When people are telling you what you think

Post Reply New Topic

So I read Ernes Sierra response to this quota thread https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-frie ... ite-excuse

Let me start off by telling you that I am not on the same page with them on at least two accounts:

1) As a Christian I don’t believe in sex before marriage, so I am not after sex

2) Despite not wanting sex, I still make it a point to find a girlfriend rather than just friend. So that means that I don’t think sex is what makes that distinction.

However, this is *not* something I want to argue about in this thread. Even though I disagree with those two premises, I can, logically, see how someone else can agree with them. If someone is an atheist, they won’t find anything wrong with sex. And if they aren’t ready for even remotely thinking of marriage, then sex might be something they are solely after. Fair enough. That’s not the choice I would make, but at least it’s logically self consistent.

But now let’s look at something that’s NOT self consistent:

3) Suppose some guy, who is not me (call him John) is after sex, but failed to communicate it. So a girl (call her Katie) decides to put John into a friend zone because she assumed John doesn’t want sex. Now look at this. The reason for Katie’s decision, according to that reply, is NOT that Katie herself doesn’t want sex. Instead, it is because she assumes John doesn’t want it. But then how come when John comes around too late to tell her that he wants sex, she would still reject him? If her reason for rejection is that he doesn’t want sex, yet here he is telling her that he does, is she basically assuming that he doesn’t understand himself very well? If so, how is it logical to make such an assertion? Does she think he has multiple personalities or what? Now, if yiu were to say “Katie knows John wants sex, but Katie herself doesn’t want it”, that’s logical. But the problem is that it’s not what Ernes Sierra seems to be saying. Ernes Sierra basically said Katie doesn’t know John wants sex, and that’s where it is a problem.

Now you might ask me: if I don’t want sex (see part 1) why am I so concerned about John (part 3)? Well, the reason I am so concerned about it is that “3” is a part of a bigger phenomenon. Namely, yiu can replace “sex” with emotional bond and get the same type of paradox:

4) If I want an emotional bond but don’t express it, the woman won’t try to bond with me because she will assume I don’t like her. Yet when I finally do express it, she would still not want to bond with me. And it makes no sense: since her original reason to not wanting to bond with me is an assumption of what I feel (as opposed to what she feels) and I corrected said assumption, then it should logically lead her to correct her decisions. And if it doesn’t, then it logically means she doesn’t think I am self aware: she assumes I think I like her without actually liking her.

Now, 3 doesn’t apply to me, but 4 very much does. And since 3 and 4 are both due to the same logical fallacy, that’s why I am trying to understand how can a woman possibly make that type of logical fallacy.

It's a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" situation.

Show too much sexual interest, and get slotted into the "Creep Zone".

Show little or no sexual interest, and get slotted into the "Friend Zone".

The region between too much and too little interest varies from woman to woman, and seemingly from day to day with any one woman.

The best that any man can do is to make himself attractive to the kind of woman he wants to attract, and then wait.

A woman of puritanical views would likely be attracted to a man of puritanical views.

Have you tried introducing yourself to an Amish, Mennonite, or Muslim woman?

The average crush typically lasts around three or four months. However, it can potentially last far longer.

So, let's say that Katie has a crush on John. Now, let's also say that Katie personally prefers to take a more traditional approach to dating. She would rather be approached by John than approach John herself. As a result, she starts dropping hints but either John is oblivious or not interested. Katie doesn't want to directly ask, since she may perhaps worry that John may view her as desperate or unladylike. Either that or she simply doesn't want to face the possibility of a direct rejection. Eventually, she decides to accept that John is uninterested. Gradually the crush begins to fade.

Katie still thinks the world of John. However, it's not the same anymore. Previously, when she had a crush, it was as if he had a glow surrounding him. Whenever he smiled, she felt a sense of warmth and comfort. Now that the crush has faded away, she simply sees John as an average guy. John is no longer a force to be intimidated by or flustered over. He is a friend.

Enter John a brief while later. To Katie's surprise, John expresses interest in her. Unfortunately, Katie no longer feels that way and perhaps wishes that she did. Sadly, she cannot bring herself to view him in that light anymore. The feelings have faded away.

Now, let's say in a different hypothetical that Katie's feelings didn't fade away. That she's still interested in John when he confesses. However, despite this, she still rejects John for not asking her out sooner. What gives?
I would speculate self-esteem issues / feeling second best. Maybe Katie worries that John doesn't feel all that strongly about her since it took him a while to tell her and that he's settling. She doesn't want to feel like someone's second choice.

I'm no relationship counsellor, but if Katie asked me for advice I'd probably recommend telling John how she feels, gender roles be damned. Now, if she came to me for advice after rejecting John despite liking him, I'd remind her that John's feelings may have started later than hers and that even if that isn't the case, his delayed response is likely out of nervousness rather than seeing her as a second choice. Then I'd ask about her self-esteem issues and try to figure out the source of the insecurity. Of course, that's only possible if she's willing to open up to me about that subject.

Thats a good point, because looking at my past long term relationships I noticed that first few months things went really smoothly but later on fights started to happen. Now, on my end, there was no attraction from the get-go: I was settling. But maybe on the womans end there was an attraction at first that stopped fights from occuring.

Or the other possibility is that even though I didn't feel anything sexual, I was still excited from the emotional standpoint that finally I was not single, etc. But then 4 months later, I started taking it for granted and the excitement wore off, and maybe the girl felt that and thats what caused her to be less patient with me as well.

Now, my longest relationships lasted 2 years each, but still first 4 months were the best.

In any case, this leads to the following questions:

a) How is the scenario where they do get into a relationship from the get-go any better than the scenario where they don't, if in both cases the feelings would wear out after 4 months?

b) The dating advice, such as the one I linked into in the OP, seems to focus on a scale of few days rather than four months. So --in a few day scenario -- why would a guy who verbalized an interest without showing it not be believed?

c) Yet, at the same time, I can't see any other way to explain girls logic *other than* what you cited. For example, you can't say "he is lying to get sex" since that link says that the girl didnt see his sexual interest. So what else is he trying to accomplish by his lie? Unless the girl is super rich or something, I can't think of anything.

The two year mark is quite a significant stage in a relationship. It is the stage where a person's emotions start to stabilise. The rose-tinted glasses come off. Such feelings of infatuation or the initial excitement of getting into a relationship can roughly last around six months to two years. Without a solid foundation for the relationship, such as open communication and a strong connection, it is likely that the relationship will cease.

Disagreements can happen at any time, but they are quite likely to temporarily increase once the infatuation period ends. This is the stage where flaws that may have previously been overlooked are now noticeably more obvious. You no longer view each other on a pedestal, but (ideally) as equals. In order for the relationship to thrive, it needs to develop emotionally.

Crushes typically last three to four months. However, they can last longer, especially if such feelings are reciprocated and openly communicated. Kissing is fairly significant. It is a way to see if you are genetically compatible. Now, if the answer is most likely yes, then further kissing down the line of the relationship is likely to ensue. If the answer is no, then it's likely that a sense of disgust will occur.

John and Katie's feelings aren't necessarily doomed to end at four months. However, especially once the honeymoon phase of their relationship is over, then they're going to need to put the work in if they want to maintain the relationship.



I must admit I'm at a loss there. What does 'not showing it' mean exactly? An issue with tone of voice perhaps? Maybe Katie is used to guys stating interest in her as a joke and assumes that John is doing so? I think I'd need some more context and background surrounding Katie's character to understand her motives.



If John is only interested in sex with Katie, then it'd be rather disingenuous to act otherwise in order to gain a share of her money. However, is John lying by omission by not stating his desire to have sex with Katie? Depends. If he enters a romantic relationship but is only looking for sex, then he's playing the situation and needs to communicate that he's only looking for casual sex without an emotional connection. Otherwise it's not going to end well. Katie and John both need to want the same thing if it's going to work out.

However, if it's a matter of John wanting to have sex with Katie, but he doesn't approach her and doesn't let her in on this information, then that's different. Maybe Katie wants casual sex as well, but assumes that John doesn't since he doesn't seem to acknowledge her advances. So she loses interest. Then John approaches her but she's no longer interested in him in that way. If Katie and John want to get anywhere, then they need to communicate what they want from each other.

Because "Actions speak louder than words".  This is trite, but true.

and



Okay, since John+Katie are hypothetical, lets construct said hypothetical in a way that is the most relevant to my question. So here is the thing:

--- I am not interested in sex due to religious reasons, but I do want a relationship that is official (see 1,2 in OP)

--- I can't get said relationship that is official because women say I am not showing interest despite being interested (see 4 in OP)

--- I read on the internet about John who DOES want sex, yet women reject him because he didn't show he is interested in it (see 3 in OP)

--- Despite the fact that I don't want sex and he does, I think the concept is similar so I am using him as an example to understand my situation. In other words I see an analogy between 3 and 4 in OP.

--- Because of said analogy I want to talk about 3 since thats the topic most talked about so perhaps more relatable to others

So, now, based off of this information, we can both explore other possible details about John and Katie and compare it to my situation.

Last edited by QFT on 07 Jun 2022, 1:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Yeah, "actions speak louder than words" is what I been told a lot. But I don't get this.

If a person's actions contradict their words, do people assume that

(i) A person isn't self aware

or

(ii) The person is lying

If it is (i), how come my extend of lack of self awarenness is large enough to OBSESS for HOURS about something I PRESUMABLY don't want?

If it is (ii), what am I possibly trying to get by that lie? It surely can't be the relationship since PRESUMABLY I don't want it. It can't be sex either since they talked about not showing interest in sex. What else can it be then?

If a person's actions contradict their words, then people are likely to assume that the person is lying.

Now, what is the purpose of a lie?

If a statement "I want A" is a lie, then you can't say "the purpose of a lie is to get A": after all, the person presumably doesn't want "A".

So the purpose of a lie is to get B.

Now, what is A and what is B?

If A is relationship, then B might be sex.

But that link says that the woman doesn't think the guy wants sex either: it said he didn't show it.

So then B is neither relationship nor sex.

What else can B be?

If you are trying to justify lying, forget it.  A person who says one thing and does another is not to be trusted.  For example:

• If someone says they are a Christian, and they engage in sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and other things things like these, then they are lying about being a Christian.

• On the other hand, someone who expresses through their actions joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, then they would not even have to tell me they are a Christian; and if they did, I would immediately believe them.

Do you see the difference?

In case of Christian its not really a lie. They might just define the term differently. Some people think of Christian as a type of commitment (as you described) while others might think of it as just a part of their identity (being raised in that culture). So its not a lie, just different word usage.

But in case of saying you like someone when you don't, what would be the purpose of lie in this case?

You would have to ask a person who does this; but do not expect an honest answer.

Well, the question is not about the actual reason but rather "what are the logically conceivable possibilities". Because I see none. But if you can help me out and present some examples, that would help.

Now, the reason I ask that question is because, if such a logically conceivable possibilities don't exist, then others should assume he is telling the truth. So the fact that they assume he lies means that they see some possibilities in their head, without asking the person. So what possibilities do they see?

A Christian who re-defines what Christ has defined is an apostate, a heretic, an impious person, or someone who has never read their Bible.

"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." -- Jesus, per Matthew 12:50 (NIV)

It is clear from this and other Biblical passages, that only those who do God's will (not their own) in Jesus' name can be called "Christians".

As a Christian I know all this and agree with it. But the question I am talking about is not what is actual truth but what is the brain processes of people who distort it. In case of people who say they are Christian yet aren't, I know their brain processes (as I described them in the previous reply). But in case of guys who say they like woman but don't, I don't know their brain processes, which is why I am asking this question.