Romantic Advice Required

[Lilani]

To retort, in nature...does not the peacock strut his plumage to convince the lady 'cock that he is in fact the most mactastic feather-daddy who struts the plains? Does not the Warbler sing and learn funky noises as a form of courtship? Just because they do it differently doesn't mean that our way is any different from theirs in intent, only performed differently. I suppose then, that the real difference (I can only speculate. I can't speak to animals...) is that when such things are being done, the female is well-aware that the male is laying down his mac. In a sense, it's direct. A male peacock doesn't bow up his ass-fro just to say "Hey...you wanna be friends?" Flirting is a mating ritual (I don't understand how that can be considered 'crude' because that is what it is,) and it's a human's way of strutting ass plumage. I suppose that in our particular species (i'm not saying females of other species don't do this) it goes both ways, as women and men can 'peacock' and pick up. I'm also not saying that animals don't develop friendship either. Our genetic cousins (chimps being one of them) form bonds with both male and females, as having such bonds enable a better survival rate on the whole as well as providing mental stimulation. They too flirt, and the intent is very well known from the get-go. Also, I understand what you meant by "Flirting isn't a mating ritual any more than sex is a tedious ordeal to get to an orgasm." I feel that's not really a fair analogy, as I personally don't think sex is tedious at all. I enjoy sex, but I don't enjoy unnecessary mind games. Either you want me or you don't. I'm okay with either result. Just don't expect friendship. We may have a lot in common, but that one thing we don't have in common is enough for me to say 'no.' Call it immature if you like, but it's more mature than clinging. No one likes a clingy person.

As far as insults go, I don't think I said anything about anyone other than myself when it came to courtship rituals. If it works for them, cool. It doesn't work for me. Being direct after seeing how we get along works for me because as I said before, I don't like seeing the person I want enamored with someone else. You could argue that I should be happy for the girl in question because she is happy. Altruistic as that is, if I sought her out for a relationship it's always going to be like that and i've learned to let go entirely because let's face it, when that dynamic is present I myself don't really get over it. Might be a result of a mental deficiency (obsession more than likely) but that keeps me on friendly terms with the girl if I treat her more as an acquaintance than a friend and no one gets stressed and we don't end up exchanging awkward glances in public places.

There is a world of difference between a relationship and "mating." If sex is all you're after, then yeah I guess you could say it is a lot like nature. Go through the right motions to get them in your pants, and when you're tired of the move on. But if you want a relationship, then it's a lot more than that. For example, right now my boyfriend is off at Disney World and I'm stuck here back at home. He sends me pictures a couple of times a day, and I send him texts asking how things are and giving him advice as to which attractions he and his family should go for. We don't do this because we're determined to get into each other's pants. If that were our end goal, I wouldn't give a shit about what he's doing all the way down in Florida. We do it because we care about each other and what's going on.

And you seem to understand this as well, the way you were head over heels for "Roose." I mean, you can't tell me after all you wrote about her the ONLY thing you wanted was to get into her pants. That the ONLY reason she mattered to you was because she seemed like a suitable vagina to insert your DNA matter into. And if that is how you saw her, then yes. That is immature, and it's safe to say Roose does deserve better than somebody who regards spending time with her as a "tedious mating ordeal." The way I see it, the only reason you're resorting to objectifying the ideal of love so much and breaking it down to merely being a "mating ritual" is because you got hurt here and now you want to keep that from happening again. Which is fine, you should deal with your pain however you see fit. But just remember that the more walls you put up and the more artificially you treat your potential "mates," the more artificial your relationship with them will be. Mating is sex. A relationship is being willing to stick around long after the sweat dries, and long after the likelihood of sex has waned (as in, old age).

 

[Patrick Hayes]

You seem to think that sex isn't inherently important in a romantic relationship. It's an assumption of course, I can't read your mind. But! Having said that, yes I understand there is a world of difference between the two. However, you don't mate in friendships, just as you don't mate with just any Tom, Dick or Harry because he's got the mac down. There is a reason you lie with one another and if that reason wasn't there, then he wouldn't be your boyfriend. True enough, I'm happy for you that you've managed to find both a friend and a mate. Ideally, that's what I want in the end. Roose and I had a very good rapport. She wasn't drop dead OMG gorgeous, but I'd like to think I outgrew that sort of thing. She is cute though. How many girls can you say know about Boatmurdered, or can keep up in a discussion about Fist of the North Star? Not many. Not even my best friend (a male) can say he knows about Boatmurdered or FotNS other than things I tell him. Without a healthy sexual desire for each other, you might as well be just friends with your boyfriend.

Having said all that, and yes there is an assumption in there so please don't take it as me trying to read you (I can't) I'm not going to dance around the subject of wanting to date. I ask, straightforward without hesitation for that person if she'd like to go out with me sometime. I make plain that I like her, and if she says no, that's fine. I'll ask again another time. A second no? Okay, but now I tell her that i'm interested still. I make sure that she knows that this is what she can expect if we stay in contact because well...I like her. Usually this is when we have the talk and is she so desires, she walks away. No one gets hurt and no one exchanges odd glances in public. To you, this may seem obtuse (and it is) but for me it works. Now, I see you argue this as me putting up a wall. I argue that this is me without a wall in the way. You view me cutting Roose off as protecting my emotions, I view it as amicable parting. I don't like drama.

As for old age...I think more or less that if I get old and my junk stops working like it did, by that time i'd either be single or have a wife that also lost interest in a romp in the sheets (which I hope doesn't happen because I like being able to get a boner) and that our relationship is to the point where we are best friends on a level no one else could hope to achieve. Something my current best friend could never hope for, much as I love him like my brother.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

To make things a little easier, I'm going to refer to the person who wants a romantic relationship as the "Seeker" and the person who isn't interested in the relationship as the "Object". These terms are loaded in other contexts, but I am not attributing any negative connotations to them here. It's just shorthand for the sake of brevity.

I think this is a bit harsh, and completely disregards the person who wants a relationship's ability to make their own decisions.

I tried not to give this impression. "When you know the other person wants something more" is meant to convey a (more or less) complete understanding of the Seeker's feelings. If the Seeker is dishonest about his/her feelings and convincingly amicable about a platonic understanding, it is mostly ridiculous to blame the Object for any further drama. On the other hand, in almost anything, ignorance is only a valid excuse to a point. I mean if everyone who knows the two principles involved can easily recognize the unrequited love between them, and the unhealthy feelings and behavior that often times result, deniability will only carry the Object so far. Sometimes being a good friend means you need to do what is best for him/her even when he/she doesn't realize it.

I had a friend who was flirting with me for a while, and I admit out of an ignorance as to what I should do about it I "led him on" for a while. But when I was finally able to find a time to let him down, he seemed to take it well enough. I mentioned I still wanted to be friends, and he never said anything to object to that. His general reaction was that he was glad it cleared up any awkwardness between us. I rarely see him IRL this time of year, but we're still friends on Facebook and nothing much has changed in the way we interact there.

If he continues to harbor feelings for me, he hasn't done anything to indicate so, so I don't see how it should be my fault if this is torturing him. If he's got a problem with staying friends, then he should say so and do something about it. I'm not clairvoyant. If he tells me everything is okay and he's behaving normally, forgive me if I ACTUALLY assume that everything is okay. I'm not going to insult his intelligence or feed my vanity by assuming he still has feelings for me that he is completely incapable of dealing with, and that I must sever all contact to end his agony which he isn't outwardly displaying in any way, shape, or form.

If the other person's struggles are invisible, you're very right to suggest they may not exist. And if they don't, in fact, exist, then congratulations to you and your friend (that sounds sarcastic but it isn't, I swear!) for navigating a typically sticky situation successfully. From what you've laid out here, aside your initial and totally forgivable inability to reject him sooner, no one in your situation has done anything remotely wrong.

My point is that if you know or greatly suspect he still wants something more, and this desire continually alters his behavior towards you and other people (such as being closed off to other relationships because he's "saving himself for you"), you do at some point have a duty to cut him off and allow him to get over you. In the Seeker/Object relationship, one person is thinking rationally and one person is not. You can obviously chalk that up to "them's the breaks, not your responsibility", and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. I simply think that if you possess basic human compassion, or if you value the well-being of someone who is supposedly your friend, you stand up and make the tough call for the benefit of everyone involved.

I'm certain there are monstrous ways of dealing with these people and leading them on, but I think saying that ALL people who maintain a friendship even knowing the other desires or desired a relationship are monsters and is an unhelpful generalization. If the person who has the feelings is allowing themselves to get led on even after they've gotten a definitive answer, then at least some of the "blame" is on them for not taking the hint and finding a way to deal with it. If they are really getting hurt by keeping the friendship alive, then they should muster up the courage and do it themselves. If you're in pain you shouldn't sit around waiting for somebody else to notice and deal with it. Do something about it yourself.

A valid point of view, I suppose. At the same time, what are you gaining from the continued friendship that is more important than doing what you can to put an end to his (hypothetical) pain? In all likelihood, he will eventually come to his senses and get over you. But if you recognize that his feelings for you are causing him problems, why wouldn't you exercise some compassion and create the space necessary for him to move on as quickly as possible? I mean you probably do a lot of things for your friends to help them through whatever hard times they face. If the helpful thing, in this case, is to cut the friend off, isn't that the right move?

In some ways, your detachment from the situation, or your refusal to accept responsibility for another person's feelings, is extremely fair and rational. But is that how we usually think of friends? Don't we usually go above and beyond rational to take care of the people we consider our friends? I guess I'm seeing a bit of mirroring here; some people say he's not your friend if he can't maintain friendship despite romantic feelings, but is the girl his friend if she can't put his well-being ahead of her desire to avoid an awkward/painful breaking-off?

There are obviously a ton of degrees involved here, and it helps to hold that fact up as a qualifier presiding over all of these discussions. If a statement comes off as a definitive one rather than a generalization, it's probably a compositional error rather than someone being a complete idiot.