First: you're question was of a personal nature, not general, because you asked where she's to study next. When you ask personal questions, she's going to think you're interested. Since she didn't respond, she's not interested in revealing personal information. If you understand this...
Forget where I was going with that. Here's a simple question: do you know when a girl is interested in you? If so, how do you know?
When she gives me her full attention? Which she doesn't.
On the other hand, you'll never learn much about people if you try to tranfer your interaction to social media. People do not behave there the same way they do in real life.
I understand. It's just that I don't know why it isn't working out the way it does with other people. Sorry, but guys won't ever leave a question blank for me...at least they don't, usually. Women on the other hand are another matter...
...okay I'm getting pretty confused here. Let's just say I do have experience conversing with women through Facebook's messaging system (this is a fact). I rarely have any trouble getting responses out of...girls. This is also a fact. Even that girl. It is just that I got a tad pissed off that time, that particular time, when Facebook kept telling me she saw the message and refused to leave anything in return. I believe I can safely admit that it is not something that regularly occurs to me.
Why is this whole thing even an issue, if you're not interested? Sorry to be blunt, but getting worked up about someone not replying to a Facebook message (to the point of then going to a forum and venting about it) comes across as very needy. You also said you messaged again, directly referencing the lack of reply? That's not appealing to women.
Do you think I really eroded any chance of redemption when I nagged her about that? The thought of such a major flaw overlooked as that which could put me to shame surely disturbs me. I am not one who does not reconsider what others, especially women (who I have little experience dealing with), regard me. The manner in which you repeatedly state it, and the extent of damage to which you emphasize said mistake, continuously teaches me this painful reality that one needs such a crafty way to handle women as not to come across as a clingy, worthless pile of male fail.
If you try to understand women independently of their sex altogether, there's even less hope still. You only need to look at statistics on dating websites and a variety of social experiments to know how different the prevailing trends are. The fact that individual cases vary does not mean that men and women are random, without strong statistical trends behind behaviour patterns.
Your theory goes that women should be understood for what they are - females, and that understanding them as an individual while being oblivious to this fact doesn't work, right? What are these "strong statistical trends" you speak of?
Definitely not a question I would ask in said situation. There are certain tricky aspects involved in an honest answer to such a question, aspects you do not want to share with just anyone over the anonymous Internet. For example, 1) Depending on where you live, one could determine social status, purchasing power, political views, etc. 2) Potential kidnappers, perverts, etc. are very interested in that kind of info, especially if they already have a reliable photo. 3) If she's a bit superstitious (the knock-on-wood type) and she still has to pass entrance exams, she may not want to talk about it in order not to spoil her good luck, etc. etc.
I find myself doubting so. I had previously asked a question about where she lives with impunity.
Still, we don't have enough info to draw any definite conclusions about anything. She may really not have seen your message. So what? Ask another question. Simply leave her the required space/freedom to react or not react to this or that question/message. Keep in mind, though, that you may have already spoiled something essential by suggestive phrasing in your follow-up message.
By the looks of it, the universe agrees that that follow-up message was a less than desirable effect...or rather, a devastating miscalculation? True, even I would admit that it wasn't necessary. But how else would I receive a reply? This is a stupid idea I know, but do you think it would really have been better of not to receive any proof at all of the person's affirmation of my existence than to compromise my image just to receive what I thought I deserved?
I don't know if this will help, but the message didn't exactly go in the irritated tone of "Haven't you read these messages?..." but it was phrased in a similar way, in that I wanted to tell her that I'm a tad bewildered why my question wasn't getting answered. At least, that was my intent. She may have interpreted it differently. You tell me what she could've been thinking at that.
I don't think it's an issue whether she saw it or not. Why is anyone attaching importance to that? Failing to reply to a casual acquaintance by sundown is not a sin. The sole problem is that he is hung up on a single day without a reply and sent a very needy and insecure complaint about not getting a reply.
It may not fall under the category of "sin" but it comes of as potentially impolite in my book. I have already said that I myself have never, or hardly, and would not, fail to answer any question offered me by anyone out of basic courtesy. I don't know if she decidedly doesn't consider this, or doesn't think it's rude anyway.
Also not a day, but a handful of days was the duration of that hang up.
It does sound very needy, and I am lamenting this mistake. I will certainly not do it in the future, but I still hope the other party didn't take it to the same negative extent as you think women generally do.
That's a terrible move to make with a female (whether she read it or not changes nothing at all)- because they experience it so often. The issue is the neediness and implication that she had an obligation to reply to a mere acquaintance within a timescale. That places the guy in the weak crowd amongst most other failing frustrated men, and kills any chance of standing out as a high status male with other options open.
You're saying here that the destitute nature of that follow-up message destroyed all the chances of her still possibly regarding me as a "high status male"? In other words, you tell me that my needy reply placed me as poor guy in need of women's attention.
I guess I had to learn this the hard way, and realize that there
are other options open, and ranting about one failed opportunity does more harm than good and it is not worth my time doing such a disservice to myself. Correct?
Women hate men who quickly become fixated on them to the exclusion of the rest of the world. Forget romance novels. In the real world these men are viewed not as "romantics" but rather as creepy "stalkers".
Sorry, I don't quite get it - who are these "creepy stalkers" you speak of?
The number of guys who would lose interest in someone they were attracted to over such things is tiny. Women are much better at closing off possibilities in response to warning signals than men are. Men notice them too, but rarely walk away as instant response. Instead they end up bearing things for all too long before finally realising that they should walk away from the person they are with as they don't match well. Men don't typically repent on attraction easily but instead wait until such annoyances are overbearing, mid relationship, to act.
Excuse me, I don't fully understand this. You tell me that women turn down someone who shows off-putting qualities them off much faster than men? And, as such, men tend to wait too long before realizing they've been with the wrong person?
It's a simple fact that attractive women get more offers than attractive men. So women naturally evolve to turn people down more readily, whereas men are less inclined to find reasons to turn down an initially attractive prospect merely because of some niggling behaviours (unless truly extreme. We are absolutely not the same on these issues.
You tell me here that women have been designed by nature in such a way that they are fast in indicating off-putting qualities and thus turning down undesirable suitors, while men, who have limited options, would choose to let such qualities pass by unless extreme?
All the women spoke of being very selective about how many ticks they gave and mentioned receiving all manner of dirty messages etc. Males will tick anyone who looks fairly appealing, as they quickly discover that women are so selective about ticks- so it's not in your interest to rule out maybes. Each behaviour pattern adds additional fuel to that of the other sex (as women expect ticks to be reciprocated and men expect most ticks to be unreciprocated, hence a need to cast a wider net). And women do not send reams of unsolicited filthy messages, as many men do.
What are "ticks"?
PS. Sorry if this sounds highly derogatory to the original poster, but he really needs to hear it. Women really don't go for the type of behaviour patterns described here. It's not in any way "stupid" to find a person who behaves as described here unattractive. The poster has simply trod all over his own cock. The good thing is that it's perfectly possible to learn to change.
It is not derogatory, it's just...
the truth sucks. At least the truth from your perspective...
If you're interested, ask her for lunch or coffee or something. If she says no, leave it at that. Don't bug her with a bunch of FB messages and don't add to the sh_t that she and all other women have to put up with from obnoxious men.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllWomen?src=hash
Won't that even push my self-deprecated image further off the piano bench? Haven't I done enough harm already?
I'm afraid we're in the realms of conspiranoia here. She received a mundane message and couldn't be bothered to reply. That's it. Attractive women get their inboxes flooded with boring messages from men who secretly want to sleep with them, but who instead try to make mundane chitchat. They can't spend all day engaged in chats merely to avoid hurting the feelings of those many males who don't make their intentions clear, but who instead try to bore them to tears with ordinary chat messages that fail to capture their imagination. In fact the worst thing of all may be when they do reply. There's a common breed of women who allows men to hang around secretly in love with them, and takes all kinds of gifts with no intention of offering anything in return, to a guy who will only ever be seen as a "friend" (who can be treated like a servant). Better to be be ignored than for an insecure guy to allow himself to be that kind of chump.
Whoa. Is this true? I have never entertained the thought of her getting this. I hadn't believed it to be actually possible. By this logic I am but one in a sea of countless undesirable males she has the pain of having to deal with.
And by "chump" I take this as cannon fodder? I wasn't really aware that such a reality existed.
I'm not denying Facebook is keylogging for ads. However, in terms of the situation a simple case of someone reading a message that didn't capture their imagination enough to warrant immediate response. Leaping to spectacularly improbable alternatives will only give false romanticised hope.
What do you mean by "spectacularly improbable alternatives"?
I thought just about everyone on Facebook sees a chat message and doesn't bother replying right then every day? Attractive women with many male friends certainly do.
As a matter of fact, they usually do if it's
seen. This is the reason why I got particularly touchy about this; because people, even her, rarely leave seen questions unanswered.
The issue here is his extremely unhealthy attitude and expectations from someone he has no right to expect anything from. It's not even about the girl here, but about how unhealthily he has acted, with regard to his own interests. You won't get women unless you learn to behave very differently.
I would never have had classed that as the way you describe it here. Regardless I think I shouldn't have done that, but by God, your descriptions horrify me. I am positive about your intent here, but seriously, what is so morally wrong about being genuine? You tell me off overtly harshly for being honest. I am not acting against you because I believe you speak from what you observe really occurs in females, and if that is indeed the horrible truth...funny how transparency could get us into so much trouble.
Actually, men are usually the best sources. Women give truly terrible advice on dating, about what they would LIKE TO THINK would attract them- not about what does.
Man. I am certainly not considering to consult my mother next time about dating.
She said explicitly that she hadn't seen it. From here, I have no reason not to believe her, unless we are to assume that all girls of that age on Facebook are all simply there to play evil games with the boys.
Don't you find it suspicious as to why she finally responded to that fateful remark instead of those previous it? I can imagine she had no choice but to respond lest she appears as intentionally discourteous? That, and, as I had previously stated, I'm back in the godawful cycle of no-replies hocus pocus again.
P.S.: "Immature behavior" on cubedrift's part if so diagnosed is forgivable considering the age category. He has learned his lesson already for the future.
As I said I am in my late teens. I have little experience dealing with women through that impersonal app. Thankfully, you guys have helped me expand my knowledge about this. I still hope she didn't take it as bad as nyiregyhazi describes it, of course.
Are you serious? I guess you are... Maybe it would be better if you just keep your advice to piano playing where you at least seem to have some expertice... 
Anyway, maybe some of your observations on women are justified based on your experiences. Maybe the ones you are used to interacting with just aren't the smartest kind. People with little going on between their ears tend to behave in a more stereotypical manner and create a lot of unnecessary drama, no matter which gender.
I'm sorry, what do you mean by "people with little going on between their ears"?
I have never found it difficult to understand either men or women and quite naturally interact with both genders. As do most of my friends. Normal open communication is the key, not assuming complexity and suspect game playing where there is none.
Complexity and suspect game playing would describe the advice nyiregyhazi is giving me. He asserts that I should not try my luck in this ordeal if I have not grasped a proper understanding of its mechanics. Your advice thankfully gives me a chance to breathe in between, but I am still entertaining of both optimistic and pessimistic advice. Carry on.
The poster urgently needs to listen to this:
https://pickuppodcast.com/2012/01/16/episode-dr-robert-glover-no-more-mr-nice-guy/
I shall see to that.
It's not about becoming a nasty person, but rather about learning not to think that being "nice" to a girl makes her in any way obligated to you- which is exactly what we've seen outlined here. Nothing repels women more than these kind of behaviour patterns. She's her own person and doesn't owe some guy she met a few times anything, merely because he hoped she was under an unwritten contract to message him within time limits. Imagine how possessive that becomes if they actually became an item! Guys who can't break the cycle of hoping irrationally for things they never even put on the table only get exploited or ignored.
Quite right...
The truth sucks, really. Although I have mostly gotten over this by now, I hope the girl in question hasn't regarded me the way nyiregyhazi assumes females to react to such remarks by men. It is paining to my ego and it hurts my self-worth.
We are, for Christ's sakes,
pianists. We are messengers of God. We *** deserve
respect. I know it was a bit outrageous of me to act that way, but please do not overlook the possible reasons why I had even considered doing that in the first place. I also did not imagine it to be so self-destructive the way you describe it. You have revealed a matrix I had not even dreamed the girl in question would have had in her mind.
Am I now to declare that piano playing is far easier than human relationships?
P.S. nyiregyhazi - if it doesn't hurt asking - how much experience do you have with relationships?
Topic: Facebook's "Seen" feature is F*CKING me up