Now, Boys, Don't Get Your Undies in a Wad
Oooh, oooh! Seems the menfolk are all up-in-arms about me playing this game by some rules. (Yay for controversy!)
So... here's my response to your comments/questions/rants about yesterday's Rules of Engagement post.
My reasoning for using the rules in question is as follows...
Why I wait to respond to messages:
Thing is, I want to be out dating and having fun. Trying new things. Making adventures and having experiences. That really is the whole freaking point of this endeavor.
And... if I'm filling up all my free time responding to messages from strangers on the internets, I'm probably not going to be doing much of the aforementioned adventuring and funning and whatnot.
When I was meeting guys online before, the overwhelming email traffic and marathon chat sessions eventually became a time-consuming burden.
Sure, I had some "great" correspondence with a number of dudes during that time, but the truth is, it took a lot of time to have that "great" communication, which, in turn, rarely translated into anything noteworthy in the real world. In fact, it most often translated into exactly nada in the real world.
While meeting people online has its appeal (speedy for all us busy folks, you all know you're looking, you get some initial insight, etc.), it's not a good way to get to know people. I now know that I can't gauge if I'm going to hit it off with or even tolerate the sight or smell of someone else if we're only corresponding online.
So, basically, I want to go out. I have no interest in hearing someone's whole life story via email over the course of 6 months (ever again! And I mean it). The profile via which these guys are contacting me makes that pretty clear.
It's shit or get off the pot time, fellas.
And, really, what's the point of responding immediately to all their messages? Much like my correspondence with friends and family, I find that going into my inbox and responding to everything at once is overwhelming. I'd much rather take a day or so to think about a response and subsequently pound it out for delivery.
I hope these guys are also enjoying full and active lives (otherwise, I'm not really interested). If not, should it really be my concern that they might be sitting in front of their respective monitors wondering when I'll get back to them? (Been on that side of the screen, too. It's not fun, but I can't freakin' blame it on anyone but myself, now can I? Likewise...)
You can call my delayed responses coy if you wish, but I'll reiterate that I'm making no apologies. All's fair, friend.
Also (and I'll say this full well knowing I'll likely take some heat for it), in the short period I've been waiting a day or more to respond, it seems like I've garnered a lot more dates than I did the last go-'round, when I was responding at lightening speed to Frank, Stan, and Every Man.
It seems some guys might actually be motivated by the absence of constant availability. (Who would've thunk it?)
Why I do not revive communication:
Again, I'm a busy girl. And I'm not wasting time considering these dudes real until I meet them. (Been there, done that. Anyone know where I can get the Tshirt?)
So, while they may have sounded good up to a point, if they drop off the face of the earth, I'm not going to chase after them. Frankly, I have plenty of others stepping up to keep me busy at the moment, thankyouverymuch. And, oh, an actual life going on outside this whole dating venture (fancy that).
That said, if some dude drops out of contact for a while and suddenly reappears, nothing in my rules prevents me from getting back into the flow with him. Dig?
How I define 'creepy':
Honestly, it varies. My friends seem to believe I have a (dangerously?) high tolerance for creepiness, but if I'm creeped out, he's out. No matter the impetus.
(And, really? You're going to question that one? I mean, c'mon... it's MY safety potentially at stake in this whole thing. It sucks that you think you were let go for a case of miscommunication, but I'm not going to compromise my safety to right the wrongs you believe you've endured. Thems just the breaks, man.)
...
Just as an FYI, I didn't create this profile and start out with a set of rules (which are, again, really more like guidelines anyway... Belle doesn't know how to play by rules, yo). Sure, they weren't too long in coming, but, really, I adopted them because they seem to be working well for me so far.
I could sit here all day long and try to explain things in a way that made you all like me or agree with me, but I'd fail in the endeavor, and what purpose would it serve?
Oh, and another thing... I could use some structure and guidelines in this whole dating endeavor. I mean, have you read about some of the stupid things I've done?
10 comments:
haha! a reply to my comment - and so soon ;)
The thing is - you do make some valid points, but they're shrouded in so much ephemera!
Re: Why I wait to respond to messages
- because guys are "motivated" by you playing hard to get
Re: Why I do not revive communication
- to filter out those that aren't that interested anyway
Re: Why you cut off comms with a creepy guy
- personal safety
One further thing, I suspect you are "busy" a lot less than you think/pretend ;)
I enjoyed reading your responses - thanks.
It's funny, my dear Belle. Before I read your post I was exactly where you were, and I thought... wow! I should have rules. Then Sunday happened. I got an IM at 11:am. I was having coffee at 1:15pm. Back having dinner at 7:30. And I think I met a winner. But, that being said, it was because I didn't want to waste my time, much like you, pussyfooting around. I just wanted it to happen. It's not worth investing stupid amounts of time online because MOSTLY it doesn't translate. I kinda hope mine works out. Heck, I kinda hope yours does, too. :) Still love your blog. more than ever.
"if I'm filling up all my free time responding to messages from strangers on the internets, I'm probably not going to be doing much of the aforementioned adventuring and funning and whatnot."
C'mon. It doesn't take any longer to respond to a message whether it be in 10 minutes or 3 days later.
"It's shit or get off the pot time, fellas. "
Yes. Exactly. So why, then, do you have a premeditated intent to wait two or three days to respond to an email? Someone's wasting time here- and it isn't the other guy.
"I hope these guys are also enjoying full and active lives (otherwise, I'm not really interested). If not, should it really be my concern that they might be sitting in front of their respective monitors wondering when I'll get back to them?"
So, you admit that this is a game, or a test of some kind. It's not as if everyone is wondering when you will get back to them. It's simple courtesy.
To sum up my original point: I lose interest VERY quickly in people who don't call back for three days. Because it says GAME PLAYER loud and clear.
I don't have time for that crap. I'm not wondering when you're going to call -- but by the time you do, I probably don't care any more.
jaime - but i don't think she's saying she's going to wait three days to respond. i think a very valid point is made about the not responding right away. just think about your work email box. if you respond to everything as they come in, you're probably abandoning projects that you were SUPPOSED to be working on that very minute. i'm terrible at this at work, but personally, i find that i take a few times a day to respond to friend's emails and the schedule makes me less crazy. if i could only apply it to work...
one day is courteous.
and yes it DOES take quite a bit of time to play the email game. do you know how many freaking emails i've gone back and forth with guys and thought he sounded so great (and yes, it was fun to get to know someone like that, and i enjoyed the emails) but they almost never translate to the real world. so why waste time like that? it's not a game, it's just...easier. and helps keep sanity. at least for me it does.
Carrie - I understand that - but she said she will purposely - always - wait at least a day to respond. That's different than doing it when it's convenient.
I know emailing takes time. But why does waiting a day or two change that dynamic? There's still just as much emailing, except by adding a gratuitous waiting period, you just drag the whole process out over a longer period of time. If you require a certain amount of information from someone to decide if you want to go out with them, then get it now, instead of over two weeks with several days between each communication.
I agree entirely with your last point - why waste time. So rather than engaging in a delayed-response email dance, just write back as soon as it's convenient (which could, the horror, be within an hour of when you got the email if that's how it worked out) and make a date if you want to.
As I said before I've never done online dating. But I don't see this as any different than how you handle calling someone you've met in person. If you want to see them, then don't dance around for two weeks. Just call 'em up and ask 'em out.
Ben: Glad you enjoyed! :)
AJ: Yay! I hope he's a winner, too! And that everything works out wonderfully! (And... aw, shucks, thanks!)
Jamie: I'd say it's a really good thing you aren't trying to date me, then. And, good luck to you.
Carrie: Word, sister.
Jamie (again): Please let the record reflect: I don't ALWAYS do anything.
"Please let the record reflect: I don't ALWAYS do anything."
Of course not! You wouldn't be female if you were predictable.
"I'd say it's a really good thing you aren't trying to date me, then. And, good luck to you."
Thanks for the well wishes. It works for me. Of course I am divorced... not sure if that gives me credibility or not...
But seriously, I do enjoy your blog and I hope you take my comments with a grain of salt. Being single, it's impossible not to think about this stuff and I find the different viewpoints (especially the window into the dark side) fascinating.
"Of course not! You wouldn't be female if you were predictable."
And you wouldn't be male if you weren't sanctimonious.
Jamie, you know I adore you, but, come on, that "women are crazy" routine is old as the hills and sexist as all hell. Try seeing women as people, not as some mysterious other species.
Shannon, really? Sexist? You wound me. This is just good fun. It's no more sexist than Belle telling us "boys" not to get our panties in a wad.
Of course I see women as people. Very, very mysterious people. Personally, I love a good mystery.
Jamie, that makes sense...I withdraw the knife and replace it with a gentle bop on the head.
I hate the "women are crazy" routine. All too often, it's a way to treat us like we're less than people.
Like the post where some guys were actually questioning her for avoiding guys she saw as creepy. Because she's a silly girl for thinking that. When your safety is on the line, you don't care as much about the distinction between serial rapist and just a guy who lacks social skills.
Post a Comment