LJBF - it takes courage
David Tornheim
There's a lot of talk about what the LJBFer should or should not be doing.
Personally, I think it commendable that the LJBFer had the courage to
say what he/she wants in spite of the inevitable negative consequences.
Some would be more likely to avoid the ugly situation all together or
put it off, creating additional confusion and needlessly wasting both party's
time.
The LJBFer is _mostly_ making one statement, "I don't want to be
romantically involved." Saying it in itself is painful enough for the speaker,
as he/she really doesn't want to hurt the other persons feelings.
Expecting the LJBFer to have even more courage to spew out more words of truth
(likely felt as additional pain followed by perhaps an even more unpleasant
confrontation) might be a little unrealistic.
We're all just human trying to do what we think is best. Some of us have
more courage than others. Some needlessly hurt others (and themselves),
because it is much easier to avoid telling someone how unhappy you are with
them, and put a bad experience and guilty feelings in the past rather than
to have to be reminded by further confrontation. But, labeling or blaming
a person who doesn't follow your rules, doesn't make in any easier on
yourself. You have to live your life and deal with people and all of their
flaws whether these flaws are minor or major. You can't force someone to
tell you the _whole_truth, but you could let them know that you feel it is
important that they do, and make them feel comfortable enough such that they
don't fear your reaction. Isn't it easier to work _with_ them than _against_
them?
A breakup can is very difficult for both parties, and each deals with it
in whatever way seems to work. The hardest part is looking past the
cloud of pain and defense mechanisms, so that you can be open-minded enough
to be able to be in touch with and feel comfortable with what has/is really
happened/ing. Once the distortions are removed, it's much easier
to see what the best course of action is...
Karen Ronan
>But, labeling or blaming
>a person who doesn't follow your rules, doesn't make in any easier on
>yourself.
**Thank you for saying this.**
>A breakup can is very difficult for both parties, and each deals with it
>in whatever way seems to work. The hardest part is looking past the
>cloud of pain and defense mechanisms, so that you can be open-minded
enough
>to be able to be in touch with and feel comfortable with what has/is
really
>happened/ing. Once the distortions are removed, it's much easier
>to see what the best course of action is...
Words of wisdom here.
Great post!! I agree with every word.
Karen
Stymie
> David Tornheim writes:
>
> >But, labeling or blaming
> >a person who doesn't follow your rules, doesn't make in any easier on
> >yourself.
Someone said this before, but when you say the guy is labelling/blaming the
LJBF girl for not following his rules, what is SHE doing? Announcing HER
rules (LJBF) -- and if he doesn't smile and say Aw Gawsh, can I really, and shed
a few tears of joy for this no doubt wonderful, lasting, oh-so-REAL friend-
ship she offers, then he's an immature asshole who doesn't DESERVE her any-
way.
I've been LJBF'ed as much as anyone...and if I think it's worth being friends,
I will. Too often it's just a face-saving device employed by a girl you're
never going to hear from again.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shu, thatsa fine." - Chico Marx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Ronan
>Someone said this before, but when you say the guy is labelling/blaming
the
>LJBF girl for not following his rules, what is SHE doing? Announcing HER
>rules (LJBF)
I don't think you read the other post carefully. He said that both
people were doing the best they could under the circumstances. You can
substitute the word "expectations" for "rules." It might make it easier
for you to understand.
Karen
Helmut Mayer
#
# There's a lot of talk about what the LJBFer should or should not be doing.
There's only one sentence. The LJBFer should say it, if he/she means it and
shouldn't, if he/she doesn't.
# Saying it in itself is painful enough for the speaker,
# as he/she really doesn't want to hurt the other persons feelings.
And that's no rule? You just implied that ALL people are hurt by truth. As you
said:"It takes courage."
# We're all just human trying to do what we think is best.
For whom?
# Some of us have more courage than others.
Yes.
# But, labeling or blaming a person who doesn't follow your rules, doesn't make
# in any easier on yourself. You have to live your life and deal with people
and all of their laws whether these flaws are minor or major.
You just blamed people, who don't accept the LJBF lie that they can't deal with
people and their flaws. This is labeling and again: It's not the LJBFer's
fault, it's the fault of the person, who doesn't accept the lie. Could it be
that you were the LJBFer at least once?
PEACE
Helmut
Helmut Mayer
# Stymie writes:
#
# >Someone said this before, but when you say the guy is labelling/blaming
# the
# >LJBF girl for not following his rules, what is SHE doing? Announcing HER
# >rules (LJBF)
#
# I don't think you read the other post carefully. He said that both
# people were doing the best they could under the circumstances. You can
# substitute the word "expectations" for "rules." It might make it easier
# for you to understand.
We are glad to have our professor, who tells us how carefully we read other
posts. We are glad that our professor knows how to substitute words in other
posts. We are forever glad that our professor knows, who understands and who
doesn't.
"Suckers don't understand, they don't understand why." - Gang Starr (my man
Guru)
PEACE
Helmut
David Tornheim
> >But, labeling or blaming
> >a person who doesn't follow your rules, doesn't make in any easier on
> >yourself.
>Someone said this before, but when you say the guy is labelling/blaming the
>LJBF girl for not following his rules, what is SHE doing?
The LJBFer is announcing one thing, "I don't want to be romantically
involved anymore." I think that as a society we would agree that if someone
says no to romance that the other person should obey. Laws regarding stalking,
rape, date rape, etc. come to mind.
>if he doesn't smile and say Aw Gawsh, can I really, and shed
>a few tears of joy for this no doubt wonderful, lasting, oh-so-REAL friend-
>ship she offers, then he's an immature asshole who doesn't DESERVE her any-
>way.
I think the priorities are backwards here. The priority of the LJBFee
shouldn't be doing whatever is humanly possible to sustain the relationship,
but instead listening carefully to what the LJBFer is saying and dealing
with it. An extremely perceptive person may actually be able to tell if
the LJBFer really intends to retain contact, but I think many
people are so hurt by hearing the statement that they lose touch with the
very cold, yet suprisingly simple, reality of the statement, only to figure
it out later, perhaps requiring a lot of negative reinforcement.
As to whether the LJBFee's reaction makes him/her any more "deserving" of
the LJBFer, let's face the facts, the LJBFer isn't interested in further
romance, and "friendship" is at best uncertain. The LJBFee can't become
"deserving" by behaving properly, although it is very straightforward to
annoy the LJBFer enough that he/she will want to get away even more. I
think when someone who has been dumped talks about "deserving" or not
"deserving" it's just a psychological game in trying to hold on or let go
of the lost relationship.
David Tornheim
> The LJBFer should say it, if he/she means it and
> shouldn't, if he/she doesn't.
It a perfectly honest world, yes. But, in this world we often lie to
protect others feelings. Many times I think it is better that way.
># Saying it in itself is painful enough for the speaker,
># as he/she really doesn't want to hurt the other persons feelings.
>
>And that's no rule? You just implied that ALL people are hurt by truth. As
>you said:"It takes courage."
Sorry if I've made the mistake of saying/implying all when I meant most/some,
etc. (Although, I don't think I did.)
Anyway, I think most people would feel hurt by being informed that they
are being dumped; it's certainly not an ego builder.
With regard to the LJBFer, I think he/she would feel hurt in being the one
to take away life from a relationship, in effect killing something. Don't
you often feel empathy, i.e. hurt, when you hurt someone else?
># We're all just human trying to do what we think is best.
>
>For whom?
1.ourselves
2.others
(fits my philosophy under messages with the subject, "meaning of life")
># But, labeling or blaming a person who doesn't follow your rules, doesn't
># make in any easier on yourself. You have to live your life and deal with
># people and all of their flaws whether these flaws are minor or major.
>
>You just blamed people, who don't accept the LJBF lie that they can't deal
>with people and their flaws.
I'm not convinced I did, but even so, I think you're right, I probably
would. But even if I were to pass judgement on such a person, does it
make the statement any less true?
>This is labeling and again: It's not the LJBFer's
>fault, it's the fault of the person, who doesn't accept the lie.
Is it so important that we assign fault? As I tried to say before, each
person is likely to do/say things that one may consider faulty, i.e.
counter-productive to one or both parties best interests. Fixing another
persons faults is _very_ difficult. Fixing ones own may also be difficult.
What I was trying to express is the importance of the LJBFee focusing on
trying to _really_ understand the LJBFers intentions, instead of the
distractions of blame, rules, fault, honesty, etc., etc.
Wouldn't it be more productive to try to speak of ways to understand and
most effectively deal with LJBFers, rather than looking for retribution
by condemning them?
> Could it be that you were the LJBFer at least once?
Although, it's really not that relevant to the discussion...
No, I don't think I have. I have definitely done worse, though. I've
maintained a couple of romantic relationships too long,
leaving the other party needlessly on edge. I found it difficult to
say things that I knew would hurt the other persons feelings, and I
regret that I procrastinated and only made things more difficult for
both of us. Incidentally, both I wanted to remain friends with. However,
I believe the first was too hurt to be able to deal with me.
The second, I had sparse conversations with, and later became very close to,
and eventually we even got back together again. Throughout the initial
stages of the breakup, it was clear to me that she was having trouble letting
go, and I tried to do what I could to remain "friends" without her
accidentally thinking I meant I wanted to get back together. However, it
took a complete separation of months before we both could talk without
constantly being reminded of the pain of the breakup and actually enjoy our
_friendship_.
I've been on the other side to, and I can assure you it wasn't a pleasant
experience.
As I've been saying, the pain and confusion of the breakup is the main event.
The possibility of friendship is highly dependent on both party's ability
to handle it.
-Davud
Helmut Mayer
#
# > The LJBFer should say it, if he/she means it and
# > shouldn't, if he/she doesn't.
#
# It a perfectly honest world, yes. But, in this world we often lie to
# protect others feelings. Many times I think it is better that way.
Who is we? I'll never understand why lying protects others feelings. Did you
ever ask, if this is true for the other party as well? And again excuses. You
say: "We" lie, because the world is not perfectly honest. (Speaking cynically,
which I prefer: The world is not ready for "us", who want to tell the truth, so
"we" have to lie.) I say: The world is not honest, because "we" are lying.
# Anyway, I think most people would feel hurt by being informed that they
# are being dumped; it's certainly not an ego builder.
Excuses. They are dumped, anyway. Obviously, this is not enough, so just smash
him/her a LJBF lie in his/her face. Maybe he/she believes it. Then we can play
a little bit. Cats do that with mice. (With we I mean lying LJBFers)
# Don't you often feel empathy, i.e. hurt, when you hurt someone else?
Why should I hurt someone else?
# Is it so important that we assign fault?
..says the student (who gave a faulty answer) to the professor.
..says the shortstop (just credited with an error) to the scorer.
..says the criminal (accused of robbery) to the judge.
# What I was trying to express is the importance of the LJBFee focusing on
# trying to _really_ understand the LJBFers intentions, instead of the
# distractions of blame, rules, fault, honesty, etc., etc.
What about the LJBFer's focus on the LJBFee?
# Wouldn't it be more productive to try to speak of ways to understand and
# most effectively deal with LJBFers, rather than looking for retribution
# by condemning them?
Oh, I see, in this not perfectly honest world, "we" have to understand the
LJBFer, this poor person, who can't say the truth, because the world is so bad.
We have to care for him/her. A LJBFer charity fund would be the least we could
do for him/her.
PEACE
Helmut
Peggy Irvine
># Don't you often feel empathy, i.e. hurt, when you hurt someone else?
>Why should I hurt someone else?
Whether or not you think you should or shouldn't, you are hurting others.
As someone who has been held hostage by concern for the feelings of
others, I want to say that I have been hurt repeatedly in my life by the
manipulations of angry men who accuse me of having done something *wrong*
by not being attracted to them.
The paradox: How can an empathetic person, aware that rejection equals
(at least *some*) hurt, tell you that you are no longer attractive?
This is the dilemma:
If I am diplomatic with you, I am "lying."
If I am blunt with you, I am "cold." (read: Bitch)
If I am tell you that I don't want to date you, I am Ms. Wrong.
It is very clear to me that I *cannot ever* be perceived in a positive
manner by anyone who thinks like this.
Therefore, since I cannot succeed with such a person, I will not try.
However, it has been my experience that it takes a few dates to find this
out about a person. Once it is discovered, my interest in a romance is
DEAD. Perhaps the person has other qualities that make me think the
negative outlook might "lighten up" a bit with time, and I may want to
try to be friends. But I am really surprised by the venom this thread
has generated. All the negative comments about the horror of being
LJBF'd has this effect on me:
If I were dating, and I were suspicious about the degree of negativity in
a prospective "date" I would probably refuse to go out. The complaining
afterward is so gross! God! You got a date. So it didn't work out. SO
WHAT! Try elsewhere!!!! These negative nasty angry comments are very
alienating. What statement are you trying to make? That no woman better
*dare* refuse you?
I am confused. I think anger at a person who LJBF's you is inappropriate.
I for one do NOT want to live in a world where a rejection comes polished
and sharpened till it has the maximum hurt value.
I will even go so far as to say, in my perspective, those people who are
the angriest are the people I want most to avoid.
Peace, and if not peace, then lots of distance.
Peggy
Helmut Mayer
# hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer) writes:
# >Why should I hurt someone else?
#
# Whether or not you think you should or shouldn't, you are hurting others.
First of all, I fear you didn't understand me. Maybe you'll have the same
impression now. But that's why we are talking here.
OK. I try to hurt nobody. The only way I'm able to know that I hurt anybody is
that he/she tells me. Nobody did that, and if anybody does I won't use these
stupid excuses like "that's life" etc. If I do anything wrong, it's me and not
life. I don't blame it on others.
# This is the dilemma:
That's your opinion and your dilemma. Again, you project it into me.
# If I am diplomatic with you, I am "lying."
Agreed. But being diplomatic is not necessarily lying, but can be true facts
presented in a decent way. Like "You are nice, but I'm not really attracted to
you and I'm not that interested to be friends with you either".
# If I am blunt with you, I am "cold." (read: Bitch)
Here we have the greatest disagreement. This is no bitch, she is not cold,
she's a sister and telling the truth. I never said to a woman that she's cold,
because she didn't have equal feelings for me. I call a lying LJBFer a bitch.
# If I am tell you that I don't want to date you, I am Ms. Wrong.
Yes. Then everything is perfectly clear. Please, do that. But not after some
dates, where you told him that he's one of the greatest guys you ever met.
# What statement are you trying to make? That no woman better *dare* refuse
#you?
My message is truth.
# I will even go so far as to say, in my perspective, those people who are
# the angriest are the people I want most to avoid.
Devil's advocate just whispered: People are not angry out of nowhere. Maybe,
they are angry, because you weren't honest to them. Then you avoid them,
because you don't wanna hear the truth and you can't be honest to yourself.
PEACE
Helmut
Silent Dreamer
>hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer) writes:
>The paradox: How can an empathetic person, aware that rejection equals
>(at least *some*) hurt, tell you that you are no longer attractive?
>This is the dilemma:
>If I am diplomatic with you, I am "lying."
>If I am blunt with you, I am "cold." (read: Bitch)
>If I am tell you that I don't want to date you, I am Ms. Wrong.
>It is very clear to me that I *cannot ever* be perceived in a positive
>manner by anyone who thinks like this.
Apparently, Peggy, YOU'VE NEVER been LJBF'd, or you would KNOW how much it
hurts. It doesn't hurt at all if the people who LJBF'd you mean little to
you----but if they're important enough to consider as friends, it WILL hurt to
be LJBF'd.
LJBF is a LIMITATION. That's ALL IT IS. Read it: Let's _JUST_ be friends.
>If I were dating, and I were suspicious about the degree of negativity in
>a prospective "date" I would probably refuse to go out. The complaining
>afterward is so gross! God! You got a date. So it didn't work out. SO
>WHAT! Try elsewhere!!!! These negative nasty angry comments are very
>alienating. What statement are you trying to make? That no woman better
>*dare* refuse you?
I don't think that's the comment. The venom is against the phrase LJBF.
It's _VERY_ painful (if you really care for someone) to only be a friend
when you feel much more for the person. It would be a lot LESS painful if
you just said:
"I'm sorry, but I don't find you attractive, and don't want to date you."
And did NOT offer "friendship" as a booby prize in lieu of what they
desired. Friendship can be wonderful IF it's desired---but if you desire
X and they hand you Y, you don't WANT Y.
>I am confused. I think anger at a person who LJBF's you is inappropriate.
The anger is at the phrase or implication that "I won't date you, but will
offer you this instead." It's also the way it's phrased. Maybe something
like: "I DO care deeply for you, and am proud to consider you my friend,
but I am not attracted to you and don't want to date you. It's not anything
WRONG with you, per se---it's just that _I_ don't find you attractive."
--
Quote: "Love may conquer everything, but it needs Time as its Field General."
Let darkness disappear/In the rays of sunshine/That come from within my heart/
Whenever I think of you.
Helmut Mayer
# Helmut Mayer (hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at) wrote:
#
# : OK. I try to hurt nobody. The only way I'm able to know that I hurt
# : anybody is that he/she tells me. Nobody did that, and if anybody does I
# : won't use these stupid excuses like "that's life" etc.
#
# : Devil's advocate just whispered: People are not angry out of nowhere.
# : Maybe, they are angry, because you weren't honest to them. Then you avoid
# : them, because you don't wanna hear the truth and you can't be honest to
# : yourself.
Your style of quoting is quite interesting. Well, it's a free net. Thanks God.
# Hmm.. so you try to hurt nobody, and are not angry towards people telling the
# truth to you. But then why, pray tell, are you projecting some very hostile
# feelings towards some people on this newsgroup, especially Karen Ronan ?
I'd love to meet a woman in reality who knows my feelings. (Standard Phrase:
Oh, I don't know you). You really don't know me and know my feelings. Good.
1) I don't have any hostile feelings towards anybody here.
2) Prof. Ronan called me amongst other things fascistic.
3) Again, this is a free net. She can do that.
4) This is a free net and I tell her very directly what's on my mind.
5) My apologies to everybody who is offended. It's never my intention, which is
an honest, straight, respectful discussion.
6) Point 5) does not apply to Prof. Ronan, who knows it all.
# I don't see Karen playing games with you.
Neither do I.
# But lately your replies to her posts have turned into personal attacks, and
# seem deliberate attempts to hurt and denigrate her. Why is this ?
I never attacked her personally. She did. I'm just replying to her flip-flop
attitude. Who knows, maybe she's just an AI-program, researching people's
reactions on completely illogical statements.
# The way you act (on the net, at least) doesn't seem to match with your
# philosophies. PEACE is not just a word, it's a way of life.
Exactly. PEACE = TRUTH = RESPECT = ATTITUDE = my way of life
PEACE
Helmut
P.S.: If you want to know me, which I doubt, I'm going to Holland at
"Pfingsten" (don't know the English word).
Karen Ronan
> The anger is at the phrase or implication that "I won't date you, but
will
>offer you this instead."
Frankly, I think what the angry men posting on this thread are most angry
about (but don't want to admit), is being refused even a remote
possibility for physical gratification.
>Maybe something
>like: "I DO care deeply for you, and am proud to consider you my
friend,
>but I am not attracted to you and don't want to date you. It's not
anything
>WRONG with you, per se---it's just that _I_ don't find you attractive."
I sincerely doubt that you would enjoy hearing this line.
Karen
Marcia
>That's your opinion and your dilemma. Again, you project it into me.
But then you go on to agree with her....isn't that making it your opinion
also?
># If I am diplomatic with you, I am "lying."
>
>Agreed. But being diplomatic is not necessarily lying, but can be true facts
>presented in a decent way. Like "You are nice, but I'm not really attracted to
>you and I'm not that interested to be friends with you either".
Isn't this being a little unrealistic? You are trying to make someone else
conform to what YOU believe is the correct phrasing. Doesn't it matter what
they believe is correct?
I believe this is the center of the problem I have with this whole discussion.
Those who don't want to hear LJBF accuse other people of lying when they
do not conform to their own rigid, narrow definitions of what is "truth".
Anything else is a "lie". There is no room for other cultures, other
upbringings, other comfort levels.
This is a very fruitless way to look at this situation, because you are not
going to be able to dictate change to other people. They most likely have
different ideas about what is proper in different situations, and you can
either learn to work with these, or keep hitting your head against a brick
wall.
>Devil's advocate just whispered: People are not angry out of nowhere. Maybe,
>they are angry, because you weren't honest to them. Then you avoid them,
>because you don't wanna hear the truth and you can't be honest to yourself.
People are angry because they want to be. I will not take responsibility for
someone else's feelings. I will take them into account, but if my best effort
isn't good enough and they aren't willing to work with me on it, it's no
longer my problem.
I think it's time to put LJBF into my killfile. This is going nowhere fast.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk. ADDRESSES: mar...@netcom.com
Don't tell me not to burn my candle at both ends - m...@cisco.com
just tell me where to get more wax!
Marcia
>pe...@starburst.umd.edu (Peggy Irvine) writes:
>>This is the dilemma:
>>If I am diplomatic with you, I am "lying."
>>If I am blunt with you, I am "cold." (read: Bitch)
>>If I am tell you that I don't want to date you, I am Ms. Wrong.
>
>hurts. It doesn't hurt at all if the people who LJBF'd you mean little to
>you----but if they're important enough to consider as friends, it WILL hurt to
>be LJBF'd.
I have been LJBF'd. I know how much it hurts. And I STILL agree with Peggy.
There is no way to deliver that message without being perceived as evil. You
can't win. You can't protect a person from being hurt when you can't deliver
the only thing he wants.
> And did NOT offer "friendship" as a booby prize in lieu of what they
>desired. Friendship can be wonderful IF it's desired---but if you desire
>X and they hand you Y, you don't WANT Y.
Anyone who considers friendship as a "booby prize" isn't worth being friends
with. Look at it a different way: you walk into a clothing store, and you want
a blue shirt. But they are out of blue shirts - so the sales person offers
you a green shirt. It's not what you wanted, but they are trying to find
some other way to help you out. If it's still not what you want, you can
leave - but there's no need to get angry because they simply don't have what
you want. (BTW: anyone who wants to torture this analogy further can go ahead,
but I won't help cause it more pain.)
> The anger is at the phrase or implication that "I won't date you, but will
>offer you this instead." It's also the way it's phrased. Maybe something
>like: "I DO care deeply for you, and am proud to consider you my friend,
>but I am not attracted to you and don't want to date you. It's not anything
>WRONG with you, per se---it's just that _I_ don't find you attractive."
If you are angry because they are trying, because they are offering you all
that they possibly can (which admittedly isn't all that you would like, but
you can't force a person to feel more), then that's no longer their problem.
Karen Ronan
>For once, you're right. I wouldn't enjoy it. Not one iota. But that's
>the nature of the game, isn't it? I'm *willing* to take my lumps. But
>there's nothing that says I gotta *like* it.
You're starting to sound mature.
>But I'd much rather hear that than some self-serving platitudes
>supposedly designed to spare my feelings.
Maybe one day you'll be talking to someone and just see the truth. It
won't matter much what they are telling you, because you'll see what the
situation really is. A lot of people don't know how to perfectly state
what they want, especially when they're under pressure. Some people will
say anything just to get through a situation. They might not even
remember what they said. I don't take people's words as though carved in
stone. I try to perceive what they might be feeling, what they're afraid
of saying. I don't call that dishonesty on their part. It's just the
enormous natural difficulty of human communication.
Karen
Adrian Graham DENT - Rodent
>life.
How can you be a realist and a romanticist??? I would have thought the two
were more or less mutually exclusive...or at least confusing when used
together...
>Regards,
>Karen
Adrian
Adrian Graham DENT - Rodent
do I only have four people I would count as friends?? (or three noe that
Erin is out of the picture)
Just some more self pitying crap from the "romantic moron"
Adrian
Lewis McCarthy
# But lately your replies to [Karen Ronan's] posts have turned into
# personal attacks, and seem deliberate attempts to hurt and denigrate her.
# Why is this ?
Helmut Mayer writes:
>I never attacked her personally. She did.
Although I haven't posted much here recently, I've kept up in my reading of
everything in alt.romance...
{ OK, except that the periodic alt.polyamory announcement is in my tiny
killfile, and I tend to give up on some of the prolonged Jerry
Williamson v. Rodney Wines threads when they follow up line-by-line to
each others' follow-ups many times over, and I didn't much care to
begin with :) }
...and I've watched this thread with considerable interest. Mayer v. Ronan
has been a pretty good flame skirmish from my vantage point. Anyway, the
first `personal' shot I remember noticing was a crack Karen made about
Helmut being German/Austrian. Helmut probably could have let the minor point
slip, but didn't, and the ad hominem war seemed to escalate right out of that.
Anyway, IMHO "s/he started it" is the sort of thing most people
tell their kids to forsake, pretty early on. It would be nice if the personal
animosity between the two hadn't reached a level where neither seems entirely
able to avoid name-calling, but it's not productive or particularly
meaningful to blame someone as the instigator. Besides, "it takes 2 to
tango".
My impression is that KR and HM really don't have dramatically
different views, but each perceives the small gap as an enormous chasm.
The question seems to reduce to "how much tact is too much ?",
The answer seems to reduce to YMMV, more specifically that (as a result of
X% culture, (100-X)% genetics, where X is *very* hard to measure)
males as a group vary within a somewhat different range than females do.
"Break it to me gently" -Juice Newton
"Straight up now tell me" -Paula Abdul
-Lewis
"I can't make you love me, if you don't.
You can't make your heart feel something, if it won't" -Bonnie Raitt ?
Helmut Mayer
(Thanks for some feedback)
# Anyway, IMHO "s/he started it" is the sort of thing most people
# tell their kids to forsake, pretty early on. It would be nice if the personal
# animosity between the two hadn't reached a level where neither seems entirely
# able to avoid name-calling, but it's not productive or particularly
# meaningful to blame someone as the instigator. Besides, "it takes 2 to
# tango".
Yes. Everybody's free to make his/her calls. I never said she started it. I'm
just straight up. Like it or not. And I don't take it that serious as some
people seem to think here. Particularly, I don't take people seriously, if they
constantly try to lecture people. She does it in most of her posts.
PEACE
Helmut
Helmut Mayer
# In article <Cn7w1...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at writes:
# >That's your opinion and your dilemma. Again, you project it into me.
#
# But then you go on to agree with her....isn't that making it your opinion
# also?
I've always respected your thoughtful comments. You're starting to play games.
There were three points. I agreed on the first one partially. I started my
comment to the second point with:"Here we have the greatest disagreement..."
and did not really understand her third point. Just a reminder:
2) she said that she could be labelled a bitch, if she does a "cold" rejection
To say it with my man Ivan. If she doesn't feel any warmth for him, then her
feelings towards him are cold. There is nothing wrong with that. If she says
that I and a lot of people here NEVER would call her a bitch. We would have
great respect.
3) she could be labeled as Ms. Wrong
again I use Ivan's comment (I'd love to have his command of English). She can't
be expected to be perceived as Ms. Right, if he's Mr. Wrong for her. There is
no dilemma. It's just like it is.
# ># If I am diplomatic with you, I am "lying."
# >
# >Agreed. But being diplomatic is not necessarily lying, but can be true facts
# >presented in a decent way. Like "You are nice, but I'm not really attracted
to
# >you and I'm not that interested to be friends with you either".
#
# Isn't this being a little unrealistic?
You are trying to make me conform to your definition of "realistic".
# You are trying to make someone else conform to what YOU believe is the
correct phrasing.
No. But it's a good point. Assuming equal rights I'll look at the other side of
the medal. LJBFers are trying to make someone else conform to their belief.
They say they do it to spare the feelings of the other person. Did they ever
ask, if that was true for the other person, as well? NO. They just do it,
without any caring for the other person.
# Doesn't it matter what they believe is correct?
If I was a lecturer, I would say:"You got it." I'm no lecturer. I just ask you
to read the previous paragraph again.
# >Devil's advocate just whispered: People are not angry out of nowhere. Maybe,
# >they are angry, because you weren't honest to them. Then you avoid them,
# >because you don't wanna hear the truth and you can't be honest to yourself.
# People are angry because they want to be.
I totally disagree.
# I will not take responsibility for someone else's feelings.
I don't like that attitude, but it's honest. I respect that.
# I will take them into account, but if my best effort
# isn't good enough and they aren't willing to work with me on it, it's no
# longer my problem.
Some guys brought it up recently. I've the same experience with best efforts.
Her best efforts were sitting at home and expecting me to call. Always. Then,
of course, she said that it was great that I called her and how much she's
looking forward to meet me. I always believed that. I don't believe a single
word like that anymore. I just can't do it. Sorry!
# I think it's time to put LJBF into my killfile. This is going nowhere fast.
This is a free net.
PEACE
Helmut
Helmut Mayer
# Look at it a different way: you walk into a clothing store, and you want
# a blue shirt. But they are out of blue shirts - so the sales person offers
# you a green shirt. It's not what you wanted, but they are trying to find
# some other way to help you out. If it's still not what you want, you can
# leave - but there's no need to get angry because they simply don't have what
# you want. (BTW: anyone who wants to torture this analogy further can go
ahead,
# but I won't help cause it more pain.)
I like examples.
1) The sales person offers a real green shirt, it's not virtual.
2) If I want it, he/she will give it to me.
Derived from 2): What is a FRIEND?
PEACE
Helmut
David Edsall
>I don't see Karen playing games with you. She just tells very directly what's
>on her mind. I don't always agree with her, which is perfectly natural. But
>lately your replies to her posts have turned into personal attacks, and seem
>deliberate attempts to hurt and denigrate her. Why is this ?
You REALLY think a man who is Austrian LIKES being called a facist?
His posts against her are not attacks. He's trying to make the point that she
wants to win this debate at all costs, including lying and changing her
opinion to win.
Dave
--
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | eds...@cern.ch |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@cernvm |
David Edsall
>Silent Dreamer writes:
>> The anger is at the phrase or implication that "I won't date you, but
>will
>>offer you this instead."
>Frankly, I think what the angry men posting on this thread are most angry
>about (but don't want to admit), is being refused even a remote
>possibility for physical gratification.
Where the fuck did you get this one from, Karen? You ever think that men
want something more than sex? Maybe men want some emotional companionship?
I think what you don't want to admit is that there are some decent men in the
world.
David Edsall
>Peggy Irvine writes:
>>Whether or not you think you should or shouldn't, you are hurting others.
>Right on.
>>I want to say that I have been hurt repeatedly in my life by the
>>manipulations of angry men who accuse me of having done something *wrong*
>>by not being attracted to them.
>You hurt his feelings, it's payback time. (That's the prevailing
>attitude.)
>>What statement are you trying to make? That no woman better
>>*dare* refuse you?
>I think you got it.
>>I am confused. I think anger at a person who LJBF's you is
>inappropriate.
>Highly.
>>Peace, and if not peace, then lots of distance.
>I love this!!
I figured you would. You picked out of context all the pieces of this post
that paint men in the worst possible light. You love anything that says:
MEN ARE EVIL!
and you will go to any lengths to prove that to everyone.
Silent Dreamer
>In <2mvg12$a...@agate.berkeley.edu> Karen Ronan <ro...@mendel.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>Frankly, I think what the angry men posting on this thread are most angry
>>about (but don't want to admit), is being refused even a remote
>>possibility for physical gratification.
> Where the fuck did you get this one from, Karen? You ever think that men
>want something more than sex? Maybe men want some emotional companionship?
>I think what you don't want to admit is that there are some decent men in the
>world.
Thank you, Dave. That's a good way to put it. There IS a level of emotional
closeness (and physical closeness---cuddling, hugging, kissing, etc) which
is only present in an SO. It's all a matter of degrees:
If we can say friends require X degree of closeness to be called friends,
and lovers require >X degree of closeness to be lovers, then friendship isn't
worth as much as love in that respect.
I don't think ANYONE is as open+emotionally expressive with their friends
as they are with their SO. That's what SO MEANS (Significant Other). It's
someone who is closer to you than any other friend.
Karen, if you keep thinking "all men want only sex" it will end up being a
self-fufilling prophecy. Maybe that's why some guys find it hard to express
any "softer" feelings---because they feel they must want only sex.
Morph
Silent Dreamer <pet...@nuge103.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> Apparently, Peggy, YOU'VE NEVER been LJBF'd, or you would KNOW how much it
>hurts. It doesn't hurt at all if the people who LJBF'd you mean little to
>you----but if they're important enough to consider as friends, it WILL hurt to
>be LJBF'd.
If they're important enough to consider as friends- and if you *value* them
as friends- then things are a little different...
> It's _VERY_ painful (if you really care for someone) to only be a friend
>when you feel much more for the person. It would be a lot LESS painful if
>you just said:
>
> "I'm sorry, but I don't find you attractive, and don't want to date you."
>
> And did NOT offer "friendship" as a booby prize in lieu of what they
>desired. Friendship can be wonderful IF it's desired---but if you desire
>X and they hand you Y, you don't WANT Y.
Right...
So, you're specifically talking about being LJBF'd by friends? This has
happened to me rather a lot. And, IMHO, you're misreading it. Yes, there
are better ways to say it. And yes, if someone you don't know very well
LJBF's you, it often means "No thanks. Go away". But if a friend LJBF's
you, they're saying something quite different.
They're saying that- despite their lack of romantic interest in you- they
value you as a *friend*, and they don't want to lose that. Often there's
a fear that if they *don't* explicitly say "let's stay friends" the other
person will take rejection as a "get lost".
As for X and Y... well, I can only speak for myself, but I want X AND Y.
If X isn't on offer, but Y is, then I'll accept Y and then go looking
elsewhere for an X&Y package deal. You can never have too many friends-
assuming, of course, that she *does* want to be friends and doesn't just
want an admirer around as a confidence boost (if she does, you'll probably
lose touch when you enter a relationship with someone else...).
> The anger is at the phrase or implication that "I won't date you, but will
>offer you this instead." It's also the way it's phrased. Maybe something
>like: "I DO care deeply for you, and am proud to consider you my friend,
>but I am not attracted to you and don't want to date you. It's not anything
>WRONG with you, per se---it's just that _I_ don't find you attractive."
I tried to find better words when I had to LJBF a close friend. I failed.
It's not an easy thing to say, especially when the other person is already
a close [platonic] friend.
Once again, it's not an X(romance) or Y(friendship) thing. From what you're
saying, you've already *got* Y. And X isn't available. Even if X WAS
available, you wouldn't discard Y as soon as you got it, would you? I
certainly hope you wouldn't...
-Morph
--
BEEF-(The McDonalds definition): "At some point in its long and varied
existence, this material was located on the inside or outside of a cow"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morph/J.White: csg...@uk.ac.cov.cch
Morph
Helmut Mayer <hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> wrote:
># >pe...@starburst.umd.edu (Peggy Irvine) writes:
Well, it's another of those not-THAT-rare occasions when I agree with Helmut.
You Have Been Warned...
># >>God! You got a date. So it didn't work out. SO WHAT! Try elsewhere!!!!
>Great you brought this up. My experience: "There are thousand others." (They
>always said 1000, very interesting.) To me, this is not rather offensive, but
>extremely.
IMHO it's not outright offensive... it's just seriously annoying, and it
always leaves me with the impression that the person concerned doesn't
really know me very well...
>Does she think I'm joking, just telling stories? Furthermore, this implies
>that I should just tell the same things another girl and if it doesn't work
>the next one until, finally, one believes my stories. That's exactly what I'm
>looking for.
Y'know, it is a little strange. I've heard it written off as basic insecurity-
someone's honest belief that they're nothing special and that there *are* a
thousand others like them out there. Well, maybe there *are*, but the other
999 are probably already in happy relationships... 1/2:-)
If I'm interested in someone then I think that they *are* someone special.
At the very least, they're special to me. Saying that there are a thousand
others is -effectively- telling me how I feel. And I tend to react badly
to that...
[Veering off a little- the other classic line is "You'll meet the right
woman...". My reply to that, the last time I heard it, was "I thought
I had...". Cue deathly silence. It wasn't very nice of me, and it made
the poor woman feel even more uncomfortable about LJBFing me, but it
also made my point...]
Christopher Clayton
>I was LJBFd three years ago by a lady I adored (and continue to adore).
>It did hurt, of course, but She had done nothing wrong, so my feelings
>for Her were not affected. By virtue of them, She was to have Her wish
>-- my friendship, in this case; for myself I wanted as much communication
>with Her as possible, which meant that I also wanted what She wanted.
>We're separated by a very big and salty puddle now, but we write
>poetry for one another (for which the initiative was Hers) and send
>one another kisses in nearly every letter (for which the initiative
>was also Hers) and Valentine's Day greetings (needless to say, this
>wasn't my idea either). I'm thinking of visiting Her this summer.
>Now suppose I had decided that I didn't want to bear the pain, or,
>worse, suppose I had chosen not to trust Her offer of friendship.
>I would have missed something which is of great importance for me,
>and I would have treated Her in an extremely unfair manner, without
>anyone gaining anything. I'd rather give too much confidence to 19
>people who don't deserve it than deny it to one who does.
Everything seems reasonable up to this point...
This really is wonderful, and I wish I were this fortunate.
>Re the pain, it passes more quickly than the pleasure. Good old wine
>is supposed to be bitter on the palate.
Now here's where I have to take issue with your post. Sometimes, the
pain doesn't pass, and for some, the pleasure never arrives. Some of us
chose not to drink (wine) for that reason, and then there are others among
us who never have the chance...
- The Clayminator
~
All's well that ends.
Helmut Mayer
# Men are not "evil" but "all" men are "bastards" (with a few exceptions of
# course ...unfortunately I am not one of these exceptions...
#
# So we have decided she is a program have we?????
We can't decide, we can guess. I guess so.
PEACE
Helmut
csc334...@emuvax.emich.edu
LJBF seems to be a center of discussion, I thought I'd throw in my
$.02)
In article <2mtlcj$3...@gamera.umd.edu>, pe...@starburst.umd.edu
(Peggy Irvine) writes:
>
> If I were dating, and I were suspicious about the degree of negativity in
> a prospective "date" I would probably refuse to go out. The complaining
> afterward is so gross! God! You got a date. So it didn't work out. SO
> WHAT! Try elsewhere!!!! These negative nasty angry comments are very
> alienating. What statement are you trying to make? That no woman better
> *dare* refuse you?
Am I the only one who has a problem with the "Try elsewhere!!!!" line?
I mean, I've been on the receiving end of LJBF. A few time I've even
explored the possibility of JBF. More often than not what I got for
my troubles is unreturned phone calls, etc.
Trying elsewhere sounds nice and seems the right thing to do, but after having
your expectations built up (I'm not talking about a LJBF line after one
or two dates here) and being given a line and shoved off, you feel
hurt, and the more you get hurt, the harder it is to expose yourself
and keep trying, and pretty soon you've curled your emotions up
in a little ball, convinced yourself that you're never gonna get
anywhere in a relationship and you don't really *want* to try anymore.
--
Dominic Macika is csc334...@emuvax.emich.edu
Pedo mellon a minno
~ ACCESS DENIED ~
[killed]
: Let's Just Be Friends = Just Go Away
James, you are the champion of today alt.rommance Jeopardy... :(
: James
Best wishes,
Alex
Ian Douglas Agranat
> Excellent. You should post this on alt.romance!
Here goes!
BACKGROUND:
I was recently LJBFed by a woman with whom I went out with a few times.
On our last date, she LJBFed me. At first, I assumed she meant "get lost",
because I have been conditioned to believe this as the hidden meaning behind
the words "Let's Just Be Friends".
But as I drove her back to her place, we had a wonderfully sincere, open,
and honest conversation about where we were going in our lives, the difficulty
of being involved with anyone, etc. Then, to my surprise (since we had
never kissed before), she reached over and kissed me on the cheek when I
pulled up at her door. I interpreted these as friendly and sincere gestures
that seemed to indicate that maybe she really did want to be friends. And,
having many female friends (actually, most of my friends are female), this
was not a foreign concept to me and I welcomed it.
After a few days passed, I gave her a call. And then another. And another.
I left several messages with her over the course of the following week, and
she did not return a single phone call - I have not heard from her again. This
caused me to go back to my original assumption that she didn't really want to
be friends.
A case of miscommunication and mixed messages. I don't blame anyone for this
(I'm sure she has probably been conditioned by past experiences (judging from
some of the harsh words by men on this thread!) which taught her that using
LJBF == GETLOST is easiest for her and least likely to result in abusive
rhetoric. And after only three dates with me, she probably didn't know that
I (from past experiences) would welcome honesty and would respect her desire
not to see me anymore.
REQUESTED POSTING:
I guess the next time someone LJBFs me, I might ask "Okay. I need to ask
if you sincerely want to be friends and you just are making it clear that
you are not interested in me in a romantic way, or if you are trying to
politely tell me that you would rather not see me anymore. Either would
be fine with me, and I will respect your wishes. I ask only because women
have told me LJBF before when they really were not interested in being friends
at all. So I need to ask for clarification." ... or words to that effect...
--Ian
-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Ian Douglas Agranat, President | 1993 Walk for Women's Lives, Co-chair
Agranat Systems, Inc. | Lexington NOW Women in the Media Task Force
i...@Agranat.COM | Waltham Battered Women Support Committee,
Consulting: | Steps to Shelter Committee 1988-1993
o Communications Technology | "Proud to be a Feminist"
o Embedded Real-Time Systems +-----------------------------------------------
o Unix internals | People Making a Difference, Board of Directors
o Device Drivers | Alpha Phi Omega, Section 96 staff
-------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Helmut Mayer
# I guess the next time someone LJBFs me, I might ask "Okay. I need to ask
# if you sincerely want to be friends and you just are making it clear that
# you are not interested in me in a romantic way, or if you are trying to
# politely tell me that you would rather not see me anymore. Either would
# be fine with me, and I will respect your wishes. I ask only because women
# have told me LJBF before when they really were not interested in being
friends
# at all. So I need to ask for clarification." ... or words to that effect...
Excellent. I did that. As soon as I said the word "clarification"...cue dead
silence. Five minutes later she said:"It's great to be with you." Phone calls,
same thing. She said, she'll call me. Never did it. Wait for my "LJBF - going
deep...", where most of the ideas come from my female friends.
PEACE
Helmut
I R A Aggie
yur...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (~ ACCESS DENIED ~) wrote:
> I R A Aggie (stri...@masig.fsu.edu) wrote:
>
> [killed]
>
> : Let's Just Be Friends = Just Go Away
>
> James, you are the champion of today alt.rommance Jeopardy... :(
Yeah, well I always seem to be on the short end of the stick.
Ah, well. Perhaps I'm just not polished enough. Yet.
James
I R A Aggie
Mayer) wrote:
> Ian Douglas Agranat writes
>
> # I guess the next time someone LJBFs me, I might ask "Okay. I need to ask
> # if you sincerely want to be friends and you just are making it clear that
> # you are not interested in me in a romantic way, or if you are trying to
> # politely tell me that you would rather not see me anymore. Either would
> # be fine with me, and I will respect your wishes. I ask only because women
> # have told me LJBF before when they really were not interested in being
> friends
> # at all. So I need to ask for clarification."
Sorry, but that'll seem to be too harsh, too cold. You'll be trying to
pin them down on a definite answer. See:
> Excellent. I did that. As soon as I said the word "clarification"...cue dead
> silence. Five minutes later she said:"It's great to be with you." Phone calls,
> same thing. She said, she'll call me. Never did it. Wait for my "LJBF - going
> deep...", where most of the ideas come from my female friends.
Me thinks the easiest solution is to put the onus on the person desiring
friendship. In this case, the person uttering LJBF. Let them call you.
Let them propose activities that you both can share & enjoy & feel
comfortable with.
Either way, you'll know exactly what they meant by LJBF. And you can
avoid painting the other person in a negative light.
James
Christopher Clayton
>I agree with Helmut here...why tell someone to try elsewhere...it is not
>like you have seen a piece of furniture you like and want to find the
>cheapest price...I mean I'm sure some guys are out for anything they can
>get (and some girls) but most of the time you have found someone yoiu really
>like and want to get to know better...want to spend some time with...all
>that sort of thing...
Finally, a clear, lucid statement that sums up what I've always thought
about the "keep trying/looking/waiting/whatever" kind of advice. I will rest
well tonight knowing I'm not alone in this feeling.
>if you are just trying to pick up for sex...you may as
>well just use your hand...sex without love feels about the same...
But what if you love your hand? :>
>especially after sex with somone you are in love with...
I would think guilt about two-timing would decrease the fun more than
anything...but, again, I jest. ;) I wouldn't know anything about that, either.
Chris
(Feeling much better know that he's dumped the friend who he thought he could
trust, and then was ignored...)
Adrian Graham DENT - Rodent
>about the "keep trying/looking/waiting/whatever" kind of advice. I will rest
>well tonight knowing I'm not alone in this feeling.
>>especially after sex with somone you are in love with...
>I would think guilt about two-timing would decrease the fun more than
>anything...but, again, I jest. ;) I wouldn't know anything about that, either.
I actually meant having sex without love AFTER you have broken up...but the
feeling is sort of like that...
Adrian. (the romantic moron)
Helmut Mayer
# "I really love this 1994 Ferrari 512TR you have here in the show room. Could
I
# have it for $10?"
# "No."
# "But I really have to have this Ferrari! I'm in love!"
I like examples. It's a good one, but that's not my point. Here it is:
"I really love this 1994 Ferrari 512TR you have here in the show room. I'd like
to buy it.
"No, you can't have it."
"Why?"
- cue dead silence...
(BTW, if a sales person behaved like that, he/she will have been a sales
person.)
PEACE
Helmut
Helmut Mayer
# I would not call someone if I suspected them of begrudging me my freedom
# to call or not call. And that is NOT a simple excuse. That is a very
# hard-learned component of my requirements for friendship.
Now it's going to be complicated, but it's interesting. How can anybody
begrudge you of your freedom to call or not to call? (I rule out physical
violence) Maybe, I don't understand it, but this is really THE ultimate excuse.
Whenever you don't want to call anybody, you just have to say:"Well, I feel
that the other person begrudges my freedom to call." Wouldn't it be a lot
easier, if you called or you never said you'll call?
PEACE
Helmut
Mark C. Carroll
>>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Mayer <hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> writes:
In article <CnJAr...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer) writes:
Helmut> Peggy Irvine writes # I would not call someone if I suspected
Helmut> them of begrudging me my freedom # to call or not call. And
Helmut> that is NOT a simple excuse. That is a very # hard-learned
Helmut> component of my requirements for friendship.
Helmut> Now it's going to be complicated, but it's interesting. How
Helmut> can anybody begrudge you of your freedom to call or not to
Helmut> call? (I rule out physical violence) Maybe, I don't understand
Helmut> it, but this is really THE ultimate excuse. Whenever you
Helmut> don't want to call anybody, you just have to say:"Well, I feel
Helmut> that the other person begrudges my freedom to call." Wouldn't
Helmut> it be a lot easier, if you called or you never said you'll
Helmut> call?
It's pretty easy...
Just look at many of the nice guys here on the net. A lot of people
become *very* obsessive with the woman who they want to date. They set
terms, they make *demands*.
If I LJBFed a woman, and she continued to pressure me, to make demands
that I call her, I'd certainly feel like she was trying to steal my
freedom.
There are people who can't take no for an answer. So the answer is to
ignore them, and eventually they'll go away.
Helmut> PEACE
Personally, after reading your posts accross the last few months, I
think that signing your messages "PEACE" is rather hypocritical.
<MC>
--
Mark C. Carroll
>>>>> "Silent" == Silent Dreamer <pet...@nuge103.its.rpi.edu> writes:
In article <2muppj$o...@usenet.rpi.edu> pet...@nuge103.its.rpi.edu (Silent Dreamer) writes:
Silent> pe...@starburst.umd.edu (Peggy Irvine) writes:
>> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer) writes:
>> The paradox: How can an empathetic person, aware that rejection
>> equals (at least *some*) hurt, tell you that you are no longer
>> attractive?
>> This is the dilemma: If I am diplomatic with you, I am "lying." If
>> I am blunt with you, I am "cold." (read: Bitch) If I am tell you
>> that I don't want to date you, I am Ms. Wrong.
>> It is very clear to me that I *cannot ever* be perceived in a
>> positive manner by anyone who thinks like this.
Silent> Apparently, Peggy, YOU'VE NEVER been LJBF'd, or you would
Silent> KNOW how much it hurts. It doesn't hurt at all if the people
Silent> who LJBF'd you mean little to you----but if they're important
Silent> enough to consider as friends, it WILL hurt to be LJBF'd.
I've been LJBFed quite my share of times, and I agree completely with
Peggy. To listen to the whiners of the net, the ONLY thing that a
woman should ever be allowed to do is *exactly* what a niceguy wants
from her. No matter what she does, she's labelled a bitch of one kind
or another. Either she's cruel, or she's a liar, or she's insensitive,
or ...
Silent> LJBF is a LIMITATION. That's ALL IT IS. Read it: Let's
Silent> _JUST_ be friends.
It's all in how you read it. If your only goal is to have a
relationship, and you don't care about the woman at all, then it's
"Let's JUST be friends", because all you care about is your dream of
having a relationship, and the friendship is nothing but a step on the
way to trying to realize your dream. If you *really* care about the
woman, then it's "Let's just BE FRIENDS", and it's easy. Not painless,
because it does hurt, but not the traumatic friendship-ending pain
that you make it out to be.
>> If I were dating, and I were suspicious about the degree of
>> negativity in a prospective "date" I would probably refuse to go
>> out. The complaining afterward is so gross! God! You got a date.
>> So it didn't work out. SO WHAT! Try elsewhere!!!! These negative
>> nasty angry comments are very alienating. What statement are you
>> trying to make? That no woman better *dare* refuse you?
Silent> I don't think that's the comment. The venom is against the
Silent> phrase LJBF.
Silent> It's _VERY_ painful (if you really care for someone) to only
Silent> be a friend when you feel much more for the person. It would
Silent> be a lot LESS painful if you just said:
Silent> "I'm sorry, but I don't find you attractive, and don't want
Silent> to date you."
And what if a woman *really* *honestly* cares about you as a friend,
and wants to remain friends with you?
In your worldview, that's a horrible crime. But all that does is
reveal what a shallow, self-centered little asshole you are.
Silent> And did NOT offer "friendship" as a booby prize in lieu of
Silent> what they desired. Friendship can be wonderful IF it's
Silent> desired---but if you desire X and they hand you Y, you don't
Silent> WANT Y.
I think that this paragraph about sums up your attitude. Note that the
person who says LJBF, and your feelings about her *NEVER* get
mentioned. It's strictly "I wanted X, and you didn't give it to me."
You don't care about her; you don't want to be friends with her; all
you want is A RELATIONSHIP.
Until you grow up, and realize that a real relationship is based on
friendship, and on *real* *care* about your partner, then you will
NEVER have a succesful romantic relationship. No woman wants to be
involved with a self-centered bastard who doesn't give a shit about
anything beyond his own dreams of romantic gratification.
(Note that the above does NOT mean that when a woman LJBF's you, you
should hold in on hopes that the friendship will change into a
romantic relationship, because that almost never happens. But the
basis of any real relationship IS friendship and a real emotional bond
between two people. When your dreams are more important than her
desires, then there is no possibility for a relationship to work out.)
>> I am confused. I think anger at a person who LJBF's you is
>> inappropriate.
Silent> The anger is at the phrase or implication that "I won't date
Silent> you, but will offer you this instead." It's also the way it's
Silent> phrased. Maybe something like: "I DO care deeply for you, and
Silent> am proud to consider you my friend, but I am not attracted to
Silent> you and don't want to date you. It's not anything WRONG with
Silent> you, per se---it's just that _I_ don't find you attractive."
Did you *ever* consider the possibility that the nonsense about not
finding you attractive might not have anything to do with it? You've
got this hangup about woman not finding you attractive. But a huge
portion of the time, that doesn't ever enter into things. Much of the
time, when a relationship fails to click, it's because of subtle
personality differences. She might find you *very* attractive in many
ways - but still not want to date you.
Lets just be friends can be the simple truth: I don't want to date you,
but I do want to be your friend.
<MC>
--
Marcia
>Did that as well. Have been waiting for her announced phone call since April
>'93.
I think this is the saddest thing I've read on this newsgroup - almost a
year, and he's still letting her affect him like this.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bednarcyk. ADDRESSES: mar...@netcom.com
Don't tell me not to burn my candle at both ends - m...@cisco.com
just tell me where to get more wax!
Marcia
>I like examples. It's a good one, but that's not my point. Here it is:
>
>"I really love this 1994 Ferrari 512TR you have here in the show room. I'd like
>to buy it.
>"No, you can't have it."
>"Why?"
>- cue dead silence...
My question: why does it matter why? It's not going to change the reality
that you can't have it. You can argue with why all day, and it's just going
to make you hoarse...it's not going to change anything. Since knowing or
not knowing the why makes no difference, what's the point?
David Tornheim
Helmut Mayer <hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> wrote:
>>Great you brought this up. My experience: "There are thousand others." (They
>>always said 1000, very interesting.) To me, this is not rather offensive, but
>>extremely.
>
csg...@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Morph) added:
>IMHO it's not outright offensive... it's just seriously annoying, and it
>always leaves me with the impression that the person concerned doesn't
>really know me very well...
I think you are missing the point. The point of the line is to distract you
from the loss of this relationship and to give you hope on setting a new
direction for yourself. Better than saying, "You suck. Take a hike loser.
I'm done with you, and frankly I think all other women will dislike you for
the same reasons I did. Basically, your life is hopeless and it's in
my best interests to get out before you drag me down with you." You can
see how completely unproductive the second statement is, again, needlessly
making you feel bad, and, perhaps, giving you fear of trying again.
You need to move on and they are reinforcing this.
csg...@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Morph) continued:
>Y'know, it is a little strange. I've heard it written off as basic insecurity-
>someone's honest belief that they're nothing special and that there *are* a
>thousand others like them out there.
Wrong. That's not at all what they are saying, and it has little to do with
being insecure. They know you are in love with them and want them, and that
to you they seem very special. But, there are _plenty_ of other special
people too, and they want to make good and darn sure you don't forget that.
Don't tell me that of all the available women in the world that you found the
_only_ one that has anything worthwhile to give you.
Yes, by examing this particular one under a microscope you found that she
had an _amazing_ number of beautiful qualities. But, if you take the time
to look around some more, you _will_ find another that has just as many
beautiful (but different) qualities. I think if you searched
deeply in your heart, you could fall in love with any woman who'd let you.
Some are just more compatible with you than others or are overall easier to
live with. The likelihood that you find the most compatible is just about
zero; there just isn't enough time to look them all over. Even if you
did look them all over, you probably wouldn't recognize her anyway.
Listen to the real message:
"I don't want romance with you. Find someone else."
-David
David Tornheim
>[Veering off a little- the other classic line is "You'll meet the right
>woman...". My reply to that, the last time I heard it, was "I thought
>I had...". Cue deathly silence. It wasn't very nice of me, and it made
>the poor woman feel even more uncomfortable about LJBFing me, but it
>also made my point...]
That was very sweet of you to say that she was the right woman for you,
reaffirming how much she meant to you. I'm sure that will be
a pleasant memory for her. When I broke up with one woman, she said,
"It doesn't matter, because I'll never stop loving you." True she was being
difficult about it, but I rather liked the thought that she could have
caring feelings towards me even when I was letting her go. A pleasant
memory of that statement was part of what brought me back together with her
in the future.
So yes, making your feelings clear and known ("making your point") is often
a good thing. But you also must be prepared to let her go when she tells
you it is necessary. Your statement doesn't refute that, especially since it
is phrased in the _past_ tense. Making her feel comfortable with breaking
up with you isn't your main objective anyway. Your hurt will likely be
bigger than hers, and besides her feeling uncomfortable with breaking up
with you is her problem. Helping her feel more comfortable is a good thing,
but making things clear and then dealing with the loss has a much higher
priority.
-David
fred...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
>>P.S. Hard realism combined with hopeless romanticism is very helpful in
>>life.
>
>How can you be a realist and a romanticist??? I would have thought the two
>were more or less mutually exclusive...or at least confusing when used
>together...
>>Regards,
>>Karen
>
>Adrian
You make it sound like it's impossible to mix the two, or reap the benefits
of both qualities in an integrated and balanced personality. Life isn't
black or white, Adrian; real life is shades and mixtures between not two but
three or more extreme positions. Even though the yin/yang symbol illustrates
a dichotomy, it still allows for tainting and non-absoluteness.
Maybe I'm a trifle defensive because I strive to employ both realism and
romanticism in my day-to-day workings. I'd like to believe the best of the
people I run into, but I try not to subscribe to any illusions and maintain
a clear picture of my friends and not-friends. A pure romanticist would
project images of ideals onto people who are human, and therefore prone to
falling just short of ANY ideal picture. Romanticism would best be tempered
by realism, and realism needs romanticism to remind it to lighten up once in
a while. I hope my ranting has made the point a little clearer, at least.
--Xian
Helmut Mayer
# Helmut> PEACE
#
# Personally, after reading your posts accross the last few months, I
# think that signing your messages "PEACE" is rather hypocritical.
This coming from a person, who accuses Brother Silent like this:
MC - In your worldview, that's a horrible crime. But all that does is
MC - reveal what a shallow, self-centered little asshole you are.
I respect people and their opinions, you don't. I try to discuss things, you
call people names. This is a free net. Call them, they'll react.
MC - Lets just be friends can be the simple truth: I don't want to date you,
MC - but I do want to be your friend.
Great. You constantly imply that people complaining about the LJBF lie can't be
friends, if it's the simple truth. Not only they can, but they are. The main
reason for this whole LJBF thread is the word "can" in your above statement.
BTW, I never blamed anybody for anything here. I don't blame people for my
faults.
"...if you got kids or a girl that's true, they'll move on them, too..."
"...some critics say I'm wise, some call my words lies, I've lived more in one
day than they will in their lives..."
- Ice-T, Home Invasion
PEACE
Helmut
P.S.: If you don't understand HipHop, you'll never understand me.
Helmut Mayer
# In article <CnIwo...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at writes:
# >Did that as well. Have been waiting for her announced phone call since April
# >'93.
#
# I think this is the saddest thing I've read on this newsgroup - almost a
# year, and he's still letting her affect him like this.
OK. You got me. Thought about adding this (but didn't): we were very good
friends, nothing more, nothing less, she kicked me out out of nowhere saying
that she doesn't feel well right now, but she'll call me, when she feels
better. HAHA! Do you really think I expected her to call? Nevertheless, I would
have had great respect, if she did.
You imply that I'm weak (just the way I understand it) to let her affect me
like this. (It's no affection in this case, but in others) That again is the
attitude of maximizing self-esteem. I don't need that. I know what I'm doing
and I let people affect me whenever and whereever I want. Regardless of these
theories like he/she's not worth, move on and things like that. If that's good
for others, GREAT. I go my way.
PEACE
Helmut
Helmut Mayer
# In article <CnJAC...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at writes:
# >I like examples. It's a good one, but that's not my point. Here it is:
# >
# >"I really love this 1994 Ferrari 512TR you have here in the show room. I'd
like
# >to buy it.
# >"No, you can't have it."
# >"Why?"
# >- cue dead silence...
#
# My question: why does it matter why? It's not going to change the reality
# that you can't have it. You can argue with why all day, and it's just going
# to make you hoarse...it's not going to change anything. Since knowing or
# not knowing the why makes no difference, what's the point?
You got me again. After posting I realized that my example was not that good.
Refined version:
Sales Person: Here we got this nice Ferrari, it's a great car, I think you'll
like it very much and it will be a pefect fit.
Customer: Great. I'd like to buy it.
SP: No, sorry, you can't have it, but you can come and look at it every day.
C: But first you wanted me to buy it, now you don't give it to me. Why?
..cue dead silence
So. I'm not so sure you would leave the shop without asking why!
PEACE
Helmut
David Edsall
>In article <CnJAr...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer) writes:
>It's pretty easy...
>Just look at many of the nice guys here on the net. A lot of people
>become *very* obsessive with the woman who they want to date. They set
>terms, they make *demands*.
I think you are being WAY too general here, hombre. You SEEM to have ( CAPS
used to make sure you don't exxagerate the meaning of my words ) this vision in
your little head that all the Nice Guys ( TM ) on the net are insecure geeks
sitting behind a terminal just waiting for their chance to control a woman.
I think you are very far from the truth.
>If I LJBFed a woman, and she continued to pressure me, to make demands
>that I call her, I'd certainly feel like she was trying to steal my
>freedom.
If you claimed to want a friendship and you never call her, she has every
right to want to know why you don't call. You tell a blatant lie and ignore
her, what do you expect?
>There are people who can't take no for an answer. So the answer is to
>ignore them, and eventually they'll go away.
This is true if the person IS obsessive. In most cases * I THINK * they
aren't obsessive and in these cases your attitude makes you a fucking prick (
no surprise there ).
>Helmut> PEACE
>Personally, after reading your posts accross the last few months, I
>think that signing your messages "PEACE" is rather hypocritical.
No more hypocritical than your posts. I think Helmut is seeking justice as
it is through justice that we arrive at peace.
Dave
--
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | eds...@cern.ch |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@cernvm |
David Edsall
>In article <2muppj$o...@usenet.rpi.edu> pet...@nuge103.its.rpi.edu (Silent Dreamer) writes:
>I've been LJBFed quite my share of times, and I agree completely with
>Peggy. To listen to the whiners of the net, the ONLY thing that a
>woman should ever be allowed to do is *exactly* what a niceguy wants
>from her. No matter what she does, she's labelled a bitch of one kind
>or another. Either she's cruel, or she's a liar, or she's insensitive,
>or ...
I think your going to extreme's againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ( whining for Mark's
benefit ). If a woman says something and follows through on what she says,
I'll respect her. Otherwise she's a lying bitch as far as I am concerned.
As for whiners on the net, your posts in alt.romance constitute a large
portion of the whining.
A NiceGuy ( TM ) expects that he and his feelings will be respected. A
NiceGuy expects that a woman will also be as honest with him as he is willing
to be with her. A NiceGuy dreams about finding a woman who accepts him for
what he is and not what he looks like or how much money he has or how big his
dick is or how big his wallet is or how much confidence he has. Rarely, if at
all, does a NiceGuy make demands on women. If anything, he goes out of his way
to make her happy and make her feel loved. NiceGuys, when they meet NiceGals,
usually have the most open, honest and loving relationships.
>In your worldview, that's a horrible crime. But all that does is
>reveal what a shallow, self-centered little asshole you are.
Once again, you need some lessons in sensitivity, bucco.
>Lets just be friends can be the simple truth: I don't want to date you,
>but I do want to be your friend.
This is the crux. It CAN be the truth. Based on the posts I have seen in
this group, it hardly ever is the truth.
I R A Aggie
will recognize it...
> > Him: So, when can I see you again?
> >
> > Me: "Joe," I want to thank you for the evening -
> > I really had a nice time. But I think I
> > should tell you that, though I enjoy your
> > company, I'm not interested in pursuing a
> > romantic relationship with you right now...
> >
> > Him: Oh...may I ask why?
> >
> > Me: Well...I just don't feel that we're compatible
> > enough. (Starting to feel *very* awkward here...)
> >
> > Him: Yeah, but I thought we were perfect for each other.
> >
> > [This, after a date filled with many long, awkward pauses,
> > and when we did speak, it became apparent that besides our
> > shared discipline (English Lit), we had almost nothing
> > in common].
> >
> > Him: Did I do something wrong? Did I offend you or
> > something? Maybe if you gave me another chance...
> >
> > Me: (now I'm feeling *very*, *very* awkward) No, you
> > didn't do anything wrong at all. I just feel that
> > we don't have too much in common, and that's
> > important to me in a relationship.
> >
> > Him: Yeah, but you don't really know me well enough to
> > say that...
Just from idle curiousity, why did you agree to a date in the
first place??
Now you know why I prefer the first date to be a something that
has a definite ending time, as lunch.
> >From this point, my honesty gets turned against me, and what I'd
> >hoped would be a cordial goodbye becomes an argument where I have
> >to defend my emotions.
Well, you shouldn't let him manuever you around like that. You've come
to a decision, and you've told him. This is good. Now he's badgering
you. Tell him that your mind is made up, and if he persists, then he
WILL OFFEND you.
> > Do the Niceguys (TM) feel that I have to be put
> >on the defense every time I honestly, politely turn down a future
> >relationship? And does the NiceGuy then have the right to try
> >to bully me into changing my mind?
I'll let you answer your own questions, thank you.
> >Am I not being honest enough by NiceGuy standards? I don't feel
> >there's anything to be gained by telling him, "I found you to be
> >a crashing, humorless bore, and thus you don't sexually excite me
> >at all," but maybe the posters here can correct me.
I doubt there's much to be gained by being that open. Except in the
case where he continues to badger you. In which case, it becomes the
weapon of last resort - the thermo-nuke of relationships...
> > I
> >cannot help but wonder whether the men here are *really* deceived
> >by insincere offers of friendship, or whether they're simply
> >resisting the idea that the hoped-for relationship is *not* going to
> >pan out as planned.
I don't know about you, but I don't like being with someone that doesn't
like me. Hence, I'll keep away from them when a) I realize[*] they don't
like me, b) they tell me they don't like me.
This almost sounds like a maturity problem. Not yours, his. I've been
around the block a couple of times. I know now that if the first one
doesn't pan out, then I go back and try the next. Back-of-the-envelope
calculations indicate about 4 million eligible women that fit within
my parameters as "acceptable" within the USA.
4 million is an awful lot.
James
gayle beth liles
>In article <1994Apr1.1...@dxcern.cern.ch> you write:
>>In <CARROLL.94...@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu> car...@stimpy.eecis.udel.ed
u (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>>
>>
>>>In article <2muppj$o...@usenet.rpi.edu> pet...@nuge103.its.rpi.edu (Silent Dr
eamer) writes:
>>
>>
>>>I've been LJBFed quite my share of times, and I agree completely with
>>>Peggy. To listen to the whiners of the net, the ONLY thing that a
>>>woman should ever be allowed to do is *exactly* what a niceguy wants
>>>from her. No matter what she does, she's labelled a bitch of one kind
>>>or another. Either she's cruel, or she's a liar, or she's insensitive,
>>>or ...
>>
>>
>> I think your going to extreme's againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ( whining for Mark'
s
>>benefit ). If a woman says something and follows through on what she says,
>>I'll respect her. Otherwise she's a lying bitch as far as I am concerned.
>>As for whiners on the net, your posts in alt.romance constitute a large
>>portion of the whining.
>>
>> A NiceGuy ( TM ) expects that he and his feelings will be respected. A
>>NiceGuy expects that a woman will also be as honest with him as he is willing
>>to be with her. A NiceGuy dreams about finding a woman who accepts him for
>>what he is and not what he looks like or how much money he has or how big his
>>dick is or how big his wallet is or how much confidence he has. Rarely, if at
>>all, does a NiceGuy make demands on women. If anything, he goes out of his wa
y
>>to make her happy and make her feel loved. NiceGuys, when they meet NiceGals,
>>usually have the most open, honest and loving relationships.
>
>I'm reading all of these "LJBF" threads with considerable interest -
>it's very enlightening for me to see the reasoning behind the
>"NiceGuy's" frustrations...
>
>I am a woman who tends to be very straightforward with both men and
>women, and in romantic relationships I rarely use the "LBJF" line
>unless I genuinely want to maintain a casual friendship. However, in
>my experience, NiceGuys are rarely as satisfied with "the truth" as
>they claim to be here. This is a rough transcription of my
>experiences on my last "unsuccessful" date (we had known each other
>casually through classes, and had gone out for coffee once. This
>dialogue occurred at the end of our first "real" date):
>
> Him: So, when can I see you again?
>
> Me: "Joe," I want to thank you for the evening -
> I really had a nice time. But I think I
> should tell you that, though I enjoy your
> company, I'm not interested in pursuing a
> romantic relationship with you right now...
>
> Him: Oh...may I ask why?
>
> Me: Well...I just don't feel that we're compatible
> enough. (Starting to feel *very* awkward here...)
>
> Him: Yeah, but I thought we were perfect for each other.
>
> [This, after a date filled with many long, awkward pauses,
> and when we did speak, it became apparent that besides our
> shared discipline (English Lit), we had almost nothing
> in common].
>
> Him: Did I do something wrong? Did I offend you or
> something? Maybe if you gave me another chance...
>
> Me: (now I'm feeling *very*, *very* awkward) No, you
> didn't do anything wrong at all. I just feel that
> we don't have too much in common, and that's
> important to me in a relationship.
>
> Him: Yeah, but you don't really know me well enough to
> say that...
>
>
>>From this point, my honesty gets turned against me, and what I'd
>hoped would be a cordial goodbye becomes an argument where I have
>to defend my emotions. Do the Niceguys (TM) feel that I have to be put
>on the defense every time I honestly, politely turn down a future
>relationship? And does the NiceGuy then have the right to try
>to bully me into changing my mind?
>
>Am I not being honest enough by NiceGuy standards? I don't feel
>there's anything to be gained by telling him, "I found you to be
>a crashing, humorless bore, and thus you don't sexually excite me
>at all," but maybe the posters here can correct me.
>
>My experience confirms, in my mind, what other posters have written
>here - I believe that what NiceGuys have a problem with isn't really
>the "lying," of the LJBF rejection - it's the rejection itself. I
>cannot help but wonder whether the men here are *really* deceived
>by insincere offers of friendship, or whether they're simply
>resisting the idea that the hoped-for relationship is *not* going to
>pan out as planned.
>
>
>
>
>>>Lets just be friends can be the simple truth: I don't want to date you,
>>>but I do want to be your friend.
>>
>> This is the crux. It CAN be the truth. Based on the posts I have seen in
>>this group, it hardly ever is the truth.
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>
>But the $64,000 question is: is the truth enough for him?
>
>
>>--
>
>-Gayle Liles
>(gbl...@kimbark.uchicago.edu)
--
---
Gayle Liles "Beware the Jujub bird, and shun
(gbl...@kimbark.uchicago.edu) The Frumious Bandersnatch!"
gayle beth liles
>Not sure who to attribute this to, so no attributions. The author
>will recognize it...
Me!! Me!! I'm responsible for the damage...
[Dialogue of very unpleasant second-date refusal deleted for brevity]
>
>
>Just from idle curiousity, why did you agree to a date in the
>first place??
>
He was not a total stranger to me - I did know him casually from class
and from group outings. He honestly seemed like an intelligent, sweet
guy, and I wanted to get to know him better, so I accepted his
offer of dinner and a movie. I couldn't have known
whether he and I would be compatible without going out with him a few
times.
>Now you know why I prefer the first date to be a something that
>has a definite ending time, as lunch.
Well, since we had already hung out together in more
casual settings, I suppose he probably wanted to raise the level of
intimacy with a romantic dinner. This wouldn't have solved
the problem I described in my last post, though - he probably
would have raised the same rejection ruckus after a lunch date
as after the dinner/movie date.
>
>> >From this point, my honesty gets turned against me, and what I'd
>> >hoped would be a cordial goodbye becomes an argument where I have
>> >to defend my emotions.
>
>Well, you shouldn't let him manuever you around like that. You've come
>to a decision, and you've told him. This is good. Now he's badgering
>you. Tell him that your mind is made up, and if he persists, then he
>WILL OFFEND you.
>
Which I did. I think what I was trying to express in my last post
(perhaps this wasn't clearly stated) was that I've found myself in this
kind of situation several times, and that the "honest approach" didn't
seem to satisfy the rejectee any more than an "LJBF" line would have.
Instead, I ended up being forced into a postion where I had to be
rude just to exercise my right to choose my own relationships - and
that upset me.
>> > Do the Niceguys (TM) feel that I have to be put
>> >on the defense every time I honestly, politely turn down a future
>> >relationship? And does the NiceGuy then have the right to try
>> >to bully me into changing my mind?
>
>I'll let you answer your own questions, thank you.
>
>> >Am I not being honest enough by NiceGuy standards? I don't feel
>> >there's anything to be gained by telling him, "I found you to be
>> >a crashing, humorless bore, and thus you don't sexually excite me
>> >at all," but maybe the posters here can correct me.
>
>I doubt there's much to be gained by being that open. Except in the
>case where he continues to badger you. In which case, it becomes the
>weapon of last resort - the thermo-nuke of relationships...
>
Ugh. Let's hope I never, ever have to resort to those kinds
of weapons.
>> > I
>> >cannot help but wonder whether the men here are *really* deceived
>> >by insincere offers of friendship, or whether they're simply
>> >resisting the idea that the hoped-for relationship is *not* going to
>> >pan out as planned.
>
>I don't know about you, but I don't like being with someone that doesn't
>like me. Hence, I'll keep away from them when a) I realize[*] they don't
>like me, b) they tell me they don't like me.
>
That's fine. But what do you do when the woman *does* like you,
but doesn't care for you as a romantic possibility? This is
truer to the situation I described in my post.
>This almost sounds like a maturity problem. Not yours, his. I've been
>around the block a couple of times. I know now that if the first one
>doesn't pan out, then I go back and try the next. Back-of-the-envelope
>calculations indicate about 4 million eligible women that fit within
>my parameters as "acceptable" within the USA.
>
>4 million is an awful lot.
>
Just out of curiousity, how did you calculate the 4 million figure?
>James
Peta GEORGE - Petie Monstar
>From: roa...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (Adrian Graham DENT - Rodent)
>Subject: Re: LJBF - it takes courage
>Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 01:37:39 GMT
>I made this mistake once...
Now let's be honest here as a very close observer I would say that this is
not the only mistake you made. 1) Goodbye means goodbye not anything else
but that, but then you _really_ respect a woman when she says _no_ don't
you... 2) I don't think you ever loved her as you would not have cheated on
her, not once but three times, and definately not in front of her either...
You do not know what love is...so you have made many mistakes...not just
mistakes but CRIMES.
> although I gave it up after a while because I
>could see she didn't like what I was doing...I didn't really give it up...
>actually I was never really trying to change her mind as such...I was just
>making sure she knew how I felt...but it cost me her friendship...
Not only did it cost you such a beautiful persons friendship but I think
that it really has showed many people that you are not to be trusted and not
to meantion your lack of self respect....
>temporarily...luckily for me she managed to forgive me for yet another fuck
>up...I doubt that forgiveness will happen if I stuff up again...(she
>dosen't feel she can trust me..but I know why that is..)...she knows how I
>feel about her...
You only want her for the following reasons 1) You realise that she just won'
t go to bed with you and has a high set of morals...it hurts your pride does
it not and 2) Rejection is hard it too hurts your pride but you must get
over it and stop hurting her 'coz that is what you are doing and I think you
know that.
> and if she felt the same way...we would possibly get
>together and maybe get married...but she dosen't feel that way so that will
>never happen...but what would be worse...being married to someone who dosen'
>t love you
Like you said getting married to someone who doesn't love you really would
hurt and that is just what she would get, someone who did'nt love her. How
can you honestly say that you know anything about love when you continously
cheated on her....you are the worlds biggest hypocrite.
> (no matter that you love her) or having a friend who is not in
>love with you??? I think I prefer the second idea...
>In fact I would like to announce here, that if I ever do anything on
>purpose, that I know from experience with her, is likely to hurt her...and
>in fact does hurt her...any time within the time frame of this year...no
>matter what level the relationship is on (except if we are not even
>friends) , including such acts as cheating on her if we are ever together
>romantically again (this is not a push in that direction...and I doubt very
>mush that that will happen again) or pushing towards a romantic
>relationship (consciously...not including the things she notices that I don'
>t) while we are friends, or letting her know I amjealous of some guy...she
>may, if she truly wishes, cut of that small part of my body I value
>reasonably highly.The terms and conditions mentioned herein are not final
>but shall be finalised after mush thought and discussion.. THIS IS ONLY A
>DRAFT DOCUMENT AND IS IN NO WAY LEGALLY BINDING...YET.
Well I guess you have just lost that small appendage that you are so fond
of. You have continously hurt her. It really has become more then a joke.
Before I go I shall just like too say one more thing Just remember that NO
MEANS NO and that any other interpretation will wind you up in jail. Stop
harassing her or you will lose her as a friend for good-if you haven't
already. Let her have her OWN PRIVATE SPACE !!!!!!!!!!!!
>Adrian ( the romantic moron...which dosen't stop him being in love...)
I think that speaks for itself- MOVE ON AND STOP HARASSING HER OR LOSE HER
FRIENDSHIP FOREVER- you can't imagine the hurt you have put her through!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle ...
So quoth the evil Petie Monstar!
gw...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I R A Aggie
gbl...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (gayle beth liles) wrote:
> Instead, I ended up being forced into a postion where I had to be
> rude just to exercise my right to choose my own relationships - and
> that upset me.
I dunno what the solution is to that...sorry. You had to do what you
had to do. This may be something else different between the behaviours
of men and women.
> >I don't know about you, but I don't like being with someone that doesn't
> >like me. Hence, I'll keep away from them when a) I realize[*] they don't
> >like me, b) they tell me they don't like me.
> That's fine. But what do you do when the woman *does* like you,
> but doesn't care for you as a romantic possibility? This is
> truer to the situation I described in my post.
In *my* case, it depends on how attracted I am to her, and how much
I've "built" her up in my mind. Usually, just staying away from her
until I get my emotions and hormones back under control will suffice.
> >This almost sounds like a maturity problem. Not yours, his. I've been
> >around the block a couple of times. I know now that if the first one
> >doesn't pan out, then I go back and try the next. Back-of-the-envelope
> >calculations indicate about 4 million eligible women that fit within
> >my parameters as "acceptable" within the USA.
> Just out of curiousity, how did you calculate the 4 million figure?
Ok, here goes:
250 million in the USA.
50% of the population is female, take the 90% that is not of African
decent, remove the 10% lesbian population. Those are fairly well known
demographic estimates. Here comes the handwaving. Say 60% are nonsmokers,
and estimate that 25% of that will be of the proper age range (18-35).
Now, say that 50% of that are married, engaged or have offspring.
250*50%=125
125*90%=112.5
112.5*90%=101.25
101.25*60%=60.75
60.75*25%=15.18
16.19*50%=7.59
Guesstimate that some will be too busy(school/work) to pursue a
relationship, and some will be politically incompatible. Additionally,
add in an additonal fudge factor to insure that I'm not inflating
any factor unduly. Sum total weight: 50%
7.59*50%=3.79 or roughly 4 million.
Now, this all assumes nice distributions, and does not take geographical
distributions into account. Individual estimates may also be suspect.
James
I R A Aggie
Mayer) wrote:
> gayle beth liles writes
> # >But the $64,000 question is: is the truth enough for him?
> Yes, but many people are afraid of it.
Ah, how...true... ;)
James
Helmut Mayer
# A NiceGuy ( TM ) expects that he and his feelings will be respected. A
# NiceGuy expects that a woman will also be as honest with him as he is willing
# to be with her. A NiceGuy dreams about finding a woman who accepts him for
# what he is and not what he looks like or how much money he has or how big his
# dick is or how big his wallet is or how much confidence he has. Rarely, if at
# all, does a NiceGuy make demands on women. If anything, he goes out of his
way
# to make her happy and make her feel loved. NiceGuys, when they meet NiceGals,
# usually have the most open, honest and loving relationships.
I just couldn't resist to quote Dave. It's all you can say. I'd like to repeat
one sentence:
Rarely, if at all, does a NiceGuy make demands on women.
This one a reminder for all those who constantly accuse Nice Guys of putting
pressure on a woman.
PEACE
Helmut
Helmut Mayer
# >I am a woman who tends to be very straightforward with both men and
# >women, and in romantic relationships I rarely use the "LBJF" line
# >unless I genuinely want to maintain a casual friendship.
Great to read that. It's as simple as that.
# > Him: So, when can I see you again?
# >
# > Me: "Joe," I want to thank you for the evening -
# > I really had a nice time. But I think I
# > should tell you that, though I enjoy your
# > company, I'm not interested in pursuing a
# > romantic relationship with you right now...
My greatest respect. No talking around and he knows where he stands.
# > Him: Oh...may I ask why?
Just my opinion. I think he just asks that, if you gave some positive signs. I
don't think you did. That's where I don't think he's a Nice Guy, but everybody
has him/her own Nice Guy definition.
{last part of the dialogue -> no Nice Guy to me}
# >My experience confirms, in my mind, what other posters have written
# >here - I believe that what NiceGuys have a problem with isn't really
# >the "lying," of the LJBF rejection - it's the rejection itself.
It's the lying.
# > I cannot help but wonder whether the men here are *really* deceived
# >by insincere offers of friendship, or whether they're simply
# >resisting the idea that the hoped-for relationship is *not* going to
# >pan out as planned.
If you wonder...
If a woman tells you that you're one of the greatest guys she ever met, but she
doesn't want to have a relationship, because a friendship lasts much longer and
you (obviously, me) believe that without asking anything and after months of
showtime you're kicked out, because you (again it's me) have the "courage" of
asking what's going on here (in plain words, of course), then you can remove
the stars in your above statement.
# >But the $64,000 question is: is the truth enough for him?
Yes, but many people are afraid of it.
PEACE
Helmut
David Edsall
>I'm reading all of these "LJBF" threads with considerable interest -
>it's very enlightening for me to see the reasoning behind the
>"NiceGuy's" frustrations...
>
I for one have never been LJBF'd. With all the women I have been with,
it was kinda, "So long pal" and I was left to figure out why and deal with
the pain. My posts have been what I would do if it happened to me, based on
past experiences with friends.
>I am a woman who tends to be very straightforward with both men and
>women, and in romantic relationships I rarely use the "LBJF" line
>unless I genuinely want to maintain a casual friendship.
Great! I respect you for that.
>However, in
>my experience, NiceGuys are rarely as satisfied with "the truth" as
>they claim to be here.
I am sorry to hear this. The NiceGuys I have known ( including myself )
haven't been this pushy. Usually we crawl into a corner and kinda turn into
a crying ball of mush for a while.
> Him: Oh...may I ask why?
>
> Me: Well...I just don't feel that we're compatible
> enough. (Starting to feel *very* awkward here...)
I see nothing wrong up to this point. I for one, would like to know
what it is about me that was unattractive in hopes that I could change it.
>
> Him: Yeah, but you don't really know me well enough to
> say that...
Well, here he is being defensive and laying a guilt trip on you and he
has no right to do it. I would never have done this. If you had said that's
it, I would have said, okay, talked with you about it, explained that it
may be a little while before I talk to you again ( just being honest and
not laying a guilt trip, something I would make clear ) because I would
need time to deal with it.
>
>>From this point, my honesty gets turned against me, and what I'd
>hoped would be a cordial goodbye becomes an argument where I have
>to defend my emotions. Do the Niceguys (TM) feel that I have to be put
>on the defense every time I honestly, politely turn down a future
>relationship? And does the NiceGuy then have the right to try
>to bully me into changing my mind?
No, they have no right to bully you, so this particular person is not
someone I would term a NiceGuy. This guy is a walking bag of insecurities.
>
>Am I not being honest enough by NiceGuy standards? I don't feel
>there's anything to be gained by telling him, "I found you to be
>a crashing, humorless bore, and thus you don't sexually excite me
>at all," but maybe the posters here can correct me.
If he had asked why you didn't find him attractive, this information
would be important ( if put politely ).
>
>My experience confirms, in my mind, what other posters have written
>here - I believe that what NiceGuys have a problem with isn't really
>the "lying," of the LJBF rejection - it's the rejection itself. I
>cannot help but wonder whether the men here are *really* deceived
>by insincere offers of friendship, or whether they're simply
>resisting the idea that the hoped-for relationship is *not* going to
>pan out as planned.
It could be either case. If the guy is looking at you as a RELATIONSHIP
and not as GAYLE - PERSON, then, as I agreed with Mark, they are a walking
bag of insecurities and they weren't interested in friendship to begin with.
If the guy is seeing GAYLE, and she tells a lie ( saying she wants a
friendship and doesn't really ) then they are being deceived. This has been
my contention from the beginning.
>
>But the $64,000 question is: is the truth enough for him?
>
For a person * I * term a NiceGuy, it is enough, if offered.
Dave
--
*** ---- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
'0 *` e+ |David M. Edsall | INTERNET: |
< _*/ *` \ |Research Assistant | eds...@cern.ch |
`* *` |CERN DELPHI Collaboration | BITNET: edsall@cernvm |
`* *` / |Ames Group \|/ HEPNET: vxcrna::edsall |
| `*-*-****| | +--------------------------+---------------------------+
\ |PPE Division CERN /|\ "Gravity is not |
|CH-1211 Geneve 23 | responsible for people |
\ / |Switzerland | falling in love" |
e- |Voice: 767-2933 | - "Big Al" Einstein - |
--- +--------------------------+---------------------------+
I R A Aggie
(Phillip Carter) wrote:
> Terrance wrote:
> >LJBF, in my experience, is a crock. I've heard it every single time
> >I've been dumped, and I never heard from those folks again. About the
> >best I can say about it is that it implies that the person who is
> >dumping you at least thinks enough of you to try and do it in a nice
> >way, or at least to *seem* to be doing it in a nice way.
> Not even that, necessarily. I've heard it from more people than I can count,
> and some of them did it for the reason you mentioned, but some of them just
> did it because they had to see me every day (in class, at work, et cetera) and
> they didn't want me to absolutely hate them. Then once they didn't have to
> see me anymore they promptly put me completely out of their heads. How do I
> know this? Talking to mutual friends, in most cases, who mention that the
> person in question had been saying what a pathetic fool they thought I was.
Heh. The evidence keeps mounting. Not that it matters, it won't be
believed.
> So what? My philosophy of late has been: Seek love, and it will flee from you.
> Ignore love, and it will possibly (but not likely) find you.
It never, ever, finds you. It may give you a swat on the head, as you
pass it by. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightening.
;)
James
Terrance Heath
I've been dumped, and I never heard from those folks again. About the
best I can say about it is that it implies that the person who is
dumping you at least thinks enough of you to try and do it in a nice
way, or at least to *seem* to be doing it in a nice way.
--
Terrance Heath *
he...@phoenix.cs.uga.edu * "The fates lead him who will;
he...@moe.coe.uga.edu * him who won't they drag."
SCI...@UGS.CC.UGA.EDU * - Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth
fred...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu
>In article <CnDB...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer) writes:
>>From: hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Helmut Mayer)
>>Subject: Re: LJBF - it takes courage
>
>>David Edsall writes (in response to our AI-program)
>
>># I figured you would. You picked out of context all the pieces of this post
>># that paint men in the worst possible light. You love anything that says:
>># MEN ARE EVIL!
>Men are not "evil" but "all" men are "bastards" (with a few exceptions of
>course ...unfortunately I am not one of these exceptions...
>So we have decided she is a program have we?????
>>If she only said it. I have no problem with that, 'cause I'm not evil. It just
>>would be telling the truth. She doesn't even dare to do that. Well, what do you
>>expect from a program? Attitude? Nope...
>>PEACE
>>Helmut
>Adrian ( the romantic moron....but not an AI program..)
I'd question the romantic part. Self-deprication is neither romantic, nor
attractive. ...Or, I could be wrong. Ladies: How many of you would look
forward to a nice date with someone who insults themselves all evening long,
by virtue of gender and societal pressures, and basically affirms that they
have no character or identity, but a strong sense of imposed guilt?
Maybe that's a little harsh. But it's also uncool to score points by
slamming the male stereotype, and shrugging one's shoulders and admitting to
conforming to that stereotype.
What's the solution? Oh, I dunno... perhaps establishing one's own identity,
reinforcing it with a well-balanced character; not listening to rumors and
avoiding people who subscribe to stereotypes. Stuff like that.
"I've TRIED that," is the plaintive cry, "and people are too inflexible to
allow me to change!"
Then wait.
You've got all the time in the world. Don't give people the power to
dictate whether or not you may change--just live your life and make the
"oppressors" deal with it.
(...I hate using words like 'basically.' That was a mistake.)
The most important thing I can think of, and the hardest lesson anyone will
ever have to learn, is: Working to the stage of development where you can be
alone and not find yourself in bad company. You know, learn to LIKE yourself.
Autonomy. Self-reliance. THOSE are extremely attractive. Ironically,
nothing attracts better than appearing to be someone who's really happy by
themselves. Then again, the people who may be attracted by that are people
who aren't happy by themselves and want to glom off some of that positive
energy... so beware.
Shit, man. Life's a game. Nothing we do here matters, but that which
benefits us and our society. Live good.
"'Cos when it's all been said and done,
It's better that you had some fun!
Instead of hiding in a shell,
Why make your life a living hell?"
- Oingo Boingo, "No One Lives Forever"
--Xian
Silent Dreamer
>LJBF, in my experience, is a crock. I've heard it every single time
>I've been dumped, and I never heard from those folks again. About the
>best I can say about it is that it implies that the person who is
>dumping you at least thinks enough of you to try and do it in a nice
>way, or at least to *seem* to be doing it in a nice way.
I agree here. But, even if it's sincere, I think it's important to get some
distance.
Hey, there's a solution to the LJBF problem (partly, anyways): If said person
LJBF's you, tell her that you'll need some time away from her. If she truly
wants to remain your friend, she'll understand. If she meant it as a "nice"
way of rejecting you, she won't want to hear from you again.
--
Quote: "Love may conquer everything, but it needs Time as its Field General."
Let darkness disappear/In the rays of sunshine/That come from within my heart/
Whenever I think of you.
Phillip Carter
>LJBF, in my experience, is a crock. I've heard it every single time
>I've been dumped, and I never heard from those folks again. About the
>best I can say about it is that it implies that the person who is
>dumping you at least thinks enough of you to try and do it in a nice
>way, or at least to *seem* to be doing it in a nice way.
Not even that, necessarily. I've heard it from more people than I can count,
and some of them did it for the reason you mentioned, but some of them just
did it because they had to see me every day (in class, at work, et cetera) and
they didn't want me to absolutely hate them. Then once they didn't have to
see me anymore they promptly put me completely out of their heads. How do I
know this? Talking to mutual friends, in most cases, who mention that the
person in question had been saying what a pathetic fool they thought I was.
So what? My philosophy of late has been: Seek love, and it will flee from you.
Ignore love, and it will possibly (but not likely) find you.
Cheers,
--
Phil Carter -- car...@phoenix.cs.uga.edu
"I could have gotten more.....This car! Ten people! This pin, it's gold --
two more people, at least one! One more person...just one more person....
I could have saved more, and...I didn't." -- Liam Neeson in _Schindler's List_
Brian K. Elza
>Ivan A Derzhanski writes
># >pe...@starburst.umd.edu (Peggy Irvine) writes:
># >>God! You got a date. So it didn't work out. SO WHAT! Try elsewhere!!!!
># Incidentally, I find that `Try elsewhere' (even without the four
># factorial signs) rather offensive. If I'm interested in a woman and
># want to attain some relationship (romantic or friendly) with her, I'm
># obviously after something which I can't get anywhere else.
>Great you brought this up. My experience: "There are thousand others." (They
>always said 1000, very interesting.) To me, this is not rather
>offensive, but extremely.
No. I think the point that is being made is that if the young
lady is not interested, she is NOT interested. Get over her. You gain
nothing by harrassing the young lady. She has made up her mind. Forget
her and move on. Actually, there are well over 5 million others in the
US alone. The 1000 number is extremely conservative...
Brian
Brian K. Elza
>it's very enlightening for me to see the reasoning behind the
>"NiceGuy's" frustrations...
truthful, up-front "No," or whatever the young lady feels. I accept that
as her decision. Then it is my turn to decide if I accept seeing her
on those terms or look elsewhere. But I assume that LJBF is NOT a
lie, and means "I like you, but I do not consider you to be SO
material." Unfortunately, some people use LJBFs to mean, "Get lost
jerk!," and that IS very confusing.
How many women get upset when men say, "I love you," when they
really mean, "I'm horny. Let's hit the sack??" An entire genre of books
have developed criticizing men as a group for the actions of a few who
say what they don't mean.
>I am a woman who tends to be very straightforward with both men and
>women, and in romantic relationships I rarely use the "LBJF" line
>unless I genuinely want to maintain a casual friendship.
>However, in my experience, NiceGuys are rarely as satisfied with "the
>truth" as they claim to be here.
Good for you. Always be honest. I like that. However, after
you are honest and expect his acceptance of YOUR decision, you have to
accept HIS decision, i.e. if you tell him LJBF and he says, "No. I am
really looking for something more. Goodbye." Do not ridicule him for
his honesty. You do not have to accept him on HIS terms, but nor does
he have to accept you on YOURS. He can walk away and shouldn't be
attacked or ridiculed for being just as up-front and honest with you
as you were with him.
[snip example dialogue]
>
>From this point, my honesty gets turned against me, and what I'd
>hoped would be a cordial goodbye becomes an argument where I have
>to defend my emotions.
I hope that you are not saying that when you say LJBF's you
really mean "goodbye," as that defeats your statement of honesty. If you
MEAN goodbye, then SAY goodbye. It really is a very simple concept.
>Do the Niceguys (TM) feel that I have to be put
>on the defense every time I honestly, politely turn down a future
>relationship?
No. And you do not have to justify your answer either. If that
is how you feel than that is the end of it. But I think that everyone
is entitled to an honest answer.
^^^^^^
>And does the NiceGuy then have the right to try
>to bully me into changing my mind?
NO ONE has the right to try to bully you into doing anything.
We have (too?) many laws against intimidation in this country. And I
think that your definition of "niceguy" is MUCH different from mine. I
would call the person you describe an a--hole.
>Am I not being honest enough by NiceGuy standards? I don't feel
>there's anything to be gained by telling him, "I found you to be
>a crashing, humorless bore, and thus you don't sexually excite me
>at all," but maybe the posters here can correct me.
As long as you clearly and unambiguously state that you do not
want to see him. But if you say LJBF's and he accepts that to mean
that you WANT to BE FRIENDS, then I would say that you need to tell
him that you LIED, and don't want to be friends or ever see him again.
You do not have to give your reasons, your answer is enough. But I
would say that saying LJBF's when you mean "get lost" IS a lie.
>My experience confirms, in my mind, what other posters have written
>here - I believe that what NiceGuys have a problem with isn't really
No. NiceGuys do not have a problem, but some people do not say
what they mean. And that does cause a lot of problems.
>the "lying," of the LJBF rejection - it's the rejection itself.
I tell ALL of the women that I date that I AM NOT looking for
a permanent relationship at the moment, but I am looking for female
friends to do things with. Which is another way of saying LBFs (notice
that the JUST is missing), but I AM NOT saying that I am not
interested in them, (quite the contrary). I'm saying that at this
point in time I am not looking for an instant SO. If they ARE looking
for an instant SO (many women in their upper 20's and early 30's seem
to be frantic about it), then they should look elsewhere. However, if
they are looking for a companion and friend, and are willing to see
what may develop down the line, than that is fine. I firmly believe
that your mate should be your BEST FRIEND. Too many people confuse
LUST (short term desire) with LOVE (long term attraction). And men
and women are equally guilty on that count, it usually takes quite a
bit of maturing before you recognize the difference. And, aging
does not equal maturing... (some 18 year olds know the difference, and
other 40 year olds still do not have a clue).
>I cannot help but wonder whether the men here are *really* deceived
>by insincere offers of friendship, or whether they're simply
>resisting the idea that the hoped-for relationship is *not* going to
>pan out as planned.
You are looking for deviousness where there is none. Simply be
honest. SAY what you MEAN, and MEAN what you SAY. It is really very
simple...
>But the $64,000 question is: is the truth enough for him?
The TRUTH is always enough, as there is nothing more. If he
can't accept it, tough. That is HIS problem, not yours. As long as
YOUR are HONEST, you have maintained your integrity.
Brian
Mark C. Carroll
>>>>> "David" == David Edsall <eds...@dxcern.cern.ch> writes:
In article <1994Apr1.1...@dxcern.cern.ch> eds...@dxcern.cern.ch (David Edsall) writes:
David> In <CARROLL.94...@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu>
David> car...@stimpy.eecis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll) writes:
>> In article <CnJAr...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at
>> (Helmut Mayer) writes:
>> It's pretty easy...
>> Just look at many of the nice guys here on the net. A lot of people
>> become *very* obsessive with the woman who they want to date. They
>> set terms, they make *demands*.
David> I think you are being WAY too general here, hombre. You SEEM
David> to have ( CAPS used to make sure you don't exxagerate the
David> meaning of my words ) this vision in your little head that all
David> the Nice Guys ( TM ) on the net are insecure geeks sitting
David> behind a terminal just waiting for their chance to control a
David> woman. I think you are very far from the truth.
No, I don't think that *control* has anything to do with. I don't
think that the whining niceguys are out to *control* women. What I do
think is that they think that the world owes them something. When you
read the incessent whining on this group, what a lot of it seems to
come down to is: "a women who I'm attracted to should be obligated to
be in a relationship with me, unless she can convince me otherwise".
>> If I LJBFed a woman, and she continued to pressure me, to make
>> demands that I call her, I'd certainly feel like she was trying to
>> steal my freedom.
David> If you claimed to want a friendship and you never call her,
David> she has every right to want to know why you don't call. You
David> tell a blatant lie and ignore her, what do you expect?
I don't condone lying. On the other hand, there's a world of different
scenarios.
Everything from a woman who LJBFs you just to get rid of you, and says
"I'll call you" just to get you off her case, to a woman who really
cares about you, and wants to stay friends.
In both those cases, the "she doesn't call" scenario can happen, and
the blame lies with a different person.
In the case of the woman who just wants to get rid of you, and lied,
yea, I'll agree that she's a dishonest bitch.
On the other hand, I've seen friends break up with a guy, who calls
her a lying bitch because she didn't call THE NEXT DAY. Or because she
called him every day when they're dating, and after they break up, she
called once a week. In those cases, the guy is being an asshole. And
in those cases, if the woman stops calling after making an effort,
then she's not doing anything wrong. The guy is putting unreasonable
demands on her, and she's quite justified in feeling threatened.
>> There are people who can't take no for an answer. So the answer is
>> to ignore them, and eventually they'll go away.
David> This is true if the person IS obsessive. In most cases * I
David> THINK * they aren't obsessive and in these cases your attitude
David> makes you a fucking prick ( no surprise there ).
Since neither of us really knows the full truth of the situation, then
it's hard to judge. It's definitely true in many of the posts on this
group that there is some obsessive behavior going on. On the other
hand, generalizing it the way that I do may well be wrong. I can't
tell- all that I can do is read what they say, and come to my own
conclusions.
On the other hand, I'd say that picking me out and calling me "a
fucking prick" because I dare to disagree with you is drawing rather
too strong a conclusion. But then, given your past history on the net,
I'm not suprised. I could say some rather cruel things about you as
well, but I've got better things to do with my time.
Helmut> PEACE
>> Personally, after reading your posts accross the last few months, I
>> think that signing your messages "PEACE" is rather hypocritical.
David> No more hypocritical than your posts. I think Helmut is
David> seeking justice as it is through justice that we arrive at
David> peace.
Well, first, I'd really like to see you point out the hypocrisy in my
posts. You may disagree with me, and that's your right. But as far as
I know, I don't contradict myself, and I don't betray my own sense of
ethics and justice. I'd love too see an example...
I find it hard to palate when a guy signs his letters "PEACE", but his
posts are full of judgementalism and bile against anyone who disagrees
with his position.
<MC>
--
Brian K. Elza
>---
>Gayle Liles "Beware the Jujub bird, and shun
>(gbl...@kimbark.uchicago.edu) The Frumious Bandersnatch!"
translates Jabberwocky into? It is absolutely a scream...
Brian
Barbara Saunders
>roa...@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (Adrian Graham DENT - Rodent) writes:
>
>>like you have seen a piece of furniture you like and want to find the
>>cheapest price...I mean I'm sure some guys are out for anything they can
>>get (and some girls) but most of the time you have found someone yoiu really
>>like and want to get to know better...want to spend some time with...all
>>that sort of thing...
>
> Finally, a clear, lucid statement that sums up what I've always thought
>about the "keep trying/looking/waiting/whatever" kind of advice. I will rest
>well tonight knowing I'm not alone in this feeling.
>
>>if you are just trying to pick up for sex...you may as
>>well just use your hand...sex without love feels about the same...
>
>But what if you love your hand? :>
>
>>especially after sex with somone you are in love with...
>
>I would think guilt about two-timing would decrease the fun more than
>anything...but, again, I jest. ;) I wouldn't know anything about that, either.
>
>
>Chris
>(Feeling much better know that he's dumped the friend who he thought he could
>trust, and then was ignored...)
>
One MAJOR problem with try/look/wait/whatever. I happen to have a
fairly high sex drive. Doing without sex is uncomfortable and irritating.
Being in a constant state of frustration _precludes_ being warm
friendly, inviting, projecting happiness -- all those things that help
you meet people.
What's the big deal about people admitting they _need_ physical contact
with others _in and of itself_. I love cooking dinner for someone I
love, but my appetite for food is constant. Same with sex. I know I
won't die (no need to flame that), but the quality of my life is much
diminished when I have to be celibate for longer than a few weeks.
A hand is NOT a substitute for a _caring, friendly partner_ (not
"just anyone", a cooperative person with sexual needs of his/her
own that s/he takes seriously enough to honor while in or while out
of a relationship).
Barbara
Karen Ronan
>One MAJOR problem with try/look/wait/whatever. I happen to have a
>fairly high sex drive. Doing without sex is uncomfortable and
irritating.
>Being in a constant state of frustration _precludes_ being warm
>friendly, inviting, projecting happiness -- all those things that help
>you meet people.
Other people do not exist to gratify your high sex drive. And if you
want a caring partner to have sex with, you're going to have to offer
something besides sex.
>What's the big deal about people admitting they _need_ physical contact
>with others _in and of itself_.
I think this is universally admitted. But in addition to "in and of
itself" one needs other stuff. Them's the breaks.
>I love cooking dinner for someone I
>love, but my appetite for food is constant. Same with sex. I know I
>won't die (no need to flame that), but the quality of my life is much
>diminished when I have to be celibate for longer than a few weeks.
The quality of my life cannot be diminished by celibacy. It is only
diminished by lack of self-love.
>A hand is NOT a substitute for a _caring, friendly partner_ (not
>"just anyone", a cooperative person with sexual needs of his/her
>own that s/he takes seriously enough to honor while in or while out
>of a relationship).
A hand is perfectly fine. I don't think there is any point comparing the
two things. They have their purposes.
Karen
I R A Aggie
Mayer) wrote:
> It takes courage. Open, straight, honest. Unfortunately, there is a majority of
> women trying to use far-fetched excuses for simple things like that.
And men too...
Maybe that's why it's so hard to find someone, eh?
James
Helmut Mayer
# What's the big deal about people admitting they _need_ physical contact
# with others _in and of itself_. I love cooking dinner for someone I
# love, but my appetite for food is constant. Same with sex. I know I
# won't die (no need to flame that), but the quality of my life is much
# diminished when I have to be celibate for longer than a few weeks.
It takes courage. Open, straight, honest. Unfortunately, there is a majority of
women trying to use far-fetched excuses for simple things like that.
RESPECT
Helmut
Aqualung
> >
> One MAJOR problem with try/look/wait/whatever. I happen to have a
> fairly high sex drive. Doing without sex is uncomfortable and irritating.
> Being in a constant state of frustration _precludes_ being warm
> friendly, inviting, projecting happiness -- all those things that help
> you meet people.
>
> What's the big deal about people admitting they _need_ physical contact
> with others _in and of itself_. I love cooking dinner for someone I
> love, but my appetite for food is constant. Same with sex. I know I
> won't die (no need to flame that), but the quality of my life is much
> diminished when I have to be celibate for longer than a few weeks.
Aw... try for it for a few years... say, five! If the quality of life
decreases for those with higher sex drives while doing without, that
may very well explain my predicament! There's nothing wrong with
admitting one _want's_ it, but I've never met anyone (who wasn't totally
screwed up emotionally) who literally _needed_ it. But then, some people
have told me that I'm totally psychologically screwed up, and maybe I
am. Gee, could it be from a lack of affection? Perhaps there is some
balance between necessarily getting it (or not) and being "normal".
> A hand is NOT a substitute for a _caring, friendly partner_ (not
> "just anyone", a cooperative person with sexual needs of his/her
> own that s/he takes seriously enough to honor while in or while out
> of a relationship).
Yeah, but it takes more than an evening in the sack to make for
a caring, friendly relationship which gives one a freindly, caring
partner. In the mean time, self-love is all some of us are EVER
going to get. I know, I'm there and I've been there for SOME time.
This post seems to further validate my observations that women
who "want it" tend to "get it". My further observations have
been that guys who "want it" tend NOT to "get it", unless they're
willing to lie and manipulate to "get it". A bad generality? Or
perhaps an ounce of truth? I don't know, but it's been what I've
seen of life thus far. As an aside, at least I haven't gotten "it"
and lot's of other things that tend to come with "it", and I hope
that when I do finally get "it" (in my next lifetime, perhaps, since
it's obviously not gonna happen in this lifetime)... at least when
I finally DO get it, I'll hopefully get all the better things that
CAN come along with "it", and not the bad things...
jim
Silent Dreamer
> I'll agree with you on this one. That seems to be the general trend
>I have noticed as well. When it comes to sex, women have complete control
>of when it happens.
I'll also agree and take it a step further. Women tend to have the control
in most aspects of a romantic relationship.
an7...@anon.penet.fi
>Subject: Re: LJBF - it takes courage
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
an7...@anon.penet.fi
ch...@bbn.com
In article <1994Apr2.1...@dxcern.cern.ch> eds...@dxcern.cern.ch (David Edsall) writes:
-->
--> >I'm reading all of these "LJBF" threads with considerable interest -
--> >it's very enlightening for me to see the reasoning behind the
--> >"NiceGuy's" frustrations...
--> >
-->
-->
--> I for one have never been LJBF'd. With all the women I have been with,
--> it was kinda, "So long pal" and I was left to figure out why and deal with it
right. mine just fizzled, no explanation.
--> >I am a woman who tends to be very straightforward with both men and
--> >women, and in romantic relationships I rarely use the "LBJF" line
--> >unless I genuinely want to maintain a casual friendship.
-->
--> Great! I respect you for that.
me, too. I can't stand it when people dance around situations. but what
do you mean when you say "friend" ? it means different things to
different people.
--> >However, in
--> >my experience, NiceGuys are rarely as satisfied with "the truth" as
--> >they claim to be here.
how do I know it was the truth? what is truth?
-->
--> > Him: Oh...may I ask why?
--> >
--> > Me: Well...I just don't feel that we're compatible
--> > enough. (Starting to feel *very* awkward here...)
it this "the truth" ?
well, the problem is that this is just too vague. here is where I say
it's a cop-out, and it you're feeling awkward, it's because you're
trying to avoid stating real reasons. you saying something
non-committal to avoid showing your own real feelings. suppose the real
reason is "I'm into taking a shower every day and you only do so
once/month". or maybe it's "you're a crashing humorless bore" and he
doesn't know that. or maybe it's some non-PC attitude "you're not
jewish" (I did get that one once).
I'd like to know, if there's a specific reason. I'd conclude that my
chance with you was over, but that a personal change was perhaps
necessary.
according to my wife, usually it really means "get out of my life, but
don't hate me". so it's used by a someone to assuage their own feelings,
to avoid what might otherwise be unpleasant.
don't seem fair, do it?
-- clint
Silent Dreamer
>does it? or is it a cop-out?
IMHO, it's a cop-out. If someone TRULY wants to remain your friend, that
person would NOT use "LJBF."
IMHO, she would sit down and have a talk with you, explaining quite clearly
what SHE means by "friend" and explain that she cares, but isn't attracted to
you, and so on. Or, at the very least, she would NOT say "LJBF."
[ talking about an LJBF instance ]
>right. mine just fizzled, no explanation.
That happens a LOT, which is why I feel that 95% of the time, LJBF is a
blatant lie and an INSULT besides---it's saying "Yes, I want to be your
friend but I don't value you enough or have the guts to tell you what I
REALLY mean."
>me, too. I can't stand it when people dance around situations. but what
>do you mean when you say "friend" ? it means different things to
>different people.
I agree, which is why LJBF is NEVER a good idea. "Friend" is a vague term
at best. One person may thing being a friend is just saying "Hi" to said
person and throwing small-talk crap at them, while another may think it's
being there when said person needs you and serious, meaningful conversations.
Clarification is ESSENTIAL in communication, yet how often is it done?
>well, the problem is that this is just too vague. here is where I say
>it's a cop-out, and it you're feeling awkward, it's because you're
>trying to avoid stating real reasons.
I agree here as well. Being vague does NOT help anyone. And, if someone
won't state the REAL reason(s), is THAT the kind of "friend" you want?
Someone who values honesty so little, particularly with another "friend?"
>you saying something
>non-committal to avoid showing your own real feelings. suppose the real
>reason is "I'm into taking a shower every day and you only do so
>once/month". or maybe it's "you're a crashing humorless bore" and he
>doesn't know that. or maybe it's some non-PC attitude "you're not
>jewish" (I did get that one once).
That makes sense. Even if it is a totally "stupid" reason in other
peoples' eyes, it only hurts MORE if you don't tell them. At least you know
they're being honest, and you can then respect them as a person and as a
friend. I asked one friend out and she said "I'm not attracted to you."
Even though she rejected me, I could respect her honesty about the situation,
rather than acting as a spineless jellyfish and NOT saying the real reason.
>according to my wife, usually it really means "get out of my life, but
>don't hate me". so it's used by a someone to assuage their own feelings,
>to avoid what might otherwise be unpleasant.
No, it's used by someone to make themselves feel "I'm not hurting this
person's feelings, look at how nice I'm being by offering them friendship."
>don't seem fair, do it?
Nope. But whoever said life was fair never lived. :&P
Helmut Mayer
(Great article, should have quoted everything)
# according to my wife, usually it really means "get out of my life, but
# don't hate me". so it's used by a someone to assuage their own feelings,
# to avoid what might otherwise be unpleasant.
Very true. Always go the easiest way, which is defined by maximizing your own
fun. If you feel a bit guilty, then quickly get out some nice excuses. "I don't
owe you an explanation. I did it to spare your feelings. I really meant it
(without having done anything for a friendship)."
"What you sow is what you harvest." (somewhere in the Bible)
Yes, I know, it applies to both sides. It's just a hint what will happen to the
LJBFer (the lying one). Many LJBFees (if not all) give them more than one
chance to be honest. If they don't take it, it's their problem. If they don't
know that, own experience will tell them.
# don't seem fair, do it?
It don't, but it will be.
PEACE
Helmut
gayle beth liles
[attributions lost, but I wrote the paragraph below:]
>
>--> >I am a woman who tends to be very straightforward with both men and
>--> >women, and in romantic relationships I rarely use the "LBJF" line
>--> >unless I genuinely want to maintain a casual friendship.
>-->
>--> Great! I respect you for that.
>
>me, too. I can't stand it when people dance around situations. but what
>do you mean when you say "friend" ? it means different things to
>different people.
>
It does. When I do use the line (and, as I said before, I rarely
use it), I usually mean something like, "Let's revert to the
casual friendship we had *before* we tried a romantic liason."
I don't generally go out with total strangers, so you can presume
that if I liked the gentleman enough to go out with him, then
I must at least consider him a casual friend.
(To me, a "casual friend" is someone whom I won't go out of my
way to confide in/spend time with, but whom I like as a person -
I'll talk to them, seek them out if I see them on campus, share
an occasional cup of coffee with them, etc. This is just me -
everyone has different standards of "friendship" - though I
admit that it feels strange to have to define these things for others.
I had always assumed people had similar such "levels" of friendships,
and that someone who had just been romantically rejected wouldn't
necessarily *assume* they were the rejectee's bestest buddy...)
>--> >However, in
>--> >my experience, NiceGuys are rarely as satisfied with "the truth" as
>--> >they claim to be here.
>
>how do I know it was the truth? what is truth?
>
Well, I guess you'd have to accept that what I told you *was* the truth.
I don't think saying, "I'm not interested in a romantic relationship
with you because I feel we have too little in common to sustain a
happy, satisfying, long-term commitment" is lying. You may feel
it is somehow "incomplete," but it is true, and I don't believe
any further elaboration on the point would be necessary or helpful.
>-->
>--> > Him: Oh...may I ask why?
>--> >
>--> > Me: Well...I just don't feel that we're compatible
>--> > enough. (Starting to feel *very* awkward here...)
>
>it this "the truth" ?
>
>well, the problem is that this is just too vague. here is where I say
>it's a cop-out, and it you're feeling awkward, it's because you're
>trying to avoid stating real reasons.
I believe I felt awkward in this situation because (1) It's
never pleasant to reject someone, especially when they've put
themselves on the line romantically, and (2) Because I felt
like I was about to be dragged into a counterproductive
argument about *why* I wasn't romantically interested. I told
him, quite straightforwardly, that there was no possibility of
a romantic relationship between us. No lies there, and, I believe,
no cop-out either.
you saying something
>non-committal to avoid showing your own real feelings. suppose the real
>reason is "I'm into taking a shower every day and you only do so
>once/month". or maybe it's "you're a crashing humorless bore" and he
>doesn't know that. or maybe it's some non-PC attitude "you're not
>jewish" (I did get that one once).
>
>I'd like to know, if there's a specific reason. I'd conclude that my
>chance with you was over, but that a personal change was perhaps
>necessary.
This is the attitude I just don't get. I am only one woman, with
my own personal tastes and desires. Just because *I* think you're
a nasty-smelling, crashing bore doesn't mean that another woman out there
wouldn't think that you were sexy, manly-smelling, and endlessly
fascinating. Trying to change to please a woman who isn't interested
in you in the first place is
not only counterproductive - you end up betraying yourself. You
become as phoney and false as the "lying"women who get condemned in
these "LJBF" posts.
What could you possibly gain from revealing my own petty prejudices?
>
>according to my wife, usually it really means "get out of my life, but
>don't hate me". so it's used by a someone to assuage their own feelings,
>to avoid what might otherwise be unpleasant.
Perhaps in some cases, it means what your wife says it means. I
wouldn't use it in that fashion. But, at the same time, I don't
think that the level of "unpleasantness" you seem to expect
women to provide is either necessary or helpful. "Not
interested" ought to be all that's needed.
>
>don't seem fair, do it?
>
What doesn't seem fair?
> -- clint
>
>
>
-gayle
--
Helmut Mayer
# (To me, a "casual friend" is someone whom I won't go out of my
# way to confide in/spend time with, but whom I like as a person -
# I'll talk to them, seek them out if I see them on campus, share
# an occasional cup of coffee with them, etc.
Great, you talk and you define "casual friend". I wouldn't use the word friend
for that kind of acquaintance. This is just me.
# I had always assumed people had similar such "levels" of friendships,
# and that someone who had just been romantically rejected wouldn't
# necessarily *assume* they were the rejectee's bestest buddy...)
Good point. But again, A ASSUMES that B ASSUMES things like A means it. Why not
talk about it?
# This is the attitude I just don't get.
OK. Let's discuss it.
# I am only one woman, with my own personal tastes and desires.
Please, remember "only one".
# Just because *I* think you're
# a nasty-smelling, crashing bore doesn't mean that another woman out there
# wouldn't think that you were sexy, manly-smelling, and endlessly
# fascinating.
That's the point you're missing, I think. Now a bit cynical to stress my point.
Men are not stupid. If you tell them that they (in this case he) is crashing
bore or whatever, they don't draw the conclusion that all women would think
like that. You're only one. But if they know what you think about him, then
there is no reason to think about any further possibilities. That's all. But if
you get LJBFed and told that you're one of the greatest guys she ever met,
things get a bit complicated. Well, at least after some questions without
answers. (You didn't do that, but it's rare)
# Trying to change to please a woman who isn't interested
# in you in the first place is
# not only counterproductive - you end up betraying yourself. You
# become as phoney and false as the "lying"women who get condemned in
# these "LJBF" posts.
My own words. (There is no single poster who has the capability to condemn
anybody. It's just opinions.)
# What could you possibly gain from revealing my own petty prejudices?
Do you mean that all your judgements are prejudices?
# Perhaps in some cases, it means what your wife says it means. I
# wouldn't use it in that fashion. But, at the same time, I don't
# think that the level of "unpleasantness" you seem to expect
# women to provide is either necessary or helpful.
Sorry, but that's an excuse. If it's not necessary or helpful for you, it could
be for him. And when you say that you don't want to be unpleasant, but decide
what is necessary or helpful for him, it's much more unpleasant than to tell
him the truth.
# "Not interested" ought to be all that's needed.
Depends on what you've said before. If you didn't show any positive signs it's
OK, if you did, it's still OK, if you explain why you said different things
before. And with positive signs I don't mean a smile or a phone call.
PEACE
Helmut
Aqualung
I'm responding to two posts in one. The first is from Silent
Dreamer, and the second is from gayle beth liles. If you're
only interested in one or the other (or neither), I assume you
know what to do... :)
From pet...@nuge106.its.rpi.edu (Silent Dreamer):
>
> ch...@bbn.com writes:
>
> >does it? or is it a cop-out?
>
> IMHO, it's a cop-out. If someone TRULY wants to remain your
> friend, that person would NOT use "LJBF."
>
> IMHO, she would sit down and have a talk with you, explaining
> quite clearly what SHE means by "friend" and explain that she
> cares, but isn't attracted to you, and so on. Or, at the very
> least, she would NOT say "LJBF."
I can agree with this, but only partially. Usually, in such
an instance (or has been my experience), you think you really
ARE sitting down and talking about things. The "LJBF" line is
merely entered into the conversation briefly, while the LJBFer
is saying things like "you're a great person who I like a
lot" "I'm really interested in/attracted to someone else" "I
really value you as a person and a friend"... That sort of
thing. The LJBF is in there, it's not just a matter of being
told (or telling someone) "Let's Just Be Friends" and then
hanging up the phone. LJBF is usually (again, as has been my
experience) made to sound _quite_ sincere.
> >me, too. I can't stand it when people dance around situations. but
> >do you mean when you say "friend" ? it means different things to
> >different people.
>
> I agree, which is why LJBF is NEVER a good idea. "Friend" is a
> vague term at best. One person may thing being a friend is just
> saying "Hi" to said person and throwing small-talk crap at them,
> while another may think it's being there when said person needs you
> and serious, meaningful conversations. Clarification is ESSENTIAL
> in communication, yet how often is it done?
As I mention above, the "friend" aspect of LJBF is usually
really made to sound sincere. It's made to sound fairly
clear. One think's that one really is maintaining/gaining
"friend" status with the LJBFer. I think that a big problem
experienced (here in the U.S. at least) is the wide variance
in the definition of "friend", moreso that what "friend" means
on an individual level. I know lot's of people who consider
me to be one of their friends. This means that they are
comfortable enough to say "hi" to me if they pass me on the
street somewhere. But isn't there already a word for that?
It's called "acquaintence"...
> >well, the problem is that this is just too vague. here is where I
> >it's a cop-out, and it you're feeling awkward, it's because you're
> >trying to avoid stating real reasons.
>
> I agree here as well. Being vague does NOT help anyone. And, if
> someone won't state the REAL reason(s), is THAT the kind of
> "friend" you want? Someone who values honesty so little,
> particularly with another "friend?"
See, I'm not disagreeing with Silent Dreamer here totally.
It's a matter of people using the term "friend" too generally,
to encompass a whole super-plethora of meanings for which the
word was not intended. There is an ample supply of English
words and phrases which can be used to describe feelings for
each other. Perhaps people should have paid more attention to
their vocabulary lists in English class in high school.
(That, and I still feel that most often the LJBF line is
thrown into the middle of a seemingly heartfelt, open
conversation, only to discover later that the whole
conversation was a bunch of sheep fur attempting to be used as
blinders on an unsuspecting party... )
> >according to my wife, usually it really means "get out of my life,
> >don't hate me". so it's used by a someone to assuage their own feel
> >to avoid what might otherwise be unpleasant.
>
> No, it's used by someone to make themselves feel "I'm not hurting
> this person's feelings, look at how nice I'm being by offering them
> friendship."
Yeap, that still seems to be how I feel that it's used most
often. But then, what they offer and what they give isn't
exactly the same thing.
From gbl...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (gayle beth liles):
>
> In article <2oh5lp$h...@info-server.bbn.com> ch...@bbn.com writes:
>
> [attributions lost, but I wrote the paragraph below:]
> >
> >--> >I am a woman who tends to be very straightforward with both me
> >--> >women, and in romantic relationships I rarely use the "LBJF" l
> >--> >unless I genuinely want to maintain a casual friendship.
> >-->
> >--> Great! I respect you for that.
> >
> >me, too. I can't stand it when people dance around situations. but
> >do you mean when you say "friend" ? it means different things to
> >different people.
> >
>
> It does. When I do use the line (and, as I said before, I rarely
> use it), I usually mean something like, "Let's revert to the
> casual friendship we had *before* we tried a romantic liason."
> I don't generally go out with total strangers, so you can presume
> that if I liked the gentleman enough to go out with him, then
> I must at least consider him a casual friend.
So what you're really saying is "let's revert back to whatever
we were or weren't before you realized that you liked me". A
question: what's the difference between "casual friend" and
"acquaintence whom I say hi to at the drinking fountain"? It
sounds like you're trying to attach a justification onto the
term "friend" here.
> (To me, a "casual friend" is someone whom I won't go out of my
> way to confide in/spend time with, but whom I like as a person -
> I'll talk to them, seek them out if I see them on campus, share
> an occasional cup of coffee with them, etc. This is just me -
If you're sharing a cup of coffee with them, what do you do?
Just sit there and watch each other grow? Usually, if I know
someone and I'm sharing a cup of coffee with them (wherever
it is we have it), usually, we're talking, getting caught up
on all that's gone on in our lives since last we met (which
usually includes some confidences, however trivial), spending
time together, etc. And it usually requires going just a little
out of one's way to do it.
> everyone has different standards of "friendship" - though I
> admit that it feels strange to have to define these things for
> admit that it feels strange to have to define these things for
> others. I had always assumed people had similar such "levels" of
> friendships, and that someone who had just been romantically
> rejected wouldn't necessarily *assume* they were the rejectee's
> bestest buddy...)
It sure sounds that by "friend" you really mean casual
acquaintence. Is that a 10-4, bestest buddy? :) I'm not
deliberately trying to give you a hard time, but there is a
big difference in friendship and acquaintenceship to many
people out there. "Friend" isn't just a catch-all phrase to
include everyone on the planet who one doesn't dislike, at
least in one-to-one interpersonal interaction, is it?
> >--> >However, in
> >--> >my experience, NiceGuys are rarely as satisfied with "the trut
> >--> >they claim to be here.
> >
> >how do I know it was the truth? what is truth?
> >
>
> Well, I guess you'd have to accept that what I told you *was* the
> truth. I don't think saying, "I'm not interested in a romantic
> relationship with you because I feel we have too little in common
> to sustain a happy, satisfying, long-term commitment" is lying.
> You may feel it is somehow "incomplete," but it is true, and I
> don't believe any further elaboration on the point would be
> necessary or helpful.
So where in the above example of quoted text are you saying
"Let's just be friends"? What you're saying there may well be
the truth. But there is a long jump between that and saying
"Let's just be friends" to _imply_ that. And real "nice guys"
_would_ most likely take a hint, get a clue, and leave well
enough alone if you'd said "I'm not interested ... because..."
The guys who don't, they're the ones so often refered to as
"jerks". Perhaps in your experience, you've mistaken the real
"nice guys" for the "jerks". But then, it is certainly a
mistery to me why so many women (and men) only blindly see
what they want to see in someone, instead of trying to see
everyone for who they really are. (Of course, if people were
more open and honest from the onset, instead of being lying
and manipulative, perhaps it would be easier to distinguish
what they really are... not gonna happen in such an
egotistical, "me" society, I suppose.)
> >--> > Him: Oh...may I ask why?
> >--> >
> >--> > Me: Well...I just don't feel that we're compatible
> >--> > enough. (Starting to feel *very* awkward here...)
> >
> >it this "the truth" ?
> >
> >well, the problem is that this is just too vague. here is where I
> >it's a cop-out, and it you're feeling awkward, it's because you're
> >trying to avoid stating real reasons.
>
> I believe I felt awkward in this situation because (1) It's
> never pleasant to reject someone, especially when they've put
> themselves on the line romantically, and (2) Because I felt
> like I was about to be dragged into a counterproductive
> argument about *why* I wasn't romantically interested. I told
> him, quite straightforwardly, that there was no possibility of
> a romantic relationship between us. No lies there, and, I believe,
> no cop-out either.
Chances are that if you felt you were about to be dragged into
a counter-productive argument, something was _wrong_ with him,
which would usually indicate "jerk", not mature, decent, nice
guy. Why would you want to be friends with someone like
that? I don't think I would. But then, I'd not tell that
person that I desired his/her friendship, if that was the case.
> you saying something
> >non-committal to avoid showing your own real feelings. suppose the
> >reason is "I'm into taking a shower every day and you only do so
> >once/month". or maybe it's "you're a crashing humorless bore" and
> >doesn't know that. or maybe it's some non-PC attitude "you're not
> >jewish" (I did get that one once).
> >
> >I'd like to know, if there's a specific reason. I'd conclude that m
> >chance with you was over, but that a personal change was perhaps
> >necessary.
>
> This is the attitude I just don't get. I am only one woman, with
> my own personal tastes and desires. Just because *I* think you're
> a nasty-smelling, crashing bore doesn't mean that another woman out
> there wouldn't think that you were sexy, manly-smelling, and
> endlessly fascinating. Trying to change to please a woman who
> isn't interested in you in the first place is
> not only counterproductive - you end up betraying yourself. You
> become as phoney and false as the "lying"women who get condemned in
> these "LJBF" posts.
>
> What could you possibly gain from revealing my own petty
> prejudices?
Oh, I don't know... good hygiene, perhaps? :) I'm reminded
of a common quote here: "If we can't laugh at ourselves, who
CAN we laugh at?" I'm inclined to modify that quote just a
little, substituting "question" for "laugh at". I question
myself all the time, somebody's got to! And how do I continue
to learn and grow if I don't? If a person asks "why" you're
dumping them, if they're really decent and not just a jerk
trying to put you on the spot, giving them a straight answer
helps them in their endeavour. (And if it's a jerk just
trying to put you on the spot, a straight answer tends to put
them in their place, so why let them get to you?)
And what "self-betrayal" takes place anyway? There is really
no such thing. We are all products of others (primarily our
families, when we're young and first learning who we really
are). We are nothing more than the mirrored images reflected
back at us of ourselves, images that others reflect back to
us. The only way to be "true to oneself" is to try to
reflect back images to others as undistorted as possible, so
that hopefully they'll do the same. [HUGE philosophical
argument deleted for two reasons, 1, space; and 2, the
overlying logic is a major part of the basis for a cognitive
mind model which I'm working on in my spare time... which I'm
not going to give away.] If you're reflecting back distorted
images (which isn't necessarily the same as "incomplete"
images), you're _damaging_ who people really are and what they
are potentially capable of acheiving. Think about _that_ one
over coffee for a while ... I did.
> >according to my wife, usually it really means "get out of my life,
> >don't hate me". so it's used by a someone to assuage their own feel
> >to avoid what might otherwise be unpleasant.
>
>
> Perhaps in some cases, it means what your wife says it means. I
> wouldn't use it in that fashion. But, at the same time, I don't
> think that the level of "unpleasantness" you seem to expect
> women to provide is either necessary or helpful. "Not
> interested" ought to be all that's needed.
Once again, a big difference between "not interested" and "I
want to be your friend". The "just" in LJBF is a modifier.
Because of the context, the "just" is used to tone down
something, not eliminate it. In the context it's used, LJBF
says, "Let's be friends, as opposed to the stronger, more
personal and intimate emotions involved in a romantic
relationship". If you want to revert back to the way things
were prior to interest on the LJBFee's part, you say, "I like
the way things were between us before we tried to get a little
closer, and desire for things to return back to that state."
And if you want to get rid of the LJBFee entirely, you say
"get lost, creep". There is going to be some unpleasantness,
regardless. Not saying what you really mean only delays the
unpleasantness and usually makes it even worse.
jim
gayle beth liles
>gayle beth liles writes
>
># (To me, a "casual friend" is someone whom I won't go out of my
># way to confide in/spend time with, but whom I like as a person -
># I'll talk to them, seek them out if I see them on campus, share
># an occasional cup of coffee with them, etc.
>
>Great, you talk and you define "casual friend". I wouldn't use the word friend
>for that kind of acquaintance. This is just me.
It doesn't describe a soul mate, true - but it does describe a
certain level of friendliness and intimacy which meets my
definition of a "casual friend." I may not let them read my
diary, and I may not call them up twice a week to shoot the breeze,
but there *is* a level of intimacy in our contacts which qualifies
them, in my mind, as friends. Again, it seems odd to me to have
to *define* this stuff - what would you demand of people for them
to be your friends?
Clipping this section of
my post distorts my argument a bit, though - you edited out the part
of my post where I said that to me, a phrase like "LJBF" meant,
"Let's resume the level of intimacy we enjoyed *before* we decided to
try for a romantic relationship." I assumed that I wouldn't
be going out with a man unless I was at least "casually friendly"
with them, in the manner I described above.
>
># I had always assumed people had similar such "levels" of friendships,
># and that someone who had just been romantically rejected wouldn't
># necessarily *assume* they were the rejectee's bestest buddy...)
>
>Good point. But again, A ASSUMES that B ASSUMES things like A means it. Why not
>talk about it?
>
I suppose
># Just because *I* think you're
># a nasty-smelling, crashing bore doesn't mean that another woman out there
># wouldn't think that you were sexy, manly-smelling, and endlessly
># fascinating.
>
>That's the point you're missing, I think. Now a bit cynical to stress my point.
>Men are not stupid. If you tell them that they (in this case he) is crashing
>bore or whatever, they don't draw the conclusion that all women would think
>like that. You're only one. But if they know what you think about him, then
>there is no reason to think about any further possibilities.
Now I *really* don't get it. Why would a man think that "further
possibilities" existed if I explicitly told him (as I did in the dialogue
earlier in this thread) that I was not at all romantically interested?
(I'm assuming romantic possibilities here).
If the "further possibilities you refer to deal strictly with friendship -
well, I judge my lovers and my friends by different standards. Someone
who appears to be "too boring" to sustain a very intimate,
long term relationship, might still be a great person to hang out
with sometimes, to discuss literature with, etc. Romantic failure
doesn't necessarily preclude friendship - but one has to use common
sense, and not necessarily expect that the level of intimacy is going
to be instantly much greater than it was before you started dating.
That's all. But if
>you get LJBFed and told that you're one of the greatest guys she ever met,
>things get a bit complicated. Well, at least after some questions without
>answers. (You didn't do that, but it's rare)
>
Curiousity - how often have you been told by an LJBFer that you
were "one of the greatest guys she ever met?" Wouldn't it seem
odd to you that she was rejecting the greatest man ever to come her way?
># Trying to change to please a woman who isn't interested
># in you in the first place is
># not only counterproductive - you end up betraying yourself. You
># become as phoney and false as the "lying"women who get condemned in
># these "LJBF" posts.
>
>My own words. (There is no single poster who has the capability to condemn
>anybody. It's just opinions.)
[I've seen the word "lying" used by several men in this group, and it's
always disturbing to me. It may be an opinion, but it sure *implies*
a condemnation.]
>
># What could you possibly gain from revealing my own petty prejudices?
>
>Do you mean that all your judgements are prejudices?
>
No, I certainly never implied *all*. But my romantic judgments
are based on very personal, emotionally-based criteria. Often
there's no _logical_ reason I find someone unattractive - I just
don't. So I call it a personal prejudice.
># Perhaps in some cases, it means what your wife says it means. I
># wouldn't use it in that fashion. But, at the same time, I don't
># think that the level of "unpleasantness" you seem to expect
># women to provide is either necessary or helpful.
>
>Sorry, but that's an excuse. If it's not necessary or helpful for you, it could
>be for him. And when you say that you don't want to be unpleasant, but decide
>what is necessary or helpful for him, it's much more unpleasant than to tell
>him the truth.
Again, what's so untruthful about, "I have no romantic interest in you?"
I'm still not certain what a man gains by being told, "I think
you're boring, your political views repulse me, and you just
don't sexually excite me at all?" Why is that relevant to any
future romantic relationships he pursues with other women?
>
># "Not interested" ought to be all that's needed.
>
>Depends on what you've said before. If you didn't show any positive signs it's
>OK, if you did, it's still OK, if you explain why you said different things
>before. And with positive signs I don't mean a smile or a phone call.
>
What's a positive sign, and what do you expect from people who offer
"friendship?"
>PEACE
>
>Helmut
Helmut Mayer
# In article <CoD8H...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at writes:
# It doesn't describe a soul mate, true - but it does describe a
# certain level of friendliness and intimacy which meets my
# definition of a "casual friend."
I agree that there is a difference between a soulmate and a friend, but the way
you described "casual friend" is just a shallow acquaintance to me. It sounded
like you didn't do anything on your own to spend some time with a casual
friend. If that's the case I wouldn't use the word friend.
# I may not let them read my diary
There is a huge space between meeting someone by chance and having a cup of
coffee with and someone who reads your diary.
# and I may not call them up twice a week to shoot the breeze,
# but there *is* a level of intimacy in our contacts which qualifies
# them, in my mind, as friends. Again, it seems odd to me to have
# to *define* this stuff
Why? Very obviously, we have different definitions of the term "friend", so
it's great we try to define what we mean, otherwise you mean your "friend" and
I mean my "friend". Misunderstanding is the source of problems.
# what would you demand of people for them to be your friends?
I don't demand, but a friend is a person, whom you can trust, who gives you any
kind of support and is just pleasant to be around with. And it's not a one way
street.
# Clipping this section of
# my post distorts my argument a bit,
Sorry. I think it mostly happens, because we don't have to discuss things we
agree on.
# though - you edited out the part
# of my post where I said that to me, a phrase like "LJBF" meant,
# "Let's resume the level of intimacy we enjoyed *before* we decided to
# try for a romantic relationship." I assumed that I wouldn't
# be going out with a man unless I was at least "casually friendly"
# with them, in the manner I described above.
Great. Just one problem: It's much harder for the LJBFee to resume the level
than for the LJBFer and if the LJBFer isn't really interested in a friendship,
"he moves no finger" for the LJBFee.
# Now I *really* don't get it. Why would a man think that "further
# possibilities" existed if I explicitly told him (as I did in the dialogue
# earlier in this thread) that I was not at all romantically interested?
That was not my point and I wouldn't think so. My point was that women always
decide for both. If she thinks that it wouldn't be pleasant for him to tell him
the truth, it doesn't mean that he thinks the same way. This does not imply
that she has to do everything he wants. I'm just saying that it would be a good
idea to ask him, if it's really so unimportant and unnecessary for him. Again,
this doesn't refer to your dialogue, because I think that he isn't nice and you
made your points very clear.
# Someone
# who appears to be "too boring" to sustain a very intimate,
# long term relationship, might still be a great person to hang out
# with sometimes, to discuss literature with, etc.
It's just a sentence. I doubt that there would be a LJBF-thread, if the LJBFees
had heard that one.
# Curiousity - how often have you been told by an LJBFer that you
# were "one of the greatest guys she ever met?"
2 out of 3. The third said LJBF and the fifth time I called her after that she
said that she'll contact a lawyer. Hehe!
# Wouldn't it seem odd to you that she was rejecting the greatest man ever to
#come her way?
That's a perfect way to describe my feelings. Sometimes I start laughing, when
I read some posters where they say:"Well, just ask her." Well, I did that. You
hear a nice BEEP, if she hangs up.
# [I've seen the word "lying" used by several men in this group, and it's
# always disturbing to me. It may be an opinion, but it sure *implies*
# a condemnation.]
If I think somebody lied to me, I call it "lying". If the liars feel condemned,
it's their problem. Nobody told them to lie. They did the "lying" and they are
responsible for that. It's common attitude to blame people who speak about
problems and not the ones who caused them.
# Often
# there's no _logical_ reason I find someone unattractive - I just
# don't. So I call it a personal prejudice.
I call it your personal judgement. If you find him unattractive, then he is
unattractive for you. Period. There's no problem.
# Again, what's so untruthful about, "I have no romantic interest in you?"
Again, that's great.
# I'm still not certain what a man gains by being told, "I think
# you're boring, your political views repulse me, and you just
# don't sexually excite me at all?"
He knows what time it is.
# Why is that relevant to any future romantic relationships he pursues with
#other women?
It's definitely not relevant to any FUTURE romantic relationship, but it's
extremely relevant to the present possible relationship. It's simple and clear:
There won't be a present romantic relationship.
# What's a positive sign, and what do you expect from people who offer
# "friendship?"
Positive signs: you're very different, you're one of the few persons who really
understands me, letting me know the most personal pages of her diary (that's no
metaphor, it happened)
Friendship: The problem with LJBF is the OFFERING of friendship. (Did you ever
say to a female friend of yours:"I offer you my friendship."? It just happens.
Either you are friends or you aint.) From a LJBFer I'd expect that she calls me
at least once in a period of some months after LJBF saying:"Hello, how are
you?" Is that too much?
PEACE
Helmut
Aqualung
I've followed the progression of this part of this thread for
some time, and I sincerely feel that gayle beth is onto
something here, albeit in a somewhat misguided manner.
From gbl...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (gayle beth liles):
>
> In article <CoD8H...@cosy.sbg.ac.at> hel...@cosy.sbg.ac.at
> writes:
> >gayle beth liles writes
> >
> ># [casual friend definition]
> >
> > [casual friend definition rejection]
>
> It doesn't describe a soul mate, true - but it does describe a
> certain level of friendliness and intimacy which meets my
> definition of a "casual friend." I may not let them read my
> diary, and I may not call them up twice a week to shoot the breeze,
> but there *is* a level of intimacy in our contacts which qualifies
> them, in my mind, as friends. Again, it seems odd to me to have
> to *define* this stuff - what would you demand of people for them
> to be your friends?
Considering the methods and means by which most people utilize
the implied logic of LJBF, I'd guess that being someone's
"friend" means getting lost and never speaking to them again,
for fear of being charged with harassment and stalking.
(That, too, has happened to me here in the US, for merely
sending an LJBFer a birthday card, after not speaking with
her for several months.) In the context of LJBF, I'd guess
that's what a friend is, from experience... (And try
explaining that to the police!)
> Clipping this section of
> my post distorts my argument a bit, though - you edited out the
> part of my post where I said that to me, a phrase like "LJBF"
> meant, "Let's resume the level of intimacy we enjoyed *before* we
> decided to try for a romantic relationship." I assumed that I
> wouldn't be going out with a man unless I was at least "casually
> friendly" with them, in the manner I described above.
Perhaps we need to work with the definition of "casual
friends" a little more... To me, a "casual friend" is a
friend OF a friend. In that I'm doing things with a common
friend, I'm doing things with this casual friend. (Gee, I'm
still DOING things with this person.) To say "let's be
friends, just not on an intimate romantic level" implies
one-to-one friendship, which implies occassionally doing
things with someone, talking with someone, being there to help
someone out (if possible and help is needed). What you're
describing is _still_ an acquaintance, not a friend.
> Now I *really* don't get it. Why would a man think that "further
> possibilities" existed if I explicitly told him (as I did in the
> dialogue earlier in this thread) that I was not at all
> romantically interested? (I'm assuming romantic possibilities
> here).
No decent person is going to think that way, if told that you
weren't romantically interested. If someone does, obviously
that person isn't a decent person to begin with.
> If the "further possibilities you refer to deal strictly with
> friendship - well, I judge my lovers and my friends by different
> standards. Someone who appears to be "too boring" to sustain a
> very intimate, long term relationship, might still be a great
> person to hang out with sometimes, to discuss literature with, etc.
> Romantic failure doesn't necessarily preclude friendship - but one
> has to use common sense, and not necessarily expect that the level
> of intimacy is going to be instantly much greater than it was
> before you started dating.
I for one don't immediately expect the intimacy level of a
"friendly relationship" to jump exponentially higher. Those
things take time, too. If someone has said LJBF, though, and
immediately _decreases_ the level of friendly contact to null
and void... and that's what most often happens, and why there
are people complaining about the LJBF line, and why so many
people "condemn" others for lying. We're not necessarily
saying that _you_ are, so much as it IS happening an awful
lot, and in that context, it IS a lie.
> That's all. But if
> >you get LJBFed and told that you're one of the greatest guys she ev
> >things get a bit complicated. Well, at least after some questions w
> >answers. (You didn't do that, but it's rare)
> >
>
> Curiousity - how often have you been told by an LJBFer that you
> were "one of the greatest guys she ever met?" Wouldn't it seem
> odd to you that she was rejecting the greatest man ever to come her
> way?
Every time. Well over 50 times in the past five years. And
that has taken place just in being interested enough to have
_asked_ someone out (never mind an affirmative answer, I've
not gotten a "yes" in all that time, and although I'm nothing
ultra-special, I'm far from the worst guy on the planet.)
> ># Trying to change to please a woman who isn't interested
> ># in you in the first place is
> ># not only counterproductive - you end up betraying yourself. You
> ># become as phoney and false as the "lying"women who get condemned
> ># these "LJBF" posts.
> >
> >My own words. (There is no single poster who has the capability to
> >anybody. It's just opinions.)
>
> [I've seen the word "lying" used by several men in this group, and
> it's always disturbing to me. It may be an opinion, but it sure
> *implies* a condemnation.]
I'm one to have specifically labelled a lie a lie.
The Lexicon Webster Dictionary, Volume 1, Copyright 1981,
Printed 1985:
lie: To speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with
intent to deceive; to express what is false or to convey a
false impression.
To say "Let's Just Be Friends", with the real intent meaning
"Let's just be friends, yeah right, but not in this lifetime,
or I'll call the police and try to have them arrest you for
stalking and harassment. Get outta my life." _A_, therefore,
_A_. "Conveying a false impression."
> ># What could you possibly gain from revealing my own petty prejudic
> >
> >Do you mean that all your judgements are prejudices?
> >
>
> No, I certainly never implied *all*. But my romantic judgments
> are based on very personal, emotionally-based criteria. Often
> there's no _logical_ reason I find someone unattractive - I just
> don't. So I call it a personal prejudice.
This part bothers a LOT of people, but if they do look deep
enough and hard enough, they _will_ find a logical reason for
their attitude, for their emotionally-based criteria. It may
be something as stupid as "I knew a red-headed kid in the
second grade who was a real a$$h0le, therefore, I'm not
attracted to you... you have the same shade of red hair."
There is logic used to acheive the conclusion. It may not be
a "fair" basis for rejection, but to you, that particular
shade of red hair means something very strongly, enough so to
reject someone, and you are using your own logic to come to
that conclusion. You are perhaps correct in calling your
logic a personal prejudice, since said logic may only have any
real meaning to you. But you're still using logic to come to
that conclusion, whether you think consciously about it or
not. (If we dig deep enough, there is _always_ a truth.)
> ># Perhaps in some cases, it means what your wife says it means. I
> ># wouldn't use it in that fashion. But, at the same time, I don't
> ># think that the level of "unpleasantness" you seem to expect
> ># women to provide is either necessary or helpful.
> >
> >Sorry, but that's an excuse. If it's not necessary or helpful for y
> >be for him. And when you say that you don't want to be unpleasant,
> >what is necessary or helpful for him, it's much more unpleasant tha
> >him the truth.
>
> Again, what's so untruthful about, "I have no romantic interest in
> you?" I'm still not certain what a man gains by being told, "I
> think you're boring, your political views repulse me, and you just
> don't sexually excite me at all?" Why is that relevant to any
> future romantic relationships he pursues with other women?
Those things don't matter to you, but they may to him. If
his breath stunk after dinner (he had the garlic bread), and
that repulsed you, telling him that he occassionally suffers
from acute halitosis CAN have bearing on future romantic
relationships. If he took you to the opera and you were
bored stiff and would have rather gone to the amusement park,
telling him that since his interests include the opera and
yours don't, you found the evening to be boring, that may
prevent him from taking future first dates to the opera and
being perceived as a "bore". Perhaps he's happy to settle for
the "I have no romantic interest in you" line. If not, it
isn't going to wreck him any further to know "why" you have
no further interest in him, is it? You've already smashed his
ego, if he suffers from such things, by telling him forget
it. However, telling him why he can forget it, if/once he
thinks it over, perhaps he can change something that WILL lead
to more productive dating habits.
> ># "Not interested" ought to be all that's needed.
> >
> >Depends on what you've said before. If you didn't show any positive
> >OK, if you did, it's still OK, if you explain why you said differen
> >before. And with positive signs I don't mean a smile or a phone cal
> >
>
> What's a positive sign, and what do you expect from people who
> offer "friendship?"
"Not interested" is often enough. Not always, but often.
(After about 30-40 concurrent rejections, it stops being
enough, let me tell you. You start to seriously wonder what
is wrong with you!) I'm not sure what Helmut means by
"positive signs", unless he's talking about the levels of
intimacy during a date or relationship, and how those levels
seem to increase and show that things are going well. As for
friendship, that's a two-way street. If someone says "Lets
[just] Be Friends", and I'm interested in that aspect of a
relationship with someone, I'd think that in the least a
little common courtesy is called for to see if "friendship
mode" with this person is viable. Usually, the LJBFer
suddenly turns cold as a stone if approached AT ALL. I've had
"friends" sit with their "real" friends in resaurants, and be
pointing at me and laughing and never come over and say
hello. I've had "friends" who have called the police because
I sent them birthday cards and try to press charges. I could
cite lot's more examples, but I won't. Point is, all of these
women friends told me I was one of the greatest, nicest, most
decent men they've ever met. All I've done is ask them out,
and suddenly I receive the LJBF line (usually over coffee or
sodas and in the middle of a VERY "open" talk), and I'm
suddenly el creepo numero uno. No explanation why, just a
"how dare you ever even look at me again" attitude.
Now, I know that this isn't how your original posting started,
and I know that from what you've said, you've never done
this. I'm _not_ condemning you or calling you a liar. I'm
not saying that "yes, you _have_ done this", nor am I saying
that your attitude bespeaks such possibilities. I am,
however, saying that this does happen. Quite often. And from
the posting that had been going on in the LJBF thread, it
seems to happen a LOT, usually to people who don't seem to
deserve such treatment. (And perhaps I _DID_ deserve such
treatment, but without knowing "why", I'll never know if I did
or not.) What I can say about the LJBF line, what it implies,
and what usually transpires thereafter, is that it IS a lie,
and those who use it so flagrantly are liars. If this
attitude disturbs you (and anyone else it may disturb), think
how much it must disturb some of us who are repeatedly and
consistently told this lie.
jim
Mark C. Carroll
>>>>> "Silent" == Silent Dreamer <pet...@nuge106.its.rpi.edu> writes:
In article <2ojuhc$g...@usenet.rpi.edu> pet...@nuge106.its.rpi.edu (Silent Dreamer) writes:
Silent> ch...@bbn.com writes:
>> does it? or is it a cop-out?
Silent> IMHO, it's a cop-out. If someone TRULY wants to remain your
Silent> friend, that person would NOT use "LJBF."
Bullshit. I can say this absolutely unequivocably, because I've said
"Let's just be friends" to people who I cared about, and who I truly
wanted to keep as friends, and who I *did* keep as friends.
What you don't understand is that this pathological obsession with the
horrible evil and cruelty of the phrase "Let's just be friends" is not
something with the people *saying* LJBF understand.
Silent> IMHO, she would sit down and have a talk with you,
Silent> explaining quite clearly what SHE means by "friend" and
Silent> explain that she cares, but isn't attracted to you, and so on.
Silent> Or, at the very least, she would NOT say "LJBF."
In real life, people very rarely do this, for a large number of
reasons.
First of all, most people assume that you understand what they
mean.
Second, very few people make a practice of explaining the nature of
friendship to their friends - they assume that it's
understood. (When's the last time you sat down with one of your
friends and explained to him/her "I consider you to be my friend. What
I mean by this is ..."?)
Third, very often in the case of a failed relationship where LJBF is
said, the person saying it is very uncomfortable. If you've never been
in the situation of being forced to do something like that, you don't
understand how painful it can be for the person on the other end. This
can't be said strongly enough: particularly if they *really* mean it,
it's an extremely difficult, painful experience, and they want to get
it over with. Combine it with the assumption that you know what the
word "friend" means, and it doesn't seem to be necessary to stretch out
this moment which is so painful for both of you.
Finally, many people tend to have a very hard time finding the words
to use in a situation like this. It's very difficult, and some people
just aren't good at articulating in such a situation. They don't know
what to say, so they pull out the old cliche.
<MC>
--
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC> ||"I live to see my fondest dreams realized,
|| CIS Grad, Univ of Delaware || Of living under the sights and sounds of
|| PGP key available by finger || the gifted, Who gave so much to me"
|| car...@cis.udel.edu || - _Feed_the_Fire_, Happy Rhodes
Helmut Mayer
# >>>>> "Silent" == Silent Dreamer <pet...@nuge106.its.rpi.edu> writes:
# Silent> IMHO, it's a cop-out. If someone TRULY wants to remain your
# Silent> friend, that person would NOT use "LJBF."
#
# Bullshit. I can say this absolutely unequivocably, because I've said
# "Let's just be friends" to people who I cared about, and who I truly
# wanted to keep as friends, and who I *did* keep as friends.
I think Silent meant LLJBF (L=lying) as opposed to TLJBF(T=true). TLJBF is
great. What remains is the definition of "friend". If a friend is a person who
you don't hate, all LJBFers are true. Ah, I just opened another backdoor.
# What you don't understand is that this pathological obsession with the
# horrible evil and cruelty of the phrase "Let's just be friends" is not
# something with the people *saying* LJBF understand.
I believe you that you mean LJBF, if you say it. I understand that you won't
accept that the phrase is evil. But there are way more who said LJBF and didn't
mean it. "We" (from the anti-LJBF movement) are referring to the LLJBFers.
# First of all, most people assume that you understand what they
# mean.
Very true. But it's rarely the case. Problems are starting right now... And
that's the sad part of the LJBF-thread, because the first thing "we" should
have done is to define the words used with LJBF ("let's just be" is not
difficult, I'd suggest, but what is a "friend") I asked that sometimes. No
answer...
# Second, very few people make a practice of explaining the nature of
# friendship to their friends - they assume that it's
# understood. (When's the last time you sat down with one of your
# friends and explained to him/her "I consider you to be my friend. What
# I mean by this is ..."?)
I said that in a previous post. That might be one of the main problems with
LJBF. Usually, you don't explicitly offer friendship. It's just there. I can't
remember having said to a male friend:"We are friends." We ARE and just know
it. (having not said that it might be a good thing to say it) I don't say it to
my female friends, either. They say it quite a few times.
# Third, very often in the case of a failed relationship where LJBF is
# said, the person saying it is very uncomfortable. If you've never been
# in the situation of being forced to do something like that, you don't
# understand how painful it can be for the person on the other end. This
# can't be said strongly enough: particularly if they *really* mean it,
How can a person be uncomfortable, if he/she REALLY wants to be friends with
somebody? Is it uncomfortable to have a friend?
# it's an extremely difficult, painful experience, and they want to get
# it over with. Combine it with the assumption that you know what the
# word "friend" means, and it doesn't seem to be necessary to stretch out
# this moment which is so painful for both of you.
I can't help, it seems you're defending LLJBFers...
# Finally, many people tend to have a very hard time finding the words
# to use in a situation like this. It's very difficult, and some people
# just aren't good at articulating in such a situation. They don't know
# what to say, so they pull out the old cliche.
Again, you just worry about the (L)LJBFer. If they don't know what to say, why
do they say LJBF? If I don't know what to say (I can't imagine that) then I'd
say nothing.
PEACE
Helmut
chyde
-->
-->
--> "Not interested" is often enough. Not always, but often.
--> (After about 30-40 concurrent rejections, it stops being
--> enough, let me tell you. You start to seriously wonder what
--> is wrong with you!) I'm not sure what Helmut means by
--> "positive signs", unless he's talking about the levels of
--> intimacy during a date or relationship, and how those levels
--> seem to increase and show that things are going well. As for
--> friendship, that's a two-way street. If someone says "Lets
--> [just] Be Friends", and I'm interested in that aspect of a
--> relationship with someone, I'd think that in the least a
--> little common courtesy is called for to see if "friendship
--> mode" with this person is viable. Usually, the LJBFer
--> suddenly turns cold as a stone if approached AT ALL. I've had
--> "friends" sit with their "real" friends in resaurants, and be
--> pointing at me and laughing and never come over and say
--> hello. I've had "friends" who have called the police because
--> I sent them birthday cards and try to press charges.
I'd say that the lesson here is that the LJBFee should NOT initiate any
subsequent contact. let the LJBFer do that--let the LJBFer define what
'friends' means.
expect nothing beyond what actually happens.
remember: 'LJBF' means "get out of my life permanently, unless I want
otherwise"
-- clint
miy...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
> In article <2osjhi$c...@falcon.bgsu.edu> jno...@bgsu.edu (Aqualung) writes:
[much stuff deleted]
>
> I'd say that the lesson here is that the LJBFee should NOT initiate any
> subsequent contact. let the LJBFer do that--let the LJBFer define what
> 'friends' means.
Hang on, I don't think that this is always the case. I got LJBF'd
several months ago by a rather introverted guy, and if I hadn't sat
down with him and initiated a little discussion about what he really
meant by "LJBF," then I would have lost a really great friend. He was
truly interested in being good friends, but he didn't know how to talk
to me about it because he was afraid of hurting me.
> expect nothing beyond what actually happens.
>
> remember: 'LJBF' means "get out of my life permanently, unless I want
> otherwise"
I think that "LJBF" can mean "go away" if the people involved weren't
really good friends before the rlationship. In my case, we were
already close to begin with, and this is why we still are.
> -- clint
Dee.
Peter G Loeppky
: expect nothing beyond what actually happens.
I agree with that 100% because when you have no exectations
everything that happens is a pleasure and a surprise.
: remember: 'LJBF' means "get out of my life permanently, unless I want
: otherwise"
OK, here is where I disagree...either I have been very lucky, and
you unlucky or that is a line of BS! I personally believe that luck plays
very little in my case. I have been told that a young lady I was
intrested in wanted "just friends" (I disagree with "just" because that
makes it sound insignifigant which it is not). OK in my case what "LJBF"
meant was I want you as a friend and don't think that as
boy-friend/girl-friend will work...and I'm not intrested in BF/GF
relationship now. We remain friends and we do the normal things that
friends do, and it's nice to have someone to share things with (not the
kind of sharing you may be thinking of!)