begin. And once the healing process begins, is when we should begin considering the possibility of entering into a committed relationship.

FR <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Rejection is a major part of a male's life. We learn early that out of every 10 women we approach, eight or nine are going to reject us outright. Okay, that's the way it is and we learn to cope with it or be alone. In more recent years, you not only risk being rejected, but also treated like you have some sort of social disease. So lot of men play their cards close to their chest and proceed with caution.
javascript:void(0)
Men who are not players always carefully consider approaching a woman in whom they are interested. We will test the waters and try not to come on too strong. We do this because we respect you. We understand that women are constantly being hit on horney men and have become a bit jaded. If we are interested in you and not just your genitals, we don't want to be perceived as just another horn-dog sniffing around you.

If things aren't hard enough, we now have some unqualified clown, telling you that his book will "empower" you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> What he is really doing is manipulating you into accepting player behavior. That is, convince you that that if he isn't really aggressive in pursuing you, "he's not that into you," when the truth is, the more aggressive his pursuit is, the more likely he's going to play you.

Check,

Why do you assume an aggressive pursuit means disrespect? From a purely physical standpoint, I could accept that argument if a man does not accept "no" as an answer.

A guy that feels compelled to call just to hear your voice.
A guy that stops for a single flower to lay at your doorstep because he can't stop thinking of you.
A guy that sees a small insignificant thing in a store and buys it to give to you because it reminds him of something silly the two of you did.
A guy that wants to make plans with you on Monday for Friday or Saturday just to make sure that he is the first to ask for your time.
A guy that dances with you all night then wants to take you for breakfast so that you can spend a little more time together.
A guy that wants to take you for a walk in the part so that he can talk to you even if he isn't rich enough for a fancy dinner date.
A guy that calls you in the morning to see if you slept well then calls you at night to wish you sweet dreams.
A guy that wants to know all your dreams and fantasies.
A guy that searches for information on a topic that he knows interests you so that he can share your passion.

These are all ways a guy can aggressively pursue a woman and have nothing but respect for the woman.

I once met a guy who didn't get my number that night but knew what chain I worked for and drove by every store in town looking until he found me. Very aggressive - very romantic. It was one of the things I truly regret - that I didn't hang onto that relationship.

V.

No, Sunny, NONE of the items in your list are an aggressive approach. There is a HUGE difference between an assertive and active approach and an aggressive one. Assertiveness is good, aggression is never, ever good and this appies to all situations, not just romance.

Don't take my word for it. Look up assertive and aggressive in the dictionary. Then come back and tell me which kind of man you'd rather become involved with.

Women who go for aggressive men always, always, always, put themselves at risk of being played. You need to come to understand this before you start dating again.

[/b]

[color:"blue"] I guess Check, that most of the aggressive definitions carry negative conotations, however, I was leaning toward bold, energetic, and assertive - not hostile.

by the way: definition for assertive:[/color]



[color:"blue"]Seems like assertive behavior includes aggressive behavior...

Aggressively pursuing someone does not mean that you have a hostile intent. In areas of romance it simply means that you are bold and assertive - active - interested.

Totally THAT into someone.

V.[/color]

We tend to mix definitions in American English. I do not; agressive and assertive are not the same and should not be used interchangeably. We do this too much, and miscommunicate.

In romance aggression may not be hostile, but is certainly isn't benevolent either. The things you listed in your last post are common courtesy, acts designed to show respect, admiration and genuine interest. They cannot be in anyway considered aggression.

BTW, aggressive men are the ones who later abuse their spouses. Leave them alone.

So much subjectivity...

Much of what is perceived as "romantic" in one context could be perceived as "stalking" in another. And much of what is perceived as "considerate" in one context could be perceived as "intrusive" in another.

For years my (now ex-)wife conditioned me to feel that the initiation of any interaction was an inconsiderate intrusion. And after she left, she accused me of stalking, even though I was doing everything possible to avoid communication and contact.

You can be darn sure that I don't call a woman just because I want to hear her voice, no matter how interested I am. I have too much respect for her and her time to interrupt her without good cause, no matter how much I might be tempted to do so.

Are my judgement and perceptions skewed as a result of my background? No doubt they are. Behavior I would choose out of consideration for a woman's needs, she might well consider to be an indication that I am inconsiderate or disinterested. ("Why doesn't he call? He must just not care...")

My moral beliefs regarding physical intimacy - especially chastity outside of marriage - also dictate behavior which could easily be mistaken for a lack of interest.

I think it's worth noting that I thus represent two reasons why my interest level could be misinterpreted which do not fall into the category of me being "afraid to get burned."

Yes, fear of rejection is a huge impediment for guys. (myself included) If you're interested, it is ALWAYS a good thing to let him know you are interested.

I don't think the book tells women to jettison men if they don't display a little boldness. I think what it says is that if the woman is the one who has to do ALL the pursuing and makes excuses for the guy when he doesn't do ANY pursuing, then ultimately the relationship isn't going to happen because he's not going to put the work into it.

I am having trouble understanding your concern. The first three paragraphs seem to describe a very healthy situation - you both seem to like each other, spend time talking on the phone, and spend time together at gatherings with friends. To me, that is the ideal situation from which to consider moving into dating.

So where does the concern of the last paragraph come from? I am assuming that he does in fact have your number, since you are in regular phone contact, so what is your concern? Is it that he hasn't hinted at moving beyond friendship? Why are you talking about jettisoning him because of some book?

From my POV, this whole "He is not that into you" phrase has nothing to do with a platonic-with-a-possibility situation like yours - it applies to those out-of-whack situations where the couple is already dating, but one partner is much more distant than the other, typically because they are not all that interested.

Unless you feel like he is playing you (which does not appear to be the case), I would think that your situation is a good one, much better than the common horror stories we seem to see here <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

Actually AGG, I think you misunderstood the intent of my sharing my situation... it's not that I'm concerned about it - if it is going to happen it will, and I'm not going to push it OR walk away from it at this point. My post is more about my objection to the whole idea that when a guy doesn't beat down our doors it means he's not interested. I don't think it means anything of the sort - certainly not in ALL cases!

I was using the friendship-possibly-more situation in which I find myself to describe what I think the author of "He's Just Not That Into You" would advise a woman to walk away from. The excerpts that I read and the "questions" the author answers seem as though he advocates that if a guy isn't pursuing fairly aggressively, then he's not worth waiting around for. The book doesn't limit itself to sitations where a couple is already dating, it appears to address virtually all situations in which a man is not openly pursuing a woman he knows or has just met.

I think that it is empowering, yes, for a woman to be able to say to herself that she was the one to walk away and not sit around waiting. And I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing to move on if someone is not showing interest. But I think if we walk away every time someone is not on the phone by the next day after we've met them, we cannot truly ever know what we've walked away from. I'm certainly not advocating that we wait around for months or years for a guy to make a move, but on the other hand, like with my friend, if there's been the degree of hurt that he's been through, it might take him a lot longer to make that move than another guy who doesn't have that kind of background. I could tell myself "he's just not that into me" and move on, and I wouldn't be hurt by that since I was the one who chose to move on, but would I actually be RIGHT in making the determination of how he really feels? Maybe not.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that I think "He's Just Not That Into Me" is not, IMNSHO, a particularly sound relationship guide for all people in all situations. I think that some guys might really be into a woman but just be slower and more cautious about expressing it, and that is NOT necessarily a bad thing. It'll be nice if that's what I find out in my own situation, and I'm going to stick around for a bit and find out - and not walk away just yet.

CS

Ah, now I get it <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. I guess that's what I get for not reading very carefully the first time.

OK, now I wholeheartedly agree with you <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> - you are in a good place with your platonic-but-maybe-more friend, taking things slowly, and not dumping him because he hasn't made a move, as some book would tell you to do. Good girl <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

I never read that book, but from the sounds of it, it is somewhat over-the-top. I can't imagine someone finding fault with situation where the man and woman are taking their time in getting to know each other. To jettison that relationship just because they are going slowly is absurd.

The one thing I would worry about is when one person really IS into the other, but the other does not reciprocate. That is when the relationship becomes unbalanced, and one person will become the pursuer, while the other will almost involuntarily become the distancer. In those case, the idea of the book to cut things off is probably pretty close to being on the money.

In my earlier dating I several times made the mistake of getting sucked into that pursuer mode (yes, "she" can be not into you also, it's not a gender-sensitive issue <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />). I no longer allow that to happen, and I find that it leads to much healthier relationships. I once fell back into that pattern because I met a lady that I REALLY liked, and I figured if I like her, why not show it... The answer was that by "showing it", i.e. showing my interest, I drove her away, because the thrill of the chase was gone.

Anyway, I think there is some merit to the book, but we need to be careful to not overdo it and ruin potentially good relationships. Sounds like you have one, keep up the good work <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

Another question - why are you thinking of this as "sticking around a bit longer before walking away"? Why, if things continue this way for another two or three months, would YOU not make the first move, even a subtle one? I mean if you really like the guy, would you be willing to walk away just because he hasn't made a move? Wouldn't that be contradicting what you said about not jettisoning things?

Not criticizing, just wondering <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

Hmmm... yes, I can see that it may seem from my choice of words that I am looking at walking away somewhere down the line. But that would be after the part where I found out, as in <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Granted, I didn't state specifically that I would be "making the first move" but I'd have to do something at some point to find out how he feels if he doesn't find a way to tell me. Only if I find that he is not interested in taking the relationship to a different level would I walk away. And, really, I wouldn't want to completely cut ties with him even then (unless it became very awkward and difficult for some reason) because I do enjoy his friendship.

CS

That book sounds a lot like something my aunt said to me when I was 19. Part of what she said was that if a guy was really interested, he would spell it out in no uncertain terms, and if he didn't, he wasn't all that interested.

It took me a bit to realize in entirety what she was saying -- that there is tremendous personal liberation in simply skipping the whole "does he like me or not" obsessing. If he doesn't find a way to make it abundantly clear, it's probably not all that important to him.

Of course there are exceptions, and I've run into quite a few guys who've demonstrated that there's far more of a grey area there than seems readily apparent. In college there were quite a few who would hang around me a lot, drop endless hints about wanting there to be romance, try to manipulate situations where they hoped I would ask them out, and so on, but not actually just out with it and ask me out or say they wanted a romantic relationship. I tended to feel both sympathy for the guy and severe irritation in these situations. When a guy is hung up on a girl to the extent that half the campus is commenting on it, what's the point of creating an imaginary line in the sand that says none of it is real because he hasn't come out and said so? As much as I generally empathized with the guy's feelings, I could never help feeling fundamentally disgusted at the dishonesty.

And that made me realize the other piece of that bit of wisdom of my aunt's -- who wants to be with an emotional coward? They're generally too busy spinning their own defenses to be a whole lot of fun.

Anyway, the key point is that we all make decisions about disqualifications in those we consider as romantic partners, and we are all responsible for the results of those choices, whether or not the results are what we think they should be. What the qualifiers/disqualifiers should be is a highly personal choice, and what's liberating for one person might be misery for another.

So it's not necessary to take it too seriously when someone states what they think should be a consideration for everybody. It's also not necessary to take it seriously when someone object to the qualifiers you use yourself -- it's your life, not theirs.

AMEN!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Couldn't have summed it up better than that!! Thank you!!

I tend to take the whole "he's just not that into you" one step further--if the two of you are still afraid of rejection and infidelity because of your pasts, then neither of you are READY for a relationship.

I don't think it's fair to anyone if you decide to date before you've dealt with the issues of your previous relationship. Anyone who has experienced infidelity must get over that hurt and pain BEFORE they begin to date again. Failure to do that just allows your issues to filter into your new relationship.

Is it that he's "just not into you"? NOPE--it's that you're both not ready to be in another relationship.

Chrystal, I'm not sure why this is an either or situation.
Why not stay friends with the gentleman, but pursue other opportunities until he asks you out?

I do think you have to assume that he only likes you as a friend until he asks you out. JMO.

Greengables,
Now I'm confused. Where did I say it was an either or situation? If I'm not mistaken, I specifically stated that I value his friendship, and if it turns out that it will never be more than that, I would certainly like to remain his friend. I am enjoying getting to know him better just the way we are doing so. I am not assuming anything more than that - just observing that there seem to be signs that he might be interested.

aeri,
I disagree that I am not ready for a relationship simply because the thought of rejection makes me nauseous. Apparently then, I've NEVER been ready for a relationship, since this is something I've dealt with my ENTIRE life - before marriage and infidelity and divorce ever entered into it. Who here can honestly say they ENJOY rejection?

You know, when someone has had their heart ripped out and stomped on by people they are supposed to be able to trust (i.e., spouse and blood kin), it is wise to be cautious when attempting to reenter the relationship arena. That does NOT in any way mean that one hasn't "dealt with" their issues and therefore is not ready for a relationship.

How do you propose that we work through our anxiety? Just sit at home and wait until one day it just vanishes on its own? I spent quite a bit of time in counseling after my ex left - the counselor told me I'm in pretty good emotional shape. I think I'll take the word of the professionals, thank you.

Folks, my point, if you review my original post, was not to analyze my situation, but to bring up the fact that some people are simply more cautious and slow moving than others. That doesn't make them emotional cowards, either - I personally think it makes them far braver than the people that fling themselves into a frenzy of dating and shallow encounters for the specific purpose of minimizing any kind of emotional connection (and NO I am not talking about TBG - or anyone who posts regularly here, for that matter). Those of us who take our time will find a satisfying long term relationship just as others do, it will just take us a little longer. We are not cowards of any kind, nor are we not ready for a relationship.