Ask Dr. NerdLove: How Do I Help My Forever Alone Friend?

Not necessarily, but you do have to accept that these gymnasts with hourglasses that speak three languages and so on may judge and reject you based on equally shallow criteria. And your options may be limited.

If you choose to restrict your tastes to basically absurd and unrealistic levels, you should be willing to take responsibility if it doesn’t pan out well for you.

My bad!

He’s probably pretty draining to deal with. He could also have some creepy characteristics the LW neglected to share.
I speculate that the LW may be just a tad co-dependent.

Yeah, I’m curious as to what the LW’s girlfriend is seeing that the LW isn’t, because I bet it’d be illuminating.

I am pleased with my interests and maybe loathsome was too strong a term. What may be putting women off is that they find these topics either unpopular (learning about war and military hardware), unfashionable (only a tiny percentage of my friends like old Chinese songs) or too random.
I have have put some of the flirt tactics from DNL and other sites into practice but boy am I miles away from being what they want.

Wait, no, don’t get on him about that, that was my suggestion. I was suggesting not that he learn how to manipulate women, but how to take what these men do and make it positive. Basically what I was saying is: women like confidence, so be confident. The bad boy version is arrogance, don’t do that.

I didn’t mean to suggest he manipulate, and I don’t think he thought I was saying that either. I meant to suggest that these guys on the surface seem to be doing good things (when they actually are not), and it is those seeming good things that women like and since that is the case he ought to ACTUALLY do the good things they only APPEAR to be doing.

I realise it’s a complicated concept I’m trying to articulate on a blog post.

Beyond the troubling implications, I also think it’s unlikely that someone with a very different personality will be able to mime the behaviors that abusers use to attract victims.* My suggestion would be for a man in that situation to look to men who are at least a little bit similar to themselves but who also have somewhat more success with dating and romantic relationships.

*I’m going to leave the hopelessly irresponsible guys out, because that strikes me as being far less egregious behavior that might genuinely be coupled with attractive characteristics, or that might not even seem like a huge drawback to certain women looking for certain types of relationships.

I think what’s more likely is that it isn’t inclusive unless someone shares that exact hobby. So you might want to work on how to relate your hobbies to other hobbies. I do that all the time, I can compare writing to exercise for my more athletic buddies and then we can have a really great conversation about willpower and mind over matter and all those struggles even though writing a book and running a marathon can appear like very different hobbies.

Try to include her. Compare what you do to what she does, allow her to then enter the conversation through another means, not just the “I need to know exactly what you are talking about” entrance 🙂 .

Agreed. I think this is sort of a geek thing, the idea that your perfect person is the one who loves all the things you love as much as you do. There are some geeky couples like that too. It’s just that it’s not the only, or necessarily the healthiest, model for a relationship.

For whatever it’s worth, Monk of War, my brother-in-law loves learning about war and military transport vehicles. My sister is not remotely interested in either of these things, and it didn’t stop her from marrying him. It’s not really that uncommon of an interest among men. I’d note that you have female friends, and that neither that nor your enjoyment of old Chinese songs has put them off from being friends with you.

That’s really not that bad. Are you interested in joining the military or just interested in military history? Lots of people read about wars. I would not, however, consider them a dating topic, but the broader subject of history in general would be another matter.

I don’t think so, either. Of course, how the topic was approached would be an important matter.

Hmm. That’s an interesting point. When I described it as male-oriented, I was thinking about what you might characterize as a skew. I was actually thinking more of what I suspected might be the way of relating to the interest than the subject itself. I kind of got the picture of a manner of geeking about guns that lent itself to learning, exchanging, and arguing about lesser known pieces of data (this admittedly may be because that’s how my brother-in-law geeks about ships and planes). I do think that this tends to skew male, whatever the subject is, primarily because women who attempt to participate in those exchanges sometimes find themselves lectured or condescended to and find other ways to express their interests. I admittedly did not think about fetishization or intimidation, but yeah, I’m sure those things contribute to women being less vocal with men about those hobbies.

All that’s good news for a man with those interests, though, because it leaves open a possibility for either meeting a woman who shares it or who’s open to learning more about it, provided the guy can avoid some of negative behaviors above.

If it’s just a matter of shooting and/or hunting, then that one’s pretty easy, at least in the US. In some areas, including the one I live in now, some experience with both is the norm for women as much as men. In others, I’d say it’s a minority, but a sizable one and one where people respond pretty enthusiastically when they meet someone who thinks it’d be fun to head to the range.

I strongly endorse every bit of this. I think the first hurdle that guys need to get over is realizing that the fact that there aren’t women at the clubhouse doesn’t mean women are repulsed by, or even uninterested in, the topic of the club. The second is figuring out where else those women are hanging out. I think your suggestions are right on track.*

The only thing I’d really add is that an advanced take on this, or one for someone who can only make a couple big events a year, there’s something to be said for giving women’s interests the benefit of the doubt. When someone who’s cute and funny at a party mentions what she does in her spare time, asking what aspect of it she likes best usually goes over well, and might end up revealing a secret history buff behind the costume drama fan or cosplayer. And that leads into yet another level, which usually happens after a woman trusts a man enough (at least as a friend) to mention what she thinks is her uncool interest. If a guy can find a woman who can geek out with him about WWI and who is willing to engage in his specific

*Weird, unrelated tangent: I laughed at your blacksmithing comment in light of the larger discussion about different places people can express their interests, because my dad is into both blacksmithing and knifemaking. I’ve suggested he might want to at least consider his local ren fest, as the gun show scene has been more problematic than usual in the last few months in a way that’s making the making money bit less fun.

I hate domestic abusers with a passion. What makes me feel horrible about myself is that they got someone to be with at an earlier age while I still haven’t.
I’ll admit I got plenty of baggage to sort through because I’ve missed out on so many great females without getting a starting point, which means I don’t have a positive precedent to build upon.

Envy can be a difficult thing to struggle with, especially if you’re someone who hasn’t had romantic success. However, you don’t want to become envious of the wrong sorts of people displaying the wrong sorts of traits. Abusive, predatory men are not the dudes whose traits you want. They’re master manipulators, able to hide what they are. They sense vulnerable people, and exploit them. Above all they’re selfish and only care about what they want; they’re users first, then abusers to maintain control. You should not envy these men or their “success”. If anything, men like this indirectly cause you your dating woes, because they provide the reasons for why women have to be more discerning with who their date. Women don’t consider, say, virginity a red flag because they’re cruel, but because it can be interpreted as a “sign of danger” for themselves.

There are only two things to learn from abusers. Firstly it is to how to avoid being like them and thru that an understanding as to what women go thru. The second is that managing to land dates or relationships may not define the worth of someone. An abusive man can sleep with 50 women, he’s still a scum bucket. I know this seems hypocritical coming from me, but intellectually it is something I understand.

There are ways to project a confident, assertive, charismatic self without having to be an abusive jerk hiding his monstrous side until the coast is clear. It’s not easy, and I can’t tell you how because I’m still learning. But it exists. That’s what DNL is trying to provide.

I sort of get it. When I was younger I was in the “women go after jerks” camp too. But I went thru college, went thru some things and above all practiced some basic empathy and realized that women don’t go after jerks. They go after the appealing traits that jerks sometimes are able to project. That doesn’t mean you have to be a jerk to do so, nor should jerks be the men you envy. Envy itself isn’t a great thing in general. I used to be envious of my friends who were more successful in romance. It was only thru realizing what I was doing and actively fighting against it did I resolve this. Occasionally there might be a relapse but if I realize what I am doing I can stop it.

I can relate to feeling like you “missed out”. But the definition of who you are and who you want to be comes in how you handle yourself and plan your goals when things are difficult, not easy. Envy leads to resentment which leads to some bad habits and philosophies which will at best be counter productive.

To add to what you were saying, and I already touched on this, I have a big issue with the neat division of abusers being neatly dropped into the “bad boy/alpha” model when in real life abuse is a lot messier. “Nice” guys are abusive too, it’s one of the ways that so many of them successfully gaslight women, they’re kind, rational men who never the less gaslight the shit out of their partners.

It’d be nice if all abusers could be neatly identified by being alpha jock bros but life doesn’t work that way, and both Monk and Dateless seem to assume abusers all neatly fit into easily identifiable personality patterns. I’ve seen physical abusers who’ve sobbed after striking their partner…yeah, definite manipulation for sure, but these were “sensitive” men who didn’t fit the stereotype of an abusive man.

It’s such a massive misunderstanding and simplification of what’s going on in abuse situations, all to help justify their own lack of success with women, ffs…it gives me a headache even thinking about it.

How much of that fiction is written by men, though? Is this stereotype as common in romance novels written by women? Because a lot of people’s exposure to romance fiction tends to be stuff which isn’t written by women.

Perhaps I don’t. I was asking honest questions.

Thank you for mentioning that those aren’t the only flavor, though. I do think people who don’t read romance tend to assume that everything is either 50 Shades of Grey or a stereotypical bodice-ripper. There are a ton of other flavors, some focused on healthy relationships and some with even more worrisome ideas (sweet physics, the werewolf stuff alone…).

I feel like some of this problematic trope comes from the idea that a pure, virginal woman simply couldn’t entertain sexual thoughts; once she’s been “soiled” against her will, she is now free to explore sexual desire.

In other words, I feel like the trope actually started as a form of empowerment (giving women an excuse to enjoy sexuality) which may explain its popularity with female authors.

“If anything, novels written by men tend to get shelved with literary fiction or in other genres even if they pretty much follow all romance conventions.”

And, sadly, hailed as groundbreaking when a man decides to write what is effectively a romance as well as being stocked as a “Literary” work instead of in the romance genre.

Even worse, when women start breaking into genre fiction (as they have across markets as women make up the majority of book buyers), they unfairly get tagged as doing “romance novels in drag” even if their science fiction or fantasy or horror or crime books contain none of the romance tropes or even a romance. It’s an easy and lazy criticism that often gets lobbed at any woman writing in a genre field, and sometimes even within the literary market.

I have to admit, I feel like women are a little better than men at drawing the lines in terms of “I like this in FICTION, but not in reality”, as a very general rule, that is.

There’s also a lot of daylight between the “bad boy” of romance fiction and out and out abusers, though, which I think gets lost on some observers of the genre. Not to say there’s not plenty of unhealthy relationships within romance fiction.

Also, when it comes to the “bad boy” image, one of the main tropes is that the “boy” will change into a man, whether through or because of the woman’s love or not, the bad traits are usually seen as something to be overcome, where MODG’s and other romance interests who’re somewhat toxic in fiction geared towards men are often the source of lust FOR those traits. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen fiction where the focus is for the MPDG to grow up and come down to earth and become a stable individual ;p

Although that might be an interesting twist, tbh.

“The population of women who consume romantic fantasies aimed at women and discuss them is a sort of small and self-selected group of romance and fan fic readers, and a good number of them are thoughtful. The population of men who consume romantic fantasies aimed at men and discuss them is basically all men who consume media and sometimes talk about it, because men’s romantic fantasies are in most things unless they’re specifically aimed at other audiences”

^I think you articulated the divide I was chewing over and trying to come to terms with and WHY there seems to be a divide. When you put it like that it suddenly makes my experiences with different people make a lot more sense in terms of why I’d see a greater percentage of men latching onto romantic archetypes than women…they simply have more fiction and more men consume it since it’s the default of more fiction, certain most of what’s considered literature outside of a few specific authors and books in the western canon.

Thanks for the added commentary on romance novels and literature.

“One explanation would be that just because someone is a woman doesn’t mean she can’t hold and promote terribly unhealthy ideas about relationships.”

Absolutely. Society bombards everyone with various social norms, rules, taboos, etc. It’s almost impossible to avoid it all despite your best interests. I mean, one of my major malfunctions is I don’t fit in with what I think an ideal man should be, even though I know that ideal image is just something foisted on me by society. And by and large, “social rules” were made and enforced by men (particularly men in power). Therefore I’ve never taken it out on women who absorbed the same social rules that I myself have. I mean, that’d be pretty hypocritical.

“would you actually want to date someone who behaved like a Manic Pixie Dream Girl or a tsundere?”

Bad question to ask me at least. I won’t say I’m desperate, but I’m neighbors with desperate. It borrows sugar from me sometimes. I occasionally get its mail. If I was into a woman enough I would be willing to put up with quite a lot. After all, she’d have a basket case with me, so it’d be unfair if I wasn’t flexible myself. Anyway, as you said, Manic Pixies and Tsunderes are stereotypes and happily, most people are more well rounded than that. 😉

It’s also worth it to learn from abusers what red flags are, to, y’know, try to avoid being abused. Not that I think you were being remiss, Datelessman, just wanted to point out that just because she’s not hitting you with a frying pan because you burnt dinner doesn’t mean it’s not abuse.

Okay, seriously, dude, fucking STOP. Okay? Stop with “but how come this batterer got himself a girl and I didn’t, poor me”, okay? I know you mean it as “even low-lifes do better than me” but it turns on a dime to “women like low-lifes”.

And what’s this shit of “I don’t have a positive precedent to build on”? Have you never spoken to a woman in person ever, or something? oh wait, no you haven’t, you’ve met plenty – they just didn’t like you in that way. That happens. Deal.

Normally on the infrequent occasions I like someone enough to risk asking them out, is because there was something about that particular one which made her stand out.
I’ve never agreed with friends telling me to lower my standards and try asking out any random regardless of whether I like them or not.

“To be blunt, it’s also worth asking if you’re being realistic, because sometimes it seems like some men ignore women who’d be good fits for them and who they actually like because they don’t meet unrealistic societal standards or aren’t the type of women they’re “supposed” to date.”

Jimmy (or anyone else), would you be willing to elaborate on this? I find this to be very intriguing, especially as I’m not totally clear on what constitutes a “good fit,” relationship-wise. Also, by “women they’re ‘supposed’ to date,” are you referring to the colloquial concept of “leagues,” or to something else?

Kind of curious as to how I’d recognize someone who was a “good fit” if I met him/her.

Yeah, that’s a great example; he went on at length about how he didn’t think he was attractive, he had few prospects, etc, etc, and then tells a story about a woman who he thought was really attractive, who thought he was attractive, and a couple of guys he was friends with told him he could do better and she wasn’t that attractive, despite one of his high school friends who was a woman praising him for getting together with someone described by her as a “gorgeous woman”, but because a couple of guys didn’t think she was sufficiently attractive he lost interest and broke up with her.

And years later he’s moaning about not being able to find anyone who thinks he’s attractive and wants to date him.

Sometimes it’s less direct….maybe a woman doesn’t fit the social and cultural vision of what a “wife” is, so men who are attracted to her ignore her. There’s a reason the saying “Not a girl you’d take home to mom” exists….well…your mom isn’t marrying her, that’s a stupid saying. The implication is she’s good enough to fool around with but there’s some social stress that means she’s not “acceptable” as a wife.

I’m certainly not a rockstar like your friend, but can I just whine for a minute about how much I HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE it that there isn’t an accomplished married man who doesn’t try to make a pass (we’re talking West Point grads with counterintelligence Army training and MBAs) — but the identi-minute they’re divorced they run like beetles … and they’re too craven and greedy to introduce me to their single friends?

Makes me *sick*.

“Also, by “women they’re ‘supposed’ to date,” are you referring to the colloquial concept of “leagues,” or to something else?”

Not really leagues, a concept I don’t like anyways, but…I think Choys gave a really good direct example, but I this manifests in all sorts of ways. It’s a big topic so bear with me.

I see a lot of guys who seem to have very specific standards and some of them seem a bit arbitrary and some seem a bit unrealistic. Some of them have their roots in assumptions that don’t always hold up, but I’ll try to speak from my own experience.

Religion, politics, educational background, ethnic and racial background, physical features, fashion sense, political alignment, even hobbies and interests…all important things, and all things where I’ve dated or been attracted to women who were outside of what one would assume I’d be interested in.

Lots of guys moan about being short, I’m short at 5’5″ (I swear I used to be 5’6″ but I lost an inch somewhere), and most guys want a woman who is shorter than them (and many say that women won’t date men shorter than they are), but I’ve dated women who were shorter than me and women who were taller, sometimes much taller, like over six foot tall.

I have a “type”…ask my wife, she’s really very good at spotting my type, it’s kind of annoying, but that “type” isn’t always bound by simple rules.

I’m an AMAZING fit with my wife, and we have a lot in common, but we’re also very different people in a lot of ways. The thing is that we compliment each other in ways we both love about the other. There are things about her that might have seemed like they wouldn’t “fit” with me at first…she’s introverted where I’m extroverted, to give one example.

If I’d made the assumptions some other guys make, and written off the girl that was 5’9″, or the vegan, or the Christian girl who actually skewed pretty liberal on most things, then I would have missed out on a lot of wonderful relationships.

“Kind of curious as to how I’d recognize someone who was a “good fit” if I met him/her.”

Sometimes it’s just being willing to get to know them and give them a chance. You never know, sometimes you’ll be surprised, but I think it starts with being open to liking and being attracted to someone for who they are and not for whether they fit the mental image of who you’re supposed to be with that’s in your head or what you’re friends say or what society says your significant other should look or act like.

Not only that?

But these doooods who ask women out because they “stand out” to them never EVER think about how THEY can “stand out” to women.

Second verse, same as the first.

/long, LONG sigh

“females”

FEEEEEEEMALES
Ugh. Don’t do that, dude.