Dating can be tough. It can be especially tough if your personality is a mixture of petulance and insecurity. And even tougher if you think you can argue someone who’s not interested in you into a second date with an angry, accusatory, sometimes hilarious, sometimes deeply unsettling 1600-word email. And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically here.
The email in question, written by a young investment banker named Mike to an unfortunate woman named Lauren after one less-than-great date, was posted on Reddit a couple of days ago, and has already gotten a lot of internetty attention, but some of you may not have seen it, so I thought I’d give it a little fisking anyway. Settle in; it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride. (Note: What follows below is most of the email; I’ve cut out a few passages here and there.)
Hi Lauren,
I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.
Well, we’re off to a not-so-good start. Perhaps she is, as they say, just not that into you?
FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email.
Gosh, I wonder why Lauren didn’t get back to him.
By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.
Google-stalking – always a nice touch. There’s no better way to charm a nice lady than by tracking down her personal information online.
I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.
Uh, what? She’s ignoring you, dude. She doesn’t want to go out with you. Seems to me she’s sending you a pretty unmixed message here.
Should she have responded to your voicemail and/or texts? In an ideal world, perhaps, but she may have sensed that you’d react precisely how you’re reacting now, and didn’t want to have anything more to do with your creepy, entitled bullshit.
And now Mike the banker makes his, er, “case” for why she should go on a second date with him:
Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:
-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.
You were flirting!! Hair-twirling = sex! If you don’t realize it you can google search it!!!
-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.
Eye contact is an Indicator of Interest. IOI! IOI! If you didn’t want to bear my children why did you look at me, with your eyes????
-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.
Well, not really. This is what people say to be polite at the end of a disappointing date, when they don’t want to see you again. If she wanted to see you again, she would have said something about making plans for a second date.
-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.
We had a conversation! You did not flee in horror! Therefore you must have my babies!!!
In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.
And sending someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you a long, creepy, accusatory tirade is polite?
Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship.
Dude, you do understand that she has to actually like you too in order for there to be a relationship?
I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.
You cannot argue someone into a second date! That’s not how it works.
Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you.
Gain utility? Really? DATING IS NOT MICROECONOMICS!
In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.
Well, banker dude. You’re getting some feedback now. All over the internet.
If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.
So your argument is that she should go out with you, even though she doesn’t want to go out with you, because life isn’t perfect and you’re probably the best she really deserves?
Way to sell yourself, dude.
If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on.
Well, she’s not really responsible for you thinking that every woman who twirls her hair in your presence wants to have your babies.
We have a number of things in common.
Oh dear, sounds like we’ve got another “logical” argument coming up here.
I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part.
Um, what?
I have no clever remark to make here, other than that Lauren is probably going to have to avoid going to the Philharmonic ever again, on the off chance she might run into banker Mike.
According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age.
YOU ARE RIGHT AGE. INTERNET SAYS SO. THEREFORE YOU MUST DATE ME.
I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common.
Also, you both require oxygen to live. Lauren, can’t you see that you and banker Mike are soulmates?
I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date.
Banker Mike: You said you wanted feedback. Here is some feedback. She was apparently not horrified by your physical appearance. It may be your horrible personality that needs some work.
Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so.
You’re fighting a losing battle here, dude. Just as you cannot argue someone into liking you, you cannot argue someone into being impressed that you manage your parents’ money.
In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.
And I’m the Queen of Denmark.
That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you.
Oy. As if this email wasn’t stalkerish enough already.
I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.)
This last bit I have no trouble believing.
I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.
I suspect that Lauren has already played out various scenarios in her head already, and that none of them end well.
Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too.
So now you’re being noble and “open minded” for trying to pressure a woman who wants nothing to do with you into a second date?
If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.
Now you’re just making my skin crawl.
I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.
Here’s a solution, dude: How about she never goes on another date with you, ever. Then you won’t ever have to worry about her being late ever again.
If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.
I hope you find the feedback that the internet has now provided you to be helpful.
If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).
Now we’re back on this again.
In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again.
Damn you, foul strumpet, and your devious hair-playing ways! Google it! GOOGLE IT!!!
I would like to talk to you on the phone.
I think you’ve pretty much guaranteed that this will never, ever happen.
Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.
Not much to misinterpret here, Mike. You’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that you’re an undateable creep.
Let me be serious for a moment. Forget about Lauren. Hell, forget about women in general for a while, and work on yourself. Get some therapy; you can afford it. Work through your bitterness, your petulance, your highly unattractive mixture of entitlement and insecurity. Stop being a “Nice Guy” and learn to be genuinely nice.
And don’t ever, ever, ever write another email like this one.
NamelessDudeBro: d00d, you clearly don’t know jack about the History of asperger syndrome as a recognized condition. AS was first identified by Hans Asperger in the 1944. Then there was Lorna Wing who officially coined the term “asperger syndrome” 1981. So FYI the condition was already known to at least some in the psychiatric community BEFORE it was first introduced into the DSM IV in 1994. Think about that one for a while.
Yes, Asperger described the symptomology in ’44, and the term ws coined in 1981, but that’s a far cry from it being commonly diagnosed in that time frame.
until recently there was no “official” definition of Asperger syndrome. The lack of a consensual definition led to a great deal of confusion as researchers could not interpret other researchers’ findings, clinicians felt free to use the label based on their own interpretations or misinterpretations of what Asperger syndrome “really” meant, and parents were often faced with a diagnosis that nobody appeared to understand very well, and worse still, nobody appeared to know what to do about it.
School districts are often not aware of the condition, insurance carriers could not reimburse services provided on the basis of this “unofficial” diagnosis, and there was no published information providing parents and clinicians alike with guidelines on the meaning and implications of Asperger syndrome, including what should the diagnostic evaluation consist of and what forms of treatment and interventions were warranted.
Asperger’s Ascent to an Official Diagnosis
This situation has changed somewhat since Asperger syndrome was made “official” in DSM-IV (APA, 1994), following a large international field trial involving over a thousand children and adolescents with autism and related disorders (Volkmar et al., 1994). The field trials revealed some evidence justifying the inclusion of Asperger syndrome as a diagnostic category different from autism, under the overarching class of Pervasive Developmental Disorders. More importantly, it established a consensual definition for the disorder which should serve as the frame of reference for all those using the diagnosis. However, the problems are far from over. Despite some new research leads, knowledge on Asperger syndrome is still very limited.
(cited from National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health>)
Given both the reluctance of the psychological community to run with theorised disorders, and the lack of any offical diagnostic metric (which, you may recall, is what you say happened to you, in 1992… prior to any such official diagnosis existing), it’s not unreasonable for people to have some doubts about your veracity.
It’s more the amazing specificity, and the use of, “I’ve had an official diagnosis for 20 years,” being used as a sort of rhetorical trump card, which has garnered the reaction; not any lack of understanding on the history of Aspergers.
Given the rest of your work… well lets say your general credibility isn’t high.
This is patently false. Seriously, it’s complete and utter bullshit. Every single time one of you “women are shallow, hypergamous bitches who only care about looks and money” types comes here, so many posters bend over backwards to provide everything from anecdotal to empirical evidence that proves you wrong. They recount the interesting though far from Pitt-clone handsome lovers they’ve had. They show studies about relationships. All to no avail.
A rational person could just walk around the fucking world and see plenty of male/female couples where the men are not models or rich, or rich/models. But you sad-sacks always want to put your fingers in your ears and “la, la, la” away because loneliness sucks (it really, truly does) but introspection is hard work.
I’m not playing this game. Yes, I’m good looking. Yes, I’ve dated some handsome men. And the one’s who weren’t stereotypically handsome were, to a man, awesome as shit; charming, confident, sexy as hell. My boyfriend is a-fucking-dorable, not despite his belly and baldness, but because of them. He owns that shit with grace and style. He is hands down one of the most charming, most fun, sexiest men that I’ve ever known – and I’ve known a few. Being good-looking doesn’t automatically mean that the only thing a person has going for them is their looks. And being sexy and charming is comprised of a lot more than six pack abs, hairlines, and perfect teeth.
There’ll be a dozen more posts trying to argue against your ridiculous bull-shit. Everyone’s seen the show. Let me try to save some time: it’s you, sex-bot guy. It’s you. It isn’t shallow women, or hypergamy, or alphas, or any of the rest of the ridiculousness you’re about to trot out here.
It’s you. Figure out what you’re doing wrong.
I wish my brother could have been diagnosed with Asperger’s 20 years ago. He was actually diagnosed at a younger age than many of the commenters that have shared their stories here, at 14; so that would have been 2001. Before that he had been misdiagnosed as ADHD, which was deeply unfortunate since he was put on both ritalin and dexedrine. The dex was particularly harmful, as he’d been a skinny kid before and faded almost to nothingness when he took it regularly.
It’s2011: That is where the women have decided to “settle” and they are bitter about having to “marry-down” instead of “marry-up”. Yes, only about 10% of the men are seen as “highly desirable” to women. The others are just runners up. And when a woman con no longer get the attention of a top 10% dude, then she goes for the runner’s up and hence many men are in relationships; and certainly not the “vast majority” as you allege.
Provably false. I’ve had lovers/partners who passed on rich men to be dating me. I’ve had them who passed on, “underwear models” to sleep with me.
Moreover, you have created an unfalsifiable. Women who are with rich/underwear models prove your point (because they are with the men you say all women want). Women who aren’t with rich/underwear models prove your point because… well just because; if they are with someone who isn’t rich (or modelling underwear), it’s because they’ve given up on what they really want.
So you get to claim victory, no matter what. Millions of women are all lying when they say they want the men they are with.
Got it. The only reason no one wants to sleep with you/hang out with you is that you aren’t rich/built like Brad Pitt. It can’t be that you think everyone who might express interest is lying to you, and that all women are shallow gold-diggers.
Nope, it’s the fault of the women for unreasonably not liking you.
What Nobinayamu said.
It’s ridiculous that we’re trying to PROVE women don’t only date millionaire Pitt-clones. How do you not know (or at least SEE) any couples in the real world?
Sexbot: You’re creepy because you think women can be replaced with sexbots. This is objectifying, which is creepy behavior. You are also creepy because you think women only want to fuck the top 10% of men, which is misogynistic, and hence creepy.
I’ve slept with *counts on fingers* seven virgins. I’ve been the first kiss of two men, both of whom were in their twenties. I actively desired them all. If they’re in the ten percent, women are doing a very bad job of tracking them down.
Also, “I’ll fuck everyone under 55 and less than 300 pounds” is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea. Even for strictly casual sex, one should avoid douchebags, the high-drama, those with low respect for boundaries, those who won’t use protection, and the congenitally unreliable. For relationships, shared interests, experiences, and values come into play.
BTW, now I know why Brandon threw that wierd tantrum about how I was apparently objectifying men by turning down a pro football player who randomly hit on me at the drugstore. It’s not fair when women aren’t attracted to men who look like Brandon. Those women should stop that, and recognize the wonder that is men who look like linebackers. If they don’t they’re just objectifying bitches.
Seriously, is there anything that he says that doesn’t come from a totally selfish point of view? It’s hilarious. I keep wanting to post a summary of Piaget’s theory of child development with a little arrow pointing to the bit where he apparently got stuck.
Hey, Sexbot – I went to a particularly well-known and prestigious college, which meant that there were a sizable number of very, very rich students at my school. There were also a pretty large number of serious college athletes – ergo very buff, very conventionally attractive people. Some of both groups were friends of mine. Some of them were dudes who hit on me. One in particular, whose parents own something like five separate homes all worth several million dollars apiece (and who, while he’s not an underwear model, is unquestionably a good-looking guy who spends ample time at the gym), made it very clear that he was head-over-heels for me and that any time I wanted, he would drop everything to be with me.
I told him I was really flattered and he was a good guy and a good friend, but I just wasn’t interested in him like that. Shortly thereafter, I began a serious relationship with another guy, who looked a lot more like Austin Powers than an underwear model and whose family had one, average, middle-class house.
I’m still friends with millionaire-dude, and since his last relationship ended a short while back, I could very probably play on his old feelings for me if I really wanted my own personal millionaire. But I don’t (even besides the fact that that would be awful and manipulative of me). I’m tremendously happy with my boyfriend, who makes a respectable-but-hardly-spectacular living which allows him to afford a small but nice apartment – and who, while adorable, doesn’t look anything like any underwear model I’ve ever seen unless underwear models have gotten quite a lot hairier, nerdier-looking, and slightly overweight lately.
Or, in the tl;dr version: your stupid generalizations are stupid. I’m sure there are some people (male and female) who care deeply about their partners’ finances, and some (male and female) who care deeply about them meeting some high standard of conventional attractiveness, but most (male and female) care a lot more about finding someone who makes them happy, who’s fun to be around, who loves and respects them, and who’s attractive to them than about whether their potential partners measure up to some standard you invented.
SexBot:
I forgot this bit!
So… a white supremicist? A puppy-kicking specialist? Someone that shares or doesn’t share your likes and dislikes, someone who would or wouldn’t get along with your parents, someone who is or isn’t monogamous?
I’ve gotta say, if we had ever gone on a date and I found out what interested you was “not too fat, not too old, willing to date me,” I wouldn’t feel like you would care about me as a person at all.
This is of course assuming that you didn’t yet tell me that you think I’m a terrible person for being sexually attracted to my previous partners. Because that might preclude the possibility of a date.
Aw, Nobinayamu accomplished complete pwnage and rendered my post redundant while I was typing. Oh, well.
I find Brandon’s hissyfits over his not getting a fair shake hilarious. Since he’s “just fucking with us,” why would he care if he got one or not?
Something tells me his flounce won’t be stuck.
WhereRSexbots: dude, it’s you. You are the problem.
hellkell: He’s upset that we are taking him seriously.
Of course his “fucking with us” is amazingly consistent. One might even come to believe that he’s being more honest than he admits.
“He’s a millionaire, right? Maybe he’s the nicest guy you could ever meet. Cool and interesting, funny, great to hang out with, always making people laugh, volunteering, charity work, all that good stuff. But he wasn’t “hot enough”. Plain and simple.”
And? Not that you have any evidence to support the idea that this dude is an awesome guy, but so what if he was? Sexual relationships are based on sexual attraction. If one of the partners isn’t attracted to the other, the relationship isn’t going to work out very well.
Taking the comments you’ve made in this thread as an entirety…you may be physically unattractive, and if so you’re going to have to accept that that limits your dating options a bit. But that’s not the core of your problem. The core of your problem is that your personality makes you undateable even to women who might find you physically appealing.
“And being sexy and charming is comprised of a lot more than six pack abs, hairlines, and perfect teeth.”
See? Even all that and you aren’t satisfied as a woman!
“Let me try to save some time: it’s you, sex-bot guy. It’s you. It isn’t shallow women, or hypergamy, or alphas, or any of the rest of the ridiculousness you’re about to trot out here.
It’s you. Figure out what you’re doing wrong.”
I already have figured it out, after years of introspection, discussion, writing, the whole-bit.
It’s that I don’t fit the typical mold of a man who is “attractive” to women. Sure, I may be 6′ tall, full head of hair, etc. But I don’t have six pack abs, I don’t have a deep “sexy” voice, and I’m not Chris Farley (or Chris rock) funny. Sure, many people insist that they can’t be shallow and overly superficial. It must be something wrong with the millions of guys who can’t get dates because they don’t look like underwear models, right? Sure that may be true for some, but I’ve explored virtually all options and the one that is most vehemently denied is also the most likely culprit.
Yes, in short, women are very hypergameous.
“Millions of women are all lying when they say they want the men they are with.”
No, they like them of course, but they’d like to be with someone “better” in reality. Remember, they are “settling”.
I don’t think I’ll receive any bits of wisdom here, I’ve already read most of what has been posted elsewhere. It’s nothing new that people don’t like to admit their own faults, especially if it means admitting that they are “stuck-up” or “hypergameous”.
“See? Even all that and you aren’t satisfied as a woman!”
Can’t tell if trolling or just stupid -.-
“Goddamn, do we have to describe all of our past ugly boyfriends every single day to appease some guy who can’t get a date?”
OK, here’s the thing. I don’t have any ugly ex-boyfriends. All of my exes were conventionally attractive, at least facially (since I prefer men to be skinny, whether or not their bodies would be considered attractive is a combination of personal preference and culture of origin). So? Our friends the PUA’s believe ardently in ranking people by level of conventional attractiveness, right? And that most people will fuck the best looking people who are willing to fuck them? At least they believe that when it comes to men. So why is it suddenly evil when women filter who they’re willing to date/fuck based on looks?
Everyone filters who they want to fuck based on looks. Different people have different preferences, but to expect people to treat looks as irrelevant when choosing sexual partners is ridiculous.
The evidence suggests stupid.
“the one that is most vehemently denied is also the most likely culprit.”
Creationism is more likely than evolution, biologists keep denying it.
Global warming is impossible, climatologists keep denying it.
Homeopathy is real medicine, doctors keep denying it.
Depression can be cured with faith, psychologists keep denying it.
“Yes, in short, women are very hypergameous.”
I am hyper-game-eous. I am never satisfied with the games I have. I always want the latest games. The shiniest games. The newest games. I’ll be all excited for a game and then I’ll play it and it’s disappointing and I won’t finish it, and I’ll start lusting for the new game in the pc gamer or the wii magazine. It’s frickin horrible.
My boyfriend is broke, skinny and can’t tan himself to save his own skin (all puns intended), and yet there’s this thing about him that I just find irresistible. Can anyone guess?
Jesusfuckingchrist, tell me you are not this fucking stupid.
How very scientific of you. Yes, we’re denying that we only date millionaire underwear models because we’re trying to hide the fact from you that women only date millionaire underwear models. YOU CAUGHT US. All guys who do not look like underwear models and don’t have a million dollars are doomed to be alone. ALL OF THEM. You have figured it out. Congrats, bro.
Or maybe you’ve been reading too many fucking MGTOW sites and have a warped view of reality, dating, women, and life in general. And that puts people off. I dunno, dude.
Joanna – I KNOW! HIS UPCOMING INHERITANCE!!! 😛
Bahaha! zhinxy, no but good guess =D
OK, SexBots, exactly what did you hope to find by coming here? We’re telling you that what you think about women and relationships isn’t exactly reality-based, but you keep insisting otherwise.
So good luck and all, but what the fuck?
Yeah, if all women are liars, they’ll say they aren’t hypergamous but they are, in fact they may not be aware of it so nothing they say matters… Why come here? What’s to gain? Just to inform us all that we’re lying? The world is how you see it and there’s no evidence to convince you otherwise, much less the testimony of women, who are liars by definition. So, what’s the plan in coming here?