| « | If You're Wondering... |
»
|
|
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Romantic Despair
Fran here. The Curmudgeon has little patience for the softer side of life; he leaves that sort of topic to me. And a good thing, too, for our beloved Moxie has entered romantic veh is mir territory:
Liberals and feminists have made it easy and acceptable for people NOT to get married. I could adopt or have a child on my own. I could marry a woman if I leaned that way. I can abort a child I decide I don't want, maybe soon after it has been born, after Nancy Pelosi takes over. Men can get the benefit of marriage from any drunk feminist at a bar.Perhaps, if I spent days thinking about it, I could find one substantive reason to date men who no longer have a good reason to marry any woman on earth.
Most men in my age bracket are so superficial and selfish, the only reason for marriage and the prerequisite dating, is to preserve conservative values. And there aren't many men around who appreciate that, thanks to Bill Clinton, the nitwit who made it ok to cheat on the ole think-ankled ball and chain, and made it seem "uncool" to be moral (conservative). What a role model and army of followers -- Hollywood, Fat Albert Gore and oh, how about John Kerry who recently ranked last in a likability poll?
About a year ago, the last really special and promising guy I dated rejected me because I'm a Republican. He wasn't a typical liberal, he was British, living here on a work visa, brainwashed by John Stewart and CNN. And in about a month, I'll be one of the few, single, old chicks NOT looking for a date -- and instead seeking 7 more cats to complete my collection.
While I may feel awful that my incredible and worthy Parents won't ever have grandkids -- the fact that I won't have to deal with divorce, lawyers, deadbeat Dads and joint custody -- is a reason in and of itself to throw a $40,000 family celebration and wear an expensive designer dress.
It might be just a millimeter or two over the top to blame the dearth of sincerely marriage-minded men on Clinton, Gore, and Hollywood. And any man with three functioning brain cells knows that there are more benefits to marriage than sex. Still, there's a torrent of truth gushing through Moxie's plaint. Nor is the Internet likely to be much help to one in her position; most of us past the age of about 25 are powerfully discouraged by our circumstances from seeking a partner at any great remove, and anyway, there's that axe-murderer/murderess thing to beware of.
(I've declaimed at length on many of the themes Moxie touches on in this essay. For those who brave the shoals, find a love, get married to her, and have no idea why it isn't the sea of bliss they'd been told it would be, there's this essay.)
Charles Hill of Dustbury, arguably the Blogosphere's most eligible bachelor, added his own plaint:
[T]he Mox is gorgeous and smart, which means that I wouldn't have much of a shot at her even if she lived around the corner instead of across the country. I mention these things in the unlikely event that anyone should think I'm trying to position myself as a Potential Partner.
Charles, a middle aged divorcee and as intelligent and charming a single man as there is in Christendom, has pre-rejected himself. It's a phenomenon I know well, having spent many years in that particular slough of despond:
- Here I am, single and eager to be otherwise...
- ...And there she is, as lovely as a spring morning and absolutely unaccompanied...
- ...But hey, I'm 35 / 42 / 48 / 53 and bald / overweight / flatulent / an employee of Microsoft...
- ...And since she's obviously fabulous and able to have any man she pleases, as soon as she notices any of that, she'll cut me dead...
- ...And I'll start to stammer and make a fool of myself, and walk away feeling like a total loser...
- ...Jeez, the last time that happened, I woke up the following morning next to a girl with false teeth, acne rosacea, and a mustache...
- ...So maybe I'll just have another drink.
I can't imagine why the good men -- the sort of men whom Moxie would take a liking to, matters of appearance notwithstanding -- so reliably pre-reject themselves in this way, while the types so slick you couldn't pin them down with railroad spikes sashay into the breach with nary a thought. But it's more or less the rule among those of us unfortunate enough to get into our thirties unmated.
The hell of it is that the good women are desperate for us. No, not just because their biological clocks are winding down. They've had time to study the field; they know our value, and the hazards of allowing themselves to be swept up by the slick sort. As women have done since the invention of sex, they insist that we take the initiative, but that, too, is a filter of importance. What woman of quality would want to keep company with a man too timid to approach her?
I've repeatedly counseled worthy single men in late youth to middle age to do the following:
- Read the women's magazines, particularly those aimed at single women past the first flush of youth.
- Take particular note of where the articles tell women to go in search of potential mates.
- Go there!
- Behave as you would around the wives of your friends. (Assuming you like their wives, that is.) Flirt lightheartedly. Be prepared to go home alone. Remember that a woman who might not be right for you for whatever reason will still happily introduce you to her friends if she thinks you're a quality guy.
- Repeat until married.
How about it, ye members of the League Of Unhappily Unmarried Gentlemen? Are you saying "if it were that easy, wouldn't I have done it already" -- ? Are you saying, "that's a hell of a lot of work for a man with other demands on his time" -- ? Or are you saying "I don't have the necessaries to attract a quality gal anyway" -- ? Or is it perhaps that axe-murderess thing?
MILLIONS OF UNHAPPILY UNMARRIED WOMEN ARE DEPENDING ON YOU!
The above is not a sure-fire quick-hit road to blindingly intense eternal love. It's a maximization strategy. It puts you in the way of women among whom who might be the one you seek. It orients you away from the high-pressure attitudes prevalent in singles bars. It directs you into behavioral channels more likely to charm than alarm. You might even have a little fun.
And if you should by some mischance draw the Twenty-First Century's answer to Lizzie Borden, look at it this way: at least you'll get your name in the papers.
Comments
I literally, and fervently, thank god every day for finding my second wife.
I was floating along, not really giving a damn abotu aqnything; in a casual relationship with someone I didn’t like very much, because I didn’t have anything better to do and WHAM, we both get blindsided.
I was married once before, most unsuccessfully; and got a second bite at what should have been “the love of my life”, but who had such severe family issues we couldn’t continue no matter what…
I figured that was it, I’d used up my shots and I was going to have to take what I could get.
I was wrong.
I’m now happier than I thought it possible to be; and I recognize that now was jsut the right time and place; but it could have been any time, any place, any one; you never know until it happens.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 11/29/2006 at 06:54 PMThere’s a little matter of biology which prevents me from being any kind of “divorcee.”
(Sometimes I feel compelled to dust off my high-school French.)
Posted by CGHill on 11/29/2006 at 09:35 PMI waited patiently fr 34 years and was rewarded. It can happen.
MC
Posted by on 11/29/2006 at 10:02 PMGreat post Francis. There are a lot of great men who pre-reject and it’s really odd.
Yes, geographical differences are a huge problem with many of the blog world’s finest single conservative men.
But if the good guys tried some “slick rick” tactics, isn’t that the same thing as being a slimy liberal barfly?
Posted by Moxie on 11/29/2006 at 11:16 PMWell, Moxie, the slick thing isn’t so much about tactics as it is about intentions—as in “what are your intentions toward my daughter, young man?” But you have a point.
I advise single men in social situations to take the same attitude toward the women they meet as they would toward a well-loved spouse: endeavor to make them feel happy and secure. It’s not hard, it’s not salacious or opportunistic, and my God, does it ever stand out from the usual vulpine behavior of single men “on the hunt!”
An economist, one of which I am, sort of, would note that this is merely “product differentiation,” a necessity in a crowded marketplace. Really, it ought to come naturally anyway. That it doesn’t come naturally to so many young (and not so young) men is material for a thousand more screeds.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 11/30/2006 at 05:31 AMWhat is really interesting about the pre-rejection aspect is how untrue the premises leading to it usually are. For example, there was some years ago an experiment conducted by a number of college-age men to determine what the odds were of being successful by simply walking up to an unaccompanied woman in a bar and asking her outright for sex. Apparently, the odds are about 1 in 20, regardless of the attractiveness of either the male or the female. Now, relationships are harder to both get and maintain, but it would seem that at least the pre-rejection aspect, given those odds, is really inexplicable.
Posted by Jeff Medcalf on 11/30/2006 at 09:22 AMI suspect the key here is how men notice and interpret interest or disinterest. As someone who once had a conservative stalker, I believe men and women both have to find a subtle and like-minded way to convey interest. Interest not being a quick and nameless roll in the hay.
Posted by Moxie on 11/30/2006 at 10:06 AMAOL chat rooms worked for me. We lived about 2000 miles apart, and so it took a couple of months online, another month or two on the phone, and a then plane ride. No Lizzie Borden, though apparently her family was quite worried about just that thing. That was 7 years ago, and we’re still together.
Of course, it was AOL’s *philosophy* chat rooms that did it, neither of us had any interest in their meat markets, nor were either of us on for that purpose. Her screen name was Dagnytgrt, mine whojgalt - that was the first clue for both of us.
Great post, Fran.
Posted by Kyle Bennett on 11/30/2006 at 10:12 AMMoxie,
You might try hitting the shooting range more often. Yes, there do tend to be a number of men there, many of them both single and suitable.
But even where there aren’t, noisily putting holes in paper is great fun and wonderful stress relief.
Posted by on 11/30/2006 at 03:21 PMIn my early twenties I got tired of the games, and resolved to be open and up-front about my intentions and hopes in relationships. I told women (heh, all two of them) in whom I was interested that a) I found them attractive, b) I wanted to date them, and c) that I felt there was a potential for marriage. This certainly saved a lot of time, and didn’t require me (or them) to engage in guessing games and resorting to Kremlinology to tease out the intentions of the other person. On the other hand, one did tell me years later (we dated for a while and still remain dear friends) that this clinical approach was a bit startling and even shocking, albeit refreshing.
All that went out the window when I met, completely by accident, the woman to whom I am now married. It was a real struggle to keep our hands off each other and we were inseperable from the start. I didn’t have to tell her much of anything, we just clicked like magnets coming together. The above mentioned ex-girlfriend gave us three months tops, but we now have kids and a mortgage and everything. The thing is, I didn’t particularly try to impress her or win her or anything; we just put together a computer desk while her friend was making supper. I fixed the cooking friend’s computer (which is why I was there in the first place) and the rest just kind of happened without any conscious effort on my part. Weird.
Posted by on 11/30/2006 at 04:07 PMArgh. Fran (or the formidable Mrs. Du Toit), could you please change things so that anchor tags in comments don’t put that stupid target attribute in until the very end? I have to keep remembering to remove it from my comments after previewing them, and (as above) I sometimes forget.
Posted by on 11/30/2006 at 04:21 PMNice to think about. Being single gets damn lonely at times.
Posted by Firehand on 11/30/2006 at 11:04 PMWell Sir, no one seems to be answering the questions you have asked, so I’ll take a stab at it. I would say that most “quality” men pre-reject themselves because that was the correct expectation for so long. “Quality” men take longer to hatch, from what I’ve seen. Women choose(as a rule, not all, and it’s worse early) older men. They watch their childhood friends leave them(women mature faster then men) to date the cool older guys with the cars. then they spend years watching the Clinton types get the young lady, who were after all, dangerous(I don’t know why women think dangerous is sexy). This stage does pass, and the “quality” men do hatch. But the women don’t tell the “quality” man that he rates now, and no one tells the “quality” man that he has hatched. The fires of creation don’t burn in his chest like they used to, and he’s gotten used to being alone. Men seem to do alone better then Women, and it doesn’t bother the “quality” man that he was never successful with women. He understands that side of life has passed him by, and gets on with it. He’s watched enough women crazy with angry and shame(because they’ve been used by a Clinton, again) that he’s probably a little happy about it. Many “quality” men have spent years listening to women complain about men. Just as friends, you understand.
Second, Marriage. The rules have changed. A lot. When the game changes, the players adapt. Why, logically, would a man approach the woman, given the rules of marriage as written today? Marriage, to those thinking past sex, is children, family. What “quality” man could stand there and watch his child be ripped from the womb? That’s the law today. A man is a father from the moment of conception, a woman is a mother by choice. Given that a man has resposibilities in marriage, and a woman has rights, a calm, sane man will wait for the woman prove that he can trust her. Nothing like watching a guy stripped of his children to pour some water on the urge to marry. The women were unhappy with the structure of Marriage, and changed it. Fair enough. But they seem to want men to act as if nothing has changed, and that’s not fair, or sensible. My two cents, thanks for reading.Posted by on 12/01/2006 at 12:10 AMMen can get the benefit of marriage from any drunk feminist at a bar.
Wow, this is just so wrong on so many levels. There is no way I can get the benefit of marriage from any drunk feminist at a bar unless you consider the only benefit of marriage as sex.
The benefit I get from marriage as a Manly Man™ is love and respect from the woman who has pledged her life to me. The key word to me is respect. The knowledge that my sweetie considers me competent, and relies on me to support and protect her. That is something no feminist, by nature of her ideology, is capable of giving.
What my wife gets from me is the totality of my being. That is what marriage means to me. It is not a contract, which is an exchange of obligations, but a covenant which is an exchange of persons.
I would take a bullet for my wife.
Feminists don’t find this sort of behavior attractive. And I won’t apologize. It’s who I am.
Not to downplay the sex part, because when you have a totality of giving on the part of both husband and wife, the sex is transcendent.
Posted by Tony on 12/01/2006 at 12:21 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
