xoJane


A couple of quotes from the 'guys she's dated'.

"Alexander"

You were a delight to date. Although our tryst was brief, it was exciting and enlightening. I don't think our ways-parting had anything to do with your qualifications as "girlfriend material." I wasn't looking for a girlfriend. Perhaps more importantly, I was -- and still am -- in a place in my life where I don't want to be anyone's boyfriend.

Did you ask me to be your boyfriend? No. There was no such pressure along those lines. But I didn't know how to casually date someone and not have that lead to a serious relationship. I hadn't mastered the dark arts of casual dating, nor have I mastered them now (although I'm a little better at it). As a result, I turned the stove off because I felt I didn't have the skill to keep the heat at a simmer.

"Ruddiger"/"Steve" (He couldn't decide.)

You struck me, as you likely do everybody else, as a very sharp and funny woman who is quite easy to talk to. You also happen to be extremely good-looking. All positives, in my book. You also struck me as unique in how immediately frank and forthright you were in conversation. Your frankness was refreshing and exciting and often funny, and it certainly didn't ring any alarm bells when you talked openly about things like career, family, sex, etc.

That said, your frankness often drifted into straight-up confession, as if you wanted to lay out everything that was potentially difficult, disappointing or problematic about yourself on the table immediately. As someone who also has a confessional streak, I can understand this, but I know from experience that it's best to play certain things close to the chest when hanging out with someone new, especially a potential romantic partner.

You have a ton of remarkable weapons in your arsenal –- smarts, looks, wit, a cool job, a justly celebrated rack –- but you strike me as a woman who can't resist undermining herself from time-to-time. Perhaps you like to air your self-doubt and less flattering qualities off the bat in an effort to preempt greater disappointment or embarrassment down the line, or maybe you've developed an attachment to the idea of yourself as a tragic romantic figure, or maybe something totally different. I don't think it's a great strategy, though, as people tend to believe anything you tell them (me included, apparently).

When a person is eager to catalogue their faults early on, it's hard not to start instinctively thinking of that person as TROUBLE and anticipate a fraught experience with a lot of complications and psychic tension and gloom. It's also hard not to think of that person as simply not being happy and/or not feeling good about themselves (as everybody knows, confidence and a high self-opinion are very attractive in men and women, unless you're some sort of sociopath).

Of course, most of my relationships HAVE been filled with complications and psychic tension and gloom, but I, like most others, like to adopt a kind of willful ignorance of these eventualities on early dates to set the goodwill groundwork. It seemed to me that you were unconsciously trying to undermine this rosiness by really running with a warts-and-all technique. I think this here article is actually great example of your confessional streak and eagerness to air your perceived faults and troubles.

Who talks like this?
 
The worst part about this is all the comments talking about their horrible experiences.

"we didn't like the same music, movies, and really had nothing in common"
"we didn't have very many of the same interests, but he was friendly and well written, had a job, and a car, you know..."

Is this what dating girls is like? "I like Taylor Swift! Do you like Taylor Swift? yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay" I can't imagine turning someone down for having different interests, it's kind of the point of meeting new people and broadening your horizons.
 
Is it just me, or are the commenters being assholes in this article:

http://m.xojane.com/issues/northwestern-james-foley-death

I read it as "writer seeks comfort with former professor, and it's great that former professors still are available to reach out". Everyone else thought it was just the writer bragging that she went to northwestern because the dead journalist went there.
 
Is it just me, or are the commenters being assholes in this article:

http://m.xojane.com/issues/northwestern-james-foley-death

I read it as "writer seeks comfort with former professor, and it's great that former professors still are available to reach out". Everyone else thought it was just the writer bragging that she went to northwestern because the dead journalist went there.

Most every other post there is about "how awesome I am as a woman", and it starts out with, yes, another photo of the author instead of a photo of something relevant - so I can understand the cognitive dissonance between the intent and how it was received. And yes, the comments are douchey, because xoJane readers wanted to be the awesomer, womaner version of the author.
 
Is it just me, or are the commenters being assholes in this article:

http://m.xojane.com/issues/northwestern-james-foley-death

I read it as "writer seeks comfort with former professor, and it's great that former professors still are available to reach out". Everyone else thought it was just the writer bragging that she went to northwestern because the dead journalist went there.

I read about this somewhere else (because I am also Northwestern, like the author is Northwestern and James Foley was Northwestern. We were Northwestern, all of us.) Apparently she had mod powers and went on a comment deletion and ban spree, so what you're seeing is the bloody aftermath of a writer having a tantrum for being "misunderstood" and commenters having a tantrum right back for being "censored".
 
Back