A lot of it makes sense. It talks about all the excuses we make for guys who are treating us poorly, in an effort to find reasons to stay with them. You know, because dating someone who is not treating us well is better than not dating anyone at all.
So, if this book is true, and behavior that points to a guy not being into a girl, then the opposite behavior must suggest that he is into her, right? Easy example: If a guy doesn't make time for a girl, he's not into her; by the same token, if a guy goes out of his way to make time for a girl, he must be into her.
Is that true? I'm not sure anymore. Men (not just Big) have often treated me in ways that suggest they were "into" me - only to come clean and tell me later that they never were. I don't get it.
One daily wake-up reminded me of this post, by my friend Sassy Singleton. Go read it; I'll wait.
Got it? He was "busy," right? The wake-up call says, "The word busy is the relationship Weapon of Mass Destruction. It seems like a good excuse, but in fact, in every silo you uncover, all you're going to find is a man who didn't care enough to call. Remember: Men are never too busy to get what they want."
Now, Sassy's smart, funny and cool. She's got a good head on her shoulders for this kind of thing, and she was having none of the
Um...ok...so, to recap: Guys act like they're into us when they're not - and act like they're not when they really are. But only sometimes, and we should be able to tell the difference.
And women are crazy?