A guy puzzle...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AvsGirl41

New Yorker
Joined
Aug 28, 2002
Messages
2,948
Location
Denver, Colorado
I told my sister I'd post this one for her so she could have a wide consensus of answers.

She met a guy at a club, very good looking, very charming. He is new in town, having moved here from Chicago. (More on that later.) They hit it off, exchanged numbers and shockingly, he called her a few days later. He took her to a few movies, they hung out and we all thought he really liked her--he brought her candy, he was always calling, "Oh, we've got to spend time together." She persuaded him to join MySpace.

Well, he went to Arizona for a week or so over Thanksgiving break and when he came back, he had a new blonde (who's practically a clone of my sister) on his MySpace friends list who kept posting flirty comments, and he to her. She later found out from his friend he'd been seen making out with her at the club.
And he was fairly distant from Sarah, who figured he'd hooked up with this blonde. Then abruptly, he starts up with Sarah again, only to announce they should just be friends.

Fast forward to New Year's Eve, and he's back in town from Chicago and stops by our house at 11:00pm to watch hours of movies with Sarah and ends up staying over on the couch. He goes home, goes out to a club where he picks up a girl named Jen. AND he meets up with one of my sister's friends, Sarah #2, and these three party all night long and he ends up taking these two girls, both of whom are drunk, back to his place. He starts coming on to Sarah #2, and then insists they all spend the night and that Jen share his bed with him. But get this...he doesn't sleep with her or even make out with her and the next day, says "Why does she think I like her?" Jen is totally crushed, having learned he is now into Sarah #2.

Here's the part all of us chicks are trying to figure out. There are now four, possibly more girls that he has basically thrown a line to, gotten them to totally fall for him and then drifts off. He never actually gets physical with any of them, beyond making out with the girl from Arizona.

HE claims it's because he "lives in the moment, for the moment, totally for passion." But that's hardly a passionate life, it simply seems like...indecision. He also claims its because he's focused on school, but he's out partying and drinking every night. Now, no one knows why he left Chicago. He claims he wanted a change, but it's very strange and Sarah says she thinks he was running from something. He comes from a staunchly Catholic family, and she assumed it was family related, but not sure.

The opinions vary from that he's afraid of commitment to that he wants to sleep with them, but his conscience gets in the way.
My gut says there's something he's hiding--he left some kind of mess back in Chicago and that he either has a sexually transmitted disease, or that he's gay and trying to convince himself he's not due to his family. I just can't believe a handsome, 23 year old guy, who knows his charm and effect on women, has enough of a moral conscience not to sleep with the girls he's happily led on.

So, what do YOU all think?? Has anyone else encountered a player who couldn't get in the game? :wink:
 
This dude is the typical ego-maniac, playboy. He knows he's good-looking and can get any chick he wants, so he wants to prove that to himself by getting these chicks to fawn over them, but he has no interest in them whatsoever.
 
You know what is the scariest thing in this whole scenario?

Windmilllane could be right. :yikes: :ohmy:


:wink:
 
indra said:
You know what is the scariest thing in this whole scenario?

Windmilllane could be right. :yikes: :ohmy:


:wink:

The river in my backyard is red now too!!!!

theres two signs of the apocalypse in the span of one day
 
It sounds shady from both ends. What's wrong w/ a guy not wanting to get physical with every girl he meets at some club or out drinking? I mean, yeah it's odd that he randomly left Chicago and parties all the time, but what gives? I feel like this reaks of double-standard. "Guys are always players who think with their dick, except when they don't which means something must be wrong with them." Why are all these women to hot to get it one with a guy who does nothing bu roam and party anyway? It seems like if he'd gone home with and gotten physical with any of these girls, we'd have a thread about how all guy suck and only want sex. Instead, we have a bunch of girls whining that the cute new boy isn't interested. Oh well.
 
AvsGirl41 said:

She met a guy at a club, very good looking, very charming. He is new in town, having moved here from Chicago. (More on that later.) They hit it off, exchanged numbers and shockingly, he called her a few days later. He took her to a few movies, they hung out and we all thought he really liked her--he brought her candy, he was always calling, "Oh, we've got to spend time together." She persuaded him to join MySpace.

Well, he went to Arizona for a week or so over Thanksgiving break and when he came back, he had a new blonde (who's practically a clone of my sister) on his MySpace friends list who kept posting flirty comments, and he to her. She later found out from his friend he'd been seen making out with her at the club.



Ooooohh, myspace.... :rolleyes:

Sorry, I just don't take such things seriously. I would advise you not to take such seriously, either, but I don't want to be insulting in doing so, should you take what I am refering to seriously.


My gut says there's something he's hiding--he left some kind of mess back in Chicago and that he either has a sexually transmitted disease, or that he's gay and trying to convince himself he's not due to his family. I just can't believe a handsome, 23 year old guy, who knows his charm and effect on women, has enough of a moral conscience not to sleep with the girls he's happily led on.

So, what do YOU all think?? Has anyone else encountered a player who couldn't get in the game? :wink:


What's his birthday?

He sounds like maybe he's indecisive, or at least....... well.. nevermind.

Regardless, at the moment I wouldn't base too much aroud him/on him. He's not very stable
 
Last edited:
I'm going to break the mold here a little bit, but also kindof follow up what LivLuv said.


My first definition (to save from giving history lessons) will be really generalized, but the renaissance idea of courtly love (read: Petrarch, Castiglione, etc) that would later mutate into Romantic love... well... he's just about right on. Passion isn't all sex-driven flowers and woo-ery and yearning for one woman (though it can take that form), passion is zeal for beauty and enthusiasm in beauty and elation/celebration in/of beauty (beauty = goodness).

He's flirtatious, he's charming, he's good looking, he knows how to show a girl a good time and give that girl what she wants, he's clearly skilled; he's going to school and getting educated, but he's not letting that ruin his chances of having a good time either so he goes out and parties, he's knowledgable and seeks balance; he's not tied down to any specific location and therefore tethered quite as directly to past, present, or people as many of us are, he's 'free' in that sense... I dunno.

You say it isn't passionate, but it sounds to me like that's exactly what it is. He wanted a change, so he didn't let other people's expectations weigh him down, and he just did what he felt like doing because he was capable of pulling it off.

Obviously this sort of behaviour isn't normal: most people are neither confident enough, capable enough, nor courageous enough to live life flying by the seat of their pants with a come-what-may jousting-with-windmills love-everything attitude. If he loves life and feeling and experiencing, and is willing to compromise some of the securities that lie in familiarity and mediocrity, then all the more power to him. That's what, if anything, he's running from: normalcy and being just another anonymous face in the crowd. I might be mistaken though, in which case you can feel free to read into my personal desires that are bleeding through onto the page here - but keep with me, and this'll make more sense.


Of course there's the possibility that he's completely nuts and just has a horseshoe up his ass insofaras his seemingly erratic behaviour hasn't blown up in his face... but who knows, he could be a very stable, very well-adjusted, very passionate person.

I can't answer for the Arizona thing, except to say that it might have been a mistake and that he hasn't done it since that incident because he felt the error in it, but it could also have just been unconfirmed hearsay and it might not have went down the way whoever said it did. Having not been there myself and not knowing the whole story, I'm not about to invest trust into any of the options as gospel truth.

I will speculate further, as I have above, that he probably realises that getting too close to people would hinder his lifestyle. Sure, he might 'lead people on' by being nice to them, but honestly if you can get mad at someone for being nice, then you're having a pretty good day as far as I'm concerned. Being nice for the sake of being nice and the way it makes other people feel, again to reference Platonic love and renaissance passion, is an end in itself. I don't think its fair to assume that his being nice was an insinuation that he was desirous of anyone. He would be leading people on if he made out with them (or more) and then split. It could be that he has no intentions to cause anyone any hurt, and to get physical with someone is to insinuate that you have intentions to be close with that person - and when you don't, you'll no doubt hurt them (as moving on seems what he'll do), that seems to be what people believe/feel. Getting physical and moving on would add a new dynamic to his life, he'd have to avoid certain people and places because of toes he'd have stepped on, the personal risks involved with sex, possibly regret for having done some things and not doing others... really, what his quest would become would be to find the best sex... but that wouldn't really be fulfilling, once he found it, what would he do? But if he lives and loves life, and aspires to goodness, and lives to be a freewheeling doer of good and pleases others as well as himself in the process... well, he's not really losing, or working to a terminable goal. if he treats all people equally, acts as a friend to the world, well, he's neither hurting others nor himself. He's celebrating life, without being hedonistic and self-destructive.

Having said what I have, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your sister can't possibly wish that he had made out with her and then done the same thing, right? She'd be far more hurt then, would she not? Was she genuinely interested in him, and feels spurned? Does she believe that he's actually interested in the others, and is spurned in that respect? If indeed he seeks to escape normalcy, reviving the old 'goodness for goodness sake' would be doing exactly that: after all, who would have thought that a guy in a bar would be nice to people without wanting to get in their pants?

After all, we men nowadays are just walking libido willing to penetrate any pretty thing that bats her eyes at us.

Of course, maybe I've overthought that. Maybe he just lives for the thrill of the chase: to pursue people until he knows he could have had them, and then to move on... Catch and release, without breaking any hearts along the way.


I can't give you any certainties, in any case. Only options that paint him in a more positive light, rather than one of pure suspicion.
 
I knew I should have added some clarification, but I didn't expect to get jumped on. Maybe I'm just in a mood.

*I* certainly am not taking MySpace seriously. Whether the others involved are, I can't say, but I loathe the place. Nor do I know when his birthday is.

Second, I'm not slamming the guy for not having sex with them. I'm glad (and my sister is glad) that nothing has gone that far. And yes, the making out session did happen, no question there. And certainly, Miss Arizona is quite...obsessed, shall we say and he keeps feeding it, but clearly has no intention of ever pursuing it.

This is so far from chivalry I can hardly keep from laughing. Let's not jump to conclusions, he's hardly a gentleman. Gentlemen don't make out with strangers in bars. I don't find chivalrous behavior stringing girls on, and then dumping them and feigning shock that their feelings are hurt. There's nothing courtly about hurting feelings. I've studied chivary and gone to the Renaissance Faire too. The ultimate goal of chivalry and courtly love was to win the lady, not dump her when she got too attached.

If we want to cry double standard, what would you think of a girl who did the same? Guys would claim she led them on, and was a tease--they'd probably call her a slut even if nothing physical had occured.

I can't speak for the rest, but my sister was *very* hurt as he had basically made her feel quite wanted and special. He kept on pushing, then suddenly turned quite mean and spiteful, even to the point of making fun of her, and said "I think we should just be friends. You're assuming too much." And then turns around and hits on her friend? (Who is on the phone sighing about what a connection they had. They ended up spending two days together.)

No one's getting anything out of these "relationships" The girls aren't being shown a good time--he wanders around with them basically, or in our case, comes over and stays for almost painful hours on end. It's all confusing and awkward. He's not getting sex out of the deal and instead seems annoyed when they get too attached, as all of them do. If you want to be free of connections and commitment, that's hardly the way to go about it. If you are "living for the moment" than don't involve other people's feelings--that's wrong and frankly cruel.

If it isn't some other cause, then it's just indecision and lethargy so common among Colorado men...must be the altitude.

I guess I should also add that I don't want to immediately cast him as a villain. It's just that his behavior is already so morally suspect to me that I have a hard time swallowing that there isn't something else fishy going on. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on you. I was saying that being nice doesn't equate to stringing along. I would say, in fact, that on my first reading I thought it was completely chivalrous behaviour. In spite of the fact that he isn't pursuing a lady as a lover; Petrarch never attained his love, and instead pursued the ideal. It wasn't until the late renaissance that Spenser actually attained the girl and changed the game entirely - then it became a prefiguring of Romance (by Romance I mean the Romanticism that didn't roll around full-fledged until 1800). Pursuing an ideal and pursuing a girl are two different things. Wanting people to be happy (which I don't believe implies emotional attachment) and wanting to get laid are far removed from one another.

Chivalry, unless I've been grossly misinformed, was never just about winning over women. Protecting the ideals of 'honour' however you want to define that, protecting the state, protecting and giving aid to men, women, children, invalids, etc. Keeping yourself in peak condition so as to make sure you were best able to do all these things. In essence, being the best person you could be. Idealised though chivalry is, it is not explicitly gallantry striving for the hearts of a lady, I don't think that being good was ever about duping some broad into the sack (pardon my vulgarity).

Being kind, treating people well, making them feel special, none of these are bad things... Obviously if he was laughing and spiteful and made fun of her, sure, that's a ridiculous thing to do, a mean thing to do, and the guy's a jerk. I left the possibility open that the guy is just a jerk. If he was a jerk and made fun of her, obviously I was wrong about my judgement.

I don't think I'd be going to far by saying that she is at fault for assuming too much, though.

Why does emotion have to be brought in at all? When does being nice to people and making them feel good about themselves necessarily imply that they want something in return, or for that matter that you have emotions vested in them and expect emotion to be vested into you? What I mean is, how does being nice, even for an extended period of time, demonstrate that someone wants to have any sort of exclusive relationship? Where is this expectation, that seems to have not been met, coming from? I just don't see it.

You had another excellent point, that if a girl did the same thing to a guy that most guys would probably feel dejected and would lash out when it turns out they were reading too much into the scenario. Both genders are apt to do it, though, that's clear enough; I don't think it matters who is nice and who is receiving niceness, the potential to misconstrue and assume too much is there for both genders when receiving kindness. Edit: and this is what I don't get -- why people expect something more.

Like I said, though, I just don't understand the expectation that niceness is a pretense for something else. Why can't a compliment be a compliment, and not an uncanny deception? I'd be more upset, myself, if someone said nice things simply to exploit me in some way, use it to get what he/she wanted, rather than to state something that he/she felt was true. I don't know, do we feel good about being deceived? Is that it? Why can't it be taken at face value for what it is? If someone is nice to me for three weeks and then disappears from my life, not a big deal. If someone is nice to me for several years, never really does anything to wrong me, disappears, sobeit, I don't see any reason why I'd be upset with that person. If someone is nice to me for several years so they can take me for all I've got, then I'd be upset. I dunno... maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly. :shrug:

Can I clarify anything?
 
Last edited:
I have a guy friend that tends to be this way. He never wants to get married so he'll just fool around with girls, but doesn't sleep with them. My friend is afraid of commitment, maybe this guy is too.
 
The guy is just having fun - he's going to university and is caught up in the life of a young, good looking student who doesn't have a care in the world. I don't think it has anything to do with committment because at that age, very few people know what that word means.

If these girl's feelings are getting hurt, it's because they allowed that to happen.

Funny thing is there are a lot of women out there who are the same way and I think it all comes down to confidence in knowing you're good looking and enjoying your youth.


:yes:
 
I guess what I don't understand is you're saying how much of a jerk and a tease this guy is, but then why is your sister so hurt when he's not into a relationship? If the guy's an ass, move on. If he doesn't care about school and only cares about partying and casual hook-ups, he doesn't sound like anything much to mourn over.

Also, I think some guys are a lot more flirtatous and on the outside make it seem like they're geniunely into someone, but really that's just how they are. The situations get worse when the girls are completely smitten and then read way too much into everything and just end up getting hurt.
 
look, just go to his myspace and announce to everyone that he has erectile disfunction...
 
"afraid of commitment" gives this guy too much credit to begin with. Sounds like he is just engaging in real surface level relationships for fun - not really concerned about the person(s) on the other side.
 
I'm really shocked.

I love how this has become "the girl asked for it."

Did I actually have to spell it out that, naturally, my sister does not want a relationship with him anymore? She did, yes, but then once he basically snubbed her and then it all became clear...no, of course she's not interested in him. Please, give her some credit.
But the fact he keeps playing the same game, including with her good friend, makes them both wonder what's going on.

I have several male friends who are the definition of gentlemen--chivalrous, if you will, who take me out, strictly on a friendly, affectionate level. One of them even has a girlfriend. They pay, or we split it. They'll compliment me, they'll even flirt. We'll exchange small tokens. But there's always the understanding that it's just out of friendliness--a desire to make the person happy because you like them. I have never assumed that because they took me out to dinner and said I looked pretty, that they wanted to date me.

There is a real difference and Mr. Chicago very much took it to a point when ANY girl in this thread would have expected there was more than friendship implied.
 
AvsGirl41 said:
I
But the fact he keeps playing the same game, including with her good friend, makes them both wonder what's going on.

He's a player who's not interested in anything more than having his fun with whomever he chooses whenever he chooses. :shrug:

If I was your sis or her friend, I'd give him all the attention he deserves....which is none.
 
It's true. We're too busy flexing our rippling muscles and opening beer bottles with our eyelids to even change a lightbulb. Let me tell you, it's hard to open a beer with your eyelid in the dark. Plus noone can appreciate how truly rippling your muscles are.
 
AvsGirl41 said:
There is a real difference and Mr. Chicago very much took it to a point when ANY girl in this thread would have expected there was more than friendship implied.

Well then, there's your answer. The guy is a jerk.



I love how this has become "the girl asked for it."

In fairness, if the roles were reversed, I'd still blame the person on the receiving end for getting duped like a sucker. If I were your sister (the fact that I'm a guy aside), I'd even go so far as to let my friend be obssessed with him and get herself hurt afterwards, if he's not going to make exceptions for me, he probably won't do it for her, let her get hurt and learn her own lessons the hard way if she's too dense to listen to the voice of experience. :shrug: Then again, it's probably good that I'm not your sister, cause I'm a dick :slant:
 
~unforgettableFOXfire~ said:

Chivalry, unless I've been grossly misinformed, was never just about winning over women. Protecting the ideals of 'honour' however you want to define that, protecting the state, protecting and giving aid to men, women, children, invalids, etc. Keeping yourself in peak condition so as to make sure you were best able to do all these things. In essence, being the best person you could be. Idealised though chivalry is, it is not explicitly gallantry striving for the hearts of a lady, I don't think that being good was ever about duping some broad into the sack (pardon my vulgarity).

Well, I consider chivalry and courtly love to cross over--it wasn't all about winning over women, no. It was a code of conduct for all things. But when you apply it to a man-woman situation, that chivalry and courtly love are much the same thing. The terms are fairly interchangable and one's a part of the other.

The point was to pay court to a woman--usually married and thus "unattainable" and win her affection, in a strictly platonic sense and render her service.

But there's a question of how platonic it really was--was it a poetic disguise of shameless adultery? Historians disagree on that, as to if anyone ever followed the ideals. Chivalry was often a disguise for savage self interest. (Eric Mallin wrote a big essay on this, excellent read.)

Certainly when you're talking about Petarch and Spenser, that's getting much more into courtly love conventions than chivalry. I would say even Chaucer changed "the game" since his Troilus successfully sleeps with the girl too.
 
nbcrusader said:
"afraid of commitment" gives this guy too much credit to begin with. Sounds like he is just engaging in real surface level relationships for fun - not really concerned about the person(s) on the other side.

I agree

Some men really like the ego boost of a woman being interested in them, thus they will stay involved w/ her in whatever way to keep that going even when they have no genuine, honest interest in her. If the woman develops feelings for that kind of guy, she will always end up hurt in one way or another. So consider the ego boost for the guy of doing that with many women- these types of guys are more concerned w/ themselves than the feelings of others or they would never be doing that.

I would never fault your sister for feeling hurt or for any interest in/feelings she has for this guy, unfortunately that happens to even the best, sweetest, most intelligent, whatever you want to say types of women. I know it's a cliche but the best thing for her to do is take it as a lesson and move on, and to not beat herself up over it.
 
AvsGirl41 said:

But there's a question of how platonic it really was--was it a poetic disguise of shameless adultery? Historians disagree on that, as to if anyone ever followed the ideals. Chivalry was often a disguise for savage self interest. (Eric Mallin wrote a big essay on this, excellent read.)

Too true. At least shameless adultery isn't fashionable right now, or at least I'd like to think it isn't, but maybe that'd be idealising/romanticising the present just as much as the past. Such is the problem with ideals, I suppose. I try to give people benefit of the doubt as much as possible, in any case. I'll check out that essay if UWO has it available amongst their online resources.
 
Back
Top Bottom