GO TARHEELS!!!
Any girl, who goes on three dates with me, will fall in love with me. This is not a theory, like that candy bar craziness of last week. It’s an uncontroverted fact.
Let’s get a couple of things straight. First, it is three dates not two as has recently been erroneously reported by some wanna-be-theoryoricicists. Second, I did not say the girl would be in love with me at the end of the third date, I just said she will fall in love with me.
What causes this phenomenon? There are many theories about that, my dapper good looks, my contagious personality, my wit, my charisma, my really, really large . . . heart.
Where to start? Ok as of 7:39 on March 8, 2009, there are approximately 6,765,152,276 people in the world. But I don’t travel much, and I don’t speak a foreign language, so let’s limit this to the United States. The US has about 5 million more girls than guys and about 155,000,000 girls in all. Even if you limit it 18 to 40 year olds, that’s a lot of girls.
Right off the bat, some, let’s say 50, wouldn’t even go on a first date with me. There either snobs, married, or not very smart.
Then, there are some who wouldn’t go on a second date with me. Maybe my fly was open all night, or I got lettuce stuck in my teeth. Usually they’re the girls who can’t seem to allow themselves to be happy, or they’re snobs, or not very smart.
Of course, there are also some I wouldn’t go on a second date with.
All kidding aside, there are a lot of people out there you just aren’t going to mesh with. That’s ok. I am always interested when people give up trying b/c the first few significant others don’t work out. I mean there are probably 125 million potential significant others in the US alone that you wouldn’t get to a second date with, but your quiting because 5 or 10 didn’t work out.
Now, if we get to the second date, it means there’s nothing really standing in the way of friendship, but it doesn’t mean love. We might run out of things to talk about right then, or maybe after the initial “I’m going on a date” thrill wore off, we realize there isn’t real attraction and there isn’t another date.
But if it gets to the third date, she will fall in love.
Here’s the truth of it guys and girls. It’s not really that hard to figure out how to make a girl fall in love with you. All you have to do is listen to her. Girls are more than willing to share what it is they are looking for in a guy. They’ll tell you something sweet that happened to their roommate. They’ll talk about the guy who lives down the hall that never treats his girlfriend right. And if she’s already been on two dates with me, I’ve had plenty of time to listen.
If she thinks the guy should always open the door, you do it. If she thinks all guys who wear red shirts are jerks, you first make sure she isn’t crazy, then you give away your red shirts and start wearing blue. If she mentions that no guy has ever given her jewelry, you figure out a time to get her some.
The point is this: you are trying to get the girl to fall in love with you. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s stupid, your friends think it’s stupid, or it is in fact undeniably stupid. If she wants you to do it, you do it.
The theory is as simple of this, if I am compatible enough with a girl that we go on three dates, that is all the time I need for her to tell me what she is looking for in a guy. Then I become that guy. I listen and I act. And I listen and I act for as long as it takes for her to fall in love with me.
It really is that simple, but it’s not easy. It’s a lot of work, and I have a theory as to why most guys can’t pull it off. They either refuse to listen or they’re too lazy to act, or 99% of the time, they’re both.
Side Note: As the elder statesman of the bloggers (except Kris who is so old that is only questionably sane) I have decided to end of my blogs with a word of wisdom. Today’s is,
“If it looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap, then don’t eat it, even if it isn’t crap.”
13 comments:
your theory may be true. my problem with the theory is this.......most men who have the opportunity to date Lindsay Marie Carlson, much less marry Lindsay Marie Carlson would consider themselves a blessed man. they wouldn't devise a theory about themselves and their ability to make "any girl fall in love with me."
to the women readers of this blog:
how would it make you feel if your husband said this?
I can't really deny the truth of this theory. If VZ can get Lindsay to fall in love with him, a girl he clearly should have no chance with, then really is there any denying he could do this with any girl? Lindsay's only mistake was saying yes to three dates. Likely, she was only humoring the poor guy and didn't want to break his heart. Then once she hit the magic three date mark, there was no turning back. It was all over and the rest is history. A cautionary tale to all women considering going out with guys not in their league.
In truth though, I will raise one slight objection or really a point of information. VZ, have you ever went on three dates with more than two girls in your lifetime? If the theory is based on such a small sampling, can it be valid?
I'm not expert on love, but this theory, if true, really cheapens love, and that sucks. Therefore I'm tempted to say this theory sucks. Main reasons:
1. It assumes that love is all based off of what someone will do for someone else. In other words, I will fall in love with you if you give me what I want. If a girl is only going to fall in love with me because I give her what she wants, then what's in it for me? I'm probably going to end up being a miserable, hen-pecked husband just trying to make my wife happy for the rest of my life. Shouldn't a relationship have give and take?
2. One of my biggest turnoffs in girls is when they try to be who they think I want them to be. They think I'm a Republican, so they become Republican. They think that I like blue, so they like blue. I would like to think that this would be a turnoff for a girl as well. I want someone who has their own personality, their own likes and dislikes, and doesn't expect mine to be the same.
I should clarify that I'm not saying changing oneself isn't good, because in many cases change is needed. But changing just to make someone fall in love with you is lame.
Says the single, never-married, never been "in love" critic.
-Bho
Brian, quite being so idealistic.
what's in it for you if you give her what she wants?! you get to have sex, and really, isn't that the whole point?
jk
I seems there is a toss up. Is this sweet that you consider the desires, likes, and dislikes of a person in order to make them happy? Or is it misleading and _____?
I feel like VZ is on to something here that is crucial for relationships. Studying and understanding your significant other in order to make them happy. To me it seems this is a response to love. When this strategy is used to make someone fall in love and is presented only as that it does seem cheep and not real.
I think if someone is using these thoughts as a strategy to make someone fall in love with them there are some fundamentals that must change or the relationship will not last. If the goal is to make someone "fall in love" after this "infatuation" is achieved and a long term relationship is initiated (marriage?) what will happen? If the goal has been achieved then the kind things that were being done through this process VZ has suggested will cease to exist. This is what happens when people "fall out of love". They stop doing those things that they loved about each other because they feel the end (marriage) has been accomplished.
Love should be accepting the other person regardless of what they do for you. And through that acceptance to in turn do what VZ is suggesting because you love them not to make them fall in love with you. One way of using his strategy is selfish, one is selfless. The bottom line is why are you doing those things? To gain a upper hand in a relationship or for the happiness of the other person?
I can't deny that this has some truth in it in the selfish way it has been initially presented. If you do this, you probably could make most people "fall in love/infatuation". But I also feel like it is not the right way to go about things. VZ, I bet you can help us all out by putting your theory in context. Do you think this is the right way to do things or do you just think it can work?
So I have heard this theory many times from the mouth of the theorist and it has some good parts and as stated some seemingly bad. However, it is just a theory and should definitely remain as such until a few more people prove this to be true. Also, I have heard Lindsay object to this a few times. It sorta takes some of the effort away from the girl. It could be said that she got YOU to fall in love with her in one date because you asked her again.
i'm not sure if we're supposed to evaluate this seriously or superficially or satirically. if seriously, as believers, where is God in this? and the pattern of marriage as laid out in scripture, and how that impacts dating and marriage and motives and even what love is.
if superficially, i would agree to a certain extent. I didn't have a g/f for 5 years before kristen. i sort of went on dates with two ladies, and after either the 2nd date or second time around them, knew i was not interested. so for me, after i was around kristen the third time and still into her, i knew something was up. and now i'm in love and the Lord has blessed us etc...
If satirically, then yes haha at all the VZ jokes. I remember him talking about this while I was still at UNC. I'll say that I certainly received much WORSE advice than this-- yes, that is a backhanded compliment, and i'm referring to "kiss her before you start dating to find out if you like her." Considering that I have not kissed Kristen (on the lips) I certainly have decided over time that this is terrible counsel. But i know i'm a weirdo.
So I absolutely have to weigh in on this subject -- but I can't even figure out where to start! I have so much to say, but I'm trying really hard not to write a book! So, my formal response will come tonight and will hopefully address:
1. do I feel tricked -- I'm not sure!
2. definitely an inadequate testing sample
3. flattering vs. creepy dating
4. friends first vs, dating to get-to-know
5. what REALLY happened.
on the flipside........
can Lindsay Marie Carlson go on ONE date with a guy and have him fall in love? Lindsay, do you think this happened with VZ and he is using a defense mechanism to make himself feel like he really isn't that helpless?
I think that Vz is trying to say something very important here. I think he is calling out us self-contained and narrow-visioned males who tend to only think about what we want and how to make a girl like us. I think the point of his theory is not to do whatever it takes to get the girl to fall in love with you so that you can get the girl of your dreams, but to do whatever it takes to please the person you are dating. Vz is pointing out how we should be completely selfless in our relationships, not wear red shirts because we are stubborn and want to wear red shirts to prove some point even though everyone else knows we don't look good in red shirts, red shirts are out of style, the girl hates red shirts, or any other perfectly valid reason.
I appreciate Vzs advice and think that it is advice we all should take to heart - those of us in relationships and those not yet in relationships. Turn away all selfishness and love the other more than yourself. Don't be obstinate, self-centered, or just plain out of style, but do what the girl tells you to do, because she is likely always right.
I want to thank Vz for his great post, and don't understand why anyone would give him a hard time about this. I think his underlying point is great advice for all!
Hello all! First of all, I want to say thank you for all the really sweet comments that have been directed towards me as a result of this post -- I really appreciate it!! I wish I could be good enough to make someone fall in love in just 1 date, but definitely no where near that good!
Ok, so:
1. Do I feel tricked? I think I might a little, but if his only goal was to be whoever I wanted him to be in order for me to fall in love with him -- he failed miserably because he fell for me right back and kept trying to do what he thought I would want him to. Until all of our friends made fun of him (what was that part about do whatever she wants even if people think it's stupid??).
2. There are some technical difficulties with this theory though. Brent, very nice point about the fact that this might only have been tested on 2 women. No respectable medical journal would ever accept a sweeping theory formed based on only 2 subjects. We also have absolutely no idea how long it took the first girl to fall in love with him -- and how long did it take him to perfect this style of his? Another issue is that he gives the impression that he can start this listening and adapting with the first date and gather all the data he needs by the third date. If I am supposed to be support for this theory, it would only be fair to disclose that he began his "research" waaaaaay earlier than our first date. In fact, I think that he wanted to be completely sure of my willingness to pursue a relationship before he EVER asked for an official date.
3. This leads me to my next point. There is a fundamental difference in approaches to dating. There are some people to date their friends and some people who date to get to know someone. I have never been a good date-to-get-to-know kind of girl. Never. All of my true first dates have been pretty bad, awkward -- rarely a second (yet further support that I cannot make someone fall in love with me in 1 date -- though I appreciate the thought Eddie!). John apparently isn't either because we spent so much time together before any official date, that he did all his "research" then.
4. The true story: John became my best friend over the months before we started dating, which is by far the best approach I could think of. We talked about what kind of spouse we wanted, how many kids, what kind of house, what holidays were most important to our respective families, how he would never ever live in Hendersonville (haha) etc. Despite what his theory suggests, he did months of research -- where he really did listen (it's key, he's a great listener when he wants to be) and never once seemed to change his whole personality around me. We had plenty of disagreements, which were actually fun. I liked being able to spar and pick with someone. I think that it would be kind-of creepy if the person you were interested in didn't seem to have interests or opinions of their own. But when done in moderation, I think it's a great and selfless thing to try to be more attractive to your partner -- to do things that you normally wouldn't do just because you know it would make them happy. But in a healthy relationship, that would happen both ways -- give and take. The truth is that I probably fell in love with him gradually, maybe even before we dated simply because he became my best friend. My question is that in this theory of my husband's, what does he propose to do after he gets the girl to fall for him? He was excellent at that selfless, sweet stuff until we were actually dating and people started making fun of him. If I had fallen for him just because of all the stuff he did for me in the honeymoon period, that would have been a very shallow love that would have dissolved as soon as he stopped fawning over me. Please don't misunderstand -- I absolutely love it when he wears real clothes out to dinner, or cleans for me, or has a bath waiting for me when I get home from L&D, but he doesn't lose himself in this -- which means it's still HIM who is just doing a nice thing for me, and that's the best thing in the world. I hope he posts again to clarify his theory, because right now it sort-of cheapens all that he really did do.
So sorry that this is still a book! I tried so hard to keep it to the point -- hopefully it's somewhat coherent! Miss you guys!
The question is, what happens when you stop playing the role perfectly and the real VZ peeks out?
Ok finished reading the other comments. Lindsay's right above mine pretty much demolishes my point. Nevermind.
Post a Comment