My new series, Lauren’s Love Ledger premiered this Friday on my Instragram! It’s a satirical dating column leading up to my debut romance novel – Love You, Always Forever – a time bending romance set in the 1990s.
It’s the start of a new era for me, where we venture into my own love life, tallying old and new, fiction and nonfiction stories that have helped me along the way. These dating stories introduce you to how the book shaped the way I write about love and how I experience relationships. While I posted the cheeky story on Instagram, now let’s unveil what it revealed to me about my growth in relationships, conflict, and even in speaking up in a confusing situation.
This love ledger wasn’t written to defame these men. It was written to spotlight how my experiences with dating men in general have changed my outlook on relationships and how it impacts my fictional writing.
Writers write what they know – cliché but true. Not every writer takes their own personal experiences and imbibes them onto characters. But sometimes people impact me so much that I declare with pen in hand, “Lauren must write!” and then… I write.
Lauren’s Opinion: England
Disclaimer: This is an opinion.
The best analysis in life starts with an opinion. Science has taught me that – hypothesis, testing, then outcome. Sometimes the experiment goes gravely wrong. I misjudged ingredients. I misjudged the formula. The sample size was too large – or too small. And sometimes, the outcome explodes in my face.
That’s how all this started – a retrospective opinion of a British man appearing in my quiet pool time. While my love ledger is cheeky (British pun, shall I? Indubitably kind sir), this dives deeper.
It forced me to recognize that my philosophy about relationships and even relational dynamics had drastically altered. I was happy that even though I did get rejected, I handled myself in a way that reflected my ultimate values. Values are easy to hold when they have no cost, but once cost is involved, choosing them is a sacrificial matter.
Now maybe that feels dramatic because I hardly knew him. But another layer appeared which I didn’t appreciate – the intrusion of the neighborhood and the feeling that my very obvious crush on this man was being paraded about with confetti everywhere. The dog park scenario? REAL. And the neighbor had the audacity to take one of my private conversations that I shared with another neighbor of mine to England without my knowledge. The neighbor also seemed pleased that they shared it! I was legit livid.
I wanted to explore British waters unencumbered and the Coast Guard apparently had entered the chat.
England would have zero idea if I had sent this neighbor to him or if neighbor was just nosy. I had zero idea if the neighbor’s intentions were honorable or not either or even what he had said. The exposure of my private feelings being so public made me retreat from weekends at the pool.
And though I write the Love Ledger which has a gossipy flavor, these men are not named nor identified and obviously this is meant to be SATIRICAL, partially fictional in places to be funnier, and a blatant take on dating and love. I did not write about England to bash him to bits. I would’ve preferred to date him and his ledger to be the grand finale. ha!
But the neighbor who essentially accosted me about England? Oh, the neighbor told me he couldn’t blame the guy for showing up so much at the pool as I was significant “eye candy”.
SIR. KIND SIR – FINDEST THY MORALS POST HASTE.
To be clear – England never once made me feel uncomfortable while he was at the pool. I thoroughly enjoyed every time he would show up like a schoolgirl in my crush to some degree. The problem didn’t arise until afterward, and his rejection after I believed our crushes were mutual was a lot to absorb in retrospective. And I had to go back and wonder, “What the…?” with the behavior and rejection not matching.
So what is my dating philosophy?
I think we, as a society, struggle to allow ourselves to form negative opinions of anyone. I have found more and more that I don’t have to know someone’s intentions to see their behavior is problematic. I have information – no matter how absurd – to allow myself to form conclusions after a month. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I am perfect in my assessments, but my provisional judgement and intuition should be used to discern how, when, and if there is action needed. Why does society not like this?
Because society has trained us to be “unbothered”.
Unbothered is not even in my vocabulary. I don’t think our emotions should rule us. But I also believe God created our emotions to guide us toward His boundaries.
I also would not perform disinterest. I would not go back to rewrite events. Mostly because the interest was there between us. The conversation over the fruit bowl? REAL. The aligning of schedules? REAL. Could he have chosen later to change his mind and not pursue it? Sure. But that gap of not having understanding and not engaging when I named the gap did hurt me.
I liked England – he charmed me the first time we ever spoke. In fact, I thought it was obvious we would potentially not just go on a date but actually date. It wasn’t just chemistry either. I felt comfortable talking to him and felt it was easy, particularly the subtext.
So while rejection can hurt and his certainly was unpleasant for me, I am happy that I chose information instead of fantasy of what if’s and maybes. Information received back was painful but ended the ambiguity I had felt. While I said England wasted his own time – which he did in my opinion – he also saved me time in the process. I wouldn’t keep investing into the dynamic.
With the gossip surrounding the situation, it made me feel as though that privacy I craved for that relationship to potentially bloom got cut off the minute I made it private. It also made me feel as though there was an explanation hanging in the balance but it wasn’t offered to me privately.
So then, I formed new conclusions. It left me with the question:
Why is it being “unbothered” is equated with maturity?
Society has ingrained in us – not just women but in dating – that the most unbothered, the person who cares least, the person who remains without emotion is considered mature. It’s never seen as conflict avoidant. It’s never viewed from the lens of the person who shows no emotion; that they struggle to resolve small relational issues. A rejection is a very small relational issue in this case. So the inability to give information that formed coherent resolution reflected immaturity in how England handled things.
Society has ingrained –
“don’t let them know they got to you” or
“don’t let him know you cared” or
“don’t give away your power”, “your peace”…
If power is what is to be garnered, the other person only holds power when you’re actively participating. That’s the irony of that ridiculous advice. Once the dynamic is over and the boundary is laid, there’s no power in the other person hands whatsoever unless you start participating again. If you’re tailoring your behavior to make sure anyone sees you’re unaffected, then you’re essentially handing over your power anyway!
While he was allowed to reject me, I was allowed to say his handling of what happened was unacceptable.
That is the key to real power – it anchors itself in God’s truth. I hand people over to God when their behavior is unacceptable.
And these scripts we’ve heard and memorized have taught us that anything besides effortless graciousness even when we’re hurt or confused is socially unacceptable.
Does closure have to be socially acceptable and follow the “No worries! Wish you best too!”?
Actions need coherence and when they aren’t coherent, they lead us to false conclusions and assumptions – which I was honestly trying to prevent by sharing how I felt with him.
That’s the final issue of culture perpetuating remaining “unbothered” – it preserves false peace when real peace is anchored in speaking truth with respect.
To reclaim agency, we must remember that a fear of judgement of others can lead to appeasement versus desiring and speaking up for clarity in a confusing situation.
What is the dating takeway?
I encourage you to be able to share something’s impact with another, even if that person fails to respond. And the fruitbowl remains ironic and symbolic – Matthew 7 tells us we will know them “By their fruit”.
It’s the idea that we can only test so far until the pattern of their actions speak loudly for us, regardless of their unspoken intentions. I particularly hate when people rationalize, “Everyone is going through something so we need to give them more grace.”
Grace isn’t license to treat us poorly or continue having access to us. We should be able to determine and control our actions while simultaneously being able to point out contradictions in behavior.
In this case, the outcome was illogical – all the evidence and testing by his pattern of behavior showed interest. Could I have misinterpreted the degree of interest? Yes. But I certainly – because we are neighbors – needed some sort of reconciliation between his behavior and his answer.
…
…..
……..
But what is this again?
England has now been spotted again among American waters. What will come of this incoherent war? Nothing that has any logical or tactical explanation, I assure you.
There was something so peculiar afterward of being tempted to reinterpret behavior. But it’s something I had to refuse. I did have a hunch England would surely return to the scene of his crime. He wouldn’t be missing in action forever. This means that people can also reject you and not change their behavior whatsoever, leaving you to hold the impact of their actions.
Is there a point where sharing how I felt again after he failed to respond the first time would be giving the last word? Yes in this case if I had said anything else I would’ve bridged the gap between us which I would argue after leaving him with the impact and him failing to answer was now his responsibility to bridge. If someone will not engage or a resolution isn’t reached, I don’t think our job is to keep reaching to make things coherent.
Sometimes we must let sleeping dogs lie.
Did I want to fully write this man off?… I honestly didn’t. I wanted mutual desire for a conversation.
I also think if we become “bothered” and anyone forces us to say it’s too minor to be bothered, it creates cognitive dissonance to get over it more quickly. I cannot just turn off a month long chlorine adventure of liking this man and finding him attractive. I had to intentionally create distance for myself more so than for him.
This leads me to my final hypothesis:
How someone behaves so early on reveals how able and willing they are to resolve conflict.
This can feel tough to swallow but over the years I’ve learned to watch people in small actions. Small acts and situations do reveal relational capacity. I’ve learned more and more that people would rather not engage in conflict and move on than repair things. It’s just human nature to avoid most discomfort.
Reconciliation and repair require both people to want to participate. Imagine a relationship where I bridged every minor disagreement or misunderstanding. The relationship would essentially be propped up only on me and I would carry the relational load. So it’s important to allow space and offer the other person their agency and an opportunity to speak if they choose. We shouldn’t force outcomes if the other person continues to allow the situation to remain unresolved on their end.
So my final question to you:
What is society telling you about the dating culture that you don’t want to challenge to appear “unbothered”?
I imagine if I had never reached out to England and offered my number that it would’ve continued. It would’ve been harder down the line if we had continued flirting and just hanging out by the pool for weeks on end. So in every way, England did me a huge favor.
Thank you, England, for your time in the sun.