Climbing mountains and slaying dragons

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-06-1999
Climbing mountains and slaying dragons
29
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 9:27am

A response on another thread got me thinking, but I didn't want to highjack that thread for a side trip.

"A man who's into you will climb the mountain, slay the dragon, and do whatever it takes to win your heart."

Will he steal? lie? cheat? kill?

I assume the answer would be something like "No, he's a good guy and it's not in his nature to do such things". Well, what if it's not in his nature to climb mountains or slay dragons either? Does that mean he's not into you, or that it's just not in his nature to take certain actions you are looking for?

It just seems I hear this sort of reasoning "A man will do X if he's into you". I put as much stock in that as "He will do X if he loves you". We all have our own value, morals and experiences which drive what we are willing and not willing to do. Doesn't matter if I love you or if I'm into you. If what you are looking for is not part of my nature to give, I won't give it. It's against my character to take that action. This doesn't mean I don't love you or I'm not into you. It just seems like individual differences aren't really being taken into consideration and it's just easier to say "he's not into you".

I can hear NorthWestWanderer already... If he won't do X, then I'm not interested in a relationship with him. I can certain accept that. That's a much better answer than "he'd do X if he were really into you".

Brokk...

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 1:01pm

This topic has been a pet peeve of mine for a few months. The concept of "He's Just Not That Into You" seems to have morphed from a review of existing relationships to a set of expectations (usually secret) that a man is obligated to do as proof that he's into her.

In worst-case scenarios it's similar to being treated like a circus animal obligated to run an obstacle course complete with fire burning hoops (deal-breakers). The difference is, men must wear blindfolds since we are rarely told about the hoops (expectations & requirements) especially the fire burning ones.

As a man, what I really wish for is - for a woman to have enough courage and self-responsibility to ask for what she wants should I not be doing things that she deems important to her. If her request is positive, proactive, fair, reasonable and achievable - then I will do everything I can to make it real. At minimum there is a platform in which to discuss and negotiate a compromise that is a fair and reasonable approach for both people.

What I don't want as part of my life is a relationship where I get judged, labelled and accused for not meeting secret expectations because the woman lacks the self-responsibility to be an equal partner.

Avatar for northwestwanderer
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 1:30pm

Exactly! It's about what each person wants, and whether the other person is willing and/or able to meet those needs, than having some set criteria that apply to everyone. I want a guy who is willing to extend himself a bit to show his interest in me, rather than someone passive. So a guy who won't ask me out even after I've made my interest clear (by saying something like, I'd love to go do XYZ with you some time) is not going to be a good match for me. That behavior might be perfect for someone else, though (although I personally think that someone who is so shy or afraid of rejection or whatever that he can't ask someone out who's interested in him, assuming he is interested and available, has issues. But some people are ok with those kind of issues!).

I read the whole HJNTIY thing NOT as saying that there are specific things a guy has to do (I think the situations that are in the book are meant mainly as examples), but rather, if you're not HAPPY with what he's doing and he's not meeting your needs, then you're not right for each other. HJNTIY is just a catchy phrase to encapsulate that concept, not something to be taken literally. OTOH, even if he doesn't call every single day, if you're perfectly happy with how often he calls, then there's nothing to be worried about.

One of the most important lessons I've learned in recent years is that just because YOU would do something if you loved someone or whatever, doesn't mean the other person would do that thing if he loved you or would only do something for the same reason you would or whatever. Not everyone has the same reasons or motivations as you for doing something or not doing it. So it's not really "if he loved me, he'd do X", it's more "I want a man who will do X, and since he's not doing X, maybe we're not a good fit". Him not doing X doesn't mean he doesn't love you, necessarily, it means the two of you might not be right for each other.

Sheri

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2006
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 1:54pm

I get what you're saying.

Jilly

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-06-1999
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 2:45pm

"As a man, what I really wish for is - for a woman to have enough courage and self-responsibility to ask for what she wants"

I lost track of the number of times I've heard "If I have to ask for it, then it doesn't count. You have to want to do it without me asking".

Brokk...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-06-1999
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 2:48pm

"I want a man who will do X, and since he's not doing X, maybe we're not a good fit"

It takes two to make a good fit. What you say above is perfectly reasonable and shows a responsibility on both sides to make it happen. However, "he's just not into you", seems to lay the whole situation at the man's feet. It's all on his shoulders. He's flawed, so that's why it's not going to work. He's just not that into you. He doesn't love you enough.

Brokk...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-06-1999
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 2:57pm

For every rule there is an exception.

"For instance, I think a man calling at least once or twice a week is fairly basic."

We had another male poster up here called GoGoBear. He *hated* the phone. As far as he was concerned it was merely for brief contacts and not for learning about each other. His calls tended to be measured in a minute or less. He would happily go out and spend ours talking with his dates, but don't expect him to call unless it was to arrange one.

"But Brokk, you'd be surprised at how many men seem to think it's perfectly OK to spend weeks emailing, calling and IM'ing a woman, and then they never ask her to go anywhere!! And I'm not talking about inviting her to hang out in his apartment watching DVDS."

You just described the start of my relationship with my wife. We exchanged volumes of email with each other before our first date *and* our first date was her coming over to my place to watch a DVD (of course in those days DVDs were a new fad and no one had them). We really didn't "go out" much at the very beginning. We had busy lives. Eventually we did, but that was as we learned more about what each other liked.

"Call me crazy, but I don't think a man is all that excited about a woman if he isn't interested in going out on a date with her."

Some people just aren't that interested in going out places. Some people don't watch TV, others don't read newspapers or book and some people don't go out. Now if a guy goes out all the time, but never spends time outside the house with someone he's dating, that is very suspect.

All this just goes back to having your interest judged with a broad brush, rather than accepting that perhaps those things are outside the norm for that person.

Brokk...

Avatar for northwestwanderer
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 2:57pm

Oh, the fact that you have that perspective is funny, in a sort of sad, ironic way. Many women on these boards seem to take it that there's something wrong with THEM (the women) if the guy isn't that into them, and they don't like the whole HJNTIY concept (as they understand it) because they think it gives men all the power.

Have you actually read the book? I don't think you'd come away from it with that conclusion (that HJNTIY means there's something wrong with the guy) if you had. I read it as saying pretty clearly that it's no one's "fault", it's just not meant to be! And walking away from a guy who isn't right for you leaves you open to meeting someone who IS.

Sheri

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2006
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 5:54pm

Well,

Jilly

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-06-1999
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 8:53pm

This isn't about the book or anything said in it. It's about women up here posting to other women. It's about how they use that advice and what it sounds like.

I think chasing someone (either passively or agressively) when they aren't interested is not in anyone's best interest. However, I think both genders suffer from flaws in their roles in dating. Guys have to figure out how to "seduce" a woman, which means they have to be the agressor and make the moves (even when the woman isn't interested) and women have to get the men to chase them. So when there is a lack of interest from the person you are interested in, both genders really figure their must be *some* way of kindling the flame of desire in the other party. Men try their best, then eventually give up. Women pine by the phone and wring their hands over "why won't he call or ask me out". I think both gender need to learn when it's time to just move on.

Brokk...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-06-1999
Fri, 01-05-2007 - 8:59pm

"...and then there's your wife who agreed to have her first date at your house. I hope I don't sound rude, but most people would advise against a woman doing that because: A) it's dangerous,"

Well, we knew many people in common and had gotten a chance to interact outside of the dating scene before hand. So we weren't exactly strangers. Not as chancy. However, not bad advice in general either.

"and B) it is more traditional and APPROPRIATE to take a woman out,"

My wife will get a very big chuckle out of that, and it's putting quite the smile on my face as well. Thank you.

"And if she was able to fit going to your house and watching a DVD into her busy schedule, how much more time would it have taken to go to a restaurant or a movie?"

Honestly? What was playing at my house was more interesting than what was in the movie theater that day. Besides, dating is about getting to know each other. Sitting silently in a movie theater for 2 hours doesn't really tell you much about the person. Might as well be sitting by yourself. It was much easier to talk and learn about each other at my place. Besides, I made her dinner. :-)

I should also mention that I drove to pick her up and drop her off and opened all the doors for her along the way. It's not like I was ordering food delivered to me.

Brokk...

Pages