Page 2 / Page 3

Simply Single

Men & Women: The Ambiguity of Actions and the Saving Grace of Straightforwardness

Page 1

It can happen during the most inopportune or most fitting of times, and it can strike anywhere. From buying lunch at a deli, browsing a supermarket isle, or busing it to work, to walking one’s dog, waiting at the doctor’s office, or working out at the gym, individuals evaluate one another. Depending on their single status or sometimes even lack thereof, gutsy guys and gals approach the apple of their eye, attempting to break the ice and achieve a friendly rapport with hopes it may lead to more. In addition to proactive pursuers, silent, shy, or secretive souls and conversation-starters who strike up small talk with anyone and everyone due to their outgoing, unassuming, friendly nature, coexist together. With most unable to read minds and figure out the romantic intent of most strangers, acquaintances, and even friends, many find it easier to let their wall down around those to whom they are not attracted or those of the sex to which they aren’t attracted, for it can often be easier to assume they are harmless and motiveless. Once unguarded, individuals feel more at ease with being themselves, comfortably chatting, contacting, cooking up plans, cracking jokes, and the like. Processing and perceiving interactions, situations, and events involving the sex(es) to which one is attracted individually and independently, one’s perceptions of what another is conveying influences and creates one’s sense of reality, which can lead to miscommunication. Considering individual complexities and perceptions, can one prevent another from misreading, misinterpreting, and mistaking platonic kindness and actions as something more? Are explanations and definitions needed to prevent such misunderstandings? Why can well spelled out actions and intentions still suffer some sort of ambiguity to which we are unaware?

From friendly, forward, or forthcoming to wary, wishy-washy, or withdrawn, individual psyches and personalities vary just as a candy store varies in a plethora of assortments. Despite the appearance or one’s opinion of any sugarcoated sweet, one often must taste or try a confection before coming to any real conclusion about it. Similarly, since appearances and assessments deceive in the dating world, one must interact with another to form a conclusion or an opinion about the person. Depending on one’s impression of another, he/she continues or cuts off communication with the person for various reasons. Working at the same firm, Alana and Josh quickly befriended one another. Outgoing and friendly, Alana felt comfortable talking about everything and anything, so long as the other person was just open-minded.

Warming quickly to Josh’s candid personality, they took regular smoke and lunch breaks together and shared serious, silly, and sordid stories on politics, life, and dating. Alana loved her rapport with Josh, relieved that they shared a perfect platonic relationship, unlike most men who often approached her with the intent towards or hopes for something more. She often though to herself, “This is great! Josh is a cool guy with whom I can talk and joke about anything. It’s nice to know there are guys out there who want to be a woman’s friend and nothing more.” About six months into their friendship, during a smoke break, Josh asked, “If you weren’t dating Mike, you’d date me, wouldn’t you?” Shocked and surprised by the unexpected question, Alana laughed. “No, I wouldn’t,” she chuckled, shaking her head in disbelief at the question. “You would, wouldn’t you? I think you would.” He earnestly offered. Hiding her discomfort, she smiled, calmly reiterating, “No, I wouldn’t, Josh. Seriously. Why?” From that moment on, their rapport changed from chummy companions to awkward acquaintances. Misinterpretation of their dynamics created two disparate views of Alana and Josh’s rapport. While Alana thought their friendship was completely platonic, Josh misconstrued the combination of her openness and their ritual breaks and lunches as a sign of potential interest. Alana wondered how Josh could have assumed there was more to their friendship. She had often openly talked about the man she dated, plainly pointed out Josh wasn’t her type, and consistently treated him like a buddy.

Dynamics between individuals, in which one or both could potentially be attracted, like any other type of relationship, can fall prey to subjective interpretation at all times. Frequently, communication between these individuals ends up much like a game of Telephone. Let’s say Marie meets Todd at a get together, and they immediately hit it off. As captivating conversations create an air of comfort around them, Marie feels Todd would make a fun friend and companion, since they seem to share much in common. In Todd’s mind, the chemistry confirms Marie’s budding interest for him. Both feel the other shares the same sentiment, and a “friendship” develops. Viewing his company as guaranteed good times, Marie calls to invite Todd to swanky soirees, cappuccinos at the coffeehouse, and movie matinees. To Todd, Marie’s increased invitations display her developing affections toward him. For instance, Marie would casually say, “Hey, what are you up to? Do you want to grab a cup of coffee?” Todd’s interpretation? Hi, Todd. I want to see you; do you want to grab a cup of coffee? With ever growing feelings, Todd began to obsess about Marie. As his feelings grew, he began obsessing about her, fabricating false illusions in his mind about the state of their “relationship.” Noticing a difference in his demeanor, Marie kept her distance to prevent any misunderstanding, causing Todd to become irritated by her change in behavior. Following a confrontation, during which Todd confessed his fervent feelings and Marie professed a purely platonic one, their “friendship” came to an end.

More>>

<<Back