❤ Dating Advice For MaidenFans Thread ❤

Night Prowler said:
This co-worker is flirting with me, or at least that's what my other co-workers are telling me. Also she talks about me how I'm super awesome when I'm not there and texted me stuff like "HEY DO YOU WANNA HANG OUT SOMETIME" and "You're lovely <3". I dunno how to respond to that. She has a boyfriend and also I'm not interested in dating co-workers, especially because I'm her superior at work.
Click to expand...
Probably she just wants to watch Kad porastem biću Kengur.
And Munje!
 
Night Prowler said:
This co-worker is flirting with me, or at least that's what my other co-workers are telling me. Also she talks about me how I'm super awesome when I'm not there and texted me stuff like "HEY DO YOU WANNA HANG OUT SOMETIME" and "You're lovely <3". I dunno how to respond to that. She has a boyfriend and also I'm not interested in dating co-workers, especially because I'm her superior at work.
Click to expand...
I've sent messages like that to a couple of men in the past. What I really would have liked them to respond would have been something like "I'm sorry, but I'm not interested."
 
I saw my crush today at school (happens rarely) and invited her to attend a school event in the evening. Just a casual see-ya-there thing, nothing more. So I saw her there later, talked a few words, said bye to her in the end, again casual stuff but I like how it went, well-balanced between too scared to approach and too clingy. So I go to the tram stop, see another girl I know there, no feelings for her whatsoever. We talk, go on the same tram, crush girl reaches the same tram at the last moment so the tram ride is like this: I talk to no-feelings girl while crush and her two friends sit in the back and are able to observe all. I feel like this comes across as bidding farewell to one girl to meet up with a “special” one, while in truth it’s the opposite. Anyone tell me how she might have interpreted this? She has a bf but I feel like there might be a little something between us. Why did this little mishap have to happen at the end, though, why?
 
Not a mishap. This is good for you, potentially. Now, I'm not saying crush girl watched you throughout the tram ride, wishing she was no-feelings girl or something, but seeing you talk to a girl on the tram means 1) she knows you're not a creep, 2) she might feel the slightest of touches of jealousy. Girls like the attention of boys generally, even if they're not into said boys really, so if you pay attention to someone else, she might get interested. Potentially.
 
Yeah, remember that even if you get into a relationship, there will be still other people on the planet, you know, just, existing and you’ll be probably expected to talk to at least some of them in the rest of your years before you’re dead and buried. It’s no mishap – Ariana nailed it: not only you present yourself as a person that’s able to conversate with someone and… well, make yourself a bit less of a creep in the process, but there’s really nothing wrong with a healthy competition, as far as attention is concerned. But like I said – attention: don’t cheat and/or downright flirt elsewhere, that’s just shitty.

Now if you had been already dating, then I guess it would be expected that you… I don’t know, at least included her somehow (though you can still talk to other people, mind you) but that was not the case here.


Also, I realised I could (and arguably should) mention here a certain general dating advice that I remembered yesterday when I came across a mention of (500) Days of Summer on the net. Now, don’t get me wrong, the film is generally very overrated, I believe, it’s hipsterish as fuck and I hated it when I saw it for the first time. But I realised it makes some good points, especially considering the fact that the end of the generation of „silent“, „weird“, „gentle“, „romantic-raised-on-movies“ boys, even today, is nowhere in sight.

You see, both characters in the movie are terrible through and through. Yup, she really is a juvenile, socially inept, mistress-of-the-mixed-message whore that’s (I guess) supposed to be endearing, because she’s a „manic pixie dream girl“ and just so cute and cutely lost and whatever, fuck that type of character, really, and double fuck Deschanel for playing it all the time (though Portman tried it out too in Garden State – surprisingly, that one was somewhat more tolerable). Also that final switch from „not believing in love“ to „believing in love“ and marrying a complete stranger in less than a year… well, it’s a parody of marriage* (though, true, most „romantic films“ are).

But he’s precisely what’s wrong with the „gentle guys“ as well, especially those who had little social interaction and were mostly deformed by Hollywood movies (to quote the narrator: „The boy, Tom Hansen of Margate, New Jersey, grew up believing that he'd never truly be happy until the day he met the one. This belief stemmed from early exposure to sad British pop music and a total mis-reading of the movie The Graduate.“)

Putting the girl on piedestal, deifying her in a way, actually, clutching at straws because they believe it’s going to be THE ONE and The Universe (of course it’s always The Universe, fucking HIMYM was full of that crap too, as if The Universe is somehow interested that some socially inept and awkward guy gets a lay, because it has nothing better to do) is trying to tell them she's THE ONE because she listens to the Smiths or plays base guitar or collects fake celebrities sex tapes or whatever.

Also, having an idea in their head and against all reason insisting that THIS girl is the one that’s the embodiment of that idea of the „perfect girlfriend“, never actually trying to find out what the girl is really like. Or worse, trying to do a makeover like Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo.

They are often confused whether they want a partner or just a lay or possibly even a magazine foldout that would allow them to pine in quiet agony, because that's how it's supposed to be. They are the romantics, see, and it's just so so cool to suffer. Preferably about some two-bit skank that can't even make herself coffee, let alone be faithful for more than three hours, but OMG she's so cute and she has, you know, the dark bangs and those blue eyes and I just have to search for some porn with a look-alike right now, sorry guys (and yes, I am aware who's in my avatar, but that would take an awful lot of explaining here, so just take my word it's none of the above, nor anything sexual and let it be).

You see, I might be a bit oldschool in my opinions and not really the PC type, but this idea of a "perfect girl" and the "quirky, yet endearing relationship we're going to have" is really just as much an objectification of women as, well, porn, possibly even more so. Because it often switches into mindraping either yourself or the significant other. I have seen that.

To anyone (I don’t necessarily mean Saap here, it’s just general advice): Don’t be that guy. Don’t overrate romance. Remember that when you adore romance itself, then you’re probably going to leave the girl anyway in the long run, because the butterflies will disappear and there’s going to be someone else who will provide them for you. You end up either heartbroken or chasing the dragon til you’re 60 and suddenly realise you’re a complete joke (or possibly both).

Ask your parents (if they’re still together) or any other long-term stable couple how did they manage to stay together. Or meet.

And fuck Hollywood. There are romantic movies that aren’t inherently toxic (a certain – and I believe intended – reading of Scorsese’s Age of Innocence, for example, but it’s not for everyone; also the aforementioned Vertigo, as a discouraging example), but they are few and far between.

And, of course, the best line of them all:

„Just because she likes the same bizzaro crap you do doesn't mean she's your soul mate.“


* It is true I also proposed to my wife after three months of dating and was prepared to marry her then and there (although we had to wait a while in the end) but 1.) we had a different history from lil‘ miss lost here, 2.) we had very similar opinions about the importance (or, more precisely, the relative unimportance) of romance in long-term relationships and had an understanding of relationships in general that would be completely incompatible with Deschanel’s character’s behaviour in this film, unreliable narrator or not.

Anyway, Judas out.
 
Last edited:
JudasMyGuide said:
fucking HIMYM was full of that crap too, as if The Universe is somehow interested that some socially inept and awkward guy gets a lay, because it has nothing better to do) is trying to tell them she's THE ONE because she listens to the Smiths or plays base guitar or collects fake celebrities sex tapes or whatever.
Click to expand...

Made me laugh.
 
Well, to me it seems kinda like a combination of

1.) the idea of ever-loving, ever-watching God that looked down upon us and leads us through our life in a concealed, clandestine way,

2.) the Oprah „God within“ crap where everything must end in my hedonistic pleasure and I’m the top of the world and success is everything,

3.) the vague idea that there’s „something“ above, the „spiritual but not religious“ idea of not even deism, but this weird pantheistic/"universe"/something that certainly IS, but doesn’t actually want anything from us (or Sagan’s favourite „gravity as God“, for that matter), or the „as long as I’m spiritual, but I don’t care whether it makes me change myself for the better in any way or leaves any discernible mark on my life“ ideology,

all meshed into one, taking the worst from each.
 
Also, a somewhat shorter and less nuanced version (or, tl;dr):


Every time you’re in a relationship and think you’re being the protagonist of the Zombies‘ I Want Her, She Wants Me, stop for a while and think about whether you’re not actually being Waldo from the Velvet Underground’s The Gift instead.​
 
Saapanael said:
I feel like this comes across as bidding farewell to one girl to meet up with a “special” one, while in truth it’s the opposite. Anyone tell me how she might have interpreted this? She has a bf but I feel like there might be a little something between us. Why did this little mishap have to happen at the end, though, why?
Click to expand...
If a girl doesn't like you because you happen to be friends with another girl, you do not want to be in a relationship with that girl.
 
There’s some wholesome advice on this page. It’s a rare occasion where I actually felt good reading the responses, thanks.
My parents are the furthest thing from managing to stay together, Judas, but the rest of your point was interesting and made me look at things a bit differently.
 
JudasMyGuide said:
Yeah, remember that even if you get into a relationship, there will be still other people on the planet, you know, just, existing and you’ll be probably expected to talk to at least some of them in the rest of your years before you’re dead and buried. It’s no mishap – Ariana nailed it: not only you present yourself as a person that’s able to conversate with someone and… well, make yourself a bit less of a creep in the process, but there’s really nothing wrong with a healthy competition, as far as attention is concerned. But like I said – attention: don’t cheat and/or downright flirt elsewhere, that’s just shitty.

Now if you had been already dating, then I guess it would be expected that you… I don’t know, at least included her somehow (though you can still talk to other people, mind you) but that was not the case here.


Also, I realised I could (and arguably should) mention here a certain general dating advice that I remembered yesterday when I came across a mention of (500) Days of Summer on the net. Now, don’t get me wrong, the film is generally very overrated, I believe, it’s hipsterish as fuck and I hated it when I saw it for the first time. But I realised it makes some good points, especially considering the fact that the end of the generation of „silent“, „weird“, „gentle“, „romantic-raised-on-movies“ boys, even today, is nowhere in sight.

You see, both characters in the movie are terrible through and through. Yup, she really is a juvenile, socially inept, mistress-of-the-mixed-message whore that’s (I guess) supposed to be endearing, because she’s a „manic pixie dream girl“ and just so cute and cutely lost and whatever, fuck that type of character, really, and double fuck Deschanel for playing it all the time (though Portman tried it out too in Garden State – surprisingly, that one was somewhat more tolerable). Also that final switch from „not believing in love“ to „believing in love“ and marrying a complete stranger in less than a year… well, it’s a parody of marriage* (though, true, most „romantic films“ are).

But he’s precisely what’s wrong with the „gentle guys“ as well, especially those who had little social interaction and were mostly deformed by Hollywood movies (to quote the narrator: „The boy, Tom Hansen of Margate, New Jersey, grew up believing that he'd never truly be happy until the day he met the one. This belief stemmed from early exposure to sad British pop music and a total mis-reading of the movie The Graduate.“)

Putting the girl on piedestal, deifying her in a way, actually, clutching at straws because they believe it’s going to be THE ONE and The Universe (of course it’s always The Universe, fucking HIMYM was full of that crap too, as if The Universe is somehow interested that some socially inept and awkward guy gets a lay, because it has nothing better to do) is trying to tell them she's THE ONE because she listens to the Smiths or plays base guitar or collects fake celebrities sex tapes or whatever.

Also, having an idea in their head and against all reason insisting that THIS girl is the one that’s the embodiment of that idea of the „perfect girlfriend“, never actually trying to find out what the girl is really like. Or worse, trying to do a makeover like Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo.

They are often confused whether they want a partner or just a lay or possibly even a magazine foldout that would allow them to pine in quiet agony, because that's how it's supposed to be. They are the romantics, see, and it's just so so cool to suffer. Preferably about some two-bit skank that can't even make herself coffee, let alone be faithful for more than three hours, but OMG she's so cute and she has, you know, the dark bangs and those blue eyes and I just have to search for some porn with a look-alike right now, sorry guys (and yes, I am aware who's in my avatar, but that would take an awful lot of explaining here, so just take my word it's none of the above, nor anything sexual and let it be).

You see, I might be a bit oldschool in my opinions and not really the PC type, but this idea of a "perfect girl" and the "quirky, yet endearing relationship we're going to have" is really just as much an objectification of women as, well, porn, possibly even more so. Because it often switches into mindraping either yourself or the significant other. I have seen that.

To anyone (I don’t necessarily mean Saap here, it’s just general advice): Don’t be that guy. Don’t overrate romance. Remember that when you adore romance itself, then you’re probably going to leave the girl anyway in the long run, because the butterflies will disappear and there’s going to be someone else who will provide them for you. You end up either heartbroken or chasing the dragon til you’re 60 and suddenly realise you’re a complete joke (or possibly both).

Ask your parents (if they’re still together) or any other long-term stable couple how did they manage to stay together. Or meet.

And fuck Hollywood. There are romantic movies that aren’t inherently toxic (a certain – and I believe intended – reading of Scorsese’s Age of Innocence, for example, but it’s not for everyone; also the aforementioned Vertigo, as a discouraging example), but they are few and far between.

And, of course, the best line of them all:

„Just because she likes the same bizzaro crap you do doesn't mean she's your soul mate.“


* It is true I also proposed to my wife after three months of dating and was prepared to marry her then and there (although we had to wait a while in the end) but 1.) we had a different history from lil‘ miss lost here, 2.) we had very similar opinions about the importance (or, more precisely, the relative unimportance) of romance in long-term relationships and had an understanding of relationships in general that would be completely incompatible with Deschanel’s character’s behaviour in this film, unreliable narrator or not.

Anyway, Judas out.
Click to expand...
Judas[insert name here]Guide indeed. :ok:
 
1976342_0.jpg
 
Ah, just today I came across a dating advice by J.R.R. Tolkien - this here is an extract from his letter to Michael, slightly truncated:

"Men are not [monogamous]. No good pretending. Men just ain’t, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of ‘revealed ethic,’ according to faith and not the flesh. The essence of a fallen world is that the best cannot be attained by free enjoyment, or by what is called “self-realization” (usually a nice name for self-indulgence, wholly inimical to the realization of other selves); but by denial, by suffering. Faithfulness in Christian marriages entails that: great mortification.

For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify and direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him—as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many difficulties to the purity proper to that state as it provides easements.

No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that—even those brought up in ‘the Church’. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it.

When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think that they have made a mistake, and that the real soul-mate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only—. Hence divorce, to provide the ‘if only’.

And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the ‘real soul-mate’ is the one you are actually married to. In this fallen world, we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean heart, and fidelity of will…"

(Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, pp. 51-52)


As with all advice - take it or leave it, why, he is my patron saint, so I might be biased.
 
Slightly truncated?! If I recall correctly, that letter to Michael is about half-a-dozen pages in the published edition. And that may very well be redacted for publication. Not saying you're mis-quoting him; but there's a fair chance of context being lost here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top