What do you do when a girl you aren't attracted to likes you

Post Reply New Topic

"As I see it" was attached to an earlier sentence; I don't presume that your single statement carries over to every line of your response. My apologies if I misread your intent, but I cannot make that determination based on what was written. Janissy's choice of words is less-than-precise as well, which I fully acknowledge. At the same time, I agree with the statement that the seeming perception of the world-at-large does seem to be at odds with your own views.

No, I don't agree with your assessment of dates; they are the precursor to determining whether the next step of developing a relationship takes place, not a later step, in my view of how the dating process works. Having an interest is superficial, which leads to a date - this allows for interaction and sharing, leading into the next phase. I have refused dates because I did not have the time to invest in a relationship, even though I was interested in the person and wanted to know more. I have had people accept dates not because they were romantically interested, but found me curious and wanted to more. Some kept an open mind and things grew; some became friends; more still passed out of my life and into another person's. But there is a keen difference between two people in a relationship going on a date with each other, and dating as a process to get to know other people leading into a relationship. Two different things, that while being very similar, serve different functions.


M.

It isn't important if your definition of a date and mine aren't the same. We aren't going on a date together. However, it is pretty important that your definition matches the definition of the woman you are on a date with. I see the same sort of problem posted about again and again. The poster and a woman go out on a date. He thinks they are now on their way towards being a couple. She thinks (and says), "that was nice, now let's just be friends". He posts that he feels betrayed and led on. Why go on a date with him if she wasn't already interested? So it is important for you to know that this more broad definition of a date is shared not just by makuranoshi and I, but also by an enormous number of women, some of whom you will go on a date with. If you go on a date with the assumption that she is attracted to you because otherwise she wouldn't have said yes, you are bound to feel hurt and lied to when at the end of the date she appears to yank back that attraction. The problem is that your definition of a date implies mutual attraction but hers doesn't. No doubt there are women out there who share your definition. But if you are on a date with a woman who shares makuranoshi's and my definition, there is bound to be misunderstanding that leads to bad feelings. That's why it's important for you to hear this definition. It may head off some problems with women you date who share it.

Deleted.

Last edited by CrinklyCrustacean on 14 Aug 2009, 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Deleted.

Last edited by CrinklyCrustacean on 14 Aug 2009, 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Deleted. The quadruple post was due to temperamental internet cutting out during posting. I never knew for sure if it hat posted the message or not!

Last edited by CrinklyCrustacean on 14 Aug 2009, 6:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer what was and was not attached to "as I see it".



I can see where you are coming from, but it is at odds with my own experience watching other people's romances come and go. For example, my brother got to know his (now ex) girlfriend when they shared a desk at our local youth orchestra. After two terms she nudged him to ask her out, and with that they were now in a relationship. There were no previous dates to check if they were compatible - his girlfriend had clearly decided that already and so had he for her. For the record, they are both NT just like Janissy. This pattern has been repeated in every relationship I've seen both NT=NT and Aspie=Aspie. The first date in EVERY case was the confirmation of the relationship, not the precursor.

CC, thank you for your response. I can see our experiences differ... and I do not dispute that what you describe happens. My wife-to-be and I were friends for eight years; we'd gone a couple dates when we first met, but were 1600 miles apart and had other strings attached in our lives. I proposed to her only months after we'd seen each other again in person for the first time in years. I knew she was who I wanted in my life; I was fortunate that she felt the same way. But that 'impression' would not have been there if we hadn't spent the time when we first met. For most of my acquaintances, their relationships started as I have described, a social date to get to know each other, repeated with more romantic overtones, until a relationship blossomed from there. So there is plenty of room for both of us to be wrong if we presume our experiences to be the best predictor of future events.

Life is a lot like Texas Hold'em to me... even the best hand can get beat by a fortunate draw, don't believe what other people are 'showing' you, and is inherently full of risks.


M.

This is how I think it should be. The difference is that I wouldn't call the meetups 'dates' until the romantic overtones were included. If there aren't romantic overtones, then to me it's just socialising.

But if the people you are interacting with -do- consider that to be a date, then can you acknowledge where there is likely a huge breakdown in communication and expressing expectations? It could explain why some feel they are only seen as friends, when they themselves are unwilling to do anything to change that perception.

Damn semantics... at least it is better than trying to have this conversation via pantomime!


M.

Then I have just one more question: if, by your definition, a date is merely a social event, how do you know if a relationship is going to happen?

You don't. There is no guarantee of a date leading to a relationship; it is a frequent precursor, not a promise.


M.

This is nonsense, so as a straight guy, inviting an elder woman/a guy/coworker/just a female friend for a coffee is considered a date too?


Wow, I dated a lot of people.

When a girl rejects a guy (or the other way around) isn't because she's either taken or not interested in a relationship or not attracted to him?

Dating is a social event , but it's indeed a subtle mating ritual, what else can be?

You said it, now stop dwelling on your definition.

Sigh. No. A relationship needs to be possible at least in theory.

There is a reason why I posted such a broad definition. It's because this broad definition is shared by many people, some of whom are women you will be on a date with. But even now that definition is being treated as though I had said a date means a relationship WON'T take place. This isn't so. My very broad definition is broad to encompose both the situations where a relationship has already possibly sparked via mutual attraction and a situation where a relationship is possible in theory but unlikely in fact (such as a blind date).

There is a reason why I put out this definition. I did because it's shared by a lot of people. If you refuse to believe that on the grounds that it is hypocritical and wrong, you run the risk of great misunderstanding if you are out on a date with a woman who is NOT attracted to you but just wants to get to know you better and may or maynot become attracted in the future. It means you think you are a lot farther along in the relationship than you actually are. There have been a number of threads where men posted that they felt they were lied to or otherwise misled by a woman who dated them once and had no further interest. After all, didn't the date imply she was ALREADY interested? No. It didn't. And that's the problem. If your personal definition is not shared by the woman you are on a date with, things may end badly and you will be hurt and never know why. I'm telling you why. Because your definition of a date is narrower than hers.

I know Aspies dislike ambiguity and want a clarity of definition: that a date either means there is ALWAYS mutual attraction or NEVER mutual attraction. But unless you are on a date with an Aspie woman, there will be ambiguity.

Seconded. There will be ambiguity. This isn't a binary situation where you can say a relationship has already started (mutual attraction and mutual desire to further it) or a relationship can't start (dinner with your cousin). It's ambiguous and there is truly no way to know. It isn't binary and a woman who says "let's just be friends" at the end of the date has not misled you. But then again she may want to do it again and after several dates a relationship may develop.

For the record, no, I can't give you a number on how many dates must take place before a relationship can be said to have developed. This is highly individual and varies between any two people. I know this drives you guys crazy but you just CAN'T KNOW IN ADVANCE. You can't. There isn't a formula.

So, our definition wins.

Why you two are arguing us about a fact that you agree on?



A mutual attraction doesn't mean a start of a relationship, all what I am saying that mutual attraction is a requirement for a real date to occur.