This is one that strong women with experience break often. When a man fails you in some way, he already knows it. You don’t need to remind him or nag him about it. If he cares about you at all, he knows and is already ashamed of himself. Having a verbal confrontation about it is not necessary.
You don’t have to pretend like you weren’t hurt. Just don’t talk about it. Actions speak louder than words.
Talking about it puts him in an automatically defensive mode. He won’t be able to help himself. There’s nothing rational about whatever will come out of his mouth at that point. He just wants you off his case so that he can either move on with his life or bear his shame and pay the consequences.
If whatever he has done is a dealbreaker, and he has no good excuse, he already knows that you’re gone or that you should be. Talk about your feelings with your female friends, because he obviously doesn’t care about them. If he did care about them, he wouldn’t have done what he did. You’re just providing unnecessary drama and annoyance.
If it wasn’t a dealbreaker, simply don’t trust him with whatever it was that he failed at. Don’t mention it unless he asks why you don’t trust him with that anymore.
The reason to avoid verbal confrontation in this case is that, as I’ve said, the man is the one who directs the relationship. If you gave him a responsibility that he is not ready to accept, there is really not much you can say that will do any good. He may not be conscious at the time of the failure that he wasn’t ready, and if you take the direction duty away from him, you can look forward to dragging him through a relationship he may not want to be in, or at least into phases that he is not ready for.
For example, if you are used to short notice meetings, and agree to meet one day, and he stands you up or doesn’t call to tell you not to wait for him, that’s the end. There is no need to tell him how disappointed you were. He knows. This doesn’t mean he did it on purpose. He may have been unconsciously trying to get rid of you. Maybe it was a “shit test” that some guys do to see how much of a pushover you are.
Rather than talking to him about it, simply do not accept any more short notice meetings. If he doesn’t make a date a day or two in advance, and pick you up at your residence, he doesn’t see you. He will understand why you no longer go out to meet him anywhere or jump when he calls. If he cares for you, he will value your time, and honor the more formal dating schedule. If not, then since you hopefully haven’t had sex with him at the time when this kind of thing would be a worry at all, then nothing is injured but your pride. Move on.
This is how to preserve your dignity as a woman when the man fails. You refuse to be the man in the relationship, resist the urge to burn bridges, and offer him the opportunity regain your trust and respect. You also don’t drag along a guy you don’t trust or respect, out of desperation.
Behaving desperately and making drama reduces your value to a man. It can make a man who cares about you pull away, and one who doesn’t care about you, view you as more worthless than he already deemed you were from the beginning.
So don’t be so quick to unload on a guy. He doesn’t want to hear it.
Tags: burning bridges, drama, talking too much, unspoken, unspoken rules
Dating a guy with some degree of pull, status, or “street cred” may cause you to feel safer and more confident. Nobody would blame you for taking those little extra steps to look nice and dress better. You’re the female representative in his social sphere, and when you look good, it makes him look good. Problem is, it is possible to look too good but in the bad way.
The men with the highest social status’s wives and girlfriends may wear the most expensive bling, and look as if they never have to walk more than two steps on bare pavement, but unless their partner is there to reap the immediate benefits of their appearance, they are dressed modestly. The idea is that her sexiness is at his disposal. If he has no say in her appearance, then he has no say in the consequences. It is a signal that he has no say in her conduct.
When a man has a woman, this social proof is and should be attractive to other women because he is at little or no physical risk from female attention. When a woman is taken, the men around her should be warned away from her. In fact, they should be warned that she is not for sale even before she is taken. After she is taken, she should look as if she is not available.
What this means exactly, depends on what is customary in one’s culture or subculture, and the man’s personal preferences. Some can have alot of cleavage and a miniskirt on so long as they are wearing a ring, and other men will stay away. In some places, that and unavailable behavior will do the job. Most guys I know who have some “rank” though, would prefer their woman be covered at least from the chest to the knees, meaning no cleavage and no minis.
Unfortunately, many women get into trouble by thinking that how they were dressed when they got the man is how they should dress when they have him. They also confuse the freedom of nudism with the idea that revealing clothing is okay in normal situations. It’s not the same thing.
Clothing is a uniform or a costume. One should dress for the role they intend to play. Dressing as if you are in the market for easy sex will attract men who are looking for that. The fact that you have a boyfriend or husband, but are dressed as if you are still looking, makes him look weak.
Your man should not have to tell you this. Wearing your “taken” costume is something you should do on your own. If he has had to tell you this, then your relationship is already on borrowed time. You’re running around acting as if you don’t have a partner, or as if the one you have isn’t good enough.
When you dress nicely but modestly, you increase his social standing or stabilize it rather than reducing it. You show people that you respect your man, so maybe they should too. Someone in this world thinks he’s worth being loyal to.
So when you have a boyfriend, suit up.
Tags: clothing, dating, how to dress when you are in a relationship, modest clothing, modesty, relationships, unspoken, unspoken rules
As a non “hottie” type who is reasonably independent, you may have many male friends. You may be used to being treated like “one of the guys”. In a potentially romantic relationship though, the context is different. Your boyfriend or potential is not your bro, and chances are that he’s not even in quite the same league as the guys you normally hang out with. You are not trying to be like a sister to him, so it’s best to avoid any kind of plays for social dominance.
This is not to say that you should be a pushover. It’s just that once you’re together, then socially you are like a team in which there is a male and a female member. In a group of men, even if these guys have known you all your life, your man is your male representative.
Viewing things this way accomplishes two goals when incorporating your partner into your social sphere as your partner. It allows him to establish his own place, and also allows him to prove his value to the other men. Initially, it gives them the opportunity to get to know him without your interrupting the process or possibly obscuring any crucial flaws that they would need to know about in order to protect you. In time, they see him as a part of you, and unless they are Gay, he may even serve as your replacement when womanly responsibilities prevent you from doing the guy stuff you used to. Hey, it’s the least he can do since it would be his fault that you’re someone’s girlfriend or wife, and perhaps later, someone’s mom.
For those involved with alpha type or “alpha enough” (non executive/business owning, but in charge of their own lives) guys, there’s another reason for letting your man be the man socially. There’s a world of men that many women think they know, but don’t. If you’re a polite and ladylike woman, it doesn’t really matter how strong you are. Your presence makes a social situation “polite company”, and there are certain things men don’t discuss in polite company. Even if they have told you the dirty details of sexual encounters with scores of hoes and ex wives, and feel comfortable enough to ask you about a rash on their groin, one thing they will almost never discuss with you is specifics of money problems or certain aspects of business. If they do in private, they don’t want anyone else to know that they have because it’s something that is fairly unique. You may be a kind of ace in the hole or lucky charm in that regard, and not everybody should know that you can tell a guy is a snitch from his smell or something.
So in practice, when two men are talking, either be someplace else, or go to the happy place in your mind. Unless they are actively including you in the conversation, tune it out.
It takes some practice to learn exactly when to do this, but if you know your friends and your man fairly well, it won’t take long to understand the cues. Sometimes it’s a rub of the chin, or a shift in posture. As an example, my current boyfriend has a “game face” when he’s about to talk about business or some kind of man thing. That’s when I know to adjust napkins, bring more snacks, check for dust somewhere, or become enthralled with his ponytail. I purposefully become part of the background until I’m invited back into the conversation or situation.
You can practice this skill with your male friends. It will make them even more comfortable around you because it will reduce your already hopefully low attention whore quotient, and let them know that you respect their manhood despite the value equalizing aspect of friendship. Respect builds trust.
When two men are talking, consider it a private conversation.
Tags: conversation, men, social skills, unspoken rules, unspoken rules of dating
The reason many of the most important “rules” in dating are unspoken is that men don’t often talk about their feelings. Even when they do, they’re often so out of touch with their feelings that they don’t know how to articulate them well. The vast majority are living behind a veil of masculine pretense, a.k.a. men’s emotional straitjacket. Far too many men are so disjointed that they’re basically living someone else’s life.
It’s like there’s a “left brained” person and a “right brained” person living inside their heads, who are neighbors but not on speaking terms. That there is such a cold war going on inside is the reason that despite claiming to be nice guys, so many just wear a cloak of civility so tightly that they think it is a part of them. It is also the reason that despite most claiming to want a loyal faithful woman, they give the priority of attention and affection to disloyal women who are likely to be unfaithful.
In fact, physical features and behavior that signal disloyalty are considered attractive by most western men today. Features and behavior that signal loyalty, honesty, and trustworthiness are interpreted as more masculine than callous cruelty, and are now unattractive and repellant.
How did things get this bad? Well, as women we only have ourselves to blame. We are the ones who mistook equality for sameness, and raised our sons to be irresponsible spoiled little girly men who all think they are entitled to the same things for merely existing. We took the femininity out of representations of feminine beauty because we didn’t want them finding anything sexy about dependency. We shamed them for finding teenage girls attractive, and scared them into thinking that they would become pedophiles en masse for doing so. We didn’t trust that if we raised them to be responsible men, they’d naturally choose age/life phase appropriate relationships.
We put their emotions at war with their logic because we don’t see the day that a young man can plausibly kick his mom’s butt, as the same as the day a young woman begins to menstruate. By that age, even though they aren’t legally adults, they should be prepared for adult level responsibilities. This is crucially important as their brains enter the final stages of complete development. Quite often, the catch-up later on is too little too late.
Add that to many boys being basically raised by the television, and there you have your scorpion tailed locust babe of Revelations. Everyone suffers and feels the sting once those are let loose.
Now, we have hordes of men who are basically sexually screwed up, and think that decent women are ugly and repellant. Their left brain, which still has the natural template for long term suitability engraved in a tiny corner somewhere, is making their mouths say, “I don’t like whores or sluts,” but their shrill right brain is directing them straight towards the girls in the butt crack jeans and tube tops, and not just for sex. I’ve seen with my own eyes, guys actually telling themselves that such women look like nice girls.
To date, I’ve only seen this turn out to be true in one case, and she seemed to at least be wearing the jeans and tube top properly. She took the time to talk to a local mentally ill man we both knew and cheered up occasionally, on her way to the cafe I was sitting in. Strangely, her apparent kindness triggered criticism of her looks by some of the guys sitting with my friends and I. Her companion with the disgusted sneer remained hot in their view.
Many males seem addicted to rejection even though they claim not to enjoy it. They complain about how hard it is for a “nice guy” to get any attention. The attention they get, they complain is from women who are somehow below their standards in looks. Usually what makes these women substandard in their view is some pop culture measure like weight well below mobility or hygeine or even athletic concerns, or ethnicity. As a side note, one thing I’ve found very telling is that most guys I’ve met who have said such things will end up with an exploitive woman who is physically ugly in the same way as women they’ve rejected.
So what does a woman who isn’t looking for a victim do to find a man who truly isn’t looking to be a victim? What does one do if they’re already involved with a guy who is pulling away because he wants to be a victim even though he says he doesn’t?
All of us who’ve been out there in the dating scene, have one time or another, had this gutt feeling we couldn’t put our finger on, that maybe the guy needs us to be more of a bitch. Some of us have given in to that, only to find that once we do it, we have to keep that up in order to keep the guy interested.
I have no correct answer for this. Some people are broken. Some guys will never break down their internal Berlin wall that allows their logic and emotions to cooperate. It happens whether they like it or not, usually in their 40’s. Some realize that they’ve wasted their lives and start trying to have a life. Some never grow up but at least become more tolerant and tolerable.
My personal solution is to stick with guys who don’t have this problem. This means that I seldom date anyone under 45 or more than one generation from a country/culture where men are supposed to grow up on time.
I also made a personal vow to myself long ago that I would never have a child outside of marriage or “common law” type marriage. My kids will all have a dad who grew up on time. I’m not a feminist but I do have a lot of care for my gender. I do not wish to inflict on any woman (or Gay man if it turns out that way), an irresponsible child who is looking to be a victim of the crop of anti femininity (read anti female) pseudo feminists who are equally spoiled and irresponsible.
Men’s rules are unspoken because they haven’t been allowed to speak on them for going on thirty years now. Their masculinity has become cosmetic…something to wow the onlooker and draw attention, rather than an indicator of strength and dependability. This is why thuggishness is so popular. It is cosmetic masculinity…the display of competitiveness taken to extremes, and as far away from the protective arm of dad fending off rivals and bandits, as lipgloss is from the blush of aroused lips.
The rules are unspoken because they have been silenced. They have been silenced so effectively that men state them, but do not themselves adhere to or enforce them with their option to give or remove attention.
To be fair, this isn’t the case with all men. Some men’s logic and emotions are very well integrated. The thing you ladies out there must remember though, is that you will not attract an integrated man unless you are an integrated woman.
You do your job, so he can do his.
Tags: advice, dating, rules, unspoken, unspoken rules, unspoken rules of dating
Browsing around my usual relationship site haunts, I’ve noticed something. Women, and not even always young women, seem to be completely oblivious to the unspoken rules of dating. Most of the rules and advice seem to be focussed on strategy for “getting your man”. I too am guilty on some levels of being a bit results focussed, and not giving enough attention to the natural flow, even though natural is how I roll.
What seems to be the problem is the difference between the standard male and female way of thinking. Women who want to date men should understand that no matter how sensitive and understanding a man is, he’s still a man. His logic is a bit more cold, and even if he is very emotional and gives way to that more often than the average macho dude, his left brain is still screaming facts, history, and statistics at him whether or not he acts on it.
Much like people who eat pseudofoods who still manage to stay slim, women who don’t understand the logic of heterosexual relationships often fail to realize that any good that comes of attempting to trump nature is an exception. One cannot, in fact, conquer nature, and this includes the basics of bonding and sexuality. Women today have been sold a bill of goods that will ultimately leave them alone or settled for as lesser evils.
Men have fallen for the same scam, but they are still unable to live well against the truth. So no matter what a guy says or does to tow the party line or because he hasn’t been exposed to nature comfortable ideas and doesn’t know how to articulate them, he is still a man. Men, just as women, have needs that if they are not met, they will be unable to function well.
So on the one hand, freedom is a wonderful thing. It’s good that today at least in the west, people have more than the traditional relationship styles to choose from. People are more free to be freaky without as much inappropriate judgement. However, with more rights comes more responsibility. We are all still responsible for our own behavior, whether or not we accept this. We will all pay for the consequences of our actions, and those we love may suffer or benefit from them as well.
So for practical purposes, some level of promiscuity may be customary and just “part of the game” these days, one still has to consider the consequences. The unspoken rule that gets broken the most by women has to do with sex before a commitment has been explicitly established.
Sex without a commitment is casual sex. Period. If you do it, whether or not the guy is legitimately tolerant, you will be known to him and whoever else you share this information with as someone who is okay with casual sex. Whether or not he is tolerant and just sees it as mutual fun, or judgemental and brands you a slut unfit for a long term relationship, the facts are the same. You’ve risked your health, and allowed access to your reproductively related bonding organs (or bonding related reproductive organs, depending on your level of cynicism) to someone who has not expressed willingness to stick around and deal with whatever physical or emotional results may occur.
One of the things women often fail to grasp in this is that he has done the same. He’s shared his body with someone who isn’t obviously willing to stick with him either. He may not want a particular woman to bond with him beyond the encounter, but unless he is absolutely only interested in casual sex for the rest of his life, this is a compromise for him.
You have both basically risked your health for a bit of stimulation and an ego boost. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is however, less than the preferred situation, which is sex within a relationship that has some kind of future.
Whether you or he are monogamous or polyamorous, if what you want is sex as an expression of love, then sex as an expression of desperate neediness for any kind of attention that comes along is a cheap imitation. A person with the option to have what they really want, does not settle for scraps.
So casual sex, whether or not it has any effect on your value to the other person, makes them believe that you believe that you are not worth committing to. It is a roll of the dice whether or not they will agree, but don’t bank on anyone seeing you as better than you see yourself.
In some places and situations (such as your average university campus) casual sex is normal, and folks don’t consciously down each other for experimenting and enjoying their youth. Commitments often develop from what were hookups. This is the exception though, not the norm. In my experience, and that of other nurturing type people whose shoulders were cried on alot, most casual sex encounters resulted in indifference, awkwardness, or heartbreak for both men and women who participated.
The best case scenario was usually indifference. Each had fun and went their separate ways, or hooked up occasionally when they were bored. I noticed though, that many people who would have suited each other quite well, had they not approached each other genitals first, never got past that. It was as if the women had steeled themselves against having any kind of deeper relationship with a guy because they were overcompensating in reducing the connection to only sexual. Men do it too, but not usually as rigidly as most of the women I’ve observed.
For women who are more practically independent, and not whore-like, it’s like there’s a friend zone, a sexual zone, and a romantic zone. Since we’re talking smart, educated, self supporting women who don’t really need a man to support them financially, or are on their way towards that, they’re not looking for someone to be dependent on…at least not beyond the kids’ early years. So they’re coping with the freedom and choice in the way that they perceive men to be coping, but they’re not men, so they don’t understand what is really going on, and how they’re messing up/messing around with nature.
A straight man is attracted to you or he’s not. If he is, then just about the only thing you can do to mess that up is be grossly incompatible or terribly socially inconvenient. Social inconvenience won’t necessarily make you less sexually attractive to him, just sort of off limits. There are however, many romantic stories of guys crossing social and geographic boundaries for the woman they love…far too many instances of this for it to be solely the domain of the most independent thinkers. Love makes fools and sheep of us all anyway.
Now, just because a guy wants to shag you doesn’t really mean he’s attracted to you. Most guys get erections from waking up. All it really takes to do the job in that department is for him to have a surplus of sperm, and the presence of vaginas. This is another good reason to avoid casual sex, but not the point of this article.
If you’re actually seeing a guy, as in dating out in public for awhile, then he’s attracted to you and you’re socially convenient enough to be seen with. This is the phase during which most non whorelike women break down and start having sex. It’s difficult not to get carried away when you’re a person who enjoys bonding.
The problem with having sex at any point before a commitment has been discussed is that it brings issues into the relationship that he is not ready for, and dramatically changes the context. He wants to have sex with you, and you want to have sex with him, and it’s 2009 already, but he’s still a man, and you’re still a woman. The man needs to be the one directing the relationship…that is directing, not getting carried away with his passions.
Back in the day, the folks who were living too close to the edge of survival to be able to affort too much formality, understood that this passionate mutual wanting is a phase. It’s a phase where even though the thing both of you may want the most at the moment is hot sweaty monkey sex, this is totally the worst time to start having it. For people who want to be committed/married someday, this is a test of how well the two of you can control your passions in order to direct your family to a positive place.
Yes, I said the F word: family. The couple is the basic unit of the family.
Until you are actually a couple, you’re just two people having sex. As the natural director of a heterosexual relationship, the man is the one who decides if you’re going to become that. Most men do alot of heavy thinking and some praying before they make the decision that this is what they want from a particular woman. By throwing sex in there before he has had the chance to do that, you’ve basically taken the decision away from him.
Things may not end badly, but they usually do. Most women don’t understand why, and think that the guy had bad intentions all along, or that “he’s not that into you”. This is not how men think though. If you think about it, throwing away women who actually love them would be stupid, and as stupid as many are, most guys are not that stupid.
The reason you get distance after you’ve jumped the gun and had sex before a commitment is that you have suddenly changed his perspective of you. Up until then, you were either someone he was considering a long term relationship with, or someone whose pants he was trying to get into. Either way, if he doesn’t get sex until he explicitly forms a commitment, nothing is lost. He will either receive it as a yellow light to slow down, or as a rejection and move on, but he will understand that you are not interested in casual (read emotionally detached) sex. It’s all good either way. You come away from the making out with your dignity, and his respect.
If you go on and do it then you are telling him that the emotional aspect of sex is not that important to you. You’re horny and want to get laid, and who cares about emotions?
This is a bad sign. This is a bad sign even to a polyamorous Dom with a harem of four already.
Heck, this is a bad sign to a Lesbian.
It’s even a bad sign to a submissive gunning to be your fourth.
How bad it is depends mainly on their level of tolerance or desperation. If they understand how messed up things are today, maybe they’ll cut you some slack and take it as a kind of an unspoken beginning to commitment. They’ll let it slide because it takes two…and shortly thereafter, start doing some explicit negotiation. Hey, people get wrapped up in the moment.
Still, though a guy’s fuzzy mushy side may be guiding his decisions, his left brain is telling him, “Dude, if she’s screwing you without a commitment, how many other dudes is she doing the same thing with?” He needs facts, not guesses. Until he gets them, he’s playing it safe. He has a heart too.
The reason why many of the rules are unspoken is that the fact that men have hearts is unspoken. In order to seem manly and in control, the overt expression of emotion and passion is something men keep under wraps. They wear an invisible veil under which all manner of good and evil are writhing in a constant wrestling match. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there…and just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make sense.
More to come on the unspoken rules…
Tags: casual sex, commitment, dating, men, modern dating, premarital sex, rules, sex, Understanding Men, unspoken, unspoken rules