First, I am pleased but somewhat surprised at the general consensus surrounding my original premise: if a guy and girl are compatible enough to enjoy three dates, then if the guy is willing to listen to the girl and act on what he learns, the girl will fall in love with him.
Second, I am disappointed that Lindsay was the only girl who felt like weighing in on this. I would really be nice to hear some insights from the other side of the aisle.
Most of the disagreement, concern appears to be one of three things:
1) Sample size - I can't do better than 100%, and there are no plans to increase the sample size just to prove something I already believe.
2) The theory can be used for purposes that are deemed by the commentor as "improper." Ok, I agree. Probably something like 80% of what is done in relationships is done for an improper motive or to reach an improper end. I certainly don't think that is good, but it's a fact.
3) Will the love last? Great question, critque. I would suggest, although I have no data, that the chance of the love dying is directly related to the amount of improper motives that affect the guy's decision to follow the theory.
Having then established that I can make any girl who will go on three dates with me fall in love me. I will further address some of comments:
I think my small sample indicates that I personally have never used this ability in a situation where I did not deeply care for the person. To summarize the good parts of Clayton's comments: Listening and acting is not necessarily a means to end (as suggested in B-Ho's comment and as intentionally hinted at in my initial post) it can also be a end in itself. That is, you can listen to your significant other and act on what you learn because you love him/her, not in order to get him/her to love you.
In response to B-Ho's comment, I don't think your life would be become a miserable hen-pecked husband simply because you listened to your wife and acted. Especially not if she was doing the same thing. I am not sure anything in the original post suggested that you can't put the theory into action and also be your own person. In fact, I think Lindsay's comments illustrate that I was able to both listen and act and also be my own person. And no I don't think a relationship should be "give and take." I believe it should be "give and give." If both people are giving, then there is no need for taking.
And if we want to be idealistic, I would say that you can really only control yourself, so if the other person isn't giving there isn't much you can do but decide whether you are going to keep giving anyway or whether you are going to get fed up and start taking. Idealistically, I think you should always keep giving.
Brian Turney - no comment.
Clayton raises an interesting discussion. I would agree that at some point, people decide they have achieved their "goal" and stop trying or stop trying as hard. However, Clayton suggests this happens because someone falls out of love. I think people fall out of love (if that is even a good way to describe it) because they stop trying.
Clayton futher suggests that the theory is not the "right" way to go about making someone fall in love. Well Clayton, what is the right way? Hypothetically, let's say you just met a girl, we'll call her Kristen, at orientation and you think you might like her. Clearly, she doesn't "love" you at this point. And then let's say you start hanging out with her and realize you might like her. Then you realize you might love her. Let's say you do love her, but she doesn't love you yet (perfectly feasible unless you believe both people in a relationship automatically feel the same way at the same time). I would say you definitely want her to "fall in love with you." And you are going to act on this desire and try to make her fall in love with you. So do you have a better way to achieve this goal? What is the right way? I guess I think listening to her and trying to do things that will make her happy and trying not to do things that would hurt her, is the "right" way to go about making her fall in love with you.
I would like to thank Kris for being one of the few with a kind comment, and take this moment to point out that Lindsay (who experienced it) and Kris (who had the most direct view of it in action) are the two most complimentary commentors.
I would place the following modifiers on the theory:
1) There are certain parts of yourself that you shouldn't change. There are certain parts of yourself that you probably won't be able to change at least for the long-term, and by changing them in the short-term you are being disingenuous. But there are so many things that you can change without losing your indentity. (By the way I am not talking about things that you are simply unwilling to change, I am mostly talking about things that would be immorral, unhealthy, disingenuous to change.) As my grandma used to say "I can't help it, God made me this way." And as my mom used to say to us later "Actually, God made you a human being with a soul who is capable of change and growth."
2) If you don't plan on employing the listen and act strategy for the entirety of your relationship, you are just setting yourself and your significant other up for pain and sorrow. On a sidenote soapbox, if your goals are getting the girl to fall in love or getting her to marry you, your goals are way to low. I believe the proper goal, is a constant deepening of the relationship and the love for a period not shorter than the entirety of the relationship. If you achieve that goal, then quit using the listen and act strategy.
With those modifiers, I don't have a problem if you use the theory in order to make someone fall in love with you.
If you love someone, or think you might, and desire that they feel the same about you, and if you are willing to listen to them and act on their desires for the entirety of the relationship, I challenge to find a kinder, better, more likely to succeed, or even more Biblical way to nurture those feelings than to listen to that person's needs and desires and do whatever you can to meet them.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Addressing some minor issues:
I don't recall telling Chris to "kiss her to see if he liked her" although I may have.
I remember telling many people that if you like someone who you have been friends with for a long time it is okay, not necessary, to kiss them before you go on a "date" with them, and I stand by that advice.
From Lindsay's post:
"but he doesn't lose himself in [doing the things he knows I love] -- 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 you guys read this, are re-reading it now, and then re-read it again.
Brent was trying to be funny but he really touched on an important truth:
I don't know how many times I have heard someone say, "I don't really like them" or "I know they aren't right for me." Yet they keep seeing that person and then sure enough, they fall in love with them.
Girls and guys alike should be aware of this possibility.
Pretty sure any problems Lindsay had on a first date had nothing to do with her.
In response to Glenn's first comment I feel like I should say:
That's what she said.
"If you love someone, or think you might, and desire that they feel the same about you, and if you are willing to listen to them and act on their desires for the entirety of the relationship, I challenge to find a kinder, better, more likely to succeed, or even more Biblical way to nurture those feelings than to listen to that person's needs and desires and do whatever you can to meet them."
My only main modifier is that I think we are called to do this with everyone, not just people we want to fall in love with us, not just our friends, and family, but all people, including our enemies. I think it's a biblical mandate for all relationships. Imagine a world where this actually happened...I think it would look like the Kingdom of God.
I don't know that I have a lot to add here, because so many others have provided thoughtful input, but Veazey requested female response.
1. I wouldn't go on three dates with someone unless I really cared about the person and knew I could potentially fall in love.
2. I did not fall in love with Andrew after just three dates. It took much longer than that. Although, I did go on more than three dates with him, so I recognized there was potential.
3. You'd have to ask Andrew about his tactics. But I never felt like he was "studying" me. I think he was just being himself.
In conclusion, we listen and act BECAUSE we love each other, not IN ORDER TO make each other be in love. I think someone has already made this point.
Great comments, explanations, and disclaimers.
About "but he doesn't lose himself in [doing the things he knows I love] -- which means it's still HIM who is just doing a nice thing for me, and that's the best thing in the world.". What would be wrong with losing yourself in these things? I guess you mean completely changing things you like and do to be only the person your significant other wants you to be. But it would be ok to deny yourself some things in your life to make her happy.
Additionally if things that are "HIM" are things that she hates then he can change them if they are not "immoral, unhealthy, disingenuous to change". For example, doing dishes even if you hate that, blah blah blah. VZ has mentioned this, just wanted to highlight that the things it would be bad to change for someone seem to be few in number.
Amy's comment is great in my opinion.
Finally, about falling out of love. I agree that people "fall out of love" because they quit trying or because they fail to do these nice things as often as their significant other wants them too. Ultimately something will fail. That is why I think a disclaimer for the foreverness of this theory should be included. Something that requires the foundation of forgiveness and grace so that in the abundance of times where we don't succeed in perfecting "the love theory" we can forgive each other and stay together.
there is another way to make women fall in love -- take your guitar and move to LA. just kidding. but seriously.
I would like to make my debut comment here. Now, I consider myself somewhat of a walking irony: A man with incredible charm, yet no relationship experience. There are two groups of subjects which I will refer to in this post, and they are defined as such: The "Nice Guy Gals:" Ladies who I have attempted to pursue/court/date/insertedgymoderntermhere but are not interested in me, though they think I am a "great guy." Then there are the "Just Ask Gals:" Ladies who have either expressed interest in DollaBills and have attested to that fact either directly to me or to my friends. These Just Askers do this with myself knowingly showing any "game" to them.
Why does this happen? I don't know, but I have some thoughts. Many of the Just Askers are girls who I have been around quite often in social situations: we share mutual friends, had classes together, were in the same organizations, attended the same church, etc. This may come as a bit of surprise to you all, but I can be a bit of an attention-whore. When in these social situations, I like to make people laugh or just act a fool. I also enjoy meeting new people and try to have a little-more-than-superficial convo with friends when I see them around. Let's call this "being myself." I am not intentionally trying to "listen and act" with romantic intentions; however, the Just Askers find this "being myself" phenomena attractive. I instituted no change in my behavior or personality because I was not trying to garner that affection from them.
In addition to being an attention-whore, I also crush a lot. Just ask Turney or Clayton. When I decide to "go after" a Nice Guy Gal, I begin to employ the "listen and act" strategy. Perhaps not exactly as laid out above, but the basic idea is there: I am interested in this girl, I would like her to be interested back at least for the short-term to see how it goes, so I find ways to up my "date-ability." I'd say that I attempted to strike things up with 5 girls in my Chapel Hill era. Here are the results: The two girls who I was the closest friends with before asking them on date 1 both said no to that date. The girl who I was probably weakest with in the friend department went on date 1, and called things off before date 2 could be initiated it. One girl was going to school in VA and our hang out time was far between but relatively intense. That one was just kind of weird and fizzled out, so maybe that doesn't really count on here. And the last crush happened during my last months of living in North Carolina, so I decided to not act on it, but upon discussion with the Nice Guy Gal later, I believe a dating attempt would have been futile.
So, my counter-theory: When you employ the "listen and act," you fail. When you just ask like the clown you are, you can have your pick.
Post a Comment