nittygritty Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Not at all. I read the book after D-day. It was tough love and that's what I needed to hear. It helped in some ways to stop the pathos of cycling. If you can't get it through your head that he doesn't care enough about you, you will continue with the victim "oh woe is me" mentality. It empowers, not denigrates. If 30 different people witness a train wreck they are going to see different things. I think its great that you found that book to be empowering and helpful to you during a tough time in your life. The reasons I didn't like that particular book were not because of having a victim "oh woe is me" mentality. I just didn't like it. I didn't find it to be helpful to me, personally. I already knew he didn't love or care enough about me, his actions had told me that. The book that I personally found helpful during that tough time in my life was "The Road Less Traveled" by M. Scott Peck. However, I have found LS to offer the most helpful information and advice. Loveshack the book... What do you want to bet some self-help book research or ideas have come from LS.
Hazy Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 i don't think He's Just Not That Into You is making women think "Oh, well he has to call me the next day after the first date or he's not into me" (although that is definitely a good thing to do if you really are into her.) I think it more applies to when a guy consistently doesn't call very often, or just calls at the last minute frequently. If you have to question over and over in your mind "why doesn't he want to spend much time with me?" "why does he cancel dates frequently?" "why does he go MIA for two weeks and then suddenly decides to call?" "why isn't he acting like he wants to be hanging out with me?" "why am I always the one to initiate dates, why doesn't he do it?" Or six months down the road "Why hasn't he called me his girlfriend or introduced me to any of his friends?" after reading the book, it really brings to light what is obvious to many "Hey, this dude really isn't that crazy about me, is he?"
Trialbyfire Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 If 30 different people witness a train wreck they are going to see different things. I think its great that you found that book to be empowering and helpful to you during a tough time in your life. The reasons I didn't like that particular book were not because of having a victim "oh woe is me" mentality. I just didn't like it. I didn't find it to be helpful to me, personally. I already knew he didn't love or care enough about me, his actions had told me that. The book that I personally found helpful during that tough time in my life was "The Road Less Traveled" by M. Scott Peck. However, I have found LS to offer the most helpful information and advice. Loveshack the book... What do you want to bet some self-help book research or ideas have come from LS. Most of what I found helpful wasn't the actual scenarios discussed. It was learning clearly that if words and actions don't jive, you've got problems and the man has issues babe. You see it happening all the time. People come onto LS either advertising for research needs or deliberately being provocative to get a general consensus and/or different perspectives.
nittygritty Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Most of what I found helpful wasn't the actual scenarios discussed. It was learning clearly that if words and actions don't jive, you've got problems and the man has issues babe. You see it happening all the time. People come onto LS either advertising for research needs or deliberately being provocative to get a general consensus and/or different perspectives. I agree!
buzzie2 Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 I read the book when it first came out and although I agree with some of the things the author said, I take some of the other's with a grain of salt. One of the things he said was that if he's not calling you or asking you or he's not into you. Well what if the guy just got out of a really bad long term relationship, and then he meets you at work. It's possible a guy can be really into you but maybe like some of the other people have posted that he doesn't want to appear desperate and just wants to take things slow. I also remember hearing the author of the book saying that it angered a lot of men when it first came out, because EVERY women was saying to their bf's or guys they were dating that he "Just wasn't into them" because for whatever reason. People take it too seriously, the same thing happened when "The Rules" came out. I hate it when people play games and try to manipulate their man, which is what the rules were about.
Trialbyfire Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Well then you apply the "you snooze, you lose" rule.
Hazy Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 If women are smart, they are not approaching the guy who is not into them by telling him that he is not into him. If he is not into you, you don't need to tell him that, and you can't change the fact that he's not into you. So the book is meant not as a way to start a discussion with the guy about why he's not into you, but to show you that it's time to move on from this guy unless you enjoy getting scraps, not the whole roast.
Author shadowplay Posted July 28, 2007 Author Posted July 28, 2007 Just as a personal example of how the book can be wrong... The guy I'm currently seeing I met a few months ago in a class and I wasn't sure if he was interested in me for awhile. He blew me hot and cold. One day he was friendly, the next he ignored me. It took him awhile to ask me out. But now things are going great and he told me just last night he had been harboring a crush on me from the first day he met me, so he just had nerves at the beginning. Now if I had heeded the book's advice I probably would have blown him off early on and made no effort to show interest. I'm glad I didn't. I wasn't at all aggressive, but I was friendly to him in a way I wouldn't have been if I thought there was no chance he was into me. I think it's true that if you're around a guy for a long time and he never asks you out or shows clear interest, he's probably not into you, but it's really hard to tell at the beginning because things like nervousness come into play.
nittygritty Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 You can love someone and know that you can't be in a relationship with them anymore. I think it can paint a false big picture if you leave out the details. You can be "into" someone and know that the relationship is doomed. Either you bail immediately or wait and see and stay conflicted about it and see if feelings or the situation changes. If you don't communicate your thoughts, feelings or concerns, the other person is receiving mixed messages and it makes the ending of the relationship confusing. If hearing "he or she's just not that into you" brings someone closure to a confusing relationship. So be it, but it doesn't make the statement true.
Trialbyfire Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Just as a personal example of how the book can be wrong... The guy I'm currently seeing I met a few months ago in a class and I wasn't sure if he was interested in me for awhile. He blew me hot and cold. One day he was friendly, the next he ignored me. It took him awhile to ask me out. But now things are going great and he told me just last night he had been harboring a crush on me from the first day he met me, so he just had nerves at the beginning. Now if I had heeded the book's advice I probably would have blown him off early on and made no effort to show interest. I'm glad I didn't. I wasn't at all aggressive, but I was friendly to him in a way I wouldn't have been if I thought there was no chance he was into me. I think it's true that if you're around a guy for a long time and he never asks you out or shows clear interest, he's probably not into you, but it's really hard to tell at the beginning because things like nervousness come into play. Okay, this makes sense. It might be what you're looking for in a guy. If a guy blows....errr...hot and cold, it would be the proverbial monster red flag for me. Whether he's a player, nervous, or bipolar, none of the three are of interest to me. In your situation, he lacked the confidence to be more assertive about his interest, where confidence is one of the top five of my dating list of requirements. Sorry, LS has been so into dating list requirements lately, I started my own.
Hazy Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Just as a personal example of how the book can be wrong... The guy I'm currently seeing I met a few months ago in a class and I wasn't sure if he was interested in me for awhile. He blew me hot and cold. One day he was friendly, the next he ignored me. It took him awhile to ask me out. But now things are going great and he told me just last night he had been harboring a crush on me from the first day he met me, so he just had nerves at the beginning. Now if I had heeded the book's advice I probably would have blown him off early on and made no effort to show interest. I'm glad I didn't. I wasn't at all aggressive, but I was friendly to him in a way I wouldn't have been if I thought there was no chance he was into me. I think it's true that if you're around a guy for a long time and he never asks you out or shows clear interest, he's probably not into you, but it's really hard to tell at the beginning because things like nervousness come into play. It really applies if you're already seeing the guy. It isn't meant to help get a guy who might be interested in you.
fray718 Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 How bout this situation? My friend dated this guy for 4 years but after all that time he had to move back to his home country because his dad was by himself and having health/mental problems and him being the only son felt like he had the obligation to go back. My friend loved him and thought bout moving to Japan with him but that means she would have to quit her job and move to a place where she knew nobody and not really know the language. In a way he chose his dad over her. Was he just not that into him? And in a way she chose her life here over him. Was she just not that into him? I dare you to say yes to both of these questions. I understand that his book may apply to certain situations but to apply it to every situation including cases like these....i dunno, but it's just a bit demeanig to do in my opinion. That's just what i mean when i say it's not all bout you. It wasnt all about my friend, it was also bout him and his dad as well. There are there things like timing and external factors. My friend broke up wit him but it took for years to get over him. Even now, she gets teared up just thinking bout him and how she was sad that she had to let him go but she knew she just had to do the right thing. She did not resent him but instead saw that he was being a good son and she even respected that. Part of loving someone is learning to let go.
Trialbyfire Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 How bout this situation? My friend dated this guy for 4 years but after all that time he had to move back to his home country because his dad was by himself and having health/mental problems and him being the only son felt like he had the obligation to go back. My friend loved him and thought bout moving to Japan with him but that means she would have to quit her job and move to a place where she knew nobody and not really know the language. In a way he chose his dad over her. Was he just not that into him? And in a way she chose her life here over him. Was she just not that into him? I dare you to say yes to both of these questions. I understand that his book may apply to certain situations but to apply it to every situation including cases like these....i dunno, but it's just a bit demeanig to do in my opinion. That's just what i mean when i say it's not all bout you. It wasnt all about my friend, it was also bout him and his dad as well. There are there things like timing and external factors. My friend broke up wit him but it took for years to get over him. Even now, she gets teared up just thinking bout him and how she was sad that she had to let him go but she knew she just had to do the right thing. She did not resent him but instead saw that he was being a good son and she even respected that. Part of loving someone is learning to let go. May I ask what difference this makes? In either situation, he's gone and she's crying into her martini.
fray718 Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 You had said the truth sets you free. If she tells herself that he's just not that into her, it wouldnt be the truth. So how can it set her free? It would prob just make her more confrused/upset. Better to just understand that a person can still love you but let you go. She did just that and it gave her closure. But if you apply HJNTIU to everything and it works for you, then I suggest you keep at it. Whatever works for you.
Trialbyfire Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Well, truthfully speaking, they're both not really into each other. If they were, they would find a way to make it work through an LDR or she would move.
fray718 Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Well, truthfully speaking, they're both not really into each other. If they were, they would find a way to make it work through an LDR or she would move. This is exactly what I mean when I say sometimes people take the book too far. I think the book sends a good message in general, but I think the problem comes in when I hear statements from people that is similar to this one. Sometimes two people love each other dearly, but it just wont work and what way are you thinking of for it to work? He's gonna be there permanently, what's the point of making it LDR? They thought about the future and saw that marriage will not work. And he does not resent her either for not moving wit him because she does not know the langague and she will pretty much have no means of finding a job there. And in the US she has a great job. Thing is, my friend could have been bitter at him for 'abandoning' her and moving to Japan but she thought bout it realistically and realized that he did what he had to do and she also knew it would be unrealitstic for her to move to a foreign country. She has moved on, but by not being bitter, but rather by realizing that she loved him and he loved her, just that it wasnt meant to be. She truly wishes him the best and she let him go. For her, that was how she came to terms with the situation.
Trialbyfire Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Your friend had a choice to move with him. She chose not to. This isn't all about him. Her situation is a mutual decision of not being into each other. This book is about empowering yourself when a guy spouts one thing but acts like another. It's not the pure selfishness of demanding that a guy not move for a sick parent.
fray718 Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 Her situation is a mutual decision of not being into each other. I think maybe we have different definiitons of 'just not that into you.' I thought her situation was more of it being a mutual decision to be realistics and mature about the situation, as opposed to him feeling hurt that she was just not that into him and vice versa. I know for one that my friend loved this man dearly.
Trialbyfire Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 I think maybe we have different definiitons of 'just not that into you.' I thought her situation was more of it being a mutual decision to be realistics and mature about the situation, as opposed to him feeling hurt that she was just not that into him and vice versa. I know for one that my friend loved this man dearly. Okay, here's another way of looking at it. If she really loved him so dearly, she would have given up heaven and earth to move with him. She didn't love him enough to give up her comfort zone, hence, she's not that into him.
fray718 Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 He could live his life telling himself that if she really loved him and was into him, she would move to Japan for him. She could have lived her life telling herself that if he really loved her and was into her, then he would not move to Japan. But what would be the point of doing that? How can that possibly help them? And is that really the truth? I would find it too much of a stretch and if both thought that way, not sure if they'd be so understanding of each other or even cared about each other that much. You were at least right in saying that my friend was not being selfish. And likewise he was not being selfish and insisting that she move to a foreign country away from all her family, friends and her job.
fray718 Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 If she really loved him so dearly, she would have given up heaven and earth to move with him. The problem here is the part about giving up heaven and earth. Really, she had thought bout this for a whole year she realized that eventhough she loved him, she has to be realistic. Do you really think of it like in the movies?
Trialbyfire Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 What's the use of pining for someone who's gone? I can guarantee they both still think about each other and will for years, wondering if they made the right decision. I'm not certain I would want this. Better to just sever it and not linger over false romanticisms.
fray718 Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 What's the use of pining for someone who's gone? I can guarantee they both still think about each other and will for years, wondering if they made the right decision. I'm not certain I would want this. Better to just sever it and not linger over false romanticisms. Thing is, alot of people read this book and think to themselves that wow, after 4 years, he's just not that into me. And they spend years feeling hurt by what happenend and mistrusting other guys and develop issues...i personally think its easier to accept the truth as the truth the way my friend did...it helped her move on...in a healhty way. But again, differnt things work for differnt pepole. And also, in her case, HJNIU really was not the truth. I mean yes you can disagree, but really, it's just not the truth. She was really into him. SHe was also being realistic.
nittygritty Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 I think its interesting that the guy that wrote the book was the writer on "Sex and the City" who came up with the "he's just not that into you" line for the show. I know it was just a TV show BUT how many women could relate to something about the Carrie and Big relationship? According to the book, A guy behaving like Big would be the poster boy for "he's just not that into you" in how he treated Carrie but they ended the show with Big finally realizing his love for Carrie and them ending up together. Shame on those writers for giving false hope to women dating emotionally unavailable men!
Trialbyfire Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 I've never watched Sex in the City but from your description, it's so typical. To paraphrase Gunny, women invest during the relationship while men invest when she's either gone or walking out the door...
Recommended Posts