While watching my friend play a mix of angry birds and plants v zombies, I found an error in why people's advice with relationships goes so wrong, unless they know both parties personally <b>and</b> has seen the two people spend time together. I have several examples of this. First, when my friend, and we'll call her Judy, told me that she was into a guy from her math class (we're in two completely different classes) I was first, "Oh, wow, again okay time to kick into supportive friend mode." But the things she told me he said were pretty convincing; that he had long term relationships before, that if they were together he wanted to get tested (a sign of sexual maturity I thought, and that they trusted each other to go together), that he wanted to have her meet his parents and friend's. To me this was incredible. Finally, someone Judy liked that wasn't just into her for sex, but wanted a serious relationship with. Then three days later, I find out he's not into commitment anymore and just wants to hang out. I know I missed something there. Besides Judy's infamous past with men before, there was no sign, from what she told me, that he was going to end up being a giant d-bag. Another example: I was trying to figure out what these texts from a guy friend meant. I was explaining to two girl friend's of mine. "Well what's tipping you off that there's something?" they asked. "He keeps trying to have me break up with my boyfriend-" "Who does that? Like. Only if he's into you." they said, cutting me off. This went on as I shared that we hang out a lot, and talk and such, but what really happened was this.
I was trying to convince myself that he was into me, because it would be a great boost to my ego and confidence. But I left out everything else. As if what I was sharing was an acid or a base, and then you wanted to keep it concentrated so you leave out all the evidence that would dilute the "he likes you" stuff.
But hey. I'm a chem nerd, so this is how I see things now. v_v
No comments:
Post a Comment