An Old Gripe

I won't pretend that this entry is insightful or original, but both genders are guilty of forgetting some obvious things, which means repetition is unfortunately necessary.

A few weeks ago, one of my friends here in Bloomington got me interested in a law blog by Dizzy. The blog is mostly about relationship gripes, and manages to entertain while also giving us guys useful intel about how "the other side" is thinking. Of course, by subjecting myself to a stream of complaints about men, I'm inevitably going to run into things about the way women think and/or act that make me want to bitch back. Things such as this post and this post.

The first post is about a guy who got his hopes up about being able to take a colleague home, and since he was about to be leaving the job anyways, he figured he had both good shot of getting a yes and not much to lose if he got a no. He took the shot, she apparently tried to gently wave him off, he missed the hint, she then directly said she didn't think it was a good idea, and he then proceeded to completely air his feelings, guaranteeing an embarrassing and awkward time for all parties invovled. The guy here is clearly a bonehead for disregarding the direct shootdown; the woman there did just fine. But, it wouldn't have been good enough for Dizzy if he stopped at "I don't think that's a good idea." Dizzy is griping that he didn't catch onto the fact that she "had clearly rejected him" from the beginning with the hint--as if the situation that resulted would still have been his fault even without the direct rejection--and it's this expectation that has pissed me off for years.

It isn't because her interpretation of what the woman said is unreasonable. Not only was it reasonable, it was right, and her reasoning for why the woman said what she said makes perfect sense. But, there isn't anything "clear" about a hint or any statement that requires reading between the lines--as a matter of definition. (And remember what our LRW prof's keep telling us, if you need to use words like "clearly" in making your argument, it's precisely because it's not clear!!!) Whenever people look beyond the face value of words, there is always room for different interpretations. What interpretations are more reasonable depend on the listener's own point of view, experiences, biases, mental processes, etc. It also depends on the speaker; different people might even have spoken the same words for different reasons. For example, from my own point of view, if a girl I'm attracted to asks me if I had plans after the current engagement or if I was just going home, I might very well say that I was tired and planning on going home even if I was open to the idea of going home with that person. This is because (1) it's just plain true, (2) the other given choice of having plans already pretty much precludes a hookup, if that's what I want (and still true), and/or (3) I might need to deflect any inferences that the reason I look the way I do is because I'm in a bad mood when I'm actually doing fine; I've just been in that noisy bar too long and I'm coming off my buzz, and nothing would please me more than to go someplace quieter where I can be more comfortable, both physically and emotionally (and again, true). I know you're saying that one's crazy but that really is the way I usually feel after the 2 hour mark. I might say 'drained' instead of 'tired' though--whatever. The point is if you get me in a better environment, I'll perk up. We can argue back and forth about the reasonableness of different interpretations, but it doesn't matter if the listener is right or wrong or even reasonable or unreasonable--especially because a person under that sort of emotional stress probably can't think rationally in the first place! What matters is that because our minds work differently, we will inevitably reach different conclusions--and that's assuming the listener even tries to read between the lines at all. Because of this, when you try to communicate in hints, you assume the risk of the hint not being communicated. Period.

And don't give me any of that crap about how you're using hints becaue you don't want to hurt his feelings. That's a cop-out, or at best, a sign that you've forgotten a lesson you should have learned by now: that at least to us, there are far worse things than being rejected. We're mentally prepared to take "no" for an answer (well, not Bonehead apparently...), but we will be justifiably pissed off if we end up having to deal with a greater emotional harm later down the road that could have been prevented with a little up-front honesty.

What's more is that I'd be fucking pissed if I found out I missed a golden opportunity because someone tried to read something into something I said that wasn't there. (It's happened before, except by people far more important than casual hookup candidates.) Since I don't want to bear the costs of misinterpretations, I deal with my friends honestly. Naively, I suppose, I expect the same from others. I'm quite sure that if it had been me in the Bonehead's position, I would have missed the hint too, and while I do fault myself for some degree for being dense on such matters, I do fault the speaker more for making the choice to communicate ineffectively. And in keeping in line with the tradition of the "advice" motive of Dizzy's blog (not to imply that advice by me to women is as useful as hers to men, of course. I have no such delusions), I'll add to this rant that if I can't trust someone to say what she means and mean what she says, it's unlikely that I'll be interested in her. It's inconsistent with my belief in relationships being based on mutual respect, and probably also a major reason why I'm single.

The second post is along the same lines. Dizzy graciously offers us advice on how to get laid--thanks!--and offers us some useful intel: that what women really want is someone who's great in bed. Well shit, that's encouraging, because after hearing about the stupid nitpicky stuff that I hear women criticize people about it's nice to hear that the key is actually something that we can expect to matter and that we have some control over. Besides, I've always had much more trouble being invited the first time than I have being invited back for a second. ; ) So far, so good... But then my hopes are dashed, because I then find out that we are being evaluated on this based on the degree of control we're willing to give up in social situations (witholding personal secrets, not exerting influence on other's decisions, deciding on a partner instead of "keeping one's options open," etc).

First off, if there is any relationship between a willingness to give up that sort of control (some of which reeks of tired gripe about committment) and "performance," it's very attenuated. I'm willing to give Dizzy this much though--someone with a personality that is amenable to accepting the vulnerability that comes with "losing control" is also going to be more self-confident and more willing to let go of inhibitions, and will therefore be more passionate. (If I'm wrong about how the dots are connected, please correct me, because I don't want to set up a straw man.) The problem with this is that personality does not tell us much about actual behavior. Behavior is situation-based. It's entirely possible that a person who does not display vulnerability-accepting behavior in a social context is quite willing and able to cut loose in a more intimate setting. I just fear what else is on that list that wasn't mentioned, because really, I want to know if I'm accidentally sending any messages I don't know about!

This is actually another one of my old relationship gripes. I call it "the test." As in, your girlfriend (or potential gf) isn't sure about something about you, and tries to approach the problem quasi-scientifically. She thinks up a hypothesis and a way to test it--if you do X, then you must be/think Y. The problem is that the variables are never controlled and the whole thing is invalid. One uncontrolled variable here is the social context, and it renders the analysis invalid.

I have to admit though, that I can only be so frustrated with this last one, because I'm guilty of doing it as well. One of my main criteria is my own estimate of the quality of the "experience," and I can't say I have anything reasonable to base it on either. My hypocrisy goes only so far, though. I won't state flatly that a woman who does X or doesn't do Y is going to suck. I won't go farther than "probably," and I'm acutely aware of the fact that I've been surprised before.