[dvmarie]

I recently ended an "on again off again" type relationship after getting advice from the book "He's Just Not That Into You" (which my sister recommended based on my particular situation).

The book was great - it got my head totally straight as to where I stood in the (so called) relationship - and I'm really glad I had it or I'd still be putting up with bs today probably.

My question is - does the book have merit moving forward? I wonder, if I used the principles of the book, if I'll ever actually have another relationship! It just seems like they rule out everyone but a guy who thinks you are a goddess and worships the ground you walk on (I actually had one of those once when I was very young and restless, and I divorced him.....stupid me!).

Anybody read the book? What do you think about following the principles when considering potential dates/boyfriends?

 

[Skylark]

I haven't read the book, but if you can summarize the main points, we could discuss those.

 

[Michael Conway]

do they make a "She's Just Not That Into You" book?

 

[Thalia]

from reading several reviews, including many from men on amazon (many with "my wife and I wouldn't be together if she had followed this book), I decided it wasn't even worth taking out from the library.

It basically is somewhat like the rules, and that women shouldn't ever have to do anything to push the relationship forward, and if a guy isn't super confident in expressing his undying love for you, then he just isn't that into you.

My life experience tells me that relationship books with easy answers are worthless. Relationships are very complex. There are some general principles and ideas in books that have helped me tremendously. However, such blanket ideas like if a guy really loves you, this is what he'll do, seems overly simplistic. Sometimes people's feelings develop slowly. Sometimes people in great relationships have periods of ambivalence.

In fact, I've heard of some studies that relationships that were initiated by the woman have better longterm happiness and lower divorce rate. John Gottman, relationship expert found one huge factor in marriages staying together and happiness is how easily influenced a male is by the initiative and steering of the female.

Of course if a guy is wishy washy, that is a sign. If he never calls back, that is a sign, but I believe the book has much stricter standards for men.

 

[Skylark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thalia

In fact, I've heard of some studies that relationships that were initiated by the woman have better longterm happiness and lower divorce rate.

Really?

Which studies?

 

[computergirl]

I'll preface my opinion by saying I have not read the book but have heard A LOT about it.

I don't know, I've almost only had boyfriends who adored me and called me all the time and pursued me like crazy but then they'd get bored after a couple of weeks or months. So maybe he's being too hard on the guys. I'm sure there are signs but just because he waits a week to call or something like that I'm not going to write someone off as not really being into me. But really what do i know.

 

[Thalia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Really?

Which studies?

I found a reference to the influence study. I don't remember where I read the other thing. I could be my imagination. (shh)

 

[Skylark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thalia

I found a reference to the influence study. I don't remember where I read the other thing. I could be my imagination. (shh)

*wrassles Thalia to the ground* What do you mean you don't have a source? How dare you make a claim you can't support? *tumbles around on the ground until Thalia's cats come to rescue her*

 

[dvmarie]

The book (I don't have it here with me, so I'm going from memory) says:

1. If he doesn't call you regularly and at the correct times (even if out of town) dump him. This means calling you 2 or more days before going out (not okay to call day before or day of). If he calls you on Monday and didn't call you Fri/Sat/Sun - dump him.

2. If he doesn't ask you out - he's not worth considering. The idea here is that you shouldn't have to encourage him - if you have to encourage him (he's just not that into you). Basically - why would you want to waste your time on a loser who is too scared/intimidated to openly pursue you?

3. If he says he doesn't want to be "serious" then just give it up and don't waste your time. If you are dating him and his level of involvement doesn't equal yours then move on.

I guess I understand, and in my case with the person I was dating it made sense - but it seems like you limit your possibilities by having such a strict set of standards from the beginning.

 

[Jessica Alana]

I have read this book. I could have written this book. I think most of it is common sense.

People (male and female) deserve to be treated respectfully in relationships. You shouldn't let someone walk all over you. If someone makes excuses for why they don't want to be around you, if they lie, then yeah move on; he's just not that into you. There are way too many people out there to settle on one that isn't right for you.

Regarding the "worshipping" I think it should be mutual. Of course that's a stalkerish word, but whatever; you all know what I mean. One-sided relationships will never work.

 

[delicious]

I have not read the book.

Some people don't have as many options as others - when it comes to dating, etc. And a having a guy who doesn't treat them "that great" may make them a lot happier than being alone.

People need to really think about the reality of their particular situation and then ask themselves if they think they can do better, and how important is it to them to not be alone.

I know a woman who asked her husband for a divorce because they couldn't agree on financial dealings (she thought he was a little "shady" in his business, which didn't directly involve her or her finances) She still loves him a decade later and seems to very much regret divorcing him.

Sure, he wasn't perfect, but most of their relationship was pretty good. And I think that she realizes it now.

 

[Thalia]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvmarie

1. If he doesn't call you regularly and at the correct times (even if out of town) dump him. This means calling you 2 or more days before going out (not okay to call day before or day of). If he calls you on Monday and didn't call you Fri/Sat/Sun - dump him.

Ok, makes sense that you shouldn't think someone is serious if they rarely call you. If it's a serious relationship where you talk everyday, then I don't think you need rules about numbers of days before going out, though.

Quote:

2. If he doesn't ask you out - he's not worth considering. The idea here is that you shouldn't have to encourage him - if you have to encourage him (he's just not that into you). Basically - why would you want to waste your time on a loser who is too scared/intimidated to openly pursue you?

This one I totally disagree with. It's one thing if you make a few moves and he's unresponsive. It's totally another to say women should never make the first move. I always make the first move. I choose who I want to be with, make a move and see if they are interested. A man might not even have any way of knowing me if I don't make a move. In fact, I get a little creeped out by people who make moves on me. I feel like I am being submissive to their wishes when I don't know their motives.

(I guess they could mean if they never ask you out, even after you've asked them out once. then yeah, I would take that as a sign.)

Quote:

3. If he says he doesn't want to be "serious" then just give it up and don't waste your time. If you are dating him and his level of involvement doesn't equal yours then move on.

Well unless you don't want to be serious either. But yeah, another obvious one. When someone tells you something like this, listen, respect them, and don't try to change them or hope your love will change them. Open honesty about what you both wants makes sense.

Quote:

I guess I understand, and in my case with the person I was dating it made sense - but it seems like you limit your possibilities by having such a strict set of standards from the beginning.

I agree. In the very early getting to know you stage, I think there is some leeway.

 

[dvmarie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by delicious

I have not read the book.

I know a woman who asked her husband for a divorce because they couldn't agree on financial dealings (she thought he was a little "shady" in his business, which didn't directly involve her or her finances) She still loves him a decade later and seems to very much regret divorcing him.

Sure, he wasn't perfect, but most of their relationship was pretty good. And I think that she realizes it now.

I am a little like your friend delicious (at least the part about regretting a relationship mistake). I was always looking for something better, more exciting, more interesting, someone more attentive etc. - so, when I was young I went through men like they were cherry tomatoes. By the time I was mature enough to settle down in any way (in my late 30's.....) most of the keepers were married with families. I am a solo type of person, but I enjoy the companionship a relationship provides (provided they don't live in my house and I'm not legally bound to them). Just seems like it's difficult to find someone who doesn't have a lot of baggage or unacceptable social behavior.

 

[Jessica Alana]

Quote:

Originally Posted by delicious

I have not read the book.

Some people don't have as many options as others - when it comes to dating, etc. And a having a guy who doesn't treat them "that great" may make them a lot happier than being alone.

People need to really think about the reality of their particular situation and then ask themselves if they think they can do better, and how important is it to them to not be alone.

I know a woman who asked her husband for a divorce because they couldn't agree on financial dealings (she thought he was a little "shady" in his business, which didn't directly involve her or her finances) She still loves him a decade later and seems to very much regret divorcing him.

Sure, he wasn't perfect, but most of their relationship was pretty good. And I think that she realizes it now.

If someone stays with someone because they don't want to be alone, they have deeper issues than having a hard time finding a date.

I've said it before... I'll say it again.. If you can't stand being alone, why would anyone else want to be around you?

 

[Blue Plastic Straw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvmarie

The book (I don't have it here with me, so I'm going from memory) says:

1. If he doesn't call you regularly and at the correct times (even if out of town) dump him. This means calling you 2 or more days before going out (not okay to call day before or day of). If he calls you on Monday and didn't call you Fri/Sat/Sun - dump him.

2. If he doesn't ask you out - he's not worth considering. The idea here is that you shouldn't have to encourage him - if you have to encourage him (he's just not that into you). Basically - why would you want to waste your time on a loser who is too scared/intimidated to openly pursue you?

3. If he says he doesn't want to be "serious" then just give it up and don't waste your time. If you are dating him and his level of involvement doesn't equal yours then move on.

I guess I understand, and in my case with the person I was dating it made sense - but it seems like you limit your possibilities by having such a strict set of standards from the beginning.

If I had followed these guidelines my boyfriend and I wouldn't be together and I would have missed out on a great guy who happens to be somewhat shy and a little lacking in confidence when it comes to women. That doesn't make him a loser, just shy.

The problem with "rules" like that is they pass themselves off as some sort of universal truth, when they really only apply in very general terms. I suppose you can use them as a guide, but every man is going to be different. Trying to approach individuals with a "textbook" plan seems silly to me.

 

[Jessica Alana]

If I recall correctly, the "if he says he's not looking for anything serious" was more like "if he tells you he's not looking for a girlfriend, he means he doesn't want YOU as his girlfriend."

 

[Blue Plastic Straw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessica Alana

If I recall correctly, the "if he says he's not looking for anything serious" was more like "if he tells you he's not looking for a girlfriend, he means he doesn't want YOU as his girlfriend."

This I do agree with. It took me far too long to figure out that "I'm not looking for a relationship" really means "I don't want a relationship with YOU (but I still want to get laid)".

ETA: Although, when Chris and I first started dating he said he didn't really want a serious relationship, which I was ok with. After we'd spent every weekend for a month together and neither of us was making an effort to date anyone else I finally asked "so, what the heck is all this?" He'd changed his tune a bit by then.

 

[Jessica Alana]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Plastic Straw

This I do agree with. It took me far too long to figure out that "I'm not looking for a relationship" really means "I don't want a relationship with YOU (but I still want to get laid)".

I mean it sounds kind of similar as what the OP said, but it really is a whole different meaning, and really it IS common sense. I think it's one of those hindsight-is-20/20 things.

 

[Poppy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Plastic Straw

The problem with "rules" like that is they pass themselves off as some sort of universal truth, when they really only apply in very general terms. I suppose you can use them as a guide, but every man is going to be different. Trying to approach individuals with a "textbook" plan seems silly to me.

 

[Aimra]

I think the rules are general too. My husband has social anxiety and had a hard time calling me when we started dating. He always wanted to be with me though and I knew that.

I think that some women, as has been stated before, just don't want to be alone. They will settle on anything. And they say "well this is better than nothing, right?" and will put up with anything just to be with someone. It is like they don't think they are ever going to find anyone else and just can never get past this bad relationship.

As far as having limited dating choices. You are only as limited as you want to be. With the internet, as we all know from being on VB, you can meet people from all over. There are site for general people, certain religions, certain activities, even vegetarians.

I met my husband through match.com. I had signed up because a friend wanted to and wanted me to do it too so she didn't feel dumb. I signed up and left it sitting. Then I was bored one night a few months later and decided to check it out. My husband had sent me a message a couple of days before. We started talking and one thing led to another and 9 months later we were married (we have been married 2.5 years now and I can't imagine my life without this wonderful man

).

Now people get all freaked out about meeting people over the internet. But is it really that much different than giving a random person at a bar your phone number? They can do a reverse look-up on the online phone directory and find out where you live.

If you're smart about it you could find someone wonderful that you never would have met any other way.

So my point is that there are choices and you shouldn't have to settle for someone who may be "nice" and "okay" and that you could find someone wonderful that makes you happy everyday of your life.