I mean, there should be a rule, shouldn’t there? That if you are in a relationship and you spend more than fifteen minutes with somebody of the appropriate sex and orientation and you don’t know if he’s in a relationship or not, you have to work the fact that you’re attached into the conversation? So if you’re, say, an aerobics instructor with a Ph.D. in physics, and one of your students asks you, say, if you want to go out for coffee, and you have a conversation for, say, an hour and a half, that student won’t then leave the coffee date dreaming of, say, china patterns and matching puppies. Say.
Awww, boo boo. It’ll be okay.
You’ll be fine, buddy. He hardly seems worth another blogging moment. I wish I was there to lick your wounds. Hugs.
Dear Faustus, sounds like you have the same problem I have: Boys suck! Better luck next time!
p.s. long-time lurker. just really wanted to say I get a kick out of your blog.
And there are plently of puppies out there that are still looking for their match.
Don’t let one puppy stop you from searching the one other puppy that matches.
Now you got me thinking of puppies…
none of that makes any sense except for the fact that your blog is titled “searching for love”……..but….we can’t assume that every other person you meet is searching for love (or sex) or whatever…….just because we are all sexual beings doesn’t mean we have to all be thinking about sex at any given moment during any given exchange with other people…..right?? was there anything within that hour and a half conversation that even remotely hinted to you that he might be interested in anything more than stimulating conversation?? if so, you have a case….if not….well….you just made a new friend, that’s all…
actually….i know the title of your blog is not “searching for love”……i just assumed you were searching for love based on the actual title of your blog……
I totally agree that such a rule should be put into play asap. I am bummed for you. and I adore your blog!
I have to say that I find it verrrrry suspicious that, in a whole 90 minute conversation, he never mentioned his boyfriend once – or even said “we” instead of “I”, for crying out loud. Methinks he was enjoying basking in the glow of mutual flirtation rather too much, and was unwilling to let reality impinge. Which accounts for not replying immediately to the e-mail, as well.
In which case, he is an absolute cad and a bounder who will get his karmic come-uppance in the fullness of time, as do all such cads and bounders, and you are well rid of him.
Thank you for my present, by the way. I feel like I’ve been in the lesbians’ bathroom myself now…
This sounds like a great comedy number, something along the lines of “If”…get writing, Faustus! You might even be able to get a whole show out of the character who would sing it.
[file under “for what it’s worth”]
In the interest of full and open disclosure, then, I hereby state that I am single and unattached.
Thom, would that you didn’t live hundreds of miles away from me. . . .
Well, it certainly provides a convenient and tactful out, to be sure.
Assuming dreams don’t count, I don’t think I had even a fleeting thought that you would be interested, but I will admit to some calculation that you might have a few less-godlike readers, perhaps some even single and available, here in the provinces.
On the other hand, I have just submitted my resume for a position in Manhattan…
Just in case, perhaps I’d best start practicing my answering machine voice and the use of the first person plural.
what a fucking slag! that’s unpossible!
with all due respect, our friend Pam is on crack. if you invite a man out for coffee, it is his responsibility to leak his unavailability. this is manhattan. we don’t have time for new friends, particularly when they instructionally aerobicize. oy. i have to go beat some kittens now.
Pingback: The Search for Love in Manhattan
Pingback: The Search for Love in Manhattan