"But why are you asking me to go out with you?"
"Why I am I asking you to go out with me? I suppose because of the normal reasons: you're beautiful and it still hasn't disabled your brain, so best of both worlds."
"Yes, but why are you asking me to go out with you?"
"Why am I asking you to go out with me? Well for starters, it is simpler and more effective than asking you if you would be my wife-candidate, and more understandable than asking if you would 'engage in a societally generated courtship ritual which may end in unpleasant termination barring a less-likely positive end. And secondly, I'm asking you to go out with me because I intend on getting to know you and agreeing means you share the same goal. It's good to determine that you do, in fact, agree with my stated ends before I just jump in, assuming that you're beside me. It's also a verbal contract that you won't just run away and leave me hanging, and that you'll make an effort toward me, too."
"But . . . why are you asking me to go out with you?"
"Broken record much? As for why I am asking you to go out with me, I plan on getting to know you, knowing you better than anyone, asking you to marry me, fathering any children we throw together, living for a very long time together, arguing with you over who has to die first, and dying first because I would die if you died instead of me. But realistically, that entire train could derail at any stage and just end up crashing and burning. But as for my general plan, that's it. That's the why. I hope that's the end of this."
"But why are you asking me to go out with you?"
"I was afraid of that. Why am I asking you to go out with me? Because I couldn't very well ask someone else if you would go out with me, now could I? And you're pretty much the only person I want to be asking out. Because of the aforementioned beauty and brains thing. And I suppose I could ask your father, but it would be creepy and way too serious, and also fairly insulting to your personal control over your life. You get to decide, which is why I'm asking you."
"But why are you asking me to go out with you?"
"I thought I had answered this. Why am I asking you to go out with me? A few-fold answer here: I am asking because I'm not a pansy and I don't want to make someone ask for me. And because I don't want you to be with someone else, so it would be counter-productive for me to ask you to go out with some other man. I had a friend who did that once; he suggested a date for a girl he liked, just to get her out of his head. But he foolishly set her up with his friend, so he saw them both and saw how happy they were, and all it did was hurt. So that's why it's about me me me. Now what's your line?"
"Buuuut why are you asking me to go out with you?"
"Okay this is getting ridiculous. Why am I asking you to go out with me? Because telling you would have a bit of a violent edge to it, don't you think? It's not really a gentlemanly thing to do, and besides. It's not the way I want to start a relationship, just all suave and 'Hey, babby, you're dating me. *breathes on nails and rubs on shirt* Yuuuup I'm pretty awesome. I drive a Tercel.' Not what I want. So I'm asking. It also betrays a bit of intent on your part, which is really what I'm worried about right now. I want to know if you're interested. Done now?"
"Why are you asking me to go out with you?"
"I think I've stressed every word except for . . . are? That's a helping verb. Why am I asking? Hm. Because I didn't once, years ago when I had a chance. I was too weak and scared of rejection and the future. I realized I wanted to and I ran back to where you were and practiced my line in my head: 'I know you said you don't like walking in the rain, but you've never tried it with me.' And you were gone, and I gave up. Now I'm older and wiser and filled with regret and consumed with what if and yet not afraid of the future. I am asking. I am asking, because I want you to say yes. Unequivocally. Unconditionally. Unshakably. I want yes. Yes, okay, alright, yup, indeed, yes. And if you're not willing to deliver that, I suggest you go with 'I guess so.' I've gotten that once before and it didn't hurt so bad."
"Hm."
"Yeah, you think about that. I'll come up with another answer in case you ask again."
Posted a whole four minutes before the 26th. eat that timing, lesser mortals!
ReplyDeleteThis! This.
ReplyDeleteI love how you break apart the question and answer each part individually. I think Haluska would be impressed.
I love the honesty and the well-thought-out explanations.
I love the persistence of the "broken record" despite the fact that I didn't understand the hesitance (at first, at least) because it allows the speaker to explain so fully and vulnerably, and that gives the "broken record" so may reasons to be sure of the choice.
i love the persistence of the asker, and I love that even the "Hm" doesn't make the speaker give up hope.
The only things I don't really love are "babby" (which still made me laugh) and "Hm" (which was hard for me to understand until I remembered that there is such a thing as well-thought-out decisions, plus it elevates the speaker, so I am okay with it now).
In conclusion, I really, really like this. Thanks for writing it. It totally made my day.
True. Babby is the wrong sound. Should be babeh. I'll change it tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteForgot also to include in the why: "So my general plan is to die. More specifically, it's not so morbid."
ReplyDeleteI really like this. It made me smile the entire way though. I was definitely cheering on the Answerer the entire time. I was like, "Shoot, that first answer was great, don't be stupid, Questioner, say yes!!" (Yes, those are the names my mind gave them.)
ReplyDeleteVery well written. I could see an exchange going on. I really liked this.
I also immediately had ideas of writing from the Questioner's point of view. And I may do that, but right now I'm waiting for the sun to get off my pillow so I can go back to sleep.
Oh, yes, this was good. The "wife-candidate" part made me laugh, and then I thought about why, and it's because if anybody asked me to be their wife-candidate, I would probably (well, let's be honest, unless the circumstances were exceptional, I WOULD) back away very slowly at an oblique angle and (depending on the person) reach for mace or whatever else I had at hand. Maybe not quite that extreme. Sounds like something a theo major would say. :) No offense to my theo majors.
ReplyDeleteRobby: "My general plan is to die. More specifically, it's not so morbid."
ReplyDeleteTouch of brilliance. :-)
Ashley: Do it! :-)
Lyssa: I totally get what you mean. I didn't realize until you said it that I heard that line as I was reading in the voice of a theology major I know.
Not the whole thing, just that line. :-)
AAAA THEO MAJOR RUUUUUUUN
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah. This whole post is my problem with asking people out. HOW? I mean, I don't think lots of girls think about how hard it is to ask them out, and then they say "Why?" without thinking. It's super difficult to think of answers like that on the spot that will make them say ok.
That's a very good point. I suppose the fact that people ever get together at all is something of a miracle. The girls are all like "Never being asked is so hard," and the boys are all like, "Asking is so hard" . . .
ReplyDeleteI just made everybody sound like a bunch of whiners. Sorry.
I like an alternative spelling which makes us seem more epic: Whinge. Where that G comes from, nobody knows, but I have seen it spelled that way.
ReplyDeleteOh, Samuel Johnson.
And I think that in this postmodern world of equality of the sexes, if girls want more dates, they should orchestrate more. I mean, the first few dates are usually group outings anyway. Just invite him with a group of your friends and then BAM groupdate. It's pretty easy for girls to take the initiative and suck a dude in without his knowing it.
Samuel Johnson, indeed. One can forgive him just about anything for the "harmless drudge" and general awesomeness.
ReplyDeleteThat . . . groupdate thing . . . seems unethical.
Well, some of us are working on orchestrating more, though the word 'orchestrating' feels sort of weird. I thought of it more as "getting mutual friends together so it wouldn't be weird to ask you to go somewhere" thing. But whatever. I also haven't done it yet, so that's my cowardice. :D
ReplyDeletePrecisely. I don't think it's unethical as long as you don't try to convince anyone it means anything. As long as it's just a way to introduce a single new friend to your friend group, its just fine. I've done it. It worked . . . but I never was capable of acting on it because I'm a coward.
ReplyDeleteNo, no, I'm fine with going on groupdates and with getting single friends introduced to friend groups. What I'm not fine with is trying to "suck a dude in without his knowing it."
ReplyDeleteHaha, I guess so. But once he's sucked in, who's to say he can't just leave? I suppose I meant it more as a "Get used to the idea of my proximity to your person vis a vis less than two miles away" sort of idea. You know, geographical, not emotional.
ReplyDeletehahaha, I love this. all of this. the post, the comments, everything. also, "And yeah. This whole post is my problem with asking people out. HOW? I mean, I don't think lots of girls think about how hard it is to ask them out, and then they say "Why?" without thinking. It's super difficult to think of answers like that on the spot that will make them say ok. "
ReplyDelete^^this. robby has hit the nail on the head here.
Good point, Robby. But what if he's too polite to leave?
ReplyDeleteYes, Robby is good with hammers.
If he's too polite to leave, then it's on his own head, isn't it? And he doesn't have to commit to an emotional attachment just because he's geographically proximal.
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks, guys. Kyle, I thought you would get this.
ReplyDeletePsh, you think it's hard for a guy to ask a girl out? It's even harder if the girl WANTS the guy to ask her out, but he doesn't and she can't do anything about it. She can't ask HIM out without looking like an overbearing man-hunter. She can invite him on a group date but if he says no, she's left wondering if he's rejecting her or just the singular event. But beyond the girl straight up being bold and asking "Could there possibly be something here," and being a complete turn-off, there is absolutely nothing a girl can do. This has happened to me multiple times, and therefore I have absolutely NO SYMPATHY for guys who whinge (great word, btw) that all girls have to do is be asked, while the guys have to DO THE ASKING. Psh. I scoff.
ReplyDeleteWell, I never wanted to imply that waiting was easy. I'm sure that it's terrifying having a lose lose option in front of you.
ReplyDeleteBUUUUT
I'm a big proponent of Unsought Honesty. It means that you don't just answer questions honestly; you anticipate the questions and tell the person on your own.
It's as difficult as a week long fast. But it can be done.
SO
What that means is that what I think girls can do (I'm on shaky ground, having never been a girl) is just tell the guy that they like him and just leave it at that. You don't have to ask him out, and you don't have to wait until he asks you if you like him. Just tell him.
The only reason why I think this would work is because:
1. 3/4 of the reason most guys are freaked out is because they are afraid of rejection (of course) and knowing the girl likes you takes the fear straight out of it
2. when boys know that someone likes them, they begin to see the girl in a new light, whether they want to or not. They may go "huh I guess they are a potential partner" or they may go "creepy chick." But if they say "creepy chick" do you REALLY WANT THEM ANYWAY?
This is a good thought, Alyssa. I will now BLOG ABOUT IT LIKE A CHAMP.
So . . . when the girl says yes (or no, or i guess so), does the guy get to ask why?
ReplyDelete(Note to self: check blogs over break.)
I think girls do realize how hard it is to ask someone out. That's why they aren't asking guys out--it's so hard! They're just hoping the boys will decide to be the men.
Haha, ouch. "Man up! You pansy!"
ReplyDeleteYeah.
Um . . . I've never really thought about it. The guy SHOULD get to ask why, but most of us just don't. I think the proof should be in the pudding, and the pudding is for eating to find the proof.
When I asked (I'm trying to decide if I should refer to her by name [she's a part of my past, it's my right to be specific] or by her initial [she does deserve some privacy] or just by the clunky "my last girlfriend" [she's a part of my past as an entity only, not a person] but I can't decide) her out, she said simply "Okay," after a very long pause. And I didn't want to ask "why," because I knew I could find out later. I did. It wasn't worth asking then.
However, if a girl says "no," the guy should get to ask "why" but I doubt many girls would give him the courtesy of an answer. Because they aren't invested in him, and lots of women are selfish to their core when it comes to their emotional investment. (wise, or mean? you decide) So, it becomes less important that they give the guy an actual answer.
But if she says no, I would probably ask "why" just to find out if it's a "not now," "never," or "ask again."
Yes. "Proof in the pudding." I completely agree. That's why I set up emotional boundaries (as loose as they may be)--I want to see before I'm told. And I don't know if selfishness in regards to emotional investment is wise or mean. (I've never really thought about it.) I'm a bad person to ask.
ReplyDeleteGuys aren't super conservative with their emotional involvement. So when girls pull back but don't say why, it's like we're being cheated.
ReplyDeleteThat's why it may feel selfish.
Why is that, do you think? Why are guys "not super conservative with their emotional involvement"? I mean, I know that "emotional involvement" might means completely different things to guys and girls . . . but still, why aren't guys super conservative with their emotional involvement, as you say?
ReplyDelete(I do agree that people shouldn't pullout of a relationship without explanation--that's just rude!)
I read somewhere that the majority of women cannot accurately measure their state of physical arousal. Often, women said that they were at a five of ten, when the actuality of their arousal was more like a nine, or vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI think it is much the same with men and their knowledge of their emotional attachment. Guys form bonds and don't even know it until the dumb thing snaps in two. It's part of why guys aren't normally good at articulating their emotions: they can't feel them.
Girls, on the other hand, are quickly made aware of how much overextending their emotions can hurt, and they guard against it meticulously (or they're just snitches and they are using dudes who are using them, but that's a whole group of people typical of Mizzou [which means nothing to you guys]). So women, because they are more aware, are able to draw back rather than be burned. Guys, because they are less aware, only notice after blisters form.
From what I've seen, anyway.
I'd never heard that before. But it actually makes sense. Hmmm . . . but if that is true for emotions, can the same be said for physical attachment? . . . Do girls jump in too quickly physically because they don't understand themselves? Do guys have the capability to be more reserved physically because they are better aware of their arousal level?
ReplyDeleteI am not a guy . . . Robby?
I think so. GOSH! I thought I had talked about this theory with you guys before.
ReplyDeleteI think it's the woman's role to monitor the entire relationship's relative emotional level and make her observations known to her man. Then they can make an informed group decision. One of the biggest mistakes lots of girls make is just asking a guy for a decision, not realizing that he has no idea what they're talking about because DUDES DON'T SEE THAT STUFF.
And the same goes for the physical. It's kind of up to the guy to monitor how far the relationship is going/has gone, and make the girl aware of what's going on so they can make group decisions.
I've tried it. It works in theory, but nobody's perfect.
Both of these plans require a great deal of forgiveness, btw.
BOTTOM LINE: it's easier for girls to manipulate emotionally, so they have to self-regulate. It's easier for guys to overstep physically, so they have to self-regulate.
It's pretty obvious once you think about it.
Sorry. Thank you for your patience. This makes sense . . . thank you for taking the time to explain your ideas again.
ReplyDeleteHm. It makes sense logically, but will it fly in a relationship? Only time can tell.
ReplyDeleteAnd additionally, it takes a lot of forgiveness if somebody screws up. Because once you've clearly delineated responsibility for anything, there is a chance to screw up. So you can't be all like "Boyfriend, I can't believe you didn't do X when I asked you to! I feel uncomfortable and you aren't noticing that!" Just the same as he can't say "Girlfriend, I can't believe you want to sit with me at lunch on Wednesday! It's my Dude Time and you are smothering me and I thought you were handling this, so back off!"
It's not fair to either party. Forgive, it makes life easier.
I don't know how it flies in relationships. (I'm really bad about talking about serious things when I should. [And even worse with emotions (uck! squirm).]) But I like theory--it helps me understand on the whole and shows me areas in which I need to grow--and helps me figure out how to do so.
ReplyDeleteAnyway . . . yeah, so forgiveness is good. Yes. And necessary. Yes, yes.
I've just really been enjoying this conversation, and I wasn't planning to say anything and break up the flow of it. This does all of those things, but I'd like to hear what you have to say about it, so:
ReplyDeleteI do think that in a relationship, people should be honest, and I can see how having the girl monitor the emotional side of things and the guy monitor the physical side of things would be good for both parties involved as long as both parties were still involved in both sides.
I've never been in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, but I think I'm pretty close friends with quite a few guys, and I've watched quite a few relationships go well and poorly, and I think couples need to regularly talk about this stuff frankly. I even think people of opposite genders who are friends should talk about it.
I've seen girls get emotionally attached to guys who didn't care about them back because the girls were monitoring their own emotions and assuming the guys' matched. This has even happened in relationships that began as, "Neither of us is interested; let us be friends" because people change.
The worst part is not knowing.
I do think, though, that if a relationship is going to be fair, there has to be forgiveness. Dating or not. I don't think forgiveness means accepting the issues and not working to resolve them; I think forgiveness acknowledges and neutralizes the emotions (I didn't say "makes them go away") so that healing and resolution can happen.
I think.
I used to hate emotions, but I do think they're very important. We must have been given them for a reason, mustn't we?
Captcha says: "daetstab," which looks a lot like "datestab," which is terrifying.
Yes, frankness thank you. Ruby never ever said what she meant until it was too late to do anything about. It was annoying to read and it made me angry to think it might have been done to me. But what are you going to do? Frankness is super hard unless you practice it, and especially hard if you're broken beforehand and you just . . . won't be frank. Ever.
ReplyDeleteBut I think that complete and unsolicited honesty is still the best way to run a romantic relationship. I mean, don't tell your woman that you think someone else is attractive. Don't be dumb about it. But tell her if she asks, I guess.
Haha, it's her fault for asking someone who has promised to be honest with her? Anyway, there are some sticky situations, but if both parties accept that total honesty is their system, I think it can work.
Like I said, though, no actual personal experience on this one. 50% of a system does not work. You have to go at this whole hog.
"Frankness is super hard unless you practice it, and especially hard if you're broken beforehand and you just . . . won't be frank. Ever."
ReplyDelete^This.
"50% of a system does not work. You have to go at this whole hog."
^This.
Yes. Honesty.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that Ruby learns from her mistakes and grows. I would like to think that her therapist makes progress with her and that she enters adulthood happy in herself. But, from what I've heard of the fourth book, that doesn't happen. (Robby, I saw you had posted something on your old blog on Janelle's blog list, and was interested, so I read it. I decided not to comment there, and to let it live in its dead [or mostly dead] state.) I'm sad that the books take that direction. (I think that she spent so much time thinking about the megaslut she wasn't that she turned into one. [You are what you think?])
Hmmm. 100% honesty is the only thing that works. I should have liked to have been struck with this truth a few years ago. But here it is now. And I take it. And now to act on it. Hmmm. And now to act on it.
A thing that I think is difficult is . . . timing.
ReplyDeleteRuby is a good person, and it could have gone so many ways, but it took the traditional WORLD ending and said "She's not good until she's hooked up for serious with a man." Because you can't be a strong, independent woman with male friends, you HAVE TO BE WITH SOMEBODY. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteShe did make growth with her therapist, though.
I love honesty!
Janelle: Yes, I have trouble with timing. I'm always looking for the "perfect" timing, where everything will play out just right . . . and everything ties in nicely with the rest of the conversation. But I've given up on such a spot. I do not think it exists. And I need to stop waiting for it.
ReplyDeleteRobby: I hate how much that message is preached. It's everywhere. And I know it's a lie, and I have no intention on acting on it, but how do you combat it? How do you teach that it's a lie?? (You don't need to try to answer that [unless you have an answer]. It's just something that I've been struggling with for a bit. How can you show teens that sex is not the answer--it's not going to solve anything? [I'm not sure how I came about that conclusion.] My struggle with this question is one of the main reasons I don't want kids of my own.)
I might read the book, just to see where/how she grows--and to try to gain some understanding about that teaching . . . about girls who believe it . . . because I don't understand them.
When did the teen world become all about sex? Maybe it's always been that way. I don't know. But currently it depresses me.
My sister dated constantly from the time she was twelve to sometime in college, when she stopped "dating" for six months or so (although she was still interested in one guy) before she got engaged and went up to live in Canada.
ReplyDeleteI grew up watching her get crushed by guy after guy after guy and think she was worthless because they treated her like she was. I spent years trying to convince her otherwise.
Meanwhile, I couldn't help wondering why, while she kept getting asked out by all these guys, nobody ever asked me. I saw other girls with all the flaws I knew I had in decent relationships with people, so I started thinking that guys just saw something in me that was so horrible they didn't want to be around it (I went through this with my parents before that even started, so I already had those ideas in place).
Dramatic and stupid, yes? (Yes.)
Still-- rejection, be it conscious or unconscious, is really difficult to face. I think this is at least partially because of the whole "it is not good for man to be alone" thing. We sense that we need to be together, to have connections, to form relationships. I think people tend to naturally want to have as many deep relationships as they can get-- or at least a few really, really good ones-- because we are wired that way (for the most part).
Most pastors tell their congregations that they can know they have worth because they are children of God. In other words, they find worth in a relationship with Christ. Assuming this is true for all people, people are going to look to their relationships to validate their self-worth. People who don't have God will look to the next-deepest relationship they have: their significant other (or lack of such).
People who have God may still experience issues with this because the Bible tells us that a committed relationship is a (poor but closest possible) mirror for God, for what our relationship with Him should look like. If they are rejected by those closest to them on earth (be it a spouse or close family member or even friend), that experience may cast a shadow over what they know (intellectually) to be true.
It may look something like this: "If we are not good enough for other people who aren't perfect and don't even know what perfection is, then how can we ever please someone who demands absolute perfection from us?"
God is love. For love to happen, there must be an Other (hence, Father, Son, Spirit). We are made in the image of God, so to fulfill our purpose in life, we must also have an Other (hence, relationship). If we don't have a fulfilling relationship with an Other, then we fall apart a little, and we compensate for our inability to fulfill our purpose in life by . . . pretty much all the ridiculous, stupid, and horrible things people do.
So our directive is "be fruitful and multiply," but what most people don't understand is that because we multiply rather than add when we form relationships, some relationships are not worth pursuing. If you take a 1/2 person and multiply him or her with another 1/2 person, you get 1/4. Instead, both people should wait and grow in God to become whole people (but that requires a great deal of time, effort, and trust-- all of which are huge sacrifices). Only then do two people come together to become one.
*stepping out of blah blah blah riff now, I promise*
Yes, I agree with/understand that idea--it is good for man to have another--and everything you said. Which is why I think people can and do talk about relationship with God in terms of a romantic-man-woman relationship--because that's the greatest love they can imagine, that they they know, and so when describing the greatest of greatest loves, they use that as a basis.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that makes me sad is when people assume that sex means companionship--because it doesn't.
Indeed. It's understandable, to me, though.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know. I think in some ways companionship is exactly what sex means. At least, it's of what sex is a symbol. I don't think the problem is that people think that sex and companionship go together; I think the problem is that people think sex will bring companionship (and commitment) instead of companionship (and commitment) bringing sex.
As for teaching teenagers, I think it might be good to take a lesson from the Orthodox Jews. http://bringingpurityback.blogspot.com/2010/04/orthodox-jews-and-sex.html
Yes, they certainly are meant to go together, and make good partners, for sure. But one does not necessarily mean the other. Yes. Exactly what you said. (I should finish reading before I start replying.)
ReplyDeleteThat really is truly beautiful--the Orthodox Jews--looks like God knew what he was doing, again.
Well, what's the fun in that, Brooke? :-)
ReplyDeleteIndeed, it does.
About the before--I think sex is an answer. But it is not THE answer. Which is why people pick it so often (they are too lazy to pick a better one).
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense.
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteJust read the thing about jews. That's beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI have always assumed that God didn't want us to have sex during menstruation for a reason, and I assumed that (pending my wife's approval) that I would follow that. But they take it to a whole other level. Wow.
Yes. And I am all smiles and longing thinking about it. It's real, what they have. It's amazing.
ReplyDeleteSomeday.
ReplyDelete(crosses fingers)
ReplyDeleteDON'T! YOU'LL JINX US ALL!
ReplyDelete