Metropol

A hate of mine is people who start threads about love. Hate it. I'm not that sort of person you see. But I'm also a hypocrite. So.

Here's the set up: a friend of mine and his female work colleague. They started together, do pretty much the same hours and will finish at the same time. They've even booked the same holiday time for goodness sake. They get on very well - lots of laughing, also lots of enjoyable arguments like a married couple. So much so in fact, that they are treated like... a married couple.

This can lead to embarrassing moments. Supervisors shouting across the office "When are you two gonna get together?", colleagues introducing them with the line "Aren't a couple but should be...", people trying to marry them off.

Last night, my friend's team leader shouted across a crowded pub table: "So, do you fancy her?". After a really rubbish pathetic attempt at dodging the question, he came out with the classic: "No". The twist is twofold... he does; she was sitting right next to him at the time.

Next day, and she says very little to my friend. Very different to how it has been until now.

So, would any of the forum philosophers - who, in the past, have provided some rather thoughtful words of advice to people - care to share their thoughts on this matter? Would any of the ladies out there care to explain why females make things so bloody difficult? My friend would be interested to hear what this place has to say.

DAS wrote:
Here's the set up: a friend of mine and his female work colleague.

Is this like when someone goes ''My er... cousin, yeah, cousin, he really fancies you and was wondering if you were, like, er, single, like?''

Does "he", your mate I mean, fancy her then, DAS?

That bit was strangely absent.

Here is my take on it.

Your friend fancies this girl. They mutually enjoy each other's company in a way that seems obvious to co-workers who are interested in the happiness of both of them. Hence the awkwark questions and match-making.

Your friend was afforded an opportunity (albeit publicly) to at least broach the subject with her in the pub. Perhaps a better response to the question, "Do you fancy her?" would have been, "Wouldn't you like to know?".

Perhaps she found the, "No!", disappointing - or confusing at least. Hence the quietness.

It's easy to let office flirtation coast on a road to no where. Both he and she will see each other every day whether he asks her out or not. That makes it a bit easier to NOT take the initiative.

I don't think the girl has done anything wrong particularly.

I think he needs to decide whether he wants to ask her out or not. If he does then he should.

That's all I got.

It's not what's said, it's the way it's said, that upsets us girlies. We can read something into nothing.

From what you say i'd bet a tenner that she fancies him. Girls don't flirt with guys they don't fancy.

So, if he'd said No! in a positive, horrified way then no wonder she feels awkward. If he'd given her a secret wink after he said it then all would likely be okay now.

I suggest he explains to her that he didn't like being put on the spot that night. He should tell her he wishes he could come out with a more diplomatic reply although he would have loved to have shouted "YES! i fancy her something rotten" for the whole world to hear, but thought that would make her feel more uncomfortable than saying NO!.

It's time to declare his feelings to her.

May i warn you though that having a relationship with a colleague can be the kiss of death for either your career or your relationship.

If I were him and I liked her, I would simply continue to behave around her as normal. Confuse the hell out of her even more.

She has the 'power' in the situation at the moment, in that your friend may be looking for a sign from her to move forward or stay in the same place.

He needs to wrest that and the ability to surprise back.

When he does make his move on her, make sure they're not in a frigging situation as before. It ain't never gonna happen under those circumstances.

This place is great - a psychologist's couch without the chequebook.

The awkward question was such a great opportunity missed. Perhaps there's a vague hope the pathetic dodging attempt says more than the "No" that followed. It wasn't phrased in a horrified way - in fact, that probably made it all the more convincing!

I'm particularly liking the idea of confusing the hell out of her for now... the fact a holiday is coming up shortly could well be useful.

I'll, errr, tell him that.

johnnyboy wrote:If I were him and I liked her, I would simply continue to behave around her as normal. Confuse the hell out of her even more.

She has the 'power' in the situation at the moment, in that your friend may be looking for a sign from her to move forward or stay in the same place.

He needs to wrest that and the ability to surprise back.

I'm no relationship expert but it seems to me that what we have is a *lack* of clear communication from him to her. To further "confuse" and "surprise" would be counter-productive, surely?

Waiting for her to display a "sign to move forward" is surely a cop-out?

A bit like saying, "I won't ask you out unless you tell me I won't be rejected first".

But what would I know. I'm Single Susan.

Gavin Scott wrote:

johnnyboy wrote:If I were him and I liked her, I would simply continue to behave around her as normal. Confuse the hell out of her even more.

She has the 'power' in the situation at the moment, in that your friend may be looking for a sign from her to move forward or stay in the same place.

He needs to wrest that and the ability to surprise back.

I'm no relationship expert but it seems to me that what we have is a *lack* of clear communication from him to her. To further "confuse" and "surprise" would be counter-productive, surely?

Waiting for her to display a "sign to move forward" is surely a cop-out?

A bit like saying, "I won't ask you out unless you tell me I won't be rejected first".

But what would I know. I'm Single Susan.

But then at least there's an opportunity to see if there IS real any interest from the other side? If my, er, mate continues to be the "same" around her, then it would be interesting to see if she changes the way she acts?

Maybe take out the idea of "surprise" though...

DAS wrote:The awkward question was such a great opportunity missed. Perhaps there's a vague hope the pathetic dodging attempt says more than the "No" that followed. It wasn't phrased in a horrified way - in fact, that probably made it all the more convincing!

I've screwed up with women so many times that by making a conscious effort to learn through my mistakes, I can get through in most situations (except the ones I've whined and puked to you lot about! )

The situation your mate found himself in was 'neutral' in terms of the effect - it was neither positive nor negative. It shouldn't knock him off his course, so to speak.

Even in this society where women are (rightly) viewed as equals, it is still, in the vast majority of cases, the man's responsibility to make the first move. Even the suspicion that he is asking her out because of "pressure" from that situation would probably offend her.

He should play it cool, laugh and fight as normal with her, but make sure that, after the holidays are over, he doesn't hang about and gets her on her own after work. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I've phrased it too well.

Gavin Scott wrote:I'm no relationship expert but it seems to me that what we have is a *lack* of clear communication from him to her. To further "confuse" and "surprise" would be counter-productive, surely?

Waiting for her to display a "sign to move forward" is surely a cop-out?

A bit like saying, "I won't ask you out unless you tell me I won't be rejected first".

There is deffo a lack of clear communication but we all know that these work-based relationships can be tough to get into and sustain.

You know I'm not homophobic, Gavin, my best mate bats for the other team (and that's genuinely true - not like when others say "most of my best friends are black - but send them home").

Even though, on the surface, it appears that there are a lot of similarities between women and the "camper" members of the gay male community, attitudes to sex and relationships are vastly different I've found, in general.

Whilst it is a cliche, women do need to be "swept off their feet" somewhat when it comes to persuading them to get naked or go out with you. Not in a hugely overblown, romantic sense - far from it.

There does, in most cases, need to be a distinct level of control and self-control from a man in male-female potential get-togethers. On the gay scene, it does seem very looks-based more than "relationship-role"-based.

But what do I know? I'm not that way inclined, and that's just a straight guy's point-of-view.

DAS's 'mate' needs to "be the man" as it were. Perhaps by progressing this way, wresting the control element back, he can recover well from what seems to be a situation that is concerning him.

Gavin Scott wrote:But what would I know. I'm Single Susan.

As said above, what do I know? I'm Commitment-free Caron at the moment. For what it's worth though, I have found that the more assertive and individual you are with women, the more they appreciate it. However, it seems, from my situation, they don't appreciate it for too long.