Having actually been on the other side of this with a woman who eventually yelled at me for not picking up on her flirting, I will say that it's often hard to pick out the flirting interest from just the general friendliness interest. If you assume a dating interest when there is none, then the person you've turned down looks like a fool and the person turned down thinks the person is really stuck on her/him self (which is what I think when a woman I'm not interested in tells me that she's not interested in me). For what it's worth, I would just go back to being "normal" to her and forget the whole thing. Even if you assume the worst about her treatment of you, it's not worth worrying about.
Pretty much what the lady said. One more point though, the way that invitation was formed might actually be negative to one's feeling about you. You are the one that wants to date her, but the way the invitation went, it's like asking her to make a decision between dating or hanging out. If she chooses dating over hanging out, it'll appear that she wants you over you want her, since you are OK with both options and she prefers dating. She might think:" Ok, this guy wants to date me, but he doesn't want to admit it. Instead he poses a multiple choice question and let me choose for him." That's bad for your image. It's better to speak your mind, the worst feedback is just a no. Now you might still be blaming her for not telling you that she prefers to go "hanging out with common friends". That way at least you get to know clearly what she thinks. But let's look at it this way, if you can't muster up enough courage to ask her out directly, that means you are afraid to hear "No", then wouldn't an answer like "I just want to hang out" become just another form of "No"? It's just a matter of euphemism. You posed a picture of a man that's afraid to take no as an answer, wouldn't you friend choose an vague feedback so that you won't get hurt by euphemism of "No"? It's not her fault for not telling you what she thinks clearly if you don't tell her what you think clearly. The best way for her, to take care of your feeling, is silence, since she doesn't wanna date you and she doesn't want to say no, one way or the other, to you. What can she do? Keep silent. IMO it's not good dating coworkers anyway. If you like Zhang Zi Yi, why not try out Asian girls? They are good at giving off signs, at least to my knowledge.
In answer to the general question of why women aren't straightforward about communicating their lack of interest, the answer isn't really that complicated. No one likes to be put into the position of having to say something that might be unpleasant to someone else. But the real reason isn't actually due to the desire to avoid hurting the other person's feeling as most people think. The real reason is that being put into that position is extremely unpleasant TO THE PERSON herself and thus people try very hard to avoid being putting themselves into that situation. If that means being vague or being non-responsive, then that is the course of action she will take. It is definitely not a women thing either as many guys also do this. And it extends beyond dating to almost any type of situation. However, there is a very simple solution to this problem which is to be as straightforward but as polite as possible when asking someone out but at the same time offering them an escape and making sure that you interpret the escape as a proper NO. Of course why are many guys vague about asking someone out. It is because many guys feel uncomfortable about "confronting" a person and also also difficulty with dealing with rejection as well.
Well, I had an interesting conversation with a mutual friend tonight. It turns out that this girl has all kinds of problems - basically, she is as nutty as a fruitcake. So, this has all turned out for the best. But I may still stiff her for the hell of it.
Wow - this is so good it's got to be repeated. Mrs. JB - are you serious? Do you really think the majority of females work this way, or are you just giving your personal point of view? In any case, thanks for the female point of view.
Everybody works this way. But most of us never even realize it because it generally happens on a subconscious level. But if you start to pay attention to the people who really irritate you or amuse you or make you happy, you'll start to see the patterns at work. I try very hard to pay attention to the people I dislike (there have even been some on this BBS ). I pick out the traits in them that I find most annoying (ie... judgementalism, inflexibility, harshness) and, invariably, they are traits I share. This gives me an opportunity to examine why I still hold onto those behaviors. Alternately, when I find people I truly like, I pick out their qualities I'm drawn to (ie... intelligence, sense of humor, compassion), I find that I share those also. I can then work on further cultivating those qualities. The most interesting part of this exercise comes when I change my behavior. If I pick a day and, for the entire day, work on being more tolerant and less judgemental, I find that everyone around me become more tolerant (at least toward me) as well. The bottom line is we don't operate in a vacuum. All of our thoughts, beliefs and behaviors (even the unspoken ones) have an effect on the people around us. And those people mirror our thoughts, beliefs and behaviors right back to us.
Zac -- I guess the best analogy I can give you is to think of interacting with someone else like seeing your reflection in a pond. The reflection is constantly changing depending on the direction of the wind, ripples on the water and the play of light through the trees. However, even though our reflection in it may change due to surface conditions, the pond still remains the pond. In that same manner, our essential self remains the same even while our surface is constantly changing and reflecting back to others.
There is no original. Everything is simulacra. Manny, You should have been honest. Even if she is a nutjob.
rimbaud, That analysis seems incomplete to me. The answer to the semi-infinite iteration of persona reflection is perhaps most deeply and most recently explored in the work of Matthew Barney. Let's take this scene from Cremaster II. The mirrored saddle (also representing the male cremaster muscle) spins in the center of this round mirrored room. A couple two steps around the saddle. The implications of this scene for the question at hand are as obvious as they are profound. I hope you find solace in this, Manny, when faced with the paradox that follows from Mrs. JB's otherwise devastating mirror commentary. Oh, and also... PS -- I love Matthew Barney.
B-bob, I am a new man now that you pulled out a Cremaster (II, no less) reference AND included the appropriate image. Suddenly, I have hope for the world. Of course, the truth is that Cremaster II did not take place. Ugh...feeling nihilistic.
Yes, rimbaud, but Matthew is there for you still. After reading your posts, I often think of you as... : ... the male exhausted then vanquished in the public ring of academia. Or, uh, somewhere on a barren salt flat of the BBS at least.
I think it is official....we have found someone who can match and even overtrump rimbaud's weirdness and bizarreness in B-Bob.
Sorry, Manny, It's pretty lame of me to hijack your thread about your love life and to start posting about Matthew Barney. Like that. There's really no excuse. I mean, these are not the kind of images you want floating around in your head next time you consider intimacy with a woman. Or, ... are they? ...
