Is this crush turning me into an asshole?
December 23, 2007 8:21 AM Subscribe
I am infatuated with someone, and confused as to how to proceed.
I met someone at a party the other night, and developed a pretty overwhelming crush on her. Overwhelming enough that I would dramatically rearrange my life for the sake of a relationship with her. She was quite clearly ensconced, though, so I decided to drop it (not very effectively, I suppose, or I wouldn't be thinking this way.) But then I heard from a friend who stayed at the party after I left that her and her apparent boyfriend both appeared to be scoping out other people for the rest of the night.
One way to cut through this uncertainty would be to befriend them and get a clearer picture of where she is. But her boyfriend pretty clearly didn't like me much, so that will be awkward. A further complication is that I didn't get her contact info, but she did tell me the Buddhist center she attends. I'm Buddhist, too, and there's a talk at the center soon which I would be mildly interested in attending, so there is a somewhat awkward pretext for probably meeting her again. But this seems like border-line stalking. If I do try to befriend them, my actual motive is probably going to be clear to them.
The level-headed answer here is to wait for some less complicated opportunity to arise. But I haven't experienced this kind of infatuation for almost 12 years. Generally, my relationships have evolved from my observing "This person wants me. This could be good for us," and frankly have been fairly tepid on my side and have never ended well. This time I don't just think it would be good intellectually. I want this to an extent which is pretty rare for me.
Let's say she is at least potentially happily ensconced, and I am too clumsy to sound things out without them apprehending my feelings. Unless they have some kind of poly thing going, the behavior my friend observed suggests they're in trouble. If I pursued this by attempting to befriend them is there a substantial risk that I would harm there relationship further? Or if you think I will be making some other kind of asshole of myself by pursuing this, I would be interested in hearing about that, too.
This plate of beans has been overthought for you by still.adolescent.at.35@gmail.com.
I met someone at a party the other night, and developed a pretty overwhelming crush on her. Overwhelming enough that I would dramatically rearrange my life for the sake of a relationship with her. She was quite clearly ensconced, though, so I decided to drop it (not very effectively, I suppose, or I wouldn't be thinking this way.) But then I heard from a friend who stayed at the party after I left that her and her apparent boyfriend both appeared to be scoping out other people for the rest of the night.
One way to cut through this uncertainty would be to befriend them and get a clearer picture of where she is. But her boyfriend pretty clearly didn't like me much, so that will be awkward. A further complication is that I didn't get her contact info, but she did tell me the Buddhist center she attends. I'm Buddhist, too, and there's a talk at the center soon which I would be mildly interested in attending, so there is a somewhat awkward pretext for probably meeting her again. But this seems like border-line stalking. If I do try to befriend them, my actual motive is probably going to be clear to them.
The level-headed answer here is to wait for some less complicated opportunity to arise. But I haven't experienced this kind of infatuation for almost 12 years. Generally, my relationships have evolved from my observing "This person wants me. This could be good for us," and frankly have been fairly tepid on my side and have never ended well. This time I don't just think it would be good intellectually. I want this to an extent which is pretty rare for me.
Let's say she is at least potentially happily ensconced, and I am too clumsy to sound things out without them apprehending my feelings. Unless they have some kind of poly thing going, the behavior my friend observed suggests they're in trouble. If I pursued this by attempting to befriend them is there a substantial risk that I would harm there relationship further? Or if you think I will be making some other kind of asshole of myself by pursuing this, I would be interested in hearing about that, too.
This plate of beans has been overthought for you by still.adolescent.at.35@gmail.com.
I really don't see this ending well. In my case, whenever I pursued relationships where I felt the kind of "overwhelming crush" you describe, I always ended up humiliating myself one way or another (by, say, awkwardly appearing in places I knew they were likely to be!) I humiliated myself multiple times, alas.
If she didn't have a boyfriend, I'd still tell you to go after her, but with a boyfriend who "clearly" didn't like you in the picture, I advise you to cherish the feeling you have and strive to not sully it by doing something you will regret.
If you do want to be their friend, do not try to approach her through her buddhist center, unless she invites you. I would say the best bet is to try and get the mutual friend to have some sort of small party that they are likely to attend.
The best bet is to wait until they break up.
posted by milarepa at 8:41 AM on December 23, 2007
If she didn't have a boyfriend, I'd still tell you to go after her, but with a boyfriend who "clearly" didn't like you in the picture, I advise you to cherish the feeling you have and strive to not sully it by doing something you will regret.
If you do want to be their friend, do not try to approach her through her buddhist center, unless she invites you. I would say the best bet is to try and get the mutual friend to have some sort of small party that they are likely to attend.
The best bet is to wait until they break up.
posted by milarepa at 8:41 AM on December 23, 2007
If I pursued this by attempting to befriend them is there a substantial risk that I would harm there relationship further?
Yes.
Or if you think I will be making some other kind of asshole of myself by pursuing this,
Yes.
Unless you really get off on DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA, why even begin to get involved in a situation like this? It has all the magic elements: she has a boyfriend already, you are considering acting like a stalker, your friend is reporting gossipy and possible false information about how they act when you aren't there, and if it blows up in public it could embarrass you at the Buddhist centers. What more could you want?
Infatuations are a lot of fun, and go ahead and enjoy your feelings. But don't behave like a stalker weirdo, or like a "home wrecker," or like any of the other less palatable options available to you. Infatuations fade with time, and in the meantime you can keep your eyes open for someone who excites you and who doesn't come with all these complications.
posted by Forktine at 8:42 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yes.
Or if you think I will be making some other kind of asshole of myself by pursuing this,
Yes.
Unless you really get off on DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA, why even begin to get involved in a situation like this? It has all the magic elements: she has a boyfriend already, you are considering acting like a stalker, your friend is reporting gossipy and possible false information about how they act when you aren't there, and if it blows up in public it could embarrass you at the Buddhist centers. What more could you want?
Infatuations are a lot of fun, and go ahead and enjoy your feelings. But don't behave like a stalker weirdo, or like a "home wrecker," or like any of the other less palatable options available to you. Infatuations fade with time, and in the meantime you can keep your eyes open for someone who excites you and who doesn't come with all these complications.
posted by Forktine at 8:42 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
And if you aren't already, take time in your practice to deal with this.
posted by phrontist at 8:47 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by phrontist at 8:47 AM on December 23, 2007
Relationships are built on a foundation of attraction tempered with opportunity. You can skimp on the latter only if you have plenty of the former. Your best bet is to lay low. Have a few bons mot at hand just in case you cross paths again. And if you don't, let this be a gentle reminder that the world holds more beauty than one man can fully enjoy.
posted by felix betachat at 8:51 AM on December 23, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by felix betachat at 8:51 AM on December 23, 2007 [4 favorites]
Since you're a self-proclaimed Buddhist, and so am I*, let me offer you a few thoughts from that perspective.
If she's with someone, chasing her is a violation of the third precept (you know, "I undertake to refrain from sexual misconduct"). It's also infringing on the second precept (I won't take anything that is not freely given, i.e., I won't steal). Whether you've committed to the precepts or not, adultery just leads to suffering. The precepts aren't moralistic rules, they're just common-sense statements of simple cause and effect. Your attachment to this woman is already causing you anxiety. What does anxiety have to do with love or happiness?
If I do try to befriend them, my actual motive is probably going to be clear to them.
Remember, one part of the eightfold path is "right intention." 'Nuff said about that.
The whole thing just smacks of attachment and delusion. I strongly urge you to just sit on it for awhile and pay attention to these desires that come up. Is having a relationship with this person really what's going to bring happiness? Is that really what's missing from your life? Or is your ego tricking you into thinking that?
It's not about you being an asshole or doing something "wrong." It's about whether or not you want to cause or prevent suffering for yourself and others. The ways to prevent suffering are pretty well known, and Buddhism is pretty much common-sense. The same kind of man-woman drama was happening 2400 years ago, and Buddha laid down a pretty good roadmap for relieving stress and suffering. He also described the hells of craving and delusion pretty well. If you choose to get off the path, don't say you haven't been warned.
*I am a lay buddhist, not ordained.
posted by desjardins at 9:12 AM on December 23, 2007 [23 favorites]
If she's with someone, chasing her is a violation of the third precept (you know, "I undertake to refrain from sexual misconduct"). It's also infringing on the second precept (I won't take anything that is not freely given, i.e., I won't steal). Whether you've committed to the precepts or not, adultery just leads to suffering. The precepts aren't moralistic rules, they're just common-sense statements of simple cause and effect. Your attachment to this woman is already causing you anxiety. What does anxiety have to do with love or happiness?
If I do try to befriend them, my actual motive is probably going to be clear to them.
Remember, one part of the eightfold path is "right intention." 'Nuff said about that.
The whole thing just smacks of attachment and delusion. I strongly urge you to just sit on it for awhile and pay attention to these desires that come up. Is having a relationship with this person really what's going to bring happiness? Is that really what's missing from your life? Or is your ego tricking you into thinking that?
It's not about you being an asshole or doing something "wrong." It's about whether or not you want to cause or prevent suffering for yourself and others. The ways to prevent suffering are pretty well known, and Buddhism is pretty much common-sense. The same kind of man-woman drama was happening 2400 years ago, and Buddha laid down a pretty good roadmap for relieving stress and suffering. He also described the hells of craving and delusion pretty well. If you choose to get off the path, don't say you haven't been warned.
*I am a lay buddhist, not ordained.
posted by desjardins at 9:12 AM on December 23, 2007 [23 favorites]
> I'm Buddhist, too, and there's a talk at the center soon which I would be mildly interested in attending, so there is a somewhat awkward pretext for probably meeting her again. But this seems like border-line stalking.
Nah, not awkward. Go for it. Mindfully. But don't try to make friends with the couple. That's a crazy idea. Creepy. (I guess we all have creepy thoughts once in a while.) My general rule for infatuations has been to run the other direction and do some thinking, because getting on that roller coaster is no fun. Go to the talk, but be cautious and mindful.
posted by Listener at 9:12 AM on December 23, 2007
Nah, not awkward. Go for it. Mindfully. But don't try to make friends with the couple. That's a crazy idea. Creepy. (I guess we all have creepy thoughts once in a while.) My general rule for infatuations has been to run the other direction and do some thinking, because getting on that roller coaster is no fun. Go to the talk, but be cautious and mindful.
posted by Listener at 9:12 AM on December 23, 2007
Why don't you go to the talk and exchange contract info with her if she shows? Keep her as a casual acquaintance--becoming full-fledged friends will just be drama-rama--and if she drops the boyfriend then move her from the back burner to the front of the stove.
posted by lockestockbarrel at 9:14 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by lockestockbarrel at 9:14 AM on December 23, 2007
I agree with Forktine, but even if she does like you, and dumps her boyfriend for you (which is unlikely to happen), it will just be a rebound relationship.
You gotta go out there and take chances, and not wait 12 years for things to come along!
posted by mpls2 at 9:14 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
You gotta go out there and take chances, and not wait 12 years for things to come along!
posted by mpls2 at 9:14 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
It sounds like you could benefit from knowing more about the status of her relationship, just to attempt to focus the question a little. I'm not sure how to do that, though -- maybe figure out some way to ask a friend.
posted by amtho at 9:16 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by amtho at 9:16 AM on December 23, 2007
I heard from a friend who stayed at the party after I left that her and her apparent boyfriend both appeared to be scoping out other people for the rest of the night.
That is really weak. Bottom Line: She is in a relationship, stay away. Though if you have a trusted mutual friend you could ask that person to let you know if she is ever single.
posted by LarryC at 9:32 AM on December 23, 2007
That is really weak. Bottom Line: She is in a relationship, stay away. Though if you have a trusted mutual friend you could ask that person to let you know if she is ever single.
posted by LarryC at 9:32 AM on December 23, 2007
Reading this as an outside observer, it seems like you are looking for a justification ("after I left...her and her apparent boyfriend both appeared to be scoping out other people for the rest of the night", "the behavior my friend observed suggests they're in trouble") to excuse behaving in a way you feel in your gut is wrong (intentionally interfering with the relationship of an existing couple because you are interested in one of the parties).
It appears you are further trying to justify this behavior by overdramatically portraying this as an attraction so intense normally accepted mores of behavior don't apply. Maybe I'm not romantic enough, but comments like "I would dramatically rearrange my life for the sake of a relationship with her" just don't ring true after having met someone *ONE* time at a party. You have no idea what this woman is really like after having only met her a single time at a social function, so you are simply not qualified to make such a strong statement yet.
I think you may have made too big of a deal out of a one-time physical attraction and are setting yourself up for gross disappointment if you really believe any of what appear to harebrained schemes suggested in the OP (befriending this couple until the magical moment where your master plan can be unveiled arises, joining a Buddhist temple with the intention of using it as a singles bar) are going to lead to love.
posted by The Gooch at 9:40 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
It appears you are further trying to justify this behavior by overdramatically portraying this as an attraction so intense normally accepted mores of behavior don't apply. Maybe I'm not romantic enough, but comments like "I would dramatically rearrange my life for the sake of a relationship with her" just don't ring true after having met someone *ONE* time at a party. You have no idea what this woman is really like after having only met her a single time at a social function, so you are simply not qualified to make such a strong statement yet.
I think you may have made too big of a deal out of a one-time physical attraction and are setting yourself up for gross disappointment if you really believe any of what appear to harebrained schemes suggested in the OP (befriending this couple until the magical moment where your master plan can be unveiled arises, joining a Buddhist temple with the intention of using it as a singles bar) are going to lead to love.
posted by The Gooch at 9:40 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
The level-headed answer here is to wait for some less complicated opportunity to arise.
Yup.
Look for something that is an issue in your life right nowthat is causing you to focus on situations which aren't solvable. Its called obsession.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:58 AM on December 23, 2007
Yup.
Look for something that is an issue in your life right nowthat is causing you to focus on situations which aren't solvable. Its called obsession.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:58 AM on December 23, 2007
From my extensive experience with this kind of thing, women with boyfriends have boyfriends until they don't have them anymore. I'm sure some men have stolen some women from some other men, but it's definitely the exception.
I've wasted large parts of my life in situations like this. Sometimes I end up with the couple as friends as a result, which is nice. But I would have had the same result with less heartache if I'd just made friends with them instead of trying to get in the ladies pants.
posted by sully75 at 10:10 AM on December 23, 2007
I've wasted large parts of my life in situations like this. Sometimes I end up with the couple as friends as a result, which is nice. But I would have had the same result with less heartache if I'd just made friends with them instead of trying to get in the ladies pants.
posted by sully75 at 10:10 AM on December 23, 2007
I have found that the best way to overcome a crush is to get to know someone a little bit. Don't chase her, of course - she's in a relationship. But if you'd actually like attend that event, why not just go ahead? You already have a bona fide connection by attending the same center, so it's not stalking.
Just be careful to listen to her rather than mining her remarks for potentially encouraging information. And try to relax so you don't do anything regrettable. You could end up learning that you were keying off something that isn't really essential about her, discovering the kind of thing that has made things tepid with others, or even end up with a nice friend. Who, even if happily ensconced, might introduce you to someone else you like even more.
posted by caitlinb at 10:20 AM on December 23, 2007
Just be careful to listen to her rather than mining her remarks for potentially encouraging information. And try to relax so you don't do anything regrettable. You could end up learning that you were keying off something that isn't really essential about her, discovering the kind of thing that has made things tepid with others, or even end up with a nice friend. Who, even if happily ensconced, might introduce you to someone else you like even more.
posted by caitlinb at 10:20 AM on December 23, 2007
You met this woman once at a party. For all you know, she could decorate her house with Precious Moments figurines or have terrible politics or spend her spare time kicking puppies.
I'm sure she's lovely, but my point is, you don't know her at all. It's not worth rearranging your life or screwing up her relationship for this. There are three billion(ish) women on this planet; I'm sure there's another equally lovely and single one out there for you to be with.
posted by streetdreams at 10:29 AM on December 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
I'm sure she's lovely, but my point is, you don't know her at all. It's not worth rearranging your life or screwing up her relationship for this. There are three billion(ish) women on this planet; I'm sure there's another equally lovely and single one out there for you to be with.
posted by streetdreams at 10:29 AM on December 23, 2007 [3 favorites]
I would find contact info for her in the most straightforward way possible (do you HAVE to meet her at the center? Can you google her and get an email address?). If I had not choice but to meet her at the center, I would prepare an out -- so that she doesn't feel stalked. I would approach her shortly before leaving and say, "Hi. I enjoyed meeting you at the party. I have to go, but I'd love to meet you for coffee some time." Then I'd hand her a card and go.
Would that make me an asshole who is hurting her relationship? No. Because everyone in question is a grownup, right? If he relationship can't stand up to an offer of coffee, then it's already doomed.
Don't stalk her. Don't try to seduce her. Don't involve yourself in drama. Just show that you're interested and put the ball in her court. And move on if she doesn't take the ball and run with it.
Assuming that showing interest (in a non-threatening) way will harm her or her relationship is condescending. She can always say no. Maybe she'll say yes.
posted by grumblebee at 10:34 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Would that make me an asshole who is hurting her relationship? No. Because everyone in question is a grownup, right? If he relationship can't stand up to an offer of coffee, then it's already doomed.
Don't stalk her. Don't try to seduce her. Don't involve yourself in drama. Just show that you're interested and put the ball in her court. And move on if she doesn't take the ball and run with it.
Assuming that showing interest (in a non-threatening) way will harm her or her relationship is condescending. She can always say no. Maybe she'll say yes.
posted by grumblebee at 10:34 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
If you haven't felt this floored by someone in 12 years, you owe it to yourself to explore it. I think you need to be bold, declare the attraction, not try and pussyfoot around befriending them as a couple because that is wimpy and false. You are experiencing a flood of emotions and trying to "reason" with it through intellect. That kind of attraction doesn't come from an intellectual place. Let it be what it is and follow it to the end. So what if you make an ass of yourself. It is better to lay your cards on the table and fully declare yourself and let the chips fall where they may than to be wimpy, ask around, scheme, brood, etc. Just go for it. As someone said to me about an attraction a while ago, after a certain age, that whole "there are plenty of fish in the sea" thing just isn't true. There aren't that many fish, there aren't that many people who make you flush with excitement and turn you on in every way. You owe it to yourself to give it a shot, an honest shot, a heart-filled shot. Leave your ego out of it, be willing to fail. Falling flat on your face is not as bad as wondering what could have been. Be a warrior. Good luck.
posted by 45moore45 at 10:34 AM on December 23, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by 45moore45 at 10:34 AM on December 23, 2007 [6 favorites]
... "Hi. I enjoyed meeting you at the party. I have to go, but I'd love to meet you for coffee some time." ... Would that make me an asshole who is hurting her relationship? No. Because everyone in question is a grownup, right?
This is also called "asking someone out on a date." If someone googled me and did this - right after meeting me at a party I was at with a boyfriend - I would consider him remarkably deaf to social cues and pretty intrusive.
posted by caitlinb at 10:43 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
This is also called "asking someone out on a date." If someone googled me and did this - right after meeting me at a party I was at with a boyfriend - I would consider him remarkably deaf to social cues and pretty intrusive.
posted by caitlinb at 10:43 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Agreed with above, you should get out more and meet more people. There are a lot of interesting, beautiful women in the world. It's easier to meet them when you're more secure, socially, which takes time and experience.
posted by milinar at 10:48 AM on December 23, 2007
posted by milinar at 10:48 AM on December 23, 2007
If this infatuation is as overwhelming as you say, there's only a couple things I can think of that will help you.
First, you can pursue this to its inevitably ugly and (for you) humiliating end. Send her "secret admirer" gifts. Ask all her friends about her. Introduce her boyfriend to Adriana Lima. Understand that she DOES NOT feel the way about you that you do about her - otherwise, you'd today be asking for honeymoon advice.
Second, you can recognize that this infatuation is not really about her - at least, mostly not about her, no matter how neat/smart/pretty she is - and it's about you. Something about her set off an emotional time bomb that was buried deep within you. Perhaps she reminds you of someone else, without you consciously realizing it. Because you JUST MET HER there must be some post-reptilian part of your brain that recognizes that the emotions you're feeling right now are unlikely to be sustained should she actually end up dating you. (C'mon, don't you ever watch TV? Getting the girl ALWAYS wrecks things.)
Once you start getting to know her there will be a dozen little things that bug you about her and that will materially affect the strength of your feelings. Got an ex with a really annoying habit? Spend about thirty minutes vividly imagining this girl with that bad habit - leaving the bathroom door open, leaving the cap off the toothpaste, taking all your money and running off with the tennis pro... whatever. That should at least bring your feelings back into the range of manageability.
Also, it might be worthwhile for you to figure out exactly what this girl is triggering in you, so you can deal with that, too. If it's memories of an ex- or an unrequited past crush, that ought to make the visualization exercise a lot easier.
Third, I could be totally wrong. She's on another website somewhere, posting an identical question about HER new secret crush, and how she was going to dump her boyfriend anyway. In that case, definitely let us know when you sell the movie rights.
posted by mikewas at 10:54 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
First, you can pursue this to its inevitably ugly and (for you) humiliating end. Send her "secret admirer" gifts. Ask all her friends about her. Introduce her boyfriend to Adriana Lima. Understand that she DOES NOT feel the way about you that you do about her - otherwise, you'd today be asking for honeymoon advice.
Second, you can recognize that this infatuation is not really about her - at least, mostly not about her, no matter how neat/smart/pretty she is - and it's about you. Something about her set off an emotional time bomb that was buried deep within you. Perhaps she reminds you of someone else, without you consciously realizing it. Because you JUST MET HER there must be some post-reptilian part of your brain that recognizes that the emotions you're feeling right now are unlikely to be sustained should she actually end up dating you. (C'mon, don't you ever watch TV? Getting the girl ALWAYS wrecks things.)
Once you start getting to know her there will be a dozen little things that bug you about her and that will materially affect the strength of your feelings. Got an ex with a really annoying habit? Spend about thirty minutes vividly imagining this girl with that bad habit - leaving the bathroom door open, leaving the cap off the toothpaste, taking all your money and running off with the tennis pro... whatever. That should at least bring your feelings back into the range of manageability.
Also, it might be worthwhile for you to figure out exactly what this girl is triggering in you, so you can deal with that, too. If it's memories of an ex- or an unrequited past crush, that ought to make the visualization exercise a lot easier.
Third, I could be totally wrong. She's on another website somewhere, posting an identical question about HER new secret crush, and how she was going to dump her boyfriend anyway. In that case, definitely let us know when you sell the movie rights.
posted by mikewas at 10:54 AM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
Overwhelming enough that I would dramatically rearrange my life for the sake of a relationship with her.
No one wants to date someone wrapped around their finger.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:57 AM on December 23, 2007
No one wants to date someone wrapped around their finger.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:57 AM on December 23, 2007
Being a jerk is knowingly hurting someone (unknowingly is just being dumb.) However, you don't have enough information in this case to know whether or not you'll hurt either the girl you like or her boyfriend by pursuing her. Some people don't like competition and would take it as an insult. Some people are flattered by attention. Bottom line: you don't know.
Since you don't know, it doesn't make you a half-jerk, it means it's a risk, and you have to decide if you want to take that risk.
Don't worry about the ruining a relationship thing, anyway. You can't ruin a good relationship. You can, however, catalyze the breakup of a bad relationship, and that's just doing everyone a favor.
posted by reebear at 11:29 AM on December 23, 2007
Since you don't know, it doesn't make you a half-jerk, it means it's a risk, and you have to decide if you want to take that risk.
Don't worry about the ruining a relationship thing, anyway. You can't ruin a good relationship. You can, however, catalyze the breakup of a bad relationship, and that's just doing everyone a favor.
posted by reebear at 11:29 AM on December 23, 2007
You're quite blatantly interested in her. But the missing piece of the puzzle is, is she interested in you?
Things might be rough with her boyfriend. She might be considering leaving him. You may well go to the same Buddhist Centre. None of these things means that she's interested in pursuing a relationship with you. She's in a relationship with someone else. She's not even "on the market". The safest thing to do would be to become acquaintances, and stay that way, up until such point as she gives you a clear clue as to her interest in you.
I've been infatuated with someone. I was for nearly a year. All that someone eventually did was walk out of my life. I'm not saying that that's going to happen to you. But just because you want something to happen as much as you apparently do, that doesn't mean that it will.
posted by Solomon at 12:02 PM on December 23, 2007
Things might be rough with her boyfriend. She might be considering leaving him. You may well go to the same Buddhist Centre. None of these things means that she's interested in pursuing a relationship with you. She's in a relationship with someone else. She's not even "on the market". The safest thing to do would be to become acquaintances, and stay that way, up until such point as she gives you a clear clue as to her interest in you.
I've been infatuated with someone. I was for nearly a year. All that someone eventually did was walk out of my life. I'm not saying that that's going to happen to you. But just because you want something to happen as much as you apparently do, that doesn't mean that it will.
posted by Solomon at 12:02 PM on December 23, 2007
Infatuation has never served me well. By the time I got out of college, I learned to perceive that feeling as an alarm and not as a welcoming beacon. If she is not returning the glance, and she's not flirting with you, trying to artificially make something happen is unwise.
She's physically attractive. She smells nice. Her voice is pleasant to your ears. Her skin appears to be soft and with an acceptable level of blemishes. She can dress and feed herself. She can breathe. She has a pulse. These are not signs of a life-long relationship. These are subjective preferences for a one night stand. YMMV.
She enjoys spending time with you. The two of you have some things in common. She's easy to talk to. She seems sincerely interested in you. You know you are interested in what's going on inside her head. These are examples of things you should be looking for. There may be someone in your life right now who has traits like that but you've always seen her as a friend. I'd recommend developing relationships where you have already invested time and resources.
I would suggest that next time you see her, even and especially if she is with her boyfriend, confront her, introduce yourself, admit your infatuation, and allow her to reject you outright. Preferably allow her boyfriend to beat your skull in At which point you will immediately be cured of your infatuation, and can move on with your life happy as a clam.
Love at first sight is a lie. It does not really exist. I may be showing my cultural ignorance here, but until now I presumed most buddhists already figured this one out.
If none of this has dissuaded you from artificially turning an infatuation into something more, then I recommend this book by Sharyn Wolf. Actually, I don't. I have read parts of it years ago. It was mildly amusing at points, but this borders on stalker behavior. I only suggest it here cuz if you try it and it bombs miserably (or doesn't who knows?) it is my hope you come back here and tell us every embarrassing detail. Should be good for a laugh or two. *smirk*
posted by ZachsMind at 1:17 PM on December 23, 2007
She's physically attractive. She smells nice. Her voice is pleasant to your ears. Her skin appears to be soft and with an acceptable level of blemishes. She can dress and feed herself. She can breathe. She has a pulse. These are not signs of a life-long relationship. These are subjective preferences for a one night stand. YMMV.
She enjoys spending time with you. The two of you have some things in common. She's easy to talk to. She seems sincerely interested in you. You know you are interested in what's going on inside her head. These are examples of things you should be looking for. There may be someone in your life right now who has traits like that but you've always seen her as a friend. I'd recommend developing relationships where you have already invested time and resources.
I would suggest that next time you see her, even and especially if she is with her boyfriend, confront her, introduce yourself, admit your infatuation, and allow her to reject you outright. Preferably allow her boyfriend to beat your skull in At which point you will immediately be cured of your infatuation, and can move on with your life happy as a clam.
Love at first sight is a lie. It does not really exist. I may be showing my cultural ignorance here, but until now I presumed most buddhists already figured this one out.
If none of this has dissuaded you from artificially turning an infatuation into something more, then I recommend this book by Sharyn Wolf. Actually, I don't. I have read parts of it years ago. It was mildly amusing at points, but this borders on stalker behavior. I only suggest it here cuz if you try it and it bombs miserably (or doesn't who knows?) it is my hope you come back here and tell us every embarrassing detail. Should be good for a laugh or two. *smirk*
posted by ZachsMind at 1:17 PM on December 23, 2007
I don't think it's being an asshole to show that you're interested in someone who's in a relationship, unless it's a marriage-equivalent relationship. I think it's being a manipulative asshole to pretend to have a friendly interest when you don't. Think what you would do if you didn't know she had a boyfriend (and you *don't* know their story, relationships can be complicated), and do it. As long as you're straightforward and sensitive enough to hear and respect even a tacit/subtle rejection of your attention/pursuit, I think you're all right.
posted by Salamandrous at 1:19 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by Salamandrous at 1:19 PM on December 23, 2007
It's also infringing on the second precept (I won't take anything that is not freely given, i.e., I won't steal).
I don't understand this point. The woman's sexuality is hers to share, not her boyfriends. As long as he's not planning on coercing her, how could he be 'stealing' anything? It think putting sexuality in these proprietary terms is really problematic, no matter what religious commandments it's associated with.
posted by Salamandrous at 1:25 PM on December 23, 2007
I don't understand this point. The woman's sexuality is hers to share, not her boyfriends. As long as he's not planning on coercing her, how could he be 'stealing' anything? It think putting sexuality in these proprietary terms is really problematic, no matter what religious commandments it's associated with.
posted by Salamandrous at 1:25 PM on December 23, 2007
That she and her boyfriend talked to people at a party, separately, does not necessarily mean they were 'scoping other people out'.
But if they were checking out other potential partners, and she didn't come on to you, then perhaps she's not attracted to you.
My advice: Buy a fedora and a pinstripe suit and you'll be fighting off the laydees with a baseball bat.
posted by essexjan at 2:02 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
But if they were checking out other potential partners, and she didn't come on to you, then perhaps she's not attracted to you.
My advice: Buy a fedora and a pinstripe suit and you'll be fighting off the laydees with a baseball bat.
posted by essexjan at 2:02 PM on December 23, 2007 [1 favorite]
There is no rule against asking her out. You are not an asshole if you do this. You are not ruining their relationship. If it crumbles because you ask her out, it was already ruined.
However, "befriending" them when you have a hidden motive and no desire to be friends with "them" at all is dishonest, and yeah you'd be a asshole.
Stop all the pretense and planning. Just ask her out and you will find out what you're chances are. Beware of becoming rebound-guy.
posted by poppo at 4:00 PM on December 23, 2007
However, "befriending" them when you have a hidden motive and no desire to be friends with "them" at all is dishonest, and yeah you'd be a asshole.
Stop all the pretense and planning. Just ask her out and you will find out what you're chances are. Beware of becoming rebound-guy.
posted by poppo at 4:00 PM on December 23, 2007
There is no rule against asking her out.
Yeah, there is. Comes under the heading of "Don't mow someone else's lawn." If you don't know if someone is already entangled, fine--no harm no foul. But if you know they are, then asking them out is just a totally dickish move, and thoroughly disrespectful to everyone involved in that relationship.
You are not an asshole if you do this.
Actually, yes you are. See above.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:37 PM on December 23, 2007
Yeah, there is. Comes under the heading of "Don't mow someone else's lawn." If you don't know if someone is already entangled, fine--no harm no foul. But if you know they are, then asking them out is just a totally dickish move, and thoroughly disrespectful to everyone involved in that relationship.
You are not an asshole if you do this.
Actually, yes you are. See above.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:37 PM on December 23, 2007
Man, talk about some over-reacting on what 'territory' is.
Is she engaged? Then leave her alone. If she's not, it's fair game to find out if you could form a relationship with her.
If her relationship can't survive you asking her out for a coffee than it was doomed anyway and it will be cool you came along.
I agree with others that it could seem to be a rebound type thing but I'm in the 6th year of what some would think is a "rebound" relationship and it's working fine.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do. If this doesn't pan out you should definitely start trying to make yourself available to some other girls though. The waiting game doesn't pay off usually.
posted by zephyr_words at 8:00 PM on December 23, 2007
Is she engaged? Then leave her alone. If she's not, it's fair game to find out if you could form a relationship with her.
If her relationship can't survive you asking her out for a coffee than it was doomed anyway and it will be cool you came along.
I agree with others that it could seem to be a rebound type thing but I'm in the 6th year of what some would think is a "rebound" relationship and it's working fine.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do. If this doesn't pan out you should definitely start trying to make yourself available to some other girls though. The waiting game doesn't pay off usually.
posted by zephyr_words at 8:00 PM on December 23, 2007
Do nothing for now. But try to stay in the gossip loop and should their relationship end, try to end up at another party where she is. That's really the best option you have all around.
posted by whoaali at 11:24 PM on December 23, 2007
posted by whoaali at 11:24 PM on December 23, 2007
Yeah, there is. Comes under the heading of "Don't mow someone else's lawn."
It's not the other guy's lawn until they are married or in an otherwise permanently declared state. Our OP doesn't have this much info. It's fair game.
posted by poppo at 5:01 AM on December 24, 2007
It's not the other guy's lawn until they are married or in an otherwise permanently declared state. Our OP doesn't have this much info. It's fair game.
posted by poppo at 5:01 AM on December 24, 2007
Salamandrous: The woman's sexuality is hers to share, not her boyfriends. As long as he's not planning on coercing her, how could he be 'stealing' anything?
"Stealing" is used quite loosely in the context of the precept. For example, Buddhist monks live solely off the offerings of the laity (there may be some non-traditional ones to prove me wrong). The precept is really about generosity. The opposite of taking is giving. What would he be giving to this woman's relationship with her boyfriend by imposing his own desires upon it? Certainly women (nor men) aren't property (or lawns) to be owned (or mowed), whether married or not. But you can respect someone else's commitment to their relationship, especially if it's going through rough times (which we have no evidence of in this case). Further, you can "take" things that don't really "belong" to people - for example, their peace of mind. Yell fire in a crowded theater and you have stolen the calm.
Yes, her sexuality is hers, the commitment to the relationship is hers, and she can choose what she wants to do with either. However, if someone has made a commitment (say, to stop smoking), it's good to help them honor that, and not intentionally lead them astray for one's own selfish purposes (say, offering them a cigarette so you have a smoking buddy). If the woman in question freely chooses to leave her relationship, and freely chooses to pursue dating Mr. Anonymous, then he has not taken what was not freely given, and in this way has honored the second precept. I never said he was stealing from the boyfriend. Her peace, happiness, and clean conscience is as relevant as anyone's in this situation - presumably the most relevant, since Mr. Anonymous has indicated that he cares for her.
posted by desjardins at 6:05 AM on December 24, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Stealing" is used quite loosely in the context of the precept. For example, Buddhist monks live solely off the offerings of the laity (there may be some non-traditional ones to prove me wrong). The precept is really about generosity. The opposite of taking is giving. What would he be giving to this woman's relationship with her boyfriend by imposing his own desires upon it? Certainly women (nor men) aren't property (or lawns) to be owned (or mowed), whether married or not. But you can respect someone else's commitment to their relationship, especially if it's going through rough times (which we have no evidence of in this case). Further, you can "take" things that don't really "belong" to people - for example, their peace of mind. Yell fire in a crowded theater and you have stolen the calm.
Yes, her sexuality is hers, the commitment to the relationship is hers, and she can choose what she wants to do with either. However, if someone has made a commitment (say, to stop smoking), it's good to help them honor that, and not intentionally lead them astray for one's own selfish purposes (say, offering them a cigarette so you have a smoking buddy). If the woman in question freely chooses to leave her relationship, and freely chooses to pursue dating Mr. Anonymous, then he has not taken what was not freely given, and in this way has honored the second precept. I never said he was stealing from the boyfriend. Her peace, happiness, and clean conscience is as relevant as anyone's in this situation - presumably the most relevant, since Mr. Anonymous has indicated that he cares for her.
posted by desjardins at 6:05 AM on December 24, 2007 [1 favorite]
The thing is at this point, you hardly know her. All you have is this one meeting at a party, for which one or both of you may not have been sober and even if sober, may have been wearing your "party faces". You need more information before you can make any decision at all. Ask the mutual friend to arrange an outing to which she, you, and a couple of others will be invited. Leave it up to her to invite the boyfriend if she wants him there. Make sure it's the sort of outing where there will be an opportunity to go for a coffee and chat. See whether she brings the guy, talk to her (and the other people there!) and find out more about her.
If after this you still have a major crush on her, and she doesn't seem to be committed to the guy, and she seems to at least like you, then swap numbers (with everyone, if need be). Call her and arrange to meet for a coffee and chat, just the two of you, and see how things go.
She might be the grandmother of your grandchildren. You might just be good friends. You may even spend a dull hour trying to make conversation with the human fencepost and leave wondering what the hell you were thinking. Without more information, you don't know.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:29 AM on December 24, 2007
If after this you still have a major crush on her, and she doesn't seem to be committed to the guy, and she seems to at least like you, then swap numbers (with everyone, if need be). Call her and arrange to meet for a coffee and chat, just the two of you, and see how things go.
She might be the grandmother of your grandchildren. You might just be good friends. You may even spend a dull hour trying to make conversation with the human fencepost and leave wondering what the hell you were thinking. Without more information, you don't know.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:29 AM on December 24, 2007
It's not the other guy's lawn until they are married or in an otherwise permanently declared state. Our OP doesn't have this much info. It's fair game.
No, it's not. Seriously. How do you feel when someone else tries to start something up with your significant other? Whatever the strength of your relationship, it's just a rude, rude thing to do.
Christ, I can't believe there are still cavemen like you out there. Someone is in a relationship? Leave them the fuck alone. Period.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:18 PM on December 25, 2007
No, it's not. Seriously. How do you feel when someone else tries to start something up with your significant other? Whatever the strength of your relationship, it's just a rude, rude thing to do.
Christ, I can't believe there are still cavemen like you out there. Someone is in a relationship? Leave them the fuck alone. Period.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:18 PM on December 25, 2007
How do you feel when someone else tries to start something up with your significant other? Whatever the strength of your relationship, it's just a rude, rude thing to do.
Not if your relationship's strong and you trust your SO, because she'll tell the guy, thank you for your interest (because it is nice to be desirable), but no thank you, as I am in a committed relationship. And unless he's a jackass or a psycho, he will leave it there. As for you, you can enjoy the realization that you are with someone who has a choice to be with you.
Christ, I can't believe there are still cavemen like you out there. Someone is in a relationship? Leave them the fuck alone. Period.
A woman is not the exclusive property of the guy she declares her boyfriend. If she wants to stay with the other guy, she will make that clear. Her ethical obligation is not to deceive him or put him at risk, which normally would mean, break up with him before she gets serious with you. Otherwise, she is a free agent. Period.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:06 AM on December 26, 2007
Not if your relationship's strong and you trust your SO, because she'll tell the guy, thank you for your interest (because it is nice to be desirable), but no thank you, as I am in a committed relationship. And unless he's a jackass or a psycho, he will leave it there. As for you, you can enjoy the realization that you are with someone who has a choice to be with you.
Christ, I can't believe there are still cavemen like you out there. Someone is in a relationship? Leave them the fuck alone. Period.
A woman is not the exclusive property of the guy she declares her boyfriend. If she wants to stay with the other guy, she will make that clear. Her ethical obligation is not to deceive him or put him at risk, which normally would mean, break up with him before she gets serious with you. Otherwise, she is a free agent. Period.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:06 AM on December 26, 2007
DNAB: Namecalling, really?
How do you feel when someone else tries to start something up with your significant other?
To be fair, maybe I became insensitive to it long ago. My wife (and then girlfriend) was a bartender and was hit on regularly, sometimes even while I was sitting there having a drink. But we'd smile and wink at each other afterwards. It was, and is, a very committed and loving relationship.
--The Caveman.
posted by poppo at 5:26 AM on December 26, 2007
How do you feel when someone else tries to start something up with your significant other?
To be fair, maybe I became insensitive to it long ago. My wife (and then girlfriend) was a bartender and was hit on regularly, sometimes even while I was sitting there having a drink. But we'd smile and wink at each other afterwards. It was, and is, a very committed and loving relationship.
--The Caveman.
posted by poppo at 5:26 AM on December 26, 2007
A woman is not the exclusive property of the guy she declares her boyfriend. If she wants to stay with the other guy, she will make that clear. Her ethical obligation is not to deceive him or put him at risk, which normally would mean, break up with him before she gets serious with you. Otherwise, she is a free agent. Period
I almost wish this question had been from a woman asking about pursuing a man who was in a committed relationship, because there would likely be less sidetracking about women not being their boyfriends property, etc.
It is entirely possible to think it's tacky to pursue a woman who is obviously in a committed relationship while not thinking the rudeness has to do with a violation of someone else's property rights. I think some behaviors should be refrained from simply because as human beings sharing the same planet with one another it is nice to occasionally behave in a civilized, non-disrespectful way to other people sharing the planet with us. Sure, in such a situation the man or woman being pursued can always say, "No, not interested", however the act of pursuing someone in a committed relationship is saying to half of that couple "FU, my selfish desires come before you and I'm going to intentionally try to ruin something that you value", which is not a particular noble behavior in my view.
posted by The Gooch at 8:30 AM on December 26, 2007
I almost wish this question had been from a woman asking about pursuing a man who was in a committed relationship, because there would likely be less sidetracking about women not being their boyfriends property, etc.
It is entirely possible to think it's tacky to pursue a woman who is obviously in a committed relationship while not thinking the rudeness has to do with a violation of someone else's property rights. I think some behaviors should be refrained from simply because as human beings sharing the same planet with one another it is nice to occasionally behave in a civilized, non-disrespectful way to other people sharing the planet with us. Sure, in such a situation the man or woman being pursued can always say, "No, not interested", however the act of pursuing someone in a committed relationship is saying to half of that couple "FU, my selfish desires come before you and I'm going to intentionally try to ruin something that you value", which is not a particular noble behavior in my view.
posted by The Gooch at 8:30 AM on December 26, 2007
Yeah, what The Gooch said.
This has nothing to do with 'property rights'; it has everything to do with respecting the fact that someone has declared that they are off-limits for romantic pursuits. Of course your SO is going to say "thanks but no thanks". I never said otherwise.
More to the point, aeschenkarmos & poppo, I was talking about situations where you know the other person is in a relationship. If you don't knowm fine, which is why I initially said what I said. I'm going to paste it here again, since it would seem that some people have some issues with reading comprehension:
" If you don't know if someone is already entangled, fine--no harm no foul. But if you know they are, then asking them out is just a totally dickish move, and thoroughly disrespectful to everyone involved in that relationship."
Please note that I said it's disrespectful to everyone. You're disrespecting the object of your lust by presuming that all it'll take to get them to leave their SO is suave old you in your fedora, you're disrespecting their SO in much the same way, as well as essentially saying "yeah, you're together, and I don't even know this person, but I am SO much better for them than you are", not to mention disregarding entirely the trust and committment the two people involved have for each other.
When someone says "I'm in a relationship" what they are saying is "I am not open to romantic offers." If they are open to them, it's their choice to make that clear. It is not your place to start pushing for it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:39 PM on December 26, 2007
This has nothing to do with 'property rights'; it has everything to do with respecting the fact that someone has declared that they are off-limits for romantic pursuits. Of course your SO is going to say "thanks but no thanks". I never said otherwise.
More to the point, aeschenkarmos & poppo, I was talking about situations where you know the other person is in a relationship. If you don't knowm fine, which is why I initially said what I said. I'm going to paste it here again, since it would seem that some people have some issues with reading comprehension:
" If you don't know if someone is already entangled, fine--no harm no foul. But if you know they are, then asking them out is just a totally dickish move, and thoroughly disrespectful to everyone involved in that relationship."
Please note that I said it's disrespectful to everyone. You're disrespecting the object of your lust by presuming that all it'll take to get them to leave their SO is suave old you in your fedora, you're disrespecting their SO in much the same way, as well as essentially saying "yeah, you're together, and I don't even know this person, but I am SO much better for them than you are", not to mention disregarding entirely the trust and committment the two people involved have for each other.
When someone says "I'm in a relationship" what they are saying is "I am not open to romantic offers." If they are open to them, it's their choice to make that clear. It is not your place to start pushing for it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:39 PM on December 26, 2007
dirtynumbangelboy as well as essentially saying "yeah, you're together, and I don't even know this person, but I am SO much better for them than you are", not to mention disregarding entirely the trust and committment the two people involved have for each other.
It may be a cultural/subcultural/generational divide, but I don't see the interaction as having anywhere near so much certainty on anyone's part; it's asking questions, not making assertions. Not saying "Clearly you must leave him for me," but asking, "do you want to leave him for me?" Not saying "Obviously, I am better than him," but asking, "am I better than him?"
To me, it seems that to not even ask amounts to an automatic presumption that he is better for her than you are, and that, to me, seems defeatist. Furthermore, to think that you dating her would be ruining things for her as The Gooch hints at is a distinctly unhealthy mindset; if that's what you think, then of course you shouldn't ask her out; but if so, if you're that bad for her and you know it, then you shouldn't be asking her out even if she were single.
That it's ruining things for him is a given, but unless you have some significant ties of friendship or obligation to that guy, you have a basic right to do that. When he and she started dating, that guy ruined things for every other guy who wanted to date her; did he care? No. Any time you get a job, you ruin things for everyone else who applied for it. Any time you take the last piece of cake, you ruin things for everyone else who wanted a piece. If you rent an apartment, you ruin things for everyone else who wanted to live there. Any time you win a footrace, you ruin everyone else's chances of winning. That's life. Fortunately there's always more footraces, apartments, cake, jobs and potential SOs in the world.
Now obviously any long-term committed relationship has a point in time where she will say "I don't care if you are better than him or not, I am committed to him, and he is my choice, and breaking up with him would ruin a significant amount of my life, so I am not going to do that." And fair enough, but in my view the proper way to declare that, is by some much greater commitment than a mere declaration of boyfriending. Marriage would be my expectation. Moving in together at a minimum. Again, it may be a cultural/generational thing, but I think our major difference is really where that point in time is, not what to do on either side of the point.
I think you're taking boyfriend/girlfriend relationships far, far too seriously, and the question this raises in my mind is, how do you reasonably recognize a more serious relationship, such as marriage? If you've already said "'til death do us part" before the nachos are half-gone on the first date, what are you going to say when she tells you you're going to be a father? Pre-marriage relationships should be fun. They're about finding out who one really is, an opportunity to develop character, make some mistakes, have bad clumsy sex and crazy great sex, laugh and cry and dance and sigh and learn the lessons that will, in the end, let you choose the one you will spend your life with, and make for a lasting and strong marriage.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:16 AM on December 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
It may be a cultural/subcultural/generational divide, but I don't see the interaction as having anywhere near so much certainty on anyone's part; it's asking questions, not making assertions. Not saying "Clearly you must leave him for me," but asking, "do you want to leave him for me?" Not saying "Obviously, I am better than him," but asking, "am I better than him?"
To me, it seems that to not even ask amounts to an automatic presumption that he is better for her than you are, and that, to me, seems defeatist. Furthermore, to think that you dating her would be ruining things for her as The Gooch hints at is a distinctly unhealthy mindset; if that's what you think, then of course you shouldn't ask her out; but if so, if you're that bad for her and you know it, then you shouldn't be asking her out even if she were single.
That it's ruining things for him is a given, but unless you have some significant ties of friendship or obligation to that guy, you have a basic right to do that. When he and she started dating, that guy ruined things for every other guy who wanted to date her; did he care? No. Any time you get a job, you ruin things for everyone else who applied for it. Any time you take the last piece of cake, you ruin things for everyone else who wanted a piece. If you rent an apartment, you ruin things for everyone else who wanted to live there. Any time you win a footrace, you ruin everyone else's chances of winning. That's life. Fortunately there's always more footraces, apartments, cake, jobs and potential SOs in the world.
Now obviously any long-term committed relationship has a point in time where she will say "I don't care if you are better than him or not, I am committed to him, and he is my choice, and breaking up with him would ruin a significant amount of my life, so I am not going to do that." And fair enough, but in my view the proper way to declare that, is by some much greater commitment than a mere declaration of boyfriending. Marriage would be my expectation. Moving in together at a minimum. Again, it may be a cultural/generational thing, but I think our major difference is really where that point in time is, not what to do on either side of the point.
I think you're taking boyfriend/girlfriend relationships far, far too seriously, and the question this raises in my mind is, how do you reasonably recognize a more serious relationship, such as marriage? If you've already said "'til death do us part" before the nachos are half-gone on the first date, what are you going to say when she tells you you're going to be a father? Pre-marriage relationships should be fun. They're about finding out who one really is, an opportunity to develop character, make some mistakes, have bad clumsy sex and crazy great sex, laugh and cry and dance and sigh and learn the lessons that will, in the end, let you choose the one you will spend your life with, and make for a lasting and strong marriage.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:16 AM on December 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Furthermore, to think that you dating her would be ruining things for her as The Gooch hints at is a distinctly unhealthy mindset
My apologies, I misread The Gooch's point. But again, I believe it is your right as a human being to assert your existence. Constant deferment to others is a miserable way to live. And constant attempts to outdo others is just the opposite error, also a miserable way to live. I'm saying use your judgement. That's what it's for.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:27 AM on December 27, 2007
My apologies, I misread The Gooch's point. But again, I believe it is your right as a human being to assert your existence. Constant deferment to others is a miserable way to live. And constant attempts to outdo others is just the opposite error, also a miserable way to live. I'm saying use your judgement. That's what it's for.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:27 AM on December 27, 2007
To me, it seems that to not even ask amounts to an automatic presumption that he is better for her than you are, and that, to me, seems defeatist.
No, to not ask is simply polite. I'm sure we can think of exceptions to that rule, but in general that is a pretty good base to start from. It's not about being defeatist, or thinking that the other guy is better; it's just about being a decent person. Think of it as respecting a kind of personal space. Look, lots of women get tired of being hit on all the time, and invent fake boyfriends (or bring a male friend to stand in as a "boyfriend") to get men to lay off. Does that tell you anything about the social expectations of how you should behave towards someone who says they are in a relationship?
It's not about property rights, it's about manners. A relationship isn't some holy object, kept untouchable on a pedestal. Like you say, it should be fun, whether matrimonial or not. But elbowing your way in, as an outsider, goes beyond "fun" and into rudeness.
I think you are mixing your signifiers and your signifieds. Marriage and cohabitation are not proof of a committed relationship, just as not being married and not cohabiting are not proof of not being committed. Marriage is great, and I'm enjoying it a lot. But it is far from the be-all and end-all of relationship bliss, and is by no means the end-goal of every person. So assuming that no-marriage means available is making a mistake of the first order, and is setting you up for transgressing a lot of pretty established social mores (which we punish by calling that behavior "rude" or "crass" or "what an asshole").
posted by Forktine at 6:17 AM on December 27, 2007
No, to not ask is simply polite. I'm sure we can think of exceptions to that rule, but in general that is a pretty good base to start from. It's not about being defeatist, or thinking that the other guy is better; it's just about being a decent person. Think of it as respecting a kind of personal space. Look, lots of women get tired of being hit on all the time, and invent fake boyfriends (or bring a male friend to stand in as a "boyfriend") to get men to lay off. Does that tell you anything about the social expectations of how you should behave towards someone who says they are in a relationship?
It's not about property rights, it's about manners. A relationship isn't some holy object, kept untouchable on a pedestal. Like you say, it should be fun, whether matrimonial or not. But elbowing your way in, as an outsider, goes beyond "fun" and into rudeness.
I think you are mixing your signifiers and your signifieds. Marriage and cohabitation are not proof of a committed relationship, just as not being married and not cohabiting are not proof of not being committed. Marriage is great, and I'm enjoying it a lot. But it is far from the be-all and end-all of relationship bliss, and is by no means the end-goal of every person. So assuming that no-marriage means available is making a mistake of the first order, and is setting you up for transgressing a lot of pretty established social mores (which we punish by calling that behavior "rude" or "crass" or "what an asshole").
posted by Forktine at 6:17 AM on December 27, 2007
And fair enough, but in my view the proper way to declare that, is by some much greater commitment than a mere declaration of boyfriending
Yeah, but here's the thing.. you're wrong, and you don't get to decide how other people signify their relationships. See Forktine's comment.
I think you're taking boyfriend/girlfriend relationships far, far too seriously, and the question this raises in my mind is, how do you reasonably recognize a more serious relationship, such as marriage? If you've already said "'til death do us part" before the nachos are half-gone on the first date, what are you going to say when she tells you you're going to be a father?
No, and you're being deliberately obtuse. It's not about saying 'til death do us part, it's about saying "I want to concentrate on this and see what happens."
Again, Forktine's got it right: how many women invent fake boyfriends in order to (try, and apparently fail to) get you cavemen to back off? How does that not completely support what we are saying?
Bottom line: someone says they're in a relationship, back the fuck off and find someone who is making themselves available. Anything else is incredibly rude.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:22 AM on December 27, 2007
Yeah, but here's the thing.. you're wrong, and you don't get to decide how other people signify their relationships. See Forktine's comment.
I think you're taking boyfriend/girlfriend relationships far, far too seriously, and the question this raises in my mind is, how do you reasonably recognize a more serious relationship, such as marriage? If you've already said "'til death do us part" before the nachos are half-gone on the first date, what are you going to say when she tells you you're going to be a father?
No, and you're being deliberately obtuse. It's not about saying 'til death do us part, it's about saying "I want to concentrate on this and see what happens."
Again, Forktine's got it right: how many women invent fake boyfriends in order to (try, and apparently fail to) get you cavemen to back off? How does that not completely support what we are saying?
Bottom line: someone says they're in a relationship, back the fuck off and find someone who is making themselves available. Anything else is incredibly rude.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:22 AM on December 27, 2007
Yeah, but here's the thing.. you're wrong, and you don't get to decide how other people signify their relationships.
Neither do you. They do. Them. Her, him, and other him. Those are the people whose choices here are relevant. Not you. Not me. The questioner is going to have to decide what he personally does here. You can say what you would do, and I can say what I would do, and he can think about these and other perspectives and make up his own mind. It was you, here and here, who picked this fight when you decided that we would not simply present our separate perspectives, but rather your point of view must prevail as if it were objective truth.
Now I do not mind if the questioner does as you suggest; it's certainly easier. I do however object to the way you've taken what you think is a morally high ground position, and you now stand there flinging stones at us "cavemen".
Now were I in the questioner's situation, and I have been from time to time, then I would get to know this woman. In the course of this, I would decide for myself if, whether she was single or not, it would be a good idea for her and I to date. Just being attracted to someone is not an indicator of a good potential relationship.
If I thought it could work out between myself and her, then I would find out how things stand with her and the other guy. I would see how they interact. I would sound out the mutual friends that she and I have (particularly the one in the question who mentioned to the OP that they were scoping out other people). I'm not going to disrupt someone's good, healthy, happy relationship. Hell, chances are I couldn't even if I wanted to; and it would necessarily include repeated failure to take the hint.
Which brings us back to the point grumblebee and reebear made above: if she and the boyfriend are happy together, they'll stay together. If she goes with you, she wasn't happy with the boyfriend.
Again, Forktine's got it right: how many women invent fake boyfriends in order to (try, and apparently fail to) get you cavemen to back off?
I am NOT advocating "elbowing your way in" and "assuming people are available". See above, unless you'd prefer to continue making up in your head what you think I've said and arguing against those comments here.
Most men are, bitterly and/or amusedly, quite familiar with the rapid squeak of "I've got a boyfriend" or something similar, accompanied with the please-don't-kill-me look or the oh-my-god-get-away look or the what-the-hell-ARE-you look. This is a "NO" whether it is true or not, and it also means that whatever you said, you came across as a jerk.
Also, if she is clearly happy to be with him, and you will be able to tell this from the way she talks about him, in the levels of priority she puts on spending time with him vs you, from her body language when with him and you, again it is a "NO".
If you're not able to be friends with her, you won't be a good boyfriend for her anyway. Pretending to be her friend in order to find out whether or not she will date you (or any other reason at all) is lame. There are two solutions to that, and I think the preferable one is don't pretend, ie actually become her friend.
It's possible that she might, at some point, date you, although hanging around vulturing is almost as lame as pretended friendship. Let her know you're single and looking. Meet her friends; you might meet someone better through her. She actually might even meet someone else better through you, which is ironic, and initially painful, but after the shock is over and you realize it's not about you, you'll be fine with it.
I am not saying "yes, do hit on her". My position is "get to know her, and maybe hit on her if you think it'll work out well for you both". Clearly you don't think it'll work out for them both in this case. I think it's your turn to justify your position, DNAB & company: some questions for you.
1. What if The Girl and BF's relationship is clearly bad, ie, in your judgement, she should not be with this guy, indeed would be better off single than with him?
2. What if the BF is already cheating on her?
3. Should the OP try to sincerely become friends with her? If not, why not? (Bonus "not" question: should he now call around all his female friends he considers at all attractive and tell them he can't see them any more either?)
4. Has this ever actually happened to you?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:47 PM on December 27, 2007
Neither do you. They do. Them. Her, him, and other him. Those are the people whose choices here are relevant. Not you. Not me. The questioner is going to have to decide what he personally does here. You can say what you would do, and I can say what I would do, and he can think about these and other perspectives and make up his own mind. It was you, here and here, who picked this fight when you decided that we would not simply present our separate perspectives, but rather your point of view must prevail as if it were objective truth.
Now I do not mind if the questioner does as you suggest; it's certainly easier. I do however object to the way you've taken what you think is a morally high ground position, and you now stand there flinging stones at us "cavemen".
Now were I in the questioner's situation, and I have been from time to time, then I would get to know this woman. In the course of this, I would decide for myself if, whether she was single or not, it would be a good idea for her and I to date. Just being attracted to someone is not an indicator of a good potential relationship.
If I thought it could work out between myself and her, then I would find out how things stand with her and the other guy. I would see how they interact. I would sound out the mutual friends that she and I have (particularly the one in the question who mentioned to the OP that they were scoping out other people). I'm not going to disrupt someone's good, healthy, happy relationship. Hell, chances are I couldn't even if I wanted to; and it would necessarily include repeated failure to take the hint.
Which brings us back to the point grumblebee and reebear made above: if she and the boyfriend are happy together, they'll stay together. If she goes with you, she wasn't happy with the boyfriend.
Again, Forktine's got it right: how many women invent fake boyfriends in order to (try, and apparently fail to) get you cavemen to back off?
I am NOT advocating "elbowing your way in" and "assuming people are available". See above, unless you'd prefer to continue making up in your head what you think I've said and arguing against those comments here.
Most men are, bitterly and/or amusedly, quite familiar with the rapid squeak of "I've got a boyfriend" or something similar, accompanied with the please-don't-kill-me look or the oh-my-god-get-away look or the what-the-hell-ARE-you look. This is a "NO" whether it is true or not, and it also means that whatever you said, you came across as a jerk.
Also, if she is clearly happy to be with him, and you will be able to tell this from the way she talks about him, in the levels of priority she puts on spending time with him vs you, from her body language when with him and you, again it is a "NO".
If you're not able to be friends with her, you won't be a good boyfriend for her anyway. Pretending to be her friend in order to find out whether or not she will date you (or any other reason at all) is lame. There are two solutions to that, and I think the preferable one is don't pretend, ie actually become her friend.
It's possible that she might, at some point, date you, although hanging around vulturing is almost as lame as pretended friendship. Let her know you're single and looking. Meet her friends; you might meet someone better through her. She actually might even meet someone else better through you, which is ironic, and initially painful, but after the shock is over and you realize it's not about you, you'll be fine with it.
I am not saying "yes, do hit on her". My position is "get to know her, and maybe hit on her if you think it'll work out well for you both". Clearly you don't think it'll work out for them both in this case. I think it's your turn to justify your position, DNAB & company: some questions for you.
1. What if The Girl and BF's relationship is clearly bad, ie, in your judgement, she should not be with this guy, indeed would be better off single than with him?
2. What if the BF is already cheating on her?
3. Should the OP try to sincerely become friends with her? If not, why not? (Bonus "not" question: should he now call around all his female friends he considers at all attractive and tell them he can't see them any more either?)
4. Has this ever actually happened to you?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:47 PM on December 27, 2007
1. What if The Girl and BF's relationship is clearly bad, ie, in your judgement, she should not be with this guy, indeed would be better off single than with him?
Be a friend. Don't pretend to be a friend to get in her pants.
2. What if the BF is already cheating on her?
Still off-limits.
3. Should the OP try to sincerely become friends with her? If not, why not? (Bonus "not" question: should he now call around all his female friends he considers at all attractive and tell them he can't see them any more either?)
Of course he should, don't be asinine.
4. Has this ever actually happened to you?
People attempting to intrude on my relationships? Yes. Me trying to intrude on other people's? Of course not.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:50 AM on December 28, 2007
Be a friend. Don't pretend to be a friend to get in her pants.
2. What if the BF is already cheating on her?
Still off-limits.
3. Should the OP try to sincerely become friends with her? If not, why not? (Bonus "not" question: should he now call around all his female friends he considers at all attractive and tell them he can't see them any more either?)
Of course he should, don't be asinine.
4. Has this ever actually happened to you?
People attempting to intrude on my relationships? Yes. Me trying to intrude on other people's? Of course not.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:50 AM on December 28, 2007
That it's ruining things for him is a given, but unless you have some significant ties of friendship or obligation to that guy, you have a basic right to do that. When he and she started dating, that guy ruined things for every other guy who wanted to date her; did he care? No. Any time you get a job, you ruin things for everyone else who applied for it. Any time you take the last piece of cake, you ruin things for everyone else who wanted a piece. If you rent an apartment, you ruin things for everyone else who wanted to live there. Any time you win a footrace, you ruin everyone else's chances of winning
aeschenkarnos, these are all false analogies. A more accurate one would be you deciding you like a particular apartment and asking the landlord if he or she will consider evicting the current tenant so you can move in. It's asking the organizer of the footrace to disqualify the runner who is faster than you from participating in the race. It's asking an employer if he or she will consider firing someone whose job you want so you can have it instead. All far more nefarious than the more benign examples you give above.
posted by The Gooch at 8:28 AM on December 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
aeschenkarnos, these are all false analogies. A more accurate one would be you deciding you like a particular apartment and asking the landlord if he or she will consider evicting the current tenant so you can move in. It's asking the organizer of the footrace to disqualify the runner who is faster than you from participating in the race. It's asking an employer if he or she will consider firing someone whose job you want so you can have it instead. All far more nefarious than the more benign examples you give above.
posted by The Gooch at 8:28 AM on December 28, 2007 [2 favorites]
The Gooch aeschenkarnos, these are all false analogies. A more accurate one would be you deciding you like a particular apartment and asking the landlord if he or she will consider evicting the current tenant so you can move in. It's asking the organizer of the footrace to disqualify the runner who is faster than you from participating in the race. It's asking an employer if he or she will consider firing someone whose job you want so you can have it instead. All far more nefarious than the more benign examples you give above.
Because you're selecting them to be nefarious actions. Suppose our friend the landlord did in fact have a tenant, but wanted them out because they're slow with the rent and trash the place and annoy the neighbours, but equally, couldn't afford to do without the rent? Same with the job example. The facts of the situation determine the morality of an action.
In the case of the footrace, only one merit is being tested, and the testing of the merit is the end of the matter. You win or you lose. The judge, the girl in question, is the arbiter of whether or not the OP is qualified to compete, and she will tell him so. It's the other guy who doesn't want him to race at all, and it is you and DNAB who are calling for the OP to withdraw, to disqualify himself, on behalf of that guy.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:35 PM on December 28, 2007
Because you're selecting them to be nefarious actions. Suppose our friend the landlord did in fact have a tenant, but wanted them out because they're slow with the rent and trash the place and annoy the neighbours, but equally, couldn't afford to do without the rent? Same with the job example. The facts of the situation determine the morality of an action.
In the case of the footrace, only one merit is being tested, and the testing of the merit is the end of the matter. You win or you lose. The judge, the girl in question, is the arbiter of whether or not the OP is qualified to compete, and she will tell him so. It's the other guy who doesn't want him to race at all, and it is you and DNAB who are calling for the OP to withdraw, to disqualify himself, on behalf of that guy.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:35 PM on December 28, 2007
Fear? Fuck you, man. The last time someone tried to intrude on the relationship I was in, it was my boyfriend who said "Who the fuck you think you are? I'm taken and you know it."
But, see, here's the thing: you're so wrapped up in your justifications of doing whatever the hell you feel like that you're utterly incapable of comprehending that your actions are rude and disrespectful.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:37 PM on December 28, 2007
But, see, here's the thing: you're so wrapped up in your justifications of doing whatever the hell you feel like that you're utterly incapable of comprehending that your actions are rude and disrespectful.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:37 PM on December 28, 2007
The last time someone tried to intrude on the relationship I was in, it was my boyfriend who said "Who the fuck you think you are? I'm taken and you know it."
That's excellent. Jolly good. If only everyone had such strong relationships! Why, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, if that were so.
you're so wrapped up in your justifications of doing whatever the hell you feel like
Actually no, you self-righteous nimrod, you could not possibly be less correct. As I have over and over and over and over attempted to explain, a person ought not do "whatever the hell they feel like", they ought to consider the ramifications of their actions and not do anything that causes more harm than good. Yes, even if they feel like it!
There is an inherent bias in assessing whether or not we ought to do something we want to do, obviously, but if we were intelligent and responsible adults, we'd know we had that bias, and we'd be well-practiced at making ourselves do what we should even if it's not what we want. That is, we'd have grown past the moral level of memorizing the lists of naughty things to not do and nice things to do that our upbringing and experiences have provided us with, and be capable of writing our own new entries in the lists, and modifying old ones according to circumstances.
that you're utterly incapable of comprehending that your actions are rude and disrespectful.
No, I am quite capable of comprehending that it's rude and disrespectful and annoying and threatening and frightening to the other guy to attempt to take his girlfriend away from him, to be one's own girlfriend. How he deals with that is up to him. He may whine, he may bluster, he may sulk, he may even realize he's let things slip to the point where his girlfriend's considering leaving him and clean his act up to the point where she doesn't leave him after all. That's his right. Probably the last option would be best.
Whether it's rude and disrespectful to her though, depends on the circumstances. Almost all the time, actually, it would be. Evidently your boyfriend thought so when he was asked. I'm saying it's his right to think so, or not, as he chooses. As an independent human being, he had a decision to make. If that decision is real, if he has a right to decide to say no, then he must necessarily have the right to decide to say yes. Otherwise, it's not a decision, it's not a right, it's a foregone conclusion.
If he has a right to answer the question "yes", then conversely someone else must have the right, under some circumstance, to ask the question. Now, those circumstances might be pretty narrow. But they exist.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:54 PM on December 28, 2007
That's excellent. Jolly good. If only everyone had such strong relationships! Why, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, if that were so.
you're so wrapped up in your justifications of doing whatever the hell you feel like
Actually no, you self-righteous nimrod, you could not possibly be less correct. As I have over and over and over and over attempted to explain, a person ought not do "whatever the hell they feel like", they ought to consider the ramifications of their actions and not do anything that causes more harm than good. Yes, even if they feel like it!
There is an inherent bias in assessing whether or not we ought to do something we want to do, obviously, but if we were intelligent and responsible adults, we'd know we had that bias, and we'd be well-practiced at making ourselves do what we should even if it's not what we want. That is, we'd have grown past the moral level of memorizing the lists of naughty things to not do and nice things to do that our upbringing and experiences have provided us with, and be capable of writing our own new entries in the lists, and modifying old ones according to circumstances.
that you're utterly incapable of comprehending that your actions are rude and disrespectful.
No, I am quite capable of comprehending that it's rude and disrespectful and annoying and threatening and frightening to the other guy to attempt to take his girlfriend away from him, to be one's own girlfriend. How he deals with that is up to him. He may whine, he may bluster, he may sulk, he may even realize he's let things slip to the point where his girlfriend's considering leaving him and clean his act up to the point where she doesn't leave him after all. That's his right. Probably the last option would be best.
Whether it's rude and disrespectful to her though, depends on the circumstances. Almost all the time, actually, it would be. Evidently your boyfriend thought so when he was asked. I'm saying it's his right to think so, or not, as he chooses. As an independent human being, he had a decision to make. If that decision is real, if he has a right to decide to say no, then he must necessarily have the right to decide to say yes. Otherwise, it's not a decision, it's not a right, it's a foregone conclusion.
If he has a right to answer the question "yes", then conversely someone else must have the right, under some circumstance, to ask the question. Now, those circumstances might be pretty narrow. But they exist.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 11:54 PM on December 28, 2007
aeschenkarnos , I think the very fact you, like Anonymous, feel the need to throw in any number of real or imagined "justifications" ("What if The Girl and BF's relationship is clearly bad, ie, in your judgement, she should not be with this guy, indeed would be better off single than with him?", What if the BF is already cheating on her?") that would make it possibly ok to intentionally interfere with somebody's relationship serves to prove the point the behavior is probably wrong. Otherwise, there would be no point in bringing up these "justifications". (See also: your hypothetical "justifications" in the apartment hunting and job search examples)
If you wanted to argue that achieving personal happiness supercedes other peoples right to happiness (particularly complete strangers), I could understand, if not agree with, that line of thinking. But you seem to want to have it both ways - to be able to do whatever you want to other people to achieve your own happiness regardless of who it hurts, but also want to own the moral high ground by looking for justifications that prove the people whose lives you are intentionally messing with somehow deserve it. That I can't buy.
posted by The Gooch at 9:16 AM on December 29, 2007
If you wanted to argue that achieving personal happiness supercedes other peoples right to happiness (particularly complete strangers), I could understand, if not agree with, that line of thinking. But you seem to want to have it both ways - to be able to do whatever you want to other people to achieve your own happiness regardless of who it hurts, but also want to own the moral high ground by looking for justifications that prove the people whose lives you are intentionally messing with somehow deserve it. That I can't buy.
posted by The Gooch at 9:16 AM on December 29, 2007
that would make it possibly ok to intentionally interfere with somebody's relationship serves to prove the point the behavior is probably wrong
I agree. It is probably wrong. If you can accept that probably is not the same thing as certainly, then we're in agreement and you and I are done here.
But you seem to want to have it both ways - to be able to do whatever you want to other people to achieve your own happiness regardless of who it hurts, but also want to own the moral high ground by looking for justifications that prove the people whose lives you are intentionally messing with somehow deserve it. That I can't buy.
Fine, I'm not selling that. I'm arguing the converse idea: that unless you really do think the girl would be happier with you, you don't offer her that choice. It's well-accepted that love is when another person's happiness is more important than your own. I like that definition, I'm quite happy to have it as an axiom in my decision-making system, but as well as being a heartwarming poetic statement, it's also a logical proposition, and several implications follow from it: (1) If she's happier with the other guy than she would be with the OP, then so be it, back off. (2) The OP does not love the other guy beyond the base love of all mankind expected of a decent person; therefore, the happiness of those he loves (her, and himself) is more important than the other guy's. (3) If the girl loves the other guy, his happiness will be more important to her than her own, and therefore, assuming she is making him happy, she will stay with him. (4) If the other guy loves the girl, and the girl is better off with the OP, then he will not stand in her way.
I think we can safely assume that 4. isn't likely to happen. I can almost hear the snickering if I strain my ears a bit. So I think we can safely assume that the other guy's reasons for wanting to be with the girl are exactly as selfish as the OP's, and that what distinguishes their relative claims are (a) her love for, opinion of, and desire to be with each of the two men; (b) which man got to her first.
(Boy1: "Stay with me, Girl!" Boy2: "I agree! For the sake of your happiness, stay with Boy1!" Girl: "But this implies you must love me more than he does, Boy2! I choose you!" Boy2: "Victory!" Boy1: "Curse your mastery of the Reverse Solomon Manoeuvre, Boy1!") Yeah, yeah, how dare I enjoy this serious and important discussion ... so eeevil ... now where was I ...
OK. So the other guy and the OP both, probably, want her to be (a) happy; (b) with them personally, in that priority order. If it's more important to one that she be with him than she be happy, that one doesn't deserve her, he deserves a nice fedora of his own with a feather in it, so all persons may see who and what he is.
So which should she be with? Can we agree that she should be with whichever one makes her most happy? This is important: "happy" includes such things as "believing oneself to have done the right moral thing". (No, I am not shifting the goalposts of happiness, I never said otherwise than this.)
So which man is that? The other guy offers her a certain amount of happiness, and she has as well a certain amount of emotional investment in being with him, and the stability of the status quo; and on the downside a certain amount of boredom, resentment at being taken for granted, etc. The OP offers her a certain amount of happiness, and the exciting prospect of novelty; and on the downside the instability of upsetting the status quo, which comes with all the emotional upsets of breaking up with the other guy, disruption to her social life, her genuine desire not to hurt the other guy, and the weight of social expectations. There's probably a few more factors than this on both sides.
Everyone can more-or-less see these offers from their point of view. They are very fuzzy. But the OP can get some idea of them. What seems immediately apparent is that the amount of happiness he needs to offer needs to be pretty darn large, and/or the happiness she currently has with the other guy pretty darn small, for her to choose him over the other guy. Now there's nothing much in the question to imply that either one of those is the case, but it's possible: her being unhappy with the other guy seems the most likely.
By now hopefully he does know whether she's unhappy, or happy, with the other guy. But he didn't then. So again I advise the man in this situation: make friends with her, find out how happy she is with the other guy, and unless she's really quite unhappy, don't try for anything more than sincere platonic friendship; and do try for that sincere platonic friendship.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:20 PM on December 29, 2007
I agree. It is probably wrong. If you can accept that probably is not the same thing as certainly, then we're in agreement and you and I are done here.
But you seem to want to have it both ways - to be able to do whatever you want to other people to achieve your own happiness regardless of who it hurts, but also want to own the moral high ground by looking for justifications that prove the people whose lives you are intentionally messing with somehow deserve it. That I can't buy.
Fine, I'm not selling that. I'm arguing the converse idea: that unless you really do think the girl would be happier with you, you don't offer her that choice. It's well-accepted that love is when another person's happiness is more important than your own. I like that definition, I'm quite happy to have it as an axiom in my decision-making system, but as well as being a heartwarming poetic statement, it's also a logical proposition, and several implications follow from it: (1) If she's happier with the other guy than she would be with the OP, then so be it, back off. (2) The OP does not love the other guy beyond the base love of all mankind expected of a decent person; therefore, the happiness of those he loves (her, and himself) is more important than the other guy's. (3) If the girl loves the other guy, his happiness will be more important to her than her own, and therefore, assuming she is making him happy, she will stay with him. (4) If the other guy loves the girl, and the girl is better off with the OP, then he will not stand in her way.
I think we can safely assume that 4. isn't likely to happen. I can almost hear the snickering if I strain my ears a bit. So I think we can safely assume that the other guy's reasons for wanting to be with the girl are exactly as selfish as the OP's, and that what distinguishes their relative claims are (a) her love for, opinion of, and desire to be with each of the two men; (b) which man got to her first.
(Boy1: "Stay with me, Girl!" Boy2: "I agree! For the sake of your happiness, stay with Boy1!" Girl: "But this implies you must love me more than he does, Boy2! I choose you!" Boy2: "Victory!" Boy1: "Curse your mastery of the Reverse Solomon Manoeuvre, Boy1!") Yeah, yeah, how dare I enjoy this serious and important discussion ... so eeevil ... now where was I ...
OK. So the other guy and the OP both, probably, want her to be (a) happy; (b) with them personally, in that priority order. If it's more important to one that she be with him than she be happy, that one doesn't deserve her, he deserves a nice fedora of his own with a feather in it, so all persons may see who and what he is.
So which should she be with? Can we agree that she should be with whichever one makes her most happy? This is important: "happy" includes such things as "believing oneself to have done the right moral thing". (No, I am not shifting the goalposts of happiness, I never said otherwise than this.)
So which man is that? The other guy offers her a certain amount of happiness, and she has as well a certain amount of emotional investment in being with him, and the stability of the status quo; and on the downside a certain amount of boredom, resentment at being taken for granted, etc. The OP offers her a certain amount of happiness, and the exciting prospect of novelty; and on the downside the instability of upsetting the status quo, which comes with all the emotional upsets of breaking up with the other guy, disruption to her social life, her genuine desire not to hurt the other guy, and the weight of social expectations. There's probably a few more factors than this on both sides.
Everyone can more-or-less see these offers from their point of view. They are very fuzzy. But the OP can get some idea of them. What seems immediately apparent is that the amount of happiness he needs to offer needs to be pretty darn large, and/or the happiness she currently has with the other guy pretty darn small, for her to choose him over the other guy. Now there's nothing much in the question to imply that either one of those is the case, but it's possible: her being unhappy with the other guy seems the most likely.
By now hopefully he does know whether she's unhappy, or happy, with the other guy. But he didn't then. So again I advise the man in this situation: make friends with her, find out how happy she is with the other guy, and unless she's really quite unhappy, don't try for anything more than sincere platonic friendship; and do try for that sincere platonic friendship.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:20 PM on December 29, 2007
« Older What do you want to know about business in Brazil? | Networked Xbox: threat or menace? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
If I pursued this by attempting to befriend them is there a substantial risk that I would harm there relationship further?
It won't harm their relationship unless she acts on your approach, but either way no good will come of this. If she goes for it - she cheats - you're being an asshole. If she doesn't (even if she wants to) you'll likely be thought a creep.
You have my sympathies, it sounds like a rough situation. Do you have any mutual friends? It seems like the only way to deal with this is to get contact information for her and try to meet up again after she breaks up with this guy (assuming she does).
posted by phrontist at 8:39 AM on December 23, 2007