Cary missed half the issue. There's a difference between an introvert and someone who can't read social signals. Even if you embrace your inner introvert as Cary suggested, to form relationships you need to learn to read social signals. Otherwise, you end up with more situations like your story about completely misunderstanding the guy who invited you over to watch a movie. You also need to learn how to send the right social signals, otherwise you'll never attract anyone, even (or perhaps, especially) another introvert.

Unfortunately, I don't have any easy solutions for you -- I'm still working on this as I approach 50. But I think if I'd been more proactive, as you're being now, I might have licked the problem before the gap between my actual social skills and my expected socials skills (as a mature adult woman) became so awkward.

Our culture takes pride in the demise of formal etiquette, but etiquette actually served as a set of agreed-upon social signals. Certain phrases and behaviors had accepted significance, and no one had to try to figure out what to say to convey a specific message and what to say in response. But even though etiquette isn't taught any more, some of the "language" of etiquette is still in use. So my first suggestion is: read some etiquette books dealing with both social and business etiquette. Study social signals like a foreign language. At the very least, you'll learn some stock phrases and responses that you know will be "right" in certain everyday interactions, which will help you feel more comfortable and confident when meeting people, going for a job interview, etc. There are good articles out there that will give you strategies for flirting (showing interest in someone, not necessarily romantically) and dating (ten things to say on a date, etc.). And listen. Listening is good. Listening will give you clues about what to say and how to say it, and everyone likes a good listener.

The other advice is: ask your more socially ept friends to help. Ask them to observe you in social situations. Did you miss signals (he was totally into you, couldn't you tell?) or send the wrong signals (turn away from someone, not look them in the eye, talk without listening, steer the conversation toward subjects that are impersonal or distancing, etc.).

Finally, practice. Practice, practice, practice until this behavior that's going to seem unnatural at first becomes second nature. Put yourself in social situations as homework -- do it because you have to, not because you want to. You won't become less of an introvert (although you might find you enjoy socializing more if you're better at it), but at least you'll be alone by choice and not because you can't figure out how to connect with the people you *do* choose to connect with.

Good luck!

My initial reaction was "big fat hairy deal" -- as others have said, unlike other men in public life who have been brought down for seeing prostitutes and other sexual peccadillos (or not -- Larry Craig and David Vitter are still in the Senate, aren't they?), Spitzer wasn't elected on a platform of personal morality. When I read through all the letters, I did find the arguments of an attorney general being held to a higher standard for obeying the law a little more persuasive of wrongdoing. So I did a little research and learned that patronizing a prostitute isn't even a felony in New York: unless the prostitute is under 18 it's only a Class B misdemeanor -- that's barely a crime.

But what I find really annoying is the over-the-top hyperbole of Leonard's piece. As someone else pointed out, saying he was "involved with a prostitution ring" suggests that he was involved in the running of it, rather than being a customer. Did he even know the call girls he was seeing were part of a "ring"? Should he have? Are men required to do some kind of due diligence investigation on the exact structure of a hooker's business before utilizing her services?

And then there's the word "monumental" -- oh please! Get ahold of yourself! Does this in any way detract from all the things that he's accomplished? Does a personal act like patronizing a prostitute make him any less a crusader against corruption in among the rich a powerful?

Maybe if people like Leonard didn't put fallible human beings on lofty pedestals they wouldn't be set up for a monumental fall.