Why Being Single is often better, or why commitmentphobes like it

Why Being Single is often better, or why commitmentphobes like it

(Warning **** this is not the original because I deleted the original posting by mistake so this is unfortunate and not so glamorous replica).

I am not certain why everyone is obsessed with being relationships, and I can understand why so many men are considered to be commitmentphobic, because I have been often as well – commitmentphobic.

It's not that I do not imagine that life would be more wonderful in a relationship....but I also imagine that life would be more wonderful if­ I had a bit more money; it would be more wonderful if I didn't have a few excess pounds. I wouldn't mind if I had a new car. I wish law school would have taken me back even though I never really wanted to be a lawyer, more like, I just really liked the show Law and Order.

Where was I?

Oh yes, fantasizing about being in a wonderful relationship.

I can certainly say that I have been in love. I know someone that currently makes fun of me and says I am incapable of loving and that all my experiences have been shallow, but I think this assessment is completely unfair, especially when it's coming from a man that refuses to date any woman older than 33 because he does not want to deal with the possibility of “wrinkles” on that woman too soon, or later on. (Yes, clearly he has the right ideas about relationships. Oh, and he is currently 35). As I was saying, I have certainly been in love and at the time I truly believed that I was in love, even if I was deluded, with the person I was dating with at the time.

{This is unfortunately where I lost the blog and now I will attempt to re-write it]

I mention the idea of having a new car, or losing a few pounds as an example how one generally fantasizes about having things one does not currently have. 

I think that the idea of perfectionism comes from not being able to find perfection, because it does not exist, and this in turn relates to commitmentphobia: that one can never find their ideal mate because it is not possible to find an ideal mate.

What we realize in our lives is often a feeling of aloneness and it is this feeling that propels us to wish to be in a relationship. Before I completely forget where my tangents took me in my first blog posting, I will say that when I first started dating online a few years ago, initially men would discuss with me quite in depth a fantasy relationship with me. They would never actually ask me out on a date nor really try to get to know me. In fact, on the whole, most of these men I found to either be unhappy in relationships or perpetually single. I feel that their online reach to me was simply to use me as a pawn in their fantasies. These conversations and relationships were mostly entirely online, according to their initiative, and more often than not, based on this idea that at some point in the future, we would get together for a torrid romance. Whatever the reason I had for entertaining these men, I believe that this type of behaviour was indicative of a larger epidemic.

From my position, which I believe sincerely, I was only humouring these men. For one the attention was flattering, and I was genuinely curious how far they wished to take these delusions of “our relationship”. I of course knew better. Perhaps on some level, I enjoyed them bringing me into their fantasy because it was better than TV. At the same time, I still find it disturbing about the state of people's attitudes towards relationships, in general. 

The fact that these men never actually approached me for a real date or to make their fantasies become reality, and that they often contacted me years later, is when I started to think that there is a relationship between commitmentphobia and perfectionism. I would often allude to the fact that I thought these men were just putting me into a role for their fantasy but they did not wish to give any of the ideas credence. Some of these men still contact me today, every few months, years later, scheming and admitting that no one has yet “filled their heart's desire” and that I was the closest they could imagine fitting this “role”. It is clear to me that no one person could actually full fill their needs. And unfortunately I can understand this.

How can we solve this problem of aloneness that comes from being single?

There is a modern belief in the Existential Dilemma, or an “existential angst”, that we are perpetually alone no matter what we do. I think it can be applied to what individuals experience when they feel the need to extend themselves and seek out a relationship – they're trying to fill in a void.

After many years of getting into relationships for the wrong reasons, I decided that in order to be happy in a relationship, I first truly had to be happy with myself.

As I mentioned in my first posting (which is now in the land of internet deleted black space), when I was younger, I decided to marry my 2^nd boyfriend. I was terribly unhappy at the time and he seemed to fill in this void. We could not be disconnected and we had what could be considered a “co-dependent” relationship. (Just for the record, I now do not think being in a co-dependent relationship is all that bad. In fact, I think it's essential). But,  at the time, I felt like he was too dependent, I could not live my independent life, and that the problems were insurmountable. Of course I realize now that being so young when we were together, I did not have the tools to solve our problems. 

I forgot to add a piece of this puzzle that flowed naturally, once again in the first post that I will now repeat) that I believe I am a good problem solver, and this has helped me in life and has helped me in my career. It helps me take care of a household and manage many projects. Being a good problem solver has helped me survive day-to-day. But unfortunately while problem solving is great for what I have mentioned in terms of managing life and a career, it is not good for relationships: people are imperfect; they make mistakes; and they have problems. For me, when I first got into relationships I did not have the maturity to understand how to deal or face these “problems” and since I could not fix them, I merely left them.

Coming back to my marriage with my 2^nd boyfriend, I soon realized that we did not share the same values on a number of fronts and so I left the relationship. This has happened to me on a series of occasions where I just started to feel like I was “putting in my all” and not getting very much in return. I had always enjoyed being alone, and for the most part applauded my independence and self sufficiency. Other people just seemed like an impediment to moving the way I wanted to move through life, and to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish, and this boyfriend , now husband, was no different.

(I admitted in my previous post that that I had a habit of probably rushing in too quickly into things and not realizing their consequences. I probably worded it more gracefully previously, but for now, I'll just try to reiterate it as much as possible).

In any regard, although having to re-live and re-learn from my mistakes, I had started to realize that I wasn't quite sure what I was receiving from relationships. It felt on the whole that I was mostly the only person providing any benefit to the “other”. I was tired of being taken for granted and this was usually the reason for leaving relationships, and it still sort of continues today. As you may have read in previous postings I allude to the fact that I now believe this has to do with living in a society that generally does not provide an environment for respecting one another and their individuality or needs, which just seeps into how individuals treat, or mistreat, their lovers or loved ones.

Now in my attempt to bring all these ideas together.

I originally mentioned I believed that the desire to be in a relationship comes from a feeling of aloneness, and only from being alone, do we feel that there is a desire to have someone else with us. And I tried to compare these ideas to the fantasies I may have about all things I lack in life, and now I wish to continuously seek out something to fill that void, e.g., a new car, some weight loss. I tried to say that the never ending goal of trying to seek out “something” or a “relationship” can relate to the idea of perfectionism, i.e., always trying to have something more perfect than what you have now. I described marrying my 2^nd boyfriend in order to fill this void and realizing that it did not fill the void. And then I referred to men who had used me as a pawn in their fantasies who also did not have relationships, or if they were in relationships, they were still unsatisfied and looking to me as a “principle” in their fantasy, when in reality,  I predict that no one woman was satisfactory and this is why I considered them to be commitmentphobic. I also stated that in my relationships, I often found that I was putting in most of the effort and not getting much in return.

Unfortunately if women are complaining that men are commitmentphobic, I hate to mention all the reasons for why I am. The truth is that I did feel like I was taken for granted in most if not all of my relationships; that these men generally had a lack of respect for themselves, and ultimately for me; and at a certain point I decided that I must be happy being alone first before I could be happy with someone else. What ended up happening was that I started to enjoy being alone so much, that it felt hard to truly be happy with anyone! I no longer feel the desire to compromise my needs or enjoyments. I do not wish to clean up after a messy boyfriend. I do not wish to be yelled at for buying the wrong groceries. I don't want to play pool on Fridays, nor watching the Hockey game. And I definitely do not want to go to a 100 acre home in the middle of nowhere and listen to a nouveaux riche family talk – shit.

I am tied between the desire for an other versus my own happiness in being alone. And after having been in a few seemingly bad relationships, I am definitely relationship shy.

I would like to say that I struggle with my own fears of relationships but the truth is, I can empathize where men are coming from more than I can with women who are in a high demand for a relationship. As I mentioned in my previous post, I was raised to feel that I deserve to be respected, like a man, although I am definitely a heterosexual woman looking for a romantic interest, with a man. I am not a man but my friends say I have “man brain” (whatever that means). I suppose I wanted to shed a bit of light into things I have thought a lot about; the relationship between perfectionism and commitmentphobia, and how ultimately we need to live in reality, not fantasies; and how all of these factors have actually made me so much happier not being in a relationship, for much of the time: why being single is sometimes better than being in a relationship. You do not have to have your life impinged upon and used and abused. I am usually actually really happy doing things by myself.......or perhaps these are still my excuses for why I am a commitmentphobe?

I wish that I had not deleted that original post because I think I brought my ideas so much better there, but for now, this will have to do. I will make further edits in 2012 if some of this doesn't make sense, or there are glaring grammatical errors. 

Romance is dead? Maintaining respect in a non respecting world.: The Subtle and Not So Subtle Forms of Abuse

Romance is dead? Maintaining respect in a non respecting world.: The Subtle and Not So Subtle Forms of Abuse: For people who are dating or self declared "singles" (I personally hate the word "single") there is a constant discussion of those who play ...

The Subtle and Not So Subtle Forms of Abuse

For people who are dating or self declared "singles" (I personally hate the word "single") there is a constant discussion of those who play games. For many looking at online profiles (for dating), one will read often, "I do not play games". This reference is not to playing sports. It's not to playing cards: it's in regard to "playing people". In social circles, you hear women often complain about men, "playing games". Of course it is not only women who complain. Men also on occasion will come across the same type of woman.

People who are considered "game players" are perpetually single. They are considered to be predatory, "hunters", "womanizers", and more. They are referred to, generally, as people who will not commit once presented with a more than reasonable potential partner/mate/love interest. What interests me more is not so much in how one is defined as a "player" but the significance of the behaviour on others.

I've read many books on behaviour. I can't really quote any of them. Some of them were intellectually stifling and did not delve deeper into issues enough for me. Some of them I read in an hour only to realize that perhaps 10% of the information was useful to my life or helpful to understanding the world. Most of it was fluff. One particular book that stood out for me was about how sociopaths are actually closer to us than we realize.

This author's definition of sociopathy were individuals who did not hold a conscience about their behaviour, nor have empathy for others. The only difficulty I had with this novel was how, I believe, we have a society that promotes this type of behaviour and views it as acceptable.

I would argue that capitalism and the state of the way things have developed economically have to do with a large state of much considered "sociopathy" in our society than we would like to admit.

Now aside from one's definition of "players" or "sociopaths", I'm actually hopefully not providing a clear definition of what I consider these to be, nor am I saying that the two are synonmous. I merely find it interesting this definition of others who do not treat others with respect and common decency. 


In regard to dating, when I hear that someone is considered a "player" or a "game player" I consider the context in which these accusations lie. For myself, I am usually "charmed" by these types of men. They are usually very charismatic, possibly attractive, experienced in relationships or having sexual experience, and highly intelligent or witty.

I once read a definition of manipulation and it was similar to this: Manipulation is an act of not providing the full details to a person in order for them to make a rational decision. 


When I think of "players" or "game players", I consider the above definition as to the art of manipulation and its relationship to respect. How I bring these ideas together is through my thought that one who is manipulative is not respecting you. This may seem like common sense except nowadays I find a lot of people lack interpersonal and communication skills to over-come such potential personality glitches and thus do not understand even basic concepts.

One who requires to play games and manipulate others is living on a plain whereby individuals are either there to cater to their needs, or to be pushed aside. It's a very subtle difference between an active utilitarian type of friendship (which I fully support) or a situation of being "abused" and or misused and mistreated for the benefit of the one in question (the manipulator).

Strangely, growing up I used to always feel that perhaps I did not have a proper understanding of how people interacted with one another. Now, after much time and opportunity to analyze these things, I've come to realize that we generally do not live in a society or world that respects, any of us. And of course, these issues seep into our personal lives. This means that I in fact probably did have an acute sense of how people should interact with one another; it just was not realistic as most people abuse each other in subtle or not so subtle ways. At least, that's my argument.

For example, I was once working for a woman who knew I had a child. By 5pm, I had to immediately leave my office in order to ensure that I could get to my daughter in time before her daycare closed, at 6pm. Although she would never seemingly keep me past 5pm, she would often come into my office and demand something last minute, and stand behind my desk and computer to make sure I completed the work, and or to watch me. Over time, this sort of behaviour I considered to be "abusive". For one, she disrespected my need to leave exactly at 5pm. She invaded my personal space, and she treated me as though paranoid that I was not doing my fair share of work, by looking over my shoulder to make sure I did the work she requested of me, and to also see how I was doing it.

Of course, this is just a working situation and I'm sure the implication that capitalism, as we know it, does not encourage decent behaviour from ourselves and to others is not news.

The interesting thing here is that most people would consider this type of behaviour, on the count of my "boss" at the time as potentially "normal". Now I am wondering what type of behaviour we consider to be normal in relationships?

If anyone peruses into past posts, you will see that I had an experience with someone I name: "crack binge alcoholic guy". Afterwards I wrote to some individuals on an on-line forum about the experience and one woman in particular had pointed out all the "red flags" that I refused to see. It's not that I actually find the idea of creating "red flags" interesting because I think that sometimes it can actually be exclusionary, but I like the idea of recognizing a negative behaviour that would only potentially harm you again in the future, if you continued to be in a relationship with that person.

I always find it difficult to read the line between what is considered the behaviour of an individual who is not perfect, aka who makes mistakes and mistreats you out of a state of human imperfection, versus someone who, on more than on one occasion behaves this way consistently which can lead to a very subtle form of a abusiveness.

Are they doing this intentionally? Does the intention matter? Or are they consciously doing this behaviour that is causing you harm?

So now let's discuss a list of things that I have, just now, decided are "subtle" forms of abuse and or a lack of respect for your person and what the significance of this means. So far, these are my top 3 "red flags".

Non Responsive
I believe that if you send a message or make a phone call to someone and they do not return your call, that is not necessarily abusive. I do think however that if it is used with the agenda to control the communications and it's not based on an actual scheduling difficulty, then it could be the potential for larger forms of abuse. For example, "I didn't feel like responding to you" is not a good sign. It means that someone is indifferent to your needs and does not respect you enough to respond right away. In my experience, I came to find this out as being abandoned in a hospital bed with no help from my partner at the time. If I had put the two together, that his disappearance acts in the past may be red flags,  perhaps I would not have been in that situation of abandonment when I needed him in my future. 


Critical 
I believe in a bit of criticism but where is the line. I think that the line is for each person to consider. However one thing is clear: although I may be critical of my friends' and their behaviours I would never criticize them in a mean way on the basis of how they look. So often I find I am being criticized by lovers or boyfriends that over time, I feel its attempts to break away at my self esteem. The only long term goal of this form of criticism is to empower the other who is making the criticisms. These are subtle forms of abuse because their effect is long-term, it is not short term.


Cheap/Not generous/Doesn't Share
Men often complain about women only wanting them for money but they miss a whole bunch of other factors and complexities when complaining of this. I will definitely be writing a completely other post and book on this subject alone. Basically, I recall going out with a friend of mine who knowingly was earning 3 times as much as me, at the time. Yet he insisted that we each pay for ourselves. I indicated to him that this behaviour was unattractive and if he was having trouble dating this would be one of the reasons. If a woman is interested in a man, she wants to see that he extends his care through his wallet. In a sense, withholding money is like withholding love and affection. This all depends on the circumstances of course but if you're interested in a long term relationship with someone, and potentially having children, you do not want to be in a situation whereby you're always begging for financial help from your partner because perhaps you're not earning enough to survive. The idea of relationships, in my opinion, is to share your resources and skills. So often people miss out on this very important point, and certainly withholding financial resources from your relationship is definitely abusive.  This also goes the same for women who earn more money then their male counterparts. I could stay further examples, but I do not want to embarrass any exes (today).

There are more but I have run out of thoughts for now. Feel free to add some!

What I am trying to get across  (albeit badly) is the idea that our larger global and economic conditions are related to how we treat one another in relationships, that we're in an abusive system, and consequently we abuse one another. I don't really have much of a conclusion. In fact writing this entire blog has been very painful. It hasn't come out quite the way I wanted it to come out. I wanted to get into more depth about the ways that others can manipulate you and put you down and how these situations can be so subtle...just ripping away at your over time.

I guess what I am trying to say is that some of these players that we consider so attractive and wonderful are ultimately abusers. We are abused by bosses who have been abused by a system they did not create who were abused by their upbringing who become abusers, and we abuse in relationships.

I hope for myself and others as well that you recognize "the game" and try to bud out early if you start recognizing any of these "red flags". They could be a sign of things that get much much worse, over time. More importantly, I hope that I was able to show a connectedness between all these ideas and how each isolated event is not exclusive, while in fact, they are mutually dependent. In an ideal world, if we were to start with how we treat ourselves, and each other, then consequently we could begin to develop a much better world, for everyone. That would be the optimistic spin of otherwise depressing ideas.

He wasn't Man Enough for Me by Toni Braxton 

That guy certainly has a lot of female friends

Since most of what I have written so far is to examine the way we're using definitions, I thought it was time to discuss another interesting modern phenomenon: the definition of friendship.

For the past 5 years I have noticed an incredibly high level of men requesting to be my "friend". Since I have always had a lot of male friends, I never used to consider this an issue until recently.

Back to my personal experience, when I was growing up, I was the girl that chased all the boys around in the JK school yard trying to kiss boys. I did not exactly know what I was actually doing but this was me just ...chasing boys. It did not really seem like a big deal. I was into sports. I liked running around. I had ambition and motivation and if I liked you, I chased you! And this sort of philosophy continued for most of my school days. I had no problem calling someone and hanging out, and I did. Aside from going in depth (here) on my own psychological make up, I will say that around the age 17, I made some personal transformations and came up with the philosophy of trying to improve my friendships and relationships. As an insular person, I never really cared much for keeping in touch with friends and then realized at one point that I lacked relationship building skills, or maintaining skills. I would often drift off into my own space and forget about people, and then realize years had gone by and I no longer knew where they were.

In this invested interest to re-examine how I "managed" my friendships, I began making closer friends, with girls, and boys; women and men. (It wasn't that the skills weren't there I just did not use them).

Unbeknownst to myself, in regard to "romantic" relationships, although I had many crushes on boys back then, in order to be in a "relationship" or have a "boyfriend" I unconsciously made the decision that "friendship" had to be first. At this point, I started what was to become a stream of monogamous thoughtful relationships, with "friends".

In general, I did not really consider anyone worthy of "moving into a relationship" unless we were friends first, and that, historically, was about 2 years worth of trust building. Many of these relationships were wonderful and loving. The only thing that I realized after about 6 years of doing this style of "relationship" making was that we never dated and romance was lacking. (To clarify: although I think the philosophy was a great idea, I never really considered the whole idea of "chemistry" being there initially as important, nor did I think that "romancing" was necessary. What was more important to me at the time were practical elements, i.e., did we get along and were they trustworthy). I never really had any problem, except for the magnificent destroying power of .....hormones.

Skipping about another 8 years, it wasn't until I met someone that I had a high level of "chemistry" with that I realized the value in it. (Of course, I still have doubts as to its high importance and relevance, i.e., I think it can also be developed over time).

You may think it's self indulgent to go on this historical tangent about myself but the reason I am is to help you understand my stream of consciousness and why I have come to the conclusions that I will discuss momentarily.

In any regard, aside from my generic commitmentphobia, my relationships did not continue and I was all of a sudden thrusted back into the "dating market" about 3.5 years ago. Now slightly older and with a child, I was surprised by the way men approached me all of a sudden.

Taking in mind, I was always the one that was romantically shy and was generally not considered a "hottie" in high school, I had a lot of male friends after the age of 17.  I recall very clearly having a crush on many guys and them hanging out with me often yet talk about ....other girls. I figured that since "trust building" and developing friendships with men was essential to my emotional development, I never really made an issue to force guys to be my boyfriend and if they wanted to be friends, friends was all we were. I definitely did get hurt feelings by them not finding me attractive or being "into me" but friendship was of higher importance, I felt than visceral experiences. I still do to a large extent but regardless, now, all of a sudden, just under a decade later, my relationship building skills became "dated". Not "dated" as in dating, dated as in naive.

When I first started getting into internet dating, I mused on profiles about wanting a "lover". In my mind, this was a romantic gesture but what I did not realize was that men were taking me seriously. From then and continued on until today I had men asking me to be their "Friends with Benefits".

Hold on a minute. What? Friends with Benefits? Huh?

Confused, I tried to discuss and intellectualize what this all meant. They were not referring to my old fashioned view of what a "lover" was supposed to be, and they were claiming they wanted to be friends, but with "benefits"? None of this made sense. I mean, how does this differ from a "boyfriend"? My definition of a "boyfriend" was a man, who is a friend, with sexual benefits, no? Apparently not.

Now we can add to the list of confusing modern romantic and gender roles, new definitions of what friendship means, as I get back to my original topic.

I think, like myself, many of my generation believe in the value of developing friendships, keeping them, and not "burning bridges". This is why friendship was always more important to me and why, as best I could, I tried to remain friends with men I "went out with". Since I had been good friends with men before any romance occurred there was no reason we could not be friends, afterwards. But now, almost a decade later, men were asking me for something that just seemed impossible.  Not only that, but I started to recognize that other men and women had a lot of male and female friends.

So, let's be clear as to what the modern definition of "friendship" could mean.

Nowadays, when someone says that they're hanging out with a "friend" it could mean the following:

Friend:

1. A person that one has casual sex with but is not technically dating

2. A person that one has casual sex and may be dating

3. A person whom one has been friends with for a long time without any physical contact whatsoever

4. An ex boyfriend or ex girlfriend

5. A person one may have, at some point or another, had sex with or "made out" with

6. A person one would like to have sex with at some point in the future

7. A person whom one likes but will never wish to have sex with

8. ? 9. ? 

The reality nowadays is that we do not have enough defining words for what is occurring in the romantic sphere of life. Men and women's gender roles are confused, and now the role of friendship is confused. 

From my personal opinion, I think that "friends with benefits" is fairly absurd. I think that if you are "friends" and you have a romantic life, there is no reason you cannot make that relationship into something more.

I think in general these types of relationships benefit men more than women, as men may get what they need in terms of a romantic relationship without actually having to commit to any particular women (again referring to my ideas on feminism and the emancipation of men).

I generally feel that most male/female friendship can or could become romantic relationships, and I cannot understand why they do not more often. From my perspective most men share the same capabilities and parts in order to make this happen. The fact that I am commitmentphobe does not change the fact that I believe in the idealism of what I say here: I acknowledge my own hypocrisy.

In any regard, I wanted to clarify a few points as to how I feel about men who have a lot of female friends, or women for that matter. Perhaps all these ideas are stating the obvious but from my perspective, if a man has a lot of female friends, I definitely hold it in suspect, as I do not wish to enter such a pool. I think it's great for men and women to be friends with one another, and I certainly feel it can happen. I merely only wish for some more honesty as to the nature of these relationships, and unfortunately our English language so far does not offer this.

As for the men who ask me to be "Friends with Benefits", I always tell them that truly in order for something like that to work, they'd actually have to "be my friend" and that can take years to build. If they do not understand that, then I try to make it clear by offering my hourly rate should they just wish to "have benefits" minus the "friendship".

Cherry Bomb by the Runaways

How everyone you're dating is dating someone else, and they're dating someone else, and they're..........

I will admit. I was raised with some ideas of what love and romance were from Disney movies and other "make believe" worlds. Add some religious education and you have yourself a girl growing up to be a woman who believed that you wait to have sex with your husband, aka keep your virginity, until you fall in love, and then you have babies. And voila, life!

My life almost ended up being this way except for hormones and men getting in the way. By the time I was in university, it seemed that everyone was having sex, and I just felt fairly left out. Not that being left out is a necessary reason to do something, but it just seemed early on (actually as early as 12 years old when my grade six friends were apparently having sex) that these were things actually going on in the world and my ideas were ......bogus.

Look. Of course there are religious communities that maintain these particular types of ideals but now I will remove the focus from my personal situation and talk about the general picture.

We've already examined my ideas of how feminism has created many dilemmas for women, and men, so now let's look at how people are entering the dating arena.

I believe that, again, due to the course of development of modern feminism, and the loosening of religious virtues (the state no longer being run by "the church") we begin to see some great things: women getting more rights. People entitled to their gender preference, aka if you're gay that's ok! All these things are awesome.....

Except all of a sudden, with the acceptance of more grey lines in gender and relationship development and existence, all of a sudden "rules of engagement" are changing as well.

We've already seen a decline in marriages, and of course, this makes sense: once the religious need of marriage goes, really, what is the point (from my perspective)? But now, people do not see the purpose in monogamy.

I have been obsessively watching the L word tv series recently. I mean regardless of why I am doing this to myself (basically I just glued onto it because I wasn't interested in watching anything else and I like to see things from A-Z rather than periodically) I found a particular scene interesting.

The character new to lesbianism has a date and then feels a bit shocked when her new love interest says that she has a "date" on Saturday (with someone else). The love interest, recognizing she has hurt this  woman says, "it's a date. I'm dating". She was explaining that when one is "dating" that implies "with many people at once". 

Fascinating! A concise depiction of the modern era of "love" and "romance" and "courtship".

When I first entered the "dating" arena things were simple. The boy asks you to the dance and you're the only girl he goes to the dance with. Never in my mind did I think that when he asks me to the dance that he would not show up or end up taking another girl and not telling me.

So thank you internet! Now we have moved our consumerist views of the world to dating. I've leaped a few thoughts but sometimes I do this.......Dating has become an e-bay of individuals.

It's like this.

When did all this happen? I mean, I do not have a problem with the idea of "dating" a number of people to determine which is the person you wish to be with but when you add the excessive number of sex people are having, on top of dating, non exclusively, you end up with a fairly dirtied up situation.

Am I the only person in the world that still fears STDS? Or Aids? Am I neurotic because I do not wish to have unprotected sex with someone who does not wish to date me exclusively? Not logically, no.

I'm just taking many logical leaps, I know. Hopefully you're following. My brain doesn't always work from A-Z even though I like things that go A-Z.

At some point, I was a young woman dating one man at a time, trying to find the right person to be with to all of a sudden dating six men at the same time because apparently "times - a - wasting" and if none of them wish to commit, that's just what a woman has to do, so I have been told numerous times, by everyone.

And was this the case back then? Is this the case now?

People are using internet dating like they shop on e-bay and this translates into our offline worlds. 

("That guy is too short". "That women is not attractive enough"). 

I go over this realization over and over.

But then you find someone you like. And you hang out. And you call them up. And you get along.

You're not exclusive though.

He's dating four other women, and sleeping with 2 of them.

And those four other women are each dating 1-5 men each. And sleeping with 1-3 of the 1-5 men they're dating.

And those men whom are dating the women whom are dating the man you like are each dating 1-10 women, some of who are sleeping with 1-3 of them.

And.... And..... And.....so on.

It's great we have such freedoms we can express. We can date whomever we want. But I find these ideas, once again, obscure and upsetting. It's not that I myself wish to commit to someone so easily but at the same time I find it amazing and dumbfounding thinking of the excessive numbers from the above calculations that occur when you start doing the math.

I suppose as a suggestion I think it's ethical to tell people the truth, i.e., "I'm dating meaning I am dating more people than just you and I am possibly sleeping with more men/women than just one". 

But most people are not doing this, and it's a shame. I have always tried very hard to maintain my roots as a serial monogamous but it's just impossible to do, because no one else is doing this.

And without a basis or foundation of being monogamous, I'm not quite sure how people think they can truly end up that way. 

 (I am not pro-casual sex btw but I am also not con-casual sex and currently I generally tell people up front that I am not interested in casual sex relationships, mainly because of how many requests I get for this. It just seems way too impersonal and dissociative lately for moi but that's another rant...... I digressed).

....In other words, if your introduction to dating is by dating multiple people at once, why would you bother staying in a committed relationship? It's not possible for one person to fully satisfy a complex modern individual's needs completely. Is it?

There's a portion of reality that people are missing out on: the benefits of creating a substantial and real relationship with an "other" and dealing with negatives and imperfections between yourselves. I myself struggle with this acceptance of others often (but at least I am conscious of it). While an "other" can bring out the best in you, they can simultaneously bring out the worst and it is this reflective portion of relationships I think we run from in a fear of commitment (amongst other elements which I will discuss later on).

I unfortunately see the multiple dating situation as incredibly linked to a high divorce rate. Both men and women are actively and consciously acting and engaging in these behaviours with one another and perpetuating a future of whimsical and shallow relationships instead of committed and mutually dependent ones.

In the meantime, as a side note, as individuals we suffer greatly by not recognizing the benefits of commitment. There is not only a positive physical and emotional benefit to having a regular partner whom you can develop trust and dependency with; there is also an economic benefit to piling "resources". How many times have I heard individuals complaining about their small apartments or not being able to afford things. As most women and men can now work, they can also share in their lifestyle with one another. There are so many benefits that we as individuals (who are afraid of commitment) forget about as a benefit to being in a relationship. Instead we just focus on the negatives and our fears of what could go wrong.

I can't really say I have a conclusion to this dating situation, unfortunately - at least. Not right now. It's just too disturbing to even think of a positive outcome that the person you like, likes five more, who are not you. Even worse for me was the implication that my entire body could be infiltrated by a disease that is incurable due to a momentary lapse in judgement. Pregnancy cannot compare to a permanent mark or scar on your body; or even death. I believe trust is essential for a healthy relationship; and this is the unfortunate part that is missing from our casual encounters. It doesn't have to be that way of course, it just ends up being that way.

My gfs gf by Type O Negative

Thank you for rejecting me

As a "thinker" I always would over analyze situations involving other people, from a very early age. I recall wandering around the playground, by myself, trying to think through problems - while everyone else played in groups in the playground. It wasn't that I didn't like to play it was just that I had so much to think about and the other kids were distracting.

Although it was around this same time that I began to realize or recognize when kids were not inviting me to certain parties. I recall calling some kids up and saying, "hey, I want to come", and they would be surprised and say, "sure". But sometimes there were situations where I was downright excluded.

Kids can be so mean. 

I remember trying to not let it bother me. I'd just do my own thing. Find different kids to hang out with. (Of course the kids rejecting me at the time were often my own group of "popular" friends and this was just part of the ritual). 

It was at this point that I delve deeply into the idea of rejection. 

I cannot explain "why" but I had a lot of pride at a very young age, and I resented that the kids basically wanted me to plead for their attention. I just did not have this sense of desperation to hang out with them in order to do this. I was not desperate because I was happy being alone most of the time. Adding children to the equation was just this added "other" that was sometimes amusing but mostly a nuisance (them being childish and all). As a consequence, whenever I was rejected, I would simply......find something else to do.

It is for this reason that perhaps I have reasoned out a really great understanding of how this idea of rejection plays out in romantic relationships.

I really enjoyed the movie, "He's just not that into you". Sure, the ending was corny but the general premise is this idea that if someone wants to hang out with you, they will.

I mean, I have a lot of friends. If they're busy, I don't take it personally. They're busy. If I don't hear from them, I also don't take it *too* personally because again, we're friends.

There's no reason this idea can't also hold true for romantic relationships. People are human.

If someone likes you, they'll hang out with you. If they don't, they won't. Or quite possibly, if their lives took them in a direction that has made them extremely busy, well, you can't always hang out.

Now why do you feel rejected?

I will reference the movie "he's just not that into you". 

There's a woman that had been dating her bf for a few years, and she provides him an ultimatum. Or at least, her boyfriend felt that she had - there was pressure. So against his instinct or desire, he decides he must go through with it, the wedding. Of course, he ends up having an affair. They end up divorced. She ends up devastated. 

This isn't just a movie you know. I've seen it in real life.

Now, we can blame individuals for fearing commitment or misbehaving once they have committed.

For example, he didn't "have" to have an affair. He chose. He didn't "have" to get married to his gf. He made this choice too. My only point is that, in a sense, wouldn't it have been better if he had in fact been honest with his gf at the time and said he didn't think it would work? Then she would not have invested seven years of her life in a relationship that wasn't good for her.

And why did the woman have to give him an ultimatum to get married? As each circumstance is different, and all relationships are fairly unique, I do not wish to generalize. However it feels that when something is too forced inevitably it creates strain. At the same time, I do not forgive laziness and sometimes a bit of "tough love" and "pushing" is valuable. It all depends on who you're dealing with. As i've digressed here, my point is:

Sometimes the person you like, just isn't "good" for you, regardless of whether they're into you or not. And just because you're into someone, doesn't mean they're good for you either.

I'll give you an another example. A personal one.

I dated someone briefly. Over time, I started to recognize that it was very possible he was a binge alcoholic. He ended up cheating on me. I won't go into too many details.

But how it happened is now quite hilarious when I think of it. We were breaking up anyways. I do not take kindly to men who act aloof or cancel on plans last minute (or friends - aka you're not my friend if this is your behaviour constantly), so I was really just trying to organize an exchange of stuffs. He was evasive.

Nothing made sense. Then, finally, I get these obscure text messages and I attempted calling him......when a woman answered.

"who's this?", I said. I thought perhaps it was his sister.

"who's this!", she said back. She was mimicking me - wouldn't let me talk to him. Started to ridicule me. "He's MY boyfriend now, bitch", she said.

Although I did almost faint from shock (as I had never been cheated on before), I quickly came to my senses after about 4 minutes.

"Look honey. I do not know who you are, but you can have him. I just want the money he owes me and to deliver his personal belongings".

(On a side note, he had just met this woman with me two weeks prior at a High School reunion so I figured out quickly who she was and she was an alcoholic and crack addict, so the two were F**ed up during this conversation - which is why she did not make any sense and why he would not get on the phone).

I never got to see him in person. She never let me speak to him. The exchange happened without ever seeing him. Later on, I discovered that not only had he lost his job, he had lied about his new career, was a binge alcoholic; he was also potentially manic depressive. Basically, our "relationship" was a lie.

Wow, what a catch, eh???

Are you getting my point?

I believe that people tell you who they are pretty quickly and you need to decide whether that person is good for you OR bad. We all do this, but this is no different in romantic relationships. 

I'm not saying to reject someone for menial or small reasons, but listen closely to why they are rejecting you and be thankful they are. Anyone who stays in a relationship out of a sense of guilt (rather than duty and a deeper appreciation of the other) is going to start abusing you in some way or another, long term. They'll either take you for granted, mistreat you, or something else. 

Why? 

Because they do not respect themselves enough to be honest with themselves, let alone you.

You do yourself no favours by trying to force things. You do yourself no favours by dwelling on rejections. 

In other words, if a person is "rejecting" you, they're actually doing you a favour. If you desperately start pandering to their needs and wants, this just encourages them to walk all over you. It's a fine line between "pursuing" someone and/or a friendship and desperately clinging to someone that is unhealthy and or toxic. We all have to make these decisions but basically I have really great connections with individuals, and we have remained friends. You can't force a romantic connection with someone. You can't force a friendship. People are going to do whatever they want.

Not everyone can get along with one another, and trust me, rather than be married to a binge alcoholic crack using cheater, you're better off to just ...let it go. Let people's inability to be what you need - go. 

And in good news, the faster you can let things go and not take rejection personally, the easier it is to move forward with your life.

After this whole affair, I asked my mother, and she's a hippy, "how long do you think one should wait before pursuing another relationship after a break up?", and she said, "one day". I asked my father, who is very conservative and still married to my step mother and frankly, who never would have left my mother but would have just lived with their differences, the same question: "Dad, how long do you think one should wait before pursuing another relationship after a break up?". 

His answer?

"20 minutes".

Thanks crack guy, for not wasting any more of my precious life. Thank you for rejecting and mistreating me sooner than later.

P.S. Please do not mistake my desire for people not to mistreat you as a desire to use every possible excuse in the book for not committing; or to view every possible issue or problem in a relationship as a "red flag". Take in mind, crack binge alcoholic guy showed up hungover on our first date. Now - that's a real red flag I ignored........

A Wicked Game by Chris Isaak

How Feminism emancipated men more than women

What is with all the controversial topics, you say.

I am fortunate to know a number of women whom I would consider to be extremely intelligent and sophisticated and I feel honoured in being able to have inspiring conversations with them. Not all our conversations revolve around shoe shopping (however sometimes that does come up).

It is through these discussions that I suddenly had an epiphany.

I'll start at the beginning.

So remembering what I do of history, or herstory, however you wish to call it - there was a movement by women in England (yada yada). The movement came over to North America. Women wanted to vote. Women wanted equal rights to men (whatever that means). Women wanted to be able to work and earn money. During the 2nd world war, women took over a lot of men's stereotypical positions (because men were off to war). They enjoyed financial freedoms. They wanted more of it. There were movements for control over birth rights (aka birth control and access to abortions....legalizing abortions...yada yada).

Women burned bras. Women got the right to vote. Women got the right to earn a living. Women earned the right to not be housewives.

Great! Now women are equals. Well, I don't want to get into a huge raging war with feminists nor anti feminists.

Certainly there is still a lot of inequality in the world, and whether you believe it or not, the "right" to have children has still not been provided to men. It is still a woman's physical imperative or ability to have children and that is something men can never do as equals. Nor can they ever truly understand the physical realities of having children.

The one thing that men can do, however, is control the rights to their sperm and willingness to take on a relationship/women or to have children. This is similar to the idea that women can control whether they get pregnant (as much as possible of course with an extra cost to this because birth control is very expensive).

Thanks to feminism, women are allowed, in theory, to participate in the world as men. This means they can choose not to have children. They can choose to have a job. And they can choose to have casual sex.

I however have come to the conclusion that women cannot be like men nor should they be.

To be clear: I believe women are entitled to work and earn equal pay to men. I believe women should have the right to birth control. I believe in a woman's ability to make choices for herself when it comes to having an abortion or not (although I do not believe in reckless use of this option). I believe in a lot of things that my idea of the original feminism entailed and I support what "original" feminists were trying to do.

But here is the consequence of the feminist situation.

In my experience of chatting with men and women online, and in person, I have come to the conclusion that now women working as equals to men is an "expectation". Strangely, although I was raised to believe that women and men would eventually earn equal pay and have the same rights, and I entered the work force with my generation of feminist raised women,  after university and post -graduate education, I began to see an apparent female struggle:

Women were either dropping out of the work force in order to have children or they were finding difficulty in finding the right male to partner with and thus their careers could flourish (or perish). 

For the past ten years I have started to recognize that having children, now, for two working parents is becoming more and more difficult.

In being a parent and discussing the issues with a close friend (who is also a mother) we have come to the conclusion that it just doesn't seem to make sense for women to work, even though we both wish to and want to.

If you consider that often women are still earning less than men; ultimately what happens is a woman will be paying what she earns in order for another woman to work for her and raise her child. A lot of women are seeing this as a ridiculous option.

Now you're wondering, how does this mean men are more emancipated than women by feminism? And what does all of this have to do with having children? I'll get to this......

A further consequence to feminism, in this sense, is that the choice to be a housewife has been stigmatized, by many women but also a lot of men. It is something that they find fearful and unattractive (not all but a lot because of course these men were raised by feminist ideals as well).

Since women feel that they can be promiscuous and do as they please, they are having sex randomly, as men may.

How feminism created emancipation for men is that it removed the social pressure to settle down and take care of a wife and child.

Not only can a woman decide to work and earn her keep, and not have children, so too can men choose not to be pressured to choose a wife and raise a family.

It is now a lot easier for a man to choose a career and have casual sex. He no longer requires to partner up with a woman. He is no longer socially obligated or pressured to have children.

Take this one step further, and many men nowadays are insistent that a woman have a career, but also be a mother, while perhaps 200 years ago the only pressure for a woman was just to have children and maintain a home - now she must do all three.

With a woman 'earning her keep" the use of a man becomes virtually nil too and men feel this. A woman can have children on her own; her own career; hire people to take care of her children, if her career is successful.

Men have been emancipated in the sense that should they choose not to obtain a successful career path, they can cling to a woman who is financially successful and be a househusband.

I unfortunately find all these options to be completely unnatural and almost absurd.

Regardless of people's belief in socialism I completely support the idea of women being paid to have children and raise them (or men), just so long as the responsibility does not solely fall on women.

If feminism is to be true to its original intention to emancipate women then women should be able to have the choice to have a family and a career. Right now, it's still mostly a matter of choosing one or the other because it is very difficult to do both.

Now it just seems that it is still the men who come off on top. They do not have to commit, because free sex is each person's right. They do not have to have children, because of course, women do not have to be limited to their biological requirements, so neither do men. Men can control their reproductive organs and deliverance of sperm, just as women have a right to not get knocked up. And men do not have to get married to a woman if he gets her pregnant. He can simply disappear or pay a small monthly amount via child support payments.

Even more absurd, the emancipation of men by feminism has removed career opportunities for sex workers. Now that men can get casual sex from liberated women, why should they pay for it?

Either way, I really cannot see how individuals are in any position at all now to need to be in relationships.  There simply is nothing requiring men to take on any responsibility, more so than ever before.

Thanks suffragettes.

Unfortunate for women who wish to be housewives this is devastating news. Those women who do not wish to work are now being forced to because men are no longer being forced to work and take on wives and children.

This "so called" emancipation of women seems to really have benefited men more than a lot of women nowadays.

Since women can do everything on their own, so can men, but really - this is what has been the problem with men running loose all along, so what has really changed? Now it's just easier for them to get away with it.

For those few women who struggle with the ideology of being a career woman but really wanting to be a mother, I do truly feel sorry for you and I do blame the Suffragettes for not having insight into the possible long term of effects of their political movement, completely.

Having said all this, I do hope politically stronger women than me can create a true equality, that also takes into account those women who solely wish to be mothers.

I also hope that if a man and a woman (or whatever gender you consider yourself to be) decide to get together and have children that they make reasonable choices. I have certainly met men who gave up their careers in order to have children because their wives earned more money and had a more successful career, and that's totally cool. I support these things if it works for both parties. I have had many men wish to be my househusband and unfortunately I hated the idea and it just could not work. It's not that I necessarily want to be a housewife, because that's not exactly my main goal in life, it's just that I also don't want to feel like I am stealing away a man's role by being the main bread earner. It certainly didn't make me feel very sexy, as a woman. And frankly, having kids is really difficult and I like to cook.

Anyways, my main point was this:

Men. You may complain about not having a role in society anymore, that feminism took away your manliness rights, but really - you're the one benefiting. No one is pressuring you to get married, have a job, and have children. You can have casual sex, and keep all your money that you earn, or do not earn, for yourself. What could you possibly have to complain about? Feminism emancipated you, more than us.

Of course, I can leave this off with a small story of the man who refused to grow up. He was about 57 years old when I met him. I won't say how I know this man but he was a friend of a relative and he was supposed to help me with some insurance thing. I recall being very uncomfortable with the way he looked at me. I was only 26 at the time.

Apparently 2 years later he met a woman who was - my age - 28 years old and ended up marrying her and having a child. When the child was 2 years old, this guy died. Look, you can wait or not have children, but the reality is.......it's going to hit you that you are not immortal. I only hope that if you choose a completely "free" life that you manage the consequences of your decisions too.

Pretend that we're Dead by L7

Weddings are useless: I'll tell you from personal experience why

You must think I am so cold, reading the title above, "weddings are useless" but let's put this into perspective as I outline why I feel this way.

You already know what I am going to say as #1, I'm sure. Divorce rates, yes. That's right. I read an article recently that said Quebec has the highest level of committed relationships (with children) that work but the lowest amount of marriages.

What's happening? Apparently their relationships are successful because they are common-law.

Weddings.  Marriages.

Marriages are a legal contract and their basis of existence are mainly from religion. Since we have moved away from religious states, and most people appear secular or mixed culturally nowadays (mixed race/religion couples and families), the religious basis for a wedding is becoming less and less important. There is also less social pressure to get married.

Yet still, women and some men (and gay and lesbian etc. individuals) wish to get married! Why!?

It's a huge party.

Your friends and family get to see you have a public announcement of your commitment to one another.

You share your "special day".

You get presents. You get money.

Alright, so the last point makes a bit of sense, except for the fact that nowadays, money is tight. It's not just *me* that thinks money is tight. The whole world is tight for money.

Yet there is still an excess of expensive weddings occurring.

Look, I'm not trying to undermine the industry or individuals who make their living off of other peoples' weddings. No.

And yes, they are fun parties. I had a wedding myself, once. It was a fun party.

But the reality is that perhaps...and just perhaps...the cost isn't worth it.

For example, let's look at a reasonable budget.

Wedding Dress: $800
Tuxes: $250
Catering and Venue: $12,000 for 50 people.
Band: $800
Limo: $150
Honeymoon: $5,000

Now let's see.....take this ...add that....ummmmm

That's $19,000

If we remove the honeymoon, that's $14,000

Take in mind, most weddings are usually $20,000 and up. Some people spend about $70,000 on the wedding.

Let's imagine that 50 people show up. So you get, hey, maybe $10,000 worth of money from friends and family? That reduces your wedding to about $9,000, and then maybe a few gifts worth $5,000? But that's not cash that's just stuff, so you still have money out of your pocket. I'm thinking out loud here folks.....

Maybe my point is coming through?

Now, 2 years later, you decide - hey, you're unhappy, let's get a divorce. Okay, so a lawyer nowadays is about $350 per hour. If you're both fighting with one another, I can assure you that your legal bills will most likely reach about $25,000 each. So that's about $50,000 in total.

Just because you're both brats and need to fight about every little stupid thing.

So now, you have - together  - wasted approximately $70,000 on your "wedding" (and consequently your divorce). I'm sure you've lost a lot more money because obviously I forgot a whole bunch of numbers. I'm not an accountant.

Now let's see how much it costs for your children to get a university education.

2 chilren x 4 years @ $7,000 per year = $56,000 (yes we're not speaking ivy league here)

Congratulations. Because you need to not only get married but also pursue a divorce, you have, in the span of your lifetime, potentially wasted the cost of sending two children to university/college.

Yay You.


Now, if you want to get married - DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. Maybe one day I will get married. But I don't think I would have a huge super duper wedding unless I was super duper rich. And even then, I'd much rather spend the money on important matters, and maybe a pedicure.

I can think of so many things I could do with $70,000. I could invest it!! Wow, I could go on a world wide trip?! I could take a year off work with a family of 3 and travel europe!!!!!

WOW!

Where were we?!?

Oh yes. Weddings are useless. Honestly. I can't see why you're bothering with them. I hope you all realize how extremely financially wasteful they are nowadays.

If you want to have a public affair, go ahead, have a party. Why not. But don't waste so much of your money doing it.

Please. Feed hungry Ethiopian children if you wish to give away your money. Anything is better than wasting it on a white dress that ends up in the closet forever after.

(I'll still take a diamond ring however - FYI. Or a diamond bracelet. I said weddings are stupid. Jewellery are still a woman's best friend. Well, I don't need it, but I certainly like pretty shiny things still).

White Wedding by Billy Idol