'He's Just Not That Into You' rant

[shadowplay]

I'm sick of hearing people apply 'he's just not that into you' to every single possible dating situation, as if it's the be all end all answer to all romantic problems. I think there is some truth to it, but it's also a huge generalization that glosses over a lot of nuances and differences between individuals. there are times when had i followed the HJNTIY line of logic, I would have misinterpreted the behavior of guys who actually turned out to be very into me. I also don't understand why some women find the idea "empowering." To me it's the opposite, implying it's all about the guy and what HE wants. Finally, the author of the book strikes me as a misogynistic *******. Anyone else feel this way?

[jcster]

I found the book to be more patronizing than misogynistic. But, I think it's not so much the books fault as it is the way it's being applied. Quite frankly, it was a bit of an eye-opener to me, and it did save my skin a couple of times. The problem is, it's being treated as if it were the Bible - along with "Why Men Love Bitches" and there's just no way to codify relationship "rules."

[Lizzie60]

I'm sick of hearing people apply 'he's just not that into you' to every single possible dating situation, as if it's the be all end all answer to all romantic problems. I think there is some truth to it, but it's also a huge generalization that glosses over a lot of nuances and differences between individuals. there are times when had i followed the HJNTIY line of logic, I would have misinterpreted the behavior of guys who actually turned out to be very into me. I also don't understand why some women find the idea "empowering." To me it's the opposite, implying it's all about the guy and what HE wants. Finally, the author of the book strikes me as a misogynistic *******. Anyone else feel this way?

 

It also could be She's not that into you... but the truth is that women, in general, are much more emotional dependant than men.

 

They tend to read more into stuff that is just not there... they tend to read what they want to read into the relationship.

 

Men have always been considered more independant, stronger emotionally, which is not always the case, but I think that, in GENERAL, women take much more crap than men do.

[underpants]

Well, I have not read this book.

 

I have thought about picking it up, along with some others I have heard about here.

 

That being said, I have surfed by his show a couple of times. Pretty funny (bordering on campy) and usually his advice is ...sound and reasonable.

 

I agree you can't come up with a formula to manipulate someone into loving you. I believe those ladies who wrote the rules are now divorced.

 

I guess all of these types of books are really about empowering the reader to love themselves more.

[Trialbyfire]

I quite liked the no-nonsense approach of the book at first, but am incredibly sick of hearing the term. It can be brutal in it's honesty so it suits my taste for a "no denial" approach. I'm not much into sugar-coating. You'll never toughen up without accepting reality.

 

In a consolidated paragraph, stop taking crap and don't wait for someone who isn't going to nut up to the situation. Look at yourself realistically and know that you have much to bring to the relationship table. If someone doesn't appreciate you, move on and find someone who will.

[JeanQueen]

Yes, Shadowplay. I really agree with you here.

 

I think man/woman relationships are for more intracate than that simple answer. If a man doesn't call me withing a designated period of time I don't just automaticly assume he's not "into me". And, I would want more to the answer than that.

 

It's good to have that sense of independence and know that there is nothing you did "wrong". But, at the same time it will make you wonder "WHY is he not that into me?".

 

For me the book just lead to more questions about the relationship and made me more frustrated in the end.

 

The better book from the same authors is "It's Called a Break-Up Because It's Broken". This helps you understand that you probably broke up for a reason and you will find someone who fits you better. I liked that one even though I haven't found that person yet

[amaysngrace]

I never read that book either but it does work in the opposite. Some women just aren't into the guys. It's not a good fit.

 

I don't think it means there's anything wrong with either one of them just that they aren't compatible for whatever reasons.

[nittygritty]

My friend gave me that book as a joke after my ex moved and dumped me.

 

Of course, I read it and hated it. I think even the title makes it sound like its the woman's fault for not measuring up to the guy's standards.

 

I agree with you shadowplay.

[Hazy]

I liked it. It's really common sense, but a lot of women need common sense when it comes to dating.

[fray718]

I agree with most people here. The book says he's just not into YOU...implying that it's all bout you and how there's just something bout you he didn't like which is not always the case. And yes, sometimes it really is about you...but sometimes, it's not.

 

Just realize that not everything revolves around 'you' haha....

[Trialbyfire]

No, it is all about you because you can't and shouldn't want to control his behaviour. You need to control your own behaviour and realize that no matter how many excuses he gives, it doesn't matter. His actions will define where you stand with him.

[BlueEyedGirl]

I think that this book is really good. It's funny when you spend days analyzing the situation, coming up with all possible excuses why someone acted this way or that, and then you pick up this book, and there you have your answer: He is just not that into you!

[VIP]

I didn't read the book, but I think it's a no brainer to tell who's into you and who's not. If they are "into you", then rest assured, they will let you know. And if they don't, the answer is simple: "Next".

[lonelybird]

Truth is simple, but not everyone want to see. Many people live in denial and justification

 

But truth really set people free, no matter what kind of truth

[Trialbyfire]

Now that, I can agree with lonelybird. Truth is freedom. When you have the truth, you can make real decisions and live with them.

 

Of course this is when the little devil rears his ugly head and screams "but truth is subjective". But I'll leave that one for another thread.

[KingCrimson]

Never read. But what I'll say from (what i assume the book's about by the title and posts in the thread):

 

IT"S NOT TRUE. A lot of guys, including myself, are told time and time again we need to come across as indifferent, and not act needy or desperate, and not be predictable. Show some interest, be busy, make her come after you.

 

Let me tell you a story about a date I had recently: It went well, I dropped her off by her car in the parking lot we met up at. What happened? I really liked the girl, I froze up, and all I said was "hey, we should hang out again sometime, talk to you later". then drove off. i didnt wait until she got inside and started her car.

 

why? my mind was racing, and for some weird reason I thought it'd be creepy to wait there and watch her get in, and follow her out.

 

Sometimes a girl calls, or IMs. I will purposely ignore, or take time responding. why? because we've been told by dating gurus AND women alike that the worst thing you can do is come across as desperate. therefore i'm not going to call everdya, will present myself as a challenge, and pretend to have a life.

 

and believe me, i hate doing that... but nothing I can do...

[Trialbyfire]

IT"S NOT TRUE. A lot of guys, including myself, are told time and time again we need to come across as indifferent, and not act needy or desperate, and not be predictable. Show some interest, be busy, make her come after you.

 

You'll find that the women who have many choices, won't play this game with you.

[shadowplay]

But KingCrimson makes an important point. You can't always know what a guy is thinking based on his actions, especially during the very early phases of a relationship because a lot of the time they're afraid of coming off as creepy or desperate. I've dated many guys who have played it somewhat cool at the beginning in terms of how much they called, etc., but made it clear they were very into me when they got more comfortable. I find body language to usually be a better indicator of interest with guys. You can usually tell just in the way they kiss you, the way they hold your hand, look into your eyes and say your name. Also little gestures like how considerate they are of your needs and efforts they make to please you. But frankly I'd probably run for cover if I had a guy come at me full force and blitz me with sonnets and flowers like the book seems to suggest an interested guy should...

[Hazy]

Honestly Crimson,my advice is to just be yourself. If you want to call, call. The best relationships, the ones that "stuck," are the ones where the guy wasn't strategezing to play it "cool."

[VIP]

I'd probably run for cover if I had a guy come at me full force and blitz me with sonnets and flowers like the book seems to suggest an interested guy should...

 

And I find it very romantic. A man must be showing his interest to win my heart.

[allina]

I actually disagree with your entire post. I haven't read the entire book but I think it's clever, true and well done. How is the author misogynistic? What is misogynistic about telling women to not waste their time on a guy who doesn't want them. I see so many women on LS and in real life throwing them selfs foolishly at men who are clearly uninterested. I think the book tries to help those women out by pointing out what they are doing wrong.

[Trialbyfire]

Well said allina.

 

He can talk all he wants but when it comes down to it, is he there when it matters? Lipservice is oh so easy.

 

Having said that, if women know the score of what's going on, there's no reason why you can't have a little fun back.

[nittygritty]

The book was based on an episode of "Sex in the City" where basically a guy named Burger tells Miranda that when I guy doesn't call after a first date it means that "he's just not into you". Duh, right?

 

The book was pretty basic, common sense, dating FYI. The title is now a catch phrase being applied to every dating situation that doesn't end with a man putting a ring on a woman's finger. Its silly really, IMO.

 

I also think it is kind of demeaning, insulting or at the very least insensitive to tell a woman struggling with a man breaking up with or cheating on her that "he's just not that into you".

[LoveLace]

I haven't read the book, but have heard enough about it that I can practically say I have. I think I'm 50/50 on the idea; there are some ways in which I can totally see how it helps women with dating, cuz we're so sensitive when it comes to our confidence (at least I can be at times), and the book basically teaches a girl to realize that she deserves all that she wants. However, not all girls want the type of guy who falls at your feet and pursues you like crazy in the beginning of a relationship. Like Kingcrimson said, a lot of men play hard to get because somewhere along the line, it has made girls go crazy for them. But at the same time, the guy doesn't f*ck up and say or do something silly, so he might freeze up, not do anything at all, then the girl gets her book and it says this means that "he's just not into you".

 

I've talked to women who read it, and for them it really boosted their confidence and made them realize they can be in control just as much, if not more, than a guy can. It made them realize they are plenty worthy and beyond of any guy they might want. I even heard about a trick, where this girl gave her # to a guy but she left off the last digit. She said, "you know he likes you if he takes the time to figure out that last digit!"...makes sense!

 

But readers are going to assume that these actions and advice, etc, should apply to any man anywhere, anytime, which a false assumption. Everyone expresses interest and love in their own ways, and at various points in a relationship. If he doesn't buy me flowers and the book says "he just isn't into me", what if it's more like he just isnt comfortable doing that yet? I mean, we're not going to wait around for romance for tooo long, but give a guy a chance to work up to things....and what if his past relationships contribute to things he might do or might not do...but if you assume he's not into you, you'll never get to know him well enough to find out things like this anyway. And it isn't though we walk around with signs on our foreheads that say, "This is what I want....and this is what I don't want..."...if the last girl dumped him for calling too much, he might not call YOU enough although you'd like him to...there are just too many variations among individuals and their past experiences, etc, for the book to be 100% effective and true.

[Trialbyfire]

I also think it is kind of demeaning, insulting or at the very least insensitive to tell a woman struggling with a man breaking up with or cheating on her that "he's just not into you".

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.