Estimated reading time: 13 minutes
Dear Dr. NerdLove,
I have a situation that has been bothering me for a while, and I’d love to hear your perspective because I’m honestly not sure whether I made a smart decision or just sabotaged myself.
I matched with a woman on Tinder. We had a great conversation. She was actually the one who asked for my Instagram. After talking there for a while, she asked for my phone number. Eventually, she was also the one who suggested that we go out.
Everything was going well. I even looked up a café and sent it to her. She replied that she’d check it out and maybe suggest another place.
Then I made what, in hindsight, seems like a very strange decision.
I visited her Instagram profile more carefully.
She was incredibly attractive — probably one of the most attractive women I’ve ever talked to. I’ve dated attractive women before, but there was something different about her profile. She followed a huge number of very muscular, conventionally attractive men. These weren’t celebrities or fitness influencers. They looked like the kind of men you would meet through Tinder or other dating apps.
Seeing that completely changed my mindset.
My reasoning became something like this:
“If these are the kinds of men she’s interested in, I’m probably not what she’s looking for.”
For context, I train regularly and take care of myself, but I’m not a bodybuilder, I’m not an IFBB athlete, and I don’t have the physique of those guys.
Instead of asking her about it or simply going on the date, I convinced myself there was no point.
I texted her saying something like, “Forget it, tomorrow won’t work for me. I have to go to the office on Wednesday.”
I never suggested another day.
Later, I removed her from Instagram, and she removed me from WhatsApp.
Looking back, what confuses me is the contradiction.
On one hand, her actions suggested interest:
- She asked for my Instagram.
- She asked for my phone number.
- She suggested the date.
On the other hand, her Instagram gave me the impression that she was only interested in extremely fit men.
Today I realize I never actually gave reality a chance to answer the question. I answered it myself before the date even happened.
So here’s what I’d like to ask:
Was my reasoning understandable, even if it was ultimately wrong? Is it reasonable to infer someone’s preferences from a pattern like that on social media?
Or did I simply project my own insecurity onto her profile and reject myself before she ever had the chance to decide whether she liked me?
I’m genuinely curious because, oddly enough, I don’t even regret missing her as much as I regret never finding out what would have happened.
Thanks for reading.
I Am Error
Short answer: yeah, you absolutely got in your own way.
Longer answer: This, my guy, is what we in the dating advice biz call “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”, and you did it for no reason whatsoever other than a pernicious form of self-sabotage. And worse, you did so because your insecurity caused you to jump to conclusions that not only were based in nothing but supposition, assumptions and projection, but were directly contradicted by what this woman was doing.
This is a variation on common behavior, especially among men who have bought into a whole lot of toxic and restrictive ideas, not just about masculinity, but about what women want and who is “allowed” to be thought of as desirable. In fact, it’s so common that I had to double check that this wasn’t a rerun of a letter from someone who made the same mistake. You pre-rejected yourself because you couldn’t bring yourself to trust that someone was being honest with you about their possible interest.
People in general are good at crafting narratives about strangers and what strangers might want that, tragically, excludes them. Guys in particular will do this, even when all of reality is smacking them upside their head and saying “would you go over there and talk to her already?” Which is precisely what happened here.
As you said: this was someone who a) matched with you on a dating app; b) was proactive in asking you for connection; and c) asked you out before you asked her. While this by no means guaranteed that this was – to paraphrase the sage – the start of a beautiful relationship, all of these were very strong signs that she at the very least wanted to meet up in person and see if there was enough in-person chemistry to match the chemistry you had on the apps.
So, you went to her socials and took a look around and saw… she follows a bunch of muscle dudes on Instagram.
OK, and?
No, seriously. So what? This is a detail that tells you nothing other than “these are the accounts that she follows”. There’s no indication as to whether maybe these are people she knows, people she’s in community with, people she finds physically desirable, or if it’s simply an aesthetic that she likes. It certainly isn’t an indication that these are her “type” in the relationship sense. It could suggest that, but “suggest” isn’t the same as “confirms”, nor does it even imply that it’s her exclusive preferred aesthetic. Hell, it could very well be a case of “pretty to look at, but not something I’d want in my life.”
I’m reminded a little of a scene involving Beatrice and Don Pedro in Much Ado About Nothing:
Don Pedro: Will you have me, lady?
Beatrice: No, my lord, unless I might have another for
working-days: your grace is too costly to wear
every day.
In the context of the play, Don Pedro is the best possible match that Beatrice could hope for: not just landed gentry but a prince, a war hero, rich beyond dreams of avarice, incredibly handsome and – shockingly, for royalty – a genuinely noble soul. By all logic, he’s the bee’s knees and the badger’s nadgers, the ne plus ultra of suitors and potential husbands. And Beatrice looks at all of that and says “you’re amazing, but not for me, thank you.”
And considering there’s a version of the play where she’s saying that to Denzel Washington at the height of his hotness… that’s a clear of an example of just how someone can be the best possible option on paper, but still not be what someone wants for themselves.
People, as a general rule, don’t ask folks out on dates if they’re not attracted to them or aren’t interested in exploring the possibility. The whole point of a first date is to see if there’s any there there. And while someone’s aesthetics can be a point (singular) in their favor, it’s not the only one nor even the most important one. People can be incredibly pretty to look at, but miserable company. A statue is lovely for staring at in a garden, but makes a lousy partner. Someone who’s fun to spend time with, who engages them intellectually and emotionally, whose complexity and rich life compliment, enhance and encourage their own? Yeah, that’s all stuff that’s going to rank significantly higher on the “want this in my life” scale.
But that’s only part of how you punched yourself in the junk. The other part is that you don’t seem to consider the possibility that who she follows on Instagram is just one aspect of her holistic self. I mean, let’s flip it around for a second: if she were to go tripping through your follows, what would she see? How many accounts of hot babes do you follow, because you find them appealing? And more to the point: do these women represent the sum totality of the “type” that you are attracted to? Or are these people who you find attractive, but not the only ones you find attractive?
If your social media follows can be nuanced and complex, if they aren’t the indicator that they’re the only people you find attractive or the only people you might be willing to date… why couldn’t the same be said for her? Why are you able to have layers and complexity in your desires, but hers are simple, obvious and carved in stone (and also pecs, abs and an ass you could bounce quarters off of).
You’ll never know, though, because you let yourself get hung up on your assumptions about women in general and this woman in particular. Even though her actions were the literal opposite of what you were supposing. And seeing as you met on Tinder, of all places, your meet-cute was entirely in the context of “yeah, I would consider you as a potential partner of some sort”, which cuts the “well she can’t possibly be interested in me” excuse to ribbons.
Here is the truth: if someone is into you, you’re in their league. If someone is asking you out on a date, that’s as strong of an indicator that they like you as you could possibly want. Sometimes you just have to just shut up and take the goddamn W.
So now you know. And hopefully, you’ll remember this the next time you start to think you know a stranger’s preferences better than they know themselves.
Good luck.
Dear Dr. NerdLove:
I am 58, a woman, and I have three now grown-up children. After 12 years single had a relationship for 4 years where I really built up trust and respect, only for my partner’s behaviour to change, and for him to begin to treat me carelessly and at times unkindly. I am now struggling with the idea of being single for the rest of my life.
I am used to fending for myself, have a great career, financial stability, friends, but feel so sad about the lack of a relationship. I wish for someone to care, come home to, check in on me, have fun with, look after, and to have love and all the ups and downs that brings. At 58, I feel it now just won’t happen, but can’t help thinking about how much I want to be with someone who feels like a safe place to land after being out in the world, to share experiences with, a real partner. Can you help me work out how to stop wishing for this and to just be happy alone?
Many thanks!
Better Off Alone?
There’re certainly ways for you to be happy being single, BOA, but it’ll help a lot if you first recognize that you’re working from some mistaken ideas about what’s available to you, both now and in the future.
The single biggest mistaken idea is that love is no longer an option for you, that you have somehow aged out of romance, affection and partnership at the ancient, decrepit age of… 58. You may not be the spring chicken you were in your 20s and 30s, but love, sex, desire and everything you might expect from a romantic connection aren’t exclusive to the young. People can and do date, fall in love, marry or just fuck until the neighbors pound the walls in irritation at all ages.
Hell, one of the biggest challenges facing senior centers, retirement communities and assisted living facilities are how so many of the residents are absolute fuck machines. For many, the fact that pregnancy is less likely than a shark attack in Ohio means that it’s time to start sewing their wild oats again like teenagers, but with even more reckless abandon. So much so that many centers are spending a hell of a lot of money on Viagra, Cialis and, er… a lot of antibiotics, ‘cuz it turns out that sexually transmitted infections don’t care how old you are.
There’s no age where love is forever off the table, just ages when we stop romanticizing it or treating it as being real and beautiful the way we idolize it in youth.
Just as importantly though, is that the things you’re looking for – a safe place to land, someone to check in on you, to be a part of your life and have adventures with – aren’t exclusive to romantic love, either. These are all things you can have without a romantic connection; it’s still love, but agape and philia, rather than eros. It’s friendship, family and community – all valid and real forms of love. It may not look like cozy romance, but it’s still cozy and still love all the same. This is precisely what The Golden Girls spent seven seasons showing us: that sometimes the most important loves of your life will be your friends and found family, even more than who you marry or sleep with.
You already have most the ingredients you need for a happy, fulfilling life, regardless of your relationship status. You have stability, a satisfying career and friends. You might want to add some hobbies, goals or passion projects to the mix, things to stoke your ambition or simply challenge you to grow in fulfilling ways and give you things to strive for and look forward to… but you have most of what you’ll need.
The rest comes from decoupling the idea that happiness and fulfillment can onlycome from romantic love. It isn’t an either/or, it’s a “yes/and”, where romance is a part of it but not the prerequisite, nor where it’s lack diminishes what you do have. The way you don’t miss the lack to the point that it leaves you feeling lost and bereft is to fully engage with what you have, to be grateful for it and to let it fill your life in ways that you may have previously reserved for the exclusive domain of a romantic partner.
Now it’s easy to say that the things you’re missing – that safe, soft space to land, that person who checks in on you – are things that your friends aren’t currently providing. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t have those things, nor that your friends can’t provide them. Sometimes, what you need is to be open to accepting them when it comes to you, instead of unconsciously diminishing it because it doesn’t come in the form you expected.
But just as importantly: sometimes what you need is to model it first. I didn’t pull that Golden Girls example out because I needed to hit my pop-culture reference quota; I pulled it because it honestly models what that sort of life can look like. Much like how Gomez and Morticia model what a successful, long-term passionate marriage can be, so too can Blanche, Dorothy, Rose and Sophia show what life can be like when the most important relationships are based on platonic love and care.
(They also are the model for the ideal D&D party, but that’s another issue entirely.)
Many times, we assume that certain things don’t exist, simply because we haven’t seen it before or don’t know what it could look like. As a result, having someone else model it for you is what opens your eyes to the possibilities and makes it real.
Which is to say that sometimes the answer for “how do I establish this kind of relationship with the people I care about” is “first, be that person for others.” Being the person who provides that safe space, who facilitates adventure, who they can come home to is what creates the permission structure for them to do the same. It’s part of why I tell people that sometimes the key to finding a partner is to be the sort of partner you want to find; it enables the people who want the same thing to find you and to become that person for you in turn.
And to be clear: that “be the person you want to be in a relationship with” applies to love as much as it does to friendship and community. By living your life as the person you want to be partnered with, you make it more possible to find the people who will be the same with you. Not through some sort of woo-woo-*manifesting* shit, but through showing others what it looks like and encouraging them to do the same… if only because they see someone like you and think “I need to be on their level, because I want that for me, too”.
Living a happy life as a single person, regardless of age, is about doing the things that feed your soul and fill your cup, and then using that abundance to provide the same for others. In doing so, you build new opportunities for new relationships while strengthening and nourishing and enriching the ones you already have. The energy you put out comes back to you because it’s an invitation as much as it is a gift; it’s saying “you could be like this too, you could have this in your life too, all you have to do is be open to it and welcome it in”.
Build that into your life, make room for it, and you’ll be amazed at what chooses to move in to that space. And many times, while it may not look like what you expect, you’ll be pleasantly surprised to find out that it’s precisely what you need.
Good luck.
