Dear Single Women: Stop Pretending You Have Standards

I had a similar experience recently and agree with Moxie’s assessment. Went out on a first date with a guy, had a great time (he was actually better looking in person than he was in his photos, which rarely happens). For the second date, he texted me *asking to come over to my place* so that we could make dinner. I know, I know — I shouldn’t have done it and would never make the mistake again. I *should* have done what the OP did and say “let’s save it for later” and suggested that we go out again. Problem was, I genuinely enjoy having people over sometimes as opposed to going out (more relaxed, etc) and so I let that cloud my judgment. He came over, we had fun, but by the end of it I just sort of felt ambivalent about him (ie, “meh”).

That was on a Sunday. On Friday, he texted me something that kind of blew my mind a little bit. “Enjoyed your apartment. Would be willing to come over again one eve.”

As Moxie has so aptly put it in previous posts: “lady boner gone.” Previously, I would have sent back some sort of snarky text saying “Oh, thank God. I’m so glad you would be *willing* to come over to my apartment to eat my food and sleep with me.” But in the end, I just ignored it and moved on. A gentleman who was truly interested in a relationship would have said something like, “thank you so much for having me over for dinner – would love to go out again,” and would have *called* me rather than sending the text he did. I’m not sure whether he thought he was being cute/funny, but I didn’t find it to be either of those things. Once I didn’t respond to that text, he disappeared. Before, that would have bothered me, too — but at this point, I’ve just decided that I’ll wait for someone who’s a gentleman and who has a modicum of class/manners. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it. I hate being single, and I hate having to be on these sites at my age. But I’d rather be single and still looking than settle for someone who’s “willing” to come over to my apartment. Sigh. Next… – Avery

 

Forgive my delay on this. I’ve been a bit jammed up after taking several days off and dealing with some stuff back home in Boston.

Okay. Let me break this one down for you.

Woman abandons her standards for really good looking guy. Hilarity ensues.

I don’t buy for a moment that Avery accepted his brazen invitation over to his place because she likes to entertain. She accepted it because he was good looking and charming. Then she was offended that the man who rudely invited himself over to her place didn’t behave like a “true gentleman” and call her to thank her properly for the meal and sex.  His text message, which might as well have just said, “Hey. Thanks for the sex!”, offended her because the underlying message of that text made it abundantly clear that this guy didn’t want anything beyond casual sex/short term dating. She wasn’t offended by the medium in which he used to contact her. She was offended that he didn’t say something that implied he wanted more than just sex.

All of this could have been avoided had she acknowledged that this guy wasn’t a “true gentleman” from the get go when he invited himself over to her apartment for a meal. PS? What the hell is up with that?  Why couldn’t he just invite her over to his place? Red flag, ladies.

Avery didn’t feel ambivalent about this guy. After they had sex, she slowly realized that this guy wasn’t genuinely interested beyond casually sleeping together. That’s what bothered her. Women like to act like they’re the ones who lost interest, and I truly believe they believe that is the case, but I’d bet nine times out of ten they’re just looking to spare themselves the embarrassment of admitting they have been had.

If you want a guy with class and manners, don’t sleep with men who invite themselves over to your apartment for a second date. There. Easy peasy Japanesey. You can’t say you have standards and refuse to be treated like some bimbo they met in a bar and then justify letting a man do just that. The guy was good looking. There’s your answer for why all of this happened. He was good looking and interesting and charming and omigod grab on to his ankles before he gets loose! He’s one guy. You can spit and hit a man just like that at any given moment. Also stop thinking that you’re doing men a favor by “looking past the physical.” If you’re doing it, other women are doing it. If you find a man physically unappealing but are enamored with his charm and accomplishments, you’re still being shallow. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.

If you want to have standards, have standards. But standards only prevent you from being used and abused if you stick to them consistently. The whole “I refuse to settle” argument is so flimsy and disingenuous. Avery, you did settle.You did. If you said that you weren’t willing to settle further, I’d agree with you. But you did settle. Stop listening to all your girlfriends who say not to change anything about yourself and to hold out for a guy who meets your expectations and who gives you the butterflies and whatevs. If you want a relationship you’re going to have to settle in some way. That’s it.

Sorry there’s no happy ending there. By 35 or so, if you’re still holding out for love and promises and commitment, you’re going to have to make some serious compromises.Either that or get very, very comfortable with the idea of not being in a serious relationship.

 

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

30 Responses to “Dear Single Women: Stop Pretending You Have Standards”

  1. Zammo Says:

    Moxie throws an honesty party. Two thumbs up. The second date at her apartment… yeah… I see how this works. Classic PUA this guy. He might not know it because he’s good looking and charming (perhaps a natural PUA).

  2. Avery Says:

    Hi Moxie — Avery, here. All of yours are valid points except for one critical thing: we didn’t have sex. Not even close. We had dinner. He got to 2nd base. Yeah, his text afterward made it clear he was looking to seal the deal and that’s about it. And yeah, I’ll admit I was disappointed. Yes, his inviting himself over for dinner was a red flag. Absolutely. That’s why I said in hindsight I would never have done it. We’d had a good time on our first date, there was no one else on the radar screen at the time, and I’ll admit it: I needed a little action. But I don’t think I was really “had.” Disappointed? Absolutely. But just to be clear: the lid stayed on the honey pot.

    • Rick Says:

      I was kinda wondering where she got that sex had been a part of the evening…

      • Andthatswhyyouresingle Says:

        In one of her follow up comments from that thread she said:

        Previously, I would have sent back some sort of snarky text saying “Oh, thank God. I’m so glad you would be *willing* to come over to my apartment to eat my food and sleep with me.”

        Between that and how she admitted her judgment was clouded and that they had fun, I assumed they had sex. My mistake. But whether sex was had or not, she still can’t act upset that the guy wasn’t a “true gentleman.” He still invited himself over to her apartment and things still got physical despite the fact that she claims that she “normally ” doesn’t do that.

        • The D-man Says:

          I’ve never understood it when women “normally” don’t do something. Every relationships, even a hookup, is unique. There is no “normal.”

        • Avery Says:

          Yeah, I see how I was unclear there. The text that I *thought* about sending (but didn’t) would have communicated to this guy that I *knew* that he was only interested in coming over for sex.

          I’ve only posted on this forum on one previous occasion (where I talked about running a background check on a guy I was dating who I suspected–correctly– was married). That situation–along with this one–illustrate that *seeing the red flag* and “doing something about the red flag* are two separate things.

          The second that I got this guy’s text inviting himself over for dinner, I saw the red flag. And I was bummed. Did I choose to actually “do anything* about the red flag (or the disappointment)? No. So, Moxie’s right: I can’t act disappointed that he wasn’t a true gentleman when he’d pretty much announced that with his ballsy self-invite. I got the memo. Lesson learned. That’s why I said about a dozen times in my original post that I did something stupid that I shan’t be doing again.

    • Kinkynikki Says:

      I figured Avery didn’t sleep with him and that Moxie jumped to conclusions. Clearly she didn’t sleep with him because why would he text afterwards? He just would’ve kept it moving. I agree with Avery about guys who primarily text, why bother?

      • Eliza Says:

        Exactly, which is why – as soon as that guy “texted” to invite himself over…it would have been the red light for me to say–“not interested”. So long. By the way, you stated that “clearly she didn’t sleep with him because why would be text afterwards”?

        Well, because he may be wanting to revisit that – and go for seconds. Not all men, hit and run. Some come back for leftovers! Again, that doesn’t mean they are interested…or becoming interested. It means, sex was good enough–where they want more. AND…since it’s obvoius to this man that getting in a woman’s apartment is as easy as 1-2-3, why not try for seconds…right?

        You see…men can only treat us – how we “allow them to treat us”. Women are in the driver’s seat–always. So–you can’t blame a guy for taking the bait….if you make it easy enough for him to grab at it.

    • Eliza Says:

      Avery–A true gentleman 1) doesn’t invite himself over a woman’s apartment (he waits to be invited); 2) doesn’t text a woman asking to come over to her place; and 3) doesnt merely text to say he enjoyed “her apartment”, but rather makes plans to meet again in a public place, so as to get to know her as a person, and not put any pressure by trying to go to her place, or inviting her to his place. Why be disappointed? You should have expected his predictable behavior–given the fact that he was being so impersonal by texting rather than having a conversation with you. I love to entertain too–but I will wait to do that, until I feel comfortable enough to extend an invitation. The moment a man imposes by inviting himself over…that’s when the door slams on his face…and he doesn’t get to come in. These men are all about getting in, getting off, and getting out. Again…if you are cool with that–great – enjoy! But if what you want is to be treated with more class and respect, come across differently. Even IF the man is very good looking/charismatic. If he’s genuinely interested–he will respect that in a woman. He’s not going anywhere if he truly is interested.

      • LaMotta Says:

        I basically agree with your appraisal of the situation here, but seeing it as some “true gentlemen” vs. player dichotomy is just puerile. If you think there are “true gentlemen” out there that have any libido worth mentioning who DON’T want sex sooner than you, you are regrettably deluded. This is more of that “Victorian-era” mindset that somehow lingers like a bad odor despite the feminist “reformation”. I blame TV/movies.

        If you necessitate it, a guy who otherwise has a “harem” and is totally non-committal might indeed be fine with holding off on the sex and “getting to know you”. Of course, it is just as likely he could get to know you WHILE having sex with you (since when did having sex actually PRECLUDE getting to know someone?)

        Women should definitely realize when a guy’s advances are physically-centric (and not immediately interpret this as “bad” or “manipulative” — it’s just what it is). And they should not proceed faster than they are comfortable. But I don’t see much value to “holding out” just to “force a guy to get to know you”, assuming there seems to be any prospective value to a relationship. Consider that that might be interpreted as manipulative in the opposite direction. We are talking about competing values here — in which case it is often worthwhile to “meet in the middle”.

    • Howard Says:

      Women make so many mistakes in the interaction with men, and men being who they are, let most of them slide. Why do I get the feeling that much of that is inherent to this story, with enough blame to go around on both sides? When we hear these stories, we are being told it from only one perspective.

      There is a reason guys try to sleep with women so hard. Just about every genuine man out there, has a story where he was the nice guy and dated and waited. Then some cad came along and she had sex with that guy and suddenly he was put on the back burner. A man knows that he will never mean anything to a woman, partner-wise, unless she decides to have sex with him. So even the good guys are pushing hard to have sex too. To call men villains, for wanting sex , ignores the obvious.

      Of course there are always going to be misguided cads, who really think they are accomplishing something, when they manage to convince a woman to give up something she holds so dear. For them the chase and feeling of accomplishment they get when a woman gives it up, means everything to them. I am not even sure these guys truly enjoy the sex act as much as they could, because they are so busy getting pleasure form their misguided sense of accomplishment. The funny truth is that half of these cads are former genuine guys that sat and watched their former good guy efforts go to waste. All cads are going to wise up sometime. This is exactly what creates the problem. Too many women feel they are special enough to make that happen. It generally happens when these guys realize the fruitlessness of their labors, not some woman necessarily making it happen.

      In this story, the golden vagina syndrome rears its ugly head. The golden vagina syndrome, is just as mindless as the player syndrome. I believe they both feed on each other. I believe they tend to attract each other. After all it’s only the players who have the necessary skill to conquer the golden vagina syndrome. In fact the players derive the most pleasure from a woman with the golden vagina syndrome.

      I am not advocating women just run out and have sex with any guy. I think things should happen organically. A man is going to judge you by the standards you create for yourself. People hate hypocrisy. People hate being second fiddle. Deliberately making a man wait extra time because you genuinely like him, can backfire. He just might fall off the radar, or worse yet hold enough resentment after fact. You may think he will never find out, but he will. If a woman plays along with a cad, own it and enjoy it without regrets and attempts to feel like a victim after the fact.

      Golden vagina syndrome; Guy being a villain for wanting sex;

  3. LaMotta Says:

    There’s another possibility — she actually DID “just” want to have sex, and the whole “I’ve been had” thing plus “disappointment” is all feigned so she can preserve her self-image of Victorian Purity.

    I can’t prove it but I feel this has been the case numerous times in my past, where women really just wanted to fool around but had to convince themselves they wanted “a relationship” (in the process, misrepresenting to me that that is what they wanted). It would be nice if women didn’t have this mind-f**k thing going on constantly with the Victorian/non-slut complex, and they would be up front about not wanting something serious, rather than leading men on about being a serious partner.

    And they wonder why we keep many irons in the fire… women reserve the right to pretend to be long-term-focused and then just dump us abruptly for no reason so they can “look around more” (translation: even women need “action” but they can only do so in the guise of a long-term relationship…)

    Of course, this is less likely to be the case when they are in their 30s (and beyond) rather than 20s.

    In the 30s a new problem is presented, with the whole marriage-urgency and want-kids-yesterday thing…

    • Joey Giraud Says:

      It’s not Victorian-era morals, those are pretty much dead, even as some of the language is still around.

      It’s that women understandably have strong instincts to be very, very choosy about who to have sex with, since he may become the father of their child.

      • LaMotta Says:

        Yes… but women know that these days with prophylactics, having sex does not literally equal childbearing. I would hope the contrary belief is as dead as Victorian-era ethics.

        If men can’t “own” women, women can’t assume that every sexual encounter is pre-childbearing. You can’t abandon just SOME of the Victorian-era morals/ethics.

        • Joey Giraud Says:

          I wasn’t talking about what women *know*. I used the word “instinct.”

          Do you deny that people have instincts? Do you claim we’re purely rational creatures, in complete command of ourselves?

  4. Eliza Says:

    It’s very complicated LaMotta. Sometimes in the very beginning a woman is not that certain whether she truly wants a relationship with a man, yet does feel a physical chemistry that is strong. That’s why it’s usually best to wait a little while, get to know him/his personality…and then decide to take that next leap. I personally don’t see anything wrong with a woman enjoying sex, and being assertive. Don’t find that slutty at all.

    • The D-man Says:

      In my experience, women in their thirties and especially forties have dropped most of their hangups around sex and worrying about being seen as a slut, and they are hornier than ever. Yay!

    • LaMotta Says:

      That’s fine. This guy might have been interested in nothing but the physical, so if you have it right, you aren’t missing out on anything (except, I guess, sex that you are assuming wouldn’t be an appreciated addition to your life).

      I’m just addressing the situation where the woman assumes a man’s physical advances are malfeasant, yet he’s actually just being a normal guy. The challenge for women is to figure out which is which.

      The risk is that an extended “hold out” phase may distance the man and start sending signals that he has been friend-zoned, or is being used as entertainment. Conversely, getting physical (if you feel comfortable enough after dropping the paranoia) may simply be the prelude to an actual relationship. From what I have heard anecdotally, something like half of long-term relationships got physical pretty quickly, so I am not sue where the proof is that doing so somehow undermines a long term relationship.

      Howard’s comments are dead on … I’ve had similar experiences in the past where I was the “patient, nice guy” catering largely to the woman’s sense of pacing (I wouldn’t want to be a pushy “cad”, after all), and sure enough, some “cad” came along and (A) slept with her immediately, then (B) optionally dated her for a while.

      I’ve responded by more intentionally pushing things to become physical, and by keeping more “irons in the fire”. In short, behaving like more of a “typical man”. While some percentage of the time this “aggression” might turn away prospects, why would I want a prospect that just strings me along ambiguously for some undetermined amount of time?

      Looking back on my own dating experiences, I can’t discern any pattern to how long a relationship lasted based on how soon we slept together.

      In my current prospective relationship, I won the woman over to bed within a week of our first date. She said she was surprised by my assertiveness but apparently appreciates it as things are progressing nicely. I think what she’s more surprised by is her own positive response to my behaving a bit like a “shameless typical male”. My read: she “let down her defenses” a little for a guy she actually liked, and was rewarded.

  5. The D-man Says:

    Question for women: what’s the deal with calling after sex? Do women expect a phone call even if your entire communication up to that point has been text?

    A couple years ago I hooked up with a gal I’d met at a coffee shop. We always communicated by text, and one night she invited herself over and we got it on. I texted her the next day saying I enjoyed it (non dirty) and suggested we get together again. No response. Tried again. No response.

    I let it go at that point. Later a female friend told me it’s because I texted instead of calling.

    Maybe she just wasn’t that into me or perhaps felt ashamed for sleeping with a guy without even going on a date, but I do sometimes wonder if calling really would’ve made a difference.

    • larain Says:

      YES, calling would have mattered after it escalated to sex.

    • krismae Says:

      I don’t think you can say a specific situation would have been different, but I think generally you should continue the medium you were using prior to having sex. I personally appreciate hearing from the guy the next day, but if we were mainly texting before, then text would be fine. But just like there are people who insist on talking on the phone before meeting someone for a first meeting, I’m sure there are women who insist on getting a phone call after. In this situation, I’d be surprised if she’d cut ties with you just because you texted v.s. called. It sounds pretty casual all around.

      Also, for me, if I think it’s really just going to be a physical thing, I might cut it short. Only because I can’t do FWB without getting emotionally attached. Maybe she figured it was just going to be a physical thing, and she wanted to keep it to a one-time thing. Just a thought.

      • PhillyGal Says:

        So if you were texting beforehand, I don’t see the big deal. But some women are really touchy about that. Reaching out and saying you had fun after any type of encounter with a woman you want to see again is always good form…as is suggesting another time to see her.

    • Andthatswhyyouresingle Says:

      She wasn’t interested in seeing you again. If she were she wouldn’t have cared whether you sent a text or called. The only women who complain about stuff like that are women who weren’t interested in the first place and just like to gripe. As this post demonstrates, a woman will gladly relax her standards if the guy is good looking or charming enough. You obviously didn’t wow her enough to do that.

      • SB Says:

        Agree with Moxie on this one. If she slept with you without even going on a date, it was just a ONS, a hookup to her.

        She never had intentions of dating you; or, if she did, they disappeared after the sex. Texting v. calling doesn’t matter, and to the younger crowd of us, a phone call would appear needy and scare (me, anyway) off!

      • LaMotta Says:

        Agreed.

        Guys need to grow up about sex-for-sex’s-sake as well. It’s OK for a woman just want ONS/FWB or something non-serious. Don’t be too hurt if that’s all it is. No need to overthink it. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth ;)

    • The D-man Says:

      Fascinating. One girl insists that you should always call and another says it’s needy and would scare her off. A complicated world we live in…

      Lately I’ve leaned more toward phone calls. My theory is that it stands out from other guys. But also I’ve been told I have a sexy voice so ideally it comes across as confident, not needy.

      • LaMotta Says:

        If there’s one thing I’ve learned from this site, it’s that you shouldn’t look for a universal rule when it comes to female behavior ;)

        Aside from that, I would feel pretty blessed to have semi-regular experiences like your anecdote with women I met from non-bar/club environments. I would make my reasonable efforts to show appreciation, and if they don’t reciprocate, just appreciate what I got and move on.

  6. D. Says:

    Call if you want. Text if you want. Chances are if there’s sufficient chemistry, whatever you do will work fine. Personally, I prefer calling because I find it to be more…I dunno..personal. You’re that much closer to being a real human being rather than just words on a screen. Plus, I like hearing the other person’s voice. But hey, that’s just me.

  7. Michael Says:

    This guy did nothing wrong or “ungentlemanly.” They went out a first time and by all accounts “had a great time.” Did he want sex – of course he did he was dating her so sex is ALWAYS on the agenda. And if a woman is dating and sex isn’t at least potentially on the agenda for her then she is just using the man for free dinners and entertainment. On this second date they got physical and man did nothing inappropriate. This is evidenced by the fact that it was the content of his text message that set her off, not that he wanted another date. And this is where women screw it up all the time – getting angry at a man for being a man. Perhaps you are correct all he wanted was pussy. But perhaps he was just asking her out again in a funny way. Indeed, if he had a good time at her place the last time, why wouldn’t he want to repeat the experience? And if he did, why would he not want sex – sex is the whole point of dating and the reason why we form relationships. Instead of blowing him off, she could have texted him back something fun and flirtatious that indicated she would go out with him but not another dinner at her place. Whatever his motivations, this guy was just being a normal, red blooded, American man. Inasmuch as he may have only wanted to tap it out, if she was not into it that does not make her “wrong.” But, his message was vague and she could have found out by just responding. However, in reality she did not want to find out. All she wanted to do was gig this man because he wanted to fuck her – which again is circular because that’s what all men want. This is the kind of chick that will never be happy.

© 2013-2018 And That's Why You're Single All Rights Reserved