He said, She said. A gender-biased look at issues.

2002-08-11T12:16:00.000-04:00

This goes under the fucking duh! category:

Dating experts outline seven match areas to consider:

Physical appearance
While physical appearance and attraction draw two people together at first, these aspects will affect the rest of their lives. If working out and staying fit is important to you, will it bum you out if your mate doesn’t share your quest for rock hard abs?

Emotional maturity
Is this person emotionally mature and centered or are they still lugging around some trunk-sized baggage? How does your sweetheart relate to family and friends? Is he or she emotionally supportive or have control issues? Is your mate aware of his or her own issues and interested in addressing them?

Lifestyle choices
This includes career and social lives, common interests, leisure time activities and energy levels. Would she rather join the bowling league or the metropolitan symphony? Does he have lots of energy for activities with friends while she’d rather rest and chill out at home?

Financial style
This is a hot bed for most couples. It includes income levels, financial goals and views on handling money. How do you each want to spend, save and invest? Is one person a spender while the other saves? Is one person financially responsible while or the other plays catch-up with child support and bills?

Value structure
This match area is often overlooked but has a tremendous impact on your life. It includes the big values: honesty, integrity, loyalty, views on family and children, religion and spirituality, life goals and the treatment and care for others. Does your mate follow through on their word? Would you say he’s trustworthy? Will she always be there for you in a pinch?

Marriage and sex
Everyone does not share the same idea of marriage. The big questions to address are: What do you and your mate expect from marriage and sex? Is he or she looking for a soul mate? Do you both want close intimacy in friendship, communication and sex?

Intelligence
Having similar education levels increases your chances of sharing matching school and social experiences, intellectual interests and career goals. What topics do you and your honey like to talk about? Conversation limited to sports or shopping may get boring to someone who likes to ponder philosophy and bluster about business.

2002-08-07T09:24:00.000-04:00

Paul is right to challenge my interchangeable use of games and rules, but this site is intended, after all to spark some heated discussion. That said, games as Paul discusses them suck. This is not exactly what I took from those many many many Match profiles that said "NO GAMES," but on second thought this is probably what each person who wrote that meant. I was mainly looking for a segueway to get Paul and I bantering over dating rituals...hmm...I should try harder next time. Paul makes some excellent points, but the best point he makes is that rules are comforting to many people because they give the illusion, or the hope that if we follow them we should/will win. Games and rules both distance themselves from the ideas of chemistry and compatibility that should supercede whether someone walked on the outside of the sidewalk.

2002-08-06T18:19:00.000-04:00

Games. AAAAAAAAAAAAA!! GAMES!!!!!
I think the reason people fear games is that they're not serious enough. Men don't want to be hurt, or to waste their time, or to be made to seem the fool. Women don't want to be treated flippantly, lose their heart unfairly, or to get played. In other words, men and women often want the same thing.

To be left alone.

No, wait, that's not it. To be serious--if possible--the reason we don't like "Games" is that we don't like the idea that we might not be taken to be a real human being, to be a serious individual with a real agenda (and not an agenda in the "ulterior motives" sense; I mean in the "life plan" sense). No one wants to be the clown in the circus of life.

When we invoke games, we think of Monopoly, baseball, or chess--life and death struggles for money, power, domination, et cetera, that, as soon as they're done, are a joke. You shake the other team's hand, the bankrupt guy may have more money for dinner than the millionaire, and the king may be dead, but you can always play again. No one wants to be treated as flippantly as that.

We are human, though, and humans often crave structure in life. Some would argue that this is why humans have religions; because they need an enforcer saying "Thou Shalt Not" to monitor everyday life. We want the right rules enforced, not the bogus ones. We want the person inviting the other to dinner to pay, to hold the door, to plan the night out. We want both to say if they are or aren't interested in the other. That's just how we are.

I think Erin is wrong to conflate the idea of rules with games. We want rules--rules provide order, some certainty, some sense that you'll win if you follow them. In other words, rules are a comfort blanket. Games on the other hand, smack of repeated iterations of the scenario, not one of which matters. In other words, we balk at the potential of our own inability to matter.

That said, I think there is also a difference between the games and the rituals. I think that those who are bad at the rituals--those who come on too strong or too weak, those who don't hold a door if they need to, or those who don't brush their teeth before a date--are likely to be the ones frustrated by those who cling to the dating rituals. These are the people who I think Erin is referring to as being "bad at the game". It's not so much that this stuff is trivial, but that it is nuanced and seems minute and possibly trivial.

So if you're railing at the game, I think what you need to find out is if it's the player or the game.

2002-08-06T08:36:00.000-04:00

This past year both Paul and I were members of Match.com, hunting down dates via the internet. Needless to say, neither of us had much luck finding Mr./Ms. Right, however I did find a few Mr. Right Nows. But I digress. While scrolling through all of the postings, you see a lot of the same shit over and over again. Headlines that read "I've never done this before," or "Don't tell my friends I'm on here," etc. However, there was one such stupid phrase that annoyed me above all others. "No games." Why would this annoy me? Because you can't avoid playing games in some capacity, and it seems that people who blatantly say this might be not as good at the game as they would like and simply write it in frustration. What they fail to realize is that in some capacities, games or having game are very helpful in dating, because they let you know what to expect from your prospective partner and how to react to it. All the games that I have ever played, from volleyball to Monopoly to dating, have rules. Rules are key. The problem is that most people don't know what the rules of dating are, and they certainly don't obey them a lot of the time. If everyone knew and obeyed a set of basic guidelines for dating (I believe that people used to do this in the 1950s and before...I am not suggesting that we play by those rules, but that we make up a set of our own that are relevant now) there would be much less ambiguity, people would be less frustrated, less confused, and wouldn't waste as much time.

2002-07-24T23:24:00.000-04:00

Q: Why are women evil?
A: Because they have the power to hurt men.

Erin on Lying
Men are bad liars and women are fairly good ones. The reasons for lying run along the same lines that Paul suggested; women want to build the egos of the men in their lives, they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, they want to make others feel good. On the other hand, women try to cover their asses as much as any man, and are quite adept at this. For example: your girlfriend wants to have dinner with her ex-boyfriend. Knowing that you will be uncomfortable with this, and rightly so, she uses ambiguity as her ally and makes you believe that she is meeting a girlfriend. "I am having dinner with an old friend from college," conveniently leaving out the fact that they used to screw each other daily.

On second thought, maybe it isn't that women are good liars, but that men WANT to believe the line that they are being fed. Who doesn't want to believe that they are the best that the other person has had, or that she really is meeting a girlfriend even though she wore her sexiest panties and heels. Women tend to be MUCH more suspicious than men, always secondguessing and doubting men's motivations and overanalyzing everything a man says. This leads to overreacting in situations when nothing happens, but occasionally we are right, leading us to believe that men lie more often than they probably do.

One problem for men is that they seem to tell outright lies, rather than merely using artful dodging as women often do, they will blatantly lie, saying "I am going out with the guys tonight, so we can't have dinner," when in reality he is having drinks with that cute girl from his office. Since he is sure nothing will happen, he figures his girlfriend doesn't need to know. I don't believe that men lie maliciously though, maybe because they are simple creatures and don't think this way.

One thing that Paul didn't address was how the sexes get caught lying in different ways. Men get caught in their lies much more often than women do, and when confronted with their lies, their stories break down. They need to take a lesson from women when it comes to getting caught. Temper tantrums are the way to make someone feel like an ass for questioning anything you say. Or, you can take the opposite route, break down in tears and say "Don't you trust me? I trust you!" Men just kind of stand there, apologizing, which is basically admitting that they lied and that they knew they shouldn't have done what they did.

Do men lie more than women think? Are they better at not getting caught than I think? If they are good at it, women would have no way of knowing...kind of the way that men don't usually realize that women are damn good liars.

2002-07-24T01:07:00.000-04:00

Variations on a Theme; or, Why do we Lie?

Although the original topic by our reader was "Why are women evil", I'm going to take it in a slightly more neutral direction, and discuss why it is that each of the genders lie to the other. We all do it, every day, to lots of people, for a whole hell of a lot of reasons. Sometimes it's entirely necessary, it's true. In relationships, it can be both the magic glue and the less-magic hammer, depending on the style and caliber of the lie. Your hips may not look slim, but we're not going to tell you---that's fine, even expected. Your hips don't look slim, so I'm having an affair with your sister--not so fine, not so expected, and a rather substantial lie.

It's my contention that most males and most females lie for entirely different reasons. The female role (if we are to believe stereotypes that sometimes help) is to nurture and protect. This is why the major lies from the female side of the relationship tend to be about the male ego. No, honey, it's okay, it happens to everyone sometimes, it isn't a big deal. Yes, you're the best I've ever had. No, I think you're far more intelligent than he is. You deserve the job. And so on and so forth.

The male psyche, however, seems to be stereotypically incompetent with regard to comfort. Apparently we just don't do it as well as we should. Our lies, instead, seem to be defensive mechanisms to keep from getting hurt. Men lie to keep from being maced or emasculated, to escape injury from that proverbially scorned woman's fury. We conceal the beer on our breaths, the lipstick on our cheeks, the emptiness in our wallets, and we do it not because we are afraid of hurting our partner's feeling, but because we don't want to hurt our own "feeling" things.

Is that necessarily true, though? Is it at all possible that men lie this way so that they don't hurt the woman's feelings for acting like, well, men? Is it possible that on some level, we don't want to tell the girl that she's bad in bed, that her sister is more attractive than she is, simply for the reason we don't want to hurt them? It seems that biologically, we have an imperative to have sex with lots of women, but then protect them from the wild and themselves so our progeny can be born. Is it possible, then, that the male lie is meant to protect and defend each woman with whom a particular man has had sex?

I suppose I've taken this far afield, and I leave it to my good associate to take up another or correlative position on the matter. As always, we welcome your opinions.

2002-07-18T10:39:00.000-04:00

Although this site is supposed to be high-powered sparring between the sexes, Paul is absolutely right. But Paul, where do we find enough of these mythical creatures you call men to go around? Especially at Andrea's age!!! And I do live by my distinction....I specifically referenced boys throughout my last post, while referring to Andrea as a woman. This was certainly intentional, although perhaps not carried far enough. I relented a little, but perhaps unfairly stated that MEN don't get subtlety....maybe I should replace all mention of men with boys...hmm...

2002-07-18T10:25:00.000-04:00

Jane, you ignorant slut...
Actually, Andrea, Erin, and any other woman who may be reading: there is a key distinction that Erin brought up and then failed to live by. Many of the males in high school, college, and well into the working world are boys, playing at being a man. There are few "men". I'm sorry, that's just the way it is, fellas. Most of the stuff that ladies, women, girls, females of all varieties complain about and belittle "men" for is directly attributable to the immaturity and idiocy of males that can only be described as boys.

They are boys, plain and simple.

Men don't play games. Men don't treat you badly. Men don't lie, cheat, steal, or lust after your best friends (unless you do). Men are polite, generous, honest, caring, and loyal. The problem is, in our world, there are very few men out there. Some men even hide behind a shield of quasi-boyhood, but the fact remains that all the bogus behavior that you bemoan (rightly) is that of boys.

So the short answer is that you need to be aware of this crucial distinction, and choose accordingly. The boys are the ones many of you date. The men are the ones you want to date and want to keep.

2002-07-18T01:41:00.000-04:00

Dear Andrea,
Now that I have let the men have their say, it is time for me to chip in and give it to you straight. As someone who had a lot (perhaps too much) success with dating in high school, I have to say that a HUGE factor (I cannot stress this next point enough) is how (im)mature boys (I dare not even say men) are in high school (actually, I don't know when this particular phenomenon is supposed to end...midlife???). Through no fault of their own, men's sexual peaks are inversely proportional to how mature they are, meaning that during high school they are idiots. One problem that you may be facing is that you are a woman who knows what you want. You may be ready for a mature relationship, but honey, the truth is that most of the boys in your life probably don't have the first clue about what they want, so how can you know what to do to give it to them (and I don't mean sex...although, in high school this is probably a priority for most boys)? Occasionally I have taken it upon myself to inform my particular objet d'amor what it is that he wants (and more specifically that it is me) but you have to know 100% what his response will be before using this particular approach. Mostly I would suggest trying a few simple things that tended to work for me in high school (they tend to apply less as I get older and deal with older guys):

1. Operation Infiltration: Guys have to feel comfortable with you. This is KEY. In high school it often helps to be friends/friendly with someone you hope to date. Be a good listener, and also take a risk by opening up a little. This will help both of you get past any awkwardness that would come of asking each other out. Once you have this firmly in place and have become his confidant move on to step 2.

2. Operation Go ahead and ask the guy out:...but be CAREFUL. Invitations that come from left field are often unsuccessful, so try to work this into a conversation about dating, people you have a crush on, etc. Don't be afraid to be obvious. Men DO NOT understand the finer points of subtlety AT ALL. While you may feel like you are being overly blatant, that is what it takes sometimes.

3. Another KEY POINT is that the feelings obviously have to be mutual, but there are ways to test for this. Go to a movie together or do something else where if you were tired it would be normal to put your head on his shoulder, do it and see what happens. There are tons of ways to assess this. If he talks to you about girls he likes, chances are he isn't interested. Likewise, don't talk about boys you are interested in, because he will get the wrong idea. Making guys take notice of you sexually by broadcasting other exploits always, and I mean always, backfires and gets you landed in friendsville.

4. Try to date older men if you can handle it (not for the naive). They tend to be a little more mature, but you might not notice :) The ideal thing is to date someone who has had a prior relationship of some endurance.

I would totally love to give you more tips, but I don't want to broadcast my total arsenal as prospective dates might view this page. However, feel free to email me at ekmurray@hotmail.com, and I will give you a better scoop :)

2002-07-17T11:40:00.000-04:00

Another Male Perspective....
Paul's cousin, Graham, has decided to weigh in with some further advice to Andrea. Please enjoy...
In response to Andrea's query about how to handle dealing with guys, I think we are less looking at a fear issue (someone that self confident is past that) and more at a "what are they (guys) thinking?" I could totally be in the wrong here, but that's the impression I am getting... [I was actually trying to get at a more generalized dating tactic, though you're right, the question was phrased more about what are guys thinking. -ed.]

I would first say that as silly as this sounds, everyone reacts differently to different things, and that an approach that works on one person may not be suited to the person sitting in the desk next to them. I realize this may be blatantly obvious to some, but quite often, we find a groove that works for us and we try to replicate it. Under this umbrella of thought, Mr. Rogers was right, "everyone is special." The tough part is figuring out who is right for you.

Leading into the topic just mentioned, alot of the time, we go after what we "think" we want and what we "think" will make us happy. I am not saying that these urges which lead to romances are bad, just that we need to recognize what's the real thing and what is "pining
brought to fruition." We all go after people, but one must realize that while some people like to be pursued, maybe there is an underlying reason that we are the ones doing the pursuing.

Underlying all of this is our gut. It's there for a reason. Listen to it. We always know when something feels right or not. Yeah, there can be some awkwardness in the beginning trying to get to know the person across the dinner table from us, but if it's right, those butterflies ought to leave our stomach pretty quickly (and hopefully not onto our date).

For some concrete advice, I would love it of Andrea could give us some examples. Primary source material always makes advice a bit easier to construct (generalities are the bane of advice's existence; just read the first three paragraphs here). Hope this could be of some assistance and we all look forward to dissecting the dating world here further.

2002-07-17T00:34:00.000-04:00

Paul on the non-returned phonecalls
Speaking as one who has been in this position, it's not fun to be in, there's no doubt. The fact is that a lot of people out there just don't have any manners. Occasionally I'm among them, but I try to make it a point to call anyone who calls me back. (this of course excepts telemarketers, parents leaving short messages that don't require replies, and the like). Frankly, some people are just rude and they don't know how to handle the fact that you might like them.

For me, for example, I once was dating this girl, and I think we were both not totally down with the relationship. One of us was moving away, and as the departure date grew closer, we felt less and less need to spend time with each other (this, it is admitted, was after 3 dates or so). She called me, and I was very busy, but I called back. She never did. I'm not holding it against her, since I agreed it was short and not really happening, but the point I'm getting at is that some people feel it is best to end a relationship by ignoring it, and I think that's wrong.

Aside from the manners thing--and don't get me started on people thinking that my manners come from having gone to high school in Texas--I think that the ignoring thing is just a bad call for the ignorer, let alone the ignoree. The ignorer subjects herself to continued calls because she hasn't had the forthrightness to say she didn't think it was working out, and hoping it will just resolve itself on its own. This probably causes more anguish for them than necessary, because they keep hoping it'll go away, and they keep hoping this call isn't going to be the person again, and on and on it goes.

The other side of that coin is that people use a lack of returned phone calls in a purely selfish fashion, to keep someone on a string or to build up their own ego. I knew a girl who would ignore calls and emails for weeks at a time, and then just as her suitor was about to call her up and give her what-for and tell her to get lost, she would do something to draw them back in. Some people just get off on it, and that's just wrong.

Is it a gendered thing, though? The bogus "I'll call you" notwithstanding, since it's pretty much a social form by now, do men do this any more or any less than women?

2002-07-17T00:23:00.000-04:00

Abandon Fear, All Ye Who Enter Here: Paul's Perspective, such as it is...This is in response to our faithful reader Andrea, who has been with us since the beginning. Way to go for being here all 2 weeks!

Andrea, it should be noted, is a high school senior, and said that she believed that she was rather attractive and was still having problems with the guys. I am going to assume that Andrea is not lying, particularly for the following reasons: she has self-confidence, and in a high schooler, that's awfully rare. Additionally, she's obviously smart--no, actually, because it doesn't do well to insult the readership. And finally because there are plenty of attractive people without dates--and plenty of uglies with them--so the theory works any way you like.

Nevertheless, back to the topic at hand. High school--and indeed the dating world in general--isn't easy. Perhaps it gets easier with time, but I don't think it's because rejection or heartbreak are any different as a 60 year old or a 16 year old. One of our other readers called her dating life (which to me seems relatively normal) a Jackson Pollock painting, full of color and confusion; "a fast-paced, colorful mess".

What I think is equally good advice for the old and young, male and female alike is something like a paraphrase of FDR--the only thing you should do is have no fear. It's not to say that fear is unnatural, or that you should hide your fear, but just to avoid having it.

Look: fear submerged only comes out in other places: inappropriate jokes, nervous laughter, uptightness, distraction, and the like. All of these are things that are horrible during a date, and could be fatal if you're trying to introduce yourself to someone. You could say the wrong thing, laugh at the wrong place, or spill your drink. You could become haughty or reserved, obnoxiously gregarious, or any number of different masks we all put on to avoid being afraid or alone. Despite our greatest self-delusions, none of us is good enough to perfectly hide that we are nervous. It just doesn't happen, and as a result, people do end up seeing through it.

Instead, abandoning fear can be a healthy thing for both men and women. Of course, foolhardiness isn't highly recommended either--asking the groom if he'd fancy a date next week is generally bad manners, but also sets you up for more than a little disappointment. But don't take that to mean that you shouldn't try to ask out people who you might think to be "out of your league." You never know until you play against them. And you will never do that until you abadon fear.

This sounds like some wacky action/adventure mantra, but it really does have practical benefits, particularly in the real world of the dating scene. When you're first asking someone out, you have to be absolutely open to the fact that the time might not be right for them (and therefore you). If you ask them, and they say no, then you're out what, 4 minutes? Not a lot of time. And if you don't worry about it exhaustively, you're in a position to move right on.

Some people are able to collect many numbers in a bar on any given night. It's because they're willing to just ask, they don't fear a "no" and they don't fear a "yes". Of course you can hope that the someone says yes, but you don't have to get all freaked out about it. Nor do you have to get freaked out about a date. Or saying no to a date. The whole purpose of a date is to find out if you like that other person. If you already know the answer's no, then you should tell them as much.* And you shouldn't fear the response. They'll date again, they'll ask for other numbers, and they'll get over it; so will you, if you are in their position. Sure, it may be hard, but in the long run, you're a better person for trying something new or ending something old.

Even on the date, I think trying to do away with fear can be a fearsomely liberating experience. You can learn a lot about yourself on a bad, madcap, or innovative date. Even if you don't like the person, it might help you out to find out more about yourself as a person. My worst date, well, that's a story for another time, but it was pretty funny to those involved, years later.

This is probably a bit freewheeling, but then, the question was a bit broad. If you have more questions directed at particular aspects of the dating life, drop us a line.

* note that I did not say "Be rude to them". There is no need to be anything less than kind but firm.

2002-07-16T22:58:00.000-04:00

Lisa (a friend of both Paul and Erin) suggested some comical names:
Battle of the Bulge
Your Gender Sucks
Young, Horny and Clueless

2002-07-15T21:51:00.000-04:00

NEW FEATURE!!!
With not a little fanfare, Erin and Paul trot out what we hope will be the next great thing in the world of sparring sexes. Yes, that's right--YOU, the reader (yes, you) get the opportunity to tell us what you think of our commentaries.

Just click the link marked "Shout Out" down at the bottom of the post in question and shout away. You can see if new people have posted by seeing what the number of "shout outs" is. For instance, there will be one down there in a moment.

If you have a suggestion for us, you may still want to email us directly....

2002-07-15T18:03:00.000-04:00

A Trip Through Our Creative Process

Paul: And what do you think about my idea for changing the name?
Erin: I think we should change the name of he said/she said, but i like heateddiscussion.
Erin: Have you thought of a particular name that you are angling for?
Paul: No.
Paul: I was thinking Sexist
Erin: OK
Paul: or gender bias
Paul: or something
Erin: sexist in the city
Paul: but he said she said just seems wrong
Paul: too conventional
Erin: agreed
Erin: sparring sexists?
Paul: nah
Erin: i am soooo drawing a blank
Paul: battle of the sexes isn't right either
Erin: no
Erin: definitely not
Paul: vat full of sexists?
Erin: hahaha
Erin: no
Erin: Thinly Veiled Sexism?
Paul: whispers in your ears
Erin: Lightly Masked Sexism
Erin: Poorly Disguised Sexism
Paul: tightly dressed sexism
Erin: Blatant Sexism
Paul: tightly wound sexists
Paul: tightly bound sexists
Paul: nightly bound sexists
Erin: NO WAY
Erin: you are sooo silly
Paul: harold and maude
Erin: yay
Paul: ozzie and harriet
Paul: bastard and harlot
Erin: i am NOT a harlot
Paul: i'm not a bastard
Paul: well, not to most people
Paul: Lilo and stitch
Paul: no, wait
Erin: HELL NO
Erin: boycott all new things disney
Paul: ok
Paul: 101 things your dalmation can't tell you
Erin: you are being hysterical
Paul: eeeeww, stop licking me
Erin: i am going to cry with laughter soon
Erin: HAHAHAHAHA
Erin: LOL
Paul: down boy, no, wait, keep going
Erin: HAHAHAHAHA
Paul: snagglepuss and huckleberry hound
Erin: Sexism for the Masses
Paul: Rosenguy and Girldenstern are dead
Erin: too corny mr. shakespeare
Paul: yeah
Paul: Mass Sex
Paul: no
Paul: too highly edited
Erin: yeah
Erin: Liberal Sexism
Erin: Raving Sexists
Erin: I'm Right, You're Wrong
Paul: Raving i like....
Erin: yeah you love words like that
Paul: Who wants to be a sexist
Erin: no
Paul: Gender Imbalance
Erin: ooh
Erin: interesting
Paul: Raving Gender Imbalance
Erin: hmm
Erin: that has definite potential
Paul: a firebomb in the pocket of reason
Erin: my sister calls it Dear Abby/Andy
Paul: nah
Paul: honest pickup lines
Erin: Honest Sexism
Paul: really?
Paul: nah
Paul: i want to avoid sexism
Erin: ok
Paul: although it would probably get us readership

2002-07-15T11:32:00.000-04:00

Erin on Keeping in Touch

Not write, not call, and if she is actually interested in keeping this up, she can pick up the damn phone and call. Am I being truly unreasonable here?

You are definitely not being unreasonable. You have gone out of your way to call her over a period of several days, during which you got nowhere except frustrated. While she says she is busy, it is not at all difficult to send someone an email, make a 4 minute phone call, or at least be nice when they call you. It seems that she wants to keep you on the line (no pun intended), but she isn't giving anything back. This is completely wack. If I were you, I wouldn't make the next move, I would leave it up to her to call you or apologize. At this point she doesn't seem to be respecting you at all, and nothing good can come of this. However, if you play it cool for a little bit and make her call you, maybe she will begin to appreciate you. She seems to be taking you for granted, meaning that you will still be around when she is done being busy. You need to shake this up a little bit and see what she does. If she doesn't call you, then you are no worse off than you are now, and if she does call you, you will be the one with the power in the relationship, instead of being the only one making an effort as you are now.

While it sounds kind of weird and unromantic to discuss the power in relationships, it is very vital to understanding how they work. Usually the person who is the most interested has the least power, since they have the most to lose. When you get to the point where you have nothing to lose, the other person usually sits up and takes notice, at that point finding out whether they are actually interested. Power isn't necessarily competitive, and the best relationships come when it is evenly balanced between the couple.

2002-07-15T11:13:00.000-04:00

We have had two recent suggestions from readers:

1. What up with women not initiating communication or making more of an effort to keep in touch?

2. Would you provide a male perspective on dating tactics?

We will each answer the question for which we are most qualified, then we will respond to the other's answers.

2002-07-12T10:52:00.000-04:00

From a loyal reader...
really, i'm just waiting for that call from NBC telling them they're planning a reality show based on the three ring circus that is my love life . . . and it's not even 11 o'clock!

2002-07-11T17:20:00.000-04:00

Another potential firebomb in the pocket of reason....
Another friend getting married. Are we too young for this shit?

2002-07-11T01:13:00.000-04:00

So guess who, in their arrogance, totally destroyed the front page of this blog, in a hurry to go to bed?
Yep, that'd be me.

2002-07-10T10:39:00.000-04:00

And the Science Survey Says.....
As much as I am disappointed that I am being considered a guinea pig, I understand Erin's reasons for doing so. That said, a couple of caveats and responses to her theory before we go any further; I believe this probably ought to be the final post on the topic.

1. I never suggested that being asked out by a woman was glamorous
I merely suggested that it was rare, due to, as Erin mentioned, gender roles. I would like to be asked out by a woman I found attractive, just as a woman would like to be asked out by an attractive man.

2. Just because a girl makes her attraction known does not guarantee the guy will ask her out
This is because some guys won't understand that it's meant as a prelude to dating, instead taking it as a compliment or statement of objective fact. Maybe those men are few and (like me) need a more explicit statement of interest; maybe such group is willfully oblivious because we spend too much time thinking only about ourselves or our lives, and miss that big neon sign.

That said, however, there are situations--particularly when people are friends--that even when one or the other is attracted to the other, the attracter assumes that they are so established in their roles that they cannot see the interest as a legitimate date-interest. One might say that this is the crux of the escaping-friending issue; one person may view the other only as a friend at the time when said other is trying to change it and vice-versa. My roommate in college and one of our best friends did this for years.

3. Male obliviousness is a crutch, no doubt
Men are dopes, in general. I don't doubt that there are some who are willfully evasive, but I refuse to believe most are. I'd bet that more often, they're willfully ignorant, choosing to pretend that the interest doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

4. Words from a reader:
Missy Langsam of Washington DC writes:
"There are guys who want to ask you out but are shy/intimidated, so they don't. But they then are thrilled when you ask them to do something, and they transition quite nicely from being acquaintance/friend to date/candidate for mr. missy role."
In short, asking a guy out is not such a bad thing, but it's not as if you can just say "Date Me!" and it will work.

2002-07-10T09:20:00.000-04:00

I think for our next topic, we should discuss dating tactics, instead of anti-dating tactics. Sort of a "Paul and Erin guide to Dating in Law School."

2002-07-10T09:11:00.000-04:00

APPLAUSE to Paul who fixed my bungling errors in our template, and who also put up a kick ass cartoon that completely sums up my first and last date with the last guy I went out with.

2002-07-10T09:09:00.000-04:00

In the interest of science and entertainment, I undertook to prove a few theories to myself and a certain male who shares this blog space. Basically, I am right on a great number of things, which should come as no suprise to the aforementioned individual.

1. Once a girl makes her attraction known (which I have done prior to my last post) it is best for her to wait for the guy to ask her out. He will be guaranteed success, so there is no risk. If he doesn't ask you out, he's not interested.

2. Getting out of the friend zone is hard work, and often never happens. However, this isn't a necessarily bad thing. It is far better to friend someone than to have to break up with them. And I am all about avoiding break-up drama.

3. Men aren't as oblivious as they pretend to be. They are masters at evasion.

4. However, men are still oblivious, because they don't realize how many women they could go out with.

2002-07-10T01:11:00.000-04:00

Since Paul thinks that it is SOOO glamorous to be asked out by a girl, I am going to take the ultimate risk of asking him out, even though he has already proclaimed me to be "set" in the friend zone. Let's see if I can change his mind. So Paul, what'll it be, are you willing to reevaluate and go out with me?

2002-07-10T00:12:00.000-04:00

Just a few more things:

1. As a girl who regularly asks out guys, I can speak from experience that a lot of time it IS hoping and wishing that men would come around. Mostly because men DON'T realize, as Paul suggests they do, that they are being asked out. Further, men always think it would be cool to be asked out, to not have to worry about getting rejected; however, what they fail to take into consideration is that they ONLY want to be asked out IF and ONLY IF they find the woman attractive/datable, in which case they probably would have asked her out. Ergo, women face the same dilemmas in dating that men do, but do to sex role conformity when a woman asks out a man, it is often seen as just a friendly gesture and a lot of time we are waiting around for the man to take matters into his own hands, figuratively and literally speaking. For example, once a woman has made her interest clear, asking a man out is a waste of time. If he likes you, he will ask you out, if he doesn't you will surely be friended.

2. I must confirm that Paul is correct that men ARE oblivious as well as pretending to be oblivious. I just wanted to make him say it.

3. No, you may not have admin privileges. Why do you think I made sure to start this page first?? Nanny nanny boo boo.

2002-07-09T23:43:00.000-04:00

Erin, that was too nice. Seriously, I had meant that to be a punny joke. Now can I have admin privileges?

I suppose she's right, though...at some point, I did friend her, mostly because that's the space I was in when we met, and I never really took her out of that before the conception set.

2002-07-09T23:39:00.000-04:00

Erin may not be saying that men are unaware. I am. Men are dopes a lot of the
time. I know, because I've been in the friend zone with so many girls that I am
well aware of all of our most serious shortcomings, and the number one cause of
women hating men is that the man was careless with female feelings. I hate this,
of course, because it makes my job as a healthy dating man just that much
harder. That said, men can probably fake the obliviousness thing
much, much more easily; I hesitate to say that they're that conniving. We really
tend to be (with, of course, exceptions) very simple creatures, desiring and
chasing only on the most superficial of levels.

It's interesting to me that Erin seems to think that women are the ones doing
all the hoping, wishing, and praying that the men will come around. Maybe it's
because I'm so accustomed to the whole man-asks-woman-out thing, and have never
been asked out myself (formal dances notwithstanding), but I always feel like
that choice tends to be in the hands of the men. Of course there are exceptions
here as well, but the women who ask men out are so few, you'll know when she's
asking, and you'll have to be clear with her at that very moment. So I guess the
problem is, once again, men. Honestly, though... since I don't believe that men
are such good fakers (simple creatures that we are), I find it hard to believe
there are many women out there who are waiting for the guy to hop on them.

Staying friends....That's a bit different. I think the whole dynamic
of "staying friends" is probably worth an entirely separate
conversation from this one, but I bet that men and women who claim to want to be
friends after whatever-it-is are probably liars on a roughly equal level. I've
been fortunate enough to remain friends with a good number of my exes, so I may
not be the most objective evaluator thereof.

I believe the timing distinction is not moot at all. It goes further to my
criticism that most men aren't all that self-aware. It's only once interest has
been expressed implicitly (impressed explicitly?) that they pre-empt. Women, on
the other hand, are sensitive to notice the whiff of interest (or even a lacking
whiff) and blow it away before there is a chance for it to grow.

I'm not sure that friending's deliberation really is inherent to the process.
It sometimes just happens; how else do you explain how you got to know your
friends? Sometimes you just don't think about the person; it's rare, I'm sure,
but it really does happen.

I guess my conception of friending differs from Erin's, though--she seems to
think that there is a massive imbalance between people, but I view it to be a
smaller difference. You can't friend someone who tells you they love you (though
you can say, no, I can't, I don't think of you that way), but if someone thinks
you're neat enough to go on a date with, you can definitely keep them around
because they like you enough to be interested and you friend them because you
don't mind the attention.

The fact of the too-many-friends pileup is one I hadn't yet considered.... I
think it can be a turn-on for some--to be the one guy who slipped through, to
attain the unattainable, the thrill of the hunt. And since we want to pursue and
be pursued, this might actually turn out to be less of a liability than Erin
suggests. And to some girls, it might even be a benefit, since it would chase
away the guys who just want a quick fling and nothing more. But that gets into
dating tactics, rather than anti-dating tactics. I think that's as much as I've
got on this.

2002-07-09T22:58:00.000-04:00

Getting friended seems to have a worse rap than it perhaps deserves. Not that it still does't suck, or that it isn't disappointing when it happens to us, but once in a great while you can actually make a very good friend this way, and there is certainly a treasure in that. Just look at Paul and I. Even though I have clearly been friended (Paul hammered the point home by saying, "I think that now that I'm looking at it, I've almost completely disagreed with Erin. It's a good thing we're friends.") it is hard to mind too much when you end up with a friend like him.

2002-07-09T22:54:00.000-04:00

I was curious about the gay perspective, too. Maybe I will enlist some help with this so we can get an authentic answer.

2002-07-09T22:50:00.000-04:00

Questions of my own
I'd like to see what the take on all of this is from a gay perspective. Does this phenomenon take place in homosexual relationships?

Do straight folk friend gay people to escape or confront their fears?

2002-07-09T22:46:00.000-04:00

Some Responses

First, the easy stuff; the short answers, the things I don't have to think of
nearly as much...

1. Is friending merely a cop-out/a way to avoid rejecting someone or being
rejected?

I hesitate to say that it's a way of avoiding rejecting someone. I think
it's actually a very handy tool in the arsenal. It's far better than "It's
not you, it's me," and it's a lot easier to say than "No
thanks...." If there were to be someone who used it to avoid being
rejected, I would love to talk to them about their strategy. It's true that some
will never have the courage to ask another out, but that's different from saying
they became friends to avoid being rejected.

2. Is there a difference between whether you stick an already friend in
the friend zone vs. sticking a new acquaintance in the friend zone?

No, although the message tends to be louder with the new friends. The old
ones were already friends, and while it might help after a breakup to reaffirm
that role, they probably don't need that recommendation nearly as much; even if
they entertained the notion of asking you out or trying to hook up with you,
they are aware that they were already a friend.

With a new acquaintance, if you clearly friend them, it's much easier to hear
because you are more likely to be able to determine if you really are deserving
of the "friend" tag, rather than the "possible love
interest" tag.

3. Can you ever recover from the friend zone?

Speaking from experience, absolutely. In fact some of the best relationships
I've had have come when I was friends with someone. There really is truth to the
notion that your significant other should also be your best friend. It's true
that crossing that border is a treacherous route, and more friendships have been
savaged than relationships established by those who attempted the voyage, but
that doesn't mean it's not a possible or even enjoyable endeavor.

4. Should we make a distinction between the
friend zone, and simply the "never gonna get it" zone?

I suppose there may be a distinction; this is what happens when you can't give
the person that fake number in the bar. Sure, why not. There are people in your
life who you "friend" because you can't tell them to beat it, and they
can't take the hint enough to butt out. And there are undoubtedly men and women
in all our lives who we love but would never love. That is to say, the
distinction is a bit of a Venn diagram, with a large overlap of
"friends" and "never gonnas".

2002-07-09T02:32:00.000-04:00

A few topics we haven't covered:

1. Is friending merely a cop-out/a way to avoid rejecting someone or being rejected?

2. Is there a difference between whether you stick an already friend in the friend zone vs. sticking a new acquaintance in the friend zone?

3. Can you ever recover from the friend zone?

4. Should we make a distinction between the friend zone, and simply the "never gonna get it" zone?

2002-07-09T02:16:00.000-04:00

I am totally not saying that men ARE unaware of their surroundings, I am saying that they can pretend to be oblivious so that they aren't forced to ever discuss the potential of a romantic relationship with someone they find undatable. I give men props for this. It seems to be a well-honed skill that serves them well and allows both parties to remain/become friends with pride in tact. What I AM suggesting is that sometimes this type of friending (most often done by men) sucks ass, because it doesn't allow the woman to know explicitly that she is merely friend material and to move on. Instead, she goes along with a friendship that she probably wasn't looking for in the hopes that it will develop into something more, but at the same time she is probably unwilling to force the issue, thereby becoming a friend by default.

When women friend men, they definitely intend for this to happen, and it is almost always preemptive as Paul says. As soon as there is any hint that anything romantic might be crossing the guy's mind, a woman will make one of the following comments, "You are such a good friend," "I can talk to you like I would a girlfriend," "You are just like a big brother that I can talk to when I need advice," or she starts asking for man advice. This is when men usually realize that yes, they in fact have been friended. The question that a man needs to ask himself is whether the comment is well-founded. Meaning that if you were her friend before and she makes one of these comments, take it as a compliment that you are a fantastic friend and that is all you will be. If she just says this to make clear to you that she isn't interested, take the hint, then take a hike. What I was trying to point out is that women do not necessarily mean it when they say they want to stay friends. In fact, a recent poll shows that most women do NOT mean it when they say that they want to be friends with men they were formerly involved in, and I stipulate that this can probably extend to pre-emptive friending situations as well.

"Girls seem to do it before the guy can make his move; guys as they begin to perceive that the girl has already begun moving." This is defintiely true, but the distinction is moot. There is no relevance to when it is done, but with the intent with which it is done and the result which is achieved. Men tend to mean it more when they say that they want to stay friends. They don't merely use it as a cop-out, which I think a lot of women do. They genuinely want to stay/become friends. Women usually are OK to be friends, but are probably less than thrilled about it on either end, but will say it just to pacify the man or avoid hurting him.

"From the woman's standpoint, however, I think that while girls are more likely to be proactive, defensive frienders, they are also prone to negligent friending. They show no interest, don't recognize a guy's advances for what they are, and the guy assumes she's not interested." This is a bit bogus. Negligent friending is only for the very inept. Women tend to overanalyze whether a man is interested, and would rarely miss an advance that they were interested in. It is possible that they bury their head in the sand sometimes, as men do, to avoid having to deal with it, but I do not think that they "accidentally" put men in the friend zone. Friending is by its nature a deliberate art.

When girls friend with the intention of keeping someone around, it is the exception rather than the rule. Further, after a breakup, this would be the exception. By keeping around someone who is/was interested in you, you tend to drive away other potential suitors, and would soon end up with a highway pile-up of "just friends" but not good friends. It would be very hard to be good friends with someone you knew to have feelings for you that you did not reciprocate. I must agree, however, that when women do keep men around, they know that they still may be able to exercise the romance option at a later date.

2002-07-08T23:00:00.000-04:00

Friending a la Paul
I think Erin may be missing the point a bit. Men's problems with friending generally have to do with their inability to be aware of their surroundings. It's not that we are willfully oblivious, nor that we don't care what's going on around us, but we are generally unable to see the nuances that women do.

Women Friending Men
When this happens, women tend to be well aware of what's going on--friending is done, I contend, because they are pre-emptively trying to keep the guy from trying to find the treasure in their pants. This tends to be because women buy into the societal belief that all that men ever want is sex. (Or to use Kevin Smith's quaint phrase, to give the girl "some deep dicking.") It's not the case, really. It's true that guys are always looking to have sex, but I don't think it's quite the same thing as trying to get into every girl's pants.

No, I think that girls very plainly choose to friend guys, and while some guys will automatically take that to mean that such girls explicitly don't like them--and get scarce as a result--I suggest that a girl often makes it very clear that she wants nothing. Particularly when she goes so far as to say, "I'm glad we're such good friends." So in other words, men tend to be oblivious, but when they do notice, their options end up being "be a friend" or "be gone". That's not to say that some of us don't hang around and hope for the best (I certainly do) but I don't think the guys are really hanging out just waiting for the moment the pants drop.

From the woman's standpoint, however, I think that while girls are more likely to be proactive, defensive frienders, they are also prone to negligent friending. They show no interest, don't recognize a guy's advances for what they are, and the guy assumes she's not interested. They become friends, and somewhere along the line, since she's not aware of what she's done, she treats him like a friend, since she's not aware that there's anything else to be.

Men Friending Women
Men, on the other hand, don't friend women by accident. Guys tend to view women in the dateable and the not-dateable categories. Men tend to think in terms of these poles. It's not that we're pigs or objectifying bastards; it's that it's a handy distinction, just like friend vs. foe, with-me vs. against-me, athletic vs. non-sporty. You define your friends and how you react to them in this way every day. It's just one more distinction. So when a guy says the girl's a good friend, then she should know that that's how he sees her.

A guy is just as likely to be a defensive friender as a woman is, but it tends to be because he thinks the girl is into him, and he's not interested in the girl. Girls seem to do it before the guy can make his move; guys as they begin to perceive that the girl has already begun moving.

I'm not sure I have a bottom-line, but the point is that I think men don't unintentionally friend girls on the same level that girls do guys; they are probably just as likely to be defensive and not into the girl. The reasons and timing are just different.
Insofar as the "needing to keep people in their lives" aspect, I'm hesitant to agree with Erin; I think women are more likely to want guys to be friends and stick around. When guys friend, they do it to avoid a romantic relationship, but for women, they tend to do it because they don't want the relationship right now.

I think that now that I'm looking at it, I've almost completely disagreed with Erin. It's a good thing we're friends.

2002-07-08T14:02:00.000-04:00

Erin on Getting Friended

Getting friended is a bitch. It is neither a step forward, nor a step back. It is a gentle maneuver to keep someone in your life, despite the fact that you don't want to date them, and they probably still want to date you. I guess I should say that it sucks if you are the one getting friended.

I have a feeling that, despite their protests, men friend women more than they are friended. Here's the thing. Most of the time if a woman realizes that a man is no longer interested, she moves on. She does not feel the need to keep that person in her life, unless he was already a friend, in which case, they are staying exactly where they were, with the added bonus of a bit of awkward tension. She bitches about it to her girlfriends, and she finds someone else. Not that women never friend, but I think it is more prevalent with men. When a woman friends someone it is either a pity friend, or there was never romantic interest to begin with. A pity friend is someone who you feel bad about rejecting, but whom you weren't already friends with. The other kind is when the woman thinks that the man would make good friend and there will never be anything more involved. Further, when women use the line, "I just want to be friends" what they really mean is that they don't want to be romantic. Not that they actually want to be friends with the person.

The darnest thing is that men sometimes friend themselves; i.e. they have been rebuffed by a woman, but rather than being cut out of her life, they become the only thing she will let them be: a friend. So basically, they make close friends with women whom they have no chance of being romantic with. Somehow this doesn't seem to bother them. Further, when they use the line, "I just want to be friends" they honestly mean that they want to be friends. This is so weird. How can you be friends with someone you are still interested in, and doesn't this prevent you from moving on and finding someone else?

When men friend someone they seem to expect her to become part of his life, even if she wasn't before. They slowly maneuver her into friend position, and most women are too timid and not forward enough to confront the man on whether he wants to date her or not. And they will almost certainly not make a move. Most of the time when girls get friended they blame the boy for being oblivious, thinking that he never knew that she was interested, yet doing nothing to correct the situation. I have to give men credit for doing this in a very tricky way so that women cannot be mad at them. It is absolutely infuriating to have to be friends with someone great whom you would love to date because you have been subtly friended. In this situation men blend women in so that there is a seamless transition from not knowing someone well to being friends, seeming to skip right over romantic interest. GRR.

There will most certainly be more on this once Paul makes his response.

2002-07-08T13:33:00.000-04:00

Getting Friended (aka Getting Stuck in the Friend Zone)

Chris Rock argues that to women male friends are like a dick in a glass case, much like a fire extinguisher: Break in case of emergency. And that men cannot have women friends, they can just have women they haven't fucked yet. However, if a man takes one wrong turn with a woman he's interested in, he can get stuck in the friend zone, never to return. However, this is a very subtle and nuanced state of existence and there are many issues involving getting friended, such as what happens when someone intentionally and aggressively friends all potential interests, or what happens when someone can't seem to find the map out of friendsville. On your marks, get set, blog!

2002-07-08T09:34:00.000-04:00

Interesting how I was initially thinking of writing the same thing. i.e. That I will be representing the correct point of view, and that Paul would be representing the men.

2002-07-08T03:29:00.000-04:00

I'll be right, and Erin can be wr--er, Left.
Yeah.

2002-07-08T00:39:00.000-04:00

This blog is a forum for ongoing discussions of various questions and issues with Paul and Erin representing their respective sexes. Let the games begin!