Selling Yourself

To follow up on the last post, online dating is a game of selling oneself--however, as has been illustrated, if you do so to an unrealistic degree, that can backfire on you. On the other hand, if you don't try to sell yourself at all, you may end up selling yourself short entirely. For anyone setting up embarking on online dating, here are some Do's and Don'ts from my own experience.

Good grammar: Unfortunately, Microsoft Word does not set up your profile for you. Therefore, when giving a description of yourself or listing your qualities, for the first time since the PC age began, you're going to have to figure out how to spell for yourself. It only becomes more complicated, too--you'll have to be your own "grammar monitor" as well. Very few people are going to crack the whip at the placement of a comma where a semicolon should go, but everyone notices when you don't bother to capitalize one word in your profile. Check your sentences to make sure they are complete and clear, too. If you really want to impress, double check all of the words you aren't completely certain of for correct spelling. Why is this important? If you want someone with a high school diploma or some level of higher education to respond to your "wink" or "request for communication", at least make an effort to provide evidence that you can indeed communicate with her.

Answer ALL the questions that will appear on your profile online: The more information, the better. People who are interested in you really DO want to know more. If you provide very little, prospective partners may think you have something to hide or that there isn't very much to you. It make take some time, but think out your answers and make sure they sound good as well as reflect who you are.

Answer common questions in uncommon ways: Plenty of dating sites will ask you questions like "what are the top five things you can't live without?" or "what was the last book you read?" Before you answer, THINK ABOUT IT. It doesn't require that you be competely candid, and if you are, it may go against you. For example, if the site asks about your recent reading list, think about what other people may have read recently and DON'T choose those books. Won't you relate to someone else if you do list those books and the readers of your profile have also read them? Yes, that is true, however, I got so tired of people telling me how absolutely enlightening "The Da Vinci Code" is that I started closing off matches who did with the thought "Please, read SOMETHING that isn't on the NY Times Best Seller list." In addition, if you haven't read anything lately, DON'T say that. Several times, I've seen questions like that left blank or in some cases, people have actually stated "well, I've read a lot of product manuals lately..." Guess what? That's NOT a selling point. If you haven't read anything of late--and there are plenty of times when people haven't--go back and describe a book you have read that you did find particularly interesting (that you remember at least of the few details therein clearly, just in case that becomes an ice-breaking first date conversation).

Oh, and if they ask you what the five things are you can't live without, don't say "food, water, shelter, clothes, and air."

Pictures: YES, put up pictures. Sometimes people actually close off matches because there aren't photographs. It also goes back to the whole bar room visit argument. What attracts you to go and speak to one person over another when you're out socially? How the person looks--that's right. Yes, that may be shallow, but it is true. Put up some pictures to avoid your own disappointment--let's face it--people will think your profile looks great and then may meet you and not find you attractive.

When you look for pictures, choose ones that your friends think look like you and look good at the same time. Try not to put up those black and white glamour shots--no one is going to believe you're that good looking. Don't put pictures up that display you with members of the opposite sex unless those people are clearly relatives (if your brother or sister looks exactly like you, for example, that will be believable, or if you are standing with a significantly older relative, that's certainly OK). Otherwise, people will wonder about your tact in displaying a picture of yourself and your partner from your last failed relationship.

Don't put up pictures that feature ANY of the following elements: naked people (you included), beer bottles or cans, feather boas, lots of members of the opposite sex, football jerseys, or you standing next to someone significantly more attractive than you (let's be realistic here).

Contacting people: When you opt to start a conversation with someone online, be friendly and don't go on for too long about yourself. Make sure you ask a few questions that will lead into what the other person will write back to you. At Match.com, you can "wink" at someone or actually write them a message. If you do "wink," don't wink fifty times. Chances are if someone doesn't get back to you, that person isn't interested (you can send a "no thanks" message, but that can only be done via your e-mail account as far as I have been able to do). If you are going through the communication stages on eHarmony, try and check back at least once a day--when you go for days at a time without responding to questions, first, it demonstrates lack of interest to the other party and second, after eHarmony dating for some time, I find that it is easier to get through the communication stages as quickly as you can and actually start talking to that person.

Don't write short questions like "What up?" as the content of your message, either. If someone stops writing to you, don't take it personally. The truth of the matter is that online, just like in real life, most people won't make the cut. They may get tired of writing to you or they may be persuing other people at the same time.

Meeting in person: The first meeting shouldn't be a "date" in the traditional sense. Who's to say you're going to be in the dating mood when you actually speak to someone in person? Go out for a quick lunch or maybe a drink somewhere. Have an "out" just in case you really aren't connecting. Make yourself look nice, but in a natural way--don't overdo it. If you're a guy--a nicer pair of jeans or khakis should do, and maybe a button-down shirt, but no tie or anything. If you're a chick, nothing too flashy--go comfortable but somewhat stylish (according to your own style, of course). Don't be afraid to bow out after an hour or two if you're not feeling it--chances are, your date isn't feeling it either, and at least that is one more eliminated from the pool. Don't feel bad if it doesn't go anywhere, either. Even for myself, I can't tell you how many times I went through the whole communication process, talked to the guy on the phone and got really excited about it--this guy sounds great--and then met him and realized I didn't feel a vibe there at all. It will happen that way more often than any other. Just take it in stride--that will get easier as time goes on, too.

The key thing overall is to present yourself as yourself. If you emphasize one quality over others that you wish was more prominent or if you put up your glamour shots rather than you in a tank top standing next to your sister on the beach, you run the risk of creating the profile for someone you wish you were rather than the person you are. If you go with yourself, at least you stayed true to the whole "what you see is what you get" premise, and if the people you meet aren't interested, well, you know that's their loss--not yours.

False Advertising

One of the main drawbacks to Internet dating is not meeting the other person face to face right away. As tough as it is to go to an evening hot spot and gather up the courage to talk to someone you spot across the room, at least the visual package is right in front of you immediately--you decide whether or not you want to approach someone based on what you see. The person you talk to, on the other hand, is put in the same position. He or she can take a look at you and get a sense of whether or not he or she finds you attractive. Perhaps this is why it takes so much to strike up a conversation with someone in that situation--you know that you've just put that person in the driver's seat. You desperately try and read every sign you possibly can for something affirmative--hand motions, words, looks. Sometimes, you land the ultimate sign of success--a phone number (well, that also could be a front, too, especially if you call and find out it is the number for a local pizza delivery service). Other times, you can tell right off that the other person isn't interested and you have to extract yourself from the situation with as much dignity as you can muster.

I've heard a lot of people complain about profile pictures on dating sites. No matter what site you use, there is a photo posting option--on some, you can put up only a handful while on others, you can put up nearly as many as you want to. Of course the object is to "sell" yourself as best as you can. In my case, I don't have a whole library of pictures to choose from, so I pull out a few of myself and my friends or family (indicating which one I am, for the sake of argument). Sometimes, I'll throw up a shot or two of myself in costume, just as a conversation piece. However, upon meeting people, the shock and surprise conveyed has to do with the fact that apparently, I choose pictures that actually look like me. In my own experience, there is, of course, a slight variation between picture and live person--a variety of facial expressions, perhaps a different hair cut, but fortunately, most of the time, I have been able to pick out my prospective date from a crowd based on my recollection of the pictures I have seen of him.

There was one date I went on where that was not the case. I started communicating with him online, and he had two pictures on display on the site (which allowed a maximum of four). One was the always suspect black and white glamour shot and the other was a nice picture of him in a suit at what appeared to be a wedding. He had brownish hair and what I thought was very nice eyes. Given schedules, we opted to meet sooner rather than later, and I was complimented that someone who appeared to be as handsome as he was could be interested in meeting me.

I met him in Boston. I had to search through a bookstore to find him, and he mentioned that his shoes would be the giveaway feature--black and white--if I couldn't identify who he was. I found him on the basement level looking through some of the used books on display there. He was short--shorter than I imagined. He had apparently not put a great deal of thought or effort into what he decided to wear--a pair of jeans and a t-shirt made of some grey, synthetic cloth. He didn't do much at all to his hair, if he even combed it. He was carrying about fifteen or twenty more pounds on him than he displayed online. The worst thing of all, I think, was the fact that he looked just like a lecturer I had years prior--a rather unattractive-looking woman, actually.

I think I did a very good job of not making this assessment evident to him. I was determined to evaluate in a "big picture" fashion. I had a hard time, though, getting past the fact that I felt I had become a victim of classic false advertising. There is a fine line, sometimes, between emphasizing good qualities and exaggerating them. Of course, we pick our best shots, but I think the line is drawn when you think someone is attractive in these pictures and then you meet them, only to be thinking "what is this about?"

Sometimes I miss the up-close-and-in-person dating experience. At least then, in a matter of what may be a few minutes, possibility is either proven to be so or is curtailed right off. Instead, perhaps you are more inclined to really try and make something of a situation like the above because you went through such a process online to get to know more about him or her. Then, in a split second, as if you were right back in that bar and only looking around, you realize that this person is not for you--that you wouldn't have approached him or her if you really were at that bar--and you really have to go find someone else, regardless of all your work.

Why not just get rejected right off? That even seems to have its positives in this case. Otherwise, you may end up on a no-where-going date with glamour shot boy.

Monotony versus Passion

Yesterday, I had to wait for someone to pick me up, so I agreed to meet at a recognizable landmark in the form of a Starbucks on a street corner. I was fortunate enough to snag one of the coveted armchairs across from a group of teenage girls, whose attention spans would inevitably lead to their leaving about twenty minutes after arrival, and next to a later-middle-aged couple who were obviously local and spending a leisurely Saturday morning in town sipping coffee.

I pulled out my book. I was planning on trying to finish it before my ride arrived. However, about half an hour into my Starbucks experience, I had to pull out the iPod. The woman of the couple, who was sitting directly on my right, did not stop talking about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Everything she said could have been left unspoken and no radical consequences would have ensued. She went on and on about the meatloaf in the fridge and plans for meeting friends this week and buying used furniture. Her partner, obviously accustomed to this barrage of needless words, had a section of the newspaper propped in his lap to which he was obviously paying the most attention. A comment or two every now and then would escape from him, which would only give her the impression that he was, in fact, listening regardless of his body language and actions, and she would continue on to the next negligible topic. This went on for about an hour, distracting me enough (I had not her partner's talent for ignoring her while still absorbing what I was reading) to put the earphones on. Eventually, she left on some errand, so her partner and I were left in peace for the remainder of my visit.

I was left pondering--is this what it boils down to after twenty, thirty years of marriage? I observed a procession of habitual conduct on her part as well as his, and no one thought that wasn't enough. Next Saturday will probably play out for them in exactly the same way--they know that and neither of them are dissatisfied by that. I can't believe that anyone really sat around and thought to himself/herself that he/she truly wanted that to be the bulk of interaction in his or her marriage. However, habit is comfortable. I am sure that their relationship, on the other hand, includes few fights or conflicts, debates on points of interest or belief, and few misunderstandings that are actually revealed. Yes, habit creates flow, and that flow is a smooth ride. But that smooth ride also excludes the opportunity to really know someone and to really feel anything amounting to strong emotions.

Is that really a trade then? To choose the comfort of smooth sailing or the (at least occasionally) bumpy ride? Or, is it because we never equate conflict--fights, regretted words, misunderstandings--with strong feelings and passion? On both sides of that line, when the word "love" is used, does it really mean the same thing?

Oh, well, at least I can cook something more interesting than meatloaf.

Sugar Daddy Dot What?

When I was in college, the only talk show that was ever on TV was the Jerry Springer Show. Yeah, I know, cliched. However, it did provide us with some lunch hour entertainment that was in no way related to our studies.

So, I left one channel on a little too long and on comes Dr. Phil. Dr. Phil, as we all know, burst on the scene as Oprah's sidekick a few years ago. Now, he has a program all his own where he gets sixty minutes to verbally abuse small groups of people.

Today, the topic wasn't cheating partners or abusive parents or drug problems. Instead, Dr. Phil focused on a few couples who "met" at a dating service called SugarDaddy.com. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that someone came up with a dating service that paired up varying kinds of exploitative opportunists. Perhaps there is an advantage to having such clear, self-serving motives when dating. For the rest of us, we are forced to "weed out" people that fall into unacceptable categories. For Sugar Daddy daters, I suppose their weeding out process includes eliminating women with cellulite and men with small bankrolls. For us, it's selecting out the people who don't take us seriously enough or who don't share our interests or who don't appreciate us for who we are.

Wow--simple solution. Choose something really black and white--something either you or your partner should or should not have that doesn't have a grey area, and then, voila--relationship success.

Where did I go wrong?

EHarmony versus Match.com.....and Spam

Ok, as an experienced failed dater, I will declare myself an authority on the best and worst of these two very popular competing dating sites.***

***Disclaimer: No one needs to agree with my self appointed superlative.

The topics:

Monetary Value: Both sites vary in cost depending upon the "plan" you choose to use. A month on its own at eHarmony runs at about $40, while at Match.com, it is around $35. If you go for several months at a time, the price changes, but they run at similar intervals with eHarmony gradually increasing in cost over Match.com as the lengths of time grow longer. After that time frame expires, Match.com automatically signs you up for the same length of time again at the same price--for example, if you go for three months at about $60 dollars total, after those three months are over, you get another three months at the same price. eHarmony is a little more sneaky--you can sign up for three months at about $60, but once your three months are up, the service signs you up with a one month renewal rate--meaning, now you're paying $30 to $40 a month. eHarmony encourages you not to give up and keep looking even after six months of failed dates, unreturned phone calls, and your wondering why the system matched you with that guy....but Match.com guarantees you six months free on the system if you can't find anyone in that amount of time.
Winner: Match.com

Getting Started: When you start on either system, you have to go through a long process revealing every bit of personal information you can to attract the perfect match. On eHarmony, this means taking a very, very long, SAT level test--one sitting is rarely enough to finish it. It basically asks you a lot of questions about your opinions and values, but that means you actually have to KNOW yourself well enough to answer the questions. I wouldn't be surprised if half of the people who read the statements like "My faith is important to me" are confronted with the concept for the first time. Match.com guides you through a process where you actually have to write about yourself--no big statements to hide behind there. If you don't know what "assertiveness" is and you therefore have no idea whether or not you would like that in a date, you can't just make up an answer. However, the levels of compatibility are far fewer and far less deep, running from "what turns you on" to, on the deepest level, "what are your political views."
Winner: eHarmony

Profiles: The result of this test taking is the creation of your profile, which is a combination of what the questions the site asked you said about you and what you said about you. On eHarmony, this means a long description that is about half what you write and half what the test said about you. The test defines, for example, what your strengths are as a relationship partner (although you can change them if you wish). You compose what the "Top Five Things You Can't Live Without" are or what was the last book you read and why you liked it. On Match.com, your profile comes in the form of an ad with a combination of paragraphs about you that you write, a list of things you're looking for in a mate, and each person who views your profile will get a list of the elements on which the two of you match.
Winner: This one's a tough one, but ultimately, it goes to eHarmony. It has a more professional look and less opportunities for people to demonstrate how bad their grammar really is, which is rarely a selling point.

Your Matches: Both sites will indicate people with whom you match well based on the information you gave during the creation of your profile. On eHarmony, you are given a list of people who match you. Every so often, new matches are added to your list for your inspection. At Match.com, the site will produce a list of matches you can look through as you choose, some who are really compatible with you and others who aren't so much. However, the point is variety and YOUR choice versus the site's choice. eHarmony will only "introduce" you to members who truly match you best, but from my personal experience, matching item for item may not be a sign of a good date. You may get a list and not want to contact any of the available matches, but it could be up to a week before the site elongates your potential partners. On Match.com, you can look through page after page of matches, representative of all of the people who fall into your search perameters. Both sites will narrow your search based on age and location, but only Match.com puts you in the driver's seat in terms of ultimate choice.
Winner: Match.com

Contacting Matches: Both sites try and make contacting interested parties somewhat easy while still protecting your anonymity. You "speak" through the site and a match will only get your contact information if you give it to him or her. On eHarmony, you "start communication" by sending someone who appears on your list a set of five multiple choice questions. If your match is interested, he or she will answer your questions and then send you five of his or her own. Step two is the "Must Haves/Can't Stands" stage, where you choose ten "Must Haves" and ten "Can't Stands" from a preorganized list on the site. Step three is "Closed-Ended Questions", which allows you to send three questions, including some of your own if you choose, that require a paragraph a piece to fully answer. Finally, if you make it there, Step Four is "Open Communication", and through the site, you can message back and forth e-mail style. Things are simpler at Match.com. You can "wink" at someone, indicating interest on your side of the line, or you can send him or her a message. You can even pick people you may be interested in contacting and create a "favorites" list, upon which people who "wink" at or message you will also appear. If you aren't interested, you can simply send a "No, thanks" message. If you aren't interested at eHarmony, you can "Close" a match at any time, which will move your match's name from your list to a separate "bin" of discarded matches.
Winner: That depends upon whether you would prefer to go through a process or be direct. The disadvantage to the process is that immediate "interest" cools fast sometimes--you start out really wanting to get to know someone, but then after a week working your way to Step Four with life getting in the way, you may lose interest in even the best and most compatible matches.

So, who wins? Well, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. It all comes down to what you do. Neither site is worth your time or your money if you aren't willing to actually meet the people you attempt to contact, no matter what the process is. If you are a more direct person who prefers to really meet people, then Match.com is for you. If you would rather take your time and have an "out" at any time, eHarmony will walk you through it, especially if you're willing to stick with the process (and your "match" is equally willing).

By the way--what's with the Spam on this site? I suppose some random idiot plugged "personals ad" into the search enging at Blogger and came up with this site, which is subsequently the perfect forum for date chatting sites. Two words: Screw off.

Why I Went to See Barry Manilow

In keeping with a theme, I thought I would explain why I went to see Barry Manilow, and no, it wasn't for the boas, "Copacabana," or because I find big noses hot.

The proposal to see Barry Manilow in concert the first time, this being when he performed in Providence in 2003, came from Lindsay, my Vegas-partner-in-crime. Both she and I really only "knew" him from the fame accompanying "Copacabana," a much requested song at local disco-oriented dance clubs. I brought M, my boyfriend at the time, with me, and the three of us went to see the concert. Upon introduction of "Mandy," one of his fans' favorites, we watched a very nervous, very young Barry Manilow perform the song in his first TV appearance. However, when I saw it, it got me thinking. The guy was scared witless--that was certain. But he was expressive. Feelings apparently meant something to him. He was one of those rare specimens we come to call "a sensitive man" actually alive, in the flesh, and not on the endangered species list.

And then I realized--that's not who M was. He wouldn't be that type of a person.

And I also realized--but that's the type of person, if indeed he does exist, that I would prefer to be with.

So, thank you, Barry Manilow. Although hundreds of people make fun of your songs, your manner, your style of dress in the 1970s, you gave me hope that perhaps there are guys out there more like you. Therefore, gladly did I bestow my $127.50 to see your show and would do it again.

Passing the "Cat Test"

I visited Holy Cross just the other day, and my former professor, Prof. Schmalz, suggested this as a post topic. Subsequently, I dedicate this post to him.

So, what is the "Cat Test?" Well, for my entire life, I have owned at least one cat. Gradually over the years, that number has increased significantly. However, I think we rarely give our furry friends, regardless of species or persuasion, enough credit when it comes to evaluating the character and compatibility of the people we choose to date.

The first really discerning cat I had was Harriet. She had her own opinions about things, people, her environment--she wasn't afraid to make it clear to you if she was dissatisfied (and all of this remains true of her to this day). I'll never forget when she met John for the first time in my apartment in Plymouth a few years ago. He was already a little wary of her being around, and she chose to capitalize on that by entering my bedroom at about 2 AM with a still-semi-living mouse hanging out of her mouth. As soon as she was assured that the human company was all awake, she dropped the mouse on the floor and proceeded to chase it around the room.

Subsequently, I don't think he ever came by the place again.

Harriet also took a rather disapproving bent towards M. I was with M for a little over two years, and the first time I brought him home to the same apartment, she left a huge pile of poop on the carpet in the living room. Now, Harriet is a smart cat, and never before had I witnessed an "accident" of this kind with her as the culprit, so I had my suspicions about her intentions. Gradually, as the relationship progressed, she decided that I wasn't listening to such clear and well-put gems of wisdom, so she resigned herself to just ignoring him until the relationship ended.

Anne also is rather particular with her company. She didn't like M either, but she had more of a reason for that. M labored under the incorrect assumption that all animals smaller than him liked to play in the same way. He did not operate on the delicate deferential system cats require, so when I was at work on the weekends and he was home on his days off, he would chase Anne around the house and if he caught her, he would throw her into his laundry basket. The result of such teasing was Anne's refusal to come out from under the bed when he was around the house and hissing at anyone who tried to change that resolution. Anne wasn't one to take such behavior lightly, and when no one was around to correct her, she would pee on anything she could find that she could concretely identify as his.

Because of this, I thought that Anne just didn't like men at all--given she grew up in the company of her sisters and had me as her primary caretaker, it seemed to make sense to me. That was until she met my father. My father is a self-proclaimed hater of cats, although that doesn't seem to be the case in practice. Anne took to him right away--she follows him around the house from task to task if he is home and when he isn't, especially if he is away on a business trip for days at a time, she will sit on the end of his side of the bed and wait for him to return.

Did all of the relationships end with the non-cat-approved men? Would I be keeping this blog if they hadn't? Perhaps their sixth sense outdoes all of our "human" abilities to reason through situations and relationship. In the meantime, while we waste all that time coming to our senses, they are contented to wait until we correct the problem they already see coming.

Bird in the Hand, Bird in the Bush

In our younger dating years, we seem to come into a very regular conflict between who we want to date and who is immediately "available" to us. When I say "available", I perhaps should say "interested" instead. In the sagas that are high school and college, we find ourselves put into social situations where the people someone is interested in may not be so obviously interested reciprocally, but then again, another person appears on the sidelines who is certainly interested. It's the age-old "bird in the hand" scenario. Should you go out with the person who you know for sure wants to date you? I mean, who knows what could happen there--you may not have paid much attention at first, but that interest could blossom into a romance if you give it a chance. However, that would certainly force you to give up your pursuit of your desired object (well, most of the time, that's what it means). So, what should you do?

The choice you make in situations like these generally reflects upon how you feel about rejection in a more general way. You'll be more apt to take the sure thing over the gamble if you are in a social environment like high school with a number of well-meaning but often pressure-some peers. Those peers will ultimately see you with someone else--proving someone has an interest in you, which can be a self-esteem boost. However, what they won't see is the possible failure of your exploits to get the other so-and-so to notice you. It's not so much that you raise yourself so high in your peers' estimation when you are "with" someone as how much you may fall if you pursue and it comes to no avail. Inevitably, if you do go after Mr. Bird-in-the-Bush, your interest will be noted by others, and if you fail, well, that will certainly be a blow to your own self-esteem as well as a possible blow to your image in the eyes of the people around you. Hence, in this case, the choice does produce a dilhemna.

As you get older, you hope that this picture abates, and I'd be willing to say that it usually does. Later on, it may become manifest in pressure to marry, for example "because everyone else is." A friend of mine--or maybe an acquaintance is a better description given I had no respect for how she acted or her poor-little-rich-girl nonsense--went to a college (ironically the same one as at least one of her parents) where it was commonplace that students became engaged during their four-year tenure as undergraduates. In fact, it was apparently somewhat "odd" if you were not by year three or four. As you can probably assume, she got engaged to a guy she met there, just like everyone else around her. Thankfully, she either came to her senses or didn't feel like giving up her happy-go-lucky and partially-destructive lifestyle, and the engagement ended within a few months of the wedding. In the case of the college I attended, the chapel on campus proudly announced to incoming students that 70% of alumni married other alumni, and most in their place of worship. Well, I thought this was rather hyperbolic--until I graduated and in each ensuing "alumni class" letter, this guy was marrying this girl, etc. It didn't seem that any of them once thought that perhaps the environment played a part in their decisions, perhaps the fact that "everyone else was doing it", and maybe their sometimes-extreme and overblown displays of love and devotion to their partners wasn't so much a miraculous gift from God that they thought. Granted, I do know at least one couple who were truly a matched pair and met there, and there was nothing superficial about it, but that's one out of that 70% rate.

So, what does this have to do with rejection? It goes back to the bird-in-the-hand argument. Why bother looking, putting yourself, your self-esteem, and your reputation on the line if you don't have to? Well, in the end, suffering your fair share of rejection is healthy. It's about risk taking. You don't learn a thing, or grow an inch, without falling flat on your face and looking like an idiot. There are going to be times when you offer to hand a phone number over to someone who may take it out of courtesy and not call you. There are going to be times you are going to actively pursue someone and that someone may reject you in not-so-courteous ways, too. You're going to have to go home, lick your wounds, hold your head up when you don't want to, listen to ridiculous music like Daniel Powter's "Bad Day" on continuous playback, and maybe even face that person again. However, regardless of how unrealistic it is, it may be better to shoot for the self-reassurance that being rejected, and your learning how to take it, affords. That way, maybe one day, you'll hand your number over to someone, and although you may be eager to see if that person will call you, you know you won't be taking any mental health days if the phone never rings.

In a way, this applies to more than just relationships--putting yourself on the line in life will prompt lots of rejection--I mean, I am sure everyone can relate when it comes to job hunting. And I am also sure that there are those people out there who have perhaps stopped sending out so many applications to the "reach" jobs and/or schools because of the chance that another thin "thank you for applying, but..." envelope will arrive in the mailbox. If you thought that perhaps saying hi and starting a conversation with someone who you weren't sure was remotely interested in you would have combatted that fear, don't you think you would have done it?

The Courtesy of the Non-Single

I've been dreaming rather vividly lately. I am not much of a sound sleeper, so I usually wake up several times during the course of the night--not to the point of being unable to sleep again, but each time I do rouse, I can usually recall bits and pieces of what I had been dreaming. The other night, I dreamt that I was somehow involved in what seemed to be a field trip with a group of children. There were other adults also in supervisory positions, and we took the group from a bus stop to a large building. Apparently, all of the kids needed to shower, and there was only one shower in the building. I thought it was a better idea to take five of them to my house, which must have been somewhere nearby, and allow them to clean up there. However, the other adults wouldn't allow this to happen, and I decided to leave. On the way out the door, I met a young man, about my age. He wasn't remarkable in some unrealistic sense--he didn't look like Pierce Brosnan and he wasn't built like Superman. He was red haired, good looking in an "I could meet you on the way down the street" sort of way. He asked to come with me, and I agreed. We walked back to the bus stop with the intention of taking one back to wherever we came from. As we waited there, I remember his affectionately holding me, like he knew me and knew me well.

Then, I woke up.

Yes, I'm sure you're all thinking "ah, I know where that was leading..." but I'm not much of an erotic dreamer. If I had to classify myself, I am an "erotic realist"--I like depth to people and things, or else, they are just dull to me. To me, it was a sign of something else. I woke up and I missed that--I missed the real closeness that comes with being with someone who actually wants to be there with me.

I've been told, many times, from non-single people "not to worry, you'll find someone." Well, this is about as annoying as someone telling you to "calm down" during a heated fight. It isn't fair play.

This led me to thinking about the annoying things that non-single people do around us single folks. Lots of times, it's the "recently converted" who are the worst perpetrators. The long-termers are a little more sympathetic, but it depends upon how long they have been in the "taken" category. Some have gone so long in the company of someone else that they rarely see life in a state without that element, making it tough to completely relate.

I remember a while ago, I lost a relationship that truly did hurt me very much and at the same time, someone else I regularly was in contact with embarked on a new relationship. Every time we spoke, it had something to do with the new acquisition of a partner. I heard about everything from how they talked to what they did together to even the basis of their sex lives. The timing was very wrong for me, but that didn't seem to matter.
Oh, yes, and don't think that the other individual wasn't aware of what had happened to me. It just didn't register, it didn't matter in the face of the enjoyable newness being experienced. It isn't as if there weren't other people that could have taken my place as a listener on this matter, either. Yes, this is an extreme case, of course. Not all people are inconsiderate and being in a relationship does not immediately translate into that kind of behavior. However, I would encourage the non-single people in the world not to suffer from a completely memory wipe of past events before the rebirth that is your new relationship. It isn't as if we aren't happy for you, too. Those well-wishes will quickly abate on your behalf if you start parading around as if things have always been as comfortable and cozy for you as they became when your partnership started.

Don't help us along, either. Yes, we single people of the world do realize that you only have our best interests at heart. But, there is truly nothing more annoying than you're trying to "give to us", neatly wrapped in a box, a version of what you've managed to find. This usually comes in the form of offers of blind dates, setting people up with friends of friends or with family members. It is no surprise that a surge in this kind of behavior generally can be traced to the beginning of your dating prospects. Suddenly, you're so happy, you want to share that. Good for you. Now stop it. If you remember back into the mists of time that was your "single" life, you'll realize that in most cases, it wasn't the partnered people taking pity on you that got you to where you are. Thank you for trying to share the love. However, we have to find it ourselves just like you did. Give us a chance rather than cramming our schedules full of surprise double dates where you get to cuddle with your new partner and we sit uncomfortably by with someone we've never met and probably wouldn't have made an effort to get to know if we had without your interference.

So, take that with you down your new road. You never know when it may end, landing you right back where you started--with us, on the single side.

"You Owe Me"

Huh? Say what?

Let's go back.

My time as an MA here at the University of York is about to end, and before I leave, I need to give away and sell some of my belongings--like my TV, for example, my computer printer, and my general "homemaking" equiptment. Since there are a lot of people I have met out here who will either be staying or will be moving somewhere and probably would need one or two of my items, I sent around an e-mail detailing what I had for sale and when people could come and pick it up if they were interested. Fairly quickly, messages came back with interest in this or that item. Of course, the TV and DVD player were the most popular, followed by my futon chair, printer, and coffee making equiptment. I decided to work on a first come, first served basis--the people who came through first and really committed to take the stuff off of my hands would get my most immediate attention, keeping other interested parties on reserve just in case one deal fell through for some reason. I was relieved--it was more important to me to get rid of the items rather than the price people were willing to pay for them and the sooner I could work all of that out, the sooner I could put that to rest.

Well, as simple as some things seem at times, there is always a wrench that has to appear in the works. My wrench was a friend of mine. He expressed interest in some items that had already been claimed by multiple others when I received his e-mail. In the message, he seemed to expect that I was going to put everyone else off until he came by at his own convenience to look through my stuff and see what it is that he may want. Before I had a chance to reply to his message, I got into a conversation with him online. I casually asked him about his job, a job I knew he had taken of late, and he explained he had quit, giving me a description of his financial difficulties. Then, he asked me about my stuff. Now, there were two reasons why I was hesitant to give him any leeway in the acquisition of my belongings--first, because he was one of four people who asked for literally the same things, and he asked for them fourth, and second, because he had trouble even paying for his housing on campus on time, so how did he really expect to pay me any price, no matter how low I offered? I explained that other people had gotten to me first on some of the things he asked for, but that I was willing to give away my "free" items to him first before anyone else could get to them. His reply? "You owe me." And apparently, he at least semi-believed that.

This statement came up again, this time in front of other friends in relation to the same subject. I was visiting him with two other people the other night, and one of the others asked if I were still giving away my things and whether she may look through some of my books for anything she may want. That's when I heard it a second time from him--that cringe-inspiring "You owe me" when I mentioned again that some of my belongings had been picked up early on by interested buyers. I semi-ignored the statement, promising him free access to my cooking supplies, linens and closet hangers. However, I couldn't lose the nagging feeling of irritation and discomfort with his words.

Exactly what did I owe him for? Yes, he had been a friend in many ways, but I thought that had been a reciprocal thing. He had cooked for me, as I had for him. We supported each other on the phone through odd situations. I wouldn't have assumed that relationship placed me in his debt. I also didn't like his supposition that he had done so much more for me than anyone else. It was evidence of a tendency in him to think a little too well of himself without having a whole picture to go on. In addition, if our roles were reversed and I had put such a heavy claim on him in this way, he would probably done what was in his own best interests regardless--he would have given his belongings away to the highest bidder who was the most willing and able to take the stuff away, and he would expect me to respect that. I do not see what THAT can't be reciprocal on his part. I am sure he would brush this off as "just a joke" that I apparently have taken too seriously, but it was said more than once in reference to the same thing, so there is some foundation to it whether or not that is admitted.

You don't owe your friends anything, and if after support and kindness shown you're made to feel like you do, you have to wonder about the nature of that friendship. None of the people I truly consider to be close friends would have ever implied anything like that. It may be a joke, it may just be immaturity, but regardless, it makes one re-evaluate a friendship, and no one ever likes to do that. I would certainly think twice from this day forward when it comes to accepting any of his offers of freely given kindness. I would prefer to reduce the debt that in his mind I owe him rather than increase it by ignorantly supposing that his consideration came for free as opposed to with a price that I had no idea I needed to pay.

Balancing the Want and the Need

There is a distinct difference between people who are happy to have found a good relationship, who have discovered someone they truly connect with and is incredible to them, and those who are happy because they have finally found "a" relationship.

I remember the first days of the MA program that I am currently finishing up. I was sitting about three rows back in a seminar room in the library with all of the other MAs and PhDs in the History Department at a sort of general orientation before breaking up into smaller groups by area of study. In front of me were seated two PhDs, both of them in the same subject area. One was a rather tall young man, boyish-looking but not unhansome--more cute, I suppose, than actually attractive to me, and the other was a chick, smaller in height and frame than myself, decently attractive but nothing really striking. I can pick her out today because I recognized, after hearing her speak, that she was an American. Anyway, I wasn't sure if the two of them had any previous experience together in class or on projects, but what was immediately clear to me was that the guy was making a 150 percent effort to chat her up. That was a sign to me that they probably didn't know each other at all, maybe had seen each other in passing only. He was agreeable, always smiling and being affirmative--I certainly give him credit for trying. She was lukewarmly interested, probably glad for the attention down deep, as we all are whenever admiration comes our way, but there was an apparent "wall" there that was saying "yeah, I'll humor you for now because it's better than being alone in this room." In subsequent occasions when I saw them at the same time, he made further efforts, but as she wasn't responding, his interest gradually fell off.

Why is this story relevant? Well, this young man was not put off or discouraged by the lack of success of his first conquest. I saw him again and again put on the same face and charm with second and third choices. Eventually, since "where there's a will, there's a way," he did find a semi-willing partner along the lines.

This guy is an example of a phenomenon that I consider to be "the relationship seekers." Having observed his behavior over the course of a good period of time, it was clear to me that he wanted "a" relationship. Whether he came to this particular school year with that actively in mind is hard to say, and is in some ways irrelevant. What is relevant is that down deep, at least at the beginning, it didn't matter to him with whom he achieved this goal--well, that's not true, it did to some degree; I mean, he did have to find the girl appealing to pursue her in the first place--but if it were choice one or choice five, a girl he noticed right away or one he suddenly thought didn't look that bad in that skirt at the departmental gatherings, it didn't matter.

In my opinion, this is certainly a guy with whom one could live without. I have no doubt that he probably is capable of getting to know and growing to understand his partner, just like anyone else is in any relationship. However, it is the motivation I don't like--it is very two-dimensional and personally motivated. He did the same thing with each woman he pursued, and if one didn't respond, he found another one fairly quickly to take her place. Then, when he attained his object, he started to push the envelope where he could--he not only wanted to have his relationship with someone, he wanted it to get to a point where there was a developed one-on-one dynamic complete with alone time and cuddling whenever they were together right away.

To be honest, this looks a lot like "rebound" activity rather than relationship pursuit, but perhaps they are motivated by the same thing. He obviously felt some kind of a desire for a relationship to the point that he was going to find something somwhere to satisfy it. On the "rebound," we seek to replace one thing we had with another, and we may act similarly when we find it--we may press a little too hard to quickly as a result. They are both needs, and in both cases, it's a "right here, right now" drive to satisfy them. However, the problem is very fundamental to any relationship that is ultimately successful--they are our needs, they make us focus on what we want only--and as far as I know a relationship is a combination of the wants and needs of two people. If you're starting out on a new course with someone else in your copilot's seat, well, you probably should know where that person wants to go, or needs to go, before you take off.

It's true; I think we are all would probably like to incorporate a relationship into our lives if we don't have one. However, it's how we go about it that makes the difference. I don't think there are too many long-term, stable partnerships out there that have their root with a person like Mr. I-Want-A-Relationship. It boils down to us--who we are. All of us have been this guy once or twice in our lives. The chance for a real relationship--something worth more than just a fleeting investment of our low self-esteem--starts when we decide against giving into feelings like that. Once we give up "needing" a relationship and taking on anything somewhat palatable that comes along, we can begin to ready ourselves to really "be" with someone--to be part of something where we don't "need" to be with someone; instead, we "want" to be with someone--we choose that because it enriches our lives rather than fills a hole. A wise person once said to me that a relationship is three wholes rather than two halves. It's the idea that we come to a relationship as a whole person, the other individual does the same, and the relationship you create together transforms into another whole as you grow together and learn about each other. Does it surprise anyone that he is now happily married? Doesn't surprise me.

He was also the guy who told me that all you need for one romantic evening is a bottle of bubble bath and a home delivered pizza.

Takers, anyone ;-)?

Girlfriends and Girl "Friends"

Well, I'll spare you from having to read what you already know. Yes, there is a difference. Yes, sometimes they become "interchangeable" in that a Girl "Friend" may become a Girlfriend or vice versa for any one of a number of reasons.

This is about how a Girl "Friend" becomes obsolete when a Girlfriend finally comes along.

Maybe that is rather unforgiving, and perhaps this only really applies to the "25 and younger" crowd out there who has yet to figure out how to incorporate a relationship into their lives without allowing it to completely take over all aspects, or at least push them all to the wayside. Of course, it is only natural that as a new relationship blossoms, the excitement and novelty of the opportunity so often sought will be indulged in as fully as possible. However, it seems to me that a Girl "Friend" offers something to a lesser degree that the Girlfriend hands over in full.

Let's all face it--it's nice to be admired. If you're out looking around for the right relationship to fall into, when a date doesn't work out or you're just generally feeling like you couldn't turn a single head if you jumped up and down in the city square singing "John Jacob Jingle Hireschmidt", it's very comforting to have a base of friends to come back to and realize what you're worth. However, we never go to our same-gendered friends after experiences like that or when we're feeling that way. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we usually seek out our friends of the opposite sex. Why? Well, even if a guy wouldn't date his Girl "Friend" or maybe knows she isn't really interested in him that way, the fact that she pays attention to him, listens to him, talks to him, gives him a hug now and again--well, that, in a smaller way, donates to his ego what the void of a Girlfriend or any possibility thereof creates. So very often, guys who are really out looking and haven't been particularly successful, maybe not for any lack of effort on their own part, have larger throngs of female friends around them. Why? Well, no one's intentions are completely underhanded, so I do not intend to insinuate anything of the kind. What is true is that collective or in other cases, that one Girl "Friend" provides a feeling of being appealing to someone, even if the dating possibilities aren't there.

Then, what happens? Someone gets a Girlfriend. Then, the Girl "Friend's" phone calls don't get returned, IMs on the screen are left to lag into idleness. Why? Well, now there's someone who can hand over the whole package--all the admiration and personal affirmation he could ever need or want. As a result, a Girl "Friend's" relationship with some of her guy buddies can seem like an up and down cycle that has nothing to do with his Girlfriend's jealousy of other female company. Rather, she's just not needed like she used to be. And then, when that horrible breakup comes, the first person he is on the phone to is his old Girl "Friend" to cry on her shoulder and feel like "he's still got it" and the end of this relationship is just a momentary setback.

Well, my friends, I can only urge you to treat your Girl "Friends" with a little respect and be on the watch for something like this happening. The day you can handle having a Girlfriend without making your Girl "Friends" feel like they were the sideshow leading up to the big event is the day you may actually figure out that the healthiest relationship you can be in is one that fits into your life without taking up any of the space already alotted to other parts of it.

First Date Do's and Don'ts

Ok, so, you're on or going on a first date--what should you do?

The first thing to remember about a first date is what the purpose of a first date is. No, it's not to determine whether or not the other person's genes are suitable for combination with your own. Instead, the only purpose of a first date, unlike any other, is to decide whether a second date is in order. It's basically asking yourself whether or not you think you would like to "learn more" or be a party to more interaction with the person you went on the first date with. Now, if you carry expectations beyond finding out if you want a second date, then you will be sadly disappointed.

As I pondered some of my own first dates--the good and the bad, I would like to present FIVE main do's and don'ts that may save you from the frustration of the curse of the one-date-and-no-date.

Number One: Take your date's hand.

Ok, simple, right? No not so much. Let me describe a situation to you from my own experience. I went out with a guy, a very nice guy I might add, who, very much like myself, wanted to get around masses of people with blank looks on their faces and generally slow moving crowds. Like myself, he would curb around them, skirt around the outside of the perimeter of the groups of people. However, that works great when you're on your own....and it doesn't when you have a date. Especially a date you're taking around a place you know well and your date doesn't at all. He would walk around all of these people at a quick pace--a pace and in a pattern I could not predict, then turn around wondering where I was, and be surprised when he found me behind the other sholder he wasn't looking around. In addition, just to make it all the more frustrating for me, he actually asked me how I felt walking around in my shoes (and you know most women's shoes are made for appearance rather than comfort), explaining that he always was sensitive to a woman's shoes. Ironic given I was always walking behind him, regardless of wearing heels, flats, flip-flops or sneakers.

So, what should you do? Even if you find that you aren't really interested in the person you're with, it is COMMON COURTESY to take her hand. She is your date--she came with you. It also isn't much of a sacrifice to control your pace for the purposes of walking with your date. I promise that you can raise your walking speed back up to its original levels when you're back home and on your own.

Number Two: Use tact in what you choose to say.

Yes, we all wish for a world where we can all be open and say whatever we like without judgement. However, you should remember that you're on a first date and the whole point of it is judgement, so of course what you say, or don't say, matters. It is unwise to say certain things because they may come out wrong or be mistinterpreted, or simply appear tactless. For example, it isn't a good idea to start expounding upon how proud you are about your lack-of-marital status with a date who may be considering a long term relationship with you. I was with a guy who described, with enthusiasm, how he made note of his "lack of a ring" to those who asked, and proclaimed resolutely "I'm 24, no way I'm going to be married." Ok, my commentary on this may sound like yet another woman who should appear in one of those ridiculous, written for the masses, novels, but it isn't that you are or should be assessing your first date as a possible marital partner. Instead, that kind of enthusiasm on the part of your date could be interpreted as an inability to commit, to deeply care, or to embark on anything resembling a long term relationship. If you do feel this way about marriage, best to put any exclamation of that off if you are, say, out with someone with whom you are thinking about starting a relationship of any kind with.

The point is to be tactful. In the same vein, while mid-process into your date, don't ask him or her "how do you think it's going?" It has too much potential to force a lack of honesty with you. I don't know too many people who would be bluntly honest and say "you know, I'm not having a great time." Whether or not your date is having the time of his or her life with you, he or she will be forced to proclaim that the date is going great. Best to leave questions like these to after the date is over and both of you get time to think about it.

Number Three: Rules of Conversation

Conversation, by definition, implies participation by more than one person. I will venture to say that conversation is far more important on a first date than impressing your date with witty comments. One liners that are ten words or less may bring a response from your date, but that's far from "conversation" because nothing truly gets shared. You don't go away learning anything more about the other person other than on a scale of one to ten, how witty you think he or she is. Banter is great fun, and if you can comfortably do that with another person, at least communication in one way isn't a problem for the two of you, but at some point, it has got to stop and give way to something more personal. The worst thing you can do is think that your wit needs to shine every possible minute it can. Then, you end up entertaining like a stand-up comic and, what's worse, feeling obligated to continue to entertain in that vein. What you may notice is that your date becomes more and more quiet with each one liner you dish out, and you end up thinking "I'm working hard here, what's the deal?" The deal, my friend, is your approach. Talk to her/him, not at her/him.

Another possible conversation-blocker is teasing. Teasing is great grade-school fun and occasionally breaks the ice, but it can also refreeze an already thawed pond if done wrongly or, more importantly, too often. Your date does not want to hear that her or she is wrong all the time, especially on minor things such as how he or she says certain things. Every tease, if out of place and done too many times no matter how fun-loving or well meaning, just makes your date feel worse about himself/herself. Once you get to know each other, have had some meaningful conversations, and once, most importantly, no one runs the risk of misinterpretting what is probably only playfulness, then you can tease all you like.

If you actually do start the one-on-one conversation, a few rules also apply. When your date, whether asked by you or no, starts talking about something he or she is really into and interested in, regardless of whether or not that subject or interest is the most exciting or boring thing to you in the world, RESPOND TO IT. I cannot tell you how many times I have been in a dating situation or on a date, and I started talking about something that really interested me that perhaps did not spark as much fascination in my date. I could sense I was losing my date along the course of my description to the point that a flashing traffic light was more interesting to him than what I was saying, and as soon as I finished, there would be a pause of about a minute, and to alleviate the quiet, either he or myself would make a comment that completely changed the subject--as if I had said nothing at all.

Responding may mean just simply saying "Wow, you really know a lot about that subject" or "No kidding--that must be fascinating for you." Just a line like that indicates to your date that you were, to some degree, listening, and that you respect his or her interest in something that perhaps doesn't relate to your own little world. The more courteous thing, of course, would be to actually interact with him or her on the topic. LISTEN to what he or she says, and then ask a question, especially if you don't know anything about it, or add in any experience you may have had with it yourself, no matter how small. This demonstrates that you are trying to relate to your date. God forbid, you make the effort to do that, given that is what communication and getting to know your date is all about.

Number Four: Up the Ante.

We would all like sparks to shoot out when we meet "the one" and yadda, yadda, yadda, but if you ask any number of happily married people, or people who have been in long term relationships, a relatively few of them will say to you that "it happened" for them that way. When someone is looking for a "spark," rarely do they have an idea what they are talking about. Why? By definition, a "spark" is a fleeing thing--it lights up, the same way you see that flash of blue light when you bite into a wint-o-green lifesaver in the dark--but IT GOES OUT just as quickly. A spark is made to flash only for a second, and needs to be immediately caught onto something more substancial in order to burn.

Now, if you have a connection, it certainly can go somewhere, but only if you let it. Any and all sparks need a little help to burn--you need the tindercloth out and the oakum ready to catch it. If you don't supply those things, then it doesn't matter if it is there in the first place. To expect that it is going to thrive on its own is laughable to any physicist. So, what do you do?

The way to really test if a spark is there is to do a few more romantic things and see if both of you feel comfortable and enjoy doing them. First, as stated above, put the quips aside for a moment and have a conversation--ask some questions about your date and be attentive and responsive to those answers. Take a walk, take your date's hand (see above on the practical reasons for that), give your date a hug. Allow some phyiscal touching that cannot be explained away by convenience--like you were just sitting close because there wasn't a lot of room, etc. Pass your date a compliment--more than one. LOOK your date IN THE EYES. Be attentive. Be polite. As your date if he or she would mind if you....and fill in the blank with something that can be done for your date, such as rub your date's back, or god forbid, kiss him/her. Don't go away without trying anything and then make a claim that there wasn't a spark there at all. If you didn't try anything, if you didn't let it progress, then the "lack of spark" may simply be because you never allowed it to thrive and it, like any spark without kindling, died.

Number Five: Call afterward.

I can't tell you how many times I haven't been called back or communicated with in some way after a date, and then I got the "I was busy" excuse. Well, thank you, we're all busy, but the old maxim does hold true--where there is a will, there is a way. As my "He's Just Not That Into You" calendar states to me over and over as I turn the pages with each passing day, if your date is interested, there are few holds to bar him or her from jumping on any and all opportunities to talk to you and potentially set up something in the future with you.

Even if it didn't go well or you aren't feeling it, those are not excuses NOT to call. One of the most valuable things after putting yourself on the line to meet someone is closure. None of us want to go without hearing anything or go on being deceived by someone who is no longer really interested but doesn't have the heart--more likely, the balls--to tell you. Signs of that are no more obvious than when someone tries to hold on to a little bit of their behavior patterns with you before you went on your date, but to a noticeable level lesser. For example, say you used to hear from this person by e-mail, and you would get an e-mail at a certain time of day that was generally a certain length, and then upon your response, you would be sure to see a reply by the end of the day. That, after an unsuccessful date, may translate into your sending an e-mail and then waiting a day for a reply that is only three lines long with nothing commital, and most importantly, NO MENTION OF THE DATE whatsoever. If your date isn't expounding upon how much fun he or she had with you, then you KNOW something is up, and if the date is not at all mentioned, you should know what is really going on. Many times, it has taken my perceiving the difference and addressing it myself in order to get anything out of the person I went out with. My advice--give your date a break. If both of you aren't feeling it, it is no one's sole responsibility to address it, but if your date was the one who didn't, he or she better be calling you or e-mailing you ASAP on the matter so you can get over it and move on. Isn't that what anyone would want?

Conclusion:

The key here is take some risks and be a little open to what is going on with your date. The date isn't all about you. And if it doesn't work out, well, no worries on the matter--sooner or later one will. The biggest disappointment is when a date does not work out because one of the above reasons didn't allow it to--because your date didn't communicate with you and when he or she did, he or she did so tactlessly, or because he or she didn't take a romantic risk and then supposed that a spark was never there in the first place. However, if those things happen and potential is not recognized, then that is a sign that other things along the line may also interfere. It is a basic sign of a lack of ability to go outside of oneself, shed some juvenile tendencies, and connect with you. If that is happening, one date may indeed be enough.

When you're glad NOT to be in a relationship

This was just a funny interlude I witnessed last night.

Time: About 11:30 pm/12:00 am.
Place: My room; well, more accurately, my building at Halifax College.

I was sitting in my room, catching up on some dissertation reading at length when I heard an odd noise oustide of my window. It sounded like someone had approached the door carrying something and then had dropped it. I didn't think very much of it at the time, until I heard what I thought was the sound of some idiot throwing eggs, or some other breakable and subsequently messy food item, at the building. My window was open partially, so instead of suffer the consequences, I went to close it (and perhaps tell the moron outside to cut it out before I called the porter). I looked down at the paved path to the door and it looked like a guy had jumped out a window--with the guy missing. There were papers, clothes, and a bookbag strewn all over the walkway. At first I didn't see anyone, but then, movement in the window perpendicular to my own caught my eye. Within a second or two, a girl tossed out a pressed black suit complete with silk tie and a book of maps onto the pile already on the ground. I heard a door open, and I saw a young man, rather dejected-looking, exit my building and proceed to pick up the items that I must assume were his while more continued to shower down on him.

I wonder what the guy did to earn that one. It certainly provided me with a bit of unexpected entertainment for the evening. And me, watching the news and picking out DVDs....

NOTE: I went to the window to grab a book, and upon looking out of it and into the aformentioned "dumping" window, I noticed a young man in there, sitting in a desk chair. Apparently, the offender has returned to the good graces of his lady. Ah, tormented, young college love...

The Loss

It's funny how expectations work.

We go for weeks thinking one thing is going to happen because we have immediate evidence that it will happen--maybe semi-long-term evidence that it will. We've been reassured, we've had multiple discussions, we even make preparation choices. Barring near-disaster, everything should go exactly as one or more parties involved has planned.

I think this is my "plans shot to hell" year. I have no idea why. Perhaps it is because my plans are poor or founded on poor premises or bases. Or, perhaps it is because in some cases, I have selectively subverted my attention from things that exist, maybe even have pre-existed, that could destroy those plans or those expectations with a dose of very sobering, and very unpleasant, reality. Ignoring them or pretending they aren't there when countless times they creep into the woodwork when you least expect it, at least I have realized of late, does not negate their existence and will not do so no matter how much you hope and pray it will.

When you lose something, especially if you have had it at least in part for a long time, you feel that loss. It comes in lots of unexpected forms, too. It could be a song that comes on the radio all of a sudden (which results in a jerk motion to change the channel, landing you in AM territory), or the performance of an action you know you last did right before things "changed" for you (one of those rare times that taking out the garbage or cracking open a beer can lead to uncontrollable tears and a lot of odd looks from family members), or even a forward look to the days ahead that do not have in them what you had before, no matter what it was, with a sigh and a constant need to renew commitment to living without it. Somehow, those negative elements that you were all too in tune with as part of the whole that you once had disappear for you--you lose that objectivity that you had once in favor of the need to pick up the rose-tinted glasses with your overly active memory/imagination because there and only there can you have what you lost, so it may as well be as ideal as it can be.

I've "lost" many times over the course of this past year in many different ways, most of them relating to relationships with other people. I don't have many explanations for that which seem to fit correctly. However, my most recent loss has taught me something important--that sometimes you feel a loss looking back, but it can help you define how you perceive that loss looking forward. Those ideal elements in what you lost that were truly ideal, that were truly uplifting and positive deserve a second look. Perhaps you feel loss for those elements because you ultimately need them. Maybe your losing what you did lose taught you that it is necessary to make you happy, and you should take that new knowledge and find it somewhere else. I used to live with the mentality that when something ended, it ended--and with that, I could and would never find or have what I had ever again. However, I am no longer convinced of that. What you lost taught you what you need to find to be happy, and the possibility that you could find it wrapped in a package that perhaps excludes those things that although your temporary pair of rosy glasses phases out, existed nontheless.

So, maybe with loss should follow hope rather than devastation.

And someday, my objective mind, which I have hope will reboot soon, will come online and register that in reality rather than in theory.

Oh, God, NOT the 80's....

Oh, yes, we all knew it would happen....

As soon as those bell-bottomed trousers hit the market sometime in the mid-late 1990's, we all knew what the next step was going to be, and now, it has happened.

The fashions of the 80's are officially back. And they are just as hideous today as they were before.

Skinny Jeans: These are not made with women's bodies in mind because they are completely unflattering to anything that could be considered bodily curves. They hug your leg from hip to ankle, which only serves to make your ass look even bigger. Of course, the slight modification to the 80's version of this style is the "hip hugger" level of the waist-line. At least when they fell at or just below your natural waist, you could salvage some semblence of pride in your feminine form because the jeans at least outlined your whole butt. Now, they are slung about halfway down, so you have these very attractive handles of flesh protruding because of the natural inevitability that are "hips." The result of this is your looking dangerously close to down someone else's butt-crack, whether or not by choice.

"Gym"-Like Tops: Nothing says "hot" like a shirt that hangs all the way down your front, made out of some extra-cheap, thin sweat-material. It's even better when you layer them--like put a t-shirt version on first, then a tank top variety. Wow, instant fashion. It so well complements the skinny jeans--you get baggy on top where you don't want it, and then restrictively thin on the bottom, where you don't want or need it. Great idea.

The "Decorative" Belt: To add to this outfit, why not try to sling a huge, four inch wide, gaudy belt around where your waist never was meant to exist. The advantage is if you do insist upon wearing the jeans that will send the masses running by revealing the top two inches of buttock-divide, the belt certainly will cover that area, and then some. These can be leather, woven, metal, or what-have-you. The only problem is that they look like crap and serve no purpose.

Boots: Here I am in one of the wettest nations in the world. So, you would expect a run on the rubber and/or leather markets here, but instead, the big thing is suede boots, most of the time covered in ill-place buckles and fake animal fur that you tuck your skinny jeans into. It's like watching a bunch of pseudo-merry men run around in Sherwood Forest.

The "Torn-Ends" Skirt: It apparently costs more to purchase a skirt that looks mutilated than it would to buy a normally-cut skirt and mutilate it yourself. The result, either way, is flaps of fabric flowing in the breeze. And you never thought that Madonna's outfits circa-1984 would last....

Let's hope this doesn't last long. I think that this is the first time in my life I have pride in being "out of style." At least my ass doesn't look twice as large as it is, my boobs aren't hidden under layers of work-out clothing, and I can walk through any and all of York's many consistenly-existing puddles with no fear.

Simplicity and Discipline

Now that I have finished all of my work--a project that took about a week and a half starting when I returned to England from my vacation home--I have been able to accomplish the more "menial" tasks such as laundry, vacuuming and other organization. I also can actually sit and watch TV for a while, which, for the first time in some time, I did today.

I was absolutely amazed at what I watched.

I think I counted three or four shows that were exclusively devoted to poor parental management of children. Now, I don't think this is a "country specific" epidemic, but I can say that there is a lot more media coverage about that here than there is in the US. One of them focused on the "health" behind how children are raised. It features a family, usually including more than one child, and it actually titled something along the lines of "We're Killing Our Kids." The dramatic element of this show is this time accelerator computer which takes what the child looks like now and then demonstrates the process of aging to the age of 40, based on how the child is eating (nutrition) and the child's activity level. Of course, the first set of shots make the children look hideous at 40, but if the parents adhere to the suggestions an "expert" makes to them, then, a second try at the process reveals something far more visually appealing, and much more relieving to the parents.

There was another one that struck me more--about child behavior. I am always amazed at how parents allow their children to act sometimes. I remember sitting in an airport waiting for my flight to the UK, and there was this family with probably about four children, all running around disorganized and without supervision, yelling, tagging, and nearly running over other travellers. I wasn't so much surprised at that--I mean, kids run around, especially when they know they are supposed to be waiting patiently. I was surprised at what the parent said--once it was evident that their behavior was bothering the other clientelle, the mother told them to run around instead in the middle of the airport hallway as opposed to between the waiting area seats. Now, what is wrong with this picture? The kids were still running--now farther away from parental supervision and in the way of everyone walking to their gates and the potentially dangerous carrier carts driving around with disabled passengers.

Then, I got on the plane. I ended up in an aisle seat--thank you, Dad--on a completely full airbus to Manchester. My only seating companion was a father who was nervous about his son being placed so far away from him, towards the back of the plane, but next to some rather attentive parents and their children. The mother and their other child were sitting together in another section of the plane. At one point, the mother came over, reassured the father that the son was OK, and then proceded to go on and on about how she couldn't believe that the airline placed them where they did. What do you expect? You're allowed, you know, to choose your seats, and those of us who don't are subject to what's available after those of us who do make our choices upon booking. If you're a family, if you're going to be as neurotic as these parents were, then pick your seats. It's no one's fault but your own.

I remember when I was a kid. My brother and I grew up together, and we really do remember the same thing. We were raised strictly--probably too strictly, and certainly with a strictness that is completely foreign to parents today. We got grounded for two, three weeks at a time when we did something as seemingly minor as going too far away from the house. Mom and Dad were in charge--we didn't dispute that. We didn't expect they were going to do anything for us or give way once the "NO" had been uttered.

I'll never forget the one thing that my brother and I agreed upon: If ever we got arrested for any offense--something that required someone to bail you out or stay overnight in jail, we'd choose jail because it would inevitably be less miserable than being taken home by our parents. Thankfully, neither of us had to make that choice.

So, there you are. Do you know why teenagers seem so self-centered? Look at how they were raised--everything they want, right now, or nothing. Great mentality. Love to see who, in the generation behind me, ends up head of some powerful state. What are they going to do? Throw a tantrum if France doesn't back them on the Security Council? Or just turn the iPod up really loud?

Brave Men: Not Dragonslayers Anymore

Ok, so I'm here in England again after a soujourn in my "homeland," Rhode Island, USA.

I was walking today in the city of York, picking up a few odds and ends that I needed. It must be vacation week out here like it is in the US because the city was the kind of zoo I only expect on the weekends. Parents, kids, frustrated bands of teenaged youth, the city was full of people everywhere. Of course that meant that my accomplishing any errands in good time was a moot point.

However, that got me looking around. Here I am, single chick in the Mary Tyler Moore-esque tradition, walking in the city, by the river, expecting the "You're gonna make it after all" theme to start playing any second. I see girls younger than myself pushing strollers, young women older than I am who were those girls years ago, but now toting more than one child hopping about all over the sidewalk uncorrected.

Now, although I have no plans to end up one of your bored, average, frustrated housewives watching the new opportunites of this world pass me by, I do have respect for the mothers of this world. I do not buy into the whole idea that one day, I am going to have an epiphany, decide to "settle down" and then my life will progress as follows: I will marry the guy who I suddenly meet and "know" is the "love of my life," then I'll work for a little while, see the light again, get pregnant, quit my job because I am overcome with love and adoration for my newborn child, then I'll either continue to have children and stay home until they all pass the age of eighteen or I will try and juggle working and raising kids because God knows that no young man today is being "educated" by their parents as to how to participate in the raising of his own children, let alone how to clean a toilet. See: The Mommy Myth.

One generation after The Mary Tyler Moore Show, people like myself are the embodiment of what probably seemed like a near improbability thirty years ago. But that doesn't make it easy. There aren't many precidents for us that go back very far historically. We aren't compelled to make relationships the center of our lives. We go places, do things, take steps that others say when they're sixty, "I wish I had done that."

We've probably been with men, maybe multiple men, who have "wanted to marry us" but "just couldn't" either because we are so unconventional or because of some other present hinderance. Most men out there, like previous generations before them, still live thinking that some woman is going to come along and be that female figure that John Mayer describes in his horrible anthem to the Laura Bushs of the world, "Daughters." They want the supporter, the one who subverts herself for them, the child bearer, the caregiver, that woman who invests all of her happiness in themselves. Then, they marry that woman, and oh, they're not happy. But, they're too afaid to be with someone like us. We're scarey because we can teach them things and learn things from them and we, oh no--this is the proverbial cherry on top--want something from THEM. We don't want to be the eternal givers. We are not going to fill ourselves up with the moment he comes home from work, our precious children, and the mop and bucket in the corner of the kitchen.

Does this mean that ladies like me--mid-twenties, without a date to speak of at present--will end up perpetually single?

This question can be answered in one of three ways.

Either no, we'll settle and become what we don't want to be in order to subvert feeling alone.

Or, yes, we will continue to be single rather than settle, but we may still feel alone.

Or, no, we will be fortunate and will find someone who will be brave enough to stay with us.

Brave men out there when it comes to relationships with ladies like me? Come out and show yourselves and prove me wrong.

Reclaiming: The Cleansing Process

There's always that one thing, isn't there? That one song, that one place....things that remind you of that relationship. Oh, you know which one I am talking about; "THAT" one. The one we didn't want to leave behind but had to. The one we misjudged entirely and wrecked us. The one that left an indelible mark on us down deep that every now and then climbs to the surface in a rush of mixed emotions and longing nostalgia.

Of course, there is no rule book about when or how we get over these things. In fact, there is a small portion of all of us that doesn't want to get over it. With it, we have to give up that rush of emotion, we have to give up that wishful thinking, and we have to give up that secret hope that maybe, just maybe it will return to us somehow, either in the form we know or in another in the future.

We, of course, are practical, too. We know that it isn't good to become the proverbial pillar of salt, looking back upon what we knew while desperately trying to move forward. We don't want to constantly be held captive by what we know can't be and shouldn't be.

So, in a world where we find, maybe even seek out, those things that remind us of what we need to leave behind, one of the best cleansing processes is to "reclaim" those things that bring back that rush to us for ourselves alone.

The idea of "reclaiming" actually comes from an odd source--the Vagina Monologues. When I was at college....a...ahem...Catholic college, we put on a set of them in two performances. One of the monologues we did was called something along the line of "Reclaiming Cunt." The point was the speaker was taking the word "cunt," with all of its negative connotations, and reclaiming the word so that negative connotation would be lessened.

Ok, let's take an example. How about a song? We all have songs that remind us of people who went out of our lives. Whenever they come on the radio, we are immediately smitten by the feelings and the mind-consuming memories that make us nearly crash into the next car on the road. For me, one such song is "In My Place" by Coldplay. It reminds me of a relationship long past--but more importantly, the time when I let it pass out of my life. Instead of symbolizing that passing, it represents my objections, my emotional screams and cries for me not to let go, not to leave it behind me. Whenever I hear it, especially the end, I am transported in my mind back to visions of me seeing him again, of putting myself back in that place with him.

But the song ends, and I am back on the road, desperately trying to get around some guy going way too slow in the passing lane on the highway.

Here are some things that I have had to reclaim for me:

Indian Cuisine

The quote:
I wish I was a nomad, and Indian, or a saint,
The edge of death would disappear, leave me nothing left to taint,
I wish I was a nomad, an Indian, or a saint,
Give me walking shoes, feathered arms, and a key to heaven's gate.

Mini Rosebushes

Billy Joel songs like "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant"

My cell phone

The Boston Pops 4th of July Concert

The song "Strange Fire" by the Indigo Girls

The Boston Globe (a newspaper)

Hard candy I can make by boiling sugar, butter and flavoring together

My apartment in Bridgewater, MA

The suburbs of Boston and the T (the train system there)

How do you "reclaim?" Well, I don't really know. It's more about listening to the song and finding meaning for you or going to that place by yourself for you. Once you do that, you can't say anymore that "the last time I heard this I was...." or "the last time I was there, I was..." because you created a new memory or a new association. You'd be surprised how effective that is.

By "reclaiming" something, you are really claiming you, and hey, that's never a bad thing because whoever walks in or out of your life, either willingly or unwillingly, you always are going to have you. You may as well have something to fall back on if that is the case....and why not it be you?