Howdy folks, sorry I’ve been absent for most of this weekend, it’s been part vacation and part getting called into work. That and Sen. Craig resigned and all of the sudden we may have a competitive Senate race out here.
Anyway, I have something on my mind and I would appreciate it if all y’all would like to comment on it. Often I like to complain about “you know I don’t think women in general like me” and my reasoning for it is that “take a look at the types of guys women at or near my age are dating or marrying. They look or act nothing like me.”
Then the oft-used cliche I’ve heard countless times of “just be yourself” comes into play. What does that even mean, anyway? I’m not sure what irritates me more: the fact that the statement itself is so unoriginal or the fact that maybe my line of reasoning—that I’m not what women are really looking for—is the correct one?
Back to work for a bit, I’ll check back in later.
Maybe like things attract. I like to be myself and I’m drawn to others who are just relaxed and themselves. Although we never really know, do we? Anyway, I met my late soul mate like that. Neither one of us had to put on airs and all our faults were ok with each other. I look at people all the time and wonder what makes them tick. I think all introspective persons feel like outsiders as they watch the world go by. These old sayings only work if applied in certain ways. The one that gets me is Money does not buy happiness. Hah. I know I’m always much happier when I have money. As far as these miserable rich people go, they’d be just as miserable poor.
First, the cliche to "just be yourself" means that you are talking to someone who doesn't have a clue how to help you but doesn't want to admit that he or she has no good advice to give. I spent years "being myself," and the only conclusion that I could draw was that women didn't like me for myself.
To some extent, that conclusion wasn't true. As I've said many times, I'm not good in most small group situations. I don't come across well in the typical party situation or after church situation where groups of four to eight people are standing around and talking. When I'm "being myself" in those situations, I'm allowing women to see the weakest part of who I am.
My strength is in one on one conversation, and the person that people see in those conversations is much better than the person that they see in the group settings. In reality, the person is the same, but the qualities that make me strong in individual conversations make me weak in groups. If I were ever going to have success with women, I should have been asking them to get together with me for one on one conversations. These conversations would have led to friendships which in some cases would have led to dates, but I doubt that I would have had much success going directly to the date scenario. Unfortunately, when I was your age, the church really seemed to discourage this kind of direct pursuit of relationships. Instead, we were supposed to get to know each other in group settings first. That strategy assured that I would always fail.
My advice would be to try to decide where your area of strength is and then try to meet women in that situation. If you are better in groups, you should meet women in groups. If you are better alone, you should try to meet them alone. In college, I knew a guy who didn't play basketball with the fellowship group very often. His reason was that he wasn't good at basketball and didn't like doing something where he couldn't be good. I remember thinking that it was somewhat cowardly to avoid any situation where he couldn't be a star. However, the fact is that by avoiding situations where he didn't look good, he made himself very popular with the women in the fellowship. He ended up marrying the woman whom he liked. If I'd been able to do as he did, I'd be a much happier man today.
I don't know that I've helped you at all, but those are my first thoughts.
Bill