Letters to the Editor
Sandra M
Published Letters: 578 Editor's Choice: 139
-
Bet Jon Stewart can't grow facial hair neither
[Read the article: No butch hair for Rosie]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and I'm sure Howard Stern is contractually obligated not to to get a crew cut.
I don't think putting a no-butch clause in O'Donnell's View contract is so shocking - or anti-gay. I'm sure men as well as women in TV land are subject to all kinds of restrictive clauses that, according to the dudes signing the paychecks, feel are tantamount to a guarantee that the performer will maintain a modicum of attractiveness. Tattoos, piercings, very short hair of a certain cut on women, some types of facial hair on men - all of these are used in the general populace as politicizing the personal -- something I'm sure the networks are interested in suppressing too.
-
Sparks on the phone often fail to ignite in person
[Read the article: I don't understand men!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clearly the phone guy thought he might like the LW, so she was not wrong in presuming romance *might* be in the offing (I'm taking her at her word when she wrote "I told him that if he was really serious about liking me, he needed to show it and make an effort to come visit.")
However, in the tradition of best laid plans of mice and men, it just didn't work out. They met face to face after all these years and... click wasn't audible - at least, not for him. He came out because they had cleared all the hurdles prior to the visit - flirty conversation, picture exchange that piqued interest, etc. But when they met in the flesh, the lack of sparks from high school continued to dominate...they had not magically morphed into different people now attracticve to each other. Or at least, that was the case for him. It happens all the time.
I went back to my college and visited a professor I had liked. He always encouraged my writing and listened respectfully to my opinions, though I was a freshman in a class of juniors and seniors. He also asked me on a couple of dates and occasionally flirted with me. This appalled me - he was 32! I was 17! My interest in him was as a mentor only...he was too old and fat to be a potential suitor. I politely declined the dates and kept going to class, and he kept giving me good feedback on my writing and criticisms, and I forgot all about it until my visit when he bounced his eyebrows at me and said "I remember we had quite a little flirtation back when you were my student." Well, I guess that makes one of us, Prof.
The point being, people tend to slant all the evidence in favor of the conclusion they want to prove. She says he flirted & said he liked her but then backed off so she wonders: does he have intimacy issues? is he gay? is he emotionally unavailable? or is he just a garden-variety nincompoop?.
But the evidence can be looked at another way. To wit: long ago they were platonic friends - no sparks. They recently flirted a bit by phone but when push came to shove he backed out of an opportunity to fan those sparks into frame (the scuttled Christmas plans). Finally he arrives but most of his behavior suggests that his feelings remain platonic - he does not initiate physical contact while doing his best to not encourage further pursuit on her part. The obvious conclusion from this look at the evidence: his feelings haven't changed from their long ago state - he thought he might be interested, but when they met face to face and experienced each other in three dimnesions, in social settings, in one-on-one time, etc....a romance did not flower.
To the LW: it is not reasonable to point to his behavior after the trip and say it conflicted with his signals before the trip - he had more information to go on after the trip, so of course his behavior is going to be different -- i.e. now, after a whole weekend together, he acutally has enough data to know whetheror not he wanted to pursue a relationship with you. And he didn't.
The phone guy didn't really send mixed signals, he just came to a conclusion that differs from the one that the LW wanted. There is no mystery here, no explanation needed - he just doesn't feel the same way she does. There's no shame in that - it doesn't mean she isn't attractive or not worth a relationship. It just won't be with him. Sure, she feels chagrined. But being rejected (and as rejections go, this one was pretty gentle) is part of life. She can get over it quickly if she chooses to look at this in a 'manly' (i.e. simple, straightforward) way, and avoid 'girly' overanalyzing :-)