Cold medicine and lack of sleep produces a post on dating advice and self-transformation

I'm catching up on other people's blogs, returning e-mails, and trying to stay awake.  My head is still stuffed from the cold,and my ears are still blocked from the plane.  Other than that, things are going swimmingly.

At Feministe, we've got "Equal Opportunity Crappy Dating Advice".  Jill alerts us to one particular offering for men that's making its way around the internet.  It lists ten mistakes men are said to make that blow their chances with women, and offers advice for "getting" "really attractive" women.  The ten mistakes range from the sensible to the absurd, and the advice commentary that accompanies each mistake is quite entertaining.  Some 60 comments debate the whole thing, and it's worth a read.

Reading through the list, it struck me that no one has ever come up with a "dating tips for pro-feminist men."  I toyed with the idea for a moment, but then rejected it.  After all, all such "tip lists" which offer ten or twenty suggestions for "scoring" with the opposite sex, or "picking up", or even "meeting" partners have one fundamental problem.  By their very nature, they turn sex/dating/romance into a project.  They posit a problem and offer a solution.

But I've come to believe we make a terrible mistake when we see dating and sexuality as problems to be solved.   The dating advice that Jill quotes at Feministe -- and most other such advice I've seen elsewhere --  is based on the assumption that women are a challenge to be mastered, rather than human beings to be engaged.  There's the suggestion that when it comes to love and sex, there are a finite set of absolute truths out there about men and women that a few lucky folks have understood and of which the rest of us are ignorant.  But if we pay close attention (and pay money) to these "masters", they'll teach us their techniques and we can begin to practice them with greater success and confidence.

Yes, I do get asked for dating advice.  (Few folks ask me -- yet -- for marriage advice.)  I work with lots and lots of young people, and my life experience and field of interest suggests to them that I might be a good person to ask.  Younger boys often ask for specific tips: "How can I tell a girl that I like her?"  "How do I know if she's into me, or if she just likes me as a friend?"  "How do I know when it's okay to kiss her?"   There are lots of stock answers having to do with summoning up courage and the like, but I don't dispense little bon mots of wisdom.  I'm not sure I'm qualified, first of all, but more importantly, I think there are more important questions to ask.

Here's a question I've often challenged my youth group kids with -- but it works for older folks too: "Why should someone go out with me?  What do I bring to the table?"  When I first ask the kids to ask themselves that in youth group a few years ago, I got standard answers like the following:

"I don't know."  "Because I'm pretty?" (complete with question mark) "Because I'm nice."  "Because once you get to know me, I'm really loving."  "Because I'm tall."  "Because I listen to tight music."  "I don't know."  "Who would want to go out with me anyway?"  "Because of my boobs."  "I don't know.  Because I can make people laugh."  "I don't know."  "I don't know."

My experience with older folks is that they aren't much better than 15 year-olds at answering that question!  So many people are terribly focused on meeting new people, or finding a new relationship, or just "hooking up" with someone new -- but they are reluctant to ask themselves the most basic question:  "Why should someone be with me?"  And if they do answer the question, they may answer it with the same "I don't knows", or a list of trivial assets, or cutting self-deprecation.  But I'm convinced that a key to healthy, loving relationships (both sexual and non-sexual) is focusing honestly, without deception or bravado of self-loathing, on what it is that we genuinely have to offer.  The list has to go beyond body parts and bank accounts and sexual skills.

Most of the lists I see are essentially techniques for more effectively cultivating a mask, a false image, an "idealized other."  Once we've "hooked" the other person, we then start to drop the mask in the hope that they'll be sufficiently comfortable with us that they won't run away when we show them all of our filth.  But obviously, that's both a dishonest and ultimately ineffective way of resolving the problem of human loneliness.  Even in adolescence, the focus has to be on helping folks to become worthy of being dated, worthy of being slept with, worthy of being married!  Though it's trite to say so, you're not going to be effective at getting other folks to like you -- and stay around -- if you aren't clear on why it is that they should do so.

When I was first dating the woman who is now my wife, someone very close to us asked me this question: "Why should she be with you?"  Of course, I made the usual silly remarks -- I'm entertaining, I'm not unattractive, I have a state teachers pension -- but then I did get serious.  And I thought and thought and I said something like this:

"At my core I'm fundamentally committed to transforming myself, transforming my partner, and transforming the world. Because I see a good relationship as one where each person is simultaneously potter and clay -- we are molding each other as we ourselves are molded, sometimes pushing and pulling and kneading, sometimes caressing, always being pushed and pulled and kneaded and caressed.  Because in the end, I will never excuse anything I do by throwing up my hands and saying 'That's just the way I am, accept me, dammit!'  And I will never let my partner get away with that either."

That was my answer, and of course other people will have different ones.  But what I needed to do was see why it was that I was worthy of being truly loved by a woman as amazing as my wife.  If I thought that I had tricked her into loving me, or if I thought that she just had poor taste, I would be unable to appreciate her.  In order to love someone fully in relationship, you have to do more than thank your lucky stars that despite your faults they love you back!   I think it's essential that, without immodesty or excess pride, you honestly see yourself as being worthy of being loved and become committed to working every day to make yourself still worthier.

I'm by no means a perfect husband.  But I often ask myself a question these days when I'm contemplating an action or making a choice:  "Is what I'm about to do consistent with the man who is worthy of being loved so much?"  That is not the same as making my wife an internalized audience!  I'm not turning her into a parental super-ego!  Rather, it's about recognizing that I have an obligation to myself to continue to see myself as worth a magnificent, exciting relationship -- and the choices I make as to what I do and don't do help shape that self-perception.

Heavens, I've wandered off topic! Maybe ten hours sleep total the last three nights and way too much cold medicine has made me loopy.  But if you're still reading, I hope my basic point is clear.  If we want connection, if we want relationship, if we want eros at its magnificent best, we can't disguise ourselves to capture it!  We may not merit Christ's agape love, but we will always attract the very level of people whom we believe we truly deserve.  My old friend Jack always said it like this, and it still stands as the best dating advice I know:

"If you want something you haven't got, you're going to have to become someone you haven't been.  And in order to become someone you have never been, you're going to have to do things you've never done." 

Every day, I push myself to do things I've never done before, in the hopes of becoming someone I haven't been yet, in the assurance that if I do so, I will continue to merit the love of a woman whom I know is pushing herself as hard as I am, with that same mix of faith and joy and relentless perseverance.

Comments

[Jendi]

All I can say is...RIGHT ON, HUGO!!!!

[aetakeo]

I would have used slightly different words, but this is exactly my experience. When you put down the concept of the other person being so all firingly important, and start answering your own needs, you are able to see who you are and what you have to give. It's been my experience that this shift of focus from Make-Them-Like-Me to Who-Am-I generally causes relationships to fall out of the clear blue sky. You're no longer manipulating; you're a genuine person. People generally seem to like genuine.

[Noumena]

all such "tip lists" which offer ten or twenty suggestions for "scoring" with the opposite sex, or "picking up", or even "meeting" partners have one fundamental problem. By their very nature, they turn sex/dating/romance into a project. They posit a problem and offer a solution.

But I've come to believe we make a terrible mistake when we see dating and sexuality as problems to be solved. The dating advice that Jill quotes at Feministe -- and most other such advice I've seen elsewhere -- is based on the assumption that women are a challenge to be mastered, rather than human beings to be engaged.

This is as succinct an explanation as any for why my own romantic relationships have been so few and far between. For several years in college I considered myself asexual, and I think in a large part that was simply because I wasn't enough of an independent thinker to realize relationships didn't have to work according to the ludicrously antagonistic standards of our society -- and, subconsciously, what I wanted out of a relationship was precisely the opposite.

That's not to say wanting an authentic (in a semi-existentialist sense, I suppose) romantic relationship is the only reason I've spent long, long periods of my short life very single. I've struggled long and hard with being extremely introverted, and even today I'm awkward and disinterested in the small talk that's considered socially acceptable before delving into a detailed discussion of, say, Frege's attack on Kant's philosophy of mathematics, or Dove's ad campaign from this summer. Being a straight man in a somewhat male-dominated section of academia doesn't help any, either. Still: when (almost?) all of your peers either (a) see dating as little more than the STD-free way of getting regular sex, or (b) have disconcertingly conservative fundamentalist religious beliefs (and (a) and (b) may not be exclusive), it's hard to find a relationship you want to a Relationship.

Here's a question I've often challenged my youth group kids with -- but it works for older folks too: "Why should someone go out with me? What do I bring to the table?"

This is a FANTASTIC question, and as I am (hopefully, fingers crossed!) on the verge of starting a new romance with a truly wonderful woman, this is something I'm definitely going to be thinking about over the next few days.

I don't say this often (mostly because I lurk too much), but excellent post, Hugo.

[Noumena]

Apologies for double-posting, but one more thing has suddenly occured to me. I wonder what the local MRA types would think of this? They certainly seem to consider romantic relationships in a deeply antagonistic fashion. I realize many (most?) of them come to the MRA movement after divorces, which are far too often made unnecessarily nasty by the way our divorce system works (both ex-spouses need to hire lawyers, who often get paid by the size of what "their size" "wins", and this isn't expected to be extraordinarily petty and bitter?), but it feels like there's a genuine chicken-egg question here about their misogyny: Did they have crappy relationships because they regarded women as an inexplicable Other and prize to be hunted down, fought over, and conquered? Or do they now treat women as an inexplicable Other, of no regard except as prizes to be hunted down, fought over, conquered, and disposed merely because a nasty breakup left them bitter?

[Hugo]

Thanks for the kind words, all three of you; Noumena, I'm excited for your new relationship, and intrigued by the question you ask. Some MRAs might say,or have been saying, that they have examined themselves, and found American women to be generally unworthy of all that these MRAs bring to the table.

[Uzzah]

A really wonderful post Hugo. Self introspection is always a good way to take stock of your own life and improve yourself and your relationships. But this caught my eye:

"At my core I'm fundamentally committed to transforming myself, transforming my partner, and transforming the world. Because I see a good relationship as one where each person is simultaneously potter and clay -- we are molding each other as we ourselves are molded, sometimes pushing and pulling and kneading, sometimes caressing, always being pushed and pulled and kneaded and caressed.

I think, that after many years of marriage my wife and I have done this for each other in so many ways. And we have both benefited from it. Our marriage is stronger because we reinforce each other and make each other stronger. I am truly blessed for that.

But many times in my life I’ve met women who are attracted not to the man in their lives, but what they want their man to be. For instance, they might be attracted to that “bad boy” image, but are also firmly convinced that they can change and mold that person into someone more responsible. The problem is, it seldom works out that way. These woman often spend years of their lives trying to “pull and kneed” these men into becoming more responsible or otherwise becoming something they are not. They make both their partners and themselves miserable. These relationships often end in dismal failure.

I’m not saying that men and women can’t change. But often the fairy tale story of turning your frog into a prince (or princess) is just that, a fairy tale. Trying to change your partner has to be based on realistic expectations.

[Hugo]

Indeed, Uzzah. And there's no point in trying to change those who don't want to change. My wife and I are, for better or for worse, "growth junkies" -- we like living that way, and are suited for it. Some folks may have less ambitious plans for their own life narrative, and there's no point in trying to inspire the uninspirable.

[Uzzah]

I wonder what the local MRA types would think of this? They certainly seem to consider romantic relationships in a deeply antagonistic fashion.

Some MRAs might say,or have been saying, that they have examined themselves, and found American women to be generally unworthy of all that these MRAs bring to the table.

I might say the same thing about Feminists (and pro-feminists) and their statements on relationships with men, but like you two, I’d be making a broad statement about people with no basis in reality except for a very limited (and bitter) subset of the group.

Come on Hugo, I’d expect better from you.. Lay off the Dayquil.

[Hugo]

"Lay off the Dayquil."

Yeah, it's getting to be time for the Nyquil liqui-caps!

[Breadfish]

As far as not having an answer to that "what do you bring to the table" question, I can say from experience that if you hate yourself, the rest of the world can smell it about a mile and a half away and you can bally well forget about relationships of any sort pretty much because nobody will touch you with a ten-foot pole. It's kind of funny in an ironic way, really, when you think about it.

Problem is, it's an extremely hard habit to break once learned, as far as bad habits go. One of the hardest, I think, probably somewhere between nailbiting and heroine.

[bmmg39]

"Apologies for double-posting, but one more thing has suddenly occured to me. I wonder what the local MRA types would think of this? They certainly seem to consider romantic relationships in a deeply antagonistic fashion."

Speaking for myself alone, I have never been in one. I've mentioned this before, but I'm sometimes loath to do so, for at least two reasons:

1. Since so many here are convinced (usually wrongly) that "MRA" = "misogynist," the next illogical step is to assume (also wrongly) that my life o' loneliness has caused me to adopt an anti-female stance, when in fact I don't HAVE and anti-female (or anti-feminist) stance in the least.

2. I'm also usually afraid to say "I've never dated people" if I don't think I have time to explain the whole situation, because in these "hookup culture" times we're living in, I'm afraid that people will think that I've decided to avoid relationships in favor of one-night stands and random hookups, when that's pretty much the exact opposite of the truth. I've never been interested in sex/making out even WITHIN a romantic relationship, so I'm even less interested in doing so OUT of one.

As a casual, impartial observer of the world you dating earthlings live in, I DO indeed see a lot of antagonism out there. Lots of "games" played and duplicity. I certainly hope it doesn't HAVE to be that way, that honesty and communication can work. But I guess because nothing's ever worked or happened for me I'm not the best one to ask. What do you think?

bg

[Caitriona]

Hugo, I'm tired after a long several days, or maybe I'd post about "tips" and about personal growth in marriage leading to marital and familial growth.

I hope you feel better soon.

[sparklegirl]

Great post, Hugo! Those sorts of lists have always bothered me because they treat dating as a game rather than as interactions between people; they imply that all people of the same gender think in one way and that people should follow a set of rules rather than just being themselves and judging individual situations on their merits.

[BritGirlSF]

"As a casual, impartial observer of the world you dating earthlings live in, I DO indeed see a lot of antagonism out there. Lots of "games" played and duplicity. I certainly hope it doesn't HAVE to be that way, that honesty and communication can work. But I guess because nothing's ever worked or happened for me I'm not the best one to ask. What do you think?"
It definately doesn't have to be that way (antagonistic, game-playing, generally dysfunctional). Honesty, directness and a general sense of goodwill towards others seem to be the cure for most dating-related woes, but the problem seems to be that many people aren't confident enough in themselves to be really honest. Laying oneself out there and being completely genuine puts one at risk of rejection, of being judged. I think all the dating advice nonsense, from "The Rules" to the loathsome neuro-linguistic programming, appeal to people because of a basic insecurity. When people aren't sure that they're worthy of being loved as they are, they pretend to be someone else. It never works in the end, but still people keep at it, like hamsters running on a wheel. Depressing to contemplate, and even more depressing to watch people in your own life doing it. I have a couple of good friends who stumble from one doomed relationship to another, never actually looking at what they really want and need from a partner or what they themsleves have to give. I really wish that I could convince them that if they would just drop the charade potential partners would in fact see them for the lovable people they actually are.

[Noumena]

bmmg, based entirely on that comment, you sound a lot like me ~4 years ago (see my first comment). If, like me, you're relatively young and feigning (possibly even to yourself) disinterest in romance just because of the vapid wasteland you see around you, let me reassure you that there ARE people both decent and attractive out there, and you'll run into them more and more as you get older (picking the right venues to meet new people helps, too).

At the same time, don't think I'm presuming to second-guess your proclaimed indifference to sex -- I do realize genuine asexuals exist, and I can imagine how hard it would be to live as an 'out' asexual. If that is your situation, I'm sympathetic (in a non-condescending way), but I'm afraid I don't have much of anything substantial to say.

[metamanda]

bmmg, for what it's worth, you've never come off as misogynistic to me. :) I never read your single status in that way.

hugo, I think this is a great post, and thoughts about authenticity and dating have been kicking around in my head lately since I read that Maureen Dowd column about her and her friends' romantic woes. Seemed to me that all her anecdotes involved that inauthenticity and adversarialness in dating that people here have been talking about. So I think you make apt points about knowing yourself, and being willing to work and transform yourself and your partner within a relationship.

Also, some commentors over on the feministe thread gave some excellent advice along the lines of "to thine own self be true". But these seem, on face, to be diametrically opposed pieces of advice. How do you negotiate that? How do you work out when you're being true to yourself vs. when you're stagnating? How do you work out when you're changing in a positive way vs. being inauthentic? I think it's a difficult but possible negotiation... I'm also not sure that I'm any good at it yet.

[Technocracygirl]

I certainly hope it doesn't HAVE to be that way, that honesty and communication can work.

It can be that way. But it takes a decent amount of courage and self-esteem on both sides to make it work. Have you ever wanted to tell someone something, but been afraid/worried about the outcome, and never told them? It happens in romantic relationships too. Even long-term, long-lasting ones. To be able to overcome that shame/guilt/whatever barrier is difficult, but it can be done. Of course, I dabble in communities where, if communcation doesn't happen, very, very, very bad things can happen, whether physical, psychological, or emotional. So, I have an impetus to make sure I, and my partner, don't play those sort of games. (On the bright side, it's slowly weaning me away from my passive-aggressive tendencies.) And I much prefer having an honest-to-gosh partnership, rather than a clash of wills. I think I would be very unhappy were I to be on the oppositie side of the fence from my partner.

On a different topic, bmg, if you really do feel yourself separate and uninterested in the sexual world, may I suggect asexuality.org? I was treated to a lecture on asexuality by a member, and it seems like a decent place for those who really don't feel a biological urge to couple with someone else. Though, if I've misjudged you, I do apologize.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

I was definitely, in my single days, one of those who would have said "I don't know" in response to the question "Why should someone go out with me." In my case, it wasn't so much that I had no self-confidence, in any general sense. I'd have no trouble answering the question, "Why would someone want to be my friend" or the question "Why would someone want to hire me," or any question that asked what I brought to the table, as long as the table we were talking about didn't involve any sort of romance.

It also wasn't antagonism to the opposite sex, as such; I was fine with men as friends, and had no trouble believing that men would want to be friends with me (and in any case, I'm bisexual and not antagonistic to women, either). It was more that romance, itself, just seemed like a Lynn-hostile area, where I couldn't expect that what I brought to the table would be of any particular use. Or where, if people did want to go out with me, they wouldn't want the same thing I wanted.

What helped was focusing less on getting someone to go out with me than on being sure that, if I ever did get involved with someone, I'd be in the sort of relationship I actually wanted. If articles with career advice were written the way articles with dating advice were written, we'd hear only about "dress for success" and tips for acing job interviews, and nothing about how you figure out what kind of job you want, how you then study or train yourself for that job, how you keep expanding your skills on the job, etc.

[sophia]

You pose the question: "Why should someone go out with me?"
but perhaps, the question ought to be 'Why should I want to go out with someone?'
and maybe even, "where does my self worth lie?"

I am a twenty-five year old woman, and I have never been in a serious relationship. And, it's not for lack of self respect or self love. I have at least one half dozen friends from high school who are of like mind. And we all lead uncompromisingly full and beautiful lives. We're not ugly, we're not desparate, and we're not unhappy. Does this mean we get the respect we deserve? No, because we are expected to be led by conventional romantic ideals. And at the top of this list of ideals, is the pursuit of that 'perfect' emotional/ physical connection with some charming object of lust. screw that.

We have goals in our lives, that require our time, consideration, and complete attention. Why does this cause such a problem for people? Why does this make people think we are desparate or lonely or repressed? I am going to lead a long life, and if I want to spend my youth in the pursuit of that perfect moment where my life has meaning because I have found a reason and a way to fight for my dignity and the dignity of others, so that the world is just a little bit better. Then why do I need to worry about finding some prick to hold my hand.

There are many ways to make your heart grow, and I believe that all paths are equal in deciding the quality of our lives, so long as the passion is equal as well.

[bmmg39]

"bmmg, based entirely on that comment, you sound a lot like me ~4 years ago (see my first comment). If, like me, you're relatively young and feigning (possibly even to yourself) disinterest in romance just because of the vapid wasteland you see around you, let me reassure you that there ARE people both decent and attractive out there, and you'll run into them more and more as you get older (picking the right venues to meet new people helps, too)."

My age is 32. I don't have a disinterest in romance, only one in sex. My life is a short string of unrequited crushes and basic cluelessness: the times in which someone actually paid attention to me (which usually doesn't happen), I, having nothing else to go on, would ask myself questions like, "So, I don't know...does this mean we're boyfriend and girlfriend?" Which, I know, is ridiculous to ask, since each time there would be no actual dates, but just time spent sitting in the football bleachers in band during football games, but I really had no experience or anyone to help me along. Anyway, before too long I'd be disabused of the myth that we were an item, and it only caused further disillusionment. So when I say I've never dated, it's not a sign of a conscious choice, but rather the way things turned out for me in life. And yet people tell me that I give out decent, sensible advice for THEIR situations...thanks for your kindness.

"bmmg, for what it's worth, you've never come off as misogynistic to me."

Thank you.

"On a different topic, bmg, if you really do feel yourself separate and uninterested in the sexual world, may I suggect asexuality.org?"

Thank you. Someone in a chat room reference that site (or a related one) once. It's good because, as the website says, many match sites falsely assume that those uninterested in sex must also be uninterested in romance, which isn't the case.

bg

[Glitch]

I think I'll delurk just long enough to make one post.

sophia wrote:

You pose the question: "Why should someone go out with me?"
but perhaps, the question ought to be 'Why should I want to go out with someone?' and maybe even, "where does my self worth lie?"

This is a critical question, and I couldn't agree more. I find myself in similar shoes to bmmg39, but not quite. I've been single all of my life, and now, at age 27, I find my friends pairing off and getting married, while I've never had a girlfriend or any other form of significant other. For that matter, I haven't been on a date in about two years, either.

I spent a lot of time wondering what was so wrong with me, and just wishing I could find that special someone. It didn't occur to me until quite recently that one of the problems is that I really only wanted a SO just so I could have one, and that's a pretty poor reason. I wasn't really prepared to change my ways, and I'm quite well adapted to prolonged singlehood. I have always been an outsider among outsiders. Avoidant Personality Disorder will do that to you. I've been keenly aware of my outsider status since I was a child, and deeply resentful of it. When I see everyone I know pairing off, and am constantly told via the media that healthy people will find companionship, I began to deperately desire someone else. I just wanted to fit in for a change, to not be so different. I wanted to prove to myself that I was as good and anyone else, that I was socically acceptable and that I mattered. But that's not a good reason to become involved with someone, even if I could. Finding someone just so you can make a trophy of them degrades both parties.

I lead a cloistered lifestyle in which I rarely leave my apartment, my social engagements consist largely of binge drinking with my friends in the same bar, and my social circle rarely expands. The thing is, I'm pretty content with that. I like solitude, most of the time. I like being able to dictate my own terms, and do what I want, when I want. Would I make allowances for another person? I guess, maybe, perhaps. But I'm stubborn and set in my ways. Hopefully, I'll be in law school by this time next year (LSAT in two weeks, wish me luck), and maybe the change in setting, combined with being in an environment where I will know no-one, will push me to change for the better.

[Glitch]

What the heck, I'll make one more:

bmmg39 wrote:

I don't have a disinterest in romance, only one in sex. My life is a short string of unrequited crushes and basic cluelessness: the times in which someone actually paid attention to me (which usually doesn't happen), I, having nothing else to go on, would ask myself questions like, "So, I don't know...does this mean we're boyfriend and girlfriend?"

I can relate to that, especially the history of unrequited love. I've had a lot of crushes, but my insecurities and shyness makes it impossible to approach women, even those I know quite well. I tend to freeze up. Rather embarrasing, actually.

Even if I can get past that, I have a sort of "sexual autism", in which I just can't read the signs women give me, even if they're plainly obvious, and even then I can't figure out what I am expected to do. I can recall in college that there was one woman who was everything I could have ever wanted. She was very intelligent, knew me well as a friend already (some say this is a no no, but I can't imagine just asking women out cold, I like to know them as friends first), and was really attractive to boot. We even shared the same sort of upstate NY Anglo-Dutch background, which always gave us something to talk about. She started coming by my dorm often, became even more friendly, and made it a point to hand-deliver invitations to her society's functions. I stayed friends, and later she found someone else. I never got the hint. It wasn't until months later that it dawned on my that she was pursuing me. I hope she didn't feel like I was rejecting her. She's married now, I hope she's doing well.

Even when women did ask me out, I had a hard time figuring out what I should do. I always seemed to bungle things during dates, and I could never figure out the gray areas that exist between "friend" and "significant other." I for some reason thought that if you go out with someone several times, that's it, you're an item. I can see now how bizarre my behavior must have been. No wonder none of these attempts went anywhere.

I can't relate to the asexual angle entirely. I still desire sex, and find many, heck, most women sexually attractive in one way or another. My deepest desires are not sexual in nature, though. I rarely have sexual dreams anymore, for instance. I have dreams where I am with someone, we understand and trust each other completely and are in love. Waking up from those always hurt. Like you, I have a deep interest in romance before or apart from sex, but based on my past experiences I think I have to do a better job of distinguishing one from the other.

Hugo: I hope this post wasn't too long. Regarding your question of why someone would want to go out with me, I think I have a lot to offer. I'm reasonably intelligent, a pretty good conversationalist once I get comfortable with someone, ambitious to the point of wanting a more out of life but not greedy. I've long believed in trying to make myself a better person, even if I have often failed in that regard, but I have still managed to accomplish things I thought were impossible. I have changed myself for the better through the years.

But I think there is a deeper question of, "Am I right for anyone else?" When I really think about it, the answer is generally, "no." I'm very different than most men, and for someone to get close to me would take a tremendous amount of effort on their part to get past my insecurities and barriers. It's really not fair to expect that someone should be capable of doing that, and I know I am unlikely to completely change, at least to the point where I am on the market as a viable partner. Sometimes, you just have to know your limitations. If it happens on day, great. If not, oh well. There are other things to life, and hopefully I can still find meaning in something else. Hopefully, it will be in some form of Constitutional law.

[Ron O]

Great question. For many years I couldn't answer that satisfactorily. The way I coped was years of celibacy. I had myself convince that I didn't have much to offer. Friends would cheer me up and say I was good-looking, kind, etc. To which I'd think "Big deal, those are superficial qualities anyway."

aetakeo described my experince as well above: "...this shift of focus from Make-Them-Like-Me to Who-Am-I generally causes relationships to fall out of the clear blue sky." Once I was honest about the Who am I, rather than defining myslef as undesirable as a coping mechanism, that's what happened to me.

One way I was able to defuse some of my dating insecurities was being up-front and matter of fact about them with potential mates. Without dwelling on them, I brought them up early so they wouldn't become bigger issues later. With my wife this sharing (and defusing) insecurities made me better understand the difficulites she has faced. It's amazing how we came down very different paths to a similar place.

[Heather]

Just a quick comment on the "sexual autism" thing. What jumps out at me from that statement is that you seem to think whatever is "wrong" with you is "terribly" wrong with you and what I've found is that most people feel awkward around the opposite sex, and most men have a hard time picking up clues from women. You aren't even nearly the only one. For me that makes the - sorry for the analogy - playing field, more equal. Every guy out there has a hard time knowing when a woman likes him - unless he's a jerk and assumes that every woman likes him - so you aren't at any particular disadvantage. And women are chicken to come right out and say it - so she missed a chance too, you know?

The problem I have had as a woman is some of the same the commenters have said. I think I'm a pretty attractive, smart, generous, level-headed person in general. I think I have a lot to offer, but I haven't ever been sure that what I have to offer is what anyone else really wants. AND, in the dating situation, my experience is that when women are themselves they start taking a potential dating situation a lot more seriously then men do - or maybe we just don't filter as quickly - but we get pissed if a guy says he's going to call when he doesn't. We are pissed and that is "being ourselves" but that kind of behavior tends to be a turn-off for guys. SO...that's why we start reading books like "He's just not that into you" and as repulsive as they are "The Rules." I hate "The Rules." Hate the idea that I have to pretend to be something and play little games in order to have a man in my life - and yet - it seems that the girls who follow the rules actually do have men in their lives. So, another quote to make you wince, "Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?"

Okay, yes, are you gonna be happy with a guy you had to find with a list of rules? Well, I don't know! If I knew I wouldn't be reading the damn book.

[Keri]

Heather, I don't think "get[ting] pissed if a guy says he's going to call when he doesn't" is a behavior that's either universal to or limited to women. If it happens more often to women than men, that's probably because of those silly cultural roles stating that men should be the ones to call and women should be the ones sitting by the phone. If he isn't calling, why waste time "getting pissed" about it when you can just pick up the phone and see what's going on yourself? (I understand it may be easier said than done, but a lot of women seem to just automatically dismiss the possibility, or never even think of it at all.)

These stereotypes are just the sort of thing that keep annoying dating memes like The Rules going-- the idea that women are naturally inclined to act clingy and needy and desperate in a new/potential relationship, so we need to place artificial limits on how much time we spend with dates, how often we see them, how much we tell them, etc. And really, it's a pile of crap. It's all about being "mysterious" and "intriguing," which more or less translates to feigning complete apathy toward men you're interested in, lying to them to make it seem like your social life is much fuller than it is, and never daring to let any personality peek through your mask so men can project their ideal fantasies onto you uninterrupted. I can't think of a scenario less likely to result in happy, healthy, fulfilling relationships, at least for people who have standards beyond just finding a boyfriend/husband at all costs.