Helpful/Friendly Senior Turned Over-friendly 22

[mizzjoey]

Hi everyone.

I kind of have an awkward situation right now. Don't know if I actually have a situation or I should just loosen up, in fact.

I'm close to one senior engineer from a previous job; he was very helpful when I was working with him previously and we're both working our postgraduate thesis at the same faculty on part time basis. So now I see him every weekend at the lab for discussion with our two lecturers. And of course we're in the same industry and him being very knowledgeable makes him a useful contact.

I used to be okay with him because he was sort of a big brother to me. He's about 15 yrs my senior, married and I'm on great terms with his lovely wife. But lately he's being a bit too friendly and eventhough I said no to his outing invitations all the time he just doesn't notice that he's making me uncomfortable. I doubt he's being like this on purpose; he's a bit on the geeky and socially-awkward side.

Say you're the senior engineer, how would you like to be gently explained that your junior would like you to stop asking her to hang out on weekends?

At least, I'd like him to stop asking me out for a swim everytime we finish lab... I told him every single time that I don't find the idea of looking at him in skimpy spandex particularly appealing, but he would just say that's because I haven't seen how good he looks in them.

Plus he's been asking me out for a movie lately, and the last time was half an hour ago in an email.

Maybe I should stop being a prude?
jo

 

[TheTick]

Hg's statement affirms the existence of common law marriage. You say you disagree, then say "But Canada has common law marriage".

 

[vc66]

Tick-

I think he was disagreeing about the use of the word spouse.

V

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

"Spouse" doesn't cover relationships where the people aren't married, either by certificate or common law.

One of us needs to learn English. I interpret that statement as "the term spouse does not cover unmarried relationships". I'm saying that it does, at least in Canada and some states.

HgTX, can you shed some light on that statement please?

 

[TheTick]

"Spouse" doesn't cover relationships where the people aren't married, either by certificate or common law.

ergo...
"Spouse" does cover relationships where the people are married, either by certificate or common law.

I just found it funny that you countered a statement that affirms the existence of common law marriage by saying there is such a thing as common law marriage.

Common law marriage = married relationship = spouse.

Not only do I know English, but I can read and comprehend an entire sentence.

 

[KENAT]

Maybe this is veering into territory better suited to Engineering Language/Grammar Skills

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Kenat,
Yes, this has veered off-topic from the OP, but unfortunately the language has nothing to do with engineering, so it's not really suitable for that forum either.

TheTick,
While I have to admit that English was my worst subject in High School, and that my grammar and punctuation usage has room for much improvement, I stand by my assumption that Hg was stating that the term "spouse" was not recognised by a legally certified or common-law realtionship.

However, I will of course stand to be corrected ... by Hg.

 

[HgTX]

My point was that the term "spouse", unlike "significant other", does not apply in cases where there is no marriage, whether that marriage be by certificate or common law. Not every cohabitant is a common-law spouse, not every "significant other" is a cohabitant, etc.

"Person I'm currently in some kind of unspecified romantic relationship with" is just way too long. "Significant other" works, and has even stopped sounding ridiculous to me, now that I reflect upon it.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

HgTX,

Thanks for the clarification.



TheTick,

I apolgise if my "One of us needs to learn English" statement ticked you off (no pun intended). Someone emailed me to point out that it came across as being antagonistic. It was not intended to be, and was aimed as much at me as it was at you. I hope you weren't offended by the comment. Obviously we both know English, and can both read and comprehend entire sentences ... we just use different comprehension algorithms.

 

[TheTick]

Overall, a good lesson in "What was said" vs. "What was meant". Peace.

Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

 

[TheTick]

New topic:

How would this thread have gone if the OP was "MisterJoe" and not "mizzjoey"?

 

[SomptingGuy]

As in a senior lady is making moves on me...

I'd just "cope" the best I could.

- Steve

 

[KENAT]

Or as in Jane formally known as Trevor is making moves on me...

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Unotec]

Hmmmh, we men have a much broader range of what we could cope with. As stated before, we tsometimes tend to think with the wrong organs.

Kenat, drop it. A a formerly Trevor now Jane making a move on me. No matter how flattering it could be just makes me have a pretty ugly mental image (which I've had ever since you posted it)

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[MadMango]

It call comes down to perceptions doesn't it? Now instead of talking about a "friendly old Geezer" it would be a "Cougar out on the prowl."

I think men and women will react to the same situation very differently. Where the OP continued with accepting the comments from Mr. Senior to avoid his hurt feelings, a male in the same situation would probably continue accepting the comments simply because they were apathetic towards the advances.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[KENAT]

I seem to recall I got more of a deer in the headlights response.

Unotec, if you'd met either or both of us it's a scary image. One of those things that I didnt' see the funny side of at the time but look back on and (in the right company) it's hilarious.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[casseopeia]

The OP, and related questions...
Does NVC work? Yes, if by ‘work’, you mean you have preserved the relationship. If you mean win (i.e. get what you want) by whatever method, no matter the cost, then no, NVC does not work that way.

I had to search out my reference on conflict resolution for this stuff, but I found it useful. Here's my HIGHLY edited version

Strategies for ending a conflict,

Crush the opponent You get what you want at the cost of burning a bridge and guilt. This is sort of the harpoon method, although I’m going to argue that in mizzjoey’s case, she’s not even going to get begrudging mentoring from Mr. Senior.

Avoidance with the hope that something changes We can see where that strategy lead for mizzjoey. Works for awhile, but usually leads to flight.

Establish needs and focus on solutions Generally involves compromise. Sort of my ‘food’ conflict,admittedly the only compromise that’s been established (so far) is I never have to worry about finding anything other than rocky road ice cream in my freezer. I can’t stand it. It’s the only ice cream I will refuse to eat, and I LOVE ice cream. I’ve tried picking my way around all the stuff in it, but those nasty little marshmallows are what do it for me.

SO-tangent...
The term SO works for me. It’s nice and bland for most people. Boyfriend sounds too juvenile and main squeeze is too cutesie. He’s not a spouse, nor fiance, nor cohabitant. And in these parts, a Partner is definitely the same-sex version of spouse. I had to stop saying ‘my Business Partner’ because of the confusion it caused. And you can have a spouse that is not a cohabitant as well as a cohabitant that is just a roommate and not an intimate partner. There are far more intricacies to relationships where language simply has not kept pace, or perhaps there is a general reluctance to use terms from the past like lover, paramour, beau, or suitor. Those sound positively Victorian to me.

Role Reversal...
It would be interesting to hear from any of the younger guys about advances from older women. MadMango, didn't you once refer to a group of drooling, smacking older women at one job as 'The Viper Pit?'



"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[MadMango]

Cass, excellent memory! The Viper Pit was a collection of ill-mannered, bitter and implacable women that relished the idea of holding any amount of power over the younger males in the office. Slightly different than Tick's role-reversal question, as no inclination of attraction was ever hinted at on their end.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of these Forums?

 

[jmw]

Gee Cass,
"Compromise?"
[quote}Establish needs and focus on solutions Generally involves compromise.[/quote]

What is the compromise for Mizzjoey?
Is this the Bill Clinton definition of sex we are talking about here?
She only wants the mentor relationship and simply friendship. It seems, unless he has been totally misunderstood, that he wants to turn into "The Stud".
About the best that can be hoped for is that Mizzjoey will be able to turn him off in such a manner that he can save face.
I'll assume that the "generally" means "not in this case".


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[casseopeia]

mizzjoey's 'compromise' is to deal honestly with Mr. Senior by telling him in clear, honest language that she is not interested in an intimate relationship, thereby risking her mentoring from Mr. Senior. The compromise is that the requests for dates stop (something she wants), but then so may the mentoring (something from which she benefits). Each party should allow the other to make an informed decision on whether or not the relationship is provided a benefit to them.

She may 'only want the mentor relationship and simple friendship', but what if that relationship provides no benefit to Mr. Senior? What if he is just mentoring mizzjoey in the hopes of a date? Not telling Mr. Senior she is not interested is a strategy to keep the mentoring without dealing honestly with Mr. Senior.

This is coercion or forced mentoring. An extreme characterization to make the point is, "You WILL mentor me on my terms or else I will be forced to file an order of protection."



"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"